text:
# SPS 1

#### SPS 1

The spectra of this ‘typical’ mSUGRA scenario provided by the three programs are in remarkable agreement with each other to within a few percent. Also the decay modes are reasonably similar.

#### SPS 2

Most striking in this ‘focus point’ scenario with large $`m_0m_{1/2}`$ are the completely different neutralino and chargino mass spectra of all three programs. Factors of 2 with respect to some central value may easily occur. This is related to the derived values of $`\mu `$ which exhibit discrepancies of the same order, casting doubt on the calculations. The other sparticle masses are in reasonable agreement with each other. However, large controversies exist in the treatment of the decays. The heavy sleptons and squarks can decay via all charginos and neutralinos, which apparently do have completely different gaugino and higgsino admixtures, thus leading to different $`\chi `$’s in the final states. This model as a whole needs certainly more care and a better theoretical understanding.

#### SPS 3

All spectra of this scenario which lies on a model line into the ‘coannihilation region’ are in good agreement with each other. The masses differ within a few up to ten percent, some branching ratios may need to be adjusted.

#### SPS 4

In general the mass spectra are consistent to within 10%. But due to the high $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ value larger discrepancies are observed for the third generation of sleptons and squarks and for the Higgs sector of Pythia. The original purpose of this parameter choice was to provide a model with relatively light Higgs bosons. At the time of the Snowmass meeting1 a value of $`m_A310\mathrm{GeV}`$ was supported by Isajet 7.51 and SuSpect 2.0 (point d’Aix 3). Meanwhile the new release Isajet 7.58 gives a considerably higher mass $`m_A=404\mathrm{GeV}`$, probably a consequence of a new treatment of the Yukawa bottom coupling at two-loops in the RG evolution Similarly, if SuSpect takes into account additional radiative corrections to all squarks and gauginos, one also gets a larger value of $`m_A=354\mathrm{GeV}`$. Thus, in this parameter space with large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ the Higgs spectrum depends sensitively on the details of higher order corrections. This also explains the lowish Higgs masses of Pythia, which uses a one-loop approximation.

#### SPS 5

The sparticle spectra of all three programs are in general agreement. But the scalar top $`\stackrel{~}{t}_1`$, which should be light in this scenario, is about 20% heavier in Pythia. This leads to quite different decay modes.

#### SPS 6

Very good agreement among the spectra is observed, since in this mSUGRA like scenario with non-unified gaugino masses the MSSM parameters calculated by Isajet serve as input to Susygen and Pythia. Slight discrepancies occur in the branching ratios.

#### SPS 7 & 8

Only Isajet is able to generate genuine GMSB scenarios. Since the gravitino is incorporated, the MSSM parameters of Susygen and Pythia are adjusted accordingly. Pythia does not offer to treat $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1`$ as NLSP (SPS 7). All the masses are in agreement by construction, except for discrepancies of 5 - 20% in the heavy Higgs sector of Susygen; for the time being a more precise tuning appears problematic. Again there are some differences in the decay channels, most important are those of $`\stackrel{~}{e}_R^{}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }_R^{}`$ decays in model SPS 7. The specified parameters do not fix the lifetime of the NLSP, which depends on the fundamental scale $`\sqrt{F}`$ of SUSY breaking. Isajet allows to set this scale, such that finite decay length distributions $`c\tau F^2m_{NLSP}^5`$ of the NLSP can be studied.

#### SPS 9

An elementary treatment of AMSB scenarios is only possible in Isajet. Using the corresponding MSSM parameters the appropriate spectra can be produced with Susygen and Pythia. Again there are some inconsistent decay modes, e.g. $`\stackrel{~}{e}_R^{}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }_R^{}`$ decays and, more important, the $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm `$ decays. The characteristic feature is the near degeneracy of the lightest chargino and neutralino masses, which critically determines the $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm `$ lifetime and decay modes. The present parameters give $`\tau =165`$ ps ($`c\tau =50`$ mm). The lifetime and proper branching ratios determine the $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm /\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ search strategy and it is advisable to consult the literature101010 J F Gunion, S Mrenna, Phys. Rev. D 64 (2001) 075002.

#### Conclusions

The three event generators Isajet, Susygen and Pythia produce consistent supersymmetric particle spectra for a wide range of commonly accepted SUSY parameters. However, severe discrepancies exist for scenarios with extreme values of parameters, e.g. large $`m_0m_{1/2}`$ in the focus point scenario SPS 2 (chargino and neutralino sector) and high $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ of SPS 4 (Higgs sector, $`3^{rd}`$ generation sleptons and squarks), where some particle characteristics depend sensitively on higher order corrections. Although the programs are flexible enough to be adjusted to any mass spectrum (including decay modes), it is a priori not obvious which program to prefer. It is the aim of the present compilation to provide detailed information and to help those who are interested to study the properties of the Snowmass benchmark models.

It’s a pleasure to thank S Kraml, E Perez, W Porod and G Weiglein for useful discussions on the SPS spectra and on the manuscript.

## 1 SPS 1 – mSUGRA scenario

| $`𝒎_\mathrm{𝟎}`$ | $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎𝟎}\mathrm{𝐆𝐞𝐕}`$ |
| --- | --- |
| $`𝒎_{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}\mathrm{𝟐}}`$ | $`\mathrm{𝟐𝟓𝟎}\mathrm{𝐆𝐞𝐕}`$ |
| $`𝑨_\mathrm{𝟎}`$ | $`\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟎𝟎}\mathrm{𝐆𝐞𝐕}`$ |
| $`\mathrm{𝐭𝐚𝐧}𝜷`$ | $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}`$ |
| $`\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐠𝐧}𝝁`$ | $`\mathbf{+}`$ |

| ‘typical’ scenario |
| --- |
| $`𝒎_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.4}𝒎_{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}𝑨_\mathrm{𝟎}`$ |

### 1.1 Spectrum & parameters of ISAJET 7.58

Isajet parameters

```
 Minimal supergravity (mSUGRA) model:

 M_0,  M_(1/2),  A_0,  tan(beta),  sgn(mu),  M_t =
   100.000   250.000  -100.000    10.000     1.0   175.000

 ISASUGRA unification:
 M_GUT      = 0.218E+17   g_GUT          =0.714      alpha_GUT =0.041
 FT_GUT     = 0.481       FB_GUT         = 0.046     FL_GUT = 0.069

 1/alpha_em =  127.70     sin**2(thetaw) =0.2309     alpha_s   =0.119
 M_1        =   99.13     M_2            =  192.74   M_3       =  580.51
 mu(Q)      =  352.39     B(Q)           =   44.54   Q         =  454.65
 M_H1^2     = 0.333E+05   M_H2^2         =-0.124E+06

 ISAJET masses (with signs):
 M(GL)  =   595.19
 M(UL)  =   537.25   M(UR)  =   520.45   M(DL)  =   543.04   M(DR) =   520.14
 M(B1)  =   491.91   M(B2)  =   524.59   M(T1)  =   379.11   M(T2) =   574.71
 M(SN)  =   186.00   M(EL)  =   202.14   M(ER)  =   142.97
 M(NTAU)=   185.06   M(TAU1)=   133.22   M(TAU2)=   206.13
 M(Z1)  =   -96.05   M(Z2)  =  -176.82   M(Z3)  =   358.81   M(Z4) =  -377.81
 M(W1)  =  -176.38   M(W2)  =  -378.23
 M(HL)  =   113.97   M(HH)  =   394.15   M(HA)  =   393.63   M(H+) =   401.77

 theta_t=   0.9603   theta_b=   0.4916   theta_l=   1.2876   alpha_h=   0.1107

 NEUTRALINO MASSES (SIGNED) =   -96.051  -176.820   358.815  -377.811
 EIGENVECTOR 1       =   0.05441  -0.15001  -0.05711   0.98553
 EIGENVECTOR 2       =   0.16023  -0.27963  -0.94070  -0.10592
 EIGENVECTOR 3       =  -0.71046  -0.69495   0.09245  -0.06120
 EIGENVECTOR 4       =   0.68309  -0.64525   0.32137  -0.11730

 CHARGINO MASSES (SIGNED)  =  -176.383  -378.229
 GAMMAL, GAMMAR             =   1.99234   1.80868

 ISAJET equivalent input:
 MSSMA:   595.19  352.39  393.63   10.00
 MSSMB:   539.86  519.53  521.66  196.64  136.23
 MSSMC:   495.91  516.86  424.83  195.75  133.55 -510.01 -772.66 -254.20
 MSSMD: SAME AS MSSMB (DEFAULT)
 MSSME:    99.13  192.74

```

### 1.2 Spectrum & parameters of SUSYGEN 3.00/27

Susygen parameters

```
 Susygen Inputs:
 --------------

 m0      =   100.000   TANB     =    10.000
 m1/2    =   250.000    mu/|mu| =     1
 A0      =  -100.000

 Sparticle masses:
 ----------------
 SUPR      550.  SUPL       570.
 SDNR      549.  SDNL       575.
 SELR      145.  SELL       204.
 SNU       188.
 STP1      412.  STP2       576. cosmix =  0.534
 SBT1      520.  SBT2       550. cosmix =  0.913
 STA1      136.  STA2       208. cosmix=   0.271
 SGLU      618.

 Gaugino masses:
 --------------

 M1 =    102.191 M2 =    191.812 M3 =    588.293

 NEUTRALINO m, CP, ph/zi/ha/hb 1 =   98.8  1.  0.831 -0.530  0.075  0.152
 NEUTRALINO m, CP, ph/zi/ha/hb 2 =  174.9  1. -0.554 -0.762  0.196  0.271
 NEUTRALINO m, CP, ph/zi/ha/hb 3 =  348.4 -1. -0.009  0.113 -0.638  0.762
 NEUTRALINO m, CP, ph/zi/ha/hb 4 =  368.7  1. -0.054 -0.354 -0.741 -0.569

 CHARGINO MASSES    =   174.211   369.022
 CHARGINO ETA       =    -1.000     1.000

 U matrix      WINO      HIGGSINO   V matrix      WINO     HIGGSINO
 W1SS+        -0.905     0.426      W1SS-         0.968    -0.249
 W2SS+         0.426     0.905      W2SS-         0.249     0.968

 Higgses masses:
 --------------

 Light CP-even Higgs =   111.794
 Heavy CP-even Higgs =   384.532
       CP-odd  Higgs =   384.598
       Charged Higgs =   392.561
       sin(a-b)      =    -0.111
       cos(a-b)      =     0.994

```

### 1.3 Spectrum & parameters of PYTHIA 6.2/00

Pythia parameters

```
   SUGRA input parameters
   ----------------------
   m_0         RMSS( 8) =   100.0
   m_1/2       RMSS( 1) =   250.0
   A_0         RMSS(16) =  -100.0
   tan_beta    RMSS( 5) =   10.00
   sign mu     RMSS( 4) =   1.000

   sparticle masses & widths
   -------------------------
   M_se_R   145.8 ( 0.204)   M_se_L   211.4 ( 0.235)   M_sne_L  195.8 ( 0.173)
   M_sm_R   145.8 ( 0.204)   M_sm_L   211.4 ( 0.235)   M_snm_L  195.8 ( 0.173)
   M_st_1   146.0 ( 0.198)   M_st_2   220.2 ( 0.335)   M_snt_L  195.6 ( 0.171)

   M_ch0_1   99.9 ( 0.000)   M_ch0_2  188.4 ( 0.015)   M_ch0_3  375.7 ( 2.209)
   M_ch0_4  394.2 ( 2.946)
   M_ch+_1  187.7 ( 0.012)   M_ch+_2  394.8 ( 2.888)

   M_h0     111.7 ( 0.004)   M_H0     412.1 ( 0.910)   M_A0     411.9 ( 0.980)
   M_H+     419.5 ( 0.855)

   M_g~     627.8 (11.779)
   M_uL     554.4 ( 5.376)   M_uR     535.3 ( 1.127)   M_dL     559.3 ( 5.159)
   M_dR     534.4 ( 0.281)
   M_b1     504.2 ( 3.590)   M_b2     534.6 ( 1.060)   M_t1     381.3 ( 1.768)
   M_t2     587.1 ( 7.620)

   parameter settings IMSS, RMSS
   -----------------------------
   IMSS( 1) = 2   IMSS( 4) = 1   IMSS( 7) = 0   IMSS(10) = 0
   IMSS( 2) = 0   IMSS( 5) = 0   IMSS( 8) = 0   IMSS(11) = 0
   IMSS( 3) = 0   IMSS( 6) = 0   IMSS( 9) = 0   IMSS(12) = 0

   RMSS( 1) =   250.0       RMSS( 9) =   700.0       RMSS(17) =   100.0
   RMSS( 2) =   204.0       RMSS(10) =   504.9       RMSS(18) = -0.1098
   RMSS( 3) =   600.2       RMSS(11) =   530.1       RMSS(19) =   412.1
   RMSS( 4) =   369.6       RMSS(12) =   430.3       RMSS(20) =  0.4100E-01
   RMSS( 5) =   10.00       RMSS(13) =   211.2       RMSS(21) =   1.000
   RMSS( 6) =   211.4       RMSS(14) =   145.3       RMSS(22) =   800.0
   RMSS( 7) =   145.8       RMSS(15) =   100.0       RMSS(23) =  0.1000E+05
   RMSS( 8) =   100.0       RMSS(16) =  -532.9       RMSS(24) =  0.1000E+05

```

### 1.4 Decay modes

## 2 SPS 2 – mSUGRA scenario

| $`𝒎_\mathrm{𝟎}`$ | $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟒𝟓𝟎}\mathrm{𝐆𝐞𝐕}`$ |
| --- | --- |
| $`𝒎_{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}\mathrm{𝟐}}`$ | $`\mathrm{𝟑𝟎𝟎}\mathrm{𝐆𝐞𝐕}`$ |
| $`𝑨_\mathrm{𝟎}`$ | $`\mathrm{𝟎}\mathrm{𝐆𝐞𝐕}`$ |
| $`\mathrm{𝐭𝐚𝐧}𝜷`$ | $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}`$ |
| $`\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐠𝐧}𝝁`$ | $`\mathbf{+}`$ |

| ‘focus point’ scenario |
| --- |
| $`𝒎_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟐}𝒎_{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟖𝟎𝟎}\mathrm{𝐆𝐞𝐕}`$ |

### 2.1 Spectrum & parameters of ISAJET 7.58

Isajet parameters

```
 Minimal supergravity (mSUGRA) model:

 M_0,  M_(1/2),  A_0,  tan(beta),  sgn(mu),  M_t =
  1450.000   300.000     0.000    10.000     1.0   175.000

 ISASUGRA unification:
 M_GUT      = 0.270E+17   g_GUT          =0.701      alpha_GUT =0.039
 FT_GUT     = 0.460       FB_GUT         = 0.048     FL_GUT = 0.068

 1/alpha_em =  127.71     sin**2(thetaw) =0.2310     alpha_s   =0.119
 M_1        =  120.36     M_2            =  234.12   M_3       =  696.46
 mu(Q)      =  124.77     B(Q)           = 1653.71   Q         = 1077.13
 M_H1^2     = 0.205E+07   M_H2^2         = 0.319E+05

 ISAJET masses (with signs):
 M(GL)  =   784.37
 M(UL)  =  1532.70   M(UR)  =  1530.08   M(DL)  =  1534.74   M(DR) =  1530.49
 M(B1)  =  1296.56   M(B2)  =  1520.09   M(T1)  =  1003.88   M(T2) =  1307.41
 M(SN)  =  1454.17   M(EL)  =  1456.33   M(ER)  =  1451.69
 M(NTAU)=  1448.15   M(TAU1)=  1439.46   M(TAU2)=  1450.38
 M(Z1)  =   -79.54   M(Z2)  =   135.34   M(Z3)  =  -140.84   M(Z4) =  -269.45
 M(W1)  =  -104.03   M(W2)  =  -269.03
 M(HL)  =   115.71   M(HH)  =  1444.10   M(HA)  =  1442.95   M(H+) =  1446.18

 theta_t=   1.4446   theta_b=   0.0094   theta_l=   1.4909   alpha_h=   0.1007

 NEUTRALINO MASSES (SIGNED) =   -79.537   135.343  -140.839  -269.450
 EIGENVECTOR 1       =   0.45040  -0.64968  -0.26524   0.55200
 EIGENVECTOR 2       =   0.72890   0.65991  -0.14274   0.11336
 EIGENVECTOR 3       =   0.35117  -0.31805  -0.32663  -0.81782
 EIGENVECTOR 4       =  -0.37752   0.20316  -0.89587   0.11668

 CHARGINO MASSES (SIGNED)  =  -104.031  -269.026
 GAMMAL, GAMMAR             =   2.85552   2.58052

 ISAJET equivalent input:
 MSSMA:   784.37  124.77 1442.95   10.00
 MSSMB:  1533.62 1530.29 1530.49 1455.57 1451.04
 MSSMC:  1295.25 1519.86  998.47 1449.56 1438.88 -563.70 -797.21 -187.83
 MSSMD: SAME AS MSSMB (DEFAULT)
 MSSME:   120.36  234.12

```

### 2.2 Spectrum & parameters of SUSYGEN 3.00/27

Susygen parameters

```
 Susygen inputs:
 --------------

 m0      =  1450.000   TANB     =    10.000
 m1/2    =   300.000    mu/|mu| =     1
 A0      =     0.000

 Sparticle masses:
 ----------------

 SUPR     1584.  SUPL      1593.
 SDNR     1583.  SDNL      1595.
 SELR     1455.  SELL      1465.
 SNU      1463.
 STP1     1022.  STP2      1340. cosmix =  0.103
 SBT1     1335.  SBT2      1571. cosmix =  1.000
 STA1     1441.  STA2      1459. cosmix=   0.140
 SGLU      811.

 Gaugino masses:
 --------------

 NEUTRALINO m, CP, ph/zi/ha/hb 1 =  123.1  1.  0.837 -0.523  0.077  0.142
 NEUTRALINO m, CP, ph/zi/ha/hb 2 =  214.6  1. -0.543 -0.763  0.218  0.276
 NEUTRALINO m, CP, ph/zi/ha/hb 3 =  377.6 -1. -0.009  0.100 -0.637  0.764
 NEUTRALINO m, CP, ph/zi/ha/hb 4 =  399.9  1. -0.067 -0.368 -0.735 -0.566

 CHARGINO MASSES    =   213.915   399.841
 CHARGINO ETA      =    -1.000     1.000

 U matrix      WINO      HIGGSINO    V matrix      WINO      HIGGSINO
 W1SS+        -0.901     0.434       W1SS-         0.960    -0.279
 W2SS+         0.434     0.901       W2SS-         0.279     0.960

 Higgses masses:
 --------------

 Light CP-even Higgs =   114.873
 Heavy CP-even Higgs =  1490.196
       CP-odd  Higgs =  1489.165
       Charged Higgs =  1491.171
       sin(a-b)      =    -0.100
       cos(a-b)      =     0.995

```

### 2.3 Spectrum & parameters of PYTHIA 6.2/00

Pythia parameters

```
   SUGRA input parameters
   ----------------------
   m_0         RMSS( 8) =   1450.
   m_1/2       RMSS( 1) =   300.0
   A_0         RMSS(16) =   0.000
   tan_beta    RMSS( 5) =   10.00
   sign mu     RMSS( 4) =   1.000

   sparticle masses & widths
   -------------------------
   M_se_R  1455.3 ( 7.470)   M_se_L  1466.8 (19.692)   M_sne_L 1464.6 (19.753)
   M_sm_R  1455.3 ( 7.471)   M_sm_L  1466.8 (19.693)   M_snm_L 1464.6 (19.754)
   M_st_1  1450.0 ( 8.659)   M_st_2  1466.1 (19.071)   M_snt_L 1462.2 (19.923)

   M_ch0_1  122.0 ( 0.000)   M_ch0_2  238.1 ( 0.001)   M_ch0_3  632.3 ( 4.785)
   M_ch0_4  640.3 ( 4.759)
   M_ch+_1  238.0 ( 0.002)   M_ch+_2  641.2 ( 4.815)

   M_h0     114.1 ( 0.004)   M_H0    1572.3 ( 3.711)   M_A0    1571.6 ( 3.733)
   M_H+    1574.6 ( 3.802)

   M_g~     814.1 ( 0.004)
   M_uL    1559.7 (68.025)   M_uR    1549.1 (51.354)   M_dL    1561.7 (68.063)
   M_dR    1548.3 (48.633)
   M_b1    1259.8 (55.517)   M_b2    1530.2 (47.344)   M_t1     882.7 ( 8.311)
   M_t2    1274.0 (52.448)

   parameter settings IMSS, RMSS
   -----------------------------
   IMSS( 1) = 2   IMSS( 4) = 1   IMSS( 7) = 0   IMSS(10) = 0
   IMSS( 2) = 0   IMSS( 5) = 0   IMSS( 8) = 0   IMSS(11) = 0
   IMSS( 3) = 0   IMSS( 6) = 0   IMSS( 9) = 0   IMSS(12) = 0

   RMSS( 1) =   300.0       RMSS( 9) =   700.0       RMSS(17) =   0.000
   RMSS( 2) =   244.9       RMSS(10) =   1259.       RMSS(18) = -0.1004
   RMSS( 3) =   706.3       RMSS(11) =   1530.       RMSS(19) =   1573.
   RMSS( 4) =   628.3       RMSS(12) =   876.4       RMSS(20) =  0.4100E-01
   RMSS( 5) =   10.00       RMSS(13) =   1464.       RMSS(21) =   1.000
   RMSS( 6) =   1467.       RMSS(14) =   1450.       RMSS(22) =   800.0
   RMSS( 7) =   1455.       RMSS(15) =   0.000       RMSS(23) =  0.1000E+05
   RMSS( 8) =   1450.       RMSS(16) =  -610.2       RMSS(24) =  0.1000E+05

```

### 2.4 Decay modes

## 3 SPS 3 – mSUGRA scenario

| $`𝒎_\mathrm{𝟎}`$ | $`\mathrm{𝟗𝟎}\mathrm{𝐆𝐞𝐕}`$ |
| --- | --- |
| $`𝒎_{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}\mathrm{𝟐}}`$ | $`\mathrm{𝟒𝟎𝟎}\mathrm{𝐆𝐞𝐕}`$ |
| $`𝑨_\mathrm{𝟎}`$ | $`\mathrm{𝟎}\mathrm{𝐆𝐞𝐕}`$ |
| $`\mathrm{𝐭𝐚𝐧}𝜷`$ | $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}`$ |
| $`\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐠𝐧}𝝁`$ | $`\mathbf{+}`$ |

| model line into |
| --- |
| ’coannihilation region’ |
| $`𝒎_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.25}𝒎_{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}\mathrm{𝐆𝐞𝐕}`$ |

### 3.1 Spectrum & parameters of ISAJET 7.58

Isajet parameters

```
 Minimal supergravity (mSUGRA) model:

 M_0,  M_(1/2),  A_0,  tan(beta),  sgn(mu),  M_t =
    90.000   400.000     0.000    10.000     1.0   175.000

 ISASUGRA unification:
 M_GUT      = 0.166E+17   g_GUT          =0.711      alpha_GUT =0.040
 FT_GUT     = 0.473       FB_GUT         = 0.047     FL_GUT = 0.070

 1/alpha_em =  127.72     sin**2(thetaw) =0.2304     alpha_s   =0.121
 M_1        =  162.83     M_2            =  311.38   M_3       =  894.68
 mu(Q)      =  508.59     B(Q)           =   64.52   Q         =  703.81
 M_H1^2     = 0.700E+05   M_H2^2         =-0.248E+06

 ISAJET masses (with signs):
 M(GL)  =   914.26
 M(UL)  =   816.57   M(UR)  =   791.78   M(DL)  =   820.39   M(DR) =   789.34
 M(B1)  =   757.50   M(B2)  =   791.35   M(T1)  =   623.83   M(T2) =   819.54
 M(SN)  =   275.99   M(EL)  =   287.11   M(ER)  =   178.33
 M(NTAU)=   275.11   M(TAU1)=   170.59   M(TAU2)=   289.22
 M(Z1)  =  -160.55   M(Z2)  =  -296.95   M(Z3)  =   512.87   M(Z4) =  -529.57
 M(W1)  =  -296.85   M(W2)  =  -529.51
 M(HL)  =   116.95   M(HH)  =   573.03   M(HA)  =   572.42   M(H+) =   578.30

 theta_t=   1.0446   theta_b=   0.4105   theta_l=   1.3960   alpha_h=   0.1052

 NEUTRALINO MASSES (SIGNED) =  -160.555  -296.949   512.872  -529.573
 EIGENVECTOR 1       =   0.04140  -0.10275  -0.02726   0.99347
 EIGENVECTOR 2       =   0.15060  -0.23308  -0.95905  -0.05670
 EIGENVECTOR 3       =   0.70876   0.70153  -0.06164   0.04133
 EIGENVECTOR 4       =   0.68794  -0.66556   0.27510  -0.08996

 CHARGINO MASSES (SIGNED)  =  -296.846  -529.512
 GAMMAL, GAMMAR             =   1.91245   1.78958

 ISAJET equivalent input:
 MSSMA:   914.26  508.59  572.42   10.00
 MSSMB:   818.29  788.94  792.57  283.27  172.98
 MSSMC:   760.72  785.64  661.24  282.42  170.03 -733.51-1042.16 -246.11
 MSSMD: SAME AS MSSMB (DEFAULT)
 MSSME:   162.83  311.38

```

### 3.2 Spectrum & parameters of SUSYGEN 3.00/27

Susygen parameters

```
 Susygen inputs:
 --------------

 m0      =    90.000   TANB     =    10.000
 m1/2    =   400.000    mu/|mu| =     1
 A0      =     0.000

 Sparticle masses:
 ----------------

 SUPR      835.  SUPL       869.
 SDNR      831.  SDNL       873.
 SELR      182.  SELL       291.
 SNU       280.
 STP1      668.  STP2       830. cosmix =  0.427
 SBT1      800.  SBT2       831. cosmix =  0.929
 STA1      175.  STA2       293. cosmix=   0.170
 SGLU      949.

 Gaugino masses:
 --------------

 M1 =    165.439 M2 =    309.159 M3 =    910.421

 NEUTRALINO m, CP, ph/zi/ha/hb 1 =  163.1  1.  0.857 -0.503  0.053  0.100
 NEUTRALINO m, CP, ph/zi/ha/hb 2 =  294.5  1. -0.513 -0.811  0.175  0.219
 NEUTRALINO m, CP, ph/zi/ha/hb 3 =  508.5 -1. -0.006  0.075 -0.635  0.768
 NEUTRALINO m, CP, ph/zi/ha/hb 4 =  525.5  1. -0.053 -0.288 -0.750 -0.593

 CHARGINO MASSES    =   294.202   525.434
 CHARGINO ETA      =    -1.000     1.000

 U matrix      WINO      HIGGSINO      V matrix      WINO     HIGGSINO
 W1SS+        -0.941     0.339         W1SS-         0.976    -0.220
 W2SS+         0.339     0.941         W2SS-         0.220     0.976

 Higgses masses:
 --------------

 Light CP-even Higgs =   114.496
 Heavy CP-even Higgs =   569.934
       CP-odd  Higgs =   570.032
       Charged Higgs =   575.354
       sin(a-b)      =    -0.105
       cos(a-b)      =     0.994

```

### 3.3 Spectrum & parameters of PYTHIA 6.2/00

Pythia parameters

```
  SUGRA input parameters
  ----------------------
   m_0         RMSS( 8) =   90.00
   m_1/2       RMSS( 1) =   400.0
   A_0         RMSS(16) =   0.000
   tan_beta    RMSS( 5) =   10.00
   sign mu     RMSS( 4) =   1.000

   sparticle masses & widths
   -------------------------
   M_se_R   184.4 ( 0.046)   M_se_L   305.8 ( 0.185)   M_sne_L  295.2 ( 0.196)
   M_sm_R   184.4 ( 0.046)   M_sm_L   305.8 ( 0.185)   M_snm_L  295.2 ( 0.196)
   M_st_1   184.2 ( 0.045)   M_st_2   311.9 ( 0.246)   M_snt_L  295.0 ( 0.227)

   M_ch0_1  162.5 ( 0.000)   M_ch0_2  314.7 ( 0.103)   M_ch0_3  573.9 ( 3.857)
   M_ch0_4  587.5 ( 4.406)
   M_ch+_1  314.4 ( 0.100)   M_ch+_2  587.9 ( 4.398)

   M_h0     114.9 ( 0.004)   M_H0     633.8 ( 1.470)   M_A0     633.7 ( 1.531)
   M_H+     638.9 ( 1.511)

   M_g~     951.2 (21.123)
   M_uL     834.6 ( 7.816)   M_uR     800.8 ( 1.684)   M_dL     837.9 ( 7.677)
   M_dR     797.5 ( 0.419)
   M_b1     756.0 ( 7.559)   M_b2     795.7 ( 1.538)   M_t1     591.7 ( 2.509)
   M_t2     824.7 (12.076)

   parameter settings IMSS, RMSS
   -----------------------------
   IMSS( 1) = 2   IMSS( 4) = 1   IMSS( 7) = 0   IMSS(10) = 0
   IMSS( 2) = 0   IMSS( 5) = 0   IMSS( 8) = 0   IMSS(11) = 0
   IMSS( 3) = 0   IMSS( 6) = 0   IMSS( 9) = 0   IMSS(12) = 0

   RMSS( 1) =   400.0       RMSS( 9) =   700.0       RMSS(17) =   0.000
   RMSS( 2) =   326.5       RMSS(10) =   757.1       RMSS(18) = -0.1040
   RMSS( 3) =   914.1       RMSS(11) =   792.1       RMSS(19) =   634.1
   RMSS( 4) =   570.0       RMSS(12) =   638.0       RMSS(20) =  0.4100E-01
   RMSS( 5) =   10.00       RMSS(13) =   305.6       RMSS(21) =   1.000
   RMSS( 6) =   305.8       RMSS(14) =   183.8       RMSS(22) =   800.0
   RMSS( 7) =   184.4       RMSS(15) =   0.000       RMSS(23) =  0.1000E+05
   RMSS( 8) =   90.00       RMSS(16) =  -813.6       RMSS(24) =  0.1000E+05

```

### 3.4 Decay modes

## 4 SPS 4 – mSUGRA scenario

| $`𝒎_\mathrm{𝟎}`$ | $`\mathrm{𝟒𝟎𝟎}\mathrm{𝐆𝐞𝐕}`$ |
| --- | --- |
| $`𝒎_{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}\mathrm{𝟐}}`$ | $`\mathrm{𝟑𝟎𝟎}\mathrm{𝐆𝐞𝐕}`$ |
| $`𝑨_\mathrm{𝟎}`$ | $`\mathrm{𝟎}\mathrm{𝐆𝐞𝐕}`$ |
| $`\mathrm{𝐭𝐚𝐧}𝜷`$ | $`\mathrm{𝟓𝟎}`$ |
| $`\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐠𝐧}𝝁`$ | $`\mathbf{+}`$ |

### 4.1 Spectrum & parameters of ISAJET 7.58

Isajet parameters

```
 Minimal supergravity (mSUGRA) model:

 M_0,  M_(1/2),  A_0,  tan(beta),  sgn(mu),  M_t =
   400.000   300.000     0.000    50.000     1.0   175.000

 ISASUGRA unification:
 M_GUT      = 0.211E+17   g_GUT          =0.710      alpha_GUT =0.040
 FT_GUT     = 0.486       FB_GUT         = 0.186     FL_GUT = 0.463

 1/alpha_em =  127.73     sin**2(thetaw) =0.2310     alpha_s   =0.119
 M_1        =  120.80     M_2            =  233.17   M_3       =  689.41
 mu(Q)      =  377.03     B(Q)           =   13.05   Q         =  571.25
 M_H1^2     = 0.602E+05   M_H2^2         =-0.140E+06

 ISAJET masses (with signs):
 M(GL)  =   721.03
 M(UL)  =   730.24   M(UR)  =   715.10   M(DL)  =   734.59   M(DR) =   714.32
 M(B1)  =   606.86   M(B2)  =   706.45   M(T1)  =   530.58   M(T2) =   695.88
 M(SN)  =   441.22   M(EL)  =   448.40   M(ER)  =   416.54
 M(NTAU)=   389.43   M(TAU1)=   267.61   M(TAU2)=   414.91
 M(Z1)  =  -118.66   M(Z2)  =  -218.14   M(Z3)  =   383.91   M(Z4) =  -401.08
 M(W1)  =  -218.06   M(W2)  =  -402.28
 M(HL)  =   115.39   M(HH)  =   404.63   M(HA)  =   404.43   M(H+) =   416.28

 theta_t=   1.0387   theta_b=   0.6261   theta_l=   1.1998   alpha_h=   0.0204

 NEUTRALINO MASSES (SIGNED) =  -118.657  -218.137   383.909  -401.079
 EIGENVECTOR 1       =   0.04547  -0.13669  -0.03365   0.98900
 EIGENVECTOR 2       =   0.17072  -0.28852  -0.93876  -0.07966
 EIGENVECTOR 3       =  -0.70951  -0.69629   0.09011  -0.06055
 EIGENVECTOR 4       =  -0.68219   0.64285  -0.33089   0.10895

 CHARGINO MASSES (SIGNED)  =  -218.062  -402.275
 GAMMAL, GAMMAR             =   1.99843   1.81882

 ISAJET equivalent input:
 MSSMA:   721.03  377.03  404.43   50.00
 MSSMB:   732.20  713.87  716.00  445.90  414.23
 MSSMC:   640.09  673.40  556.76  394.72  289.48 -552.20 -729.52 -102.27
 MSSMD: SAME AS MSSMB (DEFAULT)
 MSSME:   120.80  233.17

```

### 4.2 Spectrum & parameters of SUSYGEN 3.00/27

Susygen parameters

```
 Susygen inputs:
 --------------

 m0      =   400.000   TANB     =    50.000
 m1/2    =   300.000    mu/|mu| =     1
 A0      =     0.000

 Sparticle masses:
 ----------------

 SUPR      755.  SUPL       775.
 SDNR      753.  SDNL       779.
 SELR      418.  SELL       452.
 SNU       445.
 STP1      569.  STP2       689. cosmix =  0.476
 SBT1      628.  SBT2       701. cosmix =  0.762
 STA1      296.  STA2       424. cosmix=   0.372
 SGLU      747.

 Gaugino masses:
 --------------

 M1 =    124.255 M2 =    232.053 M3 =    694.630

 NEUTRALINO m, CP, ph/zi/ha/hb 1 =  122.0  1.  0.849 -0.508  0.050  0.138
 NEUTRALINO m, CP, ph/zi/ha/hb 2 =  216.9  1. -0.525 -0.782  0.177  0.286
 NEUTRALINO m, CP, ph/zi/ha/hb 3 =  382.6 -1. -0.009  0.109 -0.695  0.710
 NEUTRALINO m, CP, ph/zi/ha/hb 4 =  400.0  1. -0.062 -0.345 -0.695 -0.628

 CHARGINO MASSES    =   216.667   401.170
 CHARGINO ETA       =    -1.000     1.000

 U matrix      WINO      HIGGSINO   V matrix      WINO      HIGGSINO
 W1SS+        -0.909     0.417      W1SS-         0.969    -0.246
 W2SS+         0.417     0.909      W2SS-         0.246     0.969

 Higgses masses:
 --------------

 Light CP-even Higgs =   113.437
 Heavy CP-even Higgs =   351.833
       CP-odd  Higgs =   353.570
       Charged Higgs =   361.880
       sin(a-b)      =    -0.021
       cos(a-b)      =     1.000

```

### 4.3 Spectrum & parameters of PYTHIA 6.2/00

Pythia parameters

```
   SUGRA input parameters
   ----------------------
   m_0         RMSS( 8) =   400.0
   m_1/2       RMSS( 1) =   300.0
   A_0         RMSS(16) =   0.000
   tan_beta    RMSS( 5) =   50.00
   sign mu     RMSS( 4) =   1.000

   sparticle masses & widths
   -------------------------
   M_se_R   418.8 ( 1.782)   M_se_L   457.2 ( 3.377)   M_sne_L  450.1 ( 3.396)
   M_sm_R   418.8 ( 1.783)   M_sm_L   457.2 ( 3.377)   M_snm_L  450.1 ( 3.396)
   M_st_1   356.4 ( 1.972)   M_st_2   467.2 ( 2.618)   M_snt_L  433.7 ( 3.243)

   M_ch0_1  121.7 ( 0.000)   M_ch0_2  233.3 ( 0.001)   M_ch0_3  440.9 ( 2.634)
   M_ch0_4  454.0 ( 2.855)
   M_ch+_1  233.1 ( 0.005)   M_ch+_2  455.6 ( 3.020)

   M_h0     114.1 ( 0.004)   M_H0     209.6 ( 7.886)   M_A0     209.8 ( 7.909)
   M_H+     226.9 ( 3.453)

   M_g~     749.4 ( 7.937)
   M_uL     746.3 ( 7.718)   M_uR     725.0 ( 1.563)   M_dL     750.4 ( 7.534)
   M_dR     723.4 ( 0.390)
   M_b1     519.8 ( 1.335)   M_b2     634.0 ( 4.829)   M_t1     486.7 ( 2.672)
   M_t2     668.7 (10.050)

   parameter settings IMSS, RMSS
   -----------------------------
   IMSS( 1) = 2   IMSS( 4) = 1   IMSS( 7) = 0   IMSS(10) = 0
   IMSS( 2) = 0   IMSS( 5) = 0   IMSS( 8) = 0   IMSS(11) = 0
   IMSS( 3) = 0   IMSS( 6) = 0   IMSS( 9) = 0   IMSS(12) = 0

   RMSS( 1) =   300.0       RMSS( 9) =   700.0       RMSS(17) =   0.000
   RMSS( 2) =   244.9       RMSS(10) =   584.6       RMSS(18) = -0.2098E-01
   RMSS( 3) =   706.3       RMSS(11) =   571.2       RMSS(19) =   210.0
   RMSS( 4) =   434.8       RMSS(12) =   540.7       RMSS(20) =  0.4100E-01
   RMSS( 5) =   50.00       RMSS(13) =   441.1       RMSS(21) =   1.000
   RMSS( 6) =   457.2       RMSS(14) =   382.8       RMSS(22) =   800.0
   RMSS( 7) =   418.8       RMSS(15) =   0.000       RMSS(23) =  0.1000E+05
   RMSS( 8) =   400.0       RMSS(16) =  -614.3       RMSS(24) =  0.1000E+05

```

### 4.4 Decay modes

## 5 SPS 5 – mSUGRA scenario

| $`𝒎_\mathrm{𝟎}`$ | $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟓𝟎}\mathrm{𝐆𝐞𝐕}`$ |
| --- | --- |
| $`𝒎_{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}\mathrm{𝟐}}`$ | $`\mathrm{𝟑𝟎𝟎}\mathrm{𝐆𝐞𝐕}`$ |
| $`𝑨_\mathrm{𝟎}`$ | $`\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟎𝟎𝟎}\mathrm{𝐆𝐞𝐕}`$ |
| $`\mathrm{𝐭𝐚𝐧}𝜷`$ | $`\mathrm{𝟓}`$ |
| $`\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐠𝐧}𝝁`$ | $`\mathbf{+}`$ |

### 5.1 Spectrum & parameters of ISAJET 7.58

Isajet parameters

```
 Minimal supergravity (mSUGRA) model:

 M_0,  M_(1/2),  A_0,  tan(beta),  sgn(mu),  M_t =
   150.000   300.000 -1000.000     5.000     1.0   175.000

 ISASUGRA unification:
 M_GUT      = 0.190E+17   g_GUT          =0.713      alpha_GUT =0.040
 FT_GUT     = 0.487       FB_GUT         = 0.023     FL_GUT = 0.035

 1/alpha_em =  127.66     sin**2(thetaw) =0.2309     alpha_s   =0.119
 M_1        =  121.39     M_2            =  234.56   M_3       =  694.68
 mu(Q)      =  639.80     B(Q)           =  144.90   Q         =  449.79
 M_H1^2     = 0.572E+05   M_H2^2         =-0.393E+06

 ISAJET masses (with signs):
 M(GL)  =   710.31
 M(UL)  =   641.82   M(UR)  =   624.49   M(DL)  =   646.40   M(DR) =   623.38
 M(B1)  =   535.86   M(B2)  =   622.99   M(T1)  =   220.74   M(T2) =   644.65
 M(SN)  =   244.52   M(EL)  =   256.30   M(ER)  =   191.45
 M(NTAU)=   242.34   M(TAU1)=   180.67   M(TAU2)=   257.86
 M(Z1)  =  -119.51   M(Z2)  =  -226.33   M(Z3)  =   642.83   M(Z4) =  -652.95
 M(W1)  =  -226.33   M(W2)  =  -652.68
 M(HL)  =   119.79   M(HH)  =   694.03   M(HA)  =   693.86   M(H+) =   698.49

 theta_t=   1.0031   theta_b=   0.1580   theta_l=   1.3356   alpha_h=   0.2069

 NEUTRALINO MASSES (SIGNED) =  -119.510  -226.329   642.833  -652.949
 EIGENVECTOR 1       =   0.02835  -0.07603  -0.02968   0.99626
 EIGENVECTOR 2       =   0.07465  -0.14434  -0.98579  -0.04251
 EIGENVECTOR 3       =  -0.70833  -0.70332   0.05073  -0.03201
 EIGENVECTOR 4       =   0.70135  -0.69190   0.15735  -0.06807

 CHARGINO MASSES (SIGNED)  =  -226.327  -652.683
 GAMMAL, GAMMAR             =   1.77997   1.67887

 ISAJET equivalent input:
 MSSMA:   710.31  639.80  693.86    5.00
 MSSMB:   643.88  622.91  625.44  252.24  186.76
 MSSMC:   535.16  620.50  360.54  250.13  180.89 -905.63-1671.36-1179.34
 MSSMD: SAME AS MSSMB (DEFAULT)
 MSSME:   121.39  234.56

```

### 5.2 Spectrum & parameters of SUSYGEN 3.00/27

Susygen parameters

```
 Susygen inputs:
 --------------

 m0      =   150.000   TANB     =     5.000
 m1/2    =   300.000    mu/|mu| =     1
 A0      = -1000.000

 Sparticle masses:
 ----------------

 SUPR      658.  SUPL       683.
 SDNR      656.  SDNL       687.
 SELR      193.  SELL       259.
 SNU       248.
 STP1      210.  STP2       632. cosmix =  0.513
 SBT1      561.  SBT2       654. cosmix =  0.992
 STA1      183.  STA2       261. cosmix=   0.226
 SGLU      728.

 Gaugino masses:
 --------------

 M1 =    123.173 M2 =    231.684 M3 =    712.143

 NEUTRALINO m, CP, ph/zi/ha/hb 1 =  121.2  1.  0.858 -0.507  0.045  0.071
 NEUTRALINO m, CP, ph/zi/ha/hb 2 =  223.1  1. -0.514 -0.841  0.105  0.130
 NEUTRALINO m, CP, ph/zi/ha/hb 3 =  628.5 -1. -0.004  0.061 -0.557  0.828
 NEUTRALINO m, CP, ph/zi/ha/hb 4 =  639.0  1. -0.016 -0.176 -0.823 -0.540

 CHARGINO MASSES    =   222.964   638.753
 CHARGINO ETA      =     -1.000     1.000

 U matrix      WINO      HIGGSINO      V matrix      WINO     HIGGSINO
 W1SS+        -0.977     0.214         W1SS-         0.994    -0.112
 W2SS+         0.214     0.977         W2SS-         0.112     0.994

 Higgses masses:
 --------------

 Light CP-even Higgs =   113.925
 Heavy CP-even Higgs =   679.220
       CP-odd  Higgs =   679.964
       Charged Higgs =   684.484
       sin(a-b)      =    -0.205
       cos(a-b)      =     0.979

```

### 5.3 Spectrum & parameters of PYTHIA 6.2/00

Pythia parameters

```
   SUGRA input parameters
   ----------------------
   m_0         RMSS( 8) =   150.0
   m_1/2       RMSS( 1) =   300.0
   A_0         RMSS(16) =  -1000.
   tan_beta    RMSS( 5) =   5.000
   sign mu     RMSS( 4) =   1.000

   sparticle masses & widths
   -------------------------
   M_se_R   194.4 ( 0.366)   M_se_L   267.1 ( 0.349)   M_sne_L  255.7 ( 0.281)
   M_sm_R   194.4 ( 0.366)   M_sm_L   267.1 ( 0.349)   M_snm_L  255.7 ( 0.281)
   M_st_1   195.9 ( 0.373)   M_st_2   271.3 ( 0.399)   M_snt_L  255.1 ( 0.276)

   M_ch0_1  121.4 ( 0.000)   M_ch0_2  236.5 ( 0.004)   M_ch0_3  649.9 (12.037)
   M_ch0_4  660.1 (24.943)
   M_ch+_1  236.2 ( 0.005)   M_ch+_2  660.0 (15.581)

   M_h0     111.9 ( 0.004)   M_H0     702.4 ( 1.405)   M_A0     702.0 ( 1.610)
   M_H+     707.6 ( 1.624)

   M_g~     737.6 (19.386)
   M_uL     658.1 ( 6.389)   M_uR     634.3 ( 1.344)   M_dL     662.1 ( 6.306)
   M_dR     632.5 ( 0.335)
   M_b1     547.2 (14.603)   M_b2     629.3 ( 0.466)   M_t1     274.0 ( 0.068)
   M_t2     647.9 (15.171)

   parameter settings IMSS, RMSS
   -----------------------------
   IMSS( 1) = 2   IMSS( 4) = 1   IMSS( 7) = 0   IMSS(10) = 0
   IMSS( 2) = 0   IMSS( 5) = 0   IMSS( 8) = 0   IMSS(11) = 0
   IMSS( 3) = 0   IMSS( 6) = 0   IMSS( 9) = 0   IMSS(12) = 0

   RMSS( 1) =   300.0       RMSS( 9) =   700.0       RMSS(17) =   1000.
   RMSS( 2) =   244.9       RMSS(10) =   544.6       RMSS(18) = -0.2049
   RMSS( 3) =   706.3       RMSS(11) =   628.4       RMSS(19) =   703.5
   RMSS( 4) =   646.9       RMSS(12) =   384.8       RMSS(20) =  0.4100E-01
   RMSS( 5) =   5.000       RMSS(13) =   266.5       RMSS(21) =   1.000
   RMSS( 6) =   267.1       RMSS(14) =   192.7       RMSS(22) =   800.0
   RMSS( 7) =   194.4       RMSS(15) =   1000.       RMSS(23) =  0.1000E+05
   RMSS( 8) =   150.0       RMSS(16) =  -819.2       RMSS(24) =  0.1000E+05

```

### 5.4 Decay modes

## 6 SPS 6 – MSSM scenario

| $`𝒎_\mathrm{𝟎}`$ | $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟓𝟎}\mathrm{𝐆𝐞𝐕}`$ |
| --- | --- |
| $`𝒎_{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}\mathrm{𝟐}}`$ | $`\mathrm{𝟑𝟎𝟎}\mathrm{𝐆𝐞𝐕}`$ |
| $`𝑨_\mathrm{𝟎}`$ | $`\mathrm{𝟎}\mathrm{𝐆𝐞𝐕}`$ |
| $`\mathrm{𝐭𝐚𝐧}𝜷`$ | $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}`$ |
| $`\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐠𝐧}𝝁`$ | $`\mathbf{+}`$ |

| ‘non-unified gaugino masses’ |
| --- |
| $`𝑴_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟒𝟖𝟎}\mathrm{𝐆𝐞𝐕}\mathbf{,}𝑴_\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{=}𝑴_\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟑𝟎𝟎}\mathrm{𝐆𝐞𝐕}`$ |
| $`𝒎_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.5}𝑴_\mathrm{𝟐}`$ |

### 6.1 Spectrum & parameters of ISAJET 7.58

Isajet parameters

```
 Minimal supergravity (mSUGRA) model:

 M_0,  M_(1/2),  A_0,  tan(beta),  sgn(mu),  M_t =
   150.000   300.000     0.000    10.000     1.0   175.000

 M_1(GUT)=   480.00    M_2(GUT)=   300.00    M_3(GUT)=   300.00

 ISASUGRA unification:
 M_GUT      = 0.190E+17   g_GUT          =0.713      alpha_GUT =0.040
 FT_GUT     = 0.478       FB_GUT         = 0.047     FL_GUT = 0.069

 1/alpha_em =  127.65     sin**2(thetaw) =0.2308     alpha_s   =0.119
 M_1        =  195.89     M_2            =  232.06   M_3       =  691.24
 mu(Q)      =  393.89     B(Q)           =   54.73   Q         =  548.25
 M_H1^2     = 0.612E+05   M_H2^2         =-0.151E+06

 ISAJET masses (with signs):
 M(GL)  =   708.45
 M(UL)  =   639.13   M(UR)  =   628.29   M(DL)  =   644.01   M(DR) =   622.27
 M(B1)  =   588.93   M(B2)  =   624.45   M(T1)  =   476.16   M(T2) =   660.67
 M(SN)  =   252.77   M(EL)  =   264.88   M(ER)  =   236.76
 M(NTAU)=   251.75   M(TAU1)=   227.92   M(TAU2)=   269.64
 M(Z1)  =  -189.37   M(Z2)  =  -217.91   M(Z3)  =   399.31   M(Z4) =  -419.98
 M(W1)  =  -215.34   M(W2)  =  -418.91
 M(HL)  =   114.83   M(HH)  =   463.62   M(HA)  =   463.04   M(H+) =   470.11

 theta_t=   0.9831   theta_b=   0.3882   theta_l=   1.1799   alpha_h=   0.1079

 NEUTRALINO MASSES (SIGNED) =  -189.375  -217.905   399.307  -419.978
 EIGENVECTOR 1       =  -0.11796   0.21288   0.25953  -0.93456
 EIGENVECTOR 2       =   0.13928  -0.22503  -0.90923  -0.32133
 EIGENVECTOR 3       =  -0.70987  -0.69812   0.08065  -0.04702
 EIGENVECTOR 4       =  -0.68027   0.64550  -0.31533   0.14534

 CHARGINO MASSES (SIGNED)  =  -215.342  -418.910
 GAMMAL, GAMMAR             =   1.97743   1.81705

 ISAJET equivalent input:
 MSSMA:   708.45  393.89  463.04   10.00
 MSSMB:   641.33  621.76  629.29  260.71  232.75
 MSSMC:   591.24  618.96  516.96  259.71  230.48 -569.95 -811.30 -213.39
 MSSMD: SAME AS MSSMB (DEFAULT)
 MSSME:   195.89  232.06

```

### 6.2 Spectrum & parameters of SUSYGEN 3.00/25

Susygen parameters

```
 Susygen inputs:
 --------------

 m0      =   150.000   TANB     =    10.000
 m1/2    =   300.000    mu/|mu| =     1
 A0      =     0.000

 Sparticle masses:
 ----------------

 SUPR      639.  SUPL       628.
 SDNR      644.  SDNL       622.
 SELR      237.  SELL       265.
 SNU       253.
 STP1      476.  STP2       661. cosmix =  0.554
 SBT1      589.  SBT2       624. cosmix =  0.926
 STA1      228.  STA2       270. cosmix=   0.381
 SGLU      708.

 Gaugino masses:
 --------------

 M1 =    195.890 M2 =    232.060 M3 =    691.240

 NEUTRALINO m, CP, ph/zi/ha/hb 1 =  189.3  1. -0.693  0.678 -0.139 -0.201
 NEUTRALINO m, CP, ph/zi/ha/hb 2 =  217.8  1.  0.720  0.641 -0.161 -0.210
 NEUTRALINO m, CP, ph/zi/ha/hb 3 =  399.3 -1. -0.002  0.094 -0.637  0.765
 NEUTRALINO m, CP, ph/zi/ha/hb 4 =  420.1  1. -0.025 -0.347 -0.741 -0.574

 CHARGINO MASSES    =   215.088   419.050
 CHARGINO ETA       =    -1.000     1.000

 U matrix      WINO      HIGGSINO   V matrix      WINO      HIGGSINO
 W1SS+        -0.918     0.396      W1SS-         0.970    -0.244
 W2SS+         0.396     0.918      W2SS-         0.244     0.970

 Higgses masses:
 --------------

 Light CP-even Higgs =   114.830
 Heavy CP-even Higgs =   463.620
       CP-odd  Higgs =   463.040
       Charged Higgs =   470.110
       sin(a-b)      =     0.108
       cos(a-b)      =     0.994

```

### 6.3 Spectrum & parameters of PYTHIA 6.2/00

Pythia parameters

```
 MSSM input parameters
 ---------------------
   M_1         RMSS( 1) =   195.0
   M_2         RMSS( 2) =   235.0
   M_3         RMSS( 3) =   680.0
   tan_beta    RMSS( 5) =   10.00
   mu          RMSS( 4) =   400.0

   sparticle masses & widths
   -------------------------
   M_se_R   237.0 ( 0.146)   M_se_L   265.0 ( 0.343)   M_sne_L  252.7 ( 0.281)
   M_sm_R   237.0 ( 0.146)   M_sm_L   265.0 ( 0.343)   M_snm_L  252.7 ( 0.281)
   M_st_1   227.8 ( 0.095)   M_st_2   269.6 ( 0.369)   M_snt_L  247.5 ( 0.224)

   M_ch0_1  189.1 ( 0.000)   M_ch0_2  220.7 ( 0.000)   M_ch0_3  405.3 ( 2.256)
   M_ch0_4  425.6 ( 2.918)
   M_ch+_1  218.2 ( 0.000)   M_ch+_2  424.9 ( 2.828)

   M_h0     112.2 ( 0.004)   M_H0     465.0 ( 1.051)   M_A0     464.8 ( 1.124)
   M_H+     471.5 ( 1.022)

   M_g~     713.5 (10.510)
   M_uL     637.8 ( 6.177)   M_uR     619.0 ( 1.145)   M_dL     642.7 ( 5.991)
   M_dR     620.5 ( 0.287)
   M_b1     589.7 ( 4.359)   M_b2     623.6 ( 1.080)   M_t1     474.3 ( 2.734)
   M_t2     662.0 ( 9.357)

   parameter settings IMSS, RMSS
   -----------------------------
   IMSS( 1) = 1   IMSS( 4) = 1   IMSS( 7) = 0   IMSS(10) = 0
   IMSS( 2) = 0   IMSS( 5) = 0   IMSS( 8) = 0   IMSS(11) = 0
   IMSS( 3) = 0   IMSS( 6) = 0   IMSS( 9) = 0   IMSS(12) = 0

   RMSS( 1) =   195.0       RMSS( 9) =   620.0       RMSS(17) =   0.000
   RMSS( 2) =   235.0       RMSS(10) =   590.0       RMSS(18) = -0.1078
   RMSS( 3) =   680.0       RMSS(11) =   620.0       RMSS(19) =   465.0
   RMSS( 4) =   400.0       RMSS(12) =   515.0       RMSS(20) =  0.4100E-01
   RMSS( 5) =   10.00       RMSS(13) =   260.0       RMSS(21) =   1.000
   RMSS( 6) =   265.0       RMSS(14) =   230.0       RMSS(22) =   620.0
   RMSS( 7) =   237.0       RMSS(15) =   0.000       RMSS(23) =  0.1000E+05
   RMSS( 8) =   640.0       RMSS(16) =  -560.0       RMSS(24) =  0.1000E+05

```

### 6.4 Branching ratios

## 7 SPS 7 – GMSB scenario

| $`𝚲`$ | $`\mathrm{𝟒𝟎}\mathrm{𝐓𝐞𝐕}`$ |
| --- | --- |
| $`𝑴_{𝒎𝒆𝒔𝒔}`$ | $`\mathrm{𝟖𝟎}\mathrm{𝐓𝐞𝐕}`$ |
| $`𝑵_{𝒎𝒆𝒔𝒔}`$ | $`\mathrm{𝟑}`$ |
| $`\mathrm{𝐭𝐚𝐧}𝜷`$ | $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟓}`$ |
| $`\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐠𝐧}𝝁`$ | $`\mathbf{+}`$ |

| NLSP = $`\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{\tau }`$ |
| --- |
| $`𝑴_{𝒎𝒆𝒔𝒔}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟐}𝚲`$ |

### 7.1 Spectrum & parameters of ISAJET 7.58

Isajet parameters

```
 Minimal gauge mediated (GMSB) model:

 Lambda,  M_mes,  N_5,  tan(beta),  sgn(mu),  M_t,  C_grav=
 0.400E+05 0.800E+05     3.000    15.000     1.0   175.000  0.100E+01

 GMSB2 model input:
 Rsl,    dmH_d^2,   dmH_u^2,     d_Y,     N5_1,  N5_2,  N5_3=
  1.000  0.000E+00  0.000E+00  0.000E+00    3.000  3.000  3.000

 M(gravitino)= 0.770E-09

 1/alpha_em =  127.86     sin**2(thetaw) =0.2311     alpha_s   =0.118
 M_1        =  168.59     M_2            =  326.81   M_3       =  895.45
 mu(Q)      =  300.03     B(Q)           =   31.35   Q         =  839.57
 M_H1^2     = 0.574E+05   M_H2^2         =-0.746E+05

 ISAJET masses (with signs):
 M(GL)  =   926.04
 M(UL)  =   859.66   M(UR)  =   830.54   M(DL)  =   863.34   M(DR) =   828.93
 M(B1)  =   822.17   M(B2)  =   843.35   M(T1)  =   779.09   M(T2) =   863.00
 M(SN)  =   249.06   M(EL)  =   261.47   M(ER)  =   127.43
 M(NTAU)=   248.62   M(TAU1)=   120.45   M(TAU2)=   263.40
 M(Z1)  =  -161.65   M(Z2)  =  -260.06   M(Z3)  =   306.26   M(Z4) =  -379.94
 M(W1)  =  -256.33   M(W2)  =  -379.45
 M(HL)  =   113.57   M(HH)  =   378.37   M(HA)  =   377.89   M(H+) =   386.70

 theta_t=   1.1366   theta_b=   1.0603   theta_l=   1.4237   alpha_h=   0.0765

 NEUTRALINO MASSES (SIGNED) =  -161.653  -260.057   306.255  -379.941
 EIGENVECTOR 1       =   0.13633  -0.23326  -0.07337   0.96001
 EIGENVECTOR 2       =   0.48781  -0.55279  -0.62706  -0.25151
 EIGENVECTOR 3       =   0.71148   0.69498  -0.08382   0.06142
 EIGENVECTOR 4       =  -0.48709   0.39625  -0.77096   0.10653

 CHARGINO MASSES (SIGNED)  =  -256.330  -379.452
 GAMMAL, GAMMAR             =   2.54887   2.38244

 ISAJET equivalent input:
 MSSMA:   926.04  300.03  377.89   15.00
 MSSMB:   861.32  828.55  831.31  257.19  119.73
 MSSMC:   836.27  826.88  780.14  256.77  117.61 -319.43 -350.48  -38.97
 MSSMD: SAME AS MSSMB (DEFAULT)
 MSSME:   168.59  326.81

```

### 7.2 Spectrum & parameters of SUSYGEN 3.00/27

Susygen parameters

```
 Susygen inputs:
 --------------

 M2      =   326.810   mu       =   300.030
 M1      =   168.590   M3       =   895.450
 XRFSUSY =    56.568   NFAM     =     3
 TANB    =    15.000

 Sparticle masses: (input from Isajet)
 ----------------

 SUPR      831.  SUPL       860.
 SDNR      829.  SDNL       863.
 SELR      127.  SELL       261.
 SNU       249.
 STP1      779.  STP2       863. cosmix =  0.421
 SBT1      822.  SBT2       843. cosmix =  0.489
 STA1      120.  STA2       263. cosmix=   0.147
 SGLU      926.

 Gravitino mass: 0.769799202  eV
 --------------

 Gaugino masses:
 --------------

 M1 =    168.590 M2 =    326.810 M3 =    895.450

 NEUTRALINO m, CP, ph/zi/ha/hb 1 =  161.6  1.  0.806 -0.526  0.152  0.224
 NEUTRALINO m, CP, ph/zi/ha/hb 2 =  259.9  1. -0.523 -0.429  0.523  0.519
 NEUTRALINO m, CP, ph/zi/ha/hb 3 =  306.3 -1. -0.013  0.103 -0.664  0.741
 NEUTRALINO m, CP, ph/zi/ha/hb 4 =  380.1  1. -0.277 -0.727 -0.513 -0.363

 CHARGINO MASSES    =   256.014   379.662
 CHARGINO ETA       =    -1.000     1.000

 U matrix      WINO      HIGGSINO      V matrix      WINO     HIGGSINO
 W1SS+        -0.559     0.829         W1SS-         0.689   -0.725
 W2SS+         0.829     0.559         W2SS-         0.725    0.689

 Higgses masses:
 --------------

 Light CP-even Higgs =   113.895
 Heavy CP-even Higgs =   400.218
       CP-odd  Higgs =   400.000
       Charged Higgs =   407.406
       sin(a-b)      =    -0.076
       cos(a-b)      =     0.997

```

### 7.3 Decay modes

## 8 SPS 8 – GMSB scenario

| $`𝚲`$ | $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎𝟎}\mathrm{𝐓𝐞𝐕}`$ |
| --- | --- |
| $`𝑴_{𝒎𝒆𝒔𝒔}`$ | $`\mathrm{𝟐𝟎𝟎}\mathrm{𝐓𝐞𝐕}`$ |
| $`𝑵_{𝒎𝒆𝒔𝒔}`$ | $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$ |
| $`\mathrm{𝐭𝐚𝐧}𝜷`$ | $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟓}`$ |
| $`\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐠𝐧}𝝁`$ | $`\mathbf{+}`$ |

| NLSP = $`\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{\chi }_\mathrm{𝟏}^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ |
| --- |
| $`𝑴_{𝒎𝒆𝒔𝒔}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟐}𝚲`$ |

### 8.1 Spectrum & parameters of ISAJET 7.58

Isajet parameters

```
 Minimal gauge mediated (GMSB) model:

 Lambda,  M_mes,  N_5,  tan(beta),  sgn(mu),  M_t,  C_grav=
 0.100E+06 0.200E+06     1.000    15.000     1.0   175.000  0.100E+01

 GMSB2 model input:
 Rsl,    dmH_d^2,   dmH_u^2,     d_Y,     N5_1,  N5_2,  N5_3=
  1.000  0.000E+00  0.000E+00  0.000E+00    1.000  1.000  1.000

 M(gravitino)= 0.481E-08

 1/alpha_em =  127.87     sin**2(thetaw) =0.2311     alpha_s   =0.118
 M_1        =  140.00     M_2            =  271.80   M_3       =  755.00
 mu(Q)      =  398.31     B(Q)           =   44.32   Q         =  987.76
 M_H1^2     = 0.111E+06   M_H2^2         =-0.135E+06

 ISAJET masses (with signs):
 M(GL)  =   820.50
 M(UL)  =  1080.25   M(UR)  =  1033.16   M(DL)  =  1083.17   M(DR) =  1029.29
 M(B1)  =  1021.90   M(B2)  =  1048.26   M(T1)  =   957.65   M(T2) =  1058.68
 M(SN)  =   347.61   M(EL)  =   356.61   M(ER)  =   175.87
 M(NTAU)=   346.94   M(TAU1)=   169.42   M(TAU2)=   357.59
 M(Z1)  =  -137.19   M(Z2)  =  -252.33   M(Z3)  =   404.00   M(Z4) =  -426.28
 M(W1)  =  -252.03   M(W2)  =  -426.47
 M(HL)  =   114.83   M(HH)  =   515.01   M(HA)  =   514.49   M(H+) =   521.17

 theta_t=   1.3169   theta_b=   1.1767   theta_l=   1.4639   alpha_h=   0.0719

 NEUTRALINO MASSES (SIGNED) =  -137.192  -252.334   404.003  -426.276
 EIGENVECTOR 1       =   0.05427  -0.13503  -0.03750   0.98864
 EIGENVECTOR 2       =   0.20544  -0.30581  -0.92547  -0.08815
 EIGENVECTOR 3       =   0.70961   0.69819  -0.07827   0.05344
 EIGENVECTOR 4       =   0.67179  -0.63307   0.36873  -0.10936

 CHARGINO MASSES (SIGNED)  =  -252.028  -426.469
 GAMMAL, GAMMAR             =   2.02894   1.87308

 ISAJET equivalent input:
 MSSMA:   820.50  398.31  514.49   15.00
 MSSMB:  1081.56 1028.98 1033.78  353.48  170.37
 MSSMC:  1042.74 1025.51  952.74  352.82  167.23 -296.71 -330.28  -36.69
 MSSMD: SAME AS MSSMB (DEFAULT)
 MSSME:   140.00  271.80
 WARNING IN SSXINT: BAD CONVERGENCE FOR  508 INTERVALS.

```

### 8.2 Spectrum & parameters of SUSYGEN 3.00/27

Susygen parameters

```
 Susygen inputs:
 --------------

 M2      =   271.800   mu       =   398.310
 M1      =   140.000   M3       =   755.000
 XRFSUSY =   141.421   NFAM     =     1
 TANB    =    15.000

 Sparticle masses:  (input from Isajet)
 ----------------

 SUPR     1033.  SUPL      1080.
 SDNR     1029.  SDNL      1083.
 SELR      176.  SELL       357.
 SNU       348.
 STP1      958.  STP2      1059. cosmix =  0.425
 SBT1     1022.  SBT2      1048. cosmix =  0.384
 STA1      169.  STA2       358. cosmix=   0.107
 SGLU      820.

 Gravitino mass: 4.81125246  eV
 --------------

 Gaugino masses:
 --------------

 M1 =    140.000 M2 =    271.800 M3 =    755.000

 NEUTRALINO m, CP, ph/zi/ha/hb 1 =  137.2  1.  0.849 -0.508  0.063  0.131
 NEUTRALINO m, CP, ph/zi/ha/hb 2 =  252.2  1. -0.522 -0.769  0.226  0.292
 NEUTRALINO m, CP, ph/zi/ha/hb 3 =  404.0 -1. -0.009  0.095 -0.662  0.744
 NEUTRALINO m, CP, ph/zi/ha/hb 4 =  426.4  1. -0.082 -0.377 -0.712 -0.587

 CHARGINO MASSES    =   251.761   426.622
 CHARGINO ETA      =    -1.000     1.000

 U matrix      WINO      HIGGSINO      V matrix      WINO     HIGGSINO
 W1SS+        -0.896     0.443         W1SS-         0.955   -0.298
 W2SS+         0.443     0.896         W2SS-         0.298    0.955

 Higgses masses:
 --------------

 Light CP-even Higgs =   116.282
 Heavy CP-even Higgs =   400.221
       CP-odd  Higgs =   400.000
       Charged Higgs =   407.301
       sin(a-b)      =    -0.076
       cos(a-b)      =     0.997

```

### 8.3 Spectrum & parameters of PYTHIA 6.2/00

Pythia parameters

```
   MSSM input parameters
   ---------------------
   M_1         RMSS( 1) =   140.0
   M_2         RMSS( 2) =   272.0
   M_3         RMSS( 3) =   740.0
   tan_beta    RMSS( 5) =   15.00
   mu          RMSS( 4) =   406.0

   sparticle masses & widths
   -------------------------
   M_se_R   176.0 ( 0.134)   M_se_L   356.0 ( 1.239)   M_sne_L  346.9 ( 1.197)
   M_sm_R   176.0 ( 0.134)   M_sm_L   356.0 ( 1.239)   M_snm_L  346.9 ( 1.197)
   M_st_1   169.8 ( 0.101)   M_st_2   357.9 ( 1.342)   M_snt_L  343.8 ( 1.248)

   M_ch0_1  137.3 ( 0.000)   M_ch0_2  253.5 ( 0.028)   M_ch0_3  411.6 ( 1.832)
   M_ch0_4  432.9 ( 2.306)
   M_ch+_1  252.8 ( 0.026)   M_ch+_2  433.4 ( 2.192)

   M_h0     114.3 ( 0.004)   M_H0     517.0 ( 2.425)   M_A0     516.9 ( 2.456)
   M_H+     522.9 ( 2.256)

   M_g~     824.3 ( 0.021)
   M_uL    1078.7 (23.774)   M_uR    1029.4 (10.449)   M_dL    1081.6 (23.823)
   M_dR    1030.3 ( 8.794)
   M_b1    1021.0 (12.139)   M_b2    1045.9 (29.128)   M_t1     955.9 (23.923)
   M_t2    1058.4 (28.340)

   parameter settings IMSS, RMSS
   -----------------------------
   IMSS( 1) = 1   IMSS( 4) = 1   IMSS( 7) = 0   IMSS(10) = 0
   IMSS( 2) = 0   IMSS( 5) = 0   IMSS( 8) = 0   IMSS(11) = 1
   IMSS( 3) = 0   IMSS( 6) = 0   IMSS( 9) = 0   IMSS(12) = 0

   RMSS( 1) =   140.0       RMSS( 9) =   1030.       RMSS(17) =  -35.00
   RMSS( 2) =   272.0       RMSS(10) =   1040.       RMSS(18) = -0.7168E-01
   RMSS( 3) =   740.0       RMSS(11) =   1025.       RMSS(19) =   517.0
   RMSS( 4) =   406.0       RMSS(12) =   950.0       RMSS(20) =  0.4100E-01
   RMSS( 5) =   15.00       RMSS(13) =   353.0       RMSS(21) =   1.000
   RMSS( 6) =   356.0       RMSS(14) =   168.0       RMSS(22) =   1030.
   RMSS( 7) =   176.0       RMSS(15) =  -330.0       RMSS(23) =  0.1000E+05
   RMSS( 8) =   1080.       RMSS(16) =  -295.0       RMSS(24) =  0.1000E+05

```

### 8.4 Decay modes

## 9 SPS 9 – AMSB scenario

| $`𝒎_\mathrm{𝟎}`$ | $`\mathrm{𝟒𝟎𝟎}\mathrm{𝐆𝐞𝐕}`$ |
| --- | --- |
| $`𝒎_{\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{/}\mathrm{𝟐}}`$ | $`\mathrm{𝟔𝟎}\mathrm{𝐓𝐞𝐕}`$ |
| $`\mathrm{𝐭𝐚𝐧}𝜷`$ | $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}`$ |
| $`\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐠𝐧}𝝁`$ | $`\mathbf{+}`$ |

### 9.1 Spectrum & parameters of ISAJET 7.58

Isajet parameters

```
 WARNING: TACHYONIC SLEPTONS AT GUT SCALE
          POINT MAY BE INVALID

 Supergravity model with right-handed neutrinos:

 M_0,  M_(3/2),  tan(beta),  sgn(mu),  M_t =
   400.000 60000.000    10.000     1.0   175.000

 ISASUGRA unification:
 M_GUT      = 0.101E+17   g_GUT          =0.711      alpha_GUT =0.040
 FT_GUT     = 0.476       FB_GUT         = 0.046     FL_GUT = 0.069

 1/alpha_em =  127.81     sin**2(thetaw) =0.2306     alpha_s   =0.120
 M_1        = -550.60     M_2            = -175.53   M_3       = 1232.27
 mu(Q)      =  869.90     B(Q)           =   94.70   Q         = 1076.05
 M_H1^2     = 0.714E+05   M_H2^2         =-0.720E+06

 ISAJET masses (with signs):
 M(GL)  =  1275.18
 M(UL)  =  1218.09   M(UR)  =  1227.35   M(DL)  =  1220.65   M(DR) =  1237.81
 M(B1)  =  1112.07   M(B2)  =  1232.88   M(T1)  =  1005.17   M(T2) =  1128.80
 M(SN)  =   309.71   M(EL)  =   319.66   M(ER)  =   303.01
 M(NTAU)=   300.71   M(TAU1)=   271.28   M(TAU2)=   322.54
 M(Z1)  =   175.51   M(Z2)  =   549.03   M(Z3)  =  -874.37   M(Z4) =   875.97
 M(W1)  =   175.67   M(W2)  =   877.22
 M(HL)  =   114.83   M(HH)  =   912.56   M(HA)  =   911.74   M(H+) =   915.83

 theta_t=   1.3055   theta_b=   0.0919   theta_l=   1.0546   alpha_h=   0.1020

 NEUTRALINO MASSES (SIGNED) =   175.505   549.027  -874.365   875.970
 EIGENVECTOR 1       =  -0.00966  -0.09301  -0.99562   0.00004
 EIGENVECTOR 2       =   0.04358   0.07687  -0.00765  -0.99606
 EIGENVECTOR 3       =   0.70715  -0.70420   0.05892  -0.02386
 EIGENVECTOR 4       =   0.70565   0.69968  -0.07220   0.08543

 CHARGINO MASSES (SIGNED)  =   175.672   877.221
 GAMMAL, GAMMAR             =   1.70212   1.55731

 ISAJET equivalent input:
 MSSMA:  1275.18  869.90  911.74   10.00
 MSSMB:  1219.24 1237.55 1227.86  316.22  299.89
 MSSMC:  1111.59 1231.65 1003.22  307.41  281.16 -350.26  216.41 1162.39
 MSSMD: SAME AS MSSMB (DEFAULT)
 MSSME:  -550.60 -175.53
 WARNING IN SSXINT: BAD CONVERGENCE FOR  264 INTERVALS.

```

### 9.2 Spectrum & parameters of SUSYGEN 3.00/27

Susygen parameters

```
 Susygen inputs:
 --------------
 M2      =   175.530   mu       =   869.900
 M1      =   550.600   M3       =  1232.270
 TANB    =    10.000

 Sparticle masses: (input from Isajet)
 ----------------

 SUPR     1227.  SUPL      1218.
 SDNR     1238.  SDNL      1221.
 SELR      303.  SELL       320.
 SNU       310.
 STP1     1005.  STP2      1129. cosmix =  0.262
 SBT1     1112.  SBT2      1233. cosmix =  0.996
 STA1      271.  STA2       323. cosmix=   0.493
 SGLU     1275.

 Gaugino masses:
 --------------

 M1 =    550.600 M2 =    175.530 M3 =   1232.270

 NEUTRALINO m, CP, ph/zi/ha/hb 1 =  172.5  1. -0.475 -0.874  0.038  0.094
 NEUTRALINO m, CP, ph/zi/ha/hb 2 =  547.6  1.  0.879 -0.466  0.067  0.079
 NEUTRALINO m, CP, ph/zi/ha/hb 3 =  872.9 -1.  0.006  0.052 -0.634  0.772
 NEUTRALINO m, CP, ph/zi/ha/hb 4 =  878.9  1.  0.048 -0.126 -0.769 -0.624

 CHARGINO MASSES    =   172.486   877.866
 CHARGINO ETA       =    -1.000     1.000

 U matrix      WINO      HIGGSINO      V matrix      WINO     HIGGSINO
 W1SS+        -0.991     0.136         W1SS-         0.999   -0.040
 W2SS+         0.136     0.991         W2SS-         0.040    0.999

 Higgses masses:
 --------------
 Light CP-even Higgs =   114.830
 Heavy CP-even Higgs =   912.560
       CP-odd  Higgs =   911.740
       Charged Higgs =   915.830
       sin(a-b)      =     0.102
       cos(a-b)      =     0.995

```

### 9.3 Spectrum & parameters of PYTHIA 6.2/00

Pythia parameters

```
   MSSM input parameters
   ---------------------
   M_1         RMSS( 1) =   550.6
   M_2         RMSS( 2) =   178.5
   M_3         RMSS( 3) =   1200.
   tan_beta    RMSS( 5) =   10.00
   mu          RMSS( 4) =   870.0

   sparticle masses & widths
   -------------------------
   M_se_R   303.0 ( 0.000)   M_se_L   319.7 ( 1.949)   M_sne_L  309.6 ( 1.807)
   M_sm_R   303.0 ( 0.000)   M_sm_L   319.7 ( 1.949)   M_snm_L  309.6 ( 1.807)
   M_st_1   275.4 ( 0.619)   M_st_2   320.4 ( 0.959)   M_snt_L  284.5 ( 1.381)

   M_ch0_1  175.4 ( 0.000)   M_ch0_2  547.6 ( 6.016)   M_ch0_3  873.0 ( 6.869)
   M_ch0_4  879.0 ( 7.023)
   M_ch+_1  175.7 ( 0.000)   M_ch+_2  878.0 ( 7.060)

   M_h0     113.3 ( 0.004)   M_H0     911.4 ( 2.071)   M_A0     911.1 ( 2.112)
   M_H+     915.3 ( 2.236)

   M_g~    1275.4 ( 5.103)
   M_uL    1217.8 (15.156)   M_uR    1236.5 ( 1.836)   M_dL    1220.4 (15.051)
   M_dR    1237.2 ( 0.460)
   M_b1    1112.5 (15.069)   M_b2    1233.2 ( 0.654)   M_t1    1005.5 ( 3.225)
   M_t2    1132.0 (15.159)

   parameter settings IMSS, RMSS
   -----------------------------
   IMSS( 1) = 1   IMSS( 4) = 1   IMSS( 7) = 0   IMSS(10) = 0
   IMSS( 2) = 0   IMSS( 5) = 0   IMSS( 8) = 0   IMSS(11) = 0
   IMSS( 3) = 0   IMSS( 6) = 0   IMSS( 9) = 0   IMSS(12) = 0

   RMSS( 1) =   550.6       RMSS( 9) =   1237.       RMSS(17) =   1162.
   RMSS( 2) =   178.5       RMSS(10) =   1112.       RMSS(18) = -0.1020
   RMSS( 3) =   1200.       RMSS(11) =   1232.       RMSS(19) =   912.0
   RMSS( 4) =   870.0       RMSS(12) =   1003.       RMSS(20) =  0.4100E-01
   RMSS( 5) =   10.00       RMSS(13) =   295.4       RMSS(21) =   1.000
   RMSS( 6) =   319.7       RMSS(14) =   295.2       RMSS(22) =   1237.
   RMSS( 7) =   303.0       RMSS(15) =   216.4       RMSS(23) =  0.1000E+05
   RMSS( 8) =   1219.       RMSS(16) =  -350.3       RMSS(24) =  0.1000E+05

```

### 9.4 Decay modes


format: text

text:
# Observational Evidence for a Multiphase Outflow in QSO FIRST J1044+3656

## 1 Introduction

Modeling active galactic nuclei (AGNs) is a challenging endeavor in part because of the uncertain geometry of the gas and dust within their cores. Our best understanding of the gas distribution comes from reverberation mappings (Blandford & McKee, 1982; Netzer & Peterson, 1997), which indicate that the broad emission-line region (BELR) lies at a distance $`R_{\mathrm{BELR}}0.01L_{44}^{1/2}\mathrm{pc}`$ from the central continuum, where $`L_{44}`$ is the luminosity in the spectral band $`0.11`$ µm in units of $`10^{44}`$ ergs s-1. Based on observed absorption of BELR features by broad absorption-line region (BALR) gas and on optical polarization measurements, it has been inferred that the BALR lies outside of the BELR; the best estimates have placed the BALR somewhere between a few tenths and several parsecs from the central source (e.g., Turnshek, 1988).

Velocities for these outflows are well determined from Doppler shifts: the BELR and BALR components have speeds $`5000\mathrm{to}8000\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ and $`30000\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$, respectively. Other outflow components have also been detected. Observations of the “warm absorber” (a partially ionized X-ray absorbing gas) in Seyfert galaxies and radio-quiet QSOs, and of a UV-absorbing component apparently associated with the warm absorber, indicate gas outflowing at $`10^3\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$. Furthermore, spectral lines classified as being from the Narrow Line Region (NLR) correspond to velocities of $``$ several hundred km s-1.

Different theories have been proposed to explain some of these outflows. For example, Emmering, Blandford, & Shlosman (1992) considered a hydromagnetically-driven disk outflow of discrete, long-lived clouds as a model of the BELR, whereas Murray et al. (1995) and Proga, Stone, & Kallman (2000) explored radiatively-driven, continuous disk winds as the origin of the BELR and the BALR. These models all involved a single-phase gas medium.

Recently, de Kool et al. (2001, hereafter dK01) analyzed a Keck HIRES spectrum of the FIRST Bright Quasar Source J104459.6+365605 (hereafter, FBQS 1044). They inferred that excited Fe II levels are not populated according to local thermodynamic equilibrium. This observation implies an electron number density $`n_e4\times 10^3\mathrm{cm}^3`$, which, together with the observed broad absorption in Mg II \[qualifying this object as a broad absorption-line quasar (BALQSO)\], the Mg I absorption features, and single gas-phase photoionization models, place this BALR at $``$ 700 parsecs from the central source.

Not only does this surprising result contradict the picture of a close-in BALR, but, in addition, dK01’s thorough analysis suggests that the gas only partially covers the continuum source. It is not easy to understand how the absorbing gas could be approximately 1 kpc from the center and yet only partially cover the AGN core. Additionally, the Keck spectra indicate distinct groupings of gas in velocity space; it is also difficult to explain how these apparent clumps could move to such a large distance and still remain bunched up, retaining distinct identities. Even more striking is dK01’s observation that different ionization states have a similar kinematic structure (i.e., residual intensity as a function of velocity): in particular, both Fe II and Mg I exhibit absorption troughs at -200, -1250, -3550, and -3800 km s-1.

The $`700\mathrm{pc}`$ distance estimate results from combining the ionization parameter111The ionization parameter $`UQ/4\pi nr^2c`$ is the dimensionless ratio of the hydrogen-ionizing photon density to the hydrogen number density $`n`$: $`Q`$ is the rate of incident hydrogen-ionizing photons, $`r`$ is the distance from the continuum source, and $`c`$ is the speed of light. implied by the observed low-ionization Mg and Fe absorption lines with the inferred values of $`n_e`$ and $`L`$ (= $`10^{46}\mathrm{ergs}\mathrm{s}^1`$). One can reduce this distance estimate by attenuating the incident continuum by an intermediate gas “shield.” In this model, however, ions at different ionization states (such as the Fe II and Mg I components seen in FBQS 1044) are expected to occupy different regions in space, with lower values of $`U`$ corresponding to larger distances from the center (e.g., Voit, Weymann, & Korista, 1993). This stratification will likely lead to disparate velocities for the different ions: for example, models of self-similar MHD winds and of radiatively-driven constant-$`U`$ outflows predict that the terminal velocity, $`v_{\mathrm{}}`$, varies as $`r_{\mathrm{inject}}^{1/2}`$, where $`r_{\mathrm{inject}}`$ is the radius at which the gas is injected into the outflow (e.g., Blandford & Payne, 1982; Arav, Li, & Begelman, 1994). Models that rely solely on shielding and distance to separate the different ionization components therefore cannot explain dK01’s observations, in which different ionization states are found to have similar velocities.

We propose to explain the observations of FBQS 1044 by generalizing the single-phase shielded-gas model, attributing the different ionization states to different density components in a multiphase outflow. These components coexist at the same distance from the center and thus have different ionization parameters but essentially the same velocities. In particular, if the high- and low-ionization lines arise, respectively, in a continuous wind and in dense clouds that are embedded in the outflow, then all the absorption components produced in a given region of the wind will exhibit similar kinematic signatures.

In our model, the continuous gas component extends from near the black hole’s event horizon out to the distance where the observed Fe II absorption and electron density can be reproduced. The inner part of this component (interior to the BALR) is identified as the “shield.” This region could be associated with an MHD-driven (Königl & Kartje, 1994), a Thomson scattering-driven (e.g., Blandford, 2001), or a “failed” line-driven (e.g., Murray et al., 1995; Proga, Stone, & Kallman, 2000) disk wind, or with a disk corona (e.g., Emmering et al., 1992). The outer region of the continuous gas component is outflowing and accounts for the Fe II and Mg II absorption, but is still too highly ionized to contain Mg I absorbing gas. Within this outflow are embedded higher-density clouds that account for the lower-ionization Mg I absorption: their high density yields a lower U in the clouds, allowing Mg I to exist. Such a two-component outflow may arise naturally in the context of a centrifugally driven disk wind, which could uplift clouds from the disk surface by its ram pressure and confine them by its internal magnetic pressure (e.g., Emmering et al., 1992; Kartje et al., 1999; Everett, Königl, & Kartje, 2001). Alternatively, the clouds may represent transient density enhancements that are produced by turbulence (e.g., Bottorff & Ferland, 2001) or by shocks in a radiatively driven wind (e.g., Arav et al., 1994). For illustration, we adopt here the “clouds uplifted and confined by an MHD wind” picture.

## 2 Multiphase Outflow Model

### 2.1 Setup

Our model consists of two segments that represent two distinct gas phases. The first segment, which corresponds to the continuous phase, extends from $`r_{\mathrm{in}}=10GM/c^2=7.4\times 10^{13}\mathrm{cm}`$ (following dK01, we take the central black-hole mass to be $`M=5\times 10^8M_{\mathrm{}}`$) out to just past the hydrogen recombination front, which corresponds to the Fe III $``$ Fe II transition. The second segment, which models the confined dense clouds, is a constant-density zone located just beyond the continuous gas component (since the cloud temperature is nearly uniform, this provides a good representation of magnetically confined constant-pressure clouds). In reality, the continuous outflow in the line-absorption region can be expected to engulf the clouds, but this simplified model should capture the basic physical effects of a two-phase medium. (We verified that our results are independent of the cloud radial distribution within the Fe II/Mg I absorption region.)

We obtain the ionization structure of the different gas phases using the photoionization code Cloudy (Ferland, 2000), adopting the same source parameters as in dK01 and assuming (as they do in most of their models) a Mathews & Ferland (1987) spectrum. We take the scaling of the hydrogen number density with spherical radius to be $`n(r)r^1`$, as in the AGN disk-wind models considered by Königl & Kartje (1994). In these self-similar MHD outflows, the magnetic field $`B_{\mathrm{wind}}`$ also scales as $`r^1`$, which results in magnetically confined clouds having a constant ionization parameter.

We first calculate the photoionization of the continuous component, stopping the computation when $`n_e`$ drops to $`4\times 10^3`$ cm-3 (the value inferred from the observations). We then calculate how the radiation emerging through the continuous segment affects clouds located at that distance. The two parameters we adjust in our model are $`n_{w,i}`$, the wind hydrogen number density at $`r_{\mathrm{in}}`$, and $`n_c`$, the hydrogen number density of the clouds. We explore a range of models to find the values of $`n_{w,i}`$ and $`n_c`$ that best reproduce the observations.

### 2.2 Results

Our best-fit value for the wind density is $`n_{w,i}10^{8.75}\mathrm{cm}^3`$. This yields the observed $`n_e`$ in the region (at $`r4\mathrm{pc}`$) where the Fe II column density in the wind attains the observed value of $`3\times 10^{15}`$ cm-2, which is significant since the $`n_e`$ measurement comes from the Fe II absorption lines. However, we do have to cut off the outflow very close to the end of the hydrogen recombination front so as not to exceed the observed Fe II column (see Fig. 1). Although the abrupt end of the absorbing column could be an artifact caused by our simplified treatment, the occurrence of a strong reduction in the absorption at this location may have an actual physical basis. It may be a consequence of the decrease in the ionization fraction in this region, which reduces the efficiency with which the disk can drive an MHD outflow, and it may also reflect a transition from a gaseous to a “clumpy” disk (see Shlosman & Begelman, 1987) or from differential to solid-body disk rotation (see Bottorff, Korista, & Shlosman, 2000) on that scale.

We also note from Figure 1 that the Mg II front occurs $``$ 2.5 times closer to the central source than the Fe II front. (This is due to the formation of a He III $``$ He II front in the wind that absorbs photons with E $`>`$ 54.4 eV, allowing Mg III, with an ionization energy of 80.1 eV, to recombine into Mg II.) Since $`v_{\mathrm{}}r_{\mathrm{inject}}^{1/2}`$ in our chosen disk-wind model (see §1), the predicted smaller initial radius of the Mg II front is consistent with the higher Mg II velocities observed in FBQS 1044.

Besides determining the measured values of the Fe II column and of $`n_e`$, the continuous wind component in our model also exerts a strong influence on the cloud absorption properties through its effect on the transmitted continuum spectrum. We find that, in order for the clouds to account for the observed Mg I absorption without also dominating the Fe II absorption, their iron gas-phase abundance must be reduced, which we attribute to depletion by dust. We assume an ISM dust composition \[the default Cloudy graphite and silicate grains with a Mathis, Rumpl, & Nordsieck (1977; hereafter MRN) power-law size distribution\]. The dust abundance is constrained by the measured extinction: $`A_{2500}1.0`$.

Our best-fit value for the typical cloud density is $`n_c10^{8.5}`$ cm-3. This means that the clouds are $`10^4`$ times denser (and have a correspondingly lower ionization parameter) than the surrounding continuous wind. Figure 2 shows the absorption column densities associated with a string of such clouds as a function of pathlength through the clouds.

Our model can account for the observations with cloud densities that range between $`10^{7.75}`$ and $`10^9`$ cm-3. This leeway reflects the uncertainty in $`A_{2500}`$. Whereas dK01 employ an extinction of 1.0 magnitude, $`A_{2500}`$ could range from $`1.0`$ down to 0.2 magnitudes based on a comparison between the spectrum of FBQS 1044 and that of an “average” QSO (Weymann et al., 1991). If a population of lower-density clouds were present with a significant fraction of the observed Mg I column, then the dusty clouds would have $`A_{2500}>1`$. On the other hand, if $`n_c10^9`$ cm-3, $`A_{2500}`$ would drop below 0.25. With $`n_c=10^{8.5}`$ cm-3 we predict $`A_{2500}`$ 0.5 magnitudes, which fits well within the inferred range.

With the extinction already accounted for, the data require the continuous gas component to be effectively dust free. We tested this hypothesis by including Cloudy’s Orion-type dust (a set of graphite and silicate grains with MRN’s minimum size increased from 0.0025 to 0.03 µm, appropriate to a UV-irradiated medium) in the wind, taking into account dust sublimation and sputtering. To include the effects of the latter process, we removed all dust grains whose sputtering time scales (calculated following Tielens et al. 1994) do not exceed 1000 yr (the approximate time grains spend in the wind if they travel at the observed outflow velocity over a distance of $`1\mathrm{pc}`$). Including both of these effects, the predicted dust extinction is over one order of magnitude greater than the maximum value allowed by the observations. We also considered the effect of changing the scaling of the wind density with radius from $`nr^1`$ to $`nr^{3/2}`$ (as in Blandford & Payne 1982) and to $`nr^2`$. These models again overestimate the extinction by about an order of magnitude after dust sublimation and sputtering are taken into account. We therefore conclude that, if the gas comprising the shield is associated with a disk outflow, then it must already be dust free when it leaves the disk. Such a situation could arise if the wind originates in a hot disk corona where the matter resides long enough for any dust grains to be destroyed.

However, to provide the requisite shielding, a dust-free wind requires a higher total gas column than a dusty outflow, so the inferred lack of dust in the wind implies a prohibitively large mass outflow rate — much larger than could be launched by the magnetic field that confines the clouds in our model. Thus, only part of the shield can be outflowing at velocities that are comparable to (or exceed) the observed speeds. Perhaps the inner outflow has a lower velocity than we predict, or else some of the shield may not even be outflowing, as in a disk corona or a “failed” line-driven wind (see §1).

All of these considerations yield our best model, which is compared with the observational results in Table 1. This model satisfies all the observational constraints and implies that the absorbing gas lies over two orders of magnitude closer to the central source than the earlier estimate. The radius where the observed gas leaves the disk surface is, in general, smaller yet.

We can estimate the mass outflow rate associated with the absorbing gas through the relation $`\dot{M}_{\mathrm{wind}}2\pi rfN_\mathrm{H}m_pv`$, where $`f`$ is the fraction of $`4\pi `$ steradians into which the wind flows, $`N_\mathrm{H}`$ is the total hydrogen column density of only the inferred Mg II and Fe II absorbing region ($`3.9\times 10^{23}`$ cm-2), $`v`$ is the observed outflow speed ($`10^8`$ cm s-1), $`r`$ ($`=1.2\times 10^{19}`$ cm) is the inferred distance, and where we assume a vertically and azimuthally continuous wind. We take $`f0.1`$ for BALQSO sources (Weymann, 1997). For the above values, we find $`\dot{M}_{\mathrm{wind}}8`$ $`M_{}`$ yr-1.

By equating the thermal pressure in the clouds ($`2.7\times 10^4`$ dynes cm-2) to the confining wind magnetic pressure, $`B_{\mathrm{wind}}^2/8\pi `$, we deduce $`B_{\mathrm{wind}}8.2\times 10^2\mathrm{G}`$. It is encouraging that, when this value of $`B_{\mathrm{wind}}`$ is used in the $`n(r)r^1`$ self-similar MHD wind model, it implies a local mass outflow rate that is comparable to the above estimate of $`\dot{M}_{\mathrm{wind}}`$, yielding $`4M_{}\mathrm{yr}^1`$. If we instead choose $`n_c=10^9`$ cm-3 (so as to satisfy the lower limit on the dust extinction, $`A_{2500}=0.25`$) and require pressure balance, we find $`\dot{M}_{\mathrm{wind}}9M_{}\mathrm{yr}^1`$.

## 3 Conclusion

The most robust result of our study is that a shielded, multiphase absorption region reproduces the observations of FBQS 1044 on a conventional BALR scale ($`4`$ pc). In addition, when one attributes the Fe II and Mg II absorption to a low-density outflow component and the Mg I absorption to a cospatial high-density outflow component, it is possible to explain the similar kinematic structure of the respective spectral features. We also find that only a small fraction of the gas along the line of sight can be outflowing at the observed speeds and that only the high-density component of the outflow is dusty. We derived these results using a “clouds embedded in a continuous MHD disk wind” model, but our conclusions also apply to other plausible scenarios that include a continuum-shielding gas column and an absorption region that contains distinct low- and high-density components. Our basic conclusions appear to be quite general, although the precise composition of the absorbing gas and its detailed spatial and kinematic properties are not fully constrained by the observations and remain model dependent.

In addition to explaining the FBQS 1044 observations, this picture may be relevant to the interpretation of absorption features in similar objects where single-phase models imply a large distance. For instance, in the case of the radio-loud galaxy 3C 191, absorber distances of $`28`$ kpc were inferred by Hamann et al. (2001) using similar arguments to those employed by dK01. A multiple-phase model could place these absorbers much closer to the central source.

This interpretation may also be applicable to other AGN observations. As outlined in § 1, several distinct outflow components have been inferred in various types of AGNs. There is now growing evidence that these components may not be single-phase. For the warm-absorber component, which has been inferred to give rise to both X-ray and UV absorption (e.g., Crenshaw, 1997; Mathur et al., 1998; Monier et al., 2001), there are indications in at least some sources that the X-ray and UV absorbing components are not identical (e.g., the Seyfert 1 galaxy NGC 3783 — Kaspi et al. 2000; Kraemer, Crenshaw, & Gabel 2001). Furthermore, it appears that the UV and X-ray absorbing components are themselves divided into multiple zones. In the UV regime, this has been established in Seyfert 1 galaxies like NGC 3783 (Kraemer, et al., 2001) and NGC 3227 (Crenshaw et al., 2001). In the X-ray regime, this is exemplified by the Seyfert 1 galaxy MCG-6-30-15, which was modeled by Morales, Fabian, & Reynolds (2000) as an extended multi-zone medium. These authors suggested that, in reality, these zones may correspond to a continuum of clouds at different radii and different densities, as in the BELR model of Baldwin et al. (1995). A hierarchical, turbulent-gas realization of this concept was recently presented by Bottorff & Ferland (2001). Our “clouds in a continuous wind” scenario is designed to explicitly address the outflowing nature of the absorbing gas but is otherwise similar to the above picture in its description of spatially coexisting multiple phases. For simplicity, we have treated the clouds as long-lived, pressure-confined entities, but it is entirely conceivable that the clouds are transient features that arise in a turbulent outflow. The same basic picture of a multiphase medium may thus apply to the gas in the BELR, the BALR (e.g., Arav et al., 1999), the warm absorber, and even the NLR (e.g., Komossa, 2001).

In conclusion, we have argued that the observations of FBQS 1044 can be interpreted in the context of the standard BALR picture in terms of a gas outflow that consists of (at least) two phases, which we modeled as a continuous wind with embedded dense clouds, shielded from the central continuum. If the shield is identified with the continuous component, then only a fraction of it can be outflowing at a speed that approaches (or exceeds) the value in the Fe/Mg absorption region. We also deduced that the clouds are dusty but that the shield is effectively dust free. As far as we are aware, this is the first instance of a BALR outflow in which the data provide direct evidence for the existence of a multiphase medium. Together with other pieces of evidence, this result lends support to the view that all the major outflow components in AGNs may contain multiple phases.

We gratefully acknowledge the initial work of and continued discussions with Martijn de Kool as well as helpful comments from Mike Brotherton, Abraham Loeb, and the referee. J.E. and A.K. thank NASA for support through grant NAG5-9063.


text:
# Wind Accretion and Binary Evolution of the Microquasar LS 5039

## 1 Introduction

LS 5039 is a relatively faint ($`V=11.3`$) and massive star of type O6.5 V((f)) (Clark et al., 2001) that is one of only a few confirmed massive X-ray binaries (MXRBs) with associated radio emission (Ribó et al., 1999). It has radio-emitting relativistic jets characteristic of galactic microquasars, and it is probably a high energy gamma ray source as well (Paredes et al., 2000). We recently discovered that the system is a short period binary ($`P=4.117\pm 0.011`$ d) with the highest known eccentricity ($`e=0.41\pm 0.05`$) among O star binaries with comparable periods (McSwain et al., 2001a). This high eccentricity probably results from the huge mass loss that occurred with the supernova (SN) explosion that gave birth to the compact star in the system (Bhattacharya & van den Heuvel, 1991; Nelemans et al., 1999). Binaries that suffer large mass loss in a SN are expected to become runaway stars, and recently both we (McSwain et al., 2001b) and Ribó et al. (2002) found that LS 5039 has a relatively large proper motion that indicates that the binary has a record-breaking peculiar space velocity among MXRBs.

Reliable estimates for the masses of the components of the binary are of key importance for any discussion about the evolution of this remarkable system. Here we present an investigation of the possible mass range for the X-ray star based on a stellar wind accretion model for the X-ray production (§2). This analysis relies on our observations of the wind emission effects in the H$`\alpha `$ profile and the wind models of Puls et al. (1996). We then apply our derived mass estimates for both stars to determine the probable masses and orbital parameters prior to the SN based on the system’s current eccentricity (§3). We find that the predicted and observed runaway velocities are in good agreement, and, thus, LS 5039 provides the best verification to date of model predictions about the outcome of a SN explosion in a massive binary.

## 2 X-ray Fueling by Wind Accretion

The X-ray production in MXRBs results from mass accretion through a Roche lobe overflow (RLOF) stream or by Bondi-Hoyle accretion from the stellar wind of the luminous primary (Kaper, 1998). The systems experiencing RLOF usually have large X-ray luminosities and striking optical emission lines. However, LS 5039 has a modest X-ray flux (Ribó et al., 1999) and no obvious emission lines (Clark et al., 2001; McSwain et al., 2001a), and we show below that the O-star is probably smaller than its critical Roche surface. Thus, we can safely assume that most of the mass accretion in LS 5039 occurs through capture of the primary’s stellar wind flow.

The wind accretion luminosity of MXRBs depends on the system separation, wind velocity law, mass loss rate, and mass of the accretor (Lamers et al., 1976). If we can estimate these binary and wind parameters from spectroscopy, then the mass of the compact star can be found by comparing the predicted and observed X-ray luminosities, $`L_X`$. Here we present such an analysis based on the mass loss rate derived from our observations of the H$`\alpha `$ profile (McSwain et al., 2001a). All the parameters needed in this analysis ultimately depend on the assumed mass of the O-star primary that is poorly constrained at the moment. The simplest assumption is that the primary has a mass typical of single stars of its spectral classification, approximately $`40M_{}`$ (see the mass calibration of Howarth & Prinja (1989) and the study of comparable stars in the young binary, DH Cep, by Penny et al. (1997)). On the other hand, there is evidence that the primaries in MXRBs may be undermassive for their luminosity (Kaper, 2001), and in extreme cases, their mass may be a factor of three lower than the mass derived by comparing their position in the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram with evolutionary tracks. Thus, we show here the results of a wind accretion model for LS 5039 based on a range in assumed primary mass of 10 – $`40M_{}`$.

Puls et al. (1996) show how the H$`\alpha `$ profile in O-stars grows from a pure absorption feature to a strong emission line with increasing stellar wind mass loss rate, and they present a scheme to estimate the mass loss rate based on the observed equivalent width, $`W_\lambda `$, of H$`\alpha `$. We observed the H$`\alpha `$ line in the spectrum of LS 5039 over three runs in 1998, 1999, and 2000 with the Coude Feed Telescope at Kitt Peak National Observatory (see McSwain et al. (2001a) for details), and we show in Figure 1 the average profile from each run after shifting each spectrum to the rest frame and convolving the 1998 and 2000 spectra to the resolution of the 1999 run ($`R=\lambda /\mathrm{}\lambda =4000`$). The H$`\alpha `$ profile appears to be filled in by broad, residual emission that appears as shallow emission peaks in the wings (perhaps also present in the vicinity of He I $`\lambda 6678`$ and He II $`\lambda 6683`$). The emission was apparently stronger during the 1998 and 1999 runs, and we compare in Figure 1 these profiles with the deeper absorption observed in 2000 (dotted lines). The net equivalent width over the entire emission and absorption blend was 2.22, 2.15, and 3.10 Å ($`\pm 10\%`$) for the average profiles from 1998, 1999, and 2000, respectively. We use the mean of these values, 2.49 Å, in the analysis below. We see no evidence in our spectra of variations in the residual emission with orbital phase, and so we can reliably assume that this weak emission forms in the wind of the primary (and not, for example, in a gas stream or accretion disk in which we would observe orbital variations in radial velocity).

We need estimates of the underlying photospheric component of absorption equivalent width, effective temperature, $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$, radius, $`R_O`$, and wind velocity law in order to derive a mass loss rate from the observed equivalent widths using the wind models of Puls et al. (1996) (see their Table 7). We adopted the spectral classification calibration of Howarth & Prinja (1989) to estimate $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}=40.5\pm 2`$ kK and $`\mathrm{log}g=4.0\pm 0.2`$ for the O6.5 V((f)) primary, which is in reasonable agreement with the results from Strömgren photometry by Kilkenny (1993) and with the values of these parameters derived by Puls et al. (1996) for similar stars. The radius, $`R_O`$, follows from $`\mathrm{log}g`$ and the assumed mass, $`M_O`$. We assumed the wind velocity law usually applied to O-stars: $`v(r)=v_{\mathrm{}}(1R_O/r)^\beta `$ with $`\beta =0.8`$, $`v_{\mathrm{}}=2.6v_{\mathrm{esc}}`$, $`v_{\mathrm{esc}}=(2(1\mathrm{\Gamma })GM_O/R_O)^{1/2}`$, and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=2.6\times 10^5(L_O/L_{})/(M_O/M_{})`$ (Howarth & Prinja, 1989; Puls et al., 1996; Lamers & Cassinelli, 1999). The final parameter to be set is the appropriate photospheric absorption equivalent width. Unfortunately, Puls et al. (1996) only give one value of $`W_\lambda =3.29`$ Å that is specified for a model photosphere with $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}=40`$ kK and $`\mathrm{log}g=3.7`$. While this effective temperature is nearly applicable here, we expect the equivalent width will be larger in our $`\mathrm{log}g=4.0`$ case since the Stark broadening of the Balmer lines increases with gravity. We used the NLTE models of Auer & Mihalas (1972) to estimate that the H$`\alpha `$ equivalent width should be $`10\%`$ stronger at $`\mathrm{log}g=4.0`$ compared to $`\mathrm{log}g=3.7`$ (for $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}=40`$ kK), and we pro-rated accordingly the photospheric equivalent width given by Puls et al. (1996). Our derived estimates of $`R_O`$, $`v_{\mathrm{}}`$, and mass loss rate $`\mathrm{log}\dot{M}`$ are given for several assumed values of $`M_O`$ in Table 1. The mass loss rate values are close to the average found for O6.5 V stars by Howarth & Prinja (1989), $`\mathrm{log}\dot{M}=6.3`$ (in units of $`M_{}`$ y-1).

We next calculated the predicted X-ray luminosity for a range in assumed secondary mass, $`M_X`$, using the wind accretion model of Lamers et al. (1976) (using the wind velocity law noted above). Their expression for the X-ray accretion luminosity is

$$L_X=(3\times 10^{13}L_{})\zeta S_aM_X/M_{}$$

where the efficiency factor for the conversion of accreted matter to X-ray flux is $`\zeta 0.1`$. The accretion rate is

$$S_a=\pi r_a^2\dot{M}/(4\pi a^2)$$

for a separation $`a`$ and an accretion radius

$$r_a=2GM_X/v_{\mathrm{rel}}^2$$

where $`v_{\mathrm{rel}}`$ is the flow velocity of the wind relative to the accreting star (see their eq. 10a). Given the two assumed masses and the known period, we determined the time-averaged separation of the binary and then calculated $`L_X`$ using our estimates of the wind speed and mass loss rate from above. A sample result is shown in Figure 2 for the average and extreme values of the derived mass loss rate (from the 1999 and 2000 H$`\alpha `$ equivalent widths) for a test primary mass of $`M_O=25M_{}`$.

The observed value of $`L_X`$ depends on the assumed distance. We used the magnitude $`V=11.35\pm 0.1`$ and reddening $`E(BV)=1.2\pm 0.1`$ from Clark et al. (2001), and then estimated the star’s angular diameter by comparing the unreddened magnitude with model magnitudes from Kurucz (1994) for the adopted $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ and $`\mathrm{log}g`$ (calibrated with the fundamental $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ data of Code et al. (1976)). The distance is then found from the working value of the stellar radius, $`d=0.32R_O/R_{}`$ kpc. The observed X-ray luminosity was adjusted from the measurements of Ribó et al. (1999) who assumed a distance of 3.1 kpc. This prorated estimate of $`L_X`$ is shown as the shaded region in Figure 2. The estimated mass of the secondary is found where the predicted wind accretion luminosity matches the observed $`L_X`$.

We repeated the wind accretion calculation for a grid of assumed O-star masses, and our final results are listed in Table 1 and plotted in a mass diagram in Figure 3. The results are relatively insensitive to our assumptions about $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ and $`\mathrm{log}g`$. We found, for example, that models made using $`\mathrm{log}g=3.7`$ led to lower mass loss rates but also lower wind velocities, so that the wind accretion rates changed very little. Because the slope $`dL_X/dM_X`$ is relatively large (see Fig. 2), the details of the accretion model (for example, the value of the efficiency parameter, $`\zeta `$) do not greatly affect the implied secondary masses. In fact, the largest uncertainty in the results comes from the variation in H$`\alpha `$ equivalent width between observing runs, which presumably reflects significant changes in the stellar wind mass loss rate. Table 1 also lists the size of the Roche radius at periastron, and we find that the O-star fits comfortably within its Roche lobe over the full range in assumed mass. Our results indicate that the secondary has a mass between 1 and $`3M_{}`$ (based on the extremes of the observed H$`\alpha `$ equivalent width and adopted primary mass range), and, thus, the secondary is probably a neutron star.

## 3 A Supernova in a Binary

The catastrophe of a SN explosion in a massive binary has two immediate consequences. First, the system acquires a large eccentricity that is directly related to the amount of mass lost in the SN event. The periastron separation in the altered orbit corresponds to the pre-supernova semi-major axis. Second, by conservation of momentum, we expect the entire system to attain a runaway velocity that again depends on the mass lost in the SN. We demonstrate here that the values of the observed eccentricity and the probable masses derived above indicate that a huge amount of mass was lost in the SN event that formed LS 5039.

We can use the observed eccentricity to relate the pre- and post-SN orbital parameters if we make the following reasonable assumptions: (1) the pre-SN orbit was circular (almost certainly the case for such a short period and evolved system), (2) any kick velocity imparted to the remnant core due to asymmetries in the explosion was relatively small (Nelemans et al., 1999), (3) the primary suffered only minor ablation of mass in the explosion so that its pre- and post-SN mass is the same (Fryxell & Arnett, 1981), and (4) the system has experienced little or no tidal reduction of the orbital eccentricity since the SN event. Bhattacharya & van den Heuvel (1991) and Nelemans et al. (1999) give the expressions required to calculate the pre-SN parameters, and we list in Table 2 the resulting orbital and physical parameters for an eccentricity $`e=0.41\pm 0.05`$ (McSwain et al., 2001a) and the masses derived in §2. Table 2 gives the pre-SN period, $`P^{\mathrm{initial}}`$, semi-major axis, $`a^{\mathrm{initial}}`$, SN precursor mass, $`M_2^{\mathrm{initial}}`$, and the mass lost in the SN, $`\mathrm{}M_2`$.

The first striking result is the large mass loss that occurred in the SN in LS 5039. Some 5 - $`17M_{}`$ was lost in the explosion, amounting to more than 81% of the precursor’s mass. This is much larger than the typical inferred mass loss fraction of 35% found by Nelemans et al. (1999) for black hole X-ray binaries. The SN precursor had a smaller mass than the primary at the time of the explosion, so the system was not in danger of total disruption (Nelemans et al., 1999).

The pre-SN orbit was very compact and the stars were in close proximity. We list in Table 2 the sizes of the Roche radii in the pre-SN stage. These radii are quite restrictive, and we find that the primary overfills the Roche lobe in the higher mass solutions. However, the current radius $`R_O`$ given in Table 2 may be larger than the radius at the time of the SN if the primary has evolved to a larger size since then. Nevertheless, the secondary’s Roche radius is also quite small, and it is possible that the system was in a contact or over-contact configuration at the time of the SN. Some kind of close interaction must have occurred since by the time of the SN the mass ratio had reversed and the separation had been increasing (Wellstein et al., 2001). Given this evidence of a pre-SN interaction, the observed C deficiency of the primary (McSwain et al., 2001a) probably results from nuclear-processed gas transferred from the SN progenitor. The currently faster than synchronous rotation of the primary (McSwain et al., 2001a) may correspond to the synchronous rate in the shorter period, pre-SN configuration.

Finally, we list in Table 2 the predicted system runaway velocity, $`v_{\mathrm{sys}}`$, based on conservation of momentum (with errors propagated from the uncertainty in the observed eccentricity). The predictions suggest that the system should have a runaway velocity in excess of 100 km s-1. Although the systemic velocity along the line of sight is unexceptional (McSwain et al., 2001a), the tangential velocity does appear to be large. The system has a proper motion of $`\mu _\alpha =4.8\pm 2.4`$ mas y-1 and $`\mu _\delta =12.2\pm 2.3`$ mas y-1 in the Tycho-2 catalogue (Hog et al., 2000), and Ribó et al. (2002) have recently used optical and radio astrometry to find an improved estimate of $`\mu _\alpha =4.7\pm 1.1`$ mas y-1 and $`\mu _\delta =10.6\pm 1.0`$ mas y-1. We used the latter measurement together with the systemic radial velocity from McSwain et al. (2001a) (adjusted to the velocity offset of the O III $`\lambda 5592`$ line that presumably forms deep in the photosphere and is less affected by expansion in the atmosphere) to find the peculiar component of space motion, $`v_{\mathrm{pec}}`$ (following the methods described in Berger & Gies (2001)), and this quantity is listed in the final row of Table 2. We find that there is satisfying agreement between the predicted and observed space velocities, especially towards the higher mass range. Note that if the eccentricity had decreased since the the explosion, then the predicted velocities would be lower than the observed velocities, which is contrary to the results in Table 2. This strengthens our assumption that little or no circularization has occurred in LS 5039 since the SN.

The example of LS 5039 provides a strong confirmation of the predictions made about the eccentricity and runaway velocity that result from a SN explosion in a binary, and we find that both the observed eccentricity and peculiar space velocity can be consistently explained by our derived set of pre- and post-SN parameters. On the other hand, the system may be exceptional among MXRBs in the huge amount of mass lost in the SN. Indeed, LS 5039 appears to be the fastest runaway object known among the MXRBs (Kaper, 2001). The example of LS 5039 hints that there are other similar systems with low X-ray luminosity and small radial velocity variations, but this class of “X-ray quiet” SN descendants will be difficult to detect (Garmany et al., 1980).

We thank the KPNO staff, and in particular Diane Harmer and Daryl Willmarth, for their assistance in making these observations with the KPNO Coude Feed Telescope. Institutional support has been provided from the GSU College of Arts and Sciences and from the Research Program Enhancement fund of the Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia, administered through the GSU Office of the Vice President for Research.