1: % 2006. 7. 14.
2: \documentclass[preprint,11pt,axodraw]{JHEP3}
3: \usepackage{axodraw,epsfig}
4: %\usepackage{color}
5: \usepackage{subfigure}
6: \newcommand{\TeV}{\,{\rm TeV}}
7: \newcommand{\GeV}{\,{\rm GeV}}
8: \newcommand{\MeV}{\,{\rm MeV}}
9: \newcommand{\keV}{\,{\rm keV}}
10: \newcommand{\eV}{\,{\rm eV}}
11: \newcommand\lsim{\mathrel{\rlap{\lower4pt\hbox{\hskip1pt$\sim$}}
12: \raise1pt\hbox{$<$}}}
13: \newcommand\gsim{\mathrel{\rlap{\lower4pt\hbox{\hskip1pt$\sim$}}
14: \raise1pt\hbox{$>$}}}
15: \def\bea{\begin{eqnarray}}
16: \def\eea{\end{eqnarray}}
17: \def\ba{\begin{array}}
18: \def\ea{\end{array}}
19: \def\bc{\begin{center}}
20: \def\ec{\end{center}}
21: \def\nn{\nonumber}
22: \def\ap{\approx}
23: \def\la{\langle}
24: \def\ra{\rangle}
25: \def\slash#1{#1\!\!\!\!\!/}
26: \def\p{\prime}
27: \def\f{\frac}
28: \def\a{\alpha}
29: \def\d{\dagger}
30: \def\e{\epsilon}
31: \def\g{\gamma}
32: \def\l{\lambda}
33: \def\L{\Lambda}
34: \def\f#1#2{\frac{#1}{#2}}
35:
36: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Main Text %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
37: \setcounter{page}{1} \preprint{SNUTP 06-008}
38: %
39: \title{Mediation of Supersymmetry Breaking \\
40: in Gauge Messenger Models}
41: %
42: \author{Radovan Derm\' \i\v sek$^*$, Hyung Do Kim$^\dagger$ and Ian-Woo Kim$^\dagger$\\
43: $^*$School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study,
44: Princeton, NJ 08540, U.S.A.\\
45: $^\dagger$School of Physics and Astronomy and Center for Theoretical Physics,\\
46: Seoul National University, \\
47: Seoul, 151-747, Korea\\
48: E-mail: \email{dermisek@ias.edu, hdkim@phya.snu.ac.kr, iwkim@phya.snu.ac.kr}}
49: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
50:
51: \abstract{ We study gauge mediation of supersymmetry breaking in
52: SU(5) supersymmetric grand unified theory with gauge fields as
53: messengers. The generated soft supersymmetry breaking parameters
54: lead to close to maximal mixing scenario for the Higgs mass and
55: highly reduce the fine tuning of electroweak symmetry breaking. All
56: gaugino, squark and slepton masses are determined by one parameter
57: -- the supersymmetry breaking scale. The characteristic features
58: are: negative and non-universal squark and slepton masses squared at
59: the unification scale, non-universal gaugino masses, and sizable
60: soft-trilinear couplings. In this scenario, all soft supersymmetry
61: breaking parameters at the unification scale can be smaller than
62: 400 GeV and all the superpartners can be lighter than 400 GeV and
63: still satisfy all the limits from direct searches for superpartners
64: and also the limit on the Higgs mass. The lightest supersymmetric
65: particle is gravitino or a sizable mixture of bino, wino and
66: higgsino. We also consider a possible contributions from additional
67: messengers in vector-like representations, and a contribution from
68: gravity mediation, which is estimated to be comparable. }
69:
70:
71: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
72: %\keywords{Gauge Messengers, GUT, Little Hierarchy Problem}
73: %\keywords{Gauge Mediation, MSSM}
74: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
75:
76: \begin{document}
77:
78: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
79: \section{Introduction}
80: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
81:
82: Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM) is one of the most
83: promising candidates for physics beyond the standard model. Gauge
84: coupling unification, radiative electroweak symmetry breaking (EWSB)
85: and the lightest supersymmetric particle (LSP) as a candidate for
86: dark matter in the presence of R-parity indicate that MSSM might be
87: the correct description of physics above the EW scale.
88:
89: A natural explanation of EWSB being triggered by SUSY breaking
90: requires the SUSY breaking scale to be near the EW scale. However,
91: we have not observed any superparticles yet. Moreover, the Higgs
92: quartic coupling in the MSSM is solely determined by gauge
93: couplings, which gives a definite prediction for the physical Higgs
94: mass. At tree level it is lower than the Z boson mass ($M_Z \simeq
95: 91$ GeV),
96: %
97: \bea m_h & \le & M_Z |\cos 2\beta|, \label{eq:mh_tree} \eea where
98: $\tan \beta =
99: %
100: v_u/v_d$ is the ratio of the vacuum expectation values (VEVs) of
101: $H_u$ and $H_d$. The dominant one loop correction
102: \cite{Okada:1990vk} \cite{Haber:1990aw} \cite{Ellis:1990nz} , in
103: case the stop mixing parameter is small, depends only
104: logarithmically on stop masses and it has to be large in order to
105: push the Higgs mass above the LEP limit, 114.4 GeV. A two loop
106: calculation (we use {\it FeynHiggs
107: 2.4.1}~\cite{Heinemeyer:1998yj,Heinemeyer:1998np} with $m_t = 172.5$
108: GeV) reveals the stop masses have to be $\gsim 900$ GeV.
109:
110: This constraint has a direct drawback in the electroweak symmetry
111: breaking. The mass of the Z boson (or the EW scale), determined by
112: minimizing the Higgs potential, is related to the supersymmetric
113: Higgs mass parameter $\mu$ and the soft SUSY breaking mass squared
114: parameter for $H_u$ as (for $\tan \beta \ge 5$) \bea \f{M_Z^2}{2} &
115: \simeq & -\mu^2 (M_Z) - m_{H_u}^2 (M_Z). \label{eq:MZ} \eea The
116: large stop mass affects the running of $m_{H_u}^2$, \bea \delta
117: m_{H_u}^2 & \simeq & -\f{3}{4\pi^2} m_{\tilde{t}}^2 \log
118: \f{\Lambda}{m_{\tilde{t}}}. \label{eq:del_mhu} \eea and, since for
119: $\Lambda \sim M_{\rm GUT} \sim 10^{16}$ GeV the loop suppression
120: times large log is of order one, we find
121: %
122: \bea \delta m_{H_u}^2 & \sim & - m_{\tilde{t}}^2. \nn \eea
123: %
124: Comparing it with Eq.~(\ref{eq:MZ}) we immediately see that we need
125: a miraculous cancelation between $m_{H_u}^2$ and $\mu^2$ to obtain
126: the right $M_Z$ for $m_{\tilde{t}} \gsim 900$ GeV. One possibility
127: to keep $\mu$ of order $M_Z$ is to start with large enough
128: $m_{H_u}^2$ at the GUT scale to cancel the large log correction
129: $-m_{\tilde{t}}^2$ in which case the fine tuning is hidden in the
130: boundary condition for $m_{H_u}^2$. This is the so called ``little
131: hierarchy problem".
132:
133: The situation highly improves when considering large mixing in the
134: stop sector. The mixing is controlled by the ratio of $A_t - \mu
135: \cot \beta$ and $m_{\tilde{t}}$, where $A_t$ is the soft SUSY
136: breaking top trilinear coupling. Since we consider parameter space
137: where $\mu$ is small to avoid fine tuning and $\tan \beta \gsim 5$
138: in order to maximize the tree level Higgs mass~(\ref{eq:mh_tree}),
139: the mixing is simply given by $A_t / m_{\tilde{t}}$. The Higgs mass
140: is maximized for $A_t(M_Z) / m_{\tilde{t}} (M_Z) \simeq \pm
141: \sqrt{6}$ and with such a mixing the limit on the Higgs mass can be
142: satisfied with much lower stop masses, $m_{\tilde{t}} (M_Z)
143: \lesssim 300$ GeV. Therefore in this ``maximal mixing scenario"
144: (scenario where mixing in the stop sector is such that the Higgs
145: mass is maximized) the fine tuning in EWSB is highly alleviated.
146: However it is very non-trivial to realize this scenario in models,
147: since it usually requires very large $A_t$ at the GUT scale, several
148: times larger than other soft SUSY breaking parameters. The maximal
149: mixing scenario and its possible realization in models will be
150: discussed in more detail in Sec.~\ref{sec:max_mixing}.
151:
152: A simple way of achieving close to maximal mixing was recently
153: suggested in \cite{Dermisek:2006ey}. If we allow negative stop
154: masses squared at the GUT scale several interesting things happen
155: simultaneously. First of all, unless $m_{\tilde{t}}$ is too large
156: compared to $M_3$ it will run to positive values at the EW scale. At
157: the same time the contribution to $m_{H_u}^2$ from the energy
158: interval where $m_{\tilde{t}}^2 <0 $ partially or even exactly
159: cancels the contribution from the energy interval where
160: $m_{\tilde{t}}^2 >0 $, see Eq.~(\ref{eq:del_mhu}), and so the EW
161: scale value of $m_{H_u}^2$ can be arbitrarily close to the starting
162: value at $M_{GUT}$. No cancelation between initial value of
163: $m_{H_u}^2$ (or $\mu$) and the contribution from the running is
164: required. And finally, the stop mixing is typically much larger than
165: in the case with positive stop masses squared. It turns out that in
166: the region where $m_{H_u}^2$ gets negligible contribution from
167: running, the radiatively generated stop mixing is close to maximal
168: even when starting with negligible mixing at the GUT scale. Since in
169: principle this scenario can eliminate fine tuning of EWSB
170: completely, it is desirable to see how close to the radiatively
171: generated maximal mixing scenario one can get in specific models.
172:
173: In this paper we study gauge mediation of SUSY breaking in SU(5)
174: supersymmetric grand unified theory (SUSY GUT) with an adjoint
175: chiral multiplet and massive components of vector (gauge) multiplet
176: playing the role of messengers. The soft susy breaking parameters in
177: this ``gauge messenger model" are similar to those discussed in
178: \cite{Dermisek:2006ey} which were shown to lead to maximal mixing
179: scenario for the Higgs mass. The characteristic features are:
180: negative and non-universal squark and slepton masses squared at the
181: GUT scale, non-universal gaugino masses, $|M_1| > |M_2| > |M_3|$,
182: and sizable soft-trilinear couplings. Besides gauge messengers, we
183: also consider a possible contributions from additional messengers in
184: vector-like representations, e.g. $5$ and $\bar{5}$ of SU(5).
185: Finally, since the messenger scale is the GUT scale, and the gauge
186: mediation is a one loop effect, the naively estimated size of
187: gravity mediation induced by non-renormalizable operators
188: (suppressed by $M_{\rm Pl}$) is comparable to the contribution from
189: gauge mediation. A combination of gauge mediation (with gauge and
190: vector-like messengers) with gravity mediation opens completely new
191: possibilities for model building. We show that already some of the
192: simplest models lead to close to maximal mixing scenario for the
193: Higgs mass and highly reduce the fine tuning of electroweak symmetry
194: breaking. The SUSY spectrum is very different from other scenarios
195: typically used for collider studies. All superpartners can be within
196: 400 GeV with relatively light stop, $m_{{\tilde t}_1}\gsim 150$,
197: while satisfying all experimental limits, including the limit on the
198: Higgs mass. The lightest supersymmetric particle (LSP) is gravitino
199: and the next to the lightest supersymmetric particle (NLSP)
200: is neutralino, sneutrino, stau or stop
201: in most of the parameter space.
202:
203: We note that gauge messenger model has been considered in very early
204: stages of MSSM history. After the work on inverted mass
205: hierarchy~\cite{Witten:1981kv}, ``geometric hierarchy model" has
206: been constructed in~\cite{Dimopoulos:1982gm} and soft scalar masses
207: have been calculated in \cite{Kaplunovsky:1983yx}.{\footnote{See
208: also more recent attempts to break GUT symmetry and SUSY by the same
209: field in \cite{Agashe:1998kg} \cite{Agashe:2000ay}.}} In this model
210: the SUSY breaking scale is an intermediate scale and the messenger
211: scale is the GUT scale. The explicit SUSY breaking model they
212: considered has light (TeV scale) adjoint chiral superfields under
213: the standard model gauge group and the gauge couplings unify at a
214: scale beyond the Planck scale, $10^{20}$ GeV. We do not consider a
215: specific model of SUSY breaking (although we assume it happens at
216: the GUT scale). We only address the mediation of SUSY breaking.
217: Therefore, we treat the number of fields in a model as discrete
218: parameters and focus on minimal models with smaller number of
219: fields.
220:
221: This paper is organized as follows. In Sec.~\ref{sec:max_mixing} we
222: discuss the maximal mixing scenario as a possible solution to the
223: little hierarchy problem, and a possibility of it being generated
224: radiatively without introducing large soft-trilinear couplings at
225: the GUT scale. In Sec.~\ref{sec:GMM} we present a gauge messenger
226: model and briefly discuss possible contribution from gravity mediation
227: of SUSY breaking.
228: The results are given
229: in Sec.~\ref{sec:results} together with discussion of phenomenology.
230: We conclude in Sec.~\ref{sec:conclusions}. For convenience we summarize formulae
231: necessary to derive soft SUSY breaking parameters from gauge
232: messenger models in the Appendix~\ref{sec:softterms}, and we discuss
233: different possibilities for gravity mediated contributions in more detail in the
234: Appendix~\ref{sec:gravity}.
235:
236: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
237: \section{Maximal mixing scenario -- a solution to the fine tuning problem \label{sec:max_mixing}}
238: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
239:
240: As mentioned in the Introduction, the physical Higgs boson mass
241: receives an additional contribution from stop mixing
242: \cite{Ellis:1991zd}, \bea m_h^2 & \simeq & M_Z^2 \cos^2 2\beta +
243: \f{3G_F m_t^4}{\sqrt{2} \pi^2} \left\{ \log
244: \f{m_{\tilde{t}}^2}{m_t^2} + \f{A_t^2}{m_{\tilde{t}}^2}
245: (1-\f{A_t^2}{12 m_{\tilde{t}}^2} ) \right\}. \label{eq:mh_mix} \eea
246: The last term has a maximum at $|A_t/m_{\tilde{t}}| = \sqrt{6}$
247: which corresponds to the maximal mixing scenario. In this case the
248: stop can be lighter, $m_{\tilde{t}}$ (maximal mixing) $ = e^{-3/2}
249: m_{\tilde{t}}$ (no mixing), and it can be as light as 250 $\sim$ 300
250: GeV while fulfilling the physical Higgs mass bound from the LEP.
251:
252: Instead of using Eq.~(\ref{eq:del_mhu}) as a rough estimate of the
253: contribution of stop mass to the running of $m_{H_u}^2$ it is
254: instructive to be more precise. For given $\tan \beta$ we can solve
255: RG equations exactly and express EW values of $m_{H_u}^2$,
256: %$m_{H_d}^2$ and
257: $\mu^2$, and consequently $M_Z^2$ given by Eq. (\ref{eq:MZ}), as
258: functions of all GUT scale parameters. For $\tan \beta =10$, we
259: have:
260: \bea M_Z^2 & \simeq & -1.9 \mu^2 + 5.9 M_3^2 -1.2 m_{H_u}^2 + 1.5 m_{\tilde{t}}^2
261: - 0.8 A_t M_3 + 0.2 A_t^2 + \cdots,
262: % - 0.4 M_2^2 + 0.4 M_3 M_2 + \cdots,
263: \label{eq:MZ_gut} \eea where parameters appearing on the right-hand
264: side are the GUT scale parameters, we do not write the scale
265: explicitly. Other scalar masses and $M_1$ and $M_2$ appear with
266: negligible coefficients and we neglect them in our discussion. The
267: coefficients in this expression depend only on $\tan \beta$ (they do
268: not change dramatically when varying $\tan \beta$ between 5 and 50)
269: and $\log (M_{GUT}/M_Z)$.
270:
271: Let us also express the EW scale values of stop mass squared, gluino
272: mass and top trilinear coupling for $\tan \beta = 10$ in a similar
273: way: \bea
274: m_{\tilde{t}}^2 (M_Z) & \simeq & 5.0 M_3^2 + 0.6 m_{\tilde{t}}^2 + 0.2 A_t M_3 \label{eq:mstop_gut} \\
275: M_3 (M_Z) & \simeq & 3 M_3 \label{eq:M3_gut} \\
276: A_t (M_Z) & \simeq & - 2.3 M_3 + 0.2 A_t. \label{eq:At_gut} \eea In
277: the case of $m_{\tilde{t}}$ the coefficients represent averages of
278: exact coefficients that would appear in separate expressions for $
279: m_{\tilde{t}_L}^2$ and $m_{\tilde{t}_R}^2$.
280:
281: From Eqs.~(\ref{eq:MZ_gut}), (\ref{eq:mstop_gut}) and
282: (\ref{eq:M3_gut}), we see the usual expectation from SUSY, $M_Z
283: \simeq m_{\tilde{t}_{1,2}} \simeq m_{\tilde{g}}$, when all the soft
284: SUSY breaking parameters are comparable. Furthermore, neglecting
285: terms proportional to $A_t$ in Eqs.~(\ref{eq:At_gut}) and
286: (\ref{eq:mstop_gut}) we find that a typical stop mixing is \bea
287: \left|\f{A_t}{m_{\tilde{t}}} \right| (M_Z) & \simeq & \f{2.3
288: M_3}{\sqrt{5.0 M_3^2 + 0.6 m_{\tilde{t}}^2}} \lesssim 1.0,
289: \label{eq:Atovermstop} \eea and comparing it with
290: Eqs.~(\ref{eq:mh_mix}) we see that such a mixing only negligibly
291: affects the mass of the Higgs boson. Due to the washout effect, see
292: Eq.~(\ref{eq:At_gut}), a large mixing can be achieved only for
293: $|A_t| \gg |M_3|, m_{\tilde{t}}$ at the GUT scale for opposite sign
294: of $A_t$ compared to $M_3$, or even larger $A_t$ for the same
295: sign.\footnote{Extremely large $A_t$ in the case of the same sign as
296: $M_3$ contributes significantly to the running of $m_{\tilde{t}}$
297: and consequently to the running of $m_{H_u}$. Therefore, $A_t \simeq
298: m_{\tilde{t}} \simeq m_{H_u} \gg M_Z$ is required and the EW scale
299: is a result of large cancelations.} This is the reason why it is
300: very difficult to build a model leading to the maximal mixing
301: scenario.
302:
303: Although the boundary condition for $m_{\tilde{t}}$ in the above
304: discussion does not seem to be very important (it is mostly the
305: gluino that drives the evolution of stop and thus $m_{H_u}^2$, and
306: sets the mixing) it turns out that when considering negative stop
307: masses squared it starts playing a major role as discussed recently
308: in Ref.~\cite{Dermisek:2006ey}. In spite of negative stop masses
309: squared being somewhat suspicious, from Eq.~(\ref{eq:mstop_gut}) we
310: see that unless $m_{\tilde{t}}$ is too large compared to $M_3$ it
311: will run to positive values at the EW scale. At the same time,
312: however, the contribution to $m_{H_u}^2$ from the energy interval
313: where $m_{\tilde{t}}^2 <0 $ partially or even exactly cancels the
314: contribution from the energy interval where $m_{\tilde{t}}^2 >0 $
315: and so the EW scale value of $m_{H_u}^2$ can be arbitrarily close to
316: the starting value at $M_{GUT}$. From Eq.~(\ref{eq:MZ_gut}) we see
317: that this happens for $m_{\tilde{t}}^2 \simeq - 4 M_3^2$ (neglecting
318: $A_t$). No cancelation between initial value of $m_{H_u}^2$ (or
319: $\mu$) and the contribution from the running is required, the
320: electroweak scale is not sensitive to masses of colored particles in
321: this case, and the situation when $M_Z \ll m_{\tilde{t}_{1,2}}
322: \simeq m_{\tilde{g}}$ can be achieved without any fine tuning
323: (provided there exists a model which generates negative stop masses
324: squared and sets the ratio of gluino mass and the stop mass
325: approximately to the required value). And finally, from
326: Eqs.~(\ref{eq:mstop_gut}) and (\ref{eq:At_gut}), or from
327: Eq.~(\ref{eq:Atovermstop}), we see that the stop mixing is typically
328: quite large. Unlike in the case with positive stop masses squared
329: where mixing is typically less than one, in the case with negative
330: stop masses squared it is typically greater than one, and it can be
331: easily even maximal. The maximal mixing scenario
332: can be entirely generated radiatively starting
333: with no mixing at the GUT scale.
334:
335: Very large $A_t$ term may cause dangerous color and/or charge
336: breaking minimum to appear at around the EW vacuum. Considering
337: cosmology, in order not to tunnel within the age of universe, the
338: empirical bound is~\cite{Kusenko:1996jn} \cite{Kusenko:1996xt} \bea
339: |A_t|^2 (M_Z)+ 3 \mu^2 (M_Z) \lesssim 7.5 (m_{\tilde{t}_L}^2 (M_Z) +
340: m_{\tilde{t}_R}^2 (M_Z)), \eea which is much weaker than the
341: condition for the EW vacuum to be the global minimum, $|A_t|^2 (M_Z)
342: + 3\mu^2 (M_Z) \lesssim 3(m_{\tilde{t}_L}^2 (M_Z) +
343: m_{\tilde{t}_R}^2 (M_Z))$ \cite{Casas:1995pd}. Certainly the maximal
344: mixing value is within the empirical bound and it is safe from the
345: constraints of the CCB minima.
346:
347: \subsection{Large (maximal) mixing in models}
348:
349: Since the radiatively
350: generated maximal mixing scenario can in
351: principle eliminate fine tuning of EWSB
352: completely, it is desirable to see
353: whether it is possible to get even close to it
354: in specific models.
355:
356: It is easy to see that this solution does not exist in mSUGRA. As a
357: consequence of universalities in gaugino and scalar masses, when
358: stop mass squared is negative enough to generate maximal stop mixing
359: at the EW scale radiatively, sleptons remain tachyonic even at the
360: EW scale because the bino contribution to the running of slepton
361: masses is small. The EW scale slepton mass is $m_{\tilde{e}_R}^2
362: \simeq m_0^2 + 0.15 M_{1/2}^2$ \cite{Feng:2005ba}. Imposing the
363: slepton mass bound 100 GeV gives the following inequality \bea m_0^2
364: & \ge & \left\{ -(0.4)^2 + (\f{100~{\rm GeV}}{M_{1/2}})^2 \right\}
365: M_{1/2}^2 . \eea The largest (negative) ratio of $m_0^2$ and
366: $M_{1/2}^2$ is achieved in the limit $M_{1/2} \to \infty$ (taking
367: aside all the naturalness criteria) and even in this case it is only
368: $m_0^2 \simeq -(0.4)^2 M_{1/2}^2$ which makes negligible difference
369: in the generated mixing at the EW scale, see
370: Eq.~(\ref{eq:Atovermstop}). The maximal mixing solution can be
371: achieved only when either gaugino masses are not universal at the
372: GUT scale (bino should be heavier than gluino at the GUT scale) or
373: scalar masses are not universal (sleptons are less negative than
374: stops).
375:
376: Usual gauge mediation \cite{Dine:1993yw} \cite{Dine:1994vc}
377: \cite{Dine:1995ag}
378: shares a common problem with mSUGRA due to its
379: hierarchical spectrum at the weak scale. Gluino is almost 6 $\sim$ 7
380: times heavier than bino and squarks are much heavier than sleptons.
381: Anomaly mediation \cite{Randall:1998uk} \cite{Giudice:1998xp}
382: also has a huge hierarchy in the EW scale
383: spectrum and gluino is 10 times heavier than wino.
384:
385: Recently proposed ``mirage mediation" or ``modulus-anomaly mixed
386: mediation"
387: \cite{Choi:2004sx} \cite{Choi:2005ge} \cite{Choi:2005uz} \cite{Endo:2005uy}
388: \cite{Falkowski:2005ck} \cite{Choi:2005hd} \cite{Kitano:2005wc}
389: \cite{Lebedev:2005ge} partially fulfills the criteria listed above.
390: In the most interesting $\alpha =2$ scenario of mirage mediation
391: \cite{Choi:2005uz} \cite{Choi:2005hd} \cite{Kitano:2005wc}, the
392: mirage scale is at TeV and the spectrum is more or less degenerate.
393: In this case, squarks and sleptons are tachyonic except stop and
394: $H_u$ at the GUT scale and gaugino masses are non-universal at the
395: GUT scale with the aid of anomaly mediation. The fine tuning in this
396: model is highly reduced due to cancelation of RG running effects
397: with anomaly mediation contribution. The stop mixing is predicted to
398: be large but not close to the maximal, $|A_t/m_{\tilde{t}}| \sim
399: 1.4$. The $\alpha = 2$ mirage mediation might be an alternative
400: solution to the little hierarchy problem although the supersymmetry
401: spectrum (except Higgs) can be at around TeV which is $4\pi$ times
402: heavier than $M_Z$. There are several common features between mirage
403: mediation and gauge messenger model considered in this paper though
404: the origin of supersymmetry breaking is very different.
405:
406: In the next section we present a model of mediation of SUSY breaking
407: which leads to close to maximal mixing scenario while all the SUSY
408: breaking parameters at the GUT scale and also physical masses of
409: all superpartners can be $\lesssim 400$ GeV.
410:
411: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
412: \section{Gauge Messenger Model \label{sec:GMM}}
413: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
414:
415: Let us consider $N=1$ SU(5) supersymmetric grand unified theory (SUSY
416: GUT). The $N=1$ vector multiplet $V$ transforms as an adjoint
417: of SU(5), the three generations of matter fields are in chiral
418: multiplets, $3 \times (10+\bar{5})$, and the Higgs fields are in $5 +\bar{5}$.
419: Besides these, we also introduce an adjoint chiral multiplet $\Sigma$,
420: and we assume that both its scalar component, which we also denote $\Sigma$,
421: and the auxiliary component, $F_{\Sigma}$, get vacuum expectation values.
422: The VEV of $F_{\Sigma}$ breaks SUSY and the SUSY breaking is communicated
423: to gauginos, squarks and sleptons through gauge interactions.
424: The massive components of the gauge multiplet $V$ and $\Sigma$ play the role of
425: messengers. This is the minimal field content we consider.
426: In this case, the beta function coefficient
427: of the unified gauge coupling is $b_G = 3$ and all soft SUSY breaking parameters
428: at the GUT scale are calculable in terms of $b_G$ and the unified gauge coupling.
429:
430: It is also possible to extend the messenger sector and introduce,
431: for example, a pair of usual messenger fields $\Phi$ and $\Phi^c$ in $5$
432: and $\bar{5}$ representations of SU(5). Additional messengers also change the
433: beta function coefficient, $b_G = 3$ and the spectrum is in general given
434: in terms of the number of messengers, $N_{\rm mess}$, and $b_G$.
435:
436: Therefore, in this scenario
437: the mediation of supersymmetry breaking is a combination of two
438: effects:
439: \begin{itemize}
440: \item Gauge messenger contribution:
441:
442: X and Y gauge bosons and gauginos contribute to the soft
443: supersymmetry breaking terms. They become massive by the VEV of $\Sigma$
444: and gaugino masses get split due to $F_\Sigma$. Therefore, the
445: messenger scale is the GUT scale.
446: The ratio $| \f{F_{\Sigma}}{\Sigma} |$ governs the common overall scale
447: of soft SUSY breaking parameters given by gauge messengers.
448: For convenience, we introduce $M_{\rm SUSY}$ defined as:
449: \bea M_{\rm SUSY} & = & \f{\alpha_{\rm GUT}}{4\pi} \left|
450: \f{F_{\Sigma}}{\Sigma} \right|,
451: \label{eq:MSUSY}
452: \eea
453: which we use in expressions for all soft SUSY breaking parameters.
454:
455: \item Matter messenger contribution:
456:
457: If the additional vector-like messengers $\Phi$ and $\Phi^c$ couple
458: to $\Sigma$, \bea W & = & \Phi \Sigma \Phi^c, \eea they also
459: contribute to the soft SUSY breaking terms.\footnote{In principle it
460: is possible to introduce an additional singlet superfield, whose $F$
461: component is non-zero, and which couples to the vector-like matter
462: messengers. However, we consider only the minimal version in which
463: $\Phi$ and $\Phi^c$ couple to the adjoint $\Sigma$ by which gauge
464: messengers got their mass splitting.} The matter messengers also
465: become massive by $\Sigma$ VEV and mass splitting is given by
466: $F_{\Sigma}$. The same $M_{\rm SUSY}$ governs the common overall
467: scale of soft SUSY breaking parameters given by the matter
468: messengers.
469:
470:
471: \end{itemize}
472:
473: The soft SUSY breaking parameters at the GUT scale (messenger scale)
474: can be calculated by the powerful and convenient technique, so
475: called ``analytic continuation into superspace"
476: \cite{Giudice:1997ni} \cite{Arkani-Hamed:1998kj}. The results are
477: derived in the Appendix~\ref{sec:softterms}, here we only summarize them.
478:
479: Gaugino masses at the GUT scale ($\alpha_i = \alpha_{\rm GUT}$) are
480: (Eq.~(\ref{eq:gaugino})): \bea M_i & = & \left[ -2(5-N_{C_i}) +
481: N_{\rm mess} \right] M_{\rm SUSY}, \nn \eea where $N_{C_i}$ is the
482: number of colors of the gauge group $SU(N_{C_i})$.
483: More explicitly , \bea M_3 & = & (-4+ N_{\rm mess})
484: ˆM_{\rm SUSY} \label{eq:M3}, \\
485: M_2 & = & (-6 + N_{\rm mess})
486: M_{\rm SUSY}, \\
487: M_1 & = & (-10 + N_{\rm mess}) M_{\rm SUSY}. \label{eq:M1} \eea In
488: the minimal messenger model ($N_{\rm mess} =0$), the gaugino masses
489: at the messenger scale (the GUT scale) are \bea
490: M_3 & = & -4 M_{\rm SUSY}, \\
491: M_2 & = & -6 M_{\rm SUSY}, \\
492: M_1 & = & -10M_{\rm SUSY}. \eea Note that $|M_1| > |M_2| >
493: |M_3|$ at the GUT scale ($|M_1| : |M_2| : |M_3| = 2.5 : 1.5 : 1$).
494: As a result of RG evolution, at the weak scale we find
495: $|M_1(M_Z)| : |M_2(M_Z)| : |M_3(M_Z)| \sim 1 : 1 : 2$.
496: This is quite different from scenarios with the universal gaugino masses at the GUT scale which
497: lead to gluino about 7 times heavier than bino at the EW scale.
498:
499: Soft mass squared parameters for squarks and sleptons at the GUT
500: scale with $N_{\rm mess} =0$ are given as (see
501: Eq.~(\ref{eq:scalars})): \bea m_{\phi}^2 & = & \left( -2 \sum_i~
502: c_i~ b_{X_i} + 2 \Delta c_{\phi} ~ b_G \right) M_{\rm SUSY}^2, \eea
503: where $\Delta c = c_5 - \sum_{i=1}^3 c_i$ and $c_5, c_i$ are the
504: quadratic casimirs of $\phi$ field under $SU(5)$ and standard model
505: gauge groups, and $b_{X_i}$ are the contributions of messenger
506: fields to the beta function coefficient. Detailed expression is
507: given in the Appendix~\ref{sec:softterms}. When there are additional
508: chiral messengers, we would obtain (well known) additional gauge
509: mediation contribution \cite{Giudice:1998bp}. Explicit expressions
510: for squark and slepton masses at the GUT scale are given as : \bea
511: m_Q^2 & = & (-20 +3 b_G +\f{21}{10} N_{\rm mess} ) M_{\rm SUSY}^2,
512: \\
513: m_{u^c}^2 & = & (-16 + 4 b_G + \f{8}{5} N_{\rm mess} ) M_{\rm
514: SUSY}^2,
515: \\
516: m_{d^c}^2 & = & (-12 + 2 b_G + \f{7}{5} N_{\rm mess} ) M_{\rm
517: SUSY}^2,
518: \\
519: m_L^2 & = & (-12 + 3 b_G + \f{9}{10} N_{\rm mess} ) M_{\rm SUSY}^2,
520: \\
521: m_{e^c}^2 & = & (-12 + 6 b_G + \f{3}{5} N_{\rm mess} ) M_{\rm
522: SUSY}^2,
523: \\
524: m_{H_u,H_d}^2 & = & (-12 + 3 b_G + \f{9}{10} N_{\rm mess} ) M_{\rm
525: SUSY}^2. š\eea In the minimal case ($N_{\rm mess} =
526: 0$), expressions are simplified : \bea m_Q^2 & = & (-20 +3 b_G)
527: M_{\rm SUSY}^2,
528: \\
529: m_{u^c}^2 & = & (-16 + 4 b_G) M_{\rm SUSY}^2,
530: \\
531: m_{d^c}^2 & = & (-12 + 2 b_G) M_{\rm SUSY}^2,
532: \\
533: m_L^2 & = & (-12 + 3 b_G) M_{\rm SUSY}^2,
534: \\
535: m_{e^c}^2 & = & (-12 + 6 b_G) M_{\rm SUSY}^2,
536: \\
537: m_{H_u,H_d}^2 & = & (-12 + 3 b_G ) M_{\rm SUSY}^2.
538: š\eea
539:
540: Soft tri-linear terms are also calculated by adding individual
541: contributions from three fields involved (Eq.~(\ref{eq:aterm})),
542: \bea A_{ijk} & = & A_i +
543: A_j + A_k, \\
544: A_{\phi_i} & = & 2 \Delta c_{\phi_i} M_{\rm SUSY}. \eea More
545: explicitly, \bea
546: A_t & = & 10 M_{\rm SUSY}, \\
547: A_b & = & 8 M_{\rm SUSY}, \\
548: A_{\tau} & = & 12 M_{\rm SUSY}. \eea The same result is given to the
549: first and the second generation soft tri-linear terms as it just
550: depends on gauge charges. Matter messengers ($N_{\rm mess} \neq 0$)
551: do not affect the boundary condition of soft tri-linear terms as in
552: usual gauge mediation.
553:
554: Negative sign in gaugino masses is absorbed by $U(1)_R$ symmetry
555: rotation. $A$ and $\mu$ terms change sign accordingly. Thus, we
556: choose the convention of $M_3 > 0$ in which $A < 0$ for $N_{\rm
557: mess} \le 4$.
558:
559: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
560: \subsection{Characteristic Features}
561: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
562:
563: Gauge messenger models are very predictive, since the soft SUSY breaking
564: parameters are calculable in terms of $M_{\rm SUSY}$
565: and gauge quantum numbers of
566: fields involved. The pattern of soft SUSY breaking terms is unique and
567: distinctively different from other models. The most striking features are:
568: \begin{itemize}
569:
570: \item Non-universal gaugino masses at the GUT scale:
571: \bea
572: M_1 & > & M_2 > M_3 \nn
573: \eea
574: The gaugino masses are non-universal even at the GUT scale though we
575: started from the GUT models. It is the most interesting feature of
576: the gauge messenger model. Furthermore, bino (and wino) is heavier
577: than gluino at the GUT scale and the three gauginos have a tendency of
578: gathering at the EW scale due to the usual running behavior of
579: gauge couplings.
580:
581: \item (Non-universal) Negative squarks and sleptons masses squared at the GUT scale:
582:
583: Gauge messenger contribution alone typically leads to the squarks
584: and sleptons tachyonic at the GUT scale. However, this does not rule
585: out the theory and just imply that we might live in a meta-stable
586: vacuum rather than the true vacuum. From the discussion of fine
587: tuning we learned that it actually might be more natural to live in
588: a meta-stable vacuum. For $0 \le b_G \le 3$, which is the case in
589: realistic models due to a non-minimal content, squarks are even more
590: negative, $|m_{\tilde{q}}^2| > |m_{\tilde{l}}^2|$, $m_{\tilde{q}}^2
591: < 0$, $m_{\tilde{l}}^2 < 0$.
592:
593: \item Sizable $A$ -- terms:
594:
595: Large $A$ -- terms is one of the unique feature of gauge
596: messenger models which is absent in the usual gauge mediation. In usual
597: gauge mediation, the soft tri-linear terms at the messenger scale are
598: zero and are generated only by RG running.
599: Here $A_t$ is sizable and it will help to achieve close to maximal mixing
600: scenario.
601:
602: \end{itemize}
603:
604:
605: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
606: \subsection{Contribution from Gravity Mediation}
607: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
608:
609: Since the messenger scale is the GUT scale, and the gauge mediation
610: is a one loop effect, the naively estimated size of gravity
611: mediation induced by non-renormalizable operators (suppressed by
612: $M_{\rm Pl}$) is comparable to the contribution from gauge
613: mediation. The typical scale of gauge mediation is $M_{\rm SUSY}$,
614: given in Eq.~(\ref{eq:MSUSY}), and the typical size of gravity
615: mediation is $ m_{3/2} = \left|\f{F}{\sqrt{3} M_{\rm Pl}}\right|$.
616: Gravity to gauge mediation ratio is then \bea \f{m_{3/2}}{M_{\rm
617: SUSY}} & = & \f{4\pi M_{\rm GUT}}{\sqrt{3} \alpha_{\rm GUT} M_{\rm
618: Pl}} \simeq 1.5. \nn \eea Taking into account group theoretical
619: factors appearing in the formulas for gauge mediation we see that
620: the contribution of gravity mediation is of order 20\% or 30\% of
621: gauge mediation for order one coupling of non-renormalizable
622: operators.
623:
624: There are several ways to deal with the contribution from gravity.
625: It is possible to suppress this contribution entirely, e.g. by
626: raising the cutoff scale of a theory beyond the Planck scale in
627: superconformal frame or by lowering the GUT scale. Alternatively,
628: one can actually use the contribution from gravity to generate the
629: $\mu$ term through the Giudice-Masiero mechanism
630: \cite{Giudice:1988yz}. The contribution from gravity can be also
631: made universal, or sector dependent. Different possibilities for
632: gravity contribution are discussed in detail in
633: Appendix~\ref{sec:gravity}.
634:
635:
636: A combination of gauge messengers with gravity mediation clearly opens an unexplored
637: direction for model building.
638: When we present results in the next section we take a pragmatic approach and consider only the
639: simplest possibilities for the contribution from gravity.
640:
641: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
642: \section{Results: SUSY spectrum, the Higgs mass and the LSP \label{sec:results}}
643: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
644:
645:
646: In this section, we discuss SUSY and Higgs spectra in gauge
647: messenger models. SUSY spectrum is calculated with
648: SoftSusy~\cite{Allanach:2001kg} and for the calculation of the
649: lightest CP even Higgs mass we use {\it FeynHiggs
650: 2.4.1}~\cite{Heinemeyer:1998yj,Heinemeyer:1998np} (with $m_t =
651: 172.5$ GeV). We focus mainly on the minimal scenario of gauge
652: messenger model, $N_{\rm mess} =0$, $b_G = 3$, and only briefly
653: discuss other choices of $N_{\rm mess}$ and $b_G$. Depending on the
654: way gravity mediation contributes to the soft SUSY breaking
655: parameters we distinguish the following cases:
656:
657: \begin{itemize}
658:
659: \item Pure gauge mediation:
660:
661: The model is the most predictive when we assume the gravity
662: contribution is suppressed to a negligible level. The suppression
663: does not have to be huge since gauge mediation already dominates
664: over the gravity mediation. Given the particle content of a model
665: ($N_{\rm mess}$ and $b_G$), a single parameter $M_{\rm SUSY}$
666: determines all the soft SUSY breaking parameters in terms of
667: measured gauge couplings and group theoretical factors. We do not
668: address the origin of $\mu$ and $B\mu$ terms in this case and we
669: treat them as free parameters (as usual, we exchange $B\mu$ for
670: $\tan \beta$).
671:
672: Independent parameters : $M_{\rm SUSY}$, $\mu$ and $\tan \beta$.
673:
674: \item Gauge mediation with gravity contribution in the Higgs sector:
675:
676: In this case we consider that only the Higgs sector gets a sizable
677: contribution from gravity
678: mediation. This opens a possibility of generating the $\mu$ term
679: through Giudice-Masiero mechanism. The soft masses squared of
680: $H_u$, $H_d$, and the $\mu$ and $B\mu$ terms are determined by $m_{3/2}$ with
681: order one couplings.
682:
683: Independent parameters : $M_{\rm SUSY}$, $m_{H_u}^2$, $m_{H_d}^2$,
684: $\mu$ and $\tan \beta$.
685:
686: \item Additional universal gravity contribution to scalar masses:
687:
688: We also consider a possibility of adding
689: universal scalar masses to the two scenarios above. Adding
690: universal scalar masses does not change the spectrum in a crucial way (unless this contribution is huge).
691: However, small addition to scalar masses might change the LSP in some region
692: of parameter space, and consequently be responsible for very different phenomenology.
693:
694: Additional independent parameters: $m_0$.
695:
696: \end{itemize}
697:
698: Finally, we also calculate fine tuning necessary for correct EWSB
699: \cite{Ellis:1986yg} \cite{Barbieri:1987fn}, defined as: \bea
700: \Delta_p \equiv \left| \frac{\partial \ln M_Z }{\partial \ln p}
701: \right|. \eea where $p$ spans over free parameters in a given model.
702: It can be easily estimated from the formula for $M_Z^2$,
703: Eq.~(\ref{eq:MZ_gut}), customized for a given case, e.g. in the case
704: of pure gauge mediation we have \bea M_Z^2 & \simeq & -1.9 \mu^2 +
705: \alpha M_{\rm SUSY}^2, \eea where $\alpha$ depends on $N_{\rm
706: mess}$, $b_G$ and $\tan \beta$. The fine tuning, $\Delta_\mu \simeq
707: \Delta_{M_{\rm SUSY}}$ in this case, gives us the precision with
708: which the two terms have to cancel each other.
709:
710: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
711: \subsection{Pure Gauge Mediation}
712: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
713:
714: Let us start with the case of pure gauge mediation, $N_{\rm mess}
715: =0$ and $b_G = 3$. The absolute value of $\mu$ is fixed by requiring
716: proper EWSB and so only the sign of $\mu$ can be chosen.\footnote{We
717: chose the positive sign of $\mu$ in all results to be in principle
718: consistent with $b \to s \gamma$.}
719: In
720: Fig.~\ref{fig:G_RGrunning} we plot renormalization group running of
721: soft SUSY breaking parameters for a particular choice of $M_{\rm
722: SUSY}$ and $\tan \beta$ which leads to some of the lightest SUSY
723: spectrum possible given the current experimental bound on SUSY and
724: Higgs particles. The detailed information about this point is given
725: in the first column of Table~\ref{tab:points}. Varying $\tan \beta$
726: does not qualitatively change results and increasing $M_{\rm SUSY}$
727: scales the whole spectrum up.
728: %
729: \begin{figure}[t]
730: \begin{center}
731: % \subfigure[]{
732: \epsfig{figure=G__03higgs.EPS,width=7.cm}
733: % }
734: % \subfigure[]{
735: \epsfig{figure=G__03smatter.EPS,width=7.cm}
736: % }
737: \end{center}
738: \vspace{-0.5cm}
739: \caption{ \label{fig:G_RGrunning}
740: Renormalization group running of soft SUSY breaking parameters for pure gauge mediation,
741: $N_{\rm mess} =0$ and $b_G = 3$, with
742: $M_{\rm SUSY} = 37~{\rm GeV}$ and $\tan \beta = 23$. On the left:
743: evolution of gaugino masses, $A_t$, and stop and Higgs soft masses.
744: On the right: evolution of squark and slepton masses of the third generation (solid lines)
745: and the first two generations (dashed lines).
746: In order to have both mass dimension one and two parameters on the same plot
747: and keep information about signs, we define $m_{H_u} \equiv
748: m_{H_u}^2/\sqrt{|m_{H_u}^2|} $ and similarly for other scalar masses.
749: }
750: \end{figure}
751: %
752:
753: The plot in Fig.~\ref{fig:G_RGrunning} is unlike anything we are familiar with from other
754: models of SUSY breaking.
755: None of the soft SUSY breaking parameters at the GUT scale is larger than 400 GeV and
756: none of the superpartner is heavier than 400 GeV, and yet all the limits
757: from direct searches for SUSY particles and also the limit on the Higgs mass are satisfied.
758: %
759: \begin{figure}[t]
760: \begin{center}
761: %\subfigure[Simple Gauge Messenger]
762: %{
763: \epsfig{figure=finebound_feyn_G.EPS, width=12cm}
764: %}
765: %\subfigure[Simple Gauge Messenger + nonuniversal Higgs]
766: %{\epsfig{figure=finebound_feyn_GH.EPS, width=7cm}}
767: \end{center}
768: \vspace{-1.cm}
769: \caption{ \label{fig:Gspace}
770: Allowed region of parameter space and the degree of fine tuning in
771: the $M_{\rm SUSY}-\tan \beta$ plane for pure gauge mediation,
772: $N_{\rm mess} =0$ and $b_G = 3$.
773: The shaded regions are excluded by direct searches for SUSY and Higgs particles.
774: We use the limits on the mass of the
775: lightest Higgs boson, $m_{h_0} > 114.4~{\rm GeV}$, the lightest stop,
776: $m_{\tilde{t}} > 95.7~{\rm GeV}$, the lightest stau,
777: $m_{\tilde{\tau}} > 81.9~{\rm GeV}$, and the lightest chargino,
778: $m_{\chi^{\pm}} > 117~{\rm GeV}$.
779: The region denoted as ``tachyon" is excluded due to tachyonic spectrum.
780: The black dashed line separates regions where sneutrino or stau is NLSP.
781: }
782: \end{figure}
783: %
784: Squark and slepton masses squared start negative at the GUT scale
785: (except right-handed sleptons, in this case)
786: and are driven to positive values by gaugino masses.
787: First two generations of squarks and sleptons are somewhat heavier
788: as in scenarios starting with positive scalar masses squared at the GUT scale.
789: Gluino is much lighter than in most models as a result of the hierarchical
790: boundary condition at the GUT scale, $|M_1| > |M_2| > |M_3|$.
791: The soft trilinear coupling, $A_t$ is sizable at the GUT scale,
792: which helps to achieve close to maximal mixing scenario.
793: On the other hand, sizable $A_t$ also contributes to the running
794: of $m_{H_u}^2$ proportional to $-|A_t|^2$, see Eq.~(\ref{eq:MZ_gut}).
795: The smallest possible $\mu$ in this case is about 270 GeV which require about
796: $5 \%$ tuning between $\mu$ and $M_{\rm SUSY}$ to recover the correct $M_Z$.\footnote{The current
797: limit on chargino mass requires $\mu \gsim 150$ GeV. Thus any model which
798: does not relate the $\mu$ term
799: in a calculable way to soft SUSY breaking parameters requires at least 20 \% tuning from $\mu$.}
800:
801: Since there are only two parameters in this model, it is easy to
802: explore the whole parameter space. In Fig.~\ref{fig:Gspace} we show
803: allowed parameter space in $M_{\rm SUSY}$ -- $\tan \beta$ plane,
804: together with regions excluded by direct searches for SUSY and Higgs
805: particles. Moderate to large $\tan \beta$ is allowed and, as usual,
806: as small $M_{\rm SUSY}$ which still satisfies the limit on the Higgs
807: mass is preferred by naturalness. In most region of the parameter
808: space sneutrino is NLSP for small tan beta (gravitino is the LSP)
809: and stau is NSLP for large tan beta
810: due to large mixing of the left and right-handed stau.
811: %\footnote{Sizable mixture of bino with higgsino/wino gives the
812: %right amount of thermal relic density for dark matter when $\mu$,
813: %$M_1$ and $M_2$ are of order 100 GeV. In addition the cross section
814: %for the direct detection is larger compared to bino LSP and give
815: %better chance to detect them.}
816: A representative point from this
817: region is given in the first (stau NLSP) and the third column (sneutrino NLSP)
818: of Table~\ref{tab:points}.
819: As we will discuss later, small contributions from gravity mediation can
820: easily push sneutrino or stau above the lightest neutralino leading to
821: a large region where neutralino is (N)LSP.
822:
823: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
824: \subsection{Gauge mediation with gravity contribution in the Higgs sector}
825: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
826:
827: Adding a contribution from gravity mediation opens a possibility of
828: generating the $\mu$ term using Giudice-Masiero mechanism.
829: Comparable in size soft masses squared for $H_u$ and $H_d$ are also
830: generated. We parameterize additional contribution to the Higgs soft
831: masses squared by: $c_{H_u} M_{\rm SUSY}^2$ and $c_{H_d} M_{\rm
832: SUSY}^2$. An example of the renormalization group running of soft
833: SUSY breaking parameters in this case is given in
834: Fig.~\ref{fig:GH_RGrunning} and detailed information about this
835: scenario can be found in the second column of
836: Table~\ref{tab:points}. Adding gravity contribution to soft Higgs
837: masses squared does not significantly affect running of other soft
838: SUSY breaking parameters. The major advantage of adding a positive
839: contribution to $m_{H_u}^2$ is that it allows smaller $\mu$ term.
840: This further reduces fine tuning of EWSB, see the
841: Table~\ref{tab:points}, because the original (somewhat large)
842: contribution from gauge mediation can be canceled in an equal way by
843: the additional contribution from gravity and by the $\mu$ term.
844: %
845: \begin{figure}[t]
846: \begin{center}
847: \epsfig{figure=G_H03higgs.EPS,width=7.cm}
848: \epsfig{figure=G_H03smatter.EPS,width=7.cm}
849: \end{center}
850: \vspace{-0.5cm}
851: \caption{ \label{fig:GH_RGrunning}
852: Renormalization group running of soft SUSY breaking parameters for gauge mediation,
853: $N_{\rm mess} =0$ and $b_G = 3$,
854: with a contribution from gravity mediation in the Higgs sector
855: for $M_{\rm SUSY}=40~{\rm GeV}$,
856: $\tan \beta = 29$, $c_{H_u}= 38$ and $c_{H_d} = 37$. The meaning of the lines is the same as
857: in Fig. 1.} %~\ref{fig:G_RGrunning}.}
858: \end{figure}
859: %
860:
861:
862: Exploring the whole parameter space in this case is more complicated. In Fig.~\ref{fig:GHspace}
863: we present a typical cut through the parameter space
864: in $M_{\rm SUSY} - c_{H_u}$ plane with fixed $\tan \beta$ and $c_{H_d}$. We see that, depending
865: on the size of $c_{H_u}$, fine tuning from any of the parameters can be reduced to the level of 10\%.
866: Besides excluded regions that already appeared in the case of pure gauge mediation, Fig.~\ref{fig:Gspace},
867: there is also a region excluded by limits on the stop mass. This is due to a subtle effect of larger
868: $m_{H_u}$ in the evolution of stop masses squared. Stop masses squared run to slightly smaller values
869: which increases stop mixing and consequently leads to much smaller value of the lightest stop
870: mass eigenstate.
871: % Correction needed later
872: For the same reason, besides neutralino (N)LSP and stau NLSP, there is a region with
873: stop NLSP. The NLSP situation can be easily changed when considering contribution from
874: gravity mediation also to squarks and sleptons.
875: %
876: \begin{figure}[t]
877: \begin{center}
878: \epsfig{figure=finebound_feyn_GH.EPS, width=12cm}
879: \end{center}
880: \vspace{-1.cm}
881: \caption{ \label{fig:GHspace}
882: Allowed region of parameter space and the degree of fine tuning in
883: the $M_{\rm SUSY}-c_{H_u}$ plane for gauge mediation, $N_{\rm mess} =0$ and $b_G = 3$,
884: with a contribution from gravity mediation in the Higgs sector.
885: We fix $\tan \beta = 25$ and $c_{H_d} = 50.0$.
886: The meaning of excluded regions is the same as in Fig. 2. %~\ref{fig:GHspace}.
887: The black dashed line separates regions where ${\tilde{t}}_1$
888: and ${\tilde{\tau}}_1$ are NLSP.}
889: \end{figure}
890: %
891:
892: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
893: \subsection{Other cases}
894: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
895:
896: Adding a universal contribution to all scalar masses from gravity
897: mediation has a negligible effect on the EW scale value of
898: $m_{H_u}^2$. This can be easily seen from Eq.~(\ref{eq:MZ_gut}) in
899: which the terms containing $m_{H_u}^2$ and $m_{\tilde{t}}^2$
900: approximately cancel each other for $m_{H_u}^2 = m_{\tilde{t}}^2 =
901: m_0^2$ at the GUT scale. Therefore, adding $m_0$ (unless it is very
902: large) does not change fine tuning of EWSB. The contribution from
903: $m_0$ also makes stops heavier and reduces the mixing. This reduces
904: the Higgs mass and so only small values of $m_0$ are allowed for
905: small $M_{\rm SUSY}$ -- the region we are interested in. Small $m_0$
906: is however sufficient to change the NLSP of a model. For smaller
907: $\tan \beta$ it can highly enlarge the region where neutralino is
908: (N)LSP instead of sneutrino or stop, and for larger $\tan \beta$ it can basically
909: eliminate the region where stop is NLSP.
910:
911: So far we have discussed only the case with $N_{\rm mess} =0$ and $b_G = 3$.
912: In Fig.~\ref{fig:G_NbG_RGrunning} we
913: also present plots of renormalization group running of soft SUSY breaking parameters
914: for $N_{\rm mess} = 0$ and smaller values of $b_G$ which correspond to adding more content to the
915: minimal GUT scenario. And for completeness, in the same figure we also include $N_{\rm mess} =
916: 1$, $b_G = 2$ case which corresponds to the minimal GUT content with one pair of additional
917: vector-like messengers in $5$ and $\bar 5$ of SU(5). In all cases $M_{\rm SUSY}$ and $\tan \beta$
918: are fixed to the same value which allows us to see trends in the spectrum from changing the content
919: of a model. For exactly this reason we do not require that all the experimental limits are satisfied
920: in all models. Detailed information about these five points is given in the last five columns in
921: Table~\ref{tab:points}.
922: %
923: \begin{figure}[t]
924: \begin{center}
925: \subfigure[$N_{\rm mess} = 0, \; b_G = 3$]{
926: \epsfig{figure=n0bg3feyngraph.EPS,width=7cm}
927: }
928: \subfigure[$N_{\rm mess} = 0, \; b_G = 2$]{
929: \epsfig{figure=n0bg2feyngraph.EPS,width=7cm}
930: } \\
931: \subfigure[$N_{\rm mess} = 0, \; b_G = 1$]{
932: \epsfig{figure=n0bg1feyngraph.EPS,width=7cm}
933: }
934: \subfigure[$N_{\rm mess} = 0, \; b_G = 0$]{
935: \epsfig{figure=n0bg0feyngraph.EPS,width=7cm}
936: }
937: \subfigure[$N_{\rm mess} = 1, \; b_G = 2$]{
938: \epsfig{figure=n1bg2feyngraph.EPS,width=7cm}
939: }
940: \end{center}
941: \caption{ \label{fig:G_NbG_RGrunning}
942: Renormalization group running of relevant soft SUSY breaking parameters for pure gauge mediation,
943: for different choices of $N_{\rm mess}$ and $b_G$, with
944: $M_{\rm SUSY}= 45~\rm GeV$ and $\tan \beta = 8$.}
945: \end{figure}
946: %
947: The basic features of all presented cases are very similar. Lowering
948: $b_G$ results in lighter squark and slepton spectrum but slightly
949: larger stop mixing. As a result, the Higgs mass is decreasing very
950: slowly. Adding additional pair of messenger leads to lighter
951: spectrum because of the cancelation between contributions from gauge
952: messengers and vector-like messengers and thus in order for this
953: scenario to be viable, larger $M_{\rm SUSY}$ is needed. We do not
954: discuss possible addition of gravity mediation for these scenarios.
