Upload
keith-a-olive
View
212
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Eur. Phys. J. C (2013) 73:2430DOI 10.1140/epjc/s10052-013-2430-x
Erratum
Erratum to: Relating the CMSSM and SUGRA modelswith GUT scale and super-GUT scale supersymmetry breaking
Emilian Dudas1,2,3, Yann Mambrini3, Azar Mustafayev4,a, Keith A. Olive4
1Department of Physics, Theory Division, 1211, Geneva 23, Switzerland2CPhT, Ecole Polytechnique, 91128 Palaiseau, France3Laboratoire de Physique Théorique, Université Paris-Sud, 91405 Orsay, France4William I. Fine Theoretical Physics Institute, School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA
Published online: 15 May 2013© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg and Società Italiana di Fisica 2013
Erratum to: Eur. Phys. J. C (2012) 72:2138DOI 10.1140/epjc/s10052-012-2138-3
In the original version of the paper, there was an ambiguitybetween the value of μ before and after the shift due to theGiudice–Masiero (GM) term. Here, we will clarify the equa-tions which were affected. We define μ0 as the μ-term in thesuperpotential defined at the input universality scale Min.μ(Min) will refer to the μ-term after the shift induced bythe GM contribution to the Kähler potential also defined atthe input scale. Then Eq. (12) becomes
μ(Min) = μ0 + cH m0. (12)
Similarly, μB(Min) is defined as
μB(Min) = μ0B0 + 2cH m20, (13)
which replaces Eq. (13). As a consequence, we would find
B(Min) = (A0 − m0)μ0/μ(Min) + 2cH m20/μ(Min). (14)
This clarification affects the result only in Sect. 2 of thepaper. For Min = MGUT, and when the Giudice-Masiero
The online version of the original article can be found underdoi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-012-2138-3.
a e-mail: [email protected]
term (11) is included [15], one can deduce the (GUT) bound-ary conditions for μ and B:
μ(MGUT) = μ0 + cH m0, (16)
B(MGUT) = (A0 − m0)μ0/μ(MGUT)
+ 2cH m20/μ(MGUT). (17)
This allows us to solve for cH where we obtain an equationsimilar to Eq. (30):
cH = (B(MGUT) − A0 + m0)μ(MGUT)/(3m20 − A0m0).
(18)
These changes affect the contours in Figs. 2–4. In Fig. 2,with A0 = 0, all contour labels should be multiplied by2/3. In Fig. 3, with A0 = 2.5m0, all contours should bemultiplied by 4.0. In Fig. 4a, with A0 = 0, all contour la-bels should be multiplied by 2/3. Finally, in Fig. 4b, withA0 = 2.0m0, all contour labels should be multiplied by 2.0.
All results and figures in Sects. 3 and 4 remain unaf-fected.