1: \documentclass[12pt,a4paper,fleqn]{cernrep}
2: \usepackage{axodraw,cite,epsfig}
3:
4: \usepackage{amsmath}
5: \usepackage{amssymb}
6: \usepackage{amsfonts}
7: \usepackage{amscd}
8: \usepackage{graphicx}
9:
10: \pagestyle{plain}
11: \bibliographystyle{h-physrev4}
12:
13: \begin{document}
14:
15: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
16:
17: \def\x{\chi}
18: \def\ti{\tilde}
19: \def\nt{\tilde \x^0}
20: \def\ch{\tilde \x^+}
21: \def\st{\tilde t}
22: \def\snu{\tilde\nu_\tau}
23: \def\stau{\tilde\tau}
24: \def\noi{\noindent}
25: \def\gravitino{\widetilde{G}}
26: \def\Emiss{E_T^{\text{miss}}}
27:
28: \def\msg {m_{\tilde g}}
29: \def\msnu {m_{\snu}}
30: \newcommand{\mnt}[1] {m_{\tilde\x^0_{#1}}}
31: \newcommand{\mch}[1] {m_{\tilde\x^\pm_{#1}}}
32: \newcommand{\msf}[1] {m_{\tilde f_{#1}}}
33: \newcommand{\mst}[1] {m_{\tilde t_{#1}}}
34: \newcommand{\mstau}[1] {m_{\tilde\tau_{#1}}}
35: \newcommand{\msl}[1] {m_{\tilde l_{#1}}}
36: \newcommand{\mse}[1] {m_{\tilde e_{#1}}}
37:
38: \def\micromegas {{\tt micrOMEGAs\,2.0}}
39: \def\softsusy {{\tt SOFTSUSY\,2.0.10}}
40: \def\spheno {{\tt SPheno\,2.2.3}}
41:
42: \newcommand{\eq}[1] {\mbox{(\ref{eq:#1})}}
43: \newcommand{\fig}[1] {Fig.~\ref{fig:#1}}
44: \newcommand{\Fig}[1] {Figure~\ref{fig:#1}}
45: \newcommand{\tab}[1] {Table~\ref{tab:#1}}
46: \newcommand{\Tab}[1] {Table~\ref{tab:#1}}
47: \newcommand{\figs}[1] {Figs.~\ref{fig:#1}}
48:
49:
50: \newcommand{\eVdist}{\kern-0.06667em}
51: \newcommand{\Ev}{{\text{e}\eVdist\text{V\/}}} % solely as unit
52: \newcommand{\Kev}{{\text{ke}\eVdist\text{V\/}}}
53: \newcommand{\Mev}{{\text{Me}\eVdist\text{V\/}}}
54: \newcommand{\Gev}{{\text{Ge}\eVdist\text{V\/}}}
55: \newcommand{\Tev}{{\text{Te}\eVdist\text{V\/}}}
56: \newcommand{\ev}{{\,\text{e}\eVdist\text{V\/}}} % along with a number
57: \newcommand{\kev}{{\,\text{ke}\eVdist\text{V\/}}}
58: \newcommand{\mev}{{\,\text{Me}\eVdist\text{V\/}}}
59: \newcommand{\gev}{{\,\text{Ge}\eVdist\text{V\/}}}
60: \newcommand{\tev}{{\,\text{Te}\eVdist\text{V\/}}}
61:
62: \newcommand{\gsim}{\;\raisebox{-0.9ex}
63: {$\textstyle\stackrel{\textstyle >}{\sim}$}\;}
64: \newcommand{\lsim}{\;\raisebox{-0.9ex}{$\textstyle\stackrel{\textstyle<}
65: {\sim}$}\;}
66:
67:
68: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
69:
70: \vspace*{-18mm}
71: \begin{flushright}
72: CERN-PH-TH/2007-049\\
73: DESY-07-029
74: \end{flushright}
75: \vspace*{2mm}
76:
77: \begin{center}
78:
79: {\Large\bf Collider signatures of gravitino dark matter\\[2mm]
80: with a sneutrino NLSP}\\[8mm]
81:
82: {\large Laura Covi$^{\,1}$, Sabine Kraml$^{\,2}$}\\[4mm]
83:
84: {\it $^{1}$\,Deutsches Elektronen-Synchrotron DESY,
85: D--22603 Hamburg, Germany\\
86: $^{2}$\,CERN, CH--1211 Geneva 23, Switzerland}
87:
88: \vspace*{4mm}
89:
90: \begin{abstract}
91: \noindent
92: For gravitino dark matter with conserved R-parity and mass
93: in the GeV range, very strong constraints from Big Bang
94: Nucleosynthesis exclude the popular NLSP candidates like
95: neutralino and charged sleptons.
96: In this letter we therefore draw attention
97: to the case of a sneutrino NLSP, that is naturally realised
98: in the context of gaugino mediation.
99: We find interesting collider signatures, characterised by
100: soft jets or leptons %and relatively long sparticle lifetimes
101: due to the small sneutrino--stau mass splitting. Moreover,
102: the lightest neutralino can have visible decays into staus,
103: and in some part of the parameter space also into selectrons
104: and smuons. We also show the importance of coannihilation effects
105: for the evaluation of the BBN constraints.
106: \end{abstract}
107:
108: \end{center}
109:
110: \vspace*{2mm}
111:
112: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%^
113:
114: %----------------------------------------------------------------------
115: \section{Introduction}
116: %----------------------------------------------------------------------
117:
118: If the gravitino is the lightest supersymmetric particle (LSP) and
119: stable (with conserved R-parity) or sufficiently long-lived,
120: it is a good candidate for the Cold Dark Matter (CDM).
121: At high temperatures, gravitinos are produced by thermal scatterings
122: even if they are not in thermal equilibrium.
123: The resulting energy density is approximately given by
124: \cite{Bolz:2000fu,Pradler:2006qh}
125: \begin{equation}
126: \Omega_{3/2}^\text{th} h^2 \simeq
127: 0.27 \left( \frac{T_\text{R}}{10^{10}\gev} \right)
128: \left( \frac{100\gev}{m_{3/2}} \right)
129: \biggl( \frac{m_{\tilde g}}{1\tev} \biggr)^2 \;,
130: \end{equation}
131: where $m_{\tilde g}$ is the running gluino mass evaluated at low energy.
132: For a given $\msg$, the maximal possible reheating temperature
133: $T_\text{R}$ is obtained for the heaviest allowed gravitino mass.
134:
135: Gravitinos are also produced non-thermally via the decays of the
136: next-to-lightest supersymmetric particle (NLSP), leading to
137: \begin{equation}
138: \Omega^\text{non-th}_{3/2}h^2 =
139: \frac{m_{3/2}}{m_\text{NLSP}} \Omega_\text{NLSP}^\text{th}h^2 \;.
140: \end{equation}
141: Here $\Omega_\text{NLSP}^\text{th}h^2$ is the would-be relic density of
142: the NLSP from thermal freeze-out if it did not decay.
143: The total energy density of the gravitino LSP,
144: $\Omega_{3/2} h^2=\Omega_{3/2}^\text{th} h^2 +
145: \Omega^\text{non-th}_{3/2}h^2$,
146: has to be equal or smaller than the cosmologically observed
147: CDM density.
148: In particular, if gravitinos should make up all the cold dark matter,
149: $0.094\le \Omega_{3/2} h^2 \le 0.135$ \cite{Hamann:2006pf}.
150: In general the right CDM abundance can be obtained
151: from both mechanisms for supersymmetric masses in the GeV--TeV
152: region~\cite{Bolz:2000fu,Feng:2003xh}.
153:
154: On the other hand, Big Bang Nucleosynthesis (BBN) severely constrains
155: the nature, the lifetime and the freeze-out abundance of the NLSP.
156: This is because the electromagnetic and hadronic energy released by
157: the NLSP decays into the gravitino at comparatively late times
158: ($t>100$\,s) can alter the primordial abundances of light
159: elements~\cite{Kawasaki:2004qu,Steffen:2006hw}.
160: Moreover if the NLSP is charged, also bound state effects can
161: change heavily the rates of the nuclear reactions and modify the
162: BBN predictions~\cite{Pospelov:2006sc,Kohri:2006cn,Kaplinghat:2006qr}.
163:
164: In fact, most NLSPs are incompatible with BBN, as long as their
165: lifetime is not shorter than $10^3$ s, i.e. the supersymmetric
166: spectrum is very heavy, or their abundance is not strongly suppressed
167: compared to that expected by thermal
168: freeze-out, e.g. diluted by late entropy
169: production~\cite{Hamaguchi:2007mp, Pradler:2006hh}.
170: So in the minimal setting of simple freeze-out and masses for both
171: gravitino and NLSP in the GeV range,
172: neutralino~\cite{Ellis:2003dn,Feng:2004mt, Roszkowski:2004jd,Cerdeno:2005eu,Jedamzik:2006xz} and
173: stau~\cite{Steffen:2006hw,Pospelov:2006sc,Cyburt:2006uv} NLSP are
174: incompatible with BBN.\footnote{Of course most of the
175: constraints are weakened or disappear for shorter NLSP lifetime,
176: i.e.\ lighter gravitino masses or larger NLSP masses.
177: We recall that the NLSP lifetime is given approximately by
178: $\tau_{\rm NLSP} \simeq % 1.2\, (0.6)\,
179: 10^6\, {\rm s} \left(\frac{m_{3/2}}{10\,{\rm GeV}} \right)^2
180: \left(\frac{m_{\rm NLSP}}{100\,{\rm GeV}} \right)^{-5}$.}
181: %for neutralino or stau NLSP.}
182: For completeness, let us mention that a stop
183: NLSP could be viable in some particular region of the supersymmetric
184: parameter space~\cite{Diaz-Cruz:2007fc}. A sneutrino NLSP, on the
185: other hand, is neutral and decays mainly into gravitino and neutrino,
186: which are not electromagnetically or hadronically active. The BBN
187: bounds~\cite{Feng:2004zu,Kanzaki:2006hm} arising from the neutrino
188: interactions and the subdominant decay channel into quarks are much
189: weaker than those for a neutralino or charged slepton NLSP. In this
190: study, we therefore consider a sneutrino NLSP as an interesting
191: alternative.
192:
193: The paper is organised as follows. In Section~2 we briefly explain the
194: model of gaugino mediation. In Section~3 we discuss the sparticle
195: spectrum in this model, focusing in particular on the parameter range
196: which leads to a sneutrino NLSP. In Section~4 we evaluate the BBN
197: constraints on the sneutrino NLSP scenario, going beyond the
198: approximation used in~\cite{Kanzaki:2006hm}. In Section~5 we discuss
199: the signatures at LHC and ILC, and Section~6 finally contains our
200: conclusions.
201:
202:
203:
204: %----------------------------------------------------------------------
205: \section{The model}
206: %----------------------------------------------------------------------
207:
208:
209: In general, in models of supersymmetry (SUSY) breaking with universal
210: scalar and gaugino masses, the right-chiral charged sleptons are
211: lighter than the left-chiral ones and the sneutrinos. The reason is
212: that the running of $m_{\ti l_R}^2$ is dominated by $U(1)_Y$ D-term
213: contributions, while $m_{\ti l_L}^2$ receives $SU(2)_L$ and $U(1)_Y$
214: D-term corrections. This picture changes, however, for non-universal
215: SUSY breaking parameters at the high scale, especially for
216: non-universal Higgs-mass parameters with $m_{H_1}^2-m_{H_2}^2>0$, see
217: e.g.~\cite{Ellis:2002iu}.
218:
219: A particularly attractive realisation of non-universal boundary
220: conditions is the case of gaugino
221: mediation~\cite{Kaplan:1999ac,Chacko:1999mi}, where supersymmetry
222: breaking occurs on a four-dimensional brane within a
223: higher-dimensional theory. In such a setting, fields which live in
224: different places will naturally feel such breaking with different
225: strength. Gauge and Higgs superfields living in the bulk couple
226: directly to the chiral superfield $S$ responsible for SUSY breaking,
227: which is localised on one of the four-dimensional branes. The gaugino
228: and Higgs fields hence acquire soft SUSY-breaking masses at tree
229: level. Squarks and sleptons, on the
230: other hand, are confined to some other branes, without direct coupling
231: to $S$ and this yields no-scale boundary
232: conditions~\cite{Ellis:1984bm,Inoue:1991rk} for their masses.
233: %
234: We therefore have the following boundary conditions at the
235: compactification scale $M_C$ \cite{Chacko:1999mi}:
236: \begin{subequations}
237: \begin{align}
238: &g_1 = g_2 = g_3 = g \simeq 1/\sqrt{2} \;, \\ &M_1 = M_2 = M_3 =
239: m_{1/2} \;,\\ &m_0^2 = 0 \quad \text{for all squarks and sleptons},
240: \\ &A_0 = 0 \\ &\mu, B\mu, m^2_{H_{1,2}} \neq 0 \;,
241: \end{align}
242: \label{eq:gauginomed}
243: \end{subequations}
244: with GUT charge normalisation used for $g_1$. The superparticle
245: spectrum is determined from these boundary conditions and the
246: renormalisation group equations. The free parameters of the model are
247: hence $m_{1/2}$, $m^2_{H_1}$, $m^2_{H_2}$, $\tan\beta$, and the sign
248: of $\mu$; $|\mu|$ being determined by radiative electroweak symmetry
249: breaking.
250:
251: The model favours moderate values of $\tan\beta$ between about 10 and
252: 25. The parameter ranges leading to a viable low-energy spectrum were
253: discussed in \cite{Buchmuller:2005ma,Evans:2006sj}, assuming $M_C =
254: M_\text{GUT}$. In \cite{Buchmuller:2006nx} it was shown that either
255: the lightest neutralino or the gravitino can be viable dark matter
256: candidates in this model. In particular,
257: Ref.~\cite{Buchmuller:2006nx} discussed the possibility of a gravitino
258: LSP with a (tau-)sneutrino NLSP for $m_{1/2}=500$~GeV and
259: $\tan\beta=10$ and $20$. In this case, the sneutrino NLSP occurs for
260: $m^2_{H_2}\lsim 0.5$~TeV$^2$ and large values of $m^2_{H_1}$ of
261: roughly $2$--$3$~TeV$^2$. Ref.~\cite{Evans:2006sj} also discussed the
262: collider phenomenology of gaugino mediation, concentrating however on
263: the case of a neutralino LSP.
264:
265: %----------------------------------------------------------------------
266: \section{Sparticle spectrum in gaugino mediation with a sneutrino NLSP}
267: %----------------------------------------------------------------------
268:
269: We here investigate the SUSY spectrum in the gaugino-mediation model
270: in more detail. We assume that the gravitino is the LSP and
271: concentrate on scenarios with a sneutrino NLSP. Following
272: \cite{Buchmuller:2005ma,Buchmuller:2006nx}, we take $m_t=172.5$~GeV,
273: $m_b(m_b)=4.25$~GeV and $\alpha_s^{\text{SM
274: }\overline{\text{MS}}}(M_Z)=0.1187$ as SM input parameters, and
275: consider $m_{3/2}=10$~GeV as lower bound for the gravitino mass (the
276: upper bound being given by the NLSP mass and the BBN
277: constraints). Moreover, we take $M_C = M_\text{GUT}$. We use
278: \softsusy\ \cite{Allanach:2001kg} to compute the sparticle and Higgs
279: masses and mixing angles, and \micromegas\
280: \cite{Belanger:2001fz,Belanger:2004yn,Belanger:2006is} to compute
281: the primordial abundance of the NLSP.
282:
283: %-------------------------------
284: % Fig 1
285: \begin{figure}[t]\centering
286: \includegraphics[height=7cm,width=7cm]{mh1_m12_tb10_mh2=0.0.eps}\quad
287: \includegraphics[height=7cm,width=7cm]{mh1_m12_tb10_mh2=0.4.eps}
288: \caption{Sneutrino NLSP regions (in orange) in the $m_{H_1}^2$ versus
289: $m_{1/2}$ plane for $\tan\beta=10$ and $m_{H_2}^2=0$ (left) and
290: $m_{H_2}^2=0.4$~TeV$^2$ (right). The blue dashed lines show contours
291: of constant $\mstau{1}-\msnu$ in GeV. The full black lines separate
292: subregions of different mass ordering:
293: $\msnu<\mnt{1}<\mstau{1}<\mse{L}$ in A,
294: $\msnu<\mstau{1}<\mnt{1}<\mse{L}$ in B, and
295: $\msnu<\mstau{1}<\mse{L}<\mnt{1}$ in C. Below the white dash-dotted
296: line, the BBN bounds are satisfied for any gravitino mass, i.e.\
297: $m_{\tilde\nu} Y_{\tilde\nu} \leq 3 \times 10^{-11}$ GeV, as discussed
298: in the text. In the light grey regions, no viable spectrum is
299: obtained, while in the narrow medium grey strips, $\mstau{1}<90$~GeV.}
300: \label{fig:snuLSP_region_tb10}
301: \end{figure}
302: %-------------------------------
303:
304: \Fig{snuLSP_region_tb10} shows the sneutrino NLSP region in the
305: $m_{H_1}^2$ versus $m_{1/2}$ plane for $\tan\beta=10$ and two values
306: of $m_{H_2}^2$, $m_{H_2}^2=0$ and $0.4$~TeV$^2$. Also shown are
307: contours of constant $\mstau{1}-\msnu$ in GeV: since $\mstau{L}$ and
308: $\msnu$ are driven by the same SUSY-breaking parameter $M_{\ti L_3}$,
309: the mass difference between the $\snu$ and the $\stau_1$ is always
310: small. The mass of the $\snu$ NLSP goes up to about 250 (230)~GeV for
311: $m_{H_2}^2=0$ ($0.4$~TeV$^2$) and $m_{1/2}=600$~GeV in
312: \fig{snuLSP_region_tb10}. Comparing with Fig.~4 of
313: \cite{Kanzaki:2006hm}, one might conclude that the $\snu$ NLSP region
314: of \fig{snuLSP_region_tb10} is in good agreement with BBN; this is
315: discussed in more detail in the next section. For fixed $m_{1/2}$,
316: $\msnu$ decreases with increasing $m_{H_1}^2$, and so do $\mstau{1}$
317: and $\mse{L}\simeq m_{\ti\mu_L}$, while $\mnt{1}$ remains
318: constant. One therefore finds the mass orderings%
319: \footnote{Since selectrons and smuons are practically degenerate, in
320: the following $\ti e$ implicitly means selectrons and smuons.}
321: $\msnu<\mnt{1}<\mstau{1}<\mse{L}$, $\msnu<\mstau{1}<\mnt{1}<\mse{L}$
322: and $\msnu<\mstau{1}<\mse{L}<\mnt{1}$ within the sneutrino NLSP
323: region. These are labelled A, B, and C, respectively,
324: in~\fig{snuLSP_region_tb10}.
325:
326: The case of $\tan\beta =20$ is shown in \fig{snuLSP_region_tb20} for
327: $m_{H_2}^2=0.2$ and $0.4$~TeV$^2$. Analogous arguments as above
328: apply. Note, however, that here the $\ti e_L^{}$ does not become
329: lighter than the $\nt_1$. Moreover, the $\snu$--$\stau_1$ mass
330: difference shows a different behaviour as compared to $\tan\beta =10$:
331: At $\tan\beta=10$ and small $m_{H_1}^2$, $\msnu < \mstau{1}$ with the
332: mass difference becoming smaller as $m_{H_1}^2$ increases. At
333: $\tan\beta=20$, the $\stau_1$ is first lighter than the $\snu$; with
334: increasing $m_{H_1}^2$, $\msnu$ decreases faster than $\mstau{1}$,
335: eventually leading to $\msnu < \mstau{1}$. This is why the contour of
336: $\mstau{1}-\msnu=0$ is on the upper-left edge of the $\snu$ NLSP
337: region in \fig{snuLSP_region_tb20}, while it is on the lower-right
338: edge in \fig{snuLSP_region_tb10}.
339:
340: A comment is in order concerning the LEP limit on the light Higgs
341: mass. Demanding $m_{h^0}\ge 114.5$~GeV would constrain $m_{1/2}$ to
342: $m_{1/2}\gsim 500$ ($440$)~GeV in \fig{snuLSP_region_tb10}
343: (\ref{fig:snuLSP_region_tb20}). However, there is still a 2--3~GeV
344: uncertainty in the evaluation of $m_{h^0}$. If this is taken into
345: account, the full parameter range considered is allowed.
346:
347: %-------------------------------
348: % Fig 2
349: \begin{figure}[t]\centering
350: \includegraphics[height=7cm,width=7cm]{mh1_m12_tb20_mh2=0.2.eps}
351: \includegraphics[height=7cm,width=7cm]{mh1_m12_tb20_mh2=0.4.eps}
352: \caption{Same as \fig{snuLSP_region_tb10} but for $\tan\beta=20$ and
353: $m_{H_2}^2=0.2$~TeV$^2$ (left) and $m_{H_2}^2=0.4$~TeV$^2$ (right).
354: BBN bounds play no role in the left-hand panel.}
355: \label{fig:snuLSP_region_tb20}
356: \end{figure}
357: %-------------------------------
358:
359:
360: %----------------------------------------------------------------------
361: \section{Sneutrino abundance and BBN constraints}
362: %----------------------------------------------------------------------
363:
364: Even if the sneutrino is neutral and decays mainly into weakly
365: interacting particles, still BBN constraints arise from the subleading
366: decay channels. According to~\cite{Kanzaki:2006hm}, Figure~4, such
367: bounds are satisfied for light sneutrinos with masses below 300 GeV,
368: because the branching ratios into quarks via virtual $Z,\,W$ are
369: rather small. This conclusion was obtained through an estimate of the
370: sneutrino freeze-out abundance of
371: \begin{equation}
372: Y_{\tilde\nu} \simeq 2 \times 10^{-14}
373: \left(\frac{m_{\tilde\nu}}{100\,\mbox{GeV}} \right)\; .
374: \end{equation}
375: In our case though, due to the close spacing between the different
376: masses, co-annihilation effects~\cite{Ellis:2002iu} become important,
377: making this estimate unreliable. Here note that co-annihilation
378: effects can both decrease or increase the particle yield. The latter
379: can occur if the co-annihilation cross section is small, due to the
380: presence in the thermal bath of the slightly heavier states that can
381: decay into the NLSP~\cite{Asaka:2000zh}. We therefore use
382: \micromegas\ \cite{Belanger:2001fz,Belanger:2004yn,Belanger:2006is} to
383: compute $Y_{\tilde\nu}$ numerically without approximation, and obtain
384: that in our region of the parameter space the sneutrino abundance
385: \begin{equation}
386: m_{\tilde\nu} Y_{\tilde\nu} = 3.63 \times 10^{-9} \mbox{GeV} \;
387: \Omega_{\tilde\nu}^\text{th}\; h^2
388: \end{equation}
389: can be as large as $10^{-10}$~GeV. This value violates the general
390: bounds given in~\cite{Kanzaki:2006hm} for a gravitino mass in the
391: range $2$--$50$ GeV. The limit for a gravitino with a mass of about
392: $10$~GeV is in fact $m_{\tilde\nu} Y_{\tilde\nu} < 3 \times 10^{-11}$
393: GeV, which is shown as dash-dotted line in \figs{snuLSP_region_tb10}
394: and \ref{fig:snuLSP_region_tb20}. For a gravitino mass of 50 GeV or
395: larger, or for a sneutrino decay branching ratio into hadrons
396: substantially smaller than $10^{-3}$,
397: this BBN bound becomes much weaker and disappears in our
398: parameter region. We will consider in the following benchmark points
399: where the BBN constraints are satisfied.
400:
401: Last but not least, since $\Omega_\text{NLSP}^\text{th}h^2$ is very
402: small, typically ${\cal O}(10^{-3})$, throughout the $\snu$ NLSP
403: region, $\Omega^\text{non-th}_{3/2}h^2$ is negligible and almost all
404: the gravitino dark matter has to be produced thermally. Requiring
405: $\Omega_{3/2} h^2\simeq 0.1$ leads to $T_R\sim 10^8$--$10^9$~GeV for
406: $\msg\sim 1$~TeV and $m_{\gravitino}$ in the range of $10$--$100$~GeV.
407:
408:
409: %----------------------------------------------------------------------
410: \section{Collider signatures}
411: %----------------------------------------------------------------------
412:
413: The collider signatures are characterised by the small
414: $\snu$--$\stau_1$ mass difference. As mentioned, we can have the cases
415: $\mstau{1}>\mnt{1}>\msnu$ (region A) or $\mnt{1}>\mstau{1}>\msnu$
416: (region B).
417: %The mass splittings between the lightest states are typically small.
418: In the former the $\nt_1$ decays via $\nt_1\to\nu\snu$,
419: %with a very small branching ratio in the channel $\tau \bar{\nu}_{\tau} W^* $,
420: %possibly near the $\stau $ resonance,
421: while in the latter it can also decay directly into the visible
422: channel $\nt_1\to\tau\stau_1$. If also the $\ti e_L$ is lighter than
423: the $\nt_1$ (region C), $\nt_1\to e^\pm\ti e^\mp_L$ is possible in
424: addition. The NLSP decay into the gravitino, $\snu\to\nu\gravitino$,
425: is of course invisible, regardless of the $\snu$ lifetime. On the
426: other hand, even if such a decay is impossible to detect, it is clear
427: that the sneutrino cannot be stable and the dominant DM component,
428: since it has been already excluded by direct
429: searches~\cite{Falk:1994es}.
430:
431:
432: The $\stau_1$ can decay into $\tau\nt_1$ if
433: $\mstau{1}>\mnt{1}+m_\tau$; its 2-body decays into the NLSP,
434: $\stau_1^\pm\to W^\pm\snu$ or $H^\pm\snu$, are however kinematically
435: forbidden due to the small mass splittings. For
436: $\mstau{1}<\mnt{1}+m_\tau$, the $\stau_1$ hence only has 3-body decays
437: leading to $f\!\bar f'$ plus missing energy as shown in
438: \fig{feyngraphs}. The dominant contribution comes from the diagram
439: with the virtual $W$ boson. The resulting $\stau_1$ lifetime in this
440: channel is approximately given by
441: \begin{equation}
442: \Gamma_{\tilde\tau}^{-1} \simeq \frac{2 (2\pi)^3}{3 G_F^2
443: m_{\tilde\tau}^5}\; F^{-1}
444: \left(\frac{m_{\tilde\nu}^2}{m_{\tilde\tau}^2} \right) = 0.8\times
445: 10^{-16} \mbox{s} \; \left(\frac{m_{\tilde\tau}}{100\,\mbox{GeV}}
446: \right)^{-5} \left(\frac{F \left(m_{\tilde\nu}^2/m_{\tilde\tau}^2
447: \right)}{F(0.9)} \right)^{-1}
448: \end{equation}
449: where, after neglecting the $W$ momentum and the SM particle masses,
450: we have
451: \begin{equation}
452: F \left(a \right) = \int_{2\sqrt{a}}^{1+a} dx (x^2 - 4 a)^{3/2}\; .
453: \end{equation}
454: So for $\mstau{1}-\msnu\sim 5$--$10$~GeV the lifetime is of the order
455: of $10^{-16}$--$ 10^{-18}$~s; a displaced vertex is only obtained if
456: the $\snu$ and the $\stau_1$ are quasi-degenerate.
457:
458: %-----------------------------------------
459: % Feynman diagrams for 3-body decay
460: %
461: \begin{figure}\centerline {%
462: \unitlength=1.0 pt \SetScale{1.0} \SetWidth{0.7} % line size control
463: \footnotesize % letter size control
464: \begin{tabular}{l}
465: %
466: % diagrams for process ~l1 -> l,Nl,~nl or l,nl,~Nl
467: % diagram # 1
468: \begin{picture}(95,79)(0,0)
469: \Text(15.0,60.0)[r]{$\tilde{\tau}_1$}
470: \DashArrowLine(16.0,60.0)(58.0,60.0){1.0}
471: \Text(80.0,70.0)[l]{$\tau^-$} \ArrowLine(58.0,60.0)(79.0,70.0)
472: \Text(57.0,50.0)[r]{$\tilde\chi^0_i$} \Line(58.0,60.0)(58.0,40.0)
473: \Text(80.0,50.0)[l]{$\tilde{\nu}_\tau$}
474: \DashArrowLine(58.0,40.0)(79.0,50.0){1.0}
475: \Text(80.0,30.0)[l]{$\bar{\nu}_\tau$} \ArrowLine(79.0,30.0)(58.0,40.0)
476: \Text(47,0)[b] {(a)}
477: \end{picture}
478: \qquad
479: % diagram # 2
480: \begin{picture}(95,79)(0,0)
481: \Text(15.0,60.0)[r]{$\tilde{\tau}_1$}
482: \DashArrowLine(16.0,60.0)(58.0,60.0){1.0}
483: \Text(80.0,70.0)[l]{$\tau^-$} \ArrowLine(58.0,60.0)(79.0,70.0)
484: \Text(57.0,50.0)[r]{$\tilde\chi^0_i$} \Line(58.0,60.0)(58.0,40.0)
485: \Text(80.0,50.0)[l]{$\bar{\tilde{\nu}}_\tau$}
486: \DashArrowLine(79.0,50.0)(58.0,40.0){1.0}
487: \Text(80.0,30.0)[l]{$\nu_\tau$} \ArrowLine(58.0,40.0)(79.0,30.0)
488: \Text(47,0)[b] {(b)}
489: \end{picture}
490: \qquad
491: % diagram # 3
492: \begin{picture}(95,79)(0,0)
493: \Text(15.0,60.0)[r]{$\tilde{\tau}_1$}
494: \DashArrowLine(16.0,60.0)(58.0,60.0){1.0}
495: \Text(80.0,70.0)[l]{$\nu_\tau$} \ArrowLine(58.0,60.0)(79.0,70.0)
496: \Text(54.0,50.0)[r]{$\tilde\chi^+_j$} \ArrowLine(58.0,40.0)(58.0,60.0)
497: \Text(80.0,50.0)[l]{$\bar{\tilde{\nu}}_\tau$}
498: \DashArrowLine(79.0,50.0)(58.0,40.0){1.0}
499: \Text(80.0,30.0)[l]{$\tau^-$} \ArrowLine(58.0,40.0)(79.0,30.0)
500: \Text(47,0)[b] {(c)}
501: \end{picture} \\[3mm]
502: %
503: % diagrams for process ~l1 -> ff'~nl
504: % diagram # 1 (W)
505: \begin{picture}(95,79)(0,0)
506: \Text(15.0,60.0)[r]{$\tilde{\tau}_1$}
507: \DashArrowLine(16.0,60.0)(58.0,60.0){1.0}
508: \Text(80.0,70.0)[l]{$\tilde{\nu}_\tau$}
509: \DashArrowLine(58.0,60.0)(79.0,70.0){1.0} \Text(54.0,50.0)[r]{$W^+$}
510: \DashArrowLine(58.0,40.0)(58.0,60.0){3.0} \Text(80.5,50.0)[l]{$\bar
511: q',\,\bar\nu_l$} \ArrowLine(79.0,50.0)(58.0,40.0)
512: \Text(80.5,30.0)[l]{$q,\,l^-$} \ArrowLine(58.0,40.0)(79.0,30.0)
513: \Text(47,0)[b] {(d)}
514: \end{picture}
515: \qquad
516: % diagram # 2 (H)
517: \begin{picture}(95,79)(0,0)
518: \Text(15.0,60.0)[r]{$\tilde{\tau}_1$}
519: \DashArrowLine(16.0,60.0)(58.0,60.0){1.0}
520: \Text(80.0,70.0)[l]{$\tilde{\nu}_\tau$}
521: \DashArrowLine(58.0,60.0)(79.0,70.0){1.0} \Text(54.0,50.0)[r]{$H^+$}
522: \DashArrowLine(58.0,40.0)(58.0,60.0){1.0} \Text(80.5,50.0)[l]{$\bar
523: q',\,\bar\nu_l$} \ArrowLine(79.0,50.0)(58.0,40.0)
524: \Text(80.5,30.0)[l]{$q,\,l^-$} \ArrowLine(58.0,40.0)(79.0,30.0)
525: \Text(47,0)[b] {(e)}
526: \end{picture}
527: \end{tabular}
528: }
529: \caption{Feynman diagrams for stau three-body decays into a sneutrino
530: LSP ($i=1...4$, $j=1,2$). The dominant contribution comes from the $W$
531: exchange of diagram (d). \label{fig:feyngraphs}}
532: \end{figure}
533: %-----------------------------------------
534:
535:
536: In the parameter range we consider, squarks and gluinos have masses of
537: about 1 TeV, leading to large SUSY cross sections at the LHC. Since
538: $m_0=0$, the gluino is always the heaviest sparticle and decays into
539: $q\ti q$. Moreover, $\mse{L}<\mse{R}$ and the left-chiral sleptons can
540: be light enough to be produced in cascade decays.\footnote{This is in
541: sharp contrast to the CMSSM/mSUGRA case, where $\mse{L}>\mse{R}$, and
542: typically only the right sleptons appear in the cascades.} In the
543: following, we discuss these cascade decays in more detail. If the
544: $\nt_1$ is mainly a bino (which is the case for zero or small
545: $m_{H_2}^2$), right-chiral squarks dominantly decay into $q\nt_1$. If
546: $\mstau{1}+m_\tau>\mnt{1}>\msnu$, this looks just like the
547: neutralino-LSP case. If, however, $\mnt{1}>\mstau{1}+m_\tau>\msnu$,
548: then the $\nt_1$ can decay further into
549: $\nt_1\to\tau^\pm\stau_1^\mp\to \tau^\pm f\!\bar f'\snu$. Here note
550: that the $f\!\bar f'=(q\bar q',\,l\nu_l^{})$ will be quite soft. The
551: left-chiral squarks can have more complicated cascade decays. If
552: $\mnt{1}\gsim\mstau{1}$, these are generically given by the
553: conventional cascade decays into the $\nt_1$ as in the CMSSM, partly
554: supplemented by $\nt_1\to\tau^\pm\stau_1^\mp\to \tau^\pm f\!\bar
555: f'\snu$. The resulting signatures are missing energy plus jets plus
556: \mbox{(single or di-)} leptons PLUS an additional tau, plus additional
557: soft leptons or jets if they can be detected. Examples for such
558: cascades are depicted in \fig{LHCcascades}. The benchmark point no.~2
559: of \cite{Buchmuller:2005ma} with $m_{1/2}=500$~GeV, $\tan\beta=10$,
560: $m_{H_1}^2=2.7$~TeV$^2$, $m_{H_2}^2=0$ is an illustrative case. The
561: mass spectrum and the most important branching ratios for this point
562: are given in \tab{buchmuellerP2}. The 2-body decays were computed
563: with {\tt SDECAY} \cite{Muhlleitner:2003vg}, and the 3-body decay with
564: {\tt CALCHEP} \cite{Pukhov:2004ca}. The resulting ratios for the
565: decay chains of \fig{LHCcascades} are (a)~33\%, (b)~6\%, (c)~6.4\%,
566: (d)~3.3\%, (e)~7\%. The sparticle masses can be determined from these
567: cascades through the standard method of invariant-mass distributions
568: of the SM decay
569: products~\cite{Hinchliffe:1996iu,Bachacou:1999zb,Allanach:2000kt,
570: Lester:2001zx,Miller:2005zp}; see also~\cite{ATLAS:1999fr,CMS:PTDR}
571: and references therein. The correct interpretation of the scenario
572: is, however, more involved than in the conventional CMSSM case, and
573: care is needed in order not to falsely conclude to have found SUSY
574: with a neutralino LSP. Notice also that the chain (e) as well as the
575: $\stau_1\to W^*\snu$ decays may fake lepton number violation.
