An Introduction to Explicit R-Parity Violation

Herbi Dreiner (Rutherford Laboratory)

REVIEW

An Introduction to Explicit R-Parity Violation

High Energy Physics - Phenomenology · Submitted 23 Jul 1997 · 64 references

Pith's verdict: A solid, honest lecture-note review whose real contribution is the refreshed Table 1 compilation; the acknowledged truncations are real but don't touch the central motivation argument.

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 →

· 1 major objection · 12 minor · Ask about this paper · The compiled record · Read the full review →

Challenge this review Comment (0) Read on arXiv ↗

Cite ▾

arXiv IDhep-ph/9707435 (version 2)

Pith IDKMZ3INJM, Pith's permanent record of this paper and its review

CitationHerbi Dreiner (Rutherford Laboratory). "An Introduction to Explicit R-Parity Violation." arXiv:hep-ph/9707435 (1997). https://pith.science/paper/KMZ3INJM

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

Quick read on Dreiner's R-parity chapter. The thing to know: it's a review, not a result, and the genuinely new content is the updated numerical compilation in Table 1 plus the collider summary in Sections 6-7. Everything load-bearing — the operator classification in Eq. 5, the proton-decay estimate in Eq. 8, the baryon-parity and lepton-parity alternatives in Eqs. 10-11 — is quoted from Hall-Suzuki, Barger-Giudice-Han, and the discrete-gauge-symmetry literature. That's fine for a lecture note; he cites properly and doesn't dress borrowed material as his own. The abstract (abstract:s0) is accurate about what the piece is. What he does well: the bookkeeping in Table 1 is unusually careful for this genre. He marks 2-sigma entries with a dagger, marks the unitarity-derived entries (λ''123 = 1.25 and friends) with a double asterisk and says outright they are not experimental bounds, and gives the mass scaling for each coupling in Eq. 15. He also states which bounds he refreshed and with what data. That's more transparency than most reviews of this period bother with. The motivation argument in Section 4 — no theoretical preference between Rp and ⁄Rp, so search for both — holds up. The GUT, string, and discrete-gauge existence proofs are cited, and he concedes in the same section that ref 19 undercuts the Ibanez-Ross non-linear constraints. Soft spots, in order of how much they matter. First, the one-operator-at-a-time truncation at the top of Section 5 is acknowledged and is genuinely the right simplifying assumption for a review, but the bounds on operator products (μ → eγ and similar) are sometimes orders of magnitude tighter, and the collider topologies in Sections 6-7 are organized by dominant operator, so they inherit the truncation. Second, the up-sector mixing assumption that leads him to omit the K+ → π+νν limits (Eq. 17) is stated plainly, but a reader who wants the strongest bound on λ'1j1 will not find it in the table. Third, minor: two entries rest on sources that aren't journal-published — ref 30 (Marciano, INT workshop talk) for the atomic parity-violation theory value and ref 45 (Komamiya, OPAL internal report PN280) for the squark mass bounds in Table 2. Neither is fatal; both are worth knowing if you plan to quote the numbers. Fourth, the collider sections assume a neutralino LSP while Section 6 lists seven candidates; he says so, but the phenomenology is not uniformly covered. Who should read it: anyone entering R-parity violation, and anyone who needs a citable table of single-coupling bounds circa 1997. It deserves a referee — send it out.

Referee report

Significance

The review's value is twofold: as a compact, self-contained entry point to the subject, and as a curated bounds table. The strengths are real and worth naming. Table 1 ties each bound to a named process, gives the mass scaling in Eq. (15), and marks 2σ entries with a dagger and unitarity-derived entries with a double asterisk, explicitly distinguishing the latter from experimental limits. §5 states the one-operator-at-a-time assumption and the up-sector mixing assumption openly, and explains why the K^+ → π^+νν limits are omitted rather than quietly dropping them. §8.1 gives the sphaleron bound and then lists its loopholes instead of asserting it as final, and §8.2 identifies the eight-order-of-magnitude lifetime gap as an open problem. The central claim is appropriately modest: a 'no clear preference' claim argued by cited existence proofs, which is the right standard for such a claim. There are no machine-checked proofs or released code, but the paper does point to the SUSYGEN and ISAJET implementations.

Major objections (1)

[§4 and §8.1] §4 concludes that it is 'mandatory to experimentally search for both possibilities', while §8.1 states that if the sphaleron bound (33), λ, λ', λ'' < 5·10^{-7} (m̃/1 TeV)^{1/2}, is valid then '⁄Rp is irrelevant for collider physics and can only have cosmological effects'. The two sections are not reconciled. §§6–7 then present collider topologies that presuppose couplings of order 10^{-2}–10^{-1}, for example the λ'121 ≈ 0.05 entry in Table 1 and the H1 limits in Table 3, which are four to five orders of magnitude above (33). The loopholes listed at the end of §8.1 are the resolution, but the reader is left to infer that the entire collider discussion presupposes one of them. A short forward reference in §4 or at the start of §6, stating that the collider phenomenology assumes the sphaleron bound is evaded by flavour-asymmetric genesis or by low-scale baryogenesis, would make the review's logic explicit and would prevent the two sections from appearing to contradict each other.

Minor objections (12)

[§3, Eq. (7)] Eq. (7) is dimensionally inconsistent as printed: Γ has dimensions of mass, whereas α(λ')α(λ'') m̃_dk^4 M_proton^5 has dimensions of mass^9. The intended expression is presumably α(λ')α(λ'') M_proton^5 / m̃_dk^4, which is what Eq. (8) reproduces; the m̃^4 in the numerator should be m̃^{-4}. Because Eq. (8) is correct the proton-decay conclusion is unaffected, but the displayed equation is wrong by eight powers of m̃ and will mislead student readers.
[§5, Table 1 caption] The caption of Table 1 is not self-contained: it does not state the confidence-level convention (1σ except the daggered entries at 2σ), does not say that the double-asterisked entries are unitarity constraints rather than experimental limits, and does not say that the single-asterisked entries depend on the assumption that the quark mixing resides entirely in the up sector. Since this table is the paper's most reusable product, the caption should carry these flags so that a reader who lifts the table into another paper does not mistake a unitarity constraint for a measurement.
[§5, Table 1, λ'111 entry] The λ'111 entry in Table 1 is labelled (d), neutrinoless double-beta decay, but Eq. (15) gives its scaling as (m̃_q/100 GeV)^2 (m̃_g/1 TeV)^{1/2} and the text states that the entry is quoted at m̃(g̃) = 1 TeV. A tree-level squark-exchange contribution to neutrinoless double-beta decay would not normally carry a gluino-mass dependence, so please state which diagram and which mass dependence underlies this entry.
[§5, electron-neutrino mass bound] The sentence 'The PDG number is 10−15 eV' reads as 10^{-15} eV, which is not the intended range; it should be typeset as '10–15 eV' to avoid confusion with the much stronger tritium-endpoint limit.
[§6, Eq. (25)] In Eq. (25) the final state is ν̃̄_Li but the operator is labelled L_1Q_jD̄_k; the label should be L_iQ_jD̄_k, as in Eq. (24).
[§6, numbered list] The numbered list in §6 runs 1, 2, 3, 4 and is then followed by elaboration paragraphs that restart at 2, 3, 4. The elaboration paragraphs should either be unnumbered or renumbered so that the reader can tell whether a new item is being introduced.
[§9, closing sentence] The closing sentence of §9, 'do not end up searching vigorously in the ⁄Rp-hat', is not intelligible; please reword it.
[§2 and §9, counting of new couplings] §2 states that Eq. (4) contains 48 new terms, while §9 refers to 45 new Yukawa couplings. The difference is the three κ_i that §2 rotates away, but a sentence in §2 making that explicit would prevent the reader from thinking the two counts are inconsistent.
[§1, motivation] The motivation listed in §1 (R_b, R_c, the ALEPH four-jet events, the HERA high-Q^2 excess) is tied to anomalies of 1996–97, whereas the durable argument is the one given in §4. A sentence distinguishing the transient phenomenological motivation from the structural one would make the review age better.
[§5 and §7, scope of the single-operator assumption] The one-operator-at-a-time assumption is stated clearly at the start of §5, but the operator-by-operator classification of signals in §6 and §7 inherits the same assumption without restating it. A sentence in §7 noting that the topologies are classified by dominant operator, and that the classification fails if two couplings are comparable, would make the limitation explicit where it matters.
[§5, Table 1 and Table 2, unpublished inputs] Several entries in Table 1 and Table 2 rest on sources listed as unpublished: ref. [30] (a 1997 INT workshop talk) for the atomic-parity-violation theory value, ref. [31] (to be published) for the lattice input to the D0–D̄0 bound, ref. [37] (a conference talk) for the m_νe bound, and ref. [45] (an OPAL internal report) for the squark-mass bounds of Table 2. These should be marked as preliminary in the tables, or published replacements cited where they exist.
[§2, §3, §5, §8.1, typographical slips] There are several typographical slips that should be corrected: 'the the' in §3, 'elctroweak' in §8.1, the stray '10' before τ(P → eπ) in §3, the stray 'c' before R_ℓ in §5, and 'accomodate' in §2.

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

The paper

The paper claims

The paper argues that explicit R-parity violation is as well motivated as R-parity conservation, because proton decay only requires forbidding either baryon-number or lepton-number violation, not both.

The reading

The paper asks whether the minimal supersymmetric Standard Model should be defined with R-parity conservation or whether explicit R-parity violation is an equally legitimate version. Its answer is that once proton decay is protected by forbidding either baryon-number or lepton-number violation, the remaining discrete symmetry is not uniquely R-parity: baryon parity and lepton parity do the job while allowing R-parity-violating Yukawa couplings. The author argues that grand unified, string, and discrete-gauge constructions give no clear preference between the two, so both must be searched for. The review then maps what changes: the lightest superpartner decays, single superparticles can be produced, and the LSP need not be a neutralino. Cosmology adds a separate constraint because R-parity-violating couplings in thermal equilibrium above the electroweak scale would erase a GUT-scale matter asymmetry.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the R-parity-violating superpotential $W_{not R_p}=lambda_{ijk}L_iL_jE_k+lambda'_{ijk}L_iQ_jD_k+rac12lambda''_{ijk}U_iD_jD_k$, with 45 new Yukawa couplings after the $L_iH_2$ terms are rotated away. R-parity itself is the discrete sign $R_p=(-1)^{3B+L+2S}$, which is $+1$ for Standard Model particles and $-1$ for their superpartners. The first two terms violate lepton number, the third violates baryon number, and the proton-decay diagram that combines them is what forces a discrete choice. The paper's mechanism is to compare the discrete symmetries that forbid different subsets: R-parity, baryon parity, and lepton parity. That comparison is what turns R-parity violation from a single alternative into a family of experimentally distinct models, each with its own dominant operator, LSP lifetime, and production channel.

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that explicit R-parity violation is not an exotic deformation of the MSSM but a co-equal low-energy possibility. The argument turns on the proton: the dangerous combination of $L_iQ_j$ and $U_iD_jD_k$ gives $|lambda'_{11k}lambda''_{11k}| lesssim 2 imes 10^{-27}(tilde m/100,{rm GeV})^2$, so at least one of the two must be forbidden. R-parity forbids all three renormalizable R-parity-violating terms, but baryon parity forbids only the $U_iD_jD_k$ term, and lepton parity forbids the $L_iL_jE_k$ and $L_iQ_jD_k$ terms, leaving R-parity-violating couplings that can be large enough for collider phenomenology. The paper supports this by citing grand unified and string constructions with low-energy R-parity violation and by noting that the anomaly-free discrete gauge symmetries include both R-parity and baryon parity. It then reviews the indirect bounds, the changed collider signals, and the cosmological limits, concluding that experiments must cover both possibilities.

Load-bearing premise

The quantitative bounds and the operator-by-operator signal classification assume that a single R-parity-violating coupling dominates while all others are negligible; if two or more couplings are comparable, the table's limits and the corresponding collider topologies do not directly apply.

Original abstract

I discuss the theoretical motivations for R-parity violation, review the experimental bounds and outline the main changes in collider phenomenology compared to conserved R-parity. I briefly comment on the effects of R-parity violation on cosmology.

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, 2,237 input tokens, $0.0001 reported.

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.02 · states limitation 0.16 · human participants 0.02 · controlled comparison 0.45 · randomized assignment 0.01 · states quantitative result 0.04 · compares with prior results 0.36 · mentions code or data availability 0.01.

The abstract, sentence by sentence

arXiv listing abstract v2. Results and the main claim are underlined; show every role.

I discuss the theoretical motivations for R-parity violation, review the experimental bounds and outline the main changes in collider phenomenology compared to conserved R-parity. I briefly comment on the effects of R-parity violation on cosmology.

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	I discuss the theoretical motivations for R-parity violation, review the experimental bounds and outline the main changes in collider phenomenology compared to conserved R-parity.	contribution 0.98	0.58	0.10	asserted 0.68
s1	I briefly comment on the effects of R-parity violation on cosmology.	contribution 0.94	0.29	0.05	unclear 0.74

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: review 1.00 · evidence from literature 0.93.

What was examined, and what was not

sources read

arXiv listing abstract v2

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.** (a) Proton decay via U¯1D¯1D¯2 and L1Q1D¯2, (b) Tau decay via two L1L3E¯ k insertions, (c) Neutralino decay via L1Q1D¯1. 3 Proton Decay and Discrete Symmetries The combination of lepton- and baryon-number violating operators in the Lagrangian can possibly lead to rapid proton decay. For example the two operators L1Q1D¯ k and U¯ 1D¯ 1D¯ k (k 6= 1) can contribute to proton decay via the interaction shown in Figure 1a. On dimensional grounds we estimate Γ(P → e +π 0 ) ≈ α(λ ′ 11k )α(λ ′′ 11k ) m˜ 4 dk M5 proton. (7) Here α(λ) = λ 2/(4π). Given that 10 τ(P → eπ) > 103

Figures reproduced from arXiv:hep-ph/9707435 by the authors.

References

Works cited (64)

[1]

G. Farrar, P. Fayet, Phys. Lett. B 76 (1978) 575

View on Pith 1978
[2]

D. Z. Freedman, Phys. Rev. D 15 (1977) 1173; S. Ferrara, L. Girardello, T. Kugo, A. van Proeyen, Nucl. Phys. B 223 (1983) 191

View on Pith 1977
[3]

A.H. Chamseddine, H. Dreiner, Nucl. Phys. B 458 (1996) 65 , hep- ph/9504337

View on Pith 1996
[4]

S. Weinberg Phys. Rev. D 26 (1982) 287, N. Sakai, T. Yanagi da, Nucl. Phys. B 197 (1982) 133

View on Pith 1982
[5]

L.J. Hall, M. Suzuki, Nucl. Phys. B 231 (1984) 419

View on Pith 1984
[6]

T. Banks, Y. Grossman, E. Nardi, Y. Nir, Phys. Rev. D 52 (19 95) 5319, hep-ph/9505248

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[7]

B. de Carlos, P.L. White, Phys. Rev. D 54 (1996) 3427, hep- ph/9602381; E. Nardi, Phys. Rev. D 55 (1997) 5772, hep-ph/9610540

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1996
[8]

R. Hempﬂing, Nucl. Phys. B 478 (1996) 3, hep-ph/9511288; H.-P. Nilles, N. Polonsky, Nucl. Phys. B 484 (1997) 33, hep-ph/9606388

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1996
[9]

S. Davidson, J. Ellis, Phys. Lett. B 390 (1997) 210, hep-p h/9609451; and CERN-TH-97-14, hep-ph/9702247

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1997
[10]

Particle Data Group, Phys. Rev. D 54, 1 (1996)

View on Pith 1996
[11]

J.L. Goity, Marc Sher, Phys. Lett. B 346 (1995) 69, errat um-ibid. B 385 (1996) 500, hep-ph/9412208

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1995
[12]

A. Yu. Smirnov, F. Vissani, Phys. Lett. B 380 (1996) 317, hep- ph/9601387. 15

View on Pith 1996
[13]

D. Brahm, L. Hall, Phys. Rev. D40 (1989) 2449; K. Tamvaki s, Phys. Lett. B 382 (1996) 251, hep-ph/9604343

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1989
[14]

G.F. Giudice, R. Rattazzi, CERN-TH-97-076, hep-ph/97 04339

View on Pith
[15]

R. Barbieri, A. Strumia, Z. Berezhiani, hep-ph/970427 5; K. Tamvakis, Phys. Lett. B 383 (1996) 307, hep-ph/9602389; R. Hempﬂing, N ucl. Phys. B 478 (1996) 3, hep-ph/9511288, A. Yu. Smirnov, F. Viss ani, Nucl. Phys. B460 (1996) 37, hep-ph/9506416

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1996
[16]

M.C. Bento, L. Hall, G.G. Ross, Nucl. Phys. B 292 (1987) 4 00; N. Ganoulis, G. Lazarides, Q. Shaﬁ, Nucl. Phys. B 323 (1989) 374

View on Pith 1987
[17]

L. M. Krauss, F. Wilczek, Phys. Rev. Lett. 62 (1989) 1221 , T. Banks Nucl. Phys. B 323 (1989) 90

View on Pith 1989
[18]

L.E. Ibanez, G.G. Ross, Phys. Lett. B 260 (1991) 291; Nuc l. Phys. B 368 (1992) 3

View on Pith 1991
[19]

T. Banks, M. Dine, Phys. Rev. D 45 (1992) 1424

View on Pith 1992
[20]

G. Bhattacharyya, Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. 52A (1997) 8 3, hep- ph/9608415

View on Pith 1997
[21]

B. de Carlos, P.L. White, Phys. Rev. D 54 (1996) 3427, hep -ph/9602381

View on Pith 1996
[22]

V. Barger, G.F. Giudice, T. Han, Phys. Rev. D 40 (1989) 29 87

View on Pith 1989
[23]

ALEPH Collaboration (D. Buskulic et al.). Z. Phys. C 70 ( 1996) 561

View on Pith 1996
[24]

R. M. Godbole, P. Roy, X. Tata, Nucl. Phys. B 401 (1993) 67 , hep- ph/9209251

View on Pith 1993
[25]

A.I. Belesev et al, Phys. Lett. B 350 (1995) 263; C. Weinh eimer, et al, Phys. Lett. B 300 (1993) 210 and update in http:// www.na. infn.it/ win97/second.html

View on Pith 1995
[26]

R. Mohapatra, Phys. Rev. D 34 (1986) 3457; J.D. Vergados Phys. Lett. B 184 (1987) 55; M. Hirsch, H.V. Klapdor-Kleingrothau s, S.G. Kovalenko, Phys. Lett. B 352 (1995) 1

View on Pith 1986
[27]

M. Hirsch, H.V. Klapdor-Kleingrothaus, S.G. Kovalenk o, Phys. Rev. Lett. 75 (1995) 17; Phys. Rev. D 53 (1996) 1329, hep-ph/95023 85

View on Pith 1995
[28]

S. Davidson, D. Bailey, B. A. Campbell, Z. Phys. C 61 (199 4) 613, hep-ph/9309310

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[29]

C.S. Wood et al. , Science 275 (1997) 1759

View on Pith 1997
[30]

W. J. Marciano, J. L. Rosner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 65 (1990) 2 963, ERRATUM-ibid. 68 (1992) 898; see also an article by W.J. Marc iano in “Precision Tests of the Standard Electroweak Model”, ed. P. Lan- gacker, World Scientiﬁc, 1995. The number I present is an upd ate of the last number by W. J. Marciano, talk given in the 1997 INT Su mmer Workshop

View on Pith 1990
[31]

I have updated the bound from 33 using better lattice data: H. Wittig, Oxford preprint, OUTP-97-20P, to be published in Int. J. Mod . Phys. 16 A; hep-lat/9705034

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[32]

R. Gupta, T. Bhattacharya, S. Sharpe, Phys. Rev. D 55 (19 96) 4036, hep-lat/9611023

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[33]

K. Agashe, M. Graeser, Phys. Rev. D 54 (1996) 4445

View on Pith 1996
[34]

G. Bhattacharyya, J. Ellis, K. Sridhar, Mod. Phys. Lett . A10 (1995) 1583, hep-ph/9503264; G. Bhattacharyya, D. Choudhury, K. S ridhar, Phys. Lett. B 355 (1995) 193, hep-ph/9504314; J. Ellis, S. Lo la, K. Sridhar, e-Print Archive: hep-ph/9705416

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1995
[35]

F. Zwirner, Phys. Lett. B 132 (1983) 103

View on Pith 1983
[36]

G. Bhattacharyya, D. Choudhury, Mod. Phys. Lett. A10 (1 995) 1699

View on Pith
[37]

V.M. Lobashev, talk at the ”XVI edition of the Internati onal Workshop on Weak Interactions and Neutrinos,” Capri, Italy, June 199 7. The trans- parencies can be found at http://www.na.infn.it/win97/se cond.html. See in particular page 20

View on Pith
[38]

B. Brahmachari, Probir Roy, Phys. Rev. D 50 (1994) 39, er ratum-ibid. D 51 (1995) 3974, hep-ph/9403350

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1994
[39]

H. Dreiner, G.G. Ross, Nucl. Phys. B 365 (1991) 597

View on Pith 1991
[40]

S. Dawson, Nucl. Phys. B 261 (1985) 297

View on Pith 1985
[41]

The more general formula for a neutralino LSP can be foun d in 42

View on Pith
[42]

H. Dreiner, P. Morawitz, Nucl. Phys. B 428 (1994) 31, hep -ph/9405253

View on Pith 1994
[43]

E. Perez, Y. Sirois, H. Dreiner, Published in “Workshop on Future Physics at HERA”, DESY, May 1996, hep-ph/9703444

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1996
[44]

J. Ellis, S. Rudaz, Phys. Lett. B 128 (1983) 248

View on Pith 1983
[45]

S. Komamiya, CERN seminar, Feb. 25, 1997, OPAL, interna l report PN280

View on Pith 1997
[46]

D.P. Roy, Phys. Lett. B 283 (1992) 270

View on Pith 1992
[47]

S. Dimopoulos, R. Esmailzadeh, L. Hall, G. Starkman, Ph ys. Rev. D 41 (1990) 2099, V. Barger, M.S. Berger, P. Ohmann, Phys. Rev. D 50 (1994) 4299, H. Baer, C. Kao, X. Tata, Phys. Rev. D 51 (1995) 21 80, hep-ph/9410283, M. Guchait, D.P. Roy Phys. Rev. D 54 (1996) 3 276, hep-ph/9603219

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1990
[48]

J. Hewett, Proceedings of the 1990 Study on High Energy P hysics, Snow- mass; J. Butterworth, H. Dreiner, proceedings of the 2nd HER A Work- shop, DESY, March - Oct. 1991; J. Butterworth, H. Dreiner, Nu cl. Phys. B 397 (1993) 3; T. Kon and T. Kobayashi, Phys. Lett. B 270 (1991 ) 81

View on Pith 1993
[49]

G. Altarelli, J. Ellis, G.F. Giudice, S. Lola, M. L. Mang ano, CERN-TH- 97-040, hep-ph/9703276

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[50]

H1 Collaboration (S. Aid et al.), Z. Phys. C 71 (1996) 211 , hep- ex/9604006. 17

View on Pith 1996
[51]

H1 Collaboration (C. Adloﬀ et al.), DESY-97-024, hep-e x/9702012; ZEUS Collaboration (J. Breitweg et al.), DESY-97-025, hep- ex/9702015

View on Pith
[52]

D. Choudhury, S. Raychaudhuri, CERN-TH-97-026, hep-p h/9702392; H. Dreiner, P. Morawitz, hep-ph/9703279; J. Kalinowski, R. Ruckl, H. Spiesberger, P.M. Zerwas, DESY-97-038, hep-ph/9703288

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[53]

B. A. Campbell, S. Davidson, J. Ellis, K. A. Olive, Phys. Lett. B 256 (1991) 457; W. Fischler, G.F. Giudice, R.G. Leigh, S. Paban, Phys. Lett. B 258 (1991) 45

View on Pith 1991
[54]

B. A. Campbell, S. Davidson, J. Ellis, K. A. Olive, Astro part. Phys. 1 (1992) 77

View on Pith 1992
[55]

H. Dreiner, published in Marseille EPS HEP (1993) 424, ( QCD 161: I48: 1993), hep-ph/9311286; H. Dreiner, G.G. Ross, Nucl. Phys. B 410, 183 (1993), hep-ph/9207221

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1993
[56]

For a recent review of baryogenesis at the electroweak s cale within su- persymmetry see: M. Carena, C.E.M. Wagner, to appear in ’Per spectives on Higgs Physics II’, ed. G.L. Kane, World Scientiﬁc, Singap ore, hep- ph/9704347

View on Pith
[57]

For a related argument on majorana neutrino masses see A . E. Nelson, S. M. Barr, Phys. Lett. B 246 (1990) 141

View on Pith 1990
[58]

B. A. Campbell, S. Davidson, J. Ellis, K. A. Olive Phys. L ett. B 297 (1992) 118, hep-ph/9302221

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1992
[59]

John Ellis, G.B. Gelmini, Jorge L. Lopez, D.V. Nanopoul os, S. Sarkar, Nucl. Phys. B 373 (1992) 399

View on Pith 1992
[60]

M. H. Reno, D. Seckel, Phys. Rev. D 37 (1988) 3441

View on Pith 1988
[61]

P. Gondolo, G.B. Gelmini, S. Sarkar, Nucl. Phys. B 392 (1 993) 111

View on Pith
[62]

H. Dreiner, H. Pois, ETH-TH-95-30, hep-ph/9511444; V. Barger, M.S. Berger, R.J.N. Phillips, T. Wohrmann, Phys. Rev. D 53 (1996) 6407, hep-ph/9511473

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1996
[63]

S.Katsanevas, P.Morawitz, ”SUSYGEN 2.0 - A Monte Carlo Event Gen- erator for MSSM Sparticle Production at e+ e- Colliders”, ht tp:// ly- ohp5.in2p3.fr/ delphi/katsan/susygen.html

View on Pith
[64]

H. Baer, F. Paige, S. Protopopescu, X. Tata in proceedin gs of the Work- shop on Physics at Current Accelerators and Supercolliders , Eds. J. Hewett, A. White and D. Zeppenfeld, hep-ph/9305342. Single LSP de- cay modes can be implemented via the FORCE command. If there a re several LSP decays the ISAJET decay table must be modiﬁed, e.g. H. Baer, M. Brhlik...

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1997

Forward citations

Cited by 44 Pith papers

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

Search for long-lived particles using displaced vertices of oppositely charged leptons in 140 fb$^{-1}$ of pp collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 13$ TeV with the ATLAS detector
hep-ex 2026-01 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

No displaced dilepton vertices are observed in 140 fb^-1 of ATLAS Run-2 data, yielding leading 95% CL upper limits on LLP production for Z', gluino, and electroweakino benchmark models.
Searching for long-lived light neutralinos from $B$-meson decays with baryonic R-parity violation at Belle II
hep-ph 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Belle II could detect long-lived bino neutralinos produced in B-meson decays, with a new partial-reconstruction method sensitive to RPV couplings far beyond existing bounds.
Aspects of the WIMP quality problem and R-parity violation in natural supersymmetry with all axion dark matter
hep-ph 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

In natural supersymmetry with discrete R-symmetries, R-parity violation at the 1e-7 level can make the lightest supersymmetric particle decay before nucleosynthesis, leaving only axion dark matter, and LHC non-observa...
Probing light neutralinos from pair-produced sleptons with displaced vertices at the high-luminosity LHC
hep-ph 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

A displaced-vertex search for slepton pair production at the HL-LHC can probe RPV coupling lambda-prime-111 down to about 1e-7 and neutralino masses up to roughly 1 TeV, far beyond single-slepton production.
All axion dark matter from supersymmetric models
hep-ph 2025-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

For Z_4^R and Z_8^R discrete R-symmetries, R-parity violating couplings of order 10^-7 make the lightest supersymmetric particle decay in 10^-3 to 10 seconds, so the dark matter is entirely axion cold dark matter.

Show 39 more citing papers

Markov Chain Monte Carlo analysis to probe trilinear $R$-parity violating SUSY scenarios and possible LHC signatures
hep-ph 2024-11 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

A Bayesian MCMC fit to neutrino, Higgs, and flavor data constrains the trilinear R-parity-violating couplings λ_i33 and λ'_i33 to at most ~10^-4, with tanβ below 15, in bino- and stop-LSP supersymmetric scenarios.
Search for displaced vertices of oppositely charged leptons from decays of long-lived particles in $pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector
hep-ex 2019-07 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

ATLAS finds no displaced opposite-charge dilepton vertices above 12 GeV in 32.8 fb^-1 of 13 TeV data and excludes long-lived neutralinos with cτ from 1 mm to 6 m for a 700 GeV squark.
Search for massive supersymmetric particles decaying to many jets using the ATLAS detector in $pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 8$ TeV
hep-ex 2015-02 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

No deviation from Standard Model multi-jet backgrounds is observed in 8 TeV ATLAS data, excluding R-parity-violating gluinos below 917 GeV for six-light-quark decays and up to about 1 TeV for ten-quark cascades.
A Flavor Kit for BSM models
hep-ph 2014-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

The authors release an automated pipeline (PreSARAH, SARAH, SPheno) that derives one-loop Wilson coefficients for a fixed operator list and turns them into numerical predictions for about twenty flavor observables in ...
Flavored Dark Matter and R-Parity Violation
hep-ph 2013-09 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Minimal Flavor Violation implies an accidental Z3 flavor triality under which Standard Model fields are neutral and flavor-triplet dark matter is charged, giving exact stability and a testable top-flavored thermal relic.
LHC Coverage of RPV MSSM with Light Stops
hep-ph 2012-09 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

Recasting existing 7 TeV LHC searches onto RPV stop scenarios, the authors find stops in the natural mass range are excluded for LLE and light-lepton LQD couplings but largely unconstrained for UDD couplings and tau L...
MFV SUSY: A Natural Theory for R-Parity Violation
hep-ph 2011-11 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

Imposing holomorphic minimal flavor violation on the R-parity-violating MSSM leaves one baryon-number-violating coupling, making R-parity an accidental symmetry and keeping the proton stable without a discrete symmetry.
Neutrino masses in the Lepton Number Violating MSSM
hep-ph 2006-03 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

A complete one-loop calculation in the lepton-number-violating Z3 MSSM shows that bilinear couplings near 1 MeV can set the atmospheric neutrino scale and trilinear or soft couplings can set the solar scale.
What is the Discrete Gauge Symmetry of the MSSM?
hep-ph 2005-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Extending Ibanez-Ross to arbitrary N, the authors classify all anomaly-free family-independent Z_N discrete gauge symmetries of the SSM and single out proton-hexality P_6, a Z_6 that forbids dimension-five proton deca...
Delta M_K and epsilon_K in SUSY at the Next-to-Leading order
hep-ph 1998-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Next-to-leading-order QCD running plus lattice bag parameters yield tighter, model-independent bounds on flavour-changing squark mass insertions and R-parity-violating couplings from kaon mixing.
Cosmological moduli problem ameliorated by decaying WIMPs
hep-ph 2026-09 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

In supersymmetric axion models with R-parity violation, decaying WIMPs remove the moduli-induced dark matter overproduction, leaving a BBN bound that allows moduli as light as about 130 TeV.
The ABC of RPV III: Classification of R-parity Violating Signatures from LQD Couplings and their Coverage at the LHC
hep-ph 2026-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

The LHC currently excludes gluino and squark LSPs decaying via LQD couplings up to masses above 2 TeV and 1.8 TeV respectively, while direct slepton LSP production and tau-rich electroweakino scenarios remain largely ...
The Single Photon Signature of a Light Long-lived Neutralino at Remote Detectors at the LHC
hep-ph 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

ANUBIS offers the highest projected sensitivity for detecting single-photon signatures from long-lived neutralinos at the LHC among several remote detector proposals, based on six benchmark scenarios.
Non-Standard Interactions in Radiative Neutrino Mass Models
hep-ph 2019-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Type-I radiative neutrino mass models generate tree-level non-standard neutrino interactions as large as tens of percent in the diagonal flavor components, while remaining consistent with collider, electroweak, and ch...
Search for heavy charged long-lived particles in the ATLAS detector in 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ of proton-proton collision data at $\sqrt{s} = 13$ TeV
hep-ex 2019-02 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

No long-lived charged particles are observed in 36.1 fb^-1 of 13 TeV ATLAS data, excluding long-lived gluino R-hadrons below 2000 GeV, stop R-hadrons below 1340 GeV, sbottom R-hadrons below 1250 GeV, charginos below 1...
Finite modular subgroups for fermion mass matrices and baryon/lepton number violation
hep-ph 2018-12 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

An S3 modular quark mass matrix with roughly twenty free parameters reproduces the six quark masses and the CKM angles and phase, and the modular weight assignments generate a Z2 lepton number that forbids most R-pari...
A Letter of Intent for MATHUSLA: a dedicated displaced vertex detector above ATLAS or CMS
physics.ins-det 2018-11 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

A dedicated surface detector above the LHC could extend the search for long-lived particles by orders of magnitude while doubling as a cosmic ray telescope, according to this design study.
Long-Lived Particles at the Energy Frontier: The MATHUSLA Physics Case
hep-ph 2018-06 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

A surface tracker of roughly 200x200x20 metres near ATLAS or CMS, operating background-free, would extend HL-LHC reach to long-lived particles by up to three orders of magnitude in cross-section, and that reach maps o...
Heavy neutral fermions at the high-luminosity LHC
hep-ph 2018-03 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Simulated reach estimates show MATHUSLA is the most sensitive of the three proposed LHC detectors to long-lived heavy neutral fermions, with FASER's large-radius variant competitive for forward-boosted meson decays an...
Explaining the Lepton Non-universality at the LHCb and CMS from a Unified Framework
hep-ph 2014-09 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

A specific pair of R-parity-violating supersymmetry couplings, lambda-prime-112 and lambda-prime-113, can simultaneously account for the LHCb R_K anomaly and the CMS eejj excess near 2 TeV.
Probing the Standard Model with Higgs signal rates from the Tevatron, the LHC and a future ILC
hep-ph 2014-03 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

Combined Tevatron and LHC Higgs signal rates are consistent with Standard Model couplings, additional undetectable Higgs decay is bounded below 40% at 95% confidence under a gauge-coupling assumption, and a future ILC...
SARAH 3.2: Dirac Gauginos, UFO output, and more
hep-ph 2012-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

SARAH 3.2 adds UFO model-file output for MadGraph 5, support for Dirac gaugino mass terms, and automated consistency checks, with MSSM cross sections validated against MadGraph's own model files to within numerical error.
Constrained Supersymmetry after two years of LHC data: a global view with Fittino
hep-ph 2012-04 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Combining LHC 5 fb^-1 SUSY searches with precision, flavour and dark matter data, the constrained MSSM fits poorly and cannot comfortably host a 126 GeV Higgs boson.
Serendipitous supersymmetric solution to the strong CP problem
hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 4.5 of 10

Anomaly-free discrete R-symmetries plus Kim-Nilles regeneration of the mu term force an accidental U(1)_PQ whose spontaneous breaking yields a SUSY DFSZ axion that solves strong CP.
Complementary probes of bilinear R-parity violating SUSY models with a winolike LSP via neutrino oscillations and at the LHC
hep-ph 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 4.0 of 10

MCMC scan of bilinear RPV SUSY parameters constrained by neutrino data yields branching ratios that set LHC exclusions of wino-like χ̃1±/χ̃10 up to 565 GeV now and 950 GeV at HL-LHC for the best-fit point.
Searching for long-lived particles from stopped pions and muons at the CiADS-BDE
hep-ph 2025-01 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

Projected 5-year sensitivity of the proposed CiADS-BDE shows reach beyond current bounds for HNLs, electrophilic and LFV ALPs, and RPV light binos.
Long-Lived Fermions at AL3X
hep-ph 2018-11 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

AL3X, a proposed 12 m cylindrical detector about 5 m from the ALICE interaction point, would probe heavy neutral lepton mixings and R-parity-violating neutralino couplings competitively with MATHUSLA, SHiP, FASER and CODEX-b.
R-parity Violation and Light Neutralinos at CODEX-b, FASER, and MATHUSLA
hep-ph 2018-10 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

For light RPV neutralinos produced in D- and B-meson decays, MATHUSLA reaches roughly five to ten times further into coupling space than CODEX-b or FASER, which perform comparably to each other.
A search for pair-produced resonances in four-jet final states at $\sqrt{s}$ =13 TeV with the ATLAS detector
hep-ex 2017-10 accept novelty 4.0 of 10

No excess appears in four-jet events, excluding RPV top squarks below 410 GeV (610 GeV with b-tags) and colour-octet resonances below 1500 GeV at 95% confidence.
Probing exotic phenomena at the interface of nuclear and particle physics with the electric dipole moments of diamagnetic atoms: A unique window to hadronic and semi-leptonic CP violation
hep-ph 2017-03 accept novelty 4.0 of 10

Combining the mercury EDM limit with new relativistic coupled-cluster calculations constrains the nuclear Schiff moment, the tensor-pseudotensor electron-nucleus coupling, and the QCD theta parameter.
Simplified Models for LHC New Physics Searches
hep-ph 2011-05 accept novelty 4.0 of 10

A community workshop produced a standardized catalog of simplified models for LHC new-physics searches, intended to make experimental limits reusable across many theories.
Physics at a future Neutrino Factory and super-beam facility
hep-ph 2007-10 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

A common-tool simulation ranks the Neutrino Factory, beta-beam and super-beam against each other, and finds the winner depends on how large the unmeasured mixing angle theta-13 turns out to be.
Neutrinoless Double Beta Decay and Physics Beyond the Standard Model
hep-ph 2012-08 conditional novelty 3.0 of 10

Neutrinoless double beta decay can be triggered by many lepton-number-violating mechanisms beyond light Majorana neutrino exchange, and the paper maps their effective operators, model realizations, and experimental di...
Proton stability in grand unified theories, in strings, and in branes
hep-ph 2006-01 accept novelty 3.0 of 10

A comprehensive review concludes that proton decay remains a key test of unification and that planned megaton-scale detectors can probe many GUT, extra-dimensional, and string scenarios.
HERWIG 6.5: an event generator for Hadron Emission Reactions With Interfering Gluons (including supersymmetric processes)
hep-ph 2000-11 accept novelty 3.0 of 10

The paper is the reference manual for HERWIG version 6.5, cataloguing its parton-shower algorithm, matrix-element corrections, hadronization model, process library, parameters, and output format.
Theories with Gauge-Mediated Supersymmetry Breaking
hep-ph 1998-01 accept novelty 3.0 of 10

Gauge-mediated supersymmetry breaking generates flavour-universal soft terms at a messenger scale and yields a predictive sparticle spectrum with the gravitino as the lightest supersymmetric particle.
Collider Searches for Long-Lived Particles Beyond the Standard Model
hep-ph 2018-10 accept novelty 2.0 of 10

A comprehensive 2018 review of why many beyond-Standard-Model theories predict long-lived particles, how collider detectors can see them, what has been excluded so far, and what future experiments could add.
ATLAS searches for higgsinos with R-parity violating couplings in events with leptons
hep-ex 2024-12 unverdicted novelty 1.0 of 10

An ATLAS conference document summarizing two searches for R-parity-violating higgsinos in 139 fb^-1 of 13 TeV data, finding no excess and setting mass exclusions up to 440 GeV.
Stable Massive Particles at Colliders
hep-ph 2006-11 accept

The paper is a comprehensive review of collider searches for stable massive particles, their theoretical motivations, detector signatures, and the resulting mass and cross-section limits.

How the literature uses it

125 arXiv papers cite this in 165 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 · 77 sentences without a confident label

Uses its data or values 2 papers

The least constrained couplings of the $L_i L_j E̅_k$ operators, Eq. ([ref]), are [ref] [equation] where the bounds apply at $M_Z$.

All Possible Lightest Supersymmetric Particles in R-Parity Violating Minimal Supergravity Models · Non-$χ̃_1^0$ LSPs via LLE · 0.92
Giving $τ(p →e π) >1.6 ×10^33$ years [ref] and taking $m_d̃_k ∼O(1 TeV)$, we obtain [equation] It is consistent with the limits presented in [ref] .

Neutrino Masses in Supersymmetric Economical SU(3)_C X SU(3)_L X U(1)_X Model · Nucleon decay in the SUSYECO331 · 0.85

Cites it as support 1 paper

This model is theoretically well motivated since $S_1$ is present within the $R$-parity violating MSSM in the form of right-handed down squarks [ref] .[Note that in the minimal R-parity violating MSSM the coupling to charged conjugated fields in LLQ is absent.

Correlating Tauonic B Decays to the Neutron EDM via a Scalar Leptoquark · Introduction · 0.98

Cites it as background 76 papers

The lagrangian from the superpotential of the and the soft term in the lagrangian [ref] can be written as [equation] where $ϵ_i$ represents the coupling between neutrino ($ν_i$) and Higgsino ($H̃_u^0$) and lepton ($l_i$) and Higgsino ($H̃_u^+$).

Complementary probes of bilinear R-parity violating SUSY models with a winolike LSP via neutrino oscillations and at the LHC · Neutrino mass generation and observable · 0.89
The lepton number violating terms associated with trilinear couplings in the RPV SUSY model are expressed as follows [ref]

Markov Chain Monte Carlo analysis to probe trilinear $R$-parity violating SUSY scenarios and possible LHC signatures · Model description · 0.98
In the minimal supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM) [ref] , the lightest supersymmetric particle (LSP) is stable, guaranteed by the discrete symmetry proton hexality, $$ [ref] or R-parity [ref] .

All Possible Lightest Supersymmetric Particles in R-Parity Violating Minimal Supergravity Models · Introduction · 0.96

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]

G. Farrar, P. Fayet, Phys. Lett. B 76 (1978) 575

View on Pith 1978

[2] [2]

D. Z. Freedman, Phys. Rev. D 15 (1977) 1173; S. Ferrara, L. Girardello, T. Kugo, A. van Proeyen, Nucl. Phys. B 223 (1983) 191

View on Pith 1977

[3] [3]

A.H. Chamseddine, H. Dreiner, Nucl. Phys. B 458 (1996) 65 , hep- ph/9504337

View on Pith 1996

[4] [4]

S. Weinberg Phys. Rev. D 26 (1982) 287, N. Sakai, T. Yanagi da, Nucl. Phys. B 197 (1982) 133

View on Pith 1982

[5] [5]

L.J. Hall, M. Suzuki, Nucl. Phys. B 231 (1984) 419

View on Pith 1984

[6] [6]

T. Banks, Y. Grossman, E. Nardi, Y. Nir, Phys. Rev. D 52 (19 95) 5319, hep-ph/9505248

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[7] [7]

B. de Carlos, P.L. White, Phys. Rev. D 54 (1996) 3427, hep- ph/9602381; E. Nardi, Phys. Rev. D 55 (1997) 5772, hep-ph/9610540

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1996

[8] [8]

R. Hempﬂing, Nucl. Phys. B 478 (1996) 3, hep-ph/9511288; H.-P. Nilles, N. Polonsky, Nucl. Phys. B 484 (1997) 33, hep-ph/9606388

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1996

[9] [9]

S. Davidson, J. Ellis, Phys. Lett. B 390 (1997) 210, hep-p h/9609451; and CERN-TH-97-14, hep-ph/9702247

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1997

[10] [10]

Particle Data Group, Phys. Rev. D 54, 1 (1996)

View on Pith 1996

[11] [11]

J.L. Goity, Marc Sher, Phys. Lett. B 346 (1995) 69, errat um-ibid. B 385 (1996) 500, hep-ph/9412208

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1995

[12] [12]

A. Yu. Smirnov, F. Vissani, Phys. Lett. B 380 (1996) 317, hep- ph/9601387. 15

View on Pith 1996

[13] [13]

D. Brahm, L. Hall, Phys. Rev. D40 (1989) 2449; K. Tamvaki s, Phys. Lett. B 382 (1996) 251, hep-ph/9604343

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1989

[14] [14]

G.F. Giudice, R. Rattazzi, CERN-TH-97-076, hep-ph/97 04339

View on Pith

[15] [15]

R. Barbieri, A. Strumia, Z. Berezhiani, hep-ph/970427 5; K. Tamvakis, Phys. Lett. B 383 (1996) 307, hep-ph/9602389; R. Hempﬂing, N ucl. Phys. B 478 (1996) 3, hep-ph/9511288, A. Yu. Smirnov, F. Viss ani, Nucl. Phys. B460 (1996) 37, hep-ph/9506416

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1996

[16] [16]

M.C. Bento, L. Hall, G.G. Ross, Nucl. Phys. B 292 (1987) 4 00; N. Ganoulis, G. Lazarides, Q. Shaﬁ, Nucl. Phys. B 323 (1989) 374

View on Pith 1987

[17] [17]

L. M. Krauss, F. Wilczek, Phys. Rev. Lett. 62 (1989) 1221 , T. Banks Nucl. Phys. B 323 (1989) 90

View on Pith 1989

[18] [18]

L.E. Ibanez, G.G. Ross, Phys. Lett. B 260 (1991) 291; Nuc l. Phys. B 368 (1992) 3

View on Pith 1991

[19] [19]

T. Banks, M. Dine, Phys. Rev. D 45 (1992) 1424

View on Pith 1992

[20] [20]

G. Bhattacharyya, Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. 52A (1997) 8 3, hep- ph/9608415

View on Pith 1997

[21] [21]

B. de Carlos, P.L. White, Phys. Rev. D 54 (1996) 3427, hep -ph/9602381

View on Pith 1996

[22] [22]

V. Barger, G.F. Giudice, T. Han, Phys. Rev. D 40 (1989) 29 87

View on Pith 1989

[23] [23]

ALEPH Collaboration (D. Buskulic et al.). Z. Phys. C 70 ( 1996) 561

View on Pith 1996

[24] [24]

R. M. Godbole, P. Roy, X. Tata, Nucl. Phys. B 401 (1993) 67 , hep- ph/9209251

View on Pith 1993

[25] [25]

A.I. Belesev et al, Phys. Lett. B 350 (1995) 263; C. Weinh eimer, et al, Phys. Lett. B 300 (1993) 210 and update in http:// www.na. infn.it/ win97/second.html

View on Pith 1995

[26] [26]

R. Mohapatra, Phys. Rev. D 34 (1986) 3457; J.D. Vergados Phys. Lett. B 184 (1987) 55; M. Hirsch, H.V. Klapdor-Kleingrothau s, S.G. Kovalenko, Phys. Lett. B 352 (1995) 1

View on Pith 1986

[27] [27]

M. Hirsch, H.V. Klapdor-Kleingrothaus, S.G. Kovalenk o, Phys. Rev. Lett. 75 (1995) 17; Phys. Rev. D 53 (1996) 1329, hep-ph/95023 85

View on Pith 1995

[28] [28]

S. Davidson, D. Bailey, B. A. Campbell, Z. Phys. C 61 (199 4) 613, hep-ph/9309310

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[29] [29]

C.S. Wood et al. , Science 275 (1997) 1759

View on Pith 1997

[30] [30]

W. J. Marciano, J. L. Rosner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 65 (1990) 2 963, ERRATUM-ibid. 68 (1992) 898; see also an article by W.J. Marc iano in “Precision Tests of the Standard Electroweak Model”, ed. P. Lan- gacker, World Scientiﬁc, 1995. The number I present is an upd ate of the last number by W. J. Marciano, talk given in the 1997 INT Su mmer Workshop

View on Pith 1990

[31] [31]

I have updated the bound from 33 using better lattice data: H. Wittig, Oxford preprint, OUTP-97-20P, to be published in Int. J. Mod . Phys. 16 A; hep-lat/9705034

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[32] [32]

R. Gupta, T. Bhattacharya, S. Sharpe, Phys. Rev. D 55 (19 96) 4036, hep-lat/9611023

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[33] [33]

K. Agashe, M. Graeser, Phys. Rev. D 54 (1996) 4445

View on Pith 1996

[34] [34]

G. Bhattacharyya, J. Ellis, K. Sridhar, Mod. Phys. Lett . A10 (1995) 1583, hep-ph/9503264; G. Bhattacharyya, D. Choudhury, K. S ridhar, Phys. Lett. B 355 (1995) 193, hep-ph/9504314; J. Ellis, S. Lo la, K. Sridhar, e-Print Archive: hep-ph/9705416

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1995

[35] [35]

F. Zwirner, Phys. Lett. B 132 (1983) 103

View on Pith 1983

[36] [36]

G. Bhattacharyya, D. Choudhury, Mod. Phys. Lett. A10 (1 995) 1699

View on Pith

[37] [37]

V.M. Lobashev, talk at the ”XVI edition of the Internati onal Workshop on Weak Interactions and Neutrinos,” Capri, Italy, June 199 7. The trans- parencies can be found at http://www.na.infn.it/win97/se cond.html. See in particular page 20

View on Pith

[38] [38]

B. Brahmachari, Probir Roy, Phys. Rev. D 50 (1994) 39, er ratum-ibid. D 51 (1995) 3974, hep-ph/9403350

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1994

[39] [39]

H. Dreiner, G.G. Ross, Nucl. Phys. B 365 (1991) 597

View on Pith 1991

[40] [40]

S. Dawson, Nucl. Phys. B 261 (1985) 297

View on Pith 1985

[41] [41]

The more general formula for a neutralino LSP can be foun d in 42

View on Pith

[42] [42]

H. Dreiner, P. Morawitz, Nucl. Phys. B 428 (1994) 31, hep -ph/9405253

View on Pith 1994

[43] [43]

E. Perez, Y. Sirois, H. Dreiner, Published in “Workshop on Future Physics at HERA”, DESY, May 1996, hep-ph/9703444

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1996

[44] [44]

J. Ellis, S. Rudaz, Phys. Lett. B 128 (1983) 248

View on Pith 1983

[45] [45]

S. Komamiya, CERN seminar, Feb. 25, 1997, OPAL, interna l report PN280

View on Pith 1997

[46] [46]

D.P. Roy, Phys. Lett. B 283 (1992) 270

View on Pith 1992

[47] [47]

S. Dimopoulos, R. Esmailzadeh, L. Hall, G. Starkman, Ph ys. Rev. D 41 (1990) 2099, V. Barger, M.S. Berger, P. Ohmann, Phys. Rev. D 50 (1994) 4299, H. Baer, C. Kao, X. Tata, Phys. Rev. D 51 (1995) 21 80, hep-ph/9410283, M. Guchait, D.P. Roy Phys. Rev. D 54 (1996) 3 276, hep-ph/9603219

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1990

[48] [48]

J. Hewett, Proceedings of the 1990 Study on High Energy P hysics, Snow- mass; J. Butterworth, H. Dreiner, proceedings of the 2nd HER A Work- shop, DESY, March - Oct. 1991; J. Butterworth, H. Dreiner, Nu cl. Phys. B 397 (1993) 3; T. Kon and T. Kobayashi, Phys. Lett. B 270 (1991 ) 81

View on Pith 1993

[49] [49]

G. Altarelli, J. Ellis, G.F. Giudice, S. Lola, M. L. Mang ano, CERN-TH- 97-040, hep-ph/9703276

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[50] [50]

H1 Collaboration (S. Aid et al.), Z. Phys. C 71 (1996) 211 , hep- ex/9604006. 17

View on Pith 1996

[51] [51]

H1 Collaboration (C. Adloﬀ et al.), DESY-97-024, hep-e x/9702012; ZEUS Collaboration (J. Breitweg et al.), DESY-97-025, hep- ex/9702015

View on Pith

[52] [52]

D. Choudhury, S. Raychaudhuri, CERN-TH-97-026, hep-p h/9702392; H. Dreiner, P. Morawitz, hep-ph/9703279; J. Kalinowski, R. Ruckl, H. Spiesberger, P.M. Zerwas, DESY-97-038, hep-ph/9703288

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[53] [53]

B. A. Campbell, S. Davidson, J. Ellis, K. A. Olive, Phys. Lett. B 256 (1991) 457; W. Fischler, G.F. Giudice, R.G. Leigh, S. Paban, Phys. Lett. B 258 (1991) 45

View on Pith 1991

[54] [54]

B. A. Campbell, S. Davidson, J. Ellis, K. A. Olive, Astro part. Phys. 1 (1992) 77

View on Pith 1992

[55] [55]

H. Dreiner, published in Marseille EPS HEP (1993) 424, ( QCD 161: I48: 1993), hep-ph/9311286; H. Dreiner, G.G. Ross, Nucl. Phys. B 410, 183 (1993), hep-ph/9207221

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1993

[56] [56]

For a recent review of baryogenesis at the electroweak s cale within su- persymmetry see: M. Carena, C.E.M. Wagner, to appear in ’Per spectives on Higgs Physics II’, ed. G.L. Kane, World Scientiﬁc, Singap ore, hep- ph/9704347

View on Pith

[57] [57]

For a related argument on majorana neutrino masses see A . E. Nelson, S. M. Barr, Phys. Lett. B 246 (1990) 141

View on Pith 1990

[58] [58]

B. A. Campbell, S. Davidson, J. Ellis, K. A. Olive Phys. L ett. B 297 (1992) 118, hep-ph/9302221

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1992

[59] [59]

John Ellis, G.B. Gelmini, Jorge L. Lopez, D.V. Nanopoul os, S. Sarkar, Nucl. Phys. B 373 (1992) 399

View on Pith 1992

[60] [60]

M. H. Reno, D. Seckel, Phys. Rev. D 37 (1988) 3441

View on Pith 1988

[61] [61]

P. Gondolo, G.B. Gelmini, S. Sarkar, Nucl. Phys. B 392 (1 993) 111

View on Pith

[62] [62]

H. Dreiner, H. Pois, ETH-TH-95-30, hep-ph/9511444; V. Barger, M.S. Berger, R.J.N. Phillips, T. Wohrmann, Phys. Rev. D 53 (1996) 6407, hep-ph/9511473

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1996

[63] [63]

S.Katsanevas, P.Morawitz, ”SUSYGEN 2.0 - A Monte Carlo Event Gen- erator for MSSM Sparticle Production at e+ e- Colliders”, ht tp:// ly- ohp5.in2p3.fr/ delphi/katsan/susygen.html

View on Pith

[64] [64]

H. Baer, F. Paige, S. Protopopescu, X. Tata in proceedin gs of the Work- shop on Physics at Current Accelerators and Supercolliders , Eds. J. Hewett, A. White and D. Zeppenfeld, hep-ph/9305342. Single LSP de- cay modes can be implemented via the FORCE command. If there a re several LSP decays the ISAJET decay table must be modiﬁed, e.g. H. Baer, M. Brhlik...

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1997