text:
# Relation between Vortex Pinning Energy and Anderson’s Theorem

## 1 INTRODUCTION

Much attention has been focused on the vortex pinning in type-II superconductors. The vortex pinning governs the macroscopic magnetic properties of type-II superconductors such as the hysteresis of the magnetization and the critical current. The elementary vortex pinning potential is the interaction between a vortex and a single defect. A microscopic analysis of the elementary vortex pinning potential is necessary for understanding of the macroscopic vortex pinning problem in the superconductors. $`\mathrm{\backslash }sevenrm^{\text{?}\text{}\text{?}\text{}\text{?}\text{}\text{?}\text{}\text{?}}`$

The vortex pinning energy is given by the difference in the free energy between the case when the vortex is located at the pinning center and the case when the vortex is far away from the pinning center. Naively, the elementary vortex pinning energy due to a defect with the volume $`V_\mathrm{i}`$ is expected to be given roughly by

$$\frac{1}{8\pi }pV_\mathrm{i}H_\mathrm{c}^2,$$
(1)
where $`H_\mathrm{c}`$ is the thermodynamic critical field and $`p`$ is a numerical factor much smaller than unity. The superconductivity is destroyed at the defect and the energy gain of the superconducting condensation is lost just locally. When the position of the defect coincides with the vortex center, the loss of the condensation energy is avoided, because in the vortex core the superconducting order parameter is already depleted and therefore the vortex core could be regarded as a locally realized normal-state region. However, the above argument does not hold if once we take into account a nonlocal effect around the defect. Thuneberg et al. $`\mathrm{\backslash }sevenrm^{\text{?}\text{}\text{?}}`$ advanced the understanding of the mechanism of the elementary vortex pinning, taking into account of such a nonlocal effect that the defect scatters the quasiparticles around it as a scattering center. They calculated the vortex pinning energy for a vortex in isotropic $`s`$-wave superconductors (i.e., an isotropic $`s`$-wave vortex) and found that the vortex pinning energy is larger than Eq. (1) by a factor of $`\xi /d`$, where $`\xi `$ is the coherence length and $`d`$ the linear dimension of the defect. $`\mathrm{\backslash }sevenrm^{\text{?}\text{}\text{?}}`$ Thuneberg $`\mathrm{\backslash }sevenrm^\text{?}`$ subsequently attacked the same problem by deriving the impurity (or defect) correction term of the Ginzburg-Landau (GL) theory for the isotropic $`s`$-wave superconductors. Friesen and Muzikar $`\mathrm{\backslash }sevenrm^\text{?}`$ extended the GL method of Ref. ? to superconductors with general pairing symmetry (including the unconventional superconductors). Kulić and Dolgov $`\mathrm{\backslash }sevenrm^\text{?}`$ discussed the vortex pinning potential due to an anisotropic impurity in the unconventional superconductors. The present authors discussed, in Refs. ?, ?, a new pinning effect intrinsic to chiral $`p`$-wave superconductors.

With these backgrounds, we discuss, in this paper, a relation between the elementary vortex pinning potential and the Anderson’s theorem for nonmagnetic impurities. Here, the Anderson’s theorem means that nonmagnetic impurities (or nonmagnetic defects) do not affect the thermodynamic properties of a superconductor. $`\mathrm{\backslash }sevenrm^{\text{?}\text{}\text{?}\text{}\text{?}}`$ We focus on the following two points. (i) The vortex pinning energy in the unconventional superconductors is enhanced, compared to that in the isotropic $`s`$-wave superconductors. This enhancement originates from the pair-breaking effect far away from the vortex core in the unconventional superconductors (i.e., the pair-breaking effect due to the well-known non-applicability of the Anderson’s theorem in the unconventional superconductors $`\mathrm{\backslash }sevenrm^\text{?}`$). Such a pair-breaking effect does not occur in the isotropic $`s`$-wave superconductors (owing to the applicability of the Anderson’s theorem in homogeneous isotropic $`s`$-wave superconductors $`\mathrm{\backslash }sevenrm^{\text{?}\text{}\text{?}\text{}\text{?}}`$). The unconventional superconductivity $`\mathrm{\backslash }sevenrm^\text{?}`$ has been proposed for many superconductors such as high-$`T_\mathrm{c}`$ cuprates, organic conductors, and heavy-fermion compounds. Thus this issue becomes very important recently. (ii) We then consider an effect of the chirality on the vortex pinning energy in a chiral $`p`$-wave superconductor with an unconventional pairing $`\mathrm{\backslash }sevenrm^{\text{?}\text{}\text{?}}`$ $`𝐝=\overline{𝐳}(\overline{k}_x\pm i\overline{k}_y)`$, which is one of the unconventional superconductors. The vortex pinning energy depends on the chirality. This is related to local applicability of the Anderson’s theorem (or local recovery of the Anderson’s theorem) inside the vortex core of chiral $`p`$-wave superconductors.

In Sec. 2, we summarize the formulation of the quasiclassical theory of superconductivity used for the study of the vortex pinning. In Sec. 3, the Anderson’s theorem for nonmagnetic impurities in the isotropic $`s`$-wave superconductors is described within the formalism of the quasiclassical theory. Even in the vortex states, the Anderson’s theorem is applicable if the nonmagnetic defect is far away from the vortex core. By contrast, the nonmagnetic defect inside the vortex core affects the free energy of superconductors and yields the vortex pinning energy. In Sec. 4, we discuss the enhancement of the vortex pinning energy due to the pair-breaking effect of the nonmagnetic defect far away from the vortex core in the unconventional superconductors. In Sec. 5, we discuss the effect of the nonmagnetic defect inside the vortex core in the chiral $`p`$-wave superconductor. The inside of the chiral $`p`$-wave vortex core is similar to the homogeneous state of an isotropic $`s`$-wave superconductor. As an evidence, we show that the nonmagnetic defect inside the vortex core does not affect the free energy of the chiral $`p`$-wave superconductors. We regard this result as local applicability of the Anderson’s theorem inside the vortex core in the chiral $`p`$-wave superconductors. The summary is given in Sec. 6.

## 2 FORMULATION

We adopt the quasiclassical theory of superconductivity $`\mathrm{\backslash }sevenrm^{\text{?}\text{}\text{?}\text{}\text{?}}`$ to investigate the vortex pinning. We consider the quasiclassical Green function in the absence of the pinning,

$$\widehat{g}_{\mathrm{imt}}(i\omega _n,𝐫,\overline{𝐤})=i\pi \left(\begin{array}{cc}g_{\mathrm{imt}}& if_{\mathrm{imt}}\\ if_{\mathrm{imt}}^{}& g_{\mathrm{imt}}\end{array}\right),$$
(2)
which is the solution of the Eilenberger equation, $`\mathrm{\backslash }sevenrm^\text{?}`$

$$i𝐯_\mathrm{F}(\overline{𝐤})\widehat{g}_{\mathrm{imt}}+[i\omega _n\widehat{\tau }_z\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }},\widehat{g}_{\mathrm{imt}}]=0,$$
(3)
where the superconducting order parameter is $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}(𝐫,\overline{𝐤})=\left[(\widehat{\tau }_x+i\widehat{\tau }_y)\mathrm{\Delta }(𝐫,\overline{𝐤})(\widehat{\tau }_xi\widehat{\tau }_y)\mathrm{\Delta }^{}(𝐫,\overline{𝐤})\right]/2`$ and $`\widehat{\tau }_i`$ are the Pauli matrices. $`𝐯_\mathrm{F}(\overline{𝐤})`$ is the Fermi velocity, $`\omega _n`$ is the fermionic Matsubara frequency, and the commutator $`[\widehat{a},\widehat{b}]=\widehat{a}\widehat{b}\widehat{b}\widehat{a}`$. The Eilenberger equation is supplemented by the normalization condition $`\widehat{g}_{\mathrm{imt}}(i\omega _n,𝐫,\overline{𝐤})^2=\pi ^2\widehat{1}`$$`\mathrm{\backslash }sevenrm^\text{?}`$ Since we consider, in this paper, an isolated single vortex in extreme type-II superconductors where the Ginzburg-Landau parameter $`\kappa 1`$, the vector potential is neglected in Eq. (3). We use units in which $`\mathrm{}=k_\mathrm{B}=1`$.

In this paper, the system is assumed to be a two dimensional conduction layer perpendicular to the magnetic field. The vector $`𝐫=(r\mathrm{cos}\varphi ,r\mathrm{sin}\varphi )`$ is the center of mass coordinate. The unit vector $`\overline{𝐤}=(\mathrm{cos}\theta ,\mathrm{sin}\theta )`$ represents the wave number of relative motion of the Cooper pairs. We assume a circular Fermi surface and $`𝐯_\mathrm{F}(\overline{𝐤})=v_\mathrm{F}\overline{𝐤}=(v_\mathrm{F}\mathrm{cos}\theta ,v_\mathrm{F}\mathrm{sin}\theta )`$.

The effect of the pinning is introduced to the quasiclassical theory of superconductivity as follows. $`\mathrm{\backslash }sevenrm^{\text{?}\text{}\text{?}\text{}\text{?}}`$ The quasiclassical Green function $`\widehat{g}`$ in the presence of a point-like nonmagnetic defect situated at $`𝐫=𝐑`$ is obtained from the Eilenberger equation

$`i𝐯_\mathrm{F}(\overline{𝐤})\widehat{g}+[i\omega _n\widehat{\tau }_z\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }},\widehat{g}]=[\widehat{t},\widehat{g}_{\mathrm{imt}}]\delta (𝐫^{}),`$ (4)
and the $`t`$ matrix due to the nonmagnetic defect (or nonmagnetic impurity)

$`\widehat{t}(i\omega _n,𝐫^{})={\displaystyle \frac{v}{D}}\left[\widehat{1}+N_0v\widehat{g}_{\mathrm{imt}}(i\omega _n,𝐫^{},\overline{𝐤})_\theta \right],`$ (5)
where $`𝐫^{}=𝐫𝐑`$, the denominator $`D=1+(\pi N_0v)^2\left[g_{\mathrm{imt}}_\theta ^2+f_{\mathrm{imt}}_\theta f_{\mathrm{imt}}^{}_\theta \right]`$, the average over the Fermi surface $`\mathrm{}_\theta =\mathrm{}𝑑\theta /2\pi `$, the normal-state density of states on the Fermi surface $`N_0`$, and we assume the $`s`$-wave scattering $`v`$ when obtaining Eq. (5). We define a parameter $`\mathrm{sin}^2\delta _0=(\pi N_0v)^2/\left[1+(\pi N_0v)^2\right]`$, which measures how strong the scattering potential of the nonmagnetic defect is.

The vortex pinning potential $`\delta \mathrm{\Omega }(R)`$ ($`R|𝐑|`$), i.e., the difference in the free energy between the states with and without the nonmagnetic defect is, at the temperature $`T`$, given as $`\mathrm{\backslash }sevenrm^{\text{?}\text{}\text{?}\text{}\text{?}\text{}\text{?}}`$

$`\delta \mathrm{\Omega }(R)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Omega }_p(R)\mathrm{\Omega }_0(R)`$ (6)
$`=`$ $`N_0T{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑\lambda {\displaystyle \underset{\omega _n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\theta }{2\pi }𝑑𝐫\mathrm{Tr}\left[\delta \widehat{g}_\lambda \widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}_b\right]},`$
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_p(R)`$ is the free energy in the presence of the nonmagnetic defect, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0(R)`$ the free energy in the absence of the nonmagnetic defect, $`\delta \widehat{g}_\lambda =\widehat{g}\widehat{g}_{\mathrm{imt}}`$ is evaluated at $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}=\lambda \widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}_b`$, and $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}_b`$ is the order parameter in the absence of the nonmagnetic defect.

## 3 ELEMENTARY PINNING POTENTIAL FOR ISOTROPIC $`S`$-WAVE SUPERCONDUCTORS

The elementary pinning potential for the isotropic $`s`$-wave superconductors has been microscopically calculated first by Thuneberg et al. $`\mathrm{\backslash }sevenrm^{\text{?}\text{}\text{?}}`$ on the basis of the quasiclassical theory of superconductivity. In this section, we summarize their results.

### 3.1 Homogeneous System

In the homogeneous system (e.g., far away from the vortex core), the matrix elements of the solution of the Eilenberger equation (3) are given as $`\mathrm{\backslash }sevenrm^{\text{?}\text{}\text{?}\text{}\text{?}}`$

$$g_{\mathrm{imt}}=\frac{\omega _n}{\sqrt{\omega _n^2+|\mathrm{\Delta }|^2}},f_{\mathrm{imt}}=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{\sqrt{\omega _n^2+|\mathrm{\Delta }|^2}},f_{\mathrm{imt}}^{}=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }^{}}{\sqrt{\omega _n^2+|\mathrm{\Delta }|^2}},$$
(7)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the spatially uniform order parameter in an isotropic $`s`$-wave superconductor. Because these have no $`\overline{𝐤}`$\- (or $`\theta `$-) dependence, the Fermi-surface averages of them are

$$g_{\mathrm{imt}}_\theta =g_{\mathrm{imt}},f_{\mathrm{imt}}_\theta =f_{\mathrm{imt}},f_{\mathrm{imt}}^{}_\theta =f_{\mathrm{imt}}^{},$$
(8)
namely,

$$\widehat{g}_{\mathrm{imt}}_\theta =\widehat{g}_{\mathrm{imt}}.$$
(9)
Inserting this Eq. (9) into the impurity $`t`$ matrix, Eq. (5), we obtain

$$\widehat{t}=\frac{v}{D}\left[\widehat{1}+N_0v\widehat{g}_{\mathrm{imt}}\right],$$
(10)
and therefore the right hand side of Eq. (4) vanishes, namely,

$$[\widehat{t},\widehat{g}_{\mathrm{imt}}]=0.$$
(11)
When $`[\widehat{t},\widehat{g}_{\mathrm{imt}}]=0`$, the Eilenberger equation (4) in the presence of the nonmagnetic defect is identical to Eq. (3) (the equation in the absence of the nonmagnetic defect), namely, the impurity has no influence on the Green function and the free energy $`(`$thus, $`\delta \mathrm{\Omega }=0`$$`)`$. This is consistent with the Anderson’s theorem, which states that nonmagnetic impurities do not change the free energy of homogeneous isotropic $`s`$-wave superconductors. $`\mathrm{\backslash }sevenrm^{\text{?}\text{}\text{?}\text{}\text{?}}`$ It is noted that the Anderson’s theorem is described as the commutativity $`(`$Eq. (11)$`)`$ between the impurity $`t`$-matrix, $`\widehat{t}`$, and the intermediate green function, $`\mathrm{\backslash }sevenrm^{\text{?}\text{}\text{?}}`$ $`\widehat{g}_{\mathrm{imt}}`$, within the framework of the quasiclassical theory of superconductivity.

### 3.2 Nonmagnetic Impurity inside Vortex Core

In the spatially varying case, the Anderson’s theorem does not apply. Therefore, the nonmagnetic defect within a vortex core affects the free energy of the system and has a contribution to the vortex pinning energy.

At the vortex center $`𝐫=0`$, on the basis of an analysis of the so-called zero-core vortex model, the matrix elements of the solution of Eq. (3) are approximately given as $`\mathrm{\backslash }sevenrm^\text{?}`$

$$g_{\mathrm{imt}}=\frac{\sqrt{\omega _n^2+|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}|^2}}{\omega _n},f_{\mathrm{imt}}=\frac{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}{\omega _n},f_{\mathrm{imt}}^{}=\frac{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{}}{\omega _n},$$
(12)
where $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}=\mathrm{\Delta }(r\mathrm{})\mathrm{exp}(i\theta )`$. Here, the vortex with the order parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }(𝐫)=\mathrm{\Delta }(r)\mathrm{exp}(i\varphi )`$ is considered, and the amplitude of the order parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }(r)`$ is set to be constant (i.e., zero core) around the vortex, which is the approximation based on the zero-core vortex model. $`\mathrm{\backslash }sevenrm^\text{?}`$ When Eq. (12) is obtained, the quasiparticles which go through the origin $`𝐫=0`$ are considered. $`\mathrm{\backslash }sevenrm^\text{?}`$ The position vectors of such quasiparticles are parallel to the Fermi velocity $`(`$i.e., $`𝐫𝐯_\mathrm{F}(\overline{𝐤})`$$`)`$, and therefore $`\varphi =\theta `$ in $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ of Eq. (12).

The Fermi-surface averages of Eq. (12) are

$$g_{\mathrm{imt}}_\theta =g_{\mathrm{imt}},f_{\mathrm{imt}}_\theta =0,f_{\mathrm{imt}}^{}_\theta =0,$$
(13)
namely,

$$\widehat{g}_{\mathrm{imt}}_\theta \widehat{g}_{\mathrm{imt}}.$$
(14)
Because of the phase factor $`\mathrm{exp}(i\theta )`$ of $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ in Eq. (12), the Fermi-surface averages of the anomalous Green functions, $`f_{\mathrm{imt}}_\theta `$ and $`f_{\mathrm{imt}}^{}_\theta `$, vanish in Eq. (13).

From Eqs. (5) and (14), it follows that the $`t`$ matrix due to the nonmagnetic defect situated at the vortex center does not commute with the Green function $`\widehat{g}_{\mathrm{imt}}`$, namely $`[\widehat{t},\widehat{g}_{\mathrm{imt}}]0`$ in general. Therefore, a nonzero effect of the nonmagnetic defect appears in the right hand side of the Eilenberger equation (4) and the nonmagnetic defect situated at the vortex center affects the Green function and the free energy, $`\delta \mathrm{\Omega }(R=0)=\mathrm{\Omega }_p(R=0)\mathrm{\Omega }_0(R=0)<0`$. ($`R`$ is the distance between the vortex center and the nonmagnetic defect.) The nonzero $`\delta \mathrm{\Omega }(R=0)`$ is an origin of the vortex pinning (see Fig. 1). In the isotropic $`s`$-wave superconductors $`(`$in which $`\delta \mathrm{\Omega }(R\mathrm{})=0`$ as discussed in Sec. 3.1$`)`$, it is the only origin of the vortex pinning.

According to Thuneberg et al.$`\mathrm{\backslash }sevenrm^{\text{?}\text{}\text{?}}`$ an approximated analytical expression for the vortex pinning potential in the isotropic $`s`$-wave superconductors is given as

$$\delta \mathrm{\Omega }(R=0)=2T\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{cosh}\left[\frac{|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}(T)|\mathrm{sin}\delta _0}{2T}\right],$$
(15)
on the basis of the zero-core vortex model. $`\mathrm{\backslash }sevenrm^\text{?}`$ Here, $`|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}(T)|`$ has the temperature dependence of the BCS gap, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{BCS}}(T)`$. From the quantitative viewpoint, however, it should be noted that at high temperatures Eq. (15) overestimates the magnitude $`|\delta \mathrm{\Omega }|`$ at one order larger value as compared to a precise numerical result. $`\mathrm{\backslash }sevenrm^{\text{?}\text{}\text{?}}`$

## 4 ENHANCEMENT OF PINNING ENERGY IN UNCONVENTIONAL SUPERCONDUCTORS

As seen in the preceding section, in the case of the isotropic $`s`$-wave superconductors, the nonmagnetic defect does not affect the vortex pinning potential $`\delta \mathrm{\Omega }`$ far away from the vortex core $`(`$i.e., $`\delta \mathrm{\Omega }(R\mathrm{})=0`$$`)`$, because the Anderson’s theorem is applicable to the homogeneous system in the isotropic $`s`$-wave superconductors. In the unconventional superconductors, on the other hand, the Anderson’s theorem does not apply even in the homogeneous system. $`\mathrm{\backslash }sevenrm^\text{?}`$ This is because the order parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ in Eq. (7) has a $`\overline{𝐤}`$\- (or $`\theta `$-) dependence in such superconductors and hence $`\widehat{g}_{\mathrm{imt}}_\theta \widehat{g}_{\mathrm{imt}}`$ instead of Eq. (9). Therefore, the nonmagnetic defect affects the free energy and gives rise to the condensation energy loss, $`\delta \mathrm{\Omega }=\mathrm{\Omega }_p\mathrm{\Omega }_0>0`$, in the unconventional superconductors. Such a condensation energy loss far away from the vortex core, $`\delta \mathrm{\Omega }(R\mathrm{})`$, contributes to the depth of the vortex pinning potential (see Fig. 1), namely, to the vortex pinning energy, $`\mathrm{\backslash }sevenrm^{\text{?}\text{}\text{?}\text{}\text{?}\text{}\text{?}}`$

$$E_{\mathrm{pin}}=\delta \mathrm{\Omega }(R\mathrm{})\delta \mathrm{\Omega }(R=0).$$
(16)
While the vortex pinning energy is just $`E_{\mathrm{pin}}=\delta \mathrm{\Omega }(R=0)`$ in the isotropic $`s`$-wave superconductors, in the case of the unconventional superconductors the additional contribution from $`\delta \mathrm{\Omega }(R\mathrm{})`$ may enhance the vortex pinning energy $`E_{\mathrm{pin}}`$. In what follows, from Eq. (6) we calculate $`\delta \mathrm{\Omega }(R\mathrm{})`$ for the chiral $`p`$-wave superconductor as an example of the unconventional superconductors.

For the chiral $`p`$-wave pairing state $`\mathrm{\backslash }sevenrm^{\text{?}\text{}\text{?}}`$ $`𝐝=\overline{𝐳}(\overline{k}_x\pm i\overline{k}_y)=\overline{𝐳}\mathrm{exp}(\pm i\theta )`$, we consider the condensation energy loss when putting a nonmagnetic defect on the homogeneous system. The spatially uniform order parameter in the homogeneous system is expressed as $`\mathrm{\Delta }_b(\overline{𝐤})=\mathrm{\Delta }_b(\theta )=\mathrm{\Delta }_b^0\mathrm{exp}(\pm i\theta )`$. The matrix elements of the solution of Eq. (3) are given by

$$g_{\mathrm{imt}}=\frac{\omega _n}{\sqrt{\omega _n^2+|\mathrm{\Delta }_b^0|^2}},f_{\mathrm{imt}}=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_b(\theta )}{\sqrt{\omega _n^2+|\mathrm{\Delta }_b^0|^2}},f_{\mathrm{imt}}^{}=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_b^{}(\theta )}{\sqrt{\omega _n^2+|\mathrm{\Delta }_b^0|^2}},$$
(17)
as in Eq. (7). The Fermi-surface averages of Eq. (17) are

$$g_{\mathrm{imt}}_\theta =g_{\mathrm{imt}},f_{\mathrm{imt}}_\theta =0,f_{\mathrm{imt}}^{}_\theta =0,$$
(18)
because $`\mathrm{\Delta }_b(\theta )_\theta =0`$. Inserting these into Eq. (5), we obtain the commutator $`[\widehat{t},\widehat{g}_{\mathrm{imt}}]`$ as

$$[\widehat{t},\widehat{g}_{\mathrm{imt}}]=\frac{A}{2}\left[(\widehat{\tau }_x+i\widehat{\tau }_y)\mathrm{\Delta }+(\widehat{\tau }_xi\widehat{\tau }_y)\mathrm{\Delta }^{}\right],$$
(19)
where

$$A=\frac{2i\omega _n\mathrm{sin}^2\delta _0}{N_0(\omega _n^2+|\mathrm{\Delta }|^2\mathrm{cos}^2\delta _0)},$$
(20)
and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda \mathrm{\Delta }_b(\theta )`$.

We take a coordinate system with the origin at the nonmagnetic defect: $`𝐫=s𝐯_\mathrm{F}(\overline{𝐤})/v_\mathrm{F}+b\left[\overline{𝐳}\times 𝐯_\mathrm{F}(\overline{𝐤})/v_\mathrm{F}\right]=s\overline{𝐤}+b(\overline{𝐳}\times \overline{𝐤})`$. In this coordinate system, $`i𝐯_\mathrm{F}(\overline{𝐤})=iv_\mathrm{F}d/ds`$ and the Eilenberger equation (4) is written as

$`iv_\mathrm{F}{\displaystyle \frac{d}{ds}}\widehat{g}+[i\omega _n\widehat{\tau }_z\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }},\widehat{g}]=[\widehat{t},\widehat{g}_{\mathrm{imt}}]\delta (s)\delta (b),`$ (21)
and $`\delta \widehat{g}_\lambda `$ ($`=\widehat{g}\widehat{g}_{\mathrm{imt}}`$) in Eq. (6) follows the equation,

$`iv_\mathrm{F}{\displaystyle \frac{d}{ds}}\delta \widehat{g}_\lambda +[i\omega _n\widehat{\tau }_z\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }},\delta \widehat{g}_\lambda ]=[\widehat{t},\widehat{g}_{\mathrm{imt}}]\delta (s),`$ (22)
where $`\delta \widehat{g}_\lambda =0`$ for $`b0`$.

Using the Fourier transformations, $`\delta \widehat{g}_\lambda (s)=𝑑q\mathrm{exp}(iqs)\delta \widehat{g}_\lambda (q)/2\pi `$, $`\delta (s)=𝑑q\mathrm{exp}(iqs)/2\pi `$, and a decomposition $`\delta \widehat{g}_\lambda (s)=g_1\widehat{\tau }_x+g_2\widehat{\tau }_y+g_3\widehat{\tau }_z`$, we can solve Eq. (22) into which Eq. (19) is inserted. From its solution $`\delta \widehat{g}_\lambda (q)`$, we obtain

$`{\displaystyle 𝑑𝐫\delta \widehat{g}_\lambda }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑s\delta \widehat{g}_\lambda (s)}`$
$`=`$ $`\delta \widehat{g}_\lambda (q=0)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{A\omega _n\left[i(\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }^{})\widehat{\tau }_x+(\mathrm{\Delta }+\mathrm{\Delta }^{})\widehat{\tau }_y+(4\omega _n^2+2|\mathrm{\Delta }|^2)\widehat{\tau }_z\right]}{4(\omega _n^2+|\mathrm{\Delta }|^2)}},`$
and therefore, from Eq. (6),

$`\delta \mathrm{\Omega }`$ $`=`$ $`N_0T{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑\lambda {\displaystyle \underset{\omega _n}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\theta }{2\pi }\frac{2\omega _n^2\lambda |\mathrm{\Delta }_b|^2\mathrm{sin}^2\delta _0}{N_0(\omega _n^2+\lambda ^2|\mathrm{\Delta }_b|^2\mathrm{cos}^2\delta _0)(\omega _n^2+\lambda ^2|\mathrm{\Delta }_b|^2)}}`$ (24)
$`=`$ $`2T\mathrm{ln}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cosh}\left(|\mathrm{\Delta }_b^0(T)|/2T\right)}{\mathrm{cosh}\left(|\mathrm{\Delta }_b^0(T)|\mathrm{cos}\delta _0/2T\right)}}\right].`$
This is the condensation energy loss due to the pair-breaking effect, $`\delta \mathrm{\Omega }(R\mathrm{})`$, for the chiral $`p`$-wave superconductor. Here, $`|\mathrm{\Delta }_b^0(T)|`$ has the temperature dependence of the BCS gap, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{BCS}}(T)`$.

At high temperatures, the value $`\delta \mathrm{\Omega }(R\mathrm{})`$ of Eq. (24) becomes the same order as the magnitude $`|\delta \mathrm{\Omega }(R=0)|`$ of Eq. (15). Therefore, it appears that at high temperatures the vortex pinning energy in the unconventional superconductors, $`E_{\mathrm{pin}}`$ $`\left(=\delta \mathrm{\Omega }(R\mathrm{})+|\delta \mathrm{\Omega }(R=0)|\right)`$, is enhanced about twice compared to the isotropic $`s`$-wave superconductor in which $`E_{\mathrm{pin}}=|\delta \mathrm{\Omega }(R=0)|`$, owing to the additional contribution from $`\delta \mathrm{\Omega }(R\mathrm{})`$. However, since the approximated expression, Eq. (15), overestimates the magnitude $`|\delta \mathrm{\Omega }(R=0)|`$ at one order larger value at high temperatures, $`\mathrm{\backslash }sevenrm^{\text{?}\text{}\text{?}}`$ we may expect that the value of $`\delta \mathrm{\Omega }(R\mathrm{})`$ is two or more times larger than an actual value of $`|\delta \mathrm{\Omega }(R=0)|`$. Indeed we have found, using a numerical calculation, that at high temperatures the vortex pinning energy $`E_{\mathrm{pin}}`$ in the case of the chiral $`p`$-wave superconductor $`\mathrm{\backslash }sevenrm^\text{?}`$ (and a $`d`$-wave superconductor $`\mathrm{\backslash }sevenrm^\text{?}`$) is about 10 times larger than that of the isotropic $`s`$-wave pairing case, owing to $`\delta \mathrm{\Omega }(R\mathrm{})10\times |\delta \mathrm{\Omega }(R=0)|`$$`\mathrm{\backslash }sevenrm^{\text{?}\text{}\text{?}}`$ This enhancement of the vortex pinning energy $`E_{\mathrm{pin}}`$ is due to the pair-breaking effect of the nonmagnetic defect far away from the vortex center and therefore such an enhancement is a common feature of the unconventional superconductors.

## 5 ANDERSON’S THEOREM INSIDE VORTEX CORE IN CHIRAL SUPERCONDUCTOR

As described in Sec. 3, the Anderson’s theorem does not apply to spatially varying system (e.g., the vortex core) and therefore the nonmagnetic defect inside the vortex core affects the free energy $`\delta \mathrm{\Omega }(R=0)`$ and acts as a pinning center. In general, it holds also for the unconventional superconductors. However, an exception exists. In this section, we discuss novel applicability of the Anderson’s theorem inside the vortex core in the chiral $`p`$-wave superconductors; for those superconductors, the nonmagnetic defect inside a vortex core does not contribute to the free energy and, as a result, the vortex pinning potential at the vortex center turns out to be $`\delta \mathrm{\Omega }(R=0)=0`$. This phenomenon originates from a quantum effect, i.e., a cancellation of the phase factors of the superconducting order parameter.

For the chiral $`p`$-wave pairing state $`\mathrm{\backslash }sevenrm^{\text{?}\text{}\text{?}}`$ $`𝐝=\overline{𝐳}(\overline{k}_x\pm i\overline{k}_y)=\overline{𝐳}\mathrm{exp}(\pm i\theta )`$, it is known that the order parameter around a single vortex $`\mathrm{\Delta }(𝐫,\overline{𝐤})`$ $`\left[\mathrm{\Delta }(r,\varphi ;\theta )\right]`$ has two possible forms depending on whether the chirality and vorticity are parallel or antiparallel each other. $`\mathrm{\backslash }sevenrm^{\text{?}\text{}\text{?}\text{}\text{?}}`$ One form is

$`\mathrm{\Delta }^+(r,\varphi ;\theta )=\mathrm{\Delta }_+(r)e^{i(\theta \varphi )}+\mathrm{\Delta }_{}(r)e^{i(\theta +\varphi )},`$ (25)
where the chirality and vorticity are antiparallel $`[`$$`p(+)`$-case$`]`$. The other is

$`\mathrm{\Delta }^{++}(r,\varphi ;\theta )=\mathrm{\Delta }_+(r)e^{i(\theta +\varphi )}+\mathrm{\Delta }_{}(r)e^{i(\theta +3\varphi )},`$ (26)
where the chirality and vorticity are parallel $`[`$$`p(++)`$-case$`]`$. Here, the vortex center is situated at $`𝐫=0`$, the dominant component $`\mathrm{\Delta }_+(r\mathrm{})=\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{BCS}}(T)`$, and the induced one $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{}(r\mathrm{})=0`$. Because of axisymmetry of the system, we can take $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\pm (r)`$ to be real.

From the quasiclassical viewpoint, the quasiparticles inside a vortex core run along straight lines called as quasiparticle paths.$`\mathrm{\backslash }sevenrm^{\text{?}\text{}\text{?}\text{}\text{?}}`$ We consider the quasiparticle paths which go through the origin $`𝐫=0`$. On those paths, the position vector is parallel to the direction of the quasiparticle path (i.e., $`𝐫\overline{𝐤}`$), and therefore $`\varphi =\theta ,\theta +\pi `$. In this situation ($`\varphi =\theta `$), from Eqs. (25) and (26), the order parameter on the path is

$`\mathrm{\Delta }^+(r,\varphi =\theta ;\theta )=\mathrm{\Delta }_+(r)+\mathrm{\Delta }_{}(r)`$ (27)
in $`p(+)`$-case, and

$`\mathrm{\Delta }^{++}(r,\varphi =\theta ;\theta )=[\mathrm{\Delta }_+(r)+\mathrm{\Delta }_{}(r)]e^{2i\theta }`$ (28)
in $`p(++)`$-case. The cancellation between the phase factors, $`\mathrm{exp}(i\theta )`$ due to the chirality of the Cooper pair and $`\mathrm{exp}(i\varphi )`$ due to the vorticity of the vortex, occurs in Eq. (27) and not in Eq. (28).

On the basis of the zero-core vortex model, $`\mathrm{\backslash }sevenrm^\text{?}`$ as in Eq. (12) the matrix elements of $`\widehat{g}_{\mathrm{imt}}`$ at the vortex center are approximately obtained as

$$g_{\mathrm{imt}}=\frac{\sqrt{\omega _n^2+|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}|^2}}{\omega _n},f_{\mathrm{imt}}=\frac{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}{\omega _n},f_{\mathrm{imt}}^{}=\frac{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{}}{\omega _n},$$
(29)
where $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}=\mathrm{\Delta }^{+\pm }(r\mathrm{},\varphi =\theta ;\theta )`$. Inserting the order parameter of Eq. (27) into Eq. (29), we obtain the Green function integrated over the Fermi surface as, in $`p(+)`$-case,

$$\widehat{g}_{\mathrm{imt}}_\theta =\widehat{g}_{\mathrm{imt}},f_{\mathrm{imt}}_\theta =f_{\mathrm{imt}},f_{\mathrm{imt}}^{}_\theta =f_{\mathrm{imt}}^{},$$
(30)
namely,

$$\widehat{g}_{\mathrm{imt}}_\theta =\widehat{g}_{\mathrm{imt}},$$
(31)
because of the absence of any phase factors in Eq. (27), i.e., because the cancellation between the chirality factor $`\mathrm{exp}(i\theta )`$ and the vorticity factor $`\mathrm{exp}(i\varphi )`$ occurs and then $`\mathrm{\Delta }^+_\theta =\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$. We obtain $`[\widehat{t},\widehat{g}_{\mathrm{imt}}]=0`$ from Eqs. (5) and (31). Therefore, following the same discussion as in Sec. 3.1, we conclude that in this $`p(+)`$-case the nonmagnetic defect at the vortex center does not affect the free energy and $`\delta \mathrm{\Omega }(R=0)=0`$. This situation is the same as that of the homogeneous system in the isotropic $`s`$-wave superconductors (see Sec. 3.1). That is, the Anderson’s theorem is applicable (or is recovered) locally at the vortex center in $`p(+)`$-case when the chirality is antiparallel to the vorticity.

On the other hand, in $`p(++)`$-case,

$$\widehat{g}_{\mathrm{imt}}_\theta =\widehat{g}_{\mathrm{imt}},f_{\mathrm{imt}}_\theta =0,f_{\mathrm{imt}}^{}_\theta =0,$$
(32)
namely,

$$\widehat{g}_{\mathrm{imt}}_\theta \widehat{g}_{\mathrm{imt}},$$
(33)
because the phase factor $`\mathrm{exp}(2i\theta )`$ is contained in Eq. (28) and then $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{++}_\theta `$ =0. Therefore, $`[\widehat{t},\widehat{g}_{\mathrm{imt}}]0`$ from Eqs. (5) and (33), and $`\delta \mathrm{\Omega }(0)0`$ in this $`p(++)`$-case when the sense of the chirality is the same as that of the vorticity. This is the same as the impurity effect inside the vortex core discussed in Sec. 3.2.

The above analysis in this section is based on the zero-core vortex model, i.e., on the non-self-consistent (constant) amplitude of the order parameter, but the phase of the order parameter, which is important for the above results, is correctly taken into account by that zero-core vortex model. Therefore, the essential physics is captured by the above analysis. We have certainly confirmed it by a numerical calculation of $`\delta \mathrm{\Omega }(R)`$ based on self-consistently obtained order parameter. $`\mathrm{\backslash }sevenrm^\text{?}`$ Related phenomena have been discussed in Refs. ?, ?, ?, ? in different contexts.

## 6 SUMMARY

We have discussed the relation between the vortex pinning energy and the Anderson’s theorem, which is summarized in Table 1. The vortex pinning energy, $`E_{\mathrm{pin}}`$ $`(`$Eq. (16)$`)`$, is given by the difference in the free energy between the case when vortex is far away from the nonmagnetic defect $`\delta \mathrm{\Omega }(R\mathrm{})`$ and the case when the vortex is located at the nonmagnetic defect $`\delta \mathrm{\Omega }(R=0)`$. The nonmagnetic defect far away from the vortex core can reduce locally the condensation energy of superconductors. On the other hand, the nonmagnetic defect within the vortex core can yield the energy gain to superconductors (through the scattering of quasiparticles in zero energy bound state). These two factors, $`\delta \mathrm{\Omega }(R\mathrm{})`$ and $`\delta \mathrm{\Omega }(R=0)`$, determine the magnitude of the vortex pinning energy $`E_{\mathrm{pin}}`$ for superconductors (Fig. 1). However, one of these factors happens to vanish in the following two cases. (1) In the isotropic $`s`$-wave superconductors, the nonmagnetic defect far away from the vortex core does not change the free energy, i.e., $`\delta \mathrm{\Omega }(R\mathrm{})=0`$; this is well known as the Anderson’s theorem. $`\mathrm{\backslash }sevenrm^{\text{?}\text{}\text{?}\text{}\text{?}}`$ (2) The nonmagnetic defect inside the chiral $`p`$-wave vortex core, does not change the free energy and hence does not yield the energy gain to superconductors, i.e., $`\delta \mathrm{\Omega }(R=0)=0`$, if the total angular momentum or (equivalently) the sum of the vorticity and the chirality is zero $`(`$$`p(+)`$-case in Sec. 5$`)`$. The vanishing angular momentum $`(`$or the resulting absence of the phase factors in the order parameter of Eq. (27)$`)`$ makes the chiral $`p`$-wave vortex core similar to bulk $`s`$-wave superconductors. Therefore, the absence of the impurity effect in the chiral $`p`$-wave vortex core can be regarded as a consequence of the Anderson’s theorem. This is the local applicability of the Anderson’s theorem (or the local recovery of the Anderson’s theorem) inside the chiral $`p`$-wave vortex core.

If we compare the isotropic $`s`$-wave superconductor with the (generic) unconventional superconductors in Table 1, the vortex pinning energy of the latter is larger than that of the former by the loss of the condensation energy at $`R=\mathrm{}`$. In high-$`T_\mathrm{c}`$ cuprates, this enhancement might be one of the reasons why small defects such as oxygen vacancies $`\mathrm{\backslash }sevenrm^{\text{?}\text{}\text{?}}`$ and Zn atoms $`\mathrm{\backslash }sevenrm^\text{?}`$ are efficient pinning centers, because the high-$`T_\mathrm{c}`$ cuprates are believed to be $`d`$-wave superconductors (i.e., the unconventional superconductors). On the other hand, the chirality dependence of the vortex pinning is expected to be experimentally observed in future, for example, in a superconducting material Sr<sub>2</sub>RuO<sub>4</sub>$`\mathrm{\backslash }sevenrm^{\text{?}\text{}\text{?}\text{}\text{?}}`$


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Supersymmetric (SUSY) extensions \[1, \*Volkov:1973ix, \*Wess:1974tw\] of the Standard Model (SM) provide a promising approach to overcoming shortcomings of the SM. By introducing supersymmetric partners for each SM particle, differing in spin by 1/2 unit from the SM particles, the hierarchy problem can be solved and large radiative corrections to the Higgs mass cancel out. The simplest potentially realistic supersymmetric field theory is the Minimal Supersymmetric Extension of the Standard Model (MSSM), which introduces only a minimum set of additional particles. Among these new particles are the gauginos and higgsinos which are the fermionic partners of the gauge and Higgs bosons, respectively. The charginos ($`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{i=1,2}^\pm `$) are the mass eigenstates formed by the mixing of the fields of the charged gauginos and higgsinos. The neutralinos ($`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{j=1,\mathrm{},4}^0`$) are correspondingly formed by the mixing of the neutral gauginos and higgsinos.

In this paper the hypothesis of $`R`$-parity conservation is made. $`R`$-parity conserving SUSY scenarios allow only the pair-production of SUSY particles. In addition, there must exist a lightest, neutral, weakly interacting SUSY particle (LSP) which terminates the decay chain of any SUSY particle. In the following it is assumed that the lightest neutralino is the LSP. The lack of experimental evidence for supersymmetric particles leads to the assumption that SUSY particles are much heavier than their SM partners. Therefore, SUSY cannot be an exact symmetry of nature. If it exists it must be a broken symmetry. Further assumptions and constraints are imposed in order to reduce the large parameter space arising from the unknown mechanism of SUSY breaking. The results of this paper are interpreted within the gravity mediated SUSY breaking scenario (an expansion of the mSUGRA model \[2, 3, \*Arnowitt:1997um\]) and the anomaly mediated SUSY breaking scenario (AMSB ). While the former scenario offers an elegant way of explaining the breaking mechanism without additional fields or interactions, gravity mediated models in general suffer from large flavour changing neutral currents which must be removed by fine-tuning. Within the gravity mediated framework, we will consider both the so-called gaugino-scenario and higgsino-scenario which have different chargino production mechanisms and cross-sections. The AMSB scenario exploits the fact that rescaling anomalies in the supergravity Lagrangian always give rise to soft mass parameters and thus anomalies always contribute to the SUSY breaking mechanism.

If charginos exist and are sufficiently light, they can be pair-produced at LEP and may decay mainly via a virtual $`\mathrm{W}`$ boson into neutralinos and fermions111The probability for decays via sfermions increases with decreasing sfermion masses.. The kinematic properties of the final state particles, and therefore the event topologies, depend on the mass difference between chargino and neutralino, $`\mathrm{\Delta }M`$. Chargino search strategies can be roughly categorised by the value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }M`$. For large mass differences ($`\mathrm{\Delta }M5\mathrm{GeV}`$) the final state fermions are quarks or energetic leptons and the signal events can be identified by missing energy (carried away by the neutralinos) plus jets or isolated leptons. For very small mass differences ($`\mathrm{\Delta }MM_\pi `$) the chargino lifetime increases and the chargino decay vertex should be well separated from the interaction point. Heavy stable charged particles and/or secondary vertices are the signatures for this scenario. Searches for all these topologies were carried out by all LEP experiments \[9, \*Ackerstaff:1998si, 6, \*Barate:1999gm, 7, \*Abreu:2001mc, 8, \*Acciarri:1999bw\], but no evidence for a signal was found.

In this note, scenarios with a mass difference in the intermediate range ($`0.17\mathrm{GeV}\mathrm{\Delta }M5\mathrm{GeV}`$) are investigated. The searches for heavy stable charged particles have high efficiency and hence still some sensitivity to the $`\mathrm{\Delta }M`$ region between $`M_\pi `$ and $`0.17\mathrm{GeV}`$. In the intermediate $`\mathrm{\Delta }M`$ regime the signal final state is characterised by very little hadronic or leptonic activity accompanied by a large amount of missing energy. Events from two-photon processes give rise to a very large background which is difficult to suppress. However, due to the large predicted cross-sections for chargino pair-production, the search can be restricted to events which also have an energetic photon from initial state radiation (ISR). These are distinguishable from two-photon background \[10, \*Chen:1999yf\]. This method was proposed in  for the search for heavy charged leptons which are nearly mass degenerate with their neutrino. Recent search results from other LEP experiments, using this method, are reported in .

Section 2 of this note describes the OPAL detector while Section 3 details the simulation of both signal and background events. Section 4 deals with event selection and Section 5 with systematic uncertainties. No evidence for chargino pair-production was found and the search results are interpreted in Section 6 in terms of upper limits on the production cross-section and in terms of lower mass-limits within the MSSM framework.

## 2 The OPAL Detector

The OPAL detector is described in detail in \[15, \*Anderson:1998xw, \*Anderson:1994ve, 16\]. It was a multipurpose apparatus with almost complete solid angle coverage. The central detector consisted of two layers of silicon strip detectors and a system of gas-filled tracking chambers in a 0.435 T solenoidal magnetic field which was parallel to the beam axis222In the OPAL right-handed coordinate system the $`x`$-axis points towards the centre of the LEP ring, the $`y`$-axis points upwards and the $`z`$-axis points in direction of the electron beam. The polar angle $`\theta `$ and the azimuthal angle $`\varphi `$ are defined with respect to the $`z`$-axis and $`x`$-axis, respectively.. The barrel time-of-flight scintillator bars were located outside the solenoid, and the end-caps were equipped with scintillating tiles . The scintillator systems were surrounded by a lead-glass electromagnetic calorimeter (ECAL), which gave hermetic coverage in the region $`|\mathrm{cos}\theta |<0.984`$. The magnet return yoke was instrumented for hadron calorimetry. The forward region was covered by electromagnetic calorimeters, namely the silicon-tungsten calorimeter (SW, $`25\mathrm{mrad}<\theta <59\mathrm{mrad}`$), the forward detector (FD, $`47\mathrm{mrad}<\theta 160\mathrm{mrad}`$) and the gamma catcher (GC, $`143\mathrm{mrad}<\theta <193\mathrm{mrad}`$). Taking into account material to shield the detector from accelerator related backgrounds, the detector was sensitive down to $`\theta _{\mathrm{min}}=33\mathrm{mrad}`$.

## 3 Data Sample and Monte Carlo Simulation

### 3.1 The Data Sample

The data analysed in this note were taken in 1998, 1999 and 2000 at centre-of-mass energies $`\sqrt{s}`$ between 188 and 209 $`\mathrm{GeV}`$. The search is based on a total of 569.9 $`\mathrm{pb}^1`$ of data for which all relevant detector components were fully operational. The luminosity weighted mean centre-of-mass energy and the integrated luminosity of each energy bin is listed in Table 1.

### 3.2 Signal Simulation

The SUSYGEN  generator was used to simulate the signal events. In this program initial state corrections are incorporated using a factorised “radiator formula” (REMT by Kleiss ) where exponentiation of higher orders and the transverse momentum distribution of the photon have been implemented. The generated chargino masses $`M_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }`$ ranged from 45 $`\mathrm{GeV}`$ to 97.5 $`\mathrm{GeV}`$. The step size was 5 $`\mathrm{GeV}`$ for $`M_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }80\mathrm{GeV}`$. Above this mass the step size was reduced to $`2.5\mathrm{GeV}`$. The simulated mass differences were $`\mathrm{\Delta }M`$=0.17, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, 3.0, 4.0 and 5.0 $`\mathrm{GeV}`$. The points were chosen to give a ($`M_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }M`$) grid covering all points at which a reasonable signal efficiency was expected, also taking into account existing chargino mass limits from LEP 1. A total of 500 signal events were generated for each grid point at $`\sqrt{s}=`$189, 192, 196, 200, 202, 204, 205, 206, 207 and 208 $`\mathrm{GeV}`$, and for both the higgsino-like and gaugino-like scenarios, in view of their different ISR spectrum shapes. The signal events were required to be accompanied by one ISR photon within the ECAL acceptance $`|\mathrm{cos}\theta |<0.984`$. The transverse momentum of the ISR photon was required to be larger than $`0.025\sqrt{s}`$.

The chargino decay width implemented in SUSYGEN was modified. New hadronic chargino decay channels ($`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{}\pi ^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{}\pi ^{}\pi ^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{}\pi ^{}\pi ^{}\pi ^+\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$) were added reflecting analytical calculations described in \[10, \*Chen:1999yf, 19\]. The hadronic $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm `$ decays are modelled using these channels as long as the sum of their partial widths is larger than the width of the tree level $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm \mathrm{q}\overline{\mathrm{q}}^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ decay. The $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm \mathrm{q}\overline{\mathrm{q}}^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ decay mode dominates for $`\mathrm{\Delta }M1.5\mathrm{GeV}`$.

### 3.3 Background Simulation

The following background processes were considered: lepton pairs ($`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}(\mathrm{Z}^0/\gamma )^{}\mathrm{}\overline{\mathrm{}}`$), multi-hadronic ($`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}(\mathrm{Z}^0/\gamma )^{}\mathrm{q}\overline{\mathrm{q}}`$), four-fermion ($`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}\mathrm{f}\overline{\mathrm{f}}\mathrm{f}\overline{\mathrm{f}}`$) and two-photon ($`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}\gamma \gamma \mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}X`$) processes.

KK2F  was used to simulate $`\tau ^+\tau ^{}(\gamma )`$, $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}(\gamma )`$ and multi-hadronic final states. NUNUGPV  was used to generate $`\nu \overline{\nu }(\gamma )`$ events. TEEGG  and BHWIDE  were used to simulate $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}(\gamma )`$ events. RADCOR  was used to simulate photon pair final states. KORALW \[25, \*Skrzypek:1996ur\] and grc4f  were used to generate four-fermion events. The latter was used for all four-fermion final states involving $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}`$ pairs. Both KORALW and grc4f simulate ISR, but only the KORALW samples include ISR photons with transverse momentum.

PHOJET \[27, \*Engel:1995sb, \*Engel:1996yd\], HERWIG  and VERMASEREN  were used to simulate two-photon collisions resulting in electron pair or hadronic final states. None of these Monte Carlo generators include QED radiative corrections. The generator of Berends, Darverveldt and Kleiss (BDK) \[30, \*Berends:1986if, \*Berends:1986ig, \*Berends:1986ih\] is able to handle these corrections. The program was written to simulate $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}\gamma ^{}\gamma ^{}(\gamma )\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}\mu ^+\mu ^{}(\gamma )`$ events. For this analysis BDK was modified to allow the generation of $`\tau `$ final states. While for the $`\tau `$ samples no cuts were applied at generator level, in the case of the $`\mu `$ samples an event was accepted if it satisfied one of the following three requirements: it contained at least one particle with $`|\mathrm{cos}\theta |<0.975`$ and a transverse momentum (with respect to the beam axis) larger than 4.0 $`\mathrm{GeV}`$ or it contained two particles with $`|\mathrm{cos}\theta |<0.975`$ and the total missing transverse momentum (with respect to the beam axis) of the event was larger than 1.0 $`\mathrm{GeV}`$ or it contained more than two particles with $`|\mathrm{cos}\theta |<0.975`$. Since BDK includes only the QED coupling of photons, it cannot be used to describe all features of two-photon processes, e.g. the hadron-like structure of photons. Therefore no attempt was made to fully model the background from radiative hadronic two-photon events. However, BDK was used to verify that the veto on these events operates efficiently. The veto cuts (see Section 4.1.2) depend predominantly on the characteristics of the ISR photon and the beam electrons333Both electrons and positrons are referred to as electrons. and not on the properties of the two-photon system.

Unless specified, JETSET 7.4 \[31, \*Sjostrand:1994yw\] was used for the fragmentation of final states involving quarks. The number of events generated was typically well above the number expected in data. All Monte Carlo events generated were passed through a complete simulation of the OPAL detector , and processed in the same way as the data.

## 4 The Analysis

Signal events from the process $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{}\gamma \stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\gamma +X`$ are characterised by an energetic photon accompanied by large missing energy and momentum and little hadronic or leptonic activity. The photon increases the total visible energy of the event and guarantees a high trigger efficiency ($`100\%`$). Since only a small fraction of signal events are accompanied by a hard ISR photon the signal efficiency is expected to be rather low. However, given the high integrated luminosities of the LEP 2 data samples a signal would still be observable.

Radiative two-photon events $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}\gamma +X`$ can lead to a similar topology to the signal. However, in this case a final state electron can also be observed if it has a polar angle larger than $`\theta _{\mathrm{min}}`$. This angle can be related to the minimum transverse energy $`E_\mathrm{T}^{\gamma \mathrm{min}}`$ of the detected photon :

$`E_\mathrm{T}^\gamma E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\gamma }{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{min}}=\sqrt{s}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}\theta _{\mathrm{min}}}{1+\mathrm{sin}\theta _{\mathrm{min}}}}.`$ (1)
Therefore, requiring a photon with $`E_\mathrm{T}^\gamma >E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\gamma }{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{min}}`$ in the final state allows an efficient reduction of two-photon processes by vetoing events with a scattered beam electron. The expression in Eq. (1) is an approximation, which allows for resolution effects.

Unless specified, the same quality requirements for tracks and ECAL clusters were used as in . Double-counting of energy between tracks and calorimeter clusters was corrected as in . This procedure results in a set of reconstructed particles. Photons were identified by an algorithm similar to that described in detail in \[36, \*Abbiendi:1999aa\]. Photon candidates were identified as one of three types:

* A photon candidate was defined as an ECAL cluster including at least two lead-glass blocks, and with no reconstructed track compatible with being associated with the cluster. Furthermore, the energy of additional tracks and clusters in a $`15^{}`$ half-angle cone defined by the photon direction had to be less than 2 $`\mathrm{GeV}`$. The photon candidate was accepted if $`|\mathrm{cos}\theta ^\gamma |<0.976`$. If several photon candidates were found they were ordered according to their energy beginning with the highest energy.
* Two-track photon conversions were selected using an artificial neural network.
* Conversions where only a single track was reconstructed were defined as an ECAL cluster associated with a reconstructed track which was consistent with pointing to the primary vertex.

For this analysis only non-converted ISR photon candidates were considered.

### 4.1 Event Selection

#### 4.1.1 Pre-Selection

Events were selected if a photon candidate was found in the ECAL. The photon transverse energy had to be larger than 5 $`\mathrm{GeV}`$. In order to reduce the background the reduced visible energy, $`E_{\mathrm{vis}}`$, defined as the difference between total visible energy and the photon candidate energy, $`E^\gamma `$, was required to be less than $`0.35\sqrt{s}`$. High-multiplicity events were rejected by requiring that the number of tracks passing the track quality cuts , excluding tracks which had been assigned to a photon conversion, had to be at least two and at most ten. In addition beam-gas and beam-wall interactions and cosmic background were rejected by a veto described in  using ECAL cluster shapes, information from the time-of-flight system, the tile end-cap scintillators, the muon chambers and the hadronic calorimeter. After this rather loose pre-selection all events had to pass the veto on two-photon events (V), a more refined cleaning selection (C), and a final selection (F). If events contained more than one photon candidate the chain of cuts was repeated for each photon separately starting with the one with the highest energy until one candidate was found passing all cuts or all candidates failed one cut.

#### 4.1.2 The Two-Photon Veto

Two-photon events were vetoed by additional energy deposited in the detector from a final state electron (“two-photon veto”).

* The photon candidate had to pass the $`E_\mathrm{T}^\gamma `$ requirement Eq. (1). With a minimal accessible electron polar angle of $`\theta _{\mathrm{min}}=33`$ mrad the transverse photon energy was required to satisfy $`E_\mathrm{T}^\gamma 0.0319\sqrt{s}`$.
* The sum of energies, $`E_{\mathrm{fwd}}`$, detected in the forward detectors SW, FD, GC on either side had to be smaller than 5 $`\mathrm{GeV}`$.

From the two-photon samples produced with the BDK generator a two-photon veto efficiency of $`\epsilon ^{\gamma \gamma }>99.9\%`$ was derived.

#### 4.1.3 Cleaning Cuts

After the pre-selection and the two-photon veto, the remaining events in the background sample are mainly hadronic two-photon events with a faked or misinterpreted ISR photon, or from two-fermion events. Figure 1 shows the distributions of the variables used for the cleaning cuts against this background. The cut variables are based mainly on the properties of the reconstructed particles: The total transverse momentum $`P_\mathrm{T}`$ is the component of the total momentum $`P`$ (including the ISR candidate) transverse to the beam axis. The transverse visible energy $`E_\mathrm{T}`$ was calculated by summing up the absolute transverse momenta (with respect to the beam axis) of all reconstructed particles.

* Most of the events from hadronic two-photon processes and two-fermion events were removed by demanding that the ratio of the total transverse momentum to the transverse energy $`P_\mathrm{T}/E_\mathrm{T}`$ is larger than 0.4.
* A further reduction of the hadronic two-photon background was achieved by requiring that the ratio of the total transverse momentum to the total momentum $`P_\mathrm{T}/P`$ is larger than 0.2.
* The definition of a photon candidate was further restricted with the following cuts. The relative photon energy measurement error had to be less than $`30\%`$. In addition the angle between the photon candidate and any track or ECAL cluster was required to be larger then $`25^{}`$.

As shown in Figure 1 the agreement between data and Monte Carlo is poor, but this is expected due to the unmodelled ISR spectrum in most of the Monte Carlo samples and the uncertainty on the two-photon cross-sections. However, the largest disagreement lies outside the accepted regions.

#### 4.1.4 The Final Selection

To optimise the signal to background ratio, the final two cuts are a function of the point in the ($`M_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }M`$) space which is being tested.

* The ISR photon candidate recoil mass is defined as $`M_{\mathrm{rec}}=\sqrt{s}(12E^\gamma /\sqrt{s})^{\frac{1}{2}}`$. The recoil mass should be at least twice the tested chargino mass $`M_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }`$. Taking resolution effects into account the cut on the recoil mass was set to $`2\times M_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }2.5\mathrm{GeV}`$.
* The visible energy $`E_{\mathrm{vis}}`$ depends to first order on the tested mass difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }M`$. In order to retain the maximum signal efficiency, $`E_{\mathrm{vis}}`$ was required to be smaller than $`4\times \mathrm{\Delta }M`$.

The recoil mass distribution after cut C3 and the visible energy distribution after cut F1 are shown in Figure 2.

### 4.2 Selection Results

The numbers of observed events and expected background events after each cut for the full available data set ($`\sqrt{s}=`$189 – 209 $`\mathrm{GeV}`$) are summarised in Table 2. The disagreement between data and Monte Carlo during the pre-selection vanishes after the two-photon veto. After the final cut F2 no excess over the SM background is observed.

The numbers of candidates and expected events after the final cut F2 for a selection of ($`M_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }M`$) grid points are listed in Table 3. The distribution of candidates and expected events in the ($`M_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }`$,$`\mathrm{\Delta }M`$) plane is illustrated in Figure 3.

As an example Figures 4 (a) and (b) show the signal efficiencies $`\epsilon `$ at $`\sqrt{s}=208\mathrm{GeV}`$ for a constant mass difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }M`$ and a constant chargino mass $`M_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }`$ respectively. The rather low signal efficiencies are due to the requirement of having a high energy ISR photon within the detector fiducial region. To obtain the efficiencies for arbitrary masses and mass differences the measured efficiencies were interpolated by a spline fit. In order to demonstrate the sensitivity of the analysis, the “relative efficiency”, $`\epsilon ^{}`$, i.e. the efficiency for a subset of generated events with $`E_\mathrm{T}^\gamma >0.025\sqrt{s}`$ and $`|\mathrm{cos}\theta ^\gamma |<0.985`$, is presented in Figure 4 (c) and (d). The significant drop in efficiency for very small mass differences ($`\mathrm{\Delta }M<0.5\mathrm{GeV}`$, see Figures 4 (b) and (d)) is due to reduced phase space. In this case all of the chargino decay products are particles with low momentum and most of these events do not pass the track quality cuts during the pre-selection. Chargino lifetime effects, which play a significant role in most SUSY scenarios in this very small $`\mathrm{\Delta }M`$ region ($`\mathrm{\Delta }M<0.5\mathrm{GeV}`$), were not taken into account. This region is included in the experimental results but is not used for the theoretical interpretation due to the theoretical uncertainties.

## 5 Systematic Uncertainties

The systematic errors on the signal efficiency arise from several sources. They are described in the following. The size of the uncertainties strongly depends on the tested ($`M_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }M`$) point.

* To take into account the uncertainty due to the limited Monte Carlo statistics and the uncertainty introduced when interpolating the signal efficiencies the signal efficiencies were randomly smeared within their statistical errors and the resulting distribution was interpolated. This process was repeated 100 times and the absolute values of the differences between the original and the smeared fits were averaged. The mean difference in each tested ($`M_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }M`$) point was taken as a measure of the systematic error.
* The size of the uncertainty arising from the ISR photon simulation was estimated by re-weighting the transverse momentum spectrum of ISR photons in SUSYGEN. Event weights were extracted from a comparison of the ISR transverse momentum spectra of $`\mathrm{W}^+`$$`\mathrm{W}^{}`$ events produced with the KORALW generator with and without QED corrections up to order $`\alpha ^3`$. The maximum difference between the interpolated signal efficiencies calculated with un-weighted events and the interpolated signal efficiencies calculated with re-weighted events was used as the systematic uncertainty for all grid points and centre-of-mass energies.
* Another systematic uncertainty arises from the modelling of the ECAL energy scale and the ECAL energy resolution which directly affect the reconstructed ISR photon candidate. The size of the data-Monte Carlo discrepancy for the energy scale and the energy resolution was studied using $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}`$ events from high energy data as well as $`\mathrm{Z}^0`$ calibration data.
To account for energy scale uncertainty, the ISR photon energy was shifted by $`\pm 1\%`$. The resulting interpolated efficiencies were compared with the original efficiency spline. The maximum deviation in each tested ($`M_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }M`$) point from the original spline was used as a measure of the systematic error.
To study the ECAL resolution effects the difference between true and measured photon energy divided by the measured energy error was calculated. This pull distribution was broadened by $`\pm 20\%`$. Event weights were extracted from the ratios of the original and broadened pull distributions. The resulting signal efficiencies were interpolated and the fits were compared with the original efficiency spline. Again, the maximum deviation in each tested ($`M_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }M`$) point was taken as the systematic uncertainty.
* In addition, the systematic uncertainty on modelling the cut variables were studied. The cut on the visible energy, F2, was of particular importance. It was shifted by $`\pm 5\%`$ and the resulting efficiencies were compared with the original ones. The maximum deviation in each tested ($`M_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }M`$) point from the original spline was assumed as systematic error.
* The effect of changing the decay model as described in Section 3.2 was studied. It was found to be small and therefore was neglected in the interpretation.

The following sources of systematic uncertainties on the number of expected background events were investigated. The limited Monte Carlo statistics was taken into account. The systematic uncertainties due to the Monte Carlo modelling of the ECAL energy and the ECAL energy resolution as well as the modelling of the cut variables were estimated as described above. As an example Table 4 gives an overview on the size of systematic uncertainties for the signal efficiency and the number of expected background events at $`M_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }=80\mathrm{GeV}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }M=1\mathrm{GeV}`$.

For the two-photon veto a cut on the amount of energy deposited in the forward detectors was applied (see Section 4.1.2). This energy could also have been deposited by accelerator related activity which was not included in the Monte Carlo simulation. The assumed integrated luminosity used for the limit calculation was reduced by $`3\%`$, estimated from a sample of random beam crossing events, to account for this.

## 6 Results

No evidence was observed for $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+`$$`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{}`$ production. Exclusion regions and limits were determined for various scenarios using the likelihood ratio method described in . The method is able to combine results from different search channels. This feature was used for the combination of the results at different centre-of-mass energies. Systematic uncertainties were taken into account using a Monte Carlo technique allowing for a correct treatment of correlated errors.

### 6.1 Cross-section Limits

An upper limit for the $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+`$$`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{}`$ production cross-section $`\sigma `$ was derived from the number of expected background events, the number of observed candidates and the higgsino-like scenario signal efficiencies. The signal efficiencies of the higgsino-like scenario are slightly smaller than those of the gaugino-like scenario and therefore result in more conservative limits. Figure 5 (a) shows the observed upper cross-section limits in the ($`M_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }M`$) plane. Production cross-sections above $``$ 0.4 – 3.7 pb were excluded for chargino masses up to $`95`$ $`\mathrm{GeV}`$ and for $`0.5\mathrm{GeV}\mathrm{\Delta }M5.0\mathrm{GeV}`$ at the $`95\%`$ confidence level ($`\mathrm{C}.\mathrm{L}.`$) rescaled to $`\sqrt{s}=208\mathrm{GeV}`$ assuming the signal cross-section evolution with $`\sqrt{s}`$ calculated by SUSYGEN. The expected and observed upper cross-section limits for $`\mathrm{\Delta }M`$=1 $`\mathrm{GeV}`$ as a function of the chargino mass are illustrated in Figure 5 (b).

### 6.2 Interpretation within the MSSM

Within the supergravity version of the MSSM \[2, 3, \*Arnowitt:1997um\], the chargino and neutralino masses depend on four parameters: the ratio of the two Higgs vacuum expectation values, $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$; the Higgs mixing parameter, $`\mu `$ and the $`U(1)`$ and $`SU(2)`$ gaugino mass parameters, $`M_1`$ and $`M_2`$ respectively:

$`M_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{i=1,2}^\pm }`$ $`=`$ $`M_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{i=1,2}^\pm }(M_2,\mu ,\mathrm{tan}\beta ),`$
$`M_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{i=1\mathrm{}4}^0}`$ $`=`$ $`M_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{i=1\mathrm{}4}^0}(M_1,M_2,\mu ,\mathrm{tan}\beta ).`$
Unless specified, in the following the value of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ was set to 1.5. The MSSM can have small mass differences $`\mathrm{\Delta }M`$ in the following two scenarios:

* If $`|\mu |M_2`$, the lightest chargino $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm `$ is almost a higgsino. In this scenario the lightest chargino and neutralino are mass-degenerate ($`M_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }`$$``$$`M_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}`$$`|\mu |`$) for very large values of $`M_2`$. We call this the higgsino-like scenario.
* If $`M_2|\mu |`$, the lightest chargino $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm `$ is almost a gaugino $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{W}}^\pm `$ with $`M_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }M_2`$. The mass of the lightest neutralino $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ is given by $`M_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}\mathrm{min}(M_1,M_2)`$. Therefore small mass splittings only occur if $`M_2<M_1`$. If the masses of all gauginos are assumed to be identical at the grand unification scale (GUT), then the relation between $`M_1`$ and $`M_2`$ at the $`\mathrm{Z}`$-scale is given by:

$`M_1`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _WM_2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}M_2.`$ (2)
In this case the model does not predict a small $`\mathrm{\Delta }M`$ gaugino-like scenario. In more general scenarios, Eq. (2) does not hold and can be generalised introducing an arbitrary factor $`R_\mathrm{S}`$:

$`M_1`$ $`=`$ $`R_\mathrm{S}M_2.`$ (3)
Some string theory motivated SUSY scenarios  explicitly predict $`R_\mathrm{S}\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _W`$. For $`R_\mathrm{S}1`$ the lightest chargino and neutralino are degenerate in mass with $`M_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }M_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}M_2`$.

Figure 6 shows the cross-sections used to calculate the mass exclusion limits for the gaugino- and higgsino-scenarios. Since the coupling of the higgsino component of the chargino to the sneutrino is suppressed, the cross-sections in case of the gaugino-like scenario are more sensitive to the interfering $`t`$-channel production and therefore more sensitive to the sneutrino mass. The chargino mass exclusion regions for both scenarios are presented in Figure 7. From these results we derive the lower chargino mass limits listed in Table 5. The limits are valid for $`0.5\mathrm{GeV}\mathrm{\Delta }M5.0\mathrm{GeV}`$ and zero chargino lifetime assuming a 100% branching ratio $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm \stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\mathrm{W}^{\pm ()}`$. These mass limits can be directly translated into exclusion regions for the above mentioned mSUGRA parameters as shown in Figure 8.

### 6.3 Interpretation within the Anomaly Mediated SUSY Breaking Scenario

Alternatives to gravity mediated SUSY breaking scenarios can have the SUSY breaking not directly communicated from the hidden to the visible sector, as in the Anomaly Mediated SUSY Breaking Scenario (AMSB). As already mentioned in Section 1 anomalies always contribute to soft mass parameters. In AMSB gaugino masses are generated at one loop and scalar masses at two loops as a consequence of the super-Weyl anomaly . Here we restrict the AMSB models to those models without any further contributions from other SUSY breaking mechanisms.

In this scenario the chargino is gaugino-like and the $`M_1/M_2`$ ratio is $`2.8`$. AMSB models are described by the following parameters: a universal scalar mass at the GUT scale, $`m_0`$; the gravitino mass $`m_{3/2}`$; $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ and $`\mathrm{sign}\mu `$.

Since SUSYGEN is not able to handle AMSB scenarios, we re-interpreted our mSUGRA gaugino-like scenario results in order to give exclusion limits for the AMSB scenario. The ISAJET generator  was used to calculate the AMSB spectra which then were mapped to the corresponding mSUGRA cross-sections. The corresponding exclusion regions within the AMSB parameter space are shown in Figure 9.

## 7 Conclusions

We have searched for almost mass-degenerate charginos and neutralinos at centre-of-mass energies between 189 and 209 $`\mathrm{GeV}`$ with the OPAL detector at LEP. No significant excess was observed with respect to the Standard Model background. We derived a lower limit on the chargino mass of 74 $`\mathrm{GeV}`$ at the 95% $`\mathrm{C}.\mathrm{L}.`$ for $`0.5\mathrm{GeV}\mathrm{\Delta }M5\mathrm{GeV}`$ in the case of light sneutrinos ($`M_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }}>100\mathrm{GeV}`$) within the mSUGRA framework. Cross-section and mass limits were translated into mSUGRA and AMSB parameter exclusion regions.

## Acknowledgements

We particularly wish to thank the SL Division for the efficient operation of the LEP accelerator at all energies and for their close cooperation with our experimental group. In addition to the support staff at our own institutions we are pleased to acknowledge the
Department of Energy, USA,
National Science Foundation, USA,
Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council, UK,
Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, Canada,
Israel Science Foundation, administered by the Israel Academy of Science and Humanities,
Benoziyo Center for High Energy Physics,
Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) and a grant under the MEXT International Science Research Program,
Japanese Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS),
German Israeli Bi-national Science Foundation (GIF),
Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung, Germany,
National Research Council of Canada,
Hungarian Foundation for Scientific Research, OTKA T-029328, and T-038240,
Fund for Scientific Research, Flanders, F.W.O.-Vlaanderen, Belgium.