1: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2: \documentclass[12pt,epsf]{article}

3: \usepackage{graphicx}

4: \usepackage{epsfig}

5: \usepackage{latexsym}

6: %\usepackage{axodraw}

7: \setlength{\textwidth}{16cm}

8: \setlength{\textheight}{21.5cm}

9: \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-0.2cm}

10: \setlength{\evensidemargin}{1cm}

11: \setlength{\headheight}{0cm}

12: \setlength{\headsep}{1.5cm}

13: \setlength{\topmargin}{0.5cm}

14: \setlength{\footskip}{1.5cm}

15: 

16: \begin{document}

17: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

18: 

19: \def\a{\alpha}

20: \def\b{\beta}

21: \def\c{\varepsilon}

22: \def\d{\delta}

23: \def\e{\epsilon}

24: \def\f{\phi}

25: \def\g{\gamma}

26: \def\h{\theta}

27: \def\k{\kappa}

28: \def\l{\lambda}

29: \def\m{\mu}

30: \def\n{\nu}

31: \def\p{\psi}

32: \def\q{\partial}

33: \def\r{\rho}

34: \def\s{\sigma}

35: \def\t{\tau}

36: \def\u{\upsilon}

37: \def\v{\varphi}

38: \def\w{\omega}

39: \def\x{\xi}

40: \def\y{\eta}

41: \def\z{\zeta}

42: \def\D{\Delta}

43: \def\G{\Gamma}

44: \def\H{\Theta}

45: \def\L{\Lambda}

46: \def\F{\Phi}

47: \def\P{\Psi}

48: \def\S{\Sigma}

49: 

50: \def\o{\over}

51: \def\beq{\begin{eqnarray}}

52: \def\eeq{\end{eqnarray}}

53: %\newcommand{\gsim}{ \mathop{}_{\textstyle \sim}^{\textstyle >} }

54: %\newcommand{\lsim}{ \mathop{}_{\textstyle \sim}^{\textstyle <} }

55: \def\lsim{\mathrel{\rlap{\lower4pt\hbox{\hskip1pt$\sim$}}

56:     \raise1pt\hbox{$<$}}}              

57: \def\gsim{\mathrel{\rlap{\lower4pt\hbox{\hskip1pt$\sim$}}

58:     \raise1pt\hbox{$>$}}}               

59: \newcommand{\vev}[1]{ \left\langle {#1} \right\rangle }

60: \newcommand{\bra}[1]{ \langle {#1} | }

61: \newcommand{\ket}[1]{ | {#1} \rangle }

62: \newcommand{\EV}{ {\rm eV} }

63: \newcommand{\KEV}{ {\rm keV} }

64: \newcommand{\MEV}{ {\rm MeV} }

65: \newcommand{\GEV}{ {\rm GeV} }

66: \newcommand{\TEV}{ {\rm TeV} }

67: \def\diag{\mathop{\rm diag}\nolimits}

68: \def\Spin{\mathop{\rm Spin}}

69: \def\SO{\mathop{\rm SO}}

70: \def\O{\mathop{\rm O}}

71: \def\SU{\mathop{\rm SU}}

72: \def\U{\mathop{\rm U}}

73: \def\Sp{\mathop{\rm Sp}}

74: \def\SL{\mathop{\rm SL}}

75: \def\tr{\mathop{\rm tr}}

76: 

77: \def\IJMP{Int.~J.~Mod.~Phys. }

78: \def\MPL{Mod.~Phys.~Lett. }

79: \def\NP{Nucl.~Phys. }

80: \def\PL{Phys.~Lett. }

81: \def\PR{Phys.~Rev. }

82: \def\PRL{Phys.~Rev.~Lett. }

83: \def\PTP{Prog.~Theor.~Phys. }

84: \def\ZP{Z.~Phys. }

85: 

86: \newcommand{\non}{\nonumber}

87: \newcommand{\bea}{\begin{eqnarray}}  \newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}}

88: \newcommand{\la}{\left\langle} \newcommand{\ra}{\right\rangle}

89: \def\lrf#1#2{ \left(\frac{#1}{#2}\right)}

90: \def\lrfp#1#2#3{ \left(\frac{#1}{#2}\right)^{#3}}

91: 

92: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

93: 

94: \baselineskip 0.7cm

95: 

96: \begin{titlepage}

97: 

98: \begin{flushright}

99: UT-08-25\\

100: IPMU 08-0053

101: \end{flushright}

102: 

103: \vskip 1.35cm

104: \begin{center}

105: {\large \bf

106:     Gauge Mediation with Sequestered Supersymmetry Breaking

107: }

108: \vskip 1.2cm

109: $^{(a)}$Satoshi Shirai, $^{(b)}$Fuminobu Takahashi, $^{(a,b)}$T. T. Yanagida and $^{(a)}$Kazuya Yonekura

110: \vskip 0.4cm

111: 

112: {\it  $^{(a)}$Department of Physics, University of Tokyo,\\

113:      Tokyo 113-0033, Japan}

114: \vskip 0.1in

115: {\em $^{(b)}$Institute for the Physics and Mathematics of the Universe,\\

116: University of Tokyo, Chiba 277-8568, Japan}

117: 

118: 

119: \vskip 1.5cm

120: 

121: \abstract{ Gauge mediation models have two drawbacks, that is, the

122:   so-called $\mu$-problem and a lack of predictability of the

123:   gravitino dark matter abundance. We show that conformal sequestering

124:   in the supersymmetry breaking sector offers attractive solutions to

125:   both problems. The correct mass scale of the $\mu$ and $B_\mu$ terms

126:   is generated by taking the gravitino mass of ${\cal O}(100)\,$GeV

127:   without causing the flavor-changing neutral-current  problem. 

128:   Moreover, a large anomalous dimension of the supersymmetry

129:   breaking field naturally realizes the small stau and neutralino mass

130:   difference required for the coannihilation to work yielding the

131:   right dark matter abundance.  }

132: \end{center}

133: \end{titlepage}

134: 

135: \setcounter{page}{2}

136: 

137: %%%%%%%%%%%%%

138: \section{Introduction}

139: %%%%%%%%%%%%%

140: Gauge-mediated supersymmetry (SUSY) breaking (GMSB) models~\cite{GM}

141: are very attractive, since those models can naturally solve the

142: flavor-changing neutral-current (FCNC)  problem in the SUSY

143: standard model (SSM).  This is because non-renormalizable operators at

144: the Planck scale $M_{\rm PL}$ are irrelevant for generating the soft

145: masses in gauge mediation. However, the GMSB models have two

146: drawbacks.  First, the origin of the so-called $\mu$ term is not clear

147: at all. If it is induced by the Planck suppressed operators, the $\mu$

148: parameter becomes of the order of the gravitino mass $m_{3/2}$, which,

149: however, is too small for the successful electroweak symmetry

150: breaking. The reason for this is that the gravitino mass is required

151: to satisfy $m_{3/2}<1$ GeV in order to suppress FCNC in the GMSB

152: scenario, provided that the non-renormalizable operators at the Planck

153: scale induce generic squark and slepton masses of order of the

154: gravitino mass.  Second, for such a light gravitino mass, it is the

155: gravitino that is a candidate for dark matter (DM) in the universe,

156: since the lightest SUSY particle in the SSM is not stable, and decays

157: into the gravitino.  The density of the gravitino depends crucially on

158: the reheating temperature after inflation, and hence we lose a

159: predictability of the DM density in the universe without knowledge of

160: the inflation dynamics.

161: 

162: We see that the above two problems originate from the small gravitino

163: mass. Thus, if we increase the gravitino mass up to ${\cal O}(100)$

164: GeV, both problems can be simultaneously solved.  In general, for the

165: gravitino mass of ${\cal O}(100)$ GeV, the soft masses for squarks and

166: sleptons given at the Planck scale induce too large FCNC. However,

167: this is not always the case. In this paper we show that, if the

168: conformal sequestering occurs in the SUSY breaking sector~\cite{CS,

169:   IINSY}, the above two problems are naturally solved in the GMSB

170: models without causing the FCNC problem.

171: 

172: In the present model we consider a parameter region where the lightest

173: neutralino is lighter than the gravitino and hence the stable lightest

174: SUSY particle (LSP).  Surprisingly enough, the present model naturally

175: predicts the small mass difference between the lightest neutralino and

176: the stau required for the coannihilation to work yielding the correct

177: DM density in the present universe~\cite{CoAN}. We would like to

178: stress that a large anomalous dimension of the SUSY breaking field $S$

179: is crucial to realize the coannihilation region naturally.

180: 

181: This paper is organized as follows. In Sec.~\ref{sec:2} we review a

182: model for the conformal sequestering, and see how the $\mu$-problem is

183: solved. In Sec.~\ref{sec:3} we study the neutralino DM density in

184: detail. We discuss the cosmological implications of our scenario in

185: Sec.~\ref{sec:4}. The last section is devoted for conclusions.

186: 

187: 

188: 

189: 

190: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

191: \section{A model for conformal sequestering of SUSY breaking}

192: \label{sec:2}

193: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

194: Let us consider the conformal sequestering of SUSY breaking, which

195: offers a natural solution to the $\mu$-problem as we will see at the

196: end of this section.  We first review a model of conformal

197: sequestering which was proposed in Ref.~\cite{IINSY}.  While we focus

198: on the model for concreteness, any models of conformal sequestering

199: containing a singlet SUSY breaking field $S$ may work as well.

200: 

201: 

202: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

203: \subsection{A hidden sector model}

204: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

205: We consider the IYIT SUSY breaking model~\cite{IYIT}, which is based

206: on an $SP(N)$ gauge theory with $2N+2$ chiral superfields $Q^i$

207: transforming in the fundamental representation of the gauge

208: group. Here, $i=1,\cdots,2N+2$ is the flavor index and we suppress the

209: gauge indices for simplicity. We also introduce

210: $\frac{1}{2}(2N+2)(2N+1)$ gauge singlet chiral fields,

211: $S_{ij}=-S_{ji}$. The tree level superpotential of this theory is

212: given by

213: %%

214: \beq

215: W\;=\;h S_{ij} Q^i Q^j.

216: \eeq

217: %%

218: Here we have assumed an $SU(2N+2)$ global symmetry~\footnote{In this

219:   paper we neglect subtlety regarding quantum gravitational effects on

220:   global symmetry.}  which acts on the indices $i,j$ in the

221: hidden sector, for simplicity.  This global symmetry is also imposed

222: on the K\"ahler potential as an exact symmetry for conformal

223: sequestering to work properly, because such operators that correspond

224: to conserved currents are not sequestered~\cite{CS}.  However, we can

225: relax this exact symmetry to an $SP(N+1)$, a subgroup of the

226: $SU(2N+2)$.  We will come back to this point later.

227: 

228: This theory exhibits a quantum deformation of the moduli

229: space~\cite{Seib}, and the low energy effective superpotential is

230: given by

231: %%

232: \beq

233: W_{\rm eff}\;=\;X({\rm Pf}(Q^iQ^j) - (\L_{\rm SUSY})^{2N+2}) + h S_{ij}Q^iQ^j,

234: \eeq

235: %%

236: where $X$ is a Lagrange multiplier and $\L_{\rm SUSY}$ is a dynamical

237: scale of the gauge theory, around which SUSY is broken.  The equation

238: of motion of $X$ requires ${\rm Pf}\vev{Q^iQ^j} = (\L_{\rm

239:   SUSY})^{2N+2}$. Then singlet fields $S_{ij}$ have $F$-term of order

240: $F_S \sim h \vev{QQ} \sim h (\L_{\rm SUSY})^2$, and SUSY is broken.

241: 

242: 

243: %%

244: \begin{table}[t]

245: \begin{center}

246: \begin{tabular}{c|ccc} 

247: & $SP(N)$ & $SP(N')$ & $SP(N')$ \\ \hline

248: $Q \times 2(N+1)$ & $\Box_{2N}$ & ${\bf 1}$ & ${\bf 1}$ \\ \hline

249: $Q'_1$ &$\Box_{2N}$&$\Box_{2N'}$&${\bf 1}$ \\

250: $Q'_2$ &$\Box_{2N}$&${\bf 1}$&$\Box_{2N'}$ \\ \hline

251: $S_{ij}$ &${\bf 1}$&${\bf 1}$ &${\bf 1}$  

252: \end{tabular}

253: \caption{Matter contents of the model. $\Box_{2N}$ represents the fundamental representation of the gauge group $SP(N)$. This table is taken from

254: the Table 3 of Ref.~\cite{IINSY}. }

255: \label{tab1}

256: \end{center}

257: \end{table}

258: %%

259: 

260: Let us introduce additional gauge symmetries and matter chiral

261: superfields so that the theory flows into a conformal fixed point

262: above the SUSY breaking scale.  We take an $SP(N) \times SP(N')^2

263: (=SP(N) \times SP(N')_1 \times SP(N')_2)$ model of Ref.~\cite{IINSY}

264: as a specific example.  In this model, there are matter chiral fields

265: $Q^i$ and $S_{ij} $ as above, and additional chiral fields $Q'_1$ and

266: $Q'_2$. The $Q'_{1(2)}$ transforms as a bi-fundamental representation

267: under $SP(N) \times SP(N')_{1(2)}$ and as a singlet under

268: $SP(N')_{2(1)}$.

269: %The same is true for $Q'_2$ with $SP(N')_1$ replaced by $SP(N')_2$.

270: See Table \ref{tab1}.  We take the superpotential of this model to be

271: %%

272: \beq

273: W\;=\;h S_{ij} Q^i Q^j + m(Q'_1 Q'_1 + Q'_2 Q'_2),

274: \eeq

275: %%

276: where $m$ is a mass parameter of $Q'$ at the Planck scale

277: $M_{PL} \simeq 2.4 \times 10^{18}~\GEV$. (The mass parameter $m$ is not equal to the physical mass of

278: $Q'$, $m_{\rm phys}$, because of a large anomalous dimension of $Q'$.)

279: If $N$ and $N'$ are appropriately chosen, we can expect (or can

280: explicitly show in the cases that we can use perturbation) that this

281: theory flows into a nontrivial fixed point~\cite{IINSY}.

282:   

283: Basic picture of this model is as follows.

284: %when we change the energy scale $\m_R$ of the theory from the Planck scale $M_{PL}$

285: %to the SUSY breaking scale $\L_{\rm SUSY} \sim m_{\rm phys}$ is the following.

286: As we lower a renormalization scale $\m_R$ from the Planck scale

287: $M_{PL}$, the theory enters conformal regime at some scale $M_*$,

288: which we assume to be much larger than $m_{\rm phys}$, but slightly

289: smaller than the Planck scale.  For $m_{\rm phys} \lsim \m_R \lsim

290: M_*$, the coupling constants of the theory are almost fixed at a

291: conformal fixed point, and the conformal sequestering occurs. For the

292: energy scale below the mass of $Q'$, i.e., $\m_R \lsim m_{\rm phys}$,

293: we can integrate out the massive fields $Q'$, and the theory becomes

294: identical to the IYIT model, and SUSY is broken at $\mu_R\simeq

295: \Lambda_{\rm SUSY}$ close to $m_{\rm phys}$.

296: 

297: 

298: Next let us discuss the suppression of higher dimensional operators in

299: a K\"ahler potential.  From a point of view of low energy effective

300: field theory, it is expected that there are higher dimensional terms

301: in a K\"ahler potential, which couple the hidden sector fields $A_i$($=Q$,

302: $Q'$ and $S$) and the visible sector fields $q_a$,

303: %%

304: \beq

305: \D K = \frac{C_{ijab}}{M_{PL}^2} q^{\dagger}_a q_b A^{\dagger}_i A_j   \label{kahlerFCNC}

306: \eeq

307: %%

308: with $C_{ijab}$ expected to be ${\cal O}(1)$. If $C_{ijab}$ is

309: generic, that is, if $C_{ijab}$ is not diagonal in the visible sector

310: flavor indices $a,b$, then these terms lead to the severe FCNC

311: problem. Conformal sequestering can solve this problem by suppressing

312: the terms in $\D K$ by renormalization group flow from the scale $M_*$

313: to the physical mass scale of $Q'$, $m_{\rm phys}$.

314: The suppression factor is roughly given by $(\m_R/M_*)^{\b'}$, where

315: %$\m_R$ is a renormalization scale of the theory, $M_*$ is a scale at which the theory enters into the conformal regime, and 

316: $\b'={\q \b(\a)}/{\q \a}$ is a derivative of a beta function

317: $\b(\a)=\m_R (d\a / d \m_R)$ with respect to a coupling constant

318: $\a=g^2/4\pi$ of the theory~\footnote {Actually, the suppression

319:   factor is determined by the smallest eigenvalue of the matrix $(\q

320:   \b_k / \q \a_l)$ if there are more than one coupling constant.  In

321:   that case, $\b'$ of this section should be regarded as the smallest

322:   eigenvalue. See Ref.~\cite{IINSY} for details.}.  So, if $\b'$ is

323: sufficiently large, we expect a large suppression when we take the

324: energy scale $\m_R$ equal to the physical mass scale of $Q'$, $m_{\rm phys}$.

325: 

326: %%

327: \begin{table}[Ht]

328: \begin{center}

329: \begin{tabular}{c|c|c}

330: &${\g_Q, \g_{Q'}, \g_S}$&$\b'$ \\ \hline

331: $SP(3) \times SP(1)^2$&{-1, -1, 2}& non-perturbative \\

332: $SP(5) \times SP(3)^2$&{-0.8, -0.8, 1.6}& non-perturbative \\

333: $SP(7) \times SP(5)^2$&{-0.7, -0.7, 1.4}& non-perturbative \\

334: $SP(13) \times SP(7)$&{-0.2, -0.8, 0.4}& 0.06 \\ 

335: $SP(20) \times SP(11)$&{-0.1, -0.8, 0.2}& 0.04 \\

336: \end{tabular}

337: \caption{Values of $\g$ and $\b'$. This table is taken from the Table 4 of Ref.~\cite{IINSY}. $\b'$ is the lowest eigenvalue of

338: the matrix $M$ of Ref.~\cite{IINSY}. }

339: \label{tab2}

340: \end{center}

341: \end{table}

342: %%

343: 

344: The soft scalar masses of the visible fields receive contribution from

345: Eq.~(\ref{kahlerFCNC}),

346: %

347: \beq

348: \D m^2_{\rm vis} \sim C \left( \frac{m_{\rm phys}}{M_*} \right)^{\b'} m_{3/2}^2,

349: \eeq

350: %

351: where $m_{3/2}$ is the gravitino mass and $C$ collectively represents

352: $C_{ijab}$.  Since we will take $m_{3/2} = {\cal O}(100)~\GEV$ in our

353: scenario, $m_{\rm phys}$ is ${\cal O}(10^{10})\,$GeV. We also assume

354: $M_* \lsim M_{PL} \simeq 2.4 \times 10^{18}~\GEV$. The ratio of $\D

355: m_{\rm vis }$ to $m_{3/2}$ is then given by

356: %%

357: \beq

358: \left( \frac{\D m_{\rm vis}}{m_{3/2}} \right)^2 \sim C \left(10^{-8} \cdot \frac{m_{\rm phys}}{10^{10}~\GEV} \cdot \frac{10^{18}~\GEV}{M_*} \right)^{\b'}.

359: \eeq

360: %%

361: For $C = {\cal O}(1)$ and a relatively large value of $\b'$, the

362: ratio is small enough to satisfy the constraints from FCNC.

363: Note that phenomenological constraints from FCNC are rather mild

364: compared to the case of anomaly mediation ($m_{3/2} = {\cal

365:   O}(100)~\TEV$) due to the smaller gravitino mass.

366: 

367: A large anomalous dimension $\g_S$

368: of $S$, $\g_S \gsim 1$, will play a crucial role to account for the right

369: DM abundance as we see in the next section.  From Table \ref{tab2}, we see that we have $\g_S = 2$,

370: $\g_S = 1.6$ and $\g_S = 1.4$ for the cases of $SP(3) \times SP(1)^2$,

371: $SP(5) \times SP(2)^2$ and $SP(7) \times SP(3)^2$, respectively. In

372: those cases, we cannot calculate the precise values of $\b'$ because

373: the gauge and Yukawa couplings are very large and we cannot use

374: perturbation. Thus in this paper we simply assume that the suppression

375: is large enough to be consistent with FCNC constraints.

376: 

377: There are other higher dimensional operators in the K\"ahler

378: potential, which must be suppressed as well.  First, there are terms

379: linear in $S$, such as $S q^{\dagger} q/M_{PL}$.  These terms are

380: actually suppressed by a factor of $(m_{\rm phys}/M_*)^\frac{\g_S}{2}$

381: and therefore negligible. Second, there are terms which are cubic or

382: quartic in the hidden sector fields, e.g.,

383: %%

384: \beq

385: \frac{1}{M_{PL}^4} (Q'Q') (Q'^{\dagger} Q'^{\dagger}) q^{\dagger} q.  \label{quartic_op}

386: \eeq

387: %%

388: This term is suppressed by $1/M_{PL}^4$, and so, it may seem that this

389: is also negligible at a first glance. But in fact, terms like

390: Eq.~(\ref{quartic_op}) are dangerous. To see this, consider the case of

391: $SP(3) \times SP(1)^2$, in which the anomalous dimensions of $Q$, $Q'$

392: and $S$ are \beq \g_Q=-1,~~~~~\g_{Q'}=-1,~~~~~\g_{S}=2, \eeq and those

393: operators $QQ$ and $Q'Q'$ saturate the unitarity bound of conformal

394: field theory~\cite{Mack}.  If there is no vertex renormalization, the

395: anomalous dimension of $(Q'Q')(Q'^{\dagger}Q'^{\dagger})$ is

396: $\g_{Q'Q'Q'^{\dagger}Q'^{\dagger}}/2=-2$, and the operator

397: (\ref{quartic_op}) is enhanced by a factor of $(M_*/m_{\rm phys})^2$.

398: If $M_* \sim M_{PL}$, the operator is effectively suppressed only by

399: $1/M_{PL}^2$, and is not negligible.  Indeed, if $Q'Q'$ has

400: non-vanishing $F$-term $F_{(Q'Q')} \neq 0$ which is comparable with

401: $F_S$, the operator (\ref{quartic_op}) leads to too large flavor

402: dependent soft masses of the visible sector, causing a FCNC

403: problem. Actually, however, it is suppressed by a factor

404: $(M_*/M_{PL})^2$ if $M_*\lsim M_{PL}$, and so, the FCNC problem can be

405: avoided if we take $M_* \ll M_{PL}$~\footnote{

406: %

407: T.~T.~Y. thanks Y.~Nakayama and M.~Ibe for serious discussions on this

408: problem.

409: %

410: }.  In the numerical analysis of the next section, we take $SP(3)

411: \times SP(1)^2$ model with $M_* \sim 10^{16}~\GEV$ as an example.  In

412: that case $(M_*/M_{PL})^2 \sim 10^{-4}$, and there is no FCNC problem.

413: We will neglect the soft masses induced from Eq.~(\ref{quartic_op}) in the

414: following analysis. 

415: 

416: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

417: \subsection{Coupling the hidden sector to messenger fields}

418: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

419: In our GMSB model, we introduce a Yukawa interaction between a singlet

420: field and messenger fields in the superpotential,

421: %%

422: \beq

423: W\;=\;\l S \P {\bar \P} \label{mess-int},

424: \eeq

425: %%

426: where $\P$ and ${\bar \P}$ are the messenger superfields charged under

427: standard model gauge groups.  We would like to make two comments

428: concerning the introduction of this term.

429: 

430: First, we need to single out one singlet field $S$ from the singlets

431: $S_{ij}$. This can be done by reducing the global symmetry of the

432: theory from $SU(2N+2)$ to $SP(N+1)$.  Then, $S_{ij}$ can be decomposed

433: as $S_{ij}=S'_{ij} + S R_{ij}$, where $R_{ij}$ is the $SP(N+1)$

434: invariant tensor and $(R^{-1})^{ij}S'_{ij}=0$. We then have to allow

435: two different couplings $h_1$ and $h_2$ in the superpotential, \beq

436: W\;=\;h_1 SR_{ij}Q^iQ^j + h_2 S'_{ij}Q^iQ^j.  \eeq It is reasonable to

437: assume that also in this case the theory flows into a conformal fixed

438: point which is stable in the infrared.  At the fixed point, vanishing

439: of $\b$ functions of $h_1$ and $h_2$ requires

440: $\g_S+2\g_Q=\g_{S'_{ij}}+2\g_Q=0$, and we have $\g_S=\g_{S'_{ij}}$.

441: This suggests that the fixed point of this theory is the same as in

442: the case that we impose $SU(2N+2)$ symmetry.  In other words, there

443: is an enhanced $SU(2N+2)$ symmetry at the fixed point~\footnote{This

444:   is an example of the ``emergent symmetries'' discussed in

445:   Ref.~\cite{SS}}.

446: 

447: Conserved currents $A^{\dagger} T^\a A$ ($T^\a$ are generators of

448: $SU(2N+2)$ and $A=\{S_{ij},~Q^i\}$) have vanishing anomalous

449: dimensions, and so, operators like $\D K = C_{ab\a} q_a^\dagger q_b

450: A^{\dagger} T^\a A $ are not sequestered.  Then we have to worry about

451: non-sequestering of such conserved currents~\cite{CS,SS}.  The

452: $SU(2N+2)$ adjoint representation can be decomposed into symmetric and

453: traceless-anti-symmetric representation of $SP(N+1)$ (trace is taken

454: by contracting indices with $R_{ij}$), and there is no trivial

455: representation.  If we impose the $SP(N+1)$ symmetry on the K\"ahler

456: potential, therefore, there is no conserved current which can appear

457: in the K\"ahler potential.  Thus non-sequestering of conserved

458: currents does not occur in our case.

459: 

460: In fact, it may even be possible that we impose no symmetry on the

461: K\"ahler potential at all.  The K\"ahler potential of $A$ with

462: dangerous conserved current operators is

463: %%

464: \beq

465: K\;=\;A^\dagger A + \e_\a A^\dagger T^\a A,

466: \eeq

467: %

468: where $\e_\a=C_{ab\a}q_a^\dagger q_b$. For the purpose of calculating

469: the soft masses, we can suppose that $q_a$ are constants.  Then we can

470: transform the hidden fields $A$ as

471: %

472: \beq

473: A \rightarrow \left(1-\frac{1}{2} \e_\a T^\a \right)A

474: \eeq

475: %

476: so that the K\"ahler potential becomes

477: %

478: \beq

479: K \rightarrow A^\dagger A + {\cal O}(\e^2).

480: \eeq

481: %%

482: The point is that because this transformation corresponds to the

483: symmetry transformation of the whole theory, which is respected even

484: by the conformal symmetry breaking mass term of $Q'$, we can

485: completely transform away the visible fields

486: $\e_\a=C_{ab\a}q_a^\dagger q_b$ and no soft mass is generated.  For

487: more discussions on conserved currents, see Ref.~\cite{SS}.  The above

488: argument suggests that even if we do not impose any symmetry at all on

489: the K\"ahler potential, we may achieve conformal sequestering without

490: the danger caused by conserved currents.  The only requirement is that

491: the theory should flow into the infrared stable fixed point for

492: arbitrary Yukawa couplings $h^{ij}_{kl}S_{ij}Q^kQ^l$.

493: 

494: Second, there is a danger that introducing the coupling

495: (\ref{mess-int}) may significantly deform the original theory.  We

496: argue that this interaction is in fact harmless for the hidden sector

497: dynamics.  Suppose that the value of $\l$ in Eq.~(\ref{mess-int}) and

498: the standard model gauge couplings are not so large at the scale

499: $M_*$.  Then, the anomalous dimension of $\P$ and ${\bar

500:   \P}$, $\g_{\P}$, is small.  In this case the renormalization group equation of

501: $\l$ is given by

502: %%

503: \beq

504: \m \frac{d}{d\m} | \l | = \left( \frac{\g_S}{2}+ \g_{\P} \right) | \l | \simeq \frac{\g_S}{2} | \l |  > 0.

505: \eeq

506: %%

507: As we lower the energy scale $\m$, $\l$

508: becomes smaller and smaller, and so does the contribution of

509: Eq.~(\ref{mess-int}) to $\g_{\P}$.  The effect of the interaction

510: (\ref{mess-int}) to the hidden sector dynamics therefore becomes

511: totally negligible.  In other words, the operator of

512: Eq.~(\ref{mess-int}) is an irrelevant operator of renormalization

513: group flow.  Even if $\l$ is somewhat large at the scale $M_*$, at

514: least in the leading order of perturbation theory, the Yukawa coupling

515: gives positive contribution to $\g_{\P}$, and so, the relation

516: $\g_S+2\g_\P>0$ still holds. This fact makes the above discussion more

517: robust.

518: 

519: While $\l$ at the scale ${M_*}$ is naturally expected to be ${\cal

520:   O}(1)$, it gets suppressed at the SUSY breaking scale (and therefore at

521:   the messenger mass scale) due to strong

522: conformal dynamics.  The value of $\l$ at the scale $m_{\rm phys}$ is

523: given by

524: %%

525: \beq

526: \l|_{m_{\rm phys}}\; \simeq\; \left( 10^{-8}\cdot \frac{m_{\rm phys}}{10^{10}~\GEV}\cdot 

527: \frac{10^{18}~\GEV}{M_*} \right)^{\frac{\g_S}{2}} \l_0,

528: \label{lsup}

529: \eeq

530: %%

531: where we have defined the value of $\l$ at the scale $M_*$ as $\l_0

532: \equiv \l|_{M_*}$.

533: %But, as we will see in the next section,  such small $\lambda$ becomes important for the DM abundance.

534: As we will see in the next section, the smallness of $\l|_{m_{\rm

535:     phys}}$ is essential for the coannihilation to occur in a wide

536: parameter region of $B_\m/\m$.

537: 

538: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

539: \subsection{The origin of $\mu$ and $B_\mu$ terms}

540: \label{sec:2-3}

541: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

542: Before closing this section, let us explain the origin of $\m$ and

543: $B_\m$ terms in our model.  Although in our model the soft masses of

544: the visible sector are generated by gauge mediation, the $\m$ term and

545: $B_\m$ term are generated by supergravity effects~\cite{Inoue:1991rk}. 

546: We assume that there is some global $U(1)_R$ symmetry in the theory, under which

547: Higgs doublets are neutral.  Then, arbitrary $\m$ term is forbidden by

548: this symmetry, but the following terms in the K\"ahler

549: potential~\footnote{The K\"ahler potential $K$ in this section is that

550:   in the conformal frame of supergravity. The usual K\"ahler potential in

551:   the Einstein frame $K_{\rm sugra}$ is related to this K\"ahler

552:   potential by $K_{\rm sugra} = -3 M_{PL} ^2 \log(1- K/3

553:   M_{PL}^2)$. Conformal sequestering occurs in the conformal frame of

554:   supergravity.}  and the superpotential are allowed:

555: %%

556: \beq

557: K &\supset& c H_u H_d  + {\rm h.c.},\\ 

558: W &\supset& c' (m_{3/2})^* H_u H_d. \label{super_mu}

559: \eeq

560: %%

561: The interaction (\ref{super_mu}) is allowed because $(m_{3/2})^*

562: \propto W_0$ has $U(1)_R$ charge 2, where $W_0$ is a constant term in

563: the superpotential~\footnote{The phase of the gravitino mass $m_{3/2}$

564:   is determined as follows.  In the compensator formalism of

565:   supergravity, the Lagrangian of the compensator field

566:   $\F=1+F_{\F}\h^2$ is ${\cal L} = \int d\h^2 d{\bar \h}^2 [-3M_{PL}^2

567:     \F^{\dagger} \F \exp(-K_{\rm sugra}/3M_{PL}^2)]+ \int d\h^2 W \F^3

568:   +{\rm h.c.}  = -3M^2_{PL}|F_{\F}|^2+3W_0 F_{\F}+{\rm h.c.}+\cdots$

569:   where dots denote terms irrelevant for the vev of $F_\F$ and the

570:   lowest component of $\F$ is gauge fixed to be $1$.  By solving the

571:   equation of motion of $\F$, we have $\vev{F_{\F}}=W^*_0/M_{PL}^2$.

572:   We define the phase of $m_{3/2}$ such that $m_{3/2} \equiv

573:   \vev{F_{\F}} = W_0^* / M_{PL}^2$.}.  We expect that $c$ and $c'$ are

574: ${\cal O}(1)$ parameters. In the compensator formalism of

575: supergravity~\cite{compensator}, we have to put the compensator field,

576: $\F$, so the K\"ahler potential and the superpotential become

577: %

578: \beq

579: K &\supset& c H_u H_d \frac{\F^{\dagger}}{\F} + {\rm h.c.}, \\ 

580: W &\supset& c' (m_{3/2})^* H_u H_d \F.

581: \eeq  

582: %

583: Substituting a vacuum expectation value (vev) $\vev{\F} = 1 + m_{3/2}

584: \h^2$ and integrating over $d\h^2$ and/or $d{\bar \h}^2$, we obtain

585: the $\m$ and $B_\m$ terms

586: %%

587: \beq

588: \m &=& (c+c')(m_{3/2})^* \label{eq:mu},\\

589: B_\m &=& (-c+c')|m_{3/2}|^2. \label{eq:b}

590: \eeq 

591: %%

592: The correct mass scale of $\mu$ and $B_\mu$ can be generated for the

593: gravitino mass of ${\cal O}(100)\,$GeV with $c, \,c' = {\cal O}(1)$.

594: Note that the FCNC  problem is absent thanks to the conformal

595: sequestering of the SUSY breaking.  Other terms such as A-terms which

596: are generated by the anomaly mediation are suppressed by one-loop factor.  

597: An alternative solution to the $\mu/B_\mu$

598: problem was proposed in Refs.~\cite{Roy:2007nz}.

599: 

600: 

601: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

602: \section{A sequestered GMSB model and the neutralino relic density}

603: \label{sec:3}

604: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

605: 

606: We consider a simple GMSB model, where a SUSY breaking field $S$

607: couples to $N_5$ pairs of messenger chiral superfields, $\P$ and

608: $\bar{\P}$, which transform as ${\bf 5}$ and ${\bf 5}^*$ under the

609: $SU(5)_{\rm GUT}$:

610: %%

611: \beq

612: W \;=\; \lambda S\Psi{\bar \Psi}+M \Psi{\bar \Psi},

613: \eeq

614: %% 

615: where $M$ is the messenger mass and $\l$ is set to be the value at

616: $m_{\rm phys}$ throughout this section, i.e., $\lambda = \l|_{m_{\rm phys}}$.  

617: A priori $\l$ is a free parameter, however, in our

618: scenario, $\l$ is naturally very small: $\lambda \simeq

619: 10^{-6}-10^{-7}$ (see Eq.~(\ref{lsup})).  The SUSY breaking field $S$

620: develop a vev $\langle S \rangle = \theta^2 F_S$, which is related to

621: the gravitino mass as $|F_S| = \sqrt{3} m_{3/2} M_{PL}$, assuming that

622: the SUSY breaking is dominated by $F_S$.

623: 

624: In the GMSB models, the SSM gaugino masses are generated from loop

625: diagrams of the messengers. At the one-loop level, gaugino masses are

626: given by

627: %%

628: \begin{equation}

629: M_{a} \;=\; \frac{N_5\alpha_a}{4\pi}\Lambda_{eff} g(x),

630: \label{eq:gaugino_mass}

631: \end{equation}

632: %%

633: where we have defined $\Lambda_{eff} =\l F_S/M$, $x=\l F_S/M^2$, 

634:  and 

635: %

636: \begin{equation}

637: g(x)\; =\; \frac{1}{x^2}[(1+x)\log(1+x)+(1-x)\log(1-x)].

638: \end{equation}

639: %

640: Here $a = 1,2, 3$ labels $U(1), SU(2)$ and $SU(3)$ in the SSM, respectively, 

641: and we use the normalization $\alpha_1=5 \alpha _{\rm EM}/(3 \cos^2\theta_{W})$.

642: The soft scalar masses arise at the  two loop level, and given by

643: %

644: \begin{equation}

645: m^2_{\phi_i}\;=\;2N_5\Lambda_{eff} ^2 \sum_a \left(\frac{\alpha_a}{4\pi}\right)^2 C_a (i) f(x), \label{eq:scalar_mass}

646: \end{equation}

647: %

648: where $C_a(i)$ are Casimir invariants for the visible particles $\phi_i$ 

649: ($C_1(i) = 3Y_i^2/5$)

650: and

651: %

652: \begin{equation}

653: f(x) \;=\; \frac{1+x}{x^2}\left[ \log(1+x) - 2 {\rm Li}_2(x/[1+x]) + \frac{1}{2} {\rm Li}_2(2x / [1+x]) \right] + (x \rightarrow -x).

654: \end{equation}

655: %

656: For $x<1$, both $f(x)$ and $g(x)$ are ${\cal O}(1)$.  

657: We see that $m_{\f_i} \simeq M_a = {\cal O}(1)~\TEV$ is realized for $\L_{eff}={\cal O}(10^5)~\GEV$.

658: 

659: 

660: Since the above

661: expressions for the soft masses are given at the messenger scale, one

662: should solve the visible sector renormalization group (RG) equation to

663: get the on-shell masses and mixing matrices.  To this end, we have

664: used the program {\verb SOFTSUSY } 2.0.18~\cite{Allanach:2001kg},

665: setting ${\rm sgn}(\mu) = +1$.  In our analysis, we choose

666: $B_{\mu}/\mu$ at the messenger scale as a free parameter and

667: $\tan\beta$ (ratio of two higgs expectation values) is determined by

668: given parameters.  This is because we can naturally expect

669: $B_{\mu}/\mu = {\cal O}(m_{3/2})$ at the SUSY breaking scale from

670: Eqs.~(\ref{eq:mu}) and (\ref{eq:b}). Notice that $(B_{\mu}/\mu)_{\rm

671:   SUSY~breaking}=(B_{\mu}/\mu)_{\rm messenger}$ at least at the

672: one-loop level of RG equations, assuming that the other SSM soft parameters vanish above the messenger scale.

673:  

674:  

675: 

676: In the present GMSB model, the lighter stau ($\tilde{\tau}_1$),  the

677: lightest neutralino ($\tilde{\chi}^0_1$) or the gravitino becomes LSP.  

678: We mainly consider a parameter region where the neutralino, $\tilde{\chi}^0_1$,

679: is the LSP and hence a candidate of the DM.

680: Which of the two particles, $\tilde{\tau}_1$ or $\tilde{\chi}^0_1$, becomes the LSP mainly depends on the number of the

681: messenger ($N_5$), the mass of the messenger $(M)$, and $B_{\mu}/\mu$.

682: As can be seen in Eqs.~(\ref{eq:gaugino_mass}) and

683: (\ref{eq:scalar_mass}), the gauginos become heavier as increasing $N_5$.  

684: The stau becomes heavier for a larger mass of the messenger, while the

685: gaugino masses are almost independent of the messenger mass.  Hence,

686: in the case of the heavy messenger, the lighter stau mass $m_{\tilde{\tau}_1}$ 

687: tends to become heavier than the mass of the lightest neutralino,  $m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1}$ 

688: (see. Fig.~\ref{fig:mass1}).

689: %

690: \begin{figure}[t!]

691: \begin{center}

692: \epsfig{file=Mass.eps,clip,scale=.5}

693: \caption[]{$m_{\tilde{\tau}_1}$ and $m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1}$'s dependence on $M$ 

694: for $\Lambda_{eff} = 10^4$ GeV, $N_5=1$ and

695: $(B_{\mu}/\mu)_{\rm messenger}=0$ GeV.

696:  }

697: \label{fig:mass1}

698: \end{center}

699: \end{figure}

700: %

701: 

702: Larger $\tan\beta$ implies stronger tau's Yukawa coupling.

703: Therefore, the stau becomes lighter through left-right mixing and RG effects for the larger $\tan\beta$.

704: The value of $(B_{\mu}/\mu)_{\rm messenger}$ is connected to the value of $\tan\beta$.

705: In general, a smaller $B_{\mu}/\mu$ leads to a larger $\tan\beta$.

706: 

707: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

708: \subsection*{Coannihilation}

709: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

710: Let us first calculate a naively expected range for the messenger scale in our scenario.

711: The value of $\l$ is related to the value of $\l_0 \equiv \l|_{M_*}$ by

712: %%

713: \beq

714: \l \sim \left(\frac{\sqrt{F_S}}{M_*}\right)^{\g_S/2} \l_0,

715: \eeq

716: %%

717: where we have substituted $\sqrt{F_S} \sim m_{\rm phys}$, assuming the Yukawa coupling $h$

718: is of order unity. Using the relations $\L_{eff} = \l F_S/M$ and $m_{3/2} = F_S/\sqrt{3}M_{PL}$, we obtain~\footnote{

719: From the SSM soft parameters, we can rotate away all but one complex phases in our model. This remaining complex phase has a potential danger for

720: the SUSY CP problem. An accurate bound for this phase from the CP constraint depends on details of the spectrum

721: of the SUSY parameters. In fact, we see the CP problem becomes milder in the region where $B_\mu/\mu$ is smaller than the wino mass.

722: Here we neglect the remaining phase and take all parameters to be real in this paper, for simplicity.}

723: %%

724: \beq

725: M \sim 10^{15-3\g_S}~\GEV \times \l_0 \left( \frac{\L_{eff}}{10^5~\GEV} \right)^{-1} \left( \frac{m_{3/2}}{10^2~\GEV} \right)^{1+\g_S/4} 

726: \left(\frac{10^{16}~\GEV}{M_*}\right)^{\g_S/2}.

727: \label{eq:expmass}

728: \eeq

729: %%

730: If we adopt  the hidden sector model of $SP(3) \times SP(1)^2$ and $M_* \sim 10^{16}~\GEV$, Eq.~(\ref{eq:expmass}) leads to

731: %

732: \beq

733: M \sim 10^9~\GEV \times \l_0 \left( \frac{\L_{eff}}{10^5~\GEV} \right)^{-1} \left( \frac{m_{3/2}}{10^2~\GEV} \right)^{3/2}.

734: \label{mess_mass}

735: \eeq

736: %

737: Hence,  the messenger mass is expected to be ${\cal O}(10^9)~\GEV$ in the model,

738: unless the value of $\l_0$ is fine-tuned to be much smaller than unity.

739: 

740: Next, let us discuss the parameter region in which the coannihilation takes place.

741: Roughly speaking, the coannihilation occurs when the lighter stau mass becomes very close to

742: the lightest neutralino mass~\cite{CoAN}.

743: In Fig.~\ref{fig:mass2} we show the relation between $M$ and $B_\m/\m$ when $m_{\tilde{\tau}_1} = m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1}$ is met.

744: From the figure, we can see that required coannihilation occurs for a wide region of $B_\m/\m$ if 

745: the messenger mass $M$ is approximately $10^8~\GEV$ for $N_5=3$. 

746: Such value of $M$ is realized naturally in our model for $\l_0 = {\cal O}(10^{-1})$ (see  Eq.~(\ref{mess_mass})).

747: Note also that we can obtain the value $N_5=3$ not only by introducing 3 pairs of messengers which 

748: transform as ${\bf 5}$ and ${\bf 5}^*$, but also by introducing  one pair of messengers transforming as ${\bf 10}$ and ${\bf 10}^*$. 

749: In the case that $N_5=2$, $M = {\cal O}(10^5)~\GEV$ is required for the coannihilation to occur with a

750: wide parameter region of $B_\m/\m$. This is achieved by a rather small value of $\l_0 = {\cal O}(10^{-4})$.

751: 

752: 

753: \begin{figure}[t!] 

754: \begin{center}

755: \epsfig{file=MB.eps,clip,scale=.5}

756: \caption[]{$(B_{\mu}/\mu)_{\rm messenger}$ dependence of the messenger mass 

757: which realizes $m_{\tilde{\tau}_1} = m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1}$.

758: We set $\Lambda_{eff} = 10^5, 5\times10^4, 3\times10^4$ GeV for $N_5=1, 2, 3$, respectively.

759: }

760: \label{fig:mass2}

761: \end{center}

762: \end{figure}

763: 

764: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

765: \subsection*{Relic Density}

766: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

767: From the viewpoint of naturalness, the case that $N_5=3$ seems to be

768: most interesting, since it naturally predicts a suitable value of

769: messenger mass (Eq. (\ref{mess_mass})) for $B_{\mu}/\mu={\cal O}(m_{3/2})$ 

770: (see Fig.~\ref{fig:mass2}).  Now we show that this

771: model actually predicts the correct abundance of the neutralino DM. 

772:  In Fig.~\ref{fig:N3}, a contour plot of $\Omega_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1} h^2$ on the

773: $(M, \Lambda_{eff})$ plane is shown.  Here we set $(B_{\mu}/\mu)_{\rm

774:   messenger}= 50~\GEV,~100~\GEV$ for Fig. \ref{fig:N3}-(a) and (b),

775: respectively.  We have used the program {\verb MicroOmegas }

776: 2.2~\cite{micromegas} to estimate the cold dark matter density.  

777: Here, we set $m_{3/2}=500$ GeV, and

778: the red and blue lines represent $m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1}=m_{\tilde{\tau}_1}$ and

779:  $m_{h^0}=110$ GeV, respectively.

780: We can see that $\Omega_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1} h^2 \simeq 0.1$ is realized for

781: $M=10^{9}-10^{10}$ GeV.  This value of the messenger mass is nothing

782: but the expected one from Eq. (\ref{mess_mass}). 

783: In Fig.~\ref{fig:N3} we have taken into account the anomaly-mediation (AMSB)

784: effects~\cite{AMSB} to the SUSY breaking soft masses for the SSM particles.

785: 

786: \begin{figure}[h!]

787: \begin{tabular}{cc}

788: \begin{minipage}{0.5\hsize}

789: \begin{center}

790: \epsfig{file=N3b50.eps,clip,scale=.45}

791: (a)

792: \end{center}

793: \end{minipage}

794: 

795: \begin{minipage}{0.5\hsize}

796: \begin{center}

797: \epsfig{file=N3b100.eps,clip,scale=.45}

798: (b)

799: \end{center}

800: \end{minipage}

801: \end{tabular}

802: \caption[]{Contour plot of $\Omega_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1} h^2$ on the $(M, \Lambda_{eff})$ 

803: plane for $N_5=3$ and (a) $B_{\mu}/\mu= 50$ GeV, (b) $B_{\mu}/\mu= 100$

804: GeV at the messenger scale.

805: The black line represents $\Omega_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1} h^2=0.1$, and the shaded region shows the

806: ambiguity from the AMSB effect.

807: Here, we set $m_{3/2}=500$ GeV.

808: The red line represents $m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1}=m_{\tilde{\tau}_1}$. 

809: On the left  side of this red line, the stau becomes the LSP.

810: The blue line represents $m_{h^0}=110$ GeV.

811: Above this blue line, $m_{h^0}$ becomes larger than $110$ GeV.

812: }

813: \label{fig:N3}

814: \end{figure}

815: 

816: 

817: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

818: \section{Cosmology}

819: \label{sec:4}

820: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

821: Let us discuss the cosmological implications of our scenario. In the previous section,

822: we have seen that the neutralino LSP, instead of the gravitino, can naturally 

823: account for the observed DM abundance. It does

824: not necessarily mean, however, that the cosmological abundance of the gravitino

825: is totally negligible. In fact, gravitinos can be produced thermally directly from the hot plasma,

826: and non-thermally from the inflaton decay. It is known that the gravitinos 

827: can induce a severe cosmological problem~\cite{Weinberg:zq,Krauss:1983ik,BBNwX_OLD}.

828: 

829: 

830: The  abundance of the gravitinos produced from thermal scatterings 

831: is given by~\cite{Bolz:2000fu,Kawasaki:2004yh,Pradler:2006qh}

832: %%

833: \begin{eqnarray}

834:     \label{eq:Yx-new}

835:     Y_{3/2}^{(TH)} &\simeq& 

836:     1.9 \times 10^{-12}\left[ 1+ 

837:     \left(\frac{m_{\tilde{g}_3}^2}{3m_{3/2}^2}\right)\right]

838:     \left( \frac{T_{ R}}{10^{10}\ {\rm GeV}} \right)

839:     \nonumber \\ 

840:     & \times & 

841:     \left[ 1 

842:         + 0.045 \ln \left( \frac{T_{ R}}{10^{10}\ {\rm GeV}} 

843:         \right) \right]

844:     \left[ 1 

845:         - 0.028 \ln \left( \frac{T_{R}}{10^{10}\ {\rm GeV}} 

846:         \right) \right],

847: \end{eqnarray}

848: %% 

849: where $T_R$ is the reheating temperature and $m_{\tilde{g}_3}$ is the gluino

850: running mass evaluated at the reheating. 

851: Moreover, the gravitinos are generically produced by

852: the inflaton decay, if the inflaton has a non-vanishing vev (more precisely, a non-vanishing

853: linear term in the K\"ahler potential) at the potential minimum~\cite{

854: Kawasaki:2006gs,Endo:2006qk,Endo:2007sz,Endo:2007ih}. For an inflaton mass lighter than the

855: SUSY breaking scale, the gravitino pair production becomes efficient~\cite{Kawasaki:2006gs} (see also Refs.~\cite{Endo:2006zj,Dine:2006ii}). 

856: On the other hand, 

857: for the inflaton mass heavier than the SUSY breaking scale, the gravitinos are produced from

858: the inflaton decay into the hidden gauge sector~\cite{Endo:2007ih, Endo:2007sz}.

859:  The abundance of the non-thermally produced gravitinos is given by

860: %%

861: \beq

862:  Y_{3/2}^{(NT)} 	&\simeq & 7 \times 10^{-11}\, x \lrfp{g_*}{200}{-\frac{1}{2}} \lrfp{\la \phi \ra}{10^{15}{\rm GeV}}{2}

863:  	\lrfp{m_\phi}{10^{12}{\rm GeV}}{2} \lrfp{T_R}{10^6{\rm GeV}}{-1},

864: \label{NT}	

865: \eeq

866: %%

867: where $g_*$ counts the relativistic degrees of freedom, $\la \phi \ra$

868: is the inflaton vev, and $m_\phi$ the inflaton mass. Here $x$ is a

869: numerical coefficient given by

870: %%

871: \beq

872: x &=& \left\{

873: \begin{array}{cc}

874: 1 & {\rm ~~~for~~~}m_\phi < \Lambda_{\rm SUSY} \\

875: ~10^{-3} {\rm~~\sim~~}10^{-1}& {\rm ~~~for~~~}m_\phi > \Lambda_{\rm SUSY} 

876: \end{array}

877: \right.,

878: \label{eq:valuex}

879: \eeq

880: %%

881: The precise value of $x$ depends on the detailed structure of the SUSY

882: breaking sector.

883: 

884: 

885: In our scenario, the gravitino mass is set to be of the order of

886: $100\,$GeV to generate the $\mu$-term of a right magnitude, and the

887: gravitino is not the LSP and therefore unstable.  For such unstable

888: gravitino, the total gravitino abundance must satisfy

889: %%

890: \beq

891: Y_{3/2} \;\equiv\;  Y_{3/2}^{(TH)} +  Y_{3/2}^{(NT)}

892: \;\lsim\;{\cal O}(10^{-16}),

893: \label{bbn}

894: \eeq

895: %%

896: in order not to spoil the success of the big bang nucleosynthesis

897: (BBN)~\cite{Kawasaki:2004yh,Kohri:2005wn,Kawasaki:2008qe,Jedamzik:2004er}.

898: Substituting Eq.~(\ref{eq:Yx-new}) into Eq.~(\ref{bbn}), we obtain an upper

899: bound on $T_R$:

900: %%

901: \beq

902: T_R &\lsim& {\cal O}(10^6) {\rm \,GeV}.

903: \label{uptrth}

904: \eeq

905: %%

906: It is non-trivial for an inflation model to satisfy the bound on

907: $T_R$~\cite{Endo:2006qk,Endo:2007sz}.  Indeed, it rules out the smooth

908: hybrid inflation~\cite{Lazarides:1995vr} as well as a part of the

909: parameter space of the hybrid inflation~\cite{Copeland:1994vg}.  In

910: addition, the non-thermal gravitino production excludes most of the

911: inflation models such as the new~\cite{Izawa:1996dv,Asaka:1999jb} and

912: hybrid inflation.  Note that one cannot avoid the gravitino

913: overproduction simply by reducing the reheating temperature due to the

914: peculiar dependence of $Y_{3/2}^{(NT)}$ on $T_R$.

915: 

916: Among possible solutions to the (non-thermal) gravitino

917: overproduction, the simplest one is to suppress the inflaton vev by

918: imposing a symmetry on the inflaton. As a concrete example, let us

919: consider a chaotic inflation model with a $Z_2$

920: symmetry~\cite{Kawasaki:2000yn}.  In this model, we assume that the

921: K\"ahler potential $K(\phi,\phi^\dag)$ is invariant under the shift of

922: $\phi$,

923: %

924: \begin{equation}

925:   \phi \rightarrow \phi + i\,A,

926:   \label{eq:shift}

927: \end{equation}

928: %

929: where $A$ is a dimension-one real parameter.  We also impose a $Z_2$

930: symmetry: $\phi \rightarrow - \phi$.  Then, the K\"ahler potential is

931: given by

932: %%

933: \beq

934: K(\phi+\phi^\dag)=  \frac{1}{2} (\phi+\phi^\dag)^2 + \cdots,

935: \eeq

936: %%

937:  where we have dropped a linear term of $(\phi + \phi^\dag)$ which is

938:  forbidden by the $Z_2$ symmetry.  We introduce a small breaking term

939:  of the shift symmetry in the superpotential to generate a potential

940:  for the inflaton:

941: %

942: \begin{equation}

943:   W(\phi,\psi) = m_{\rm inf} \,\phi \,\psi, 

944:   \label{eq:mass}

945: \end{equation}

946: %

947: where we have introduced a new chiral multiplet $\psi$ charged under

948: the $Z_2$ symmetry: $\psi \rightarrow -\psi$. The inflaton mass $m_{\rm inf}

949: \simeq 2\times10^{13}$\,GeV represents the breaking scale of the shift

950: symmetry, and reproduces the density fluctuations of the right

951: magnitude.  The imaginary part of $\phi$ is identified with the

952: inflaton field $\varphi \equiv \sqrt{2} {\rm \,Im}[\phi]$, and the

953: scalar potential is given by

954: %%

955: \beq

956: V(\varphi,\psi) \;\simeq\; \frac{1}{2}m_{\rm inf}^2 \varphi^2 + m_{\rm inf}^2 |\psi|^2,

957: \eeq

958: %%

959: after the real part of $\phi$ settles down to the minimum.  For

960: $\varphi \gg M_{PL}$ and $|\psi| < M_{PL}$, the $\varphi$ field

961: dominates the potential and the chaotic inflation takes place (for

962: details see Ref.~\cite{Kawasaki:2000yn}).  Since the linear term in

963: the K\"aher potential is absent thanks to the $Z_2$ symmetry, the

964: non-thermal gravitino production does not occur.

965: 

966: 

967: 

968: 

969: 

970: 

971: In order to induce the reheating into the visible sector, we consider

972: the following interactions:

973: %%

974: \beq

975: W_{\rm int} \;=\; \frac{k}{2}\, \phi N N + \frac{1}{2} M_N NN,

976: \label{int-N}

977: \eeq

978: %%

979: where $N$ is a right-handed neutrino chiral multiplet.  The $Z_2$

980: symmetry is explicitly broken by those interactions, and we will later

981: discuss how small the breaking should be. For $m_{\rm inf} \gg 2 M_N$, the decay

982: rate is given by

983: %%

984: \beq

985: \Gamma_N \;\simeq\; \frac{k^2}{32\pi}  m_{\rm inf}.

986: \eeq

987: %%

988: Assuming that the reheating occurs mainly through the decay into the

989: right-handed (s)neutrinos, the reheating temperature is given by

990: %%

991: \beq

992: \label{tr2}

993: T_R \;\simeq\; 2 \times 10^6{\rm \,GeV} \lrf{k}{10^{-8}} \lrfp{m_{\rm inf}}{2\times 10^{13} {\rm GeV}}{\frac{1}{2}},

994: \eeq

995: %%

996: where we have defined the reheating temperature as

997: %%

998: \beq

999: \label{eq:def-Tr}

1000: T_R \;\equiv\; \lrfp{\pi^2 g_*}{10}{-\frac{1}{4}} \sqrt{\Gamma_N M_{PL}}.

1001: \eeq

1002: %%

1003: The non-thermal leptogenesis occurs in this

1004: case~\cite{Fukugita:1986hr,Asaka:1999yd, Lazarides:1993sn}, and the

1005: resultant baryon asymmetry is given by

1006: %%

1007: \beq

1008: \frac{n_B}{s} \;\simeq\; 1 \times 10^{-10}\,\lrf{k}{10^{-8}} \lrf{M_N}{10^{13}{\rm GeV}} \lrfp{m_{\rm inf}}{2\times 10^{13} {\rm GeV}}{-\frac{1}{2}}

1009:  \lrf{m_{\nu_3}}{0.05{\rm eV}} \delta_{\rm eff},

1010: \eeq

1011: %%

1012: where $m_{\nu_3}$ is the heaviest neutrino mass and $ \delta_{\rm eff}

1013: \leq 1$ represents the effective $CP$-violating phase.  Note that a

1014: right amount of the baryon asymmetry is generated for $k \sim 10^{-8}$

1015: and $M_N \sim 10^{13}$\,GeV, corresponding to $T_R \sim 10^{6}$GeV being

1016: marginally compatible with the constraint (see Eq.~(\ref{uptrth})).

1017: 

1018: Now let us discuss the $Z_2$ symmetry breaking.  We may interpret the

1019: first term in Eq.~(\ref{int-N}) breaks both the shift and $Z_2$

1020: symmetries, with an assumption that $NN$ is even under the $Z_2$

1021: symmetry.

1022: Then, we may attribute the smallness of $k \sim 10^{-8}$ to the

1023: breaking of the $Z_2$ symmetry, while the inflaton mass $m_{\rm inf}/M_{PL} \sim

1024: 10^{-5}$ represents the typical magnitude of the shift symmetry

1025: breaking~\footnote{ Alternatively, we can interpret that the first

1026:   term in Eq.~(\ref{int-N}) breaks the shift symmetry while the second

1027:   term breaks the $Z_2$ symmetry, by assigning a $Z_2$ odd charge to

1028:   $NN$.}.  Since the $Z_2$ symmetry is explicitly broken, a linear

1029: term in the K\"ahler potential is induced at one-loop level: $\delta K

1030: \; \sim\; 1/(16 \pi^2) k M_N^* \phi + {\rm h.c.}$.  Or, since the $Z_2$

1031: symmetry is not a true symmetry of the theory, we may expect the

1032: presence of a linear term, $K = \tilde{c} M_{PL}\, (\phi + \phi^\dag)$ with $\tilde{c}

1033: \sim 10^{-8}$, from the beginning.  Our concern is if such a tiny

1034: $Z_2$ breaking leads to the gravitino overproduction again.  To

1035: satisfy the BBN constraint (\ref{bbn}), the coefficient $c$ must be

1036: suppressed as

1037: %%

1038: \beq

1039: \tilde{c} &\lsim &{\cal O}(10^{-7}) \cdot x^{-1/2},

1040: \eeq

1041: %%

1042: where we have substituted $\la \phi \ra \simeq \tilde{c} M_{\rm PL}/\sqrt{2}$

1043: and $m_\phi = m_{\rm inf}$ into Eq.~(\ref{NT}). Therefore, for $\tilde{c} \sim k \sim

1044: 10^{-8}$, we can avoid the non-thermal gravitino overproduction

1045: problem~\footnote{

1046: If the gravitino is the LSP, a right amount of the gravitino DM

1047: can be produced for $k \sim \tilde{c} \sim m_{\rm inf} \sim 10^{-5}$ (in the Planck unit),

1048: and the thermal leptogenesis becomes possible. The BBN bound

1049: can be avoided by including tiny violation of the $R$-parity~\cite{Takayama:1999pc,Buchmuller:2007ui},

1050: and the decay of the unstable gravitino may explain the

1051: anomalies observed by HEAT and EGRET~\cite{Ibarra:2007wg,Ishiwata:2008cu}.

1052: }.  In addition, the non-thermal leptogenesis is also possible.

1053: 

1054: 

1055: 

1056: 

1057: 

1058: 

1059: 

1060: Lastly let us make a comment on the Polonyi problem~\cite{Polonyi}.

1061: If the SUSY breaking field $S$ has a non-vanishing linear term in the

1062: K\"ahler potential, the initial position of $S$ during inflation is

1063: generically deviated from the origin~\cite{Ibe:2006am}.  Such a linear

1064: term may not exist at tree level, but it is necessarily generated due

1065: to the coupling to the messenger fields (\ref{mess-int}) at one-loop

1066: level.  If the deviation were large, the SUSY breaking field might

1067: produce too many gravitinos. Fortunately, due to the large anomalous

1068: dimension of the SUSY breaking field, $S$, the messenger mass scale

1069: is suppressed, and so does the linear term. Therefore

1070: there is no Polonyi problem in our scenario~\cite{Endo:2007cu}

1071: 

1072: 

1073: 

1074: 

1075: 

1076: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1077: \section{Conclusions}

1078: \label{sec:5}

1079: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1080: In this paper we have pointed out that a conformal sequestering of the SUSY breaking

1081: can naturally solve the two problem inherent in the gauge mediation; the $\mu/B_\mu$

1082: problem and the lack of predictability of the gravitino DM abundance. 

1083: First, since the dangerous higher dimensional operators in the K\"ahler potential 

1084: are suppressed due to the conformal sequestering, we can increase the gravitino mass

1085: up to ${\cal O}(100)\,$GeV without causing the FCNC problem. 

1086: The correct mass scale of the $\mu$ and $B_\mu$ terms can be generated for 

1087: such gravitino mass. Second, a large anomalous dimension of the SUSY breaking field

1088: makes the messenger scale very small, which results in a small mass difference

1089: between the neutralino and the stau, making the coannihilation to naturally occur.

1090: We have also discussed the cosmological implications of our scenario. The unstable 

1091: gravitino of a mass of $100$\,GeV suffers from a severe gravitino overproduction problem, but

1092: we can find an example in which the problem is avoided and the right amount of the

1093: baryon asymmetry is generated through the non-thermal leptogenesis.

1094: 

1095: \vspace{5mm}

1096: 

1097: {\it Acknowledgments:} The work of

1098: S.S. is supported in part by JSPS Research Fellowships for Young

1099: Scientists.  The work of T.T.Y. is supported in part by the

1100: Grant-in-Aid for Science Research, Japan Society for the Promotion of

1101: Science, Japan (No.\ 1940270). 

1102: This work was supported in part by World Premier International

1103: Research Center Initiative WPI Initiative), MEXT, Japan.

1104: 

1105: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

1106: 

1107: \bibitem{GM} For a review, see

1108: G.~F.~Giudice and R.~Rattazzi,

1109: %``Theories with gauge mediated supersymmetry breaking,''

1110: Phys.\ Rept.\ {\bf 322}, 419 (1999)

1111: [arXiv:hep-ph/9801271].

1112: 

1113: \bibitem{CS} M.~Luty and R.~Sundrum,

1114: %``Supersymmetry breaking and composite extra dimensions,''

1115:  Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 65},  066004 (2002)

1116:  [arXiv:hep-th/0105137];\\

1117:  M.~Luty and R.~Sundrum, 

1118:  %``Anomaly mediated supersymmetry breaking in four-dimensions, naturally,''

1119:  Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 67}, 045007 (2003)

1120:  [arXiv:hep-th/0111231]. 

1121:  

1122: \bibitem{CoAN} 

1123: %\cite{Drees:1992am}

1124: %\bibitem{Drees:1992am}

1125:   M.~Drees and M.~M.~Nojiri,

1126:   %``The Neutralino relic density in minimal N=1 supergravity,''

1127:   Phys.\ Rev.\  D {\bf 47}, 376 (1993)

1128:   [arXiv:hep-ph/9207234];\\

1129:   %%CITATION = PHRVA,D47,376;%%

1130: %\cite{Mizuta:1992qp}

1131: %\bibitem{Mizuta:1992qp}

1132:   S.~Mizuta and M.~Yamaguchi,

1133:   %``Coannihilation effects and relic abundance of Higgsino dominant $LSP_s$,''

1134:   Phys.\ Lett.\  B {\bf 298}, 120 (1993)

1135:   [arXiv:hep-ph/9208251].

1136:   %%CITATION = PHLTA,B298,120;%%

1137:   

1138: 

1139:  

1140: \bibitem{IINSY} M.~Ibe, K.~-I.~Izawa, Y.~Nakayama, Y.~Shinbara and T.~Yanagida,

1141: %``Conformally sequestered SUSY breaking in vector like gauge theories,''

1142: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 73}, 015004 (2006)

1143: [arXiv:hep-ph/0506023].

1144: 

1145: \bibitem{IYIT} K.~-I.~Izawa and T.~Yanagida,

1146: %``Dynamical supersymmetry breaking in vector-like gauge theories,''

1147: Prog.\ Theor.\ Phys.\ {\bf 95}, 829 (1996)

1148: [arXiv:hep-th/9602180];\\

1149: K.~A.~Intriligator and S.~D.~Thomas,

1150: %``Dynamical supersymmetry breaking on quantum moduli spaces,''

1151: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {473}, 121 (1996)

1152: [arXiv:hep-th/9603158].

1153: 

1154: \bibitem{Seib} N.~Seiberg,

1155: %``Exact results on the space of vacua of four-dimensional SUSY gauge theories,''

1156: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 49}, 6857 (1994)

1157: [arXiv:hep-th/9402044].

1158: 

1159: 

1160: %\cite{Roy:2007nz}

1161: \bibitem{Roy:2007nz}

1162:   T.~S.~Roy and M.~Schmaltz,

1163:   %``A hidden solution to the mu/B_mu problem in gauge mediation,''

1164:   Phys.\ Rev.\  D {\bf 77}, 095008 (2008)

1165:   [arXiv:0708.3593 [hep-ph]];\\

1166:   %%CITATION = PHRVA,D77,095008;%%

1167: H.~Murayama, Y.~Nomura and D.~Poland,

1168: %``More visible effects of the hidden sector,''

1169: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 77}, 015005 (2008)

1170: [arXiv:hep-ph/0709.0775].

1171: 

1172: \bibitem{Mack} G.~Mack,

1173: %``All Unitary Ray Representation of the Conformal Group SU(2,2) with Positive Energy,''

1174: Commun.\ Math.\ Phys.\ {\bf 55}, 1 (1977).

1175: 

1176: \bibitem{SS} M.~Schmaltz and R.~Sundrum,

1177: %``Conformal sequestering simplified,''

1178: JHEP {\bf 0611}, 011 (2006)

1179: [arXiv:hep-th/0608051].

1180: \bibitem{compensator} E.~Cremmer, B.~Julia, J.~Scherk, S.~Ferrara, L.~Girardello and P.~van~Nieuwenhuizen,

1181: %``Spontaneous symmetry breaking and Higgs effect in supergravity without cosmological constant,''

1182: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 147}, 105 (1979);

1183: E.~Cremmer, S.~Ferrara, L.~Girardello and A.~Van~Proeyen,

1184: %``Yang-Mills theories with local supersymmetry: Lagrangian, transformation lows and SuperHiggs effect,''

1185: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 212}, 413 (1983). 

1186: 

1187: %\cite{Inoue:1991rk}

1188: \bibitem{Inoue:1991rk}

1189:   K.~Inoue, M.~Kawasaki, M.~Yamaguchi and T.~Yanagida,

1190:   %``Vanishing Squark And Slepton Masses In A Class Of Supergravity Models,''

1191:   Phys.\ Rev.\  D {\bf 45}, 328 (1992).

1192:   %%CITATION = PHRVA,D45,328;%%

1193:   

1194: 

1195: 

1196:       %\cite{Allanach:2001kg}

1197:       \bibitem{Allanach:2001kg}

1198:         B.~C.~Allanach,

1199:         %``SOFTSUSY: A C++ program for calculating supersymmetric spectra,''

1200:         Comput.\ Phys.\ Commun.\  {\bf 143}, 305 (2002)

1201:         [arXiv:hep-ph/0104145].

1202:         %%CITATION = CPHCB,143,305;%%

1203: \bibitem{micromegas}

1204: %\cite{Belanger:2008sj}

1205: %\bibitem{Belanger:2008sj}

1206:   G.~Belanger, F.~Boudjema, A.~Pukhov and A.~Semenov,

1207:   %``Dark matter direct detection rate in a generic model with micrOMEGAs2.1,''

1208:   arXiv:0803.2360 [hep-ph];\\

1209:   %%CITATION = ARXIV:0803.2360;%%

1210: %\cite{Belanger:2006is}

1211: %\bibitem{Belanger:2006is}

1212:   G.~Belanger, F.~Boudjema, A.~Pukhov and A.~Semenov,

1213:   %``micrOMEGAs2.0: A program to calculate the relic density of dark matter  in

1214:   %a generic model,''

1215:   Comput.\ Phys.\ Commun.\  {\bf 176}, 367 (2007)

1216:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0607059];\\

1217:   %%CITATION = CPHCB,176,367;%%

1218: %\cite{Belanger:2004yn}

1219: %\bibitem{Belanger:2004yn}

1220:   G.~Belanger, F.~Boudjema, A.~Pukhov and A.~Semenov,

1221:   %``MicrOMEGAs: Version 1.3,''

1222:   Comput.\ Phys.\ Commun.\  {\bf 174}, 577 (2006)

1223:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0405253];\\

1224:   %%CITATION = CPHCB,174,577;%%

1225: %\cite{Belanger:2001fz}

1226: %\bibitem{Belanger:2001fz}

1227:   G.~Belanger, F.~Boudjema, A.~Pukhov and A.~Semenov,

1228:   %``micrOMEGAs: A program for calculating the relic density in the MSSM,''

1229:   Comput.\ Phys.\ Commun.\  {\bf 149}, 103 (2002)

1230:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0112278].

1231:   %%CITATION = CPHCB,149,103;%%

1232: 

1233: 

1234:    \bibitem{AMSB} 

1235:  %\cite{Randall:1998uk}

1236: %\bibitem{Randall:1998uk}

1237:   L.~Randall and R.~Sundrum,

1238:   %``Out of this world supersymmetry breaking,''

1239:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 557}, 79 (1999);\\

1240: %  [arXiv:hep-th/9810155].

1241:   %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9810155;%%

1242:  %\cite{Giudice:1998xp}

1243: %\bibitem{Giudice:1998xp}

1244:   G.~F.~Giudice, M.~A.~Luty, H.~Murayama and R.~Rattazzi,

1245:   %``Gaugino mass without singlets,''

1246:   JHEP {\bf 9812}, 027 (1998);\\

1247: %  [arXiv:hep-ph/9810442].

1248:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9810442;%% 

1249:   %\cite{Bagger:1999rd}

1250: %\bibitem{Bagger:1999rd}

1251:   J.~A.~Bagger, T.~Moroi and E.~Poppitz,

1252:   %``Anomaly mediation in supergravity theories,''

1253:   JHEP {\bf 0004}, 009 (2000).

1254: %  [arXiv:hep-th/9911029].

1255:   %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9911029;%%

1256: 

1257: 

1258: \bibitem{Weinberg:zq}

1259:     S.~Weinberg,

1260:     Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 48}, 1303 (1982).

1261:     %%CITATION = PRLTA,48,1303;%%

1262: 

1263: 

1264: \bibitem{Krauss:1983ik}

1265:     L.~M.~Krauss,

1266:     Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 227}, 556 (1983).

1267:     %%CITATION = NUPHA,B227,556;%%

1268: \bibitem{BBNwX_OLD}

1269:     D.~Lindley,

1270:     Astrophys.\ J.\  {\bf 294} (1985) 1;

1271:     %%CITATION = ASJOA,294,1;%%

1272:     M.~Y.~Khlopov and A.~D.~Linde,

1273:     Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 138}, 265 (1984).    

1274:     

1275: 

1276: \bibitem{Bolz:2000fu}

1277:     M.~Bolz, A.~Brandenburg and W.~Buchmuller,

1278:     Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 606}, 518 (2001).

1279:     %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0012052;%%

1280:     

1281:  

1282:   %\cite{Kawasaki:2004yh}

1283: \bibitem{Kawasaki:2004yh}

1284: M.~Kawasaki, K.~Kohri and T.~Moroi,

1285: %``Hadronic decay of late-decaying particles and big-bang nucleosynthesis,''

1286: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 625}, 7 (2005);

1287: %[arXiv:astro-ph/0402490].

1288: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0402490;%%

1289:   %\cite{Kawasaki:2004qu}

1290: %\bibitem{Kawasaki:2004qu}

1291: %M.~Kawasaki, K.~Kohri and T.~Moroi,

1292: %``Big-bang nucleosynthesis and hadronic decay of long-lived massive

1293: %particles,''

1294: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 71}, 083502 (2005).

1295: %[arXiv:astro-ph/0408426].

1296: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0408426;%% 

1297: 

1298: 

1299:   %\cite{Pradler:2006qh}

1300: \bibitem{Pradler:2006qh}

1301:   J.~Pradler and F.~D.~Steffen,

1302:   %``Thermal gravitino production and collider tests of leptogenesis,''

1303:   Phys.\ Rev.\  D {\bf 75}, 023509 (2007);

1304: %  [arXiv:hep-ph/0608344].

1305:   %%CITATION = PHRVA,D75,023509;%%

1306:   %\cite{Pradler:2006hh}

1307: %\bibitem{Pradler:2006hh}

1308: %  J.~Pradler and F.~D.~Steffen,

1309:   %``Constraints on the reheating temperature in gravitino dark matter

1310:   %scenarios,''

1311:   Phys.\ Lett.\  B {\bf 648}, 224 (2007).

1312: %  [arXiv:hep-ph/0612291].

1313:   %%CITATION = PHLTA,B648,224;%%

1314: 

1315: 

1316: 

1317:  %\cite{Kawasaki:2006gs}

1318: \bibitem{Kawasaki:2006gs}

1319:   M.~Kawasaki, F.~Takahashi and T.~T.~Yanagida,

1320:   %``Gravitino overproduction in inflaton decay,''

1321:   Phys.\ Lett.\  B {\bf 638}, 8 (2006)

1322:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0603265];

1323:   %%CITATION = PHLTA,B638,8;%% 

1324:  %\cite{Kawasaki:2006hm}

1325: %\bibitem{Kawasaki:2006hm}

1326: %  M.~Kawasaki, F.~Takahashi and T.~T.~Yanagida,

1327:   %``The gravitino overproduction problem in inflationary universe,''

1328:   Phys.\ Rev.\  D {\bf 74}, 043519 (2006)

1329:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0605297].

1330:   %%CITATION = PHRVA,D74,043519;%%

1331: 

1332:   %\cite{Endo:2006qk}

1333: \bibitem{Endo:2006qk}

1334:   M.~Endo, M.~Kawasaki, F.~Takahashi and T.~T.~Yanagida,

1335:   %``Inflaton decay through supergravity effects,''

1336:   Phys.\ Lett.\  B {\bf 642}, 518 (2006)

1337:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0607170].

1338:   %%CITATION = PHLTA,B642,518;%%

1339:   

1340:  %\cite{Endo:2007sz}

1341: \bibitem{Endo:2007sz}

1342:   M.~Endo, F.~Takahashi and T.~T.~Yanagida,

1343:   %``Inflaton Decay in Supergravity,''

1344:   Phys.\ Rev.\  D {\bf 76}, 083509 (2007)

1345:   [arXiv:0706.0986 [hep-ph]].

1346:   %%CITATION = PHRVA,D76,083509;%% 

1347:   

1348:  %\cite{Endo:2007ih}

1349: \bibitem{Endo:2007ih}

1350:   M.~Endo, F.~Takahashi and T.~T.~Yanagida,

1351:   %``Anomaly-Induced Inflaton Decay and Gravitino-Overproduction Problem,''

1352:   Phys.\ Lett.\  B {\bf 658}, 236 (2008)

1353:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0701042].

1354:   %%CITATION = PHLTA,B658,236;%% 

1355: 

1356: 

1357: 

1358:   

1359:  %\cite{Endo:2006zj}

1360: \bibitem{Endo:2006zj}

1361:   M.~Endo, K.~Hamaguchi and F.~Takahashi,

1362:   %``Moduli-induced gravitino problem,''

1363:   Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 96}, 211301 (2006)

1364:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0602061];\\

1365:   %%CITATION = PRLTA,96,211301;%% 

1366:   %\cite{Nakamura:2006uc}

1367: %\bibitem{Nakamura:2006uc}

1368:   S.~Nakamura and M.~Yamaguchi,

1369:   %``Gravitino production from heavy moduli decay and cosmological moduli

1370:   %problem revived,''

1371:   Phys.\ Lett.\  B {\bf 638}, 389 (2006)

1372:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0602081].

1373:   %%CITATION = PHLTA,B638,389;%%

1374:   

1375:   %\cite{Dine:2006ii}

1376: \bibitem{Dine:2006ii}

1377:   M.~Dine, R.~Kitano, A.~Morisse and Y.~Shirman,

1378:   %``Moduli decays and gravitinos,''

1379:   Phys.\ Rev.\  D {\bf 73}, 123518 (2006)

1380:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0604140];\\

1381:   %%CITATION = PHRVA,D73,123518;%%

1382:   %\cite{Endo:2006tf}

1383: %\bibitem{Endo:2006tf}

1384:   M.~Endo, K.~Hamaguchi and F.~Takahashi,

1385:   %``Moduli / inflaton mixing with supersymmetry breaking field,''

1386:   Phys.\ Rev.\  D {\bf 74}, 023531 (2006)

1387:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0605091].

1388:   %%CITATION = PHRVA,D74,023531;%%

1389:  

1390: 

1391: 

1392: 

1393: 

1394: 

1395: %\cite{Kohri:2005wn}

1396: \bibitem{Kohri:2005wn}

1397:   K.~Kohri, T.~Moroi and A.~Yotsuyanagi,

1398: %   ``Big-bang nucleosynthesis with unstable gravitino and upper bound on the

1399: %   reheating temperature,''

1400:   %

1401:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 73}, 123511 (2006).

1402: %  [arXiv:hep-ph/0507245].

1403:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0507245;%%

1404:   

1405: %\cite{Kawasaki:2008qe}

1406: \bibitem{Kawasaki:2008qe}

1407:   M.~Kawasaki, K.~Kohri, T.~Moroi and A.~Yotsuyanagi,

1408:   %``Big-Bang Nucleosynthesis and Gravitino,''

1409:   arXiv:0804.3745 [hep-ph].

1410:   %%CITATION = ARXIV:0804.3745;%%  

1411:   

1412: %\cite{Jedamzik:2004er}

1413: \bibitem{Jedamzik:2004er}

1414:   K.~Jedamzik,

1415:   %``Did something decay, evaporate, or annihilate during big bang

1416:   %nucleosynthesis?,''

1417:   Phys.\ Rev.\  D {\bf 70}, 063524 (2004)

1418:   [arXiv:astro-ph/0402344];

1419:   %%CITATION = PHRVA,D70,063524;%% 

1420: %\cite{Jedamzik:2006xz}

1421: %\bibitem{Jedamzik:2006xz}

1422:  % K.~Jedamzik,

1423:   %``Big bang nucleosynthesis constraints on hadronically and

1424:   %electromagnetically decaying relic neutral particles,''

1425:   Phys.\ Rev.\  D {\bf 74}, 103509 (2006)

1426:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0604251].

1427:   %%CITATION = PHRVA,D74,103509;%%

1428:   

1429:   

1430:   %\cite{Lazarides:1995vr}

1431: \bibitem{Lazarides:1995vr}

1432:   G.~Lazarides and C.~Panagiotakopoulos,

1433:   %``Smooth hybrid inflation,''

1434:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 52}, 559 (1995).

1435: %  [arXiv:hep-ph/9506325].

1436:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9506325;%%

1437: 

1438:  %%%%%% hybrid %%%%%%

1439: %\cite{Copeland:1994vg}

1440: \bibitem{Copeland:1994vg}

1441:   E.~J.~Copeland, A.~R.~Liddle, D.~H.~Lyth, E.~D.~Stewart and D.~Wands,

1442:   %``False vacuum inflation with Einstein gravity,''

1443:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 49}, 6410 (1994);

1444: %  [arXiv:astro-ph/9401011].

1445:   %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 9401011;%%  

1446: %\cite{Dvali:1994ms}

1447: %\bibitem{Dvali:1994ms}

1448:   G.~R.~Dvali, Q.~Shafi and R.~K.~Schaefer,

1449:   %``Large scale structure and supersymmetric inflation without fine tuning,''

1450:   Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 73}, 1886 (1994);

1451: %  [arXiv:hep-ph/9406319].

1452:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9406319;%%

1453:   %\cite{Linde:1997sj}

1454: %\bibitem{Linde:1997sj}

1455:   A.~D.~Linde and A.~Riotto,

1456:   %``Hybrid inflation in supergravity,''

1457:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 56}, 1841 (1997).

1458:  % [arXiv:hep-ph/9703209].

1459:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9703209;%%

1460:   %\cite{Endo:2003fr} 

1461:   

1462:  

1463:  %\cite{Izawa:1996dv}

1464: \bibitem{Izawa:1996dv}

1465:   K.~I.~Izawa and T.~Yanagida,

1466:   %``Natural new inflation in broken supergravity,''

1467:   Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 393}, 331 (1997).

1468: %  [arXiv:hep-ph/9608359].

1469:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9608359;%%

1470:   

1471:  

1472: 

1473:   %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1474: %  new inflation (2 fields)

1475: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1476: %\cite{Asaka:1999jb}

1477: \bibitem{Asaka:1999jb}

1478:   T.~Asaka, K.~Hamaguchi, M.~Kawasaki and T.~Yanagida,

1479:   %``Leptogenesis in inflationary universe,''

1480:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 61}, 083512 (2000);

1481: %  [arXiv:hep-ph/9907559].

1482:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9907559;%% 

1483:   %\cite{Senoguz:2004ky}

1484: %\bibitem{Senoguz:2004ky}

1485:   V.~N.~Senoguz and Q.~Shafi,

1486:   %``Inverted hybrid inflation and leptogenesis,''

1487:   Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 596}, 8 (2004).

1488:  % [arXiv:hep-ph/0403294].

1489:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0403294;%%

1490: 

1491:  

1492:   

1493:   

1494:    %\cite{Kawasaki:2000yn}

1495: \bibitem{Kawasaki:2000yn}

1496:   M.~Kawasaki, M.~Yamaguchi and T.~Yanagida,

1497:   %``Natural chaotic inflation in supergravity,''

1498:   Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 85}, 3572 (2000);

1499: %  [arXiv:hep-ph/0004243].

1500:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0004243;%%

1501: %\cite{Kawasaki:2000ws}

1502: %\bibitem{Kawasaki:2000ws}

1503: %  M.~Kawasaki, M.~Yamaguchi and T.~Yanagida,

1504:   %``Natural chaotic inflation in supergravity and leptogenesis,''

1505:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 63}, 103514 (2001).

1506:  % [arXiv:hep-ph/0011104].

1507:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0011104;%%  

1508: 

1509: 

1510:  %%%%%%leptogenesis%%%%%%%

1511: %\cite{Fukugita:1986hr}

1512: \bibitem{Fukugita:1986hr}

1513:   M.~Fukugita and T.~Yanagida,

1514:   %``Baryogenesis Without Grand Unification,''

1515:   Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 174}, 45 (1986);\\

1516:   %%CITATION = PHLTA,B174,45;%%

1517:  see, for a review,

1518: %\cite{Buchmuller:2005eh}

1519: %\bibitem{Buchmuller:2005eh}

1520: W.~Buchmuller, R.~D.~Peccei and T.~Yanagida,

1521: %``Leptogenesis as the origin of matter,''

1522: Ann.\ Rev.\ Nucl.\ Part.\ Sci.\  {\bf 55}, 311 (2005).

1523: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0502169].

1524: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0502169;%% 

1525: 

1526: %%%%% %%%%% %%%%% %%%%% %%%%%

1527:  %Non-thermal Leptogenesis from Inflaton %%%%%

1528:   %%%%% %%%%% %%%%% %%%%% %%%%%

1529:     %\cite{Asaka:1999yd}

1530: \bibitem{Asaka:1999yd}

1531:   T.~Asaka, K.~Hamaguchi, M.~Kawasaki and T.~Yanagida,

1532:   %``Leptogenesis in inflaton decay,''

1533:   Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 464}, 12 (1999);

1534: %  [arXiv:hep-ph/9906366].

1535:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9906366;%%

1536: %\cite{Asaka:1999jb}

1537: %\bibitem{Asaka:1999jb}

1538:  % T.~Asaka, K.~Hamaguchi, M.~Kawasaki and T.~Yanagida,

1539:   %``Leptogenesis in inflationary universe,''

1540:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 61}, 083512 (2000);\\

1541: %  [arXiv:hep-ph/9907559].

1542:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9907559;%% 

1543:   %\cite{Giudice:1999fb}

1544: %\bibitem{Giudice:1999fb}

1545:   G.~F.~Giudice, M.~Peloso, A.~Riotto and I.~Tkachev,

1546:   %``Production of massive fermions at preheating and leptogenesis,''

1547:   JHEP {\bf 9908}, 014 (1999).

1548: %  [arXiv:hep-ph/9905242].

1549:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9905242;%%

1550:   

1551:    %\cite{Lazarides:1993sn} 

1552: \bibitem{Lazarides:1993sn}

1553: See, for early works,

1554:   G.~Lazarides, C.~Panagiotakopoulos and Q.~Shafi,

1555:   %``Supersymmetric unification without proton decay,''

1556:   Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 315}, 325 (1993)

1557:   [Erratum-ibid.\ B {\bf 317}, 661 (1993)];\\

1558: %  [arXiv:hep-ph/9306332].

1559:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9306332;%%

1560:   %\cite{Kumekawa:1994gx}

1561: %\bibitem{Kumekawa:1994gx}

1562:   K.~Kumekawa, T.~Moroi and T.~Yanagida,

1563:   %``Flat potential for inflaton with a discrete R invariance in supergravity,''

1564:   Prog.\ Theor.\ Phys.\  {\bf 92}, 437 (1994).

1565: %  [arXiv:hep-ph/9405337].

1566:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9405337;%%

1567:   

1568: %\cite{Takayama:1999pc}

1569: \bibitem{Takayama:1999pc}

1570:   F.~Takayama and M.~Yamaguchi,

1571:   %``Pattern of neutrino oscillations in supersymmetry with bilinear  R-parity

1572:   %violation,''

1573:   Phys.\ Lett.\  B {\bf 476}, 116 (2000)

1574:   [arXiv:hep-ph/9910320].

1575:   %%CITATION = PHLTA,B476,116;%%

1576:   

1577: %\cite{Buchmuller:2007ui}

1578: \bibitem{Buchmuller:2007ui}

1579:   W.~Buchmuller, L.~Covi, K.~Hamaguchi, A.~Ibarra and T.~Yanagida,

1580:   %``Gravitino dark matter in R-parity breaking vacua,''

1581:   JHEP {\bf 0703}, 037 (2007)

1582:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0702184].

1583:   %%CITATION = JHEPA,0703,037;%%  

1584: 

1585: %\cite{Ibarra:2007wg}

1586: \bibitem{Ibarra:2007wg}

1587:   A.~Ibarra and D.~Tran,

1588:   %``Gamma Ray Spectrum from Gravitino Dark Matter Decay,''

1589:   Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 100}, 061301 (2008)

1590:   [arXiv:0709.4593 [astro-ph]];

1591:   %%CITATION = PRLTA,100,061301;%%

1592: %\cite{Ibarra:2008qg}

1593: %\bibitem{Ibarra:2008qg}

1594:  % A.~Ibarra and D.~Tran,

1595:   %``Antimatter Signatures of Gravitino Dark Matter Decay,''

1596:   JCAP {\bf 0807}, 002 (2008)

1597:   [arXiv:0804.4596 [astro-ph]].

1598:   %%CITATION = JCAPA,0807,002;%%

1599: %\cite{Ishiwata:2008cu}

1600: \bibitem{Ishiwata:2008cu}

1601:   K.~Ishiwata, S.~Matsumoto and T.~Moroi,

1602:   %``High Energy Cosmic Rays from the Decay of Gravitino Dark Matter,''

1603:   arXiv:0805.1133 [hep-ph].

1604:   %%CITATION = ARXIV:0805.1133;%%

1605: 

1606:   

1607: \bibitem{Polonyi} 

1608: %\cite{Coughlan:1983ci}

1609: %\bibitem{Coughlan:1983ci}

1610:   G.~D.~Coughlan, W.~Fischler, E.~W.~Kolb, S.~Raby and G.~G.~Ross,

1611:   %``Cosmological Problems For The Polonyi Potential,''

1612:   Phys.\ Lett.\  B {\bf 131}, 59 (1983).

1613:   %%CITATION = PHLTA,B131,59;%%  

1614:   

1615:   

1616: %\cite{Ibe:2006am}

1617: \bibitem{Ibe:2006am}

1618:   M.~Ibe, Y.~Shinbara and T.~T.~Yanagida,

1619:   %``The Polonyi problem and upper bound on inflation scale in supergravity,''

1620:   Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 639}, 534 (2006).

1621: %  [arXiv:hep-ph/0605252].

1622:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0605252;%%

1623:   

1624:  %\cite{Endo:2007cu}

1625: \bibitem{Endo:2007cu}

1626:   M.~Endo, F.~Takahashi and T.~T.~Yanagida,

1627:   %``Retrofitted gravity mediation without the gravitino overproduction

1628:   %problem,''

1629:   Phys.\ Rev.\  D {\bf 76}, 083508 (2007)

1630:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0702247].

1631:   %%CITATION = PHRVA,D76,083508;%%

1632:  

1633: \end{thebibliography}

1634: \end{document}

1635: 

1636: 

1637: 

1638: 

1639: 

1640: 

1641: 

1642: