1: \documentclass[11pt]{article}
2: \usepackage{epsfig,amsmath,amssymb,graphics}
3: \setlength{\topmargin}{0.0in}
4: \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{0in}
5: \setlength{\evensidemargin}{0in}
6: \setlength{\textheight}{8.5in}
7: \setlength{\textwidth}{6.5in}
8:
9: \newcommand{\tX}{\tilde{X}}
10: \newcommand{\half}{\frac{1}{2}}
11: \newcommand{\third}{\frac{1}{3}}
12: \newcommand{\GeV}{\text{ GeV}}
13: \newcommand{\preprint}[1]{\rule{0pt}{8pt} \scriptsize #1}
14:
15: \begin{document}
16: \title{\bf The New Fat Higgs: Slimmer and More Attractive}
17: \author{Spencer Chang, Can Kilic, Rakhi Mahbubani\\
18: \small\sl Jefferson Physical Laboratory \\
19: \small\sl Harvard University \\
20: \small\sl Cambridge, MA 02138}
21: \date{}
22: \maketitle
23: \begin{picture}(0,0)
24: \put(400,200){\shortstack{
25: \preprint HUTP-04/A025\\
26: \preprint hep-ph/0405267\\
27: \rule{0pt}{8pt} }}
28: \end{picture}
29:
30: \begin{abstract}
31: In this paper we increase the MSSM tree level higgs mass bound to a value that is naturally larger than the LEP-II search constraint by
32: adding
33: to the superpotential a $\lambda S H_{u}H_{d}$ term, as in the NMSSM, and UV completing with new strong dynamics
34: {\it before} $\lambda$ becomes non-perturbative. Unlike other models of this type the higgs fields remain
35: elementary, alleviating the supersymmetric fine-tuning problem while maintaining unification in a natural way.
36: \end{abstract}
37: \pagebreak
38:
39: \section{Introduction}
40: Finding a satisfactory explanation for the large difference between the weak scale and the Planck scale, known as the
41: hierarchy problem, is an issue that has concerned particle physicists for more than two decades, and is the reason
42: why
43: the Standard Model higgs sector is widely held to be incomplete. Supersymmetry (SUSY) provides arguably the most attractive solution for this hierarchy, since it comes with gauge coupling unification as an automatic consequence. However its simplest implementation, the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM), is looking increasingly
44: fine-tuned as recent results from LEP-II have pushed it to regions of parameter space where a light higgs seems unnatural.\footnote{See references
45: \cite{Giudice:2003nc,Barbieri:2003dd} for
46: further discussion.} This is problematic for the MSSM since SUSY relates the quartic
47: coupling of the higgs to the electroweak gauge couplings, which at tree level bounds the mass of the lightest
48: higgs
49: to be less than that of the $Z$. Radiative corrections can help increase this bound, with the largest contribution
50: coming from the top yukawa, giving
51: %%
52: \begin{equation}\label{equ:quarticstop}
53: m^2_{h^0} \approx m^2_Z + \frac{3}{8\pi^2}h^4_t v^2\log{\frac{m_{\tilde{t}}^2}{m^2_t}}
54: \end{equation}
55: %%
56: for large $\tan{\beta}$.
57: Since this effect is only logarithmic in the stop mass however, consistency with the LEP-II mass bound
58: requires the stops to be pushed up to at least 500 GeV.
59: At the same time radiative corrections to
60: $m_{H_u}^2$ are quadratic in the stop mass
61: %%
62: \begin{equation}\label{equ:massstop}
63: \delta m^2_{H_u} \approx -\frac{3}{4\pi^2}m_{\tilde{t}}^2\log{\frac{\Lambda}{m_{\tilde{t}}}}
64: \end{equation}
65: %%
66: There is therefore a conflict between our expectation that the stop is heavy enough to significantly increase the
67: higgs mass through radiative corrections and yet light enough to cut off the quadratic divergence
68: in a natural way.\footnote{A recent paper \cite{Birkedal:2004xi} attempted to resolve this conflict
69: by suppressing the size of radiative corrections to $m_{H_u}^2$ from the stop.} Requiring consistency with LEP-II
70: results therefore forces us to live with a fine tuning of a few percent.
71:
72: One way to resolve this issue is to generate a larger tree level quartic coupling for the higgses. This can be accomplished through new F-terms as in the Next To Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (NMSSM)
73: \cite{Fayet:1974pd,Batra:2004vc}; new D-terms by charging the higgs under a new gauge symmetry \cite{Comelli:1992nu}; or by using ``hard'' SUSY breaking at low scales \cite{Polonsky:2000rs}.
74: We will choose to focus on the NMSSM, where the addition of a gauge singlet $S$ allows for the following
75: term in the superpotential
76: %%
77: \begin{equation}
78: W=\lambda S H_u H_d
79: \label{eq:nmssm}
80: \end{equation}
81: %%
82: and results in an additional quartic coupling for the higgses of the form $|\lambda|^2 |H_u H_d|^2$. Unfortunately the requirement of perturbativity up to the GUT scale limits the size of $\lambda$ at the electroweak scale
83: \cite{Masip:1998jc} giving a maximum higgs mass bound of about 150 GeV.
84: This constraint was recently evaded in the Fat Higgs model \cite{Harnik:2003rs} by allowing the coupling to become
85: nonperturbative at an energy lower than the GUT scale, where $S, H_u$ and $H_d$ were seen to be composites of new strong
86: dynamics. All couplings were asymptotically free above this point and the higgs mass bound could be pushed up to 500 GeV. On the other hand the composite nature of the higgs doublets gave rise to a different problem - gauge coupling unification was not
87: manifest and some ad hoc matter content had to be added to the theory to preserve it. In addition, elementary higgs
88: fields needed to be reintroduced in order to generate the usual Standard Model yukawas at low energies.
89:
90: In this paper, we will argue that UV completion of the NMSSM does not require us to sacrifice the desirable
91: properties of weak scale SUSY. We will keep the higgs fields elementary, making unification manifest while
92: permitting the usual Standard Model yukawas to be written down. Like the Fat Higgs, we use a composite $S$ but
93: instead we replace the $\lambda$ coupling above the compositeness scale by asymptotically free yukawas. Since we
94: will no longer have to run $\lambda$,
95: which grows in the UV, all the way to the GUT scale, we can afford to start at a larger value at the electroweak
96: scale. Unfortunately our scheme will require us to compromise slightly on how heavy we can make the higgs, but
97: this seems a small price to pay for natural gauge coupling unification.
98:
99: The outline of the rest of the paper is as follows: in Section
100: \ref{sec:model} we discuss the philosophy of this mechanism and
101: detail a specific model, in Section \ref{sec:discuss} we discuss the
102: bounds on the $\lambda$ coupling, and the issues of fine tuning,
103: gauge coupling unification and the model's phenomenology. We
104: conclude in Section \ref{sec:conclusion}.
105:
106: \section{Constructing a Model\label{sec:model}}
107: In SUSY models gauge contributions to anomalous dimensions are negative, tending to make yukawa couplings
108: asymptotically free. The yukawas themselves, on the other hand contribute positive anomalous dimensions.
109: These competing effects, which are evident in the Renormalization Group Equation (RGE) for the NMSSM $\lambda$
110: coupling
111: %%
112: \begin{equation}
113: \frac{d \lambda}{d t} = \frac{\lambda}{16 \pi^2}\left[4\lambda^2 + 3 h_t^2 - 3g_2^2 -\frac{3}{5}g_1^2
114: \right]+\cdots
115: \label{eq:nmssmrge}
116: \end{equation}
117: %%
118: result in an asymptotically free $\lambda$ only when the gauge couplings involved are larger than $\lambda$
119: itself. Even when they do not dominate the running, maximizing the negative contributions from the gauge sector
120: by adding as many $SU(5)$ $\mathbf{5} +\bar{\mathbf{5}}$ multiplets as are allowed by perturbative
121: unification gives an upper bound on the low energy $\lambda$ coupling \cite{Masip:1998jc}. The benefit is
122: small here, however, since the electroweak gauge couplings remain quite weak for the majority of the running
123: and $g_3$ only affects $h_t$ at one loop.
124: This makes it difficult to significantly increase the low energy value of $\lambda$.
125:
126: One way to improve the situation is to introduce new gauge dynamics through the following superpotential:
127: %%
128: \begin{equation}
129: W_{\lambda} = \lambda_1\, \phi X H_u + \lambda_2\, \phi^c X^c H_d + M_X X X^c + M_{\tX} \tX \tX^c.
130: \end{equation}
131: %%
132: We have added the fields $\phi, \phi^c,X,X^c,\tX,\tX^c$, which are charged under a new strong
133: gauge symmetry, with the $X$s also charged under the Standard Model as seen in Table \ref{prelimcharges}.
134: %%
135: \begin{table}[t]
136: \centering
137: \begin{tabular}{l|c|c}
138: & $SU(3)\times SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y$ & $SU(n)_{s}$ \\
139: \hline
140: $\phi$ & $(1,1,0)$ & $\mathbf{n}$ \\
141: $\phi^c$ & $(1,1,0)$ & $\bar{\mathbf{n}}$ \\
142: $X$ & $(1,2,-\half)$ & $\bar{\mathbf{n}}$ \\
143: $X^c$ & $(1,2,\half)$ & $\mathbf{n}$ \\
144: $\tX$ & $(\bar{\mathbf{3}},1,\third)$ & $\bar{\mathbf{n}}$ \\
145: $\tX^c$ & $(\mathbf{3},1,-\third)$ & $\mathbf{n}$
146: \end{tabular}
147: \caption{Preliminary charge assignments for the new particles\label{prelimcharges}}
148: \end{table}
149: %%
150: We choose $SU(n)$ to be our strong group as this permits our scheme to be most easily implemented. Since the strong
151: gauge coupling ($g_s$) can now dominate the running, the $\lambda_{1,2}$ yukawas
152: can be asymptotically free for larger initial values and the resulting gain in $\lambda$ will be more substantial.
153: The two $X$ fields have been given a
154: supersymmetric mass, $M_X$, and are completed into
155: $(\mathbf{5},\mathbf{n})+(\bar{\mathbf{5}},\bar{\mathbf{n}})$
156: multiplets of $SU(5)\times SU(n)_s$ by the $\tX$s and thus maintain gauge coupling
157: unification. Note that this doesn't require any MSSM particles to be
158: gauged under $SU(n)_s$. The fields that are gauged under both the Standard Model
159: and the new group have large supersymmetric mass terms and thus
160: decouple from low energy physics.
161:
162: Below the scale $M_X$ and $M_{\tilde{X}}$, integrating out the $X$s
163: and $\tX$s generates the nonrenormalizable operator %%
164: \begin{equation}
165: W_\text{eff} = -\frac{\lambda_1\lambda_2}{M_X} \; \phi \phi^c H_u H_d.
166: \label{eq:nonrenorm}
167: \end{equation}
168: %%
169: There are two ways in which the NMSSM $\lambda$ coupling can be
170: obtained from this operator. One is to break $SU(n)_s$ by giving a
171: vev to $\phi$; as long as this breaking takes place close to the
172: $M_X$ scale, $\lambda$ can be satisfactorily large. A simpler
173: approach, which we adopt in this paper, is to use the fact that
174: below $M_X,M_{\tX}$ there are 5 fewer flavors of the strong group,
175: making the gauge coupling get strong at low energies, forcing the
176: $\phi$ fields to confine into an NMSSM singlet which we will call
177: $S$.
178:
179: Building a realistic theory from this philosophy is simply a matter of deciding what $n$ will be.
180: We use the fact that there is a restriction on the number of $SU(5)$ flavors that can be added to the
181: Standard Model for gauge couplings to perturbatively unify given that the added $SU(5)$ fundamentals do
182: not decouple until the TeV scale.\footnote{The
183: possibility
184: of a model with accelerated unification \cite{Arkani-Hamed:2001vr} and a lowered unification scale will not be
185: considered here.}
186: This requires 4 flavors or less and hence $n \leq 4$. Another important constraint is on the number of flavors of
187: $SU(n)_s$ that remain after the 5 flavors in $X$ and $\tX$ have
188: been integrated out. We want to avoid $n_f < n$ where
189: there is an Affleck-Dine-Seiberg vacuum instability \cite{Intriligator:1995au} and will ignore the potentially
190: interesting case $n_f = n$, where the Quantum Modified Moduli Space constraint might shed some light on
191: the $\mu$ problem.
192: Instead we
193: will
194: choose to start with $n+6$ flavors of $SU(n)_s$, where integrating out the 5 flavors gives $n_f = n+1$, making the
195: theory s-confine. Now combining the requirement for asymptotic freedom
196: ($n+6 < 3n$) with the perturbative unitarity constraint ($n \leq 4$) discussed earlier uniquely fixes $n=4$.\footnote{The
197: case of $SU(3)$ with 9 flavors might also be useful for our purpose. This model
198: has been argued to have a linear family of conformal fixed points in
199: $(\lambda_i, g)$ space \cite{Leigh:1995ep} and would therefore be convenient when we discuss the possibility of
200: having a new superconformal fixed point in Section
201: \ref{sec:conformality}. Alternatively if the $\tX$s required for unification were not also charged under the
202: strong group, satisfying the resulting constraints would be easier since we would have more room to maneuver. However this theory is not naturally unified, and so will not be pursued here. \label{foot:strassler}}
203:
204: \subsection{Details of the Model\label{sec:details}}
205: We now summarize the content and interactions of the model. There is a strong $SU(4)_s$ gauge group, with the particle content shown in Table \ref{newparticles}.
206: %%
207: \begin{table}[b]
208: \centering
209: \begin{tabular}{l|c|c}
210: & $SU(3)\times SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y$ & $SU(4)_{s}$ \\
211: \hline
212: $\phi$ & $(1,1,0)$ & $\mathbf{4}$ \\
213: $\phi^c$ & $(1,1,0)$ & $\bar{\mathbf{4}}$ \\
214: $\psi_i$ for $i=1,\cdots,4$ & $(1,1,0)$ & $\mathbf{4}$ \\
215: $\psi_i^c$ for $i=1,\cdots,4$ & $(1,1,0)$ & $\bar{\mathbf{4}}$ \\
216: $X$ & $(1,2,-\half)$ & $\bar{\mathbf{4}}$ \\
217: $X^c$ & $(1,2,\half)$ & $\mathbf{4}$ \\
218: $\tX$ & $(\bar{\mathbf{3}},1,\third)$ & $\bar{\mathbf{4}}$ \\
219: $\tX^c$ & $(\mathbf{3},1,-\third)$ & $\mathbf{4}$ \\
220: \end{tabular}
221: \caption{Final charge assignments for new particles \label{newparticles}}
222: \end{table}
223: %%
224: The superpotential contains
225: %%
226: \begin{eqnarray}
227: W&=& W_{\lambda} + W_S + W_\text{d} \quad \text{where}\\
228: W_S &=& m\, \phi \phi^c \\ \nonumber
229: W_\text{d} &=& y (T^i\, \phi \psi_i^c + T^{c\;i}\, \psi_i \phi^c + T^{ij}\, \psi_i \psi_j^c)+
230: \\ && \frac{y'}{M_\text{GUT}^2}(\epsilon^{ijkl}\; T^B_i\, \phi \, \psi_j \psi_k \psi_l+
231: \epsilon^{ijkl}\; T^{B^c}_i\, \phi^c \, \psi_j^c \psi_k^c \psi_l^c).
232: \end{eqnarray}
233: %%
234: where we have introduced some singlets denoted by $T$. After confinement,
235: $W_S$ gives a linear term in $S$ as in the Fat Higgs \cite{Harnik:2003rs} while
236: $W_\text{d}$ decouples the extra mesons by giving them mass terms with the singlets $T^i,T^{c\;i}, T^{ij}$.
237: Note that in the second line of $W_\text{d}$ there is a nonrenormalizable mass term for the baryons with the $T^B$s which is
238: suppressed by the GUT scale
239: $M_\text{GUT}$ and thus gives rise to light baryon states. The constraints imposed by these light states will be
240: discussed in Section \ref{sec:phenomenology}. Note that there is a non-anomalous $U(1)_R$ symmetry (under which
241: $\psi_i,\psi_i^c$ are neutral and all other $SU(4)_s$ flavors have charge 1) that
242: makes the given superpotential natural.
243:
244: \subsection{Conformality and Confinement\label{sec:conformality}}
245:
246: At high energies the strong group has 10 flavors and is within the conformal window
247: ($\frac{3}{2} n < 10 < 3 n$) implying, in the absence of $\lambda_{1,2}$, that the theory flows to an interacting
248: fixed point in the IR \cite{Intriligator:1995au}. As discussed previously the strong gauge coupling gives large
249: negative
250: contributions to the beta functions of the $\lambda_{1,2}$ couplings making them
251: asymptotically free for $g_s\gg\lambda_{1,2}$. Ignoring electroweak couplings and the top yukawa, near Seiberg's
252: fixed point we have the RGE:
253: %%
254: \begin{equation}
255: \frac{d \lambda_{1,2}}{d t} = \frac{7 \lambda_{1,2}^3}{16 \pi^2}
256: + \gamma_* \lambda_{1,2} + \cdots
257: \label{eq:lamrge}
258: \end{equation}
259: %%
260: The first term is the usual one loop term due to the yukawa
261: couplings while the second term contains contributions from all orders in the fixed point gauge
262: coupling $g_*$. If the theory is at the fixed point then we have very precise information on the value of
263: $\gamma_*$ in the weak limit, since this is related to the $U(1)_R$ charges of the fields by the superconformal algebra. Within the conformal window for example, $-1<
264: \gamma_* <0$ which indicates that the $\lambda_{1,2}$ couplings are relevant; they grow in the IR.
265: Our limited understanding of
266: strongly coupled theories prevents us from proceeding in full generality, so from now on we will restrict
267: ourselves to two plausible types of behavior.
268:
269: The first possibility is the emergence of a new superconformal phase where both the new yukawas and gauge couplings hit fixed points in the IR; in this case it is hard to be quantitative about possible values of the NMSSM $\lambda$ coupling.
270: At best, we can specify a range of fixed point values of $\lambda_{1,2}$ which give
271: interesting $\lambda$ couplings, without being able to justify if those values can be obtained. Still, the
272: insensitivity of this scenario to UV initial conditions is very attractive.
273:
274: In the second possibility the yukawa couplings get strong and
275: disrupt the conformality, pushing the theory away from the fixed
276: point. In this case a reasonable bound on the sizes of
277: $\lambda_{1,2}$ can be given using their apparent fixed point values
278: from Eq. \ref{eq:lamrge}. We will refer to this as the weak limit
279: bound. It is nontrivial that this bound on $\lambda$ will be large
280: enough to be of interest to us. In fact, the naive estimate will be
281: in the right range, but as we will see in Section
282: \ref{sec:higgsmassbound}, there are many unknown order one factors
283: that can change its size. An undesirable aspect of this case is that
284: the UV boundary conditions for $\lambda_{1,2}$ have to be tuned to
285: small values in order for these couplings to be just below their one
286: loop fixed points at low energies which saturates the weak limit
287: bound. This tuning could be improved somewhat if the gauge coupling
288: hits its fixed point at some intermediate scale. It is also worth
289: noting that this weak limit bound could give us a rough estimate of
290: the fixed point values of $\lambda_{1,2}$ in the first scenario.
291:
292: At energies around the mass of the $X$s and their colored partners $\tX$, these 5 flavors
293: are integrated
294: out of the theory.
295: The terms in the RGEs for the supersymmetric masses typically give an ordering $m < M_X < M_{\tX}$.
296: Thus, the colored partners are integrated out first which leaves 7 flavors of $SU(4)_s$; this is still within
297: the conformal window and, in the electric description, has a stronger fixed point than the UV theory. This would take
298: $|\gamma_*|$ from 1/5 to 5/7 and also increase the weak limit bound on $\lambda_{1,2}$
299: at the scale $M_X$. For the coupling to approach this fixed point the ratio $M_X/M_{\tX}$ must be small.
300: As discussed in Section \ref{sec:unification}, there are no constraints on the size of this parameter from
301: unification as long as $M_X=M_{\tX}$ at the GUT scale.
302:
303: Below $M_X$, $X$ and $X_c$ are integrated out and the theory becomes
304: a $SU(4)_s$ gauge theory with 5 flavors
305: $\Psi_I=(\phi,\psi_i),\Psi_I^c=(\phi^c,\psi^c_i)$ for $I = 0,\cdots,
306: 4$. There is a dynamically generated superpotential %%
307: \begin{equation}
308: W_\text{dyn} = \frac{1}{\Lambda^7}\left[M_{IJ} B^I B^{c\;J} - \det M \right]
309: \end{equation}
310: %%
311: written in terms of gauge invariant mesons ($M_{IJ} \sim \Psi_I \Psi_J^c$) and baryons
312: ($B^I \sim \epsilon^{IJKLM} \Psi_{J} \cdots \Psi_{M}$).
313: At the scale $\Lambda \lesssim M_X$ this theory confines and the superpotential should be
314: written in terms of the canonically normalized meson and baryon fields. Since the gauge coupling is strong the sizes
315: of the interactions after matching are in principle unknown. However estimating their
316: sizes by Naive Dimensional Analysis (NDA)
317: \cite{Luty:1997fk} gives:
318: %%
319: \begin{eqnarray}
320: W&=& W_\text{eff} + W_S + W_\text{d} +W_\text{dyn}\quad \quad \text{where}\\
321: W_\text{eff} &\to& \left[\sqrt{n}\; \frac{\lambda_1\lambda_2}{4\pi}\frac{\Lambda}{M_X}
322: \right] S H_u H_d \\
323: W_S &\to& \frac{m\Lambda}{4\pi} S \\
324: W_\text{d} &\to& \frac{y \Lambda}{4\pi} (T^i M_{0i} + T^{c\;i} M_{i0} + T^{ij} M_{ij})+
325: \frac{y'\Lambda^3}{4\pi M_\text{GUT}^2}(T^B_i B^i+T^{B^c}_i B^{c\;i}) \\
326: W_\text{dyn} &\to& \left[(4\pi) M_{IJ} B^I B^{c\;J} - \frac{(4\pi)^3}{\Lambda^2}\det M \right]
327: \end{eqnarray}
328: %%
329: and we have defined $M_{00}$ to be $S$. The first two terms give us an NMSSM-like model at energy scales below
330: $\Lambda$. In the $W_\text{eff}$ term we have done not only the normal NDA analysis, but also the large $n$ counting - notice that this partly compensates for the $4\pi$ NDA suppression.
331: Up to an unknown $O(1)$ constant, this results in a value for $\lambda$ at the confinement scale of:
332: %%
333: \begin{equation}
334: \lambda = \sqrt{n}\; \frac{\lambda_1\lambda_2}{4\pi}\frac{\Lambda}{M_X}.
335: \label{eq:lambda}
336: \end{equation}
337: %%
338: $W_S$ contains a term linear in $S$ that favors electroweak symmetry
339: breaking and explicitly breaks the Peccei-Quinn symmetry that would give rise to an undesirable light axion.
340: $W_\text{d}$ marries up the superfluous baryons and mesons with singlet $T$ partners as desired.
341: In addition, integrating out the heavy mesons will decouple their interactions in $W_\text{dyn}$.
342: It is also possible to add interactions that will give rise to the standard NMSSM $S^3$
343: coupling to eliminate the new $\mu$ problem arising from the supersymmetric parameter $m$ but we will not
344: address this or the $\mu$ problems of $M_X$ and $M_{\tX}$ here.
345:
346: \section{Discussion\label{sec:discuss}}
347: \subsection{$\lambda$ and the Higgs Mass Bound \label{sec:higgsmassbound}}
348: So far we have shown how our model approximately reduces to the NMSSM below the
349: confinement scale. Before analyzing this further it is important
350: to determine what range of $\lambda$ will be most useful for our purposes.
351: The value of the higgs quartic can be found by running the $\lambda$ coupling from the compositeness scale down to the electroweak scale ($\mu$).
352: We can solve for $\lambda$ in Eq. \ref{eq:nmssmrge} by ignoring all except the $\lambda^3$ term to obtain:
353: %%
354: \begin{equation}
355: \lambda(\mu)^2 = \left(\frac{1}{\lambda(\Lambda)^2}+\frac{1}{2\pi^2}\ln{\frac{\Lambda}{\mu}}
356: \right)^{-1}.
357: \end{equation}
358: %%
359: We summarize the resulting running in Figure \ref{fig:lambda}, in which the low energy value $\lambda
360: (\mu)$ is plotted as a function of the initial value $\lambda (\Lambda)$, for $\Lambda/\mu$ of different orders of
361: magnitude. Notice that the value of $\lambda$ at low energies is largely insensitive to its value at the confinement
362: scale for $\lambda (\Lambda) \gtrsim 3$; it is this crucial feature that allows this model to compare favorably
363: with the Fat Higgs.
364: Unlike the Fat Higgs however, we do not have to start in the limit of strong coupling to get $\lambda(\mu)$
365: parameterically higher than the NMSSM bound of 0.8 \cite{Masip:1998jc}. In the analysis that follows we will
366: arbitrarily choose as our region of interest $\lambda (\mu) \gtrsim 1.5$, which translates to
367: $\lambda (\Lambda) \gtrsim (1.8, 2.2, 3.3)$ for running over 1, 2, and 3 decades
368: respectively.
369: %%
370: %***********************************Lambda Figure**************************
371: \begin{figure}
372: \begin{center}
373: \epsfig{file=fig1.eps} \caption{The low energy values of the
374: $\lambda$ coupling after running from the compositeness scale
375: $\Lambda$ down to the scale $\mu$.} \label{fig:lambda}
376: \end{center}
377: \end{figure}
378: %***********************************End of Figure**************************
379: %%
380:
381: Returning to the first scenario in which there is a new superconformal fixed point, we can now relate the above
382: values of $\lambda$ to the fixed point values of $\lambda_{1,2}$. Using Eq. \ref{eq:lambda} and assuming
383: comparable fixed points for the two yukawas, we see that we need
384: $\lambda_{1,2} \gtrsim (3.4, 3.7, 4.5)$ at $M_X$.
385: Unfortunately, we cannot say whether the actual fixed points satisfy this condition, although these values
386: are at least
387: feasible since the flatness of the RGE running of $\lambda(\mu)$ means that $\lambda$ does not have to
388: equal $4\pi$ at the confinement scale.
389: It would be interesting to do a more detailed study to determine whether this occurs.
390:
391:
392: It is possible to be more quantitative than this in the second case by relying on
393: our knowledge of the model in the weak limit. Using Eq. \ref{eq:lamrge} we see that
394: %%
395: \begin{equation}
396: \lambda (\Lambda) \sim \sqrt{4}\; \frac{\lambda_1\lambda_2}{4\pi}\frac{\Lambda}{M_X} \lesssim
397: -\frac{\Lambda}{2\pi M_X} \frac{16\pi^2}{7}\; \gamma_* \sim \frac{8\pi}{7} \gamma_* \sim 3.6 \; \gamma_*.
398: \end{equation}
399: %%
400: If we start with all 10 flavors of $SU(4)_s$ we have $\gamma_* = -1/5$ and $\lambda(\Lambda) \lesssim 0.7$ which is
401: too low to be of interest. However, integrating out the $\tX$s leaves us with 7 flavors, which at the fixed
402: point gives $\gamma_* =
403: -5/7$ and $\lambda(\Lambda) \lesssim 2.6$.
404: We saw that this gives rise to a $\lambda$ that is in the interesting range for almost 3 decades of running between the confinement scale and the electroweak scale, suggesting that there are regions of parameter space where the low energy $\lambda$
405: coupling is large enough to be of interest.
406:
407: We can calculate the tree level bound on the higgs mass by assuming that we are somewhere in the region $1.5
408: \lesssim \lambda(\mu) \lesssim 2$ and using the NMSSM equation:
409: %%
410: \begin{equation}
411: m^2_h \leq m_Z^2 \cos^2{2\beta} + \lambda^2 v^2 \sin^2{2\beta}/2.
412: \end{equation}
413: %%
414: to obtain
415: %%
416: \begin{equation}
417: m_h \lesssim 260-350 \text{ GeV}
418: \end{equation}
419: %%
420: which is a substantial improvement over the MSSM bound of 90 GeV.
421: Taking the largest $\lambda(\mu)$ in Figure \ref{fig:lambda} pushes this bound up to 490 GeV, but
422: this is probably less generic in the parameter space. Radiative corrections from the top sector
423: can increase this further although these are no longer necessary to satisfy the LEP-II bound.
424:
425: We emphasize that it is rather surprising to obtain interesting results in the weak limit bound in spite of the NDA suppression factor of $4 \pi$. This is a direct consequence of $\lambda$ not having to start off at $4\pi$; moderately large coupling is sufficient. However, the robustness of our conclusions in the weak limit depends on a number of $O(1)$ unknowns which we ignored in the above analysis. These are listed below and discussed in turn.
426: \begin{itemize}
427: \item {the value of the factor $\Lambda/ M_X$}
428: \item {the running of the nonrenormalizable operator in Eq. \ref{eq:nonrenorm} due to gauge coupling contributions in the region $\Lambda\leq E\leq M_X$}
429: \item {the coefficient in the NDA matching that was used in Eq. \ref{eq:lambda}}
430: \item {loop-level corrections from $g_*$ to the coefficient of $\lambda_{1,2}^3$ in Eq. \ref{eq:lamrge}.}
431: \item {restrictions due to the large top yukawa.}
432: \end{itemize}
433: The first tends to suppress the value of $\lambda$ at low energies.
434: The strong dynamics after flavor decoupling suggests that this
435: factor is close to one, but it cannot be determined exactly since we
436: do not have detailed information on the fixed point value and exact
437: running of $g_s$ below $M_X$. It might, however, be compensated by
438: the effect of the second which enhances $\lambda$, hence we might be
439: able to make a case for neglecting them both, especially since this
440: allows us to make a quantitative prediction. The $O(1)$ coefficient
441: in the third item parametrizes our ignorance of the physics of
442: strong coupling and unfortunately cannot be eliminated. The fourth
443: point is that we ignored higher order gauge corrections to the
444: $\lambda_{1,2}^3$ term in Eq. \ref{eq:lamrge} at the gauge coupling
445: fixed point. If the coefficient of this term decreases, the upper
446: bound on the $\lambda$ coupling increases and vice versa. Notice
447: however, that higher loop $\lambda_{1,2}$ corrections to the RGE are
448: suppressed and have been rightfully ignored since the loop
449: suppression factor $\lambda_{1,2}^2/(16\pi^2) \lesssim -\gamma_*/7
450: \leq 1/7 \ll 1$. Finally, the fact that the top yukawa is not
451: neglible at low energies places some constraints on how large we can
452: make $\lambda_1$ without losing perturbativity for both these
453: couplings to the GUT scale. Doing a simple one loop analysis, for
454: $\tan \beta$ near 1 (where the gain in the tree level bound is
455: greatest), the $\lambda_1$ fixed point is about half of the value in
456: the above analysis which in turn halves the size of
457: $\lambda(\Lambda)$. In general, we expect that there is some $O(1)$
458: suppression from this effect, but there is no comparable suppression
459: in $\lambda_2$ due to the smallness of the bottom yukawa. Although
460: it is unfortunate that these factors cannot be evaluated to
461: determine a more specific bound, that the naive answer is in the
462: interesting range suggests that the actual value of $\lambda$ can be
463: similarly large.
464:
465: Since we were motivated to explore this model by concerns of naturalness, we will now discuss how this
466: scenario helps the fine tuning.
467: First of all, the higgs mass bound has increased so it is no longer necessary for the
468: top squarks to be made heavy to evade the LEP-II bound. In fact, it is now possible for all the MSSM scalars
469: including the higgs to have masses that are of the same order. Thus, from a bottom-up perspective, there
470: are no unnatural hierarchies in these masses.\footnote{It could be argued that the top-down approach is still
471: problematic since starting with universal scalar and gaugino masses ($m_0$ and $m_\half$)
472: at the unification scale, for example, force the top squarks to be heavy given observational lower bounds on
473: chargino and slepton masses.
474: This is a property of current SUSY breaking scenarios,
475: however, and it is possible to imagine alternatives with more random boundary conditions at the GUT scale that
476: result in realistic particle spectra with light top squarks.}
477: On the other hand there is a new fine tuning introduced in the weak limit (the second scenario), since
478: the UV initial conditions have to be precisely tuned to avoid breaking conformality. However, these
479: parameters are at least technically natural and so could still have the right size. There is no such fine
480: tuning in the
481: new
482: superconformal phase since the attractive IR fixed points reduce the sensitivity to UV
483: initial conditions. For further discussion of how a larger higgs quartic coupling helps the fine tuning
484: issue see \cite{Bastero-Gil:2000bw} and Casas et. al. in \cite{Polonsky:2000rs}.
485:
486: \subsection{Gauge Coupling Unification\label{sec:unification}}
487: In both the Fat Higgs and the New Fat Higgs SUSY guarantees that running the SM gauge couplings through the
488: strong coupling regions does not give corrections larger than typical threshold effects. We will recount the
489: argument here for
490: completeness.
491: Matching holomorphic couplings of a high energy theory containing a massive field with those of a low energy
492: theory with the field integrated out, is constrained by holomorphy.
493: In
494: particular, the matching depends only on the bare mass of the field and thus is not affected by strong
495: dynamics
496: \cite{Novikov:uc}.
497: For instance, taking $M_X = M_{\tX} = M$ at the cutoff $M_\text{GUT}$,
498: the high and low energy SM gauge couplings
499: (with and without the $X,\tX$ respectively) are matched at the bare mass $M$:
500: %%
501: \begin{eqnarray}
502: g_{\text{sm,\,le}}(M) = g_{\text{sm,\,he}}(M)
503: \label{eq:matching}
504: \end{eqnarray}
505: %%
506: where the high energy gauge couplings have their unified value at $M_\text{GUT}$.
507: At other energies these holomorphic couplings are determined by their one loop running
508: (with beta functions $b_\text{i,\,le} = b_\text{i,\,MSSM}$ and $b_\text{i,\,he} = b_\text{i,\,le}
509: +4$).
510: However,
511: during this running
512: the coefficients of the matter kinetic terms ($Z$) can change.
513: Thus to reach a more ``physical'' coupling, one should go to canonical normalization for the matter fields.
514: This rescaling is anomalous and relates the couplings by
515: %%
516: \begin{eqnarray}
517: \frac{8\pi^2}{g_\text{le,\,phys}^2} = \frac{8\pi^2}{g_\text{le}^2} - \sum_i T^i \ln Z_i
518: \end{eqnarray}
519: %%
520: where $i$ only runs over the matter fields in
521: the low energy theory and the $T_i$s are their Dynkin indices.
522: All potential strong coupling effects are contained within the $Z_i$s of the low energy
523: fields. As a matter of fact,
524: there is actually no effect due to the RGE splitting $M_X < M_{\tX}$, since the matching in Eq.
525: \ref{eq:matching} of the low energy couplings occurs at $M$, giving no restriction on the ratio of these masses from unification.
526: An order one $\ln Z_i$ gives a contribution of the order of a typical theshold correction; thus it takes
527: exponentially large $Z_i$ to adversely affect unification. In this model,
528: such large $Z_i$ can only occur for the higgses when the $\lambda_{1,2}$ couplings are
529: strong for an exponentially large region. Thus, the weak limit case is generically safe whereas in the new
530: superconformal phase, the conformal region for $\lambda_{1,2}$ cannot be exponentially large without affecting
531: unification. Note that a similar constraint applies to the conformal region in the Fat Higgs model.
532:
533: Aside from this potential constraint, gauge coupling unification occurs naturally
534: in this theory since the additional matter is charged under
535: the SM in complete $SU(5)$ multiplets {\it and} because the higgses are elementary (hence the beta functions of the
536: SM couplings are equivalent to those of the MSSM up to $SU(5)$ symmetric terms as detailed earlier).
537: In comparison, the Fat Higgs model had elementary preons which correctly reproduced the
538: running of the higgs doublets above the compositeness scale, but also contained additional fields which were put into both split
539: GUT and non-GUT multiplets in order to restore unification.
540: In that model, explaining why unification is natural requires a setup that generates the additional
541: matter content as well as
542: the required
543: mass spectrum.
544:
545: \subsection{Phenomenology \label{sec:phenomenology}}
546: Much of the phenomenology in this model is similar to the Fat Higgs. In both theories the
547: physics at the TeV scale is NMSSM-like with a linear term in $S$ but no cubic. The
548: low energy $\lambda$ coupling is large and gets strong before the GUT scale, but
549: some asymptotically free dynamics takes over to UV complete the theory. They both have similar higgs spectra which
550: are in concordance with precision electroweak constraints.
551: Also, the analysis in \cite{Kitano:2004zd} which concludes that UV insensitive
552: Anomaly Mediation works in the Fat Higgs should also apply to this model.
553:
554:
555:
556: One notable difference between the two models is the additional baryon physics in our model. The $B^0$ and $B^{c\;0}$
557: in this theory get a large supersymmetric mass
558: from the $S$ vev and are not problematic.
559: However we also have light baryon states, the four $B^i$s and $B^{c\; i}$s that are married to the
560: $T^{B}_i$s and $T^{B^c}_i$s,
561: with supersymmetric masses of order
562: %%
563: \begin{equation}
564: M_B \sim \frac{\Lambda^3}{4\pi M_\text{GUT}^2} \sim 10^{-13} - 10^{-7} \text{ eV}
565: \end{equation}
566: %%
567: for $\Lambda \sim 5 - 500 \text{ TeV}$. The scalar components of
568: these chiral superfields get TeV sized soft masses from SUSY
569: breaking and it is possible to determine these from the masses of
570: the elementary fields using the the techniques in
571: \cite{Arkani-Hamed:1998wc}. The fermionic components are more
572: worrying since they remain light and thus give rise to some
573: stringent cosmological constraints. For instance, they decouple at a
574: $T_{\text{dec}} \sim 10 \GeV$, requiring $T_\text{reheat} \lesssim
575: T_\text{dec}$ in order to be consistent with Big Bang
576: Nucleosynthesis. It is also unclear whether the LSP in this theory
577: is a good Dark Matter candidate, given that it is never produced
578: with thermal abundance, or whether baryogenesis can be made to work
579: given such a low reheat temperature.
580:
581: This constraint on the reheat temperature can be relaxed by adding
582: small mass terms for the fundamental fields of the form $W\supset
583: m_{IJ}\Psi_I \Psi_J^c$ which become tadpoles for the mesons after
584: confinement. The tadpoles induce meson vevs which give masses to the
585: light baryonic states through $W_\text{dyn}$.\footnote{We thank
586: Manuel Drees for proposing this solution to us.} These mass terms
587: break the $U(1)_R$ symmetry mentioned in Section \ref{sec:details},
588: however even very small masses ($m_{IJ}\sim M_B\gtrsim 1 MeV$)
589: ensure that Big Bang Nucleosynthesis can proceed as normal, while
590: the newly added masses are small enough for the symmetry breaking
591: effects to be under control.
592:
593: It is also possible to circumvent this issue by using the scenario
594: with the Quantum Modified Moduli Space mentioned in Section
595: \ref{sec:model} or by making models without baryons, for instance
596: with an $Sp(2) \equiv SO(5)$ theory, starting with 18 fundamentals
597: of the $Sp(2)$. Integrating out the $X,\tX$ will reduce to the
598: s-confining case with 8 fundamentals. At high energies, this has a
599: vanishing one loop beta function but is not asymptotically free at
600: two loops. With all 18 fundamentals and their yukawas, the analysis
601: in \cite{Leigh:1995ep} suggests that there is a superconformal fixed
602: point for the yukawa and gauge couplings. Specifically there is a
603: linear family of fixed points which run through the free fixed point
604: $(g = 0, \lambda_i = 0)$ (see Footnote \ref{foot:strassler}) and it
605: needs to be determined whether the fixed point values of
606: $\lambda_{1,2}$ are large enough to be in the interesting range. We
607: can also work in a limit analogous to our weak limit of the previous
608: section, integrating out the $\tX$s first; this leaves the group in
609: the conformal window with 12 fundamentals. Thus if $M_X/M_{\tX}$ is
610: small enough the theory can run to Seiberg's strong conformal fixed
611: point before the $X$s are integrated out. In this case, the weak
612: limit bound gives $\lambda(\Lambda) \lesssim 1.8$, so we would need
613: $M_X$ near the weak scale or some help from the unknown order one
614: contributions detailed above. However, since there are no baryons
615: in $Sp(n)$ theories we only have to to decouple the extra mesons.
616: From this reasoning we see that the physics associated with the
617: baryons does not appear generic to all implementations of our
618: mechanism and thus cannot be used to rule out all models of this
619: type.
620:
621: \section{Conclusion\label{sec:conclusion}}
622: Supersymmetry does extremely well in solving the hierarchy problem, but as
623: more precise measurements have told us, the minimal implementation of weak scale supersymmetry (the MSSM)
624: is becoming fine tuned at about the percent level. Approaches that attempt to alleviate this problem have been many and varied, all of which have their own advantages and disadvantages. Led by the
625: positive aspects of the MSSM, we analyzed a UV
626: complete NMSSM model which justifies the presence of a large $\lambda$ at low energies, resulting in a similarly
627: large higgs quartic coupling. We did this by splitting the $\lambda$ coupling
628: into two asymptotically free yukawa couplings, allowing the theory to be continued above the apparent
629: strong coupling scale. The simple model pursued in this paper is similar in
630: spirit to the Fat Higgs model: we start at the electroweak scale with a large $\lambda$ coupling which grows with increasing energy scale. Rather than waiting for it to hit $4\pi$ before UV completing, we do this at a lower scale, leaving a theory with a composite S only (see Figure \ref{fig:lambdacomp}).
631: %***********************************Lambda Figure**************************
632: \begin{figure}
633: \begin{center}
634: \epsfig{file=fig2.eps} \caption{A comparison of UV completion scales
635: in the Fat Higgs and the New Fat Higgs} \label{fig:lambdacomp}
636: \end{center}
637: \end{figure}
638: %***********************************End of Figure**************************
639: There is no need for a dynamically generated
640: superpotential because the induced $\lambda$ coupling never becomes non-perturbative; instead moderately strong coupling is sufficient to achieve a large tree level higgs mass bound without making the higgs fields composite. This results in a higgs that is not as
641: fat as in the Fat Higgs, but gauge coupling unification, arguably the best evidence for weak scale SUSY,
642: is naturally maintained.
643:
644: We did not study in depth the potentially interesting scenario where
645: the theory hit a superconformal fixed point, since it was tricky to
646: make any definitive statements about the fixed point values of
647: $\lambda_{1,2}.$ The strong coupling dynamics also made it difficult
648: to give exact results in the second case we considered, but we were
649: able to set a reasonable upper bound on $\lambda$ at low energies,
650: up to some unknown order one coefficients, using the properties of
651: Seiberg's fixed point and superconformality in the weak limit. That
652: this bound turned out to give large enough $\lambda$ is comforting,
653: since it suggests the possibility of realizing our mechanism for a
654: generic parameter space with similar results. However, to say any
655: more requires a detailed understanding of both the RGE equations at
656: strong coupling and matching at the confinement scale.
657:
658: Finally, we discussed some of the implications of our model. We saw
659: that the fine tuning issue was indeed ameliorated, at least from a
660: bottom-up perspective and that unification was not affected by the
661: strong coupling. We also discussed the equivalence of the
662: phenomenology to that of the Fat Higgs Model in that there was
663: little difference in their higgs spectra or compatibility with
664: precision electroweak constraints. One notable difference was the
665: presence of light fermionic baryons in our theory. It would be
666: interesting to analyze the new baryon physics in more detail,
667: especially since they give rise to an interesting cosmological
668: constraint. As discussed, this can be relaxed by adding mass terms
669: that weakly break the non-anomalous $U(1)_R$. Furthermore, the
670: existence of models which do not have baryons suggest that light
671: states are not generic to this framework. In such models we expect
672: the dark matter abundance and baryogenesis analysis to proceed along
673: the lines of \cite{Menon:2004wv}.
674:
675: In a few years the LHC will start to explore the possible presence of weak-scale supersymmetry
676: and it is important to continue to study SUSY models so as to
677: compare data with experiment.
678: Using naturalness as a guideline, it already seems that the simplest SUSY models are fine-tuned,
679: which motivates us to attempt to generalize them. With this intuition we have analyzed a theory which improves the
680: naturalness of weak scale SUSY in a simple way without losing the natural unification of the MSSM. However, only
681: experiment can ultimately determine the accuracy of our guesses for what comes beyond the Standard Model.
682:
683: {\it Note: As this paper was being finished, a paper appeared that analyzed a very
684: similar model \cite{Kobayashi:2004pu}. However, they did not
685: notice the mechanism we have described for generating the NMSSM $\lambda$ coupling and had too
686: few flavors of $SU(4)_s$ to avoid the Affleck-Dine-Seiberg vacuum instability after
687: integrating out the $X$ fields. Also, their
688: results on the suppression of the $\mu$ and $m_{H_u}$ corrections are not as crucial when the tree level upper bound on the higgs mass is increased.}
689:
690:
691: \section*{Acknowledgements}
692: We thank Zackaria Chacko, Markus Luty and Matt Schwartz for many
693: useful discussions. We would also like to thank Hitoshi Murayama for
694: his talk on the Fat Higgs at Harvard which inspired this project.
695: Most importantly, we want to thank Nima Arkani-Hamed for many
696: enlightening discussions and comments, all of which he provided in
697: spite of his recent penchant for committing unnatural acts
698: \cite{Arkani-Hamed:2004fb}. SC's work is supported by a NSF Graduate
699: Student Fellowship.
700:
701: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
702:
703: %\cite{Giudice:2003nc}
704: \bibitem{Giudice:2003nc}
705: G.~F.~Giudice,
706: %``Theoretical predictions for collider searches,''
707: arXiv:hep-ph/0311344.
708: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0311344;%%
709:
710: %\cite{Barbieri:2003dd}
711: \bibitem{Barbieri:2003dd}
712: R.~Barbieri,
713: %``Electroweak symmetry breaking as of 2003, on the way to the Large Hadron
714: %Collider,''
715: arXiv:hep-ph/0312253.
716: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0312253;%%
717:
718: %\cite{Haber:1990aw}
719: \bibitem{Haber:1990aw}
720: H.~E.~Haber and R.~Hempfling,
721: %``Can The Mass Of The Lightest Higgs Boson Of The Minimal Supersymmetric Model
722: %Be Larger Than M(Z)?,''
723: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 66}, 1815 (1991);
724: %%CITATION = PRLTA,66,1815;%%
725: %\cite{Okada:1990vk}
726: %\bibitem{Okada:1990vk}
727: Y.~Okada, M.~Yamaguchi and T.~Yanagida,
728: %``Upper Bound Of The Lightest Higgs Boson Mass In The Minimal Supersymmetric
729: %Standard Model,''
730: Prog.\ Theor.\ Phys.\ {\bf 85}, 1 (1991);
731: %%CITATION = PTPKA,85,1;%%
732: %\cite{Ellis:1990nz}
733: %\bibitem{Ellis:1990nz}
734: J.~R.~Ellis, G.~Ridolfi and F.~Zwirner,
735: %``Radiative Corrections To The Masses Of Supersymmetric Higgs Bosons,''
736: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 257}, 83 (1991);
737: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B257,83;%%
738: %\cite{Barbieri:1990ja}
739: %\bibitem{Barbieri:1990ja}
740: R.~Barbieri, M.~Frigeni and F.~Caravaglios,
741: %``The Supersymmetric Higgs For Heavy Superpartners,''
742: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 258}, 167 (1991).
743: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B258,167;%%
744:
745: %\cite{Birkedal:2004xi}
746: \bibitem{Birkedal:2004xi}
747: A.~Birkedal, Z.~Chacko and M.~K.~Gaillard,
748: %``Little supersymmetry and the supersymmetric little hierarchy problem,''
749: arXiv:hep-ph/0404197.
750: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0404197;%%
751:
752: %\cite{Fayet:1974pd}
753: \bibitem{Fayet:1974pd}
754: P.~Fayet,
755: %``Supergauge Invariant Extension Of The Higgs Mechanism And A Model For The
756: %Electron And Its Neutrino,''
757: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 90}, 104 (1975);
758: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B90,104;%%
759: %\cite{Ellis:1988er}
760: %\bibitem{Ellis:1988er}
761: J.~R.~Ellis, J.~F.~Gunion, H.~E.~Haber, L.~Roszkowski and F.~Zwirner,
762: %``Higgs Bosons In A Nonminimal Supersymmetric Model,''
763: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 39}, 844 (1989);
764: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D39,844;%%
765: %\cite{Drees:1988fc}
766: %\bibitem{Drees:1988fc}
767: M.~Drees,
768: %``Supersymmetric Models With Extended Higgs Sector,''
769: Int.\ J.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 4}, 3635 (1989).
770: %%CITATION = IMPAE,A4,3635;%%
771:
772: %\cite{Batra:2004vc}
773: \bibitem{Batra:2004vc}
774: For more recent work see
775: P.~Batra, A.~Delgado, D.~E.~Kaplan and T.~M.~P.~Tait,
776: %``Running into new territory in SUSY parameter space,''
777: arXiv:hep-ph/0404251.
778: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0404251;%%
779:
780: %\cite{Comelli:1992nu}
781: \bibitem{Comelli:1992nu}
782: D.~Comelli and C.~Verzegnassi,
783: %``One loop corrections to the lightest Higgs mass in the minimal eta model with
784: %a heavy Z-prime,''
785: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 303}, 277 (1993);
786: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B303,277;%%
787: %\cite{Cvetic:1997ky}
788: %\bibitem{Cvetic:1997ky}
789: M.~Cvetic, D.~A.~Demir, J.~R.~Espinosa, L.~L.~Everett and P.~Langacker,
790: %``Electroweak breaking and the mu problem in supergravity models with an
791: %additional U(1),''
792: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 56}, 2861 (1997)
793: [Erratum-ibid.\ D {\bf 58}, 119905 (1998)]
794: [arXiv:hep-ph/9703317];
795: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9703317;%%
796: %\cite{Batra:2003nj}
797: %\bibitem{Batra:2003nj}
798: P.~Batra, A.~Delgado, D.~E.~Kaplan and T.~M.~P.~Tait,
799: %``The Higgs mass bound in gauge extensions of the minimal supersymmetric
800: %standard model,''
801: JHEP {\bf 0402}, 043 (2004)
802: [arXiv:hep-ph/0309149].
803: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0309149;%%
804:
805: %\cite{Polonsky:2000rs}
806: \bibitem{Polonsky:2000rs}
807: N.~Polonsky and S.~Su,
808: %``More corrections to the Higgs mass in supersymmetry,''
809: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 508}, 103 (2001)
810: [arXiv:hep-ph/0010113];
811: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0010113;%%
812: %\cite{Casas:2003jx}
813: %\bibitem{Casas:2003jx}
814: J.~A.~Casas, J.~R.~Espinosa and I.~Hidalgo,
815: %``The MSSM fine tuning problem: A way out,''
816: JHEP {\bf 0401}, 008 (2004)
817: [arXiv:hep-ph/0310137].
818: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0310137;%%
819:
820: %\cite{Masip:1998jc}
821: \bibitem{Masip:1998jc}
822: M.~Masip, R.~Munoz-Tapia and A.~Pomarol,
823: %``Limits on the mass of the lightest Higgs in supersymmetric models,''
824: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 57}, 5340 (1998)
825: [arXiv:hep-ph/9801437];
826: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9801437;%%
827: %\cite{Quiros:1998bz}
828: %\bibitem{Quiros:1998bz}
829: M.~Quiros and J.~R.~Espinosa,
830: %``What is the upper limit on the lightest supersymmetric Higgs mass?,''
831: arXiv:hep-ph/9809269.
832: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9809269;%
833:
834: %\cite{Harnik:2003rs}
835: \bibitem{Harnik:2003rs}
836: R.~Harnik, G.~D.~Kribs, D.~T.~Larson and H.~Murayama,
837: %``The minimal supersymmetric fat Higgs model,''
838: arXiv:hep-ph/0311349.
839: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0311349;%%
840:
841: %\cite{Arkani-Hamed:2001vr}
842: \bibitem{Arkani-Hamed:2001vr}
843: N.~Arkani-Hamed, A.~G.~Cohen and H.~Georgi,
844: %``Accelerated unification,''
845: arXiv:hep-th/0108089.
846: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0108089;%%
847:
848: %\cite{Intriligator:1995au}
849: \bibitem{Intriligator:1995au}
850: For a review of the relevant nonperturbative SUSY results, see K.~A.~Intriligator and N.~Seiberg,
851: %``Lectures on supersymmetric gauge theories and electric-magnetic duality,''
852: Nucl.\ Phys.\ Proc.\ Suppl.\ {\bf 45BC}, 1 (1996)
853: [arXiv:hep-th/9509066].
854: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9509066;%%
855:
856: %\cite{Leigh:1995ep}
857: \bibitem{Leigh:1995ep}
858: R.~G.~Leigh and M.~J.~Strassler,
859: %``Exactly marginal operators and duality in four-dimensional N=1 supersymmetric
860: %gauge theory,''
861: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 447}, 95 (1995)
862: [arXiv:hep-th/9503121].
863: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9503121;%%
864:
865: %\cite{Luty:1997fk}
866: \bibitem{Luty:1997fk}
867: M.~A.~Luty,
868: %``Naive dimensional analysis and supersymmetry,''
869: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 57}, 1531 (1998)
870: [arXiv:hep-ph/9706235];
871: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9706235;%%
872: %\cite{Cohen:1997rt}
873: %\bibitem{Cohen:1997rt}
874: A.~G.~Cohen, D.~B.~Kaplan and A.~E.~Nelson,
875: %``Counting 4pi's in strongly coupled supersymmetry,''
876: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 412}, 301 (1997)
877: [arXiv:hep-ph/9706275].
878: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9706275;%%
879:
880: %\cite{Bastero-Gil:2000bw}
881: \bibitem{Bastero-Gil:2000bw}
882: M.~Bastero-Gil, C.~Hugonie, S.~F.~King, D.~P.~Roy and S.~Vempati,
883: %``Does LEP prefer the NMSSM?,''
884: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 489}, 359 (2000)
885: [arXiv:hep-ph/0006198].
886: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0006198;%%
887:
888: %\cite{Kitano:2004zd}
889: \bibitem{Kitano:2004zd}
890: R.~Kitano, G.~D.~Kribs and H.~Murayama,
891: %``Electroweak symmetry breaking via UV insensitive anomaly mediation,''
892: arXiv:hep-ph/0402215.
893: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0402215;%%
894:
895: %\cite{Novikov:uc}
896: \bibitem{Novikov:uc}
897: See V.~A.~Novikov, M.~A.~Shifman, A.~I.~Vainshtein and V.~I.~Zakharov,
898: %``Exact Gell-Mann-Low Function Of Supersymmetric Yang-Mills Theories From
899: %Instanton Calculus,''
900: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 229}, 381 (1983);
901: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B229,381;%%
902: %\cite{Novikov:ic}
903: %\bibitem{Novikov:ic}
904: %V.~A.~Novikov, M.~A.~Shifman, A.~I.~Vainshtein and V.~I.~Zakharov,
905: %``Supersymmetric Instanton Calculus: Gauge Theories With Matter,''
906: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 260}, 157 (1985)
907: [Yad.\ Fiz.\ {\bf 42}, 1499 (1985)];
908: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B260,157;%%
909: %\cite{Novikov:rd}
910: %\bibitem{Novikov:rd}
911: %V.~A.~Novikov, M.~A.~Shifman, A.~I.~Vainshtein and V.~I.~Zakharov,
912: %``Beta Function In Supersymmetric Gauge Theories: Instantons Versus Traditional
913: %Approach,''
914: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 166}, 329 (1986)
915: [Sov.\ J.\ Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf 43}, 294.1986\ YAFIA,43,459 (1986\ YAFIA,43,459-464.1986)]
916: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B166,329;%%
917: and also
918: %\cite{Arkani-Hamed:1997ut}
919: %\bibitem{Arkani-Hamed:1997ut}
920: N.~Arkani-Hamed and H.~Murayama,
921: %``Renormalization group invariance of exact results in supersymmetric gauge
922: %theories,''
923: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 57}, 6638 (1998)
924: [arXiv:hep-th/9705189];
925: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9705189;%%
926: %\cite{Arkani-Hamed:1997mj}
927: %\bibitem{Arkani-Hamed:1997mj}
928: %N.~Arkani-Hamed and H.~Murayama,
929: %``Holomorphy, rescaling anomalies and exact beta functions in supersymmetric
930: %gauge theories,''
931: JHEP {\bf 0006}, 030 (2000)
932: [arXiv:hep-th/9707133].
933: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9707133;%%
934:
935:
936: %\cite{Arkani-Hamed:1998wc}
937: \bibitem{Arkani-Hamed:1998wc}
938: N.~Arkani-Hamed and R.~Rattazzi,
939: %``Exact results for non-holomorphic masses in softly broken supersymmetric
940: %gauge theories,''
941: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 454}, 290 (1999)
942: [arXiv:hep-th/9804068];
943: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9804068;%%
944: %\cite{Luty:1999qc}
945: %\bibitem{Luty:1999qc}
946: M.~A.~Luty and R.~Rattazzi,
947: %``Soft supersymmetry breaking in deformed moduli spaces, conformal theories
948: %and N = 2 Yang-Mills theory,''
949: JHEP {\bf 9911}, 001 (1999)
950: [arXiv:hep-th/9908085].
951: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9908085;%%
952:
953: %\cite{Kobayashi:2004pu}
954: \bibitem{Kobayashi:2004pu}
955: T.~Kobayashi and H.~Terao,
956: %``Suppressed supersymmetry breaking terms in the Higgs sector,''
957: arXiv:hep-ph/0403298.
958: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0403298;%%
959:
960: %\cite{Menon:2004wv}
961: \bibitem{Menon:2004wv}
962: A.~Menon, D.~E.~Morrissey and C.~E.~M.~Wagner,
963: %``Electroweak baryogenesis and dark matter in the nMSSM,''
964: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 70}, 035005 (2004) [arXiv:hep-ph/0404184].
965: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0404184;%%
966:
967: %\cite{Arkani-Hamed:2004fb}
968: \bibitem{Arkani-Hamed:2004fb}
969: N.~Arkani-Hamed and S.~Dimopoulos,
970: %``Supersymmetric unification without low energy supersymmetry and signatures
971: %for fine-tuning at the LHC,''
972: arXiv:hep-th/0405159.
973: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0405159;%%
974:
975: \end{thebibliography}
976:
977: \end{document}
978: