1: \let\includefigures=\iftrue

2: %

3: % the following is to use blackboard bold fonts --

4: \let\useblackboard=\iftrue

5: %

6: % activate this if you don't have them.

7: %\let\useblackboard=\iffalse

8: %

9: % You might also need to remove this line.

10: \newfam\black

11: %

12: %

13: \input harvmac.tex

14: \input xy

15: \xyoption{all}

16: %\draftmode

17: \def\rem{$\clubsuit$}

18: \includefigures

19: \message{If you do not have epsf.tex (to include figures),}

20: \message{change the option at the top of the tex file.}

21: \input epsf

22: \def\figin{\epsfcheck\figin}\def\figins{\epsfcheck\figins}

23: \def\epsfcheck{\ifx\epsfbox\UnDeFiNeD

24: \message{(NO epsf.tex, FIGURES WILL BE IGNORED)}

25: \gdef\figin##1{\vskip2in}\gdef\figins##1{\hskip.5in}% blank space instead

26: \else\message{(FIGURES WILL BE INCLUDED)}%

27: \gdef\figin##1{##1}\gdef\figins##1{##1}\fi}

28: \def\DefWarn#1{}

29: \def\figinsert{\goodbreak\midinsert}

30: \def\ifig#1#2#3{\DefWarn#1\xdef#1{fig.~\the\figno}

31: \writedef{#1\leftbracket fig.\noexpand~\the\figno}%

32: \figinsert\figin{\centerline{#3}}\medskip\centerline{\vbox{\baselineskip12pt

33: \advance\hsize by -1truein\noindent\footnotefont{\bf Fig.~\the\figno:} #2}}

34: \bigskip\endinsert\global\advance\figno by1}

35: %%%

36: \else

37: \def\ifig#1#2#3{\xdef#1{fig.~\the\figno}

38: \writedef{#1\leftbracket fig.\noexpand~\the\figno}%

39: %\figinsert\figin{\centerline{#3}}\medskip\centerline{\vbox{\baselineskip12pt

40: %\advance\hsize by -1truein\noindent\footnotefont{\bf Fig.~\the\figno:} #2}}

41: %\bigskip\endinsert

42: \global\advance\figno by1}

43: \fi

44: %

45: %

46: \useblackboard

47: \message{If you do not have msbm (blackboard bold) fonts,}

48: \message{change the option at the top of the tex file.}

49: \font\blackboard=msbm10 scaled \magstep1

50: \font\blackboards=msbm7

51: \font\blackboardss=msbm5

52: \textfont\black=\blackboard

53: \scriptfont\black=\blackboards

54: \scriptscriptfont\black=\blackboardss

55: \def\Bbb#1{{\fam\black\relax#1}}

56: \else

57: \def\Bbb{\bf}

58: \fi

59: % *************************************

60: %\draft

61: %

62: \def\yboxit#1#2{\vbox{\hrule height #1 \hbox{\vrule width #1

63: \vbox{#2}\vrule width #1 }\hrule height #1 }}

64: \def\fillbox#1{\hbox to #1{\vbox to #1{\vfil}\hfil}}

65: \def\ybox{{\lower 1.3pt \yboxit{0.4pt}{\fillbox{8pt}}\hskip-0.2pt}}

66: %

67: \def\subsubsec#1{\medskip

68: \noindent {\it #1}

69: \medskip}

70: %

71: % degree of W

72: \def\d{\kappa}

73: \def\hSigma{{\hat\Sigma}}

74: %

75: \def\Det{{\rm Det}}

76: \def\DET{{\rm DET}}

77: \def\bbbone{{\mathchoice {\rm 1\mskip-4mu l} {\rm 1\mskip-4mu l}

78:           {\rm 1\mskip-4.5mu l} {\rm 1\mskip-5mu l}}}

79: \def\CY#1{{\rm CY$_{#1}$}}

80: \def\Coh{{\bf Coh\ }}

81: \def\Cat{{\bf Cat}}

82: \def\l{\left}

83: \def\r{\right}

84: \def\mapr{\mathop{\longrightarrow}\limits}

85: \def\grade{\varphi}

86: \def\comments#1{}

87: \def\cc{{\rm c.c.}}

88: \def\cof{{\rm cof~}}

89: \def\Nbar{{\bar N}}

90: \def\NRR{{N_{RR}}}

91: \def\NNS{{N_{NS}}}

92: \def\tM{\tilde M}

93: \def\ib{{\bar i}}

94: \def\jb{{\bar j}}

95: \def\kb{{\bar k}}

96: \def\lb{{\bar l}}

97: \def\mb{{\bar m}}

98: \def\nb{{\bar n}}

99: \def\ab{{\bar a}}

100: \def\bb{{\bar b}}

101: \def\cb{{\bar c}}

102: \def\Cb{{\bar C}}

103: \def\db{{\bar d}}

104: \def\Dbar{{\bar D}}

105: \def\zb{{\bar z}}

106: \def\Zb{{\bar Z}}

107: \def\phib{{\bar \phi}}

108: \def\taub{{\bar \tau}}

109: \def\QC{\Bbb{C}}

110: \def\QH{\Bbb{H}}

111: \def\QM{\Bbb{M}}

112: \def\QR{\Bbb{R}}

113: \def\QX{\Bbb{X}}

114: \def\QZ{\Bbb{Z}}

115: \def\p{\partial}

116: \def\delbar{{\bar\partial}}

117: \def\tilp{\tilde\partial}

118: \def\eps{\epsilon}

119: \def\half{{1\over 2}}

120: \def\Tr{{{\rm Tr~ }}}

121: \def\tr{{\rm tr\ }}

122: \def\Re{{\rm Re\hskip0.1em}}

123: \def\Im{{\rm Im\hskip0.1em}}

124: \def\even{{\rm even}}

125: \def\odd{{\rm odd}}

126: \def\lcm{{\rm lcm}}

127: \def\diag{{\rm diag}}

128: \def\bra#1{{\langle}#1|}

129: \def\ket#1{|#1\rangle}

130: \def\bbra#1{{\langle\langle}#1|}

131: \def\kket#1{|#1\rangle\rangle}

132: \def\vev#1{\langle{#1}\rangle}

133: \def\bigvev#1{\bigg\langle{#1}\bigg\rangle}

134: \def\Dslash{\rlap{\hskip0.2em/}D}

135: \def\intersect{\cdot}

136: \def\cA{{\cal A}}

137: \def\cC{{\cal C}}

138: \def\cD{{\cal D}}

139: \def\cE{{\cal E}}

140: \def\cF{{\cal F}}

141: \def\cG{{\cal G}}

142: \def\cH{{\cal H}}

143: \def\cI{{\cal I}}

144: \def\cK{{\cal K}}

145: \def\cL{{\cal L}}

146: \def\cM{{\cal M}}

147: \def\cN{{\cal N}}

148: \def\cO{{\cal O}}

149: \def\cP{{\cal P}}

150: \def\cQ{{\cal Q}}

151: \def\cS{{\cal S}}

152: \def\cT{{\cal T}}

153: \def\cU{{\cal U}}

154: \def\cV{{\cal V}}

155: \def\cW{{\cal W}}

156: \def\cX{{\cal X}}

157: %\def\ad#1#2{{\delta\over\delta\sigma^{#1}(#2)}}

158: \def\ppt{{\partial\over\partial t}}

159: \def\comment#1{[#1]}

160: \def\nl{\hfill\break}

161: \def\ap{\alpha'}

162: \def\floor#1{{#1}}

163: \def\sgn{{\rm sgn\ }}

164: \def\P{\BP}

165: \def\I{I}

166: \def\IA{IA}

167: \def\II{\relax{I\kern-.10em I}}

168: \def\IIa{{\II}a}

169: \def\IIb{{\II}b}

170: \def\TeV{{\rm TeV}}

171: \def\AdS{{\rm AdS}}

172: %

173: \def\imp{$\Rightarrow$}

174: \def\IZ{\relax\ifmmode\mathchoice

175: {\hbox{\cmss Z\kern-.4em Z}}{\hbox{\cmss Z\kern-.4em Z}}

176: {\lower.9pt\hbox{\cmsss Z\kern-.4em Z}}

177: {\lower1.2pt\hbox{\cmsss Z\kern-.4em Z}}\else{\cmss Z\kern-.4em

178: Z}\fi}

179: \def\IB{\relax{\rm I\kern-.18em B}}

180: \def\IC{{\relax\hbox{$\inbar\kern-.3em{\rm C}$}}}

181: \def\ID{\relax{\rm I\kern-.18em D}}

182: \def\IE{\relax{\rm I\kern-.18em E}}

183: \def\IF{\relax{\rm I\kern-.18em F}}

184: \def\IG{\relax\hbox{$\inbar\kern-.3em{\rm G}$}}

185: \def\IGa{\relax\hbox{${\rm I}\kern-.18em\Gamma$}}

186: \def\IH{\relax{\rm I\kern-.18em H}}

187: \def\II{\relax{\rm I\kern-.18em I}}

188: \def\IK{\relax{\rm I\kern-.18em K}}

189: \def\IN{\relax{\rm I\kern-.18em N}}

190: \def\IP{\relax{\rm I\kern-.18em P}}

191: %\def\IX{\relax{\rm X\kern-.01em X}}

192: %this doesn't work

193: \def\IX{{\bf X}}

194: %

195: \def\inbar{\,\vrule height1.5ex width.4pt depth0pt}

196: \def\mod{{\rm\; mod\;}}

197: \def\ndt{\noindent}

198: \def\p{\partial}

199: \def\pab{\pb_{\bar A} }

200: \def\pb{{\bar \p}}

201: \def\pgp{\pb g g^{-1}}

202: \font\cmss=cmss10 \font\cmsss=cmss10 at 7pt

203: \def\IR{\relax{\rm I\kern-.18em R}}

204: \def\pbar{\bar{\p}}

205: \def\qmvw{\CM_{\vec \zeta}(\vec v, \vec w) }

206: \def\sdtimes{\mathbin{\hbox{\hskip2pt\vrule

207: height 4.1pt depth -.3pt width .25pt\hskip-2pt$\times$}}}

208: \def\im{{\rm im\ }}

209: \def\ker{{\rm ker\ }}

210: \def\cok{{\rm cok\ }}

211: \def\End{{\rm End\ }}

212: \def\vol{{\rm vol}}

213: \def\id {{\bf 1}}

214: \def\ch{{\rm ch}}

215: \def\chern{{\rm c}}

216: \def\rank{{\rm rank}}

217: \def\aroof{{\rm \hat A}}

218: %

219: \def\CP{\IP}

220: \def\CM{{\cal M}}

221: \def\CN{{\cal N}}

222: \def\CZ{{\cal Z}}

223: %

224: \def\BR{\IR}

225: \def\BZ{\IZ} % for now

226: \def\BP{\IP}

227: \def\BR{\IR}

228: \def\BC{\IC}

229: \def\BM{\QM}

230: \def\BH{\QH}

231: \def\BX{\QX}

232: %

233: \def\ls{l_s}

234: \def\ms{m_s}

235: \def\gs{g_s}

236: \def\lp10{l_P^{10}}

237: \def\lp11{l_P^{11}}

238: \def\R11{R_{11}}

239: %

240: \def\tV{\tilde{V}}

241: \def\tD{\tilde{D}}

242: %

243: 

244: \Title{\vbox{\baselineskip12pt\hbox{hep-th/0404257}}}

245: %\medskip

246: {\vbox{\vskip 37pt

247: %\centerline{K\"ahler Moduli Stabilization and Flux Vacua}}}

248: \centerline{Building a Better Racetrack}}}

249: \smallskip

250: \centerline{Frederik Denef, Michael R. Douglas\footnote{$^{\&}$}{

251: Louis Michel Professor}$^{,2}$ and Bogdan Florea}

252: \medskip

253: \medskip

254: \centerline{{NHETC and Department of Physics and Astronomy,}}

255: %\centerline{\it{Rutgers University,}}

256: \centerline{{Rutgers University, Piscataway, NJ 08855--0849, USA}}

257: \medskip

258: \centerline{{$^\&$I.H.E.S., Le Bois-Marie, Bures-sur-Yvette, 91440 France}}

259: \medskip

260: \centerline{{$^2$California Institute of Technology, Pasadena CA 91125, USA}}

261: \medskip

262: \centerline{\tt denef, mrd, florea@physics.rutgers.edu}

263: \bigskip

264: \bigskip

265: \bigskip

266: \noindent

267: We find \IIb\

268: compactifications on Calabi-Yau orientifolds in which all K\"ahler

269: moduli are stabilized, along lines

270: suggested by Kachru, Kallosh, Linde and Trivedi.

271: 

272: \Date{April 2004}

273: %

274: \def\np{{\it Nucl. Phys.}}

275: \def\prl{{\it Phys. Rev. Lett.}}

276: \def\pr{{\it Phys. Rev.}}

277: \def\pl{{\it Phys. Lett.}}

278: \def\atmp{{\it Adv. Theor. Math. Phys.}}

279: \def\cqg{{\it Class. Quant. Grav.}}

280: \def\cmp{{\it Comm. Math. Phys.}}

281: %

282: \nref\achflux{B. Acharya, ``A Moduli Fixing Mechanism in M theory,'' [arXiv:hep-

283: th/0212294].}

284: 

285: \nref\ad{ S.~Ashok and M.~R.~Douglas, ``Counting Flux Vacua,''

286: JHEP {\bf 0401}, 060 (2004) [arXiv:hep-th/0307049].}

287: 

288: \nref\aspdoug{P. S. Aspinwall and M. R. Douglas, ``D-Brane Stability and

289: Monodromy'', JHEP {\bf 0205}, 031 (2002)

290: [arXiv:hep-th/0110071].}

291: 

292: \nref\bala{V. Balasubramanian,

293: ``Accelerating Universes and String Theory,''\cqg\ {\bf 21}, 1337 (2004)

294: [arXiv:hep-th/0404075].}

295: 

296: \nref\BanksES{

297: T.~Banks, M.~Dine and E.~Gorbatov, ``Is there a String Theory Landscape?,''

298: [arXiv:hep-th/0309170].

299: }

300: 

301: \nref\banks{T.~Banks,

302: ``Cosmological Breaking of Supersymmetry or Little Lambda Goes Back to the

303: Future. II,''

304: [arXiv:hep-th/0007146].}

305: 

306: \nref\BanksES{

307: T.~Banks, M.~Dine and E.~Gorbatov,

308: ``Is there a string theory landscape?,''

309: [arXiv:hep-th/0309170].}

310: 

311: \nref\barrow{J. D. Barrow, {\it The Book of Nothing,}

312: London: Vintage (2001)}

313: 

314: \nref\B{V. Batyrev, ``Dual Polyhedra and Mirror Symmetry for Calabi-Yau

315: Hypersurfaces

316: in Toric Varieties,'' {\it J. Alg. Geom.} {\bf 3}, 493 (1994).}

317: 

318: \nref\beckerG{K. Becker and M. Becker, ``M-Theory on Eight-Manifolds,'' \np\ B

319: {\bf 477}, 155 (1996)

320: [arXiv:hep-th/9605053].}

321: 

322: \nref\BeckerNN{K.~Becker, M.~Becker, M.~Haack and J.~Louis,

323: ``Supersymmetry Breaking and $\alpha'$-Corrections to Flux Induced

324: Potentials,'' JHEP {\bf 0206}, 060 (2002) [arXiv:hep-th/0204254].}

325: 

326: \nref\BinetruyHH{

327: P.~Binetruy, G.~Dvali, R.~Kallosh and A.~Van Proeyen,

328: ``Fayet-Iliopoulos Terms in Supergravity and Cosmology,''

329: [arXiv:hep-th/0402046].

330: }

331: 

332: \nref\boupol{R.~Bousso and J.~Polchinski, ``Quantization of

333: Four-Form Fluxes and Dynamical Neutralization of the  Cosmological

334: Constant,'' JHEP {\bf 0006}, 006 (2000) [arXiv:hep-th/0004134].}

335: 

336: \nref\breit{P.~Breitenlohner and D.~Z.~Freedman,

337: ``Stability In Gauged Extended Supergravity,''

338: Annals Phys.\  {\bf 144}, 249 (1982).}

339: 

340: \nref\BH{ I.~Brunner and K.~Hori, ``Orientifolds and Mirror

341: Symmetry,'' [arXiv:hep-th/0303135].}

342: 

343: \nref\horietal{ I.~Brunner, K.~Hori, K.~Hosomichi and J.~Walcher, ``Orientifolds

344: of Gepner Models,''

345: [arXiv:hep-th/0401137].}

346: 

347: \nref\BrusteinXN{

348: R.~Brustein and S.~P.~de Alwis,

349: ``Moduli potentials in string compactifications with fluxes: Mapping the

350: discretuum,''

351: [arXiv:hep-th/0402088].}

352: 

353: \nref\BurgessIC{

354: C.~P.~Burgess, R.~Kallosh and F.~Quevedo,

355: ``de Sitter String Vacua from Supersymmetric D-Terms,''

356: JHEP {\bf 0310}, 056 (2003)

357: [arXiv:hep-th/0309187].

358: }

359: 

360: \nref\chsw{P.~Candelas, G.~Horowitz, A.~Strominger, and E.~Witten,

361: `` Vacuum Configurations for Superstrings,'' \np\ B {\bf 258}, 46 (1985).}

362: 

363: \nref\candelas{P.~Candelas, X.~C.~de la Ossa, P.~S.~Green and

364: L.~Parkes, ``A Pair of Calabi-Yau Manifolds as an Exactly Soluble

365: Superconformal Theory,'' \np\ B {\bf 359}, 21 (1991).}

366: 

367: \nref\candtwo{

368: P.~Candelas, A.~Font, S.~Katz and D.~R.~Morrison,

369: ``Mirror Symmetry for Two Parameter Models. 2,'' \np\ B {\bf 429}, 626 (1994)

370: [arXiv:hep-th/9403187].}

371: 

372: \nref\cardoso{G.~L.~Cardoso, G.~Curio, G.~Dall'Agata, D.~Lust,

373: P.~Manousselis and G.~Zoupanos, ``Non-Kaehler String Backgrounds

374: and their Five Torsion Classes,'' \np\ B {\bf 652}, 5 (2003)

375: [arXiv:hep-th/0211118].}

376: 

377: \nref\casas{J.A. Casas, Z. Lalak, C. Munoz and G.G. Ross,

378: Nucl. Phys. {\bf B347} (1990) 243.}

379: 

380: \nref\CKYZ{T.-M. Chiang, A. Klemm, S.-T. Yau and E. Zaslow, ``Local Mirror

381: Symmetry: Calculations and Interpretations'',

382: \atmp\ {\bf 3}, 495 (1999) [arXiv:hep-th/9903053].}

383: 

384: \nref\cohen{H.~Cohen,

385: {\it A Course in Computational Algebraic Number Theory},

386: Springer-Verlag (1993).}

387: 

388: \nref\DasguptaIJ{

389: K.~Dasgupta and S.~Mukhi,

390: ``F-Theory at Constant Coupling,'' \pl\ B {\bf 385}, 125 (1996)

391: [arXiv:hep-th/9606044].}

392: 

393: \nref\dasgupta{K.  Dasgupta, G. Rajesh and S. Sethi, ``M Theory, Orientifolds

394: and G-Flux,'' JHEP

395: {\bf 9908}, 023 (1999) [arXiv:hep-th/9908088].}

396: 

397: \nref\DAuriaKX{

398: R.~D'Auria, S.~Ferrara and M.~Trigiante,

399: ``C-Map,Very Special Quaternionic Geometry and Dual K\"ahler Spaces,'' \pl\ B

400: {\bf 587}, 138 (2004)

401: [arXiv:hep-th/0401161].}

402: 

403: %\nref\DenefNB{ F.~Denef, ``Supergravity Flows and D-brane

404: %Stability,'' JHEP {\bf 0008}, 050 (2000) [arXiv:hep-th/0005049].}

405: %

406: %\nref\DenefXN{ F.~Denef, B.~R.~Greene and M.~Raugas, ``Split

407: %Attractor Flows and the Spectrum of BPS D-branes on the Quintic,''

408: %JHEP {\bf 0105}, 012 (2001) [arXiv:hep-th/0101135].}

409: 

410: \nref\dd{

411: F.~Denef and M.~R.~Douglas,

412: ``Distributions of Flux Vacua,''

413: [arXiv:hep-th/0404116].

414: }

415: 

416: \nref\ddtwo{F.~Denef and M.~R.~Douglas, to appear.}

417: 

418: \nref\deren{

419: J.~P.~Derendinger, L.~E.~Ibanez and H.~P.~Nilles,

420: ``On The Low-Energy Limit Of Superstring Theories,''

421: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 267}, 365 (1986).}

422: 

423: \nref\DiaconescuUA{

424: D.~E.~Diaconescu and S.~Gukov, ``Three Dimensional ${\cal N} = 2$

425: Gauge Theories and Degenerations of Calabi-Yau Four-Folds,'' \np\ B

426: {\bf 535}, 171 (1998) [arXiv:hep-th/9804059].  }

427: 

428: \nref\drom{

429: D.-E.~Diaconescu and C.~Romelsberger,

430: ``D-Branes and Bundles on Elliptic Fibrations,'' \np\ B {\bf 574}, 245 (2000)

431: [arXiv:hep-th/9910172].}

432: 

433: \nref\dmw{ D.-E. Diaconescu, G. Moore and E. Witten, ``A

434: Derivation of K-Theory from M-Theory,'' [arXiv:hep-th/0005091].}

435: 

436: \nref\DineRZ{

437: M.~Dine, R.~Rohm, N.~Seiberg and E.~Witten,

438: ``Gluino Condensation In Superstring Models,''

439: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 156}, 55 (1985).}

440: 

441: \nref\dineseiberg{M.~Dine and N.~Seiberg,

442: ``Is the Superstring Weakly Coupled?'',

443: \pl\ B {\bf 162}, 299 (1985).}

444: 

445: \nref\racetrack{ L.~Dixon, V.~Kaplunovsky and M. Peskin, unpublished;

446: L.J. Dixon, SLAC-PUB-5229, 1990.}

447: 

448: \nref\DGW{R. Donagi, A. Grassi and E. Witten, ``A Non-Perturbative

449: Superpotential with $E_8$ Symmetry'',

450: {\it Mod. Phys. Lett.} A {\bf 11}, 2199 (1996) [arXiv:hep-th/9607091].}

451: 

452: \nref\DougStr{M. R. Douglas,

453: ``D-Branes and $N=1$ Supersymmetry,''

454: in the proceedings of Strings 2001, Mumbai, India.

455: [arXiv:hep-th/0105014].}

456: 

457: \nref\jhstalk{M. R. Douglas, Lecture at JHS60, October 2001,

458: Caltech. Available on the web at {\tt http://theory.caltech.edu}.}

459: 

460: \nref\dgjt{M. R. Douglas, S. Govindarajan, T. Jayaraman and A. Tomasiello, ``

461: D-Branes on Calabi-Yau Manifolds and Superpotentials'',

462: [arXiv:hep-th/0203173].}

463: 

464: \nref\stat{M.~R.~Douglas, ``The Statistics of String / M Theory

465: Vacua,'' JHEP {\bf 0305}, 046 (2003) [arXiv:hep-th/0303194].}

466: 

467: \nref\mrdtalks{M. R. Douglas, talks at Strings 2003 and at the

468: 2003 Durham workshop on String Phenomenology.}

469: 

470: \nref\dsz{M. R. Douglas, B. Shiffman and S. Zelditch,

471: ``Critical Points and Supersymmetric Vacua,''

472: [arXiv:math.CV/0402326].}

473: 

474: \nref\fischler{

475: W.~Fischler, A.~Kashani-Poor, R.~McNees and S.~Paban,

476: ``The Acceleration of the Universe, a Challenge for String Theory,''

477: JHEP {\bf 0107}, 003 (2001)

478: [arXiv:hep-th/0104181].}

479: 

480: \nref\FreedVC{

481: D.~S.~Freed and E.~Witten,

482: ``Anomalies in string theory with D-branes,''

483: [arXiv:hep-th/9907189].}

484: 

485: \nref\frey{A. R. Frey and J. Polchinski, ``N=3 Warped

486: Compactifications,'' \pr\ D {\bf 65}, 126009 (2002) [arXiv:hep-th/0201029].}

487: 

488: \nref\fulton{W.~Fulton, ``{\it Introduction to Toric Varieties,}''

489: Princeton University Press (1993).}

490: 

491: \nref\gkp{S.~B.~Giddings, S.~Kachru and J.~Polchinski,

492:  ``Hierarchies from Fluxes in String Compactifications,''

493: \pr\ D {\bf 66}, 106006 (2002) [arXiv:hep-th/0105097] }

494: 

495: \nref\giddings{S.~B.~Giddings, ``The Fate of Four Dimensions'', \pr\ D {\bf 68},

496: 026006 (2003)

497: [arXiv:hep-th/0303031].}

498: 

499: \nref\GiddingsVR{

500: S.~B.~Giddings and R.~C.~Myers,

501: ``Spontaneous decompactification,''

502: [arXiv:hep-th/0404220].}

503: 

504: \nref\gimonpolchinski{E. Gimon and J. Polchinski, ``Consistency Conditions for

505: Orientifolds and D-Manifolds,''

506: \pr\ D {\bf 54}, 1667 (1996), [arXiv:hep-th/9601038].}

507: 

508: \nref\GiryavetsVD{ A.~Giryavets, S.~Kachru, P.~K.~Tripathy and

509: S.~P.~Trivedi, ``Flux Compactifications on Calabi-Yau

510: Threefolds,'' [arXiv:hep-th/0312104].}

511: 

512: \nref\goheer{N. Goheer, M. Kleban and L. Susskind,

513: ``The Trouble with de Sitter Space,''

514: JHEP 0307 (2003) 056,

515: [arXiv:hep-th/0212209].}

516: 

517: \nref\gv{R.~Gopakumar and C.~Vafa, ``On the Gauge Theory/Geometry

518: Correspondence,'' \atmp\  {\bf 3}, 1415 (1999)

519: [arXiv:hep-th/9811131].}

520: 

521: \nref\gp{M.~Gra\~na and J.~Polchinski, ``Gauge/Gravity Duals with

522: Holomorphic Dilaton,'' \pr\ D {\bf 65}, 126005 (2002)

523: [arXiv:hep-th/0106014].}

524: 

525: \nref\G{A. Grassi,

526: ``Divisors on Elliptic Calabi-Yau 4-Folds and the Superpotential in F-Theory --

527: I'',

528: [arXiv:math.AG/9704008].}

529: 

530: \nref\GreeneUD{

531: B.~R.~Greene and M.~R.~Plesser,

532: ``Duality in Calabi-Yau Moduli Space,'' \np\ B {\bf 338}, 15 (1990).}

533: 

534: \nref\GL{T.W.~Grimm and J.~Louis, ``The Effective Action of ${\cal

535: N}=1$ Calabi-Yau Orientifolds'', [arXiv:hep-th/0403067].}

536: 

537: \nref\gvw{S.~Gukov, C.~Vafa and E.~Witten, ``CFT's from Calabi-Yau

538: Four-folds,'' \np\ B {\bf 584}, 69 (2000) [Erratum-ibid.\

539: B {\bf 608}, 477 (2001)] [arXiv:hep-th/9906070].}

540: 

541: \nref\gukov{S.~Gukov, ``Solitons, Superpotentials and

542: Calibrations,'' \np\ B {\bf 574}, 169 (2000)

543: [arXiv:hep-th/9911011].}

544: 

545: \nref\gurrieri{S.~Gurrieri, J.~Louis, A.~Micu and D.~Waldram,

546: ``Mirror Symmetry in Generalized Calabi-Yau Compactifications,'' \np\

547: B {\bf 654}, 61 (2003) [arXiv:hep-th/0211102].}

548: 

549: \nref\horne{J.~H.~Horne and G.~W.~Moore, ``Chaotic Coupling

550: Constants,'' \np\ B {\bf 432}, 109 (1994) [arXiv:hep-th/9403058].}

551: 

552: \nref\HullTown{C.~M. Hull and P.~K. Townsend, "Unity of Superstring Dualities,"

553: \np\ B {\bf 438}, 109 (1995) [arXiv:hep-th/9410167].}

554: 

555: \nref\Ii{V.A. Itskovskih, ``Fano 3-folds I'', {\it Izv. Akad. Nauk.} (Engl.

556: trans. {\it Math USSR}, Izv {\bf 11}) {\bf 41} 1977.}

557: 

558: \nref\Iii{V.A. Itskovskih, ``Fano 3-folds II'', {\it Izv. Akad. Nauk.} (Engl.

559: trans. {\it Math USSR}, Izv {\bf 12}) {\bf 42} 1977.}

560: 

561: \nref\kklt{S.~Kachru, R.~Kallosh, A.~Linde and S.~P.~Trivedi, ``de

562: Sitter Vacua in String Theory,'' [arXiv:hep-th/0301240].}

563: 

564: \nref\kst{S.~Kachru, M.~B.~Schulz and S.~Trivedi, ``Moduli

565: Stabilization from Fluxes in a Simple IIB Orientifold,''

566: [arXiv:hep-th/0201028].}

567: 

568: \nref\kachru{S.~Kachru, M.~B.~Schulz, P.~K.~Tripathy and

569: S.~P.~Trivedi, ``New Supersymmetric String Compactifications,''

570: JHEP {\bf 0303}, 061 (2003) [arXiv:hep-th/0211182].}

571: 

572: \nref\kknew{S. Kachru and S. Trivedi, private communication and

573: work in progress.}

574: 

575: \nref\katzvafa{S.~Katz and C.~Vafa,

576: ``Geometric Engineering of ${\cal N} = 1$ Quantum Field Theories,'' \np\ B

577: {\bf 497}, 196 (1997) [arXiv:hep-th/9611090].}

578: 

579: \nref\KlebanovHB{

580: I.~R.~Klebanov and M.~J.~Strassler,

581: ``Supergravity and a confining gauge theory: Duality cascades and

582: chiSB-resolution of naked singularities,''

583: JHEP {\bf 0008}, 052 (2000)

584: [arXiv:hep-th/0007191].}

585: 

586: \nref\KLRY{A. Klemm, B. Lian, S.-S. Roan and S.-T. Yau,

587: ``Calabi-Yau Fourfolds for M- and F-Theory Compactifications'',

588: \np\ B {\bf 518}, 515 (1998) [arXiv:hep-th/9701023].}

589: 

590: \nref\krasnikov{N.~V.~Krasnikov, \pl\ B {\bf 193}, 37 (1987).}

591: 

592: \nref\kreuzer{M. Kreuzer and H. Skarke, \atmp\ {\bf 4}, 1209 (2002)

593: [arXiv:hep-th/0002240].}

594: 

595: \nref\KSi{M. Kreuzer and H. Skarke, {\tt

596: http://hep.itp.tuwien.ac.at/kreuzer/CYhome.html}.}

597: 

598: \nref\lu{Z. Lu, private communication;

599: Z.~Lu and M.~R. Douglas, work in progress.}

600: 

601: \nref\Mayr{P. Mayr,

602: ``Mirror Symmetry, ${\cal N}=1$ Superpotentials and Tensionless Strings on

603: Calabi-Yau Forfolds,'' [arXiv:hep-th/9610162].}

604: 

605: \nref\M{K. Mohri, ``F-Theory Vacua in Four Dimensions and Toric Threefolds'',

606: {\it Int. J. Mod. Phys.} A {\bf 14}, 845 (1999) [arXiv:hep-th/9701147].}

607: 

608: %\nref\gmoore{G.~W.~Moore, ``Arithmetic and Attractors,''

609: %[arXiv:hep-th/9807087].}

610: 

611: \nref\mooreK{

612: G.~Moore,

613: ``K-theory from a Physical Perspective,'' [arXiv:hep-th/0304018].}

614: 

615: \nref\MooreFG{ G.~W.~Moore, ``Les Houches Lectures on Strings and

616: Arithmetic,'' [arXiv:hep-th/0401049].}

617: 

618: \nref\greg{ G.~W.~Moore, private communication and work in progress.}

619: 

620: \nref\MMi{S. Mori and S. Mukai, ``Classification of Fano 3-Folds with $B_2\geq

621: 2$'',

622: {\it Man. Math.} {\bf 36}, 147 (1981).}

623: 

624: \nref\MMii{S. Mori and S. Mukai, ``On Fano 3-Folds with $B_2\geq 2$'',

625: {\it Adv. Stud. Pure Math.} {\bf 1}, 101 (1983).}

626: 

627: \nref\psflux{J. Polchinski and A. Strominger, \pl\ B {\bf 388}, 736

628: [arXiv:hep-th/9510227].}

629: 

630: \nref\SenYI{

631: A.~Sen,

632: ``Dyon - monopole bound states, selfdual harmonic forms on the

633: multi - monopole moduli space, and SL(2,Z) invariance in string theory,''

634: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 329}, 217 (1994) [arXiv:hep-th/9402032].}

635: 

636: \nref\Si{A. Sen, ``Orientifold Limit of F-Theory Vacua'',

637: \pr\ D {\bf 55}, 7345 (1997) [arXiv:hep-th/9702165].}

638: 

639: \nref\RobbinsHX{

640: D.~Robbins and S.~Sethi,

641: ``A barren landscape,''

642: [arXiv:hep-th/0405011].}

643: 

644: \nref\strom{A.~Strominger, ``Superstrings with Torsion'',

645: \np\ B {\bf 274}, 253 (1986).}

646: 

647: \nref\stromspec{A.~Strominger, ``Special Geometry,'' \cmp\ {\bf

648: 133}, 163 (1990).}

649: 

650: \nref\susskind{L.~Susskind, ``The Anthropic Landscape of String Theory,''

651: [arXiv:hep-th/0302219].}

652: 

653: \nref\vafaF{ C.~Vafa,

654: ``Evidence for F-Theory,'' \np\ B {\bf 469}, 403 (1996)

655: [arXiv:hep-th/9602022].}

656: 

657: \nref\WitStr{E.~Witten, "String Theory Dynamics in Various Dimensions,"

658: \np\ B {\bf 443}, 85 (1995) [arXiv:hep-th/9503124].}

659: 

660: \nref\W{E.~Witten, ``Non-Perturbative Superpotentials in String

661: Theory'', \np\ {\bf B474}, 343 (1996) [arXiv:hep-th/9604030].}

662: 

663: %

664: % forward equation references

665: %

666: 

667: \newsec{Introduction}

668: 

669: The problem of stabilizing moduli in superstring compactification has

670: seen much recent progress.  A benchmark in this progress is the work

671: of Kachru, Kallosh, Linde and Trivedi \kklt, which builds on many

672: works on Calabi-Yau compactification, flux compactification and other

673: aspects of string compactification to propose a way to construct

674: $\CN=1$ and non-supersymmetric vacua with all moduli stabilized in a

675: controlled regime.  In this paper, we look for specific models of the

676: type they suggest, announce examples which we expect will work in

677: all detail, and explain various senses in which these examples are

678: less common than one might have supposed.

679: 

680: We begin with a short review of the problem.  Soon after the

681: pioneering works on Calabi-Yau compactification of the heterotic

682: string \chsw, it was realized that a disadvantage of this construction

683: was the presence of moduli of the Ricci-flat metrics and vector

684: bundles which it uses.  At least in perturbation theory, these moduli

685: and the dilaton become massless scalar fields with at least

686: gravitational strength couplings, whose presence would be in

687: contradiction with experiment.

688: 

689: One might think that this consideration prefers other

690: compactifications with no moduli.  However, another possibility is

691: that the problem is just an artifact of perturbation theory.  One can

692: see this by postulating simple effective potentials which could

693: plausibly emerge from non-perturbative effects in string theory, which

694: have isolated minima.  Any of these minima would be a vacuum with

695: stabilized moduli.

696: 

697: Some early examples were the models of \refs{\DineRZ,\deren},

698: and the ``racetrack'' models

699: \refs{\racetrack,\krasnikov,\casas}\ which use non-perturbative contributions

700: from two gauge theory sectors, with different dependences on the gauge

701: coupling.  Many similar constructions have been proposed over the

702: years.  Their essential ingredient, more than any particular feature

703: of string theory, is the concept of effective potential, in which

704: effects from various different sources are added into a single

705: function which controls the vacuum structure.  Once one believes that

706: this is an accurate picture of the situation, then given a

707: sufficiently rich supply of contributions to the potential, it becomes

708: very plausible that the typical potential will have many isolated

709: minima, so that moduli stabilization is generic.  Furthermore, the

710: value of the effective potential at the various minima (the

711: ``effective cosmological constant'') will be widely distributed among

712: both positive and negative values, possibly including the observed

713: value.

714: 

715: One might ask whether other general features of the problem, such as

716: low energy supersymmetry, change this general expectation.  As we have

717: discussed at length elsewhere \dd, the standard expression for

718: the potential from $\CN=1$ supergravity, supports this point of view.

719: By postulating a superpotential and K\"ahler potential, one can get a

720: wide range of potentials, which do not obviously favor positive or

721: negative effective cosmological constant.

722: 

723: One important general expectation from string theory is the following.

724: Calabi-Yau compactification, and essentially any ``geometric''

725: compactification of string and M theory, has a ``large volume limit''

726: which approaches ten or eleven dimensional Minkowski space.  In this

727: limit, the four dimensional effective potential will vanish

728: \dineseiberg.  Recently more general arguments for this claim were made

729: by Giddings \giddings.  This makes it somewhat harder to

730: stabilize vacua with zero or positive effective cosmological constant,

731: as one needs the potential to have at least two points of inflection

732: (the desired minimum, and a maximum or more generally a barrier at

733: larger compactification radius).  Still, this leads to no obvious

734: problem of principle.

735: 

736: To go beyond these rather general claims, one must get sufficient

737: control over nonperturbative effects to show that such potentials

738: could arise from string/M theory, and be able to compute them in a

739: wide enough range of examples to make serious predictions.

740: This line of thought developed in the late 1980's, and led to a focus

741: on nonperturbative methods in string theory, a field which took off

742: with the 1989-90 work on matrix models.  An equally important

743: early nonperturbative result was the exact solution, including all

744: world-sheet instanton corrections, of $(2,2)$ Calabi-Yau sigma models

745: using mirror symmetry \candelas.

746: 

747: While when first formulated these techniques appeared to address only

748: low dimensional models, the 1993-94 work of Seiberg and collaborators

749: on nonperturbative supersymmetric gauge theory showed that similar

750: results could be obtained for the effective superpotential in simple

751: four dimensional models.  With the 1994-95 realization

752: \refs{\SenYI,\HullTown,\WitStr} that duality and branes were key

753: nonperturbative concepts, tremendous advances were made, leading to a

754: fairly good picture of compactifications with at least $8$

755: supercharges, and some success in describing compactifications with

756: less or no supersymmetry.

757: 

758: Studying such compactifications and mapping out the possibilities

759: requires both the techniques to do Calabi-Yau, F theory, $G_2$

760: compactification etc. and study the physics of each, and

761: ``classification'' and ``mapping'' results, such as the classification

762: of of Calabi-Yau's which are toric hypersurfaces, and the detailed

763: study of their moduli spaces, for example \kreuzer.  These should both

764: provide specific examples of these general recipes and some idea of

765: which ones might be relevant for describing the real world.  We will

766: call upon a number of these results below

767: \refs{\G,\Ii,\Iii,\KLRY,\MMi,\MMii}.

768: 

769: The subject of compactification with four or fewer supercharges

770: remains somewhat controversial.  Most works on this subject freely use

771: field theoretic concepts such as Kaluza-Klein reduction and the

772: effective potential, with the main string/M theory inputs being new

773: light states and new corrections to the effective Lagrangian.  At

774: present, there is no real evidence that this is wrong.

775: 

776: On the other hand, it is true (by definition) that a vacuum with

777: stabilized moduli is not connected to the limit of arbitrarily weak

778: coupling and arbitrarily large compactification volume through

779: time-independent solutions.  One must pass either through the larger

780: configuration space (``go off-shell'' in an old-fashioned language) or

781: consider time-dependent solutions to do this, and our lack of

782: understanding of these subjects in string/M theory makes it conceivable

783: that what look like valid solutions from an effective field theory

784: point of view in fact are not valid solutions of string/M theory.

785: This possibility has been put forward most forcefully by Banks and

786: collaborators \refs{\banks,\BanksES}.

787: While we do not find their present arguments

788: convincing, the point is definitely not settled and deserves attention.

789: 

790: Another issue along these lines is the question of whether there

791: is some obstacle within string/M theory to realizing compactifications

792: with positive vacuum energy.  Over the mid-90's, convincing observational

793: evidence was found for an accelerated expansion of the universe,

794: which is most simply explained by the hypothesis that there

795: is a non-zero positive ``dark energy'' of energy density about $0.7$

796: times the critical value.  While there are many possibilities for what

797: this is, the simplest and probably easiest to reproduce from string

798: theory is a cosmological constant, which would appear to cause the

799: long term evolution of the universe to asymptote to a de Sitter

800: geometry.  From the point of view of field theory and the effective potential,

801: there is no problem with getting positive vacuum energy.

802: On the other hand, no such string vacuum is known, and

803: theoretical arguments were even advanced that these should not exist

804: \refs{\banks,\fischler,\goheer}.

805: 

806: Meanwhile, progress in our understanding of string/M theory has led to

807: steady progress in the study of moduli stabilization.  An important

808: recent work in this direction is that of Kachru, Kallosh, Linde and

809: Trivedi \kklt, who argue that metastable de Sitter vacua with all

810: moduli stabilized can be constructed in type

811: \IIb\ string theory, at least in an effective potential framework.

812: 

813: The KKLT work has two aspects.  In the first, they

814: propose a recipe for such a construction, which we will discuss in

815: detail shortly.  In the second, they sidestep the claim that

816: de Sitter space could not be realized in string theory, by

817: suggesting that our universe need not asymptote to de Sitter

818: space.  Rather, our vacuum might be metastable, in a positive local

819: minimum of the effective potential.  As we dicussed, since the

820: potential goes to zero at large compactification volume, any such

821: vacuum is potentially metastable to decay to this decompactification

822: limit.  Using results of Coleman and de Luccia, Hawking and Moss, and

823: others on tunneling in semiclassical quantum gravity, KKLT argued that

824: for almost any reasonable potential, one would find an extremely small

825: but non-zero decay rate, slow enough to pose no cosmological

826: constraint, but fast enough to evade the paradoxes which had been

827: suggested might forbid eternal de Sitter space as a vacuum.

828: These ideas are reviewed in \bala\ (see also the recent \GiddingsVR).

829: 

830: This leaves the more technical problem of showing that such metastable

831: de Sitter vacua actually do exist in string theory compactification.

832: KKLT suggested a recipe by which this could be done,

833: following previous work of many authors

834: on moduli stabilization by fluxes (a very incomplete list includes

835: \refs{\achflux,\beckerG,\boupol,\cardoso,\dasgupta,\frey,%

836: \gp,\gurrieri,%

837: \kst,\kachru,\psflux,\strom}) and especially Giddings,

838: Kachru and Polchinski \gkp\ who developed a class of \IIb\ flux

839: compactifications which stabilize the dilaton and complex structure

840: moduli.  Some advantages of this construction are that it allows

841: fixing the dilaton to weak coupling by making an appropriate choice of

842: flux, and that cancellations can bring the flux

843: contribution to the potential below the string scale.  Most

844: importantly, it is based on the relatively well understood theory of

845: Calabi-Yau moduli spaces, so explicit computations can be done.

846: 

847: Having this construction in hand, the remaining problem is to

848: stabilize the K\"ahler moduli and obtain a small positive cosmological

849: constant.  Granting the effective potential framework, one proceeds as

850: in the early works on moduli stabilization, to look for

851: nonperturbative contributions to the superpotential which could

852: stabilize the remaining moduli.  As it happens, in \IIb\

853: compactification nonperturbative effects from gauge theories on

854: branes, and from D-instantons, all depend on K\"ahler moduli, and thus

855: one would expect that generically this stabilization would not be a

856: problem -- once one had computed these constributions to the effective

857: potential sufficiently well, they would stabilize all moduli.

858: 

859: Finally, to obtain a positive cosmological constant, one has several

860: choices.  Conceptually the most straightforward is to look for

861: supersymmetry breaking vacua of the previously computed effective

862: potential, which again on grounds of genericity should exist.

863: Alternatively, one can look for supersymmetric AdS vacua which

864: stabilize all moduli, and then add other supersymmetry breaking

865: effects which lift the vacuum energy.  This idea has the advantage

866: that the resulting potential can naturally have the barrier required

867: for metastability of a de Sitter vacuum.  KKLT suggested to add anti

868: D$3$-branes, and one can imagine many other possibilities such as D

869: terms coming from brane sectors \refs{\DougStr,\BurgessIC,\BinetruyHH}.

870: 

871: The upshot is that such effects, if they exist, could well combine to

872: stabilize all moduli at a metastable de Sitter minimum.  There are two

873: obvious gaps in this argument.  The deeper one is the question of

874: whether the effective potential analysis is valid.  Perhaps the best

875: way to address this is to consider a specific example, and try to

876: justify all of its ingredients in ten dimensional string theory.

877: 

878: To do this, one must address the first gap, which is that no

879: concrete model of this type has yet been put forward.

880: In this work, we will fill this gap, by examining models of the

881: general class discussed by KKLT, to see if this idea can

882: actually be implemented in string theory.  We will need to call upon

883: many of the ideas discussed above, especially the classification

884: of Calabi-Yau three-folds and four-folds, and the analysis of

885: nonperturbative effects in F theory by Grassi \G.

886: 

887: While we will exhibit models in which nonperturbative effects lift all

888: K\"ahler moduli, we will also argue that, at least if we rely on

889: instanton effects, such models are {\it not} generic.  There is a

890: fairly simple reason to expect this.  In the language of orientifold

891: compactification with branes, it is that these world-volume gauge

892: theories usually have too much matter to generate superpotentials,

893: as seen in works such as \BH, and as we will see in a large class of models

894: below.

895: This is because the cycles on which the branes wrap can be deformed,

896: or because the branes carry bundles with moduli.  In either case, the

897: gauge theory has massless adjoint matter, which eliminates the

898: superpotential.  The simplest case is the $0$-cycle or point, which

899: clearly always has moduli.  Of the two-cycles, only $S^2$'s can be

900: rigid; higher genus Riemann surfaces in Calabi-Yau almost always come

901: with moduli.  Bundles on surfaces (and the entire CY) normally have

902: moduli as well.

903: 

904: On the other hand, in a sizable minority of models, the instanton

905: generated superpotentials are sufficiently generic to stabilize all

906: K\"ahler moduli.  The examples that we can check systematically are

907: toric fourfolds $X$ elliptically fibered over a three dimensional base

908: $B$ which is Fano, and $\IP^1$-bundles over a toric surface.

909: Much of what we say should hold more generally.

910: 

911: There are no very simple models in this class.  In particular, one can

912: argue that no model with one K\"ahler modulus can work.\foot{

913: This conclusion was reached independently by D. Robbins

914: and S. Sethi \RobbinsHX.

915: Also, relevant work of V. Balasubramanian and P. Berglund is mentioned

916: in \bala.}

917: 

918: Of the models which work, we have considered three of the simpler ones

919: in some detail. The fourfolds are elliptic fibrations over the Fano

920: threefolds ${\cal F}_{11}$ and ${\cal F}_{18}$

921: \refs{\MMi,\MMii,\M}. Their Euler characteristics are $\chi=16848$ and

922: $\chi=13248$ respectively. Some of our considerations will require

923: that we work with their orientifold limits.  These are Calabi-Yau

924: threefolds that can be realized as hypersurfaces in toric varieties

925: and their Hodge numbers are $h^{1,1}=3,h^{2,1}=111$ and

926: $h^{1,1}=5,h^{2,1}=89$ respectively.  Finally, we consider an

927: elliptic fibered CY over $\IP^2$, a much studied CY \candtwo\ with

928: $h^{1,1}=2$ and $h^{2,1}=272$.

929: 

930: \newsec{Review of KKLT construction}

931: 

932: We start with \IIb\ superstring theory compactified on a Calabi-Yau

933: orientifold, specified by a choice of CY threefold $Z$ and a holomorphic

934: involution $\hat\Omega$ on $Z$ whose fixed locus consists of points and

935: surfaces (O$3$ and O$7$ planes).

936: For example, we might take $Z$ to be the hypersurface in $\BC\BP^4$

937: defined by a quintic polynomial $f(z)=0$, and $\hat\Omega$ to be

938: the map $z_1\rightarrow -z_1$, $z_i\rightarrow z_i$ for $i>1$.

939: 

940: We then introduce D-branes in such a way as to cancel the RR tadpoles

941: produced by the orientifold planes, as in \gimonpolchinski.

942: For a recent discussion of this problem, see \horietal.

943: 

944: The number of complex structure moduli of $Z$ is $h^{2,1}(Z)$, and

945: the number of complexified K\"ahler moduli is $h^{1,1}(Z)$.

946: We are going to refer to these as ``shape'' and ``size'' moduli

947: respectively, mostly because the words ``complex'' and ``K\"ahler''

948: have so many different roles in the discussion that the usual

949: terminology is cumbersome (one gets tired of saying ``K\"ahler metric

950: on the K\"ahler moduli space,'' etc.)

951: 

952: A more general starting point would be F theory \vafaF.  We will use this

953: language to construct models below, but rapidly move to the \IIb\

954: orientifold limit in our examples, since there are many unanswered

955: physical questions in either picture, which we will need to appeal

956: to the underlying definitions in string theory to resolve.

957: 

958: The basic relation is as follows.  An F theory compactification is

959: defined by a choice of Calabi-Yau fourfold $X$ with an elliptic fibration

960: structure over a threefold $B$,

961: \eqn\ellfiber{\xymatrix{

962:   T^2     \ar[r] &  X \ar[d]^{\pi}\cr

963:   & B.\cr

964: }}

965: Physically, we compactify \IIb\ theory on $B$, introducing $7$-branes

966: at the singularities of the fibration $\pi$, so that the resulting

967: dilaton-axion field at a point $p\in B$ corresponds to the complex

968: structure modulus $\tau$ of the fiber $\pi^{-1}(p)$.

969: The orientifold limit \Si\ is then the special case in which

970: all of these singularities are $D_4$ singularities (an O$7$-plane and

971: four coincident D$7$'s).  In this case, $Z$ is a double cover of $B$

972: branched at the singularities, and $\hat\Omega$ exchanges the two sheets.

973: Let us denote the part of the cohomology of $Z$ even or odd under $\hat\Omega$

974: with subscripts $\pm$.

975: 

976: Classically and in the absence of fluxes, this compactification

977: has a moduli space of $\CN=1$ supersymmetric vacua, parametrized

978: by $h_-^{2,1}$ shape moduli, the dilaton-axion,

979: $h_+^{1,1}$ size moduli complexified by the RR 4-form

980: potential $C_4$, and $h_-^{1,1}$ moduli from the 2-form

981: potentials $B_2$ and $C_2$ \refs{\BH,\GL}.

982: 

983: We will avoid having to discuss the 2-form moduli by restricting

984: attention to models with $h_-^{1,1}=0$.  More generally, while we do

985: not know a mechanism which would stabilize them at large volume, they

986: might be stabilized by world-sheet and D$1$-instantons, or by

987: couplings to brane world-volumes.

988: 

989: In general, there are also open string moduli corresponding to

990: positions of D7-branes and D3-branes, and moduli of bundles on

991: D7-branes.  We will ignore these through most of the discussion and

992: return to them in the conclusions.  One excuse for this is that these

993: moduli spaces are all expected to be compact.  This is intuitively

994: clear for positions of D3 branes, since their moduli space is $Z$

995: itself, which is compact.  This should also be true for moduli spaces

996: of bundles except for small instanton limits, but these just

997: correspond to other brane configurations.  Thus, there is no analog of

998: the decompactification or runaway problems for these moduli, and

999: generic corrections to the potential should fix them.

1000: 

1001: \subsec{Fixing moduli using fluxes}

1002: 

1003: We begin by trying to fix the shape moduli and the dilaton-axion.  In

1004: \IIb\ language, this is done by turning on the NS and RR three-form

1005: field strengths, $H^{(3)}$ and $F^{(3)}$ respectively.  As discussed

1006: in many references (e.g. \refs{\gkp,\ad}) the equations of motion will

1007: force these to be harmonic forms, so they are determined by their

1008: cohomology classes in $H^3(Z,\BR)$.  There is a Dirac-type

1009: quantization condition which normally forces these classes be integer

1010: quantized in units of the string scale.  Setting this unit to one,

1011: they live in $H^3(Z,\BZ)$.

1012: 

1013: The choice of flux is constrained by the tadpole condition on the

1014: RR four-form potential,

1015:  \eqn\tadpole{

1016:  L \equiv {1 \over 2} \int G_4 \wedge G_4 = {1 \over 2} N_R^\alpha

1017:  \, \eta_{\alpha\beta} \, N^\beta_{NS} = {\chi(X) \over 24} - N_{D3},

1018:  }

1019: where $N_{D3}$ is the number of D3-branes minus the number of

1020: anti-D3 branes.

1021: 

1022: The ten-dimensional

1023: \IIb\ supergravity analysis of unbroken $\CN=1$ supersymmetry

1024: in this context is done in \gp; the most important condition is that

1025: $$

1026: G^{(3)} = F^{(3)} - \tau H^{(3)}

1027: $$

1028: must be imaginary self-dual, $G=i*G$.  One can restate this as the

1029: condition that

1030: $$

1031: G^{(3)} \in H^{(0,3)}(Z,\BC) \oplus H^{(2,1)}(Z,\BC) .

1032: $$

1033: Setting the remaining parts of the cohomology to zero

1034: amounts to $h^{2,1}+1$ conditions, which is precisely enough to

1035: fix all shape moduli and the dilaton.  Thus, we might

1036: expect generic choices of flux to do this.

1037: 

1038: There is an additional condition for this to be true with four noncompact

1039: Minkowski dimensions: the $H^{(0,3)}$ component of $G^{(3)}$ must be zero.

1040: This is one more condition than the number of moduli, so this is non-generic.

1041: Otherwise, we get supersymmetric AdS vacua.

1042: 

1043: A nice physical summary of these results, which will be essential later

1044: on, is that these conditions on $G^{(3)}$ follow from solving the

1045: supersymmetry conditions in an

1046: $\CN=1$ effective supergravity theory.  Its configuration space is

1047: the combined Calabi-Yau and dilaton-axion moduli space; in other words

1048: the product of the shape moduli space $\CM_c(Z)$, the

1049: size moduli space $\CM_K(Z)$, and the upper half

1050: plane $\CH$, with the K\"ahler potential

1051: \eqn\lvkahler{

1052: {\cal K} = -\log\Im\tau - \log\int_Z \Omega\wedge\bar\Omega - 2 \log V

1053: }

1054: where $\tau$ is the dilaton-axion,

1055: $V$ is the volume of the Calabi-Yau as a function of the

1056: size moduli (more on this below), and $\Omega$ is the

1057: holomorphic three-form on $Z$.  This is just the K\"ahler potential

1058: of the compactification with zero flux and $\CN=2$ supersymmetry,

1059: computed in the $\alpha',g_s\rightarrow 0$ limit.

1060: 

1061: As superpotential, we take the Gukov-Vafa-Witten superpotential

1062: \eqn\fluxW{

1063: W_{GVW} = \int \Omega\wedge G^{(3)} .

1064: }

1065: One can see \refs{\gkp,\ad} that the conditions

1066: \eqn\kvev{

1067: 0 = D_i W = \p_i W + (\p_i {\cal K}) W

1068: }

1069: for the shape moduli set the $H^{(1,2)}$ part of $G^{(3)}$

1070: to zero, and for the dilaton-axion sets the $H^{(3,0)}$ part to zero.

1071: 

1072: For typical values of the flux, this will fix $\tau$ and the shape

1073: moduli $z$ at a mass scale $m_0 \sim \alpha'/\sqrt{V}$, where $V$ is

1074: the volume of $Z$.  The typical value of $e^{\cal K}|W|^2$ at the minimum is

1075: $1$ in string units, but this can be made smaller by tuning the

1076: fluxes.  One expects its smallest value to be $\sim 1/{\cal N}_{vac}$

1077: where ${\cal N}_{vac}$ is the number of flux vacua on the complex

1078: structure moduli space, as we discuss below and in \dd.

1079: 

1080: We will discuss the technicalities of finding choices of flux which

1081: stabilize these moduli in a desired region of moduli space in section 4.

1082: It will turn out that this is often, but not always possible.

1083: 

1084: 

1085: \subsec{Fixing size moduli}

1086: 

1087: Since \fluxW\ is independent of the size moduli, the conditions $D_i

1088: W_{GVW}=0$ for the size moduli amount to either $\p_i {\cal K}=0$ for all

1089: size moduli, or else $W=0$.  It is easy to see (as we discuss below)

1090: that in the large volume limit, one cannot solve $\p_i {\cal K}=0$ for all

1091: moduli.  One can find Minkowski supersymmetric solutions with $W_{GVW}=0$.

1092: One can also find Minkowski but non-supersymmetric vacua with $W_{GVW}\ne 0$,

1093: because of the no-scale structure of \lvkahler.

1094: 

1095: In either case, while we might find other effects which lead to a

1096: positive vacuum energy, this energy will typically decrease with

1097: increasing compactification volume, and the resulting solutions will

1098: be unstable.  We need a more complicated effective potential to fix

1099: this problem, which might be obtained by incorporating stringy and

1100: quantum corrections to $W$ and ${\cal K}$.

1101: 

1102: Unfortunately doing this remains a hard problem, both to get results

1103: in examples, and even to define what one means by the nonperturbative

1104: effective potential in general.  In particular, there are essentially

1105: no results on nonperturbative corrections to the K\"ahler potential.

1106: 

1107: To address this, one can seek examples where the instanton expansion

1108: appears to be valid, so that the leading corrections will dominate.

1109: This was the primary goal in KKLT's discussion and we will address it

1110: below.  However we believe that there is no question of principle

1111: which requires restricting attention to these examples; rather we do

1112: this because of our limited technical control over the theory at

1113: present.

1114: 

1115: KKLT suggested to stabilize the size moduli using quantum corrections

1116: to the superpotential, as they are known to be present and depend on

1117: the size moduli in many examples, and are controlled at large volume

1118: and weak coupling.

1119: 

1120: For example, one can consider a case in which D$7$-branes wrapped on a

1121: cycle $\Sigma$ have pure $SU(N)$ Yang-Mills theory as their world-volume

1122: theory.  The gauge coupling in this theory is

1123: ${1\over g^2} = V(\Sigma)$

1124: where $V(\Sigma)$ is the volume of the cycle $\Sigma$ in string units,

1125: and thus

1126: nonperturbative effects in this theory lead to a superpotential

1127:  \eqn\Weff{

1128:  W_{eff} = B \, e^{-V(\Sigma)/N}

1129:  }

1130: where $B$ is a (presumably order $1$) quantity determined by threshold

1131: effects, etc. and which may also depend on size and shape moduli.

1132: 

1133: If we consider a vacuum in which the flux contribution to the

1134: superpotential \fluxW\ takes a value $W_0$ independent of size moduli,

1135: and grant that this is the leading correction, the supersymmetry condition

1136: for the size modulus becomes (let $\rho=i V$),

1137: \eqn\fixrho{

1138: 0 = D_\rho W = -{B\over N} e^{i\rho/N}

1139:  - {3\over\Im\rho} \left(W_0 + B e^{i\rho/N}\right) .

1140: }

1141: For small $W_0$, this will normally have a unique solution at large

1142: imaginary $\rho$, roughly given by

1143: $$

1144: \rho \sim -i \log {3 N W_0\over B} .

1145: $$

1146: To see this without detailed calculation, note that the problem of

1147: solving $D_\rho W=0$ with $W\ne 0$ is the same as the problem of

1148: finding critical points of the function $f=e^{\cal K}|W|^2$.  This function

1149: is positive and goes to zero at very large $\Im\rho$.  If we contrive

1150: $W$ to have a zero at large $\Im\rho$, then it is easy to see that as

1151: we increase $\Im\rho$ from this value at fixed $\Re\rho$, we are

1152: always at a critical point in $\Re\rho$.  Furthermore, as we increase

1153: $\Im\rho$, $f$ starts out increasing, so for it to later decrease it

1154: must pass through a critical point in $\Im\rho$.

1155: 

1156: This solution will have $W\sim W_0$

1157: and thus we will end up with a supersymmetric AdS solution with small

1158: negative cosmological constant, controlled by the previous step where

1159: we chose fluxes to get small $W_0$.

1160: 

1161: Another source of similar non-perturbative contributions to the

1162: superpotential is D$3$-brane instantons wrapped on surfaces in $Z$ \W.

1163: Their dependence on the size moduli is the same and thus this level of

1164: the discussion works the same way.  As we discuss below, in the case

1165: that D$7$-branes wrap a cycle $\Sigma$, these are equivalent to gauge

1166: theory instantons, but are present more generally.  Thus in the

1167: detailed discussion below, we consider the non-perturbative

1168: corrections as generated by D$3$-brane instantons.

1169: 

1170: Some further general observations on this problem appear in \BrusteinXN.

1171: 

1172: \subsec{Breaking supersymmetry}

1173: 

1174: We will have enough trouble trying to realize the first two steps, but

1175: given this, to go on to the third step we would need some approximate

1176: expression for the warp factor on $Z$, so that we could argue that the

1177: increase in vacuum energy produced by adding an anti D$3$-brane could

1178: also be made small.  The simplest way to imagine this working is to

1179: fix the shape moduli near a conifold singularity, and appeal to the

1180: Klebanov-Strassler solution \KlebanovHB\ as an approximate description of the

1181: metric in this region.

1182: 

1183: While it seems to us that this should generally work, of course there

1184: is room for more subtleties, as we will briefly discuss below.

1185: 

1186: \newsec{Details of size moduli stabilization}

1187: 

1188: We seek the conditions on $Z$ which will lead to a superpotential

1189: which stabilize all size moduli significantly above the string scale,

1190: so that $\alpha'$ corrections can be ignored.

1191: It will emerge from considerations below that there are no models with

1192: $h^{1,1}=1$, and thus we consider the multi-moduli case from the

1193: start.  We will usually set $\ell_s = 2 \pi \sqrt{\alpha'}$ to $1$ in

1194: the following.

1195: 

1196: Let $D_i$ be a basis of divisors on $Z$ (essentially, these are

1197: classes in $H_4(Z,\BZ)$).  The main data we will need about $Z$ are

1198: the triple intersection numbers of the divisor basis, $D_{ijk} = D_i

1199: \cdot D_j \cdot D_k$.  Using Poincar\'e duality, we also let $D_i$

1200: denote the corresponding class in $H^2(Z,\BZ)$.

1201: For CY's which are hypersurfaces in toric varieties,

1202: there are efficient methods for computing these intersection numbers

1203: and the other data we are about to discuss.  We discuss some relevant examples

1204: in section 5 and appendix B.

1205: 

1206: We define the size moduli by writing the K\"ahler class $J$ of $Z$

1207: as

1208:  \eqn\Jfx{

1209:  J = \sum_i t^i D_i ,

1210:  }

1211: defining a set of real coordinates $t^i$ on the space of K\"ahler

1212: classes.

1213: 

1214: The classes which actually correspond to K\"ahler metrics are those lying

1215: in the K\"ahler cone, defined by

1216: \eqn\kahlercone{

1217: 0 < \int_C J

1218: }

1219: for all holomorphic curves $C$.  The classes of such curves are

1220: called ``effective classes'' and form a cone, the Mori cone.

1221: 

1222: In fact, to be able to ignore $\alpha'$ corrections, we want all such

1223: areas of curves to be at least $\CO(1)$ in string units.

1224: 

1225: The natural holomorphic coordinates which appear in \IIb\

1226: orientifold compactification are not the $t_i$, but

1227: are instead the complexified volumes of

1228: divisors, which we denote $\tau_i$,

1229:  \eqn\taui{

1230:  \tau_i = \int_{D_i}

1231:  {1 \over 2} J \wedge J - i \, C_4 .

1232:  }

1233: We denote their real parts as

1234: $$

1235:  V_i = {\rm Re~} \tau_i .

1236: $$

1237: 

1238: The K\"ahler potential

1239: on this configuration space, neglecting $\alpha'$ and $g_s$ corrections, is

1240: \eqn\kahlersize{

1241: {\cal K}_K = -2 \ln V(\tau,\bar\tau)

1242: }

1243: where $V$ is the volume of $Z$, defined by

1244: \eqn\volexp{

1245:  V = {1 \over 6} J^3 = {1 \over 6} D_{ijk} t^i t^j t^k .

1246: }

1247: We can write this (implicitly) as a function of $\tau_i$ using

1248: \eqn\voli{

1249: \tau_i = {\p V\over\p t_i} = {1 \over 2} D_i J^2 = {1 \over 2}

1250:  D_{ijk} t^j t^k .

1251: }

1252: This change of coodinates

1253: is essentially a Legendre transform on $V$, as discussed

1254: in detail in \DAuriaKX.

1255: 

1256: \subsec{Instanton superpotentials}

1257: 

1258: The best studied corrections to the superpotential in F theory are

1259: produced by D3-brane instantons wrapped around divisors.

1260: These take the form

1261: \eqn\npW{ W_{np} = \sum_{\vec{n}} b_{\vec{n}} \, e^{-2\pi \vec{n}

1262:  \cdot \vec{\tau}}

1263:  }

1264: where the $b_{\vec{n}}$ are one-loop determinants on the divisors

1265: $D_{\vec{n}} = n^i D_i$, depending on the complex structure

1266: moduli. At large radius, $2 \pi \tau_i \gg 1$ and the mass scale

1267: of this contribution to $W$ is exponentially suppressed compared

1268: to $m_0$, so to a good approximation we can consider the complex

1269: structure moduli to be fixed by the tree level flux superpotential

1270: $W_0$, and use $W = W_0 + W_{np}$ with constant $W_0$ and

1271: $b_{\vec{n}}$ as effective superpotential for the Kahler moduli.

1272: 

1273: The most important thing to know about the determinants $b_{\vec{n}}$

1274: is whether they are non-vanishing.  This was studied in \W\ by using

1275: the relation between F theory and M theory compactification on the

1276: four-fold.  In M theory, such a correction comes from a fivebrane

1277: instanton wrapped on the lift ${\cV}_{\vec n}$ of the divisor to

1278: the fourfold.  The F theory limit is the limit in which the area of

1279: the fiber goes to zero, and a divisor ${\cV}$ will contribute in

1280: this limit if it is vertical, meaning that $\pi({\cV})$ is a proper

1281: subset of $B$.

1282: 

1283: In this formulation, $b_{\vec n}$ includes the determinant of a Dirac

1284: operator on $\cV$, which can have zero modes.  In fact the zero

1285: modes turn out to be equivalent to holomorphic $p$-forms on

1286: ${\cal V}_{\vec n}$ tensored with a three-dimensional spinor.  Let

1287: the number of such $p$-forms be $h^{0,p}$.

1288: 

1289: An instanton which contributes to $W_{np}$ must have two

1290: fermion zero modes (corresponding to the two supersymmetries broken by

1291: the instanton).  Since $h^{0,0}=1$, this

1292: will be true if $h^{0,j}=0$ for all $j=1,2,3$.  On the other hand,

1293: it is possible for other brane couplings (in particular, couplings to

1294: the NS and RR fluxes we used to stabilize other moduli) to lift zero modes

1295: in pairs.  Thus it is possible that $b_{\vec n}\ne 0$ more generally, but

1296: in any case the necessary criterion for this

1297: is that ${\cal V}_{\vec{n}}$ is a divisor of arithmetic genus

1298: $$

1299: \chi({\cal O}_{\cal V}) \equiv \sum_j (-1)^j h^{0,j} = 1.

1300: $$

1301: In this more general case,

1302: it is also possible for variations in complex structure

1303: to bring down or lift zero modes in pairs, so $b_{\vec{n}}$ could have

1304: zeroes at special points in complex structure moduli space, possibly

1305: depending on the choice of flux.

1306: 

1307: Unfortunately not much more is known about the determinants

1308: $b_{\vec{n}}$.  Note however that they must be sections of the same

1309: line bundle as the holomorphic 4-form $\Omega_4$ on $X$; otherwise the

1310: combined superpotential wouldn't make sense. Let us fix the overall

1311: scale of $\Omega_4$ (and thus $b_{\vec{n}}$) by putting $\int_X

1312: \Omega_4 \wedge \bar{\Omega}_4 = 1$ at the given point $(\tau,z)$. In

1313: this natural normalization, it is reasonable to assume the

1314: $b_{\vec{n}}$ are generically not much smaller or bigger than 1.

1315: 

1316: The upshot is that divisors whose lift to $X$ have $h^{0,j}=0$ for

1317: all $j=1,2,3$ will contribute to the superpotential, whether or not

1318: flux is turned on and regardless of the values of the other moduli.

1319: The most general class of divisors which can contribute are the

1320: divisors of arithmetic genus $1$; these contributions might vanish for

1321: special values of flux and moduli.\foot{

1322: One might worry about possible

1323: modifications to this analysis if $\cal V$ is spin$_c$ and not spin,

1324: for reasons discussed in \FreedVC.  These can modify the coefficient

1325: $b$ and might even introduce dilaton dependence \greg, but do not affect the

1326: statements made here or our later conclusions.

1327: We thank G. Moore and S. Sethi for communications on this point.

1328: 

1329: We also note that the analysis in \W\ used a $U(1)$ symmetry of the

1330: normal bundle to the divisor.  If this were broken by the fluxes,

1331: the arithmetic genus $1$ condition might be relaxed \kknew.}

1332: 

1333: \subsec{Gauge theory superpotentials}

1334: 

1335: Superpotentials produced by non-perturbative effects in

1336: gauge theories living on D7-branes can also be understood as coming

1337: from divisors of arithmetic genus 1.

1338: 

1339: Roughly, if one wraps a D$7$ about a

1340: divisor $\Sigma$, the zero size limit of the Yang-Mills instanton in

1341: the resulting world-volume gauge theory is just a D$3$-instanton

1342: wrapped on $\Sigma$.

1343: A detailed discussion is somewhat more complicated. For example, in

1344: pure $SU(N_c)$ super Yang-Mills theory, the instanton has $2N_c$ fermion

1345: zero modes, which for the corresponding D$3$-instanton arise from

1346: $3-7$ open strings.  Thus it does not contribute directly to the

1347: superpotential.  Rather, its effects force gaugino condensation which

1348: leads to a vacuum energy which can be reproduced by a superpotential.

1349: This accounts for the $1/N$ in the exponent of \Weff.

1350: 

1351: In F-theory, nonabelian gauge symmetries arise from singularities of

1352: the elliptic fibration. For example, an ${\bf A}_{N-1}$ singularity

1353: fibered over a surface $S$ in the base corresponds to an $SU(N)$ gauge

1354: theory living on $S$. If $S$ has $h^{0,1} = h^{0,2} = 0$ and the

1355: singularity does not change over $S$, there will be no additional

1356: matter and we are in the pure $SU(N)$ case just discussed. In

1357: \katzvafa, it was shown that by compactifying on a circle and

1358: going to the dual M-theory picture, the three dimensional

1359: nonperturbative superpotential can be computed as coming from M5 brane

1360: instantons wrapping the exceptional divisors obtained by resolving the

1361: ${\bf A}_{N-1}$ singularity. Again, these divisors are of arithmetic

1362: genus 1. The correct four dimensional result is then obtained by

1363: extremizing the three dimensional superpotential and taking the

1364: decompactification limit.

1365: 

1366: A similar geometrical analysis can be done when in addition

1367: fundamental matter is present \DiaconescuUA. The situation is more

1368: subtle here, but the upshot is that the gauge theory superpotentials

1369: can again be derived from M5 brane instantons wrapped on divisors of

1370: arithmetic genus 1.

1371: 

1372: Thus, in the known examples, a necessary condition to generate a

1373: nonperturbative superpotential is the presence of a divisor of

1374: arithmetic genus 1 in the fourfold.\foot{Actually, in \W, a more

1375: general possibility is raised: divisors of arithmetic genus $\chi(D)

1376: >1$ (but presumably never $\chi \le 0$) might contribute to the

1377: superpotential, through strong infrared dynamics or ``fractional

1378: instanton'' effects.  We thank S. Kachru for reminding us of this point.}

1379: 

1380: A more intuitive but only partial argument for the role of the

1381: arithmetic genus in the brane gauge theory is that the cohomology

1382: groups $H^{0,p}({\cal V})$ which entered our previous discussion also

1383: control the matter content on the D$7$-brane gauge theories.  In

1384: particular, non-zero $h^{0,1}$ and $h^{0,3}$ will lead to massless

1385: adjoint matter, which tends to eliminate the superpotential (as in

1386: $\CN=2$ gauge theory).  This conclusion is not strict as gauge theory

1387: with a non-trivial world-volume superpotential for the adjoint matter

1388: (say $\Tr \phi^n$) can generate a superpotential, but this possibility

1389: comes along with the possibility of deforming the superpotential to

1390: give mass to the adjoint matter and thus is accounted for by the

1391: possibility we discussed earlier of lifting the zero modes in pairs

1392: (this can be made more precise by relating the superpotential to

1393: obstruction theory and $h^{0,2}$ as in the D-brane literature

1394: \dgjt).

1395: 

1396: 

1397: \subsec{Complete sets of divisors}

1398: 

1399: Divisors of arithmetic genus $1$ tend to be rare \refs{\W,\G}.

1400: Furthermore, in order to

1401: stabilize the compactification at strictly positive radii, a

1402: sufficient number of distinct divisors must contribute. This can be seen

1403: as follows.

1404: 

1405: We are looking for solutions to $D_{\tau_i} W =

1406: \partial_{\tau_i} W + (\partial_{\tau_i} {\cal K}) W = 0$.

1407: Now

1408: \eqn\dK{

1409:  d {\cal K}_K = - {1 \over V} J^2 d J

1410:  = - {1 \over 2 V} J d J^2

1411:  = -{t^i dV_i \over V},

1412:  }

1413: hence $\partial_{\tau_i} {\cal K} = - {t^i \over 2 V}$, and

1414:  \eqn\DW{

1415:  0 = D_{\tau_i} W = \sum_{\vec{n}} b_{\vec{n}} \, e^{-2\pi \vec{n}

1416:  \cdot \vec{\tau}} (-n_i) \, \, - {t^i \over 4\pi V} W.

1417:  }

1418: By multiplying with $D_i$ and summing, it follows that

1419:  \eqn\lincombdiv{

1420:  \sum_{\vec{n}} b_{\vec{n}} \, e^{-2\pi \vec{n}

1421:  \cdot \vec{\tau}} D_{\vec{n}} \, + {W \over 4\pi V} J = 0.

1422:  }

1423: We want vacua with $W\neq 0$.  This is

1424: generic, and if the contributing divisors

1425: are linearly independent, as is often the case in examples, it

1426: follows directly from this equation.

1427: 

1428: In this case, the

1429: K\"ahler class $J$ is a linear combination of the contributing

1430: divisors. Thus,

1431: a necessary condition for a solution with positive radii to exist

1432: is that a linear combination

1433: $$

1434: {\cal R} = r_{\vec{n}} D_{\vec{n}}

1435: $$

1436: of the contributing divisors exists such

1437: that ${\cal R}$ lies within the K\"ahler cone \kahlercone.

1438: We will call such a set

1439: of divisors ``complete.''

1440: 

1441: Note that a set of divisors cannot be complete if there exists a curve

1442: $C$ which does not intersect any divisor in that set, because then all

1443: ${\cal R}$ will lie outside the K\"ahler cone, or at best on its

1444: boundary.  On the other hand a full basis of divisors is automatically

1445: complete. Since it is easy to verify if a set of divisors is a basis,

1446: we will focus mainly on examples in which a full basis in $H_4(Z)$ of

1447: divisors contributes to the superpotential.

1448: 

1449: \subsec{Parameters}

1450: 

1451: At large volume, the exponentials in \lincombdiv\ are very small,

1452: so for a solution to exist, $W$ and therefore $W_0$ has to be very

1453: small, of the order of the dominant exponentials $e^{-2 \pi

1454: \vec{n}\cdot\vec{\tau}}$. Again because $J$ in \lincombdiv\ has to

1455: lie well inside the K\"ahler cone, the set of contributing

1456: divisors $D_{\vec{n}}$ which have $e^{-2\pi\vec{n}\cdot\vec{\tau}}

1457: \sim W_0$ has to be complete in the sense introduced above, since

1458: the terms for which $e^{-2\pi\vec{n}\cdot\vec{\tau}} \ll W_0$ can

1459: effectively be neglected.

1460: 

1461: For a suitable choice of basis of divisors, the $t^i$ in \Jfx\

1462: correspond to curve areas, so a rough estimate for the divisor

1463: volumes is $V_i \sim k A^2$, where $A$ is the average curve area

1464: and $k$ some constant, which increases with the number of K\"ahler

1465: moduli due to the increase in terms in \voli\ (in examples $k$ is

1466: at least proportional to the number of K\"ahler moduli). So an

1467: estimate for the average curve size at a critical point of the

1468: superpotential is

1469:  \eqn\Aest{

1470:  A \sim \biggl({\ln |W_0|^{-1} \over 2 \pi k}\biggr)^{1/2}.

1471:  }

1472: 

1473: We see from this estimate that for many K\"ahler moduli (so $k$ is

1474: large), $W_0$ has to be exceedingly small to have $A>1$.

1475: 

1476: % Not only is

1477: %this difficult to find, it can also lead to masses of the K\"ahler

1478: %moduli which are too small (more below).

1479: 

1480: Moreover for many moduli the probability that some curves are

1481: significantly smaller than the average increases, making it even

1482: more difficult to fix the moduli in a controlled regime. This

1483: motivates us to look for models with few K\"ahler moduli.

1484: 

1485: 

1486: \subsec{Geometric considerations}

1487: 

1488: There are some general geometric constraints on the existence of

1489: divisors of arithmetic genus $1$.  First, we can assume without loss

1490: of generality that there exists a Weierstrass model

1491: $\pi_0:W\rightarrow B$ and that $\mu:X\rightarrow W$ is the resolution

1492: of the Weierstrass model. We recall that in F theory only the

1493: vertical

1494: divisors of arithmetic genus one

1495: contribute to the superpotential.  As explained in \G,\ such divisors

1496: fall in two classes: they are either components of the singular fibers

1497: or they are of the form ${\cal V}=\pi^*(D)$ for $D$ a smooth divisor

1498: on $B$.

1499: 

1500: To construct elliptic fourfolds which have divisors of the first type,

1501: one can take $B$ to be a $\IP^1$-bundle over a surface $B^{\prime}$ and

1502: enforce an ADE singularity of the Weierstrass model along

1503: $B^{\prime}$, as in \katzvafa. The exceptional divisors of

1504: $\mu:X\rightarrow W$ will have arithmetic genus one.  In \IIb\ string

1505: theory terms, this corresponds to realizing pure Yang-Mills theory

1506: with ADE gauge group on $7$-branes (D$7$-branes in the A and D cases,

1507: and for the E case as in

1508: \DasguptaIJ) and wrapping these branes on $B^\prime$.  The arithmetic

1509: genus one condition then corresponds to the condition

1510: $h^{0,1}(B^\prime)=h^{0,2}(B^\prime)=0$ for the resulting four

1511: dimensional gauge theory not to have matter.

1512: Because of the association of these divisors to brane gauge theory

1513: we refer to them as ``gauge-type divisors.''

1514: 

1515: The other class of divisor, pullbacks of smooth divisors on $B$,

1516: can give rise to D$3$-brane instanton corrections which need not have

1517: a gauge theory interpretation, and so we refer to these as

1518: ``instanton-type divisors.''

1519: In \refs{\W,\Mayr,\KLRY,\M} it was proposed, based on the study of

1520: examples, that such divisors are always ``exceptional''

1521: in the sense that there exist birational transformations of

1522: Calabi-Yau fourfolds which contract these divisors. This was

1523: shown to be true whenever $B$ is Fano in \G . Moreover,

1524: when $B$ is Fano or toric, the number of the divisors contributing

1525: to the superpotential is finite. This is because they are the

1526: exceptional divisors associated to the contraction of one of the

1527: generators of the Mori cone, which is polyhedral for $B$ Fano or

1528: toric.\foot{There are other examples in which the number of contributing

1529: divisors is infinite, such as the example of \DGW.}

1530: These divisors have a negative intersection with the

1531: corresponding generator of the Mori cone and are thus

1532: ``non-nef,'' as first pointed out in \DGW.

1533: 

1534: One can now see that there are no models with

1535: $h^{1,1}=1$, because the negative intersection condition in this

1536: case reduces to

1537: $$

1538: \Sigma \cdot D < 0

1539: $$

1540: where $D=\pi(\cV)$ and $\Sigma$ is an effective curve.\foot{

1541: This inequality can be violated for gauge-type divisors, but we believe

1542: all models containing these have $h^{1,1}>1$.

1543: This point is discussed further in \RobbinsHX.}

1544: The positivity

1545: condition \kahlercone\ then forces the K\"ahler form to be $J=-t D$ with

1546: $t>0$.  The conditions $V=J^3/6 > 0$ then forces

1547: $Vol(D)=D\cdot J^2/2 < 0$,

1548: so such an instanton correction cannot exist.  In words, the

1549: ``exceptional'' nature of these divisors means that in each of the

1550: instanton amplitudes \npW, at least one of the coefficients in

1551: the action $\vec n\cdot\vec \tau$ must be negative (in some basis).

1552: Given several K\"ahler moduli and divisors, this need not be a

1553: problem, and we will find in examples that it is not,

1554: but it does preclude $h^{1,1}=1$.

1555: 

1556: A more mathematical argument for this point is that

1557: if arithmetic genus one divisors are indeed always exceptional, then

1558: there are no models with $h^{1,1}=1$, because contracting a divisor

1559: will decrease $h^{1,1}$ (from the ``Contraction Theorem'' cited in

1560: \G), which is impossible in this case.

1561: 

1562: It is also shown in \G\ that for $B$ Fano, divisors of arithmetic

1563: genus one in fact have $h^{0,p}=0$ for $p>0$, so the necessary

1564: condition for an instanton correction is in fact sufficient.

1565: 

1566: 

1567: \newsec{Details of flux stabilization}

1568: 

1569: In the next section, we will find that models which will stabilize

1570: all K\"ahler moduli have many complex structure moduli, $n\sim

1571: 100$. We will then need to find choices of flux which stabilize

1572: the other moduli and lead to small $W_0$.  While one can search

1573: for solutions numerically, as done in previous work

1574: \refs{\kst,\GiryavetsVD,\MooreFG}, computation time becomes an

1575: important issue. In particular the most straightforward approach

1576: of picking arbitrary flux vectors, trying to find solutions to

1577: $DW_0=0$, and hoping the solutions satisfy the desired properties,

1578: especially that of having small but non-zero $W_0$,

1579: becomes infeasible. One can simplify the problem somewhat by

1580: imposing discrete symmetries, as we discuss below, but this of course

1581: ignores most of the possible vacua.

1582: 

1583: A simpler goal is to obtain information about the existence and

1584: number of flux vacua using the indirect approach of

1585: \refs{\ad,\dd,\dsz}. We want to know how many supersymmetric vacua

1586: we can expect with $L \leq L_*$, $e^{K_0} |W_0|^2 \leq \lambda_*$, the

1587: dilaton $\tau$ within a region $\hat{\cal H} \subseteq {\cal H}$

1588: and the complex structure $z$ within $\hat{\cal M}_c \subseteq

1589: {\cal M}_c$, in the limit of very small $\lambda_*$. By

1590: approximating the sum over flux lattice points by a volume

1591: integral in continuous flux space, this was computed in \dd\ to be

1592:  \eqn\Nflux{

1593:  N_{vac} = {(2\pi L_*)^{b_3}\over b_3!} {\lambda_* \over L_*}

1594: {\rm vol}(\hat{\cal H}) \int_{\hat{\cal M}_c}

1595:  d^{2n} \! z \, \det g \,\, \rho_0(z)

1596:  }

1597: where $b_3=2n+2$, $g$ is the Weil-Petersson metric on ${\cal

1598: M}_c$, and $\rho_0$ a certain density function on ${\cal M}_c$

1599: computed from local geometric data. The detailed expression for

1600: $\rho_0$ and a discussion of its evaluation for large $n$ is given

1601: in appendix A. A useful estimate is the index density \ad:

1602:  \eqn\index{

1603:  \det g \, \rho_0 \sim {1 \over \pi^{n+1}} \det(R + \omega)

1604:  }

1605: with $R$ the curvature form and $\omega$ the K\"ahler form on

1606: ${\cal M}_c$. In particular $\rho_0 \neq 0$, so the distribution

1607: of vacua with $|W_0|^2<\lambda_*$ is uniform in $\lambda_*$ around

1608: $\lambda_*\sim 0$.

1609: 

1610: Performing the integral \Nflux\ over a region of moduli space

1611: provides an estimate for the number of quantized flux vacua in

1612: that region. While the estimate only becomes precise in the limit

1613: of large $L_*$, numerical experiments suggest it is fairly

1614: good for $L_* > b_3$. In this case, one expects a subregion of

1615: radius $r > \sqrt{b_3/L_*}$ with an expected number of vacua $N_{vac} \gg 1$

1616: to contain flux vacua \dd.

1617: 

1618: Once we know flux vacua exist in some region, there are better ways to

1619: find explicit flux vacua.  We have developed a method which begins by

1620: fixing a rational point at large complex structure, finding the

1621: lattice of fluxes solving $DW=0$ and finding short lattice vectors

1622: using advanced algorithms \cohen.  One can then move in by

1623: systematically correcting the point on moduli space to take into

1624: account the corrections from this limit.  Since these corrections are

1625: small, this often produces vacua with small $W_0$, and we will cite

1626: some results obtained this way below.

1627: 

1628: \subsec{Metastability}

1629: 

1630: Although we will not study the question of whether one can

1631: break supersymmetry by antibranes or D terms in any detail, it leads

1632: to another constraint on the flux vacua which we will study: namely,

1633: we must insist that the potential is actually minimized at the

1634: candidate vacuum.  This was not required for consistency of

1635: a supersymmetric AdS vacuum \breit, and is trivial for a no-scale

1636: nonsupersymmetric vacuum, but this condition becomes non-trivial

1637: after size modulus stabilization.

1638: 

1639: As discussed in \dd\ and many other references, the mass matrix

1640: for a vacuum satisfying $DW=0$, and for fields which do not

1641: participate in the D-type supersymmetry breaking, is

1642:  $$ m^2 = H^2 - 3 |\tilde{W}| H , $$

1643: where we defined $\tilde{W} \equiv e^{K/2}|W|$, and the matrix

1644:  $$ H = 2 \, d^2 |\tilde{W}|, $$

1645: expressed in an orthonormal frame. Thus, positive eigenvalues of

1646: $H$ which are less than $3|\tilde{W}|$ will lead to tachyons. In

1647: the KKLT construction, $W_0$ is assumed small, and we show below

1648: that this implies that $|W|$ is small, so that this need not be a

1649: stringent condition.

1650: 

1651: We again take the superpotential to be a sum

1652: \eqn\sumW{

1653:  W = W_0(z,\tau) + W_\rho(\rho).

1654: }

1655: The matrix $H$ is given by

1656:  $$

1657:  H = |\tilde{W}| \cdot{\bf 1} +

1658:  {1\over |\tilde{W}|}\left(\matrix{

1659:  0& S& 0& T \cr

1660:  \bar S& 0& \bar T& 0\cr

1661:  0& T^t & 0& U \cr

1662:  \bar{T}^t & 0& \bar U& 0}\right)

1663:  $$

1664: with

1665:  $$

1666:  S = {\bar{\tilde{W}}} D_iD_j \tilde{W}, \qquad

1667:  U = {\bar{\tilde{W}}} D_\alpha D_\beta \tilde{W}, \qquad

1668:  T = {\bar{\tilde{W}}} D_i D_\beta \tilde{W},

1669:  $$

1670: where $i,j$ are orthonormal frame indices for the complex

1671: structure moduli and the dilaton, and $\alpha, \beta$ for the

1672: K\"ahler moduli.\foot{

1673: It may be counterintuitive that the mixing $T$ is present

1674: as naively both $K$ and $W$ are the sum of two independent functions,

1675: so the two sectors appear to decouple.

1676: One way to see why this is naive is to note that this statement is not

1677: invariant under K\"ahler-Weyl transformations, even those which take

1678: the factorized form $W \rightarrow f_0(z,\tau)f_\rho(\rho)W$.

1679: A more mathematical way to say this is that the decomposition

1680: $K=K(z,\tau)+K(\rho)$ implies that $W$ is a section of a tensor product

1681: line bundle, and in writing \sumW\ one is implicitly choosing reference

1682: sections of the two bundles.  The mixing matrix $T$ is then

1683: $-|W|^2$ times the tensor

1684: product of the covariant derivatives of these reference sections.

1685: }

1686: If $S \gg U,T$, as is generically the case in the

1687: KKLT construction, the effect of $T$ on the eigenvalues of $H$ will

1688: be subleading. This expresses that when there is a large scale

1689: separation of complex and K\"ahler moduli masses, they can be

1690: treated separately. Moreover in general, if tachyons are found

1691: when $T$ is set to zero (i.e.\ purely in complex structure or

1692: K\"ahler directions), there will also be tachyons in the full

1693: problem. Thus it is a good and useful approximation to put $T

1694: \equiv 0$, and we will do so in the following.

1695: 

1696: The condition on the complex structure moduli is then the same as

1697: in the discussion of \dd\ in which K\"ahler moduli were ignored,

1698: except that $W$ is shifted to include $W_\rho$. This sets the

1699: overall scale of the condition on $D^2W_{flux}$ but does not enter

1700: in the details. For the simplest model superpotential

1701:  $$ W_\rho = b \, e^{i\rho/N} , $$

1702: we have

1703:  $$ W = \left(1-{1\over 1+2 \, \Im \rho/3N}\right)W_0 $$

1704: at $D_\rho W=0$, so for typical $\rho$ and $N$ this decreases $W$

1705: and makes tachyons less likely, but not dramatically so.

1706: 

1707: For generic mass matrices, in a model with $n$ complex structure

1708: moduli, some of these would be tachyonic in roughly a

1709: fraction $3n|W|$ of cases, which is small for small $|W|$.

1710: 

1711: Going on to consider the K\"ahler moduli, for one K\"ahler

1712: modulus, there are no tachyons if

1713:  $$

1714:  g^{\rho \bar{\rho}} |D_\rho^2W| > 2|W|

1715:  $$

1716: which is

1717:  $$

1718:  {4(\Im\rho)^2 \over 3} \left|\p_\rho^2 W_\rho

1719:   - {3\over2 i\Im\rho}\p_\rho W_\rho - {3\over4(\Im\rho)^2}W\right|

1720:   > 2|W| .

1721:  $$

1722: For the model superpotential this becomes

1723:  $$

1724:  \left| 1 + {\Im \rho \over N} \right| > 1

1725:  $$

1726: which is always satisfied. This might fail in a multi-modulus

1727: model, though the examples we study below were found numerically

1728: to be tachyon-free as well.

1729: 

1730: Thus, in general one does not expect moduli to become tachyonic after

1731: supersymmetry breaking.  However special structure in the mass matrix

1732: might change this conclusion, and the main point of this discussion is

1733: that (in the approximation that we ignore the one-loop determinants in

1734: $W_\rho$) the mass matrix for complex structure moduli can be analyzed

1735: in the simpler model in which K\"ahler moduli are simply left out of

1736: consideration, since their effect is just to renormalize $W_0$.

1737: This justifies the analysis of \refs{\ad,\dd}\ in which this was done.

1738: 

1739: In \dd, the one parameter models were studied in great detail, and it

1740: was found that tachyons are generic in some regimes, for example near

1741: conifold points.  This is potentially important as we might want to

1742: work near a conifold point to obtain a small scale or small

1743: supersymmetry breaking.  The situation for multi-modulus models

1744: appears to depend on details of the specific model, and this might or

1745: might not be a problem.

1746: 

1747: \newsec{Search for models}

1748: 

1749: The upshot of the previous section is that a model which stabilizes

1750: K\"ahler moduli must be based on a fourfold $X$ such that the divisors

1751: on $Z$ whose pullbacks have arithmetic genus one form a ``complete

1752: set'' as discussed in subsection 3.3.  The simplest way this can

1753: happen is if such divisors form a basis of $H_4(Z)$.  We now show this

1754: is a rather strong requirement and that not very many models satisfy

1755: it.

1756: 

1757: There are two large classes of examples we consider: Fano threefolds and

1758: $\IP^1$ bundles over toric surfaces.

1759: 

1760: First, since

1761: there is a classification theory of Fano threefolds, all such examples

1762: can be listed.  In particular, \G\ lists all the Fano threefolds

1763: together with the divisors that give rise to divisors of arithmetic

1764: genus one in the associated elliptically fibered fourfold.

1765: 

1766: Out of all the toric threefolds in the tables in \G, the models with a basis

1767: of divisors of arithmetic genus $1$ are $B=\cF_{11}$, $\cF_{12}$, $\cF_{14}$,

1768: $\cF_{15}$, $\cF_{16}$ and $\cF_{18}$.  The model with $B={\cF}_{17}$ comes

1769: close,

1770: but while it has enough fourfold divisors with arithmetic genus one,

1771: the corresponding divisors in the base do not generate the Picard

1772: group of ${\cal F}_{17}$.  Thus, out of the $18$ toric Fano manifolds in the

1773: list, only six work. We note that there are also $74$ Fano threefolds that are

1774: not toric. Out of these, only $23$ have enough fourfold divisors of arithmetic

1775: genus one.

1776: 

1777: We consider $\cF_{18}$ and $\cF_{11}$ in more detail below, because

1778: their orientifold limits have (relatively) few complex structure

1779: parameters.

1780: 

1781: Another large class of examples can be obtained as $\IP^1$ bundles

1782: over toric surfaces:

1783: $$\xymatrix{

1784:   \IP^1    \ar[r] &  B \ar[d]^{\pi'}\\

1785:   & B'.\\

1786: }$$

1787: Let us start with the case  $B'=\IP^2$. The $\IP^1$-bundle over $B'$ will

1788: be specified by an integer $n$ according to the following toric data:

1789: \eqn\toricBii{

1790: \matrix{ &  D_1 & D_2 & D_3 & D_4 & D_5 \cr

1791: \IC^* & 1 & 1 & 1 & n & 0 \cr

1792: \IC^* & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1.}}

1793: $D_1,\ldots,D_5$ are the toric divisors : $D_1,D_2,D_3$ are the pullbacks

1794: of the three lines in $\IP^2$ and $D_4$ and $D_5$ are the two

1795: sections of the $\IP^1$ fibration. The arithmetic genus of

1796: the fourfold divisors ${\cal V}_i=\pi^*(D_i)$ is given by $\chi({\cal

1797: V}_i,{\cal O}_{{\cal V}_i})=1/2K_BD_i^2,i=1,\ldots,5$, where $K_B$ is

1798: the canonical divisor of $B$ \G .  An immediate computation gives

1799: \eqn\argeni{

1800: \chi({\cal V}_1)=\chi({\cal V}_2)=\chi({\cal V}_3)=-1,~~\chi({\cal V}_4)=

1801: -{n(n+3)\over 2},~~\chi({\cal V}_5)={n(-n+3)\over 2}.}

1802: Now we see that that the pullbacks to the fourfold of the two sections

1803: can not have simultaneously arithmetic genus $1$. However, let us first choose

1804: $n$ to be $1$ or $-1$ so that either ${\cal V}_4$ or ${\cal V}_5$

1805: will have arithmetic genus $1$. Now we can enforce an ADE type singularity along

1806: the section whose pullback does not contribute initially to the superpotential.

1807: The

1808: components of the singular fiber will have arithmetic genus $1$ and will project

1809: to that section. Since the two sections are linearly independent, they generate

1810: the

1811: Picard group of $B$ and we have thus obtained a model where the condition for

1812: stabilizing all the K\"ahler moduli is satisfied.

1813: 

1814: Note that in this case it is possible to stabilize the K\"ahler moduli using

1815: only

1816: divisors of gauge type, by enforcing ADE

1817: singularities of the Weierstrass model along both

1818: of the two sections of the $\IP^1$ bundle. However,

1819: this will not be true for models with $h^{1,1}>2$.

1820: 

1821: We can perform a similar analysis in the case when $B'$ is a Hirzebruch

1822: surface $\IF_m$; The toric threefold $B$ is specified by two positive integers

1823: $n$ and $p$ as $B=\IP({\cal O}_{\IF_m}\oplus{\cal O}_{\IF_m}(nC_0+pf))$, where

1824: $C_0$ and $f$ are respectively the negative section and fiber of

1825: $\IF_m$. The toric data of $B$ is

1826: \eqn\toricBi{

1827: \matrix{ &  D_1 & D_2 & D_3 & D_4 & D_5 & D_6\cr

1828: \IC^* & 1 & 1 & m & 0 & p & 0 \cr

1829: \IC^* & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & n & 0 \cr

1830: \IC^* & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1.}}

1831: $D_i, i=1,\ldots,6$ denote again the toric divisors. Another quick computation

1832: gives

1833: \eqn\argen{\eqalign{

1834: &\chi({\cal V}_1)=0,~~\chi({\cal V}_2)=0,~~\chi({\cal V}_3)=-m,

1835: ~~\chi({\cal V}_4)=m,\cr &\chi({\cal V}_5)=-n-p-np+{mn(n+1)\over 2},

1836: ~~\chi({\cal V}_6)=n+p-np-{mn(-n+1)\over 2}.  }}

1837: In order to satisfy

1838: the requirement stated above we need to have $m=1$.  It is easy to see

1839: that we can not have $\chi({\cal V}_5)=\chi({\cal V}_6)=1$.  These

1840: equations would imply that $n$ and $p$ should satisfy $(n-p)^2-p^2=2$

1841: which however does not admit integer solutions. But since $\chi({\cal

1842: V}_5)$ and $\chi({\cal V}_6)$ are the the pullbacks of the two

1843: sections we can enforce again an ADE singularity of the Weierstrass

1844: model along one of them while choosing either $n=2(p+1)$ or $n=2(p-1)$

1845: such that the pullback of the other section has also arithmetic genus

1846: $1$. Obviously, in this case we can not construct a basis of the

1847: Picard group of $B$ consisting only of arithmetic genus one divisors

1848: of gauge type, because $h^{1,1} = 3$.

1849: 

1850: A similar analysis can be carried in the case when $B$ is a $\IP^1$

1851: bundle over a toric del Pezzo surface. By making specific choices for

1852: the data of the $\IP^1$ bundle, in the case of the del Pezzo surfaces

1853: $dP_2,dP_3$ and $dP_4$, we can construct examples that have a full

1854: basis of divisors of instanton type contributing to the

1855: superpotential. What happens if we also consider divisors of gauge

1856: type? For any $\IP^1$ bundle over $dP_2$ or $dP_3$, enforcing for

1857: example an ADE singularity along one of the sections, we obtain a

1858: model satisfying the above criterion. In the case of $dP_4$ we have to

1859: enforce singularities of the Weierstrass model along both sections of

1860: the $\IP^1$ bundle.

1861: 

1862: To summarize, there are several models with toric Fano base in which

1863: instanton-type divisors can stabilize K\"ahler moduli.  In these

1864: models, which can be analyzed using existing techniques, the presence

1865: of a suitable nonperturbative superpotential is clear.

1866: 

1867: There are also several possibilities for models with $\IP^1$-fibered

1868: base in which gauge-type divisors can stabilize K\"ahler moduli.

1869: These models have heterotic duals and are potentially simpler, but

1870: establishing the existence of a suitable superpotential in these

1871: models requires controlling the matter content and matter

1872: superpotential of the gauge theories.  This is a rather complicated

1873: problem in the F theory framework, which has not been solved in the

1874: detail we need; in particular the flux contributions to the matter

1875: superpotential are not yet well understood.  Thus, we will not reach

1876: definite conclusions for these models in this work.

1877: 

1878: Finally, there are surely many more models in which the base is not

1879: Fano (any model with $h^{1,1}>10$ is necessarily of this type), and

1880: there may also be models whose base has other fibration structures.

1881: 

1882: \subsec{The $\cF_{18}$ model}

1883: 

1884: One of the examples from \G\ is  $B\equiv{\cal F}_{18}$,

1885: a toric Fano threefold \refs{\M,\MMi,\MMii}.  By our previous

1886: discussion, $Z$ will be a double cover of $B$,

1887: branched along its canonical divisor.

1888: Thus $Z$ can be realized as a quadric in

1889: $Y=\IP\big(\CO_{{\cal F}_{18}}\oplus\

1890: \CO_{{\cal F}_{18}}(K_{{\cal F}_{18}})\big)$.

1891: 

1892: Note that $Y$ is not a weighted projective space and its toric data

1893: is given by

1894: \eqn\toricYi{

1895: \matrix{ &  X_1 & X_2 & X_3 & X_4 & X_5 & X_6 & X_7 & X_8 & U & W \cr

1896: \IC^* & -1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & -1 & 0 \cr

1897: \IC^* & 1 & 1 & 0 & -1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & -1 & 0 \cr

1898: \IC^* & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & -1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & -1 & 0 \cr

1899: \IC^* & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & -1 & 0 & 0 & -1 & 0 \cr

1900: \IC^* & 0 & -1 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & -1 & 0 \cr

1901: \IC^* & -1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & -1 & 0 \cr

1902: \IC^* & 0 & 0 & -1 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & -1 & 0 \cr

1903: \IC^* & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1.}}

1904: 

1905: 

1906: The generic divisor in the linear system $|-K_Y|$ is the smooth

1907: Calabi-Yau variety $Z$ and is defined by the equation

1908: \eqn\eqZ{

1909: W^2+WU\sum_{(a_1,\ldots, a_8)'}f_{a_1\ldots a_8}\prod_{i=1}^8 X_i^{a_i}+

1910: U^2\sum_{(b_1,\ldots, b_8)'}g_{b_1\ldots b_8}\prod_{i=1}^8 X_i^{b_i}=0,

1911: }

1912: where the sums are taken over sets of positive integers

1913: $a_1,\ldots,a_8,b_1,\ldots,b_8$ which satisfy

1914: \eqn\setcons{\vbox{\halign{ $#$ \hfill &\qquad  $#$ \hfill\cr

1915: -b_1+b_7+b_8=2(-a_1+a_7+a_8)=2, & b_1+b_2-b_4=2(a_1+a_2-a_4)=2,\cr

1916: -b_1+b_4+b_6=2(-a_1+a_4+a_6)=2, & b_1+b_3-b_6=2(a_1+a_3-a_6)=2,\cr

1917: -b_2+b_4+b_5=2(-a_2+a_4+a_5)=2, & b_2+b_3-b_5=2(a_2+a_3-a_5)=2,\cr

1918: -b_3+b_5+b_6=2(-a_3+a_5+a_6)=2. & \cr

1919: }}}

1920: Using the invariance under reparametrizations,

1921: we can set $f_{a_1,\ldots,a_8}=0$ and the hypersurface equation becomes

1922: \eqn\eqZi{

1923: W^2+U^2\sum_{(b_1,\ldots, b_8)'}g_{b_1\ldots b_8}\prod_{i=1}^8 X_i^{b_i}=0.

1924: }

1925: 

1926: 

1927: The holomorphic involution $\bar \Omega$ is simply $W \rightarrow

1928: -W$. All the third cohomology of $Z$ is odd under the (pull-back)

1929: of $\hat\Omega$ and in particular $\hat\Omega ^*\Omega=-\Omega$,

1930: where $\Omega$ is the holomorphic three-form on $Z$.  The third

1931: cohomology of the quotient $B=Z/\hat\Omega$ is trivial since $B$

1932: is toric. Conversely, $H^2(Z,\IZ)$ and $H^4(Z,\IZ)$ are even under

1933: $\hat\Omega^*$. Therefore, all the complex structure and K\"ahler

1934: deformations remain in the spectrum \BH .

1935: 

1936: Thus, we

1937: obtain a IIB orientifold compactification on $B$ of the type we want.

1938: 

1939: \subsubsec{{Topological analysis}}

1940: 

1941: This can be done using standard toric techniques \B .

1942: The toric data of ${\cal F}_{18}$ is \refs{\KLRY,\M,\MMi,\MMii}

1943: \eqn\toricBi{

1944: \matrix{ & D_1 & D_2 & D_3 & D_4 & D_5 & D_6 & D_7 & D_8\cr

1945: \IC^* & -1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 \cr

1946: \IC^* & 1 & 1 & 0 & -1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \cr

1947: \IC^* & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & -1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \cr

1948: \IC^* & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & -1 & 0 & 0 \cr

1949: \IC^* & 0 & -1 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \cr

1950: \IC^* & -1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 \cr

1951: \IC^* & 0 & 0 & -1 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0.}}

1952: 

1953: We choose $D_i,i=1,\dots,5$ as basis for $H^2(B,\IZ)$.

1954: We have the linear equivalence relations

1955: $D_6=D_2-D_3+D_4,D_7=D_8=-D_1+D_3-D_4+D_5$.

1956: 

1957: The K\"ahler cone is not simplicial: although it is five dimensional,

1958: it has six generators which are given by

1959: \eqn\Kgeni{\eqalign{

1960: &{\cal R}_1=D_7,~~{\cal R}_2=D_1+D_6+D_7,~~{\cal

1961: R}_3=D_1+D_3+D_6+D_7,~~{\cal R}_4=D_3+D_6,\cr &{\cal

1962: R}_5=D_1-D_2+D_3+D_6+D_7,~~{\cal R}_6=D_1-D_2+D_3+2D_6+D_7.  }} In

1963: order to define a large radius limit and K\"ahler coordinates, we need

1964: to choose a simplicial decomposition of the K\"ahler cone and pick one

1965: of the subcones \CKYZ . We note that there exists a simplicial

1966: decomposition such that one of the subcones is generated by ${\cal

1967: R}_j$, $j=1,\ldots,5$ and therefore we take the K\"ahler form to be

1968: \eqn\Kahleri{\eqalign{

1969: J=\sum_{j=1}^5t_j

1970:  {\cal R}_j&=(t_2+t_3+t_5)D_1-t_5D_2+(t_3+t_4+t_5)D_3+(t_2+t_3+t_4+t_5)D_6\cr

1971: &+(t_1+t_2+t_3+t_5)D_7.}}

1972: 

1973: 

1974: The dual polyhedron

1975: $\nabla_Z$ which encodes the

1976: divisors of the Calabi-Yau threefold $Z$ has the following vertices:

1977: \eqn\verti{\matrix{

1978: {\tt (0, 0, -1, 1)}, & {\tt (0, 1, 1, 1)}, & {\tt (0, -1, 0, 1)}, &

1979: {\tt (0, 1, 0, 1)}, & {\tt (0, 0, 1, 1),}\cr

1980: \cr

1981: {\tt (0, -1, -1, 1)}, & {\tt (1, 0, 0, 1)}, & {\tt (-1, 0, -1, 1)}, &

1982: {\tt (0, 0, 0, -1).}\cr}}

1983: The Hodge numbers\foot{We have used the computer program {\tt

1984: POLYHEDRON}, written by Philip Candelas.} of

1985: $Z$ are $h^{1,1}(Z)=5,h^{2,1}(Z)=89$.

1986: 

1987: Next, we need to know how divisors of $B$ pull back to the

1988: Calabi-Yau fourfold $X$.

1989: Since $X$ elliptically fibered over the base $B={\cal F}_{18}$,

1990: we can construct it as a hypersurface in a toric variety.

1991: 

1992: Using this, we can construct the dual polyhedron

1993: $\nabla_X$, which encodes the divisors of the Calabi-Yau fourfold $X$.

1994: It has vertices:

1995: \eqn\verti{

1996: \matrix{{\tt (0, 0, -1, 2, 3)}, & {\tt (0, 1, 1, 2, 3)},

1997: & {\tt (0, -1, 0, 2, 3)}, & {\tt (0, 1, 0, 2, 3)}, & {\tt (0, 0, 1, 2, 3)},\cr

1998: \cr

1999: {\tt (0, -1, -1, 2, 3)}, & {\tt (1, 0, 0, 2, 3)}, & {\tt (-1, 0, -1,

2000: 2, 3)}, & {\tt (0, 0, 0, -1, 0)}, & {\tt (0, 0, 0, 0, -1).}\cr}}

2001: Standard toric methods give for the Hodge numbers

2002: of the fourfold

2003: $h^{1,1}=6,~h^{2,1}=0,~h^{3,1}=2194,~h^{2,2}=8844,~\chi=13248$. We

2004: note that it is possible to find a triangulation of $\nabla_X$

2005: consistent with its elliptic fibration structure such that each of the

2006: top dimensional cones having unit volume, thus guaranteeing smoothness

2007: of the corresponding Calabi-Yau fourfold.

2008: 

2009: \subsubsec{Nonperturbative superpotential}

2010: 

2011: The fibration $\pi:X\longrightarrow B$ has a section

2012: $\sigma:B\longrightarrow X$, $\pi\circ\sigma=\bbbone_B$. The following

2013: toric divisors have arithmetic genus one: ${\cal V}_1={\tt(0, 0, -1, 2,

2014: 3)},~{\cal V}_2={\tt(0, 1, 1, 2, 3)}, ~{\cal V}_3={\tt(0, -1, 0, 2,

2015: 3)},~{\cal V}_4={\tt(0, 1, 0, 2, 3)},~{\cal V}_5={\tt(0, 0, 1, 2,

2016: 3)},~{\cal V}_6= {\tt(0, -1, -1, 2, 3)}$ and $\Sigma={\tt (0, 0, 0, 2,

2017: 3)}$. The first six divisors are vertical, ${\cal V}_i=\pi^*(D_i)$,

2018: $i=1,\ldots,6$, and therefore contribute to the F-theory

2019: superpotential, while $\Sigma$ does not contribute, since is the

2020: section of the elliptic fibration, $\Sigma=\sigma(B)$. Moreover, since

2021: ${\cal V}_j,j=1,\ldots,6$ are vertices of $\nabla_X$, $h^{0,i}({\cal

2022: V}_j)=0,i=1,2,3,j=1,\ldots,6$. Now, since $D_1,\ldots,D_5$ generate

2023: $H^2(B,\IZ)$, we see that this model has a complete set

2024: of contributing divisors and satisfies the requirement of

2025: section 3.

2026: 

2027: Note that the divisor $D_1$ on the base $B$ is the exceptional divisor

2028: that corresponds to the contractions of both first and sixth Mori cone

2029: generators.

2030: This is possible since $D_1$ is isomorphic to a Hirzebruch surface $\IF_0$

2031: which is a product of those two curves.

2032: 

2033: In order to study the question of fixing the K\"ahler moduli, we need

2034: to compute the volumes of the divisors contributing to the

2035: superpotential, as well the volume of the three dimensional base

2036: $B$. To achieve that, we triangulate the fan of $B$. We list the cones

2037: below:

2038: \eqn\conesi{\eqalign{

2039: &D_1D_4D_7,~~D_1D_4D_8,~~D_1D_6D_7,~~D_1D_6D_8,~~D_2D_4D_7,~~D_2D_4D_8,\cr

2040: &D_2D_5D_7,~~D_2D_5D_8,~~D_3D_5D_7,~~D_3D_5D_8,~~D_3D_6D_7,~~D_3D_6D_8.}}

2041: 

2042: Using the above (unique) triangulation, we obtain the following nonvanishing

2043: intersection numbers

2044: \eqn\setcons{\vbox{\halign{ $#$ \hfill &\qquad  $#$ \hfill

2045: &\qquad  $#$ \hfill  &\qquad  $#$ \hfill &\qquad  $#$ \hfill\cr

2046: D_1^3=2, & D_1^2D_4=-1, & D_1^2D_6=-1, & D_1^2D_7=-1, & D_2^3=-1,\cr

2047: D_2^2D_4=1, & D_2^2D_7=-1, & D_3^3=-1, & D_3^2D_6=1, & D_3^2D_7=-1,\cr

2048: D_4^2D_2=-1, & D_4^3=1, & D_4^2D_7=-1, & D_5^2D_2=1, & D_5^2D_3=1,\cr

2049: D_5^3=-2, & D_5^2D_7=-1, & D_6^2D_3=-1, & D_6^3=1, & D_6^2D_7=-1.\cr

2050: }}}

2051:  We obtain for the divisor volumes $\tau_i

2052: \equiv D_i J^2/2$ and the total volume $V \equiv J^3/6$:

2053: \eqn\dvols{\eqalign{

2054:  &\tau_1 = t_1t_4,~~\tau_2 = {t_5\over 2}(2t_1+2t_2+2t_3+t_5), \cr

2055:  &\tau_3 = {t_2\over 2}(2t_1+t_2+2t_3+2t_5),~~\tau_4={1\over

2056: 2}(t_2+t_3)(2t_1+t_2+t_3) \cr

2057:  &\tau_5 = (t_3+t_4)(t_1+t_2+t_3+t_5),~~\tau_6={1\over

2058: 2}(t_3+t_5)(2t_1+t_3+t_5), \cr

2059:  &V = t_1t_2t_3 + {t_2^2t_3\over 2} + {t_1t_3^2\over 2} + t_2t_3^2 + {t_3^3\over

2060: 3} +

2061:     t_1t_2t_4 + {t_2^2t_4\over 2} + t_1t_3t_4 +

2062:     t_2t_3t_4 + {t_3^2t_4\over 2}\cr

2063: &\qquad+ t_1t_2t_5 + {t_2^2t_5\over 2} +

2064:     t_1t_3t_5 + 2t_2t_3t_5 + t_3^2t_5 + t_1t_4t_5 + t_2t_4t_5 +

2065:     t_3t_4t_5 + {t_2t_5^2\over 2}\cr

2066: &\qquad+ {t_3t_5^2\over 2} + {t_4t_5^2\over 2}.

2067: }}

2068: 

2069: \subsubsec{{Complex Structure Moduli}}

2070: 

2071: To compute or count flux vacua in arbitrary regions of the complex

2072: structure moduli space of the Calabi-Yau threefold $Z$, one would

2073: have to compute the periods for the generic hypersurface $Z$.

2074: These are generalized hypergeometric functions in 89 variables. In

2075: principle they can be computed using existing techniques, but this

2076: would require a lot of work, even using a computer.

2077: 

2078: A somewhat easier (but still formidable) task is

2079: to describe the periods in the vicinity of the large complex

2080: structure limit. This is equivalent to computing the triple

2081: intersections for the mirror threefold ${\tilde Z}$, which has

2082: $h^{2,1}=5$ and $h^{1,1}=89$. To make the description of this part

2083: of the moduli space complete, one furthermore has to compute the

2084: K\"ahler cone, i.e.\ the part of the parameter space $\IR^{89}$

2085: where all holomorphic curves have positive area. We describe the

2086: algorithms we used to achieve this in appendix B.

2087: 

2088: \subsubsec{Flux vacua}

2089: 

2090: Counting flux vacua can be done using the techniques of

2091: \refs{\ad,\dd} as outlined in section 4. Since $L_*=13248/24=552

2092: \gg b_3=180$, we expect that the approximations made to derive the

2093: counting formula \Nflux\ should be valid.

2094: 

2095: According to this formula, the expected number of vacua with

2096: cosmological constant $e^{K_0} |W_0|^2$ less than $\lambda_* \ll L_*$,

2097: equals $(2\pi L)^{b_3}/b_3! \sim 10^{307}$ multiplied by

2098: $\lambda_*/L_*$ times the integral of a geometrical density

2099: function. Taking the integration domain $\hat{{\cal M}}_c$ equal

2100: to the entire moduli space, the estimate \index\ indicates that

2101: the geometrical factor should be of the order of the Euler

2102: characteristic of ${\cal M}_c$. This does not need to be an

2103: integer, as the moduli space is a noncompact orbifold, and in

2104: examples \dd\ is a small fraction, of order

2105: $1/|\Gamma|$, where $\Gamma$ is the order of a finite group

2106: (e.g.\ $\IZ_5$ for the mirror quintic) or the volume of a group \lu.

2107: This will be far larger than $10^{-307}$ and

2108: thus we expect many vacua with very small

2109: cosmological constant.

2110: 

2111: Can we find such vacua at large complex structure, or

2112: equivalently, at large volume of the mirror? We can judge

2113: this by integrating the density function over, say,

2114: the region defined by requiring all curve areas of the mirror to

2115: be bigger than 1. Using the approach for estimating the density

2116: function $\rho_0$ explained in appendix A and the construction of

2117: the geometry of the moduli space outlined in appendix B, we have

2118: done Monte Carlo estimates of this integral. The results are as

2119: follows. The average value of $\mu$ defined in appendix A is of

2120: order $10^{90}$, hence the density function $\rho_0$ is of order

2121: $10^{240}$, and we take this out of the integral \Nflux. The

2122: remaining volume integral, evaluated using $10^7$ Monte Carlo

2123: sample points, gives a number of order $10^{-650}$. Putting

2124: everything together we get, up to the factor $\lambda_*/L_*$,

2125:  \eqn\Nvacresult{

2126:  N_{vac}(LCS) \sim 10^{-100}.

2127:  }

2128: Why is the volume so small? One important reason is the mirror

2129: volume suppression factor $\tV^{-n/3}$ mentioned at the end of

2130: appendix A. For curve areas $y^i$ bigger than one, the mirror

2131: volume $\tV > 10^{10}$. This becomes understandable when one

2132: considers that when $\tV$ is written in terms of the curve area

2133: coordinates $y^i$ (cf.\ appendix A), the expression $\tV =

2134: \tD^{(y)}_{ijk} y^i y^j y^k/6$ contains $\sim 10^6$ terms, and the

2135: $\tD^{(y)}_{ijk}$ are widely distributed between 0 and $10^8$.

2136: With $\tV > 10^{10}$, the volume suppression factor is $\sim

2137: 10^{-300}$. Additional suppression comes from the fact that $\det

2138: g \sim 10^{-100}$ for typical values of $y$ with $\tV(y)=1$, and

2139: from the smallness of the Euclidean volume of the surface

2140: $\tV(y)=1$. It is possible that the Monte Carlo missed regions in

2141: which $\tV$ is smaller than $10^{10}$, or that some of this is an

2142: artifact of our approximate parametrization of the K\"ahler cone

2143: with the curve areas $y^i$, but we see no particular evidence for

2144: this.

2145: 

2146: Thus it seems likely that any flux vacua in this region are

2147: special cases, and there is no reason to expect a multiplicity of

2148: vacua out of which some would have small $W_0$. This paucity of

2149: vacua in the large complex structure limit is not specific to this

2150: example, but rather is a very general feature of models with many

2151: moduli, as explained in \ddtwo.

2152: 

2153: If we neglect world-sheet instanton corrections, then by lowering

2154: the cutoff to $y^i > 0.075$, the expected number of vacua becomes of order 1.

2155: In few modulus examples, the instanton sums tend to converge all the

2156: way down to zero, so this might be a valid indication of where vacua will

2157: start to exist.

2158: 

2159: \subsec{The $\cF_{11}$ model.}

2160: 

2161: Another example from Grassi's list is the base $B={\cal F}_{11}$

2162: \refs{\MMi,\MMii}.

2163: We now construct an explicit toric model of a Calabi-Yau fourfold

2164: elliptically fibered over this base. This model has an orientifold

2165: limit $Z$ with $h^{1,1}=3,h^{2,1}=111$.

2166: 

2167: The toric data of ${\cal F}_{11}$ is given by

2168: \refs{\KLRY,\M,\MMi,\MMii}

2169: \eqn\toricB{

2170: \matrix{ & D_1 & D_2 & D_3 & D_4 & D_5 & D_6 \cr

2171: \IC^* & 0 & -2 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0  \cr

2172: \IC^* & -1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1  \cr

2173: \IC^* & 1 & 1 & -1 & 0 & 0 & 0. \cr}}

2174: The generators of the K\"ahler cone of $B$ are

2175: \eqn\genK{

2176: {\cal R}_1=D_5,~~{\cal R}_2=D_6,~~{\cal R}_3=D_1+D_6.

2177: }

2178: 

2179: We have the linear equivalence relations $D_4=D_5=D_1+D_3$ and

2180: $D_6=D_1+D_2+2D_3$. The Calabi-Yau fourfold elliptically fibered over

2181: $B$ may be constructed as a hypersurface in a toric variety. The dual

2182: polyhedron $\nabla$, which encode the divisors of the Calabi-Yau

2183: fourfold has vertices:

2184: $$\eqalign{&{\tt (1, 1, 0, 2, 3),~~(0, -1, 0, 2, 3),~~(1, 0, 0, 2,

2185: 3),~~(0, -1, 1, 2, 3),~~(-1, -1, -1, 2, 3),}\cr &{\tt (0, 1, 0, 2,

2186: 3),~~(0, 0, 0, -1, 0),~~(0, 0, 0, 0, -1).}\cr}$$ The Hodge numbers of

2187: this fourfold are

2188: $h^{1,1}=4,~h^{2,1}=0,~h^{3,1}=3036,~h^{2,2}=12204,~\chi=18288$. Again,

2189: we find that the fourfold is smooth.

2190: 

2191: The fibration $\pi:X\longrightarrow B$ has a section

2192: $\sigma:B\longrightarrow X$, $\pi\circ\sigma=\bbbone_B$. The following

2193: divisors have arithmetic genus one: ${\cal V}_1={\tt(1, 1, 0, 2,

2194: 3)},~{\cal V}_2={\tt(0, -1, 0, 2, 3)}, ~{\cal V}_3={\tt(1, 0, 0, 2,

2195: 3)}$ and $\Sigma={\tt (0, 0, 0, 2, 3)}$. The first three divisors are

2196: vertical, ${\cal V}_i=\pi^*(D_i)$, $i=1,2,3$, and therefore may

2197: contribute to the F-theory superpotential, while $\Sigma$ does not

2198: contribute, since is the section of the elliptic fibration,

2199: $\Sigma=\sigma(B)$. It is possible to check that in fact

2200: $h^{0,i}({\cal V}_j)=0, i,j=1,2,3$, thus all the vertical divisors

2201: do give a contribution to the superpotential. Therefore, this model

2202: also provides a complete basis of divisors.

2203: 

2204: To compute the volumes of the divisors $D_1,D_2,D_3$, we triangulate

2205: the fan of $B$.  Its 3-dimensional cones are

2206: $D_1D_4D_6,~D_1D_5D_6,~D_4D_5D_6,~D_2D_4D_5,~D_1D_3D_4,~D_1D_3D_5,$

2207: $D_2D_3D_4,~D_2D_3D_5$. Using this (unique)

2208: triangulation, we obtain the following nonvanishing triple

2209: intersections:

2210: \eqn\ti{

2211: D_1^3=-3,~~D_1^2D_3=2,~~D_1 D_3^2=-1,~~D_2^3=4,~~D_2^2 D_3= -2,~~D_2 D_3^2 = 1.

2212: }

2213: 

2214: Let $J = \sum_{i=1}^3 t_i {\cal R}_i$ be the K\"ahler form of $B$. We

2215: obtain for the divisor volumes $\tau_i

2216: \equiv D_i J^2/2$ and the total volume $V \equiv J^3/6$:

2217: \eqn\dvols{\eqalign{

2218:  &\tau_1 = {t_2\over 2}(2t_1+t_2+4t_3), ~~\tau_2 = {t_1^2\over

2219:  2},~~\tau_3 = t_3(t_1+t_3), \cr &V = {t_1^2t_2\over 2}+{t_1t_2^2\over

2220:  2}+{t_2^3\over 6}+{t_1^2t_3\over

2221:  2}+2t_1t_2t_3+t_2^2t_3+t_1t_3^2+2t_2t_3^2+{2t_3^3\over 3}.  }}

2222: 

2223: \subsec{The orientifold of $\IP^4_{[1,1,1,6,9]}$}

2224: 

2225: Finally, out of the various possibilities which can be obtained as

2226: $\IP^1$ bundles over a toric surface, the simplest is perhaps the

2227: $\IP^1$ bundle over $\IP^2$. The toric data of the threefold is

2228: presented in \toricBii,\ where we take $n=-6$, so that $B=\IP({\cal O}_{\IP^2}

2229: \oplus{\cal O}_{\IP^2}(-6))$. The toric data for $B$ is as follows:

2230: \eqn\toricBv{

2231: \matrix{ &  D_1 & D_2 & D_3 & D_4 & D_5 \cr

2232: \IC^* & 1 & 1 & 1 & -6 & 0 \cr

2233: \IC^* & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1.\cr

2234: }}

2235: The toric divisors $D_4$ and $D_5$ are the sections of the $\IP^1$

2236: bundle over $B'=\IP^2$. We will construct an elliptic fourfold $X$

2237: over $B$ in such a way that $X$ will be the resolution of a

2238: Weierstrass model $W$ which has a $D_4$ singularity along the first

2239: section and an $E_6$ singularity along the second section. The

2240: motivation for this choice will become clear later, when we study

2241: K\"ahler moduli stabilization for these models

2242: 

2243: %This choice has a twofold motivation: for this geometry

2244: %the gauge group living on the second section will be matter free \KLRY . Then,

2245: %the Euler characteristic of the fourfold increases with the rank of the ADE

2246: %group living on the first section.

2247: 

2248: 

2249: 

2250: The dual polyhedron $\nabla_X$, which encode the divisors of the

2251: Calabi -Yau fourfold has vertices:

2252: $$

2253: \eqalign{&{\tt (-1, -1, 6, 2, 3),~~(0, 0, -3, 2, 3),~~(0, 1, 0, 2,

2254: 3),~~(1, 0, 0, 2, 3),~~{(0,  0, -2, 1, 1),}}\cr &{\tt (0, 0, -1, 0, 0),~~

2255: (0, 0, 0, -1, 0),~~(0, 0, 0, 0, -1).}\cr}

2256: $$

2257: The Hodge numbers of this fourfold are

2258: $h^{1,1}=13,~h^{2,1}=0,~h^{3,1}=1071,~h^{2,2}=4380,~\chi=6552$. Again,

2259: we find that the fourfold is smooth. We can also enforce an $E_7$ or

2260: $E_8$ singularity along the infinity section. The data for the

2261: fourfolds obtained this way are, respectively,

2262: $h^{1,1}=14,~h^{2,1}=0,~h^{3,1}=935,~h^{2,2}=3840, ~\chi=5742$ and

2263: $h^{1,1}=16,~h^{2,1}=253,~h^{3,1}=745,~h^{2,2}=2582,~\chi=3096$.

2264: 

2265: 

2266: It is easy to check that in this case the orientifold limit $Z$

2267: will be an elliptic fibration over $\IP^2$, which is familiar as the

2268: hypersurface in weighted projective space $\IP^4_{[1,1,1,6,9]}$

2269: studied in \refs{\candtwo,\drom} and several other works. In order to do that,

2270: we note that $Z$ is given by a quadric in a toric variety $Y$ described by

2271: the following data

2272: \eqn\toricYi{

2273: \matrix{ &  X_1 & X_2 & X_3 & X_4 & X_5 & U & W \cr

2274: \IC^* & 1 & 1 & 1 & -6 & 0 & 3 & 0  \cr

2275: \IC^* & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & -2 & 0  \cr

2276: \IC^* & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1. \cr

2277: }}

2278: This threefold has $h^{1,1}=2$ and $h^{2,1}=272$.  There is a unique toric

2279: Calabi-Yau threefold with this Hodge numbers, the elliptic fibration over

2280: $\IP^2$ \KSi .

2281: \medskip

2282: 

2283: {\it Nonperturbative superpotential}

2284: 

2285: We proceed as before and start by listing all toric divisors

2286: of arithmetic genus one for the first of the models above. These are:

2287: ${\cal V}_1={\tt(0, 0, -3, 2,

2288: 3)},~{\cal V}_2={\tt(0, 0, -2, 1, 1)}, ~{\cal V}_3={\tt(0, 0, -2, 1,

2289: 2)},~{\cal V}_4={\tt(0, 0, -2, 2, 3)},~{\cal V}_5={\tt(0, 0, -1, 0,

2290: 0)}, ~{\cal V}_6={\tt(0, 0, -1, 0, 1)}, ~{\cal V}_7={\tt(0, 0, -1, 2,

2291: 3)},~{\cal V}_8={\tt(0, 0, 2, 2, 3)}, ~{\cal V}_9={\tt(0, 0, 1, 2, 3)}.$

2292: 

2293: The first seven divisors project to $D_5$ and the last two project to

2294: $D_4$. These are going to be the only base divisors contributing to

2295: the superpotential for the other two models as well.

2296: 

2297: To compute the volumes of the divisors $D_4$ and $D_5$ we start by

2298: triangulating the fan of $B$. Its three dimensional cones are

2299: $D_1D_2D_4,~D_1D_2D_5,~D_1D_3D_4,~D_1D_3D_5, ~D_2D_3D_4$ and

2300: $D_2D_3D_5$. Using this triangulation we obtain the following nonzero

2301: intersection numbers

2302: \eqn\wpints{\eqalign{

2303: &

2304: D_1^2D_4=1,~~D_1^2D_5=1,~~D_2^2D_4=1,~~D_2^2D_5=1,~~D_3^2D_4=1,~~D_3^2D_5=1,\cr

2305: & D_1D_4^2=-6,~~D_1D_5^2=6,~~D_2D_4^2=-6,~~D_2D_5^2=6,~~D_3D_4^2=-

2306: 6,~~D_3D_5^2=6,\cr

2307: & D_4^3=36,~~ D_5^3=36.}}

2308: 

2309: Let $J=t_1D_1+t_5D_5$ be the K\"ahler form of $B$. We obtain for the

2310: divisor volumes $\tau_i\equiv D_iJ^2/2$ and the total volume $V\equiv

2311: J^3/6$:

2312:  \eqn\volswp{\eqalign{

2313:  &\tau_4={t_1^2\over 2},~~\tau_5={(t_1+6 t_5)^2\over 2},\cr

2314:  & V={1\over 6}(3t_1^2t_5+18t_1t_5^2+36t_5^3).}}

2315: 

2316: 

2317: \medskip

2318: {\it Complex structure moduli and flux vacua}

2319: 

2320: The full 272 parameter prepotential for this model

2321: has not been worked out.

2322: However, this

2323: moduli space admits a $\Gamma\equiv\IZ_6\times \IZ_{18}$ action,

2324: which fixes the two parameter subspace of CY's with

2325: defining equation

2326: $$

2327: f = x_1^{18}+x_2^{18}+x_3^{18}+x_4^3+x_5^2

2328:  - 18\psi x_1x_2x_3x_4x_5 - 3\phi x_1^6x_2^6x_3^6 .

2329: $$

2330: This is the subset of CY's obtained by the mirror construction

2331: of \GreeneUD\ and the six periods of these mirror CY's,

2332: which is the same as the subset of periods of $\Gamma$-invariant

2333: cycles, are worked out

2334: in \candtwo.

2335: 

2336: If one turns on flux only on these cycles, since the resulting

2337: superpotential and K\"ahler potential are $\Gamma$-invariant, one

2338: is guaranteed that $D_iW=0$ in all $\Gamma$-noninvariant directions,

2339: and thus one can find flux vacua just by working in the $\Gamma$-invariant

2340: part of the moduli space, call this $\cM_\Gamma$.

2341: (This observation is also made in \GiryavetsVD.)

2342: Of course, one would eventually need to check that all moduli remain

2343: non-tachyonic after supersymmetry breaking.

2344: 

2345: For the choices of gauge groups we considered,

2346: $L=\chi/24 \sim 100 - 300$, so the total index for flux vacua in this subspace

2347: is

2348: \refs{\ad,\dd}

2349: $$

2350: I = {(2\pi L)^6\over 6!}

2351: \int_{\cM_\Gamma\times\CH} \det(-R-\omega) .

2352: $$

2353: As mentioned earlier,

2354: the integral can be estimated as $1/12|\Gamma|=1/1296$, leading to

2355: $$

2356: I \sim 10^{11} - 10^{13} .

2357: $$

2358: The number at weak coupling $1/g_s^2<\epsilon$ will be roughly

2359: $\epsilon$ times this, and the number with $e^{K_0}|W_0|^2 < \lambda L T_3$

2360: will be roughly $\lambda$ times this,

2361: so there are clearly many weakly coupled flux

2362: vacua with small $W_0$.

2363: 

2364: Just to get a few explicit flux vacua, we consider the region

2365: of large complex structure,

2366: {\it i.e.} the region in which instanton corrections are small,

2367: $N_i e^{2\pi i w_i} << 1$.  From \candtwo, the prepotential

2368: at third order in the world-sheet instanton expansion is

2369: \eqn\instexp{\eqalign{\cF =

2370:  &{1\over 6}\left(9 w_1^3 + 9 w_1^2 w_2 + 3 w_1 w_2^2\right) \cr

2371:  &

2372:  -{9\over 4}w_1^2 - {3 \over 2} w_1 w_2 - {17\over 4}w_1 - {3\over 2}w_2

2373:  + \xi \cr

2374:  &+ {1\over (2\pi i)^3}

2375:    \bigg( 540 q_1+3q_2+{1215\over 2}q_1^2-1080q_1q_2 - {45\over 2}q_2^2 \cr

2376:  &\qquad\qquad

2377:   + 560 q_1^3 + 143370 q_1^2 q_2 + 2700 q_1 q_2^2 + {244\over 9}q_2^3

2378:  +\ldots\bigg)

2379:  }}

2380: with $q_i\equiv e^{2\pi i w_i}$ and $\xi \equiv {\zeta(3) \chi(Z)

2381: \over 2 (2 \pi i)^3} \approx -1.30843 \, i$.

2382: 

2383: Looking at the coefficients in this expansion, the instanton

2384: corrections should be small for $w_2 >> 1/6$ and $w_1 > 1$.  To

2385: find quantized flux vacua, we used the procedure discussed in

2386: section 4. As an example, we first look for fluxes which stabilize

2387: the moduli at the rational point $\tau=3i, w_1=i, w_2=i$, ignoring

2388: world-sheet instanton corrections and rationally approximating

2389: $\xi$ by $-13/10$. One finds a quantized flux vacuum with $W=0$,

2390: with fluxes $(N_{RR};N_{NS})$ equal to

2391:  $$

2392:  \{ 0,69,28,0,0,-20;-49,-18,-6,-4,0,0 \};

2393:  \qquad L=352

2394:  $$

2395: granting that the quantization condition on the orientifold is the

2396: same as on the original CY. This was argued in general in \frey;

2397: the fact that some cycles are smaller on the orientifold which

2398: naively doubles the Dirac quantum, is compensated for by the

2399: possibility of discrete RR and NS flux at the orientifold fixed

2400: points.  A careful discussion in the present example might be

2401: possible using K theory \mooreK.

2402: 

2403: Restoring the exact value of $\xi$, including the first instanton

2404: corrections and solving the resulting equations $DW=0$ produces a

2405: $W \neq 0$ vacuum near the starting point. We find

2406:  $$\matrix{

2407:  \tau&=&  2.945 i \cr

2408:  w_1&=& 0.9625  i \cr

2409:  w_2&=& 1.1037 i \cr

2410:  e^K|W|^2&=& 1.379 \times 10^{-4}

2411:  } $$

2412: Examples with larger $\tau,w_i$ can easily be found in this way,

2413: but $L$ tends to become bigger then as well.

2414: 

2415: For these vacua, one can check that the instanton corrections are

2416: small (as one would guess by the small corrections they lead to

2417: for the moduli) and the vacua appear sound, on the level we are

2418: working.

2419: 

2420: \newsec{Numerical results on K\"ahler stabilization}

2421: 

2422: \subsec{${\cal F}_{18}$ model}

2423: 

2424: The K\"ahler moduli are stabilized for generic order 1 values of

2425: the $b_i$. Taking $W_0 = 10^{-30}$, the typical values for the

2426: $t_i$ are $t_1 \sim 50-100$, $t_i \sim 0.1 - 0.3$ for $i=2,4,5$

2427: and $t_3 \sim 0$. The corresponding values of the contributing

2428: divisor volumes are $V_i \sim 11-12$, and the total volume $V \sim

2429: 5-10$. Taking the $b_i$ all equal gives a nongeneric singular

2430: solution: $t_1 = \infty$, $t_i = 0$ for $i>0$. But with

2431: $b_i=(1,1.5,2,2.5,3,3.5)$ for example, we get

2432: $t_i=(53.3,0.209,0.00156,0.208,0.222)$, $\tau_i = (11.1,11.9,11.2+

2433: i \pi,11.2,11.3 + i\pi,11.9 + i\pi)$, and $V = 7.32$. Different

2434: choices for the phases of $W_0$ and five of the $b_i$ can be

2435: absorbed in shifts of the imaginary parts of the $\tau_i$ (the

2436: axions). Note that since the areas of the Mori cone generators are

2437: $(t_1,t_2+t_3,t_4+t_3,t_5+t_3,t_5,t_4,t_2)$, these solutions lie

2438: well inside the K\"ahler cone; $t_3=0$ is only an interior

2439: boundary of a subsimplex of the K\"ahler cone.

2440: 

2441: The typical values for the $t_i$ and the total volume are rather

2442: small for this model, so $\alpha'$ corrections could become

2443: important. (The situation is better for the other models we

2444: consider.) However, since the solution in terms of the $\tau_i$ is

2445: mainly determined by the exponential factors (hence the near-equal

2446: values of $\tau_i \sim - (\ln W_0)/2 \pi \approx 11$), it is

2447: reasonable to believe that it will still exist at approximately

2448: the same values of $\tau_i$ even after taking into account such

2449: corrections.

2450: 

2451: Finally, to have a stable vacuum after lifting the cosmological

2452: constant to a positive value, the critical point has to be a

2453: minimum of the potential. We verified numerically that this is

2454: indeed the case.

2455: 

2456: \subsec{${\cal F}_{11}$ model}

2457: 

2458: The K\"ahler moduli are stabilized for generic order 1 values of

2459: the $b_i$. For $W_0 = - 10^{-30}$, $b_i = 1$, we get

2460: $t_i=(4.89,1.30,1.76)$. These are also the areas of the three

2461: generators of the Mori cone. The corresponding complexified

2462: volumes of the divisors $D_i$ contributing to the superpotential

2463: are $\tau_i = (11.8,11.9,11.7)$ and the total volume is $V=93.3$.

2464: The critical point is a minimum of the potential.

2465: 

2466: \subsec{$\IP^4_{[1,1,1,6,9]}$ model}

2467: 

2468: Assuming the gauge theory generates a superpotential $W=W_0 +

2469: \sum_{i=1}^2 b_i e^{-2 \pi a_i \tau_i}$, where $\tau_1$, $\tau_2$

2470: are the complexified volumes of the divisors $D_4$ and $D_5$, we

2471: find that the K\"ahler moduli are stabilized for generic order 1

2472: values of the $b_i$, provided $a_1 > a_2$. The following are some

2473: of the values of $t_i$, $V_i$ and the volume $V$, obtained for

2474: $b_i=1$ and different choices of $a_1$, $a_2$ and $W_0$:

2475:  \eqn\numresults{

2476:  \matrix{ a_1 & a_2 & W_0 & t_1 & t_5 & V_1 & V_2 & V  \cr

2477:               &     &     &     &     &     &     &   & \cr

2478:           1/4 & 1/30 & 10^{-30} & 9.83 & 2.76 & 48.3 & 348 & 484 \cr

2479:           1/4 & 1/30 & 10^{-5} & 4.61 & 1.14 & 10.6 & 65.7 & 39.1  \cr

2480:           1/4 & 1/12 & 10^{-30} & 9.73 & 1.16 & 47.4 & 139 & 103 \cr

2481:           1/4 & 1/12 & 10^{-5} & 4.40 & 0.468 & 9.64 & 25.9 & 8.01 \cr

2482:  }}

2483: The chosen values of $a_i$ correspond to pure $G_2 \times E_8$

2484: resp.\ $G_2 \times E_6$ gauge theory. Again, the critical point is

2485: a minimum of the potential.

2486: 

2487: The fact that $a_1 > a_2$ is needed to have a solution (lying well

2488: inside the K\"ahler cone) can be seen directly from \volswp: the

2489: approximate solution is $\tau_i = - \ln W_0 / 2 \pi a_i$, but

2490: \volswp\ implies $\tau_1<\tau_2$, so $a_1 > a_2$.

2491: 

2492: \newsec{Conclusions}

2493: 

2494: Our primary result is that we have candidate

2495: \IIb\ orientifold compactifications

2496: in which nonperturbative effects will stabilize all

2497: complex structure, K\"ahler and dilaton moduli.

2498: 

2499: Models which stabilize all K\"ahler moduli by D$3$-instanton effects

2500: are not generic, but not uncommon either.  We listed all the

2501: possibilities with Fano threefold base, and many possibilities whose

2502: bases are $\IP^1$ fibrations.  It turns out that these models must

2503: have several K\"ahler moduli and several non-perturbative

2504: contributions to the superpotential, as in the early racetrack

2505: scenarios for moduli stabilization.

2506: 

2507: We see no obstacle to adding supersymmetry breaking effects such

2508: as the antibrane suggested by KKLT, D term effects or others.

2509: One also expects these potentials to have many F breaking minima

2510: (statistical arguments for this are given in \dd).

2511: On general grounds, since the configuration spaces parameterized

2512: by other moduli such as brane and bundle moduli are compact,

2513: after supersymmetry breaking all moduli should be stabilized.

2514: 

2515: The models with Fano threefold base are rather complicated, with

2516: many complex structure moduli.  It is not clear to us that this

2517: makes them less likely candidates to describe real world physics,

2518: but it is certainly a problem when using them as illustrative examples.

2519: 

2520: There may well be simpler models among the $\IP^1$ fibered models,

2521: whose nonperturbative effects have a simple gauge theory picture.

2522: Perhaps the simplest is the $\IP^1$ fibration over $\IP^2$ or ``11169

2523: model.''  While the standard F theory analysis of the models we

2524: discussed have suggests that they have too much massless matter in one

2525: gauge factor to produce non-perturbative superpotentials, we suspect

2526: that other effects, in particular flux couplings to these brane

2527: world-volumes, would lift this matter, leading to working models,

2528: and intend to return to this in future work.

2529: 

2530: Another possibility for finding simpler models would be to

2531: stabilize some of the K\"ahler moduli with D terms.  Following

2532: lines discussed in \aspdoug, one can show that in configurations

2533: containing branes wrapping $k$ distinct cycles, D terms will generally

2534: stabilize $k-1$ relative size moduli.  Since this relies on $\alpha'$

2535: corrections, the resulting values of K\"ahler moduli will be string

2536: scale, but order one factors in the volumes and gauge field strengths

2537: might be arranged to make this a few times the string scale, which

2538: could suffice.

2539: 

2540: In any case, even the simplest models under discussion have many more

2541: moduli to stabilize.  Furthermore, one must check that a candidate

2542: vacuum is not just a solution, but has no tachyonic instability.  Now

2543: once one has established that these moduli indeed parameterize a

2544: compact configuration space, it is clear that the minimum of the

2545: effective potential on this space will be a stable vacuum.  While it

2546: may be hard to compute the value of the potential at this minimum, the

2547: large number of flux vacua strongly suggests (as in \boupol) that

2548: whatever it is, it can be offset by a flux contribution to lead to a

2549: metastable de Sitter vacuum.  Thus, granting the effective potential

2550: framework, it will be extremely surprising if vacua of this type do

2551: not exist, while technically quite difficult to find them.  This is

2552: the type of picture which motivates the statistical approach discussed

2553: in \refs{\stat,\ad,\BanksES,\dd,\ddtwo}, as well as anthropic

2554: considerations such as \refs{\barrow,\susskind,\BanksES}.

2555: 

2556: Can we say anything about the validity of effective theory?  At

2557: present we see no clear reason from string/M theory or quantum gravity

2558: to doubt it.  However, even within the effective field theory

2559: framework, there is another important assumption in KKLT, our work,

2560: and the other works along these lines.  Namely, we have done

2561: Kaluza-Klein reduction in deriving the configuration space of

2562: Calabi-Yau metrics, and typically will take similar steps throughout

2563: the derivation of the effective field theory.  Could it be that in

2564: many of these backgrounds, some of the KK and stringy modes which are

2565: dropped in this analysis are in fact tachyonic?  Since these

2566: constructions rely on approximate cancellations between many diverse

2567: contributions to the vacuum energy, it is conceivable that subsectors

2568: of the theory have instabilities which do not show up in the final

2569: effective lagrangian; this should be examined.  In any case, a lot of

2570: work remains to see whether these models are as plentiful as they now

2571: appear.

2572: 

2573: 

2574: \bigskip

2575: 

2576: We thank V. Balasubramanian, T. Banks, P. Berglund, V. Braun,

2577: D.-E. Diaconescu, M. Dine, A. Grassi, S. Kachru, J. K\"appeli, G.

2578: Moore, S. Sethi and S. Trivedi for valuable discussions and

2579: correspondence. We are especially grateful to B. Acharya and R.

2580: Reinbacher for their collaboration in the early stages of the

2581: project.

2582: 

2583: This research was supported in part by DOE grant DE-FG02-96ER40959.

2584: M.R.D. is supported by the Gordon Moore Distinguished Scholar

2585: program at Caltech.

2586: 

2587: 

2588: \appendix{A}{Counting flux vacua when $b_3$ is large}

2589: 

2590: Equation \Nflux\ gives the expected number of flux vacua with $L

2591: \leq L_*$, $|W_0|^2 \leq \lambda_*$, $\tau \in \hat{\cal H}

2592: \subseteq {\cal H}$ and $z \in \hat{\cal M}_c \subseteq {\cal

2593: M}_c$, for $\lambda_* \ll L_*$. Here we will derive expressions

2594: for $\rho_0$ suitable for Monte Carlo estimates in the case of

2595: many moduli.

2596: 

2597: It is somewhat more convenient to rewrite \Nflux\ first as

2598:  \eqn\Nfluxtwo{

2599:  N_{vac} = {\rm vol}(\hat{\cal H}) \int_{\hat{\cal M}_c}

2600:  d^{2n} \! z \, \det g \,\, \nu(z).

2601:  }

2602: The density function $\nu(z)$ is \dd:

2603:  \eqn\nudef{

2604:  \nu(z) = {2^{2n+2} \over \det g} \int_{|X|^2 \leq \lambda_*}

2605:  d^2 \! X \int_{Z_i Z^i \leq L_*}

2606:  d^{2n}\! Z \,

2607:  \, |\det \left( \matrix{

2608:   0 & Z_j \cr

2609:   Z_i & {\cal F}_{ijk} {\bar{Z}}^k \cr } \right)|^2 + {\cal O}(X).

2610:  }

2611: The integration variables $X$ and $Z^i$ range over $\IC$ and are

2612: the remnants of the flux vector $N$ after a certain $z$-dependent

2613: change of basis and after imposing the constraint $DW_0=0$ (now

2614: considered as a constraint on the continuous flux components at a

2615: given point $z$). Indices are lowered with the metric $g_{i

2616: \bar{j}}$. The factor in front of the integral comes from the

2617: Jacobian corresponding to the change of basis, and the determinant

2618: in the integrand is the $|\det D^2 W_0|$ Jacobian accompanying the

2619: delta function imposing $DW_0=0$. Finally, the ${\cal F}_{ijk}$

2620: are the ``Yukawa couplings'' characterizing the special geometry

2621: of the complex structure moduli space, i.e.\

2622:  \eqn\Fijkdef{

2623:  {\cal F}_{ijk} = e^{{\cal K}_c} \int_Z \Omega \wedge \partial_i

2624:  \partial_j \partial_k \Omega.

2625:  }

2626: Since we are interested in very small values of the cosmological

2627: constant, i.e.\ $\lambda_* \ll 1$, the ${\cal O}(X)$ part can be

2628: dropped from the integrand and the integral over $X$ simply gives

2629: a factor $\pi \lambda_*$.

2630: 

2631: By rewriting the determinant in the integrand as a Gaussian

2632: fermionic integral and the bosonic integral as a Laplace

2633: transformed Gaussian \dd, and then doing the bosonic integral,

2634: this expression can be rewritten as a fermionic integral with

2635: quartic fermionic action, hence it reduces to a finite number of

2636: terms. (Alternatively, one could stick to bosonic variables and

2637: apply Wick's theorem.) This is useful for low $n$, but for large

2638: $n$ the number of terms becomes enormous, about $n^{4n}$, and

2639: straightforward numerical evaluation becomes impossible. Instead,

2640: we want to rewrite \nudef\ in a form suitable for Monte Carlo

2641: estimates.

2642: 

2643: To this end, we implement the constraint $\|Z\|^2 \leq L_*$ by

2644: inserting $\int_0^{L_*} d\ell \, \delta(\ell - \|Z\|^2)$ in the

2645: integral. Changing variables from $Z$ to $U$ with $Z^i =

2646: \sqrt{\ell} \, U^i$, and doing the $\ell$-integral then gives

2647:  \eqn\Nvacnu{

2648:  \nu(z) = {2^{2n+2} \pi \lambda_* L_*^{2n+1} \over (2n+1) \det g} \int d^{2n} U

2649:  \, \delta(\|U\|^2-1) \, |\det \left( \matrix{

2650:   0 & U_j \cr

2651:   U_i & {\cal F}_{ijk} {\bar{U}}^k \cr } \right)|^2.

2652:  }

2653: Now define the following ``spherical'' average, for any function

2654: $f(U)$:

2655:  \eqn\averagedef{

2656:  \left\langle f(U) \right\rangle_{\|U\|=1} = {\int d^{2n} U

2657:  \, \delta(\|U\|^2-1) \, f(U) \over

2658:  \int d^{2n} U \, \delta(\|U\|^2-1).

2659:  }

2660:  }

2661: Noting that

2662:  \eqn\area{

2663:  \int d^{2n} U \, \delta(\|U\|^2-1) = {\pi^n \over (n-1)! \det g}

2664:  }

2665: we can thus write

2666:  \eqn\Nvactwo{

2667:  \nu(z) = {2^{2n+2} \pi^{n+1} \lambda_* L_*^{2n+1} \over (2n+1)(n-1)!} \, \mu(z)

2668:  }

2669: with

2670:  \eqn\mudef{

2671:  \mu(z) = {1 \over (\det g)^2} \left\langle

2672:  |\det \left( \matrix{

2673:   0 & U_j \cr

2674:   U_i & {\cal F}_{ijk} {\bar{U}}^k \cr } \right)|^2 \right\rangle_{\|U\|=1}.

2675:  }

2676: Comparing this to \Nflux, we get

2677:  \eqn\rhoest{

2678:  \rho_0(z) = {(2n+2) (2n)! \over \pi^{n+1}(n-1)!}\, \mu(z)

2679:  }

2680: 

2681: This can be made more explicit in the large complex structure

2682: limit of $Z$,

2683: parametrized with the special coordinates $t^i=x^i+i \, y^i$, where

2684: $y^i$ becomes large and $x_i \in [0,1]$. All data is encoded in

2685: the triple intersection numbers $\tilde{D}_{ijk}$ of the mirror

2686: $\tilde{Z}$ to $Z$. The K\"ahler potential is ${\cal K}_c = -

2687: \ln(2^3 \tilde{V})$, where $\tilde{V}={1 \over 6} \tilde{D}_{ijk}

2688: y^i y^j y^k$. The metric and its determinant are

2689:  \eqn\LCSmetric{

2690:  g_{i\bar{j}} = {\tV_i \tV_j \over 4 \tV^2} - {\tV_{ij} \over 4 \tV},

2691:  \qquad

2692:  \det g = {(-1)^{n+1} \det \tV_{ij} \over 2^{2n+1} \tV^n},

2693:  }

2694: where $\tV_i = \partial_i \tV = {1 \over 2} \tD_{ijk} y^j y^k$ and

2695: $\tV_{ij} = \partial_i \partial_j \tV = \tD_{ijk} y^k$. Finally,

2696: the Yukawa couplings are ${\cal F}_{ijk} = e^{{\cal K}_c}

2697: \tD_{ijk}$. Using all this and pulling the factor $e^{{\cal K}_c}$

2698: out of the determinant, \mudef\ becomes

2699:  \eqn\mulcs{

2700:  \mu(y) = {1 \over 4^{n-4}}{\tV^2 \over (\det \tV_{ij})^2}

2701:  \left\langle

2702:  |\det\left(

2703:  \matrix{

2704:  0 & U_j \cr

2705:  U_i & \tD_{ijk} \bar{U}^k

2706:  }

2707:  \right)|^2

2708:  \right\rangle_{\|U\|=1}

2709:  }

2710: Note that $\mu(y)$ is invariant under rescaling $y^i \to \lambda

2711: y^i$.

2712: 

2713: The average $\langle f(U) \rangle$ can be estimated numerically

2714: using Monte Carlo methods; for many variables this is in fact the

2715: only possible way. In the simplest version, one repeatedly picks a

2716: random vector $Z$ from a normal distribution with mean zero and

2717: covariance matrix proportional to the metric $g_{i\bar{j}}$ (or

2718: any other distribution depending only on $\|Z\|$), one evaluates

2719: $f(U)$ with $U \equiv Z/\|Z\|$, and at the end one computes the

2720: average of the values obtained. This gives an approximate value

2721: for $\rho_0(y)$, the approximation becoming better with increasing

2722: number of sampling points.

2723: 

2724: What remains to be computed then to get the number of flux vacua

2725: is the integral \Nflux. Again this can be done by Monte Carlo

2726: integration. However, computing $\rho_0(y)$ at every sample point

2727: in the way described above would require far too much computation

2728: time in the models we consider. Therefore we will replace

2729: $\rho_0(y)$ by its average over a limited number of sample points.

2730: This is a reasonable thing to do, since in examples $\rho_0(y)$

2731: stays of more or less the same order of magnitude over the large

2732: complex structure part of moduli space (in particular, as noted

2733: before, it is scale invariant). The integral then becomes

2734: proportional to the volume of the part of moduli space under

2735: consideration, which can estimated numerically in reasonable time.

2736: 

2737: One important universal property of this integral can be deduced

2738: directly: vacua are strongly suppressed at large complex

2739: structure. To see this, note that under rescaling $y \to \lambda

2740: y$, $d^n y \det g \to \lambda^{-n} d^n y \det g$, so if for

2741: instance the region under consideration is given by $\tV>V_*$,

2742: then

2743:  \eqn\Rdep{

2744:  N_{vac}(\tV>V_*) \propto 1/V_*^{n/3}.

2745:  }

2746: We discuss this in more detail in \ddtwo.

2747: 

2748: \appendix{B}{Taming the complex structure moduli space of the ${\cal F}_{18}$

2749: model}

2750: 

2751: The Calabi-Yau 3-fold $Z$ of the ${\cal F}_{18}$ model of section

2752: 5.1 has 89 complex structure moduli. Describing this space

2753: completely including its exact periods would be extremely complex,

2754: so we restrict ourselves to the large complex structure

2755: limit, which can be constructed as the classical K\"ahler moduli

2756: space of the mirror $\tilde{Z}$. Even this poses quite a

2757: challenge.

2758: 

2759: The classical K\"ahler moduli space of $\tilde{Z}$ is specified

2760: entirely in terms of the triple intersection numbers of the

2761: divisors $\tD_i$. These in turn can be computed from the quadruple

2762: intersection numbers of the divisors of the ambient toric variety

2763: $\tilde{Y}$. There are more than

2764: 100 independent divisors in $\tilde{Y}$, so a priori there are

2765: more than $100^4 = 10^8$ intersection numbers to compute.

2766: 

2767: Before one can start doing this, one needs

2768: a maximal triangulation of the fan of the toric variety. Although

2769: the fan in this case is very large (116 points), we managed to do this by hand,

2770: and found 576 cones of volume 1.

2771: 

2772: The next step is to determine the actual K\"ahler cone within the

2773: $\IR^{89}$ parameter space, i.e.\ the cone in which all

2774: holomorphic curves have positive area. This involves constructing

2775: and solving 377 inequalities in 89 variables, which is more

2776: difficult than one might expect. Even finding just one point

2777: satisfying these inequalities takes several hours on a PC.

2778: 

2779: In the end we want to compute numerically the volume of a subspace of the

2780: K\"ahler cone, as described in appendix A. Because of the high

2781: dimensionality of the space, this needs to be done by Monte Carlo.

2782: The integrand is relatively costly to evaluate, as it involves

2783: computing the $89 \times 89$ determinant given in \LCSmetric. On a

2784: 2.4 GHz Pentium, evaluation using $10^7$ Monte Carlo sample

2785: points took about three days.

2786: 

2787: In the following we outline how we proceeded to achieve these goals.

2788: 

2789: \ifig\sing{Partial triangulation of a 3-face of the polyhedron.

2790: Black dots correspond to vertices, blue dots correspond to points

2791: lying on edges or codimension two faces, while purple dots

2792: correspond to points interior to the 3-face.

2793: }{\epsfxsize3.8in\epsfbox{three.eps}}

2794: 

2795: \subsec{Intersections}

2796: 

2797: The toric variety $\tilde{Y}$ has 116 toric divisors $\tD_i$,

2798: which correspond to points $p^i \in \IR^4$ in the polyhedron

2799: $\nabla_{\tilde{Y}}$. The vertices of $\nabla_{\tilde Y}$ are

2800: given by

2801:  $$

2802:  \eqalign{&{\tt

2803: (4,0,-2,1),~~(-2,-2,0,1),~~(-2,2,0,1),~~(0,0,0,-1),~~(2,2,0,1),}\cr

2804: &{\tt

2805: (-2,0,2,1),~~(0,0,2,1),~~(-2,2,-2,1),~~(4,2,-2,1),~~(2,-2,0,1),}\cr

2806:  &{\tt (-2,-2,2,1),~~(0,-2,2,1),~~(-2,0,-2,1).}}

2807:  $$

2808: The triangulation of the polytope has 576 cones $\tD_i \tD_j \tD_k \tD_l$,

2809: all of volume 1.

2810: 

2811: %In the figure, we show a partial triangulation of one 3-face of the polyhedron.

2812: 

2813: The rule for the intersection product of four {\it distinct}

2814: divisors is the following: if the four divisors span a cone, their

2815: intersection is 1, otherwise it is 0. It is more complicated to

2816: find intersections where some divisors are the same, such as

2817: $\tD_i \cdot \tD_i \cdot \tD_j \cdot \tD_k$. This is done by

2818: making use of the 4 linear equivalence relations that exist

2819: between the 116 toric divisors, which can be simply read off from

2820: the points: $p^i_\mu \tD_i = 0$. This gives four equations

2821: $p^l_\mu \tD_{lijk} = 0$ for each distinct triple $ijk$. The

2822: unknowns are the double index intersection numbers $\tD_{iijk}$,

2823: so there are (more than) enough equations to find these. Solve this

2824: using a computer as one system of millions of equations in

2825: millions of variables would take a lot of time and memory. However, the

2826: problem can be split up in a much smaller number of systems of

2827: four equations in three variables: for a given $i<j<k$, the three

2828: variables are $\tD_{iijk},\tD_{ijjk},\tD_{ijkk}$, and the only

2829: $ijk$ which need to be taken into consideration are those for

2830: which $\tD_i \tD_j \tD_k$ actually appears somewhere as a face in

2831: the list of cones. For other $ijk$ the three unknowns are

2832: trivially zero. A similar reasoning can be followed to compute

2833: intersections with three and four identical indices. Thus almost

2834: all intersections vanish, and the remaining ones can be computed

2835: by computer in less than a minute.

2836: 

2837: Let us now turn to the Calabi-Yau hypersurface $\tilde{Z}$ in

2838: $\tilde{Y}$. Of the 116 divisors $\tD_i$ in $\tilde{Y}$, only 93

2839: intersect $\tilde{Z}$ and descend to divisors on the Calabi-Yau

2840: (89 of those are independent). We will denote these divisors by

2841: the same $\tD_i$. Their triple intersection numbers are now easy

2842: to compute. They are simply given by the intersection with the

2843: anticanonical divisor: $\tD_{ijk}=\sum_l \tD_{ijkl}$. The

2844: resulting volume function is $\tV = {1 \over 6} \tD_{ijk} x^i x^j

2845: x^k$.

2846: 

2847: Finally, the large complex structure prepotential of the original

2848: Calabi-Yau $Z$ is given by this expression with the $x^i$

2849: replaced by complex variables, and takes the form

2850: $$

2851: {\cal F}=\,{{t_1}}^3 - \,{{t_2}}^2\,{t_3} + 780\ {\rm more\ terms}.

2852: $$

2853: It is available upon request.

2854: 

2855: \subsec{Mori cone}

2856: 

2857: A class in $H_2(\tilde{Z})$ is specified by its intersections with

2858: the divisors $\tD_i$. It is important to know which of these

2859: classes can effectively be realized as holomorphic curves. The set

2860: of such effective curves forms a cone, called the Mori cone. The

2861: generators of the Mori cone $C_a$, given by their intersection

2862: numbers $C_{ai}$ with the divisors $\tD_i$, are contained in the

2863: list of `special' linear relations $C_{ai} p^i = 0$ between the

2864: polyhedron points $p^i$ corresponding to the divisors. There is

2865: one such special relation for each adjacent pair of cones in the

2866: triangulation of the polyhedron, found as follows. Denote the

2867: three common points of the two cones by $f_1$, $f_2$ and $f_3$,

2868: and the two additional points by $p$ and $q$. Then there will be a

2869: relation $p + q + n_1 f_1 + n_2 f_2 + n_3 f_3 = 0$, with the $n_i$

2870: integer.

2871: 

2872: Applying this to our model gives 579 relations. These correspond

2873: to effective curves of $\tilde{Y}$. What we want however are

2874: effective curves of $\tilde{Z}$, and these are obtained by keeping

2875: only the curves having zero intersections with the 23 divisors of

2876: $\tilde{Y}$ which do not descend to divisors of $\tilde{Z}$. This

2877: reduces the list to 377. Only a subset of this list will

2878: constitute a basis of generators of the Mori cone: any curve that

2879: is a positive linear combination of the others can be dropped. A

2880: basis can thus be constructed in steps as follows. Start with the

2881: first curve. Add to this the second one and check if in the

2882: resulting set any one of the curves is a positive multiple of the

2883: other. If so, remove this curve. Then add the third curve and

2884: remove any curve in the resulting set that is a positive linear

2885: combination of the others. Then add the fourth curve, and so on,

2886: till all 377 candidates have been considered. This procedure is

2887: much faster than starting with all curves and removing the

2888: dependent ones one by one, because verifying if a given vector

2889: equals some {\it positive} linear combination of a set of $n$

2890: vectors becomes nontrivial if $n$ is bigger than the dimension,

2891: and with $n$ substantially bigger, it is computationally extremely

2892: expensive (hours for $n=377$ in this case).

2893: 

2894: The resulting basis of the Mori cone consists of 111 generators

2895: $C_a$.

2896: 

2897: \subsec{K\"ahler cone}

2898: 

2899: The dual of the Mori cone is the K\"ahler cone, that is the set of

2900: all $J = x^i D_i$ such that $C_a \cdot J>0$. Note that this is a

2901: tiny fraction of the $\IR^{89}$ parameter space; an estimate for

2902: the probability of a random point to be in the K\"ahler cone is

2903: $(1/2)^{111} \sim 10^{-34}$. Since we want to integrate over the

2904: K\"ahler cone, it is important to have a good parametrization of

2905: it --- multiplying the integrand by a step function with support

2906: on the K\"ahler cone and Monte Carlo integrating over all $x$

2907: certainly won't do the job, since effectively all sample points

2908: will integrate to zero.

2909: Ideally, one would construct the exact generators $K_p$ of the

2910: K\"ahler cone and write $J = t^p K_p$, $t^p>0$. There exists an

2911: algorithm to find these generators, decribed in \fulton\ p.11.

2912: Unfortunately, because the Mori cone is far from simplicial, this

2913: involves running over ${111 \choose 88} \sim 10^{23}$ candidate

2914: generators (the rays obtained by intersecting 88 of the 111 zero

2915: planes). It would take about the age of the universe to complete

2916: this task on a PC. Nevertheless, with some luck, we were able to

2917: construct an approximate parametrization. Applying Mathematica's

2918: function {\tt InequalityInstance} to find one solution to our set

2919: of 111 inequalities results in a point which has exactly 89 curve

2920: areas $C_i \cdot J$ equal to 1, and 22 bigger than 1. Taking the

2921: areas of these special curves as coordinates $y_i$, it turns out

2922: that for uniformly random positive $y$ values, the resulting $J$

2923: generically lies inside the Kahler cone. The integral over the

2924: K\"ahler cone can therefore be done by Monte Carlo integrating

2925: over all positive $y$ and multiplying the integrand by a step

2926: function with support on the points satisfying the remaining 22

2927: inequalities. In this way, not too many sample points evaluate to

2928: zero.

2929: 

2930: 

2931: 

2932: \listrefs

2933: \end

2934: