1: \documentclass[12pt]{article}
2: \usepackage{cite,graphicx,amsmath,amssymb,bbm}
3: \usepackage{epsf}
4:
5: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}
6: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}
7: \newcommand{\bea}{\begin{eqnarray}}
8: \newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}}
9: \newcommand{\UV}{{\rm UV}}
10: \newcommand{\IR}{{\rm IR}}
11: \renewcommand{\Re}{\operatorname{Re}}
12: \renewcommand{\Im}{\operatorname{Im}}
13: \newcommand{\ol}[1]{\overline{#1}}
14:
15: \addtolength\topmargin{-50pt}
16: \addtolength\textheight{105pt}
17: \addtolength\textwidth{60pt}
18: \addtolength\oddsidemargin{-38pt}
19: \setlength{\parindent}{20pt}
20: \setlength{\parskip}{6pt}
21: \frenchspacing
22: \sloppy
23:
24: \begin{document}
25:
26: \thispagestyle{empty}
27: \vspace*{.2cm}
28: \noindent
29: HD-THEP-06-12 \hfill 18 July 2006
30: \\
31: \noindent
32: OUTP-DR-06 01P
33:
34: \vspace*{1.0cm}
35:
36: \begin{center}
37: {\Large\bf The Ubiquitous Throat}
38: \\[1.5cm]
39: {\large A.~Hebecker$\,^a$, and J.~March-Russell$\,^b$}\\[.5cm]
40: {\it ${}^a$ Institut f\"ur Theoretische Physik, Universit\"at Heidelberg,
41: Philosophenweg 16 und 19\\ D-69120 Heidelberg, Germany}
42: \\[.3cm]
43: {\it ${}^b$ Rudolf Peierls Centre for Theoretical Physics, University
44: of Oxford, 1 Keble Road\\ Oxford OX1 3NP, UK}
45: \\[.4cm]
46: {\small\tt (a.hebecker@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de} {\small and}
47: {\small\tt j.march-russell1@physics.ox.ac.uk\,)}
48: \\[1.0cm]
49:
50: {\bf Abstract}
51: \end{center}
52: We attempt to quantify the widely-held belief that large hierarchies
53: induced by strongly-warped geometries are common in the string theory
54: landscape. To this end, we focus on the arguably best-understood subset
55: of vacua -- type IIB Calabi-Yau orientifolds with non-perturbative K\"ahler
56: stabilization and a SUSY-breaking uplift (the KKLT setup). Within this
57: framework, vacua with a realistically small cosmological constant are
58: expected to come from Calabi-Yaus with a large number of 3-cycles. For
59: appropriate choices of flux numbers, many of these 3-cycles can, in general,
60: shrink to produce near-conifold geometries. Thus, a simple statistical
61: analysis in the spirit of Denef and Douglas allows us to estimate the
62: expected number and length of Klebanov-Strassler throats in the given
63: set of vacua. We find that throats capable of explaining the electroweak
64: hierarchy are expected to be present in a large fraction of the landscape
65: vacua while shorter throats are essentially unavoidable in a statistical
66: sense.
67:
68:
69:
70:
71:
72: \newpage
73: \section{Introduction}
74: Since the seminal work of Giddings, Kachru and Polchinski~\cite{
75: Giddings:2001yu} following on from the foundational papers
76: of Refs.\cite{earlywarp} and \cite{Verlinde:1999fy},
77: it has become common knowledge that strongly warped
78: regions or throats are a natural feature of type IIB flux compactifications
79: (see~\cite{Grana:2005jc} for a recent review). Moreover, thanks to the KKLT
80: construction~\cite{Kachru:2003aw}, the very same class of models has become
81: the nucleus of the large and growing collection of metastable de-Sitter
82: vacua of string theory (known with a varying degree of rigour) which are
83: generally referred to as the `string theory landscape' \cite{landscape}. Following the
84: line of thought developed by Douglas and collaborators~\cite{Douglas:2003um,
85: Denef:2004ze,Denef:2004cf}, it is then natural to attempt to link the
86: presence of throats quantitatively to the assumption that we live in one of
87: the numerous type IIB orientifold models with 3-form flux. It is the aim of
88: the present paper to understand to which extent throat and multi-throat
89: geometries can be considered a prediction of the type IIB landscape proposal.
90:
91: To be specific, we will focus on the oldest and arguably simplest
92: situation~\cite{Kachru:2003aw} in which, given a model where all
93: complex structure moduli are stabilized by 3-form flux, the single K\"ahler
94: modulus is stabilized non-perturbatively by gaugino condensation or D3-brane
95: instantons. We have every reason to expect that our conclusions, which will
96: mainly be related to the distribution of 3-form flux quanta on the various
97: 3-cycles, remain valid if K\"ahler moduli are stabilized by the interplay of
98: perturbative and nonperturbative physics~\cite{Balasubramanian:2004uy,
99: Balasubramanian:2005zx} or even in an entirely perturbative
100: fashion~\cite{Saltman:2004sn,vonGersdorff:2005bf}. Similarly, we do not
101: expect our conclusions to be affected by the modifications and extensions
102: of the stabilization mechanism required in situations with more than one
103: K\"ahler modulus (see e.g.~\cite{Balasubramanian:2005zx}).
104:
105: Given that all geometric moduli are stabilized in a supersymmetric AdS
106: vacuum as described above, we assume, following KKLT~\cite{Kachru:2003aw},
107: that a small supersymmetry breaking effect, such as the presence of
108: anti-D3-branes in one of the warped regions, uplifts this vacuum to a
109: de-Sitter vacuum with realistic cosmological constant. We choose to focus on
110: this (by now classic) scenario since the metastability of such uplifted vacua
111: is essentially guaranteed in the limit of a parametrically small AdS
112: cosmological constant before the uplift. We will comment on this in more
113: detail below. However, we emphasize again that our decision to be so
114: restrictive in our choice of models is motivated solely be the desire to
115: keep the non-essential parts of our analysis short and simple. We expect
116: that the distribution of throats emerging from our analysis will be similar
117: in a much wider class of flux vacua.
118:
119: Given the above considerations, we focus on the distribution of throats in
120: type IIB Calabi-Yau orientifolds with a large number of 3-cycles and under
121: the restriction that the total flux superpotential $W_0$ at the SUSY minimum
122: is parametrically small. It is natural to expect that, as a result of the
123: random choice of a large number of independent flux quanta for the various
124: 3-cycles, some of these 3-cycles will automatically carry only a small
125: number of flux. If this occurs for a 3-cycle that can shrink to produce
126: a conifold singularity~\cite{Candelas:1989js} (which may be the generic
127: situation) and if the flux carried by the dual cycle is not small, a
128: Klebanov-Strassler throat~\cite{Klebanov:1998hh,Klebanov:2000hb} with
129: an exponentially large hierarchy develops. This is the naive expectation and
130: at the same time our main result: The more detailed analysis described
131: in bulk of the paper confirms that one has to expect large hierarchies of
132: scales~\cite{Randall:1999ee,Verlinde:1999fy,Goldberger:1999uk} and multiple
133: throats~\cite{smallnumbers,Barnaby:2004gg,Cascales:2003wn} in generic
134: orientifold models of the landscape.
135:
136: At a more technical level, we will replace the above heuristic argument
137: about `accidentally' small 3-cycles by the quantitatively well-known fact
138: that vacua accumulate near conifold points~\cite{Denef:2004ze,
139: Giryavets:2004zr,Conlon:2004ds,Eguchi:2005eh}. If many such conifold points
140: are present in the moduli space of a given Calabi-Yau, the probability of
141: being far away from any of them becomes extremely small. In this sense, the
142: presence of throats becomes a prediction of the given branch of the string
143: theory landscape.
144:
145:
146:
147:
148:
149: \section{The relevant set of vacua}
150: Following~\cite{Denef:2004ze}, we consider the orientifold limit of an
151: F-theory compactification based on a four-fold with Euler number $\chi_4$.
152: The 3-form flux on this orientifold can be quantified by a flux vector
153: $N\in {\mathbb Z}^{2K}$. Its dimension is given by $2K=4(h^{2,1}_-+1)$, where
154: $h^{2,1}_-$ is the number of complex structure moduli.\footnote{
155: The
156: index `$-$' is used since, as an alternative to the F theory construction,
157: one may think of orientifolding a smooth Calabi-Yau 3-fold to obtain a
158: given model. The relevant cycles are those which are odd under the
159: orientifold projection. Note that our $K$ is $K/2$ in the notation
160: of~\cite{Denef:2004ze}
161: }
162: Allowing for a contribution $N_{D3}$ to the total D3-brane charge from
163: freely moving D3 branes $(N_{D3}>0)$ or anti-D3-branes $(N_{D3}=-N_{\ol{D3}}
164: <0)$, the tadpole cancellation condition reads
165: \be
166: \frac{\chi_4}{24}=\frac{1}{2}N^T\Sigma N+N_{D3}\,,
167: \qquad\mbox{where}\qquad
168: \Sigma\equiv\left(\begin{array}{cc}0&\mathbbm{1}\\ \mathbbm{1}&
169: 0\end{array}\right)\,.
170: \ee
171: Assuming that the orientifold planes of the model preserve the same
172: supersymmetry as D3 (rather than anti-D3) branes and focusing on
173: supersymmetric vacua,\footnote{
174: To
175: be more precise, these are SUSY-breaking no scale vacua which turn into
176: supersymmetric AdS vacua once non-perturbative K\"ahler stabilization is
177: taken into account.
178: }
179: one requires $N_{D3}>0$. The flux vector is then subject to the constraint
180: \be
181: \frac{1}{2}N^T\Sigma N\equiv L\le L_* \equiv \frac{\chi_4}{24}\,.
182: \ee
183: The number of SUSY vacua available in this situation was estimated in~\cite{
184: Denef:2004ze} to be
185: \be
186: {\cal N}_{susy}(L\le L_*) \sim \frac{L_*^K}{K!}\,.\label{nsusy}
187: \ee
188:
189: We are, however, interested specifically in realistic vacua (i.e. vacua with
190: small positive cosmological constant) originating from non-perturbative
191: K\"ahler stabilization combined with an anti-D3-brane uplift based on a
192: small positive $N_{\ol{D3}}$. To ensure stability, no freely moving D3 branes
193: should be present in this construction. Furthermore, to guarantee perturbative
194: control and a sufficiently long lifetime of the metastable anti-D3-brane
195: configuration at the bottom of the throat, we require $N_{\ol{D3}}\leq
196: N_{\ol{D3}\,,\,max}$. An upper bound on $N_{\ol{D3}\,,\,max}$ is provided by
197: the classically-allowed decay process studied in~\cite{Kachru:2002gs} which
198: limits the range of metastability to $N_{\ol{D3}}< 0.08 M$ where $M$ is the
199: RR-flux quantum. As in our counting of flux vacua we scan over flux quanta up
200: to $L_*$ we take the parametric dependence $N_{\ol{D3}\,,\,max}\ll L_*$.
201:
202: The number of such `uplifted' vacua can be estimated by an appropriate
203: modification of Eq.~(\ref{nsusy}):
204: \be
205: {\cal N}_{uplift}={\cal N}_{susy}(L_*<L\le L_*+N_{\ol{D3}\,,\,max})
206: \sim N_{\ol{D3}\,,\,max}\,\frac{L_*^{K-1}}{(K\!-\!1)!}\
207: \sim \frac{L_*^K}{K!}\,,
208: \ee
209: where we have Taylor expanded in $N_{\ol{D3}\,,\,max}$ and dropped irrelevant
210: non-exponential factors in the last expression to simplify the final formula.
211: Thus, ${\cal N}_{uplift}$ has the same parametric behaviour as ${\cal
212: N}_{susy}$. Clearly, the cosmological constants of these uplifted vacua can
213: have both signs and vary widely in their value. The source for this
214: variation is the flux superpotential
215: \be
216: W=\int G_3\wedge\Omega\,,
217: \ee
218: which provides a negative contribution $\sim |W_0|^2$ in each vacuum, to be
219: (under- or over-) compensated by the uplift $\sim N_{\ol{D3}}$. Given that
220: both Re$\,W_0$ and Im$\,W_0$ depend linearly on the flux vector, one expects
221: a uniform distribution of vacua in the central region of the complex $W_0$
222: plane. This, in turn, implies a uniform distribution of $|W_0|^2$ on the
223: positive real axis. If we ignore any moderate volume suppression and
224: non-exponential factors depending on $L_*$ and $K$, the maximal size of
225: $W_0$ is string scale (i.e. ${\cal O}(1)$ in our units). Thus, the
226: probability that the negative contribution $\sim |W_0|^2$ compensates a
227: fixed positive $V_{uplift}$ with enough precision to come close to the
228: observed cosmological constant $\Lambda$ is approximately equal to $\epsilon
229: \sim\Lambda
230: \sim 10^{-120}$. ($V_{uplift}$ should be small enough to allow perturbative
231: control but large enough to avoid any peculiarity that the $W_0$
232: distribution might have very close to the origin.) We conclude that one
233: needs geometries with ${\cal N}_{uplift} \sim 10^{120}$ to have ${\cal O}(1)$
234: probability for a (cosmologically) realistic vacuum to exist.
235:
236: We are interested in an estimate for the lowest $K$ that is consistent within
237: the present framework. Thus, we choose $L_*=\chi/24$ as large as possible
238: (within the presently known set of Calabi-Yau 4-folds) and estimate $K$ on
239: the basis of
240: \be
241: \frac{L_*^K}{K!}\sim \frac{1}{\epsilon}\,.\label{keq}
242: \ee
243: Ignoring non-exponential factors in Stirling's formula and assuming
244: that $\log(eL_*/K)\simeq {\cal O}(1)$, one finds $K_0\sim \log(1/\epsilon)$.
245: A better estimate of $K$ follows from replacing $K!$ with $(K_0/e)^K$
246: on the lhs of Eq.~(\ref{keq}) leading to
247: \be
248: K\sim \frac{\log(1/\epsilon)}{\log[eL_*/\log(1/\epsilon)]}\,.
249: \ee
250: For $L_*\sim 10^4$ (see, e.g.,~\cite{Klemm:1996ts}), we find $K\sim 60$,
251: corresponding to $h^{2,1}_-\sim 30$.
252:
253: It is important to keep in mind that this is just a lower bound and
254: that, most probably, the number of cycles of a `typical' flux
255: compactification with realistic cosmological constant is significantly
256: larger. For example, one might say that with typical Calabi-Yaus having
257: $h^{2,1}\sim 100...200$ (see e.g.~\cite{Candelas:1994hw,Avram:1996pj,
258: Denef:2004dm})\footnote{
259: Extreme
260: cases of $h^{2,1}\sim 500$ are known, see, eg,
261: {\tt http://hep.itp.tuwien.ac.at/\~{}kreuzer/CY/}
262: }
263: we can very naively expect that $h^{2,1}_{-}\sim 50...100$ is typical.
264: Moreover, the scaling of the number of vacua (as implied by Eq.~(\ref{keq})
265: for $K<L_*$) suggests that CY's with the largest
266: possible value of $K$ are exponentially preferred in that they allow a far
267: greater number of flux vacua. For example, ${\cal N}_{susy}(K=200)/{\cal
268: N}_{susy}(K=60) \sim 10^{270}$ for fixed $L_*\sim 10^4$.
269:
270: Given our ignorance of the model describing our vacuum as well as of the
271: mechanism choosing physical compactification manifolds, we keep
272: $h^{2,1}_{-}$ and $\chi_4$ (or equivalently $K$ and $L_*$) as unknown
273: parameters with the order of magnitude given above.
274:
275: The complex structure moduli spaces of such complicated orientifold models
276: have not been analyzed in detail. It is clear that they will contain various
277: regions where certain 3-cycles blow up or shrink to zero size. We will
278: henceforth ignore the former `large complex structure' regions although
279: they might, in fact, be interesting and important to study. Instead, in
280: this paper we focus on the singularities arising when one or more of the
281: 3-cycles shrink. We want to argue that, in many cases, these singularities
282: are `nodes' or `ordinary double points', which are particularly common
283: singularities of complex varieties. Nodal 3-folds arise naturally in
284: algebraic topology, one of the prominent examples being the various
285: singular limits of the quintic hypersurface in 4d complex projective space.
286: In this specific case, it is known that the `generic' singular space has a
287: single node~\cite{Lefschetz}. From the perspective of the Calabi-Yau 3-fold
288: defined in this way, such a point corresponds to a conifold
289: singularity~\cite{Candelas:1989js} (which develops as one of the 3-cycles
290: shrinks). Furthermore, a large set of smooth Calabi-Yaus is linked by
291: conifold transitions into a `Web' (including, in particular, the
292: quintic)~\cite{Candelas:1989ug}. In each case, the singular intermediate
293: situation is approached from one side of the transition by the shrinking of
294: a number of 3-cycles with $S^3$-topology (the conifold limit mentioned above)
295: \cite{Curio:2000sc}. From this we conclude that the conifold limit is a common
296: (possibly the generic) way in which a 3-cycle of a Calabi-Yau shrinks. More
297: specifically, we assume in the following that an ${\cal O}(1)$ fraction of the possible
298: limits of shrinking 3-cycles of the models under consideration correspond to
299: conifold points. It is an interesting question (which goes beyond the scope
300: of this work) to understand for how many of the known Calabi-Yau orientifolds
301: this assumption holds.
302:
303: The distribution of flux vacua in the vicinity of such conifold
304: points has been analyzed at least for certain simple examples. It has been
305: found that vacua accumulate near these points. This can be understood
306: intuitively by recalling that the distance $|z|$ from a conifold point is
307: given by~\cite{Giddings:2001yu}
308: \be
309: z\sim \exp(-2\pi P/g_sM)\,.
310: \ee
311: Here $z$ is the complex structure modulus corresponding to the shrinking
312: 3-cycle while $M$ and $P$ are the numbers of flux quanta on the conifold
313: cycle and on its dual. It is then clear that a smooth distribution of flux
314: quanta can lead to a strong enhancement of the number of vacua with
315: exponentially small $z$.
316:
317: More specifically, it was shown in~\cite{Denef:2004ze} that, in a given
318: model with one conifold point at $z=0$ and a fixed tadpole constraint
319: $L_*$, the fraction of vacua with conifold cycle smaller than $|z|$ decays
320: as
321: \be
322: {\cal N}(z)\sim \frac{1}{\log(1/|z|)}\label{enh}
323: \ee
324: for $z\to 0$. Clearly, this implies an enhancement of the number of vacua
325: very close to the conifold point relative to naive expectations that one
326: might have on the basis of the canonical measure on ${\mathbb C}$.
327:
328:
329:
330:
331:
332: \section{Stability issues}
333: Before turning to our main interest, the distribution of throats, we would
334: like to address the stability of the above set of vacua after uplifting.
335:
336: Naively, one might expect the following situation: We focus on the complex
337: structure moduli $z_i$ and the dilaton modulus $\tau$. A generic flux
338: induced modulus mass is ${\cal O}$(1) in string units (if we ignore any
339: volume suppression $\sim{\cal O}(\mbox{few})$). Making the vacuum value
340: $W_0$ of the superpotential $W$ parametrically small by tuning fluxes, we
341: obtain a parametrically small cosmological constant $\Lambda_{\rm AdS}\sim
342: -|W_0|^2$. Consider now the scalar potential
343: \be
344: V=e^K(K^{a\ol{b}}D_aW\ol{D_bW}-3|W|^2)\,\label{sgp}
345: \ee
346: near the supersymmetric point, where $D_aW=0$ and $W=W_0$ (the index $a$
347: labels the moduli $\phi_a=(\tau,z_i)$). The scalar mass matrix near this
348: point gets an ${\cal O}(1)$ contribution from the first term, which is
349: positive definite since the inverse K\"ahler metric has this feature. It
350: also gets (potentially negative) contributions
351: \be
352: \sim -e^KK_{a\ol{b}}|W_0|^2\qquad\mbox{and}\qquad\sim -e^K(D_aD_bW)
353: \bar{W}_0
354: \ee
355: from the second term (where we again used the fact that $D_aW$ vanishes in
356: the vacuum). Thus, in the generic case, all masses should be positive and
357: ${\cal O}(1)$ if $W_0$ is parametrically small. (This can also be argued
358: by appealing to the known stability of supersymmetric vacua in combination
359: with the Breitenlohner-Freedman bound~\cite{Breitenlohner:1982bm}: If all
360: mass squares are ${\cal O}(1)$ and $\Lambda_{\rm AdS}$ is small, all mass
361: squares must be positive.)
362:
363: However, in the conifold limit of the one-modulus case analyzed
364: in~\cite{Denef:2004ze}, this naive expectation was found to be
365: violated and tachyonic directions (implying the danger of physical
366: instabilities after uplifting) were found to be generically present.
367: At the same time, it was argued that this problem will not persist in
368: models with more than one complex structure modulus. We agree with this
369: expectation and we would like to supply an explicit argument in its favour:
370:
371: Ignoring the ${\cal O}(1)$ prefactor $e^K$ and using the parametric smallness
372: of $W_0$, the second-order expression for the supergravity scalar potential,
373: Eq.~(\ref{sgp}), takes the form
374: \be
375: V\sim \delta\phi_a\,W_{ab}\,K^{b\ol{c}}\,\ol{W}_{\ol{c}\ol{d}}\,\delta
376: \ol{\phi}_{\ol{d}}\label{mm}
377: \ee
378: near the vacuum. Here $\delta\phi_a$ is the deviation of $\tau$ (for $a=1$)
379: or any of the complex structure moduli (for $a>1$) from its vacuum value.
380: This is, of course, just the familiar rigid-SUSY expression. It is obvious
381: from Eq.~(\ref{mm}) that a parametrically small eigenvalue of $W_{ab}$ leads
382: to a light scalar field which, taking into account the full supergravity
383: expression (including non-vanishing $W_0$) and the uplift, entails the
384: risk of a tachyonic direction. Indeed, such a small eigenvalue arises in
385: the one-complex-structure-modulus case near the conifold point: The explicit
386: form of the superpotential
387: \be
388: W=A(z)+\tau B(z)\,,
389: \ee
390: implies $W_{11}=0$ and the singular behaviour of the integral over the
391: dual conifold cycle,
392: \be
393: \int_B\Omega=\frac{z}{2\pi i}\log(z)\,+\,\mbox{holomorphic}\,,\label{lnz}
394: \ee
395: implies $W_{22}\sim 1/z$. The 2$\times$2 matrix $W_{ab}$ then develops a
396: parametrically small eigenvalue by the usual see-saw mechanism, which
397: makes the tachyonic direction found in~\cite{Denef:2004ze} possible.
398:
399: The situation changes drastically in the case of two or more complex
400: structure moduli. Let $W_{ab}$ be an $n\times n$ matrix and let $a=n$
401: correspond to the conifold modulus $z$ of Eq.~(\ref{lnz}). While it is
402: still true that $W_{11}=0$ and $W_{nn}$ is parametrically large, this no
403: longer implies the existence of a small eigenvalue. This can be seen by
404: considering the characteristic equation
405: \be
406: \mbox{det}(W_{ab}-\lambda\delta_{ab})=0\,.
407: \ee
408: Clearly, the largeness of $W_{nn}$ implies the existence of a large
409: eigenvalue $\lambda\simeq W_{nn}$. Any further eigenvalue, however, has to
410: solve the equation
411: \be
412: \mbox{det}\left(W_{ab}-\lambda\delta_{ab}\big|_{\{a,b=1\ldots n-1\}}\right)
413: =0\,,
414: \ee
415: approximately. The solutions are simply the eigenvalues of an $(n-1)\times
416: (n-1)$ matrix with vanishing upper-left element, which is otherwise generic.
417: For $n>1$, neither of these eigenvalues is generically small. Thus, we have
418: no reason to expect that the problem of a tachyonic direction observed in the
419: case of a single complex structure modulus will persist.
420:
421: Independently of the above, it may also be useful to observe that the
422: special feature $W_{11}=0$ of the KKLT construction is not generic and can
423: easily be avoided, e.g., by including gaugino condensation on stacks of D3
424: branes at singularities.\footnote{
425: Related
426: discussions of the stability of the KKLT construction can be found, e.g.,
427: in~\cite{Brustein:2004xn,Choi:2004sx}.
428: }
429:
430: Our main conclusion for the following is that the difficulties
431: observed in the one-modulus case do not represent an argument against the
432: existence of many uplifted near-conifold vacua of fluxed multi-modulus
433: Calabi-Yaus.
434:
435:
436:
437:
438:
439: \section{The distribution of throats}
440: We now turn to our main point, which is the interplay between the expected
441: large number of 3-cycles (and hence of potential conifold singularities)
442: and the enhancement of the number of vacua in the vicinity of each of those
443: singularities.
444:
445: Consider the complex structure moduli space of an orientifold model with
446: $\sim K$ $\mbox{3-cycles}$, as discussed in the previous section. We assume,
447: motivated by the example of the quintic and the `Web of Calabi-Yaus', that
448: an ${\cal O}(1)$ fraction of these cycles produce, when they shrink, conifold
449: singularities. Furthermore, we excise all large complex structure regions,
450: ending up with a compact moduli space of complex dimension $K/2$. The various
451: conifold points are described by ${\cal O}(K)$ subspaces of complex
452: co-dimension one which, in general, intersect each other.
453:
454: Let us first focus on one of these conifold points (more properly: on one
455: of the subspaces along which a certain conical singularity persists) and
456: parameterize the moduli space such that the coordinate $z_i$ characterizes
457: the shrinking cycle. Making use of the distribution of vacua near a conifold
458: singularity implied by Eq.~(\ref{enh}), we expect that a randomly chosen
459: flux vacuum will have probability
460: \be
461: p_i(|z_i|)\simeq \frac{1}{c_i\log(1/|z_i|)} \label{prob}
462: \ee
463: to be less than $|z_i|$ away from the conifold point under consideration.
464:
465: The real constant $c_i$ is related to the detailed distribution of vacua
466: away from the conifold point and to the ambiguities which arise in excluding
467: the large complex structure regions. To see this, assume for simplicity
468: that we have excised the region $|z_i|>|z_{i\,,\,max}|$. Clearly, away
469: from the small-$z_i$ region $p_i$ has some more complicated functional form
470: (not explicitly known in general) and it has to satisfy the normalization
471: condition
472: \be
473: p_i(|z_i|)\to 1\qquad\mbox{for}\qquad |z_i|\to|z_{i\,,\,max}|\,.
474: \ee
475: All that we can infer from Eq.~(\ref{enh}) is that $p_i$ is {\it
476: proportional} to $1/\log(1/|z_i|)$ at small $z_i$; the normalization is
477: inextricably linked to the behaviour of $p_i$ at $|z_i|\sim|z_{i\,,\,max}|
478: \sim{\cal O}(1)$. What is worse, $c_i$ is in general a function of the other
479: complex structure moduli, $c_i=c_i(z_1,\dots,z_{i-1},z_{i+1},\ldots,
480: z_{K/2})$ (which we ignored in the above), thereby making a detailed analysis
481: of the full probability distribution highly non-trivial. Thus, all that we
482: can do at the moment is to assume that the various $c_i$ do not vary too
483: rapidly and are not parametrically large or small (for which there is no
484: obvious reason). We will parameterize our ignorance assigning a universal
485: unknown value of the order of one to all these coefficients, $c_i=c$.
486:
487: Let us now recall that, if $z_i$ is stabilized near zero, a strongly warped
488: region or throat with a hierarchy of mass scales
489: \be
490: h_i \sim |z_i|^{-1/3}
491: \ee
492: between the Klebanov-Strassler region (IR end) and the Calabi-Yau region
493: (UV end) develops~\cite{Giddings:2001yu} (see also~\cite{DeWolfe:2002nn}).
494: We conclude from the above that the probability for finding a throat with a
495: hierarchy larger than $h_i$ is
496: \be
497: p_i(h_i)\simeq\frac{1}{3c_i\log\,h_i}\,.
498: \ee
499: Intuitively, this characterizes the probability for being, in the given
500: moduli space, within a slice of a certain thickness that surrounds the
501: hypersurface defined by $z_i=0$.
502:
503: Assuming that these probabilities are uncorrelated for the various
504: conifold hypersurfaces (i.e. for the various $z_i,\, i=1\ldots K$), we can
505: estimate the probability for finding precisely $n$ throats with hierarchy
506: larger than $h_*$. It is given by the probability for being inside $n$ of the
507: $K$ slices and outside the remaining $K-n$ slices, multiplied by a
508: combinatorial factor for choosing inside which slices to be:
509: \be
510: p(n,h>h_*|K)\sim \binom{K}{n}\,p^n(1-p)^{K-n}\qquad\mbox{with}\qquad
511: p\equiv\frac{1}{3c\log h_*}\,.
512: \ee
513: The fact that this `multi-throat probability' is given simply by a
514: binomial distribution with parameters $K$ and $p$ represents one of our main
515: results (or, given the various assumptions above, our main conjecture).
516: Many interesting and potentially phenomenologically relevant questions
517: can now be addressed.
518:
519: For example, given a certain hierarchy factor $h_*$, we can inquire about the
520: expected number of throats with a larger hierarchy. It is given by the
521: well-known mean of the binomial distribution,
522: \be
523: \ol{n}(h>h_*|K)=\sum_{n=0}^K n\,\binom{K}{n}\,p^n(1-p)^{K-n}=Kp=\frac{K}
524: {3c\log h_*}\,.\label{nbar}
525: \ee
526: The crucial but certainly not unexpected point here is that $\bar{n}$ goes
527: to zero very slowly as $h_*$ grows. The variance of $n$, again a familiar
528: result, is
529: \be
530: \mbox{var}(n)=\sum_{n=0}^K(n-\ol{n})^2\,\binom{K}{n}\,p^n(1-p)^{K-n}=
531: Kp(1-p)\,,
532: \ee
533: which is very close to $\ol{n}$ for $p\ll 1$. Thus, the expected number of
534: throats is
535: \be
536: \ol{n}\pm\sqrt{\ol{n}}\,,
537: \ee
538: with $\ol{n}$ as given in Eq.~(\ref{nbar}).
539:
540: For a given $K$ the probability that at least one throat has hierarchy
541: exceeding some specified $h_*$ is given by
542: \be
543: P(h>h_*|K) = \left(1-\frac{1}{3c\log h_*}\right)^K \left[ \left(1+\frac{1}
544: {3 c \log h_* -1}\right)^K -1\right]\,.\label{atleast}
545: \ee
546: Figure~1 shows this function against $\log h_*$ for $c=1$ and $K$
547: taking the values $60$ and $200$. It is noteworthy that there is a very
548: slow decrease of the probability with throat length,
549: and that at 50\% likelihood there exist throats of hierarchy greater than
550: $\exp(28)\sim 10^{12}$, and $\exp(95)\sim 10^{41}$ as
551: $K$ varies from 60 to 200. Not surprisingly, Eq.~(\ref{atleast}) coincides
552: with Eq.~(\ref{nbar}) if $K/3c\log(h_*)\ll 1$.
553:
554: \begin{figure}
555: \begin{center}
556: \includegraphics[width=10cm]{hierarchy.eps}
557: \caption{Probability that at least one throat has hierarchy $h>h_*$ as a
558: function of $\log h_*$. Reading from bottom to top the curves correspond to
559: the choices $K=60$ and 200 (both taking $c=1$).}
560: \label{pot}
561: \end{center}
562: \end{figure}
563:
564: Another interesting quantity is the hierarchy $h_1$ of the longest expected
565: throat. A simply estimate of this quantity is provided by solving
566: \be
567: \ol{n}(h>h_1|K)\sim 1
568: \ee
569: for $h_1$. The result is
570: \be
571: \log h_1\sim\frac{K}{3c}\,.\label{h1}
572: \ee
573: Alternatively, we can ask for which $h_1$ the one-throat-probability is
574: maximized,
575: \be
576: \frac{d}{d\,h_1}\,p(1,h>h_1|K)=0\,.
577: \ee
578: The result is consistent with Eq.~(\ref{h1}). Yet another way to state
579: the same problem is to ask, at fixed $h_1$, for the value of $K$ which gives
580: the maximal value for $p(1,h>h_1|K)$. Again, the resulting relation of $h_1$
581: and $K$ is approximately that of Eq.~(\ref{h1}).
582:
583: Furthermore, a very simple but important quantity is the probability of having
584: no throat with a hierarchy larger than $h_*$,
585: \be
586: p(0,h>h_*|K)\simeq (1-p)^K \simeq \exp\left(-\frac{K}{3c\log h_*}\right)
587: \,.\label{p0}
588: \ee
589: As expected, this is a very small number for large $K$ and not too large
590: hierarchies. We consider this together with the expected number of throats,
591: Eq.~(\ref{nbar}), the expected hierarchy of the longest throat,
592: Eq.~(\ref{h1}), and the one-throat-probability of Fig.~\ref{pot} to be the
593: main results of this section.
594:
595: Finally, using Eq.~(\ref{atleast}) it might also be possible to gain
596: information on $K$ independent of the fine-tuning of the cosmological constant
597: by conditioning on the existence of an electro-weak throat with IR
598: scale $\sim$TeV. Using Bayes' theorem the conditional probability
599: distribution for $K$ given that there exists at least one throat with $h\geq
600: h_{EW}$ is
601: \be
602: P(K|n(h_{EW})\geq 1) = \frac{P(h>h_{EW}|K) P(K)}{\Sigma_{K'=1}^{K_{max}}
603: P(h>h_{EW}|K') P(K')} .\label{ewprior}
604: \ee
605: If we conservatively assume a flat prior distribution for $K$, $P(K) =
606: 1/K_{max}$ and take as an illustrative example $K_{max}=200$ and $c=1$, then
607: a numerical evaluation of Eq.~(\ref{ewprior}) leads to an {\it a posteriori}
608: mean ${\bar K} \sim 124$.
609:
610:
611:
612:
613: \section{Possible phenomenological implications}
614: To discuss possible phenomenological implications, we have to quantify the
615: expected hierarchies $h$, which depend crucially on the number of cycles $K$.
616: Since, at the fundamental level, we are ignorant about $K$ and, moreover, $K$
617: appears in the combination $K/3c$ (with an unknown ${\cal O}(1)$-constant
618: $c$), we take the following pragmatic approach:
619:
620: We consider two scenarios, one conservative and one more favourable: In the
621: conservative case, we choose $K=60$ (roughly the minimal value consistent
622: with fine-tuning $\Lambda$) and
623: $c=3$, such that the relevant combination of these two parameters takes the
624: low value $K/3c\simeq 7$. In the favourable case, we choose $K=200$
625: (consistent with typical Calabi-Yau values, maybe somewhat at the high side,
626: but not extreme). Together with $c=1/3$ this gives the high value
627: $K/3c\simeq 200$.
628:
629: In the conservative case, Eq.~(\ref{h1}) implies that the longest throat
630: typically has a hierarchy $\sim 10^3$. This clearly also means that,
631: specifying a minimal hierarchy $10^3$, we expect about one throat with
632: a hierarchy above that value. We can also infer that we have to expect about
633: 3 throats with hierarchy 10 or larger. Even though these numbers are not
634: very impressive, they clearly imply that dynamically generated scales
635: of $\sim 10^{-3}M_P$ are natural in the present branch of the landscape.
636: The above short throats can play an important role in inflation or
637: simply to ensure a small (and hence perturbatively controlled) anti-D3-brane
638: uplift. Thus, even though no spectacular low-energy effects can be predicted
639: in this conservative setting, moderate throats are indeed `ubiquitous'.
640:
641: What is maybe more impressive is the small statistical price that one pays
642: for having a moderately long throat. For example, the expectation value for
643: the number of throats with hierarchy above $10^6$ is $0.5$. In other words,
644: low scale SUSY in the KKLT setting (see e.g.~\cite{Choi:2005ge}) is perfectly
645: plausible and does not require any extra fine-tuning. Even more, demanding a
646: hierarchy of $10^{13}$ or higher, one still finds an expectation value
647: for the throat number of approximately $0.23$. In other words, generating
648: the electroweak hierarchy is also very plausible since about 1 in 4
649: vacua have a sufficiently long throat. However, we can clearly not claim
650: that throats of this length are unavoidable.
651:
652: We now turn to the case $K/3c=200$, where things look very different
653: indeed. The longest expected throat produces a huge hierarchy $\sim 10^{80}$.
654: Thus, we expect almost conformal field theories with very low IR cutoff (which
655: are presumably only gravitationally coupled to standard model matter) to
656: be abundant. Specifically, not having a throat with hierarchy $10^{29}$ or
657: larger (corresponding to an IR scale of meV) has probability of about 5\%
658: (cf. Eq.~(\ref{p0})). In other words, hidden sectors with dynamical scales
659: $\sim$meV or below are a {\it prediction} of this setting. Clearly, the above
660: can have very important cosmological implications as far as dark matter or
661: dark radiation are concerned. Just to give one more numerical implication
662: of the formulae of the last section: The expected number of throats with a
663: hierarchy larger than $M_P/M_{EW}\sim 10^{14}$ is $\bar{n}\sim 6$. Thus,
664: several electroweak-scale hidden sectors are a natural occurrence. The
665: phenomenological and cosmological implications of this scenario clearly
666: depend very strongly on whether `we' are in the throat or on the Calabi-Yau,
667: where inflation took place and how strongly throat sectors are coupled
668: to each other and to light fields localized in the UV.
669: Away from the cosmological context there are two outstanding possibilities
670: for signatures of long throats with IR scale at or below the weak scale which
671: have been partially investigated: invisible Higgs decays to hidden sector
672: particles\cite{Patt:2006fw}, and kinetic mixing of hypercharge with
673: hidden-sector U(1)'s\cite{Kumar:2006gm}. All we can say at
674: present is that the various scenarios of this type studied in the
675: literature appear to be everything else but exotic.
676:
677:
678: \section{Conclusions}
679: Based on a number of assumptions, we have quantified the expectation that
680: throats are common in the type IIB landscape. The crucial starting point
681: is the large number of 3-cycles which the compact space is expected to have.
682: This can be quantified in two ways: conservatively, by taking the minimal
683: number which allows for the fine-tuning of $\Lambda$, or more optimistically,
684: by taking a number which is typical for the more complicated Calabi-Yau
685: manifolds. Given this large number of cycles (all of which generically
686: carry a certain discrete flux number), one has to expect that by pure
687: chance the flux on some of these cycles will be relatively small. Those
688: cycles are stabilized at small size, which generically leads to the
689: development of a throat and a large hierarchy of scales. We have made this
690: last argument more precise on the basis of the known behaviour of the
691: density of flux vacua near conifold points.
692:
693: Our main technical results are simple formulae for the expectation value of
694: the number of throats with a certain hierarchy and for the probability of
695: having no throat with a hierarchy larger than some given value. The
696: numerical predictions depend on the uncertain total number of 3-cycles
697: mentioned above and on the details of the flux distribution away from the
698: conifold points. Even with conservative assumptions about both of these
699: unknown quantities, short throats (with hierarchies $\sim 10^3$) are
700: generically expected while longer throats (with electroweak hierarchy)
701: are at least not uncommon. Taking optimistic values for the unknown
702: input data, we find that extreme hierarchies $\sim 10^{80}$ are expected and
703: throats with electroweak hierarchy represent a firm statistical prediction.
704:
705: While these findings confirm the claim of our title that throats are
706: ubiquitous in the type IIB landscape, the typical length of those throats
707: is quite uncertain at present. In this respect the main open questions are
708: how complex a Calabi-Yau we should be looking for and a quantitative
709: understanding of the `bulk' of the high-dimensional moduli space of such
710: manifolds. Furthermore, a better understanding of the role played by the
711: large complex structure regions (which we have ignored in this analysis)
712: is highly desirable.
713:
714: Finally, even though many important questions remain unanswered, we consider
715: one conclusion as relatively firm: Throats are common in the presently best
716: understood part of the string-theory landscape and should thus be taken
717: very seriously both in string-theoretic and phenomenological model building.
718: Given the very general setting we have been working with and the small
719: number of assumptions that we had to make, we are optimistic that
720: throats will become one of the most firm and concrete predictions of the
721: type IIB landscape. We would like to view this as strong support for
722: phenomenological research in 5d Randall-Sundrum-like model, put within the
723: more specific limits of their type IIB realization~\cite{Gherghetta:2006yq}.
724: At the same time one should, however, keep in mind that, if the `favourable'
725: scenario of many very long throats is confirmed and cosmological problems
726: with the various light fields are established, this whole line of thinking may
727: turn into a serious argument against the type IIB landscape.
728:
729: \noindent
730: {\bf Acknowledgements}:\hspace*{.5cm}We would like to thank Savas Dimopoulos
731: and Maximilian Kreuzer for helpful discussions. We thank the Galileo Galilei
732: Institute for Theoretical Physics for hospitality and the INFN for partial
733: support during the completion of this work.
734:
735: %\vspace*{-.5cm}
736: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
737:
738: \bibitem{Giddings:2001yu}
739: S.~B.~Giddings, S.~Kachru and J.~Polchinski,
740: ``Hierarchies from fluxes in string compactifications,''
741: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 66} (2002) 106006 [arXiv:hep-th/0105097].
742: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0105097;%%
743:
744: \bibitem{earlywarp}
745: S.~Sethi, C.~Vafa and E.~Witten,
746: ``Constraints on low-dimensional string compactifications,''
747: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 480} (1996) 213
748: [arXiv:hep-th/9606122];\\
749: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9606122;%%
750: K.~Dasgupta, G.~Rajesh and S.~Sethi,
751: ``M theory, orientifolds and G-flux,''
752: JHEP {\bf 9908} (1999) 023
753: [arXiv:hep-th/9908088];\\
754: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9908088;%%
755: B.~R.~Greene, K.~Schalm and G.~Shiu,
756: ``Warped compactifications in M and F theory,''
757: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 584}, 480 (2000)
758: [arXiv:hep-th/0004103].
759: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0004103;%%
760:
761: \bibitem{Verlinde:1999fy}
762: H.~L.~Verlinde, ``Holography and compactification,''
763: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 580}, 264 (2000) [arXiv:hep-th/9906182];\\
764: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9906182;%%
765: %\bibitem{Chan:2000ms}
766: C.~S.~Chan, P.~L.~Paul and H.~L.~Verlinde, ``A note on warped string
767: compactification,'' Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 581} (2000) 156
768: [arXiv:hep-th/0003236].
769: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0003236;%%
770:
771: \bibitem{Grana:2005jc}
772: M.~Grana, ``Flux compactifications in string theory: A comprehensive
773: review,'' Phys.\ Rept.\ {\bf 423} (2006) 91 [arXiv:hep-th/0509003].
774: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0509003;%%
775:
776: \bibitem{Kachru:2003aw}
777: S.~Kachru, R.~Kallosh, A.~Linde and S.~P.~Trivedi, ``De Sitter vacua in
778: string theory,'' Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 68} (2003) 046005
779: [arXiv:hep-th/0301240].
780: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0301240;%%
781:
782: \bibitem{landscape}
783: R.~Bousso and J.~Polchinski,
784: ``Quantization of four-form fluxes and dynamical neutralization of the
785: cosmological constant,''
786: JHEP {\bf 0006} (2000) 006
787: [arXiv:hep-th/0004134];\\
788: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0004134;%%
789: J.~L.~Feng, J.~March-Russell, S.~Sethi and F.~Wilczek,
790: ``Saltatory relaxation of the cosmological constant,''
791: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 602} (2001) 307
792: [arXiv:hep-th/0005276].
793: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0005276;%%
794:
795:
796:
797:
798: \bibitem{Douglas:2003um}
799: M.~R.~Douglas, ``The statistics of string / M theory vacua,''
800: JHEP {\bf 0305} (2003) 046 [arXiv:hep-th/0303194];\\
801: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0303194;%%
802: %\bibitem{Ashok:2003gk}
803: S.~Ashok and M.~R.~Douglas, ``Counting flux vacua,''
804: JHEP {\bf 0401} (2004) 060 [arXiv:hep-th/0307049].
805: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0307049;%%
806:
807: \bibitem{Denef:2004ze}
808: F.~Denef and M.~R.~Douglas, ``Distributions of flux vacua,''
809: JHEP {\bf 0405}, 072 (2004) [arXiv:hep-th/0404116].
810: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0404116;%%
811:
812: \bibitem{Denef:2004cf}
813: F.~Denef and M.~R.~Douglas, ``Distributions of nonsupersymmetric flux
814: vacua,'' JHEP {\bf 0503} (2005) 061 [arXiv:hep-th/0411183].
815: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0411183;%%
816:
817: \bibitem{Balasubramanian:2004uy}
818: V.~Balasubramanian and P.~Berglund, ``Stringy corrections to Kaehler
819: potentials, SUSY breaking, and the cosmological constant problem,''
820: JHEP {\bf 0411} (2004) 085 [arXiv:hep-th/0408054];\\
821: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0408054;%%
822: %\bibitem{Bobkov:2004cy}
823: K.~Bobkov, ``Volume stabilization via alpha' corrections in type IIB theory
824: with fluxes,'' JHEP {\bf 0505} (2005) 010 [arXiv:hep-th/0412239].
825: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0412239;%%
826:
827: \bibitem{Balasubramanian:2005zx}
828: V.~Balasubramanian, P.~Berglund, J.~P.~Conlon and F.~Quevedo, ``Systematics
829: of moduli stabilisation in Calabi-Yau flux compactifications,'' JHEP {\bf
830: 0503} (2005) 007 [arXiv:hep-th/0502058];\\
831: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0502058;%%
832: %\bibitem{Conlon:2005ki}
833: J.~P.~Conlon, F.~Quevedo and K.~Suruliz,
834: ``Large-volume flux compactifications: Moduli spectrum and D3/D7 soft
835: supersymmetry breaking,'' JHEP {\bf 0508} (2005) 007 [arXiv:hep-th/0505076].
836: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0505076;%%
837:
838: \bibitem{Saltman:2004sn}
839: A.~Saltman and E.~Silverstein, ``The scaling of the no-scale potential and
840: de Sitter model building,'' JHEP {\bf 0411} (2004) 066
841: [arXiv:hep-th/0402135].
842: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0402135;%%
843:
844: \bibitem{vonGersdorff:2005bf}
845: G.~von Gersdorff and A.~Hebecker, ``Kaehler corrections for the volume
846: modulus of flux compactifications,'' Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 624} (2005) 270
847: [arXiv:hep-th/0507131];\\
848: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0507131;%%
849: %\bibitem{Berg:2005ja}
850: M.~Berg, M.~Haack and B.~Kors, ``String loop corrections to Kaehler
851: potentials in orientifolds,'' JHEP {\bf 0511} (2005) 030
852: [arXiv:hep-th/0508043]
853: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0508043;%%
854: and
855: %\bibitem{Berg:2005yu} M.~Berg, M.~Haack and B.~Kors,
856: ``On volume stabilization by quantum corrections,'' Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\
857: {\bf 96} (2006) 021601 [arXiv:hep-th/0508171];\\
858: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0508171;%%
859: %\bibitem{Parameswaran:2006jh}
860: S.~L.~Parameswaran and A.~Westphal, ``de Sitter string vacua from
861: perturbative Kaehler corrections and consistent D-terms,''
862: arXiv:hep-th/0602253.
863: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0602253;%%
864:
865: \bibitem{Candelas:1989js}
866: P.~Candelas and X.~C.~de la Ossa,
867: ``Comments On Conifolds,''
868: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 342} (1990) 246.
869: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B342,246;%%
870:
871: \bibitem{Klebanov:1998hh}
872: I.~R.~Klebanov and E.~Witten, ``Superconformal field theory on threebranes
873: at a Calabi-Yau singularity,'' Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 536} (1998) 199
874: [arXiv:hep-th/9807080];\\
875: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9807080;%%
876: %\bibitem{Klebanov:1999rd}
877: I.~R.~Klebanov and N.~A.~Nekrasov, ``Gravity duals of fractional branes and
878: logarithmic RG flow,'' Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 574} (2000) 263
879: [arXiv:hep-th/9911096];\\
880: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9911096;%%
881: %\bibitem{Klebanov:2000nc}
882: I.~R.~Klebanov and A.~A.~Tseytlin, ``Gravity duals of supersymmetric SU(N)
883: x SU(N+M) gauge theories,'' Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 578} (2000) 123
884: [arXiv:hep-th/0002159].
885: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0002159;%%
886:
887: \bibitem{Klebanov:2000hb}
888: I.~R.~Klebanov and M.~J.~Strassler, ``Supergravity and a confining gauge
889: theory: Duality cascades and $\chi$SB-resolution of naked singularities,''
890: JHEP {\bf 0008} (2000) 052 [arXiv:hep-th/0007191].
891: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0007191;%%
892:
893: \bibitem{Randall:1999ee}
894: L.~Randall and R.~Sundrum, ``A large mass hierarchy from a small extra
895: dimension,'' Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 83} (1999) 3370
896: [arXiv:hep-ph/9905221] and
897: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9905221;%%
898: %\bibitem{Randall:1999vf} L.~Randall and R.~Sundrum,
899: ``An alternative to compactification,'' Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 83}
900: (1999) 4690 [arXiv:hep-th/9906064].
901: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9906064;%%
902:
903:
904:
905: \bibitem{Goldberger:1999uk}
906: W.~D.~Goldberger and M.~B.~Wise, ``Modulus stabilization with bulk fields,''
907: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 83} (1999) 4922 [arXiv:hep-ph/9907447].
908: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9907447;%%
909:
910: \bibitem{smallnumbers}
911: S.~Dimopoulos, S.~Kachru, N.~Kaloper, A.~E.~Lawrence and E.~Silverstein,
912: ``Small numbers from tunneling between brane throats,''
913: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 64} (2001) 121702
914: [arXiv:hep-th/0104239]; ``Generating small numbers by tunneling in
915: multi-throat compactifications,
916: Int.\ J.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 19} (2004) 2657
917: [arXiv:hep-th/0106128].
918: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0106128;%%
919:
920:
921:
922: \bibitem{Barnaby:2004gg}
923: N.~Barnaby, C.~P.~Burgess and J.~M.~Cline, ``Warped reheating in
924: brane-antibrane inflation,'' JCAP {\bf 0504}, 007 (2005)
925: [arXiv:hep-th/0412040];\\
926: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0412040;%%
927: %\bibitem{Kofman:2005yz}
928: L.~Kofman and P.~Yi, ``Reheating the universe after string theory
929: inflation,'' Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 72} (2005) 106001
930: [arXiv:hep-th/0507257];\\
931: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0507257;%%
932: %\bibitem{Frey:2005jk}
933: A.~R.~Frey, A.~Mazumdar and R.~Myers, ``Stringy effects during inflation
934: and reheating,'' Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 73} (2006) 026003
935: [arXiv:hep-th/0508139];\\
936: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0508139;%%
937: %\bibitem{Chialva:2005zy}
938: D.~Chialva, G.~Shiu and B.~Underwood,
939: ``Warped reheating in multi-throat brane inflation,''
940: JHEP {\bf 0601} (2006) 014
941: [arXiv:hep-th/0508229];\\
942: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0508229;%%
943: %\bibitem{Firouzjahi:2005qs}
944: H.~Firouzjahi and S.~H.~Tye,
945: ``The shape of gravity in a warped deformed conifold,''
946: JHEP {\bf 0601} (2006) 136
947: [arXiv:hep-th/0512076].
948: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0512076;%%
949: %\bibitem{Chen:2006ni}
950: X.~Chen and S.~H.~Tye, ``Heating in brane inflation and hidden dark
951: matter,'' arXiv:hep-th/0602136.
952: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0602136;%%
953:
954: \bibitem{Cascales:2003wn}
955: J.~F.~G.~Cascales, M.~P.~Garcia del Moral, F.~Quevedo and A.~M.~Uranga,
956: ``Realistic D-brane models on warped throats: Fluxes, hierarchies and
957: moduli stabilization,'' JHEP {\bf 0402} (2004) 031 [arXiv:hep-th/0312051];\\
958: %\bibitem{Cacciapaglia:2006tg}
959: G.~Cacciapaglia, C.~Csaki, C.~Grojean and J.~Terning,
960: ``Field theory on multi-throat backgrounds,'' arXiv:hep-ph/0604218.
961: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0604218;%%
962:
963: \bibitem{Giryavets:2004zr}
964: A.~Giryavets, S.~Kachru and P.~K.~Tripathy, ``On the taxonomy of flux
965: vacua,'' JHEP {\bf 0408} (2004) 002 [arXiv:hep-th/0404243].
966: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0404243;%%
967:
968: \bibitem{Conlon:2004ds}
969: J.~P.~Conlon and F.~Quevedo, ``On the explicit construction and statistics
970: of Calabi-Yau flux vacua,'' JHEP {\bf 0410} (2004) 039
971: [arXiv:hep-th/0409215].
972: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0409215;%%
973:
974: \bibitem{Eguchi:2005eh}
975: T.~Eguchi and Y.~Tachikawa,
976: ``Distribution of flux vacua around singular points in Calabi-Yau moduli
977: space,'' JHEP {\bf 0601} (2006) 100 [arXiv:hep-th/0510061].
978: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0510061;%%
979:
980: \bibitem{Kachru:2002gs}
981: S.~Kachru, J.~Pearson and H.~L.~Verlinde, ``Brane/flux annihilation and
982: the string dual of a non-supersymmetric field theory,''
983: JHEP {\bf 0206} (2002) 021 [arXiv:hep-th/0112197];\\
984: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0112197;%%
985: %\bibitem{Frey:2003dm}
986: A.~R.~Frey, M.~Lippert and B.~Williams, ``The fall of stringy de Sitter,''
987: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 68} (2003) 046008 [arXiv:hep-th/0305018].
988: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0305018;%%
989:
990: \bibitem{Klemm:1996ts}
991: A.~Klemm, B.~Lian, S.~S.~Roan and S.~T.~Yau, ``Calabi-Yau fourfolds for
992: M- and F-theory compactifications,'' Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 518} (1998) 515
993: [arXiv:hep-th/9701023].
994: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9701023;%%
995:
996: \bibitem{Candelas:1994hw}
997: P.~Candelas, A.~Font, S.~Katz and D.~R.~Morrison,
998: ``Mirror symmetry for two parameter models. 2,''
999: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 429}, 626 (1994)
1000: [arXiv:hep-th/9403187].
1001: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9403187;%%
1002:
1003: \bibitem{Avram:1996pj}
1004: A.~C.~Avram, M.~Kreuzer, M.~Mandelberg and H.~Skarke, ``Searching for K3
1005: fibrations,'' Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 494} (1997) 567 [arXiv:hep-th/9610154].
1006: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9610154;%%
1007:
1008: \bibitem{Denef:2004dm}
1009: F.~Denef, M.~R.~Douglas and B.~Florea,
1010: ``Building a better racetrack,''
1011: JHEP {\bf 0406}, 034 (2004)
1012: [arXiv:hep-th/0404257].
1013: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0404257;%%
1014:
1015: \bibitem{Lefschetz} S.~Lefschetz, ``L'Analysis Situs et la G\'{e}ometri\'{e}
1016: Alg\'{e}brique'', Gauthier-Villars, Paris, 1924; reprinted in ``Selected
1017: Papers'', Chelsea, New York, 1971, pp. 283-439.
1018:
1019: \bibitem{Candelas:1989ug}
1020: P.~Candelas, P.~S.~Green and T.~Hubsch, ``Rolling Among Calabi-Yau Vacua,''
1021: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 330}, 49 (1990);\\
1022: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B330,49;%%
1023: %\bibitem{Greene:1995hu}
1024: B.~R.~Greene, D.~R.~Morrison and A.~Strominger, ``Black hole condensation
1025: and the unification of string vacua,'' Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 451} (1995)
1026: 109 [arXiv:hep-th/9504145].
1027: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9504145;%%
1028:
1029:
1030: \bibitem{Curio:2000sc}
1031: For a nice discussion of Calabi-Yau singularities, see for example,
1032: G.~Curio, A.~Klemm, D.~Lust and S.~Theisen,
1033: ``On the vacuum structure of type II string compactifications on Calabi-Yau
1034: spaces with H-fluxes,''
1035: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 609} (2001) 3
1036: [arXiv:hep-th/0012213].
1037: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0012213;%%
1038:
1039:
1040: \bibitem{Breitenlohner:1982bm}
1041: P.~Breitenlohner and D.~Z.~Freedman, ``Positive Energy In Anti-De Sitter
1042: Backgrounds And Gauged Extended Supergravity,'' Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 115}
1043: (1982) 197.
1044: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B115,197;%%
1045:
1046: \bibitem{Brustein:2004xn}
1047: R.~Brustein and S.~P.~de Alwis, ``Moduli potentials in string
1048: compactifications with fluxes: Mapping the discretuum,''
1049: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 69} (2004) 126006 [arXiv:hep-th/0402088].
1050: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0402088;%%
1051:
1052: \bibitem{Choi:2004sx}
1053: K.~Choi, A.~Falkowski, H.~P.~Nilles, M.~Olechowski and S.~Pokorski,
1054: ``Stability of flux compactifications and the pattern of supersymmetry
1055: breaking,'' JHEP {\bf 0411} (2004) 076 [arXiv:hep-th/0411066];\\
1056: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0411066;%%
1057: %\bibitem{deAlwis:2005tf}
1058: S.~P.~de Alwis, ``Effective potentials for light moduli,''
1059: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 626} (2005) 223 [arXiv:hep-th/0506266]
1060: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0506266;%%
1061: and
1062: %\bibitem{deAlwis:2006sz}
1063: ``Potentials for light moduli in supergravity and string theory,''
1064: arXiv:hep-th/0602182;\\
1065: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0602182;%%
1066: G.~Curio and V.~Spillner,
1067: ``On the modified KKLT procedure: A case study for the P(11169)(18) model,''
1068: arXiv:hep-th/0606047;\\
1069: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0606047;%%
1070: H.~Abe, T.~Higaki and T.~Kobayashi,
1071: ``Remark on integrating out heavy moduli in flux compactification,''
1072: arXiv:hep-th/0606095.
1073: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0606095;%%
1074:
1075:
1076: \bibitem{DeWolfe:2002nn}
1077: O.~DeWolfe and S.~B.~Giddings, ``Scales and hierarchies in warped
1078: compactifications and brane worlds,'' Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 67} (2003) 066008
1079: [arXiv:hep-th/0208123];\\
1080: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0208123;%%
1081: %\bibitem{Giddings:2005ff}
1082: S.~B.~Giddings and A.~Maharana, ``Dynamics of warped compactifications and
1083: the shape of the warped landscape,'' Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 73} (2006) 126003
1084: [arXiv:hep-th/0507158].
1085: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0507158;%%
1086:
1087: \bibitem{Choi:2005ge}
1088: K.~Choi, A.~Falkowski, H.~P.~Nilles and M.~Olechowski,
1089: ``Soft supersymmetry breaking in KKLT flux compactification,''
1090: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 718} (2005) 113 [arXiv:hep-th/0503216].
1091: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0503216;%%
1092:
1093: \bibitem{Patt:2006fw}
1094: B.~Patt and F.~Wilczek, ``Higgs-field portal into hidden sectors,''
1095: arXiv:hep-ph/0605188.
1096: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0605188;%%
1097:
1098: \bibitem{Kumar:2006gm}
1099: J.~Kumar and J.~D.~Wells, ``LHC and ILC probes of hidden-sector gauge
1100: bosons,'' arXiv:hep-ph/0606183.
1101: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0606183;%%
1102:
1103: \bibitem{Gherghetta:2006yq}
1104: T.~Gherghetta and J.~Giedt, ``Bulk fields in AdS(5) from probe D7
1105: branes,'' arXiv:hep-th/0605212;\\
1106: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0605212;%%
1107: %\bibitem{Brummer:2005sh}
1108: F.~Br\"ummer, A.~Hebecker and E.~Trincherini, ``The throat as a
1109: Randall-Sund\-rum model with Goldberger-Wise stabilization,'' Nucl.\ Phys.\
1110: B {\bf 738} (2006) 283 [arXiv:hep-th/0510113];\\
1111: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0510113;%%
1112: %\bibitem{Brummer:2006dg}
1113: F.~Br\"ummer, A.~Hebecker and M.~Trapletti, ``SUSY breaking mediation by
1114: throat fields,'' arXiv:hep-th/0605232.
1115: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0605232;%%
1116:
1117: \end{thebibliography}
1118: \end{document}
1119: