1: \documentclass[12pt,letter]{article}
2:
3:
4: \usepackage{graphicx, epsfig, color}
5: \textwidth 170mm
6: \textheight 225mm
7: \oddsidemargin -5mm
8: \evensidemargin 5mm
9: \topmargin -10pt
10:
11:
12: %\def\eslt{\not\!\!{E_T}}
13: \def\eslt{E_T^{\rm miss}}
14: \def\to{\rightarrow}
15: \def\Phat{\hat{\Phi}}
16: \def\bi{\begin{itemize}}
17: \def\ei{\end{itemize}}
18: \def\te{\tilde e}
19: \def\tl{\tilde l}
20: \def\tu{\tilde u}
21: \def\ts{\tilde s}
22: \def\tb{\tilde b}
23: \def\tf{\tilde f}
24: \def\td{\tilde d}
25: \def\tQ{\tilde Q}
26: \def\tL{\tilde L}
27: \def\tH{\tilde H}
28: \def\tst{\tilde t}
29: \def\ttau{\tilde \tau}
30: \def\tmu{\tilde \mu}
31: \def\tg{\tilde g}
32: \def\tnu{\tilde\nu}
33: \def\tell{\tilde\ell}
34: \def\tq{\tilde q}
35: \def\tw{\widetilde W}
36: \def\tz{\widetilde Z}
37: %\def\tw{\widetilde\chi^{\pm}}
38: %\def\tz{\widetilde\chi^0}
39: \def\alt{\stackrel{<}{\sim}}
40: \def\agt{\stackrel{>}{\sim}}
41: \def\be{\begin{equation}}
42: \def\ee{\end{equation}}
43: \def\bea{\begin{eqnarray}}
44: \def\eea{\end{eqnarray}}
45: \def\beas{\begin{eqnarray*}}
46: \def\eeas{\end{eqnarray*}}
47: \newcommand\prd[3]{{\it Phys.\ Rev.\ }{\bf D #1} (#2) #3}
48: \newcommand\prep[3]{{\it Phys.\ Rept.\ }{\bf #1} (#2) #3}
49: \newcommand\prl[3]{{\it Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ }{\bf #1} (#2) #3}
50: \newcommand\plb[3]{{\it Phys.\ Lett.\ }{\bf B #1} (#2) #3}
51: \newcommand\jhep[3]{{\it J. High Energy Phys.\ }{\bf #1} (#2) #3}
52: \newcommand\app[3]{{\it Astropart.\ Phys.\ }{\bf #1} (#2) #3}
53: \newcommand\apj[3]{{\it Astrophys.\ J. }{\bf #1} (#2) #3}
54: \newcommand\ijmpd[3]{{\it Int.\ J.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ }{\bf D #1} (#2) #3}
55: \newcommand\npb[3]{{\it Nucl.\ Phys.\ }{\bf B #1} (#2) #3}
56: \newcommand\epjc[3]{{\it Eur.\ Phys.\ J. }{\bf C #1} (#2) #3}
57: \newcommand\ptp[3]{{\it Prog.\ Theor.\ Phys.\ }{\bf #1} (#2) #3}
58: \newcommand{\hepph}[1]{hep-ph/#1}
59: \newcommand{\hepth}[1]{hep-th/#1}
60: \newcommand{\hepex}[1]{hep-ex/#1}
61: \newcommand{\astroph}[1]{astro-ph/#1}
62:
63: %-----------------------------------------
64: %\def\sp{\bf\footnotesize (SP)\,\normalsize}
65: \def\sp{}
66: %-----------------------------------------
67:
68: \begin{document}
69: \begin{titlepage}
70: \begin{flushright}
71: FSU-HEP/070330\\
72: MADPH-07-1480
73: \end{flushright}
74:
75: \vspace{0.5cm}
76: \begin{center}
77: {\Large \bf
78: %Focus point physics at the Large Hadron Collider
79: Precision gluino mass at the LHC\\
80: in SUSY models with decoupled scalars
81: }\\
82: \vspace{1.2cm} \renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\fnsymbol{footnote}}
83: {\large Howard Baer$^{1,2}$\footnote[1]{Email: baer@hep.fsu.edu },
84: Vernon Barger$^2$\footnote[2]{Email: barger@physics.wisc.edu},
85: Gabe Shaughnessy$^2$\footnote[3]{Email: gshau@hep.wisc.edu}, \\
86: Heaya Summy$^1$\footnote[4]{Email: heaya.summy@gmail.com},
87: Lian-Tao Wang $^3$\footnote[5]{Email: lianwang@princeton.edu}} \\
88: \vspace{1.2cm} \renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\arabic{footnote}}
89: {\it
90: 1. Dept. of Physics,
91: Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32306, USA \\
92: 2. Dept. of Physics,
93: University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706, USA \\
94: 3. Department of Physics, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08543\\
95: }
96:
97: \end{center}
98:
99: \vspace{0.5cm}
100: \begin{abstract}
101: \noindent
102: One way to ameliorate the SUSY flavor and CP problems is to postulate that scalar masses
103: lie in the TeV or beyond regime.
104: For example, the focus point (FP) region of the minimal supergravity (mSUGRA) model is especially
105: compelling in that heavy scalar masses can co-exist with low fine-tuning while
106: yielding the required relic abundance of cold dark matter
107: (via a mixed higgsino-bino neutralino). We examine many of the characteristics of
108: collider events expected to arise at the CERN LHC in models with multi-TeV scalars, taking the
109: mSUGRA FP region as a case study. The collider events are
110: characterized by a hard component arising from gluino pair production,
111: plus a soft component arising from direct chargino and neutralino production.
112: Gluino decays in the FP region are
113: characterized by lengthy cascades yielding very large jet and lepton multiplicities,
114: and a large $b$-jet multiplicity.
115: Thus, as one steps to higher jet, $b$-jet or lepton multiplicity, signal-over-background
116: rates should steadily improve.
117: The lengthy cascade decays make mass reconstruction via kinematic edges difficult;
118: however, since the hard component is nearly pure
119: gluino pair production, the gluino mass can be extracted to $\pm 8\%$ via total rate
120: for $\eslt +\ge 7$-jet $+\ge 2\ b$-jet events, assuming 100 fb$^{-1}$ of integrated
121: luminosity.
122: The distribution of invariant mass of opposite-sign/same-flavor dileptons in the
123: hard component exhibits two dilepton mass edges: $m_{\tz_2}-m_{\tz_1}$ and $m_{\tz_3}-m_{\tz_1}$.
124: As a consistency check, the same mass edges should be seen in isolated
125: opposite-sign dileptons occurring in the soft component trilepton signal which originates
126: mainly from chargino-neutralino production.
127:
128: \vspace*{0.8cm}
129: \noindent PACS numbers: 14.80.Ly, 12.60.Jv, 11.30.Pb, 13.85.Rm
130:
131: \end{abstract}
132:
133: %12.60.Jv Supersymmetric models
134: %14.80.Ly Supersymmetric partners
135: %11.30.Pb Supersymmetry
136: %13.85.Rm Limits on production of particles
137:
138: \end{titlepage}
139:
140: \section{Introduction}
141: \label{sec:intro}
142:
143: The minimal supergravity (mSUGRA) model\cite{sugra,msugra,wss} is a
144: well-motivated supersymmetric model with a small
145: parameter space that forms a template for many investigations of the
146: phenomenological consequences of weak scale supersymmetry. In mSUGRA, it is assumed that
147: the minimal supersymmetric standard model, or MSSM, is a valid effective theory
148: of physics between the energy scales $Q=M_{GUT}$ and $Q=M_{weak}$.
149: It is further assumed that all MSSM scalar masses unify to a common value $m_0$
150: at $M_{GUT}$, while gauginos unify to a common value $m_{1/2}$ and trilinear
151: soft terms unify to a common value $A_0$. The weak scale soft parameters
152: can be calculated by renormalization group evolution from $M_{GUT}$ to
153: $M_{weak}$. The large value of the top quark Yukawa coupling drives the
154: up-Higgs squared mass to negative values, leading to radiative electroweak
155: symmetry breaking (EWSB). The EWSB minimization conditions allow one to trade
156: the bilinear soft breaking term $B$ for $\tan\beta$, the ratio of Higgs field vevs.
157: It also determines the magnitude (but not the sign) of the superpotential
158: Higgs mass term $\mu$.
159: Thus, the entire weak scale sparticle mass spectrum and mixings can be calculated
160: from the well-known parameter set
161: %
162: \be
163: m_0,\ m_{1/2},\ A_0,\ \tan\beta ,\ sign(\mu ) .
164: \ee
165: %
166: Thus, once this parameter set is stipulated, a whole host of observables,
167: including the neutralino dark matter relic density $\Omega_{\tz_1}h^2$ and
168: collider scattering events, may be calculated.
169: For implementation, we use Isajet v7.74\cite{isajet,kraml}
170: to calculate the sparticle mass spectrum and associated collider events,
171: and IsaReD\cite{bbb} to calculate the neutralino relic density.
172:
173: One of the important consequences of the MSSM, due to $R$-parity
174: conservation, is that the lightest SUSY particle (LSP) is absolutely stable.
175: In mSUGRA, the LSP is usually found to be the lightest neutralino $\tz_1$,
176: which is a weakly interacting massive particle (WIMP), and hence has the potential
177: to naturally match the measured abundance of cold dark matter in the universe.
178: An analysis of the three-year WMAP and galaxy survey data sets \cite{wmap}
179: implies that the ratio of
180: dark matter density to critical density,
181: \be
182: \Omega_{\tz_1}h^2\equiv \rho_{\tz_1}/\rho_c =0.111^{+0.011}_{-0.015}\ \ (2\sigma ) .
183: \ee
184: where $h=0.74\pm 0.03$ is the Hubble constant. By comparing the mSUGRA predicted value of $\Omega_{\tz_1}h^2$ to this measured
185: value, one finds that only certain parts of the mSUGRA parameter space are
186: cosmologically allowed. These include the following.
187: \bi
188: \item The bulk region at low $m_0$ and low $m_{1/2}$, where
189: neutralino annihilation is enhanced by light $t$-channel
190: slepton exchange\cite{bulk}.
191: The tight WMAP $\Omega_{CDM}h^2$ limit has pushed this allowed region to
192: very small $m_0$ and $m_{1/2}$ values, while LEP2 limits on $m_{\tw_1}$ and
193: $m_{\tell}$ (and possibly on $m_h$) have excluded these same low values
194: so that almost no bulk region has survived\cite{bb3}.
195: \item The stau co-annihilation region occurs at very low $m_0$ but any $m_{1/2}$
196: values, so that $m_{\ttau_1}\simeq m_{\tz_1}$, and neutralinos can annihilate
197: against tau sleptons\cite{stau} in the early universe. For certain $A_0$ values
198: which dial $m_{\tst_1}$ to very low values, there also exists a top-squark
199: co-annihilation region\cite{stop}.
200: \item The $A$-funnel region occurs at large values of the parameter $\tan\beta\sim 50$,
201: where $2m_{\tz_1}\sim m_A$, and neutralinos can annihilate through the broad
202: pseudoscalar Higgs resonance\cite{Afunnel}.
203: There is also a light Higgs resonance region where $2m_{\tz_1}\sim m_h$ at low $m_{1/2}$ values\cite{bulk,drees_h}.
204: \item At large $m_0$ near the boundary of parameter space, the superpotential
205: Higgsino mass term $\mu$ becomes quite small, and the $\tz_1$ can become
206: a mixed higgsino-bino neutralino. This region is known as the
207: hyperbolic branch/focus point region (HB/FP)\cite{ccn,fmm,hb_fp}.
208: In this case, neutralino annihilation to
209: vector bosons is enhanced, and a match to the WMAP measured relic density can be found.
210: \ei
211:
212: The HB/FP region of mSUGRA is especially compelling. In this region, the large
213: value of $m_0\sim$ several TeV means that possible SUSY contributions to
214: various flavor-changing and $CP$-violating processes are suppressed by the large squark and slepton masses.
215: For instance, SUSY contributions to the flavor-violating decay
216: $b\to s\gamma$ are small, so in the HB/FP region this decay rate is predicted to be
217: in accord with SM predictions, as observed.
218: Meanwhile, the calculated amount of fine-tuning in the electroweak sector
219: has been shown to be small\cite{ccn,fmm}, in spite of the presence of multi-TeV
220: top squarks.
221:
222: In this paper, we examine the HB/FP region with regard to
223: what sort of collider events are expected at the CERN LHC $pp$ collider,
224: which is set to begin operating in the near future at a center-of-mass
225: energy $\sqrt{s}=14$ TeV. Much previous work on this issue has been done.
226: In Ref. \cite{lhcreach,bbbkt}, the reach of the LHC in the mSUGRA model,
227: including the HB/FP region, was calculated. The reach for 100 fb$^{-1}$ was found to
228: extend to $m_{1/2}\sim 700$ GeV, corresponding to a reach in $m_{\tg}$ of
229: about 1.8 TeV. The reaches of $\sqrt{s}=0.5$ and 1 TeV $e^+e^-$ linear
230: colliders were also calculated\cite{bbkt}, and found to extend past that of the LHC,
231: since when $\mu$ becomes small, charginos become light, and chargino pair production
232: is a reaction that $e^+e^-$ colliders are sensitive to, essentially up to the
233: kinematic limit for chargino pair production. In fact, the reach of the
234: Fermilab Tevatron for SUSY in the clean trilepton channel\cite{Barger:1998hp} is somewhat enhanced in the
235: HB/FP region\cite{bkt}, since charginos and neutralinos can be quite light,
236: and decay with characteristic dilepton mass edges. The reaches of
237: direct\cite{direct} and indirect\cite{indirect} dark matter search experiments
238: are also enhanced in the HB/FP region.
239:
240: In Ref. \cite{hp}, Hinchliffe and Paige examined characteristic measurements
241: that the LHC could make for an mSUGRA sample point nearby to the HB/FP region.
242: They found a good signal/background ratio could be obtained with a hard cut
243: on effective mass $M_{eff}=\sum_{jets} E_T +\sum_{leptons} E_T+\eslt$ (e.g. $M_{eff} > 400$ GeV) and by requiring
244: the presence of a $b$-jet\footnote{The effective mass was introduced and used in heavy top quark production \cite{meff-hq}.}.
245: Some characteristic distributions such as $m(\ell^+\ell^-)$ which
246: gave a dilepton mass edge at $m_{\tz_2}-m_{\tz_1}$ and
247: $m(b-jet ,\ell)<\sqrt{(m_t^2-M_W^2)/2}$
248: (indicating the presence of a $t$-quark in the decay chain) could be made.
249:
250: In Ref. \cite{mmt}, Mizukoshi, Mercadante and Tata found that the LHC
251: reach in the HB/FP region could be enhanced by up to 20\% by requiring
252: events with the presence of one or two tagged $b$-jets.
253: In Ref. \cite{bkpu}, a model-independent exploration of the HB/FP region was
254: made with regard to collider and dark matter signals.
255: The LHC reach via multilepton cascade decays was compared to the LHC reach via
256: clean trileptons from $pp\to \tw_1\tz_2\to 3\ell+\eslt$ production.
257: In the latter process, backgrounds from $W^*Z^*$ and $W^*\gamma^*$ were
258: calculated, and the trilepton reach was found to be comparable to-- but slightly
259: smaller than-- the reach via a search for gluino cascade decays.
260: In Ref. \cite{baltz}, the authors examined what sort of cosmological
261: measurements could be made in several mSUGRA case studies (including the point\footnote{The parameters of the point are $m_0=3280$ GeV, $m_{1/2} = 300$ GeV, $\tan \beta = 10$, $A_0=0$ GeV and $\mu > 0$.} LCC2
262: in the HB/FP region) by measurements at the LHC and a $\sqrt{s}=0.5$ and
263: 1 TeV ILC. For LCC2 at the LHC, they assumed the $\tz_3-\tz_1$ and
264: $\tz_2-\tz_1$ mass edges could be measured to an accuracy of 1 GeV, while
265: it was conjectured that $m_{\tg}$ and $m_{\tz_1}$ could be measured to $\sim 10\%$ accuracy
266: via some kinematic distributions.
267:
268: In this paper, in anticipation of the LHC turn on,
269: we wish to understand many of the characteristics of collider
270: events expected in the HB/FP region, with an eye towards
271: sparticle mass measurements rather than reach studies. We find that
272: the expected collider events in the HB/FP region separate themselves into
273: a hard component, arising from gluino pair production, and a soft component,
274: arising from pair production of charginos and neutralinos. The gluino pair
275: production events typically involve lengthy cascade decays to top
276: and bottom quarks \cite{sscgaugino}, and so high jet, $b$-jet and isolated lepton multiplicities
277: are expected. However, the complex cascade decays do not lend themselves to
278: simple kinematic measurements of the gluino or neutralino masses, mainly due
279: to the combinatorics of picking out the correct gluino decay products\footnote{Studies of gluino mass \cite{glmass} and spin \cite{glspin} determination have been made through the cascade decays $\tilde g\to b \tilde b^*_1$ with $\tilde b_1\to \tilde Z_2\to \tilde l\to \tilde Z_1$ at parameter point SPS1a.}.
280: We do find that the gluino mass should be extractable based on total rate in
281: the multi-jet+multi-lepton$+\eslt$ events to a precision of about 5-10\% for
282: 100 fb$^{-1}$ of integrated luminosity. For both the hard and
283: soft components, the $\tz_3-\tz_1$ and $\tz_2-\tz_1$ mass edges should be visible.
284:
285: The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. In Sec. \ref{sec:fp},
286: we present details of sparticle masses and cross sections expected from the
287: HB/FP region at the LHC. In Sec. \ref{sec:evgen}, we present some details of our signal and
288: background calculations.
289: In Sec. \ref{sec:dist} we present distributions for a variety of
290: collider observables for a case study and SM backgrounds.
291: We present a set of cuts that allows good separation of signal vs.
292: background over a large range of $m_{\tg}$ values. In Sec. \ref{sec:results},
293: we show expected signal-to-background plots for gluino pair production and
294: discuss how these can be used to extract a measurement of the gluino mass.
295: In Sec. \ref{sec:leps}, we address leptonic signals.
296: We conclude in Sec. \ref{sec:conclude}.
297:
298:
299:
300: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
301: \section{Sparticle production and decay in the HB/FP region}
302: \label{sec:fp}
303: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
304:
305: In the mSUGRA model, for a given set of GUT scale soft SUSY breaking
306: (SSB) masses, the associated weak scale values may be computed via
307: renormalization group (RG) evolution \cite{Barger:1992ac}.
308: Once the weak scale SSB terms have been obtained, then the scalar
309: potential must be minimized to determine if electroweak symmetry
310: is properly broken.
311: While one EWSB condition allows the bilinear parameter $B$ to be traded for $\tan\beta$,
312: the other condition reads (at one-loop)
313: %
314: \be
315: \mu^2 =\frac{m_{H_d}^2-m_{H_u}^2\tan^2\beta}{(\tan^2\beta -1)}
316: -\frac{M_Z^2}{2} ,
317: \label{eq:ewsb}
318: \ee
319: which determines the magnitude of the superpotential $\mu$ parameter.
320: Thus, one condition that EWSB is successfully broken is that a positive value
321: of $\mu^2$ has been generated.
322: Roughly, if all the soft parameters entering Eq. \ref{eq:ewsb} are
323: of order $M_Z^2$, then naturalness is satisfied, and the model is not fine-tuned.
324:
325: For a fixed value of the parameter $m_{1/2}$ in the mSUGRA model,
326: if $m_0$ is taken to be of order the weak scale, then $m_{H_u}^2$ is driven to
327: negative values at the weak scale owing to the push from the large top quark Yukawa coupling
328: in the RGEs.
329: However, if $m_0$ is taken too large, then the GUT scale value of $m_{H_u}^2$ is so high that
330: it is not driven to negative
331: values when the weak scale is reached in RG running,
332: and a positive value of $\mu^2$ cannot be found.
333: Intermediate to these two extreme cases must exist a region
334: where $\mu^2$ is found to be zero, which forms the large $m_0$ edge
335: of parameter space.
336: If $\mu^2$ is positive, but tiny, then extremely light higgsino-like
337: charginos will be generated, in conflict with bounds from LEP2,
338: which require $m_{\tw_1}>103.5$ GeV. If $\mu^2$ is large enough to evade LEP2 limits,
339: then large higgsino-bino mixing occurs in the chargino and neutralino sectors,
340: and in fact the lightest neutralino becomes a mixed higgsino-bino dark matter
341: particle. A lightest neutralino of mixed higgsino-bino form has a large annihilation
342: rate to vector bosons in the early universe,
343: and hence may have a dark matter relic density in accord with WMAP measurements.
344: In this region, dubbed the hyperbolic branch/focus point region,
345: multi-TeV squark and slepton masses can co-exist with low fine-tuning as dictated
346: by Eq. \ref{eq:ewsb}.
347: Thus, the HB/FP region is characterized by TeV-scale squark and slepton masses, which are
348: useful for suppressing possible FCNC or CP-violating processes, low fine-tuning,
349: and a dark matter relic density in accord with WMAP.
350: Given these qualities, it is important to investigate what HB/FP supersymmetry events would look
351: like at the LHC collider and what sort of mass measurements could be made in this region.
352:
353: \begin{table}[htdp]
354: \begin{center}
355: \begin{tabular}{|c|ccccc|}
356: \hline
357: Point & $m_0$ & $m_{1/2}$ & $M_{\tilde g}$ & $\delta M_{\tilde g}/M_{\tilde g}$ & $\Gamma_{\tilde g}$ \\
358: \hline
359: FP0 & 2300 & 200 & 591 & LEP2 excl. & 0.2 \\
360: FP1 & 2450 & 225 & 655 & LEP2 excl. & 0.4 \\
361: FP2 & 2550 & 250 & 717 & $\pm 10\%$ & 0.6\\
362: FP3 & 2700 & 300 & 838 & $\pm 8\%$ & 1.1\\
363: FP4 & 2910 & 350 & 959 & $\pm 7\%$ & 1.8\\
364: FP5 & 3050 & 400 & 1076 & $\pm 8\%$ & 2.7\\
365: FP6 & 3410 & 500 & 1310 & $\pm 8\%$ & 5.1\\
366: FP7 & 3755 & 600 & 1540 & --- & 8.1\\
367: FP8 & 4100 & 700 & 1766 & --- & 11.8\\
368: FP9 & 4716 & 900 & 2211 & --- & 20.7\\
369: \hline
370: \end{tabular}
371: \end{center}
372: \caption{Points in the HB/FP region that yield a relic density $\Omega_{\tz_1}h^2\sim 0.11$. Common values of $\tan \beta = 30$, $A_0 = 0$, $\mu >0$ and $m_t=175$ GeV are assumed. The gluino mass in GeV and its anticipated measurement uncertainty at the LHC are also given. The total gluino width is given in MeV.}
373: \label{tab:fppoints}
374: \end{table}%
375:
376:
377: \begin{figure}[htbp]
378: \begin{center}
379: \includegraphics[angle=-90,width=0.59\textwidth]{rdscan.eps}
380: \caption{Regions of allowed relic density in the $m_0$ vs. $m_{1/2}$ plane for $A_0 = 0$, $\tan \beta = 30$ and $m_t=175$ GeV. Points in the HB/FP region from Table \ref{tab:fppoints} that are consistent with the observed relic density $\Omega_{\tz_1}h^2\sim 0.11$ are shown by a blue x. The white region above the focus point and surrounding the coannihilation region give and overdensity of neutralino dark matter.}
381: \label{fig:rdscan}
382: \end{center}
383: \end{figure}
384:
385:
386:
387: We have generated sparticle mass spectra in the HB/FP region using Isajet v7.74, retaining
388: only points which yield a relic density $\Omega_{\tz_1}h^2\sim 0.11$. These points and the anticipated measurement uncertainty are listed in Table \ref{tab:fppoints}. Since the scalar quarks are decoupled, the gluino decays via suppressed 3-body decays, making the gluino width small and not a significant source of mass measurement uncertainty. In Fig. \ref{fig:rdscan}, we show the points in the HB/FP from Table \ref{tab:fppoints} in the $m_0$ vs. $m_{1/2}$ plane. Isajet uses two-loop RGEs
389: for the scalar mass evolution, and minimizes the RG-improved one-loop effective potential
390: at an optimized scale $Q=\sqrt{m_{\tst_L}m_{\tst_R}}$ (which accounts for leading two-loop
391: effects). A unique feature of Isajet's sparticle mass algorithm is that it decouples
392: various SSB terms from the RG evolution at their own mass scales, which gives a more
393: gradual transition from the MSSM to the SM effective theory, as opposed to other approaches
394: which use an ``all-at-once'' transition. Thus, the Isajet algorithm should give a
395: good representation of sparticle mass spectra in cases that involve a severely split mass spectrum,
396: such as in the HB/FP region.
397:
398: In Fig. \ref{fig:mass}, we show the sparticle mass spectra as a function of $m_{1/2}$
399: along a line with $\Omega_{\tz_1}h^2\sim 0.11$, for $\tan\beta =30$, $A_0=0$ and $\mu >0$.
400: The physics in the HB/FP region is not very sensitive to $\tan\beta$ or $A_0$, since the scalar
401: masses effectively decouple.
402: We take $m_t=175$ GeV, but note that the $m_0$ value needed to obtain the correct relic density
403: is extremely sensitive to the value of $m_t$ used, as shown in Ref. \cite{bkt}.
404: In our case, since the scalar masses are expected
405: to decouple, the $m_t$ dependence should not matter greatly for the phenomenology of
406: interest.\footnote{In our study, we adopt the reference value $m_t=175$ GeV to allow comparisons with other studies. The recent world average for the $t$-quark mass is $m_t=171.4$ GeV \cite{tmass}.}
407: %
408: \begin{figure}[htbp]
409: \begin{center}
410: \includegraphics[angle=0,width=0.59\textwidth]{fp-mass.eps}
411: \caption{Sparticle masses vs. $m_{1/2}$ along lines with constant
412: $\Omega_{\tz_1}h^2=0.11$ in the HB/FP region of mSUGRA with $A_0=0$,
413: $\tan\beta =30$, $\mu >0$ and $m_t=175$ GeV.}
414: \label{fig:mass}
415: \end{center}
416: \end{figure}
417: %
418:
419: While squarks, sleptons and heavy Higgs scalars range in mass
420: from $2.5-4.5$ TeV along the range of $m_{1/2}$ shown
421: in Fig. \ref{fig:mass}, the $\tg$ remains relatively light, of order $650-2200$ GeV.
422: In addition, since $\mu$ and $m_{1/2}$ are low, the charginos and neutralinos are {\it all}
423: quite light, and possibly accessible to LHC experiments.
424: The lower edge of the plot where $m_{1/2}\alt 250$ GeV is excluded by the LEP2 constraint
425: on the chargino mass.
426:
427: In Fig. \ref{fig:sigma}, we show sparticle pair production rates as a function of $m_{\tg}$
428: in the HB/FP region. While the production cross sections are evaluated at lowest order in
429: perturbation theory, we adopt a renormalization/factorization scale choice $Q=(m_1+m_2)/4$
430: for the gluino pair production cross section which gives good agreement
431: between LO and NLO results\cite{spira}.\footnote{NLO gluino, chargino and neutralino
432: cross sections are shown versus weak scale gaugino mass $M_1$ in the HB/FP region in
433: Ref. \cite{bkpu}.} For low values of $m_{\tg}\sim 700$ GeV,
434: gluino pair production is in the pb range, while a variety of chargino and neutralino
435: production processes ({\it e.g.} $\tw_1\tz_{1,2,3}$ and $\tw_1^+\tw_1^-$ production)
436: have comparable rates. For higher values of $m_{\tg}$, the gluino pair production cross section drops quickly,
437: and is below the fb level for $m_{\tg}>1900$ GeV. The various chargino and neutralino
438: production rates drop less quickly, and turn out to be by far the dominant
439: sparticle production cross sections for $m_{\tg}\agt 1.5$ TeV.
440: %
441: \begin{figure}[htbp]
442: \begin{center}
443: \includegraphics[angle=0,width=0.59\textwidth]{fp-sigma.eps}
444: \caption{Selected sparticle pair production cross sections
445: vs. $m_{\tg}$ along a line of constant
446: $\Omega_{\tz_1}h^2=0.11$ in the HB/FP region of mSUGRA with $A_0=0$,
447: $\tan\beta =30$, $\mu >0$ and $m_t=175$ GeV.}
448: \label{fig:sigma}
449: \end{center}
450: \end{figure}
451:
452: In the WMAP-allowed HB/FP region, since squarks have masses in the TeV range, only three-body
453: decay modes of the gluino are allowed. Moreover, since the $\mu$ parameter is small and the lighter inos
454: have a large higgsino component, the third generation quark-squark-ino couplings are
455: enhanced by top quark Yukawa coupling terms\cite{btw,wbsig},
456: and gluinos dominantly decay to third generation particles, especially the top quark.
457: Thus, the dominant gluino decays modes in the HB/FP region
458: consist of $\tg\to t\bar{t}\tz_i$ or $t\bar{b}\tw_j$. Some major $\tg$ branching fractions are listed
459: in Table \ref{tab:glbf} for a case study which we label as FP5 with $m_{\tg}=1076$ GeV. The Feynman diagrams of these dominant decay modes are shown in Fig. \ref{fig:fd}. Thus, we expect in the HB/FP region that $pp\to \tg\tg X$ will yield events with
460: very large jet and $b$-jet multiplicities, and isolated leptons. However, the combinatoric
461: backgrounds will likely make kinematic reconstruction of mass edges which depend on $m_{\tg}$
462: very difficult. Meanwhile, for the same case study as in Table \ref{tab:glbf},
463: since $\tz_2\to e^+e^-\tz_1$ and $\tz_3\to e^+e^-\tz_1$ both occur at a
464: branching fraction of 3.4\%, it might be possible to see both the $\tz_2-\tz_1$ and
465: $\tz_3-\tz_1$ mass edges in distributions of invariant opposite-sign/same flavor
466: isolated dileptons.
467: \begin{figure}[htbp]
468: \begin{center}
469: \includegraphics[width=0.29\textwidth]{gldec-a.eps}
470: \hspace{1in}\includegraphics[width=0.29\textwidth]{gldec-b.eps}
471: \caption{Feynman diagrams of dominant gluino decays in the HB/FP region.}
472: \label{fig:fd}
473: \end{center}
474: \end{figure}
475:
476: %\TABLE{
477: \begin{table}
478: \begin{center}
479: \begin{tabular}{lc}
480: \hline
481: mode & BF \\
482: \hline
483: $\tg\to t\bar{t}\tz_1$ & 3.9\% \\
484: $\tg\to t\bar{t}\tz_2$ & 14.2\% \\
485: $\tg\to t\bar{t}\tz_3$ & 15.0\% \\
486: $\tg\to t\bar{t}\tz_4$ & 5.6\% \\
487: $\tg\to t\bar{b}\tw_1+c.c$ & 26.8\% \\
488: $\tg\to t\bar{b}\tw_2+c.c.$ & 13.9\% \\
489: \hline
490: \end{tabular}
491: \caption{Selected branching fractions of the $\tg$ for FP5 case study
492: with parameters $m_0=3050$ GeV, $m_{1/2}=400$ GeV, $A_0=0$, $\tan\beta =30$
493: and $\mu >0$.
494: }
495: \label{tab:glbf}
496: \end{center}
497: \end{table}
498: %
499:
500: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
501: \section{HB/FP signal and background event generation}
502: \label{sec:evgen}
503: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
504:
505: We use Isajet 7.74\cite{isajet} for the simulation of signal and
506: background events at the LHC. A toy detector simulation is employed with
507: calorimeter cell size
508: $\Delta\eta\times\Delta\phi=0.05\times 0.05$ and $-5<\eta<5$. The HCAL
509: energy resolution is taken to be $80\%/\sqrt{E}+3\%$ for $|\eta|<2.6$ and
510: FCAL is $100\%/\sqrt{E}+5\%$ for $|\eta|>2.6$.
511: The ECAL energy resolution
512: is assumed to be $3\%/\sqrt{E}+0.5\%$. We use a UA1-like jet finding algorithm
513: with jet cone size $R=0.4$ and require that $E_T(jet)>50$ GeV and
514: $|\eta (jet)|<3.0$. Leptons are considered
515: isolated if they have $p_T(e\ or\ \mu)>20$ GeV and $|\eta|<2.5$ with
516: visible activity within a cone of $\Delta R<0.2$ of
517: $\Sigma E_T^{cells}<5$ GeV. The strict isolation criterion helps reduce
518: multi-lepton backgrounds from heavy quark ($c\bar c$ and $b\bar{b}$) production.
519:
520: We identify a hadronic cluster with $E_T>50$ GeV and $|\eta(j)|<1.5$
521: as a $b$-jet if it contains a $B$ hadron with $p_T(B)>15$ GeV and
522: $|\eta (B)|<3$ within a cone of $\Delta R<0.5$ about the jet axis. We
523: adopt a $b$-jet tagging efficiency of 60\%, and assume that
524: light quark and gluon jets can be mis-tagged as $b$-jets with a
525: probability $1/150$ for $E_T<100$ GeV, $1/50$ for $E_T>250$ GeV,
526: with a linear interpolation for $100$ GeV$<E_T<$ 250 GeV.
527:
528: We have generated 200K events each for a variety of $m_{1/2}$ values
529: in the HB/FP region restricted to have $\Omega_{\tz_1}h^2\sim 0.11$.
530: In addition, we have generated background events using Isajet for
531: QCD jet production (jet-types include $g$, $u$, $d$, $s$, $c$ and $b$
532: quarks) over five $p_T$ ranges as shown in Table \ref{tab:bg}.
533: Additional jets are generated via parton showering from the initial and final state
534: hard scattering subprocesses.
535: We have also generated backgrounds in the $W+jets$, $Z+jets$,
536: $t\bar{t}(175)$ and $WW,\ WZ,\ ZZ$ channels at the rates shown in
537: Table \ref{tab:bg}. The $W+jets$ and $Z+jets$ backgrounds
538: use exact matrix elements for one parton emission, but rely on the
539: parton shower for subsequent emissions.
540: %\TABLE{
541: \begin{table}
542: \begin{center}
543: \begin{tabular}{lccc}
544: \hline
545: process & events & $\sigma$ (fb) & cuts C1 (fb) \\
546: \hline
547: QCD ($p_T:50-100$ GeV) & $10^6$ & $2.6\times 10^{10}$ & --\\
548: QCD ($p_T:100-200$ GeV) & $10^6$ & $1.5\times 10^{9}$ & 1513.3 \\
549: QCD ($p_T:200-400$ GeV) & $10^6$ & $7.3\times 10^{7}$ & 3873.7 \\
550: QCD ($p_T:400-1000$ GeV) & $10^6$ & $2.7\times 10^{6}$ & 486.0 \\
551: QCD ($p_T:1000-2400$ GeV) & $10^6$ & $1.5\times 10^{4}$ & 4.4\\
552: $W+jets; W\to e,\mu,\tau$ $(p_T(W):100-4000$ GeV)& $5\times 10^5$ &
553: $3.9\times 10^{5}$ & 1815.9 \\
554: $Z+jets; Z\to \tau\bar{\tau},\ \nu s$ $(p_T(Z):100-3000$ GeV) & $5\times 10^5$ &
555: $1.4\times 10^{5}$ & 845.3 \\
556: $t\bar{t}$ & $3\times 10^6$ & $4.6\times 10^{5}$ & 6415.8 \\
557: $WW,ZZ,WZ$ & $5\times 10^5$ & $8.0\times 10^{4}$ & 9.3 \\
558: signal (FP5: $m_{\tg}=1076$ GeV) & $2\times 10^5$ & $1.2\times 10^{3}$ & 77.5 \\
559: \hline
560: \end{tabular}
561: \caption{Events generated and cross sections for various SM background
562: processes plus one HB/FP case study FP5
563: with $m_0=3050$ GeV, $m_{1/2}=400$ GeV, $A_0=0$, $\tan\beta =30$
564: and $\mu >0$. The C1 cuts are specified in Eqns. ($4 - 7$).}
565: \label{tab:bg}
566: \end{center}
567: \end{table}
568: %
569:
570:
571:
572: \section{Event characteristics in the HB/FP region}
573: \label{sec:dist}
574:
575: We begin by applying a set of pre-cuts to our event samples, which we list
576: as cuts set C1\cite{frank}:
577: %
578: \\
579: \\
580: \textbf{C1 Cuts:}
581: \bea
582: \eslt & >& (100\ {\rm GeV},0.2 M_{eff}),\\
583: n(jets) &\ge & 4,\\
584: E_T(j1,j2,j3,j4)& > & 100,\ 50,50,50\ {\rm GeV},\\
585: S_T &>&0.2 .
586: \label{c1cutsend}
587: \eea
588: %
589: Here, $M_{eff}$ is defined as in Hinchliffe {\it et al.}\cite{frank} as
590: $M_{eff}=\eslt +E_T(j1)+E_T(j2)+E_T(j3)+E_T(j4)$, where $j1-j4$ refer to the
591: four highest $E_T$ jets ordered from highest to lowest $E_T$,
592: $\eslt$ is missing transverse energy and $S_T$ is transverse sphericity.
593: The event rates in fb are listed after C1 in Table \ref{tab:bg},
594: and we find that signal with these cuts is swamped by various SM backgrounds, especially those
595: from QCD multi-jet production and $t\bar{t}$ production.
596:
597: Next, we investigate a variety of distributions.
598: We show in Fig. \ref{fig:meff} the $M_{eff}$ distribution after using
599: C1. The gray histogram denotes the sum of all backgrounds, while
600: individual BG contributions are identified by the legend. The signal for
601: case study FP5 is denoted by the purple histogram. In many models
602: investigated by Hinchliffe {\it et al.}, it was found that signal emerges
603: from BG at an $M_{eff}$ value near the peak of the distribution,
604: which in fact provides a rough estimate of the strongly interacting
605: sparticle masses involved in the production subprocess.
606: In the HB/FP region, however, squarks have decoupled from the hadronic
607: sparticle production cross section, so only gluino pair production contributes.
608: In addition, since in the HB/FP region gluinos decay via three-body modes,
609: the average jet $E_T$ is reduced significantly
610: compared to SUSY cases with similar sparticle masses but with
611: dominantly 2-body decays. Hence, in the HB/FP region, the $M_{eff}$
612: distribution from the signal is typically buried beneath SM BG. In addition, for this case study, we see
613: some structure to the $M_{eff}$ distribution in the form of
614: two separate peaks (which stand out more clearly on a linear scale, when BG is neglected).
615: The peak near $M_{eff}\sim 500$ GeV comes dominantly from the {\it soft} signal component,
616: which is mainly high $p_T$ chargino and neutralino production, which after all is the
617: dominant sparticle production process in the HB/FP region. A second peak around
618: $M_{eff}\sim 1200$ GeV comes from gluino pair production, which we denote as the
619: {\it hard} component of the signal.
620: %In the Appendix, we also show distributions
621: %in $\eslt$, $E_T(j1)-E_T(j4)$, $S_T$ and transverse opening angle
622: %$\Delta\phi (\vec{\eslt},\vec{p}(j1))$. While distributions in these variables
623: %help to describe aspects of collider events expected from the HB/FP region,
624: %we will not make further use of them in this section.\footnote{Cuts utilizing these
625: %distributions have been used {\it e.g.} in Ref. \cite{bbbkt} and \cite{mmt}.}
626: %
627: \begin{figure}[htbp]
628: \begin{center}
629: \includegraphics[angle=0,width=0.59\textwidth]{fp4_cuts1-meff.eps}
630: \caption{Distribution of $M_{eff}$ from the FP5 case study
631: with $m_0=3050$ GeV, $m_{1/2}=400$ GeV, $A_0=0$, $\tan\beta =30$, $\mu >0$ and $m_t=175$ GeV
632: (where $m_{\tg}=1076$ GeV), versus various SM backgrounds.}
633: \label{fig:meff}
634: \end{center}
635: \end{figure}
636:
637: We noted earlier, based on an examination of gluino decay modes in the HB/FP region,
638: that LHC collider events ought to be characterized by large jet multiplicity,
639: large $b$-jet multiplicity and large isolated lepton multiplicity.
640: With this in mind, we show in Fig. \ref{fig:njets} the multiplicity of jets expected
641: from signal and from SM BG, after cuts C1. At low $n(jets)\sim 4-6$, the
642: distribution is dominated by QCD, $t\bar{t}$ and $W,Z+jets$ production. However,
643: at much higher jet multiplicities $\sim 9-10$, the signal distribution emerges\footnote{The use of the steps in the jet multiplicity was introduced in Ref. \cite{Wnjet} in extracting the signal of top quark pair production.} from the BG.
644: Of course, at these high jet multiplicities, one may question the validity of the
645: theoretical BG calculations. However, by investigating QCD multijet production and
646: $W,Z+jets$ production without imposing C1, it may be possible to normalize
647: the expected BG distributions to measured data, and thus obtain after LHC turn-on
648: improved estimates of expected BGs in these channels.
649: %
650: \begin{figure}[htbp]
651: \begin{center}
652: \includegraphics[angle=0,width=0.59\textwidth]{fp4_cuts1-njets.eps}
653: \caption{Distribution of number of jets in the FP5 case study
654: with $m_0=3050$ GeV, $m_{1/2}=400$ GeV, $A_0=0$, $\tan\beta =30$, $\mu >0$ and $m_t=175$ GeV
655: (where $m_{\tg}=1076$ GeV), versus various SM backgrounds.}
656: \label{fig:njets}
657: \end{center}
658: \end{figure}
659: %
660:
661: In Fig. \ref{fig:bjets}, we show the expected multiplicity of $b$-jets for signal
662: and SM BG. The soft component of signal is expected to be $b$-jet poor, since
663: it comes from hadronic chargino and neutralino decays. However, the hard component
664: is expected to typically contain at least 4 $b$-jets, aside from efficiency corrections.
665: Indeed, we see that the signal distribution extends out to high $b$-jet multiplicities
666: of $n(b-jet)\sim 5-8$, while the BG typically gives $0-2$ $b$-jets.
667: As noted previously, Mercadante {\it et al.} exploited this fact to enhance the LHC reach for
668: SUSY in the HB/FP region\cite{mmt}.
669: %
670: \begin{figure}[htbp]
671: \begin{center}
672: \includegraphics[angle=0,width=0.59\textwidth]{fp4_cuts1-nbjets.eps}
673: \caption{Distribution of number of $b$-jets for the FP5 case study
674: with $m_0=3050$ GeV, $m_{1/2}=400$ GeV, $A_0=0$,$\tan\beta =30$, $\mu >0$ and $m_t=175$ GeV
675: (where $m_{\tg}=1076$ GeV), versus various SM backgrounds.}
676: \label{fig:bjets}
677: \end{center}
678: \end{figure}
679: %
680:
681: In Fig. \ref{fig:nleps}, we show the multiplicity of isolated leptons: electrons or muons.
682: Again, while low lepton multiplicity is dominated by SM backgrounds, the high lepton
683: multiplicity should be dominated by signal, owing to the lengthy gluino cascade decays,
684: which can spin off additional isolated leptons at various stages.
685: %
686: \begin{figure}[htbp]
687: \begin{center}
688: \includegraphics[angle=0,width=0.59\textwidth]{fp4_cuts1-nleps.eps}
689: \caption{Distribution of number of isolated leptons for the FP5 case study
690: with $m_0=3050$ GeV, $m_{1/2}=400$ GeV, $A_0=0$,$\tan\beta =30$, $\mu >0$ and $m_t=175$ GeV
691: (where $m_{\tg}=1076$ GeV), versus various SM backgrounds.}
692: \label{fig:nleps}
693: \end{center}
694: \end{figure}
695: %
696:
697: At this point, it is evident that requiring collider events with high jet and high $b$-jet
698: multiplicity will aid in separating signal from BG in the HB/FP region. Thus, in
699: Fig. \ref{fig:meffb}, we show the {\it augmented} effective mass distribution $A_T$,
700: where
701: \be
702: A_T=\eslt +\sum_{leptons}E_T +\sum_{jets}E_T ,
703: \ee
704: which gives the added contribution of additional jets beyond $n(jets)=4$ and also
705: a contribution from isolated leptons.
706: The distributions in Fig. \ref{fig:meffb} all contain, along with cuts C1, $n(jets)\ge 6$ and
707: {\it a}) $n(b-jets)\ge 0$, {\it b}) $n(b-jets)\ge 1$, {\it c}) $n(b-jets)\ge 2$ and
708: {\it d}) $n(b-jets)\ge 3$. As we move to higher $b$-jet multiplicity, the signal distribution
709: begins to stand out clearly from BG, which is dominated at this point by $t\bar{t}$ production.
710: %
711: \begin{figure}[htbp]
712: \begin{center}
713: \includegraphics[angle=0,width=0.45\textwidth]{fp4_cuts1-ameff6j.eps}
714: \includegraphics[angle=0,width=0.45\textwidth]{fp4+1b_cuts1-ameff6j.eps}\\
715: \includegraphics[angle=0,width=0.45\textwidth]{fp4+2b_cuts1-ameff6j.eps}
716: \includegraphics[angle=0,width=0.45\textwidth]{fp4+3b_cuts1-ameff6j.eps}
717: \caption{Distribution in $A_T$ (defined in Eq. 8) in events with $n(jets)\ge 6$ with varying number of
718: $b$-tags, for the FP5 case study
719: with $m_0=3050$ GeV, $m_{1/2}=400$ GeV, $A_0=0$,$\tan\beta =30$, $\mu >0$ and $m_t=175$ GeV
720: (where $m_{\tg}=1076$ GeV), versus various SM backgrounds.}
721: \label{fig:meffb}
722: \end{center}
723: \end{figure}
724: %
725:
726: Alternatively, we can move to higher jet multiplicity. In Fig. \ref{fig:meff7}, we
727: again plot $A_T$ but this time for $n(jets)\ge 7$ and $n(b-jets)\ge 2$. The signal emerges from the BG
728: clearly above $A_T\sim 1300-1400$ GeV, and has an advantage over Fig. \ref{fig:meffb}{\it d}) in that
729: a somewhat larger signal rate remains after cuts. For the case shown, by imposing $A_T>1400$ GeV,
730: we are left with a signal cross section for case FP5 of 11.1 fb, while BG from $t\bar{t}$ production is at the
731: $1.5$ fb level with a tiny contribution from QCD multi-jet production.
732: In addition, the remaining signal is 98\% from gluino pair production, so is almost entirely
733: from the hard component of the signal.
734: %
735: \begin{figure}[htbp]
736: \begin{center}
737: \includegraphics[angle=0,width=0.59\textwidth]{fp4+2b_cuts1-ameff7j.eps}
738: \caption{Distribution of $A_T$ in events with $\ge 7$ jets and $\ge 2$ $b$-tags, from the FP5 case study
739: with $m_0=3050$ GeV, $m_{1/2}=400$ GeV, $A_0=0$,$\tan\beta =30$, $\mu >0$ and $m_t=175$ GeV
740: (where $m_{\tg}=1076$ GeV), versus various SM backgrounds.}
741: \label{fig:meff7}
742: \end{center}
743: \end{figure}
744:
745:
746: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
747: \section{Signal, background and sparticle mass extraction}
748: \label{sec:results}
749: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
750:
751: We will adopt the cuts of Sec. \ref{sec:dist} as our cut set C2:
752: \\
753: \\
754: \textbf{C2 Cuts:}
755: \beas
756: & apply\ cut\ set\ C1 & \\
757: & n(jets)\ge 7 & \\
758: & n(b-jets)\ge 2 & \\
759: & A_T\ge 1400\ {\rm GeV}.
760: \eeas
761: These cuts have been optimized for $m_{\tg}\sim 1$ TeV. Next, we plot in Fig. \ref{fig:sigmgl}
762: the event rate after C2
763: versus $m_{\tg}$ along a line of FP region with $\Omega_{\tz_1}h^2\sim 0.11$, with
764: $\tan\beta =30$, $A_0=0$ and $\mu >0$. For $m_{\tg}\alt 700$ GeV, $m_{\tw_1}< 103.5$ GeV, so the
765: region is excluded by LEP2 chargino pair searches. The solid blue curve denotes the signal
766: rate after cuts C2, while the brown dot-dashed curve denotes SM BG. Signal rates are
767: typically in the multi-fb regime, and exceed BG out to $m_{\tg}\sim 1500$ GeV.
768: %
769: \begin{figure}[htbp]
770: \begin{center}
771: \includegraphics[angle=0,width=0.59\textwidth]{at-7j+2b-mgl.eps}
772: \caption{Cross section after C1 plus $\ge 7$ jets, $\ge 2$ $b$-tags and
773: $A_T>1400$ GeV, for various points along the HB/FP region with $\Omega_{\tz_1}h^2\sim 0.11$
774: with $A_0=0$,$\tan\beta =30$, $\mu >0$ and $m_t=175$ GeV, versus $m_{\tg}$.
775: We also show a band of the theoretically expected uncertainty of our results due to variations in
776: factorization/renormalization scale and variations in $m_{\tq}\sim 2-5$ TeV.
777: We also show the level of expected SM background.}
778: \label{fig:sigmgl}
779: \end{center}
780: \end{figure}
781:
782: Since the signal in Fig. \ref{fig:sigmgl} comes from nearly pure $\tg\tg$ production,
783: the total rate can be used as an absolute measure of the gluino mass. There are of course a variety of
784: theoretical uncertainties which arise. One comes from how well-known is the absolute gluino pair
785: production cross section. The value of $\sigma (\tg\tg )$ has been computed to NLO in QCD in
786: Ref. \cite{spira}, where it is shown that a variation in renormalization/factorization
787: scale leads to an uncertainty in $\sigma (\tg\tg )$ of $\pm 11\%$. A further uncertainty arises from
788: variations in the squark mass. Here, we are assuming decoupled scalars, so variation due to changes
789: in $m_{\tq}$ are expected to be small. Nonethless, we find that by varying $m_{\tq}:2-5$ TeV,
790: the cross section still varies by $\pm 10\%$. Folding the NLO uncertainty in quadrature with the
791: $m_{\tq}$ uncertainty, we estimate the cross section uncertainty at $\pm 15\%$, and plot the
792: expected theory cross section variation as the blue dashed lines.
793:
794: At this point, it can be asked how well will we know the gluino branching fractions, upon
795: which the signal rate also depends. Here, we remark that in the region with decoupled scalars, we are
796: relying on a value of $\mu$ that is just right so that the neutralino LSP saturates the CDM relic density
797: measurement. Small variations in $\mu$ about this region are found to lead to
798: only small changes in the gluino branching fractions. This is shown in Fig. \ref{fig:bfs},
799: where we plot in frame {\it a}) variations in $\Omega_{\tz_1}h^2$ versus $\mu$, and
800: in frame {\it b}) variations in the dominant gluino branching fractions.
801: In the plot, we adopt as usual the case study FP5, and vary $\mu$ by adopting the
802: non-universal Higgs soft mass model\cite{nuhm} in Isajet, which allows use of mSUGRA parameters, but also
803: independent variation in the $\mu$ and $m_A$ parameters (we keep $m_A$ fixed).
804: %
805: \begin{figure}[htbp]
806: \begin{center}
807: \includegraphics[angle=-90,width=0.49\textwidth]{mu-vs-rd.eps}\\
808: \vspace{.2in}\includegraphics[angle=-90,width=0.49\textwidth]{bf_muscan.eps}
809: \caption{{\it a}) Variation in neutralino relic density with variation in $\mu$ for case study FP5.
810: In {\it b}), we show variation in dominat gluino branching fractions versus $\mu$.}
811: \label{fig:bfs}
812: \end{center}
813: \end{figure}
814:
815: It might also be argued that the event rate depends on the value of $\tan\beta$ that we have
816: selected for our case study. In fact, since scalar masses have decoupled, $b$ and $\tau$ Yukawa
817: coupling effects are tiny, and the variation of the signal after cuts C2 with $\tan\beta$
818: is comparatively negligible, as long as we require that the $\mu$ value be fixed so that one
819: obtains the relic density $\Omega_{\tz_1}h^2\sim 0.11$. This is illustrated in Table \ref{tab:tanb},
820: where we plot signal rate after cuts C2 for $\tan\beta =10$, 20, 30, 40 and 50. In each case,
821: the value of $m_{1/2}$ is fixed at 400 GeV, but $m_0$ is chosen so that the correct relic density
822: is obtained. The resulting cross section after cuts C2 shows only a $\pm 6\%$ variability.
823: Meanwhile, variations in the $A_0$ parameter again mainly affect the scalar sector, but since these
824: decouple, the effects should again be small.
825: %
826: %\TABLE{
827: \begin{table}
828: \begin{center}
829: \begin{tabular}{lcc}
830: \hline
831: $m_0$ & $\tan\beta$ & $\sigma $(C2) (fb) \\
832: \hline
833: 4090 & 10 & 9.92 \\
834: 3150 & 20 & 10.45 \\
835: 3050 & 30 & 11.15 \\
836: 3000 & 40 & 11.04 \\
837: 2970 & 50 & 11.17 \\
838: \hline
839: \end{tabular}
840: \caption{Cross section after cuts C2 for HB/FP cases with $m_{1/2}=400$ GeV,
841: $A_0=0$, $\mu >0$ and $m_t=175$ GeV.
842: We list the $m_0$ value required to give $\Omega_{\tz_1}h^2\sim 0.11$
843: for different $\tan\beta$ values.
844: }
845: \label{tab:tanb}
846: \end{center}
847: \end{table}
848: %
849:
850: A further consideration is to ask how well we really know our background estimates.
851: At this stage, the answer is difficult to know, and depends on several factors, including
852: how well the selected event generator, Isajet, models SM backgrounds. If indeed $t\bar{t}$
853: production is the dominant BG, then the plethora of $t\bar{t}$ events
854: produced at the LHC will allow detailed study of this reaction, so that the distributions will be
855: well-known from data.
856: Better theory modeling-- such as inclusion of exact matrix elements for extra
857: jet radiation\cite{bcr}-- will also help.
858: Likewise, it can be expected that $W+jets$, $Z+jets$ and QCD backgrounds
859: will also be well-studied, and the high $n(jet)$ and high $A_T$ tails will be better known due to
860: actual collider measurements.
861: In any case, we try to make a rough estimate by simply assuming that our event generator
862: background is known to $\pm 100\%$. We add and subtract this BG uncertainty to our theory curves in Fig. \ref{fig:sigmgl}, with the resultant band being denoted by orange dashed lines.
863:
864: At this point, we can try to estimate the precision with which the gluino mass can be extracted
865: from total cross section measurements. We show in Fig. \ref{fig:sigmgl} as data points the
866: error bars expected from measuring the total cross section after cuts C2 with an assumed 100 fb$^{-1}$ of
867: integrated luminosity (red data points).
868: A simple estimate of the uncertainty can be gained from the intersection of the upper and lower limits
869: on the statistical cross section measurement with the band of theory uncertainty. Using this method,
870: we find that points 2-6 yield a gluino mass measured in the range of $\pm 8\%$, as shown in
871: Table \ref{tab:fppoints}.
872: The precision will increase or decrease
873: depending on the ultimate uncertainty ascribed to the BG by the experimental groups.
874: It would also decrease if an NNLO computation of gluino pair production is made.
875: Note that even
876: if the statistical error bars drop to zero (infinite integrated luminosity), the theory uncertainty
877: still gives $\sim 7$\% uncertainty.
878: FP1-- which is below the LEP2 excluded boundary-- is difficult to measure because the projected
879: theory curves level off for lower values of $m_{\tg}$. This is just a result of the
880: fact that we optimized cuts in the 1 TeV $m_{\tg}$ region. A better optimization with softer cuts
881: would need to be performed to extract these lower gluino masses. For $m_{\tg}\agt 1300$ GeV,
882: another optimization would be needed with harder cuts. Here, the absolute gluino pair event rate
883: is dropping, so we expect a rate-based measurement of $m_{\tg}$ would be more challenging and perhaps
884: not feasible in this higher mass region.
885:
886:
887: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
888: \section{Leptonic signatures}
889: \label{sec:leps}
890: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
891:
892: While the analysis in Sec. \ref{sec:results} focussed on lepton-inclusive signals, it is also
893: useful to make use of the isolated lepton content of the signal. We expect events
894: containing multiple isolated leptons to have somewhat reduced jet multiplicity compared to
895: events with zero or one isolated lepton. To proceed with the multi-lepton channels,
896: we retained cuts C1 and examined the $A_T$ distribution maintaining $n(b-jets)\ge 2$ but
897: requiring $n(jets)\ge 4$ or $5$. The distribution in $A_T$ for $n(jets)\ge 4$ is shown in
898: Fig. \ref{fig:ATlepsge2}. Here we see signal emerging from BG for $A_T>1200$ GeV.
899: (The plot using $n(jets)\ge 5$ is similar, but with lower signal and BG rates.)
900: Hence, we adopt cut set C3 for events with 2 or more isolated leptons:
901: \\
902: \\
903: \textbf{C3 Cuts:}
904: \beas
905: & cuts\ set\ C1 & \\
906: & n(isol.\ leptons)\ge 2 & \\
907: & n(jets)\ge 4 & \\
908: & b(b-jets)\ge 2 & \\
909: & A_T\ge 1200\ {\rm GeV}
910: \eeas
911: %
912: \begin{figure}[htbp]
913: \begin{center}
914: \includegraphics[angle=0,width=0.59\textwidth]{fp4_2l2b-at4j.eps}
915: \caption{Distribution in $A_T$ of events with cuts C1, $n(leps)\ge 2$, $n(b-jets)\ge 2$ and
916: $n(jets)\ge 4$ for the FP5 case study with $m_{\tg}=1076$ GeV.}
917: \label{fig:ATlepsge2}
918: \end{center}
919: \end{figure}
920:
921: In Fig. \ref{fig:sigleps}, we show the signal rate of various multi-lepton topologies
922: versus $m_{\tg}$ for FP cases with $A_0=0$, $\tan\beta =30$ and $\mu >0$.
923: The zero and one lepton topologies use cuts C2, while the same-sign (SS) dilepton,
924: opposite sign dilepton (OS) and trilepton rates use cuts C3. We see that there should be consistent
925: signals above SM backgrounds in all the various multi-lepton channels for much of the mass
926: range of $m_{\tg}$. Same sign lepton events would establish the Majorana nature of the gluino\cite{ssdl}.
927: %
928: \begin{figure}[htbp]
929: \begin{center}
930: \includegraphics[angle=0,width=0.59\textwidth]{lep-sigma.eps}
931: \caption{Event rates for zero and one isolated lepton events after cuts C2,
932: and OS and SS dileptons and trileptons after cuts C3, versus
933: $m_{\tg}$. Zero and one lepton backgrounds are shown with the same color as the signal. We found no backgrounds events to OS, SS and $3l$ to the cross section level shown.}
934: \label{fig:sigleps}
935: \end{center}
936: \end{figure}
937: %
938:
939: It is also well-known that kinematic information on neutralino mass differences can be gleaned
940: by examining the invariant mass distribution of opposite-sign/same flavor
941: dilepton pairs (OS/SF)\cite{mll}.
942: We plot in Fig. \ref{fig:mll} the invariant mass distribution for case study FP4.
943: The HB/FP region is characterized by the fact that $m_{\tz_2}-m_{\tz_1}< M_Z$ {\it and} by
944: $m_{\tz_3}-m_{\tz_1}<M_Z$, so that two-body spoiler decays of $\tz_2$ and $\tz_3$ are closed. We then
945: expect two mass edges in the $m(\ell^+\ell^- )$ distribution: in the case of FP4,
946: one is at $m_{\tz_2}-m_{\tz_1}=53.8$ GeV
947: and another at $m_{\tz_3}-m_{\tz_1}=75.1$ GeV. Indeed, the double mass edge structure
948: is becoming visible in the $M_{l \bar l}$ distribution with 100 fb$^{-1}$ of data as shown in Fig. \ref{fig:mll}.
949: %
950: \begin{figure}[htbp]
951: \begin{center}
952: \includegraphics[angle=0,width=0.59\textwidth]{mllossf_cuts3.eps}
953: \caption{Distribution in OS/SF dilepton invariant mass for
954: case FP4 using cuts C3. Two mass edges are becoming apparent at a luminosity of 100 fb$^{-1}$, in addition to the $Z$ peak.}
955: \label{fig:mll}
956: \end{center}
957: \end{figure}
958: %
959:
960:
961: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
962: \section{Conclusions}
963: \label{sec:conclude}
964: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
965:
966: In this paper, we have examined the sort of collider events to be expected at the CERN LHC for
967: SUSY models in the HB/FP region of the mSUGRA model.
968: We found that by requiring high jet and $b$-jet multiplicity, and a high effective mass cut,
969: a rather pure signal emerged from a dominantly $t\bar{t}$ SM background. Since the signal came almost entirely
970: from gluino pair production, and the decay branching fractions were fixed by assuming the
971: neutralino relic density saturated the WMAP $\Omega_{\tz_1}h^2$ measurement,
972: the total signal rate could be used to extract an estimate of the gluino
973: mass. Factoring in theory uncertainty on the total cross section and a $\pm 100\%$ error
974: estimate on remaining background, we found that $m_{\tg}$ could be measured to a precision of about 8\%
975: for 100 fb$^{-1}$ of integrated luminosity. This was our central result.
976:
977: We note here that our conclusions apply more generally than to just the HB/FP region of the mSUGRA model.
978: The key assumptions needed for our analysis are that:
979: \begin{enumerate}
980: \item The flavor/CP conserving MSSM is the correct effective theory of nature at the weak scale, with the lightest
981: neutralino as LSP.
982: \item We assume gaugino mass unification, as occurs in many SUSY GUT and string models.
983: \item We assume that scalars-- the squarks and sleptons-- decouple due to mass values beyond the few TeV level.
984: This leaves just the various gluinos, charginos and neutralinos contributing to LHC collider events.
985: \item The value of $\mu$ is fixed by the requirement that the relic abundance of $\tz_1$ saturates
986: the WMAP measured value. This, along with gaugino mass unification,
987: fixes the sparticle branching fractions to their assumed values.
988: \end{enumerate}
989: If these conditions are fulfilled, then the methods presented here should allow for a gluino mass
990: extraction if $m_{\tg}$ is in the mass range of $\sim 700-1300$ GeV.
991: We note here that our result depends on the sparticle branching fractions being fixed to
992: values near our calculated results. These in turn depend on the above assumptions being fulfilled.
993: Thus, our study should be
994: applicable to other heavy scalar situations, not only the HB/FP region of mSUGRA. Recently, such
995: models have received renewed attention in light of FCNC
996: constraints, and some string theory motivated models have produced heavier
997: scalar spectra\cite{string}. Our considerations also apply to the low scalar mass regime of
998: split SUSY models\cite{splitss},
999: where the gluino decays promply inside collider detectors.
1000:
1001: In addition, we note that the signal can be separated as to its isolated lepton content.
1002: Typically, for each additional isolated lepton, there should be on average 1.5 less jets per event.
1003: The OS/SF dilepton mass distribution embedded in the hard signal component should exhibit
1004: mass edges at $m_{\tz_2}-m_{\tz_1}$ and also at $m_{\tz_3}-m_{\tz_1}$, which are distinctive of this
1005: scenario in which the LSP is a mixed bino-higgsino particle. The same mass edges should appear in
1006: the clean trilepton channel originating mainly from chargino-neutralino production
1007: (the soft component), as shown in Ref. \cite{bkpu}.
1008: The mass-difference edges, along with the absolute gluino mass, may provide enough information to
1009: constrain the absolute chargino and neutralino masses (including the LSP mass), under the assumptions listed above.
1010:
1011: \section*{Acknowledgments}
1012: This work was supported in part by the U.S.~Department of Energy under grant No. DE-FG02-95ER40896,
1013: by the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation. We thank T. Krupovnickas and X. Tata for discussions.
1014: The work of L.W. is supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant
1015: No. 0243680 and the Department of Energy under grant \# DE-FG02-90ER40542.
1016: Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this
1017: material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views
1018: of the National Science Foundation.
1019:
1020: %\section*{Further distributions using C1}
1021:
1022: %
1023: %\begin{figure}[htbp]
1024: %\begin{center}
1025: %\includegraphics[angle=0,width=0.45\textwidth]{fp3-etj1.eps}
1026: %\includegraphics[angle=0,width=0.45\textwidth]{fp3-etj2.eps}\\
1027: %\includegraphics[angle=0,width=0.45\textwidth]{fp3-etj3.eps}
1028: %\includegraphics[angle=0,width=0.45\textwidth]{fp3-etj4.eps}
1029: %\caption{Distribution of $E_T$ of four fastest jet in a HB/FP case study
1030: %with $m_0=3050$ GeV, $m_{1/2}=400$ GeV, $A_0=0$,$\tan\beta =30$, $\mu >0$ and $m_t=175$ GeV
1031: %(where $m_{\tg}=1076$ GeV), versus various SM backgrounds.}
1032: %\label{fig:ETjets}
1033: %\end{center}
1034: %\end{figure}
1035: %
1036: %\begin{figure}[htbp]
1037: %\begin{center}
1038: %\includegraphics[angle=0,width=0.59\textwidth]{fp3-etm.eps}
1039: %\caption{Distribution of $\eslt$ from a HB/FP case study
1040: %with $m_0=3050$ GeV, $m_{1/2}=400$ GeV, $A_0=0$,$\tan\beta =30$, $\mu >0$ and $m_t=175$ GeV
1041: %(where $m_{\tg}=1076$ GeV), versus various SM backgrounds.}
1042: %\label{fig:etmiss}
1043: %\end{center}
1044: %\end{figure}
1045:
1046: %
1047: %\begin{figure}[htbp]
1048: %\begin{center}
1049: %\includegraphics[angle=0,width=0.59\textwidth]{fp3-tsph.eps}
1050: %\caption{Distribution in transverse sphericity $S_T$ from a HB/FP case study
1051: %with $m_0=3050$ GeV, $m_{1/2}=400$ GeV, $A_0=0$,$\tan\beta =30$, $\mu >0$ and $m_t=175$ GeV
1052: %(where $m_{\tg}=1076$ GeV), versus various SM backgrounds.}
1053: %\label{fig:tsph}
1054: %\end{center}
1055: %\end{figure}
1056: %
1057: %\begin{figure}[htbp]
1058: %\begin{center}
1059: %\includegraphics[angle=0,width=0.59\textwidth]{fp3-etmj1phi.eps}
1060: %\caption{Distribution in transverse opening angle between $\vec{\eslt}$
1061: %and $\vec{p}(j1)$ from a HB/FP case study
1062: %with $m_0=3050$ GeV, $m_{1/2}=400$ GeV, $A_0=0$,$\tan\beta =30$, $\mu >0$ and $m_t=175$ GeV
1063: %(where $m_{\tg}=1076$ GeV), versus various SM backgrounds.}
1064: %\label{fig:phijm}
1065: %\end{center}
1066: %\end{figure}
1067:
1068:
1069: %
1070: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1071: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
1072: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1073: \small
1074: %
1075: %
1076: \bibitem{sugra} E. Cremmer, S. Ferrara, L. Girardello and A. van Proeyen,
1077: \npb{212}{1983}{413}.
1078: %
1079: \bibitem{msugra} A.~Chamseddine, R.~Arnowitt and P.~Nath,
1080: \prl{49}{1982}{970};
1081: R.~Barbieri, S.~Ferrara and C.~Savoy,
1082: \plb{119}{1982}{343};
1083: N.~Ohta, \ptp{70}{1983}{542};
1084: L.~J.~Hall, J.~Lykken and S.~Weinberg, \prd{27}{1983}{2359};
1085: for reviews, see H.~P.~Nilles, {\em Phys.~Rep.} {\bf 110} (1984) 1, and
1086: P.~Nath, \hepph{0307123}.
1087: %
1088: \bibitem{wss} For an overview, see {\it e.g.}
1089: H.~Baer and X.~Tata, {\em Weak Scale Supersymmetry},
1090: Cambridge University Press (2006).
1091: %
1092: \bibitem{isajet} ISAJET v7.74, by H.~Baer, F.~Paige, S.~Protopopescu and
1093: X.~Tata, \hepph{0312045}.
1094: %
1095: \bibitem{kraml} H.~Baer, J.~Ferrandis, S.~Kraml and W.~Porod,
1096: \prd{73}{2006}{015010}.
1097: %
1098: \bibitem{bbb} H.~Baer, C.~Balazs and A.~Belyaev, \jhep{0203}{2002}{042}
1099: %
1100: \bibitem{wmap} D. N. Spergel {\it et al.} (WMAP Collaboration),
1101: \astroph{0603449} (2006).
1102: %
1103: \bibitem{bulk} H.~Baer and M.~Brhlik, \prd{53}{1996}{597};
1104: V.~Barger and C.~Kao, \prd{57}{1998}{3131}.
1105: %
1106: \bibitem{bb3} J.~Ellis, K.~Olive, Y.~Santoso and V.~Spanos,
1107: \plb{565}{2003}{176};
1108: H.~Baer and C.~Balazs, JCAP{\bf 05} (2003) 006;
1109: U.~Chattapadhyay, A.~Corsetti and P.~Nath, \prd{68}{2003}{035005};
1110: A.~Lahanas and D.~V.~Nanopoulos, \plb{568}{2003}{55};
1111: A.~Djouadi, M.~Drees and J.~Kneur, \hepph{0602001}
1112: %
1113: \bibitem{stau} J. Ellis, T. Falk and K. Olive,
1114: \plb{444}{1998}{367}; J. Ellis, T. Falk, K. Olive and M. Srednicki,
1115: \app{13}{2000}{181};
1116: M.E. G\'{o}mez, G. Lazarides and C. Pallis, \prd{61}{2000}{123512}
1117: and \plb{487}{2000}{313};
1118: A. Lahanas, D. V. Nanopoulos and V. Spanos, \prd{62}{2000}{023515};
1119: R.~Arnowitt, B.~Dutta and Y.~Santoso,
1120: \npb{606}{2001}{59};
1121: H. Baer, C. Balazs and A. Belyaev, \jhep{0203}{2002}{042}.
1122: %
1123: \bibitem{stop} C.~B\"ohm, A.~Djouadi and M.~Drees,
1124: \prd{30}{2000}{035012};
1125: J.~R.~Ellis, K.~A.~Olive and Y.~Santoso, \app{18}{2003}{395};
1126: J.~Edsj\"o {\it et al.}, JCAP {\bf 04} (2003) 001
1127: %
1128: \bibitem{Afunnel} M. Drees and M. Nojiri, \prd{47}{1993}{376};
1129: H. Baer and M. Brhlik, \prd{53}{1996}{597} and \prd{57}{1998}{567};
1130: H. Baer, M. Brhlik, M. Diaz, J. Ferrandis, P. Mercadante,
1131: P. Quintana and X. Tata, \prd{63}{2001}{015007};
1132: J. Ellis, T. Falk, G. Ganis, K. Olive and M. Srednicki,
1133: \plb{510}{2001}{236}; L. Roszkowski, R. Ruiz de Austri and T. Nihei,
1134: \jhep{0108}{024}{2001}; A. Djouadi, M. Drees and J. L. Kneur,
1135: \jhep{0108}{2001}{055};
1136: A. Lahanas and V. Spanos, \epjc{23}{2002}{185}.
1137: %
1138: \bibitem{drees_h} R.~Arnowitt and P.~Nath, \prl{70}{1993}{3696};
1139: H.~Baer and M.~Brhlik, Ref.~\cite{bulk};
1140: A.~Djouadi, M.~Drees and J.~Kneur, \plb{624}{2005}{60}.
1141: %
1142: \bibitem{ccn} K.~L.~Chan, U.~Chattopadhyay and P.~Nath, \prd{58}{1998}{096004}.
1143: %
1144: \bibitem{fmm} J.~Feng, K.~Matchev and T.~Moroi, \prl{84}{2000}{2322},
1145: \prd{61}{2000}{075005} and \prd{63}{2001}{095003};
1146: J. Feng and F. Wilczek, \plb{631}{2005}{170}.
1147: %
1148: \bibitem{hb_fp} The HB/FP region appears much earlier in
1149: H.~Baer, C.~H.~Chen, F.~Paige and X.~Tata, \prd{52}{1995}{2746} and
1150: \prd{53}{1996}{6241}, but is not named, and fine-tuning is not addressed.
1151: %
1152: \bibitem{lhcreach} H.~Baer, C.~H.~Chen, F.~Paige and X.~Tata,
1153: Ref. \cite{hb_fp}; H.~Baer, C.~H.~Chen, M.~Drees, F.~Paige and X.~Tata,
1154: \prd{59}{1999}{055014}; S.~Abdullin and F.~Charles, \npb{547}{1999}{60};
1155: S.~Abdullin {\it et al.} (CMS Collaboration), \hepph{9806366};
1156: B.~Allanach, J.~Hetherington, A.~Parker and B.~Webber,
1157: \jhep{08}{2000}{017}.
1158: %
1159: \bibitem{bbbkt} H.~Baer, C.~Balazs, A.~Belyaev, T.~Krupovnickas and X.~Tata,
1160: \jhep{0306}{2003}{054}.
1161: %
1162: \bibitem{bbkt} H. Baer, A. Belyaev, T. Krupovnickas and X. Tata,
1163: \jhep{0402}{2004}{007}; H. Baer, T. Krupovnickas and X. Tata,
1164: \jhep{0406}{2004}{061}.
1165: %
1166: \bibitem{trilep} H. Baer and X. Tata, \prd{47}{1993}{2739}.
1167: %
1168: \bibitem{Barger:1998hp}
1169: V.~D.~Barger and C.~Kao, \prd{60}{1999}{115015}, \hepph{9811489}.
1170: H. Baer, M. Drees, F. Paige, P. Quintana and X. Tata,
1171: \prd{61}{2000}{095007};
1172: K. Matchev and D. Pierce, \plb{467}{1999}{225}.
1173: %
1174: \bibitem{frank} I. Hinchliffe, F. Paige, M. Shapiro,
1175: J. S\"oderqvist and W. Yao,
1176: \prd{55}{1997}{5520}.
1177: %
1178: \bibitem{bkt} H. Baer, T. Krupovnickas and X. Tata,
1179: \jhep{0307}{2003}{020}.
1180: %
1181: \bibitem{tmass}
1182: Brubaker, E. {\it et al.} \hepex{0608032}
1183:
1184: \bibitem{direct} For a recent analysis, see H.~Baer, C.~Balazs,
1185: A.~Belyaev and J.~O'Farrill, JCAP{\bf 0309}, 2003 (007); a subset of
1186: earlier work includes M.~Goodman and E.~Witten, \prd{31}{1985}{3059};
1187: K.~Griest, \prl{61}{1988}{666} and \prd{38}{1988}{2357} [Erratum-ibid.\
1188: D {\bf 39}, 3802 (1989)]; M.~Drees and M.~Nojiri, \prd{47}{1993}{4226}
1189: and \prd{48}{1993}{3483}; V.~A.~Bednyakov, H.~V.~Klapdor-Kleingrothaus
1190: and S.~Kovalenko, \prd{50}{1994}{7128}; P.~Nath and R.~Arnowitt,
1191: \prl{74}{1995}{4592}; L.~Bergstrom and P.~Gondolo, \app{5}{1996}{263};
1192: H.~Baer and M.~Brhlik, \prd{57}{1998}{567}; J.~Ellis, A.~Ferstl and
1193: K.~Olive, \plb{481}{2000}{304} and \prd{63}{2001}{065016}; E.~Accomando,
1194: R.~Arnowitt, B.~Dutta and Y.~Santoso, \npb{585}{2000}{124}; A.~Bottino,
1195: F.~Donato, N.~Fornengo and S.~Scopel, \prd{63}{2001}{125003};
1196: M.~E.~Gomez and J.~D.~Vergados, \plb{512}{2001}{252}; A.~B.~Lahanas,
1197: D.~V.~Nanopoulos and V.~C.~Spanos, \plb{518}{2001}{94}; A.~Corsetti and
1198: P.~Nath, \prd{64}{2001}{115009}; E.~A.~Baltz and P.~Gondolo,
1199: \prl{86}{2001}{5004}; M.~Drees, Y.~G.~Kim, T.~Kobayashi and
1200: M.~M.~Nojiri, \prd{63}{2001}{115009}; see also J.~Feng, K.~Matchev and
1201: F.~Wilczek, \plb{482}{2000}{388} and \prd{63}{2001}{045024}; R.~Ellis,
1202: A.~Ferstl, K.~A.~Olive and Y.~Santoso, \prd{67}{2003}{123502};
1203: J.~R.~Ellis, K.~A.~Olive, Y.~Santoso and V.~C.~Spanos,
1204: \prd{69}{2004}{015005}; see C.~Mu\~noz, \hepph{0309346} for a recent
1205: review.
1206: %
1207: \bibitem{indirect}
1208: J. Feng, K. Matchev and F. Wilczek, \plb{482}{2000}{388}
1209: and \prd{63}{2001}{045024};
1210: H. Baer, A. Belyaev, T. Krupovnickas and J. O'Farrill,
1211: \jhep{0408}{2004}{005}.
1212: %
1213: \bibitem{hp} I. Hinchliffe and F. Paige,
1214: in {\it Workshop on Physics at TeV Colliders, Les Houches, France, 21 May - 1 Jun 2001}.
1215: %
1216: \bibitem{meff-hq} H.~Baer, V.~D.~Barger and R.~J.~N.~Phillips, \prd{39}{1989}{3310}
1217: %
1218: \bibitem{mmt} P.~G.~Mercadante, J.~K.~Mizukoshi and X.~Tata,
1219: \prd{72}{2005}{035009}.
1220: %
1221: \bibitem{bkpu} H.~Baer, T.~Krupovnickas, S.~Profumo and P.~Ullio,
1222: \jhep{0510}{2005}{020}.
1223: %
1224: \bibitem{baltz} E. Baltz, M. Battaglia, M. Peskin and T. Wizansky,
1225: \prd{74}{2006}{103521}.
1226: %
1227: \bibitem{sscgaugino} H.~Baer, V.~D.~Barger, D.~Karatas and X.~Tata,
1228: \prd{35}{1987}{96}.
1229: %
1230: \bibitem{glmass}
1231: H.~Bachacou, I.~Hinchliffe and F.~E.~Paige, \prd{62}{2000}{015009}.
1232: B.~C.~Allanach, C.~G.~Lester, M.~A.~Parker and B.~R.~Webber, \jhep{0009}{2000}{004}.
1233: C.~G.~Lester, M.~A.~Parker and M.~J.~White, \jhep{0601}{2006}{080}.
1234: B.~K.~Gjelsten, D.~J.~Miller and P.~Osland, \jhep{0412}{2004}{003}.
1235: B.~K.~Gjelsten, D.~J.~Miller and P.~Osland, \jhep{0506}{2005}{015}.
1236: \bibitem{glspin}
1237: A.~Alves, O.~Eboli and T.~Plehn, \prd{74}{2006}{095010}.
1238: %
1239: \bibitem{Barger:1992ac}
1240: V.~D.~Barger, M.~S.~Berger and P.~Ohmann, \prd{47}{1993}{1093}, \hepph{9209232}
1241: S.~P.~Martin and M.~T.~Vaughn, \prd{50}{1994}{2282}, \hepph{9311340}
1242: %
1243: \bibitem{spira} W. Beenakker, R. Hopker, M. Spira and P. Zerwas,
1244: \npb{492}{1997}{51}.
1245: %
1246: \bibitem{btw} H. Baer, X. Tata and J. Woodside, \prd{42}{1990}{1568}
1247: and \prd{45}{1992}{142}.
1248: %
1249: \bibitem{wbsig} V.~D.~Barger, A.~L.~Stange and R.~J.~N.~Phillips,
1250: \prd{45}{1992}{1484}.
1251: %
1252: \bibitem{Wnjet} H.~Baer, V.~D.~Barger and R.~J.~N.~Phillips, \plb{221}{1989}{398}.
1253: %
1254: \bibitem{nuhm} H. Baer, A. Mustafayev, S. Profumo, A. Belyaev
1255: and X. Tata, \jhep{0507}{2005}{065}.
1256: %
1257: \bibitem{bcr} H. Baer, C. H. Chen and M. H. Reno, \prd{48}{1993}{5168}.
1258: %
1259: \bibitem{ssdl}
1260: V.~D.~Barger, W.~Y.~Keung and R.~J.~N.~Phillips, \prl{55}{1985}{166}.
1261: R.~M.~Barnett, J.~F.~Gunion and H.~E.~Haber, \plb{315}{1993}{349}.
1262: %
1263: \bibitem{mll} H. Baer, K. Hagiwara and X. Tata, \prd{35}{1987}{1598};
1264: H. Baer, D. Dzialo-Karatas and X. Tata, \prd{42}{1990}{2259};
1265: H. Baer, C. Kao and X. Tata, \prd{48}{1993}{5175};
1266: H. Baer, C. H. Chen, F. Paige and X. Tata, \prd{50}{1994}{4508}.
1267: %
1268: \bibitem{string} See {\it e.g.} I.~Antoniadis, K.~Benakli, A.~Delgado, M.~Quiros and M.~Tuckmantel,
1269: \npb{744}{2006}{156} and B.~S.~Acharya, K.~Bobkov, G.~L.~Kane, P.~Kumar and J.~Shao,
1270: \hepth{0701034}.
1271: %
1272: \bibitem{splitss} A. Arkani-Hamed and S. Dimopoulos, \jhep{0506}{2005}{073}.
1273: %
1274: \end{thebibliography}
1275: %
1276: \end{document}
1277:
1278:
1279: