1: % Upper-case A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
2: % Lower-case a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z
3: % Digits 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
4: % Exclamation ! Double quote " Hash (number) #
5: % Dollar $ Percent % Ampersand &
6: % Acute accent ' Left paren ( Right paren )
7: % Asterisk * Plus + Comma ,
8: % Minus - Point . Solidus /
9: % Colon : Semicolon ; Less than <
10: % Equals = Greater than > Question mark ?
11: % At @ Left bracket [ Backslash \
12: % Right bracket ] Circumflex ^ Underscore _
13: % Grave accent ` Left brace { Vertical bar |
14: % Right brace } Tilde ~
15:
16: \input harvmac
17: \input epsf
18: \def\Qtilde{{\tilde Q}}
19: \def\Scal{{\cal S}}
20: \def \inparg{\leftskip = 40pt\rightskip = 40pt}
21: \def \outparg{\leftskip = 0 pt\rightskip = 0pt}
22: \def \pa{\partial}
23: \def\npb{{Nucl.\ Phys.\ }{\bf B}}
24: \def\physrep{Phys.\ Reports\ }
25: \def\plb{{Phys.\ Lett.\ }{\bf B}}
26: \def\prd{{Phys.\ Rev.\ }{\bf D}}
27: \def\prl{Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ }
28: \def\ptp{Prog.\ Th.\ Phys.\ }
29: \def\zpc{Z.\ Phys.\ {\bf C}}
30:
31: \def\half{{\textstyle{1\over2}}}
32: \def\frak#1#2{{\textstyle{{#1}\over{#2}}}}
33: \def\frakk#1#2{{{#1}\over{#2}}}
34: \def\taub{{\overline{\tau}}}
35: \def\bbar{{\overline{b}}}
36: \def\tbar{{\overline{t}}}
37: \def\ga{\gamma}
38: \def\sy{supersymmetry}
39: \def\sic{supersymmetric}
40: \def\sa{supergravity}
41: \def\ssm{supersymmetric standard model}
42: \def\sm{standard model}
43: \def\ssb{spontaneous symmetry breaking}
44: \def\lf{16\pi^2}
45: \def\llf{(16\pi^2)^2}
46: \def\GeV{{\rm GeV}}
47: \def\TeV{{\rm TeV}}
48: \def \in{\leftskip = 40 pt\rightskip = 40pt}
49: \def \out{\leftskip = 0 pt\rightskip = 0pt}
50: {\nopagenumbers
51: \line{\hfil CERN-PH-TH/2004-009}
52: \line{\hfil LTH 616}
53: \line{\hfil hep-ph/0402045}
54: %\line{\hfil Revised Version}
55: \vskip .5in
56: \centerline{\titlefont R-parity Violation and}
57: \vskip 0.2cm
58: \centerline{\titlefont General Soft
59: Supersymmetry Breaking}
60: \vskip 1in
61: \centerline{\bf I.~Jack,
62: D.R.T.~Jones\foot{address
63: from Sept 1st 2003-31 Aug 2004:
64: TH Division, Department of Physics,
65: CERN, 1211 Geneva 23, Switzerland} and A.F.~Kord}
66: \medskip
67: \centerline{\it Dept. of Mathematical Sciences,
68: University of Liverpool, Liverpool L69 3BX, UK}
69: \vskip .3in
70:
71:
72: We consider the most general class possible of soft supersymmetry
73: breaking terms that can be added to the MSSM, with and without R-parity
74: violation, consistent with the sole requirement that no quadratic
75: divergences are induced. We renormalise the resulting theory through
76: one loop and give an example of how a previously ignored term might
77: affect the sparticle spectrum.
78:
79: \Date{February 2004}
80:
81: The minimal \sic\ standard model (MSSM) consists of a supersymmetric
82: extension of the standard model, with the addition of a number of
83: dimension 2 and dimension 3 \sy-breaking mass and interaction terms.
84: It is well known that the MSSM is not, in fact,
85: the most general renormalisable field theory consistent
86: with the requirements of gauge invariance and naturalness;
87: the unbroken theory is augmented by a discrete symmetry
88: ($R$-parity) to forbid a set of baryon-number and lepton-number
89: violating interactions, and the \sy-breaking sector omits
90: both $R$-parity violating soft terms and a set
91: of ``non-standard'' (NS) soft breaking terms. There is a large literature
92: on the effect of R-parity violation; a recent analysis
93: (with ``standard'' soft-breaking terms) and references
94: appears in Ref.~\ref\ADD{B.C.~Allanach, A.~Dedes and H.K.~Dreiner,
95: hep-ph/0309196}; for earlier relevant work see in particular
96: \ref\deCarlosDU{
97: B.~de Carlos and P.L.~White,
98: \prd 54 (1996) 3427; {\it ibid\/} 55 (1997) 4222
99: }. The need to consider NS terms in a model--independent
100: analysis was stressed in
101: Ref.~\ref\lrlh{L.J. Hall and L. Randall,
102: \prl 65 (1990) 2939};
103: for a discussion of the NS terms both in general
104: and in the MSSM context see Ref.~\ref\jj{I.~Jack and D.R.T.~Jones,
105: \plb 457 (1999) 101}, \ref\hethr{J.P.J.~Hetherington,
106: JHEP 0110 (2001) 024}, and for model-building applications see
107: for example Ref.~\ref\bfpt{F. Borzumati et al \npb 555 (1999) 53\semi
108: P.J.~Fox, A.E.~Nelson and N.~Weiner,
109: JHEP 0208 (2002) 035
110: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0206096;%%
111: }. For application of NS R-parity violating terms to leptogenesis,
112: see Ref.~\ref\HambyeZS{
113: T.~Hambye, E.~Ma and U.~Sarkar,
114: \npb 590 (2000) 429
115: }, and for a review of general soft breaking see
116: Ref.~\ref\KongHB{O.C.W.~Kong, hep-ph/0205205}.
117:
118: In this paper we describe the renormalisation of the
119: most general possible softly-broken
120: version of the MSSM incorporating both RPV and NS terms. It is interesting
121: that, as we shall see,
122: with the generalisation to the RPV case the connection between
123: the NS terms and cubic scalar interactions involving \sic\ mass terms is
124: not universal.
125:
126: The unbroken ${\cal N} = 1$ theory is defined
127: by the superpotential
128: \eqn\superpot{W = W_1 + W_2,}
129: where
130: \eqn\sperrpc{
131: W_1 = Y_u Q u^c H_2 + Y_d Q d^c H_1 + Y_{e} L e^c H_1}
132: and
133: \eqn\sperrpv{
134: W_2 = \frak{1}{2} (\Lambda_E) e^c L L + \frak{1}{2}(\Lambda_U) u^c d^c d^c
135: + (\Lambda_D) d^c L Q. }
136: In these equations, generation $(i,j\cdots)$, $SU_2 (a,b\cdots)$,
137: and $SU_3 (\alpha, \beta \cdots)$ indices are
138: contracted in ``natural'' fashion from left to right, thus for example
139: \eqn\indics{
140: \Lambda_D d^c L Q
141: \equiv \epsilon_{ab}(\Lambda_D)^{ijk} (d^c)_{i\alpha} L^a_{j} Q^{b\alpha}_k
142: .}
143: For the generation indices we indicate complex conjugation by
144: lowering the indices, thus $(Y_u)_{ij} = (Y^*_u)^{ij}$.
145:
146: We omit possible mass terms $H_1 H_2$ and $L H_2$ because, as we shall
147: see, the consequent terms in the Lagrangian will be included as a special
148: case of our general structure.
149:
150: We now add soft-breaking terms as follows:
151: \eqn\spersspc{\eqalign{
152: L_1 &= \sum_{\phi}
153: m_{\phi}^2\phi^*\phi + \left[m_3^2 H_1
154: H_2 + \sum_{i=1}^3\half M_i\lambda_i\lambda_i + {\rm h.c. }\right]\cr
155: &+ \left[ h_u Q u^c H_2 + h_d Q d^c H_1 + h_{e} L e^c H_1
156: + {\rm h.c. }\right],\cr
157: L_2 &= m_R^2 H_1^* L + m_K^2 L H_2 + \frak{1}{2} h_E e^c L L
158: + \frak{1}{2} h_U u^c d^c d^c
159: + h_D d^c L Q + {\rm h.c.,}\cr
160: L_3 &= m_4 \psi_{H_1}\psi_{H_2} +
161: R_5 H_2^* L e^c + R_7 H_2^* Q d^c + R_9 H_1^* Q u^c + {\rm h.c.,}\cr
162: L_4 &= m_r \psi_{L}\psi_{H_2} +R_1 L^* Q u^c + R_2 H_1 H_2^* e^c
163: + R_3 u^c e^c d^{c*}
164: + \frak{1}{2}R_4 Q Q d^{c*} + {\rm h.c.}}}
165:
166: Thus $L_{1\cdots4}$ correspond to SRPC, SRPV, NSRPC and NSRPV respectively,
167: where $\hbox{SRPC} \equiv \hbox{ Standard R-parity Conserving}$ etc.
168: All the scalar terms in Eq.~\spersspc\ were first listed
169: (as far as we are aware) in Ref.~\HambyeZS.
170: It is easy to verify that if we set $m_4 = \mu$, $m_r = \kappa$,
171: \eqn\susylimit{\eqalign{
172: (R_1)^{ij}_k &= \kappa_k (Y_u)^{ij}, \quad (R_2)^i = \kappa_j (Y_e)^{ji},\quad
173: R_3 = R_4 = 0,\cr
174: (R_5)^{ij} &= -\mu (Y_e)^{ij} + \kappa_k (\Lambda_E)^{jki},\cr
175: (R_7)^{ij} &= -\mu (Y_d)^{ij} + \kappa_k (\Lambda_D)^{jki},\cr
176: (R_9)^{ij} &= \mu (Y_u)^{ij},\cr}}
177: and
178: \eqn\susylimitb{\eqalign{
179: m_1^2 &= \mu^2, \quad m_2^2 = \mu^2 + \kappa^i\kappa_i,\quad
180: (m_L^2)^i_j = \kappa^i\kappa_j, \quad (m_R^2)^i = \mu \kappa^i,\cr
181: m_3^2 &= h_{u,d,e,U,D,E} = M_i = m_Q^2 = m_{e^c}^2 = m_{d^c}^2 =
182: m_{u^c}^2 = m_K^2 = 0,}}
183: then the theory becomes supersymmetric, with
184: mass and interaction terms corresponding to the inclusion
185: in Eqs.~\sperrpc, \sperrpv\ of
186: the terms $\mu H_1 H_2$ and
187: $\kappa L H_2$ respectively.
188: (We have assumed for simplicity that $\mu$ is real). This limiting case
189: provides a useful check for our results.
190: We have separated the
191: soft terms into Eqs.~\susylimit,~\susylimitb\ because those appearing in the
192: latter do not contribute to the $\beta$-functions for those
193: appearing in the former. Note that, as
194: we indicated earlier, we have two interactions ($R_{3,4}$) which
195: cannot be generated by \sic\ mass terms. These interactions violate
196: $L, B$ respectively; thus we may expect their
197: phenomenological consequences to be comparable to $h_{E,D}$
198: and $h_U$ respectively.
199: In Ref.~\jj\ we gave the general results for the one-loop
200: soft $\beta$-functions incorporating NS soft terms, and
201: corresponding results for the MSSM in the RPC case. Here
202: we generalise the latter results to include RPV, and take the opportunity to
203: correct some errors in Ref.~\jj.
204:
205: The various one-loop anomalous dimensions were given in, for example,
206: Ref.~\ADD; we reproduce them below for convenience (we suppress a $\lf$ loop
207: factor throughout):
208: \eqn\Gresults{\eqalign{
209: (\ga_L)^i_j &= (Y_e)^{ik}(Y_e)_{jk} + (\Lambda_E)^{kim}(\Lambda_E)_{kjm}
210: +3(\Lambda_D)^{kim}(\Lambda_D)_{kjm} -2C_H\delta^i_j, \cr
211: (\ga_{e^c})^i_j &= (Y_e)^{ki}(Y_e)_{kj} + (\Lambda_E)^{ikm}(\Lambda_E)_{jkm}
212: -2C_{e^c}\delta^i_j, \cr
213: (\ga_Q)^i_j &= (Y_d)^{im}(Y_d)_{jm} +
214: (Y_u)^{im}(Y_u)_{jm}+ (\Lambda_D)^{qmi}(\Lambda_D)_{qmj} -2C_Q\delta^i_j, \cr
215: (\ga_{d^c})^i_j &= 2(Y_d)^{mi}(Y_d)_{mj}
216: + 2(\Lambda_D)^{ikm}(\Lambda_D)_{jkm} + 2(\Lambda_U)^{kim}(\Lambda_U)_{kjm}
217: -2C_{d^c}\delta^i_j, \cr
218: (\ga_{u^c})^i_j &= 2(Y_u)^{mi}(Y_u)_{mj}
219: + (\Lambda_U)^{ikm}(\Lambda_U)_{jkm}
220: -2C_{u^c}\delta^i_j, \cr
221: \ga_{H_1} &= 3(Y_d)^{ij}(Y_d)_{ij} + (Y_e)^{ij}(Y_e)_{ij}-2C_H, \cr
222: \ga_{H_2} &= 3(Y_u)^{ij}(Y_u)_{ij} -2C_H, \cr
223: (\ga_{LH_1})^i &= -3(\Lambda_D)^{kim}(Y_d)_{mk}
224: -(\Lambda_D)^{kim}(Y_e)_{mk}, \cr}}
225: where
226: \eqn\Cdefs{\eqalign{
227: C_{Q}&= \frak{4}{3}g_3^2 + \frak{3}{4}g_2^2 +\frak{1}{60}g_1^2,\quad
228: C_{u^c}= \frak{4}{3}g_3^2 +\frak{4}{15}g_1^2,\quad
229: C_{d^c}= \frak{4}{3}g_3^2 +\frak{1}{15}g_1^2,\cr
230: C_{e^c}&= \frak{3}{5}g_1^2,\quad
231: C_H = \frak{3}{4}g_2^2 +\frak{3}{20}g_1^2.\cr}}
232:
233: The one loop results for the various $R$-terms follow from Eq.~(2.6) of
234: Ref.~\jj\ and are given as follows:
235:
236: \eqna\Rresults$$\eqalignno{
237: \left(\beta_{R_1}\right)^{ij}_k&
238: =(\ga_L)^m_k(R_1)^{ij}_m+(\ga_Q)^i_m(R_1)^{mj}_k
239: +(\ga_{u^c})_m^j(R_1)^{im}_k+(\ga_{LH_1})_k(R_9)^{ij}+4C_H(R_1)^{ij}_k\cr
240: &+6(R_1)^{lm}_k(Y_u)_{lm}(Y_u)^{ij}
241: +2(Y_e)_{km}(Y_d)^{il}(R_3)^{jm}_l-2(R_3)_n^{jl}(\Lambda_E)_{lkm}
242: (\Lambda_D)^{nmi}\cr
243: &-2(\Lambda_D)_{lkm}(\Lambda_D)^{lni}(R_1)^{mj}_n
244: +4(\Lambda_D)_{lkm}(\Lambda_U)^{jln}(R_4)^{im}_n-2(\Lambda_D)_{mkl}
245: (Y_u)^{lj}(R_7)^{im}\cr
246: &-8(m_r)_kC_H(Y_u)^{ij}+2(R_9)^{lj}(\Lambda_D)_{mkl}(Y_d)^{im}
247: \cr&
248: -4m_4(Y_d)^{im}(Y_u)^{lj}(\Lambda_D)_{mkl}
249: +4(m_r)_n(Y_u)^{lj}(\Lambda_D)^{mni}(\Lambda_D)_{mkl}, & \Rresults a\cr
250: %
251: \left(\beta_{R_2}\right)^i&
252: =(\ga_{H_1}+\ga_{H_2})(R_2)^i+(\ga_{e^c})^i_k(R_2)^k
253: +(\ga_{LH_1})_k(R_5)^{ki}+4C_H(R_2)^i\cr
254: &+2(R_2)^k(Y_e)^{ji}(Y_e)_{jk}
255: +6(Y_e)^{ji}(\Lambda_D)_{ljk}(R_7)^{kl}+2(R_5)^{kl}(Y_e)^{ji}
256: (\Lambda_E)_{ljk}\cr
257: &+6(Y_d)^{lk}(Y_u)_{lj}(R_3)^{ji}_k
258: -8(m_r)_j C_H(Y_e)^{ji}, & \Rresults b\cr
259: %
260: \left(\beta_{R_3}\right)^{ij}_k&
261: =(\ga_{u^c})^i_l(R_3)^{lj}_k+(\ga_{e^c})^j_l(R_3)^{il}_k
262: +(\ga_{d^c})^l_k(R_3)^{ij}_l +4C_{d^c} (R_3)^{ij}_k \cr
263: &+4(R_1)^{mi}_l\left[(Y_d)_{mk} (Y_e)^{lj}+
264: (\Lambda_D)_{knm} (\Lambda_E)^{jnl}\right]
265: +4(R_2)^{j}(Y_d)_{lk}(Y_u)^{li}\cr
266: &-4 (R_3)^{lj}_m (\Lambda_U)_{lkn} (\Lambda_U)^{imn}
267: -4(R_5)^{mj} (Y_u)^{li}(\Lambda_D)_{kml}\cr
268: &+4(R_9)^{li} (Y_e)^{mj}(\Lambda_D)_{kml}
269: -8m_4(Y_u)^{li}(Y_e)^{mj}(\Lambda_D)_{kml}\cr
270: &-8(m_r)_n(Y_u)^{li}\left[(\Lambda_E)^{jmn}(\Lambda_D)_{kml}
271: +(Y_d)_{lk}(Y_e)^{nj} \right],
272: & \Rresults c\cr
273: %
274: %
275: \left(\beta_{R_4}\right)^{ij}_k&
276: =(\ga_Q)^i_l(R_4)^{lj}_k
277: + \frak{1}{2}(\ga_{d^c})^l_k(R_4)^{ij}_l +2C_{d^c} (R_4)^{ij}_k \cr
278: &-2(R_1)^{il}_n(\Lambda_D)^{mnj} (\Lambda_U)_{lkm}
279: -2(R_4)^{il}_m \left[(Y_d)_{lk}(Y_d)^{jm}
280: + (\Lambda_D)_{knl} (\Lambda_D)^{mnj}\right]\cr
281: &-2(R_7)^{il} (Y_u)^{jm}(\Lambda_U)_{mkl}
282: +2(R_9)^{il} (Y_d)^{jm}(\Lambda_U)_{lkm}
283: -4m_4(Y_d)^{il}(Y_u)^{jm}(\Lambda_U)_{mkl}\cr
284: &+4(m_r)_m(Y_u)^{jn}(\Lambda_D)^{lmi}(\Lambda_U)_{nkl}
285: + (i\leftrightarrow j),
286: & \Rresults d\cr
287: %
288: \left(\beta_{R_5}\right)^{ij}&=
289: \ga_{H_2}(R_5)^{ij} + (\ga_L)^i_k (R_5)^{kj}
290: + (R_5)^{ik} (\ga_{e^c})^j_k
291: +4 C_H \left[(R_5)^{ij} + 2 m_4 (Y_e)^{ij}\right]
292: & \cr
293: &+(\ga_{LH_1})^iR_2^j +6R_7^{kl}(Y_d)_{kl}(Y_e)^{ij}+2R_5^{kl}(Y_e)_{kl}(Y_e)^{ij}\cr
294: &-6R_7^{kl}(\Lambda_D)_{lmk}(\Lambda_E)^{jim}+2R_5^{kl}(\Lambda_E)_{lkm}
295: (\Lambda_E)^{jim}& \cr
296: &-2R_2^l(Y_e)_{kl}(\Lambda_E)^{jik}
297: -6(\Lambda_D)^{lik}(Y_u)_{km}(R_3)_l^{mj}
298: +8(m_r)_kC_H(\Lambda_E)^{jik}, &\Rresults e\cr
299: %
300: \left(\beta_{R_7}\right)^{ij}
301: &= \ga_{H_2}(R_7)^{ij} + (\ga_Q)^i_k (R_7)^{kj}
302: + (R_7)^{ik} (\ga_{d^c})^j_k
303: +4 C_H \left[(R_7)^{ij} + 2 m_4 (Y_d)^{ij}\right]
304: & \cr
305: &+ 6(R_7)^{mn}(Y_d)_{mn}(Y_d)^{ij}
306: +2(R_5)^{mn}(Y_e)_{mn}(Y_d)^{ij}
307: +6R_7^{kl}(\Lambda_D)_{lmk}(\Lambda_D)^{jmi} & \cr
308: &-2R_5^{lm}(\Lambda_E)_{mlk}(\Lambda_D)^{jki}
309: - 2(R_7)^{kj}(Y_u)_{kl}(Y_u)^{il}
310: +2(R_9)^{ik}(Y_u)_{lk}(Y_d)^{lj}& \cr
311: &-2(R_1)^{im}_l(Y_u)_{km}(\Lambda_D)^{jlk}
312: + 2(R_2)^{k}(Y_e)_{lk}(\Lambda_D)^{jli}
313: + 4(R_4)^{ik}_l (\Lambda_U)^{mjl}(Y_u)_{km} & \cr
314: &- 4m_4(Y_u)^{il}(Y_u)_{kl}(Y_d)^{kj}
315: + 4(m_r)_l (Y_u)^{im}(\Lambda_D)^{jlk}(Y_u)_{km}\cr
316: &-8 (m_r)_k C_H (\Lambda_D)^{jki}, & \Rresults f\cr
317: \left(\beta_{R_9}\right)^{ij}&=
318: \ga_{H_1}(R_9)^{ij} + (\ga_Q)^i_k (R_9)^{kj}
319: + (R_9)^{ik} (\ga_{u^c})^j_k
320: +4 C_H \left[(R_9)^{ij} - 2 m_4 (Y_u)^{ij}\right]
321: & \cr
322: & +(\ga_{L H_1})^k (R_1)^{ij}_k
323: + 6(R_9)^{mn}(Y_u)_{mn}(Y_u)^{ij} - 2(R_9)^{mj}(Y_d)_{mn}(Y_d)^{in}& \cr
324: &+2(R_7)^{im}(Y_d)_{nm}(Y_u)^{nj}
325: + 4(R_4)^{ip}_m (\Lambda_U)^{jmn}(Y_d)_{pn} +
326: 2(R_3)^{jp}_m (Y_e)_{kp}\Lambda^{mki}_D& \cr
327: &+2(R_1)^{mj}_p (\Lambda_D)^{npi} (Y_d)_{mn}
328: + 4m_4(Y_d)^{ik}(Y_d)_{lk}(Y_u)^{lj}& \cr
329: &- 4(m_r)_l (\Lambda_D)^{mli}(Y_d)_{nm}(Y_u)^{nj}. & \Rresults g\cr
330: }$$
331:
332: The one loop results for the various $\phi\phi^*$ mass-terms
333: follow from Eq.~(2.7c) of
334: Ref.~\jj:
335: \eqna\Mresults$$\eqalignno{
336: %
337: (\beta_{m_Q^2})^i_j &=
338: (m_Q^2)^i_k\left[ (Y_u)^{kl}(Y_u)_{jl}+(Y_d)^{kl}(Y_d)_{jl}
339: +(\Lambda_D)^{mlk}(\Lambda_D)_{mlj}\right]\cr
340: &+(m_Q^2)_j^k\left[ (Y_u)_{kl}(Y_u)^{il}+(Y_d)_{kl}(Y_d)^{il}
341: +(\Lambda_D)_{mlk}(\Lambda_D)^{mli}\right]\cr
342: &+2\bigl[m_1^2(Y_d)^{il}(Y_d)_{jl}+
343: m_2^2(Y_u)^{il}(Y_u)_{jl}
344: +(m_{u^c}^2)^k_l(Y_u)^{il}(Y_u)_{jk}\cr&
345: +(m_{d^c}^2)^k_l\left[(Y_d)^{il}(Y_d)_{jk}+
346: (\Lambda_D)^{lmi}(\Lambda_D)_{kmj}\right]+
347: (\Lambda_D)^{mli}(\Lambda_D)_{mkj}(m_L^2)^k_l\bigr]\cr
348: &-2(m_R^2)_k(Y_d)_{jl}(\Lambda_D)^{lki} %tim26/11
349: -2(m_R^2)^k(Y_d)^{il}(\Lambda_D)_{lkj}\cr %tim26/11
350: &+2\left[(h_u)^{ik}(h_u)_{jk}+(h_d)^{ik}(h_d)_{jk}
351: +(h_D)^{kli}(h_D)_{klj}\right]\cr
352: &
353: +2\left[(R_1)^{ik}_l (R_1)^l_{jk}+(R_7)^{ik} (R_7)_{jk}+
354: (R_9)^{ik} (R_9)_{jk}+2(R_4)^{ik}_l (R_4)^l_{jk}\right]\cr
355: &
356: -4\bigl[m_4^2\left[ (Y_u)^{ik}(Y_u)_{jk}+(Y_d)^{ik}(Y_d)_{jk}\right]
357: +(m_r)^l (m_r)_l (Y_u)^{ik}(Y_u)_{jk}\cr&
358: +(m_r)^m (m_r)_l (\Lambda_D)^{kli}(\Lambda_D)_{kmj}\bigr]
359: +4m_4\left[(\Lambda_D)^{kli}(Y_d)_{jk}(m_r)_l+
360: (\Lambda_D)_{klj}(Y_d)^{ik}(m_r)^l \right]\cr&
361: -\left[\frak{32}{3}g_3^2M_3^2+6g_2^2M_2^2
362: +\frak{2}{15}g_1^2M_1^2 -\frak{1}{5}g_1^2\Scal\right]\delta^i_j,
363: & \Mresults a\cr
364: %
365: (\beta_{m_{u^c}^2})^i_j &= (m_{u^c}^2)^i_m\left[2(Y_u)^{lm}(Y_u)_{lj}
366: + (\Lambda_U)^{mkl}(\Lambda_U)_{jkl}\right]
367: + 4(m_{Q}^2)^k_l(Y_u)^{li}(Y_u)_{kj}\cr
368: &+(m_{u^c}^2)^m_j\left[2(Y_u)_{lm}(Y_u)^{li}
369: + (\Lambda_U)_{mkl}(\Lambda_U)^{ikl}\right]
370: + 4(m_{2}^2)(Y_u)^{li}(Y_u)_{lj}\cr
371: &+ 4(m_{d^c}^2)^k_m (\Lambda_U)^{iml}(\Lambda_U)_{jkl}
372: +4(h_u)^{ki}(h_u)_{kj}
373: +2(h_U)^{ikl}(h_U)_{jkl}\cr&
374: +4\left[(R_1)^{ki}_l (R_1)^l_{kj}+(R_9)^{ki} (R_9)_{kj}
375: \right]+2(R_3)^{ik}_l(R_3)^l_{jk}
376: -8m_4^2 (Y_u)^{li}(Y_u)_{lj} \cr&
377: -8(m_r)^k (m_r)_k (Y_u)^{li}(Y_u)_{lj}
378: -\left[\frak{32}{3}g_3^2M_3^2+\frak{32}{15}g_1^2M_1^2
379: +\frak{4}{5}g_1^2\Scal\right]\delta^i_j,
380: & \Mresults b\cr
381: %
382: %
383: (\beta_{m_{d^c}^2})^i_j &= 2(m_{d^c}^2)^i_m\left[(Y_d)^{lm}(Y_d)_{lj}
384: + (\Lambda_U)^{kml}(\Lambda_U)_{kjl}
385: + (\Lambda_D)^{mkl}(\Lambda_D)_{jkl}\right]
386: \cr
387: &+2(m_{d^c}^2)^m_j\left[(Y_d)_{lm}(Y_d)^{li}
388: + (\Lambda_U)_{kml}(\Lambda_U)^{kil}
389: + (\Lambda_D)_{mkl}(\Lambda_D)^{ikl}\right]
390: \cr
391: & + 4(m_{Q}^2)^k_l(Y_d)^{li}(Y_d)_{kj}
392: +4 (\Lambda_U)^{kil}\left[(m_{u^c}^2)^m_k(\Lambda_U)_{mjl}
393: + (m_{d^c}^2)^m_l(\Lambda_U)_{kjm}\right]
394: \cr&
395: + 4m_{1}^2(Y_d)^{li}(Y_d)_{lj}
396: + 4(\Lambda_D)^{ikl}\left[(m_{L}^2)^m_k (\Lambda_D)_{jml}
397: +(m_{Q}^2)^m_l (\Lambda_D)_{jkm}\right]\cr
398: &
399: -4(m_R^2)_k(Y_d)_{lj}(\Lambda_D)^{ikl} %tim24/11
400: -4(m_R^2)^k(Y_d)^{li}(\Lambda_D)_{jkl}\cr %tim24/11
401: &+4\left[(h_d)^{ki}(h_d)_{kj}
402: +(h_U)^{kil}(h_U)_{kjl} + (h_D)^{ikl}(h_D)_{jkl}\right]\cr&
403: +2\left[(R_3)^{i}_{kl} (R_3)^{kl}_{j}+
404: 2(R_4)^{i}_{kl} (R_4)^{kl}_{j}
405: +2(R_7)^{ki} (R_7)_{kj}\right] -8m_4^2 (Y_d)^{ki}(Y_d)_{kj} \cr&
406: -8(m_r)^k (m_r)_l (\Lambda_D)^{ilm}(\Lambda_D)_{jkm}
407: +8(m_r)^l m_4 (Y_d)^{ki}(\Lambda_D)_{jlk}\cr&
408: +8(m_r)_l m_4 (Y_d)_{kj}(\Lambda_D)^{ilk}
409: -\left[\frak{32}{3}g_3^2M_3^2+\frak{8}{15}g_1^2M_1^2
410: -\frak{2}{5}g_1^2\Scal\right]\delta^i_j,
411: & \Mresults c\cr
412: %
413: (\beta_{m_{L}^2})^i_j &=
414: (m_{L}^2)^i_m\left[(Y_e)^{mk}(Y_e)_{jk}
415: +(\Lambda_E)^{kml}(\Lambda_E)_{kjl}
416: + 3(\Lambda_D)^{kml}(\Lambda_D)_{kjl}\right]\cr
417: &+(m_{L}^2)^m_j\left[(Y_e)_{mk}(Y_e)^{ik}
418: +(\Lambda_E)_{kml}(\Lambda_E)^{kil}
419: + 3(\Lambda_D)_{kml}(\Lambda_D)^{kil}\right]\cr
420: &+2m_1^2 (Y_e)^{ik}(Y_e)_{jk}
421: -(m_R^2)^i(Y_e)^{lk}(\Lambda_E)_{kjl}
422: -(m_R^2)_j(Y_e)_{lk}(\Lambda_E)^{kil}\cr&
423: +2(m_R^2)^k(Y_e)^{il}(\Lambda_E)_{ljk}
424: +2(m_R^2)_k(Y_e)_{jl}(\Lambda_E)^{lik}
425: -3(m_R^2)^i(Y_d)^{kl}(\Lambda_D)_{ljk}\cr&
426: -3(m_R^2)_j(Y_d)_{kl}(\Lambda_D)^{lik}
427: +2(m_{e^c}^2)^k_l\left[(Y_e)^{il}(Y_e)_{jk}
428: +(\Lambda_E)^{lim}(\Lambda_E)_{kjm}\right] \cr
429: &+2(m_{L}^2)^m_l(\Lambda_E)^{kil}(\Lambda_E)_{kjm}
430: +6(\Lambda_D)^{kim}\left[(m_{Q}^2)^l_m (\Lambda_D)_{kjl}
431: +(m_{d^c}^2)^l_k (\Lambda_D)_{ljm}\right]\cr&
432: +2(h_e)^{ik}(h_e)_{jk}
433: +2(h_E)^{kil}(h_E)_{kjl} +6(h_D)^{kil}(h_D)_{kjl}
434: +6(R_1)^{i}_{kl} (R_1)^{kl}_{j}\cr& + 2(R_5)^{ik} (R_5)_{jk}
435: -4\bigl[ m_4^2(Y_e)^{ik}(Y_e)_{jk}
436: +(m_r)^k (m_r)_l (\Lambda_E)^{mil}(\Lambda_E)_{mjk}\cr&
437: +(m_r)^k m_4 (Y_e)^{il}(\Lambda_E)_{ljk}
438: +(m_r)_k m_4 (Y_e)_{jl}(\Lambda_E)^{lik}\bigr]\cr
439: &-8(m_r)^i (m_r)_j C_H -\left[6g_2^2M_2^2
440: +\frak{6}{5}g_1^2M_1^2+\frak{3}{5}g_1^2\Scal\right]\delta^i_j,
441: & \Mresults d\cr
442: %
443: (\beta_{m_{e^c}^2})^i_j &=
444: (m_{e^c}^2)^i_m\left[2(Y_e)^{km}(Y_e)_{kj}
445: +(\Lambda_E)^{mkl}(\Lambda_E)_{jkl}
446: \right]\cr
447: &+(m_{e^c}^2)^m_j\left[2(Y_e)_{km}(Y_e)^{ki}
448: +(\Lambda_E)_{mkl}(\Lambda_E)^{ikl}\right]
449: +4m_1^2 (Y_e)^{ki}(Y_e)_{kj}\cr&
450: +4(m_R^2)^k(Y_e)^{mi}(\Lambda_E)_{jmk}
451: +4(m_R^2)_k(Y_e)_{mj}(\Lambda_E)^{imk}
452: \cr&
453: +4(m_{L}^2)^k_l\left[(Y_e)^{li}(Y_e)_{kj}
454: +(\Lambda_E)^{ilm}(\Lambda_E)_{jkm}\right]
455: +4(h_e)^{ki}(h_e)_{kj}\cr&
456: +2(h_E)^{ikl}(h_E)_{jkl}
457: +4(R_2)^{i} (R_2)_{j} + 4(R_5)^{ki} (R_5)_{kj}
458: +6(R_3)^{ki}_l (R_3)_{kj}^l\cr&
459: -8\bigl[ m_4^2(Y_e)^{ki}(Y_e)_{kj}
460: +(m_r)^k (m_r)_l (\Lambda_E)^{iml}(\Lambda_E)_{jmk}\
461: +(m_r)^k m_4 (Y_e)^{li}(\Lambda_E)_{jlk}\cr&
462: +(m_r)_k m_4 (Y_e)_{lj}(\Lambda_E)^{ilk}
463: + (Y_e)^{ki} (Y_e)_{lj}(m_r)^l (m_r)_k \bigr]
464: -\left[\frak{24}{5}g_1^2M_1^2 -\frak{6}{5}g_1^2\Scal\right]\delta^i_j,
465: & \Mresults e\cr
466: %
467: \beta_{m_{1}^2} &=
468: 2m_{1}^2\left[(Y_e)^{ij}(Y_e)_{ij}
469: +3(Y_d)^{ij}(Y_d)_{ij}\right]
470: +2(m_{L}^2)^k_i(Y_e)^{ij}(Y_e)_{kj}
471: +2(m_{e^c}^2)^j_k(Y_e)^{ik}(Y_e)_{ij}\cr&
472: +6(m_{Q}^2)^j_i(Y_d)^{ik}(Y_d)_{jk}
473: +6(m_{d^c}^2)^j_k(Y_d)^{ik}(Y_d)_{ij}
474: +2(h_e)^{ij}(h_e)_{ij}
475: +6(h_d)^{ij}(h_d)_{ij}\cr&+2(R_2)^{i} (R_2)_{i}+ 6(R_9)^{ij} (R_9)_{ij}
476: -(m_R^2)^j (\Lambda_E)_{ljk} (Y_e)^{kl}
477: -(m_R^2)_j (\Lambda_E)^{ljk} (Y_e)_{kl}\cr&
478: -3(m_R^2)^j (\Lambda_D)_{ljk} (Y_d)^{kl}
479: -3(m_R^2)_j (\Lambda_D)^{ljk} (Y_d)_{kl}-8m_4^2 C_H\cr&
480: -4(m_r)^i (m_r)_j (Y_e)^{jk}(Y_e)_{ik}-
481: \left[6g_2^2M_2^2+\frak{6}{5}g_1^2M_1^2+\frak{3}{5}g_1^2\Scal\right],
482: & \Mresults f\cr
483: %
484: \beta_{m_{2}^2} &=
485: 6\left[m_{2}^2(Y_u)^{ij}(Y_u)_{ij}
486: +(m_{Q}^2)^i_j (Y_u)^{jk}(Y_u)_{ik} +(m_{u^c}^2)^i_j (Y_u)^{kj}(Y_u)_{ki}
487: \right]\cr&
488: +6(h_u)^{ij}(h_u)_{ij}+2(R_2)^{i} (R_2)_{i}+ 2(R_5)^{ij} (R_5)_{ij}
489: + 6(R_7)^{ij} (R_7)_{ij}\cr&
490: -8C_H \left[m_4^2 + (m_r)^i(m_r)_i\right]
491: -\left[6g_2^2M_2^2+\frak{6}{5}g_1^2M_1^2-\frak{3}{5}g_1^2\Scal\right],
492: & \Mresults g\cr
493: %
494: %
495: %
496: (\beta_{m_R^2})^i &= -m_{1}^2 (Y_e)_{jl} (\Lambda_E)^{lij}
497: -(m_L^2)^i_m(\Lambda_E)^{lmj}(Y_e)_{jl} &\cr
498: &-2(\Lambda_E)^{kij}\left[(Y_e)_{nk}(m_L^2)^n_j
499: + (Y_e)_{lj}(m_{e^c}^2)^l_k\right] \cr&+(m_R^2)^k\left[
500: (\Lambda_E)^{mij}(\Lambda_E)_{mkj} - (Y_e)_{km}(Y_e)^{im}
501: +3(\Lambda_D)^{mij}(\Lambda_D)_{mkj}\right]\cr
502: &-3(Y_d)_{jk}\left[m_{1}^2(\Lambda_D)^{kij} + (m_L^2)^i_l(\Lambda_D)^{klj}
503: +2 (m_Q^2)^j_l(\Lambda_D)^{kil} + 2(m_{d^c}^2)^k_l(\Lambda_D)^{lij}\right]\cr
504: & +(m_R^2)^i\left[
505: (Y_e)^{km}(Y_e)_{km} + 3(Y_d)^{km}(Y_d)_{km}\right]
506: -2h_E^{kij}(h_e)_{jk}-6h_D^{kij}(h_d)_{jk}\cr
507: &+ 6(R_1)^i_{jk}(R_9)^{jk} +2 (R_5)^{ij} (R_2)_j -8m_4(m_r)^i C_H\cr
508: &
509: +4m_4(m_r)^l (Y_e)^{in}(Y_e)_{ln}+4(m_r)_j(m_r)^l (\Lambda_E)^{nij}(Y_e)_{ln},
510: & \Mresults h\cr
511: }$$
512: where
513: \eqn\scaldef{
514: \Scal = m_2^2 - m_1^2 + \Tr\left[m_Q^2 + m_{d^c}^2+ m_{e^c}^2
515: - m_L^2 - 2 m_{u^c}^2\right].}
516: $\Scal$ arises as a renormalisation of the
517: Fayet-Iliopoulos $D$-term. It is one-loop RG invariant in the absence of
518: NS terms, and is then small at all relevant scales if it is zero
519: at gauge unification; however this RG invariance no longer holds in the
520: presence of NS terms\ref\jjfi{I.~Jack and D.R.T.~Jones,
521: \prd 63 (2001) 075010
522: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0010301;%%
523: }.
524:
525: For the $\phi\phi$-type terms:
526: \eqna\MMresults$$\eqalignno{
527: %
528: \beta_{m_3^2} &= \left(\ga_{H_1} + \ga_{H_2}\right)m_3^2
529: +(\ga_{L H_1})_i (m_K^2)^i - 2(R_5)_{ij} (h_e)^{ij}\cr&
530: -6 (R_7)_{ij} (h_d)^{ij}
531: +6 (R_9)_{ij} (h_u)^{ij} + m_4(6g_2^2M_2+\frak{6}{5}g_1^2M_1),
532: & \MMresults a\cr
533: \beta_{m_K^2}^i &=(\ga_L)^i_j (m_K^2)^j + \ga_{H_2} (m_K^2)^i
534: + (\ga_{L H_1})^i m_3^2 + 6(R_1)^i_{jk}(h_u)^{jk}\cr&
535: + 2(R_2)_j (h_e)^{ij} + 2(R_5)_{jk} (h_E)^{kij}
536: + 6 (R_7)_{jk} (h_D)^{kij}\cr&
537: +(m_r)^i \left( 6g_2^2M_2+\frak{6}{5}g_1^2M_1\right),
538: & \MMresults b\cr
539: }$$
540: and for the $\psi\psi$ terms:
541: \eqna\psimfour$$\eqalignno{
542: \beta_{m_4} &= \left(\ga_{H_1} + \ga_{H_2}\right) m_4
543: + (m_r)^{i} (\ga_{L H_1})_i & \psimfour a\cr
544: (\beta_{m_r})^i &= (m_r)^{i}\ga_{H_2}
545: + (m_r)^{j}(\ga_{L})^i_j + m_4 (\ga_{L H_1})^i. & \psimfour b\cr}$$
546: In the \sic\ limit described in Eqs.~\susylimit,\susylimitb,
547: Eqs.~\psimfour{}\ become the $\beta$-functions for the
548: corresponding \sic\ mass terms. As indicated earlier, this limit gives
549: a useful check on all our results. A further check is provided
550: by the fact that, as often discussed in the literature (for example
551: Refs.~\ADD,\deCarlosDU,\KongHB) in the presence of general
552: R-parity violation the distinction between the
553: lepton doublets $L_i$
554: and the Higgs doublet $H_1$ is artificial. This means that by, for example,
555: ``promoting'' $m_L^2$ to be a $4\times4$ matrix, we can extract from
556: Eq.~\Mresults{d}\ the results for both $\beta_{m_1^2}$
557: (Eq.~\Mresults{f}) and $\beta_{m_R^2}$ (Eq.~\Mresults{h}).
558: In general our results reduce to and agree with those of Ref.~\ADD\
559: when all NS terms are removed, up to very minor typos.
560: %redundant factors of $\delta_{ij}$ appear in Eqs.~(C17) and (C18)).
561:
562:
563:
564: In the unbroken theory, the simplified case is often considered when
565: each dimensionless coupling matrix is assumed to have only one non-zero
566: entry: $(Y_u)^{33} = \lambda_t, (Y_d)^{33} = \lambda_b,
567: (Y_e)^{33} = \lambda_{\tau},
568: (\Lambda_{E})^{323} = \lambda, (\Lambda_{D})^{333} =
569: \lambda^{'}, (\Lambda_{U})^{323} = \lambda^{''}$ (see for example
570: Ref.~\ref\AnanthanarayanPC{
571: B.~Ananthanarayan and P.~N.~Pandita,
572: \prd 63 (2001) 076008 %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0011274;%%
573: }\ for an analysis of the associated infrared fixed point structure, and
574: Ref.~\ref\MambriniSJ{
575: Y.~Mambrini and G.~Moultaka,
576: \prd 65 (2002) 115011}\ for a more general discussion).
577: This is evidently phenomenologically
578: sensible for $Y_{u,d,e}$, but is less obviously
579: justifiable for $\Lambda_{E,D,U}$.
580: Moreover
581: this set of couplings is not closed under renormalisation
582: \ref\ADDb{B.C.~Allanach, A.~Dedes and H.K.~Dreiner,
583: \prd 60 (1999) 056002
584: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9902251;%%
585: }; at one loop a minimal set
586: that {\it is\/} would also
587: include $(Y_e)^{23}$ and $(\Lambda_{D})^{323}$.
588:
589:
590:
591:
592: In the R-parity conserving case when $\Lambda_{E,D,U} = 0$
593: the single generation
594: approximation does close under renormalisation and is naturally extended to the
595: soft breaking case by setting $(R_9)^{33} = r_9 = m_9\lambda_t$,
596: $(R_7)^{33} = r_7 = -m_7\lambda_b$ and
597: $(R_5)^{33} = r_5 = -m_5\lambda_{\tau}$,
598: the signs being chosen so that the supersymmetric fixed point
599: corresponds to $m_4 = m_5 = m_7 = m_9$ (see Eq.~\susylimit).
600: We then obtain:
601: \eqna\newres$$\eqalignno{
602: \beta_{m_4} &= (\lambda_{\tau}^2 + 3 \lambda_b^2
603: + 3\lambda_t^2- 4 C_H)m_4
604: , &\newres a\cr
605: \beta_{m_5} &=
606: (\lambda_{\tau}^2 - 3 \lambda_b^2 + 3\lambda_t^2)m_5
607: +6m_7\lambda_b^2 +
608: (4m_5 - 8m_4)C_H, &\newres b\cr
609: \beta_{m_7} &= (-\lambda_{\tau}^2 + 3 \lambda_b^2 + \lambda_t^2)m_7
610: +2m_5\lambda_{\tau}^2 +2\lambda_t^2 (2m_4-m_9)\cr & +
611: (4m_7 - 8m_4)C_H, &\newres c\cr
612: \beta_{m_9} &= (\lambda_{\tau}^2 + \lambda_b^2 + 3\lambda_t^2)m_9
613: -2m_7\lambda_b^2 +4m_4\lambda_b^2 +
614: (4m_9 - 8m_4)C_H. &\newres d\cr}$$
615: Eqs.~\newres{a,b}\ above agree with Eq.~(3.5) of Ref.~\jj, but
616: Eqs.~\newres{c,d}\ differ. The error made in Ref.~\jj\ was neglecting
617: possible minus signs associated with $SU_2$ contractions
618: involving $\epsilon^{ab}$ (in the RPV case
619: one must be similarly careful with
620: regard to the $SU_3$ tensor $\epsilon^{\alpha\beta\gamma}$).
621: The analysis of the fixed point
622: $m_4 = m_5 = m_7 = m_9$ given in section~4 of Ref.~\jj\ is
623: changed somewhat. The stability matrix for the
624: evolution of $\frakk{m_5}{m_4}$, $\frakk{m_7}{m_4}$
625: and $\frakk{m_9}{m_4}$ is given by:
626:
627: \eqn\matx{
628: S = \pmatrix{8C_H-6\lambda_b^2 & 6\lambda_b^2 & 0\cr
629: 2\lambda_{\tau}^2 & 8C_H - 2\lambda_{\tau}^2
630: - 2\lambda_t^2 & - 2\lambda_t^2 \cr
631: 0 & -2\lambda_b^2 & 8C_H - 2\lambda_b^2\cr}}
632: which has eigenvalues
633: $8C_H, 8C_H + \Lambda_{1,2}$
634: where $\Lambda_{1,2}$ are the roots of the quadratic
635: \eqn\qudrtc{
636: \Lambda^2 + 2(\lambda_t^2 + \lambda_{\tau}^2 + 4\lambda_b^2)\Lambda
637: +4(3\lambda_b^2 + 3 \lambda_t^2 + \lambda_{\tau}^2)\lambda_b^2=0.}
638:
639: Near the quasi-infra-red fixed point (QIRFP) for $\lambda_t$,
640: $\lambda_t(M_Z) \approx 1.1$ (corresponding to $\tan\beta \approx 1.7$),
641: we can neglect $\lambda_b$ and $\lambda_{\tau}$,
642: and it is easy to see that our fixed point is stable.
643: In the trinification region such that
644: $\lambda_t (M_U) \approx \lambda_b(M_U) \approx
645: \lambda_{\tau}(M_U)\approx 0.6$, the eigenvalues of $S$ are
646: all positive at unification but $8C_H + \Lambda_{1,2}$ are both negative
647: at $M_Z$. Thus in this case we would expect substantial deviation from
648: the supersymmetric limit for $m_{4,\cdots 9}$.
649:
650:
651:
652:
653: Returning to the NSRPV terms, as an example of their possible effect we
654: will investigate the effect of a
655: nonzero $(R_4)^{33}_3 = r_4$ only; thus for this exercise we will
656: assume $\Lambda_{U,D,E} = 0$ as well as all the other $R$-couplings,
657: so that baryon number is violated but not lepton number.
658: The $R_4$ interactions are similar to
659: $\Lambda_U$ in violating baryon number by one unit; but of course $R_4$
660: involves only sparticles and so we could expect the upper limit on any
661: particular component to be less severe than the limit on a
662: corresponding component of $\Lambda_U$. For interactions other than
663: $(\Lambda_U)_{121}$ and $(\Lambda_U)_{131}$ these
664: limits are not very
665: strict in any case
666: \ref\GoityDQ{J.~L.~Goity and M.~Sher,
667: \plb 346 (1995) 69
668: [Erratum-ibid. {\bf B}385 (1996) 500]\semi
669: B.C.~Allanach, A.~Dedes and H.K.~Dreiner,
670: \prd 60 (1999) 075014
671: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9906209;%%
672: };
673: so if we assume no flavour mixing then $r_4 (M_Z)$
674: could be as large as the susy scale.
675: Therefore even if direct detection of the interaction is difficult
676: it will influence the sparticle spectrum via Renormalisation Group evolution.
677:
678: Since $r_4$ only contributes to the $\beta$-functions for $(m_Q^2)^3_3$
679: and $(m_{d^c}^2)^3_3$ we may expect the main effect to be on the 3rd
680: generation squark masses.
681: As an example of its effect, in Figure~1 we plot the light stop mass
682: against $r_4(M_Z)$ for the SPS5 benchmark point\ref\AllanachNJ{
683: B.C.~Allanach {\it et al.},
684: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 25}, 113 (2002)
685: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0202233;%%
686: }. The SPS5 point is characterised by the fact that one of the
687: stop masses is rather light and sensitive to small changes in
688: input parameters such
689: as the top quark mass. We use the one-loop $\beta$ function for $r_4$,
690: two loop $\beta$-functions
691: for all other couplings and masses (including $r_4$ only at one loop),
692: and adjust input parameters according to
693: the supersymmetric spectrum in order to account for
694: threshold corrections in the manner of
695: Ref.~\ref\pbmz{
696: D.M.~Pierce, J.A.~Bagger, K.T.~Matchev and R.J.~Zhang,
697: %``Precision corrections in the minimal supersymmetric standard model,''
698: \npb491 (1997) 3
699: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9606211;%%
700: }. Our two-loop result for the light stop mass at $r_4(M_Z)=0$ is
701: now $257\GeV$, a change from that reported in
702: Ref.~\ref\JackSX{
703: I.~Jack, D.R.T.~Jones and A.F.~Kord,
704: \plb 579 (2004) 180}, due to use of the exact rather than the
705: approximate form of the stop mass matrix from Ref.~\pbmz.
706: We see that as $r_4(M_Z)$ approaches $0.5\TeV$
707: (corresponding to a value at gauge unification $r_4 \approx 0.3\TeV$)
708: the light stop mass varies quite significantly.
709: \vskip 0.7cm
710: \epsfysize= 4in
711: \centerline{\epsfbox{r4mzfig.eps}}
712: %\vskip -12cm
713: \inparg
714: {\it\noindent{Figure~1: The light stop mass (in TeV) as a
715: function of $r_4 (M_Z)$
716: (also in TeV) for the SPS5 Benchmark Point}}
717: \medskip
718: \outparg
719:
720:
721:
722: In conclusion: we have presented the one-loop renormalisation of the
723: R-parity violating extension of the MSSM
724: with the {\it most general possible\/} set
725: of soft breaking terms consistent with naturalness.
726: If the amount of flavour mixing is small then the effect of
727: non-standard soft R-parity violating terms on the sparticle spectrum
728: might be considerable.
729:
730: \bigskip\centerline{{\bf Acknowledgements}}
731:
732: DRTJ was supported by a PPARC Senior Fellowship and a
733: CERN Research Associate-ship. AK was
734: supported by an Iranian Government Studentship. We also thank Neil Pomeroy,
735: who participated in the early stages of this investigation, and Otto Kong
736: and Ben Allanach for correspondence.
737:
738: \listrefs
739: \end
740: