1: \documentclass[12pt]{article}

2: \addtolength{\textheight}{23mm}

3: \addtolength{\textwidth}{31mm}

4: \addtolength{\topmargin}{-15mm}

5: \addtolength{\oddsidemargin}{-18mm}

6: \addtolength{\evensidemargin}{-18mm}

7: 

8: \usepackage{amsmath}

9: \usepackage{graphics}

10: %\usepackage{showkeys}

11: 

12: \renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\fnsymbol{footnote}}

13: \makeatletter

14: \renewcommand{\theequation}{\thesection.\arabic{equation}}

15: \@addtoreset{equation}{section}

16: \makeatother

17: 

18: \begin{document}

19: \baselineskip=16pt

20: \begin{titlepage}

21: \begin{flushright}

22: KUNS-1935, KYUSHU-HET-74\\[-1mm] hep-ph/0409355

23: \end{flushright}

24: \begin{center}

25: \vspace*{1.3cm}

26: 

27: {\Large\bf%

28: Radiative stabilization of warped space%

29: }\vspace{9mm}

30: 

31: Tatsuo Kobayashi$^{\rm a}$ and Koichi Yoshioka$^{\rm b}$

32: \vspace*{3mm}

33: 

34: $^{\rm a}$ Department of Physics, Kyoto University, Kyoto 606-8502, Japan\\

35: $^{\rm b}$ Department of Physics, Kyushu University, Fukuoka 812-8581, Japan

36: \vspace*{2mm}

37: 

38: {\small (September, 2004)}

39: \end{center}

40: \vspace*{5mm}

41: 

42: \begin{abstract}\noindent%

43: Higher-dimensional field theory has been applied to explore various

44: issues in recent particle physics such as the gauge hierarchy

45: problem. In order for such approaches to be viable, a crucial

46: ingredient is to fix the sizes of extra dimensions at some finite

47: values, which sizes are generically free parameters in the theory. In

48: this paper, we present several schemes to determine the radius of

49: extra dimension in warped five-dimensional theory. In every case, a

50: non-vanishing Fayet-Iliopoulos term for abelian gauge factor plays a

51: crucial role for the radius stabilization. It is radiatively generated

52: in the presence of charged matter fields and the compactification is

53: therefore spontaneous, not forced by selected operators. The

54: low-energy supersymmetry is broken or unbroken, and the radius can be

55: fixed to give a small or large scale hierarchy without any fine tuning

56: of parameters. We also discuss a model of the radius stabilization

57: correlated with Yukawa hierarchy and supersymmetry breaking.

58: \end{abstract}

59: \end{titlepage}

60: 

61: \section{Introduction}

62: 

63: Field theory in higher dimensions has been providing novel approaches

64: to theoretical and phenomenological problems in recent particle

65: physics. The existence of extra spatial dimensions beyond our fours is

66: applied to various issues such as the generation of large scale

67: hierarchies~\cite{ADD,RS}. In these approaches, a key

68: ingredient is to determine the size of extra space so that they are

69: viable approaches and do not conflict with current observations. For

70: example, the Planck/weak mass hierarchy is attained by assuming that

71: the radii of compactified dimensions are huge~\cite{ADD} or small but

72: a bit larger than the Planck length~\cite{RS}. The compactification

73: radius is also conjectured to have anticipated values in other

74: phenomenological discussions such as small neutrino

75: masses~\cite{EDneu}, Yukawa hierarchies of quarks and

76: leptons~\cite{EDYukawa}, and supersymmetry

77: breaking~\cite{EDsusybreaking}. Therefore adjusting the sizes of extra

78: dimensions to desired values is one of the most important issues in

79: higher-dimensional framework. There have been in the literature

80: various resolutions to this stabilization problem in large- and

81: small-sized extra dimensions~\cite{models}.

82: 

83: In this paper, we present three different schemes to stabilize the

84: radius modulus in five-dimensional supersymmetric theory with or

85: without charged matter fields. One is based on the model with only

86: boundary charged fields and another with only bulk fields. In every

87: scheme, the Fayet-Iliopoulos (FI) term~\cite{FID} in five-dimensional

88: theory is found to play a crucial role for the radius

89: stabilization. The resultant metric factor can be significant or

90: nearly flat, depending on model parameters. It is stressed that the FI

91: term is not introduced by hand in order to stabilize the radius. A

92: non-vanishing FI term is radiatively generated even if it is set to

93: zero in the classical Lagrangian~\cite{FIexD}. This is unlike the

94: four-dimensional theory where a FI term does not receive any

95: renormalization if theory has a vanishing gravitational

96: anomaly~\cite{NRT-D}. The induced FI term depends on how charged

97: matter multiplets are distributed in the extra dimensions and is

98: therefore controllable. Further it is known in four-dimensional models

99: that the FI term is connected to Yukawa hierarchy and supersymmetry

100: breaking~\cite{anomalousU1}. We construct a five-dimensional model for

101: generating fermion mass hierarchy which is correlated with the radius

102: stabilization. The model also predicts characteristic spectrum of

103: sfermions and gauginos.

104: 

105: This paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we give a generic

106: form of globally supersymmetric Lagrangian for 

107: five-dimensional $U(1)$ theory with the FI term. The simplest

108: stabilization scheme is found in Section 3 without introducing any

109: matter fields. In Section 4, a different scheme is presented to fix

110: the size of extra dimension. The model contains bulk hypermultiplets

111: with non-trivial wavefunctions whose forms are determined by FI-term

112: coefficients. The bulk multiplets fix the distance between the two

113: boundaries in terms of boundary couplings. In the vacuum of this

114: model, supersymmetry is unbroken. With the generic Lagrangian at hand,

115: we show in Section 5 that the radius can be stabilized by only boundary

116: matter fields. That is established by analyzing the vacuum energy in

117: effective four-dimensional theory with broken supersymmetry. We also

118: construct a toy model for Yukawa hierarchy and supersymmetry breaking,

119: deeply correlated with the radius stabilization phenomenon. Such a

120: model predicts a new type of sparticle spectrum in low-energy

121: effective theory. Section 6 is devoted to summarizing our results.

122: 

123: \section{Five-dimensional $U(1)$ gauge theory}

124: 

125: We consider the globally supersymmetric abelian gauge theory in five

126: dimensions. The fifth dimension is compactified on a line segment

127: $S^1/Z_2$, where the radius of the circle $S^1$ is $R$. The radius $R$

128: is a free parameter of the theory and corresponds to a massless moduli

129: field $T$ in four-dimensional effective theory

130: ($R\equiv\textrm{Re}\,T$). The fifth dimension $y$ has two boundaries

131: at $y=0$ and $\pi R$. They are fixed points under the $Z_2$

132: orbifolding of physical spacetime. We are now interested in the case

133: that the extra dimension has curved geometry. A particularly

134: interesting example is the warped (AdS) geometry~\cite{RS} whose line

135: element is given by

136: \begin{equation}

137:   ds^2 \,=\, e^{-2k|y|}\eta_{\mu\nu}dx^{\mu}dx^{\nu}+dy^2,

138:   \label{warp}

139: \end{equation}

140: where $k$ is the AdS curvature and $\eta_{\mu\nu}$ the Minkowski

141: metric in four dimensions. This background metric has been intensively

142: studied for realistic model construction with the Planck/weak scale

143: difference, quarks and leptons mass hierarchy, the cosmological

144: constant problem, etc. In these approaches the radius $R$ of the

145: compact extra dimension was often assumed to have a desired value, and

146: the radius stabilization is therefore one of the most important

147: problems in constructing realistic `brane-world' models. In this paper

148: we present the schemes to stabilize $R$ at a finite value due to the

149: existence of $U(1)$ gauge factor in supersymmetric warped dimensions.

150: 

151: We adopt the superspace formalism of higher-dimensional

152: supersymmetry~\cite{sf}. There are two types of supermultiplets

153: generally introduced in five-dimensional theory; vector and hyper

154: multiplets. A vector multiplet contains an $N=1$ vector multiplet $V$

155: and a chiral multiplet $\chi$, whose auxiliary components are denoted

156: by $D$ and $F_\chi$, respectively. A hypermultiplet consists of

157: oppositely-charged two chiral multiplets $\phi$ and $\phi^c$. In the

158: superspace language, the most generic Lagrangian for five-dimensional

159: $U(1)$ gauge theory is given by

160: \begin{equation}

161:   L \;=\; L_V+L_H+L_{\rm UV}\delta(y)+L_{\rm IR}\delta(y-\pi R)+L_D,

162: \end{equation}

163: \begin{eqnarray}

164:   L_V &\!=\!& \int\! d^2\theta\,\frac{1}{4g^2}

165:   W^\alpha W_\alpha +{\rm h.c.} +\int\! d^4\theta\,

166:   \frac{e^{-2k|y|}}{g^2}\Big[\partial_yV-\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}

167:   (\chi+\chi^\dagger)\Big]^2, \label{LV} \\[1mm]

168:   L_H &\!=\!& \int\! d^4\theta\, e^{-2k|y|} \big(\phi^\dagger

169:   e^{qV}\phi +\phi^c e^{-qV} {\phi^c}^\dagger \big) \nonumber \\

170:   && \hspace{2cm} +\int\! d^2\theta\, e^{-3k|y|} 

171:   \phi^c\bigg[\partial_y+\frac{q}{\sqrt{2}}\chi 

172:   -\Big(\frac{3}{2}-c\Big)k\epsilon(y)\bigg]\phi +{\rm h.c.}, \label{LH}

173: \end{eqnarray}

174: where $g$ denotes the gauge coupling constant, and $q$ and $c$ are 

175: the $U(1)$ charge and the bulk mass parameter of the chiral 

176: multiplet $\phi$, respectively. The sign function $\epsilon(y)$ is

177: inserted in order for the orbifold $Z_2$ invariance. We have also

178: included the Lagrangian for chiral multiplets confined on the UV

179: ($y=0$) and IR ($y=\pi R$) boundaries;

180: \begin{eqnarray}

181:   L_{\rm UV} &\!=\!& \int\! d^4\theta\, \phi_{\rm UV}^\dagger 

182:   e^{q_{\rm UV}V}\phi_{\rm UV} +\int\! d^2\theta\, 

183:   W_{\rm UV}(\phi,\phi_{\rm UV}) +{\rm h.c.}, \label{LUV} \\

184:   L_{\rm IR} &\!=\!& \int\! d^4\theta\, e^{-2k\pi R}

185:   \phi_{\rm IR}^\dagger e^{q_{\rm IR}V}\phi_{\rm IR} 

186:   +\int\! d^2\theta\, e^{-3k\pi R} W_{\rm IR}(\phi,\phi_{\rm IR})

187:   +{\rm h.c.}. \label{LIR}

188: \end{eqnarray}

189: The orbifold boundary conditions are imposed on each

190: supermultiplet. The vector multiplet $V$ has the Neumann boundary

191: conditions at both UV and IR branes and its superpartner 

192: multiplet $\chi$ has the Dirichlet ones because it contains the fifth

193: component of the bulk gauge field. The boundary conditions 

194: of $\phi$ must be opposite to those of superpartner $\phi^c$ for

195: respecting the $Z_2$ symmetry. The $Z_2$ boundary conditions break a

196: half of bulk supersymmetry and thus the boundary 

197: Lagrangians $L_{\rm UV}$ and $L_{\rm IR}$ preserve only the

198: four-dimensional $N=1$ supersymmetry. For example, Yukawa couplings of 

199: quarks and leptons are expected to come from these boundary

200: interactions in the present framework. The boundary chiral 

201: multiplets $\phi_{\rm UV}$ and $\phi_{\rm IR}$ couple only to bulk

202: multiplets with Neumann boundary conditions. We have assumed, for

203: simplicity, that there are no $y$-derivative couplings of $Z_2$-odd

204: chiral multiplets and no four-dimensional gauge fields on the

205: boundaries, while these assumptions are irrelevant to the following

206: discussion. The exponential warp factors are explicitly included in

207: the above Lagrangian. These warp factors describe the metric

208: dependences, such as from $\sqrt{-\det g_{\mu\nu}}$, of the lowest

209: component of each supermultiplet in the warped background. For other

210: component fields, the proper metric factors in the warped

211: five-dimensional action are obtained after some rescaling, for 

212: example, $D\to e^{-2k|y|}D$, $F_\phi\to e^{-k|y|}F_\phi$ for the

213: auxiliary fields.

214: 

215: Since we now consider the abelian gauge theory, a FI term of vector

216: multiplet $V$ is gauge invariant in globally supersymmetric theory and

217: can also be added to the Lagrangian as

218: \begin{equation}

219:   L_D \,=\, \int\! d^4\theta\, 2\xi V.

220:   \label{LD}

221: \end{equation}

222: We have defined the coefficient $\xi$ into which the metric warp

223: factor is absorbed. Even if there is no FI term in classical

224: Lagrangian, it is radiatively generated via tadpole graphs of the $D$

225: component where charged matter fields circulate in the loop. In the

226: case of flat extra dimensions, its form was

227: investigated~\cite{FIexD,FIexD2,FIexD3} and found to reside only on

228: the orbifold fixed points. Moreover the FI term vanishes in

229: anomaly-free low-energy effective theory when one integrates out the

230: fifth-dimensional physics. This is consistent with the fact that, in

231: four-dimensional theory, a coefficient of radiatively-generated FI

232: term is proportional to the sum of matter $U(1)$ charges which also

233: gives the mixed $U(1)$-gravitational anomaly. In five-dimensional

234: theory on curved backgrounds including the warped geometry, the

235: situation is rather different. Since the fifth direction is curved,

236: the fundamental length depends on the position $y$. The implication of

237: this fact appears through the metric-factor dependences in the FI-term

238: calculation. In the warped geometry~(\ref{warp}), the brane-localized

239: FI terms are written as

240: \begin{equation}

241:   \xi \,=\, \xi_{\rm UV}\delta(y)-\xi_{\rm IR}e^{-2k\pi R}\delta(y-\pi R),

242:   \label{FI}

243: \end{equation}

244: with the constant coefficients $\xi_{\rm UV}$ and $\xi_{\rm IR}$. If

245: the FI term is set to vanish at classical level, radiative

246: corrections give rise to $\xi_{\rm UV}$ and $\xi_{\rm IR}$ which are

247: given by specific combinations of $U(1)$ charges of bulk and boundary

248: fields~\cite{FIexDwarp}. For a $U(1)$ factor free from gravitational

249: anomaly in low-energy theory, the two coefficients are equal to each

250: other; $\xi_{\rm UV}=\xi_{\rm IR}$. The exponential factor in the

251: second term of (\ref{FI}) indicates that the fundamental length is

252: redshifted at the $y=\pi R$ boundary. This factor may be described by

253: proper regularization, for example, \`a la Pauli-Villars, and more

254: simply implemented by a position-dependent cutoff for the

255: four-dimensional momentum in the one-loop calculations, which

256: dependence is suggested by the AdS/CFT 

257: correspondence~\cite{ADS-CFT}.\footnote{A position-dependent value of

258: FI term can also be seen from the theory-space approach to

259: five-dimensional curved backgrounds~\cite{ADS4D}.} That has been

260: recently confirmed by detailed analysis of five-dimensional

261: supergravity~\cite{FIDsugra}. In four-dimensional effective theory,

262: the FI term does not vanish as the zero modes of vector multiplet have

263: flat wavefunctions. As a result, either $U(1)$ gauge symmetry or

264: four-dimensional supersymmetry is broken at the scale of $\xi$. This

265: reflects the known fact in four-dimensional theory that a FI term for

266: anomaly-free $U(1)$ gauge theory does not coexist with unbroken

267: supersymmetry. That is, in four-dimensional supergravity theory, a FI

268: term can be introduced only when $U(1)$ is $R$ symmetry or

269: non-linearly realized, i.e.\ the $U(1)$ gauge boson becomes

270: massive. An important point here is that even if low-energy theory is

271: totally free of anomalies like QED, the effective FI term is

272: non-vanishing due to the curved extra dimension ($k\neq0$) and has

273: important phenomenological implications~\cite{FIexDwarp}. In this

274: paper, we show that the presence of FI term also provides the

275: stabilization mechanisms of the radius modulus field.

276: 

277: \section{Stabilization without bulk/boundary fields}

278: 

279: Let us first see the simplest case where we have no charged matter

280: fields in the theory. Integrating out the fifth-dimensional physics,

281: we find that the presence of the FI term (\ref{FI}) leads to the

282: potential

283: \begin{equation}

284:   V(R) \,=\, \frac{g^2}{4\pi R}

285:   \big(\xi_{\rm UV}-\xi_{\rm IR}e^{-2k\pi R}\big)^2.

286:   \label{VR-UVIR}

287: \end{equation}

288: This vacuum energy depends on the radius $R$. It is therefore

289: determined so that the vacuum energy is minimized. We find from

290: (\ref{VR-UVIR}) a possibility that the radius is fixed to a finite value

291: \begin{equation}

292:   kR \,=\, \frac{1}{2\pi}\ln\Big(\frac{\xi_{\rm IR}}{\xi_{\rm UV}}\Big).

293:   \label{kR}

294: \end{equation}

295: The vacuum energy vanishes at this point which is the potential

296: minimum in globally supersymmetric theory. Thus four-dimensional

297: supersymmetry is unbroken while the radius is stabilized. Note that

298: the limit $R\to\infty$ also gives a vanishing vacuum energy, where the

299: low-energy gauge theory becomes a free theory. However the potential

300: barrier between the two minima can be as high as $\xi_{\rm UV}^2$

301: whose natural size is around the Planck scale. Therefore the vacuum

302: (\ref{kR}) might be made stable within the present age of the

303: universe. Moreover the parameter region far away from the origin could

304: be lifted by supersymmetry breaking which we have not included

305: here. It is noticed that the existence of the vacuum (\ref{kR})

306: calls a restriction on the FI-term 

307: coefficients; $\xi_{\rm IR}/\xi_{\rm UV}>1$. For example, in case that

308: low-energy theory is anomaly free, we 

309: have $\xi_{\rm UV}=\xi_{\rm IR}$ and hence the radius is not settled

310: at a finite value. For radiatively-generated FI terms, the 

311: inequality $\xi_{\rm IR}\neq\xi_{\rm UV}$ is realized 

312: with `anomalous' matter content. Then one should assume some anomaly

313: cancellation mechanism that does not affect the FI terms. In this

314: paper, we do not pursue such a possibility further. Instead we will

315: discuss the radius stabilization with bulk/boundary matter fields in

316: the presence of `non-anomalous' FI 

317: term: $\xi_{\rm UV}=\xi_{\rm IR}\equiv\xi_{\rm FI}$.

318: 

319: \section{Stabilization with bulk fields}

320: 

321: In this section we present a scheme for stabilizing the size of warped

322: extra dimension which involves only bulk hypermultiplets. A

323: hypermultiplet which has non-trivial profile of bulk wavefunction

324: connects two localized FI terms, and determines the distance between

325: the boundaries. In this way the radius is fixed by the equations of

326: motion of bulk fields together with their boundary conditions on the

327: branes.

328: 

329: We consider the five-dimensional $U(1)$ gauge theory with

330: non-vanishing boundary FI terms. Its Lagrangian is given by (\ref{LV})

331: and (\ref{LH}) as well as boundary superpotentials $W_{\rm UV}$ 

332: and $W_{\rm IR}$ for bulk chiral multiplets with even $Z_2$ parity. We do

333: not include any boundary supermultiplets on the branes. The

334: five-dimensional scalar potential is generally given by

335: \begin{equation}

336:   V_{5\rm D} \,=\, \frac{1}{2g^2}D^2 +\frac{e^{-2k\pi R}}{g^2}|F_\chi|^2

337:   +\sum_{\phi}e^{-2k\pi R}(|F_\phi|^2 +|F_{\phi^c}|^2).

338: \end{equation}

339: The auxiliary fields $D$ and $F$'s are expressed in terms of bulk

340: scalars through their equations of motion (see below). Here we have

341: simply assumed that the fifth component of the $U(1)$ vector field

342: does not have a nonzero expectation value.

343: 

344: \subsection{Model}

345: 

346: The model we present in this section contains two bulk hypermultiplets

347: with the following $U(1)$ charges and bulk masses:

348: \begin{eqnarray}

349:   (\phi,\,\phi^c) &: \textrm{$U(1)$ charge of } \phi=+q, 

350:   \qquad \textrm{bulk mass}=c_\phi, \nonumber \\

351:   (\varphi,\,\varphi^c) &: \textrm{$U(1)$ charge of } \varphi=-q,

352:   \qquad \textrm{bulk mass}=c_\varphi. \nonumber

353: \end{eqnarray}

354: Notice that two hypermultiplets have opposite $U(1)$ charges so that

355: they can form a mixing mass term. This is however just a simplifying

356: assumption. We will mention other choices of $U(1)$ charges in the end

357: of this section and show that the charge assignment of hypermultiplets

358: is irrelevant to the radius stabilization mechanism. The boundary

359: conditions on the branes, namely, the orbifold parities are taken to be

360: positive for $\phi$ and $\varphi$ (therefore, negative 

361: for $\phi^c$ and $\varphi^c$), which lead to the zero modes 

362: of $\phi$ and $\varphi$ in low-energy effective theory.

363: 

364: \subsection{Unperturbed vacuum}

365: 

366: There exists the supersymmetric vacuum in the presence of FI

367: term~(\ref{FI}) when the bulk scalars take appropriate expectation

368: values so that the flatness conditions are satisfied. As mentioned in

369: the previous section, we consider a conceivable case 

370: that $\xi_{\rm UV}=\xi_{\rm IR}\equiv\xi_{\rm FI}$. Without loss of

371: generality, we take $q\xi_{\rm FI}>0$ and then find that among the

372: bulk matter scalars only $Z_2$-even $\varphi$ develops a vacuum

373: expectation value. The $D$ and $F$ flatness conditions now reduce to

374: \begin{eqnarray}

375:   0 &=& -\partial_y(e^{-2k|y|}\Sigma) 

376:   +\frac{q g^2e^{-2k|y|}}{2}|\varphi|^2 -g^2\xi_{\rm FI} 

377:   \big[\delta(y)-e^{-2k\pi R}\delta(y-\pi R)\big], \label{Dflat} \\

378:   0 &=& \Big[\partial_y-\frac{q}{2}\Sigma 

379:   -\Big(\frac{3}{2}-c_\varphi\Big)k\epsilon(y)\Big]\varphi.

380: \end{eqnarray}

381: The field $\Sigma$ is the real part of the neutral scalar in the

382: chiral multiplet $\chi$. It seems difficult to write down the generic

383: solutions of these vacuum equations but we can analytically solve them

384: for a specific value $c_\varphi=\frac{-1}{2}$. In this case, the

385: solutions $\Sigma_0$ and $\varphi_0$ are given by

386: \begin{eqnarray}

387:   \Sigma_0 &=& \frac{4ka_1}{q}\epsilon(y)e^{2k|y|}

388:   \tan\big(a_1e^{2k|y|}+a_2\big), \label{sol0S} \\

389:   \varphi_0 &=& \frac{4ka_1}{qg} e^{2k|y|}

390:   \frac{1}{\cos\big(a_1e^{2k|y|}+a_2\big)}, \label{sol0p}

391: \end{eqnarray}

392: where $a_1$ and $a_2$ are the integration constants. These constants

393: are determined by the boundary FI terms through the $D$-term

394: equation~(\ref{Dflat}) as

395: \begin{equation}

396:   -\frac{8ka_1}{qg^2}\tan\big(a_1+a_2\big) \,=\, \xi_{\rm FI}, \qquad

397:   -\frac{8ka_1}{qg^2}\tan\big(a_1e^{2k\pi R}+a_2\big)

398:   \,=\, \xi_{\rm FI} e^{-2k\pi R}. \label{afix}

399: \end{equation}

400: The existence of non-vanishing FI terms therefore fixes the unique

401: supersymmetric vacuum away from the origin of the field space. When the

402: warp factor is significant ($kR\gg 1$) and a FI term is small

403: ($\xi_{\rm FI}\ll k^2$), the explicit forms of the integration

404: constants are approximately given by

405: \begin{equation}

406:   a_1 \,\simeq\, \Big(\frac{\pi}{2}-\frac{qg^2\xi_{\rm FI}}{4k\pi}\Big)

407:   \,e^{-2k\pi R}, \qquad a_2 \,\simeq\, \frac{\pi}{2} 

408:   +\frac{4k\pi}{qg^2\xi_{\rm FI}}\,e^{-2k\pi R}.

409: \end{equation}

410: The wavefunctions $\Sigma_0$ and $\varphi_0$ do not have singularities

411: between the two boundaries. In the following analysis, we adopt this

412: value $c_\varphi=\frac{-1}{2}$ as an example. It is however stressed

413: that one may expect similar effects of radius stabilization for other

414: generic values of the bulk mass parameters. As we will show below, the

415: only required is the existence of non-trivial unperturbed solutions.

416: 

417: \subsection{Radius determination}

418: 

419: We introduce the following gauge-invariant superpotential terms onto

420: the boundaries;

421: \begin{equation}

422:   W_{\rm UV} \,=\, m_0\phi\varphi, \qquad W_{\rm IR} \,=\, m_\pi\phi\varphi.

423:   \label{Wmass}

424: \end{equation}

425: It is noted that a supersymmetric mass term between $\phi$ 

426: and $\varphi$ is forbidden by bulk AdS$_5$ supersymmetry and is

427: forced to be confined on the boundaries, at which bulk supersymmetry

428: is broken to the four-dimensional one. On the other hand, the mass

429: terms $\phi\varphi^c$ and $\phi^c\varphi$ are allowed to exist by the

430: bulk supersymmetry, but in the present model, the $U(1)$ gauge

431: invariance makes it vanish. Therefore (\ref{Wmass}) is the most

432: generic superpotential for the matter fields involved. As we will see,

433: the above potential terms play important roles of acting as the

434: sources of $\phi$ which, in turn, stabilizes the radius and of lifting

435: the $\varphi$ direction from the equation of motion of $\phi$.

436: 

437: Let us first see whether supersymmetry is broken in this model by

438: examining the four-dimensional scalar potential. The $D$-term

439: contribution to the scalar potential is written in the usual form with

440: a non-vanishing FI term. The $F$-term contribution comes from the

441: superpotential obtained by reducing (\ref{Wmass}) to the

442: four-dimensional zero-mode part. 

443: Expanding $\phi(x,y)=\phi_4(x)\phi_y(y)$ 

444: and $\varphi(x,y)=\varphi_4(x)\varphi_y(y)$, it is given by

445: \begin{equation}

446:   \quad\qquad W_{4\rm D} \,=\, \big[ m_0\phi_y(0)\varphi_y(0)-

447:   m_\pi\phi_y(\pi R)\varphi_y(\pi R)\big] \phi_4(x)\varphi_4(x)

448:   \>\equiv\, m_{\phi\varphi}\,\phi_4(x)\varphi_4(x),

449: \end{equation}

450: where $\phi_y$ and $\varphi_y$ are the solutions of their equations of

451: motion. If the effective mass parameter $m_{\phi\varphi}$ is 

452: nonzero, $\phi_4$ and $\varphi_4$ are lifted and supersymmetry is

453: broken because the $D$-term equation enforces specific values on these

454: fields. However $m_{\phi\varphi}$ now depends on the radius $R$, which

455: is generically not a frozen parameter. The radius $R$ thus fixes

456: itself so as to give a vanishing effective mass $m_{\phi\varphi}$, for

457: which the vacuum energy is minimized and supersymmetry is restored. In

458: other words, if the radius modulus $T$ is included as a dynamical

459: variable, the minimization of scalar potential with respect 

460: to $\phi_4$, $\varphi_4$ and $T$ leads to a vanishing effective 

461: mass $m_{\phi\varphi}$ (at least local, supersymmetric vacuum).

462: 

463: Since supersymmetry is unbroken, all the equations of motion in the

464: five-dimensional theory are

465: \begin{eqnarray}

466:   0 \!&=&\! D \,=\, -\partial_y(e^{-2k|y|}\Sigma)

467:   -\frac{q g^2}{2}e^{-2k|y|}\big(|\phi|^2 -|\phi^c|^2\big) 

468:   +\frac{q g^2}{2}e^{-2k|y|}\big(|\varphi|^2 -|\varphi^c|^2\big)

469:   \nonumber\\[1mm]

470:   &&\hspace*{7cm} -g^2\xi_{\rm FI}\big[\delta(y)

471:   -e^{-2k\pi R}\delta(y-\pi R)\big],  \label{D} \\

472:   0 \!&=&\! F_\chi^\dagger \,=\, -\frac{q g^2}{\sqrt{2}}e^{-k|y|}

473:   (\phi^c\phi-\varphi^c\varphi), \label{Fchi} \\

474:   0 \!&=&\! F_\phi^\dagger \,=\, e^{-k|y|}\Big[\partial_y

475:   -\frac{q}{2}\Sigma -\Big(\frac{3}{2}+c_\phi\Big)k\epsilon(y)\Big] \phi^c 

476:   -\Big[m_0\delta(y)-e^{-k\pi R}m_\pi\delta(y-\pi R)\Big]\varphi, 

477:   \quad \label{Fphi} \\

478:   0 \!&=&\! F_\varphi^\dagger \,=\, e^{-k|y|}\Big[\partial_y

479:   +\frac{q}{2}\Sigma -k\epsilon(y)\Big] \varphi^c 

480:   -\Big[m_0\delta(y)-e^{-k\pi R}m_\pi\delta(y-\pi R)\Big]\phi, 

481:   \label{Fvarphi} \\

482:   0 \!&=&\! F_{\phi^c}^\dagger \!\,=\, -e^{-k|y|} \Big[\partial_y

483:   +\frac{q}{2}\Sigma -\Big(\frac{3}{2}-c_\phi\Big)

484:   k\epsilon(y)\Big]\phi, \\

485:   0 \!&=&\! F_{\varphi^c}^\dagger \!\,=\, -e^{-k|y|} \Big[\partial_y

486:   -\frac{q}{2}\Sigma -2k\epsilon(y)\Big]\varphi. \label{Fvarphic}

487: \end{eqnarray}

488: The localized operators enforce the specific boundary conditions on

489: the parity-odd functions $\Sigma$, $\phi^c$ and $\varphi^c$ such that

490: \begin{equation}

491:   \Sigma \,=\, \epsilon(y) f_\sigma(y), \qquad 

492:   \phi^c \,=\, \epsilon(y) f_\phi(y), \qquad 

493:   \varphi^c \,=\, \epsilon(y) f_\varphi(y),

494: \end{equation}

495: with the even functions $f_\sigma(y)$, $f_\phi(y)$ and $f_\varphi(y)$

496: which satisfy the conditions

497: \begin{eqnarray}

498:   2f_\sigma(0) &=& -g^2\xi_{\rm FI}, \qquad

499:   2f_\sigma(\pi R) \;=\; -g^2\xi_{\rm FI}, \\

500:   2f_\phi(0) &=& m_0\varphi(0), \qquad

501:   2f_\phi(\pi R) \;=\; m_\pi\varphi(\pi R), \label{bcfp} \\

502:   2f_\varphi(0) &=& m_0\phi(0), \qquad

503:   2f_\varphi(\pi R) \;=\; m_\pi\phi(\pi R). \label{bcfvp}

504: \end{eqnarray}

505: The $F$-term equations (\ref{Fphi}) and (\ref{Fvarphi}) are simplified

506: in the bulk as

507: \begin{eqnarray}

508:   0 \!&=&\! \Big[\partial_y -\frac{q}{2}\Sigma -\Big(\frac{3}{2}

509:   +c_\phi\Big) k\epsilon(y)\Big]f_\phi,  \label{fp} \\

510:   0 \!&=&\! \Big[\partial_y +\frac{q}{2}\Sigma -k\epsilon(y)\Big] f_\varphi.

511: \end{eqnarray}

512: Since we have $q\xi_{\rm FI}>0$ without loss of generality, the 

513: scalar field $\phi$ do not develop vacuum expectation values. This is

514: also understood from the view of four-dimensional effective theory. In

515: turn, the equations (\ref{Fchi}) and (\ref{Fvarphi}) together 

516: with (\ref{bcfvp}) mean $\varphi^c=0$. The independent equations of 

517: motion now reduce to (\ref{D}), (\ref{Fvarphic}), and (\ref{fp}) 

518: with $\phi=\varphi^c=0$. 

519: 

520: The vacuum solutions are explicitly derived by solving these equations

521: in perturbation of $m_0,m_\pi\ll 1$. The leading-order solutions are

522: given by the unperturbed ones (\ref{sol0S}), (\ref{sol0p}), 

523: and $f_\phi=0$. It is interesting to notice that the radius

524: determination does not require a precise form of $\Sigma$, which

525: follows from the $D$-term equation (\ref{D}). The formal solutions to

526: (\ref{Fvarphic}) and (\ref{fp}) are

527: \begin{equation}

528:   \varphi \,=\, A_\varphi\,e^{2k|y|}

529:   \exp\big(\mbox{\large $\int$}^y\frac{q}{2}\Sigma\big), \qquad

530:   f_\phi \,=\, A_\phi\,e^{(\frac{3}{2}+c_\phi)k|y|}

531:   \exp\big(\mbox{\large $\int$}^y\frac{q}{2}\Sigma\big),

532: \end{equation}

533: with $A_\varphi$ and $A_\phi$ being the integration

534: constants. Inserting the solutions into (\ref{bcfp}), we find that the

535: boundary conditions of $\phi^c$ determine the value of $R$:

536: \begin{equation}

537:   kR \,=\, \frac{\ln\big(\frac{m_\pi}{m_0}\big)}{(c_\phi-\frac{1}{2})\pi}.

538:   \label{Rstab}

539: \end{equation}

540: The boundary conditions also constrain the ratio of integration

541: constants as $A_\phi/A_\varphi=O(m_0)\ll1$. Their individual values

542: are fixed by the $D$-term equation which is satisfied 

543: by $O(m_{0,\pi}^2)$ fluctuation of $\Sigma$ around the unperturbed

544: solution (\ref{sol0S}). The fact that $A_\phi\ll 1$ ensures the

545: relevance of the perturbative analysis. The above derivation makes it

546: clear that explicit solutions to the equations of motion are not

547: needed to find a stabilized value of the radius. In fact, the radius

548: in the minimum can easily be evaluated for a generic value 

549: of $c_\varphi$. That is, a similar analysis shows that $R$ is

550: determined so that $kR=\ln(\frac{m_\pi}{m_0})/(c_\phi+c_\varphi)\pi$.

551: 

552: Several comments are in order. At least at this order of perturbation,

553: the stabilized value of the radius does not seem to depend on the FI

554: term. It is however noticed that the wavefunction factors $A$'s depend

555: on the FI term via $a_1$. If one turns off the FI 

556: term ($\xi_{\rm FI}\to 0$), the vacuum goes to the origin of field

557: space, that is, $a_1\to 0$ [see (\ref{afix})]. Consequently, the

558: expectation value of  $\phi^c$ also vanishes which cannot lead to the

559: radius determination (\ref{Rstab}). In this way the existence of

560: non-vanishing FI term is crucial for the stabilization of radius

561: modulus field. Secondly, as for the parameters $m_0$ and $m_\pi$,

562: realizing a significant warp factor does not need any fine tuning. For

563: example, the values $c_\phi\simeq 0.6$ 

564: and $\frac{m_\pi}{m_0}\simeq 20$ 

565: give $e^{k\pi R}\sim 10^{15}$ in (\ref{Rstab}). What is needed is a

566: parameter choice of order $O(0.1)$, which is similar to that in the

567: original Randall-Sundrum model where $kR\sim O(10)$ is assumed for

568: solving the gauge hierarchy problem. Of course, a radius stabilization

569: with no significant warp factor $e^{k\pi R}\sim O(1)$ is easier to be

570: achieved. Finally, we comment on the possibility for other choices 

571: of $U(1)$ charges. When the bulk mass $c_\phi$ is exactly one half,

572: the equation (\ref{Rstab}) implies that the radius is not

573: stabilized. This is however simply because of our $U(1)$ charge

574: assignment. If one supposes the $U(1)$ charge of $\phi$ is $+nq$ for

575: example, the gauge-invariant boundary superpotentials take the 

576: form $W\sim\phi\varphi^n$. In this case (also with a general 

577: unfixed $c_\varphi$), the stabilized value of $R$ is replaced with 

578: \begin{equation}

579:   kR \,=\, \frac{\ln(\frac{m_\pi}{m_0})}{(c_\phi+c_\varphi+2-2n)\pi}.

580: \end{equation}

581: Thus the radius is still stabilized as long as there is no principle

582: relating bulk mass parameters and $U(1)$ charges in a specific way.

583: 

584: \section{Stabilization with boundary fields}

585: 

586: In this section we examine whether the radius modulus can be

587: stabilized only with boundary field dynamics unlike the model

588: presented in the previous section. In this case, the stabilization

589: procedure is to look for the minimum of four-dimensional effective

590: potential of the radius modulus field. Let us first derive low-energy

591: effective theory for generic boundary superpotential terms. We assume

592: that supergravity effects except for the radius modulus are irrelevant

593: to stabilization. Integrating out the fifth dimension, we obtain the

594: low-energy effective theory of the $U(1)$ multiplet zero modes,

595: boundary matter multiplets, and the radius modulus $T$. The effective

596: Lagrangian is derived from (\ref{LV}), (\ref{LUV}), (\ref{LIR}), and

597: (\ref{LD}) with (\ref{FI}):

598: \begin{eqnarray}

599:   {\cal L}_{4\rm D} &\!=\!&\! \int\!d^2\theta\,\frac{\pi T}{2g^2}\, 

600:   W^\alpha W_\alpha +{\rm h.c.} +\int\!d^4\theta\,

601:   \Big[ \phi_{\rm UV}^\dagger e^{q_{\rm UV}V}

602:   \phi_{\rm UV} + e^{-k\pi(T+T^\dagger)}

603:   \phi_{\rm IR}^\dagger e^{q_{\rm IR}V}\phi_{\rm IR}\Big] \nonumber \\

604:   && \hspace*{-1mm}

605:   + \int\!d^2\theta\,\Big[ W_{\textrm{UV}}(\phi_{\rm UV})

606:   +e^{-3k\pi T} W_{\rm IR}(\phi_{\rm IR}) \Big] +{\rm h.c.} 

607:   +\!\int\!d^4\theta\Big(2\xi_{\rm FI}V-\frac{6M^3}{k}\Big)

608:   \big[1-e^{-k\pi(T+T^\dagger)}\big], \nonumber\\[-1mm]

609:   \label{L4D}

610: \end{eqnarray}

611: where $M$ is  the fundamental scale in five-dimensional theory. We

612: have included the proper K\"ahler term of the radius modulus field in

613: the warped background~\cite{radionDterm}. It is assumed that

614: extra bulk dynamics to lead to potential terms of $T$ is not

615: introduced. As mentioned in the previous section, however, the FI term

616: is automatically generated in the presence of charged matter fields

617: and provides $T$-dependent terms. The scalar potential is obtained by

618: integrating out all the auxiliary components

619: \begin{eqnarray}

620:   V_{4\rm D} &=& \frac{g^2}{4\pi R}\bigg[\,

621:   \frac{q_{\rm UV}}{2}|\phi_{\rm UV}|^2 +\frac{q_{\rm IR}}{2}e^{-2k\pi R}

622:   |\phi_{\rm IR}|^2 +\xi_{\rm FI} (1-e^{-2k\pi R}) \bigg]^2 \nonumber \\

623:   && +\left|\frac{\partial W_{\rm UV}}{\partial \phi_{\rm UV}} \right|^2 

624:   +e^{-4k\pi R} \left|\frac{\partial W_{\rm IR}}{\partial \phi_{\rm IR}}

625:   \right|^2 +\frac{ke^{-4k\pi R}}{6M^3} \left|3W_{\rm IR}-\phi_{\rm IR}

626:   \frac{\partial W_{\rm IR}}{\partial \phi_{\rm IR}}\right|^2.

627:   \label{potential}

628: \end{eqnarray}

629: For later discussion, we present the equations of motion for the

630: auxiliary fields;

631: \begin{eqnarray}

632:   D \,&=& \frac{-g^2\xi_{\rm FI}}{2\pi R}(1-e^{-2k\pi R})

633:   -\frac{q_{{}_{\rm UV}}g^2}{4\pi R}|\phi_{\rm UV}|^2

634:   -\frac{q_{{}_{\rm IR}}g^2}{4\pi R}e^{-2k\pi R}|\phi_{\rm IR}|^2,\\[1mm]

635:   F_{\phi_{{}_{\rm UV}}}^\dagger \!\!&=& 

636:   -\frac{\partial W_{\rm UV}}{\partial \phi_{\rm UV}}, \\

637:   F_{\phi_{\rm IR}}^\dagger \!&=& -e^{-k\pi R}

638:   \frac{\partial W_{\rm IR}}{\partial \phi_{\rm IR}}

639:   +\frac{ke^{-k\pi R}}{6M^3}\, \phi_{\rm IR}^\dagger

640:   \Big(3W_{\rm IR}-\phi_{\rm IR}

641:   \frac{\partial W_{\rm IR}}{\partial \phi_{\rm IR}} \Big), \\

642:   F_T^\dagger \,&=& \frac{e^{-k\pi R}}{6\pi M^3}

643:   \Big(3W_{\rm IR}-\phi_{\rm IR}

644:   \frac{\partial W_{\rm IR}}{\partial \phi_{\rm IR}} \Big),

645: \end{eqnarray}

646: where we have simply assumed that the graviphoton field does not have

647: a nonzero expectation value. The scalar potential is a function of

648: boundary scalar fields and the modulus $R$. Assuming an appropriate

649: form of boundary superpotentials, we first minimize the potential

650: (\ref{potential}) with respect to matter scalars and find the minimum

651: value $V(R)$ of the potential, which generally depends on $R$. Then

652: doing the minimization of $V(R)$, we obtain the vacuum with a

653: stabilized value of $R$.

654: 

655: From the generic form of the scalar potential (\ref{potential}), we

656: have several observations for the radius stabilization: (i) First,

657: unless the FI term is present, the radius is not stabilized. For a 

658: vanishing value of $\xi_{\rm FI}$, there is a $D$-flat direction in

659: the potential. Along this direction, the potential has the $R$

660: dependences only in the form of $e^{-4k\pi R}$ and the vacuum goes to

661: infinity. (ii) Another observation is that, unless supersymmetry is

662: broken, the radius is not stabilized at a finite value. Generally

663: speaking, the scalar potential vanishes for unbroken supersymmetry and hence

664: cannot fix the radius. In the present case, the FI term itself gives

665: rise to a non-vanishing potential. However it is a monotonous function

666: of $R$ and consequently, the radius $R$ is fated to have a runaway

667: behavior.

668: 

669: We thus find that, for stabilizing the radius modulus, the FI term

670: must be present and also four-dimensional supersymmetry must be broken

671: (leading to non-vanishing vacuum energy). An interesting point is

672: that, in curved five-dimensional theory, a FI term is automatically

673: induced and can cause required supersymmetry breaking. Note that the

674: above arguments are applied to the models with boundary multiplets 

675: only, and therefore including hypermultiplets and/or bulk dynamics may

676: change the conclusion. For example, as in the model of Section 4,

677: non-trivial $R$-dependences of bulk-field wavefunctions 

678: generate $R$-dependent (super)potential terms, which can lead 

679: to (supersymmetric) radius stabilization. We have shown in the above

680: that this cannot be obtained by boundary matter only and supersymmetry

681: needs to be broken.

682: 

683: \subsection{Radius determination}

684: 

685: As we mentioned, four-dimensional supersymmetry must be broken to

686: stabilize the size of the compact fifth dimension. In the absence of

687: charged matter fields, the FI term leads to a non-vanishing potential

688: for the radius modulus, as discussed in Section 3. However it does not

689: have any minimum with respect to $R$ for anomaly-free theory. Moreover

690: it might be unfavorable with such a vacuum energy that supersymmetry

691: is broken at a high-energy scale. In this section, we are thus

692: interested in including the charged matter contribution. With a

693: non-vanishing FI term, the $D$-flatness condition points to the unique

694: vacuum with nonzero expectation values of charged matter

695: scalars. Therefore adding appropriate perturbation to superpotential

696: terms, the charged field directions are lifted and hence supersymmetry

697: is broken, as needed.

698: 

699: The most simple case is to introduce on the $y=0$ boundary a

700: vector-like chiral multiplets $\phi_{\rm UV}$ and $\bar\phi_{\rm UV}$

701: (with $U(1)$ charges $+q_{\rm UV}$ and $-q_{\rm UV}$ respectively) and

702: their mass term:\footnote{Other examples are to introduce a

703: vector-like chiral multiplets on the $y=\pi R$ boundary, to introduce

704: only a constant superpotential, and so on. We find that, in either of

705: these cases, the radius modulus is not stabilized at a finite value.}

706: \begin{equation}

707:   W_{\rm UV} \,=\, m\phi_{{}_{\rm UV}}\bar\phi_{{}_{\rm UV}}.

708: \end{equation}

709: Together with the $D$-term potential, one can see that supersymmetry

710: is broken by small perturbation ($m\sim$ TeV). It is however found

711: from (\ref{potential}) that the modulus potential in this case has the

712: maximum only. We thus incorporate a constant superpotential on 

713: the $y=\pi R$ boundary: $W_{\rm IR}=\omega$. Such a constant

714: superpotential can be obtained in various ways and here we do not

715: consider any details of its origin. Without loss of 

716: generality, $q_{{}_{\rm UV}}\xi_{\rm FI}$ is taken to be positive and

717: the vacuum is given by

718: \begin{equation}

719:   \phi_{\rm UV} =\, 0, \qquad |\bar\phi_{\rm UV}|^2 =\, 

720:   \frac{2\xi_{\rm FI}}{q_{\rm UV}} (1-e^{-2k\pi R}) 

721:   -\frac{8\pi Rm^2}{q_{\rm UV}^2g^2}.

722:   \label{vev}

723: \end{equation}

724: The vacuum energy, which depends on the radius $R$, becomes

725: \begin{equation}

726:   V(R) \,=\, \frac{2m^2}{q_{\rm UV}}\xi_{\rm FI}(1-e^{-2k\pi R})

727:   -\frac{4\pi Rm^4}{q_{\rm UV}^2g^2}+\frac{3k|\omega|^2}{2M^3}e^{-4k\pi R}.

728:   \label{VR}

729: \end{equation}

730: Minimizing the vacuum energy determines the value of $R$. We find the 

731: solutions to $\frac{\partial V(R)}{\partial R}=0$;

732: \begin{equation}

733:   e^{2k\pi R} \,=\, \frac{k\xi_{\rm FI} q_{{}_{\rm UV}}g^2}{2m^2}

734:   \bigg(1\pm\sqrt{1-\frac{6\omega^2}{g^2\xi_{\rm FI}^2M^3}}\;\bigg).

735:   \label{sol}

736: \end{equation}

737: In this vacuum with a stabilized $R$, supersymmetry is broken by 

738: nonzero $D$ and $F$ terms;

739: \begin{equation}

740:   D \,=\, \frac{-2m^2}{q_{\rm UV}}, \qquad F_{\phi_{\rm UV}}

741:   \,\simeq\, -m\sqrt{\xi_{\rm FI}/q_{\rm UV}}, \qquad 

742:   F_T \,=\, \frac{\omega^*e^{-k\pi R}}{2\pi M^3}.

743:   \label{DFF}

744: \end{equation}

745: 

746: There are two typical scales of the constant term $\omega$ such 

747: that $F_T/R$ is on the order of supersymmetry-breaking 

748: scale $O({\rm TeV})$. The first case is given by a suppressed value 

749: of $\omega$ compared to the fundamental scale $M^3$. In this case, it

750: is easily found by analyzing the second derivative of the potential

751: that the minimum of $V(R)$ is given by $e^{2k\pi R}\simeq 

752: \frac{3q_{\textrm{UV}}k|\omega|^2}{2m^2 \xi_{\textrm{FI}}M^3}$.

753: Therefore the radius is stabilized around the value

754: \begin{equation}

755:   kR \,\simeq\, O(1),

756: \end{equation}

757: and a large metric warp factor does not arise. The

758: supersymmetry-breaking contribution from the radius modulus is found

759: to be $F_T\,\sim\,\omega/M^3\ll 1$. Fig.~\ref{VRfig} shows an explicit

760: form of the vacuum energy (the potential of the radius modulus) for a

761: suppressed value of $\omega$.

762: \begin{figure}[htbp]

763: \begin{center}

764: \scalebox{1.3}{\includegraphics{VR.eps}}

765: \put(8,81.5){$kR$}

766: \put(-237,167){$V(R)$}

767: \caption{The four-dimensional vacuum energy as a function of the size

768: of the fifth dimension (\ref{VR}). In the figure, we 

769: take $m=10^{-15}$, $\omega=10^{-16}$, $k=0.1$, and $\xi=0.01$ in the

770: unit of the fundamental scale $M$.}

771: \label{VRfig}

772: \end{center}

773: \end{figure}

774: The stabilized modulus obtains the mass squared $m_T^2=

775: \frac{e^{2k\pi R}}{6k\pi^2M^3}\frac{\partial^2 V(R)}{\partial R^2}$

776: which is always positive definite at the minimum. In the parameter

777: region we now consider, it is approximately given by

778: \begin{equation}

779:   m_T^2 \,\simeq\, \frac{4m^4\xi_{\rm FI}^2}{9q_{\rm UV}^2\omega^2}

780:   \;\simeq\; O\big({\rm (TeV)}^2\big),

781: \end{equation}

782: with the canonical kinetic term of the radius modulus.

783: 

784: Another typical scale of $\omega$ is a natural scale in the theory,

785: namely, $\omega\sim M^3$. In this case, the solution (\ref{sol}) means

786: that the minimum is around $e^{2k\pi R} \,\simeq\,

787: \frac{k\xi_{\textrm{FI}} q_{\textrm{UV}}g^2}{m^2}$ and therefore,

788: \begin{equation}

789:   kR \,\simeq\, \frac{1}{2\pi}

790:   \ln\Big(\frac{M}{\textrm{TeV}}\Big)^2 \;\,\sim\; 10.

791: \end{equation}

792: As a result, the metric warp factor gives significant effects, and

793: also we have a suppressed value of radius modulus $F$ 

794: term; $F_T\,\sim\,e^{-k\pi R}\,\sim\,\textrm{(TeV)}/M\,$. In

795: Fig.~\ref{VRfig2}, we show a typical behavior of the vacuum 

796: energy $V(R)$.

797: \begin{figure}[htbp]

798: \begin{center}

799: \scalebox{1.2}{\includegraphics{VR2.eps}}

800: \put(8,84){$kR$}

801: \caption{Typical behavior of the vacuum 

802: energy $V(R)$ for $m=10^{-15}$, $\omega=0.01$, $k=0.1$, and $\xi=1$

803: in the unit of $M$. (The figure plots the potential from which we have

804: subtracted a radius-independent 

805: constant $\frac{m^2\xi_{\textrm{FI}}}{q_{\textrm{UV}}}$ and normalized

806: it by $\frac{4m^4}{kq_{\textrm{UV}}^2g^2}$.) \ For a smaller value 

807: of $\omega/\xi_{\rm FI}$, the valley of the minimum becomes steeper.} 

808: \label{VRfig2}

809: \end{center}

810: \end{figure}

811: The mass of the radius modulus with the proper normalization in this

812: region is

813: \begin{equation}

814:   m_T^2 \,\simeq\, \frac{4m^4e^{2k\pi R}}{3q_{\rm UV}^2g^2M^3}

815:   \;\simeq\; O\big(\textrm{(TeV)}^2\big).

816: \end{equation}

817: Again we have a TeV-scale massive modulus field. For a large metric

818: factor, KK-excited modes have suppressed masses above $O(\textrm{TeV})$ 

819: in four-dimensional theory. It might require a careful treatment to

820: examine whether the effective Lagrangian of zero modes is valid in

821: this parameter region. In addition, the minimum might not be so steep

822: that it is not meta-stable within the cosmological evolution. However

823: a higher potential barrier can be achieved by a smaller value of the

824: constant superpotential, and a unstable vacuum is easily avoided.

825: 

826: \subsection{Towards realistic models}

827: 

828: We have shown that a nonzero FI term can stabilize the radius modulus to

829: a realistic value. As well known in four-dimensional theory, the FI

830: term is capable of explaining Yukawa hierarchy of quarks and leptons

831: and also of providing interesting sparticle spectrum. In this

832: subsection, we present a toy model towards constructing realistic

833: theory in higher dimensions where a single existence of FI term has

834: various important implications to phenomenology.

835: 

836: Let us consider one-generation `lepton' 

837: multiplets $\phi_L$, $\phi_R$, and `Higgs' $H$ as well as a

838: vector-like multiplets $\phi$ and $\bar\phi$. The latters play the 

839: radius stabilizer discussed in the previous section. For simplicity,

840: we focus only on the $U(1)$ factor and ignore the standard model gauge

841: groups. Incorporating these gauge factors is rather

842: straightforward. Now suppose that $\phi_L$ comes from a

843: five-dimensional hypermultiplet $(\phi_L,\bar\phi_L)$ with orbifold

844: parities $(+,-)$. So $\phi_L$ contains a massless mode in

845: four-dimensional effective theory. All other multiplets $\phi_R$, $H$,

846: $\phi$ and $\bar\phi$ are assumed to

847: be confined on the UV boundary. The $U(1)$ charges of these multiplets

848: are listed in the Table~1.

849: \begin{table}[htbp]

850: \centering

851: \begin{tabular}{c|ccccc}

852: & ($\phi_L,\bar\phi_L$) & $\phi_R$ & $H$ & $\phi$ & $\bar\phi$ \\ \hline

853: $U(1)$ & ($q_L,-q_L$) & $q_R$ & 0 & $1$ & $-1$

854: \end{tabular}

855: \caption{The $U(1)$ charge assignment. We take the charge of the Higgs

856: field zero, for simplicity, and the matter charges $q_L$ and $q_R$ are

857: positive.}

858: \end{table}

859: As in usual four-dimensional case, the $U(1)$ charges of matter fields

860: are taken as positive, which will be important to have non-vanishing

861: Yukawa couplings, positive sfermion masses squared, and also the

862: potential analysis in the previous section to be valid. The 

863: charge $q$ has been set to +1 without loss of any generalities. Note

864: that, with only these multiplets at hand, the zero-mode 

865: effective $U(1)$ theory is anomalous. But some anomaly cancellation

866: may easily be assumed, for example, introducing additional charged

867: multiplets. An important point here is that, even if effective

868: four-dimensional theory is anomaly free, an induced FI term can be

869: nonzero due to the curved extra dimension. Note also that there are no

870: gauge anomalies for the standard gauge groups, if included, provided

871: that anomalies are cancelled within massless

872: modes~\cite{ExDanomaly,FIexD2,FIexDwarp,ExDanomaly2}. Therefore in

873: case that light-mode spectrum is that of the standard model, we do not

874: worry about gauge (and gravitational) anomalies for any field

875: configurations in the extra dimension.

876: 

877: The FI term may be radiatively generated even for anomaly-free 

878: particle contents. In the $U(1)$ theory above, the one-loop

879: contribution is given by (\ref{FI}) 

880: with $\xi_{\rm UV}=\frac{(q_L+2q_R)\Lambda^2}{32\pi^2}$ 

881: and $\xi_{\rm IR}=\frac{-q_L\Lambda^2}{32\pi^2}$ where $\Lambda$ is

882: near the fundamental scale $M$. As seen in the previous section, the

883: successful radius stabilization needs a positive value 

884: of $\xi_{\rm IR}$, which is not satisfied in the present

885: form. ($\xi_{\rm UV}$ must also be positive to have Yukawa couplings

886: and supersymmetry breaking.) A simple way to cure this problem is to

887: introduce charged hypermultiplets which have even (odd) orbifold

888: parity at the UR (IR) boundary, or vice verse. These additional

889: multiplets contribute to the FI 

890: coefficients $\Delta\xi_{\rm UV}=\Delta\xi_{\rm IR}=

891: \frac{Q\Lambda^2}{32\pi^2}$ where $Q$ is the sum of $U(1)$ charges of

892: added multiplets. Moreover they contain no zero modes and do not

893: change the standard model spectrum. With this implementation, both

894: FI-term coefficients can safely be positive. In the previous 

895: analysis, $\xi_{\rm FI}$ is replaced with $\xi_{\rm IR}$ in the

896: solution (\ref{sol}) and the expressions of the radion mass, but in

897: the expectation values of $\bar\phi_{\rm UV}$ 

898: and $F_{\phi_{\rm UV}}$, $\xi_{\rm FI}$ is approximately given 

899: by $\xi_{\rm UV}$, which is suitably positive if $\xi_{\rm IR}$ is

900: made positive.

901: 

902: The Yukawa couplings for matter multiplets are described by

903: gauge-invariant higher-dimensional operators~\cite{FN} on 

904: the $y=0$ boundary:

905: \begin{equation}

906:   W_{\rm UV} \,=\, h\Big(\frac{\bar\phi}{M}\Big)^{q_L+q_R}\phi_L\phi_RH,

907:   \label{WY}

908: \end{equation}

909: where $h$ is the $O(1)$ coupling constant. If one included other

910: generations originated from bulk hypermultiplets, their Yukawa

911: couplings are allowed by bulk supersymmetry only on the boundaries

912: as (\ref{WY}). The potential analysis shows that only $\bar\phi$

913: develops a non-vanishing expectation value, i.e.\

914: (\ref{vev}).\footnote{The scalar $\bar\phi_L$ also has a 

915: negative $U(1)$ charge and might be worried to obtain a nonzero

916: expectation value. However the equation of motion for the $\phi_L$

917: scalar implies that this is not the case as long as there is no source

918: term of $\phi_L$ on the UV boundary.}

919: As a result, the above operator gives an effective Yukawa 

920: coupling $y\sim h\big(\frac{\langle\bar\phi\rangle}{M}\big)^{q_L+q_R}$. 

921: The expectation value of $|\bar\phi|^2$ is proportional to the FI term

922: and thus an one-loop order quantity. 

923: Therefore we obtain $\frac{\langle\bar\phi\rangle}{M}\equiv\lambda\sim O(0.1)$

924: that is just suitable for describing realistic Yukawa

925: hierarchies. Furthermore, in this model, there is an additional

926: possibility to have Yukawa suppression unlike in pure four-dimensional

927: theory. That is a wavefunction factor of bulk hypermultiplet zero

928: modes. The zero-mode wavefunction $\phi_{L_0}$ depends on its bulk

929: mass  $c$ and $U(1)$ charge, and is given by~\cite{FIexDwarp}

930: \begin{equation}

931:   \phi_{L_0} \,=\, 

932:   N_0\exp\Big[\Big(\frac{1}{2}-c\Big)k|y|+q_L ae^{2k|y|}\Big],

933: \end{equation}

934: with $N_0$ being the normalization constant determined 

935: by $\int\!dy|\phi_{L_0}|^2=1$ and roughly given 

936: by $N_0^2\simeq \frac{(1-2c)k}{e^{(1-2c)k\pi R}-1}$.

937: The present setup 

938: predicts $a=\frac{g^2\xi_{\textrm{IR}}}{8k}e^{-2k\pi R}$ derived from

939: the background expectation value of $\Sigma$, which is fixed by the

940: five-dimensional $D$-term equation. The second term in the bracket is

941: thus tiny in all region of the fifth dimension and can be dropped. We

942: then find that $N_0$ provides additional suppression of the effective

943: Yukawa coupling in the present model. For $c>\frac{1}{2}$, the

944: corresponding zero mode is localized at $y=0$ and yields no

945: suppression of Yukawa couplings which come from the operator on 

946: the $y=0$ boundary. On the other hand, the $c<\frac{1}{2}$ case gives

947: a Yukawa suppression by the 

948: factor $N_0\sim e^{(\frac{1}{2}-c)k\pi R}\ll 1$. This reflects the

949: fact that the zero mode is peaked at away from the $y=0$ boundary. In

950: the conformal limit $c=\frac{1}{2}$, the normalization constant $N_0$

951: becomes a volume-suppression factor $\frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi R}}$ as in the

952: case of flat extra dimension.

953: 

954: Supersymmetry-breaking spectrum is related to the radius stabilization

955: and Yukawa coupling structure. According to (\ref{DFF}), there are

956: three types of contributions to supersymmetry-breaking

957: parameters. Since we now introduced only boundary multiplets, the

958: equation of motion of $\Sigma$ in five dimensions implies that the

959: auxiliary field $D$ has a flat wavefunction in the fifth

960: direction. Therefore the $D$-term contribution is universal to all

961: charged scalars in the theory. The $F$ component of $\phi$ provides

962: soft masses and trilinear couplings of scalar fields from

963: superpotential and/or K\"ahler terms. It is found that they are

964: higher-dimensional operators and suppressed by powers 

965: of $\lambda=\frac{\langle\bar\phi\rangle}{M}$ compared to the 

966: leading $D$-term contribution. Ignoring these higher-dimensional

967: corrections,\footnote{Bulk fields with vanishing $U(1)$ charges, like

968: scalar top quark, might receive the dominant soft masses from

969: higher-dimensional K\"ahler terms involving $\phi$.} non-holomorphic

970: scalar masses are given by

971: \begin{eqnarray}

972:   m^2_L &=& -q_LD +\partial_T\partial_{\bar T}

973:   \ln |N_0(T,\bar T)|^2 |F_T|^2 \nonumber \\

974:   &\simeq& 2q_Lm^2 +\bigg|

975:   \frac{\big(c-\frac{1}{2}\big)k\pi R}{\sinh\big[\big(c-\frac{1}{2}\big)

976:     k\pi R\big]}\,\frac{F_T}{2R}\bigg|^2 \qquad\;\; 

977:   \textrm{(bulk scalars)}, \\

978:   m^2_R &=& 2q_Rm^2 \hspace*{4cm} 

979:   \textrm{($y=0$ boundary scalars)},

980: \end{eqnarray}

981: where $N_0(T,\bar T)$ is the appropriate superspace extension of the

982: normalization constant $N_0$. The first terms are the $D$-term

983: contributions which are positive definite ($q_{L,R}>0$). The second

984: term in the bulk scalar mass $m_L^2$ comes from the radius modulus $F$

985: term~(\ref{DFF}). We have dropped the $\Sigma$ contribution in $m^2_L$

986: since it is suppressed in the wavefunction factor $\phi_{L_0}$ as

987: discussed above. The boundary scalars at $y=0$ receive no $F_T$

988: contribution as seen from the Lagrangian (\ref{L4D}) and have rather

989: different spectrum than those of bulk scalar fields.

990: 

991: In case that quarks and leptons originate from bulk hypermultiplets,

992: the standard model gauge multiplets must also reside in the

993: five-dimensional bulk. Then the gauginos obtain supersymmetry-breaking

994: masses from two contributions; the radius modulus $F$ term and

995: higher-dimensional operators $\int\!d^2\theta\,c_i

996: \frac{\phi\bar\phi}{M^2}W^{\alpha i} W_\alpha^i$. The masses of

997: zero-mode gauginos $M_{1/2}^i$ are given by

998: \begin{equation}

999:   M_{1/2}^i \,=\, \frac{-c_ig^2\lambda^2m}{\pi R}+\frac{F_T}{2R}.

1000:   \label{gauginomass}

1001: \end{equation}

1002: 

1003: Let us concentrate on the vacuum with $kR\sim O(1)$. In this vacuum,

1004: the radius modulus $F$ term is

1005: \begin{equation}

1006:   \frac{F_T}{R} \;\simeq\; \frac{\omega^*e^{-k\pi R}}{2\pi RM^3}

1007:   \;\simeq\; \frac{\lambda m}{\sqrt{12\pi^2MR}} \;\ll\, m.

1008: \end{equation}

1009: For bulk scalar masses, the dominant part therefore comes from 

1010: the $D$-term contribution and the spectrum is similar to

1011: four-dimensional anomalous $U(1)$ models. The $D$-term contributed

1012: scalar masses have rich phenomenological implications such as flavor

1013: violation~\cite{LFV-D}. On the other hand, the two contributions to

1014: gaugino masses in (\ref{gauginomass}) are comparable in size or 

1015: the $F_T$ contribution can be dominant if low-energy effective theory

1016: has a weak gauge coupling constant $\frac{g^2}{\pi R}\ll 1$. The

1017: gauginos are found to have rather non-universal (non-unified) mass

1018: spectrum in this scenario.

1019: 

1020: As seen in this toy model, the existence of FI term provides various

1021: schemes to discuss phenomenological issues in higher-dimensional

1022: theory. It can stabilize the sizes of extra dimensions, create Yukawa

1023: hierarchies, and predict characteristic sparticle spectrum testified

1024: in future particle experiments. Therefore more realistic model

1025: construction along this line may deserve to be investigated.

1026: 

1027: \section{Summary}

1028: 

1029: In this work we have discussed the Fayet-Iliopoulos $D$ term as a

1030: possible origin of radius stabilization in brane world models. We have

1031: presented three different schemes for the stabilization. The simplest

1032: case has no matter multiplets to stabilize the radius, but the theory

1033: needs some cancellation mechanism of gravitational anomaly. The one of

1034: the others contains bulk hypermultiplets, whose non-trivial

1035: wavefunctions connect the two boundaries and then fix the size of the

1036: extra dimension in terms of boundary couplings. On the other hand, the

1037: third model involves only boundary dynamics and does not need the

1038: presence of bulk matter fields. The radius is, in this case,

1039: determined so that the vacuum energy is minimized after supersymmetry

1040: breaking. Every scheme can lead to a significant warp factor or

1041: near-flat metric, depending on the model parameters.

1042: 

1043: It should be noted that, in any model, the FI term is not a device

1044: introduced just in order to stabilize the radius modulus. A

1045: non-vanishing FI term is radiatively generated even if it is set to be

1046: zero at classical level. An induced FI term depends on how charged

1047: matter multiplets are distributed in the extra dimensions and is

1048: therefore controllable. Moreover it is known in four-dimensional

1049: models that the FI term is deeply connected with Yukawa hierarchy and

1050: supersymmetry breaking. We have presented a toy model for fermion

1051: Yukawa hierarchy correlated to the radius stabilization. The model

1052: also predicts characteristic spectrum of sfermions and gauginos.

1053: 

1054: In the model we have drawn in Section 4, the bulk scalar fields

1055: develop non-trivial wavefunction profiles in the extra dimension and

1056: four-dimensional supersymmetry is unbroken. When included

1057: supersymmetry breaking, it might give impacts on sparticle

1058: spectroscopy and also deserve cosmological considerations. We leave

1059: these phenomenological analysis to future investigations.

1060: 

1061: \bigskip

1062: 

1063: \subsection*{Acknowledgments}

1064: The authors wish to thank H.~Abe, K.~Choi, T.~Hirayama and H.~Nakano  

1065: for valuable discussions. T.~K.\/ is supported in part by the

1066: Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research  (\#16028211) and the

1067: Grant-in-Aid for the 21st Century COE ``The Center for Diversity and

1068: Universality in Physics'' from the Ministry of Education, Culture,

1069: Sports, Science and Technology of Japan.

1070: 

1071: \newpage

1072: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

1073: \bibitem{ADD}

1074: I.~Antoniadis,

1075: %``A Possible New Dimension At A Few Tev,''

1076: Phys.~Lett. B {\bf 246} (1990) 377;

1077: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B246,377;%%

1078: I.~Antoniadis, C.~Munoz and M.~Quiros,

1079: %``Dynamical supersymmetry breaking with a large internal dimension,''

1080: Nucl.~Phys. B {\bf 397} (1993) 515;

1081: %[arXiv:hep-ph/9211309];

1082: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9211309;%%

1083: N.~Arkani-Hamed, S.~Dimopoulos and G.R.~Dvali,

1084: %``The hierarchy problem and new dimensions at a millimeter,''

1085: Phys.~Lett. B {\bf 429} (1998) 263;

1086: %[arXiv:hep-ph/9803315];

1087: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9803315;%%

1088: I.~Antoniadis, N.~Arkani-Hamed, S.~Dimopoulos and G.R.~Dvali,

1089: %``New dimensions at a millimeter to a Fermi and superstrings at a TeV,''

1090: Phys.~Lett. B {\bf 436} (1998) 257.

1091: %[arXiv:hep-ph/9804398].

1092: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9804398;%%

1093: 

1094: \bibitem{RS}

1095: L.~Randall and R.~Sundrum,

1096: %``A large mass hierarchy from a small extra dimension,''

1097: Phys.~Rev.~Lett. {\bf 83} (1999) 3370;

1098: %[arXiv:hep-th/9905221];

1099: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9905221;%%

1100: %``An alternative to compactification,''

1101: {\it ibid.} {\bf 83} (1999) 4690.

1102: %[arXiv:hep-th/9906064].

1103: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9906064;%%

1104: 

1105: \bibitem{EDneu}

1106: K.R.~Dienes, E.~Dudas and T.~Gherghetta,

1107: %``Light neutrinos without heavy mass scales: A higher-dimensional seesaw

1108: %mechanism,''

1109: Nucl.~Phys. B {\bf 557} (1999) 25;

1110: %[arXiv:hep-ph/9811428];

1111: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9811428;%%

1112: N.~Arkani-Hamed, S.~Dimopoulos, G.R.~Dvali and J.~March-Russell,

1113: %``Neutrino masses from large extra dimensions,''

1114: Phys.~Rev. D {\bf 65} (2002) 024032;

1115: %[arXiv:hep-ph/9811448];

1116: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9811448;%%

1117: A.E.~Faraggi and M.~Pospelov,

1118: %``Phenomenological issues in TeV scale gravity with light neutrino

1119: %masses,''

1120: Phys.~Lett. B {\bf 458} (1999) 237;

1121: %[arXiv:hep-ph/9901299];

1122: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9901299;%%

1123: G.R.~Dvali and A.Y.~Smirnov,

1124: %``Probing large extra dimensions with neutrinos,''

1125: Nucl.~Phys. B {\bf 563} (1999) 63;

1126: %[arXiv:hep-ph/9904211];

1127: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9904211;%%

1128: R.N.~Mohapatra, S.~Nandi and A.~Perez-Lorenzana,

1129: %``Neutrino masses and oscillations in models with large extra

1130: %dimensions,''

1131: Phys.~Lett. B {\bf 466} (1999) 115;

1132: %[arXiv:hep-ph/9907520];

1133: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9907520;%%

1134: Y.~Grossman and M.~Neubert,

1135: %``Neutrino masses and mixings in non-factorizable geometry,''

1136: Phys.~Lett. B {\bf 474} (2000) 361;

1137: %[arXiv:hep-ph/9912408];

1138: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9912408;%%

1139: R.~Barbieri, P.~Creminelli and A.~Strumia,

1140: %``Neutrino oscillations from large extra dimensions,''

1141: Nucl.~Phys. B {\bf 585} (2000) 28;

1142: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0002199];

1143: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0002199;%%

1144: A.~Lukas, P.~Ramond, A.~Romanino and G.G.~Ross,

1145: %``Neutrino masses and mixing in brane-world theories,''

1146: JHEP {\bf 0104} (2001) 010;

1147: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0011295];

1148: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0011295;%%

1149: G.~Barenboim, G.C.~Branco, A.~de Gouvea and M.N.~Rebelo,

1150: %``Neutrino masses and lepton flavor violation in thick brane

1151: %scenarios,''

1152: Phys.~Rev. D {\bf 64} (2001) 073005;

1153: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0104312];

1154: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0104312;%%

1155: A.~De Gouvea, G.F.~Giudice, A.~Strumia and K.~Tobe,

1156: %``Phenomenological implications of neutrinos in extra dimensions,''

1157: Nucl.~Phys. B {\bf 623} (2002) 395;

1158: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0107156];

1159: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0107156;%%

1160: H.~Davoudiasl, P.~Langacker and M.~Perelstein,

1161: %``Constraints on large extra dimensions from neutrino oscillation

1162: %experiments,''

1163: Phys.~Rev. D {\bf 65} (2002) 105015;

1164: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0201128];

1165: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0201128;%%

1166: T.~Appelquist, B.A.~Dobrescu, E.~Ponton and H.U.~Yee,

1167: %``Neutrinos vis-a-vis the six-dimensional standard model,''

1168: Phys.~Rev. D {\bf 65} (2002) 105019;

1169: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0201131];

1170: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0201131;%%

1171: Q.H.~Cao, S.~Gopalakrishna and C.P.~Yuan,

1172: %``Constraints on large extra dimensions with bulk neutrinos,''

1173: Phys.~Rev. D {\bf 69} (2004) 115003;

1174: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0312339];

1175: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0312339;%%

1176: T.~Gherghetta,

1177: %``Dirac neutrino masses with Planck scale lepton number violation,''

1178: Phys.~Rev.~Lett. {\bf 92} (2004) 161601.

1179: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0312392].

1180: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0312392;%%

1181: 

1182: \bibitem{EDYukawa}

1183: K.R.~Dienes, E.~Dudas and T.~Gherghetta,

1184: %``Grand unification at intermediate mass scales through extra

1185: %dimensions,''

1186: Nucl.~Phys. B {\bf 537} (1999) 47;

1187: %[arXiv:hep-ph/9806292];

1188: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9806292;%%

1189: S.A.~Abel and S.F.~King,

1190: %``On fixed points and fermion mass structure from large extra

1191: %dimensions,''

1192: Phys.~Rev. D {\bf 59} (1999) 095010;

1193: %[arXiv:hep-ph/9809467];

1194: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9809467;%%

1195: N.~Arkani-Hamed and M.~Schmaltz,

1196: %``Hierarchies without symmetries from extra dimensions,''

1197: Phys.~Rev. D {\bf 61} (2000) 033005;

1198: %[arXiv:hep-ph/9903417];

1199: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9903417;%%

1200: H.C.~Cheng,

1201: %``Doublet-triplet splitting and fermion masses with extra dimensions,''

1202: Phys.~Rev. D {\bf 60} (1999) 075015;

1203: %[arXiv:hep-ph/9904252];

1204: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9904252;%%

1205: K.~Yoshioka,

1206: %``On fermion mass hierarchy with extra dimensions,''

1207: Mod.~Phys.~Lett. A {\bf 15} (2000) 29;

1208: %[arXiv:hep-ph/9904433];

1209: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9904433;%%

1210: G.R.~Dvali and M.A.~Shifman,

1211: %``Families as neighbors in extra dimension,''

1212: Phys.~Lett. B {\bf 475} (2000) 295;

1213: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0001072];

1214: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0001072;%%

1215: M.~Bando, T.~Kobayashi, T.~Noguchi and K.~Yoshioka,

1216: %``Yukawa hierarchy from extra dimensions and infrared fixed points,''

1217: Phys.~Lett. B {\bf 480} (2000) 187;

1218: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0002102];

1219: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0002102;%%

1220: %M.~Bando, T.~Kobayashi, T.~Noguchi and K.~Yoshioka,

1221: %``Fermion mass hierarchies and small mixing angles from extra

1222: %dimensions,''

1223: Phys.~Rev. D {\bf 63} (2001) 113017;

1224: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0008120];

1225: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0008120;%%

1226: T.~Gherghetta and A.~Pomarol,

1227: %``Bulk fields and supersymmetry in a slice of AdS,''

1228: Nucl.~Phys. B {\bf 586} (2000) 141;

1229: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0003129];

1230: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0003129;%%

1231: S.J.~Huber and Q.~Shafi,

1232: %``Fermion masses, mixings and proton decay in a Randall-Sundrum model,''

1233: Phys.~Lett. B {\bf 498} (2001) 256;

1234: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0010195];

1235: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0010195;%%

1236: S.~Nussinov and R.~Shrock,

1237: %``Effects of gauge interactions on fermion masses in models with

1238: %fermion wavefunctions separated in higher dimensions,''

1239: Phys.~Lett. B {\bf 526} (2002) 137;

1240: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0101340];

1241: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0101340;%%

1242: N.~Haba, Y.~Shimizu, T.~Suzuki and K.~Ukai,

1243: %``Fermion mass hierarchy in the grand unified theory on S(1)/(Z(2) x

1244: %Z(2)') orbifold,''

1245: Prog.~Theor.~Phys. {\bf 107} (2002) 151;

1246: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0107190];

1247: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0107190;%%

1248: L.~Hall, J.~March-Russell, T.~Okui and D.R.~Smith,

1249: %``Towards a theory of flavor from orbifold GUTs,''

1250: arXiv:hep-ph/0108161;

1251: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0108161;%%

1252: D.E.~Kaplan and T.M.P.~Tait,

1253: %``New tools for fermion masses from extra dimensions,''

1254: JHEP {\bf 0111} (2001) 051;

1255: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0110126];

1256: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0110126;%%

1257: A.~Hebecker and J.~March-Russell,

1258: %``The flavour hierarchy and see-saw neutrinos from bulk masses in 5d

1259: %orbifold GUTs,''

1260: Phys.~Lett. B {\bf 541} (2002) 338;

1261: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0205143];

1262: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0205143;%%

1263: R.~Kitano and T.j.~Li,

1264: %``Flavor hierarchy in SO(10) grand unified theories via 5-dimensional

1265: %wave-function localization,''

1266: Phys.~Rev. D {\bf 67} (2003) 116004;

1267: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0302073];

1268: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0302073;%%

1269: C.A.~Scrucca, M.~Serone and L.~Silvestrini,

1270: %``Electroweak symmetry breaking and fermion masses from extra

1271: %dimensions,''

1272: Nucl.~Phys. B {\bf 669} (2003) 128;

1273: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0304220];

1274: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0304220;%%

1275: C.~Biggio, F.~Feruglio, I.~Masina and M.~Perez-Victoria,

1276: %``Fermion generations, masses and mixing angles from extra dimensions,''

1277: Nucl.~Phys. B {\bf 677} (2004) 451;

1278: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0305129];

1279: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0305129;%%

1280: Z.y.~Han and W.~Skiba,

1281: %``Family unification on an orbifold,''

1282: Phys.~Rev. D {\bf 70} (2004) 035013;

1283: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0405199];

1284: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0405199;%%

1285: Y.~Grossman, R.~Harnik, G.~Perez, M.D.~Schwartz and Z.~Surujon,

1286: %``Twisted split fermions,''

1287: arXiv:hep-ph/0407260.

1288: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0407260;%%

1289: 

1290: \bibitem{EDsusybreaking}

1291: I.~Antoniadis, C.~Munoz and M.~Quiros,

1292: %``Dynamical supersymmetry breaking with a large internal dimension,''

1293: Nucl.~Phys. B {\bf 397} (1993) 515;

1294: %[arXiv:hep-ph/9211309];

1295: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9211309;%%

1296: E.A.~Mirabelli and M.E.~Peskin,

1297: %``Transmission of supersymmetry breaking from a 4-dimensional

1298: %boundary,''

1299: Phys.~Rev. D {\bf 58} (1998) 065002;

1300: %[arXiv:hep-th/9712214];

1301: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9712214;%%

1302: I.~Antoniadis, S.~Dimopoulos, A.~Pomarol and M.~Quiros,

1303: %``Soft masses in theories with supersymmetry breaking by

1304: %TeV-compactification,''

1305: Nucl.~Phys. B {\bf 544} (1999) 503;

1306: %[arXiv:hep-ph/9810410];

1307: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9810410;%%

1308: L.~Randall and R.~Sundrum,

1309: %``Out of this world supersymmetry breaking,''

1310: Nucl.~Phys. B {\bf 557} (1999) 79;

1311: %[arXiv:hep-th/9810155];

1312: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9810155;%%

1313: A.~Delgado, A.~Pomarol and M.~Quiros,

1314: %``Supersymmetry and electroweak breaking from extra dimensions at the

1315: %TeV-scale,''

1316: Phys.~Rev. D {\bf 60} (1999) 095008;

1317: %[arXiv:hep-ph/9812489];

1318: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9812489;%%

1319: D.E.~Kaplan, G.D.~Kribs and M.~Schmaltz,

1320: %``Supersymmetry breaking through transparent extra dimensions,''

1321: Phys.~Rev. D {\bf 62} (2000) 035010;

1322: %[arXiv:hep-ph/9911293];

1323: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9911293;%%

1324: Z.~Chacko, M.A.~Luty, A.E.~Nelson and E.~Ponton,

1325: %``Gaugino mediated supersymmetry breaking,''

1326: JHEP {\bf 0001} (2000) 003;

1327: %[arXiv:hep-ph/9911323];

1328: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9911323;%%

1329: T.~Kobayashi and K.~Yoshioka,

1330: %``Kaluza-Klein mediated supersymmetry breaking,''

1331: Phys.~Rev.~Lett. {\bf 85} (2000) 5527;

1332: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0008069];

1333: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0008069;%%

1334: R.~Barbieri, L.~J.~Hall and Y.~Nomura,

1335: %``A constrained standard model from a compact extra dimension,''

1336: Phys.~Rev. D {\bf 63} (2001) 105007;

1337: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0011311];

1338: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0011311;%%

1339: T.~Gherghetta and A.~Pomarol,

1340: %``A warped supersymmetric standard model,''

1341: Nucl.~Phys. B {\bf 602} (2001) 3;

1342: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0012378];

1343: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0012378;%%

1344: J.~Bagger, F.~Feruglio and F.~Zwirner,

1345: %``Brane induced supersymmetry breaking,''

1346: JHEP {\bf 0202} (2002) 010;

1347: %[arXiv:hep-th/0108010];

1348: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0108010;%%

1349: T.~Gherghetta and A.~Riotto,

1350: %``Gravity-mediated supersymmetry breaking in the brane-world,''

1351: Nucl.~Phys. B {\bf 623} (2002) 97;

1352: %[arXiv:hep-th/0110022];

1353: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0110022;%%

1354: G.~von Gersdorff and M.~Quiros,

1355: %``Supersymmetry breaking on orbifolds from Wilson lines,''

1356: Phys.~Rev. D {\bf 65} (2002) 064016;

1357: %[arXiv:hep-th/0110132];

1358: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0110132;%%

1359: A.~Delgado, G.~von Gersdorff and M.~Quiros,

1360: %``Brane-assisted Scherk-Schwarz supersymmetry breaking in orbifolds,''

1361: JHEP {\bf 0212} (2002) 002;

1362: %[arXiv:hep-th/0210181];

1363: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0210181;%%

1364: K.w.~Choi, D.Y.~Kim, I.W.~Kim and T.~Kobayashi,

1365: %``Supersymmetry breaking in warped geometry,''

1366: Eur.~Phys.~J. C {\bf 35} (2004) 267;

1367: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0305024];

1368: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0305024;%%

1369: J.~Bagger and M.~Redi,

1370: %``Supersymmetry breaking by Wilson lines in AdS(5),''

1371: Phys.~Lett. B {\bf 582} (2004) 117.

1372: %[arXiv:hep-th/0310086].

1373: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0310086;%%

1374: 

1375: \bibitem{models}

1376: N.~Arkani-Hamed, S.~Dimopoulos and J.~March-Russell,

1377: %``Stabilization of sub-millimeter dimensions: The new guise of the 

1378: %hierarchy problem,''

1379: Phys.~Rev. D {\bf 63} (2001) 064020;

1380: %[arXiv:hep-th/9809124];

1381: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9809124;%%

1382: K.R.~Dienes, E.~Dudas, T.~Gherghetta and A.~Riotto,

1383: %``Cosmological phase transitions and radius stabilization in higher

1384: %dimensions,''

1385: Nucl.~Phys. B {\bf 543} (1999) 387;

1386: %[arXiv:hep-ph/9809406];

1387: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9809406;%%

1388: W.D.~Goldberger and M.B.~Wise,

1389: %``Modulus stabilization with bulk fields,''

1390: Phys.~Rev.~Lett. {\bf 83} (1999) 4922;

1391: %[arXiv:hep-ph/9907447];

1392: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9907447;%%

1393: M.A.~Luty and R.~Sundrum,

1394: %``Radius stabilization and anomaly-mediated supersymmetry breaking,''

1395: Phys.~Rev. D {\bf 62} (2000) 035008;

1396: %[arXiv:hep-th/9910202];

1397: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9910202;%%

1398: J.~Garriga, O.~Pujolas and T.~Tanaka,

1399: %``Radion effective potential in the brane-world,''

1400: Nucl.~Phys. B {\bf 605} (2001) 192;

1401: %[arXiv:hep-th/0004109];

1402: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0004109;%%

1403: I.~Brevik, K.A.~Milton, S.~Nojiri and S.D.~Odintsov,

1404: %``Quantum (in)stability of a brane-world AdS(5) universe at nonzero

1405: %temperature,''

1406: Nucl.~Phys. B {\bf 599} (2001) 305;

1407: %[arXiv:hep-th/0010205];

1408: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0010205;%%

1409: R.~Hofmann, P.~Kanti and M.~Pospelov,

1410: %``(De-)stabilization of an extra dimension due to a Casimir force,''

1411: Phys.~Rev. D {\bf 63} (2001) 124020;

1412: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0012213];

1413: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0012213;%%

1414: B.~Grinstein, D.R.~Nolte and W.~Skiba,

1415: %``Radion stabilization by brane matter,''

1416: Phys.~Rev. D {\bf 63} (2001) 105016;

1417: %[arXiv:hep-th/0012202];

1418: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0012202;%%

1419: A.~Mazumdar and A.~Perez-Lorenzana,

1420: %``A dynamical stabilization of the radion potential,''

1421: Phys.~Lett. B {\bf 508} (2001) 340;

1422: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0102174];

1423: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0102174;%%

1424: E.~Ponton and E.~Poppitz,

1425: %``Casimir energy and radius stabilization in five and six dimensional

1426: %orbifolds,''

1427: JHEP {\bf 0106} (2001) 019;

1428: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0105021];

1429: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0105021;%%

1430: S.~Nasri, P.~J.~Silva, G.D.~Starkman and M.~Trodden,

1431: %``Radion stabilization in compact hyperbolic extra dimensions,''

1432: Phys.~Rev. D {\bf 66} (2002) 045029;

1433: %[arXiv:hep-th/0201063];

1434: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0201063;%%

1435: J.~Garriga and A.~Pomarol,

1436: %``A stable hierarchy from Casimir forces and the holographic 

1437: %interpretation,''

1438: Phys.~Lett. B {\bf 560} (2003) 91;

1439: %[arXiv:hep-th/0212227];

1440: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0212227;%%

1441: G.~von Gersdorff, M.~Quiros and A.~Riotto,

1442: %``Scherk-Schwarz supersymmetry breaking with radion stabilization,''

1443: Nucl.~Phys. B {\bf 689} (2004) 76;

1444: %[arXiv:hep-th/0310190];

1445: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0310190;%%

1446: B.~Grzadkowski and J.F.~Gunion,

1447: %``Bulk scalar stabilization of the radion without metric back-reaction 

1448: %in the Randall-Sundrum model,''

1449: Phys.~Rev. D {\bf 68} (2003) 055002;

1450: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0304241];

1451: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0304241;%%

1452: N.~Maru and N.~Okada,

1453: %``Supersymmetric radius stabilization in warped extra dimensions,''

1454: Phys.~Rev. D {\bf 70} (2004) 025002.

1455: %[arXiv:hep-th/0312148].

1456: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0312148;%%

1457: 

1458: \bibitem{FID}

1459: P.~Fayet and J.~Iliopoulos,

1460: %``Spontaneously Broken Supergauge Symmetries And Goldstone Spinors,''

1461: Phys.~Lett. B {\bf 51} (1974) 461.

1462: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B51,461;%%

1463: 

1464: \bibitem{FIexD}

1465: D.M.~Ghilencea, S.~Groot Nibbelink and H.P.~Nilles,

1466: %``Gauge corrections and FI-term in 5D KK theories,''

1467: Nucl.~Phys. B {\bf 619} (2001) 385.

1468: %[arXiv:hep-th/0108184].

1469: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0108184;%%

1470: 

1471: \bibitem{NRT-D}

1472: W.~Fischler, H.P.~Nilles, J.~Polchinski, S.~Raby and L.~Susskind,

1473: %``Vanishing Renormalization Of The D Term In Supersymmetric U(1)

1474: %Theories,''

1475: Phys.~Rev.~Lett. {\bf 47} (1981) 757.

1476: %%CITATION = PRLTA,47,757;%%

1477: 

1478: \bibitem{anomalousU1}

1479: L.E.~Ibanez and G.G.~Ross,

1480: %``Fermion masses and mixing angles from gauge symmetries,''

1481: Phys.~Lett. B {\bf 332} (1994) 100;

1482: %[arXiv:hep-ph/9403338];

1483: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9403338;%%

1484: E.~Dudas, S.~Pokorski and C.A.~Savoy,

1485: %``Soft scalar masses in supergravity with horizontal U(1)_X gauge

1486: %symmetry,''

1487: Phys.~Lett. B {\bf 369} (1996) 255;

1488: %[arXiv:hep-ph/9509410];

1489: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9509410;%%

1490: G.R.~Dvali and A.~Pomarol,

1491: %``Anomalous U(1) as a mediator of supersymmetry breaking,''

1492: Phys.~Rev.~Lett. {\bf 77} (1996) 3728;

1493: %[arXiv:hep-ph/9607383];

1494: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9607383;%%

1495: P.~Binetruy and E.~Dudas,

1496: %``Gaugino condensation and the anomalous U(1),''

1497: Phys.~Lett. B {\bf 389} (1996) 503.

1498: %[arXiv:hep-th/9607172].

1499: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9607172;%%

1500: 

1501: \bibitem{sf}

1502: N.~Arkani-Hamed, T.~Gregoire and J.~Wacker,

1503: %``Higher dimensional supersymmetry in 4D superspace,''

1504: JHEP {\bf 0203} (2002) 055;

1505: %[arXiv:hep-th/0101233];

1506: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0101233;%%

1507: D.~Marti and A.~Pomarol,

1508: %``Supersymmetric theories with compact extra dimensions in N = 1

1509: %superfields,''

1510: Phys.~Rev. D {\bf 64} (2001) 105025;

1511: %[arXiv:hep-th/0106256];

1512: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0106256;%%

1513: A.~Hebecker,

1514: %``5D super Yang-Mills theory in 4-D superspace, superfield brane

1515: %operators, and applications to orbifold GUTs,''

1516: Nucl.~Phys. B {\bf 632} (2002) 101.

1517: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0112230].

1518: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0112230;%%

1519: 

1520: \bibitem{FIexD2}

1521: C.A.~Scrucca, M.~Serone, L.~Silvestrini and F.~Zwirner,

1522: %``Anomalies in orbifold field theories,''

1523: Phys.~Lett. B {\bf 525} (2002) 169;

1524: %[arXiv:~hep-th/0110073];

1525: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0110073;%%

1526: R.~Barbieri, R.~Contino, P.~Creminelli, R.~Rattazzi and C.A.~Scrucca,

1527: %``Anomalies, Fayet-Iliopoulos terms and the consistency of orbifold 

1528: %field theories,''

1529: Phys.~Rev. D {\bf 66} (2002) 024025.

1530: %[arXiv:hep-th/0203039].

1531: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0203039;%%

1532: 

1533: \bibitem{FIexD3}

1534: S.~Groot Nibbelink, H.P.~Nilles and M.~Olechowski,

1535: %``Spontaneous localization of bulk matter fields,''

1536: Phys.~Lett. B {\bf 536} (2002) 270;

1537: %[arXiv:hep-th/0203055];

1538: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0203055;%%

1539: %``Instabilities of bulk fields and anomalies on orbifolds,''

1540: Nucl.~Phys. B {\bf 640} (2002) 171;

1541: %[arXiv:hep-th/0205012];

1542: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0205012;%%

1543: D.~Marti and A.~Pomarol,

1544: %``Fayet-Iliopoulos terms in 5d theories and their phenomenological 

1545: % implications,''

1546: Phys.~Rev. D {\bf 66} (2002) 125005;

1547: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0205034];

1548: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0205034;%%

1549: H.~Abe, T.~Higaki and T.~Kobayashi,

1550: %``Wave-function profile and SUSY breaking in 5D model with

1551: %Fayet-Iliopoulos term,''

1552: Prog.~Theor.~Phys. {\bf 109} (2003) 809;

1553: %[arXiv:hep-th/0210025];

1554: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0210025;%%

1555: S.~Groot Nibbelink,

1556: %``Traces on orbifolds: Anomalies and one-loop amplitudes,''

1557: JHEP {\bf 0307} (2003) 011;

1558: %[arXiv:hep-th/0305139];

1559: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0305139;%%

1560: H.M.~Lee, H.P.~Nilles and M.~Zucker,

1561: %``Spontaneous localization of bulk fields: The six-dimensional case,''

1562: Nucl.~Phys. B {\bf 680} (2004) 177.

1563: %[arXiv:hep-th/0309195].

1564: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0309195;%%

1565: 

1566: \bibitem{FIexDwarp}

1567: T.~Hirayama and K.~Yoshioka,

1568: %``Anomalies and Fayet-Iliopoulos terms on warped orbifolds and large

1569: %hierarchies,''

1570: arXiv:hep-th/0311233.

1571: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0311233;%%

1572: 

1573: \bibitem{ADS-CFT}

1574: J.M.~Maldacena,

1575: %``The large N limit of superconformal field theories and supergravity,''

1576: Adv.~Theor.~Math.~Phys. {\bf 2} (1998) 231;

1577: %[arXiv:hep-th/9711200];

1578: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9711200;%%

1579: S.S.~Gubser, I.R.~Klebanov and A.M.~Polyakov,

1580: %``Gauge theory correlators from non-critical string theory,''

1581: Phys.~Lett. B {\bf 428} (1998) 105;

1582: %[arXiv:hep-th/9802109];

1583: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9802109;%%

1584: E.~Witten,

1585: %``Anti-de Sitter space and holography,''

1586: Adv.~Theor.~Math.~Phys. {\bf 2} (1998) 253;

1587: %[arXiv:hep-th/9802150];

1588: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9802150;%%

1589: H.~Verlinde,

1590: %``Holography and compactification,''

1591: Nucl.~Phys. B {\bf 580} (2000) 264;

1592: %[arXiv:hep-th/9906182];

1593: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9906182;%%

1594: J.~de Boer, E.~Verlinde and H.~Verlinde,

1595: %``On the holographic renormalization group,''

1596: JHEP {\bf 0008} (2000) 003;

1597: %[arXiv:hep-th/9912012];

1598: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9912012;%%

1599: N.~Arkani-Hamed, M.~Porrati and L.~Randall,

1600: %``Holography and phenomenology,''

1601: JHEP {\bf 0108} (2001) 017;

1602: %[arXiv:hep-th/0012148];

1603: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0012148;%%

1604: R.~Rattazzi and A.~Zaffaroni,

1605: %``Comments on the holographic picture of the Randall-Sundrum model,''

1606: JHEP {\bf 0104} (2001) 021;

1607: %[arXiv:hep-th/0012248];

1608: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0012248;%%

1609: L.~Randall and M.D.~Schwartz,

1610: %``Quantum field theory and unification in AdS5,''

1611: JHEP {\bf 0111} (2001) 003;

1612: %[arXiv:hep-th/0108114];

1613: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0108114;%%

1614: %``Unification and the hierarchy from AdS5,''

1615: Phys.~Rev.~Lett. {\bf 88} (2002) 081801.

1616: %[arXiv:hep-th/0108115].

1617: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0108115;%%

1618: 

1619: \bibitem{ADS4D}

1620: K.~Sfetsos,

1621: %``Dynamical emergence of extra dimensions and warped geometries,''

1622: Nucl.~Phys. B {\bf 612} (2001) 191;

1623: %[arXiv:hep-th/0106126];

1624: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0106126;%%

1625: H.~Abe, T.~Kobayashi, N.~Maru and K.~Yoshioka,

1626: %``Field localization in warped gauge theories,''

1627: Phys.~Rev. D {\bf 67} (2003) 045019;

1628: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0205344];

1629: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0205344;%%

1630: A.~Falkowski and H.D.~Kim,

1631: %``Running of gauge couplings in AdS(5) via deconstruction,''

1632: JHEP {\bf 0208} (2002) 052;

1633: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0208058];

1634: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0208058;%%

1635: L.~Randall, Y.~Shadmi and N.~Weiner,

1636: %``Deconstruction and gauge theories in AdS(5),''

1637: JHEP {\bf 0301} (2003) 055.

1638: %[arXiv:hep-th/0208120].

1639: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0208120;%%

1640: 

1641: \bibitem{FIDsugra}

1642: H.~Abe, K.~Choi and I.W.~Kim,

1643: %``Fayet-Iliopoulos terms in 5D orbifold supergravity,''

1644: arXiv:hep-th/0405100;

1645: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0405100;%%

1646: F.P.~Correia, M.G.~Schmidt and Z.~Tavartkiladze,

1647: %``Superfield Approach to 5D Conformal SUGRA and the Radion,''

1648: arXiv:hep-th/0408138.

1649: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0408138;%%

1650: 

1651: \bibitem{radionDterm}

1652: J.~Bagger, D.~Nemeschansky and R.J.~Zhang,

1653: %``Supersymmetric radion in the Randall-Sundrum scenario,''

1654: JHEP {\bf 0108} (2001) 057;

1655: %[arXiv:hep-th/0012163];

1656: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0012163;%%

1657: M.A.~Luty and R.~Sundrum,

1658: %``Hierarchy stabilization in warped supersymmetry,''

1659: Phys.~Rev. {\bf D64} (2001) 065012;

1660: %[arXiv:hep-th/0012158];

1661: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0012158;%%

1662: A.~Falkowski, Z.~Lalak and S.~Pokorski,

1663: %``Four dimensional supergravities from five dimensional brane worlds,''

1664: Nucl.~Phys. {\bf B613} (2001) 189.

1665: %[arXiv:hep-th/0102145].

1666: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0102145;%%

1667: 

1668: \bibitem{ExDanomaly}

1669: N.~Arkani-Hamed, A.G.~Cohen and H.~Georgi,

1670: %``Anomalies on orbifolds,''

1671: Phys.~Lett. B {\bf 516} (2001) 395.

1672: %[arXiv:~hep-th/0103135].

1673: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0103135;%%

1674: 

1675: \bibitem{ExDanomaly2}

1676: L.~Pilo and A.~Riotto,

1677: %``On anomalies in orbifold theories,''

1678: Phys.~Lett. B {\bf 546} (2002) 135.

1679: %[arXiv:hep-th/0202144].

1680: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0202144;%%

1681: C.A.~Scrucca, M.~Serone and M.~Trapletti,

1682: %``Open string models with Scherk-Schwarz SUSY breaking and localized

1683: %anomalies,''

1684: Nucl.~Phys. B {\bf 635} (2002) 33;

1685: %[arXiv:hep-th/0203190];

1686: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0203190;%%

1687: H.D.~Kim, J.E.~Kim and H.M.~Lee,

1688: %``TeV scale 5D SU(3)W unification and the fixed point anomaly

1689: %cancellation with chiral split multiplets,''

1690: JHEP {\bf 0206} (2002) 048;

1691: %[arXiv:hep-th/0204132];

1692: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0204132;%%

1693: F.~Gmeiner, S.~Groot Nibbelink, H.P.~Nilles, M.~Olechowski and M.G.~Walter,

1694: %``Localized anomalies in heterotic orbifolds,''

1695: Nucl.~Phys. B {\bf 648} (2003) 35;

1696: %[arXiv:hep-th/0208146];

1697: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0208146;%%

1698: T.~Asaka, W.~Buchmuller and L.~Covi,

1699: %``Bulk and brane anomalies in six dimensions,''

1700: Nucl.~Phys. B {\bf 648} (2003) 231;

1701: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0209144];

1702: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0209144;%%

1703: T.~Gherghetta and A.~Kehagias,

1704: %``Anomaly cancellation in seven-dimensional supergravity with a boundary,''

1705: Phys.~Rev. D {\bf 68} (2003) 065019;

1706: %[arXiv:hep-th/0212060];

1707: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0212060;%%

1708: G.von Gersdorff and M.~Quiros,

1709: %``Localized anomalies in orbifold gauge theories,''

1710: Phys.~Rev. D {\bf 68} (2003) 105002;

1711: %[arXiv:hep-th/0305024];

1712: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0305024;%%

1713: S.~Groot Nibbelink, M.~Hillenbach, T.~Kobayashi and M.G.~Walter,

1714: %``Localization of heterotic anomalies on various hyper surfaces of

1715: %T(6)/Z(4),''

1716: Phys.~Rev. D {\bf 69} (2004) 046001;

1717: %[arXiv:hep-th/0308076];

1718: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0308076;%%

1719: C.A.~Scrucca and M.~Serone,

1720: %``Anomalies in field theories with extra dimensions,''

1721: Int.~J.~Mod.~Phys. A {\bf 19} (2004) 2579;

1722: %[arXiv:hep-th/0403163];

1723: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0403163;%%

1724: E.~Dudas, T.~Gherghetta and S.~G.~Nibbelink,

1725: %``Vector / tensor duality in the five dimensional supersymmetric

1726: %Green-Schwarz mechanism,''

1727: arXiv:hep-th/0404094.

1728: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0404094;%%

1729: 

1730: \bibitem{FN}

1731: C.D.~Froggatt and H.B.~Nielsen,

1732: %``Hierarchy Of Quark Masses, Cabibbo Angles And CP Violation,''

1733: Nucl.~Phys. B {\bf 147} (1979) 277.

1734: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B147,277;%%

1735: 

1736: \bibitem{LFV-D}

1737: B.~Murakami, K.~Tobe and J.~D.~Wells,

1738: %``D-term challenges for supersymmetric gauged abelian flavor

1739: %symmetries,''

1740: Phys.~Lett. B {\bf 526} (2002) 157;

1741: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0111003];

1742: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0111003;%%

1743: I.~Jack, D.R.T.~Jones and R.~Wild,

1744: %``Fayet-Iliopoulos D-terms, neutrino masses and anomaly mediated

1745: %supersymmetry breaking,''

1746: Phys.~Lett. B {\bf 535} (2002) 193;

1747: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0202101];

1748: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0202101;%%

1749: T.~Kobayashi, H.~Nakano, H.~Terao and K.~Yoshioka,

1750: %``Flavor violation in supersymmetric theories with gauged flavor

1751: %symmetries,''

1752: Prog.~Theor.~Phys. {\bf 110} (2003) 247;

1753: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0211347];

1754: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0211347;%%

1755: K.S.~Babu, T.~Enkhbat and I.~Gogoladze,

1756: %``Anomalous U(1) symmetry and lepton flavor violation,''

1757: Nucl.~Phys. B {\bf 678} (2004) 233.

1758: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0308093].

1759: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0308093;%%

1760: 

1761: \end{thebibliography}

1762: 

1763: \end{document}

1764: