micrOMEGAs: Version 1.3

A. Pukhov; A. Semenov; F. Boudjema; G. Belanger

REVIEW

micrOMEGAs: Version 1.3

G. Belanger, F. Boudjema, A. Pukhov, A. Semenov

High Energy Physics - Phenomenology · Submitted 25 May 2004 · 50 references

Pith's verdict: A solid, honest tool paper: the new physics is loop-corrected masses inside exact matrix elements plus standalone cross-section and width routines, and the soft spots are accuracy claims asserted rather than measured.

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 →

· 3 major objections · 10 minor · Ask about this paper · The compiled record · Read the full review →

Challenge this review Comment (0) Read on arXiv ↗

Cite ▾

arXiv IDhep-ph/0405253 (version 1)

Pith IDVF2Z2EMK, Pith's permanent record of this paper and its review

CitationA. Pukhov, A. Semenov, F. Boudjema, G. Belanger. "micrOMEGAs: Version 1.3." arXiv:hep-ph/0405253 (2004). https://pith.science/paper/VF2Z2EMK

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

micrOMEGAs 1.3 is the version that made this code the default relic-density calculator for the MSSM, and the reason sits in the changelog rather than in any single physics result: loop-corrected sparticle masses and mixing matrices now feed exact CalcHEP matrix elements, SLHA input and output are supported, and 2-to-2 cross sections and two-body widths are exposed as standalone routines. That last item is what turned it from a relic-density black box into something usable for collider studies. The b to s gamma routine with resummed large-tan(beta) effects is a real addition, and the authors are upfront that it is a compendium of published formulae with misprints corrected. Appendix B is unusually explicit about what came from where, which I wish more tool papers did. They also state their own limits plainly: partial loop implementation with possible unitarity problems (Section 2.3), no light Higgs mass constraint (Section 4.4), tree-level-only heavy Higgs width (Section 2.1). Credit for that; I won't re-litigate it as a discovery of mine. The soft spots are modest. The 1 percent and 2 percent accuracy figures for the fast and accurate modes are design targets, not measured error budgets, and Table 8 carries no uncertainties. The DarkSUSY comparison tests implementation and bookkeeping, not the adequacy of the improved-tree-level approximation, since DarkSUSY uses the same tree-level amplitudes with radiatively corrected masses. The paper doesn't claim otherwise, so I read this as a limit on how the comparison should be cited rather than a flaw in it. The large-tan(beta) remark about substituting DarkSUSY's pseudoscalar width is more awkward: transparent, but an input swap rather than a resolution. And sWidth = 0.01, the regulator that enters precisely the coannihilation channels the paper cares about, is never scanned, so that systematic is unquantified. Two citation nits: the SLHA reference is listed as to appear (it has since appeared) and the (g-2) range comes from an in-preparation note. Neither is load-bearing for the relic density. This deserves a referee: it is a reference implementation and the field needs a reviewed record of what it does and does not include. For a reading group, only if you are specifically discussing dark matter tools.

Referee report

Significance

This is a mature, widely used tool, and the release is a genuine service to the dark-matter and SUSY phenomenology community. Several features deserve explicit credit: full SLHA compliance with an external-spectrum interface, so that any model whose MSSM spectrum is computed elsewhere can be fed in; four independent RGE back-ends, which lets users quantify the spectrum-computation spread that the authors themselves flag as a dominant uncertainty; a documented, standalone b -> s gamma routine whose large-tan beta resummation was checked against Fig. 4 of Degrassi-Gambino-Giudice and, per the acknowledgements, confirmed by one of those authors; and the runtime generation of matrix elements, which keeps the distribution small while covering roughly 2800 subprocesses. The paper is also commendably explicit about what it does not do, in particular the partial implementation of loop corrections in Section 2.3 and the tree-level truncation of the Higgs width in Section 2.1. The comparison against an independently written code (Table 8) is the right kind of check for a release of this sort.

Major objections (3)

[Section 6, Table 8] The large-tan beta discrepancy is attributed to 'a difference in the width of the pseudoscalar', and agreement is then recovered 'if we substitute their value for the pseudoscalar width'. As written this identifies the origin of the discrepancy but does not adjudicate it: the reader cannot tell whether the micrOMEGAs width or the DarkSUSY width is the more correct one, and the substitution is presented as a diagnostic rather than as a resolution. This matters because Section 2.1 argues at length that QCD corrections to heavy-Higgs partial widths can change the q qbar width by a factor of two and that an accurate heavy-Higgs width is 'necessary' near a resonance. The authors should state which width they believe is correct and why, and should say explicitly whether the substituted value was used only to diagnose the discrepancy or whether it enters any quoted number. Relatedly, Table 8 should be framed for what it is: a cross-implementation check. Since DarkSUSY also evaluates annihilation amplitudes at tree level with radiatively corrected masses, the 3% agreement tests bookkeeping and matrix-element generation, not the adequacy of the 'improved tree-level' approximation that Section 2.3 concedes is only partial. The paper does not currently overclaim this, but a sentence making the distinction explicit would prevent readers from citing Table 8 as validation of the approximation.
[Section 2.2] The regulator sWidth, default 0.01, assigns a width sWidth * M_LSP to every supersymmetric particle in order to regulate propagator poles in coannihilation channels such as eL_tilde chi01 -> e X. This is precisely the class of channels the paper identifies as dominating where the WMAP bound is actually met, and the value is hand-chosen with no sensitivity study reported. A short scan, showing the variation of Omega h2 with sWidth over, say, 0.001 to 0.1 for two or three of the coannihilation-dominated points in the data/ test set, would establish that the default is not itself a percent-level systematic. As it stands the coannihilation predictions carry an unquantified systematic that does not appear anywhere in the paper's error discussion, and Table 8 has no uncertainty column in which it could appear.
[Appendix B.4.2, Eq. (B.66)] Eq. (B.66) is printed as the implemented expression for delta m_b and includes electroweak terms with explicit factors of alpha(M_Z)/(4 s_W^2 pi) proportional to mu M_2 tan beta. The text immediately below states that 'for consistency we have not coded these contributions in our program'. If that reading is correct, the equation as printed is not what the code evaluates, which is a problem for an appendix that explicitly advertises the b -> s gamma routine as usable standalone. The authors should either remove the uncoded terms from Eq. (B.66) or mark them clearly as not implemented, and should state the size of the neglected piece for at least one large-tan beta benchmark. The same clarification is needed for the analogous electroweak terms in Eq. (B.67).

Minor objections (10)

[Section 3.2] The text says the weak-scale parameters are 'listed in Table 3', but the independent MSSM parameters at the EWSB scale are listed in Table 4; Table 3 is the GUT-scale set. The reference should be corrected.
[Table 3] The entry for Mr3 is described as 'Left-handed slepton mass for 3rd gen.', which should read right-handed. The same table labels Mr1 correctly as right-handed, so this appears to be a transcription slip.
[Table 4] The entry for Mri is described as 'Right-handed selectron mass for ith generation'; for i = 2, 3 this should be smuon and stau respectively. A generic wording such as 'right-handed charged-slepton mass' would avoid the mismatch.
[Appendix A.1] The C prototype for readLesH takes a single argument, whereas Section 4.1 describes readLesH(filename, LE) with two. The ewsbInitFile prototype contains a stray closing brace, and the annihilation prototype reads 'char pOut 2' with a space inside the identifier. The annihilation function appears in the appendix but is not documented in Section 4; either document it or drop it from the listing.
[Section 4.4] The quoted 3 sigma range 5.1 < delta a_mu x 10^10 < 64.1 is attributed to Ref. [37], which is listed as 'in preparation'. Since this range is used to judge whether a model survives, either justify it in the text from the published experimental average and a stated theory error, or soften the claim to indicate that the range is preliminary.
[Section 5.6] The sample output contains the typographical errors 'Relative contrubutions' and 'deltartho' (for deltarho). Since this block is reproduced verbatim from the program, the strings should be fixed in the code as well as in the manuscript.
[Section 5.1] The word 'downlaoded' should read 'downloaded'.
[Section 2.1] The statement that the total Higgs width includes only tree-level two-body final states, underestimating the light-Higgs width by up to 10% from off-shell W and gg, is appropriately flagged. It would help to say whether this affects any of the benchmark points in Table 8, or to confirm that in those points the LSP is not close enough to the light-Higgs pole for the width to matter.
[Section 6, Table 8] The comparison does not state which integration settings were used (fast versus accurate mode, and the value of Beps). Given that the paper elsewhere distinguishes a 1% fast mode from a checked accurate mode, stating the settings used for Table 8 would make the comparison reproducible.
[Reference [31]] The CDF author name appears as 'F. Aben'; this is presumably 'F. Abe'. Reference [9] is listed as 'to appear in JHEP' and should be updated to its published form if available.

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

The paper

The paper claims

micrOMEGAs 1.3 computes the relic density of the lightest supersymmetric particle using exact tree-level annihilation and coannihilation matrix elements evaluated with loop-corrected masses and mixing matrices, and reports agreement with an

The reading

The paper presents version 1.3 of micrOMEGAs, a program that answers a single sharp question: given a point in the minimal supersymmetric standard model, how much of the Universe's energy density today is carried by the lightest supersymmetric particle? The authors' aim is percent-level accuracy in exactly the regions where that number matters, namely where coannihilation with a nearly degenerate partner or annihilation through a Higgs or $Z$ resonance raises the annihilation rate enough to fall under the cosmic-microwave-background upper bound on dark matter. Their strategy is to keep the matrix elements at tree level but to feed them loop-corrected sparticle masses and mixing matrices, so that the sharply sensitive mass differences entering resonances and coannihilation are right. They also solve the abundance evolution equation numerically rather than through the freeze-out approximation, and they add higher-order corrections to the Higgs couplings to quark pairs, including the SUSY-QCD $b$-quark correction that matters at large $tan beta$. The package is meant to be usable, not just readable: it links to four public spectrum calculators, accepts the SUSY Les Houches Accord input format, and exposes cross-sections and two-body decay widths so the same model points can be taken to collider studies.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the relativistic thermally averaged annihilation cross-section, a sum over particle pairs weighted by degrees of freedom and by $sqrt{s},K_1(sqrt{s}/T)$ in the integrand and normalised by the equilibrium abundance built from $m_i^2 K_2(m_i/T)$. That average feeds the abundance evolution equation, which the code solves by Runge-Kutta starting from a point determined by requiring the deviation from equilibrium to be a fixed fraction of the equilibrium abundance, and finishing with an analytic integral once the equilibrium abundance has become negligible. The second piece of machinery is the treatment of the Higgs vertices: the $h q q$, $H q q$ and $A q q$ couplings are rewritten using an effective quark mass that reproduces the radiatively corrected Higgs decay widths, with QCD corrections through third order in $alpha_s$ and a SUSY-QCD correction resummed through the factor $1/(1+Delta m_b tan beta)$. Because annihilation near a Higgs resonance depends on the total width, these vertex corrections propagate directly into the relic density.

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a relic-density calculation built on exact tree-level matrix elements, but with loop-corrected masses and mixing matrices inserted throughout, is accurate at the percent level across the parameter regions where supersymmetric dark matter actually saturates the observed density. Two ingredients carry that claim. First, the thermal average uses relativistic formulae and the full sum over annihilation and coannihilation channels, with a Boltzmann-suppression criterion deciding which channels enter and dedicated integration treatment near poles and thresholds. Second, the evolution equation for the abundance is integrated directly by Runge-Kutta from a starting point fixed by an analytic estimate of the departure from equilibrium, then completed by an analytic tail, so no freeze-out approximation is used. The authors check the whole machinery against the independent code DarkSUSY 4.0 on ten benchmark mSUGRA points and find agreement at the 3 percent level, with a residual discrepancy at large $tan beta$ that they trace to a difference in the pseudoscalar Higgs width rather than to the annihilation calculation itself.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation assumes that inserting loop-corrected masses and mixing matrices into otherwise tree-level matrix elements captures the dominant higher-order effect, an approximation the authors themselves describe as only partial and one that they note could produce theoretical inconsistencies such as unitarity problems in some processes.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Relic-density predictions in the coannihilation and Higgs-resonance regions, where the measured dark matter density is actually reproduced, inherit the accuracy of the loop-corrected spectrum rather than of tree-level mass relations.
Users can take a set of high-scale parameters, run any of four spectrum codes, and obtain a relic density computed from the same loop-corrected masses and mixings that the spectrum code produces, so the two calculations are consistent by construction.
Because the same model file drives $b to s gamma$, $B_s to mu^+ mu^-$, $(g-2)_mu$ and $Delta rho$, a single parameter point can be confronted with several independent precision measurements at once.
Any two-to-two MSSM process and any two-body decay width can be generated on demand and used outside the relic-density calculation, which turns the package into a general collider-simulation input generator.
The residual disagreement with DarkSUSY at large $tan beta$ is localised to the pseudoscalar width, so it is a bookkeeping difference in a single input rather than a disagreement about the annihilation dynamics.

Reading between the lines

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

If the dominant effect of loops really does enter through the mass spectrum rather than through the matrix elements, then the accuracy quoted here should degrade first in channels with large external-momentum-dependent corrections, which suggests testing the approximation channel by channel rather than only against another code built on similar assumptions.
The comparison with an independent package is a consistency check between two codes sharing much of the same physics input; a sharper test would be a benchmark where the two codes are forced to use identical masses, widths and couplings, so that any remaining difference is attributable to the matrix elements alone.
Extending the same mass-insertion logic to the neutralino mixing matrix, as the authors do, means the computed couplings are not derived from a single consistent Lagrangian at any loop order; users pushing into regions with large mixing, such as the stau coannihilation corridor at large $tan beta$, should treat the quoted percent-level precision as indicative rather than guaranteed.

Original abstract

We present the latest version of micromegas, a code that calculates the relic density of the lightest supersymmetric particle in the MSSM. All tree-level processes for the annihilation of the LSP are included as well as all possible coannihilation processes with neutralinos, charginos, sleptons, squarks and gluinos. The cross-sections extracted from CalcHEP are calculated exactly using loop-corrected masses and mixings as specified in the SUSY Les Houches Accord. Relativistic formulae for the thermal average are used and care is taken to handle poles and thresholds by adopting specific integration routines. The input parameters can be either the soft SUSY parameters in a general MSSM or the parameters of a SUGRA model specified at some high scale (GUT). In the latter case, a link with Suspect, Softsusy, Spheno and Isajet allows to calculate the supersymmetric spectrum, Higgs masses, as well as mixing matrices. Higher-order corrections to Higgs couplings to quark pairs including QCD as well as some SUSY corrections (deltaMb) are implemented. Routines calculating (g-2), bsgamma and bsmumu are also included. In particular the bsgamma routine includes an improved NLO for the SM and the charged Higgs while the SUSY large tan(beta) effects beyond leading-order are included. This new version also provides cross-sections for any 2->2 process as well as partial decay widths for two-body final states in the MSSM allowing for easy simulation at colliders.

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, 7,688 input tokens, $0.0003 reported.

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.03 · states limitation 0.12 · human participants 0.01 · controlled comparison 0.01 · randomized assignment 0.01 · states quantitative result 0.04 · compares with prior results 0.07 · mentions code or data availability 0.32.

The abstract, sentence by sentence

arXiv listing abstract v1. Results and the main claim are underlined; show every role.

We present the latest version of micromegas, a code that calculates the relic density of the lightest supersymmetric particle in the MSSM. All tree-level processes for the annihilation of the LSP are included as well as all possible coannihilation processes with neutralinos, charginos, sleptons, squarks and gluinos. The cross-sections extracted from CalcHEP are calculated exactly using loop-corrected masses and mixings as specified in the SUSY Les Houches Accord. Relativistic formulae for the thermal average are used and care is taken to handle poles and thresholds by adopting specific integration routines. The input parameters can be either the soft SUSY parameters in a general MSSM or the parameters of a SUGRA model specified at some high scale (GUT). In the latter case, a link with Suspect, Softsusy, Spheno and Isajet allows to calculate the supersymmetric spectrum, Higgs masses, as well as mixing matrices. Higher-order corrections to Higgs couplings to quark pairs including QCD as well as some SUSY corrections (deltaMb) are implemented. Routines calculating (g-2), bsgamma and bsmumu are also included. In particular the bsgamma routine includes an improved NLO for the SM and the charged Higgs while the SUSY large tan(beta) effects beyond leading-order are included. This new version also provides cross-sections for any 2->2 process as well as partial decay widths for two-body final states in the MSSM allowing for easy simulation at colliders.

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	We present the latest version of micromegas, a code that calculates the relic density of the lightest supersymmetric particle in the MSSM.	contribution 1.00	0.85	0.33	asserted 1.00
s1	All tree-level processes for the annihilation of the LSP are included as well as all possible coannihilation processes with neutralinos, charginos, sleptons, squarks and gluinos.	method 0.74	0.63	0.07	asserted 1.00
s2	The cross-sections extracted from CalcHEP are calculated exactly using loop-corrected masses and mixings as specified in the SUSY Les Houches Accord.	method 0.99	0.59	0.05	asserted 1.00
s3	Relativistic formulae for the thermal average are used and care is taken to handle poles and thresholds by adopting specific integration routines.	method 0.99	0.77	0.04	asserted 1.00
s4	The input parameters can be either the soft SUSY parameters in a general MSSM or the parameters of a SUGRA model specified at some high scale (GUT).	method 0.89	0.37	0.04	asserted 0.98
s5	In the latter case, a link with Suspect, Softsusy, Spheno and Isajet allows to calculate the supersymmetric spectrum, Higgs masses, as well as mixing matrices.	method 0.67	0.55	0.04	asserted 0.99
s6	Higher-order corrections to Higgs couplings to quark pairs including QCD as well as some SUSY corrections (deltaMb) are implemented.	contribution 0.94	0.83	0.04	asserted 1.00
s7	Routines calculating (g-2), bsgamma and bsmumu are also included.	contribution 0.99	0.80	0.03	asserted 1.00
s8	In particular the bsgamma routine includes an improved NLO for the SM and the charged Higgs while the SUSY large tan(beta) effects beyond leading-order are included.	contribution 0.93	0.76	0.04	asserted 1.00
s9	This new version also provides cross-sections for any 2->2 process as well as partial decay widths for two-body final states in the MSSM allowing for easy simulation at colliders.	contribution 1.00	0.87	0.12	asserted 1.00

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: method or tool 1.00 · evidence from simulation or computation 1.00.

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

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

References

Works cited (50)

[1]

The WMAP Collaboration, C. L. Bennett et al. , [arXiv:astro-ph/0302207] and D. N. Spergel et al. , [arXiv:astro-ph/0302209]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[2]

D. J. Eisenstein, W. Hu and M. Tegmark, Astrophys. J. 518, 2 (1998) [arXiv:astro- ph/9807130]; J. Lesgourgues, S. Pastor and L. Perotto, [arX iv:hep-ph/0403296]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1998
[3]

P. Binetruy, G. Girardi and P. Salati, Nucl. Phys. B237 (1984) 285; K. Griest and D. Seckel, Phys. Rev. D43 (1991) 3191; S. Mizuta and M. Yamaguchi, Phys. Lett. 298 (1993) 120 [arXiv:hep-ph/920825]

View on Pith 1984
[4]

C. Boehm, A. Djouadi and M. Drees, Phys. Rev. D62 (2000) 035012 [arXiv:hep- ph/9911496]; J. Ellis, K. Olive and Y. Santoso Phys. Lett. B444 (1998) 367 [arXiv:hep-ph/9810360]; J. Ellis, T. Falk, K. Olive and M. S rednicki, Astropart.Phys. 13 (2000) 181-213; Erratum-ibid. 15 (2001) 413 [arXiv:hep-ph/9905481]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2000
[5]

M. E. Gomez, G. Lazarides and C. Pallis, Phys. Rev. D61 (2000) 123512, [arXiv:hep- ph/9907261]; ibid. Phys. Lett.B487 (2000) 313

View on Pith 2000
[6]

G. B´ elanger, F. Boudjema, A. Pukhov and A. Semenov, Comp ut. Phys. Commun. 149 (2002) 103 [arXiv:hep-ph/0112278]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2002
[7]

P. Gondolo and G. Gelmini, Nucl. Phys. B360 (1991) 145

View on Pith 1991
[8]

J. Edsjo and P. Gondolo, Phys. Rev. D56 (1997) 1879

View on Pith 1997
[9]

P. Skands et al. , to appear in JHEP [arXiv:hep-ph/0311123]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[10]

A. Djouadi, J. Kneur, G. Moultaka, [arXiv:hep-ph/0211 331]. The program is available at http://w3.lpm.univ-montp2.fr/˜kneur/Suspect/

View on Pith
[11]

B.C. Allanach, Comput. Phys. Commun. 143 (2002) 305 [arXiv:hep-ph/0104145]. The program is available at http://allanach.home.cern.ch /allanach/softsusy.html

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2002
[12]

W. Porod, Comput. Phys. Commun. 153 (2003) 275 [arXiv:hep-ph/0301101]. The program is available at http://www-theorie.physik.unizh .ch/˜porod/SPheno.html

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2003
[13]

F. Paige, S. Protopopescu, H. Baer and X. Tata [arXiv:he p-ph/0312045]. The pro- gram (Version 7.69) is available at ftp://penguin.phy.bnl.gov/pub/isajet/

View on Pith
[14]

B. C. Allanach, G. B´ elanger, F. Boudjema, A. Pukhov and W. Porod [arXiv:hep- ph/0402161]

View on Pith
[15]

S. Heinemeyer, W. Hollik and G. Weiglein, Comput. Phys. Commun. 124 (2000) 76 [arXiv:hep-ph/9812320]; S. Heinemeyer, W. Hollik, G. We iglein [arXiv:hep- ph/0002213]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2000
[16]

A. Pukhov, et al., Preprint INP MSU 98-41/542 [arXiv:he p- ph/9908288]. The version that is used for this package can be found at http://theory.sinp.msu.ru/˜pukhov/calchep.html

View on Pith
[17]

P. Gondolo, J. Edsjo, P. Ullio, L. Bergstrom, M. Schelke , E. Baltz, Proc. of IDM2002, York, Sep. 2002, ed. N. Spooner and V. Kudryavtsev, World Sci entiﬁc (2002) 489. The program is available at http://www.physto.se/˜edsjo/ darksusy/

View on Pith 2002
[18]

W.H. Press, S.A. Teukolsky, W.T. Vetterling, B.P. Flan nery, Numerical Recipes in C, Cambridge University Press, 1992

View on Pith 1992
[19]

A. Djouadi, J. Kalinowski and M. Spira, Comp. Phys. Comm . 108 (1998) 56 [arXiv:hep-ph/9704448]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1998
[20]

Particle Data Group, Phys. Rev. D66(2002) 01001

View on Pith 2002
[21]

K. Melnikov, T. v. Ritbergen, Phys. Lett. B482(2000) 99

View on Pith 2000
[22]

J. Guasch, P. Haﬂiger and M. Spira, Phys. Rev. D 68 (2003) 115001 [arXiv:hep- ph/0305101]

View on Pith 2003
[23]

H. Baer and C. Balazs, JCAP 0305, 006 (2003) [arXiv:hep-ph/0303114]; H. Baer, C. Balazs, A. Belyaev, J. K. Mizukoshi, X. Tata and Y. Wang, JH EP 0207, 050 (2002) [arXiv:hep-ph/0205325]; J. R. Ellis, K. A. Olive , Y. Santoso and V. C. Spanos, [arXiv:hep-ph/0310356]; C. Pallis and M. E. Go mez, [arXiv:hep- ph/0303098]; A. Djouadi, M. Drees and J. L. Kneur, ...

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2003
[24]

H. Baer, C. Balazs, A. Belyaev, JHEP 0203 (2002) 042 [arXiv:hep-ph/0202076]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2002
[25]

A.Semenov, Comput. Phys. Comm. 115 (1998) 124; A. Semenov, [arXiv:hep- ph/0208011]

View on Pith 1998
[26]

A.Semenov, Nucl.Inst. Meth. A502 (2003) 558 [arXiv:hep-ph/0205020]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2003
[27]

F. Boudjema, A. Semenov, Phys. Rev. D66 (2002) 095007 [arXiv:hep-ph/0201219]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2002
[28]

A. Djouadi et. al. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 78 (1997) 3626 and Phys. Rev.D57 (1998) 4179

View on Pith 1997
[29]

V. Barger, M. Berger, P. Ohmann and R.N. Phillips, Phys. Rev. D51 (1995) 2438, [arXiv:hep-ph/9407273]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1995
[30]

C. Bobeth, T. Ewerth, F. Kruger and J. Urban, Phys. Rev. D64 (2001) 074014 [arXiv:hep-ph/0104284]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2001
[31]

K. Anikeev et al. , FERMILAB-Pub-01/197 [arXiv:hep-ph/0201071]. The prese nt limit is from F. Aben et al., CDF Collaboration, Phys. Rev. D57 (1998) 3811

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1998
[32]

M. Nakao, Talk at Lepton-Photon 2003, 11-16 Aug. 2003, F ermilab, USA

View on Pith 2003
[33]

A. Dedes, H.K. Dreiner and U.Nierste, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87 (2001) 251804 [arXiv:hep- ph/0108037]

View on Pith 2001
[34]

G. B´ elanger, F. Boudjema, A. Cottrant, R. Godbole and A . Semenov, Phys. Lett.B519 (2001) 93 [arXiv:hep-ph/0106275]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2001
[35]

S. P. Martin and J. D. Wells, Phys. Rev. D64 (2001) 035003 [arXiv:hep-ph/0103067]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2001
[36]

G. W. Bennett et al. [Muon g-2 Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 161802 (2004) [arXiv:hep-ex/0401008]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2004
[37]

G. B´ elanger, F. Boudjema, A. Cottrant, A. Pukhov, A. Se menov, in preparation

View on Pith
[38]

A. Pukhov, Nucl.Instrum.Meth. A502 (2003) 573

View on Pith 2003
[39]

M. Battaglia et al , Eur. Phys. J. C22 (2001) 535 [arXiv:hep-ph/0106204]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2001
[40]

J. Ellis, T. Falk, G. Ganis, K. Olive and M. Srednicki, [a rXiv:hep-ph/0102098 (2001)

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2001
[41]

M. Drees and M. M. Nojiri, Phys. Rev. D47 (1993) 376

View on Pith 1993
[42]

B. C. Allanach, S. Kraml. W. Porod, JHEP 0303 (2003) 016; [[arXiv:hep- ph/0302102]

View on Pith 2003
[43]

