A Solution to the Supersymmetric Fine-Tuning Problem within the MSSM

Ryuichiro Kitano; Yasunori Nomura

REVIEW

A Solution to the Supersymmetric Fine-Tuning Problem within the MSSM

Ryuichiro Kitano, Yasunori Nomura

High Energy Physics - Phenomenology · Submitted 6 Sep 2005 · 33 references

Pith's verdict: A real but incremental demonstration that mixed moduli-anomaly mediation reaches 20% fine-tuning in the MSSM — with the 20% resting on an uncomputed threshold estimate that straddles its own bound.

T0 · AI review

How this review was made: An AI referee (selfhosted/deepseek-v4.1-flash) read the paper on November 11, 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 · 6 minor · Ask about this paper · The compiled record · Read the full review →

Challenge this review Comment (0) Read on arXiv ↗

Cite ▾

arXiv IDhep-ph/0509039 (version 1)

Pith IDVOP2A3KM, Pith's permanent record of this paper and its review

CitationRyuichiro Kitano, Yasunori Nomura. "A Solution to the Supersymmetric Fine-Tuning Problem within the MSSM." arXiv:hep-ph/0509039 (2005). https://pith.science/paper/VOP2A3KM

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

The thing to know: Kitano and Nomura show that when moduli and anomaly mediation are comparable, so the effective messenger scale sits near a TeV, you can reach Δ^-1 ≥ 20% in the MSSM while keeping the Higgs above 114.4 GeV. The enabling ingredient is a large A_t that comes for free when M_mess is low — it lifts M_Higgs at stop masses of only 300–400 GeV. That physics is right as far as I can check, and the spectrum that falls out (gauginos 450–900 GeV, scalars near M0/√2, stops split by m_t/√2, Higgsino LSP under 190 GeV, lighter stop possibly under 300 GeV) is a genuinely useful target for Run II and for Higgsino dark matter searches. The B-sector model building — a shift-symmetric singlet that drives B to zero at M_mess — is a nice piece and I would like to see it developed further. What is new relative to Refs [18] and [29] is the demonstration, not the mechanism. Ref [29] suggested the same trick; this paper does the running, plugs in FeynHiggs 2.2, and shows the window does not close. Worth publishing, but it is a completion, not a discovery. The soft spot is the one your reader flagged, and it is real. Section 3 sets m_Hu^2 = m_Hd^2 = 0 at M_mess at leading order, then treats them as free parameters bounded by roughly (200 GeV)^2, arguing that NLO threshold corrections are O(M0^2/8π^2). For M0 = 500–900 GeV that estimate is (180–320 GeV)^2 — the estimate itself straddles the bound it is supposed to satisfy. The authors say this plainly, so it is a gap in execution rather than a hidden flaw; the classifier's 'no stated limitations' is wrong on this point, the text is quite candid. But 'can be made sufficiently small' is carrying the 20% claim, and a computation, or at least a demonstration that the window survives at (300 GeV)^2, would earn the word 'solution' in the title. The same applies to α ≈ 2, which needs the higher-order terms in F0 suppressed; they flag that too. Who should read it: anyone working on natural SUSY spectra, light stops, or Higgsino dark matter. It is a benchmark paper. Peer review: yes, send it out. The calculation is standard and checkable, the conditions are stated with the claims, and the spectrum is falsifiable. Ask the referee to press on the threshold-correction estimate.

Referee report

Major objections (3)

[Section 3, Eq. (33) and Fig. 1] The fine-tuning measure is defined in the text as the ratio of M_Higgs^2/2 to the largest contribution to the right-hand side of M_Higgs^2/2 ~= -m^2_Hu - |mu|^2, which includes the mu term. However, the operational formula Eq. (33) includes only the top-stop and messenger-scale terms and omits the mu contribution. For the benchmark mu = 170 GeV used in Fig. 1, the mu term alone gives Delta_mu^-1 ~= M_Higgs^2/(2 mu^2) ~= 23%, comparable to the quoted 20% bound. The paper should state explicitly whether the Delta^-1 curve in Fig. 1 is the maximum over all soft parameters including mu and B, and if not, the upper bound M0 <~ 900 GeV should be re-derived with the full measure. This is load-bearing for the quantitative predictions.
[Section 3, paragraph following Eq. (33)] The treatment of m^2_Hu and m^2_Hd as free parameters at M_mess, bounded by roughly (200 GeV)^2, is the weakest link in the quantitative claim. The paper argues that next-to-leading-order threshold corrections are O(M0^2/8pi^2) and can be made sufficiently small, but does not compute them. Since the assumed bound is exactly the size of the numerator M_Higgs^2/2, the 20% claim is sensitive to the actual size of these corrections. The paper should present a scan showing how the allowed M0 window depends on the assumed size of the corrections (e.g., (100 GeV)^2, (200 GeV)^2, (300 GeV)^2), or compute the leading threshold corrections in a specific UV completion. The paper acknowledges the issue, but the title's 'solution' claim outruns the demonstration.
[Section 3, Fig. 1] The allowed window 450 GeV <~ M0 <~ 900 GeV is narrow, and the lower bound depends on tan beta and the top mass while the upper bound depends on the fine-tuning measure. The paper supports the top-mass dependence with one example (mt = 178.0 GeV), but a more systematic error analysis is needed: variation of the FeynHiggs settings, the renormalization scale in the RG evolution, two-loop RG effects, and the treatment of the top mass (pole versus running) should be quantified to show that the window does not close. Without this, the sharp spectrum predictions in the abstract are stated with more confidence than the analysis supports.

Minor objections (6)

[Eq. (6) and Section 3] The introduction gives m_t1,2 ~= M0 -/+ m_t/sqrt(2), while Section 3 gives m_t1,2 ~= (M0 -/+ m_t)/sqrt(2). These differ by a factor of sqrt(2) on the M0 term. The numerical example in Section 3 (200-270 GeV for M0 = 450-550 GeV) is consistent with the Section 3 formula, so Eq. (6) should be corrected for consistency.
[Fig. 1 caption] The caption should state the fixed parameters used in the plot (mu = 170 GeV, m_A = 250 GeV, M_mess = 1 TeV, mt = 172.7 GeV) and clarify whether the Delta^-1 curve includes the mu contribution. The current caption is too brief to interpret the figure without returning to the text.
[Eq. (37) and the B-term discussion] The statement that B vanishes at M_mess is a one-loop leading-order result. The paper should state the accuracy of this statement and whether two-loop or threshold corrections could shift B at M_mess by an amount comparable to the required B ~= (10-70) GeV. This is relevant because the small B is one of the two crucial elements of the solution.
[Section 3, dark matter discussion] The claim that the neutral Higgsino can be dark matter relies on Ref. [33] for the moduli-decay production mechanism. The paper should state the assumptions about the moduli sector (mass, couplings, reheating temperature) more explicitly, or clarify that this is a scenario-dependent possibility rather than a prediction of the framework.
[Title and abstract] The title 'A Solution to the Supersymmetric Fine-Tuning Problem within the MSSM' could be read as claiming a solution within the MSSM itself, whereas the solution requires a specific mediation framework (mixed moduli-anomaly mediation with M_mess ~ TeV). The abstract's 'does not require an extension of the MSSM at the weak scale' is accurate, but the title could be clarified to avoid overclaiming.
[Section 3, numerical analysis] The paper should state the renormalization scale used in the RG analysis and the treatment of the top quark mass (pole versus running) in the FeynHiggs calculation, since both affect the Higgs mass and the fine-tuning measure at the few-GeV level.

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

The paper

The paper claims

The paper argues that the MSSM's fine-tuning problem can be solved without any new weak-scale physics, by mixing modulus and anomaly mediation so that the effective messenger scale falls to the TeV region.

The reading

Weak-scale supersymmetry is supposed to explain why the Higgs mass is so much smaller than the scales of new physics, but in the minimal supersymmetric standard model the same mechanism that lifts the Higgs mass above the LEP II bound also drags the up-type Higgs mass-squared parameter to a TeV or more, requiring a cancellation of one part in a hundred or worse. This paper asks whether that cancellation can be reduced to one part in five without adding any new particles at the weak scale, and answers yes. The ingredient is a supersymmetry-breaking sector in which modulus and anomaly mediation contribute comparably, which effectively lowers the messenger scale to the TeV region; the shortened logarithm softens the top-stop correction, and the same boundary conditions force a large trilinear coupling $A_t$ for the top squarks, which lifts the lightest Higgs mass without heavy stops. Scanning the remaining free parameters, the authors find a narrow window where $M_{Higgs} > 114.4$ GeV and the tuning is no worse than 20%, and that window translates into a compressed, sharply bounded superpartner spectrum. If the argument holds, the whole spectrum sits within reach of the Tevatron and the LHC, and the lightest superparticle is a neutral Higgsino that can account for the dark matter.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the effective messenger scale $M_{mess} = M_{GUT}/(M_{Pl}/m_{3/2})^{α/2}$, where $α$ measures the ratio of anomaly-mediated to modulus-mediated breaking, Eq. (26); choosing $α ≃ 2$ (for instance $n_0 = 3$, $n_P = 1$) puts $M_{mess}$ near a TeV. At that scale the boundary conditions are simple and universal, $M_1 = M_2 = M_3 = M_0$, $m_{q̃}^2 = m_{ũ}^2 = ... = M_0^2/2$, $A_u = A_d = A_e = M_0$, following from the assignment $r_Q = r_U = r_D = r_L = r_E = 1/2$ and $r_{H_u} = r_{H_d} = 0$ required by SU(5) matter unification and flavor universality. The fine-tuning measure itself is Eq. (33), the ratio of $M_{Higgs}^2/2$ to the larger of the top-Yukawa sensitivity and the $M_{mess}$ sensitivity, which is what converts the naturalness requirement into upper bounds on $M_0$ and $μ$.

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims to solve the supersymmetric fine-tuning problem inside the MSSM itself, with no extension at the weak scale. The mechanism is a supersymmetry-breaking sector where modulus-mediated and anomaly-mediated contributions are comparable, so that the effective messenger scale $M_{mess}$ of Eq. (25) can be pushed down to the TeV region even though no physical threshold sits there; the lowering is an interplay of the two contributions under renormalization-group evolution. Two features then do the work: the shortened logarithm $M_{mess}/m_{t̃}$ in the top-stop correction to $m_{H_u}^2$, and a large trilinear $A_t$ that follows automatically from the same boundary conditions and pushes the lightest Higgs mass above 114.4 GeV for stops as light as 320-390 GeV. A small $B$ term is the third requirement, and the authors show it arises naturally because the anomaly-mediated contribution vanishes at $M_{mess}$ after running. Imposing $M_{Higgs} > 114.4$ GeV and a tuning no worse than 20%, they obtain gaugino masses near a common $M_0$ between 450 and 900 GeV, squarks and sleptons near $M_0/√2$, top squarks split to $M_0 ∓ m_t/√2$, $M_{Higgs} < 120$ GeV, $tan β > 5$, and a neutral Higgsino lightest superparticle below 190 GeV that is nearly degenerate with the charged Higgsino.

Load-bearing premise

The analysis treats the two Higgs soft mass-squared parameters as free numbers at the effective messenger scale, bounded only by roughly $(200$ GeV$)^2$, on the assertion that unknown higher-order threshold corrections from the unification scale are smaller than about $v^2$; the paper argues this is natural but does not compute those corrections.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The superpartner spectrum is compressed and bounded: gauginos cluster near a common mass between 450 and 900 GeV, squarks and sleptons near a factor of $√2$ below that, with only the top squarks split away by about $m_t/√2$.
The lightest Higgs boson is predicted below 120 GeV, and $tan β$ above about 5, with the bound on $M_0$ coming from naturalness rather than from the Higgs search.
The lightest superparticle is a neutral Higgsino below 190 GeV, nearly degenerate with the charged Higgsino with a splitting of order $m_Z^2/2M_0$, and it can give the observed dark matter relic abundance through gravitino production from moduli decay.
The lighter top squark can be as light as 200-270 GeV, which the authors flag as reachable in Run II at the Tevatron.
Relaxing the tuning criterion to 10% widens the window to $M_0 < 1300$ GeV, $M_{Higgs}$ up to about 130 GeV, Higgsino up to 270 GeV, and $tan β > 4$.

Reading between the lines

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

The 120 GeV ceiling on the lightest Higgs mass is the sharpest handle on the scenario: a confirmed Higgs substantially above that value would close this particular window and force either heavier stops or additional weak-scale structure, which is exactly the tuning the paper set out to remove.
Because $M_{mess}$ is scanned as a free parameter over roughly 50 GeV to 3 TeV, part of the tuning is relocated into the modulus-stabilizing sector; a UV completion that fixes $α$ from the Kähler potential and the lifting potential would turn this into a genuine prediction or exclude it.
A Higgsino lightest superparticle with a splitting of only a few hundred MeV to the chargino produces disappearing-track and soft-lepton signatures rather than the hard missing-energy jets that compressed-spectrum searches typically target, so the predicted mass range is easier to state than to probe.
The treatment of $m_{H_u}^2$ and $m_{H_d}^2$ as free parameters at $M_{mess}$ would fail if the next-to-leading threshold corrections at $M_{GUT}$ are of order $M_0^2/8π^2$ rather than of order $v^2$; that is a computable question in any concrete string or extra-dimensional completion.

Original abstract

Weak scale supersymmetry has a generic problem of fine-tuning in reproducing the correct scale for electroweak symmetry breaking. The problem is particularly severe in the minimal supersymmetric extension of the standard model (MSSM). We present a solution to this problem that does not require an extension of the MSSM at the weak scale. Superparticle masses are generated by a comparable mixture of moduli and anomaly mediated contributions, and the messenger scale of supersymmetry breaking is effectively lowered to the TeV region. Crucial elements for the solution are a large A term for the top squarks and a small B term for the Higgs doublets. Requiring no fine-tuning worse than 20%, we obtain rather sharp predictions on the spectrum. The gaugino masses are almost universal at the weak scale with the mass between 450 and 900 GeV. The squark and slepton masses are also nearly universal at the weak scale with the mass a factor of \sqrt{2} smaller than that of the gauginos. The only exception is the top squarks whose masses split from the other squark masses by about m_t/\sqrt{2}. The lightest Higgs boson mass is smaller than 120 GeV, while the ratio of the vacuum expectation values for the two Higgs doublets, tan\beta, is larger than about 5. The lightest superparticle is the neutral Higgsino of the mass below 190 GeV, which can be dark matter of the universe. The mass of the lighter top squark can be smaller than 300 GeV, which may be relevant for Run II at the Tevatron.

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, 8,944 input tokens, $0.0004 reported.

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.03 · states limitation 0.35 · human participants 0.01 · controlled comparison 0.03 · randomized assignment 0.01 · states quantitative result 0.98 · compares with prior results 0.15 · mentions code or data availability 0.02.

The abstract, sentence by sentence

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

Weak scale supersymmetry has a generic problem of fine-tuning in reproducing the correct scale for electroweak symmetry breaking. The problem is particularly severe in the minimal supersymmetric extension of the standard model (MSSM). We present a solution to this problem that does not require an extension of the MSSM at the weak scale. Superparticle masses are generated by a comparable mixture of moduli and anomaly mediated contributions, and the messenger scale of supersymmetry breaking is effectively lowered to the TeV region. Crucial elements for the solution are a large A term for the top squarks and a small B term for the Higgs doublets. Requiring no fine-tuning worse than 20%, we obtain rather sharp predictions on the spectrum. The gaugino masses are almost universal at the weak scale with the mass between 450 and 900 GeV. The squark and slepton masses are also nearly universal at the weak scale with the mass a factor of \sqrt{2} smaller than that of the gauginos. The only exception is the top squarks whose masses split from the other squark masses by about m_t/\sqrt{2}. The lightest Higgs boson mass is smaller than 120 GeV, while the ratio of the vacuum expectation values for the two Higgs doublets, tan\beta, is larger than about 5. The lightest superparticle is the neutral Higgsino of the mass below 190 GeV, which can be dark matter of the universe. The mass of the lighter top squark can be smaller than 300 GeV, which may be relevant for Run II at the Tevatron.

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	Weak scale supersymmetry has a generic problem of fine-tuning in reproducing the correct scale for electroweak symmetry breaking.	background 1.00	0.06	0.03	asserted 1.00
s1	The problem is particularly severe in the minimal supersymmetric extension of the standard model (MSSM).	background 1.00	0.08	0.02	asserted 1.00
s2	We present a solution to this problem that does not require an extension of the MSSM at the weak scale.	contribution 1.00	0.91	0.80	asserted 1.00
s3	Superparticle masses are generated by a comparable mixture of moduli and anomaly mediated contributions, and the messenger scale of supersymmetry breaking is effectively lowered to the TeV region.	method 0.55	0.78	0.20	asserted 1.00
s4	Crucial elements for the solution are a large A term for the top squarks and a small B term for the Higgs doublets.	method 0.73	0.69	0.10	asserted 1.00
s5	Requiring no fine-tuning worse than 20%, we obtain rather sharp predictions on the spectrum.	result 0.68	0.92	0.13	asserted 1.00
s6	The gaugino masses are almost universal at the weak scale with the mass between 450 and 900 GeV.	result 1.00	0.88	0.07	asserted 1.00
s7	The squark and slepton masses are also nearly universal at the weak scale with the mass a factor of \sqrt{2} smaller than that of the gauginos.	result 1.00	0.87	0.06	asserted 1.00
s8	The only exception is the top squarks whose masses split from the other squark masses by about m_t/\sqrt{2}.	result 1.00	0.84	0.04	asserted 1.00
s9	The lightest Higgs boson mass is smaller than 120 GeV, while the ratio of the vacuum expectation values for the two Higgs doublets, tan\beta, is larger than about 5.	result 1.00	0.87	0.08	asserted 1.00
s10	The lightest superparticle is the neutral Higgsino of the mass below 190 GeV, which can be dark matter of the universe.	result 0.85	0.85	0.11	asserted 0.61
s11	The mass of the lighter top squark can be smaller than 300 GeV, which may be relevant for Run II at the Tevatron.	result 0.75	0.88	0.04	hedged possibility 0.82

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: theoretical result 1.00 · evidence from proof or derivation 0.66.

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

Figures

**Figure 1.** The Higgs boson mass, MHiggs, and the fine-tuning parameter, ∆−1 , as a function of M0. The lower bound on M0 is obtained from the left figure using the experimental bound of MHiggs >∼ 114.4 GeV, while the upper bound can be read off from the right figure with the requirement of ∆−1 ≥ 20%. M0, depending on the value of tan β. For tan β = 10, for example, the bound is M0 >∼ 550 GeV. The bound becomes weaker for larger tan β; it becomes M0 >∼ 450 GeV for tan β = 30. The bound stays practically the same for tan β >∼ 30. It is remarkable that M0 as low as (450 ∼ 550) GeV is allowed,…

Figures reproduced from arXiv:hep-ph/0509039 by the authors.

References

Works cited (33)

[18]

K. Choi, K. S. Jeong and K. i. Okumura, arXiv:hep-ph/0504037

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[29]

K. Choi, K. S. Jeong, T. Kobayashi and K. i. Okumura, arXiv:hep -ph/0508029

View on Pith
[1]

S. Dimopoulos and H. Georgi, Nucl. Phys. B 193, 150 (1981); N. Sakai, Z. Phys. C 11, 153 (1981); S. Dimopoulos, S. Raby and F. Wilczek, Phys. Rev. D 24, 1681 (1981)

View on Pith 1981
[2]

Y. Okada, M. Yamaguchi and T. Yanagida, Prog. Theor. Phys. 85, 1 (1991); J. R. Ellis, G. Ridolﬁ and F. Zwirner, Phys. Lett. B 257, 83 (1991); H. E. Haber and R. Hempﬂing, Phys. Rev. Lett. 66, 1815 (1991)

View on Pith 1991
[3]

R. Barate et al. [ALEPH Collaboration], Phys. Lett. B 565, 61 (2003) [arXiv:hep- ex/0306033]; LEP Higgs Working Group Collaboration, arXiv:hep-ex/ 0107030

View on Pith 2003
[4]

See, e.g., M. Carena, M. Quiros and C. E. M. Wagner, Nucl. Phys. B 461, 407 (1996) [arXiv:hep-ph/9508343]; H. E. Haber, R. Hempﬂing and A. H. Hoang, Z. Phys. C 75, 539 (1997) [arXiv:hep-ph/9609331]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1996
[5]

The CDF Collaboration, the DØ Collaboration, and the Tevatron Ele ctroweak Working Group, arXiv:hep-ex/0507091

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[6]

Z. Chacko, Y. Nomura and D. Tucker-Smith, Nucl. Phys. B 725, 207 (2005) [arXiv:hep- ph/0504095]

View on Pith 2005
[7]

Y. Nomura and B. Tweedie, Phys. Rev. D 72, 015006 (2005) [arXiv:hep-ph/0504246]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2005
[8]

J. R. Ellis, J. F. Gunion, H. E. Haber, L. Roszkowski and F. Zwirne r, Phys. Rev. D 39, 844 (1989); M. Masip, R. Munoz-Tapia and A. Pomarol, Phys. Rev. D 57, 5340 (1998) [arXiv:hep-ph/9801437]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1989
[9]

M. Cvetic, D. A. Demir, J. R. Espinosa, L. L. Everett and P. Lang acker, Phys. Rev. D 56, 2861 (1997) [Erratum-ibid. D 58, 119905 (1998)] [arXiv:hep-ph/9703317]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1997
[10]

J. R. Espinosa and M. Quiros, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 516 (1998) [arXiv:hep-ph/9804235]. 13

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1998
[11]

P. Batra, A. Delgado, D. E. Kaplan and T. M. P. Tait, JHEP 0402, 043 (2004) [arXiv:hep- ph/0309149]; A. Maloney, A. Pierce and J. G. Wacker, arXiv:hep-ph /0409127

View on Pith 2004
[12]

J. A. Casas, J. R. Espinosa and I. Hidalgo, JHEP 0401, 008 (2004) [arXiv:hep-ph/0310137]; A. Brignole, J. A. Casas, J. R. Espinosa and I. Navarro, Nucl. Phys . B 666, 105 (2003) [arXiv:hep-ph/0301121]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2004
[13]

R. Harnik, G. D. Kribs, D. T. Larson and H. Murayama, Phys. Re v. D 70, 015002 (2004) [arXiv:hep-ph/0311349]; S. Chang, C. Kilic and R. Mahbubani, Phys. R ev. D 71, 015003 (2005) [arXiv:hep-ph/0405267]; A. Delgado and T. M. P. Tait, arXiv:h ep-ph/0504224

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2004
[14]

A. Birkedal, Z. Chacko and Y. Nomura, Phys. Rev. D 71, 015006 (2005) [arXiv:hep- ph/0408329]

View on Pith 2005
[15]

K. S. Babu, I. Gogoladze and C. Kolda, arXiv:hep-ph/0410085

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[16]

See, e.g., Z. Chacko, Y. Nomura and D. Tucker-Smith, in Ref. [6]; G. W. Anderson and D. J. Castano, Phys. Lett. B 347, 300 (1995) [arXiv:hep-ph/9409419]; R. Barbieri and G. F. Giudice, Nucl. Phys. B 306, 63 (1988)

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1995
[17]

R. Barbieri, L. J. Hall, G. Marandella, Y. Nomura, T. Okui, S. J. Oliv er and M. Papucci, Nucl. Phys. B 663, 141 (2003) [arXiv:hep-ph/0208153]; D. Marti and A. Pomarol, Phy s. Rev. D 66, 125005 (2002) [arXiv:hep-ph/0205034]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2003
[19]

V. S. Kaplunovsky and J. Louis, Phys. Lett. B 306, 269 (1993) [arXiv:hep-th/9303040]; A. Brignole, L. E. Ibanez and C. Munoz, Nucl. Phys. B 422, 125 (1994) [Erratum-ibid. B 436, 747 (1995)] [arXiv:hep-ph/9308271]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1993
[20]

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

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1999
[21]

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

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1998
[22]

K. Choi, A. Falkowski, H. P. Nilles, M. Olechowski and S. Pokorski, JHEP 0411, 076 (2004) [arXiv:hep-th/0411066]; K. Choi, A. Falkowski, H. P. Nilles and M. Olech owski, Nucl. Phys. B 718, 113 (2005) [arXiv:hep-th/0503216]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2004
[23]

M. Endo, M. Yamaguchi and K. Yoshioka, Phys. Rev. D 72, 015004 (2005) [arXiv:hep- ph/0504036]

View on Pith 2005
[24]

A. Falkowski, O. Lebedev and Y. Mambrini, arXiv:hep-ph/050711 0

View on Pith
[25]

S. Kachru, R. Kallosh, A. Linde and S. P. Trivedi, Phys. Rev. D 68, 046005 (2003) [arXiv:hep-th/0301240]. 14

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2003
[26]

J. L. Feng, K. T. Matchev and T. Moroi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 2322 (2000) [arXiv:hep- ph/9908309]; Phys. Rev. D 61, 075005 (2000) [arXiv:hep-ph/9909334]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2000
[27]

T. Kobayashi and H. Terao, JHEP 0407, 026 (2004) [arXiv:hep-ph/0403298]; T. Kobayashi, H. Nakano and H. Terao, Phys. Rev. D 71, 115009 (2005) [arXiv:hep-ph/0502006]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2004
[28]

A. Birkedal, Z. Chacko and M. K. Gaillard, JHEP 0410, 036 (2004) [arXiv:hep-ph/0404197]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2004
[30]

A. Pomarol and R. Rattazzi, JHEP 9905, 013 (1999) [arXiv:hep-ph/9903448]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1999
[31]

S. Heinemeyer, W. Hollik and G. Weiglein, Comput. Phys. Commun. 124, 76 (2000) [arXiv:hep-ph/9812320]; Eur. Phys. J. C 9, 343 (1999) [arXiv:hep-ph/9812472]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2000
[32]

M. Neubert, Eur. Phys. J. C 40, 165 (2005) [arXiv:hep-ph/0408179]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2005
[33]

K. Kohri, M. Yamaguchi and J. Yokoyama, arXiv:hep-ph/05022 11. 15

View on Pith

Forward citations

Cited by 14 Pith papers

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

Little hierarchies solve the little fine-tuning problem: a case study in supersymmetry with heavy guinos
hep-ph 2019-08 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

A heavy gluino can push the physical stop mass above LHC bounds while the underlying stop mass parameter stays near the electroweak scale, solving the little fine-tuning problem when higher-order corrections are resummed.
Prospects for Mirage Mediation
hep-ph 2006-04 accept novelty 7.0 of 10

Low-scale mirage mediation requires the SUSY-breaking uplift sector to have effective modular weight r_X = -1, which would become strongly coupled in the decompactification limit.
A Supersymmetric Twin Higgs
hep-ph 2006-04 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

A supersymmetric twin Higgs with supersoft breaking keeps the visible Higgs naturally light, with an order-one quartic and moderate fine-tuning, while allowing heavy colored superpartners.
Displaced Supersymmetry
hep-ph 2012-04 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Bilinear R-parity violation can make the lightest superpartner decay at detector-scale distances, hiding supersymmetry from prompt searches and allowing squarks near 450 GeV.
Model-Independent Jets plus Missing Energy Searches
hep-ph 2008-09 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Reporting jets-plus-missing-energy limits as differential cross section grids in visible and missing energy, rather than as cuts optimized for one model, broadens the Tevatron reach to gluinos as light as 125 GeV.

Show 9 more citing papers

Higgs Physics as a Window Beyond the MSSM (BMSSM)
hep-ph 2007-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Two effective dimension-five operators added to the MSSM can lift the light Higgs mass above the LEP limit, and they force a specific relation among the heavy Higgs masses that experiment can check.
Supersymmetry, Naturalness, and Signatures at the LHC
hep-ph 2006-02 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

A large top-squark A term removes the fine-tuning of minimal supersymmetry, and the resulting light Higgsinos leave a short, P-wave dilepton edge at the LHC that the authors show can be measured in simulated 30 invers...
Complementary Probes of Light Higgsinos: Electroweak Precision Measurements and Dark Matter Direct Detection
hep-ph 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

Future electroweak precision measurements can probe light higgsinos up to 500 GeV even in compressed spectra below the neutrino fog, complementing direct detection which reaches the 1 TeV thermal relic mass.
Natural Supersymmetry and Implications for Higgs physics
hep-ph 2013-05 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Applying existing LHC stop and sbottom searches to three Natural Supersymmetry spectra leaves only a compressed-mass wedge and a kinematic-limit strip, and these two surviving regions predict measurably different Higg...
A Natural 125 GeV Higgs Boson in the MSSM from Focus Point Supersymmetry with A-Terms
hep-ph 2012-05 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

A generalized focus point condition with large A-terms lets the MSSM reach a 125 GeV Higgs mass with percent-level fine-tuning at GUT-scale mediation.
A Little Solution to the Little Hierarchy Problem: A Vector-like Generation
hep-ph 2009-10 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

A vector-like fourth generation with order-one Yukawa couplings can raise the MSSM Higgs mass above 114 GeV with soft masses near 300 GeV, cutting the little-hierarchy fine-tuning by roughly a factor of ten.
Search for supersymmetry using razor variables in events with b-tagged jets in pp collisions at sqrt(s) = 8 TeV
hep-ex 2015-02 accept novelty 4.0 of 10

No supersymmetry signal appears in b-tagged razor events at 8 TeV; gluino masses below about 1175 to 1310 GeV and top-squark masses below about 645 to 730 GeV are excluded at 95% confidence.
The State of Supersymmetry after Run I of the LHC
hep-ph 2013-09 accept novelty 3.0 of 10

The LHC's null results falsified supersymmetry as built from naturalness plus parsimony, but relaxing either assumption leaves broad, viable model classes and clear targets for Run II.
Naturalness and the Status of Supersymmetry
hep-ph 2013-02 accept novelty 3.0 of 10

Weak-scale supersymmetry is neither dead nor unscathed: LHC, Higgs-mass, and flavor/CP data push superpartner masses upward, but naturalness verdicts depend heavily on subjective choices of measure and framework.

How the literature uses it

49 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 · 43 sentences without a confident label

Uses its method or tool 1 paper

So the fine-tuning measure can also be defined as [ref] [equation]

The naturalness in the BLMSSM and B-LSSM · naturalness criteria in the EMSSM · 0.89

Compares with it 1 paper

For example, in the context of Type IIB strings, Ref. [ref] , the scalar, gaugino and tri-linear couplings are all of order $m_3/2$, while in the heterotic version of mirage mediation, Ref. [ref] , the soft terms for scalar masses are of order $m_3/2$, while the gaugino masses and tri-linear couplings are given by $M_1/2 ≪m_3/2$.

Yukawa Unification Predictions with effective "Mirage" Mediation · Introduction · 0.85

Cites it as support 1 paper

Indeed, it was pointed out that the TeV scale mirage mediation can ameliorate the fine tuning problem in the MSSM [ref] .

NMSSM in TeV scale mirage mediation · Introduction · 0.98

Cites it as background 11 papers

There are many alternatives for a quantitative measure of FT [ref] , which are commonly based on the change in the $Z$-boson mass.

Naturalness and Dark Matter in the BLSSM · Fine-Tuning Measures · 0.99
Most of these studies study how to discovery a specific theory, the mSUGRA parameterization of the minimal supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM) [ref] (see [ref] for other specific supersymmetric spectra), Universal Extra Dimensions (UED)s [ref] or Little Higgs theories [ref] .

Bigger, Better, Faster, More at the LHC · Introduction · 0.97
The FT problem in SUSY is well-studied [ref] .

The current status of fine-tuning in supersymmetry · Introduction · 0.92

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] [18]

K. Choi, K. S. Jeong and K. i. Okumura, arXiv:hep-ph/0504037

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[2] [29]

K. Choi, K. S. Jeong, T. Kobayashi and K. i. Okumura, arXiv:hep -ph/0508029

View on Pith

[3] [1]

S. Dimopoulos and H. Georgi, Nucl. Phys. B 193, 150 (1981); N. Sakai, Z. Phys. C 11, 153 (1981); S. Dimopoulos, S. Raby and F. Wilczek, Phys. Rev. D 24, 1681 (1981)

View on Pith 1981

[4] [2]

Y. Okada, M. Yamaguchi and T. Yanagida, Prog. Theor. Phys. 85, 1 (1991); J. R. Ellis, G. Ridolﬁ and F. Zwirner, Phys. Lett. B 257, 83 (1991); H. E. Haber and R. Hempﬂing, Phys. Rev. Lett. 66, 1815 (1991)

View on Pith 1991

[5] [3]

R. Barate et al. [ALEPH Collaboration], Phys. Lett. B 565, 61 (2003) [arXiv:hep- ex/0306033]; LEP Higgs Working Group Collaboration, arXiv:hep-ex/ 0107030

View on Pith 2003

[6] [4]

See, e.g., M. Carena, M. Quiros and C. E. M. Wagner, Nucl. Phys. B 461, 407 (1996) [arXiv:hep-ph/9508343]; H. E. Haber, R. Hempﬂing and A. H. Hoang, Z. Phys. C 75, 539 (1997) [arXiv:hep-ph/9609331]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1996

[7] [5]

The CDF Collaboration, the DØ Collaboration, and the Tevatron Ele ctroweak Working Group, arXiv:hep-ex/0507091

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[8] [6]

Z. Chacko, Y. Nomura and D. Tucker-Smith, Nucl. Phys. B 725, 207 (2005) [arXiv:hep- ph/0504095]

View on Pith 2005

[9] [7]

Y. Nomura and B. Tweedie, Phys. Rev. D 72, 015006 (2005) [arXiv:hep-ph/0504246]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2005

[10] [8]

J. R. Ellis, J. F. Gunion, H. E. Haber, L. Roszkowski and F. Zwirne r, Phys. Rev. D 39, 844 (1989); M. Masip, R. Munoz-Tapia and A. Pomarol, Phys. Rev. D 57, 5340 (1998) [arXiv:hep-ph/9801437]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1989

[11] [9]

M. Cvetic, D. A. Demir, J. R. Espinosa, L. L. Everett and P. Lang acker, Phys. Rev. D 56, 2861 (1997) [Erratum-ibid. D 58, 119905 (1998)] [arXiv:hep-ph/9703317]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1997

[12] [10]

J. R. Espinosa and M. Quiros, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 516 (1998) [arXiv:hep-ph/9804235]. 13

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1998

[13] [11]

P. Batra, A. Delgado, D. E. Kaplan and T. M. P. Tait, JHEP 0402, 043 (2004) [arXiv:hep- ph/0309149]; A. Maloney, A. Pierce and J. G. Wacker, arXiv:hep-ph /0409127

View on Pith 2004

[14] [12]

J. A. Casas, J. R. Espinosa and I. Hidalgo, JHEP 0401, 008 (2004) [arXiv:hep-ph/0310137]; A. Brignole, J. A. Casas, J. R. Espinosa and I. Navarro, Nucl. Phys . B 666, 105 (2003) [arXiv:hep-ph/0301121]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2004

[15] [13]

R. Harnik, G. D. Kribs, D. T. Larson and H. Murayama, Phys. Re v. D 70, 015002 (2004) [arXiv:hep-ph/0311349]; S. Chang, C. Kilic and R. Mahbubani, Phys. R ev. D 71, 015003 (2005) [arXiv:hep-ph/0405267]; A. Delgado and T. M. P. Tait, arXiv:h ep-ph/0504224

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2004

[16] [14]

A. Birkedal, Z. Chacko and Y. Nomura, Phys. Rev. D 71, 015006 (2005) [arXiv:hep- ph/0408329]

View on Pith 2005

[17] [15]

K. S. Babu, I. Gogoladze and C. Kolda, arXiv:hep-ph/0410085

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[18] [16]

See, e.g., Z. Chacko, Y. Nomura and D. Tucker-Smith, in Ref. [6]; G. W. Anderson and D. J. Castano, Phys. Lett. B 347, 300 (1995) [arXiv:hep-ph/9409419]; R. Barbieri and G. F. Giudice, Nucl. Phys. B 306, 63 (1988)

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1995

[19] [17]

R. Barbieri, L. J. Hall, G. Marandella, Y. Nomura, T. Okui, S. J. Oliv er and M. Papucci, Nucl. Phys. B 663, 141 (2003) [arXiv:hep-ph/0208153]; D. Marti and A. Pomarol, Phy s. Rev. D 66, 125005 (2002) [arXiv:hep-ph/0205034]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2003

[20] [19]

V. S. Kaplunovsky and J. Louis, Phys. Lett. B 306, 269 (1993) [arXiv:hep-th/9303040]; A. Brignole, L. E. Ibanez and C. Munoz, Nucl. Phys. B 422, 125 (1994) [Erratum-ibid. B 436, 747 (1995)] [arXiv:hep-ph/9308271]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1993

[21] [20]

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

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1999

[22] [21]

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

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1998

[23] [22]

K. Choi, A. Falkowski, H. P. Nilles, M. Olechowski and S. Pokorski, JHEP 0411, 076 (2004) [arXiv:hep-th/0411066]; K. Choi, A. Falkowski, H. P. Nilles and M. Olech owski, Nucl. Phys. B 718, 113 (2005) [arXiv:hep-th/0503216]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2004

[24] [23]

M. Endo, M. Yamaguchi and K. Yoshioka, Phys. Rev. D 72, 015004 (2005) [arXiv:hep- ph/0504036]

View on Pith 2005

[25] [24]

A. Falkowski, O. Lebedev and Y. Mambrini, arXiv:hep-ph/050711 0

View on Pith

[26] [25]

S. Kachru, R. Kallosh, A. Linde and S. P. Trivedi, Phys. Rev. D 68, 046005 (2003) [arXiv:hep-th/0301240]. 14

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2003

[27] [26]

J. L. Feng, K. T. Matchev and T. Moroi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 2322 (2000) [arXiv:hep- ph/9908309]; Phys. Rev. D 61, 075005 (2000) [arXiv:hep-ph/9909334]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2000

[28] [27]

T. Kobayashi and H. Terao, JHEP 0407, 026 (2004) [arXiv:hep-ph/0403298]; T. Kobayashi, H. Nakano and H. Terao, Phys. Rev. D 71, 115009 (2005) [arXiv:hep-ph/0502006]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2004

[29] [28]

A. Birkedal, Z. Chacko and M. K. Gaillard, JHEP 0410, 036 (2004) [arXiv:hep-ph/0404197]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2004

[30] [30]

A. Pomarol and R. Rattazzi, JHEP 9905, 013 (1999) [arXiv:hep-ph/9903448]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1999

[31] [31]

S. Heinemeyer, W. Hollik and G. Weiglein, Comput. Phys. Commun. 124, 76 (2000) [arXiv:hep-ph/9812320]; Eur. Phys. J. C 9, 343 (1999) [arXiv:hep-ph/9812472]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2000

[32] [32]

M. Neubert, Eur. Phys. J. C 40, 165 (2005) [arXiv:hep-ph/0408179]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2005

[33] [33]

K. Kohri, M. Yamaguchi and J. Yokoyama, arXiv:hep-ph/05022 11. 15

View on Pith