1: \documentstyle[12pt,epsf]{article}
2: \addtolength{\textheight}{30mm}
3: \addtolength{\textwidth}{25mm}
4: \addtolength{\topmargin}{-14mm}
5: \addtolength{\oddsidemargin}{-14mm}
6: \addtolength{\evensidemargin}{-14mm}
7: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
8: \makeatletter
9: \renewcommand{\theequation}{\thesection.\arabic{equation}}
10: \@addtoreset{equation}{section}
11: \makeatother
12: \renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\fnsymbol{footnote}}
13: %\renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.2}
14: \parskip 2pt
15: \parindent 12pt
16: \newcommand{\gsim}{\mathop{}_{\textstyle \sim}^{\textstyle >}}
17: \newcommand{\lsim}{\mathop{}_{\textstyle \sim}^{\textstyle <}}
18: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
19: \begin{document}
20: \begin{titlepage}
21: \vspace*{-10mm}
22: \begin{flushright}
23: {\small
24: KANAZAWA-02-28\\
25: KUNS-1812\\
26: NIIG-DP-02-7\\
27: TU-674\\[-1mm]
28: hep-ph/0211347}
29: \end{flushright}
30: \begin{center}
31: \vspace*{6mm}
32:
33: {\Large\bf Flavor violation in supersymmetric theories\\[2mm]
34: with gauged flavor symmetries}
35: \vspace*{8mm}
36:
37: Tatsuo~{\sc Kobayashi},\footnote{E-mail:
38: kobayash@gauge.scphys.kyoto-u.ac.jp}
39: Hiroaki~{\sc Nakano},\footnote{E-mail:
40: nakano@muse.sc.niigata-u.ac.jp}
41: Haruhiko~{\sc Terao},\footnote{E-mail:
42: terao@hep.s.kanazawa-u.ac.jp}
43: and
44: Koichi~{\sc Yoshioka}\footnote{E-mail:
45: yoshioka@tuhep.phys.tohoku.ac.jp}
46: \vspace*{4mm}
47:
48: $^*${\it Department of Physics, Kyoto University, Kyoto 606-8502,
49: Japan}\\[1mm]
50: $^\dagger${\it Department of Physics, Niigata University, Niigata
51: 950-2181, Japan}\\[1mm]
52: $^\ddagger${\it Institute for Theoretical Physics, Kanazawa
53: University, Kanazawa 920-1192, Japan}\\[1mm]
54: $^\S${\it Department of Physics, Tohoku University, Sendai 980-8578,
55: Japan}
56: \vspace{8mm}
57:
58: \begin{abstract} \noindent
59: In this paper we study flavor violation in supersymmetric models with
60: gauged flavor symmetries. There are several sources of flavor
61: violation in these theories. The dominant flavor violation is the
62: tree-level $D$-term contribution to scalar masses generated by flavor
63: symmetry breaking. We present a new approach for suppressing this
64: phenomenologically dangerous effects by separating the flavor-breaking
65: sector from supersymmetry-breaking one. The separation can be achieved
66: in geometrical setups or in a dynamical way. We also point out that
67: radiative corrections from the gauginos of gauged flavor symmetries
68: give sizable generation-dependent masses of scalars. The gaugino mass
69: effects are generic and not suppressed even if the dominant $D$-term
70: contribution is suppressed. We also analyze the constraints on the
71: flavor symmetry sector from these flavor-violating corrections.
72: \end{abstract}
73: \end{center}
74: \end{titlepage}
75: \setcounter{footnote}{0}
76:
77: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
78: \section{Introduction}
79:
80: Supersymmetric extension of the standard model (SM) has been found to
81: be very attractive, in particular, as a solution to the hierarchy
82: problem. Superpartners of the SM fields are expected to be detected in
83: future experiments. Even at present, supersymmetry (SUSY) breaking
84: parameters are constrained from flavor-changing neutral current (FCNC)
85: processes as well as CP violation~\cite{FCNC}. That is the so-called
86: SUSY flavor problem and requires sfermion masses between the first and
87: second generations being degenerate, unless they are sufficiently
88: heavy or fermion and sfermion mass matrices are aligned quite
89: well. Such requirements for sfermion masses have been tried to be
90: realized by considering flavor-blind SUSY breaking and/or mediation
91: mechanisms. Actually, various types of flavor-blind mechanisms have
92: been proposed in the literature~\cite{gravity}-\cite{others}.
93:
94: Understanding the origin of fermion masses and mixing angles is also
95: one of the important issues in particle physics. Three copies of SM
96: generations have the exactly same quantum numbers except for their
97: masses, i.e.\ Yukawa couplings to the Higgs field. In the SM, the
98: exact flavor universality is violated only in the Yukawa sector. One
99: expects that the hierarchical structure of Yukawa matrices is
100: explained by some dynamics beyond the SM, and such additional dynamics
101: necessarily leave some imprint of flavor violation. In supersymmetric
102: models, a mechanism for realistic fermion masses breaks the flavor
103: universality and generally makes the corresponding sfermion masses
104: flavor-dependent.
105:
106: One of the salient mechanisms for generating hierarchical Yukawa
107: couplings is the Froggatt-Nielsen (FN) mechanism with additional
108: $U(1)$ gauge symmetries~\cite{FN,IR}. In the FN scenarios,
109: flavor-dependent $U(1)$ charges are assigned to matter fields so that
110: realistic Yukawa matrices are effectively realized in terms of
111: higher-dimensional operators. There is a certain reason to believe
112: that the $U(1)$ symmetries should be gauged; any global symmetry is
113: expected to be unstable against quantum gravity and hence
114: accidental. Therefore the $U(1)$ flavor symmetries that exactly
115: control such operators should be gauged. Consequently, after flavor
116: symmetry breaking, the auxiliary $D$ fields of the $U(1)$ vector
117: multiplets give additional contribution to sfermion masses, which is
118: proportional to $U(1)$ charges and hence
119: flavor-dependent~\cite{anom1,anom2}. That indeed gives significant
120: modification of sparticle spectrum and in some cases is confronted
121: with the SUSY flavor problem. This is called the $D$ problem in the
122: present paper.
123:
124: In this paper, we present an idea for suppressing the flavor-dependent
125: $D$-term contribution to sfermion masses. The $D$-term contribution is
126: generated when one integrates out heavy fields which develop vacuum
127: expectation values (VEVs) that break the $U(1)$ gauge symmetries. As
128: will be reviewed below, the modification of low-energy spectrum is
129: determined by soft SUSY-breaking masses of the heavy fields. Our idea
130: is that the $D$-term contribution is suppressed if the soft masses of
131: the heavy fields can be made small. We will present illustrative
132: models where this idea is realized in a dynamical or geometrical
133: way. Unlike other approaches, the models presented here have an
134: advantage that origins of the Yukawa hierarchy can be addressed within
135: the same framework.
136:
137: However, even if the dominant $D$-term contribution is suppressed,
138: there still remains a flavor-violating effect from the $U(1)$ gauge
139: symmetries; flavor-dependent scalar masses are radiatively generated
140: by $U(1)$ gaugino loop graphs, which involve the
141: gaugino-fermion-sfermion vertices proportional to $U(1)$ quantum
142: numbers. Such radiative effect is described in terms of
143: renormalization-group equations (RGEs) for scalar masses. Unlike the
144: above tree-level $D$-term contribution, the gaugino loop effect does
145: not depend on SUSY-breaking scalar masses. Therefore even with reduced
146: $D$-term contribution, e.g.\ by assuming the universal sparticle
147: spectrum, flavor violation from the $U(1)$ flavor symmetries still
148: remains and turns to be detectable signatures for flavor physics.
149:
150: This paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 we describe scalar
151: masses in supersymmetric theories with a gauged abelian flavor
152: symmetry. In addition to the $D$-term contribution, we point out
153: subleading but sizable flavor violation due to the abelian gaugino. In
154: Section 3, we will discuss how to suppress the dominant $D$-term
155: flavor violation. After a brief survey of the existing proposals in
156: Section 3.1, we present in Section 3.2 the models with extra
157: dimensions, while another model based on four-dimensional
158: superconformal dynamics is presented in Section 3.3. We also examine
159: how much degeneracy of sfermion masses is expected in these models. In
160: Section 4, radiative corrections from the soft gaugino mass are shown
161: to be potentially dangerous and give significant constraints on model
162: parameters such as soft gaugino masses. Section 5 summarizes our results.
163:
164: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
165: \section{Sfermion masses with $U(1)$ gauge symmetry}
166:
167: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
168: \subsection{$D$-term contribution}
169:
170: In this section, we discuss sfermion masses in the presence of a
171: $U(1)$ horizontal gauge symmetry, denoted by $U(1)_X$ throughout this
172: paper. The $D$-term effect has been considered in various
173: contexts~\cite{otherD}. As simple examples, we study two types of
174: models where a non-vanishing VEV of the auxiliary component $D$ of
175: $U(1)_X$ vector multiplet is actually generated. However the
176: properties presented here are generic for any model of $D$-term
177: contribution.
178:
179: As the first example, let us consider a pseudo-anomalous abelian gauge
180: symmetry, which often appears in string models~\cite{stringU1}. In
181: this case, the Fayet-Iliopoulos (FI) term is generated by a
182: non-vanishing VEV of the dilaton or moduli field, whose nonlinear
183: shift cancels the $U(1)_X$ anomaly. We treat the coefficient of the FI
184: term as a constant, for simplicity.\footnote{If the dilaton and moduli
185: fields are treated as dynamical fields, the FI term and K\"ahler
186: metric of the FN field depend on these fields. In this case, as was
187: shown in Ref.~\cite{anom2}, the formula for $D$-term contribution
188: becomes different from that in softly-broken global SUSY models with a
189: constant FI term. The suppression mechanism presented in this paper
190: should be reconsidered in such a case.}
191: The supersymmetric scalar potential relevant to the $U(1)_X$ gauge
192: sector is written as
193: \begin{equation}
194: V_{\rm SUSY} \;=\; -\frac{1}{2g_X^2}D^2 +D\bigg(\xi_{\rm FI}
195: +\sum_{i=1}^N q_i |\phi_i|^2 +\sum_{j=1}^{\bar N} \bar q_j
196: |\bar\phi_j|^2 \bigg)+\cdots.
197: \label{Vsusy}
198: \end{equation}
199: Here $g_X$ is the gauge coupling and $\xi_{\rm FI}$ is the coefficient
200: of the FI term, which we take positive without lose of generality. The
201: $U(1)_X$ charges of scalars $\phi_i$ and $\bar\phi_i$ are denoted as
202: $q_i$ $(>0)$ and $\bar q_i$ $(<0)$, respectively. The equation of
203: motion for $D$ is
204: \begin{equation}
205: \frac{D}{g_X^2} \;=\; \xi_{\rm FI} +\sum_{i=1}^N q_i |\phi_i|^2
206: +\sum_{j=1}^{\bar N} \bar q_j |\bar\phi_j|^2.
207: \label{Deom}
208: \end{equation}
209: Then in the supersymmetric limit $D=0$, the negatively-charged fields
210: $\bar\phi_i$ generally develop nonzero VEVs and the abelian gauge
211: symmetry is broken at $M_X$ $\sim \xi_{\rm FI}^{1/2}$. The scalar
212: fields with vanishing VEVs remain massless but $\bar\phi_i$ decouple
213: around the $M_X$ scale.
214:
215: In this work, we assume that the $U(1)_X$ breaking scale
216: $M_X$ $\sim \xi_{\rm FI}^{1/2}$ is smaller than a cutoff $\Lambda$ of
217: the theory. It is known~\cite{FN,IR} that the ratio
218: $\xi_{{\rm FI}}^{1/2}/\Lambda$ can be an origin of the hierarchy of
219: Yukawa couplings. Consider, for example, a superpotential $W$ includes
220: the following non-renormalizable operators
221: \begin{equation}
222: W \;=\; y_{ij}\bigg(\frac{\bar\phi}{\Lambda}\bigg)^{n_{ij}}
223: \phi_i\phi_j H,
224: \label{FNspot}
225: \end{equation}
226: where $H$ denotes the electroweak Higgs field, and $\bar\phi$ is a
227: negatively-charged field that develops a nonzero VEV of order
228: $\xi_{\rm FI}^{1/2}$. The power $n_{ij}$ is determined by the $U(1)_X$
229: charge conservation to be $n_{ij}=(q_i+q_j+q_H)/|\bar{q}|$. The
230: operators (\ref{FNspot}) induce the effective Yukawa couplings
231: \begin{equation}
232: y'_{ij} \;=\; \lambda^{n_{ij}} y_{ij}\,, \qquad
233: \lambda\equiv
234: \bigg(\frac{\langle\bar\phi\rangle}{\Lambda}\bigg)^{|\bar{q}|}.
235: \end{equation}
236: The factor $\lambda$ represents a unit of hierarchy of Yukawa
237: couplings and is usually taken to be of the order of the Cabibbo
238: angle. In this way, a realistic hierarchy of low-energy Yukawa
239: couplings can be obtained by assigning different charges to matter
240: fields $\phi$~\cite{FN,IR}.
241:
242: We add a remark on possible realization of the FN mechanism in
243: weakly-coupled heterotic string models. In this case, the $U(1)$
244: anomaly is cancelled by a nonlinear shift of the dilaton-axion
245: multiplet~\cite{GS}, and the FI term $\xi_{{\rm FI}}$ is generated at
246: loop level. Consequently $\xi_{{\rm FI}}$ naturally has an appropriate
247: size for the Yukawa hierarchy. This possibility provides us with a
248: strong motivation for regarding an anomalous $U(1)$ as a gauged flavor
249: symmetry. Note also that in the case of anomalous $U(1)$ symmetry, the
250: axion-gauge mixing generates an additional contribution to the gauge
251: boson mass, $2(\xi_{\rm FI}/\Lambda)^2$. Since this contribution is
252: suppressed by $\xi_{\rm FI}/\Lambda^2$ compared with that from the
253: scalar VEV $\langle\bar\phi\rangle$, we will neglect this effect in
254: our analysis below.
255:
256: The SUSY vacuum is shifted when soft SUSY-breaking masses for scalars
257: are introduced. The scalar potential is now given by
258: \begin{equation}
259: V \;=\; V_{\rm SUSY} + \sum_{i=1}^N m_i^2 |\phi_i|^2
260: +\sum_{j=1}^{\bar N} \bar m_j^2 |\bar\phi_j|^2 \,+\cdots,
261: \label{V}
262: \end{equation}
263: where $m_i^2$ and $\bar m_j^2$ are arbitrary mass parameters. The
264: ellipsis denotes other SUSY-breaking terms irrelevant to our
265: analysis. In $V_{\rm SUSY}$, the $D$ component is replaced with scalar
266: fields through the equation of motion (\ref{Deom}). Minimizing the
267: potential with respect to negatively-charged fields, we find that the
268: $D$ component obtains a VEV
269: \begin{equation}
270: \langle D\rangle \;=\; \frac{\bar m^2}{|\bar q|}.
271: \label{Dvev}
272: \end{equation}
273: In this expression, $\bar m^2/|\bar q|$ is the minimum value of
274: $\bar m^2_i/|\bar q_i|$ in the model, since the effective potential
275: around the minimum along the $\bar\phi_i$ direction takes a value of
276: $O(\bar m^2_i/|\bar q_i|)\,\xi_{\rm FI}$. Without superpotential, only
277: the scalar fields with such minimal value of ratio,
278: $\bar m^2/|\bar q|$, can contribute to the above equation. For
279: example, in the case of universal scalar masses, (a combination of)
280: scalar fields with the largest negative value of $U(1)$ charge obtain
281: the VEV (\ref{Dvev}). In this way, the $D$-flat direction is lifted by
282: SUSY-breaking masses of scalar fields with negative quantum
283: numbers. From Eqs.~(\ref{Vsusy}) and (\ref{Dvev}), one finds a formula
284: for the $D$-term contribution to the masses of light scalars:
285: \begin{equation}
286: m^2_{D_i} \;=\; q_i\langle D\rangle \;=\;
287: \frac{q_i}{|\bar q|}\,\bar m^2.
288: \label{Dcont}
289: \end{equation}
290:
291: The most important property of the formula (\ref{Dcont}) is that the
292: induced scalar masses squared are proportional to their $U(1)_X$
293: charges. This fact gives a significant implication to flavor
294: physics. As explained above, realistic low-energy Yukawa couplings are
295: generated by assigning different charges to matter fields. If all
296: SUSY-breaking masses are of the same order of magnitude, this scalar
297: mass difference leads to large FCNC amplitudes. For example,
298: lepton-flavor violation from flavor symmetry $D$-terms was discussed
299: in~\cite{DLFV}.
300:
301: Besides the flavor problems, the induced scalar masses (\ref{Dcont})
302: have several interesting properties. Firstly, the contribution is
303: independent of the $U(1)_X$ gauge coupling constant $g_X$. Therefore
304: the formula (\ref{Dcont}) remains valid even if $g_X$ is small. [Note,
305: however, that the complete global limit ($g_X\to 0$) cannot be taken
306: since the $U(1)_X$ symmetry is broken only if the condition
307: $g_X^2>\bar m^2/(-\bar q\xi_{\rm FI})$ is satisfied so that the scalar
308: potential (\ref{V}) is unstable around the origin of the moduli space.]
309: Secondly, the $D$-term contribution does not depend on the
310: symmetry-breaking scale $M_X$, either. The $D$-term contribution is
311: proportional to a tiny deviation from supersymmetric conditions (flat
312: directions), and the deviation is determined by supersymmetry breaking
313: independently of the gauge symmetry breaking~\cite{otherD}. As a result
314: of these properties, the scalar masses induced via the $D$ term appear
315: for any value of gauge coupling and symmetry-breaking
316: scale\rlap.\,\footnote{This is true provided that soft SUSY-breaking
317: terms are present already at the scale of scalar VEVs. On the other
318: hand, it will be intuitively clear that the $D$-term contribution is
319: absent if soft masses arise only at low energy as in the gauge
320: mediation of SUSY breaking~\cite{GM}. This can be seen from the fact
321: that, to correctly determine the scalar VEVs, one has to use the
322: renormalization-group improved potential~\cite{RGpot} in which all
323: running parameters are evaluated at the VEV scale.} It is also found
324: from (\ref{Dcont}) that the normalization of $U(1)_X$ charges does not
325: affect the size of $D$-term contribution.
326:
327: The $D$-term contribution also appears for non-anomalous abelian
328: gauge symmetries. Here we consider a model which contains vector-like
329: fields $Y$ and $\bar Y$ with $U(1)_X$ charges $\pm q_Y$, and a gauge
330: singlet $Z$. Taking a renormalizable and gauge-invariant superpotential
331: \begin{equation}
332: W \;=\; f Z(Y\bar Y - M_X^2),
333: \label{superpot}
334: \end{equation}
335: and introducing soft SUSY-breaking terms, we obtain at the minimum of
336: the scalar potential a VEV
337: \begin{equation}
338: |\langle Y\rangle|^2-|\langle\bar Y\rangle|^2 \;\simeq\;
339: \frac{1}{2q_Y^2g_X^2}\big(m_{\bar Y}^2-m_Y^2\big),
340: \label{diff}
341: \end{equation}
342: where $m_Y^2$ and $m_{\bar Y}^2$ are the soft scalar masses of $Y$ and
343: $\bar Y$, respectively. If one introduces an $R$ symmetry under which
344: the singlet $Z$ has charge $+2$, the superpotential (\ref{superpot})
345: is the most generic one. The abelian gauge symmetry is broken at
346: $\langle Y\rangle\simeq\langle\bar Y\rangle\simeq M_X$. The result
347: (\ref{diff}) is not modified even if one stabilizes scalar fields with
348: other types of superpotentials. When the theory contains a chiral
349: multiplet with a charge $q_i$, the induced mass for its scalar
350: component is given by
351: \begin{equation}
352: m_{D_i}^2 \;=\; q_iq_Yg_X^2\big(|\langle Y\rangle|^2
353: -|\langle\bar Y\rangle|^2\big) \;\simeq\;
354: \frac{q_i}{2q_Y}\big(m_{\bar Y}^2-m_Y^2\big).
355: \end{equation}
356: This has the same form as in Eq.~(\ref{Dcont}) and shares the
357: properties discussed above with the anomalous $U(1)$ case. Note that
358: in this model the $D$-term contribution vanishes as long as soft
359: scalar masses are universal. However unless the exact universality is
360: a result of symmetries of models, the degenerate spectrum is expected
361: to be split by radiative corrections governed by renormalization-group
362: (RG) evolutions. Then non-vanishing $D$-terms are generated.
363:
364: In this way, the $D$-term contribution generically appears in
365: supersymmetric models with abelian gauge symmetries. We note that
366: abelian gauge factors always appear when the rank of gauge group
367: is reduced through gauge symmetry breaking, e.g.\ as in grand unified
368: theories (GUTs). For example, there are several proposals for realistic
369: Yukawa matrices where matter multiplets of different generations
370: belong to different representations of GUT gauge
371: group~\cite{nu}. After gauge symmetry breaking, non-vanishing VEVs of
372: abelian $D$ components induce violation of flavor universality. One
373: important notice in this case is that the $U(1)_X$ gauge couplings
374: cannot be arbitrarily small because they are unified into GUT gauge
375: group which also contains the SM ones.
376:
377: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
378: \subsection{scalar soft masses}
379:
380: In this work, we focus on the effects of $U(1)_X$ gauge symmetry on
381: the scalars with the same quantum numbers of the SM gauge symmetry.
382: We neglect effects from Yukawa interactions. This is justified for the
383: light generations, for which the experimental constraints are severe.
384: When one includes the third generation with large Yukawa couplings
385: (e.g.\ for top quark), flavor violation generated by these Yukawa
386: couplings may be large. Experimental constraints are, however, still
387: weak for the third generation and will be a target of next generation
388: of experiments. We leave it to future investigations.
389:
390: The scalar mass under consideration generally takes the form
391: \begin{equation}
392: m_i^2 \;=\; m_{0_i}^2 + m_g^2 + m_{D_i}^2 + m_{X_i}^2
393: \label{softmass}
394: \end{equation}
395: at the flavor symmetry breaking scale $M_X$. The first term on the
396: right-handed side is an initial value of the scalar mass. This part is
397: expected to be generated by SUSY-breaking dynamics and its structure
398: is highly model-dependent. To focus on the $U(1)_X$ part, we take an
399: assumption that $m_{0_i}^2$ are not dominant sources of flavor
400: violation. In what follows, $m_{0_i}^2$ are taken to be
401: generation-independent for simplicity, but this assumption is not
402: necessary in our concrete models in Section 3.2.
403:
404: The second term $m_g^2$ contains the effects from all flavor-blind
405: gauge interactions such as GUT or SM ones. For example, the RG
406: evolution due to soft gaugino masses is described as
407: \begin{equation}
408: m_g^2 \;=\; \frac{-8}{16\pi^2}\sum_a C^a_2(R) \int^{M_X}_\Lambda
409: \frac{d\mu}{\mu}\, g_a^2 M_{\lambda^a}^2 +\cdots,
410: \end{equation}
411: where $g_a$ and $M_{\lambda^a}$ are the gauge coupling constant and
412: soft gaugino mass of the $G_a$ gauge sector, respectively. The scale
413: $\mu$ denotes the renormalization point and $C^a_2(R)$ is the
414: quadratic Casimir of $G_a$ for the corresponding scalar in the
415: representation $R$. In addition, there is another type of gauge
416: contribution if the theory includes a generation-independent abelian
417: factor like the SM hypercharge. That introduces $D$-term contribution
418: and the Tr($Qm^2$) term in scalar mass RGEs. It is potentially
419: important that low-energy sparticle spectrum is modified in the
420: presence of such extra $U(1)$ symmetries. Generation-blind but
421: intergeneration-dependent $D$-term contribution has been investigated
422: in various contexts~\cite{otherD}. In RG evolutions of scalar masses,
423: the net effect is to shift the low-energy value of hypercharge $D$
424: term which is proportional to Tr($Q_Ym^2$). All of these contributions
425: just scale overall magnitude of soft scalar masses and therefore are
426: harmless to the flavor problems.
427:
428: The remaining two factors, the third and last terms in
429: (\ref{softmass}), are possible flavor-violating terms associated with
430: the $U(1)_X$ gauge symmetry. The form of $m_{D_i}^2$ was given in the
431: previous section,
432: \begin{equation}
433: m_{D_i}^2 \;=\; q_i\langle D\rangle.
434: \label{mD}
435: \end{equation}
436: The VEV $\langle D\rangle$ is written in terms of scalar VEVs which
437: break the flavor gauge symmetry, and the scalar VEVs are determined by
438: their soft masses. On the other hand, the last term represents
439: radiative corrections via RGEs from the $U(1)_X$ gauge interactions
440: and is explicitly given by
441: \begin{equation}
442: \hspace*{1cm}
443: m_{X_i}^2 \;=\; \frac{-8q^2_i}{16\pi^2} \int^{M_X}_\Lambda
444: \frac{d\mu}{\mu}\, g_X^2 M_{\lambda_X}^2 + \frac{2q_i}{16\pi^2}
445: \int^{M_X}_\Lambda \frac{d\mu}{\mu}\, g_X^2 {\rm Tr} (Q_X m^2)
446: +\cdots,
447: \label{mX}
448: \end{equation}
449: where $M_{\lambda_X}$ is the $U(1)_X$ soft gaugino mass, $Q_X$ is the
450: charge operator, and the trace is taken over all scalar fields charged
451: under the $U(1)_X$ symmetry. The second term in (\ref{mX}) is
452: generally non-vanishing for the case of non-universal soft scalar
453: masses and also for anomalous $U(1)_X$ case even with universal scalar
454: masses. However it should be noted that the masses squared
455: $\bar m_i^2$ of symmetry-breaking scalars $\bar\phi_i$ are also
456: affected by the same factor ${\rm Tr}(Q_Xm^2)$ in RG evolutions. That
457: is, $\bar m_i^2$ evaluated at the scale $M_X$ contains a term
458: \begin{equation}
459: \bar m_i^2 \;=\; \cdots + \frac{2\bar q_i}{16\pi^2}
460: \int^{M_X}_\Lambda \frac{d\mu}{\mu}\, g_X^2 {\rm Tr} (Q_X m^2).
461: \end{equation}
462: Interestingly, when substituted into the formula (\ref{Dcont}), this
463: contribution exactly cancels the second term in (\ref{mX}). The same
464: is true for non-anomalous $U(1)$ cases, (2.10). Therefore we can
465: safely drop this type of effects in the following analysis and
466: concentrate on the first term in (\ref{mX}).
467:
468: \medskip
469:
470: We here comment on characteristic features of two flavor-violating
471: contributions from abelian gauge dynamics, $m_{D_i}^2$ and
472: $m_{X_i}^2$. They have rather different properties from each
473: other. The $D$-term contribution $m_{D_i}^2$ is the dominant,
474: tree-level source of flavor violation from the gauged flavor
475: symmetry. The induced masses squared of light scalars are linearly
476: proportional to their $U(1)_X$ charges, but independent of the gauge
477: coupling strength and the symmetry-breaking scale. On the other hand,
478: $m_{X_i}^2$ is the gaugino radiative correction and depends on the
479: values of gauge coupling and symmetry-breaking scale. As a result,
480: although loop-suppressed, this sub-dominant contribution can be
481: enhanced and become comparable with $m_{D_i}^2$. Moreover, $m_{X_i}^2$
482: does not depend on the magnitude of soft scalar masses, unlike
483: $m_{D_i}^2$. This fact implies that even if the apparently dominant
484: contribution $m_{D_i}^2$ were suppressed, for example, by taking the
485: universality assumption, $m_{X_i}^2$ is left unchanged and becomes the
486: main source of flavor violation. Combining these two properties of
487: $m_{X_i}^2$, we find that the $U(1)_X$ gaugino effect is an
488: interesting and unexplored effect in supersymmetric models with flavor
489: $U(1)_X$ symmetries. This issue will be discussed in Section 4.
490:
491: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
492: \section{Suppressing $D$-term contributions}
493:
494: The aim of this section is to discuss how to suppress the tree-level
495: $D$-term contribution which is known to be a dominant source of flavor
496: violation with $U(1)$ flavor symmetry. We first mention several
497: possible approaches to the $D$ problem, some of which have been
498: discussed in the literature. Our concrete models will be presented in
499: Sections 3.2 and 3.3.
500:
501: \subsection{Approaches to the D problem}
502:
503: A well-known solution to the SUSY flavor problems is to take
504: $m_{D_i}^2$ very large, i.e.\ of the order of $O(10)$
505: TeV~\cite{decoupling}. With such heavy scalars, flavor- and
506: CP-violating processes involving these fields are suppressed by their
507: large masses and do not lead to any severe constraints on
508: SUSY-breaking parameters. It is also interesting that together with
509: the FN mechanism, a larger $U(1)_X$ charge simultaneously leads to a
510: larger scalar mass and a smaller Yukawa coupling. This is precisely
511: the situation relevant to the first and second generations on which
512: the experimental constraints are severer. This elegant solution,
513: however, suffers from some unsatisfactory points, including the
514: destabilization of the true electroweak vacuum at two-loop
515: level~\cite{ccb}, fine-tuning of parameters required for the
516: CP-violation constraints~\cite{K}, etc. This solution also rules out
517: supersymmetry as a possible explanation of the experimental result for
518: the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon.
519:
520: The $D$ problem becomes less severe if one assigns the same $U(1)_X$
521: charge to the matter fields in the same representation under the SM
522: gauge symmetry. It was pointed out that universal charges for
523: three-generation left-handed leptons can explain the large flavor
524: mixing observed at the neutrino experiments (but with a bit large
525: value of $U_{e3}$ matrix element~\cite{anarchy}). Within the FN
526: mechanism, however, this could only be applied to the lepton
527: sector. Mass hierarchy and small flavor mixing in the quark sector are
528: realized by assigning different $U(1)_X$ quantum numbers.
529:
530: Another possibility is a cancellation of $m_{D_i}^2$ with other
531: contributions to scalar masses. An obvious choice comes from
532: superpotential $F$-terms. It has been argued that $F$- and $D$-term
533: effects add up to zero in specific situations~\cite{anom1,anom2}. A
534: cancellation may occur in $D$-term itself if there are several scalar
535: fields developing non-vanishing VEVs. However cancellation of more than
536: one flavor-violating effects seems unnatural unless it follows from
537: some underlying mechanism.
538:
539: Now, there is a simple and natural possibility which, to our
540: knowledge, has not been addressed in the literature. As was seen in
541: the previous section, the $D$-term contribution is proportional to a
542: deviation from the $D$-flat direction, and such deviation is
543: determined by the soft masses of the scalars that acquire flavor
544: symmetry-breaking VEVs. Accordingly, if these soft masses can be
545: reduced, the $D$-flat direction is not lifted and $D$-term
546: contributions become negligible. It is this possibility that we shall
547: pursue in the following part of this section. We will present two
548: illustrative examples where our idea can be realized. The point is to
549: separate the $U(1)_X$-breaking sector from the SUSY-breaking
550: sector. We construct toy models in which this separation is achieved
551: in a geometrical or dynamical way. In what follows, we assume, for
552: simplicity of presentations, that only a single field $\chi$ obtains a
553: VEV of the $U(1)_X$ flavor symmetry breaking.
554:
555: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
556: \subsection{Suppression via extra dimensions}
557:
558: We now describe how our idea of suppressing $D$-term contributions can
559: be realized by considering a suitable field configuration in
560: higher-dimensional spacetime. For definiteness, we consider a
561: five-dimensional theory and suppose that there are two
562: four-dimensional branes at different positions in the fifth dimension;
563: the visible-sector matter fields, i.e.\ quarks and leptons, are
564: assumed to be confined on one brane, while supersymmetry breaking
565: occurs on another brane (called the hidden brane). As was pointed out
566: in Ref.~\cite{RS}, this setup naturally explains the absence of
567: uncontrollable gravity-mediated effects including large
568: flavor-violating ones, provided that there is no light mode whose
569: wavelength is longer than the distance between the two branes. This is
570: one of the most attractive points of considering the presence of
571: additional dimensions. However the $D$-term contribution to scalar
572: masses can be added~\cite{DAM}. If flavor $U(1)_X$ gauge symmetries
573: are introduced in this framework, suppressing their $D$ terms is
574: required.
575:
576: We apply the idea of geometrical splitting to separate the flavor
577: symmetry-breaking sector from SUSY-breaking one. Specifically we
578: require that, in addition to the quarks and leptons, the $\chi$ field
579: is also confined to the visible brane. This is a setup crucial for our
580: scenarios. We further suppose that the $U(1)_X$ vector multiplet is
581: also confined on the visible brane. This is just a technical
582: assumption for simplifying discussion. If $U(1)_X$ is put in the bulk,
583: the supersymmetric five-dimensional abelian gauge theory has a rich
584: structure of vacua, which requires complicated analyses. We do not
585: pursue this possibility in this paper. On the other hand, there are
586: two choices for the SM gauge sector; on the visible brane or in the
587: bulk.
588:
589: First let us consider the SM gauge multiplets on the visible brane. In
590: this case, all the SM fields and $\chi$ are on the visible
591: brane. Though couplings to the hidden brane are suppressed, soft terms
592: do not completely vanish. It has been shown that SUSY-breaking effects
593: are transmitted at loop level to the visible sector via superconformal
594: anomaly~\cite{AM}. The anomaly-mediated spectrum is roughly given by
595: \begin{eqnarray}
596: \begin{array}{ccl}
597: M_{\lambda_{\rm SM}} \;\sim\;
598: \displaystyle{\frac{g_{\rm SM}^2}{16\pi^2}m_{3/2}},
599: && m_{\rm SM}^2 \;\sim\; \bigg(
600: \displaystyle{\frac{g_{\rm SM}^2}{16\pi^2}m_{3/2}}\bigg)^2, \\[4mm]
601: M_{\lambda_X} \;\sim\; \displaystyle{\frac{g_X^2}{16\pi^2}m_{3/2}},
602: && m_\chi^2 \;\sim\;
603: \bigg(\displaystyle{\frac{g_X^2}{16\pi^2}m_{3/2}}\bigg)^2,
604: \label{3AM}
605: \end{array}
606: \end{eqnarray}
607: where $M_{\lambda_{\rm SM}}$, $m_{\rm SM}^2$ and $g_{\rm SM}$ are the
608: gaugino masses, sfermion masses, and the gauge coupling constants,
609: respectively, all in the SM sector, and $m_{3/2}$ is the gravitino
610: mass. Notice that the absence of tree-level contribution to $m^2_\chi$
611: is guaranteed in our setup thanks to the separation of $\chi$ from
612: SUSY breaking. Moreover the singlet $\chi$ receives only the soft
613: scalar mass squared proportional to $g_X^4$. Therefore with a
614: sufficiently small value of the gauge coupling $g_X$, $m_\chi^2$ is
615: negligibly small which in turn implies that the $D$-term contribution
616: is suppressed.\footnote{In the anomaly mediation scenario, there is a
617: case where $D$-term contribution is offset by threshold corrections at
618: leading order~\cite{KSS}.}
619: Actually enough suppression of $D$-term flavor violations requires a
620: condition roughly estimated as
621: \begin{equation}
622: g_X^4 \;\lsim\; \epsilon\,g_{\rm SM}^4.
623: \label{EDgb}
624: \end{equation}
625: The factor $\epsilon$ denotes an order of tuning in the sfermion
626: masses in order to satisfy the constraints from flavor physics
627: experiments. For example, a limit from the $K^0$-$\bar K^0$ mixing
628: phenomena implies $\epsilon\sim 10^{-(2-3)}$. This constraint is
629: satisfied with a natural value of $g_X$ comparable to $g_{\rm SM}$.
630:
631: Another interesting pattern of spectrum is obtained by assuming that
632: the SM gauge multiplets reside in the five-dimensional bulk and other
633: fields are stuck on the visible brane. This situation (for the SM
634: sector) corresponds to gaugino-mediated supersymmetry
635: breaking~\cite{gauM}. The sparticle spectrum besides $D$-term
636: contributions is given by
637: \begin{eqnarray}
638: \begin{array}{ccl}
639: M_{\lambda_{\rm SM}} \;\sim\;
640: \displaystyle{\frac{1}{\sqrt{M_5R}}m_{3/2}}, && m_{\rm SM}^2
641: \;\sim\; \displaystyle{\frac{g_{\rm SM}^2}{16\pi^2}
642: M_{\lambda_{\rm SM}}^2 \ln(M_SR)
643: +\bigg(\frac{g_{\rm SM}^2}{16\pi^2}m_{3/2}\bigg)^2}, \\[4mm]
644: M_{\lambda_X} \;\sim\; \displaystyle{\frac{g_X^2}{16\pi^2}m_{3/2}},
645: && m_\chi^2 \;\sim\;
646: \bigg(\displaystyle{\frac{g_X^2}{16\pi^2}m_{3/2}}\bigg)^2,
647: \end{array}
648: \end{eqnarray}
649: where $M_5$, $M_S$ and $R$ are the five-dimensional Planck mass,
650: SUSY-breaking scale, and the compactification radius of the fifth
651: dimension, respectively. The spectrum of the $U(1)_X$ sector,
652: $M_{\lambda_X}$ and $m_\chi^2$, are the same as in (\ref{3AM}). In the
653: formula for the squark and slepton masses squared $m^2_{\rm SM}$, the
654: first term represents gaugino-mediated contribution through RGEs
655: [corresponding to $m_g^2$ in Eq.~(\ref{softmass})] and the last term
656: is that of anomaly mediation. The both terms are
657: generation-independent. The anomaly mediation would be dominant if
658: $g_{\rm SM}^2>16\pi^2/(M_5R)\ln(M_SR)$ were satisfied. However this
659: inequality requires too large value of $R$ even when one assumes the
660: five-dimensional theory is strongly coupled. In other words, it
661: requires unrealistically small $g_{\rm SM}$. Therefore for the SM
662: gauge sector, the gaugino-mediated contribution is expected to be
663: always larger than that of anomaly mediation. As a result, we find
664: that flavor violation induced by the $D$-term contribution is
665: suppressed if
666: \begin{equation}
667: g_X^4 \;\lsim\; \epsilon\, \frac{16\pi^2g_{\rm SM}^2}{M_5R}\ln(M_SR).
668: \end{equation}
669: This can be easily fulfilled with an $O(1)$ gauge coupling $g_X$,
670: provided $g_{\rm SM}$ is properly reproduced following from the naive
671: dimensional analysis~\cite{NDA}.
672:
673: In this way, we conclude that $D$-term contribution can indeed be
674: suppressed in the higher-dimensional framework without conflicting
675: with other phenomenological requirements such as FCNC constraints and
676: naturalness. Other field configurations or SUSY-breaking mechanisms in
677: higher dimensions could also lead to a similar conclusion.
678:
679: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
680: \subsection{Suppression via superconformal dynamics}
681:
682: Recently there has been proposed a new approach for realizing
683: hierarchical Yukawa matrices by coupling the SM sector to
684: superconformal (SC) gauge theories. See Ref.~\cite{NS1} for the
685: original proposal and also Ref.~\cite{KNT} for another. The SC sectors
686: are strongly coupled and assumed to have infrared fixed
687: points~\cite{irfp}. In this type of scenarios, the SM matter fields
688: couple to the SC sectors and gain large anomalous dimensions through
689: the strong SC dynamics. As a result, their Yukawa couplings are
690: suppressed at the scale where the SC sectors decouple from the SM
691: sector.
692:
693: The SC fixed points also have an interesting implication for SUSY
694: breaking. The infrared convergence property of the fixed points
695: implies that SUSY-breaking scalar masses are also suppressed towards
696: the infrared~\cite{SCsoft}.\footnote{This kind of behavior was first
697: noticed in softly-broken SUSY QCD~\cite{SQCD}.}
698: Below the SC decoupling scale, scalar masses receive radiative
699: corrections due to soft gaugino masses. If this mechanism is applied
700: to squarks and sleptons, their masses are expected to be approximately
701: degenerate at low energy. Such possibility was mentioned in
702: Ref.~\cite{NS1} and detailed studies have been
703: done~\cite{SCsoft,KNNT}, where it was argued that a certain amount of
704: degeneracy in sfermion masses can be obtained. (See also
705: Ref.~\cite{LS} for a different SC approach.)
706:
707: Let us discuss the $D$-term contribution in the SC framework. As
708: stated before, the point to avoid $D$-term flavor violation is to keep
709: the $U(1)_X$-breaking sector away from the SUSY-breaking one. This can
710: be accomplished if SC dynamics couples to the $\chi$ field whose VEV
711: breaks the flavor symmetry and generates flavor-dependent sfermion
712: masses. Then strongly-coupled SC dynamics suppresses the soft mass of
713: $\chi$ and consequently the $D$-term contribution to charged sfermion
714: masses. In the following, we suppose for simplicity that the SC sector
715: does not couple to the SM fields; the hierarchical structure of Yukawa
716: couplings are generated by the conventional FN mechanism.
717:
718: Now, we present a toy model by introducing a SC gauge group
719: $G_{\rm SC}$ in addition to the SM gauge and $U(1)_X$ flavor
720: symmetries. Consider the following cubic superpotential term
721: \begin{equation}
722: W \;=\; h \chi\Phi\bar\Phi,
723: \label{W}
724: \end{equation}
725: where $\Phi$ and $\bar \Phi$ belong to non-trivial representations
726: under $G_{\rm SC}$. The SM fields are $G_{\rm SC}$-singlets while
727: $\chi$ couples to the SC sector through the above $W$. The operator
728: $\Phi\bar\Phi$ has a nonzero $U(1)_X$ charge so that (\ref{W}) is
729: gauge invariant. Let us suppose that as in Section~2, the SM-singlet
730: field $\chi$ develops a non-vanishing VEV $\langle\chi\rangle$ which
731: breaks the flavor symmetry and generates effective Yukawa couplings
732: through non-renormalizable operators. An interesting point of the
733: present setup is that the required decoupling of the SC sector is
734: achieved by the same VEV $\langle\chi\rangle$, giving a mass term for
735: $\Phi$ and $\bar\Phi$. Thus both the SC and $U(1)_X$ sectors decouple
736: from the SM one around the scale of $M_X$ for $h=O(1)$.
737:
738: Strong $G_{\rm SC}$ interactions force the trilinear coupling $h$ as
739: well as the $G_{\rm SC}$ gauge coupling to approach their infrared
740: fixed-point values. Hence the field $\chi$ gains a large and positive
741: anomalous dimension~$\gamma_\chi$. For simplicity, we assume that the
742: couplings at a cutoff scale $\Lambda$ are close to their fixed-point
743: values. If we neglect perturbatively small couplings in the SM sector,
744: SUSY-breaking scalar masses are suppressed (near the SC fixed point)
745: according to the following form of evolution equations~\cite{SCsoft}
746: \begin{equation}
747: \mu\frac{dm^2_a}{d\mu} \;=\; {\cal M}_{ab}\,m^2_b,
748: \label{ee}
749: \end{equation}
750: where the index $b$ runs over all fields coupled to the SC sector
751: including the $\chi$ field. The matrix ${\cal M}_{ab}$ can be
752: calculated by use of the Grassmannian expansion
753: method~\cite{softbeta}, given the anomalous dimensions $\gamma_a$ as
754: the functions of coupling constants in the model. Since
755: ${\cal M}_{ab}$ is determined by the first derivative of $\gamma_a$,
756: the infrared convergence property of the fixed points guarantees that
757: this matrix is positive definite. It follows that certain combinations
758: of scalar masses rapidly become suppressed through the RG evolution
759: from $\Lambda$ down to the the SC-decoupling scale
760: $\langle\chi\rangle$. Specifically, the scalar mass squared $m^2_\chi$
761: of the $\chi$ field behaves like
762: \begin{equation}
763: m^2_\chi(\langle\chi\rangle) \;\simeq\; \bigg(
764: \frac{\langle\chi\rangle}{\Lambda}\bigg)^{\Gamma_\chi}
765: m^2_\chi(\Lambda), \qquad
766: \Gamma_\chi\;\approx\;\gamma_\chi\;=\;O(1).
767: \label{mchi}
768: \end{equation}
769: Here the damping factor $\Gamma_\chi$ is related to the eigenvalues
770: of ${\cal M}_{ab}$ and is as large as $\gamma_\chi=O(1)$. In this way,
771: the required separation of the flavor-breaking sector from the
772: SUSY-breaking one can be realized by a strong dynamics of
773: four-dimensional SC gauge theory. As a result, the $D$-term
774: contribution can be reduced for any value of SUSY-breaking parameters
775: at the cutoff scale.
776:
777: \medskip
778:
779: It is important, however, to take into account two effects that make
780: the desired suppression (\ref{mchi}) insufficient. One is the
781: violation of SC symmetry due to the $U(1)_X$ gauge interaction (as
782: well as the SM gauge interactions). See Ref.~\cite{KNNT} for a
783: detailed discussion on this point. If we include the 1-loop correction
784: from the $U(1)_X$ sector, the evolution equation (\ref{ee}) is
785: modified into
786: \begin{equation}
787: \mu\frac{dm^2_a}{d\mu} \;=\; {\cal M}_{ab}\,m^2_b
788: -\frac{8q_a^2g_X^2}{16\pi^2}\,M^2_{\lambda_X}+\cdots.
789: \end{equation}
790: Note that a model-dependent factor proportional to
791: $g_X^2{\rm Tr}(Q_Xm^2)$ can safely be dropped in discussing $D$-term
792: induced scalar masses, as was shown in Section~2.2. The above type of
793: correction makes the suppression of $m^2_\chi$ incomplete, but
794: obviously such RG effect is less significant if the gauge coupling
795: $g_X$ and soft gaugino mass $M_{\lambda_X}$ are not so large.
796:
797: Another and more significant effect comes from the fact that the RG
798: running distance in the SC regime is finite. This effect is more
799: important than the previous one because the running distance is
800: related to the hierarchy of Yukawa couplings. In the FN models
801: (\ref{FNspot}), the effective Yukawa couplings $y_{ij}'$ at the
802: SC-decoupling scale are now suppressed, in addition to the usual
803: factor $(\langle\chi\rangle/\Lambda)^{n_{ij}}$, by the large
804: wavefunction renormalization of $\chi$ and are given by
805: \begin{equation}
806: y_{ij}' \;\simeq\;
807: \bigg(\frac{\langle\chi\rangle}{\Lambda}\bigg)^{n_{ij}}
808: \bigg(\frac{\langle\chi\rangle}{\Lambda}\bigg)^{n_{ij}
809: \gamma_\chi/2}\!y_{ij} \;\equiv\;
810: \big(\bar\lambda\big)^{n_{ij}}y_{ij}.
811: \end{equation}
812: Thus the degrees of suppression for Yukawa couplings and scalar masses
813: are correlated to each other. In particular, it is a non-trivial issue
814: whether $m^2_\chi$ becomes small enough to suppress FCNC with a fixed
815: Yukawa hierarchy $\bar\lambda$, i.e.\ with a fixed length of the SC
816: region. Given a value of $\bar\lambda$, the $\chi$ scalar mass
817: (\ref{mchi}) is written as
818: \begin{equation}
819: m^2_\chi(\langle\chi\rangle) \;\simeq\;
820: (\bar\lambda)^{\frac{2\Gamma_\chi}{2+\gamma_\chi}}\,
821: m^2_\chi(\Lambda).
822: \label{dev}
823: \end{equation}
824: The deviation (\ref{dev}) from the exact convergence to the conformal
825: fixed point generates the $D$-term contribution to sfermion
826: masses. That implies the FCNC constraint for the first and second
827: generation squarks
828: \begin{equation}
829: (\bar\lambda)^{1+\frac{2\Gamma_\chi}{2+\gamma_\chi}}
830: \left[\frac{m^2_\chi(\Lambda)}{m^2_{\rm ave}}\right] \;\lsim\;
831: 10^{-2}\bigg(\frac{m_{\rm ave}}{500\, {\rm GeV}}\bigg),
832: \end{equation}
833: where the extra factor of $\bar\lambda^1$ arises when we diagonalize
834: the quark mass matrices. The averaged squark mass $m_{\rm ave}$
835: contains initial values of squark masses at high energy and radiative
836: corrections from the SM gauginos. The above constraint requires that
837: the damping factor $\Gamma_\chi$ has an appropriately large
838: value. Otherwise, the $D$ problem will still be there; a high-energy
839: value of $m^2_\chi$ has to be small compared to other SUSY-breaking
840: parameters. Similar remarks apply also to the slepton sector.
841:
842: In this way, suppressing the $D$-term can in principle be achieved
843: within four-dimensional framework, but for the mechanism discussed in
844: this subsection to work in practice, it is necessary to have a
845: concrete model of the SC sector in which $\Gamma_\chi$ is as large as
846: possible whereas $\gamma_\chi$ is a reasonably small.
847:
848: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
849: \section{Radiative corrections from flavor sector}
850:
851: In the previous section, we have discussed the dominant tree-level
852: $D$-term contribution which must be suppressed for models to be
853: phenomenologically viable. We have illustrated that the suppression
854: can be achieved by use of four-dimensional SC dynamics as well as a
855: geometrical setup in extra-dimensional scenarios. It is, however,
856: important to notice that even if the $D$-term contribution is
857: sufficiently reduced, radiative corrections due to the $U(1)_X$
858: gaugino may lead to sizable non-degeneracy of sfermion masses, because
859: the corrections depend on their quantum numbers and then become
860: flavor-dependent. As shown in Section 2.2, the only relevant type of
861: radiative corrections comes from the $U(1)_X$ soft gaugino mass. In
862: this section, we study this type of corrections, supposing that
863: tree-level $D$-term contribution is already suppressed.
864:
865: We again assume for simplicity that there is only a single field
866: $\chi$ which breaks the gauged $U(1)_X$ flavor symmetry. As was
867: discussed in Eqs.~(\ref{mD}) and (\ref{mX}), the radiative correction
868: to sfermion masses is given by
869: \begin{eqnarray}
870: m^2_{X_i} \;=\; \frac{-8}{16\pi^2}(q_i^2+q_\chi^2q_i)
871: \int^{M_X}_\Lambda \frac{d\mu}{\mu}\, g_X^2 M^2_{\lambda_X},
872: \label{mXi}
873: \end{eqnarray}
874: where $\Lambda$ is a cutoff which we take to be the Planck scale in
875: the following. The first term on the right-handed side originates from
876: a direct effect of the $U(1)_X$ gaugino in the RGE of sfermion
877: masses. The second term is obtained through the $D$-term contribution
878: with the RGE effect on $m^2_\chi$ included. Since the scalar masses
879: (\ref{mXi}) are the only sources of flavor dependence, the mass
880: difference between the scalars with different quantum numbers $q_i$
881: and $q_j$ is scale invariant and found to be
882: \begin{eqnarray}
883: m^2_i-m^2_j \;=\; \frac{2}{b_X}(q_i-q_j)(q_i+q_j+q_\chi^2)
884: \Big[M^2_{\lambda_X}(\Lambda)-M^2_{\lambda_X}(M_X)\Big].
885: \label{masdif}
886: \end{eqnarray}
887: The beta-function coefficient $b_X$ for $g_X$ is determined once
888: $U(1)_X$ charge assignment is specified. The above mass difference can
889: be larger than those discussed in the previous section, that is, a
890: small deviation from the complete suppression of $D$-term contributions.
891:
892: Now let us study low-energy consequences of the gaugino radiative
893: correction (\ref{masdif}). The degeneracy of sfermion masses is
894: estimated by a ratio of off-diagonal element of scalar mass matrix to
895: the averaged mass $m_{\rm ave}$
896: \begin{equation}
897: \delta_{ij} \;\equiv\; \frac{V^*_{\;ki}m^2_kV_{kj}}{m^2_{\rm ave}},
898: \end{equation}
899: where the matrix $V$ rotates the flavor basis so that Yukawa matrix is
900: diagonal. In the case of flavor-independent masses ($q_i=q_j$),
901: $\delta_{ij}$ vanishes due to the unitarity. In the hierarchical case,
902: the degeneracy is given by
903: \begin{eqnarray}
904: \delta_{ij} &\simeq& \lambda^{|q_i-q_j|}
905: \frac{m^2_i-m^2_j}{m^2_{\rm ave}}.
906: \label{dij}
907: \end{eqnarray}
908: Since the low-energy scalar masses take the form (\ref{softmass}),
909: $m^2_{\rm ave}$ is given by
910: \begin{equation}
911: m^2_{\rm ave} \;=\; m_0^2+m_G^2+m_{\rm SM}^2+(m^2_{X_i}+m^2_{X_j})/2,
912: \end{equation}
913: where $m_0^2$ is the initial value (for which we take a conservative
914: assumption of the universality), and $m^2_G$ and $m^2_{\rm SM}$ are
915: the GUT and SUSY SM contributions,
916: \begin{eqnarray}
917: m_G^2 &=& \frac{2C^G_2(R)}{b_G}\Big[M^2_{\lambda_G}(\Lambda)
918: -M^2_{\lambda_G}(M_G)\Big], \\
919: m_{\rm SM}^2 &=& \sum_{a=1,2,3} \frac{2C^a_2(R)}{b^a_{\rm SM}}
920: \Big[M^2_{\lambda^a_{\rm SM}}(M_G)
921: -M^2_{\lambda^a_{\rm SM}}(M_S)\Big],
922: \end{eqnarray}
923: where $b$'s are the beta function coefficients of the gauge couplings,
924: and $M_G$ is the GUT-breaking scale. In the following analysis, we
925: will take a simplifying assumption that the SM gaugino masses unify to
926: $M_{\lambda_{\rm G}}$ at the $M_G$ scale.
927:
928: As an illustrative example, we will focus on the first and second
929: families and take their $U(1)_X$ charges as $q_1=3$ and $q_2=2$ (and
930: $q_\chi=-1$). For these first two generations, there are severe
931: experimental constraints on scalar masses~\cite{FCNC}. As for the
932: squark sector, the limits on the flavor-changing scalar masses from
933: the Kaon system are roughly given by
934: \begin{eqnarray}
935: \delta^Q_{12} &\lsim& 10^{-2}\,
936: \bigg(\frac{m_{\rm ave}}{500\, {\rm GeV}}\bigg), \label{kaon1} \\
937: \sqrt{\delta^Q_{12}\,\delta^D_{12}} &\lsim& 10^{-3}\,
938: \bigg(\frac{m_{\rm ave}}{500\, {\rm GeV}}\bigg).
939: \label{kaon2}
940: \end{eqnarray}
941: The former bound (\ref{kaon1}) is milder than (\ref{kaon2}) by an
942: order of magnitude, but is relevant for the case motivated by recent
943: analyses of fermion mass matrices where the Yukawa hierarchy is
944: ascribed to the structure of the matter fields in 10-dimensional
945: representation of $SU(5)$~\cite{su5-10}. For the sleptons, the
946: $\mu\to e\gamma$ process requires
947: \begin{equation}
948: \delta^L_{12} \;\lsim\; 10^{-3}\,
949: \bigg(\frac{m_{\rm ave}}{100\, {\rm GeV}}\bigg)^2.
950: \label{mue}
951: \end{equation}
952: The constraint on the right-handed slepton $\delta^E_{12}$ is rather
953: weak unless the trilinear couplings for the sleptons are very
954: large. This is mainly because they interact only to the weak $U(1)$
955: hypercharge.
956:
957: The above experimental upper bounds turn out to put upper bounds to
958: $U(1)_X$ gauge effects (the gauge coupling $g_X$ and the gaugino mass
959: $M_{\lambda_X}$). Assuming the minimal supersymmetric SM below the GUT
960: scale, there remain only a few free parameters in the mass difference
961: (\ref{dij}). Figure~\ref{K} shows typical upper bounds on the
962: parameters in the $U(1)_X$ sector.
963: \begin{figure}[htbp]
964: \begin{center}
965: \epsfxsize=10cm \ \epsfbox{q.eps}
966: \put(7,16){{\large $\frac{g_X^2}{g_G^2}$}($\Lambda$)}
967: \put(-274,190){%
968: {\large $\frac{M_{\lambda_X}}{M_{\lambda_G}}$}($\Lambda$)}
969: \caption{The upper bounds from $K^0$-$\bar K^0$ on the $U(1)_X$ gauge
970: coupling and soft gaugino mass at the Planck scale. The experimentally
971: allowed region is below each line. The dashed and solid lines
972: represent the constraints from (\ref{kaon1}) and (\ref{kaon2}),
973: respectively, with $b_X=100$ (bold) and $b_X=300$ (thin line). In this
974: figure we take $M_{\lambda_{\rm SM}}(M_G)=300$ GeV and $m_0=0$. }
975: \label{K}
976: \end{center}
977: \end{figure}
978: The vertical axis denotes the ratio of $M_{\lambda_X}$ to the GUT
979: gaugino soft mass estimated at the Planck scale, and the horizontal
980: one represents $g_X^2/g_G^2(\Lambda)$. The left-lower regions below
981: the lines are allowed by the FCNC experiments (\ref{kaon1}) and
982: (\ref{kaon2}). In the figure, we take as an input the unified gaugino
983: mass $M_{\lambda^a_{\rm SM}}(M_G)=300$ GeV, which is suitable for the
984: naturalness criterion and experimental lower bounds of photino and
985: slepton masses. Effects of taking other values of
986: $M_{\lambda_{\rm SM}}$ almost cancel in the ratios $\delta$'s and only
987: change the overall scale of $m_{\rm ave}$ on the right-handed sides of
988: (\ref{kaon1})--(\ref{mue}). In Fig.~\ref{L}, we also plot similar
989: experimental constraints derived from (\ref{mue}).
990: \begin{figure}[htbp]
991: \begin{center}
992: \epsfxsize=10cm \ \epsfbox{l.eps}
993: \put(7,13){{\large $\frac{g_X^2}{g_G^2}$}($\Lambda$)}
994: \put(-274,190){%
995: {\large $\frac{M_{\lambda_X}}{M_{\lambda_G}}$}($\Lambda$)}
996: \caption{The upper bounds from $\mu\to e\gamma$ on the $U(1)_X$ gauge
997: coupling and soft gaugino mass at the Planck scale. The others are the
998: same as in Figure~\ref{K}.}
999: \label{L}
1000: \end{center}
1001: \end{figure}
1002: These two figures show that there are non-trivial limits on the
1003: parameters of the $U(1)_X$ sector; the experimental results rule out
1004: large values of the gauge coupling and soft gaugino mass compared to those
1005: of the SM sector. The $U(1)_X$ soft gaugino mass has an upper bound
1006: which is universal in a relatively wide range of $g_X$, except for a
1007: small $g_X$ case. For example, weakly-coupled heterotic string theory
1008: predicts equal gaugino soft masses $M_{\lambda_G}=M_{\lambda_X}$ at
1009: high energy, and then a tiny value of $g_X$ is required.
1010:
1011: Given fixed values of gauge couplings and gaugino masses, the FCNC
1012: constraints give a lower bound for the $U(1)_X$ gauge beta function
1013: $b_X$. Note that models with abelian flavor symmetry generally contain
1014: a number of charged fields to realize large Yukawa hierarchy (and also
1015: to stabilize GUT Higgs potential). The $U(1)_X$ gauge beta-function
1016: can therefore be relatively large. In Figs.~\ref{K2} and~\ref{L2}, we
1017: show typical lower bounds for $b_X$ with the unification boundary
1018: conditions $g_G=g_X$ and $M_{\lambda_G}=M_{\lambda_X}$ at the Planck
1019: scale.
1020: \begin{figure}[htbp]
1021: \begin{center}
1022: \epsfxsize=10cm \ \epsfbox{q2.eps}
1023: \put(9,10){$m_0$}
1024: \put(-260,190){$b_X$}
1025: \caption{The lower bounds of $b_X$ from the $K^0$-$\bar K^0$ constraint
1026: (\ref{kaon2}). The horizontal axis denotes the initial universal
1027: scalar soft mass $m_0$. The bold (thin) line correspond to the case
1028: $g_G^2(\Lambda)/4\pi^2=1/20$ (1/10). We assume
1029: $M_{\lambda_G}(M_G)=300$ GeV and the boundary conditions $g_G=g_X$ and
1030: $M_{\lambda_G}=M_{\lambda_X}$ at the Planck scale.}
1031: \label{K2}
1032: \end{center}
1033: \end{figure}
1034: \begin{figure}[htbp]
1035: \begin{center}
1036: \epsfxsize=10cm \ \epsfbox{l2.eps}
1037: \put(9,10){$m_0$}
1038: \put(-260,190){$b_X$}
1039: \caption{Similar lower bounds of $b_X$ from the $\mu\to e\gamma$
1040: constraint (\ref{mue}).}
1041: \label{L2}
1042: \end{center}
1043: \end{figure}
1044: The two types of lines in the figures represent the cases
1045: $g_G^2(\Lambda)/4\pi=1/20$ (bold) and 1/20 (thin), respectively. The
1046: horizontal axis denotes the initial universal scalar soft mass $m_0$
1047: which is given at the Planck scale by some SUSY-breaking dynamics and
1048: then could not be much larger than gaugino masses. For the sleptons
1049: (Fig.~\ref{L2}), introducing a nonzero $m_0$ considerably changes the
1050: $b_X$ bounds than in the squark sector (Fig.~\ref{K2}). We find from
1051: these figures that for a fixed model (a fixed $b_X$), a rather small
1052: value of $g_X$ and/or a large initial scalar mass $m_0$ must be
1053: satisfied. The constraints derived in this section generically exist
1054: and are independent of mechanisms for avoiding flavor-violating
1055: tree-level $D$ terms. Therefore they could cast a serious problem on
1056: the construction of realistic flavor $U(1)_X$ models from high-energy
1057: fundamental theories.
1058:
1059: \medskip
1060:
1061: In Section 3, we have found that the dominant $D$-term contribution
1062: can be suppressed by use of particular setups if the $U(1)_X$ gauge
1063: coupling satisfies a weak condition like (\ref{EDgb}). The bounds
1064: discussed here may be stronger than those obtained in Section
1065: 3. Furthermore the bounds from the radiative corrections are roughly
1066: model-independent and can be applied to any dynamics suppressing
1067: $D$-term contribution. For example, in the extra-dimensional models in
1068: Section 3.2, the $U(1)_X$ vector multiplet is taken to be stuck on the
1069: visible brane. Then a suppressed initial value of $U(1)_X$ soft
1070: gaugino mass is obtained because of the absence of local operators
1071: with which the gaugino directly couples to the SUSY-breaking
1072: brane. For the superconformal scenarios in Section 3.3, the
1073: suppression of $M_{\lambda_X}$ cannot naively be achieved due to the
1074: fact that an abelian factor does not have any infrared fixed point of
1075: the gauge coupling. Embedding it to a non-abelian gauge group may cure
1076: the problem, but in that case it might be non-trivial to construct
1077: realistic Yukawa hierarchy.
1078:
1079: Our analysis here shows that flavor-dependent radiative corrections
1080: due to the $U(1)_X$ gaugino is important from a viewpoint of
1081: experimental constraints on flavor physics. In this paper we have only
1082: discussed flavor-violating scalar masses induced by gauged abelian
1083: flavor symmetries. In addition to this, CP-violation phenomena, RGE
1084: effects on scalar trilinear couplings, etc.\ would give severer bounds
1085: on gauged flavor symmetries. Those issues will be discussed elsewhere.
1086:
1087: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1088: \section{Summary}
1089:
1090: We have studied sfermion masses in supersymmetric models with gauged
1091: $U(1)$ flavor symmetries. It has been known that these models
1092: generally suffer from large flavor-violating effects due to tree-level
1093: sfermion masses proportional to individual $U(1)$ quantum numbers. We
1094: have presented a simple idea for suppressing the $D$-term
1095: contribution; a separation of flavor-symmetry breaking from
1096: supersymmetry breaking. Illustrative models have been described by
1097: extra-dimensional frameworks or strongly-coupled superconformal dynamics.
1098:
1099: We have also pointed out that generation-dependent radiative
1100: corrections due to the $U(1)$ soft gaugino mass lead to sizable
1101: non-degeneracy in sfermion masses. The corrections are also dangerous
1102: to the FCNC constraints and put a non-trivial limit on the parameters
1103: in the flavor symmetry sector. Our analysis indicates that it is
1104: preferable to have the $U(1)$ gauge coupling and soft gaugino mass as
1105: small as possible. Required small values of parameters could be
1106: obtained, for example in extra-dimensional models, by volume
1107: suppression factors or strong RGE effects.
1108:
1109: We add a remark that none of the flavor-violating effects is present
1110: if one could take the global limit $g\to 0$. However if one takes
1111: serious the argument that any global symmetry is not preserved in the
1112: presence of quantum gravity, one must seek for solutions to avoid the
1113: flavor-violating $U(1)$ gauge contributions. Moreover, it seems
1114: difficult to experimentally test such models with global flavor
1115: symmetry. On the other hand, the gauged flavor symmetry will provide
1116: us with detectable signatures especially through the flavor-dependent
1117: radiative corrections from $U(1)$ gaugino.
1118:
1119: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1120: \subsection*{Acknowledgments}
1121:
1122: The authors thank the Yukawa Institute for Theoretical Physics at
1123: Kyoto University, where a portion of this work was carried out during
1124: the YITP-W-02-02 on "Progress in Particle Physics". T.~K.\ and K.~Y.\
1125: are supported in part by the Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research
1126: No.~14540256 and the Grant-in-Aid No.~07864, respectively, from the
1127: Ministry of Education, Science, Sports and Culture, Japan.
1128:
1129: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1130: \newpage
1131: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
1132: \bibitem{FCNC}
1133: S.~Dimopoulos and H.~Georgi, {\sl Nucl.~Phys.} {\bf B193} (1981) 150;
1134: J.~Ellis and D.V.~Nanopoulos, {\sl Phys.~Lett.} {\bf 110B} (1981) 44;
1135: F.~Gabbiani and A.~Masiero, {\sl Nucl.~Phys.} {\bf B322} (1989) 235;
1136: J.S.~Hagelin, S.~Kelley and T.~Tanaka, {\sl Nucl.~Phys.} {\bf 415}
1137: (1994) 293; F.~Gabbiani, E.~Gabrielli, A.~Masiero and L.~Silvestrini,
1138: {\sl Nucl.~Phys.} {\bf B477} (1996) 321; M.~Misiak, S.~Pokorski and
1139: J.~Rosiek, hep-ph/9703442.
1140: \bibitem{gravity}
1141: A.H.~Chamseddine, R.~Arnowitt and P.~Nath, {\sl Phys.~Rev.~Lett.}
1142: {\bf 49} (1982) 970; R.~Barbieri, S.~Ferrara and C.A.~Savoy,
1143: {\sl Phys.~Lett.} {\bf 119B} (1982) 343; L.J.~Hall, J.~Lykken and
1144: S.~Weinberg, {\sl Phys.~Rev.} {\bf D27} (1983) 2359; H.P.~Nilles,
1145: {\sl Phys.~Rept.} {\bf 110} (1984) 1.
1146: \bibitem{GM}
1147: M.~Dine, A.~Nelson and Y.~Shirman, {\sl Phys.~Rev.} {\bf D51} (1995)
1148: 1362; M.~Dine, A.~Nelson, Y.~Nir and Y.~Shirman, {\sl Phys.~Rev.}
1149: {\bf D53} (1996) 2658. For a review, see G.F.~Giudice and R.~Rattazzi,
1150: {\sl Phys.~Rept.} {\bf 322} (1999) 419.
1151: \bibitem{AM}
1152: L.~Randall and R.~Sundrum, {\sl Nucl.~Phys.} {\bf B557} (1999) 79;
1153: G.F.~Giudice, M.A.~Luty, H.~Murayama and R.~Rattazzi, {\sl JHEP}
1154: {\bf 9812} (1998) 27.
1155: \bibitem{gauM}
1156: D.E.~Kaplan, G.D.~Kribs and M.~Schmaltz, {\sl Phys.~Rev.} {\bf D62}
1157: (2000) 035010; Z.~Chacko, M.A.~Luty, A.E.~Nelson and E.~Ponton,
1158: {\sl JHEP} {\bf 0001} (2000) 003.
1159: \bibitem{others} For an incomplete list,
1160: H.P.~Nilles and N.~Polonsky, {\sl Phys.~Lett.} {\bf 412B} (1997) 69;
1161: I.~Antoniadis, S.~Dimopoulos, A.~Pomarol and M.~Quiros,
1162: {\sl Nucl.~Phys.} {\bf B544} (1999) 503; N.~Arkani-Hamed, L.~Hall,
1163: D.~Smith and N.~Weiner, {\sl Phys.~Rev.} {\bf D63} (2001) 056003;
1164: T.~Kobayashi and K.~Yoshioka, {\sl Phys.~Rev.~Lett.} {\bf 85} (2000)
1165: 5527; R.~Barbieri, L.J.~Hall and Y.~Nomura, {\sl Phys.~Rev.} {\bf D63}
1166: (2001) 105007; T.~Gherghetta and A.~Riotto, {\sl Nucl.~Phys.}
1167: {\bf B623} (2002) 97.
1168: \bibitem{FN}
1169: C.D.~Froggatt and H.B.~Nielsen, {\sl Nucl.~Phys.} {\bf B147} (1979) 277.
1170: \bibitem{IR}
1171: L.E.~Ib\'a\~nez and G.G.~Ross, {\sl Phys.~Lett.} {\bf 332B} (1994) 100.
1172: \bibitem{anom1}
1173: H.~Nakano, hep-th/9404033; {\sl Prog.~Theor.~Phys.~Suppl.} {\bf 123}
1174: (1996) 387; E.~Dudas, S.~Pokorski and C.A.~Savoy, {\sl Phys.~Lett.}
1175: {\bf 369B} (1996)255; G.R.~Dvali and A.~Pomarol,
1176: {\sl Phys.~Rev.~Lett.} {\bf 77} (1996) 3728; E.~Dudas, C.~Grojean,
1177: S.~Pokorski and C.A.~Savoy, {\sl Nucl.~Phys.} {\bf B481} (1996) 85.
1178: \bibitem{anom2}
1179: Y.~Kawamura and T.~Kobayashi, {\sl Phys.~Lett.} {\bf 375B} (1996) 141;
1180: Erratum-ibid. {\bf 388B} (1996) 867; {\sl Phys.~Rev.} {\bf D56} (1997)
1181: 3844.
1182: \bibitem{otherD}
1183: M.~Drees, {\sl Phys.~Lett.} {\bf 181B} (1986) 279; J.~S.~Hagelin and
1184: S.~Kelley, {\sl Nucl.~Phys.} {\bf B342} (1990) 95; Y.~Kawamura,
1185: H.~Murayama and M.~Yamaguchi, {\sl Phys.~Lett.} {\bf 324B} (1994) 94;
1186: {\sl Phys.~Rev.} {\bf D51} (1995) 1337; H.C.~Cheng and L.J.~Hall,
1187: {\sl Phys.~Rev.} {\bf D51} (1995) 5289; C.~Kolda and S.P.~Martin,
1188: {\sl Phys.~Rev.} {\bf D53} (1996) 3871.
1189: \bibitem{stringU1}
1190: E.~Witten, {\sl Phys.~Lett.} {\bf 149B} (1984) 351; M.~Dine,
1191: N.~Seiberg and E.~Witten, {\sl Nucl.~Phys.} {\bf B289} (1987) 589;
1192: W.~Lerche, B.E.W.~Nilsson and A.N.~Schellekens, {\sl Nucl.~Phys.}
1193: {\bf B289} (1987) 609; T.~Kobayashi and H.~Nakano, {\sl Nucl.~Phys.}
1194: {\bf B496} (1997) 103; G.B.~Cleaver and A.E.~Faraggi,
1195: {\sl Int.~J.~Mod.~Phys.} {\bf A14} (1999) 2335; J.~March-Russell,
1196: {\sl Phys.~Lett.} {\bf 437B} (1998) 318; P.~Bin\'etruy, C.~Deffayet,
1197: E.~Dudas and P.~Ramond, {\sl Phys.~Lett.} {\bf 441B} (1998) 163;
1198: Z.~Lalak, S.~Pokorski and S.~Thomas, {\sl Nucl.~Phys.} {\bf B549}
1199: (1999) 63; L.E.~Ib\'a\~nez, R.~Rabad\'an and A.M.~Uranga,
1200: {\sl Nucl.~Phys.} {\bf B542} (1999) 112; Z.~Lalak, S.~Lavignac and
1201: H.P.~Nilles, {\sl Nucl.~Phys.} {\bf B559} (1999) 48.
1202: \bibitem{GS}
1203: M.B.~Green and J.H.~Schwarz, {\sl Phys.~Lett.} {\bf 149B} (1984) 117.
1204: \bibitem{DLFV}
1205: B.~Murakami, K.~Tobe and J.D.~Wells, {\sl Phys.~Lett.} {\bf 526B}
1206: (2002) 157; I.~Jack, D.R.T.~Jones and R.~Wild, {\sl Phys.~Lett.}
1207: {\bf 535B} (2002) 193.
1208: \bibitem{RGpot}
1209: B.~Kastening, {\sl Phys. Lett.} {\bf B283} (1992) 287; M.~Bando,
1210: T.~Kugo, N.~Maekawa and H.~Nakano, {\sl Phys.~Lett.} {\bf 301B} (1993)
1211: 83; {\sl Prog.~Theor.~Phys.} {\bf 90} (1993) 405; C.~Ford,
1212: D.R.T.~Jones, P.W.~Stephenson and M.B.~Einhorn, {\sl Nucl.~Phys.}
1213: {\bf B395} (1993) 17.
1214: \bibitem{nu}
1215: J.~Sato and T.~Yanagida, {\sl Phys.~Lett.} {\bf 430B} (1998) 127;
1216: Y.~Nomura and T.~Yanagida, {\sl Phys.~Rev.} {\bf D59} (1998) 017303;
1217: M.~Bando and T.~Kugo, {\sl Prog.~Theor.~Phys.} {\bf 101} (1999) 1313;
1218: M.~Bando, T.~Kugo and K.~Yoshioka, {\sl Phys.~Lett.} {\bf 483B} (2000)
1219: 163; {\sl Prog.~Theor.~Phys.} {\bf 104} (2000) 211; A.~Kageyama,
1220: M.~Tanimoto and K.~Yoshioka, {\sl Phys.~Lett.} {\bf 512B} (2001) 349.
1221: \bibitem{decoupling}
1222: S.~Dimopoulos and G.F.~Giudice, {\sl Phys.~Lett.} {\bf 357B} (1995)
1223: 573; A.~Pomarol and D.~Tommasini, {\sl Nucl.~Phys.} {\bf B466} (1996)
1224: 3; A.G.~Cohen, D.B.~Kaplan and A.E.~Nelson, {\sl Phys.~Lett.}
1225: {\bf 388B} (1996) 588.
1226: \bibitem{ccb}
1227: N.~Arkani-Hamed and H.~Murayama, {\sl Phys.~Rev.} {\bf D56} (1997) 6733.
1228: \bibitem{K}
1229: A.G.~Cohen, D.B.~Kaplan, F.~Lepeintre and A.E.~Nelson,
1230: {\sl Phys.~Rev.~Lett.} {\bf 78} (1997) 2300; M.~Dine, E.~Kramer,
1231: Y.~Nir and Y.~Shadmi, {\sl Phys.~Rev.} {\bf D63} (2001) 116005.
1232: \bibitem{anarchy}
1233: L.J.~Hall, H.~Murayama and N.~Weiner, {\sl Phys.~Rev.~Lett.} {\bf 84}
1234: (2000) 2572.
1235: \bibitem{RS}
1236: L.~Randall and R.~Sundrum, in Ref.~\cite{AM}.
1237: \bibitem{DAM}
1238: A.~Pomarol and R.~Rattazzi, {\sl JHEP} {\bf 9905} (1999) 013; I.~Jack
1239: and D.R.T.~Jones, {\sl Phys.~Lett.} {\bf 482B} (2000) 167; M.~Carena,
1240: K.~Huitu and T.~Kobayashi, {\sl Nucl.~Phys.} {\bf B592} (2001) 164;
1241: N.~Arkani-Hamed, D.E.~Kaplan, H.~Murayama and Y.~Nomura, {\sl JHEP}
1242: {\bf 0102} (2001) 041.
1243: \bibitem{KSS}
1244: E.~Katz, Y.~Shadmi and Y.~Shirman, {\sl JHEP} {\bf 9908} (1999) 015.
1245: \bibitem{NDA}
1246: A.~Manohar and H.~Georgi, {\sl Nucl.~Phys.} {\bf B234} (1984) 189;
1247: M.A.~Luty, {\sl Phys.~Rev.} {\bf D57} (1998) 1531; A.G.~Cohen,
1248: D.B.~Kaplan and A.E.~Nelson, {\sl Phys.~Lett.} {\bf 412B} (1997) 301;
1249: Z.~Chacko, M.A.~Luty and E.~Ponton, {\sl JHEP} {\bf 0007} (2000) 036.
1250: \bibitem{NS1}
1251: A.E.~Nelson and M.J.~Strassler, {\sl JHEP} {\bf 0009} (2000) 030.
1252: \bibitem{KNT}
1253: T.~Kobayashi, H.~Nakano and H.~Terao, {\sl Phys.~Rev.} {\bf D65}
1254: (2002) 015006; T.~Kobayashi, H.~Nakano, T.~Noguchi and H.~Terao,
1255: hep-ph/0205071.
1256: \bibitem{irfp}
1257: T.~Banks and A.~Zaks, {\sl Nucl.~Phys.} {\bf B196} (1982) 189;
1258: N.~Seiberg, {\sl Nucl.~Phys.} {\bf B435} (1995) 129.
1259: \bibitem{SCsoft}
1260: T.~Kobayashi and H.~Terao, {\sl Phys.~Rev.} {\bf D64} (2001) 075003;
1261: A.E.~Nelson and M.J.~Strassler, {\sl JHEP} {\bf 0207} (2002) 021;
1262: H.~Terao, hep-ph/0112021.
1263: \bibitem{SQCD}
1264: A.~Karch, T.~Kobayashi, J.~Kubo and G.~Zoupanos, {\sl Phys.~Lett.}
1265: {\bf 441B} (1998) 235; M.A.~Luty and R.~Rattazzi, {\sl JHEP}
1266: {\bf 9911} (1999) 001.
1267: \bibitem{KNNT}
1268: T.~Kobayashi, H.~Nakano, T.~Noguchi and H.~Terao, hep-ph/0202023,
1269: to be published in {\sl Phys.~Rev.} {\bf D}.
1270: \bibitem{LS}
1271: M.A.~Luty and R.~Sundrum, {\sl Phys.~Rev.} {\bf D65} (2002) 066004;
1272: hep-th/0111231.
1273: \bibitem{softbeta}
1274: Y.~Yamada, {\sl Phys.~Rev.} {\bf D50} (1994) 3537; J.~Hisano and
1275: M.~Shifman, {\sl Phys.~Rev.} {\bf D56} (1997) 5475; I.~Jack and
1276: D.R.T.~Jones, {\sl Phys.~Lett.} {\bf 415B} (1997) 383; I.~Jack,
1277: D.R.T.~Jones and A.~Pickering, {\sl Phys.~Lett.} {\bf 426B} (1998) 73;
1278: {\sl Phys.~Lett.} {\bf 432B} (1998) 114; L.V.~Avdeev, D.I.~Kazakov and
1279: I.N.~Kondrashuk, {\sl Nucl.~Phys.} {\bf 510B} (1998) 289;
1280: T.~Kobayashi, J.~Kubo and G.~Zoupanos, {\sl Phys.~Lett.} {\bf 427B}
1281: (1998) 291; N.~Arkani-Hamed, G.F.~Giudice, M.A.~Luty and R.~Rattazzi,
1282: {\sl Phys.~Rev.} {\bf D58} (1998) 115005; D.I.~Kazakov and
1283: V.N.~Velizhanin, {\sl Phys.~Lett.} {\bf 485B} (2000) 393.
1284: \bibitem{su5-10}
1285: K.S.~Babu and S.M.~Barr, {\sl Phys.~Lett.} {\bf 381B} (1996) 202;
1286: S.M.~Barr, {\sl Phys.~Rev.} {\bf D55} (1997) 1659; M.J.~Strassler,
1287: {\sl Phys.~Lett.} {\bf 376B} (1996) 119; N.~Haba, {\sl Phys.~Rev.}
1288: {\bf D59} (1999) 035011; K.~Yoshioka, {\sl Mod.~Phys.~Lett.} {\bf A15}
1289: (2000) 29; L.~Hall, H.~Murayama and N.~Weiner in Ref.~\cite{anarchy};
1290: J.~Hisano, K.~Kurosawa and Y.~Nomura, {\sl Nucl.~Phys.} {\bf B584}
1291: (2000) 3.
1292: \end{thebibliography}
1293:
1294: \end{document}
1295: