text:
# The scale of supersymmetry breaking as a free parameter

## 1 INTRODUCTION

If supersymmetry is realized in nature, and if it plays a role in resolving the hierarchy problem associated with the quadratically divergent quantum corrections to the Standard Model (SM) Higgs boson, then it is explicitly broken (as dictated by experiment) at the electroweak scale (as dictated by its solution to the hierarchy problem). The breaking is often assumed to be soft so that the theory is at most logarithmically divergent and no new hierarchy problem appears. Hence, the dynamics of the scalar fields $`\varphi `$, for example, is described by a potential of the form

$`V`$ $`=`$ $`\left|{\displaystyle \frac{W}{\mathrm{\Phi }}}\right|^2+{\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{2}}\left|{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\varphi _iT_i\varphi _i^{}\right|^2+m^2\varphi \varphi ^{}`$ (1)
$`+`$ $`(B\varphi ^2+A\varphi ^3+A^{}\varphi ^2\varphi ^{}+\mathrm{H}.\mathrm{c}.).`$
In the first ($`F`$-)term, $`W`$ is the superpotential,111$`\mathrm{\Phi }=\varphi +\theta \psi `$ is a chiral superfield, $`\theta `$ is the superspace coordinate, and $`\psi `$ is a fermion. $`W(\mathrm{\Phi })=\mu H_1H_2+`$ Yukawa terms, describing the interactions of the matter and Higgs fields, with $`H_1`$ ($`H_2`$) being the negative- (positive-)hypercharge Higgs doublet. In the second ($`D`$-)term, $`g`$ is the gauge coupling, and a summation over all gauge groups and generators $`T`$ is implied. The $`F`$ and $`D`$terms dictate, in this description, all quartic interactions which preserve (up to logarithmic corrections ) the supersymmetric structure. All other terms break supersymmetry softly. Note that the soft supersymmetry breaking (SSB) parameters are necessarily dimensionful (due to the softness requirement).

Indeed, this is the minimal description of supersymmetric extensions of the SM, with the exception of the non-holomorphic $`A^{}`$-parameters which may not be soft in models containing pure singlets (and which are often omitted). While the $`F`$ and $`D`$terms preserve supersymmetry and depend on the gauge and Yukawa structure of the low-energy theory, the SSB terms should depend on the ultraviolet supersymmetry breaking vacuum expectation values (VEVs). As such, they depend on, and encode, hidden ultraviolet physics.

Spontaneous supersymmetry breaking is most conveniently parameterized in terms of a spurion field $`X=\theta ^2F`$ with a non vanishing $`F`$-VEV, which is an order parameter of (global) supersymmetry breaking. All SSB parameters can be written as nonrenormalizable operators which couple the spurion $`X`$ to the SM superfields. The operators are suppressed by the scale of the mediation of supersymmetry breaking from the (hidden) sector parameterized by the spurion to the SM (observable) sector. The coefficients of the various operators are dictated by the nature of the interaction between the sectors and by the loop-order at which it occurs. In the following, we will explicitly write all operators which couple the two sectors. This will allow us to consider a more general and complete form of the supersymmetry breaking potential, which still resolves the hierarchy problem. While we will also identify the operators which correspond to the SSB parameters, our focus will be on those operators which are not included in the minimal form of the potential (1). This will be done in Sec. 2.

Eventhough the SSB parameters appearing in (1) are functions of the relevant ultraviolet scales, their magnitude is uniquely determined by the assumption that supersymmetry stabilizes the weak scale against divergent quantum corrections, $`m𝒪(M_{\mathrm{Weak}})𝒪(100)`$ GeV etc. This places a constraint on the ratio of the supersymmetry breaking scale $`\sqrt{F}`$ and the scale of its mediation $`M`$ such that $`F/MM_{\mathrm{Weak}}`$, and it implies that no information can be extracted222Specific ultraviolet relations between the various SSB parameters could still be studied using the renormalization group formalism. regarding either scale from the SSB parameters. (We will comment on the case of $`A^{}`$ below.) The generalization of (1) introduces dimensionless hard supersymmetry breaking (HSB) parameters in the potential. Their magnitude depends on the various scales in a way which both provides useful information (unlike the SSB parameters) and does not destabilize the solution to the hierarchy problem. In Sec. 3 we will demonstrate this while calculating the Higgs mass, which will provide a concrete example. We conclude in Sec. 4.

## 2 CLASSIFICATION OF OPERATORS

It is convenient to contain, without loss of generality, all observable-hidden interactions in the non-holomorphic Kahler potential $`K`$, $`=d^2\theta d^2\overline{\theta }`$ (which is not protected by nonrenormalization theorems). We therefore turn to a general classification of $`K`$-operators, originally presented in Ref. . (See also Ref. .) We do not impose any global symmetries, which can obviously eliminate some of the operators, and we keep all operators which survive the superspace integration. (Note that the spurion is assumed to have only a $`F`$-VEV.)

The effective low-energy Kahler potential of a rigid $`N=1`$ supersymmetry theory333This description is useful also to $`N=2`$ supersymmetry under certain assumptions . is given by

$`K`$ $`=`$ $`K_0(X,X^{})+K_0(\mathrm{\Phi },\mathrm{\Phi }^{})`$ (2)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{M}}K_1(X,X^{},\mathrm{\Phi },\mathrm{\Phi }^{})`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{M^2}}K_2(X,X^{},\mathrm{\Phi },\mathrm{\Phi }^{})`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{M^3}}K_3(X,X^{},\mathrm{\Phi },\mathrm{\Phi }^{},D_\alpha ,W_\alpha )`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{M^4}}K_4(X,X^{},\mathrm{\Phi },\mathrm{\Phi }^{},D_\alpha ,W_\alpha )+\mathrm{}`$
where, as before, $`X`$ is the spurion and $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ are the chiral superfields of the low-energy theory. $`D_\alpha `$ is the covariant derivative with respect to the superspace chiral coordinate $`\theta _\alpha `$, and $`W_\alpha `$ is the $`N=1`$ gauge supermultiplet in its chiral representation, $`W_\alpha \lambda _\alpha +\theta _\alpha V`$, with $`\lambda `$ and $`V`$ here being the gaugino and vector boson, respectively. Once a separation between supersymmetry breaking field $`X`$ and low-energy $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ fields is imposed, there is no tree-level renormalizable interaction between the two sets of fields, and their mixing can arise only at the non-renormalizable level $`K_{l1}`$.

The superspace integration $`_D=d^2\theta d^2\overline{\theta }K`$ reduces $`K_1`$ and $`K_2`$ to the usual SSB terms, as well as the superpotential $`\mu `$-parameter $`W\mu \mathrm{\Phi }^2`$, which were discussed in the previous section. It also contains Yukawa operators $`Wy\mathrm{\Phi }^3`$ which can appear in the effective low-energy superpotential. These are summarized in Tables 1 and 2. (We did not include linear terms that may appear in the case of a singlet superfield.) Finally, The last term in Table 1 contains correlated but unusual quartic and Yukawa couplings. They are soft as they involve at most logarithmic divergences.

Integration over $`K_3`$ produces non-standard soft terms, one of which was discussed in the previous section. These terms are soft unless the theory contains a pure singlet field, in which case they can induce a quadratically divergent linear term. They are summarized in Table 3. The integration over $`K_3`$ also generates contributions to the (“standard”) $`A`$ and gaugino-mass terms. These terms could arise at lower orders in $`\sqrt{F}/M`$ from integration over holomorphic functions (and in the case of $`A`$, also from $`K_1`$). However, this is equivalent to integration over $`K`$ if $`d^2\overline{\theta }(X^{}/M^2)1`$. Note that in the presence of superpotential Yukawa couplings, a supersymmetry breaking Higgsino mass term $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }\stackrel{~}{H}_1\stackrel{~}{H}_2`$ can be rotated to a combination of $`\mu `$ and $`A^{}`$ terms, and vice versa.

Lastly, superspace integration over $`K_4`$ leads to dimensionless hard operators. These are summarized in Table 4, and will occupy the remaining of this lecture. Table 4 also contain supersymmetry breaking gauge-Yukawa interactions $`\varphi ^{}\psi \lambda `$. This is equivalent to the HSB kinetic term for the gauginos which was discussed recently in Ref. . (HSB gaugino couplings are also generated radiatively in the presence of SSB .)

Higher orders in $`(1/M)`$ can be safely neglected as supersymmetry and the superspace integration allow only a finite expansion in $`\sqrt{F_X}/M`$, that is $`=f[F_X^n/M^l]`$ with $`n2`$ and $`l`$ is the index $`K_l`$ in expansion Eq. (2). Hence, terms with $`l>4`$ are suppressed by at least $`(X/M)^{l4}`$. We will assume the limit $`XM`$ for the supersymmetry preserving VEV $`X`$, i.e., $`X\theta ^2F_X`$, so that all such operators can indeed be neglected and the expansion is rendered finite.

It is interesting to identify two phenomenologically interesting groups of terms in $`K`$, (i) those terms which can break the chiral symmetries and can generate Yukawa terms in the low-energy effective theory, and (ii) new sources for quartic interactions.

The relevant chiral symmetry breaking terms in tables 1 and 3 can be identified with $`A`$ and $`A^{}`$terms which couple the matter sfermions to the Higgs fields of electroweak symmetry breaking. The chiral symmetry breaking originates in this case in the scalar potential and propagates to the fermions at one loop . More interestingly, a generic Kahler potential is also found to contain tree-level chiral Yukawa couplings. These include $`𝒪(F_X/M^2)`$ supersymmetry conserving and soft couplings and $`𝒪(F_X^2/M^4)`$ hard chiral symmetry breaking couplings, leading to new avenues for fermion mass generation .

Quartic coupling arise at $`𝒪(F_X/M^2)`$, from supersymmetry conserving operators in Table 1 (depending on $`F_\mathrm{\Phi }`$), and at $`𝒪(F_X^2/M^4)`$ from hard couplings in Table 4. They can potentially alter the supersymmetry conserving nature of the quartic potential in (1).

The relative importance of the HSB operators relates to a more fundamental question: What are the scales $`\sqrt{F_X}`$ and $`M`$? This will be addressed in Sec. 3. However, before doing so we need to address a different question regarding the potentially destabilizing properties of the different HSB operators, which relates to the nature of the cut-off scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Indeed, one has to confirm that a given theory is not destabilized when the hard operators are included, an issue which is interestingly model independent. In order to do so, consider the implications of the hardness of the operators contained in $`K_4`$. Yukawa and quartic couplings can destabilize the scalar potential by corrections $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ to the mass terms of the order of

$$\mathrm{\Delta }m^2\{\begin{array}{c}\frac{\kappa }{16\pi ^2}\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\frac{1}{16\pi ^2}\frac{F_X^2}{M^4}\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\frac{1}{16\pi ^2c_m}m^2\\ \\ \frac{y^2}{16\pi ^2}\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\frac{1}{16\pi ^2}\frac{F_X^4}{M^8}\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\frac{1}{16\pi ^2c_m}m^2\frac{m^2}{M^2},\end{array}$$
(3)
where we identified $`\mathrm{\Lambda }M`$ and $`c_m`$ is a dimensionless coefficient omitted in Table 1, $`m^2/2=c_mF_X^2/M^2`$. The hard operators were substituted by the appropriate powers of $`F_X/M^2`$. Once $`M`$ is identified as the cut-off scale above which the full supersymmetry is restored, then these terms are harmless as the contributions are bound from above by the tree-level scalar squared-mass parameters. In particular, the softness assumption imposed on the supersymmetry breaking terms in (1) was not necessary. (This observation extends to the case of non-standard soft operators such as $`A^{}F_X^2/M^3`$ in the presence of a singlet).

In fact, such hard divergent corrections are well known in $`N=1`$ supergravity with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=M=M_{\mathrm{Planck}}`$, where they perturb any given set of tree-level boundary conditions for the SSB parameters . Given the supersymmetry breaking scale in this case, $`FM_{\mathrm{Weak}}M_{\mathrm{Planck}}`$, the Yukawa (and quartic) operators listed below are proportional in these theories to $`(M_{\mathrm{Weak}}/M_{\mathrm{Planck}})^n`$, $`n=1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}`$, and are often omitted. Nevertheless, such terms can shift any boundary conditions for the SSB by $`𝒪(100\%)`$  due to quadratically divergent corrections.

We conclude that, in general, quartic couplings and chiral Yukawa couplings appear once supersymmetry is broken, and if supersymmetry is broken at low energy then these couplings could be sizable yet harmless. We will explore possible implications of the HSB quartic couplings in the next section.

## 3 THE HIGGS MASS vs. THE SCALE OF SUPERSYMMETRY BREAKING

In the previous section we have shown that, in general, HSB quartic couplings $`\kappa _{hard}`$ arise in the scalar potential (from non-renormalizable operators in the Kahler potential, for example). Assuming that the SSB parameters are characterized by a parameter $`m_01\mathrm{TeV}`$ then

$$\kappa _{hard}=\stackrel{~}{\kappa }_h\frac{F^2}{M^4}\stackrel{~}{\kappa }_h(16\pi ^2)^{2n}\left(\frac{m_0}{M}\right)^2,$$
(4)
where $`M`$ is a dynamically determined scale parameterizing the communication of supersymmetry breaking to the SM sector, which is distinct from the supersymmetry breaking scale $`\sqrt{F}(4\pi )^n\sqrt{m_0M}`$. The exponent $`2n`$ is the loop order at which the mediation of supersymmetry breaking to the (quadratic) scalar potential occurs. (Non-perturbative dynmaics may lead to different relations that can be described instead by an effective value of $`n`$.) The coupling $`\stackrel{~}{\kappa }_h`$ is an unknown dimensionless coupling (for example, in the Kahler potential). As long as such quartic couplings are not arbitrary but are related to the source of the SSB parameters and are therefore described by (4), then they do not destabilize the scalar potential and do not introduce quadratic dependence on the ultraviolet cut-off scale, which is identified with $`M`$. Stability of the scalar potential only constrains $`\stackrel{~}{\kappa }_h\begin{array}{c}<\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}\mathrm{min}((1/16\pi ^2)^{2n1},1)`$ (though calculability and predictability are diminished).

The $`F`$ and $`D`$term-induced quartic potential in (1) gives for the (pure $`D`$-induced) tree-level Higgs coupling, $`V=\kappa h^4`$,

$$\kappa =\frac{g^2+g^2}{4}\mathrm{cos}^22\beta ,$$
(5)
where $`\mathrm{tan}\beta H_2/H_1`$, and we work in the decoupling in which one physical Higgs doublet $`H`$ is sufficiently heavy and decouples from electroweak symmetry breaking while a second SM-like Higgs doublet is roughly given by $`hH_1\mathrm{cos}\beta +H_2\mathrm{sin}\beta `$, and we conveniently defined

$$H_n=\left(\begin{array}{c}H_n^+\\ (H_n^0+iA_n^0)/\sqrt{2}\end{array}\right).$$
(6)
The HSB coupling corrects this relation. Given the strict tree-level upper bound that follows from (5), $`m_{h^0}^2M_Z^2\mathrm{cos}^22\beta `$, it is suggestive that HSB may not be only encoded in, but also measured via, the Higgs mass. We will explore this possibility, originally pointed out and studied in Ref. , in this section.

In the case that supergravity interactions mediate supersymmetry breaking from some “hidden” sector (where supersymmetry is broken spontaneously) to the SM sector, one has $`M=M_{\mathrm{Planck}}`$. The corrections are therefore negligible whether the mediation occurs at tree level ($`n=0`$) or loop level ($`n1`$) and can be ignored for most purposes. (For exceptions, see Refs. .) In general, however, the scale of supersymmetry breaking is an arbitrary parameter and depends on the dynamics that mediate the SSB parameters. For example, it was shown recently that in the case of $`N=2`$ supersymmetry one expects $`M1\mathrm{TeV}`$ . Also, in models with extra large dimensions the fundamental $`M_{\mathrm{Planck}}`$ scale can be as low as a few TeV, leading again to $`M1\mathrm{TeV}`$. (For example, see Ref. .) A “TeV-type” mediation scale implies a similar supesymmetry breaking scale and provides an unconventional possibility. (For a discussion, see Ref. .) If indeed $`M1\mathrm{TeV}`$ then $`\kappa _{hard}`$ given in (4) is $`𝒪(1)`$ (assuming tree-level mediation (TLM) and $`𝒪(1)`$ couplings $`\stackrel{~}{\kappa }_h`$ in the Kahler potential). The effects on the Higgs mass must be considered in this case.

Though one may argue that TLM models represent a theoretical extreme, this is definitely a viable possibility. A more familiar and surprising example is given by the (low-energy) gauge mediation (GM) framework . In GM, SM gauge loops communicate between the SM fields and some messenger sectors, mediating the SSB potential. The Higgs sector and the related operators, however, are poorly understood in this framework  and therefore all allowed operators should be considered. In its minimal incarnation (MGM) $`2n=2`$, and $`M16\pi ^2m_0100\mathrm{TeV}`$ parameterizes both the mediation and supersymmetry breaking scales. The constraint (3) corresponds to $`\kappa _{hard}\stackrel{~}{\kappa }_h\begin{array}{c}<\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}1/16\pi ^2`$ and the contribution of $`\delta \kappa _{hard}`$ to the Higgs mass could be comparable to the contribution of the supersymmetric coupling (5). A particularly interesting case is that of non-perturbative messenger dynamics (NPGM) in which case $`n_{eff}=1/2`$, $`M4\pi m_010\mathrm{TeV}`$ , and the constraint on $`\stackrel{~}{\kappa }_h`$ is relaxed to 1. Now $`\kappa _{hard}\begin{array}{c}<\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}1`$ terms could dominate the Higgs mass. The various frameworks are summarized in Table 5.

In order to address the $`\beta `$-dependence of the HSB contributions (which is different from that of all other terms) we recall the general two-Higgs-doublet model (2HDM). The Higgs quartic potential can be written down as444 In the decoupling limit it simply reduces to the SM with one “light” physical Higgs boson $`h^0`$, $`m_{h^0}^2=\kappa v^2`$, $`\kappa =c_\beta ^4\kappa _1+s_\beta ^4\kappa _2+2s_\beta ^2c_\beta ^2(\kappa _3+\kappa _4+\kappa _5)+4c_\beta ^3s_\beta \kappa _6+4c_\beta s_\beta ^3\kappa _7`$, where $`s_\beta \mathrm{sin}\beta `$ and $`c_\beta \mathrm{cos}\beta `$, and $`v=h`$.

$`V_{\varphi ^4}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\kappa _1(H_1^{}H_1)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\kappa _2(H_2^{}H_2)^2`$ (7)
$`+`$ $`\kappa _3(H_1^{}H_1)(H_2^{}H_2)+\kappa _4(H_1^{}H_2)(H_2^{}H_1)`$
$`+`$ $`\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\kappa _5(H_1^{}H_2)^2+[\kappa _6(H_1^{}H_1)`$
$`+`$ $`\kappa _7(H_2^{}H_2)]H_1^{}H_2+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.\}.`$
Allowing additional hard supersymmetry breaking quartic terms besides the usual gauge ($`D`$-)terms and loop contributions, $`\kappa _{1\mathrm{}7}`$ can be written out explicitly as

$`\kappa _{1,2}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(g^2+g^2)+\kappa _{soft\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1},2}+\kappa _{hard\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1},2},`$ (8)
$`\kappa _3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(g^2g^2)+\kappa _{soft\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}}+\kappa _{hard\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}},`$ (9)
$`\kappa _4`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g^2+\kappa _{soft\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}}+\kappa _{hard\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}},`$ (10)
$`\kappa _{5,6,7}`$ $`=`$ $`\kappa _{soft\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}5},6,7}+\kappa _{hard\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}5},6,7},`$ (11)
where $`g`$ and $`g`$ are the SM hypercharge and SU(2) gauge couplings, and $`\kappa _{softi}`$ sums the loop effects due to soft supersymmetry breaking effects $`\mathrm{ln}m_0`$. The effect of the HSB contributions $`\kappa _{hardi}`$ is estimated next.

While Ref.  explore the individual contribution of each of the $`\kappa _{hardi=1,\mathrm{},7}`$, here we will assume, for simplicity, that $`\kappa _{hardi}=\kappa _{hard}`$ are all equal and positive. The squared Higgs mass $`m_{h^0}^2`$ reads in this case

$$m_{h^0}^2=M_Z^2\mathrm{cos}^22\beta +\delta m_{loop}^2+(c_\beta +s_\beta )^4v^2\kappa _{hard},$$
(12)
where $`\delta m_{loop}^2\begin{array}{c}<\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}M_Z^2`$ and $`v=174`$ GeV is the SM Higgs VEV. (Note that no new particles or gauge interactions were introduced.)

Given the relation (12), one can evaluate the HSB contributions to the Higgs mass for an arbitrary $`M`$ (and $`n`$). We define an effective scale $`M_{}(M/(4\pi )^{2n}\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{\kappa }_h})(\mathrm{TeV}/m_0)`$. The HSB contributions decouple for $`M_{}m_0`$, and the results reduce to the MSSM limit with only SSB (e.g., supergravity mediation). However, for smaller values of $`M_{}`$ the Higgs mass is dramatically enhanced. For $`M`$=1 TeV and TLM or $`M`$=$`4\pi `$ TeV and NPGM, both of which correspond to $`M_{}1`$ TeV, the Higgs mass could be as heavy as 475 GeV for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =1.6`$ and 290 GeV for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =30`$. This is to be compared with 104 GeV and 132 GeV , respectively, if HSB are either ignored or negligible. (The SM-like Higgs boson $`h^0`$ may be as heavy as 180 GeV in certain $`U(1)^{}`$ models  with only SSB.)

In the MGM case $`\stackrel{~}{\kappa }_h\begin{array}{c}<\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}1/16\pi ^2`$ so that $`M_{}4\pi \mathrm{TeV}`$ (unlike the NPGM where $`M_{}1`$ TeV). HSB effects are now more moderate but can increase the Higgs mass by 40 (10) GeV for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =1.6(30)`$ (in comparison to the case with only SSB.) Although the increase in the Higgs mass in this case is not as large as in the TLM and NPGM cases, it is of the same order of magnitude as, or larger than, the two-loop corrections due to SSB , setting the uncertainty range on any such calculation.

In Fig. 1, $`m_{h^0}`$ dependence on $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ for fixed values of $`M_{}`$ is shown. The $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ dependence is from the tree-level mass and from the HSB corrections, while the loop corrections to $`m_{h^0}^2`$ are fixed, for simplicity, at $`9200\mathrm{GeV}^2`$ . The upper curve effectively corresponds to $`\kappa _{hard}1`$. The HSB contribution dominates the Higgs mass and $`m_{h^0}`$ decreases with increasing $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. As indicated above, $`m_{h^0}`$ could be in the range of $`300500`$ GeV, dramatically departing from calculations which ignored HSB terms. The lower two curves illustrate the range555 Given the many uncertainties, e.g., the messenger quantum numbers and multiplicity and $`\sqrt{F}/M`$ , we identify the MGM with a $`M_{}`$-range which corresponds to a factor of two uncertainty in the hard coupling.  of the corrections in the MGM, where the tree-level and the HSB contributions compete. The $`\mathrm{cos}2\beta `$ dependence of the tree-level term dominates the $`\beta `$-dependence of these two curves. Clearly, the Higgs mass could discriminate between the MGM and NPGM and help to better understand the origin of the supersymmetry breaking.

Following the Higgs boson discovery, it should be possible to extract information on the mediation scale $`M`$. In fact, some limits can already be extracted. Consider the upper bound on the Higgs mass derived from a fit to electroweak precision data: $`m_h^0<215`$ GeV at 95$`\%`$ confidence level . (Such fits are valid in the decoupling limit discussed here.) A lower bound on the scale $`M`$ in MGM could be obtained from

$`m_Z^2\mathrm{cos}^22\beta +\delta m_{loop}^2(c_\beta +s_\beta )^4v^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{4\pi m_0}{M}}\right)^2`$
$`(215\mathrm{GeV})^2`$ , (13)
assuming equal $`\kappa _{hard}`$’s. For $`\beta =1.6`$, it gives $`M`$ 31 TeV while for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =30`$ the lower bound is $`M`$ 19 TeV. Once $`m_{h^0}`$ is measured, more stringent bounds on $`M`$ could be set.

In conclusion, this section illustrates that the scale of the mediation of supersymmetry breaking explicitly appears in the prediction of the Higgs mass (and with a distinct $`\beta `$-dependence). In turn, it could lead in certain cases to a much heavier Higgs boson than usually anticipated in supersymmetric theories. It could also distinguish models, e.g., supergravity mediation from other low-energy mediation and weakly from strongly interacting messenger sectors. Given our ignorance of the (Kahler potential and) HSB terms, such effects can serve for setting the uncertainty on any Higgs mass calculations and can be used to qualitatively constrain the scale of mediation of supersymmetry breaking from the hidden to the SM sector.

## 4 SUMMARY

The most general treatment of the mediation of supersymmetry breaking requires the parameterization of the various SSB and HSB parameters in terms of the scale of supersymmetry breaking and of the scale of its mediation to the low-energy fields. This introduces in the infrared potential supersymmetry breaking parameters whose magnitude is not fixed by the weak scale, yet they do not destabilize the weak scale. While in some cases the parameters are very small, their effects need not be negligible. For example, in supergravity mediation they could lead to sizeable correction to the SSB parameters. In theories of low-energy supersymmetry breaking, such as gauge mediation, the effects could be even more dramatic, as illustrated in our discussion of the Higgs mass. Furthermore, the effects of, e.g., quartic couplings $`F^2/M^4`$ may allow one to indirectly measure the scale $`M`$, as well as to determine the dynamics responsible for supersymmetry breaking (as in the case of strongly $`vs.`$ weakly interacting messenger sectors).

Other interesting possibilities not explored here include chiral symmetry breaking and fermion mass generations ; theories of extended supersymmetry  and their accommodation of experimental constraints ; non-holomorphic trilinear interactions and their effect on the stability of the vacuum ; supergravity boundary conditions ; Higgsino mass generation ; theories with singlets ; and stabilization of flat potentials . The relevance of various issues depends on the scale of supersymmetry breaking, which for the time being remains a free parameter. Treating it as such can illuminate some of the mysteries of the superworld as well as help in identifying various phenomena.

It is pleasure to thank Shufang Su for her collaboration and contribution to the works reviewed here. This work is supported by the US Department of Energy under cooperative research agreement No. DF–FC02–94ER40818.


format: text

text:
# Electronic theory for superconductivity in Sr2RuO4: triplet pairing due to spin-fluctuation exchange

\[

## Abstract

Using a two-dimensional Hubbard Hamiltonian for the three electronic bands crossing the Fermi level in Sr2RuO4 we calculate the band structure and spin susceptibility $`\chi (𝐪,\omega )`$ in quantitative agreement with nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) and inelastic neutron scattering (INS) experiments. The susceptibility has two peaks at Q$`{}_{i}{}^{}=(2\pi /3,2\pi /3)`$ due to the nesting Fermi surface properties and at q$`{}_{i}{}^{}=(0.6\pi ,0)`$ due to the tendency towards ferromagnetism. Applying spin-fluctuation exchange theory as in layered cuprates we determine from $`\chi (𝐪,\omega )`$, electronic dispersions, and Fermi surface topology that superconductivity in Sr2RuO4 consists of triplet pairing. Combining the Fermi surface topology and the results for $`\chi (𝐪,\omega )`$ we can exclude $`s`$ and $`d`$wave symmetry for the superconducting order parameter. Furthermore, within our analysis and approximations we find that $`f`$-wave symmetry is slightly favored over $`p`$-wave symmetry due to the nesting properties of the Fermi surface.

\]

The novel spin-triplet superconductivity with $`T_c`$=1.5K observed recently in layered Sr2RuO4 seems to be a new example of unconventional superconductivity. The presence of incommensurate antiferromagnetic and ferromagnetic spin fluctuations confirmed recently by inelastic neutron scattering (INS) and NMR 17O Knight shift, respectively, suggests a pairing mechanism for Cooper-pairs due to spin fluctuations. This is further supported by the observed non $`s`$-wave symmetry of the order parameter. Likely Sr2RuO4 is another example of spin fluctuations induced superconductivity. This makes the theoretical investigation of ruthenates very interesting. NMR and polarized neutron scattering  measurements indicate spin-triplet state Cooper-pairing. In analogy to 3He this led theorists to conclude that $`p`$-wave superconductivity is present . However, by fitting the specific heat and the ultrasound attenuation Dahm et al. doubted $`p`$-wave superconductivity and propose an $`f`$-wave symmetry of the superconducting order parameter. A similar conclusion was drawn in Ref. . Recently it has been reported that also thermal conductivity measurements are most consistent with $`f`$-wave symmetry.

Clearly, it is important to analyze more definitely the origin of superconductivity, triplet pairing and also the symmetry of the order parameter on a basis of an electronic calculation. This is difficult, since there are three Ru4+ t2g bands that cross the Fermi level with $``$2/3-filling of every band in Sr2RuO4. The hybridization between all three bands seems to cause a single $`T_c`$. All bands cross the Fermi level and hence, the cross-susceptibilities are not small and play an important role. In view of these facts the previous theoretical analysis of the gap symmetries and competition between $`p`$ and $`d`$-wave superconductivity must be re-examined and it is necessary to determine superconductivity within an electronic theory and to derive the symmetry of the order parameter from general arguments.

In this letter we present an electronic theory which takes into account the hybridization between all three bands. We calculate the Fermi surface (FS), energy dispersion and the spin susceptibility $`\chi `$ including all cross-susceptibilities. Then, we analyze the pairing interaction mediated by the spin fluctuations exchange in Sr2RuO4. Analyzing experimental results for the 17O Knight shift and INS data as well as the FS observed by Angle-Resolved-Photoemission-Spectroscopy (ARPES) we obtain values for the hopping integrals and effective Coulomb repulsion $`U`$. Taking this as an input into the pairing interaction we analyze the $`p`$-, $`d`$\- and $`f`$-wave superconducting gap symmetries. The delicate competition between weak ferromagnetic spin fluctuations and relatively strong incommensurate antiferromagnetic spin fluctuations due to nesting of the FS cause triplet Cooper-pairing. We get singulet d$`_{x^2y^2}`$-wave symmetry is energetically less favorable.

We start from the two-dimensional three-band Hubbard Hamiltonian

$$H=\underset{𝐤,\sigma }{}\underset{\alpha }{}t_{𝐤\alpha }a_{𝐤,\alpha \sigma }^+a_{𝐤,\alpha \sigma }+\underset{i,\alpha }{}U_\alpha n_{i\alpha }n_{i\alpha },$$
(1)
where $`a_{𝐤,\alpha \sigma }`$ is the Fourier transform of the annihilation operator for the $`d_\alpha `$ orbital electrons ($`\alpha =xy,yz,zx`$) and $`U_\alpha `$ is an effective on-site Coulomb repulsion. $`t_{𝐤\alpha }`$ denotes the energy dispersions of the tight-bindings bands calculated as follows: $`t_{𝐤\alpha }=ϵ_02t_x\mathrm{cos}k_x2t_y\mathrm{cos}k_y+4t^{}\mathrm{cos}k_x\mathrm{cos}k_y`$. In accordance with experimental measurements of the Fermi surface and energy dispersions we choose the values for the parameter set ($`ϵ_0,t_x,t_y,t^{}`$) as (0.5, 0.42, 0.44, 0.14), (0.23, 0.31, 0.055, 0.01), and (0.24, 0.045, 0.31, 0.01)eV for $`d_{xy}`$-, $`d_{zx}`$-, and $`d_{yz}`$-orbitals. The analysis of de Haas-van Alphen experiments shows a substantial hybridization between $`xz`$\- and $`yz`$\- orbitals about $`t_{}`$ = 0.1 eV, but not with the $`xy`$-orbital. However, the observation of a single $`T_c`$ implies the coupling between all three bands. Therefore, we choose a weak hybridization $`t_{hyb}=0.01\text{eV}`$ (hybridization between $`xy`$\- and $`xz`$-,$`yz`$-orbitals) $`t_{}`$. Note, even such a weak hybridization transfers the nesting properties to the $`xy`$-orbital. In the inset of Fig. 1 we show the resultant energy dispersions of the obtained hole-like $`\alpha `$-band and electron-like $`\beta `$\- and $`\gamma `$-bands after hybridization. Due to the small value of hybridization between $`xy`$ and $`yz`$, $`xz`$ orbitals the dispersion curves and resulting FS (see also Fig. 4) look quite similar to the non-hybridized ones. However, the importance of hybridization between these orbitals for the spin susceptibility, $`\chi (𝐪,\omega )`$, will be immediately seen from the analysis of the latter. The susceptibility is given by:

$$\chi _0^{ij}(𝐪,\omega )=\frac{1}{N}\underset{𝐤}{}\frac{f(ϵ_{𝐤,\gamma }^i)f(ϵ_{𝐤+𝐪,\gamma }^j)}{ϵ_{𝐤+𝐪,\gamma }^iϵ_{𝐤,\gamma }^j+\omega +i0^+},$$
(2)
where $`f(ϵ)`$ is the Fermi function and $`ϵ_k^i`$ is the energy dispersion of the $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$, and $`\gamma `$ band.

In Fig. 1 we show the momentum dependence of the real part of $`\chi _0^{\gamma \gamma }`$. While hybridization between bands does not affect much the energy dispersion, it changes significantly the susceptibility of the $`\gamma `$-band. In particular, the nesting properties of $`xz`$\- and $`yz`$-orbitals reflected by the peak at $`𝐐_i=(2\pi /3,2\pi /3)`$ in $`\chi _0^{\gamma \gamma }`$ are caused by the hybridization between $`xz`$, $`yz`$ and $`xy`$ bands. Note, without taking into account the hybridization one would not get the peak at $`𝐐_i`$ in the $`\gamma `$-band, but only a broad hump as discussed earlier. The small peak at $`𝐪_i(0.2\pi ,0)`$ is due to the original tendency towards ferromagnetism of the $`xy`$-band and is not affected by the hybridization.

Our results for $`\chi (𝐪,\omega )`$ will have important consequences and were obtained in contrast to previous studies from observed band dispersions. The susceptibility matrix \[$`\chi ^{ij}`$\] is calculated where $`i`$, $`j`$ refers to the hybridized bands. As already mentioned the non-diagonalized susceptibilities are not small and thus cannot be neglected. After diagonalizing the matrix $`[\chi _0^{ij}]`$ we get within RPA with an effective $`U(𝐪)`$ for $`\chi `$:

$$\chi (𝐪,\omega )=\frac{\chi _0(𝐪,\omega )}{1U(𝐪)\chi _0(𝐪,\omega )},$$
(3)
where now $`\chi _0(𝐪,\omega )=_i^{}\chi _0^i^{}(𝐪,\omega )`$. Here, $`\chi _0^i^{}(𝐪,\omega )`$ ($`i^{}=\alpha ^{}`$, $`\beta ^{}`$, and $`\gamma ^{}`$) are the diagonal elements of the diagonalized matrix $`[\chi _0^{ij}]`$. This obtained susceptibility characterizes the normal state magnetic properties of Sr2RuO4. Its spin fluctuations are given by $`\chi (𝐪,\omega )`$ with peaks at Qi and qi. These wave vectors are important for determining the symmetry of the superconducting order parameter.

In Fig. 2 we present the results for $`\chi (𝐪,\omega )`$ obtained from Eq. (3) and the susceptibilities $`\chi _0^i^{}(𝐪,\omega )`$ obtained after diagonalization of $`[\chi _0^{ij}(𝐪,\omega )]`$. Here, we approximate $`U(𝐪)`$ by $`U=0.345`$eV which gives agreement with INS. Remarkably, the peak in Re $`\chi `$ at $`𝐐_i`$ remains nearly the same as for $`\chi _0^{\gamma \gamma }`$. The peak at $`𝐪_i`$ is also present, but slightly shifted to a larger value. Clearly, $`\chi _0^\gamma ^{}`$ is much larger than $`\chi _0^\alpha ^{}`$ and $`\chi _0^\beta ^{}`$. Our calculations also have shown that cross-susceptibilities $`\chi _0^{ij}`$ ($`ij`$) cannot be neglected.

In Fig. 3(a) we compare our calculation of the temperature dependence of the uniform spin susceptibility $`\chi (0,0)`$ which is measured by the 17O Knight shift, and in Fig. 3(b) we compare Im $`\chi (𝐐_i,\omega )`$ with INS data. For the calculation of $`\chi (0,0)`$ we approximate $`U(𝐪)`$ by $`U(0)=0.177`$eV which gives agreement with Knight shift measurements and is also taken in previous calculations. These comparisons shed light on the validity of our results for $`\chi (𝐪,\omega )`$. Note, we also take into account that there are four electrons per three $`t_{2g}`$-bands that would give every $`\chi _0^i^{}`$ an additional weight $`4/3`$. Our results are in fair agreement with experiment that shows a tendency towards ferromagnetism. The maximum in $`\chi _{RPA}(0,0)`$ at about 25K results from thermally activated changes in the populations of the bands near $`E_F`$. In Fig. 3(b) we compare our results with INS data. In this case we must take $`U_{𝐐_i}`$ = 0.345eV in order to fit $`\chi (𝐪,\omega )`$ to the peak position and height at $`\omega `$= 6meV as observed in INS.

While an uncertainty in the INS data (shown in Fig. 3(b)) is present, our results for $`\chi (𝐪,\omega )`$ should be a useful basis for further calculations. The antiferromagnetic spin excitations result in incommensurate antiferromagnetic Ru-spin alignment at distances larger than nearest neighbors. Hence, if Cooper-pairing involves nearest neighboring Ru spins also incommensurate antiferromagnetic fluctuations will cause triplet-pairing because neighboring Ru spins see also partly a ferromagnetic environment. Note, $`\chi (𝐪,\omega )`$ controls the symmetry of the superconducting order parameter.

For the analysis of superconductivity in Sr2RuO4 we take into account that experiment observes non-$`s`$-wave symmetry of the order parameter which strongly suggests spin-fluctuation-mediated Cooper pairing. Assuming the spin-fluctuation-induced pairing it is possible to analyze the symmetry of the superconducting state from the gap equation and our calculated results for $`\chi (𝐪,\omega )`$ with the pronounced wave vectors at Qi and qi. We get for the gap equation:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐤^i=\underset{𝐤^{},j}{}[V_\sigma ^{eff}(𝐤,𝐤^{})]^{ij}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐤^{}^j}{2E_𝐤^{}^j}\mathrm{tanh}\left(\frac{E_𝐤^{}^j}{2k_BT}\right),$$
(4)
where $`E_𝐤^i=\sqrt{ϵ_𝐤^i{}_{}{}^{2}+\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐤^2}`$ are the energy dispersions of the bands and the pairing potential $`V_\sigma ^{eff}(𝐤,𝐤^{})`$ is different for singulet ($`\sigma =0`$) and triplet ($`\sigma =1`$) Cooper pairing. The eigenvalue analysis of Eq. (4) will yield the symmetry with lowest energy. The $`\gamma `$-band plays the most important role.

For the determination of the pairing symmetry we follow the analysis by Anderson and Brinkmann for 3He  and by Scalapino for the cuprates and use the calculated FS and spin susceptibility for Sr2RuO4. For triplet pairing the effective pairing interaction is ($`UU(𝐐_i)`$)

$`V_1^{eff}(𝐤,𝐤^{})={\displaystyle \frac{U^2\chi _0(𝐤𝐤^{},0)}{1U^2\chi _0^2(𝐤𝐤^{},0)}}=`$ (6)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{U^2}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\chi _0(𝐤𝐤^{},0)}{1U\chi _0(𝐤𝐤^{},0)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\chi _0(𝐤𝐤^{},0)}{1+U\chi _0(𝐤𝐤^{},0)}}\right),`$
and for singulet pairing

$$V_0^{eff}(𝐤,𝐤^{})=\frac{U^2\chi _0(𝐤𝐤^{},0)}{1U\chi _0(𝐤𝐤^{},0)}+\frac{U^3\chi _0^2(𝐤𝐤^{},0)}{1U^2\chi _0^2(𝐤𝐤^{},0)},$$
(7)
respectively. It is important to note that for E$`{}_{F}{}^{}\mathrm{\Delta }_l`$ the gap function can be expanded into spherical harmonics corresponding to the angular momentum $`l`$ = 1, 2, 3, … and no mixture of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_l`$ belonging to different symmetry representations can be present if a single $`T_c`$ is observed. Therefore, we can exclude the ($`p`$ \+ $`d`$)-wave superconducting state. Using appropriate symmetry representations we discuss the solutions of Eq. (4) for the $`p`$, $`d`$, and $`f`$-wave symmetries of the order parameter:

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_p(𝐤)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0\widehat{𝐳}(\mathrm{sin}k_x+i\mathrm{sin}k_y),`$ (8)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_d(𝐤)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0(\mathrm{cos}k_x\mathrm{cos}k_y),`$ (9)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_f(𝐤)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0\widehat{𝐳}(\mathrm{cos}k_x\mathrm{cos}k_y)(\mathrm{sin}k_x+i\mathrm{sin}k_y).`$ (10)
Note, the largest eigenvalue in Eq. (4) will yield the superconducting symmetry of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_l`$ in Sr2RuO4. Solving Eq. (4) in the first BZ down to 5K, we find $`f`$-wave symmetry slightly favored. As expected $`p`$\- and $`f`$-wave symmetry Cooper-pairing are close in energy ($`\lambda _f=0.76`$ $`>`$ $`\lambda _p=0.51`$). A more complete analysis taking into account also the coupling between RuO2 planes and interband $`U`$ might yield a definite answer. Note, to obtain a combined energy gain from the antiferromagnetism and Cooper-pairing one expects an order parameter with nodes in the RuO2 plane and possibly also with respect to the $`c`$-direction.

The solutions of Eq. (4) can be characterized by Fig. 4 where we present our results for the Fermi surface, wave vectors Qi and qi and symmetry of the order parameter in Sr2RuO4. The areas with $`\mathrm{\Delta }_f>0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_f<0`$ are denoted by (+) and (-), respectively. In a good approximation we linearize Eq. (4) in $`\mathrm{\Delta }_l`$, i.e. $`E_𝐤^{}^\gamma ^{}ϵ_𝐤^{}^\gamma `$, and safely put $`\mathrm{tanh}(ϵ_𝐤^{}^\gamma /2k_BT)=1`$. Therefore, the main contribution to the pairing comes from the Fermi level. Note, determining $`\mathrm{\Delta }_l`$ for the RuO2-planes it is sufficient to take into account only the $`\gamma `$-band, since only this band has a dispersion in the plane. The minus sign in Eq. (4) is cancelled for triplet pairing (see Eq. (6)). Furthermore, the summation over $`𝐤^{}`$ in the first BZ is dominated by the contributions due to $`𝐐_i`$ and the one due to the background and $`𝐪_i`$. Thus, we obtain approximately for the $`\gamma `$-band contribution ($`l=f`$ or $`p`$)

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_l(𝐤)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{V_1^{eff}(𝐐_i)}{2ϵ_{𝐤+𝐐_i}^\gamma }}\mathrm{\Delta }_l(𝐤+𝐐_i)+`$ (12)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{V_1^{eff}(𝐪_i)}{2ϵ_{𝐤+𝐪_i}^\gamma }}\mathrm{\Delta }_l(𝐤+𝐪_i),`$
where the sum is over all contributions due to Qi and qi. As can be seen from Fig. 4 in the case of $`f`$-wave symmetry the wave vector $`𝐪_i`$ in Eq. (12) bridges the same number of portions of the FS with opposite and equal sign. Therefore, the second term in Eq. (12) is approximately zero for triplet pairing. We see from Fig. 4 that $`𝐐_i`$ bridges portions of the FS with equal signs of the superconducting order parameter. Thus, a solution of Eq. (12) for $`\mathrm{\Delta }_f`$ is indeed possible.

In the case of $`p`$-wave pairing the real part of the order parameter has a node only along $`k_x=`$0 in the $`k_x,k_y`$-plane. Then, using the corresponding Fig.4 the wave vectors $`𝐐_i`$ bridge portion of the FS where Re$`\mathrm{\Delta }_p`$ has the same or opposite sign. Regarding the $`𝐪_i`$ contributions the situation is similar as in the case of the $`f`$-wave symmetry. Hence, we expect for the eigenvalues $`\lambda _p\lambda _f`$ as in the result of the algebraic solution of Eq. (4). Note, for increasing nesting Fig. 4 also suggests that $`f`$-wave symmetry is favored more than $`p`$-wave. The eigenvalue analysis of the possible solutions $`\mathrm{\Delta }_f`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_p+i\mathrm{\Delta }_f`$ should increasingly rule out the latter for stronger nesting

Also using similar arguments we can rule out singulet pairing on the basis of Eq. (7). In particular, assuming $`d_{x^2y^2}`$-symmetry for Sr2RuO4 we get a change of sign of the order parameter upon crossing the diagonals of the BZ. According to Eq. (4) wave vectors around Qi connecting areas (+) and (-) contribute constructively to the pairing. Contributions due to qi and the background connecting the same sign areas subtract from the pairing (see Fig. 4 with nodes at the diagonals for illustration). Therefore, we get that the four contributions due to qi and the background cancel the pair-building contribution due to Qi. As a consequence we obtain no $`d_{x^2y^2}`$-wave symmetry. Note, this is in contrast to the cuprates where the cancelling contributions due to qi and the small background are negligible. For the $`d_{xy}`$-symmetry where the nodes are along ($`\pi `$,0) and (0,$`\pi `$) directions we can argue similarly and thus exclude this symmetry.

Thus, as a result of the topology of the FS and the spin susceptibility we get for $`p`$\- and $`f`$-wave the strongest pairing and can definitely exclude $`d`$-wave pairing. In our approximation we find that $`f`$-wave symmetry pairing is slightly favored over $`p`$-wave symmetry in Sr2RuO4.

In view of our Fig. 4 we also remark that while Re $`\mathrm{\Delta }_f`$ exhibits three line nodes, that can be seen by phase sensitive experiments, $`|\mathrm{\Delta }_f|^2`$ shows nodes only along the diagonals, as recently found in measurements of ultrasound attenuation below Tc. However, note in view of the low eigenvalues for $`p`$ and $`f`$-wave symmetries and approximations used we cannot definitely conclude that $`f`$-wave is favored over $`p`$-wave.

In summary, we show that hybridization between all three bands is important and transfers the nesting properties of $`xz`$\- and $`yz`$-orbitals to the $`\gamma `$ band in Sr2RuO4. Taking into account all cross-susceptibilities we successfully explain the 17O Knight shift and INS data. Most importantly, we calculate $`\chi (𝐪,\omega )`$ and show on the basis of the Fermi surface topology and the calculated spin susceptibility $`\chi (𝐪,\omega )`$ that triplet pairing is present in Sr2RuO4. Our analysis seems quite general and also predicts $`d`$-wave symmetry for electron- and hole-doped cuprates. To decide whether $`p`$\- or $`f`$-wave symmetry pairing is present one needs to perform more complete calculations including coupling between RuO2 planes, for example. If the interplane coupling involves also nesting, then corresponding nodes are expected.

We are thankful for stimulating discussions with P. Thalmeier, M. Sigrist, R. Klemm, M. Kagan, and D. Agterberg. I.E. is supported by Alexander von Humboldt Foundation.