format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The neutralinos are probably among the lightest supersymmetric particles . In fact, if R-parity is conserved, the lightest neutralino is one of the most promising candidates for the Dark Matter of the Universe .

On the other hand, the description of neutralinos is quite complicated because, even in the minimal supersymmetric model (MSSM), it involves the diagonalization of a $`4\times 4`$ matrix, which determines the neutralino masses and mixings, and thereby the various couplings . It is also quite possible that the true theory actually contains more than four neutralinos , which will further complicate the situation. Such thoughts motivate the idea to look for a formalism which will simplify the neutralino problem and, if possible, be easy to generalize to any neutralino number.

In case the Higgs mixing parameter $`\mu `$ and the soft breaking ones $`M_1`$ and $`M_2`$ are all real, the neutralino mass-matrix is real and symmetric, implying that the neutralino and chargino sectors are both CP conserving. The diagonalization of the real neutralino mass matrix in MSSM has been analytically studied since a long time .

Nevertheless in , inspired by Jarlskog’s treatment of the CKM matrix , we have added to the previous descriptions a new one, which describes each physical neutralino in terms of its projector matrix and its CP eigensign $`\eta _j=\pm 1`$. Physically, the projector matrix of a mass-eigenstate neutralino is identified with its density matrix in the space of the neutral gaugino and higgsino fields. If the neutralinos were Dirac particles, physical observables would only depend on these projectors; so that an explicit dependence on the CP eigensigns, signals contributions generated by the Majorana nature of the neutralinos . Analytic expressions for these CP eigensigns and projector matrices, as well as the physical masses, in terms of the real SUSY parameters $`M_1`$, $`\mu `$ and $`M_2`$ were given in .

If $`M_1`$ and $`\mu `$ are complex, with non-trivial phases $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\mu `$ respectively, then CP is violated in the neutralino and chargino sectors111$`M_2`$ is chosen by convention to be real and positive. Recent analyses of the electric dipole moments suggest that $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\mu `$ is probably very close to zero or $`\pi `$, provided the sfermions of the first two generations are not too heavy .. Diagonalizing the neutralino mass matrix is then more complicated; but nevertheless, explicit analytic solutions have already been constructed in .

The first purpose of the present work is to extend the neutralino projector formalism of , to the case of complex SUSY parameters. The formalism is applied to the MSSM case containing four neutralinos with complex (or real) couplings; but it can be straightforwardly extended to any neutralino number.

For the description of each physical neutralino we need, in addition to its projector matrix, one pseudo-projector matrix and one CP eigenphase. As in the real parameter case, if the neutralinos were Dirac particles, only the projectors would be needed. It is their Majorana nature that necessitates the introduction of the pseudo-projectors and CP-eigenphases. This is done in Section 2; while in Appendix A we present (for completeness) the formulae for calculating the neutralino physical masses in terms of the MSSM parameters at the tree level.

In Section 3 we introduce the notion of the ”reduced projector elements” (RPE), which in MSSM constitute 12 complex numbers; three for each physical neutralino. The 12 RPE are not independent though; since the three RPE referring to just one physical neutralino, are sufficient to determine all the other ones. All projector, RPE and pseudo-projector matrix elements, as well as the CP-eigenphases, are expressed in terms of the neutralino mass matrix, in a way which can be immediately generalized to any neutralino number. Explicit expressions for the RPE in terms of the MSSM parameters at tree level, are also given. In the same Section 3, a new form of the necessary and sufficient condition for CP conservation in the neutralino-chargino sector, is also presented.

The RPE and the neutralino CP eigenphases offer an elegant way to describe the neutralino physical observables. As an example, the cross section for $`e^{}e^+\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0`$ with longitudinally polarized beams, appears in Section 4.

For the physical applications anticipated immediately after the first charginos and/or neutralinos will be discovered, it is actually not sufficient to simply express their masses and mixings in terms of the SUSY parameters at the electroweak scale. Inverse relations should also be provided, expressing the SUSY parameters in terms of the partial ino information which might become available. These relations depend of course on scenarios about such discoveries; and since the input information will be rather lacking, they will inevitably involve ambiguities, whose lifting calls for appropriate ideas.

Work in this spirit, has already appeared in . Concerning particularly the neutralino sector, very detail work has been presented in  for the CP-conserving case, and in  for the CP-violating one. One kind of scenarios considered in these references, was based on the idea that, when the neutralinos will start being studied, the chargino parameters $`M_2`$, $`|\mu |`$, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\mu `$, and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ will be already known from $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^\pm `$ production experiments and studies of $`e^{}e^+\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^+`$ . Under these conditions, the only (generally complex) parameter to be determined from the neutralino studies is $`M_1`$. Explicit formulae for determining $`M_1`$, and suggestions on the neutralino information needed to lift the inherent ambiguities, have appeared in .

Another kind of scenarios was based on the idea that the chargino sector will not be fully known by the time the first neutralinos will start being studied. As an example, it was assumed that only the lightest chargino and its mixing angles are determined from Linear Collider (LC), together with the masses of one or two of the lightest neutralinos. Then, relations for determining the generally complex $`M_1`$ and $`\mu `$ parameters were suggested, in which information from $`e^{}e^+\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0`$ was used .

The second aim of this paper is to present the formalism for extracting the SUSY parameters, in the context of scenarios concerning the neutralino and chargino measurements. We essentially study the same scenarios as in . This is done in Section 5. In all cases, disentangled expressions are given, determining the relevant SUSY parameters from the input data, and many numerical examples are presented. They are based on a recently proposed set of benchmark SUGRA models ; to which variations are made, in order for $`M_1`$ and $`\mu `$ to become complex. Scenarios involving real SUSY parameters, are also considered, based on the SUGRA benchmarks of . It is checked that the relations constructed in the various scenarios, really determine the SUSY parameters they are supposed to. Our treatment is theoretical though, simply aiming at supplying the relevant formulae. No error in the input data of the various scenarios, is taken into consideration.

The whole analysis is carried at tree level, but in principle it could be extended to any order of perturbation theory, essentially by simply using the appropriate renormalized neutralino mass matrix. In such a case of course, parameters from other SUSY sectors will enter, leading to the necessity of a more global analysis .

In Section 6 we give our conclusions. Finally, in Appendix B we compare to the approach of  for MSSM, and identify the relations between the elements of the two formalisms.

## 2 The neutralino projectors, pseudo-projectors and CP eigenphases.

A description of neutralinos in terms of their projectors has already been proposed in , where the restriction to real $`M_1,M_2,\mu `$ parameters was made, corresponding to CP conserving chargino and neutralino sectors.

In the present work, we extend this formalism to the most general CP-violating case in which $`M_1`$ and $`\mu `$ are taken complex, i.e.

$$M_1e^{i\mathrm{\Phi }_1}\overline{M}_1,\mu e^{i\mathrm{\Phi }_\mu }\overline{\mu },$$
(1)
where $`\overline{M}_1|M_1|`$, $`\overline{\mu }|\mu |`$, while the phase angles are defined such that $`\pi <\mathrm{\Phi }_1\pi `$ and $`\pi <\mathrm{\Phi }_\mu \pi `$. Without loss of generality, the soft SUSY breaking gaugino mass $`M_2`$, is always taken real and positive.

The neutralino mass term in the SUSY Lagrangian is written as

$$_m=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Psi }_L^0𝒞Y\mathrm{\Psi }_L^0+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.,$$
(2)
where the minimal complex symmetric neutralino mass-matrix is

$$Y=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\overline{M}_1e^{i\mathrm{\Phi }_1}& 0& m_Zs_Wc_\beta & m_Zs_Ws_\beta \\ 0& M_2& m_Zc_Wc_\beta & m_Zc_Ws_\beta \\ m_Zs_Wc_\beta & m_Zc_Wc_\beta & 0& \overline{\mu }e^{i\mathrm{\Phi }_\mu }\\ m_Zs_Ws_\beta & m_Zc_Ws_\beta & \overline{\mu }e^{i\mathrm{\Phi }_\mu }& 0\end{array}\right),$$
(3)
$`𝒞=i\gamma ^2\gamma ^0`$ is the usual Dirac charge conjugation matrix, and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_L^0`$ is the column vector describing the Left neutralino fields in the ”weak basis” of the gauginos and Higgsinos as

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_L^0\left(\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{B}_L\\ \stackrel{~}{W}_L^{(3)}\\ \stackrel{~}{H}_{1L}^0\\ \stackrel{~}{H}_{2L}^0\end{array}\right).$$
(4)
The corresponding Left mass eigenstate fields $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{jL}^0`$ are related to them through the unitary transformation $`U_N`$ as

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{\alpha L}^0=\underset{j=1}{\overset{4}{}}U_{N\alpha j}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{jL}^0,$$
(5)
with $`(\alpha ,j=14)`$ being respectively the indices for the weak and mass eigenstates. The matrix $`Y`$ is diagonalized as

$$U_N^{}YU_N=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0}& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_3^0}& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_4^0}\end{array}\right),$$
(6)
where $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0}(j=14)`$ describe the physical neutralino masses ordered as

$$0m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0}m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_3^0}m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_4^0}.$$
(7)
Using (6) we get

$`U_N^{}YU_N={\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{4}{}}}m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0}E_j,`$ (8)
$`U_N^{}Y^{}YU_N={\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{4}{}}}m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0}^2E_j,`$ (9)
where $`E_j`$ are the basic $`4\times 4`$ matrices defined by $`(E_j)_{ik}=\delta _{ji}\delta _{jk}`$.

The neutralino projector matrices, which acting on the weak-basis fields, project out the neutralino mass eigenstate $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0`$, are defined by

$$P_j=P_j^{}=U_NE_jU_N^{},$$
(10)
so that

$$P_{j\alpha \beta }=U_{N\alpha j}U_{N\beta j}^{}.$$
(11)
They satisfy the standard projector relations

$`P_iP_j=P_j\delta _{ij},TrP_j=1,{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{4}{}}}P_j=1,`$ (12)
$`P_{j\alpha \alpha }P_{j\beta \beta }=|P_{j\alpha \beta }|^2,`$ (13)
where summation over the repeated indices is only done if it is explicitly indicated. Here $`(i,j)=(14)`$ describe the neutralino mass-eigenstate indices, while $`(\alpha ,\beta )=(14)`$ are the weak basis ones. Eq.(13) which follows from (11), may also be obtained by viewing the projector as the density matrix of a pure state . From (9, 10) we also get

$$Y^{}Y=\underset{j=1}{\overset{4}{}}m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0}^2P_j.$$
(14)
The analytic expressions for the physical neutralino masses are obtained by solving the characteristic equation for $`Y^{}Y`$, which at tree level is given by (A.8) in Appendix A. They are ordered according to (7). Following Jarlskog , the neutralino projectors are then given by

$`P_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_4^0}^2Y^{}Y)(m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_3^0}^2Y^{}Y)(m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0}^2Y^{}Y)}{(m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_4^0}^2m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}^2)(m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_3^0}^2m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}^2)(m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0}^2m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}^2)}},`$
$`P_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_4^0}^2Y^{}Y)(m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_3^0}^2Y^{}Y)(Y^{}Ym_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}^2)}{(m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_4^0}^2m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0}^2)(m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_3^0}^2m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0}^2)(m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0}^2m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}^2)}},`$
$`P_3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_4^0}^2Y^{}Y)(Y^{}Ym_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0}^2)(Y^{}Ym_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}^2)}{(m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_4^0}^2m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_3^0}^2)(m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_3^0}^2m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0}^2)(m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_3^0}^2m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}^2)}},`$
$`P_4`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(Y^{}Ym_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_3^0}^2)(Y^{}Ym_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0}^2)(Y^{}Ym_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}^2)}{(m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_4^0}^2m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_3^0}^2)(m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_4^0}^2m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0}^2)(m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_4^0}^2m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}^2)}},`$ (15)
where (at tree level again) $`Y^{}Y`$ is taken from (A.1). In (15) the assumption is made, that all neutralino masses are different from each other222In case of mass degeneracy, the instructions in  should be followed., and that there are only four neutralinos. The extension of this formalism to cases involving any number of neutralinos and any form of the $`Y`$-matrix333For more than four neutralinos, their physical masses may be obtained by solving e.g. numerically, the characteristic equation for $`Y^{}Y`$. is obvious .

As already mentioned, if the neutralinos were Dirac particles, the projectors in (15), would had been sufficient to describe any physical observable. Because of the Majorana nature of the neutralinos though, additional parameters are needed, denoted as their CP eigenphases and pseudo-projector matrices.

The CP-eigenphases, are analogous to the CP eigensigns of the real SUSY-parameter case treated in , and are defined as (compare (5))

$$\eta _j\frac{(U_N^{})_{1j}}{(U_N)_{1j}},$$
(16)
where $`|\eta _j|=1`$ is obvious. The phases in (16), chosen as444 The CP conserving case is obtained when $`\mathrm{Arg}(\eta _j)`$ is either 0 or $`+\pi `$, .

$$\pi <\mathrm{Arg}(\eta _j)\pi ,$$

are determined by those of the first row of $`U_N`$. Using $`\eta _j`$, a second unitary matrix $`U^0`$ is defined through

$$(U_N)_{\alpha j}\sqrt{\eta _j^{}}U_{\alpha j}^0,$$
(17)
so that (5) may be rewritten as

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{\alpha L}^0=\underset{j=1}{\overset{4}{}}U_{N\alpha j}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{jL}^0=\underset{j=1}{\overset{4}{}}\sqrt{\eta _j^{}}U_{\alpha j}^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{jL}^0.$$
(18)
Using (17, 11), the $`P_j`$ matrix elements may be expressed as

$$P_{j\alpha \beta }=U_{N\alpha j}U_{N\beta j}^{}=U_{\alpha j}^0U_{\beta j}^0,$$
(19)
which clearly indicates that the projectors do not know about the CP-eigenphases.

The use of (6, 17) also give

$$U^0YU^0=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\stackrel{~}{m}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& \stackrel{~}{m}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0}& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& \stackrel{~}{m}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_3^0}& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& \stackrel{~}{m}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_4^0}\end{array}\right),$$
(20)
where the ”complex” neutralino masses $`\stackrel{~}{m}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0}(j=14)`$ are related to the physical (positive) ones $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0}`$ by

$$\stackrel{~}{m}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0}\eta _jm_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0},$$
(21)
and constitute a simple generalization of the ”signed” masses used in the real SUSY parameter case . In addition, (20, 8) imply

$$U^0YU^0=\underset{j=1}{\overset{4}{}}\stackrel{~}{m}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0}E_j,$$
(22)
which is analogous to (8), but involving the complex masses instead555Eqs.(18, 21) look formally the same as Eqs.(7, 6) of , in which the SUSY parameters were assumed real. In the present formalism, the quantity $`\stackrel{~}{\eta }_j`$ of  should be identified as $`\stackrel{~}{\eta }_j=\sqrt{\eta _j^{}}`$..

We next turn to defining the pseudo-projector for the physical neutralino $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0`$ as

$$\overline{P}_j=\overline{P}_j^{}=U_N^{}E_jU_N^{}=\eta _jU^0E_jU^0,$$
(23)
with its matrix elements being

$$\overline{P}_{j\alpha \beta }=U_{N\alpha j}^{}U_{N\beta j}^{}=\eta _jU_{\alpha j}^0U_{\beta j}^0,$$
(24)
and satisfying

$`\overline{P}_j^{}\overline{P}_k=\delta _{jk}P_j,`$ (25)
$`\overline{P}_jP_k=P_k^{}\overline{P}_j=\delta _{jk}\overline{P}_j,`$ (26)
$$Y=\underset{j=1}{\overset{4}{}}m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0}\overline{P}_j.$$
(27)
As indicated by (12, 25, 26) and (14, 27), the pseudo-projector $`\overline{P}_j`$, shares the projector $`P_j`$ property to isolate the $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0`$ component, when acting on any neutralino state. This is the reason we call it pseudo-projector.

According to (24), the pseudo-projector matrix elements (contrary to the projector ones), do depend on the CP-eigenphases. In fact, (19, 24) indicate that the matrix elements of $`P_j`$ and $`\overline{P}_j`$, just differ by phases, which in the CP-conserving limit (corresponding to real $`U^0`$), are simply reduced to an $`\eta _j=\pm 1`$ overall factor.

## 3 The reduced projector elements.

The neutralino description in terms of projectors, pseudo-projectors and CP-eigenphases is, of course complete, but uneconomical. Moreover, we have not yet given the formulae from which the CP-eigenphases and the pseudo-projector matrix elements may be calculated. To cure this, we introduce below the notion of the reduced projector elements.

We first count the number of independent real parameters needed for a complete description. This is determined by the number of parameters entering the neutralino mass matrix, which at tree level has the form appearing in (3). If we temporarily ignore its specific form, and consider it as a general complex symmetric $`4\times 4`$ matrix, there would be 20 independent parameters. As such, we could take the four physical neutralino masses, the four CP eigenphases $`\eta _j`$, and the 12 complex (but constrained666For the counting to be correct, $`p_{j\alpha }`$ have to satisfy 12 real constraints discussed below. ) parameters defined as

$$p_{j\alpha }\frac{P_{j1\alpha }}{P_{j11}},$$
(28)
with $`(j=14)`$ and $`(\alpha =2,3,4)`$. In writing (28), we assume $`P_{j11}0`$, which means that there should always be some non-vanishing Bino contribution to the physical neutralino states . We also define $`p_{j1}=1`$, so that (28) may be extended to $`\alpha =1`$.

The quantities $`p_{j\alpha }`$, are directly calculated from the Jarlskog relation (15), and play a central role in the analysis below. We call them ”reduced projector elements”. In terms of them, the elements of $`P_j`$, $`\overline{P}_j`$ and $`U_N`$ are expressed by the Ansatz

$`P_{j\alpha \beta }`$ $`=`$ $`P_{j11}p_{j\alpha }^{}p_{j\beta },`$ (29)
$`\overline{P}_{j\alpha \beta }`$ $`=`$ $`P_{j11}\eta _jp_{j\alpha }p_{j\beta }`$ (30)
$`U_{N\alpha j}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{\eta _j^{}P_{j11}}p_{j\alpha }^{},`$ (31)
where

$$P_{j11}=\frac{1}{1+|p_{j2}|^2+|p_{j3}|^2+|p_{j4}|^2}.$$
(32)
We note that the CP-eigenphases entering (30, 31), are the only quantities which are still needed in order to fully determine the neutralino properties, in terms of the initial SUSY parameters. They will be determined below using (27).

The expressions (29 \- 32), together with (28, 16), guarantee that all projector and pseudo-projector properties (11-13, 24-26), and the unitarity of $`U_N`$, are automatically satisfied, for any complex symmetric neutralino mass matrix. It is very important to remark that all these expressions, can be directly generalized to any neutralino number, and any complex symmetric mass matrix.

Returning to the counting of the independent variables for a general $`4\times 4`$ matrix $`Y`$, we remark that the unitarity of $`U_N`$ together with (31) produce 12 real constraints on the 12 complex parameters $`p_{j2},p_{j3},p_{j4}(j=1,4)`$. Thus, the four neutralino masses, the four CP eigenphases $`\eta _j`$, and the 12 complex $`p_{j\alpha }`$, indeed provide 20 independent real parameters, matching those contained in a most general complex symmetric, $`4\times 4`$, neutralino mass matrix, as mentioned above.

At the tree level, in which (3) is used, the number of independent parameters is reduced from 20 to the six basic SUSY parameters $`\overline{M}_1e^{i\mathrm{\Phi }_1}`$, $`M_2`$, $`\overline{\mu }e^{i\mathrm{\Phi }_\mu }`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. This allows to express all $`p_{j\alpha }`$ in terms of them. Indeed using (15, 28) we find ($`j=14`$, $`\alpha =14`$)

$$p_{j\alpha }=\frac{q_{j\alpha }}{q_{j1}},$$
(33)
with

$`q_{j1}`$ $`=`$ $`m_Z^2[m_Z^2(m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0}^2\overline{\mu }^2s_{2\beta }^2)(m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0}^2s_W^2\overline{M}_1^2c_W^4M_2^2s_W^42\overline{M}_1M_2s_W^2c_W^2c_1)`$
$`+(m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0}^2\overline{\mu }^2)[2\overline{M}_1\overline{\mu }s_{2\beta }(\overline{M}_1M_2c_W^2c_\mu (m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0}^2M_2^2)s_W^2c_{1\mu })`$
$`+m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0}^2((m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0}^2M_2^2)s_W^22\overline{M}_1^2c_W^2)]]\overline{M}_1^2(m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0}^2M_2^2)(m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0}^2\overline{\mu }^2)^2,`$
$`q_{j2}`$ $`=`$ $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0}^2m_Z^2s_Wc_W[m_Z^2(m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0}^2\overline{\mu }^2s_{2\beta }^2)`$
$`(m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0}^2\overline{\mu }^2)(m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0}^2+\overline{M}_1M_2e^{i\mathrm{\Phi }_1}+\overline{\mu }s_{2\beta }(\overline{M}_1e^{i(\mathrm{\Phi }_1+\mathrm{\Phi }_\mu )}+M_2e^{i\mathrm{\Phi }_\mu }))],`$
$`q_{j3}`$ $`=`$ $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0}^2m_Zs_W[m_Z^2\overline{\mu }s_\beta c_{2\beta }(\overline{M}_1M_2c_W^2e^{i(\mathrm{\Phi }_\mu \mathrm{\Phi }_1)}(m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0}^2M_2^2s_W^2)e^{i\mathrm{\Phi }_\mu })`$
$`+m_Z^2c_W^2c_\beta (m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0}^22\overline{\mu }^2s_\beta ^2)(M_2\overline{M}_1e^{i\mathrm{\Phi }_1})`$
$`+(m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0}^2\overline{\mu }^2)(m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0}^2M_2^2)(\overline{M}_1c_\beta e^{i\mathrm{\Phi }_1}+\overline{\mu }s_\beta e^{i\mathrm{\Phi }_\mu })],`$
$`q_{j4}`$ $`=`$ $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0}^2m_Zs_W[m_Z^2\overline{\mu }c_\beta c_{2\beta }(\overline{M}_1M_2c_W^2e^{i(\mathrm{\Phi }_\mu \mathrm{\Phi }_1)}(m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0}^2M_2^2s_W^2)e^{i\mathrm{\Phi }_\mu })`$ (34)
$`+m_Z^2c_W^2s_\beta (m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0}^22\overline{\mu }^2c_\beta ^2)(M_2\overline{M}_1e^{i\mathrm{\Phi }_1})`$
$`+(m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0}^2\overline{\mu }^2)(m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0}^2M_2^2)(\overline{M}_1s_\beta e^{i\mathrm{\Phi }_1}+\overline{\mu }c_\beta e^{i\mathrm{\Phi }_\mu })],`$
where $`c_{2\beta }=\mathrm{cos}2\beta `$ and $`c_1=\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Phi }_1`$, $`c_\mu =\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Phi }_\mu `$, $`c_{1\mu }=\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Phi }_1+\mathrm{\Phi }_\mu )`$. We note that $`q_{j3}q_{j4}`$, when exchanging $`s_\beta c_\beta `$. The physical neutralino masses appearing in (34), are expressed in terms of the basic SUSY parameters using the formalism in Appendix A.

We next turn to the construction of formulae from which the CP eigenphases $`\eta _j`$ may be calculated. The pseudo-projector property (25) allows the inversion of (27), which combined with (21, 30), leads to

$`\stackrel{~}{m}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0}=\eta _jm_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{4}{}}}Y_{\alpha \beta }{\displaystyle \frac{p_{j\alpha }^{}}{p_{j\beta }}},`$ (35)
$`=`$ $`\overline{M}_1e^{i\mathrm{\Phi }_1}m_Zs_W(c_\beta p_{j3}^{}s_\beta p_{j4}^{}),`$ (36)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{M_2p_{j2}^{}+m_Zc_W(c_\beta p_{j3}^{}s_\beta p_{j4}^{})}{p_{j2}}},`$ (37)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\mu }e^{i\mathrm{\Phi }_\mu }p_{j4}^{}+m_Zc_\beta (s_Wc_Wp_{j2}^{})}{p_{j3}}},`$ (38)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\mu }e^{i\mathrm{\Phi }_\mu }p_{j3}^{}m_Zs_\beta (s_Wc_Wp_{j2}^{})}{p_{j4}}}.`$ (39)
Using also (A.8), we thus get four equivalent relations expressing the CP-eigenphases $`\eta _j(j=14)`$, in terms of the reduced projector elements and various SUSY parameters.

Inverting them, determines the fundamental SUSY parameters in terms of $`p_{j2},p_{j3},p_{j4}`$, (for any fixed $`j`$), as

$`\overline{M}_1e^{i\mathrm{\Phi }_1}`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{m}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0}+m_Zs_W(c_\beta p_{j3}^{}s_\beta p_{j4}^{}),`$ (40)
$`M_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{p_{j2}}{p_{j2}^{}}}\left[\stackrel{~}{m}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0}{\displaystyle \frac{m_Zc_W}{p_{j2}}}(c_\beta p_{j3}^{}s_\beta p_{j4}^{})\right],`$ (41)
$`\overline{\mu }e^{i\mathrm{\Phi }_\mu }`$ $`=`$ $`m_Z{\displaystyle \frac{(c_\beta p_{j4}+s_\beta p_{j3})(s_Wc_Wp_{j2}^{})}{|p_{j3}|^2|p_{j4}|^2}},`$ (42)
with the ”complex” neutralino mass of $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0`$ given by (compare (21))

$$\stackrel{~}{m}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0}=\eta _jm_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0}=m_Z\frac{(c_\beta p_{j3}^{}+s_\beta p_{j4}^{})(s_Wc_Wp_{j2}^{})}{|p_{j3}|^2|p_{j4}|^2},$$
(43)
which may also be viewed as expressing $`\eta _j`$ in terms of the reduced projector elements, the physical neutralino mass, and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$.

Relations (40-43), together with their inverse (36-39), are very important. They will be heavily used below in exploring strategies for determining the SUSY parameters, under various conditions concerning the experimental knowledge of the neutralino and chargino masses.

In the true CP violating case where $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1,\mathrm{\Phi }_\mu `$ are non-trivial, the vanishing of the imaginary part of (41) also gives

$$\mathrm{tan}\beta =\frac{t_W\mathrm{Im}[p_{j3}(p_{j2}^{})^2]+(|p_{j3}|^2|p_{j2}|^2|p_{j4}|^2)\mathrm{Im}[p_{j3}p_{j2}^{}]}{t_W\mathrm{Im}[p_{j4}(p_{j2}^{})^2]+(|p_{j4}|^2|p_{j2}|^2|p_{j3}|^2)\mathrm{Im}[p_{j4}p_{j2}^{}]},$$
(44)
where $`t_W=s_W/c_W`$, and $`\mathrm{Im}[p]`$ stands for the imaginary part of the complex numbers $`p_{j\alpha }`$. No such relation is obtained in the CP conserving case, in which $`M_1`$ and $`\mu `$ are both real.

Thus, in the CP-violating case, the 3 complex numbers $`p_{j1},p_{j2},p_{j3}`$ (for any fixed $`j`$) fully determine through (40-44), the 6 parameters $`(M_2,\overline{M}_1e^{i\mathrm{\Phi }_1},\overline{\mu }e^{i\mathrm{\Phi }_\mu },\mathrm{tan}\beta )`$ entering the neutralino mass matrix $`Y`$ in (3).

The final topic in this Section concerns the condition for CP conservation in the neutralino-chargino sector; i.e. the condition for $`M_1`$ and $`\mu `$ to be real. Such a condition has already been presented in . Here we derive a new form for it. From (33-34), we deduce that CP conservation can only arise if the three $`p_{j1},p_{j2},p_{j3}`$ (for any fixed $`j`$), are all real. If this happens, then according to (40-43), $`M_1`$ and $`\mu `$ are also real; which subsequently implies that all reduced projector elements are in fact real; and all CP eigenphases satisfy777In the CP conserving case $`\eta _i`$ coincide with the corresponding quantities defined in .  $`\eta _i=\pm 1`$, so that they may be called CP eigensigns. Thus, the necessary and sufficient condition for CP conservation in the neutralino-chargino sector is expressed by the equivalence

$$\mathrm{CP}\mathrm{conservation}\mathrm{Im}(p_{j\alpha })=0,$$
(45)
for any fixed $`j`$, and all $`\alpha `$.

We note that the explicit formulae (34, 36-44) have been derived at the tree level, where the mass matrix is given by (3). It should be possible though to extend the formalism to any order, by simply using in (15, 28, 35), the renormalized neutralino mass matrix. We should then find that the CP-conservation condition (45) remains true, even if higher order effects are included.

It is amusing to compare the criterion (45), to the one of , where the quantities

$`D_{\alpha \beta }`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{4}{}}}U_{N_\alpha j}U_{N\beta j}^{}={\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{4}{}}}P_{j\alpha \beta }=\delta _{\alpha \beta },`$ (46)
$`M_{ij}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{4}{}}}U_{N\alpha j}U_{N\alpha i}^{}=\sqrt{\eta _i\eta _j^{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{4}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{P_{i1\alpha }P_{j\alpha 1}}{\sqrt{P_{i11}P_{j11}}}}=\sqrt{\eta _i\eta _j^{}}\delta _{ij},`$ (47)
are constructed. According to , CP conservation888See also Appendix B., is equivalent to requiring that all terms in each of the indicated summations in (46, 47), are either purely real or purely imaginary. Remembering (29\- 32), we see that this is indeed equivalent to requiring the reality of $`p_{j\alpha }`$. If $`p_{j\alpha }`$ are real, then all terms in (46) will also be real, while those in (47) will be either real or imaginary, depending on whether $`\eta _i\eta _j=+1`$ or $`1`$.

In the CP conserving case, the solution of the real equations (36 \- 39) gives

$`p_{j2}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{m}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0}M_1}{t_W(\stackrel{~}{m}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0}M_2)}},`$
$`p_{j3}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mu (\stackrel{~}{m}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0}M_1)(\stackrel{~}{m}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0}M_2)+m_Z^2s_\beta c_\beta (\stackrel{~}{m}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0}M_1c_W^2M_2s_W^2)}{m_Zs_W(\stackrel{~}{m}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0}M_2)(\stackrel{~}{m}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0}s_\beta +\mu c_\beta )}},`$
$`p_{j4}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{m}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0}(\stackrel{~}{m}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0}M_1)(\stackrel{~}{m}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0}M_2)m_Z^2c_\beta ^2(\stackrel{~}{m}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0}M_1c_W^2M_2s_W^2)}{m_Zs_W(\stackrel{~}{m}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0}M_2)(\stackrel{~}{m}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0}s_\beta +\mu c_\beta )}},`$ (48)
which determine $`p_{j2}`$, $`p_{j3}`$ and $`p_{j4}`$, in terms of $`M_1,M_2,\mu `$, and $`\stackrel{~}{m}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0}`$. In the CP conserving limit, we always take $`\mu `$ and $`M_1`$ to be real of any sign, while $`M_2>0`$.

Eqs. (48) are analogous to (33, 34), of the more general CP violating case. Contrary to them though, (48) involve the ”signed” neutralino masses999As in , the ”complex masses” of (21) are simply called ”signed masses” in the CP conserving case. $`\stackrel{~}{m}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0}`$, rather than the physical ones; compare (21). Partly because of this, the symmetry relation between $`p_{j3}`$ and $`p_{j4}`$ observed in (34), is lost in (48).

We also note that since (44) is not obtained in the CP conserving case, $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ must be known from some other means, in order to use the three real ($`p_{j1}`$, $`p_{j2}`$, $`p_{j3}`$) for determining $`M_1`$, $`M_2`$ and $`\mu `$ from (40-43).

Before concluding this section, we recapitulate the procedure for diagonalizing the neutralino mass matrix, in the most general complex parameter case. For this, one first constructs the physical neutralino masses in terms of the SUSY parameters, using the formalism in Appendix A. Then, (15, 28) or (33, 34), allow to construct the projector and reduced projector elements, from which the pseudo-projectors and the CP-eigenphases may be obtained through (30) and any of (36-39, 43). If needed, $`U_N`$ may then be obtained from (31).

The results in the CP conserving limit, may be obtained by simply putting $`(\mathrm{\Phi }_1,\mathrm{\Phi }_\mu )=0`$ or $`\pi `$, in the aforementioned formulae. Alternatively, they can also be derived using (48) and the ”signed” neutralino masses calculated in the Appendix of .

## 4 The $`e^{}e^+\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0`$ cross section.

The neutralino propagators to lowest order in the weak basis, or complex SUSY parameters, are

$`0|T\mathrm{\Psi }_{\alpha L}^0(x)\mathrm{\Psi }_{\beta L}^0(y)|0={\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{4}{}}}m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0}\overline{P}_{j\alpha \beta }^{}\mathrm{\Delta }_F(xy;m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0})𝒞{\displaystyle \frac{(1\gamma _5)}{2}},`$ (49)
$`0|T\mathrm{\Psi }_{\alpha L}^0(x)\mathrm{\Psi }_{\beta L}^0(y)|0={\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{4}{}}}m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0}\overline{P}_{j\alpha \beta }\mathrm{\Delta }_F(xy;m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0})𝒞{\displaystyle \frac{(1\gamma _5)}{2}},`$ (50)
$`0|T\mathrm{\Psi }_{\alpha L}^0(x)\mathrm{\Psi }_{\beta L}^0(y)|0={\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{4}{}}}P_{j\alpha \beta }S_F^{(1)}(xy;m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0})\gamma _0{\displaystyle \frac{(1\gamma _5)}{2}},`$ (51)
and

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_F(xy;m)`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}e^{ik(xy)}\frac{1}{k^2m^2+iϵ}},`$
$`S_F^{(1)}(xy;m)`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}e^{ik(xy)}\frac{\text{/}k}{k^2m^2+iϵ}}.`$ (52)
If the neutralinos were Dirac particles, only the propagator (51) would have been allowed, implying that the projector matrix elements would have been sufficient to express all physical observables. The Majorana nature of the neutralinos though, introduces the additional propagators (49, 50), and thereby necessitates the introduction of the pseudo-projectors also.

Using subsequently (29, 30, 32), we conclude that an elegant way to express the physical observables related to a neutralino $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0`$, is in terms of its three reduced projector elements $`p_{j\alpha }`$ ($`\alpha =2,3,4`$), its CP eigenphase $`\eta _j`$ and its physical mass.

As an example, we consider the differential cross section for $`e^{}e^+\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0`$, using longitudinally polarized $`e^{}`$ and $`e^+`$ beams, with the polarizations denoted by $`\lambda _1`$ and $`\lambda _2`$ respectively101010Transverse $`e^{}`$ polarizations are irrelevant, if the azimuthal distribution of the neutralino production plane is integrated over.. The contributions to this process at tree level arise from $`s`$-channel $`Z`$-exchange, and $`t`$\- and $`u`$-channel $`\stackrel{~}{e}_L`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{e}_R`$ exchanges. The differential cross section may then be written as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}\sigma (e^{}e^+\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0)}{\mathrm{d}t}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^2\pi }{s^2(1+\delta _{ij})}}P_{i11}P_{j11}[\mathrm{\Sigma }_Z(\lambda _1,\lambda _2)+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\stackrel{~}{e}_L}(\lambda _1,\lambda _2)+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\stackrel{~}{e}_R}(\lambda _1,\lambda _2)`$ (53)
$`+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{Z\stackrel{~}{e}_L}(\lambda _1,\lambda _2)+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{Z\stackrel{~}{e}_R}(\lambda _1,\lambda _2)],`$
with the r.h.s. terms representing respectively the $`Z`$-, $`\stackrel{~}{e}_L`$\- and $`\stackrel{~}{e}_R`$-square contributions, and the $`Z\stackrel{~}{e}_L`$\- and $`Z\stackrel{~}{e}_R`$-interferences111111To the extend that we neglect the electron mass, there is never any $`\stackrel{~}{e}_L\stackrel{~}{e}_R`$-interference; neither any Higgsino-$`e\stackrel{~}{e}`$ coupling.. These are written as

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_Z(\lambda _1,\lambda _2)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{8s_W^4c_W^4(sm_Z^2)^2}}[(g_{ve}^2+g_{ae}^2)(1\lambda _1\lambda _2)2g_{ve}g_{ae}(\lambda _1\lambda _2)]`$
$`\{|p_{i3}^{}p_{j3}p_{i4}^{}p_{j4}|^2[(tm_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^0}^2)(tm_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0}^2)+(um_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^0}^2)(um_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0}^2)]`$
$`2sm_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^0}m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0}Re\left(\eta _i^{}\eta _j[p_{i3}^{}p_{j3}p_{i4}^{}p_{j4}]^2\right)\},`$ (54)
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\stackrel{~}{e}_L}(\lambda _1,\lambda _2)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4s_W^4c_W^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{(1\lambda _1)(1+\lambda _2)}{4}}`$
$`\{|(c_Wp_{i2}+s_W)(c_Wp_{j2}+s_W)|^2[{\displaystyle \frac{(tm_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^0}^2)(tm_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0}^2)}{(tm_{\stackrel{~}{e}_L}^2)^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{(um_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^0}^2)(um_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0}^2)}{(um_{\stackrel{~}{e}_L}^2)^2}}]`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{2sm_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^0}m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0}}{(tm_{\stackrel{~}{e}_L}^2)(um_{\stackrel{~}{e}_L}^2)}}Re[\eta _i^{}\eta _j(c_Wp_{i2}^{}+s_W)^2(c_Wp_{j2}+s_W)^2]\},`$ (55)
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\stackrel{~}{e}_R}(\lambda _1,\lambda _2)={\displaystyle \frac{4}{c_W^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{(1+\lambda _1)(1\lambda _2)}{4}}\{[{\displaystyle \frac{(tm_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^0}^2)(tm_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0}^2)}{(tm_{\stackrel{~}{e}_R}^2)^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{(um_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^0}^2)(um_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0}^2)}{(um_{\stackrel{~}{e}_R}^2)^2}}]`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{2sm_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^0}m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0}}{(tm_{\stackrel{~}{e}_R}^2)(um_{\stackrel{~}{e}_R}^2)}}Re(\eta _i\eta _j^{})\},`$ (56)
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{Z\stackrel{~}{e}_L}(\lambda _1,\lambda _2)={\displaystyle \frac{(g_{ve}+g_{ae})}{2s_W^4c_W^4(sm_Z^2)}}{\displaystyle \frac{(1\lambda _1)(1+\lambda _2)}{4}}\{Re[(p_{i3}^{}p_{j3}p_{i4}^{}p_{j4})`$
$`(c_Wp_{i2}+s_W)(c_Wp_{j2}^{}+s_W)\left]\right[{\displaystyle \frac{(tm_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^0}^2)(tm_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0}^2)}{tm_{\stackrel{~}{e}_L}^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{(um_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^0}^2)(um_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0}^2)}{um_{\stackrel{~}{e}_L}^2}}]`$
$`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^0}m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0}s({\displaystyle \frac{1}{tm_{\stackrel{~}{e}_L}^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{um_{\stackrel{~}{e}_L}^2}})Re[\eta _i\eta _j^{}(p_{i3}p_{j3}^{}p_{i4}p_{j4}^{})`$
$`(c_Wp_{i2}+s_W)(c_Wp_{j2}^{}+s_W)]\},`$ (57)
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{Z\stackrel{~}{e}_R}(\lambda _1,\lambda _2)={\displaystyle \frac{2(g_{ve}g_{ae})}{s_W^2c_W^4(sm_Z^2)}}{\displaystyle \frac{(1+\lambda _1)(1\lambda _2)}{4}}`$
$`\{Re[p_{i3}p_{j3}^{}p_{i4}p_{j4}^{}][{\displaystyle \frac{(tm_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^0}^2)(tm_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0}^2)}{tm_{\stackrel{~}{e}_R}^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{(um_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^0}^2)(um_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0}^2)}{um_{\stackrel{~}{e}_R}^2}}]`$
$`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^0}m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0}s({\displaystyle \frac{1}{tm_{\stackrel{~}{e}_R}^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{um_{\stackrel{~}{e}_R}^2}})Re[\eta _i\eta _j^{}(p_{i3}p_{j3}^{}p_{i4}p_{j4}^{})]\},`$ (58)
where $`g_{ve}=0.5+2s_W^2`$ and $`g_{ae}=0.5`$ are the vector and axial $`Zee`$-couplings.

Close to threshold, the neutralino-pair production cross section can be expanded in powers of $`\mathrm{\Delta }ss(m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^0}+m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0})^2`$, as

$`\sigma (e^{}e^+\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0)={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^2\pi }{s_W^4c_W^4(1+\delta _{ij})}}{\displaystyle \frac{(m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^0}m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0})^{3/2}}{(m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^0}+m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0})^2}}P_{i11}P_{j11}\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }s}`$
$`\{[(g_{ve}^2+g_{ae}^2)(1\lambda _1\lambda _2)2g_{ve}g_{ae}(\lambda _1\lambda _2)]{\displaystyle \frac{𝒦_{ij}^2}{((m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^0}+m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0})^2m_Z^2)^2}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{(1\lambda _1)(1+\lambda _2)}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{2𝒥_{ij}^2}{(m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^0}m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0}+m_{\stackrel{~}{e}_L}^2)^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{(1+\lambda _1)(1\lambda _2)}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{32s_W^4_{ij}^2}{(m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^0}m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0}+m_{\stackrel{~}{e}_R}^2)^2}}`$ (59)
$`+(g_{ve}+g_{ae}){\displaystyle \frac{(1\lambda _1)(1+\lambda _2)}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{4𝒥_{ij}𝒦_{ij}}{((m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^0}+m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0})^2m_Z^2)(m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^0}m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0}+m_{\stackrel{~}{e}_L}^2)}}`$
$`(g_{ve}g_{ae}){\displaystyle \frac{(1+\lambda _1)(1\lambda _2)}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{16s_W^2_{ij}𝒦_{ij}}{((m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^0}+m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0})^2m_Z^2)(m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^0}m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0}+m_{\stackrel{~}{e}_R}^2)}}\}`$
$`+0([\mathrm{\Delta }s]^{3/2}),`$
where

$`_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{Im}[\sqrt{\eta _i^{}\eta _j}],`$
$`𝒥_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{Im}[\sqrt{\eta _i^{}\eta _j}(c_Wp_{i2}^{}+s_W)(c_Wp_{j2}+s_W)],`$
$`𝒦_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{Im}[\sqrt{\eta _i^{}\eta _j}(p_{i3}^{}p_{j3}p_{i4}^{}p_{j4})].`$ (60)
Therefore, the leading behaviour $`\mathrm{\Delta }s^{1/2}`$, can only be realized if the produced neutralinos are not identical, and such that at least one of $`(,𝒥,𝒦,)`$ of (60), is non vanishing. The next to leading term varies like $`\mathrm{\Delta }s^{3/2}`$.

In the special case that CP is conserved (i.e. $`p_{j\alpha }`$ real), the above conditions allow the appearance of the leading $`\mathrm{\Delta }s^{1/2}`$ term, only if $`\eta _i=\eta _j=\pm 1`$ .

But, if instead CP is violated and the reduced projector elements are complex, then (60) could allow the appearance of the leading threshold term $`\mathrm{\Delta }s^{1/2}`$, even if $`\eta _i=\eta _j`$, provided of course that the two neutralinos continue to be different.

Finally, we note that the vanishing of the leading $`\mathrm{\Delta }s^{1/2}`$ term in the production of two identical neutralinos, may be simply viewed as a consequence of the fact that the $`(e^{},e^+)`$ helicities have to be opposite to each other. The reason is that the total angular momentum of the two neutralinos would then be at least one, which forces the S-wave neutralino wave function121212For S-wave, the total neutralino spin should be one. Neutralino states with higher orbital angular momentum cannot produce a $`\mathrm{\Delta }s^{1/2}`$ term. to be antisymmetric, implying a threshold behaviour like $`\mathrm{\Delta }s^{3/2}`$.

## 5 Determining SUSY parameters.

In this section we address the problem of determining the MSSM SUSY parameters, under the various conditions that will inevitably arise when some (presumably the lightest) charginos and neutralinos will start being discovered. In all cases, we assume that $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ and some knowledge of the chargino parameters $`(M_2,\overline{\mu },\mathrm{\Phi }_\mu )`$, will have been established from chargino and other measurements, before the neutralinos start being studied. Then, neutralino measurements may supply information on their physical masses, reduced projector elements and CP eigenphases.

Our general procedure starts from (37-39) which are solved for $`p_{j2},p_{j3},p_{j4}(j=14)`$, without introducing any explicit dependence on the Bino parameters $`\overline{M}_1,\mathrm{\Phi }_1`$. This gives

$`p_{j2}`$ $`=`$ $`t_W+(m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0}^2\overline{\mu }^2)𝒵_j^{},`$ (61)
$`p_{j3}`$ $`=`$ $`m_W(c_\beta \stackrel{~}{m}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0}^{}𝒵_j+s_\beta \overline{\mu }e^{i\mathrm{\Phi }_\mu }𝒵_j^{}),`$ (62)
$`p_{j4}`$ $`=`$ $`m_W(s_\beta \stackrel{~}{m}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0}^{}𝒵_j+c_\beta \overline{\mu }e^{i\mathrm{\Phi }_\mu }𝒵_j^{}),`$ (63)
where the auxiliary complex numbers $`𝒵_j(j=14)`$ are defined as

$$𝒵_j=𝒵_{j1}\stackrel{~}{m}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0}𝒵_{j2},$$
(64)
with

$`𝒵_{j1}`$ $`=`$ $`t_W𝒟_j^1[(M_2^2m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0}^2)(m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0}^2\overline{\mu }^2)+m_W^2(m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0}^2+M_2\overline{\mu }e^{i\mathrm{\Phi }_\mu }s_{2\beta })],`$ (65)
$`𝒵_{j2}`$ $`=`$ $`m_Z^2s_Wc_W𝒟_j^1(M_2+\overline{\mu }e^{i\mathrm{\Phi }_\mu }s_{2\beta }),`$ (66)
$`𝒟_j`$ $`=`$ $`(m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0}^2\overline{\mu }^2)^2(m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0}^2M_2^2)`$ (67)
$`+m_W^2[2(\overline{\mu }^2m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0}^2)(m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0}^2+M_2\overline{\mu }s_{2\beta }c_\mu )+m_W^2(m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0}^2\overline{\mu }^2s_{2\beta }^2).`$
Note that $`𝒵_{j1},𝒵_{j2},𝒟_j`$ do not depend on the CP-eigenphase $`\eta _j`$, but only on the physical neutralino mass $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0}=|\stackrel{~}{m}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0}|`$.

Substituting (61-63) in (40) we then obtain

$$M_1=\overline{M}_1e^{i\mathrm{\Phi }_1}=A_j\eta _j+B_j,$$
(68)
where

$`A_j`$ $`=`$ $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0}𝒟_j^1[(m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0}^2M_2^2)(m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0}^2\overline{\mu }^2)^2+m_Z^2m_W^2(m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0}^2\overline{\mu }^2s_{2\beta }^2)`$
$`m_Z^2(m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0}^2\overline{\mu }^2)(2m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0}^2c_W^2+(m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0}^2M_2^2)s_W^2+2\overline{\mu }M_2s_{2\beta }c_W^2c_\mu )],`$
$`B_j`$ $`=`$ $`𝒟_j^1m_Z^2s_W^2[(m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0}^2M_2^2)(m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0}^2\overline{\mu }^2)\overline{\mu }e^{i\mathrm{\Phi }_\mu }s_{2\beta }+m_W^2M_2(m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0}^2\overline{\mu }^2s_{2\beta }^2)],`$ (69)
and $`𝒟_j`$ is given in (67).

The set of equations (61-69) determines $`M_1`$ including its phase, under various conditions concerning the knowledge of the neutralino and chargino sectors.

If CP is conserved; then $`p_{j\alpha }`$, $`\eta _j`$ and the SUSY parameters are all real, so that (61-63, 68) become

$`p_{j2}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_Zm_W(\stackrel{~}{m}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0}+s_{2\beta }\mu )s_W}{(M_2\stackrel{~}{m}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0})(\stackrel{~}{m}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0}^2\mu ^2)+m_W^2(\stackrel{~}{m}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0}+s_{2\beta }\mu )}},`$ (70)
$`p_{j3}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_Z(M_2\stackrel{~}{m}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0})(c_\beta \stackrel{~}{m}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0}+s_\beta \mu )s_W}{(M_2\stackrel{~}{m}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0})(\stackrel{~}{m}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0}^2\mu ^2)+m_W^2(\stackrel{~}{m}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0}+s_{2\beta }\mu )}},`$ (71)
$`p_{j4}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_Z(M_2\stackrel{~}{m}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0})(s_\beta \stackrel{~}{m}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0}+c_\beta \mu )s_W}{(M_2\stackrel{~}{m}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0})(\stackrel{~}{m}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0}^2\mu ^2)+m_W^2(\stackrel{~}{m}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0}+s_{2\beta }\mu )}},`$ (72)
$`M_1`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{m}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0}+m_Zs_W(p_{j3}c_\beta p_{j4}s_\beta )`$ (73)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{m}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0}(\stackrel{~}{m}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0}M_2)(\stackrel{~}{m}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0}^2\mu ^2)m_Z^2(m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0}+s_{2\beta }\mu )(\stackrel{~}{m}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0}M_2s_W^2)}{(\stackrel{~}{m}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0}^2\mu ^2)(\stackrel{~}{m}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0}M_2)m_W^2(\stackrel{~}{m}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0}+s_{2\beta }\mu )}},`$
where the ”signed” neutralino masses defined in (21) (of course for real $`\eta _i`$) appear.

We next consider various scenarios in the CP conserving and CP violating cases for the neutralino-chargino sectors.

### 5.1 CP-conserving scenarios

$``$ The scenario S1.
This is a rather extreme scenario considered in , where we assume that the real MSSM parameters $`(M_2,\mathrm{tan}\beta ,\mu )`$ are known from e.g. the chargino sector. In addition to them, the signed mass $`\stackrel{~}{m}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^0}=\eta _im_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^0}`$ of one neutralino $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^0`$ is also assumed known. Knowledge of the value of the index $`i`$ determining the ordering of $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^0`$, is not assumed. Then, (73) allows us to reconstruct $`M_1`$, including its sign.

It may turn out though, that only the physical mass of $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^0`$ is known, and not its CP eigensign $`\eta _i`$. As an example, we consider the model $`SP1b`$ of Table 1, which is essentially identical to the Snowmass benchmark SPS1b . In this model, one neutralino is almost a pure Bino of mass $`|M_1|`$, another one is approximately a Wino of mass $`M_2`$, and the last two are almost degenerate Higgsinos of mass $`|\mu |`$. This property seems rather stable under model variations where ($`M_2`$, $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, $`\mu `$) are kept fixed, while the eigensign $`\eta _i`$ is changed. To see this, we present in Fig.1 the values of $`(|M_1|m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^0})/2`$ predicted by (73) as a function of $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^0}`$, for the two choices $`\eta _i=\pm 1`$. It seems from this figure that if $`(M_2,\mu )`$ are known, and the mass of the considered neutralino is not very close to either $`M_2`$ or $`|\mu |`$; then it should be almost identical to $`|M_1|`$, for any $`\eta _i`$ sign.

For the same data, we show in Fig.2, the diagonal elements of $`P_i`$ as a function of $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^0}`$, for the two possible values $`\eta _i=\pm 1`$. This figure confirms that if $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^0}`$ is close to $`|M_1|`$, then $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^0`$ is approximately a pure Bino state.

The lack of knowledge of $`\eta _i`$ does not seem important, at least in the above example. Nevertheless, the ambiguity induced by it may be lifted, provided some additional information is used:

One possibility could be that a second neutralino with mass $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0}(ji)`$ is also known. The ambiguity is then lifted by comparing the values of $`M_1`$ obtained when trying all possible choices for $`\eta _i=\pm 1`$ and $`\eta _j=\pm 1`$. The correct $`(\eta _i,\eta _j)`$ choice, is the one which leads to the same $`M_1`$ prediction.

Another possibility arises from the fact that typically the $`M_1`$ values, obtained for $`\eta _i=\pm 1`$, are of opposite signs. Therefore, if a particular sign for $`M_1`$ is favored (as e.g. in mSUGRA models with gaugino unification for which $`\mathrm{Sign}[M_1]=\mathrm{Sign}[M_2]`$ is expected), the ambiguity is again lifted.

A third possibility of determining $`\eta _j`$, is from $`\sigma (e^{}e^+\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^0)`$ for $`ji`$, or from chargino decays to neutralinos, if such measurements exist.

$``$ The scenario S2.
In this scenario, it is assumed that the first quantities to be measured will be the physical masses of one chargino and two neutralinos . As such, we take the mass of the lightest chargino $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm `$, and the two lightest neutralino masses. If the signed neutralino masses $`\stackrel{~}{m}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{m}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0}`$ ( compare (21)), were also known131313We come back to the determination of the signs $`\eta _1`$ and $`\eta _2`$ at the end of this subsection., then (73) would give the $`M_2`$-quadratic equation

$$a_M^{(0)}+a_M^{(1)}M_2+a_M^{(2)}M_2^2=0,$$
(74)
whose coefficients

$`a_M^{(0)}=\stackrel{~}{m}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}\stackrel{~}{m}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0}(\stackrel{~}{m}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}\stackrel{~}{m}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0})(\stackrel{~}{m}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}^2\mu ^2)(\stackrel{~}{m}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0}^2\mu ^2)+m_Z^2[\stackrel{~}{m}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}\stackrel{~}{m}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0}\{(\stackrel{~}{m}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}\stackrel{~}{m}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0})(\stackrel{~}{m}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}\stackrel{~}{m}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0}`$
$`+(1+c_W^2)\mu ^2+m_Z^2c_W^2)+c_W^2(\stackrel{~}{m}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0}^3\stackrel{~}{m}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}^3)\}+\mu s_{2\beta }(\stackrel{~}{m}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}\stackrel{~}{m}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0})\{(\stackrel{~}{m}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}+\stackrel{~}{m}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0})(\stackrel{~}{m}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}\stackrel{~}{m}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0}`$
$`c_W^2(\stackrel{~}{m}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}^2+\stackrel{~}{m}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0}^2\mu ^2m_Z^2))+\mu m_Z^2s_{2\beta }c_W^2\}],`$
$`a_M^{(1)}=(\stackrel{~}{m}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0}^2\stackrel{~}{m}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}^2)(\stackrel{~}{m}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}^2\mu ^2)(\stackrel{~}{m}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0}^2\mu ^2)+m_Z^2[(\stackrel{~}{m}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}^2\stackrel{~}{m}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0}^2)((c_W^2s_W^2)\stackrel{~}{m}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}\stackrel{~}{m}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0}\mu ^2)`$
$`+\mu s_{2\beta }((\stackrel{~}{m}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}\stackrel{~}{m}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0})(\stackrel{~}{m}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}^2+\stackrel{~}{m}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0}^22\mu ^2c_W^2)+2(\stackrel{~}{m}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0}^3\stackrel{~}{m}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}^3)s_W^2)],`$
$`a_M^{(2)}=(\stackrel{~}{m}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}\stackrel{~}{m}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0})(\stackrel{~}{m}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}^2\mu ^2)(\stackrel{~}{m}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0}^2\mu ^2)`$
$`+m_Z^2s_W^2[\stackrel{~}{m}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0}(\stackrel{~}{m}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}^2\mu ^2)\stackrel{~}{m}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}(\stackrel{~}{m}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0}^2\mu ^2)+\mu s_{2\beta }(\stackrel{~}{m}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}^2\stackrel{~}{m}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0}^2)],`$ (75)
depend on $`\mu `$ in a complicated way.

A second independent quadratic $`M_2`$-equation, with coefficients depending on $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, $`\mu `$ and e.g. the lightest chargino mass141414In our convention, the physical (positive) chargino masses are ordered so that $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }<m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^\pm }`$. $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }`$, may be derived by noting that the chargino mass matrix in the CP conserving case implies

$`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }^2+m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^\pm }^2=M_2^2+\mu ^2+2m_W^2,`$
$`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }^2m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^\pm }^2=(M_2\mu m_W^2s_{2\beta })^2.`$ (76)
Eliminating the heavier chargino mass then leads to

$$M_2^2(m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }^2\mu ^2)+2\mu m_W^2s_{2\beta }M_2m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }^4+m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }^2(\mu ^2+2m_W^2)m_W^4s_{2\beta }^2=0.$$
(77)
Combining (74, 75, 77), we find

$$M_2=\frac{a_M^{(0)}(m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }^2\mu ^2)+a_M^{(2)}(m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }^4m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }^2(\mu ^2+2m_W^2)+m_W^4s_{2\beta }^2)}{a_M^{(1)}(m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }^2\mu ^2)2a_M^{(2)}\mu m_W^2s_{2\beta }},$$
(78)
and the compatibility relation

$`[a_M^{(2)}(m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }^4m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }^2(\mu ^2+2m_W^2)+m_W^4s_{2\beta }^2)+a_M^{(0)}(m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }^2\mu ^2)]^2[a_M^{(1)}(m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }^2\mu ^2)`$
$`2a_M^{(2)}m_W^2\mu s_{2\beta }][a_M^{(1)}(m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }^4m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }^2(\mu ^2+2m_W^2)+m_W^4s_{2\beta }^2)+2a_M^{(0)}m_W^2\mu s_{2\beta }]=0.`$ (79)
Our next task is to solve (5.1) for $`\mu `$, in terms of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, the lightest physical chargino mass $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }`$, and the signed neutralino masses $`\stackrel{~}{m}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{m}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0}`$. In principle there could be many solutions, since (5.1) is of order 12 in $`\mu `$. Their number is reduced though by restricting to real $`\mu `$, such that (78) leads to positive $`M_2`$. Further restrictions arise by calculating also the masses of the other charginos and neutralinos, and demanding that those we have started with, are indeed the lightest ones.

As an example we consider again the benchmark mSUGRA models $`SP1b`$ of  and151515The interest in this model is that it features a negative $`\mu `$. $`D`$ of , whose relevant electroweak scale parameters, calculated using the SUSPECT code161616Of course the conclusions below do not depend on the specific use of this code. , are presented in Table 1. We intend to look at how these models are reconstructed (always of course at the electroweak scale), using in the context of scenario S2, the formalism developed above. Solving (5.1) for $`\mu `$ in the $`SP1b`$ ($`D`$) case, we find 8 (10) real solutions, out of which only 6 (7) are consistent with of our starting convention $`M_2>0`$. Finally, when imposing the additional requirement that the solutions respect the starting mass hierarchies; then only two remain for each of the $`SP1b`$ and $`D`$ cases.

Thus, apart from the models $`SP1b`$ and $`D`$ which are of course reconstructed, two new solutions are found denoted as $`SP1b^{}`$ and $`D^{}`$ in Table 1. By construction therefore, the pairs of models ($`SP1b`$, $`SP1b^{}`$) and ($`D`$, $`D^{}`$), have the same mass for $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm `$, and the same signed masses for $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0,\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0`$, as well as the same value for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. But their derived $`M_1,M_2,\mu `$ parameters and the masses for $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^+`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_3^0`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_4^0`$, are generally different.

We next turn to the CP eigensigns $`\eta _1=\pm 1`$ and $`\eta _2=\pm 1`$, which are needed in order to determine the signed masses from the physical ones. The lack of knowledge of these signs creates additional ambiguities whose characteristics should be studied on a-case-by-case basis. The aforementioned models $`SP1b`$, $`SP1b^{}`$, $`D`$ and $`D^{}`$ in Table 1, correspond to the choice $`\eta _1=\eta _2=+1`$.

To study the consequences of the eigensign choice, we consider in Table 1 variations of the $`SP1b`$ and $`D`$ models in which the same physical masses for the lightest chargino and the two lightest neutralino states are used, but we have set instead $`\eta _1=\eta _2=1`$. We then find two new solutions for $`(M_1,M_2,\mu )`$ and the heavier chargino and neutralino masses, denoted as $`SP1b^{\prime \prime }`$ and $`SP1b^{\prime \prime \prime }`$ and displayed in Table 1. The same procedure for the $`D`$-case, produced four new solutions, denoted as $`D^{\prime \prime }`$, $`D^{\prime \prime \prime }`$, $`D^{IV}`$, $`D^V`$ and shown in Table 1. We note that in the models $`SP1b^{\prime \prime }`$, $`SP1b^{\prime \prime \prime }`$, $`D^{IV}`$ and $`D^V`$, the second and third neutralinos are almost degenerate and considerably smaller than the heaviest one. Another feature is that the two chargino masses tend to be very different.

In the same spirit, we have also tried variations to the $`SP1b`$ and $`D`$ models with $`\eta _1=\eta _2=1`$, but no consistent solution was found. It seems therefore that for an initial choice of the physical masses, not all $`\eta _j`$-signs are generally possible.

An efficient way of constraining $`\eta _1`$, $`\eta _2`$, and the other model parameters, is by looking at the $`\sigma (e^{}e^+\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0)`$ cross section, preferably using polarized beams. In Fig.3a and 3b we present these cross sections for the CP-conserving models ($`SP1b`$, $`SP1b^{}`$, $`SP1b^{\prime \prime }`$) and ($`D`$, $`D^{\prime \prime }`$, $`D^{\prime \prime \prime }`$) respectively. The necessary input data are given in Table 1, while the reduced projector elements are calculated either from (70-72) or (48). For the $`\stackrel{~}{e}_L,\stackrel{~}{e}_R`$ masses we used $`m_{\stackrel{~}{e}_L}=338GeV`$, $`m_{\stackrel{~}{e}_R}=251.3GeV`$ for the $`SP1b`$-type models , and $`m_{\stackrel{~}{e}_L}=385.8GeV`$, $`m_{\stackrel{~}{e}_R}=240.2GeV`$ for the $`D`$-type ones .

As seen in Figs. 3a, b, there is a striking difference between the cross sections for the models ($`SP1b`$, $`SP1b^{}`$, $`D`$) which have $`\eta _1\eta _2=1`$, and the models ($`SP1b^{\prime \prime }`$, $`D^{\prime \prime }`$, $`D^{\prime \prime \prime }`$) which have $`\eta _1\eta _2=1`$. Close to the $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0`$ production threshold, such a difference may be understood on the basis of (59, 60), which suggest that the bigger cross section arises for models with $`\eta _i\eta _j=1`$. At higher energies, the relative magnitude of the various polarization cross sections is model dependent. The threshold behaviour is preserved as the energy increases, in Fig.3b, but not in Fig.3a.

Since the neutralinos are rather heavy in the benchmark models  we consider here, we contemplate a Linear Collider at 800 GeV c.m. energy, with an integrated luminosity of about $`500fb^1`$ . It should then be possible to discriminate models with opposite values of $`\eta _1\eta _2`$; compare $`SP1b`$ or $`SP1b^{}`$ with $`SP1b^{\prime \prime }`$ in Fig.3a; or $`D`$ with $`D^{\prime \prime }`$ or $`D^{\prime \prime \prime }`$ in Fig.3b171717Similar remarks should apply also to models $`SP1b^{\prime \prime \prime }`$, $`D^{IV}`$, $`D^V`$..

Even the discrimination between models with the same value of $`\eta _1\eta _2`$ may be possible, at least if some knowledge of the $`\stackrel{~}{e}_L`$, $`\stackrel{~}{e}_R`$ masses is available181818Ideas on how this could be achieved are presented in . This is inferred from the fact that for a $`500fb^1`$ luminosity, the difference between the unpolarized cross sections at 800 GeV for the models $`SP1b`$ and $`SP1b^{}`$ is at the level of 6.7 statistical Standard Deviations (SD); and it increases to 12 SD when longitudinally polarized beams are used with $`\lambda _1=0.85`$, and $`\lambda _2=+0.6`$; see Fig.3a. The corresponding difference between the unpolarized cross sections for the $`D^{\prime \prime }`$ and $`D^{\prime \prime \prime }`$ models, (which both have $`\eta _1\eta _2=1`$), is at the level of 5.7 statistical SD, and it increases to about 11 SD for longitudinal polarizations like those used in Fig.3b. Of course such signals will be reduced considerably, when the additional uncertainties due to the slepton masses and the experimental systematics are taken into account.

The discrimination between the models $`SP1b^{\prime \prime }`$ and $`SP1b^{\prime \prime \prime }`$, or $`D^{IV}`$ and $`D^V`$, which could lift the remaining reconstruction ambiguities, may be possible if an accurate determination of the third neutralino mass is available. This may be obtained by measurements of the $`\sigma (e^{}e^+\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }_3^0)`$ cross section using polarized beams.

Finally, we note from Fig.3a, that not only the overall magnitude, but also the relative magnitudes of the various polarized cross sections may change, as $`\eta _1\eta _2`$ changes. Therefore, the measurement of the physical masses of the lightest chargino and the two lightest neutralinos, combined with some knowledge of the $`\sigma (e^{}e^+\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0)`$ cross section (and possibly also the measurements of $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_3^0}`$ and $`\sigma (e^{}e^+\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }_3^0)`$), may be able to provide more or less unique results for $`M_2,M_1,\mu `$, . At least this is what happens in the CP conserving case considered above.

A nice feature of the present approach is that (5.1) and (78), offer an analytical way of disentangling the $`\mu `$ and $`M_2`$ parameters.

### 5.2 The CP violating case

We now address the CP-violating case in which there exist six parameters affecting the ino sector; namely the set ($`M_2`$, $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, $`\overline{\mu }`$, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\mu `$) affecting both charginos and neutralinos, and the set ($`\overline{M}_1`$, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1`$) which influences only the neutralinos.

As shown in , if the charginos are not too heavy, a detailed measurement of $`\sigma (e^{}e^+\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^+\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^{})`$ at a Linear Collider with polarized beams, should be able to determine the two chargino masses $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1}^\pm ,m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2}^\pm `$, as well as the mixing angles $`\varphi _L,\varphi _R`$ entering the diagonalization of the chargino mass matrix. If this is achieved, then ($`M_2`$, $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, $`\overline{\mu }`$, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\mu `$) are fully determined . The measurement of neutralino production cross sections could then be used to measure the genuine $`U(1)`$ parameters $`|M_1|`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1`$.

Of course it may turn out that such a full separation of the information sources for the two aforementioned sets, is not possible. It may for example happen that $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^+}`$ is too heavy to be produced on its mass shell in a Linear Collider. We therefore explore various scenarios concerning the chargino and neutralino measurements:

$``$ The scenario CPv1:
This is analogous to the S1 scenario of the CP conserving case . We assume in it that the parameters ($`M_2`$, $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, $`\overline{\mu }`$, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\mu `$) will be measured first from e.g. the chargino sector. Concerning the neutralinos, the assumption is that initially we will only know the physical mass $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0}`$ of one (not necessarily the lightest) neutralino, and may also have a limited knowledge of its associated CP-eigenphase $`\eta _j`$. The problem will then be how to determine $`|M_1|`$ and at least constrain the phase angle $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1`$ from (68).

A feeling of the possibilities concerning these phases may be obtained by looking at CP-violating variations of e.g. the model $`SP1b`$, in which the values of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1,\mathrm{\Phi }_\mu `$ are varied as in191919The same model $`SP1b`$ appears both in Table 1 and in Table 2; but in the latter Table more significant digits are kept in order to indicate the small mass changes caused by the changes in the phase angles.  Table 2, while $`|M_1|`$, $`M_2`$, $`|\mu |`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ are kept fixed. The models thus obtained are labeled as $`SP1c`$, $`SP1d`$, $`SP1e`$, $`SP1g`$. In the same Table 2 we also give the implied physical masses and $`\eta _j`$ phases for the two lightest neutralinos calculated from the formulae in Appendix A, and (33, 36). There are in fact two models labeled as $`SP1c`$ (and another two as $`SP1d`$), corresponding to the upper and lower signs for $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1`$, $`\mathrm{Arg}\eta _1`$ and $`\mathrm{Arg}\eta _2`$. In all models listed in Table 2, the dimensional quantities are essentially the same, but the phases change considerably.

In the context of the CPv1 scenario, we concentrate on the models $`SP1b`$, $`SP1c`$, $`SP1d`$, $`SP1e`$, $`SP1g`$ of Table 2. We now invert the logic within each of these models, and assume that only $`(M_2,\mathrm{tan}\beta ,\overline{\mu },\mathrm{\Phi }_\mu )`$ and the physical mass of one neutralino $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0`$, are known. Under these conditions, we explore the extent to which $`|M_1|`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1`$ may be reconstructed.

If the known neutralino is the lightest one $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$, we present in Fig.4a the reconstructed value of $`|M_1|`$ calculated from (68), as a function of the phase angle $`\mathrm{Arg}(\eta _1)`$. As seen from this figure, the reconstructed value of $`|M_1|`$ varies extremely little around the expected value of 165.7 GeV, as $`\mathrm{Arg}(\eta _1)`$ takes all possible values. Under the same conditions, Fig.4b indicates that the reconstructed value of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1`$ closely follows that of $`\eta _1`$.

We conclude therefore that, at least in these models, $`|M_1|`$ can be accurately reconstructed from the physical mass of the lightest neutralino, even if we know nothing about its CP-eigenphase $`\eta _1`$.

In principle, the same method could have been also applied in the case where the known neutralino mass was $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0}`$. But, as it is clearly seen from Figs.5a,b, the method is now not expected to be accurate.

We next turn to the $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1`$ determination. From Fig.4b, we expect $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1\eta _1`$. For measuring therefore $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1`$, we need to know the CP eigenphase $`\eta _1`$ of the lightest neutralino. Information on $`\eta _1`$ could be obtained e.g. by looking at neutralino production in an $`e^{}e^+`$ Linear Collider. In Figs.6(a) and (b) we present the cross sections for $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0`$ production respectively. The results correspond to the models $`SP1b`$ and $`SP1c`$, the parameters of which appear in Table 2. As expected from (59, 60), the dominant $`\mathrm{\Delta }s^{1/2}`$ term in the threshold region for the $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0`$ production cross section, should be vanishing in the CP conserving model $`SP1b`$ where $`\eta _1=\eta _2`$, but not in the $`SP1c`$ case in which $`\eta _1\eta _2`$ and complex.

For $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0`$ production though, the first non vanishing threshold term is $`\mathrm{\Delta }s^{3/2}`$. From Fig.6a,b and an expected luminosity of $`500fb^1`$, we see that the $`e^{}e^+\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0`$ cross section measurement can indeed discriminate between the models $`SP1b`$ and202020According to (61-67), the upper and lower sign models appearing in Table 2 as $`SP1c`$ (or $`SP1d`$) are characterized by complex conjugate projectors and $`(\eta _1,\eta _2)`$ phases. They therefore give identical cross sections from (53). $`SP1c`$, which differ essentially only for $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1`$ and the neutralino eigenphases.

In the above numerical example we have thus found that if the measured neutralino is the lightest one; then, $`|M_1|`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1`$ may be accurately reconstructed. In that example, we have also found that $`|M_1|m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1\eta _1`$.

$``$ The scenario CPv2:
In addition to the chargino parameters $`M_2`$, $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, $`\overline{\mu }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\mu `$, we assume here that we also know the physical masses of two neutralinos; say e.g. the masses of the two lightest neutralinos $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0},m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0}`$. The CP eigenphases $`\eta _1,\eta _2`$ are taken as unknown .

Then $`\overline{M}_1|M_1|,\mathrm{\Phi }_1`$ and the CP-eigenphases $`\eta _1,\eta _2`$ can be extracted analytically, up to a two-fold discrete ambiguity . Indeed applying (68) to the two lightest neutralinos we obtain

$$A_1\eta _1A_2\eta _2=B_2B_1,$$
(80)
where $`A_1,A_2,B_1,B_2`$ are defined in (69). Imposing then the condition $`|\eta _{1,2}|=1`$ in (80) and defining $`\mathrm{\Delta }BB_2B_1`$, we obtain the constraint212121It is equivalent to Eq.(3.15) of . We thank Gilbert Moultaka for pointing this out to us.

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}=4A_1^2A_2^2(A_1^2+A_2^2|\mathrm{\Delta }B|^2)^20,$$
(81)
together with

$$\eta _{1,2}=\frac{A_1^2A_2^2\pm |\mathrm{\Delta }B|^2+iϵ\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}}{2\mathrm{\Delta }B^{}A_{1,2}}$$
(82)
and

$$\overline{M}_1e^{i\mathrm{\Phi }_1}=\frac{A_1^2A_2^2+(B_1+B_2)\mathrm{\Delta }B^{}+iϵ\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}}{2\mathrm{\Delta }B^{}},$$
(83)
where $`ϵ=\pm 1`$ expresses the aforementioned two-fold ambiguity of the solution. In the context of this scenario, (82) fixes the CP eigenphases of the two lightest neutralinos, and (83) determines $`(\overline{M}_1,\mathrm{\Phi }_1)`$, up to a two-fold ambiguity.

As an example we consider the models $`SP1e`$ and $`SP1g`$ of Table 2, considering as input ($`M_2`$, $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, $`\overline{\mu }`$, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\mu `$) together with the physical masses of the two lightest neutralinos. As expected, (83, 82) reproduce the $`\overline{M}_1`$, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1`$, $`\eta _1`$ and $`\eta _2`$ results quoted in Table 2 for $`SP1e`$ and $`SP1g`$ respectively; and in addition, due to the above ambiguity, they also respectively allow the models $`SP1f`$ and $`SP1h`$ shown in the same Table.

Exactly the same statements could be made when applying the above procedure to the upper signs version of the model $`SP1c`$ (or $`SP1d`$) in Table 2; and obtaining, due to the aforementioned ambiguity, also the lower signs version of the same model.

As seen from Table 2, the models in each of the pairs ($`SP1e`$, $`SP1f`$) and ($`SP1g`$, $`SP1h`$) have the same values for $`M_2`$, $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, $`|\mu |`$, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\mu `$ and the physical masses of both charginos and the two lightest neutralinos. They have also almost the same values for $`|M_1|`$. Their main difference is on the phase angles $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1,\mathrm{Arg}(\eta _1),\mathrm{Arg}(\eta _2)`$, which are found to be of opposite sign, in each of the above pairs. Apart from this, their only other difference is on the higher neutralino masses and CP eigenphases.

An efficient way to discriminate between models like e.g. $`SP1e`$ and $`SP1f`$, is by looking at $`\sigma (e^{}e^+\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0)`$. These cross sections are presented in Fig.6c for polarized beams. According to (53-58) and the reduced projectors of (61-63), the difference between the cross sections for these models solely comes from the differences between $`\eta _1`$ and $`\eta _2`$ given in Table 2. Thus, for polarized beams with longitudinal polarizations $`\lambda _1=0.85`$, $`\lambda _2=0.6`$, the cross section difference between the two models may reach the level of 20 fb; which means a difference of about ten thousands of events. The discrimination between such models should be amply possible at a Linear Collider.

$``$ The scenario CPv3:
This scenario is a weak version of CPv2. We assume in it, that the first quantities to be measured will be the physical masses of the two lightest neutralinos, the mass of the lightest chargino $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+`$, and in addition to it, the chargino mixing angle $`\varphi _L`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ .

The motivation for this scenario is based on the observation that a study of the $`e^+e^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{}`$ cross section for polarized beams, should be sufficient to extract $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ and the mixing angle $`\varphi _L`$, even if it would be impossible to experimentally determine the mass of the heavier chargino . Thus, $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^\pm }`$ is not assumed known.

The relevant formulae in this scenario are still (81, 82, 83) reconstructing the neutralino eigenphases and complex $`M_1`$, in terms of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ and $`(M_2,\mu )`$. But now $`(M_2,\mu )`$ should also be constructed from the lightest chargino mass and $`\varphi _L`$. To this end we note that the chargino mass matrix gives

$`|\mu |`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^\pm }^2[1+\mathrm{cos}(2\varphi _L)]+m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }^2[1\mathrm{cos}(2\varphi _L)]4m_W^2c_\beta ^2}{2}}},`$
$`M_2`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^\pm }^2[1\mathrm{cos}(2\varphi _L)]+m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }^2[1+\mathrm{cos}(2\varphi _L)]4m_W^2s_\beta ^2}{2}}},`$ (84)
and

$`\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Phi }_\mu `$ $`=`$ $`1{\displaystyle \frac{m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }^2m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^\pm }^2(M_2|\mu |m_W^2s_{2\beta })^2}{2m_W^2M_2|\mu |s_{2\beta }}},`$
$`\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Phi }_\mu `$ $`=`$ $`ϵ^{^{}}\sqrt{1\mathrm{cos}^2\mathrm{\Phi }_\mu },`$ (85)
involving an additional two-fold ambiguity on the sign of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\mu `$, which is described by $`ϵ^{}=\pm 1`$, .

To reconstruct $`(|\mu |,M_2,\mathrm{\Phi }_\mu )`$ from (84-5.2), we first need to constrain or determine $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^\pm }`$. A very strong such constraint may be obtained by imposing on (5.2) the requirements $`|\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Phi }_\mu |1`$, $`|\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Phi }_\mu |1`$, . To illustrate this we consider again the model $`SP1e`$ of Table 2, for which the chargino masses are $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }=296.9GeV`$, $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^\pm }=516.17GeV`$ and $`\mathrm{cos}(2\varphi _L)=0.77`$.

If now, within the philosophy of the CPv3 scenario, we invert the logic and start from the $`SP1e`$ values for $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }`$, $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, $`\mathrm{cos}(2\varphi _L)`$ and $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0},m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0}`$; while treating $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^\pm }`$, as well as all other $`SP1e`$ parameters, as unknown; then consistency of (5.2) implies the rather strong constraint

$$507.2\mathrm{GeV}m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^\pm }517.7\mathrm{GeV}.$$

This constraint is generated from the chargino sector alone, and it is independent of the $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}`$ and $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0}`$ values. It is further strengthened if we also demand that $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^\pm }`$ should be such, that the induced values for $`|\mu |`$ and $`M_2`$ from (84), satisfy the constraint (81). Indeed, for the same input parameters as above, and taking also into account the information on the neutralino masses, we then find the very tiny interval

$$515.8\mathrm{GeV}m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^\pm }516.9\mathrm{GeV},$$
(86)
independently of the $`ϵ`$, $`ϵ^{}`$ ambiguities. The corresponding intervals from (84) are

$$495.6\mathrm{GeV}|\mu |496.5\mathrm{GeV},309.5\mathrm{GeV}M_2309.7\mathrm{GeV}.$$

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_\mu `$ is then restricted by (5.2) to the $`ϵ^{}`$-dependent interval

$$0.63\mathrm{rad}ϵ^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_\mu 0.87\mathrm{rad},$$

while (83) gives

$$165.69\mathrm{GeV}\overline{M}_1165.72\mathrm{GeV},1\mathrm{rad}ϵ^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_11.1\mathrm{rad},$$
(87)
for $`ϵϵ^{}=1`$, and

$$165.99\mathrm{GeV}\overline{M}_1166.72\mathrm{GeV},1.34\mathrm{rad}ϵ^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_11.31\mathrm{rad},$$
(88)
for $`ϵϵ^{}=1`$.

We note that the appearances of $`ϵ`$ and $`ϵ^{}`$ above and in (82, 83), indicate a four fold ambiguity. If $`ϵ^{}=1`$ is selected, then (87) and (88) correspond respectively to the models $`SP1e`$ and $`SP1f`$, in Table 2. On the other hand, the solution $`ϵ^{}=1`$ combined with $`ϵ=1`$ or $`ϵ=1`$, allows two additional model possibilities, in which the reduced projector elements and the CP eigenphases for the two lightest neutralinos will be complex conjugate to those of the models $`SP1e`$ and $`SP1f`$ respectively; compare (82, 83). For clarity, we call these later models $`SP1e^{}`$ and $`SP1f^{}`$, respectively222222They should not be confused with $`SP1g`$ and $`SP1h`$ of Table 2, in which the masses of the two lightest neutralino are different..

The above constraints are derived assuming that we only know the physical masses of the two lightest neutralinos, the mass of the lightest chargino $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+`$, $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ and the mixing angle $`\varphi _L`$. It turns out that we can go beyond this, and fully determine the mass of $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^\pm `$, even if (as in $`SP1e`$), it is too heavy to be produced on-shell in a 500 GeV LC. Such a determination may e.g. be done if we also measure $`\sigma (e^{}e^+\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0)`$, preferably for polarized beams.

Because of the aforementioned properties of the RPE and $`\eta _{1,2}`$, the models in each of the pairs ($`SP1e`$, $`SP1e^{}`$) or ($`SP1f`$, $`SP1f^{}`$) give identical results for $`\sigma (e^{}e^+\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0)`$. Thus, measurement of this cross section may only be used to discriminate between the pairs ($`SP1e`$, $`SP1e^{}`$) and ($`SP1f`$, $`SP1f^{}`$), corresponding to $`ϵϵ^{}=1`$ and $`ϵϵ^{}=1`$, respectively.

Thus, using (84, 5.2, 82), and the reduced projector elements $`p_{1\alpha }`$, $`p_{2\beta }`$ evaluated from (61-63), the cross section $`\sigma (e^{}e^+\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0)`$ is calculated from (53). For a given energy $`\sqrt{s}`$ and polarizations $`(\lambda _1,\lambda _2)`$, this cross section only depends on the chargino mass $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^\pm }`$, allowed to vary in the interval specified by $`|c_\mu |,|s_\mu |1`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}0`$. The mass $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^\pm }`$ is obtained by comparison with the experimental cross section.

As an illustration of how well we can reproduce the specific ”experimental” value of $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^\pm }=516.17GeV`$ for the above $`SP1e`$-generated parameters, we call ”experimental”, the cross section232323As already stated, this cross section is identical for both $`SP1e`$ and $`SP1e^{}`$ models. $`\sigma (e^{}e^+\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0)_{\mathrm{exp}}54.5\mathrm{fb}`$ for $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^\pm }=516.17GeV`$, $`ϵϵ^{}=1`$, $`\sqrt{s}=500GeV`$ and $`e^{}`$-polarizations $`(\lambda _1,\lambda _2)=(0.8,0.6)`$. The ”theoretical” cross section is defined for varying $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^\pm }`$ in the range of (86), considering the two possibilities $`ϵϵ^{}=1`$ and $`ϵϵ^{}=1`$ corresponding to ($`SP1e,SP1e^{}`$) and ($`SP1f,SP1f^{}`$) respectively.

In Fig.7, we display the ratio of these cross sections

$$_+=\frac{\sigma (e^{}e^+\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0)_{\mathrm{th}}}{\sigma (e^{}e^+\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0)_{\mathrm{exp}}},$$
(89)
as a function of $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^\pm }`$.

For a Linear Collider with an integrated luminosity of about $`=500fb^1`$; the 1 SD error to $`_+`$ is

$$\delta _+\sqrt{\frac{_+}{\sigma (e^{}e^+\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0)_{\mathrm{exp}}}}.$$
(90)
Using this, we also present in Fig.7 the $`\pm 1\mathrm{SD}`$ results $`_+\pm \delta _+`$, for the two distinct cases $`ϵϵ^{}=1`$ and $`ϵϵ^{}=+1`$. As seen in Fig.7, the possibility $`ϵϵ^{}=+1`$ (corresponding to the pair $`SP1f,SP1f^{}`$) is ruled out by many standard deviations; while for $`ϵϵ^{}=1`$ we find $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^\pm }=516.20\pm 0.04`$, in consistency with models $`SP1e`$ and $`SP1e^{}`$.

After $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^\pm }`$ is thus fixed; then the choice $`ϵ^{}=1`$, together with (84-5.2, 81, 82, 83) determines $`|\mu |`$, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\mu `$, $`M_2`$, $`|M_1|`$, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1`$, and the CP eigenphases of the two neutralinos we have started with $`\eta _1,\eta _2`$, to the values expected for the $`SP1e`$ model. Of course the $`ϵ^{}`$ ambiguity is not lifted, and an alternative set of results is allowed corresponding to $`SP1e^{}`$.

The same procedure could be applied also for a c.m. energy of $`\sqrt{s}=800\mathrm{GeV}`$. For the same polarizations $`(\lambda _1,\lambda _2)=(0.8,0.6)`$, we again find that $`ϵϵ^{}=+1`$ is strongly ruled out; while the reconstruction of the chargino mass $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^\pm }`$ for $`ϵϵ^{}=1`$ gives $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^\pm }=516.2\pm 0.1`$. It is interesting to note that the reconstruction error is larger in this case.

A similar procedure could also be applied to the pair of models labeled $`SP1c`$ (or $`SP1d`$). In this particular case, where the chargino sector is CP conserving, we should only have the $`ϵ`$ ambiguity; not the $`ϵ^{}`$ one, . But the measurement of $`\sigma (e^{}e^+\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0)`$ will not be able to lift it. So finally again one ambiguity remains which is expressed by the upper and lower signs in each of these pairs of models.

## 6 Conclusions

In this paper we have first addressed the problem of constructing analytical expressions for the diagonalization of the most general complex symmetric neutralino mass matrix. The motivating idea was to extend to complex SUSY parameters, the approach of , which was hitherto applied only to the real SUSY parameter case. A very nice feature of this approach is that it can be straightforwardly extended to theories containing an arbitrary number of neutralinos.

The diagonalization starts from the observation that neutralino physical observables can only depend on their projectors (or density matrices); and what we have here defined as the neutralino pseudo-projectors, enforced by their Majorana nature.

In the next step, we introduce for each physical neutralino $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0`$, its CP-eigenphase $`\eta _j`$, and its ”reduced projector elements” $`p_{j\alpha }`$, which are complex numbers. The projectors and pseudo-projectors, as well as the diagonalization matrix, can be expressed in terms of them; and all may subsequently be calculated using Jarlskog’s formula (15) together with (29-32, 35). Analytic expressions for calculating the physical masses are given in Appendix A.

The end result is that all physical observables related to any specific neutralino, can be fully described in terms of its CP eigenphase and its reduced projector elements. The ensuing formulae constitute one of the basic contents of this paper. Their importance is further emphasized by noting that they can be directly generalized to any non-minimal SUSY theory, involving any number of neutralinos with real or complex couplings.

As an example, we have presented the tree-level expression for $`\mathrm{d}\sigma (e^{}e^+\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0)/\mathrm{d}t`$ in the MSSM case; in which there are three reduced projector elements, and of course one CP eigenphase, for each neutralino. Arbitrary beam polarizations are used.

The above formulae are quite simple and easy to insert in a numerical code. Thus, they should be useful in any calculation involving either on-shell or virtual neutralinos. Since all masses and mixings are determined together at the same scale and level of approximation; it is guaranteed that no spurious enhancements or lack of divergence cancellations in neutralino loops, may creep in.

The next very important set of formulae of the present paper appears in (40-43) and expresses the various MSSM parameters in terms of the three reduced projector elements $`p_{j\alpha }`$ ($`\alpha =24`$) for $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0`$, its mass $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0}`$, and its CP eigenphase $`\eta _j`$. These relations are subsequently used in various applications.

The first concerns the CP conservation in the chargino-neutralino sector and may be stated as: CP conservation is equivalent to the reality of the reduced projector elements referring to any given neutralino state. But if this happens, then it is immediately concluded that all reduced projector elements for all neutralinos, and all CP eigenphases, are in fact real.

As a second set of applications of (40-43) and their inverse (35-39), we have studied various scenarios of reconstructing the SUSY parameters; under various conditions concerning the acquirement of experimental knowledge in the chargino and neutralino sectors. To study the efficiency of our formalism, we have in fact considered the same scenarios as in . In all cases, analytical expressions are given which disentangle the unknown SUSY parameters. There is never need to do this numerically . Ways to handle the various construction ambiguities are also discussed.

More explicitly, in the real SUSY parameter CP conserving case, we considered the scenario S1, in which $`M_2,\mu `$, $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, the lightest physical neutralino mass and (partly at least) its CP eigensign are known; and S2, in which measurements of only the masses of the lightest chargino and the two lightest neutralinos, are assumed.

For the complex parameters case, we have also considered scenarios in which chargino measurements are assumed to have already determined $`M_2,|\mu |,\mathrm{\Phi }_\mu `$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$; while from the neutralino sector only the physical mass and CP-eigenphase of the lightest neutralino (CPv1), or just the physical masses of the two lightest neutralinos (CPv2), are assumed known.

As already said, analytical formulae have in all cases been derived which disentangle the unknown SUSY parameters.

In addition to them, we have also considered the complex parameter CPv3 scenario, in which only $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, the lightest chargino mass, its mixing angle $`\varphi _L`$, and the physical masses of the two lightest neutralinos, are assumed known . Then, explicit expressions are constructed which may be used to determine $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^\pm }`$ from $`\sigma (e^{}e^+\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0)`$ measurements; even if the energy is not sufficient to produce $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^\pm `$. Once, $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^\pm }`$ is determined; expressions for finding $`|\mu |`$, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\mu `$, $`M_2`$, $`|M_1|`$, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1`$, as well as the CP eigenphases of the two lightest neutralinos, are also given.

In all previous scenarios, some knowledge of the chargino sector was assumed, and only the total neutralino production cross section at an LC was used. Since in many models $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0}m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+}`$, it may turn out that the charginos will be too heavy to be produced, and that the neutralino sector will be the first to be studied. In such a case, the differential cross section $`\mathrm{d}\sigma (e^{}e^+\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0)/\mathrm{d}t`$, together with the physical masses of the two lightest neutralinos, will be the only means we might have in order to reconstruct the neutralino parameters. We plan to explore such scenarios in the near future.

Acknowledgements.
We are grateful to Abdelhak Djouadi, Jean-Loic Kneur and Gilbert Moultaka for many helpful communications.

Appendix A: The neutralino masses and projectors in the presence of the CP violating phases:

Here we present the formulae for the analytic determination of the neutralino masses. Analogous results have already appeared in . Nevertheless we give them here also, following the same formalism as in the real SUSY parameter case treated in .

Using (3) we find

$$Y^{}Y=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\overline{M}_1^2+m_Z^2s_W^2& m_Z^2s_Wc_W& y_{13}& y_{14}\\ m_Z^2s_Wc_W& M_2^2+m_Z^2c_W^2& y_{23}& y_{24}\\ y_{31}& y_{32}& \overline{\mu }^2+m_Z^2c_\beta ^2& m_Z^2s_\beta c_\beta \\ y_{41}& y_{42}& m_Z^2s_\beta c_\beta & \overline{\mu }^2+m_Z^2s_\beta ^2\end{array}\right),$$
(A.1)
where

$`y_{13}`$ $`=`$ $`y_{31}^{}=m_Zs_W(\overline{M}_1c_\beta e^{i\mathrm{\Phi }_1}+\overline{\mu }s_\beta e^{i\mathrm{\Phi }_\mu }),`$ (A.2)
$`y_{14}`$ $`=`$ $`y_{41}^{}=m_Zs_W(\overline{M}_1s_\beta e^{i\mathrm{\Phi }_1}+\overline{\mu }c_\beta e^{i\mathrm{\Phi }_\mu }),`$ (A.3)
$`y_{23}`$ $`=`$ $`y_{32}^{}=m_Zc_W(M_2c_\beta +\overline{\mu }s_\beta e^{i\mathrm{\Phi }_\mu }),`$ (A.4)
$`y_{24}`$ $`=`$ $`y_{42}^{}=m_Zc_W(M_2s_\beta +\overline{\mu }c_\beta e^{i\mathrm{\Phi }_\mu }).`$ (A.5)
The characteristic equation associated to $`Y^{}Y`$ determine the physical neutralino masses $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0}`$:

$$m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0}^8Am_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0}^6+Bm_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0}^4Cm_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0}^2+D=0,$$
(A.6)
with

$`A`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{M}_1^2+M_2^2+2(\overline{\mu }^2+m_Z^2),`$
$`B`$ $`=`$ $`2\overline{\mu }m_Z^2s_{2\beta }(\overline{M}_1s_W^2c_{1\mu }+M_2c_W^2c_\mu )+(\overline{M}_1M_2)^2`$
$`+2\overline{\mu }^2(\overline{M}_1^2+M_2^2)+2m_Z^2(\overline{M}_1^2c_W^2+M_2^2s_W^2)+(\overline{\mu }^2+m_Z^2)^2,`$
$`C`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\mu }^2m_Z^4s_{2\beta }^22\overline{M}_1\overline{\mu }m_Z^2(M_2^2+\overline{\mu }^2)s_W^2s_{2\beta }c_{1\mu }2M_2\overline{\mu }(\overline{M}_1^2+\overline{\mu }^2)m_Z^2c_W^2s_{2\beta }c_\mu `$
$`+\overline{M}_1^2(2M_2^2\overline{\mu }^2+(\overline{\mu }^2+m_Z^2c_W^2)^2)+M_2^2(\overline{\mu }^2+m_Z^2s_W^2)^2+2\overline{M}_1M_2m_Z^4s_W^2c_W^2c_1,`$
$`D`$ $`=`$ $`(\overline{M}_1M_2\overline{\mu }^2)^2+m_Z^4\overline{\mu }^2s_{2\beta }^2(\overline{M}_1^2c_W^4+M_2^2s_W^4+2\overline{M}_1M_2s_W^2c_W^2c_1)`$ (A.7)
$`2(\overline{M}_1M_2\overline{\mu }^3)m_Z^2s_{2\beta }(\overline{M}_1c_W^2c_\mu +M_2s_W^2c_{1\mu }),`$
where $`s_{2\beta }=\mathrm{sin}(2\beta )`$, $`c_1=\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Phi }_1`$, $`c_\mu =\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Phi }_\mu `$ and $`c_{1\mu }=\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Phi }_1+\mathrm{\Phi }_\mu )`$.

The four real and positive solutions of (A.6) determining $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0}^2`$ are .

$`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0}^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{A}{2}}2E\pm \sqrt{\left({\displaystyle \frac{A}{2}}2E\right)^24\left({\displaystyle \frac{B}{6}}+2\theta _N+F\right)}\right\},`$ (A.8)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{A}{2}}+2E\pm \sqrt{\left({\displaystyle \frac{A}{2}}+2E\right)^24\left({\displaystyle \frac{B}{6}}+2\theta _NF\right)}\right\},`$
where

$$E=\frac{1}{4}\left(A^2\frac{8B}{3}+16\theta _N\right)^{1/2},F=\frac{1}{4E}\left(C\frac{AB}{6}2A\theta _N\right),$$
(A.9)
and $`\theta _N`$ is a real solution of the auxiliary cubic equation

$`\theta _N^3+a\theta _N+b=0,`$
$`a{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{AC}{4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{B^2}{12}}+D\right),`$
$`b{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{A^2D}{16}}+{\displaystyle \frac{ABC}{48}}{\displaystyle \frac{B^3}{216}}+{\displaystyle \frac{BD}{6}}{\displaystyle \frac{C^2}{16}}\right).`$ (A.10)
Depending on the signs of $`a`$ and

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\frac{b^2}{4}+\frac{a^3}{27},$$
(A.11)
the expression for $`\theta _N`$ is constructed using (14-16) of .

Appendix B: The projectors and the CP-eigenphases in terms of the rotation angles and the CP-phases:

The purpose of this Appendix is to clarify the connection between the present formalism and the one of . To this aim, the $`4\times 4`$ unitary matrix $`U_N`$ of (5) is factorized as

$$U_N^{}=MD,$$

where

$$M=\mathrm{Diag}\{e^{i\alpha _1},e^{i\alpha _2}e^{i\alpha _3},e^{i\alpha _4}\},$$
(B.1)
is used to define the four Majorana CP phases satisfying $`0\alpha _i<2\pi `$ ; while the D matrix depends on 6 rotation angles $`\theta _{ij}[0,\pi /2],(i,j=14)`$ and 6 CP-phases $`\delta _{ij}[0,2\pi ),(i,j=14)`$, as

$$D=R_{34}R_{24}R_{14}R_{23}R_{13}R_{12},$$
(B.2)
with $`R_{ij}`$ being the rotation matrix in the plane $`(ij)`$. Thus, e.g.

$`R_{12}=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}c_{12}& s_{12}e^{i\delta _{12}}& 0& 0\\ s_{12}e^{i\delta _{12}}& c_{12}& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right),`$
where242424Note that our convention for $`s_{ij}`$ slightly differs from the one used in .

$$c_{ij}\mathrm{cos}\theta _{ij},s_{ij}\mathrm{sin}\theta _{ij}.t_{ij}\mathrm{tan}\theta _{ij}.$$
(B.3)
In terms of these parameters, the reduced projector elements $`p_{j2},p_{j3},p_{j4}`$ for the four physical neutralinos, are expressed as

$`p_{12}`$ $`=`$ $`\kappa _2t_{12},p_{13}=\kappa _3{\displaystyle \frac{t_{13}}{c_{12}}},p_{14}=\kappa _4{\displaystyle \frac{t_{14}}{c_{12}c_{13}}},`$ (B.4)
$`p_{22}`$ $`=`$ $`\kappa _2[s_{12}c_{24}s_{13}s_{23}\xi _1c_{23}c_{24}c_{12}\xi _2+s_{12}c_{13}s_{14}s_{24}]p_2^1,`$ (B.5)
$`p_{23}`$ $`=`$ $`\kappa _3[s_{13}s_{14}s_{24}c_{13}c_{24}s_{23}\xi _1]p_2^1,`$
$`p_{24}`$ $`=`$ $`\kappa _4c_{14}s_{24}p_2^1,`$ (B.6)
$`p_{32}`$ $`=`$ $`\kappa _2[s_{12}s_{13}s_{23}s_{24}s_{34}\xi _1c_{23}c_{12}s_{24}s_{34}\xi _2s_{12}c_{23}c_{34}s_{13}\xi _3`$ (B.7)
$`c_{34}c_{12}s_{23}\xi _1^{}\xi _2\xi _3s_{12}c_{13}c_{24}s_{14}s_{34}]p_3^1,`$
$`p_{33}`$ $`=`$ $`\kappa _3[c_{13}s_{23}s_{24}s_{34}\xi _1+c_{13}c_{23}c_{34}\xi _3c_{24}s_{13}s_{14}s_{34}]p_3^1,`$ (B.8)
$`p_{34}`$ $`=`$ $`\kappa _4c_{14}c_{24}s_{34}p_3^1,`$ (B.9)
$`p_{42}`$ $`=`$ $`\kappa _2[s_{12}s_{13}s_{23}s_{24}c_{34}\xi _1c_{23}c_{12}s_{24}c_{34}\xi _2+s_{12}c_{23}s_{34}s_{13}\xi _3`$ (B.10)
$`+s_{34}c_{12}s_{23}\xi _1^{}\xi _2\xi _3s_{12}c_{13}c_{24}s_{14}c_{34}]p_4^1,`$
$`p_{43}`$ $`=`$ $`\kappa _3[c_{13}s_{23}s_{24}c_{34}\xi _1c_{13}c_{23}s_{34}\xi _3c_{24}s_{13}s_{14}c_{34}]p_4^1,`$ (B.11)
$`p_{44}`$ $`=`$ $`\kappa _4c_{14}c_{24}c_{34}p_4^1,`$ (B.12)
with

$`\kappa _j`$ $`=`$ $`e^{i(\delta _{1j}+\alpha _1\alpha _j)},`$ (B.13)
$`p_2`$ $`=`$ $`c_{12}c_{24}s_{13}s_{23}\xi _1+c_{23}c_{24}s_{12}\xi _2+c_{12}c_{13}s_{14}s_{24},`$
$`p_3`$ $`=`$ $`c_{12}s_{13}s_{23}s_{24}s_{34}\xi _1+c_{23}s_{12}s_{24}s_{34}\xi _2c_{12}c_{23}c_{34}s_{13}\xi _3`$
$`+c_{34}s_{12}s_{23}\xi _1^{}\xi _2\xi _3c_{12}c_{13}c_{24}s_{14}s_{34},`$
$`p_4`$ $`=`$ $`c_{12}s_{13}s_{23}s_{24}c_{34}\xi _1+c_{23}s_{12}s_{24}c_{34}\xi _2+c_{12}c_{23}s_{34}s_{13}\xi _3`$ (B.14)
$`s_{34}s_{12}s_{23}\xi _1^{}\xi _2\xi _3c_{12}c_{13}c_{24}s_{14}c_{34},`$
and

$$\xi _1e^{i(\delta _{13}\delta _{23}+\delta _{24}\delta _{14})},\xi _2e^{i(\delta _{12}+\delta _{24}\delta _{14})},\xi _3e^{i(\delta _{13}+\delta _{34}\delta _{14})};$$
(B.15)
while the CP-eigenphases of the four physical neutralinos defined at (16) are

$`\eta _1`$ $`=`$ $`e^{2i\alpha _1},`$
$`\eta _2`$ $`=`$ $`e^{2i(\alpha _1+\delta _{14}\delta _{24}+\mathrm{Arg}[p_{14}]\mathrm{Arg}[p_{24}])},`$
$`\eta _3`$ $`=`$ $`e^{2i(\alpha _1+\delta _{14}\delta _{34}+\mathrm{Arg}[p_{14}]\mathrm{Arg}[p_{34}])},`$
$`\eta _4`$ $`=`$ $`e^{2i(\alpha _1+\delta _{14}+\mathrm{Arg}[p_{14}]\mathrm{Arg}[p_{44}])}.`$ (B.16)
Eqs.(B.4-B.16) express the parameters of the present formalism in terms of those of . Conversely, the rotation angles $`\theta _{ij}`$ and the $`\alpha _i`$ phases of  (compare (B.3, B.1)), may also be written in terms of the projector elements and the neutralino CP eigenphases as

$`s_{12}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{P_{122}}{1P_{133}P_{144}}}},s_{13}=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{P_{133}}{1P_{144}}}},s_{14}=\sqrt{P_{144}},`$
$`s_{24}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{P_{244}}{1P_{144}}}},s_{34}=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{P_{344}}{1P_{144}P_{244}}}}`$
$`s_{23}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{(1P_{144})^2P_{233}+P_{133}P_{144}P_{244}+2(1P_{144})Re[P_{134}P_{234}^{}]}{(1P_{133}P_{144})(1P_{144}P_{244})}}},`$ (B.17)
$$\alpha _i=\mathrm{Arg}[\sqrt{\eta _i}P_{i14}P_{1i4}]+\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_i,\delta _{ij}=\mathrm{Arg}[\sqrt{\eta _j\eta _i^{}}P_{i14}^{}P_{j14}]+\stackrel{~}{\delta }_{ij},$$
(B.18)
with

$`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_{1,4}0,\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_{2,3}\mathrm{Arg}[\xi _{2,3}],`$
$`\stackrel{~}{\delta }_{1i}\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_i,\stackrel{~}{\delta }_{23}=\mathrm{Arg}[\xi _3\xi _1^{}],\stackrel{~}{\delta }_{24}=\stackrel{~}{\delta }_{34}=0,`$ (B.19)
where the auxiliary complex numbers $`\xi _i`$ read:

$`\xi _1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{P_{233}}e^{i\mathrm{Arg}[P_{134}P_{234}^{}]}+s_{13}s_{14}s_{24}}{c_{13}c_{24}s_{23}}},`$
$`\xi _2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{s_{12}s_{13}\sqrt{P_{233}}e^{i\mathrm{Arg}[P_{134}P_{234}^{}]}+c_{13}\sqrt{P_{222}}e^{i\mathrm{Arg}[P_{124}P_{224}^{}]}+s_{12}s_{14}s_{24}}{c_{12}c_{13}c_{23}c_{24}}},`$
$`\xi _3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{s_{24}s_{34}\sqrt{P_{233}}e^{i\mathrm{Arg}[P_{134}P_{234}^{}]}+c_{24}\sqrt{P_{333}}e^{i\mathrm{Arg}[P_{134}P_{334}^{}]}+s_{13}s_{14}s_{34}}{c_{34}c_{13}c_{23}c_{24}}}.`$ (B.20)
Notice that the projectors elements and the neutralino CP eigenphases appearing above, may be expressed in terms of the reduced projector elements through (29, 32) and (43).

Concerning the condition for CP conservation, we note that the result of  may be expressed as

$$CP\mathrm{conservation}\left\{\alpha _i=0\mathrm{or}\frac{\pi }{2},\delta _{ij}=0\mathrm{or}\pi \right\},$$
(B.21)
which can be immediately verified starting from (45) and using (B.4-B.15, B.17\- B.20).

It may also be remarked that since CP conservation according to (45) is equivalent to the reality of the reduced projector elements $`p_{12},p_{13},p_{14}`$, (which also implies the reality of $`\eta _j`$), the validity of252525Compare in particular (B.4) and (B.13).

$`CP\mathrm{conservation}\delta _{1i}=\alpha _i\alpha _1[\mathrm{mod}\pi ]`$ (B.22)
for $`(i=2,3,4)`$, should be sufficient to imply the complete (B.21). The amusing feature of condition (B.22), is that it is equivalent to (B.21), in spite of the fact that it does not directly specify the values of any of the $`\alpha _j`$ or $`\delta _{ij}`$.