in the minimal supersymmetric standard model ( mssm ) , the ( susy ) particles must be produced in pairs .
the phase space is largely suppressed in pair production of susy particles due to the important masses of the superpartners .
the r - parity violating ( ) extension of the mssm contains the following additional terms in the superpotential , which are trilinear in the quarks and leptons superfields , @xmath7 where @xmath8 are flavour indices .
these couplings offer the opportunity to produce the scalar particles as resonances @xcite . although the coupling constants are severely constrained by the low - energy experimental bounds @xcite , the resonant superpartner production reaches high cross sections both at leptonic @xcite and hadronic @xcite colliders .
the resonant production of susy particle has another interest : since its cross section is proportional to a power @xmath9 of the relevant coupling , this reaction would allow an easier determination of the couplings than the pair production provided the coupling is large enough . as a matter of fact in the pair production study ,
the sensitivity on the couplings is mainly provided by the displaced vertex analysis of the lightest supersymmetric particle ( lsp ) decay which is difficult experimentally , especially at hadronic colliders .    neither the grand unified theories ( gut ) , the string theories nor the study of the discrete gauge symmetries give a strong theoretical argument in favor of the r - parity violating or r - parity conserving scenarios @xcite .
hence , the resonant production of susy particle through couplings is an attractive possibility which must be considered in the phenomenology of supersymmetry .
the hadronic colliders have an advantage in detecting new particles resonance .
indeed , due to the wide energy distribution of the colliding partons , the resonance can be probed in a wide range of the new particle mass .
this is in contrast with the leptonic colliders for which the center of mass energy must be fine - tuned in order to discover new narrow width resonances .    at hadronic colliders , either a slepton or a squark
can be produced at the resonance respectively through a @xmath10 or a @xmath11 coupling constant . in the hypothesis of a single dominant coupling constant
, the resonant scalar particle can decay through the same coupling as in the production , leading to a two quark final state for the hard process @xcite . in the case where both @xmath10 and @xmath12 couplings are non - vanishing , the slepton produced via @xmath10 can decay through @xmath12 giving rise to the same final state as in drell - yan process , namely two leptons @xcite .
however , for reasonable values of the coupling constants , the decays of the resonant scalar particle via gauge interactions are typically dominant if kinematically allowed @xcite .
+ the main decay of the resonant scalar particle through gauge interactions is the decay into its partner plus a gaugino .
indeed , in the case where the resonant scalar particle is a squark , it is produced through @xmath11 interactions so that it must be a right squark @xmath13 and thus it can not decay into the @xmath14-boson , which is the only other possible decay channel via gauge interactions .
besides , in the case where the resonant scalar particle is a slepton , it is a left slepton produced via a @xmath10 coupling but it can not generally decay as @xmath15 or as @xmath16 .
the reason is that in most of the susy models , as for example the supergravity or the gauge mediated models , the mass difference between the left charged slepton and the left sneutrino is due to the d - terms so that it is fixed by the relation @xmath17 @xcite and thus it does not exceed the @xmath14-boson mass .
nevertheless , we note that in the large @xmath18 scenario , a resonant scalar particle of the third generation can generally decay into the @xmath14-boson due to the large mixing in the third family sfermion sector .
for instance , in the sugra model with a large @xmath18 a tau - sneutrino produced at the resonance can decay as @xmath19 , @xmath20 being the lightest stau .
+ the resonant scalar particle production at hadronic colliders leads thus mainly to the single gaugino production , in case where the decay of the relevant scalar particle into gaugino is kinematically allowed . in this paper , we study the single gaugino productions at tevatron run ii .
the single gaugino productions at hadronic colliders were first studied in @xcite .
later , studies on the single neutralino @xcite and single chargino @xcite productions at tevatron have been performed .
the single neutralino @xcite and single chargino @xcite productions have also been considered in the context of physics at lhc . in the present article
, we also study the single superpartner productions at tevatron run ii which occur via @xmath0 processes and do not receive contributions from resonant susy particle productions .
the singly produced superpartner initiates a cascade decay ended typically by the decay of the lsp . in case of a single dominant @xmath11 coupling constant
, the lsp decays into quarks so that this cascade decay leads to multijet final states having a large qcd background @xcite .
nevertheless , if some leptonic decays , as for instance @xmath21 , @xmath22 being the chargino and @xmath23 the neutralino , enter the chain reaction , clearer leptonic signatures can be investigated @xcite .
in contrast , in the hypothesis of a single dominant @xmath10 coupling constant , the lsp decay into charged leptons naturally favors leptonic signatures @xcite .
we will thus study the single superpartner production reaction at tevatron run ii within the scenario of a single dominant @xmath2 coupling constant .    in section
[ theoretical ] , we define our theoretical framework . in section [ discussion ] , we present the values of the cross sections for the various single superpartner productions via @xmath2 at tevatron run ii and we discuss the interesting multileptonic signatures that these processes can generate . in section [ analysis1 ] , we analyse the three lepton signature induced by the single chargino production . in section [ analysis2 ] , we study the like sign dilepton final state generated by the single neutralino and chargino productions .
our framework throughout this paper will be the so - called minimal model ( msugra ) which assumes the existence of a grand unified gauge theory and family universal boundary conditions on the supersymmetry breaking parameters .
we choose the 5 following parameters : @xmath24 the universal scalars mass at the unification scale @xmath25 , @xmath26 the universal gauginos mass at @xmath25 , @xmath27 the trilinear yukawa coupling at @xmath25 , @xmath28 the sign of the @xmath29 parameter ( @xmath30 , @xmath31 denoting the running scale ) and @xmath32 where @xmath33 and @xmath34 denote the vacuum expectation values of the higgs fields . in this model , the higgsino mixing parameter @xmath35 is determined by the radiative electroweak symmetry breaking condition .
note also that the parameters @xmath26 and @xmath36 ( @xmath37 wino mass ) are related by the solution of the one loop renormalization group equations @xmath38 with @xmath39 , where @xmath40 are the beta functions , @xmath41 is the at @xmath25 and @xmath42 $ ] , @xmath43 $ ] corresponding to the gauge group factors @xmath44 .
we shall set the unification scale at @xmath45 and the running scale at the @xmath46-boson mass : @xmath47 .
we also assume the infrared fixed point hypothesis for the top quark yukawa coupling @xcite that provides a natural explanation of a large top quark mass @xmath48 . in the infrared fixed point approach , @xmath18 is fixed up to the ambiguity associated with large or low @xmath18 solutions .
the low solution of @xmath18 is fixed by the equation @xmath49 , where @xmath50 for @xmath51 .
for instance , with a top quark mass of @xmath52 @xcite , the low solution is given by @xmath53 .
the second important effect of the infrared fixed point hypothesis is that the dependence of the electroweak symmetry breaking constraint on the @xmath54 parameter becomes weak so that @xmath35 is a known function of the @xmath24 , @xmath26 and @xmath18 parameters @xcite .
finally , we consider the extension of the msugra model characterised by a single dominant coupling constant of type @xmath2 .
at hadronic colliders , either a sneutrino ( @xmath55 ) or a charged slepton ( @xmath56 ) can be produced at the resonance via the @xmath2 coupling . as explained in section [ intro ] , for most of the susy models , the slepton produced at the resonance has two possible gauge decays , namely a decay into either a chargino or a neutralino .
therefore , in the scenario of a single dominant @xmath2 coupling and for most of the susy models , either a chargino or a neutralino is singly produced together with either a charged lepton or a neutrino , through the resonant superpartner production at hadronic colliders .
there are thus four main possible types of single superpartner production reaction involving @xmath2 at hadronic colliders which receive a contribution from resonant susy particle production .
the diagrams associated to these four reactions are drawn in fig.[graphes ] . as can be seen in this figure ,
these single superpartner productions receive also some contributions from both the @xmath57 and @xmath58 channels .
note that all the single superpartner production processes drawn in fig.[graphes ] have charge conjugated processes .
we have calculated the amplitudes of the processes shown in fig.[graphes ] and the results are given in appendix [ formulas ] .      in this section ,
we discuss the dependence of the single gaugino production cross sections on the various parameters .
we will not assume here the radiative electroweak symmetry breaking condition in order to study the variations of the cross sections with the higgsino mixing parameter @xmath59 .
first , we study the cross section of the single chargino production @xmath60 which occurs through the @xmath2 coupling ( see fig.[graphes](a ) ) .
the differences between the @xmath61 , @xmath62 and @xmath63 production ( occuring respectively through the @xmath64 , @xmath65 and @xmath66 couplings with identical @xmath67 and @xmath68 indices ) cross sections involve @xmath69 lepton mass terms ( see appendix [ formulas ] ) and are thus negligible .
the @xmath60 reaction receives contributions from the @xmath70 channel sneutrino exchange and the @xmath57 and @xmath58 channels squark exchanges as shown in fig.[graphes ] .
however , the @xmath57 and @xmath58 channels represent small contributions to the whole single chargino production cross section when the sneutrino exchanged in the @xmath70 channel is real , namely for @xmath71 .
the @xmath57 and @xmath58 channels cross sections will be relevant only when the produced sneutrino is virtual since the @xmath70 channel contribution is small .
in this situation the single chargino production rate is greatly reduced compared to the case where the exchanged sneutrino is produced as a resonance .
hence , the @xmath57 and @xmath58 channels do not represent important contributions to the @xmath72 production rate .
the dependence of the @xmath72 production rate on the @xmath54 coupling is weak .
indeed , the rate depends on the @xmath54 parameter only through the masses of the third generation squarks eventually exchanged in the @xmath57 and @xmath58 channels ( see fig.[graphes ] ) .
similarly , the dependences on the @xmath54 coupling of the rates of the other single gaugino productions shown in fig.[graphes ] are weak .
therefore , in this article we present the results for @xmath73 .
later , we will discuss the effects of large @xmath54 couplings on the cascade decays which are similar to the effects of large @xmath18 values .
* @xmath18 dependence : * the dependence of the @xmath72 production rate on @xmath18 is also weak , except for @xmath74 .
this can be seen in fig.[xstan ] where the cross section of the @xmath75 reaction occuring through the @xmath76 coupling is shown as a function of the @xmath18 parameter .
the choice of the @xmath76 coupling is motivated by the fact that the analysis in sections [ analysis1 ] and [ analysis2 ] are explicitly made for this coupling . in fig.[xstan ] , we have taken the @xmath76 value equal to its low - energy experimental bound for @xmath77 which is @xmath78 @xcite .
+ at this stage , some remarks on the values of the cross sections presented in this section must be done .
first , the single gaugino production rates must be multiplied by a factor 2 in order to take into account the charge conjugated process , which is for example in the present case @xmath79 .
furthermore , the values of the cross sections for all the single gaugino productions are obtained using the cteq4l structure function @xcite .
choosing other parametrizations does not change significantly the results since proton structure functions in our kinematical domain in bjorken @xmath80 are known and have been already measured . for instance , with the set of parameters @xmath81 , @xmath82 , @xmath83 , @xmath84 and @xmath85 , the @xmath86 production cross section is @xmath87 for the cteq4l structure function @xcite , @xmath87 for the bep structure function @xcite , @xmath88 for the mrs ( r2 ) structure function @xcite and @xmath89 for the grv lo structure function @xcite .    * @xmath59 dependence : * in fig.[xsmu ] , we present the cross sections of the @xmath90 and @xmath91 productions as a function of the @xmath59 parameter .
we observe in this figure the weak dependence of the cross section @xmath92 on @xmath59 for @xmath93 .
the reason is the smooth dependence of the @xmath94 mass on @xmath59 in this domain .
however , the rate strongly decreases in the region @xmath95 in which the @xmath94 chargino is mainly composed by the higgsino .
nevertheless , the small @xmath96 domain ( @xmath35 smaller than @xmath97 for @xmath98 , @xmath99 , @xmath100 and @xmath101 ) is excluded by the present experimental limits derived from the lep data @xcite . + in contrast , the cross section @xmath102 increases in the domain @xmath103 .
the explanation is that the @xmath104 mass is enhanced as @xmath35 increases .
the region in which @xmath102 becomes important is at small values of @xmath35 , near the lep limits of @xcite .
we also remark in fig.[xsmu ] that the single @xmath105 production rate values remain above the single @xmath106 production rate values in all the considered range of @xmath59 . in this figure
, we also notice that the cross section is smaller when @xmath59 is negative . to be conservative , we will take @xmath107 in the following .
* @xmath24 and @xmath108 dependences : * in fact , the cross section @xmath109 depends mainly on the @xmath24 and @xmath108 parameters .
we present in fig.[xs02 ] the rate of the @xmath86 production as a function of the @xmath24 and @xmath108 parameters .
the rate decreases at high values of @xmath24 since the sneutrino becomes heavier as @xmath24 increases and more energetic initial partons are required in order to produce the resonant sneutrino .
the decrease of the rate at large values of @xmath108 is due to the increase of the chargino mass and thus the reduction of the phase space factor .    in fig.[xscl ]
, we show the variations of the @xmath110 cross sections with @xmath24 for fixed values of @xmath108 , @xmath59 and @xmath18 .
the cross sections corresponding to the @xmath86 production through various couplings of type @xmath65 are presented . in this figure
, we only consider the couplings giving the highest cross sections .
the values of the considered @xmath65 couplings have been taken at their low - energy limit @xcite for a squark mass of @xmath111 .
the rate of the @xmath112 production through @xmath76 is also shown in this figure .
we already notice that the cross section is significant for many couplings and we will come back on this important statement in the following .
+ the @xmath113 rates decrease as @xmath24 increases for the same reason as in fig.[xs02 ] .
a decrease of the rates also occurs at small values of @xmath24 .
the reason is the following .
when @xmath24 decreases , the @xmath55 mass is getting closer to the @xmath22 masses so that the phase space factor associated to the decay @xmath114 decreases .
+ we also observe that the single @xmath106 production rate is much smaller than the single @xmath105 production rate , as in fig.[xsmu ] .
+ the differences between the @xmath86 production rates occuring via the various @xmath65 couplings are explained by the different parton densities . indeed , as shown in fig.[graphes ] the hard process associated to the @xmath86 production occuring through the @xmath65 coupling constant has a partonic initial state @xmath115 . the @xmath86 production via the @xmath76 coupling
has first generation quarks in the initial state which provide the maximum parton density .
we now discuss the rate behaviours for the reactions @xmath116 , @xmath117 and @xmath118 which occur via @xmath76 , in the susy parameter space .
the dependences of these rates on the @xmath54 , @xmath18 , @xmath59 and @xmath108 parameters are typically the same as for the @xmath62 production rate .
the variations of the @xmath119 , @xmath120 and @xmath121 productions cross sections with the @xmath24 parameter are shown in fig.[allxs ] .
the @xmath122 , @xmath123 and @xmath124 production rates are comparatively negligible and thus have not been represented .
we observe in this figure that the cross sections decrease at large @xmath24 values like the @xmath62 production rate .
however , while the single @xmath4 productions rates decrease at small @xmath24 values ( see fig.[xscl ] and fig.[allxs ] ) , this is not true for the single @xmath3 productions ( see fig.[allxs ] ) .
the reason is that in msugra the @xmath3 and @xmath125 ( @xmath126 ) masses are never close enough to induce a significant decrease of the cross section associated to the reaction @xmath127 , where @xmath126 ( see fig.[graphes](c)(d ) ) , caused by a phase space factor reduction .
therefore , the resonant slepton contribution to the single @xmath3 production is not reduced at small @xmath24 values like the resonant slepton contribution to the single @xmath4 production . for the same reason
, the single @xmath3 productions have much higher cross sections than the single @xmath4 productions in most of the msugra parameter space , as illustrate fig.[xscl ] and fig.[allxs ] .
we note that in the particular case of a single dominant @xmath66 coupling constant and of large @xmath18 values , the rate of the reaction @xmath128 ( see fig.[graphes](d ) ) , where @xmath129 is the lightest tau - slepton , can be reduced at low @xmath24 values since then @xmath130 can be closed to @xmath131 due to the large mixing occuring in the staus sector . by analysing fig.[xscl ] and fig.[allxs ] , we also remark that the @xmath132 ( @xmath133 ) production rate is larger than the @xmath62 ( @xmath134 ) one .
the explanation is that in @xmath135 collisions the initial states of the resonant charged slepton production @xmath136 have higher partonic densities than the initial states of the resonant sneutrino production @xmath137 .
this phenomenon also increases the difference between the rates of the @xmath138 and @xmath86 productions at tevatron . +
although the single @xmath4 production cross sections are smaller than the @xmath3 ones , it is interesting to study both of them since they have quite high values .      at hadronic colliders , the single productions of susy particle via @xmath2 can occur through some @xmath0 processes which do not receive contributions from any resonant superpartner production .
these non - resonant superpartner productions are ( one must also add the charge conjugated processes ) :    * the gluino production @xmath139 via the exchange of a @xmath140 ( @xmath141 ) squark in the @xmath57 ( @xmath58 ) channel . * the squark production @xmath142 via the exchange of a @xmath141 squark ( @xmath143 quark ) in the @xmath57 ( @xmath70 ) channel . *
the squark production @xmath144 via the exchange of a @xmath141 squark ( @xmath145 quark ) in the @xmath57 ( @xmath70 ) channel . * the squark production @xmath146 via the exchange of a @xmath147 squark ( @xmath148 quark ) in the @xmath57 ( @xmath70 ) channel . * the squark production @xmath149 via the exchange of a @xmath140 squark ( @xmath148 quark ) in the @xmath57 ( @xmath70 ) channel . * the sneutrino production @xmath150 via the exchange of a @xmath148 or @xmath143 quark ( @xmath151 sneutrino ) in the @xmath57 ( @xmath70 ) channel . * the charged slepton production @xmath152 via the exchange of a @xmath148 or @xmath145 quark ( @xmath125 slepton ) in the @xmath57 ( @xmath70 ) channel . * the sneutrino production @xmath153 via the exchange of a @xmath143 quark ( @xmath125 sneutrino ) in the @xmath57 ( @xmath70 ) channel . * the charged slepton production @xmath154 via the exchange of a @xmath145 quark ( @xmath151 sneutrino ) in the @xmath57 ( @xmath70 ) channel .    the single gluino production can not reach high cross sections due to the strong experimental limits on the squarks and gluinos masses which are typically about @xmath155 @xcite .
indeed , the single gluino production occurs through the exchange of squarks in the @xmath57 and @xmath58 channels , as described above , so that the cross section of this production decreases as the squarks and gluinos masses increase . for the value
@xmath156 which is close to the experimental limits , we find the single gluino production rate @xmath157 which is consistent with the results of @xcite .
the cross sections given in this section are computed at a center of mass energy of @xmath158 using the version 33.18 of the comphep routine @xcite with the cteq4 m structure function and an coupling @xmath81 .
similarly , the single squark production cross section can not be large : for @xmath159 , the rate @xmath160 is of order @xmath161 .
the production of a slepton together with a massive gauge boson has a small phase space factor and does not involve strong interaction couplings .
the cross section of this type of reaction is thus small .
for instance , with a slepton mass of @xmath162 we find the cross section @xmath163 to be of order @xmath164 .    as a conclusion ,
the non - resonant single superpartner productions have small rates and will not be considered here
. nevertheless , some of these reactions are interesting as their cross section involves few susy parameters , namely only one scalar superpartner mass and one coupling constant .
in this section , we study the three lepton signature at tevatron run ii generated by the single chargino production through @xmath2 , @xmath165 , followed by the cascade decay , @xmath166 , @xmath167 ( the indices @xmath8 correspond to the indices of @xmath2 ) .
in fact , the whole final state is 3 charged leptons + 2 hard jets + missing energy ( @xmath168 ) .
the two jets and the missing energy come respectively from the quarks and the neutrino produced in the cascade decay . in the msugra model , which predicts the @xmath3 as the lsp in most of the parameter space , the @xmath169 reaction is the only single gaugino production allowing the three lepton signature to be generated in a significant way . since the @xmath170 production rate is dominant compared to the @xmath171 production rate , as discussed in section [ cross1 ] , we only consider the contribution to the three lepton signature from the single lightest chargino production .    for @xmath172 , the branching ratio @xmath173 is typically of order @xmath174 and is smaller than for the other possible decay @xmath175 because of the color factor .
+ since in our framework the @xmath3 is the lsp , it can only decay via @xmath2 , either as @xmath176 or as @xmath177 , with a branching ratio @xmath178 ranging between @xmath179 and @xmath180 .
the three lepton signature is particularly attractive at hadronic colliders because of the possibility to reduce the associated background . in section [ back1 ]
we describe this background and in section [ cut1 ] we show how it can be reduced .      the first source of background for the three leptons final state is the top quark pair production @xmath181 or @xmath182 . since the top quark life time is smaller than its hadronisation time , the top decays and its main channel is the decay into a @xmath183 gauge boson and a bottom quark as @xmath184
. the @xmath185 production can thus give rise to a @xmath186 final state if the @xmath183 bosons and one of the b - quarks undergo leptonic decays simultaneously .
the cross section , calculated at leading order with pythia @xcite using the cteq2l structure function , times the branching fraction is @xmath187 ( @xmath188 ) with @xmath189 at @xmath190 for a top quark mass of @xmath191 ( @xmath192 ) .
the other major source of background is the @xmath193 production followed by the leptonic decays of the gauge bosons , namely @xmath194 and @xmath195 .
the value for the cross section times the branching ratios is @xmath196 ( @xmath189 ) at leading order with a center of mass energy of @xmath190 .
+ the @xmath193 production gives also a small contribution to the 3 leptons background through the decays : @xmath197 and @xmath198 , @xmath194 and @xmath198 or @xmath197 and @xmath199 , if a lepton is produced in each of the b jets .
similarly , the @xmath200 production followed by the decays @xmath201 ( @xmath202 ) , @xmath203 , where one of the @xmath204 decays into lepton while the other decays into jet , leads to three leptons in the final state . within the same framework as above ,
the cross section is of order @xmath205 .
+ the @xmath200 production can also contribute weakly to the 3 leptons background via the decays : @xmath199 and @xmath198 or @xmath198 and @xmath198 , since a lepton can be produced in a b jet .
it has been pointed out recently that the @xmath206 ( throughout this paper a star indicates a virtual particle ) and the @xmath207 productions could represent important contributions to the trilepton background @xcite . the complete list of contributions to the 3 leptons final state from the @xmath208,@xmath207 and @xmath209 productions , including cases where either one or both of the gauge bosons can be virtual , has been calculated in @xcite .
the authors of @xcite have found that the @xmath208 , @xmath207 and @xmath209 backgrounds ( including virtual boson(s ) ) at the upgraded tevatron have together a cross section of order @xmath210 after the following cuts have been implemented : @xmath211 , @xmath212 , @xmath213 ; @xmath214 ; @xmath215 ; @xmath216 ; @xmath217 ; @xmath218 ; @xmath219 .
+ we note that there is at most one hard jet in the 3 leptons backgrounds generated by the @xmath208 , @xmath220 and @xmath209 productions ( including virtual boson(s ) ) . since the number of hard jets is equal to 2 in our signal ( see section [ signal1 ] ) , a jet veto can thus reduce this background with respect to the signal .
other small sources of background have been estimated in @xcite : the productions like @xmath221 , @xmath222 or @xmath223 .
after applying cuts on the geometrical acceptance , the transverse momentum and the isolation , these backgrounds are expected to be at most of order @xmath224 in @xmath135 collisions with a center of mass energy of @xmath225 .
we have checked that the @xmath221 production gives a negligible contribution to the 3 lepton signature .
there are finally some non - physics sources of background .
first , the 4 leptons signal , which can be generated by the @xmath200 and @xmath185 productions , appears as a 3 leptons signature if one of the leptons is missed . besides , the processes @xmath226 would mimic a trilepton signal if @xmath227 fakes a lepton .
monte carlo simulations using simplified detector simulation , like for example shw @xcite as in the present study ( see section [ cut1 ] ) , can not give a reliable estimate of this background .
a knowledge of the details of the detector response as well as the jet fragmentation is necessary in order to determinate the probability to fake a lepton . in @xcite , using standard cuts the background coming from @xmath226 has been estimated to be of order @xmath228 at tevatron with @xmath225 .
the authors of @xcite have also estimated the background from the three - jet events faking trilepton signals to be around @xmath229 .
hence for the study of the background associated to the 3 lepton signature at tevatron run ii , we consider the @xmath193 production and both the physics and non - physics contributions generated by the @xmath200 and @xmath185 productions .
if an excess of events is observed in the three lepton channel at tevatron , one would wonder what is the origin of those anomalous events .
one would thus have to consider all of the productions leading to the three lepton signature . in the present context of r - parity violation ,
multileptonic final states can be generated by the single chargino production involving couplings , but also by the particle pair production which involves only gauge couplings @xcite . in models ,
the superpartner pair production can even lead to the trilepton signature @xcite . as a matter of fact , both of the produced particles decay , either directly or through cascade decays , into the lsp which is the neutralino in our framework .
in the hypothesis of a dominant @xmath10 coupling constant , each of the 2 produced neutralinos can decay into a charged lepton and two quarks : at least two charged leptons and four jets in the final state are produced .
the third charged lepton can be generated in the cascade decays as for example at the level of the chargino decay @xmath230 .
.cross section ( in @xmath231 ) of the sum of all the superpartners pair productions at tevatron run ii as a function of the @xmath24 and @xmath26 parameters for @xmath83 , @xmath232 and @xmath233 at a center of mass energy of @xmath225 .
these rates have been calculated with herwig @xcite using the ehlq2 structure function . [
cols="^,^,^,^,^,^",options="header " , ]     in table [ cutsusp ] , we give the number of like sign dilepton events generated by the susy background ( all superpartners pair productions ) at tevatron run ii as a function of the @xmath24 and @xmath26 parameters for cut 3 .
this number of events decreases as @xmath24 and @xmath26 increase due to the behaviour of the summed superpartners pair production cross section in the susy parameter space ( see section [ susyback1 ] ) .
we first present the reach in the msugra parameter space obtained from the analysis of the like sign dilepton final state at tevatron run ii produced by the single neutralino and chargino productions via @xmath76 : @xmath234 , @xmath235 and @xmath236 .
the sensitivities that can be obtained on the @xmath65 ( @xmath67 and @xmath68 being not equal to @xmath237 simultaneously ) , @xmath64 and @xmath66 coupling constants will be discussed at the end of this section .    in fig.[fig2d ] , we present the @xmath238 and @xmath239 discovery contours and the limits at @xmath240 confidence level in the plane @xmath24 versus @xmath26 , for @xmath232 , @xmath83 , @xmath233 and using a set of values for the luminosity .
those discovery potentials were obtained by considering the @xmath241 , @xmath242 and @xmath243 productions and the background originating from the standard model .
the signal and background were selected by using cut @xmath244 described in section [ cut2 ] .
the reduction of the sensitivity on @xmath26 observed in fig.[fig2d ] as @xmath24 increases is due to the decrease of the @xmath241 , @xmath242 and @xmath243 productions cross sections with the @xmath24 increase observed in fig.[xscl ] and fig.[allxs ] . in fig.[fig2d ] , we also see that the sensitivity on @xmath26 is reduced in the domain @xmath245 .
this reduction of the sensitivity is due to the fact that in msugra at low @xmath18 and for large values of @xmath26 and small values of @xmath24 , the lsp is the right slepton @xmath246 ( @xmath247 ) .
therefore , in this msugra region the dominant decay channel of the lightest neutralino is @xmath248 ( @xmath247 ) so that the @xmath249 production , which is the main contribution to the like sign dilepton signature , leads to the @xmath250 final state only in a few cases .
there are two reasons .
first , in this msugra scenario the charged lepton produced in the main @xmath3 decay is not systematically a muon .
secondly , if the lsp is the right slepton @xmath246 it can not decay in the case of a single dominant @xmath2 coupling constant and it is thus a stable particle .
the sensitivities presented in the discovery reach of fig.[fig2d ] which are obtained from the like sign dilepton signature analysis are higher than the sensitivities shown in fig.[fig2 ] which correspond to the trilepton final state analysis .
this is due to the 3 following points .
first , the rate of the @xmath249 production ( recall that it represents the main contribution to the like sign dilepton final state ) is larger than the @xmath251 cross section in most of the msugra parameter space ( see section [ cross1 ] ) .
secondly , the @xmath3 decay leading to the like sign dilepton final state in the case of the @xmath249 production has a larger branching ratio than the cascade decay initiated by the @xmath4 which generates the trilepton final state ( see sections [ signal1 ] and [ signal2 ] ) . finally , at tevatron run ii the background of the like sign dilepton signature is weaker than the trilepton background ( see tables [ cutsusy ] and [ cutsusp ] ) .
it is clear from fig.[fig2d ] that at low values of the @xmath24 and @xmath26 parameters , high sensitivities can be obtained on the @xmath76 coupling constant .
we have found that for instance at the msugra point defined as @xmath252 , @xmath253 , @xmath232 and @xmath83 , @xmath76 values of @xmath254 can be probed through the like sign dilepton analysis at tevatron run ii assuming a luminosity of @xmath255 .
this result was obtained by applying cut @xmath244 described in section [ cut2 ] on the susy signal ( @xmath256 , @xmath242 and @xmath243 productions ) and the standard model background .
we expect that , as in the three lepton signature analysis , interesting sensitivities could be obtained on other @xmath65 coupling constants .
+ the sensitivities obtained on the @xmath66 couplings from the like sign dilepton signature analysis should be weaker than the sensitivities on the @xmath65 couplings deduced from the same study .
indeed , in the case of a single dominant @xmath66 coupling the same sign leptons generated by the @xmath257 production would be 2 tau leptons ( see fig.[graphes](d ) and section [ signal2 ] ) .
therefore , the like sign dileptons ( @xmath258 or @xmath259 ) produced by the signal would be mainly generated in tau decays and would thus have higher probabilities to not pass the analysis cuts on the particle energy .
moreover , the requirement of @xmath258 or @xmath259 events would decrease the efficiency after cuts of the signal due to the hadronic decay of the tau .
finally , the selection of two same flavour like sign dileptons ( @xmath258 or @xmath259 ) would reduce the signal , since each of the 2 produced taus could decay either into an electron or a muon , and hence would not be an effective cut anymore .
+ the sensitivities obtained on the @xmath64 couplings from the like sign dilepton signature study are expected to be identical to the sensitivities on the @xmath65 couplings obtained from the same study .
indeed , in the case of a single dominant @xmath64 coupling constant , the only difference in the like sign dilepton signature analysis would be that @xmath258 events should be selected instead of @xmath260 events ( see fig.[graphes](d ) and section [ signal2 ] ) .
nevertheless , a smaller number of @xmath64 couplings is expected to be probed since the low - energy constraints on the @xmath64 couplings are generally stronger than the limits on the @xmath65 couplings @xcite .    in the high @xmath18 case
, the lightest stau @xmath261 can become the lsp instead of the lightest neutralino , due to a large mixing in the third generation of charged sleptons .
in such a situation , the dominant decay channel of the lightest neutralino is @xmath262 .
two scenarios must then be discussed : if the single dominant coupling is not of the type @xmath66 , the @xmath129-lsp is a stable particle so that the reaction @xmath263 , representing the main contribution to the like sign dilepton final state , does not often lead to the @xmath250 signature . if the single dominant coupling is of the type @xmath66 , the @xmath257 production can receive a contribution from the resonant @xmath264 production ( see fig.[graphes](d ) ) and the @xmath129-lsp decays via @xmath66 as @xmath265 so that the @xmath250 signature can still be generated in a significant way by the @xmath266 reaction .
we end this section by some comments on the effect of the @xmath267 conserving background to the like sign dilepton signature . in order to illustrate this discussion , we consider the results on the @xmath76 coupling constant .
+ we see from table [ cutsusp ] that the susy background to the like sign dilepton final state can affect the sensitivity on the @xmath76 coupling constant obtained by considering only the background , which is shown in fig.[fig2d ] , only in the region of small superpartners masses , namely in the domain @xmath268 for @xmath83 , @xmath232 and assuming a luminosity of @xmath269 .
+ in contrast with the susy signal amplitude which is increased if @xmath76 is enhanced , the susy background amplitude is typically independent on the value of the @xmath76 coupling constant since the superpartner pair production does not involve couplings
. therefore , even if we consider the susy background in addition to the one , it is still true that large values of the @xmath76 coupling can be probed over a wider domain of the susy parameter space than low values , as can be observed in fig.[fig2d ] for @xmath270 .
note that in fig.[fig2d ] larger values of @xmath76 still respecting the indirect limit could have been considered .
+ finally , we mention that further cuts , as for instance some cuts based on the superpartners mass reconstructions ( see section [ reconsp ] ) , could allow to reduce the susy background to the like sign dilepton signature .
the @xmath3 and @xmath6 mass reconstructions can be performed in a model independent way via the like sign dilepton analysis .
we have simulated these mass reconstructions based on the like sign dimuon events generated in the scenario of a single dominant @xmath65 coupling constant . in this scenario ,
the main susy contribution to the like sign dilepton signature , namely the @xmath271 production , has the final state @xmath272 ( see section [ signal2 ] ) .
indeed , the produced @xmath3 decays into @xmath273 through @xmath65 .
the muon generated together with the @xmath3 can be identified as the leading muon for relatively large @xmath274 mass differences ( see section [ cut2 ] ) .
note that for nearly degenerate values of @xmath275 and @xmath131 the @xmath271 production rate and thus the sensitivity on the susy parameters would be reduced ( see section [ cross1 ] ) .
the muon created in the @xmath3 decay can thus be identified as the softer muon so that the @xmath3 can be reconstructed from the the softer muon and the 2 jets present in the @xmath271 production final state .
the other contributions to the like sign dimuons events can lead to some missing energy and at most 4 jets in the final state ( see section [ signal2 ] ) .
hence , we have chosen to reconstruct the @xmath3 from the 2 leading jets when the final state contains more than 2 jets .
once the @xmath3 has been reconstructed , the @xmath276 has been reconstructed from the @xmath3 and the leading muon since the dominant contribution to the @xmath249 production is the reaction @xmath277 .
these mass reconstructions are represented in fig.[rec2s ] . in this figure
, we also represent the same mass reconstructions obtained by applying a cut in the upper left plot of fig.[dienmu ] excluding the peak associated to the @xmath278 and @xmath279 productions ( see section [ cut2 ] ) .
the interest of this cut , as can be seen in fig.[rec2s ] , is to select the @xmath271 production and thus to improve the accuracy on the @xmath3 and @xmath276 reconstructions which are based on this production .
we observe in fig.[rec2s ] that the @xmath3 reconstruction has less combinatorial background than the @xmath276 reconstruction .
this comes from the fact that the selection of the softer muon and the 2 leading jets allows to reconstruct the @xmath3 even in the dimuon events generated by the @xmath278 and @xmath279 productions , while the selection of the 2 muons and the 2 leading jets does not allow to reconstruct the @xmath276 in the dimuon events generated by the @xmath278 and @xmath279 productions ( see section [ signal2 ] ) .
we have represented on the plots of fig.[rec2s ] the fits of the invariant mass distributions .
we see from these fits that the distributions are well peaked around the @xmath3 and @xmath276 generated masses .
the average reconstructed masses are @xmath280 and @xmath281 .
we note that the accuracy on the @xmath3 ( and thus on the @xmath276 ) mass reconstruction could be improved if the distributions in the upper plots of fig.[rec2s ] were recalculated by selecting the muon giving the @xmath3 mass the closer to the mean value of the peak obtained in the relevant upper plot of fig.[rec2s ] .    in the hypothesis of a single dominant coupling constant of type @xmath64 or @xmath66
, exactly the same kind of @xmath3 and @xmath276 mass reconstructions can be performed by selecting the @xmath282 or @xmath283 events , respectively .    as a conclusion
, the @xmath3 and @xmath276 mass reconstructions based on the like sign dilepton signature generated by the @xmath241 , @xmath242 and @xmath284 productions at tevatron can easily give precise results , in contrast with the mass reconstructions performed in the superpartner pair production analysis at hadronic colliders which suffer an high combinatorial background @xcite .      in our theoretical framework
( see section [ theoretical ] ) , the values of the @xmath35 and @xmath18 ( up to the ambiguity of low / high solution ) parameters are predicted .
this has no important effects on the results presented in sections [ lp211p ] as the single gaugino production cross sections vary weakly with these parameters ( see section [ cross1 ] ) .
however , since we have worked within the msugra model , the @xmath285 mass was typically larger than the @xmath3 mass .
in a situation where @xmath286 would approach @xmath131 , the rate of the @xmath287 production , representing in msugra the main contribution to the like sign dilepton signature ( see section [ signal2 ] ) , would decrease .
therefore , within a model allowing degenerate @xmath285 and @xmath3 masses or even a @xmath285 lighter than the @xmath3 , other single gaugino productions than the @xmath263 reaction could represent the major contribution to the like sign dilepton signature in some parts of the susy parameter space .
besides , in a situation where the lsp would not be the @xmath3 , the branching ratios of the @xmath3 decays violating @xmath267 would be reduced with respect to the case where the lsp is the @xmath3 , as often occurs in msugra . however , in such a situation , the like sign dilepton signature could receive a significant contribution from a decay of the @xmath3 different from the channel . in those kinds of scenarios where the lsp is not the @xmath3 , the @xmath287 production would not represent systematically the main contribution to the like sign dilepton signature .    in the several scenarios described above where the @xmath287 production is not the major contribution to the like sign dilepton signature , this signature could receive quite important contribution from the other single gaugino productions described in section [ resonant ] .
the single gaugino productions at tevatron reach important cross sections thanks to the contributions of the resonant slepton productions .
hence , the analysis of the 3 charged leptons and like sign dilepton signatures generated by the single gaugino productions at tevatron run ii would allow to obtain high sensitivities on many coupling constants , compared to the low - energy limits , in wide domains of the susy parameter space .
this is also due to the fact that the standard model backgrounds associated to the 3 charged leptons and like sign dilepton final states at tevatron can be greatly suppressed .    from the supersymmetry discovery point of view
, superpartner masses well beyond the present experimental limits could be tested through the analysis of the the 3 charged leptons and like sign dilepton signatures generated by the single gaugino productions at tevatron run ii . if some of the coupling constants values were close to their low - energy bounds , the single gaugino productions study based on the 3 charged leptons and like sign dilepton signatures would even allow to extend the region in the @xmath24-@xmath26 plane probed by the superpartner pair production analyses in the 3 charged leptons and like sign dilepton channels at tevatron run ii .
the reason is that the single superpartner production has a larger phase space factor than the superpartner pair production .
+ besides , the 3 charged leptons and like sign dilepton signatures generated by the single gaugino productions at tevatron run ii would allow to reconstruct in a model independent way the @xmath3 , @xmath4 , @xmath5 and @xmath6 masses with a smaller combinatorial background than in the superpartner pair production analysis .
we end this summary by a comparison between the results obtained from the studies of the 3 charged lepton and like sign dilepton signatures generated by the single gaugino productions at tevatron run ii . in the msugra model ,
the like sign dilepton signature analysis would give rise to higher sensitivities on the susy parameters than the study of the 3 charged lepton final state .
this comes notably from the fact that in msugra , the @xmath3 is lighter than the @xmath288 so that the cross section of the @xmath289 production , which is the main contribution to the like sign dilepton signature , reaches larger values than the cross section of the @xmath290 production , representing the main contribution to the 3 charged lepton final state .
other interesting prospective studies concerning hadronic colliders are the analyses of the single gaugino productions occuring through resonant squark productions via @xmath291 coupling constants which we will perform in the next future .
we would like to thank emmanuelle perez , robi peschanski and auguste besson for fruitful discussions and reading the manuscript .
in this appendix , we give the amplitudes for all the single productions of particle at hadronic colliders , which can receive a contribution from a slepton resonant production .
these single productions occur via the coupling @xmath2 and correspond to the four reactions , @xmath292 , @xmath293 , @xmath294 , @xmath295 .
each of those four processes receives contributions from both the t and u channel ( see fig.[graphes ] ) and have charge conjugated diagrams .
note also that the contributions coming from the exchange of a right squark in the u channel involve the higgsino components of the gauginos .
these contributions , in the case of the single chargino production , do not interfere with the s channel slepton exchange since the initial or final states are different ( see fig.[graphes ] ) . in the following ,
we give the formulas for the probability amplitudes , squared and summed over the polarizations .
our notations closely follow the notations of @xcite .
in particular , the matrix elements @xmath296 are defined in the basis of the photino and the zino , as in @xcite .
@xmath297 \cr \vert m_u ( u^k \bar d^j \to \tilde \chi_a^+ \nu_i ) \vert ^2 & = & { { \l'_{ijk}}^2   g^2 m_{d^k}^2 \vert u_{a2 } \vert^2   \over 24 m_w^2 \cos \beta ^2   ( u - m_{\tilde d^k_r}^2)^2 }    ( m_{\tilde \chi_a^+}^2+m_{u^k}^2-u ) ( m_{d^j}^2-u ) \cr 2 re [ m_s m_t^ * ( \tilde \chi_a^+ \bar \nu_i ) ] & = & { { \l'_{ijk}}^2   g^2   \over   6   ( s - m_{\tilde l^i_l}^2 ) ( t - m_{\tilde d^j_l}^2 ) } \bigg [ { \vert u_{a1 } \vert ^2 \over 2 }   [ ( m_{u^j}^2+m_{\tilde \chi_a^+}^2-t )   ( m_{d^k}^2-t ) \cr   &   +   & ( m_{u^j}^2+m_{d^k}^2-s ) ( m_{\tilde \chi_a^+}^2-s ) -(m_{u^j}^2-u ) ( m_{\tilde \chi_a^+}^2+m_{d^k}^2-u ) ] \cr   &   - &   ( m_{d^k}^2-t ) { re(u_{a1}v_{a2 } ) m_{\tilde \chi_a^+ } m_{u^j}^2   \over \sqrt{2 } m_w \sin \beta } \bigg ] , \label{fchanu}\end{aligned}\ ] ]      @xmath301 \cr    \vert m_u ( d_j \bar d_k \to \tilde \chi_a^0 \bar \nu_i ) \vert ^2 & = & { { \l'_{ijk}}^2    \over 6   ( u - m_{\tilde d^k_r}^2)^2 }     ( m_{d^j}^2-u )   \bigg [ ( m_{\tilde \chi_a^0}^2+m_{d^k}^2-u ) \bigg ( { g^2 m_{d^k}^2 \vert n'_{a3 } \vert ^2 \over 4   m_w^2 \cos^2 \beta }   + { e^2 \vert n'_{a1 } \vert ^2 \over 9 } \cr & + & { g^2 \sin^4 \theta_w \vert n'_{a2 } \vert ^2 \over 9   \cos^2 \theta_w }   - { 2   e g re(n'_{a1}n'_{a2 } ) \sin^2 \theta_w \over 9   \cos \theta_w } \bigg ) \cr & - & { 2   m_{\tilde \chi_a^0 } m_{d^k}^2 g \over m_w \cos \beta } \bigg ( -{e re(n'_{a1}n'_{a3 } ) \over 3 } + { g \sin^2 \theta_w re(n'_{a2}n'_{a3 } ) \over3   \cos \theta_w } \bigg ) \bigg ] \cr   2 re [ m_s m_t^ * ( \tilde \chi_a^0 \bar \nu_i ) ] & = & - { { \l'_{ijk}}^2 g   \over 12   \cos \theta_w ( s - m_{\tilde \nu^i_l}^2 ) ( t - m_{\tilde d^j_l}^2 ) }   \bigg [ ( m_{d^k}^2-t ) { m_{\tilde \chi_a^0 } m_{d^j}^2 g re(n'_{a2}n'_{a3 } ) \over m_w \cos \beta } \cr & + & \bigg ( -{e re(n'_{a1}n^*_{a2 } ) \over 3 } + { g \vert n'_{a2 } \vert ^2 \over \cos \theta_w } ( { \sin^2 \theta_w \over 3 } -{1 \over 2 } ) \bigg )   [ ( m_{d^j}^2+m_{\tilde \chi_a^0}^2-t ) ( m_{d^k}^2-t ) \cr & + & ( m_{d^j}^2+m_{d^k}^2-s ) ( m_{\tilde \chi_a^0}^2-s )   -(m_{\tilde \chi_a^0}^2+m_{d^k}^2-u ) ( m_{d^j}^2-u ) ] \bigg ] \cr   2 re [ m_t m_u^ * ( \tilde \chi_a^0 \bar \nu_i ) ] & = &   { { \l'_{ijk}}^2   \over 6   ( u - m_{\tilde d^k_r}^2 ) ( t - m_{\tilde d^j_l}^2 ) }   \bigg [ ( m_{d^k}^2-t ) {   g m_{\tilde \chi_a^0 } m_{d^j}^2 \over m_w \cos \beta } \bigg ( { g \sin^2 \theta_w re(n'_{a2}n'_{a3 } ) \over 3   \cos \theta_w}-{e re(n'_{a1}n'_{a3 } ) \over 3 } \bigg ) \cr & + & [ ( m_{d^j}^2-u ) ( m_{\tilde \chi_a^0}^2+m_{d^k}^2-u )    +   ( m_{d^k}^2-t ) ( m_{d^j}^2+m_{\tilde \chi_a^0}^2-t )   -(m_{\tilde \chi_a^0}^2-s ) ( m_{d^j}^2+m_{d^k}^2-s ) ] \cr & & \bigg (   -{egre(n'_{a1}n'_{a2 } ) \over 3 \cos \theta_w } ( { 2 \sin^2 \theta_w \over 3 } -{1 \over 2 } ) + { e^2 \vert n'_{a1 } \vert ^2 \over 9 } + { g^2 \sin^2 \theta_w \vert n'_{a2 } \vert ^2 \over 3 \cos^2 \theta_w } ( { \sin^2 \theta_w \over 3}-{1 \over 2 } ) \bigg ) \cr & - & { m_{\tilde \chi_a^0 } m_{d^k}^2 g \over m_w \cos \beta }   \bigg ( -{e re(n'_{a1}n'_{a3 } ) \over 3 } + { g re(n'_{a2}n'_{a3 } )   \over \cos \theta_w } ( { \sin^2 \theta_w \over 3}-{1 \over 2 } ) \bigg )   ( m_{d^j}^2-u )   \cr & + & { m_{d^j}^2 m_{d^k}^2   g^2 \vert n'_{a3 } \vert ^2   \over 2   m_w^2 \cos^2 \beta}(m_{\tilde \chi_a^0}^2-s ) \bigg ] \cr   2 re [ m_s m_u^ * ( \tilde \chi_a^0 \bar \nu_i ) ] & = & { { \l'_{ijk}}^2 g \over 12   \cos \theta_w ( s - m_{\tilde \nu^i_l}^2 ) ( u - m_{\tilde d^k_r}^2 ) } \bigg [ -   { m_{\tilde \chi_a^0 } m_{d^k}^2 g re(n'_{a2}n'_{a3 } ) \over m_w \cos \beta } ( m_{d^j}^2-u ) \cr &   + & \bigg ( -{e re(n^*_{a1}n'_{a2 } ) \over 3 } + { \vert n'_{a2 } \vert ^2 g \sin^2 \theta_w \over 3   \cos \theta_w } \bigg ) [ ( m_{d^j}^2+m_{d^k}^2-s ) ( m_{\tilde \chi_a^0}^2-s ) \cr & + & ( m_{\tilde \chi_a^0}^2+m_{d^k}^2-u ) ( m_{d^j}^2-u ) -(m_{d^j}^2+m_{\tilde \chi_a^0}^2-t ) ( m_{d^k}^2-t ) ]   \bigg ] , \label{fnenu}\end{aligned}\ ] ]      @xmath305 \cr   \vert m_t ( u_j \bar d_k \to \tilde \chi_a^0 \bar l_i ) \vert ^2 & = & { { \l'_{ijk}}^2   \over 6   ( t - m_{\tilde u^j_l}^2)^2 }   ( -t+m_{l^i}^2+m_{d^k}^2 )   \bigg [ \bigg (   { g^2 m_{u^j}^2 \vert n'_{a4 } \vert ^2 \over 4   m_w^2 \sin^2 \beta }   + { 4   e^2 \vert n'_{a1 } \vert ^2 \over 9 } \cr   & + & { g^2 \vert n'_{a2 } \vert ^2   \over \cos^2 \theta_w } ( { 1 \over
2}-{2   \sin^2 \theta_w \over 3 } ) ^2   + { 4   e g re(n'_{a1}n'_{a2 } )   \over 3   \cos \theta_w }   ( { 1 \over 2}-{2   \sin^2 \theta_w \over 3 } ) \bigg )   ( -t+m_{u^j}^2+m_{\tilde \chi_a^0}^2 ) \cr   &   +   & { 2   g m_{u^j}^2 m_{\tilde \chi_a^0 } \over m_w \sin \beta } \bigg ( { 2   e re(n'_{a1}n'_{a4 } ) \over 3 } + { g re(n'_{a2}n'_{a4 } )    \over \cos \theta_w } ( { 1 \over 2}-{2   \sin^2 \theta_w \over 3 } ) \bigg ) \bigg ] \cr   \vert m_u ( u_j \bar d_k \to   \tilde \chi_a^0 \bar l_i ) \vert ^2 & = & { { \l'_{ijk}}^2    \over 6   ( u - m_{\tilde d^k_r}^2)^2 }    ( m_{u^j}^2+m_{l^i}^2-u )   \bigg [ \bigg ( { e^2 \vert n'_{a1 } \vert ^2 \over 9 }   + { g^2 \sin^4 \theta_w \vert n'_{a2 } \vert ^2 \over 9   \cos^2 \theta_w }    -{2   e g re(n'_{a1}n'_{a2 } ) \sin^2 \theta_w \over 9   \cos \theta_w } \cr   & + & { g^2 m_{d^k}^2 \vert n'_{a3 } \vert ^2 \over 4   m_w^2 \cos^2 \beta } \bigg )   ( m_{\tilde \chi_a^0}^2+m_{d^k}^2-u )   - { 2   g m_{d^k}^2 m_{\tilde \chi_a^0 }   \over m_w \cos \beta }
\bigg ( -{e re(n'_{a1}n'_{a3 } ) \over 3 } \cr & + & { g \sin^2 \theta_w re(n'_{a2}n'_{a3 } ) \over 3   \cos \theta_w } \bigg ) \bigg ] \cr 2 re [ m_s m_t^ * ( \tilde \chi_a^0 \bar l_i ) ] & = & - {    { \l'_{ijk}}^2    \over 6   ( s - m_{\tilde l^i_l}^2 ) ( t - m_{\tilde u^j_l}^2 ) }    \bigg [   -{m_{l^i}^2 m_{u^j}^2    g^2 re(n'_{a3}n^*_{a4 } )    \over 2   m_w^2 \sin \beta \cos \beta } ( m_{\tilde \chi_a^0}^2+m_{d^k}^2-u ) \cr   & + & \bigg ( { -2   e^2 \vert n'_{a1 } \vert ^2 \over 3 } + {   e g re(n^*_{a1}n'_{a2 } )    \over 3   \cos \theta_w }   ( 4 \sin^2 \theta_w-{5 \over 2 } )   \cr   & + &   { g^2 \vert n'_{a2 } \vert ^2   \over \cos^2 \theta_w } ( { 1 \over 2}-{2   \sin^2 \theta_w \over 3 } )   ( \sin^2 \theta_w-{1 \over 2 } ) \bigg ) \cr   & & [ ( m_{u^j}^2+m_{d^k}^2-s ) ( m_{\tilde \chi_a^0}^2+m_{l^i}^2-s )   + ( m_{u^j}^2+m_{\tilde \chi_a^0}^2-t ) ( m_{l^i}^2+m_{d^k}^2-t ) \cr   & - & ( m_{u^j}^2+m_{l^i}^2-u ) ( m_{\tilde \chi_a^0}^2+m_{d^k}^2-u ) ]   + { g m_{u^j}^2 m_{\tilde \chi_a^0 } \over m_w \sin \beta }   \bigg ( -e re(n'_{a1}n'_{a4})+{g re(n'_{a2}n'_{a4 } )   \over \cos \theta_w } \cr & & ( \sin^2 \theta_w-{1 \over 2 } ) \bigg )   ( m_{l^i}^2+m_{d^k}^2-t )   -(s - m_{u^j}^2-m_{d^k}^2 ) { g m_{l^i}^2 m_{\tilde \chi_a^0 } \over m_w \cos \beta } \bigg ( { 2   e re(n'_{a1}n'_{a3 } ) \over 3 } \cr & + & { g re(n'_{a2}n'_{a3 } ) \over \cos \theta_w } ( { 1 \over 2}-{2 \sin^2 \theta_w \over 3 } ) \bigg ) \bigg ] \cr   2 re [ m_t m_u^ * ( \tilde \chi_a^0 \bar l_i ) ] & = &   {    { \l'_{ijk}}^2   \over 6   ( u - m_{\tilde d^k_r}^2 ) ( t - m_{\tilde u^j_l}^2 ) } \bigg   [ { g m_{u^j}^2 m_{\tilde \chi_a^0 }       \over m_w \sin \beta } ( m_{l^i}^2+m_{d^k}^2-t )     \bigg ( -{e re(n'_{a1}n'_{a4 } ) \over 3 } \cr      & + & { g \sin^2 \theta_w re(n'_{a2}n'_{a4 } ) \over 3   \cos \theta_w } \bigg )   - { m_{\tilde \chi_a^0 } g m_{d^k}^2   \over m_w \cos \beta }    \bigg ( { 2   e re(n'_{a1}n'_{a3 } ) \over 3 } + { g re(n'_{a2}n'_{a3 } )    \over \cos \theta_w } ( { 1 \over 2}-{2   \sin^2 \theta_w \over 3 } ) \bigg ) \cr        & &   ( m_{l^i}^2+m_{u^j}^2-u )   - { g^2 re(n'_{a3}n^*_{a4 } ) m_{u^j}^2 m_{d^k}^2     \over 2   m_w^2 \cos \beta \sin \beta } ( s - m_{l^i}^2-m_{\tilde \chi_a^0}^2 ) + \bigg ( -{2   e^2 \vert n'_{a1 } \vert ^2 \over 9 } \cr   & + & { e g re(n^*_{a1}n'_{a2 } ) \over 3   \cos \theta_w }   ( -{1 \over 2}+ { 4
\sin^2 \theta_w \over 3 } )    + { g^2 \sin^2 \theta_w \vert n'_{a2 } \vert ^2 \over 3   \cos^2 \theta_w } \cr & &   ( { 1 \over 2}-{2   \sin^2 \theta_w \over 3 } )
\bigg )   [   ( m_{l^i}^2+m_{u^j}^2-u ) ( m_{\tilde \chi_a^0}^2+m_{d^k}^2-u )   + ( m_{l^i}^2+m_{d^k}^2-t ) ( m_{\tilde \chi_a^0}^2+m_{u^j}^2-t ) \cr   & - & ( m_{l^i}^2+m_{\tilde \chi_a^0}^2-s ) ( m_{d^k}^2+m_{u^j}^2-s ) ] \bigg ] \cr   2 re [ m_s m_u^ * ( \tilde \chi_a^0 \bar l_i ) ] & = &   {    { \l'_{ijk}}^2    \over 6   ( s - m_{\tilde l^i_l}^2 ) ( u - m_{\tilde d^k_r}^2 ) }   \bigg [ -{g m_{l^i}^2 m_{\tilde \chi_a^0 } \over m_w \cos \beta }   \bigg ( -{e re(n'_{a1}n'_{a3 } ) \over 3 } + { g \sin^2 \theta_w re(n'_{a2}n'_{a3 } ) \over 3   \cos \theta_w } \bigg ) \cr    & & ( s - m_{d^k}^2-m_{u^j}^2 )   - { g m_{d^k}^2 m_{\tilde \chi_a^0 }   \over m_w \cos \beta }   \bigg ( -e re(n'_{a1}n'_{a3})+{g re(n'_{a2}n'_{a3 } ) \over \cos \theta_w } ( \sin \theta_w^2-{1 \over 2 } ) \bigg ) \cr    & & ( m_{l^i}^2+m_{u^j}^2-u )   + { g^2 m_{l^i}^2 m_{d^k}^2 \vert n'_{a3 } \vert ^2    \over 2   m_w^2 \cos^2 \beta } ( m_{\tilde \chi_a^0}^2+m_{u^j}^2-t )   + \bigg ( { e^2 \vert n'_{a1 } \vert ^2 \over 3 } \cr   & - & { e g re(n^*_{a1}n'_{a2 } ) \over 3   \cos \theta_w } ( 2 \sin \theta_w^2-{1 \over 2 } )   + { g^2 \vert n'_{a2 } \vert ^2 \sin^2 \theta_w   \over 3 \cos^2 \theta_w }    ( \sin^2 \theta_w-{1 \over 2 } ) \bigg ) \cr & &   [   ( m_{l^i}^2+m_{u^j}^2-u ) ( m_{\tilde \chi_a^0}^2+m_{d^k}^2-u )   -(m_{l^i}^2+m_{d^k}^2-t ) ( m_{\tilde \chi_a^0}^2+m_{u^j}^2-t ) \cr & + & ( m_{l^i}^2+m_{\tilde \chi_a^0}^2-s ) ( m_{d^k}^2+m_{u^j}^2-s ) ] , \bigg ] \label{fnel}\end{aligned}\ ] ]      @xmath308 \cr        \vert m_t ( d_j \bar d_k \to \tilde \chi_a^- \bar l_i ) \vert ^2 & = &      {      g^2 { \l'_{ijk}}^2        \over 3   ( t - m_{\tilde u^j_l}^2)^2 }        ( t - m_{d^k}^2-m_{l^i}^2 ) \bigg [ ( t - m_{\tilde \chi_a^+}^2-m_{d^j}^2 )         ( { \vert
v_{a1 } \vert ^2 \over 4 } + { m_{d^j}^2 \vert u_{a2 } \vert^2       \over 8   m^2_w \cos^2 \beta } ) \cr       & + & { re(v_{a1}u_{a2 } ) m_{\tilde \chi_a^+ } m^2_{d^j }       \over \sqrt{2 } m_w \cos \beta }   \bigg ] \cr        \vert m_u ( \bar u_k u_j \to \tilde \chi_a^- \bar l_i ) \vert ^2 & = & { g^2 { \l'_{ijk}}^2        \over 24   ( u - m_{\tilde d^k_r}^2)^2   }        ( m_{\tilde \chi_a^+}^2+m_{u^k}^2-u )        ( m_{l^i}^2+m_{u^j}^2-u )       { \vert u_{a2 } \vert^2   m_{d^k}^2 \over m_w^2 \cos^2 \beta } \cr         2 re [ m_s m_t^ * ( \tilde \chi_a^- \bar l_i ) ] & = & {   g^2 { \l'_{ijk}}^2        \over 12   ( s - m_{\tilde \nu^i_l}^2 ) ( t - m_{\tilde u^j_l}^2 ) }       \bigg [   \vert v_{a1 } \vert ^2        [ -(m_{l^i}^2+m_{d^j}^2-u ) ( m_{\tilde \chi_a^+}^2+m_{d^k}^2-u ) \cr           & + & ( m_{l^i}^2+m_{d^k}^2-t ) ( m_{\tilde \chi_a^+}^2+m_{d^j}^2-t )           + ( m_{l^i}^2+m_{\tilde \chi_a^+}^2-s ) ( m_{d^k}^2+m_{d^j}^2-s ) ] \cr   & + & { re(v_{a1}u_{a2 } ) m_{\tilde \chi_a^+ } \sqrt{2 } \over m_w \cos \beta }   [ m^2_{l^i } ( s - m_{d^j}^2 - m_{d^k}^2 ) - m^2_{d^j } ( m_{l^i}^2+m_{d^k}^2-t ) ] \cr   & - &   { \vert u_{a2 } \vert^2   m_{l^i}^2   m^2_{d^j } \over m_w^2 \cos^2 \beta } ( m_{\tilde \chi_a^+}^2+m_{d^k}^2-u ) \bigg ] , \label{fchal}\end{aligned}\ ] ]        s. dimopoulos and l.j . hall , phys .
* b 207 * , 210 ( 1988 ) .
h. dreiner and g. g. ross , nucl .
b 365 * , 597 ( 1991 ) . h. dreiner , published in _
perspectives on supersymmetry _ , ed .
kane , world scientific ( 1998 ) , hep - ph/9707435 .
g. bhattacharyya , invited talk presented at ` beyond the desert ' , castle ringberg , tegernsee , germany , 8 - 14 june 1997 ; susy 96 , nucl .
b ( proc . suppl . )
* 52a * 83 ( 1997 ) .
r. barbier et al . , report of the group on the r - parity violation , hep - ph/9810232 .
v. barger , g. f. giudice and t. han , phys .
* d 40 * , 2987 ( 1989 ) . s. dimopoulos , r. esmailzadeh , l.j .
hall , j. merlo and g.d .
starkman , phys .
rev . * d41 * , 2099 ( 1990 ) .
p. bintruy et al . , ecfa large hadron collider ( lhc ) workshop , aachen , 1990 , vol .
a. datta , j. m. yang , b .-
young and x. zhang , phys . rev . *
d56 * , 3107 ( 1997 ) .
r. j. oakes , k. whisnant , j. m. yang , b .-
young and x. zhang , phys . rev . *
d57 * , 534 ( 1998 ) .
j. l. hewett and t. g. rizzo , `` proceedings of the xxix international conference on high energy physics '' , vancouver , ca , 23 - 29 july 1998 , hep - ph/9809525 .
p. chiappetta , a. deandrea , e. nagy , s. negroni , g. polesello and j.m .
virey , phys . rev . *
d61 * , 115008 ( 2000 ) .
j. kalinowski , r. rckl , h. spiesberger and p. m. zerwas , phys .
b414 * , 297 ( 1997 ) .
j. kalinowski , proceedings of _ `` beyond the desert 97  accelerator and non - accelerator approaches '' _ , ringberg castle , germany , june 1997 , hep - ph/9708490 .
s. bar - shalom , g. eilam and a. soni , phys . rev . *
d59 * , 055012 ( 1999 ) .
s. lola , presented at the 2nd ecfa / desy study on linear colliders , frascati ,
november 1998 , lc note lc - th-1999 - 021 , hep - ph/9912217 .
l. e. ibaez and g. g. ross , cern - th.6412/92 , in _ perspectives in higgs physics _ ,
g. kane editor , world scientific , singapore , 1993 .
h. dreiner , p. richardson and m. h. seymour , to appear in the proceedings of the btmssm subgroup of the physics at run ii workshop on supersymmetry / higgs , hep - ph/9903419 .
f. dliot , g. moreau , c. royon , e. perez and m. chemtob , phys . lett . *
b475 * , 184 ( 2000 ) .
h. dreiner , p. richardson and m. h. seymour , hep - ph/0001224 .
g. moreau , e. perez and g. polesello , hep - ph/0003012 , subm .
* b * ; g. moreau , e. perez and g. polesello , proceedings of the workshop _ ` physics at tev colliders ' _ , 8 - 18 june , 1999 , les houches , france , hep - ph/0002130 .
e. l. berger , b. w. harris and z. sullivan , phys .
lett . * 83 * , 4472 ( 1999 ) .
m. carena , m. olechowski , s. pokorski and c. e. m. wagner , nucl .
b419 * ( 1994 ) 213 .
top averaging group , preprint fermilab * tm-2084 * ( 1999 ) d0 collab .
, phys . rev .
* d58 * , 052001 ( 1998 ) , phys . rev . lett . * 79 * , 1197 ( 1997 ) , phys . rev . *
d60 * , 052001 ( 1999 ) , cdf collab .
lett . * 80 * , 2767 ( 1998 ) , phys .
lett . * 82 * , 271 , ( 1999 ) .
cteq coll .
, phys . rev . * d55 * , 1280 ( 1997 ) .
r. baier , j. engels , b. petersson , z phys . *
c2 * , 265 ( 1979 ) .
e. w. n. glover , a. d. martin , r. g. roberts , w. j. stirling , phys .
b381 * , 353 ( 1996 ) .
m. glck , e. reya , a. vogt , z phys . *
c53 * , 127 ( 1992 ) .
aleph collaboration , aleph 2000 - 013 , conf 010 ( 2000 ) .
c. caso et al . , the european physical journal * c3 * , 1 ( 1998 ) .
a. pukhov , e. boos , m. dubinin , v. edneral , v. ilyin , d. kovalenko , a. kryukov , v. savrin , s. shichanin , and a. semenov , `` comphep - a package for evaluation of feynman diagrams and integration over multi - particle phase space .
user s manual for version 33 . '' , preprint inp msu 98 - 41/542 , hep - ph/9908288 .
t. sjstrand , comp .
. comm . * 82 * , 74 ( 1994 ) ; s. mrenna , comp .
* 101 * , 232 ( 1997 ) .
j. lykken and k. t. matchev , preprint fermilab - pub-99/034-t , phys . rev . * d61 * , 015001 ( 2000 ) .
k. t. matchev and d. m. pierce , preprint fermilab - pub-99/078-t , phys . rev . * d60 * , 075004 ( 1999 ) .
h. baer , m. drees , f. paige , p. quintana , x. tata , hep - ph/9906233 .
r. barbieri , f. caravaglios , m. frigeni and m. mangano , nucl .
* b 367 * , 28 ( 1991 ) . j. conway , talk given at the susy / higgs workshop meeting , fermilab , may 14 - 16 , 1998 .
+ see also www.physics.rutgers.edu/jconway/soft/shw/shw.html .
t. kamon , j. l. lopez , p. mcintyre , and j. t. white , phys . rev . *
d50 * , 5676 ( 1994 ) .
atlas coll .
, ` atlas detector and physics performance technical design report ' , vol .
ii , atlas tdr 15 , 25 may 1999 , cern / lhcc 99 - 15 .
+ see also atlasinfo.cern.ch/atlas/groups/physics/tdr/access.html .
b. allanach et al . , ` searching for r - parity violation at run - ii of tevatron ' , hep - ph/9906224 . v. barger et al . , phys . rev . * d50 * , 4299 ( 1994 ) .
h. baer , c. kao and x. tata , phys . rev . *
d51 * , 2180 ( 1995 ) .
h. baer , c .- h . chen and x. tata ,
phys . rev . *
d55 * , 1466 ( 1997 ) .
herwig 6.1 release note , hep - ph/9912396 ; g. marchesini , b. r. webber , g. abbiendi , i. g. knowles , m. h. seymour and l. stanco , computer phys .
commun . * 67 * , 465 ( 1992 ) .
susygen 3.0/06 , ` a monte carlo event generator for mssm sparticle production for @xmath310 , @xmath311 and @xmath312 colliders ' , n. ghodbane , s. katsanevas , p. morawitz and e. perez , lyoinfo.in2p3.fr/susygen/susygen3.html ; n. ghodbane , hep - ph/9909499 .
e. perez , private communication .
aleph collaboration , aleph 98 - 017 , conf 007 ( 1998 ) .
j. f. gunion and h. e. haber , nucl . phys . *
b272 * , 1 ( 1986 ) ; erratum - ibid * b402 * , 567 ( 1993 ) .