A. L. Kagan and M. Neubert, Eur. Phys. J. C 7, 5 (1999) [[arXiv:hep-ph/9805303]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1999
[44]

P. Gambino and M. Misiak, Nucl. Phys. B611, 338 (2001) [[arXiv:hep-ph/0104034]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2001
[45]

G. Degrassi, P. Gambino and G. F. Giudice, JHEP 0012, 009 (2000) [arXiv:hep- ph/0009337]

View on Pith 2000
[46]

K. Chetyrkin, M. Misiak and M. Munz, Phys. Lett. B400, 206 (1997) [Erratum-ibid. B 425, 414 (1997)] [[arXiv:hep-ph/9612313]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1997
[47]

M. Ciuchini, G. Degrassi, P. Gambino and G. F. Giudice, N ucl. Phys. B527, 21 (1998) [[arXiv:hep-ph/9710335]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1998
[48]

M. Ciuchini, G. Degrassi, P. Gambino and G. F. Giudice, N ucl. Phys. B534, 3 (1998) [[arXiv:hep-ph/9806308]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1998
[49]

M. Carena, D. Garcia, U. Nierste and C. E. Wagner, Nucl. P hys. B577, 88 (2000) [[arXiv:hep-ph/9912516]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2000
[50]

D. M. Pierce, J. A. Bagger, K. T. Matchev and R. J. Zhang, N ucl. Phys. B 491, 3 (1997) [[arXiv:hep-ph/9606211]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1997

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

Radiative Corrections to the Direct Detection of Inelastic Scattering of Higgsino-like Neutralino Dark Matter
hep-ph 2026-09 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

One-loop electroweak corrections to elastic and inelastic Higgsino-like neutralino-nucleon scattering are computed, showing that inelastic scattering can be as important as elastic in some regions.
Connecting Vector-like Muons, pNGB Dark Matter and Electroweak Phase Transition through Collider and Gravitational Wave
hep-ph 2026-09 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

A model with pNGB dark matter and a vector-like muon can simultaneously satisfy all current constraints and produce detectable signals at muon colliders and gravitational-wave detectors.
micrOMEGAs 6.0: N-component dark matter
hep-ph 2023-12 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

micrOMEGAs 6.0 generalizes the dark matter Boltzmann equations to N components, adds co-scattering and decay terms, and extends photon spectra down to 110 MeV.
MadDM v.3.0: a Comprehensive Tool for Dark Matter Studies
hep-ph 2018-03 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

The release adds indirect detection, including annihilation spectra for arbitrary multi-particle final states, a Fermi-LAT dwarf-spheroidal likelihood, and nested-sampling parameter scans, all validated against MicrOM...
FlexibleSUSY 2.0: Extensions to investigate the phenomenology of SUSY and non-SUSY models
hep-ph 2017-10 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

The paper documents FlexibleSUSY 2.0, which extends an automated spectrum generator to non-supersymmetric models, complex parameters, W-mass prediction from muon decay, muon g-2, a semi-analytic boundary value solver,...

Show 34 more citing papers

DarkBit: A GAMBIT module for computing dark matter observables and likelihoods
hep-ph 2017-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

DarkBit bundles dark matter relic density, direct detection, and gamma-ray and neutrino likelihoods into one modular, publicly released code, and its side-by-side run of DarkSUSY and micrOMEGAs shows relic densities d...
SModelS: a tool for interpreting simplified-model results from the LHC and its application to supersymmetry
hep-ph 2013-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

A decomposition tool maps full supersymmetric spectra onto simplified-model topologies and confronts them with LHC limits, finding that substantial sub-TeV regions remain untested.
A comprehensive approach to new physics simulations
hep-ph 2009-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

A single Lagrangian-level model description in FeynRules, exported through dedicated interfaces, yields mutually consistent implementations in FeynArts/FormCalc, CalcHep, MadGraph/MadEvent and Sherpa, validated across...
Fitting the Phenomenological MSSM
hep-ph 2009-04 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

A 25-parameter global Bayesian fit of the pMSSM finds that the lightest CP-even Higgs mass and the stop masses are approximately prior independent, while most sparticle masses and all dark matter properties are not.
Dark matter direct detection rate in a generic model with micrOMEGAs2.2
hep-ph 2008-03 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

A new micrOMEGAs module computes WIMP-nucleus scattering cross sections and recoil spectra automatically for any dark matter model implemented in the code, benchmarked against Isajet and DarkSUSY.
Natural Priors, CMSSM Fits and LHC Weather Forecasts
hep-ph 2007-05 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

Rewriting the CMSSM prior in terms of mu and B, with a hierarchical same-order-of-magnitude assumption on all soft scales, removes the pseudoscalar-Higgs and focus-point fit regions and lowers predicted sparticle mass...
micrOMEGAs2.0: a program to calculate the relic density of dark matter in a generic model
hep-ph 2006-07 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

The paper documents a released code that computes dark matter relic density and v=0 annihilation spectra for any particle model supplied in CalcHEP notation, with all annihilation and coannihilation channels generated...
Explaining the LZ High-Energy Recoil Event with Inelastic Sneutrino Dark Matter in Supersymmetry
hep-ph 2026-09 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

In the ISS-NMSSM, inelastic sneutrino dark matter with a small mass splitting protected by lepton-number conservation can explain the LZ 248 keV event while passing multiple experimental constraints.
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.
Dark matter, fine-tuning and $(g-2)_{\mu}$ in the pMSSM
hep-ph 2021-04 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Within a pMSSM scan, the surviving spectra that explain the muon anomaly, saturate the relic density and stay minimally fine-tuned all have spin-dependent dark-matter-nucleon cross sections large enough for PICO-500 a...
WIMPs at the Galactic Center
hep-ph 2014-11 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Once background-model systematics are folded in, dark matter of roughly 80 to 310 GeV annihilating to W, Z, Higgs or top pairs fits the Galactic center gamma-ray excess, widening the viable mass window well beyond ear...
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.
micrOMEGAs3.1 : a program for calculating dark matter observables
hep-ph 2013-05 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

The release adds numerical solvers for asymmetric and semi-annihilating dark matter, three-body final states with off-shell W and Z bosons, loop-induced Higgs couplings, and a neutrino-telescope capture module to the ...
Impact of semi-annihilations on dark matter phenomenology - an example of Z_N symmetric scalar dark matter
hep-ph 2012-02 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Semi-annihilation and cross-sector annihilation can change the dark matter relic density by factors of a few in minimal Z3 and Z4 scalar models, as shown by micrOMEGAs implementations with explicit benchmark points.
Indirect search for dark matter with micrOMEGAs2.4
hep-ph 2010-04 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

micrOMEGAs 2.4 adds an indirect-detection module that turns any model's dark matter annihilation cross sections into propagated gamma-ray, positron and antiproton fluxes at Earth.
The inert doublet model of dark matter revisited
hep-ph 2010-03 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Adding the three-body W W* annihilation channel to the inert doublet model shifts its viable dark matter parameter space and lowers the predicted direct detection cross section by up to two orders of magnitude.
Naturalness and Focus Points with Non-Universal Gaugino Masses
hep-ph 2009-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Gaugino mass ratios that place a focus point in the up-type Higgs soft mass near the TeV scale reduce electroweak fine-tuning in the MSSM to below 5 in several GUT and string models.
SuperIso Relic: A program for calculating relic density and flavor physics observables in Supersymmetry
hep-ph 2009-06 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

SuperIso Relic computes MSSM relic density and flavor observables and, uniquely among public codes, lets users vary the pre-BBN cosmological model to test how relic-density bounds depend on it.
SuperIso v3.0: A program for calculating flavor physics observables in 2HDM and supersymmetry
hep-ph 2008-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

SuperIso v3.0 packages calculations of several flavor-physics observables and the muon g-2 into one public C program for the SM, 2HDM, MSSM, and NMSSM.
Towards a new tool for the indirect detection of Dark Matter: building of a SuSy spectrum generator based on micrOMEGAs
astro-ph 2006-03 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

A micrOMEGAs-based spectrum generator for indirect dark matter signals is presented, with worked gamma-ray and positron flux examples for mSUGRA and AMSB benchmark points.
Inelastic Dark Matter from a Higher-Dimensional Operator: The LUX-ZEPLIN High-Recoil Event and Thermal Relic
hep-ph 2026-09 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

A single dimension-6 Z-portal operator can simultaneously explain the 248 keV LZ recoil event via inelastic dark matter and the observed thermal relic density for a dark matter mass of roughly 0.2-1 TeV.
Revisiting Singlet Fermion Dark Matter with a Scalar Portal: Connecting Higgs Phenomenology and Strong Electroweak Phase Transition
hep-ph 2026-01 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

In a no-VEV singlet scalar + singlet fermion dark matter extension of the SM, a strong first-order electroweak phase transition, the observed dark matter relic density, and collider/direct-detection constraints can co...
Dark Matter and CP Violation in Some Symmetry-Constrained 3HDMs
hep-ph 2025-06 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

S3-symmetric three-Higgs-doublet models allow dark matter in a 29-42 GeV window, exclude heavy candidates above 500 GeV, and admit MeV-scale light scalars, while continuous-symmetry variants produce mass-degenerate da...
Neutralino dark matter in gauge mediation
hep-ph 2025-02 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

Neutralino dark matter is viable in four scenarios within a 5D gauge mediation model with an O(100) TeV gravitino, and the allowed parameter regions are mapped against current experiments.
GUT-constrained supersymmetry and dark matter in light of the new $(g-2)_\mu$ determination
hep-ph 2021-04 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

In GUT-constrained supersymmetry with non-universal gaugino masses, a light bino, or a strongly subdominant higgsino or wino, can supply the muon g-2 anomaly, unlike in the CMSSM or NUHM.
Advancing LHC Probes of Dark Matter from the Inert 2-Higgs Doublet Model with the Mono-jet Signal
hep-ph 2018-09 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

A shape analysis of missing transverse momentum, combined with a one-loop correction to the Higgs-gluon vertex, extends LHC reach for inert-doublet dark matter to couplings around 0.01 for dark matter masses below hal...
micrOMEGAs4.1: two dark matter candidates
hep-ph 2014-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

micrOMEGAs 4.1 extends the relic-density Boltzmann solver to two dark matter candidates, adding dark-sector conversion and semi-annihilation, and carries both candidates through direct and indirect detection.
Likelihood Functions for Supersymmetric Observables in Frequentist Analyses of the CMSSM and NUHM1
hep-ph 2009-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

Global chi-squared likelihoods from pre-LHC data prefer light superpartners in the stau-neutralino coannihilation region of both the CMSSM and NUHM1, with most 95% C.L. regions reachable at the early LHC.
Neutrino Coannihilation on Dark-Matter Relics?
astro-ph 2006-04 accept novelty 4.0 of 10

Resonant neutrino-neutralino coannihilation would produce far too few detectable signals in any foreseeable detector to be observed.
Entropy considerations in constraining the mSUGRA parameter space
astro-ph 2006-04 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

In mSUGRA with A0=0 and positive mu, the relic-abundance and entropy-consistency criteria agree under WMAP bounds only for high tan beta, near 50, disfavoring low tan beta.
Les Houches "Physics at TeV Colliders 2005'' Beyond the Standard Model working group: summary report
hep-ph 2006-02 accept novelty 4.0 of 10

A comprehensive proceedings summary of BSM physics at TeV colliders, with reviews, tools, and original studies of SUSY and non-SUSY scenarios.
Supersymmetry Parameter Analysis: SPA Convention and Project
hep-ph 2005-11 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

The paper fixes a shared convention (DR parameters at 1 TeV, pole masses) and a benchmark supersymmetry point, SPS1a', so that LHC and linear-collider results can be compared and inverted to Lagrangian parameters.
GUT-scale constrained SUSY in light of E989 muon g-2 measurement
hep-ph 2021-04 conditional novelty 3.0 of 10

The minimal GUT-scale supersymmetric model cannot explain the new muon g-2 anomaly without violating LHC, Higgs, and flavor constraints, but a gluino-heavy variant can.
Physics Interplay of the LHC and the ILC
hep-ph 2004-10 accept novelty 3.0 of 10

The report argues, through worked examples across Higgs, SUSY, extra-dimension and precision sectors, that combined LHC and ILC data resolve physics that neither machine can settle alone.

How later papers used it

120 later papers cite it

Evidence: some. 110 of the citing papers share no author with it, and 94 of those carry a confident label from Pith's citation classifier.

Pith read 7 of the 135 citing sentences, choosing only those whose citation markers point at this paper alone, and wrote the paraphrases from them. The summary, the counts, the evidence level, the links and the quotes come from code; the summary counts the papers listed below. A later paper is listed under a label when Pith's citation classifier gives one of its sentences that label at probability 0.8 or more (0.95 for support), Pith's reading finds that the citing paper itself did it, and a second check confirms the paraphrase against the sentence. This section lists uses only. It does not list criticism or disagreement, so their absence here says nothing about how the paper has been received. Papers that share an author with this one are listed apart, under "By the same authors". A quote is the citing authors' own sentence, shown when their paper's licence is CC BY, CC BY-SA or CC0. JSON

5 later papers by other authors are listed below: 5 used its method or tool.

Uses its method or tool 5 of 99 papers with this label

Fed its resulting low energy spectrum into the Micromegas program, version 2.0.1, assuming the low energy effective theory is the MSSM with R-parity conservation.

Dark Matter in Gauge Mediation from Emergent Supersymmetry (2007) · 1.00 · paraphrased: the licence does not allow quoting
Calculated the relic abundance of the neutralino dark matter using micrOMEGAs 2.4 with the output of SOFTSUSY in the SLHA format.

Discrimination of Supersymmetric Grand Unified Models in Gaugino Mediation (2010) · 1.00 · paraphrased: the licence does not allow quoting
Used the micrOMEGAs package version 2.4.5 to calculate the neutralino dark matter relic abundance and other phenomenological constraints with the output of SOFTSUSY.

Positively deflected anomaly mediation in the light of the Higgs boson discovery (2012) · 1.00 · paraphrased: the licence does not allow quoting
Linked the MSSM spectrum via the SUSY Les Houches Accord to micrOMEGAs1.3.6 for points not ruled out, which then calculates relic density, branching ratios and the muon anomalous magnetic moment.

Natural Priors, CMSSM Fits and LHC Weather Forecasts (2007) · 1.00 · paraphrased: the licence does not allow quoting
Computed some of the associated relic densities with the micrOMEGAs code.

Antimatter cosmic rays from dark matter annihilation: First results from an N-body experiment (2008) · 1.00 · paraphrased: the licence does not allow quoting

How the literature uses it

109 arXiv papers cite this in 123 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 · 23 sentences without a confident label

Uses its method or tool 90 papers

We also use [ref] to obtain the relic density of the LSP, $ΩLSP$, and its spin-independent cross section to nucleons, $σSI$.

Wino-Higgsino dark matter in the MSSM from the $g-2$ anomaly · Introduction · 1.00
This is then interfaced with FeynHiggs 2.14.2 [ref] to calculate the branching ratios of Higgs boson and $ρ$ parameter, Superiso v4.0 [ref] for estimating muon anomalous magnetic moment and B-physics branching ratios and micromegas 5.0.4 [ref] to calculate the relic density of the dark matter which in our case turn out to be lightest neutralino.

An Information Theoretic Exploration of Constrained MSSM · CMSSM and Information Theory · 1.00
The relic density and direct detection cross section were calculated numerically with [ref] , using [ref] model files automatically generated with .

Dark Matter in a Constrained $E_6$ Inspired SUSY Model · Scan Procedure · 1.00

Uses its data or values 1 paper

The SM value for the branching $$ calculated in [ref] was shifted in order to match the NNLO result of [ref] .

Constraining the MSSM with universal gaugino masses and implication for searches at the LHC · Results · 0.88

Compares with it 1 paper

In this way, possible NMSSM DM under-abundance is consistently included in the derivation of the direct detection signal for the NMSSM DM candidate.[We compared our numbers for direct detection with MicrOMEGAs [ref] and found agreement.]

NMSSMScanner: Efficient Scans in the NMSSM Parameter Space Proof of Concept · Experimental Observables · 0.96

Cites it as background 1 paper

Several public computer codes that determine the MSSM mass spectrum and other SUSY observables (e.g. SuSpect [ref] , SPheno [ref] , micrOMEGAs [ref] , FeynHiggs [ref] , NMHDECAY [ref] , CPsuperH [ref] and SuperIso [ref] ) contain calculations of $$ in various approximations.

SusyBSG: a fortran code for BR[B -> Xs gamma] in the MSSM with Minimal Flavor Violation · Introduction · 0.86

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] [1]

The WMAP Collaboration, C. L. Bennett et al. , [arXiv:astro-ph/0302207] and D. N. Spergel et al. , [arXiv:astro-ph/0302209]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[2] [2]

D. J. Eisenstein, W. Hu and M. Tegmark, Astrophys. J. 518, 2 (1998) [arXiv:astro- ph/9807130]; J. Lesgourgues, S. Pastor and L. Perotto, [arX iv:hep-ph/0403296]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1998

[3] [3]

P. Binetruy, G. Girardi and P. Salati, Nucl. Phys. B237 (1984) 285; K. Griest and D. Seckel, Phys. Rev. D43 (1991) 3191; S. Mizuta and M. Yamaguchi, Phys. Lett. 298 (1993) 120 [arXiv:hep-ph/920825]

View on Pith 1984

[4] [4]

C. Boehm, A. Djouadi and M. Drees, Phys. Rev. D62 (2000) 035012 [arXiv:hep- ph/9911496]; J. Ellis, K. Olive and Y. Santoso Phys. Lett. B444 (1998) 367 [arXiv:hep-ph/9810360]; J. Ellis, T. Falk, K. Olive and M. S rednicki, Astropart.Phys. 13 (2000) 181-213; Erratum-ibid. 15 (2001) 413 [arXiv:hep-ph/9905481]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2000

[5] [5]

M. E. Gomez, G. Lazarides and C. Pallis, Phys. Rev. D61 (2000) 123512, [arXiv:hep- ph/9907261]; ibid. Phys. Lett.B487 (2000) 313

View on Pith 2000

[6] [6]

G. B´ elanger, F. Boudjema, A. Pukhov and A. Semenov, Comp ut. Phys. Commun. 149 (2002) 103 [arXiv:hep-ph/0112278]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2002

[7] [7]

P. Gondolo and G. Gelmini, Nucl. Phys. B360 (1991) 145

View on Pith 1991

[8] [8]

J. Edsjo and P. Gondolo, Phys. Rev. D56 (1997) 1879

View on Pith 1997

[9] [9]

P. Skands et al. , to appear in JHEP [arXiv:hep-ph/0311123]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[10] [10]

A. Djouadi, J. Kneur, G. Moultaka, [arXiv:hep-ph/0211 331]. The program is available at http://w3.lpm.univ-montp2.fr/˜kneur/Suspect/

View on Pith

[11] [11]

B.C. Allanach, Comput. Phys. Commun. 143 (2002) 305 [arXiv:hep-ph/0104145]. The program is available at http://allanach.home.cern.ch /allanach/softsusy.html

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2002

[12] [12]

W. Porod, Comput. Phys. Commun. 153 (2003) 275 [arXiv:hep-ph/0301101]. The program is available at http://www-theorie.physik.unizh .ch/˜porod/SPheno.html

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2003

[13] [13]

F. Paige, S. Protopopescu, H. Baer and X. Tata [arXiv:he p-ph/0312045]. The pro- gram (Version 7.69) is available at ftp://penguin.phy.bnl.gov/pub/isajet/

View on Pith

[14] [14]

B. C. Allanach, G. B´ elanger, F. Boudjema, A. Pukhov and W. Porod [arXiv:hep- ph/0402161]

View on Pith

[15] [15]

S. Heinemeyer, W. Hollik and G. Weiglein, Comput. Phys. Commun. 124 (2000) 76 [arXiv:hep-ph/9812320]; S. Heinemeyer, W. Hollik, G. We iglein [arXiv:hep- ph/0002213]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2000

[16] [16]

A. Pukhov, et al., Preprint INP MSU 98-41/542 [arXiv:he p- ph/9908288]. The version that is used for this package can be found at http://theory.sinp.msu.ru/˜pukhov/calchep.html

View on Pith

[17] [17]

P. Gondolo, J. Edsjo, P. Ullio, L. Bergstrom, M. Schelke , E. Baltz, Proc. of IDM2002, York, Sep. 2002, ed. N. Spooner and V. Kudryavtsev, World Sci entiﬁc (2002) 489. The program is available at http://www.physto.se/˜edsjo/ darksusy/

View on Pith 2002

[18] [18]

W.H. Press, S.A. Teukolsky, W.T. Vetterling, B.P. Flan nery, Numerical Recipes in C, Cambridge University Press, 1992

View on Pith 1992

[19] [19]

A. Djouadi, J. Kalinowski and M. Spira, Comp. Phys. Comm . 108 (1998) 56 [arXiv:hep-ph/9704448]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1998

[20] [20]

Particle Data Group, Phys. Rev. D66(2002) 01001

View on Pith 2002

[21] [21]

K. Melnikov, T. v. Ritbergen, Phys. Lett. B482(2000) 99

View on Pith 2000

[22] [22]

J. Guasch, P. Haﬂiger and M. Spira, Phys. Rev. D 68 (2003) 115001 [arXiv:hep- ph/0305101]

View on Pith 2003

[23] [23]

H. Baer and C. Balazs, JCAP 0305, 006 (2003) [arXiv:hep-ph/0303114]; H. Baer, C. Balazs, A. Belyaev, J. K. Mizukoshi, X. Tata and Y. Wang, JH EP 0207, 050 (2002) [arXiv:hep-ph/0205325]; J. R. Ellis, K. A. Olive , Y. Santoso and V. C. Spanos, [arXiv:hep-ph/0310356]; C. Pallis and M. E. Go mez, [arXiv:hep- ph/0303098]; A. Djouadi, M. Drees and J. L. Kneur, ...

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2003

[24] [24]

H. Baer, C. Balazs, A. Belyaev, JHEP 0203 (2002) 042 [arXiv:hep-ph/0202076]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2002

[25] [25]

A.Semenov, Comput. Phys. Comm. 115 (1998) 124; A. Semenov, [arXiv:hep- ph/0208011]

View on Pith 1998

[26] [26]

A.Semenov, Nucl.Inst. Meth. A502 (2003) 558 [arXiv:hep-ph/0205020]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2003

[27] [27]

F. Boudjema, A. Semenov, Phys. Rev. D66 (2002) 095007 [arXiv:hep-ph/0201219]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2002

[28] [28]

A. Djouadi et. al. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 78 (1997) 3626 and Phys. Rev.D57 (1998) 4179

View on Pith 1997

[29] [29]

V. Barger, M. Berger, P. Ohmann and R.N. Phillips, Phys. Rev. D51 (1995) 2438, [arXiv:hep-ph/9407273]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1995

[30] [30]

C. Bobeth, T. Ewerth, F. Kruger and J. Urban, Phys. Rev. D64 (2001) 074014 [arXiv:hep-ph/0104284]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2001

[31] [31]

K. Anikeev et al. , FERMILAB-Pub-01/197 [arXiv:hep-ph/0201071]. The prese nt limit is from F. Aben et al., CDF Collaboration, Phys. Rev. D57 (1998) 3811

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1998

[32] [32]

M. Nakao, Talk at Lepton-Photon 2003, 11-16 Aug. 2003, F ermilab, USA

View on Pith 2003

[33] [33]

A. Dedes, H.K. Dreiner and U.Nierste, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87 (2001) 251804 [arXiv:hep- ph/0108037]

View on Pith 2001

[34] [34]

G. B´ elanger, F. Boudjema, A. Cottrant, R. Godbole and A . Semenov, Phys. Lett.B519 (2001) 93 [arXiv:hep-ph/0106275]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2001

[35] [35]

S. P. Martin and J. D. Wells, Phys. Rev. D64 (2001) 035003 [arXiv:hep-ph/0103067]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2001

[36] [36]

G. W. Bennett et al. [Muon g-2 Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 161802 (2004) [arXiv:hep-ex/0401008]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2004

[37] [37]

G. B´ elanger, F. Boudjema, A. Cottrant, A. Pukhov, A. Se menov, in preparation

View on Pith

[38] [38]

A. Pukhov, Nucl.Instrum.Meth. A502 (2003) 573

View on Pith 2003

[39] [39]

M. Battaglia et al , Eur. Phys. J. C22 (2001) 535 [arXiv:hep-ph/0106204]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2001

[40] [40]

J. Ellis, T. Falk, G. Ganis, K. Olive and M. Srednicki, [a rXiv:hep-ph/0102098 (2001)

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2001

[41] [41]

M. Drees and M. M. Nojiri, Phys. Rev. D47 (1993) 376

View on Pith 1993

[42] [42]

B. C. Allanach, S. Kraml. W. Porod, JHEP 0303 (2003) 016; [[arXiv:hep- ph/0302102]

View on Pith 2003

[43] [43]

A. L. Kagan and M. Neubert, Eur. Phys. J. C 7, 5 (1999) [[arXiv:hep-ph/9805303]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1999

[44] [44]

P. Gambino and M. Misiak, Nucl. Phys. B611, 338 (2001) [[arXiv:hep-ph/0104034]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2001

[45] [45]

G. Degrassi, P. Gambino and G. F. Giudice, JHEP 0012, 009 (2000) [arXiv:hep- ph/0009337]

View on Pith 2000

[46] [46]

K. Chetyrkin, M. Misiak and M. Munz, Phys. Lett. B400, 206 (1997) [Erratum-ibid. B 425, 414 (1997)] [[arXiv:hep-ph/9612313]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1997

[47] [47]

M. Ciuchini, G. Degrassi, P. Gambino and G. F. Giudice, N ucl. Phys. B527, 21 (1998) [[arXiv:hep-ph/9710335]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1998

[48] [48]

M. Ciuchini, G. Degrassi, P. Gambino and G. F. Giudice, N ucl. Phys. B534, 3 (1998) [[arXiv:hep-ph/9806308]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1998

[49] [49]

M. Carena, D. Garcia, U. Nierste and C. E. Wagner, Nucl. P hys. B577, 88 (2000) [[arXiv:hep-ph/9912516]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2000

[50] [50]

D. M. Pierce, J. A. Bagger, K. T. Matchev and R. J. Zhang, N ucl. Phys. B 491, 3 (1997) [[arXiv:hep-ph/9606211]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1997