OPEN ACCESS You may also like

- Copenhagen Plus: Complementing output

The role of an e+e− linear collider in the study of oriented climate policy by input oriented
approaches
H-J Luhmann and Stefan Lechtenbohmer
cosmic dark matter - Unstable quantum oscillator
M G Espinosa and P Kielanowski
To cite this article: M Battaglia 2009 New J. Phys. 11 105025
- A finance architecture for technology
development and transfer
Heleen de Coninck, A Higham and E
Haites

View the article online for updates and enhancements.

This content was downloaded from IP address [Link] on 27/03/2024 at 06:37

 New Journal of Physics The open–access journal for physics

The role of an e+ e− linear collider in the study

of cosmic dark matter
M Battaglia
Department of Physics, University of California and Ernest Orlando Lawrence
Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA
E-mail: MBattaglia@[Link]

New Journal of Physics 11 (2009) 105025 (17pp)

Received 3 April 2009
Published 16 October 2009
Online at [Link]
doi:10.1088/1367-2630/11/10/105025

Abstract. The potential of a high energy, high luminosity e+ e− linear collider

in the study of a weakly interacting massive new particle as a cosmic dark matter
candidate is reviewed, with special emphasis on supersymmetric scenarios.
Results of detailed simulation studies for supersymmetric neutralino dark matter
indicate that the accuracy from linear collider data of sufficient energy may
allow us to infer the dark matter relic density to accuracies comparable to those
already obtained from the study of cosmic microwave background and other
astrophysical data, thus providing a powerful test on the nature of dark matter
by combining results from particle colliders with satellite and direct detection
experiment data.
Contents

1. Introduction 2
2. An e+ e− linear collider 3
3. e+ e− collider measurements 4
3.1. Mass measurements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2. Identifying the DM nature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.3. Collision energy requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.4. Experimental implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4. Determinations of χ h 2 from linear collider data 13
References 15

New Journal of Physics 11 (2009) 105025

1367-2630/09/105025+17$30.00 © IOP Publishing Ltd and Deutsche Physikalische Gesellschaft
2
1. Introduction

The study of the interactions of elementary particles at colliders has outlined the structure of the
standard model (SM) of electroweak interactions. After the discovery of the W ± and Z 0 bosons
in proton–antiproton collisions at CERN Spp̄S, it has been through the concurrent operation of
e+ e− and proton colliders that we have progressed so far in the understanding of the fundamental
interactions of elementary particles to now be able to consider the connections between particle
physics and cosmology through dark matter (DM). The data collected at particle colliders have
confirmed the validity of the SM from the high energy frontier at LEP-2 and the Tevatron to
the high precision frontier at LEP, the SLC and, more recently, the B-factories. Despite having
successfully passed these tests, it is widely accepted the SM does not describe the full extent of
particle physics phenomenology and that new physics (NP) must exist beyond it. Because strong
bounds exist from data we have collected so far, this NP is best described by models where extra
symmetries protect the phenomenology of the SM at low energies. These extra symmetries also
prevent new particles to be produced and destroyed alone. As a result, models typically predict
the existence of a new, heavy stable particle, which can be taken to be neutral. These models
have been built and studied in parallel to the emergence of clear evidence for the existence of
large amounts of DM in the universe. As none of the particles that make up the SM, as we
know it today, has the right properties to be responsible for DM, it is at least highly suggestive
to search for the origin of DM in relation to the new stable particles, which would appear in
extensions of the SM. We can go even further along this line of reasoning and claim that the
existence of DM, with the characteristics of a weakly interacting massive particle (WIMP), is
possibly the strongest experimental evidence of NP we have at present. There are several models
of NP, which address both (some of) the long-standing problems with the SM and also include a
viable WIMP candidate. Among the best motivated, and most studied so far, are supersymmetric
(SUSY) extensions of the SM, the models with extra dimensions (EDs) and little Higgs models
of electro-weak symmetry breaking. Their structure in relation with DM is discussed in detail
in [15]–[22]. The physics of the neutrino sector has also highlighted new challenges to the SM
picture, but the contribution of the SM neutrinos cannot represent a significant fraction of the
relic DM density [23].
The Tevatron proton–antiproton collider has provided us with the highest energy hadronic
collisions so far, at 1.96 TeV, without yet uncovering any signals of physics beyond the SM.
The imminent start of LHC operation is now widely anticipated as a turning point in our quest
for NP. Colliding proton beams at energies up to 14 TeV, the LHC will be sensitive to new
particles with masses up to the TeV scale, depending on their interaction and properties [24].
With the exception of some corners of the parameter space (which carry, however, a particular
relevance for the DM study, as we shall discuss later) the LHC experiments should observe (at
least some) signals of production of SUSY particles. If SUSY or one of the other models is
indeed realized in nature and it is relevant to solve the SM problems, we expect signals of new
particles associated with NP and possibly relevant to understand the nature of cosmic DM to be
soon observed at CERN.
Beyond a first observation, it will become essential to reconstruct the profile of the DM
candidate particle and precisely measure those properties that will be most important for
determining its relic abundance in the early universe. A detailed understanding of DM will
only be possible by relating microscopic data obtained from particle collider experiments to
cosmology data and possible signals to be obtained in direct DM detection experiments. As

New Journal of Physics 11 (2009) 105025 ([Link]

3
the third generation of satellite CMB missions is now starting with the recent launch of the
PLANCK surveyor and several direct DM search experiments are in operation, construction and
development, this is likely to become one of the most fascinating scientific endeavours of the
next several decades of fundamental physics. Similar to the case of understanding the structure
of the SM, this program is best pursued with the data from an e+ e− collider of sufficient energy.
Such data will bring the precision on the microscopic observables, which is needed to perform
sensitive tests in conjunction with results from satellite and ground-based direct detection DM
experiments.

2. An e+ e− linear collider

The importance of extending the high energy frontier in lepton collisions, beyond LEP-2,
motivates an intense world-wide R&D effort towards an e+ e− linear collider, since several
decades. Replacing the storage ring scheme, used until LEP-2, with a single-pass linear
accelerator solves the problem of radiation loss from the high energy electrons, which
represented a fundamental limitation to high energy electron collisions. The concept dates
back to 1965 [1] while the possible structure and parameters were developed about a decade
later. That study resulted in the SLC project, which has been a successful precursor of the
e+ e− linear collider projects currently under consideration. Beam energy, collision luminosity
and background conditions at the interaction region are the three parameters most important to
experimentation. The luminosity, L, defined as the proportionality factor between the number
of collisions per unit of time and the process cross section σ , has requirements, which depend
on the cross sections of the processes of interest. These are now identified as L > 1034 cm−2 s−1
at 0.5 TeV and increasing to ∼1035 cm−2 s −1 for multi-TeV collisions. Since in a linear machine
beams collide only once, the collision frequency is small and high luminosity can be practically
achieved only by decreasing the transverse beam size at the interaction region. A small beam
size induces stronger beam–beam interactions, which result in an increase of beamstrahlung,
the energy loss from particle radiation due to trajectory bending in the interactions with
the incoming bunch [2, 3]. Beamstrahlung results in a larger energy spread of the colliding
particles, a degraded luminosity spectrum and higher backgrounds and needs to be accounted
in the overall parameter optimization together with the luminosity, at each collision energy.
After two decades marked by important progress in the R&D on various RF technologies
the International Linear Collider (ILC) design, based on the use of superconducting √ (s.c.) RF
cavities, emerged as a viable solution for intermediate collision energies, with s = 0.5 TeV,
L = 2 × 1034 cm−2 s−1 and a beamstrahlung parameter of 0.022, as baseline, later upgradeable to
1 TeV with L = 2.8 × 1034 cm−2 s−1 [4, 5]. The linear collider physics program and its parameter
optimization are reviewed in [6].
Beyond 1 TeV the extension of conventional RF technologies is more speculative. Since
the gradient of s.c. RF cavities is limited below '50 MV m−1 , other technologies must be
pursued to keep the total linac length within some acceptable constraints dictated by costs,
site characteristics and alignment. The CLIC technology, which is based on the transfer of
energy from an intense, low energy drive beam to a low charge, high energy main beam, has
demonstrated gradients up to 150 MV m−1 [7]. A linear collider based on the CLIC scheme aims
at collisions from 0.5 to 3 TeV, with a total luminosity of 6 × 1034 cm−2 s−1 and a beamstrahlung
momentum spread of 0.29 at the highest energy [9]. CLIC offers a unique opportunity to match

New Journal of Physics 11 (2009) 105025 ([Link]

4
and exceed the LHC energy reach with e+ e− collisions and presents new challenges to preserve
that cleanliness, which has been a signature of e+ e− events, up to multi-TeV energies [7, 8].
In the longer term, laser-plasma accelerators, which use the plasma wave excited by an
intense laser pulse in a plasma and have already demonstrated accelerating gradients up to
50 GV m−1 [10, 11], may open an exciting path towards very high energy lepton collisions [12].

3. e+ e− collider measurements

There are three main features of an e+ e− linear collider that play a major role in providing
precision data for understanding DM and justify a new large scale facility in accelerator particle
physics to complement and extend the LHC. Firstly, virtually all the energy of the incoming
electron and positron beams is transferred to the final state particles. This makes kinematics
simpler and, more importantly, provides powerful constraints for studying invisible particles
(such as a DM candidate) and for improving the resolution on the mass of observed resonances.
Secondly, all e+ e− annihilation processes have roughly the same cross sections. This ensures that
the production of new particles is not swamped by the underlying strong-interaction background
and that all (or most) of their main decay channels are visible. Finally, in e+ e− collisions the
energy, particle species and polarization of the beams can be adjusted. This enables detailed
energy scans of the onset of new particle pair production and the choice of optimal energy,
particle and polarization states, depending on the physics of interest, to maximize the analysing
power of the collider data. All these features are instrumental for a linear collider to establish
the connection between particle physics and cosmology through DM, as discussed below.
In this review, I consider primarily SUSY neutralino DM since it has been studied more
thoroughly at both the linear collider and the LHC. The study of SUSY DM can be usefully
started within the constrained minimal SUSY extension of the SM (cMSSM). In this model, the
scalar masses, the gaugino masses and the trilinear parameters are assumed to be universal at a
high scale with values m 0 , m 1/2 and A0 , respectively. The only other parameters that remain free
in the theory are the ratio of the vacuum expectation values of the two Higgs doublets, tan β and
the sign of µ. As this model is simple and it is fully described by a small number of parameters,
it has been used most often for detailed phenomenology studies. In the cMSSM, there are four
main regions that are compatible with current data on cosmic DM. These are shown in figure 1,
which also gives the location of four specific benchmark points adopted in the study of [13],
points which are referred.

3.1. Mass measurements

Since the DM candidate particle is stable and only weakly interacting, its mass cannot be directly
measured in a collider detector. However, since it is the lightest particle with the (conserved)
quantum number of the NP sector, it will appear at the end of each decay chain involving heavier
new particles, independent of the specific model, and the kinematics of the associated SM
particles can be used to determine its mass. More specifically, if we consider the case of SUSY
with neutralino DM, the minimum and maximum energy of an SM particle produced together
with the neutralino can be related to the mass difference between the original SUSY particle
produced and the neutralino itself. This method, which was first developed in the framework of
SUSY for scalar quarks [27], equally applies to scalar leptons, as well as to Kaluza–Klein (KK)
excitations of SM particles, in ED models, where the neutralino is replaced, for example, by the

New Journal of Physics 11 (2009) 105025 ([Link]

5

No EWSB n
r e gio
t
p oin
c us
Fo

ion
LCC2

reg
el
nn
Fu
m h , b → sγ
m0

LCC4

g−2 n
on regio
hilati
LCC3 co -anni
Bulk
region Charged LSP
LCC1

m1/2

Figure 1. DM favoured regions in the universal gaugino and sfermion mass

parameters of the cMSSM with the four benchmark points adopted for the study
of [13] (figure modified from [14]).

lightest excitation of the photon, γ (1) , as DM candidate. This measurement requires to precisely
determine the endpoint energy of the detected particle, as well as the beam energy. Generally
this is possible at an e+ e− collider, where the measurement is performed in pair production
processes, such as e+ e− → µ̃+ µ̃− , with E µ̃ = E beam , which is precisely known. The endpoint
energies are measured to high accuracy in two body-decays to stable leptons, such as µ̃ → µχ10
(see figure 2), taking into account that the anticipated momentum resolution of the tracking
system of a linear collider detector is δp/ p 2 '10−5 GeV−1 , i.e. about an order of magnitude
better compared to that of LEP and LHC detectors. The main source of resolution smearing
comes from the beam energy spread. The nominal beam energy spread is 0.15% for the ILC
0.25 TeV beam. For a 1.5 TeV CLIC beam at CLIC, because of beamstrahlung, one-third of the
delivered luminosity falls within 1% of the nominal energy. The W + W − background, which
is significant in parts of the parameter space, can be suppressed by colliding polarized beams
and profits from availability of both electron and positron polarization [39]. In addition, an e+ e−
collider has a second, and even more precise, technique for independently √measuring the mass of
new particles. The option of precisely tuning the centre-of-mass energy, s, makes it possible to
scan the onset of the pair production process. The sparticle √ mass, and also its width, can then be
extracted from a fit to the signal event yield as a function of s. The anticipated analysis strategy
is to determine the slepton mass using the threshold scan in a short dedicated run at and then
determine
√ the neutralino mass using kinematic endpoints, while running at the highest available
s energy where the cross section is larger and the full physics program can be exploited [41].
Typical relative accuracies for masses are of the order of ±5 × 10−3 –5 × 10−4 from threshold
scans and ±(1–5) × 10−3 from momentum endpoint in the continuum [40]. These accuracies
are typically one to two orders of magnitude better compared to those expected from the LHC

New Journal of Physics 11 (2009) 105025 ([Link]

6

Figure 2. e+ e− → µ̃+ µ̃− with µ̃ → µχ10 two-body decay: muon momentum

distribution showing the smuon and neutralino edges superimposed on the SM
and SUSY backgrounds (from [40]).

data [65]. Estimated accuracies for sparticle masses in the four LCC benchmarks scenarios are
summarized in table 1. Similar results apply to KK excitations of SM particles in Universal Extra
Dimension (UED) models [66]. The assumption of operating the collider varying energy and
beam polarization, when not even the beam particle species, may rise doubts on the feasibility
to accomplish all of the required measurements within a pre-defined run period. Indeed, the
issue has been studied in details for the case of two SUSY scenarios, which require operating
at various energies and with different beam conditions [41]. While the construction of a run
plan, i.e. the repartition of the run time between energies of operation, initial state electron
polarizations and the use of special e− e− runs, depends quite sensitively on the specifics of the
assumed physics model, the result of the study indicates that an integrated luminosity of 1 ab−1 ,
i.e. 6–7 years of collider operation, guarantees high precision measurements of all of the SUSY
states within kinematic reach [41].
While the neutralino mass plays a key role in defining the DM density, the masses of
other particles, which may have interacted with the neutralinos in the early universe, also
need to be precisely known to determine the neutralino annihilation cross section. The heavy
Higgs boson A0 plays a special role, in this respect. If M A ' 2Mχ 01 , the annihilation process
χ10 χ10 → bb̄ is significantly enhanced through the A0 pole, χ10 χ10 → A0 → bb̄. This annihilation
is so efficient that exactly on the pole, neutralino DM is almost completely wiped out. Since
we do indeed have evidence of relic DM, acceptable solutions are restricted, in this scenario,
to parameters giving just a tiny mismatch between MA and 2Mχ 01 and the amount of relic DM
changes very rapidly when varying the A0 mass and width. Therefore, it is essential for a precise
study of DM at colliders to observe the heavy Higgs bosons and measure their properties. For
the relic density calculation, these measurements remove a major source of uncertainty. For
DM direct detection, they are even more important, since the dominant contribution to the
scattering cross section comes most often from Higgs boson exchange diagrams. The study
of the heavy A0 boson exemplifies the complementarity between the LHC and a linear collider
and the case for a staged approach to the linear collider energy. We do expect the LHC to
observe the H 0 and A0 heavy Higgs bosons in the region of parameters where the A0 boson
significantly contributes to the neutralino annihilation cross section (see figure 3) [42]. The

New Journal of Physics 11 (2009) 105025 ([Link]

7

Table 1. Summary of the accuracies (in GeV) on the main mass determinations
by the ILC at 0.5 TeV for the four LCC benchmark points. Results in [ ] brackets
also include data at 1 TeV (from [6]).
Observable LCC1 LCC2 LCC3 LCC4
δ M(χ̃10 ) ±0.05 ±1.0 ±0.1 [±1.4]
δ M(ẽ R ) ±0.05 – [±1.0] [±0.6]
δ M(τ̃1 ) ±0.3 – ±0.5 ±0.9
δ M(τ̃2 ) ±1.1 – – –
δ(M(µ R ) − M(χ̃10 )) ±0.2 [±0.2] ±0.6
δ(M(τ̃1 ) − M(χ̃10 )) 0.3 – ±1.0 ±1.0
δ(M(τ̃2 ) − M(χ̃10 )) ±1.1 [±3.0]
δ(M(χ̃20 ) − M(χ̃10 )) ±0.07 ±0.3 ±0.6 [±1.8]
δ(M(χ̃30 ) − M(χ̃10 )) ±4.0 ±0.2 [±2.0] [±2.0]
δ(M(χ̃1+ ) − M(χ̃10 )) ±0.6 ±0.25 [±0.7] ±2.0
δ(M(χ̃2+ ) − M(χ̃1+ )) [±3.0] – [±2.0] ±2.0
δ M(A0 ) [±1.5] – [±0.8] [±0.8]
δ0(A0 ) – [±1.2] [±1.2]

A0 mass accuracy crucially depends on the availability of the A0 → µ+ µ− channel [43]. At the
lower end of the mass range of interest, MA can be measured very accurately: ATLAS reported
a relative precision of O(0.1%) for MA = 300 GeV at tan β = 30 with 300 fb−1 of integrated
luminosity [44]. However, at larger masses the main signal decay mode available is A0 → τ + τ −
and the mass determination is affected by the sizable energy scale uncertainty, which puts the
LHC accuracy about an order of magnitude away from that required for the DM relic density
computation to match the precision of the current CMB data [43]. After an early determination
of the neutralino mass at a linear collider and with the prior knowledge of the LHC result on MA ,
it will become apparent if the mass relation between the two particles may be responsible for
setting the relic density. Since the A0 boson is pair produced with the H 0 in e+ e− interactions, its
study at a linear collider will likely require operation at 1 TeV, or above, which would motivate
and guide an energy upgrade. For masses almost up to the pair production kinematic limit, as
the point LCC-4 of figure 1, a linear collider can determine the A0 mass and width with relative
accuracies of ∼0.2% and ∼15–20%, which exactly match the DM study requirements [47, 48]
(see figure 4).
Another scenario where mass relations among SUSY particles set the relic density is in
the so-called co-annihilation region. Here is the small mass splitting between the neutralino
and another SUSY particle to enhance the neutralino annihilation cross section. In particular,
in the cMSSM, stau-neutralino co-annihilation is dominant along a narrow strip in the m 0 –m 1/2
parameter plane. Typical mass differences are of the order of 1–10 GeV and extracting the soft
signal events from underlying machine-induced background is an experimental challenge [49,
50]. The τ̃ -χ10 mass difference can be determined quite precisely through the use of an effective
mass variable (see figure 5). The contribution from τ̃ + τ̃ − and χ10 χ20 that lead to the same
τ + τ − χ10 χ10 final state can be disentangled by varying the beam polarization. A co-annihilation
region arises also in baryogenesis-motivated SUSY scenarios with very heavy scalars but a
light scalar top particle, which is almost degenerate with the lightest neutralino [51, 52]. In

New Journal of Physics 11 (2009) 105025 ([Link]

8

CLIC
3 TeV

Figure 3. Colliders reach in Higgs boson searches in the MA –tan β parameter

plane of the MSSM. The LEP limit obtained from light h 0 boson searches
is shown by the curve labelled LEP-2. The regions labelled by the names of
the various Higgs bosons show which of them could be observed across the
parameter space at the LHC with 300 fb−1 of integrated luminosity by combining
the ATLAS and CMS data (from [45]). The increased sensitivity from higher
luminosity at the SLHC is also shown (from [45]). An e+ e− linear collider √ is
able to cover most of this plane on the left of the kinematic limit MA ' s/2
using the dominant decays modes bb̄ and τ + τ − . Specifically, the expected reach
at 3 TeV is shown by the curve labelled CLIC (data from [46]). The dots at large
tan β show the distribution of MSSM solutions in the A0 annihilation funnel
compatible with the WMAP χ h 2 result (from [43]).

these scenarios, a linear collider at 0.5 TeV can precisely determine the t̃1 and χ10 masses and
the stop mixing angles through its polarized production cross sections [51].
Finally, it is important to mention that in e+ e− collisions it is possible to search for a WIMP,
χ, in an (almost) model-independent way through the process e+ e− → χχγ , where only the
initial state radiation photon is detected. The main background comes from the SM process
e+ e− → ν ν̄γ [53]. A detailed study [54] has demonstrated how a WIMP with mass in the range
100–220 GeV (most relevant to DM) and pair annihilation to electrons of the order of 0.01 (0.1)
can be observed with 500 fb−1 of integrated luminosity at 0.5 TeV with (without) polarization
(see figure 6). This region is of special interest in view of the anomalous positron abundance
in the cosmic radiation reported by PAMELA [55]. The WIMP mass could be measured to a
relative accuracy of 0.04–0.01 depending on the availability of beam polarization [54].

New Journal of Physics 11 (2009) 105025 ([Link]

9

Figure 4. e+ e− → H 0 A0 → bb̄bb̄ at 1 TeV: (left) display of an event and (right)

di-jet invariant mass distribution (from [48]).
0.035 90 Fitting m0=210 ‘data’ with
m0=210 templates
80 ∼0∼0
0.030 χ χ
∼τ+1∼τ-2
70 1 1
0.025 SM
Number of events
σ(e e → τ1τ1) (pb)

60 combined
0.020 50 χ2/n.d.f. 70.18 / 98
∼ 0∼ 0 16.4 ± 16.6
40 N(χ1χ2)
+ –

0.015
N(∼τ1 ∼τ1)
+ -
30 764.8 ± 30.6
0.010 N(SM) 378 (fixed)
20

0.005 10

0
0
400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 0 50 100 150 200 250
Ecm (GeV) M(j1+j2+E miss) [GeV]

Figure 5. e+ e− → τ̃ + τ̃ − : (left) stau pair production cross section versus centre-

of-mass energy and (right) reconstructed effective mass (from [50]).

3.2. Identifying the DM nature

With many NP models, each offering possible WIMP candidates, having observed events with
missing energy will not specifically point to any one of them. Rather, the analysing power of a
lepton collider will be needed to pin down the model parameters and possibly even the nature of
NP. The problem has been studied in detail with reference to the case of SUSY and UEDs [56],
a particular class of ED models with a conserved quantum number, the KK parity. This case is
particularly compelling since the two models are constructed with an almost exact symmetry. In
SUSY, as well as in UED, for each SM particle there exists a partner particle in the new sector.
The lightest of these particles, the lightest neutralino, χ̃10 , in SUSY and the lightest KK excitation
of the photon, γ (1) , are stable and are the DM candidate. Similar decay chains arise from decays
of heavy squarks (higher KK excitations of the quarks) and sleptons (higher KK excitations

New Journal of Physics 11 (2009) 105025 ([Link]

10

Figure 6. WIMP signal seen as an excess of events in the single photon

energy distribution due to the e+ e− → χχγ process for Mχ = 180 GeV above
the e+ e− → ν ν̄γ SM background. Both beams are assumed to be polarized
(from [54]).

of the leptons) in SUSY (UED). What makes the two models fundamentally different, and thus
distinguishable, is the spin quantum number of these new particles. In fact, the SUSY partners of
quarks and leptons are bosons, while the KK excitations of fermions have the same spin as their
SM counterparts. The superb analytical properties of e+ e− colliders ensure that the nature of NP
can be identified in most cases. Unlike hadron colliders, the pair production of new particles in
lepton collisions at a well-defined energy, allows to determine their spin from their production
properties [62]. In fact, in the case of slepton production in SUSY
 
dσ
∼1 − cos2 θ, (1)
d cos θ SUSY
while for the KK excitations of leptons in UED
 
dσ
∼ 1 + cos2 θ. (2)
d cos θ UED
The angular distributions for these two models are well distinguishable also when accounting
for physics and machine-induced backgrounds and detector effects (see figure 7) [66]. Another
technique to assess the spin quantum numbers of the new particle is to study the rate of increase
of the pair production cross section near threshold, which is again available at an e+ e− collider,
where the centre-of-mass energy can be precisely tuned [62]. Since the c.m. frame is not well
defined, extracting the spin of new particles at the LHC appears challenging [63, 64].
Even within a specific scenario of NP such as the MSSM, determining its fundamental
parameters from collider data will be essential to understand the mechanism(s) controlling DM
annihilation in the early universe. Measurements of mass differences for new particles, which
are expected to be the main deliverable of the LHC data for a scenario-like SUSY, do not provide
enough constraints to fix the mixing angles and the nature of the neutralino. For example, in
the case of the LCC-2 benchmark point of figure 1, the LHC data will not be able to assess
whether the lightest neutralino, as DM candidate, is bino-, wino- or higgsino-like. To those three

New Journal of Physics 11 (2009) 105025 ([Link]

11
140
200
600 800
120 175
700
500
100 600 150
Entries (0.1 ab )

Entries (0.1 ab )
–1

–1
400 125
80 500

300 400 100

60
300 75
200 40
200 50
100 20
100 25

0 0 0 0
20 40 60 80 100 20 40 60 80 100 –1 –0.5 0 0.5 1 –1 –0.5 0 0.5 1
pµ (GeV) cos θµ

Figure 7. SUSY (left) versus UED (right) at a linear collider: (left) muon
momentum distribution and (right) polar angle for e+ e− → µ̃+ µ̃− → µ+ χ 0 µ− χ 0
and e+ e− → µ(1) µ(1) → µ+ γ (1) µ− γ (1) (from [66]).

Figure 8. Disentangling parameters with linear collider measurements: MSSM

models compatible with LCC-2 for the LHC data, presented as a scatter plot in
the plane of gaugino production cross section σ versus χ h 2 . The polarized cross
sections measurements at a linear collider with their associated uncertainties are
shown by the horizontal line (from [13]).

solutions correspond different annihilation cross sections and thus different relic densities. The
linear collider allows to solve these degeneracies by precise measurements of the polarized χ χ
cross sections, which fix the values of the mixing angles (see figure 8).

New Journal of Physics 11 (2009) 105025 ([Link]

12
3.3. Collision energy requirements
While we follow the constant progress of the Tevatron experiments in improving not only our
knowledge of the mass of the top quark [28] but also the mass limits for a Higgs boson [29]
and have high expectations for the LHC data, we can already layout possible scenarios of
NP based on the sizable set of precision electroweak, low energy and, in fact, cosmology
data. Much has been written on this subject in recent years [30]–[35]. Even when restricting
ourselves to highly constrained models, such as the cMSSM, current data do not indicate a
clearly favoured mass scale for new particles. Rather, the most likely regions extend across
the parameter space along contours largely determined by the cosmic DM density where, at
increasing DM candidate masses, the annihilation cross section increases accordingly to restore
agreement with the WMAP data (see figure 1) [36]. It is interesting to observe that viable
solutions can be obtained up to very large mass scales, depending on the mechanism of WIMP
annihilation or on the nature of DM. In the so-called ‘focus point region’ of the MSSM, the DM
candidate, the lightest neutralino, is a gaugino–Higgsino mixture. This makes its annihilation
in W W and Z Z pairs, through t-channel diagrams, the dominant process determining the relic
density [37, 38, 57]. Here, the masses of fermion SUSY partners typically exceed 1 TeV and
only the lighter neutralinos and charginos populate the mass spectrum at the O(100 GeV) scale.
Such a scenario would be particularly interesting for an e+ e− collider of sufficient energy, since
the LHC reach in studying, or even observing, SUSY would be limited along the narrow focus
point line at high masses.
If the DM candidate is not the lightest neutralino but rather the gravitino, as the lightest
SUSY particle, and the τ̃ is the next to lightest particle new scenarios appear. In particular,
the τ̃ can create bound metastable states with several nuclei, which would affect Big Bang
Nucleosynthesis (BBN). Now, it has been observed that there exists a small region of the
parameter space where the τ̃ effect improves the agreement between data and the model
prediction on 6 Li and 7 Li concentration [58]. This region corresponds to τ̃ lifetimes shorter than
1000 s and very heavy particle masses, with thresholds for slepton pair production appearing
above 2 TeV [59]. The existence of such scenarios giving importance to the outer edges of the
parameter phase space, where new particles are heavier, remind us the importance to develop
a sustained accelerator R&D program towards multi-TeV e+ e− collisions, to be able to study
these cases in full.
Depending on model parameters, we may expect the spectrum of new particles to extend
up to masses of the order of 1 TeV or more, where not all of these particles can be accessed and
precisely measured at a linear collider. However, it must be observed that particles of large mass
in the NP sector quickly decouple from the DM candidate and do not significantly contribute
to determine its relic density [60]. In fact, the relic density depends on the WIMP annihilation
cross section at temperatures of the order of T /Mχ ∼1/25, which correspond to non-relativistic
velocities. In t-channel exchange, the contribution by heavy particles are suppressed by the
factor 1/M 4 , where M is their mass. The dominant diagrams for computing the annihilation
cross section only involve the lightest particles in the model.
A benchmark point located in the focus point region brings an useful example. The
LCC-2 point has sleptons and squarks too heavy to be pair-produced even at a 1 TeV linear
collider. At 0.5 TeV only the three lightest neutralinos and the two lightest charginos are
accessible. This scenario has been studied in detail in [61]. The lightest neutralino mass

New Journal of Physics 11 (2009) 105025 ([Link]

13
can be reconstructed with a relative accuracy of 0.01 and the linear collider data provides a
δχ h 2 /χ h 2 = 0.076 [13].
This property is common to the vast majority of points in the SUSY parameter space:
new particles with masses much larger than 2Mχ decouple in the determination of the WIMP
relic density. The study of DM thus gives special importance to precision measurements on
the lightest states of the new particle spectrum, which will be accessible to a TeV-class linear
collider.

3.4. Experimental implications

Providing us with well-defined, quantitative requirements in terms of physics measurement
accuracy over a broad range of physics scenarios, DM-motivated NP plays an important role
in benchmarking the physics potential of a linear collider and the response of its detectors [25].
In this respect, b-quark identification capabilities and very forward electron tagging are two
examples of the implications of the phenomenology arising from DM-motivated NP on the
linear collider detector design.
The importance of determining the properties of the A0 boson underscores the crucial
role of fermion flavour tagging at the linear collider. The dominant decay mode of A0 and H 0
bosons in the region of parameters where these heavy Higgs bosons are most relevant to DM
is bb̄ and the signal-to-background ratio, before b-jet identification is 2.5 × 10−4 . The typical
production cross section for the process e+ e− → H 0 A0 → bb̄bb̄ is only of the order of 1 fb,
yielding approximately 103 signals events per year of operation. If b is the efficiency for tagging
a single b-jet, the total tagging efficiency for signal events is 'b4 , making mandatory to achieve
a tagging efficiency b > 0.75.
In the so-called co-annihilation region of the cMSSM, the study of new particles with small
mass splitting, puts special emphasis on efficient reconstruction of events with just a pair of soft
particles and in particular on the detector coverage in the forward region to veto on primary
electrons in background γ γ → hadrons events, down to angles of a few mrad [26, 49]. This is
an important requirement that touches upon the machine parameters and the complex design of
the machine-detector interface.

4. Determinations of χ h 2 from linear collider data

Having identified the nature of the physics responsible for the new particles observed, an e+ e−
collider can measure mass
√ and couplings of those particles which can be produced in pairs, i.e.
with masses below ' s/2 . These measurements can then be used to determine the properties
most relevant to astrophysics. The quantity of most interest in this respect is the WIMP relic
density χ h 2 . The envisaged strategy is to infer χ h 2 from microscopic properties measured
at colliders and compare it to the result of studies of cosmic microwave background and other
astrophysical observables. If the two results agree, this would be a remarkable achievement
towards understanding DM. The accuracy achievable at the LHC and at an e+ e− linear collider
has been studied in detail using results from both parametric simulation of detector response
and full simulation and reconstruction in the context of the minimal SUSY extension of the
SM [13, 43, 67].
In these analyses the anticipated accuracies on particle masses and other observables are
used to define probability density functions for the WIMP relic density χ in optimized scans

New Journal of Physics 11 (2009) 105025 ([Link]

14

Figure 9. Probability distributions of the microscopic prediction for χ h 2 for the

four benchmark models LCC-1–LCC-4. In each plot, the three curves show the
results for expected LHC measurements, ILC measurements up to 500 GeV and
ILC measurements up to 1 TeV (from [13]).

of the parameter phase space of the MSSM. In particular, the study in [13] considers four points
chosen to represent the variety of neutralino annihilation mechanisms (see figure 1) and for
each of them scans the full 24-dimensional parameter space of the MSSM. The probability
distribution functions for the neutralino relic density at these benchmark points are compared in
figure 9 and the corresponding relative accuracies are summarized in table 2 for the LHC and a
linear collider.
In each case, the estimated distribution that would be obtained in a model-independent
analysis of SUSY neutralino DM from LHC data alone, from the LHC data plus the data from
an e+ e− linear collider at 0.5 or 1 TeV are presented. Despite the greatly different nature and
number of measurements required in the different regions of the MSSM parameter space, due
to the different annihilation mechanisms, the study shows that the combination of data from the
LHC and an e+ e− collider of sufficient energy can predict χ h 2 to a relative accuracy, which

New Journal of Physics 11 (2009) 105025 ([Link]

15

Table 2. Relative accuracies on the derivation of χ h 2 using LHC and LC data

at 0.5 and 1.0 TeV (from [13] and update in [48]).
Benchmark LHC +0.5 TeV +1.0 TeV
point LC LC
LCC-1 0.072 0.018 0.002
LCC-2 0.82 0.14 0.076
LCC-3 1.57 0.50 0.18
LCC-4 4.05 0.85 0.080

is comparable to that resulting from the latest 5 years’ WMAP CMB data [36]. This is due to
the combination of mass measurements to accuracies of the order of few per-mil and coupling
measurements obtained through the determination of decay branching fractions and production
cross sections, also exploiting the availability of polarized beams [39]. The anticipated
accuracies of these measurements at an e+ e− linear collider remain virtually unchanged when
performing the analysis with full simulation of the detector and detailed event reconstruction,
compared to the use of a simpler parametrization of the detector response [48, 68]. This is a
consequence of the relatively simple nature of e+ e− events and of the envisaged performance of
the detectors.
What we expect to learn from an e+ e− collider is not limited to inferring the DM relic
density. Rather, the precision measurement of the DM candidate properties and interactions will
allow to fix the particle physics of DM and then attempt to move forward elucidating its role in
cosmology. This addresses key question such as testing standard Big Bang cosmology back to
10−9 s, at which time the DM relic density was produced, and determining the local DM density
profile in the Galaxy. In turn, these data are essential in the interpretation of direct DM detection
experiments, which are pushing their sensitivity closer to the region where SUSY predicts the
observation of a signal [69]–[72].
If DM is due to a weakly interacting, massive new particle, an e+ e− linear collider
of sufficient energy is expected to measure its properties with the precision needed to
perform crucial, model-independent tests in conjunction with satellite and DM direct detection
experiments. Today we do not know with precision what the required collision energy is. The
LHC will likely provide us with an answer, if NP, such as SUSY or EDs, is indeed responsible
for cosmic DM. With the first LHC results in hand, proceeding with the construction and
operation of an high-energy, high-luminosity linear collider will open up the path towards a
new, fascinating era of fundamental science.

References

[1] Tigner M 1965 Nuovo Cimento 37 1228

[2] Noble R J 1987 Nucl. Instrum. Methods A 256 427
[3] Chen P 1988 Lect. Notes Phys. 296 495
[4] Phinney N 2007 ICFA Beam Dyn. Newslett. 42 7
[5] Brau J et al (ed) 2007 Int. Linear Collider reference design report Report SLAC-R-857, DESY-07-046, KEK-
REPORT-2007-2

New Journal of Physics 11 (2009) 105025 ([Link]

16
[6] Battaglia M 2008 Colliders and Neutrinos: The Window into Physics Beyond the Standard Model, Proc.
Theoretical Advanced Study Institute in Elementary Particle Physics (TASI 2006) ed S Dawson and R N
Mohapatra (Singapore: World Scientific) p 49 (arXiv:0705.3997)
[7] Guignard G (ed) 2000 A 3 TeV e + e− Linear Collider based on CLIC Technology CERN-2000-008
[8] Battaglia M, De Roeck A, Ellis J and Schulte D (ed) 2004 Physics at the CLIC Multi-TeV Linear Collider:
Report of the CLIC Physics Working Group CERN-2004-005
[9] Braun H et al CLIC 2008 Parameters Report CERN-OPEN-2008-021, CLIC-Note-764
[10] Geddes C G R et al 2004 Nature 431 538
[11] Thomas A G R et al 2007 Phys. Rev. Lett. 98 095004 (arXiv:physics/0701186)
[12] Leemans W and Esarey E 2009 Phys. Today 62 (3) 44
[13] Baltz E A, Battaglia M, Peskin M E and Wizansky T 2006 Phys. Rev. D 74 103521 (arXiv:hep-ph/0602187)
[14] Battaglia M et al 2001 Eur. Phys. J. C 22 535 (arXiv:hep-ph/0106204)
[15] Ellis J R and Flores R A 1988 Nucl. Phys. B 307 883
[16] Griest K 1988 Phys. Rev. D 38 2357
Griest K 1989 Phys. Rev. D 39 3802 (erratum)
[17] Ellis J R, Olive K A, Santoso Y and Spanos V C 2003 Phys. Lett. B 565 176 (arXiv:hep-ph/0303043)
[18] Servant G and Tait T M P 2003 Nucl. Phys. B 650 391 (arXiv:hep-ph/0206071)
[19] Cheng H C, Feng J L and Matchev K T 2002 Phys. Rev. Lett. 89 211301 (arXiv:hep-ph/0207125)
[20] Ellis J R, Olive K A, Santoso Y and Spanos V C 2004 Phys. Lett. B 588 7 (arXiv:hep-ph/0312262)
[21] Kong K and Matchev K T 2006 J. High Energy Phys. JHEP01(2006)038 (arXiv:hep-ph/0509119)
[22] Birkedal A, Noble A, Perelstein M and Spray A 2006 Phys. Rev. D 74 035002 (arXiv:hep-ph/0603077)
[23] Bergstrom L, 2009 New J. Phys. 11 105006 (arXiv:0903.4849)
[24] For a recent review see: Ellis J 2009 Eur. Phys. J. C 59 335 (arXiv:0810.1178)
[25] Battaglia M, Barklow T, Peskin M E, Okada Y, Yamashita S and Zerwas P M 2006 Proc. 2005
Int. Linear Collider Workshop (LCWS 2005), Stanford, California, 18–22 March 2005 pp 1602
(arXiv:hep-ex/0603010)
[26] Bambade P, Berggren M, Richard F and Zhang Z 2004 arXiv:hep-ph/0406010
[27] Feng J L and Finnell D E 1994 Phys. Rev. D 49 2369 (arXiv:hep-ph/9310211)
[28] Tevatron Electroweak Working Group and CDF and D0 Collaborations 2009 arXiv:0903.2503
[29] CDF and D0 Collaborations 2009 arXiv:0903.4001
[30] Battaglia M, De Roeck A, Ellis J R, Gianotti F, Olive K A and Pape L 2004 Eur. Phys. J. C 33 273 (arXiv:hep-
ph/0306219)
[31] De Roeck A, Ellis J R, Gianotti F, Moortgat F, Olive K A and Pape L 2007 Eur. Phys. J. C 49 1041 (arXiv:hep-
ph/0508198)
[32] Allanach B C and Lester C G 2006 Phys. Rev. D 73 015013 (arXiv:hep-ph/0507283)
[33] Allanach B C 2006 Phys. Lett. B 635 123 (arXiv:hep-ph/0601089)
[34] Allanach B C, Dolan M J and Weber A M 2008 J. High Energy Phys. JHEP08(2008)105 (arXiv:0806.1184)
[35] Buchmueller O et al 2008 J. High Energy Phys. JHEP09(2008)117 (arXiv:0808.4128)
[36] Dunkley J et al (WMAP Collaboration) 2009 Astrophys. J. Suppl. 180 306 (arXiv:0803.0586)
[37] Feng J L, Matchev K T and Moroi T 2000 Phys. Rev. Lett. 84 2322 (arXiv:hep-ph/9908309)
Feng J L, Matchev K T and Moroi T 2000 Phys. Rev. D 61 075005 (arXiv:hep-ph/9909334)
[38] Feng J L, Matchev K T and Wilczek F 2000 Phys. Lett. B 482 388 (arXiv:hep-ph/0004043)
[39] Moortgat-Pick G A et al 2008 Phys. Rep. 460 131 (arXiv:hep-ph/0507011)
[40] Martyn H U and Blair G A 1999 arXiv:hep-ph/9910416
[41] Battaglia M et al Proc. APS/DPF/DPB Summer Study on the Future of Particle Physics (Snowmass 2001)
Snowmass, Colorado, 30 Jun - 21 Jul 2001 ed N Graf pp E3006 (arXiv:hep-ph/0201177)
[42] Denegri D et al 2001 CMS NOTE 2001/032 (arXiv:hep-ph/0112045)
[43] Battaglia M, Hinchliffe I and Tovey D 2004 J. Phys. G: Nucl. Phys. 30 R217 (arXiv:hep-ph/0406147)
[44] ATLAS Collaboration 1999 ATLAS Detector and Physics Performance Technical Design Report: Higgs
Bosons CERN/LHCC 99-14/15

New Journal of Physics 11 (2009) 105025 ([Link]

17
[45] Gianotti F et al 2005 Eur. Phys. J. C 39 293 (arXiv:hep-ph/0204087)
[46] Coniavitis E and Ferrari A 2007 Phys. Rev. D 75 015004
[47] Desch K, Klimkovich T, Kuhl T and Raspereza A 2004 Prepared for Int. Conference on Linear Colliders
(LCWS 04), Paris, France, 19–24 April 2004
[48] Battaglia M, Kelley N and Hooberman B 2008 Phys. Rev. D 78 015021 (arXiv:0805.1506)
[49] Martyn H U 2004 arXiv:hep-ph/0408226
[50] Khotilovich V, Arnowitt R L, Dutta B and Kamon T 2005 Phys. Lett. B 618 182 (arXiv:hep-ph/0503165)
[51] Carena M S, Finch A, Freitas A, Milstene C, Nowak H and Sopczak A 2005 Phys. Rev. D 72 115008
(arXiv:hep-ph/0508152)
[52] Carena M S and Freitas A 2006 Phys. Rev. D 74 095004 (arXiv:hep-ph/0608255)
[53] Montagna G, Nicrosini O and Piccinini F 1996 Comput. Phys. Commun. 98 206
[54] Bartels C and List J 2009 arXiv:0901.4890
[55] Adriani O et al (PAMELA Collaboration) 2009 Nature 458 607 (arXiv:0810.4995)
[56] Appelquist T, Cheng H C and Dobrescu B A 2001 Phys. Rev. D 64 035002 (arXiv:hep-ph/0012100)
[57] Baer H, Belyaev A, Krupovnickas T and Tata X 2004 J. High Energy Phys. JHEP02(2004)007 (arXiv:hep-
ph/0311351)
[58] Cyburt R H, Ellis J R, Fields B D, Olive K A and Spanos V C 2006 J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.
JCAP11(2006)014 (arXiv:astro-ph/0608562)
[59] Ellis J 2008 arXiv:0811.1366 [hep-ph]
[60] Birkedal A et al 2005 Proc. 2005 Int. Linear Collider Workshop (LCWS 2005), Stanford, California, 18–22
March 2005 pp 0708 (arXiv:hep-ph/0507214)
[61] Gray R et al 2005 Proc. 2005 Int. Linear Collider Workshop (LCWS 2005), Stanford, California, 18–22
March 2005 pp 0711 (arXiv:hep-ex/0507008)
[62] Choi S Y, Djouadi A, Guchait M, Kalinowski J, Song H S and Zerwas P M 2000 Eur. Phys. J. C 14 535
(arXiv:hep-ph/0002033)
[63] Smillie J M and Webber B R 2005 J. High Energy Phys. JHEP10(2005)069 (arXiv:hep-ph/0507170)
[64] Kane G L, Petrov A A, Shao J and Wang L T 2008 arXiv:0805.1397
[65] Weiglein G et al (LHC/LC Study Group) 2006 Phys. Rep. 426 47 (arXiv:hep-ph/0410364)
[66] Battaglia M, Datta A, De Roeck A, Kong K and Matchev K T 2005 J. High Energy Phys. JHEP07(2005)033
(arXiv:hep-ph/0502041)
[67] Nojiri M M, Polesello G and Tovey D R 2006 J. High Energy Phys. JHEP03(2006)063 (arXiv:hep-ph/
0512204)
[68] Battaglia M 2004 arXiv:hep-ph/0410123
[69] Baltz E A and Gondolo P 2004 J. High Energy Phys. JHEP10(2004)052 (arXiv:hep-ph/0407039)
[70] Ellis J R, Olive K A, Santoso Y and Spanos V C 2005 Phys. Rev. D 71 095007 (arXiv:hep-ph/0502001)
[71] Angle J et al (XENON Collaboration) 2008 Phys. Rev. Lett. 100 021303 (arXiv:0706.0039)
[72] Ahmed Z et al (CDMS Collaboration) 2009 Phys. Rev. Lett. 102 011301 (arXiv:0802.3530)

New Journal of Physics 11 (2009) 105025 ([Link]