I hope you can clear up my following confusions.

In Girardello's and Grisaru's paper (Nuclear Physics B, 194, 65 (1982)) where they analysed the most general soft explicit supersymmetry breaking terms, they explicitly mentioned that $\mu \psi \psi$ is not soft, where $\psi$ is the fermionic component of a scalar superfield. This means that such a term will give rise to quadratic divergences.

However, in Stephen Martin's SUSY primer, on page 49, he explictly says the following:

One might wonder why we have not included possible soft mass terms for the chiral supermultiplet fermions, like $L = −\frac{1}{2} m_{ij}\psi^i\psi^j + c.c.$. Including such terms would be redundant; they can always be absorbed into a redefinition of the superpotential and the terms ...

This would seem to suggest that adding explicit chiral fermion mass terms is not problematic, since it is equivalent to a redefinition of the superpotential and the other soft breaking terms (e.g. scalar masses), both of which don't give rise to quadratic divergences.

I seem to see a contradiction here, but I am sure it is due to some subtlety I am too blind to notice.

I hope you can clear up my following confusions.

In Girardello's and Grisaru's paper (Nuclear Physics B, 194, 65 (1982)) where they analysed the most general soft explicit supersymmetry breaking terms, they explicitly mentioned that $\mu \psi \psi$ is not soft, where $\psi$ is the fermionic component of a scalar superfield. This means that such a term will give rise to quadratic divergences.

However, in Stephen Martin's SUSY primer, on page 49, he explictly says the following:

One might wonder why we have not included possible soft mass terms for the chiral supermultiplet fermions, like $L = −\frac{1}{2} m_{ij}\psi^i\psi^j + c.c.$. Including such terms would be redundant; they can always be absorbed into a redefinition of the superpotential and the terms ...

This would seem to suggest that adding explicit chiral fermion mass terms is not problematic, since it is equivalent to a redefinition of the superpotential and the other soft breaking terms (e.g. scalar masses), both of which don't give rise to quadratic divergences.

I seem to see a contradiction here, but I am sure it is due to some subtlety I am too blind to notice.

I hope you can clear up my following confusions.

In Girardello's and Grisaru's paper (Nuclear Physics B, 194, 65 (1982)) where they analysed the most general soft explicit supersymmetry breaking terms, they explicitly mentioned that $\mu \psi \psi$ is not soft, where $\psi$ is the fermionic component of a scalar superfield. This means that such a term will give rise to quadratic divergences.

However, in Stephen Martin's SUSY primer, on page 49, he explictly says the following:

"One might wonder why we have not included possible soft mass terms for the chiral supermultiplet fermions, like $L = −\frac{1}{2} m_{ij}\psi^i\psi^j + c.c.$. Including such terms would be redundant; they can always be absorbed into a redefinition of the superpotential and the terms ...".

This would seem to suggest that adding explicit chiral fermion mass terms is not problematic, since it is equivalent to a redefinition of the superpotential and the other soft breaking terms (e.g. scalar masses), both of which don't give rise to quadratic divergences.

I seem to see a contradiction here, but I am sure it is due to some subtletly I am too blind to notice.

Thank you very much!

I hope you can clear up my following confusions.

In Girardello's and Grisaru's paper (Nuclear Physics B, 194, 65 (1982)) where they analysed the most general soft explicit supersymmetry breaking terms, they explicitly mentioned that $\mu \psi \psi$ is not soft, where $\psi$ is the fermionic component of a scalar superfield. This means that such a term will give rise to quadratic divergences.

However, in Stephen Martin's SUSY primer, on page 49, he explictly says the following:

One might wonder why we have not included possible soft mass terms for the chiral supermultiplet fermions, like $L = −\frac{1}{2} m_{ij}\psi^i\psi^j + c.c.$. Including such terms would be redundant; they can always be absorbed into a redefinition of the superpotential and the terms ...

This would seem to suggest that adding explicit chiral fermion mass terms is not problematic, since it is equivalent to a redefinition of the superpotential and the other soft breaking terms (e.g. scalar masses), both of which don't give rise to quadratic divergences.

I seem to see a contradiction here, but I am sure it is due to some subtlety I am too blind to notice.