Page 1
Prepared for submission to JHEP
Is Natural SUSY Natural?
Edward Hardya
aRudolf Peierls Centre for Theoretical Physics, University of Oxford,
1 Keble Road, Oxford, OX1 3NP, UK
E-mail: e.hardy12@physics.ox.ac.uk
Abstract: We study the fine tuning associated to a ‘Natural Supersymmetry’ spectrum
with stops, after RG running, significantly lighter than the first two generation sfermions
and the gluino. In particular, we emphasise that this tuning should be measured with
respect to the parameters taken to be independent at the assumed UV boundary of the
renormalisation group flow, and improve the accuracy of previous approximate expressions.
It is found that, if running begins at 1016GeV?105GeV?, decreasing the UV stop mass
tuning of the theory. In contrast, it is possible to raise the first two generation sfermion
masses out of LHC reach without introducing additional tuning. After running, regions of
parameter space favoured by naturalness and consistent with LHC bounds typically have
IR stop masses of order 1.5 TeV (0.75 TeV), and fine tuning of at least 400 (50) for high
(low) scale mediation. We also study the fine tuning of theories with Dirac gluinos. These
allow for substantial separation of the gluino and sfermion masses and, regardless of the
scale of mediation, lead to relatively low fine tuning of order 50. Hence viable models can
still favour light stops, but this requires extra structure beyond the MSSM field content.
below 0.75 (0.4) of the weak scale Majorana gluino mass does not improve the overall fine
arXiv:1306.1534v3 [hep-ph] 2 Dec 2013
Page 2
Contents
1 Introduction1
2 Fine Tuning to Obtain a Light Stop4
3 Electroweak Fine Tuning in Models of Natural SUSY10
4Dirac Gauginos for Natural SUSY21
5Summary 23
A Subleading Terms from Stop Back Reaction25
1 Introduction
With the LHC giving increasingly strong limits on supersymmetric spectra with universal
sfermion masses, models of ‘natural’ supersymmetry (SUSY), where only superpartners
directly involved in the tuning of the electroweak scale are light, provide an intriguing
alternative [1, 2]. Since the parton content of the proton means many production channels
of supersymmetric particles are strongest through the first two generation sfermions, such
spectra can relax collider limits dramatically and provide hope for an electroweak sector
without significant fine tuning [3–16]. However, as was quickly realised after their initial
proposal, it is difficult to preserve a natural spectrum, which requires light stops, during
running to the weak scale [17, 18]. On one hand, the heavy first two generation sfermions
tend to drive the stops tachyonic, while on the other, a gluino above the current experi-
mental limit will tend to pull the stops to unacceptably high masses. These running effects
manifest themselves in the electroweak sector as two loop contributions to the up type
Higgs’ soft mass.
Quantifying the fine tuning of a model is a useful tool to study the viability of particular
low energy spectra [19]. This approach has been applied in a large number of studies of
supersymmetric models, for example [20–36], has been used to strongly constrain spectra
with universal sfermion masses, and has also been studied in the context of natural spectra
[37–41]. In this paper, we first derive expressions for the fine tuning required to obtain stops
significantly lighter than gluinos and the first two generation sfermions. We then extend
previous approximate results for the fine tuning of the electroweak scale introduced due to
heavy gluinos and sfermions. Applying current experimental contraints these are used to
study the extent to which fine tuning may be evaded. Our main result is that if there is a
Majorana gluino with mass > 1.5TeV there is no fine tuning benefit to decreasing the stop
masses below roughly 1 TeV if mediation is from close to the GUT scale. This is because
– 1 –
Page 3
such theories necessarily contain a significant amount of fine tuning in the electroweak
sector from the gluino feeding into the Higgs mass at two loops. However, while there is no
benefit to reducing the stop mass, provided the stop is not too light (? 500GeV) doing so
does not actually make the tuning of the theory worse and is not actively disfavoured. As
a result of this, we are able to put a strong lower bound on the fine tuning of theories of
natural SUSY, even though there are regions of parameter space where the LHC has not
excluded light stops.
An important point for our study is that we assume particular renomalisation group
boundary conditions at some energy scale. The fine tuning of the theory is then measured
with respect to the parameters of the theory at this boundary, which are assumed to be
independent.1In contrast, the weak scale parameters have values which are strongly cou-
pled together by the renormalisation group equations and attempting to quantify the fine
tuning of a theory in terms of them has the capacity to miss important effects from running
(the importance of this has been emphasised in recent papers [42, 43]). Of course, choosing
the independent variables at the UV boundary automatically requires some assumptions
about the mediation of supersymmetry breaking, and in particular possible correlations
between soft terms at this scale. Additionally, we must assume there is no new physics
between the UV boundary and the weak scale that modifies the running, the possibility
that this assumption does not hold due to interactions in the SUSY breaking sector has
been studied in [44, 45]. For the majority of our study, we take the independent variables
to be the gluino mass (the other gauginos are less important for our study and we do not
need to assume a GUT structure), the stop mass and the mass of the first two generation
sfermions, which are assumed to be universal based on strong flavour constraints [46].2
Such a choice is reasonable; to obtain a natural spectrum typically requires boundary con-
ditions with heavy first two generation sfermions, an intermediate mass gluino and stops
with masses somewhat, but not too far, below the gluino. This is usually accomplished
by including several mediation mechanisms which couple to different visible sector states.
For example, the first two generation sfermions may gain their mass dominantly through
a D-term of an additional U(1) gauge group [52–57], while the gluino and stops gain their
mass either through another form of gauge mediation or gravity mediation. Hence, these
masses may be adjusted independently. Additionally, in both gravity mediation [58] and
the most general models of gauge mediation [59], the gauge fermion and sfermion masses
generated are independent.
There is an alternative scenario which is also well motivated. Suppose, the gluino and
stop masses at the UV renormalisation boundary are both generated through a single F-
term, as the result of an especially simple SUSY breaking sector and mediation mechanism.
Now, varying the gluino mass will be correlated to varying the UV stop mass, and hence
we should take the F-term to be our fundamental parameter. As we will discuss later,
this scenario actually makes the tuning of natural SUSY spectra substantially worse since
1Note however, the choice of the location of this boundary, and the set of independent parameters
there, is only physically meaningful once a complete UV theory, including all higher dimension operators,
is specified.
2Though see, for example, [47–51] for a discussion of ways in which this assumption may be relaxed.
– 2 –
Page 4
increasing the F-term increases the weak scale stop mass both directly though the UV
stop mass, and through the increased running from a more massive gluino. In this way
our study can be seen as providing a lower bound on the fine tuning obtained. A more
serious question is whether the left and right handed stop masses should be regarded as
one parameter, as is the case if both gain the majority of their soft mass through the same
mediation mechanism. This is expected to be the case in many models of natural SUSY,
however is not required in generic mediation. We give results for the both the case where
these are independent, and when they are not.
There is a possible proviso to our argument. It might be the case that the mediation
mechanism somehow favours UV spectra which, as the magnitude of the SUSY breaking
is varied, preserves a particular structure which minimises the running (this is the case
for focus point spectra [60, 61]). However, such a mechanism would need to couple the
stop, gluino, and first two generation sfermions in a highly non-trivial way despite their
soft masses coming from very different sources (typically R-symmetry preserving SUSY
breaking, R-symmetry breaking SUSY breaking and an additional D-term respectively),
and there seems to be no reason that SUSY breaking and mediation should know anything
at all about the MSSM renormalisation group equations. Therefore, this does not seem a
strong assumption.3
As a final caveat of our work, we have studied only the sensitivity of the electroweak
scale to the UV parameters. We make no attempt to quantify the probability, over the
theory space of SUSY breaking and mediation mechanisms, that the initial UV parameters
begin in the correct region to allow for a natural spectrum at the weak scale. Since, as
discussed, such a starting point requires multiple forms of mediation which, a priori, could
lead to a separation between the gluino and sfermion masses which is far too large to lead to
a viable natural spectrum at the weak scale. Hence, it may be thought that natural spectra
are rare over the space of models. However, there may be some hope in this direction by
linking the ratio of gluino to first two generation sfermion masses to another parameter of
approximately the correct size in the model, for example the parameter ξ2in string theory
or the ratio of fermion masses [56, 57].
While the main focus of our work is on conventional Majorana gauginos, an interesting
alternative is to introduce additional fields that allow the generation of Dirac gaugino mass
term. We study the electroweak fine tuning in a simple example of such a model, and find
that, independent of the mediation scale, it is comparable to a MSSM theory with very low
cutoff. Hence, this is a good option for reducing fine tuning in models where the mediation
scale is required to be high, for example if attempting to build a string-motivated UV
completion.
As is well known, there is also a tension between light stops and the observed Higgs
mass of ∼ 125GeV. At tree level in the MSSM, the Higgs mass is bounded by the mass of
the Z boson, and radiative corrections from fairly heavy stops are required to raise its mass
to the observed value (see, for example, [62]). For the purposes of this work, we assume
3In contrast focus point scenarios typically only involve one, simple, form of mediation to all MSSM
fields, hence can occur as a result of single numerical coincidence in the structure of the mediators which
seems far less artificial than would be required for a natural SUSY spectrum.
– 3 –
Page 5
this can be evaded through an NMSSM like model, in which an additional singlet is present
giving an extra tree level contribution to the Higgs mass. The extra field content of such
a model does not alter the leading dependence of the Higgs mass on the gluino, stops, and
sfermions during running so will not affect our fine tuning results, and is independently
motivated for its ability to solve the µ problem [63]. The extra field content will somewhat
change the fine tuning with respect to the soft Higgs mass, which we calculate within the
MSSM, however the parametric form will be unchanged, and ultimately we will find this
is not typically the dominant tuning. Even in the NMSSM very light stops are potentially
problematic, since in this case, the coupling, λ, of the singlet, S, to the Higgs through
the term λSHuHdmust be large at the weak scale [64]. Typically such values, lead to λ
running to a strong coupling regime before 1016GeV, although this does not necessarily
ruin the successful prediction of gauge unification [65]. In contrast, we will find that the
most natural regions of parameter space not yet excluded by LHC limits may have relatively
heavy stop masses, which allow λ to be small or the Higgs mass to be generated directly
in the MSSM without additional structure.
Turning to the structure of this paper, in Section 2 we discus the fine tuning of the
UV parameters required to obtain a light stop after running. Section 3 contains the main
results on the tuning of the electroweak VEV in natural scenarios, while Section 4 contains
our discussion of Dirac gauginos.
2 Fine Tuning to Obtain a Light Stop
We begin by briefly reviewing the fine tuning of the electroweak scale introduced by stops,
as was defined in the early phenomenological studies of supersymmetry [19]. The fine
tuning due to the weak scale values of the stops is given by
????
where, for future convenience, the tilde denotes that this is a fine tuning with respect to
the theory’s weak scale parameters. We will generally use the convention that soft terms
without their scale specified are evaluated at the UV boundary of the renormalisation flow
of the theory, ΛUV, which is typically the scale at which SUSY breaking is mediated.
It is straightforward to estimate˜Z˜t. Stops give a contribution to the up type Higgs
through running, which is given at leading log level by
˜Z˜t=
∂?logM2
logm2
Z
?
∂
?
˜t(MW)
?
????=
m2
M2
˜t
Z
∂M2
˜t(MW),
Z
∂m2
(2.1)
δm2
Hu(MW) =−3y2
t
8π2
?m2
u3(MW) + m2
Q3(MW) + A2
t(MW)?log
?ΛUV
m˜t
?
. (2.2)
Additionally, to a good approximation,
˜Zm˜
Q3=
????
2δm2
M2
Hu
Z
????. (2.3)
Hence the fine tuning parameter at this order is
˜Zm˜
Q3=
3
4π2cos(2β)
m2
v2M2
t
Z
log
?ΛUV
m˜t
?
m2˜
Q3(MW). (2.4)
– 4 –
Page 26
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to Asimina Arvanitaki, Masha Baryakhtar , Savas Dimopoulos, Saso Groz-
danov, Ulrich Haisch, Xinlu Huang, Ken Van Tilburg, and James Unwin for useful discus-
sions, and especially John March-Russell for discussions and comments on the manuscript.
We are also grateful to the JHEP referee for a number of very useful comments, including
on the distinction between an assumed UV boundary and a genuine UV cut-off and the
importance of the direct two loop contribution from the sfermions to the Higgs.
ASubleading Terms from Stop Back Reaction
In this Appendix we calculate the back-reaction from the stop, when it is perturbed by
a change in the gluino or sfermion masses. While this is a small effect, we include it in
our numerical simulations. It occurs due to a term ∼ ytm2˜
equation for the stops which tends to suppress any change in the stop mass.
First, the effect on the gaugino fine tuning. If, at a scale t, a gaugino has led to a
change in the left handed stop mass of ∆m2˜
Q3in the renormalisation group
Q3, this will feed back into the running as
d
dt
?
∆m2˜
Q3
?
=
2y2
16π2∆m2˜
t
Q3(t). (A.1)
This can be integrated by using the expression for ∆m2˜
Q3(t) in (2.7)
∆
?
∆m2˜
Q3
?
=
2y2
16π2
t
2Ci
bi
αi(Λ)log2?
1 +biαi(Λ)
2π
?t
tΛ
?M2
i(t) − M2
i(Λ)?dt
?M2
(A.2)
=Ciy2
8π2
t
Λ
m˜
?
?
?
Q3
?
Λ
)
log
m˜
Q3
i.(A.3)
The leading expression for ∆
A similar procedure gives the back reaction from the first two generation sfermions as
?
m˜
Q3
?
∆m2
˜ u3
?
= 2 × ∆
?
∆m2˜
Q3
.
∆
?
∆m2˜
Q3
?
?
=
?
i
y2
π3biCiαi
t
log
?
Λ
?
−
2π
biαilog1 +biαi
2π
log
?
Λ
m˜
Q3
???
˜ m2
1,2,
(A.4)
and again ∆
˜ m2
1,2, their contribution to the fine tuning with respect to these variables is straightforward.
∆m2
˜ u3
?
= 2×∆
?
∆m2˜
Q3
?
. Since these corrections depend linearly on M2
iand
References
[1] S. Dimopoulos and G. Giudice, Naturalness constraints in supersymmetric theories with
nonuniversal soft terms, Phys.Lett. B357 (1995) 573–578, [hep-ph/9507282].
[2] A. G. Cohen, D. Kaplan, and A. Nelson, The More minimal supersymmetric standard model,
Phys.Lett. B388 (1996) 588–598, [hep-ph/9607394].
– 25 –
Page 27
[3] G. D. Kribs, A. Martin, and A. Menon, Natural Supersymmetry and Implications for Higgs
physics, arXiv:1305.1313.
[4] K. Krizka, A. Kumar, and D. E. Morrissey, Very Light Scalar Top Quarks at the LHC,
arXiv:1212.4856.
[5] R. Auzzi, A. Giveon, S. B. Gudnason, and T. Shacham, A Light Stop with Flavor in Natural
SUSY, JHEP 1301 (2013) 169, [arXiv:1208.6263].
[6] J. R. Espinosa, C. Grojean, V. Sanz, and M. Trott, NSUSY fits, JHEP 1212 (2012) 077,
[arXiv:1207.7355].
[7] Z. Han, A. Katz, D. Krohn, and M. Reece, (Light) Stop Signs, JHEP 1208 (2012) 083,
[arXiv:1205.5808].
[8] H. M. Lee, V. Sanz, and M. Trott, Hitting sbottom in natural SUSY, JHEP 1205 (2012) 139,
[arXiv:1204.0802].
[9] Y. Bai, H.-C. Cheng, J. Gallicchio, and J. Gu, Stop the Top Background of the Stop Search,
JHEP 1207 (2012) 110, [arXiv:1203.4813].
[10] B. Allanach and B. Gripaios, Hide and Seek With Natural Supersymmetry at the LHC, JHEP
1205 (2012) 062, [arXiv:1202.6616].
[11] G. Larsen, Y. Nomura, and H. L. Roberts, Supersymmetry with Light Stops, JHEP 1206
(2012) 032, [arXiv:1202.6339].
[12] X.-J. Bi, Q.-S. Yan, and P.-F. Yin, Probing Light Stop Pairs at the LHC, Phys.Rev. D85
(2012) 035005, [arXiv:1111.2250].
[13] C. Brust, A. Katz, S. Lawrence, and R. Sundrum, SUSY, the Third Generation and the
LHC, JHEP 1203 (2012) 103, [arXiv:1110.6670].
[14] E. Arganda, J. L. Diaz-Cruz, and A. Szynkman, Decays of H0/A0in supersymmetric
scenarios with heavy sfermions, Eur.Phys.J. C73 (2013) 2384, [arXiv:1211.0163].
[15] E. Arganda, J. L. Diaz-Cruz, and A. Szynkman, Slim SUSY, Phys.Lett. B722 (2013) 100,
[arXiv:1301.0708].
[16] J. Cao, C. Han, L. Wu, J. M. Yang, and Y. Zhang, Probing Natural SUSY from Stop Pair
Production at the LHC, JHEP 1211 (2012) 039, [arXiv:1206.3865].
[17] N. Arkani-Hamed and H. Murayama, Can the supersymmetric flavor problem decouple?,
Phys.Rev. D56 (1997) 6733–6737, [hep-ph/9703259].
[18] J. Hisano, K. Kurosawa, and Y. Nomura, Natural effective supersymmetry, Nucl.Phys. B584
(2000) 3–45, [hep-ph/0002286].
[19] R. Barbieri and G. Giudice, Upper bounds on supersymmetric particle masses, Nuclear
Physics B 306 (1988), no. 1 63 – 76.
[20] R. Kitano and Y. Nomura, Supersymmetry, naturalness, and signatures at the LHC,
Phys.Rev. D73 (2006) 095004, [hep-ph/0602096].
[21] R. Kitano and Y. Nomura, A Solution to the supersymmetric fine-tuning problem within the
MSSM, Phys.Lett. B631 (2005) 58–67, [hep-ph/0509039].
[22] S. Antusch, L. Calibbi, V. Maurer, M. Monaco, and M. Spinrath, Naturalness of the
Non-Universal MSSM in the Light of the Recent Higgs Results, JHEP 01 (2013) 187,
[arXiv:1207.7236].
– 26 –
Page 28
[23] J. L. Feng, Naturalness and the Status of Supersymmetry, arXiv:1302.6587.
[24] A. Arvanitaki, N. Craig, S. Dimopoulos, and G. Villadoro, Mini-Split, JHEP 1302 (2013)
126, [arXiv:1210.0555].
[25] A. Strumia, Naturalness of supersymmetric models, hep-ph/9904247.
[26] G. L. Kane and S. King, Naturalness implications of LEP results, Phys.Lett. B451 (1999)
113–122, [hep-ph/9810374].
[27] Z. Kang, J. Li, and T. Li, On Naturalness of the MSSM and NMSSM, JHEP 1211 (2012)
024, [arXiv:1201.5305].
[28] S. Cassel, D. Ghilencea, and G. Ross, Testing SUSY at the LHC: Electroweak and Dark
matter fine tuning at two-loop order, Nucl.Phys. B835 (2010) 110–134, [arXiv:1001.3884].
[29] S. Cassel, D. Ghilencea, and G. Ross, Testing SUSY, Phys.Lett. B687 (2010) 214–218,
[arXiv:0911.1134].
[30] D. Ghilencea, A new approach to Naturalness in SUSY models, arXiv:1304.1193.
[31] P. Athron, M. Binjonaid, and S. F. King, Fine Tuning in the Constrained Exceptional
Supersymmetric Standard Model, arXiv:1302.5291.
[32] M. Cabrera, J. Casas, and R. Ruiz de Austri, Bayesian approach and Naturalness in MSSM
analyses for the LHC, JHEP 0903 (2009) 075, [arXiv:0812.0536].
[33] J. Casas, J. Espinosa, and I. Hidalgo, The MSSM fine tuning problem: A Way out, JHEP
0401 (2004) 008, [hep-ph/0310137].
[34] B. de Carlos and J. Casas, One loop analysis of the electroweak breaking in supersymmetric
models and the fine tuning problem, Phys.Lett. B309 (1993) 320–328, [hep-ph/9303291].
[35] M. Badziak, E. Dudas, M. Olechowski, and S. Pokorski, Inverted Sfermion Mass Hierarchy
and the Higgs Boson Mass in the MSSM, JHEP 1207 (2012) 155, [arXiv:1205.1675].
[36] G. G. Ross and K. Schmidt-Hoberg, The Fine-Tuning of the Generalised NMSSM,
Nucl.Phys. B862 (2012) 710–719, [arXiv:1108.1284].
[37] H. Baer, V. Barger, P. Huang, A. Mustafayev, and X. Tata, Radiative natural SUSY with a
125 GeV Higgs boson, Phys.Rev.Lett. 109 (2012) 161802, [arXiv:1207.3343].
[38] M. Papucci, J. T. Ruderman, and A. Weiler, Natural SUSY Endures, JHEP 1209 (2012)
035, [arXiv:1110.6926].
[39] K. Agashe and M. Graesser, Supersymmetry breaking and the supersymmetric flavor problem:
An Analysis of decoupling the first two generation scalars, Phys.Rev. D59 (1999) 015007,
[hep-ph/9801446].
[40] C. Wymant, Optimising Stop Naturalness, Phys.Rev. D86 (2012) 115023,
[arXiv:1208.1737].
[41] D. Ghilencea and G. Ross, The fine-tuning cost of the likelihood in SUSY models, Nucl.Phys.
B868 (2013) 65–74, [arXiv:1208.0837].
[42] H. Baer, V. Barger, P. Huang, D. Mickelson, A. Mustafayev, et. al., Post-LHC7 fine-tuning
in the mSUGRA/CMSSM model with a 125 GeV Higgs boson, arXiv:1210.3019.
[43] H. Baer, V. Barger, and M. Padeffke-Kirkland, Electroweak versus high scale finetuning in
the 19-parameter SUGRA model, arXiv:1304.6732.
– 27 –
Page 29
[44] M. Dine, P. Fox, E. Gorbatov, Y. Shadmi, Y. Shirman, et. al., Visible effects of the hidden
sector, Phys.Rev. D70 (2004) 045023, [hep-ph/0405159].
[45] A. G. Cohen, T. S. Roy, and M. Schmaltz, Hidden sector renormalization of MSSM scalar
masses, JHEP 0702 (2007) 027, [hep-ph/0612100].
[46] R. Contino and I. Scimemi, The Supersymmetric flavor problem for heavy first two generation
scalars at next-to-leading order, Eur.Phys.J. C10 (1999) 347–356, [hep-ph/9809437].
[47] G. D. Kribs, E. Poppitz, and N. Weiner, Flavor in supersymmetry with an extended
R-symmetry, Phys.Rev. D78 (2008) 055010, [arXiv:0712.2039].
[48] M. Abdullah, I. Galon, Y. Shadmi, and Y. Shirman, Flavored Gauge Mediation, A Heavy
Higgs, and Supersymmetric Alignment, JHEP 1306 (2013) 057, [arXiv:1209.4904].
[49] M. J. Perez, P. Ramond, and J. Zhang, Mixing supersymmetry and family symmetry
breakings, Phys.Rev. D87 (2013), no. 3 035021, [arXiv:1209.6071].
[50] R. Mahbubani, M. Papucci, G. Perez, J. T. Ruderman, and A. Weiler, Light non-degenerate
squarks at the LHC, arXiv:1212.3328.
[51] I. Galon, G. Perez, and Y. Shadmi, Non-Degenerate Squarks from Flavored Gauge Mediation,
arXiv:1306.6631.
[52] G. Dvali and A. Pomarol, Anomalous U(1) as a mediator of supersymmetry breaking,
Phys.Rev.Lett. 77 (1996) 3728–3731, [hep-ph/9607383].
[53] A. E. Nelson and D. Wright, Horizontal, anomalous U(1) symmetry for the more minimal
supersymmetric standard model, Phys.Rev. D56 (1997) 1598–1604, [hep-ph/9702359].
[54] D. E. Kaplan, F. Lepeintre, A. Masiero, A. E. Nelson, and A. Riotto, Fermion masses and
gauge mediated supersymmetry breaking from a single U(1), Phys.Rev. D60 (1999) 055003,
[hep-ph/9806430].
[55] D. E. Kaplan and G. D. Kribs, Phenomenology of flavor mediated supersymmetry breaking,
Phys.Rev. D61 (2000) 075011, [hep-ph/9906341].
[56] N. Craig, M. McCullough, and J. Thaler, Flavor Mediation Delivers Natural SUSY, JHEP
1206 (2012) 046, [arXiv:1203.1622].
[57] E. Hardy and J. March-Russell, Retrofitted Natural Supersymmetry from a U(1),
arXiv:1302.5423.
[58] A. Brignole, L. E. Ibanez, and C. Munoz, Soft supersymmetry breaking terms from
supergravity and superstring models, hep-ph/9707209.
[59] P. Meade, N. Seiberg, and D. Shih, General Gauge Mediation, Prog.Theor.Phys.Suppl. 177
(2009) 143–158, [arXiv:0801.3278].
[60] J. L. Feng, K. T. Matchev, and T. Moroi, Focus points and naturalness in supersymmetry,
Phys.Rev. D61 (2000) 075005, [hep-ph/9909334].
[61] D. Horton and G. Ross, Naturalness and Focus Points with Non-Universal Gaugino Masses,
Nucl.Phys. B830 (2010) 221–247, [arXiv:0908.0857].
[62] S. P. Martin, A Supersymmetry primer, hep-ph/9709356.
[63] U. Ellwanger, C. Hugonie, and A. M. Teixeira, The Next-to-Minimal Supersymmetric
Standard Model, Phys.Rept. 496 (2010) 1–77, [arXiv:0910.1785].
– 28 –
Page 30
[64] R. Barbieri, L. J. Hall, Y. Nomura, and V. S. Rychkov, Supersymmetry without a Light Higgs
Boson, Phys.Rev. D75 (2007) 035007, [hep-ph/0607332].
[65] E. Hardy, J. March-Russell, and J. Unwin, Precision Unification in lambda SUSY with a 125
GeV Higgs, JHEP 1210 (2012) 072, [arXiv:1207.1435].
[66] B. Allanach, SOFTSUSY: a program for calculating supersymmetric spectra,
Comput.Phys.Commun. 143 (2002) 305–331, [hep-ph/0104145].
[67] A. Riotto and E. Roulet, Vacuum decay along supersymmetric flat directions, Phys.Lett.
B377 (1996) 60–66, [hep-ph/9512401].
[68] A. Riotto, E. Roulet, and I. Vilja, Preheating and vacuum metastability in supersymmetry,
Phys.Lett. B390 (1997) 73–79, [hep-ph/9607403].
[69] A. Kusenko, P. Langacker, and G. Segre, Phase transitions and vacuum tunneling into
charge and color breaking minima in the MSSM, Phys.Rev. D54 (1996) 5824–5834,
[hep-ph/9602414].
[70] P. J. Fox, A. E. Nelson, and N. Weiner, Dirac gaugino masses and supersoft supersymmetry
breaking, JHEP 0208 (2002) 035, [hep-ph/0206096].
[71] T. Kikuchi, A Solution to the little hierarchy problem in a partly N=2 extension of the
MSSM, arXiv:0812.2569.
[72] L. M. Carpenter, Dirac Gauginos, Negative Supertraces and Gauge Mediation, JHEP 1209
(2012) 102, [arXiv:1007.0017].
[73] R. Davies, J. March-Russell, and M. McCullough, A Supersymmetric One Higgs Doublet
Model, JHEP 1104 (2011) 108, [arXiv:1103.1647].
[74] K. Benakli, Dirac Gauginos: A User Manual, Fortsch.Phys. 59 (2011) 1079–1082,
[arXiv:1106.1649].
[75] G. D. Kribs and A. Martin, Supersoft Supersymmetry is Super-Safe, Phys.Rev. D85 (2012)
115014, [arXiv:1203.4821].
[76] K. Benakli, M. D. Goodsell, and F. Staub, Dirac Gauginos and the 125 GeV Higgs,
arXiv:1211.0552.
[77] R. Davies, Dirac gauginos and unification in F-theory, JHEP 1210 (2012) 010,
[arXiv:1205.1942].
[78] S. Abel and M. Goodsell, Easy Dirac Gauginos, JHEP 1106 (2011) 064, [arXiv:1102.0014].
[79] D. M. Pierce, J. A. Bagger, K. T. Matchev, and R.-j. Zhang, Precision corrections in the
minimal supersymmetric standard model, Nucl.Phys. B491 (1997) 3–67, [hep-ph/9606211].
– 29 –