format: text

text:
# 1 Summary of 𝑐𝜏 values as a function of Δ𝑚_𝜒̃.

University of California - Davis   UCD-2001-3 hep-ph/0103167 March, 2001

Probing Models with Near Degeneracy of the Chargino and LSP at a Linear $`e^\mathbf{+}e^{\mathbf{}}`$ Collider
John F. Gunion and Stephen Mrenna
Davis Institute for High Energy Physics
University of California, Davis, CA 95616

## Abstract

For some choices of soft SUSY–breaking parameters, the LSP is a stable neutralino $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$, the NLSP is a chargino $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm `$ almost degenerate in mass with the LSP ($`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}m_\pi `$few GeV), and all other sparticles are relatively heavy. We discuss the potential of a $`\sqrt{s}600\mathrm{GeV}`$ $`e^+e^{}`$ collider for studying such models.

1. Introduction. As part of the process of planning for future HEP experimental facilities, it is important to evaluate as many motivated scenarios for new physics as possible. Certainly, supersymmetry ranks as one of the most successful models of physics beyond the Standard Model, since it can approximately reproduce Standard Model predictions at low energies, while explaining the hierarchy problem. However, the mechanism of supersymmetry breaking is not well understood. In general, the different sources of breaking – gravitational interactions, gauge interactions, the conformal anomaly, etc. – lead to different hierarchies of sparticle masses. Many sources may be present at once, so the true model may be quite complicated. Here, we explore a relatively well-motivated set of models in which the gaugino masses are non-universal at the GUT scale and, in particular, are such that there is a quite small mass splitting between the lightest chargino ($`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm `$) and the lightest neutralino ($`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$), which is the LSP. Small $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}`$ occurs when $`M_2<M_1|\mu |`$, which arises naturally when the gaugino masses are dominated by or entirely generated by loop corrections. Models of this type include the O–II superstring model  and the (AMSB) models in which SUSY–breaking arises entirely from the conformal anomaly . The same hierarchy also occurs when SUSY is broken by an $`F`$–term that is not an SU(5) singlet but rather is a member of the $`\mathrm{𝟐𝟎𝟎}`$ representation contained in $`(\mathrm{𝟐𝟒}\times \mathrm{𝟐𝟒})_{\mathrm{symmetric}}=\mathrm{𝟏}\mathrm{𝟐𝟒}\mathrm{𝟕𝟓}\mathrm{𝟐𝟎𝟎}`$ . Techniques for detecting and studying supersymmetry are very dependent upon $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}`$ and on the relative magnitude of $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}`$ as compared to other supersymmetric particles. Previous discussions of small $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}`$ scenarios at lepton colliders include early studies in the context of the O-II model  and various studies specific to the AMSB boundary conditions . This study will focus on signals and parameter determination for small $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}`$ at a $`\sqrt{s}450600\mathrm{GeV}`$, $`L1\mathrm{ab}^1`$ linear $`e^+e^{}`$ collider (LC) when the only SUSY particles kinematically accessible at the LC are the $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm `$.

To illustrate the possibilities for $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}`$ and other gaugino masses, it is useful to give some tree-level results for the gaugino mass parameters at the scale $`m_Z`$. The O–II model with $`\delta _{GS}=4`$ yields $`M_3:M_2:M_1=6:10:10.6`$, the O–II model with $`\delta _{GS}=0`$ (equivalent to the simplest version of the conformal anomaly, AMSB, approach) yields $`M_3:M_2:M_1=3:0.3:1`$, while the $`\mathrm{𝟐𝟎𝟎}`$ model yields $`6:4:10`$. As a result: in the $`\mathrm{𝟐𝟎𝟎}`$ model and the O–II $`\delta _{GS}=0`$ (or pure AMSB) model, $`M_2M_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}`$ can be smaller than $`m_\pi `$ at tree-level; in the O–II $`\delta _{GS}=4`$ case, $`M_2`$ is only slightly less than $`M_1`$ implying that $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}<`$ a few GeV is very typical — $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}<1\mathrm{GeV}`$ if $`|\mu |>1\mathrm{TeV}`$ as when RGE electroweak symmetry breaking is imposed . Loop corrections can be significant. In particular, even if $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}<m_\pi `$ at tree-level, radiative corrections  usually increase $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}`$ to above $`m_\pi `$ (see e.g. the $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}`$ graphs in ); $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}<m_\pi `$ is only possible for very special parameter choices. Most typically, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}`$ is predicted to lie in the range from slightly above $`m_\pi `$ to several GeV.

All other SUSY particles could have masses substantially above $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }`$. In particular, in the O–II $`\delta _{GS}=0`$ and AMSB models, $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0}`$ is significantly larger than $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }`$. Only in the O–II $`\delta _{GS}=4`$ model is $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0}`$ close to $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }`$. In most cases, large $`|\mu |`$ is required by radiative symmetry breaking so that the $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^\pm `$, $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_3^0`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_4^0`$ are very heavy. The masses for the squarks and sleptons are uncertain, but could be quite large, which is the case on which we focus. In particular, we neglect sneutrino exchange contributions to the $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{}`$ and $`\gamma \stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{}`$ cross sections. For example, both cross sections start to become increasingly suppressed for $`\sqrt{s}600\mathrm{GeV}`$ as the electron sneutrino mass is decreased below 1 TeV; see, for example, .

The neutralino and chargino couplings to $`W`$ and $`Z`$ bosons in the wino-LSP scenario were reviewed in . One finds that the $`Z\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$, $`Z\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0`$, $`Z\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0`$, and $`W^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm \stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0`$ couplings (and corresponding cross sections) are all small, while $`e^+e^{}Z,\gamma \stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{},\gamma \stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{}`$ and $`e^+e^{}W^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm \stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ can have large rates.

The most critical ingredients in the phenomenology of such models are the lifetime and the decay modes of the $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm `$, which in turn depend almost entirely on $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}`$ when the latter is small. The $`c\tau `$ and branching ratios of the $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm `$ as a function of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}`$ have been computed in . For $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}<m_\pi `$, only $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm e^\pm \nu _e\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ is important and $`c\tau >10`$ m. Once $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}>m_\pi `$, the $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm \pi ^\pm \stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ mode turns on and is dominant for $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}<800\mathrm{MeV}`$, at which point the multi–pion modes start to become important: correspondingly, one finds $`c\tau <1020`$ cm for $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}`$ just above $`m_\pi `$ decreasing to $`c\tau <100\mu `$m by $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}1\mathrm{GeV}`$. For later reference, we give some specific values of $`c\tau `$ as a function of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}`$ in Table 1.

Finally, we wish to comment on what values for $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }`$ are most natural in the context we are considering. The constraint from fine-tuning, though somewhat ill-defined, does provide some guidance. The degree of fine-tuning is largely controlled by the magnitude of the gluino mass. In the models discussed above there are considerable differences in the ratio of $`M_3/M_2`$. This ratio is largest ($`9`$) in the ($`\delta _{GS}=0`$)/AMSB scenario and fine tuning increases rapidly  with $`M_2m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }`$ to levels that are highly problematical once $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }>200\mathrm{GeV}`$. In the other scenarios $`M_3`$ is close to $`M_2`$ and fine-tuning is a less severe concern. The main focus of this paper will be on scenarios in which the chargino and neutralino are highly degenerate, which is most naturally the case in the ($`\delta _{GS}=0`$)/AMSB scenario. Thus, our focus will be on procedures relevant for $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }<200\mathrm{GeV}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}<1\mathrm{GeV}`$.

2. General Discussion of Detector and Signals. For our discussions, we consider a detector with the components listed in Table 2. (See  for further details.) The SVX, CT and PS all give (independent) measurements of the $`dE/dx`$ from ionization of a track passing through them. This makes it possible to distinguish a heavily–ionizing chargino (which would be $``$ twice minimal ionizing \[2MIP\] for $`\beta \gamma 0.85`$) from an isolated minimally ionizing particle \[1MIP\]. The net discrimination factor would probably be of order $`\mathrm{few}\times 10^5`$. In our simulations, we employed an efficiency of 90% for tracks with $`\beta \gamma <0.85`$ .

The possible signals based upon detecting a non-promptly decaying $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm `$ were detailed for a hadron collider in . Appropriately modified versions for $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{}`$ and $`\gamma \stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{}`$ production at the LC are listed in Table 3.

Assuming that only the $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm `$ are light, SUSY particle production will be primarily in the final states $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{}`$, $`\gamma \stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{}`$, and (when not phase space limited) $`W^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm `$. (The $`\gamma \stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ cross section is suppressed due to the small $`Z\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ coupling.) The possibilities for SUSY detection depend largely upon which aspects (if any) of a $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm `$ in the final state are visible , which in turn depends almost entirely on $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}`$. We distinguish several interesting ranges for $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}`$:

* $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}<m_\pi `$: the $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm `$ yields a ‘stable particle’ LHIT and/or DIT track and is easily detected: $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{}`$ production will be easily seen.
* $`m_\pi <\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}<1\mathrm{GeV}`$: the $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm \stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\pi ^\pm `$ decay yields a soft $`\pi `$ track, possibly in association with a STUB ($`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}<180\mathrm{MeV}`$) or HIP ($`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}<1\mathrm{GeV}`$) signature. Direct $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{}`$ production then yields a $`/E+\pi \pi `$ final state, where the $`/E`$ is associated with the $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$’s. Since the $`\pi `$’s are very soft, backgrounds to this final state from $`\gamma \gamma `$-induced interactions are very large, and it is unlikely that the $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ SUSY signal can be isolated. One must tag $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{}`$ production using $`e^+e^{}\gamma \stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{}`$, leading to a $`\gamma +/E+\pi \pi `$ final state, or employ the more kinematically limited $`W^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm (\mathrm{}^{},q^{}\overline{q})+/E+\pi ^\pm `$ final states.
* $`1\mathrm{GeV}<\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}<2\mathrm{GeV}`$: the $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm `$ decays with roughly equal probability to $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\pi ^\pm `$, $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\pi ^\pm \pi ^0`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\mathrm{}^\pm \nu `$ ($`\mathrm{}=e,\mu `$). The pion(s) or charged lepton will be rather soft and a $`\gamma `$ tag will probably still be necessary to eliminate backgrounds.
* $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}>23\mathrm{GeV}`$: the $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm `$ decays either to $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0+`$multi-pion modes at the low end which start to resolve into jets at the higher end or to $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\mathrm{}^\pm \nu `$. The visible decay products are sufficiently energetic that $`\gamma \gamma `$ induced backgrounds can be rejected (using a combination of event topology and $`/E`$) to the extent necessary for mSUGRA-like mode detection of direct $`e^+e^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{}`$ production.

Sensitivity of LEP2 detectors to these various signatures was sufficient to exclude : (a) $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }<\sqrt{s}/2`$ in the ‘stable’ and ‘standard’ regions of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}`$; and (b) $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }<80\mathrm{GeV}`$ (assuming the $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }_e`$ is heavy) in the $`m_\pi \mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}2\mathrm{GeV}`$ region. In particular, the backgrounds to the ‘stable’ and $`\gamma `$-tag+$`/E`$+soft-$`\pi `$ signals are very small. In our analysis, we assume that they can continue to be neglected relative to our signal rates at the LC after simple cuts. For the $`\gamma `$-tag+soft-$`\pi `$ signal, this may, at first sight, seem problematical given that the signal cross section declines with increasing $`s`$, whereas the two-photon ($`\gamma ^{}\gamma ^{}`$) collision backgrounds tend to increase logarithmically with $`s`$. Below, we review the simple cuts that are likely to be very effective in eliminating the two-photon backgrounds.

It is first important to understand the kinematics of the signal. We will trigger on a photon with $`p_T^\gamma >10\mathrm{GeV}`$ and $`10^{}<\theta _\gamma <170^{}`$, $`10^{}`$ being the angle at which electromagnetic coverage by the detector is expected to begin. We will require that $`M_{\chi \chi }^2=(p_{e^+}+p_e^{}p_\gamma )^2`$, the invariant mass-squared of the $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{}`$ pair, be such that $`M_{\chi \chi }>2m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }`$ when searching for $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm `$’s of a certain mass. Of course, the search will start at $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }>80\mathrm{GeV}`$, the LEP2 limit. Most of $`M_{\chi \chi }`$ will be invisible, being carried by the $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ pair. The $`\pi ^+`$ and $`\pi ^{}`$ in the final state will be very soft, with energies basically set by the size of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}`$, and largely central, with some bias for the $`\pi ^+`$ ($`\pi ^{}`$) to move in the direction of the $`e^{}`$ ($`e^+`$) beam. Thus, they will tend to be somewhat back-to-back. However, their angle of acoplanarity will be very uniformly distributed. Finally, the $`p_T^\gamma `$ of the trigger photon will be clustered at the lowest allowed values and will be primarily balanced by the missing transverse momentum, $`/p_T`$, carried by the $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$’s.

There are two different types of two-photon background to the $`\gamma +\pi ^+\pi ^{}+/E`$ final state of interest. First, there are $`e^+e^{}\gamma +e^+e^{}+\gamma ^{}\gamma ^{}\gamma +e^+e^{}+X`$, with $`X=\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$, reactions in which the final $`e^+`$ and $`e^{}`$ are both lost down the beam pipes and, thereby, provide the large missing energy and missing mass associated with the $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ pair in the signal reaction. If we trigger on (i.e. tag) a photon with substantial $`p_T^\gamma `$, either the $`e^{}`$ or the $`e^+`$ will be given a sufficient transverse kick that it will be detected. To be precise, we define $`\theta _d`$ to be the angle above which an electron or positron can be detected. The largest transverse momentum, $`p_T^{\mathrm{max}}`$, that can be carried by the final $`e^+e^{}`$ pair without one being detected arises when the final $`e^+`$ and $`e^{}`$ are coplanar, have relative $`\varphi =0`$ and have polar angles with respect to their respective beams, $`\theta ^+`$ and $`\theta ^{}`$, both equal to $`\theta _d`$: $`p_T^{\mathrm{max}}=(E^++E^{})\mathrm{sin}\theta _d`$. Using the constraint $`E^+=\sqrt{s}E^{}E^\gamma E^X`$, we have $`p_T^{\mathrm{max}}=(\sqrt{s}E^XE^\gamma )\mathrm{sin}\theta _d`$. Meanwhile, the smallest $`p_T`$ of the the $`\gamma +X`$ system in the final state is $`p_T^{\mathrm{min}}=p_T^\gamma p_T^X`$, where $`p_T^X`$ denotes the magnitude of the $`X`$ system transverse momentum. $`p_T^{\mathrm{min}}<p_T^{\mathrm{max}}`$ is required to avoid detection of both the final $`e^+`$ and $`e^{}`$. This condition can be rewritten in the form

$$p_T^\gamma <\frac{(\sqrt{s}E^X)\mathrm{sin}\theta _d+p_T^X}{1+\mathrm{sin}\theta _d}.$$
(1)
For the scenario under consideration, $`E^X`$ and $`p_T^X`$ are of order $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}`$ times a modest boost factor, and do not exceed 1 GeV for the scenarios of interest. Thus, if we impose a $`p_T^\gamma `$ cut that exceeds $`\sqrt{s}\frac{\mathrm{sin}\theta _d}{1+\mathrm{sin}\theta _d}`$ then this background process cannot contribute. Current detector plans are consistent with instrumenting the beam hole down to $`\theta _d1^{}`$, for which a cut of $`p_T^\gamma >0.0172\sqrt{s}`$ will suffice. For $`\sqrt{s}=600\mathrm{GeV}`$, we would require $`p_T^\gamma >10.3\mathrm{GeV}`$, which motivates our nominal minimal cut of $`p_T^\gamma >10\mathrm{GeV}`$. With this cut, the only way in which an $`e^+e^{}\gamma +e^+e^{}+X`$ process can contribute to the $`\gamma +\pi ^+\pi ^{}+/E`$ final state of interest is if $`X`$ itself contains missing energy of magnitude approaching the magnitude of the minimum $`p_T^\gamma `$ being required. One candidate is $`X=\tau ^+\tau ^{}\pi ^+\pi ^{}\nu \overline{\nu }`$, where the $`\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ invariant mass is large enough that the mass and momentum of the $`\nu \overline{\nu }`$ system is at least 2 to 3 GeV. However, the $`\pi ^+`$ and $`\pi ^{}`$ will tend to be much more energetic than expected in the signal reaction (unless $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}>500\mathrm{MeV}`$) and will tend to be produced more forward and backward (with correlations with the beam directions opposite that expected for the signal) because of the $`t`$-channel $`\tau `$ exchange in the Feynman diagram that gives rise to $`\gamma ^{}\gamma ^{}\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$. Further, the background from this process can be independently measured using the $`\tau \rho \nu `$ decay modes, and then subtracted. Another candidate is $`X=\pi ^+\pi ^{}Z(\nu \overline{\nu })`$ for which $`e^+e^{}\gamma +e^+e^{}+X`$ has a small cross section. In events of this type, virtualities are large and the $`\pi `$’s produced will tend to be very energetic and largely forward and backward, whereas the $`\pi `$’s from the signal reaction are quite central and quite soft in the lab frame. Cuts that require soft central pions will thus be very effective in eliminating such backgrounds while retaining almost all the signal events.

A second type of two-photon background arises from overlapping $`e^+e^{}\gamma /E`$ (e.g. $`\gamma Z^{}(\nu \overline{\nu })`$, with $`m_Z^{}>M_{\chi \chi }`$) and $`e^+e^{}e^+e^{}\gamma ^{}\gamma ^{}e^+e^{}\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ collisions in which the final $`e^+e^{}`$ of the 2nd reaction are allowed to disappear down the beam lines regardless of $`p_T^\gamma `$. At TESLA, with large bunch separation, the two $`e^{}`$’s must come from the same $`e^{}`$ bunch and the two $`e^+`$’s from the same $`e^+`$ bunch. Note that a cut requiring large $`/E`$, in particular large $`/MM_{\chi \chi }`$, can only be satisfied if the $`/E`$ comes from the same reaction as the $`\gamma `$. The ‘hard’ process will have a small cross section. Further, the $`\pi `$’s from the overlapping two-photon event tend to be very energetic and the cut requiring central/soft $`\pi `$’s will be very effective (and essentially 100% efficient for the signal events). Further, the $`\pi ^+`$ and $`\pi ^{}`$ produced in the 2nd collision will tend to balance each other in transverse momentum, whereas this will never be the case for the $`\pi `$’s from the signal events. In addition, for most such events there would be substantial separation in $`z`$ (displacement along the beam line) between the two overlapping events. The LC vertex detectors will have exceptional ability to determine the $`z`$ vertex location of the event producing the $`\pi `$’s, assuming $`c\tau `$ for the $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm `$ decay is not large. (If it is large, observation of large transverse impact parameters for the $`\pi `$’s would, alone, be sufficient to eliminate any background.) The $`z`$ location of the collision producing the $`\gamma `$ will hinge on electromagnetic calorimetry and will require a pre-shower plane for good accuracy. We are uncertain of what resolution to expect here, but it could be sufficiently good that a non-zero $`z`$ separation would be seen for most overlapping collisions, which could be used to eliminate most of this background.

Another cut that is useful<sup>1</sup><sup>1</sup>1We thank H.-U. Martyn for pointing this out. for eliminating two photon backgrounds is to require that the missing energy vector $`\stackrel{}{/p}=\stackrel{}{p}_{e^+}+\stackrel{}{p}_e^{}\stackrel{}{p}_\gamma \stackrel{}{p}_{\pi ^+}\stackrel{}{p}_\pi ^{}`$ have an angle of $`>100`$ mrad with respect to both beam axes. In fact, our cuts of $`p_T^\gamma >10\mathrm{GeV}`$ and $`10^{}<\theta _\gamma <170^{}`$ guarantee that this is the case for all signal events; indeed, all but a tiny fraction of the events have an angle between $`\stackrel{}{/p}`$ and both beam axes of $`>200`$ mrad.

In the absence of a reliable Monte Carlo for generating these types of backgrounds, it is impossible to be absolutely certain that a collection of small contributions will not add up to a non-negligible result. The true background level will probably only be known once data taking has begun. If a background is found for our minimal tag requirements of $`p_T^\gamma >10\mathrm{GeV}`$, $`10^{}\theta _\gamma 170^{}`$ balanced by large missing mass and soft central pions, the $`p_T^\gamma `$ cut, can, for $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }`$ not too near $`\sqrt{s}/2`$, be increased to the point where the background disappears. For $`L=1\mathrm{ab}^1`$ of integrated luminosity, this will typically have little impact on our ability to discover $`\gamma \stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{}`$ production and determine $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}`$. In fact, one very good set of procedures for the latter determinations, discussed in a later section, focuses on events for which the photon energy is near maximal and the invariant mass of the $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{}`$ system is very close to $`2m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }`$. In this kinematic region, backgrounds will surely be negligible unless $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }`$ is close to $`\sqrt{s}/2`$ (implying that there is no kinematic room for increasing the photon tag requirements). To be more quantitative, we show in Fig. 1 the unpolarized beam and right-handed polarized $`e^{}`$ beam cross sections as a function of the minimum $`p_T^\gamma `$ accepted. Results are shown for the representative cases of $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }=175,250,290\mathrm{GeV}`$ and $`\mu =300,600\mathrm{GeV}`$. In the unpolarized case, $`L=1\mathrm{ab}^1`$ gives acceptable event rates for discovery (we assume 10 events will be adequate if there is no background) even for very large $`p_T^\gamma `$ cuts so long as $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }<275\mathrm{GeV}`$. As discussed in a later section, these event rates for large $`p_T^\gamma `$ are also quite adequate and, indeed, very useful for precise determinations of $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}`$ for such $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm `$ masses. (The ability to determine $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }`$ from the event rate as a function of the $`p_T^\gamma `$ cut is immediately apparent from the figure.) At $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }=290\mathrm{GeV}`$, a cut of $`p_T^\gamma >17\mathrm{GeV}`$ would still leave a (discoverable rate) of 30 events (for $`L=1\mathrm{ab}^1`$) if the background is negligible. Determinations of $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}`$ would become less accurate at such a high mass. In the polarized case, event rates are very sensitive to the $`\mu `$ parameter. This is good in that it provides important sensitivity to the $`\mu `$ (and $`M_2`$) SUSY parameters, as described in a later section. However, Fig. 1 makes clear that the polarized cross sections are not necessarily large enough to be accurately measured and might not be observable at all. Use of the polarized cross sections will, in many cases, require that the background really is very small starting at $`p_T^\gamma 1020\mathrm{GeV}`$. Finally, we note that the results of Fig. 1 assume that the amplitude contribution from the sneutrino exchange diagram is small. If the sneutrino mass is at or below $`\sqrt{s}`$, there will be substantial suppression of the cross section due to the $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }_e`$ exchange diagram.

We reemphasize the fact, apparent explicitly in Fig. 2 (discussed in the following section), that there is a high probability that one or both of the pions in the $`\gamma \stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm \stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{}`$ final state will have an observable impact parameter whenever $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}`$ is below $`1\mathrm{GeV}`$ and $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }`$ is in the $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }<200\mathrm{GeV}`$ region, as preferred for the ($`\delta _{GS}=0`$ O-II)/AMSB boundary conditions. In this case, backgrounds will unquestionably be negligible and all the parameter determination studies described later will be possible with the described precisions.

Finally, we return to the possibility of using $`e^+e^{}W^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm \stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ in which the $`W`$ can decay either leptonically or hadronically and $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm \pi ^\pm \stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$. For moderate $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }`$, the cross section for the production process is quite substantial. For example, for $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }=175\mathrm{GeV}`$, $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =5`$, $`\mu =600\mathrm{GeV}`$ and $`\sqrt{s}=600\mathrm{GeV}`$ ($`450\mathrm{GeV}`$), the unpolarized beam cross section is 12 fb (0.46 fb) and the pure $`e_R^{}`$ cross section is 0.28 fb (0.007 fb), after summing over both $`W^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ and $`W^+\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ production. The $`\sqrt{s}=600\mathrm{GeV}`$ cross sections (for instance) are to be compared to the $`p_T^\gamma >10\mathrm{GeV}`$ cross sections of Fig. 1: 38.5 fb for unpolarized beams and 0.27 fb for pure $`e_R^{}`$. The $`W^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm \stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ cross section is thus substantial so long as $`2m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }+m_W`$ is not too near $`\sqrt{s}`$. This production mode could certainly be considered as an alternative for discovery and parameter studies if the $`\gamma \stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{}`$ mode should (contrary to our expectation) have significant background. We have not studied possible backgrounds to the $`W^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm \stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ channels, although we expect backgrounds to be small. We will only remark on its possible utility in a few places.

3. Discovery Reach. Following the above discussion, we can estimate the regions in $`(\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }},m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm })`$ parameter space for which the various SUSY discovery modes will be viable at a $`\sqrt{s}=600\mathrm{GeV}`$ LC. They are shown in Fig. 2. For $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}>2\mathrm{GeV}`$, we assume (following the LEP experience) that observation of $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{}`$ production will be possible up to very nearly $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }\sqrt{s}/2`$. For $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}<m_\pi `$, the $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm `$ will be sufficiently stable in the detector that an LHIT signal for $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{}`$ production will be easily detected up to threshold. For $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}`$ between $`m_\pi `$ and roughly $`200\mathrm{MeV}`$, the SNT signal will be viable. In fact, since triggering will not be necessary at the NLC, even (STUB) charged tracks as short as 4 or 5 cm can be directly imaged, <sup>2</sup><sup>2</sup>2We thank M. Peskin for bringing this to our attention. implying that our $`\beta <0.8`$ heavy ionization requirement for the SNT signal could be relaxed. For $`200\mathrm{MeV}<\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}<2\mathrm{GeV}`$, it is very probable that one will need to employ the $`\gamma `$ tag signatures, i.e. $`\gamma +`$HIP(s) and $`\gamma +\pi `$(s) (always with large $`/E`$). We believe that the $`\gamma +`$HIP and SNT signatures will be background-free. (They disappear at the largest values of $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }`$ due to inadequate boost for the produced $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm `$, which leads to too small an impact parameter for the HIP or too short a path length for the STUB track.) Development of Monte Carlo programs that can accurately compute the backgrounds to the above signals should be a high priority, especially for the $`\gamma +/E+\pi `$(s) ($`\gamma +\pi `$(s) for short) signal. However, the measured background after cuts at LEP2 for the $`\gamma +\pi `$(s) signal was negligible or very small even without requiring a high impact parameter for at least one of the $`\pi `$’s. This, coupled with the arguments given in the previous section allow for some optimism that the background for the $`\gamma +\pi `$(s) signal will continue to be small at high $`\sqrt{s}`$, even for the relatively mild $`p_T^\gamma >10\mathrm{GeV}`$ cut. The exact boundaries for the LHIT, SNT, $`\gamma `$+HIP(s) and $`\gamma +\pi `$(s) signatures shown assume that 10 events are adequate to detect the above signals (assuming no background). The rapid $`s`$-wave threshold turn-on of $`\gamma \stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{}`$ production allows one to probe almost to the $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }\sqrt{s}/2p_T^\gamma `$ kinematic limit so long as the detector can resolve the soft $`\pi `$’s from the $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm `$ decays. As shown in Fig. 2, even assuming zero background, $`L=1\mathrm{ab}^1`$ does not greatly increase the discovery reach of the STUB and HIP channels as compared to $`L=50\mathrm{fb}^1`$. The increase in reach for $`L=1\mathrm{ab}^1`$ for the (stable) LHIT signal is very small and is not shown. Since it is possible that backgrounds that are negligible at $`L=50\mathrm{fb}^1`$ result in a non-negligible number of events at $`L=1\mathrm{ab}^1`$, one should not absolutely rely on the indicated increase in coverage for the SNT and $`\gamma +`$HIP signals for the latter $`L`$.

Given that the boundary conditions in models with loop-dominated gaugino masses are such that $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}[200\mathrm{MeV},2\mathrm{GeV}]`$ is almost a certainty, the reach of the $`\gamma `$-tag+$`/E`$+soft-$`\pi `$’s (with or without HIP(s)) signal is of great importance. If the soft pions cannot be detected/tracked before they curl up (e.g. because the magnetic field is too strong), then sensitivity to $`\gamma \stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{}`$ production will be much more limited. (This is illustrated by the somewhat higher $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }`$ limits of L3 vs. DELPHI for $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}[200\mathrm{MeV},2\mathrm{GeV}]`$ due to the fact that L3’s magnetic field is weaker than DELPHI’s.) If the $`\pi ^\pm `$ tracks are not detected, one important signal is $`e^+e^{}\gamma \stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{}\gamma +\text{invisible}`$, for which the $`e^+e^{}\gamma \nu \overline{\nu }`$ background is substantial. For any given presumed value of $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }`$, we place a cut on the invisible mass, $`/M`$, recoiling opposite the trigger photon of at least $`/M>2m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }`$, that removes much of the $`\nu \overline{\nu }`$ background, in particular that from on-shell $`\gamma +Z`$ production. The more limited discovery reach is illustrated by the $`\gamma +/M`$ boundaries (one for $`L=50\mathrm{fb}^1`$ and one for $`L=1\mathrm{ab}^1`$) drawn at fixed $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }`$ for $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}[200\mathrm{MeV},2\mathrm{GeV}]`$ in Fig. 2. For lower $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }`$ values, cuts can be placed on $`/M`$ so as to obtain $`S/B0.02`$ and $`S/\sqrt{B}5`$ for $`L=50\mathrm{fb}^1`$. The difficulty of observing the signal for large $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }`$ can be seen from the $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }=200\mathrm{GeV}`$, $`L=50\mathrm{fb}^1`$ results shown in Fig. 3. The upper part of the figure gives $`S`$ and $`S+B`$ in 5 GeV bins in the $`/M>525\mathrm{GeV}`$ region. The lower part of the figure shows $`S`$ and $`\sqrt{B}`$ for 5 GeV bins. We see that $`S/\sqrt{B}`$ per bin is only of order 1 for $`/M>525\mathrm{GeV}`$. Although at the peak in $`S`$, located at $`/M580\mathrm{GeV}`$, the 5 GeV bin has $`S/B=0.028`$, for $`L=50\mathrm{fb}^1`$ this one bin only yields $`S/\sqrt{B}=1.87`$. Thus, for this $`L`$ it is necessary to include all the bins with $`/M525\mathrm{GeV}`$ in order the get a net $`S/\sqrt{B}>5`$ signal; in this case the net $`S/B`$ is $`0.02`$. However, with higher $`L`$ one can do much better by focusing on the highest $`/M`$ bins for which $`S/B`$ is largest.

In Table 4 we give the $`\gamma +/M`$ cross section $`\sigma `$ as a function of $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }`$ for $`580\mathrm{GeV}/M590\mathrm{GeV}`$, the ratio $`S/B`$, and the luminosity required for $`S/\sqrt{B}=5`$. From this table, we see that if $`S/B>0.02`$ is required for a viable signal, then $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }`$ up to $`260\mathrm{GeV}`$ can be probed for $`L700\mathrm{fb}^1`$. If systematics can be controlled to the $`S/B0.01`$ level, then the $`\gamma +/M`$ signal could be observed up to $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }285\mathrm{GeV}`$ for very high $`L3000\mathrm{fb}^1`$.

4. Determining $`m_{\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{\chi }_\mathrm{𝟏}^\mathbf{\pm }}`$ and $`𝚫m_{\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{\chi }}`$. If the chargino or its decay products are directly visible, for expected $`e^+e^{}`$ collider luminosities it will be possible to detect $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{}`$ or $`\gamma \stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{}`$ production for $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }`$ up to values very close to the $`\sqrt{s}/2`$ threshold. The soft $`\pi `$(s) from the $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm `$ decay or the non-prompt $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm `$ decay LHIT, SNT and/or $`\gamma +`$HIP signals will indicate clearly that $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}`$ is small. The next important task will be to measure $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}`$ as precisely as possible. We focus entirely on scenarios with $`m_\pi <\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}<0.8\mathrm{GeV}`$ for which we must employ the $`\gamma \stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{}`$ channel and for which the $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm \pi ^\pm \stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ branching ratio is close to 1. For larger $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}`$, one would have to take into account the $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm \pi ^\pm \pi ^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm \mathrm{}^\pm \nu \stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ decays. Our techniques could still be applied, but the effective event rates for the $`\pi ^\pm \stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ channels would be reduced and some accuracy lost unless the other modes could be included in the analysis following analogous procedures (which are relatively straightforward extensions of those presented).

The most direct technique for determining $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}`$ independently of theoretical assumptions is via the $`\pi ^\pm `$ kinematic distributions. We shall later discuss the determination of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}`$ via observing a distribution of $`\pi ^\pm `$ impact parameters. By way of preview, we note that the impact parameter distribution is determined primarily by $`c\tau `$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}`$, with weak dependence on $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }`$. Once $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }`$ is determined via the kinematic procedures we shall describe below, in favorable cases (large $`c\tau `$) the impact parameter distribution will allow a simultaneous determination of $`c\tau `$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}`$ with errors on $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}`$ that are competitive with the errors we shall find using kinematic distributions. Of course, the kinematic distribution procedures we now describe are essential when the $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm `$ decay is simply too prompt to directly observe its path length. However, even if the distribution of path lengths is not very apparent (because most events are clustered at low impact parameter, e.g. as typical for $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}800\mathrm{MeV}`$ for which $`c\tau 190\mu `$m) or useful, most events will have an observable non-zero impact parameter for at least one $`\pi `$ and, consequently, backgrounds to the $`\gamma +\pi ^+\pi ^{}+/E`$ signal will certainly be negligible after our simple cuts on $`p_T^\gamma `$, $`\theta _\gamma `$ and $`M_{\chi \chi }`$ described earlier.

The observables in the $`\gamma \stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{}\gamma \pi ^+\pi ^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ final state of interest are the invariant mass of the chargino pair, $`M_{\chi \chi }\sqrt{(p_{e^+}+p_e^{}p_\gamma )^2}`$, and the energies, $`E_\pi ^{}`$, of the $`\pi `$’s in the $`M_{\chi \chi }`$ rest frame. For $`M_{\chi \chi }>2m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }`$, the $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm `$ are boosted in the $`M_{\chi \chi }`$ rest frame and $`E_\pi ^{}`$ depends upon the orientation of $`\stackrel{}{p}_\pi `$ in the $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm `$ rest frame with respect to the boost direction. The maximum and minimum $`E_\pi ^{}`$ values are given by

$$E_\pi ^{\mathrm{max}}=\gamma _{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }(E_0+\beta _{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }p_0),E_\pi ^{\mathrm{min}}=\gamma _{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }(E_0\beta _{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }p_0),$$
(2)
with

$$\beta _{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }=\sqrt{1\frac{4m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }^2}{M_{\chi \chi }^2}},\gamma _{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1\beta _{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }^2}},E_0=\frac{m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }^2+m_\pi ^2m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}^2}{2m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }}\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }},p_0=\sqrt{E_0^2m_\pi ^2}$$
(3)
characterizing the charginos in the $`M_{\chi \chi }`$ rest frame and the $`\pi ^\pm `$ in the $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm `$ rest frames. These equations can be inverted to give

$`\gamma _{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{E}^2+m_\pi ^2\widehat{E}^2\pm \sqrt{(\overline{E}^2+m_\pi ^2\widehat{E}^2)^24\overline{E}^2m_\pi ^2}}{2m_\pi ^2}},`$ (4)
$`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{M_{\chi \chi }}{2\gamma _{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }}},\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}=m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }\sqrt{m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }^2{\displaystyle \frac{2m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }\overline{E}}{\gamma _{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }}}+m_\pi ^2}{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{E}}{m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }}},`$ (5)
where $`2\overline{E}=E_\pi ^{\mathrm{max}}+E_\pi ^{\mathrm{min}}`$ and $`2\widehat{E}=E_\pi ^{\mathrm{max}}E_\pi ^{\mathrm{min}}`$. (The $``$ expressions in Eqs. (3) and (5) apply if we neglect terms of order $`m_\pi ^2/m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }^2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}^2/m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }^2`$.) For any given $`M_{\chi \chi }`$, there is a two-fold ambiguity in $`\gamma _{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }^2`$. The $``$ ($`+`$) sign applies for lower (higher) $`M_{\chi \chi }`$ values. Only one set of choices as a function of $`M_{\chi \chi }`$ will lead to $`M_{\chi \chi }`$-independent values for $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}`$. Even at a fixed $`M_{\chi \chi }`$, fitting the actual distribution in $`E_\pi ^{}`$ can provide a unique determination of $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}`$, given enough statistics.

Since the $`\pi `$’s are soft, the resolution for measuring $`p_\pi `$ in the lab frame will be dominated by the ‘constant’ term, which has a typical value of $`0.5\%`$. Further, $`\delta M_{\chi \chi }/M_{\chi \chi }\delta E_\gamma \sqrt{s}/M_{\chi \chi }^20.1\sqrt{E_\gamma }\sqrt{s}/M_{\chi \chi }^2`$ (all in GeV) will also be very small. We have generated events including the measurement smearing in $`E_\gamma `$. For each event with a given $`M_{\chi \chi }`$, we boost to the $`M_{\chi \chi }`$ (i.e. chargino-pair) rest frame and compute the energies, $`E_\pi ^{}`$, of the observed $`\pi `$’s. In Fig. 4, we show the region of the $`[E_\pi ^{},M_{\chi \chi }]`$ plane occupied by the events for several different choices of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}`$, taking $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }=175\mathrm{GeV}`$. For $`L=50\mathrm{fb}^1`$ and $`\sqrt{s}=600\mathrm{GeV}`$, the occupied region will contain $`5000`$ entries (2 entries per event). A large fraction of the entries reside near the large-$`M_{\chi \chi }`$ boundary.

The location of the threshold in $`M_{\chi \chi }`$ provides a particularly useful way to measure $`2m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }`$. The statistical error for such a determination depends upon the number of events near the threshold. We assume that the $`\gamma +\pi \pi `$ signal is background-free and compute the approximate $`1\sigma `$ error $`\delta m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }`$ from the criterion:

$$\frac{\widehat{S}(m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }\delta m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm })\widehat{S}(m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm })}{\sqrt{\widehat{S}(m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }\delta m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm })}}=1,$$
(6)
where $`\widehat{S}`$ is the number of events in the near-threshold region $`2m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }M_{\chi \chi }2m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }+10\mathrm{GeV}`$. For $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }[150,225]\mathrm{GeV}`$ ($`[250,275]\mathrm{GeV}`$) we find $`\delta m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }1\mathrm{GeV}`$ ($`0.5\mathrm{GeV}`$) for $`L=50\mathrm{fb}^1`$ and $`\delta m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }0.2\mathrm{GeV}`$ ($`0.1\mathrm{GeV}`$) for $`L=1\mathrm{ab}^1`$. The accuracy improves at higher masses because of the increasing sharpness of $`d\sigma /dM_{\chi \chi }`$ as a function of $`M_{\chi \chi }`$.

The most direct way to determine $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}`$ is to concentrate on the $`M_{\chi \chi }2m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }`$ region for which $`E_\pi ^{}E_0\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}`$. Because of resolution smearing, there are actually events with $`M_{\chi \chi }<2m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }`$ and a finite spread to $`E_\pi ^{}`$ in this region. We have examined the $`E_\pi ^{}`$ distribution for two cuts: (I) $`M_{\chi \chi }<2m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }`$ and (II) $`M_{\chi \chi }<2m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }+10\mathrm{GeV}`$. For cuts (I), there are fewer events but, for $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}<400\mathrm{MeV}`$, the $`E_\pi ^{}`$ distribution is more closely centered on $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}`$. A typical case is illustrated in Fig. 5, based on cuts (II). The error on $`\overline{E_\pi ^{}}`$, the average $`\pi `$ energy, is given by $`\delta \overline{E_\pi ^{}}/\sqrt{N}`$, where $`N`$ is the number of events and $`\delta \overline{E_\pi ^{}}`$ is estimated as the width of a Gaussian fit to the $`E_\pi ^{}`$ spectrum. Table 5 gives $`\overline{E_\pi ^{}}`$ and $`\delta \overline{E_\pi ^{}}`$ for both $`M_{\chi \chi }`$ cuts (I) and (II) for a number of $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}`$ choices assuming $`L=1\mathrm{ab}^1`$. $`L=50\mathrm{fb}^1`$ is not adequate to give particularly small errors, but would allow a first determination of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}`$ to within 10 to 20 MeV or so. There is considerable variation of $`\delta \overline{E_\pi ^{}}`$ with the case and the cut. In addition, $`\overline{E_\pi ^{}}`$ is usually not precisely equal to $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}`$, with shifts ranging up to 7 MeV, depending on the exact case and cuts employed. However, the expected shape for the $`E_\pi ^{}`$ distribution for any given choices of $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}`$ and $`M_{\chi \chi }`$ cut is precisely known (to the extent that the resolutions for $`E_\pi `$ and $`E_\gamma `$ are known) and the expected shift $`\overline{E_\pi ^{}}\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}`$ can be computed. Our estimate is that one could in the end achieve an uncertainty for $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}`$ of order 2–5 MeV or better in most cases. Once actual data were available, one would take the experimental distribution resulting from the underlying $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}`$ and compare it to a selection of theoretical predictions for the measured $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }`$ (using the technique described earlier) and a range of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}`$ choices and minimize the $`\chi ^2`$.

To repeat a point from the introduction, we note that the above $`M_{\chi \chi }2m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }`$ techniques for determining $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}`$ (and, of course, detecting the charginos in the first place) imply a focus on events with the most energetic photons. Unless $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }`$ is quite near $`\sqrt{s}/2`$, the typical photon-tag energy and transverse momentum will be large enough that two-photon (and certainly other) backgrounds to our $`\gamma \pi ^+\pi ^{}/E`$ final state will surely be negligible even if $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}`$ is large enough that most events do not have an observable HIP for one of the $`\pi `$’s. In contrast, the techniques discussed in the following rely on using the full range of photon tag energies and transverse momenta, and could be compromised if (contrary to our expectation) there is significant background at lower $`E_\gamma ,p_T^\gamma `$ values when $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}`$ is such that HIP(s) are not observable.

We now compare the above $`M_{\chi \chi }2m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }`$ results to those obtained by employing the full distribution in $`[M_{\chi \chi },E_\pi ^{}]`$, including not only the location of the end-points in the $`E_\pi ^{}`$ spectra as a function of $`M_{\chi \chi }`$, but also the full shape of the distribution. In particular, one could hope to make use of the large number of events at large $`M_{\chi \chi }`$. We now describe two procedures for estimating the resulting errors on $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}`$. In the first, we consider only the one-dimensional distribution in $`E_\pi ^{}`$ as a function of $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}`$. We performed our study for $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }`$ values centered on $`175\mathrm{GeV}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}`$ values centered on $`200\mathrm{MeV}`$ and employed bins of size $`10\mathrm{MeV}`$ (i.e. chosen to be somewhat larger than the resolution for $`E_\pi ^{}`$). For two choices ($`A`$ and $`B`$) of $`[m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm },\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}]`$, we found the maximum difference $`D_{\mathrm{max}}`$, based on the 1-D Kolmogorov-Smirnov (KS)  procedure, between the two cumulative distribution functions as a function of $`E_\pi ^{}`$ and computed the probability, $`Q_{KS}^{1\mathrm{D}}P(D>D_{\mathrm{max}})`$, that the observed (or more precisely for theoretically computed event rates, the expected) value of $`D_{\mathrm{max}}`$ is inconsistent with the two distributions having come from the same parent distribution rather than from two different distributions. The values of $`Q_{KS}^{1\mathrm{D}}`$ as a function of $`\delta m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }(A)m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }(B)`$ and $`\delta \mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}(A)\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}(B)`$ are given in Fig. 6 for choices of $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}`$ in the ranges $`173<m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }<177\mathrm{GeV}`$ and $`198<\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}<203\mathrm{MeV}`$. Due to the correlation apparent from Eq. (5), which shows that a change in $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}`$ can be compensated by a corresponding change in $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }`$ without greatly affecting the $`E_\pi ^{}`$ distribution, we find that the more direct determination of $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }`$ from the $`M_{\chi \chi }`$ threshold region is crucial, especially for $`L=50\mathrm{fb}^1`$. For $`L=50\mathrm{fb}^1`$ ($`L=1\mathrm{ab}^1`$), a determination of $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }`$ to within 1 GeV (0.2 GeV) will allow a determination of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}`$ to within $`\pm 5\mathrm{MeV}`$ ($`\pm 1\mathrm{MeV}`$) at the $`Q_{KS}^{1\mathrm{D}}=0.3`$ (roughly 1$`\sigma `$ exclusion) level.

A generalized KS test can also be applied to the full two-dimensional distribution in the $`[M_{\chi \chi },E_\pi ^{}]`$ plane. (As above, we employ bin sizes of $`10\mathrm{MeV}`$ for $`E_\pi ^{}`$. For $`M_{\chi \chi }`$, we employ bins of size $`5\mathrm{GeV}`$, again somewhat larger than expected resolution error.) Results for the resulting $`Q_{KS}^{2\mathrm{D}}`$ values as a function of $`\delta m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }`$ and $`\delta \mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}`$ are given in the bottom two windows of Fig. 6. For $`L=50\mathrm{fb}^1`$, we see that the statistics are somewhat marginal for use of the 2D technique, but a $`\pm 5\mathrm{MeV}`$ determination of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}`$ is possible if $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }`$ is known to within 1 GeV. For $`L=1\mathrm{ab}^1`$ the 2D KS test is superior to both the 1D KS test based on binning only in $`E_\pi ^{}`$ and the near-threshold technique. Using only the 2D KS test, we find that both $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}`$ can be measured with good precision. In particular, the $`Q_{KS}^{2\mathrm{D}}>0.3`$ region is confined to $`\delta m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }<1\mathrm{GeV}`$, $`1<\delta \mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}<2\mathrm{MeV}`$. If we combine the 2D KS analysis with the $`M_{\chi \chi }`$ threshold determination of $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }`$, we do even better. In particular, the $`M_{\chi \chi }`$ threshold determination of $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }`$ to within $`0.2\mathrm{GeV}`$ in the $`L=1\mathrm{ab}^1`$ case, implies a reduced range of $`1<\delta \mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}<1\mathrm{MeV}`$ at the $`Q_{KS}^{2\mathrm{D}}=0.3`$ level.

Let us now return to the impact parameter distribution for the $`\pi ^\pm `$ in the final state and the extent to which it can be used to determine $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}`$, $`c\tau `$ and underlying SUSY parameters. For $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}<800\mathrm{MeV}`$, the $`\gamma +`$HIP(s) signature typically has substantial rate. We focus on the distribution of $`\pi ^\pm `$ transverse impact parameters, $`b_T`$, <sup>3</sup><sup>3</sup>3Even though the exact location of the event vertex using the $`\gamma `$ trigger photon may be somewhat uncertain, $`b_T`$ can be reliably measured as the distance in the transverse plane by which the projected $`\widehat{p}_\pi `$ unit vector misses the $`z`$ axis. using the central reference case of $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }=175\mathrm{GeV}`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}=200\mathrm{MeV}`$ and $`c\tau =23.81`$ mm (the nominal value from Table 1, based on Ref. , for the given $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}`$ value). We generate $`e^+e^{}\gamma \stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{}\gamma \pi ^+\pi ^{}/E`$ events at $`\sqrt{s}=600\mathrm{GeV}`$, using the minimal $`p_T^\gamma >10\mathrm{GeV}`$ cut, for given input values of $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}`$ and $`c\tau `$. We decay the $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm `$ according to the chosen $`c\tau `$, accounting for time-dilation for a given $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm `$ velocity on an event-by-event basis. We compute the $`b_T`$ of the final state $`\pi `$’s if they pass through the toy-model vertex detector as specified in , which includes a first (L00-like) layer at 1.6 cm. If $`b_T`$ is $`5\sigma _b`$, where $`\sigma _b`$ is the $`p_T^\pi `$-dependent impact parameter resolution given in , then we enter $`b_T`$ in the appropriate impact parameter distribution bin. (There can be up to two entries per event.) The resulting distribution for $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }=175\mathrm{GeV}`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}=200\mathrm{MeV}`$ and $`c\tau =23.81`$ mm is plotted in Fig. 7. The bulk of the $`b_T`$ distribution lies in the $`b_T<10`$ mm range. This is also the portion of the range for which fluctuations will be under control for bins of reasonable size. We have chosen a bin size of 0.25 mm and, in what follows, we will consider only the bins with $`b_T<10`$ mm. Because of the complicated kinematics (including the trigger photon), the limited size of the vertex detector, and the $`b_T5\sigma _b(p_T)`$ requirement, the shape of the $`b_T`$ distribution is not a simple exponential, and, in particular, is cutoff at low $`b_T`$. Assuming all these effects can be adequately modeled and studied via Monte Carlo, the $`b_T`$ spectrum can provide considerable information regarding the underlying parameters. Indeed, the spectrum has a complicated dependence on $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }`$ (as it affects the amount of $`\pi `$ boost), $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}`$ (as it affects the amount of momentum available for motion transverse to the $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm `$ direction) and $`c\tau `$. Before the $`b_T5\sigma _b(p_T)`$ requirement, the $`b_T`$ distribution shifts to larger $`b_T`$ with increasing $`c\tau `$, decreasing $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}`$ and decreasing $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }`$. However, the $`b_T5\sigma _b(p_T)`$ requirement removes more entries at low $`b_T`$ for small $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}`$ than for large $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}`$, with the result that larger $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}`$ actually has more weight at small $`b_T`$ than smaller $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}`$. We now summarize the ability to use the $`b_T`$ distribution to determine $`c\tau `$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}`$ for our detector model. We reemphasize that use of this technique requires that the acceptance and resolution of the vertex detector and the influence of the precise cuts made all be well understood.

To be quantitative, we have proceeded as follows. We have chosen the central values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}=200\mathrm{MeV}`$, $`c\tau =23.81`$ mm and $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }=175\mathrm{GeV}`$. We then consider various neighboring values and compute the $`\mathrm{\Delta }\chi ^2`$ between the $`b_T`$ distribution for any given set of $`[\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }},c\tau ,m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }]`$ values and the central values using bins of size 0.25 mm in the region $`b_T10`$ mm and choosing the relative normalization that minimizes $`\mathrm{\Delta }\chi ^2`$ (i.e. we rely on shape differences only). The $`b_T`$ distribution is insensitive to changes in $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }`$ within the error of $`\pm 0.2\mathrm{GeV}`$ from the kinematic distribution techniques. Thus, it is most relevant to assess our ability to determine $`c\tau `$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}`$ from the $`b_T`$ distribution. Holding $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }=175\mathrm{GeV}`$ fixed, the $`\mathrm{\Delta }\chi ^2`$ values as a function of $`c\tau 23.81\text{mm}`$ are plotted for $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}=199`$, $`200`$ and $`201\mathrm{MeV}`$ in Fig. 8. For two parameters, the $`1\sigma `$ (68.27% CL) and $`2\sigma `$ (95.45% CL) $`\mathrm{\Delta }\chi ^2`$ values are 2.30 and 4.61. We see that, assuming $`L=1\mathrm{ab}^1`$, a $`\mathrm{\Delta }\chi ^2`$ value below 4.61 can only be achieved for $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}`$ values within $`<1\mathrm{MeV}`$ from $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}=200\mathrm{MeV}`$. Further, it is apparent that $`c\tau `$ will be determined to better than $`\delta c\tau 0.4`$ mm at the $`1\sigma `$ level, corresponding roughly to a $`\pm 2\%`$ measurement of $`c\tau `$.

It is perhaps useful to see what features of the $`b_T`$ distribution allow such precise parameter determination. To this end, we plot in Fig. 9 the differences, $`\mathrm{\Delta }N`$, in the number of entries in a given $`b_T`$ bin between the distributions for the central $`[\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}=200\mathrm{MeV},c\tau =23.81\text{mm}]`$ parameter choice and those for $`[\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}=201\mathrm{MeV},c\tau =24.11\text{mm}]`$ and $`[\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}=199\mathrm{MeV},c\tau =23.41\text{mm}]`$. The $`c\tau `$ choices for these latter two $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}`$ values are those which minimize the $`\mathrm{\Delta }\chi ^2`$, as shown in Fig. 8. The $`\mathrm{\Delta }N`$ values are those obtained after choosing the relative normalizations of the alternative parameter distributions so as to minimize the $`\mathrm{\Delta }\chi ^2`$. Also shown are the errors for a total luminosity of $`L=1\mathrm{ab}^1`$. We observe a systematic variation, especially at low $`b_T`$, of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}=201\mathrm{MeV}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}=199\mathrm{MeV}`$ distributions relative to that for $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}=200\mathrm{MeV}`$. There are a large number of bins, each with $`\mathrm{\Delta }\chi ^2>0.5`$, which combine to give the significant overall $`\mathrm{\Delta }\chi ^2`$ plotted in Fig. 8. (We have checked that these differences between the distributions are not an artifact of the Monte Carlo simulation statistics.) Note for instance the depletion in the smallest $`b_T`$ bin for $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}=201\mathrm{MeV}`$, mentioned earlier, followed rapidly by an excess in the next set of $`b_T`$ bins. We hope that these distributions make it apparent that both can be distinguished at a good level from that for $`[\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}=200\mathrm{MeV},c\tau =23.81\text{mm}]`$ and that the distributions for the two alternative parameter choices can also be clearly distinguished from one another.

In the above analysis, we have implicitly assumed that there are no contaminating background events. After our minimal $`p_T^\gamma >10\mathrm{GeV}`$ tag cut, backgrounds (including the two-photon backgrounds) are unlikely to yield events having significant impact parameters.<sup>4</sup><sup>4</sup>4If $`c\tau `$ is of the order of $`100\mu `$m, then a precise accounting for the $`e^+e^{}e^+e^{}\gamma \tau ^+\tau ^{}\gamma \pi ^+\pi ^{}/E`$ background might be necessary.

A measurement of $`c\tau `$ can be converted to a joint constraint on $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}`$ and the underlying $`M_1,M_2,\mu ,\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ parameters. Consider $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}<700\mathrm{MeV}`$ for which the only modes of any importance are $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm \mathrm{}^\pm \nu \stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm \pi ^\pm \stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$. For the latter, we have

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\pi ^{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{f_\pi ^2G_F^2}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{|\stackrel{}{k}_\pi |}{m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }^2}}\{(O_{11}^L+O_{11}^R)^2[(m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }^2m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}^2)^2m_\pi ^2(m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0})^2]`$ (7)
$`+(O_{11}^LO_{11}^R)^2[(m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }^2m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}^2)^2m_\pi ^2(m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }+m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0})^2]\},`$
where the $`O_{11}^{L,R}`$ describe the $`W^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm \stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ coupling,

$$O_{11}^L=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}N_{14}V_{12}+N_{12}V_{11},O_{11}^R=+\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}N_{13}U_{12}+N_{12}U_{11}.$$
(8)
Current experiment gives $`f_\pi =92.42\pm 0.3\mathrm{MeV}`$, which yields a $`0.7\%`$ error for this width. More important is the parameter dependence of $`O_{11}^{L,R}`$. Naively, these are $`1`$ for the wino-like LSP scenario. However, their dependence on the underlying SUSY parameters $`M_1,M_2,\mu ,\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ is significant. For example, for $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }175\mathrm{GeV}`$, they vary by about $`5\%`$ as $`|\mu |`$ increases in the range $`500\mathrm{GeV}`$ to $`1\mathrm{TeV}`$, with much more dramatic variation as $`|\mu |`$ approaches $`300\mathrm{GeV}`$. At large $`|\mu |>500\mathrm{GeV}`$ the $`O_{11}^{L,R}`$ also vary by about $`(12)\%`$ as $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ ranges from small to large values. At smaller $`|\mu |`$, the $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ variation is much more dramatic. The widths for the $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm \mathrm{}^\pm \nu \stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ ($`\mathrm{}=e,\mu `$) modes are also proportional to combinations of the $`O_{11}^{L,R}`$. If the $`O_{11}^{L,R}`$ are held fixed at the Ref.  central values, Eq. (7) implies that a shift in $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}`$ by $`1\mathrm{MeV}`$ corresponds (in the vicinity of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}200\mathrm{MeV}`$) to a shift in $`c\tau `$ by about 2.5%. However, there are many parameter choices that yield the same $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}`$ with $`O_{11}^{L,R}`$ values that differ by more than this. Given these uncertainties and the $`2\%`$ experimental error for the $`c\tau `$ determination, it will be difficult to constrain $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}`$ more accurately than via the experimentally direct kinematic distribution and $`b_T`$ shape fit techniques. Ultimately, the reverse strategy might prove useful. That is, determine $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}`$ directly from the kinematic distributions and $`b_T`$ distribution shape and $`c\tau `$ from the $`b_T`$ distribution shape and then use these values to constrain the $`M_1,M_2,\mu ,\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ parameters. Note that it would be crucial to include the one-loop corrections to $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}`$ in this process.

5. Determining $`M_\mathrm{𝟐}`$, $`\mu `$ and $`\mathrm{𝐭𝐚𝐧}\beta `$. Let us suppose that we have accurate determinations of $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}`$ using the kinematic distribution techniques described above. We will then wish to extract the underlying SUSY parameters. We study our ability to do so for the specific case of $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }=175\mathrm{GeV}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}=200\mathrm{MeV}`$. This particular case is motivated in the context of ($`\delta _{GS}=0`$ O-II)/AMSB one-loop boundary conditions: (a) $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }<200\mathrm{GeV}`$ is preferred if we are to avoid the extreme fine-tuning for larger $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }`$ implied by the large value ($`10`$) predicted for $`M_3/M_2`$; and (b) $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}<200500\mathrm{MeV}`$ is preferred because of the large value predicted for $`M_1/M_2`$. We again remind the reader that, for such $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}`$, the $`\gamma \stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{}`$ events we employ will be background free since at least one of the final $`\pi `$’s will have an observable HIP.

The SUSY parameters entering into the chargino sector at tree level are $`M_2`$, $`\mu `$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. The measured value of $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }`$ provides only one constraint on these three parameters. The projection of this constraint on the standard $`[\mu ,M_2]`$ plane gives the two regions indicated in Fig. 10 by the outer solid lines. In this paper, we restrict ourselves to $`|\mu |>300\mathrm{GeV}`$, since for lower $`|\mu |`$ the $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^\pm `$ charginos would also be produced and the nature of the analysis and parameter extraction procedures would change dramatically. Typical radiative electroweak symmetry breaking favors large $`|\mu |`$ values.

The goal is to use the $`\gamma \stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{}`$ production cross section and kinematic dependencies to obtain additional constraints on the three parameters. Sensitivity to these parameters arises entirely through the coupling of the $`Z`$ to $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{}`$:

$$\frac{ig}{c_W}\gamma ^\mu \left(O_{11}^LP_L+O_{11}^RP_R\right),\text{with}O_{11}^L=c_W^2+\frac{1}{2}V_{12}^2,O_{11}^R=c_W^2+\frac{1}{2}U_{12}^2,$$
(9)
where $`c_W\mathrm{cos}\theta _W`$ etc., and $`V_{12}`$ and $`U_{12}`$ are elements of the matrices that diagonalize the chargino mass matrix. (In our work, we neglect possible CP-violating phases in the chargino sector.) Their squares can be written in the form $`V_{12}^2=\frac{1}{2}(1\mathrm{cos}2\varphi _L)`$ and $`U_{12}^2=\frac{1}{2}(1\mathrm{cos}2\varphi _R)`$ with

$`\mathrm{cos}2\varphi _L`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{M_2^2\mu ^22m_W^2\mathrm{cos}2\beta }{\sqrt{(M_2^2+\mu ^2+2m_W^2)^24(M_2\mu m_W^2\mathrm{sin}2\beta )^2}}},`$
$`\mathrm{cos}2\varphi _R`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{M_2^2\mu ^2+2m_W^2\mathrm{cos}2\beta }{\sqrt{(M_2^2+\mu ^2+2m_W^2)^24(M_2\mu m_W^2\mathrm{sin}2\beta )^2}}}.`$ (10)
Asymptotic expressions for $`V_{12}`$ and $`U_{12}`$, valid for $`|M_2\pm \mu |m_Z`$ are  (using $`c_\beta \mathrm{cos}\beta `$ etc.):

$$V_{12}=\frac{m_W\sqrt{2}(M_2s_\beta +\mu c_\beta )}{M_2^2\mu ^2},U_{12}=\frac{m_W\sqrt{2}(M_2c_\beta +\mu s_\beta )}{M_2^2\mu ^2}.$$
(11)
Clearly $`V_{12}^2`$ and $`U_{12}^2`$ are small compared to $`c_W^2`$ when $`|\mu |`$ is large. Further, $`U_{12}^2V_{12}^2`$ is typical for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta >2`$ when $`|\mu |M_2`$. In the scenarios we consider, the $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm `$ are indeed highly wino-like and, thus, the problem is to pick out the small $`V_{12}^2`$ and $`U_{12}^2`$ corrections to the dominant $`c_W^2`$ term in the $`Z`$ coupling.

To understand how to proceed, it is useful to first briefly review results for $`e^+e^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{}`$ without a photon tag. Following , we write

$$T(e^+e^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{})=\frac{e^2}{s}\underset{\alpha ,\beta =R,L}{}Q_{\alpha \beta }(s)\left[\overline{v}(e^+)\gamma _\mu P_\alpha u(e^{})\right]\left[\overline{u}(\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{})\gamma ^\mu P_\beta v(\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+)\right]$$
(12)
where

$`Q_{LL}(s)`$ $`=`$ $`1+{\displaystyle \frac{D_Z(s)}{s_W^2c_W^2}}(s_W^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})\left(c_W^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}V_{12}^2\right),`$
$`Q_{LR}(s)`$ $`=`$ $`1+{\displaystyle \frac{D_Z(s)}{s_W^2c_W^2}}(s_W^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})\left(c_W^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}U_{12}^2\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{D_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }}(s,t)}{4s_W^2}}(2U_{12}^2),`$
$`Q_{RL}(s)`$ $`=`$ $`1+{\displaystyle \frac{D_Z(s)}{c_W^2}}\left(c_W^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}V_{12}^2\right),`$
$`Q_{RR}(s)`$ $`=`$ $`1+{\displaystyle \frac{D_Z(s)}{c_W^2}}\left(c_W^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}U_{12}^2\right),`$ (13)
In Eq. (13), $`D_Z(s)=s/(sm_Z^2)`$ and $`D_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }}(s,t)=s/(tm_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }}^2)`$. It is crucial to observe that $`Q_{RL}\frac{1}{2c_W^2}V_{12}^2`$ and $`Q_{RR}\frac{1}{2c_W^2}U_{12}^2`$ at large $`s`$, implying that a right-handed polarized $`e^{}`$ beam will provide a very direct probe of $`V_{12}^2`$ and $`U_{12}^2`$, but at the sacrifice of a very suppressed cross section. Pure $`e_R^{}`$ also has the advantage of eliminating the ‘background’ from the $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }_e`$ exchange diagram. Since this diagram will significantly suppress the unpolarized cross section for $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }_e}<1\mathrm{TeV}`$ (i.e. even for masses for which we will not be able to directly detect the $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }_e`$ and measure its mass), the normalization of the unpolarized cross section cannot be calculated reliably enough to use as an ingredient in extracting the parameters of the model. The importance of the polarized measurements, for which this is not a problem, implies that maximal integrated luminosity will thus be of paramount importance, whether one is looking at an mSUGRA-type SUSY breaking scenario or, as we shall discuss in detail shortly, the degenerate $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}`$ scenario. In terms of the $`Q_{\alpha \beta }`$’s, the $`e^+e^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{}`$ amplitude squared is

$$|𝒜|^2(2\stackrel{}{p}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{}}p_e^{}\stackrel{}{p}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+}p_{e^+}s(Q_{LR}^2+Q_{RL}^2)2\stackrel{}{p}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{}}p_{e^+}\stackrel{}{p}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+}p_e^{}s(Q_{LL}^2+Q_{RR}^2)s^2m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }^2(Q_{LL}Q_{LR}+Q_{RL}Q_{RR}))/2$$
(14)
where $`p_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{}}p_e^{}=p_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+}p_{e^+}E_b^2(1\beta \mathrm{cos}\theta )`$, $`p_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{}}p_{e^+}=p_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+}p_e^{}E_b^2(1+\beta \mathrm{cos}\theta )`$, $`\beta ^2=1m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }^2/E_b^2`$ and $`E_b=\sqrt{s}/2`$. By measuring the magnitude of the cross section, especially for a right-handed polarized $`e^{}`$ beam, and its dependence on $`\mathrm{cos}\theta `$, one can hope to determine the charges $`Q_{\alpha \beta }`$ and, thence, the crucial $`V_{12}^2`$ and $`U_{12}^2`$ matrix entries that probe $`\mu `$, $`M_2`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. The $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm `$ are not directly observed (unless they have a substantial path length, as is possible in this model but not assumed in our analysis), but, by using the accurately measured values of $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}`$ and the measured three-momenta of the $`\pi ^\pm `$, the chargino momenta can be reconstructed up to a two-fold ambiguity. The analogue of this reconstruction for the $`\gamma \stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{}`$ final state is discussed in the Appendix. We note that $`|𝒜|^2`$ and, thence, the integrated cross section for any particular machine energy and set of cuts depend bi-quadratically on $`V_{12}^2`$ and $`U_{12}^2`$.

These same ‘charges’, $`Q_{\alpha \beta }`$, appear in the expression for the $`e^+e^{}\gamma \stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{}`$ amplitude, which contains two initial state radiation diagrams summed over $`Q_{\alpha \beta }(q^2=M_{\chi \chi }^2)`$’s and two final state radiation diagrams summed over $`Q_{\alpha \beta }(q^2=s)`$’s, where $`q`$ is the four-momentum carried by the virtual $`Z`$ or $`\gamma `$. The resulting form for $`|𝒜|^2`$ has a complicated dependence on many kinematical variables. (In the Appendix, we give the structure of $`|𝒜|^2`$ for the dominant initial state radiation diagrams. An expression in a different formalism for the full $`|𝒜|^2`$ is given in .) In the soft-photon limit, $`|𝒜(e^+e^{}\gamma \stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{})|^2`$ is directly proportional to $`|𝒜(e^+e^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{})|^2`$, but this limit does not allow an understanding of all of the features of the $`\gamma \stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{}`$ cross section. However, it remains true that right handed electron polarization produces a very suppressed cross section with high sensitivity to $`V_{12}^2`$ and $`U_{12}^2`$ and no sensitivity to the probably unknown $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }_e`$ mass.

We now outline our precise procedures. For each event, the observed $`\gamma `$ defines a chargino-pair, i.e. $`M_{\chi \chi }`$, center of mass system. In this c.m.s., we have followed the Collins-Soper procedure  of defining a $`z`$-axis by boosting along the $`\gamma `$ direction to the $`M_{\chi \chi }`$ c.m.s., determining the unit vectors $`\widehat{u}_{e^\pm }`$ in the $`e^\pm `$ three momentum directions after the boost and defining $`\widehat{z}=(\widehat{u}_{e^+}\widehat{u}_e^{})/(22\widehat{u}_{e^+}\widehat{u}_e^{})`$. For the vast majority of events, $`\widehat{z}`$ is very closely aligned with the $`z`$ axis in the laboratory frame. We then determine the $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm `$ momenta in this frame (using the observed $`\pi ^\pm `$ momenta and the known values of $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }`$ and $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}=m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}`$) following the procedure of the Appendix and compute the angle, $`\widehat{\theta }`$, of $`\stackrel{}{p}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{}}`$ with respect to $`\widehat{z}`$. ($`\stackrel{}{p}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+}=\stackrel{}{p}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{}}`$ in the $`M_{\chi \chi }`$ c.m.s.) Since there is a two-fold ambiguity in the reconstruction, we bin events twice corresponding to the two possible reconstructed $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm `$ three-momenta.

We have restricted our analysis to the absolute magnitude of the cross section, $`\sigma `$, and the asymmetry

$$A\frac{\sigma (\mathrm{cos}\widehat{\theta }>0)\sigma (\mathrm{cos}\widehat{\theta }<0)}{\sigma (\mathrm{cos}\widehat{\theta }>0)+\sigma (\mathrm{cos}\widehat{\theta }<0)}$$
(15)
where the cross sections are obtained by integrating over all of phase space consistent with the specified sign of of $`\mathrm{cos}\widehat{\theta }`$ and our basic $`p_T^\gamma >10\mathrm{GeV}`$ and $`10^{}<\theta _\gamma <170^{}`$ photon-tag cuts. We illustrate the dependence of $`\sigma `$ and $`A`$ on $`\mu `$ for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =2`$ and $`50`$ in Fig. 11. ($`M_2`$ is determined as a function of $`\mu `$ at a given $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ by the fixed value of $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }=175\mathrm{GeV}`$ as shown in Fig. 10.) Results are given for unpolarized beams and for the case of a purely right-handed polarized electron beam. For $`L=1\mathrm{ab}^1`$, typical $`1\sigma `$ errors for $`\sigma `$ and $`A`$ are of order $`0.5\%`$ and $`1\%`$ ($`15\%`$ and $`50\%`$) for the unpolarized (polarized) cases, respectively. Relative to the above-quoted typical errors, there is significant variation with respect to $`\mu `$ of both $`\sigma `$ and $`A`$, but different $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ values will be difficult to separate since a large change in $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ can be compensated by a small shift in $`\mu `$ that will leave the four observables more or less unchanged. The variations with $`\mu `$ are especially dramatic for $`\sigma _{\mathrm{polarized}}`$ and $`A_{\mathrm{polarized}}`$, but the large statistical errors even for $`L=1\mathrm{ab}^1`$ render these variations no more (or less) useful than those for the corresponding observables in the unpolarized beam case. Since the polarized and unpolarized cross sections and asymmetries contain different weightings of $`U_{12}^2`$ and $`V_{12}^2`$, accumulating significant luminosity in both modes is useful for maximizing our ability to determine $`U_{12}^2`$ and $`V_{12}^2`$.

To simplify our analysis, we scanned a large selection of $`\mu `$ values in the ranges $`[1000\mathrm{GeV},300\mathrm{GeV}]`$ and $`[300\mathrm{GeV},1000\mathrm{GeV}]`$ at a series of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ values ($`\mathrm{tan}\beta =2,5,10,20,35,50`$)<sup>5</sup><sup>5</sup>5The value of $`M_2`$ at each point is determined by $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }`$. and fit the results for 1) $`\sigma _U^+\sigma _{\mathrm{unpolarized}}(\mathrm{cos}\widehat{\theta }>0)`$, 2) $`\sigma _U^{}\sigma _{\mathrm{unpolarized}}(\mathrm{cos}\widehat{\theta }<0)`$, 3) $`\sigma _P^+\sigma _{\mathrm{polarized}}(\mathrm{cos}\widehat{\theta }>0)`$ and 4) $`\sigma _P^{}\sigma _{\mathrm{polarized}}(\mathrm{cos}\widehat{\theta }<0)`$ to the bi-quadratic form (required by the amplitude structure)

$$\sigma _i=a+bU_{12}^2+cV_{12}^2+d(U_{12}^2)^2+e(V_{12}^2)^2+fU_{12}^2V_{12}^2.$$
(16)
Results for $`af`$ for $`\sqrt{s}=600\mathrm{GeV}`$, $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }=175\mathrm{GeV}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}=200\mathrm{MeV}`$ (the latter possibly affecting reconstruction of the angle of the chargino) are given in Table 6. These fits give the correct cross section with an accuracy of better than 0.7% for all the sampled points. For $`\sigma _P^+`$ and $`\sigma _P^{}`$, note the very small constant terms and the much larger quartic term coefficients ($`d,e,f`$). As already discussed, this is to be expected and follows from the wino-like nature of the $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm `$.

We now employ these cross section fits to study the accuracy with which we can expect to determine $`M_2`$, $`\mu `$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. To illustrate, we give in Fig. 12, for $`\sqrt{s}=600\mathrm{GeV}`$, contours of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\chi ^2=2.30`$ (68% CL for two independent parameters) and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\chi ^2=13`$ (99% CL), using reference models of $`[\mathrm{tan}\beta ,\mu ]=[5,375\mathrm{GeV}]`$ and $`[5,600\mathrm{GeV}]`$. For this figure, we employ the following set of observables: the forward/backward asymmetry for unpolarized beams; the absolute cross section for polarized beams; and the forward/backward asymmetry for polarized beams.<sup>6</sup><sup>6</sup>6We compute the error in $`A\frac{N^+N^{}}{N}`$ as $`\delta A=\sqrt{\frac{1A^2}{N}}`$, where $`N=N^++N^{}`$. As explained later, the absolute unpolarized cross section is likely to have systematic theoretical uncertainties that are much larger than the statistical errors, and is not employed. We observe that, at the 68% CL, $`M_2`$ and $`|\mu |`$ can be determined to $`8\%`$ and $`16\%`$, respectively, for $`|\mu |400\mathrm{GeV}`$ and to $`8\%`$ and $`40\%`$, respectively, for $`|\mu |600\mathrm{GeV}`$; $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ is essentially undetermined. The 68% CL limits on $`\mu `$ and $`M_2`$ for a wider selection of input $`\mu `$ values and input $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ values of 5 and 20 are shown in Fig. 13. Results for other $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ values are quite similar. Unless $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ has been determined by other data, we must combine all such graphs and take the outer errors. Clearly, at the highest $`|\mu |`$ values, errors for the $`\mu `$ and $`M_2`$ determinations become quite large, and significant uncertainty in $`M_2`$ develops as $`\mu `$ falls below $`300\mathrm{GeV}`$.

The unpolarized cross section can provide useful constraints on SUSY parameters only if systematic errors are substantially smaller than the typical 5%-10% variation of $`\sigma _{\mathrm{unpolarized}}`$ as a function of parameters; see Fig. 11. Systematic experimental errors at an electron collider should be quite small, probably even smaller than the $`0.5\%`$ statistical errors. However, theoretical uncertainties in $`\sigma _{\mathrm{unpolarized}}`$ must also be well below the 5%-10% level. Even if we assume that the $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }_e`$ contribution can be absolutely normalized (for example, using $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }_e`$ observations from the LHC) higher-order electroweak corrections to the $`e^+e^{}\gamma \stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{}`$ cross section will need to be computed. In addition, one will be implicitly assuming that the supersymmetric $`Z\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{}`$ coupling strength is indeed precisely that predicted by assuming strict supersymmetry for tree-level couplings. This will be difficult to independently check. Finally, to employ the absolute normalization of the unpolarized cross section one would need to rely on the modeling employed for computing the $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm \pi ^\pm \stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ branching ratio at the $`<5\%`$ level. The computation for the $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm \mathrm{}^\pm \nu \stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm \pi ^\pm \stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ widths was reviewed in the previous section. While some of the theoretical uncertainties in the widths cancel when computing the branching ratios, the latter will still have dependence on the $`M_1,M_2,\mu ,\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ parameters at the $`(25)\%`$ level for $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}<700\mathrm{MeV}`$ (much larger as the multi-pion decay modes of the $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm `$ enter at somewhat larger $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}`$). For this paper, we have assumed that the absolute normalization of the unpolarized absolute cross section is not computable to the 5% level, and have determined the $`\mathrm{\Delta }\chi ^2`$ values using only $`A_{\mathrm{unpolarized}}`$, $`\sigma _{\mathrm{polarized}}`$ and $`A_{\mathrm{polarized}}`$. If we were able to reliably use $`\sigma _{\mathrm{unpolarized}}`$, the resulting plots analogous to Fig. 12 would show a moderate increase in our ability to determine $`M_2`$ and $`\mu `$, but $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ would remain essentially undetermined.

We have also examined whether it is useful to include data from several $`\sqrt{s}`$ choices for determining $`\mu ,M_2,\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. We found that splitting the total luminosity between $`\sqrt{s}=450\mathrm{GeV}`$ and $`600\mathrm{GeV}`$ actually causes a mild decrease in our ability to determine the parameters (assuming no large variation of instantaneous luminosity with $`\sqrt{s}`$). This remains true even if we run at both energies and use as an observable the ratio $`\sigma _{\mathrm{unpolarized}}(\sqrt{s}=450\mathrm{GeV})/\sigma _{\mathrm{unpolarized}}(\sqrt{s}=600\mathrm{GeV})`$ (which would be less affected by systematic theoretical uncertainties as compared to the individual absolute $`\sigma _{\mathrm{unpolarized}}`$ normalizations). If we are conservative and rely only on polarized data ($`L=2\mathrm{ab}^1`$ at $`\sqrt{s}=600\mathrm{GeV}`$), the $`M_2`$ and $`\mu `$ accuracies are almost the same as shown in Fig. 12.

Additional information can, in principal, be gleaned from the $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm \stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\pi ^\pm `$ decays. However, this is quite difficult in practice. The issue is whether one can use correlations involving the pions in the final state. Correlations between the pions themselves or between the pions and the reconstructed momenta for the $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm `$ will be present to the extent that information regarding the direction of the spins $`s^\pm `$ of the decaying $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm `$ influences the $`\pi ^\pm `$. Consider $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{}`$ decay. For a given $`s^{}`$ choice, one finds

$$|(\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{}\pi ^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0)|^21+\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}p_\pi ^{}s^{}}{m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }}$$
(17)
after dropping terms higher order in the small ratios $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}/m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }`$ and $`p_\pi ^{}/m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }`$. Since $`|\stackrel{}{p}_\pi ^{}|`$ is of order $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}`$, the dependence on $`p_\pi ^{}s^{}`$ is obscured by the much larger leading term. For this reason, we have not attempted to employ these correlations.

6. Discussion and Conclusions. We have considered the detection at a linear $`e^+e^{}`$ collider of the lightest chargino in a model in which it is closely degenerate with a wino-like neutralino. The phenomenology depends critically upon the mass splitting $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}`$. For $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}<m_\pi `$, one will observe long-lived heavily ionizing $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm `$ tracks. For $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}>2\mathrm{GeV}`$, the usual mSUGRA jets + missing energy signal will be dominant. Both can be detected for $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }`$ essentially all the way up to the threshold at $`\sqrt{s}/2`$ assuming modest integrated luminosity of $`L=50\mathrm{fb}^1`$. For $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }`$ not near threshold, much less luminosity would be adequate. For the range $`200\mathrm{MeV}<\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}<1\mathrm{GeV}`$, favored in typical models, the $`\gamma +\pi ^+\pi ^{}+/E`$ final state will be the crucial discovery mode. Then, so long as soft $`>200\mathrm{MeV}`$ pions are visible in the detector,<sup>7</sup><sup>7</sup>7If the soft pions are not visible, $`\gamma \stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{}`$ production yields a $`\gamma +/E`$ final state with substantial background from $`\gamma +Z(\nu \overline{\nu })`$, and discovery reach will be more limited and the error for $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }`$, summarized shortly, much larger; $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}`$ will not be measurable. discovery in the $`\gamma +\pi ^+\pi ^{}+/E`$ mode will be possible up to $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }(\sqrt{s}p_T^\gamma )/2`$ for $`L=50\mathrm{fb}^1`$. In particular, we argued that simple cuts requiring $`p_T^\gamma >10\mathrm{GeV}`$, only two soft/central pions, large (mainly invisible) mass recoiling opposite the trigger $`\gamma `$, and no small angle ($`\theta >1^{}`$) $`e^{}`$ or $`e^+`$ (as would be present for the most obvious two-photon backgrounds) have an excellent chance of suppressing backgrounds to a negligible level. An overview of the discovery modes relevant as a function of location in the full $`[m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm },\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}]`$ parameter space appeared in Fig. 2.

We then turned to a more detailed study of scenarios that would arise in the $`\delta _{GS}=0`$ O-II string model and in the AMSB model. These models predict the same low-energy ratios for the gaugino masses, $`M_2:M_1:M_30.3:1:3`$ (tree-level), and generally require substantial $`|\mu |`$ for automatic electroweak symmetry breaking. In these models, the smallness of $`M_2`$ compared to the other mass parameters implies that $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}`$ will almost certainly lie in the $`m_\pi <\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}<800\mathrm{MeV}`$ range (after including radiative corrections) for which the only appropriate mode for discovery and study is $`e^+e^{}\gamma \stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{}\gamma \pi ^+\pi ^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$. The large ratio of $`M_3/M_2`$ implies that fine tuning for these models will be quite extreme unless the chargino mass lies in the $`<200\mathrm{GeV}`$ range. For $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}`$ in these ranges we studied the accuracy with which $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}`$ can be measured using kinematic distributions of the pions in the final state. For the particularly typical choices of $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }=175\mathrm{GeV}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}=200\mathrm{MeV}`$, we studied the accuracy with which the $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}`$ and $`c\tau `$ could be determined from the transverse impact parameter distribution for the soft pion tracks. Finally, for $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }=175\mathrm{GeV}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}=200\mathrm{MeV}`$, we determined the precision with which the fundamental underlying SUSY parameters $`M_2`$, $`\mu `$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ could be determined from cross sections and asymmetries. We summarize the results of these studies below.

The errors estimated for $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}`$ assume that the electron sneutrino is not so light as to substantially suppress the unpolarized $`\gamma \stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{}`$ cross section. Error estimates for $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}`$ obtained by studying kinematic distributions of the final pion decay products were given for two procedures, assuming $`L=1\mathrm{ab}^1`$ of accumulated data. The first employs events in which the $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{}`$ invariant mass is very close to $`2m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }`$ (i.e. events with very large $`p_T^\gamma `$). After accumulating $`L=1\mathrm{ab}^1`$ with unpolarized beams, we find that the location of the threshold for the recoil mass opposite the $`\gamma `$ trigger (i.e. the invariant mass of the $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{}`$ pair system), denoted $`M_{\chi \chi }`$, gives a very accurate measurement of $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }`$ (typically $`<0.5\%`$ error), and that the average soft $`\pi `$ energy, $`E_\pi ^{}`$, in the $`M_{\chi \chi }`$ center of mass for $`M_{\chi \chi }`$ near threshold gives a very accurate measurement of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}`$ (typically $`1\%`$). These procedures for detecting $`\gamma \stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{}`$ and measuring $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}`$ using only events with the highest photon energies, such that $`M_{\chi \chi }2m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }`$, guarantee that these goals can be achieved even if there is significant background (contrary to our expectation) at lower $`E_\gamma `$ and $`p_T^\gamma `$ for the photon tag. Only if $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }`$ is close to $`\sqrt{s}/2`$ would we have to rely on the background being small for $`p_T^\gamma `$ as small as 10 GeV. However, if we are correct that this background remains small for such a low $`p_T^\gamma `$ for the trigger, slightly better accuracies for $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}`$ can be achieved (for all, but especially moderate, $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }`$ values) by employing the full $`[E_\pi ^{},M_{\chi \chi }]`$ distribution of the events and applying statistical tests for discriminating between the distributions obtained for different $`[m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm },\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}]`$ choices. We emphasize that the low $`p_T^\gamma `$ events will certainly be background free if $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}<600\mathrm{MeV}`$ (as typical) since in almost all events one or both of the final $`\pi `$’s will have an observable high impact parameter (HIP).

For the typical case of $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }=175\mathrm{GeV}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}=200\mathrm{MeV}`$ (for which essentially all events have a HIP $`\pi `$ and, hence, backgrounds are certain to be small even when including all events with $`p_T^\gamma >10\mathrm{GeV}`$), we found that for $`L=1\mathrm{ab}^1`$ the value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}`$ can be determined to better than 1 MeV from the transverse impact parameter distribution of the final pions. Simultaneously, $`c\tau `$ for the $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm \pi ^\pm \stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ decay can be determined to roughly 2%. (The impact distribution is less sensitive to $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }`$, which is best determined from the kinematic distributions.)

Finally, the underlying parameters $`M_2`$ and $`\mu `$ of supersymmetry can be most reliably determined from the magnitude of the $`\gamma \stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{}`$ right-handed polarized $`e^{}`$ beam cross section and the polarized beam and unpolarized beam angular asymmetries. As part of the procedure, one inputs the precise determination of $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }`$ obtained by employing the threshold or statistical techniques. For the typical $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }=175\mathrm{GeV}`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}=200\mathrm{MeV}`$ case, we determined the statistical errors for these quantities assuming $`L=1\mathrm{ab}^1`$ each in unpolarized and polarized running. We then computed the $`\mathrm{\Delta }\chi ^2`$ for discriminating between a given input model choice of $`M_2,\mu ,\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ (constrained to give the value of $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }=175\mathrm{GeV}`$, presumed to already be well-measured) and other possible choices consistent with the same $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }`$ value.<sup>8</sup><sup>8</sup>8Values of $`|\mu |<300\mathrm{GeV}`$ were not considered; for such values, $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^\pm `$ production becomes possible and the strategy for determining SUSY parameters would change substantially. We found the best parameter accuracies by accumulating luminosity only at the highest energy ($`\sqrt{s}=600\mathrm{GeV}`$ in our study), distributed roughly equally between unpolarized beam running and pure $`e_R^{}`$ running. We found $`1\sigma `$ (68% CL) accuracies for $`M_2`$ and $`|\mu |`$ of $`\pm 8\%`$ and $`\pm 16\%`$, respectively, for $`|\mu |400\mathrm{GeV}`$, and $`\pm 8\%`$ and $`\pm 40\%`$, respectively, for $`|\mu |600\mathrm{GeV}`$. Errors for both $`M_2`$ and $`|\mu |`$ become uselessly large by $`|\mu |900\mathrm{GeV}`$. The sign of $`\mu `$ is not determined at the $`1\sigma `$ level. However, the error for $`M_2`$ decreases to about $`5\%`$ for $`350\mathrm{GeV}<|\mu |<750\mathrm{GeV}`$ if the sign of $`\mu `$ is known from other input. Finally, $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ is essentially undetermined at the $`1\sigma `$ level. We have noted that for the small values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}`$ natural in the wino LSP scenarios, correlations involving the final soft $`\pi `$’s are negligible and do not aid in parameter determination.

In the above, we did not employ the absolute normalization of the unpolarized cross section since it is sensitive to many theoretical uncertainties at the $`(510)\%`$ level, a level of uncertainty that is larger than the amount of variation with respect to the parameters of interest. One source of uncertainty is the unknown $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }_e`$ mass. By measuring the unpolarized $`\gamma \stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{}`$ cross section at two energies, $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }_e}`$ could be extracted with an accuracy determined by the other theoretical uncertainties in $`\sigma _{\mathrm{unpolarized}}`$. However, if we expend luminosity for this purpose, the errors for the $`M_2`$ and $`\mu `$ determinations would increase.

Of course, additional SUSY signals will emerge if some of the squarks, sleptons and/or sneutrinos are light enough (but still heavier than the $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm `$) that their production rates are substantial. In particular, leptonic signals from the decays \[e.g. $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}_L^\pm \mathrm{}^\pm \stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ or $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }_{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{}^\pm \stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{}`$ \] would be present. Also, depending upon $`\sqrt{s}`$ and the mass splitting between the wino-like $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ and the bino-like $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0`$ (which is large in many models), the suppressed $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0`$ production channel might be detectable. Or, the radiative electroweak symmetry breaking scenario chosen by nature could be sufficiently unconventional that $`|\mu |`$ is small enough for production of charged and neutral higgsino-like states to be detectable. We have chosen to emphasize the case (which is most likely in typical models) that none of these additional signals are present until $`\sqrt{s}`$ substantially above $`600\mathrm{GeV}`$ is available.

It is, of course, likely that the LHC will have been operating for a number of years prior to the contruction of the next $`e^+e^{}`$ collider. Because of the large available center of mass energy, it is probable that some of the heavier states mentioned above will be produced. However, it is not completely clear that they will be observed. The role of the LHC for the type of model being considered will be discussed in a later paper.

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the Department of Energy and by the Davis Institute for High Energy Physics. JFG would like to acknowledge the hospitality of the Aspen Center for Physics during a portion of this work.

7. Appendix

In this Appendix we present some details regarding the reconstruction of the momenta of all the particles for the process $`e^+e^{}\gamma \stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{}\gamma \pi ^+\overline{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}\pi ^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$. (We use the notation $`\overline{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}`$ to distinguish the $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ associated with the $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+`$ decay; the $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ is, of course, its own antiparticle.) We also give the form of the $`\gamma \stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{}`$ cross section resulting from the often dominant terms (a gauge invariant subset) in which the $`\gamma `$ is radiated only from an initial $`e^+`$ or $`e^{}`$.

The reconstruction of the final state momenta is performed in analogy with the techniques developed for $`e^+e^{}W^+W^{}\mathrm{}^+\nu \mathrm{}^{}\overline{\nu }`$ . We begin by first using the observed $`\gamma `$ four momentum and the known $`e^+`$ and $`e^{}`$ beam momenta to boost to the $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{}`$ center of mass. The momenta in the expressions below are those defined in this frame. (We drop the  superscripts employed in the main text.) In the $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{}`$ c.m.s., the 6 components of the observed $`\pi ^+`$ and $`\pi ^{}`$ three momenta, combined with the known $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}`$ and $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }`$ masses, can be used to solve for the three momenta of the $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ and $`\overline{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}`$ up to a two-fold ambiguity indicated by the $`\pm d`$ term below:

$$\stackrel{}{p}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}=a\stackrel{}{p}_\pi ^{}+b\stackrel{}{p}_{\pi ^+}\pm d(\stackrel{}{p}_\pi ^{}\times \stackrel{}{p}_{\pi ^+}),\stackrel{}{p}_{\overline{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}}=(\stackrel{}{p}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}+\stackrel{}{p}_{\pi ^+}+\stackrel{}{p}_\pi ^{}),$$
(18)
where $`a`$, $`b`$ and $`d`$ are given by:<sup>9</sup><sup>9</sup>9We correct some errors in the formulae of Ref. .

$`a`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m|\stackrel{}{p}_{\pi ^+}|^2n\stackrel{}{p}_\pi ^{}\stackrel{}{p}_{\pi ^+}}{|\stackrel{}{p}_\pi ^{}\times \stackrel{}{p}_{\pi ^+}|^2}},b={\displaystyle \frac{m\stackrel{}{p}_\pi ^{}\stackrel{}{p}_{\pi ^+}+n|\stackrel{}{p}_\pi ^{}|^2}{|\stackrel{}{p}_\pi ^{}\times \stackrel{}{p}_{\pi ^+}|^2}},`$
$`d^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(E_bE_\pi ^{})^2m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}^2a^2|\stackrel{}{p}_\pi ^{}|^2b^2|\stackrel{}{p}_{\pi ^+}|^22ab\stackrel{}{p}_\pi ^{}\stackrel{}{p}_{\pi ^+}}{|\stackrel{}{p}_\pi ^{}\times \stackrel{}{p}_{\pi ^+}|^2}},`$ (19)
where

$$m\frac{1}{2}\left(m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }^2m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}^22E_bE_\pi ^{}+E_\pi ^{}^2+|\stackrel{}{p}_\pi ^{}|^2\right),n\frac{1}{2}\left(m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }^2m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}^22E_bE_{\pi ^+}2\stackrel{}{p}_\pi ^{}\stackrel{}{p}_{\pi ^+}\right).$$
(20)
Using these formulae, we can, up to the two-fold ambiguity, reconstruct the $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{}`$ momenta. The construction only fails if $`\stackrel{}{p}_\pi ^{}\times \stackrel{}{p}_{\pi ^+}=0`$ or if $`d^2<0`$ (the latter being possible as a result of momentum smearing in the detector). If $`d^2<0`$, setting $`d=0`$ usually gives a fairly accurate result for $`\stackrel{}{p}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{p}_{\overline{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}}`$. It is perhaps useful to keep in mind approximations that follow from the fact that $`E_{\pi ^+},E_\pi ^{},|\stackrel{}{p}_{\pi ^+}|,|\stackrel{}{p}_\pi ^{}|\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}`$ and $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }^2m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}^22m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}`$. For small $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}/m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}`$ we have

$$m=E_bE_\pi ^{}m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }},n=E_bE_{\pi ^+}+m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }},d=\frac{\sqrt{E_b^2m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}^2}}{|\stackrel{}{p}_\pi ^{}\times \stackrel{}{p}_{\pi ^+}|}.$$
(21)
Further, $`\stackrel{}{p}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+}=\stackrel{}{p}_{\overline{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}}+\stackrel{}{p}_\pi ^{}\stackrel{}{p}_{\overline{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{p}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{}}=\stackrel{}{p}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}+\stackrel{}{p}_{\pi ^+}\stackrel{}{p}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}`$. Finally, we note that if $`E_b>m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}/m_\pi `$, the $`\pi `$ directions are guaranteed to have positive dot product with the directions of their parent charginos.

The utility of this reconstruction follows from an understanding of how the matrix element squared depends upon the final state momenta. As described in the text, correlations between the helicity of the $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm `$ and the three-momentum of the decay pion are of order $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}/m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }`$. Thus, to a very good approximation the distribution of the decay pion in the $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm `$ rest frame is completely independent of the $`\theta ^{},\varphi ^{}`$ rest frame decay angles for any fixed helicity of the $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm `$. The final state only contains information encoded in the decay distributions of the $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+,\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{}`$. Thus, aside from small terms of order $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}/m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }`$, the decay pions do not have any correlations other than those kinematically induced by the boosts in the directions of their parent charginos and the form of the cross section as a function of $`\theta `$, the angle of the $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{}`$ in the $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+`$-$`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{}`$ center-of-mass.

For the case of a photon radiated from the initial $`e^+`$ or $`e^{}`$, the form of the invariant matrix element squared for $`e^+e^{}\gamma \stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{}`$ is $`|𝒜|^2=\left(2p_{e^+}p_\gamma p_e^{}p_\gamma \right)^1||^2`$ with

$`||^2`$ $``$ $`2\stackrel{}{p}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{}}p_e^{}\stackrel{}{p}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+}p_e^{}p_{e^+}p_\gamma (Q_{LL}^2+Q_{LR}^2+Q_{RL}^2+Q_{RR}^2)`$
$`2\stackrel{}{p}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{}}p_e^{}\stackrel{}{p}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+}p_{e^+}s(Q_{LR}^2+Q_{RL}^2)`$
$`+2\stackrel{}{p}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{}}p_e^{}\stackrel{}{p}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+}p_{e^+}(p_e^{}p_\gamma Q_{LR}^2+p_e^{}p_\gamma Q_{RL}^2+p_{e^+}p_\gamma Q_{LR}^2+p_{e^+}p_\gamma Q_{RL}^2)`$
$`+\stackrel{}{p}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{}}p_e^{}s\stackrel{}{p}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+}p_\gamma (Q_{LR}^2+Q_{RL}^2)`$
$`2\stackrel{}{p}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{}}p_e^{}\stackrel{}{p}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+}p_\gamma p_e^{}p_\gamma (Q_{LR}^2+Q_{RL}^2)`$
$`2\stackrel{}{p}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{}}p_{e^+}\stackrel{}{p}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+}p_e^{}s(Q_{LL}^2+Q_{RR}^2)`$
$`+2\stackrel{}{p}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{}}p_{e^+}\stackrel{}{p}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+}p_e^{}(p_e^{}p_\gamma Q_{LL}^2+p_e^{}p_\gamma Q_{RR}^2+p_{e^+}p_\gamma Q_{LL}^2+p_{e^+}p_\gamma Q_{RR}^2)`$
$`2\stackrel{}{p}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{}}p_{e^+}\stackrel{}{p}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+}p_{e^+}p_e^{}p_\gamma (Q_{LL}^2+Q_{LR}^2+Q_{RL}^2+Q_{RR}^2)`$
$`+\stackrel{}{p}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{}}p_{e^+}s\stackrel{}{p}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+}p_\gamma (Q_{LL}^2+Q_{RR}^2)`$
$`2\stackrel{}{p}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{}}p_{e^+}\stackrel{}{p}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+}p_\gamma p_{e^+}p_\gamma (Q_{LL}^2+Q_{RR}^2)`$
$`+\stackrel{}{p}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+}p_e^{}s\stackrel{}{p}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{}}p_\gamma (Q_{LL}^2+Q_{RR}^2)`$
$`2\stackrel{}{p}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+}p_e^{}\stackrel{}{p}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{}}p_\gamma p_e^{}p_\gamma (Q_{LL}^2+Q_{RR}^2)`$
$`+\stackrel{}{p}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+}p_{e^+}s\stackrel{}{p}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{}}p_\gamma (Q_{LR}^2+Q_{RL}^2)`$
$`2\stackrel{}{p}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+}p_{e^+}\stackrel{}{p}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{}}p_\gamma p_{e^+}p_\gamma (Q_{LR}^2+Q_{RL}^2)`$
$`s^2m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }^2(Q_{LL}Q_{LR}+Q_{RL}Q_{RR})`$
$`+2sm_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }^2(p_e^{}p_\gamma Q_{LL}Q_{LR}+p_e^{}p_\gamma Q_{RL}Q_{RR}+p_{e^+}p_\gamma Q_{LL}Q_{LR}+p_{e^+}p_\gamma Q_{RL}Q_{RR})`$
$`2m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }^2((p_e^{}p_\gamma )^2Q_{LL}Q_{LR}+(p_e^{}p_\gamma )^2Q_{RL}Q_{RR}+(p_{e^+}p_\gamma )^2Q_{LL}Q_{LR}+(p_{e^+}p_\gamma )^2Q_{RL}Q_{RR}).`$ (22)
In the above, all $`Q_{\alpha \beta }`$’s are evaluated at $`M_{\chi \chi }^2`$. Note that $`|𝒜|^2`$ reduces to Eq. (14) in the $`p_\gamma 0`$ limit after removing the photon radiation pole factors $`(p_{e^+}p_\gamma )(p_e^{}p_\gamma )`$. This answer is gauge invariant on its own. Contributions to $`|𝒜|^2`$ coming from diagrams in which the photon is radiated from one of the final $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm `$ lines are often suppressed relative to the initial state radiation terms given above. All diagrams were included in our numerical calculations. In practice, there are delicate cancellations between large terms in Eq. (22), and also in the full expression for $`|𝒜|^2`$ obtained after including all diagrams, that can lead to numerical inaccuracies. Thus, it is actually best to sum all the diagrams numerically at the matrix element level and then square. This is the approach used in our numerical simulations.