{"id":"26388d43-ac8e-4fa5-b229-38dac23a4012","arxiv_id":"1211.1976","paper_version":2,"verdict":"ACCEPT","confidence":"HIGH","novelty_score":5.0,"correctness_risk":"medium","formal_verification":"none","parameter_count":0,"one_line_summary":"Rare B decays and dark matter direct detection constrain the minimal supersymmetric standard model at large tan beta more tightly than direct collider searches, even under minimal flavor violation.","lead":"A 2012 survey of the minimal supersymmetric standard model that folds the newly found 125 GeV Higgs into flavor, vacuum-stability and dark-matter constraints. It argues that rare B decays rule out regions of parameter space that collider searches cannot yet reach.","discovery_kind":"unclear","skeptic_critique":{"model":"selfhosted/deepseek-v4.1-flash","headline":"The 'beyond direct search reach' comparison rests on a reconstructed CMS ττ boundary (footnote 3) assuming constant efficiencies; the authors acknowledge this but do not quantify the mapping uncertainty, so the quantitative boundary is less secure than the flavor calculations.","rationale":"The paper's analytic core is sound and explicitly written out: the resummed Higgs–fermion couplings (Eqs. 10–18), the ϵ factors (Eqs. 19–26), and the b→sγ Wilson coefficients (Eqs. 49–52) are given with loop functions in the appendix. The new ζ parameter (Eq. 2) is a real addition that lets gaugino-loop contributions be tracked separately from the size of the squark splitting, and the RGE analysis (Sec. V D, Figs. 11–13) connects the TeV-scale spectrum to mSUGRA boundary conditions. The numerical tools are standard and named (FeynHiggs, HDECAY, HIGLU, bbh@nnlo, CosmoTransitions). The paper is candid about its soft spots: the 3 GeV theory uncertainty on M_h is propagated, the model dependence of the Bs→μ+μ− bound through ϵ_FC is discussed at length, and the dark matter limits are flagged as the least robust because of nuclear and astrophysical uncertainties. The one place where the paper leans on its own reconstruction rather than a published number is the direct-search benchmark in footnote 3, and the reader correctly identifies this as the weakest assumption. The paper acknowledges the constant-efficiency assumption but does not quantify its impact, so the quantitative 'beyond direct search reach' statements carry an unstated uncertainty. This does not undermine the flavor calculations themselves, which stand on their own, and the qualitative claim survives a modest shift in the boundary. I would not change the verdict: the core physics is sound, the paper is transparent about the assumption, and the concern is about the precision of the framing rather than the validity of the result. A more careful treatment (e.g. using HiggsBounds or a full likelihood) would strengthen the quantitative comparison but is not required for the central claim to hold.","tokens_in":42507,"tokens_out":27342,"duration_ms":525180,"concrete_test":"Re-derive the direct-search exclusion boundary in the M_A–tanβ plane for one of the paper's scenarios (e.g. scenario (a) of Tab. I) using the full CMS τ+τ− likelihood or an independent implementation such as HiggsBounds, and compare it to the constant-efficiency reconstruction of footnote 3. If the boundary shifts by more than ~10% in tanβ at fixed M_A, the quantitative 'beyond direct search reach' statements in Secs. V B, V C and VII need an explicit uncertainty band; if it shifts by less, the reconstruction is validated and the concern does not land.","verdict_should_be":"UNCHANGED","load_bearing_attack":"The paper's headline claim (abstract:s4) is that flavor observables constrain the MFV MSSM 'well beyond the current reach of direct SUSY particle searches.' The direct-search side of that comparison is not taken from a published exclusion: footnote 3 of Sec. III B states that the CMS τ+τ− limits are only available in the m_h^max scenario, so the authors translate them into a σ×BR bound and reinterpret that bound for their own scenarios (Tab. I) assuming constant efficiencies throughout. The paper checks robustness across its own scenarios ('we checked explicitly that the constraints are largely independent of the scenarios in Tab. I') but does not quantify the efficiency-mapping uncertainty or cross-check against an independent published exclusion. Every quantitative 'beyond direct search reach' statement—e.g. the Bs→μ+μ− reach to M_A ~ 1 TeV at tanβ ~ 30, and the B→Xsγ statement that the bound is stronger than direct searches for tanβ ≲ 5—is measured against this reconstructed boundary. If the efficiency mapping shifts the boundary by, say, 10–20% in tanβ at fixed M_A, the quantitative comparison moves, even though the flavor calculations (Eqs. 44–52) are unaffected. The concern is about the framing, not the core physics: the qualitative claim that flavor probes regions inaccessible to direct searches survives a modest shift, but the specific numbers quoted in the conclusions do not come with an uncertainty estimate.","agreement_with_reader":"agree"},"referee_report":{"model":"selfhosted/deepseek-v4.1-flash","summary":"The manuscript studies the MFV MSSM after the 125 GeV Higgs discovery, combining constraints from flavor physics (B→τν, Bs→μ+μ−, B→Xsγ), MSSM Higgs searches (H/A→ττ, bb), electroweak vacuum stability, and dark matter direct detection (Xenon100). It provides comprehensive analytic expressions for tanβ-resummed Higgs couplings, including bottom and tau Yukawa effects, and for the flavor observables, consistently allowing for MFV-compatible splittings between the first two and third generation squarks. It also connects the TeV-scale spectrum to mSUGRA-like boundary conditions via RGE running. The central claim is that flavor observables constrain the MFV MSSM parameter space beyond the reach of direct SUSY and heavy-Higgs searches, with the Bs→μ+μ− non-decoupling extending the reach to M_A ~ 1 TeV at tanβ ~ 30 for sign(μ A_t) = -1.","tokens_in":42755,"tokens_out":14641,"duration_ms":275301,"significance":"The paper is a careful and comprehensive phenomenological study that will be a useful reference for the community. The analytic expressions for the tanβ-resummed Higgs couplings and flavor observables are valuable, and the observation that the MFV MSSM predicts a lower bound of 1/2 the SM value for BR(Bs→μ+μ−) is a nice, falsifiable prediction. The RGE analysis connecting low-scale flavor constraints to high-scale parameters is a useful addition. The paper's main qualitative claim—that flavor probes regions inaccessible to direct searches—is well supported by the non-decoupling of the Higgs-penguin contribution in Eq. (45).","major_comments":[{"comment":"The CMS τ+τ− limits are only available in the m_h^max scenario, so the authors translate them into a σ×BR bound and reinterpret that bound for their own scenarios (Tab. I) assuming constant efficiencies throughout. This reconstructed boundary is the benchmark against which all 'beyond direct search reach' statements are measured, including the specific numbers in the conclusions (e.g., M_A ~ 1 TeV at tanβ ~ 30 for Bs→μ+μ−, and the B→Xsγ statement that the bound is stronger than direct searches for tanβ ≲ 5). The paper checks robustness across its own scenarios but does not quantify the efficiency-mapping uncertainty or cross-check against an independent published exclusion. The authors should either provide a quantitative estimate of the mapping uncertainty (e.g., by varying the efficiency assumptions or comparing to an ATLAS H/A→ττ exclusion in a different benchmark) or state the specific numbers with an explicit systematic uncertainty. The qualitative claim survives a modest shift, but the quantitative comparison should be stated with an uncertainty.","section":"Sec. III B, footnote 3","authors_acknowledge":null,"authors_acknowledge_p":null}],"minor_comments":[{"comment":"The parenthesization of the tb term is ambiguous. Please clarify whether it is (1 - ε_t tβ)/(1 + ε_b tβ) or 1 - ε_t tβ/(1 + ε_b tβ).","section":"Eq. (28)","authors_acknowledge":null,"authors_acknowledge_p":null},{"comment":"The vacuum stability bound is on the flavor-diagonal sbottom coupling, i.e., on ε_b, but the B→τν constraint depends on ε_0 = ε_b - ε_FC. The paper argues that ε_0 tanβ < -1 is excluded by vacuum stability, but this requires ε_b < ε_0 < 0 (for μ < 0). Please clarify whether this relation holds generally or only in the specific μ = -8 TeV scenario, and whether the conclusion survives for A_t < 0.","section":"Sec. IV and Fig. 4 (right)","authors_acknowledge":null,"authors_acknowledge_p":null},{"comment":"The claim that M1 ≃ μ is 'ruled out throughout the whole M_A–tanβ plane' should be qualified given the nuclear matrix element uncertainties (f_Ts in particular) and the assumption that the neutralino constitutes all the dark matter.","section":"Sec. VI","authors_acknowledge":null,"authors_acknowledge_p":null},{"comment":"The blue region is described as 'excluded by searches in the τ+τ− (bb) channel' — please clarify which color corresponds to which channel (blue = ττ, green = bb).","section":"Fig. 1 caption","authors_acknowledge":null,"authors_acknowledge_p":null},{"comment":"The statement that 'agreement of theory and experiment in all three B observables is impossible to achieve' — please clarify whether this refers to B→τν, B→Dτν, B→D*τν, or all four including K→μν.","section":"Sec. V A","authors_acknowledge":null,"authors_acknowledge_p":null},{"comment":"The paper uses f_B = 190 ± 4 MeV and f_Bs = 227 ± 4 MeV. Please state the source and date of these averages, since they are central to the SM predictions in Eqs. (33) and (41).","section":"Sec. V A, Eqs. (33) and (41)","authors_acknowledge":null,"authors_acknowledge_p":null},{"comment":"Please clarify the derivation of ζ ≈ I_t/(I_t + I_b) and the approximations involved.","section":"Eq. (67)","authors_acknowledge":null,"authors_acknowledge_p":null},{"comment":"The manuscript would benefit from a careful proofread of the typeset version; there are numerous missing spaces (e.g., 'usem2Q3', 'theM maxh scenario') that appear to be typesetting artifacts but make the text harder to read.","section":"General","authors_acknowledge":null,"authors_acknowledge_p":null}],"recommendation":"minor_revision","confidential_remarks":null},"author_rebuttal":null,"desk_editor":{"model":"selfhosted/deepseek-v4.1-flash","letter":"This one is worth your time if you work on SUSY flavor, and probably worth a citation regardless. It is a constraint synthesis, not a single sharp claim: Higgs mass and rate constraints, H/A→ττ and bb searches, vacuum stability, B→τν, Bs→μμ, B→Xsγ, and Xenon100 all mapped onto the same MA–tanβ and mQ3–μ planes. The framing is the standard one — flavor reaches where direct searches don't — but the execution is more careful than most papers in this genre, and there is genuine new machinery underneath it. The ζ parameter of Eq. (2) separates the size of the left-handed squark splitting from its alignment with the Yukawas, which lets the gaugino-loop contributions to ε_FC (Eqs. 25–26) and to C_7,8 (Eqs. 51–52) be tracked as two independent effects rather than one. That is a real addition over the pMSSM treatments they cite, and the RGE section backs it up with an estimate ζ ≈ 0.8 at tanβ = 45. The vacuum stability analysis is also more than decoration: they cross-check their triangle approximation against CosmoTransitions and get agreement, and the conclusion that ε_b tanβ < −1 is unreachable is a useful negative result. The loop functions are all in the appendix, the tools are named (FeynHiggs, HDECAY, HIGLU, bbh@nnlo), and the 3 GeV Mh uncertainty is propagated rather than buried. On the stress-test concern: it lands, but it is second-order. Footnote 3 does say the CMS ττ limits are only published in m_h^max and that they remap σ×BR assuming constant efficiencies, and they never quantify that mapping. So the specific numbers in the conclusions — MA ~ 1 TeV at tanβ ~ 30, MH± ≳ 300 GeV for small tanβ — carry an unstated systematic. But the non-decoupling argument in Eq. (45) does not depend on where the CMS boundary sits; it scales as tan³β/M_A² and stands on its own. The qualitative claim survives a 10–20% shift in the boundary. My other quibble is minor: fixing At to the smaller of the two solutions giving Mh = 125 GeV is a choice, and they admit At moves ~25% for Mh in 122–128 GeV, which propagates into the Bs→μμ contours. They say so, so it is a caveat rather than a flaw. Send it out. The flavor sector is solid and the ζ machinery will be reused.","headline":"A careful, honest constraint synthesis for the MFV MSSM; the new ζ parameter and the gaugino-loop flavor terms are the real contributions, and the only soft spot is the reconstructed CMS ττ benchmark, which the authors flag themselves.","tokens_in":43457,"tokens_out":1160,"would_cite":true,"duration_ms":19148,"reading_group":"maybe","serious_thinker":"yes","would_accept_peer_review":true},"pith_extraction":{"msc":[],"pacs":["12.60.Jv","13.20.He","14.80.Da","95.35.+d"],"model":"selfhosted/deepseek-v4.1-flash","headline":"Even with the most conservative flavor assumptions, rare B decays reach supersymmetric particles and heavy Higgs bosons that the LHC cannot yet produce, because the relevant loop effects grow with tan β and shrink only with the heavy Higgs–","keywords":["minimal supersymmetric standard model","minimal flavor violation","$B_s to mu^+ mu^-$","$B to X_s gamma$","$tan beta$ resummation","electroweak vacuum stability","dark matter direct detection","renormalization group running"],"falsifier":"A future LHCb measurement of $mathrm{BR}(B_s to mu^+ mu^-)$ with an uncertainty near $pm 0.5 times 10^{-9}$: if the central value settles at the Standard Model prediction, the destructively interfering region that the paper identifies as the MSSM's remaining hiding place is closed, and if the measured value falls below one half of the Standard Model prediction the MFV MSSM is excluded outright.","tokens_in":43799,"feed_emoji":"⚛️","tokens_out":3052,"duration_ms":59383,"temperature":0.7,"pith_summary":"The paper asks how much of the minimal supersymmetric standard model survives once the 125 GeV Higgs discovery, the null SUSY searches, the heavy-Higgs searches, the latest B physics, and the Xenon100 dark matter limit are all imposed at once. Its answer is that flavor physics is not a side constraint but a leading one: in the large-$tan beta$ regime the MSSM generates loop-induced flavor-changing couplings of the heavy Higgs bosons that scale as $tan^3 beta / M_A^2$, so they do not decouple as supersymmetric particles are made heavy. That makes rare decays such as $B_s to mu^+ mu^-$ and $B to X_s gamma$ sensitive to heavy-Higgs masses of order 1 TeV, in regions where direct searches have nothing to say. The authors also check that the parameter corners where flavor would be most constraining are not already killed by vacuum stability, and they trace the TeV-scale spectrum back to a handful of high-scale parameters through renormalization group running. The message for a general reader is about complementarity: three very different kinds of experiment are reading the same underlying parameters, and the weakest-looking one is currently reaching furthest.","feed_headline":"Rare B decays now outrun direct SUSY searches","feed_subtitle":"Flavor-changing Higgs couplings reach heavy Higgs masses near 1 TeV, beyond what the LHC can currently exclude.","key_machinery":"The machinery is a consistent all-orders resummation of $tan beta$-enhanced loop corrections to Higgs-fermion couplings, packaged in the parameters $epsilon_b$, $epsilon_t$, $epsilon_ell$, $epsilon_0$ and the flavor-changing $epsilon_{FC}$. These arise from Higgsino-squark, gluino-squark and wino-sfermion loops and are written in Eqs. (19)-(26) in terms of a single loop function $g(x,y,z)$ collected in the appendix. The resummation matters because at large $tan beta$ the one-loop correction is not a small perturbation: it can flip the sign of the bottom Yukawa or make it non-perturbative, and it changes every prediction that depends on Higgs couplings, including the light Higgs mass, the heavy Higgs production cross sections, and the flavor-changing couplings that drive $B_s to mu^+ mu^-$. Around this core sit three supporting structures: the $zeta$ parameter of Eq. (2) that fixes the flavor alignment of left-handed squark splitting, a three-channel vacuum-stability calculation using a straight-line path and bounce-action estimates cross-checked against a dedicated tunneling code, and a two-loop renormalization group run from the GUT scale that translates a small set of minimal supergravity parameters into the TeV-scale spectrum the flavor analysis uses.","core_discovery":"The central claim is that flavor observables constrain the MFV MSSM beyond the reach of direct SUSY and heavy-Higgs searches, and that this survives even under minimal flavor violation, where the only source of flavor structure is the Standard Model Yukawa couplings. The load-bearing piece is the Higgs-penguin contribution to $B_s to mu^+ mu^-$, written in Eq. (45) as an amplitude proportional to $epsilon_{FC}, tan^3 beta$ divided by $M_A^2$ and by the resummation factors $(1+epsilon_b tan beta)(1+epsilon_0 tan beta)(1+epsilon_ell tan beta)$. Because that amplitude scales with the heavy Higgs mass rather than with the squark or gaugino masses, raising the supersymmetric scale does not switch it off. The authors show that for $mathrm{sign}(mu A_t) = -1$, where the supersymmetric amplitude interferes constructively with the Standard Model one, the current LHCb bound on $B_s to mu^+ mu^-$ excludes heavy Higgs masses up to roughly 1 TeV at $tan beta approx 30$. Separately, $B to X_s gamma$ excludes charged Higgs masses below about 300 GeV for small $tan beta$ even with all squarks decoupled. The paper also establishes a structural point about the MFV squark spectrum: a splitting between the first two and the third generation of left-handed squarks requires one extra parameter, $zeta$, describing whether that splitting is aligned with the up-type or down-type Yukawas, and $zeta$ controls the size of gaugino-loop contributions to flavor-changing processes. Running from minimal supergravity boundary conditions gives $zeta approx 0.8$ at $tan beta = 45$ and splittings of 20 to 35 percent, so the effect is neither zero nor negligible.","pith_inferences":["The paper's comparison benchmark, the boundary where direct heavy-Higgs searches stop, is not taken from a published exclusion but reconstructed: footnote 3 of Sec. III B says the CMS $tau^+ tau^-$ limits exist only in the $m_h^{max}$ scenario, so the authors convert them into a cross-section times branching-ratio bound and reinterpret that for their own scenarios assuming constant efficiencies. E","Because the Higgs-penguin amplitude does not decouple with the supersymmetric scale, this class of constraint is one of the few places where a 10 TeV squark spectrum could still be probed indirectly; that suggests treating $B_s to mu^+ mu^-$ as a discovery channel for heavy-Higgs physics rather than only as an exclusion tool.","The $zeta$ parameter is effectively a new flat direction of the MFV parameter space, and the paper's own RGE estimate pins it near 0.8 rather than leaving it free; a dedicated study of how strongly $zeta$ is fixed by the messenger scale and $tan beta$ would sharpen or loosen every gaugino-loop bound quoted here.","The dark matter direct detection bounds are the least robust of the set, since they assume the lightest neutralino is all of the dark matter and depend on nuclear matrix elements and the local velocity distribution; a reader should weight the flavor exclusions far more heavily than the $M_1 approx mu$ exclusion when judging how closed the parameter space really is."],"forward_implications":["If the analysis holds, the MSSM with minimal flavor violation is already pressed by $B_s to mu^+ mu^-$ into heavy-Higgs masses near 1 TeV at moderate $tan beta$, in a region where the LHC heavy-Higgs searches in the $tau^+ tau^-$ channel stop at 800 GeV.","The destructive-interference region, where the supersymmetric amplitude roughly cancels the Standard Model one, is the blind spot: a future LHCb measurement of $B_s to mu^+ mu^-$ at the Standard Model value with an uncertainty near $pm 0.5 times 10^{-9}$ would close it, leaving only narrow strips of allowed parameter space.","There is a hard lower bound of one half the Standard Model branching ratio in this framework, so any confirmed measurement below that value would rule out the MFV MSSM rather than merely constrain it.","Vacuum stability and bottom-Yukawa perturbativity together remove the parameter corner where the bottom Yukawa flips sign, which means the one region that could have made the charged Higgs interfere constructively in $B to tau nu$ is not available.","In the region where both $mu$ and $A_t$ are positive, the $B_s to mu^+ mu^-$ and $B to X_s gamma$ bounds are simultaneously weakest, which singles that corner out as the place where the MSSM is hardest to exclude with flavor data."],"supporting_citations":[{"why":"Supplies the definition of minimal flavor violation used throughout, namely that the Yukawa couplings are the only sources of flavor violation, which fixes the allowed structure of the soft masses in Eq. (1).","marker":"[85]"},{"why":"Provides the resummation of $tan beta$-enhanced threshold corrections to down-type fermion masses that underlies the $epsilon_i$ factors and hence every coupling and flavor prediction in the paper.","marker":"[100]"},{"why":"Establishes the $tan beta$ enhancement of $B_s to mu^+ mu^-$ in supersymmetry that makes the decay the paper's sharpest flavor probe.","marker":"[106]"},{"why":"Supplies the treatment of Higgs-mediated flavor-changing couplings and the two-loop contributions to $b to s gamma$ that remain relevant when squark masses are degenerate.","marker":"[110]"},{"why":"The LHCb evidence for $B_s to mu^+ mu^-$ whose two-sided 95 percent confidence bound, quoted in Eq. (43), is the experimental input driving the paper's strongest exclusion.","marker":"[80]"},{"why":"The CMS $H/A to tau^+ tau^-$ search that defines the direct-search boundary against which the flavor reach is compared.","marker":"[77]"},{"why":"The Xenon100 spin-independent cross-section limit used for the dark matter direct detection constraints.","marker":"[84]"},{"why":"The two-loop renormalization group equations used to run minimal supergravity boundary conditions down to the TeV scale and derive the squark mass splittings and $zeta$ estimate.","marker":"[194]"},{"why":"FeynHiggs, used to fix the trilinear couplings at each parameter point so that the lightest Higgs mass comes out at 125 GeV, which conditions every plot in the paper.","marker":"[125]"}],"fun_headline_variants":["Flavor data push MFV MSSM heavy Higgs near 1 TeV","B_s to mu mu excludes MFV MSSM heavy Higgs near 1 TeV","B to X_s gamma rules out charged Higgs below 300 GeV","MFV squark splitting zeta reaches about 0.8 at tan beta 45","Flavor probes reach beyond direct SUSY searches in MFV MSSM"],"cache_read_input_tokens":0,"weakest_assumption_plain":"That the boundary where direct heavy-Higgs searches stop can be faithfully reconstructed by translating the CMS $tau^+ tau^-$ limits from one benchmark scenario into a cross-section times branching-ratio bound and reinterpreting it for other scenarios under an assumption of constant efficiencies.","fun_headline_variants_meta":{"raw":{"variants":["Flavor data push MFV MSSM heavy Higgs near 1 TeV","B_s to mu mu excludes MFV MSSM heavy Higgs near 1 TeV","B to X_s gamma rules out charged Higgs below 300 GeV","MFV squark splitting zeta reaches about 0.8 at tan beta 45","Flavor probes reach beyond direct SUSY searches in MFV MSSM"]},"model":"selfhosted/deepseek-v4.1-flash","effort":"low","attempts":1,"cost_usd":0.0,"raw_usage":{"total_tokens":1770,"prompt_tokens":1060,"completion_tokens":710,"prompt_tokens_details":null,"completion_tokens_details":{"reasoning_tokens":620}},"tokens_in":1060,"tokens_out":710,"duration_ms":16392,"image_pages":[],"temperature":1.0,"reasoning_budget":50,"reasoning_tokens":620,"transport_provider":"selfhosted","cache_read_input_tokens":0,"cache_creation_input_tokens":0},"cache_creation_input_tokens":0},"created_at":"2026-11-10T13:15:57.555589+00:00","model_set":{"reader":"selfhosted/deepseek-v4.1-flash"},"falsifier":"A future LHCb measurement of $mathrm{BR}(B_s to mu^+ mu^-)$ with an uncertainty near $pm 0.5 times 10^{-9}$: if the central value settles at the Standard Model prediction, the destructively interfering region that the paper identifies as the MSSM's remaining hiding place is closed, and if the measured value falls below one half of the Standard Model prediction the MFV MSSM is excluded outright.","supporting_citations":[{"cited_title":"Minimal Flavour Violation: an effective field theory approach","cited_arxiv_id":"hep-ph/0207036","evidence_quote":"Supplies the definition of minimal flavor violation used throughout, namely that the Yukawa couplings are the only sources of flavor violation, which fixes the allowed structure of the soft masses in Eq. (1)."},{"cited_title":null,"cited_arxiv_id":null,"evidence_quote":"Provides the resummation of $tan beta$-enhanced threshold corrections to down-type fermion masses that underlies the $epsilon_i$ factors and hence every coupling and flavor prediction in the paper."},{"cited_title":"Higgs-Mediated $B^0 -> \\mu^+ \\mu^-$ in Minimal Supersymmetry","cited_arxiv_id":"hep-ph/9909476","evidence_quote":"Establishes the $tan beta$ enhancement of $B_s to mu^+ mu^-$ in supersymmetry that makes the decay the paper's sharpest flavor probe."},{"cited_title":"Resummation of tan-beta-enhanced supersymmetric loop corrections beyond the decoupling limit","cited_arxiv_id":"0907.5408","evidence_quote":"Supplies the treatment of Higgs-mediated flavor-changing couplings and the two-loop contributions to $b to s gamma$ that remain relevant when squark masses are degenerate."},{"cited_title":"First evidence for the decay Bs -> mu+ mu-","cited_arxiv_id":"1211.2674","evidence_quote":"The LHCb evidence for $B_s to mu^+ mu^-$ whose two-sided 95 percent confidence bound, quoted in Eq. (43), is the experimental input driving the paper's strongest exclusion."},{"cited_title":null,"cited_arxiv_id":null,"evidence_quote":"The CMS $H/A to tau^+ tau^-$ search that defines the direct-search boundary against which the flavor reach is compared."},{"cited_title":"Dark Matter Results from 225 Live Days of XENON100 Data","cited_arxiv_id":"1207.5988","evidence_quote":"The Xenon100 spin-independent cross-section limit used for the dark matter direct detection constraints."},{"cited_title":null,"cited_arxiv_id":null,"evidence_quote":"The two-loop renormalization group equations used to run minimal supergravity boundary conditions down to the TeV scale and derive the squark mass splittings and $zeta$ estimate."},{"cited_title":"FeynHiggs: a program for the calculation of the masses of the neutral CP-even Higgs bosons in the MSSM","cited_arxiv_id":"hep-ph/9812320","evidence_quote":"FeynHiggs, used to fix the trilinear couplings at each parameter point so that the lightest Higgs mass comes out at 125 GeV, which conditions every plot in the paper."}],"review_version":1}