Pith.

High Energy Physics - Phenomenology · arXiv:hep-ph/0305212 v1 · submitted 20 May 2003 · 32 references

Phenomenological Constraints on Patterns of Supersymmetry Breaking

J. Ellis (CERN), K.A. Olive (FTPI, U of Minnesota), Y. Santoso (FTPI, V.C. Spanos (FTPI

PDF · arXiv · The abstract, sentence by sentence · Cite

The paper says

“Specific models of supersymmetry breaking predict relations between the trilinear and bilinear soft supersymmetry breaking parameters A_0 and B_0 at the input scale.”

more of the abstract

In such models, the value of tan beta can be calculated as a function of the scalar masses m_0 and the gaugino masses m_1/2, which we assume to be universal. The experimental constraints on sparticle and Higgs masses, b to s gamma decay and the cold dark matter density Omega_CDM h^2 can then be used to constrain tan beta in such specific models of supersymmetry breaking. In the simplest Polonyi model with A_0 = (3 - sqrt3)m_0 = B_0 + m_0, we find 11 < tan beta < 20 (tan beta   4.15) for mu > 0 (mu < 0). We also discuss other models with A_0 = B_0 + m_0, finding that only the range -1.9 < A_0/m_0 < 2.5 is allowed for mu > 0, and the range 1.25 < A_0/m_0 < 4.8 for mu < 0. In these models, we find no solutions in the rapid-annihilation `funnels' or in the `focus-point' region. We also discuss the allowed range of tan beta in the no-scale model with A_0 = B_0 = 0. In all these models, most of the allowed regions are in the chi - stau_1 coannihilation `tail'.

from the abstract

Pith says

Machine review · deepseek-v4.1-flash · 13 Nov 2026 · what was read was not recorded · not checked by a person

Reviewed in 2026 with later literature in view.

It can be wrong. Challenge this review or reply to it.

Holds up, with conditions. A solid, standard CMSSM constraint map whose headline tan beta windows are quoted more precisely than the Higgs-mass cut behind them can support. This line is wrong

3 major objections · 7 minor

How often objections from reviews like this one are right: not yet measured

Are you an author? What you can do.

Not checked: figures, code, what the 32 references say.

The paper says, at Abstract, §1, §6 (Eqs. 14 and 17)

The review did not quote this passage.

Pith says: Objection 1 of 3 · major

The endpoints of the allowed  interval are not self-consistent across the manuscript. The abstract and Eq. (14) give −1.9 <  < 2.5 for µ > 0, but §1 states −1.9 <  < 2.25. For µ < 0 the abstract and §1 give 1.25 <  < 4.8, while Eq.

more of objection 1

(17) states 1.2 <  < 4.8. Since the paper's central claim is precisely that only a narrow, model-specific  window survives, these endpoints are the result, not incidental numbers, and a reader cannot tell which value is the output of the scan. Please reconcile the three places, state explicitly whether the discrepancy reflects a coarse scan step in  or a change of criterion between the figures and the summary, and make the abstract agree with the body.

The paper says, at §4 and §6, and the abstract's quoted windows

The review did not quote this passage.

Pith says: Objection 2 of 3 · major

The quoted tan beta windows carry no uncertainty estimate, yet their lower edges are set by the mh > 114 GeV cut applied to a FeynHiggs calculation with mt fixed at 175 GeV (footnote 2), and their upper edges by the relic-density window.

more of objection 2

The authors acknowledge the sensitivity in §6 — 'a larger fraction would be allowed if we allowed a 2-GeV error in the CMSSM Higgs mass calculation, or if mt turns out to be significantly greater than 175 GeV' — but the acknowledgement is not propagated: the abstract still presents '11 < tan beta < 20' as a hard result, and §5 attributes the lower bound directly to the Higgs constraint. Because the paper's selling point is that these windows discriminate among breaking patterns, the reader needs to know how much the endpoints move under a plausible theory error. A short table or paragraph giving the Polonyi window for, say, mh = 112 GeV and for mt = 179 GeV would settle whether the discrimination survives at the stated precision; if it does, say so, and if the lower edge moves by several units of tan beta, say that too.

The paper says, at §4

The review did not quote this passage.

Pith says: Objection 3 of 3 · major

The numerical pipeline behind the exclusion contours is under-specified for a scan paper. §4 states the relic-density requirement 0.094 ≤ Ωχh2 ≤ 0.129 and the b to s gamma requirement, but names no spectrum/RGE code and no numerical b to s gamma window, and FeynHiggs is cited only for mh.

more of objection 3

Since the upper edges of essentially every quoted tan beta window are set by Ωχh2 and the green b to s gamma shading removes a non-trivial part of the plane, a reader cannot reproduce either cut from the text. Please state the RGE/spectrum and relic-density codes and versions used, and give the explicit b to s gamma interval (with its error treatment) that defines the excluded region.

7 minor objections

The paper says, at Abstract vs §7

Pith says: minor objection 1 of 7

The abstract's statement that 'we find no solutions in the rapid-annihilation funnels or in the focus-point region' is scoped to the  = B̂ + 1 class, but §7 notes that for the no-scale case with running from the supergravity scale 'there is in fact a focus-point region at roughly the same position as in the CMSSM with A0 = 0'. Please qualify the abstract so the two statements cannot be read as contradicting each other.

The paper says, at Abstract

Pith says: minor objection 2 of 7

The parenthetical 'tan beta ≈ 4.15' for µ < 0 is ambiguous: §5 and §6 attribute 4.15 to the positive Polonyi case with µ < 0, while §6 gives 4.4–4.6 for the negative Polonyi case  = √3 − 3. Please make clear which case the abstract number refers to.

show 5 more

The paper says, at §6, Eq. (15)

Pith says: minor objection 3 of 7

The lower end of the quoted range, 3.7 < tan beta, is not tied to a specific Â, and it sits below the 4.4–4.6 quoted for the negative Polonyi model. Please state which  produces 3.7 so the reader can locate it in Fig. 3.

The paper says, at Figures 1, 2 and 4

Pith says: minor objection 4 of 7

The tan beta contour labels in the panels are crowded and, in the rendered figure, several labels overlap the mh = 114 GeV contour and each other, making it hard to tell which curve carries which value. Clearer labelling, or a small legend, would help; the physics content of the panels is fine.

The paper says, at §5, footnote 3

Pith says: minor objection 5 of 7

The observation that all tan beta contours intersect the m0 = 0 axis at the same m1/2 is a useful validation of the scan, since A0 = Â m0 vanishes there identically. It deserves a sentence in the main text rather than a footnote, as it is the cleanest internal check the paper offers.

The paper says, at §3, Eq. (12)

Pith says: minor objection 6 of 7

The tree-level expression for MZ² as typeset has a mismatched parenthesisation in the numerator; please check the equation against the standard form before publication.

The paper says, at Title and §2

Pith says: minor objection 7 of 7

The title is broken as 'Supersymmetr y' in the manuscript header, and the scalar-mass relation in §2 appears as 'm20 = m23/2 + Λ' where m0² and m3/2² are intended. These are typographic only but should be corrected in the version of record.

What would settle it

Recompute the Polonyi mu > 0 window (panel c of Fig. 1) twice: once with the nominal mh > 114 GeV, mt = 175 GeV, and once with mh > 112 GeV and mt = 178 GeV, holding all other cuts fixed. Report the shift in the lower tan beta edge. If the lower edge moves by more than roughly 2 units (e.g. 11 to 8-9), the quoted '11 < tan beta < 20' is not supported at the stated precision. As a byproduct of the same re-scan, resolve whether the mu > 0 upper A-hat edge is 2.5 or 2.25 by scanning A-hat in the range 2.2-2.5.

from the skeptic's reading

How the review went

4 readings by deepseek-v4.1-flash · 13 Nov 2026

  1. Reader holds up, with conditions confidence moderate
  2. Skeptic agrees 2 min 19 s · 15,795 tokens read, 7,656 written
  3. Editor wrote the verdict above 34 s · 16,921 tokens read, 1,863 written
  4. Referee minor revision: 3 major objections, 7 minor 1 min 47 s · 16,067 tokens read, 5,905 written

Not run on this paper: the simulated authors' defence.

Pith did not check this review's objections against the paper.

The review in full

The review in brief, machine-written

The thing to know up front: this is a competent, workmanlike CMSSM scan from the WMAP era, and its real contribution is not the A0 = B0 + m0 relation — that is Nilles–Srednicki–Wyler, Hall–Lykken–Weinberg and Polonyi, all cited — but the systematic map of tan beta as a derived quantity across the (m1/2, m0) plane once that relation is imposed. That is a genuine sharpening: tan beta stops being a free input and becomes a discriminator between breaking patterns. The secondary result, that the funnel and focus-point regions are absent in these boundary-condition families, is also worth having, and the explanation for the missing focus point (A0 proportional to m0 pushes it out faster than m0 grows) is an argument, not a hand-wave. The paper also states plainly that gmu-2 is not used to constrain tan beta, which is the right call given the state of that discrepancy then and now. What the paper does best is Section 5. The account of why the tan beta contours bend differently for mu > 0 and mu < 0, traced to the sign flip in the loop correction Delta_B from the mu tan beta terms, is the part I would actually read twice. It is the kind of reasoning that makes a scan paper more than a scan. Soft spots, in order of weight. First, the quoted numbers are not self-consistent at the stated precision: the mu > 0 upper edge on A-hat is 2.5 in the abstract and Eq. (14) but 2.25 in Section 1, and the mu < 0 lower edge is 1.25 in the abstract and Section 1 but 1.2 in Eq. (17). Small in physics terms, but the selling point is that these windows are narrow enough to discriminate, so the edges should agree. Second, and this is the one I would push on: the lower edge of nearly every window is set by mh > 114 GeV applied to FeynHiggs at mt = 175 GeV. The authors do acknowledge in Section 6 that a 2 GeV theory error or a heavier top would widen things, so this is not hidden — but nothing is propagated, and the abstract still quotes 11 < tan beta < 20 as if it were hard. A one-line error bar would fix it. Third, the null results on funnels and the focus point are scoped to a scan box of about 1 TeV, and the conclusions do not restate that. None of this threatens the central claim. The chain — impose the boundary relation, solve the one-loop tadpole conditions for tan beta, overlay LEP, b to s gamma and the WMAP window — is sound, and tan beta really is over-determined here rather than relabelled. Who should read it: anyone working on CMSSM boundary conditions or using tan beta as a model discriminant. It deserves a serious referee, mainly to force the error budget and the number reconciliation.

The strongest objection

The central claim is that imposing A0 = B0 + m0 makes tan beta a derived function of (m1/2, m0), and that the surviving space yields narrow, model-specific windows quoted as exact numbers (e.g. 11 < tan beta < 20 for Polonyi, mu > 0). For those numbers to function as a model discriminator, their edges must be robust. The lower edge of nearly every window is set by the mh > 114 GeV cut applied to a FeynHiggs calculation with mt fixed at 175 GeV (Section 4, footnote 2). Section 5 states explicitly that 'the Higgs constraint ... requires tan beta >~ 11' in the Polonyi case, and Section 6 concedes that 'a larger fraction would be allowed if we allowed a 2-GeV error in the CMSSM Higgs mass calculation, or if mt turns out to be significantly greater than 175 GeV.' The authors therefore acknowledge the sensitivity but do not propagate it: no uncertainty is attached to any quoted window, and the abstract still presents '11 < tan beta < 20' as a hard result. A second, unacknowledged symptom is that the A-hat edges are internally inconsistent: the mu > 0 upper edge is 2.5 in the abstract and Eq. (14) but 2.25 in Section 1, and the mu < 0 lower edge is 1.25 in the abstract and Section 1 but 1.2 in Eq. (17). These are not fatal to the qualitative conclusion (the windows are narrow), but they show the quoted numbers are not self-consistent at the stated precision, which is precisely the property the paper's discriminator claim relies on. The unresolved issue is not the mh cut itself (standard for the era) but the failure to convert an acknowledged theory uncertainty into a stated error bar, compounded by the internal inconsistency.

The reader's weakest_assumption correctly identifies the mh > 114 GeV hard cut at mt = 175 GeV as the load-bearing premise for the lower edges of the quoted windows, and the reader's rationale already notes both the missing uncertainty budget and the 2.5-vs-2.25 / 1.25-vs-1.2 inconsistency. I agree with that diagnosis and would only sharpen the framing: the authors do acknowledge the mh/mt sensitivity in Section 6, so the unresolved defect is the failure to propagate it into the abstract numbers plus the internal inconsistency, not the choice of cut itself. The physics chain (impose A0 = B0 + m0, solve the electroweak conditions for tan beta at each (m1/2, m0), overlay LEP, b to s gamma and relic-density cuts) is structurally sound, and the qualitative explanations in Section 5 (the sign flip of Delta_B for mu < 0 and the resulting contour-shape difference between Figs. 1d and 2b) are argued rather than asserted. The relic-density upper edges carry a parallel, unquantified theory uncertainty, but the reader's focus on the Higgs-set lower edges is the more load-bearing choice because those edges set the headline lower bounds. One secondary observation worth recording: Section 1 asserts that for any (m1/2, m0) the B0 constraint 'is satisfied for only one specific value of tan beta' without proof, while the Section 5 discussion of non-monotonic B behaviour and looping contours raises the question of root multiplicity; this is speculative and I do not rest the critique on it, but a uniqueness check would strengthen the 'derived function' claim. None of this moves the verdict: the qualitative conclusion (narrow, model-specific windows) survives, but the quantitative discriminator claim needs the error propagation and the inconsistency resolved. CONDITIONAL remains the right verdict, so I recommend UNCHANGED.

The referee's report

The idea is genuinely useful and, if the numbers hold, it converts tan beta from a fitted nuisance parameter into a model discriminator, which is a real gain for LHC/ILC-era interpretation of a CMSSM-like spectrum. The scan is broad in the right ways: both signs of µ, several values of  including both Polonyi signs, the no-scale boundary condition treated separately, and the WMAP relic-density window imposed rather than a loose upper bound. The negative results are stated as falsifiable predictions (no funnel below tan beta ≈ 45 for µ > 0, no focus point in the  = B̂ + 1 class), and the observation in footnote 3 that all tan beta contours meet the m0 = 0 axis at the same m1/2 is a nice internal consistency check of the scan, since A0 =  m0 vanishes there for every Â. The paper is also careful to state that the gµ − 2 favoured region is displayed but not used to constrain tan beta, which is the right call given the state of the e+e− versus tau data discrepancy at the time. These are the strengths that make the paper worth publishing once the numerical bookkeeping is tightened.

Pith's reading of the paper (a machine's summary, not the authors')

Supersymmetry, if it exists, leaves behind a set of soft parameters describing how the unseen partner particles differ in mass from the known ones. The most economical assumption is that these parameters take one common value each at the grand-unification scale: a common scalar mass, a common gaugino mass, a common trilinear coupling A0, and a bilinear coupling B0. Specific proposals for how supersymmetry is broken predict a relation between A0 and B0. The simplest supergravity models give B0 = A0 minus m0, and the original Polonyi model pins A0 to (3 minus sqrt3) times m0. No-scale models give A0 = B0 = 0. Once such a relation is imposed, the electroweak symmetry-breaking conditions no longer leave tan beta free: for each choice of the common scalar and gaugino masses, exactly one value of tan beta makes the observed Z boson mass come out right. The authors scan the plane of scalar versus gaugino mass, solve for tan beta at each point, and overlay the experimental exclusions: chargino and slepton mass limits from LEP, the LEP Higgs mass limit, the measured rate of b to s gamma, and the WMAP cold dark matter density. The surviving regions are narrow, and they sit mostly along the strip where the lightest neutralino and the stau are nearly degenerate and annihilate efficiently. In the Polonyi model with positive mu, tan beta lands between 11 and 20; with negative mu only a sliver near tan beta of 4.15 survives. The rapid-annihilation funnel and the focus-point region, both present in the general CMSSM, do not appear.

Core claim. The load-bearing assertion is that imposing a specific A0-B0 relation turns tan beta into a derived function of (m1/2, m0), and that the surviving parameter space then yields narrow, model-specific tan beta windows. Concretely, from the abstract and Section 6: 'In the simplest Polonyi model with A_0 = (3 - sqrt{3})m_0 = B_0 + m_0, we find 11 < tan beta < 20 (tan beta ~ 4.15) for mu > 0 (mu < 0)', and 'only the range -1.9 < A_0/m_0 < 2.5 is allowed for mu > 0, and the range 1.25 < A_0/m_0 < 4.8 for mu < 0'. If correct, tan beta becomes a model discriminator rather than a free fit parameter.

The premise it rests on. The weakest load-bearing premise is that the LEP Higgs lower limit mh > 114 GeV can be applied as a hard, error-free cut to a two-loop FeynHiggs calculation with mt fixed at 175 GeV. Section 4 states 'We apply the standard LEP constraints ... mh > 114 GeV', and footnote 2 fixes 'mt = 175 GeV'. Section 6 then concedes that 'a larger fraction would be allowed if we allowed a 2-GeV error in the CMSSM Higgs mass calculation, or if mt turns out to be significantly greater than 175 GeV'. Since the lower edge of nearly every quoted tan beta window is set by the Higgs contour (for example the 11 lower bound in the Polonyi case), a 2 GeV shift in the theory error moves the headline numbers.

Check this review

Pith stored no record of this review's passes and took no fingerprint of it. Reviews made by code from 13 Nov 2026 on carry both.

How often reviews like this one are right

Reviews like this one: written by deepseek-v4.1-flash, where what was read was not recorded.

How often objections from reviews like this one are right: not yet measured

Every value above, in the review's public record (JSON)

Reviews by people

This review was written by a machine. No person has reviewed this paper on Pith yet. A scientist listed on Pith can review it for a fee, and their review is published here whatever it concludes.

Request a human review

How Pith checks papers · The full audit of this paper

The paper

Abstract

Specific models of supersymmetry breaking predict relations between the trilinear and bilinear soft supersymmetry breaking parameters A_0 and B_0 at the input scale. In such models, the value of tan beta can be calculated as a function of the scalar masses m_0 and the gaugino masses m_1/2, which we assume to be universal. The experimental constraints on sparticle and Higgs masses, b to s gamma decay and the cold dark matter density Omega_CDM h^2 can then be used to constrain tan beta in such specific models of supersymmetry breaking. In the simplest Polonyi model with A_0 = (3 - sqrt3)m_0 = B_0 + m_0, we find 11 < tan beta < 20 (tan beta   4.15) for mu > 0 (mu < 0). We also discuss other models with A_0 = B_0 + m_0, finding that only the range -1.9 < A_0/m_0 < 2.5 is allowed for mu > 0, and the range 1.25 < A_0/m_0 < 4.8 for mu < 0. In these models, we find no solutions in the rapid-annihilation `funnels' or in the `focus-point' region. We also discuss the allowed range of tan beta in the no-scale model with A_0 = B_0 = 0. In all these models, most of the allowed regions are in the chi - stau_1 coannihilation `tail'.

The paper's own sentences, arranged, kept beside the review and separate from it. Each label is drawn from a closed vocabulary; the number beside it is the probability the classifier gave that label. No sentence in this record was written by a model.

abstract compiled · 2026-09-23

The authors' main claim, as the classifier picked it out 0.83

“In all these models, most of the allowed regions are in the chi - stau_1 coannihilation `tail'.”

How the main claim is stated: asserted 0.99

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.02 · states limitation 0.73 · human participants 0.01 · controlled comparison 0.02 · randomized assignment 0.01 · states quantitative result 0.99 · compares with prior results 0.10 · mentions code or data availability 0.02

The abstract, sentence by sentence

This table labels the abstract only (arXiv listing abstract v1). The number is the probability the classifier gave the label.

SentenceRoleThe authors' own workStates the main conclusionStrength
Specific models of supersymmetry breaking predict relations between the trilinear and bilinear soft supersymmetry breaking parameters A_0 and B_0 at the input scale. background 1.00 0.06 0.05 asserted 0.98
In such models, the value of tan beta can be calculated as a function of the scalar masses m_0 and the gaugino masses m_{1/2}, which we assume to be universal. method 0.76 0.33 0.04 asserted 0.98
The experimental constraints on sparticle and Higgs masses, b to s gamma decay and the cold dark matter density Omega_{CDM} h^2 can then be used to constrain tan beta in such specific models of supersymmetry breaking. method 0.91 0.40 0.10 asserted 0.81
In the simplest Polonyi model with A_0 = (3 - sqrt{3})m_0 = B_0 + m_0, we find 11 < tan beta < 20 (tan beta ~ 4.15) for mu > 0 (mu < 0). result 1.00 0.94 0.23 asserted 1.00
We also discuss other models with A_0 = B_0 + m_0, finding that only the range -1.9 < A_0/m_0 < 2.5 is allowed for mu > 0, and the range 1.25 < A_0/m_0 < 4.8 for mu < 0. result 1.00 0.92 0.12 asserted 1.00
In these models, we find no solutions in the rapid-annihilation `funnels' or in the `focus-point' region. result 1.00 0.95 0.16 asserted 1.00
We also discuss the allowed range of tan beta in the no-scale model with A_0 = B_0 = 0. contribution 0.94 0.71 0.04 asserted 0.56
In all these models, most of the allowed regions are in the chi - stau_1 coannihilation `tail'. result 0.98 0.88 0.25 asserted 0.99

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: theoretical result 0.91 · evidence from simulation or computation 0.63

What was examined, and what was not

Sources read

  • arXiv listing abstract v1

Not examined

  • full text
  • figures and tables
  • references and citing sentences
  • relations to other papers

Levels run

  • P abstract

Not run

  • S sections
  • T body sentences
  • C citations
  • R cross-paper relations

How the labels were made

Compiled by classifier-1.13-20260917 via OpenRouter, question bank abstract-p1-20260923, 2026-09-23: 1 request, 6,570 input tokens, $0.0003 reported.

Every quoted sentence on this record is the authors'. Every label is from Pith's closed vocabulary, with the probability shown beside it. This record as JSON

Figures (4)
Figure 1 of the paper
Figure 1. Examples of (m1/2, m0) planes with contours of tan β superposed, for µ > 0 and (a) Aˆ = −1.5, Bˆ = Aˆ − 1, (b) Aˆ = 0.75, Bˆ = Aˆ − 1, (c) the simplest Polonyi model with Aˆ = 3 − √ 3, Bˆ = Aˆ − 1 and (d) Aˆ = 2.0, Bˆ = Aˆ − 1. In each panel, we show the regions excluded by the LEP lower limits on MSSM particles, those ruled out by b → sγ decay [26] (medium green shading), and those excluded because the LSP would be charged (dark red shading). The region favoured by the WMAP range ΩCDMh 2 = 0.1126+0.0081 −0.0091 has light turquoise shading. The region suggested by gµ − 2 is medium (
Figure 3 of the paper
Figure 3. The ranges of tan β allowed if Bˆ = Aˆ−1 for µ > 0 (solid lines) and µ < 0 (dashed lines). The Polonyi model corresponds to Aˆ ≃ ±1.3. Also shown as ‘error bars’ are the ranges of tan β allowed in the no-scale case Aˆ = Bˆ = 0 for µ > 0 (upper) and µ < 0 (lower). 12

Showing 2 of the paper's 4 figures. Figures are the authors', reproduced from the paper.

References (32)
  1. [1] For reviews, see: H. P. Nilles, Phys. Rep. 110 (1984) 1; A. Brignole, L. E. Ibanez and C. Munoz, arXiv:hep-ph/9707209, published in Perspectives on supersymmetry, ed. G. L. Kane, pp. 125-148 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  2. [2] J. Ellis, T. Falk, G. Ganis, K. A. Olive and M. Schmitt, Phys. Rev. D58 (1998) 095002 [arXiv:hep-ph/9801445].; J. R. Ellis, K. A. Olive and Y. Santoso, New J. Phys. 4 (2002) 32 [arXiv:hep-ph/0202110] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  3. [3] J. R. Ellis, T. Falk, G. Ganis and K. A. Olive, Phys. Rev. D 62 (2000) 075010 [arXiv:hep- ph/0004169] on Pith
  4. [4] J. R. Ellis, T. Falk, G. Ganis, K. A. Olive and M. Srednicki, Phys. Lett . B 510 (2001) 236 [arXiv:hep-ph/0102098] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  5. [5] J. R. Ellis, K. A. Olive, Y. Santoso and V. C. Spanos, arXiv:hep-ph/ 0303043 on Pith
  6. [6] A. B. Lahanas, D. V. Nanopoulos and V. C. Spanos, Phys. Rev. D 62 (2000) 023515 [arXiv:hep-ph/9909497]; V. Barger and C. Kao, Phys. Lett. B518 (2001) 117 [arXiv:hep- ph/0106189]; L. Roszkowski, R. Ruiz de Austri and T. Nihei, JHEP 0108 (2001) 024 [arXiv:hep-ph/0106334]; A. Djo... on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  7. [7] J. R. Ellis, T. Falk and K. A. Olive, Phys. Lett. B 444 (1998) 367 [arXiv:hep- ph/9810360]; J. R. Ellis, T. Falk, K. A. Olive and M. Srednicki, Astropa rt. Phys. 13 (2000) 181 [Erratum-ibid. 15 (2001) 413] [arXiv:hep-ph/9905481]; R. Arnowitt, B. Dutta and Y. Santoso, Nucl. Phy... on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  8. [8] M. E. G´ omez, G. Lazarides and C. Pallis, Phys. Rev. D D61 (2000) 123512 [arXiv:hep- ph/9907261]; Phys. Lett. B487 (2000) 313 [arXiv:hep-ph/0004028]; Nucl. Phys. B B638 14 (2002) 165 [arXiv:hep-ph/0203131]; T. Nihei, L. Roszkowski and R. Ruiz de Austri, JHEP 0207 (2002) 024 [... on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  9. [9] M. Drees and M. M. Nojiri, Phys. Rev. D 47 (1993) 376 [arXiv:hep-ph/9207234]; H. Baer and M. Brhlik, Phys. Rev. D 53 (1996) 597 [arXiv:hep-ph/9508321]; H. Baer, M. Brhlik, M. A. Diaz, J. Ferrandis, P. Mercadante, P. Quintana and X. Tata, Phys. Rev. D 63 (2001) 015007 [arXiv:he... on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  10. [10] J. L. Feng, K. T. Matchev and T. Moroi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84 (2000) 2322; J. L. Feng, K. T. Matchev and T. Moroi, Phys. Rev. D61 (2000) 075005; J. L. Feng, K. T. Matchev and F. Wilczek, Phys. Lett. B482 (2000) 388 on Pith
  11. [11] K. L. Chan, U. Chattopadhyay and P. Nath, Phys. Rev. D 58 (1998) 096004 [arXiv:hep- ph/9710473] on Pith
  12. [12] E. Cremmer, S. Ferrara, C. Kounnas and D. V. Nanopoulos, Ph ys. Lett. B 133 (1983) 61; J. R. Ellis, A. B. Lahanas, D. V. Nanopoulos and K. Tamvakis, Phy s. Lett. B 134 (1984) 429; A. B. Lahanas and D. V. Nanopoulos, Phys. Rept. 145 (1987) 1 on Pith
  13. [13] J. R. Ellis, D. V. Nanopoulos and K. A. Olive, Phys. Lett. B 525 (2002) 308 [arXiv:hep- ph/0109288] on Pith
  14. [14] E. Cremmer, B. Julia, J. Scherk, S. Ferrara, L. Girardello and P . Van Nieuwenhuizen, Phys. Lett. 79B (1978) 231; and Nucl. Phys. B147 (1979) 105; E. Cremmer, S. Ferrara, L. Girardello and A. Van Proeyen, Phys. Lett. 116B (1982) 231; and Nucl. Phys. B212 (1983) 413; R. Arnowit... on Pith
  15. [15] H.-P. Nilles, M. Srednicki and D. Wyler, Phys. Lett. 120B (1983) 345; L.J. Hall, J. Lykken and S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. D27 (1983) 2359 on Pith
  16. [16] J. Polonyi, Budapest preprint KFKI-1977-93 (1977) on Pith
  17. [17] R. Barbieri, S. Ferrara and C.A. Savoy, Phys. Lett. 119B (1982) 343 on Pith
  18. [18] M. Endo, M. Matsumura and M. Yamaguchi, Phys. Lett. B 544 (2002) 161 [arXiv:hep- ph/0204349]. 15 on Pith
  19. [19] R. Arnowitt and P. Nath, Phys. Rev. D 46 (1992) 3981; V. D. Barger, M. S. Berger and P. Ohmann, Phys. Rev. D 49 (1994) 4908 [arXiv:hep-ph/9311269] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  20. [20] W. de Boer, R. Ehret and D. I. Kazakov, Z. Phys. C 67 (1995) 647 [arXiv:hep- ph/9405342]; D. M. Pierce, J. A. Bagger, K. T. Matchev and R. J. Z hang, Nucl. Phys. B 491 (1997) 3 [arXiv:hep-ph/9606211] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
show 12 more
  1. [21] M. Carena, J. R. Ellis, A. Pilaftsis and C. E. Wagner, Nucl. Phys. B 625 (2002) 345 [arXiv:hep-ph/0111245] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  2. [22] Joint LEP 2 Supersymmetry Working Group, Combined LEP Chargino Results, up to 208 GeV , http://lepsusy.web.cern.ch/lepsusy/www/inos moriond01/charginos pub.html on Pith
  3. [23] Joint LEP 2 Supersymmetry Working Group, Combined LEP Selectron/Smuon/Stau Results, 183-208 GeV , http://lepsusy.web.cern.ch/lepsusy/www/sleptons summer02/slep 2002.html on Pith
  4. [24] LEP Higgs Working Group for Higgs boson searches, OPAL Collabo ration, ALEPH Collaboration, DELPHI Collaboration and L3 Collaboration, Search for the Standard Model Higgs Boson at LEP , CERN-EP/2003-011, available from http://lephiggs.web.cern.ch/LEPHIGGS/papers/index.html on Pith
  5. [25] S. Heinemeyer, W. Hollik and G. Weiglein, Comput. Phys. Commun. 124 (2000) 76 [arXiv:hep-ph/9812320]; S. Heinemeyer, W. Hollik and G. Weiglein, Eur. Phys. J. C 9 (1999) 343 [arXiv:hep-ph/9812472] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  6. [26] M.S. Alam et al., [CLEO Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 74 (1995) 2885 as updated in S. Ahmed et al., CLEO CONF 99-10; BELLE Collaboration, BELLE-CON F-0003, contribution to the 30th International conference on High-Ener gy Physics, Osaka, 2000. See also K. Abe et al. , [Bell... on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  7. [27] G. W. Bennett et al. [Muon g-2 Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 89 (2002) 101804 [Erratum-ibid. 89 (2002) 129903] [arXiv:hep-ex/0208001]. 16 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  8. [28] M. Davier, S. Eidelman, A. Hocker and Z. Zhang, arXiv:hep-ph/0 208177; see also K. Hagiwara, A. D. Martin, D. Nomura and T. Teubner, arXiv:hep-ph /0209187; F. Jegerlehner, unpublished, as reported in M. Krawczyk, arXiv:he p-ph/0208076 on Pith
  9. [29] C. L. Bennett et al. , arXiv:astro-ph/0302207; D. N. Spergel et al. , arXiv:astro- ph/0302209 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  10. [30] U. Chattopadhyay, A. Corsetti and P. Nath, arXiv:hep-ph/0 303201; H. Baer and C. Balazs, arXiv:hep-ph/0303114; A. B. Lahanas and D. V. Nanopo ulos, arXiv:hep- ph/0303130 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  11. [31] J. R. Ellis, K. A. Olive and Y. Santoso, Astropart. Phys. 18 (2003) 395 [arXiv:hep- ph/0112113]; C. Boehm, A. Djouadi and M. Drees, Phys. Rev. D 62 (2000) 035012 [arXiv:hep-ph/9911496] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  12. [32] J. Tabei and H. Hotta, arXiv:hep-ph/0208039. 17 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
Cited by 20 Pith papers

Reviewed papers on Pith that cite this one. The full citation record

  1. FlexibleSUSY 2.0: Extensions to investigate the phenomenology of SUSY and non-SUSY models hep-ph · Oct 2017
  2. Nucleosynthesis Constraints on a Massive Gravitino in Neutralino Dark Matter Scenarios astro-ph.CO · Jul 2009
  3. Bound-State Effects on Light-Element Abundances in Gravitino Dark Matter Scenarios astro-ph · Aug 2006
  4. Phenomenological Aspects of No-Scale Inflation Models hep-ph · Mar 2015
  5. Universality in Pure Gravity Mediation hep-ph · Feb 2013
  6. Strong moduli stabilization and phenomenology hep-ph · Sep 2012
  7. Supersymmetry Breaking due to Moduli Stabilization in String Theory hep-th · Nov 2011
  8. Modulus-dominated SUSY-breaking soft terms in F-theory and their test at LHC hep-ph · May 2008
  9. Beyond the CMSSM without an Accelerator: Proton Decay and Direct Dark Matter Detection hep-ph · Sep 2015
  10. The Higgs Mass beyond the CMSSM hep-ph · Dec 2012
  11. Supersymmetry in Light of 1/fb of LHC Data hep-ph · Oct 2011
  12. Benchmark Models, Planes, Lines and Points for Future SUSY Searches at the LHC hep-ph · Sep 2011
  13. Implications of Initial LHC Searches for Supersymmetry hep-ph · Feb 2011
  14. Frequentist Analysis of the Parameter Space of Minimal Supergravity hep-ph · Nov 2010
  15. Varying the Universality of Supersymmetry-Breaking Contributions to MSSM Higgs Boson Masses hep-ph · May 2008
  16. Phenomenological Indications of the Scale of Supersymmetry hep-ph · Feb 2006
  17. Building Models of Inflation in No-Scale Supergravity hep-ph · Sep 2020
  18. Supersymmetry and Dark Matter in Light of LHC 2010 and Xenon100 Data hep-ph · Jun 2011
  19. Supersymmetric Dark Matter Candidates astro-ph.CO · Jan 2010
  20. Dark Matter Detection in the Light of Recent Experimental Results hep-ph · Sep 2003
How the literature uses it

39 arXiv papers cite this in 57 sentences

Each citing sentence is taken from the citing paper's LaTeX source and typed by Pith's classifier. A label appears at probability 0.8 or more (0.95 for support), a contest at 0.7 or more; the quoted words are the citing authors'. How each label was checked · JSON

Papers citing it · 41 sentences without a confident label

Uses its method or tool 1 paper
  • We recall that, there is just one free parameter in addition to these, which may be taken as $A_0$: the electroweak vacuum conditions ([ref], [ref]) may be used to determine $tanβ$ at each point on the plane [ref] .

    The Higgs Mass beyond the CMSSM · Impacts on mSUGRA models · 0.83

Cites it as support 1 paper
  • Indeed it is known [ref] that only a limited portion of parameter space (defined by $m_0, m_1/2$ and $A_0$) possesses solutions for $tanβ$. 2) There is no guarantee that solutions with $μ^2 > 0$ exist when $m_0$ is very large.

    Strong moduli stabilization and phenomenology · GM Supergravity and Super-GUT phenomenology · 0.96

Cites it as background 12 papers
  • Therefore, we have focused on making estimates within the constrained MSSM (CMSSM) [ref] in which soft SUSY-breaking mass parameters are assumed to be universal at the GUT scale, in the simplest generalization of this model in which the universality is relaxed to allow non-universal Higgs masses (NUHM1) [ref] , in a very constrained model in which a supplementary relation is imposed on trilinear and bilinear soft SUSY-breaking masses (VCMSSM) [ref] , and in minimal supergravity (mSUGRA) in which, in addition, the gravitino mass $m_3/2$ is set equal to the common soft SUSY-breaking scalar mass $m_0$ before renormalization [ref] .

    Implications of Initial LHC Searches for Supersymmetry · Introduction · 0.93

  • Our framework is CMSSM and mSUGRA models [ref] , where the NSP could be either the lighter stau or the lightest neutralino.

    Gravitino Dark Matter and Light Element Adundances · Results and Discussion · 0.88

  • Therefore, we have focused on making estimates within simplified versions of the MSSM, specifically the constrained MSSM (the CMSSM) [ref] in which soft SUSY-breaking mass parameters are assumed to be universal at the GUT scale, in the simplest generalization of this model in which the universality is relaxed to allow non-universal Higgs masses (the NUHM1) [ref] , in a very constrained model in which the supplementary relation $A_0 = B_0 + m_0$ [We recall that our convention [ref] for the sign of $A_0$ is opposite to that of SoftSUSY.] is imposed on trilinear and bilinear soft SUSY-breaking masses in the CMSSM (the VCMSSM) [ref] , and in minimal supergravity (mSUGRA) in which, in addition, the gravitino mass $m_3/2$ is set equal to the common soft SUSY-breaking scalar mass $m_0$ before renormalization [ref] .

    Supersymmetry and Dark Matter in Light of LHC 2010 and Xenon100 Data · Introduction · 0.93

Challenges and discussion

Disagree with the review, or know something it missed? Leave a comment, or challenge this review formally: a challenge becomes a permanent entry in this paper's record, and its decision is published here.

No comments yet.

Sign in to comment