text:
# Large Magnetic-Field-Induced Strains in Ni-Mn-Ga Alloys due to Redistribution of Martensite Variants

## I Introduction

Magnetic field control of the shape of ferromagnetic alloys with martensitic structure was suggested recently  and advantages of using those kind of materials as actuators was substantiated . The suggestion was based on the fact that crystallographic anisotropy of martensite lattice encourages the presence of strong magnetic anisotropy. For example, in Ni2MnGa martensite lattice the easy axis of magnetization is directed along the axis of tetragonality (c-axis) with the shortest axial length . The martensitic crystal consists of mixture of the martensite variants possessing different c-axis orientations. The increase in the fraction of the martensite variants with c-axis directed along the magnetic field due to the movement of twin boundaries would appear to be more advantageous process in comparison with the process of magnetic moment rotation in the martensitic variants, in which the easy axis of magnetization is non-parallel to the applied magnetic field. The change of the martensite variants proportions would lead to macroscopic deformation of sample, i.e. to the control of the sample shape by the applied magnetic field.

More than 4 % field-induced strains have been observed in a single-crystal of Ni2MnGa alloy . It have been shown that the initial state of samples is important for observing such a big effect. The single martensite variant state was obtained by applying axial compressive stress to martensite crystal  or by cooling the sample through the austenite-to-martensite phase transformation under axial compressive stress . Magnetic field applied in transverse direction produced more than 4 % macroscopic deformation.

The aim of this work was to confirm the coincidence of martensite c-axis with the axis of easy magnetization in near-stoichiometric Ni2MnGa alloys and to investigate the conditions when martensite variants can be redistributed by the applied magnetic field.

## II Experimental

Two alloys Ni50Mn29.5Ga20.2 (N1) and Ni48.7Mn30.1Ga21.3 (N2) were melted in induction furnace in argon atmosphere. The composition of the alloys was measured by wave-length dispersive spectroscopy (WDS). After homogenization at 1000 0C during 3 days and aging at 800 0C 1 day alloys were air cooled to room temperature. X-ray diffraction measurements revealed the Heusler type ordered structure (L21) for both alloys in austenitic state. Martensitic transformation points Ms, Mf, As, Af, and Curie point Tc were measured using low field ac magnetic susceptibility technique (for N1 - Ms=71 0C Mf=67 0C As=74 0C Af=78 0C Tc=97 0C, for N2 - Ms=29 0C Mf=26 0C As=32 0C Af=35 0C Tc=99 0C). Samples for magnetic investigation had been cut by spark cutting machine with dimensions 4x4x4 mm. The specimens of alloy N1 had a rather fine grain structure, but alloy N2 samples have been cut from one big grain.

All M-H curves were obtained using a vibrating sample magnetometer (VSM). The specimen stage was mounted between the pole pieces of a 1 T electromagnet and could be rotated for different field orientations. In all measurements rotation of the samples was carried out at zero magnetic field. The mechanical and thermo-mechanical treatment were carried out by compression using tensile machine L1000R with cross head speed of 0.2 mm/min. Stains induced by magnetic field were measured by strain gauges. Temperature was controlled with an alcohol-based circulator.

## III Results and discussion

Figure 1 shows the M-H curves at 25 0C for alloy N1 along the different cubic directions of the sample, marked as A, B and C, before and after 5 % compression. The model describing the martensite magnetization curves have been proposed recently by Likhachev and Ullakko . Discussion of our experimental data is based on this model.

The M-H curves of the sample in three above-mentioned directions before compression tests are shown in Fig. 1a. It is clear from the model that C direction of the sample is close to the hard magnetization direction. For two other sample directions A and B the M-H curves indicate the different volume fractions of martensite variants, in which the easy axis of magnetization is directed along the field.

The M-H curves in Fig. 1b show that the 5 % compression of the sample along B direction results in the sample texture, which is very similar to that for the single variant martensite with c-axis, which is indeed the easy axis of magnetization, along the compression direction. Along the A and C directions M-H curves (see Fig. 1b) reveal the direction of hard magnetization.

The subsequent compression of the sample along direction A leads to the axial texture reorientation of about 900, thus the c-axis and consequently the easy axis of magnetization again coincides with a compression direction (see Fig. 1c). The direction B becomes close to the direction of hard magnetization. The change of compression direction from B to A and vice versa results in reversible reorientation of the martensitic texture. At the same time C direction always remains the direction of hard magnetization. This can be connected with realization of only two martensitic twin variants in studied sample after such a type of mechanical treatment.

Uniaxial anisotropic constant estimated from the area between M-H curves for easy and hard axes (Fig. 1b, 1c) was Ku=0.25 MJ/m3. This value is close to that obtained by Tickle and James .

Figure 2 shows the M-H curves for the single-crystal sample of alloy N2 without any preliminary treatment. The dimensions of the sample and the procedure of measurements were the same as in previous case. The M-H curves measured in A direction are shown in Fig. 2a. Initial part of magnetization curve (marked as 1 in Fig. 2a) corresponds to the case where the fraction of the martensite variant with hard axis of magnetization along A direction is dominant (compare curves in Fig. 1 and 2). At the field in the interval 0.3-0.5 T magnetization abruptly increases and approaches the saturation level. When decreasing the field, the magnetization keeps the saturation level towards the lower field. Subsequent magnetization loops have no particularities and show saturation at low field, indicating that the easy axis of magnetization now is directed along the field (curve 2 on Fig. 2a). When sample is rotated by 900 from A to B direction along the field, M-H curve again shows the same behavior (see Fig. 2b). The effect is fully reversible - 900 rotation of the sample from B to A position and vice versa does not change the peculiarities of M-H curves. Consequently, it is evident that under the influence of the magnetic field within the interval of 0.3-0.5 T one can observe the easy axis reorientation from the perpendicular to parallel to the field direction. It must be pointed out that if the magnetic field is applied along the C direction of the sample, no changes of easy axis direction occurs and C direction always coincides with the hard axis of magnetization.

The above-mentioned reorientation of the easy axis is caused by the redistribution of the martensite variants proportions under the applied magnetic field and would lead to macroscopic deformation of the sample. The results presented in Fig. 3 confirm this conclusion. Fig. 3a and Fig. 3b show the changes of strain against magnetic field of alloy N2 for the single-crystal and polycrystalline samples, respectively. For the single crystal sample the strain gauge was attached to the preliminary magnetized sample along A direction coincided with the easy axis of magnetization. The polycrystalline sample was preliminary thermo-mechanically treated by 5 % compression cycling at the temperature higher than Af temperature with subsequent cooling lower Mf temperature. X-ray diffraction measurements of the cubic structure, made before thermo-mechanical treatment, revealed that preferable orientation along columnar grains was the $`<`$ 001$`>`$ . The strain gauge was attached to the polycrystalline sample along the compression direction, which was parallel to the columnar grains.

Curves 1 and 2 in Fig. 3 show the changes of the strain vs. magnetic field applied across the strain gauge axis. Then the sample was turned by 900 at zero field (B single crystal sample direction is parallel to the magnetic field), and subsequently the strain was measured as a function of the magnetic field (curves 3 and 4). Increasing the magnetic field after every 900 rotation of the sample results in more than 4 % strain. The changes of single crystal sample dimensions due to rotation between A and B directions are reversible, but applying the magnetic field along direction C causes no dimension changes. Results shown in Fig. 2 and Fig. 3a are in a good accordance to each other. The difference between curves 1 in the Figs. 3a and 3b can be connected with that the polycrystalline sample has not been magnetized before measurements. The rather big sample shape changes give us the possibility to confirm strain gauge data by micrometer measurements. The observed magnetic-field induced reversible strains are the largest to date obtained for polycrystalline Ni2MnGa alloys.

## IV Conclusions

1. Compression of Ni2MnGa alloy samples by approximately 5 %, at a temperature lover that the Mf one results in formation of close to one variant martensite structure in which c-axis coincides with compression direction. It is confirmed that martensite c-axis is the axis of easy magnetization.

2. In single crystal Ni2MnGa alloy sample the reversible redistribution of twin variants by applying the magnetic field can be obtained without any preliminary treatment. The martensite structure reorientation occurs only between two sample directions, the third one remains the axis of hard magnetization.

3. The rearrangement of the martensite variants under influence of magnetic field is accompanied with reversible changes of sample dimensions exceeding 4 %. The same effect can be achieved even on polycrystalline samples after appropriate thermo-mechanical treatment.

Acknowledgments

Authors acknowledge the Physical and Materials Science Departments of the Helsinki Technological University supported this work.


format: text

text:
# Piezoelectric mechanism of orientation of stripe structures in two-dimensional electron systems

## I Introduction

A homogeneous state of two-dimensional electron gas is unstable at low densities and low temperatures. Under such conditions a transition into a Wigner crystal state occurs. The minimum of the energy corresponds to the triangular lattice  for the case of classical Wigner crystal. Recently, non-uniform electron states in quantum Hall systems have become a subject of great attention. One can expect that many new states with a spatial modulation of the electron density are realized in these systems. In quantum Hall ferromagnets(QHF) skyrmions may form lattice structures  (skyrmions in QHF obey the electric charge). Skyrmions are spatially extended objects and the square lattice is preferable at moderate densities. Among recent experimental results the most intriguing one is the observation of strong anisotropy of resistivity at filling factors $`\nu =N+1/2`$ ($`N`$ is the integer number, $`N4`$). The effect is a signature of a stripe phase state of electrons of the half-filled Landay level.

It has been found in experiments  that the low-resistivity direction is alinged with the  axis. Therefore there is an anisotropic electron-electron interaction causes preferable orientation of the stripes relative to the crystallography axes of the host material. Such an interaction should be comparatively weak, because the effect of rotation of the stripes in tilted magnetic fields has been observed .

The modulated electron structures emerge as a result of competition between the direct Coulomb and exchange interaction. In systems with cubic symmetry these interactions are isotropic. They cannot cause the stripe to line up with a particular axis. $`GaAs`$ is the piezoelectric crystal. Therefore one can suppose that piezoelectric interaction (which remains anisotropic in cubic crystals) plays the main role in orientation of stripe structures.

The anisotropy of the electron-electron interaction in piezoelectrics was studied previously by Rashba and Sherman in . They investigate the influence of piezoelectric interaction on symmetry of Wigner crystal states. The isotropic model for the elastic media was used in Ref. . The results  cannot be applied directly to $`GaAs`$ where the anisotropy of the elastic moduli is rather strong.

In this paper we consider the piezoelectric mechanism of orientation of the stripe structures in $`GaAs`$. We take into account the anisotropy of the elastic moduli and the influence of the surface of the sample. The major conclusion is that if the electron layer is parallel to the (001) plane the energy of the stripe phase is minimal when the angle $`\varphi `$ between the wave vector of the stripe structure and the  axis is in the interval $`30^o÷60^o`$. The potential curve as the function of $`\varphi `$ shows a rather shallow shape in this interval. The average direction of the wave vector corresponds to the orientation observed experimentally.

Double layer stripe structures are also considered in the paper. We find that the stripes are aligned with the  or  axis, if the period of the density modulation becomes greater than the interlayer distance. The effect can be easily checked experimentally, because the period of the stripe structure, which is proportional to the magnetic length, is increased under lowering of the external magnetic field.

## II Monolayer system

At the beginning we consider the electron layer in an infinite piezoelectric cubic crystal. The properties of the host system are described with three elastic moduli $`c_{11}`$, $`c_{12}`$, $`c_{44}`$, the dielectric constant $`ϵ`$ and one piezoelectric modulus $`e_{14}`$. Here and below only the case of a layer laying in the (001) plane is analysed. The stripe structure is described as a charge density wave(CDW) with the wave vector $`𝐛`$ directed at the angle $`\varphi `$ to the  axis:

$$\rho (𝐫)=\rho _0\mathrm{sin}(\mathrm{𝐛𝐫}_{pl})\delta (z)$$
(1)
where $`𝐫_{pl}`$ is the projection of $`𝐫`$ on the (001) plane. The $`z`$ axis is along the  direction. The density of the energy of the system is

$$F=\frac{\mathrm{𝐄𝐃}}{8\pi }+\frac{\sigma _{ik}u_{ik}}{2}$$
(2)
where

$$D_i=ϵE_i4\pi \beta _{ikl}u_{kl}$$
(3)
is the dielectric displacement,

$$\sigma _{ik}=\lambda _{iklm}u_{lm}+\beta _{lik}E_l$$
(4)
the stress tensor, $`u_{ik}`$, the strain tensor, $`𝐄`$, the electric field, $`\lambda _{iklm}`$ the elastic moduli tensor, $`\beta _{ikl}`$, the piezoelectric moduli tensor (in cubic crystals $`\beta _{ikl}=e_{14}/2`$ at $`ikl`$ and $`\beta _{ikl}=0`$ otherwise). The quantities $`𝐃`$ and $`\sigma _{ik}`$ satisfy the equations

$`\mathrm{div}𝐃=4\pi \rho `$ (5)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _{ik}}{x_k}}=0`$ (6)
Taking into account Eqs.(6) and boundary condition for $`\sigma _{ik}`$ ($`\sigma _{ik}n_k=0`$ at the free surface, $`𝐧`$ is the vector perpendicular to the surface) we obtain for the total energy

$$E=d^3rF=\frac{1}{2}d^3r\rho (𝐫)\phi (𝐫)$$
(7)
where $`\phi `$ is the electric potential ($`𝐄=\phi `$). The value of $`\phi `$ can be found from Eqs. (6). Rewriting Eqs.(6) in terms of the Fourier-components of $`\phi `$ and the displacement $`𝐮`$ we obtain

$$M_{ik}V_k=Q_i,$$
(8)
where

$$\widehat{M}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}& \widehat{T}\\ \widehat{T}^+& \frac{ϵq^2}{4\pi }\end{array}\right)$$
(9)
with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{ik}=\lambda _{iklm}q_lq_m`$, $`T_i=\beta _{ikl}q_kq_l`$,

$$V_i=\{\begin{array}{cc}u_{i𝐪}\hfill & \text{i=1,2,3}\hfill \\ \phi _𝐪\hfill & \text{i=4}\hfill \end{array},Q_i=\{\begin{array}{cc}0\hfill & \text{i=1,2,3}\hfill \\ \rho _𝐪\hfill & \text{i=4}\hfill \end{array}$$
(10)
($`\rho _𝐪`$, the Fourier component of the electron density). The solution of Eq.(8) is

$$\phi _𝐪=M_{44}^1(𝐪_{pl},q_z)\rho _𝐪$$
(11)
($`𝐪_{pl}`$ is the projection of $`𝐪`$ on the (001) plane)). Inserting $`\phi `$ into Eq.(7) yields

$$E=\frac{\rho _0^2S}{8\pi }_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑q_zM_{44}^1(𝐛,q_z)$$
(12)
($`S`$ is the area of the layer). Taking into account the smallness of the piezoelectric constant, the energy can be written as the sum

$$E=E_c+E_{pe}^0+E_{pe}^{an}$$
(13)
where

$$E_c=\frac{\pi \rho _0^2S}{2ϵb}$$
(14)
is the Coulomb energy, $`E_{pe}^0`$, $`E_{pe}^{an}`$, the isotropic and anisotropic parts of the energy of piezoelectric interaction between electrons. The anisotropic part has the form

$$E_{pe}^{an}=\chi E_cF(\varphi )$$
(15)
where $`\chi =e_{14}^2/ϵc_{11}`$ is the small parameter of the expansion. The function $`F`$ has the amplitude of order of unity. It depends on the ratio between the elastic moduli.

If $`c_{12}=c_{11}2c_{44}`$ (the case of the isotropic elastic medium)

$$F(\varphi )=A\mathrm{cos}4\varphi $$
(16)
where

$$A=\frac{9\pi }{32}(1\frac{c_{11}}{3c_{44}})$$
(17)
The answer Eq. (17) was obtained in  with another method. Using the values of $`c_{11}`$, $`c_{44}`$ for $`GaAs`$ in Eq. (17) we obtain $`A0.3`$. The minimum of the energy reaches at $`\varphi =\pi /4`$. But if one can use the average values of the square velocities of the longitudinal and the transverse sound instead of $`c_{11}`$, $`c_{44}`$ correspondingly, the value of $`A`$ approaches to zero. It means that even the sign of the anisotropy remains unsettled. Thus it is a principal question to take into account the anisotropy of the elastic moduli.

The integral in Eq.(12) has been computed numerically for the anisotropic case. The values of the elastic moduli for $`GaAs`$ ($`c_{11}=12.3`$, $`c_{12}=5.7`$, $`c_{44}=6.0`$, all in $`10^{11}`$ dyne/cm2) are used. The result for $`F(\varphi )`$ is shown in Fig. 1 (curve 1). We see from the dependence obtained that the minimum of the potential energy corresponds to $`\varphi 30^o`$. But the energy variation in the interval $`30^o<\varphi <60^o`$ is very small and all the configuration in this interval are realized with an almost equal probability. In the average the wave vector of the stripe structure is directed along the  axis. The absolute value of the anisotropic part of the energy is determined by the parameter $`\chi `$. For $`GaAs`$ ($`e_{14}=0.15`$ C/m2, $`ϵ=12.5`$) $`\chi 210^4`$.

An important question is how the result is changed under small variation of the elastic moduli. We compute the function $`F(\varphi )`$ versus the $`c_{12}`$ modulus. If the value of $`c_{12}`$ is decreased the local maximum at $`\varphi =\pi /4`$ transforms to the global minimum (at $`c_{12}510^{11}`$ dyne/cm2). In the opposite case (increasing of this modulus) the minimum at $`\varphi 30^o`$ becomes dipper. The situation in $`GaAs`$ is just in between these two cases.

The dependence of the energy of interaction on the angle $`\varphi `$ remains unchanged for the stripe structure with density modulation of general form. If one replaces Eq.(1) with the sum over the wave vectors $`𝐪_n=n𝐛`$ ($`n`$ is integer), the quantities $`E_c`$ and $`E_{pe}^{an}`$ are multiplied with the same factor and the function $`F(\varphi )`$ is not modified.

In case of the electron crystal with square lattice the energy can be written as a sum over the reciprocal lattice vectors and each term in the sum depends on the direction of the corresponding wave vector. Therefore a concrete form of the density distribution should be specified to compute the energy. If the electron crystal is modelled as two CDW with perpendicular wave vectors the preferable orientation and the anisotropic energy are obviously the same as for the stripe structure. The anisotropic energy is much smaller for the triangular lattice (modelled as the sum of three CDW). The absolute value of the anisotropic energy is in $`10^2`$ times smaller than in the stripe state. The minimum reaches when the angle between the  axis and one of the CDW wave vectors is $`k\pi /6`$ ($`k`$ is the integer number). Note that anisotropic contribution into the total energy of the triangular lattice does not emerge in the isotropic elastic medium (see Eq.(16)).

A finite thickness of the electron layer can be taken into consideration in the approach used. The corresponding form factor should be added into Eq. (12). However, since the thickness of the layer is much smaller than the period of the stripe structure, it does not result in essential changes.

Usually the electron layers in heterostructures are situated close to the surface of the sample ( a typical distance $`d`$ between the layer and the surface is $`510^3\AA `$). Therefore a principal question is how the influence of the surface may change the result obtained. To answer the question the system (6) should be solved with taking into account the boundary conditions.

The solution of (6) can be written in the form

$`u_i=u_i(z)\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{𝐛𝐫}_{pl}}+c.c.`$ (18)
$`\phi =\phi (z)\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{𝐛𝐫}_{pl}}+c.c.`$ (19)
where $`u_i(z)`$ and $`\phi (z)`$ satisfy the system of differential equations

$`(c_{44}(_z^2b_y^2)c_{11}b_x^2)u_x(c_{12}+c_{44})b_x(b_yu_y\mathrm{i}_zu_z)\mathrm{i}e_{14}b_y_z\phi =0`$ (20)
$`(c_{44}(_z^2b_x^2)c_{11}b_y^2)u_y(c_{12}+c_{44})b_y(b_xu_x\mathrm{i}_zu_z)\mathrm{i}e_{14}b_x_z\phi =0`$ (21)
$`(c_{11}_z^2c_{44}b^2)u_z+\mathrm{i}(c_{12}+c_{44})_z(b_xu_x+b_yu_y)+e_{14}b_xb_y\phi =0`$ (22)
$`ϵ(_z^2b^2)\phi +4\pi e_{14}(\mathrm{i}_z(b_xu_y+b_yu_x)b_xb_yu_z)=0`$ (23)
with the boundary conditions

$`\sigma _{iz}|_{z=d0}=0`$ (24)
$`\phi |_{z=d0}=\phi |_{z=d+0}`$ (25)
$`D_z|_{z=d0}=(_z\phi )|_{z=d+0}`$ (26)
$`\sigma _{iz}|_{z=0}=\sigma _{iz}|_{z=+0}`$ (27)
$`\phi |_{z=0}=\phi |_{z=+0}`$ (28)
$`u_i|_{z=0}=u_i|_{z=+0}`$ (29)
$`D_z|_{z=+0}D_z|_{z=0}=2\pi \mathrm{i}\rho _0`$ (30)
(31)
In Eq. (31)

$`\sigma _{x(y)z}=c_{44}(_zu_{x(y)}+\mathrm{i}b_{x(y)}u_z)\mathrm{i}{\displaystyle \frac{e_{14}}{2}}b_{y(x)}\phi `$ (32)
$`\sigma _{zz}=c_{11}_zu_z+\mathrm{i}c_{44}(b_xu_x+b_yu_y)`$ (33)
$`D_z=ϵ_z\phi \mathrm{i2}\pi e_{14}(b_xu_y+b_yu_x)`$ (34)
An analytical solution of (23) can be written if the roots of the characteristic equation are found. The roots were computed numerically. The energy has been separated similar to Eq.(13), with the Coulomb part

$$E_c^{^{}}=\frac{\pi \rho _0^2S}{2ϵb}(1+\frac{ϵ1}{ϵ+1}\mathrm{e}^{2bd})$$
(35)
and the anisotropic part

$$E_{pe}^{an}=\chi E_c^{^{}}F(\varphi )$$
(36)
The dependences $`F(\varphi )`$ obtained are shown in Fig. 1 at several values of the parameter $`d/a`$ ($`a=2\pi /b`$ is the period of the stripe structure). At $`d/a=0`$ (the electron layer is situated on the surface of the sample) the dependence (curve 2) is close to the one obtained for the infinite medium (curve 1). Under increasing of the ratio $`d/a`$ the minimum at $`\varphi 30^o`$ becomes dipper (curve 3). But the shape of the potential remains shallow in the interval $`30^o<\varphi <60^o`$. Then the reverse changes begins and at $`d/a0.5`$ the two wall structure of the potential near $`\varphi =\pi /4`$ disappears (curve 4). The anisotropy is maximal in the last case. The dependence approaches the curve 1 under further increasing of the parameter $`d/a`$ Thus, the surface of the sample does not influence essentially on the orientation of the stripes. The results obtained show that the piezoelectric mechanism describes the experimental situation correctly.

## III Double layer system

In this section we consider the piezoelectric mechanism of orientation of the stripe structures in double layer systems. Double layer electron systems are widely used in experiments. Therefore it is of interest to extend our consideration to the case of two identical stripe structures in the adjacent layers. There is another more important reason to address this problem. In the double layer system there is an additional parameter - the ratio between the interlayer distance and the period of the stripe structure. The period is proportional to the magnetic length. Therefore this parameter can be easily changed experimentally. One can hope that the orientation of the stripes depends on this parameter. If it is the case, the dependence can be extracted from the resistivity data. Comparing the experimental data with the theoretical prediction one can verify the model under consideration.

Basing on the results of the previous section we consider only the infinite system. In the double layer system the Coulomb interaction results in a relative shift of CDW in the adjacent layers. The electron density reads as

$$\rho (𝐫)=\rho _0\mathrm{sin}(\mathrm{𝐛𝐫}_{pl})(\delta (z\frac{s}{2})\delta (z+\frac{s}{2}))$$
(37)
($`s`$ is the interlayer distance). Following the steps of the previous sections we find

$$E=\frac{\rho _0^2S}{4\pi }_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑q_zM_{44}^1(𝐛,q_z)(1\mathrm{cos}(q_zs))$$
(38)
If the elastic moduli are isotropic

$$E_{pe}^{an}=\chi E_cA\mathrm{cos}4\varphi $$
(39)
where

$$A=2_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑z\frac{1\mathrm{cos}(zsb)}{(1+z^2)^4}(\frac{c_{11}}{c_{44}}z^2(8\frac{c_{11}}{c_{44}}+9))$$
(40)
Calculating the integral in Eq.(40) yields

$`A={\displaystyle \frac{9\pi }{16}}(1{\displaystyle \frac{c_{11}}{3c_{44}}}\mathrm{e}^{sb}((1+sb)(1{\displaystyle \frac{c_{11}}{3c_{44}}})+(sb)^2({\displaystyle \frac{2c_{11}}{3c_{44}}}{\displaystyle \frac{sb}{3}}(1{\displaystyle \frac{c_{11}}{c_{44}}}))))`$ (41)
The dependence of $`A`$ on the parameter $`s/a`$ at $`c_{11}/c_{44}=12.3/6`$ is shown in Fig. 2 One can see that at $`s/a<1`$ the anisotropic part of the energy changes the sign and the stripes line up with the  or  direction.

Anisotropic systems show similar behavior. For $`GaAs`$ the dependence of the energy on the angle $`\varphi `$ is shown in Fig. 3 at several values of $`s/a`$. The angle $`\varphi `$ which corresponds to the state with minimal energy versus the parameter $`s/a`$ is shown in Fig. 4. The energy gain of the lowest energy state comparing to the $`\varphi =0`$ (curve 1) and $`\varphi =\pi /4`$ states (curve 2) is also presented in Fig. 4. One can see from Figs. 3, 4 the interaction between the layers does not change the orientation of the stripes at $`s/a>1.5`$. At $`0.8<s/a<1.5`$ the stripe phases with $`\varphi 0,\pi /4`$ can be detected. At $`s/a<0.8`$ the stripes line up with the  or  direction.

The effect obtained is of great importance. The parameter $`a`$ depends on the magnetic length and the stripe phases at $`\nu =N+1/2`$ have different periods at different $`N`$. In the double layer systems the stripes will have different orientation versus the filling factor (along  at smaller $`N`$ and along  at larger $`N`$). The prediction can be verified experimentally. The effect if observed will be the experimental evidence of the major role of the piezoelectric mechanism of orientation of the stripe structures. It can also be used for indirect measurements of the periods of the stripe structures.

## IV Conclusions

We have shown that the piezoelectric interaction may play an essential role in orientation of non-uniform two-dimensional electron structures relative to the crystallography axes of the host material.

The anisotropic part of the energy of the stripe structure in the quantum Hall system in $`GaAs`$ heterostructures has been found. If the electron layer is parallel to the (001) plane the minimum of the energy corresponds to the wave vector of the stripe structure directed at the angle $`\varphi 30^o`$ to the  axis. The potential energy shows a rather shallow shape at $`30^o<\varphi <60^o`$ and all the direction in this interval can be realized with almost the same probability. In the average the stripes line up with the  axis.

The influence of the surface of the sample on the orientation of the stripes has been analysed. If the electron layer is situated on the surface of the sample (the distance $`d`$ between the layer and the surface is much smaller than the period $`a`$ of the stripe structure) the anisotropic part of the energy is almost the same as for the infinite system. If the ratio $`d/a`$ is of order of unity some changes may take place. At $`d/a0.5`$ the local maximum at $`\varphi =\pi /4`$ transforms into the global minimum. At $`d/a0.15`$ the minimum at $`\varphi 30^o`$ becomes dipper and the orientation of stripes along a low symmetry direction can be observed at very low temperatures.

The results obtained describes the experimental situation correctly. The absolute value of the anisotropic energy is small ( in $`10^4`$ times smaller than the Coulomb energy). Therefore external fields (for instance, the tangent magnetic field) may change the orientation (this effect observed experimentally).

The influence of the piezoelectric interaction on the orientation of the stripes is investigated with reference to the double layer systems. For such systems the model predicts that at small interlayer distances the stripes change their direction and line up with the  axis. The re-orientation takes place if the interlayer distance becomes smaller than the period of the stripe structure. The prediction can be checked experimentally since the period is proportional to the magnetic length, e.g. it will change under magnetic field variation.

If the effect is observed it can be considered as the experimental evidence of the major role of the piezoelectric mechanism of orientation of stripe structures.

This work was supported in part by the INTAS grant No. 97-0972.


text:
# 1 The Problem

## 1 The Problem

A conducting wire of mass $`m`$ and length $`L`$ is stretched between two fixed points with an unknown tension $`T`$. One could determine the tension by plucking the wire and observing the frequency of the vibration. Analyze the following scheme for noncontact plucking. A magnetic field of strength $`B`$ is applied transversely to the wire over a length $`lL`$ around the midpoint of the wire. A very short pulse of total charge $`Q`$ is passes down the wire, which therefore starts vibrating. The voltage induced between the two ends of the vibrating wire is measured as a function of time and a Fourier analysis yields the various frequencies present.

Calculate the voltage induced at the various frequencies, and relate those frequencies to the tension in the wire. You may ignore damping effects.

A device constructed on the principles of this problem is described in .

## 2 Solution

According to Faraday, the induced voltage is $`V=\dot{\mathrm{\Phi }}/c`$ in Gaussian units, where $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is the magnetic flux and $`c`$ is the speed of light.

We write the amplitude of the transverse oscillation of the wire as $`a(x,t)`$. The magnetic flux through the circuit containing the wire is $`\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }_0+Bla(0,t)`$, where $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ is the flux when the wire is at rest. taking the origin at the midpoint of the wire. The boundary conditions on the wire are $`a(L/2,t)=0=a(L/2,t)`$, and one of the initial conditions is $`a(x,0)=0`$ at the moment the current pulse is applied. These are sufficient to determine the amplitude as having the form

$$a(x,t)=\underset{\mathrm{odd}n}{}a_n\mathrm{cos}\frac{n\pi x}{2L}\mathrm{sin}\omega _nt.$$
(1)
The motion satisfies the wave equation $`a^{\prime \prime }=\ddot{a}/v^2`$, where the wave velocity is related to the tension by $`v=\sqrt{TL/m}`$. Hence,

$$\omega _n=\frac{n\pi v}{2L}=\frac{n\pi }{2}\sqrt{\frac{T}{mL}}.$$
(2)
To complete the solution we need another initial condition, corresponding to the transverse impulse due the current pulse interacting with the magnetic field. The Lorentz force on the length $`l`$ of wire in the magnetic field due to current $`I`$ is $`F=IBl/c`$. If this lasts for time $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ the resulting impulse is $`\mathrm{\Delta }P=I\mathrm{\Delta }tBl/c=QBl/c`$. Only a length $`l`$ of the wire experiences this impulse, so the mass of this section is $`ml/L`$ and the initial velocity is $`QBL/mc`$. In sum, the second initial condition is

$$\dot{a}(x,0)=\{\begin{array}{cc}QBL/mc,\hfill & |x|<l/2;\hfill \\ 0,\hfill & |x|>l/2.\hfill \end{array}$$
(3)
From the form (1) of $`a(x,t)`$ we deduce that

$$\dot{a}(x,0)=\underset{\mathrm{odd}n}{}a_n\omega _n\mathrm{cos}\frac{n\pi x}{2L}.$$
(4)
Hence, in the usual manner we evaluate the Fourier coefficients as

$$a_n\omega _n=\frac{2}{L}_{L/2}^{L/2}\dot{a}(x,0)\mathrm{cos}\frac{n\pi x}{2L}dx\frac{2QBl}{mc},$$
(5)
for $`lL`$.

The induced voltage is then

$$V(t)=\frac{Bl}{c}\dot{a}(0,t)=\frac{2Q(Bl)^2}{mc^2}\underset{\mathrm{odd}n}{}\mathrm{cos}\omega _nt.$$
(6)
The amplitude of the voltage induced at frequency $`\omega _n`$ is $`2Q(Bl)^2/mc^2`$, independent of $`n`$. In practice, the finite values of $`l`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ reduce the amplitudes of the higher harmonics.


text:
# THE REACH OF THE CERN LARGE HADRON COLLIDER FOR GAUGE-MEDIATED SUPERSYMMETRY BREAKING MODELS

## I Introduction

The search for supersymmetric particles has become a standard item for on-going as well as future experiments at high energy colliders. No signal has as yet been found, and the absence of evidence has been translated to lower limits on the masses of various sparticles . Since the qualitative features as well as the size of experimental signals are determined by sparticle production cross sections and decay patterns, any such interpretation can strictly speaking only be done within the framework of a particular model, most often taken to be the minimal supergravity (mSUGRA) model. While it is true that in some cases the non-observation of a signal can be translated into a sparticle mass bound in a relatively model-independent manner***For example, at LEP, it is possible to infer a bound on the mass of the right handed slepton, assuming only that it is the lightest unstable sparticle, so that it must decay via $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}_R\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{Z}_1`$; even here it is tacitly assumed that the decay of $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}_R`$ is prompt., the extraction of signals (or bounds) becomes increasingly complicated if several sparticles are expected to be simultaneously produced as, for instance, at hadron colliders such as the CERN LHC. This may be due to significant differences of sparticle mass and decay patterns from the mSUGRA expectations , or due to new decay modes being accessible as in gauge-mediated SUSY breaking (GMSB) models  with a low SUSY breaking scale, so that the gravitino is by far the lightest supersymmetric particle (LSP).

In recent years, there has been a flurry  of theoretical as well as experimental activity  on the detection of SUSY signals within the GMSB framework, where SUSY breaking is communicated from the hidden sector to the observable sector via Standard Model (SM) gauge interactions of messenger particles (which, we assume, can be classified into $`n_5`$ complete vector representations of $`SU(5)`$) with quantum numbers of $`SU(2)`$ doublets of quarks and leptons whose mass scale is characterized by $`M`$. The soft supersymmetry breaking masses for the SUSY partners of SM particles are thus proportional to the strength of their gauge interactions, so that squarks are heavier than sleptons, while the gaugino masses satisfy the usual “grand unification” mass relations, though for very different reasons. Within the minimal version of this framework, the couplings and masses of the sparticles in the observable sector are determined (at the messenger scale $`M`$) by the parameter set,

$$\mathrm{\Lambda },M,n_5,\mathrm{tan}\beta ,sign(\mu ),C_{grav}.$$
(1)
The parameter $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ sets the scale of sparticle masses and is the most important of these parameters. The model predictions for soft-SUSY breaking parameters at the scale $`M`$ are evolved to the weak scale. The parameter $`C_{grav}1`$  and enters only into the partial width for sparticle decays to gravitino. The decay to a gravitino is phenomenologically important only for the decay of the next to lightest supersymmetric particle (NLSP). We fix $`C_{grav}=1`$ which corresponds to the fastest possible decay of the NLSP into the gravitino: for larger values of $`C_{grav}`$, the NLSP may decay with an observable decay gap (possibly improving the sensitivity to the signal), or may even pass all the way through the detector.

The phenomenological implications of the model are only weakly sensitive to $`M`$. Aside from the scale of sparticle masses, the single item that most sensitively determines sparticle signals at colliders is the identity of the NLSP. In the simplest version of model, the NLSP is either the lightest neutralino ($`\stackrel{~}{Z}_1`$) with the hypercharge gaugino as its dominant component, or the lighter stau ($`\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1`$). In the latter case, depending on the value of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, $`\stackrel{~}{e}_1`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }_1`$ may be essentially degenerate with $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1`$.

If the NLSP is a $`U(1)`$ gaugino-like neutralino, it dominantly decays via $`\stackrel{~}{Z}_1\gamma \stackrel{~}{G}`$, and SUSY events always contain two hard, isolated photons and $`\overline{)}E_T`$ (from the escaping gravitinos) in addition to jets and/or leptons. In the case where the NLSP is a stau which is significantly lighter than other sleptons, it is produced in most SUSY decay chains, and SUSY events in this scenario typically contain several tau leptons. Other light sleptons decay via $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}_1\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{Z}_1`$ if the decay is allowed; otherwise as discussed in Ref. , these mostly decay via $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}_1^{}\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1^+\mathrm{}^{}\tau ^{}`$ or $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}_1^{}\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1^{}\mathrm{}^{}\tau ^+`$ which (even for $`C_{grav}=1`$), as long as these are not kinematically strongly suppressed, have a much larger branching ratio than for the decay $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}_1\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{G}`$. For the case where $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}_1}m_{\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1}m_\tau `$ (the co-NLSP scenario), only the gravitino mode is allowed, so that we may then expect a significant multiplicity of isolated $`e`$’s and $`\mu `$’s in SUSY events.

In a previous paper , we examined SUSY signals and the reach of the Fermilab Tevatron Main Injector (for integrated luminosities of 2 and 25 $`fb^1`$) for representative cases for each one of these three model lines discussed in the previous paragraph. We also examined the reach for the so-called higgsino model line These four model lines were first proposed for study at the Run II SUSY and Higgs Workshop held at Fermilab in 1998. The nomenclature used is different from that in the Workshop. where the NLSP is a higgsino-like neutralino. Although this does not occur in the minimal version of the GMSB framework because $`\mu `$ tends to be large compared to the hypercharge gaugino mass $`M_1`$, we were motivated to examine this case since experimental signals tend to be quite different because the NLSP dominantly decays via $`\stackrel{~}{Z}_1h\stackrel{~}{G}`$ (rather than $`\stackrel{~}{Z}_1\gamma \stackrel{~}{G}`$) unless this decay is suppressed by phase space. Our purpose here is to perform a similar study for the reach of the CERN Large Hadron Collider (LHC), a $`pp`$ collider with a center of mass energy $`\sqrt{s}=14`$ TeV, currently scheduled to begin operation in 2005. We assume throughout this paper that an integrated luminosity of 10 fb-1 is collected, which corresponds to a year of running at the lower value of the design luminosity.

Toward this end we examine the SUSY reach of the LHC for,

* model line A: $`n_5=1`$, $`M=1000`$ TeV, $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =2`$, $`\mu >0`$, which gives a $`U(1)`$ gaugino-like NLSP;
* model line B: $`n_5=2`$, $`M=3\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =15`$, $`\mu >0`$, for which the NLSP is a stau;
* model line C: $`n_5=3`$, $`M=3\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =3`$, $`\mu >0`$, which yields the co-NLSP scenario;
* model line D: $`n_5=2`$, $`M=3\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =3`$, $`\mu =\frac{3}{4}M_1`$, which gives a higgsino-like neutralino as the NLSP, which if heavy enough mainly decays via $`\stackrel{~}{Z}_1h\stackrel{~}{G}`$;
* model line E: $`n_5=2`$, $`M=3\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =3`$, $`\mu =\frac{3}{4}M_1`$, which also gives a higgsino-like neutralino as the NLSP, but which mainly decays via $`\stackrel{~}{Z}_1Z\stackrel{~}{G}`$ as long as the decay is not suppressed by phase space.

Since we have already examined the LHC reach for model line A before , we will confine our attention to model lines B-E in this paper. The Tevatron reach for model lines B, C and D was studied in Ref. . The reach for a gaugino-like NLSP model line, but with a slightly different set of parameters (which should have no qualitative effect on the results) was also examined in this same study. Model line E is new. The difference between D and E is that while $`\stackrel{~}{Z}_1`$ mainly decays via $`\stackrel{~}{Z}_1h\stackrel{~}{Z}_1`$ for model line D, the decay $`\stackrel{~}{Z}_1Z\stackrel{~}{G}`$ dominates  in the case of model line E (assuming, of course, that these decays are kinematically unsuppressed).

For each of the model lines B-E, we first examine the reach using the strategy  for SUSY searches within the mSUGRA framework: i.e. the reach via the $`\overline{)}E_T`$ plus $`0\mathrm{}`$, $`1\mathrm{},2\mathrm{}`$ and $`3\mathrm{}`$ inclusive channels. We expect that this (or something like it) will be the canonical strategy  for SUSY searches in the initial data samples from the LHC. For each of these model lines, we then examine whether and by how much the reach can be improved using the special features characteristic of the particular model line, e.g. the presence of hard, isolated photons in model line A .

The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. In Sec. II, we briefly discuss our simulation using the program ISAJET . In Section III, we discuss the LHC reach for the four model lines B-E. We end with a summary and some concluding remarks in Sec. IV.

## II  Event Simulation

We use the program ISAJET v 7.43  for our simulation of SUSY events. This incorporates decay matrix elements for three body decays of gluinos, charginos and neutralinos in the event generator. The implementation of the GMSB framework into ISAJET v 7.43 has been described elsewhere  and will not be repeated here. ISAJET uses the GMSB model predictions for sparticle masses as initial conditions valid at the messenger scale $`M`$, then evolves these down to the weak scale relevant for phenomenology, and finally calculates the ‘MSSM parameters’ that are then used in the evaluation of sparticle cross sections and decay widths.

For detector simulation at the LHC, we use the ISAJET toy calorimeter simulation package CALSIM. We simulate calorimetry covering $`5\eta 5`$ with a cell size given by $`\mathrm{\Delta }\eta \times \mathrm{\Delta }\varphi =0.05\times 0.05`$, and take the hadronic calorimeter resolution to be $`50\%/\sqrt{E}0.03`$ for $`|\eta |<3`$, where $``$ denotes addition in quadrature, and to be $`100\%/\sqrt{E}0.07`$ for $`3<|\eta |<5`$, to model the effective $`p_T`$ resolution of the forward calorimeter including the effects of shower spreading, which is otherwise neglected. We take electromagnetic resolution to be $`10\%/\sqrt{E}0.01`$. Although we have included these resolutions, which are typical of ATLAS  and CMS , we have made no attempt to estimate the effects of cracks, edges, and other problem regions. Much more detailed detector simulations are needed to understand the effects of such regions and of the resulting non-Gaussian tails, particularly on the $`\overline{)}E_T`$ resolution.

Jets are defined as hadronic clusters with $`E_T>25`$ GeV within a cone of $`\mathrm{\Delta }R=\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }\eta ^2+\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi ^2}=0.7`$ with $`|\eta _j|3.5`$. Muons and electrons with $`E_T>10`$ GeV and $`|\eta _{\mathrm{}}|<2.5`$ are considered to be isolated if the the scalar sum of electromagnetic and hadronic $`E_T`$ (not including the lepton, of course) in a cone with $`\mathrm{\Delta }R=0.3`$ about the lepton to be smaller than 5 GeV. Isolated leptons are also required to be separated from one another by $`\mathrm{\Delta }R0.3`$. Photons are identified as isolated with $`|\eta _\gamma |<2.5`$ and $`E_T>10`$ GeV if the additional $`E_T`$ within a cone of $`\mathrm{\Delta }R=0.3`$ about the photon is less than 2.5 GeV. For $`b`$-jets, we require a jet (satisfying the above jet criteria) to contain a $`B`$-hadron with $`p_T15`$ GeV and $`|\eta _j|3`$. Jets with $`E_T50`$ GeV are tagged For the purposes of reconstructing $`h`$ produced via $`\stackrel{~}{Z}_1h\stackrel{~}{G}`$ for model line D, we assume that softer $`b`$-jets can also be tagged, but with a reduced efficiency as detailed in Sec. III C. as a $`b`$-jet with a probability of $`50\%`$. QCD jets with $`E_T=50`$ ($`100`$) GeV are misidentified as $`b`$-jet with a probability of $`0.79\%`$ ($`2\%`$) with a linear interpolation in between .

## III The SUSY Reach of the LHC

In this section we identify strategies to enhance the LHC SUSY reach for GMSB models beyond what would be obtained via canonical multijet + multileptons + $`\overline{)}E_T`$ analyses  advocated for the mSUGRA framework. We examine the reach for model lines B-E, for which the nature of the NLSP, and hence the characteristic SUSY signals, vary with the model line. The reach of model line A has already examined previously. . We use ISAJET v 7.43 to compute signal cross sections, after incorporating acceptances to simulate the experimental conditions at the LHC together with additional cuts that serve to separate the SUSY signal from SM backgrounds.

### A Model Line B: The Stau NLSP model line

To realize the case of the stau NLSP, we take $`n_5=2`$, $`M=3\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, $`\mu >0`$, and choose $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =15`$ to ensure that the stau is light enough for other sleptons to be able to decay to it. It is worth noting that although $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1}<m_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}_1}`$, the sleptons are all sufficiently close in mass so that generally speaking the phase space for chargino and neutralino decays to staus and other sleptons is not very different. For $`\mathrm{\Lambda }30`$ TeV, $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1}m_{\stackrel{~}{Z}_1}`$, but for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }31`$ TeV, $`\stackrel{~}{Z}_1\tau \stackrel{~}{\tau }_1`$ is kinematically forbidden, and $`\stackrel{~}{Z}_1`$ would decay via the four body decay $`\stackrel{~}{Z}_1\nu _\tau \stackrel{~}{\tau }_1W^{}`$ (which is not yet included in ISAJET) or via $`\stackrel{~}{Z}_1\gamma \stackrel{~}{G}`$. In our study, we consider $`\mathrm{\Lambda }35`$ TeV, the range safe from LEP constraints.

In Fig. 1, we show cross sections for various sparticle production processes at the LHC. For $`\mathrm{\Lambda }125`$ TeV ($`m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}1.8`$ TeV), squark and gluino production (solid line) dominates, while for larger values of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ electroweak production of various charginos and neutralinos (dashed line) are the dominant SUSY process. For cross sections in the range of interest at the LHC, direct slepton and sneutrino production occurs at $`\frac{1}{3}`$ the rate for chargino and neutralino production. Cascade decays of squarks and gluinos naturally lead to events with $`n`$ leptons + $`m`$ jets + $`\overline{)}E_T`$. These event topologies may also arise from the production of gluinos and squarks in association with a chargino or a neutralino, and also from chargino and neutralino production.

The decay patterns of charginos, neutralinos and sleptons have been discussed in detail in Ref.  and we will only summarize the results here. The two body decay $`\stackrel{~}{W}_1\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1\nu `$ is always accessible, and dominates for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }45`$ TeV ($`m_{\stackrel{~}{W}_1}210`$ GeV). The decay rate for $`\stackrel{~}{W}_1W\stackrel{~}{Z}_1`$ becomes comparable to that for $`\stackrel{~}{W}_1\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1\nu `$ for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }60`$ TeV, while for very heavy charginos ($`m_{\stackrel{~}{W}_1}900`$ GeV), the branching ratio for $`\stackrel{~}{W}_1W\stackrel{~}{Z}_1`$ is around 75%. Turning to neutralinos, $`\stackrel{~}{Z}_2\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1\tau `$ is the main decay mode of $`\stackrel{~}{Z}_2`$ if $`m_{\stackrel{~}{Z}_2}300`$ GeV. The decay $`\stackrel{~}{Z}_2\stackrel{~}{Z}_1h`$ is only important for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }55`$ TeV ( $`m_{\stackrel{~}{Z}_2}270`$ GeV) and becomes dominant for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }80`$ TeV ( $`m_{\stackrel{~}{Z}_2}400`$ GeV). Branching fractions for $`\stackrel{~}{Z}_2\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}_1\mathrm{}`$ ($`\mathrm{}=e,\mu `$) may also be significant and vary from 20% each for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=35`$ TeV to $`<1`$% for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=180`$ TeV. The branching fraction for the decay $`\stackrel{~}{Z}_2Z\stackrel{~}{Z}_1`$ is $`5`$% if this decay is kinematically accessible. For small enough $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, the lightest neutralino $`\stackrel{~}{Z}_1`$ mainly decays via $`\stackrel{~}{Z}_1\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1\tau `$, but for large enough values of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ its decay to other sleptons are also important, and together exceed the decays to stau when for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }>80`$ TeV ($`m_{\stackrel{~}{Z}_1}220`$ GeV). Finally, for small values of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ accessible at Tevatron upgrades, $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}_1`$ can only decay via $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}_1\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{Z}_1`$. For larger $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, this channel is closed, the neutralino is virtual and then the decays $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}_1^{}\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1^+\mathrm{}^{}\tau ^{}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}_1^{}\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1^{}\mathrm{}^{}\tau ^+`$ dominate. However, the decay $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}_1\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{G}`$ also becomes significant (branching fraction $``$10% for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }120`$ TeV) if $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is large enough.

We begin our discussion of the LHC reach via canonical searches in the multijet plus multilepton plus $`\overline{)}E_T`$ channels as discussed in Ref. . For squark and gluino production, the $`p_T`$ of the primary jets from gluinos (squarks decay to gluinos), as well as the $`\overline{)}E_T`$, are expected to scale with $`m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}`$. Since the signal decreases with increasing $`m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}`$, its separation from SM backgrounds can be optimized by requiring cuts on jets and $`\overline{)}E_T`$ that scale with the gluino mass. The momenta of leptons, produced far down in the cascade decay chain from chargino and neutralino daughters, do not scale in energy the same way as $`\overline{)}E_T`$ or energies of jets which are produced in the first step of the decay cascade. Following Ref. , we introduce the running cut variable $`E_T^c`$, and require that the signal events satisfy:

* $`n_{jet}2`$ (with $`E_{T(j)}>100`$ GeV);
* the transverse sphericity, $`S_T0.2`$;
* $`E_T(j_1)`$, $`E_T(j_2)>E_T^c`$ and $`\overline{)}E_T>E_T^c`$;
* for $`1\mathrm{}`$ signal, $`p_T(\mathrm{})>20`$ GeV and $`M_T(\mathrm{},\overline{)}E_T)>100`$ GeV;
* for $`n2`$ lepton signal, $`p_T(\mathrm{}_1,\mathrm{}_2)>20`$ GeV,

in addition to the basic acceptance cuts. We classify signal events according to their lepton topology into the nonleptonic $`\overline{)}E_T`$ \+ jets channel, the opposite-sign (OS) dilepton + jets +$`\overline{)}E_T`$ channel, the same-sign (SS) dilepton + jets +$`\overline{)}E_T`$ channel, and the multilepton + jets +$`\overline{)}E_T`$ channel with $`n_{\mathrm{}}3`$. Throughout this paper, we consider a signal to be observable in a particular channel if there are at least 5 signal events and also the signal has a statistical significance $`5`$, assuming 10 fb-1 of integrated luminosity. We study the observability by varying $`E_T^c`$ between 100 and 500 GeV in steps of 100 GeV.

The dominant SM backgrounds are $`W`$, $`\gamma ^{}`$ or $`Z`$ \+ jet production, $`t\overline{t}`$ production and vector boson pair production. Since our analysis cuts are identical to those in Ref. , we do not re-compute these backgrounds but instead use the background cross sections as a function of $`E_T^c`$ given in these papers in our analysis. §§§We caution the reader that these backgrounds were computed using CTEQ2L structure functions, while for the signal CTEQ3L structure functions have been used.

The results of our computation of the reach of the LHC using the mSUGRA cuts are summarized in Fig 2 where we show the maximum $`\sigma _S/\sqrt{\sigma _B}`$ as a function of $`E_T^c`$, requiring further that there be at least 5 signal events per 10 $`fb^1`$. For each value of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ that we studied, the number on the various lines denotes the $`E_T^c`$ value for which the signal is observable according to our criteria, and for which the signal significance is the greatest (subject to the five event minimum), i.e. a 2 denotes $`E_T^c=200`$ GeV yields the best significance, etc. In other words, this number provides information about the optimal strategy for the particular value of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. The different lines correspond to the different event topologies: $`0\mathrm{}+\overline{)}E_T`$ (lower solid), $`1\mathrm{}+\overline{)}E_T`$ (upper solid), SS dileptons + $`\overline{)}E_T`$ (dashed), OS dileptons + $`\overline{)}E_T`$ (dotted) and trileptons (dot-dashed). The horizontal line denotes the $`5\sigma `$ level for an integrated luminosity of 10 $`fb^1`$.

We see from the figure that unlike the case of the mSUGRA framework, the inclusive $`3\mathrm{}`$ channel provides the greatest reach. This is presumably because of additional leptons that come from slepton decays to the gravitino, or as secondaries of daughter taus produced via the decay of the stau NLSP. The $`\overline{)}E_T`$ signal (with a lepton veto) gives a rather poor reach for essentially the same reason. We can probe $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ values beyond 150 GeV which corresponds to a gluino in excess of 2 TeV in this channel. Notice also that if $`\mathrm{\Lambda }125`$ TeV ($`m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}1.8`$ TeV) confirmatory signals should appear in several other channels. For comparison, we note that even for an integrated luminosity of 25 $`fb^1`$, the reach of the Tevatron was projected  to be about 50 TeV.

Next, we examine whether we can extend the reach by requiring the presence of additional tagged $`\tau `$ leptons. In Table I, we show the signal cross section for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=120`$ and 160 TeV, with events classified first by the number of identified taus, and then by the lepton multiplicity. Here, a jet with $`E_T40`$ GeV is identified as a tau if it has one or three charged prongs with $`p_T2`$ GeV in a 10 cone about the jet axis, with no other tracks in the corresponding 30 cone. If the number of charged prongs is three, we require their net charge to be $`\pm 1`$ and the invariant mass to be smaller than $`m_\tau `$. QCD fakes are included with the same algorithm used in Ref. . The cross sections shown in Table I are obtained with just $`\overline{)}E_T50`$ GeV in addition to the basic lepton and $`\tau `$ identification cuts. We see that even with this minimal requirement, the cross section for $`n_e+n_\mu +n_\tau 4`$ events is just 3.25 (.92) $`fb`$ for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=120(160)`$ TeV. Since these channels all suffer from physics, and more importantly instrumental, backgrounds from SM sources, we conclude that tagging hadronically decaying taus is unlikely to improve the reach for this model line: cuts to remove these will reduce the signal to below the observable level for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ values where the canonical strategy does not lead to a detectable signal.

We also attempted to extract the signal via “clean” multilepton plus multi-tau channels where we veto events with jets that are not identified as taus. We found that typically the signal reduces by an order of magnitude (or more, depending on the transverse momentum threshold for the jet veto) and falls well below the one event level in all the channels. We thus conclude that the canonical SUSY search strategy  via multilepton channels provides the largest reach for model line B.

### B Model Line C: The co-NLSP Model Line.

For this model line, $`\stackrel{~}{e}_1`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }_1`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1`$ are approximately degenerate, and $`\stackrel{~}{e}_1`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }_1`$ cannot decay to $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1`$. To realize this, we choose $`n_5=3`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =3`$ with other parameters as before. Various sparticle production cross sections are shown in Fig. 3. We see that while production of squarks and gluinos dominates for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }125`$ TeV ($`m_{\stackrel{~}{q}}2.3`$ TeV, $`m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}2.5`$ TeV), slepton pair production is dominant for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }125`$ TeV ( corresponding to $`m_{\stackrel{~}{l}}380`$ GeV).

In this model line, gluinos decay directly to squarks. The left-squarks typically cascade to $`\stackrel{~}{W}_1`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{Z}_2`$ which then decay to the lightest neutralino, while $`\stackrel{~}{q}_R`$ mostly decays directly to $`\stackrel{~}{Z}_1`$. The sparticle decay patterns have been discussed in Ref. . The lightest neutralino decays via $`\stackrel{~}{Z}_1\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}_1\mathrm{}`$, ($`\mathrm{}=e`$, $`\mu `$, and $`\tau `$), with branching fractions essentially independent of the lepton flavour. Sleptons and sneutrinos decay via $`\stackrel{~}{f}_2f\stackrel{~}{Z}_1`$ while $`\stackrel{~}{f}_1f\stackrel{~}{G}`$ ($`f=\mathrm{}`$,$`\nu `$). For very small $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ (excluded by LEP 2 since the slepton is then very light), the charginos can only decay via $`\stackrel{~}{W}_1\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1\nu _\tau `$ This decay proceeds mainly via the higgsino component; as a result, decays to other slepton flavours are strongly suppressed. but over much of the allowed range of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ the decays $`\stackrel{~}{W}_1\stackrel{~}{\nu }\mathrm{},\nu \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}`$ dominate and have (approximately) flavour-independent branching fractions. The decay $`\stackrel{~}{W}_1W\stackrel{~}{Z}_1`$ also becomes significant for charginos heavier than $`200`$ GeV, and has a branching fraction that decreases from a maximum of $`30`$% to $`15`$% as $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ increases to 130 TeV. The second lightest neutralino $`\stackrel{~}{Z}_2`$ decays to sleptons with branching fractions more or less independent of the lepton flavour. Decays to the heavier (mainly left-handed) sleptons and sneutrinos dominate when these are not kinematically suppressed. The branching fraction for the decay $`\stackrel{~}{Z}_2\stackrel{~}{Z}_1h`$ is also significant once this decay is allowed, and the branching fraction reduces from a maximum of 25% to below 15% for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=130`$ TeV. Neutralino decays to $`Z`$ are negligible. An inspection of these decay patterns shows that it would be natural to expect events with a large multiplicity of isolated leptons( $`e`$ and $`\mu `$) from sparticle production, so that multilepton plus $`\overline{)}E_T`$ events should provide the best reach.

The naturally high lepton multiplicity in these events led us to focus on the essentially background-free $`n_{\mathrm{}}4`$ lepton plus $`\overline{)}E_T`$ channel. We have not attempted to make a quantitative calculation of the background but have instead contented ourselves with trying to bound cross sections for physics sources of such events. These include,

* $`4t`$ production with $`\sigma (4t)=6`$ $`fb`$, which yields $`\sigma (4\mathrm{})=0.014`$ $`fb`$ (neglecting isolated leptons The cross section for 3 leptons from the decays of $`W`$s is 0.25 $`fb`$; since the branching fraction for leptonic $`b`$ decays is about 0.22, we conclude that as long as the lepton from $`b`$ is isolated less than $`1/20`$ of the time, this background is smaller than the $`4\mathrm{}`$ level estimated above. from $`b`$ decays);
* $`4W`$ production with $`\sigma (4W)=1`$ $`fb`$ , which yields $`\sigma (4\mathrm{})=2.3\times 10^3`$ $`fb`$;
* $`WWZ`$ production with $`\sigma (WWZ)=150`$ $`fb`$ , which yields $`\sigma (4\mathrm{})=2.4\times 10^2`$ $`fb`$ (here we assume that events $`Z\mathrm{}\overline{\mathrm{}}`$ can be removed by a mass cut, and retain leptons only from $`Z\tau \overline{\tau },\tau \mathrm{}\nu \overline{\nu }`$);
* $`ZZ`$ production with $`\sigma (ZZ)=10`$ pb, which yields $`\sigma (4\mathrm{})=0.11`$ $`fb`$ where, once again, we assume that the leptons come only via $`Z\tau \overline{\tau }`$ decays. These events tend not to have a large $`\overline{)}E_T`$ and softer leptons, and the background can be greatly reduced by a cut on $`\overline{)}E_T`$ and the lepton $`p_T`$.

Turning to the signal, we show the distributions of the two hardest leptons in $`4\mathrm{}`$ SUSY events in Fig. 4 for four choices of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. We see that requiring these leptons to be harder than 50 GeV reduces the signal by just a few percent for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=120`$ TeV. Even for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=35`$ TeV, the reduction is just 40%, which is very affordable because of enormous SUSY cross sections at the LHC. Although we do not show this, we have also checked that the signal loss from requiring $`\overline{)}E_T100`$ GeV is again only a few percent for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=120`$ TeV.

To obtain the LHC reach via the $`4\mathrm{}`$ signal for model line C, we thus require:

* $`\overline{)}E_T>100`$ GeV;
* $`p_T(\mathrm{}_1)`$, $`p_T(\mathrm{}_2)>50`$ GeV;
* a $`Z`$ veto – we remove events where with $`\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ pairs that reconstruct the $`Z`$ mass to within 10 GeV.

We assume that these cuts reduce the SM physics backgrounds already found to be below 0.2 $`fb`$ to completely negligible levels. Assuming that instrumental backgrounds are under control, we then estimate the reach for this model line by requiring at least five signal events in 10 $`fb^1`$ as illustrated in Fig. 5 where we show the signal cross section with $`n_{\mathrm{}}4`$ versus $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. We see that the reach extends up to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=155`$ TeV, which corresponds to squarks (gluinos) just below (above) 3 TeV, to be compared with the reach of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }55`$ TeV  for an integrated luminosity of 25 $`fb^1`$ at the Tevatron.

Since the sleptons are the co-NLSPs in this scenario, we have also examined the range of parameters where these can be directly observed at the LHC. We follow the general strategy for slepton searches at the LHC detailed in Ref. , with some modifications to optimize for the GMSB scenario. The analysis cuts that we impose are,

* exactly two isolated same flavor OS leptons, each with $`p_T(l)20`$ GeV;
* $`\overline{)}E_T>100`$ GeV;
* number of jets with $`E_{Tj}25`$ GeV is zero (jet veto);
* $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi (p_{T(\mathrm{}\overline{\mathrm{}}^\mathrm{`})},\overline{)}E_T)160^{}`$.

These cuts above are exactly the same as in Ref. . For the final cut, however, we choose instead,

* $`p_T(\mathrm{}_1)>80`$ GeV, $`p_T(\mathrm{}_2)>60`$ GeV and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi (\mathrm{}_1,\mathrm{}_2)<140^{}`$.

The major SM background at the LHC come from $`t\overline{t}`$ production and $`WW`$ production. The jet veto is crucial to reduce the top quark background. In our simulation, we have assumed that jets can be vetoed with an efficiency of 99%. After these cuts, the $`t\overline{t}`$ background is 0.06 $`fb`$ , while the $`WW`$ background is 0.038 $`fb`$, so that the total SM background $`0.1fb`$ and the minimum detectable cross section corresponds to 5 events per 10 $`fb^1`$.

The signal cross section for opposite sign dilepton from just slepton production (slepton, chargino and neutralino production) is shown by the dashed (solid) line in Fig. 6. We see that except for the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=30`$ TeV case (corresponding to $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}_1}=99`$ GeV, just beyond the current bound from LEP 2) the signal dominantly comes from slepton pair production because $`m_{\stackrel{~}{W}_1}m_{\stackrel{~}{Z}_2}m_\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}`$. The reason the dashed curve falls for low values of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the inefficiency of our cuts (which have been optimized for heavier sleptons) for such light sleptons. Nonetheless, even with these cuts \**\**\**Other cuts detailed in Ref.  would be better suited for detection of these lighter sleptons, and also for separating the slepton signal from the signal from charginos. there is ample signal for SUSY not to evade detection at the LHC. We see that the reach extends up to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=90`$ TeV corresponding to $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}_1}280`$ GeV. The reason that the reach in slepton mass is significantly smaller than the corresponding reach within the mSUGRA framework is because the production of $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}_L`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }_L`$, which was the main contributor to the slepton cross section in mSUGRA, is now kinematically suppressed: i.e. within the GMSB, $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}_R\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}_R`$ production forms the bulk of the slepton cross section.

### C Model Line D: A Higgsino NLSP with $`\stackrel{~}{Z}_1h\stackrel{~}{G}`$

Within the minimal GMSB framework, the lightest neutralino is dominantly the hypercharge gaugino. However, since the phenomenology is very sensitive to the nature of the NLSP, we entertain the possibility that in other models, the NLSP may be higgsino-like. We do not attempt to construct any model, but take a purely phenomenological approach, by letting $`\mu `$ to be a free parameter instead of fixing it via radiative electroweak symmetry breaking conditions. ††††††For instance, additional interactions needed to generate $`\mu `$ and also the $`B`$-parameter in this framework could conceivably alter the relation between $`\mu `$ and the gaugino masses. If $`\mu `$ is smaller than the hypercharge gaugino mass $`M_1`$, the NLSP will indeed contain a large higgsino component. We take $`n_5=2`$, $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =3`$, $`M/\mathrm{\Lambda }=3`$, $`C_{grav}=1`$ but fix $`\mu =\frac{3}{4}M_1`$ rather than the value obtained from radiative electroweak symmetry breaking. Within this ‘small $`\mu `$’ model line, the two lightest neutralinos and the lighter chargino are Higgsino-like and close in mass, while the heavier charginos and neutralinos are gaugino-like. The $`\stackrel{~}{Z}_1`$ is the NLSP and the $`\stackrel{~}{Z}_2`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{W}_1`$ are only little heavier. The fermions from $`\stackrel{~}{W}_1`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{Z}_2`$ decays to $`\stackrel{~}{Z}_1`$ will be rather soft. For this sign of $`\mu `$, the NLSP dominantly decays via $`\stackrel{~}{Z}_1h\stackrel{~}{G}`$ if the $`\stackrel{~}{Z}_1`$ is heavy enough ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }80`$ TeV) so that the decay is not suppressed by phase space. The mass $`m_h`$ of the lighter Higgs boson is just above 100 GeV, independent of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$.

If $`\mathrm{\Lambda }50`$ TeV (smaller values of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ would have charginos and neutralinos accessible at LEP 2), we see from Fig. 7 that the production of charginos and neutralinos is the dominant source of sparticles at the LHC. Gluinos and squarks are relatively heavy so that their production becomes rapidly suppressed as $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is increased. Slepton and sneutrino production forms only a percent of the total SUSY cross section. As already noted, the branching fraction for the two body decay $`\stackrel{~}{Z}_1\stackrel{~}{G}h`$ exceeds 50% if $`\mathrm{\Lambda }80`$ TeV, and becomes $``$75% for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }200`$ TeV . The decays $`\stackrel{~}{Z}_1Z\stackrel{~}{G}`$ account for essentially all the remaining decays of $`\stackrel{~}{Z}_1`$ since $`\stackrel{~}{Z}_1\gamma \stackrel{~}{G}`$ with a branching fraction of at most a few if $`\mathrm{\Lambda }120`$ TeV. The heavier neutralino $`\stackrel{~}{Z}_2`$ as well as the lighter chargino $`\stackrel{~}{W}_1`$ decay via three body decays, but their decay products are soft since they are only a little heavier than $`\stackrel{~}{Z}_1`$. As a result, signatures for $`\stackrel{~}{W}_1\stackrel{~}{W}_1`$ or $`\stackrel{~}{Z}_i\stackrel{~}{W}_1`$ production closely resemble those for $`\stackrel{~}{Z}_1\stackrel{~}{Z}_1`$ production.

We first consider the reach via the canonical missing $`E_T`$  and multilepton analyses . The results of our computation are shown in Fig. 8. This figure corresponds to Fig. 2 for model line B and, in fact, is qualitatively quite similar to it. Despite the fact that the $`\stackrel{~}{Z}_1`$ decays mainly to the light Higgs boson for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }120`$ TeV, the best reach, which is obtained in the $`n_{\mathrm{}}3`$ leptons channel, extends out to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=140`$ TeV corresponding to $`m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}=2`$ TeV, with squarks only slightly heavier. The reach in 1 lepton and 2 OS leptons channels are comparable, up to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=130`$ TeV, while the zero lepton channel again gives the poorest reach. To understand this, we first note that although for these large values of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ chargino and neutralino production dominates the total cross section, gluino and squark production events (which can be detected much more efficiently) form a significant portion of the cross section after the selection cuts: events from the lighter chargino and $`\stackrel{~}{Z}_{1,2}`$ production (these have masses of just $`300`$ GeV) pass the hard selection cuts with very low efficiency since $`m_{\stackrel{~}{W}_1}m_{\stackrel{~}{Z}_1}m_{\stackrel{~}{Z}_2}300`$ GeV. Gluinos decay to $`t\overline{t}\stackrel{~}{Z}_{1,2}`$ or $`tb\stackrel{~}{W}_1`$ with a branching fraction of 60%, with the bulk of the remaining decays into the heavier chargino and to the heaviest neutralino. Squarks mainly decay to the gaugino-like $`\stackrel{~}{W}_2,\stackrel{~}{Z}_3`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{Z}_4`$ ($`\stackrel{~}{q}_R`$ mainly decays to $`\stackrel{~}{Z}_3`$); $`\stackrel{~}{W}_2`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{Z}_4`$ mainly decay via two body decays to vector bosons or the lightest Higgs scalar $`h`$ and a lighter chargino or neutralino, and at a few percent into left sleptons and sneutrinos. The $`\stackrel{~}{Z}_3`$, on the other hand, mostly decays via $`\stackrel{~}{Z}_3\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}_R\mathrm{}`$. For $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=140`$ GeV, $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}_L`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }`$ mainly cascade decay to $`\stackrel{~}{Z}_3`$ which then mostly decays into right sleptons. Notice that if $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}_L`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }`$ or $`\stackrel{~}{Z}_3`$ are produced at any step, their decays are by themselves likely to give two hard leptons, resulting in multiple leptons from squark and gluino events. For the higgsino NLSP case, the cascade decay chains are more complicated than in the canonical mSUGRA case, because of the dominance of gluino and squark decays to the heavier charginos and neutralinos, and in the gluino case, also to top quarks.

For values of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ close to the LHC reach in Fig. 8, the NLSP dominantly decays via $`\stackrel{~}{Z}_1\stackrel{~}{G}h`$. In this case, since $`h`$ mainly decays via $`hb\overline{b}`$, the SUSY signal will contain $`b`$-jets in addition to leptons, $`\overline{)}E_T`$ and possibly photons (if one of the NLSPs decays via the photon mode which has a branching fraction of a few percent ). We were, therefore, led to examine whether requiring tagged $`b`$-jets in SUSY events can increase the reach via the observation of lighter chargino and neutralino events which have a production cross section $`300`$ $`fb`$. The dominant SM background to multi-$`b`$ plus large $`\overline{)}E_T`$ events presumably comes from $`t\overline{t}`$ production. We examined several event topologies as well as distributions from the signal and from the top background and concluded that the most promising channel was the one with just two tagged $`b`$-jets channel, with the following cuts to reduce the top background:

1. $`\overline{)}E_T100`$ GeV;
2. $`p_T(bjet)>50`$ GeV;
3. $`\overline{)}E_T+\mathrm{\Sigma }E_{Tj}1500`$ GeV, where the sum extends over untagged jets.

The results of our computation are shown in Table II. We show the signal cross sections for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=140,150`$ and 160 TeV and compare these with the top background for two choices for the $`b`$ mistagging probability. The set of columns labelled 2% assume the $`b`$ mis-tagging probability introduced in Sec. II. The columns labelled 1% assume the mis-tagging probability to be half this. The statistical significance $`\frac{N_S}{\sqrt{N_B}}`$ is for 10 $`fb^1`$. We see from the Table that for the canonical mis-tag rate even the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=150`$ TeV case falls just short of observability but appears to pass our observability criteria with the more optimistic assumptions about $`b`$-mistagging. In view of the fact that $`t\overline{t}`$ is the only background we have included in our computation, and further, that the reach is only marginally increased above this background, we conclude that the canonical multilepton search is sufficient to probe model line D at the LHC, and further that the LHC reach extends out to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=140145`$ TeV (corresponding to $`m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}=2`$ TeV, with squarks a little heavier).

We have also examined the $`3`$ tagged $`b`$-jet channel which without the hardness cut 3 has a much better $`S/B`$ ratio. The signal cross section, in this channel, is small and it is difficult to make other cuts (to reduce the top background) without reducing the signal to below the level of observability. It is conceivable though that with an integrated luminosity of 100 $`fb^1`$ this channel may prove more promising; the background from $`4b`$ production would then have to be carefully examined.

Finally, we examine whether it is possible to identify the Higgs boson, which is the characteristic feature of model line D, in SUSY events. It has been known for many years that the presence of Higgs bosons can be inferred either via the multiplicity of $`b`$-jets in SUSY events , or more directly, via the reconstruction of a mass bump in the $`M_{bb}`$ distribution . We follow the latter approach, and attempt to reconstruct the lighter Higgs boson (which has a mass of about 104 GeV) in SUSY events in channels with identified $`b`$-jets for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=80`$ TeV and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=110`$ TeV. Again top quark pair production is the major SM background. To reduce this, we require that

$$\overline{)}E_T+\mathrm{\Sigma }E_T(jets)E_0,$$

where the sum extends over untagged $`b`$-jets with $`E_T100`$ GeV. We adjust the cut variable $`E_0`$ depending on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and on the event topology. In particular, we choose $`E_0=1300`$ (900) GeV for two (three) tagged $`b`$ events if $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=80`$ TeV, and 1500 (1100) GeV if $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=110`$ TeV. We found that we were unable to obtain a mass bump (with these as well as several other selection cuts that we examined) even though the cross section was quite large. We traced this to the fact that most of the time one of the two $`b`$-jets from $`h`$ decay usually has $`p_T50`$ GeV, and so fails our tagging criteria. In other words, the two $`b`$-jets from the decay of $`h`$ are almost never simultaneously tagged. To enable the identification of $`h`$ in SUSY events, we include in our analysis that $`b`$-jets with $`E_T`$ between 25 and 50 GeV may also be tagged, but with a reduced efficiency which we take to be  $`0.015\times p_T0.25`$. We extrapolate our previous mistagging rate down to 25 GeV.

The $`M_{bb}`$ distribution in the two and three tagged $`b`$ channels after the cuts above is shown in Fig. 9 for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=80`$ and 110 TeV. The dashed histograms are the $`t\overline{t}`$ background while the solid histograms are the sum of the signal and background. We see that there is a clear peak close to $`m_h`$ in the $`M_{bb}`$ distributions in the two tagged $`b`$ channel. The distribution cuts off at the low end because each tagged jet has at least 25 GeV, while the continuum beyond the peak corresponds to combinations where one or both $`b`$-jets come from sources other than Higgs decay or are QCD jets that have been mistagged. The corresponding peaks for the three $`b`$ channel, though present, is not as distinctive, presumably because the combinatorial background also contributes to the continuum.

We also examined the distribution of $`p_T`$ of the Higgs boson reconstructed from two tagged $`b`$s with $`M_{bb}m_h`$; i.e. in the peak. We might expect that this distribution would scale with $`m_{\stackrel{~}{Z}_1}`$, and hence provide a measure of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. We found, however, that the distributions for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ in the 80-110 TeV range overlapped quite substantially, and conclude that it is difficult to measure $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ this way. We attribute this to the fact that the change in $`m_{\stackrel{~}{Z}_1}`$ is rather limited (160-220 GeV), and further, that $`h`$ can also be produced at an earlier stage in the cascade, thereby smearing this distribution. For larger values of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ the event rate appears to be too low for this to be feasible.

### D Model Line E: Higgsino NLSP with $`\stackrel{~}{Z}_1Z\stackrel{~}{G}`$

If the NLSP contains a significant fraction of the SUSY partner of the would-be neutral Goldstone boson (that becomes the longitudinal component of the $`Z`$ by the Higgs mechanism), it would preferentially decay via $`\stackrel{~}{Z}_1Z\stackrel{~}{G}`$ provided that this decay is not kinematically suppressed. It has recently been pointed out that this situation is indeed realized  for a Higgsino model line where the sign of $`\mu `$ is flipped relative to that in model line D above. We thus consider a final model line with $`n_5=2`$, $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =3`$, $`M/\mathrm{\Lambda }=3`$, $`C_{grav}=1`$ but fix $`\mu =\frac{3}{4}M_1`$. The decay pattern of the neutralino NLSP is shown in Fig. 10. We see that for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }85`$ TeV (corresponding to an NLSP heavier than 140 GeV) the decay $`\stackrel{~}{Z}_1Z\stackrel{~}{G}`$ dominates, while for smaller masses, the photon decay is the main mode. ‡‡‡‡‡‡In this case the search strategy would be similar to that for model line A, or via the inclusive $`Z\gamma `$ search discussed at the end of this section. The branching fraction for the decay $`\stackrel{~}{Z}_1h\stackrel{~}{G}`$ becomes significant only when $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is rather large.

The main sparticle production cross sections are shown in Fig. 11 which is qualitatively very similar to Fig. 7. This should not be surprising because changing the sign of $`\mu `$ qualitatively affects only the NLSP decay pattern, though of course there is some effect on the chargino and neutralino masses and mixing angles. Again, as in model line D, the mass gap between $`\stackrel{~}{W}_1`$ or $`\stackrel{~}{Z}_2`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{Z}_1`$ is not large, so that $`\stackrel{~}{W}_1`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{Z}_2`$ decays are similar to those from the decay of just the NLSP because the remaining decay products tend to be soft.

The reach of the LHC via the canonical $`\overline{)}E_T`$ and multilepton channels is illustrated in Fig. 12. As before, the number on the curves denotes the $`E_T^c`$ value that optimizes the signal. Again, the upper (lower) solid curve denotes the trilepton (zero lepton) plus $`\overline{)}E_T`$ channel. The main difference from Fig. 8 is that the greatest reach, which again extends out to 140 TeV (corresponding to $`m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}=2`$ TeV, with squarks marginally heavier), is now obtained via the single lepton channel. It may seem surprising that the reach via multilepton signals degrades relative to model line D where NLSP decays are not expected to lead to isolated leptons. To understand this, we examined the decay patterns of sparticles (for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=140`$ TeV), and found that, except for $`\stackrel{~}{Z}_1`$, these are very similar for these two model lines. The big difference is that the branching fraction for $`\stackrel{~}{Z}_3\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}_R\mathrm{}`$ which was 26% per lepton flavour for model line D is now about 19%, while there is a corresponding increase in $`\stackrel{~}{Z}_3\stackrel{~}{W}_1W`$ decay. Since the presence of $`\stackrel{~}{Z}_3`$ in a cascade decay chain frequently results in two leptons (see the corresponding discussion for model line D), it is not surprising that the inclusive trilepton signal is reduced relative to model line D. Indeed we have checked that for $`E_T^c200`$ GeV, this signal, although it has a large statistical significance, falls below the five event level (for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }140`$ TeV), so that we are forced to lower $`E_T^c`$ to 100 GeV for which the SM background  is much larger. \**\**\**We mention that with 20 $`fb^1`$ the trilepton channel would again yield the best reach.

We now examine whether the LHC reach can be extended by using the feature that NLSP mostly decays via $`\stackrel{~}{Z}_1\stackrel{~}{G}Z`$, so that a significant fraction of SUSY events would contain a real $`Z`$ boson in addition to jets, leptons and $`\overline{)}E_T`$ . Since the $`Z`$ can be identified via its leptonic decay, we focus on events with an identified $`Z`$ together with either two jets with $`E_{Tj}50`$ GeV or additional leptons. To further suppress backgrounds, we found it was necessary to require a large $`\overline{)}E_T`$ in these events. The signal cross sections for three values of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ just beyond the reach in Fig. 12, together with the main sources of SM backgrounds, are shown in Table III for $`\overline{)}E_T230`$ GeV. Here $`\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ pairs with $`|M(\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{})M_Z|10`$ GeV are identified as a $`Z`$. We see from this Table that the dominant background comes from $`t\overline{t}`$ production where the leptons from top decay accidentally reconstruct the $`Z`$ mass. We also see that with these cuts the signal falls below the observable level, though it should be noted that all these cases would be observable for an integrated luminosity $`3540`$ $`fb^1`$. Two comments are worth noting.

* The signal cross section for two identified $`Z`$ bosons falls below the observable level. This can even be seen from Fig. 11 and Fig. 10 where the total SUSY production cross section ($`330`$ $`fb`$) and branching ratio (75%) for $`\stackrel{~}{Z}_1Z\stackrel{~}{G}`$ for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=150`$ TeV yields in $`330\times (0.75)^2\times (0.06)^2\times 107`$ events even before any acceptance cuts.
* The dominant background from tops in Table III mainly contributes to the $`Z`$ plus two jet channel, and is completely negligible for $`Z`$ plus lepton channels. We have checked though that the $`Z`$ plus two jet channel accounts for about 70-80% of the signal, so that the total signal in just the $`Z`$ plus lepton channels again falls below the observable level.

Motivated by the fact that the branching fraction for $`\stackrel{~}{Z}_1\gamma \stackrel{~}{G}`$ is $``$10% for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }140`$ TeV, we have also examined whether inclusive $`Z\gamma `$ signals could extend the LHC reach. Toward this end we computed SM backgrounds from $`Zj`$, $`WZ+ZZ`$ and $`t\overline{t}`$ production, where a photon from radiation or the decay of a hadron is accidently isolated, using ISAJET. We also estimated the background from $`Z\gamma `$ production (this process is not included in ISAJET) by introducing the $`22`$ $`q\overline{q}Z\gamma `$ process into a private version of ISAJET, and ignoring spin correlations for leptons from $`Z`$ decay. We search for events in the inclusive $`Z\gamma `$ channel where the $`Z`$ is identified by its leptonic decay and the isolated photon has $`E_{T\gamma }25`$ GeV. We also require $`\overline{)}E_T100`$ GeV. This last cut completely eliminates the physics background from $`Z\gamma `$ events (which essentially cuts off by $`\overline{)}E_T40`$ GeV) and reduces backgrounds from other sources. The results of our calculation are summarized in Table IV. We see that the physics backgrounds that we have computed are completely negligible.

We expect though that the dominant background could well come from instrumental effects when a jet or lepton is misidentified as a photon. Although a calculation of this detector-dependent background is beyond the scope of the present analysis, we attempt to obtain a rough estimate by computing the inclusive $`Z`$ background for $`\overline{)}E_T100`$ GeV and then multiplying this by the probability for a jet to fake a photon. We found this inclusive $`Z`$ background cross section to be 192 $`fb`$ from $`t\overline{t}`$ production, 36.7 $`fb`$ from $`Zj`$ production and 10.2 $`fb`$ from $`WZ+ZZ`$ production, giving a total of 239 $`fb`$. Assuming that the probability for a jet to fake a photon is $`2\times 10^4`$ , and further that there are typically $`5`$ (10) jets with $`E_T25`$ GeV in these LHC events, we obtain the “fake $`\gamma +Z`$” background cross section of $`239\times 2\times 10^4\times 5(10)0.24(0.47)`$ $`fb`$. We see from Table IV that this reducible background can potentially be comparable to the signal. Furthermore, since this estimate does not include the effects of cracks and other real-world detector effects, it is likely to be increased once these effects are incorporated. We conclude that unless these reducible backgrounds can be controlled it is unlikely that the inclusive $`Z\gamma `$ channel will increase the reach. But with excellent jet-$`\gamma `$ rejection, the LHC reach for model line E could be as large as $`155`$ TeV. Moreover, if the signal is truly rate-limited (which does not seem to be the case with our assumptions about the instrumental backgrounds), the reach would grow significantly with the size of the data sample.

## IV Summary and Concluding Remarks

The CERN LHC is generally considered as the accelerator facility at which weak scale supersymmetry will either be discovered or definitely excluded. This is because the LHC experiments are expected  to probe $`m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}`$ out to 2 TeV, at least within the mSUGRA framework. This extends well beyond the generally accepted bounds from naturalness considerations. Moreover, experiments at the LHC should be able  to probe gluinos and squarks beyond 1 TeV even in the experimentally unfavourable scenario where $`R`$-parity violating interactions cause the neutralino LSP to decay hadronically, thereby reducing the $`\overline{)}E_T`$ as well as degrading the lepton isolation in SUSY events. Although not in themselves a “proof”, it is precisely such studies that have led to the general belief that the LHC will be the definitive machine that will test SUSY. In this study, we have added to this evidence by examining the SUSY reach of the LHC within the GMSB framework with SUSY broken at a scale of a few hundred TeV. In this case, the gravitino is then the LSP and SUSY signatures are governed by the nature of the NLSP which then decays into the gravitino and SM particle(s). In our analysis, we conservatively assume that the NLSP decay is prompt, and do not attempt to use the possible presence of a displaced vertex to enhance the SUSY signal.

We divide our study along various model lines introduced in Section I. For each of these model lines, the NLSP (which is almost always produced as the penultimate product of the sparticle decay cascade) decays via characteristic modes, which can then be used to enhance the SUSY signal, or even to narrow down the model parameters. We do not attempt the latter in the present study. For model line A which was studied in Ref. , for instance, $`\stackrel{~}{Z}_1\gamma \stackrel{~}{G}`$, so that the presence of hard, isolated photons in SUSY events served to distinguish signal from SM backgrounds, resulting in a SUSY reach that corresponding to $`m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}2.8`$ TeV, to be compared with a reach of about 2 TeV expected within the mSUGRA framework.

In this paper we have examined the LHC reach for four other model lines corresponding to (B) the stau NLSP scenario, (C) the co-NLSP scenario where all three flavours of light charged sleptons are essentially degenerate, and two higgsino-like NLSP scenarios where NLSP decays to (D) the light Higgs boson and (E) the $`Z`$ boson, dominate. The usual strategy for SUSY searches via $`\overline{)}E_T`$ and multilepton events will probe gluino masses up to about 2 TeV, except in the co-NLSP model line where the fact that selectrons and smuons are produced in many cascade decay chains leads to a plethora of $`\overline{)}E_T`$ events with $`4`$ isolated leptons ($`e`$ or $`\mu `$) which have very small SM backgrounds. In this case the reach of the LHC extends to $`m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}=3`$ TeV! For model lines B and D, however, we found that whereas the decays of the NLSP may result in events that are characteristic of the particular model line, signals with identified $`\tau `$ leptons or tagged $`b`$ jets do not, in general, extend the SUSY reach beyond what is obtained via standard multilepton analyses. For model line E, some enhancement of the reach might be possible via the inclusive $`Z\gamma `$ channel which is rate-limited, but only if superb jet-$`\gamma `$ discrimination is possible. Nevertheless, it should be kept in mind that it will be worthwhile to search for these characteristic events in any LHC data sample enriched in SUSY events, as they will point to the underlying theory, and possibly also lead to a measurement of some of the model parameters .

###### Acknowledgements.

This research was supported in part by the U. S. Department of Energy grants DE-FG02-97ER41022 and DE-FG03-94ER40833. During his stay at the University of Hawaii where this work was begun, P.M. was partially supported by Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP).