SINP/TNP/01-17

hep-ph/0108267
Supersymmetry as a physics beyond the
∗
standard model
†
arXiv:hep-ph/0108267v2 10 Sep 2001

Gautam Bhattacharyya
Saha Institute of Nuclear Physics, 1/AF Bidhan Nagar, Kolkata 700064, India

Abstract
Here I briefly discuss why supersymmetry is considered a leading candidate of physics
beyond the standard model. I also highlight the salient features of different supersymmetry
breaking models. A few other symmetries, broken or intact, asscociated with any realistic
supersymmetric model are also identified. This write-up is too simple-minded for an expert
on supersymmetry. It is basically intended for those who are busy in other areas of high
energy physics.

1 Introduction
Several experiments in the last few years have tested the standard model (SM) of particle physics
[1] to an unprecedented accuracy. After the direct observations of the top quark and the tau-
neutrino, only the Higgs boson remains to be seen to bring the search for SM particles to an
end. Even though a 2.9 σ signal of a neutral Higgs boson weighing ∼ 115 GeV has of late been
announced by the LEP Collaborations at CERN [2], the statistical significance nevertheless is
too weak for the community to accept it as a discovery of the Higgs. As regards the parameters
of the SM, the total and partial widths of the Z boson have been measured at LEP to a per mille
accuracy [3], and the agreement with their SM predictions is unquestionable! Although a few
discrepancies like the ‘Rb -Rc crisis’ and the ‘ALEPH four-jet events’ at LEP and the ‘high Q2
anomaly’ at the electron proton collider HERA at DESY surfaced in the last few years, they all
disappeared with further accumulation of statistics and better understanding of the detectors.
The inconsistency between the recent muon (g − 2) measurement [4] and its SM prediction is
not so significant, particularly since the different SM computations [5] are not yet in complete
agreement with one another. Therefore we must acknowledge that the SM reigns supreme up
to the weak scale of order 100 GeV, successfully accounting for a huge set of experimental data
spanning over a wide range of energy.
Then why do we at all bother about going beyond the SM? Actually a number of theoretical
prejudices suggest that the SM is a very good effective description of Nature valid up to the
weak scale. The SM gauge group is arbitrary. We do not understand the electroweak symmetry
∗
To be published in a Special Issue on High Energy Physics of the Indian Journal of Physics on the occasion of
the 75th anniversary of the journal. A shorter version with a different title will appear, as a plenary talk write-up,
in the Proceedings of the XIVth DAE High Energy Physics Symposium, Hyderabad, India, 18-22 December, 2000.
†
Electronic address: [email protected]

1
breaking mechanism, particularly, what makes the scalar mass-square negative. The SM cannot
answer why there are only three chiral generations. The SM has no reply to the question as to
why the weak scale is so light compared to the Planck scale. It also cannot turn on gravity within
its framework. Besides, the SM has as many as 18 free parameters. All these indicate that the
SM may not be the complete story.
As regards the experimental data, even though it seems that everything fits so well within
the SM framework, there is some problem in the paradise! At least in one place the SM is in
genuine trouble – this is to explain the ‘non-zero’ mass of a neutrino as suggested by the neutrino
oscillation data. Since the SM does not contain a right-handed neutrino, it is not possible to
account for the neutrino mass within the renormalizable part of the SM Lagrangian. Without
changing the SM field content, one can indeed generate a non-zero neutrino mass through the
following dimension-5 non-renormalizable operator

1 C hHi2
L LHH ; mν ∼ , (1)
Λ Λ
giving a Majorana mass suppressed by a high scale Λ. Putting mν ∼ 0.1 eV (the choice is
motivated by the Super-Kamiokande atmospheric neutrino data), we obtain Λ ∼ 1015 GeV,
which is tantalizingly close to the Grand Unification scale! This can be interpreted [6] as a sort
of indirect hint of a new physical scale between MZ ∼ 92 GeV and MPl ∼ 1019 GeV!
All these suggest that at higher energies (i.e., shorter distances) something beyond the SM
becomes operative. But we cannot indulge ourselves in wild thinking in new physics model
building, since lots of data are now there putting some kind of a discipline to our imagination.
According to majority ‘supersymmetry’ [7, 8] is the most attractive option to describe physics
beyond the SM.

1.1 What is supersymmetry?

Supersymmetry is a new space-time symmetry interchanging bosons and fermions, i.e., it is a
symmetry between states of different spin. As an example, a spin-0 particle can be mapped to
a spin- 21 particle by a supersymmetry transformation. In supersymmetry, the Poincare group
is extended by adding two additional generators Q and Q̄, which are anticommuting, to the
existing p (linear momentum), J (angular momentum) and K (boost), such that {Q, Q̄} ∼ p.
Since the new symmetry generators are spinors, not scalars, supersymmetry is not an internal
symmetry. Years ago, Dirac postulated a doubling of states by introducing antiparticle to every
particle to reconcile Special Relativity with Quantum Mechanics. In Stern-Gerlach experiment,
an atomic beam in an inhomogeneous magnetic field was shown to split due to doubling of the
number of electron states into spin-up and -down modes. This indicated a doubling of states with
respect to angular momentum. So it is no surprise [9] that Q would cause a further splitting into
Q
particle and superparticle (f → f, fe). Since Q is spinorial, the superpartners differ from their SM
partners in spin. The superpartners of fermions, called sfermions, are scalars, and those of gauge
bosons, called gauginos, are fermions. They are clubbed together to form supermultiplets. The
two irreducible supermultiplets which are used to construct the supersymmetric standard model
are the ‘chiral’ and the ‘vector’ supermultiplets. The chiral supermultiplet contains a scalar φ
and a 2-component Majorana fermion ψ. The vector supermultiplet contains a gauge field Aµ
and a 2-component Majorana fermion λ (gaugino). The generic features of a supermultiplet are:

• There is an equal number of bosonic and fermionic degrees of freedom in a supermultiplet.

2
 • Since p2 commutes with Q, the bosons and fermions in a supermultiplet are mass degenerate.

The minimal supersymmetric standard model (MSSM) is the supersymmetric extension of

the SM which has the minimal particle content: two complex Higgs doublets (the SM has only
one) and their superpartners, the SM fermions and gauge bosons and their superpartners. The
quartic scalar coupling is related to the gauge coupling; in that sense it has one less parameter
than in the SM when supersymmetry is unbroken. There is an additional parameter µ which
controls the mixing between the Higgs supermultiplets. It should be noted that supersymmetry
has to be broken in order to explain the non-observation of any superparticle to date, and this
introduces additional parameters. The scalar and gaugino masses, the trilinear scalar couplings
(A parameters) and the bilinear Higgs mixing parameter (Bµ ) are these additional parameters.
In the absence of a precise knowledge about supersymmetry breaking, these parameters are in
general free and unrelated to one another. The number of such parameters will be counted later.
The MSSM field contents are summarised in Table 1.

Table 1: The particles in the minimal supersymmetric standard model. Overhead ‘tilde’ indicates superpartner.

Particles/superparticles spin 0 spin 1/2 SU (3) ⊗ SU (2) ⊗ U (1)

leptons, sleptons (L) (e

ν , eeL ) (ν, eL ) (1, 2, −1/2)
(in 3 families) (E c ) ee∗R ecL (1, 1, 1)

quarks, squarks (Q) uL , deL )

(e (uL , dL ) (3, 2, 1/6)
(in 3 families) (U c ) e∗R
u ucL (3̄, 1, −2/3)
(Dc ) de∗R dcL (3̄, 1, 1/3)

Higgs, higgsinos (Hu ) (Hu+ , Hu0 ) e +, H

(H e 0) (1, 2, 1/2)
u u
(Hd ) (Hd0 , Hd− ) e 0, H
(H e −) (1, 2, −1/2)
d d

Particles/superparticles spin 1 spin 1/2 SU (3) ⊗ SU (2) ⊗ U (1)

gluon, gluino g ge (8, 1, 0)

W bosons, winos W ±, W 0 f± , W
W f0 (1, 3, 0)
B boson, bino B0 e
B 0
(1, 1, 0)

1.2 Why supersymmetry?

• Supersymmetry protects the electroweak hierarchy from destabilizing divergences.
The infamous ‘hierarchy problem’, i.e., why MPl ≫ MW , or equivalently, GN ≪ GF , is the
main motivation behind the introduction of supersymmetry [10, 11, 12]. It should be noted
that the fermion masses are protected by chiral symmetry and the gauge boson masses
by gauge symmetry. But there is no such protection mechanism for a scalar. In the SM,
mH ∼ MW , both being proportional to the Higgs vacuum expectation value (VEV). The

3
 quantum correction to the Higgs mass is δm2H = O(α/π)Λ2 , where Λ is the ultraviolet cut-
off scale reflecting the appearance of new physics. It is nevertheless possible to bring down
the Higgs mass to weak scale by adjusting the counter-term to cancel this large quantum
correction. But this adjustment has to be done order by order and such fine-tuning of
one part in 1017 to keep the Higgs mass at the weak scale makes the theory sick. The
requirement of such an unnatural cancellation is at the root of the hierarchy problem. We
note at this point that quantum corrections to the Higgs mass from a bosonic loop and
a fermionic loop have opposite sign. So if the couplings are same and the boson is mass
degenerate with the fermion, the correction would vanish! What can be a better candidate
than supersymmetry to do this job? For every particle supersymmetry provides a mass
degenerate partner differing by spin 21 . However, the cancellation is not exact because
in real world supersymmetry is broken. But it has the virtue that it makes the Higgs
mass quantum correction milder: δm2H = O(α/π)δm2 , where δm2 is the splitting between
partners and spartners. Clearly, δm2H < m2H , if δm2 < 1 TeV2 .

• Supersymmetry leads to unification of gauge couplings.

This is another motivation [13]. In the SM, when the gauge couplings are extrapolated
to high scale, with their low energy measurements as input values for the calculation of
their running, they do not meet at a single point. In supersymmetry, they do, at a scale
MGUT ∼ 2 × 1016 GeV. The requirement is that the superparticles weigh around 1 TeV.
In other words, supersymmetry has the right particle content to ensure that the gauge
couplings can unify. This could be just an accident, but may be taken as a strong hint in
favour of the Grand Unified theories (GUT). In the same spirit, we may expect that other
supersymmetric couplings and soft masses also unify.

• Supersymmetry prefers a heavy top quark, and the top is indeed heavy.
Supersymmetry has two Higgs doublets. Due to heavy top quark induced radiative correc-
tion, the mass-square of one of the Higgs bosons, the one that couples to the up quark,
starting from a positive value in the ultraviolet becomes negative in the infrared triggering
electroweak symmetry breaking (EWSB). In the SM, the negative value of scalar mass-
square is completely ad hoc and is put in by hand to ensure EWSB. In supersymmetry it is
the heavy top quark that induces the flip of sign of one scalar mass-square. Also, it is quite
amazing that it is the Higgs that becomes tachyonic during renormalization group running.

• Supersymmetry prefers a light Higgs, and the Higgs is expected to be light.

Supersymmetry predicts that the lightest neutral Higgs is lighter than MZ at tree level.
Due to the heavy top quark induced radiative correction it can at most go up to ∼ 150
GeV. Even though the Higgs has not yet been found, the precision electroweak data suggest
that it should lie within 195 GeV at 95% CL, while the direct lower limit from LEPII is
mH > 113.5 GeV at 95% CL.
Also, if mH ∼ 115 GeV (the hinted value!), the SM effective potential becomes unstable
above Λ ∼ 106 GeV. This can be rectified only by invoking a ‘supersymmetry-seeming’ set
of new physics [14].

• Supersymmetry is a decoupling theory.

Supersymmetry decouples from precision measurements of the Z-pole observables. In other
words, supersymmetry contributions vanish as superparticle masses are pushed to infinity.

4
 On the contrary, simple technicolour models do not decouple and they are ruled out from
precision electroweak measurements.

• Supersymmetry provides a cold dark matter candidate.

If the gluino, the superpartner of gluon, is around 1 TeV, then the GUT boundary conditions
imply that the lightest supersymmetric particle (LSP) is around 100 GeV. Consistency with
cosmology demands that the LSP is colour and electrically neutral [15]. The LSP interacts
weakly with other particles and has properties which make it a natural candidate for cold
dark matter of the universe. However, one necessary condition for this is that the LSP is
stable. We will see later that in some supersymmetric models the LSP decays into the SM
particles.

• Supersymmetry provides a framework to turn on gravity.

Using supersymmetry as a local symmetry leads to supergravity models. This is how gravity
can be unified with all other interactions.

• Supersymmetry can explain the neutrino oscillation data.

Supersymmetric models with broken lepton numbers can reproduce the neutrino masses
and mixing angles compatible with the recent neutrino oscillation data.

1.3 Where are the superparticles?

Not a single superparticle has been found to date! The lower limits from direct searches at
colliders on the masses of generic sleptons (el) and squarks (qe), gluino (ge), lightest chargino (χ
e±1)
0
e1 ) are
and the lightest neutralino (χ

mel > ∼ 100 GeV (LEPII),

me
q ∼ me
g > ∼ 300 GeV (Fermilab Tevatron),
mχe± > ∼ 100 GeV (LEPII), (2)
1

mχe0 > ∼ 30 GeV (using GUT relations).

1

Eq. (2) shows that supersymmetry is not only broken, it is very badly broken!
Since supersymmetry has lots of unknown parameters, translating experimental data into
allowed/excluded multidimensional supersymmetry parameter space is a complicated job. First
we have to decide what we are expecting to observe, and then we have to design our devices to
detect them. Superparticles are expected to be produced in pairs, and if the LSP is stable, then
the missing energy the latter carries constitutes the characteristic signature for supersymmetry
search. For detailed and instructive discussions on the production and decay of superparticles
in different colliders, see, for example, the reviews by Martin (hep-ph/9709356), Gunion (hep-
ph/9704349), Tata (hep-ph/9706307) and Dawson (hep-ph/9612229). For a review on how to
look for supersymmetry in the next linear collider (NLC), see the recent Snowmass report [16].
For indirect constraints on supersymmetry parameter space from electroweak precision data,
b → sγ, (g − 2)µ , cosmology, etc., the readers are referred to, for example, [17], [18], [19]. One
recent analysis [17] suggests that the quality of electroweak fit improves with light superpart-
ners! Admitting sneutrinos in the range 55-80 GeV and charged sleptons marginally above their
experimental lower limit fit the data better than just the SM alone!

5
2 Supersymmetry breaking
Let us first consider the spontaneous breaking of supersymmetry. There is a difference between
an internal symmetry breaking and supersymmetry breaking. The latter requires h0|H|0i > 0,
P
where H = 41 Q2α . Consider a situation in which V (φ) = 0 for φ = v 6= 0, and V (0) > 0, where
V is the scalar potential, and φ is a scalar field which obtains a VEV v (e.g., consider the so
called Mexican Hat potential of the SM). Here gauge symmetry is broken but supersymmetry
is unbroken. Now consider a different situation in which V is symmetric about φ = 0, with
V (0) = Vmin = E > 0. Here gauge symmetry is unbroken, but supersymmetry is broken.
There two important points [10]:
• When supersymmetry is spontaneously broken, a massless Goldstone fermion is generated.
Remember, it is not simply a massless fermion (like neutrino), Goldstone fermion is a
massless fermion that is created from vacuum by the supersymmetry current:
Z
h0|Sµα |ψβ i = (γµ )αβ f ; Qα = d3 x S0α ; E = f 2 , (3)

where f is the coupling of the supercurrent to the Goldstone fermion and E, as stated
previously, is the vacuum energy density.
• If f = 0 at tree level, it remains zero at all order.
But if supersymmetry is spontaneously broken at tree level in the observable world, it im-
mediately leads to a disaster! The reason is the presence of a mass sum rule [20]
1
X
STrM 2 = (−)2J (2J + 1)TrMJ2 = X, (4)
J=0
where J is the spin of the particle, and X corresponds to the trace of the group generators.
X = 0 for any U(1) trace-anomaly free models, e.g., the supersymmetric standard model. This
sum rule creates a major threat, since it predicts the existence of a charge 2/3 squark not
heavier than the lightest charge 2/3 quark, and/or, a charge −1/3 squark not heavier than the
lightest charge −1/3 quark [11]. In view of the non-observation of any superparticle to date,
both results are experimentally ruled out. One way to tackle this problem is to admit explicit
breaking of supersymmetry. At the same time we must ensure that the hierarchy between the
Planck scale and the weak scale is not destabilized by such an action, because that was after
all the motivation behind introducing supersymmetry in the first place. The terms which break
supersymmetry explicitly but do not regenerate the quadratic divergences are called ‘soft terms’.
In fact, supersymmetry breaking is implemented by admitting explicit mass terms for the scalars
in the chiral multiplets and gauginos in the vector multiplets, and additionally by introducing the
bilinear Higgs mixing (Bµ term) and triliear scalar interaction (A terms) in the soft Lagrangian.
The mass dimension of the soft terms in the Lagrangian must be ≤ 3. We must however keep
in mind that these soft terms are not quite arbitrary, as otherwise it would be difficult to satisfy
many experimental constraints, e.g., the suppression of flavour-changing neutral currents.
But what is the origin of these soft terms? The usual prescription is the following: Supersym-
metry is spontaneously broken in a ‘hidden sector’ which has no (or very small) interactions with
the ‘visible sector’ supermultiplets. But the two sectors share some common interactions which
mediate the information of supersymmetry breaking from the hidden sector to the observable
world. The result is the appearance of calculable soft terms in the observable sector Lagrangian.
This prescription leads to different mediation mechanisms of supersymmetry breaking. These
mechanisms differ in the way the soft masses are generated and related to one another.

6
2.1 Supergravity
In supergravity (SUGRA) models [21], global supersymmetry is promoted to local supersym-
metry. Supersymmetry is broken in the hidden sector and the message is transmitted to the
observable sector by (1/MPl )-suppressed operators. Analogous to the Higgs mechanism in the
SM, there is a super-Higgs mechanism operative here in which the gravitino ‘eats up’ the Gold-
stino and becomes massive. The gravitino mass (m3/2 ) is therefore a ‘hard’ parameter which has
its origin in the hidden sector. The essential points are:
√
• Denoting the supersymmetry breaking scale by F , one can express m3/2 ∼ F/MPl . For
√
m3/2 ∼ 1 TeV, we obtain F ∼ 1011 GeV.

e 2 ∝ GN ∝ 1/MPl
• The soft scalar masses m 2 . Therefore, m
e 2 ∼ F 2 /MPl
2 , i.e. m
e ∼ m3/2 ∼ 1
TeV.

• The µ problem is solved by the Giudice-Masiero mechanism [22], in which the µ-term is
generated only at the time of supersymmetry breaking as a consequence of the observable
sector’s interaction with the hidden sector. The Higgs mixing part is
Z
d2 θ̄z ∗ Ĥd Ĥu /MPl , (5)

where z is a hidden sector spurion field which obtains an F -term vev Fz θ̄ 2 (θ̄ = Grassmann
variable). Fz breaks supersymmetry, and at the same time generates µ ∼ Fz /MPl ∼ 1 TeV.

• There are 4 free parameters and 1 sign: the common scalar and gaugino masses m0 and
M1/2 respectively, the common trilinear A parameter, the bilinear Bµ parameter (all at the
unification scale), and the sign of the µ parameter.

• The lightest supersymmetric particle (LSP) is the lightest neutralino. The supersymmetry
search strategies are based on the characteristic missing energy signature.

A closer look to the soft-breaking terms reveals that the Kahler potential generates a mass
term of the form Cab φa † φb , where Cab = hab F 2 /MPl
2 , with a and b being the generation indices.

There is no guarantee that the coupling h will be flavour digonal. The real source of this Planck
scale suppressed coupling lies in integrating out some of the Planck scale states which may
couple to both hidden and observable sectors. Unless these couplings are flavour diagonal at high
energy, we cannot control the magnitudes of the flavour off-diagonal couplings at low energy. On
the other hand, experimental constraints (like ∆mK , µ → eγ, etc.) at low energy imply that
flavour changing neutral currents are highly suppressed. The lack of explanation as to why these
couplings would be flavour diagonal (i.e. Cab = Cδab ) at high scale within the framework of
supergravity gives rise to the ‘supersymmetric flavour problem’.

2.2 Gauge mediation

Gauge mediated supersymmetry breaking (GMSB) models [23] have been formulated primarily
for the purpose of removing the supersymmetric flavour problem. Here gauge interactions rather
than gravity are used to transmit the message of supersymmetry breaking. In this framework,
there is a hidden sector where supersymmetry is broken, and in between the hidden and observable
sectors there is a messenger sector. The messenger particles have couplings with standard gauge
bosons and are aware of supersymmetry breaking since they have direct interactions with hidden

7
sector fields as well. Consider the superpotential: W = λXM M , where X is a hidden sector field
and M and M̄ are messenger sector fields which could be a 5 and 5̄ or a 10 and 10 of SU(5). hXi
breaks U (1)R symmetry (discussed later) and hFX i ≡ F breaks supersymmetry. The messenger
scalars are then split as m2± = M 2 ± F . The main features of GMSB models are:
• Gaugino mass is generated at one-loop at the messenger scale M . One obtains
αi F hXi
miλ ∼ , (6)
4π M 2
i.e., non-zero gaugino mass requires the breaking of both R symmetry and supersymmetry.
• Scalar masses are generated at two-loop order at the scale M .
3
!
2 2
X α2i (M )
m
e = 2n(F/M ) Ci , (7)
i=1
4π

where n is the number of messenger multiplets, and Ci ’s are the quadratic Casimir coeffi-
cients for the different representations to which the scalars belong. Clearly, squark masses
being proportional to strong coupling constant are heavier than sleptons, since for the latter
i cannot be 3. Also note that even though squark masses are generated in two-loop, and
gaugino masses in one-loop, the former appear as squared masses while the latter linearly,
and hence both are of the same order.
• The µ term is generated at one-loop but Bµ in scalar potential is generated at two-loop.
Still, this is very difficult to achieve. The ‘µ problem’ is rather serious in GMSB models
[24]. The trilinear A parameter is generated at two-loop, and at electroweak scale is not
very large.
• The messenger scale M can√be as low as 100 TeV. This means that a squark mass
√ of ∼ 100
GeV is consistent with a F ∼ 100 TeV. Recall that in SUGRA scenario F is several
orders of magnitude larger. For this reason the GMSB models are often cited as the ‘low
scale supersymmetry breaking models’.
• The gravitino is superlight: m3/2 ∼ F/MPl ∼ 0.1 eV or so! Gravitino emission from hard
photons or from selectrons constitutes the ‘smoking gun’ signals.

2.3 Anomaly mediation

The motivation is again to solve the flavour problem. In this scenario [25] the hidden sector is in
one brane and the observable sector is in a different brane. Supersymmetry breaking takes place in
the hidden sector and is transmitted to the observable sector via superconformal anomaly. Unlike
in the SUGRA scenario, here there is no Kahler coupling between the hidden and the observable
sectors, and this way the soft terms become ultraviolet insensitive. The ‘flavour problem’ is
thus taken care of. Superconformal anomaly gives rise to a non-zero trace of energy-momentum
tensor, and as a result soft masses are generated being proportional to the beta function of the
corresponding interaction. The main features of this anomaly mediated supersymmetry breaking
(AMSB) models are:
fi ∝ βi m . More precisely,
• Gaugino masses are proportional to the gauge beta functions: M 3/2

f3 = − 3αs f2 = α f1 = 11α
M m3/2 ; M m3/2 ; M m . (8)
4π 2
4π sin θw 4π cos2 θw 3/2

8
 This means Mg3 : M
g2 : M
g1 = 1 : −0.1 : −0.3, i.e., the Wino is the lightest neutralino. This
should be compared with the SUGRA gaugino mass relation: M g3 : Mg2 : M
g1 = 1 : 0.3 : 0.17.

• The soft scalar masses are given by

 
2 ∂γ ∂γ
m
e = −0.25 βg + βy m23/2 , (9)
∂g ∂y
where γ = c0 g2 + d0 y 2 , βg = −b0 g3 , βy = y(e0 y 2 + f0 g2 ), with g and y being the gauge
and Yukawa couplings. Since the SU(3) gauge beta function is negative while the SU(2)
and U(1) gauge beta functions are positive, it immediately follows from the above mass
relation that the sleptons are ‘tachyonic’. Phenomenologically, one tackles this problem by
putting in an universal m20 by hand to all scalar masses. A convincing theoretical reasoning
regarding the origin of m20 is still lacking.
• AMSB soft masses are renormalisation group invariant. Hence they are completely deter-
mined by their known low energy gauge and Yukawa couplings and hence make no reference
to their high energy boundary conditions. However, the universal m0 , which is thrown in
to solve the tachyonic slepton problem, spoils this invariance.

• The spectrum is defined in terms of 3 parameters and 1 sign: m3/2 , m0 , tan β, and the sign
of µ.

The near degeneracy between the lighter chargino and the wino dominated neutralino LSP is the
issue that one employs to constitute the clinching test of this scenario. The chargino will decay
into LSP and a ‘very soft’ pion and this decay will give rise to a displaced vertex. Triggering
such events though is not an experimentally easy task!

3 The parameters in a general supersymmetric model

In a general supersymmetric model, where we do not assume any particular mediation mechanism
and do not impose any GUT conditions, the soft parameters are not related to one another. In
this section, we will see how a general supersymmetric model can be parametrized [26]. We will
also count the number of parameters required for this purpose.
First consider the superpotential, written in terms of the ‘chiral superfields’, as
X ij

W = hij c c ij c
e L̂i Ĥd Êj + hd Q̂i Ĥd D̂j + hu Q̂i Ĥu Ûj + µĤd Ĥu . (10)
ij

Above, the sum is over the different generations. Ĥd and Ĥu are the two Higgs doublet superfields.
The former gives masses to down-type quarks and charged leptons and the latter gives masses
to up-type quarks. L̂ and Q̂ are lepton and quark doublet superfields; Ê c , D̂c and Û c are the
singlet charged lepton, down quark and up quark superfields respectively. he , hd and hu are the
Yukawa couplings and µ is the Higgs mixing parameter. The usual convention is to put a ‘hat’
over a superfield, and without that ‘hat’ the symbol represents the scalar component within that
superfield.
The Lagrangian is given by
X ∂W 2 X ∂2W X√
1X
−L= + ψi ψj + |Dα |2 + 2gα ψi (T α )ij φ∗j λα , (11)
i
∂φi ij
∂φi ∂φj 2 α ijα

9
where φi and ψi the generic scalar and fermion fields within the ith chiral multiplet, and λα
represents the gaugino which is a Majorana fermion in the vector multiplet with α as the gauge
group index. The D term is given by Dα = −gα φi (T α )ij φ∗j .
The soft breaking terms are given by (i, j: generation indices, α: gauge group label)
X X ij

− Lsoft = e 2ij φ∗i φj +
m Aij ∗ ∗ ij ∗
e Li Hd Ej + Ad Qi Hd Dj + Au Qi Hu Uj
ij ij
!
1 Xf
+ m2Hd |Hd |2 + m2Hu |Hu |2 + (Bµ Hd Hu + h.c.) + Mα λα λα + h.c. . (12)
2 α

3.1 Counting parameters

Let us now count the total number of real and imaginary parameters in a general supersymmetric
model with 2 Higgs doublets [27]. Each Yukawa matrix hf in Eq. (10) has 9 real and 9 imaginary
parameters, and there are 3 such matrices. Similarly, each Af matrix in Eq. (12) has 9 real and
9 imaginary parameters, and again there are 3 such matrices. The scalar mass square m e 2ij can
c c c
be written for 5 representations: Q, L, U , D , E . For each represenation, the (3 × 3) hermitian
mass square matrix has 6 real and 3 imaginary parameters. Finally, we have 3 gauge couplings (3
real), 3 gaugino masses (3 real and 3 imaginary), µ and Bµ parameters (2 real and 2 imaginary),
(m2Hu , m2Hd ) (2 real), and θQCD (1 real). Summing up, there are 95 real and 74 imaginary
parameters. Are all of them physical? The answer is: No! If we switch off the Yukawa couplings
and the soft parameters, i.e., turn on only gauge interactions, there is a global symmetry, given
by
Gglobal = U (3)5 ⊗ U (1)PQ ⊗ U (1)R . (13)
The Peccei-Quinn (PQ) and R symmetries will be discussed in the next two subsections. U (3)5
symmetry means that a unitary rotation to the 3 generations for each of the 5 representations
leaves the physics invariant. However, this unitary symmetry is broken. Once a symmetry is
broken, the number of parameters required to describe the symmetry transformation can be
removed. For example, when a U(1) symmetry is broken, we can remove one phase. Since a
U(3) matrix has 3 real and 6 imaginary parameters, we can remove 15 real and 30 imaginary
parameters from the Yukawa matrices once U (3)5 is broken. As we will see, the PQ and R
symmetries are also broken. So we can remove 2 more imaginary parameters. But even when all
the Yukawa couplings and soft parameters are turned on, there is a still a global symmetry

G′global = U (1)B ⊗ U (1)L , (14)

where B and L are baryon and lepton numbers. Hence we can remove not 32 but only 30
imaginary parameters. Thus we are left with 95 − 15 = 80 real and 74 − 30 = 44 imaginary,
i.e., a total of 124 independent parameters. The SM had only 18. So supersymmetry gifts us 106
more! In the SM we had only one CP violating phase. Now we have 43 new phases which are
CP violating!

3.2 Peccei-Quinn (PQ) symmetry

If we put µ = 0 in Eq. (10), W is invariant under the following global U(1) transformation:

Ĥd(u) → eiα Ĥd(u) , Q̂(L̂) → e−iα Q̂(L̂), Ê c → Ê c , D̂c → D̂c , Û c → Û c . (15)

10
This is a PQ symmetry, and it is preserved as long as µ = 0. Note that if µ = 0, the Bµ parameter
in Eq. (12) is also zero. Now consider the scalar minimization condition: Bµ = m2A sin 2β, where
tan β = vu /vd = hHu i/hHd i. If Bµ = 0, two cases may arise: (1) either vd = 0 or vu = 0, i.e.,
some quarks/charged leptons are massless, (2) mA = 0. Both cases are experimentally ruled out.
Hence µ 6= 0, and the PQ symmetry is broken. Consistency with phenomenology requires µ to
be within 1 TeV.
But µ is a superpotential parameter and hence there is no reason for it to be zero in the limit
of exact supersymmetry. In fact it could in principle be as high as the GUT or Planck scale.
Then the question is what makes it to weigh in the ball-park of other supersymmetry breaking
masses? This is the origin of the so called ‘µ problem’.

3.3 R symmetry
Under this global U(1) symmetry, the superpotential W → W ′ = e2iα W . This can be arranged
by, for example, by the following choice:

Ĥd(u) → eiα Ĥd(u) , Q̂(L̂) → eiα Q̂(L̂), Ê c → Ê c , D̂ c → D̂ c , Û c → Û c . (16)

R
Note, L = d2 θW is invariant under thisR rotation, where θ is the Grassmann variable. Therefore,
dθ → e−iα dθ and θ → eiα θ (to ensure dθθ = 1). Since a chiral superfield (φ̂) can be written
in terms of its scalar (φ) and fermion (ψ) components as φ̂ = φ + ψθ + F θ 2 (where F is the
auxiliary parameter), it is clear that φ carries the same R charge as φ̂ and ψ carries one unit
less. It immediately follows that for the Lagrangian in Eq. (11) to remain invariant, the gaugino
picks up a non-zero R charge: λα → eiα λα . It then follows from Eq. (12) that the gauginos are
massless when R symmetry is exact. Also, the trilinear A terms are vanishing in the same limit.
So R symmetry has to be broken for the construction of a realistic supersymmetric model.

3.4 CP violation in supersymmetry

For simplicity, let us consider the MSSM with common scalar and gaugino masses (m e and M f
respectively). We also assume Af = Ahf . In this framework, there are 4 additional (compared
to the SM) CP violating phases [28, 29, 30]. These are contained in the 4 parameters M f, A, Bµ
and µ. But we will see that only 2 of the 4 phases are physical. To realise this, let us treat the
above 4 parameters (appearing in Eqs. (10) and (12)) as spurions whose VEVs break the PQ and
R symmetries. They are thus assigned the following PQ and R charges to compensate those of
the fields described in Eqs. (15) and (16):

µ : (−2, 0) Bµ : (−2, −2) A : (0, −2) f : (0, −2),

M (17)

where, for each parameter, the first number denotes the PQ charge and the second number the
R charge. The arguments of only those combinations will give independent phases which have
no net PQ and R charges. There are 2 such independent phases:
f), φB = Arg (M
φA = Arg (A∗ M fµB ∗ ). (18)
µ

These phases contribute to the electric dipole moment of the neutron as

 2
100 GeV
dN ∼ 2 sin φA,B × 10−23 e cm [31], (19)
m
e

11
which should be compared with dexp
N < 6.3 × 10
−26 e cm [32]. Generically we may expect m e ∼ 100
GeV and sin φA,B ∼ 1, which violate the experimental bound by 2 orders of magnitude. This
gives rise to the ‘supersymmetric CP problem’ [33]. The contribution to the ǫK parameter in
the neutral K system [34] overshoots the experimental constraint by several orders of magnitude,
unless one assumes (i) heavy and nearly degenerate (first two family) squarks, (ii) near alignment
between quark and squark bases, and (iii) sin φA,B ≪ 1.
In fact there is an intricate relationship between flavour violation and CP violation. Several
flavour models, i.e., models with global horizontal symmetries (abelian [35], non-abelian with
R-parity conservation [36], non-abelian with R-parity violation [37]), have been constructed, but
there is no ‘the’ flavour model yet!

4 The Higgs bosons in supersymmetry

Supersymmetry requires two complex Higgs doublets [38]. Out of the 8 degrees of freedom they
contain, 3 are ‘eaten up’ by W ± and Z, and the remaining 5 correspond to 5 physical Higgs
bosons – two charged (H ± ) and three neutral. Of the three neutral ones, one is CP odd (A) and
two are CP even (H 0 and h0 ). Their tree level masses are given by
m2A = m2Hu + m2Hd + 2|µ|2 ,
m2H ± = m2A + MW2
,
 q 
1
m2h0 = 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
mA + MZ − (mA + MZ ) − 4mA MZ cos 2β , (20)
2
 q 
1
m2H 0 = 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
mA + MZ + (mA + MZ ) − 4mA MZ cos 2β .
2
It immediately follows that mH ± ≥ MW , mH 0 ≥ MZ and mh0 ≤ MZ at tree level. The interesting
thing to observe is the last inequality showing the existence of a light neutral Higgs boson. This
is not really unexpected as the scalar quartic coupling in supersymmetry is related to the gauge
coupling, unlike in the SM where it is a free parameter. But the radiative correction to m2h0
grows as the fourth power of the top mass and hence is quite large [39]:
!
m4 me2t
δm2h = O(α) 2t ln . (21)
MW m2t
The radiative correction pushes the upper limit on mh0 to about 150 GeV. This constitutes a
clinching test of supersymmetry. If Higgs is not found within this limit, supersymmetry in its
present form is ruled out, no matter how heavy one would like the superparticles to be.

5 Naturalness criterion
This is more an aesthetic point of view! When we do not understand the deeper structure of
a theory responsible for the origin of some parameters used for an effective description of the
theory, we do not generally expect that those parameters can be arbitrarily large such that a
delicate cancellation among them may reproduce a small physical observable. In other words,
a model is less ‘natural’ if it is more ‘fine-tuned’. Let us try to understand the situation in the
context of supersymmetric theories. From the scalar potential minimization, we obtain
1 2 m2Hd − m2Hu tan2 β
MZ = − µ2 , (22)
2 tan2 β − 1

12
where m2Hu = m2Hd − ∆m2 , where ∆m2 is the correction due to renormalization group running
from the high scale to the electroweak scale. This correction crucially depends on the top quark
Yukawa coupling. EWSB occurs when m2Hu turns negative by way of ∆m2 overtaking m2Hd
such that a cancellation between the two terms on the RHS of Eq. (22) exactly reproduces the
experimental Z-mass on the LHS of the same equation. Now notice that this is a cancellation
between terms of completely different origin: the first term on the RHS of Eq. (22) involves
soft scalar masses which appear in the scalar potential after supersymmetry breaking, while the
second term, i.e. the µ term, arises as a result of hidden sector interaction and appears in the
superpotential. How much cancellation between these completely uncorrelated quantities are we
going to tolerate? Barbieri and Giudice (BG) [40] offered a criterion by introducing a quantity

∂MZ2 /MZ2
∆i ≡ , (23)
∂ai /ai

where ai are input parameters at high scale. ∆ is a measure of fine-tuning. An upper limit on ∆
can be translated into an upper limit on superparticle masses. BG had shown that with ∆ = 10,
i.e., with 1/∆ = 10% fine-tuning, the upper limits on superparticle masses turn out to be around 1
TeV in the MSSM with universal boundary conditions. In GMSB models the naturalness problem
is more serious since the right-handed selectron is significantly lighter than the Higgs (see, for
example, Bhattacharyya and Romanino in [40]). A detailed analysis by Giusti, Romanino and
Strumia [40] has claimed that only 5% of the MSSM parameter space is now experimentally
allowed with a modest naturality requirement. It should be admitted though that naturalness
upper limits are rather subjective and should not taken as very strict or rigid limits.

6 R-parity violation in supersymmetry

Even if U (1)R symmetry is broken to ensure gaugino mass generation, a discrete symmetry, called
R-parity, may survive. R-parity is defined as Rp = (−1)3B+L+2S , where B and L are the baryon
and lepton numbers respectively, and S is the spin of the particle. All SM particles have Rp = 1
and their superpartners have Rp = −1. However, it should be noted that Rp conservation is
not ensured by gauge invariance or any other deep underlying principle. Hence in a general
supersymmetric model Rp -violating interactions [41] should be included. Stringent constraints
on the strength of Rp -violating interactions arise from the considerations of proton stability,
n-n̄ oscillation, neutrino-less double beta decay, charged-current universality, ∆mK and ∆mB ,
electroweak precision data from LEP, etc. For a collection of these limits, see [42] (and also the
references within [42]).
The explicit R-parity violating superpotential is given by
1 1
W6Rp = λijk L̂i L̂j Êkc + λ′ijk L̂i Q̂j D̂kc + λ′′ijk Ûic D̂jc D̂kc + µi L̂i Ĥu . (24)
2 2
The first, second and the fourth terms are L-violating and the third is B-violating. There are 9 λ
type, 27 λ′ type, 9 λ′′ type and 3 µi couplings. We briefly mention some important consequences
of Rp violation:

• The LSP is no longer stable. So supersymmetry search strategies have to be redesigned,

since the characteristic missing energy signature is now gone! One has to look for multilep-
ton or multijet final states. For the impact of Rp -violating couplings at various colliders,
see [43].

13
 • Since the LSP is not stable, supersymmetry can no longer provide a cold dark matter
candidate. One must look for an alternative.
• It is possible to generate Majorana neutrino masses with the L-violating couplings both
at tree and at one loop level. The trilinear L-violating couplings induce one loop neutrino
masses via fermion-sfermion loops, and the bilinear L-violating couplings contribute to the
tree level mass via neutrino-neutralino mixing. The couplings within their experimental
limits can explain the observed neutrino oscillation data [44].
• Complex Rp violating couplings can induce large CP violation in some B decay processes
in which the SM predicts very small CP violation [45]. These effects can be tested in the
ongoing and upcoming B factories.

7 Conclusion and Outlook

Some of the questions that guide our hunt for supersymmetry are:
• What we expect to be the first signal of supersymmetry? In which machine? And when?
• What is the scale of supersymmetry breaking? Is it high or low?
• Is there any hidden sector? How the information of supersymmetry breaking is transmitted
from there to the observable world?
• What is the LSP? Can it account for the cold dark matter?
• Is R-parity violated?
• Is there a Grand Unification? When will the proton decay?
• What will be the most convincing solution to the supersymmetric flavour and CP problems?
• Why is µ at the weak scale?
• Are there extra dimensions? Do they help supersymmetric model building?

Only experimental data can uncover the truth. Supersymmetry has not been discovered at
LEP. But Tevatron is running, LHC is due in 2006, NLC would hopefully be approved!
We have many models of supersymmetry breaking: SUGRA, GMSB, AMSB, Gaugino medi-
ation, etc. These models are very predictive and address the flavour problems differently. They
have only a few independent parameters. But Nature might not have chosen any one of those
models to break supersymmetry!
Even though we are not quite sure how supersymmetry is broken, we know how to parametrize
a general supersymmetric theory. The parameters are then independent. The final answer will
come only after we measure all the 106 supersymmetry parameters (26 masses, 37 angles, 43
phases) in R-parity conserving case and a lot more if R-parity is violated. In fact, assuming
charginos and neutralinos will be copiously produced in the NLC, analyses of how to disentangle
the CP violating phases have already started [46].
We make a remark that the large number of parameters in a general supersymmetric model
only reflects our lack of knowledge of the exact supersymmetry breaking mechanism. As a result,
the predictions vary in a wide range in many cases depending on the choice of parameters. In
this sense, supersymmetry is not simply just one model, it is rather a class of models.

14
Acknowledgments
I thank the DESY Theory Group, Hamburg, for hospitality, where this manuscript has been
written up. I also thank A. Raychaudhuri for reading the manuscript.

References
[1] See the text books on standard model,
F. Halzen, A.D. Martin, ‘Quarks and Leptons’, John Wiley (1984); L. Okun, ‘Leptons
and Quarks’, North-Holland (1982); V. Barger, R.J.N. Phillips, ‘Collider Physics’, Addison
Wesley (1996).

[2] For the CERN LEP Higgs results, see the website:
http://lephiggs.wen.cern.ch/LEPHIGGS/papers/index.html.

[3] For the CERN LEP electroweak measurements, see the website:
http://lepewwg.web.cern.ch/LEPEWWG/.

[4] H.N. Brown et al. [Muon g-2 Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 86 (2001) 2227.

[5] W. J. Marciano, B.L. Roberts, hep-ph/0105056; A. Czarnecki, W.J. Marciano, Phys. Rev.
D 64 (2001) 013014; F.J. Ynduráin, hep-ph/0102312.

[6] G.F. Giudice, ‘Recent developments in physics beyond the standard model’, Proceedings
of Lepton-Photon 99, p:440, Eds: J. Jaros, M. Peskin, World Scientific, 1999.

[7] See the text books on supersymmetry,

J. Wess, J. Bagger, ‘Introduction to supersymmetry’, Princeton University Press, Prince-
ton NJ, 1992; P.C. West, ‘Introduction to Supersymmetry and Supergravity’, World Sci-
entific, Singapore, 1990; R.N. Mohapatra, ‘Unification and Supersymmetry: The Frontiers
of quark-lepton physics’, Springer-Verlag, NY 1992; P.P. Srivastava, ‘Supersymmetry and
superfields’, Adam-Hilger, Bristol, England, 1986.

[8] For reviews on supersymmetry phenomenology, see for example,

S.P. Martin, ‘A supersymmetry primer’, hep-ph/9709356; J.D. Lykken, ‘Introduction to
Supersymmetry’, hep-th/9612114; P. Ramond, ‘Introductory lectures on low-scale super-
symmetry’, hep-th/9412234; J. Bagger, ‘Weak-scale supersymmetry: theory and practice’,
hep-ph/9604232; M. Drees, ‘An introduction to supersymmetry’, hep-ph/9611409; S. Daw-
son, ‘SUSY and such’, hep-ph/9612229; J.F. Gunion, ‘A simplified summary of supersym-
metry’, hep-ph/9704349; X. Tata, ‘What is supersymmetry and how do we find it?’, hep-
ph/9706307; J. Louis, I. Brunner, S.J. Huber, ‘The Supersymmetric Standard Model’, hep-
ph/9811341; N. Polonsky, ‘Supersymmetry structure and phenomena’, hep-ph/0108236;
I. Simonsen, ‘A review of minimal supersymmetric electroweak theory’, hep-ph/9506369;
H.E. Haber, ‘Low energy supersymmetry and its phenomenology’, hep-ph/0103095; See
also B.C. Allanach, ‘Soft SUSY: a program for calculating supersymmetric spectra’, hep-
ph/0104145.

[9] For a discussion, see also, L. Hall, ‘The heavy top quark and supersymmetry’, hep-
ph/9605258.

[10] E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. B 188 (1981) 513.

15
[11] S. Dimopoulos, H. Georgi, Nucl. Phys. B 193 (1981) 150.

[12] N. Sakai, Z. Phys. C 11 (1981) 153; R.K. Kaul, Phys. Lett. 109 B (1982) 19; R.K. Kaul, P.
Majumdar, Nucl. Phys. B 199 (1982) 36.

[13] J. Ellis, S. Kelley, D.V. Nanopoulos, Phys. Lett. B 260 (1991) 131; U. Amaldi, W. de Boer,
H. Furstenau, Phys. Lett. B 260 (1991) 447.

[14] J. Ellis, D. Ross, Phys. Lett. B 506 (2001) 331.

[15] J. Ellis, J.S. Hagelin, D.V. Nanopoulos, K. Olive, M. Srednicki, Nucl. Phys. B 238 (1984)
453.

[16] T. Abe et al., ‘Linear Collider Physics Resource Book for Snowmass 2001’, hep-ex/0106055,
hep-ex/0106056, hep-ex/0106057, hep-ex/0106058.

[17] G. Altarelli, F. Caravaglios, G. Giudice, P. Gambino, G. Ridolfi, JHEP 0106 (2001) 018.

[18] M. Battaglia et al., hep-ph/0106204.

[19] W. de Boer, M. Huber, C. Sander, hep-ph/0106311.

[20] S. Ferrara, L. Girardello, F. Palumbo, Phys. Rev. D 20 (1979) 403.

[21] D.Z. Freedman, P. van Nieuwenhuizen, S. Ferrara, Phys. Rev. D 13 (1976) 3214; A.H.
Chamseddine, R. Arnowitt, P. Nath, Phys. Rev. Lett. 49 (1982) 970; P. Nath, R. Arnowitt,
A.H. Chamseddine, ‘Applied N = 1 Supergravity’ (World Scientific, Singapore, 1984); R.
Barbieri, S. Ferrara, C.A. Savoy, Phys. Lett. B 119 (1982) 343; L. Hall, J. Lykken, S.
Weinberg, Phys. Rev. D 27 (1983) 2359; For a recent review, see, R. Arnowitt, P. Nath,
‘Supergravity unified models’, hep-ph/9708254, and references therein.

[22] G. Giudice, A. Masiero, Phys. Lett. B 206 (1988) 480.

[23] L. Alvarez-Gaumé, M. Claudson, M. Wise, Nucl. Phys. B 207 (1982) 96; M. Dine, W.
Fishler, M. Srednicki, Nucl. Phys. B 189 (1981) 575; S. Dimopoulos, S. Raby, Nucl. Phys.
B 192 (1981) 353; M. Dine, A. Nelson, Phys. Rev. D 48 (1993) 1277; M. Dine, A. Nelson,
Y. Shirman, Phys. Rev. D 51 (1995) 1362; M. Dine, A. Nelson, Y. Nir, Y. Shirman, Phys.
Rev. D 53 (1996) 2658; For a recent review on gauge mediation, see, G.F. Giudice, R.
Rattazzi, ‘Theories with gauge mediated supersymmetry breaking’, Phys. Rept. 322 (1999)
419, and references therein.

[24] G. Dvali, G.F. Giudice, A. Pomarol, Nucl. Phys. B 478 (1996) 31.

[25] L. Randall, R. Sundrum, Nucl. Phys. B 557 (1999) 79; G. Giudice, M. Luty, H. Murayama,
R. Rattazzi, JHEP 9812 (1998) 027; J. Bagger, T. Moroi, E. Poppizz, JHEP 0004 (2000)
009; For studies on Wino LSP search in AMSB models in the NLC, see, D.K. Ghosh, A.
Kundu, P. Roy, S. Roy, hep-ph/0104217; D.K. Ghosh, P. Roy, S. Roy, JHEP 0008 (2000)
031; For AMSB studies at LHC, see, H. Baer, J.K. Mizukoshi, X. Tata, Phys. Lett. B 488
(2000) 367.

[26] H. Haber, G. Kane, Phys. Rept. 117 (1985) 75; H.P. Nilles, Phys. Rept. 110 (1984) 1.

[27] S. Dimopoulos, D.W. Sutter, Nucl. Phys. B 452 (1995) 496.

16
[28] M. Dugan, B. Grinstein, L. Hall, Nucl. Phys. B 255 (1985) 413.

[29] S. Dimopoulos, S. Thomas, Nucl. Phys. B 465 (1996) 23.

[30] Y. Nir, ‘CP violation in and beyond the Standard Model’, hep-ph/9911321. I thank Yossi
Nir for a clarifying remark.

[31] W. Fischler, S. Paban, S. Thomas, Phys. Lett. B 289 (1992) 373.

[32] P.G. Harris et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 82 (1999) 904.

[33] W. Buchmuller, D. Wyler, Phys. Lett. B 121 (1983) 321; J. Polchinski, M. Wise, Phys.
Lett. B 125 (1983) 393; J. Ellis, S. Ferrara, D. Nanopoulos, Phys. Lett. B 114 (1982) 231.

[34] F. Gabbiani, E. Gabrielli, A. Masiero, L. Silvestrini, Nucl. Phys. B 477 (1996) 321; J.M.
Gerard, W. Grimus, A. Masiero, D.V. Nanopoulos, A. Raychaudhuri, Nucl. Phys. B 253
(1985) 93; J.M. Gerard, W. Grimus, A. Raychaudhuri, G. Zoupanos, Phys. Lett. B 140
(1984) 349.

[35] T. Banks, Y. Grossman, E. Nardi, Y. Nir, Phys. Rev D 52 (1995) 5319; E. Nardi, Phys.
Rev. D 55 (1997) 5772; J. Ellis, S. Lola, G.G. Ross, Nucl. Phys. B 526 (1998) 115; G.
Eyal, Y. Nir, JHEP 9906 (1999) 024; A. Joshipura, R. Vaidya, S. Vempati, Phys. Rev. D
62 (2000) 093020.

[36] R. Barbieri, G. Dvali, L. Hall, Phys. Lett. B 377 (1996) 76; R. Barbieri, L. Hall, S. Raby, A.
Romanino, Nucl. Phys. B 493 (1997) 3. Present data suggest that the texture zero solutions
are at best approximate: see, R.G. Roberts, A. Romanino, G.G. Ross, L. Velasco-Sevilla,
hep-ph/0104088.

[37] G. Bhattacharyya, Phys. Rev. D 57 (1998) 3944.

[38] J. Gunion, H. Haber, G. Kane, S. Dawson, ‘The Higgs Hunters Guide’, Frontiers in Physics,
Addison Wesley, 1990.

[39] J. Ellis, G. Ridolfi, F. Zwirner, Phys. Lett. B 257 (1991) 83; H.E. Haber, R. Hempfling,
Phys. Rev. Lett. 66 (1991) 1815; A. Brignole, Phys. Lett. B 281 (1992) 284;
For Higgs spectrum and couplings in supersymmetry, see also,
M. Carena, M. Quiros, C.E.M. Wagner, Nucl. Phys. B 461 (1996) 407; M. Carena, J.R.
Espinosa, M. Quiros, C.E.M. Wagner, Phys. Lett. B 355 (1995) 209;
For Higgs search at Tevatron, see,
M. Carena et al., ‘Report of the Tevatron Higgs Working Group’, hep-ph/0010338;
For a discussion of supersymmetry Higgs search at LHC, see, for example, G. Belanger, F.
Boudjema, K. Sridhar, Nucl. Phys. B 568 (2000) 3.

[40] R. Barbieri, G.F. Giudice, Nucl. Phys. B 306 (1988) 63; G. Anderson, G. Castano, Phys.
Rev. D 52 (1995) 1693; S. Dimopoulos, G.F. Giudice, Phys. Lett. B 357 (1995) 573; G.
Bhattacharyya, A. Romanino, Phys. Rev. D 55 (1997) 7015; P. Ciafaloni, A. Strumia, Nucl.
Phys. B 494 (1997) 41; P.H. Chankowski, J. Ellis, S. Pokorski, Phys. Lett. B 423 (1998)
327; R. Barbieri, A. Strumia, Phys. Lett. B 433 (1998) 63; L. Giusti, A. Romanino, A.
Strumia, Nucl. Phys. B 550 (1999) 3.

17
[41] G. Farrar, P. Fayet, Phys. Lett. B 76 (1978) 575; S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. D 26 (1982) 287;
N. Sakai, T. Yanagida, Nucl. Phys. B 197 (1982) 533; C. Aulakh, R. Mohapatra, Phys.
Lett. B 119 (1982) 136.

[42] For reviews on R-parity violation, see,

G. Bhattacharyya, Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. 52A (1997) 83; G. Bhattacharyya, hep-
ph/9709395; H. Dreiner, hep-ph/9707435; R. Barbier et al., hep-ph/9810232; J.C. Romao,
hep-ph/9811454.

[43] V. Barger, G.F. Giudice, T. Han, Phys. Rev. D 40 (1989) 1987; D.P. Roy, Phys. Lett. B
283 (1992) 270; R. Godbole, P. Roy, X. Tata, Nucl. Phys. B 401 (1993) 67; H. Baer, C.
Kao, X. Tata, Phys. Rev. D 51 (1995) 2180; D. Choudhury, Phys. Lett. B 376 (1996) 201;
D. Choudhury, S. Raychaudhuri, Phys. Rev. D 56 (1997) 1778; M. Carena, D. Choudhury,
C. Quigg, S. Raychaudhuri, Phys. Rev. D62 (2000) 095010; D.K. Ghosh, R. Godbolde, S.
Raychaudhuri, hep-ph/9904233; D.K. Ghosh, S. Raychaudhuri, K. Sridhar, Phys. Lett. B
396 (1997) 177; F. Borzumati, R.M. Godbole, J.L. Kneur, F. Takayama, hep-ph/0108244.

[44] For neutrino mass generation with trilinear Rp -violating couplings, see, for example,
S. Dimopoulos, L. Hall, Phys. Lett. B 207 (1988) 210; Godbole, Roy, Tata in [43]; S.
Rakshit, G. Bhattacharyya, A. Raychaudhuri, Phys. Rev. D 59 (1999) 091701; R. Adhikari,
G. Omanovic, Phys. Rev. D 59 (1999) 073003; A. Abada, M. Losada, Nucl. Phys. B 585
(2000) 45; G. Bhattacharyya, H.V. Klapdor-Kleingrothaus, H. Päs, Phys. Lett. B 463
(1999) 77; M. Drees, S. Pakvasa, X. Tata, T. ter Veldhuis, Phys. Rev. D 57 (1998) 5335;
O.C.W. Kong, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 14 (1999) 903; A. Joshipura, R. Vaidya, S. Vempati,
hep-ph/0107204;
For neutrino mass generation with bilinear Rp -violating couplings, see, for example,
A.Y. Smirnov, F. Vissani, Nucl. Phys. B 460 (1996) 37; R. Hempfling, Nucl. Phys. B 478
(1996) 3 (1996); H. Nilles, N. Polonsky, Nucl. Phys. B 484 (1997) 33; C. Liu, Mod. Phys.
Lett. A 12 (1997) 329; B. Mukhopadhyaya, S. Roy, F. Vissani, Phys. Lett. B 443 (1998) 191;
D.E. Kaplan, A. Nelson, JHEP 0001 (2000) 033; J. Valle, hep-ph/9712277; A.S. Joshipura,
S. Vempati, Phys. Rev. D 60 (1999) 111303; A. Datta, B. Mukhopadhyaya, S. Roy, Phys.
Rev. D 61 (2000) 055006;
For neutrino mass generation with both trilinear and bilinear Rp -violating couplings, see,
E.J. Chun, S.K. Kang, C.W. Kim, U.W. Lee, Nucl. Phys. B 544 (1999) 89; A. Abada, M.
Losada, Phys. Lett. B492 (2000) 310; A. Abada, G. Bhattacharyya, Phys. Rev. D 63 (2001)
017701;
For Rp -violating basis-independent limits on neutrino masses, see,
S. Davidson, M. Losada, hep-ph/0010325; S. Davidson, M. Losada, JHEP 0005 (2000) 021.

[45] See, for example,

G. Bhattacharyya, A. Datta, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83 (1999) 2300; G. Bhattacharyya, D. Chang,
C.-H. Chou, W.-Y. Keung, Phys. Lett. B 493 (2000) 113; E.J. Chun, K. Hwang, J.S. Lee,
Phys. Rev. D 62 (2000) 076006; Th. Besmer, A. Steffen, Phys. Rev. D 63 (2001) 055007;
D. Guetta, Phys. Rev. D 58 (1998) 116008; K. Huitu, C.-D. Lu, P. Singer, D.-X. Zhang,
Phys. Rev. Lett. 81 (1998) 4313; G. Bhattacharyya, A. Datta, A. Kundu, Phys. Lett. B
514 (2001) 47.

[46] S.Y. Choi, J. Kalinowski, G. Moortgat-Pick, P.M. Zerwas, hep-ph/0108117.

18