576:
577:
578: %-----------------------------------------
579: % Squark cascades
580: %
581: \begin{figure}[p]\centering
582: \unitlength=1.0pt \SetScale{1.0}
583: \SetWidth{1.0} \footnotesize % letter size control
584: %
585: %
586: \begin{picture}(240,80)
587: \DashArrowLine(0,10)(40,10){3.0} % squark_R
588: \ArrowLine(40,10)(80,10) % neutralino_1
589: \ArrowLine(40,10)(40,40)
590: \DashArrowLine(80,10)(120,10){3.0} % stau_1
591: \ArrowLine(80,10)(80,40)
592: \DashArrowLine(120,10)(160,10){3.0} % sneutrino
593: \Line(120,10)(124,40)
594: \Line(120,10)(126,40) \Text(-3,11)[r]{$\tilde q_R^{}$}
595: \Text(60,3)[t]{$\tilde\chi^0_1$} \Text(100,3)[t]{$\tilde\tau_1^\mp$}
596: \Text(166,11)[l]{$\snu$} \Text(40,45)[b]{$q$}
597: \Text(80,45)[b]{$\tau^\pm$} \Text(126,45)[b]{$f\!\bar f'$}
598: \Text(-30,45)[r] {(a)}
599: \end{picture}
600: %
601: %
602: \begin{picture}(240,80)
603: \DashArrowLine(0,10)(40,10){3.0} % squark_L
604: \ArrowLine(40,10)(80,10) % neutralino_2
605: \ArrowLine(40,10)(40,40)
606: \DashArrowLine(80,10)(120,10){3.0} % stau_1
607: \ArrowLine(80,10)(80,40)
608: \DashArrowLine(120,10)(160,10){3.0} % sneutrino
609: \Line(120,10)(124,40)
610: \Line(120,10)(126,40) \Text(-3,11)[r]{$\tilde q_L^{}$}
611: \Text(60,3)[t]{$\tilde\chi^0_2$} \Text(100,3)[t]{$\tilde\tau_1^\mp$}
612: \Text(166,11)[l]{$\snu$} \Text(40,45)[b]{$q$}
613: \Text(80,45)[b]{$\tau^\pm$} \Text(126,45)[b]{$f\!\bar f'$}
614: \Text(-30,45)[r] {(b)}
615: \end{picture}
616: %
617: %
618: %
619: \begin{picture}(240,80)
620: \DashArrowLine(0,10)(40,10){3.0} % squark_L
621: \ArrowLine(40,10)(40,40)
622: \ArrowLine(40,10)(80,10) % neutralino_2
623: \ArrowLine(80,10)(80,40)
624: \DashArrowLine(80,10)(120,10){3.0} % slepton
625: \ArrowLine(120,10)(120,40) \ArrowLine(120,10)(160,10)
626: \ArrowLine(160,10)(160,40) \DashArrowLine(160,10)(200,10){3.0}
627: \Text(-3,11)[r]{$\tilde q_L^{}$} \Text(60,3)[t]{$\tilde\chi^0_2$}
628: \Text(100,3)[t]{$\tilde l^\mp_L$} \Text(140,3)[t]{$\tilde\chi^0_1$}
629: %\Text(180,3)[t]{$\tilde\tau_1^\mp$}
630: \Text(206,11)[l]{$\snu$} \Text(40,45)[b]{$q$} \Text(80,45)[b]{$l^\pm$}
631: \Text(120,45)[b]{$l^\mp$} \Text(160,45)[b]{$\nu_\tau$}
632: \Text(-30,45)[r] {(c)}
633: \end{picture}
634: %
635: %
636: %
637: \begin{picture}(240,80)
638: \DashArrowLine(0,10)(40,10){3.0} % squark_L
639: \ArrowLine(40,10)(40,40)
640: \ArrowLine(40,10)(80,10) % neutralino_2
641: \ArrowLine(80,10)(80,40)
642: \DashArrowLine(80,10)(120,10){3.0} % slepton
643: \ArrowLine(120,10)(120,40) \ArrowLine(120,10)(160,10)
644: \ArrowLine(160,10)(160,40) \DashArrowLine(160,10)(200,10){3.0}
645: \Line(200,10)(204,40) \Line(200,10)(206,40)
646: \DashArrowLine(200,10)(240,10){3.0} \Text(-3,11)[r]{$\tilde q_L^{}$}
647: \Text(60,3)[t]{$\tilde\chi^0_2$} \Text(100,3)[t]{$\tilde l^\mp_L$}
648: \Text(140,3)[t]{$\tilde\chi^0_1$} \Text(180,3)[t]{$\tilde\tau_1^\mp$}
649: \Text(246,11)[l]{$\snu$} \Text(40,45)[b]{$q$} \Text(80,45)[b]{$l^\pm$}
650: \Text(120,45)[b]{$l^\mp$} \Text(160,45)[b]{$\tau^\pm$}
651: \Text(207,45)[b]{$f\!\bar f'$} \Text(-30,45)[r] {(d)}
652: \end{picture}
653: %
654: \begin{picture}(240,80)
655: \DashArrowLine(0,10)(40,10){3.0} \ArrowLine(40,10)(40,40)
656: \ArrowLine(40,10)(80,10) \ArrowLine(80,10)(80,40)
657: \DashArrowLine(80,10)(120,10){3.0} \ArrowLine(120,10)(120,40)
658: \ArrowLine(120,10)(160,10) \ArrowLine(160,10)(160,40)
659: \DashArrowLine(160,10)(200,10){3.0} \Line(200,10)(204,40)
660: \Line(200,10)(206,40) \DashArrowLine(200,10)(240,10){3.0}
661: \Text(-3,11)[r]{$\tilde q_L^{}$} \Text(60,3)[t]{$\tilde\chi^\pm_1$}
662: \Text(100,3)[t]{$\tilde l^\pm_L$} \Text(140,3)[t]{$\tilde\chi^0_1$}
663: \Text(180,3)[t]{$\tilde\tau_1^\mp$} \Text(246,11)[l]{$\snu$}
664: \Text(40,45)[b]{$q'$} \Text(80,45)[b]{$\nu_l$}
665: \Text(120,45)[b]{$l^\pm$} \Text(160,45)[b]{$\tau^\pm$}
666: \Text(207,45)[b]{$f\!\bar f'$} \Text(-30,45)[r] {(e)}
667: \end{picture}
668: %
669: \caption{Examples of squark cascade decays in gaugino mediation with a
670: sneutrino NLSP; $l=(e,\,\mu)$.
671: % diagrams (c,\,d,\,e) assume $\mnt{2}>m_{\ti l_L}>\mnt{1}$.
672: \label{fig:LHCcascades}}
673: \end{figure}
674: %-----------------------------------------
675:
676:
677: %-----------------------------------------
678: % Squark cascades for msel < mnt1
679: %
680: \begin{figure}[p]\centering
681: \unitlength=1.0pt \SetScale{1.0}
682: \SetWidth{1.0} \footnotesize % letter size control
683: %
684: \begin{picture}(160,80)
685: \DashArrowLine(0,10)(40,10){3.0} % squark_R
686: \ArrowLine(40,10)(80,10) % neutralino_1
687: \ArrowLine(40,10)(40,40)
688: \DashArrowLine(80,10)(120,10){3.0} % stau_1
689: \ArrowLine(80,10)(80,40)
690: \DashArrowLine(120,10)(160,10){3.0} % sneutrino
691: \Line(120,10)(124,40)
692: \Line(120,10)(126,40) \Text(-3,11)[r]{$\tilde q_{R(L)}^{}$}
693: \Text(60,3)[t]{$\tilde\chi^0_{1(2)}$} \Text(100,3)[t]{$\tilde
694: l_L^\mp$} \Text(166,11)[l]{$\snu$} \Text(40,45)[b]{$q$}
695: \Text(80,45)[b]{$l^\pm$} \Text(126,44)[b]{$l^\mp\nu_l$}
696: \Text(-20,45)[r] {(a)}
697: \end{picture} \\ %\hspace{1cm}
698: %
699: \begin{picture}(160,80)
700: \DashArrowLine(0,10)(40,10){3.0} % squark_R
701: \ArrowLine(40,10)(80,10) % neutralino_1
702: \ArrowLine(40,10)(40,40)
703: \DashArrowLine(80,10)(120,10){3.0} % stau_1
704: \ArrowLine(80,10)(80,40)
705: \DashArrowLine(120,10)(160,10){3.0} % sneutrino
706: \Line(120,10)(124,40)
707: \Line(120,10)(126,40) \Text(-3,11)[r]{$\tilde q_{L}^{}$}
708: \Text(60,3)[t]{$\tilde\chi^\pm_{1}$} \Text(100,3)[t]{$\tilde\nu_l$}
709: \Text(166,11)[l]{$\snu$} \Text(40,45)[b]{$q'$}
710: \Text(80,45)[b]{$l^\pm$} \Text(126,44.5)[b]{$\nu_l\nu_\tau$}
711: \Text(-20,45)[r] {(b)}
712: \end{picture}
713: %
714: \caption{Examples of squark cascade decays
715: %in gaugino mediation with a sneutrino NLSP
716: for the case $\mnt{1}>m_{\ti l_L}$ [in addition to
717: \fig{LHCcascades}(a,b)].
718: \label{fig:moreLHCcascades}}
719: \end{figure}
720: %-----------------------------------------
721:
722:
723:
724: \begin{table}
725: \caption{Spectrum and branching ratios for $m_{1/2}=500$~GeV,
726: $\tan\beta=10$, $m_{H_1}^2=2.7$~TeV$^2$, $m_{H_2}^2=0$. As the
727: first and second generation sfermions are practically degenerate,
728: only the first generation is given.}\label{tab:buchmuellerP2}
729: \centering
730: \begin{tabular}{c|r|l}
731: \hline Sparticle & Mass [GeV] & Dominant decay modes \\ \hline $\ti g$
732: & 1151.8 & $\ti q_L^{}q$ (15\%), \quad $\ti q_R^{}q$ (37\%), \quad
733: $\ti b_{1,2}$ (19\%), \quad $\st_1t$ (29\%)\\ $\ti u_L^{}$, $\ti
734: d_L^{}$ & 1054.0, 1062.0 & $\nt_2\,q$ (32\%),\quad $\ti\x^\pm_1q'$
735: ($\sim$60\%) \\ $\ti u_R^{}$, $\ti d_R^{}$ & 971.8, 1029.2 &
736: $\nt_1\,q$ (99\%)\\ $\st_1$ & 766.3 & $\nt_1\,t$ (30\%),\quad
737: $\ti\x^+_1b$ (33\%)\\ $\nt_4$ & 617.9 & $\ti\x^\pm_1W^\mp$
738: (46\%),\quad $\nt_2h$ (19\%)\\ $\ti\x^\pm_2$ & 614.6 & $\nt_2\,W^\pm$
739: (26\%),\quad $\ti\x^\pm_1Z$ (22\%)\\ $\nt_3$ & 604.8 &
740: $\ti\x^\pm_1W^\mp$ (56\%),\quad $\nt_2Z$ (26\%)\\ $\ti e_R$ & 418.3 &
741: $\nt_1e$ (100\%)\\
742: % $\ti\mu_R$ & 418.2 & $\nt_1\mu$ (100\%)\\
743: $\stau_2$ & 398.8 & $\nt_1\tau$ (82\%)\\ $\ti\x^\pm_1$ & 387.4 &
744: $\ti e_L^\pm\nu_e$ (15\%),\quad $\ti\nu_e e^\pm$ (17\%),\quad
745: $\stau_1^\pm\nu_\tau$ (18\%),\quad $\snu\tau^\pm$ (19\%)\\ $\nt_2$
746: & 381.3 & $\stau_1^\pm\tau^\mp$ (19\%), \quad $\ti e^\pm_L e^\mp$
747: (16\%), \quad $\ti\nu_{e}\nu_{e}$ (15\%)\\ $\ti e_L$ & 206.5 &
748: $\nt_1e$ (100\%)\\ $\nt_1$ & 203.4 & $\stau_1^\pm\tau^\mp$ (33\%),
749: \quad $\snu\nu_\tau$ (62\%)\\ $\ti\nu_e$ & 198.5 &
750: $\snu\nu_e\bar\nu_\tau$ (94\%)\\ $\stau_1$ & 182.3 & $\snu l\nu$
751: (32\%),\quad $\snu q\bar q'$ (68\%), \quad $\Gamma=2\times 10^{-8}$
752: GeV\\ $\snu$ & 176.1 & $\gravitino\nu_\tau$, \quad
753: $\Omega^\text{th}_{\ti\nu}h^2= 7.2\times 10^{-3}$ \\ \hline
754: \end{tabular}
755: \end{table}
756:
757:
758: So far we have assumed $\mnt{2}>m_{\ti l_L}>\mnt{1}$. However, in some
759: parts of the parameter space the left sleptons can be lighter than the
760: $\nt_1$, c.f.\ regions C in \fig{snuLSP_region_tb10}. In this case,
761: the long decay chains of the type of \fig{LHCcascades}\,(c,\,d,\,e)
762: obviously do not occur. Instead, we have $\nt_{1,2}\to l^\pm\ti
763: l^\mp_L$, $\nu_l\ti\nu_l$ and $\ti\x^\pm_1\to \nu\ti l^\pm_L$,
764: $l^\pm\ti\nu_l$ with $l=(e,\,\mu)$ in addition to the decays into
765: $\stau_1$ or $\snu$. These are followed by 3-body decays of the
766: sleptons: $\ti l_L^\pm\to l^\pm\nu_\tau\snu$, $\nu_l\tau^\pm\snu$ and
767: $\ti\nu_l\to \nu_l\nu_\tau\snu$, $l^\pm\tau^\mp\snu$. Some of the
768: resulting squark decay chains are depicted in \fig{moreLHCcascades}.
769: A concrete example is realised by taking the parameter point of
770: \tab{buchmuellerP2} and lowering $m_{1/2}$ to $m_{1/2}=450$~GeV. The
771: masses and branching ratios for this case, together with the slepton
772: decay widths, are given in \tab{P2m12low}.
773:
774:
775:
776: \begin{table}
777: \caption{Spectrum and branching ratios for $m_{1/2}=450$~GeV,
778: $\tan\beta=10$, $m_{H_1}^2=2.7$~TeV$^2$, $m_{H_2}^2=0$. As the
779: first and second generation sfermions are practically degenerate,
780: only the first generation is given.}\label{tab:P2m12low} \centering
781: \begin{tabular}{c|r|l}
782: \hline Sparticle & Mass [GeV] & Dominant decay modes \\ \hline $\ti g$
783: & 1046.1 & $\ti q_L^{}q$ (14\%), \quad $\ti q_R^{}q$ (39\%), \quad
784: $\ti b_{1,2}$ (18\%), \quad $\st_1t$ (28\%)\\ $\ti u_L^{}$, $\ti
785: d_L^{}$ & 960.7, 967.6 & $\nt_2\,q$ (32\%),\quad $\ti\x^\pm_1q'$
786: ($\sim$60\%) \\ $\ti u_R^{}$, $\ti d_R^{}$ & 874.9, 940.8 & $\nt_1\,q$
787: (99\%)\\ $\st_1$ & 685.9 & $\nt_1\,t$ (29\%),\quad $\ti\x^+_1b$
788: (36\%)\\ $\nt_4$ & 560.5 & $\ti\x^\pm_1W^\mp$ (44\%),\quad $\nt_2h$
789: (17\%)\\ $\ti\x^\pm_2$ & 557.5 & $\nt_2\,W^\pm$ (25\%),\quad
790: $\ti\x^\pm_1Z$ (21\%)\\ $\nt_3$ & 545.8 & $\ti\x^\pm_1W^\mp$
791: (56\%),\quad $\nt_2Z$ (25\%)\\ $\ti e_R$ & 411.1 & $\nt_1e$ (100\%)\\
792: % $\ti\mu_R$ & 418.2 & $\nt_1\mu$ (100\%)\\
793: $\stau_2$ & 391.2 & $\nt_1\tau$ (83\%)\\ $\ti\x^\pm_1$ & 345.3 &
794: $\ti e_L^\pm\nu_e$ (15\%),\quad $\ti\nu_e e^\pm$ (16\%),\quad
795: $\stau_1^\pm\nu_\tau$ (18\%),\quad $\snu\tau^\pm$ (19\%)\\ $\nt_2$
796: & 339.5 & $\stau_1^\pm\tau^\mp$ (20\%), \quad $\ti e^\pm_L e^\mp$
797: (16\%), \quad $\ti\nu_{e}\nu_{e}$ (15\%)\\ $\nt_1$ & 181.4 & $\ti
798: e^\pm e^\mp$ (8\%), \quad $\stau_1^\pm\tau^\mp$ (25\%), \quad
799: $\snu\nu_\tau$ (32\%)\\ $\ti e_L$ & 142.7 & $\snu\tau\nu_e$
800: ($\sim$100\%), \quad $\Gamma= 6\times 10^{-7}$ GeV\\ $\ti\nu_e$ &
801: 136.5 & $\snu\nu_e\nu_\tau$ (91\%), \quad $\snu e^-\tau^+$ (9\%),
802: \quad $\Gamma=4\times 10^{-7}$ GeV\\ $\stau_1$ & 106.0 & $\snu
803: l\nu$ (30\%),\quad $\snu q\bar q'$ (70\%), \quad $\Gamma=6\times
804: 10^{-9}$ GeV\\ $\snu$ & 101.3 & $\gravitino\nu_\tau$, \quad
805: $\Omega^\text{th}_{\ti\nu}h^2= 5.5\times 10^{-3}$ \\ \hline
806: \end{tabular}
807: \end{table}
808:
809: A special situation arises for larger $m_{H_2}^2$, as in the right
810: panels of \figs{snuLSP_region_tb10} and \ref{fig:snuLSP_region_tb20},
811: in which case the $\mu$ parameter becomes smaller. Consequently, the
812: $\nt_{3,4}$ and $\ti\x^\pm_2$ are lighter than in the previous
813: examples, and the $\nt_{1,2}$ and $\ti\x^\pm_1$ acquire sizable
814: higgsino components. The $\ti q_{L}^{}$ then decays dominantly into
815: $\nt_4 q$ and $\ti\x^\pm_{2} q'$, while the $\ti q_{R}^{}$ decays not
816: only into $\nt_1 q$ but also into $\nt_2 q$. The heavy neutralino and
817: chargino, $\nt_4$ and $\ti\x^\pm_{2}$, decay further into sleptons,
818: gauge bosons, or $h^0$ with roughly comparable rates. This makes this
819: scenario even more complicated than that of \tab{buchmuellerP2}. The
820: detection of the heavier neutralino and chargino states through their
821: decays into sleptons has been studied in \cite{Polesello:2004aq}, and
822: the use of hadronic neutralino/chargino decays very recently in
823: \cite{Butterworth:2007ke}.
824:
825: A comment is in order concerning the detectability of the soft
826: leptons. For the parameter point of \tab{buchmuellerP2} with
827: $m_{\stau_1}-m_{\snu}\simeq 6$~GeV, for instance, the mean $p_T$ of
828: the electrons and muons coming from the $\stau_1\to W^*\snu$
829: decay is 5.9~GeV at generator level.\footnote{We thank
830: Are Raklev for providing the $p_T$ spectrum.}
831: Requiring $p_T(e,\mu)>3$~GeV, $5$~GeV, or $10$~GeV
832: in the offline reconstruction, about 60\%, 40\%, or 17\%,
833: respectively, of these leptons would pass. At first glance this
834: may appear very challenging for LHC analyses. Notice, however,
835: that the SUSY events can be selected by triggering on the hard
836: jets/leptons and the $\Emiss$, so that the detection of additional soft
837: electrons and/or muons may well be feasible.
838: Cuts of $p_T(e)>5$~GeV and $p_T(\mu)>3$~GeV were, for example,
839: also used in \cite{CMS:PTDR} for Higgs boson search in the
840: $H\to ZZ^{(*)}\to 4l$ channel.
841: The situation is of course better for
842: larger $\snu$--$\stau_1$ mass difference. Taus and jets coming from
843: the 3-body $\stau_1$ decays will, however, hardly be observable.
844:
845: At the ILC~\cite{Aguilar-Saavedra:2001rg,Abe:2001np,Abe:2001gc},
846: several distinctive features of the $\snu$ NLSP scenario may be
847: resolved with high accuracy, in particular the large mass splitting
848: between left and right sleptons with $\msl{L}<\msl{R}$ (although
849: measuring $\msl{R}$ may require a 1 TeV linear collider).
850: Selectron-pair production can give $e^+e^-+\Emiss$ or
851: $e^+e^-\tau^+\tau^-+ 2(f\!\bar f')+\Emiss$, and analogously for smuons
852: and for $\stau_2$, depending on the mass orderings. (For
853: $\mse{L}<\mnt{1}$, however, pair production of $\ti e_L$ leads to
854: $\tau^+\tau^-+\Emiss$ due to 3-body $\ti e_L$ decays.) Beam
855: polarisation, angular distributions and tunable energy can be
856: exploited to determine the mass, chirality and spin of the sleptons.
857:
858: Pair production of $\stau_1$ gives $2(f\!\bar f')+\Emiss$. Since the
859: 3-body stau decay proceeds dominantly through an off-shell $W$ boson,
860: this results in soft jets plus missing energy in half of the cases.
861: In addition, about 20\% of the $\stau_1\stau_1^*$ events give jets
862: plus a single charged lepton plus $\Emiss$, and the remaining
863: $\sim10\%$ lead to $l^\pm l^\mp+\Emiss$ or mixed-flavour events of,
864: for instance, $e^\pm\mu^\mp+\Emiss$. On the one hand this certainly
865: complicates the analysis, on the other hand resolving the various
866: $l\nu_l$ and $q\bar q'$ modes of the $\stau_1$ decay and estimating
867: the lifetime allows one to distinguish this scenario from a stau NLSP
868: which decays into $\tau\gravitino$~\cite{Buchmuller:2004rq,
869: Hamaguchi:2004df, Feng:2004yi, Martyn:2006as, Ellis:2006vu,
870: Hamaguchi:2006vu}, $\tau$ axino~\cite{Brandenburg:2005he} or even from
871: the case of gravitino DM with R-parity
872: breaking~\cite{Buchmuller:2007ui}.
873:
874: Chargino production and subsequent decay into lepton and sneutrino
875: could also provide an efficient way to measure the sneutrino mass,
876: as in the case of neutralino LSP studied in~\cite{Freitas:2005et}.
877:
878: Last but not least, pair-production of $\nt_1$ can lead to visible
879: events from $\nt_1\to\tau^\pm\stau_1^\mp$ decays, and in the case that
880: $\mnt{1}>m_{\ti e_L}$ also from $\nt_1\to e^\pm\ti e_L^\mp$,
881: $\mu^\pm\ti\mu_L^\mp$ decays. The ISR photon spectrum may give
882: additional information on the $\nt_1$ and $\snu$ masses.
883:
884:
885: %----------------------------------------------------------------------
886: \section{Conclusions}
887: %----------------------------------------------------------------------
888:
889: We have considered the case of gravitino LSP and dark matter with a
890: sneutrino NLSP in the scenario of gaugino-mediated supersymmetry
891: breaking. We find viable regions of the parameter space, where the
892: primordial sneutrino abundance satisfies the BBN constraints. A
893: general feature of this scenario is a small mass splitting between the
894: $\stau_1\sim\stau_L$ and the $\snu$, leading to 3-body $\stau_1$
895: decays into $f\!\bar f'\snu$, dominantly mediated by a virtual
896: $W$. This can significantly influence the SUSY collider signatures. We
897: have discussed these signatures depending on the mass ordering of
898: $\nt_{1,2}$, $\stau_1$ and $\ti e_L$. In particular, if
899: $\mnt{1}>\mstau{1}+m_\tau$ (and/or $\mse{L}$), the lightest neutralino
900: can have visible decays into a charged lepton and slepton. Moreover,
901: for $\mnt{1}>\mse{L}$, also selectrons and smuons will only have
902: 3-body decays into the $\snu$. These 3-body decays do, however, not
903: lead to displaced vertices unless the spectrum is quasi-degenerate.
904:
905: In general this scenario predicts more soft leptons or jets in the
906: final states and longer decay chains. Detailed simulation studies
907: will be necessary to assess the experimental precisions achievable at
908: the LHC or ILC in the scenarios discussed here. This is, however,
909: beyond the scope of this letter.
910:
911: %----------------------------------------------------------------------
912: \section*{Acknowledgements}
913: %----------------------------------------------------------------------
914:
915: We would like to thank Wolfgang Adam, Ben Allanach, J\"orn Kersten,
916: Giacomo Polesello, Alexander Pukhov and Kai Schmidt-Hoberg,
917: for useful discussions.
918:
919: S.K.\ is supported by an APART (Austrian Programme for Advanced
920: Research and Technology) grant of the Austrian Academy of
921: Sciences. L.C.\ acknowledges the support of the ``Impuls- und
922: Vernetzungsfonds'' of the Helmholtz Association, contract number
923: VH-NG-006.
924:
925:
926:
927: %------------------------------------------------------------------------------
928: %\bibliography{cosmo}
929: %------------------------------------------------------------------------------
930: \begin{thebibliography}{10}
931:
932: \bibitem{Bolz:2000fu} M.~Bolz, A.~Brandenburg and W.~Buchmuller,
933: \newblock Nucl. Phys. {\bf B606}, 518 (2001), [hep-ph/0012052].
934: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0012052;%%
935:
936: \bibitem{Pradler:2006qh} J.~Pradler and F.~D. Steffen, \newblock
937: Phys. Rev. {\bf D75}, 023509 (2007), [hep-ph/0608344].
938: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0608344;%%
939:
940: \bibitem{Hamann:2006pf} J.~Hamann, S.~Hannestad, M.~S. Sloth and
941: Y.~Y.~Y. Wong, \newblock Phys. Rev. {\bf D75}, 023522 (2007),
942: [astro-ph/0611582].
943: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0611582;%%
944:
945: \bibitem{Feng:2003xh} J.~L. Feng, A.~Rajaraman and F.~Takayama,
946: \newblock Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 91}, 011302 (2003), [hep-ph/0302215].
947: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0302215;%%
948:
949: \bibitem{Kawasaki:2004qu} M.~Kawasaki, K.~Kohri and T.~Moroi,
950: \newblock Phys. Rev. {\bf D71}, 083502 (2005), [astro-ph/0408426].
951: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0408426;%%
952:
953: \bibitem{Steffen:2006hw} F.~D. Steffen, \newblock JCAP {\bf 0609}, 001
954: (2006), [hep-ph/0605306].
955: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0605306;%%
956:
957: \bibitem{Pospelov:2006sc} M.~Pospelov, \newblock hep-ph/0605215.
958: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0605215;%%
959:
960: \bibitem{Kohri:2006cn} K.~Kohri and F.~Takayama, \newblock
961: hep-ph/0605243.
962: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0605243;%%
963:
964: \bibitem{Kaplinghat:2006qr} M.~Kaplinghat and A.~Rajaraman, \newblock
965: Phys. Rev. {\bf D74}, 103004 (2006), [astro-ph/0606209].
966: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0606209;%%
967:
968: \bibitem{Hamaguchi:2007mp} K.~Hamaguchi, T.~Hatsuda, M.~Kamimura,
969: Y.~Kino and T.~T. Yanagida, \newblock hep-ph/0702274.
970: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0702274;%%
971:
972: %\cite{Pradler:2006hh}
973: \bibitem{Pradler:2006hh}
974: J.~Pradler and F.~D.~Steffen,
975: \newblock Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 648} 224 (2007),
976: [arXiv:hep-ph/0612291].
977: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B648,224;%%
978:
979: \bibitem{Ellis:2003dn}
980: J.~R. Ellis, K.~A. Olive, Y.~Santoso and V.~C. Spanos,
981: \newblock Phys. Lett. {\bf B588}, 7 (2004), [hep-ph/0312262].
982: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0312262;%%
983:
984: \bibitem{Feng:2004mt}
985: J.~L. Feng, S.~Su and F.~Takayama,
986: \newblock Phys. Rev. {\bf D70}, 075019 (2004), [hep-ph/0404231].
987: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0404231;%%
988:
989: \bibitem{Roszkowski:2004jd}
990: L.~Roszkowski, R.~Ruiz~de Austri and K.-Y. Choi,
991: \newblock JHEP {\bf 08}, 080 (2005), [hep-ph/0408227].
992: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0408227;%%
993:
994: \bibitem{Cerdeno:2005eu}
995: D.~G. Cerdeno, K.-Y. Choi, K.~Jedamzik, L.~Roszkowski and R.~Ruiz~de Austri,
996: \newblock JCAP {\bf 0606}, 005 (2006), [hep-ph/0509275].
997: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0509275;%%
998:
999: \bibitem{Jedamzik:2006xz}
1000: K.~Jedamzik,
1001: \newblock Phys. Rev. {\bf D74}, 103509 (2006), [hep-ph/0604251].
1002: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0604251;%%
1003:
1004: \bibitem{Cyburt:2006uv}
1005: R.~H. Cyburt, J.~Ellis, B.~D. Fields, K.~A. Olive and V.~C. Spanos,
1006: \newblock JCAP {\bf 0611}, 014 (2006), [astro-ph/0608562].
1007: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0608562;%%
1008:
1009: \bibitem{Diaz-Cruz:2007fc}
1010: J.~L. Diaz-Cruz, J.~Ellis, K.~A. Olive and Y.~Santoso,
1011: \newblock hep-ph/0701229.
1012: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0701229;%%
1013:
1014: \bibitem{Feng:2004zu}
1015: J.~L. Feng, S.-f. Su and F.~Takayama,
1016: \newblock Phys. Rev. {\bf D70}, 063514 (2004), [hep-ph/0404198].
1017: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0404198;%%
1018:
1019: \bibitem{Kanzaki:2006hm}
1020: T.~Kanzaki, M.~Kawasaki, K.~Kohri and T.~Moroi,
1021: \newblock Phys. Rev. {\bf D75}, 025011 (2007), [hep-ph/0609246].
1022: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0609246;%%
1023:
1024: \bibitem{Ellis:2002iu}
1025: J.~R. Ellis, T.~Falk, K.~A. Olive and Y.~Santoso,
1026: \newblock Nucl. Phys. {\bf B652}, 259 (2003), [hep-ph/0210205].
1027: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0210205;%%
1028:
1029: \bibitem{Kaplan:1999ac}
1030: D.~E. Kaplan, G.~D. Kribs and M.~Schmaltz,
1031: \newblock Phys. Rev. {\bf D62}, 035010 (2000), [hep-ph/9911293].
1032: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9911293;%%
1033:
1034: \bibitem{Chacko:1999mi}
1035: Z.~Chacko, M.~A. Luty, A.~E. Nelson and E.~Ponton,
1036: \newblock JHEP {\bf 01}, 003 (2000), [hep-ph/9911323].
1037: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9911323;%%
1038:
1039: \bibitem{Ellis:1984bm}
1040: J.~R. Ellis, C.~Kounnas and D.~V. Nanopoulos,
1041: \newblock Nucl. Phys. {\bf B247}, 373 (1984).
1042: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B247,373;%%
1043:
1044: \bibitem{Inoue:1991rk}
1045: K.~Inoue, M.~Kawasaki, M.~Yamaguchi and T.~Yanagida,
1046: \newblock Phys. Rev. {\bf D45}, 328 (1992).
1047: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D45,328;%%
1048:
1049: \bibitem{Buchmuller:2005ma}
1050: W.~Buchmuller, J.~Kersten and K.~Schmidt-Hoberg,
1051: \newblock JHEP {\bf 02}, 069 (2006), [hep-ph/0512152].
1052: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0512152;%%
1053:
1054: \bibitem{Evans:2006sj}
1055: J.~L. Evans, D.~E. Morrissey and J.~D. Wells,
1056: \newblock hep-ph/0611185.
1057: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0611185;%%
1058:
1059: \bibitem{Buchmuller:2006nx}
1060: W.~Buchmuller, L.~Covi, J.~Kersten and K.~Schmidt-Hoberg,
1061: \newblock JCAP {\bf 0611}, 007 (2006), [hep-ph/0609142].
1062: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0609142;%%
1063:
1064: \bibitem{Allanach:2001kg}
1065: B.~C. Allanach,
1066: \newblock Comput. Phys. Commun. {\bf 143}, 305 (2002), [hep-ph/0104145],
1067: \newblock {\tt http://projects.hepforge.org/softsusy/}.
1068: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0104145;%%
1069:
1070: \bibitem{Belanger:2001fz}
1071: G.~Belanger, F.~Boudjema, A.~Pukhov and A.~Semenov,
1072: \newblock Comput. Phys. Commun. {\bf 149}, 103 (2002), [hep-ph/0112278].
1073: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0112278;%%
1074:
1075: \bibitem{Belanger:2004yn}
1076: G.~Belanger, F.~Boudjema, A.~Pukhov and A.~Semenov,
1077: \newblock Comput. Phys. Commun. {\bf 174}, 577 (2006), [hep-ph/0405253].
1078: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0405253;%%
1079:
1080: \bibitem{Belanger:2006is}
1081: G.~Belanger, F.~Boudjema, A.~Pukhov and A.~Semenov,
1082: \newblock hep-ph/0607059,
1083: \newblock {\tt http://wwwlapp.in2p3.fr/lapth/micromegas/}.
1084: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0607059;%%
1085:
1086: \bibitem{Asaka:2000zh}
1087: T.~Asaka, K.~Hamaguchi and K.~Suzuki,
1088: \newblock Phys. Lett. {\bf B490}, 136 (2000), [hep-ph/0005136].
1089: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0005136;%%
1090:
1091: \bibitem{Falk:1994es}
1092: T.~Falk, K.~A. Olive and M.~Srednicki,
1093: \newblock Phys. Lett. {\bf B339}, 248 (1994), [hep-ph/9409270].
1094: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9409270;%%
1095:
1096: \bibitem{Muhlleitner:2003vg}
1097: M.~Muhlleitner, A.~Djouadi and Y.~Mambrini,
1098: \newblock Comput. Phys. Commun. {\bf 168}, 46 (2005), [hep-ph/0311167].
1099: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0311167;%%
1100:
1101: \bibitem{Pukhov:2004ca}
1102: A.~Pukhov,
1103: \newblock hep-ph/0412191.
1104: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0412191;%%
1105:
1106: \bibitem{Hinchliffe:1996iu}
1107: I.~Hinchliffe, F.~E. Paige, M.~D. Shapiro, J.~Soderqvist and W.~Yao,
1108: \newblock Phys. Rev. {\bf D55}, 5520 (1997), [hep-ph/9610544].
1109: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9610544;%%
1110:
1111: \bibitem{Bachacou:1999zb}
1112: H.~Bachacou, I.~Hinchliffe and F.~E. Paige,
1113: \newblock Phys. Rev. {\bf D62}, 015009 (2000), [hep-ph/9907518].
1114: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9907518;%%
1115:
1116: \bibitem{Allanach:2000kt}
1117: B.~C. Allanach, C.~G. Lester, M.~A. Parker and B.~R. Webber,
1118: \newblock JHEP {\bf 09}, 004 (2000), [hep-ph/0007009].
1119: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0007009;%%
1120:
1121: \bibitem{Lester:2001zx}
1122: C.~G. Lester,
1123: \newblock CERN-THESIS-2004-003.
1124:
1125: \bibitem{Miller:2005zp}
1126: D.~J. Miller, P.~Osland and A.~R. Raklev,
1127: \newblock JHEP {\bf 03}, 034 (2006), [hep-ph/0510356].
1128: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0510356;%%
1129:
1130: \bibitem{ATLAS:1999fr}
1131: ATLAS Collaboration,
1132: \newblock {\it ATLAS Detector and Physics Performance: Technical Design
1133: Report}, vol.\ 2, 1999,
1134: \newblock ATLAS-TDR-15, CERN-LHCC-99-15.
1135:
1136: \bibitem{CMS:PTDR}
1137: CMS Collaboration,
1138: \newblock {\it CMS Physics: Technical Design Report, Volume 2: Physics
1139: Performance}, 2006,
1140: \newblock CMS-TDR-8.2, CERN-LHCC-2006-021.
1141:
1142: \bibitem{Polesello:2004aq}
1143: G.~Polesello,
1144: \newblock J. Phys. {\bf G30}, 1185 (2004).
1145: %%CITATION = JPHGB,G30,1185;%%
1146:
1147: \bibitem{Butterworth:2007ke}
1148: J.~M. Butterworth, J.~R. Ellis and A.~R. Raklev,
1149: \newblock hep-ph/0702150.
1150: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0702150;%%
1151:
1152: \bibitem{Aguilar-Saavedra:2001rg}
1153: ECFA/DESY LC Physics Working Group, J.~A. Aguilar-Saavedra {\em et~al.},
1154: \newblock {\it TESLA Technical Design Report. Part III: Physics at an $e^+e^-$
1155: Linear Collider}, 2001, hep-ph/0106315.
1156: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0106315;%%
1157:
1158: \bibitem{Abe:2001np}
1159: American Linear Collider Working Group, T.~Abe {\em et~al.},
1160: \newblock {\it Linear collider physics resource book for Snowmass 2001. 2:
1161: Higgs and supersymmetry studies}, 2001, hep-ex/0106056.
1162: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0106056;%%
1163:
1164: \bibitem{Abe:2001gc}
1165: ACFA Linear Collider Working Group, K.~Abe {\em et~al.},
1166: \newblock {\it Particle physics experiments at JLC}, 2001, hep-ph/0109166.
1167: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0109166;%%
1168:
1169: \bibitem{Buchmuller:2004rq}
1170: W.~Buchmuller, K.~Hamaguchi, M.~Ratz and T.~Yanagida,
1171: \newblock Phys. Lett. {\bf B588}, 90 (2004), [hep-ph/0402179].
1172: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0402179;%%
1173:
1174: \bibitem{Hamaguchi:2004df}
1175: K.~Hamaguchi, Y.~Kuno, T.~Nakaya and M.~M. Nojiri,
1176: \newblock Phys. Rev. {\bf D70}, 115007 (2004), [hep-ph/0409248].
1177: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0409248;%%
1178:
1179: \bibitem{Feng:2004yi}
1180: J.~L. Feng and B.~T. Smith,
1181: \newblock Phys. Rev. {\bf D71}, 015004 (2005), [hep-ph/0409278].
1182: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0409278;%%
1183:
1184: \bibitem{Martyn:2006as}
1185: H.~U. Martyn,
1186: \newblock Eur. Phys. J. {\bf C48}, 15 (2006), [hep-ph/0605257].
1187: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0605257;%%
1188:
1189: \bibitem{Ellis:2006vu}
1190: J.~R. Ellis, A.~R. Raklev and O.~K. Oye,
1191: \newblock JHEP {\bf 10}, 061 (2006), [hep-ph/0607261].
1192: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0607261;%%
1193:
1194: \bibitem{Hamaguchi:2006vu}
1195: K.~Hamaguchi, M.~M. Nojiri and A.~de~Roeck,
1196: \newblock hep-ph/0612060.
1197: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0612060;%%
1198:
1199: \bibitem{Brandenburg:2005he}
1200: A.~Brandenburg, L.~Covi, K.~Hamaguchi, L.~Roszkowski and F.~D. Steffen,
1201: \newblock Phys. Lett. {\bf B617}, 99 (2005), [hep-ph/0501287].
1202: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0501287;%%
1203:
1204: \bibitem{Buchmuller:2007ui}
1205: W.~Buchmuller, L.~Covi, K.~Hamaguchi, A.~Ibarra and T.~Yanagida,
1206: \newblock hep-ph/0702184.
1207: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0702184;%%
1208:
1209: \bibitem{Freitas:2005et}
1210: A.~Freitas, W.~Porod and P.~M.~Zerwas,
1211: \newblock Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 72} (2005) 115002
1212: [arXiv:hep-ph/0509056].
1213: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D72,115002;%%
1214:
1215:
1216:
1217: \end{thebibliography}
1218:
1219:
1220: \end{document}
1221: