{"id":"74a80232-02dd-4261-96af-0c4be2135b34","arxiv_id":"hep-ph/0206096","paper_version":3,"verdict":"ACCEPT","confidence":"HIGH","novelty_score":8.0,"correctness_risk":"low","formal_verification":"none","parameter_count":0,"one_line_summary":"D-term supersymmetry breaking in an N=2 gauge sector produces Dirac gaugino masses and finite, flavor-universal, positive sfermion masses, a framework the authors call supersoft.","lead":"The paper extends the Standard Model so the gauge sector has N=2 supersymmetry and shows that breaking supersymmetry with a hidden U(1) D-term gives finite, flavor-universal squark and slepton masses. It matters because it offers a new route around the SUSY flavor and CP problems without the usual soft-term baggage.","discovery_kind":"unclear","skeptic_critique":{"model":"selfhosted/deepseek-v4.1-flash","headline":"No significant objection identified: the supersoft finiteness argument (Sec. 2.3) and one-loop result (Eq. 2.12) are sound, and the paper acknowledges the D-term-only and (2.9)-tuning caveats that bound its quantitative claims.","rationale":"The paper's central claim is that D-term breaking in an N=2 gauge sector yields finite, flavor-universal sfermion masses. This is supported by the spurion non-renormalization argument of Sec. 2.3 and the explicit one-loop computation of Eq. (2.11)–(2.12). The reader's weakest assumption—that the D-term is the sole source of breaking—is correctly identified and is acknowledged by the authors in Sec. 3.1, where they note that Planck-suppressed Kähler terms could contribute F-term masses if M ∼ M_GUT. This is a model-building choice, not a hidden error. The paper also acknowledges the (2.9) tuning (Sec. 3.1), the need for heavy stops to satisfy the LEP Higgs bound (Sec. 4), and the approximate nature of the spectra in Tables 1–3 (Sec. 3.2.1). These are limitations of the quantitative predictions, not of the mechanism. The paper is a foundational and influential work; the supersoft mechanism has been widely studied and confirmed. I found no circular step, no missing proof, and no internal inconsistency. The reader's ACCEPT verdict with HIGH confidence is reasonable. I would not change it.","tokens_in":19572,"tokens_out":21527,"duration_ms":375969,"concrete_test":"Compute the sign and magnitude of the (2.9) operator generated by the messenger diagram of Fig. 3 / Eq. (3.1), and verify that after the stated ~1% tuning, δ² > m_i² in Eq. (2.12) so that the sfermion mass² is positive. If the sign is such that the real part of a is tachyonic and cannot be cured by a Majorana mass without spoiling the Dirac gaugino mass, the positivity claim in abstract:s2 would need qualification.","verdict_should_be":"UNCHANGED","load_bearing_attack":"I read the paper looking for a gap in the finiteness argument of Sec. 2.3 and the positivity claim of Eq. (2.12). The spurion argument is standard: the only gauge-invariant supersymmetric counterterm for Q†Q involving the spurion W'α/M is Eq. (2.3), which is suppressed by Λ² and vanishes as Λ→∞. The explicit one-loop integral Eq. (2.11) is finite and yields Eq. (2.12). The positivity of Eq. (2.12) requires δ² > m_i², which holds if the (2.9) operator is absent or tuned small; the paper acknowledges in Sec. 2.2 and Sec. 3.1 that (2.9) is generically generated and may require a ~1% tuning to cancel against the messenger contribution. This is a model-building limitation, not an error in the central mechanism. The flavor-universality claim is conditional on the D-term being the sole source of breaking, which the paper acknowledges in Sec. 3.1. I could not identify a hidden inconsistency or a circular step. The acknowledged limitations (heavy stops, approximate spectra, ignored two-loop and threshold effects) bound the quantitative predictions but do not undermine the supersoft mechanism itself.","agreement_with_reader":"agree"},"referee_report":{"model":"selfhosted/deepseek-v4.1-flash","summary":"The manuscript proposes a supersymmetric extension of the Standard Model in which the gauge sector is promoted to N=2 (adding an adjoint chiral superfield for each SM gauge group) while the matter sector remains N=1. Supersymmetry breaking is transmitted by a hidden U(1)' D-term through the holomorphic operator ∫d²θ W'^α W^α_j A_j / M, which gives the gauginos Dirac masses with the adjoint fermions and generates a new class of scalar trilinears. The authors argue that this operator is 'supersoft': the only gauge-invariant supersymmetric counterterm for sfermion masses involving the spurion is the higher-dimension operator of Eq. (2.3), suppressed by two powers of the cutoff, so all radiative corrections to scalar masses are finite. An explicit one-loop computation (Eqs. (2.11)-(2.12)) confirms this and yields positive, flavor-blind sfermion masses a loop factor below the gaugino mass. The paper then explores GUT embeddings (SU(3)³ and SU(5)), the generation of µ and Bµ, CP violation, electroweak symmetry breaking, and qualitative collider and cosmological phenomenology, including heavy Dirac gauginos, R-parity-even adjoint scalars, and long-lived 'bachelor' fields.","tokens_in":19903,"tokens_out":6682,"duration_ms":42890,"significance":"If correct, the framework offers a genuinely distinct and predictive alternative to the MSSM soft sector: flavor-universal, CP-conserving, UV-insensitive sfermion masses with only a few parameters, and a natural link between the D-term scale and the µ parameter. The Dirac gaugino structure and the associated adjoint/bachelor spectrum give sharp, falsifiable LHC signatures (very heavy gauginos, ~TeV squarks, possibly long-lived colored states), and the connection to extra-dimensional and deconstructed gaugino-mediation scenarios is well motivated. The paper is a substantial and clearly written contribution; the central operator argument and the one-loop result are sound and reproducible from the text.","major_comments":[{"comment":"The Introduction lists 'natural electroweak symmetry breaking' as a headline feature, and Sec. 4 asserts that 'heavier stop masses than in the MSSM are consistent with lack of excessive fine tuning' because the logarithm in Eq. (4.1) is cut off by the gaugino mass rather than by a much higher scale. This is a quantitative claim that is not backed by any tuning measure. With the spectra of Tables 1-3 (stops 1.7-3.5 TeV, gluinos 8-15 TeV) and m_Hu² of order -(1 TeV)², a standard Barbieri-Giudice measure would give a tuning of order 10²-10³. The paper should either compute such a measure explicitly or soften the naturalness claim in the Introduction and Sec. 4 to a statement about the absence of logarithmically enhanced sensitivity.","section":"Sec. 4 and Introduction, item 1","authors_acknowledge":null,"authors_acknowledge_p":null},{"comment":"The abstract states without qualification that the squark and slepton masses are 'positive', but Eq. (2.12) is positive only when δ² > m_i², i.e. when the operator (2.9) is absent or cancelled. The authors acknowledge in Sec. 2.2 and again in Sec. 3.1 that (2.9) is generically generated by the messenger diagram of Eq. (3.1) at a loop factor above (2.4), requiring a ~1% fine tuning to cancel. Since positivity is one of the four properties advertised in the abstract, the abstract and the summary sentence of Sec. 2.3 should state the condition under which it holds, rather than presenting it as automatic.","section":"Abstract and Secs. 2.2, 3.1","authors_acknowledge":null,"authors_acknowledge_p":null},{"comment":"The all-orders finiteness argument rests on the assertion that 'the only possible such counterterm is proportional to (2.3)'. This is an operator-completeness claim that is stated rather than demonstrated. A reader would want either an explicit classification of the gauge-invariant supersymmetric counterterms involving the spurion W'^α/M and the visible fields (including those with additional adjoint insertions and higher-dimension Kähler terms), or a two-loop check that the logarithmic divergence cancels as it does at one loop in Eq. (2.11). As written, the argument is plausible and standard but is the load-bearing step for the paper's central claim, so it deserves a more explicit treatment.","section":"Sec. 2.3, Eqs. (2.10)-(2.13)","authors_acknowledge":null,"authors_acknowledge_p":null},{"comment":"Eq. (2.13) generalizes the one-loop result to the case where the adjoint has a supersymmetric Majorana mass M. The bracket is not manifestly positive, and the paper does not state for which range of M and δ² the result remains positive. Since the positivity of sfermion masses is central, the authors should state the sign of Eq. (2.13) as a function of M/m_i and δ/m_i, or at least note the region in which it can turn negative.","section":"Sec. 2.3, Eq. (2.13)","authors_acknowledge":null,"authors_acknowledge_p":null}],"minor_comments":[{"comment":"The caption entry 'mhu i500 GeV' appears garbled; please give the entry a legible label and state explicitly whether the tabulated Higgs entries are the signed mass squared, the mass parameter, or its magnitude, since the text states that m_h² is negative while the tables list positive numbers.","section":"Table 1 caption","authors_acknowledge":null,"authors_acknowledge_p":null},{"comment":"The text states that the pseudoscalar SU(2) and SU(3) ESPs 'will also receive finite, positive, large masses at one loop', but the mechanism is not shown, and the same paragraph notes that the operator (2.4) leaves the pseudoscalar massless at tree level. A sentence identifying the loop that generates this mass would help the reader.","section":"Sec. 2.3","authors_acknowledge":null,"authors_acknowledge_p":null},{"comment":"The quantities γ and γ' are defined in terms of M_i, δ_i and m_i, but the notation is not tied back to the definitions of Sec. 2.2; a short reminder of what M_i and δ_i denote in this section would improve readability.","section":"Sec. 4, Eq. (4.5)","authors_acknowledge":null,"authors_acknowledge_p":null},{"comment":"The statement that α_3 is asymptotically flat at one loop and the assumption α_i(M_GUT) = α_3(M_D) are strong; since two-loop running will make α_3 non-flat, the text should flag this as an approximation alongside the existing caveats about two-loop and threshold effects.","section":"Sec. 3.2.1","authors_acknowledge":null,"authors_acknowledge_p":null},{"comment":"The estimate of a 'few seconds' lifetime for the SU(5) bachelors from dimension-five operators should be confronted with big-bang nucleosynthesis constraints on long-lived colored or charged relics, or the absence of such a discussion should be noted.","section":"Sec. 5.2","authors_acknowledge":null,"authors_acknowledge_p":null},{"comment":"The diagram labels in the source are difficult to parse; please ensure the published figure has legible and unambiguous labels for the gaugino, adjoint scalar, and MSSM matter lines.","section":"Figure 2","authors_acknowledge":null,"authors_acknowledge_p":null},{"comment":"Reference [34] is cited for a side remark on the µ parameter; since it is a companion preprint, the text should make clear that the main argument of the present paper does not depend on it.","section":"References","authors_acknowledge":null,"authors_acknowledge_p":null}],"recommendation":"minor_revision","confidential_remarks":"The paper is a well-known and influential contribution, and the central supersoft mechanism is sound. My major comments concern the qualification of the positivity and naturalness claims and the explicitness of the operator-completeness step, not the correctness of the mechanism. I expect these can be addressed with modest revisions to the abstract, Sec. 2.3, and Sec. 4."},"author_rebuttal":null,"desk_editor":{"model":"selfhosted/deepseek-v4.1-flash","letter":"Worth your time if you work on the SUSY flavor problem. The core idea is real and simple: put the gauge sector in N=2, break SUSY with a hidden U(1)' D-term, and the operator W'^α W^α A/M gives the gaugino a Dirac mass while the adjoint scalar gets a matching mass. The scalar loop then cancels the log divergence the gaugino loop would produce. Eqs. 2.11–2.12 do that computation explicitly and the answer is finite, flavor blind, and positive. That is the paper's actual contribution and it holds up under checking. The operator argument in Sec. 2.3 — the only gauge-invariant counterterm for Q†Q involving the spurion is Eq. 2.3, suppressed by Λ² — is standard and correct as far as it goes. The bachelor-field discussion in Sec. 3.2 and the pseudoscalar adjoint phenomenology are new territory and worth the read on their own. Credit where due: Hall-Randall and Dine-MacIntire are cited for the Dirac mass precursors, and the paper is clear about what it is adding to them. Now the soft spots, in order of how much they matter. First, the abstract says the sfermion masses are 'positive' without qualification; the body (Sec. 2.2, Sec. 3.1) is honest that positivity needs δ² > m_i², i.e. the (2.9) operator absent or cancelled against the messenger contribution at the ~1% level. That caveat belongs in the abstract. Second, the all-orders finiteness is an operator-completeness assertion, not a multi-loop proof; it is probably right, but the paper writes it as settled. Third, Tables 1–3 are illustrative — the authors say two-loop and threshold effects are dropped — and those numbers will get quoted anyway. Fourth, the tree-level Higgs quartic is nearly zero (Eq. 2.8), so the model leans entirely on the stop loop; the claim that heavy stops are natural because the log is cut off at the gaugino mass is plausible but not shown quantitatively. The D-term-only premise is a model-building choice, not a result, and Sec. 3.1 says so. None of this breaks the mechanism. Send it out; ask for the finiteness statement to be tightened and the positivity caveat moved into the abstract.","headline":"A genuinely new SUSY-breaking framework with a clean one-loop core; the abstract oversells positivity and the finiteness claim is operator-counting rather than proof.","tokens_in":20490,"tokens_out":1355,"would_cite":true,"duration_ms":25194,"reading_group":"yes","serious_thinker":"yes","would_accept_peer_review":true},"pith_extraction":{"msc":[],"pacs":["12.60.Jv","11.30.Pb"],"model":"selfhosted/deepseek-v4.1-flash","headline":"A hidden D-term could give gauginos Dirac masses and leave squark masses finite, positive, and flavor-blind.","keywords":["supersymmetry breaking","Dirac gaugino mass","D-term supersymmetry breaking","N=2 gauge sector","supersoft operators","flavor universality","extended superpartners","gauge mediation"],"falsifier":"A light gluino near the weak scale, rather than the multi-TeV Dirac mass that the renormalization formula forces, would exclude the mechanism as constructed; likewise an observed flavor-dependent splitting among first- and second-generation squark masses would show that a non-universal contribution is present at the same order as the gauge-induced one. In the other direction, discovery of the $R$-parity-even pseudoscalar adjoints, or of long-lived charged states with the quantum numbers of GUT gauge bosons, would be direct support.","tokens_in":20978,"feed_emoji":"⚛️","tokens_out":3789,"duration_ms":78184,"temperature":0.7,"pith_summary":"Supersymmetry can stabilize the hierarchy between the weak and Planck scales, but the minimal supersymmetric standard model buys that stability with roughly a hundred free soft-breaking parameters and, generically, flavor-changing and CP-violating effects that experiment does not see. This paper asks whether the gauge sector can be promoted to $N=2$ supersymmetry — gauginos plus adjoint chiral superfields — while the matter sector stays $N=1$, and whether supersymmetry breaking can then be transmitted by a single $D$-term of a hidden $U(1)'$ rather than by $F$-terms. The authors show that the operator $d^2theta$-integral of $W'^alpha W^j_alpha A_j/M$ gives each gaugino a Dirac mass $m_D = D'/M$ and, crucially, that the accompanying scalar-adjoint loop cancels the logarithmic divergence a gaugino mass would normally induce in squark and slepton masses. The payoff is a spectrum fixed by very few parameters, with positive, finite, flavor-universal scalar masses, a negative Higgs mass squared driven by top/stop loops, and no new source of flavor or CP violation. If it holds, this is a competitor to gauge mediation and anomaly mediation rather than a variant of the MSSM.","feed_headline":"Gauginos get Dirac masses, and squarks stay flavor-blind","feed_subtitle":"A hidden D-term yields finite, flavor-universal sfermion masses with no logarithmic sensitivity to ultraviolet physics.","key_machinery":"The load-bearing object is the supersoft operator coupling the hidden field strength to the visible one and to the adjoint chiral superfield. Its supersymmetry breaking can be packaged in a spurion $W'^alpha/M = theta^alpha m_D$, so the question of whether scalar masses are renormalized becomes a question of which gauge-invariant supersymmetric counterterms can be built from that spurion. The authors argue the only candidate is the dimension-eight Kähler operator built from two hidden field strengths contracted with $Q^dagger Q$, suppressed by two powers of the cutoff, and therefore vanishing as the cutoff is taken to infinity. The explicit one-loop integral over gaugino, scalar, and pseudoscalar contributions confirms the cancellation term by term. Two secondary pieces of machinery do real work: the $D$-flatness that follows from integrating out the massive real adjoint (which suppresses the tree-level Higgs quartic unless explicit adjoint Majorana masses are added, in which case the quartic is rescaled by factors such as $(M_1^2 + delta_1^2 - 4m_1^2)/(M_1^2 + delta_1^2)$), and the wavefunction renormalization of the adjoint fields, which converts a universal $m_D$ at the mediation scale into the gauge-coupling-weighted gaugino masses at the weak scale.","core_discovery":"The claim is that a supersymmetric extension with $N=2$ gauge multiplets and $N=1$ matter admits a genuinely new kind of soft breaking, which the authors call supersoft. The breaking is carried by a single operator coupling the hidden $U(1)'$ field strength to the visible gauge field strength and the new adjoint superfield $A_j$, with a coefficient $1/M$. It generates a Dirac mass $m_D = D'/M$ pairing each gaugino with the adjoint fermion, and simultaneously gives the real scalar component of $A_j$ a mass, leaving the pseudoscalar massless in the minimal case. The central technical result is that the usual logarithmic divergence a gaugino mass would produce in squark and slepton masses is cancelled by the new scalar loop, so the one-loop scalar masses are finite and calculable, given by $m^2 = C_i(r)alpha_i m_i^2 log(delta^2/m_i^2)/pi$ and vanishing as $delta$ approaches $m_i$ from above. Because the breaking is transmitted only through gauge interactions, the resulting scalar masses are positive, CP-conserving, and flavor universal. The Higgs mass squared comes out negative through the two-loop top/stop contribution, so electroweak symmetry breaks radiatively. The spectrum is distinctive: gauginos in the multi-TeV range, squarks around 2–3 TeV, $R$-parity-even pseudoscalar adjoints, and, in unified versions, long-lived 'bachelor' fields carrying the quantum numbers of heavy GUT gauge bosons.","pith_inferences":["If the mechanism is right, the ratio of gaugino to squark mass is a fixed prediction rather than a free choice, so a single measurement of, say, the gluino mass together with a squark mass would over-determine the mediation scale $M$ and the $D$-term, giving a sharp consistency test.","The same operator can be written for any real representation of a gauge group, which suggests the construction generalizes beyond the standard-model gauge group to any hidden sector whose $D$-term is the dominant breaking source; the finiteness argument depends only on gauge invariance and the spurion power counting, not on the details of the visible sector.","The near-massless pseudoscalar of the $U(1)$ adjoint is the weakest link phenomenologically: without an added Majorana mass or trilinear coupling it is a light, $R$-parity-even, standard-model-singlet scalar, and cosmology would likely require it to be either heavy or diluted.","The claim that heavy first- and second-generation sfermions evade flavor bounds while remaining natural sits in tension with the usual expectation that naturalness prefers light stops; the paper resolves this by the absence of logarithmic running, which is exactly the point an explicit two-loop calculation in a UV completion would need to confirm."],"forward_implications":["The soft scalar spectrum is fixed by gauge quantum numbers alone, so squark and slepton masses are flavor universal by construction and the usual supersymmetric flavor-changing and CP problems are absent without any degeneracy assumption.","Gauginos are heavy Dirac fermions in the multi-TeV range while squarks sit near 2–3 TeV, so the LHC signatures differ sharply from the MSSM: no light bino lightest supersymmetric particle, and cascade decays ending in Higgsinos, a gravitino, or a neutral bachelor.","The theory predicts new $R$-parity-even states — pseudoscalar adjoints and, in unified versions, bachelor fields with GUT gauge-boson quantum numbers — some of which can be long-lived or, in $SU(3)^3$ unification, serve as dark matter.","Because the corrections to the Higgs mass squared are not logarithmically enhanced, stop masses of several TeV do not create a fine-tuning problem, unlike in the MSSM or in gauge mediation.","The $\\mu$ and $B\\mu$ parameters can be generated from the same supersymmetry breaking, either through a Giudice–Masiero term when $D \\sim (10^{11}\\,\\mathrm{GeV})^2$ or through a singlet coupled to messengers when the $D$-term is smaller."],"supporting_citations":[{"why":"Dine and MacIntire had previously noted that adding triplets, one of which can marry the $SU(2)$ gauginos, could be explained by the operator the present paper builds its whole mechanism on.","marker":"[23]"},{"why":"Hall and Randall's $U(1)_R$-symmetric supersymmetry is the earlier construction of Dirac gaugino masses that this paper generalizes and reinterprets.","marker":"[21]"},{"why":"Fischler et al.'s result that the Fayet–Iliopoulos $D$-term is not renormalized is what allows the authors to treat a small hidden-sector $D$-term as a stable input.","marker":"[30]"},{"why":"Randall and Sundrum supply both the list of desiderata the introduction measures the model against and the anomaly-mediation benchmark that the finite scalar masses must be compared to.","marker":"[1]"},{"why":"Kaplan, Kribs, and Schmaltz's gaugino mediation is the closest existing spectrum, and the paper's heavy-adjoint limit is explicitly argued to reproduce it.","marker":"[18]"},{"why":"Chacko et al.'s gaugino mediation provides the second reference spectrum used to calibrate how the present squark and slepton masses differ from known mediation schemes.","marker":"[19]"},{"why":"Deconstructed gaugino mediation is identified as the closest existing model to the heavy-extended-superpartner limit, with the gravitino mass as the distinguishing feature.","marker":"[24]"},{"why":"Giudice and Masiero's Kähler-potential solution to the $mu$ problem is the mechanism the paper adopts to generate $mu$ and $Bmu$ when the $D$-term is large.","marker":"[35]"},{"why":"Kanemura, Kasai, and Okada supply the two-Higgs-doublet formula for the light CP-even Higgs mass that the paper uses to check its spectrum against the LEP bound.","marker":"[43]"}],"fun_headline_variants":["Dirac gauginos from a hidden D-term, squarks flavor-blind","Supersoft breaking: finite sfermion masses from N=2 gauge multiplets","Hidden U(1) gives gauginos Dirac masses and squarks a flavor-blind spectrum","New supersoft operator cancels the log divergence in squark masses","Gauginos pair with adjoints, and scalar masses come out finite"],"cache_read_input_tokens":0,"weakest_assumption_plain":"The whole construction assumes that the hidden $U(1)'$ $D$-term is the only source of supersymmetry breaking reaching the visible sector, since any comparable $F$-term or Planck-suppressed Kähler contribution to sfermion masses would reintroduce the flavor violation and the cutoff sensitivity the mechanism is designed to eliminate.","fun_headline_variants_meta":{"raw":{"variants":["Dirac gauginos from a hidden D-term, squarks flavor-blind","Supersoft breaking: finite sfermion masses from N=2 gauge multiplets","Hidden U(1) gives gauginos Dirac masses and squarks a flavor-blind spectrum","New supersoft operator cancels the log divergence in squark masses","Gauginos pair with adjoints, and scalar masses come out finite"]},"model":"selfhosted/deepseek-v4.1-flash","effort":"low","attempts":1,"cost_usd":0.0,"raw_usage":{"total_tokens":1067,"prompt_tokens":978,"completion_tokens":89,"prompt_tokens_details":null,"completion_tokens_details":{"reasoning_tokens":0}},"tokens_in":978,"tokens_out":89,"duration_ms":1603,"image_pages":[],"temperature":1.0,"reasoning_budget":50,"reasoning_tokens":null,"transport_provider":"selfhosted","cache_read_input_tokens":0,"cache_creation_input_tokens":0},"cache_creation_input_tokens":0},"created_at":"2026-10-29T17:31:35.821557+00:00","model_set":{"reader":"selfhosted/deepseek-v4.1-flash"},"falsifier":"A light gluino near the weak scale, rather than the multi-TeV Dirac mass that the renormalization formula forces, would exclude the mechanism as constructed; likewise an observed flavor-dependent splitting among first- and second-generation squark masses would show that a non-universal contribution is present at the same order as the gauge-induced one. In the other direction, discovery of the $R$-parity-even pseudoscalar adjoints, or of long-lived charged states with the quantum numbers of GUT gauge bosons, would be direct support.","supporting_citations":[{"cited_title":"Supersymmetry, Naturalness, and Dynamical Supersymmetry Breaking","cited_arxiv_id":"hep-ph/9205227","evidence_quote":"Dine and MacIntire had previously noted that adding triplets, one of which can marry the $SU(2)$ gauginos, could be explained by the operator the present paper builds its whole mechanism on."},{"cited_title":null,"cited_arxiv_id":null,"evidence_quote":"Hall and Randall's $U(1)_R$-symmetric supersymmetry is the earlier construction of Dirac gaugino masses that this paper generalizes and reinterprets."},{"cited_title":null,"cited_arxiv_id":null,"evidence_quote":"Fischler et al.'s result that the Fayet–Iliopoulos $D$-term is not renormalized is what allows the authors to treat a small hidden-sector $D$-term as a stable input."},{"cited_title":"Out Of This World Supersymmetry Breaking","cited_arxiv_id":"hep-th/9810155","evidence_quote":"Randall and Sundrum supply both the list of desiderata the introduction measures the model against and the anomaly-mediation benchmark that the finite scalar masses must be compared to."},{"cited_title":"Supersymmetry Breaking through Transparent Extra Dimensions","cited_arxiv_id":"hep-ph/9911293","evidence_quote":"Kaplan, Kribs, and Schmaltz's gaugino mediation is the closest existing spectrum, and the paper's heavy-adjoint limit is explicitly argued to reproduce it."},{"cited_title":"Gaugino Mediated Supersymmetry Breaking","cited_arxiv_id":"hep-ph/9911323","evidence_quote":"Chacko et al.'s gaugino mediation provides the second reference spectrum used to calibrate how the present squark and slepton masses differ from known mediation schemes."},{"cited_title":"Deconstructing Gaugino Mediation","cited_arxiv_id":"hep-ph/0106098","evidence_quote":"Deconstructed gaugino mediation is identified as the closest existing model to the heavy-extended-superpartner limit, with the gravitino mass as the distinguishing feature."},{"cited_title":null,"cited_arxiv_id":null,"evidence_quote":"Giudice and Masiero's Kähler-potential solution to the $mu$ problem is the mechanism the paper adopts to generate $mu$ and $Bmu$ when the $D$-term is large."},{"cited_title":"Mass bounds of the lightest CP-even Higgs boson in the two-Higgs-doublet model","cited_arxiv_id":"hep-ph/9903289","evidence_quote":"Kanemura, Kasai, and Okada supply the two-Higgs-doublet formula for the light CP-even Higgs mass that the paper uses to check its spectrum against the LEP bound."}],"review_version":1}