955:
956:
957: \begin{table}[t]
958: \begin{tabular}{|c||c|c||c|c|c|c|c|}
959: %\hline
960: %Model Set & G & GH & G03 & G02 & G01 & G00 & G12 \\
961: \hline %\hline
962: $(N_{\rm mess}, b_G)$ & $(0,3)$ & $(0,3)$ & $(0,3)$ & $(0,2)$ & $(0,1)$ & $(0,0)$ & $(1,2)$ \\
963: \hline \hline
964: GUT parameter& & & & & & & \\
965: \hline
966: $M_{\rm SUSY}$ & 37 & 40 & 45 & 45 & 45 & 45 & 45\\
967: $\tan \beta$ & 23 & 29 & 8 & 8 & 8 & 8 & 8 \\
968: $c_{H_u}$ & & 38 & & & & & \\
969: $c_{H_d}$ & & 37 & & & & & \\
970: \hline
971: EW scale & & & & & & & \\
972: parameter & & & & & & & \\
973: \hline
974: $m_{Q3}$ & 274 & 277 & 338 & 334 & 329 & 324 & 254 \\
975: $m_{U3}$ & 219 & 211 & 254 & 248 & 242 & 236 & 173 \\
976: $m_{D3}$ & 290 & 299 & 373 & 369 & 365 & 360 & 292 \\
977: $m_{L3}$ & 133 & 130 & 178 & 161 & 141 & 118 & 138 \\
978: $m_{E3}$ & 135 & 115 & 196 & 163 & 120 & 49.3 & 154 \\
979: $M_1$ & 149 & 161 & 183 & 183 & 183 & 183 & 162 \\
980: $M_2$ & 171 & 185 & 208 & 208 & 208 & 208 & 173 \\
981: $M_3$ & 369 & 400 & 440 & 440 & 441 & 441 & 345 \\
982: $\mu$ & 270 & 210 & 336 & 335 & 334 & 333 & 283 \\
983: $m_{\tilde{t}}$ & 245 & 242 & 293 & 288 & 282 & 276 & 210 \\
984: $A_t/m_{\tilde{t}}$ &-1.78 &-1.93 &-1.81 &-1.85 &-1.89 &-1.93 &-2.15 \\
985: \hline
986: Physical & & & & & & & \\
987: spectrum & & & & & & & \\
988: \hline
989: $m_{h_0}$ & 114.4 & 115.6 & 115.3 & 115.2 & 114.9 & 114.1 & 110.1 \\
990: $m_{A}$ & 248 & 265 &374 &365 &355 &345 & 306 \\
991: $\tilde{t}_1$ & 138 & 101 & 192 & 182 & 171 & 159 & 44.0 \\
992: $\tilde{b}_1$ & 263 & 266 & 350 & 345 & 339 & 334 & 258 \\
993: $\tilde{\tau}_1$ & 103 & 88.2 & 182 & 159 & 123 & 61.0 & 141 \\
994: $\tilde{\nu}_{\tau}$ & 118 & 114 & 168 & 149 & 128 & 102 & 123 \\
995: $\tilde{u}_1,\tilde{c}_1$ & 340 & 365 & 405 & 396 & 386 & 375 & 309 \\
996: $\tilde{d}_1,\tilde{s}_1$ & 328 & 352 & 390 & 385 & 380 & 374 & 298 \\
997: $\tilde{e}_1,\tilde{\mu}_1$& 158 & 169 & 188 & 172 & 135 & 78.7 & 166 \\
998: $\tilde{g}$ & 379 & 406 & 451 & 450 & 449 & 447 & 348 \\
999: $\chi^{\pm}_1$ & 158 & 152 & 204 & 203 & 203 & 203 & 165 \\
1000: $\chi^0_1$ & 141 & 137 & 179 & 178 & 178 & 178 & 156 \\
1001: $\Psi_{3/2}$ & $>55.5$ & $>60$ & $>67.5$ & $>67.5$ & $>67.5$ & $>67.5$ & $>67.5$ \\
1002: \hline
1003: Fine & & & & & & & \\
1004: Tuning & & & & & & & \\
1005: \hline
1006: $\Delta_{M_{\rm SUSY}}$ & 17.6 & 10.6 & 26.4 & 26.2 & 26.1 & 26.0 & 18.8 \\
1007: $\Delta_{\mu}$ & 18.2 & 11.1 & 30.6 & 30.4 & 30.2 & 30.0 & 21.9 \\
1008: $\Delta_{c_{H_u}}$ & & 8.96 & & & & & \\
1009: $\Delta_{c_{H_d}}$ & & 0.462 & & & & & \\
1010: \hline
1011: \end{tabular}
1012: \caption{\label{tab:points} GUT input parameters, EW scale parameters,
1013: physical spectrum and fine tuning for gauge messenger models specified
1014: by $N_{\rm mess}$ and $b_G$.
1015: All the mass parameters are
1016: understood in GeV units. Here $m_{\tilde{t}} = \sqrt{m_{\tilde{t}_1}
1017: m_{\tilde{t}_2}}$.
1018: We present only masses of the lightest squark and slepton in each generation. }
1019: \end{table}
1020:
1021:
1022: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1023: \subsection{LSP and NLSP}
1024: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1025:
1026: When there is a sizable contribution to the Higgs soft parameters
1027: from gravity mediation, neutralino can be LSP or NLSP
1028: depending on the gravitino mass.
1029: In this region, neutralino is a
1030: sizable mixture of bino, wino and Higgsino. Sizable mixture of bino
1031: with higgsino/wino can give the right amount of thermal relic
1032: density for dark matter when $\mu$, $M_1$ and $M_2$ are of order 100
1033: GeV. In addition, the cross section for the direct detection is
1034: larger compared to bino LSP which gives a better chance to observe
1035: it.
1036:
1037: In most region of allowed parameter space, sneutrino/stau or stop
1038: is NLSP and the LSP
1039: is the gravitino.
1040: Gravitino LSP scenario with the right-handed stau NLSP
1041: has been studied in the
1042: framework of supergravity \cite{Feng:2003jw} \cite{Ellis:2003dn}
1043: \cite{Feng:2004zu} \cite{Feng:2004mt} \cite{Ellis:2005ii}
1044: \cite{Steffen:2006hw}.
1045: The life time of the stau NLSP is from $10^{6}$ sec to $10^{10}$ sec and we
1046: might be able to detect it using a stopper. As we provide a
1047: specific model in which the gravitino LSP is very plausible, we can
1048: get a more concrete prediction on NLSP lifetime and gravitino relic
1049: density. Similar analysis should be done for the stop NLSP.
1050:
1051: The gauge messenger model considered here generally predicts a very
1052: light stop, $m_{\tilde{t_1}} \gsim 150$ GeV in the least fine tuned
1053: parameter space. The Fig.~\ref{fig:GHspace} shows that stop becomes
1054: NLSP if $c_{H_u} \gtrsim 30$. Stop NLSP has been studied in
1055: \cite{Chou:1999zb} in the framework of low scale gauge mediation.
1056: When gravitino is very light, the decay of stop NLSP can happen
1057: quickly, within a minute, and the search for a possible collider
1058: signal can be done. If gravitino mass is at around the weak scale,
1059: stop decays long after the big bang nucleosynthesis (BBN). Usually
1060: decays of particles having hadronic channels destroy the successful
1061: agreement of BBN
1062: %calculation of the Standard Model
1063: and such scenarios are not considered.\footnote{We
1064: thank Michael Peskin for discussion on this point.} Nonetheless the detailed
1065: analysis of stop decay after BBN should be done to clear up this
1066: issue. If stop NLSP with weak scale gravitino mass is consistent
1067: with BBN, more natural parameter space is allowed.
1068:
1069:
1070: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1071: \section{Conclusions \label{sec:conclusions}}
1072: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1073:
1074: In this paper we studied gauge mediation of supersymmetry breaking
1075: in SU(5) SUSY GUT with heavy gauge fields as messengers. We were led
1076: to consider this gauge messenger model by recently discussed
1077: possibility of generating the maximal mixing scenario for the Higgs
1078: mass radiatively~\cite{Dermisek:2006ey}. In the optimal scenario
1079: colored particles do not contribute to the renormalization group
1080: running of the $m_{H_u}^2$ which in principle can eliminate fine
1081: tuning of EWSB. The gauge messenger model does not lead to the
1082: optimal scenario (only close to it), since stop masses are not
1083: negative enough at the GUT scale. However, it still highly reduces
1084: the fine tuning of EWSB and has many interesting features.
1085:
1086: In this scenario
1087: negative scalar masses squared at the GUT scale,
1088: with squarks more negative than sleptons, together with
1089: non-universal gaugino masses, with $M_1> M_2 > M_3$, lead to a viable
1090: spectrum at the EW scale in large portion of parameter space.
1091: None of the soft SUSY breaking parameters at the GUT scale has to be larger than 400 GeV and
1092: none of the superpartner has to be heavier than 400 GeV to satisfy
1093: all the limits
1094: from direct searches for SUSY particles and also the limit on the Higgs mass.
1095: There is no other existing scenario with similar features. And yet,
1096: just like anomaly mediation or the usual gauge mediation,
1097: also this scenario
1098: is governed by a single parameter - the SUSY breaking scale $M_{\rm SUSY}$.
1099: The ratios of different soft SUSY breaking parameters are entirely
1100: fixed by group theoretical factors. The main features of the spectrum do not
1101: change when considering more complicated GUT models
1102: than the minimal scenario we focused on in this paper.
1103: And finally, considering contributions from gravity mediation not only opens a possibility to generate
1104: the $\mu$ term through the Giudice-Masiero mechanism, but also can lead to
1105: many variation of the minimal scenario with interesting consequences for
1106: ongoing and future SUSY and dark matter searches.
1107:
1108:
1109: The LSP in this model is the lightest neutralino (in a limited region of parameter space) which is a
1110: sizable mixture of bino, wino and higgsino, or gravitino
1111: (in most region of parameter space) with sneutrino or stop NLSP.
1112: Stau NLSP might be detectable using stopper and similarly for stop NLSP,
1113: but a detailed study is
1114: needed.
1115: In the case of stop NLSP it is important to clarify
1116: whether such a scenario is consistent with BBN.
1117:
1118: The model predicts light stop, $m_{{\tilde t}_1} \gsim 150$ GeV, and light gluino,
1119: $m_{\tilde g} \gsim 400$ GeV, in the least fine
1120: tuned region of parameter space. Light gluino should be easy to see at the LHC
1121: or even at the Tevatron. In spite of stop being considerably lighter than other squarks,
1122: it might be easier to search for the first two generations of squarks at the Tevatron.
1123: Indeed, recent results from D0 and CDF collaborations~\cite{Abazov:2006bj,CDF_squarks+gluino},
1124: for jets + missing transverse energy search,
1125: put strong constraints on masses of the first two generations of squarks and the gluino mass,
1126: in the range
1127: $\sim 300 \, - \, 400$ GeV. These limits will further improve in near future.
1128: At this point we would like to note
1129: that the results of both collaborations are presented in $m_{\tilde q}$ -- $m_{\tilde g}$ plane
1130: for mSUGRA scenario and exclusion limits cover only
1131: gluino masses little larger than squark masses because otherwise there is no
1132: mSUGRA solution.
1133: However, squarks quite lighter than gluino are well motivated
1134: by natural EWSB. In the model presented here masses of gluino and the first two generations of squarks
1135: lie very near the border with no mSUGRA solution, and, as we discussed, models that would further
1136: improve on naturalness (with more negative stop masses squared at the GUT scale) would lead to squarks
1137: even lighter compared to gluino.
1138: Therefore we strongly encourage both D0 and CDF collaborations to extend the search
1139: and explore full kinematically allowed region in
1140: the squark-gluino plane so that also these scenarios are covered in addition to the not so
1141: natural one.
1142:
1143:
1144: Considerations of natural EWSB in MSSM together with the current experimental limits on SUSY and Higgs
1145: spectra lead us to conclusions that SUSY spectrum might be quite strange and perhaps complicated
1146: (not unifying at any scale) compared to the usual
1147: expectations based on models like mSUGRA, and that
1148: there is a good chance
1149: we live in a meta-stable vacuum. However, as we showed, these
1150: seemingly unattractive features might be a consequence of the same
1151: elegant idea that leads to an understanding of quantum assignments
1152: of standard model particles and gauge coupling unification.
1153:
1154:
1155: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1156: \section*{Acknowledgement}
1157: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1158:
1159: We thank K. Agashe, K. Choi, J. Ellis, G. Giudice, A. Kusenko, K.-I.
1160: Izawa, K.-I. Okumura, M. Peskin, S. Raby and N. Weiner for
1161: discussions. HK thanks the Galileo Galilei Institute for Theoretical
1162: Physics and CERN for hospitality and the INFN for partial support
1163: during the work. IK thanks LBNL for hospitality during his visit. RD
1164: is supported in part by U.S. Department of Energy, grant number
1165: DE-FG02-90ER40542. HK is supported by the ABRL Grant No.
1166: R14-2003-012-01001-0, the BK21 program of Ministry of Education,
1167: Korea and the Science Research Center Program of the Korea Science
1168: and Engineering Foundation through the Center for Quantum Spacetime
1169: (CQUeST) of Sogang University with grant number R11-2005-021.
1170:
1171: \newpage
1172:
1173: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1174: \appendix
1175:
1176: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1177: \noindent
1178: {\Large \bf Appendix}
1179:
1180:
1181: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1182: \section{Calculation of supersymmetry breaking parameters at the GUT
1183: scale \label{sec:softterms}}
1184: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1185:
1186: We closely follow the approach and notation given in
1187: \cite{Giudice:1997ni} \cite{Arkani-Hamed:1998kj}.
1188: The idea is to treat couplings (gauge, Yukawa,
1189: wavefunction renormalization) as superfields
1190: whose scalar components are the couplings
1191: and F components are the gaugino masses. The outcome is that
1192: we can extract renormalization group properties of supersymmetry
1193: breaking parameters from renormalization group equations of
1194: ordinary couplings. It simplifies the calculation of soft supersymmetry breaking
1195: parameters.
1196:
1197: The running of gauge couplings at one loop is given by \bea \f{d
1198: \a_i^{-1}}{d \log \mu} & = & \f{b_i}{2\pi}, \eea where
1199: $b_i=(3,-1,-\f{33}{5})$ for the three gauge couplings of MSSM and
1200: $\mu$ is the renormalization group scale. Wavefunction
1201: renormalization ($Z_Q$) of a chiral superfield $Q$ is given by
1202: anomalous dimensions, \bea \log Z_Q (\mu) & = & \int_{\L_{UV}}^{\mu}
1203: \f{d\mu^{\p}}{\mu^{\p}} \g_Q (\mu^{\p}) = \sum_i \f{c_i}{\pi}
1204: \int_{\L_{UV}}^{\mu} \f{d\mu^{\p}}{\mu^{\p}} \a_i, \eea where \bea
1205: \g_Q & = & \f{d \log Z_Q}{d \log \mu} = \sum_i \f{c_i}{\pi} \a_i,
1206: \eea with $c_i$, the quadratic casimir. It can be rewritten as \bea
1207: \log Z_Q(\mu) & = & \log Z_Q(\L_{UV}) + \sum_i \f{2c_i}{b_i}
1208: \log \f{\a_i(\L_{UV})}{\a_i(\mu)}, \\
1209: Z_Q (\mu) & = & Z_Q (\L_{UV}) \prod_i \left(
1210: \f{\a_i(\L_{UV})}{\a_i(\mu)} \right)^{\f{2c_i}{b_i}}. \eea
1211:
1212: Suppose that there is an adjoint chiral superfield $\Sigma$ which
1213: breaks SU(5) down to the standard model gauge group. At high energy,
1214: the beta function coefficient of the GUT group is given as $b_G =
1215: 3\times5 - 5 -3\times2 -1 = 3$ for SU(5). Each term represents the
1216: contribution from vector supermultiplet of $SU(5)$, the adjoint
1217: chiral multiplet of $SU(5)$, three generation of matter fields and
1218: Higgs fields respectively. At $M_{\rm GUT}$, $X,Y$ gauge bosons
1219: become massive by eating wouldbe Goldstone bosons in $\Sigma$. Let
1220: us define $b_F$ as the beta function coefficient excluding X, Y
1221: gauge bosons and $b_H$ as the one for the low energy theory. Gauge
1222: messengers give \bea b_G - b_{Fi} & = & 3(N_C - N_{Ci}) - (N_C -
1223: N_{Ci}), \eea which is $(4,6,10)$ for $i=3,2,1$ gauge group
1224: respectively. There still remain (diagonal) adjoints of $\Sigma$
1225: under the low energy gauge group which we call $\Sigma_3$ and
1226: $\Sigma_2$ given by \bea b_{Fi} - b_{Hi} & = & -N_{Ci}, \eea which
1227: is $(-3,-2,0)$ respectively. We call $b_{Xi} = b_G - b_{Fi}$ as the
1228: beta function coefficient coming from fields that become massive by
1229: $\Sigma$.
1230: \bea b_F & = & b_{M_a} + b_H \nn \\
1231: b_G & = & b_X + b_{M_a}+ b_H . \eea
1232:
1233: At low energy, the degrees of freedom would be the usual gauge
1234: bosons (or vector multiplets) of 3,2,1 and matter and Higgs fields.
1235: \bea b_{Hi} & = & 3N_{Ci} -7, \eea which is $(2,-1,-7)$
1236: respectively. We assume that the Higgs triplet mass is just below
1237: the GUT scale to simplify the discussion.\footnote{In case when
1238: Higgs triplet is heavier than the GUT scale, the final expression
1239: becomes slightly complicated since it can not be written in terms of
1240: single parameter $b_G$. As Higgs triplet contribution does not make
1241: a significant change in the result, we take the simplest case (Higgs
1242: triplet slightly lighter than the GUT scale).} The expression for
1243: the running of a gauge coupling is then written as follows: \bea
1244: 4\pi \a^{-1} (\mu) & = & 4\pi \a^{-1} (\L) + b_X \log
1245: \f{{\Sigma}^{\d} \Sigma}{\L^2} + b_{M_a} \log \f{M_a^2}{\L^2} + b_H
1246: \log \f{\mu^2}{\L^2}. \eea
1247:
1248: Gaugino masses at the messenger scale are determined by analytic
1249: continuation of gauge couplings into superspace. \bea M_i & = &
1250: -b_{X_i} \f{\a_i}{4\pi} \left| \f{F}{\Sigma} \right| = -b_X M_{\rm
1251: SUSY}, \eea where $b_{X_i}$ is the contribution of fields which
1252: become massive by $\Sigma$ and $M_{\rm SUSY}$ is defined in Eq.
1253: (\ref{eq:MSUSY}). If there are gauge messengers and matter
1254: messengers at the same time, $b_{X_i} = 2(5-N_{C_i})$ for massive X
1255: and Y superfields and $b_{X_i} = -1$ for $5$ and $\bar{5}$
1256: messengers. The explicit expression for the gauge messenger
1257: contribution with $N_{\rm mess}$ matter messengers is \bea M_i & = &
1258: \left[ -2(5-N_{C_i}) +N_{\rm mess} \right] M_{\rm
1259: SUSY}.\label{eq:gaugino} \eea
1260:
1261: For soft scalar masses, we consider the case in which
1262: $M_a$ is slightly lower than the messenger scale,
1263: $\Lambda \ge \Sigma \ge M_a \ge
1264: \mu$ so that we can write
1265: \bea \log Z_Q (\Sigma,{\Sigma}^{\d},\mu) & = & \log Z_Q (\L) +
1266: \f{2 c_G}{b_G} \log \f{\a_G(\L)}{\a_G(\Sigma)} \nn \\ && + \sum_i
1267: \f{2c_i}{b_{M_ai}+b_{H_i}} \log \f{\a_i(\Sigma)}{\a_i(M_a)} + \sum_i
1268: \f{2c_i}{b_{H_i}} \log \f{\a_i(M_a)}{\a_i(\mu)}. \eea We can assume
1269: that the scale difference between $M_a$ and $\la \Sigma \ra$ is
1270: negligible. With $\xi_i = \f{\a_i (\Sigma)}{\a_i (\mu)}$, the same
1271: calculation as in the previous subsection gives \bea m_Q^2 =
1272: \left(2c_G b_G - \sum_i \f{2c_i}{b_{M_ai} + b_{H_i}} b_{G}^2 +
1273: \sum_i (\f{2c_i}{b_{M_ai} + b_{Hi}}- \f{2c_i}{b_{H_i}}) b_{Xi}^2 +
1274: \sum_i \f{2c_i}{b_{H_i}} \f{b_{Xi}^2}{\xi_i^2} \right) M_{\rm
1275: SUSY}^2 \nn \eea At $\mu = M_a \sim \la \Sigma \ra$, we obtain soft
1276: scalar masses, \bea m_Q^2 & = &\left(2c_G b_G + \sum_i
1277: \f{2c_i}{b_{M_ai} + b_{H_i}} (-b_{Gi}^2 + b_{Xi}^2) \right)
1278: M_{\rm SUSY}^2 \nn \\
1279: && = \left( 2\Delta c b_G - 2\sum_i c_i b_{Xi}\right) M_{\rm
1280: SUSY}^2, \label{eq:scalars} \eea where $\Delta c = c_5 - \sum_i
1281: c_i$. For the minimal content ($V$, $\Sigma$, Higgs and matter
1282: fields), we have $b_G =3$. By adding one extra $5+\bar{5}$
1283: messenger, $b_G$ is lowered by one.
1284:
1285: The $A$ terms at the messenger scale are calculated by canonically
1286: normalizing the scalar fields, \bea A_i (M) & = & \left. \f{\partial
1287: \log Z_{Q_i} (\Sigma,{\Sigma}^{\dagger},\mu)}{\partial \log \Sigma}
1288: \right|_{\Sigma=M} \f{F}{M}. \eea In the gauge messenger model, \bea
1289: A_Q (M) & = & 2 \Delta c_{Q} M_{\rm SUSY} \label{eq:aterm}, \eea and
1290: similarly for others. From the Table \ref{tab:casimir} we see
1291: $2\Delta c_{Q} = 3$, $2\Delta c_{H_u} = 3$ and $2\Delta c_{u^c} =
1292: 4$. The $A$ term for top Yukawa coupling is then \bea A_t (M) & = &
1293: A_Q + A_{H_u} + A_{u^c} = 10 M_{\rm SUSY}. \eea
1294:
1295: Quadratic casimirs and related parameters (e.g., $\Delta c$, $\sum_i
1296: c_i b_{Xi}$) used in the calculations are summarized in
1297: Table~\ref{tab:casimir}.
1298:
1299: \begin{table}[t]
1300: \bea \ba{|c|ccccc|} \hline
1301: & ~~~Q~~~ & ~~~u^c~~~ & ~~~d^c~~~ & ~~~L~~~ & ~~~e^c~~~ \\
1302: \hline
1303: c_3 & \f{4}{3} & \f{4}{3} & \f{4}{3} & 0 & 0 \\
1304: &&&&& \\
1305: c_2 & \f{3}{4} & 0 & 0 & \f{3}{4} & 0 \\
1306: &&&&& \\
1307: c_1 & \f{1}{60} & \f{4}{15} & \f{1}{15} & \f{3}{20} & \f{3}{5} \\
1308: &&&&& \\
1309: c_5 & \f{18}{5} & \f{18}{5} & \f{12}{5} & \f{12}{5} & \f{18}{5} \\
1310: &&&&& \\
1311: c_{10} & \f{45}{8} & \f{45}{8} & \f{45}{8} & \f{45}{8} & \f{45}{8}
1312: \\
1313: &&&&& \\
1314: \Delta c & \f{3}{2} & 2 & 1 & \f{3}{2} & 3 \\
1315: &&&&& \\
1316: -2\sum_i c_i b_{Xi} & -20 & -16 & -12 & -12 & -12 \\
1317: \hline \ea \nn \eea \caption{ \label{tab:casimir} Quadratic casimirs
1318: and their combinations relevant for calculation of soft SUSY
1319: breaking masses. $c_5$ is the quadratic casimir under $SU(5)$ and
1320: $c_{10}$ is the one under $SO(10)$. In the final expression, the
1321: minimal messenger model, $b_X = (4,6,10)$, has been used.}
1322: \end{table}
1323:
1324:
1325: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1326: \section{Suppression of Gravity Mediation \label{sec:gravity}}
1327: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1328:
1329: \subsection{Large cutoff scenario}
1330:
1331: Gravity mediated contribution can not be neglected in gauge
1332: messenger model due to high messenger scale $M_{\rm GUT}$ ($
1333: \f{m_{3/2}}{M_{\rm SUSY}} \simeq 1.5$). The problem can be overcome
1334: either by raising up the cutoff scale of the theory beyond the
1335: Planck scale or lowering the messenger scale (GUT scale). There
1336: would be various ways of achieving it and here we illustrate some
1337: possibilities. We consider superconformal frame and Einstein frame
1338: to discuss the problem. Fine tuning of electroweak symmetry breaking
1339: is not sensitive to the choice of frames but neutralino LSP (or
1340: NLSP) region can be enlarged in Einstein frame.
1341:
1342: \begin{itemize}
1343:
1344: \item Sequestering (Large cutoff in superconformal frame)
1345:
1346: Conformal symmetry guarantees the stability of the sequestering
1347: once it happens at tree level.
1348: \bea
1349: S_{\rm SUGRA} & = & \int d^4 x \left[ \int d^4 \theta
1350: {\mathbb E} \left( -3 M_{\rm Pl}^2
1351: e^{-\f{K}{3 M_{\rm Pl}^2}} \right) + \left\{ \int d^2 \theta \left(
1352: \frac{1}{4} f_a W^{a\alpha} W_{a \alpha} + W \right) + {\rm h.c.}
1353: \right\} \right], \nn \eea If K\"ahler potential is minimal in the
1354: superconformal frame, \bea -3 M_{\rm Pl}^2 e^{-\f{K}{3 M_{\rm
1355: Pl}^2}} & = & \Phi^{\dagger} \Phi + \Sigma^{\dagger} \Sigma, \nn
1356: \eea there would be no dangerous gravity mediation effect. We do not
1357: address how the conformal sequestering can be realized in our
1358: specific setup. Sequestered form of K\"ahler potential is understood
1359: by conformal symmetry. Conformal symmetry prevents higher
1360: dimensional operators. Sequestering means a large cutoff for
1361: possible non-renormalizable interactions with order one
1362: coefficients. \bea -3M_{\rm Pl}^2 e^{-\f{K}{3 M_{\rm Pl}^2}} & = &
1363: \Phi^{\dagger} \Phi + \Sigma^{\dagger} \Sigma + \f{1}{M_*^2}
1364: \Sigma^{\dagger} \Sigma \Phi^{\dagger} \Phi + \cdots, \eea with $M_*
1365: \gg M_{\rm Pl}$. Note that $M_* \sim 5 M_{\rm Pl}$ is enough to keep
1366: an accuracy of gauge messenger model within 1 or 2 percent. Required
1367: suppression is very small and slightly large cutoff might work
1368: without building a sequestering model.\footnote{Gauginos can get a
1369: correction 10 to 15 percent in this case but this contribution does not lead to
1370: flavor changing neutral currents.}
1371:
1372: \item Large cutoff in Einstein frame
1373:
1374: Universal soft scalar masses appear for
1375: the minimal K\"ahler potential in Einstein frame,
1376: $K = \Phi^{\dagger} \Phi +
1377: \Sigma^{\dagger} \Sigma$. \bea -3M_{\rm Pl}^2 e^{-\f{K}{3 M_{\rm
1378: Pl}^2}} & = &
1379: -3M_{\rm Pl}^2 + K -\f{1}{6 M_{\rm Pl}^2} K^2 + \cdots, \nn \\
1380: & = & \Phi^{\dagger} \Phi + \Sigma^{\dagger} \Sigma - \f{1}{3
1381: M_{\rm Pl}^2} \Sigma^{\dagger} \Sigma \Phi^{\dagger} \Phi + \cdots.
1382: \nn \eea The last term gives universal soft scalar masses to all
1383: $\Phi$s once $F_\Sigma$ is nonzero\footnote{When there are several
1384: sources of supersymmetry breaking, all of them contribute to
1385: $m_{3/2}$.} and we have $\delta V = m_{3/2}^2 \Phi^{\dagger} \Phi$.
1386: The problem associated with other unpredictable soft terms due to
1387: nonrenormalizable operators can be solved if a large cutoff of the
1388: theory is assumed \cite{Ibe:2004mp} \cite{Ibe:2006fs}. Let the
1389: cutoff of the theory be $M_*$. We can imagine that matter sector
1390: couples weakly while gravity sector happens to couple strongly.
1391:
1392: \end{itemize}
1393:
1394: There are two ways to explain large cutoff. Firstly, we can start
1395: with the cutoff $M_*$ and the observed Planck scale happens to be
1396: small due to the cancelation with loop corrections $\delta M_*$. $S
1397: = \int d^4 x (M_*^2 + \delta M_*^2) R = \int d^4 x M_{\rm Pl}^2 R +
1398: \cdots .$ Numerically $M_{\rm Pl} \sim \f{M_*}{4\pi} \sim
1399: \f{M_*}{10}$. The observed Planck scale appears to be lower than the
1400: cutoff of the theory due to an accidental cancelation of the bare
1401: parameter and the quantum corrections. The other explanation comes
1402: with a strong coupling. \bea S & = & \int d^4 x \f{1}{g^2} \left[
1403: M_*^2 R + \cdots \right]. \eea If the theory couples strongly, $g
1404: \sim 4\pi$, we would get an effective Planck scale $M_{\rm Pl} =
1405: \f{M_*}{g} \sim \f{M_*}{4\pi}$. Now if $M_* \sim 3.0 \times 10^{19}$
1406: GeV, we would get the reduced Planck scale $M_{\rm Pl} = 2.4 \times
1407: 10^{18}$ GeV. $M_*$ is much larger than $M_{\rm Pl}$. It is natural
1408: to have a reduced Planck scale if the gravity couples strongly.
1409:
1410: Similarly we can imagine that each sector can couple with a
1411: different strength. Naive dimensional analysis
1412: \cite{Weinberg:1978kz} \cite{Luty:1997fk} \cite{Cohen:1997rt}
1413: tells us that \bea K
1414: & = & \f{M_*^2}{g^2} \hat{K} ( \f{g\Sigma}{M_*},
1415: \f{g\Sigma^{\dagger}}{M_*}) \eea where $\Sigma$ couples strongly
1416: with $g \sim 4\pi$. When there is a weakly coupled sector, we can
1417: add them to the K\"ahler potential as follows. \bea K & = &
1418: \f{M_*^2}{g^2} \hat{K}_1 ( \f{g\Sigma}{M_*},
1419: \f{g\Sigma^{\dagger}}{M_*}, \f{e\Phi}{M_*}, \f{e\Phi^{\dagger}}{M_*}
1420: ) + \f{M_*^2}{e^2} \hat{K}_2 ( \f{e\Phi}{M_*},
1421: \f{e\Phi^{\dagger}}{M_*}), \eea where $\Phi$ represents all fields
1422: that couple weakly by itself with $e \sim 1$ and $\hat{K}$ has
1423: polynomials with order one coefficients. Expanding K\"ahler
1424: potential up to quartic terms, we get \bea K & = & \Sigma^{\dagger}
1425: \Sigma + \Phi^{\dagger} \Phi + \f{g^2}{M_*^2} (\Sigma^{\dagger}
1426: \Sigma)^2 + \f{e^2}{M_*^2} (\Phi^{\dagger} \Phi)^2 + \f{e^2}{M_*^2}
1427: \Sigma^{\dagger} \Sigma \Phi^{\dagger} \Phi. \eea Note that $M_{\rm
1428: Pl} \sim \f{M_*}{g} \sim \f{M_*}{4\pi}$. We can consider the case in
1429: which matter fields $\Phi$ (quarks and leptons) couple weakly ($e
1430: \sim 1$) while Higgs fields $H$ and $\bar{H}$ couple strongly ($g
1431: \sim 4\pi$). Relevant terms in the K\"ahler potential would be \bea
1432: K & = & \Sigma^{\dagger} \Sigma + H^{\dagger} H +{\bar{H}}^{\dagger}
1433: \bar{H} + \Phi^{\dagger} \Phi \nn
1434: \\
1435: && + \f{1}{M_{\rm Pl}^2} \Sigma^{\dagger} \Sigma H^{\dagger} H +
1436: \f{1}{M_{\rm Pl}^2} \Sigma^{\dagger} \Sigma {\bar{H}}^{\dagger}
1437: \bar{H} + \f{1}{M_*^2} \Sigma^{\dagger} \Sigma \Phi^{\dagger} \Phi.
1438: \eea Giudice-Masiero term \bea K & = & \f{1}{M_{\rm Pl}} H
1439: \Sigma^{\dagger} \bar{H} + \f{1}{M_{\rm Pl}^2} \Sigma^{\dagger}
1440: \Sigma \bar{H} H, \eea is suppressed only by $M_{\rm Pl}$. This
1441: setup explains $\mu \sim m_{3/2}$ and $B\mu \sim m_{3/2}^2$. Let us
1442: summarize gravity mediated contributions on various fields when only
1443: Higgs fields couple strongly at $M_{\rm Pl}$ and the large cutoff is
1444: realized for other fields in superconformal frame. \bea
1445: && m_{H_u}^2, ~~ m_{H_d}^2, ~~ \mu^2, ~~ B\mu \sim m_{3/2}^2, \nn \\
1446: && m^2 ({\rm squarks, sleptons}) \sim \f{m_{3/2}^2}{16\pi^2}, \nn \\
1447: && M_{\f{1}{2}}, ~~ A \sim \f{m_{3/2}}{4\pi}. \nn \eea Note that
1448: gravity mediation is suppressed in squark and slepton soft scalar
1449: masses and gaugino masses. In Einstein frame, a common universal
1450: $m_{3/2}^2$ is added to all squarks, sleptons and Higgs soft scalar
1451: masses.
1452:
1453: \subsection{Lowering the GUT scale}
1454:
1455: Another way of suppressing gravity mediation is to lower the GUT
1456: scale. Although we have an indirect evidence that three gauge
1457: couplings meet at the GUT scale, $M_{\rm GUT} = 2 \times 10^{16}
1458: \rm GeV$, any hints of $X$ and $Y$ gauge bosons have not been
1459: observed yet. The lower bound on their mass due to proton decay from
1460: dimension six operators is about $10^{15}$ GeV. If we can suppress
1461: the proton decay from dimension five operators related to color
1462: triplet Higgses, we can lower the GUT scale (more precisely the
1463: messenger scale, the mass of X, Y gauge bosons and X, Y gauginos).
1464: GUT scale threshold correction would then explain the illusion of
1465: having $M_{\rm GUT} = 2 \times 10^{16}$ GeV. Furthermore, by adding
1466: extra matter fields in full multiplets of $SU(5)$, we can also make
1467: $\alpha_{\rm GUT}$ larger than $1/24$ while keeping unification.
1468: This would enhance the gauge mediation effects even for messenger
1469: scale being the GUT scale. Finally, a combination of both effects
1470: might suppress gravity contribution to a negligible level.
1471:
1472:
1473:
1474: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1475: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
1476: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1477:
1478: % Radiative correction to Higgs
1479:
1480: %\cite{Okada:1990vk}
1481: \bibitem{Okada:1990vk}
1482: Y.~Okada, M.~Yamaguchi and T.~Yanagida,
1483: ``Upper bound of the lightest Higgs boson mass in the minimal supersymmetric
1484: standard model,''
1485: Prog.\ Theor.\ Phys.\ {\bf 85}, 1 (1991).
1486: %%CITATION = PTPKA,85,1;%%
1487:
1488: %\cite{Haber:1990aw}
1489: \bibitem{Haber:1990aw}
1490: H.~E.~Haber and R.~Hempfling,
1491: ``Can the mass of the lightest Higgs boson of the minimal supersymmetric
1492: model be larger than $m_Z$?,''
1493: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 66}, 1815 (1991).
1494: %%CITATION = PRLTA,66,1815;%%
1495:
1496: %\cite{Ellis:1990nz}
1497: \bibitem{Ellis:1990nz}
1498: J.~R.~Ellis, G.~Ridolfi and F.~Zwirner,
1499: ``Radiative corrections to the masses of supersymmetric Higgs bosons,''
1500: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 257}, 83 (1991).
1501: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B257,83;%%
1502:
1503: %\cite{Allanach:2001kg}
1504: \bibitem{Allanach:2001kg}
1505: B.~C.~Allanach,
1506: ``SOFTSUSY: A C++ program for calculating supersymmetric spectra,''
1507: Comput.\ Phys.\ Commun.\ {\bf 143}, 305 (2002)
1508: [arXiv:hep-ph/0104145].
1509: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0104145;%%
1510:
1511:
1512: %FeynHiggs2.2.10
1513:
1514: %\cite{Heinemeyer:1998yj}
1515: \bibitem{Heinemeyer:1998yj}
1516: S.~Heinemeyer, W.~Hollik and G.~Weiglein,
1517: ``FeynHiggs: A program for the calculation of the masses of the neutral
1518: CP-even Higgs bosons in the MSSM,''
1519: Comput.\ Phys.\ Commun.\ {\bf 124}, 76 (2000).
1520: [arXiv:hep-ph/9812320].
1521: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9812320;%%
1522:
1523: %\cite{Heinemeyer:1998np}
1524: \bibitem{Heinemeyer:1998np}
1525: S.~Heinemeyer, W.~Hollik and G.~Weiglein,
1526: ``The masses of the neutral CP-even Higgs bosons in the MSSM: Accurate
1527: analysis at the two-loop level,''
1528: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 9}, 343 (1999).
1529: [arXiv:hep-ph/9812472].
1530: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9812472;%%
1531:
1532:
1533: %\cite{Dermisek:2006ey}
1534: \bibitem{Dermisek:2006ey}
1535: R.~Dermisek and H.~D.~Kim,
1536: ``Radiatively generated maximal mixing scenario for the Higgs mass and the
1537: least fine tuned minimal supersymmetric standard model,''
1538: %
1539: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 96}, 211803 (2006)
1540: [arXiv:hep-ph/0601036].
1541: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0601036;%%
1542:
1543: % Geometric hierarchy
1544:
1545: %\cite{Witten:1981kv}
1546: \bibitem{Witten:1981kv}
1547: E.~Witten,
1548: ``Mass Hierarchies In Supersymmetric Theories,''
1549: %
1550: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 105}, 267 (1981).
1551: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B105,267;%%
1552:
1553: %\cite{Dimopoulos:1982gm}
1554: \bibitem{Dimopoulos:1982gm}
1555: S.~Dimopoulos and S.~Raby,
1556: ``Geometric Hierarchy,''
1557: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 219}, 479 (1983).
1558: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B219,479;%%
1559:
1560: %\cite{Kaplunovsky:1983yx}
1561: \bibitem{Kaplunovsky:1983yx}
1562: V.~Kaplunovsky,
1563: ``Nosonomy Of An Upside Down Hierarchy Model. 2,''
1564: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 233}, 336 (1984).
1565: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B233,336;%%
1566:
1567: % Gauge messenger
1568:
1569: %\cite{Agashe:1998kg}
1570: \bibitem{Agashe:1998kg}
1571: K.~Agashe,
1572: ``GUT and SUSY breaking by the same field,''
1573: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 444}, 61 (1998)
1574: [arXiv:hep-ph/9809421].
1575: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9809421;%%
1576:
1577: %\cite{Agashe:2000ay}
1578: \bibitem{Agashe:2000ay}
1579: K.~Agashe,
1580: ``Improved GUT and SUSY breaking by the same field,''
1581: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 588}, 39 (2000)
1582: [arXiv:hep-ph/0003236].
1583: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0003236;%%
1584:
1585: % Radiative correction to Higgs : A term
1586:
1587: %\cite{Ellis:1991zd}
1588: \bibitem{Ellis:1991zd}
1589: J.~R.~Ellis, G.~Ridolfi and F.~Zwirner,
1590: ``On radiative corrections to supersymmetric Higgs boson masses and their
1591: implications for LEP searches,''
1592: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 262}, 477 (1991).
1593: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B262,477;%%
1594:
1595:
1596: %\cite{Kusenko:1996jn}
1597: \bibitem{Kusenko:1996jn}
1598: A.~Kusenko, P.~Langacker and G.~Segre,
1599: ``Phase Transitions and Vacuum Tunneling Into Charge and Color Breaking
1600: Minima in the MSSM,''
1601: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 54}, 5824 (1996)
1602: [arXiv:hep-ph/9602414].
1603: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9602414;%
1604:
1605: %\cite{Kusenko:1996xt}
1606: \bibitem{Kusenko:1996xt}
1607: A.~Kusenko and P.~Langacker,
1608: ``Is the vacuum stable?,''
1609: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 391}, 29 (1997)
1610: [arXiv:hep-ph/9608340].
1611: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9608340;%%
1612:
1613: %\cite{Casas:1995pd}
1614: \bibitem{Casas:1995pd}
1615: J.~A.~Casas, A.~Lleyda and C.~Munoz,
1616: ``Strong constraints on the parameter space of the MSSM from charge and color
1617: breaking minima,''
1618: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 471}, 3 (1996)
1619: [arXiv:hep-ph/9507294].
1620: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9507294;%%
1621:
1622: %\cite{Feng:2005ba}
1623: \bibitem{Feng:2005ba}
1624: J.~L.~Feng, A.~Rajaraman and B.~T.~Smith,
1625: ``Minimal supergravity with $m_0^2 < 0$,''
1626: arXiv:hep-ph/0512172.
1627: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0512172;%%
1628:
1629: % Gauge mediation
1630:
1631: %\cite{Dine:1993yw}
1632: \bibitem{Dine:1993yw}
1633: M.~Dine and A.~E.~Nelson,
1634: ``Dynamical supersymmetry breaking at low-energies,''
1635: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 48}, 1277 (1993)
1636: [arXiv:hep-ph/9303230].
1637: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9303230;%%
1638:
1639: %\cite{Dine:1994vc}
1640: \bibitem{Dine:1994vc}
1641: M.~Dine, A.~E.~Nelson and Y.~Shirman,
1642: ``Low-energy dynamical supersymmetry breaking simplified,''
1643: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 51}, 1362 (1995)
1644: [arXiv:hep-ph/9408384].
1645: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9408384;%%
1646:
1647: %\cite{Dine:1995ag}
1648: \bibitem{Dine:1995ag}
1649: M.~Dine, A.~E.~Nelson, Y.~Nir and Y.~Shirman,
1650: ``New tools for low-energy dynamical supersymmetry breaking,''
1651: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 53}, 2658 (1996)
1652: [arXiv:hep-ph/9507378].
1653: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9507378;%%
1654:
1655:
1656: % Anomaly mediation
1657:
1658: %\cite{Randall:1998uk}
1659: \bibitem{Randall:1998uk}
1660: L.~Randall and R.~Sundrum,
1661: ``Out of this world supersymmetry breaking,''
1662: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 557}, 79 (1999)
1663: [arXiv:hep-th/9810155].
1664: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9810155;%%
1665:
1666: %\cite{Giudice:1998xp}
1667: \bibitem{Giudice:1998xp}
1668: G.~F.~Giudice, M.~A.~Luty, H.~Murayama and R.~Rattazzi,
1669: ``Gaugino mass without singlets,''
1670: JHEP {\bf 9812}, 027 (1998)
1671: [arXiv:hep-ph/9810442].
1672: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9810442;%%
1673:
1674: % Mirage mediation
1675:
1676: %\cite{Choi:2004sx}
1677: \bibitem{Choi:2004sx}
1678: K.~Choi, A.~Falkowski, H.~P.~Nilles, M.~Olechowski and S.~Pokorski,
1679: %``Stability of flux compactifications and the pattern of supersymmetry
1680: %breaking,''
1681: JHEP {\bf 0411}, 076 (2004)
1682: [arXiv:hep-th/0411066].
1683: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0411066;%%
1684:
1685: %\cite{Choi:2005ge}
1686: \bibitem{Choi:2005ge}
1687: K.~Choi, A.~Falkowski, H.~P.~Nilles and M.~Olechowski,
1688: %``Soft supersymmetry breaking in KKLT flux compactification,''
1689: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 718}, 113 (2005)
1690: [arXiv:hep-th/0503216].
1691: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0503216;%%
1692:
1693: %\cite{Choi:2005uz}
1694: \bibitem{Choi:2005uz}
1695: K.~Choi, K.~S.~Jeong and K.~i.~Okumura,
1696: ``Phenomenology of mixed modulus-anomaly mediation in fluxed string
1697: compactifications and brane models,''
1698: JHEP {\bf 0509}, 039 (2005)
1699: [arXiv:hep-ph/0504037].
1700: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0504037;%%
1701:
1702: %\cite{Endo:2005uy}
1703: \bibitem{Endo:2005uy}
1704: M.~Endo, M.~Yamaguchi and K.~Yoshioka,
1705: ``A bottom-up approach to moduli dynamics in heavy gravitino scenario:
1706: Superpotential, soft terms and sparticle mass spectrum,''
1707: %
1708: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 72}, 015004 (2005)
1709: [arXiv:hep-ph/0504036].
1710: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0504036;%%
1711:
1712: %\cite{Falkowski:2005ck}
1713: \bibitem{Falkowski:2005ck}
1714: A.~Falkowski, O.~Lebedev and Y.~Mambrini,
1715: ``Susy Phenomenology Of Kklt Flux Compactifications,''
1716: JHEP {\bf 0511}, 034 (2005)
1717: [arXiv:hep-ph/0507110].
1718: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0507110;%%
1719:
1720: %\cite{Choi:2005hd}
1721: \bibitem{Choi:2005hd}
1722: K.~Choi, K.~S.~Jeong, T.~Kobayashi and K.~i.~Okumura,
1723: ``Little SUSY hierarchy in mixed modulus-anomaly mediation,''
1724: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 633}, 355 (2006)
1725: [arXiv:hep-ph/0508029].
1726: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0508029;%%
1727:
1728: %\cite{Kitano:2005wc}
1729: \bibitem{Kitano:2005wc}
1730: R.~Kitano and Y.~Nomura,
1731: ``A solution to the supersymmetric fine-tuning problem within the MSSM,''
1732: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 631}, 58 (2005)
1733: [arXiv:hep-ph/0509039].
1734: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0509039;%%
1735:
1736: %\cite{Lebedev:2005ge}
1737: \bibitem{Lebedev:2005ge}
1738: O.~Lebedev, H.~P.~Nilles and M.~Ratz,
1739: ``A note on fine-tuning in mirage mediation,''
1740: arXiv:hep-ph/0511320.
1741: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0511320;%%
1742:
1743:
1744:
1745: %\cite{Giudice:1998bp}
1746: \bibitem{Giudice:1998bp}
1747: G.~F.~Giudice and R.~Rattazzi,
1748: ``Theories with gauge-mediated supersymmetry breaking,''
1749: Phys.\ Rept.\ {\bf 322}, 419 (1999)
1750: [arXiv:hep-ph/9801271].
1751: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9801271;%%
1752:
1753: %\cite{Giudice:1988yz}
1754: \bibitem{Giudice:1988yz}
1755: G.~F.~Giudice and A.~Masiero,
1756: ``A Natural Solution To The Mu Problem In Supergravity Theories,''
1757: %
1758: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 206}, 480 (1988).
1759: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B206,480;%%
1760:
1761: %\cite{Ellis:1986yg}
1762: \bibitem{Ellis:1986yg}
1763: J.~R.~Ellis, K.~Enqvist, D.~V.~Nanopoulos and F.~Zwirner,
1764: ``Observables In Low-Energy Superstring Models,''
1765: Mod.\ Phys.\ Lett.\ A {\bf 1}, 57 (1986).
1766: %%CITATION = MPLAE,A1,57;%%
1767:
1768: %\cite{Barbieri:1987fn}
1769: \bibitem{Barbieri:1987fn}
1770: R.~Barbieri and G.~F.~Giudice,
1771: ``Upper Bounds On Supersymmetric Particle Masses,''
1772: %
1773: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 306}, 63 (1988).
1774: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B306,63;%%
1775:
1776: % Stop NSLP
1777:
1778: %\cite{Chou:1999zb}
1779: \bibitem{Chou:1999zb}
1780: C.~L.~Chou and M.~E.~Peskin,
1781: ``Scalar top quark as the next-to-lightest supersymmetric particle,''
1782: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 61}, 055004 (2000)
1783: [arXiv:hep-ph/9909536].
1784: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9909536;%%
1785:
1786: % Gravitino LSP
1787:
1788: %\cite{Feng:2003jw}
1789: \bibitem{Feng:2003jw}
1790: J.~L.~Feng,
1791: ``SuperWIMPs in supergravity,''
1792: arXiv:hep-ph/0308201.
1793: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0308201;%%
1794:
1795: %\cite{Ellis:2003dn}
1796: \bibitem{Ellis:2003dn}
1797: J.~R.~Ellis, K.~A.~Olive, Y.~Santoso and V.~C.~Spanos,
1798: ``Gravitino dark matter in the CMSSM,''
1799: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 588}, 7 (2004)
1800: [arXiv:hep-ph/0312262].
1801: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0312262;%%
1802:
1803: %\cite{Feng:2004zu}
1804: \bibitem{Feng:2004zu}
1805: J.~L.~Feng, S.~f.~Su and F.~Takayama,
1806: ``SuperWIMP gravitino dark matter from slepton and sneutrino decays,''
1807: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 70}, 063514 (2004)
1808: [arXiv:hep-ph/0404198].
1809: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0404198;%%
1810:
1811: %\cite{Feng:2004mt}
1812: \bibitem{Feng:2004mt}
1813: J.~L.~Feng, S.~Su and F.~Takayama,
1814: ``Supergravity with a gravitino LSP,''
1815: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 70}, 075019 (2004)
1816: [arXiv:hep-ph/0404231].
1817: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0404231;%%
1818:
1819: %\cite{Ellis:2005ii}
1820: \bibitem{Ellis:2005ii}
1821: J.~R.~Ellis, K.~A.~Olive and E.~Vangioni,
1822: ``Effects Of Unstable Particles On Light-Element Abundances: Lithium Versus
1823: Deuterium And He-3,''
1824: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 619}, 30 (2005)
1825: [arXiv:astro-ph/0503023].
1826: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0503023;%%
1827:
1828: %\cite{Steffen:2006hw}
1829: \bibitem{Steffen:2006hw}
1830: F.~D.~Steffen,
1831: ``Gravitino dark matter and cosmological constraints,''
1832: arXiv:hep-ph/0605306.
1833: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0605306;%%
1834:
1835: %\cite{Giudice:1997ni}
1836: \bibitem{Giudice:1997ni}
1837: G.~F.~Giudice and R.~Rattazzi,
1838: ``Extracting supersymmetry-breaking effects from wave-function
1839: renormalization,''
1840: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 511}, 25 (1998)
1841: [arXiv:hep-ph/9706540].
1842: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9706540;%%
1843:
1844: %\cite{Arkani-Hamed:1998kj}
1845: \bibitem{Arkani-Hamed:1998kj}
1846: N.~Arkani-Hamed, G.~F.~Giudice, M.~A.~Luty and R.~Rattazzi,
1847: ``Supersymmetry-breaking loops from analytic continuation into superspace,''
1848: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 58}, 115005 (1998)
1849: [arXiv:hep-ph/9803290].
1850: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9803290;%%
1851:
1852: % D0 gluino squark mass bound
1853:
1854: %\cite{Abazov:2006bj}
1855: \bibitem{Abazov:2006bj}
1856: V.~M.~Abazov {\it et al.} [D0 Collaboration],
1857: ``Search for squarks and gluinos in events with jets and missing transverse
1858: energy in p anti-p collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 1.96$ TeV,''
1859: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 638}, 119 (2006)
1860: [arXiv:hep-ex/0604029].
1861: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0604029;%%
1862:
1863: %cite{CDF_squarks+gluino}
1864: \bibitem{CDF_squarks+gluino}
1865: CDF prelliminary results for jets + missing transverse energy search can be found
1866: on the web site,
1867: $http://www-cdf.fnal.gov/physics/exotic/r2a/20060420.squarkgluino\_metjets/$
1868: % CDF, RUN II, 371 pb^{-1}
1869:
1870: % Minimal SUGRA
1871:
1872: %\cite{Ibe:2004mp}
1873: \bibitem{Ibe:2004mp}
1874: M.~Ibe, K.~I.~Izawa and T.~Yanagida,
1875: ``Realization of minimal supergravity,''
1876: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 71}, 035005 (2005)
1877: [arXiv:hep-ph/0409203].
1878: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0409203;%%
1879:
1880: %\cite{Ibe:2006fs}
1881: \bibitem{Ibe:2006fs}
1882: M.~Ibe, K.~I.~Izawa, Y.~Shinbara and T.~T.~Yanagida,
1883: ``Minimal supergravity, inflation, and all that,''
1884: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 637}, 21 (2006)
1885: [arXiv:hep-ph/0602192].
1886: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0602192;%%
1887:
1888: % Naive dimensional analysis
1889:
1890: %\cite{Weinberg:1978kz}
1891: \bibitem{Weinberg:1978kz}
1892: S.~Weinberg,
1893: ``Phenomenological Lagrangians,''
1894: %
1895: PhysicaA {\bf 96}, 327 (1979).
1896: %%CITATION = PHYSA,A96,327;%%
1897:
1898: %\cite{Luty:1997fk}
1899: \bibitem{Luty:1997fk}
1900: M.~A.~Luty,
1901: ``Naive dimensional analysis and supersymmetry,''
1902: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 57}, 1531 (1998)
1903: [arXiv:hep-ph/9706235].
1904: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9706235;%%
1905:
1906: %\cite{Cohen:1997rt}
1907: \bibitem{Cohen:1997rt}
1908: A.~G.~Cohen, D.~B.~Kaplan and A.~E.~Nelson,
1909: ``Counting 4pi's in strongly coupled supersymmetry,''
1910: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 412}, 301 (1997)
1911: [arXiv:hep-ph/9706275].
1912: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9706275;%%
1913:
1914:
1915: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1916: \end{thebibliography}
1917: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1918:
1919:
1920: \end{document}
1921: