Implications of Supersymmetry Breaking with a Little Hierarchy between Gauginos and Scalars

James D. Wells (MCTP)

REVIEW

Implications of Supersymmetry Breaking with a Little Hierarchy between Gauginos and Scalars

James D. Wells (MCTP)

High Energy Physics - Phenomenology · Submitted 13 Jun 2003 · 24 references

Pith's verdict: An early, honest sketch of the heavy-scalar/light-gaugino program: the synthesis is useful, but the two claims that make the spectrum viable are asserted, not computed.

T0 · AI review

How this review was made: An AI referee (selfhosted/deepseek-v4.1-flash) read the paper on October 29, 2026 and answered a fixed list of questions about it. T0 is the starting level every paper gets. The levels describe how deeply Pith has checked the paper, never the authors.

T0 AI review An AI read the paper and answered a fixed list of questions.
T1 Audit Automatic checks that the references and files the paper relies on exist and match.
T2 Compute The paper's code or calculations re-run with the same results.
T3 Formal statement The claims written out in a formal math language a computer can read.
T4 Proof Those claims proved, and the proof checked by computer.

How Pith checks papers →

· 4 major objections · 6 minor · Ask about this paper · The compiled record · Read the full review →

Challenge this review Comment (0) Read on arXiv ↗

Cite ▾

arXiv IDhep-ph/0306127 (version 3)

Pith ID4ZKGMDTK, Pith's permanent record of this paper and its review

CitationJames D. Wells (MCTP). "Implications of Supersymmetry Breaking with a Little Hierarchy between Gauginos and Scalars." arXiv:hep-ph/0306127 (2003). https://pith.science/paper/4ZKGMDTK

Cite this reviewBibTeX for Pith's review of this paper

Claim paper

Why Pith says this

Highlight any text to comment on it.

Editor's note

read the letter

This is Wells's 2003 short letter making the case for weak-scale anomaly-mediated gauginos sitting under trans-TeV scalars. Read it as an early program statement rather than a completed analysis. The mechanism is not his — he says so plainly, crediting Giudice-Luty-Murayama-Rattazzi in the introduction and again in the spectrum section — so the contribution is the synthesis and a handful of concrete phenomenological estimates. Those estimates are the useful part: the LHC gluino-pair reach near 2 TeV at 100 fb^-1, the observation that scalars above ~5 TeV push the lightest Higgs over 114 GeV for all tan beta consistent with perturbative Yukawa couplings, and the point that a Wino LSP annihilates too efficiently for table-top detectors but gives a monochromatic photon line worth chasing. The dark matter discussion is the strongest section; the argument that heavy scalars suppress dimension-five proton decay and flavor/CP problems is standard and correctly stated. He is also upfront about the cost — naturalness is abandoned, and the mu problem gets no solution here (he says as much in §2). That honesty counts for something and I would not hold it against the paper. Where it is soft: the viability claim rests on the high-scale ordering in Eq. 9 actually producing radiative EWSB at the measured m_Z. §2 concedes that mSUGRA with m0 >> m1/2 fails this test, then says the non-universal ordering 'normally will develop' breaking. No RG running, no mu value, no demonstration that Eq. 8 closes. Same for the Higgs mass floor — asserted, not computed. Those are the load-bearing claims and they need a numerical check before 'viable' is the right word. Minor: the LHC reach carries no stated uncertainty, and one gauge-unification citation in the conclusions is a private communication and a talk, which is thin support for a quantitative claim. None of this is fatal to the idea; it is a letter-length sketch and reads like one. Worth a referee's time, and worth reading if you care where the split-SUSY line of thinking started.

Referee report

Significance

If the spectrum is viable, the paper assembles a coherent and largely falsifiable phenomenological program out of a single theoretical hypothesis, and it does so with unusual candor about the cost: the fine-tuning of the electroweak potential is explicitly abandoned rather than argued away. The most valuable features are the sharp, experiment-facing predictions that follow from the Wino LSP: a monochromatic photon line at E_gamma = m_Wino (and a second line at the Z-gamma endpoint of Eq. (14)) with a cross-section quoted in a narrow range, no spin-independent direct detection signal, and a gluino-pair signature of at least four jets plus missing energy with a stated 2 TeV reach at 100 fb^-1. These are the kind of statements that can be confirmed or excluded, and the paper is careful to distinguish results it derives from results it quotes from Refs. [10] and [21]. The main caveat is that several of the advertised 'perks' are asserted at the level of a sentence rather than demonstrated, so the significance of the program depends on quantitative checks that the letter does not supply.

Major objections (4)

[§2, Eqs. (8)-(9)] The viability of the entire spectrum rests on the assertion that the high-scale ordering m_Hu^2 < m_Hd^2 < m_tilde{t}^2 (Eq. (9)) 'normally will develop' radiative electroweak symmetry breaking. The paper concedes that minimal supergravity with m0 >> m1/2 fails this test, and then offers no renormalization-group demonstration for the non-universal case: no running is shown, no value of mu is computed, and there is no check that Eq. (8) can be satisfied with m_Z = 91 GeV without a mu term much larger than the scalar masses. Since every phenomenological claim in §§3-4 presupposes that the spectrum exists, a single benchmark point would materially strengthen the paper: choose m_Hu, m_Hd and m_tilde{t} at the unification scale satisfying Eq. (9), run to the weak scale, and report the resulting m_Z and the required mu. If the required mu is far above the stop mass, the tuning is worse than the qualitative discussion suggests and should be stated; if Eq. (8) cannot be satisfied at all, the spectrum is not viable independently of the perks.
[§1 and abstract (abstract:s3)] The claim that 'if all scalar superpartner masses are above 5 TeV the lightest Higgs mass boson is generally always above 114 GeV for all values of tan beta' is one of the four advertised benefits and is stated without calculation or citation. A leading-log estimate does not obviously support it at low tan beta: with m_Z^2 cos^2 2 beta as the tree-level term, tan beta = 2 gives roughly 55 GeV at tree level, and the one-loop top-stop correction with 5 TeV stops and negligible mixing gives only of order 105 GeV, rising to about 112 GeV at 10 TeV. The situation is aggravated by the paper's own framework, since §1 notes that A-terms are loop-suppressed in anomaly mediation along with the gaugino masses, so the stop mixing that would lift the low-tan-beta Higgs mass is small by construction. The claim may well survive once the full one-loop correction and the mixing parameter are included, but the manuscript should show the numbers, or at minimum state the assumed A_t and the scalar mass at which the bound is quoted, and soften 'for any value of tan beta' if the low-tan-beta corner requires large mixing.
[§3, comparison with Eqs. (4)-(6)] The text states that 'a 2 TeV gluino mass would correspond to a Wino mass of just over 700 GeV and scalar superpartner masses of nearly 100 TeV.' The scalar mass is consistent with Eqs. (4)-(6), since M3 = m3/2/45 gives m3/2 ≈ 90 TeV for a 2 TeV gluino, but the Wino mass is not: the same relations give M2/M3 = 45/360 = 1/8, hence M2 ≈ 250 GeV, not 700 GeV. The discrepancy is roughly a factor of three and should be corrected, because this mapping is what connects the LHC reach estimate to the LEP Wino bound of Eq. (10) and to the dark matter discussion of §4; a reader using the quoted 700 GeV would draw the wrong conclusion about how much of the scenario the 2 TeV reach covers.
[§4, Eq. (12)] The statement that 'if the Wino LSP mass is above about 2.5 TeV one finds that the thermal relic abundance is unacceptably high' does not follow from Eq. (12) as written. Extrapolating Omega_th h^2 ≈ 5e-4 (M2/100 GeV)^2 to M2 = 2.5 TeV gives about 0.3, only a factor of a few above the observed cold dark matter density, and the abundance would reach the observed value at roughly 1.5 TeV rather than 2.5 TeV. The quoted 2.5 TeV threshold evidently relies on the Sommerfeld enhancement of Wino annihilation, which is not contained in Eq. (12) and is not mentioned; the paper should say so explicitly, since it calls this 'perhaps the most important bound on the entire superpartner spectrum in this scenario.' It would also help to note that within the scenario's own intended range this bound is largely moot: M2 = 2.5 TeV corresponds through Eq. (5) to m3/2 ≈ 900 TeV and scalars near 1 PeV, well beyond the multi-TeV region that §5 identifies as the regime where gauge coupling unification remains compatible.

Minor objections (6)

[Eq. (13)] The notation '2 sigma v(gamma gamma) = (3-5) x 10^-27 cm^3 s^-1' is ambiguous: the leading factor of two is unexplained, and the units are those of a cross-section times velocity rather than of a rate. Please state whether this is sigma v summed over the two photons, and specify the value assumed for the local dark matter density and the velocity dispersion, since the comparison with GLAST and Cherenkov sensitivities in the following paragraph depends on them.
[§5 and Ref. [24]] The claim that gauge coupling unification is more exacting at the high scale when superpartners are in the multi-TeV region is supported in Ref. [24] partly by a private communication and a conference talk. A published reference, or a short statement of the quantitative improvement in the unification prediction, would make this point citable.
[Figure 1 and §3] The text quotes no numbers from Fig. 1. Giving the gluino-pair cross-section at two or three benchmark masses, and stating whether next-to-leading-order K-factors are included, would let the reader judge the 2 TeV reach estimate independently of the figure.
[§3] The statement that 'one LHC year at low luminosity is expected to be about 10 fb^-1' should specify the assumed instantaneous luminosity and running time, since the quoted 100 fb^-1 reach depends on it.
[§2] The assumption mu ~ m_i is stated clearly, but its consequences deserve one sentence: with mu at the scalar mass scale the Higgsinos are inaccessible and the LSP is a nearly pure Wino, whereas for mu ~ m_Z the neutralino mass matrix changes and, as the paper notes, detectability is enhanced. Making this dichotomy explicit would clarify which of the §3-4 conclusions depend on the large-mu assumption.
[§3 and §4] There are a few typographical errors, for example 'gaugino masss' in §3 and 'announce the the discovery' in §4, which should be corrected in the final version.

How Pith checks papers → · Full audit of this paper →

The paper

The paper claims

If the supersymmetry-breaking sector carries a charge, gauginos end up a loop factor lighter than the scalars, and most of the theory's phenomenological headaches go away with the scalars.

The reading

The paper asks what supersymmetry looks like if the sector that breaks it carries Standard Model charges, so that no gauge-invariant coupling of the form $S W W / M_{Pl}$ can be written. Gaugino masses then have to come from their anomaly-mediated values, $M_2 = m_{3/2}/360$, while scalar masses stay at the gravitino scale, $m_{3/2}$. Taking the gaugino lower bounds at face value puts the gauginos near the W mass and the scalars in the tens of TeV, so the only superpartners in reach are the electroweak gauginos and the gluino. The author argues this little hierarchy buys a great deal: flavor and CP violation are suppressed, dimension-five proton decay operators are suppressed, gauge and third-generation Yukawa unification fit better, and the lightest Higgs clears the 114 GeV bound for every value of $m_{3/2}$-consistent $m_{3/2}$ and every $m_{3/2}$-consistent $m_{3/2}$ parameter choice. What it costs is stated plainly: the electroweak hierarchy is no longer natural. The paper is a case that the cost is worth paying because naturalness is the least quantifiable of supersymmetry's successes.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is anomaly mediation of gaugino masses: when the supersymmetry-breaking spurion is charged, the gaugino mass is generated by the superconformal anomaly, $M_λ = β(g_λ) g_λ m_{3/2}$, where $β(g_λ)$ is the gauge beta function. Because the beta function is itself a one-loop quantity, the gaugino masses arrive suppressed by roughly a loop factor relative to the scalar masses $m_{3/2}$ that come from the Kähler potential, producing the fixed ratios $M_1 ≃ m_{3/2}/120$, $M_2 ≃ m_{3/2}/360$, $M_3 ≃ m_{3/2}/45$. That single suppression is what converts a heavy-scalar spectrum from a fine-tuning problem into a package of phenomenological gains, and it fixes the entire gaugino spectrum up to one mass parameter.

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a spectrum with weak-scale gauginos and trans-TeV scalars is a coherent and predictive package rather than an arbitrary corner of parameter space. Its origin is dynamical: if the chiral superfield $S$ whose $F$-term breaks supersymmetry is charged under the Standard Model gauge group, the operator that would give gauginos tree-level masses is forbidden, and the leading contribution becomes the anomaly-mediated one, $M_2 = m_{3/2}/360$ for the Wino and $M_3 = m_{3/2}/45$ for the gluino, one loop down from the scalar masses $m_{3/2}$. The lightest superpartner is then the Wino, nearly degenerate with the charged Wino to within 165 MeV, and it annihilates efficiently enough through ordinary gauge bosons that the thermal relic abundance is negligible at weak-scale masses. From this single assumption the author derives a chain of consequences: heavy squarks suppress electric dipole moments and Kaon and B physics anomalies, suppress the dimension-five proton decay operators that trouble grand unification, and lift the lightest Higgs above the experimental bound across the whole viable range of $m_{3/2}$; the gluino, the heaviest gaugino, decays only through three-body modes into virtual squarks and gives four-jet-plus-missing-energy events at the LHC with a reach near 2 TeV; and the Wino, being nearly pure, scatters off nucleons far too weakly for table-top detectors but annihilates into monochromatic photons at a rate near $3$ to $5$ times $10^{-27}$ cm$^3$ s$^{-1}$, which next-generation gamma-ray instruments might resolve.

Load-bearing premise

The spectrum is only viable if the assumed high-scale ordering of Higgs and stop soft masses, $m_{H_u}^2 < m_{H_d}^2 < m_{t}^2$, actually drives radiative electroweak symmetry breaking to the measured $Z$ mass; the paper concedes that the closest minimal-supergravity analogue fails and then asserts that the non-universal ordering will normally develop breaking without showing a renormalization-group calculation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The lightest superpartner is the neutral Wino, with the charged Wino split from it by between the pion mass and 165 MeV, so the signature is a soft pion from a short, unobservable track rather than a spectacular long-lived charged track.
Gluino pair production dominates LHC searches: every event yields at least four jets plus missing energy, and 100 fb$^{-1}$ at 14 TeV would probe gluino masses up to about 2 TeV, corresponding to scalar masses near 100 TeV.
Direct detection of dark matter is hopeless because the Wino has no Higgsino component and the spin-dependent channel vanishes for heavy sfermions and a heavy $μ$ term, but indirect searches for monochromatic photons from galactic annihilation are the natural place to look.
If the scalars are above about 5 TeV, the lightest Higgs mass exceeds 114 GeV for all viable parameter choices, so the low-$m_{3/2}$ quasi-infrared-fixed-point region near $m_{3/2}$ is revived without a Higgs mass conflict.
Gauge coupling unification and $b$-$τ$-$t$ Yukawa unification both improve in the multi-TeV scalar regime, though the author notes that unification compatibility fades once scalar masses reach hundreds of TeV.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Because the whole gaugino spectrum is fixed by the single parameter $m_{3/2}$, a gluino mass measurement at the LHC plus a monochromatic photon line at the Wino mass would over-determine the scenario; a mismatch between the two would rule out the anomaly-mediated assignment rather than merely tune it.
The LHC reach quoted here ($m_{\tilde{g}} \approx 2$ TeV, scalars near 100 TeV) sits close to where the author says gauge coupling unification compatibility begins to degrade, so the scenario occupies a finite window that a null gluino search at high luminosity could close from above and a light-squark discovery could close from below.
The same heavy gravitino that makes the scalars heavy also decays gravitationally after freeze-out and before big bang nucleosynthesis, so the cosmology of the scenario is testable independently of colliders through the non-thermal Wino relic abundance it injects.
The paper's concession that minimal supergravity with $m_0 \gg m_{1/2}$ fails radiative electroweak symmetry breaking means the scenario's viability rests on non-universal high-scale scalar masses; a dedicated renormalization-group study of the ordering in Eq. 9 would be the decisive follow-up the paper does not supply.

Original abstract

From a theoretical point of view it is not hard to imagine gaugino masses being much lighter than scalar masses. The dominant contributions to gaugino masses are then their anomaly-mediated values. Given current lower bounds on gauginos, which are near the W-mass scale, considering a little hierarchy between weak-scale gauginos and much heavier scalars requires suspending normal intuition on finetuning and naturalness of the Higgs potential. Nevertheless, tantalizing perks come from the hypothesis: lessened flavor and CP violation problems, more compatibility with gauge coupling unification and third generation Yukawa unification, suppressed dimension-five proton decay operators, and no problems satisfying the current Higgs mass constraint for any value of tan(beta) consistent with the top and bottom Yukawa couplings remaining finite up to the grand unified scale. The Tevatron has little chance of finding any evidence of this theory given current constraints. The LHC does well looking for pair production of gluinos which three-body decay into potentially spectacular final states. Dark matter relic abundance can be cosmologically interesting, but table-top experiments will not see LSPs scattering off nucleons. On the other hand, experiments looking for monochromatic photons from LSP annihilations in the galactic halo may find them.

The compiled record

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. Numbers in the tables are the authors', checked by code. No sentence in this record was written by a model.

Compiled by classifier-1.13-20260917 via OpenRouter, question bank abstract-p1-20260923, 2026-09-23: 1 request, 6,287 input tokens, $0.0003 reported.

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.02 · states limitation 0.59 · human participants 0.01 · controlled comparison 0.03 · randomized assignment 0.01 · states quantitative result 0.26 · compares with prior results 0.19 · mentions code or data availability 0.01.

The abstract, sentence by sentence

arXiv listing abstract v3. Results and the main claim are underlined; show every role.

From a theoretical point of view it is not hard to imagine gaugino masses being much lighter than scalar masses. The dominant contributions to gaugino masses are then their anomaly-mediated values. Given current lower bounds on gauginos, which are near the W-mass scale, considering a little hierarchy between weak-scale gauginos and much heavier scalars requires suspending normal intuition on finetuning and naturalness of the Higgs potential. Nevertheless, tantalizing perks come from the hypothesis: lessened flavor and CP violation problems, more compatibility with gauge coupling unification and third generation Yukawa unification, suppressed dimension-five proton decay operators, and no problems satisfying the current Higgs mass constraint for any value of tan(beta) consistent with the top and bottom Yukawa couplings remaining finite up to the grand unified scale. The Tevatron has little chance of finding any evidence of this theory given current constraints. The LHC does well looking for pair production of gluinos which three-body decay into potentially spectacular final states. Dark matter relic abundance can be cosmologically interesting, but table-top experiments will not see LSPs scattering off nucleons. On the other hand, experiments looking for monochromatic photons from LSP annihilations in the galactic halo may find them.

background contribution method result interpretation main claim

What the classifier reports for each sentence. The number is the probability it gave the label.
#	sentence	role	the authors' own work	states the main conclusion	strength
s0	From a theoretical point of view it is not hard to imagine gaugino masses being much lighter than scalar masses.	background 0.99	0.05	0.04	hedged possibility 0.49
s1	The dominant contributions to gaugino masses are then their anomaly-mediated values.	background 0.53	0.12	0.06	asserted 0.97
s2	Given current lower bounds on gauginos, which are near the W-mass scale, considering a little hierarchy between weak-scale gauginos and much heavier scalars requires suspending normal intuition on finetuning and naturalness of the Higgs potential.	interpretation 0.51	0.07	0.21	asserted 0.95
s3	Nevertheless, tantalizing perks come from the hypothesis: lessened flavor and CP violation problems, more compatibility with gauge coupling unification and third generation Yukawa unification, suppressed dimension-five proton decay operators, and no problems satisfying the current Higgs mass constraint for any value of tan(beta) consistent with the top and bottom Yukawa couplings remaining finite up to the grand unified scale.	interpretation 0.68	0.25	0.40	asserted 0.70
s4	The Tevatron has little chance of finding any evidence of this theory given current constraints.	interpretation 0.62	0.16	0.09	asserted 0.74
s5	The LHC does well looking for pair production of gluinos which three-body decay into potentially spectacular final states.	interpretation 0.56	0.14	0.07	asserted 0.93
s6	Dark matter relic abundance can be cosmologically interesting, but table-top experiments will not see LSPs scattering off nucleons.	interpretation 0.56	0.21	0.05	hedged possibility 0.58
s7	On the other hand, experiments looking for monochromatic photons from LSP annihilations in the galactic halo may find them.	interpretation 0.67	0.12	0.06	hedged possibility 1.00

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: theoretical result 0.52 · evidence from argument 0.99.

What was examined, and what was not

sources read

arXiv listing abstract v3

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

Every quoted sentence on this record is the authors'. Every label is from Pith's closed vocabulary, with the probability shown beside it. Every number in the measurements table is the authors', checked by code. Record as JSON

Figures

**Figure 1.** Production cross-section of gluino pairs at the

Figures reproduced from arXiv:hep-ph/0306127 by the authors.

References

Works cited (24)

[10]

G. F. Giudice, M. A. Luty, H. Murayama and R. Rattazzi, JHEP 9812, 027 (1998) [hep-ph/9810442]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1998
[21]

L. Bergstrom and P. Ullio, Nucl. Phys. B 504, 27 (1997) [hep-ph/9706232]; Z. Bern, P. Gondolo and M. Perelstein, Phys. Lett. B 411, 86 (1997) [hep-ph/9706538]. 11

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1997
[1]

M. Dine, A. Kagan and S. Samuel, Phys. Lett. B 243, 250 (1990); M. Dine, R. G. Leigh and A. Kagan, Phys. Rev. D 48, 4269 (1993) [hep-ph/9304299]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1990
[2]

S. Dimopoulos and G. F. Giudice, Phys. Lett. B 357, 573 (1995) [hep-ph/9507282]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1995
[3]

A. Pomarol and D. Tommasini, Nucl. Phys. B 466, 3 (1996) [hep-ph/9507462]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1996
[4]

A. G. Cohen, D. B. Kaplan and A. E. Nelson, Phys. Lett. B 388, 588 (1996) [hep-ph/9607394]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1996
[5]

J. L. Feng, K. T. Matchev and T. Moroi, Phys. Rev. D 61, 075005 (2000) [hep-ph/9909334]; J. L. Feng and K. T. Matchev, Phys. Rev. D 63, 095003 (2001) [hep-ph/0011356]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2000
[6]

R. Arnowitt and P. Nath, Phys. Lett. B 437, 344 (1998) [hep-ph/9801246]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1998
[7]

G. Anderson, C. H. Chen, J. F. Gunion, J. Lykken, T. Moroi and Y. Yamada, hep-ph/9609457

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[8]

I. Aﬄeck, M. Dine and N. Seiberg, Nucl. Phys. B 256, 557 (1985); A. E. Nelson, Phys. Lett. B 369, 277 (1996) [hep-ph/9511350]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1985
[9]

L. Randall and R. Sundrum, Nucl. Phys. B 557, 79 (1999) [hep-th/9810155]; 10

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1999
[11]

A. Anisimov, M. Dine, M. Graesser and S. Thomas, Phys. Rev. D 65, 105011 (2002) [hep-th/0111235]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2002
[12]

B. D. Nelson, hep-ph/0211087

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[13]

See, e.g., A. Heister et al. [ALEPH Collaboration], Phys. Lett. B 533, 223 (2002) [hep-ex/0203020]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2002
[14]

J. L. Feng, T. Moroi, L. Randall, M. Strassler and S. f. Su, Phys . Rev. Lett. 83, 1731 (1999) [hep-ph/9904250]; J. F. Gunion and S. Mrenna, Phys. Rev. D 62, 015002 (2000) [hep-ph/9906270]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1999
[15]

H. Baer, F. E. Paige, S. D. Protopopescu and X. Tata, “ISAJE T 7.48: A Monte Carlo event generator for pp, p¯p, and e+e− reactions,” hep-ph/0001086

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[16]

R. Barbieri, G. Gamberini, G. F. Giudice and G. Ridolﬁ, Nucl. Phys. B 301, 15 (1988); H. Baer, X. Tata and J. Woodside, Phys. Rev. D 42, 1568 (1990)

View on Pith 1988
[17]

For a recent analysis, see J. R. Ellis, K. A. Olive, Y. Santoso and V . C. Spanos, hep-ph/0303043

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[18]

T. Gherghetta, G. F. Giudice and J. D. Wells, Nucl. Phys. B 559, 27 (1999) [hep-ph/9904378]; T. Moroi and L. Randall, Nucl. Phys. B 570, 455 (2000) [hep-ph/9906527]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1999
[19]

J.D. Wells, “Some Recent Developments in Sparticle Dark Matter,” Pheno 2000 Conference, University of Wisconsin, Madison, April 2000

View on Pith 2000
[20]

P. Ullio, JHEP 0106, 053 (2001) [hep-ph/0105052]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2001
[22]

I. Hinchliﬀe, F. E. Paige, M. D. Shapiro, J. Soderqvist and W. Yao , Phys. Rev. D 55, 5520 (1997) [hep-ph/9610544]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1997
[23]

T. Blazek, R. Dermisek and S. Raby, Phys. Rev. D 65, 115004 (2002) [hep-ph/0201081]; K. Tobe and J. D. Wells, hep-ph/0301015; D. Au to, H. Baer, C. Balazs, A. Belyaev, J. Ferrandis and X. Tata, hep-ph/0302155

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2002
[24]

J. Bagger, K. T. Matchev and D. Pierce, Phys. Lett. B 348, 443 (1995) [hep-ph/9501277]; R. Dermisek, private communication and talk at S USY 2003 in Tucson, Arizona. 12

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1995

Forward citations

Cited by 39 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

Supersymmetric Unification Without Low Energy Supersymmetry And Signatures for Fine-Tuning at the LHC
hep-th 2004-05 conditional novelty 8.0 of 10

Breaking supersymmetry near the unification scale while keeping gauginos and higgsinos light preserves gauge coupling unification and predicts a 120-150 GeV Higgs plus a long-lived gluino.
Heavy-element paleodetectors for Higgsino dark matter
hep-ph 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

Proposes heavy-element paleodetectors in lead-rich ancient minerals to detect inelastic Higgsino dark matter up to mass splittings of ~920 keV, relaxing radiopurity and depth constraints.
The Hierarchy Problem: From the Fundamentals to the Frontiers
hep-ph 2020-09 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

A thesis combining a comprehensive review of the hierarchy problem with original work on neutral naturalness and a speculative new solution using noncommutative field theory.
SUSY Breaking in Local String/F-Theory Models
hep-th 2009-06 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

Gravity-mediated soft terms in LARGE-volume local string models are suppressed by Ms/MP relative to the gravitino mass, so TeV soft masses imply a gravitino above 10^8 GeV and a volume of order 10^6-10^7.
The high-velocity dark matter halo of the Milky Way in light of the LZ 248 keV event
hep-ph 2026-09 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

Using Milky Way analogues from TNG-50 and FIRE-2, the maximum laboratory-frame dark matter speed on June 16 is 793 km/s with 95% containment from 697 to 876 km/s, and the co-rotation of the dark matter halo does not l...

Show 34 more citing papers

Solar Neutrino Constraints on Inelastic Dark Matter Scattering in Light of Recent LUX-ZEPLIN Observations
hep-ph 2026-09 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

IceCube solar neutrino limits strongly constrain inelastic dark matter interpretations of the recent LZ high-energy event, extending previous results to a broader range of interactions.
Confronting the Higgsino Interpretation of the LZ Event with the High-Energy Sideband
hep-ph 2026-09 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

A thermal 1.1 TeV higgsino that explains the LZ event would also produce multiple detectable events in a higher-energy sideband where LZ sees none, signaling a tension unless the sideband acceptance is very low.
Strong Constraints on Line Signals from Dark Matter Annihilation in a Nearby Subhalo
hep-ph 2026-09 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

A 15-year Fermi-LAT search for gamma-ray lines toward a proposed nearby dark matter subhalo finds no significant signal and sets 95% CL cross-section limits stronger than Galactic Center line limits over most of the 1...
Higgsino Above the Sea of Fog
hep-ph 2026-09 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

The LZ event could be explained by inelastic higgsino dark matter with a mass splitting around 350-500 keV, pointing to a high supersymmetry scale.
Discovering the Higgsino at CTAO-North within the Decade
hep-ph 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

CTAO-North, using high-zenith-angle observations, could discover 1.1 TeV thermal higgsino dark matter by 2030 for several plausible Galactic Center density profiles, earlier than CTAO-South.
The Case for an EeV Gravitino
hep-ph 2017-04 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Pushing the supersymmetric spectrum above the inflationary scale makes an EeV-scale gravitino a viable dark matter candidate and predicts a reheating temperature of 10^10 to 10^12 GeV.
Higgsino Dark Matter or Not: Role of Disappearing Track Searches at the LHC and Future Colliders
hep-ph 2017-03 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

A two-hit disappearing-track search, instead of the standard four-hit requirement, extends LHC and future-collider reach to nearly pure Higgsino dark matter with a charged-state decay length of about one centimeter.
QCD Effects on Direct Detection of Wino Dark Matter
hep-ph 2015-04 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

Including next-to-leading-order QCD corrections raises the predicted wino-proton spin-independent scattering cross section to 2.3 x 10^-47 cm^2, roughly 70% above the leading-order value.
Higgs Mass and Unnatural Supersymmetry
hep-ph 2014-07 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

Complete one-loop matching conditions and a leading two-loop QCD correction sharpen the predicted Higgs mass in high-scale and split supersymmetry, tightening the allowed superpartner mass range.
Simply Unnatural Supersymmetry
hep-ph 2012-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Split supersymmetry with scalars at 100-1000 TeV and TeV-scale gauginos fits the 125 GeV Higgs mass, gauge coupling unification, and wino dark matter, and predicts distinctive displaced gluino decays.
Spread Supersymmetry
hep-ph 2011-11 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

If the scale of supersymmetry breaking scans across a multiverse and dark matter abundance is environmentally bounded, the lightest superpartner lands near a TeV while the rest of the spectrum sits three to six orders...
PeV-Scale Supersymmetry
hep-ph 2004-11 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Dropping naturalness as a criterion, charged supersymmetry breaking with anomaly-mediated gaugino masses puts scalar superpartners at the PeV scale, a value the paper argues is separately picked out by Wino dark matte...
Implications of Higgs mass for hidden sector SUSY breaking
hep-ph 2024-12 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

The 125 GeV Higgs mass, under naturalness and landscape priors, favors gravity mediation through hidden sector singlets with large A-terms over charged hidden sector models with loop-suppressed A-terms.
The curtain lowers on directly detectable higgsino dark matter
hep-ph 2024-12 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

Using LZ2024 limits, the paper derives new lower bounds on gaugino masses and upper bounds on higgsino mass splittings in decoupled-MSSM higgsino dark matter scenarios, plus projections for the neutrino fog.
Muon $g-2$ Anomaly in Anomaly Mediation
hep-ph 2021-04 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Anomaly mediation with a sizable Higgsino threshold correction can explain the muon g-2 at 1 sigma, implying gluino masses below 2-4 TeV, bino below 2 TeV, and wino below 1-2 TeV.
Higgs Assisted Razor Search for Higgsinos at a 100 TeV pp Collider
hep-ph 2019-07 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

A Higgs-assisted razor search with ML for Higgsino NLSPs decaying to Bino LSP via Z/h at 100 TeV projects 5σ discovery to 1.4 TeV Higgsino mass (Bino ~0.9 TeV) with 3000 fb^{-1}.
ALP inflation and Big Bang on Earth
hep-ph 2019-03 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

Hilltop axion inflation fixes the inflaton mass at about one millionth of its decay constant, bringing the inflaton within reach of the SHiP beam-dump experiment if the inflation scale is low.
Dark Matter Production in an Early Matter Dominated Era
hep-ph 2017-11 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

Tracking the temperature-dependent relativistic degrees of freedom shifts predicted dark matter relic densities in an early matter-dominated era by up to two orders of magnitude, and bounds the decaying particle's mas...
Towards the Final Word on Neutralino Dark Matter
hep-ph 2015-10 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Including Sommerfeld enhancement, the thermal relic neutralino surface is fully covered by next-generation direct detection, CTA, and a 100 TeV collider, with bino-winos reachable only by compressed electroweakino searches.
SusyHD: Higgs mass Determination in Supersymmetry
hep-ph 2015-04 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

An improved effective-field-theory calculation of the MSSM Higgs mass, with new threshold corrections and a public code, finds sub-GeV theoretical uncertainty across most of the parameter space and pushes the preferre...
Higgsino Dark Matter in High-Scale Supersymmetry
hep-ph 2014-10 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Renormalization group running of the dimension-five operators that split the neutral Higgsino mass eigenstates shifts the direct-detection, EDM and collider bounds on the high-scale supersymmetry breaking scale by rou...
Wino-like Minimal Dark Matter and future colliders
hep-ph 2014-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Simulation-based projections indicate that a 100 TeV proton collider could probe a wino-like dark matter triplet up to about 3 TeV via disappearing tracks, and up to roughly 1.3 to 1.7 TeV via monojet searches if back...
FlexibleSUSY -- A spectrum generator generator for supersymmetric models
hep-ph 2014-06 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

FlexibleSUSY generates a modular, fast C++ spectrum generator from a SARAH model file, validated against Softsusy at sub-permille level for the MSSM and NMSSM and benchmarked as faster than SPheno, Softsusy, and SPhenoMSSM.
Neutralino Dark Matter at 14 and 100 TeV
hep-ph 2014-04 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

A 100 TeV collider would extend neutralino dark matter mass reach by a factor of 4-5 over the 14 TeV LHC, reaching winos to about 1.4 TeV and higgsinos to about 850 GeV in the monojet channel.
In Wino Veritas? Indirect Searches Shed Light on Neutralino Dark Matter
hep-ph 2013-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Existing gamma-ray data exclude wino dark matter from 100 GeV to 3 TeV for cuspy NFW or Einasto halos, and force moduli-decay cosmologies to reheat above about a GeV.
Decoupling Can Revive Minimal Supersymmetric SU(5)
hep-ph 2013-04 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Heavy sfermions suppress the dimension-five proton decay amplitude enough that minimal SUSY SU(5) evades the Super-Kamiokande bound over a wide parameter range.
Spread Supersymmetry with Wino LSP: Gluino and Dark Matter Signals
hep-ph 2012-10 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

Combining thermal freeze-out, gravitino freeze-in, and UV gravitino production in Spread Supersymmetry with a wino LSP leaves squarks between about 100 and 10,000 TeV, so gluinos can be light enough for the LHC and lo...
Physics at a 100 TeV pp collider: beyond the Standard Model phenomena
hep-ph 2016-06 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

Compiles projected 100 TeV reach estimates for supersymmetry, dark matter, and exotic resonances, finding multi-TeV sensitivity well beyond the LHC in nearly every channel studied.
Non-thermal Histories and Implications for Structure Formation
hep-ph 2014-05 accept novelty 4.0 of 10

In moduli-driven non-thermal cosmologies with wino or higgsino dark matter, the growth of dark matter perturbations during the pre-BBN matter-dominated epoch is erased by kinetic decoupling after reheating, leaving a ...
Sterile Neutrino Dark Matter from Freeze-In
hep-ph 2015-12 conditional novelty 3.0 of 10

Freeze-in production lets a sterile neutrino be dark matter with an arbitrarily small mixing to ordinary neutrinos, evading the X-ray and Lyman-alpha bounds that rule out the standard Dodelson-Widrow mechanism.
Physics Opportunities of a 100 TeV Proton-Proton Collider
hep-ph 2015-11 accept novelty 3.0 of 10

A 100 TeV proton-proton collider with 3 to 30 inverse attobarns would probe new physics up to roughly five times the LHC mass reach and measure the Higgs triple coupling to about ten percent.
Cosmological Moduli and the Post-Inflationary Universe: A Critical Review
hep-th 2015-02 conditional novelty 2.0 of 10

Moduli with supersymmetry-breaking masses of roughly 10 to 1000 TeV would reheat the universe just above Big Bang nucleosynthesis, making a matter-dominated, non-thermal post-inflationary history the default rather th...
Naturalness after LHC8
hep-ph 2013-07 accept novelty 2.0 of 10

After LHC8 found no TeV-scale new physics, Giudice argues Higgs naturalness remains a well-posed problem with three surviving answers: anthropic selection, a Planck-scale boundary condition, or low-scale dynamics not ...
A Supersymmetry Primer
hep-ph 1997-09 accept novelty 1.0 of 10

A self-contained pedagogical introduction to supersymmetry and the MSSM, from Lagrangian construction through soft breaking to collider phenomenology.

How the literature uses it

93 arXiv papers cite this in 109 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 · 78 sentences without a confident label

Compares with it 2 papers

While this is similar to split-SUSY models [ref] , the $A$-terms are not necessarily loop suppressed, and may allow for a lower sfermion mass scale.

Naturalizing Supersymmetry with a Two-Field Relaxion Mechanism · Introduction · 0.88
The required range of the scalar mass is in remarkable agreement with scenarios without supersymmetry breaking singlet fields in the hidden sector, which we call the “without-singlet" scenario [ref] .

R-Parity Violation Axiogenesis · Introduction · 0.81

Cites it as background 28 papers

Phenomenology of this theory is mostly as discussed in Ref. [ref] .

Spread Supersymmetry · Spread Supersymmetry with Wino LSP · 0.93
PeV-scale supersymmetry [ref] is motivated by the possibility of SUSY breaking via “charged” SUSY breaking fields $S$.

Fine-tuned vs. natural supersymmetry: what does the string landscape predict? · PeV SUSY · 0.82
The main ingredients in a split higgsino model are a higgsino LSP and heavy scalars from SUSY breaking at a high scale [ref] .

The Race to Find Split Higgsino Dark Matter · Model details · 0.88

Discussion

Disagree with the review, or know something it missed? Leave a comment, highlight any passage above to comment on it, or challenge this review formally.

[1] [10]

G. F. Giudice, M. A. Luty, H. Murayama and R. Rattazzi, JHEP 9812, 027 (1998) [hep-ph/9810442]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1998

[2] [21]

L. Bergstrom and P. Ullio, Nucl. Phys. B 504, 27 (1997) [hep-ph/9706232]; Z. Bern, P. Gondolo and M. Perelstein, Phys. Lett. B 411, 86 (1997) [hep-ph/9706538]. 11

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1997

[3] [1]

M. Dine, A. Kagan and S. Samuel, Phys. Lett. B 243, 250 (1990); M. Dine, R. G. Leigh and A. Kagan, Phys. Rev. D 48, 4269 (1993) [hep-ph/9304299]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1990

[4] [2]

S. Dimopoulos and G. F. Giudice, Phys. Lett. B 357, 573 (1995) [hep-ph/9507282]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1995

[5] [3]

A. Pomarol and D. Tommasini, Nucl. Phys. B 466, 3 (1996) [hep-ph/9507462]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1996

[6] [4]

A. G. Cohen, D. B. Kaplan and A. E. Nelson, Phys. Lett. B 388, 588 (1996) [hep-ph/9607394]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1996

[7] [5]

J. L. Feng, K. T. Matchev and T. Moroi, Phys. Rev. D 61, 075005 (2000) [hep-ph/9909334]; J. L. Feng and K. T. Matchev, Phys. Rev. D 63, 095003 (2001) [hep-ph/0011356]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2000

[8] [6]

R. Arnowitt and P. Nath, Phys. Lett. B 437, 344 (1998) [hep-ph/9801246]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1998

[9] [7]

G. Anderson, C. H. Chen, J. F. Gunion, J. Lykken, T. Moroi and Y. Yamada, hep-ph/9609457

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[10] [8]

I. Aﬄeck, M. Dine and N. Seiberg, Nucl. Phys. B 256, 557 (1985); A. E. Nelson, Phys. Lett. B 369, 277 (1996) [hep-ph/9511350]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1985

[11] [9]

L. Randall and R. Sundrum, Nucl. Phys. B 557, 79 (1999) [hep-th/9810155]; 10

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1999

[12] [11]

A. Anisimov, M. Dine, M. Graesser and S. Thomas, Phys. Rev. D 65, 105011 (2002) [hep-th/0111235]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2002

[13] [12]

B. D. Nelson, hep-ph/0211087

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[14] [13]

See, e.g., A. Heister et al. [ALEPH Collaboration], Phys. Lett. B 533, 223 (2002) [hep-ex/0203020]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2002

[15] [14]

J. L. Feng, T. Moroi, L. Randall, M. Strassler and S. f. Su, Phys . Rev. Lett. 83, 1731 (1999) [hep-ph/9904250]; J. F. Gunion and S. Mrenna, Phys. Rev. D 62, 015002 (2000) [hep-ph/9906270]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1999

[16] [15]

H. Baer, F. E. Paige, S. D. Protopopescu and X. Tata, “ISAJE T 7.48: A Monte Carlo event generator for pp, p¯p, and e+e− reactions,” hep-ph/0001086

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[17] [16]

R. Barbieri, G. Gamberini, G. F. Giudice and G. Ridolﬁ, Nucl. Phys. B 301, 15 (1988); H. Baer, X. Tata and J. Woodside, Phys. Rev. D 42, 1568 (1990)

View on Pith 1988

[18] [17]

For a recent analysis, see J. R. Ellis, K. A. Olive, Y. Santoso and V . C. Spanos, hep-ph/0303043

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[19] [18]

T. Gherghetta, G. F. Giudice and J. D. Wells, Nucl. Phys. B 559, 27 (1999) [hep-ph/9904378]; T. Moroi and L. Randall, Nucl. Phys. B 570, 455 (2000) [hep-ph/9906527]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1999

[20] [19]

J.D. Wells, “Some Recent Developments in Sparticle Dark Matter,” Pheno 2000 Conference, University of Wisconsin, Madison, April 2000

View on Pith 2000

[21] [20]

P. Ullio, JHEP 0106, 053 (2001) [hep-ph/0105052]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2001

[22] [22]

I. Hinchliﬀe, F. E. Paige, M. D. Shapiro, J. Soderqvist and W. Yao , Phys. Rev. D 55, 5520 (1997) [hep-ph/9610544]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1997

[23] [23]

T. Blazek, R. Dermisek and S. Raby, Phys. Rev. D 65, 115004 (2002) [hep-ph/0201081]; K. Tobe and J. D. Wells, hep-ph/0301015; D. Au to, H. Baer, C. Balazs, A. Belyaev, J. Ferrandis and X. Tata, hep-ph/0302155

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2002

[24] [24]

J. Bagger, K. T. Matchev and D. Pierce, Phys. Lett. B 348, 443 (1995) [hep-ph/9501277]; R. Dermisek, private communication and talk at S USY 2003 in Tucson, Arizona. 12

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1995