1: \documentclass[12pt,nofootinbib,prd]{revtex4}
2: %\documentclass[prd,nofootinbib,twocolumn]{revtex4}
3: %\documentclass[prd,nofootinbib,preprint]{revtex4}
4:
5: \usepackage{amsmath}
6: \usepackage{graphicx}
7:
8: \def\mt{\widetilde{m}}
9: \def\Mt{\widetilde{M}}
10: \def\mq{\mt_q}
11: \def\mg{\mt_g}
12: \def\mi{\mt_i}
13: \def\mj{\mt_j}
14: \def\ma{\mt_1}
15: \def\mb{\mt_2}
16:
17: %\bibliographystyle{apsrev}
18:
19: \begin{document}
20:
21: \title{The mass insertion approximation without squark degeneracy}
22:
23: \author{Guy \surname{Raz}}
24: \affiliation{Particle Physics Department \\ Weizmann Institute of
25: science \\ Rehovot 76100, Israel}
26: \email{guy.raz@weizmann.ac.il}
27: %\homepage{http://www.weizmann.ac.il/home/guyraz/}
28: %\date{\today}
29:
30: \begin{abstract}
31: We study the applicability of the mass insertion approximation (MIA)
32: for calculations of neutral meson mixing when squark masses are not
33: degenerate and, in particular, in models of alignment. We show that
34: the MIA can give results that are much better than an order of
35: magnitude estimate as long as the masses are not strongly
36: hierarchical. We argue that, in an effective two-squark framework,
37: $\mq=(\ma+\ma)/2$ is the best choice for the MIA expansion point,
38: rather than, for example, $\mq^2=(\ma^2+\mb^2)/2$.
39: \end{abstract}
40:
41: \maketitle
42:
43:
44: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
45:
46: \section{Introduction}
47: \label{sec:introduction}
48:
49: The mass insertion approximation (MIA) is often used to simplify
50: expressions involving supersymmetric contributions to flavour
51: changing neutral current processes from loop
52: diagrams~\cite{Gabbiani:1989rb,Hagelin:1994tc,Gabbiani:1996hi}. The
53: simplification is achieved by the replacement of a sum over all
54: possible internal propagators and the appropriate mixing at the
55: vertices, with a single (small) off-diagonal mass insertion in a basis
56: where all gauge couplings are diagonal. The resulting expressions are
57: formulated in terms of parameters which can be estimated in
58: various supersymmetric models.
59:
60: It may seem, naively, that the smallness of the off-diagonal
61: mass-squared matrix element would justify the approximation. The true
62: picture, however, is that these off-diagonal elements are the product
63: of mixing angles at the vertices and mass-squared differences between
64: intermediate squarks. The MIA, on the other hand, is a Taylor
65: expansion only with respect to the latter, namely, the mass-squared
66: difference (we give an exact formulation of these statements in
67: section~\ref{sec:form-mass-insert}). A small off-diagonal element does
68: not necessarily imply a small mass difference. Instead, it may be
69: related to small mixing angles. But then the validity of the MIA is
70: questionable.
71:
72: This is exactly the situation in the framework of quark-squark
73: alignment (QSA) models~\cite{Nir:1993mx,Leurer:1994gy}. In this class
74: of supersymmetric models the squark masses-squared are all of the same
75: order of magnitude, a free parameter denoted by $\mt^2$, and the mass
76: squared differences between them are also of the same order of
77: magnitude, that is: $|\mi^2-\mj^2|/\mt^2=\mathcal{O}(1)$. Apriori,
78: this is a problematic situation for using the MIA. Yet, it is
79: frequently used in the literature.\footnote{In fact, since QSA
80: models allow estimates of $|\mi^2-\mj^2|/\mt^2$ but not of the
81: individual masses, the MIA provides the best way to derive
82: meaningful results.}
83:
84: We therefore study the validity of the MIA in the context of QSA
85: models. We confirm that the approximation is applicable and useful for
86: such models. We also clarify the connection between the (unknown)
87: details of the squark mass spectrum and the MIA parameters.
88:
89: The organization of this work is as follows: We formulate the details
90: of the MIA in section~\ref{sec:form-mass-insert}. The analysis and our
91: results for non-degenerate squarks masses are presented in
92: section~\ref{sec:analys-non-degen}.
93:
94: \section{Formulation of the mass insertion approximation.}
95: \label{sec:form-mass-insert}
96:
97: Let us first formulate the details of the MIA. To illustrate it in the
98: context of QSA, we study a specific example: The supersymmetric
99: contribution to neutral $K$ meson mixing from gluino box diagrams with
100: two intermediate squarks. The relevant diagrams are shown in
101: figure~\ref{fig:boxdiag}. We focus on the following term arising from
102: these diagrams~\cite{Nelson:1997bt}:
103: \begin{equation}
104: \label{eq:1}
105: M^K_{12} \supset C \left(Z^d_{2i}Z^d{}^\dag_{i1}
106: Z^d_{2j}Z^d{}^\dag_{j1} \right) J_4(\mg^2,\mi^2,\mj^2)\;.
107: \end{equation}
108: Here $C$ is a numerical factor, given in terms of the $K$ meson parameters:
109: \begin{equation}
110: \label{eq:2}
111: C\equiv\frac{{\left(4\pi\right)}^2}{i}\frac{\alpha_s^2 m_K
112: f^2_K \hat{B}_K \eta}{2} \simeq \frac{{\left(4\pi\right)}^2}{i}\;
113: 5.4\times10^4\;\;\;\; \text{MeV}^3\;,
114: \end{equation}
115: $Z^d_{ij}$ are the quark-squark mixing angles, and $J_4$ is given
116: by
117: \begin{equation}
118: \label{eq:3}
119: J_4(\mg^2,\mi^2,\mj^2)\equiv \frac{11}{54}
120: \widetilde{I}_4(\mg^2,\mi^2,\mj^2)+\frac{2}{27}\mg^2
121: I_4(\mg^2,\mi^2,\mj^2)\;,
122: \end{equation}
123: with $\mg$ the gluino mass, $\mi,\,\mj$ the down squark masses and
124: \begin{equation}
125: \label{eq:4}
126: \begin{split}
127: I_4(\mg^2,\mi^2,\mj^2)
128: & \equiv \int{\frac{d^4p}{{(2\pi)}^4} \frac{1}
129: {(p^2-\mg^2)(p^2-\mg^2)(p^2-\mi^2)
130: (p^2-\mj^2)}} \\*
131: & = \frac{i}{{\left(4\pi\right)}^2}\Biggl[
132: \frac{1}{\left(\mi^2-\mg^2\right)
133: \left(\mj^2-\mg^2\right)} + \Biggr. \\*
134: & \qquad + \frac{\mi^2}{\left(\mi^2-\mj^2\right)
135: {\left(\mi^2-\mg^2\right)}^2}\ln
136: \left(\frac{\mi^2}{\mg^2}\right) \\*
137: & \qquad \Biggl. +
138: \frac{\mj^2}{\left(\mj^2-\mi^2\right)
139: {\left(\mj^2-\mg^2\right)}^2}\ln
140: \left(\frac{\mj^2}{\mg^2} \right)\Biggr] \;,
141: \end{split}
142: \end{equation}
143: \begin{equation}
144: \label{eq:5}
145: \begin{split}
146: \widetilde{I}_4(\mg^2,\mi^2,\mj^2)
147: & \equiv \int{\frac{d^4p}{{(2\pi)}^4} \frac{p^2}
148: {(p^2-\mg^2)(p^2-\mg^2)(p^2-\mi^2)
149: (p^2-\mj^2)}} \\*
150: & = \frac{i}{{\left(4\pi\right)}^2}\Biggl[
151: \frac{\mt^2_g}{\left(\mi^2-\mg^2\right)
152: \left(\mj^2-\mg^2\right)} + \Biggr. \\*
153: & \qquad + \frac{\mi^4}{\left(\mi^2-\mj^2\right)
154: {\left(\mi^2-\mg^2\right)}^2}\ln
155: \left(\frac{\mi^2}{\mg^2}\right) \\*
156: & \qquad \Biggl. +
157: \frac{\mj^4}{\left(\mj^2-\mi^2\right)
158: {\left(\mj^2-\mg^2\right)}^2}\ln
159: \left(\frac{\mj^2}{\mg^2} \right)\Biggr]\;.
160: \end{split}
161: \end{equation}
162:
163: \begin{figure}[tbp]
164: \centering
165: \includegraphics[width=0.6\columnwidth]{boxdiags}
166: \caption{Gluino box diagrams contributing to $K^0$ - $\overline{K^0}$ mixing.}
167: \label{fig:boxdiag}
168: \end{figure}
169:
170: The MIA is nothing more than a Taylor expansion of $J_4$. We choose to
171: expand the squark masses around some point $\mq$. Owing to the
172: specific form of $J_4$ we find
173: \begin{equation}
174: \label{eq:6}
175: J_4(\mg^2,\mi^2,\mj^2) = \sum_{m,n = 0}^\infty
176: \frac{C_{m+n}(x)}{\mq^{2(1+m+n)}}
177: \left(\Delta\mi^2\right)^m\left(\Delta\mj^2\right)^n \;,
178: \end{equation}
179: where $x\equiv \mg^2/\mq^2$, and $\Delta\mi^2 \equiv
180: \mi^2-\mq^2$. The coefficient $C_{m+n}(x)/\mq^{2(1+m+n)}$ is the
181: $(m+n)'$th derivative of $J_4$ evaluated at $\mq$, times the symmetry factor
182: $1/(m!n!)$. (The exact form of the coefficient is not important for
183: our purpose.)
184:
185: Substituting~\eqref{eq:6} in~\eqref{eq:1} we get
186: \begin{equation}
187: \label{eq:7}
188: C \sum_{m,n = 0}^\infty
189: \left\{\frac{C_{m+n}(x)}{\mq^{2(1+m+n)}}
190: \left[Z^d_{2i}\left(\Delta\mi^2\right)^mZ^{d\dag}_{i1}\right]
191: \left[Z^d_{2j}\left(\Delta\mj^2\right)^n
192: Z^{d\dag}_{j1}\right]\right\} \;.
193: \end{equation}
194: Note that a sum over $i$ and $j$ is implied. If the MIA is valid, this
195: expansion converges fast and we can keep only the lowest order terms.
196: However, due to the unitarity of $Z^d$, the terms with either $m=0$ or
197: $n=0$ vanish. The first non-vanishing contribution, therefore, will be
198: from the term with $m=n=1$. This term, however, is special since we
199: can write (again, a sum over $j$ is implied):
200: \begin{equation}
201: \label{eq:8}
202: Z^d_{2j}\left(\Delta\mj^2\right) Z^{d\dag}_{j1} =
203: Z^d_{2j}\left(\mq^2+\Delta\mj^2\right) Z^{d\dag}_{j1} = (\Mt^2_d){}_{21}\;,
204: \end{equation}
205: where $\Mt^2_d$ is the squark mass-squared matrix in the basis where
206: quarks masses and gluino couplings are diagonal. Thus, if the MIA holds we can
207: replace~\eqref{eq:7} with:
208: \begin{equation}
209: \label{eq:9}
210: C \times\frac{C_{2}(x)}{\mq^{6}}
211: \left((\Mt^2_d){}_{21}\right)^2 \;.
212: \end{equation}
213: We stress that a small $(\Mt^2_d){}_{21}$ is not enough, by itself,
214: to justify the use of the MIA. The question of validity should be
215: considered in the context of eq.~\eqref{eq:6}. We note, however,
216: that the quality\ of the MIA is not completely equivalent to the
217: quality of the approximation that is obtained by keeping only the lowest terms
218: in~\eqref{eq:6}. The reason is that the zeroth order term ($m=n=0$), the
219: first order terms ($m=1,\,n=0$ and $m=0,\,n=1$) and some of the second
220: order terms ($m=2,\,n=0$ and $m=0,\,n=2$), while appearing
221: in~\eqref{eq:6}, do not contribute to the mixing amplitude
222: in~\eqref{eq:7} due to the unitarity of $Z^d$. In other words, the
223: validity of~\eqref{eq:9} has to do with one of the second order terms
224: in~\eqref{eq:6}, rather than with all lowest order terms.
225:
226: Nonetheless, it is obvious that when the expansion parameter is small,
227: $\left|\Delta\mi^2/\mq^2\right|\ll 1$,
228: the approximation is good. It is the condition in QSA models,
229: $\left|\Delta\mi^2/\mq^2\right|\sim 1$ which needs a special consideration.
230:
231:
232: \section{The case of non-degenerate masses}
233: \label{sec:analys-non-degen}
234:
235: In order to study quantitatively the non-degenerate case, we
236: simplify the form of $Z^d$ by assuming that only one mixing angle,
237: namely $Z^d_{12}$, is large. This is usually the case in QSA
238: models. Such an assumption allows us to consider
239: only the first two generations. Expression~\eqref{eq:1} then
240: simplifies to
241: \begin{equation}
242: \label{eq:10}
243: C\times \cos^2 \theta \sin^2 \theta
244: \times\left[J_4(\mg^2,\mt_1^2,\mt_1^2)+J_4(\mg^2,\mt_2^2,\mt_2^2)-J_4(\mg^2,\mt_1^2,\mt_2^2)-
245: J_4(\mg^2,\mt_2^2,\mt_1^2) \right] \;,
246: \end{equation}
247: where $\sin\theta\approx Z^d_{12}$ is the single large mixing
248: angle. Equivalently,~\eqref{eq:7} can be written as
249: \begin{equation}
250: \label{eq:11}
251: C\times \cos^2 \theta \sin^2 \theta \times
252: \left(\frac{C_{m+n}(x)}{\mq^{2(1+m+n)}}\right)
253: \times \left( \left(\Delta\ma^2\right)^m -
254: \left(\Delta\mb^2\right)^m \right)\left( \left(\Delta\ma^2\right)^n -
255: \left(\Delta\mb^2\right)^n \right)\;.
256: \end{equation}
257: The above expression manifestly demonstrates the vanishing of terms
258: with either $m=0$ or $n=0$. The MIA is obtained by keeping
259: in~\eqref{eq:11} only the term with $m=n=1$
260: \begin{equation}
261: \label{eq:12}
262: C\times \cos^2 \theta \sin^2 \theta \times
263: \left(\frac{C_2(\mg^2/\mq^2)}{\mq^2}\right)
264: \times \left( \frac{\ma^2 - \mb^2}{\mq^2}\right)^2\;.
265: \end{equation}
266: We can now test the accuracy of the MIA by defining the deviation
267: parameter (using the symmetry of $J_4$ with respect to $\mi^2$ and $\mj^2$)
268: \begin{equation}
269: \label{eq:13}
270: r \equiv 1- \frac{\displaystyle \left(\frac{C_2(\mg^2/\mq^2)}{\mq^2}\right)
271: \left( \frac{\ma^2 -
272: \mb^2}{\mq^2}\right)^2}{J_4(\mg^2,\mt_1^2,\mt_1^2)+
273: J_4(\mg^2,\mt_2^2,\mt_2^2)- 2\, J_4(\mg^2,\mt_1^2,\mt_2^2)}\;.
274: \end{equation}
275: Figure~\ref{fig:mqsolve1} shows $r$ as a function of $\ma$ and $\mb$ for $\mq=2$ TeV, $\mg=1$ TeV.
276: \begin{figure}[tbp]
277: \centering
278: \includegraphics[width=0.5\columnwidth]{mqsolve1.eps}
279: \caption{$r$ as a function of $\ma$ and $\mb$ for $\mq=2$ TeV, $\mg=1$ TeV.}
280: \label{fig:mqsolve1}
281: \end{figure}
282:
283: Obviously, when $\ma\approx\mb\approx\mq$, we expect the deviation to
284: be small. The interesting result, however, is that the deviation is
285: small (of order $10\%$) even for non-degenerate $\ma$ and $\mb$, as
286: long as $(\ma+\mb)/2 \approx \mq$. This is the case, for example, when
287: $\ma=1$ TeV, $\mb=3$ TeV and $\mq=2$ TeV. In other words, the
288: result of the exact expression~\eqref{eq:10} using $\ma$ and $\mb$,
289: can be reproduced using the MIA of~\eqref{eq:12} with
290: $\mq\approx(\ma+\mb)/2$ and the knowledge of $\Mt_{12}
291: \sim\cos\theta\sin\theta(\ma^2-\mb^2)/\mq^2$.
292:
293: We see, therefore, that as long as the squark masses are not strongly
294: hierarchical, the `right' choice of the expansion point $\mq$ results
295: with the MIA being a rather accurate approximation. This is very
296: useful in QSA models where we have $(\ma^2-\mb^2)/\mq^2 =
297: \mathcal{O}(1)$. The amplitudes in these models can therefore be
298: expressed in the MIA by using $\mq\approx(\ma+\mb)/2\sim\mt$.
299: Although this result was demonstrated here for a specific mixing
300: contribution and using specific assumptions on the mixing angles, we
301: found it to be quite a general result.\footnote{Moreover,
302: the example given here directly applies to the most stringent test
303: of QSA models, namely, the contribution to $D^0$ -- $\overline{D^0}$
304: mixing.}
305:
306: The result $\mq\approx(\ma+\mb)/2$ is not trivial. Looking
307: at~\eqref{eq:11}, it seems that the best strategy is to choose $\mq^2
308: = (\ma^2+\mb^2)/2$. This choice results with $\Delta\ma^2 =
309: -\Delta\mb^2$, which eliminates all terms with either $m$ or $n$
310: even.\footnote{In other words, all terms with $m+n$ odd are
311: eliminated, since $m+n$ odd implies either $m$ even and $n$ odd or
312: vice versa. Some of the $m+n$ even terms which are due to both $m$
313: and $n$ even are eliminated as well.} In particular, it eliminates
314: the next-to-leading order terms with either $m=1,\,n=2$ or
315: $m=2,\,n=1$. Naively, one would expect faster convergence in this case
316: and therefore obtaining a good approximation.
317:
318: This naive expectation is, however, wrong. Studying the form of the
319: coefficients $C_{m+n}$ we find that the sign flips between even and
320: odd $m+n$ terms. The choice $\mq^2 = (\ma^2+\mb^2)/2$, which
321: eliminates all odd $m+n$ terms, eliminates therefore all the negative
322: sign terms in~\eqref{eq:11}. Since the $C_{m+n}$ coefficients decrease
323: slowly, this induces a larger error and a worse approximation.
324:
325: On the other hand, we find that the choice $\mq\approx(\ma+\mb)/2$ is
326: the most sensible one since it leads to an approximate cancellation
327: between the next-to-leading order and the next-to-next-to-leading
328: order terms. The extent to which such a choice is optimal, as can be
329: seen in figure~\ref{fig:mqsolve1}, is remarkable.
330:
331: Although we presented here explicitly only the LL and RR contributions to
332: the mixing amplitude, the approximation also holds (over a somewhat
333: smaller range of masses) for the LR and RL contributions.
334:
335: To summarize, we confirm that the common practice of using the MIA in
336: supersymmetric models is justified even in the case of non-degenerate
337: squark masses, as long as the masses are not strongly hierarchical. We
338: showed that over a wide range of masses, the best strategy is to
339: choose the MIA expansion point $\mq$ to be the average of the masses
340: involved. Using this strategy, the MIA provides a surprisingly good
341: calculation of neutral meson mixing in models where a single mixing
342: angle dominates, such as QSA~\cite{Nir:1993mx,Leurer:1994gy} and
343: `effective supersymmetry'~\cite{ Dine:1990jd, Dimopoulos:1995mi,
344: Pomarol:1996xc, Cohen:1996vb, Kaplan:1999iq}.
345:
346: \begin{acknowledgments}
347: I thank Yossi Nir for his help and comments.
348: \end{acknowledgments}
349:
350: %\bibliography{MIA}
351:
352: %% This is the content of MIA.bbl inserted ``as is'':
353:
354: \begin{thebibliography}{11}
355: \expandafter\ifx\csname natexlab\endcsname\relax\def\natexlab#1{#1}\fi
356: \expandafter\ifx\csname bibnamefont\endcsname\relax
357: \def\bibnamefont#1{#1}\fi
358: \expandafter\ifx\csname bibfnamefont\endcsname\relax
359: \def\bibfnamefont#1{#1}\fi
360: \expandafter\ifx\csname citenamefont\endcsname\relax
361: \def\citenamefont#1{#1}\fi
362: \expandafter\ifx\csname url\endcsname\relax
363: \def\url#1{\texttt{#1}}\fi
364: \expandafter\ifx\csname urlprefix\endcsname\relax\def\urlprefix{URL }\fi
365: \providecommand{\bibinfo}[2]{#2}
366: \providecommand{\eprint}[2][]{\url{#2}}
367:
368: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Gabbiani and Masiero}(1989)}]{Gabbiani:1989rb}
369: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{F.}~\bibnamefont{Gabbiani}} \bibnamefont{and}
370: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{Masiero}},
371: \bibinfo{journal}{Nucl. Phys.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{B322}},
372: \bibinfo{pages}{235} (\bibinfo{year}{1989}).
373:
374: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Hagelin et~al.}(1994)\citenamefont{Hagelin, Kelley, and
375: Tanaka}}]{Hagelin:1994tc}
376: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.~S.} \bibnamefont{Hagelin}},
377: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.}~\bibnamefont{Kelley}}, \bibnamefont{and}
378: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.}~\bibnamefont{Tanaka}},
379: \bibinfo{journal}{Nucl. Phys.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{B415}},
380: \bibinfo{pages}{293} (\bibinfo{year}{1994}).
381:
382: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Gabbiani et~al.}(1996)\citenamefont{Gabbiani,
383: Gabrielli, Masiero, and Silvestrini}}]{Gabbiani:1996hi}
384: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{F.}~\bibnamefont{Gabbiani}},
385: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{E.}~\bibnamefont{Gabrielli}},
386: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{Masiero}}, \bibnamefont{and}
387: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{L.}~\bibnamefont{Silvestrini}},
388: \bibinfo{journal}{Nucl. Phys.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{B477}},
389: \bibinfo{pages}{321} (\bibinfo{year}{1996}),
390: \eprint[http://arXiv.org/abs]{hep-ph/9604387}.
391:
392: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Nir and Seiberg}(1993)}]{Nir:1993mx}
393: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Y.}~\bibnamefont{Nir}} \bibnamefont{and}
394: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{N.}~\bibnamefont{Seiberg}},
395: \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Lett.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{B309}},
396: \bibinfo{pages}{337} (\bibinfo{year}{1993}),
397: \eprint[http://arXiv.org/abs]{hep-ph/9304307}.
398:
399: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Leurer et~al.}(1994)\citenamefont{Leurer, Nir, and
400: Seiberg}}]{Leurer:1994gy}
401: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Leurer}},
402: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Y.}~\bibnamefont{Nir}}, \bibnamefont{and}
403: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{N.}~\bibnamefont{Seiberg}},
404: \bibinfo{journal}{Nucl. Phys.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{B420}},
405: \bibinfo{pages}{468} (\bibinfo{year}{1994}),
406: \eprint[http://arXiv.org/abs]{hep-ph/9310320}.
407:
408: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Nelson and Wright}(1997)}]{Nelson:1997bt}
409: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.~E.} \bibnamefont{Nelson}} \bibnamefont{and}
410: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.}~\bibnamefont{Wright}},
411: \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{D56}},
412: \bibinfo{pages}{1598} (\bibinfo{year}{1997}),
413: \eprint[http://arXiv.org/abs]{hep-ph/9702359}.
414:
415: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Dine et~al.}(1990)\citenamefont{Dine, Kagan, and
416: Samuel}}]{Dine:1990jd}
417: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Dine}},
418: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{Kagan}}, \bibnamefont{and}
419: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.}~\bibnamefont{Samuel}},
420: \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Lett.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{B243}},
421: \bibinfo{pages}{250} (\bibinfo{year}{1990}).
422:
423: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Dimopoulos and Giudice}(1995)}]{Dimopoulos:1995mi}
424: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.}~\bibnamefont{Dimopoulos}} \bibnamefont{and}
425: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{G.~F.} \bibnamefont{Giudice}},
426: \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Lett.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{B357}},
427: \bibinfo{pages}{573} (\bibinfo{year}{1995}),
428: \eprint[http://arXiv.org/abs]{hep-ph/9507282}.
429:
430: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Pomarol and Tommasini}(1996)}]{Pomarol:1996xc}
431: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{Pomarol}} \bibnamefont{and}
432: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.}~\bibnamefont{Tommasini}},
433: \bibinfo{journal}{Nucl. Phys.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{B466}},
434: \bibinfo{pages}{3} (\bibinfo{year}{1996}),
435: \eprint[http://arXiv.org/abs]{hep-ph/9507462}.
436:
437: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Cohen et~al.}(1996)\citenamefont{Cohen, Kaplan, and
438: Nelson}}]{Cohen:1996vb}
439: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.~G.} \bibnamefont{Cohen}},
440: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.~B.} \bibnamefont{Kaplan}},
441: \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.~E.}
442: \bibnamefont{Nelson}}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Lett.}
443: \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{B388}}, \bibinfo{pages}{588} (\bibinfo{year}{1996}),
444: \eprint[http://arXiv.org/abs]{hep-ph/9607394}.
445:
446: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Kaplan and Kribs}(2000)}]{Kaplan:1999iq}
447: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.~E.} \bibnamefont{Kaplan}} \bibnamefont{and}
448: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{G.~D.} \bibnamefont{Kribs}},
449: \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{D61}},
450: \bibinfo{pages}{075011} (\bibinfo{year}{2000}),
451: \eprint[http://arXiv.org/abs]{hep-ph/9906341}.
452:
453: \end{thebibliography}
454:
455: \end{document}
456:
457:
458: %%% Local Variables:
459: %%% mode: latex
460: %%% TeX-master: t
461: %%% End:
462: % LocalWords: supersymmetric squarks squark gluino MIA QSA TeV eq degeneracy
463: % LocalWords: quarks quark unitarity supersymmetry propagators
464: