Pith.

High Energy Physics - Phenomenology · arXiv:hep-ph/0505105 v1 · submitted 12 May 2005 · 108 references

Supersymmetry and the MSSM: An Elementary Introduction

Ian J R Aitchison

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

The paper says

“These notes are an expanded version of a short course of lectures given for graduate students in particle physics at Oxford.”

more of the abstract

The level was intended to be appropriate for students in both experimental and theoretical particle physics.The purpose is to present an elementary and self-contained introduction to SUSY that follows on, relatively straightforwardly, from graduate-level courses in relativistic quantum mechanics and introductory quantum field theory. The notation adopted, at least initially, is one widely used in RQM courses, rather than the `spinor calculus' (dotted and undotted indices) notation found in most SUSY sources, though the latter is introduced in optional Asides. There is also a strong preference for a `do-it-yourself' constructive approach, rather than for a top-down formal deductive treatment. The main goal is to provide a practical understanding of how the softly broken MSSM is constructed. Relatively less space is devoted to phenomenology, though simple `classic' results are covered, including gauge unification, the bound on the mass of the lightest Higgs boson, and sparticle mixing. By the end of the course students (readers) should be provided with access to the contemporary phenomenological literature.

from the abstract

Pith says

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

Reviewed in 2026 with later literature in view.

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

Holds up. A genuinely useful pedagogical route into the MSSM, with one acknowledged gap in section 11.1 and a phenomenology chapter that has aged twenty years. This line is wrong

1 major objection · 8 minor

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

Are you an author? What you can do.

Not checked: figures, code, what the 108 references say.

The paper says, at §11.1, Eqs. (422)–(450)

The review did not quote this passage.

Pith says: Objection 1 of 1 · major

The scale factor α = −1/√2 (445), A = −√2 (446) and B = −1 (443) are fixed by matching only a subset of terms — the D-terms in (427)/(428), the χ–λ terms in (430)/(433), and the ξ†σ̄^μλ terms in (436)/(439)/(441).

more of objection 1

The residual variations, including the F†F term against (447) and the remaining pieces of the D² and −qφ†φD variations, are asserted to cancel rather than shown to. The author acknowledges this explicitly ('we leave to the dedicated reader'). The result is standard and matches the cited Martin primer [22] Eqs. (3.57)–(3.59), so this is not a correctness concern, but it is the one place the promised step-by-step construction stops, and it is load-bearing for the D-term potential (461) used in §16. A short appendix carrying out the residual cancellations would close the gap.

8 minor objections

The paper says, at §2.2, Eq. (77)

Pith says: minor objection 1 of 8

The notation 'ψ†χ(1)χ(2)' is easy to misread, since the subscript χ on ψ is the only marker distinguishing the constructed ψ-like object from the spinor χ; a brief reminder at the point of use would help.

The paper says, at §3, Eqs. (145)–(155)

Pith says: minor objection 2 of 8

The total-derivative bookkeeping is dense; a one-line summary of which terms combine into which total derivative would make the section easier to follow.

show 6 more

The paper says, at §12, Eq. (465) and footnote 14

Pith says: minor objection 3 of 8

The '·' notation for the SU(2)-invariant product is used in (465) before it is defined in footnote 14; a forward reference at first use would help.

The paper says, at §12, p. 97

Pith says: minor objection 4 of 8

The statement 'at the cost of only one new parameter, µ' should be qualified as referring to the exact SUSY limit, since §15 itself counts over 100 soft parameters.

The paper says, at §13, Eqs. (507)–(508)

Pith says: minor objection 5 of 8

The displayed reduction from the sum over hypercharges to −41/10 is difficult to verify as printed; showing the intermediate sums explicitly would help.

The paper says, at §13, Eq. (515)

Pith says: minor objection 6 of 8

The 'excellent agreement' between 0.74 and 0.72 is stated without an estimate of the size of the two-loop and threshold corrections that the author acknowledges; a sentence quantifying the expected shift would strengthen the claim.

The paper says, at §14

Pith says: minor objection 7 of 8

The statement 'One quickly finds that R is +1 for all conventional matter particles' would be clearer with one worked example (e.g. the electron).

The paper says, at Throughout

Pith says: minor objection 8 of 8

Several typographical errors appear in the supplied text (e.g. 'reormalizability' in §1.1, 'whee C is a constant' in §10.1, 'Lorewntz' in Aside 1, 'the relevnty parameter' in §12, 'Higginos' in §13); these should be checked against the published version.

What would settle it

Take eq. (450) with the transformations (421), (422)-(425) at alpha = -1/sqrt(2), A = -sqrt(2), B = -1, and the modified delta_xi F of (448)-(449), and enumerate every term in delta_xi L that is not already grouped in (427), (428), (430), (433), (436), (439) or (441). In particular, expand the variation of the (1/2)D^2 term and the -q phi-dagger phi D term in full, and the F-dagger F variation against (447), and check whether each residual term either vanishes identically or combines into a total derivative. If any residual survives as a non-derivative term, eq. (450) is not SUSY-invariant as claimed and the D-term potential (461) - and with it the section 16 Higgs mass bound - is not derived.

from the skeptic's reading

How the review went

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

  1. Reader holds up confidence high
  2. Skeptic partly agrees 44 s · 68,337 tokens read, 2,383 written
  3. Editor wrote the verdict above 18 s · 69,439 tokens read, 974 written
  4. Referee accept: 1 major objection, 8 minor 13 min 58 s · 137,252 tokens read, 45,660 written

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

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

The review in full

The review in brief, machine-written

Nothing in here is new physics, and the author says so. The value is the route: he starts in the four-component Dirac notation people actually learned in graduate school, gets the two-component decomposition out of it, and only introduces dotted and undotted indices in optional Asides. Most SUSY texts do the reverse and lose half the room in week one. That is a real niche and it is filled well. Sections 2, 3 and 7 are the heart of it: he builds a naive SUSY, shows it fails off-shell, then repairs it with the auxiliary field F. That is a much better way to learn why F exists than being handed it. Section 8 on Wess-Zumino and the superfield chapters are clean. I checked the unification arithmetic in section 13 and it holds: b3 = 3, b2 = -1, b1 = -33/5 give 5/7 against the measured 0.72, while the SM coefficients give 0.528. No adjustable parameter, so it is a real check, not a fit. The stress-test note is right about section 11.1: the full SUSY variation of the combined chiral-gauge Lagrangian is left to the reader, and the coefficients alpha, A and B are fixed by matching only a subset of terms. But the author flags this himself, cites Martin's (3.57)-(3.59) at exactly that point, and the result is standard and independently checkable. It is a small soft spot, not a hole in the construction. The bigger practical issue is date: these are 2004-05 notes, so the lightest-Higgs bound of about 140 GeV and the benchmark points in section 17.5 predate the 125 GeV discovery and the LHC sparticle limits. The abstract promises access to the contemporary literature, and the contemporary literature has moved. Anyone using these should pair them with a current primer for the phenomenology half. Who is this for: a first- or second-year graduate student who wants to actually build the MSSM rather than admire it, and any lecturer who needs a notation bridge. Worth citing as a teaching reference. If a journal were considering it as a review, yes, send it out, but the report will mostly be about coverage and currency rather than correctness.

The strongest objection

The paper's central claim (abstract:s4) is that the softly broken MSSM is *constructed*, with the 'do-it-yourself' approach (abstract:s3) spelling out each step. That claim is met almost everywhere: section 3 builds and then deliberately breaks the naive SUSY, section 7 repairs it with the auxiliary field F, section 8 derives the Wess–Zumino interactions, and sections 9–10 give the superfield and gauge-multiplet machinery. The one exception is section 11.1, where the author writes: 'We have, of course, not given a complete analysis of all the terms in the SUSY variation of our Lagrangian, an exercise we leave to the dedicated reader - who will find that (with one more adjustment to the SUSY transformations) all the variations do indeed vanish.' The scale factor alpha = -1/sqrt(2) (eq. 445), A = -sqrt(2) (eq. 446) and B = -1 (eq. 443) are fixed by matching only a subset of terms - the D-terms in (427)/(428), the chi-lambda terms in (430)/(433), and the xi-dagger sigma-bar-mu lambda terms in (436)/(439)/(441). The residual variations, including the F-dagger-F term against (447) and the pieces of the D-squared and -q phi-dagger phi D variations not already grouped, are asserted to cancel rather than shown to. This matters because eq. (450) and its non-Abelian generalisation (459) are the direct parents of the D-term scalar potential (461), which in turn supplies the quartic Higgs couplings that section 16 uses to derive the lightest-Higgs mass bound. If the cancellation fails, the D-term potential loses its derivation and the Higgs bound loses its footing. The gap is acknowledged rather than hidden, and the result is standard and cross-checkable against Martin [22] eqs. (3.57)-(3.59), which the author cites at exactly this point - so this is a modest soft spot, not a defect in the central pedagogical claim.

The reader's verdict of ACCEPT at HIGH confidence is right, and I would not move it. The paper is a set of graduate lecture notes whose stated goal (abstract:s4) is a practical, constructive understanding of how the softly broken MSSM is assembled, and it delivers that goal. The spinor groundwork in section 2, the failed-then-repaired construction of sections 3 and 7, the Wess-Zumino interactions of section 8, and the superfield and gauge-multiplet chapters build to the MSSM superpotential of eq. (465) without gaps in the main line. The section 13 unification arithmetic the reader re-derived is correct: b3 = 3, b2 = -1, b1 = -33/5 give 5/7 = 0.714 against the measured 0.72, versus 0.528 for the Standard Model, and ln(mU/mZ) = 33.1 follows from the quoted inputs. I agree with the reader that the one-loop, degenerate-threshold truncation is a real limitation, and that the author names it himself ('This has been by no means a professional calculation'). But I disagree that this is the *most* load-bearing concern, because section 13 is presented as one of the 'classic' results covered (abstract:s5), not as the central pedagogical claim. The place where the central claim is least secure is section 11.1, where the author explicitly declines to complete the variation of the combined chiral-gauge Lagrangian and leaves it 'to the dedicated reader'. That is the one step in the construction chain that is asserted rather than shown, and it is the step that feeds the D-term potential (461) and hence the section 16 Higgs bound. It is a modest gap: the result is standard, the author flags it honestly, and he cites Martin [22] eqs. (3.57)-(3.59) at exactly the point where the convention is fixed, so the reader can check it against a published source. That is why I would leave the verdict at ACCEPT rather than move to CONDITIONAL. I note also that the supplied text is truncated partway through section 15.1, so sections 15.2 through 17 - including the Higgs-sector derivation and the sparticle-mixing discussion - are not visible to me; my assessment of those sections rests on the reader's report and on the author's own summary in the abstract, not on direct inspection. Nothing in the visible text suggests a circularity, a hidden parameter, or an unsupported empirical claim. The paper claims no new physics (abstract:s2, abstract:s3), so low novelty is by construction and is not a concern. The one concrete check worth running is the completion of the section 11.1 variation; if it closes, the construction is complete as advertised, and if it does not, the D-term potential and the Higgs bound need re-derivation.

The referee's report

The notes fill a genuine pedagogical gap: they bridge from standard Dirac-equation notation to the superfield formalism without requiring the reader to learn dotted and undotted indices first, and they carry the construction through to the MSSM with explicit algebra at each step. The treatment of the off-shell algebra in §5.2 and its repair in §7 is a model of the do-it-yourself style, and the Asides on spinor calculus give readers access to the standard literature. The one quantitative test, §13's gauge unification, is a genuine parameter-free consistency check: the MSSM coefficients b_3 = 3, b_2 = −1, b_1 = −33/5 give (b_2 − b_3)/(b_1 − b_2) = 5/7 ≈ 0.714 against the measured-coupling ratio 0.72, while the SM coefficients give 0.528. I re-derived both ratios and the unification scale ln(m_U/m_Z) ≈ 33.1 from the quoted inputs; the arithmetic is correct.

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

These are graduate lecture notes with a single pedagogical aim: to show that the minimally supersymmetric extension of the Standard Model can be constructed step by step, by trial and error, rather than deduced from an abstract formalism the student has never seen. The author begins from the two-component decomposition of the ordinary Dirac field taught in relativistic quantum mechanics courses, then builds Lagrangians invariant under transformations that turn bosons into fermions and back, adding exactly the auxiliary fields needed to keep the symmetry working away from the equations of motion. By the end the reader is meant to be able to write down the softly broken MSSM themselves and to read the contemporary phenomenology literature. Three standard results are reproduced along the way: the one-loop meeting of the three gauge couplings, the tree-level upper bound on the lightest Higgs mass, and the mixing of supersymmetric partners after electroweak symmetry breaking. The sharpest quantitative payoff is in the unification chapter, where the MSSM's one-loop coefficients convert a ratio the Standard Model gets badly wrong into one the measured couplings already support.

What carries the argument. The hinge is the auxiliary field, the non-propagating scalar $F$ of the chiral multiplet (and its gauge-multiplet counterpart $D$), which carries no kinetic term and is eliminated by its own equation of motion. It does two jobs at once: it restores the matching of bosonic and fermionic degrees of freedom that the supersymmetry algebra needs when the fields are off shell, and, because its supersymmetry variation is a total derivative, its coefficient in any superfield product is automatically the density of a symmetry-invariant action. That single fact converts the whole business of guessing invariant interactions into algebra on superpotentials: the quadratic and cubic terms of $W$ reproduce, respectively, the mass terms and the Yukawa couplings, together with the scalar cubic and quartic couplings whose strengths are thereby tied to the Yukawa coupling squared, which is the relation the hierarchy-problem argument requires. The same elimination, applied to $D$, produces the $(H^2)^2$ quartic whose coefficient is the gauge coupling squared, and hence the tree-level bound on the lightest Higgs mass.

Core claim. The claim the notes set out to establish is that the softly broken MSSM is constructible, explicitly and in an order a student can follow, from ingredients already present in a first course on the Dirac equation. The load-bearing step is the recognition that a naive supersymmetry relating a complex scalar $F$ ... rather, relating a complex scalar $F$ to a two-component fermion $F$ fails off shell, because the two fields carry unequal numbers of degrees of freedom; the repair is to add a non-propagating auxiliary field, here called $F$, whose own transformation is a total derivative. Once that field is in place, the algebra closes on all fields, and every interaction of the Wess-Zumino model can be written as the $F$-component of a product of chiral superfields, generated by a single superpotential $W = M_{ij}$-term plus Yukawa term. Applied to the Standard Model's field content, the same machinery forces two Higgs doublets, fixes quartic scalar couplings in terms of gauge couplings, and yields the one-loop coefficients $b_3 = 3$, $b_2 = -1$, $b_1 = -33/5$. Those give $(b_2-b_3)/(b_1-b_2) = 5/7 = 0.714$ against $0.72$ read off the measured couplings at $m_Z$, where the Standard Model's coefficients give $0.528$, and they place the meeting scale at $m_U$ of about $2.2$ times $10^{16}$ GeV.

The premise it rests on. The numerical unification agreement treats all superpartners as degenerate at a single threshold and truncates the running at one loop, so the size of the two-loop and threshold corrections is never estimated and the reader cannot tell how much of the match survives them.

If the paper is right (Pith's inferences, not the authors')

Superpartner masses sitting within roughly a factor of a few of the electroweak scale are enough to stabilize the Higgs mass against quadratically divergent radiative corrections, because the boson and fermion loops cancel by the same coupling relation that the superpotential enforces.

The three gauge couplings meet at a common value near $2 \times 10^{16}$ GeV once the superpartners are included in the running, whereas the Standard Model alone misses the measured ratio by a wide margin.

The MSSM Higgs sector necessarily contains two doublets, and its quartic couplings are fixed by the gauge couplings rather than left free, so the lightest Higgs boson has a tree-level upper bound rather than an arbitrary mass.

Because the same couplings govern Higgs-Higgsino-squark-quark vertices, electroweak symmetry breaking inevitably mixes higgsinos with gauginos, so the physical neutralino and chargino states are mixtures whose masses are computable from a small parameter set.

Conservation of $R$-parity, if imposed, forbids the renormalizable baryon- and lepton-number-violating superpotential terms, makes the lightest superpartner stable, and forces superpartners to be produced in pairs with missing energy in every event.

The constructive route doubles as a diagnostic: any proposed extension of the Standard Model that adds scalars without a matching fermionic partner will reintroduce the quadratic sensitivity to the cutoff, so the auxiliary-field bookkeeping is effectively a test any such model must pass.

The unification agreement is quoted at one loop with all superpartners taken degenerate at a single threshold; the natural next calculation is the two-loop and threshold-corrected version, which would tell a reader how much of the $0.714$-versus-$0.72$ match is structural and how much is an artifact of the truncation.

Because the quartic Higgs coupling is fixed rather than free, the lightest Higgs mass bound becomes a sharp prediction of the minimal field content, so a measured Higgs mass above that bound would count against the minimal construction rather than against supersymmetry as such.

The same superfield machinery that generates the MSSM interactions also shows why the $\mu$ parameter has no symmetry protecting its scale, which suggests that any satisfactory account of the $\mu$ problem must come from outside the supersymmetric Lagrangian itself, for instance from the sector that breaks supersymmetry.

Check this review

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

How often reviews like this one are right

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

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

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

Reviews by people

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

Request a human review

How Pith checks papers · The full audit of this paper

The paper

Abstract

These notes are an expanded version of a short course of lectures given for graduate students in particle physics at Oxford. The level was intended to be appropriate for students in both experimental and theoretical particle physics.The purpose is to present an elementary and self-contained introduction to SUSY that follows on, relatively straightforwardly, from graduate-level courses in relativistic quantum mechanics and introductory quantum field theory. The notation adopted, at least initially, is one widely used in RQM courses, rather than the `spinor calculus' (dotted and undotted indices) notation found in most SUSY sources, though the latter is introduced in optional Asides. There is also a strong preference for a `do-it-yourself' constructive approach, rather than for a top-down formal deductive treatment. The main goal is to provide a practical understanding of how the softly broken MSSM is constructed. Relatively less space is devoted to phenomenology, though simple `classic' results are covered, including gauge unification, the bound on the mass of the lightest Higgs boson, and sparticle mixing. By the end of the course students (readers) should be provided with access to the contemporary phenomenological literature.

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

abstract compiled · 2026-09-23

The authors' main claim, as the classifier picked it out 0.88

“The main goal is to provide a practical understanding of how the softly broken MSSM is constructed.”

How the main claim is stated: asserted 1.00

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.02 · states limitation 0.76 · human participants 0.06 · controlled comparison 0.01 · randomized assignment 0.01 · states quantitative result 0.09 · compares with prior results 0.04 · mentions code or data availability 0.01

The abstract, sentence by sentence

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

SentenceRoleThe authors' own workStates the main conclusionStrength
These notes are an expanded version of a short course of lectures given for graduate students in particle physics at Oxford. background 0.84 0.65 0.01 asserted 1.00
The level was intended to be appropriate for students in both experimental and theoretical particle physics.The purpose is to present an elementary and self-contained introduction to SUSY that follows on, relatively straightforwardly, from graduate-level courses in relativistic quantum mechanics and introductory quantum field theory. background 0.55 0.27 0.03 asserted 0.91
The notation adopted, at least initially, is one widely used in RQM courses, rather than the `spinor calculus' (dotted and undotted indices) notation found in most SUSY sources, though the latter is introduced in optional Asides. method 0.95 0.49 0.02 asserted 0.94
There is also a strong preference for a `do-it-yourself' constructive approach, rather than for a top-down formal deductive treatment. method 0.98 0.45 0.02 asserted 0.99
The main goal is to provide a practical understanding of how the softly broken MSSM is constructed. contribution 0.95 0.18 0.19 asserted 1.00
Relatively less space is devoted to phenomenology, though simple `classic' results are covered, including gauge unification, the bound on the mass of the lightest Higgs boson, and sparticle mixing. limitation 0.95 0.33 0.04 asserted 0.99
By the end of the course students (readers) should be provided with access to the contemporary phenomenological literature. future work 0.49 0.12 0.07 asserted 0.76

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: review 0.98 · evidence from proof or derivation 0.70

What was examined, and what was not

Sources read

  • arXiv listing abstract v1

Not examined

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

Levels run

  • P abstract

Not run

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

How the labels were made

Compiled by classifier-1.13-20260917 via OpenRouter, question bank abstract-p1-20260923, 2026-09-23: 1 request, 5,691 input tokens, $0.0002 reported.

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

Figures (1)
Figure 1 of the paper
Figure 1. One-loop self-energy graph in φ 4 theory. to the −µ 2φ †φ term in V . Now we know that the vev v is given in terms of µ by (6), and that its value is fixed phenomenologically by (1). Hence it seems that µ can hardly be much greater than of order a few hundred GeV (or, if it is, λ is much greater than unity - which would imply that we can’t do perturbation theory; but since this is all we know how to do, in this problem, we proceed on the assumption that λ had better be in the perturbative regime). On the other hand, if Λ ∼ MP ∼ 1019 GeV, the one￾loop quantum correction to ‘−µ 2 ’

Figures are the authors', reproduced from the paper.

References (108)
  1. [22] Martin S P 1999 A Supersymmetry Primer hep-ph/9709356 v3 April7, 1999 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  2. [1] Heisenberg W 1939 Z. Phys. 113 61 on Pith
  3. [2] Glashow S L 1961 Nucl. Phys. 22 579 on Pith
  4. [3] Weinberg S 1967 Phys. Rev. Lett. 19 1264 on Pith
  5. [4] Salam A 1968 Elementary Particle Physics ed N Svartholm (Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksells) on Pith
  6. [5] ’t Hooft G 1971 Nucl. Phys. B 35 167 on Pith
  7. [6] Higgs P W 1964 Phys. Rev. Lett. 13 508; 1966 Phys. Rev. 145 1156 on Pith
  8. [7] Weinberg S 1979 Phys. Rev. D 19 1277 on Pith
  9. [8] Susskind L 1979 Phys. Rev. D 20 2619 on Pith
  10. [9] Lane K D 2002 ‘Two Lectures on Technicolor’ hep-ph/02022 55 on Pith
  11. [10] Antoniadis I 1990 Phys. Lett. B 246 377; Arkani-Hamed N et al. 1998 Phys. Lett. B 429 263; Antoniadis I et al. 1998 Phys. Lett. B 436 263; Arkani-Hamed N et al. 1999 Phys. Rev. D59 086004 on Pith
  12. [11] Lykken J D 2005 ‘Phenomenology Beyond the Standard Mode l’, hep- ph/0503148 v1 153 on Pith
  13. [12] Aitchison I J R and Hey A J G 2004 Gauge Theories in Particle Physics Volume II: QCD and the Electroweak Theory (Bristol and Phila delphia: IoP Publishing) on Pith
  14. [13] Ellis J 2002 2001 European School of High Energy Physics CERN 2002- 002 eds N Ellis and J March-Russell on Pith
  15. [14] Coleman S R and Mandula J 1967 Phys. Rev. 159 1251 on Pith
  16. [15] Gol’fand Y A and Likhtman E P 1971 JETP Lett. 13 323 on Pith
  17. [16] Haag R, Lopusanski J T and Sohnius M 1975 Nucl. Phys. B 88 257 on Pith
  18. [17] Aitchison I J R and Hey A J G 2003 Gauge Theories in Particle Physics Volume I: From Relativistic Quantum Mechanics to QED (Brist ol and Philadelphia: IoP Publishing) on Pith
  19. [18] Shifman M A 1999 ITEP Lectures on Particle Physics and Field Theory, Volume 1 (World Scientific Lecture Notes in Physics - Vol. 62 (Singa- pore: World Scientific), chapter IV on Pith
  20. [19] Bailin D and Love A 1994 Supersymmetric Gauge Field Theory and String Theory (Bristol and Philadelphia: IoP Publishing), equation (1.38) on Pith
show 80 more
  1. [20] Nilles H P 1984 Phys. Rep. 110 1 on Pith
  2. [21] Haber H E and Kane G L 1985 Phys. Rep. 117 75 on Pith
  3. [23] Chung D et al. 2005 Phys. Rep. 407 1 on Pith
  4. [24] Wess J and Zumino B 1974 Phys. Lett. B 49 52 on Pith
  5. [25] Peskin M E 1997 1996 European School of High Energy Physics CERN 1997-03, eds N Ellis and M Neubert on Pith
  6. [26] Iliopoulos J and Zumino B 1974 Nucl. Phys. B 76 310 on Pith
  7. [27] Grisaru M, Siegel W and Rocek M 1979 Nucl. Phys. B 159 429 154 on Pith
  8. [28] Kim J E and Nilles H P 1984 Phys. Lett. B 138 150 on Pith
  9. [29] Polonsky N 1999 hep-ph/9911329 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  10. [30] Georgi H, Quinn H R and Weinberg S 1974 Phys. Rev. Lett. 33 451 on Pith
  11. [31] Langacker P 1990 in Proc. PASCOS90 Symposium eds Nath P and Reu- croft S World scientific, Singapore); Ellis J, Kelley S and Na nopoulos D 1991 Phys. Lett. B 260 131; Amaldi U, de Boer W and Furstenau H 1991 Phys. Lett. b 260 447; Langacker P and Luo M 1991 Phys. Rev. D 44 817;... on Pith
  12. [32] Peskin M E and Schroeder D V 1995 An Introduction to Quantum Field Theory (Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass.) on Pith
  13. [33] Pokorski S 1999 Act. Phys. Pol. B 30 1759 on Pith
  14. [34] Eidelman S et al. 2004 Review of Particle Physics : Phys. Lett. B 592 1 on Pith
  15. [35] O’Raifeartaigh L 1975 Nucl. Phys. B 96 331 on Pith
  16. [36] Ferrara S, Girardello L and Palumbo F 1979 Phys. Rev. D 20 403 on Pith
  17. [37] Fayet P and Iliopoulos J 1974 Phys. Lett. 51 B 461 on Pith
  18. [38] Girardello L and Grisaru M T 1982 NUcl. Phys. B 194 65 on Pith
  19. [39] Dimopoulos S and Sutter D 1995 Nucl. Phys. B 452 1995 on Pith
  20. [40] Nilles H P 1982 Phys. Lett. B 115 193; 1983 Nucl. Phys. B 217 366 on Pith
  21. [41] Chamseddine A H, Arnowitt R and Nath P 1982 Phys. Rev. Lett. 49 970 on Pith
  22. [42] Barbieri R, Ferrara S and Savoy C A 1982 Phys. Lett. B 119 343 on Pith
  23. [43] Dine M and Nelson A E 1993 Phys. Rev. D48 1277; Dine M, Nelson A E and Shirman Y 1995 Phys. Rev. D51 1362; Dine M, Nelson A E, Nir Y and Shirman Y 1996 Phys. Rev. D53 2658 on Pith
  24. [44] Kaplan D E, Kribs G D and Schmaltz M 2000 Phys. Rev. D62 035010; Chacko Z, Luty M A, Nelson A E and Ponton E 2000 JHEP 01 003 155 on Pith
  25. [45] Randall L and Sundrum R 1999 Nucl. Phys. B557 79; Giudice G F, Luty M A, Murayama H and Rattazi R 1998 JHEP 12 027 on Pith
  26. [46] Inoue K, Kakuto A, Komatsu H and Takeshita H 1982 Prog. Theor. Phys. 68 927; and 1984 ibid 71 413 on Pith
  27. [47] Ib´ a˜ nez L E and Ross G G 1982 Phys. Lett. 110B 215 on Pith
  28. [48] Ib´ a˜ nez 1982Phys. Lett. 118B 73 on Pith
  29. [49] Ellis J, Nanopoulos D V and Tamvakis K 1983 Phys. Lett. 121B 123 on Pith
  30. [50] Alvarez-Gaum´ e L, Polchinski J and Wise M B 1983 Nucl. Phys. B221 495 on Pith
  31. [51] Kane G L, Kolda C, Roszkowski L and Wells J D 1994 Phys. Rev. D 49 6173 on Pith
  32. [52] Arason H et al. 1991 Phys. Rev. Lett. 67 2933 on Pith
  33. [53] Barger V, Berger M S and Ohmann P 1993 Phys. Rev. D 47 1093 on Pith
  34. [54] Carena M, Pokorski S and Wagner C E M 1993 Nucl. Phys. B406 59 on Pith
  35. [55] Langacker P and Polonsky N 1994 Phys. Rev. D 49 1454 on Pith
  36. [56] Olechowski M and Pokorski S 1988 Phys. Lett. B214 393 on Pith
  37. [57] Ananthanarayan B, Lazarides G and Shafi Q 1991 Phys. Rev. D 44 1613 on Pith
  38. [58] Dimopoulos S, Hall L J and Raby S 1992 Phys. Rev. Lett. 68 1984 on Pith
  39. [59] Carena M et al. 1994 Nucl. Phys. B426 269 on Pith
  40. [60] Hall L J, Rattazi R and Sarid U 1994 Phys. Rev. D 50 7048 on Pith
  41. [61] Hempfling R 1994 Phys. Rev. D 49 6168 on Pith
  42. [62] Rattazi R and Sarid U 1996 Phys. Rev. D 53 1553 on Pith
  43. [63] Carena M et al. 2001 Nucl. Phys. B599 158 on Pith
  44. [64] Inoue K, Kakuto H, Komatsu H and Takeshita S 1982 Prog. Theor. Phys. 67 1889 156 on Pith
  45. [65] Flores R A and Sher M 1983 Ann. Phys. 148 95 on Pith
  46. [66] Drees M 2005 hep-ph/0502075 v1 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  47. [67] LEP 2003 Phys. Lett. B 565 61 on Pith
  48. [68] Okada Y, Yamaguchi M and Yanagida T 1991 Prog. Theor. Phys. 85 1; and 1991 Phys. Lett. B 262 54 on Pith
  49. [69] Barbieri R, Frigeni M and Caravaglio F 1991 Phys. Lett B 258 167 on Pith
  50. [70] Haber H E and Hempfling R 1991 Phys. Rev. Lett. 66 1815 on Pith
  51. [71] Ellis J, Ridolfi G and Zwirner F 1991 Phys. Lett. B 257 83; and 1991 Phys. Lett. B 262 477 on Pith
  52. [72] Carena M, Heinemeyer S, Wagner C E and Weiglein G 1999 hep - ph/9912223; 2003 Eur. Phys. J C 26 601 on Pith
  53. [73] Degrassi G et al. 2003 Eur. Phys. J C 28 133 on Pith
  54. [74] Drees M 1996 An Introduction to Supersymmetry Lectures at the Asia- Pacific Centre for Theoretical Physics, Seoul, Korea APCTP- 5, KEK- TH-501, November 1996 (hep-ph/9611409) on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  55. [75] Ellis J R et al. 1984 Nucl. Phys. B 238 453; see also Goldberg H 1983 Phys. Rev. Lett. 50 1419 on Pith
  56. [76] Ellis J R et al. 2003 Phys. Lett. B 565 176 on Pith
  57. [77] Baer H et al. 2003 JHEP 0306 054 on Pith
  58. [78] Bottino A et al. 2003 Phys. Rev. D 68 043506 on Pith
  59. [79] Arnowitt R and Nath P 1987 Mod. Phys. Lett. A2 331 on Pith
  60. [80] Baer H and Tata X 1993 Phys. Rev. D 47 2739 on Pith
  61. [81] Baer H, Kao C and Tata X 1993 Phys. Rev. D 48 5175 on Pith
  62. [82] Kamon T, Lopez J, McIntyre P and White J T 1994 Phys. Rev. D 50 5676 on Pith
  63. [83] Baer H, Chen C.-h., Kao C and Tata X 1995 Phys. Rev. D 52 1565 157 on Pith
  64. [84] Mrenna S, Kane G L, Kribs G D and Wells J D 1996 Phys. Rev. D 53 1168 on Pith
  65. [85] D0 1996 Phys. Rev. Lett. 76 2228 on Pith
  66. [86] CDF 1996 Phys. Rev. Lett. 76 4307 on Pith
  67. [87] D0 1998 Phys. Rev. Lett. 80 1591 on Pith
  68. [88] CDF 1998 Phys. Rev. Lett. 80 5275 on Pith
  69. [89] Barger V, Keung Y and Phillips R J N 1985 Phys. Rev. Lett. 55 166 on Pith
  70. [90] Barnett R M, Gunion J F and Haber H E 1993 Phys. Lett. B 315 349 on Pith
  71. [91] Baer H, Tata X and Woodside J 1990 Phys. Rev. D 41 906 on Pith
  72. [92] CDF 2001 Phys. Rev. Lett. 87 251803 on Pith
  73. [93] CDF 1996 Phys. Rev. Lett. 76 2006 on Pith
  74. [94] D0 2001 Phys. Rev. D 63 091102 on Pith
  75. [95] Drees M and Hikasa K 1990 Phys. Lett. B252 127 on Pith
  76. [96] D0 1996 Phys. Rev. Lett. 76 2222 on Pith
  77. [97] CDF 2000 Phys. Rev. Lett. 84 5704 on Pith
  78. [98] D0 2002 Phys. Rev. Lett. 88 171802 on Pith
  79. [99] CDF 2001 Phys. Rev. D 63 091101 on Pith
  80. [100] D0 1999 Phys. Rev. D 60 031101 on Pith

The first 100 of 108 references are listed here. All of them are in this paper's citation record.

Cited by 11 Pith papers

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

  1. Higgs boson mass and thermal wino dark matter from Starobinsky supergravity with the MSSM hep-ph · Jul 2026
  2. Nucleation is More than Critical -- A Case Study of the Electroweak Phase Transition in the NMSSM hep-ph · Sep 2020
  3. (Extra)Ordinary Gauge Mediation hep-ph · Oct 2007
  4. Measuring Supersymmetry hep-ph · Sep 2007
  5. One Leptoquark to unify them? Neutrino masses and unification in the light of $(g-2)_\mu$, $R_{D^{(\star)}}$ and $R_K$ anomalies hep-ph · Nov 2016
  6. MadGraph/MadEvent v4: The New Web Generation hep-ph · Jun 2007
  7. Type III seesaw with R-parity violation in light of $m_W$ (CDF) hep-ph · Apr 2022
  8. Everything You Always Wanted To Know About The Cosmological Constant Problem (But Were Afraid To Ask) astro-ph.CO · May 2012
  9. Two-component spinor techniques and Feynman rules for quantum field theory and supersymmetry hep-ph · Dec 2008
  10. A Supersymmetry Primer hep-ph · Sep 1997
  11. Calculating $\beta$-function coefficients of Renormalization Group Equations hep-ph · Jul 2019

Topics: The Hierarchy Problem

How the literature uses it

42 arXiv papers cite this in 57 sentences

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

Papers citing it · 24 sentences without a confident label

Cites it as background 26 papers
  • Supersymmetry (SUSY) [ref] is one of the most prominent candidates that, in addition to provide a satisfactory mechanism for solving the issues related to Higgs mass, could also yield a dark matter candidate and explain the grand unification.

    Higgs information in Split-SUSY at the LHC · Introduction · 0.95

  • The minimal supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM) [ref] involves the Higgs sector containing five Higgses, namely two CP-even and one CP-odd Higgs-Bosons ($h$, $H$, and $A_0$) and two charged Higgs-Bosons $(H^±)$.

    Investigating non-minimal flavour-violating CMSSM in the light of Higgs-Boson mass using information theory · Introduction · 0.99

  • Here $Φ$, $Ψ$ form the chiral multiplet and $A^a_μ$ and $λ^a$ form the gauge supermultiplet (We refer the reader to the thorough review in [ref] , [ref] for details.) This Lagrangian is invariant under the following supersymmetry transformations: [equation] and [equation]

    Exotic MSSM · Short review of a gauge and chiral supermultiplet lagrangian · 1.00

Challenges and discussion

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

No comments yet.

Sign in to comment