text:
STYLE. LOCALLY SOURCED, DELIVERED WEEKLY. ABOUT | CONTACT | PRIVACY POLICY
Meet Local Jewelry Designer Julie Jernigan
by Jennifer Jo | June 17, 2020
Things have been so heavy lately, and justifiably so. I do want to bring a little light this week, so I am going to feature a local jewelry artist who definitely shines. Julie "Jules" Jernigan is one of those people who immediately make you smile from the moment you meet them. She has a rich eclectic flair for creating one-of-a-kind fabulous daring exceptionally wearable art. And, she is also a professional singer! I was lucky enough to be invited to her backyard recently – socially distancing of course – for a chat and a tour of her art studio.
I really connected with Jules because, while our paths were quite different, our stories are quite similar. We are both women who decided, after becoming mothers, that we wanted to change course in our careers and pursue our passions. For her, it was jewelry making, a talent she did not even know she had until after she had graduated from college and was well into a marketing career. For me, it was real estate.
Jules is a true Cajun, born and raised in Lafayette, Louisiana. She studied literature at the University of Louisiana and pursued a career in communications and marketing. In 1995, her boyfriend (now husband's) family decided to do a Crafty Christmas gift exchange – everyone was directed to gift a handmade item. She decided to go to Bedazzled and put together a necklace. The necklace was a huge hit, and she really enjoyed the process of making it. Over the next ten years, she started to explore jewelry-making further on the side, while maintaining her marketing career. Working with metals sparked her curiosity, so in 1998 she started taking metalsmithing classes at the Thomas Jefferson Community Center. After exhausting the offerings there, she spent the next four years mastering metalsmithing through the Corcoran School of Art's metals program.
Jules' Art Studio
Over time, Jules found herself spending more and more time making jewelry. She started attending craft shows and selling the unique pieces she created in her basement and at her dining room table. A jewelry business was born. All the while, she was continuing to work nine hours a day at her marketing job, and regularly attend vocal rehearsals and performances. In 2005, Jules made it official and pursued jewelry making full time, still from the kitchen table until building her art studio – a piece of architectural art in itself – in 2013.
Inside Her Studio
As her website describes it, Jules' work is a "spirited, eclectic mix of elegance and individuality." She designs and creates her work by hand in her studio, turning fine metals, gems, enamels, resin, and various vintage and found items into unique wearable art. Jules also collaborates with clients on commissioned pieces. For example, a client may come to her with a beautiful stone or family heirloom. Jules will take that and turn it into a one-of-a-kind piece that only she can create. Once you become familiar with Jules' pieces, you will start to recognize her signature look.
Jules never knows when inspiration will strike, so she travels with a notepad to jot down designs as new ideas come to her. Her philosophy is to stay open and let the inspiration in. According to Jules, jewelry making is a game of patience, knowledge, daring, and self-acceptance. The way that Jules describes her process is an allegory for life. As she explained to me, "[W]hen you work in precious metals and stones, you have to have the tacit appreciation that your first attempt will not make it to completion. Something will break, something will fall apart. Failures are successes because they show you what not to do the next time. You learn to try a different way."
For the first fifteen years of making jewelry, Jules showed her wares at craft shows all over the MidAtlantic; approximately 15 – 20 shows per year. She recently cut back to about three to five times per year, but with the COVID-19 outbreak, she will likely only have one show under her belt for 2020. Jules also sells her jewelry at home shows, where the host is offered a percentage of the total sales at the show in jewelry credit. Of course, with COVID-19, she has not been able to have a home show for months. We think a lot about brick and mortar businesses hurting from COVID-19, but it also has a huge impact on local artists like Jules as well. While purchasing a piece of jewelry might be far from your mind these days, supporting local artists and artisans in these times is not a selfish act – it is a purchase you can enjoy and feel proud of!
Check out Jules' website here: julesjewelsjewelry.com.
The latest from Jennifer
Jennifer Jo
https://jennifertoole.ttrsir.com/
jtoole@ttrsir.com
Jennifer Jo is a well-regarded and respected Northern Virginia Realtor based in the Arlington Office of TTR Sotheby's International Realty. She works closely with her business partner (and sister) Maggie Toole to guide buyers and sellers through the real estate process. Before devoting herself to a career in Real Estate, Jennifer spent fifteen years as an Attorney at the U.S. Department of State. She was also an Adjunct Professor at American University's Washington College of Law. As a Realtor, she draws on the skills developed as an attorney and professor to advocate for and advise her clients. With access to the vast resources of TTR Sotheby's International Realty and her own network of contacts, Jennifer focuses on bringing a luxury experience to her clients, regardless of price point. "I like to spoil my clients – I am so grateful to them because they allow me to do what I love!"
Buyers: Want the Home of Your Dreams? Assemble Your Dream Team!
By	Jennifer Jo
I Resolve to… Support Local Business
TTR Sotheby's International Realty is regarded as one of the highest-performing real estate firms in the United States. With nine offices and over 450 sales associates across Washington, D.C., Maryland, and Virginia, our commitment to professional service, integrity, and community leadership allowed us to capture more than $3.17 Billion in closed sales in 2018, while also serving as one of Washington D.C.'s foremost leaders in corporate philanthropy.
TTR Sotheby's International Realty
2300 Clarendon Blvd., Suite 200
Great article. SO important to highlight and support our local artisans. They make our community special!
Jennifer Jo says:
Thank you Pam! I could not agree with you more about how critically important it is to support our local artists now more than ever. More artist spotlights to come. 🙂
In with the Old, New, Tried & True
By Lindsey Askew
Sweater Weather is Here in Earnest!
By Jane Abraham
By Jennifer Jo
Join Scout & Molly's and Support the Alzheimer's Association
STYLE. LOCALLY SOURCED, DELIVERED WEEKLY.
Tweets by ARLStylebook
© 2019 Arlington Stylebook. All rights reserved.
Website design by Danny Ferretti


The Champions Mile is Hong Kong's leading mile feature in the spring, having been established in 2001 as a late-season contest for Hong Kong's dominant mile division.
It is a race that has traditionally been dominated by the home team, with only two overseas winners since the doors were thrown open to international visitors in 2005. South African superstar Variety Club blitzed his rivals to create history in 2014, while he was joined by Japanese champion Maurice in 2016.
John Moore has won the race more than any other handler with six successes – two to Able One (2009 & 2010), two to Xtension (2011 & 2012) and one each to Dan Excel (2013) and Able Friend (2015).
Hong Kong's newest international Group 1 major, the Chairman's Sprint Prize, brings together the best sprinters from Hong Kong and abroad for a memorable late-season clash.
Run since Sha Tin was first opened in the 1978/79 season – first as the Hong Kong Sprint Championship, then as the Chairman's Prize before adopting its familiar moniker in 2001 – it has been a target for Hong Kong's finest speedsters over the years, with winners like Fairy King Prawn (1999 & 2001), Silent Witness (2004 & 2005), Sacred Kingdom (2008 & 2010) and Lucky Nine (2013 & 2014).
In 2016, the Chairman's Sprint Prize was opened to international competition for the first time. In a memorable finish, Australian grey Chautauqua stormed home from last to beat Hong Kong's Lucky Bubbles in a perfect demonstration of the contest's global stature, earning the race a spot in the World's Top 100 Races of that year.


text:
\section{Introduction}
The yet elusive Higgs boson is the primary target of the CERN Large Hadron
Collider (LHC). But, LHC is also expected to reveal a new ruler of the
tera-electron-volt (TeV) territories. The standard model (SM) has so far been
remarkably successful in explaining physics up to a few hundred GeV energy
scale. But theoretical inconsistencies of the SM (like, gauge hierarchy
problem) and experimental requirements (like, a candidate to account for the
dark matter of the universe) suggest that there are good reasons to believe
that new physics beyond the SM is just around the corner crying out for
verification. Among the different possibilities, supersymmetry and extra
dimension stand out as the two leading candidates for dictating terms in the
TeV regime. These two apparently distinct classes of scenarios cover a wide
variety of more specific models. The usual practice from a bottom-up approach
is to attach an `either/or' tag on supersymmetry and extra dimension, as if
the presence of one excludes the other. A more careful thought would reveal
that the relationship between these two is {\em not necessarily} mutually
exclusive.  In fact, the presence of higher dimensions is a common feature of
any fundamental theory valid at high scale.  We will get back to this issue a
little later. For the moment, to put things into perspective, we recapitulate
the chronological evolution of the extra dimensional scenarios without
invoking supersymmetry {\em a priori}.  We restrict our discussion to the flat
space scenarios, as we are not pursuing the warped path in this paper besides
mentioning it as an aside.

Flat extra dimensions were first studied \cite{add} in a scenario where
gravity propagates in a millimeter (mm) size compact space dimension, with the
SM particles confined to a 4d brane. The motive was to bring down the
fundamental Planck scale to about a TeV. Subsequently, it was conceived that
the brane where the SM particles live may actually have a very small size,
like $10^{-16}$ cm $\sim {\rm TeV}^{-1}$, leading to the concept of a `fat
brane' \cite{Antoniadis:1990ew}. In the context of the present paper, we stick
to the fat brane scenario. {\em What are the experimental bounds on the
  fatness of such a brane, more precisely, on the radius of compactification
  ($R$)}? For universal extra dimension (UED) models \cite{acd}, in which {\em
  all} the SM particles access the extra dimensional bulk, a safe estimate is
$R^{-1} ~\raisebox{-.4ex}{\rlap{$\sim$}} \raisebox{.4ex}{$>$}~ 500$ GeV.  More specifically, the $g-2$ of the muon
\cite{nath}, flavor changing neutral currents \cite{chk,buras,desh}, $Z \to
b\bar{b}$ decay \cite{santa}, the $\rho$ parameter \cite{acd,appel-yee}, and
hadron collider studies \cite{collued} reveal that $R^{-1}~\raisebox{-.4ex}{\rlap{$\sim$}} \raisebox{.4ex}{$>$}~300$
GeV. Consideration of $b \to s \gamma$, however, implies a somewhat tighter
bound ($R^{-1}~\raisebox{-.4ex}{\rlap{$\sim$}} \raisebox{.4ex}{$>$}~600$ GeV \cite{bsg}).  Methods to decipher its signals
from the LHC data have recently been discussed too
\cite{Bhattacharyya:2009br}.  On the other hand, in the non-universal scenario
where both the SM gauge bosons and the Higgs boson propagate in the bulk but
the fermions are confined to a 4d brane \cite{nued}, $R^{-1}$ cannot be below
$(1-2)$ TeV \cite{nued-bounds}. The reason behind the difference in
constraints is the following.  The KK parity, defined by $(-1)^n$ for the
$n$th KK label, is conserved in UED, while it is not a good symmetry in the
non-universal scenario. As a result, while in the non-universal models KK
states can mediate many processes at tree level yielding strong constraints,
in the UED model, thanks to the KK parity, KK states appear only inside a loop
leading to milder constraints.  {\em In any case, in the presence of
  supersymmetry, all those analyses need to be modified with more parameters,
  which would expectedly lead to a set of more relaxed bounds on $R^{-1}$}.

{\em Now, what is the motivation of studying a TeV scale (or, a fat brane)
  extra dimension scenario}? The implications of such models have been
investigated from the perspective of string theory, phenomenology,
cosmology/astrophysics and high energy experiments.  Such models provide a
cosmologically stable dark matter candidate \cite{Servant:2002aq}, trigger
electroweak symmetry breaking successfully through a composite Higgs
\cite{Arkani-Hamed:2000hv}, address the fermion mass hierarchy problem from a
different point of view \cite{Arkani-Hamed:1999dc}\footnote{Generation
  non-universality in fermion localization imposes $R^{-1} > 5000$ TeV due to
  large flavor-changing neutral currents and CP violation
  \cite{Delgado:1999sv}.}, and stimulate power law renormalization group (RG)
running yielding a lower (few tens of a TeV) gauge coupling (near-)unification
scale \cite{Dienes:1998vg,dienes2,blitz}\footnote{The power law loop
  corrections are admittedly ultraviolet (UV) cutoff dominated. It has been
  argued that if the higher dimensional theory contains a larger gauge
  symmetry which is perturbatively broken then the difference of gauge
  couplings of the unbroken subgroups is a calculable quantity independent of
  UV completion \cite{Hebecker:2002vm}.}. Besides, the running of neutrino
mixing angles generated from effective Majorana mass operator in a 5d set-up
has been studied both in non-supersymmetric \cite{Bhattacharyya:2002nc} and
supersymmetric \cite{Deandrea:2006mh} contexts.

{\em But, what is the advantage of supersymmetrizing it?} We argue that
supersymmetry and extra dimension need not always be seen as {\em two} new
physics considered simultaneously. In fact, they may nicely complement each
other in {\em some situations} through mutual requirements. This can be seen
as follows:
\begin{enumerate}
\item From a top-down approach, string theory provides a rationale behind
  linking supersymmetry and extra dimension. The string models are
  intrinsically extra dimensional, and more often than not contain
  supersymmetry as an integral part.  That said, we must also admit that
  establishing a rigorous connection between a {\em realistic} low energy
  supersymmetric model with string theory is still a long shot, though a lot
  of efforts have already been put in that direction \cite{Acharya:2007rc}.

\item The higher dimensional field theories are non-renormalizable, and
  computation of quantum corrections in such scenarios require the existence
  of a UV completion. Superstring theories, which contain supersymmetry,
  provide the main hope in this context. In fact, a joint r\^ole of `partial
  supersymmetry' (broken at very high scale) and warped extra
  dimension/compositeness has been envisaged from AdS/CFT point of view to
  account for both the `little' and the `big' hierarchies
  \cite{Sundrum:2009gv}.

\item Even after embedding the SM in an extra dimensional set-up, the scalar
  potential remains unstable under quantum correction. Supersymmetrization
  stabilizes it and ameliorates the hierarchy problem.  It is interesting to
  note that by admitting chiral fermions and their scalar partners in the same
  multiplet tacitly provides a rationale behind treating the Higgs boson as an
  elementary object. An elementary Higgs can be perfectly accommodated in a
  flat extra dimensional set-up. As a corollary, the upper limit on the
  lightest supersymmetric neutral Higgs is relaxed beyond the 4d upper limit
  of 135 GeV due to the presence of the KK towers of top/stop chiral
  multiplets, and the {\em hitherto} disfavored low $\tan\beta$ region can be
  resurrected \cite{Bhattacharyya:2007te}.

\item Each 4d supersymmetric scenario has its own supersymmetry breaking
  mechanism. The origin of this mechanism may be linked to the existence of
  extra dimension. In fact, one of the earliest motivations of a TeV scale fat
  brane was to relate the scale of 4d supersymmetry breaking with $R^{-1}$
  \cite{Antoniadis:1990ew,Antoniadis:1992fh}.

\end{enumerate}

Keeping these in mind, we outline the formalism of a 5d supersymmetric model
in an $S^1/Z_2$ orbifold which contains the 4d supersymmetric states as zero
modes. In section \ref{5dmssm}, we state our assumptions leading to the
construction of the 5d model and comment on supersymmetry
breaking. Furthermore, we explicitly write down the particle content and their
5d Lagrangian and illustrate the KK decompositions of the different 5d
fields. In section \ref{beta}, we derive the beta functions of the gauge and
Yukawa couplings as well as those of the different soft supersymmetry breaking
parameters {\em diagram by diagram}, pointing out how they are all modified
from their 4d values due to the presence of KK states. In section
\ref{numerical}, we discuss the numerical effects of RG running and highlight
the reason behind the differences between the 4d and 5d scenarios. We also
point out under what conditions we can ensure electroweak symmetry
breaking. In section \ref{m0mhalf}, we exhibit the numerical impact of RG
running through plots showing constraints in the $m_0$--$M_{1/2}$ plane. We
standardize our numerical codes by reproducing the known 4d plots before
encoding the necessary alterations for producing the new plots pertaining to
5d supersymmetry.  This also enables us to compare and contrast the 4d and 5d
allowed/disallowed zones. Finally, in section \ref{concl}, we showcase the
essential features we have learnt from this analysis.

\section{5d supersymmetry}
\label{5dmssm}
\subsection{A snapshot of our model}
We highlight the salient features of supersymmetry in higher dimension and
outline below the various assumptions that lead to a calculable
phenomenological framework.
\begin{enumerate}

\item We consider a 5d flat space time metric. The 5th dimension is
  compactified on a $S_1/Z_2$ orbifold. Orbifolding is necessary to reproduce
  chiral zero mode fermions as a 5d theory is vector-like.

\item We embed the minimal supersymmetric standard model (MSSM) in this higher
  dimensional set-up (several consequences of such embedding, mainly the
  effects on gauge and Yukawa couplings' evolution, have been studied in
  \cite{Dienes:1998vg}). From a 4d point of view this leads to a tower of KK
  states. The massless sector corresponds to the 4d MSSM states.

\item Since in 5d bulk the fermion representation is vectorial, the
  two-component spinor $Q$ that generates 4d supersymmetry will in 5d be
  accompanied by its chiral conjugate mirror $Q^c$. Thus a $N=1$ supersymmetry
  in 5d corresponds to two different $N=1$ supersymmetry, or equivalently, a
  $N=2$ supersymmetry from a 4d perspective. In fact, all members of a given
  KK mode must fall into a valid representation of $N=2$ supersymmetry.  In
  fact, each 4d supermultiplet is augmented by new chiral conjugate states and
  together they form a hypermultiplet.

\item Here we are talking about a massive representation of supersymmetry,
  where the supersymmetry preserving Dirac mass plays the r\^ole of central
  charge for $N=2$ supersymmetry. This charge is not renormalized, as a
  consequence of which the bulk hypermultiplets do not receive any
  wave-function renormalization\footnote{In other words, for $N=2$
    supersymmetry it turns out that $m_R= m_B$, which is analogous to $g_R =
    g_B$ for $N=4$ supersymmetry. Here $m$ is the Dirac mass (central charge)
    and $g$ is gauge coupling, while $R$ and $B$ are labels for renormalized
    and bare quantities. Since the Dirac mass of $N=2$ hypermultiplets appears
    on the right-hand side of the anti-commutation relation of the conserved
    supersymmetry charges, this mass cannot be renormalized. This is
    intertwined with the observation that only those terms are renormalized
    which can be written as integrals over all superspace volume. The kinetic
    term of $N=2$ hypermultiplets cannot be written as any such integral (see
    discussions and related earlier references in \cite{Barbieri:1982nz}.}
  \cite{Dienes:1998vg,Barbieri:1982nz}. We observe that this $N=2$
  non-renormalization has serious numerical consequences in RG evolution of
  parameters. The most notable effect is the blowing up of the Yukawa
  couplings into the non-perturbative regime around 18 TeV, which we will take
  to be the cutoff of our theory. This is below the scale of perturbative
  gauge coupling unification, which is around 30 TeV. Recall that in 5d we
  encounter power law running which results in early (compared to 4d)
  unification.

\item We allow the gauge and the Higgs multiplets access the 5d bulk. Thus far
  what we said is nothing but a supersymmetrization of UED. Only the matter
  multiplets make the difference. In the UED framework, {\em all} SM particles
  access the bulk, and thus even though there are two fixed points, there is
  no brane. One could as well have kept some or all of the fermion generations
  in a brane at a fixed point; the difference would be that the scenario would
  cease to be universal. In the present supersymmetric context too we have the
  freedom of keeping some or all of the matter multiplets at an orbifold fixed
  point. We note that unless we confine at least two generations of matter
  multiplets on a brane, the requirement of {\em perturbative} gauge coupling
  unification leads to a constraint $R^{-1} > 10^{10}$ GeV \cite{blitz},
  spoiling its relevance for LHC. On the other hand, unless we keep the third
  family of matter multiplet in the bulk we cannot ensure electroweak
  breaking. In view of the above, we let the third generation matter multiplet
  access the bulk, but fix the first two generations at the $y=0$ brane.

\item $N=2$ supersymmetry forbids Yukawa interaction in the 5d bulk as this
  interaction involves odd (three) number of {\em chiral}
  multiplets. Therefore, we localize Yukawa interaction at the orbifold fixed
  point where the supersymmetry corresponds to $N=1$.

\item Now we come to the important question as how we break the residual $N=1$
  supersymmetry. Different ideas have been advanced for its realization. One
  way is to break it by the Scherk-Schwarz mechanism \cite{ss} in which
  fermions and bosons satisfy different periodic conditions over the
  compactified dimension. Explicit realizations towards this using a TeV-scale
  orbifold can be found in \cite{pomarol}. Another interesting approach was to
  break the residual supersymmetry by a second compactification on an orbifold
  with two reflection symmetries, viz.~$S^1/(Z_2 \times Z_2^\prime)$
  \cite{Barbieri:2000vh}. This can be viewed as a discrete version of the
  Scherk-Schwarz mechanism. Both these scenarios yield soft masses which are
  UV insensitive due to the non-local nature of supersymmetry breaking. From a
  completely different viewpoint, supersymmetry breaking may be infused from
  the brane-bulk interface \cite{Mirabelli:1997aj}, or transmitted from a
  distant brane \cite{Kaplan:1999ac}, or arisen from a gaugino mediation
  set-up \cite{Chacko:1999mi} (possibly with a much lower cutoff than
  $10^{16}$ GeV), or triggered by some completely unknown brane dynamics, for
  example, by a spurion $F$-term vacuum expectation value (vev).

  In the context of the present analysis, we keep the exact mechanism of the
  $N=1$ brane supersymmetry breaking {\em unspecified}.  We assume that the
  supersymmetry breaking scale is of the order of the inverse radius of
  compactification, for example $c/R$, where $c$ is an ${\cal {O}}(1)$
  dimensionless parameter.

\item {\em Our main goal is the following}: Just like in the conventional but
  constrained version of 4d supersymmetry one starts with a common scalar and
  a common gaugino mass at high scale (e.g. the GUT scale) and then run them
  down using the MSSM beta functions to find the weak scale spectrum, we do
  exactly the same here by assuming a common scalar mass ($m_0$) and a common
  gaugino mass ($M_{1/2}$) at low cutoff scale (18 TeV) and follow the running
  using the KK beta functions through successive KK thresholds to obtain the
  weak scale parameters. By adopting a phenomenological approach, we scan
  $m_0$ and $M_{1/2}$ over a set of values $c/R$, with $c$ varying in the
  range $0.1$ to $1$ and $R^{-1}$ fixed at $1$ TeV.

\end{enumerate}

\subsection{Multiplet Structures}
As mentioned in the Introduction, from a 4d perspective the KK towers of
matter and gauge fields rearrange in the form of $N=2$ hypermultiplets. A
judicious choice of $Z_2$ parity of the 5d fields allows us to break the $N=2$
supersymmetry to $N=1$ supersymmetry.  We briefly review below the multiplet
structures of the fields following the prescription suggested in
\cite{ArkaniHamed:2001tb}.

\subsubsection{Vector hypermultiplet}
The 5d super Yang-Mills theory contains a 5-vector gauge field, a 4-component
Dirac gaugino and a real scalar. When dimensionally reduced to 4d, the gauge
field splits into a 4-vector and a scalar, the gaugino splits into 2 Majorana
gauginos, and we still have the real scalar previously mentioned. All these
fit into a vector multiplet and a chiral multiplet in $N=1$ language.  If we
represent the $N=2$ vector supermultiplet by $V$, the 4-vector gauge field by
$A_{\mu}$, the gauginos by $\lambda$ and $\psi$, and define a complex scalar
field $\phi\equiv \frac{1}{2}(\Sigma + iA_5)$, where $\Sigma$ is the 5d real
scalar and $A_5$ is the 5th component of the 5-vector field, then one can
schematically represent the 5d vector supermultiplet as
\begin{equation}
\label{5dV}
  V \equiv \pmatrix{ A_{\mu} & \phi\cr \lambda & \psi \cr} \, .
\label{Tvec}
\end{equation}
From a 4d perspective (where the compactified 5th coordinate $y$ is just a
label), and in the $N=1$ language, one can visualize the vector hypermultiplet
by a vector multiplet $\mathcal{V}$ (first column) and a chiral multiplet in
the adjoint representation by $\Phi$ (second column):
\begin{eqnarray}
{\mathcal{V}}(x,y) &=& -\theta {\sigma}^{\mu} \overline{\theta} A_{\mu}{(x,y)}
+ i ~{\overline{\theta}}^2 \theta {\lambda}{(x,y)} - i~ {\theta}^2
\overline{\theta}~{\overline{\lambda}}{(x,y)} + \frac{1}{2}
 {\overline{\theta}}^2 {\theta}^2 D_V(x,y) \, , \nonumber \\
{\Phi}{(x,y)} &=& {\phi}{(x,y)} + \sqrt{2}~ \theta {\psi}{(x,y)} +
{\theta}^2 F_{\Phi}(x,y)  \, .
\end{eqnarray}
The $Z_2$ parity of $V$ is so chosen that the $\mathcal{V}$ contains a zero
mode, but $\Phi$ does not have any zero mode.

The gauge invariant action may be written as ($\int d^5x \equiv \int d^4x \int
dy$)
\begin{equation}
 S^5_{\rm gauge} = \int d^5 x \left[ \frac{1}{4 g^2} \int d^2 \theta
   ~W^{\alpha} W_{\alpha} + {\rm h.c.} + \int d^4 \theta ~\frac{1}{g^2}
   {\left( {\partial}_5 \mathcal{V} - \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \left( \Phi +
     \overline{\Phi} \right) \right)}^2 \right],
\end{equation}
where the $~W^{\alpha}(x,y)$ is the field strength superfield
corresponding to ${\mathcal{V}}(x,y)$.

\subsubsection{Higgs hypermultiplets}
From the $N=1$ perspective, the $N=2$ hypermultiplet splits into two chiral
multiplets. Thus have a $H_u$ hypermultiplet and a $H_d$ hypermultiplet.
We can represent them as (the tilde symbol represents Higgsino)
\begin{equation}
\label{huhd-hyper}
{H_{(u,d)}} \equiv \pmatrix{ {H_{L(u,d)}} & {H_{R(u,d)}}\cr {\tilde{H}_{L(u/d)}}
  & {\tilde{H}_{R(u/d)}} \cr} \, .
\end{equation}
If we denote the two chiral multiplets inside the hypermultiplet $H(x,y)$ as
$h(x,y)$ in left column and $h^c(x,y)$ in right column, then one can expand
the chiral superfield as
\begin{eqnarray} {h/h^c} = {H_{L/R}} + \sqrt{2}~ \theta {\tilde{H}_{L,R}} +
  {\theta}^2 F_{h/h^c} \, .
\end{eqnarray}
We assign even $Z_2$ parity to $h$ so that it has a zero mode, and odd $Z_2$
parity to $h^c$ which does not have zero mode.
The free action of the hypermultiplets
can be written as
\begin{equation}
S^5_{\rm Higgs} = \int d^5 x \left[ \int d^4 \theta \left(
  {\overline{h}}^{c} h^{c} + {\overline{h}} h \right)
  + \left( \int d^2 \theta ~h^{c} \left( {\partial}_5 + m \right)h
  + {\rm h.c.}\right) \right] \, .
\label{higgact}
\end{equation}

\subsubsection{Matter hypermultiplets}
Matters have similar hypermultiplet structures similar to Higgs:
\begin{equation}
  \Psi \equiv \pmatrix{
     {{\phi}_L} & {{\phi}_R}\cr
    {{\psi}_L} & {{\psi}_R} \cr}~,
\end{equation}
where, ${{\mathcal{F}}_L} \equiv \left( {{\phi}_L} , {{\psi}_L} \right)$
($Z_2$ even) and ${{\mathcal{F}}_R} \equiv \left( {{\phi}_R} , {{\psi}_R}
\right)$ ($Z_2$ odd) represent the two $N=1$ chiral multiplets.
The free matter hypermultiplet action will be similar to Eq.~(\ref{higgact}).
There are five matter representations, two SU(2) doublets $Q$ and $L$ and
three singlets $u, d, e$, where the symbols have their standard meaning.

\subsubsection{Gauge interactions}
When the hypermultiplets are charged under gauge symmetry, their free action
can be promoted to take care of the interaction in the following way:
\begin{eqnarray}
S^5_{\rm int} &=& \int d^5x \left[\int d^4 \theta \left(
  {{\mathcal{F}}_L} e^{\mathcal{V}}
  {{\overline{\mathcal{F}}}_L} + {{\mathcal{F}}_R}
  e^{-{\mathcal{V}}} {{\overline{\mathcal{F}}}_R} \right)
+ \left\{ \int d^2\theta {\mathcal{F}}_L
  \left( m + {\partial}_5 - \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} {\Phi}
  \right) {{\mathcal{F}}_R} + {\rm h.c.} \right\} \right],
\end{eqnarray}
where, ${\mathcal{V}} = {\mathcal{V}}^{a} T^a$ and ${\Phi} =
{\Phi}^{a} T^a$ are Lie-algebra-valued gauge and matter superfields.

\subsubsection{Yukawa Interactions}
We denote the Yukawa part of the superpotential by $W_Y$, which contains the
usual chiral superfield combinations $QH_uu$, $QH_dd$ and $LH_de$.  Since an
Yukawa interaction involves three (i.e. odd number) chiral superfields, it is
not possible to write a bulk Yukawa interaction maintaining $N=2$
supersymmetry. For this reason, we confine Yukawa interaction at the branes
even though the associated superfields are in the bulk.  A generic action
(e.g. involving the third generation bulk matter) can be written as
\begin{equation}
S^5_{\rm Yuk}= \int d^5x\left( \int d^2 \theta ~
W_Y \right)\left[ \delta(y)+\delta(y-{\pi}R)\right] \, .
\end{equation}
As the $Z_2$ odd fields vanish at the fixed points, they do not contribute to
Yukawa interactions. We note that the first two matter generations can be kept
either at either of the two fixed points. Also, the above Yukawa action could
have been confined at either of the two branes instead of symmetrically on
both.

\subsection{KK decomposition of fields}
In order to obtain the action in terms of 4d component fields, we need to
write down the KK decomposition of the 5d fields in terms of zero modes and
higher KK modes \cite{acd}. Each 5d field is either $Z_2$ even or $Z_2$
odd. Only the even fields have zero modes. The decomposition of the Higgs
fields will be exactly like the matter fields.
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{fourier}
\mathcal{V}(x,y)&=&\frac{\sqrt{2}}{\sqrt{2\pi
R}}\mathcal{V}^{(0)}(x)+\frac{2}{\sqrt{2\pi
R}}\sum^{\infty}_{n=1}\mathcal{V}^{(n)}(x)\cos\frac{ny}{R} \, , \nonumber\\
\Phi(x,y) &=& \frac{2}{\sqrt{2\pi
R}}\sum^{\infty}_{n=1}\Phi^{(n)}(x)\sin\frac{ny}{R} \, , \\
{\mathcal{F}}_L(x,y)&=&\frac{\sqrt{2}}{\sqrt{2\pi
R}}{\mathcal{F}}_L^{(0)}(x)+\frac{2}{\sqrt{2\pi
R}}\sum^{\infty}_{n=1}{\mathcal{F}}_L^{(n)}(x)\cos\frac{ny}{R} \,, \nonumber \\
{\mathcal{F}}_R(x,y)&=&\frac{2}{\sqrt{2\pi
R}}\sum^{\infty}_{n=1}{\mathcal{F}}_R^{(n)}(x)\sin\frac{ny}{R} \, . \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}

\section{RG evolution and derivation of the beta functions}
\label{beta}
The technical meaning of RG evolution in a higher dimensional context has been
amply clarified in \cite{Dienes:1998vg}, and we merely reiterate it in the
present context. The multiplicity of KK states renders any such higher
dimensional scenario non-renormalizable. So `running' of couplings or
parameters with the energy scale does not make much of a sense. Rather, one
can estimate the finite quantum corrections that these couplings/parameters
receive whose size depends on some explicit cutoff $\Lambda$. The contribution
comes from $\Lambda R$ number of KK states which lie between the scale of the
first KK state, which is $1/R$, and the cutoff $\Lambda$. With this
interpretation of RG running, we compute the one loop beta functions of the
gauge and Yukawa couplings and various soft supersymmetry breaking masses.  We
make the following observations:
\begin{enumerate}
\item The contribution to the beta function from a given KK mode does not
  depend on its KK label.
\item When we consider different KK thresholds we neglect their zero mode
  masses, i.e. we assume that the $n$th level KK state is kicked into life
  when we cross the energy scale $n/R$.
\item As we cross different KK thresholds, the beta functions also change.
  The beta function of the quantity $X$ at an energy scale $Q$, where
  $n~\raisebox{-.4ex}{\rlap{$\sim$}} \raisebox{.4ex}{$<$}~QR < (n+1)$, can be written as ($t = \ln (Q/Q_0)$, where $Q_0$ is a
  reference scale, e.g. the electroweak scale)
\begin{equation}
\label{master}
\frac{\partial{X}}{\partial{t}} = \beta_X \, ,~~{\rm where}~~
\beta_X = \beta_{0X} + n \tilde{\beta}_X \, .
\end{equation}
Here $\beta_{0X}$ is the contribution induced by the zero mode (i.e. ordinary
4d MSSM) states (which may be found, for example, in the review
\cite{Martin:1997ns}) and $\tilde{\beta}_X$ arises from a single KK
mode. Eq.~(\ref{master}) is our master equation using which we perform a
diagram by diagram calculation for the estimation of $\tilde{\beta}_X$ for
various couplings and parameters.
\end{enumerate}

\subsection{Gauge couplings and gaugino masses}
The running of the gauge couplings ($g_i$) and gaugino masses ($M_i$) are
controlled by
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{gaugerg}
\beta_{g_i} = \frac{g_i^3}{16\pi^2} \left[b_i^0 + n \tilde{b}_i\right] \, ,~~
\beta_{M_i} = \frac{g_i^2 M_i}{16\pi^2} \left[b_i^0 + n \tilde{b}_i \right] \, .
\end{eqnarray}
For the gauge groups U(1) (which cooresponds to $g_1 = \sqrt{5/3} g'$, which
unifies), SU(2) and SU(3), $b_i^0 = (33/5,1,-3)$ \cite{Martin:1997ns}, and
$\tilde{b}_i = (26/5,2,-2)$ \cite{blitz}, respectively.

\subsection{Yukawa and scalar trilinear couplings}
We recall that $N=1$ non-renormalization relates the beta functions of the
Yukawa couplings ($y_{ijk}$) to the anomalous dimension matrices
($\gamma^i_j$) of the superfields.  This theorem implies that logarithmically
divergent contributions can always be written in terms of wave-function
renormalizations.  Generically, $y_{ijk}$ may be written as
\begin{equation}
\beta_{y^{ijk}} = \gamma^i_n y^{njk} + \gamma^j_n y^{ink} + \gamma^k_n y^{ijn}
\, .
\label{nonrenorm}
\end{equation}
The Feynman diagrams showing the KK contributions to the wave-function
renormalizations of the scalars and fermions are displayed in
Fig.~\ref{selfenergies}. The contribution from the gauge sector cancels
exactly as a consequence of the $N=2$ non-renormalization theorem mentioned in
section \ref{5dmssm}.  Diagrammatically, the origin of this cancellation may
be traced to a relative sign between the $A_\mu$- and $\phi$-propagators - see
Eq.~(\ref{5dV}).  Only the brane localized Yukawa interactions contribute to
the Yukawa evolution. We also keep track of the fact that the $Z_2$ odd fields
have vanishing wave-functions at the two branes, leaving the even fields alone
to contribute to the diagrams in Fig.~\ref{selfenergies}. Here we have made
a tacit assumption that although the Yukawa interaction is brane localized,
only one KK level ($n$) states float inside the loop at a time. This is a
technical assumption to ensure calculability by avoiding KK divergence which
would have arisen while summing more than one KK index in a loop calculation.

\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\fcolorbox{white}{white}{
  \begin{picture}(350,92) (105,-89)
    \SetWidth{0.5}

    \Text(110,-25)[lb]{\small{\textbf{$u^{(0)}$ }}}
    \Text(190,-25)[lb]{\small{\textbf{$u^{(0)}$ }}}
    \Text(145,-45)[lb]{\small{\textbf{$Q_{L}^{(n)}$ }}}
    \Text(145,-5)[lb]{\small{\textbf{$H_{Lu}^{(n)}$ }}}
    \Text(220,-25)[lb]{\small{\textbf{$u^{(0)}$ }}}
    \Text(300,-25)[lb]{\small{\textbf{$u^{(0)}$ }}}
    \Text(255,-45)[lb]{\small{\textbf{$u_{L}^{(n)}$ }}}
    \Text(260,0)[lb]{\small{\textbf{$A_{\mu}^{(n)}$ }}}
    \Text(330,-25)[lb]{\small{\textbf{$u^{(0)}$ }}}
    \Text(415,-25)[lb]{\small{\textbf{$u^{(0)}$ }}}
    \Text(365,-45)[lb]{\small{\textbf{$u_{R}^{(n)}$ }}}
    \Text(370,0)[lb]{\small{\textbf{$\phi^{(n)}$ }}}

    \Text(110,-85)[lb]{\small{\textbf{$H_u^{(0)}$ }}}
    \Text(190,-85)[lb]{\small{\textbf{$H_u^{(0)}$ }}}
    \Text(145,-105)[lb]{\small{\textbf{$u_{L}^{(n)}$ }}}
    \Text(145,-65)[lb]{\small{\textbf{$Q_{L}^{(n)}$ }}}
    \Text(220,-85)[lb]{\small{\textbf{$H_u^{(0)}$ }}}
    \Text(300,-85)[lb]{\small{\textbf{$H_u^{(0)}$ }}}
    \Text(255,-105)[lb]{\small{\textbf{$H_{Lu}^{(n)}$ }}}
    \Text(260,-63)[lb]{\small{\textbf{$A_{\mu}^{(n)}$ }}}
    \Text(330,-85)[lb]{\small{\textbf{$H_u^{(0)}$ }}}
    \Text(415,-85)[lb]{\small{\textbf{$H_u^{(0)}$ }}}
    \Text(365,-105)[lb]{\small{\textbf{$H_{Ru}^{(n)}$ }}}
    \Text(370,-63)[lb]{\small{\textbf{$\phi^{(n)}$ }}}
    \ArrowLine(105,-28)(135,-28) \ArrowLine(135,-28)(175,-28)
    \ArrowLine(175,-28)(205,-28) \DashArrowArc(155,-28)(20,0,180){5}
    \DashLine(105,-88)(135,-88){5} \ArrowLine(135,-88)(175,-88)
    \DashLine(175,-88)(205,-88){5} \ArrowArc(155,-88)(20,0,180)
    \DashLine(215,-88)(315,-88){5} \ArrowLine(215,-28)(245,-28)
    \ArrowLine(245,-28)(285,-28) \ArrowLine(285,-28)(315,-28)
    \PhotonArc(265,-28)(20,0,180){-5}{7.5} \ArrowLine(325,-28)(355,-28)
    \ArrowLine(355,-28)(395,-28) \ArrowLine(395,-28)(425,-28)
    \PhotonArc(375,-28)(20,0,180){-5}{5.5} \DashArrowArc(375,-28)(20,0,180){5}
    \PhotonArc(265,-88)(20,0,180){-5}{7.5} \DashLine(325,-88)(425,-88){5}
    \PhotonArc(375,-88)(20,0,180){-5}{5.5} \DashArrowArc(375,-88)(20,0,180){5}

  \end{picture}
}
\end{center}
\caption{\small{\em Feynman diagrams showing the KK contributions to the
    wave-function renormalizations of the zero mode $u_3$ and $H_u$.  Similar
    diagrams for the other fermions and scalars may be drawn analogously. Here
    $A_{\mu}$ is a generic gauge field and $\phi$ is an adjoint scalar, both
    arising from a vector hypermultiplet, as explained around
    Eq.~(\ref{5dV}).}  }\label{selfenergies}
\end{figure}
\normalsize

To appreciate the numerical impact of the bulk $N=2$ non-renormalization, we
first write down the conventional 4d MSSM beta functions (i.e. those coming
from zero mode states in the 5d context) which contribute to the evolution of
the third generation Yukawa couplings \cite{Martin:1997ns}:
\begin{eqnarray}
 \beta_{t}^0 &=& {y_t \over 16 \pi^2} \Bigl [ 6 y_t^* y_t + y_b^* y_b -
   {16\over 3} g_3^2 - 3 g_2^2 - {13\over 15} g_1^2 \Bigr ],\nonumber
 \\ \beta_{b}^0 &=& {y_b \over 16 \pi^2} \Bigl [ 6 y_b^* y_b + y_t^* y_t +
   y_\tau^* y_\tau - {16\over 3} g_3^2 - 3 g_2^2 - {7\over 15} g_1^2 \Bigr]
\, , \\ \beta_{\tau}^0 &=& {y_\tau \over 16 \pi^2} \Bigl [ 4 y_\tau^*
   y_\tau + 3 y_b^* y_b - 3 g_2^2 - {9\over 5} g_1^2 \Bigr ] \, . \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
The corresponding KK contributions are given by
\begin{equation}
\label{betaf}
\tilde{\beta}_f = \beta_f^0 (g_i \to 0) ~~ (f \equiv t,b,\tau) \, ,
\end{equation}
where the vanishing gauge contributions is a direct consequence of the bulk
$N=2$ non-renormalization.

The effects of the above non-renormalization can also be felt in the evolution
of the trilinear scalar couplings.  The relevant Feynman diagrams are
displayed in Fig.~\ref{trilinear}.  Again, for illustration, we first write
down the contributions to the beta functions from the zero mode (i.e. 4d MSSM)
states \cite{Martin:1997ns}:
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{atrge}
{\beta}_{a_t}^0 \!&=&\! \frac{1}{16\pi^2} \Bigl [a_t \left( 18 y_t^* y_t +
  y_b^* y_b - {16\over 3} g_3^2 - 3 g_2^2 - {13\over 15} g_1^2 \right) + 2 a_b
  y_b^* y_t\Bigr .  \nonumber\\ && \!+ ~y_t \Bigl . \left( {32\over 3} g_3^2
  M_3 + 6 g_2^2 M_2 + {26\over 15} g_1^2 M_1 \right) \Bigr ] \, , \nonumber
\\ {\beta}_{a_b}^0 \!&=&\!\frac{1}{16\pi^2}\Bigl [ a_b \left( 18 y_b^* y_b +
  y_t^* y_t + y_\tau^* y_\tau - {16\over 3} g_3^2 - 3 g_2^2 - {7\over 15}
  g_1^2 \right) + 2 a_t y_t^* y_b + 2 a_\tau y_\tau^* y_b \Bigr .
  \phantom{xxxx} \nonumber \\&& \!+ y_b \Bigl. \left( {32\over 3} g_3^2 M_3 +
  6 g_2^2 M_2 + {14 \over 15} g_1^2 M_1 \right) \Bigr ] \, ,\qquad{}
\\ \beta_{a_{\tau}}^0 \!&=&\! \frac{1}{16\pi^2}\Bigl [a_\tau \left( 12
  y_\tau^* y_\tau + 3 y_b^* y_b - 3 g_2^2 - {9\over 5} g_1^2 \right) + 6 a_b
  y_b^* y_\tau + y_\tau \left( 6 g_2^2 M_2 + {18\over 5} g_1^2 M_1 \right)
  \Bigr ] \, . \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
As expected, the beta functions of the {\em soft supersymmetry breaking
  parameters} are proportional {\em not only} to those parameters but to
others as well, since any non-renormalization theorem ceases to work when
supersymmetry is broken. For the computation of $\tilde{\beta}_{a_f}$, we need
to keep in mind the essence of Eq.~(\ref{betaf}), i.e. the {\em absence of
  gauge contributions} in $\tilde{\beta}_{f}$, while solving the coupled
differential equations. However, that part of the gauge contributions
(proportional to $g_i^2$) to the trilinear scalar couplings which multiply the
gaugino masses ($M_i$) in Eq.~(\ref{atrge}) would still remain while computing
the KK contribution.  All in all,
\begin{equation}
\label{betaaf}
\tilde{\beta}_{a_f} = \beta_{a_f}^0 (a_f g_i \to 0) \, .
\end{equation}
\begin{center}
 \begin{figure}[t
\begin{center}
\begin{center}
\fcolorbox{white}{white}{
  \begin{picture}(318,255) (60,-75)
    \SetWidth{0.5}

\Text(65,125)[lb]{\small{\textbf{$H_u^{(0)}$ }}}
\Text(118,134)[lb]{\small{\textbf{$\tilde{u}^{(0)}$ }}}
\Text(170,47)[lb]{\small{\textbf{$\tilde{Q}^{(0)}$ }}}
\Text(150,134)[lb]{\small{\textbf{${Q}_L^{(n)}$ }}}
\Text(128,165)[lb]{\small{\textbf{$\tilde{H}_{Lu}^{(n)}$ }}}
\Text(170,180)[lb]{\small{\textbf{$\tilde{u}^{(0)}$ }}}

\Text(258,125)[lb]{\small{\textbf{$H_u^{(0)}$ }}}
\Text(311,134)[lb]{\small{\textbf{$\tilde{u}^{(0)}$ }}}
\Text(343,65)[lb]{\small{\textbf{$\tilde{Q}^{(0)}$ }}}
\Text(343,134)[lb]{\small{\textbf{$\tilde{u}_L^{(n)}/\tilde{u}_R^{(n)}$ }}}
\Text(290,165)[lb]{\small{\textbf{${A}_{\mu}^{(n)}/{\phi}^{(n)}$ }}}
\Text(363,180)[lb]{\small{\textbf{$\tilde{u}^{(0)}$ }}}

\Text(65,-10)[lb]{\small{\textbf{$H_u^{(0)}$ }}}
\Text(145,20)[lb]{\small{\textbf{$\tilde{Q}_L^{(n)}$ }}}
\Text(145,-65)[lb]{\small{\textbf{$\tilde{u}_L^{(n)}$ }}}
\Text(195,30)[lb]{\small{\textbf{$\tilde{Q}^{(0)}$ }}}
\Text(195,-70)[lb]{\small{\textbf{$\tilde{u}^{(0)}$ }}}

\Text(258,-10)[lb]{\small{\textbf{$H_u^{(0)}$ }}}
\Text(310,-0)[lb]{\small{\textbf{${Q}_L^{(n)}$ }}}
\Text(310,-40)[lb]{\small{\textbf{${u}_L^{(n)}$ }}}
\Text(355,-10)[lb]{\small{\textbf{$\lambda^{(n)}$ }}}
\Text(378,30)[lb]{\small{\textbf{$\tilde{Q}^{(0)}$ }}}
\Text(378,-70)[lb]{\small{\textbf{$\tilde{u}^{(0)}$ }}}
\DashLine(60,120)(120,120){5} \DashLine(120,120)(142,141){5}
\ArrowLine(142,141)(162,160) \DashLine(162,160)(182,180){5}
\ArrowArc(152,150.5)(15,42.52,223.29)
\DashLine(120,120)(181,60){5} \DashLine(60,-15)(120,-15){5}
\DashArrowArc(150,-15)(30,0,360){5} \DashLine(180,-15)(225,45){5}
\DashLine(180,-15)(225,-75){5} \DashLine(253,120)(315,120){5}
\DashLine(315,120)(375,180){5} \DashLine(315,120)(378,59){5}
\PhotonArc(345.31,151.61)(15,42.52,228.29){-5}{8.5}
\DashLine(253,-15)(315,-15){5} \ArrowLine(315,-15)(346,15)
\ArrowLine(346,-45)(315,-15) \ArrowLine(346,15)(347,-45)
\DashLine(346,15)(375,45){5} \DashLine(346,-45)(375,-75){5}
\Gluon(346,15)(346,-45){5}{6}
  \end{picture}
}
\end{center}
\end{center}
\caption{ \small{\em  Feynman diagrams showing the KK loop contribution to the
  evolution of a trilinear scalar coupling.  The diagrams contributing to
  other trilinear couplings may be drawn analogously.}}
 \label{trilinear}
 \end{figure}
 \end{center}
\normalsize

\subsection{Scalar masses} \label{scalarmasses}
We make three observations regarding the KK contributions to the evolution of
scalar masses (see Fig.~\ref{3higg}):
\begin{enumerate}

\item The two diagrams in the lower row of Fig.~\ref{3higg} depend on the
  Yukawa couplings. Hence, they are important only for the third generation
  matter fields.

\item Recall that in the evolution of the Yukawa couplings the KK
  contributions from the gauge field $A_\mu$ and the complex scalar $\phi$
  exactly cancelled thanks to the bulk $N=2$ non-renormalization. However,
  their fermionic superpartners contribute to the scalar mass evolution and
  those contributions add up instead of canceling out. This happens because
  these contributions yield gaugino masses which are $N=1$ supersymmetry
  breaking parameters and hence the non-renormalization theorem ceases to be
  applicable.

\item Each KK state in the two diagrams in the top row of Fig.~\ref{3higg}
  contributes twice that of the SM because of the doubling of the fermions
  (this factor of 2 is highlighted in bold-face in Eqs.~(\ref{scalarbeta}) and
  (\ref{higgsbeta}) below, and also marked on the two diagrams in top row in
  Fig.~\ref{3higg})). However, each KK state at the lower row diagrams
  contributes the same as in the SM because the odd fermion modes vanish at
  the brane where Yukawa interaction is confined.

\end{enumerate}

The zero mode contributions to the beta functions can be found in
\cite{Martin:1997ns}. Below we display the KK contributions to the beta
functions only for the third generation scalars in external lines ($S \equiv
{\rm Tr} [Y_i m_{\phi_i}^2]$, where the index $i$ runs over the third
generation matter states which are in the bulk):
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{scalarbeta}
\tilde{\beta}_{u_3} &=& \frac{1}{16\pi^2} \left[ 2 \left( 2y_t^2 \left(
  m_{Hu}^2 + m_{\tilde{Q}_3}^2 + m_{\tilde{u}_3}^2 \right) + 2a_t^2 \right)
  \right.- \left. {\bf 2} \left( \frac{32}{3}g_3^2|M_3|^2 +
  \frac{32}{15}g_1^2|M_1|^2 + \frac{4}{5}g_1^2 S \right) \right], \nonumber
\\ \tilde{\beta}_{d_3} &=& \frac{1}{16\pi^2} \left[ 2\left( 2y_b^2 \left(
  m_{Hd}^2 + m_{\tilde{Q}_3}^2 + m_{\tilde{d}_3}^2 \right) + 2a_b^2 \right)
  \right. - \left. {\bf 2} \left( \frac{32}{3}g_3^2|M_3|^2 +
  \frac{8}{15}g_1^2|M_1|^2 - \frac{2}{5}g_1^2 S \right) \right], \nonumber
\\ \tilde{\beta}_{Q_3} &=& \frac{1}{16\pi^2} \left[ \left(2 y_t^2 \left(
  m_{Hu}^2 + m_{\tilde{Q}_3}^2 + m_{\tilde{u}_3}^2 \right) + 2a_t^2 \right)
  \right. + \left. \left( 2y_b^2 \left( m_{Hd}^2 + m_{\tilde{Q}_3}^2 +
  m_{\tilde{d}_3}^2 \right) + 2a_b^2 \right)\right. \nonumber\\ & &
  \left. - {\bf 2} \left( \frac{32}{3}g_3^2|M_3|^2 + 6g_2^2|M_2|^2 +
  \frac{2}{15}g_1^2|M_1|^2 - \frac{1}{5}g_1^2 S \right) \right],
\\ \tilde{\beta}_{L_3} &=& \frac{1}{16\pi^2} \left[ \left( 2y_{\tau}^2 \left(
  m_{Hd}^2 + m_{\tilde{L}_3}^2 + m_{\tilde{e}_3}^2 \right) + 2a_{\tau}^2
  \right) - {\bf 2} \left( \frac{6}{5}g_1^2|M_1|^2 + \frac{3}{5}g_1^2 S \right)
  \right],\nonumber \\ \tilde{\beta}_{e_3}
&=& \frac{1}{16\pi^2} \left[ 2\left( 2y_{\tau}^2 \left( m_{Hd}^2 +
  m_{\tilde{L}_3}^2 + m_{\tilde{e}_3}^2 \right) + 2a_{\tau}^2 \right) - {\bf 2}
  \left( \frac{24}{5}g_1^2|M_1|^2 - \frac{6}{5}g_1^2 S \right) \right] \, .
\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}

The beta functions for the Higgs scalars are given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{higgsbeta}
\tilde{\beta}_{H_u} &=& \frac{1}{16\pi^2}
\left[ 3 \left( 2y_t^2 \left( m_{Hu}^2 +
  m_{\tilde{Q}_3}^2 + m_{\tilde{u}_3}^2 \right) + 2a_t^2 \right) \right.-
  \left. {\bf 2} \left( 6g_2^2|M_2|^2 + \frac{6}{5}g_1^2|M_1|^2 -
  \frac{3}{5}g_1^2 S \right) \right] \, , \nonumber \\
\tilde{\beta}_{H_d} &=& \frac{1}{16\pi^2}
\left[ 3 \left( 2y_b^2 \left( m_{Hd}^2 + m_{\tilde{Q}_3}^2 + m_{\tilde{d}_3}^2
  \right) + 2a_b^2 \right) \right.+ \left( 2y_{\tau}^2 \left( m_{Hd}^2 +
  m_{\tilde{L}_3}^2 + m_{\tilde{e}_3}^2 \right) + 2a_{\tau}^2 \right)
  \\ & &- \left. {\bf 2} \left( 6g_2^2|M_2|^2 +
  \frac{6}{5}g_1^2|M_1|^2 + \frac{3}{5}g_1^2 S \right) \right] \nonumber \, .
\label{higgsrg}
\end{eqnarray}

\begin{center}
\begin{figure}
\fcolorbox{white}{white}{
  \begin{picture}(469,257) (0,0)
    \SetWidth{0.5}

\Text(85,112)[lb]{\small{\textbf{$H_u^{(0)}$ }}}
\Text(238,112)[lb]{\small{\textbf{$H_u^{(0)}$ }}}
\Text(135,85)[lb]{\small{\textbf{$\tilde{H}_{Lu}^{(n)},
\tilde{H}_{Ru}^{(n)}$}}}
\Text(150,150)[lb]{\small{\textbf{$\lambda^{(n)}, \psi^{(n)}$ }}}
\DashLine(74,107)(136,107){5} \ArrowLine(136,107)(198,107)
\Text(210,130)[lb]{\small{\textbf{$\times~2$ }}}
\DashLine(198,107)(258,107){5} \ArrowArc(167,107)(30,0,180)
\GlueArc(167,107)(30,0,180){5}{6.87}
\Text(300,112)[lb]{\small{\textbf{$H_u^{(0)}$ }}}
\Text(445,112)[lb]{\small{\textbf{$H_u^{(0)}$ }}}
\Text(345,130)[lb]{\small{\textbf{}}}
\Text(420,150)[lb]{\small{\textbf{$\times~2$ }}}
\Text(310,170)[lb]{\small{\textbf{$\phi_L^{(n)},\phi_R^{(n)}$ }}}
\DashLine(285,107)(468,107){5} \Photon(376,107)(376,153){7.5}{2}
\DashArrowArc(376,173)(20,0,360){5} \Text(85,7)[lb]
{\small{\textbf{$H_u^{(0)}$ }}}
\Text(238,7)[lb]{\small{\textbf{$H_u^{(0)}$ }}}
\Text(110,50)[lb]{\small{\textbf{$\tilde{Q}_L^{(n)},\tilde{u}_L^{(n)}$ }}}
\DashLine(75,2)(255,2){5} \DashArrowArc(155,30)(30,-68,68){5}
\DashArrowArc(175,30)(30,112,248){5}
\Text(300,7)[lb]{\small{\textbf{$H_u^{(0)}$ }}}
\Text(445,7)[lb]{\small{\textbf{$H_u^{(0)}$ }}}
\Text(373,-13)[lb]{\small{\textbf{${Q}_L^{(n)}$ }}}
\Text(373,40)[lb]{\small{\textbf{${u}_L^{(n)}$ }}}
\DashLine(285,2)(347,2){5} \ArrowLine(347,2)(407,2)
\DashLine(407,2)(469,2){5} \ArrowArc(377,2)(30,0,180)
  \end{picture}
}
\caption{\small {\em Feynman diagrams showing the KK contributions to the
    running of the up-type Higgs mass. Diagrams contributing to the evolution
    of the third generation soft scalar masses may be drawn analogously. The
    multiplication factor of 2 has been explained in the text - see point 3
    under section \ref{scalarmasses}.}}
\label{3higg}
\end{figure}
\end{center}
\normalsize
Note that for the first and second generation soft scalar masses only the
second diagram in the top row of Fig.~\ref{3higg} would contribute.

\section{Special numerical features of  RG running in  5d scenario}
\label{numerical}
In this section, we highlight the special features of RG evolution in the 5d
scenario. We also compare and contrast them with the 4d features.  For all our
numerical estimates we have fixed $1/R = 1$ TeV.

\subsection{The Gauge and Yukawa couplings}
The power law running of the gauge and Yukawa couplings has been discussed in
\cite{Dienes:1998vg,blitz} for the non-supersymmetric scenario and in
\cite{Dienes:1998vg} for the supersymmetric case. As far as the Higgs
multiplets are concerned, there is a crucial difference between our model and
that considered in \cite{Dienes:1998vg}.  In our scenario there are separate
up- and down-type Higgs hypermultiplets - see Eq.~(\ref{huhd-hyper}).  Inside
each hypermultiplet only the left column with label ($L$) is $Z_2$ even and
its scalar zero mode receives a vev, whereas the right column with label ($R$)
is projected out.  In other words, the hypermultiplet $H_u$ contains the vev
$v_u$ and, similarly, $H_d$ contains $v_d$.  On the other hand,
\cite{Dienes:1998vg} contains a single hypermultiplet, each column of which
has a zero mode, one to be identified with the up-type chiral multiplet which
contains the vev $v_u$, and the other to be identified with the down-type
containing $v_d$. While our approach constitutes a straightforward
generalization of $H_u$ and $H_d$ from chiral multiplets to hypermultiplets,
the choice made in \cite{Dienes:1998vg} requires non-trivial boundary
conditions.  These two different assumptions lead to significant numerical
differences.  In our approach, the gauge couplings converge to one another but
actually do not meet at a single point, while in \cite{Dienes:1998vg} the
gauge couplings do meet at a point. The difference in the number of KK scalar
excitations makes the difference between the two approaches.

Indeed, both gauge and Yukawa couplings exhibit power law running due to
summation over the KK states as one crosses the energy thresholds.  As we have
mentioned in section \ref{5dmssm}, keeping the first two matter generations
confined at the brane ensures that the couplings remain perturbative even with
$R^{-1}$ as low as 1 TeV.  Starting from their LEP-measured values at the weak
scale, as we extrapolate the gauge couplings using the KK beta functions we
observe that the three couplings approach very close to one another near 32
TeV, but they do not actually meet at any point, as mentioned in the previous
paragraph.

A crucial point of immense numerical significance is that on account of the
special $N=2$ bulk non-renormalization, the third generation matter
hypermultiplet kept in the bulk does not receive any wave-function
renormalization from the gauge hypermultiplet, which we have illustrated below
Eq.~(\ref{nonrenorm}).  As an important consequence of this the Yukawa
coupling blows up to large (non-perturbative) values around $\Lambda \sim$ 18
TeV, which we therefore take to be the effective cutoff of our theory.

\subsection{The gaugino and scalar masses}
We assume that at the highest scale $\Lambda = 18$ TeV of our theory,
i.e. just before the Yukawa couplings blow up, all scalar masses unify to
$m_0$ and all gaugino masses to $M_{1/2}$. Our high scale parameters are then
$m_0, M_{1/2}, \mbox{sgn}(\mu)$ and $\tan\beta \equiv v_u/v_d$.

The gaugino mass running is governed by the evolution of gauge
couplings. Since gauge couplings {\em nearly} meet around 32 TeV, the gaugino
masses tend to converge also at that scale.  But in the present context, as
mentioned before, we forced the gaugino masses to unify at 18 TeV.  Recall
that in 5d the running is short but fast (power law), but in 4d it is long and
slow (logarithmic). This leads to a general expectation that starting from a
given high scale value, the low scale predictions would be similar in 4d and
5d. But since we forcibly unified the gaugino masses in our set-up, earlier
than otherwise expected, we obtain a somewhat different set of low scale
values. The gaugino mass scaling in 5d is shown in Fig.~\ref{gauge}, while in
the inset is displayed the 4d running.  A rough comparison of the weak scale
ratios of the three gaugino masses is the following:
\begin{eqnarray}
 M_1,M_2,M_3 &\sim& (0.4,0.8,3.0)\times M_{1/2}~ \mbox{(in 4d)}\, , \nonumber
  \\ M_1,M_2,M_3 &\sim& (0.7,0.8,2.0)\times M_{1/2}~
  \mbox{(in 5d)} \, .
\label{gauginom}
 \end{eqnarray}
 If $R$-parity remains conserved, the lightest neutralino remains the lightest
 supersymmetric particle (LSP), only that its mass is heavier than what is
 expected in the standard 4d scenario - see Eq.~(\ref{gauginom}).

 Fig.~\ref{rewsb} shows the running of the soft scalar masses.  The large
 top quark Yukawa coupling continues to play a crucial r\^ole as in 4d. A
 rough comparison of the weak scale predictions in 4d and 5d is:
\begin{eqnarray}
m_{\tilde{Q}_3}^2&\sim& m_0^2 + 5.5 M_{{1}/{2}}^2~ \mbox{(in 4d)} \, ,
\nonumber\\  m_{\tilde{Q}_3}^2&\sim& m_0^2 +
3.5 M_{{1}/{2}}^2~ \mbox{(in 5d).}
\label{scalarm}
\end{eqnarray}
Even for the brane localized scalars, the 5d model predicts slightly higher
weak scale masses compared to 4d\footnote{When the $N=1$ supersymmetry
  breaking is induced by brane-localized spurion vev, the structure of the
  third generation soft masses may, in principle, be different from what we
  assumed due to KK mixing. For calculational simplicity we have ignored KK
  mixing which, we believe, would not affect our main qualitative
  features.}. The relatively {\em compressed} spectrum in 5d, as expressed
through Eqs.~(\ref{gauginom}) and (\ref{scalarm}), is indicative of a lesser
fine-tuning compared to the conventional MSSM.

During power law running we ensure that radiative breaking of electroweak
symmetry does happen at the desired scale\footnote{Radiative electroweak
  symmetry breaking has been discussed in the context of some specific
  realization of supersymmetry breaking in an orbifold
  \cite{Barbieri:2000vh,ArkaniHamed:2001mi,Kobayashi:1998ye}.}. Just like in
4d, only $m_{H_u}^2$ turns negative while all other scalars remain
positive. Again, the large top quark Yukawa coupling drives this phase
transition. A point to note is that {\em unless} we keep the third generation
matter in the bulk, electroweak symmetry would never break radiatively in our
class of models.  Furthermore, we had to take in 5d a factor 1 to 3 larger
(than 4d) value of $\mu$ at the cutoff scale.

\section{The $m_0 -M_{1/2}$ parameter space}
\label{m0mhalf}

\subsection{Numerical procedure}
For our numerical estimates we go through the following steps:
\begin{enumerate}
\item We scan $m_0$ and $M_{1/2}$ through the range $[0.1-1.0]/R$. We fix
  $\tan\beta = 10$ and take both positive and negative values of $\mu$. Our
  cutoff is 18 TeV, which is the scale where the Yukawa couplings blow up to
  non-perturbative values. We use one loop RG equations as displayed in
  section \ref{beta}. To obtain the weak scale parameters we follow the
  logarithmic evolution like in the 4d desert, but now using different beta
  functions for different energy intervals separated by successive KK
  thresholds - see Eq.~(\ref{master}). So, operationally, power law running is
  treated by taking {\em many} logs.

\item For each input combination, we perform a consistency check to ensure
  correct electroweak symmetry breaking, and accept only those inputs which
  admit this phenomenon.

\item We then feed the weak scale spectrum into the code {\sf micrOMEGAS}
  \cite{Belanger:2001fz}, and using this software package calculate the dark
  matter density ($\Omega_{\rm DM}$), ${\rm Br}~(b \rightarrow s \gamma)$,
  $\Delta a_\mu = (g-2)_\mu/2$, and $\Delta \rho$. Since we consider $1/R = 1$
  TeV, even the lightest KK states are somewhat heavier than the lighter
  section of the zero mode spectra. As a result, without any significant
  numerical compromise we neglect the direct loop contributions of the virtual
  KK particles\footnote{Although $b\to s \gamma$, $Z \to b\bar{b}$, $\Delta
    \rho$, $B_q$--$\overline{B_q}$ are all finite {\em upto one loop} in UED
    or its supersymmetric version thanks to the KK number conservation at the
    {\em tree} level Lagrangian, in scenarios containing brane-bound fermions
    one encounters a UV sensitivity even at one loop \cite{db}. A sensible UV
    completion is needed to counter this. See also \cite{Hebecker:2002vm} and
    footnote 2 of this paper.}. In other words, the KK effects feed into the
  calculation of low energy spectra {\em via} power law running, but after
  that we rely on the standard 4d computations encoded in {\sf
    micrOMEGAS}. This approximation is good enough for our purpose.

\item We compare the predictions of the above observables with their
  experimental values/constraints, and translate the information into the
  inclusion/exclusion plots (Figs.~\ref{momh1} and \ref{momh2}) in the $m_0
  -M_{1/2}$ plane. The 4d plots have been reproduced to serve as a guide to
  the eyes for capturing the 5d subtleties. We note that our 4d plots are in
  agreement with the ones in the existing literature, e.g. with
  \cite{Djouadi:2006be}.
\end{enumerate}

\subsection{Comparison between 4d and 5d models}
We highlight only the major differences between the 4d and 5d models that
appear on the $m_0$--$M_{1/2}$ plane.

\begin{enumerate}
\item We assume that $R$-parity is conserved.  In the 4d scenario the lightest
  neutralino is the most likely candidate for an LSP.  In the 5d model the
  situation is somewhat tricky. Indeed, the 4d LSP is still an LSP here which
  is the zero mode neutralino. Besides, {\em if} the KK parity remains
  conserved, then the $n=1$ mode of photon tower, namely $\gamma_1$, and its
  supersymmetric partner $\tilde{\gamma}_1$ are also stable dark matter
  candidates. However, the KK parity is unlikely to respected by the
  brane-bulk interaction. In our numerical analysis, we have treated the zero
  mode LSP as the dark matter candidate.

\item We have taken a $3 \sigma$ range of the five year average of WMAP dark
  matter density ($0.087<\Omega_{\rm DM} h^2<0.138$) \cite{Komatsu:2008hk}. We
  raise a caution here that {\em if} KK parity remains conserved and we have
  two {\em more} dark matter candidates, as mentioned above, then the edge of
  the allowed band arising from the lower limit of $\Omega_{\rm DM}$ would be
  further stretched. Note further that in the 5d case there is a slight
  broadening of the WMAP allowed strip compared to 4d. This happens because of
  a combined effect of Eqs.~(\ref{gauginom}) and (\ref{scalarm}) leading to a
  reduced sensitivity to $M_{1/2}$ variation.

\item The region where the lightest neutralino satisfies the dark matter
  constraints extends to a {\em higher} value of $M_{1/2}$ in 5d compared to
  4d. What matters most in this context is the mass difference between the
  chargino and the lightest neutralino, i.e. $(M_2 - M_1)$.  It is clear from
  Eq.~(\ref{gauginom}) that starting from a given $M_{1/2}$ this difference is
  smaller in 5d than in 4d. This explains the shift of the band to the right
  side.

\item We have taken $2.65 \times 10^{-4} \lesssim {\rm Br}~(b \to s \gamma)
  \lesssim 4.45 \times 10^{-4}$ \cite{Barberio:2008fa}, and $10.6\times
  10^{-10}\lesssim \Delta a_{\mu}^{\rm new} = (g-2)_{\mu}/2 \lesssim
  43.6\times 10^{-10}$ \cite{Carey:2009zz}. There is nothing much to
  distinguish between 4d and 5d from these two observables.

\item We have {\em not} included the {\em direct} loop effects of the virtual
  KK states for any of the weak scale observables. For $R^{-1} = 1$ TeV or
  more, for processes like muon anomalous magnetic moment or $b\to s \gamma$,
  such effects are numerically negligible, but {\em only } for the Higgs mass
  it makes a difference. In Figs.~\ref{momh1} and \ref{momh2}, the entire
  region to the left of the line marked with $m_h = 114$ GeV which looks
  otherwise disfavored will be resurrected if we include the KK loop
  correction to the Higgs mass \cite{Bhattacharyya:2007te}.

\end{enumerate}

\section{Conclusions and Outlook}
\label{concl}

We reiterate once again that supersymmetry and extra dimension are
interestingly intertwined both from theoretical and phenomenological
perspectives. The presence of extra dimensions is an essential part of any
high scale fundamental theory, and supersymmetry is quite often an integral
component of such theories. Supersymmetry, on the other hand, provides a
sensible UV completion of the extra dimensional models. The connection between
supersymmetry and extra dimension is further strengthened by the consideration
that the origin of supersymmetry breaking may reside in extra dimension. In a
general class of scenarios in which TeV-size soft masses are generated at a
relatively low cutoff scale (like 20-30 TeV) with intermediate resonances, one
can find a common ground where our analysis will be applicable.

The logarithmic running in 4d from 100 GeV to $10^{16}$ GeV is replaced in 5d
by fast power law running on a shorter interval from 100 GeV to about 30 TeV
thanks to the KK states. This is a feature of extra dimension. What is
technically/operationally special about 5d supersymmetry is that it provides a
special $N=2$ non-renormalization that forces us to consider an early cutoff
($\sim$ 18 TeV).

The constraints in the $m_0$--$M_{1/2}$ plane have been placed for the {\em
  first time} in this paper. The ratio $M_1/M_{1/2}$ is higher in 5d compared
to 4d. For this reason the {\em allowed} region in the 5d plot extends to {\em
  larger} values of $M_{1/2}$ compared to the 4d plot.

It should be noted that $R^{-1}$ could in principle be much smaller, e.g. a
few hundred GeV, than our reference value of 1 TeV. In fact, the first KK
excitations of SM particles could very well be lighter than zero mode
superpartners.  It is neither our intention, nor it is possible within the
scope of the present paper, to distinguish the two different options.

Two issues require further studies beyond the scope of the present paper: (i)
Besides the lightest neutralino (the usual 4d LSP), {\em if} KK parity remains
conserved, there may be two other candidates of dark matter in this model. One
is $\gamma_1$, the $n=1$ level photon, and the other is its superpartner
$\tilde{\gamma}_1$.  Although brane-bulk interface is likely to frustrate KK
parity conservation, yet for the sake of completeness one should study the
{\em combined effects} of all three dark matter candidates.  (ii) It will also
be interesting to revisit the lower limit on $R^{-1}$ in a {\em
  supersymmetric} scenario, which we suspect would be relaxed.

\vskip 5pt

\noindent {\bf{Acknowledgments:}}~ We thank E.~Dudas, S.~Pokorski and
A.~Raychaudhuri for making valuable comments related to our work. GB
acknowledges hospitality of the Physics Department, University of Warsaw,
during the final phase of the work.  GB's work has been supported in part by
the project No.~2007/37/9/BRNS of BRNS (DAE), India.  TSR thanks HRI,
Allahabad, for hospitality during the early phase of this work. TSR also
acknowledges the S.P. Mukherjee fellowship of CSIR, India.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaArXiv


The new Methodist Heritage website www.methodistheritage.org.uk is now live, including an online version of Methodist Heritage Handbook. Complete with photo slideshows, interactive maps and the potential for adding events to the calendar, it provides a vibrant new platform for promoting visits to the heritage sites of the Methodist Church. There are also sections relating to conserving and accessing Methodist archives as well as researching the Church's history.
Whilst there you can sign up to receive the Spring 2011 issue of Heritage News, the Methodist heritage newsletter.
As the Methodist Heritage Officer Jo Hibbard works to develop and promote the Methodist Church's heritage sites across Britain. This involves plenty of travel and Jo is blogging her experiences – her encounters with the dedicated volunteers who staff these special places and her discoveries of the Connexion's 'hidden treasures'.


text:
Medidex is not a provider of medical services and all information is provided for the convenience of the user. No medical decisions should be made based on the information provided on this website without first consulting a licensed healthcare provider.This website is intended for persons 18 years or older. No person under 18 should consult this website without the permission of a parent or guardian.
Trazodone Hydrochloride
&times
What is Trazodone Hydrochloride?
Trazodone hydrochloride is an antidepressant chemically unrelated to tricyclic, tetracyclic, or other known antidepressant agents. Trazodone hydrochloride is a triazolopyridine derivative designated as 2-[3-[4-(3-chlorophenyl)-1-piperazinyl] propyl]-1,2,4-triazolo[4,3-a]pyridin-3 (2)-one hydrochloride. It is a white odorless crystalline powder which is freely soluble in water. It has a structural formula as follows:
Each tablet for oral administration contains 50 mg or 100 mg of trazodone hydrochloride.
Trazodone hydrochloride tablets 50 mg and 100 mg contain the inactive ingredients hypromellose, lactose monohydrate, magnesium stearate, polydextrose, polyethylene glycol, povidone, pregelatinized starch, silicon dioxide, and titanium dioxide.
What does Trazodone Hydrochloride look like?
What are the available doses of Trazodone Hydrochloride?
Sorry No records found.
What should I talk to my health care provider before I take Trazodone Hydrochloride?
Sorry No records found
How should I use Trazodone Hydrochloride?
Trazodone hydrochloride tablets are indicated for the treatment of depression. The efficacy of trazodone has been demonstrated in both inpatient and outpatient settings and for depressed patients with and without prominent anxiety. The depressive illness of patients studied corresponds to the Major Depressive Episode criteria of the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, III.
Major Depressive Episode implies a prominent and relatively persistent (nearly every day for at least two weeks) depressed or dysphoric mood that usually interferes with daily functioning, and includes at least four of the following eight symptoms: change in appetite, change in sleep, psychomotor agitation or retardation, loss of interest in usual activities or decrease in sexual drive, increased fatigability, feelings of guilt or worthlessness, slowed thinking or impaired concentration, and suicidal ideation or attempts.
The dosage should be initiated at a low level and increased gradually, noting the clinical response and any evidence of intolerance. Occurrence of drowsiness may require the administration of a major portion of the daily dose at bedtime or a reduction of dosage. Trazodone hydrochloride tablets should be taken shortly after a meal or light snack. Symptomatic relief may be seen during the first week, with optimal antidepressant effects typically evident within two weeks. Twenty-five percent of those who respond to trazodone require more than two weeks (up to four weeks) of drug administration.
What interacts with Trazodone Hydrochloride?
Trazodone hydrochloride tablets are contraindicated in patients hypersensitive to trazodone.
What are the warnings of Trazodone Hydrochloride?
Clinical Worsening and Suicide Risk
Patients with major depressive disorder (MDD), both adult and pediatric, may experience worsening of their depression and/or the emergence of suicidal ideation and behavior (suicidality) or unusual changes in behavior, whether or not they are taking antidepressant medications, and this risk may persist until significant remission occurs. Suicide is a known risk of depression and certain other psychiatric disorders, and these disorders themselves are the strongest predictors of suicide. There has been a long-standing concern, however, that antidepressants may have a role in inducing worsening of depression and the emergence of suicidality in certain patients during the early phases of treatment. Pooled analyses of short-term placebo-controlled trials of antidepressant drugs (SSRIs and others) showed that these drugs increase the risk of suicidal thinking and behavior (suicidality) in children, adolescents, and young adults (ages 18 to 24) with major depressive disorder (MDD) and other psychiatric disorders. Short-term studies did not show an increase in the risk of suicidality with antidepressants compared to placebo in adults beyond age 24; there was a reduction with antidepressants compared to placebo in adults aged 65 and older.
The pooled analyses of placebo-controlled trials in children and adolescents with MDD, obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD), or other psychiatric disorders included a total of 24 short-term trials of 9 antidepressant drugs in over 4400 patients. The pooled analyses of placebo-controlled trials in adults with MDD or other psychiatric disorders included a total of 295 short-term trials (median duration of 2 months) of 11 antidepressant drugs in over 77,000 patients. There was considerable variation in risk of suicidality among drugs, but a tendency toward an increase in the younger patients for almost all drugs studied. There were differences in absolute risk of suicidality across the different indications, with the highest incidence in MDD. The risk differences (drug vs placebo), however, were relatively stable within age strata and across indications. These risk differences (drug-placebo difference in the number of cases of suicidality per 1000 patients treated) are provided in .
No suicides occurred in any of the pediatric trials. There were suicides in the adult trials, but the number was not sufficient to reach any conclusion about drug effect on suicide.
It is unknown whether the suicidality risk extends to longer-term use, i.e., beyond several months. However, there is substantial evidence from placebo-controlled maintenance trials in adults with depression that the use of antidepressants can delay the recurrence of depression.
All patients being treated with antidepressants for any indication should be monitored appropriately and observed closely for clinical worsening, suicidality, and unusual changes in behavior, especially during the initial few months of a course of drug therapy, or at times of dose changes, either increases or decreases.
The following symptoms, anxiety, agitation, panic attacks, insomnia, irritability, hostility, aggressiveness, impulsivity, akathisia (psychomotor restlessness), hypomania, and mania, have been reported in adult and pediatric patients being treated with antidepressants for major depressive disorder as well as for other indications, both psychiatric and nonpsychiatric. Although a causal link between the emergence of such symptoms and either the worsening of depression and/or the emergence of suicidal impulses has not been established, there is concern that such symptoms may represent precursors to emerging suicidality.
Consideration should be given to changing the therapeutic regimen, including possibly discontinuing the medication, in patients whose depression is persistently worse, or who are experiencing emergent suicidality or symptoms that might be precursors to worsening depression or suicidality, especially if these symptoms are severe, abrupt in onset, or were not part of the patient's presenting symptoms.
Families and caregivers of patients being treated with antidepressants for major depressive disorder or other indications, both psychiatric and nonpsychiatric, should be alerted about the need to monitor patients for the emergence of agitation, irritability, unusual changes in behavior, and the other symptoms described above, as well as the emergence of suicidality, and to report such symptoms immediately to health care providers. Such monitoring should include daily observation by families and caregivers.
Age Range Drug-Placebo Difference in Number of Cases of Suicidality per 1000 Patients Treated
Increases Compared to Placebo
14 additional cases
18 to 24 5 additional cases
Decreases Compared to Placebo
25 to 64 1 fewer case
≥ 65 6 fewer cases
Screening Patients for Bipolar Disorder
A major depressive episode may be the initial presentation of bipolar disorder. It is generally believed (though not established in controlled trials) that treating such an episode with an antidepressant alone may increase the likelihood of precipitation of a mixed/manic episode in patients at risk for bipolar disorder. Whether any of the symptoms described above represent such a conversion is unknown. However, prior to initiating treatment with an antidepressant, patients with depressive symptoms should be adequately screened to determine if they are at risk for bipolar disorder; such screening should include a detailed psychiatric history, including a family history of suicide, bipolar disorder, and depression. It should be noted that trazodone hydrochloride tablets are not approved for use in treating bipolar depression.
TRAZODONE HAS BEEN ASSOCIATED WITH THE OCCURRENCE OF PRIAPISM. IN MANY OF THE CASES REPORTED, SURGICAL INTERVENTION WAS REQUIRED AND, IN SOME OF THESE CASES, PERMANENT IMPAIRMENT OF ERECTILE FUNCTION OR IMPOTENCE RESULTED. MALE PATIENTS WITH PROLONGED OR INAPPROPRIATE ERECTIONS SHOULD IMMEDIATELY DISCONTINUE THE DRUG AND CONSULT THEIR PHYSICIAN.
The detumescence of priapism and drug-induced penile erections has been accomplished by both pharmacologic, e.g., the intracavernosal injection of alpha-adrenergic stimulants such as epinephrine and norepinephrine, as well as surgical procedures. Any pharmacologic or surgical procedure utilized in the treatment of priapism should be performed under the supervision of a urologist or a physician familiar with the procedure and should not be initiated without urologic consultation if the priapism has persisted for more than 24 hours.
Trazodone hydrochloride is not recommended for use during the initial recovery phase of myocardial infarction.
Caution should be used when administering trazodone hydrochloride to patients with cardiac disease, and such patients should be closely monitored, since antidepressant drugs (including trazodone) have been associated with the occurrence of cardiac arrhythmias. Recent clinical studies in patients with pre-existing cardiac disease indicate that trazodone may be arrhythmogenic in some patients in that population. Arrhythmias identified include isolated PVCs, ventricular couplets, and in two patients short episodes (3 to 4 beats) of ventricular tachycardia.
What are the precautions of Trazodone Hydrochloride?
The possibility of suicide in seriously depressed patients is inherent in the illness and may persist until significant remission occurs. Therefore, prescriptions should be written for the smallest number of tablets consistent with good patient management.
Hypotension, including orthostatic hypotension and syncope, has been reported to occur in patients receiving trazodone. Concomitant administration of antihypertensive therapy with trazodone may require a reduction in the dose of the antihypertensive drug.
Little is known about the interaction between trazodone and general anesthetics; therefore, prior to elective surgery, trazodone should be discontinued for as long as clinically feasible.
As with all antidepressants, the use of trazodone should be based on the consideration of the physician that the expected benefits of therapy outweigh potential risk factors.
Prescribers or other health professionals should inform patients, their families, and their caregivers about the benefits and risks associated with treatment with trazodone hydrochloride tablets and should counsel them in its appropriate use. A patient Medication Guide about "Antidepressant Medicines, Depression and other Serious Mental Illnesses, and Suicidal Thoughts or Actions" is available for trazodone hydrochloride tablets. The prescriber or health professional should instruct patients, their families, and their caregivers to read the Medication Guide and should assist them in understanding its contents. Patients should be given the opportunity to discuss the contents of the Medication Guide and to obtain answers to any questions they may have. The complete text of the Medication Guide is reprinted at the end of this document.
Patients should be advised of the following issues and asked to alert their prescriber if these occur while taking trazodone hydrochloride tablets.
Patients, their families, and their caregivers should be encouraged to be alert to the emergence of anxiety, agitation, panic attacks, insomnia, irritability, hostility, aggressiveness, impulsivity, akathisia (psychomotor restlessness), hypomania, mania, other unusual changes in behavior, worsening of depression, and suicidal ideation, especially early during antidepressant treatment and when the dose is adjusted up or down. Families and caregivers of patients should be advised to look for the emergence of such symptoms on a day-to-day basis, since changes may be abrupt. Such symptoms should be reported to the patient's prescriber or health professional, especially if they are severe, abrupt in onset, or were not part of the patient's presenting symptoms. Symptoms such as these may be associated with an increased risk for suicidal thinking and behavior and indicate a need for very close monitoring and possibly changes in the medication.
Because priapism has been reported to occur in patients receiving trazodone, patients with prolonged or inappropriate penile erection should immediately discontinue the drug and consult with the physician (see ).
Antidepressants may impair the mental and/or physical ability required for the performance of potentially hazardous tasks, such as operating an automobile or machinery; the patient should be cautioned accordingly.
Trazodone may enhance the response to alcohol, barbiturates, and other CNS depressants.
Trazodone should be given shortly after a meal or light snack. Within any individual patient, total drug absorption may be up to 20% higher when the drug is taken with food rather than on an empty stomach. The risk of dizziness/lightheadedness may increase under fasting conditions.
Occasional low white blood cell and neutrophil counts have been noted in patients receiving trazodone hydrochloride. These were not considered clinically significant and did not necessitate discontinuation of the drug; however, the drug should be discontinued in any patient whose white blood cell count or absolute neutrophil count falls below normal levels. White blood cell and differential counts are recommended for patients who develop fever and sore throat (or other signs of infection) during therapy.
Carbamazepine reduced plasma concentrations of trazodone when co-administered. Patients should be closely monitored to see if there is a need for an increased dose of trazodone when taking both drugs.
Increased serum digoxin or phenytoin levels have been reported to occur in patients receiving trazodone concurrently with either of those two drugs.
It is not known whether interactions will occur between monoamine oxidase (MAO) inhibitors and trazodone. Due to the absence of clinical experience, if MAO inhibitors are discontinued shortly before or are to be given concomitantly with trazodone, therapy should be initiated cautiously with gradual increase in dosage until optimum response is achieved.
Therapeutic Interactions
Concurrent administration with electroshock therapy should be avoided because of the absence of experience in this area.
There have been reports of increased and decreased prothrombin time occurring in warfarinized patients who take trazodone.
No drug- or dose-related occurrence of carcinogenesis was evident in rats receiving trazodone hydrochloride in daily oral doses up to 300 mg/kg for 18 months.
Pregnancy Category C
Trazodone has been shown to cause increased fetal resorption and other adverse effects on the fetus in two studies using the rat when given at dose levels approximately 30 to 50 times the proposed maximum human dose. There was also an increase in congenital anomalies in one of three rabbit studies at approximately 15 to 50 times the maximum human dose. There are no adequate and well-controlled studies in pregnant women. Trazodone should be used during pregnancy only if the potential benefit justifies the potential risk to the fetus.
Trazodone and/or its metabolites have been found in the milk of lactating rats, suggesting that the drug may be secreted in human milk. Caution should be exercised when trazodone is administered to a nursing woman.
Safety and effectiveness in the pediatric population have not been established (see and ).
Anyone considering the use of trazodone hydrochloride tablets in a child or adolescent must balance the potential risks with the clinical need.
What are the side effects of Trazodone Hydrochloride?
Because the frequency of adverse drug effects is affected by diverse factors (e.g., drug dose, method of detection, physician judgment, disease under treatment, etc.) a single meaningful estimate of adverse event incidence is difficult to obtain. This problem is illustrated by the variation in adverse event incidence observed and reported from the inpatients and outpatients treated with trazodone. It is impossible to determine precisely what accounts for the differences observed.
Clinical Trial Reports
The table below is presented solely to indicate the relative frequency of adverse events reported in representative controlled clinical studies conducted to evaluate the safety and efficacy of trazodone hydrochloride.
The figures cited cannot be used to predict concisely the incidence of untoward events in the course of usual medical practice where patient characteristics and other factors often differ from those which prevailed in the clinical trials. These incidence figures, also, cannot be compared with those obtained from other clinical studies involving related drug products and placebo as each group of drug trials is conducted under a different set of conditions.
T = Trazodone Hydrochloride
P = Placebo
Occasional sinus bradycardia has occurred in long-term studies.
In addition to the relatively common (i.e., greater than 1%) untoward events enumerated above, the following adverse events have been reported to occur in association with the use of trazodone hydrochloride in the controlled clinical studies: akathisia, allergic reaction, anemia, chest pain, delayed urine flow, early menses, flatulence, hallucinations/delusions, hematuria, hypersalivation, hypomania, impaired speech, impotence, increased appetite, increased libido, increased urinary frequency, missed periods, muscle twitches, numbness, and retrograde ejaculation.
Postintroduction Reports
Although the following adverse reactions have been reported in trazodone users, the causal association has neither been confirmed nor refuted.
Voluntary reports received since market introduction include the following: abnormal dreams, agitation, alopecia, anxiety, aphasia, apnea, ataxia, breast enlargement or engorgement, cardiospasm, cerebrovascular accident, chills, cholestasis, clitorism, congestive heart failure, diplopia, edema, extrapyramidal symptoms, grand mal seizures, hallucinations, hemolytic anemia, hirsutism, hyperbilirubinemia, increased amylase, increased salivation, insomnia, leukocytosis, leukonychia, jaundice, lactation, liver enzyme alterations, methemoglobinemia, nausea/vomiting (most frequently), paresthesia, paranoid reaction, priapism (see and ; some patients have required surgical intervention), pruritus, psoriasis, psychosis, rash, stupor, inappropriate ADH syndrome, tardive dyskinesia, unexplained death, urinary incontinence, urinary retention, urticaria, vasodilation, vertigo, and weakness.
Cardiovascular system effects which have been reported include the following: conduction block, orthostatic hypotension and syncope, palpitations, bradycardia, atrial fibrillation, myocardial infarction, cardiac arrest, arrhythmia, and ventricular ectopic activity, including ventricular tachycardia (see ).
Treatment-Emergent Symptom Incidence
Inpts. Outpts.
T P T P
Skin Condition/Edema 2.8 1.1 7.0 1.3
Blurred Vision 6.3 4.2 14.7 3.8
Constipation 7.0 4.2 7.6 5.7
Dry Mouth 14.8 8.4 33.8 20.3
Hypertension 2.1 1.1 1.3 Incidence less than 1%.
Hypotension 7.0 1.1 3.8 0.0
Shortness of Breath 1.1 1.3 0.0
Syncope 2.8 2.1 4.5 1.3
Tachycardia/Palpitations 0.0 0.0 7.0 7.0
Anger/Hostility 3.5 6.3 1.3 2.5
Confusion 4.9 0.0 5.7 7.6
Decreased Concentration 2.8 2.1 1.3 0.0
Disorientation 2.1 0.0 0.0
Dizziness/Lightheadedness 19.7 5.3 28.0 15.2
Drowsiness 23.9 6.3 40.8 19.6
Excitement 1.4 1.1 5.1 5.7
Fatigue 11.3 4.2 5.7 2.5
Headache 9.9 5.3 19.8 15.8
Insomnia 9.9 10.5 6.4 12.0
Impaired Memory 1.4 0.0
Nervousness 14.8 10.5 6.4 8.2
Abdominal/Gastric Disorder 3.5 4.2 5.7 4.4
Bad Taste in Mouth 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0
Diarrhea 0.0 1.1 4.5 1.9
Nausea/Vomiting 9.9 1.1 12.7 9.5
Musculoskeletal Aches/Pains 5.6 3.2 5.1 2.5
Incoordination 4.9 0.0 1.9 0.0
Paresthesia 1.4 0.0 0.0
Tremors 2.8 1.1 5.1 3.8
Decreased Libido 1.1 1.3
Decreased Appetite 3.5 5.3 0.0
Eyes Red/Tired/Itching 2.8 0.0 0.0 0.0
Head Full-Heavy 2.8 0.0 0.0 0.0
Malaise 2.8 0.0 0.0 0.0
Nasal/Sinus Congestion 2.8 0.0 5.7 3.2
Nightmares/Vivid Dreams 1.1 5.1 5.7
Sweating/Clamminess 1.4 1.1
Tinnitus 1.4 0.0 0.0
Weight Gain 1.4 0.0 4.5 1.9
Weight Loss 3.2 5.7 2.5
What should I look out for while using Trazodone Hydrochloride?
What might happen if I take too much Trazodone Hydrochloride?
How should I store and handle Trazodone Hydrochloride?
StorageStore Pantoprazole sodium delayed-release tablets at 20° to 25°C (68° to 77°F); excursions permitted to 15° to 30°C (59° to 86°F). [See USP Controlled Room Temperature.]StorageStore Pantoprazole sodium delayed-release tablets at 20° to 25°C (68° to 77°F); excursions permitted to 15° to 30°C (59° to 86°F). [See USP Controlled Room Temperature.]Trazodone Hydrochloride Tablets USP, 50 mg are white, film-coated, round, convex, scored tablets, debossed "61" bisect "60" on one side and debossed "V" on the reverse side.Trazodone Hydrochloride Tablets USP, 100 mg are white, film-coated, round, convex, scored tablets, debossed "61" bisect "61" on one side and debossed "V" on the reverse side.Trazodone Hydrochloride Tablets USP, 50 mg are white, film-coated, round, convex, scored tablets, debossed "61" bisect "60" on one side and debossed "V" on the reverse side.Trazodone Hydrochloride Tablets USP, 100 mg are white, film-coated, round, convex, scored tablets, debossed "61" bisect "61" on one side and debossed "V" on the reverse side.
No Image found
The mechanism of trazodone's antidepressant action in man is not fully understood. In animals, trazodone selectively inhibits serotonin uptake by brain synaptosomes and potentiates the behavioral changes induced by the serotonin precursor, 5-hydroxytryptophan. Cardiac conduction effects of trazodone in the anesthetized dog are qualitatively dissimilar and quantitatively less pronounced than those seen with tricyclic antidepressants. Trazodone is not a monoamine oxidase inhibitor and, unlike amphetamine-type drugs, does not stimulate the central nervous system.
Non-Clinical Toxicology
This information is obtained from the National Institute of Health's Standard Packaging Label drug database.
"https://dailymed.nlm.nih.gov/dailymed/"
While we update our database periodically, we cannot guarantee it is always updated to the latest version.
Rate this treatment and share your opinion
Learn about User Reviews
Helpful tips to write a good review:
Only share your first hand experience as a consumer or a care giver.
Describe your experience in the Comments area including the benefits, side effects and how it has worked for you. Do not provide personal information like email addresses or telephone numbers.
Fill in the optional information to help other users benefit from your review.
Reason for Taking This Treatment
Select a reasonChronic Heart FailureDiastolic Heart FailureHigh Blood PressureHypertension with Left Ventricular HypertrophyKidney Disease from DiabetesNondiabetic Proteinuric NephropathyOtherPrevention of Recurrent Atrial FibrillationStroke Prevention (required)
Click the stars to rate this treatment
Effectiveness (required)
This medication has worked for me.
Ease of Use (required)
This medication has been easy for me to use.
Satisfaction (required)
Overall, I have been satisfied with my experience.
Write a brief description of your experience with this treatment:
Help others benefit from your review by filling in the information below.
I am a: Patient Caregiver
Gender: Male Female
Age Range: Choose One0-23-67-1213-1819-2425-3435-4445-5455-6465-7475 or over
Time on Medication: Choose Oneless than 1 month1 to 6 months6 months to less than 1 year1 to less than 2 years2 to less than 5 years5 to less than 10 years10 years or more
Screen Name:
User Reviews & Ratings - losartan oral
Read user comments about the side effects, benefits, and effectiveness of losartan oral.
«losartan oral Information
Overall User Ratings
431Total User Reviews
Filter by Condition: Other (15 reviews) Kidney Disease from Diabetes (13 reviews) Chronic Heart Failure (7 reviews) Hypertension with Left Ventricular ... (5 reviews) Stroke Prevention (5 reviews) Prevention of Recurrent Atrial Fibrillation (3 reviews) Nondiabetic Proteinuric Nephropathy (2 reviews) Diastolic Heart Failure (1 review) All reviews, conditions & overall rating (552 reviews)
EffectivenessThis medication has worked for me.
Ease of UseThis medication has been easy for me to use.
SatisfactionOverall, I have been satisfied with my experience.
Sort By: Select OneMost Helpful Most Recent Highest Total Rating High Satisfaction Low Satisfaction
1-5 of 501 Next»
Related to losartan oral
Heart Disease Center
Cholesterol Fact or Fiction
How to Manage Heart Failure
Too Much Potassium Spells Problems for Your Heart
How Heart Disease Raises Your Vision Problem Risks
Clonazepam Description Each single-scored tablet, for oral administration, contains 0.5 mg, 1 mg, or 2 mg Clonazepam, USP, a benzodiazepine. Each tablet also contains corn starch, lactose monohydrate, magnesium stearate, microcrystalline cellulose, and povidone. Clonazepam tablets USP 0.5 mg contain Yellow D&C No. 10 Aluminum Lake. Clonazepam tablets USP 1 mg contain Yellow D&C No. 10 Aluminum Lake, as well as FD&C Blue No. 1 Aluminum Lake. Chemically, Clonazepam, USP is 5-(o-chlorophenyl)-1,3-dihydro-7-nitro-2H-1,4-benzodiazepin-2-one. It is a light yellow crystalline powder. It has the following structural formula: C15H10ClN3O3 M.W. 315.72
A total of 440 drugs (1549 brand and generic names) are known to interact with Imbruvica (ibrutinib). 228 major drug interactions (854 brand and generic names) 210 moderate drug interactions (691 brand and generic names) 2 minor drug interactions (4 brand and generic names) Show all medications in the database that may interact with Imbruvica (ibrutinib).

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Former champion Roddick rolls into U.S. Open second round
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Former champion Andy Roddick gave young American Rhyne Williams a harsh introduction to grand slam tennis as he breezed to a 6-3 6-4 6-4 victory in their U.S. Open first-round clash on Tuesday.
The 29-year-old, whose only grand slam title to date came in 2003, banged down 20 aces as he claimed victory on a sweltering day at Flushing Meadows.
Williams, a qualifier ranked 289th in the world, gave a good account of himself on the vast Arthur Ashe Stadium court but Roddick had too much experience and class for him.
The 20th seed now awaits the winner of the match between Australia's Bernard Tomic and Carlos Berlocq of Argentina.
(Reporting by Simon Cambers in New York; Editing by Frank Pingue)
'I feel like I'm built to do shows in an environment like this': Laurence Holmes zigs when others zag — and it makes for must-listen sports radio
WSCR bosses talk risk-reward of rehiring Dan McNeil, diversity, politics and more
Column: Drivers, don't start your engines. NASCAR, put your money where your mouth is and cancel today's race after the noose incident involving Bubba Wallace.


The fifth International Boot-Camp (Pre Conference Workshop) was organized on 9th January 2015 at Hotel Adityaz, Gwalior. The theme of the Boot camp was "Globalization, Marketing and Marketing research, trends and opportunities". The resource person Dr. Naresh K Malhotra, Georgia institute of technology, Atlanta, USA delivered the session. Approximately 300 students participated in the boot-camp and enlightened with his immense experience and practical exposure. The event was coordinated by Dr. Nandan Velankar.


Gurgaon-based Accentium Web* which operates the product discovery and price comparison portal PriceBag.com has raised $2 million in angel funding from undisclosed angel investors.
The company mentions that the funds will primarily be used for PriceBag's product development and marketing. It will also be used to expand its recently launched automobile site 99Cars and matrimonial site SecondShaadi.com.
Pricebag currently focuses only on the Electronics category that includes mobiles, tablets, laptops and cameras and plans to add other e-commerce categories by the end of this year.
Along with new categories, it also plans to focus more on user reviews and social profiles. Its worth noting that the site already features a News & Features section, in which it covers news, latest launches, product reviews, buying guides, product comparisons, op-ed pieces, how-to articles and tips, rumors, mobile app suggestions and reviews related to the electronics category.
-Rocket Internet-backed price comparison site PricePanda launched its India operations in April 2014. The company had raised $3 million from Tengelmann Group, earlier this year in January, and currently features product prices in mobile and electronics, and shoes, clothing and accessories categories.
-Axel Springer owned e-commerce company Visual Meta GmbH launched its fashion and lifestyle comparison shopping site ShopAlike in India, in March this year. The site is quite similar to Amazon's price comparison site Junglee, except that it focuses only on fashion and lifestyle products, while Junglee offers comparison for other products as well.
-Incidentally, Junglee introduced the option to directly purchase from its site, earlier this year in May. It has also tied-up with Quikr to allow users to view and compare prices of second hand products listed on Quikr. The site recently added e-commerce platforms like Jabong, Myntra, Lenskart and others as sellers.
-Price comparison service MySmartPrice had raised Rs 6 crore from existing investors Accel and Helion in December 2013. Mumbai-based PriceBaba had also raised an undisclosed amount from 500 Startups' India-focused fund 500 StartupWallah in January 2014. PriceBaba differs in one aspect from other players in this segment, as it provides users with price comparison for mobile handsets from offline retailers.
-JustDial's Search Plus service, which went live in December 2013, also offers product discovery and price comparison service from offline vendors.
-Interestingly, Times Internet's e-commerce venture Indiatimes Shopping also introduced a price comparison feature on its website, earlier this month.
*Disclosure: Accentium Web has been founded by Vivek Pahwa, who is MediaNama Editor Nikhil Pahwa's cousin.
Zocalo India is also an upcoming Start-Up which provides archives of pg accommodation and allows its users to compare the rents of different accommodations.