Little hierarchies solve the little fine-tuning problem: a case study in supersymmetry with heavy guinos

Thomas Deppisch; Ulrich Nierste

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 55 references

Little hierarchies solve the little fine-tuning problem: a case study in supersymmetry with heavy guinos

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that in supersymmetric models where the gluino is several times heavier than the stops, the familiar one-loop fine-tuning analysis breaks down, while resumming the dominant loop corrections substantially improves the…

desk verdict A genuinely interesting scheme-dependence argument for natural SUSY that deserves a referee, but Eq. (12) as printed gives ξ≈+2.4 at μ~mL, not −1, so the DR resummation needs clarification before its central numbers can be trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.01222 v1 pith:6HGVPFZG submitted 2019-08-03 hep-ph

Thomas Deppisch , Ulrich Nierste This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-ph

keywords fine-tuninglittlehierarchysupersymmetrygluinostopresummationon-shellschemenaturalness

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper addresses the little fine-tuning problem: heavy superpartners that couple to the two Higgs doublets inject large radiative corrections into the electroweak scale, forcing unnatural cancellations. It studies a little hierarchy in which the gluino mass $M_3$ is well above the stop mass parameters $m_{L,R}$, so the ratio $M_3^2/m_{L,R}^2$ is large. The authors show that when $M_3 \sim 5 m_{L,R}$ the usual one-loop fine-tuning analysis is no longer trustworthy, because corrections enhanced by powers of $M_3^2/m_{L,R}^2$ appear at every loop order in the $\overline{\mathrm{DR}}$ scheme. Resumming the dominant chains of stop self-energy insertions tempers this growth and substantially improves the fine-tuning measure compared with fixed-order analyses. The same resummation is encoded in a shift of the stop masses from the $\overline{\mathrm{DR}}$ to the on-shell scheme, so the physical stop masses probed at colliders can lie well above the electroweak scale while the underlying mass parameters stay near it.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the resummation of the stop self-energy chains shown in Fig. 1: each insertion adds a gluino-top loop plus a stop mass counterterm and costs one power of $\alpha_s M_3^2/m_{L,R}^2$. The organising parameter is $\xi_{L,R}=-\frac{4\alpha_s}{3\pi}\frac{M_3^2}{m_{L,R}^2}\left[1+\log(\mu^2/M_3^2)\right]+\Delta\xi_{L,R}$, whose $\Delta\xi_{L,R}$ part controls the renormalisation scheme of the stop masses. In the $\overline{\mathrm{DR}}$ scheme the series takes the closed forms $\sum_{k\ge2}\xi^k/[k(k-1)]$ and $\sum_{k\ge1}\xi^k/k$, which sum to expressions involving $\log(1-\xi)$; in the on-shell scheme $\Delta\xi_{L,R}$ is chosen to cancel the self-energies, collapsing the resummation to a two-loop remnant. This object does the work of turning a fixed-order failure into a resummable geometric series, and of explaining why the on-shell and $\overline{\mathrm{DR}}$ stop masses can be very different.

What would settle it

Compute the three-loop diagrams that are not of the repeated-self-energy form of Fig. 1, for instance diagrams with an additional independent gluino loop on a different stop line or a momentum-dependent gluino-stop vertex, and check whether any of them contributes at order $M_3^4/m_{L,R}^4$; if it does, the resummed series of Eqs. (10) and (11) is incomplete and the fine-tuning improvement could disappear. A second falsifier is experimental: a precise measurement of the on-shell stop masses showing them close to the $\overline{\mathrm{DR}}$ masses would contradict the large gluino-top self-energy shift $\propto\alpha_s M_3^2$.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central claim is that the standard one-loop fine-tuning analysis of the (N)MSSM breaks down for gluino masses several times the stop masses. In the $\overline{\mathrm{DR}}$ scheme the two-loop contribution to the Higgs mass parameter $m_{22}^2$ contains the log-enhanced term of Eq. (9), and at higher orders the series is dominated by diagrams with repeated stop self-energies carrying the highest power of $M_3^2/m_{L,R}^2$. This series resums to the closed forms of Eqs. (10) and (11), controlled by $\xi_{L,R}\sim -\frac{4\alpha_s}{3\pi}M_3^2/m_{L,R}^2$; for $M_3\sim 5 m_{L,R}$ the parameter is of order $-1$, and the resummation tempers a power-like growth to a milder dependence. Switching to on-shell stop masses absorbs the resummation into a radiative shift of order $\alpha_s M_3^2$, so the on-shell masses $m_{L,R}^{OS}$ are naturally much larger than the $\overline{\mathrm{DR}}$ masses. The numerical study finds moderate fine-tuning measures, e.g. $\Delta(m_L)=6.0$, $\Delta(m_R)=10.8$ and $\Delta(M_3)=6.3$ for a benchmark with $M_3=3$ TeV and an on-shell stop at 1 TeV.

Load-bearing premise

The argument rests on the power-counting claim that at every loop order the leading correction to the Higgs mass parameter comes only from repeated insertions of the two-point stop self-energy diagram (a gluino-top loop plus a stop mass counterterm), and that no other multi-loop diagram contributes at the same order in $M_3^2/m_{L,R}^2$.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Naturalness bounds on supersymmetric spectra weaken: $\overline{\mathrm{DR}}$ stop masses near the electroweak scale can coexist with on-shell stop masses above 1 TeV, because the gluino-top self-energy supplies the difference.
The fine-tuning measure drops from values of 60 or more in fixed-order MSSM scans to moderate values, with benchmark values $\Delta(m_L)=6.0$, $\Delta(m_R)=10.8$, and $\Delta(M_3)=6.3$ for $M_3=3$ TeV.
Low-energy flavour observables, including $B$–$\bar B$ mixing and rare decays such as $b\to s\gamma$ and $K\to\pi\nu\bar\nu$, effectively probe the on-shell stop masses; using those masses in the leading-order prediction automatically resums the gluino-stop self-energies on the internal stop lines.
The mechanism is not tied to the details of the Higgs sector: it carries over from the MSSM to the NMSSM and to more general little hierarchies in which a heavy fermion couples to a scalar that couples to the Higgs doublets without tree-level Higgs couplings of the fermion itself.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Beyond the paper, the same power-counting logic should apply to sbottom-like states and to any scalar whose mass is radiatively fed by a heavier fermion; a dedicated two-loop-plus calculation for the sbottom sector would test whether the improved fine-tuning survives flavour constraints.
A natural next step is to build the two-scale effective field theory with stops and gluinos integrated out at different scales; since the authors stress that their resummation differs from ordinary logarithmic RG running, a full EFT matching might expose additional power-enhanced effects at higher orders.
If this mechanism is realised in nature, a future discovery of a heavy squark would not by itself disfavour natural supersymmetry, because the physical mass could be dominated by the self-energy; telling that apart from a genuinely heavy soft mass would require precision production-cross-section and kinematic measurements.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The paper makes a real point. In SUSY with a little hierarchy M3 ≫ mL,R, the usual fixed-order fine-tuning analysis misses corrections enhanced by powers of M3^2/m^2, and the choice between DR-bar and on-shell stop masses changes the naturalness assessment. The idea that LHC bounds on OS masses can coexist with DR masses near the electroweak scale is a genuinely new way to think about the little fine-tuning problem. The byproduct about low-energy observables probing OS masses is also sensible and useful.

What the paper does well: It identifies a concrete failure of conventional fixed-order naturalness calculations, shows the parametric structure of the enhanced terms, and gives a clean physical explanation through the stop self-energy. The OS-scheme argument is robust because it does not rely on the problematic resummation formula. The numerical study, while based on random scans, is aimed at an honest average rather than cherry-picked minima. The example parameter points are helpful.

Now the soft spots, in proportion. The stress-test concern is real. Equation (12) with μ ~ mL,R and the benchmark M3 ~ 5 mL,R gives ξ ≈ +2.4 for αs ~ 0.1, not the claimed −1. That makes log(1−ξ) complex and the resummed expressions in Eqs. (10)–(11) not real, so the DR-scheme resummation is not actually defined as written. This looks like a sign or scale mistake in the definition of ξ, not a fatal flaw in the whole idea, but it blocks verification of the central claim. The authors say they numerically checked that DR resummation and OS conversion agree, but no code or detailed derivation is provided for the summed series, so an independent referee would have to reconstruct the calculation.

The power-counting assumption that only repeated stop self-energy insertions contribute to the leading M3^2/m^2 power at each loop order is asserted rather than proven. It is plausible at the level of counting stop propagators, but I agree with the reader that this needs at least a clearer argument or a citation to a systematic expansion.

Who is this for: anyone working on natural supersymmetry or on scheme dependence in effective field theory. It deserves a serious referee. The OS message may survive a clarified DR section, and the paper should not be desk-rejected. My recommendation: send it to review with a request to fix Eq. (12), define the scale of ξ precisely, and either provide the derivation or make the numerics reproducible.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper studies the little fine-tuning problem in the (N)MSSM when the gluino is much heavier than the stops, M3 >> mL,R. The authors argue that the standard one-loop analysis breaks down because corrections enhanced by powers of M3^2/mL,R^2 appear at every loop order. For DR-bar stop masses, they resum repeated insertions of the gluino-top stop self-energy and find that the resummed contribution to m22 is similar in size to the one-loop term, substantially improving the fine-tuning measure. They also note that in the on-shell scheme the same resummation is encoded in a large shift mL,R -> mOS_L,R, so that DR masses near the electroweak scale can coexist with on-shell stop masses above LHC bounds. The paper presents an NMSSM benchmark with Delta(mL)=6.0, an MSSM benchmark with moderate deltas, and a discussion of low-energy observables such as B-Bbar mixing.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper offers a concrete way to alleviate the little fine-tuning problem in supersymmetric spectra with a heavy gluino: the physical (on-shell) stop masses probed at colliders can be much larger than the DR-bar parameters that enter the fine-tuning analysis. The explicit two-loop calculation and the distinction between DR and OS stop masses are useful and of practical importance for low-energy flavor observables. The paper is transparent about the scheme dependence and does not claim a parameter-free prediction; the claim that LHC probes on-shell masses is a consequence of the chosen renormalization scheme, as the authors acknowledge. However, the DR resummation as presented contains a sign/scale inconsistency that must be resolved before the central improvement claim can be considered fully supported.

major comments (2)

[§2, after Eq. (8)] The resummation parameter xi is not consistently defined. For mu ~ mL,R and M3 ~ 5 mL,R, which is the stated benchmark and the stated scale of Eqs. (10)-(11), Eq. (12) with Delta xi = 0 gives xi_L,R = -(4 alpha_s/3 pi)(M3^2/m^2)[1 + log(mu^2/M3^2)]. With alpha_s ~ 0.1, the prefactor is about 1.06 and the bracket is 1 + log(1/25) = -2.22, so xi is approximately +2.35, not -1 as stated in the text. The claim xi ~ -1 is only consistent with mu ~ M3, which contradicts the sentence that the expressions define m22 at the scale mu ~ mL,R and the subsequent use of Eq. (13) to run to mt. With xi > 1, the series in Eq. (10) diverges and log(1 - xi) in Eqs. (10)-(11) becomes complex, so the resummed m22^(>=3) is not real. Consequently the numerical consistency check 'we obtain the same results for m22 in both approaches' is not reproducible as written. Please correct the sign and/or scale convention in Eq. (12), or specify the scale at which the resummation is defined, and re-run the DR/OS numerical comparison.
[§2, power-counting claim] The statement that 'Other multi-loop diagrams involve fewer stop propagators and do not contribute to the highest power of M3^2/m_L,R^2' is asserted but not demonstrated. This exclusivity is load-bearing because the resummation in Eqs. (10)-(11) sums only diagrams with repeated insertions of the stop self-energy shown in Fig. 1. If other momentum-dependent or multi-gluino topologies contribute at the same parametric order, the resummed series would be incomplete and the central numerical improvement could change. Please provide a systematic power-counting argument, or an explicit bound on the omitted contributions, for the claimed M3^2/m^2 enhancement at each loop order.

minor comments (4)

[Abstract] The phrase 'mass scale m1 of these new particles in in the TeV range' contains a duplicated 'in' and should read 'mass scale m1 of these new particles in the TeV range'.
[Eq. (3)] The definition 'g2 ≡ (g1^2 + g^2)2/2' is notationally confusing; it should presumably be (g1^2 + g2^2)/2. Please clarify the notation for the SU(2) gauge coupling.
[Fig. 3 and text around Eq. (16)] The caption says 'the mean of 100 sample points' while the text says 'over 100 different parameter points'; please align the numbers. In addition, the sentence 'For most of our parameter points mOS_t1 ≈ mL' is difficult to reconcile with the benchmark in Eq. (16), where mOS_t1 = 1 TeV and mL = 611 GeV; please clarify whether this statement refers only to small-M3 samples.
[§2, Eq. (14)] The line 'Thus m2^(>=3)22 = m2^(2)22,II = 0, while m2^(2)22,I is non-zero' is missing the subscript II on the middle term; the intended statement is that only the m22II contributions vanish in the OS scheme.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the fine-tuning improvement is an explicit calculation, and the DR-to-OS shift is transparently a scheme relation rather than a fitted prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that M3^2/mL,R^2-enhanced corrections invalidate fixed-order one-loop fine-tuning analyses and that resummation, or equivalently the OS renormalization shift, reduces the fine-tuning measure. This is a computed result, not a circular one. The DR-scheme expressions in Eqs. (9)-(11) are obtained by explicit multi-loop diagram evaluation, and the large on-shell stop masses follow from the standard pole-mass condition. The paper explicitly states: 'the resummation of the higher-order terms is implicitly contained in the shift mL,R to mOS_L,R, which absorbs the higher-order terms into m22^(1) and m22^(2)', showing that the OS shift is a scheme relation rather than a disguised prediction. No parameter is fitted to the predicted fine-tuning measure or to the OS masses; the numerical study scans DR inputs and computes OS outputs from the loop relations. The self-citations, e.g. to Nierste's thesis and the Medusa package, are references to computational tools and analytic techniques, not to a uniqueness theorem or an unverified ansatz, and the key resummation expressions were independently checked by a colleague. The asserted power-counting dominance of the Fig. 1 class is an unproven assumption that could affect correctness, but it is not an equivalence of output to input and therefore does not constitute circularity under the required quoting-and-reduction standard.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard QFT techniques and the specific SUSY model assumptions. The only novel methodological input is the power-counting assumption about which diagrams are leading, which is not fully proven. The renormalization scale is a hand-chosen parameter.

free parameters (1)

Renormalization scale mu = mu ~ m_L,R (stated)
The formulas for the resummed corrections and the numerical results depend on the choice of renormalization scale; the paper sets it to the stop mass scale, which is a hand-chosen input.

assumptions (4)

standard math Standard perturbation theory and renormalization in QFT
The entire calculation uses Feynman diagram expansion and renormalization, which are assumed as established background.
domain assumption (N)MSSM structure and soft-breaking Lagrangian
The paper's results are derived within the MSSM/NMSSM framework using the given superpotential and soft terms; these are model inputs, not derived.
domain assumption Hierarchy M3 >> m_L,R with no tree-level gluino-Higgs coupling
The scenario studied assumes the gluino is several times heavier than the stops and couples to the Higgs only through loops; this is the defining assumption of the 'little hierarchy' being explored.
ad hoc to paper Power-counting exclusivity of self-energy insertions
The resummation includes only repeated stop self-energy diagrams from Fig. 1, with all other multi-loop diagrams assumed subleading in M3^2/m^2. This is asserted without a general proof.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Little hierarchies solve the little fine-tuning problem: a case study in supersymmetry with heavy guinos." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6HGVPFZG

@misc{pith2026190801222,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Little hierarchies solve the little fine-tuning problem: a case study in supersymmetry with heavy guinos},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6HGVPFZG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.01222}
}

read the original abstract

Radiative corrections with new heavy particles coupling to Higgs doublets destabilize the electroweak scale and require an ad-hoc counterterm cancelling the large loop contribution. If the mass scale m1 of these new particles in in the TeV range, this feature constitutes the "little fine-tuning problem". We consider the case that the new-physics spectrum has a little hierarchy with two particle mass scales m1, m2 and m2 = O(10 m1) and no tree-level couplings of the heavier particles to Higgs doublets. As a concrete example we study the (next-to-)minimal supersymmetric standard model ((N)MSSM) for the case that the gluino mass M3 is significantly larger than the stop mass parameters m_{L,R} and show that the usual one-loop fine-tuning analysis breaks down. If m_{L,R} is defined in the dimensional-reduction (DR-bar) or any other fundamental scheme, corrections enhanced by powers of M3^2/m_{L,R}^2 occur in all higher loop orders. After resumming these terms we find the fine-tuning measure substantially improved compared to the usual analyses with M3 <~ m_{L,R}. In our hierarchical scenario the stop self-energies grow like M3^2, so that the stop masses m_{L,R}^{OS} in the on-shell (OS) scheme are naturally much larger than their DR-bar counterparts m_{L,R}^{DR-bar}. This feature permits a novel solution to the little fine-tuning problem: DR-bar stop masses are close to the electroweak scale, but radiative corrections involving the heavy gluino push the OS masses, which are probed in collider searches, above their experimental lower limits. As a byproduct, we clarify which renormalization scheme must be used for squark masses in loop corrections to low-energy quantities such as the B-B-bar mixing amplitude.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.01222 by the authors.

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. Fine-tuning measure ∆( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages

[1]

Weinberg, Phys

S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. D13, 974 (1976), [Addendum: Phys. Rev.D19,1277(1979)]

work page 1976
[2]

Susskind, Phys

L. Susskind, Phys. Rev. D20, 2619 (1979)

1979
[3]

’t Hooft, Recent Developments in Gauge Theories

G. ’t Hooft, Recent Developments in Gauge Theories. Proceedings, Nato Advanced Study Institute, Cargese, France, August 26 - September 8, 1979 , NATO Sci. Ser. B 59, 135 (1980)

work page 1980
[4]

M. J. G. Veltman, Acta Phys. Polon. B12, 437 (1981)

1981
[5]

Wess and B

J. Wess and B. Zumino, Nucl. Phys. B70, 39 (1974), [,24(1974)]

work page 1974
[6]

R. K. Kaul and P. Majumdar, Nucl. Phys. B199, 36 (1982)

work page 1982
[7]

Inami, H

T. Inami, H. Nishino, and S. Watamura, Phys. Lett. 117B, 197 (1982)

work page 1982
[8]

N. G. Deshpande, R. J. Johnson, and E. Ma, Phys. Rev. D29, 2851 (1984)

work page 1984

Show all 55 references

[9]

Sakai, Z

N. Sakai, Z. Phys. C11, 153 (1981)

1981
[10]

J. R. Ellis, K. Enqvist, D. V. Nanopoulos, and F. Zwirner, Mod. Phys. Lett. A1, 57 (1986)

1986
[11]

Barbieri and G

R. Barbieri and G. F. Giudice, Nucl. Phys. B306, 63 (1988)

1988
[12]

P. H. Chankowski, J. R. Ellis, and S. Pokorski, Phys. Lett. B423, 327 (1998), arXiv:hep-ph/9712234 [hep-ph]

1998 arXiv
[13]

P. H. Chankowski, J. R. Ellis, M. Olechowski, and S. Pokorski, Nucl. Phys. B544, 39 (1999), arXiv:hep- ph/9808275 [hep-ph]

1999
[14]

Barbieri and A

R. Barbieri and A. Strumia, Phys. Lett. B433, 63 (1998), arXiv:hep-ph/9801353 [hep-ph]

1998 arXiv
[15]

J. L. Feng, K. T. Matchev, and T. Moroi, Phys. Rev. D61, 075005 (2000), arXiv:hep-ph/9909334 [hep-ph]

2000 arXiv
[16]

Kitano and Y

R. Kitano and Y. Nomura, Phys. Lett. B631, 58 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0509039 [hep-ph]

2005 arXiv
[17]

Kitano and Y

R. Kitano and Y. Nomura, Phys. Rev. D73, 095004 (2006), arXiv:hep-ph/0602096 [hep-ph]

2006 arXiv
[18]

J. R. Ellis, S. F. King, and J. P. Roberts, JHEP 04, 099 (2008), arXiv:0711.2741 [hep-ph]

2008 arXiv
[19]

L. J. Hall, D. Pinner, and J. T. Ruderman, JHEP 04, 131 (2012), arXiv:1112.2703 [hep-ph]

2012 arXiv
[20]

Strumia, JHEP 04, 073 (2011), arXiv:1101.2195 [hep- ph]

A. Strumia, JHEP 04, 073 (2011), arXiv:1101.2195 [hep- ph]

2011 arXiv
[21]

H. Baer, V. Barger, P. Huang, D. Mickelson, A. Mustafayev, and X. Tata, Phys. Rev. D87, 035017 (2013), arXiv:1210.3019 [hep-ph]

2013 arXiv
[22]

Fichet, Phys

S. Fichet, Phys. Rev. D86, 125029 (2012), arXiv:1204.4940 [hep-ph]

2012 arXiv
[23]

M. E. Cabrera, J. A. Casas, and R. Ruiz de Austri, JHEP 07, 182 (2013), arXiv:1212.4821 [hep-ph]

2013 arXiv
[24]

H. Baer, V. Barger, P. Huang, D. Mickelson, A. Mustafayev, and X. Tata, Phys. Rev. D87, 115028 (2013), arXiv:1212.2655 [hep-ph]

2013 arXiv
[25]

H. Baer, V. Barger, P. Huang, A. Mustafayev, and X. Tata, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 161802 (2012), arXiv:1207.3343 [hep-ph]

2012 arXiv
[26]

Boehm, P

C. Boehm, P. S. B. Dev, A. Mazumdar, and E. Pukartas, JHEP 06, 113 (2013), arXiv:1303.5386 [hep-ph]

2013 arXiv
[27]

Balazs, A

C. Balazs, A. Buckley, D. Carter, B. Farmer, and M. White, Eur. Phys. J. C73, 2563 (2013), arXiv:1205.1568 [hep-ph]

2013 arXiv
[28]

D. Kim, P. Athron, C. Bal´ azs, B. Farmer, and E. Hutchi- son, Phys. Rev. D90, 055008 (2014), arXiv:1312.4150 [hep-ph]

2014 arXiv
[29]

J. A. Casas, J. M. Moreno, S. Robles, K. Rolbiecki, and B. Zald´ ıvar, JHEP06, 070 (2015), arXiv:1407.6966 [hep- ph]

2015 arXiv
[30]

H. Baer, V. Barger, P. Huang, D. Mickelson, M. Padeﬀke- Kirkland, and X. Tata, Phys. Rev. D91, 075005 (2015), arXiv:1501.06357 [hep-ph]

2015 arXiv
[31]

Drees and J

M. Drees and J. S. Kim, Phys. Rev. D93, 095005 (2016), arXiv:1511.04461 [hep-ph]

2016 arXiv
[32]

H. Baer, V. Barger, and M. Savoy, Phys. Rev. D93, 035016 (2016), arXiv:1509.02929 [hep-ph]

2016 arXiv
[33]

J. S. Kim, K. Rolbiecki, R. Ruiz, J. Tattersall, and T. Weber, Phys. Rev. D94, 095013 (2016), arXiv:1606.06738 [hep-ph]

2016 arXiv
[34]

van Beekveld, W

M. van Beekveld, W. Beenakker, S. Caron, R. Peeters, and R. Ruiz de Austri, Phys. Rev. D96, 035015 (2017), arXiv:1612.06333 [hep-ph]

2017 arXiv
[35]

C ¸ i¸ ci, Z

A. C ¸ i¸ ci, Z. Kırca, and C. S.¨Un, Eur. Phys. J. C78, 60 (2018), arXiv:1611.05270 [hep-ph]

2018 arXiv
[36]

M. E. Cabrera, J. A. Casas, A. Delgado, S. Rob- les, and R. Ruiz de Austri, JHEP 08, 058 (2016), arXiv:1604.02102 [hep-ph]

2016 arXiv
[37]

M. R. Buckley, D. Feld, S. Macaluso, A. Monteux, and D. Shih, JHEP 08, 115 (2017), arXiv:1610.08059 [hep- ph]

2017 arXiv
[38]

H. Baer, V. Barger, J. S. Gainer, H. Serce, and X. Tata, Phys. Rev. D96, 115008 (2017), arXiv:1708.09054 [hep- ph]

2017 arXiv
[39]

Abdughani, L

M. Abdughani, L. Wu, and J. M. Yang, Eur. Phys. J. C78, 4 (2018), arXiv:1705.09164 [hep-ph]

2018 arXiv
[40]

Fundira and A

P. Fundira and A. Purves, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A33, 1841004 (2018), arXiv:1708.07835 [hep-ph]

2018 arXiv
[41]

H. Baer, V. Barger, D. Sengupta, and X. Tata, Eur. Phys. J. C78, 838 (2018), arXiv:1803.11210 [hep-ph]

2018 arXiv
[42]

van Beekveld, S

M. van Beekveld, S. Caron, and R. Ruiz de Austri, (2019), arXiv:1906.10706 [hep-ph]

2019 arXiv
[43]

Ellwanger, C

U. Ellwanger, C. Hugonie, and A. M. Teixeira, Phys. Rept. 496, 1 (2010), arXiv:0910.1785 [hep-ph]

2010 arXiv
[44]

Chatrchyan et al

S. Chatrchyan et al. (CMS), Phys. Lett. B716, 30 (2012), arXiv:1207.7235 [hep-ex]

2012 arXiv
[45]

Aad et al

G. Aad et al. (ATLAS), Phys. Lett. B716, 1 (2012), arXiv:1207.7214 [hep-ex]

2012 arXiv
[46]

Hahn, Comput

T. Hahn, Comput. Phys. Commun. 140, 418 (2001), arXiv:hep-ph/0012260 [hep-ph]

2001 arXiv
[47]

Rosiek, (1995), arXiv:hep-ph/9511250 [hep-ph]

J. Rosiek, (1995), arXiv:hep-ph/9511250 [hep-ph]

1995 arXiv
[48]

Wiegand, Automatisierte Berechnung von Feynman- Diagrammen auf Zweischleifenordnung (in german) , Master’s thesis, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (2013)

C. Wiegand, Automatisierte Berechnung von Feynman- Diagrammen auf Zweischleifenordnung (in german) , Master’s thesis, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (2013)

2013
[49]

Wiegand, Parametrically enhanced two-loop contribu- tions to b→ sγ in a Two-Higgs-Doublet Model , Ph.D

C. Wiegand, Parametrically enhanced two-loop contribu- tions to b→ sγ in a Two-Higgs-Doublet Model , Ph.D. thesis, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (2017)

2017
[50]

A. I. Davydychev and J. B. Tausk, Nucl. Phys. B397, 123 (1993)

1993
[51]

Nierste, D

U. Nierste, D. M¨ uller, and M. B¨ ohm, Z. Phys.C57, 605 (1993). 6

1993
[52]

Fleischer and O

J. Fleischer and O. V. Tarasov, Z. Phys.C64, 413 (1994), arXiv:hep-ph/9403230 [hep-ph]

1994 arXiv
[53]

A. I. Davydychev and J. B. Tausk, Nucl. Phys. B465, 507 (1996), arXiv:hep-ph/9511261 [hep-ph]

1996 arXiv
[54]

Nierste, Indirect CP violation in the neutral kaon sys- tem beyond leading logarithms and related topics , Ph.D

U. Nierste, Indirect CP violation in the neutral kaon sys- tem beyond leading logarithms and related topics , Ph.D. thesis, Munich, Tech. U. (1995), arXiv:hep-ph/9510323 [hep-ph]

1995 arXiv
[55]

Anastasiou, S

C. Anastasiou, S. Beerli, S. Bucherer, A. Daleo, and Z. Kunszt, JHEP 01, 082 (2007), arXiv:hep-ph/0611236 [hep-ph]

2007 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Weinberg, Phys

S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. D13, 974 (1976), [Addendum: Phys. Rev.D19,1277(1979)]

work page 1976

[2] [2]

Susskind, Phys

L. Susskind, Phys. Rev. D20, 2619 (1979)

1979

[3] [3]

’t Hooft, Recent Developments in Gauge Theories

G. ’t Hooft, Recent Developments in Gauge Theories. Proceedings, Nato Advanced Study Institute, Cargese, France, August 26 - September 8, 1979 , NATO Sci. Ser. B 59, 135 (1980)

work page 1980

[4] [4]

M. J. G. Veltman, Acta Phys. Polon. B12, 437 (1981)

1981

[5] [5]

Wess and B

J. Wess and B. Zumino, Nucl. Phys. B70, 39 (1974), [,24(1974)]

work page 1974

[6] [6]

R. K. Kaul and P. Majumdar, Nucl. Phys. B199, 36 (1982)

work page 1982

[7] [7]

Inami, H

T. Inami, H. Nishino, and S. Watamura, Phys. Lett. 117B, 197 (1982)

work page 1982

[8] [8]

N. G. Deshpande, R. J. Johnson, and E. Ma, Phys. Rev. D29, 2851 (1984)

work page 1984