... Group1
Group information is available at http://acfahep.kek.jp/.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
...1
Here we give parameters based on X-band main linac. There are minor differences for C-band up to a factor of 2.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
...2
Here we give parameters based on X-band main linac. There are minor differences for C-band up to a factor of 2.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
...3
Here we give parameters based on X-band main linac. There are minor differences for C-band up to a factor of 2.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
...$W_{cm}\simeq 500$ GeV.4
Since the three sets of parameters refer to the same machine length with different loading, the center-of-mass energies are not exactly the same. Several typos in [32] have been fixed. There are slight differences from [32] in the number of beamstrahlung photons, luminosity, etc., because here we used computer simulations of the beam-beam interaction for beamstrahlung, pinch-enhancement of the luminosity, etc., instead of using simplified analytic formulas.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
... events 1
It has to be modified with Poisson probability for only one two-photon overlap, two two-photon overlap, three or more etc.. for large overlapping rate.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
... two 2
Note that the two-photon processes include ``normal'' two-photon process in which the two virtual photon interacts, and interaction between a virtual photon and real photon induced by the beamstrahlung effect, which may roughly doubles the cross-section.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
... correction1
Of course, `warped large' extra dimensions [5] might obviate the hierarchy problem completely.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
... stated2
The value of $\tan{\beta}$ has been excluded by the current higgs mass bound, but increasing it will not alter the following discussions in any significant manner.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
...-b)3
We assumed here that we can determine the charge of at least one W candidate in a reconstructed event by using, for instance, the charge of a lepton from charm decay or the reconstruction of a charmed meson or both. This is one of the most important cases in which a good particle ID system is essential.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
... left-handed4
We assume here that the chargino mass is known either from the end-point method as explained above or by threshold scan, which can pin down the gaugino mass to per mil level for $100~{\rm fb}^{-1}$[30].
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
...$e^+e^-_R \to \tilde{e}^+_L \tilde{e}^-_R$5
Another strategy is to go directory to the energy just above the pair production thresholds for $\tilde{\nu}_e$ or $\tilde{e}_L$. Their cross sections are large, in particular when the gaugino mass is small and thus the t-channel diagram dominates. We can then carry out similar analyses as we have done to the right-handed sleptons (see, for instance, Ref.[32]).
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
... holds6
As mentioned above, it is possible to determine M2 and M1 separately by studying chargino pair productions. Here, however, we assumed the GUT relation for simplicity.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
... interaction7
This is in contrast to the gravity-mediated soft SUSY breaking scenarios, where $\sqrt{F} \simeq 10^{10}$- $10^{11}~{\rm GeV}$, which makes the gravitino interaction with other MSSM fields phenomenologically irrelevant.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
... mass-degenerate8
The lighter chargino and the lightest neutralino can be almost mass-degenerate also in the MSSM models. In such a case, however, they are almost pure higgsinos instead of winos.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
...$\sqrt{s} = 1~{\rm TeV}$9
The sleptons are expected to be heavy on the basis of the required absence[46] of charge and color violating minima in the one-loop effective potential.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
... phenomena10
When the R-parity violating terms are large, we may expect new SUSY signals that are absent from the R-parity conserving scenarios: for instance, if the $\lambda $-coupling is sizable we may see a spectacular s-channel resonance production of a sneutrino.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
... well11
Note also that if we reach this level of precision, we may start worrying about the effect of the finite width of the parent particle. As a matter of fact, the width of the right-handed smuon in our example is about $0.7~{\rm GeV}$, which is indeed comparable with the ultimately expected precision.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
...$1 \%$12
It has recently been pointed out[49] that the quoted accuracy in Ref.[48] might be too optimistic in particular for the third generation sneutrino, though to what extent this will affect the results including those in Tables 3.5, 3.6, and Fig. 3.43 is still an open question.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
... super-heavy13
In the focus point SUSY scenarios the entire scalar sector might be beyond a few TeV[52,18].
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
... asymmetry.1
A recent study shows that the charge of b can be identified efficiently from a measurement of the vertex charge of b jets. In this way t and $\bar{t}$ can be distinguished even in case (i) [19].
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
... larger.2
An attempt at solving this problem has been given recently in [20].
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
... peak3
In the limit $\sqrt{s} \gg 2 m_t$, the normalization of the cross section becomes independent of $\Gamma_t$.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
... respectively.4
The magnitudes of these EDMs are given by ${e d_{t\gamma}}/{m_t}$ gZ dtZ/mt gs dtg/mt, respectively. $d_{t\gamma}=1$ corresponds to $e/m_t \sim 10^{-16}~e \, {\rm cm}$, etc.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
... as5
Throughout this report, we use simplified expressions. Here, for example, Av means ${A_v + \delta A_v}$ in our original papers.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
... angle1
Strictly speaking, stereo angle, which is defined as the wire angle measured from the axial direction, slightly varies even within a single jet cell: it increases linearly with the radial position of a wire. As discussed later, the stereo angle of the innermost wire is the most important in deciding the stereo geometry.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
... operation2
There are some external constraints on the radial positions of the inner- and outermost wires: the radial position of the innermost wires is constrained, in the case of the present JLC design, by the size of the support tube for the final focusing quadrupole magnets that reside in the detector system. The radial position of the outermost wires has to be consistent with the surrounding barrel calorimeter.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
... axis3
The azimuthal wire position becomes a linear function, and the radial wire position a quadratic function of z measured from the middle of the chamber:

\begin{displaymath}\left\{
\begin{array}{lll}
\phi(z) & \simeq & \phi(z=0) + \...
...}\left(\frac{(\alpha z)^2}{r(z=0)}\right)
\end{array} \right.
\end{displaymath} (8.15)

to the lowest order of $\alpha z$.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
...)4
The axial super-layers greatly facilitate track finding in the r-$\phi $ projection, since stereo super-layers alone cannot provide any absolute coordinate before its z coordinate is determined through tracking. There is, however, a logical possibility to do away with axial layers.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
...)5
We can further optimize the inter-super-layer distances.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
... wire6
The apparent degradation of the resolution near the sense wire is not only coming from primary ionization statistics but also from left-right ambiguity.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
... axis.1
After this study, the impact parameter resolution in the JLC detector was studied and updated which is used in the top quark analysis described later. An improvement for the Higgs study is expected but yet to be estimated.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
... becomes2
One of authors, T.K., is thankful Prof.I.Ginzburg for his valuable suggestion.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
... GeV.3
The cross sections has been calculated with CompHep[63] and GRACE[64] program and the results agree with each other.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ACFA Linear Collider Working Group
E-Mail:acfareport@acfahep.kek.jp