1: \NeedsTeXFormat{LaTeX2e}
2: \documentclass[11pt]{article}
3: \usepackage{amsmath}
4: \usepackage{amssymb}
5: \usepackage{amsfonts}
6: \usepackage{fleqn} % equations are not centered
7: %\usepackage{axodraw}
8: \usepackage{epsfig}
9: %\usepackage{amscd}
10: %\usepackage{accents}
11: %\usepackage{bbm} % BlackBoeard letters
12: \usepackage{graphicx} % \including PostScript
13: \usepackage{mathrsfs} % e.g. nice Lagrange-L with \mathscr{L}
14:
15: %\usepackage{pst-all}
16: %\documentclass[a4paper,11pt]{article}
17: %\usepackage{epsfig}
18: %\usepackage{citesort}
19: %
20: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
21: % Text Dimensions
22: \topmargin -7mm % distance to headers
23: \headheight 5.0mm % height of header box
24: \headsep 8.0mm % distance to top line
25: \textheight 225mm % height of text
26: \footskip 8.0mm % distance from bottom line
27: \oddsidemargin 4.8mm % Horizontal alignment
28: \evensidemargin 4.8mm % Horizontal alignment
29: \textwidth 160mm % Horizontal alignment
30: \date{\today}
31: %
32: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
33: %
34: \renewcommand{\topfraction}{0.8}
35: \renewcommand{\bottomfraction}{0.8}
36: %\renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.25}
37: % shortcuts
38: \newcommand{\bmat}{\left(\begin{array}}
39: \newcommand{\emat}{\end{array}\right)}
40: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}
41: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}
42: \newcommand{\ba}{\begin{eqnarray}}
43: \newcommand{\ea}{\end{eqnarray}}
44: \def\etal{{\it et al.}}
45: \def\eg{{\it e.g.}}
46: \def\ie{{\it i.e.}}
47: \def\lsim{\ensuremath{\lesssim}
48: %\raise0.3ex\hbox{$\;<$\kern-0.75em\raise-1.1ex\hbox{$\sim\;$}}
49: }
50: \def\gsim{\ensuremath{\gtrsim}
51: %\raise0.3ex\hbox{$\;>$\kern-0.75em\raise-1.1ex\hbox{$\sim\;$}}
52: }
53: \def\Frac#1#2{\frac{\displaystyle{#1}}{\displaystyle{#2}}}
54: \def\al{\alpha}
55: \def\be{\beta}
56: \def\ga{\gamma}
57: \def\de{\delta}
58: \def\si{\sigma}
59: \def\C{{\cal{C}}}
60: \def\O{{\cal{O}}}
61: \def\wt{\widetilde}
62: \def\ol{\overline}
63: \def\l{\left}
64: \def\r{\right}
65: \def\no{\nonumber\\}
66: \def\nn{\nonumber}
67: \def\neut{\tilde{\chi}_1^0}
68: \def\relic{\Omega_{\tilde{\chi}}}
69: \def\neumass{m_{\tilde{\chi}_1^0}}
70: \newcommand{\crosssec}{\sigma_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1-p}}
71: \def\tb{\tan\beta}
72:
73: \DeclareMathOperator{\re}{Re}
74: \DeclareMathOperator{\im}{Im}
75: \DeclareMathOperator{\tr}{tr}
76: \DeclareMathOperator{\Tr}{Tr}
77:
78:
79:
80: %
81: \begin{document}
82: \date{}
83: %
84: \title{
85: \begin{flushright}
86: \normalsize
87: CERN-PH-TH/2006-247\\
88: LPT--Orsay 06-78 \\
89: TUM-HEP-653/06
90: \end{flushright}
91: % %\hfill { \today \quad \thistime }\\[2cm]
92: \vskip 2cm
93: {\bf\huge Metastable Vacua in Flux Compactifications and Their Phenomenology
94: }\\[0.8cm]}
95:
96: \author{{\bf\normalsize
97: Oleg Lebedev$^{1}$\!,
98: Val\'eri L\"owen$^2$\!,
99: Yann Mambrini$^3$\!,}\\
100: {\bf\normalsize
101: Hans Peter Nilles$^2$\!,
102: Michael Ratz$^4$\!}\\[1cm]
103: {\it\normalsize
104: ${}^1$ CERN, Theory Division, CH-1211 Geneva 23, Switzerland}\\[0.1cm]
105: {\it\normalsize
106: ${}^2$ Physikalisches Institut der Universit\"at Bonn,}\\[-0.05cm]
107: {\it\normalsize Nussallee 12, 53115 Bonn,
108: Germany}\\[0.1cm]
109: {\it\normalsize
110: ${}^3$ Laboratoire de Physique Th\'eorique,
111: Universit\'e Paris-Sud, }\\[-0.05cm]
112: {\it\normalsize F-91405 Orsay, France}\\[0.1cm]
113: {\it\normalsize
114: ${}^4$ Physik Department T30, Technische Universit\"at M\"unchen,}\\[-0.05cm]
115: {\it\normalsize 85748 Garching,
116: Germany}
117: }
118: \maketitle \thispagestyle{empty}
119: \begin{abstract}
120: {
121: In the context of flux compactifications,
122: metastable vacua with a small positive cosmological constant are obtained by
123: combining a sector where supersymmetry is broken dynamically with
124: the sector responsible for moduli stabilization, which is known as the
125: $F$--uplifting. We analyze this procedure in a model--independent way
126: and study phenomenological properties of the resulting vacua.
127: }
128: \end{abstract}
129:
130: \clearpage
131:
132:
133:
134: \section{Introduction}
135:
136: Recent progress in string theory compactifications with fluxes
137: \cite{Giddings:2001yu} has facilitated construction of string models with all
138: moduli stabilized, zero or small cosmological constant, and broken
139: supersymmetry. In the model of Kachru--Kallosh--Linde--Trivedi (KKLT)
140: \cite{Kachru:2003aw}, the complex structure moduli and the dilaton are
141: stabilized by fluxes on an internal manifold, while the K\"ahler ($T$) modulus
142: is stabilized by non--perturbative effects such as gaugino condensation. The
143: K\"ahler potential and the superpotential for the $T$--modulus are given by
144: \begin{equation}
145: K~=~-3\ln (T + \overline{T})\;,\quad
146: W~=~ W_0 -A\,\mathrm{e}^{-a\, T} \;,
147: \end{equation}
148: where $W_0$, $A$ and $a$ are model-dependent constants. Minimization of the
149: corresponding scalar potential reveals that supersymmetry is unbroken at the
150: minimum and the vacuum energy is negative and large in magnitude. To achieve a
151: small and positive cosmological constant in this setup, KKLT introduced an
152: anti--D3 brane whose contribution to vacuum energy can be adjusted arbitrarily.
153: However, such a contribution breaks supersymmetry explicitly. It was later
154: suggested in \cite{Burgess:2003ic} that a similar uplifting effect could be
155: achieved in the framework of spontaneously broken SUSY by including the
156: $D$--terms. This procedure however cannot uplift the KKLT minimum due to the
157: supergravity relation $D \propto F =0$ \cite{Choi:2005ge}. It can {\it
158: potentially} be used to uplift non--SUSY minima such as those at exponentially
159: large compactification volume \cite{Balasubramanian:2005zx,Conlon:2006wz}.
160:
161:
162: One of the obstacles to realizing the simplest KKLT scenario in supergravity
163: is posed by the no--go theorem of Refs.~\cite{Brustein:2004xn,Gomez-Reino:2006dk,Lebedev:2006qq}
164: \footnote{A generalization of this theorem can be found in \cite{Lust:2006zg}.}.
165: It states that
166: \begin{center}
167: \begin{minipage}{0.95\textwidth}
168: {\it if the modulus $T$ is the only light field and
169: its K\"ahler potential is $K=-n\,\ln (T + \overline{T})$ ($1\le n\le3$),
170: de Sitter (dS) or Minkowski vacua with broken supersymmetry are not possible for
171: any superpotential. }
172: \end{minipage}
173: \end{center}
174: Thus, it is necessary to include additional fields in the system (or modify the
175: K\"ahler potential \cite{deAlwis:2005tf}) providing the goldstino which is
176: necessary to make the gravitino massive. In this case, dS or Minkowski vacua
177: with spontaneously broken supersymmetry can be obtained due to the
178: $F$--terms of hidden matter fields \cite{Lebedev:2006qq} (a somewhat similar
179: approach was considered in \cite{Saltman:2004sn}). Since matter fields are as
180: generic as moduli in string constructions, this provides an interesting
181: alternative to common scenarios with moduli/dilaton dominated SUSY breaking.
182: In this article, we will follow our earlier work (LNR)
183: \cite{Lebedev:2006qq}.
184:
185:
186: Interest in this approach has been bolstered by recent work of Intriligator, Seiberg and
187: Shih (ISS) \cite{Intriligator:2006dd} on dynamical SUSY breaking in metastable vacua.
188: They have found that metastable vacua with broken supersymmetry are generic and
189: realized even in simple systems like SUSY QCD. These vacua are long--lived
190: and can be combined with the KKLT sector to achieve a small cosmological constant
191: and acceptable supersymmetry breaking \cite{Dudas:2006gr,Abe:2006xp,Kallosh:2006dv}.
192:
193:
194:
195: In this work, we analyze the $F$--term uplifting of the KKLT minimum in a
196: model--independent way and study SUSY phenomenology of the resulting vacua.
197: Before we proceed, let us give a few relevant supergravity formulae. The
198: supergravity scalar potential is given by \cite{Cremmer:1982en}
199: \begin{equation}
200: V~=~ \mathrm{e}^G\, (G_i\, G_{\bar\jmath}\, G^{i \bar\jmath} -3) +
201: {1\over 2}\,\re (f_a)^{-1} \,D^a D^a \;,
202: \label{V}
203: \end{equation}
204: where $G=K +\ln \vert W \vert^2$ with $K$ and $W$ being the K\"ahler potential
205: and the superpotential, respectively; $f_a$ is the gauge kinetic function, and
206: $D^a$ are the $D$--terms. A subscript $i$ denotes differentiation with respect
207: to the $i$-th field. $G^{i \bar\jmath}$ is the inverse K\"ahler metric.
208: The gravitino mass is given by
209: \begin{equation}
210: m_{3/2}~=~ \mathrm{e}^{G/2} \;,
211: \end{equation}
212: and the SUSY--breaking $F$--terms are
213: \begin{equation}
214: F^i~=~\mathrm{e}^{G/2}\, G^{i \bar \jmath}\, G_{\bar\jmath} \;.
215: \end{equation}
216:
217: In what follows, we first review problems with the $D$--term uplifting and then
218: focus on the uplifting with the $F$--terms.
219:
220:
221:
222: \section{Problems with the $\boldsymbol{D}$--term uplifting}
223:
224: There are two problems with the $D$--term uplifting scenario. First,
225: supersymmetric minima cannot be uplifted by the $D$--terms \cite{Choi:2005ge}.
226: The reason is that, in supergravity \cite{Cremmer:1982en},
227: \begin{equation}
228: D^a \propto {1\over W}\, D_i W \;,
229: \end{equation}
230: where $D_i W \equiv \partial_i W + W \partial_i K$. In supersymmetric
231: configurations, $\langle D_i W \rangle =0$ and the $D$--terms vanish (unless
232: $W=0$). Thus, only non--supersymmetric minima can potentially be uplifted.
233:
234:
235: Second, the $D$--term uplifting of non--supersymmetric vacua
236: does not work either if the gravitino mass is hierarchically
237: small \cite{Choi:2006bh} (unless moduli are exponentially large).
238: Indeed, for matter on D7 branes, the gauge kinetic
239: function is given by
240: \begin{equation}
241: f~=~T \;,
242: \end{equation}
243: and the $D$--term of an anomalous U(1) is
244: \begin{equation}
245: D~\propto~{E \over \re T} + \sum_i q_i\, \vert \phi_i \vert^2 \;,
246: \end{equation}
247: where $E$ is a constant related to the trace of the anomalous U(1) and $\phi_i$
248: are VEVs of fields carrying anomalous charges $q_i$. At the minimum of the
249: scalar potential,
250: \begin{equation}
251: V_T~=~0 \;,
252: \end{equation}
253: which from Eq.~(\ref{V}) implies symbolically
254: \begin{equation}
255: m_{3/2}^2 + D^2 + D~=~0 \;.
256: \end{equation}
257: Here we have neglected all coefficients and assumed that there are no
258: very large ($10^{15}$) or very small factors in this equation.
259: Using $m_{3/2} \sim 10^{-15}$ (in Planck units) as favoured by phenomenology,
260: this equation is solved by
261: \begin{equation}
262: D~\sim~ m_{3/2}^2 ~\ll~m_{3/2}~ \sim~ F \;.
263: \end{equation}
264: Thus, the $D$--term is much smaller than the $F$--terms and
265: $D^2 \sim m_{3/2}^4 $ cannot uplift an AdS minimum with $V_0 \sim - m_{3/2}^2 $
266: to zero vacuum energy.
267: This mechanism can only work for a heavy gravitino, e.g.\ $m_{3/2} \sim 1$.
268: The existing examples of the $D$--term uplifting confirm this conclusion
269: \cite{Villadoro:2005yq,Achucarro:2006zf,Parameswaran:2006jh,Dudas:2006vc}
270: (for related work, see also \cite{Brummer:2006dg,Haack:2006cy,Braun:2006se}).
271:
272:
273:
274: \section{$\boldsymbol{F}$--term uplifting}
275:
276: It has been shown by LNR \cite{Lebedev:2006qq} that
277: the $F$--term uplifting mechanism is viable and works for a hierarchically small
278: gravitino mass.
279: The $F$--uplifting in its simplest form amounts to combining a sector
280: where supersymmetry is broken spontaneously in a metastable dS vacuum with the KKLT
281: sector. Since the $T$--modulus is heavy, the resulting minimum of the system
282: is given approximately by the minima in the separate subsectors. Then $T$ gives
283: only a small contribution to SUSY breaking and the cosmological constant can be
284: adjusted to be arbitrarily small. Let us study this procedure in more detail.
285:
286: \subsection{SUSY breaking sector}
287:
288:
289: Consider a (hidden sector) matter field $\phi$ with
290: \begin{equation}
291: K~=~ \overline{\phi} \phi \;,\quad W~=~ \mathcal{W}(\phi) \;.
292: \end{equation}
293: Suppose for simplicity that the minimum of the corresponding scalar potential
294: \begin{equation}
295: V~=~\mathrm{e}^G\, (G_\phi\, G_{\overline{\phi}} -3) \;,
296: \end{equation}
297: is at real $\phi$.
298: The non--supersymmetric minimum is found from
299: \begin{equation}
300: V_\phi~\propto~G_\phi^2 +G_{\phi \phi} -2~=~0 \;.
301: \end{equation}
302: Denoting this minimum by $\phi_0$, supersymmetry is broken by
303: $F^\phi ~\sim~ \vert \mathcal{W} \vert\, G_{\phi} \bigl\vert_{\phi_0}$.
304: The vacuum energy can be chosen to be positive,
305: \begin{equation}
306: V(\phi_0)~>~ 0 \;,
307: \label{V0}
308: \end{equation}
309: and arbitrarily small by adjusting $\mathcal{W}(\phi)$.
310: In this case, $F^\phi \sim \vert \mathcal{W}
311: (\phi_0) \vert$ and, assuming that the potential is not very steep,
312: the mass of $\phi$ is typically of order $ \vert
313: \mathcal{W} (\phi_0) \vert $.
314:
315:
316:
317: \subsection{KKLT sector}
318:
319: This sector consists of the $T$--modulus with the usual K\"ahler potential and
320: the superpotential induced by fluxes and gaugino condensation,
321: \begin{equation}
322: K~=~-3\ln (T + \overline{T}) \;,\quad
323: W~=~\mathscr{W}(T)~\equiv~ W_0 -A \mathrm{e}^{-a\, T} \;,
324: \end{equation}
325: with $A\sim 1$, $a\gg 1$.
326: If the observable matter is placed on D7 branes, the SM gauge couplings require
327: $\re T \simeq 2$ at the minimum.
328:
329:
330: The scalar potential is
331: \begin{equation}
332: V~=~\mathrm{e}^G \,( G_T\, G_{\overline{T}}\, G^{T \overline{T}} -3 ) \;,
333: \end{equation}
334: and its SUSY minimum is determined by
335: \begin{equation}
336: G_T~=~0 \;.
337: \end{equation}
338: The solution is
339: \begin{equation}
340: T_0~\approx~ -{1\over a}\, \ln {W_0 \over a} \;,
341: \label{kklt}
342: \end{equation}
343: where again we have taken $T$ to be real. The corresponding vacuum energy
344: is given by
345: \begin{equation}
346: V(T_0) ~=~-3\,\mathrm{e}^G \sim - \left\vert \mathscr{W}(T_0) \right\vert^2 \;.
347: \end{equation}
348:
349:
350: \subsection{KKLT + SUSY breaking sector}
351:
352: Now we combine the two sectors. The full K\"ahler potential and the superpotential
353: are given by\footnote{This setup can be realized for matter on D7 branes. The corresponding
354: K\"ahler metric can be found in \cite{Lust:2004dn}.
355: Following KKLT, here we assume that
356: the dilaton and complex structure moduli have been integrated out and
357: neglect possible corrections to the K\"ahler potential \cite{deAlwis:2005tf}
358: due to this procedure.}
359: \begin{eqnarray}
360: K & = & \vert \phi \vert^2 -3 \ln (T + \overline{T}) \nonumber \;,\\
361: W & = & \mathcal{W}(\phi) + \mathscr{W}(T) \;.
362: \end{eqnarray}
363: The question is now how much the minimum of the system deviates from the minima
364: of the separate subsectors.
365:
366: Consider the system in the vicinity of the reference point $(\phi_0, T_0)$.
367: At $T=T_0$, the superpotential for $\phi$ is
368: \begin{equation}
369: W~=~ \mathcal{W}(\phi) + \mathscr{W}(T_0) \;.
370: \end{equation}
371: Similarly, at $\phi=\phi_0$ the superpotential for $T$ is
372: \begin{equation}
373: W~=~ \mathscr{W}(T) + \mathcal{W}(\phi_0) \;.
374: \end{equation}
375: Thus, the constant terms in the superpotential shift relative to those of
376: the original subsectors.
377: It makes sense to compare the true minimum of the system to the minima of the
378: subsectors with shifted superpotentials. For example, $T_0$ should be defined
379: as the minimum of the KKLT subsector with the superpotential $ \mathscr{W}(T)
380: + \mathcal{W}(\phi_0) $ and similarly for the $\phi$ subsector. This can be
381: done iteratively.
382:
383: The total potential is now
384: \begin{equation}
385: V~=~\mathrm{e}^G\, ( G_\phi\, G_{\overline{\phi}}
386: + G_T\, G_{\overline{T}}\, G^{T \overline{T}} -3) \;.
387: \end{equation}
388: Let us see if $(\phi_0, T_0)$ is a stationary point. We have
389: \begin{eqnarray}
390: V_\phi& =& G_\phi\, V + \mathrm{e}^G\,
391: {\partial \over \partial \phi }( G_\phi G_{\overline{\phi}})
392: +\mathrm{e}^G\,{\partial \over \partial \phi }( G_T\, G_{\overline{T}}\,
393: G^{T \overline{T}} ) \;, \nonumber\\
394: V_T& =& G_T\, V + \mathrm{e}^G\,{\partial \over \partial T }
395: ( G_T\, G_{\overline{T}}\, G^{T \overline{T}} ) +
396: \mathrm{e}^G\,{\partial \over \partial T }( G_\phi\, G_{\overline{\phi}}) \;.
397: \end{eqnarray}
398: Consider $V_\phi$. It is zero because the first two terms represent the
399: equations of motion for the separate $\phi$--subsector, and the third term is
400: proportional to $G_T$ which is zero at $T_0$.
401: Consider now $V_T$. The first two terms are zero due to $G_T(T_0)=0$. The last
402: term however does not vanish,
403: \begin{equation}
404: \mathrm{e}^G\,{\partial \over \partial T }( G_\phi G_{\overline{\phi}})
405: ~\sim~
406: m_{3/2}^2 \;,
407: \end{equation}
408: where we have used $G_\phi, W_T/W \sim 1$ at $(\phi_0,T_0)$.
409: It is non--zero but small compared to $V_{T\bar T} \sim a^2 m_{3/2}^2$.
410: Therefore, the (heavy) modulus shifts slightly from $T_0$.
411: Finally, the vacuum energy at $(\phi_0, T_0)$ equals that of the $\phi$--subsector
412: from Eq.~(\ref{V0}).
413:
414:
415: We see that the stationary point conditions are ``almost'' satisfied at
416: $(\phi_0, T_0)$. Let us now compute how much the true minimum is shifted
417: compared to $(\phi_0, T_0)$. Suppose the true minimum is at $\phi_0 + \delta
418: \phi, T_0 +\delta T$. At this point,
419: \begin{eqnarray}
420: V_\phi (\phi_0 + \delta \phi,T_0 +\delta T) & =& 0 \;, \nonumber\\
421: V_T (\phi_0 + \delta \phi,T_0 +\delta T) & =& 0 \;.
422: \end{eqnarray}
423: The $(\phi,T)$ system has been studied in detail in LNR \cite{Lebedev:2006qq},
424: while here we will,
425: for simplicity, treat $T$ and $\phi$ as real
426: variables
427: and expand this to first order in $\delta \phi, \delta T$,
428: \begin{eqnarray}
429: V_{\phi \phi}\, \delta \phi + V_{\phi T}\, \delta T & = & 0 \;, \nonumber\\
430: V_T + V_{ T T}\, \delta T + V_{ T \phi }\, \delta \phi & = & 0 \;,
431: \end{eqnarray}
432: where we have used $V_\phi ( \phi_0, T_0) =0$ as explained above.
433: The solution is
434: \begin{eqnarray}
435: \delta T & = & {V_T \over V_{T\phi}^2/V_{\phi \phi} - V_{TT}} \;, \nonumber\\
436: \delta \phi & = & - {V_{T \phi} \over V_{\phi \phi}}\, \delta T\;.
437: \end{eqnarray}
438: In the large $a$ limit, $\delta T \sim 1/a^2$ and $\delta \phi \sim 1/a~$.\footnote{The relation
439: $\delta T \sim \delta \phi / a $ can also be understood from rescaling the variable $T$,
440: $T'=aT$, which only affects the overall normalization of $V$ and implies $\delta T' \sim \delta \phi $. }
441:
442:
443: Supersymmetry is now broken by $F^\phi$ and $F^T$ with the latter
444: giving a small contribution,
445: \begin{equation}
446: F^T~\sim~ \mathrm{e}^{G/2}\,{W_{TT} \over W}\,\delta T
447: ~ \sim~ {1\over a}\, m_{3/2} \;.
448: \end{equation}
449: Finally, the cosmological constant can be chosen to be arbitrarily small
450: by adjusting parameters of the $\phi$--subsector, i.e.\ ${\cal W}(\phi)$.
451:
452: \subsection{Example}
453:
454: As a simple example, consider a combination of the KKLT and the Polonyi model
455: \cite{Polonyi:1977}.
456: The superpotential of the Polonyi model is given by
457: \begin{eqnarray}
458: \mathcal{W}(\phi) ~=~ c +\mu^2\, \phi \;,
459: \end{eqnarray}
460: where $c$ and $\mu^2$ are constants.
461: A non--supersymmetric Polonyi vacuum is determined by
462: \begin{equation}
463: G_\phi^2 +G_{\phi \phi} -2 ~=~0\;.
464: \end{equation}
465: Choosing
466: \begin{equation}
467: G_\phi^2 ~=~ 3+\epsilon \;,
468: \end{equation}
469: with $\epsilon \ll 1$, the vacuum energy is
470: \begin{equation}
471: V_0 ~\sim~ \epsilon\, \mu^4 \;.
472: \end{equation}
473: The solution to first order in $\epsilon$ is given by
474: \begin{equation}
475: c ~\approx~ \mu^2\, \Bigl( 2- \sqrt{3} - {\sqrt{3} \over 6} ~\epsilon \Bigr) \;,
476: \quad\phi~\approx~\sqrt{3}-1 + { \sqrt{3}-3 \over 6}\, \epsilon \;.
477: \end{equation}
478: The mass of the Polonyi field is set by $\mu^2$.
479:
480: \begin{figure}[!h!]
481: \centerline{\includegraphics{Fplot.eps}}
482: \caption{
483: Scalar potential of the KKLT + Polonyi model
484: (in units of $10^4/\mu^4$).
485: \label{Fplot}}
486: \end{figure}
487:
488:
489: This system can be used to uplift the AdS minimum of KKLT as explained above.
490: Since $\mu^2 \sim W_0$, the modulus is
491: heavy compared to the Polonyi field. As a result, it shifts only slightly from
492: the original position and its contribution to SUSY breaking is suppressed.
493: The resulting vacuum energy can be made arbitrarily small by adjusting $\epsilon$
494: and without affecting other aspects of the system.
495:
496: The scalar potential for $A=1$, $a= 12$, $\mu = 10^{-8}$ is displayed in
497: Fig.~\ref{Fplot}.
498:
499:
500: \subsection{Relation to ISS}
501:
502:
503:
504: An interesting class of matter sectors with dynamically broken supersymmetry
505: is provided by ISS \cite{Intriligator:2006dd}. In this case, small $W_0$ is generated dynamically through
506: dimensional transmutation. The ISS examples include SUSY QCD with massive
507: flavours, whose dual is described by the superpotential
508: \begin{equation}
509: W~=~ h\,\Tr \phi\, \Phi\, \widetilde{\phi} - h\, \mu^2\,\Tr\Phi \;.
510: \end{equation}
511: Here $\phi_i^a$, $\widetilde{\phi}_a^{\bar \jmath}$, $\Phi^i_{\bar \jmath}$ are the quark and
512: meson fields with $1\le i,j\le N_f$ and $1\le a\le N$ being the flavour and
513: colour indices, respectively. $h$ and $\mu^2$ are (dynamically generated)
514: constants.
515:
516: This system possesses metastable vacua with broken supersymmetry and
517: \begin{equation}
518: V_0~=~ (N_f-N)\,\left\vert h^2\, \mu^4 \right\vert \;.
519: \end{equation}
520: Such vacua can be used for uplifting the KKLT minimum along the lines
521: described above. For more details, see \cite{Dudas:2006gr,Abe:2006xp,Kallosh:2006dv}.
522:
523:
524:
525:
526: \subsection{Remark on other schemes}
527:
528:
529: Although we have focused our discussion on uplifting the KKLT minimum,
530: it is clear that very similar considerations apply to other schemes.
531: Analogous systems arise in the heterotic string, with the
532: substitution $ K=-3\ln (T + \bar T) \rightarrow -\ln (S + \bar S)$
533: and $f=T \rightarrow S$. The analysis of SUSY breaking
534: can be carried out in a similar fashion with the same qualitative
535: conclusions.
536:
537:
538: A related analysis for M theory compactifications on $G_2$ manifolds
539: is given in \cite{Acharya:2006ia}.
540:
541:
542:
543:
544:
545:
546:
547:
548: \section{Soft terms}
549:
550: The resulting pattern of the soft terms is a version of the
551: ``matter dominated SUSY breaking'' scenario \cite{Lebedev:2006qq}.
552: $F$--term uplifting generally predicts heavy scalars with masses
553: of order the gravitino mass and light gauginos,
554: \begin{equation}
555: m_{1/2} ~ \ll ~m_0~ \sim~ m_{3/2} \;.
556: \end{equation}
557: The suppression of the gaugino masses comes from the fact that the gauge
558: kinetic function is independent of $\phi$ to leading order.
559:
560:
561: Let us now focus on the case $\langle \phi \rangle \ll 1$. Allowing for the
562: K\"ahler potential coupling between $\phi$ and observable fields $Q_i$,
563: \begin{equation}
564: K~=~ -3 \ln (T + \overline{T}) + \overline{\phi} \phi
565: + \overline{Q}_i Q_i\, (T +\overline{T})^{n_i}
566: \Bigl[ 1+ \xi_i\, \overline{\phi} \phi + {\cal O}(\phi^4) \Bigr] \;,
567: \label{eq:Ksoft}
568: \end{equation}
569: where $n_i$ are effective ``modular weights'', we have \cite{Lebedev:2006qq}
570: \begin{eqnarray}
571: M_a & =& M_s\, \left[ \alpha_\mathrm{FLM} + b_a\, g_a^2 \right] \;, \\
572: A_{ijk}& = &{} - M_s\, \left[ 3\,\alpha_\mathrm{FLM} -\gamma_i -\gamma_j -\gamma_k \right] \;, \\
573: m_i^2 & = & (16 \pi^2\, M_s)^2\, \left[ 1-3\, \xi_i \right] \;,
574: \end{eqnarray}
575: with $M_s \equiv m_{3/2}/16 \pi^2 $.
576: Here we follow the notation of \cite{Falkowski:2005ck}. $b_a$ and $\gamma_i$ are
577: the beta--function coefficients and the anomalous dimensions, respectively.
578: The gaugino masses and A--terms receive comparable contributions from the modulus and the anomaly
579: \cite{Randall:1998uk,Giudice:1998xp} as in Refs.~\cite{Choi:2005ge,Choi:2004sx},
580: while the scalar masses are dominated by the $F$--term of the uplifting field
581: $\phi$. The parameter $ \alpha_\mathrm{FLM}$ of \cite{Falkowski:2005ck} controls
582: the balance between the modulus and the anomaly contributions to $M_a$ and
583: $A_{ijk}$: at large $ \alpha_\mathrm{FLM}$ the modulus contribution dominates,
584: while at small $ \alpha_\mathrm{FLM}$ the anomaly provides the dominant
585: contribution.
586:
587:
588:
589: The modular weights have little effect on the soft terms as they only affect the
590: A--terms. Thus we have set them to zero. The important variables for
591: phenomenology are $ \alpha_\mathrm{FLM}$ and $\xi_i$.
592:
593: An interesting feature of the soft terms is that the gaugino masses unify at a
594: scale between the electroweak and the GUT scales \cite{Choi:2005uz} although
595: there is no new physics appearing there. This is true in models where the
596: non--universality in gaugino masses is given by the corresponding
597: beta--functions. In general, loop--suppressed contributions to the gaugino
598: masses come also from the K\"ahler anomalies \cite{Bagger:1999rd,Binetruy:2000md}
599: and string
600: threshold corrections \cite{Dixon:1990pc}. When these are suppressed (e.g.\ when
601: $ \langle \phi \rangle \ll 1$), the ``mirage unification'' occurs. This,
602: however, does not usually apply to the scalar masses.
603:
604:
605:
606:
607:
608: In what follows, we study SUSY phenomenology of models with the pattern of
609: soft terms given above.
610:
611:
612:
613:
614:
615: \section{Phenomenology}
616:
617:
618: The variable string/GUT scale parameters in our scheme are
619: $$ m_{3/2}~~,~~ \alpha_\mathrm{FLM}~~,~~ \xi_i~~,~~\tan\beta \;,$$
620: while, for simplicity, we fix the sign of $\mu$ to be positive.
621: Here $\xi_i$ can be different for Higgses and sfermions, but we
622: assume it to be generation--independent.
623: Further, we restrict ourselves to the range $0< \alpha_\mathrm{FLM} <30$
624: and $0 \leq \xi_i < 1/3 $.
625:
626:
627: The ``matter domination'' scheme
628: has distinct phenomenology.
629: Compared to ``mirage mediation'' extensively
630: studied in Refs.~\cite{Choi:2005ge,Endo:2005uy,Choi:2005uz,Falkowski:2005ck,%
631: Choi:2005hd,Loaiza-Brito:2005fa,Baer:2006tb},
632: our scenario differs in the scalar masses, which are now large and comparable
633: to the gravitino mass. The controlled non--universality in the gaugino
634: masses and the A--terms makes it different from mSUGRA and its extensions
635: with non--universal Higgs masses.
636: We find that there are considerable regions of parameter space where
637: the scheme is consistent with all phenomenological constraints.
638:
639:
640:
641: \subsection{Constraints and observables}
642:
643: Certain regions of parameter space are excluded by absence of electroweak symmetry breaking and
644: a charged/coloured LSP.
645: Among other constraints,
646: the most important ones come from the Higgs and chargino searches,
647: \begin{equation}
648: m_h ~>~114\,\mathrm{GeV} \;,\quad m_{\tilde \chi^+} ~>~103 \, \mathrm{GeV} \;.
649: \end{equation}
650: Due to heavy scalars in our scenario, we expect the lightest Higgs to be very similar to
651: the SM Higgs, hence the LEP constraint $m_h >114\,\mathrm{GeV}$ applies.
652: We further impose the $b \rightarrow s \gamma$ constraint from the B--factories \cite{cleo,belle},
653: $ 2.33 \times 10^{-4} \leq \mathrm{BR}(b \rightarrow s \gamma) \leq 4.15 \times 10^{-4}$.
654:
655:
656: We also take into account the dark matter constraint. That is, we assume that
657: the LSP is stable, has thermal abundance and constitutes the dominant component
658: of dark matter. Then we impose the $3\,\sigma$ WMAP constraint on dark matter
659: abundance $ 0.087\lsim\relic\, h^2\lsim 0.138 $ \cite{Spergel:2006hy} and
660: exclude parts of parameter space. We also display parameter space allowed by a
661: conservative bound $ 0.03 < \relic h^2 < 0.3 $. Note that the above
662: assumptions may be relaxed which would open up more available parameter space.
663: For instance, the LSP abundance may be non--thermal or the LSP may only
664: constitute a small component of dark matter.
665:
666:
667:
668: Having singled out favoured regions of parameter space, we consider prospects of
669: direct and indirect dark matter detection. Dark matter can be observed (``directly'')
670: via elastic scattering on target nuclei with nuclear recoil (see \cite{Munoz:2003gx,Bertone:2004pz}).
671: This process is dominated
672: by the $Z$ and Higgs exchange. Indirect dark matter detection amounts to observing
673: a gamma--ray flux from the Galactic center, which can be produced by dark matter
674: annihilation \cite{Prada:2004pi,Profumo:2005xd}.
675:
676:
677: In our numerical analysis, we use the public codes SUSPECT \cite{Suspect}, SOFTSUSY \cite{Allanach:2001kg},
678: DarkSUSY \cite{darksusynew} and
679: MicrOMEGAs \cite{micromegas}.
680:
681:
682:
683: \subsection{Parameter space analysis}
684:
685: We start with the case $\xi_i=0$ and $\tan\beta=35$.
686: The allowed parameter space is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:scantb35}, in yellow.
687: The chargino and the Higgs
688: mass constraints require $m_{3/2}$ to be above a few TeV.
689: A large region is excluded due to no electroweak symmetry breaking (EWSB).
690: This can be understood by writing the EWSB condition
691: in terms of the GUT input parameters. At $\tan\beta=5$,
692: we have \cite{Kane:2002ap}
693: \begin{equation}
694: M_Z^2~=~-1.8\, \mu^2 -1.2\, m_{H_u}^2 + 5.9\, M_3^2 + 1.6\, m_{\tilde q_3}^2
695: +\dots\;,
696: \label{mz}
697: \end{equation}
698: where $m_{\tilde q_3} $ is the third generation squark mass parameter.
699: In the case of heavy scalars, the dominant contribution
700: is given by
701: $-1.2 m_{H_u}^2 + 1.6 m_{\tilde q_3}^2$, which must be positive.
702: The coefficient of $ m_{\tilde q_3}^2$ decreases with $\tan\beta$
703: due to the sbottom loops and at a certain critical value
704: electroweak symmetry remains unbroken. Thus, at low $\tan\beta$
705: more parameter space is available.
706:
707: Similarly, if we decrease the input value of $m_{\tilde q_3}^2$,
708: electroweak symmetry gets restored. This means that
709: increasing $\xi_\mathrm{sf}$ widens the region excluded
710: by the ``no EWSB'' constraint.
711:
712: The yellow region of Fig.~\ref{fig:scantb35} is favoured by dark matter
713: considerations. There the LSP is a mixed higgsino--bino and
714: the correct relic density is achieved due to neutralino annihilation
715: and $\tilde{\chi}_1^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^+$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^0 \tilde{\chi}_2^0$ coannihilation
716: processes. The sample spectra for this region are given in Table~\ref{tab}.
717: To the left of the yellow region, the LSP relic density is below 0.03.
718: This part of parameter space is also viable if the LSP constitutes
719: only a fraction of dark matter. To the right of the yellow region,
720: the relic density is too large. In principle, this could also be consistent
721: with cosmological constraints if the dark matter production is non--thermal.
722:
723:
724:
725:
726: Prospects for indirect and direct detection of dark matter are presented in
727: Fig.\ref{fig:detectb35}.
728: Concerning the former,
729: the gamma ray flux from the Galactic center
730: is produced in this case
731: by an s--channel $Z$ exchange or t--channel $\tilde{\chi}^+_1, \tilde{\chi}_2^0$
732: exchange. We see that relatively light neutralinos,
733: $m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1} \lsim 300$ GeV, can be detected by GLAST,
734: a satellite based experiment to be launched in 2007, but are
735: beyond the reach of EGRET.
736: The neutralinos can also be detected directly via elastic scattering
737: on nuclei dominated by the t--channel $Z$ and Higgs exchange.
738: CDMS II (2007) will probe part of the parameter space, while ZEPLIN IV
739: (2010) will cover the entire region allowed by WMAP.
740: The scattering cross section is significant mainly due to the $Z$--exchange
741: contribution and the higgsino--bino nature of the neutralino.
742:
743:
744: \begin{center}
745: \begin{table}[h]
746: \centerline{
747: \begin{tabular}{|c|ccc|}
748: \hline
749: &\bf{A}&\bf{B}& \\
750: \hline
751: $\tan \beta$ & 35 & 35 & \\
752: $\alpha$& 23.8 & 11.9 & \\
753: $m_{3/2}$ (TeV)& 8 & 3 & \\
754: \hline
755: $M_1$ & 625 & 125 & \\
756: $M_2$ & 999 & 187 & \\
757: $M_3$ & 2267 & 430 & \\
758: \hline
759: $m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1}$ & 594 & 112 & \\
760: $m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_2}$ & 635 & 159 & \\
761: $m_{\tilde{\chi}^+_1}$ & 627 & 151 & \\
762: $m_{\tilde g}$ & 2810 & 612 & \\
763: \hline
764: $m_{h}$ & 127.1 & 121.1 & \\
765: $m_{A}$ & 5972 & 2236 & \\
766: $m_{H}$ & 5972 & 2236 & \\
767: $\mu$ & 617 & 194 & \\
768: \hline
769: $m_{\tilde t_1}$ & 4483 & 1732 & \\
770: $m_{\tilde t_2}$ & 5477 & 2239 & \\
771: $m_{\tilde c_1}, ~ m_{\tilde u_1}$ & 8171 & 2293 & \\
772: $m_{\tilde c_2}, ~ m_{\tilde u_2}$ & 8172 & 2989 & \\
773: \hline
774: $m_{\tilde b_1}$ & 6240 & 2241 & \\
775: $m_{\tilde b_2}$ & 7249 & 2647 & \\
776: $m_{\tilde s_1}, ~ m_{\tilde d_1}$ & 8170 & 2984 & \\
777: $m_{\tilde s_2}, ~ m_{\tilde d_2}$ & 8172 & 2994 & \\
778: \hline
779: $m_{\tilde \tau_1}$ & 7098 & 2657 & \\
780: $m_{\tilde \tau_2}$ & 7568 & 2825 & \\
781: $m_{\tilde \mu_1}, ~ m_{\tilde e_1}$ & 8001& 2989 & \\
782: $m_{\tilde \mu_2}, ~ m_{\tilde e_2}$ & 8003 & 2996 & \\
783: $m_{\tilde \nu_3}$& 8003 & 2988 & \\
784: \hline
785: $\Omega h^2$& 0.108 & 0.101 & \\
786: \hline
787: \end{tabular}}
788: \caption{Sample spectra. All masses are in GeV, except for $m_{3/2}$ (in TeV).}
789: \label{tab}
790: \end{table}
791: \end{center}
792:
793:
794: \subsection{Dependence on $\boldsymbol{\tan\beta}$ and $\boldsymbol{\xi_i}$}
795:
796:
797: For lower $\tan\beta$, the ``no EWSB'' constraint relaxes, as explained above.
798: The allowed region is again on the edge of the ``no EWSB'' area (Fig.~\ref{fig:scantb5}).
799: An interesting feature, absent in mSUGRA, is that
800: $M_1 (M_Z) \simeq M_2(M_Z)$ is possible. In this case, strong
801: coannihilation of bino--neutralinos with wino--charginos ($m_{\tilde{\chi}_1^0}\sim m_{\tilde{\chi}_1^+}$)
802: gives the relic LSP density consistent with WMAP.
803: On the other hand, the indirect and direct detection rates are somewhat lower
804: (Fig.~\ref{fig:detectb5}). The neutralinos and charginos are light ($\lsim 200$ GeV)
805: and can be produced in collider experiments.
806:
807: At $\tan\beta \sim 50$, the picture is similar to the
808: $\tan\beta =35$ case (Fig.~\ref{fig:scantb50})
809: except the detection rates are now enhanced
810: (Fig.~\ref{fig:detectb50}). We do not observe the A--pole funnel
811: for dark matter annihilation since the scalars are too heavy
812: in the considered parameter space.
813:
814:
815: Increasing $\xi_{H_{u,d}}$ eliminates the ``no EWSB''
816: region (Fig.~\ref{fig:scantb35xihu}), as is
817: clear from Eq.(\ref{mz}). In this case, a gluino LSP region appears
818: at small $\alpha_\mathrm{FLM}$. Now the WMAP constraint is satisfied for
819: larger $\mu$ and the LSP is a bino--wino. Consequently,
820: the detection rates are suppressed
821: (Fig.~\ref{fig:detectb35xihu}).
822:
823:
824:
825:
826: For all $\xi_i=1/6$, we essentially recover the plots for $\xi_i=0$
827: and the same conclusions (Figs.~\ref{fig:scantb35xi0.16},\ref{fig:detectb35xi0.16}).
828:
829:
830: Making the scalars lighter, $\xi_i=1/3-10^{-2}$, changes the picture
831: dramatically (Fig.~\ref{fig:scantb35xi0.33}).
832: The stau can be the LSP, similarly to the mSUGRA case.
833: Close to the stau LSP region, $\tilde{\chi}^0_1 \tilde \tau_1$ coannihilation
834: is efficient and allows for an extra band in the parameter space
835: consistent with WMAP. In this region, $\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ is mainly a bino
836: and the detection rates are suppressed (Fig.~\ref{fig:detectb35xi0.33}).
837: The points with significant detection rates correspond to the band
838: on the left hand side of Fig.~\ref{fig:scantb35xi0.33}, in which
839: case $\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ is a mixed higgsino--bino.
840:
841: For $\xi_i=1/3$, we recover the ``mirage mediation'' soft terms \cite{Choi:2005ge},
842: in which case the (suppressed) anomaly and modulus contributions to the scalar
843: masses have to be included. The corresponding parameter space analysis can be found in
844: \cite{Falkowski:2005ck,Baer:2006tb}.
845:
846:
847:
848: \subsection{Summary}
849:
850:
851: The ``matter domination'' scenario differs from the ``mirage mediation'' scheme
852: and mSUGRA in several phenomenological aspects. First, the scalars are usually
853: much heavier than the gauginos. This exacerbates the MSSM finetuning problem
854: on one hand, but reduces the finetuning needed to suppress excessive CP
855: violation and FCNC, on the other hand\footnote{In our phenomenological study, we have have assumed that $\xi_i$
856: and thus the scalar masses are generation--independent. In a more general situation,
857: this may not be the case and there is a danger of excessive FCNC. However, these
858: effects are suppressed (but not completely eliminated) due to multi--TeV scalar masses. }.
859: The gauginos and higgsinos are typically
860: quite light and accessible to collider searches. The neutralino dark matter
861: can also be detected via the gamma ray flux from the Galactic center as well as
862: elastic scattering on nuclei.
863:
864: The typical values of $\alpha_\mathrm{FLM}$ increase compared to mirage
865: mediation due to the electroweak symmetry breaking constraint. Also there are no
866: charged or coloured tachyons. Non--universality in gaugino masses allows for
867: $M_1 (M_Z) \simeq M_2(M_Z)$, which is not possible in mSUGRA and leads to
868: efficient chargino--neutralino coannihilation.
869:
870:
871:
872:
873: \section{Comments on cosmological problems}
874:
875:
876:
877: The class of models we study do not offer an immediate solution to the
878: gravitino or moduli problems \cite{Coughlan:1985hh}. The main point of these problems is that
879: late decaying particles like gravitinos and moduli spoil
880: the standard nucleosynthesis (BBN), which has proven to be very successful.
881: One way to avoid these problems is to make gravitinos and moduli
882: sufficiently heavy, 40 TeV or so, such that they decay before the BBN.
883: This is possible in our framework for the price of increasing
884: the sfermion masses as well.
885: We note, however, that the above estimate is based on the decay width
886: \begin{equation}
887: \Gamma~\sim~\frac{m_{\mathrm {scalar} }^3}{M^2} \;,
888: \end{equation}
889: with $M \sim M_\mathrm{Pl}$. In practice, this identification may be too rough
890: and, depending on the K\"ahler potential and other factors, $M$ can be
891: close to $M_{\mathrm {GUT}}$. In this case, the moduli problem is less severe
892: and would not require a significant increase in the scalar mass.
893: In such a scenario, the late--time entropy production will change the picture of
894: dark matter generation (cf.\ \cite{Drees:2006vh}).
895:
896:
897: A version of the above problem, the so called ``moduli--induced gravitino problem'',
898: was recently pointed out in the context of the KKLT model with
899: the anti-D3 brane uplifting \cite{Endo:2006zj,Nakamura:2006uc}.
900: In this setup, supersymmetry is broken explicitly and $m_T\gg m_{3/2}$.
901: As a result, the branching ratio for the $T$ decays into gravitinos is
902: of order one which leads to abundant gravitino production and severe
903: cosmological problems. In the context of spontaneously broken
904: supergravity, such a problem is usually absent \cite{Lebedev:2006qq,Dine:2006ii}
905: since the uplifting field $\phi$ typically has a mass comparable to $m_{3/2}$,
906: \begin{equation}
907: m_\phi \sim {\cal O}(m_{3/2}) \;.
908: \end{equation}
909: This is because, unlike $W(T)$, the uplifting superpotential is not
910: very steep \cite{Dudas:2006gr,Abe:2006xp,Kallosh:2006dv}.
911: $\phi$ dominates the energy--density of the Universe at late times,
912: however its decay into gravitinos is suppressed and the
913: ``moduli--induced gravitino problem'' is absent.
914:
915:
916:
917:
918: \section{Conclusions}
919:
920:
921: Obtaining phenomenologically interesting vacua in flux compactifications
922: is a difficult task. One of the problems is that
923: the simple models such as the KKLT predict the existence of a deep AdS vacuum
924: which then has to be ``uplifted'' to a dS/Minkowski vacuum by some mechanism.
925: Here we have advocated the possibility that such uplifting can be provided by hidden
926: matter $F$--terms, along the lines of our earlier work \cite{Lebedev:2006qq}.
927: In this case, vacua with spontaneously broken supersymmetry, small positive
928: cosmological constant and hierarchically small $m_{3/2}$ can be obtained.
929: This procedure leads to
930: ``matter dominated'' supersymmetry breaking, with the modulus contribution
931: being suppressed. The resulting soft masses are characterized by light gauginos and heavy
932: scalars.
933:
934:
935:
936: We have performed a parameter space analysis in this class of models. There are considerable
937: portions of parameter space consistent with all of the experimental constraints and
938: accessible to collider searches. We also find good prospects for direct and indirect detection
939: of neutralino dark matter in the near future.
940:
941:
942:
943:
944: \noindent
945: \textbf{Acknowledgements.}
946: %
947: This work was partially supported by the
948: European Union 6th framework program MRTN-CT-2004-503069
949: ``Quest for unification", MRTN-CT-2004-005104 ``ForcesUniverse",
950: MRTN-CT-2006-035863 ``UniverseNet" and
951: SFB-Transregio 33 ``The Dark Universe" by Deutsche
952: Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG).
953: The work of Y.M. is sponsored by the PAI program PICASSO under contract
954: PAI--10825VF.
955:
956:
957:
958:
959:
960: \clearpage
961:
962:
963: \begin{figure}[h!]
964: \vspace*{-.4cm}
965: \begin{center}
966: \hskip -.3cm
967: \epsfig{file=scantb35.eps,width=0.45\textwidth}
968: \vskip -0.1cm
969: %
970: \caption{{\footnotesize
971: Allowed parameter space
972: for tan$\beta=35$, $\xi_i=0$ and $\mu>0$.
973: The region below the light grey (green) dashed line
974: is excluded by the Higgs mass bound. The region below the
975: the dotted line is excluded by the chargino mass bound, while that
976: below the solid (magenta) line is excluded by BR($b\to s\gamma$).
977: The narrow area between the black contours satisfies the
978: $3 \sigma$ WMAP constraint:
979: $0.087 \leq \Omega_{\tilde{\chi}_1^0}h^2 \leq 0.138$,
980: whereas the yellow region satisfies
981: $0.03 \leq \Omega_{\tilde{\chi}_1^0}h^2 \leq 0.3$.} }
982: \label{fig:scantb35}
983: \end{center}
984: \vspace*{-.5cm}
985: \end{figure}
986:
987:
988: \begin{figure}[h!]
989: \vspace*{-.4cm}
990: \begin{center}
991: \hskip -.3cm
992: \epsfig{file=gammatb35.eps,width=0.5\textwidth}
993: % \hskip 0.5cm
994: \epsfig{file=directtb35.eps,width=0.5\textwidth}
995:
996: \vskip -0.1cm
997: %
998: \caption{{\footnotesize
999: Scatter plot of the gamma-ray flux $\Phi_{\gamma}$
1000: for a threshold of 1 GeV (left)
1001: and the spin--independent neutralino--proton cross section (right)
1002: as a function of the lightest neutralino mass $m_{\tilde{\chi}}$
1003: for tan$\beta=35$, $\xi_i=0$ and $\mu>0$.
1004: An NFW dark matter profile with
1005: with $\Delta \Omega \sim 10^{-5}$ sr is used.
1006: All points in the figure satisfy the experimental bounds.
1007: The light grey (red) triangles correspond to
1008: $0.138<\Omega_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1}h^2<0.3$,
1009: black stars:
1010: $0.087<\Omega_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1} h^2<0.138$,
1011: dark grey (blue) boxes:
1012: $0.03<\Omega_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1} h^2<0.087$.
1013: The solid lines represent the $5\sigma$ sensitivity of the satellites.
1014: } }
1015: \label{fig:detectb35}
1016: \end{center}
1017: \vspace*{-.5cm}
1018: \end{figure}
1019:
1020:
1021:
1022:
1023:
1024:
1025:
1026: % \subsection{Dependance on $\boldsymbol{\tan\beta}$}
1027: %
1028: % For lower values of tan$\beta$, the electroweak breaking condition
1029: % is satisfied in almost all the parameter space (the running of
1030: % $M_{H_u}^2$ is soften) as we can see in Fig. \ref{fig:scantb5}.
1031: % However, there exist a new region, not
1032: % present in mSUGRA or for higher values of tan$\beta$, where
1033: % $M_1^{\mathrm{EW}}=M_2^{\mathrm{EW}}$\footnote{back to basic computation to
1034: % add here}. The value of $\alpha_{FLM}$ which gives this relation at the
1035: % electroweak scale is independant of tan$\beta$ and $m_{3/2}$ as it
1036: % appears clearly in Fig.\ref{fig:scantb5}.
1037: % In this case, there exist
1038: % strong coannihilations of bino--neutralinos and a wino--charginos
1039: % ($m_{\chi_1^0}\sim m_{\chi_1^+}$) which give a relic density in
1040: % agreement with WMAP.
1041: %
1042: %
1043: % The indirect detection via gamma--rays from Galactic Center
1044: % is not efficient because the coannihilation process dominates the
1045: % anihilation ones : a mixed bino--wino neutralino does not couple
1046: % to Z nor Higgs--boson (see Fig.\ref{Feynmann}). Moreover, the scalar
1047: % spectrum is too much heavy to allow t--channel sfermion exchange.
1048: % As we can see in Fig.\ref{fig:detectb5}, GLAST will not be able to
1049: % explore the allowed region of the parameter space.
1050: % The same remark is valid for direct detection. However, the little amount
1051: % of higgsino component is sufficient to
1052: % give some substantial rates through t--channel Z--exchange, which
1053: % would be observable by ZEPLIN IV.
1054: %
1055: % In all the case, the value of $\alpha_{FLM}$ needed to satisfy the WMAP
1056: % constraint is independant of $m_{3/2}$. For this value, where
1057: % $M_2^{\mathrm{EW}}=M_1^{\mathrm{EW}}$, we predict very light neutralinos
1058: % and charginos ($\lsim 200$ GeV) but a massive sfermion spectrum
1059: % ($m_{\tilde f} > 3$ TeV) wich can be considered as a signature
1060: % compared to KKLT scenario, where the whole spectrum is heavy,
1061: % and mSUGRA, where the main spectrum is relatively light (for
1062: % this value of tan$\beta$ at least).
1063: %
1064: %
1065: % For higher values of tan$\beta$, we can point some strong differences
1066: % with mSUGRA or KKLT phenomenology as we can see in Fig. \ref{fig:scantb50}.
1067: % Indeed, there is clearly a larger region of the parameter space
1068: % where the neutralino is a mixed bino-higgsino, giving better
1069: % indirect and direct detection rates (left and right panel of
1070: % Fig. \ref{fig:detectb50}). Fig. \ref{fig:scantb50}. However, we do not observe any A--pole funnel,
1071: % always present in any construction for such high values of tan$\beta$
1072: % (which reinforce the $Ab\overline{b}$ coupling in the process
1073: % $\chi \chi \to A \to b \overline{b}$). This is because the mass
1074: % of the pseudo-scalar is too large in all the region of the parameter
1075: % space.
1076: %
1077: %
1078: %
1079: %
1080:
1081: \clearpage
1082:
1083:
1084:
1085:
1086: \begin{figure}[h!]
1087: \vspace*{-.4cm}
1088: \begin{center}
1089: \hskip -.3cm
1090: \epsfig{file=scantb5.eps,width=0.5\textwidth}
1091: \vskip -0.1cm
1092: %
1093: \caption{{\footnotesize
1094: The same as in Fig. \ref{fig:scantb35} but with tan$\beta=5$.} }
1095: \label{fig:scantb5}
1096: \end{center}
1097: \vspace*{-.5cm}
1098: \end{figure}
1099:
1100: \begin{figure}[h!]
1101: \vspace*{-.4cm}
1102: \begin{center}
1103: \hskip -.3cm
1104: \epsfig{file=gammatb5.eps,width=0.5\textwidth}
1105: % \hskip 0.5cm
1106: \epsfig{file=directtb5.eps,width=0.5\textwidth}
1107:
1108: \vskip -0.1cm
1109: %
1110: \caption{{\footnotesize
1111: The same as in Fig. \ref{fig:detectb35} but for tan$\beta=5$.} }
1112: \label{fig:detectb5}
1113: \end{center}
1114: \vspace*{-.5cm}
1115: \end{figure}
1116:
1117:
1118:
1119: \clearpage
1120:
1121:
1122: \begin{figure}
1123: \vspace*{-.4cm}
1124: \begin{center}
1125: \hskip -.3cm
1126: \epsfig{file=scantb50.eps,width=0.5\textwidth}
1127: \vskip -0.1cm
1128: %
1129: \caption{{\footnotesize
1130: The same as in Fig. \ref{fig:scantb35} but for tan$\beta=50$.} }
1131: \label{fig:scantb50}
1132: \end{center}
1133: \vspace*{-.5cm}
1134: \end{figure}
1135:
1136:
1137:
1138: \begin{figure}
1139: \vspace*{-.4cm}
1140: \begin{center}
1141: \hskip -.3cm
1142: \epsfig{file=gammatb50.eps,width=0.5\textwidth}
1143: % \hskip 0.5cm
1144: \epsfig{file=directtb50.eps,width=0.5\textwidth}
1145:
1146: \vskip -0.1cm
1147: %
1148: \caption{{\footnotesize
1149: The same as in Fig. \ref{fig:detectb35} but for tan$\beta=50$.} }
1150: \label{fig:detectb50}
1151: \end{center}
1152: \vspace*{-.5cm}
1153: \end{figure}
1154:
1155: % \subsection{Dependance on $\boldsymbol{\xi_i}$}
1156: %
1157: % Taking a non--zero value for $\xi_{H_i}$ will influence dramatically
1158: % the phenomenolgy of the model. Indeed, $\xi_{H_u}$ acts on
1159: % the bounding condition for $M_{H_u}^2$ which plays a fundamental
1160: % role in the nature of the neutralino, the EWSB realisation condition
1161: % and the Higgs sector.
1162: % As an example, we take $\xi_{H_i}=1/6$ in Figs. \ref{fig:scantb35xihu}
1163: % and \ref{fig:detectb35xihu}. As we can clearly see, decreasing
1164: % the value of $M_{H_u}^2$ at GUT scale through $\xi_{H_u}$ open
1165: % a new region of the parameter space, for low values of $\alpha_{FLM}$,
1166: % which was forbidden for $\xi_{H_u}=0$ (Fig. \ref{fig:scantb35}).
1167: % Indeed, low values of $M_3$ are now possible, even
1168: % $m_{\tilde g}<m_{\tilde \chi^0_1}$.
1169: % In the region allowed by WMAP constraints, we recover a mixed
1170: % bino--wino neutralino, as in the cas tan$\beta=5$, $\xi_{H_u}=0$
1171: % (Fig. \ref{fig:scantb5}) but without any higgsino component
1172: % (the lightest neutralino is more than 99 \% gaugino is the WMAP band).
1173: % The main consequence of such a situation is that the direct and
1174: % indirect detection rates are very low, and unreachable by any
1175: % near--future experiments.
1176: % Indeed, the Z--exchange channel is extremely reduced by the $\chi Z \chi$
1177: % coupling, and the Higgs spectrum is very heavy ($m_{H,A}\sim 2 TeV$),
1178: % reducing considerably the t-channel Higgs exchange.
1179: % The same argument is valid for both direct and indirect
1180: % detection of gamma--rays
1181: % (replacing t--channel exchange by s--channel exchange).
1182:
1183: \clearpage
1184:
1185:
1186: \begin{figure}[h!]
1187: \vspace*{-.4cm}
1188: \begin{center}
1189: \hskip -.3cm
1190: \epsfig{file=scantb35xihu0.16.eps,width=0.5\textwidth}
1191: \vskip -0.1cm
1192: %
1193: \caption{{\footnotesize
1194: The same as in Fig. \ref{fig:scantb35} but for $\xi_{H_i}=1/6$,
1195: $\xi_{\tilde f}=0$.} }
1196: \label{fig:scantb35xihu}
1197: \end{center}
1198: \vspace*{-.5cm}
1199: \end{figure}
1200: \begin{figure}[h!]
1201: \vspace*{-.4cm}
1202: \begin{center}
1203: \hskip -.3cm
1204: \epsfig{file=gammatb35xihu0.16.eps,width=0.5\textwidth}
1205: % \hskip 0.5cm
1206: \epsfig{file=directtb35xihu0.16.eps,width=0.5\textwidth}
1207:
1208: \vskip -0.1cm
1209: %
1210: \caption{{\footnotesize
1211: The same as in Fig. \ref{fig:detectb35} but for $\xi_{H_i}=1/6$,
1212: $\xi_{\tilde f}=0$.} }
1213: \label{fig:detectb35xihu}
1214: \end{center}
1215: \vspace*{-.5cm}
1216: \end{figure}
1217:
1218:
1219: % Taking now non--zero values for $\xi_{\tilde f}$ gives us different results.
1220: % As we can see in Fig. \ref{fig:scantb35xi0.16}, we recover a region
1221: % excluded by the constraint on the realization of the electroweak symmetry
1222: % breaking. Indeed, higher values of $\xi_{\tilde f}$ lower
1223: % the sfermion breaking terms, and by consequences their masses from GUT
1224: % to electroweak scale. But the squark masses, and especially the third
1225: % generation ones, play an important role in the scale evolution of
1226: % $M_{H_u}^2$. Their role is similar to the one play by $M_3$ : the
1227: % lightest is the stop, the higher will be the value of $M_{H_u}^2$ at
1228: % electroweak scale, excluding some points -which were allowed for
1229: % $\xi_{\tilde f}$- through the condition $\mu^2 > 0$.
1230: %
1231: % In this case, the points satisfying WMAP constraints are mixed bino--higgsino
1232: % like and gives encouraging detection rates as we can see in
1233: %Fig. \ref{fig:scantb35xi0.16} Fig. \ref{fig:detectb35xi0.16}. GLAST would be able to probe
1234: % mainly all points of the parameter space respecting WMAP and collider
1235: % bounds, whereas ZEPLIN will cover all the allowed region of the parameter
1236: % space for $0.03< \Omega h^2 <0.3$.
1237: %
1238: %
1239: \clearpage
1240:
1241:
1242: \begin{figure}[h!]
1243: \vspace*{-.4cm}
1244: \begin{center}
1245: \hskip -.3cm
1246: \epsfig{file=scantb35xi0.16.eps,width=0.5\textwidth}
1247: \vskip -0.1cm
1248: %
1249: \caption{{\footnotesize
1250: The same as in Fig. \ref{fig:scantb35} but for $\xi_{i}=1/6$.} }
1251: \label{fig:scantb35xi0.16}
1252: \end{center}
1253: \vspace*{-.5cm}
1254: \end{figure}
1255: \begin{figure}[h!]
1256: \vspace*{-.4cm}
1257: \begin{center}
1258: \hskip -.3cm
1259: \epsfig{file=gammatb35xi0.16.eps,width=0.5\textwidth}
1260: % \hskip 0.5cm
1261: \epsfig{file=directtb35xi0.16.eps,width=0.5\textwidth}
1262:
1263: \vskip -0.1cm
1264: %
1265: \caption{{\footnotesize
1266: The same as in Fig. \ref{fig:detectb35} but for $\xi_{i}=1/6$.} }
1267: \label{fig:detectb35xi0.16}
1268: \end{center}
1269: \vspace*{-.5cm}
1270: \end{figure}
1271:
1272:
1273:
1274:
1275: % For values vey near to $1/3$ (we took $\xi_{i}=1/3-10^{-2}$) we recover similarities
1276: % with mSUGRA of course (however a mSUGRA where $M_{1/2}$ and $m_0$ change with
1277: % $m_{3/2}$. Indeed, as we can see in Fig. \ref{fig:scantb35xi0.33}, we
1278: % recover a zone where the stau can be lightest than the chargino. On the
1279: % edge of this region (nemed "stau LSP" region in Fig. \ref{fig:scantb35xi0.33})
1280: % efficient $\chi_1^0 \tilde{\tau_1}$ coannihilation process allowed some points
1281: % to enter in the WMAP favored limit. However, those points give very bad detection
1282: % rate, directly as indirectly as we can se in Fig. \ref{fig:detectb35xi0.33}.
1283: % Indeed, for these points, the neutralino in mainly bino and its couplings to
1284: % any exchanged particle ($Z$ or Higgs bosons) are very weak. We can distinguish
1285: % those points inFig. \ref{fig:scantb35xi0.33}, Fig. \ref{fig:detectb35xi0.33} : they trace a line with very low
1286: % gamma fluxes and detection rates. The points approaching GLAST or CDMSII
1287: % sensitivities are the mixed Higgsino-Bino neutralino that we can obtain around
1288: % the no EWSB region of Fig. \ref{fig:scantb35xi0.33},Fig. \ref{fig:scantb35xi0.33}.
1289:
1290: \clearpage
1291:
1292:
1293: \begin{figure}[h!]
1294: \vspace*{-.4cm}
1295: \begin{center}
1296: \hskip -.3cm
1297: \epsfig{file=scantb35xi0.33.eps,width=0.5\textwidth}
1298: \vskip -0.1cm
1299: %
1300: \caption{{\footnotesize
1301: The same as in Fig. \ref{fig:scantb35} but for $\xi_{i}=1/3-10^{-2}$.} }
1302: \label{fig:scantb35xi0.33}
1303: \end{center}
1304: \vspace*{-.5cm}
1305: \end{figure}
1306: \begin{figure}[h!]
1307: \vspace*{-.4cm}
1308: \begin{center}
1309: \hskip -.3cm
1310: \epsfig{file=gammatb35xi0.33.eps,width=0.5\textwidth}
1311: % \hskip 0.5cm
1312: \epsfig{file=directtb35xi0.33.eps,width=0.5\textwidth}
1313:
1314: \vskip -0.1cm
1315: %
1316: \caption{{\footnotesize
1317: The same as in Fig. \ref{fig:detectb35} but for $\xi_{i}= 1/3-10^{-2} $.} }
1318: \label{fig:detectb35xi0.33}
1319: \end{center}
1320: \vspace*{-.5cm}
1321: \end{figure}
1322:
1323:
1324:
1325: \clearpage
1326:
1327:
1328:
1329:
1330:
1331: % \bibliography{Moduli}
1332: % \addcontentsline{toc}{section}{Bibliography}
1333: % \bibliographystyle{ArXiv}
1334:
1335:
1336: \providecommand{\bysame}{\leavevmode\hbox to3em{\hrulefill}\thinspace}
1337: \begin{thebibliography}{10}
1338:
1339: \bibitem{Giddings:2001yu}
1340: S.~B. Giddings, S.~Kachru, and J.~Polchinski, Phys. Rev. \textbf{D66} (2002),
1341: 106006, [hep-th/0105097].
1342: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0105097;%%
1343:
1344: \bibitem{Kachru:2003aw}
1345: S.~Kachru, R.~Kallosh, A.~Linde, and S.~P. Trivedi, Phys. Rev. \textbf{D68}
1346: (2003), 046005, [hep-th/0301240].
1347: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0301240;%%
1348:
1349: \bibitem{Burgess:2003ic}
1350: C.~P. Burgess, R.~Kallosh, and F.~Quevedo, JHEP \textbf{10} (2003), 056,
1351: [hep-th/0309187].
1352: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0309187;%%
1353:
1354: \bibitem{Choi:2005ge}
1355: K.~Choi, A.~Falkowski, H.~P. Nilles, and M.~Olechowski, Nucl. Phys.
1356: \textbf{B718} (2005), 113--133, [hep-th/0503216].
1357: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0503216;%%
1358:
1359: \bibitem{Balasubramanian:2005zx}
1360: V.~Balasubramanian, P.~Berglund, J.~P. Conlon, and F.~Quevedo, JHEP \textbf{03}
1361: (2005), 007, [hep-th/0502058].
1362: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0502058;%%
1363:
1364: \bibitem{Conlon:2006wz}
1365: J.~P. Conlon, S.~S. Abdussalam, F.~Quevedo, and K.~Suruliz, (2006),
1366: hep-th/0610129.
1367: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0610129;%%
1368:
1369: \bibitem{Brustein:2004xn}
1370: R.~Brustein and S.~P. de~Alwis, Phys. Rev. \textbf{D69} (2004), 126006,
1371: [hep-th/0402088].
1372: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0402088;%%
1373:
1374: \bibitem{Gomez-Reino:2006dk}
1375: M.~Gomez-Reino and C.~A. Scrucca, JHEP \textbf{05} (2006), 015,
1376: [hep-th/0602246].
1377: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0602246;%%
1378:
1379: \bibitem{Lebedev:2006qq}
1380: O.~Lebedev, H.~P. Nilles, and M.~Ratz, Phys. Lett. \textbf{B636} (2006), 126,
1381: [hep-th/0603047].
1382: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0603047;%%
1383:
1384:
1385: %\cite{Lust:2006zg}
1386: \bibitem{Lust:2006zg}
1387: D.~L\"ust, S.~Reffert, E.~Scheidegger, W.~Schulgin and S.~Stieberger,
1388: %``Moduli stabilization in type IIB orientifolds. II,''
1389: arXiv:hep-th/0609013.
1390: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0609013;%%
1391:
1392:
1393: \bibitem{deAlwis:2005tf}
1394: S.~P. de~Alwis, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 626}, 223 (2005)
1395: [hep-th/0506266].
1396: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0506266;%%
1397:
1398: \bibitem{Saltman:2004sn}
1399: A.~Saltman and E.~Silverstein, JHEP \textbf{11} (2004), 066, [hep-th/0402135].
1400: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0402135;%%
1401:
1402: \bibitem{Intriligator:2006dd}
1403: K.~Intriligator, N.~Seiberg, and D.~Shih, JHEP \textbf{04} (2006), 021,
1404: [hep-th/0602239].
1405: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0602239;%%
1406:
1407: \bibitem{Dudas:2006gr}
1408: E.~Dudas, C.~Papineau, and S.~Pokorski, (2006), hep-th/0610297.
1409: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0610297;%%
1410:
1411: \bibitem{Abe:2006xp}
1412: H.~Abe, T.~Higaki, T.~Kobayashi, and Y.~Omura, (2006), hep-th/0611024.
1413: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0611024;%%
1414:
1415: \bibitem{Kallosh:2006dv}
1416: R.~Kallosh and A.~Linde, (2006), hep-th/0611183.
1417: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0611183;%%
1418:
1419:
1420:
1421: %\cite{Cremmer:1982en}
1422: \bibitem{Cremmer:1982en}
1423: E.~Cremmer, S.~Ferrara, L.~Girardello and A.~Van Proeyen,
1424: %``Yang-Mills Theories With Local Supersymmetry: Lagrangian, Transformation
1425: %Laws And Superhiggs Effect,''
1426: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 212}, 413 (1983).
1427: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B212,413;%%
1428:
1429:
1430:
1431:
1432: \bibitem{Choi:2006bh}
1433: K.~Choi and K.~S. Jeong, JHEP \textbf{08} (2006), 007, [hep-th/0605108].
1434: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0605108;%%
1435:
1436: \bibitem{Villadoro:2005yq}
1437: G.~Villadoro and F.~Zwirner, Phys. Rev. Lett. \textbf{95} (2005), 231602,
1438: [hep-th/0508167].
1439: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0508167;%%
1440:
1441: \bibitem{Achucarro:2006zf}
1442: A.~Achucarro, B.~de~Carlos, J.~A. Casas, and L.~Doplicher, JHEP \textbf{06}
1443: (2006), 014, [hep-th/0601190].
1444: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0601190;%%
1445:
1446: \bibitem{Parameswaran:2006jh}
1447: S.~L. Parameswaran and A.~Westphal, JHEP \textbf{10} (2006), 079,
1448: [hep-th/0602253].
1449: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0602253;%%
1450:
1451: \bibitem{Dudas:2006vc}
1452: E.~Dudas and Y.~Mambrini, JHEP \textbf{10} (2006), 044, [hep-th/0607077].
1453: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0607077;%%
1454:
1455: \bibitem{Brummer:2006dg}
1456: F.~Br{\"u}mmer, A.~Hebecker, and M.~Trapletti, Nucl. Phys. \textbf{B755}
1457: (2006), 186--198, [hep-th/0605232].
1458: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0605232;%%
1459:
1460: \bibitem{Haack:2006cy}
1461: M.~Haack, D.~Krefl, D.~L{\"u}st, A.~Van~Proeyen, and M.~Zagermann, (2006),
1462: hep-th/0609211.
1463: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0609211;%%
1464:
1465: \bibitem{Braun:2006se}
1466: A.~P. Braun, A.~Hebecker, and M.~Trapletti, (2006), hep-th/0611102.
1467: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0611102;%%
1468:
1469:
1470: %\cite{Lust:2004dn}
1471: \bibitem{Lust:2004dn}
1472: D.~L\"ust, S.~Reffert and S.~Stieberger,
1473: %``MSSM with soft SUSY breaking terms from D7-branes with fluxes,''
1474: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 727}, 264 (2005)
1475: [arXiv:hep-th/0410074].
1476: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0410074;%%
1477:
1478:
1479: \bibitem{Polonyi:1977}
1480: J.~Polonyi, (1977), Budapest preprint KFK-1977-93.
1481:
1482:
1483:
1484: %\cite{Acharya:2006ia}
1485: \bibitem{Acharya:2006ia}
1486: B.~Acharya, K.~Bobkov, G.~Kane, P.~Kumar and D.~Vaman,
1487: %``An M theory solution to the hierarchy problem,''
1488: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 97} (2006) 191601
1489: [arXiv:hep-th/0606262].
1490: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0606262;%%
1491:
1492:
1493:
1494:
1495: \bibitem{Falkowski:2005ck}
1496: A.~Falkowski, O.~Lebedev, and Y.~Mambrini, JHEP {\bf 0511}, 034 (2005)
1497: [hep-ph/0507110].
1498: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0507110;%%
1499:
1500: \bibitem{Randall:1998uk}
1501: L.~Randall and R.~Sundrum, Nucl. Phys. \textbf{B557} (1999), 79--118,
1502: [hep-th/9810155].
1503: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9810155;%%
1504:
1505: \bibitem{Giudice:1998xp}
1506: G.~F. Giudice, M.~A. Luty, H.~Murayama, and R.~Rattazzi, JHEP \textbf{12}
1507: (1998), 027, [hep-ph/9810442].
1508: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9810442;%%
1509:
1510:
1511: %\cite{Choi:2004sx}
1512: \bibitem{Choi:2004sx}
1513: K.~Choi, A.~Falkowski, H.~P.~Nilles, M.~Olechowski and S.~Pokorski,
1514: %``Stability of flux compactifications and the pattern of supersymmetry
1515: %breaking,''
1516: JHEP {\bf 0411}, 076 (2004)
1517: [hep-th/0411066].
1518: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0411066;%%
1519:
1520:
1521:
1522: \bibitem{Choi:2005uz}
1523: K.~Choi, K.~S. Jeong, and K.-i. Okumura, JHEP {\bf 0509}, 039 (2005)
1524: [hep-ph/0504037].
1525: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0504037;%%
1526:
1527: \bibitem{Bagger:1999rd}
1528: J.~A. Bagger, T.~Moroi, and E.~Poppitz, JHEP \textbf{04} (2000), 009,
1529: [hep-th/9911029].
1530: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9911029;%%
1531:
1532:
1533: %\cite{Binetruy:2000md}
1534: \bibitem{Binetruy:2000md}
1535: P.~Binetruy, M.~K.~Gaillard and B.~D.~Nelson,
1536: %``One loop soft supersymmetry breaking terms in superstring effective
1537: %theories,''
1538: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 604}, 32 (2001)
1539: [hep-ph/0011081].
1540: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0011081;%%
1541:
1542:
1543: \bibitem{Dixon:1990pc}
1544: L.~J. Dixon, V.~Kaplunovsky, and J.~Louis, Nucl. Phys. \textbf{B355} (1991),
1545: 649--688.
1546: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B355,649;%%
1547:
1548:
1549: %\cite{Endo:2005uy}
1550: \bibitem{Endo:2005uy}
1551: M.~Endo, M.~Yamaguchi and K.~Yoshioka,
1552: %``A bottom-up approach to moduli dynamics in heavy gravitino scenario:
1553: %Superpotential, soft terms and sparticle mass spectrum,''
1554: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 72}, 015004 (2005)
1555: [hep-ph/0504036].
1556: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0504036;%%
1557:
1558:
1559: %\cite{Choi:2005hd}
1560: \bibitem{Choi:2005hd}
1561: K.~Choi, K.~S.~Jeong, T.~Kobayashi and K.~i.~Okumura,
1562: %``Little SUSY hierarchy in mixed modulus-anomaly mediation,''
1563: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 633}, 355 (2006)
1564: [hep-ph/0508029];\\
1565: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0508029;%%
1566: R.~Kitano and Y.~Nomura,
1567: %``A solution to the supersymmetric fine-tuning problem within the MSSM,''
1568: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 631}, 58 (2005)
1569: [hep-ph/0509039];\\
1570: O.~Lebedev, H.~P.~Nilles and M.~Ratz,
1571: %``A note on fine-tuning in mirage mediation,''
1572: hep-ph/0511320;\\
1573: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0511320;%%
1574: A.~Pierce and J.~Thaler,
1575: %``Prospects for mirage mediation,''
1576: JHEP {\bf 0609}, 017 (2006)
1577: [hep-ph/0604192].
1578: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0604192;%%
1579:
1580:
1581:
1582: %\cite{Loaiza-Brito:2005fa}
1583: \bibitem{Loaiza-Brito:2005fa}
1584: O.~Loaiza-Brito, J.~Martin, H.~P.~Nilles and M.~Ratz,
1585: %``log(M(Pl/m(3/2))),''
1586: AIP Conf.\ Proc.\ {\bf 805}, 198 (2006)
1587: [hep-th/0509158].
1588: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0509158;%%
1589:
1590:
1591:
1592: %\cite{Baer:2006id}
1593: \bibitem{Baer:2006tb}
1594: H.~Baer, E.~K.~Park, X.~Tata and T.~T.~Wang,
1595: %``Collider and dark matter searches in models with mixed modulus-anomaly
1596: %mediated SUSY breaking,''
1597: JHEP {\bf 0608}, 041 (2006)
1598: [hep-ph/0604253];\\
1599: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0604253;%%
1600: %``Measuring modular weights in mirage unification models at the LHC and
1601: %ILC,''
1602: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 641}, 447 (2006)
1603: [hep-ph/0607085];\\
1604: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0607085;%%
1605: K.~Choi, K.~Y.~Lee, Y.~Shimizu, Y.~G.~Kim and K.~i.~Okumura,
1606: %``Neutralino dark matter in mirage mediation,''
1607: hep-ph/0609132.
1608: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0609132;%%
1609:
1610:
1611:
1612: \bibitem{cleo}
1613: S. Chen et al. [CLEO Collaboration],
1614: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 87}, 251807 (2001)
1615: [hep-ex/0108032].
1616:
1617: \bibitem{belle}
1618: H. Tajima [BELLE Collaboration],
1619: Int. J. Mod. Phys. {\bf A17}, 2967 (2002)
1620: [hep-ex/0111037].
1621:
1622:
1623:
1624:
1625:
1626: %\cite{Spergel:2006hy}
1627: \bibitem{Spergel:2006hy}
1628: D.~N.~Spergel {\it et al.},
1629: %``Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) three year results:
1630: %Implications for cosmology,''
1631: astro-ph/0603449.
1632: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0603449;%%
1633:
1634:
1635: %\cite{Munoz:2003gx}
1636: \bibitem{Munoz:2003gx}
1637: C.~Mu\~noz,
1638: %``Dark matter detection in the light of recent experimental results,''
1639: Int.\ J.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 19}, 3093 (2004)
1640: [hep-ph/0309346].
1641: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0309346;%%
1642:
1643:
1644: %\cite{Bertone:2004pz}
1645: \bibitem{Bertone:2004pz}
1646: G.~Bertone, D.~Hooper and J.~Silk,
1647: %``Particle dark matter: Evidence, candidates and constraints,''
1648: Phys.\ Rept.\ {\bf 405}, 279 (2005)
1649: [hep-ph/0404175].
1650: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0404175;%%
1651:
1652:
1653:
1654: \bibitem{Prada:2004pi}
1655: F.~Prada, A.~Klypin, J.~Flix, M.~Martinez and E.~Simonneau,
1656: %``Astrophysical inputs on the SUSY dark matter annihilation detectability,''
1657: astro-ph/0401512;\\
1658: G.~Bertone and D.~Merritt,
1659: %``Dark matter dynamics and indirect detection,''
1660: Mod.\ Phys.\ Lett.\ A {\bf 20}, 1021 (2005)
1661: [astro-ph/0504422];\\
1662: Y.~Mambrini, C.~Munoz, E.~Nezri and F.~Prada,
1663: %``Adiabatic compression and indirect detection of supersymmetric dark
1664: %matter,''
1665: JCAP {\bf 0601}, 010 (2006)
1666: [arXiv:hep-ph/0506204].
1667:
1668:
1669:
1670: %\cite{Profumo:2005xd}
1671: \bibitem{Profumo:2005xd}
1672: D.~Hooper, I.~de la Calle Perez, J.~Silk, F.~Ferrer and S.~Sarkar,
1673: %``Have atmospheric Cerenkov telescopes observed dark matter?,''
1674: JCAP {\bf 0409}, 002 (2004)
1675: [astro-ph/0404205];\\
1676: Y.~Mambrini and C.~Mu\~noz,
1677: %``Gamma-ray detection from neutralino annihilation in non-universal SUGRA
1678: %scenarios,''
1679: Astropart.\ Phys.\ {\bf 24}, 208 (2005)
1680: [hep-ph/0407158];\\
1681: JCAP {\bf 0410}, 003 (2004) [hep-ph/0407352];\\
1682: S.~Profumo,
1683: %``TeV gamma-rays and the largest masses and annihilation cross sections of
1684: %neutralino dark matter,''
1685: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 72}, 103521 (2005)
1686: [astro-ph/0508628];\\
1687: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0508628;%%
1688: H.~Baer, A.~Mustafayev, E.~K.~Park, S.~Profumo and X.~Tata,
1689: %``Mixed higgsino dark matter from a reduced SU(3) gaugino mass: Consequences
1690: %for dark matter and collider searches,''
1691: JHEP {\bf 0604}, 041 (2006)
1692: [hep-ph/0603197].
1693:
1694:
1695:
1696:
1697: \bibitem{Suspect}
1698: A. Djouadi, J.~L. Kneur and G. Moultaka,
1699: hep-ph/0211331;\\
1700: \texttt{http://www.lpm.univ-montp2.fr:6714/\char126kneur/suspect.html}.
1701: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0211331;%%
1702:
1703: %\cite{Allanach:2001kg}
1704: \bibitem{Allanach:2001kg}
1705: B.~C.~Allanach,
1706: %``SOFTSUSY: A C++ program for calculating supersymmetric spectra,''
1707: Comput.\ Phys.\ Commun.\ {\bf 143}, 305 (2002)
1708: [hep-ph/0104145].
1709: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0104145;%%
1710:
1711:
1712: \bibitem{darksusynew}
1713: P. Gondolo, J. Edsjo, P. Ullio, L. Bergstrom, M. Schelke and E.~A.
1714: Baltz, astro-ph/0406204;\\
1715: \texttt{http://www.physto.se/\char126edsjo/darksusy}.
1716: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0406204;%%
1717:
1718: \bibitem{micromegas}
1719: G.~Belanger, F.~Boudjema, A.~Pukhov and A.~Semenov,
1720: hep-ph/0607059;\\
1721: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0607059;%%
1722: Comput. Phys. Commun. {\bf 149}, 103 (2002) [hep-ph/0112278].
1723: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0112278;%%
1724:
1725:
1726:
1727: %\cite{Kane:2002ap}
1728: \bibitem{Kane:2002ap}
1729: G.~L.~Kane, J.~D.~Lykken, B.~D.~Nelson and L.~T.~Wang,
1730: %``Re-examination of electroweak symmetry breaking in supersymmetry and
1731: %implications for light superpartners,''
1732: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 551}, 146 (2003)
1733: [hep-ph/0207168].
1734: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0207168;%%
1735:
1736:
1737:
1738:
1739:
1740: \bibitem{Coughlan:1985hh}
1741: G.~D. Coughlan et~al., Phys. Lett. \textbf{B158} (1985), 401.
1742: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B158,401;%%
1743:
1744: %\cite{Drees:2006vh}
1745: \bibitem{Drees:2006vh}
1746: M.~Drees, H.~Iminniyaz and M.~Kakizaki,
1747: %``Abundance of cosmological relics in low-temperature scenarios,''
1748: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 73}, 123502 (2006)
1749: [hep-ph/0603165].
1750: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0603165;%%
1751:
1752: \bibitem{Endo:2006zj}
1753: M.~Endo, K.~Hamaguchi, and F.~Takahashi, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 96}, 211301 (2006)
1754: [hep-ph/0602061].
1755: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0602061;%%
1756:
1757: \bibitem{Nakamura:2006uc}
1758: S.~Nakamura and M.~Yamaguchi, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 638}, 389 (2006)[arXiv:hep-ph/0602081].
1759: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0602081;%%
1760:
1761:
1762: \bibitem{Dine:2006ii}
1763: M.~Dine, R.~Kitano, A.~Morisse, and Y.~Shirman, Phys. Rev. \textbf{D73} (2006),
1764: 123518 [hep-ph/0604140].
1765: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0604140;%%
1766:
1767: \end{thebibliography}
1768:
1769: \end{document}
1770: