1: \documentclass[titlepage,12pt]{article}
2: \usepackage{amsmath,amssymb,amscd,graphicx,epsfig}
3: \setlength{\textwidth}{16.4cm}
4: \setlength{\textheight}{22cm}
5: \addtolength{\oddsidemargin}{-14mm}
6: \addtolength{\topmargin}{-12mm}
7: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}
8: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}
9: %\xyoption{matrix}\xyoption{arrow}\xyoption{frame}
10: \begin{document}
11: \addtolength{\baselineskip}{1mm}
12: \setlength{\parskip}{.5mm}
13:
14: \addtolength{\abovedisplayskip}{1.5mm}
15: \addtolength{\belowdisplayskip}{1.5mm}
16:
17: \begin{titlepage}
18: \begin{center}
19:
20:
21: %\hfill SU-ITP-01/50,~SLAC-PUB-9083}}
22: {\hbox to\hsize{
23: \hfill PUPT-2209,~DUKE-CGTP-06-03}}
24:
25:
26: {\hbox to\hsize{\hfill hep-th/0610007}}
27:
28:
29: \vspace{3cm}
30:
31: {\Large \bf D-branes at Singularities,\\[6mm]
32: Compactification, %\\[6mm]
33: and Hypercharge}\\[1.5cm]
34:
35: {\large Matthew Buican${}^a$, Dmitry Malyshev${}^{a,}\footnote{On leave from ITEP Russia, Moscow, B Cheremushkinskaya, 25}$, David R. Morrison${}^{b,c}$,
36: \\[4mm] Herman Verlinde${}^a$ and Martijn Wijnholt${}^{a,d}$}\\[8mm]
37:
38:
39: ${}^a$ {\it Department of Physics, Princeton University, Princeton,
40: NJ 08544}\\[2mm]
41: ${}^b$ {\it Center for Geometry and Theoretical Physics, Duke University, Durham,
42: NC 27708}\\[2mm]
43: ${}^c$ {\it Departments of Physics and Mathematics, Univ.\ of California,
44: Santa Barbara, CA 93106}\\[2mm]
45: ${}^d$ {\it Max-Planck-Institut f\"ur Gravitationsphysik,
46: Albert-Einstein-Institut,
47: %Am Muhlenberg1,
48: Potsdam, Germany}
49: \vspace*{2.2cm}
50:
51:
52:
53: \end{center}
54: \noindent
55: We report on progress towards the construction of SM-like gauge theories on
56: the world-volume of D-branes at a Calabi--Yau singularity. In particular, we work
57: out the topological conditions on the embedding of the singularity inside a
58: compact CY threefold, that select hypercharge as the only light $U(1)$ gauge factor.
59: We apply this insight to the proposed open string realization of the SM of hep-th/0508089,
60: based on a D3-brane at a $dP_8$ singularity, and present a
61: geometric construction of a compact Calabi--Yau threefold with all the required
62: topological properties. We comment on the relevance of D-instantons to the breaking
63: of global $U(1)$ symmetries in D-brane models.
64:
65:
66:
67: \end{titlepage}
68: \newpage
69: \tableofcontents
70:
71: \renewcommand{\footnotesize}{\small}
72: \newpage
73:
74: \newcommand{\ba}{\begin{eqnarray}
75: \addtolength{\abovedisplayskip}{1.2mm}
76: \addtolength{\belowdisplayskip}{1.2mm}}
77: \newcommand{\ea}{\end{eqnarray}}
78: \newcommand{\bea}{\begin{eqnarray*}}
79: \newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray*}}
80:
81: \newcommand{\FF}{{\mathsf F}}
82: \newcommand{\sss}{{\! s}}
83: \newcommand{\aaa}{{\mbox{\scriptsize \sc a}}}
84: \newcommand{\bbb}{{\mbox{\scriptsize \sc b}}}
85: \newcommand{\N}{{\mathcal{N}}}
86: \newcommand{\D}{{\mathcal{D}}}
87: \newcommand{\La}{{\mathcal{L}}}
88: \newcommand{\OO}{{\mathcal{O}}}
89:
90:
91:
92: \newcommand{\ub}{\underbrace}
93:
94:
95: \newcommand{\newsection}[1]{
96: \addtocounter{section}{1} %\setcounter{equation}{0}
97: \setcounter{subsection}{0} \addcontentsline{toc}{section}{\protect
98: \numberline{\arabic{section}}{{\rm #1}}} \vglue .0cm \pagebreak[3]
99: \noindent{\large \bf \thesection. #1}\nopagebreak[4]\par\vskip .3cm}
100: %
101: \newcommand{\newsubsection}[1]{
102: \addtocounter{subsection}{1}
103: \addcontentsline{toc}{subsection}{\protect
104: \numberline{\arabic{section}.\arabic{subsection}}{ #1}} \vglue .0cm
105: \pagebreak[3] \noindent{\it \thesubsection. #1}\nopagebreak[4]\par\vskip .3cm}
106:
107: \newcommand{\Z}{{\mathbb{Z}}}
108: \newcommand{\R}{{\mathbb{R}}}
109: \newcommand{\C}{{\mathbb{C}}}
110: \newcommand{\PP}{{\mathbb{P}}}
111: \newcommand{\HH}{{\mathcal{H}}}
112: \newcommand{\Hd}{{\mathcal{H}}^*}
113: \newcommand{\lb}{\label}
114: \newcommand{\g}{\gamma}
115: \newcommand{\G}{\Gamma}
116: \newcommand{\ra}{\rightarrow}
117: \newcommand{\lra}{\longrightarrow}
118: \newcommand{\overar}{\overrightarrow}
119: \newcommand{\wt}{\widetilde}
120: \newcommand{\td}{\tilde}
121: \newcommand{\e}{\epsilon}
122: \newcommand{\al}{\alpha}
123: \newcommand{\bt}{\beta}
124: \newcommand{\p}{\partial}
125: \newcommand{\dl}{\delta}
126: \newcommand{\Dl}{\Delta}
127: \newcommand{\ld}{\lambda}
128: \newcommand{\Ld}{\Lambda}
129: \newcommand{\vp}{\varphi}
130: \newcommand{\te}{\theta}
131: \newcommand{\om}{\omega}
132: \newcommand{\sm}{\sigma}
133: \newcommand{\Sm}{\Sigma}
134: \newcommand{\ccap}{\cdot}
135: %\newcommand{\Footnote}{\footnote{
136: %\renewcommand{\footnotesize}{\small}
137:
138:
139:
140: \vspace{-9mm}
141:
142: \newsection{Introduction}
143:
144: D-branes near Calabi--Yau singularities provide open string realizations of an increasingly rich class
145: of gauge theories \cite{ALE,KW,MoPl}.
146: Given the hierarchy between the Planck and TeV scale, it is natural to make use
147: of this technology and pursue a bottom-up
148: approach to string phenomenology, that aims to find
149: Standard Model-like theories on D-branes near CY singularities.
150: In this setting, the D-brane world-volume theory can be isolated from the closed string physics
151: in the bulk via a formal decoupling limit, in which the string and 4-d Planck scale are taken to
152: infinity, or very large.
153: %hierarchically larger than the typical energy scale of the gauge dynamics on the brane.
154: The clear advantage of this bottom-up
155: strategy is that it separates the task of finding local realizations of SM-like models from the
156: more difficult challenge of finding fully consistent, realistic string compactifications.\footnote{
157: The general challenge of extending local brane constructions near CY singularities to
158: full-fledged string compactifications represents a geometric component of the
159: ``swampland program'' of \cite{swamp}, that aims to determine the full class of quantum field
160: theories that admit consistent UV completions with gravity.}
161:
162:
163: In scanning the space of CY singularities for candidates that
164: lead to realistic gauge theories, one is aided by the fact that all gauge invariant
165: couplings of the world-volume theory are controlled by the local geometry;
166: in particular, symmetry breaking patterns can be enforced by appropriately
167: dialing the volumes of compact cycles of the singularity.
168: Several other
169: properties of the gauge theory, however, such as the spectrum of light $U(1)$
170: vector bosons and the number of freely tunable couplings, depend on
171: how the local singularity is embedded inside the full compact
172: Calabi--Yau geometry.
173:
174: In this paper we work out some concrete aspects of this program.
175: We begin with a brief review of the general set of ingredients that can be used to build
176: semi-realistic gauge theories from branes at singularities. Typically these local
177: constructions lead to models
178: with extra $U(1)$ gauge symmetries beyond hypercharge.
179: As our first new result, we identify the general
180: topological conditions on the embedding of a CY singularity inside a compact CY threefold,
181: that determines which
182: $U(1)$-symmetry factors survive as massless gauge symmetries.
183: The other $U(1)$ bosons acquire a mass of order of the string scale.
184: The left-over global symmetries are broken by D-brane instantons.
185:
186:
187: In the second half of the paper, we apply this insight to the concrete construction of an
188: SM-like theory given in \cite{MH}, based on a single D3-brane near
189: a suitably chosen del Pezzo 8 singularity. We specify a simple topological condition
190: on the compact embedding of the $dP_8$ singularity, such that only hypercharge survives as the massless gauge symmetry. To state this condition,
191: recall that the 2-homology of a $dP_8$ surface is spanned by
192: the canonical class $K$ and eight 2-cycles $\alpha_i$ with
193: intersection form $\alpha_i \ccap \alpha_j = - A_{ij}$
194: with $A_{ij}$ the Cartan matrix of $E_8$.
195: %We can thus label
196: %the 2-cycles $\alpha_i$ with simple $E_8$ roots (see fig 1).
197: With this notation, our geometric proposal
198: is summarized as follows:
199:
200: \smallskip
201:
202: %\parbox{15cm}{\addtolength{\baselineskip}{1.5mm}
203: \noindent
204: The world-volume gauge theory on a single D3-brane near a del Pezzo 8 singularity embedded in
205: a compact Calabi-Yau threefold with the following geometrical properties:\\[.3mm]
206: % the geometry of the singularity and embedding is such that
207: ${}$ \ \ \ (i) the two 2-cycles $\alpha_1$ and $\alpha_2$ are degenerate and form a curve of $A_2$ singularities\\[.2mm]
208: ${}$ \ \ \ (iii) all 2-cycles except $\alpha_4$ are non-trivial within the full Calabi-Yau three-fold\\[.2mm]
209: has, for a suitable choice of K\"ahler moduli, the gauge group and matter content of the SSM
210: \begin{table}[ht]\label{sm}
211: \begin{center}
212: {\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.1}
213: \begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c}
214: \hline
215: \rule[5mm]{0mm}{0pt} & $Q_i$ & $u_i^c$ & $d_i^c$ & $\ell_i$ & \ $e_i^c$ \ & \ \ $\nu_i^c$\ \ &\ $ H_i^u $ & $H_i^d$ \\
216: \hline
217: \rule[5mm]{0mm}{0pt}
218: $SU(3)_{C}$ \ \ & \bf{3} & $\bar{\bf{3}}$ & $\bar{\bf{3}}$ &
219: \bf{1} & \bf{1} & \bf{1} & \bf{1}& \bf{1} \\
220: \rule[5mm]{0mm}{0pt}
221: $ SU(2)_{L}$ \ & \bf{2} & \bf{1} & \bf{1} &
222: \bf{2} & \bf{1} & \bf{1} & \bf{2} & \bf{2} \\
223: \rule[5mm]{0mm}{0pt}
224: $U(1)_Y$ \ & 1/6 & $-2/3$ & 1/3 & $-1/2$ & 1 & 0 & 1/2 & $- 1/2$ \\
225: \hline
226: % \rule[5mm]{0mm}{0pt}
227: % \# {\rm species} & 3 & $ 3$ & 3 & $3 $ & 3 & 6 & &
228: \end{tabular}
229: }
230: %The matter content of our D-brane construction reproduces the standars
231: \caption{The matter content of our D-brane model. $i$ counts the 3 generations}
232: \end{center}
233: \end{table}
234: \noindent
235: shown in Table 1, except for an extended Higgs sector (with 2 pairs per generation):
236:
237: \vspace{-4mm}
238:
239:
240: \noindent
241: More details of this proposal are given in section 4.
242: In section 5, we present a concrete geometric
243: recipe for obtaining a compact CY manifold with all the required %topological and geometrical
244: properties.
245:
246: \newcommand{\ccc}{{\mbox{\large $c$}}}
247:
248:
249: \newcommand{\qq}{{\mathsf q}}
250: \newcommand{\pp}{{\mathsf p}}
251: \newcommand{\rr}{{\bf r}}
252:
253:
254: \bigskip
255:
256: \bigskip
257: \medskip
258:
259:
260: \noindent
261: \newsection{ General Strategy}
262:
263: \medskip
264:
265: We begin with a summary our general approach to string phenomenology.
266: In subsection 2.1, we give
267: a quick recap of some relevant properties of D-branes at singularities. The reader
268: familiar with this technology may wish to skip to subsection 2.2.
269: \medskip
270:
271:
272: \noindent
273: \newsubsection{D-branes at a CY singularity}
274:
275:
276: D-branes near Calabi--Yau singularities typically
277: split up into so-called fractional branes. Fractional branes can be thought of as particular bound state
278: combinations of D-branes, that wrap cycles of the local geometry.
279: In terms of the world-sheet CFT, %that describes the string propagation on the singularity,
280: they are in one-to-one correspondence with allowed conformally
281: invariant open string boundary conditions. Alternatively, by extrapolating to a large volume
282: perspective, fractional branes may be represented geometrically as particular well-chosen
283: collections of sheaves, supported on corresponding
284: submanifolds within the local Calabi--Yau singularity.
285: For most of our discussion, however,
286: we will not need this abstract mathematical description;
287: the basic properties that we will use
288: have relatively simple topological specifications.
289:
290:
291: \newcommand{\is}{\! &\! = \! &\!}
292:
293:
294:
295: There are many types of CY-singularities, and some are, in principle, good candidates for
296: finding realistic D-brane gauge theories. For concreteness, however, we
297: specialize to the subclass of singularities which are asymptotic to
298: a complex cone over
299: a del Pezzo surface $X$. D-brane theories on del Pezzo singularities
300: have been studied in \cite{MH,martijn,chris}.%\cite{many}.
301:
302: A del Pezzo surface is a manifold of complex
303: dimension 2, with a positive first Chern class.
304: Each
305: del Pezzo surface other than $\PP^1 \times \PP^1$
306: %${dP_n}$
307: can be represented as $\PP^2$ blown up at $n \leq 8$ generic points;
308: such a surface is denoted by ${dP_n}$ and sometimes called ``the $n$-th
309: del Pezzo surface''.\footnote{This terminology is unfortunately at odds
310: with the fact that, for $n\ge 5$, ${dP_n}$ is not unique but actually
311: has $2n-8$ complex moduli represented by the location of the points.}
312: By placing an appropriate complex line bundle (the
313: ``anti-canonical bundle'') over $X={dP_n}$,
314: one obtains a smooth non-compact Calabi--Yau threefold.
315: If we then shrink the zero section of the line bundle to a point,
316: we get a cone over $X$, which we will call the conical del
317: Pezzo $n$ singularity and denote by $Y_{0}$. (More general del Pezzo
318: singularities are asymptotic to $Y_0$ near the singular point.)
319: To specify the geometry of $Y_{0}$,
320: let $ds_X^2 = h_{a\bar{b}}dz^a dz^{\bar{b}}$ be a K\"ahler-Einstein metric over
321: the base $X$ with $R_{a\bar{b}} = 6 h_{a\bar{b}}$ and first Chern class
322: $\omega_{a\bar{b}} = 6 i R_{a\bar{b}}$.
323: Introduce the one-form $\eta = {1\over 3} d\psi + \sigma$ where $\sigma$ is defined
324: by $d\sigma = 2\omega$ and $0<\psi<2\pi$ is the angular coordinate for a circle bundle
325: over the del Pezzo surface. The Calabi--Yau metric can then be written as follows
326: %
327: \be
328: \label{one}
329: ds^2_{Y} = dr^2 + r^2\eta^2 + r^2 ds^2_X %h_{a\bar{b}} dz^a dz^{\bar{b}} .
330: \ee
331: For the non-compact cone, the $r$-coordinate has infinite range.
332: Alternatively, we can think of the del Pezzo singularity as a localized region
333: within a compact CY manifold, with $r$ being the local radial coordinate distance from the singularity.
334: We will consider both cases.
335: %
336: \\[3mm]
337: $
338: \begin{array}{cc}
339: \noindent
340: \hspace{-2mm}
341: \parbox{9.3cm}{
342: \addtolength{\baselineskip}{1mm}
343: ${}$ \ \
344: The del Pezzo surface $X$ forms a four-cycle within the
345: full three-manifold $Y$, and itself supports several non-trivial
346: two-cycles.
347: Now, if we consider IIB string theory on a del Pezzo
348: singularity, we should expect to find a basis
349: of fractional branes that spans the complete
350: homology of $X$: the del Pezzo 4-cycle itself may be
351: wrapped by any number of D7-branes, any 2-cycle within $X$
352: may be wrapped by one or more D5 branes, and the point-like
353: D3-branes occupy the 0-cycle within $X$.
354: The allowed fractional
355: branes, however, typically do not correspond to single
356: branes wrapped on some given cycle, but rather }
357: %\begin{flushright}
358: \parbox{7cm}{\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
359: \leavevmode\hbox{\epsfxsize=6cm \epsffile{dfive.eps}}
360: %\includegraphics[width=60mm]{dfive3.jpg}
361: %\epsfig{figure=dfive3.pdf,scale=0.33}
362: }
363: %\end{flushright}
364: \end{array}
365: $\\[2mm]
366: %\noindent
367: to particular bound states $\FF_\sss$, each characterized by a charge vector of the form
368: \be
369: {\rm ch}(\FF_\sss)= (\, r_\sss, \, p_{s}^{\,\aaa}, \, q_s \, )
370: \ee
371: Here $r_\sss\! = {\rm rk}(\FF_\sss)$ is the rank of the fractional brane $\FF_s$,
372: and is equal to the D7-brane wrapping number around $X$.
373: The number $q_s\! =\! {\rm ch}_2(\FF_\sss)$ is the 2nd Chern character
374: of $\FF_\sss$ and counts the D3-brane charge. Finally, the integers $p_s^{\, \aaa}$
375: are extracted from the first Chern class of $\FF_\sss$ via
376: \be
377: p_s^\aaa = \int_{\alpha_\aaa}\! c_1(\FF_\sss)
378: \ee
379: where $\alpha_\aaa$ denotes an integral basis of $H_2(X)$.
380: Geometrically, $p_s^{\, \aaa}$ counts the number of times the D5-brane component of
381: $\FF_\sss$ wraps the 2-cycle $\alpha_\aaa$.
382:
383: \medskip
384:
385: For a given geometric singularity, it is a non-trivial problem to find consistent
386: bases of fractional branes that satisfy all geometric stability conditions.
387: For del Pezzo singularities, a special class of consistent bases
388: are known, in the form of so-called
389: exceptional collections \cite{karpov, martijn, chris}.
390: These satisfy special properties, that in particular
391: ensures the absence of adjoint matter in the world-volume gauge theory, besides
392: the gauge multiplet. The formula for the intersection product between two
393: fractional branes $\FF_i$ and $\FF_j$ of an exceptional collection reads
394: \be
395: \label{pair}
396: \#(\FF_i,\FF_j) = {\rm rk}(\FF_i) \, {\rm deg}(\FF_j) - {\rm rk}(\FF_j)\, {\rm deg}( \FF_i) \, \equiv \, \chi_{ij}
397: \ee
398: Here the degree of $\FF_i$ is given by
399: ${\rm deg}( \FF_i)\! =\! - c_1(\FF_i)\! \cdot\! K$ with $K$ the canonical class on~$X$. It
400: equals the intersection number between
401: the D5 component of $\FF_i$ and the del Pezzo surface. The intersection number $\chi_{ij}$
402: governs the
403: number of massless states of open strings that stretch between the two fractional branes $\FF_i$ and $\FF_j$.
404:
405:
406: The world-volume theory on D-branes near a CY singularity takes
407: the form of a quiver gauge theory. For exceptional collections, the rules
408: for drawing the quiver diagram are: \footnote{These rules can be generalized by including orientifold planes
409: that intersect the CY singularity. We will elaborate on this possibility in the concluding section.}
410: \
411: (i)\, draw a single node for every basis element $\FF_i$ of the collection,
412: (ii) connect every pair of nodes with $\chi_{ij}
413: >0$ by an oriented line with multiplicity $\chi_{ij}$. Upon assigning
414: a multiplicity $n_i$ to each fractional brane $\FF_i$, one associates to the
415: quiver diagram a quiver gauge theory.
416: The gauge theory has a $U(|n_i|)$ gauge group factor for every node $\FF_i$, as well as
417: $\chi_{ij}$ chiral multiplets in the bi-fundamental representation $(n_i, \bar{n}_j)$.
418: The multiplicities $n_i$ can be freely adjusted, provided the resulting
419: world volume theory is a consistent ${\cal N} \! =\! 1$ gauge theory, free of any non-abelian
420: gauge anomalies.
421:
422: Absence of non-abelian gauge anomalies is ensured if
423: at any given node, the total number of incoming and outgoing lines (each weighted by
424: the rank of the gauge group at the other end of the line) are equal:
425: \be
426: \sum_j \chi_{ij} \, n_j = 0\, .
427: \ee
428: This condition is automatically satisfied if the configuration of
429: fractional branes constitute a single D3-brane, in which case the multiplicities
430: $n_i$ are such that $\sum_i n_i \, {\rm ch}(\FF_i)\! = \! (\, 0, 0, 1\, )$.
431: In general, however, one could allow for more general configurations,
432: for which the charge vectors add up to some non-trivial fractional brane charge.
433:
434: For a given type of singularity, the choice of exceptional collection is not
435: unique.\footnote{Each collection corresponds to a particular set of
436: stability conditions on branes, and determines a region in K\"ahler
437: moduli space where it is valid.} Different
438: choices are related via simple basis transformations, known as mutations \cite{karpov}. However,
439: only a subset of all exceptional collections, that can be reached via mutations, lead to
440: consistent world-volume gauge theories.
441: The special mutations that act within the subset of physically relevant collections
442: all take the form of Seiberg dualities \cite{martijn,chris}.
443: Which of the Seiberg dual descriptions is appropriate is determined by the value of
444: the geometric moduli that determine the gauge theory couplings.
445:
446: \bigskip
447:
448: \noindent
449: \newsubsection{Symmetry breaking towards the SSM}
450:
451:
452:
453: To find string realizations of SM-like theories we now proceed in two steps. First we look
454: for CY singularities and brane
455: configurations, such that the quiver gauge theory is just rich enough to contain the SM gauge
456: group and matter content. Then we look for a well-chosen symmetry breaking process that
457: reduces the gauge group and matter content to that of the Standard Model, or at least
458: realistically close to it.
459: When the CY singularity is not isolated, the moduli space of vacua for
460: the D-brane theory has several components \cite{MoPl},
461: and the symmetry breaking we need is found on a component in which some of
462: the fractional branes move off of the primary singular point along
463: a curve of singularities (and other branes are replaced by appropriate
464: bound states). This geometric insight into the symmetry
465: breaking allows us to identify an appropriate CY singularity, such that
466: the corresponding D-brane theory
467: looks like the SSM.
468:
469:
470: The above procedure was used in \cite{MH} to construct a semi-realistic theory
471: from a single D3-brane on a partially resolved del Pezzo 8 singularity (see also section 4).
472: The final model of \cite{MH},
473: however, still has several extra $U(1)$ factors besides the hypercharge symmetry.
474: Such extra $U(1)$'s are characteristic of D-brane constructions: typically, one
475: obtains one such factor for every fractional brane. As will be explained in what follows,
476: whether or not these extra $U(1)$'s actually survive as massless gauge symmetries
477: depends on the topology of how the singularity is embedded inside of a
478: compact CY geometry.
479:
480: In a
481: string compactification, $U(1)$ gauge bosons may acquire a non-zero
482: mass via coupling to closed string RR-form fields. We will describe this mechanism
483: in some detail in the next section, where we will show that the $U(1)$ bosons that remain
484: massless are in one-to-one correspondence with 2-cycles, that are {\it non-trivial}
485: within the local CY singularity but are {\it trivial} within the full CY threefold.
486: This insight in principle makes it possible to ensure -- via the topology of the CY compactification --
487: that, among all $U(1)$ factors of the D-brane gauge theory, only the hypercharge survives
488: as a massless gauge symmetry.
489:
490:
491: The interrelation between the 2-cohomology of the del Pezzo base of the singularity, and
492: the full CY threefold has other relevant consequences.
493: Locally, all gauge invariant couplings of the D-brane theory can be varied via
494: corresponding deformations of the local geometry. This local tunability is one of the
495: central motivations for the bottom-up approach to string phenomenology. The embedding into a
496: full string compactification, however, typically introduces a topological obstruction against
497: varying all local couplings: only those couplings that descend from moduli of the full CY survive.
498: Their value will need to be fixed via a dynamical moduli stabilisation mechanism.
499:
500: \bigskip
501:
502: \noindent
503: \newsubsection{Summary}
504:
505: Let us summarize our general strategy in terms of a systematized set of steps:\\[2mm]
506: \noindent
507: (i) Choose a non-compact CY singularity, $Y_0$,
508: and find a suitable basis of fractional branes $\FF_i$ on it.
509: Assign multiplicities $n_i$ to each $\FF_i$ and enumerate the resulting quiver gauge theories.\\[1.5mm]
510: (ii) Look for quiver theories that, after symmetry breaking, produce an SM-like theory.
511: Use the geometric dictionary to identify the corresponding (non-isolated) CY singularity.\\[1.5mm]
512: (iii) Identify the topological condition that isolates hypercharge as the only massless $U(1)$.
513: Look for a compact CY threefold, with the right topological properties, that contains ${Y}_0$.
514: %(iv) Explore the use of fluxes and other ingredients to try and stabilize the moduli of $Y$ at the desired values.
515: \medskip
516:
517: \noindent
518: In principle, it should be possible to automatize all three of these steps and thus set up
519: a computer-aided search of SM-like gauge theories based on D-branes at CY singularities.
520: %For this paper, we have not done this.
521:
522:
523: \bigskip
524:
525: \bigskip
526:
527: \bigskip
528:
529: \noindent
530: \newsection{{$U(1)$ Masses via RR-couplings}}
531:
532: The quiver theory of a D-brane near a CY singularity typically contains
533: several $U(1)$-factors, one for each fractional brane. Some of these
534: $U(1)$ vector bosons remain massless, all others either acquire a St\"uckelberg
535: mass via the coupling to the RR-form fields or get a mass through the Higgs mechanism \cite{ALE,mass,Antoniadis:2002,louisCY}.
536: We will now discuss the St\"uckelberg mechanism in some detail.
537:
538: \noindent
539: \newsubsection{The $U(1)$ hypermultiplet}
540:
541: %\medskip
542:
543: To set notation, we first consider the $U(1)$ gauge sector on
544: a single fractional brane. % To write the general $U(1)$ gauge theory action, we
545: Let us introduce the two complex variables
546: \be
547: \label{six}
548: \tau ={\theta \over 2\pi} + i {4\pi \over g^2}\, , \qquad \qquad
549: \quad S=\rho+i\zeta\, .
550: \ee
551: Here $\tau$ is the usual $SL(2, \Z)$ covariant complex coupling, that
552: governs the kinetic terms of the $U(1)$ gauge boson via (omitting fermionic terms)
553: \be
554: {\rm Im} \int \! d^2 \theta\,{\tau \over 8\pi } \, W_{\alpha} W^\alpha = - {1\over 4g^2}\,
555: F\wedge * F + {\theta \over 32 \pi^2}\, F \wedge F
556: %+
557: %\int \! d^4\te\, \frac{1}{4}({\rm Im}(Z\! -\! \bar{Z}\! - 2m V))^2
558: %+ {\rm h.c.}
559: \ee
560: The field $S$ in (\ref{six}) combines a St\"uckelberg field $\rho$ and
561: a Faillet-Iliopoulos parameter $\zeta$. After promoting $S$
562: to a chiral superfield, we can write a
563: supersymmetric gauge invariant mass term for the gauge field via
564: \cite{ALE}
565: \be
566: \label{massterm}
567: \int \! d^4\te\, \frac{1}{4}({\rm Im}(S\! -\! \bar{S}\! - 2V))^2
568: %\ee
569: %Note, that the vector field $V$ here is antihermitian, it transforms
570: %as $\dl V=1/2(\Ld-\bar{\Ld})$ where $\Ld$ is a chiral field.
571: %Consequently
572: %\be
573: %\int d^4\te(\zeta +\te\sm^\mu\bar{\te}(\p_\mu\rho - A_\mu) -\te^4 D)^2
574: =\frac{1}{2}(A - d \rho)\! \wedge * (A -d\rho)\; -\, \zeta D.
575: \ee
576: Here $D$ denotes the auxiliary field of the vector multiplet $V$.
577: Together with the mass term, we observe a Faillet-Iliopoulos term
578: proportional to $\zeta$.
579:
580: The complex parametrization (\ref{six}) of the D-brane
581: couplings naturally follows from its embedding in type IIB string theory.
582: Without D-branes, IIB supergravity on a Calabi--Yau threefold
583: preserves $\mathcal{N}\! =\! 2$ supersymmetry.
584: Closed string fields thus organize in $\mathcal{N}\! =\! 2$ multiplets
585: \cite{Aspinwall, VafaWitten}.
586: The four real variables in (\ref{six}) all fit together as the scalar components
587: of a single hypermultiplet that appears after dualizing two components
588: of the so called double tensor multiplet \cite{Grimm}.
589: Since adding a D-brane breaks half the supersymmetry, the hypermultiplet
590: splits into two complex $\mathcal{N}\! =\! 1$ superfields with scalar
591: components $\tau$ and $S$.
592: The hypermultiplet of a single D3-brane derives directly from the
593: 10-d fields, via
594: \ba
595: \label{tau}
596: \tau \is C_{0} + i e^{-\phi}, \nonumber \\[3mm] %\quad \qquad
597: d S\, \is * d (C_{\it 2} + \tau B_{\it 2})
598: \ea
599: A $dP_n$ singularity $Y_0$ supports a total of $n+3$ independent fractional branes, and
600: a typical D-brane theory on $Y_{0}$ thus contains
601: $n+3$ separate $U(1)$ gauge factors. In our geometric dictionary, we need to account for
602: a corresponding number of closed string hypermultiplets.
603: % Ideally, we would like to have this
604: %dictionary explicitly available.
605:
606:
607:
608: In spite their common descent from the hypermultiplet, from the
609: world volume perspective $\tau$ and $S$ appear to stand on somewhat different
610: footing: $\tau$ can be chosen as a non-dynamical coupling, whereas $S$ must
611: enter as a dynamical field. In a decoupling limit, one would expect that all closed
612: string dynamics strictly separates from the open string dynamics on the brane,
613: and thus that all closed string fields freeze into fixed, non-dynamical couplings.
614: This decoupling can indeed be arranged, provided the $U(1)$ symmetry is
615: non-anomalous and one starts from a D-brane on a {\it non-compact} CY singularity.
616: In this setting, $\tau$ becomes a fixed constant as expected, while $S$
617: completely decouples, simply because the $U(1)$ gauge boson stays massless.
618:
619: %{\it i.e.} the coefficient in front of the mass-term (\ref{massterm}) vanishes.
620: %To begin, let us elaborate this mechanism for a D-brane on
621: %the non-compact Calabi--Yau manifold $Y_{0}$ with the del Pezzo singularity.
622:
623:
624:
625: \bigskip
626:
627: \noindent
628: \newsubsection{Some notation}
629:
630: %\medskip
631:
632: As before, let $Y_0$ be a non-compact CY singularity given by a complex cone over
633: a base $X$. A complete basis of IIB fractional branes on $Y_0$
634: spans the space of compact, even-dimensional homology cycles within $Y_{0}$, which
635: coincides with the even-dimensional homology of $X$.
636: The 2-homology of the $n$-th del Pezzo surface $dP_n$ is
637: generated by the canonical class $\alpha_0= k$, plus $n$ orthogonal
638: 2-cycles $\alpha_i$. %that, via the intersection pairing within $X$,
639: %form the simple roots of $E_n$.
640: Using the intersection pairing within
641: the threefold $Y_{0}$, we introduce the dual 4-cycles
642: $\beta^\bbb$ satisfying
643: \ba
644: \qquad
645: \alpha_\aaa \ccap \beta^\bbb = \delta_\aaa^\bbb
646: \qquad \quad \mbox{{\scriptsize A, B} {\footnotesize $=0,\ldots, n$}}
647: \ea
648: The cycle $\beta^0$,
649: dual to the canonical class
650: $\alpha_0$, describes the class of the del Pezzo surface $X$ itself, and forms the
651: only compact 4-cycle within $Y_{0}$.
652: The remaining $\beta$'s are all non-compact and extend in the radial direction
653: of the cone.
654: The degree zero two-cycles $\alpha_i$, that satsify $\alpha_0 \ccap \alpha_i = 0$,
655: have the intersection form
656: \be
657: \alpha_i \ccap \alpha_j = - A_{ij}
658: \ee
659: where $A_{ij}$ equals minus the Cartan
660: matrix of $E_n$. The canonical class has self-intersection $9-n$.
661: In the following we will use the intersection matrix
662: \ba
663: \eta_{\aaa\bbb} = \left( \begin{array}{cc} 9-n & 0 \\[2mm] 0 & -A_{ij}\end{array}\right)
664: \ea
665: and its inverse $\eta^{\aaa\bbb}$
666: to raise and lower {\scriptsize A}-indices. %Note that both matrices have integer entries.
667:
668:
669: \vspace{9mm}
670:
671:
672: \noindent
673: \newsubsection{Brane action}
674:
675:
676: \newcommand{\sump}{\mbox{\large $\sum\limits_{\raisebox{.5mm}{\scriptsize $p$}}$}}
677:
678:
679: %\medskip
680:
681:
682: The 10-d IIB low energy field theory contains the following bosonic
683: fields: % (we focus only on the bosonic subsector):
684: the dilaton $\phi$, the NS 2-form $B$, the K\"ahler 2-form $J$ and the RR $p$-form potentials $C_p$,
685: with $p$ even from 0 to 8. (Note that the latter are an overcomplete set, since $dC_p = *_{{}_{10}}dC_{8-p}$.) From each of these fields, we can extract a 4-d scalar fields via integration over
686: a corresponding compact cycles within $Y_0$.
687: These scalar fields parametrize the gauge invariant couplings of the D-brane theory. Near a CY singularity, however, $\alpha'$ corrections may be substantial, and this gauge theory/geometric
688: dictionary is only partially under control. We will not attempt to solve this hard problem and will
689: instead adopt a large volume perspective, in which the local curvature is assumed to be small
690: compared to the string scale. All expressions below are extracted from the leading order DBI action. Moreover, we drop all curvature contributions, as they do not affect the main conclusions.
691: To keep the formulas transparant, we omit factors of order 1 and work
692: in $\ell_s=1$ units. For a more precise treatment, we refer to \cite{louisCY}.
693:
694:
695: The D-brane world-volume theory lives on a collection of fractional
696: branes $\FF_s$, with properties as summarized in section 2.
697: Since the fractional branes all carry a non-zero D7 charge $r_\sss$, we
698: can think of them as D7-branes, wrapping the base $X$ of the
699: CY singularity $r_\sss$ times. We can thus identify the closed string couplings of
700: $\FF_\sss$ via its world volume action, given by the sum of a Born-Infeld
701: and Chern-Simons term via
702: \ba
703: \label{dbi}
704: \qquad \mathcal{S} =
705: %\mathcal{S}_{\text {BI}}
706: %\, + \,
707: %\mathcal{S}_{\text {CS}}\, , \nonumber
708: %\\[5mm]
709: %\mathcal{S}_{\text {BI}}\is
710: \int\!
711: e^{-i^*_s \phi}\sqrt{{\rm det}(i_s^*\, (G +B) - F_s)} \,
712: %\\[3mm]
713: %\mathcal{S}_{\text{CS}}\is
714: + \int\!
715: \sump\; i_s^* C_p \; e^{{F}_s - i_s^* B}\, .
716: \ea
717: %with\be
718: %{\cal F}_\sss = F_s -i_s^*B \, , \qquad\ee
719: Here $i^*_s$ denotes the pull-back of the various fields to the
720: world-volume of $\FF_s$; it in particular encodes the information of the
721: D7 brane wrapping number $r_\sss$.
722: In case the D7 brane wrapping number $r_\sss$
723: is larger than one, we need to replace the abelian field
724: strength $F_s$ to a non-abelian field-strength and take a trace where appropriate.
725: \footnote{
726: In general, there are curvature corrections to the DBI and Chern-Simons terms that would
727: need to be taken into account.
728: They have the effect of replacing the Chern character by \cite{Cheung:1997az}
729: %
730: ${\rm Tr}(e^{F}) \to {\rm Tr}(e^{F})\sqrt{\hat{A}(T)\over \hat{A}(N)}$.
731: %
732: We will ignore these geometric contributions here, since they do not
733: affect the main line of argument.}
734:
735: The D5 charges of $\FF_s$ are represented
736: by fluxes of the field strength $F_\sss$ through the various 2-cycles within $X$.
737: \ba
738: \label{pdef}
739: p_{s}^\aaa = \int_{\alpha_\aaa} {\rm Tr} ( F_s)
740: \ea
741: Analogously, the D3-brane charge is identified with the instanton number charge.
742: \ba
743: \label{qdef}
744: q_s = \int_X {1\over 2} \, \! {\rm Tr}( F_s \wedge F_s)
745: \ea
746: The D5 charges $p_{s\aaa}$ are integers, whereas the D3 charge $q_s$ may take half-integer values.
747:
748:
749:
750:
751: The D-brane world volume action, since it depends on the field strength $F_s$ via the
752: combination $${\cal F}_s = F_s -i^*_s B\, ,$$ is invariant under gauge transformations
753: $B_{\it 2} \to B_{\it 2} + d \Lambda$, $A_s \to A_s + \Lambda$, with $\Lambda$
754: any one-form.
755: If $\Lambda$ is single valued, then the fluxes $p_s^\aaa$ of $F_s$ remain unchanged.
756: But the only restriction is that $d\Lambda$
757: belongs to an integral cohomology class on $Y$. The gauge transformations thus have
758: an integral version, that shifts the integral periods of $B$ into fluxes of $F_s$, and vice versa.
759: This integral gauge invariance naturally turns the
760: periods of $B_{\it 2}$ into angular variables.
761: The relevant $B$-periods for us are those along the 2-cycles of the del Pezzo surface $X$
762: \ba
763: b^\aaa \is \int_{\alpha_\aaa}\! B . %\nonumber
764: \ea
765: The integral gauge transformations act on these periods and the D-brane charges via
766: \ba
767: \label{nshift}
768: \qquad b^\aaa & \to & b^\aaa + n^\aaa \nonumber \\[2mm]
769: \qquad p_s^\aaa & \to & p_{s}^\aaa + n^\aaa \, r_s\\[2mm]
770: \qquad q_s & \to & q_s - n_\aaa \, p_{s}^{\aaa}-{\textstyle{1\over 2}}r_sn_\aaa n^\aaa \nonumber
771: \ea
772: with $n^\aaa$ an a priori arbitrary set of integers. These transformations
773: %, which
774: %are similar to the Witten effect, %\cite{Witten:1995im},
775: can be used to restrict the $b^\aaa$ to the interval
776: between 0 and 1.
777:
778: Physical observables should be invariant under (\ref{nshift}). This condition
779: provides a useful check on calculations, whenever done in a non-manifestly
780: invariant notation. A convenient way to preserve the invariance, is to introduce
781: a new type of charge vector for the fractional branes, obtained by
782: replacing in the definitions (\ref{pdef}) and (\ref{qdef}) the field strength $F_s$
783: by ${\cal F}_s$:
784: \be
785: {\mathsf {Q}}(\FF_s) = (\rr_s,\pp_{s\aaa}, \qq_s) \qquad
786: \ee
787: where $\rr_s = r_s$ and
788: \vspace{-8mm}
789: \begin{eqnarray}
790: %\rr_s\is r_s \nonumber \\[3mm]
791: \qquad \pp_{s\aaa}\! \! \is p_{s\aaa}- r_s b_\aaa % \Pi^\aaa_a
792: \nonumber \\[4mm]
793: \qquad \qq_s\! \is q_s + p_{s}^{\, \aaa} \, b_\aaa- {\textstyle{1\over 2}}\, r_s \, b^\aaa b_\aaa
794: \end{eqnarray}
795: The new charges can take any real value, and are both invariant under (\ref{nshift}).
796:
797:
798: The charge vector is naturally combined into the central charge ${\mathsf Z}(\FF_s)$ of the fractional
799: brane $\FF_s$. The central charge is an exact quantum property of the fractional brane, that can
800: be defined at the level of the worldsheet CFT as the complex number that tells us which linear
801: combination of right- and left-moving supercharges the boundary state of the brane preserves.
802: It depends linearly on the charge vector:
803: \be
804: {\mathsf Z}(\FF_s) = {\mathsf \Pi} \cdot {\mathsf Q}(\FF_s),
805: \ee
806: with ${\mathsf \Pi}$ some vector that depends on the geometry of the CY singularity.
807:
808: In the large volume regime, one can show that
809: the central charge is given by the following expression:
810: \cite{minasian, Douglas:2000, kapustin}
811: \ba
812: {\mathsf Z}(\FF_s) = \int_X \! e^{-i_s^*(B+iJ)}\, {\rm Tr}( e^{F_s}) %\sqrt{\rm Td(X)}
813: \ea
814: %where ${\rm Td}$ denotes the Todd class of the which can be expanded as
815: where $J$ denotes the K\"ahler class on $Y$. Evaluating the integral gives
816: \ba
817: \label{taus}
818: {\mathsf Z}(\FF_s) \is \qq_s \, %(q_s + p_{s}^{\aaa} b_\aaa- {\textstyle{1\over 2}} r_s b^\aaa b_\aaa )
819: - \textstyle{1\over 2}\, \rr_s\, \zeta^\aaa\zeta_\aaa - \, i\, \pp_{s \aaa} \, \zeta^\aaa% {\cal C}^{\aaa\bbb}
820: \, ,
821: \ea%with $\zeta^\aaa$ as defined in eqn (\ref{zeta}).
822: with
823: \vspace{-5mm}
824: \ba
825: \label{zeta}
826: \zeta^\aaa \is \int_{\alpha_\aaa} J \, .
827: \ea
828:
829: With this preparation, let us write the geometric expression for the couplings
830: of the fractional brane $\FF_\sss$. From the central charge $Z(\FF_s)$, we can extract the effective
831: gauge coupling via
832: \ba
833: {4\pi \over g_s^2} = e^{-\phi} |{\mathsf Z}({\FF_s})|\, ,
834: \ea
835: which equals the brane tension of $\FF_s$. In the large volume limit, this relation directly
836: follows from the BI-form of the D7 world volume action.
837: % of the D7 brane factorizes into a
838: %4-d part times an internal part.
839: The phase of the central charge
840: \ba
841: %\qquad \qquad
842: \zeta_s = {1\over \pi} {\rm Im} \log {\mathsf Z} (\FF_s)
843: \ea
844: gives rise to the
845: FI parameter of the 4-d gauge theory \cite{Douglas:2000}.
846: %One may motivate this relation as follows.
847: Two fractional branes are mutually supersymmetric
848: if the phases of their central charges are equal. Deviations of the relative phase generically
849: gives rise to D-term SUSY breaking, and such a deviation is therefore naturally interpreted as
850: an FI-term.
851:
852: The couplings of the gauge fields to the RR-fields follows from expanding the CS-term of the action.
853: The $\theta$-angle reads
854: \ba
855: %\nonumber \\[4mm]
856: \theta_s \is \rr_s \theta_{{}_X} + \pp_{s\aaa} \theta^\aaa\, + \qq_s C_{\it 0} , %( p_{s\aaa} - r_s b_\aaa)%
857: %\qquad \quad \theta^\aaa = \! \int_{\alpha_\aaa} \! C_{\it 2}\, .
858: \ea
859: with
860: \ba
861: \theta^\aaa \is \int_{\alpha_\aaa} \! C_{\it 2}\, , \qquad\qquad
862: \theta_{{}_X} = \int_X C_{\it 4}\, .
863: \ea
864: %with $\theta^\aaa$ as defined in (\ref{taua})
865: %The gauge theory on $\FF_s$
866: In addition, each fractional brane may support a St\"uckelberg field, which arises by dualizing the RR
867: 2-form potential ${\mathcal C}_s$ that couples linearly to the gauge field strength via
868: \be
869: \label{linear}
870: {\mathcal C}_s \wedge F_s
871: \ee
872: From the CS-term we read off that
873: \ba
874: \label{pot}
875: \quad {\mathcal C}_s \is \rr_\sss \, \ccc_{{}_X}
876: \, + \, \pp_{s\aaa} \ccc^\aaa \, +\, \qq_s \, C_{\it 2}
877: \ea
878: \ba % {\mathcal C}
879: \label{ca}
880: \ccc^{\aaa} \is \int_{\alpha_\aaa}\! C_{\it 4}\, .
881: \qquad \qquad \ccc_{{}_X} \, = \, \int_X C_{\it 6}
882: \ea
883: Note that all above formulas for the closed string couplings all respect the integral
884: gauge symmetry (\ref{nshift}).
885:
886:
887: \bigskip
888:
889: \bigskip
890:
891: \noindent
892: \newsubsection{Some local and global considerations}
893:
894:
895:
896: On $dP_n$ there are $n+3$ different fractional branes, with a priori as many independent gauge
897: couplings and FI parameters. However,
898: the expressions (\ref{taus}) for the central charges ${\mathsf Z}(\FF_s)$ contain
899: only $2n+4$ independent continuous parameters: the dilaton, the (dualized) B-field,
900: and a pair of periods ($b_\aaa$, $\zeta^\aaa$) for every of the $n+1$ 2-cycles in $dP_n$.
901: We conclude that there must be two relations restricting the couplings. The gauge theory
902: interpretation of these relations is that
903: %The first relation
904: %is simply that the overall $U(1)$ has vanishing FI-parameter. Secondly,
905: % As we will explain shortly,
906: the $dP_n$ quiver gauge theory always contains two anomalous
907: $U(1)$ factors. As emphasized for instance in
908: \cite{Intriligator:2005aw}, the FI-parameters
909: associated with anomalous $U(1)$'s are not freely tunable, but
910: dynamically adjusted so that the associated D-term
911: equations are automatically satisfied. This adjustment relates
912: the anomalous FI variables and gauge couplings.
913:
914:
915:
916:
917:
918: The non-compact cone $Y_0$ supports two compact
919: cycles for which the dual cycle is also compact, namely, the canonical class and the
920: del Pezzo surface $X$. Correspondingly, we expect to find a normalizable
921: 2-form and 4-form on $Y_0$.
922: \footnote{Using the form of the metric of the CY singularity as given in eqn (1), the normalizable 2-form can be found to be
923: $\omega_X = {1\over r^4} \left[\omega - 2 \, { dr\over r}\! \wedge \eta \right]$. The normalizable 4-form is its Hodge dual. }
924: %\footnote{Using the form of the metric of the CY singularity as given in eqn (1), these two forms can be explicitly found to be
925: %$\Omega_2 \sim {b^6\over r^6} \left[\omega +2 \, { dr\over r}\! \wedge \eta \right]$
926: %r^2 \left[\phi_0 +2 \, { dr\over r}\! \wedge \eta \right]
927: %\qquad \ & &
928: %\ea
929: Their presence %of these two normalizable harmonic forms
930: implies that two closed string modes survive as dynamical 4-d fields with normalizable
931: kinetic terms; these are the two axions $\theta^{\, 0}$ and $\theta_{{}_X}$ associated
932: with the two anomalous $U(1)$ factors. The two $U(1)$'s are dual to each other:
933: a $U(1)$ gauge rotation of one generates an additive shift in the $\theta$-angle of the other.
934: This naturally identifies the respective $\theta$-angles and St\"uckelberg fields via
935: \ba
936: \label{equal}
937: \theta^{\, 0} =\rho^{{}_X} \, , \qquad \qquad
938: \rho_{\, 0} = \theta_{{}_X} \, .%- \int_X \! B_{\it 2} \wedge C_{\it 2}
939: %\nonumber
940: \ea
941: The geometric origin of these identifications is that the corresponding
942: branes wrap dual intersecting cycles\footnote{\small All other D5-brane components,
943: that wrap the degree zero cycles $\alpha_i$,
944: do not intersect any other branes within $Y$ (see formula \ref{pair}).
945: This correlates with the absence
946: of any other mixed $U(1)$ gauge anomalies.}.
947: %The anomalous $\theta$-angles are dynamical fields and thereby implement
948: %a Green-Schwarz anomaly cancellation
949: %mechanism.
950: %The St\"uckelberg terms (\ref{massterm})
951: %provide the kinetic terms of both fields, and render the two anomalous $U(1)$ vector
952: %bosons massive.
953:
954: \newcommand{\eol}{\nonumber\\[2mm]}
955:
956:
957:
958:
959: We obtain non-normalizable harmonic forms on the non-compact cone $Y_{0}$
960: by extending the other harmonic 2-forms $\omega_i$ on $X$ to $r$-independent
961: forms over $Y_{0}$. The corresponding 4-d RR-modes are non-dynamical fields:
962: any space-time variation of $\ccc^\aaa$ with {\footnotesize A} $\neq 0$ would carry infinite kinetic
963: energy. This obstructs the introduction of the dual scalar field, the would-be
964: St\"uckelberg variabel $\rho_\aaa$, which would have a vanishing kinetic term.
965: We thus conclude that for the non-compact cone $Y_{0}$, all non-anomalous $U(1)$
966: factors remain massless. This is in accord with the expectation that in the non-compact
967: limit, all closed string dynamics decouples.\footnote{\small There is a slight subtlety, however.
968: Whereas the non-abelian gauge dynamics of a D-brane on a del Pezzo singularity
969: flows to a conformal fixed point in the IR, the $U(1)$ factors become infrared
970: free, while towards the UV, their couplings develop a Landau pole. Via the holographic
971: dictionary, this suggests that the D-brane theory with non-zero $U(1)$ couplings
972: needs to be defined on a finite cone $Y_{0}$, with $r$ cut-off at some finite
973: value $\Lambda$. This subtlety will not affect the discussion of the compactied
974: setting, provided the location of all Landau poles is sufficiently larger than
975: the compactification scale.}
976:
977:
978: As we will show in the remainder of this section, the story changes for the compactified
979: setting, for D-branes at a del Pezzo singularity inside of a compact CY threefold $Y$. In this
980: case, a subclass of all harmonic forms on the cone $Y_{0}$ may extend to normalizable
981: harmonic forms on $Y$, and all corresponding closed string modes are dynamical
982: 4-d fields.
983:
984: \bigskip
985: \bigskip
986:
987: \noindent
988: \newsubsection{Bulk action}
989:
990: The most general class of string compactifications, that may include the type of D-branes at
991: singularities discussed here, is F-theory. For concreteness, however, we will consider
992: the sub-class of F-theory compactification that can be described by
993: IIB string theory compactified on an orientifold CY threefold $Y = \widehat{Y}/\mathcal{O}$.
994: %with one or more D-branes localized near
995: %a del Pezzo singularity inside $Y$.
996: The orientifold map
997: $\mathcal{O}$ acts via
998: $$ %\be\label{actionO}
999: \mathcal{O}=(-1)^{F_L}\Omega_p\sigma %; \ \ \ \ \mathcal{O}^2= 1
1000: $$
1001: where $F_L$ is left fermion number, $\Omega_p$ is
1002: world-sheet parity, and $\sigma$ is the involution acting on $Y$. It acts via its
1003: pullback $\sigma^*$ on the various forms present. % in particular, $\sigma^*\Omega=-\Omega$.
1004: The fixed loci of $\sigma$ are orientifold planes.
1005: We will assume that the orientifold planes do not
1006: intersect the base $X$ of the del Pezzo singularity.
1007: %On the cover space $\widehat{Y}$,
1008: %$X$ therefore has two possible lifts. In case needed, $\widehat{X}$ will denote the
1009: %sum of $X$ with its image under the involution $\sigma$, and
1010: %$\widetilde{X}$ the sum of $X$ with its orientation reversed image.
1011:
1012: \newcommand{\summa}{ \raisebox{.4mm}{$\sum\limits_a$}\; }
1013:
1014:
1015: The orientifold projection eliminates one
1016: half of the fields that were initially present on the full Calabi--Yau
1017: space. Which fields survive the projection is determined by
1018: the dimensions of the corresponding even and odd cohomology space
1019: $H^{(i,j)}_{+}$ and $H^{(i,j)}_{-}$ on
1020: Calabi--Yau manifold $\widehat{Y}$.
1021: Note that the orientifold projection in particular
1022: eliminates the constant zero-mode components of $C_{\it 2}$, $C_{\it 6}$ and $B_{\it 2}$,
1023: since the operator $(-1)^{F_L}\Omega_p$ inverts the sign of all these fields.
1024:
1025: The RR sector fields give rise to
1026: 4-d fields via their decomposition into harmonic forms on $Y$, which we may identify
1027: as elements of the $\bar\partial$ cohomology spaces $H^{(p,q)}$.
1028: On the orientifold, we need to decompose this space as
1029: $H^{(p,q)}_{+}\oplus
1030: H^{(p,q)}_{-}$,
1031: where $\pm$ denotes the eigenvalue under the action of $\sigma^*$
1032: \ba
1033: \omega_{\alpha} \in H^{(1,1)}_{+}(\widehat{Y},\Z)\, , \quad & & \quad
1034: \tilde{\omega}_{a}\in H^{(1,1)}_{-}(\widehat{Y},\Z)\, , \nonumber \\[3mm]
1035: \omega^{\alpha} \in H^{(2,2)}_{+}(\widehat{Y},\Z) \, ,\quad & & \quad
1036: \tilde{\omega}^{a}\in H^{(2,2)}_{-}(\widehat{Y},\Z) \, .\nonumber
1037: \ea
1038: %$C_{\it 2}, C_{\it 6}$ and $B_{\it 2}$.
1039: The relevant RR fields, invariant under
1040: $\mathcal{O}=(-1)^{F_L}\Omega_p\sigma$, decompose as:
1041: \ba
1042: \label{c6}
1043: C_{\it 2}\is
1044: \theta^{a}(x)\,\tilde\omega_a\, \nonumber
1045: \\[3mm] C_{\it 4} \is
1046: \ccc^{\, \alpha}(x)\, \omega_{\alpha} +
1047: \rho_{\alpha}(x)\, {\omega}^{\alpha} \, ,\\[3mm]
1048: %, \qquad \qquad
1049: \ C_{\it 6}\, \is \, {\ccc}_{a}(x)\, \tilde{\omega}^a \, .
1050: %label{c6}
1051: \ea
1052: Here $\ccc^{\alpha}$ and $\ccc_a$ %, and $\ccc_{\it 2}$
1053: are two-form fields
1054: and $\rho_\alpha$ and $\theta^a$ are scalar fields.
1055: Similarly, we can expand the K\"ahler form $J$ and NS B-field as\
1056: \ba \label{b2}
1057: J\is\zeta^{\alpha}(x) \, \omega_{\alpha} \, , %\qquad \quad
1058: \nonumber \\[3mm]
1059: B_{\it 2} \is
1060: b^{a}(x) \, \tilde{\omega}_a\, .
1061: \ea
1062: We can choose the cohomology bases such that
1063: \ba\label{condforms}
1064: \int_Y\omega_{\alpha}\wedge{\omega}^{\beta}\is\delta^{\beta}_{\alpha},
1065: %\nonumber \\[3mm]%
1066: \qquad \quad
1067: \int_Y\tilde\omega_{a}\wedge\tilde{\omega}^{b}\, = \, %\is
1068: \delta^{b}_{a}\, .
1069: \ea
1070: In what follows, $\omega_{{}_X}$ and $\tilde{\omega}_{{}_X}$ will denote the Poincar\'e dual
1071: 2-forms to the symmetric and anti-symmetric lift of ${X}$, respectively.
1072:
1073:
1074:
1075:
1076: The IIB supergravity action
1077: in string frame contains the following kinetic terms for the RR
1078: $p$-form fields
1079: \ba
1080: \label{bulkaction}
1081: \mathcal{S} \is
1082: \int [ \, G^{ab}\, d\ccc_a\! \wedge\! *
1083: d\ccc_b \, + \, %{\mathcal{K}^2}
1084: G_{\alpha\beta}\, d\ccc^{\alpha} \! \wedge\! * d\ccc^{\beta}\, ]
1085: \ea
1086: where $G_{\alpha\beta}$ and $G^{ab}$
1087: denote the natural metrics on the space of harmonic 2-forms on $Y$
1088: \ba\label{Galhabeta}
1089: G_{\alpha\beta}\is
1090: \int_Y\omega_{\alpha}\wedge*
1091: \omega_{\beta}\, ,
1092: \qquad \quad %\nonumber \\[3mm]
1093: G^{ab}\, = \,
1094: \int_Y\tilde\omega^a\wedge* \tilde\omega^b \, .%\\[3mm]
1095: \ea
1096: The scalar RR fields $\theta^b$ and $\rho_\alpha$ are related to the above 2-form
1097: fields via the duality relations:
1098: \ba\label{cctildedual}
1099: *\, d\theta^{\, b} \! \is \! -G^{ab} d \ccc_a \, ,
1100: \qquad \quad %\nonumber\\[3mm]
1101: *\, d\rho_{\alpha} \, = \,
1102: G_{\alpha\beta} d\ccc^{\beta}\, .
1103: \ea
1104:
1105: The 4-d fields in (\ref{c6}) and (\ref{b2}) are all period integals of 10-d fields expanded in
1106: harmonic forms. Each of the 10-d fields may also support a non-zero field
1107: strength with some quantized flux. These fluxes play an important role in stabilizing
1108: the various geometric moduli of the compactification. In the following we will assume that
1109: a similar type of mechanism will generate a stabilizing potential for
1110: all the above fields, that fixes their expectation values
1111: and renders them massive at some high scale. The St\"uckelberg
1112: and axion fields $\rho^\alpha$ and $\theta_0$ still play an important role in deriving the low energy
1113: effective field theory, however.
1114:
1115: \bigskip
1116: \bigskip
1117:
1118: \noindent
1119: \newsubsection{Coupling brane and bulk}
1120:
1121: Let us now discuss the coupling between the brane and bulk degrees of freedom.
1122: A first observation, that will be important in what follows, is that
1123: the harmonic forms on the compact CY manifold $Y$, when restricted to base $X$ of the
1124: singularity, in general do not span the full cohomology of $X$. For instance, the
1125: $2$-cohomology of $Y$ may have fewer generators than that
1126: of $X$, in which case there must be one or more 2-cycles that are non-trivial within $X$
1127: but trivial within $Y$. Conversely, $Y$ may have non-trivial cohomology elements
1128: that restrict to trivial elements on $X$. The overlap matrices
1129: \ba
1130: \label{pi}
1131: \Pi_{\alpha}^\aaa \is \int_{\alpha_\aaa} \omega_\alpha \, ,%\nonumber
1132: \qquad \qquad %\\[3mm]
1133: \Pi^{\aaa}_a \, = \, \int_{\alpha_\aaa} \tilde\omega_a \, ,
1134: \ea
1135: when viewed as linear maps between cohomology spaces $H^{(1,1)}(X,\Z)$ and
1136: $H^{(1,1)}_{\pm}(Y,\Z)$, thus typically have both a non-zero kernel and cokernel.
1137:
1138:
1139:
1140: As a geometric clarification, we note that the above linear map $\Pi$ between the
1141: 2-cohomologies of $Y$ and $X$ naturally leads to an exact sequence
1142: \begin{equation}\label{cohoexact}
1143: ...\to H^2(Y)\to H^2(X)\to H^3(Y/X)\to H^3(Y)\to H^3(X)\to ...
1144: \end{equation}
1145: where $X\subset Y$ is %, following the notation in the rest of our paper,
1146: the 4-cycle wrapped by the del Pezzo in the CY 3-fold, $Y$.
1147: The cohomology space $H^k(Y/X)$ is referred to as the
1148: \lq relative' k-cohomology class. The map from $H^2(Y)$ to $H^2(X)$ in the exact
1149: sequence is given by our projection matrix $\Pi$. Since in our case
1150: $H^1(Y)\cong 0$ and $H^1(X) \cong 0$, we have from (\ref{cohoexact}):
1151: \begin{equation}
1152: \text{ker}[\Pi]\cong H^2(Y/X)
1153: \end{equation}
1154: or, in words, the kernel of our projection matrix is just the
1155: relative 2-cohomology. Similarly, using the fact that $H^3(X)\cong 0$,
1156: we deduce that
1157: \begin{equation}
1158: H^3(Y/X)\cong H^3(Y)\oplus\text{coker}[\Pi]
1159: \end{equation}
1160: In other words, the relative 3-cohomology $H^3(Y/X)$ is dual to the space of
1161: all 3-cycles in $Y$ plus all 3-chains $\Gamma$ for which $\partial\Gamma\subset X$.
1162:
1163:
1164: This incomplete overlap between the two cohomologies has immediate repercussions
1165: for the D-brane gauge theory, since it implies that the compact embedding typically reduces
1166: the space of gauge invariant couplings. The couplings are all period integrals of certain
1167: harmonic forms, and any reduction of the associated cohomology spaces reduces the
1168: number of allowed deformations of the gauge theory. This truncation is independent from
1169: the issue of moduli stabilization, which is a {\it dynamical} mechanism for fixing
1170: the couplings, whereas the mismatch of cohomologies amounts to a {\it topological}
1171: obstruction.
1172:
1173: By using the period matrices (\ref{pi}), we can expand the topologically available
1174: local couplings in terms of the global periods, defined in (\ref{c6}) and (\ref{b2}), as
1175: \ba
1176: b^{\, \aaa} = \Pi^\aaa_{\; a}\, b^a\, , \quad\ & &\ \quad
1177: \ccc^{\, \aaa} = \Pi^{\aaa}_{\; \alpha}\,
1178: \ccc^{\, \alpha}\nonumber \\[3mm]
1179: \theta^{\, \aaa} = \Pi^{\aaa}_{\; a}\, \theta^{\, a} \, , \quad\ & &\ \quad
1180: \zeta^{\, \aaa} = \Pi^{\aaa}_{\; \alpha}\,
1181: \zeta^{\alpha} \nonumber
1182: \ea
1183: By construction, the left hand-side are all elements of the subspace of $H^{(1,1)}$ that is
1184: common to both $Y$ and $X$. The number of independent closed
1185: string couplings of each type thus coincides with the rank of the corresponding overlap matrix.
1186:
1187: \newcommand{\two}{{\mbox{\scriptsize 2}}}
1188: \newcommand{\sums}{\mbox{\large $\sum\limits_{\raisebox{.5mm}{\scriptsize $s$}}$}}
1189:
1190: %\newcommand{\sump}{\mbox{\large $\sum\limits_{\raisebox{.5mm}{\scriptsize $p$}}$}}
1191:
1192:
1193:
1194: As a special consequence, it may be possible to form
1195: linear combinations of gauge fields $A_s$, for which the linear RR-coupling (\ref{linear})
1196: identically vanishes. These correspond to linear combinations of $U(1)$ generators
1197: $$
1198: Q = \sums k_s\, Q_s
1199: $$
1200: \vspace{-5mm}
1201: such that
1202: \ba
1203: \sums \; k_s\, \rr_s\is 0\, , \qquad \qquad
1204: \sums\; k_s\,
1205: \pp_{s \aaa}\, \Pi^{\aaa}_{\, \alpha}
1206: \, = \,
1207: 0\, . % \nonumber
1208: \ea
1209: The charge vector of the linear combination of fractional branes $\sum_s k_s\, \FF_s$
1210: adds up to that of a D5-brane wrapping a 2-cycle
1211: within $X$ that is trivial within the total space $Y$. As a result, the corresponding
1212: $U(1)$ vector boson
1213: $
1214: A = \sum_s k_s \, A_s
1215: $
1216: decouples from the normalizable RR-modes,
1217: and remains massless.
1218: This lesson will be applied in the next section.
1219:
1220:
1221:
1222: Let us compute the non-zero masses. Upon dualizing, or equivalently, integrating out the 2-form potentials, we obtain
1223: the St\"uckelberg mass term for the vector bosons $A_s$
1224: \ba
1225: \label{finalmass} \quad
1226: G_{{}_{\! XX} } \,\nabla \rho^{{}_X} \wedge * \nabla
1227: \rho^{{}_X}
1228: + \,
1229: G^{\alpha\beta} \,
1230: \nabla \rho_\alpha \wedge * \nabla \rho_\beta
1231: \ea
1232: \vspace{-4mm}
1233: with
1234: \ba
1235: \nabla \rho^{{}_X} \is d \rho^{{}_X}
1236: - \sums
1237: \, \rr_{\sss} \, A_{s}\, , \nonumber \\[3mm]
1238: \nabla \rho_\alpha \is d\rho_\alpha -
1239: \sums \; \pp_{s\aaa}
1240: \, \Pi^\aaa_{\, \alpha}
1241: \, A_s\, .
1242: \ea
1243: The vector boson mass matrix reads
1244: %\be\tau^0 = \rho_0 + i \int _X\! J \wedge J \ee
1245: \be
1246: m^2_{s s'} = G_{{}_{\! XX}}\, \rr_s \rr_{s'} +\,
1247: G^{\alpha\beta}
1248: \,\Pi^{\; \aaa}_{\alpha}
1249: \Pi^{\; \bbb}_{\beta} \,
1250: \pp_{s \aaa} \pp_{s'\bbb}
1251: \ee
1252: and is of the order of the string scale (for string size compactifications).
1253: It lifts all $U(1)$ vector bosons from the low energy spectrum, except for the ones
1254: that correspond to fractional branes that wrap 2-cycles that are trivial within $Y$.
1255: This is the central result of this section.
1256:
1257: Besides via St\"uckelberg mass terms, vector bosons can also acquire a mass from
1258: vacuum expectation values of charged scalar fields, triggered by turning on FI-parameters.
1259: It is worth noting that for the same $U(1)$ factors for which the above
1260: mass term (\ref{finalmass}) vanishes, the FI parameter cancels
1261: $$
1262: \sums \, k_s\, \pp_{s \aaa}\Pi_\alpha^\aaa \zeta^\alpha = 0
1263: $$
1264: These $U(1)$ bosons thus remain massless, as long
1265: as supersymmetry remains unbroken.
1266:
1267:
1268: \bigskip
1269: \bigskip
1270:
1271: \noindent
1272: \newsection{SM-like Gauge Theory from a ${\rm dP_8}$ Singularity}
1273:
1274: \medskip
1275:
1276: We now apply the lessons of the previous section to the string construction of a Standard
1277: Model-like theory of \cite{MH}, using the world volume theory of a D3-brane on a del Pezzo 8
1278: singularity. Let us summarize the set up -- more details are found in \cite{MH}.
1279:
1280: \bigskip
1281: \bigskip
1282:
1283: \newsubsection{A Standard Model D3-brane}
1284:
1285: A del Pezzo 8 surface can be represented as $\PP^2$ blown up at $8$ generic points.
1286: It supports
1287: %spanned by one 4-cycle, one 0-cycle, and
1288: nine independent
1289: 2-cycles: the hyperplane class $H$ in ${\PP}^2$ % $H_2({\bf P}^2,{\bf Z})$,
1290: plus eight exceptional curves $E_i$ with intersection numbers $$
1291: H\ccap H \, = \, 1, \ \ \ \quad E_i\ccap E_j = - \delta_{ij} , \ \ \ \quad H \ccap E_i = 0\, .$$
1292: The canonical class is identified as
1293: %\be\label{canon}
1294: $$K = -3 H +\mbox{$\sum_{i=1}^8$}\, E_i. $$
1295: The degree zero sub-lattice of $H_2(X,\Z)$, the elements with zero intersection with
1296: $c_1=-K$, is isomorphic to the root lattice of $E_8$.
1297: The $8$ simple roots, all with self-intersection $-2$, can be chosen as
1298: \be
1299: \label{ddd}
1300: \alpha_i = E_i - E_{i+1}, \ \ \ \ \ \mbox{\footnotesize $i=1,\ldots, 7$}
1301: \qquad \qquad \alpha_8 = h-E_1-E_2-E_3\, .
1302: \ee
1303: A del Pezzo 8 singularity thus accommodates 11 types of fractional branes $\FF_i$, which each are
1304: characterized by charge vectors ${\rm ch}(\FF_i)$ % = ({\rm rk}(\FF_i),c_1(\FF_i),{\rm ch}_2(\FF_i))$
1305: that indicate their (D7, D5, D3) wrapping numbers.
1306:
1307:
1308: Exceptional collections (=bases of fractional branes) on a del Pezzo 8 singularity have been constructed in \cite{karpov}.
1309: For a given collection,
1310: a D-brane configuration assigns multiplicity $n_i$ to each fractional brane $\FF_i$, consistent
1311: with local tadpole
1312: conditions. The construction of \cite{MH} starts from a single
1313: D3-brane; the multiplicities $n_i$ are such that the
1314: charge vectors add up to $(0,0,1)$.
1315: For the favorable basis of fractional branes described in \cite{MH}
1316: (presumably corresponding to a specific stability region in K\"ahler
1317: moduli space),
1318: this leads to an ${\cal N}\!=\! 1$ quiver gauge theory with the gauge group
1319: $
1320: {\cal G}_0 = U(6) \times U(3) \times U(1)^9.
1321: $
1322: \footnote{This particular quiver theory is related via a single Seiberg duality to the world volume theory of
1323: a D3-brane near a $\C^3/\Delta_{27}$ orbifold singularity -- the model considered earlier
1324: in \cite{delta27} \cite{Aldazabal} as a possible starting point for a string realization of a SM-like
1325: gauge theory.}
1326:
1327: As shown in \cite{MH}, this D3-brane quiver theory %with gauge group ${\cal G}_0$
1328: allows
1329: a SUSY preserving symmetry breaking process to a semi-realistic
1330: gauge theory with the gauge group
1331: $$
1332: {\cal G} =U(3) \times U(2) \times U(1)^7.
1333: $$
1334: %\noindent
1335: The quiver diagram is drawn in fig 1. Each line represents three generations of
1336: bi-fundamental fields. The D-brane model thus has the same
1337: non-abelian gauge symmetries, and the same quark and lepton content as the Standard Model.
1338: It has an excess of Higgs fields -- two pairs per generation -- and several
1339: extra $U(1)$-factors. We would like to apply the new insights obtained in the previous section
1340: to move the model one step closer to reality, by eliminating all the extra $U(1)$ gauge
1341: symmetries except hypercharge from the low energy theory.
1342:
1343: To effectuate the symmetry breaking to ${\cal G}$, while preserving ${\cal N}\! =\! 1$ supersymmetry, it
1344: is necessary turn on a suitable set of FI parameters and tune the superpotential $W$.\footnote{The superpotential $W$
1345: contains Yukawa couplings for every closed oriented triangle in the quiver diagram,
1346: can be tuned via the complex structure moduli, in combination with suitable non-commutative
1347: deformations \cite{martijn2} of the del Pezzo surface.}
1348: The D-term and F-term equations can then both be solved, while dictating expectation values
1349: that result in the desired symmetry breaking pattern.
1350: As first discussed in \cite{MoPl}\footnote{See also \cite{pol,dgm,ddg,lnv}.}
1351: (in the context of $\mathbb{Z}_2\times\mathbb{Z}_2$ orbifolds), when a
1352: Calabi--Yau singularity is not isolated, the moduli space of D-branes
1353: on that Calabi--Yau has more than one branch. From a non-isolated
1354: singularity, several curves $\Gamma_i$ of singularities will emanate,
1355: each having a generic singularity type $R_i$, one of the ADE singularities.
1356:
1357: In this non-isolated case, on one of the branches of the moduli space,
1358: the branes move freely on the Calabi--Yau or its (partial) resolution,
1359: and the FI parameters are identified with ``blowup modes'' which
1360: specify how much blowing up is done. But there are additional
1361: branches of the moduli space associated with each $\Gamma_i$: on
1362: such a branch, the FI
1363: parameters which would normally be used to blow up the ADE singularity
1364: $R_i$ are frozen to zero, and new parameters arise which correspond to
1365: positions of $R_i$-fractional branes along $\Gamma_i$. That is,
1366: on this new branch, some of the $R_i$ fractional branes have moved
1367: out along the curve $\Gamma_i$ and their positions give new parameters.
1368:
1369: The strategy for producing the gauge theory of fig 1, essentially
1370: following \cite{MH}, is this: by appropriately tuning the superpotential
1371: (i.e., varying the complex structure) we can find a Calabi--Yau with
1372: a non-isolated singularity---a curve $\Gamma$ of $A_2$ singular points---such
1373: that the classes $\alpha_1$ and
1374: $\alpha_2$ have been blown down to an $A_2$ singularity on the (generalized)
1375: del Pezzo surface where it meets the singular locus.\footnote{\small We
1376: will give an explicit description of a del Pezzo 8 surface with
1377: the required $A_2$ singularity in the next section.}
1378: Our symmetry-breaking
1379: involves moving onto the $\Gamma$ branch in the moduli space, where
1380: the $\alpha_1$ and $\alpha_2$ fractional brane classes are free to
1381: move along the curve $\Gamma$ of $A_2$ singularities. In particular,
1382: these branes can be taken to be very far from the primary singular point
1383: of interest, and become part of the bulk theory: any effect which they
1384: have on the physics will occur at very high energy like the rest of
1385: the bulk theory.
1386:
1387: Making this choice removes the branes supported on $\alpha_1$ and
1388: $\alpha_2$ from the original brane spectrum, and replaces other
1389: branes in the spectrum by bound states which are independent of $\alpha_1$ and
1390: $\alpha_2$.
1391: The remaining bound state basis of the fractional branes obtained in \cite{MH}
1392: is specified by the following set of charge vectors
1393: \ba
1394: \label{coll2}
1395: \begin{array}{ccc}
1396: {\rm ch}(\FF_{1}) = (3, -2K + \! \mbox{$\sum\limits_{i=5}^8 E_i$}\! - E_4, {\textstyle{1\over 2}} )
1397: \\[3.5mm]
1398: \, {\rm ch}(\FF_{2}) =\, (\, 3,\, \mbox{$\sum\limits_{i=5}^8 E_i$}, \textstyle{-2})\qquad \qquad \\[3.5mm]
1399: {\rm ch}(\FF_{3}) = \, (3,3H-\! \mbox{$\sum\limits_{i=1}^4 E_i$}, -\textstyle{ 1\over 2} ) \qquad
1400: \end{array} %\vspace{-1cm}
1401: %\nonumber\\[.6cm]
1402: \raisebox{-2mm}{$\begin{array}{ccc} & & \qquad
1403: {\rm ch}({\FF}_{4})\, = \, (1, H -E_4, 0) \ \ \; \qquad \qquad \\[6mm]
1404: & & \qquad \ \ \ \, {\rm ch}(\FF_{i}) \, = \, (1,- K\! + E_i , \,1\, ) \qquad \mbox{\scriptsize ${i =5,\, . \, ,8}$}\\[3.5mm]
1405: & & \qquad \; {\rm ch}({\FF}_{9}) \, = \, (1, 2H - {\mbox{$\sum\limits_{i=1}^4$}} E_i, 0) \qquad \qquad
1406: \end{array}$}
1407: \nonumber \\[-.8cm]
1408: \ea
1409: Here the first and third entry indicate the D7 and D3 charge; the second
1410: entry gives the 2-cycle around wrapped by the D5-brane component of $\FF_i$.
1411: As shown in \cite{MH}, the above collection of fractional branes is rigid, in the sense that
1412: the branes have the minimum number of self-intersections and the corresponding gauge
1413: theory is free of adjoint matter besides the gauge multiplet.
1414: {}From the collection of charge vectors, one easily obtains the matrix of intersection
1415: products via the fomula (\ref{pair}).
1416: One finds
1417: \ba \label{chiminus}
1418: \#(\FF_i,\FF_j) =\mbox{\footnotesize
1419: $\left(\! \begin{array}{ccccccccc}
1420: \ 0 & -3 & \ 0 & \ 1 & \ 1 & 1 & \ 1 & \ 1 & 1 \\
1421: \ 3 &\ 0 &\ 3 & \ 2 & \ 2 & 2 & \ 2 & \ 2 & \ 2 \\
1422: \ 0 & -3 & \ 0 & \ 1 & \ 1 & 1 & \ 1 & \ 1 & 1 \\
1423: -1 & -2 & -1 & \ 0 & \ 0 & 0 & \ 0 & \ 0 & 0 \\
1424: -1 & -2 & - 1 & \ 0 & \ 0 & 0 & \ 0 & \ 0 & 0 \\
1425: -1 & -2 & -1 & \ 0 & \ 0 & 0 & \ 0 & \ 0 & 0 \\
1426: -1 & -2 & -1 & \ 0 & \ 0 & 0 & \ 0 & \ 0 & 0 \\
1427: -1 & -2 & -1 & \ 0 & \ 0 & 0 & \ 0 & \ 0 & 0 \\
1428: -1 & -2 & -1 & \ 0 & \ 0 & 0 & \ 0 & \ 0 & 0
1429: \end{array}\!
1430: \right) $}\ea
1431: which gives
1432: the quiver diagram drawn fig 1. The rank of each gauge group corresponds to the
1433: (absolute value of the) multiplicity of the corresponding fractional brane, and has been
1434: chosen such that weighted sum of charge vectors adds up to the charge of a single D3-brane.
1435: In other words, the gauge theory of fig 1 arises from a
1436: single D3-brane placed at the del Pezzo 8 singularity.
1437:
1438: \begin{figure}[t]
1439: \begin{center}
1440: %\leavevmode\hbox{\epsfxsize=7cm \epsffile{finquiver.eps}}\\[3mm]
1441: \leavevmode\hbox{\epsfxsize=8cm \epsffile{East1b.eps}}
1442: %\epsfig{figure=East1b.pdf,scale=0.5}
1443: \caption{The MSSM-like quiver gauge theory obtained in \cite{MH}. Each line represents three generations of bi-fundamentals. In the text below we will identify the geometric condition that isolates
1444: the $U(1)_Y$ hypercharge as the only surviving massless $U(1)$ gauge symmetry.}
1445: %\label{default}
1446: \end{center}
1447: \end{figure}
1448:
1449:
1450:
1451: Note that, as expected, all fractional branes in the basis (\ref{coll2}) have vanishing D5 wrapping
1452: numbers around the two 2-cycles corresponding to the first two roots $\alpha_1$ and
1453: $\alpha_2$ of $E_8$, since we have converted the FI parameters which
1454: were blowup modes for those cycles into positions for $A_2$-fractional
1455: branes.
1456:
1457: After eliminating the two 2-cycles $\alpha_1$ and $\alpha_2$, the remaining
1458: 2-cohomology of the del Pezzo singularity is
1459: spanned by the roots $\alpha_i$ with $i=3, .. , 8$ and the canoncial class $K$.
1460: %In the table below, we have indicated the charges
1461: %and intersection numbers of the collection fractional branes $\FF_i$ with all these remaining 2-cycles.
1462: Note that the total cohomology of the generalized del Pezzo surface with
1463: an $A_2$ singularity is 9 dimensional,
1464: and that the fractional branes (\ref{coll2}) thus form a complete basis.
1465:
1466: \newcommand{\Ext}{{\rm Ext}}
1467: \newcommand{\vQ}{\cal Q}
1468: \newcommand{\vL}{\cal L}
1469: \newcommand{\vbQ}{\overline{\vQ}}
1470: \newcommand{\bu}{\overline u}
1471: \newcommand{\bd}{\raisebox{-3pt}{$\overline d$}}
1472: \newcommand{\bbe}{\overline e}
1473: \newcommand{\bq}{\overline q}
1474: \newcommand{\bH}{\overline H}
1475: \newcommand{\bnu}{\overline \nu}
1476:
1477:
1478:
1479:
1480: %Ideally, one would like to characterize the geometric deformation of the $$dP_8$$ singularity that
1481: %induces the above symmetry breaking pattern.
1482:
1483: %Via the intersection pairing, the 2-cycles form an integral lattice in ${\bf R}^9$.
1484:
1485: \bigskip
1486: \bigskip
1487:
1488: \newsubsection{Identification of hypercharge}
1489:
1490: Let us turn to discuss the $U(1)$ factors in the quiver of fig 1, and identify the linear combination that defines hypercharge.
1491: We denote the node on the right by $U(1)_1$, and the overall $U(1)$-factors of the $U(2)$ and
1492: $U(3)$ nodes by $U(1)_2$ and $U(1)_3$, resp. The $U(1)^6$ node at the bottom divides into
1493: two nodes $U(1)^3_u$ and $U(1)^3_d$, where each $U(1)_u$ and $U(1)_d$
1494: acts on the matter fields of
1495: the corresponding generation only. We denote the nine $U(1)$ generators
1496: by $\{Q_1, Q_2, Q_3, Q^i_u,Q^i_d, \}$. The total charge
1497: $$
1498: Q_{tot} = \sum_s Q_s
1499: $$
1500: decouples: none of the bi-fundamental fields is charged under $Q_{tot}$.
1501: Of the remaining eight generators, two have mixed $U(1)$ anomalies. As discussed in
1502: section 3, these are associated to fractional branes that intersect compact cycles
1503: within the del Pezzo singularity. {In other words, any linear combination of charges
1504: such that the corresponding fractional brane has zero rank and zero degree is free
1505: of anomalies.}
1506:
1507: %{\footnotesize \ba \nonumber
1508: %\begin{array}{|c||r|r|r|r|r|r| |c| }
1509: %\hline
1510: %& \ Q_0\ & \ Q_d \ & \ Q_u\ & \ Q_2\ & \ Q_3\ & \ \ Q_Y \\[1.2mm] \hline \hline
1511: %Q & 0 & 0 & 0 & -1 & 1 & \ {1/6} \\[1.2mm] \hline
1512: %\bu & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & -1 & - {2/ 3} \\[1.2mm] \hline
1513: %\bd & 0 & 1& 0 & 0 & -1 & {1/ 3} \\[1.2mm] \hline
1514: %L & 1 & 0 & 0 & -1 & 0 & - {1/2} \\[1.2mm] \hline
1515: %\bnu & - 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & \ 0 \; \\[1.2mm] \hline
1516: %\bbe & - 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & \ 1 \; \\[1.2mm] \hline
1517: %H^{u} & 0 & 0 & -1 & 1 & 0 &\ {1/2} \\[1.2mm] \hline
1518: %H^{d} & 0 & -1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & - {1/2} \\[1.2mm] \hline
1519: %g & 0 & -1 & 0 & 0 & 0\\ \hline
1520: %q & 2 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
1521: %\hline\bq & -2 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0\\ \hline
1522: %\end{array}\label{eq:charges}
1523: %\ea}
1524: %\begin{center}
1525: %\parbox{9cm}{\small Table 1. $U(1)$ charges of the various matter fields.}
1526: %\end{center}
1527: %As seen from table 2,
1528: Hypercharge is identified with the non-anomalous combination
1529: \be
1530: \label{hyper}
1531: Q_Y = {1\over 2} Q_1 - {1\over 6} Q_3 - {1\over 2}
1532: \Bigl( \, \mbox{$\sum\limits_{{}_{i=1}}^{{}^{{}_3}}$}\, Q_d^i - \mbox{$\sum\limits_{{}_{i=1}}^{{}^{{}_3}}$} \, Q^i_u\Bigr)
1533: \ee
1534: The other non-anomalous $U(1)$ charges are
1535: \ba
1536: {1\over 3} Q_3-{1\over 2} Q_1 \is B-L,
1537: \ea
1538: together with four independent abelian flavor symmetries of the form
1539: \be
1540: Q^{ij}_{u,d} = Q_{u}^i - Q_{u}^j,
1541: \qquad \quad
1542: Q^{ij}_b = Q^i_b - Q^j_b .
1543: \ee
1544: We would like to ensure that, among all these charges, only the hypercharge survives as
1545: a low energy gauge symmetry. From our study of the stringy St\"uckelberg mechanism, we
1546: now know that this can be achieved if we find a
1547: CY embedding of the $dP_8$ geometry such that only the particular 2-cycle associated with $Q_Y$
1548: represents a trivial homology class within the full CY threefold.
1549: We will compute this 2-cycle momentarily.
1550:
1551: Let us take a short look at the physical relevance of the extra $U(1)$ factors in the
1552: quiver of fig 2. If unbroken, they forbid in particular all $\mu$-terms, the
1553: supersymmetric mass terms for the extra Higgs scalars.
1554: %off-diagonal components of the CKM and neutrino mass matrices.
1555: %It is interesting to note, however, the $\mu$ terms is suppressed within the SSM.
1556: %Most of
1557: %the $U(1)$'s in our quiver diagrams have indeed been considered in the literature as
1558: %approximate global symmetries (Peccei-Quinn, Froggatt-Nielsen, baryon number, lepton number, etc)
1559: %that may explain some of the observed hierarchies of Standard Model couplings.
1560: In the concluding section 6, we return to discuss possible string mechanisms for breaking the
1561: extra $U(1)$'s. First we discuss how to make them all massive.
1562:
1563: The linear sum (\ref{hyper}) of $U(1)$ charges that defines $Q_Y$,
1564: selects a corresponding linear sum of fractional branes, which we may choose as follows\footnote{\small
1565: With this equation we do not suggest any bound state formation of fractional
1566: branes. Instead, we simply use it as an intermediate step in determining the cohomology
1567: class of the linear combination of branes, whose $U(1)$ generators add up to $U(1)_Y$.}
1568: \be
1569: \label{sumf}
1570: \FF_{\rm Y} = {1\over 2} \Bigl( \, \FF_{3} - \FF_1 -\!\! \mbox{$\sum\limits_{{i=4,5,9}}$} \FF_i\, + \! \! \mbox{$\sum\limits_{{i=6,7,8}}$} \FF_i\, \Bigr)
1571: \ee
1572: A simple calculation gives that, at the level of the charge vectors
1573: \be
1574: {\rm ch}(\FF_{\rm Y} ) = (\,0\, , \, -\alpha_4,\; %\textstyle
1575: \mbox{\large ${1\over 2}$} \, ) \qquad \quad \alpha_4 = e_5-e_4
1576: \ee
1577: %Since the D3-charge can be cancelled by a simple shift $Q_Y \to Q_Y - {1\over 2} Q_{tot}$,
1578: We read off that the 2-cycle associated with the hypercharge generator $Q_Y$ is the one represented by the simple root $\alpha_4$.
1579: % It
1580: %means that to lift all other $U(1)$'s, all
1581: %we need is a compact CY embedding of the $dP_8$ singularity, such that all 2-cycles
1582: %except $\alpha_4$ lift to non-trivial homology classes. %We now turn to this challenge.
1583: %\bigskip\bigskip\bigskip\bigskip
1584:
1585:
1586: \newcommand{\alphak}{{J}}
1587:
1588: \begin{figure}[t]
1589: \begin{center}
1590: %\leavevmode\hbox{\epsfxsize=7cm \epsffile{finquiver.eps}}\\[3mm]
1591: \leavevmode\hbox{\epsfxsize=9cm \epsffile{new8.eps}}
1592: %\epsfig{figure=new8.pdf,scale=0.75}
1593: \caption{Our proposed D3-brane realization of the MSSM involves a $dP_8$ singularity
1594: embedded inside a CY manifold, such that two of its 2-cycles, $\alpha_1$ and $\alpha_2$, develop an $A_2$ singularity which forms part of a curve of
1595: $A_2$ singularities on the CY,
1596: and all remaining 2-cycles except $\alpha_4$ are non-trivial within the full CY.}
1597: %\label{default}
1598: \end{center}
1599: \end{figure}
1600:
1601:
1602: We consider this an encouragingly simple result. Namely,
1603: when added to the insights obtained in the previous section, we arrive at the following attractive
1604: geometrical conclusion: we can ensure that all extra $U(1)$ factors except hypercharge
1605: acquire a St\"uckelberg mass, provided we can find compact CY manifolds with a del
1606: Pezzo 8 singularity, such that only $\alpha_4$ represents a trivial homology class.
1607: Requiring non-triviality of all other 2-cycles except $\alpha_4$ not only helps with
1608: eliminating the extra $U(1)$'s, but also keeps a maximal number of gauge invariant couplings
1609: in play as dynamically tunable moduli of the compact geometry.
1610: In particular, to accommodate the construction of the SM quiver theory of fig 1,
1611: the complex structure moduli of the compact CY threefold must allow for the formation of
1612: an $A_2$ singularity within the del Pezzo 8 geometry\footnote{
1613: This can be done without any fine-tuning, as follows.
1614: The complex structure of $Y$ is fixed
1615: via the GVW superpotential, which for given integer 3-form
1616: fluxes %$n_\alphak$ for $F_{\it 3}$ and $m_\alphak$ for $H_{\it 3}$,
1617: takes the form $
1618: W%(\Omega^\alphak)
1619: \! = \! (n_\alphak + \tau m_\alphak)\, \Omega^\alphak\,$
1620: where $\Omega^\alphak$ denote the periods of the 3-form $\Omega$.
1621: Now choose the integer fluxes to be invariant under the diffeomorphisms that
1622: act like Weyl reflections in $\alpha_1$ and $\alpha_2$. $W$ then has
1623: an extremum for $\Omega^\alphak$ invariant both Weyl reflections, which is the locus
1624: where $dP_8$ has the required $A_2$ singularity.}, with $\alpha_4$
1625: representing a trivial cycle and all other cycles being nontrivial.
1626: In the next section, we will present a general geometric prescription for constructing
1627: a compact CY embedding of the $dP_8$ singularity with all the desired topological
1628: properties.
1629: %\medskip
1630:
1631: \bigskip
1632:
1633: \bigskip
1634: \bigskip
1635:
1636:
1637:
1638: \newsection{Constructing the Calabi--Yau threefold}
1639:
1640: \medskip
1641:
1642: \newcommand{\cO}{{\cal O}}
1643:
1644: It is not difficult to find examples of compact CY threefolds that contain a $dP_8$ singularity.
1645: Since a $dP_8$ surface can be constructed as a hypersurface of degree six in the weighted projective space $W\PP_{(1,1,2,3)}$, one natural route is to look among realizations of CY threefolds
1646: as hypersurfaces in weighted projective space, and identify coordinate regions where the
1647: CY equation degenerates into that of a cone over $dP_8$. Examples of this type
1648: are the CY threefolds obtained by resolving singularities of
1649: degree 18 hypersurfaces $W\PP_{(1,1,1,6,9)}$, considered in \cite{eighteen}.
1650: This class of CY manifolds, however, has only two K\"ahler classes, and therefore can not
1651: satisfy our topological requirement that all 2-cycles of $dP_8$
1652: except $\alpha_4$ lift to non-trivial cycles within $Y$. On the other hand, this
1653: example does illustrate the basic phenomenon of interest: since the 2-cohomology
1654: of $Y$ has only two generators, most 2-cycles within the $dP_8$
1655: surface must in fact be trivial within $Y$.
1656:
1657:
1658: A potentially more useful class of examples was recently considered in \cite{Diaconescu},
1659: %One can phrase the construction
1660: where it was shown how to
1661: construct a CY orientifold ${Y}$ as a
1662: $T^2$-fibration over any del Pezzo surface. The $T^2$ is represented in
1663: hyperelliptic form, that is, as a two sheeted cover of a $\PP^1$. The
1664: $\PP^1$ fibration takes the form ${\PP}(\cO_X \oplus K_X)$ with
1665: $X$ the del Pezzo surface.
1666: The covering space $\hat{Y}$ of $Y$ has a holomorphic involution $\sigma$,
1667: which exchanges these two sheets, and the IIB orientifold on this CY surface is
1668: obtained by implementing the projection $\mathcal{O}=(-1)^{F_L}\Omega_p\, \sigma.$
1669: %
1670: The ${\PP}^1$-fibration over the del Pezzo has two special
1671: sections, $X_0$ and $X_\infty$, one of which can be contracted to a del Pezzo
1672: singularity \cite{Diaconescu}. The total space of the fibration is the orientifold geometry $Y$.
1673: This set-up looks somewhat more promising for our purpose, since
1674: all 2-cycles within $X$ are manifestly preserved as 2-cycles within the orientifold space $Y$.
1675: So a suitable modification the construction, so that only $\alpha_4$ is eliminated as a generator
1676: of $H^2(Y)$ while all other 2-cycles are kept,
1677: would yield a concrete example of a CY orientifold with the desired global topology.
1678: \footnote{A concrete proposal is as follows.
1679: Tune the complex structure
1680: so that the $dP_8$ has an automorphism which maps
1681: $\alpha_4 \to - \alpha_4$, i.e. which acts as the Weyl reflection
1682: $w(\alpha_4)$ on the homology lattice. One way %(but not the only way)
1683: to get such an automorphism is to let $X$ develop an $A_1$ singularity
1684: with $\alpha_4$ as the $(-2)$ curve. The Weyl reflection then acts
1685: trivially on the Calabi-Yau ${Y}$, but acts
1686: non-trivially on the cohomology and the
1687: string theory spectrum on $Y$.
1688: We may then define a new holomorphic involution $\rho = w(\alpha_4) \circ
1689: \sigma$ and consider the orientifold
1690: %
1691: $\mathcal{O}'=(-1)^{F_L}\Omega_p\,\rho.$
1692: %
1693: The $O7$-planes are at the same locus as
1694: before, but the monodromy is slightly different. The
1695: harmonic 2-form associated to $\alpha_4$ on $X$ still lifts to the cover space
1696: $\widehat Y$, but as a generator of odd homology $H_-^{1,1}(\widehat{Y})$ instead of
1697: $H_+^{1,1}(\widehat{Y})$.
1698: %(because we have reversed the class on the
1699: %second sheet of the ${\mathbb Z}_2$-covering).
1700: Therefore, the FI-parameter and St\"uckelberg field associated to $\alpha_4$
1701: are projected out, leading to a massless $U(1)_Y$.}
1702:
1703: Rather than following this route (of trying to find a specific
1704: compact CY manifold) we will instead give a general local prescription
1705: for how to obtain a suitable compact embedding of the $dP_8$ singularity,
1706: based only on the geometry of
1707: the neighborhood of the singularity. This local perspective does not rely on
1708: detailed assumptions about the specific UV completion of the $dP_8$ model,
1709: %that is, any specific choice of compact CY geometry,
1710: and thus combines well with
1711: our general bottom-up philosophy.
1712:
1713:
1714: \bigskip
1715: \medskip
1716:
1717:
1718: \newsubsection{ Local Picard group of a CY singularity}
1719:
1720:
1721: To begin, we discuss the local Picard group of a Calabi--Yau singularity,
1722: and the effect it has on things such as deformations.
1723:
1724:
1725:
1726:
1727:
1728:
1729:
1730: If $X$ is a (local or global) algebraic variety or complex analytic space
1731: of complex dimension $d$,
1732: the {\em Weil divisors on $X$},
1733: denoted $Z_{d-1}(X)$, are the $\mathbb{Z}$-linear combinations
1734: of subvarieties of dimension $d-1$;
1735: the {\em Cartier divisors on $X$}, denoted $\operatorname{Div}(X)$,
1736: are divisors which are locally defined by a single equation $\{f=0\}$.
1737: On a nonsingular variety, $Z_{d-1}(X)= \operatorname{Div}(X)$, so the
1738: quotient group
1739: \[Z_{d-1}(X)/\operatorname{Div}(X)\]
1740: is one measurement of how singular the variety $X$ is.
1741:
1742: The {\em principal Cartier divisors}\/ on $X$, denoted
1743: $\operatorname{Div}^0(X)$, are the divisors which can be written as the
1744: difference of zeros and poles of a meromorphic function defined on all
1745: of $X$, and the {\em Picard group of $X$}\/ is the quotient
1746: \ba
1747: \operatorname{Pic}(X)=\operatorname{Div}(X)/\operatorname{Div}^0(X).
1748: \nonumber
1749: \ea
1750: If $X$ is sufficiently small, this is trivial, and one introduces a local
1751: version of the group called the {\em local Picard group}: for a point $P\in X$,
1752: \[ \operatorname{Pic}(X,P) = \operatornamewithlimits{lim}_\leftarrow Z_{d-1}(U)/\operatorname{Div}(U),\]
1753: where the limit is taken over smaller and smaller open neighborhoods $U$
1754: of $P$ in $X$.
1755:
1756: Local Picard groups of Calabi--Yau singularities in complex dimesion $3$
1757: were studied in detail
1758: by Kawamata \cite{kawamata}, who showed that
1759: $\operatorname{Pic}(X,P)$ is finitely generated. In our context,
1760: we are mainly interested in the case where $X$ is a neighborhood
1761: of a singular point $P\in X$ which is obtained by contracting a
1762: (generalized) del Pezzo surface $S$ in a Calabi--Yau space
1763: $\widetilde{X}$ to a point via a map
1764: $\pi:\widetilde{X}\to X$.\footnote{We allow $\widetilde{X}$ to have a curve of
1765: rational double point singularities, meeting $S$ in a rational double point,
1766: which is why $S$ is called ``generalized'', following the terminology
1767: of the mathematics literature.} In this case, we can identify
1768: $\operatorname{Pic}(X,P)$ with the image of the natural map
1769: $\operatorname{Pic}(\widetilde{X}) \to \operatorname{Pic}(S)$.
1770: The rank of this image is always at least one: it follows from the
1771: adjunction formula that there is always a divisor
1772: $D_0$ on $\widetilde{X}$ such that $D_0+S$ is the divisor of a meromorphic
1773: function on $X$, and the image of $D_0$ in $\operatorname{Pic}(S)$ is
1774: the anticanonical divisor $-K_S$.
1775:
1776: To take a simple, yet important example, suppose that $S=\mathbb{CP}^1\times
1777: \mathbb{CP}^1\subset \widetilde{X}$ contracts to a Calabi--Yau singular point
1778: $P\in X$. There are two possibilities for
1779: $\operatorname{Pic}(X,P)$: it may happen that the two homology
1780: classes $[\mathbb{CP}^1\times \{\text{point}\}]$ and
1781: $[\{\text{point}\}\times\mathbb{CP}^1]$ are the same in $H_2(\widetilde{X})$,
1782: in
1783: which case $\operatorname{Pic}(X,P)\cong\mathbb{Z}$ (with the
1784: generator corresponding to $-K_S$), or it may happen that those two homology
1785: classes are distinct, in which case
1786: $\operatorname{Pic}(X,P)\cong\mathbb{Z}^2$. Note that if
1787: $X$ is simply a cone over $S$, the classes will be distinct; on the
1788: other hand, the case $\operatorname{Pic}(X,P)\cong\mathbb{Z}$
1789: is closely related to one of the key examples from Mori's
1790: original pathbreaking paper \cite{mori} which started the modern classification
1791: theory of algebraic threefolds.\footnote{In Mori's case, the normal
1792: bundle of $S$ in $\widetilde{X}$ was $\mathcal{O}_S(-1,-1)$; on our
1793: case, the normal bundle is $\mathcal{O}_S(-2,-2)$.}
1794:
1795: The calculation of the local Picard group near a singular point
1796: depends sensitively on the equation of the point. Mori's example was
1797: in fact a form of the familiar conifold singularity.
1798: It is common in the study of Calabi--Yau spaces to consider only the
1799: ``small'' blowups of such a singularity (which replace it by a
1800: $\mathbb{CP}^1$; however,
1801: we could also choose to
1802: simply blow up the singular point in the standard way, which would yield
1803: $\mathbb{CP}^1\times \mathbb{CP}^1$ with normal bundle
1804: $\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{CP}^1\times \mathbb{CP}^1}(-1,-1)$.
1805: The ``small'' blowups exist exactly when the two homology classes
1806: $[\mathbb{CP}^1\times \{\text{point}\}]$ and
1807: $[\{\text{point}\}\times\mathbb{CP}^1]$ are distinct; when they are the
1808: same, we are in Mori's situation where small blowups do not exist. How
1809: do we determine this from the equation?
1810: If we can write
1811: the equation of the conifold singularity in the form
1812: \begin{equation}\label{eq:conifold}
1813: xy-zt=0
1814: \end{equation}
1815: then the two small blowups are obtained by blowing up the Weil divisors
1816: $x=z=0$ or $x=t=0$, respectively. However, if there are higher order
1817: terms in the equation, the nicely factored form \eqref{eq:conifold}
1818: may be destroyed:\footnote{The factored form can always be restored by
1819: a local complex analytic change of coordinates, but that change of coordinates
1820: may fail to extend over the entire Calabi--Yau.} this is Mori's case.
1821: The case of a del Pezzo contraction, with
1822: normal bundle
1823: $\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{CP}^1\times \mathbb{CP}^1}(-2,-2)$,
1824: is similar.\footnote{In that case, the small contractions would yield
1825: a curve of $A_1$ singularities, as was crucial for the analysis of
1826: \cite{morrison-seiberg}.}
1827:
1828: If the neighborhood of the $\mathbb{CP}^1\times\mathbb{CP}^1$ is sufficiently
1829: large, the difference between the two cases can be detected by the topology
1830: of the neighborhood. When the two homology classes
1831: $[\mathbb{CP}^1\times \{\text{point}\}]$ and
1832: $[\{\text{point}\}\times\mathbb{CP}^1]$ are the same, there is a $3$-chain
1833: $\Gamma$ whose boundary is the difference between the two. Such a $3$-chain
1834: cannot exist if the two homology classes are distinct, so an analytic
1835: change of coordinates which affects the factorizability of \eqref{eq:conifold}
1836: will have the topological effect of creating or destroying such a
1837: $3$-chain $\Gamma$.\footnote{More details about the topology of this
1838: situation can be found in \cite{greene-morrison-vafa}.}
1839:
1840: \bigskip
1841:
1842: \bigskip
1843: \bigskip
1844:
1845: \newsubsection{Construction of the CY threefold}
1846:
1847: From this simple example, we can easily obtain more complicated ones,
1848: including examples of the type we are interested in. Let $S'$ be
1849: a generalized del Pezzo surface obtained from $\mathbb{CP}^2$ by
1850: (1) blowing up $5$ distinct points $P_4$, \dots, $P_8$ to curves
1851: $E_4$, \dots, $E_8$, (2) blowing up
1852: a point $P_1$ and two points $P_2$ and $P_3$
1853: infinitely near to $P_1$, (3) blowing down two out of the last
1854: three exceptional
1855: divisors to an $A_2$ singularity.
1856: Note that the line $\ell_{45}$
1857: through $P_4$ and $P_5$ lifts an an exceptional curve $E_{45}$, and that
1858: the same del Pezzo surface $S'$ could be obtained starting from
1859: $\mathbb{CP}^1\times\mathbb{CP}^1$: in that case, one would blow up a point
1860: $P_{45}$ to the curve $E_{45}$ observing that the two original
1861: $\mathbb{CP}^1$'s which pass through $P_{45}$ lift to exceptional
1862: curves $E_4$ and $E_5$, and then blowing up $P_6$, $P_7$, $P_8$, $P_1$,
1863: $P_2$, $P_3$ as before.
1864:
1865: We give an embedding into a Calabi--Yau in the following way. Start with
1866: $S_1:=\mathbb{CP}^1\times\mathbb{CP}^1$ embedded in a Calabi--Yau neighborhood
1867: such that the two rulings are homologically equivalent in the Calabi--Yau.
1868: We attach rational curves $C_{45}$, $C_6$, $C_7$, $C_8$ to the del Pezzo
1869: surface $S_1$,
1870: meeting transversally at $P_{45}$, $P_6$, $P_7$ and $P_8$, and consider local
1871: divisors $D_i$ meeting $C_i$ transversally at another point, for $i=45,6,7,8$.
1872: We also attach a rational curve $C_1$ at $P_1$ which transversally meets the
1873: first of a pair of ruled surfaces $D_1$ and $D_2$ which together can be
1874: contracted to a curve of $A_2$ singularities. We label the fiber of $D_1$'s
1875: ruling which passes through $C_1\cap D_1$ by $C_2$, and we label
1876: the fiber of $D_2$'s ruling which pass through $C_2\cap D_2$ by $C_3$.
1877: We also consider a local divisor $D_3$ meeting $C_3$ transversally away
1878: from its intersection with $C_2$. This is all illustrated in
1879: figure~\ref{figure3}.
1880:
1881: \begin{figure}[t]
1882: \begin{center}
1883: \includegraphics[width=4.6in]{figure1.eps}
1884: \caption{Starting point of our construction of a CY threefold with the desired topology. The curves $f_i$ and $g_i$ are fibers in the
1885: two rulings on $S_1$.}
1886: \label{figure3}
1887: \end{center}
1888: \end{figure}
1889:
1890: Each of the curves and surfaces we have used in this construction can
1891: be embedded in a Calabi--Yau neighborhood, and those neighborhoods can
1892: be glued together to form a Calabi--Yau neighborhood of the entire structure
1893: illustrated in figure~\ref{figure3}.
1894:
1895: We now pass from this structure to the one we want by a sequence of flops.
1896: First, we flop the curves $C_{45}$, $C_6$, $C_7$, and $C_8$, which has the
1897: effect
1898: of blowing up $S_1$ at the four points $P_{45}$, $P_6$, $P_7$ and $P_8$
1899: yielding a del Pezzo surface $S_5$. The transformed surfaces
1900: $D_{45}$, $D_6$, $D_7$, $D_8$ now meet $S_5$ in the flopped curves,
1901: as indicated in figure~\ref{figure4}.
1902:
1903: \begin{figure}[hbtp]
1904: \begin{center}
1905: \includegraphics[width=4.8in]{figure2.eps}
1906: \caption{The CY threefold after flopping the curves $C_{45}, C_6, C_7$ and $C_8$.
1907: The curves $f_{45}$, $g_{45}$, $C_{45}$, $C_6$, $C_7$, and $C_8$ are
1908: all $(-1)$-curves on $S_5$.}
1909: \label{figure4}
1910: \end{center}
1911: \end{figure}
1912:
1913: \begin{figure}[hbtp]
1914: \begin{center}
1915: \includegraphics[width=4.8in]{figure3.eps}
1916: \caption{The CY threefold after flopping $C_1$.
1917: The curves $f_1$, $g_1$, and $C_1$ are additional $(-1)$-curves
1918: on $S_6$.}
1919: \label{figure5a}
1920: \end{center}
1921: \end{figure}
1922:
1923: Next, we flop the curve $C_1$, yielding a del Pezzo $S_6$ on which the point
1924: $P_1$ has been blown up,
1925: as indicated in figure~\ref{figure5a}. The transformed surface $D_1$ meets $S_6$
1926: in the flopped curve, and the transformed
1927: curve $C_2$ meets $S_6$ in a point $P_2$ (``infinitely near'' to the first
1928: point $P_1$). When $C_2$ is now
1929: flopped, $S_6$ is blown up at $P_2$ to yield $S_7$, as indicated in figure~\ref{figure5b}.
1930: The transformed surface $D_2$ meets $S_7$ in the most recently flopped curve.
1931:
1932: \begin{figure}[hbtp]
1933: \begin{center}
1934: \includegraphics[width=5in]{figure4.eps}
1935: \caption{The CY threefold after flopping $C_2$.
1936: The curve $C_1$ has become a $(-2)$-curve, and $C_2$ is a $(-1)$-curve
1937: on $S_7$.}
1938: \label{figure5b}
1939: \end{center}
1940: \end{figure}
1941:
1942: \begin{figure}[hbtp]
1943: \begin{center}
1944: \includegraphics[width=5in]{figure5.eps}
1945: \caption{The CY threefold after flopping $C_3$.
1946: The curves $C_2$ has become a $(-2)$-curve, $C_1$ remains a
1947: $(-2)$-curve, and $C_3$ is
1948: a $(-1)$-curve on $S_8$.}
1949: \label{figure5c}
1950: \end{center}
1951: \end{figure}
1952:
1953: The transformed curve $C_3$ meets $S_7$ in a point $P_3$
1954: (``infinitely near''
1955: to $P_2$), and when $C_3$ is now flopped, $S_7$ is blown up at $P_3$
1956: to yield $S_8$, as indicated in figure~\ref{figure5c}. (The
1957: transformed surface
1958: $D_3$
1959: meets $S_8$ in the most recently flopped curve.)
1960: To match the curves on $S_8$ to the standard basis for cohomology of a
1961: del Pezzo, we set $e_1=C_1+C_2+C_3$, $e_2=C_2+C_3$, $e_3=C_3$, $e_4=f_
1962: {45}$,
1963: $e_5=g_{45}$, and $e_j=C_j$ for $j=6,7,8$ so that $\alpha_1=C_1$ and
1964: $\alpha_2=C_2$.
1965: We can now contract the
1966: transforms of $D_1$ and $D_2$ to a curve of $A_2$ singularities,
1967: yielding
1968: the configuration illustrated in figure~\ref{figure6}.
1969:
1970:
1971:
1972: \begin{figure}[hbtp]
1973: \begin{center}
1974: \includegraphics[width=5in]{figure6.eps}
1975: \caption{The final configuration: a del Pezzo 8 surface with an $A_2$ singularity,
1976: embedded into a Calabi--Yau such that two of its exceptional curves are
1977: homologous.}
1978: \label{figure6}
1979: \end{center}
1980: \end{figure}
1981:
1982:
1983: To achieve our final desired singular point, we contract the del Pezzo surface
1984: $S'=S_8$ to a point. Let us analyze the properties of this singular point.
1985:
1986: First, it is not isolated: there is a curve of $A_2$ singularities which
1987: eminates from our singular point. This is one of the features we needed,
1988: because it allows the fractional branes where were supported on $\alpha_1$
1989: and $\alpha_2$ to move off of the singular point we are interested in,
1990: into the bulk of the Calabi--Yau manifold.
1991:
1992: Second, the local Picard group of this singular point has rank $6$: the
1993: anticanonical divisor $D_0\equiv -K_S$ and the
1994: transformed divisors $D_3$, $D_{45}$, $D_6$, $D_7$, $D_8$ generate
1995: a subgroup of the local Picard group of rank six;
1996: if there were a seventh generator,
1997: the map $\operatorname{Pic}(X)\to\operatorname{Pic}(S)$ would be surjective
1998: and the original surface $S_1$ would have had the same property, so that
1999: its local Picard group would have had rank $2$. But
2000: by construction, the surface $S_1$ had a local Picard group of rank $1$.
2001: We thus have demonstrated the %of the local Picard group
2002: presence of a 3-chain $\Gamma$, with boundary equal to the difference of two
2003: exceptional divisors. We can identify this difference with
2004: $\alpha_4 = E_5-E_4$, which therefore does not exist as a homology class
2005: in the full Calabi--Yau.
2006:
2007: \medskip
2008:
2009: Thus, via the above geometric procedure, we have succeeded in constructing
2010: a compact CY threefold with the properties we need for our D-brane construction.
2011: The outlined strategy furthermore preserves the main characteristics of our bottom-up
2012: perspective, since it only refers to the local
2013: Calabi-Yau neighborhood of the singularity and does not rely on unnecessary
2014: assumptions about the full string compactification.
2015:
2016: An important physical assumption is that the compact embedding preserves the
2017: existence of all constituent fractional branes listed
2018: in eqn (\ref{coll2}). This is not entirely obvious, since, in particular, the D5 charge
2019: around the trivial cycle $\alpha_4$ is no longer a conserved quantum number:
2020: one could imagine a tunneling process, in which the linear combination (\ref{sumf})
2021: of fractional branes combines into a single D5 wrapping $\alpha_4$,
2022: which subsequently self-annihilates by unwrapping along the 3-chain $\Gamma$.
2023: The tunneling process, however, is suppressed because it is non-supersymmetric
2024: and the probability can be made exponentially small by ensuring
2025: that the 3-volume (measured in units of D-brane tension) of the 3-chain $\Gamma$
2026: is large enough.
2027:
2028: \bigskip
2029:
2030:
2031:
2032: \bigskip
2033:
2034: \bigskip
2035:
2036:
2037: \noindent
2038: \newsection{Conclusion and Outlook}
2039:
2040:
2041: In this paper, we further developed the program advocated in \cite{MH}, aimed
2042: at constructing realistic gauge theories on the world-volume of D-branes at a
2043: Calabi--Yau singularity.
2044: We have seen that several aspects of the world-volume gauge theory, such as the
2045: spectrum of light $U(1)$ vector bosons and the number of freely tunable of couplings,
2046: depend on the compact Calabi--Yau embedding of the
2047: singularity. In section 3, we have worked out the stringy mechanism by which
2048: $U(1)$ gauge symmetries get lifted. As a direct application of this result, we have shown
2049: how to construct a supersymmetric Standard
2050: Model, however with some extra Higgs fields, on a single D3-brane on a suitably
2051: chosen Calabi--Yau threefold with a del Pezzo 8 singularity.
2052: %We presented the
2053: %geometric construction of a Calabi--Yau space with the required geometrical properties.
2054: The final result for the quiver gauge theory is given in fig 2, where in addition all extra
2055: $U(1)$ factors besides hypercharge are massive.
2056:
2057:
2058: \bigskip
2059:
2060: \bigskip
2061:
2062: \newsubsection{$U(1)$ Breaking via D-instantons}
2063:
2064: At low energies, the extra $U(1)$'s are approximate global symmetries, which, if unbroken,
2065: would in particular forbid $\mu$-terms. Fortunately, the geometry supports
2066: a plethora of D-instantons, that generically will break the $U(1)$ symmetries. Here we make some
2067: basic comments on the generic form of the D-instanton contributions.
2068: %, leaving a
2069: %more detailed study for the future.
2070:
2071:
2072:
2073: The simplest type of D-instantons are the
2074: euclidean D-branes that wrap compact cycles within the base $X$ of the CY singularity.
2075: %We would like to understand what kind of terms in the action are generated. % by instantons.
2076: The `basic' D-instantons of this type are in 1-1 correspondence with the space-time filling fractional
2077: branes: they are localized in ${\mathbb R}^4$, but otherwise
2078: have the same Calabi-Yau boundary state and preserve the same supersymmetries
2079: as the fractional branes $\FF_s$.
2080: % and are easiest to understand.
2081: Apart from the exponential
2082: factor
2083: $
2084: %e^{-2\pi e^{-\phi} |Z(\FF_s)| + i \int i^*_s C}
2085: e^{-{8\pi^2/ g^2_{s}} \; +\, i\, \theta_s},
2086: $
2087: their contribution is independent
2088: of K\"ahler moduli and can thus be understood at large volume.
2089: In this limit, the analysis has essentially already been done in \cite{Bershadsky:1996gx,Witten:1996bn,Ganor}.\footnote{For more recent discussions, see \cite{Blumenhagen:2006,Ibanez:2006,
2090: FKMS}.}
2091: The result agrees with the expected field theory answer \cite{Beasley:2004ys},
2092: and sensitively depends on $N_c - N_f$, the number of colors minus the number of flavors
2093: for the corresponding node.
2094: %, but it should also hold for $U(1)$ instantons.
2095: %Thus for $N_f = N_c-1$ we would get a superpotential term, and for $N_f = N_c$
2096: %we would get a deformation of the moduli space.
2097: In our gauge theory we have
2098: $N_f > N_c$, in which case
2099: % thus we expect to get certain higher derivative F-terms recently
2100: %discussed in
2101: the one-instanton contribution to the superpotential is of the schematic form
2102: %\footnote{
2103: %For non-abelian instantons this should be just the field theory answer. For the general case, one should
2104: %compute a stringy analogue of the 1-loop determinant.}
2105: %
2106: \ba
2107: \delta W = {\Omega}(\Phi)
2108: % _{\bar{i}_1 . . \bar{i}_n,\bar{j}_1 . . \bar{j}_n}(\Phi ,\bar{\Phi})
2109: %\,
2110: %\prod_{k = 1}^n
2111: %(\bar{D} \bar{\Phi}^{\bar{i}_k} \bar{D} \Phi^{\bar{j}_k})
2112: \; e^{-8\pi^2 /g^2_{s} \; +\, i\, \theta_s}
2113: \ea
2114: %
2115: where $\Omega(\Phi)$ is a chiral multi-fermion operator \cite{Beasley:2004ys}. The theta angle $\theta_s$ in general contains an axion field, that is shifted by the
2116: anomalous $U(1)$ gauge rotations.
2117: % which must then be compensated for by the prefactor.
2118: Instanton contributions to the effective action thus generally
2119: violate the anomalous $U(1)$ symmetries.
2120:
2121:
2122: The story for the non-anomalous global $U(1)$ symmetries is analogous.
2123: %Since the non-anomalous $U(1)$'s are associated to D5-branes wrapped around
2124: %non-trivial degree zero 2-cycles within $X$, %, that is, all 2-cycles $\alpha_\aaa$ except for $\alpha_4$.
2125: The relevant
2126: D-instanton contributions are generated by euclidean
2127: D3-branes wrapping the dual 4-cycles $\Sigma_\alpha$ within $Y$.
2128: The classical D-instanton action reads
2129: $
2130: S = \mu_3 {\rm Vol}(\Sigma_\alpha)- i\! \int_{\Sigma_\alpha} \! C_{\it 4}\
2131: $
2132: with $\mu_3$ the D3-brane tension.
2133: Since $\int_{\Sigma_\alpha} \! C_{\it 4} = \rho_\alpha$ is the St\"uckelberg field,
2134: we observe that the D3-instanton contribution to the superpotential takes the form
2135: \ba
2136: \label{kklt} \quad
2137: \delta W %_{\rm D\mbox{\scriptsize -inst}}
2138: = %\sum_\alpha
2139: {\cal A}(\Phi)\; e^{-\mu_3 {\rm Vol}(\Sigma_\alpha) \; + \; i\rho_\alpha}\,
2140: \ea
2141: Here ${\cal A}(\Phi)$ denotes the perturbative pre-factor, the string analogue of
2142: the fluctuation determinant, of the D-instanton.\footnote{
2143: Note that, unlike all classical couplings, the D-instanton contributions (\ref{kklt})
2144: are not governed by the local geometry of the singularity, but depend on the
2145: size of dual cycles $\Sigma_\alpha$ that probe the full CY. In fact,
2146: eqn (\ref{kklt}) is a direct generalization of the famous KKLT contribution to the
2147: superpotential, that
2148: %, together with the GKV superpotential,
2149: helps stabilize all geometric moduli of the compact Calabi--Yau manifold.}
2150: Since the phase factor $e^{i\rho_\alpha}$
2151: transforms non-trivially under the corresponding $U(1)$ rotation,
2152: %Since the
2153: %total superpotential must be gauge invariant, this tells us that
2154: the pre-factor %${\cal A}_\alpha(\Phi)$
2155: must be oppositely charged. After gauge fixing,
2156: the value of $\rho_\alpha$ will get fixed at by minimizing the potential, and $\rho_\alpha$ gets
2157: lifted from the low energy spectrum. What remains is a superpotential term that, from the
2158: low energy perspective, breaks the global $U(1)$ symmetry.
2159:
2160:
2161: While we have not yet done the full analysis of these D-instanton effects,
2162: it seems reasonable to assume that the desired $\mu$-terms can be generated
2163: via this mechanism.\footnote{In \cite{Berenstein:2006} it was argued
2164: that $\mu$-terms can not arise in oriented quiver realizations of the SSM, like ours,
2165: because they seem forbidden by chirality at the $SU(2)$ node, in
2166: case one would consider more than one single brane (so that $SU(2)$
2167: becomes $SU(2N)$).
2168: It is important to note, however, that the form of the D-instanton
2169: contributions sensitively depends on the rank of the gauge group, and thus
2170: may contain terms that at first sight would not be allowed in a large $N$ limit of the quiver gauge
2171: theory. The $\mu$ terms, in particular, can be viewed as baryon-type operators for $SU(2)$,
2172: and thus one can easily imagine that they get generated via D-instantons.}
2173: Since the D-instanton contribution decreases exponentially with the volume of the 4-cycles $\Sigma_\alpha$, it would naturally
2174: explain why (some of) the $\mu$-terms are small compared to the string scale.
2175:
2176:
2177:
2178: \bigskip
2179:
2180: \bigskip
2181:
2182: \newsubsection{Eliminating extra Higgses}
2183:
2184: \begin{figure}[t]
2185: \begin{center}
2186: \leavevmode\hbox{\epsfxsize=7.5cm \epsffile{East3.eps}}\\[3mm]
2187: %\epsfig{figure=East1.pdf,scale=0.45}
2188: \bigskip
2189: \medskip
2190:
2191: \parbox{15.5cm}{Figure 7: An MSSM-like quiver gauge theory, satisfying all rules for world-volume theories in an unoriented string models.}
2192: %\label{default}
2193: \end{center}
2194: \end{figure}
2195:
2196: From a phenomenological perspective, the specific model based on the $dP_8$
2197: singularity still has several issues that need to be addressed, before it can become fully
2198: realistic. Most immediately noticeable is the multitude of Higgs fields, and the
2199: fact that supersymmetry is unbroken. Supersymmetry breaking effects may get generated
2200: via various mechanisms: via fluxes, nearby anti-branes, non-perturbative string physics,
2201: etc. The structure of the SUSY breaking and $\mu$-terms are strongly
2202: restricted by phenomenological constraints, such as the suppression of flavor changing
2203: neutral currents. However, we see no a priori obstruction to the existence of mechanisms
2204: that would sufficiently lift the masses of all extra Higgses and effectively eliminate them
2205: from the low energy spectrum.
2206:
2207: The presence of the extra Higgs fields is dictated via the requirement (on all
2208: D-brane constructions on orientable CY singularities) that
2209: each node should have an equal number of in- and out-going lines. To eliminate
2210: this feature, it is natural to look for generalizations
2211: among gauge theories on orientifolds of CY
2212: singularities. Near orientifold planes, D-branes can support real gauge groups
2213: like $SO(2N)$ or $Sp(N)$. With this generalization, one can draw a more minimal
2214: quiver extension of the SM, with fewer Higgs fields. An example of such a
2215: quiver is drawn in fig 7. It should be straightforward to find an orientifolded CY singularity
2216: and fractional brane configuration that would reproduce this quiver.
2217: The extra $U(1)$ factors in fig 7 can then be dealt with in a similar way
2218: as in our $dP_8$ example.
2219:
2220: \bigskip
2221:
2222: \bigskip
2223:
2224: \noindent
2225: {\large \bf Acknowledgments}
2226:
2227: It is a pleasure to thank Vijay Balasubramanian, David Berenstein, Michael Douglas,
2228: Shamit Kachru, Elias Kiritsis, J\'anos Koll\'ar, John McGreevy, and Michael Schulz for helpful
2229: discussion and comments. This work was
2230: supported by the National Science Foundation under grants PHY-0243680
2231: and DMS-0606578 and by an NSF Graduate Research Fellowship (M.B.). D.M.would like to thank the IHES for hospitality and support when part of this work was done. Any opinions,
2232: findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are
2233: those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science
2234: Foundation.
2235:
2236:
2237:
2238:
2239:
2240: \appendix
2241:
2242: \renewcommand{\newsection}[1]{
2243: \addtocounter{section}{1} \setcounter{equation}{0}
2244: \setcounter{subsection}{0} \addcontentsline{toc}{section}{\protect
2245: \numberline{\Alph{section}}{{ \rm #1}}} \vglue .6cm \pagebreak[3]
2246: \noindent{\large \bf \thesection. #1}\nopagebreak[4]\par\vskip .3cm}
2247: %
2248: %
2249: \begin{thebibliography}{[AHU]}
2250:
2251: %\cite{Douglas:1996sw}
2252: \bibitem{ALE}
2253: M.~R.~Douglas and G.~W.~Moore,
2254: ``D-branes, Quivers, and ALE Instantons,''
2255: {\tt hep-th/9603167.}
2256: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9603167;%%
2257:
2258: \bibitem{KW}
2259: I.~R.~Klebanov and E.~Witten,
2260: ``Superconformal field theory on threebranes at a Calabi-Yau singularity,''
2261: %
2262: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 536}, 199 (1998)
2263: {\tt hep-th/9807080}.
2264:
2265:
2266: \bibitem{MoPl}
2267: D.~R.~Morrison and M.~R.~Plesser, ``Nonspherical Horizons. 1,"
2268: Adv.\ Theor.\ Math.\ Phys.\ {\bf 3}, 1 (1999)
2269: {\tt hep-th/9810201}.
2270:
2271: %\cite{Vafa:2005ui}
2272: \bibitem{swamp}
2273: C.~Vafa,
2274: ``The string landscape and the swampland,''
2275: arXiv:hep-th/0509212.
2276: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0509212;%%
2277:
2278: \bibitem{MH}
2279: %\bibitem{Verlinde:2005jr}
2280: H.~Verlinde and M.~Wijnholt,
2281: ``Building the standard model on a D3-brane,''
2282: arXiv:hep-th/0508089.
2283: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0508089;%%
2284:
2285: %\cite{martijn,chris}
2286: \bibitem{martijn}
2287: M.~Wijnholt,
2288: ``Large volume perspective on branes at singularities,''
2289: {\tt hep-th/0212021}.
2290:
2291:
2292: %\cite{chris}
2293: \bibitem{chris}
2294: C.~P.~Herzog,
2295: ``Exceptional collections and del Pezzo gauge theories,''
2296: JHEP {\bf 0404}, 069 (2004), {\tt hep-th/0310262.}
2297: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0310262;%%
2298:
2299: \bibitem{bergman} A. Bergman and C. Herzog, \lq\lq The volume of non-spherical
2300: horizons and the AdS/CFT correspondence," arXiv:hep-th/0108020.
2301: %\bibitem{mutations}
2302:
2303: %\cite{Aspinwall}
2304: \bibitem{Aspinwall}
2305: P.~S.~Aspinwall,
2306: ``K3 surfaces and string duality,''
2307: arXiv:hep-th/9611137.
2308:
2309: %\cite{VafaWitten}
2310: \bibitem{VafaWitten}
2311: C.~Vafa and E.~Witten,
2312: %``Dual string pairs with N = 1 and N = 2 supersymmetry in four dimensions,''
2313: Nucl.\ Phys.\ Proc.\ Suppl.\ {\bf 46}, 225 (1996)
2314: [arXiv:hep-th/9507050].
2315:
2316: %\cite{Grimm}
2317: \bibitem{Grimm}
2318: T.~W.~Grimm and J.~Louis,
2319: ``The effective action of N = 1 Calabi-Yau orientifolds,''
2320: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 699}, 387 (2004)
2321: [arXiv:hep-th/0403067].
2322:
2323: \bibitem{louisCY} H. Jockers and J. Louis \lq The effective action
2324: of D7-branes in $N=1$ Calabi-Yau Orientifolds,'
2325: arXiv:hep-th/0409098.
2326:
2327: \bibitem{Cheung:1997az}
2328: Y.~K.~Cheung and Z.~Yin,
2329: ``Anomalies, branes, and currents,''
2330: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 517}, 69 (1998)
2331: [arXiv:hep-th/9710206].
2332: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9710206;%%
2333:
2334: \bibitem{minasian}
2335: M.~Marino, R.~Minasian, G.~W.~Moore and A.~Strominger,
2336: ``Nonlinear instantons from supersymmetric p-branes,''
2337: JHEP {\bf 0001}, 005 (2000)
2338: [arXiv:hep-th/9911206].
2339: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9911206;%%
2340: %\cite{Douglas:2000ah}
2341:
2342: \bibitem{Douglas:2000}
2343: M.~R.~Douglas, B.~Fiol and C.~Romelsberger,
2344: %``Stability and BPS branes,''
2345: JHEP {\bf 0509}, 006 (2005)
2346: [arXiv:hep-th/0002037].
2347: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0002037;%%
2348:
2349: \bibitem{kapustin}
2350: A.~Kapustin and Y.~Li,
2351: ``Stability conditions for topological D-branes: A worldsheet approach,''
2352: arXiv:hep-th/0311101.
2353: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0311101;%%
2354:
2355: %\cite{Intriligator:2005aw}
2356: \bibitem{Intriligator:2005aw}
2357: K.~Intriligator and N.~Seiberg,
2358: ``The runaway quiver,''
2359: JHEP {\bf 0602}, 031 (2006)
2360: [arXiv:hep-th/0512347].
2361:
2362:
2363: \bibitem{mass}
2364: L.~E.~Ibanez, R.~Rabadan and A.~M.~Uranga,
2365: ``Anomalous U(1)'s in type I and type IIB D = 4, N = 1 string vacua,''
2366: %
2367: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 542}, 112 (1999) {\tt hep-th/9808139.}
2368: %\cite{Antoniadis:2002cs}
2369: \bibitem{Antoniadis:2002}
2370: I.~Antoniadis, E.~Kiritsis and J.~Rizos,
2371: ``Anomalous U(1)s in type I superstring vacua,''
2372: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 637}, 92 (2002)
2373: [arXiv:hep-th/0204153].
2374: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0204153;%%
2375: %\bibitem{karpov}
2376: \bibitem{karpov}
2377: B. V. Karpov\ and\ D. Yu. Nogin,
2378: ``Three-block Exceptional Collections over del Pezzo Surfaces,''
2379: Izv. Ross. Akad. Nauk Ser. Mat. {\bf 62} (1998), no. 3, 3--38;
2380: translation in Izv. Math. {\bf 62} (1998), no.~3, 429--463,
2381: {\tt alg-geom/9703027}.
2382:
2383:
2384: %\cite{delta27}
2385: \bibitem{delta27}
2386: D.~Berenstein, V.~Jejjala and R.~G.~Leigh,
2387: ``The standard model on a D-brane,''
2388: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 88}, 071602 (2002)
2389: [arXiv:hep-ph/0105042].
2390:
2391: \bibitem{Aldazabal}
2392: G.~Aldazabal, L.~E.~Ibanez, F.~Quevedo and A.~M.~Uranga,
2393: ``D-branes at singularities: A bottom-up approach to the string embedding of
2394: the standard model,''
2395: JHEP {\bf 0008}, 002 (2000)
2396: [arXiv:hep-th/0005067].
2397: %\cite{Diaconescu}
2398: %\cite{Wijnholt:2005mp}
2399: \bibitem{martijn2}
2400: M.~Wijnholt,
2401: ``Parameter space of quiver gauge theories,''
2402: arXiv:hep-th/0512122.
2403: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0512122;%%
2404: \bibitem{pol}
2405: J.~Polchinski, ``Tensors from {K3} orientifolds,'' Phys. Rev. D {\bf 55}
2406: (1997) 6423--6428, {\tt hep-th/9606165}.
2407:
2408: \bibitem{dgm}
2409: M.~R. Douglas, B.~R. Greene, and D.~R. Morrison, ``Orbifold resolution by
2410: {D}-branes,'' Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 506} (1997) 84--106, {\tt
2411: hep-th/9704151}.
2412:
2413: \bibitem{ddg}
2414: D.~E. Diaconescu, M.~R. Douglas, and J.~Gomis, ``Fractional branes and wrapped
2415: branes,'' J. High Energy Phys. {\bf 02} (1998) 013, {\tt
2416: hep-th/9712230}.
2417:
2418: \bibitem{lnv}
2419: A.~Lawrence, N.~Nekrasov, and C.~Vafa, ``On conformal field theories in four
2420: dimensions,''
2421: Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 533} (1998) 199--209, {\tt hep-th/9803015}.
2422:
2423:
2424:
2425:
2426: %\cite{Balasubramanian:2005zx}
2427: \bibitem{eighteen}
2428: %P.~Candelas, A.~Font, S.~Katz and D.~R.~Morrison,
2429: %``Mirror symmetry for two parameter models. 2,''
2430: % Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 429}, 626 (1994)
2431: %[arXiv:hep-th/9403187];
2432: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9403187;%%
2433: V.~Balasubramanian, P.~Berglund, J.~P.~Conlon and F.~Quevedo,
2434: ``Systematics of moduli stabilisation in Calabi-Yau flux
2435: compactifications,''
2436: JHEP {\bf 0503}, 007 (2005)
2437: [arXiv:hep-th/0502058].
2438: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0502058;%%
2439:
2440:
2441: \bibitem{Diaconescu}
2442: D.~E.~Diaconescu, B.~Florea, S.~Kachru and P.~Svrcek,
2443: ``Gauge - mediated supersymmetry breaking in string compactifications,''
2444: JHEP {\bf 0602}, 020 (2006)
2445: [arXiv:hep-th/0512170].
2446:
2447:
2448:
2449: \bibitem{kawamata}
2450: Y. Kawamata, ``{Crepant blowing-up of 3-dimensional canonical singularities
2451: and its application to degenerations of surfaces}'', Ann. of Math. (2) {\bf 127}
2452: (1988), 93--163.
2453:
2454: \bibitem{mori}
2455: S. Mori,``{Threefolds whose canonical bundles are not numerically
2456: effective}'', Ann. of Math. (2) {\bf 116} (1982), 133--176.
2457:
2458: \bibitem{morrison-seiberg}
2459: D. R. Morrison and N. Seiberg,
2460: ``{Extremal transitions and five-dimensional
2461: supersymmetric field theories}'', Nuclear Phys. B {\bf 483} (1997), 229--247,
2462: {\tt arXiv:hep-th/9609070}.
2463:
2464: \bibitem{greene-morrison-vafa}
2465: B.~R.~Greene, D. R. Morrison, and C.~Vafa,
2466: ``{A geometric realization of confinement}'',
2467: Nuclear Phys. B {\bf 481} (1996), 513--538, {\tt arXiv:hep-th/9608039}.
2468:
2469: \bibitem{Witten:1996bn}
2470: E.~Witten,
2471: ``Non-Perturbative Superpotentials In String Theory,''
2472: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 474}, 343 (1996)
2473: [arXiv:hep-th/9604030].
2474: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9604030;%%
2475: %\cite{Ganor:1996pe}
2476:
2477: \bibitem{Bershadsky:1996gx}
2478: M.~Bershadsky, A.~Johansen, T.~Pantev, V.~Sadov and C.~Vafa,
2479: ``F-theory, geometric engineering and N = 1 dualities,''
2480: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 505}, 153 (1997)
2481: [arXiv:hep-th/9612052].
2482: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9612052;%%
2483: \bibitem{Ganor}
2484: O.~J.~Ganor,
2485: ``A note on zeroes of superpotentials in F-theory,''
2486: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 499}, 55 (1997)
2487: [arXiv:hep-th/9612077].
2488: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9612077;%%
2489:
2490:
2491: \bibitem{Beasley:2004ys}
2492: C.~Beasley and E.~Witten,
2493: ``New instanton effects in supersymmetric QCD,''
2494: JHEP {\bf 0501}, 056 (2005)
2495: [arXiv:hep-th/0409149].
2496:
2497: %\cite{Blumenhagen:2006xt}
2498: \bibitem{Blumenhagen:2006}
2499: R.~Blumenhagen, M.~Cvetic and T.~Weigand,
2500: ``Spacetime instanton corrections in 4D string vacua - the seesaw mechanism
2501: %for D-brane models,''
2502: arXiv:hep-th/0609191.
2503: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0609191;%%
2504:
2505: %\cite{Ibanez:2006da}
2506: \bibitem{Ibanez:2006}
2507: L.~E.~Ibanez and A.~M.~Uranga,
2508: %``Neutrino Majorana masses from string theory instanton effects,''
2509: arXiv:hep-th/0609213.
2510: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0609213;%%
2511:
2512: \bibitem{FKMS}
2513: B.~Florea, S.~Kachru, J.~McGreevy, and N. Saulina,
2514: ``Stringy instantons and quiver gauge theories'' [arXiv:hep-th/0610003].
2515:
2516: %\cite{Berenstein:2006aj}
2517: \bibitem{Berenstein:2006}
2518: D.~Berenstein,
2519: ``Branes vs. GUTS: Challenges for string inspired phenomenology,''
2520: arXiv:hep-th/0603103.
2521: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0603103;%%
2522: \end{thebibliography}
2523:
2524: \end{document}
2525:
2526: %\cite{Denef:2004dm}
2527: \bibitem{Denef:2004dm}
2528: F.~Denef, M.~R.~Douglas and B.~Florea,
2529: %``Building a better racetrack,''
2530: JHEP {\bf 0406}, 034 (2004)
2531: [arXiv:hep-th/0404257].
2532: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0404257;%%
2533:
2534:
2535:
2536:
2537:
2538:
2539: \bibitem{louisDF} H. Jockers and J. Louis, \lq D-terms and F-terms
2540: from D7-brane fluxes,' arXiv:hep-th/0502059.
2541:
2542: \bibitem{louisCY} H. Jockers and J. Louis \lq The effective action
2543: of D7-branes in $N=1$ Calabi-Yau Orientifolds,'
2544: arXiv:hep-th/0409098.
2545:
2546:
2547: \bibitem{Douglas-CC}
2548: M.~R.~Douglas, B.~Fiol and C.~Romelsberger,
2549: ``Stability and BPS branes,''
2550: JHEP {\bf 0509}, 006 (2005)
2551: [arXiv:hep-th/0002037].\\
2552:
2553:
2554: P.~S.~Aspinwall and M.~R.~Douglas,
2555: ``D-brane stability and monodromy,''
2556: JHEP {\bf 0205}, 031 (2002)
2557: [arXiv:hep-th/0110071].
2558:
2559:
2560: %\cite{BraunLiu}
2561: \bibitem{BraunLiu}
2562: V.~Braun and C.~H.~Liu,
2563: ``On the isolated singularity of a 7-space obtained by rolling Calabi-Yau
2564: threefolds through extremal transitions,''
2565: arXiv:hep-th/9801175.
2566:
2567:
2568: %\cite{Diaconescu}
2569: \bibitem{Diaconescu}
2570: D.~E.~Diaconescu, B.~Florea, S.~Kachru and P.~Svrcek,
2571: ``Gauge - mediated supersymmetry breaking in string compactifications,''
2572: JHEP {\bf 0602}, 020 (2006)
2573: [arXiv:hep-th/0512170].
2574:
2575:
2576: %\cite{Bjorn}
2577: \bibitem{Bjorn}
2578: B.~Andreas,
2579: ``N = 1 heterotic/F-theory duality,''
2580: Fortsch.\ Phys.\ {\bf 47}, 587 (1999)
2581: [arXiv:hep-th/9808159].
2582:
2583: %\cite{Witten:1995im}
2584: \bibitem{Witten:1995im}
2585: E.~Witten,
2586: ``Bound states of strings and p-branes,''
2587: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 460}, 335 (1996)
2588: [arXiv:hep-th/9510135].
2589:
2590: %\cite{Hubsch}
2591: \bibitem{Hubsch}
2592: Tristan H\"ubsch, {\it
2593: Calabi-Yau manifolds a bestiary for physicists}.
2594: World Scientific, 1991.
2595:
2596:
2597:
2598:
2599:
2600: \bibitem{KKLT}
2601: S.~Kachru, R.~Kallosh, A.~Linde and S.~P.~Trivedi, ``De Sitter
2602: vacua in string theory,'' Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 68}, 046005 (2003)
2603: {\tt hep-th/0301240}.
2604:
2605: \bibitem{toomany}
2606: %\bibitem{Douglas:2003um}
2607: M.~R.~Douglas,
2608: ``The statistics of string / M theory vacua,''
2609: JHEP {\bf 0305}, 046 (2003)
2610: {\tt hep-th/0303194.}
2611:
2612: %\cite{Maldacena:1997re}
2613: \bibitem{Malda}
2614: J.~M.~Maldacena, ``The large $N$ limit of superconformal field
2615: theories and supergravity,'' Adv.\ Theor.\ Math.\ Phys.\ {\bf 2},
2616: 231 (1998) [Int.\ J.\ Theor.\ Phys.\ {\bf 38}, 1113 (1999)]
2617: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9711200;%%
2618: \bibitem{gukp}
2619: S.~S.~Gubser, I.~R.~Klebanov and A.~M.~Polyakov,
2620: %``A semi-classical limit of the gauge/string correspondence,''
2621: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 636}, 99 (2002)
2622: {\tt hep-th/0204051}.
2623: \bibitem{w}
2624: E.~Witten,
2625: %``Anti-de Sitter space and holography,''
2626: Adv.\ Theor.\ Math.\ Phys.\ {\bf 2}, 253 (1998)
2627: {\tt hep-th/9802150.}
2628: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9802150;%%
2629:
2630:
2631: \bibitem{KS}
2632: S.~Kachru and E.~Silverstein, ``4-D conformal theories and strings on orbifolds,''
2633: {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 80} (1998) 4855,
2634: {\tt hep-th/9802183}.
2635: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9802183;%%
2636:
2637: \bibitem{albion}
2638: A.~E.~Lawrence, N.~Nekrasov and C.~Vafa,
2639: ``On conformal field theories in four dimensions,''
2640: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 533}, 199 (1998)
2641: {\tt hep-th/9803015.}
2642:
2643:
2644: \bibitem{Greene}
2645: B.~R.~Greene, C.~I.~Lazaroiu and M.~Raugas,
2646: ``D-branes on nonabelian threefold quotient singularities,''
2647: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 553}, 711 (1999)
2648: {\tt hep-th/9811201.}
2649:
2650:
2651: \bibitem{Muto}
2652: T.~Muto,
2653: `D-branes on three-dimensional nonabelian orbifolds,''
2654: JHEP {\bf 9902}, 008 (1999)
2655: {\tt hep-th/9811258};
2656: T.~Muto,
2657: ``Brane cube realization of three-dimensional nonabelian orbifolds,''
2658: JHEP {\bf 0002}, 026 (2000),
2659: {\tt hep-th/9912273} ; T.~Muto,
2660: ``Brane configurations for three-dimensional nonabelian orbifolds,''
2661: {\tt hep-th/9905230.}
2662:
2663: \bibitem{ahe}
2664: A.~Hanany and Y.~H.~He,
2665: ``Non-Abelian finite gauge theories,''
2666: JHEP {\bf 9902}, 013 (1999)
2667: {\tt hep-th/9811183.}
2668:
2669:
2670:
2671:
2672:
2673: \bibitem{bottomup}
2674: G.~Aldazabal, L.~E.~Iba\~nez, F.~Quevedo and A.~M.~Uranga,
2675: ``D-branes at singularities: A bottom-up approach to the string embedding of the standard model,''
2676: JHEP {\bf 0008}, 002 (2000)
2677: {\tt hep-th/0005067.}
2678: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0005067;%%
2679:
2680: \bibitem{urangareview}
2681: A.~M.~Uranga,
2682: ``From quiver diagrams to particle physics,''
2683: {\tt hep-th/0007173.}
2684: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0007173;%%
2685:
2686: \bibitem{SMb}
2687: G.~Aldazabal, L.~E.~Iba\~nez and F.~Quevedo, ``A D-brane alternative to the MSSM,''
2688: JHEP {\bf 0002}, 015 (2000), {\tt hep-ph/0001083;}
2689: G.~Aldazabal, S.~Franco, L.~E.~Iba\~nez, R.~Rabadan and A.~M.~Uranga,
2690: ``D = 4 chiral string compactifications from intersecting branes,''
2691: J.\ Math.\ Phys.\ {\bf 42}, 3103 (2001) {\tt hep-th/0011073;}
2692: L.~E.~Iba\~nez, F.~Marchesano and R.~Rabadan,
2693: ``Getting just the standard model at intersecting branes,''
2694: JHEP {\bf 0111}, 002 (2001), {\tt hep-th/0105155;}
2695: R.~Blumenhagen, B.~Kors, D.~Lust and T.~Ott,
2696: ``The standard model from stable intersecting brane world orbifolds,''
2697: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 616}, 3 (2001) {\tt hep-th/0107138;}
2698: M.~Cvetic, G.~Shiu and A.~M.~Uranga,
2699: ``Three-family supersymmetric standard like models from intersecting brane worlds,''
2700: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 87}, 201801 (2001), {\tt hep-th/0107143].};
2701: M.~Cvetic, G.~Shiu and A.~M.~Uranga,
2702: ``Chiral four-dimensional N = 1 supersymmetric type IIA orientifolds from
2703: intersecting D6-branes,''
2704: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 615}, 3 (2001). {\tt hep-th/0107166.}
2705:
2706:
2707: %\cite{billion}
2708: \bibitem{billion}
2709: F.~Gmeiner, R.~Blumenhagen, G.~Honecker, D.~Lust and T.~Weigand,
2710: ``One in a billion: MSSM-like D-brane statistics,''
2711: JHEP {\bf 0601}, 004 (2006)
2712: [arXiv:hep-th/0510170].
2713: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0510170;%%
2714:
2715:
2716:
2717:
2718:
2719: %
2720: \bibitem{bjl}
2721: D.~Berenstein, V.~Jejjala and R.~G.~Leigh,
2722: ``The standard model on a D-brane,''
2723: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 88}, 071602 (2002)
2724: {\tt hep-ph/0105042.}
2725: %\cite{Polchinski:1995mt}
2726:
2727: \bibitem{Grana}
2728: M.~Grana,
2729: ``MSSM parameters from supergravity backgrounds,''
2730: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 67}, 066006 (2003)
2731: {\tt hep-th/0209200}.
2732: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0209200;%%
2733: \bibitem{Cascales}
2734: J.~F.~G.~Cascales, M.~P.~Garcia del Moral, F.~Quevedo and A.~M.~Uranga,
2735: ``Realistic D-brane models on warped throats: Fluxes, hierarchies and moduli
2736: stabilization,''
2737: %
2738: JHEP {\bf 0402}, 031 (2004), {\tt hep-th/0312051}.
2739:
2740:
2741:
2742: \bibitem{GKP}
2743: S.~B.~Giddings, S.~Kachru and J.~Polchinski,
2744: ``Hierarchies from fluxes in string compactifications,''
2745: Phys.\ Rev.\ D.\ {\bf 66}, 106006 (2002)
2746: {\tt hep-th/0105097;}
2747:
2748: \bibitem{oliver}
2749: O.~DeWolfe and S.~B.~Giddings,
2750: ``Scales and hierarchies in warped compactifications and brane worlds,''
2751: {\tt hep-th/0208123.}
2752:
2753:
2754:
2755: \bibitem{resol}
2756: M.~R.~Douglas, B.~R.~Greene and D.~R.~Morrison,
2757: ``Orbifold resolution by D-branes,''
2758: %
2759: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 506}, 84 (1997), {\tt hep-th/9704151.}
2760:
2761: \bibitem{bobby}
2762: B.~S.~Acharya, J.~M.~Figueroa-O'Farrill, C.~M.~Hull and B.~Spence,
2763: ``Branes at conical singularities and holography,''
2764: {\it Adv. Theor. Math. Phys.} {\bf 2} (1999) 1249,
2765: {\tt hep-th/9808014}.
2766: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9808014;%%
2767:
2768:
2769:
2770: %\cite{Douglas:2000gi}
2771: \bibitem{mike}
2772: M.~R.~Douglas,
2773: ``D-branes, categories and N = 1 supersymmetry,''
2774: %
2775: J.\ Math.\ Phys.\ {\bf 42}, 2818 (2001)
2776: {\tt hep-th/0011017.}
2777:
2778: %\cite{Douglas:2000qw}
2779: \bibitem{mikefiol}
2780: M.~R.~Douglas, B.~Fiol and C.~Romelsberger,
2781: ``The spectrum of BPS branes on a noncompact Calabi-Yau,''
2782: %
2783: {\tt hep-th/0003263.}
2784: %\cite{Tomasiello:2000ym}
2785: \bibitem{dido}
2786: D.~E.~Diaconescu and M.~R.~Douglas,
2787: ``D-branes on stringy Calabi-Yau manifolds,''
2788: {\tt hep-th/0006224}.
2789: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0006224;%%
2790:
2791: \bibitem{mayr}
2792: P.~Mayr,
2793: ``Phases of supersymmetric D-branes on Kaehler manifolds and the McKay correspondence,''
2794: {\tt JHEP} {\bf 0101}, 018 (2001) 018,
2795: {\tt hep-th/0010223}.
2796: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0010223;%%
2797: \bibitem{Tomasiello}
2798: A.~Tomasiello,
2799: ``D-branes on Calabi-Yau manifolds and helices,''
2800: %
2801: JHEP {\bf 0102}, 008 (2001) {\tt hep-th/0010217.}
2802:
2803: %\cite{fhh1}
2804: \bibitem{fhh1}
2805: B.~Feng, A.~Hanany and Y.~H.~He,
2806: ``D-brane gauge theories from toric singularities and toric duality,''
2807: {\it Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B595} (2001) 165,
2808: {\tt hep-th/0003085}; B.~Feng, A.~Hanany and Y.~H.~He,
2809: ``Phase structure of D-brane gauge theories and toric duality,''
2810: {\it JHEP} {\bf 0108} (2001) 040,
2811: {\tt hep-th/0104259}.
2812:
2813:
2814: %\cite{Cachazo:2001sg}
2815: \bibitem{freddy}
2816: F.~Cachazo, B.~Fiol, K.~A.~Intriligator, S.~Katz and C.~Vafa,
2817: ``A geometric unification of dualities,''
2818: %
2819: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 628}, 3 (2002), {\tt hep-th/0110028.}
2820: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0110028;%%
2821:
2822: \bibitem{Katz}
2823: S.~Katz and E.~Sharpe,
2824: ``D-branes, open string vertex operators, and Ext groups,''
2825: %
2826: Adv.\ Theor.\ Math.\ Phys.\ {\bf 6}, 979 (2003), {\tt hep-th/0208104.}
2827: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0208104;%%
2828: %
2829:
2830: %\cite{Martin:1997ns}
2831: \bibitem{Martin}
2832: See, for example: S.~P.~Martin,
2833: ``A supersymmetry primer,''
2834: {\tt hep-ph/9709356.}
2835: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9709356;%%
2836:
2837:
2838: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0212021;%%
2839: \bibitem{mysterious}
2840: A.~Iqbal, A.~Neitzke and C.~Vafa,
2841: ``A mysterious duality,''
2842: {\it Adv. Theor. Math. Phys.} {\bf 5} (2002) 769,
2843: {\tt hep-th/0111068}.
2844: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0111068;%%
2845:
2846:
2847: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0104259;%%
2848: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0003263;%%
2849: %\cite{Beasley:2001zp}
2850:
2851:
2852:
2853: \bibitem{digo}
2854: D.~E.~Diaconescu and J.~Gomis,
2855: ``Fractional branes and boundary states in orbifold theories,''
2856: {\tt JHEP} {\bf 0010} (2000) 001,
2857: {\tt hep-th/9906242}.
2858: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9906242;%%
2859:
2860: \bibitem{tworussians}
2861: B. V. Karpov\ and\ D. Yu. Nogin,
2862: ``Three-block Exceptional Collections over del Pezzo Surfaces,''
2863: Izv. Ross. Akad. Nauk Ser. Mat. {\bf 62} (1998), no. 3, 3--38;
2864: translation in Izv. Math. {\bf 62} (1998), no.~3, 429--463,
2865: {\tt alg-geom/9703027}.
2866:
2867:
2868:
2869: \bibitem{seimut}
2870: C.~E.~Beasley and M.~R.~Plesser,
2871: ``Toric duality is Seiberg duality,''
2872: %
2873: JHEP {\bf 0112}, 001 (2001)
2874: {\tt hep-th/0109053};
2875: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0011017;%%
2876: %\cite{Berenstein:2002fi}
2877: %\bibitem{davidmike}
2878: D.~Berenstein and M.~R.~Douglas,
2879: ``Seiberg duality for quiver gauge theories,''
2880: %
2881: {\tt hep-th/0207027.};
2882: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0207027;%%
2883: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0109053;%
2884: %\cite{Katz:2002gh}
2885: B.~Feng, A.~Hanany, Y.~H.~He and A.~M.~Uranga,
2886: ``Toric duality as Seiberg duality and brane diamonds,''
2887: %
2888: JHEP {\bf 0112}, 035 (2001)
2889: {\it hep-th/0109063;}
2890: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0109063;%%
2891: %\cite{Feng:2001xr}
2892: %\bibitem{Feng:2001xr}
2893: B.~Feng, A.~Hanany and Y.~H.~He,
2894: ``Phase structure of D-brane gauge theories and toric duality,''
2895: %
2896: JHEP {\bf 0108}, 040 (2001)
2897: {\tt hep-th/0104259};
2898: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0104259;%%
2899: %\cite{Feng:2002fv}
2900:
2901: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0010217;%%
2902:
2903: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0007191;%%
2904: %\cite{Seiberg:1994pq}
2905: \bibitem{Seiberg}
2906: N.~Seiberg,
2907: ``Electric - magnetic duality in supersymmetric nonAbelian gauge theories,''
2908: %
2909: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 435}, 129 (1995){hep-th/9411149.}
2910: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9411149;%%
2911:
2912: \bibitem{morgan}
2913: R.~Friedman, J.~Morgan and E.~Witten,
2914: %``Vector bundles and F theory,''
2915: Commun.\ Math.\ Phys.\ {\bf 187}, 679 (1997)
2916: {\tt hep-th/9701162.}
2917:
2918: \bibitem{MV}
2919: D.~R.~Morrison and C.~Vafa,
2920: ``Compactifications of F-Theory on Calabi--Yau Threefolds -- I \& II,''
2921: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 473}, 74 (1996)
2922: {\tt hep-th/9602114};
2923: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9602114;%% D.~R.~Morrison and C.~Vafa,
2924: %``Compactifications of F-Theory on Calabi--Yau Threefolds -- II,''
2925: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 476}, 437 (1996)
2926: {\tt hep-th/9603161}.
2927: %%CITATION = HEP-TH
2928:
2929: \bibitem{soft}
2930: P.G. Camara, L.E. Ibanez and A.M. Uranga, ``Flux Induced SUSY
2931: Breaking Soft Terms,'' hep-th/0311241;\\ for related work see M.
2932: Grana, T. Grimm, H. Jockers and J. Louis, ``Soft Supersymmetry
2933: Breaking in Calabi-Yau Orientifolds with D-branes and Fluxes,''
2934: hep-th/0312232;\\
2935: A. Lawrence and J. McGreevy, ``Local String Models of Soft
2936: Supersymmetry Breaking,'' hep-th/0401034.
2937: %\cite{Benvenuti:2004dw}
2938: %\cite{Ibanez:1998qp}
2939:
2940: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9808139;%%
2941:
2942:
2943:
2944: \bibitem{Marino:1999af}
2945: M.~Marino, R.~Minasian, G.~W.~Moore and A.~Strominger,
2946: ``Nonlinear instantons from supersymmetric p-branes,''
2947: JHEP {\bf 0001}, 005 (2000)
2948: [arXiv:hep-th/9911206].
2949: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9911206;%%
2950:
2951: \bibitem{Kapustin:2003se}
2952: A.~Kapustin and Y.~Li,
2953: ``Stability conditions for topological D-branes: A worldsheet approach,''
2954: arXiv:hep-th/0311101.
2955: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0311101;%%
2956:
2957: \bibitem{Wijnholt:2005mp}
2958: M.~Wijnholt,
2959: ``Parameter space of quiver gauge theories,''
2960: arXiv:hep-th/0512122.
2961: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0512122;%%
2962:
2963: \bibitem{Klebanov:1998hh}
2964: I.~R.~Klebanov and E.~Witten,
2965: ``Superconformal field theory on threebranes at a Calabi-Yau singularity,''
2966: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 536}, 199 (1998)
2967: [arXiv:hep-th/9807080].
2968: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9807080;%%
2969:
2970: \bibitem{Benvenuti:2005qb}
2971: S.~Benvenuti, M.~Mahato, L.~A.~Pando Zayas and Y.~Tachikawa,
2972: ``The gauge / gravity theory of blown up four cycles,''
2973: arXiv:hep-th/0512061.
2974: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0512061;%%
2975:
2976: \bibitem{Page:1985bq}
2977: D.~N.~Page and C.~N.~Pope,
2978: ``Inhomogeneous Einstein Metrics On Complex Line Bundles,''
2979: Class.\ Quant.\ Grav.\ {\bf 4}, 213 (1987).
2980: %%CITATION = CQGRD,4,213;%%
2981:
2982:
2983: \bibitem{Douglas:2000ah}
2984: M.~R.~Douglas, B.~Fiol and C.~Romelsberger,
2985: ``Stability and BPS branes,''
2986: JHEP {\bf 0509}, 006 (2005)
2987: [arXiv:hep-th/0002037].
2988: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0002037;%%
2989:
2990: \bibitem{Bershadsky:1996gx}
2991: M.~Bershadsky, A.~Johansen, T.~Pantev, V.~Sadov and C.~Vafa,
2992: ``F-theory, geometric engineering and N = 1 dualities,''
2993: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 505}, 153 (1997)
2994: [arXiv:hep-th/9612052].
2995: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9612052;%%
2996:
2997: \bibitem{Witten:1996bn}
2998: E.~Witten,
2999: ``Non-Perturbative Superpotentials In String Theory,''
3000: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 474}, 343 (1996)
3001: [arXiv:hep-th/9604030].
3002: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9604030;%%
3003:
3004: \bibitem{Beasley:2004ys}
3005: C.~Beasley and E.~Witten,
3006: ``New instanton effects in supersymmetric QCD,''
3007: JHEP {\bf 0501}, 056 (2005)
3008: [arXiv:hep-th/0409149].
3009: \newline
3010: C.~Beasley and E.~Witten,
3011: ``New instanton effects in string theory,''
3012: JHEP {\bf 0602}, 060 (2006)
3013: [arXiv:hep-th/0512039].
3014:
3015:
3016: \bibitem{Furushima}
3017: M.~Furushima,
3018: ``Singular del Pezzo surfaces and analytic
3019: compactifications of $3$-dimensional complex affine space ${\bf C}^3$,''
3020: Nagoya Math. J. 104 (1986), 1–28
3021:
3022: \end{thebibliography}
3023: \end{document}
3024:
3025: \bibitem{louisDF} H. Jockers and J. Louis, \lq D-terms and F-terms
3026: from D7-brane fluxes,' arXiv:hep-th/0502059.
3027:
3028: \bibitem{Aldazabal:2000sa}
3029: G.~Aldazabal, L.~E.~Ibanez, F.~Quevedo and A.~M.~Uranga,
3030: ``D-branes at singularities: A bottom-up approach to the string embedding of
3031: %the standard model,''
3032: JHEP {\bf 0008}, 002 (2000)
3033: [arXiv:hep-th/0005067].
3034: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0005067;%%
3035: %\cite{Berenstein:2001nk}
3036: \bibitem{Berenstein:2001nk}
3037: D.~Berenstein, V.~Jejjala and R.~G.~Leigh,
3038: %``The standard model on a D-brane,''
3039: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 88}, 071602 (2002)
3040: [arXiv:hep-ph/0105042].
3041: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0105042;%%
3042: %\cite{Cvetic:2001tj}
3043: \bibitem{Cvetic:2001tj}
3044: M.~Cvetic, G.~Shiu and A.~M.~Uranga,
3045: ``Three-family supersymmetric standard like models from intersecting brane
3046: %worlds,''
3047: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 87}, 201801 (2001)
3048: [arXiv:hep-th/0107143].
3049: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0107143;%%
3050: %\cite{Verlinde:2005jr}
3051: \bibitem{Verlinde:2005jr}
3052: H.~Verlinde and M.~Wijnholt,
3053: %``Building the standard model on a D3-brane,''
3054: arXiv:hep-th/0508089.
3055: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0508089;%%
3056: %\cite{Blumenhagen:2005mu}
3057: \bibitem{Blumenhagen:2005mu}
3058: R.~Blumenhagen, M.~Cvetic, P.~Langacker and G.~Shiu,
3059: %``Toward realistic intersecting D-brane models,''
3060: Ann.\ Rev.\ Nucl.\ Part.\ Sci.\ {\bf 55}, 71 (2005)
3061: [arXiv:hep-th/0502005].
3062: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0502005;%%
3063: %\cite{Kachru:2003aw}
3064: \bibitem{Kachru:2003aw}
3065: S.~Kachru, R.~Kallosh, A.~Linde and S.~P.~Trivedi,
3066: %``De Sitter vacua in string theory,''
3067: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 68}, 046005 (2003)
3068: [arXiv:hep-th/0301240].
3069: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0301240;%%
3070: %\cite{Ashok:2003gk}
3071: \bibitem{Berkooz:1996km}
3072: M.~Berkooz, M.~R.~Douglas and R.~G.~Leigh,
3073: %``Branes intersecting at angles,''
3074: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 480}, 265 (1996)
3075: [arXiv:hep-th/9606139].
3076: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9606139;%%
3077: %\cite{Douglas:2000gi}
3078: \bibitem{Douglas:2000gi}
3079: M.~R.~Douglas,
3080: %``D-branes, categories and N = 1 supersymmetry,''
3081: J.\ Math.\ Phys.\ {\bf 42}, 2818 (2001)
3082: [arXiv:hep-th/0011017].
3083: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0011017;%%
3084: %\cite{Douglas:1996sw}
3085: \bibitem{Douglas:1996sw}
3086: M.~R.~Douglas and G.~W.~Moore,
3087: %``D-branes, Quivers, and ALE Instantons,''
3088: arXiv:hep-th/9603167.
3089: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9603167;%%
3090: %\cite{Sen:1998sm}
3091:
3092: %\cite{Cachazo:2001sg}
3093: \bibitem{freddy}
3094: F.~Cachazo, B.~Fiol, K.~A.~Intriligator, S.~Katz and C.~Vafa,
3095: ``A geometric unification of dualities,''
3096: %
3097: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 628}, 3 (2002), {\tt hep-th/0110028.}
3098: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0110028;%%
3099:
3100: %\cite{martijn,chris}
3101: \bibitem{martijn}
3102: M.~Wijnholt,
3103: ``Large volume perspective on branes at singularities,''
3104: {\tt hep-th/0212021}.
3105:
3106:
3107:
3108: \bibitem{seimut}
3109: C.~E.~Beasley and M.~R.~Plesser,
3110: ``Toric duality is Seiberg duality,''
3111: %
3112: JHEP {\bf 0112}, 001 (2001)
3113: {\tt hep-th/0109053};
3114: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0011017;%%
3115: %\cite{Berenstein:2002fi}
3116: %\bibitem{davidmike}
3117: D.~Berenstein and M.~R.~Douglas,
3118: ``Seiberg duality for quiver gauge theories,''
3119: %
3120: {\tt hep-th/0207027.};
3121: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0207027;%%
3122: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0109053;%
3123: %\cite{Katz:2002gh}
3124: B.~Feng, A.~Hanany, Y.~H.~He and A.~M.~Uranga,
3125: ``Toric duality as Seiberg duality and brane diamonds,''
3126: %
3127: JHEP {\bf 0112}, 035 (2001)
3128: {\it hep-th/0109063;}
3129: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0109063;%%
3130: %\cite{Feng:2001xr} %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0104259;%%
3131: %\cite{Feng:2002fv}
3132:
3133: %%CITATION = H
3134:
3135: \bibitem{morgan}
3136: R.~Friedman, J.~Morgan and E.~Witten,
3137: %``Vector bundles and F theory,''
3138: Commun.\ Math.\ Phys.\ {\bf 187}, 679 (1997)
3139: {\tt hep-th/9701162.}
3140:
3141: \bibitem{MV}
3142: D.~R.~Morrison and C.~Vafa,
3143: ``Compactifications of F-Theory on Calabi--Yau Threefolds -- I \& II,''
3144: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 473}, 74 (1996)
3145: {\tt hep-th/9602114};
3146: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9602114;%% D.~R.~Morrison and C.~Vafa,
3147: %``Compactifications of F-Theory on Calabi--Yau Threefolds -- II,''
3148: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 476}, 437 (1996)
3149: {\tt hep-th/9603161}.
3150: %%CITATION = HEP-TH
3151:
3152:
3153: \end{thebibliography}
3154:
3155:
3156: \end{document}
3157:
3158: %It has the property that all 2-cycles within the del Pezzo surface
3159: %lift to non-trivial cycles on the full CY threefold.
3160: Let us outline this construction.
3161:
3162: A complex line bundle over a del Pezzo suface $X$ defines a non-compact Calabi--Yau
3163: manifold if the total space $Y_{0}$ of the linear bundle has vanishing first Chern class.
3164: The Chern class of $Y_{0}$ decomposes as the sum of Chern classes of the
3165: tangent and normal bundles of the base $X$,
3166: \be
3167: c_1(Y_{0})=c_1(TX)+c_1(N_X)\, .
3168: \ee
3169: The Chern class of the tangent bundle is equal to minus the canonical
3170: class
3171: \be
3172: c_1(TX) %=-c_1(T^*M)=-c_1(\Ld^n T^*M)
3173: =-K_X.
3174: \ee
3175: The normal bundle of $X$ within $Y_{0}$ coincides with
3176: the linear bundle itself. Consequently, if the Chern class of the linear
3177: bundle is equal to the canonical class $K_X$, then the total space is Calabi--Yau.
3178: In this manner the linear bundle is uniquely determined.
3179:
3180: We can now build a compact Calabi--Yau threefold with a del Pezzo singularity,
3181: as follows \cite{Diaconescu}.
3182: Consider a projective bundle $\PP(\OO_X \oplus K_X)$ over the del Pezzo surface $X$. We
3183: denote the total space of the bundle by $Y$. Generically, $\PP^1$ bundles of this type
3184: have two non intersecting sections, $X_0$ and $X_\infty$,
3185: homeomorphic to the base $X$. The normal bundle of each section takes the form
3186: $$
3187: N_{X_0|Y} \simeq -K_X \qquad \qquad N_{X_\infty|Y} \simeq K_X
3188: $$
3189: The section $X_\infty$ will be the one that contracts to
3190: zero in the formation of the del Pezzo singularity. For $\PP(\OO \oplus K_X)$, the
3191: canonical class of the total space of the bundle is proportional to one of the
3192: sections, i.e. the corresponding divisor class is $K_Y=-2X_0$. If
3193: we delete the section $X_0$, we get back to the flat linear bundle discussed above.
3194: Compactifying the fiber, replacing the complex line $\C^1$ with $\PP^1$,
3195: leads to a total space $Y$ with a non-vanishing first Chern class.
3196: It can be cancelled, however, by considering the special double cover over $Y$
3197: \be
3198: \label{rho}
3199: \rho:\; \widehat Y \, \ra\, Y
3200: \ee
3201: with branch locus $B$ in the class $-2K_Y = 4 X_0$.
3202: Indeed, the canonical class of $\widehat{Y}$ is given by the
3203: Riemann-Hurwitz formula
3204: \ba
3205: K_{\widehat Y} =\rho^*K_{Y}+B
3206: \ea
3207: where $\rho^*K_{Y}=2K_Y$ for the double cover $\rho$, consequently
3208: $K_{\widehat Y}=0$ for $B=-2K_Y$.
3209: Moreover, the branch locus $B$
3210: does not intersect with the section $X_\infty$. This leaves the possibility of
3211: contracting $X_\infty$ and thereby forming the $dP_8$ singularity.
3212: The branched double cover of $\PP^1$ involved in the above construction
3213: describes an elliptic curve. Hence, the cover space $\widehat Y$ is an elliptic
3214: fibration over the del Pezzo surface.% rather than a $\PP^1$ fibration.
3215:
3216: One may explicitly construct the compact Calabi--Yau threefold as an elliptic
3217: fibration over the del Pezzo 8 surface, as follows.
3218: %, as in \cite{Diaconescu}, we may
3219: %choose to describe the elliptic fiber via a quartic polynomial in $W\PP_{112}$.
3220: Consider a Calabi--Yau threefold defined as the solution to a system of two
3221: homogeneous equations on the product of weighted projective spaces
3222: \ba
3223: \label{act}
3224: W\PP_{1123}\times W\PP_{112}.
3225: \ea
3226: The first equation has degree six in $W\PP^3_{1123}$ and degree zero in
3227: $W\PP_{112}$.
3228: It defines the $dP_8$ base of the CY threefold,
3229: and takes the form described in Appendix A.
3230: The second equation is a quartic polynomial and defines the elliptic fibration.
3231: Let $(w_0,w_1,w_2)$ denote the homogeneous coordinates on
3232: $W\PP_{112}$. We
3233: assign to each coordinate $w_n$ a weight $n$ under the projective scaling on $W\PP_{1123}$.%
3234: %\footnote{It follows from the fact that the first Chern class of X,
3235: %$c_1(X)=-K_X$, equals the hyperplane class
3236: %$J\in H^2(W\PP_{1123})$ \cite{Hubsch}.}
3237: %multiply the coordinates $w_n$
3238: %by some transition functions as we move from one patch on $X$ to
3239: %another.
3240: The second
3241: equation %, that specifies the elliptic fibration over $X$,
3242: then takes the form
3243: \ba
3244: \label{quart}
3245: w_2^2= w_1^4 + f_2 \, w^2_0 w_1^2+f_3\, w^3_0 w_1+ f_4 \, w_0^4
3246: \ea
3247: where $f_n$ %$g_3$, and $h_4$
3248: %are sections of $\OO(-nK_X)$, % $\OO(-3K_X)$ and $\OO(-4K_X)$,
3249: are homogeneous polynomials
3250: on $W\PP_{1123}$ of degree $n$.
3251: The set of two equations, as given, defines a Calabi--Yau threefold because,
3252: under both projective transformations, the sum of the degrees of the two polynomial equations
3253: equals the total sum of weights of all the coordinates.
3254:
3255: The outlined construction of a compact Calabi--Yau threefold $\widehat Y$ is immediately
3256: suitable as the internal manifold for a type IIB orientifold compactification. The projection
3257: (\ref{rho}) from $\widehat Y$ to $Y$ induces a $\Z_2$ identification $\sigma$ on $\widehat Y$,
3258: that, when combined with the worldsheet orientation reversal and $(-1)^{F_L}$, specifies
3259: the orientifold projection. The branch locus $B$ of the double cover then turns into an
3260: orientifold 7-plane. The involution $\sigma$ acts via the simple reflection
3261: $\sigma(w_2) \to -w_2$ on the elliptic fibration. The orientifold plane therefore traces the locus
3262: of zeroes of the quartic polynomial in (\ref{quart}). For smooth choices of $f_n$, it does
3263: not intersect the section $X_\infty$, the del Pezzo surface at the base of the CY singularity.
3264:
3265:
3266:
3267: \bigskip
3268:
3269:
3270:
3271:
3272: \noindent
3273: \newsubsection{Eliminating the $\alpha_4$ cycle}
3274:
3275:
3276: From the construction as given above, it is clear that the elliptic fibration $\widehat Y$
3277: exists for any shape of the del Pezzo 8 surface.
3278: The moduli space of $Y$ thus includes the space of all geometric
3279: deformations of the base $X$.
3280: In particular, we have the freedom to tune the complex structure of
3281: $X$, so that the $\alpha_1$ and $\alpha_2$ cycles degenerate and form an $A_2$ singularity.
3282: The construction furthermore preserves the complete cohomology of $X$ as part of the
3283: cohomology of $Y$: all 2-cycles within $X$ are lifted to non-trivial 2-cycles within $Y$.
3284: Our task, however, is to find a compact embedding of the del Pezzo 8
3285: singularity such that the 2-cycle $\alpha_4$ is trivial within the compact CY threefold.
3286: This can be achieved as follows.
3287:
3288:
3289:
3290:
3291: A characteristic topological
3292: property of del Pezzo 8 surfaces is that the degree zero subspace of $H_2({dP}_8,{\Z})$ is
3293: isomorphic to the root lattice of $E_8$. This isomorphism is unique only up to relabelings of the
3294: 2-cycles that preserve the intersection product. The group of such relabelings is isomorphic to
3295: the group of Weyl reflections of $E_8$. The moduli space of del Pezzo 8 sufaces thus has a natural
3296: covering space, the moduli space of marked del Pezzo 8 surfaces, with %
3297: the Weyl group of $E_8$ as covering group. %$W(E_8)$.
3298: % of the form (\ref{reflect}).
3299: The action of $W(E_8)$ can be represented in terms of
3300: global diffeomorphisms of $dP_8$ that preserve the canonical class $k$. From the relation
3301: (\ref{ddd}) between the simple roots and the canonical homology basis $(h,e_i)$, we see that
3302: the special Weyl reflections\footnote{\small Here we use the isomorphism between
3303: the Killing metric and minus the intersection product:
3304: $\langle \alpha , \beta \rangle = - \alpha \ccap \beta$, and
3305: that $\langle \alpha_\aaa , \alpha_\aaa \rangle = 2$.}
3306: \be
3307: \label{reflect}
3308: W_\aaa : \ \ \ \alpha \, \to \, \alpha - \langle \alpha_\aaa, \alpha \rangle \, \alpha_\aaa
3309: \ee
3310: in the simple roots $\alpha_i$ with $i\leq 7$ have a simple description as diffeomorphisms
3311: that interchange two exceptional curves $e_{i+1}$ and $e_i$, while keeping the rest of
3312: the surface fixed. The
3313: reflection in $\alpha_8$ looks more complicated, but can be understood in a similar manner.
3314: This Weyl group action will play a useful role in our construction.
3315:
3316:
3317: Via the above construction, any diffeomorphism on the base $X$ extends to a diffeomeorphism
3318: of the full CY manifold $\widehat Y$. Now consider the special Weyl reflection associated
3319: with the fourth root $\alpha_4$. The corresponding diffeomorphism $w(\alpha_4)$ reverses the orientation
3320: of the $\alpha_4$ cycle: it interchanges the two exceptional curves $e_{5}$ and $e_4$,
3321: while keeping the rest of the surface fixed.
3322: The idea is to try to include this diffeomorphism as part of
3323: the involution $\sigma$ that defines the orientifold projection. The map
3324: $w(\alpha_4)$ indeed defines a topological $\Z_2$-identification on~$Y$.
3325: For a general del Pezzo 8 geometry, however, it does not act as an isometry.
3326: Requiring the geometry to be invariant under $w(\alpha_4)$ forces the surface $X$ to form
3327: an $A_1$-singularity associated to~$\alpha_4$. At this special point in the
3328: complex structure moduli space, the 2-cycle $\alpha_4$ collapses to a point.
3329: This means that two exceptional curves $e_4$ and $e_5$ coincide, and $w(\alpha_4)$
3330: trivializes to the identity map on the whole surface. However, it still acts non-trivially on
3331: the space of geometric deformations of the CY threefold, and thereby on the IIB string theory
3332: defined on $Y$. It makes sense therefore to include $w(\alpha_4)$ as part of the
3333: involution that defines the IIB orientifold, via
3334: \be
3335: \label{new}
3336: \tilde \sigma = w(\alpha_4) \circ \sigma
3337: \ee
3338: with $\sigma$ denotes the involution acting on the elliptic fiber of $\widehat Y$. It is
3339: evident, that via this modified orientifold projection, we have managed to turn the
3340: 2-cycle $\alpha_4$ into a trivial cycle on Calabi--Yau orientifold $Y$. Concretely,
3341: imagine wrapping a D5-brane along $\alpha_4$. Its lift onto the covering
3342: space $\widehat Y$ wraps the 2-cycle
3343: \ba
3344: \alpha_4 \cup \tilde{\sigma}(\alpha_4)= \alpha_4 \cup \sigma(\alpha_4) \; \simeq\, 0
3345: \ea
3346: since $\sigma(\alpha_4)$ is homologous to $\alpha_4$.
3347: We may thus visualize unwrapping the D5-brane, by moving its two pre-images
3348: on $\widehat Y$ towards the orientifold plane, where both annihilate.
3349:
3350:
3351: \bibitem{vafa} B. Acharya, M. Aganagic, K. Hori, C. Vafa, \lq
3352: Orientifolds, Mirror Symmetry, and Superpotentials,'
3353: arXiv:hep-th/0202208.
3354:
3355: \newcommand{\half}{{\textstyle{1\over 2}}}
3356: \newcommand{\ihalf}{{\textstyle{i\over 2}}}
3357: \newcommand{\two}{{2}}
3358: \newcommand{\four}{{4}}
3359:
3360:
3361: {\small \ba
3362: \begin{array}{|c||r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r||r||c| }
3363: \hline
3364: * & \alpha_3 & \alpha_4 & \alpha_5 & \alpha_6 & \alpha_7 &
3365: \alpha_8 &{\rm deg} & {\rm r_s} \ & {\rm q_s}\ & n\ \\[1mm]\hline\hline
3366: %\FF_1 &\ 1 & 0 \ & 0\ & 0\ & 0\ & 0 \ & 0 \ & 0 \ & \ 2\ & \ 1 \ & 0\ \\[1mm] \hline
3367: %\FF_2 & -1 & \ 1 \ & 0 \ & 0\ & 0\ & 0 \ & 0\ & 0\ & 2 \ & \ 1 \ & 0\ \\[1mm] \hline
3368: %\FF_3 & 0\ & -1 & \ 1 \ & 0\ & 0 \ & 0 \ & 0 \ & 0\ & 2\ & \ 1 \ & 0\ \\[1mm] \hline\hline
3369: \FF_1 & -1 & 2\ & 0\ & 0\ & 0 \ & 0\ & 5\ &\ 3\ & \ {1\over 2} &- 1\ \\[1mm] \hline
3370: \FF_{2} & 0\ & 1\ & 0\ & 0\ & 0\ & 0\ & 4\ &\ 3\ & -2 & \ 2\ \\[1mm] \hline
3371: \FF_{3} & 0\ & 1\ & 0 \ & 0\ & 0\ & 0\ &\ 5\ & 3 \ & -{1\over 2} & -3 \ \\[1mm] \hline
3372: \FF_4 & -1 & \ 1 \ & 0\ & 0\ & 0\ & 1\ &\ 2\ & \ 1\ & 0 \ & \ 1\ \\[1mm] \hline
3373: \FF_5 & 0 \ & \ 1\ & -1 & 0 \ & 0 \ & 0 \ &\ 2\ & \ 1\ & 1\ & \ 1 \ \\[1mm] \hline
3374: \FF_6 & 0\ & 0\ & \ 1\ & -1 & 0 \ & 0 \ &\ 2\ & \ 1 \ & 1\ & \ 1\ \\[1mm] \hline
3375: \FF_7 & 0\ & 0 \ & 0 \ & \ 1\ & -1 & 0\ &\ 2\ & \ 1\ & 1\ &\ 1 \ \\[1mm] \hline
3376: \FF_8 & 0 \ & 0\ & 0 \ & 0\ & \ 1\ & 0\ & \ 2\ & \ 1 \ & 1\ & \ 1\ \\[1mm] \hline
3377: \FF_9 & 0\ & \ 1 \ & 0 \ & 0 \ & 0\ & -1&\ 2 \ & \ 1\ & 0\ & \ 1\ \\[1mm] \hline\end{array}
3378: \label{charges}
3379: \ea}
3380:
3381: \parbox{15cm}{\small Table 1. The table of charge vectors. The first 6 columns give the
3382: intersection with the simple roots $\alpha_i$. The last 4 columns give: the
3383: degree (= intersection with $-K$),
3384: the D7 charge $r_s$, the D3 charge $q_s$, and the multiplicity of each fractional brane $\FF_s$.}
3385:
3386: \bigskip
3387: \medskip
3388:
3389:
3390: The basis of integral harmonic 2-forms $\omega_\aaa$
3391: on $dP_k$ can be chosen such that
3392: \be
3393: \int_{\alpha_\bbb}\!\! \omega_\aaa = \delta_\aaa^{\, \bbb}
3394: \ee
3395: We will denote the pull-back of $\omega_\aaa$ to the threefold $Y_{0}$ by
3396: the same name.
3397: The canonical class $\omega_0$ is self-dual, while the other forms $\omega_i$ with
3398: $i=1,..,n$ are all anti-self dual.
3399: The intersection form on $H^{(1,1)}(X,\Z)$ takes the form %a dual basis $\omega^\aaa$
3400: \ba
3401: \int_X \omega_0 \wedge \omega _0 = 1,\qquad
3402: \int_X \omega_\aaa \wedge \omega_\bbb = -A_{ij}, \qquad \int_X \omega_0 \wedge \omega_\aaa = 0
3403: \ea
3404:
3405:
3406:
3407: \renewcommand{\newsubsection}[1]{
3408: \addtocounter{subsection}{1}
3409: \addcontentsline{toc}{subsection}{\protect
3410: \numberline{\Alph{section}.\arabic{subsection}}{#1}} \vglue .4cm
3411: \pagebreak[3] \noindent{\it \thesubsection.
3412: #1}\nopagebreak[4]\par\vskip .3cm}
3413: \bigskip
3414: \bigskip
3415:
3416: \newsection{Appendix: Del Pezzo 8 with an $A_2$ singularity}
3417:
3418:
3419: An elegant explicit description of the space of complex structure deformations
3420: has been given in \cite{morgan}. There it is shown that the degree 6 equation in $W\PP_{1123}$
3421: that defines
3422: the del Pezzo 8 surface can chosen of the form
3423: \vspace{2mm}
3424: \be
3425: \label{mfw2}
3426: y^2 = 4x^3\! - g_2 x v^4\! - g_3 v^6 + u^2 P_4(u,v) + x u \, Q_3(u,v)
3427: \ee
3428: %\vspace{-10.5mm}
3429: where $P_4$ and $Q_3$ are general homogeneous polynomials in $u$ and $v$
3430: of weight 4 and 3. Setting $u\! =\! 0$ in the above equation defines an elliptic curve ${\cal E}$, given
3431: by a Weierstrass equation
3432: % given by a Weierstrass equation %
3433: %$y^2 \! = 4x^3\! - g_2 x v^4\! - g_3 v^6$
3434: in $W\PP_{123}$.
3435: The space of continuous
3436: complex structure deformations that
3437: keep ${\cal E}$ fixed is given by the space of independent deformations of the two polynomials
3438: $P_4$ and $Q_3$. The two polynomials combine $5+4=9$ independent parameters,
3439: modulo a projective transformation corresponding to rescalings of $u$.
3440: The resulting space is thus 8 dimensional, and described by the weighted
3441: projective space
3442: %\be
3443: %\label{weepees}
3444: %(a_2,a_3,a_4,a_5,a_6,b_1,b_2,b_3, b_4) \in
3445: $W\PP_{122334456}\, .$
3446: Remarkably, the collection of weights coincides with the Dynkin labels of the
3447: highest coroot of the $E_8$ Kac-Moody algebra (see fig 3).
3448:
3449: In \cite{morgan}, the above construction was used to establish an isomorphism between complex structure deformations of $dP_8$ that preserve the elliptic curve ${\cal E}$ and $E_8$ bundles over ${\cal E}$.
3450: An $E_8$ bundle over ${\cal E}$ is
3451: specified by picking two commuting group elements of $E_8$, corresponding to the
3452: two $E_8$ holonomies around the $a$ and $b$ cycle of the curve, modulo overall conjugation.
3453: This leads to the Looijenga's identification
3454: \be
3455: \label{wspace}
3456: W\PP_{122334456} = {\cal E} \otimes \Lambda(E_8)/ W(E_8),
3457: \ee
3458: where $\Lambda(E_8)$ denotes the coroot lattice of $E_8$ and $W(E_8)$ the group of discrete
3459: Weyl reflections. The appearance of the $E_8$ Weyl group is not surprising.
3460: The degree zero subspace of $H_2({dP}_8,{\Z})$ is isomorphic to the root lattice of $E_8$;
3461: this isomorphism is unique up to the action of $W(E_8)$. The moduli space of del Pezzo 8
3462: sufaces thus has a natural covering space, the moduli space of marked $dP_8$ surfaces,
3463: $W(E_8)$ as covering group. %$W(E_8)$.
3464:
3465:
3466: A special subset of del Pezzo 8 surfaces are those that held fixed under some
3467: subgroup $W(H)$ of $W(E_8)$. Via the above-mentioned isomorphism, these surfaces
3468: correspond to $E_8$-bundles over ${\cal E}$, with the special property that the
3469: structure group commutes with a corresponding subgroup $H$ of $E_8$.
3470: As shown in \cite{morgan}, this
3471: happens if and only if the del Pezzo surface develops a singularity of type $H$.
3472: We are interested in finding the special surfaces with an $A_2$ singularity associated with the
3473: two simple roots $\alpha_1$ and $\alpha_2$. This subset of del Pezzo 8 surfaces forms
3474: fixed locus of the Weyl reflections in $\alpha_1$ and $\alpha_2$. Based on the
3475: Looijenga isomorphism (\ref{wspace}), it is natural to suspect that this locus is described by
3476: the reduced weighted projective space $W\PP_{1233456}$, with weights equal to
3477: the Dynkin labels of all remaining roots (indicated by the blue nodes in the
3478: extended Dynkin diagram in fig 3).
3479: % We will confirm this expectation momentarily.
3480:
3481:
3482:
3483: \begin{figure}[t]
3484: \begin{center}
3485: %\leavevmode\hbox{\epsfxsize=7cm \epsffile{finquiver.eps}}\\[3mm]
3486: \epsfig{figure=next.pdf,scale=0.73}
3487: \caption{The Dynkin labels of the $E_8$ Kac-Moody algebra coincide with the weights of the
3488: projective space that gives the complex structure moduli space of the del Pezzo 8 surface.
3489: The $A_2$ singularity is associated with the roots $\alpha_1$ and $\alpha_2$, with Dynkin
3490: labels 2 and 4. }
3491: %\label{default}
3492: \end{center}
3493: \end{figure}
3494:
3495: A surface with an $A_n$ singularity reduces, in the local neighborhood of the singularity, to
3496: an equation of the generic form $xy= u^{n+1}$. Resolving this singularity amounts to replacing
3497: $u^{n+1}$ by a polynomial with a smaller number of coincident zeroes at the origin.
3498: To obtain the del Pezzo surface with the
3499: desired $A_2$-singularity, it is a useful strategy to start with a maximally degenerate surface,
3500: and then resolve all unwanted singularities.
3501:
3502: A del Pezzo surface with a maximal singularity is specified by choosing some
3503: maximal rank subgroup $H$ of $E_8$.
3504: The singularities available on del Pezzo surfaces are listed
3505: in \cite{Furushima}.
3506: A convenient choice for our purpose is to take
3507: $H=A_1\times A_2\times A_5$, where $A_2$ corresponds to the roots $\al_1$ and $\al_2$,
3508: $A_1$ corresponds to $\al_8$, and $A_5$ corresponds to $\al_4$, $\al_5$, $\al_6$, $\al_7$
3509: and the maximal positive root (the one with Dynkin label equal to 1). The equation for
3510: a del Pezzo 8 surface with this maximal singularity is
3511: \be\lb{surf}
3512: vxy=u^6\, .
3513: \ee
3514: %has a maximal $A_1\times A_2\times A_5$ singularity.
3515: It may seem at first that this surface has three
3516: $A_5$ singularities at locations $(0,1,0,0)$, $(0,0,1,0)$ and $(0,0,0,1)$.
3517: But one has to remember that $(u,v,x,y)$ are coordinates in the weighted projective space
3518: $W\PP_{1123}$, which itself is a $Z_2$ quotient at $(0,0,1,0)$ and a $Z_3$ quotient at $(0,0,0,1)$.
3519: On the weighted projective space, equation (\ref{surf}) thus
3520: defines a $Z_6/Z_2=A_2$ singularity at $(0,0,1,0)$ and
3521: a $Z_6/Z_3=A_1$ singularity at $(0,0,0,1)$.
3522: The point $(0,1,0,0)$ is smooth in $W\PP_{1123}$, i.e. there is a $Z_6=A_5$ singularity
3523: at this point.%
3524: \footnote{
3525: A motivation for this reduction of singularities is the
3526: following.
3527: The $A_5$ singularity $vx=u^6$ corresponds to a sixfold cover over $\C^2$.
3528: If we perform a $Z_3$ quotient with the fixed point at the origin,
3529: we get a twofold cover that corresponds to the $A_1$ singularity.
3530: While doing the $Z_3$ projection, one has to be careful near the
3531: branching lines $v=0$ and $x=0$ where the six points of the cover
3532: degenerate into one point.
3533: Away from the singularity, we can distinguish the points
3534: approaching the lines $v=0$ and $x=0$ by the tangent vectors.
3535: Using this distinction, we can define the $Z_3$ action such that
3536: the only fixed point is at the singularity where the tangent vectors
3537: degenerate.
3538: }
3539:
3540: We can now easily obtain the general equation for
3541: a del Pezzo surface with the desired $A_2$ singularity, simply by introducing a
3542: general resolution of the $A_5$ and $A_1$ singularity. The equation that describes this
3543: general resolution is
3544: \ba
3545: \label{dpa}
3546: y^2 \is x v y +
3547: b_3 x v u^3 + u P_5(u,v) %\\[4mm]
3548: \ea
3549: where $P_5(u,v)$ denotes a general homogeneous degree 5 polynomial in $u$ and $v$.
3550: % that vanishes at $u=0$
3551: \ba
3552: P_5(u,v) \is
3553: %& & \qquad
3554: a_6 u^5\! + a_5 u^4 v + a_4 u^ 3v^2 \! + a_3 u^2 v^3 \! + a_2 u v^4\! + a_1v^5 \nonumber
3555: \ea
3556: It is not difficult to verify that the surface described by equation (\ref{dpa}) has a single $A_2$ singularity
3557: at $(u,v,x,y) = (0,0,1,0)$. The six parameters $(a_6,\ldots,a_1,b_3)$, that
3558: specify the equation, transform with the corresponding weights under rescalings
3559: of the $u$-coordinate: they define homogeneous coordinates on the
3560: weighted projective space $W\PP_{1233456}$. This is the anticipated form of
3561: the subspace of complex structure deformations that preserve the $A_2$ singularity.
3562:
3563:
3564: is as outlined in the figure below:
3565:
3566: \begin{figure}[htbp]
3567: \begin{center}
3568: %\leavevmode\hbox{\epsfxsize=7cm \epsffile{finquiver.eps}}\\[3mm]
3569: \epsfig{figure=newplan.pdf,scale=0.75}
3570: \end{center}
3571: \end{figure}
3572:
3573: \noindent
3574:
3575: Let us illustrate this reduction of the singularities by an example.
3576: The quadric $xy=z^2$ in $\C^3$ defines a cone that is a double cover
3577: of $\C^2$ and has an $A_1$ singularity at the origin.
3578: If we take a $Z_2$ orbifold of $\C^3$ with the fixed point at the
3579: origin, then the quadric will define $\C^2$.
3580: Indeed, the coordinate ring of $\C^3/Z_2$ is spanned by the
3581: monomials invariant under the $Z_2$ action, $[x^2,xy,y^2,xz,yz,z^2]$.
3582: After the factorization by the ideal $\{xy-z^2\}$, the generic
3583: polynomial has the form $R=P_{even}(x,y)+zQ_{odd}(x,y)$ which is in
3584: one to one correspondence with polynomials in $\C^2$ (because any
3585: polynomial in $\C^2$ can be unambiguously decomposed into monomials
3586: with odd and even degrees).
3587: Consequently we can identify $Z_2\backslash \C^3/\{xy-z^2\}\simeq \C^2$.
3588: To compare, a generic polynomial in $\C^2/\{xy-z^2\}$ has the form
3589: $\td R=P(x,y)+zQ(x,y)$ and gives "two copies" of polynomials
3590: in $\C^2$, this doubling corresponds to the double cover of $\C^2$.
3591: Hence, the quadric defines a surface with an $A_1$ singularity in
3592: $\C^3$ or a smooth surface in $\C^3/Z_2$.
3593: