1: %\documentclass[11pt,fleqn]{article}

2: %\documentclass[11pt]{article}

3: \documentclass[11pt]{article}

4: %\documentclass[12pt]{article}

5: \hyphenpenalty=1000

6: %\usepackage{srcltx}

7: %\usepackage{cite}

8: \usepackage{latexsym}

9: \usepackage{amssymb}

10: \usepackage{amsmath}

11: \usepackage[hypertex]{hyperref}

12: \usepackage{graphicx}% Include figure files

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

14: %\def\lesssim{\mathrel{\mathpalette\vereq<}}

15: %\def\gtrsim{\mathrel{\mathpalette\vereq>}}

16: 

17: 

18: \newcommand{\lsim}{\lesssim}

19: \newcommand{\gsim}{\gtrsim}

20: %\renewcommand{\theequation}{\thesection.\arabic{equation}}

21: 

22: %\makeatletter

23: %\def\vereq#1#2{\lower3pt\vbox{\baselineskip1.5pt \lineskip1.5pt

24: %\ialign{$\m@th#1\hfill##\hfil$\crcr#2\crcr\sim\crcr}}}

25: %\makeatother

26: 

27: \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{0cm}

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

29: \setlength{\topmargin}{0.2cm}

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

31: \setlength{\headsep}{0cm}

32: %\setlength{\textheight}{21.5cm}

33: \setlength{\textheight}{22.5cm}

34: \setlength{\parskip}{0.5em}

35: 

36: 

37: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

38: \begin{document}

39: 

40: 

41: \begin{flushright}

42: SLAC-PUB-11897\\

43: hep-ph/0606129 \\

44: \end{flushright}

45: 

46: \vspace{2.5cm}

47: 

48: \begin{center}

49: 

50: {\bf\LARGE Dynamical GUT breaking and 

51: {\boldmath $\mu$}-term driven supersymmetry breaking} \\

52: 

53: \vspace*{1.5cm}

54: {\large Ryuichiro Kitano} \\

55: \vspace*{0.5cm}

56: 

57: {\it Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, Stanford University,

58:                 Stanford, CA 94309} \\

59: 

60: \vspace*{0.5cm}

61: 

62: \end{center}

63: 

64: \vspace*{1.0cm}

65: 

66: \begin{abstract}

67: Models for dynamical breaking of supersymmetric grand unified theories

68: are presented. The doublet-triplet splitting problem is absent since the

69: Higgs doublet superfields can be identified with the massless mesons of

70: the strong gauge group whereas there are no massless states

71: corresponding to the colored Higgs fields.  Various strong gauge groups

72: SU($N_c$), Sp($N_c$) and SO($N_c$) are examined. In a model with SO(9)

73: strong gauge group, adding $\mu$-term for the Higgs fields triggers to

74: break supersymmetry in a meta-stable vacuum.  The pattern of the

75: supersymmetry breaking parameters is predicted to be of the

76: gauge-mediation type with modifications in the Higgs sector.

77: 

78: \end{abstract} 

79: 

80: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

81: \newpage

82: \baselineskip 18pt

83: 

84: \section{Introduction}

85: 

86: The Higgs boson, which has not been observed yet, is the most mysterious

87: particle in the standard model although it plays an important role:

88: electroweak symmetry breaking and the origin of the fermion masses.

89: %

90: Successful electroweak symmetry breaking needs a negative mass squared

91: for this particle and its size must be anomalously small compared to the

92: cut-off scale of the theory.

93: %

94: This situation motivated us to consider the supersymmetric standard

95: model to protect the mass parameter from large quantum correction, but

96: the Higgs particle is still left mysterious.

97: %

98: The Higgs boson (or Higgsino) mass parameter, the $\mu$-term, cannot be

99: protected by gauge symmetry or supersymmetry (SUSY) although quantum

100: corrections are successfully removed.

101: %

102: 

103: 

104: Embedding the supersymmetric standard model into grand unified theories

105: (GUT), motivated by gauge coupling unification~\cite{Dimopoulos:1981zb},

106: makes the Higgs particle more mysterious. Even for the smallest group

107: for grand unification, SU(5)~\cite{Georgi:1974sy}, the Higgs fields do

108: not fit into a complete multiplet of the symmetry group, and therefore

109: we need extra particles to appear at the GUT scale $M_G \sim

110: 10^{16}$~GeV. One mysterious feature is that, it is not easy to realize

111: this situation with nearly massless Higgs fields in models with the GUT

112: symmetry breaking by the Higgs mechanism. The splitting of masses

113: between the Higgs fields and extra particles must be done by a coupling

114: to the fields whose vacuum expectation values (VEV) break the GUT

115: symmetry group, but in simple models it gives masses to the Higgs fields

116: of the order of $M_G$. This is the famous doublet-triplet splitting

117: problem.

118: %

119: Another mysterious feature of SUSY-GUT models is the absence or

120: suppression of dimension-five proton-decay operators. For example, in

121: the simplest SU(5) model, the Higgs particles are embedded into the

122: ${\bf 5}$ and ${\bf \bar{5}}$ representations which contain two colored

123: partner of the Higgs fields $H_C$ and $\bar{H}_C$. If these colored

124: Higgs fields have masses by pairing to each other, i.e., $W \ni m_C H_C

125: \bar{H}_C$, dimension-five operators suppressed by the scale $m_C$ are

126: generated by integrating out $H_C$ and

127: $\bar{H}_C$~\cite{Weinberg:1981wj}. It has been studied that the colored

128: Higgs mass $m_C$ has to be quite large $m_C \gtrsim 10^{17}$~GeV, which

129: is disfavored by the unification of the gauge

130: couplings~\cite{Goto:1998qg}.

131: 

132: 

133: The above two problems, the doublet-triplet splitting and the proton

134: decay, are actually related and there is a simple solution to these

135: problems.

136: %

137: If we are to avoid dimension-five proton-decay operators such as $QQQL$

138: in the superpotential, with $Q$ and $L$ being the quark and lepton

139: doublets, an easy way is to impose a symmetry under which matter fields

140: are charged, e.g., both $Q$ and $L$ have charge unity.

141: %

142: In SU(5) SUSY GUTs, this means that both of the Higgs fields in ${\bf

143: 5}$ and ${\bf \bar{5}}$ representations have charge $-2$ in order to

144: have Yukawa interactions, and thus the mass term is forbidden.

145: %

146: Now, to give mass terms to the colored Higgs fields while keeping the

147: symmetry unbroken we need to introduce another pair of ${\bf 5}$ and

148: ${\bf \bar{5}}$ field which have charge $+2$, but in this case, we have

149: either zero or four Higgs-doublet fields at low energy which is

150: unacceptable. Of course, adding another pair of ${\bf 5}$ and ${\bf

151: \bar{5}}$ field with charge $-2$ results in extra massless colored Higgs

152: fields. Therefore, in order to have only two Higgs doublets while

153: forbidding the proton decay by continuous symmetry, we need to repeat

154: the procedure of adding ${\bf 5}$ and ${\bf \bar{5}}$ forever and end up

155: with an infinite number of Higgs fields in ${\bf 5}$ and ${\bf \bar{5}}$

156: representations~\cite{watari}.

157: 

158: 

159: 

160: While an infinite number of particles sounds unreasonable in field

161: theory, it is quite possible to realize this situation in models with

162: extra-dimensions. The infinite number of particles is identified with

163: the Kaluza-Klein tower of the fields which are propagating into the bulk

164: of the extra-dimension. Indeed, simple GUT models have been constructed

165: in higher dimensional space-time, where the boundary condition breaks

166: the GUT symmetry and there is no doublet-triplet

167: splitting~\cite{Kawamura:2000ev} or the proton decay

168: problem~\cite{Altarelli:2001qj}. In this picture, the Higgs particles

169: become less mysterious. They are just bulk fields.

170: %

171: 

172: 

173: On the other hand, there is another familiar mechanism of having an

174: infinite tower of particles in field theory, that is actually happening

175: in QCD. When an asymptotically free gauge theory becomes strong at low

176: energy, the effective theory below that scale is described by

177: gauge-singlet particles such as mesons and baryons. These particles have

178: also an infinite tower of excitation states.

179: %

180: This fact naturally leads us to think of the possibility of realizing

181: Higgs particles as composite fields in some strongly coupled gauge

182: theory which breaks the GUT symmetry dynamically.

183: %

184: This question is also interesting from the viewpoint of the AdS/CFT

185: correspondence~\cite{Maldacena:1997re, Arkani-Hamed:2000ds}. The

186: extra-dimensional GUT models above may be interpreted as a dual picture

187: of the strongly coupled theory. The explicit gauge symmetry breaking in

188: the extra-dimensional picture may be justified by the presence of viable

189: dynamical GUT breaking models.

190: 

191: 

192: Constructing GUT models associated with a strongly coupled gauge theory

193: have been attempted by the group of Hotta, Izawa and

194: Yanagida~\cite{Yanagida:1994vq,Hotta:1995ih,Hotta:1996qb,Izawa:1997br}.

195: (See also~\cite{Cheng:1997fk} for subsequent works.)

196: %

197: Various

198: gauge groups for the strong interaction, SU(3) ($\times$

199: U(1))~\cite{Yanagida:1994vq,Hotta:1995ih}, SU(5)~\cite{Izawa:1997br} and

200: SO(6)~\cite{Hotta:1996qb}, were considered.

201: %

202: It was found that the doublet-triplet splitting can be easily realized

203: via the missing partner mechanism while preserving an (anomalous) U(1)

204: symmetry which forbids dimension-five proton decays.

205: %

206: Along a similar line, a model with Sp(2) gauge group has also been

207: constructed recently in Ref.~\cite{Kitano:2005ez} where the model is

208: quite simplified. (Our convention is such that Sp(1) $\simeq$ SU(2).)

209: The model consists of six flavors of quarks of Sp(2) and the five of

210: flavors are identified with the ${\bf 5}$ and ${\bf \bar{5}}$

211: representation fields of the SU(5) GUT. The other flavor turns out to be

212: a (constituent of) the Higgs doublets in low energy.

213: %

214: In this model, the conformal field theory (CFT) nature of the Sp(2)

215: interaction above the GUT scale plays a crucial role.

216: %

217: A similar approach in warped extra-dimension can also be found in

218: Ref.~\cite{Nomura:2006pn}.

219: 

220: 

221: 

222: In this paper, we consider a generalization of the Sp(2) model.  We find

223: that models with Sp($N_c$) with $N_c=2$, and SO($N_c$) with $6 \leq N_c

224: \leq 9$ work for dynamical GUT breaking while having massless doublet

225: Higgs fields, and no viable SU($N_c$) group is found under the

226: assumption on the particle content and superpotential.

227: %

228: Of particular interest is the case with SO($N_c$) gauge group. There is

229: no exotic particle left massless without adding superpotential terms to

230: remove those particles.

231: 

232: 

233: 

234: With the success of the doublet-triplet splitting while forbidding the

235: proton decay, the final missing piece for the Higgs mystery is the

236: finite $\mu$-term.

237: %

238: In the gravity mediated supersymmetry breaking

239: scenario~\cite{Chamseddine:1982jx}, it is possible to obtain a correct

240: size of the $\mu$-term in a simple way~\cite{Giudice:1988yz}. However,

241: we find an alternative interesting possibility in the SO(9) model.

242: %

243: Instead of solving the $\mu$-problem, if we add a small $\mu$-term in

244: the superpotential, supersymmetry breaks down at the intermediate scale

245: $F \sim \mu M_G$.

246: %

247: Although this is not the true vacuum, it is shown to be

248: meta-stable~\cite{Intriligator:2006dd}.

249: %

250: It is amusing that the $\mu$-term can drive supersymmetry breaking,

251: which is the opposite direction to the usual thought.

252: %

253: The smallness of the $\mu$-term is ``explained'' by demanding a low

254: supersymmetry breaking scale.

255: %

256: The Higgs fields can be responsible not only for electroweak symmetry

257: breaking but also for GUT and supersymmetry breaking.

258: 

259: 

260: There is an interesting possibility for the nature of the small

261: $\mu$-term.  The small $\mu$-term added by hand can come from a negative

262: cosmological constant term in the supergravity action. By the

263: Giudice-Masiero mechanism~\cite{Giudice:1988yz}, the (supersymmetric)

264: cosmological constant term induces a $\mu$-term in the presence of a

265: particular K{\" a}hler potential term. This $\mu$-term, in turn, drives

266: supersymmetry breaking which gives positive contribution to the vacuum

267: energy and cancels the net cosmological constant.

268: 

269: 

270: 

271: We start the discussion of dynamical GUT breaking in Section 2, there

272: the general set-up is defined. We analyze a successful model, the SO(9)

273: model, in Section 3. In Section 4, the mechanism of $\mu$-term driven

274: supersymmetry breaking is presented and we discuss the mediation of the

275: supersymmetry breaking to our sector. The generation of the $\mu$-term

276: through the cosmological constant is discussed in Section 5.

277: 

278: 

279: 

280: 

281: \section{Dynamical GUT breaking}

282: 

283: 

284: In Ref.~\cite{Kitano:2005ez}, a simple model for the dynamical GUT

285: breaking was constructed based on an Sp(2) gauge theory.

286: %

287: We study a generalization of the model with various gauge groups:

288: SU($N_c$), Sp($N_c$) and SO($N_c$).

289: %

290: Models with Sp($N_c$) and SO($N_c$) with a certain range of $N_c$ is

291: found to be viable but no viable SU($N_c$) group is found.

292: %

293: Although they are not successful models, we start with the discussion of

294: the SU($N_c$) models in which we can see the essential features of this

295: class of models.

296: 

297: \subsection{SU($N_c$) models}

298: %

299: 

300: \begin{table}

301: \begin{center}

302: \begin{tabular}{ccc}

303:  & SU($N_c$) & SU(5)$_{\rm GUT}$  \\ \hline \hline

304:  $Q$ & { $N_c$} & {\bf 5}  \\

305:  ${\bar{Q}}$ & { $\bar{N}_c$} & ${\bf \bar{5}}$  \\

306:  $T$ & { $N_c$} & {\bf 1}  \\

307:  $\bar{T}$ & { $\bar{N}_c$} & {\bf 1}  \\ \hline

308: \hline

309: \end{tabular}

310: \end{center}

311: \caption{

312: The particle content of the SU($N_c$) model. 

313: }

314: \label{tab:content}

315: \end{table}

316: 

317: The model consists of six flavors, and five of which carry SU(5)$_{\rm

318: GUT}$ quantum numbers as listed in Table~{\ref{tab:content}}. The quarks

319: and leptons in the standard model are not charged under SU($N_c$) and

320: are unified usually as ${\bf 10}$ and ${\bf \bar{5}}$ of SU(5)$_{\rm

321: GUT}$.

322: %

323: We introduce a superpotential for $Q$ and $\bar{Q}$:

324: \begin{eqnarray}

325:  W = m {\rm Tr} (Q \bar{Q})

326:  - \frac{1}{M}{\rm Tr} [(Q \bar{Q}) (Q \bar{Q})]

327:  + \cdots \ ,

328: \label{eq:superpotential}

329: \end{eqnarray}

330: where $(Q \bar{Q})$ is the SU($N_c$) singlet $5 \times 5$ matrix, and

331: `$\cdots$' represents other higher dimensional operators such as $({\rm

332: Tr} (Q \bar{Q}))^2$ and those are not important for the discussion.

333: %

334: It is essential for the masslessness of the Higgs fields that the

335: superfields $T$ and $\bar{T}$ do not have a superpotential at tree level

336: since the Higgs fields will be identified with the meson fields $H \sim

337: Q \bar{T}$ and $\bar{H} \sim \bar{Q} T$.

338: %

339: 

340: 

341: Before the analysis at the quantum level, it is helpful for the

342: understanding of the model to discuss what happens at the classical

343: level.

344: %

345: The classical analysis is valid for $\Lambda \ll M_G$ with $\Lambda$

346: being the dynamical scale of SU($N_c$). In this case, the picture

347: becomes similar to models with product group

348: unification~\cite{Barbieri:1994jq}.

349: %

350: At the classical level, there are vacua with rank$(Q \bar{Q}) = 0$ to

351: $\min [5,N_c]$ which satisfy the conditions of $F_Q = F_{\bar{Q}} = 0$.

352: We are interested in the vacuum with rank$(Q \bar{Q}) = 2$:

353: \begin{eqnarray}

354:  (Q \bar{Q}) = \left(

355: \begin{array}{ccccc}

356:  0& & & & \\

357:  &0 & & & \\

358:  & &0 & & \\

359:  & & &v^2 & \\

360:  & & & &v^2 \\

361: \end{array}

362: \right)\ ,

363: \label{eq:vacuum}

364: \end{eqnarray}

365: where $v^2 = m M / 2 $. At the vacuum, the SU($N_c$) $\times$

366: SU(5)$_{\rm GUT}$ gauge symmetry is broken down to SU($N_c - 2$)

367: $\times$ SU(3)$_C$ $\times$ SU(2)$_L$ $\times$ U(1)$_Y$ for $N_c \geq 3$

368: and the electroweak SU(2)$_L$ $\times$ U(1)$_Y$ is the diagonal subgroup

369: of those in SU($N_c$) and SU(5)$_{\rm GUT}$.

370: %

371: Note that the vanishing components are not a consequence of the

372: fine-tuning. The corresponding components in $Q$ and $\bar{Q}$ are

373: charged under the unbroken gauge symmetry and that ensures the absence

374: of linear terms in the potential, i.e., stable (or flat directions).

375: %

376: Since the low energy SU(2)$_L$ $\times$ U(1)$_Y$ partly comes from

377: SU($N_c$), two of the components in $T$ and $\bar{T}$ transforms in

378: exactly the same way as the Higgs fields in low energy whereas there is

379: no colored component in $T$ or $\bar{T}$. Therefore the double-triplet

380: splitting problem and proton decay mediated by the colored Higgs are

381: absent. The rest of the components in $T$ and $\bar{T}$ are fundamental

382: and anti-fundamental representations of SU($N_c-2$) and charged under

383: U(1)$_Y$.

384: %

385: All the components in $Q$ and $\bar{Q}$ are either eaten by gauge fields

386: of the broken symmetry or obtain masses from the superpotential.

387: %

388: The fate of the exotic particles in $T$ and $\bar{T}$ depends on the

389: dynamics of the unbroken SU($N_c-2$) group below the dynamical scale.

390: %

391: Of course, with $\Lambda \ll v$, this is not a ``unified'' model. The

392: three gauge coupling constants do not meet at the GUT scale since the

393: embeddings of SU(3)$_C$ and SU(2)$_L$ $\times$ U(1)$_Y$ are different.

394: %

395: The real unification picture arises when $\Lambda \gtrsim v$, where

396: quantum effects are important.

397: 

398: 

399: 

400: At the quantum level, the low energy physics is not very different, but

401: some of the vacua are lifted.

402: %

403: In particular, it is interesting to note that dynamical symmetry

404: breaking has to happen once we take into account quantum

405: effects~\cite{Hotta:1996qb}.  With the above superpotential, the low

406: energy theory of rank$(Q \bar{Q}) = 0$ vacuum is SU($N_c$) with one

407: flavor $T$ and $\bar{T}$, which does not have the ground

408: state~\cite{Seiberg:1994bz}.

409: %

410: The stability of the classical vacua of rank$(Q \bar{Q}) = 2$ depends on

411: $N_c$. We show below that there is no $N_c$ which is viable for low

412: energy phenomenology.

413: %

414: 

415: For $N_c = 2$, the theory is not asymptotically free and the classical

416: analysis is valid in low energy. However, in this case, the vacuum in

417: Eq.~(\ref{eq:vacuum}) breaks the gauge symmetry into SU(3) $\times$

418: SU(2) which is not acceptable.

419: 

420: For $N_c = 3$, the quantum effect is easier to analyze in the dual gauge

421: theory~\cite{Seiberg:1994pq}. It is again an SU(3) gauge theory but with

422: a superpotential:

423: \begin{eqnarray}

424:  W &=& m {\rm Tr} M_{Q \bar{Q}} 

425: - \frac{1}{M} {\rm Tr} (M_{Q \bar{Q}} M_{Q \bar{Q}})

426: + \cdots

427: \nonumber \\

428: &+& \frac{1}{\hat{\Lambda}} \bar{q} M_{Q \bar{Q}} {q} 

429: + \frac{1}{\hat{\Lambda}} {H} \bar{q} {t} 

430: + \frac{1}{\hat{\Lambda}} \bar{H} {q} \bar{t} 

431: + \frac{1}{\hat{\Lambda}} {S} {t} \bar{t} \ ,

432: \end{eqnarray}

433: where mesons are identified with the quark bilinears in the original

434: (electric) theory: $M_{Q \bar{Q}} \sim Q \bar{Q}$, $H \sim Q \bar{T}$,

435: $\bar{H} \sim \bar{Q} T$ and $S \sim T \bar{T}$. These mesons are

436: singlets under SU(3) and transforms as ${\bf 1} + {\bf 24}$, ${\bf 5}$,

437: ${\bf \bar{5}}$ and ${\bf 1}$ under SU(5)$_{\rm GUT}$,

438: respectively. Dual quarks $q$, $t$ and anti-quarks $\bar{q}$, $\bar{t}$

439: transforms as $q: (\overline{\bf 3}, {\bf 5})$, $t: (\overline{\bf 3},

440: {\bf 1})$, $\bar{q}: ({\bf 3}, {\bf \bar{5}})$ and $\bar{t}: ({\bf 3},

441: {\bf {1}})$ under SU(3) $\times$ SU(5)$_{\rm GUT}$. The parameter

442: $\hat{\Lambda}$ has dimension one since mesons have dimension two.

443: %

444: Amazingly, this is almost identical to the model proposed in

445: Ref.~\cite{Hotta:1995ih}.

446: %

447: In the vacuum of our interest:

448: \begin{eqnarray}

449:  M_{Q \bar{Q}} = \left(

450: \begin{array}{ccccc}

451:  0& & & & \\

452:  &0 & & & \\

453:  & &0 & & \\

454:  & & &v^2 & \\

455:  & & & &v^2 \\

456: \end{array}

457: \right)\ ,

458: \label{eq:vacuum-2}

459: \end{eqnarray}

460: SU(5)$_{\rm GUT}$ is broken down to the standard model gauge group, and

461: two of the dual quarks in $q$ and $\bar{q}$ obtain masses. After

462: integrating out the massive quarks, the theory becomes an SU(3) gauge

463: theory with four flavors, which is a confining theory with a

464: superpotential~\cite{Seiberg:1994bz}:

465: \begin{eqnarray}

466:  W &=& m {\rm Tr} M_{Q \bar{Q}} 

467: - \frac{1}{M} {\rm Tr} (M_{Q \bar{Q}} M_{Q \bar{Q}})

468: + \cdots

469: \nonumber \\

470: &+& 

471: \frac{1}{\hat{\Lambda}} M_{Q \bar{Q}}^{(\rm 3 \times 3)} M_{q \bar{q}}^{(\rm 3 \times 3)}

472: + \frac{1}{\hat{\Lambda}} {H_C} \bar{H}^\prime_C

473: + \frac{1}{\hat{\Lambda}} \bar{H}_C {H}^\prime_C 

474: + \frac{1}{\hat{\Lambda}} {S} S^\prime \ ,

475: \nonumber \\

476: &-& 

477: \frac{1}{v^2 \hat{\Lambda}} H_D \bar{H}_D S^\prime + \cdots

478: \nonumber \\

479: &+& 

480: \frac{{\rm det} M^{(4 \times 4)}}{\widetilde{\Lambda}^5} 

481: + \frac{1}{\widetilde{\Lambda}^{5}} B_{(4)} M^{(4 \times 4)}

482: \bar{B}_{(4)}.

483: \label{eq:dual-super}

484: \end{eqnarray}

485: The superscript $(3 \times 3)$ represents the $3 \times 3$ meson matrix

486: made of colored parts of $Q \bar{Q}$ or $q \bar{q}$.

487: %

488: The fields $H^\prime$, $\bar{H}^\prime$ and $S^\prime$ are mesons made

489: of dual quarks; $H^\prime \sim q \bar{t}$, $H^\prime \sim \bar{q} t$ and

490: $S^\prime \sim t \bar{t}$.  The subscripts $C$ and $D$ represent the

491: SU(3)$_C$ colored and the SU(2)$_L$ doublet part of the corresponding

492: meson fields, respectively. $M^{(4 \times 4)}$ is the matrix:

493: \begin{eqnarray}

494:  M^{(4 \times 4)} = \left(

495: \begin{array}{c|c}

496:  M_{q \bar{q}}^{(3 \times 3)} & H_C^\prime \\ \hline

497:  \bar{H}_C^{\prime T} & S^\prime\\

498: \end{array}

499: \right),

500: \end{eqnarray}

501: and the baryons are 

502: \begin{eqnarray}

503:  B_{(4)} = \left(

504: \begin{array}{c}

505:  B_C \\

506:  B^- \\

507: \end{array}

508: \right),\ \ \ 

509:  \bar{B}_{(4)} = \left(

510: \begin{array}{c}

511:  \bar{B}_C \\

512:  B^+ \\

513: \end{array}

514: \right),

515: \end{eqnarray}

516: with the identification of $B_C \sim q q t$, $B^- \sim q q q$,

517: $\bar{B}_C \sim \bar{q} \bar{q} \bar{t}$ and $B^+ \sim \bar{q} \bar{q}

518: \bar{q}$. Finally $\widetilde{\Lambda}$ is the dynamical scale of the

519: four-flavor SU(3) theory.

520: 

521: 

522: 

523: Note here that the doublet Higgses $H_D$ and $\bar{H}_D$ do not obtain a

524: mass term as long as $S^\prime = 0$ whereas the colored Higgses $H_C$

525: and $\bar{H}_C$ already have mass terms accompanied with the dual mesons

526: $H_C^\prime$ and $\bar{H}_C^\prime$.

527: %

528: Indeed $S^\prime = 0$ is ensured by the condition of $F_S = 0$. The

529: missing partner for the doublets, say $H_D^\prime$ and

530: $\bar{H}_D^\prime$, have masses since the dual quarks are massive. 

531: %

532: This is the realization of the doublet-triplet splitting with an

533: infinite number of particles.

534: %

535: If we define the $T$-number with the charge assignment $Q:0$,

536: $\bar{Q}:0$, $T:+1$ and $\bar{T}:+1$, the Higgs fields $H$ and $\bar{H}$

537: have the same $T$-number, $+1$.

538: %

539: In this case, an infinite tower of the Higgs fields should be necessary

540: as in Fig.~\ref{fig:spectrum} (left).

541: %

542: We need an extra Higgs field with charge $-1$ to make the colored Higgs

543: massive, but it introduces an additional unwanted massless doublet.

544: Repeating this procedure forever is the only possibility of realizing

545: doublet-triplet splitting in this situation.

546: %

547: These infinite particles are realized here by the hadron tower of the

548: Higgs fields. The mismatching of the level, i.e., no zero mode only for

549: doublet part of $H^\prime$ and $\bar{H}^\prime$, happened because of the

550: mass of the constituent quarks $q_D$ and $\bar{q}_D$ without violating

551: $T$-number. A schematic picture of the hadron spectrum is shown in

552: Fig.~\ref{fig:spectrum} (right).

553: 

554: 

555: 

556: \begin{figure}[t]

557:  \begin{center}

558:   \includegraphics[height=6.5cm]{dt-split.eps}

559: \hspace*{3mm}

560:   \includegraphics[height=6.5cm]{spectrum.eps}

561: \end{center}

562: \caption{A schematic view of the hadron spectrum of the model. Only

563:  doublet part $H_D$ remains massless whereas the colored Higgs $H_C$

564:  have masses by pairing up with $\bar{H}_C^\prime$ }

565:  \label{fig:spectrum}

566: \end{figure}

567: 

568: 

569: 

570: 

571: %

572: In fact, in this SU(3) model, the situation is a little bit different

573: from the story in the Introduction.

574: %

575: If the $T$-number violating term is absent in the superpotential, the

576: dangerous dimension-five proton-decay operators are forbidden.

577: %

578: However, since $T$-number is anomalous with respect to the SU(3) gauge

579: theory, the non-perturbatively generated superpotential in

580: Eq.~(\ref{eq:dual-super}) violates $T$-number. As we see later, $M_{q

581: \bar{q}}^{(3 \times 3)}$ acquires a VEV and it gives $T$-number

582: violating masses to the colored Higgs fields.

583: %

584: Consequently, dimension-five proton decay operators are generated by the

585: colored-Higgs-exchange diagrams as usual.

586: %

587: 

588: 

589: 

590: The stability of the vacuum can be checked by solving the $F=0$

591: conditions for all the fields. We can find a solution with

592: Eq.~(\ref{eq:vacuum-2}) and

593: \begin{eqnarray}

594:  M_{q \bar{q}}^{(3 \times 3)} = \left(

595: \begin{array}{ccc}

596: - m \hat{\Lambda} & & \\

597:  &- m \hat{\Lambda} & \\

598:  & &- m \hat{\Lambda} \\

599: \end{array}

600: \right),

601: \label{eq:mqq-dual}

602: \end{eqnarray}

603: \begin{eqnarray}

604:  \frac{S}{\hat{\Lambda}} 

605: + \frac{B^+ B^-}{\widetilde{\Lambda}^{5}}

606: = - \frac{m^3 \hat{\Lambda}^3 }{\widetilde{\Lambda}^5 }\ .

607: \end{eqnarray}

608: The second equation indicates that the vacuum is not uniquely determined

609: and there is a flat direction. Correspondingly, there are massless

610: particles $B^+$ and $B^-$ which are charged under U(1)$_Y$.

611: %

612: This is the same situation as in the classical analysis, in which the

613: remaining gauge symmetry is just the standard model gauge group but a

614: pair of U(1)$_Y$ charged particles originate from $T$ and $\bar{T}$ are

615: left massless in addition to the Higgs doublets. In order to avoid the

616: massless charged baryons, we need to add a mass term for $T$ and

617: $\bar{T}$, but that also makes the Higgs doublets heavy. Therefore, the

618: $N_c = 3$ case is not acceptable.

619: 

620: 

621: For $N_c = 4$, there is a hope that the exotic states confine and form

622: standard model singlet states so that it is phenomenologically

623: viable. However, unfortunately, it is not the case. As in the case of

624: $N_c= 3$, we can analyze the model by taking a dual gauge group and

625: integrate out the heavy flavors. For $N_c = 4$, the dual theory becomes

626: SU(2) with four flavors. As expected, doublet-triplet splitting happens

627: in the same way as above.

628: %

629: By taking the dual again and going back to the electric theory, we find

630: another SU(2) theory with four flavors and superpotential interactions.

631: %

632: %

633: The solution of the $F=0$ equations can be found with the same vacuum in

634: Eq.~(\ref{eq:vacuum-2}) and (\ref{eq:mqq-dual}), which gives mass terms

635: for all the quarks except for $T$ and $\bar{T}$. The low energy theory

636: in this vacuum is then an SU(2) gauge theory with one flavor which has

637: no ground state. Although we could avoid the charged exotic state, the

638: vacuum is lifted at the quantum level.

639: 

640: 

641: For $N_c \geq 5$, the models are confining theories and acquire a

642: non-perturbatively generated superpotential. By the effect of the

643: superpotential, there is no ground state corresponding to the vacuum

644: with Eq.~(\ref{eq:vacuum-2}).

645: 

646: %

647: 

648: In summary, there is no phenomenologically viable model with the

649: particle content in Table~\ref{tab:content} and superpotential in

650: Eq.~(\ref{eq:superpotential}), although the doublet-triplet splitting

651: problem is solved in a simple way.

652: %

653: This result motivates us to consider the case with different type of

654: groups such as Sp($N_c$) and SO($N_c$).

655: 

656: 

657: In fact, there is another interesting way of realizing massless doublet

658: Higgs fields in this class of models. If we impose a global SU(6)

659: symmetry in the superpotential where ${\cal Q} \equiv (Q, T)$ and

660: ${\bar{\cal Q}} \equiv (\bar{Q}, \bar{T})$ transform as ${\bf 6}$ and

661: ${\bf \bar{6}}$ and if the global symmetry is broken down to SU(4)

662: $\times$ SU(2) $\times$ U(1), a pair of doublet Higgs fields is ensured

663: to be massless since these are pseudo-Goldstone

664: particles~\cite{Inoue:1985cw, Cheng:1999fw, Nomura:2006pn}.

665: %

666: With the similar superpotential:

667: \begin{eqnarray}

668:  W = m {\rm Tr}({\cal Q} \bar{\cal Q}) 

669: - \frac{1}{M} {\rm Tr}[({\cal Q} \bar{\cal Q})({\cal Q} \bar{\cal Q})]

670: + \cdots\ ,

671: \end{eqnarray}

672: the mechanism should work and the unwanted exotic particles can be

673: massive by the superpotential terms if such a vacuum exists.

674: %

675: Although it is an interesting possibility, we do not pursue this

676: direction further in this paper partly because it is incompatible with

677: the later discussion of supersymmetry breaking.

678: 

679: 

680: 

681: 

682: 

683: \subsection{Sp($N_c$) and SO($N_c$) models}

684: 

685: \begin{table}

686: \begin{center}

687: \begin{tabular}{ccc}

688:  & Sp($N_c$) & SU(5)$_{\rm GUT}$  \\ \hline \hline

689:  $Q$ & { $2N_c$} & {\bf 5}  \\

690:  ${\bar{Q}}$ & { $2N_c$} & ${\bf \bar{5}}$  \\

691:  $T_1$ & { $2N_c$} & {\bf 1}  \\

692:  $T_2$ & { $2N_c$} & {\bf 1}  \\ \hline

693: \hline

694: \end{tabular}

695: \end{center}

696: \caption{

697: The particle content of the Sp($N_c$) model. 

698: }

699: \label{tab:content-sp}

700: \end{table}

701: 

702: 

703: We can indeed find viable models for Sp($N_c$) and SO($N_c$).

704: %

705: We show the result of the analysis for these cases.

706: %

707: %

708: The particle content of the Sp($N_c$) models is listed in

709: Table~\ref{tab:content-sp} where the field $T_2$ is necessary to avoid

710: the Witten anomaly~\cite{Witten:1982fp}.

711: %

712: We assumed the same superpotential for $Q$ and $\bar{Q}$ as in

713: Eq.~(\ref{eq:superpotential}) with the matrix $(Q \bar{Q})$ being the

714: Sp($N_c$) singlet combination with $5 \times 5$ flavor indices this

715: time.

716: %

717: The analysis can go through in the similar fashion to the SU($N_c$)

718: case, and we find that only $N_c = 2$ case has a stable minimum with

719: Eq.~(\ref{eq:vacuum-2}). The massless modes of the Sp(2) model consist

720: of four Higgs doublets, $H_D \sim Q_D T_1 $, $\bar{H}_D \sim \bar{Q}_D

721: T_1$, $H_{D2} \sim Q_D T_2$ and $\bar{H}_{D2} \sim \bar{Q}_D T_2$. Two

722: of them $H_{D2}$ and $\bar{H}_{D2}$ can be made massive by adding a

723: superpotential term $W \ni (Q T_2)(\bar{Q}T_2)$ without giving a mass

724: for $H_D$ and $\bar{H}_D$. This is the model found in

725: Ref.~\cite{Kitano:2005ez}.

726: %

727: %

728: Similar to the SU($N_c$) case, Sp($N_c$) models with $N_c \geq 3$ do not

729: have a vacuum with rank$(M_{Q \bar{Q}})=2$ due to the non-perturbatively

730: generated superpotential~\cite{Intriligator:1995ne}.

731: 

732: 

733: 

734: \begin{table}

735: \begin{center}

736: \begin{tabular}{ccc}

737:  & SO($N_c$) & SU(5)$_{\rm GUT}$  \\ \hline \hline

738:  $Q$ & { $N_c$} & {\bf 5}  \\

739:  ${\bar{Q}}$ & { $N_c$} & ${\bf \bar{5}}$  \\

740:  $T$ & { $N_c$} & {\bf 1}  \\ \hline

741: \hline

742: \end{tabular}

743: \end{center}

744: \caption{

745: The particle content of the SO($N_c$) model. 

746: }

747: \label{tab:content-so}

748: \end{table}

749: 

750: 

751: The SO($N_c$) model can also be constructed, and turns out to be the

752: most interesting case. 

753: %

754: A detailed analysis will be presented in the next section.

755: %

756: The particle content is given in Table~\ref{tab:content-so} where we

757: have to introduce only one $T$ field in contrast to the case of

758: SU($N_c$) or Sp($N_c$). Again, the form of the superpotential is the

759: same as that in Eq.~(\ref{eq:superpotential}). With the same analysis,

760: we find that there are stable vacua for $ 4 \leq N_c \leq 9$ with

761: massless Higgs doublet fields and there are no unwanted massless fields

762: at low energy.

763: %

764: The theory is asymptotically free for $N_c \geq 6$.

765: %

766: Additional singlet fields under the standard model gauge group appear

767: for $N_c \geq 5$.

768: %

769: 

770: 

771: \section{SO(9) model}

772: 

773: 

774: We discuss in more detail the most interesting model among those in the

775: previous section: the SO(9) $\times$ SU(5)$_{\rm GUT}$ model.

776: %

777: The phenomenological aspects of the model such as gauge coupling

778: unification, proton decay and Yukawa interactions for matter fields will

779: be addressed. Many of these features are shared with the model of

780: Ref.~\cite{Kitano:2005ez}.

781: 

782: 

783: The particle content and the tree-level superpotential are defined in

784: the previous section in Table~\ref{tab:content-so} and in

785: Eq.~(\ref{eq:superpotential}). The model is an SO(9) gauge theory with

786: 11 flavors which is in the conformal

787: window~\cite{Intriligator:1995id}. This fact becomes important for the

788: discussion of the phenomenological issues. We take a picture in which

789: $\Lambda \gg v$ where $\Lambda$ is the scale where the SO(9) gauge

790: theory flows into the fixed point. Since confinement does not happen

791: until the fields decouple, the actual confinement scale coincides with

792: the GUT scale $v$ which is set by the parameters $m$ and $M$. Therefore

793: we have an energy region with a CFT between $M_G \sim v$ and $\Lambda$.

794: %

795: 

796: 

797: The analysis of the vacuum can be done along the same line in the

798: SU($N_c$) case. We first take dual picture of the theory which is an

799: SO(6) gauge theory with 11 flavors with a

800: superpotential~\cite{Intriligator:1995id}:

801: \begin{eqnarray}

802:  W &=& m {\rm Tr} M_{Q \bar{Q}} 

803: - \frac{1}{M} {\rm Tr} (M_{Q \bar{Q}} M_{Q \bar{Q}})

804: + \cdots

805: \nonumber \\

806: &+& 

807: \frac{1}{\hat{\Lambda}} \bar{q} M_{Q \bar{Q}} {q} 

808: + \frac{1}{\hat{\Lambda}} \bar{q} M_{Q {Q}} \bar{q} 

809: + \frac{1}{\hat{\Lambda}} {q} M_{\bar{Q} \bar{Q}} {q} 

810: \nonumber \\

811: &+& 

812: \frac{1}{\hat{\Lambda}} {H} \bar{q} {t} 

813: + \frac{1}{\hat{\Lambda}} \bar{H} {q} {t} 

814: + \frac{1}{\hat{\Lambda}} {S} {t} {t} \ ,

815: \end{eqnarray}

816: where $M_{Q \bar{Q}}$, $M_{Q Q}$ and $M_{\bar{Q} \bar{Q}}$ are mesons

817: made of $Q$ and $\bar{Q}$ which are singlet under SO(6) and ${\bf

818: 1}+{\bf 24}$, {\bf 15} and ${\bf \overline{15}}$ under SU(5)$_{\rm

819: GUT}$. The mesons involving $T$ are $H \sim QT$, $\bar{H} \sim \bar{Q}T$

820: and $S \sim TT$, and these are ${\bf 5}$, ${\bf \bar{5}}$ and ${\bf 1}$

821: under SU(5)$_{\rm GUT}$. The dual quarks $q$, $\bar{q}$ and $t$

822: transform as $q:({\bf 6},{\bf 5})$, $\bar{q}:({\bf 6},{\bf \bar{5}})$

823: and $t:({\bf 6},{\bf 1})$ under SO(6) $\times$ SU(5)$_{\rm GUT}$.

824: %

825: Again $\hat{\Lambda}$ is introduced such that dimensionality of the

826: superpotential is correct. 

827: %

828: It is interesting that this dual picture is similar to the SO(6)

829: $\times$ SO(10)$_{\rm GUT}$ model proposed in Ref.~\cite{Hotta:1996qb}.

830: %

831: By the VEV of $M_{Q \bar{Q}}$ in Eq.~(\ref{eq:vacuum-2}), four flavors

832: (doublet part of $q$ and $\bar{q}$) obtain masses and the low energy

833: theory becomes an SO(6) theory with seven flavors (colored part of $q$

834: and $\bar{q}$ and $t$).  This is still an interacting theory.

835: %

836: 

837: 

838: When we take the dual again, the theory now comes back to the original

839: electric theory but the gauge group is reduced to SO(5). The

840: superpotential is

841: \begin{eqnarray}

842:  W &=& m {\rm Tr} M_{Q \bar{Q}} 

843: - \frac{1}{M} {\rm Tr} (M_{Q \bar{Q}} M_{Q \bar{Q}})

844: + \cdots

845: \nonumber \\

846: &+& 

847: \frac{1}{\hat{\Lambda}} M_{Q \bar{Q}}^{(3 \times 3)} 

848: M_{q \bar{q}}^{(3 \times 3)}

849:  + \cdots

850: \nonumber \\

851: &-& 

852: \frac{1}{v^2 \hat{\Lambda}} {H_D} \bar{H}_D S^\prime

853: +\frac{1}{\hat{\Lambda}} {H_C} \bar{H}_C^\prime

854: +\frac{1}{\hat{\Lambda}} {\bar{H}_C} {H}_C^\prime

855: + \frac{1}{\hat{\Lambda}} {S} S^\prime 

856: \nonumber \\

857: &-& 

858: \frac{1}{{\hat{\Lambda}} } 

859: \overline{\widetilde{Q}}_C M_{q \bar{q}}^{(3 \times 3)} \widetilde{Q}_C + \cdots

860: \nonumber \\

861: &-& 

862: \frac{1}{{\hat{\Lambda}} } 

863: \overline{\widetilde{Q}}_C H_C^\prime \widetilde{T}

864: - \frac{1}{{\hat{\Lambda}}} 

865: {\widetilde{Q}}_C \bar{H}_C^\prime \widetilde{T}

866: - \frac{1}{{\hat{\Lambda}}} S^\prime \widetilde{T} \widetilde{T}

867: \ ,

868: \label{eq:dual-dual}

869: \end{eqnarray}

870: where we wrote down only terms relevant for the discussion. The quarks

871: $\widetilde{Q}$, $\overline{\widetilde{Q}}$ and $\widetilde{T}$ will be

872: identified with original quarks upon integrating out the massive fields.

873: %

874: The doublet-triplet splitting happens in the same way as the SU($N_c$)

875: examples. The massless doublet is obtained with $S^\prime = 0$ which is

876: ensured by the $F_S = 0$ condition, and the triplets get masses by

877: pairing with dual mesons.

878: %

879: In contrast to the case of the SU(3) model in the previous section,

880: there is no non-perturbatively generated superpotential. Therefore, the

881: symmetry of the superpotential at the classical level, $T$-number

882: ($T:+1$), is respected. This is exactly the situation discussed in the

883: Introduction.

884: %

885: This fact becomes important in the discussion of the proton decay.

886: 

887: 

888: 

889: %

890: By solving the $F=0$ conditions, we can find a solution in

891: Eqs.~(\ref{eq:vacuum-2}) and (\ref{eq:mqq-dual}) that gives a mass term

892: to $\widetilde{Q}_C$ and $\overline{\widetilde{Q}}_C$.

893: %

894: After integrating out the heavy fields, the theory ends up with an SO(5)

895: theory with one flavor $\widetilde{T}$ without a superpotential, and we

896: have massless Higgs doublet fields. This result is the same as the

897: classical analysis in the Higgs phase.

898: 

899: 

900: The decoupling of the fields immediately make the SO(5) interaction

901: strong and the quark $\widetilde{T}$ confines. This SO(5) one flavor

902: theory has known to have two branches~\cite{Intriligator:1995id}. In one

903: branch, a superpotential $W =

904: (\widetilde{\Lambda}^8/\widetilde{S})^{1/2}$ is generated with

905: $\widetilde{\Lambda}$ being the dynamical scale of one flavor SO(5)

906: theory and $\widetilde{S} \sim \widetilde{T} \widetilde{T}$. This branch

907: is unacceptable because there is no ground state. In the other branch,

908: no superpotential is generated and there is no singularity at the origin

909: of the meson $\widetilde{S}$ even though the gauge symmetry is enhanced

910: there at the classical level.

911: %

912: Therefore there is a stable vacuum in this branch. The low energy

913: spectrum is just a pair of doublet Higgs fields with a massless meson

914: $\widetilde{S}$ and the superpotential is $W = 0$.

915: %

916: 

917: 

918: Now we start to discuss the phenomenological issues. 

919: %

920: %

921: First, we need to check whether gauge coupling unification is maintained

922: in this model.

923: %

924: The first order answer to this question is yes. There is no exotic

925: massless fields in the spectrum, and the running of the gauge coupling

926: constants are the same as that of the minimal supersymmetric standard

927: model.

928: %

929: However, the threshold correction is also important for precise

930: unification, which is not obvious.

931: %

932: The question depends on the spectrum of the heavy fields and that

933: cannot be estimated without the knowledge of the K{\" a}hler potential.

934: %

935: However, the qualitative discussion is still possible by assuming that

936: the K{\" a}hler potential is not very different from the classical

937: one. In this case, the mass spectrum can be estimated by explicitly

938: calculating the mass of the components in $Q$ and $\bar{Q}$ at the

939: classical level. 

940: %

941: There are three classes of fields: fields eaten by the SO(9)/SO(5) gauge

942: fields, ones eaten by the SU(5)$_{\rm GUT}$/(SU(3)$_C$ $\times$

943: SU(2)$_L$ $\times$ U(1)$_Y$) gauge fields, and others that obtain masses

944: by the superpotential. The first two classes of fields have masses of

945: order $v = \sqrt{m M/2}$ and the last ones have $O(m)$. Therefore, in

946: order not to destroy gauge coupling unification due to the mass

947: splitting between those two, the mass parameter $m$ is required to be

948: around the GUT scale $M_G \sim v$ which means the scale $M$ should also

949: be of the order of the GUT scale.

950: %

951: 

952: 

953: 

954: This sounds unreasonable since we expect that the higher dimensional

955: operators are suppressed by the Plank scale $M_{\rm Pl}$ that is two

956: order of magnitude larger than the GUT scale.

957: %

958: Also, with GUT scale suppressed operators, we are not allowed to discuss

959: the high energy theory above the GUT scale, which we are doing.

960: %

961: However, in this model, the mechanism of suppressing $M$ is already

962: built in. As we discussed before, this SO(9) theory is in the conformal

963: window, and we expect an energy range of CFT above the GUT scale. In

964: this case, the meson fields have large negative anomalous dimension

965: which enhances the couplings in low energy. In other words, the

966: interaction never gets strong at high energy.

967: %

968: The anomalous dimension of the meson fields are calculated by using the

969: relation between the non-anomalous $R$-charge and the dimension of the

970: operator as follows~\cite{Seiberg:1994pq}:

971: \begin{eqnarray}

972:  \gamma (Q\bar{Q}) = D(Q\bar{Q}) - 2 = \frac{3}{2} R(Q\bar{Q}) - 2

973: = - \frac{10}{11}\ .

974: \end{eqnarray}

975: With this anomalous dimension, the coefficient $1/M$ enhances almost

976: quadratically with scale towards low energy. Therefore it is natural to

977: have a large enhancement. If we assume that the original operator is

978: suppressed by the Plank scale $M_{\rm Pl}$, the factor of 100

979: enhancement is easily realized by a small CFT range such as from

980: $10^{16}$~GeV to $10^{17}$~GeV.

981: %

982: In the same way, the coefficient $m$ enhances almost linearly with

983: energy scale towards low energy. Therefore, the original scale of the

984: model $m$ evaluated at the Planck scale was smaller than the GUT scale

985: by a factor of 10 or so. This is an interesting scale for the

986: right-handed neutrino masses in the see-saw model~\cite{seesaw}.

987: 

988: 

989: The gauge coupling of SU(5)$_{\rm GUT}$ above the GUT scale can be in

990: the perturbative region all the way up to the Planck scale even

991: accounting for the large anomalous dimension of $Q$ and

992: $\bar{Q}$~\cite{Novikov:1983uc}.

993: 

994: 

995: The Yukawa coupling constants between matter and the Higgs fields

996: originate from higher dimensional operators since the Higgs fields are

997: identified with the meson fields. The gauge invariant terms:

998: \begin{eqnarray}

999:  W_{\rm Yukawa} = \frac{f_u}{M_Y} ({\bf 10}) ({\bf 10}) (Q T) 

1000: + \frac{f_d}{M_Y} ({\bf 10}) ({\bf \bar{5}}) (\bar{Q} T)\ ,

1001: \label{eq:Yukawa}

1002: \end{eqnarray}

1003: become the Yukawa interactions at low energy. The matter fields are

1004: represented by (${\bf 10}$) and (${\bf \bar{5}}$). The low energy Yukawa

1005: coupling is roughly $y_u \sim f_u M_G / M_Y$ and $y_d \sim f_d M_G /

1006: M_Y$, where $M_G$ is the GUT scale.

1007: %

1008: The Yukawa coupling constant for the top quark is necessary to be

1009: $O(1)$, which again requires that the scale $M_Y$ to be the GUT

1010: scale. This is not a problem for the same reason as before. These

1011: operators are almost marginal operators and thus the coefficient is

1012: enhanced linearly in low energy by the large anomalous dimensions.

1013: 

1014: 

1015: 

1016: After integrating out the massive fields with the Yukawa interactions in

1017: Eq.~(\ref{eq:Yukawa}), the final low energy effective superpotential is:

1018: \begin{eqnarray}

1019:  W = W_{\rm MSSM}

1020: + \frac{y_u y_d }{m}

1021: \frac{\widetilde{S}}{M_G^2} ( 

1022:   \hat{Q} \hat{Q} \hat{Q} \hat{L} 

1023: + \hat{U} \hat{U} \hat{D} \hat{E} 

1024: + \hat{Q} \hat{Q} \hat{U} \hat{D} 

1025: + \hat{U} \hat{E} \hat{Q} \hat{L} 

1026: ) \ ,

1027: \label{eq:eff-sup}

1028: \end{eqnarray}

1029: with $\hat{Q}$, $\hat{U}$, $\hat{D}$ being the quark superfields and

1030: $\hat{L}$, $\hat{E}$ are the lepton superfields.  In addition to the

1031: usual Yukawa interactions $W_{\rm MSSM}$, the baryon-number-violating

1032: terms (the first two terms in the parenthesis) appeared.  However, as

1033: long as $\widetilde{S}$ is stabilized near the origin, these terms do

1034: not cause rapid proton decay.

1035: %

1036: The particle content of the low energy effective theory is just that of

1037: the minimal supersymmetric standard model and a singlet field

1038: $\widetilde{S}$ which only couples to the higher dimensional operators.

1039: %

1040: %

1041: The value of $\widetilde{S}$ depends on the shape of the K{\"

1042: a}hler potential and how supersymmetry is broken.

1043: %

1044: We will discuss these in the next section.

1045: 

1046: 

1047: %

1048: We briefly mention the case with $N_c = 6,7$ and 8, where the vacuum

1049: with Eq.~(\ref{eq:vacuum-2}) exists and the doublet-triplet splitting

1050: happens for these cases. All of the models are in the conformal window.

1051: %

1052: For $N_c = 6$, the low energy effective theory has an extra U(1) gauge

1053: symmetry with two charged (but the standard model singlet) fields $t^+$

1054: and $t^-$. Since this theory is at the edge of the conformal window

1055: (barely asymptotically free), we do not expect the large enhancement of

1056: the Yukawa coupling constants. For $N_c = 7$, the low energy theory

1057: again has an extra U(1) factor. There are three standard model singlet

1058: fields $S$, $t^+$ and $t^-$, where $t^+$ and $t^-$ are monopoles, with

1059: superpotential $W = f(S) S t^+ t^-$. The unknown function $f(S)$ is

1060: non-vanishing at the origin. For $N_c = 8$, there is no extra gauge

1061: symmetry and there are two branches as in the $N_c=9$ case. In one

1062: branch, stable vacuum exists with a superpotential term $W = f(x) S t t$

1063: where $S$ and $t$ are the standard model singlet fields. Again, $f(x)$

1064: ($x = S^2 t^2$) is an unknown function but non-zero at the origin.

1065: 

1066: 

1067: 

1068: 

1069: \section{{\boldmath $\mu$}-term driven supersymmetry breaking}

1070: 

1071: 

1072: In the previous section, we have seen that the SO(9) model is quite

1073: successful in obtaining massless Higgs fields in the low energy

1074: spectrum. However, to be phenomenologically completely viable, the Higgs

1075: fields have to have a mass term of $O(100~{\rm GeV})$, the $\mu$-term,

1076: otherwise Higgsinos become massless which is excluded by experiment. As

1077: we see below, it is possible to obtain a $\mu$-term by giving a small

1078: mass term for $T$, but it causes a dramatic effect in the dynamical

1079: system: dynamical supersymmetry breaking~\cite{Witten:1981nf,

1080: Affleck:1983rr}.

1081: 

1082: The $\mu$-term can be obtained by adding a superpotential term:

1083: \begin{eqnarray}

1084:  W \ni \hat{\mu} T T\ ,

1085: \label{eq:mu-hat}

1086: \end{eqnarray}

1087: which becomes $\hat{\mu} S$ in Eq.~(\ref{eq:dual-dual}). With this term,

1088: the $F_S = 0$ condition leads to

1089: \begin{eqnarray}

1090:  S^\prime = - \hat{\mu} \hat{\Lambda}\ ,

1091: \label{eq:s-prime}

1092: \end{eqnarray}

1093: and it induces a mass term for the Higgs doublets:

1094: \begin{eqnarray}

1095:  W \ni \frac{\hat{\mu}}{v^2} H_D \bar{H}_D \ .

1096: \end{eqnarray}

1097: In terms of the canonically normalized fields $\hat{H}_D$ and

1098: $\hat{\bar{H}}_D$, this is nothing but the $\mu$-term, $\mu \hat{H}_D

1099: \hat{\bar{H}}_D$ with $\mu \sim \hat{\mu} $.

1100: %

1101: It is obvious that the mesons made of $T$ become massive once we

1102: introduce the mass term for the quark $T$.

1103: %

1104: This is also easy to understand in the classical level analysis. Since

1105: the Higgs fields are simply the components in $T$, the term in

1106: Eq.~(\ref{eq:mu-hat}) is the $\mu$-term.

1107: 

1108: 

1109: The term in Eq.~(\ref{eq:mu-hat}) also gives a potential term for

1110: $\widetilde{S}$. With Eq.~(\ref{eq:s-prime}) and the superpotential in

1111: Eq.~(\ref{eq:dual-dual}), $\widetilde{T}$ obtains a term in low energy:

1112: \begin{eqnarray}

1113: \hat{\mu} \widetilde{T}\widetilde{T}\ ,

1114: \end{eqnarray}

1115: and after confinement of the SO(5) gauge theory, it becomes a linear

1116: superpotential for the meson $\widetilde{S} \sim \widetilde{T}

1117: \widetilde{T}$:

1118: \begin{eqnarray}

1119:  W \ni \hat{\mu} \widetilde{S}\ .

1120: \end{eqnarray}

1121: If we ignore the higher dimensional operators in Eq.~(\ref{eq:eff-sup}),

1122: there is no solution for $F_{\tilde{S}} = 0$.

1123: 

1124: 

1125: 

1126: 

1127: 

1128: Interestingly, this does not mean that the vacuum is destabilized or

1129: quarks and leptons must condense by the presence of the small

1130: $\mu$-term.

1131: %

1132: First, we start the discussion by ignoring the higher dimensional

1133: operators.

1134: %

1135: In this case, it was shown by Intriligator, Seiberg and

1136: Shih~\cite{Intriligator:2006dd} that the vacuum is meta-stable and

1137: supersymmetry is broken there. The argument is pretty easy. Whether the

1138: vacuum is stable or not depends on the shape of the K{\" a}hler

1139: potential for $\widetilde{S}$, but since we know that for large

1140: $\widetilde{S}$, where the classical analysis is valid, the potential

1141: grows by the mass term. Therefore, there must be a local minimum

1142: somewhere.

1143: %

1144: The true supersymmetric vacua exists in the other branch where

1145: $\tilde{S}$ is stabilized far away from the origin $M_G (M_G /

1146: \hat{\mu})^{2/3}$ (this is meaningless because it is much larger than

1147: the Planck scale) and also at different vacua from that in

1148: Eq.~(\ref{eq:vacuum-2}). Since the true vacua exist far away or energy

1149: difference between the true vacuum and the meta-stable one is much

1150: smaller than the height of the potential barrier of $O(M_G^4)$, we

1151: expect that the life-time of this meta-stable vacuum is long enough for

1152: us~\cite{Coleman:1977py}.

1153: 

1154: 

1155: Once we include the higher dimensional operators, another supersymmetric

1156: vacuum appears where quarks and leptons acquire VEVs. However, if we

1157: assume that the scalar components of quarks and leptons obtain positive

1158: supersymmetry breaking mass-squared terms, the vacuum is again

1159: meta-stable and its life-time is very long since the peak of the

1160: potential barrier is located far from the origin $Q \sim L \sim (\mu

1161: M_G)^{1/2}$ compared to the height of the potential $V^{1/4} \sim

1162: O(\mu^3 M_G)^{1/4}$~\cite{Duncan:1992ai}.

1163: %

1164: Therefore, we conclude that there is a supersymmetry breaking

1165: meta-stable vacuum.

1166: 

1167: 

1168: The size of supersymmetry breaking is $F_{\hat{S}} \sim O(\mu M_G)$ with

1169: a canonically normalized field $\hat{S} \sim M_G \widetilde{S}$.

1170: %

1171: For the Higgs fields, terms in the K{\" a}hler potential such as

1172: $\hat{S}^\dagger \hat{S} H^\dagger H / \tilde{\Lambda}^2$ are expected

1173: to be generated by the non-perturbative effect and supersymmetry

1174: breaking can be mediated directly (in the sense of gravity

1175: mediation). In this case, the soft scalar masses for the Higgs fields

1176: are obtained with a similar size to the $\mu$-term.

1177: %

1178: If the term $\hat{S} H^\dagger H / \tilde{\Lambda}+ {\rm h.c.}$ is

1179: generated, which should be possible since there is no unbroken symmetry

1180: to protect the term, the trilinear $A$ and the bilinear $B$-term is also

1181: non-vanishing and of the same order with the $\mu$-term. If the matter

1182: fields in the third generation couple to the Higgs fields strongly, the

1183: soft scalar masses for those fields can also be obtained directly.

1184: 

1185: 

1186: Gauge mediation~\cite{Dine:1994vc} also happens if ${\hat{S}}$ is

1187: stabilized away from the origin, where the colored-Higgs fields play a

1188: role of the messenger field\footnote{A similar structure of the model

1189: can be found in Ref.~\cite{Izawa:2005yf}.}. By integrating out

1190: ${\widetilde{Q}}_C$ $\overline{\widetilde{Q}}_C$ in

1191: Eq.~(\ref{eq:dual-dual}), we obtain mass terms for the colored-Higgs

1192: fields:

1193: \begin{eqnarray}

1194:  W \simeq 

1195: \hat{S} \hat{H}_C^\prime \hat{\bar{H}}_C^\prime

1196: + M_C {\hat{H}_C} \hat{\bar{H}}_C^\prime

1197: + M_C \hat{\bar{H}}_C \hat{H}_C^\prime

1198: \ ,

1199: \end{eqnarray}

1200: where $M_C$ is the colored-Higgs mass of order $M_G$ and meson fields

1201: are canonically normalized. 

1202: %

1203: Unfortunately, with this structure of superpotential, the leading order

1204: contribution to the gaugino masses of $O( F_{\hat{S}} / \langle \hat{S}

1205: \rangle)$ cancels out~\cite{Izawa:1997gs}\footnote{I thank Y.~Nomura for

1206: discussion on this point.}, and moreover there is no contribution to the

1207: SU(2)$_L$ gauginos.

1208: 

1209: 

1210: 

1211: 

1212: In order to obtain gaugino masses, there must be a gauge-mediation

1213: effect since the supersymmetry breaking scale is too low ($O(\mu M_G)$)

1214: for gravity mediation.

1215: %

1216: A simple example for gauge mediation is to assume an interaction term:

1217: %

1218: \begin{eqnarray}

1219:  W_{\rm messenger} = \frac{1}{M_X} T^2 \Phi \bar{\Phi} 

1220: \ ,

1221: \end{eqnarray}

1222: where $\Phi$ and $\bar{\Phi}$ transform under the SU(5)$_{\rm GUT}$ such

1223: as ${\bf 5}$ and ${\bf \bar{5}}$ and singlet under SO(9).

1224: %

1225: By the enhancement of the $1/M_X$ suppressed term due to large anomalous

1226: dimension of $T^2$, this term effectively becomes

1227: \begin{eqnarray}

1228:  W_{\rm messenger} \to \lambda \hat{S} \Phi \bar{\Phi} 

1229: \end{eqnarray}

1230: with $\lambda \sim O(0.1-1)$ even if $M_X$ is $O(M_{\rm Pl})$.  

1231: %

1232: With this superpotential, another supersymmetric true vacuum with $\Phi

1233: = \bar{\Phi} \neq 0$ appears. However, assuming that the $\hat{S}$ field

1234: is stabilized away from the origin, which is reasonable since we expect

1235: the presence of a linear term in the K{\" a}hler metric, the vacuum with

1236: $\Phi = \bar{\Phi} = 0$ is meta-stable\footnote{Since the linear term in

1237: the K{\" a}hler metric has non-vanishing $R$-charge, it is suppressed

1238: when the explicit $R$-symmetry breaking by the superpotential is small,

1239: i.e., $m \ll \widetilde{\Lambda}$. Even in this case, the supergravity

1240: effect shifts the vacuum to $\langle \hat{S} \rangle \sim

1241: \widetilde{\Lambda}^2/ M_{\rm Pl} \sim 10^{14}$~GeV, which is

1242: numerically consistent with the phenomenological requirements. See

1243: \cite{Kitano:2006wz} for detailed discussion.}.

1244: %

1245: At the meta-stable vacuum the gaugino masses are generated to be

1246: \begin{eqnarray}

1247: m_{1/2} = \frac{\alpha}{4 \pi} 

1248: \frac{F_{\hat{S}}}{\langle \hat{S} \rangle} \ .

1249: \label{eq:gauge-med}

1250: \end{eqnarray}

1251: %

1252: In order for the gaugino masses to be similar to $\mu$ in size, somewhat

1253: small value of $ \langle \hat{S} \rangle \sim 10^{14-15}$~GeV is

1254: necessary. That is consistent with the suppression of the coefficient of

1255: proton-decay operators in Eq.~(\ref{eq:eff-sup}).

1256: %

1257: 

1258: 

1259: It might be possible and would be great if all the gaugino masses are

1260: obtained by (really) direct gauge mediation~\cite{Poppitz:1996fw}

1261: without having the messenger particles above by extending the gauge

1262: group and/or matter content.

1263: %

1264: But in any case, the pattern of the supersymmetry breaking parameters in

1265: this scenario is essentially of gauge-mediation type except for the

1266: Higgs sector, since the Higgs fields can feel the supersymmetry breaking

1267: directly. The soft scalar masses $m_{H_u}^2$, $m_{H_d}^2$, $\mu$, $B$

1268: and $A$-terms can be taken as free parameters at the GUT

1269: scale. (Probably $m_{H_u}^2 \simeq m_{H_d}^2$ because of the parity

1270: symmetry $Q \leftrightarrow \bar{Q}$ which is only broken by the Yukawa

1271: interactions.) The soft masses for the third generation fields may also

1272: be modified depending on the size of the Yukawa coupling constants. This

1273: prediction should be testable at future colliders.

1274: %

1275: The source of flavor and CP violation in this model is only in the

1276: Yukawa coupling constants, which is the desired situation taking into

1277: account the stringent constraints on the supersymmetry breaking

1278: parameters.

1279: %

1280: The gravity-mediation effect gives an $O(1\%)$ correction to the

1281: parameters. This is interesting for the detection of the flavor and CP

1282: violating processes\footnote{One should take into account the possible

1283: conformal sequestering effect~\cite{Luty:2001jh} to the gravity-mediated

1284: contribution.  }.

1285: 

1286: 

1287: 

1288: 

1289: The lightest supersymmetric particle is the gravitino. The gravitino

1290: mass is estimated to be

1291: \begin{eqnarray}

1292:  m_{3/2} = \frac{F_{\hat{S}}}{\sqrt{3} M_{\rm Pl}}

1293: \sim \mu \left(

1294: \frac{M_G}{M_{\rm Pl}}

1295: \right)

1296: \sim O(1)~{\rm GeV}

1297: \ .

1298: \label{eq:gravitino}

1299: \end{eqnarray}

1300: This mass range is interesting for cosmology~\cite{Feng:2003xh} and also

1301: for collider experiments~\cite{Buchmuller:2004rq}.

1302: 

1303: 

1304: For other choices of $N_c$, the situation is different. For $N_c = 6$,

1305: the addition of the $\mu$-term just gives a mass term for $t^+$ and

1306: $t^-$ which does not cause supersymmetry breaking. For $N_c = 7$ and 8,

1307: the term $\mu S$ appears but the supersymmetry unbroken vacuum exists

1308: where $t^{\pm}$ (or $t$ for $N_c = 8$) fields acquire non-vanishing

1309: VEV. However, it is possible that the $S$ is stabilized far from the

1310: origin where $t^{\pm}$ or $t$ is heavy, and supersymmetry is broken

1311: there.

1312: 

1313: 

1314: 

1315: %\section{Gravitational supersymmetry breaking}

1316: \section{Cosmological constant driven supersymmetry breaking}

1317: 

1318: 

1319: Because of the large anomalous dimension, the size of $\mu$-parameter is

1320: originally smaller than $O(100~{\rm GeV})$ by a factor of 10 or so. This

1321: is about the size of the gravitino mass. 

1322: %

1323: %

1324: Therefore it is possible that the origin of the $\mu$-term can actually

1325: be the cosmological constant by the Giudice-Masiero

1326: mechanism~\cite{Giudice:1988yz}. 

1327: %

1328: Assuming a presence of a $T^2$ ($\sim \widetilde{\Lambda} \hat{S}$) term

1329: in the K{\" a}hler potential, this effectively becomes the

1330: $\hat{\mu}$-term in the superpotential.

1331: %

1332: It is equivalent to study a model with

1333: \begin{eqnarray}

1334:  K = \hat{S}^\dagger \hat{S} + a \widetilde{\Lambda} ( \hat{S} + {\rm h.c.} ) 

1335: - \frac{(\hat{S}^\dagger \hat{S})^2}{\widetilde{\Lambda}^2} 

1336: + \cdots \ \ \ {\rm and}\ \ \ 

1337:  W = c\ ,

1338: \end{eqnarray}

1339: where $c$ is a constant term which represents the negative cosmological

1340: constant term, $V_{\rm AdS} \simeq -3 |W|^2$, of order $c^2 \sim m_{3/2}^2$ in the unit

1341: of $M_{\rm Pl} = 1$.

1342: %

1343: This term is always necessary to cancel the positive vacuum energy from

1344: the supersymmetry breaking, $V_F \simeq |F|^2$.

1345: %

1346: The parameters have a hierarchical structure: $a \gg 1$,

1347: $\widetilde{\Lambda} \ll 1$ and $c \ll 1$, where $a$ represents the

1348: enhancement of the coupling through the large anomalous dimension.

1349: %

1350: %

1351: 

1352: 

1353: By the K{\" a}hler transformation, $K \to K - x - x^\dagger$ and $W \to

1354: W e^x$ with $x$ being a chiral superfield, this is identical to the

1355: system:

1356: \begin{eqnarray}

1357:  K = \hat{S}^\dagger \hat{S}

1358: - \frac{(\hat{S}^\dagger \hat{S})^2}{\widetilde{\Lambda}^2} 

1359: + \cdots \ \ \ {\rm and}\ \ \ 

1360:  W = c e^{a \widetilde{\Lambda} \hat{S}} \ .

1361: \end{eqnarray}

1362: By expanding the superpotential, we obtain a $\hat{\mu}$-term of order

1363: $a c \simeq a m_{3/2}$.

1364: %

1365: Within the range $|\hat{S}| \lesssim \widetilde{\Lambda}$, where the

1366: effective theory makes sense, the minimum of the potential exists near

1367: the origin $\hat{S} \simeq \widetilde{\Lambda}/(4a)$, and the

1368: cosmological constant can be cancelled when $a \simeq

1369: \sqrt{3}/\widetilde{\Lambda} \sim O(100)$.

1370: %

1371: Supersymmetry is broken at the minimum with $F_{\hat{S}} \simeq ac

1372: \widetilde{\Lambda} \simeq \mu \widetilde{\Lambda}$.

1373: %

1374: The value of $\hat{S}$ at the minimum is $O(10^{14}~{\rm GeV})$ which is

1375: consistent with the required value for gauge mediation in

1376: Eq.~(\ref{eq:gauge-med}) and also the suppression of the coefficient of

1377: the dimension-five proton-decay operators in Eq.~(\ref{eq:eff-sup}).

1378: 

1379: 

1380: 

1381: In the conventional scenario of supersymmetry breaking, some mass

1382: scales, such as a dynamical scale, determine the size of $|F|^2$ and the

1383: net cosmological constant is cancelled by an independent negative

1384: contribution from the $c$-term. However, in this scenario, the $c$-term

1385: drives supersymmetry breaking, and therefore these are related. In

1386: particular, it is interesting that supersymmetry is recovered in the

1387: flat limit ($c \to 0$), resulting in the supersymmetric flat space

1388: rather than the supersymmetry broken de Sitter space.

1389: 

1390: 

1391: 

1392: \section{Discussion and Conclusions}

1393: 

1394: 

1395: From the consideration of the mystery of the Higgs particle, we arrived

1396: at a rather unified picture. At every stage of the phase transitions,

1397: GUT breaking, supersymmetry breaking and electroweak symmetry breaking,

1398: the Higgs field may be playing a crucial role. We have succeeded to

1399: construct a realistic GUT model with dynamical symmetry breaking, and

1400: found that, in the SO(9) model, the inclusion of the $\mu$-term for the

1401: Higgs fields triggers supersymmetry breaking in a meta-stable vacua by

1402: the same dynamics.

1403: 

1404: 

1405: 

1406: We discuss possible generalizations of the model here.

1407: %

1408: Although we discussed the GUT breaking and supersymmetry breaking in a

1409: unified picture, we can separately discuss the following mechanisms:

1410: \begin{itemize}

1411:  \item Doublet-triplet splitting through dynamical GUT breaking,

1412:  \item $\mu$-term driven supersymmetry breaking.

1413: \end{itemize}

1414: 

1415: Dynamical GUT breaking without supersymmetry breaking is possible. The

1416: $\mu$-term can be obtained from separate SUSY breaking sector by, e.g.,

1417: the Giudice-Masiero mechanism.

1418: %

1419: The SO(10)$_{\rm GUT}$ extension of the model should be straightforward

1420: and is interesting for the discussion of the neutrino masses.

1421: %

1422: Considering different types of particle content and assumption on the

1423: superpotential is also worth investigating.

1424: %

1425: 

1426: 

1427: It is possible to obtain massless colored Higgs fields instead of the

1428: doublet fields.

1429: %

1430: In this case, the doublet-triplet splitting can be done by introducing a

1431: pair of elementary Higgs fields with the coupling to the meson

1432: operators~\cite{Yanagida:1994vq,Hotta:1995ih,Hotta:1996qb,Izawa:1997br}.

1433: %

1434: This is possible in the rank($M_{Q \bar{Q}}$)=3 vacuum with SO($N_c$)

1435: with $6 \leq N_c \leq 11$.

1436: 

1437: 

1438: $\mu$-term driven supersymmetry breaking can be discussed without

1439: GUT. For example, in the SO(9) model we can gauge only SU(2)$_L$

1440: $\times$ U(1)$_Y$ subgroup of SU(5)$_{\rm GUT}$. Then the dynamical

1441: scale can be lowered (or even raised) as long as the gauge couplings of

1442: the standard model gauge group maintains the perturbativity.

1443: %

1444: Adding a $\mu$-term breaks supersymmetry in the same way but the scale

1445: can be much lower (or higher).

1446: %

1447: Gauge mediation through the colored-Higgs fields might be able to be

1448: generalized as a realistic direct gauge-mediation model. We leave those

1449: questions for future studies.

1450: %

1451: %

1452: In any case, the prediction to the low energy spectrum is a modification

1453: of the gauge-mediation type in the Higgs sector.

1454: %

1455: In the SO(9) model we presented, there is a cosmological problem

1456: associated with the modulus $\hat{S}$~\cite{Banks:1993en}. The mass of

1457: $\hat{S}$ is of the same order of $\mu$, i.e., $O(100~{\rm GeV})$

1458: independent of the dynamical scale. A realistic cosmological scenario

1459: needs to be considered.

1460: 

1461: 

1462: 

1463: 

1464: We see that two mechanisms non-trivially fit into a picture: dynamical

1465: GUT and supersymmetry breaking. Although it is not likely that we can

1466: directly probe the GUT theory by experiments, the spectrum of the

1467: supersymmetric particles in low energy gives us a hint for high energy

1468: theories. In this model, the direct connection between the Higgs fields

1469: and the supersymmetry breaking sector provides a characteristic feature

1470: in the low energy spectrum.

1471: 

1472: 

1473: 

1474: 

1475: \section*{Acknowledgments}

1476: 

1477: I thank Roni Harnik for reading the manuscript.

1478: %

1479: This work was supported by the U.S. Department of Energy under contract

1480: number DE-AC02-76SF00515.

1481: 

1482: \begin{thebibliography}{0}

1483: %\cite{Dimopoulos:1981zb}

1484: \bibitem{Dimopoulos:1981zb}

1485:   S.~Dimopoulos and H.~Georgi,

1486:   %``Softly Broken Supersymmetry And SU(5),''

1487:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 193}, 150 (1981);

1488:   %%CITATION = NUPHA,B193,150;%%

1489: %\cite{Dimopoulos:1981yj}

1490: %\bibitem{Dimopoulos:1981yj}

1491:   S.~Dimopoulos, S.~Raby and F.~Wilczek,

1492:   %``Supersymmetry And The Scale Of Unification,''

1493:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 24}, 1681 (1981).

1494:   %%CITATION = PHRVA,D24,1681;%%

1495: %\cite{Sakai:1981gr}

1496: %\bibitem{Sakai:1981gr}

1497:   N.~Sakai,

1498:   %``Naturalness In Supersymmetric 'Guts',''

1499:   Z.\ Phys.\ C {\bf 11}, 153 (1981).

1500:   %%CITATION = ZEPYA,C11,153;%%

1501: 

1502: 

1503: %\cite{Georgi:1974sy}

1504: \bibitem{Georgi:1974sy}

1505:   H.~Georgi and S.~L.~Glashow,

1506:   %``Unity Of All Elementary Particle Forces,''

1507:   Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 32}, 438 (1974).

1508:   %%CITATION = PRLTA,32,438;%%

1509: 

1510: %\cite{Weinberg:1981wj}

1511: \bibitem{Weinberg:1981wj}

1512:   S.~Weinberg,

1513:   %``Supersymmetry At Ordinary Energies. 1. Masses And Conservation Laws,''

1514:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 26}, 287 (1982);

1515:   %%CITATION = PHRVA,D26,287;%%

1516: %\cite{Sakai:1981pk}

1517: %\bibitem{Sakai:1981pk}

1518:   N.~Sakai and T.~Yanagida,

1519:   %``Proton Decay In A Class Of Supersymmetric Grand Unified Models,''

1520:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 197}, 533 (1982).

1521:   %%CITATION = NUPHA,B197,533;%%

1522: 

1523: %\cite{Goto:1998qg}

1524: \bibitem{Goto:1998qg}

1525:   T.~Goto and T.~Nihei,

1526:   %``Effect of RRRR dimension 5 operator on the proton decay in the minimal

1527:   %SU(5) SUGRA GUT model,''

1528:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 59}, 115009 (1999)

1529:   [arXiv:hep-ph/9808255];

1530:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9808255;%%

1531: %\cite{Murayama:2001ur}

1532: %\bibitem{Murayama:2001ur}

1533:   H.~Murayama and A.~Pierce,

1534:   %``Not even decoupling can save minimal supersymmetric SU(5),''

1535:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 65}, 055009 (2002)

1536:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0108104].

1537:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0108104;%%

1538: 

1539: \bibitem{watari}

1540: T.~Watari, talk at {\it the KEK theory meeting on Collider Physics},

1541: 	Tsukuba, Japan, February 25-27, 2002.

1542: 

1543: %\cite{Kawamura:2000ev}

1544: \bibitem{Kawamura:2000ev}

1545:   Y.~Kawamura,

1546:   %``Triplet-doublet splitting, proton stability and extra dimension,''

1547:   Prog.\ Theor.\ Phys.\  {\bf 105}, 999 (2001)

1548:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0012125].

1549:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0012125;%%

1550: 

1551: %\cite{Altarelli:2001qj}

1552: \bibitem{Altarelli:2001qj}

1553:   G.~Altarelli and F.~Feruglio,

1554:   %``SU(5) grand unification in extra dimensions and proton decay,''

1555:   Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 511}, 257 (2001)

1556:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0102301];

1557:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0102301;%%

1558: %\cite{Hall:2001pg}

1559: %\bibitem{Hall:2001pg}

1560:   L.~J.~Hall and Y.~Nomura,

1561:   %``Gauge unification in higher dimensions,''

1562:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 64}, 055003 (2001)

1563:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0103125].

1564:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0103125;%%

1565: 

1566: %\cite{Maldacena:1997re}

1567: \bibitem{Maldacena:1997re}

1568:   J.~M.~Maldacena,

1569:   %``The large N limit of superconformal field theories and supergravity,''

1570:   Adv.\ Theor.\ Math.\ Phys.\  {\bf 2}, 231 (1998)

1571:   [Int.\ J.\ Theor.\ Phys.\  {\bf 38}, 1113 (1999)]

1572:   [arXiv:hep-th/9711200];

1573:   %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9711200;%%

1574: %\cite{Gubser:1998bc}

1575: %\bibitem{Gubser:1998bc}

1576:   S.~S.~Gubser, I.~R.~Klebanov and A.~M.~Polyakov,

1577:   %``Gauge theory correlators from non-critical string theory,''

1578:   Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 428}, 105 (1998)

1579:   [arXiv:hep-th/9802109];

1580:   %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9802109;%%

1581: %\cite{Witten:1998qj}

1582: %\bibitem{Witten:1998qj}

1583:   E.~Witten,

1584:   %``Anti-de Sitter space and holography,''

1585:   Adv.\ Theor.\ Math.\ Phys.\  {\bf 2}, 253 (1998)

1586:   [arXiv:hep-th/9802150].

1587:   %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9802150;%%

1588: 

1589: 

1590: %\cite{Arkani-Hamed:2000ds}

1591: \bibitem{Arkani-Hamed:2000ds}

1592:   N.~Arkani-Hamed, M.~Porrati and L.~Randall,

1593:   %``Holography and phenomenology,''

1594:   JHEP {\bf 0108}, 017 (2001)

1595:   [arXiv:hep-th/0012148];

1596:   %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0012148;%%

1597: %\cite{Rattazzi:2000hs}

1598: %\bibitem{Rattazzi:2000hs}

1599:   R.~Rattazzi and A.~Zaffaroni,

1600:   %``Comments on the holographic picture of the Randall-Sundrum model,''

1601:   JHEP {\bf 0104}, 021 (2001)

1602:   [arXiv:hep-th/0012248].

1603:   %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0012248;%%

1604: 

1605: %\cite{Yanagida:1994vq}

1606: \bibitem{Yanagida:1994vq}

1607:   T.~Yanagida,

1608:   %``Naturally light Higgs doublets in the supersymmetric grand unified theories

1609:   %with dynamical symmetry breaking,''

1610:   Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 344}, 211 (1995)

1611:   [arXiv:hep-ph/9409329];

1612:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9409329;%%

1613: %\cite{Hotta:1995cd}

1614: %\bibitem{Hotta:1995cd}

1615:   T.~Hotta, K.~I.~Izawa and T.~Yanagida,

1616:   %``Dynamical Models for Light Higgs Doublets in Supersymmetric Grand Unified

1617:   %Theories,''

1618:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 53}, 3913 (1996)

1619:   [arXiv:hep-ph/9509201];

1620:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9509201;%%

1621: %\cite{Hisano:1995hc}

1622: %\bibitem{Hisano:1995hc}

1623:   J.~Hisano and T.~Yanagida,

1624:   %``An N=2 SUSY Gauge Model for Dynamical Breaking of the Grand Unified SU(5)

1625:   %Symmetry,''

1626:   Mod.\ Phys.\ Lett.\ A {\bf 10}, 3097 (1995)

1627:   [arXiv:hep-ph/9510277];

1628:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9510277;%%

1629: %\cite{Izawa:1997he}

1630: %\bibitem{Izawa:1997he}

1631:   K.~I.~Izawa and T.~Yanagida,

1632:   %``R-invariant natural unification,''

1633:   Prog.\ Theor.\ Phys.\  {\bf 97}, 913 (1997)

1634:   [arXiv:hep-ph/9703350].

1635:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9703350;%%

1636: 

1637: 

1638: %\cite{Hotta:1995ih}

1639: \bibitem{Hotta:1995ih}

1640:   T.~Hotta, K.~I.~Izawa and T.~Yanagida,

1641:   %``Quantum Restoration of the U(1)_Y Symmetry in Dynamically Broken

1642:   %SUSY-GUT's,''

1643:   Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 409}, 245 (1997)

1644:   [arXiv:hep-ph/9511431];

1645:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9511431;%%

1646: %\cite{Hotta:1996pn}

1647: %\bibitem{Hotta:1996pn}

1648:   T.~Hotta, K.~I.~Izawa and T.~Yanagida,

1649:   %``Nonabelian Duality and Higgs Multiplets in Supersymmetric Grand Unified

1650:   %Theories,''

1651:   Prog.\ Theor.\ Phys.\  {\bf 95}, 949 (1996)

1652:   [arXiv:hep-ph/9601320].

1653:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9601320;%%

1654: 

1655: %\cite{Hotta:1996qb}

1656: \bibitem{Hotta:1996qb}

1657:   T.~Hotta, K.~I.~Izawa and T.~Yanagida,

1658:   %``Natural Unification with a Supersymmetric SO(10)_{GUT} x SO(6)_H Gauge

1659:   %Theory,''

1660:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 54}, 6970 (1996)

1661:   [arXiv:hep-ph/9602439].

1662:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9602439;%%

1663: 

1664: %\cite{Izawa:1997br}

1665: \bibitem{Izawa:1997br}

1666:   K.~I.~Izawa and T.~Yanagida,

1667:   %``R-invariant unification with dynamical Higgs multiplets,''

1668:   Prog.\ Theor.\ Phys.\  {\bf 99}, 423 (1998)

1669:   [arXiv:hep-ph/9710218].

1670:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9710218;%%

1671: 

1672: %\cite{Cheng:1997fk}

1673: \bibitem{Cheng:1997fk}

1674:   H.~C.~Cheng,

1675:   %``Supersymmetric dynamical generation of the grand unification scale,''

1676:   Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 410}, 45 (1997)

1677:   [arXiv:hep-ph/9702214];

1678:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9702214;%%

1679: %\cite{Graesser:1998ij}

1680: %\bibitem{Graesser:1998ij}

1681:   M.~Graesser,

1682: %   ``Getting the supersymmetric unification scale from quantum confinement  with

1683:   %chiral symmetry breaking,''

1684:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 59}, 035007 (1999)

1685:   [arXiv:hep-ph/9805417].

1686:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9805417;%%

1687: 

1688: %\cite{Kitano:2005ez}

1689: \bibitem{Kitano:2005ez}

1690:   R.~Kitano and G.~D.~Kribs,

1691:   %``Tripletless unification in the conformal window,''

1692:   JHEP {\bf 0503}, 033 (2005)

1693:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0501047].

1694:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0501047;%%

1695: 

1696: %\cite{Nomura:2006pn}

1697: \bibitem{Nomura:2006pn}

1698:   Y.~Nomura, D.~Poland and B.~Tweedie,

1699:   %``Holographic grand unification,''

1700:   arXiv:hep-ph/0605014.

1701: 

1702: %\cite{Chamseddine:1982jx}

1703: \bibitem{Chamseddine:1982jx}

1704:   A.~H.~Chamseddine, R.~Arnowitt and P.~Nath,

1705:   %``Locally Supersymmetric Grand Unification,''

1706:   Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 49}, 970 (1982);

1707:   %%CITATION = PRLTA,49,970;%%

1708: %\cite{Barbieri:1982eh}

1709: %\bibitem{Barbieri:1982eh}

1710:   R.~Barbieri, S.~Ferrara and C.~A.~Savoy,

1711:   %``Gauge Models With Spontaneously Broken Local Supersymmetry,''

1712:   Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 119}, 343 (1982);

1713:   %%CITATION = PHLTA,B119,343;%%

1714: %\cite{Hall:1983iz}

1715: %\bibitem{Hall:1983iz}

1716:   L.~J.~Hall, J.~D.~Lykken and S.~Weinberg,

1717:   %``Supergravity As The Messenger Of Supersymmetry Breaking,''

1718:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 27} (1983) 2359.

1719:   %%CITATION = PHRVA,D27,2359;%%

1720: 

1721: %\cite{Giudice:1988yz}

1722: \bibitem{Giudice:1988yz}

1723:   G.~F.~Giudice and A.~Masiero,

1724:   %``A Natural Solution To The Mu Problem In Supergravity Theories,''

1725:   Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 206}, 480 (1988);

1726:   %%CITATION = PHLTA,B206,480;%%

1727: %\cite{Casas:1992mk}

1728: %\bibitem{Casas:1992mk}

1729:   J.~A.~Casas and C.~Munoz,

1730:   %``A Natural solution to the mu problem,''

1731:   Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 306}, 288 (1993)

1732:   [arXiv:hep-ph/9302227].

1733:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9302227;%%

1734: 

1735: 

1736: %\cite{Intriligator:2006dd}

1737: \bibitem{Intriligator:2006dd}

1738:   K.~Intriligator, N.~Seiberg and D.~Shih,

1739:   %``Dynamical SUSY breaking in meta-stable vacua,''

1740:   JHEP {\bf 0604}, 021 (2006)

1741:   [arXiv:hep-th/0602239].

1742:   %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0602239;%%

1743: 

1744: 

1745: %\cite{Barbieri:1994jq}

1746: \bibitem{Barbieri:1994jq}

1747:   R.~Barbieri, G.~R.~Dvali and A.~Strumia,

1748:   %``Strings versus supersymmetric GUTs: Can they be reconciled?,''

1749:   Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 333}, 79 (1994)

1750:   [arXiv:hep-ph/9404278].

1751:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9404278;%%

1752: 

1753: %\cite{Seiberg:1994bz}

1754: \bibitem{Seiberg:1994bz}

1755:   N.~Seiberg,

1756:   %``Exact results on the space of vacua of four-dimensional SUSY gauge

1757:   %theories,''

1758:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 49}, 6857 (1994)

1759:   [arXiv:hep-th/9402044];

1760:   %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9402044;%%

1761: %\cite{Intriligator:1994jr}

1762: %\bibitem{Intriligator:1994jr}

1763:   K.~A.~Intriligator, R.~G.~Leigh and N.~Seiberg,

1764:   %``Exact superpotentials in four-dimensions,''

1765:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 50}, 1092 (1994)

1766:   [arXiv:hep-th/9403198].

1767:   %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9403198;%%

1768: 

1769: %\cite{Seiberg:1994pq}

1770: \bibitem{Seiberg:1994pq}

1771:   N.~Seiberg,

1772:   %``Electric - magnetic duality in supersymmetric nonAbelian gauge theories,''

1773:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 435}, 129 (1995)

1774:   [arXiv:hep-th/9411149].

1775:   %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9411149;%%

1776: 

1777: %\cite{Inoue:1985cw}

1778: \bibitem{Inoue:1985cw}

1779:   K.~Inoue, A.~Kakuto and H.~Takano,

1780:   %``Higgs As (Pseudo)Goldstone Particles,''

1781:   Prog.\ Theor.\ Phys.\  {\bf 75}, 664 (1986).

1782:   %%CITATION = PTPKA,75,664;%%

1783: 

1784: %\cite{Cheng:1999fw}

1785: \bibitem{Cheng:1999fw}

1786:   H.~C.~Cheng,

1787:   %``Doublet-triplet splitting and fermion masses with extra dimensions,''

1788:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 60}, 075015 (1999)

1789:   [arXiv:hep-ph/9904252].

1790:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9904252;%%

1791: 

1792: %\cite{Witten:1982fp}

1793: \bibitem{Witten:1982fp}

1794:   E.~Witten,

1795:   %``An SU(2) Anomaly,''

1796:   Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 117}, 324 (1982).

1797:   %%CITATION = PHLTA,B117,324;%%

1798: 

1799: %\cite{Intriligator:1995ne}

1800: \bibitem{Intriligator:1995ne}

1801:   K.~A.~Intriligator and P.~Pouliot,

1802:   %``Exact superpotentials, quantum vacua and duality in supersymmetric SP(N(c))

1803:   %gauge theories,''

1804:   Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 353}, 471 (1995)

1805:   [arXiv:hep-th/9505006].

1806:   %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9505006;%%

1807: 

1808: %\cite{Intriligator:1995id}

1809: \bibitem{Intriligator:1995id}

1810:   K.~A.~Intriligator and N.~Seiberg,

1811:   %``Duality, monopoles, dyons, confinement and oblique confinement in

1812:   %supersymmetric SO(N(c)) gauge theories,''

1813:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 444}, 125 (1995)

1814:   [arXiv:hep-th/9503179].

1815:   %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9503179;%%

1816: 

1817: \bibitem{seesaw}

1818: T. Yanagida, in {\it Workshop on the Unified Theory and the

1819: Baryon Number in the Universe}, Tsukuba, Japan, Feb 13-14,

1820: 1979, edited by O. Sawada and A. Sugamoto; M. Gell-Mann,

1821: P. Ramond and R. Slansky, Print-80-0576 (CERN).

1822: 

1823: 

1824: %\cite{Novikov:1983uc}

1825: \bibitem{Novikov:1983uc}

1826:   V.~A.~Novikov, M.~A.~Shifman, A.~I.~Vainshtein and V.~I.~Zakharov,

1827:   %``Exact Gell-Mann-Low Function Of Supersymmetric Yang-Mills Theories From

1828:   %Instanton Calculus,''

1829:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 229}, 381 (1983);

1830:   %%CITATION = NUPHA,B229,381;%%

1831: %\cite{Shifman:1986zi}

1832: %\bibitem{Shifman:1986zi}

1833:   M.~A.~Shifman and A.~I.~Vainshtein,

1834:   %``Solution Of The Anomaly Puzzle In Susy Gauge Theories And The Wilson

1835:   %Operator Expansion,''

1836:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 277}, 456 (1986)

1837:   [Sov.\ Phys.\ JETP {\bf 64}, 428 (1986\ ZETFA,91,723-744.1986)].

1838:   %%CITATION = NUPHA,B277,456;%%

1839: 

1840: %\cite{Witten:1981nf}

1841: \bibitem{Witten:1981nf}

1842:   E.~Witten,

1843:   %``Dynamical Breaking Of Supersymmetry,''

1844:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 188}, 513 (1981).

1845:   %%CITATION = NUPHA,B188,513;%%

1846: 

1847: %\cite{Affleck:1983rr}

1848: \bibitem{Affleck:1983rr}

1849:   I.~Affleck, M.~Dine and N.~Seiberg,

1850:   %``Supersymmetry Breaking By Instantons,''

1851:   Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 51}, 1026 (1983);

1852:   %%CITATION = PRLTA,51,1026;%%

1853: %\cite{Affleck:1983mk}

1854: %\bibitem{Affleck:1983mk}

1855:   I.~Affleck, M.~Dine and N.~Seiberg,

1856:   %``Dynamical Supersymmetry Breaking In Supersymmetric QCD,''

1857:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 241}, 493 (1984);

1858:   %%CITATION = NUPHA,B241,493;%%

1859: %\cite{Affleck:1984xz}

1860: %\bibitem{Affleck:1984xz}

1861:   I.~Affleck, M.~Dine and N.~Seiberg,

1862:   %``Dynamical Supersymmetry Breaking In Four-Dimensions And Its

1863:   %Phenomenological Implications,''

1864:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 256}, 557 (1985).

1865:   %%CITATION = NUPHA,B256,557;%%

1866: 

1867: %\cite{Coleman:1977py}

1868: \bibitem{Coleman:1977py}

1869:   S.~R.~Coleman,

1870:   %``The Fate Of The False Vacuum. 1. Semiclassical Theory,''

1871:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 15}, 2929 (1977)

1872:   [Erratum-ibid.\ D {\bf 16}, 1248 (1977)];

1873:   %%CITATION = PHRVA,D15,2929;%%

1874: %\cite{Callan:1977pt}

1875: %\bibitem{Callan:1977pt}

1876:   C.~G.~.~Callan and S.~R.~Coleman,

1877:   %``The Fate Of The False Vacuum. 2. First Quantum Corrections,''

1878:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 16}, 1762 (1977).

1879:   %%CITATION = PHRVA,D16,1762;%%

1880: 

1881: %\cite{Duncan:1992ai}

1882: \bibitem{Duncan:1992ai}

1883:   M.~J.~Duncan and L.~G.~Jensen,

1884:   %``Exact tunneling solutions in scalar field theory,''

1885:   Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 291}, 109 (1992).

1886:   %%CITATION = PHLTA,B291,109;%%

1887: 

1888: %\cite{Dine:1994vc}

1889: \bibitem{Dine:1994vc}

1890:   M.~Dine, A.~E.~Nelson and Y.~Shirman,

1891:   %``Low-energy dynamical supersymmetry breaking simplified,''

1892:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 51}, 1362 (1995)

1893:   [arXiv:hep-ph/9408384];

1894:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9408384;%%

1895: %\cite{Dine:1995ag}

1896: %\bibitem{Dine:1995ag}

1897:   M.~Dine, A.~E.~Nelson, Y.~Nir and Y.~Shirman,

1898:   %``New tools for low-energy dynamical supersymmetry breaking,''

1899:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 53}, 2658 (1996)

1900:   [arXiv:hep-ph/9507378].

1901:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9507378;%%

1902: 

1903: %\cite{Izawa:2005yf}

1904: \bibitem{Izawa:2005yf}

1905:   K.~I.~Izawa and T.~Yanagida,

1906:   %``Strongly coupled gauge mediation,''

1907:   Prog.\ Theor.\ Phys.\  {\bf 114}, 433 (2005)

1908:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0501254].

1909:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0501254;%%

1910: 

1911: %\cite{Izawa:1997gs}

1912: \bibitem{Izawa:1997gs}

1913:   K.~I.~Izawa, Y.~Nomura, K.~Tobe and T.~Yanagida,

1914:   %``Direct-transmission models of dynamical supersymmetry breaking,''

1915:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 56}, 2886 (1997)

1916:   [arXiv:hep-ph/9705228].

1917:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9705228;%%

1918: 

1919: %\cite{Kitano:2006wz}

1920: \bibitem{Kitano:2006wz}

1921:   R.~Kitano,

1922:   %``Gravitational gauge mediation,''

1923:   arXiv:hep-ph/0607090.

1924:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0607090;%%

1925: 

1926: %\cite{Poppitz:1996fw}

1927: \bibitem{Poppitz:1996fw}

1928:   E.~Poppitz and S.~P.~Trivedi,

1929:   %``New models of gauge and gravity mediated supersymmetry breaking,''

1930:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 55}, 5508 (1997)

1931:   [arXiv:hep-ph/9609529];

1932:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9609529;%%

1933: %\cite{Randall:1996zi}

1934: %\bibitem{Randall:1996zi}

1935:   L.~Randall,

1936:   %``New mechanisms of gauge-mediated supersymmetry breaking,''

1937:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 495}, 37 (1997)

1938:   [arXiv:hep-ph/9612426];

1939:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9612426;%%

1940: %\cite{Arkani-Hamed:1997jv}

1941: %\bibitem{Arkani-Hamed:1997jv}

1942:   N.~Arkani-Hamed, J.~March-Russell and H.~Murayama,

1943:   %``Building models of gauge-mediated supersymmetry breaking without a

1944:   %messenger sector,''

1945:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 509}, 3 (1998)

1946:   [arXiv:hep-ph/9701286];

1947:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9701286;%%

1948: %\cite{Murayama:1997pb}

1949: %\bibitem{Murayama:1997pb}

1950:   H.~Murayama,

1951:   %``A model of direct gauge mediation,''

1952:   Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 79}, 18 (1997)

1953:   [arXiv:hep-ph/9705271].

1954:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9705271;%%

1955: 

1956: %\cite{Luty:2001jh}

1957: \bibitem{Luty:2001jh}

1958:   M.~A.~Luty and R.~Sundrum,

1959:   %``Supersymmetry breaking and composite extra dimensions,''

1960:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 65}, 066004 (2002)

1961:   [arXiv:hep-th/0105137].

1962:   %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0105137;%%

1963: 

1964: %\cite{Feng:2003xh}

1965: \bibitem{Feng:2003xh}

1966:   J.~L.~Feng, A.~Rajaraman and F.~Takayama,

1967:   %``Superweakly-interacting massive particles,''

1968:   Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 91}, 011302 (2003)

1969:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0302215];

1970:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0302215;%%

1971: %\cite{Feng:2004zu}

1972: %\bibitem{Feng:2004zu}

1973:   J.~L.~Feng, S.~f.~Su and F.~Takayama,

1974:   %``SuperWIMP gravitino dark matter from slepton and sneutrino decays,''

1975:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 70}, 063514 (2004)

1976:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0404198];

1977:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0404198;%%

1978: %\cite{Feng:2004mt}

1979: %\bibitem{Feng:2004mt}

1980:   J.~L.~Feng, S.~Su and F.~Takayama,

1981:   %``Supergravity with a gravitino LSP,''

1982:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 70}, 075019 (2004)

1983:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0404231].

1984:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0404231;%%

1985: 

1986: %\cite{Buchmuller:2004rq}

1987: \bibitem{Buchmuller:2004rq}

1988:   W.~Buchmuller, K.~Hamaguchi, M.~Ratz and T.~Yanagida,

1989:   %``Supergravity at colliders,''

1990:   Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 588}, 90 (2004)

1991:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0402179];

1992:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0402179;%%

1993: %\cite{Hamaguchi:2004df}

1994: %\bibitem{Hamaguchi:2004df}

1995:   K.~Hamaguchi, Y.~Kuno, T.~Nakaya and M.~M.~Nojiri,

1996:   %``A study of late decaying charged particles at future colliders,''

1997:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 70}, 115007 (2004)

1998:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0409248];

1999:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0409248;%%

2000: %\cite{Feng:2004yi}

2001: %\bibitem{Feng:2004yi}

2002:   J.~L.~Feng and B.~T.~Smith,

2003:   %``Slepton trapping at the Large Hadron and International Linear  Colliders,''

2004:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 71}, 015004 (2005)

2005:   [Erratum-ibid.\ D {\bf 71}, 0109904 (2005)]

2006:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0409278].

2007:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0409278;%%

2008: 

2009: %\cite{Banks:1993en}

2010: \bibitem{Banks:1993en}

2011:   T.~Banks, D.~B.~Kaplan and A.~E.~Nelson,

2012:   %``Cosmological implications of dynamical supersymmetry breaking,''

2013:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 49}, 779 (1994)

2014:   [arXiv:hep-ph/9308292].

2015:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9308292;%%

2016: 

2017: \end{thebibliography}

2018: 

2019: 

2020: \end{document}

2021: 

2022: 

2023: 

2024: 

2025: