text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Uncovering the mechanism of symmetry breaking is one of the major tasks of the high energy colliders. Most prominent is the search for the Higgs particle. Within the standard model, $`𝒮`$, this scalar particle poses the problem of naturalness and its mass is a free parameter. Current data seem to indicate a preference for a light Higgs with a mass that can nicely fit within a supersymmetric version of the $`𝒮`$. In fact an intermediate mass Higgs, IMH, is one of the most robust prediction of SUSY, since one does not have strict predictions on the large array of the other masses and parameters in this model. Another, perhaps circumstantial, evidence of SUSY is the successful unification of the gauge couplings at some high scale. Add to this the fact that the neutralino can provide a good dark matter candidate explains the popularity of the model. Even so the search for the lightest Higgs is not so easy. LEP2 where the Higgs signature is easiest may unfortunately be some $`2030`$ GeV short to be able to cover the full range of the minimal SUSY lightest Higgs mass. Searches at the Tevatron need very good background rejection and in any case need to upgrade the present luminosities quite significantly. At the LHC, most analyses have relied extensively on the two-photon decay of the IMH either in the dominant inclusive channel through $`ggh\gamma \gamma `$ or in associated production. Only recently has it been shown that associated production of the Higgs with tops with the former decaying into $`b\overline{b}`$ can improve the discovery of the Higgs, albeit in the region $`m_h<120`$GeV. Unfortunately, until recently, most simulations for Higgs searches have in effect decoupled the rest of the supersymmetric spectrum from the Higgs sector, like in the much advertised ATLAS/CMS $`M_A\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ plane.

This assumption of a very heavy SUSY spectrum can not be well justified. First, naturalness arguments require that at least some of the SUSY masses be below $`1TeV`$ or even much less. Second, it has been known that relaxing this assumption can have some very important consequences on the Higgs search at the LHC. This is not surprising considering the fact that the most important production channel $`ggh`$ is loop induced as is the main discovery channel $`h\gamma \gamma `$. One of the most dramatic effect is that of a light stop with large mixing which drastically reduces the production rate. Fortunately, when this happens, a careful analysis shows that the Higgs signal can be rescued in a variety of channels that become enhanced or that open up precisely for the same reason that the normal inclusive channel drops, so that in a sense there is a complementarity. For instance with all other sparticles but the stops heavy, one can show that whenever the production rate in the inclusive channel drops, the branching ratio into two photons increases with the consequence that associated $`Wh/Zh`$ and $`t\overline{t}h`$ where the Higgs decays into two photons becomes a very efficient means of tracking the Higgs. Moreover associated $`\stackrel{~}{t}_1\stackrel{~}{t}_1h`$ production becomes important through the cascade of the heavier stop $`\stackrel{~}{t}_2`$, $`\stackrel{~}{t}_2\stackrel{~}{t}_1h`$. At the same time since the $`hb\overline{b}`$ coupling is hardly affected $`t\overline{t}h`$ production could play an important role. Similar sort of complementarity has also been pointed out in supersymmetric scenarios where the coupling $`hb\overline{b}`$ can be made very small.

In our investigation of the effects of light stops with large mixing, all other particles but the stops were assumed rather heavy. It is then important to ask how the overall picture changes had we allowed other sparticles to be relatively light. Considering that the present LEP and Tevatron data precludes the decay of the lightest Higgs into sfermions, the effect of the latter on the properties of the lightest Higgs can only be felt through loops. These effects can therefore be considered as a special case of the stop that we studied at some length and apart from the sbottom at large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ the effects will be marginal. One can then concentrate on the spin-half gaugino-higgsino sector. In order to extract the salient features that may have an important impact on the Higgs search at the LHC, we leave out in this study the added effects of a light stop. Compared to the analysis with the stop, this sector does not affect inclusive production nor the usual associated production mechanisms. The effect will be limited to the Higgs decay. First, if the charginos are not too heavy they can contribute at the loop level. We find however, by imposing the present limits on their masses, that this effect is quite small. On the other hand we show that the main effect is due to the possible decay of the Higgs into the lightest neutralino. This is especially true if one relaxes the usual so-called unification condition between the two gaugino components of the LSP neutralino. Although at LEP an invisible Higgs is not so much of a problem, since it can be easily tagged through the recoiling Z, it is a different matter at the LHC. Few studies have attempted to dig out such an invisible (not necessarily supersymmetric) Higgs at the LHC, in the associated $`Zh,(Wh)`$ channel. Even with rather optimistic rejection efficiencies the backgrounds seem too overwhelming. It has also been suggested  to use associated $`t\overline{t}h`$ production but this requires very good $`b`$-tagging efficiencies and a good normalisation of the backgrounds. Recently Ref.  looked at how to hunt for an invisible Higgs at the Tevatron. For $`m_h>100`$GeV a $`5\sigma `$ discovery requires a luminosity in excess of $`30`$fb-1.

Compared to the effects of the stop or a vanishing $`hb\overline{b}`$, where a sort of compensation occurs in other channels, the opening up of the invisible decay reduces all other channels including the branching ratio in $`b\overline{b}`$. Previous studies have mainly concentrated if not on a mSUGRA scenario then on a scenario based on the mSUGRA inspired relation between the electroweak gaugino masses, $`M_1,M_2`$. Moreover LEP searches and limits refer essentially to the latter paradigm. In the course of this analysis we had to re-interpret the LEP data in the light of more general scenarios. We therefore had to take recourse to various limits on cross sections rather than absolute limits on some physical parameters quoted in the literature. We have also tried to see whether new mechanisms come to the rescue of the Higgs search at the LHC when the invisible channel becomes substantial and reduces the usual signal significantly. Much like in our analysis of the stop where we found that the Higgs could be produced through the decay of the heavier stop into the lighter one, we inquired whether a similar cascade decay from the heavier neutralino or charginos to their lighter companions can take place. This is known to occur for instance for some mSUGRA points, but its rate is found not to be substantial when an important branching ratio into invisibles occurs. Even if it were substantial it would be difficult to reconstruct the Higgs since again at the end of the chain the Higgs will decay predominantly invisibly.

Considering the dire effects of a large invisible branching ratio occurring for rather light neutralinos, we have investigated the astrophysical consequences of such scenarios, specifically the contribution of such light neutralinos on the relic density. We find that these models require rather light slepton masses. In turn, with such light sleptons, neutralino production at LEP2 provides much restrictive constraints than the chargino cross sections. Taking into account the latter constraints helps rescue some of the Higgs signals.

The paper is organised as follows. In the next section we introduce our notation for the chargino-neutralino sector and make some qualitative remarks concerning the coupling of the lightest Higgs as well as that of the $`Z`$ to this sector. This will help understand some of the features of our results. In section 2 we review the experimental constraint and discuss how these are to be interpreted within a general supersymmetric model. Section 3 presents the results for Higgs detection at the LHC within the assumption of the GUT relation for the gaugino masses. Section 4 analyses the “pathological” cases with a sneutrino almost degenerate with the chargino, leading to lower bounds on the chargino mass. Section 5 analyses how the picture changes when one relaxes the GUT inspired gaugino masses constraint and the impact of the astrophysical constraints on the models that may jeopardise the Higgs search at the LHC. Section 6 summarises our analysis.

## 2 The physical parameters and the constraints

### 2.1 Physical parameters

When discussing the physics of charginos and neutralinos it is best to start by defining one’s notations and conventions. All our parameters are defined at the electroweak scale. The chargino mass matrix in the gaugino-higgsino basis is defined as

$`\left(\begin{array}{cc}M_2& \sqrt{2}M_W\mathrm{cos}\beta \\ \sqrt{2}M_W\mathrm{sin}\beta & \mu \end{array}\right)`$ (2.3)
where $`M_2`$ is the soft SUSY breaking mass term for the $`SU(2)`$ gaugino while $`\mu `$ is the so-called higgsino mass parameter whereas $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ is the ratio of the vacuum expectation values for the up and down Higgs fields.

Likewise the neutralino mass matrix is defined as

$`\left(\begin{array}{cccc}M_1& 0& M_Z\mathrm{sin}\theta _W\mathrm{cos}\beta & M_Z\mathrm{sin}\theta _W\mathrm{sin}\beta \\ 0& M_2& M_Z\mathrm{cos}\theta _W\mathrm{cos}\beta & M_Z\mathrm{cos}\theta _W\mathrm{sin}\beta \\ M_Z\mathrm{sin}\theta _W\mathrm{cos}\beta & M_Z\mathrm{cos}\theta _W\mathrm{cos}\beta & 0& \mu \\ M_Z\mathrm{sin}\theta _W\mathrm{sin}\beta & M_Z\mathrm{cos}\theta _W\mathrm{sin}\beta & \mu & 0\end{array}\right)`$ (2.8)
where the first entry $`M_1`$ (corresponding to the bino component) is the $`U(1)`$ gaugino mass. The oft-used gaugino mass unification condition corresponds to the assumption

$`M_1={\displaystyle \frac{5}{3}}\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _WM_2M_2/2`$ (2.9)
Then constraints from the charginos alone can be easily translated into constraints on the neutralino sector. Relaxing Eq. 2.9, or removing any relation between $`M_1`$ and $`M_2`$ means that one needs further observables specific to the neutralino sector.

The other parameters that appear in our analysis emerge from the Higgs sector. We base our study on the results and prescription of  for the improved two-loop calculations based on the effective Lagrangian333There is now a two-loop diagrammatic calculation which is in good agreement with an updated version of the two-loop effective Lagrangian approach .. The parameters here are, apart from the ubiquitous $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, the mass of the pseudo-scalar Higgs, $`M_A`$, $`A_t`$ the trilinear mixing parameter in the stop sector, as well as $`M_S`$ a supersymmetric scale that may be associated to the scale in the stop sector. Since we want to delimit the problem compared to our previous study on the stop effects, we will set the stop masses (and all other squarks) to $`1`$TeV. We will also be working in the decoupling limit of large $`M_A`$ that we also set at 1TeV. The lightest Higgs mass is then larger than if we had taken a lower $`M_A`$. As we will see the most important effect that results in small branching ratio for the two-photon width is when the invisible decay opens. This occurs if one has enough phase space and therefore if the mass of the Higgs is made as large as possible. Thus for a given $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ the effect is maximal for what is called maximal mixing: $`A_t\sqrt{6}M_S`$ in the implementation of . One would also think that one should make $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ large, however this parameter also controls the masses of the neutralinos and for the configuration of interest, those leading to the largest drops in the two-photon signal, one needs to keep $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ as low as possible to have the lightest neutralino as light as possible.

In principle we would have liked to decouple all other sparticles, specifically sfermions as stated in the introduction. However sleptons (in particular selectrons and sneutrinos) masses determine also the cross sections and the decay signature of the charginos and the neutralinos. Therefore, allowing for smaller sfermions masses does not so much directly affect the two-photon width but can relax quite a bit some of the limits on the chargino-neutralino sector which in turn affect the Higgs search. We thus allow for this kind of indirect dependence on the sfermion mass.

Often, especially in the case of neutralinos, LEP analyses set absolute bounds on masses. Ideally, since one is using bounds that are essentially set from the couplings of neutralinos to gauge bosons, to translate to couplings of these neutralinos and charginos to the Higgs, one needs to have access to the full parameter space $`\mu ,\mathrm{tan}\beta ,M_1,M_2`$. Thus absolute bounds are only indicative and it is much more informative to reinterpret the data. In the case of limits set solely from the chargino data, the re-interpretation is quite straightforward since no assumption on the parameters in Eq. 2.3 is made and the limits ensue from $`e^+e^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{}`$. Limits on the neutralinos are a bit more involved. To make some of these points clearer and to help understand some of our results it is worth reviewing the couplings to neutralinos.

### 2.2 Couplings of Neutralinos to the Higgs and $`Z`$

The width of the lightest Higgs to the lightest neutralinos writes

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(h\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0)={\displaystyle \frac{G_FM_Wm_h}{2\sqrt{2}\pi }}(14m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}^2/m_h^2)^{3/2}|C_{h\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}|^2`$ (2.10)
where

$`C_{h\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}`$ $`=`$ $`(O_{12}^N\mathrm{tan}\theta _WO_{11}^N)(\mathrm{sin}\alpha O_{13}^N+\mathrm{cos}\alpha O_{14}^N)`$ (2.11)
$``$ $`(O_{12}^N\mathrm{tan}\theta _WO_{11}^N)(\mathrm{sin}\beta O_{14}^N\mathrm{cos}\beta O_{13}^N)`$
$`O_{ij}^N`$ are the elements of the orthogonal ( we assume $`𝒞𝒫`$conservation) matrix which diagonalizes the neutralino mass matrix. $`\alpha `$ is the angle that enters the diagonalization of the CP-even neutral Higgses which in the decoupling (large $`M_A`$ and ignoring radiative corrections) is trivially related to the angle $`\beta `$. $`|O_{1j}^N|^2`$ defines the composition of the lightest neutralino $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$. For instance $`|O_{11}^N|^2`$ is the bino purity and $`|O_{11}^N|^2+|O_{12}^N|^2`$ is the gaugino purity. It is clear then, apart from phase space, that the LSP has to be a mixture of gaugino and higgsino in order to have a large enough coupling to the Higgs. The same applies for the diagonal coupling of the charginos ($`h\chi _i^{}\chi _i^+`$).

In Fig. 1 we show the strength $`C_{h\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}^2`$ assuming the GUT unification condition between $`M_1`$ and $`M_2`$ for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =5`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =15`$. One should note that the coupling is much larger for positive values of $`\mu `$. The largest effect (peak) occurs for small values of $`\mu `$ and $`M_2`$ which however are ruled out by LEP data on the chargino mass. Note also, by comparing the $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =5`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =15`$ case in Fig. 1, that especially for $`\mu >0`$, as $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$increases the Higgs coupling to the LSP gets smaller. At the same time the neutralino LSP gets heavier. Thus large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$values corresponding to higher Higgs masses will not lead to the largest $`h\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$.

Similar behaviour is also observed for the coupling of the chargino to Higgs, the largest coupling sits in the $`\mu >0`$ and small $`M_2`$ region. However, it turns out that the effect of charginos in the loop never becomes very large.
As seen in Fig. 2 for the case with $`M_1=M_2/10`$, the same kind of behaviour persists: $`\mu >0`$ and moderate $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$lead to stronger couplings.

On the other hand, the constraints on $`M_2,M_1,\mu `$ which are derived for instance from neutralino production are more sensitive to the higgsino component of the neutralino. Indeed the $`Z`$ coupling to these writes

$`Z^{}\chi _i^0\chi _j^0(O_{i3}^NO_{j3}^NO_{i4}^NO_{j4}^N)^2`$ (2.12)
Chargino production in $`e^+e^{}`$is not as much critically dependent on the amount of mixing since both the wino and (charged) higgsino components couple to the $`Z`$ and the photon. Some interference with the t-channel sneutrino exchange may occur in the case of a wino component (i.e. $`|\mu |M_2`$), therefore the kinematic limit can be reached quite easily, except the situation where the signature of the chargino leads to almost invisible decay products.

### 2.3 Accelerator Constraints

This brings us to how we have set the constraints.

$``$ Higgs mass:
In the scenarios we are considering with large $`M_A`$ and large stop masses the $`ZZh`$ coupling is essentially SM-like and LEP2 limits on the mass of the SM Higgs apply with little change even for an invisible Higgs. In any case, as discussed earlier, to make the chargino-neutralino effect most dramatic we will always try to maximise the Higgs mass independently of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ by choosing an appropriate $`A_t`$. The LEP2 mass limit are thus always evaded. For $`M_1=M_2/10`$ we stick to $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =5`$, considering there is always enough phase space for $`h\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$, it is sufficient to discuss the case with $`A_t=0`$. For the canonical unification case, the effect of maximising the Higgs mass through $`A_t`$ is crucial.

$``$ Chargino cross section:
Typically when no sparticle is degenerate with the chargino, the lower limit on the chargino mass reaches the LEP2 kinematic limit independently of the exact composition of the chargino and does not depend much on the sneutrino mass as explained earlier. Latest LEP data give ,

$`m_{\chi _1^+}94.5GeV.`$ (2.13)
Very recent combined preliminary data suggest $`m_{\chi _1^+}100.5GeV`$. We will also comment on how our results can change by imposing this latter limit.

Degeneracy with the LSP
Even when slepton masses can be large, in which case the chargino cross section is larger, the chargino mass constraint weakens by a few GeV when the lightest chargino and neutralino are almost degenerate. The $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0f\overline{f}^{}`$ decay leads to soft “visible” products that are difficult to detect . Recent LEP data has greatly improved the limits in this small $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}`$ mass difference region. However within the assumption of gaugino mass unification the highly degenerate case with a light chargino/neutralino occurs in the region $`\mu M_2,M_22`$ TeV. In this region the light (and degenerate) neutralino and chargino are almost purely Higgsino and therefore as seen from Eq. 2.11 do not couple strongly to the Higgs. Their effect on the Higgs invisible width as well as indirectly on the two-photon width is negligible. We will not consider this case.

Degeneracy with a light sneutrino:
There is another degeneracy which is of more concern to us. It occurs for small slepton masses that are almost degenerate with the chargino, rendering the dominant two-body decay mode $`\chi ^+\stackrel{~}{\nu }l^+`$ undetectable (the three flavours of sneutrinos are also degenerate). When this occurs, for $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{deg}}=m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+}m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu _e}}<3GeV`$, neutralino production is also of no use since the neutralinos will also decay into invisible sneutrinos. Since SU(2) relates the mass of the sneutrinos to that of the left selectrons, the search for the latter will then set a limit on the charginos in this scenario. The explorable mass of the selectron is a few GeV from the LEP2 kinematical limit. In fact the LEP Collaborations make a stronger assumption to relate the mass of the sneutrinos to those of the selectrons. Left and right sleptons masses are calculated according to a mSUGRA scenario by taking a common scalar mass, $`m_0`$, defined at the GUT scale. This gives

$`m_{\stackrel{~}{e}_R}^2`$ $`=`$ $`m_0^2+\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0.15}M_{1/2}^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _WD_z`$
$`m_{\stackrel{~}{e}_L}^2`$ $`=`$ $`m_0^2+\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0.52}M_{1/2}^2(.5\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W)D_z`$
$`m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu _e}}^2`$ $`=`$ $`m_0^2+\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0.52}M_{1/2}^2+D_z/2\mathrm{with}`$
$`D_z`$ $`=`$ $`M_Z^2\mathrm{cos}(2\beta )`$ (2.14)
where $`M_{1/2}`$ is the common gaugino mass at the GUT scale also, which we can relate to the $`SU(2)`$ gaugino mass as $`M_20.825M_{1/2}`$. With these assumptions, $`m_{\stackrel{~}{e}_R}`$ gives the best limit. One thus arrives at a limit

$`m_{\chi _1^+}m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu _e}}70GeV(\mathrm{tan}\beta =5).`$ (2.15)
The above reduction in the chargino mass limit compared to Eq. 2.13 will have dramatic effects on the Higgs two-photon width. In this very contrived scenario the conclusions we will reach differ significantly from the general case. This very contrived scenario will be discussed separately in section 4.

$``$ Neutralino Production and decays:
LEP2 also provides a constraint on the mass of the neutralino LSP from the search for a pair of neutralinos, specifically $`e^+e^{}\chi _i^0\chi _j^0`$. This constraint is relevant for the small $`(\mu ,M_2)`$ and also when we relax the unification condition. We have implemented the neutralino constraint by comparing the crosssection for neutralino production with the tables containing the upper limit on the production cross-section for $`\chi _1^0\chi _j^0`$ obtained by the L3 collaboration at $`\sqrt{s}=189GeV`$. These tables give an upper limit on the cross-section for the full range of kinematically accessible $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0+\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0`$ masses. The limits depend in a non-trivial manner on the masses of the produced particles. Moreover the limits are slightly different depending on whether one assumes purely hadronic final states from the decay of the heavier neutralino or whether one assumes leptonic final states. 444The combination of the various selections, the leptonic and hadronic ones, is an a priori optimisation using Monte Carlo signal and background events. This optimisation procedure is defined to maximise the signal efficiency (including the leptonic and hadronic branching ratios) and minimise the background contamination. This consists in the minimisation of $`\kappa `$, expressed mathematically by: $`\kappa =\mathrm{\Sigma }_{n=0}^{\mathrm{}}k(b)_nP(b,n)/ϵ`$, where $`k(b)_n`$ is the $`95\%`$ confidence level Bayesian upper limit, $`P(b,n)`$ is the Poisson distribution for $`n`$ events with an expected background of $`b`$ events, and $`ϵ`$ is the signal efficiency including the branching ratios. Under the same assumptions we have also used these tables for setting the upper limit on $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }_3^0`$ production. In all models where gaugino mass unification is imposed, the virtual Z decay mode, $`\chi _{2,3}^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0Z^{}`$, constitutes the main decay mode when the neutralinos are light enough to be accessible at LEP2. In models where the gaugino mass unification is relaxed and very light neutralinos exist, as will be discussed in section “no-unification”, other decay channels may open up, for example $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_3^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0h`$. The analysis, and hence the derived constraints, is made more complicated if one allows for light sleptons as will be suggested by cosmology in these models. Though light sleptons enhance the neutralino cross section quite significantly, in the case of left sleptons the efficiency is degraded because the branching ratio of the heavier neutralino into invisible (through a three body or even two-body $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0\nu \stackrel{~}{\nu }^{}`$) may be important.

As just discussed one also needs to take into account the various branching ratios of the neutralinos and charginos. These were also needed when considering production of neutralinos and charginos at the LHC. We have taken into account all two-body and three-body decay modes of gauginos , including fermionic and bosonic final states, $`\chi _j^0\chi _i^0Z,\chi _i^0h,\chi ^\pm W^{},\stackrel{~}{l}l`$ and $`\chi _j^+\chi _i^+Z,\chi _1^+h,\chi _j^0W^+,\stackrel{~}{l}l,\stackrel{~}{\nu }\nu `$ . The analytical formulas were checked against the outputs of programs for automatic calculations such as GRACE  and COMPHEP . For channels involving a Higgs boson, the radiatively corrected Higgs mass as well as the Higgs couplings, $`\mathrm{sin}\alpha `$, following the same implementation as in  were used.

$``$ Invisible width of the $`Z`$ and single photon cross section at LEP2:
In the case were we lift the unification condition that leads to rather small neutralino masses which are kinematically accessed through $`Z`$ decays we have imposed the limits on the invisible width of the $`Z`$:

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{inv}}^Z\mathrm{\Gamma }(Z\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0)<3MeV`$ (2.16)
In view of the limits on the single photon cross section which can translate into limits on $`\sigma (e^+e^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\gamma )`$, with cuts on the photon such that $`E_\gamma >5GeV`$ and $`\theta _{\mathrm{beam}\gamma }>10^0`$, we used $`\sigma (e^+e^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\gamma )<.1pb`$ at $`\sqrt{s}=189GeV`$. In fact L3 gives a limit of $`.3pb`$, foreseeing that similar analysis will be performed for the other collaborations and the results will be combined we conservatively took $`.1`$pb. However this constraint turned out not to be of much help.

### 2.4 Cosmological Constraints

Scenarios with $`M_1=M_2/10`$ have very light neutralino LSP into which the Higgs can decay, suppressing quite strongly its visible modes. Accelerator limits still allow for such a possibility. However, it has been known that a very light neutralino LSP can contribute quite substantially to the relic density if all sfermions are light. In the last few years constraints on the cosmological parameters that enter the calculation of the relic density have improved substantially. Various observations suggest to take as a benchmark $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\chi h_0^2<.3`$ where we identify $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\chi `$ with the fraction of the critical energy density provided by neutralinos. $`h_0`$ is the Hubble constant in units of 100 km sec-1 Mpc-1. This constraint is quite consistent with limits on the age of the Universe, the measurements of $`h_0`$ , the measurements of the lower multipole moment power spectrum from CMB data and the determination of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{matter}}`$ from rich clusters, see  for reviews. It also, independently, supports data from type Ia supernovae indicative of a cosmological constant. For illustrative purposes and to show how sensitive one is to this constrain we will also consider a higher value, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\chi h_0^2<.6`$ that may be entertained if one relies on some mild assumptions based on the age of the Universe and the CMB result only. In this scenario the calculation of the relic density is rather simple since one only has to take into account annihilations into the lightest fermions. Keeping with our analysis, we required all squarks to be heavy but allowed the sleptons to be light. To calculate the relic abundance we have relied on a code whose characteristics are outlined in . To help with the discussion we will also give an approximate formula that agrees better than $`30\%`$ with the results of the full calculation.

### 2.5 LHC Observables

The principal observables we are interested in are those related to the Higgs production and decay. Since we are only considering the effects of non-coloured particles and are in a regime of large $`M_A`$, all the usual production mechanisms (inclusive direct production through gluon-gluon as well as the associated production $`W(Z)h`$ and $`t\overline{t}h`$) are hardly affected compared to a SM Higgs with the same mass. Contrary to the indirect effects of light stops and/or sbottoms, the main effects we study in this paper affect only decays of the Higgs. The main signature into photons is affected both by the indirect loop effects of light enough charginos (and in some cases sleptons) and by the possible opening up of the Higgs decay into neutralinos. When the latter is open it leads to the most drastic effects reducing both the branching into photons as well as into $`b\overline{b}`$, hence posing a problem even for the search in $`t\overline{t}h`$ with $`hb\overline{b}`$. To quantify the changes of the branching ratios we define, as in , the ratio of the Higgs branching ratio into photons normalised to that of the SM, defined for the same value of the Higgs mass:

$`R_{\gamma \gamma }={\displaystyle \frac{BR^{SUSY}(h\gamma \gamma )}{BR^{SM}(h\gamma \gamma )}}`$ (2.17)
Likewise for the branching ratio into $`b\overline{b}`$

$`R_{b\overline{b}}={\displaystyle \frac{BR^{SUSY}(hb\overline{b})}{BR^{SM}(hb\overline{b})}}`$ (2.18)
The latter signature for the Higgs has only recently been analysed within a full ATLAS simulation and found to be very useful for associated $`t\overline{t}h`$ production, but only for $`m_h<120`$GeV. With $`100`$fb-1 the significance for a $`𝒮`$Higgs with $`m_h=100`$GeV is 6.4 but drops to only $`3.9`$ for $`m_h=120`$GeV. Since this is the range of Higgs masses that will interest us, we will consider a drop corresponding to $`R_{b\overline{b}}=.7`$ to mean a loss of this signal.

As concerns the two-photon signal, we take $`R_{\gamma \gamma }<.6`$ as a benchmark for this range of Higgs masses. This is somehow a middle-of-the-road value between the significances given by ATLAS and the more optimistic CMS simulations.

For the computation of the various branching ratios of the Higgs and its couplings we rely on HDECAY in which the Higgs masses are determined following the two-loop renormalisation group approach.

Since appreciable effects in the Higgs search occur for relatively light spectra, this means that the light particles should also be produced at an appreciable rate at the LHC even though they are electroweak processes. We have calculated, at leading order, all associated chargino and neutralino cross sections.

$`pp\chi _i^\pm \chi _j^0i=1,2;j=1,2,3,4`$ (2.19)
Neutralino pair production555K-factors for these processes have been computed in . $`pp\chi _j^0\chi _k^0`$ is much smaller with the heavy squark masses that we assume. These processes have been calculated with the help of CompHEP. For the structure function we use CTEQ4M at a scale, $`Q^2=\widehat{s}/4`$.

It is also possible for the heaviest of these neutralinos to cascade into the lighter ones and the lightest Higgs. We have therefore calculated all branching ratios for all the charginos and neutralinos. In principle other means of neutralino/chargino production are possible through cascade decays of heavy squarks, if these are not too heavy to be produced at the LHC.

## 3 Gauginos masses unified à la GUT

### 3.1 The available parameter space

In the case of no-degeneracy of the lightest chargino with the sneutrino, the constraint comes essentially from the chargino cross section. With heavy sleptons, neutralino production does not constrain the parameter space any further. Therefore the $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ independent limit Eq. 2.13 applies. All these limits map into the $`M_2\mu `$ parameter space for a specific $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. The available parameter space for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =5,30`$ is shown in Fig. 3

The absolute limit on the lightest neutralino for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =5`$ turns out to be:

$`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}47.5GeV(\mathrm{tan}\beta =5).`$ (3.20)
Therefore in the non degenerate case there is a very small window for the Higgs to decay into neutralinos. For the lower limit on the neutralino mass the reduction factor brought about by the $`\beta ^3`$ P-wave factor in Eq. 2.10 factor amounts to about $`.1`$, for $`m_h=109`$GeV.

### 3.2 The $`A_t`$ $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$dependence

The above mass of the Higgs for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =5`$ corresponds to a mixing angle in the stop sector $`A_t=0`$. Obviously to maximise the effect of the neutralinos through the opening up of the Higgs decay into neutralino one should increase the mass of the Higgs. We have already taken $`M_A=M_S=m_{\stackrel{~}{t}}=m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}=1TeV`$. We can therefore increase $`A_t`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. However increasing $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$also increases the neutralino masses and reduces the $`h\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ couplings as we discussed earlier. Scanning over $`\mu (>0)`$, $`M_2`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$we show, Fig. 4, the extremal variation of the $`R_{\gamma \gamma }`$ as a function of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$for maximal mixing and taking the available constraints into account. We see that the maximum drop is for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta 5`$. Below this value of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$the Higgs mass is small compared to the neutralino threshold, while above this value the LSP gets heavier “quicker” than does the Higgs. Moreover the Higgs coupling to the LSP gets weaker as $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ increases. On the other hand the increase $`R_{\gamma \gamma }>1`$ grows with smaller $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, but this is mainly due to the loop effects of the charginos.

Also, as expected, the variation with $`A_t`$ affects essentially the maximal reduction curve.

This said, let us however not forget that especially in the two-photon signal at the LHC the significance increases with increasing Higgs mass. One can already conclude on the basis of Fig. 4 and our benchmark $`R_{\gamma \gamma }>.6`$, that critical regions are for moderate $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, $`\mathrm{tan}\beta 5`$, and maximal stop mixing.

### 3.3 The case with $`A_t=0`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =5`$

We now go into more detail and choose $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =5`$ in the case of no mixing. The results are summarised in Fig. 5.

First of all note that in this scenario the ratio $`R_{\gamma \gamma }`$ can vary at most by $`15\%`$ and that this can lead to either a slight increase or a slight decrease. Contrary to what we will see for other scenarios, the largest drop occurs for negative values of $`\mu `$ and is due to the contribution of the light charginos in the two-photon width (see also the dependence with $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+}`$ and $`M_2`$). The sign of $`\mu `$ is also that of the interference between the dominant $`W`$ loop and the chargino loop contribution. A decrease for positive $`\mu `$ is strongly correlated with the opening up of the little window for $`h\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$. The latter channel leads to a branching ratio which is at most some $`20\%`$. When this occurs (only for positive $`\mu `$) it will affect also the branching into $`b\overline{b}`$ and thus the channel $`t\overline{t}ht\overline{t}b\overline{b}`$. However with our benchmark for observability of the Higgs in this channel, $`R_{b\overline{b}}>.7`$, the Higgs should still be observed in this channel.

At this stage one can conclude that the effect of light charginos/neutralinos, especially in view of the theoretical uncertainty (higher order QCD corrections) in predicting the signal, is very modest. Furthermore the small window for Higgs decaying into LSP will be almost closed, at least at $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =5`$, with an increase of a few GeV on the lower limit on charginos.

### 3.4 The case with maximal $`A_t`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =5`$

Increasing the mass of the Higgs through as large $`A_t`$ as possible for the same value of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$changes the picture quite substantially. With our implementation of the corrections to the Higgs mass the increase is about 10GeV and leaves enough room for $`h\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ in the small $`\mu M_2`$ region. In this case the two-photon rate and the $`h\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ branching ratios are well correlated as shown (Fig. 6a), the result of a scan over the parameters $`M_2=50300`$ GeV, $`\mu =100500`$ GeV for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =5`$ in the maximal mixing case, $`A_t=2.4`$ TeV. A scan over a wider range, $`M_22`$ TeV and $`|\mu |1`$ TeV, was also performed. The points for larger values of $`M_2\mu `$ all cluster around $`R_{\gamma \gamma }1`$ allowing for only a few percent fluctuations. The Higgs branching ratio into neutralinos can reach as much as $`40\%`$, leading to a reduction of $`R_{\gamma \gamma }`$and $`R_{b\overline{b}}`$ of about $`60\%`$. This means that there might be problems with Higgs detection especially in the $`t\overline{t}h`$ channel. The contour plots of constant $`h\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ in the $`M_2\mu `$ plane are displayed in Fig. 6b). It is only in a small region $`M_2160`$ GeV and $`\mu 400`$ GeV that $`h\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ exceeds 10%.

As the results presented here depend critically on the minimum allowed value for the mass of the lightest chargino and neutralino, see Fig. 6c-d), it is interesting to enquire about the consequence of an improved lower limit of the chargino masses in the last runs of LEP2. We have therefore imposed the constraint $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+}100`$ GeV. As the maximum reduction occurs for the lightest allowed value for the chargino mass, an increase of just a few GeV’s has a drastic effect. The reduction in $`R_{\gamma \gamma }`$ is no longer more than $`80\%`$. In conclusion, the effect of gauginos/higgsinos on the crucial branching ratio of the Higgs, when one assumes the unification condition and no degeneracy, will only be marginal at the LHC if LEP2 does not observe any charginos or neutralinos before the end of its final run.

### 3.5 Associated chargino and neutralino production at the LHC

In our previous study of the effects of light stops on the Higgs search at the LHC, reduction in the usual two photon signals was due essentially to a drop in the main production mechanism through gluons and occurred when the stops developed strong couplings to the Higgs. When this occurs, as a lever, one has large production of stops as well as associated stop Higgs production, thus recovering a new mechanism for Higgs. In the present case uncovering a new effective Higgs production mechanism will be more complicated. First the effects are due to weakly interacting particles whose cross sections at the LHC are smaller than those for stops. Also since the largest drops are when the branching ratio of the Higgs into invisible is appreciable, this means that even if one triggers Higgs production through charginos and neutralinos , the reconstruction of the Higgs will be more difficult. Nevertheless one should enquire how large any additional production mechanism, if any, can get. In the present scenario with a common gaugino mass at the GUT scale and no (accidental) degeneracy between the chargino and the sneutrinos, $`R_{\gamma \gamma }`$ (and $`R_{b\overline{b}}`$) being at worst $`.6`$ (for maximal mixing), the Higgs should be discovered in the usual channels. Moreover since the $`Br(hb\overline{b})`$ does not drop below about $`.6`$, we could use this signature in the cascade decay of the heavier neutralinos and charginos into Higgs.

Since the reduction in the usual inclusive two photon channel always occurs in the small $`(M_2,\mu )`$ region, all gauginos are relatively light and therefore have reasonable production rates. In fact as Fig. 7 shows, the rates are more than reasonable in the parameter space that leads to the largest drops. For instance, with $`M_2=140`$GeV, the cross section $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0\chi _1^+`$ is about $`6`$pb and is mildly dependent on $`\mu `$, while production of $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_4^0\chi _2^+`$, is some $`100`$fb (with $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_4^0}250`$GeV) when $`R_{\gamma \gamma }=.6`$, and decreases quickly with increasing $`\mu `$ (where however $`R_{\gamma \gamma }`$ increases). With the first process, considering the rather large cross section, it should be possible through measurements of the masses and some of the signatures of $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0`$ and $`\chi _2^+`$ to get some information on the parameters of the neutralinos and charginos666See for instance ., we would then know that one might have some difficulty with the Higgs signal in the inclusive channel. As for the latter process, it has more chance to trigger light Higgs than the former. Since in our scenario there isn’t enough phase space for $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0h`$. The following modes are potentially interesting: $`\chi _4^0\chi _{1,2}^0h`$ and $`\chi _2^+\chi _1^+h`$. For the former one obtains as much as $`25\%`$ branching ratio for $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_4^0h+\mathrm{anything}`$ when $`R_{\gamma \gamma }`$is lowest , see Fig . 8. Much higher branching are of course possible, but they occur for higher values of $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_4^0}`$ where there is no danger for Higgs discovery in the usual modes. Less effective and not always open is the mode $`\chi _3^0\chi _{1,2}^0h`$ where the branching never exceeds a few per-cent.

We are now in a position of folding the different branching ratios for the heavier neutralinos and chargino into Higgs (h) with the corresponding cross sections to obtain the yield of Higgs in these channels. As advertised, for the parameters of interest, we see from Fig. 9 that the largest cross sections originate from the decays of the heaviest neutralino $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_4^0`$ while the chargino helps also. Still, the yield is quite modest, about $`20`$fb. It rests to see whether a full simulation with a reduced branching ratio of $`h`$ into b’s can dig out the Higgs signal from such cascade decays. We should make another remark. In , where $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0h`$ and $`hb\overline{b}`$ is advocated, the neutralinos themselves are produced through cascade decays of gluinos and squarks which can have large cross sections. In our case we have taken these to be as heavy as $`1`$TeV and thus their cross section is rather modest. For instance gluino pair production at the LHC with this mass is about $`.2`$pb. However, without much effect on the decoupling scenario we have assumed, if we had taken $`m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}=500`$GeV, which by the way corresponds to a situation where the gaugino mass unification extends also to $`M_3`$, the gluino cross section jumps to about $`20`$pb. So many gluinos could, therefore, through cascade decays provide an additional source of Higgs.

## 4 Gauginos masses unified à la GUT degenerate with sleptons

In the so-called sneutrino-degenerate case where charginos can be as low as $`70`$GeV, the absolute lower limit on the neutralino LSP mass:

$`m_{\chi _0}34.5GeV(\mathrm{tan}\beta =5).`$ (4.21)
This lower bound rises by roughly 1GeV for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =2.5`$ and never goes below $`34`$GeV for larger values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. We will only study the case with $`A_t`$ maximum.

### 4.1 Results

Relaxing the chargino mass by some $`20`$GeV has quite impressive effects that result in dramatic drops, see Fig. 10. The branching fraction into invisibles can be as large as $`90\%`$. For these situations clearly the Higgs would be difficult to hunt at the LHC in both the two-photon and (associated) $`b\overline{b}`$ channels. As seen for $`R_{\gamma \gamma }`$vs $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+}`$, there is an immediate fall for $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+}<100`$GeV. But then this should be compensated by the production of plenty of charginos and sleptons while some of the heavier neutralinos and chargino should still be visible. As indicated by Fig. 7, in this situation all charginos and all neutralinos will be produced with cross sections exceeding $`100`$fb. $`\chi _1^+`$ has a cross section in excess of $`10`$pb!. These processes can trigger Higgs production. However, because of the decays into light sleptons the rates are modest as seen in Fig. 11. In fact, the largest rates occur when the Higgs has the largest branching into invisible. These modes will probably not help much.

## 5 Relaxing the gaugino mass unification

As we have seen, having light neutralinos can very much jeopardise the Higgs discovery at the LHC. However in the canonical model with $`M_1M_2/2`$ and no pathological degeneracy the effect is never a threat. Basically this is because the almost model independent limit on the chargino translates into values of $`M_2`$ (hence $`M_1`$) and $`\mu `$ large enough that the neutralinos are not so light that they contribute significantly a large invisible Higgs width. On the other hand if $`M_1`$ were made much smaller than $`M_2`$, one could make $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}`$ small enough without running into conflict with the chargino mass limits. The LSP could then be very light and almost bino. To make it couple to the Higgs though one still needs some higgsino component and thus $`\mu `$ should not be too large. Largest couplings will be for smallest values of $`\mu `$ which are however, again, constrained by the chargino mass limit for instance. To investigate such scenarios we have studied the case with

$`M_1=rM_2\mathrm{with}r=0.1`$ (5.22)
and have limited ourselves to the case with $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =5`$.

Models with $`r>1`$ would not affect the Higgs phenomenology at the LHC, since their lightest neutralino should be of the order of the lightest chargino. LEP data already excludes such a neutralino to contribute to the invisible width of the Higgs and therefore the situation is much more favourable to what we have just studied assuming the usual GUT relation.

It is important to stress that the kind of models we investigate in this section are quite plausible. The GUT-scale relation which equates all the gaugino masses at high scale need not be valid in a more general scheme of SUSY breaking. In fact even within SUGRA this relation need not necessarily hold since it requires the kinetic terms for the gauge superfields to be the most simple and minimal possible (diagonal and equal). One can easily arrange for a departure from equality by allowing for more general forms for the kinetic terms. In superstring models, although dilaton dominated manifestations lead to universal gaugino masses, moduli-dominated or a mixture of moduli and dilaton fields lead also to non universality of the gaugino masses and may or may not (multi-modulii) lead to universal scalar masses. The recent so-called anomaly-mediated SUSY breaking mechanisms are also characterised by non-universal gaugino masses, though most models in the literature lead rather to $`r>1`$ which is of no concern for the Higgs search.

With $`r=1/10`$ the main feature is that the neutralino mass spectrum is quite different. Most importantly LSP have masses in the range $`1020`$GeV for the cases of interest. Since there is plenty of phase space for the decay of the lightest Higgs into such neutralinos we will only consider $`A_t=0`$ for the stop mixing.

### 5.1 The available parameter space

In the case of heavy sleptons we find that the $`\mu M_2`$ allowed parameter space is still determined from the chargino mass limit through $`e^+e^{}\chi _1^+\chi _1^{}`$ production. Neutralino pair production $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }_3^0`$, although kinematically possible do not squeeze the parameter space further. The contour plot, see Fig. 12, is therefore essentially the same as the one with the GUT relation. Since cosmological arguments will drive us to consider light sleptons masses, we show on the same figure, Fig. 12, how the $`\mu M_2`$ parameter space is squeezed in this case. The squeezing comes from limits on $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }_3^0`$ cross sections properly folded with branching ratios where two-body and three-body decays involving the relatively light sleptons play an important role. In fact, while light sleptons generally enhance the neutralino cross sections, this enhancement can be counterbalanced by the fact that a non negligible branching ratio into invisible neutrinos can occur with small enough left selectrons. In all cases the leptonic final state signature can be enhanced at the expense of the hadronic signature which usually have a better efficiency. To illustrate this, we have considered three cases: i) $`m_{\stackrel{~}{e}_R}=100`$GeV with large $`m_{\stackrel{~}{e}_L}`$, ii) $`m_{\stackrel{~}{e}_L}=150`$GeV with large $`m_{\stackrel{~}{e}_R}`$ iii)$`m_{\stackrel{~}{e}_R}=100,m_{\stackrel{~}{e}_L}=150`$GeV. One sees that, with a very mild $`M_2`$ dependence, light right selectrons eliminate smallest $`|\mu |`$ values that are otherwise still allowed by chargino searches. That $`\stackrel{~}{e}_R`$ do not cut on $`M_2`$ values can be understood on the basis that they do not have any $`SU(2)`$ charge. Since smallest values of $`\mu `$ are the ones that enhance $`h\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ these limits are important. With light left selectrons the gain with respect to the chargino limit is appreciable and occurs across all $`M_2`$ values, more so for the smallest $`M_2`$ values. When both left and right selectrons are relatively light, one carves out an important region, although this region does not cover all the available neutralino phase space.

### 5.2 Heavy sleptons

The main message is that there are some dangerous reductions in the branching ratios of the Higgs both into photons and into $`b\overline{b}`$ which can be only a $`1/5`$th of what they are in the $`𝒮`$, see Fig. 13 . These drops are due essentially to a large branching ratio of the Higgs into invisibles. The most dramatic reductions occur for chargino masses at the edge of the LEP2 limits, however even for chargino masses as high as $`200`$GeV the drop can reach $`60\%`$. In these configurations the lightest chargino and $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0,\stackrel{~}{\chi }_3^0`$ have a large higgsino component. This explains why, in the $`M_2\mu `$ plane the decrease in the ratios is strongly dependent on $`\mu `$.

### 5.3 Cosmological constraint

Considering these large reductions and the fact that the LSP is very light, $`1020`$GeV, we investigated whether the most dramatic scenarios are not in conflict with a too large relic density777Cosmological consequences of non-unified gaugino masses have been investigated in  but not from the perspective followed in this paper.. One knows that for a very light LSP bino the annihilation cross section is dominated by sfermions with largest hypercharge, that is right sleptons. This calls for light (right) sfermions. As a rule of thumb, with all sfermions heavy but the three right sleptons, an approximate requirement is

$`m_{\stackrel{~}{l}_R}^2<10^3\sqrt{(\mathrm{\Omega }_\chi h^2)_{\mathrm{max}}}\times m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}.`$ (5.23)
with all masses expressed in GeV.

In our case the LSP is not a pure bino, the bino purity is around $`90\%`$ for the worst case scenarios, otherwise it would not couple to the Higgs. We have therefore relied on a full calculation. We assumed all squarks heavy and took a common mass for the SUSY breaking sfermion mass terms of both left and right sleptons of all three generations, $`m_0`$, defined at the GUT scale, thus assuming unification for the scalar masses. As for the gaugino masses to obtain $`M_1=M_2/10`$ at the electroweak scale one needs $`\overline{M}_1\overline{M}_2/5`$ at the GUT scale. $`\overline{M}_2`$ is the $`SU(2)`$ gaugino mass at the GUT scale which again relates to $`M_2`$ at the electroweak scale as $`M_20.825\overline{M}_2`$. This scheme leads to almost no running of the right slepton mass, since the contribution from the running is of order $`M_1^2`$, while left sleptons have an added $`M_2^2`$ contribution and would then be “much heavier”. Indeed neglecting Yukawa couplings one may write

$`m_{\stackrel{~}{e}_R}^2`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{m}_0^2+\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0.006}\overline{M}_2^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _WD_z`$
$`m_{\stackrel{~}{e}_L}^2`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{m}_0^2+0.48\overline{M}_2^2(.5\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W)D_z`$
$`m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu _e}}^2`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{m}_0^2+0.48\overline{M}_2^2+D_z/2`$ (5.24)
Note in passing that Eq. 5.3 can be extended to squarks and if we take $`M_3=r_3M_2r_3>1`$ at the GUT scale one could make the squarks “naturally heavy” as we have assumed. Note also in this respect that had we not taken the squarks, specifically the stops, sufficiently heavy we would not have had large enough radiative corrections to the Higgs mass and would have been in conflict with the LEP2 constraint on the Higgs mass. Since the limit on the relic density in these scenarios with $`M_1=M_2/10`$ constrain essentially the right slepton mass, this means that one has an almost direct limit on $`m_0`$.

Putting all this together the parameter space still allowed by requiring that the relic density be such that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\chi h^2<.3`$ and by taking into account all accelerator constraints listed in section 2 is shown in Fig. 14. The most important message is that sleptons must be lighter than about $`140`$GeV. The approximate rule of thumb given by Eq. 5.23 is therefore quite good and explains the various behaviours of Fig. 14. Had we imposed a lower $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\chi h^2`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\chi h^2<.2`$ would have meant $`m_{\stackrel{~}{e}_R}<125`$GeV. Even with the very mild constraint $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\chi h^2<.6`$ right selectron masses are below $`160`$GeV. The same figure also shows the effect of not taking into account the constraint from the LEP2 neutralino cross sections. As expected the latter cut on smallest $`\mu `$ values (and also a bit on smaller $`M_2`$ values), that not only allow accessible $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0,\stackrel{~}{\chi }_3^0`$ but also cut on the amount of the higgsino component in $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ and thus on the contribution of $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ to the invisible decay of $`h`$. We therefore see that a combination of LEP2 neutralino cross sections with improved constraints from the relic density are important.

### 5.4 Light Sleptons

We now allow for light sleptons with masses such that $`m_{\stackrel{~}{l}}>90`$GeV but take into account all cosmological and accelerator constraints. The masses are calculated according to Eq. 5.3. Although one has reduced the $`\mu M_2`$ parameter space somehow one has also allowed for light sleptons that indirectly contribute to $`h\gamma \gamma `$ beside the light charginos. Right and left charged sleptons of equal masses contribute almost equally and interfere destructively with the dominant $`W`$ loop hence reducing the width $`h\gamma \gamma `$. Once again large drops are possible with reduction factor as small as $`.3`$ in both the branching ratio of the Higgs into photons and $`b\overline{b}`$.

The loop effects of the sleptons are rather marginal compared to the effect of the opening up of the neutralino channels. They account for some $`1015\%`$ drop as can be seen when $`h\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ is closed and by comparing with the heavy slepton case.

### 5.5 Associated chargino and neutralino production

In cases where there are very large reductions in the usual $`b\overline{b}`$ and $`\gamma \gamma `$ signatures of the Higgs, production of charginos and neutralino at the LHC is quite large888Production of light sleptons, as constrained from cosmology in these scenarios, is on the other hand quite modest at the LHC..

Fig. 16 shows that, for values of $`\mu M_2`$ where $`R_{\gamma \gamma }`$ is below $`.6`$, all neutralinos and charginos can be produced. For instance with $`M_2=250`$GeV, the cross section for $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_4^0\chi _2^+`$ is in excess of $`100`$fb while $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0\chi _1^+`$ is above $`1pb`$. Therefore early observations of these events, could probably allow the determination of the parameters of the higgsino-gauginos sector “sending an early warning signal” that indicates difficulty in the detection of the Higgs.

If we now look at the (lightest) Higgs that can be produced through cascade decays in these processes, one sees from Fig. 17 that, through essentially $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_3^0`$ decays, associated Higgs cross sections of about $`30`$fb are possible. Nonetheless, again, it is in these regions with highest yield that the Higgs has a large branching ratio into invisible and would be difficult to track.

## 6 Conclusions

In a model that assumes the usual common gaugino mass at the GUT scale and where, apart from the charginos and neutralinos, all other supersymmetric particles are heavy, we have shown that current LEP limits on charginos imply that there should be no problem finding the lightest SUSY Higgs at the LHC in the two-photon mode or even $`b\overline{b}`$ in the associated $`t\overline{t}h`$ channel. The loop effects of charginos in the two-photon width are small compared to the theoretical uncertainties, they amount to less than about $`15\%`$ and can either increase or decrease the signal. The LEP data in this scenario mean that the decay of the Higgs into invisibles is almost closed. In scenarios “on the fringe” with a conspiracy between the sneutrino mass and the lightest chargino mass, the Higgs signal can be very much degraded in both the two-photon and the $`b`$ final states. This is because the (invisible) Higgs decay into light neutralinos may become the main decay mode, suppressing all other signatures. This also occurs in models that do not assume the GUT inspired gaugino mass, specifically those where, at the weak scale, the $`U(1)`$ gaugino mass is much smaller than the $`SU(2)`$ gaugino mass. However we point out that limits from the relic density in these types of models require rather light right selectron masses. These in turn contribute quite significantly to the cross section for neutralino production at LEP2 which then constrains the parameter space in the gaugino-higgsino sector where the invisible branching ratio of the Higgs becomes large. Although large reductions in the usual channels are still possible, the combination of LEP2 data and cosmology means that observation of the Higgs signal at the LHC is jeopardised in only a small region of the SUSY parameter space. Moreover, we show that in these scenarios where the drops in the Higgs signals are most dramatic, one is assured of having a quite healthy associated chargino and neutralino cross section at the LHC. Some of the heavier of these particles may even trigger Higgs production through a cascade decay into their lighter partner. It rests to see whether the Higgs can be seen in this new production channels, considering that it will predominantly have an “invisible” signature.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Sacha Pukhov and Andrei Semenov for help and advice on the use of CompHEP. R.G. acknowledges the hospitality of LAPTH where this work was initiated. This work is done under partial financial support of the Indo-French Collaboration IFCPAR-1701-1 Collider Physics.


format: text

text:
# Low-Scale Anomalous U(1) and Decoupling Solution to Supersymmetric Flavor Problem

## Abstract

Supersymmetric standard models where the ultraviolet cut-off scale is only a few orders of magnitude higher than the electroweak scale are considered. Phenomenological consequences of this class of models are expected to be very different from, for example, the conventional supergravity scenario. We apply this idea to a model with an anomalous U(1) gauge group and construct a viable model in which some difficulties of the decoupling solution to the supersymmetric flavor problem are ameliorated.

preprint: TU-587

What is the fundamental scale of the unified theory of particle physics? Usually it is supposed to be near the Planck scale. In fact this view is supported by the weakly coupled heterotic string theory where the string scale must be close to the Planck scale . It has recently been recognized, however, that the fundamental scale can be much lower than the Planck scale, even as low as around 1 TeV . In this case, the largeness of the Planck scale is accounted for by extra dimensions with large volume, in which gravity propagates, while the standard model particles have to be confined on four dimensional subspace (3-brane). Remarkably this configuration survives various phenomenological constraints . Furthermore it can be realized in, for example, type I (or more precisely type I’) superstring theory where the string scale may not directly be related to the Planck scale  (See also Ref.  for earlier attempts). Even when the fundamental scale itself is close to the Planck scale, special geometrical configuration of extra dimension(s) such as an AdS slice  may enable us to obtain a model with effectively very low cut-off scale on a visible brane where the standard model sector is confined.

In this paper, we would like to consider the situation where the fundamental scale, or the ultraviolet cut-off scale, is much lower than the Planck scale but still lies a few order of magnitude above the electroweak scale so that low energy supersymmetry is needed to protect the electroweak scale from radiative corrections. A supersymmetric standard model with such a low-scale cut-off will naturally fall into a class of low-scale supersymmetry breaking models. An immediate consequence of this class of models is that the gravitino, the superpartner of the graviton, is much lighter than other superparticles, and thus tends to be the lightest superparticle. Moreover soft supersymmetry breaking masses are given at the low energy scale so that the mass spectrum is in general quite different from that of high-scale supersymmetry breaking models.

Inspired by the arguments given above, here we would like to discuss phenomenological implications of supersymmetric standard models with such a low fundamental scale. Specifically we consider a model with anomalous $`U(1)_X`$ gauge symmetry . It is well-known that appropriate assignment of the $`U(1)_X`$ charges provides the decoupling solution of the supersymmetric flavor problem . Namely the first two generations of squarks and sleptons are assumed to be heavy, thus suppress flavor changing neutral current (FCNC) processes from superparticle loops, while squarks and sleptons in the third generation are set to be at the electroweak scale, i.e. a few hundred GeV: otherwise the large Yukawa couplings for the third generation would generate large radiative corrections to the Higgs mass and then we would lose the very motivation to introduce low-energy supersymmetry. The decoupling solution is simple and attractive, in particular when symmetries relate the smallness of the masses of the quarks and leptons in the first two generations with the largeness of the masses of the squarks and sleptons in the first two generations.

However it has been pointed out that there are several difficulties in this scenario. First, although the squarks and sleptons in the first two generations do not influence the running of the Higgs mass at one-loop level if one ignores small Yukawa couplings, they do at two-loop level. Thus they cannot be arbitrarily heavy: rather their masses are severely limited by the naturalness argument. In fact, this issue was discussed in detail in Ref.  which gave an upper bound of 5 TeV from the condition that the fine tuning should be less than $`10\%`$. The second problem is that the heavy squarks would give negative contribution to the mass squared of the third generation squarks at two-loop level, driving the mass squared negative to cause color breaking . It turns out that the bound is very severe. In fact the masses of the sfermions in the first two generations must be much smaller than 10 TeV and thus they are not large enough to solve the FCNC problem, as far as the mass of the stop is lighter than about 1 TeV. Finally with a mass spectrum typical in the decoupling solution, the relic abundance of the lightest superparticle which is assumed to be bino-like neutralino tends to overclose the Universe .

What we will do in this paper is first to construct a viable model with the low fundamental scale and then to show that the problems above are ameliorated in such a framework. Here we should note that the issue of the color instability in a scenario where supersymmetry breaking is mediated at a substantially low energy was discussed in Ref. , but without an explicit model. Also a different approach to the problem of the color instability by adding extra matter multiplets to eliminate dangerous contributions has been proposed in Ref. .

We begin by describing the model we are considering. The model is similar to that of Dvali and Pomarol  (See also Ref. ). Ref.  considered a high scale cut-off theory such as the heterotic string, where the Fayet-Illiopoulos (FI) term for the anomalous $`U(1)_X`$ gauge group is given by $`\xi =\frac{\mathrm{Tr}Qg^2}{192\pi ^2}M_{Pl}^2`$ with $`g`$ the gauge coupling constant. On the contrary, what we will consider is a low-scale cut-off theory with the cut-off $`M_{}`$. Here we assume that the standard model sector as well as the $`U(1)_X`$ is confined on a brane-like object such as a D-brane and the large four dimensional Planck scale requires the existence of large extra dimensions in which gravity propagates. Then it is natural to expect that the FI term $`\xi `$ is, if it is non-zero,

$$|\xi |M_{}^2.$$
(1)
From now on we will take a convention $`\xi >0`$. $`M_{}`$ may be identified with the string scale. In type I and type IIB string models, $`\xi `$ will be generated through non-vanishing expectation values of some moduli fields when combined with a generalized Green-Schwarz anomaly cancellation mechanism .

As for chiral multiplets, we introduce $`\varphi _+`$ and $`\varphi _{}`$ with $`U(1)_X`$ charge $`+1`$, and $`1`$, respectively, and $`y_i`$ with charge $`Q_i`$, which represent fields in the standard model sector. Then the $`U(1)_X`$ D-term is written

$$D=\xi +|\varphi _+|^2|\varphi _{}|^2+\underset{i}{}Q_i|y_i|^2$$
(2)
The model also has the following mass term in the superpotential

$$W=m\varphi _+\varphi _{},$$
(3)
besides the superpotential of the standard model sector. Here we assume $`m^2g^2\xi `$. Though it is possible to generate the mass term Eq.(3) dynamically, we will treat it as a given parameter. Note that this does not mean to introduce a huge hierarchy into mass parameters, since all the mass scales of this low-scale theory are not very far from the electroweak scale.

By minimizing the scalar potential of the model

$$V=\left|\frac{W}{\varphi _+}\right|^2+\left|\frac{W}{\varphi _{}}\right|^2+\frac{g^2}{2}D^2$$
(4)
with $`g`$ being the gauge coupling constant for $`U(1)_X`$, we find the following vacuum expectation values

$`\varphi _+`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (5)
$`\varphi _{}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{\xi {\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{g^2}}},`$ (6)
$`F_{\varphi _+}`$ $`=`$ $`m\varphi _{}=m\sqrt{\xi {\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{g^2}}},`$ (7)
$`F_\varphi _{}`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (8)
$`D`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{g^2}}`$ (9)
Here we have neglected the contributions from the standard model sector, which are assumed to be tiny.

In this model the scalar masses in the standard model sector are written in the following form:

$$m_0^2=Qg^2D+m_F^2=Qm^2+m_F^2,$$
(10)
which are given at the cut-off scale $`M_{}`$. The first term is the $`U(1)_X`$ D-term contribution which is solely controlled by the $`U(1)_X`$ charge $`Q`$. On the other hand, the second term which represents a F-term contribution comes from non-renormalizable interaction in the Kähler potential and is sensitive to the physics close to the cut-off scale. In fact we expect to have the following term in the Kähler potential:

$$\frac{\eta _{ij}}{M_{}^2}\varphi _+^{}\varphi _+y_i^{}y_j$$
(11)
with numerical coefficients $`\eta _{ij}`$ of order unity or less, which are in general generation dependent.***Non-renormalizable interactions including bulk fields will be suppressed by the four dimensional Planck mass $`M_{Pl}`$. Eq. (11) yields a (possibly) generation dependent F-term mass estimated at most as

$$m_F^2\frac{F_{\varphi _+}^2}{M_{}^2}m^2\left(\frac{\xi m^2/g^2}{M_{}^2}\right).$$
(12)
Therefore this is potentially a source for the FCNC. However it is always sub-dominant compared to the first term, provided that there is a little hierarchy of one order of magnitude or so between $`\sqrt{\xi m^2/g^2}`$ and $`M_{}`$:

$$ϵ\frac{\sqrt{\xi m^2/g^2}}{M_{}}O(10^1).$$
(13)
Here it is interesting to mention the mass spectrum of $`\varphi _+`$ and $`\varphi _{}`$. What happens is that both supersymmetry and the $`U(1)_X`$ gauge symmetry are broken spontaneously. Since the scalar component of $`\varphi _{}`$ acquires non-zero vacuum expectation value, its real component has a similar mass to the gauge boson mass, $`\sqrt{g^2\xi m^2}`$, and its imaginary component becomes the would-be Nambu-Goldstone boson. On the other hand, it is essentially the $`\varphi _+`$ multiplet which is responsible for supersymmetry breaking, and its spinor component is the Goldstino absorbed into the gravitino in supergravity framework. In this case the mass of the scalar component of the $`\varphi _+`$ multiplet is found to be $`\sqrt{2}m`$, similar in size with the soft supersymmetry breaking masses.

Let us now discuss how the low cut-off scale model ameliorates the problems of the decoupling solution. First we will consider the color instability. For simplicity, we assign $`U(1)_X`$ charges for quarks and leptons in the first-two generations to be $`+1`$ and those for other matters to be $`0`$. In this framework, from the cut-off scale $`M_{}`$ to the mass scale of the sfermions in the first two generations $`\stackrel{~}{m}_{1,2}`$ the nature can be described by four-dimensional field theory with the matter content of the minimal supersymmetric standard model (MSSM), and from the $`\stackrel{~}{m}_{1,2}`$ scale to about 1 TeV it can be described by an effective theory in which squarks and sleptons in the first-two generations are integrated out.

A constraint on the soft masses in the third generation at the cut-off scale is obtained by requiring physical masses to be positive at the electroweak scale. Although the physical masses receive D-term contributions of the $`SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y`$ gauge interactions and also left-right mixing effects, we neglect them for simplicity ( the effects due to these neglect are discussed in  ). Hereafter we will obtain a constraint by requiring the running masses to be positive at 1 TeV scale as was done in .

The values of soft masses at 1 TeV scale are computed by using renormalization group equations (RGEs). In our analysis, we use the two-loop RGEs in the $`\overline{\text{DR}}^{}`$ scheme . For our charge assignment, the RGEs for the soft masses in the third generation that include Yukawa couplings, A-terms at one-loop level and heavy sfermion contributions at two-loop level in this scheme are

$`\mu {\displaystyle \frac{d\stackrel{~}{m}_f^2}{d\mu }}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{A}{}}\alpha _AC_A^fM_A^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}\eta _f^t\alpha _t(\stackrel{~}{m}_{Q_3}^2+\stackrel{~}{m}_{U_3}^2+\stackrel{~}{m}_{H_u}^2+A_t^2)`$ (16)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}\eta _f^b\alpha _b(\stackrel{~}{m}_{Q_3}^2+\stackrel{~}{m}_{D_3}^2+\stackrel{~}{m}_{H_d}^2+A_b^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}\eta _f^\tau \alpha _b(\stackrel{~}{m}_{L_3}^2+\stackrel{~}{m}_{E_3}^2+\stackrel{~}{m}_{H_d}^2+A_\tau ^2)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{A}{}}\alpha _{A}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}C_A^f\stackrel{~}{m}_{1,2}^2,`$
where $`\alpha _A`$ and $`C_A^f`$ are the gauge couplings and the quadratic Casimir of $`SU(3)_C`$, $`SU(2)_L`$ and $`U(1)_Y`$ for $`A=3,2,1`$, respectively, and $`\alpha _f=Y_f^2/4\pi (f=t,b,\tau )`$ are Yukawa couplings, with $`\eta _f^t=(1,2,3)`$ for $`f=Q_3,U_3,H_u`$ , $`\eta _f^b=(1,2,3)`$ for $`f=Q_3,D_3,H_d`$, and $`\eta _f^\tau =(1,2,1)`$ for $`f=L_3,E_3,H_d`$, respectively, and zero otherwise. Note that the contribution proportional to the $`U(1)_Y`$ D-term does not appear in (16) for the sake of the boundary conditions for the squark and slepton masses. We solve the RGEs as follows. At the cut-off scale, we assume that gaugino masses satisfy

$`M_3(M_{})={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _3(M_{})}{\alpha _2(M_{})}}M_2(M_{})={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _3(M_{})}{\alpha _1(M_{})}}M_1(M_{})`$ (17)
for simplicity. Below the $`\stackrel{~}{m}_{1,2}`$ scale, the heavy sfermions do not contribute to the running of the couplings and masses. Note that the gaugino masses evolve differently from the gauge coupling constants, but we ignored this deviation which is not important in our analysis. For the squark sector the gluino contribution dominate the other gaugino contributions, so that the constraint for the squark masses is insensitive to this assumption. Because of the charge assignment mentioned above, the squarks and sleptons in the first-two generations have soft masses $`\stackrel{~}{m}_{1,2}m`$ at the cut-off scale. The soft masses of the third generation scalar bosons and the Higgs bosons have no contribution from the $`U(1)_X`$ D-term and their F-term contributions are model dependent. Here to simplify the analysis we assume them all universal: $`m_0ϵ\stackrel{~}{m}_{1,2}ϵm`$ at the cut-off scale. We take into account the bottom and tau Yukawa couplings as well as the top Yukawa coupling. In our analysis, we fix the top quark mass in the $`\overline{\text{MS}}`$ scheme $`m_t^{\overline{MS}}(m_t)`$ to be 167 GeV and that of the bottom quark $`m_b^{\overline{MS}}(m_b)`$ to be 4.3 GeV. We checked whether our results depend on $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ and $`A`$ parameters and found that the dependence on these parameters are very small. Thus we will present results with all $`A`$ parameters zero at the cut-off scale and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =2`$.

We also have to include finite term contribution because the scale at which the initial condition of RGEs is given is not much lager than the electroweak scale. We follow Ref.  to evaluate this effect and the result for our case is

$`\stackrel{~}{m}_{f,finite}^2(\mu )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi ^2}}({\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{3}}2\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{m}_{1,2}^2}{\mu ^2}}\right)){\displaystyle \underset{A}{}}\alpha _A^2C_A^f\stackrel{~}{m}_{1,2}^2.`$ (18)
At the $`\stackrel{~}{m}_{1,2}`$ scale, we add this contribution to the running mass, as a threshold effect. The $`U(1)_Y`$ D-term contribution is absent as in the case of Eq. (16) . Note that the finite contribution (18) is different from that of Ref.. The difference can be absorbed by a redefinition of the renormalization scale $`\mu `$.

In fig. 1, we show the allowed maximum values of the sfermion masses in the first two generations $`\stackrel{~}{m}_{1,2}`$ by requiring that the mass squared $`\stackrel{~}{m}_{Q_3}^2`$ be positive at the 1 TeV scale. The horizontal axis represents the running gluino mass at the scale $`\mu =1`$ TeV. Here we take all the scalar masses of the third generation and the soft masses of the Higgs doublets at the cut-off scale $`\stackrel{~}{m}_f(M_{})`$ to be $`1\text{TeV}`$ . We found that the constraints from the positivity requirements of $`\stackrel{~}{m}_{U_3}^2`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{m}_{D_3}^2`$ are similar to that from $`\stackrel{~}{m}_{Q_3}^2`$ presented here, and in fact the differences are less than 10 %. We consider the cases $`M_{}=100,`$ $`10^3`$, $`10^4`$ and $`10^5`$ TeV. For comparison, we also show the case $`M_{}=10^{16}`$ GeV. The region above each curve is excluded. As $`M_{}`$ decreases, one finds that the allowed region becomes larger because the RGE effect becomes less significant. Indeed the finite term dominates when $`M_{}=100`$ TeV. When the gluino mass is, for instance, about 1 TeV, $`\stackrel{~}{m}_{1,2}`$ can be as heavy as about 17 TeV for $`M_{}=100`$ TeV. In this case the contribution to the kaon mass difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_K`$ will become at an acceptable level with the help of a small alignment between squark mass eigenstates and interaction eigenstates . The constraint from the positivity requirement of the third generation slepton $`\stackrel{~}{m}_{L_3}^2`$ alone is not so strong. For example, $`\stackrel{~}{m}_{1,2}`$ is required to be smaller than about $`80`$ TeV and $`25`$ TeV, for $`M_{}=100`$ TeV and $`M_{}=10^5`$ TeV, respectively, as far as the gluino mass at the 1 TeV is smaller than 3 TeV. On the other hand, in the case $`M_{}=10^{16}`$ GeV $`\stackrel{~}{m}_{1,2}`$ is required to be smaller than about $`13`$ TeV.

Next we would like to discuss how the other difficulties are cured in our setting. The point of the naturalness problem discussed in Ref.  is that the heavy first two generation scalar masses will influence the running of the Higgs mass at two loop level, causing the fine tuning to obtain the electroweak scale if the masses are very heavy. Now since the contribution to the running is roughly proportional to the “length” of running in logarithmic scale, the fine-tuning problem should be relaxed in our low-scale cut-off case in which the length of running is much shorter than the high-scale cut-off case discussed by .

In our scenario, the gravitino becomes very light with the estimate

$$m_{3/2}=\frac{F_{\varphi _+}}{\sqrt{3}M_{Pl}}m\frac{\sqrt{\xi m^2/g^2}}{M_{Pl}}0.1\mathrm{eV}\left(\frac{M_{}}{100\mathrm{T}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}}\right)\left(\frac{ϵm}{1\mathrm{T}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}}\right).$$
(19)
Thus it is likely to be the lightest superparticle (LSP). Then the lightest superpartner in the supersymmetric standard model sector is no longer stable, but it immediately decays into the gravitino and hence it is obvious that the overclosure problem of the neutralinos is evaded. In this scenario, the gravitino is stable. Its cosmological implications are discussed in the literature. For the gravitino which weighs much less than 1 keV, its relic abundance is much smaller than the critical density of the Universe and thus it is cosmologically harmless. See Ref.  and references therein for detail. We should also note that superparticle signals at collider experiments in our scenario have some characteristic features. The lifetime of the next to the lightest superparticle (NSP) is roughly of the order

$$\tau _{\mathrm{NSP}}16\pi \frac{F_{\varphi _+}^2}{m_{\mathrm{NSP}}^5}10^{17}\mathrm{sec}\left(\frac{100\text{GeV}}{m_{\mathrm{NSP}}}\right)^5\left(\frac{ϵm}{1\text{TeV}}\right)^2\left(\frac{M_{}}{100\text{TeV}}\right)^2,$$
(20)
assuming that the decay is a two-body decay. Thus the lifetime is so short that it will decay inside a detector. If the NSP is bino-like, the decay contains a photon and a gravitino which escapes detection. If the NSP is a slepton, most likely a stau, the decay contains a tau lepton and a gravitino. In our scenario, the stop may be the NSP. In this case, the stop decays into a top (or a W boson and a bottom quarkFor the three-body decay, the decay length increases substantially. An analysis in this case has been given in .) and a gravitino. In either case the signals will be distinguishable from those of high-scale supersymmetry breaking scenario where the signals will be associated with a massive LSP escaped from a detector. Here it should also be noticed that we can probe the heavy mass scale of the first-two generations via superoblique corrections , even though they cannot be produced directly in near future colliders.

Here we would like to briefly mention a gaugino mass. In our model we can write the following term

$$\frac{\varphi _+\varphi _{}}{M_{}^2}W^\alpha W_\alpha ,$$
(21)
where $`W^\alpha `$ is a supersymmetric field strength of a gauge field. It follows from this that the gaugino mass is of the order

$$\frac{F_{\varphi _+}\varphi _{}}{M_{}^2}=ϵ^2m.$$
(22)
Recall that the mass of the third generation squark is $`ϵm`$. An additional suppression factor $`ϵ`$ in Eq. (22) may be compensated by unknown numerical coefficients in front. Note that in the low-scale supersymmetry breaking scenario, the contribution to the gaugino mass from superconformal anomaly  is negligible because it is proportional to the tiny gravitino mass.

Before concluding we will comment on the large extra dimensions needed to obtain the large Planck scale with the low string scale scenario. The size of the compact $`n`$-dimensional extra dimensions $`R`$ is given by

$$M_{Pl}^2M_{}^{2+n}R^n,$$
(23)
or

$$R^1M_{}\left(\frac{M_{}}{M_{Pl}}\right)^{2/n}$$
(24)
to reproduce the Planck scale $`M_{Pl}`$. Here we have assumed that the compact manifold is isotropic and is characterized by a single size $`R`$. To illustrate, let us take $`n=6`$. Then

$$R^110^2\text{GeV}\left(\frac{M_{}}{10^6\text{GeV}}\right)^{4/3}.$$
(25)
The masses of graviton’s Kaluza-Klein modes are quantized in units of $`R^1`$. Thus we find that the KK mode masses are in the electroweak scale or higher. This contrasts with the case of the large extra dimension scenario with $`M_{}1`$ TeV where $`R^110`$ MeV.

Since the KK modes have masses of the electroweak scale or so and have interactions similar to the graviton, they may affect cosmological evolution of the early Universe. In particular, they are produced after the inflationary epoch and decay typically around the epoch of the big-bang nucleosynthesis. Here we will not go into detailed discussion, but make some remarks. First if $`R^1>10^4`$ GeV, the KK modes decay before the nucleosynthesis and thus they are harmless. On the other hand, for $`10^2\text{GeV}<R^1<10^4`$ GeV, the reheat temperature after inflation must be low to suppress the production of the KK modes. We expect that the reheat temperature of $`10^2`$ GeV will be allowed since then the production of the KK modes whose masses are heavier than $`10^2`$ GeV is highly suppressed. This is very different from the TeV gravity case where the reheat temperature is forced to be even smaller than 1 GeV . The higher reheat temperature in our case has an advantage for baryogenesis. In particular one may be able to use the electroweak baryogenesis.

It is interesting to mention here that the radius of the extra dimension can be as large as a sub-millimeter for $`n=1`$ and $`M_{}10^8`$ GeV. This case may be tested in a future gravity experiment .

There remains a problem of how one realizes a viable inflation model and a subsequent stabilization of the size of the extra dimensions. A hope is that model building for this may be somewhat easier than the original large extra dimension scenario . This issue should deserve further study.

To summarize, we have considered the supersymmetric standard model with the anomalous $`U(1)`$ gauge symmetry when the ultraviolet cut-off scale is not far from the electroweak scale. In our scenario, the Fayet-Illiopoulos D-term is set to be a bit smaller than the cut-off scale squared. Except this, the model is similar to that of . We applied this model to the decoupling solution of the supersymmetric flavor problem and showed that the difficulties of the solution become less severe than the conventional high-scale cut-off scenario. The model should be combined with the idea of the large extra dimensions to obtain the large Planck scale of the gravitational interaction. We briefly discussed some of the related cosmological issues.

We would like to thank K. Kurosawa and Y. Nomura for valuable discussions and explaining the works in . MY also thanks Y. Kawamura and H. Nakano for helpful discussions on anomalous U(1) theories in type I and type IIB string models. The work of YY was supported in part by the Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research from the Ministry of Education, Science, Sports, and Culture of Japan, No.10740106, and the work of MY by the Grant-in-Aid on Priority Area 707 ”Supersymmetry and Unified Theory of Elementary Particles”, and by the Grant-in-Aid No.11640246.