 ... Group^{1}
 Group information is available at http://acfahep.kek.jp/.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
 ...^{1}
 Here we give parameters based on Xband main
linac. There are minor differences for Cband up to a factor of 2.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
 ...^{2}
 Here we give parameters based on Xband main
linac. There are minor differences for Cband up to a factor of 2.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
 ...^{3}
 Here we give parameters based on Xband main
linac. There are minor differences for Cband up to a factor of 2.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
 ... GeV.^{4}

Since the three sets of parameters refer to the same machine length with
different loading, the centerofmass 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 beambeam interaction for beamstrahlung, pinchenhancement of the
luminosity, etc.,
instead of using simplified analytic formulas.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
 ...
events ^{1}

It has to be modified with Poisson probability for
only one twophoton overlap, two twophoton overlap, three or more etc..
for large overlapping rate.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
 ... two ^{2}

Note that the twophoton processes include ``normal'' twophoton 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 crosssection.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
 ... correction^{1}

Of course, `warped large' extra dimensions [5]
might obviate the hierarchy problem completely.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
 ... stated^{2}

The value of
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.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
 ... lefthanded^{4}

We assume here that the chargino mass is known either
from the endpoint method as explained above or
by threshold scan, which can pin down the
gaugino mass to per mil level
for
[30].
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
 ...^{5}

Another strategy is to go directory to
the energy just above the pair production
thresholds for
or
.
Their cross sections are large, in particular when
the gaugino mass is small and thus the tchannel
diagram dominates.
We can then carry out similar analyses as we have done
to the righthanded sleptons
(see, for instance, Ref.[32]).
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
 ... holds^{6}
 As mentioned above, it is possible to
determine M_{2} and M_{1} separately by studying
chargino pair productions.
Here, however, we assumed the GUT relation for simplicity.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
 ... interaction^{7}

This is in contrast to the gravitymediated
soft SUSY breaking scenarios,
where

,
which makes the gravitino interaction with other
MSSM fields phenomenologically irrelevant.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
 ...
massdegenerate^{8}

The lighter chargino and the lightest neutralino can
be almost massdegenerate also in the MSSM models.
In such a case, however, they are almost
pure higgsinos instead of winos.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
 ...^{9}

The sleptons are expected to be heavy on the basis of
the required absence[46] of
charge and color violating minima in the
oneloop effective potential.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
 ... phenomena^{10}

When the Rparity violating terms are large,
we may expect new SUSY signals that are absent from the Rparity
conserving scenarios: for instance, if the coupling is sizable
we may see a spectacular schannel resonance production of
a sneutrino.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
 ... well^{11}

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 righthanded
smuon in our example is about
,
which is indeed comparable with
the ultimately expected precision.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
 ...^{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.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
 ... superheavy^{13}

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
can be distinguished even in case
(i) [19].
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
 ... larger.^{2}
 An attempt at solving this problem has been given recently in [20].
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
 ... peak^{3}

In the limit
,
the normalization of the cross section
becomes independent of .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
 ...
respectively.^{4}

The magnitudes of these EDMs are given by
,
g_{Z} d_{tZ}/m_{t},
g_{s} d_{tg}/m_{t},
respectively.
corresponds to
,
etc.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
 ... as^{5}
 Throughout this report, we use simplified expressions. Here, for example, A_{v} means
in our original papers.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
 ... angle^{1}

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.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
 ... operation^{2}

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.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
 ... axis^{3}

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:

(8.15) 
to the lowest order of .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
 ...)^{4}

The axial superlayers greatly facilitate track finding in
the r
projection, since stereo superlayers 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 intersuperlayer distances.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
 ... wire^{6}

The apparent degradation of the resolution near the sense
wire is not only coming from primary ionization
statistics but also from leftright
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.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
 ... becomes^{2}

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.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.