arXiv:hep-th/0610102v3 12 Jan 2007 Contents † ∗ Compactification Flux I.QATMGAIY H EFFECTIVE THE GRAVITY, QUANTUM III. V XLCTCONSTRUCTIONS EXPLICIT IV. I ULTTV PICTURE QUALITATIVE A II. lcrncades [email protected] address: Electronic lcrncades [email protected] address: Electronic .INTRODUCTION I. OETA N STABILITY AND POTENTIAL 12 overview Qualitative compactification: Flux D. .Tneigisaiiis25 instabilities Tunneling D. .Oeve fsrn n hoycmatfiain5 compactification M and string of Overview A. .Teeetv oeta 22 potential effective The A. .Tp I 3D au 29 vacua D3/D7 IIb Type A. .Clb-a aiod n ouisae 11 spaces moduli and manifolds Calabi-Yau C. .Sblte nsmcasclgaiy24 gravity semiclassical in Subtleties C. .Mro ymtyadnwcasso au 41 vacua of classes new and Mirror C. .Mdl fields Moduli B. .Apoiaeeetv oeta 23 potential effective Approximate B. .Tp I u vacua flux IIa Type B. .Aslto ftecsooia osatpolm14 problem constant cosmological the of solution A E. .Erycsooyadmauefcos26 factors measure and cosmology Early E. .Ohrpyia osqecs16 consequences physical Other F. .Hlgahcadda omltos28 formulations dual and Holographic F. .Baemodels Brane 3. string Heterotic 2. 1. .Eryuies omlg 21 18 15 19 13 cosmology universe breaking Early supersymmetry 11 of 4. scale The 16 problem 3. moduli breaking The supersymmetry spontaneous 2. of Overview 1. selection Anthropic 1. compactification Freund-Rubin 1. properties general - space Moduli 2. Examples 1. .Sprymtybekn 35 33 30 breaking Supersymmetry vacua flux 4. IIb Quantum description 3. effective 4d 2. solutions 10d 1. .Awr-p h wse ou 41 40 40 38 39 torus twisted The warm-up: A 1. description 10d on Comments superpotential 4. and Fluxes K¨ahler potential and 3. multiplets 4d 2. considerations Qualitative 1. uha bevbeeet fmdl,cntanso al co early on for constraints breaking. prospects moduli, supersymmetry the of of effects and observable landscape, as argument the such the of present surveys and vacua , statistical theory world string/M real of describing “landscape” for a w is supersymme an real there and reproduce that string to massive, implies of needed are features compactifications (moduli) constant, cosmological which fields scalar in all work which recent review We 4 ihe .Douglas R. Michael 3 2 1 al nttt o hoeia hsc,Uiest fCal of University Physics, Theoretical for Institute Kavli eateto hsc n LC tnodUiest,Stanfo University, Stanford SLAC, and Physics of Department ntttdsHue tdsSiniqe,3 ot e Chart des route 35 Scientifiques, Etudes Hautes des Institut eateto hsc n srnm,RtesUiest,Pis University, Rutgers Astronomy, and Physics of Department ,2, 1, ∗ n hmtKachru Shamit and ,4, 3, † 22 28 11 29 38 5 1 8 7 6 9 rdpyis eepanhwti work this how explain We physics. orld o n gis hsie.W discuss We idea. this against and for s fri,SnaBraa A93106 CA Barbara, Santa ifornia, etbecneune fti picture, this of consequences testable mlg,adpeitosfrtescale the for predictions and smology, ehp otiigmn candidates many containing perhaps , dices rlrltvt ofiedmnin,otie ytaking by obtained dimensions, five metric gen- the to of generalization relativity straightforward eral a by level mental to invisible which space-time, (1926), of Klein experience. dimension and everyday fifth (1921) dimen- a Kaluza extra of postulated works of appea the realization existence successful in first the Its to space-time. of related sions be may INTRODUCTION I. er.A ouinwihcuddsrb u universe, our describe sym- could less which or solution also different a it with As However, solutions metry. ev- other many in experience. possibility allows with a five-dimensional contradiction solution, allows ident a theory as a space-time Such Minkowski dimensions. five I CONCLUSIONS VI. r sboe ihasalpositive small a with broken is try .SAITC FVACUA OF V. e,BrssrYet rne91440 France Bures-sur-Yvette res, nti itr,alpyisi ecie tafunda- a at described is physics all picture, this In fundamental the of unification that idea old an is It hoyaecntutdin constructed are theory M d d A94305 CA rd, aaa J085U.S.A. 08855 NJ cataway .Ohrdistributions Other D. References Acknowledgements .Mtoooyadbscdfiiin 43 definitions basic and Methodology A. .Saeo uesmer raig50 breaking supersymmetry of Scale C. .Cutn u vacua flux Counting B. .Mdldsrbtosadohragmns55 arguments other and distributions Model E. .Interpretation F. µ 0 = .Afl example full A 2. .Fntns ruet 57 56 56 55 54 56 54 arguments Finiteness 5. 52 arguments Non-existence measure of 4. concentrations Other theory 3. matrix Random theorem 53 2. limit Central 1. numbers Absolute 4. terms manifolds potential Calabi-Yau other 3. and content couplings Yukawa matter and 2. groups Gauge 1. .Ibvcao ii Y45 44 CY theory rigid General a on 2. vacua IIb 1. factors tuning and distributions Approximate 1. , 1 , 2 , 3 , g ,adipsn eea oainein covariance general imposing and 4, µν odpn nfiedmninlin- five-dimensional on depend to rs 43 42 52 60 60 59 57 47 45 2 consider a direct product of four-dimensional Minkowski gravity with a natural extension of the Standard Model, space-time, with a circle of constant periodicity, which we from a single unified theory with no free parameters. denote 2πR. It is easy to check that at distances r>>R, However, at this point, the problem we encountered the gravitational law reduces to the familar inverse above rears its ugly head. Just like the classical Einstein- square law. Furthermore, at energies E << ~/Rc, all Maxwell equations, the classical supergravity equations quantum mechanical wave functions will be independent are scale invariant. Thus, if we can find any solution of position on the circle, and thus if R is sufficiently small of the type we just described, by rescaling the size R (in 1926, subatomic), the circle will be invisible. of the compactification manifold, we can obtain a one- The point of saying this is that the five dimensional parameter family of solutions, differing only in the value metric gµν , regarded as a field in four dimensions, con- of R. Similarly, by making a rescaling of R with a weak tains additional, non-metric degrees of freedom. In par- dependence on four-dimensional position, one obtains ap- ticular, the components gµ5 transform as a vector field, proximate solutions. Thus, again R corresponds to a which turns out to obey the Maxwell equations in a massless field in four dimensions, which is again in fatal curved background. Thus, one has a unified theory of conflict with observation. gravitation and electromagnetism. In fact, the situation is even worse. Considerations The theory contains one more degree of freedom, the we will discuss show that typical solutions of this type metric component g55, which parameterizes the radius R have not just one but hundreds of parameters, called of the extra-dimensional circle. Since the classical Ein- moduli. Each will lead to a massless scalar field, and stein equations are scale invariant, in the construction as its own potential conflict with observation. In addition, described, there is no preferred value for this radius R. the interaction strength between strings is controlled by Thus, Kaluza and Klein simply postulated a value for it another massless scalar field, which by a long-standing consistent with experimental bounds. quirk of terminology is called the dilaton. Since this field Just like the other metric components, the g55 compo- is present in all string and enters directly into nent is a field, which can vary in four-dimensional space- the formulas for observable couplings, many proposals for time in any way consistent with the equations of mo- dealing with the other moduli problems, such as looking tion. We will discuss these equations of motion in detail for special solutions without parameters, founder here. later, but their main salient feature is that they describe a On further consideration, the moduli are tied up with (non-minimally coupled) massless scalar field. We might many other interesting physical questions. The simplest expect such a field to lead to physical effects just as im- of these is just the following: given the claim that all portant as those of the Maxwell field we were trying to of known physics can arise from a fundamental theory explain. Further analysis bears this out, predicting ef- with no free parameters, how do the particular values fects such as new long range forces, or time dependence we observe for the fundamental parameters of physics, of parameters, in direct conflict with observation. such as the electron mass or the fine structure constant, All this would be a historical footnote were it not for actually emerge from within the theory? This question the discovery, which emerged over the period 1975–1985, has always seemed to lie near the heart of the matter and that superstring theory provides a consistent quantum has inspired all sorts of speculations and numerological theory of gravity coupled to matter in ten space-time observations, some verging on the bizarre. dimensions (Green et al., 1987a,b). At energies low com- This question has a clear answer within superstring pared to its fundamental scale (the string tension), this theory, and the moduli are central to this answer. The theory is well described by ten-dimensional supergravity, answer may not be to every reader’s liking, but let us a supersymmetric extension of general relativity coupled come back to this in due course. to Yang-Mills theory. But the nonrenormalizability of To recap, we now have a problem, a proliferation of that theory is cured by the extended nature of the string. massless scalar fields; and a question, the origin of fun- Clearly such a theory is a strong candidate for a higher damental parameters. Suppose we ignore the dynamics dimensional unified theory of the type postulated by of the massless scalar fields for a moment, and simply Kaluza and Klein. Around 1985, detailed arguments freeze the moduli to particular values, in other words re- were made, most notably by Candelas et al. (1985), that strict attention to one of the multi-parameter family of starting from the heterotic superstring theory, one could possible solutions in an ad hoc way. Now, if we carry derive supersymmetric grand unified theories (GUTs) of out the Kaluza-Klein procedure on this definite solution, the general class which, for completely independent rea- we will be able to compute physical predictions, includ- sons, had already been postulated as plausible extensions ing the fundamental parameters. Of course, the results of the Standard Model up to very high energies. This depend on the details of the assumed solution for the ex- construction, the first quasi-realistic string compactifi- tra dimensions of space, and the particular values of the cation, took ten-dimensional space-time to be a direct moduli. product of four-dimensional Minkowski space-time, with Returning to the problem of the massless scalar fields, a six dimensional Ricci flat manifold, one of the so-called a possible solution begins with the observation that the Calabi-Yau manifolds. Performing a Kaluza-Klein type equations of motion of general relativity and supergrav- analysis, one obtains a four-dimensional theory unifying ity are scale invariant only at the classical level. Defining 3 a quantum theory of gravity (in more than two space- to a good deal of real world physics and chemistry. Al- time dimensions) requires introducing a preferred scale, though details are always essential, there are also prin- the Planck scale, and thus there is no reason that the ciples which apply with some generality, which make up quantum theory cannot prefer a particular value of R, or the theory of energy landscapes (Wales, 2003). The pic- of the other moduli. Indeed, this can be demonstrated turesque term “landscape” actually originated in evolu- by simple considerations in quantum field theory. For tionary biology (Wright, 1932). example, given a conducting cavity, even one containing For reasons we will discuss in Sec. II, string vacua with vacuum, one can measure an associated Casimir energy, small positive cosmological constant, as would fit present which depends on its size and shape. This agrees with the astronomical observations, are believed to be metastable theoretically predicted vacuum energy of the zero-point and extremely long-lived even compared to cosmologi- fluctuations of the quantum electromagnetic field. Very cal time scales. Thus, if we find multiple local minima similar computations show that a quantum field in a com- of the effective potentials derived from string/M theory pactified extra dimensional theory will have a Casimir compactification, the appropriate interpretation is that energy which depends on the size and other moduli pa- string/M theory has multiple configurations, the vacua. rameters of the extra dimensions, and which contributes Now, ever since the first studies of string compactifi- to the four-dimensional stress-energy tensor. cation, it has appeared that choices were involved, at the In a more complete treatment, this Casimir energy very least the choice of compactification manifold, and would be the first term in a systematic expansion of the other discrete choices, leading to multiple vacua. How- quantum vacuum energy, to be supplemented by higher ever, it was long thought that this might be an artifact of order perturbative and nonperturbative contributions. In , or else not very interesting, as the higher dimensional theories, it is also possible to turn on constraints of fitting the data would pick out a unique background field strengths in the extra dimensions with- candidate solution. While occasional suggestions to the out breaking Lorentz invariance, and these contribute to contrary were made, as in Banks (1995b); Linde (2005); the vacuum energy as well. All of these effects can be Schellekens (1998); Smolin (1997), these were not sup- summarized in an effective potential, defined as the to- ported by enough evidence to attract serious attention. tal vacuum energy, considered as a function of assumed This has changed in recent years, as increasingly de- constant values for the moduli fields. tailed arguments have been developed for the existence We now work on the assumption that this effective of a large number of candidate vacua within string/M potential, defined in precise analogy to the effective po- theory. (The bulk of our review will be devoted to these tentials of conventional quantum field theory and many- arguments, so we defer the references to there.) These body physics, can be used in a very similar way: to deter- vacua realize different values of the cosmological term, mine the possible (metastable) vacuum states of the the- enabling an “anthropic” solution of the cosmological con- ory, as the local minima of the effective potential. Any stant problem, along the lines set out by Banks (1984); configuration not at such a minimum will roll down to Bousso and Polchinski (2000); Linde (2005); Weinberg one, converting its excess potential energy into other en- (1987), which can naturally accomodate the growing ev- tropically favored forms, such as radiation. This argu- idence for dark energy (see Copeland et al. (2006) for a ment is very general and applies to all known physical recent overview). systems with many degrees of freedom; it is widely ac- Does anything pick out one or a subset of these vacua cepted in cosmology as well, so there is no evident reason as the preferred candidates to describe our universe? At not to accept it in the present context. this point, we do not know. But, within the consider- Almost all effective potentials for systems in the real ations we discuss in this review, there is no sign that world have more than one local minimum. The conse- any of the vacua are preferred. So far as we know, any quences of this fact depend on the time scales of tran- sufficiently long-lived vacuum which fits all the data, sitions between minima (quantum or thermally induced) including cosmological observations, is an equally good compared to the time scales under study. If transitions candidate to describe our universe. This is certainly proceed rapidly, the system will find the global mini- how we proceed in analogous situations in other areas mum of the potential, and if this changes upon vary- of physics. The analogy leads to the term “landscape of ing parameters the system undergoes a phase transition. string vacua” and a point of view in which we are willing On the other hand, if transitions between vacua proceed to consider a wide range of possibilities for what selected slowly, local minima are effectively stable, and one speaks “our vacuum.” Indeed, an extreme point of view might of a system with multiple configurations. Both phe- hold that, despite the evident centrality of this choice to nomena are ubiquitous; examples of extremely long-lived all that we will ever observe, nevertheless it might turn metastable configurations include most organic molecules out to be an undetermined, even “random” choice among (which “decay” to hydrocarbons and carbon dioxide), many equally consistent alternatives. and all nuclei except 62Ni, the nucleus which minimizes Of course, such a claim would be highly controver- the binding energy per nucleon. sial. And, while in our opinion the idea must be taken The structure of effective potentials responsible for very seriously, it is far outrunning the present evidence. multiple minima, metastability and transitions is central String/M theory is a theory of quantum gravity, and 4 given our present limited understanding both of general ical effects of the moduli would be similar to those for principles of quantum gravity and of its microscopic def- direct observation of excited string modes or of the extra inition, it is too early to take any definite position about dimensions, in other words a real possibility but not a such claims. Rather, in this review, we will try to state particularly favored one. the evidence from various sides. To start with, since there It is possible that some moduli might gain lower masses is as yet no precise definition of the effective potential in and thus have more direct experimental consequences. , we need to state our working definition, One class of observational bounds on the masses of mod- and justify it within our present understanding of the uli arise from fifth-force experiments; these are impor- 3 theory. Then, there are important differences between tant for masses less than about 10− eV. A stronger other physical theories and quantum gravity, which sug- bound comes from cosmology; masses up to 10 TeV or gest various speculations about why some of the vacua more are constrained by the requirement that energy which appear consistent at the level of our discussion, ac- trapped in oscillations of the moduli fields should re- tually should not be considered. Another point in which lax before primordial nucleosynthesis (Banks et al., 1994; quantum gravity plays an essential role is the idea that de Carlos et al., 1993). Both bounds admit loopholes, early cosmology leads to a “measure factor,” an a pri- and thus this possibility is of interest for phenomenol- ori on the vacua which must be ogy. taken into account in making predictions. How does one compute the effective potential in string We discuss all of these points in Sec. III. While point- theory? For a long time, progress in this direction was ing out many incomplete aspects of the theory, whose slow, due to the belief that in the compactifications of development might significantly change our thinking, most interest, the effective potential would arise entirely we conclude that at present there is no clear evidence from nonperturbative effects. This brought in the at- against, or well formulated alternative to, the “null hy- tractive possibility of using asymptotic freedom and di- pothesis” which states that each of these vacua is a pri- mensional transmutation to solve the hierarchy problem ori a valid candidate to describe our universe. In fact, (Witten, 1981a), but also the difficulty that such effects many of the suggested alternatives, at least within the could only be computed in the simplest of theories. general framework of string theory, would themselves re- Other possibilities were occasionally explored. A par- quire a significant revision of current thinking about ef- ticularly simple one is to turn on background magnetic fective field theory, quantum mechanics, or inflationary fields (or generalized p-form magnetic fields) in the ex- cosmology. Compared to these, the landscape hypothesis tra dimensions. These contribute the usual B2 term to appears to us to be a fairly conservative option. We will the energy, but since they transform as scalars in the ob- argue as well that it can lead to testable predictions, per- servable four dimensions this preserves Poincar´esymme- haps by finding better selection principles, or perhaps by try, and thus such configurations still count as “vacua.” thinking carefully about the situation as it now appears. Furthermore, writing out the B2 term in a curved back- To summarize the situation, while we have a criterion ground, one sees that it depends non-trivially on the that determines preferred values for the size and other metric and thus on the moduli, and thus it is an inter- moduli, namely that our vacuum is a long-lived local esting contribution to the effective potential for moduli minimum of the effective potential, this criterion does stabilization. However, while this particular construc- not determine the moduli uniquely, but instead gives us tion, usually called the flux potential, is simple, the lack a set of possibilities, the vacua. Let us make an ad hoc of understanding of other terms in the effective potential choice of vacuum, and ask what physics it would predict. and of any overall picture inhibited work in this direction. To first address the fate of the moduli, while these Over the last few years, this problem has been solved, would still be scalar fields, they would be “lifted,” gaining by combining this simple idea with many others: the con- 2 masses Mmoduli proportional to the second derivatives of cepts of superstring duality, other techniques for comput- the effective potential. In general, we would expect to see ing nonperturbative effects such as brane instantons, and their effects only in experiments at energies E Mmoduli mathematical techniques developed in the study of mir- and above. The remaining effect of this physics,∼ referred ror symmetry, to compute a controlled approximation to to as “moduli stabilization,” is to set the parameters in the effective potential in a variety of string and M theory the solution, which enter into physical predictions. vacua. The basic result is that these effective potentials What values do we expect for Mmoduli? Although de- can stabilize moduli and lead to supersymmetry breaking tailed computations may not be easy, the energy scales with positive cosmological constant, just as is required to which enter include the Planck scale, the string tension, get a vacuum which could describe our universe. One can and the inverse size of the extra dimensions ~c/R (of- go on to get more detailed results, with applications in ten referred to as the “Kaluza-Klein scale” or MKK). particle physics and cosmology which we will discuss. There is no obvious need for the lower energy scales of We have now finished the non-technical summary of present-day physics to enter, and thus it seems plausible the basic material we will cover in this review, and turn that a detailed analysis would lead to all moduli gaining to an outline. In Sec. II, we assume a general familiarity masses comparable to the new scales of string theory. In with particle physics concepts, but not necessarily with this case, the prospects for direct observation of phys- string theory. Thus, we begin with an overview of the 5 basic ingredients of the different 10d string theories, and moduli fields should be very massive, explaining why they the known types of compactification. We then discuss are not seen. some of the data needed to specify a vacuum, such as a We then explain, following Bousso and Polchinski choice of Calabi-Yau manifold, and a choice of moduli. (2000), why flux compactifications in string theory lead We then explain in general terms how the fluxes can be to large numbers of similar vacua with different values expected to induce potentials for moduli of the extra di- of the cosmological constant, leading to an “anthropic” mensions. Finally, we describe some applications of flux solution of the cosmological constant problem. This so- vacua: to the cosmological constant problem, to particle lution depends crucially on having the many extra types physics, and to early cosmology. of unobserved matter we just mentioned and might be In Sec. III, we begin to assume more familiarity with regarded as the “justification” of this generic feature of string theory, and critically examine the general frame- string compactification. work we will use in the rest of the paper: that of 10d and Finally, we outline some of the testable consequences 4d effective field theory (EFT). While our present day un- this picture might lead to. These include not just observ- derstanding of physics fits squarely into this framework, able effects of the moduli, but also calculable models of there are conceptual reasons to worry about its validity inflation, and new mechanisms for solving the hierarchy in a theory of quantum gravity. problem of particle physics. In Sec. IV, we turn to detailed constructions of flux vacua. These include the simplest constructions which seem to fix all moduli, in both the IIb and the IIa the- A. Overview of string and M theory compactification ories. We also comment on recent progress, which sug- gests that there are many extensions of these stories to String/M theory is a theory of quantum gravity, which unearth. can at present be precisely formulated in several weakly It will become clear, from both the general arguments coupled limits. There are six such limits; five of these in Sec. II, and the concrete examples in Sec. IV, that the are the superstring theories in ten space-time dimen- number of apparently consistent quasi-realistic flux vacua sions (Polchinski, 1998a,b), called type IIa, type IIb, het- is very large, perhaps greater than 10500. Therefore, we erotic E8 E8, heterotic SO(32) and type I. In addition, need to use statistical reasoning to survey broad classes there is an× eleven dimensional limit, usually called M of vacua. In Sec. V, we describe a general framework for theory (Duff, 1996). All of these limits are described at doing this, and give an overview of the results. low energies by effective higher dimensional supergrav- We conclude with a discussion of promising directions ity theories. Arguments involving duality (Bachas et al., for further research in Sec. VI. 2002; Polchinski, 1996) as well as various partial nonper- turbative definitions (Aharony et al., 2000; Banks, 1999) strongly suggest that this list is complete, and that all II. A QUALITATIVE PICTURE are limits of a single unified theory. While there is a rich theory of string/M theory com- We begin by briefly outlining the various known classes pactification to diverse dimensions, we will focus on of quasi-realistic compactifications, to introduce termi- quasi-realistic compactifications. These are solutions of nology, give the reader a basic picture of their physics, the theory which look to a low energy observer like a four and explain how observed physics (the Standard Model) dimensional approximately Minkowski space-time, with is supposed to sit in each. A more detailed discussion of physics roughly similar to that of the Standard Model each class will be given in Sec. IV, while far more com- coupled to general relativity. The meaning of “roughly plete discussions can be found in (Green et al., 1987a,b; similar” will become apparent as we proceed, but requires Johnson, 2003; Polchinski, 1998a,b; Zwiebach, 2004). obtaining the correct gauge group, charged matter con- We then introduce the of compactifica- tent and , as well as arguments that the ob- tion manifolds, particularly the Calabi-Yau manifolds, to served coupling constants and masses can arise. explain why moduli are more or less inevitable in these Now, of the six weakly coupled limits, the type II the- constructions. Even more strikingly, this mathematics ories and M theory have 32 supercharges and (at least at suggests that the number of types of matter in a typical first sight) do not include Yang-Mills sectors, a problem string/M theory compactification is of order hundreds which must be solved to get quasi-realistic compactifica- or thousands, far more than the 15 or so (counting the tions. The other three theories have 16 supercharges and quarks, leptons and forces) observed to date. Thus, a include Yang-Mills sectors, SO(32) from the open strings central problem in string compactification is to explain in type I, and either E8 E8 or SO(32) in the heterotic why most of this matter is either very massive or hid- strings. On the other hand,× by ten-dimensional super- den (so far), and give us a good reason to believe in this symmetry, the only fermions with Yang-Mills quantum seemingly drastic exception to Occam’s razor. numbers are the gauginos, transforming in the adjoint of In the next subsection, we explain flux compactifica- the gauge group. Thus, we must explain how such mat- tion, and how it solves the problem of moduli stabiliza- ter can give rise to the observed quarks and leptons, to tion. In particular, it becomes natural that almost all claim we have a quasi-realistic compactification. 6

Let us briefly discuss the important physical scales in dynamical effects at low energy. In such compactifica- a compactification. Of course, one of the main goals is tions, supersymmetry greatly simplifies the computation to explain the observed four dimensional Planck scale, of the four dimensional effective Lagrangian, as powerful which we denote MP,4 or simply MP . By elementary physical and mathematical tools can be brought to bear. Kaluza-Klein reduction of D-dimensional supergravity, Now this may be more a question of theoretical conve- nience than principle, as in many models (such as the D 2 D (D) D 2 4 (4) original GUT’s) perturbation theory works quite well at M − d x √gR (VolM)M − d x √gR + , P,D → P,D · · · high energy. But, within our present understanding of Z Z string/M theory, it is quite important. this will be related to the D-dimensional Planck scale Second, as we will discuss in Sec. II.F.2, supersymme- M , and the volume of the compactification manifold P,D try makes it far easier to prove metastability, in other Vol(M). Instead of the volume, let us define the Kaluza- words that a given vacuum is a local minimum of the ef- Klein scale M = 1/V ol(M)1/(D 4), at which we ex- KK − fective potential. In particle physics terms, metastability pect to see Kaluza-Klein excitations; the relation then is the condition that the scalar field mass terms satisfy becomes 2 Mi 0. Now in supersymmetric theories, there is a D 2 ≥ 2 M − bose-fermi mass relation, MBose = MF ermi(MF ermi 2 P,D − MP,4 = D 4 . (1) X), where X is a mass scale related to the scale of super- M − KK symmetry breaking. Thus, all one needs is MF ermi >> X, to ensure metastability. | | In the simplest (or “small extra dimension”) picture, used in the original work on string compactification, all of At first, this argument may not seem very useful, as these scales are assumed to be roughly equal. If the Yang- in many realistic models the observed fermions all have M X. But, of course, this is why these fermions Mills sector is also D-dimensional, this is forced upon us, F ermi ≤ to obtain an order one four-dimensional gauge coupling; have already been observed. Typical string compactifica- tions have many more particles, and this type of gener- there are other possibilities as well. icity argument will become very powerful. Note that neither of these arguments refers directly to 1. Supersymmetry the electroweak scale and the solution of the hierarchy problem. As we formulate them more carefully, we will There are many reasons to focus on compactifications find that their requirements can be met even if supersym- with low energy = 1 supersymmetry. From a bottom- metry is broken so far above the electroweak scale that up perspective,N SUSY suggests natural extensions of it is irrelevant to the hierarchy problem. the Standard Model such as the minimal supersymmet- This will lead to one of the main conclusions of the ric Standard Model (MSSM) (Dimopoulos and Georgi, line of work we are reviewing, which is that TeV scale 1981), or non-minimal SSM’s with additional fields. supersymmetry is not inevitable in string/M theory com- These models can help solve the hierarchy problem, can pactification. Rather, it is an assumption with good theo- explain coupling unification, can contain a dark matter retical motivations, which should hold in some string/M candidate, and have other attractive features. But so theory compactifications. In others, supersymmetry is far, all this is only suggestive, and these models tend broken at scales which are well described by 4d effective to have other problems, such as reproducing precision field theory, allowing us to use these tools to control the electroweak measurements and a (presumed) Higgs mass analysis, but SUSY is not directly relevant to solving the MH 113GeV. Thus, many alternative models which hierarchy problem. A third class of models is known in can explain≥ the hierarchy, and even the original “desert” which SUSY is broken at the KK scale, and there are scenario which postulates no new matter below the GUT even arguments for models in which supersymmetry is scale, are at this writing still in play. broken at the string scale, as in Silverstein (2001). Since collider experiments with a good chance of de- In any case, we will proceed with the assumption tecting TeV scale supersymmetry are in progress at Fer- that our compactification preserves d = 4, = 1 su- milab and scheduled to begin soon at Cern, the question persymmetry at the KK scale. A standardN argument of what one can expect from theory has become very (Green et al., 1987b) shows that this is related to the ex- timely. We have just given the standard bottom-up ar- istence of covariantly constant spinors on M, which is guments for low energy SUSY, and these were the orig- determined by its holonomy group Hol(M). More pre- inal motivation for the large effort devoted to studying cisely, the number of in d = 4, is equal such compactifications of string/M theory over the past to the number of supercharges in the higher dimensional twenty years. From this study, other top-down reasons theory, divided by 16, times the number of singlets in the to focus on SUSY have emerged, having more to do with decomposition of a spinor 4 of SO(6) under Hol(M). In the calculational power it provides. Let us summarize the generic case of Hol(M) ∼= SO(6) this is zero, so to get some of these motivations. low energy supersymmetry we require Hol(M) SO(6), First, there are fairly simple scenarios in which an as- a condition on the manifold and metric referred⊂ to as sumed high scale = 1 supersymmetry, is broken by special holonomy. N 7

All possible special holonomy groups were classified by ural scale of the compactification MKK . The remaining Berger (1955), and the results relevant for supersymme- unbroken group at low energies is the commmutant in E8 try in d = 4 are the following. For dim M = 6, as is of the holonomy group of V . Simple group theory, which needed in string compactification, the special holonomy we will see in an example below, implies that to realize groups are U(3) and SU(3), and subgroups thereof. The the GUT groups E6, SO(10) and SU(5), the holonomy only choice of Hol(M) for which the spinor of SO(6) con- of V must be SU(3), SU(4) or SU(5) respectively. tains a unique singlet is SU(3). Spaces which admit a Not only is E8 gauge symmetry breaking possible, it is metric with this special holonomy are known as Calabi- actually required for consistency. As part of the Green- Yau manifolds (or threefolds, from their complex dimen- Schwarz anomaly cancellation mechanism, the heterotic sion). Their existence was proven in Yau (1977), and we string has a three-form field strength H˜3 with a modified will discuss some of their properties later. One can show Bianchi identity, that the special holonomy metric is Ricci flat, so this α choice takes us a good part of the way towards solving dH˜ = ′ (T r(R R) T r(F F )) . (2) the 10d supergravity equations of motion. 3 4 ∧ − 2 ∧ 2 For dim M = 7, as would be used in compactifying ˜ M theory, the only choice leading to a unique singlet is In the simplest solutions, H3 = 0, and then consis- tency requires the right hand side of (2) to vanish identi- Hol(M) ∼= G2. Manifolds of G2 holonomy also carry Ricci flat metrics, and this leads to a second class of ge- cally. The solutions of Candelas et al. (1985) accomplish ometric compactifications. A third class, F theory com- this by taking the “standard embedding,” in which one pactification, is based on elliptically fibered Calabi-Yau equates the E8 gauge connection on M (in one of the fourfolds. We will defer discussion of these to Sec. IV; two E8’s) with the spin connection ω, i.e. considers an E vector bundle V M which is V = TM. In this physically they are closely related to certain type IIb 8 → compactifications. case, since F = R for one of the E8’s, and vanishes for The outcome of the discussion so far, reflecting the the other, (2) is trivially satisfied, and (by considerations state of the field in the late 1980’s, is that the three we give in Sec. IV) so are the Yang-Mills equations. theories with 16 supercharges and Yang-Mills sectors, Thus, any Calabi-Yau threefold M, gives rise to at least all admit compactification on Calabi-Yau manifolds to one class of heterotic string compactifications, the CHSW d = 4 vacua with = 1 supersymmetry, and gauge compactifications. The holonomy of V is the same as that groups of roughly theN right size to produce GUT’s. On of M, namely SU(3), and thus this construction leads to an E GUT. Below the scale M , there is a 4d =1 the other hand, the theories with 32 supercharges have 6 KK N various problems; the type II theories seem to lead to supersymmetric EFT governing the light fields. In the = 2 supersymmetry and too small gauge groups, while CHSW models, these include NM theory on a smooth seven dimensional manifold can- A pure E8 = 1 SYM theory, the hidden sector. not lead to chiral fermions (Witten, 1981b). In fact all of • N these problems were later solved, but let us here follow An “observable” E6 gauge group. One can also the historical development. • make simple modifications to V (tensoring with Wilson lines) to accomplish the further breaking to SU(3) SU(2) U(1) at M , so typically in × × KK 2. Heterotic string these models MGUT MKK . ∼ Charged matter fields. The reduction of the E The starting point for Candelas et al. (1985) (CHSW) 8 • gauginos will give rise to chiral fermions in various was the observation that the grand unified groups are 4d matter (chiral) multiplets. The adjoint of E too large to obtain from the Kaluza-Klein construction 8 decomposes under E SU(3) as in ten dimensions, forcing one to start with a theory con- 6 × taining 10d Yang-Mills theory; furthermore the matter 248 = (27, 3) (27, 3¯) (78, 1) (1, 8) . (3) representations 5 + 10,¯ 16 and 27 can be easily obtained ⊕ ⊕ ⊕ by decomposing the E8 adjoint (and not from SO(32)), Thus we need the spectrum of massless modes aris- forcing the choice of the E E heterotic string. 8 × 8 ing from charged matter on M in various SU(3) General considerations of EFT make it natural for the representations. As explained in Green et al. two E8’s to decouple at low energy, so in the simplest (1987b), this is determined by the Dolbeault co- models, the Standard Model is embedded in a single E8, homology groups of M; thus leaving the other as a “hidden sector.” But what leads 2,1 1,1 to spontaneous symmetry breaking from E8 to E6 or an- n27 = h (M), n27 = h (M) (4) other low energy gauge group? This comes because we can choose a non-trivial background Yang-Mills connec- are the numbers of chiral multiplets in the 27 and tion on M, let us denote this V . Such a connection is not 27 representations of E6. Since for a Calabi-Yau invariant under E gauge transformations and thus will manifold the Euler character χ = 2(h1,1 h2,1), we 8 − spontaneously break some gauge symmetry, at the nat- see that the search for three-generation E6 GUTs in 8

this framework will be transformed into a question Since the observed gauge couplings are order one, this in topology: the existence of Calabi-Yau threefolds clearly requires the extra dimensions to be very small. with χ = 6. This problem was quickly addressed, Actually, if we put in the constants, this relation leads and quasi-realistic| | models were constructed, be- to a well known problem, as discussed in Witten (1996c) ginning with Greene et al. (1986); Tian and Yau and references there: if we take a plausible grand unified 2 18 (1986). coupling gY M 1/25, one finds MKK 10 GeV which is far too large∼ for the GUT scale. Various∼ solutions to Numerous gauge neutral moduli fields. The Ricci- this problem have been suggested, such as large one-loop • flat metric on the Calabi-Yau space M is far from corrections to Eq. (5) (Kaplunovsky, 1988). unique. By Yau’s theorem (Yau, 1977), it comes in Perhaps the most interesting of these proposed a family of dimension 2h2,1(M)+ h1,1(M). As we solutions is in the so-called “heterotic M theory” will describe at much greater length below, the pa- (Horava and Witten, 1996; Witten, 1996c). Arguments rameters for this family, along with h1,1(M) axionic from superstring duality suggest that the strong coupling partners, are moduli corresponding to infinitesi- limit of the ten-dimensional E E heterotic string is 8 × 8 mal deformations of the complex structure and the eleven-dimensional M theory compactified on an interval; K¨ahler class of M. In addition, there is also the the two ends of the interval provide ten-dimensional “end dilaton chiral multiplet, containing the field which of the world branes” each carrying an E8 super Yang- controls the string coupling, and an axion partner. Mills theory. In this theory, while much of the previous discussion still applies, the relation Eq. (5) is drastically More model dependent modes arising from the modified. • (1, 8) in (3). These correspond to infinitesimal de- Finally, there are “non-geometric” heterotic string con- formations of the solutions to the Yang-Mills field structions, based on world-sheet conformal field theory, equations, and thus are also moduli, in this case such as (Antoniadis et al., 1987; Kawai et al., 1986, 1987; moduli for the gauge connection V . By giving vac- Narain et al., 1987). In some cases these can be argued to uum expectation values to these scalars, one moves be equivalent to geometric constructions (Gepner, 1987). out into a larger space of compactifications with V = TM. 6 3. Brane models It should be emphasized that the CHSW models, based Following the same logic for type II theories leads to on the standard embedding V ∼= TM, are a tiny frac- tion of the heterotic Calabi-Yau compactifications. More = 2 supersymmetric theories. Until the mid 1990s, the onlyN known way to obtain = 1 supersymmetry from generally, a theorem of Donaldson, Uhlenbeck and Yau N relates supersymmetric solutions of the Yang-Mills equa- type II models was through “stringy” compactifications tions to stable holomorphic vector bundles V over M. on asymmetric (Narain et al., 1987). A pow- Many such bundles exist which are not in any way re- erful theorem of Dixon et al. (1987) demonstrated that lated to TM. In this case, the Bianchi identity (2) be- this would never yield the Standard Model, and effec- comes non-trivial. Instead of solving it exactly, one can tively ended the subject of type II phenomenology for 8 argue that if one solves (2) in cohomology, then one can years. extend the solution to all orders in an expansion in the After the discovery of Dirichlet branes (Polchinski, inverse radius of M (Witten and Witten, 1987). 1995) this lore was significantly revised, and quasi- These more general models are of great interest be- realistic compactifications can also arise in both type IIa cause they allow for more general phenomenology. In- and type IIb theories. A recent review with many refer- ences appears in Blumenhagen et al. (2005a). Since flux stead of GUTs based on E6, which contain many unob- served particles per generation, one can construct SO(10) compactifications are presently most developed in this and SU(5) models. The technology involved in con- case, we need to discuss it in some detail. structing such bundles is quite sophisticated; some state Dirichlet branes provide a new origin for non-abelian of the art constructions appear in Donagi et al. (2005) gauge symmetries (Witten, 1996a). Furthermore, inter- and references therein. secting branes (or branes with world-volume fluxes) can One can then go on to compute couplings in the EFT localize chiral matter representations at their intersection at the compactification scale. Perhaps the most charac- locus (Berkooz et al., 1996). And finally, an appropri- teristic feature of weakly coupled heterotic models is a ate choice of D-branes can preserve some but not all of universal relation between the four dimensional Planck the supersymmetry present in a type II compactification. scale, the string scale, and the gauge coupling, which fol- Thus, type II strings on Calabi-Yau manifolds, with ap- lows because all interactions are derived from the same propriate intersecting brane configurations, can give rise closed string diagram. At tree level, this relation is to chiral = 1 supersymmetric low energy EFT’s. There areN three general classes of type II = 1 brane N 2 compactifications on Calabi-Yau manifolds: 2 MKK MPlanck,4 . (5) ∼ g8/3 IIa orientifold compactifications with D6 branes. Y M • 9

IIb orientifold compactifications with D7 and D3 where ls is the string length and VolX is the volume of • branes. the cycle wrapped by the particular branes under consid- eration. Since a priori, volumes of cycles have no direct Generalized type I compactifications; in other • relation to the total volume of the compactification man- words IIb orientifold compactifications with D9 and ifold, one can have many more possible scenarios for the D5 branes. fundamental scales in these theories, including large ex- After the choice of Calabi-Yau, a particular compact- tra dimension models. A related idea is that the branes ification is specified by a choice of orientifold projec- responsible for the observed (standard model) degrees of tion (Gimon and Polchinski, 1996), and a choice of how freedom can be localized to a small subregion of the com- the various Dirichlet branes are embedded in space-time. pactification manifold, allowing its energy scales to be Each of the branes involved is “space-filling,” meaning influenced by “warping” (Randall and Sundrum, 1999a). that they fill all four Minkowski dimensions; the remain- Even if one has small extra dimensions, coupling uni- ing spatial dimensions (p 3 for a Dp-brane) must embed fication is generally not expected in brane models. This in a supersymmetric cycle− of the compactification man- is because the different gauge groups typically arise from ifold (to be further discussed in Sec. IV). Finally, since stacks of branes wrapping different cycles, with different Dirichlet branes carry Yang-Mills connections, just as in volumes, so the couplings have no reason to be equal. the heterotic construction one must postulate the back- To conclude this overview, let us mention two more ground values for these fields. The nature of this last classes of compactification which can be thought of as choice depends on the class of model; it is almost trivial strong coupling limits of the brane constructions, and for IIa (where supersymmetry conditions require a flat share many of their general properties. First, there are connection on the internal space, in the simplest cases), compactifications of M theory on manifolds of G2 holon- and for the generalized type I model with D9 branes one omy; these are related to IIa compactification with D6- uses essentially the same vector bundles as in the het- branes by following the general rules of IIa–M theory erotic construction, while in the IIb model with D7 and duality. Second, there are F theory compactifications D3 branes, the number of choices here are intermediate on elliptically fibered fourfolds; these can be obtained as between these extremes. small volume limits of M theory on Calabi-Yau fourfolds In a full analysis, a central role is played by the so- (where one shrinks the volume of the elliptic fiber), and called tadpole conditions. We will go into more de- are simply an alternative description of IIb compacti- tail about one of these (the D3 tadpole condition) later. fication with D7 and D3 branes (and a dilaton which These conditions have more than one physical interpreta- varies over the internal dimensions). Both of these more tion. In a closed string language, they express the condi- general classes have duality relations with the heterotic tion that the total charge on the compactification man- string constructions, so that (in a still only partially un- ifold, including Dirichlet branes, orientifold planes and derstood sense) all of the = 1 compactifications are all other sources, must vanish, generalizing the Gauss’ connected via superstring dualities,N supporting the gen- law constraint that the total electric charge in a closed eral idea that all are describing vacuum states of a single universe must vanish. In an open string language, they all-encompassing theory. are related to anomalies, and generalize the condition (2) related to anomaly cancellation in heterotic strings. In any case, a large part of the general problem of finding B. Moduli fields and classifying brane models, is to list the possible su- persymmetric branes, and then to find all combinations In making any of the string compactifications we just of such branes which solve the tadpole conditions. described, in order to solve the Einstein equations, we The collection of all of these choices (orientifold, must choose a Ricci-flat metric gij on the compactifica- Dirichlet branes and vector bundles on branes) is directly tion manifold M. Now, given such a metric, it will always analogous to and generalizes the choice of vector bundle be the case that the metric λgij obtained by an over- in heterotic string compactification. In some cases, such all constant rescaling is also Ricci-flat, because the Ricci as the relation between heterotic SO(32) and type I com- tensor transforms homogeneously under a scale transfor- pactification, there is a precise relation between the two mation. Thus, Ricci-flat metrics are never unique, but sets of constructions, using superstring duality. There are always come in families with at least one parameter. also clear relations between the IIa and both IIb brane Now, the “universal” parameter space describing all constructions, based on T-duality and mirror symmetry such metrics, is by definition the moduli space of Ricci- between Calabi-Yau manifolds. flat metrics. This is a manifold, possibly with singulari- The predictions of the generic brane model are rather ties, which we denote as . It can be described in terms different from the heterotic models. Much of this is be- of coordinate patches; letM us denote a set of local coordi- cause the relation between the fundamental scale and the nates as tα with 1 α n. gauge coupling, analogous to Eq. (5), takes the form ≤ ≤ What is the physics of this? In general treat- g lp 3 ments of Kaluza-Klein reduction, one decomposes the g2 = s s− , Y M VolX D-dimensional equations of motion as a sum of terms, 10 say for a massless scalar field as φ there is no reason the effective potential should not de- pend on all of the fields. Thus, even if we were to find µν 0 = (η ∂µ∂ν + ∆M )φ, a family of vacua at some early stage of our analysis, in practice the vacuum degeneracy would always be broken where ∆M is the scalar Laplacian on M. One then writes by corrections at some later stage. the higher dimensional field φ as a sum over eigenfunc- A well known loophole to this statement is provided tions f of ∆ , k M by supersymmetric quantum field theories. Due to non- renormalization theorems, such moduli spaces often per- φ(x, y)= φ (x)f (y). (6) k k sist to all orders in perturbation theory or even beyond. Xk These theories manifest different low energy physics at Substituting, one finds that the eigenvalues λ become distinct points in , and thus provide a theoretical ex- k M the masses squared of an infinite set of fields, the ample of the phenomenon we are discussing here. “Kaluza-Klein modes.” Conversely, one might argue that, given that super- Doing the same in the presence of moduli, we might symmetry is broken in the real world, any moduli we consider the parameters ti as undetermined, and write find at this early stage will be lifted after supersymme- try breaking. We will come back to this idea later, once dDx √GR(D) G(~t)+ δG , we have more of the picture. We will eventually argue M IR3,1 that while this is true, in models with low energy su- Z ×   persymmetry breaking, it is more promising to consider where G(~t) is an explicit parameterized family of Ricci stabilization of many of the moduli above the scale of flat metrics on M, and δG are the small fluctuations supersymmetry breaking. However, this is a good illus- around it. We then expand δG in eigenfunctions, to find tration of the idea that it is acceptable to have moduli at the spectrum of the resulting EFT. an early stage in the analysis, if they are lifted by correc- Within the space of all variations δG, there is a finite tions to the potential at some lower energy scale. A use- subspace which corresponds to varying the moduli, ful term for these is “pseudo-moduli” (Intriligator et al., 2006). ∂G(~t) Finally, whether or not the moduli play an important δGα α . ≡ ∂t role in observable physics, they are very important in One can check that these variations form a basis for the understanding the configuration space of string theory. space of solutions of the linearized Einstein equation on In particular, in many of the explicit constructions we M. Decomposing δG(x, y) in analogy to Eq. (6), one discussed above, as well as in the explicit non-geometric finds that each independent variation gives rise to a mass- constructions we briefly mentioned, one finds that appar- less field in the four-dimensional theory. Conversely, the ently different constructions in fact lead to vacua which parameters tα can be regarded as the expectation values differ only in the values of moduli, and thus one can be of these massless fields. turned into another by varying moduli. In this situation, Now, since we get a valid compactification for any par- there need be no direct relation between the number of ticular choice of Ricci-flat metric, locality demands that constructions, and the final number of vacua after moduli we should be able to vary this choice at different points stabilization. in four dimensional space-time. By general principles, In early exploratory work, this point was not fully ap- such a local variation must be described by a field. The preciated. As a relevant example, in Lerche et al. (1987), situation is analogous to that of a spontaneously bro- the number of lattice compactifications was estimated ken symmetry. By locality, we can choose the symmetry to be 101500. Thus already this work raised the pos- breaking parameter to vary in space-time, and if the pa- sibility that the number of string vacua might be very rameter was continuous it will lead to a massless field, a large. However, these were very simple vacua, either Goldstone mode. with unbroken supersymmetry, or else with uncontrolled However, there is a crucial difference between the two supersymmetry breaking. At the time, it was generally situations. The origin of the Goldstone mode in sym- thought that the number of quasi-realistic vacua would metry breaking implies that the physics of any constant be much smaller. An argument to this effect was that configuration of this field must be the same (since all since moduli were not stabilized in these models, it might are related by a symmetry). On the other hand, moduli be (as is now thought to be the case) that this large can exist without a symmetry. In this case, physics can number of compactifications were simply special points and usually will depend on their values. Thus, one finds contained in a far smaller number of connected moduli a parameterized family of physically distinct vacua, the spaces of vacua. Then, in similar quasi-realistic models moduli space , connected by simply varying massless with broken supersymmetry and an effective potential, fields. M the number of actual vacua would be expected to be com- While this situation is almost never encountered in real parable to the (perhaps small) number of these connected world physics, this is not because it is logically inconsis- moduli spaces. tent. Rather, it is because in the absence of symmetry, Such debates could not be resolved at that time. To 11 make convincing statements about the number and dis- 2. Moduli space - general properties tribution of vacua, one needs to understand the effective potential and moduli stabilization. The geometry of a moduli space of Calabi-Yau man- ifolds as they appear in string theory has been nicely described in Candelas and de la Ossa (1990) (see also C. Calabi-Yau manifolds and moduli spaces Seiberg (1988); Strominger (1990)). Locally, it takes a product form While our main concern is moduli spaces of Ricci flat metrics, we should first give the reader some examples of = C K (8) Calabi-Yau threefolds, so the discussion is not completely M M ×M abstract. Let us describe the simplest known construc- where the first factor is associated with the complex tions, as discussed in Green et al. (1987b). structure deformations of M and the second is associ- ated with the K¨ahler deformations of M, complexified by the B-field moduli. 1. Examples These two factors enter into physical string compact- ifications in rather different ways. At the final level of The simplest example to picture mentally is the the effective = 1 theory, the most direct sign of this 6 N “blown-up T /ZZ3 .” We start with a six-torus is that the tree level gauge couplings are controlled by a with a flat metric and volume V , chosen to respect a dis- subset of the moduli: crete ZZ3 symmetry. To be more precise, we take three 1 2 3 for IIb compactifications; complex coordinates z , z , and z , and define the torus • MK by the identifications C for IIa compactifications. i i i 2πi/3 • M z = z +1 = z + e . ∼ ∼ The main results we need for the discussion in this We then identify all sets of points related by the symme- section, are the relations between the Betti numbers of try the Calabi-Yau manifold M, and the dimensions of these zi e2πi/3zi for all i. moduli spaces: → While this is not a manifold (it has singularities at b2 = dim K ; b3 = 2dim C +2. (9) M M the 27 fixed points of the group action), one can still it for string compactification. One can also modify it to The first relation follows from Yau’s theorem, and is not get a smooth Calabi-Yau, the “blown-up orbifold.” This hard to explain intuitively. Since the Ricci flatness con- process introduces topology at each of the fixed points; dition is a second order PDE, at a linearized level, it as it turns out, a two-cycle and a four-cycle. Thus, the reduces to the condition that a deformation of a Ricci final result is a smooth Calabi-Yau with second Betti flat metric must be a harmonic form. The K¨ahler mod- number b2 = dim H2(M, IR) = 27. One can also show uli space parameterizes deformations which come from that the third Betti number b3 = 2. deforming the K¨ahler form, and thus its dimension is the same as that of the space of harmonic two-forms, which by Hodge’s theorem is b2. The second relation can A second simple example is the “quintic hypersurface” be understood similarly by relating the remaining metric 4 in IP . This is the space of solutions of a complex equa- deformations to harmonic three-forms, given a bit more tion of degree five in five variables zi, such as complex geometry. z5 + z5 + z5 + z5 + z5 =0, (7) Mathematically, one can understand these moduli 1 2 3 4 5 spaces in great detail, and in principle exactly compute where the variables are interpreted as coordinates on many of the quantities which enter into the flux poten- complex projective space, i.e. we count the vectors tial we will discuss shortly. Without going into the details (z1,z2,z3,z4,z5) and (λz1, λz2, λz3, λz4, λz5) as repre- of this, let us at least look at an example, the complex senting the same point, for any complex λ = 0. One can structure moduli space of the quintic hypersurfaces we 6 show that the Euler character χ = 200 for this mani- just discussed. − fold by elementary topological arguments ((Green et al., The starting point is the observation that we do not 1987b), vol. II, 15.8). With a bit more work, one finds all need to take the precise equation Eq. (7), to get a Calabi- the Betti numbers, b0 = b2 = b4 = b6 = 1, and b3 = 204. Yau manifold. In fact, a generic equation of degree five We omit this here, instead computing b3 by other means in the variables, in the next subsection. The main point we take from these examples is that f(z) cijklmz z z z z =0, (10) ≡ i j k l m it is easy to find Calabi-Yau threefolds with Betti num- 1 i,j,k,l,m 5 bers in the range 20–300; indeed, as we will see later in ≤ X ≤ Sec. V.D.3, this is true of most known Calabi-Yau three- can be used. This equation contains 5 6 7 8 9/5! = 126 folds. adjustable coefficients, denoted cijklm,· and· · varying· these 12 produces Calabi-Yau manifolds with different complex it must be quantized, in units of the inverse electric structures. To be precise, there is some redundancy at charge (Nepomechie, 1985; Teitelboim, 1986). this point. One can make linear redefinitions z gj z Besides the NS two-form, the type II string theories i → i j using an arbitrary 5 5 matrix gj, to absorb 25 of the also contain generalized gauge fields which are sourced by × i coefficients. This leaves 101 undetermined coefficients, so the Dirichlet branes, denoted Cp+1 with p =0, 2, 4, 6 for dim C = 101. By Eq. (9), this implies that the Betti the IIa theory, and Cp+1 with p =1, 3, 5 for the IIb. We numberM b3 =2 101+2 = 204. denote their respective field strengths F (p+2); these are One can continue· along these lines, defining the mean- not all independent but satisfy the general “self-duality” ing of a “generic equation,” and taking into account the condition redundancy we just mentioned, to get a precise definition Fp+2 = F10 p 2 + non linear terms. of the 101-dimensional moduli space C for the quin- ∗ − − − tic, and results for the moduli space metric,M periods and To complete the catalog, the type I theory has C (as it other data we will call on in Sec. IV and Sec. V. Similar 2 has a D-string), while M theory has a three-form poten- results can be obtained for more or less any Calabi-Yau tial C , which couples to the supermembrane. moduli space, and many examples can be found in the 3 We are now ready to discuss flux compactification. The literature on mirror symmetry. While the techniques are general idea makes sense for any higher dimensional the- rather intricate, it seems fair to say that at present this ory containing a p +1 form gauge field for any p. Let us is one of the better understood elements of the theory. denote its field strength as Fp+2. Now, suppose we compactify on a manifold with a non- D. Flux compactification: Qualitative overview trivial p + 2 cycle Σ; more precisely the homology group Hp+2(M) should be non-trivial, and Σ should be a non- Each of the weakly coupled limits of string/M theory trivial element of homology. In this case, we can consider has certain preferred “generalized gauge fields,” which a configuration with a non-zero flux of the field strength, are sourced by the elementary branes. For example, all defined by the condition closed string theories (type II and heterotic) contain the “universal Neveu-Schwarz (NS) 2-form potential” Bij or Fp+2 = n = 0 (11) Σ 6 B2 (we will use numerical subscripts to indicate the de- Z gree of a form). Just as a one-form Maxwell potential As a simple illustration – not directly realized in string can minimally couple to a point particle, this two-form theory – we might imagine starting with Maxwell’s the- potential minimally couples to the fundamental string ory in six dimensions, and compactifying on M = S2. In world sheet. At least in a quadratic (free field) approxi- 2 this case, H2(S , ZZ) ∼= ZZ, and we can take a generator σ mation, the space-time action for the B field is a direct to be the S2 itself. Thus, we are claiming that there ex- generalization of the Maxwell action; we define a field ists a field configuration whose magnetic flux integrated strength over S2 is non-zero. Indeed there is; we can see this by considering the field of an ordinary magnetic monopole H3 = dB2, at the origin of IR3, and restricting attention to an S2 at constant radius R, to obtain the field strength in terms of which the action is

Bθφ = g sin θ dθ dφ. S = d10x√g R (H ) (H )ijk + . . . , − 3 ijk 3 Z While this solves Maxwell’s equations in three dimensions  leading to an equation of motion by construction, one can easily check that such a mag- netic field actually solves Maxwell’s equations restricted i 2 ∂ (H3)ijk = δjk + . . . to the S . Thus, this is a candidate background field configuration for compactification on S2. where δjk is a source term localized on the world-sheets Note that we have defined a flux which threads a non- of the fundamental strings. trivial cycle in the extra dimensions, with no charged The analogy with Maxwell theory goes very far. For source on the S2. The monopole is just a pictorial device example, recall that some microscopic definitions of with which to construct it. Appealing to the monopole Maxwell theory contain magnetic monopoles, particles also allows us to call on Dirac’s argument, to see that which are surrounded by a two-sphere on which the to- quantum mechanical consistency requires the flux n to tal magnetic flux g = F2 is non-vanishing. This mag- be integrally quantized (in suitable units). netic monopole charge must satisfy the Dirac quantiza- The same construction applies for any p. Furthermore, R tion condition, e g =2π (in units ~ = 1). So too, closed if we have a larger homology group, we can turn on an in- · string theories contain five-branes, which are magneti- dependent flux for each basis element σi of Hp+2(M, IR), cally charged. A five-brane in ten space-time dimensions can be surrounded by a three-sphere, on which the total Fp+2 = ni, (12) generalized magnetic flux H3 is non-vanishing. Again, Zσi R 13 where 1 i dim Hp+2(M, IR) bp+2, the p+2’th Betti 1. Freund-Rubin compactification number≤ of the≤ manifold M. In the≡ case p = 0 of Maxwell theory, one can see that any vector of integers ni is a There are other Kaluza-Klein theories in which the possible field configuration, by appealing to the mathe- technical problem of computing Eq. (13) is far simpler, matics of vector bundles (these numbers define the first and was solved well before string theory became a pop- Chern class of the U(1) bundle). Equally precise state- ular candidate for a unified theory. While these theories ments for p > 0, or for the case in which the homology are too simple to be quasi-realistic, they serve as good includes torsion, are in the process of being formulated illustrations. Let us consider one here, leaving more de- (Moore, 2003). tailed discussion to Sec. IV. Now, in Maxwell’s theory and its generalizations, turn- After it was realized that Nature employs non-abelian ing on a field strength results in a potential energy pro- gauge fields, the earliest idea of 5d unification was aug- portional to B2, the square of the magnetic field. Of mented. Instead, theorists considered 4 + D dimensional course, the presence of nontrivial E or B in our observed theories, with D of the dimensions compactified on a four dimensions would imply spontaneous breaking of space with a non-abelian isometry group. This leads Lorentz symmetry. By contrast, in our case, we can turn to a gauge group which contains the isometry group. on magnetic fluxes in the extra dimensions without di- One can even find seven dimensional manifolds for which rectly breaking 4d Lorentz invariance. However, there this is the Standard Model gauge group, although chiral will still be an energetic cost, now proportional to F 2, fermions remain a problem for this idea. the square of the flux. In any case, the problem of explaining how and why the extra D dimensions were stabilized in whatever configu- Now, the key point is that because the fluxes are ration was required to obtain 4d physics was first studied threading cycles in the compact geometry, this energetic in this context. A collection of historically significant ar- cost will depend on the precise choice of metric on M. ticles on Kaluza-Klein theory, with modern commentary, In other words, it will generate a potential on the moduli can be found in Appelquist et al. (1987). space . If this potential is sufficiently generic, then M The first serious attempt we know of to explain the minimizing it will fix the metric moduli. “spontaneous compactification” of extra dimensions ap- In principle, this potential can be computed by start- peared in the work Cremmer and Scherk (1976). This ing from the standard Maxwell lagrangian coupled to a work was extended by Luciani (1978) and reached curved metric. One finds for the potential energy more or less modern form with the seminal paper of Freund and Rubin (1980). Let us see how the Freund-Rubin mechanism works D ij kl V = d y √GG G (F2)ik(F2)jl (13) by again considering six dimensions, now in Einstein- 2 ZM Maxwell theory. Compactifying to 4d on an S , they found that inclusion of a magnetic flux piercing the = F2 ( F2) 2 M ∧ ∗ S allows one to stabilize the sphere. One can under- Z stand this result by a scaling argument; such arguments are discussed in modern contexts in Giddings (2003); where G is the metric on M. The second version, in Kachru et al. (2006); Silverstein (2004b). We start with differential form notation and where denotes the D- ∗ a 6d Einstein/Yang-Mills Lagrangian dimensional Hodge star, applies for any Fp+2 with the replacement 2 p + 2; here the metric enters in the → S = d6x G F 2 , (14) definition of . − 6 R6 − | 2| ∗ Z Now, if we substitute for G the family of Ricci flat p  metrics G(~t) introduced in Sec. II.B, and do the integrals, where all dimensions are made up with powers of the we will get an explicit expression for V (t), which we can fundamental scale M6. We then consider reduction to 4d minimize. This is the definition of the flux potential; we on a sphere of radius R: now have the technical problem of computing it. 2 µ ν 2 m n ds = ηµν dx dx + R gmn(y)dy dy (15) At first, it is not clear that this can be done at all; indeed we cannot even get started as no closed form ex- where m,n run over the two extra dimensions, and g is pression is known for any Ricci flat metric on a com- the metric on a two-sphere of unit radius. Let us then 2 pact Calabi-Yau manifold. In principle the computations thread the S with N units of F2 flux could be done numerically, but working with solutions of six dimensional nonlinear PDE’s is not very easy either, F2 = N . (16) and this approach is in its infancy (Douglas et al., 2006a; S2 Headrick and Wiseman, 2005). Fortunately, by building Z on many mathematical and physical works, we now have In the 4d description, R(x) should be viewed as a field. an approach which leads to a complete analytical solution Naively reducing, we will find a Lagrangian where R2(x) of this problem, as we will discuss in Sec. IV. multiplies the curvature tensor . To disentangle the R4 14 graviton kinetic term from the kinetic term for the modu- This is by now a very long-standing question with lus R(x), we should perform a Weyl rescaling. After this which most readers will have some familiarity; we refer to rescaling, we find an effective potential with two sources. (Carroll, 2001; Nobbenhuis, 2004; Padmanabhan, 2003; First, before Weyl rescaling, the 6d Einstein term Weinberg, 1989) for introductory overviews, and the his- would contribute to the action a term proportional to tory of the problem. A very recent discussion from the the integrated curvature of the S2, i.e. the Euler char- same point of view we take here is in Polchinski (2006), acter. In particular, positive curvature makes a negative along with general arguments against many of the other contribution to the potential. After the rescaling, this approaches which have been taken towards the problem. 4 term is no longer constant; instead it scales like R− . One approach which cannot be ruled out on general In addition, the N units of magnetic flux through− the grounds is to simply assert that the fundamental theory S2 contribute the positive energy described in Eq. (13). contains the small observed parameter Λ. More precisely, N By flux quantization, F 2 , while the integral over the large quantum contributions Λ from all types of vir- 2 ∼ R q the internal space contributes a factor of R2. Therefore, tual particles (known and unknown), are almost precisely the flux potential scales like N 2/R6. The dimensions are compensated by an adjustable “bare cosmological con- made up by powers of the fundamental scale, in terms of stant” Λbare Λq. However, besides being unesthetic, ∼− which the flux quantum is defined. this idea cannot be directly realized in string/M theory, Thus, the total potential as a function of R(x) takes which is formulated without free parameters. Rather, to the form address this problem, we must find out how to compute the vacuum energy, and argue that the energy of the vac- N 2 1 V (R) . (17) uum we observe takes this small value. ∼ R6 − R4 Taken purely as a problem in microscopic physics, the It is not hard to see that this function has minima where prospects for accurately computing such a small vacuum R N. So with moderately large flux, one can achieve energy seem very distant; furthermore it seems very un- radii∼ which are large in fundamental units, and curva- likely that any vacuum would exhibit the remarkable can- tures which are small, justifying the use of supergravity. cellations between the large known contributions to the Strictly speaking, the original Freund-Rubin vacua vacuum energy, and unknown contributions, required to are not compactifications which yield lower-dimensional make such an argument. But here is precisely the loop- EFT’s. The vacuum energy following from (17) is neg- hole; what is indeed very unlikely for a single vacuum, ative, and gives rise to a 4d curvature scale compara- can be a likely property for one out of a large set of ble to the curvature of the S2. Therefore, 4d effec- vacua. tive field theory is not obviously a valid approximation Simple toy models in which this is the case were pro- scheme in these vacua. It is plausible, however, that by posed in Abbott (1985); Banks et al. (1991). The general using more complicated manifolds and tuning parame- idea is to postulate a potential with a large number of ters to decrease the 4d vacuum energy, one could use roughly equally spaced minima, for example the Freund-Rubin idea to obtain quasi-realistic vacua V (φ)= aφ b sin φ +Λ , (Acharya et al., 2003). − q (with b> 0) whose minima φ = (2n+1/2)π have energies Λ = Λ +2πan b. Thus, if a is very small, then no n q − E. A solution of the cosmological constant problem matter what value Λq takes, at least one minimum will realize the small observed Λ. By postulating more terms, Einstein’s equations, relating the curvature of space- one can even avoid having to postulate a small number time to the stress-energy of matter, admit an additional a (Banks et al., 1991). For example, consider term on the right hand side, V (φ)= E1 sin(a1φ + b1)+ E2 sin(a2φ + b2)+Λq. gij =8πGN (Tij +Λgij ) . The reader may enjoy checking that if the ratio a1/a2 is The additional “cosmological constant” term Λ is a irrational, any Λ (within the range Λq E1 E2) can be Lorentz-invariant vacuum energy and is believed to be approximated to any desired accuracy.± ± generically present in any theory of quantum gravity; it While in EFT terms these models might be reason- receives corrections from known quantum effects (some- able, the actual potentials arising from string/M theory what analogous to the Casimir effect) at least of or- compactification appear not to take this form. Besides der (100GeV)4. On the other hand, elementary con- verifying this in explicit expressions, there is a conceptual siderations in cosmology show that any value Λ > problem. This is that these models assume that the field 1(eV)4 or so is in violent contradiction with observa-| | φ can take extremely large values, of order 1/Λ. How- tion. More recently, there is observational evidence of ever, taking a modulus φ to be so large, implies that the various types (the acceleration of the expansion of the Calabi-Yau manifold is decompactifying, or undergoing universe; and detailed properties of the cosmic microwave some similar limit. In such a limit, the potential can be background spectrum) which can be well fit by assuming computed more directly and does not take the required 10 4 Λ 10− (eV) > 0. form. ∼ 15

However, there is another mechanism for producing (These are ellipsoids because the ci are not all equal, potentials with large numbers of minima, introduced by though we assume them all to be (1)).) O Bousso and Polchinski (2000), which relies on having a As argued in Bousso and Polchinski (2000), if the num- very large number of degrees of freedom.1 Let us consider ber of vacua exceeds 10120, quite plausibly this shell a toy model of flux compactification, where there are N is populated by some choices∼ of flux. The simplest argu- different p-cycles in the compact geometry that may be ment for this is that, given that the fluxes ni and the pos- threaded by the flux of some p-form field F tulated coefficients ci are independent, we can expect the values of the vacuum energy attained by Eq. (20) to be F = ni, i =1, ,N (18) roughly uniformly distributed over scales much smaller Σi · · · than the coefficients c . Thus, in a set of N vacua, we Z i vac might expect the typical “level spacing” to be 1/Nvac, Let us also assume a simple ad hoc cutoff on the allowed and that a vacuum energy of order 1/Nvac will be real- values of the fluxes, of the form ized by at least one vacuum. We will make more precise arguments of this type in Sec. V. n2 L (19) i ≤ Thus, this toy model can explain why at least some i X vacua exist with the very small cosmological constant where L is some maximal amount of flux. One can view consistent with observation. Furthermore, the essential Eq. (19) as a toy model of the more complicated tadpole features of the toy model, namely a very large number conditions that arise in real string models. Finally, let us of vacua with widely distributed vacuum energies, dis- assume that for each value of the fluxes F , the resulting tinguished by the values of hundreds of microscopic pa- potential function for moduli admits a minimum with rameters, seem to be shared by more realistic stringy energy flux compactifications. This energy landscape of poten- tial string vacua has been called the “string landscape” 2 (Susskind, 2003); a detailed and very clear qualitative V V0 + cini (20) ∼− discussion can be found in Susskind (2005). Here we take the ci to be distinct order one constants, while V is assumed to be a large fixed negative energy − 0 density, for example representing the quantum contribu- 1. Anthropic selection tion to the cosmological constant Λq we discussed earlier. A striking fact follows from these simple assumptions Suppose we grant that a few, rare vacua will have small and known facts about compactification topologies – the Λ. How do we go on to explain why we find ourselves in number of vacua will be huge. As we discussed, typical such a vacuum? Calabi-Yau threefolds have betti numbers of order 100. There have been many attempts to find dy- For a space with N = 100 and L = 100, Eq. (19) in- namical mechanisms which strongly prefer the dicates that the number of vacua can be approximated small Λ solutions (including relaxation mechanisms by the volume of a sphere of radius √L 10 in a 100- (Brown and Teitelboim, 1987, 1988; Feng et al., 2001; 50 ∼ dimensional space. This is roughly π 10100 1060. Steinhardt and Turok, 2006), peaking of the wave- 50! × ∼ Here it was important that √L is much larger than the function of the Universe (Coleman, 1988; Hawking, unit of flux quantization, so that one can approximate the 1984), and many others (Itzhaki, 2006; Rubakov, 2000)). number of possible flux choices by computing the volume Each seems in some sense problematic: for instance the in flux space of the region defined by Eq. (19). relaxation proposals typically suffer from an “empty We will justify this toy model in Sec. IV and Sec. V, universe problem,” whereby they favor completely by showing that the real counting of flux vacua – while empty vacuum solutions with small Λ, incompatible differing in details – is similar, that classes of vacua with with our cosmological history. For a much more detailed significantly larger N and L exist, and that for a suf- discussion of the problems that bedevil dynamical selec- ficiently large fraction of the flux choices, one has con- tion mechanisms, and possible loopholes, see Polchinski trolled approximations in which the vacua exist. (2006). Now, let us consider the cosmological constant in this Absent a dynamical selection mechanism, one can try model. In a vacuum with flux vector ni, this will be to use so-called “anthropic” criteria to explain why we given by Eq. (20). Thinking of the quadratic term in Eq. inhabit a vacuum with small Λ. A better term for the (20) as defining a squared distance from the origin in N- generally accepted criteria of this type is selection effect; dimensional space, we see that to have a small vacuum in other words we take the evident fact that the circum- energy of order ǫ, a flux vacuum must sit within a shell stances of a particular experiment or observation might bounded by two ellipsoids, of radius √V0 and √V0 + ǫ. skew the distribution of observed outcomes, and apply it to the problem at hand of why we observe “our universe” instead of another. In practice, what is meant by this, is an argument 1 Amazingly, this idea was anticipated in Sakharov (1984). which focuses on some macroscopic property of our uni- 16 verse, and derives constraints on microphysics by requir- outstanding mysteries of physics. But unless another ing the microphysics to be consistent with the macro- convincing solution to the cosmological constant prob- scopic phenomenon. The most famous example, and the lem is found, this argument is likely to stay with us. one we will cite, is the argument of Weinberg (1987) that the existence of structure (i.e. galaxies) puts stringent bounds on the magnitude of the cosmological term.2 For positive cosmological constant, the bound arises due to F. Other physical consequences two competing effects. On the one hand, primordial den- sity perturbations gravitate and attract each other; in While explaining the cosmological constant would be a universe with vanishing Λ, the Jeans instability will an important achievement, the resolution provided by the eventually lead to the formation of large scale structure. landscape of flux vacua does not suggest immediate tests. On the other hand, a large Λ and the consequent accel- erated expansion, lead to such rapid dilution of matter Happily, the study of flux vacua also leads to new that structure can never form. The requirement that and testable string models of particle physics and structure has time to form before the accelerated expan- cosmology; indeed this has driven much of the inter- sion takes over, leads to a bound on Λ within an order of est in the subject. Over the past few years, these magnitude or two of the observed value. studies have motivated new models of TeV scale par- ticle physics (Arkani-Hamed and Dimopoulos, 2005; Weinberg’s logic suggests that if structure is required Arkani-Hamed et al., 2005b; Giudice and Rattazzi, for observers, and if there are many possible vacua with 2006; Giudice and Romanino, 2004), new models different values of Λ, then selection effects will explain of inflation (Chen, 2005a,b; Kachru et al., 2003; why any given observer sees an atypically small value of Silverstein and Tong, 2004), which can have testable Λ. It is also important that since the scales of micro- signatures via cosmic strings (Copeland et al., physics differ so drastically from the scale of the required 2004; Dvali and Vilenkin, 2004b; Jones et al., 2003; Λ, one can expect the distribution of vacua in Λ-space Sarangi and Tye, 2002) or non-gaussianities of the to be reasonably flat over the anthropically acceptable spectrum of density perturbations (Alishahiha et al., range. Hence, all else being equal, one should expect to 2004; Babich et al., 2004; Chen et al., 2006), and new find a value of Λ close to the upper bound compatible testable proposals for the mediation of supersymmetry with structure formation. breaking (Choi et al., 2005a). Some of these models This seems to be true in our universe. It is notable have large or warped extra dimensions and manifest that Weinberg’s bound was published well before the de- very low scale quantum gravity, raising the exciting tection of dark energy, and the amount of dark energy possibility of producing black holes at future colliders is very close to his estimate of the maximal value com- (for a recent review, see (Landsberg, 2006)). patible with the formation of structure. There is some As things stand, none of these models appear as in- controversy about how close our universe is to the bound; evitable top-down consequences of string theory; rather e.g. see Loeb (2006). they are special choices made out of a wide range of pos- An important question which must be asked before ac- sibilities in the fundamental theory, proposed in part be- cepting this logic is whether early cosmology actually can cause they have clearly identifiable or at least unusual give rise to all of these possible vacua. According to the characteristic signatures. The hope is that an influx of currently favored picture, based on the theory of eternal new data on TeV scale particle physics and inflationary inflation, this is so: our universe sits in a “multiverse” cosmology over the next decade will help select between with many different inflating regions, corresponding to these ideas, or else suggest new, testable proposals. the different de Sitter critical points in the set of vacua. Here, we briefly describe, at a very qualitative level, We discuss this further, and the arguments that differ- three areas where studies of flux vacua may be directly ent flux vacua can be connected by physical processes in relevant to phenomenological questions in string theory. string theory, in Sec. III.E. We will need to call upon some basic results from the the- Anthropic arguments are typically met with suspicion ory of supersymmetry breaking, so we review this first. for the simple reason that it seems hard to convinc- ingly and quantitatively verify a physical theory based on such arguments. There are many reasons (discussed in e.g. Arkani-Hamed et al. (2005b); Banks et al. (2004); 1. Overview of spontaneous supersymmetry breaking Wilczek (2005)) to believe that more traditional, dynam- ical explanations will be required to resolve some of the By spontaneous supersymmetry breaking, we mean that although the vacuum breaks supersymmetry, at some high energy scale dynamics is described by an = N 2 While we cannot fully review the history here, important 1 supergravity EFT. As discussed in Wess and Bagger earlier works along these lines include (Banks, 1984, 1985; (1992), the effective potential in such a theory is deter- Barrow and Tipler, 1988; Linde, 1984). mined by the superpotential W , a holomorphic “func- 17 tion” of the chiral fields,3 and the K¨ahler potential K, Similarly, if X appears in the gauge-coupling function f a real-valued function of these fields. Let us denote the for some gauge group G, i.e. in the term chiral fields as φi, then the effective potential takes the form 4 2 α d x d θf(X)T r(WαW ), (25) Z 2 2 K/M 4 2 W 1 2 V = e P l, Fi 3 | | + D (21) then F = 0 gives rise to a gaugino mass as well. Another | | − M 2 2 α X 6 i Pl,4 ! α generic source of masses for charged particles is anomaly X X mediation (Giudice et al., 1998; Randall and Sundrum, i i 1 i where Fi = DW/Dφ ∂W/∂φ + M 2 (∂K/∂φ )W are 1999b); in particular this produces gaugino masses ≡ P l,4 m b g2 m where b is a beta function coeffi- the so-called F terms, associated to chiral fields, while 1/2 ∼ Y M 3/2 the D terms Dα φ†tαφ are associated to generators cient. of the gauge group.∼ Once one has a soft supersymmetry breaking mass While any solutionP of ∂V/∂φi = 0 with ∂2V/∂φi∂φj term for charged fields X, one can get further supersym- positive definite is a metastable vacuum, spontaneous su- metry breaking effects suppressed not by MP but by MX , persymmetry breaking is characterized by non-zero val- the mass of the X fields. One loop diagrams of X par- ticles will produce soft mass terms for charged gauginos, ues for some of Fi and Dα. The most basic conse- and at higher loop order soft masses for all charged par- quence of this is that the gravitino gains a mass m3/2 = 2 ticles. This is known as gauge mediation; for references eK/2MP l,4 W /M 2 by a super-Higgs mechanism. If we | | Pl,4 and a review see Giudice and Rattazzi (1999). assume that the cosmological constant V 0, W and Let us now consider a quasi-realistic model which thus m are determined by Eq. (21) in∼ terms| of| F 2 3/2 | | solves the hierarchy problem by spontaneous supersym- and D 2. | | metry breaking, in the sense that the small number One should be careful to distinguish the various energy MEW /MP comes out of some dynamics. In general, one scales which appear in supersymmetry breaking; we will expects the EFT to be a sum of several parts; a super- define symmetric Standard Model (SSM); a sector responsible for supersymmetry breaking; possibly a messenger sec- 1 M 4 = F 2 + D2 , (22) tor which couples supersymmetry breaking to the SSM; susy | i| 2 α i α and finally sectors which are irrelevant for this discussion. X X After integrating out all non-SSM fields, one obtains an the energy scale associated to supersymmetry breaking SSM with soft supersymmetry breaking terms, such as in the microscopic theory. Note that many authors use a masses for the gauginos and scalars. The first test of the different definition in which M m . model is that the resulting potential leads to electroweak susy ∼ 3/2 A third set of energy scales are set by the MSSM soft symmetry breaking. This depends on two general fea- supersymmetry breaking terms, such as masses for the tures of the supersymmetric extension. Recall that an gauginos and scalars. These are more model dependent, SSM must have at least two Higgs doublets; let us sup- but usually fall into two general classes. The first class pose there are two, Hu and Hd. First, the Higgs doublets are effects which lead to masses proportional to F/MP . can get a supersymmetric mass term One fairly generic source of scalar masses is coupling through irrelevant terms in the K¨ahler potential, with W = . . . + µHuHd, the general structure the so-called µ term. This must be small, µ MEW . 2 In addition, one must get soft supersymmetry∼ breaking 2 2 ¯ c i i d θd θ 2 X†X(φ )†φ . (23) masses coupling the two Higgs doublets (the b term), MP Z also of order MEW . Of course, there are many, many where X should be thought of as a chiral field contain- more constraints to be satisfied by a realistic model, most ing the largest F-term. Such terms are not forbidden by notably on flavor changing processes. Now, one can distinguish two broad classes of super- any symmetry (unless φi is a Goldstone boson, but com- pactification moduli in general are not, with the notable symmetry breaking models. In the first class, gener- ally known as “gravity mediated” models,supersymmetry exception of axions). If they are present and FX = 0, the field φi obtains a mass 6 breaking is mediated only by effects which are suppressed by powers of MP . In this case, to obtain soft masses at M , the natural expectation is F (1011GeV)2, the c FX EW ∼ mi . (24) so-called intermediate scale, and m M . ∼ M 3/2 EW P On the other hand, if the SSM soft masses∼ come from gauge mediation, the sparticle masses are suppressed by powers of MX , not MP . Therefore, depending on MX , 3 To be more precise, the superpotential in supergravity is a sec- one can get by with a much smaller F breaking, perhaps tion of a holomorphic line bundle. as low as F (100 TeV)2. Such a gauge mediated model ∼ 18 will have m3/2 << MEW as well as many other differ- However, granting the usual discussion of inflationary ences from the first class. cosmology, scalar fields masses less than about 100TeV This more or less covers the basic facts we will need will cause significant phenomenological problems. In for this review; further discussion can be found in many particular, they cause a Polonyi problem – the oscilla- good reviews such as Giudice and Rattazzi (1998); Luty tions of such scalars about the minima of their poten- (2005); Martin (1997) tial, in a cosmological setting, will overclose the universe (Banks et al., 1994; de Carlos et al., 1993). One way of understanding this is as follows. The equation of motion 2. The moduli problem for the moduli φi in the early universe is ∂V As we discussed, string compactifications preserving φ¨i +3Hφ˙i = (26) 4d = 1 supersymmetry typically come with dozens or −∂φi N hundreds of moduli fields. These are chiral multiplets Taking a single modulus φ and Taylor expanding V (φ) 2 2 ∼ φi which have gravitational strength couplings and a flat m φ + , we see that the “Hubble friction” (the sec- potential to all orders in perturbation theory. ond term· · on · the LHS) dominates over the restoring force In general, all scalar fields, including the moduli, will from the potential energy if H >>m. Via the relation receive mass after supersymmetry breaking. In a few 2 2 H MP Vtot (where Vtot is the total energy density of cases, namely the moduli which control the Standard the Universe),∼ we see that in the early Universe, Hubble Model (or grand unified) gauge couplings, we can put friction will dominate for light fields. This means that a lower bound on this mass, around 100GeV, just by until H decreases to H

5 This discussion is oversimplified, since V itself may receive signif- icant thermal corrections. The point then is that for a modulus 4 String/M theory also leads to many testable predictions for field, the true minimum only appears, typically very far away which we have no reason at present to expect contrary evidence, (∼ MP in field space) from the finite-temperature minimum, for example CPT conservation, unitarity bounds in high energy after H drops below the typical scales of the zero-temperature scattering, and so forth. potential. 19 scale MSUSY (and far above the even smaller gravitino 3. The scale of supersymmetry breaking mass M M 2 /M ) for low energy supersymmet- 3/2 ∼ SUSY P ric models with moderate R. Perhaps the most fundamental question in string phe- In a top-down discussion, one must check that these nomenology is the scale of supersymmetry breaking. As masses squared are positive, i.e. metastability. Actu- we discussed, there are many hints in the present data ally, one can argue that this is generic in supersymmetric which point towards TeV scale supersymmetry. It has theories, in the following sense. The mass matrix V ′′ long been thought that low energy supersymmetry would following from Eq. (21) takes the form also follow from a top-down point of view. One of the simplest arguments to this effect uses the concept of “nat- 2 uralness,” according to which an EFT can contain a small M = Mfermion(Mfermion αM ) (28) boson − 3/2 dimensionful parameter, only if it gains additional sym- metry upon taking the parameter to zero. This is not 6 for some order one α. Thus, any bosonic partner true of the Higgs mass in the Standard Model, but can to a fermion with M >> M will automat- | fermion| 3/2 be true for supersymmetric theories. ically have positive mass squared. Since for moduli, On the other hand, the solution we just described M M >> M , this entire subsector will be fermion ∼ F 3/2 for the cosmological constant problem seems to have stable. little to do with this sense of naturalness; indeed it may seem in violent conflict with it.7 Should this not give us pause? How do we know that the small ratio 2 2 33 MEW /MPl,4 10− might not have a similar explana- a. Quintessence There is one cosmological situation in tion? Following∼ this line of thought, one might seek an which the existence of an extremely light, weakly cou- anthropic explanation for the hierarchy, as has been done pled scalar field has been proposed as a feature instead in several works (Arkani-Hamed and Dimopoulos, 2005; of a bug. One of the standard alternatives to a cosmo- Arkani-Hamed et al., 2005a,b; Giudice and Rattazzi, logical constant in explaining the observed dark energy 2006; Giudice and Romanino, 2004). While interesting, is “quintessence” (Peebles and Ratra, 1988). In this pic- the possibility of such an explanation would not bear ture, a slowly rolling scalar field dominates the potential directly on whether the underlying theory has low energy of the Universe, in a sort of late-time analogue of energy supersymmetry, unless we could argue that our early Universe inflation (though perhaps lasting only for existence required this property (or was incompatible (1) e-foldings). In light of our discussion, it is natural with it), which seems implausible. toO ask, can string theory give rise to natural candidates However, there is a different set of arguments, which we for quintessence? will now describe, that low energy supersymmetry, and The observational constraints on time variation of cou- the naturalness principle which suggested it, may not be pling constants make it necessary to keep the relevant the prediction of string/M theory. Rather, one should de- scalar very weakly coupled to observable physics. The fine a concept of stringy naturalness, based on the actual necessary mass scale of the scalar, comparable to the distribution of vacua of string/M theory, which leads to Hubble constant today, means also that this scalar must a rather different intuition about fine-tuning problems. not receive the standard M 2 /M mass from SUSY ∼ SUSY P The starting point is the growing evidence that there breaking. The most natural candidate is therefore a are many classes of string vacua with SUSY break- pseudo Nambu-Goldstone boson, and in string theory, ing at such high scales that it does not solve the hi- these arise plentifully as axions. An axion with weak erarchy problem, starting with early works such as enough couplings and whose shift symmetry is broken by (Alvarez-Gaume et al., 1986; Dixon and Harvey, 1986; dynamics at very low energies, could conceivably serve Scherk and Schwarz, 1979; Seiberg and Witten, 1986), as quintessence; it has been Hubble damped on the side and more recently models with stabilized moduli such as of its potential until the present epoch, and may just be (Saltman and Silverstein, 2006; Silverstein, 2001). De- beginning its descent. spite their disadvantage in not solving the hierarchy The prospects for this scenario are described in the problem, might such vacua “entropically” overwhelm the recent paper Svrcek (2006). While it is plausible, the vacua with low-scale breaking? Let us illustrate how one scenario suffers from all of the tuning problems of the can study this question with the following top-down ap- cosmological constant scenario, and an additional “why proach to deriving the expected scale of supersymmetry now” problem – there is no good reason for the field to breaking, along the lines advocated in Douglas (2004b); become undamped only in the recent past.

7 Actually, in Sec. V, we will show that the c.c. is uniformly dis- 6 The reader should not confuse this with formulae governing the tributed in some classes of vacua, in a way consistent with tradi- sparticle partners of standard model excitations, for which the tional naturalness. In our opinion, anthropic arguments are not soft-breaking terms give the dominant effects, and can lead to in contradiction with naturalness, rather they presuppose some splittings much larger than this estimate in various scenarios. idea of naturalness. 20

Susskind (2004). mechanism, we expect that the fraction of theories with Suppose for a moment that one has classified the full MEW > ls for the internal sented in Kachru et al. (2003) show that generically the dimensions→ (so that 10d supergravity can be used), one problem persists. knows that Eq. (30) is not true. All known sources of Even having fixed this, perhaps by some fine tuning, n potential energy fall rapidly to zero as R− with n 6 there is a more basic problem. The correct 4d Einstein (Giddings, 2003; Kachru et al., 2006; Silverstein, 2004b).≥ frame potential is not quite (31); it must undergo a Weyl Similarly all known sources vanish as a positive power rescaling to reach 4d Einstein frame, and this multiplies 1 of gs. These power laws are far too fast to allow slow- (31) by an overall factor of R12 . Thus regardless of the in- roll inflation, or late-time acceleration for that matter terbrane potential, the system of equations (26) will lead (Fischler et al., 2001; Hellerman et al., 2001). to rapid decompactification! A similar argument shows Thus, to achieve slow-roll inflation, one must either that one must prevent relaxation to gs 0. So achieving work in a regime of strong coupling/small radius where it slow-roll inflation requires stabilizing the→ radion and the is difficult at present to compute (Brustein et al., 2003), dilaton, a problem which can be solved in flux compact- or else one must find models where the radii/dilaton and ification. other rapidly rolling moduli have been stabilized by a One still must engineer a flat enough interbrane po- computable potential, as we have for the flux vacua. tential to satisfy Eq. (30), as generic moduli stabi- Let us consider a concrete proposal in this light, that lization mechanisms do not yield sufficiently flat inter- of Dvali and Tye (1999). In these models, branes and brane potentials. The state of the art is described in anti-branes (or more generally, branes which do not pre- Baumann et al. (2006); while some tuning is involved, serve the same supersymmetry) are both present, in construction of quasi-realistic models seems well within different parts of the compact space M. The candi- reach in many scenarios. date inflaton is the distance between the branes and While we have focused on brane infla- anti-branes on M, the inflationary potential is gener- tion, similar issues arise in other inflation- ated by interbrane RR and gravitational forces, while the ary models using moduli fields (Banks, 1995a; exit from inflation can occur when the brane and anti- Binetruy and Gaillard, 1986; Blanco-Pillado et al., brane reach a distance ls from one another, where 2004, 2006; GreeneandWeltman, 2006) or ax- the lightest stretched string∼ becomes tachyonic. This ions (Adams et al., 1993; Arkani-Hamed et al., 22

2003; Banks et al., 2003; Dimopoulos et al., 2005; the choice of global time coordinate, on which no observ- Easther and McAllister, 2006; Freese et al., 1990). able can depend. The logical conclusion is therefore that the energy, and thus the effective potential, in any such theory must be identically zero. III. QUANTUM GRAVITY, THE EFFECTIVE Of course, this conclusion is not acceptable in a the- POTENTIAL AND STABILITY ory which can describe conventional non-gravitational physics, as clearly the concept of energy is sensible and As the subsequent discussion will be quite technical, useful in that context. Formally, one simple way around before going more deeply into details we should ask more it is to consider only asymptotically flat solutions, which basic questions, such as at large distances (in any space-like direction) approach Minkowski space-time (or its product with the internal What are our implicit assumptions? Can we trust dimensions). In such a solution, one can define the gener- • them, and the formalism which they lead to? ators of the Poincar´egroup purely in terms of the asymp- Might there be a priori arguments that the type of totic fields; in particular the energy E is related to the • term in the metric g 2E/r which expresses the vacuum we seek (with stabilized moduli and pos- 00 ∼ − itive cosmological constant) does not exist, or is of a source with mass E. The vac- extremely rare? uum solutions we will mostly be interested in are maxi- mally symmetric dS or AdS spacetimes with cosmological Related to this, might there be unknown additional constant which is very small compared to the other scales • consistency conditions, which are satisfied by only of microscopic physics, and thus are extremely close to a few of the vacua? asymptotically flat. For such solutions, the flat space def- inition of energy should be operationally adequate (and Since as yet we have no fully satisfactory nonperturba- is indeed the one we use in everyday physics). tive definition of any string theory or M theory, clearly Actually, there are major loopholes in the argument we our discussion cannot start from first principles; we need just made, coming from caveats such as “in the present to make assumptions about how the theory works and epoch,” and “extremely close to asymptotically flat.” We what constitutes a “solution” to proceed. Thus, our ar- will discuss these below in Sec. III.C, with the conclusion guments will not be conclusive, but rather are meant to that they all rely on some sort of non-locality in the the- summarize existing work and suggest new approaches to ory. While this does not make them unthinkable, let us addressing these questions. postpone this discussion and proceed to discuss the defi- nition of the effective potential in Minkowski space-time. We recall the standard definition of the effective poten- A. The effective potential tial in a quantum field theory, for definiteness a theory of a single scalar field φ. We first couple φ to a source J, Our point of view, as we explained in the introduction and compute (say using the functional integral) the par- and implicitly assumed throughout Sec. II, is that the tition function Z(J), to define the generating function of vacuum structure of string/M theory is determined by an connected Green’s functions F (J) = log Z(J). We then effective potential V . This is a function of the many eff set the expectation value φ of φ by solving the equation scalar fields which parameterize the local choices (mod- 0 uli) determining a particular solution, and whose value is ∂F = φ , the exact vacuum energy of that solution. Granting this, ∂J 0 our problem is to define Veff incorporating all classical and quantum contributions to the energy, compute it in which formally amounts to a Legendre transform. The a controlled way, and find its local minima. resulting functional Γ(φ0), specialized to constant φ0, is While this is how all known physical theories work, the effective potential. there are good reasons not to accept this uncritically in In trying to repeat this definition in string theory, we a quantum theory of gravity, as has been particularly face the problem that it is not possible to couple a string emphasized in Banks (2004); Banks et al. (2004); Dine theory to a local source, nor to a local current; this was (2004a). Let us cite a few of these reasons, and then con- one of the main problems with the early proposals for sider the various candidates we have for complete defini- using strings to describe hadronic physics. This led to tions of the theory, to try to evaluate them. the general observation that the theory tends not to pro- We begin by asking whether the concepts which enter vide natural definitions of “off-shell” quantities, meaning into the effective potential are well defined. First, there is quantities defined in terms of space-time histories which no universal way to define energy in a generally covariant are not solutions. For example, computations of scat- theory. The standard formal definition of energy is the tering amplitudes using the string world-sheet formalism dynamical variable conjugate to time translation, in the are unambiguous only if all of the external states are on sense of , or in quantum commu- mass shell. This is not considered a flaw in the theory, tation relations. However, in a generally covariant theory, as the S-matrix is defined purely in terms of scattering of time translation invariance is simply an arbitrariness of on-shell external states. However, the effective potential 23 is an off-shell quantity. identify the light modes in Γ[Φ0], and solve for all of the Two general ways around this problem are known. The others, to obtain an effective potential which is a function first approach is to do without the coupling to a local of a finite number of fields. To the extent that we could source, instead manipulating the value of φ0 by adjusting do this, we would have made precise the intuition that the boundary conditions. This is not completely general, string theory reduces to field theory at long distances, but can be satisfactory in some situations. For example, where the effective potential is a valid concept. if the effective potential is zero, any constant φ0 will be a However, there are formidable obstacles to making solution, and we can pick a particular solution by choice such a definition precise. At present there is very little of boundary conditions. More generally, if we know the understanding of string field theory beyond its pertur- effective potential in advance, we can find the solutions of bative expansion, and just as for quantum field theory, the EFT, and pick one by choice of boundary conditions. this expansion is only asymptotic (Shenker, 1990). It is This is implicitly what is done in most work on string also not obvious that all of the nonperturbative effects we compactifications with extended supersymmetry. For ex- will call upon below are contained in string field theory, ample, in a family of compactifications to Minkowski see Schnabl (2005) for relevant progress on this. In any space, supersymmetry guarantees that the effective po- case, verifying or refuting the approximate discussion we tential is zero, so there is no difficulty in adjusting mod- will make below would be an important application of a uli by varying boundary conditions. Another class of nonperturbative definition. examples is flux compactifications with 4 super- For four-dimensional quantum field theory, such a defi- N ≥ symmetry in anti-de Sitter space. Again, supersymmetry nition is made by appealing to the . determines the effective potential uniquely, so that one One must find some asymptotically free UV completion can study solutions with prescribed boundary conditions of the theory of interest, and then find some approximate without detailed string theoretic computation. This is finite description of the weakly coupled short distance used implicitly in many works on the AdS/CFT corre- theory, such as lattice field theory. spondence. While we have no comparable theoretical understand- While at first this definition seems inadequate for ing of string theory, there is a widely shared intuition the problem at hand, in which we want to compute a that, at least in considering low energy processes and vac- non-trivial effective potential which we do not know in uum structure, string theory is weakly coupled at short advance, one can still try to follow this route. One distances (the string scale and below). This intuition has would start with a known extended supersymmetry back- several sources: first, the extended nature of the string ground, and then postulate boundary conditions (prob- cuts off interactions at these distances. Second, asymp- ably time-dependent) which, if it were the case that totic supersymmetry makes the leading contributions of the effective potential described a second non-trivial massive states to the effective action cancel. Finally, metastable vacuum, would lead to a solution matching on other effects of massive states are suppressed by inverse to this solution in the interior. We will say more about powers of the fundamental scales. Presumably, this intu- this approach in Sec. III.C, and explain the obstacles to ition justifies matching on to a field theoretic description it there. at distances around the string scale, and then following This brings us to the second approach, which is sim- the standard RG paradigm. ply to couple the string theory to a non-local source. For example, one can do this in string field theory, the frame- work which is most directly analogous to quantum field B. Approximate effective potential theory (Zwiebach, 1993). Just as QFT can be defined in terms of an operator φ(x) which creates or destroys a Let us now grant that the problems we just discussed particle at a point in space-time x, here one introduces are only technical, and consider how we would make a a string field operator, call it Φ[L], which creates or de- precise definition of the effective potential we use in this stroys a string on a one-dimensional loop L in space-time. review, namely in weakly coupled string field theory, tak- One can then introduce a source J[L] for the string field ing into account nonperturbative effects in a semiclassical into the action in the standard way, say as expansion. We start with ten-dimensional EFT, i.e. supergrav- S = S0 + dL Φ[L]J[L], ity with α′ and gs corrections. We then compactify to Z get a four-dimensional effective action with massive KK where the definition of the integral over loops is taken modes, string modes and the like. At this level, the dis- from the string field theory framework. One then follows cussion is precise. Even in the presence of fluxes, in many the logic which led to the field theory definition, to get a models, the leading results can be inferred from super- string field theoretic effective potential Γ[Φ ]. symmetry and considerations of 4d = 2 supergravity. 0 N While such a definition might be difficult to use in We then need to add in semiclassical nonperturba- practical computations, the point is to have a precise tive effects, such as instantons and wrapped branes. definition which could be used to justify our approximate The basic features of these can already be seen in su- considerations. To do this, the next step would be to persymmetric field theory. After much development, 24 originating in the study of 4d supersymmetric QCD should be needed for consistency, so this type of argu- (Affleck et al., 1984; Shifman and Vainshtein, 1991), and ment is not completely satisfactory; it does not apply to using holomorphy and duality arguments, quite a lot is large numbers (perhaps the vast majority) of solutions. known about exact superpotentials in = 1 field the- However, already within the limits of this argument, we ories (Intriligator et al., 1994), and exactN prepotentials will find sufficiently many stabilized vacua to justify the in = 2 field theories, following (Seiberg and Witten, basic claims of Sec. II. 1994).N Even restricting attention to these solutions, we are In string theory, mirror symmetry relates exact pre- still not done. Another pitfall to guard against in extrap- potentials in type IIa Calabi-Yau models and type IIb olating results for the effective potential is the possibility Calabi-Yau models, where an infinite (worldsheet) in- of phase transitions. This is especially worrisome for first stanton sum in the prepotential on one side maps to a order transitions, which unlike second order transitions completely classical geometric computation on the other have no clear signal such as a field or order parameter (Candelas et al., 1991). String duality maps these world- becoming massless. Such transitions are not possible in sheet instanton sums to spacetime instanton sums, allow- global supersymmetry, in which the energy of a super- ing one to recover nonperturbative effects from string du- symmetric vacuum is always zero; however this is not ality (Kachru et al., 1996; Kachru and Vafa, 1995). This true after supersymmetry breaking and in supergravity. grew into the realization that one could design stringy Should we worry about this possibility? configurations of branes or singularities to give rise to Actually, the rules here are somewhat different from a given low energy field theory, and compute the in- equilibrium statistical mechanics and field theory, in stanton sums via string techniques (Katz et al., 1997; that sufficiently long-lived metastable configurations will Katz and Vafa, 1997). count as vacua. However, a possibility which needs to be More generally, holomorphy arguments allow one to considered is that additional fields, perhaps arising from classify which Euclidean branes, wrapping which topolo- the Kaluza-Klein modes of dimensional reduction, or gies, can contribute to a holomorphic superpotential. composite fields expressing quantum correlations, might The theory of D-branes (Polchinski, 1995) allowed find- destabilize our candidate vacua. ing the full list of possible BPS instantons relevant for The first possibility, that Kaluza-Klein modes destabi- a variety of 1 vacua. A prototypical example of a N ≥ lize vacua, will be considered in Sec. IV. The basic argu- macroscopic argument classifying the branes and topolo- ment that this generically does not happen was given in gies which are relevant for instanton effects in F-theory Sec. II.F.2. is Witten (1996b). While exact computation of the su- The second possibility is handled by a combination of perpotential in a general compactification is still beyond arguments. In most of the EFT, quantum fluctuations our reach, this does allow for principled estimates of the are controlled by the string coupling, which we have as- leading instanton contributions in many backgrounds. In sumed to be small. Thus, mass shifts for composite fields the particular cases where the instanton effect can be re- will be small, so given that the moduli are all massive, we interpreted in the low energy effective theory as a dynam- do not expect phase transitions. This argument has the ical effect in quantum field theory, even the coefficient flaw that some subsectors of the theory must be strongly can be estimated with some confidence, by matching to coupled at low energy (after all we know this is the case exact field theory results. In many examples, even this for QCD). For these sectors, we appeal to existing field crude level of understanding suffices to exhibit vacua in theory analyses, and the assumption that the supersym- the reliable regime of weak coupling and large volume. metry breaking scale is smaller than the fundamental The main issue we now have to address, is that we scale, so that supergravity effects are a small correction. want to take the sum of various terms, some inferred directly from supergravity or world-sheet physics, and others computed (or even inferred) from nonperturbative C. Subtleties in semiclassical gravity i effects. Typically, a solution of ∂Veff /∂φ = 0 for the full effective potential will not be a critical point of the In our discussion so far, we assumed that our local re- various terms which enter into Veff , so these terms will gion of the universe can be well modelled as Minkowski be ambiguous. But if there are ambiguities, how can space-time. Of course, no matter how slow the time evo- we be sure that we have fixed them for every term in a lution of the universe, or how small the cosmological con- consistent way? stant, if these are non-zero, at sufficiently large scales Our eventual answer to this question in this review the nature of the solution will be radically different from will be to exhibit examples of solutions in which contri- Minkowski space-time. Thus, we might wonder whether butions to the effective potential with different origins even if a solution looks consistent on cosmological scales, have parametrically different scales. Thus, although in- it could be inconsistent as a full solution of the theory. dividual terms may have some ambiguity, a very weak At first this might sound like it could only happen if the control over this ambiguity will suffice to prove that the underlying framework were non-local. However, while full effective potential has minima. string/M theory is believed to be in some sense non-local We see no reason that such a separation of scales at the fundamental (Planck and string) length scales, in 25

2 all known formalisms and computations these effects are Schwarzschild radius unless R > σ(R/MP ) , i.e. unless either exponentially small at longer distances, or appear M 2 to be gauge artifacts, analogous to the apparent instan- R< P . (32) taneous force at a distance one finds in Coulomb gauge. σ

Thus it is hard to see how they could be relevant. Still, This is interesting for the following reason. A φ+ ex- some feel that paradoxes involving black hole evaporation perimentalist can only use the bubble to infer the exis- and entropy point to non-locality (Giddings, 2006). tence of the φ vacuum and study its properties, if (32) − Even in a local theory, a solution which is consistent is satisfied. We would expect that the potential barrier on short time scales, can in principle be inconsistent on between two typical vacua in a quantum gravity theory longer time scales, by developing a singularity with no should be MP , as there is no small parameter to change ∼ consistent physical interpretation or “resolution.” Al- the scaling in typical solutions. Then, one would also though one often hears the slogan that “string theory find σ M 3 , and only bubbles smaller than the Planck ∼ P resolves space-time singularities,” there are examples of length would be outside their Schwarzschild radius! Of space-like singularities with no known resolution, nor any course such bubbles are not a priori meaningful solutions, proof that this cannot be done, making this an active field and could not be used by an experimentalist to verify the of research. existence of other vacua. Now in an ordinary physical theory, one would say This argument is a bit quick, for example because the that the possibility of developing a singularity with no vacua we will discuss in Sec. IV do have small parameters, consistent interpretation shows that the theory is not but the conclusion is largely correct, as explained further et al. fundamental; rather it should be derived from a more in (Banks, 2000; Farhi , 1990). fundamental theory in which the corresponding solution is not singular. Familiar examples include Navier-Stokes D. Tunneling instabilities and other phenomenological many-body theories, and of course classical general relativity. We have argued that in string theory, the effective In the present context, one might attempt a different potentials one infers from direct computation typically interpretation. If it turned out here that some subset have many minima. For such a minimum to be con- of vacua generically led to singularities, while another sidered a metastable vacuum, its lifetime τ should be subset did not, it might be reasonable to exclude the parametrically long compared to the string time. We first set of vacua as inconsistent. Now it seems strange now explain why there are large numbers of vacua that to us, indeed acausal, to throw out a solution because 10 satisfy this criterion, and even the more stringent cri- 10 of an inconsistency which appears (say) 10 years in terion τ >> τtoday 15 billion years, using the the- the future. Still, if such an approach led to interesting ory of the decay of∼ false vacua in field theory devel- claims, it might be worth pursuing. oped in Callan and Coleman (1977); Coleman (1977); Another idea along these lines is that there might be Coleman and De Luccia (1980). approximately Minkowski solutions which, while them- Let us consider a toy model consisting of a single scalar selves consistent, cannot be embedded in a solution with field φ, with a metastable de Sitter vacuum of height V0 at a sensible cosmological origin. This test seems better as φ0, and a second Minkowski vacuum at infinity in field it is consistent with causality. It could be further refined space. This can be thought of as modeling the poten- by asking not just that the cosmology be theoretically tial for a volume modulus in a string compactification, consistent, but that it agree with observation. Of course, where the second vacuum represents the decompactifi- we will eventually need to address this issue in the course cation limit (Kachru et al., 2003a). Suppose the barrier of testing any given solution, but we might ask if there height separating the dS vacuum from infinity is V1. are simple arguments that some solutions cannot be re- The tension of the bubble wall for the bubble of false alized cosmologically, or cannot satisfy the constraints vacuum decay is easily computed to be discussed in Sec. II.F.4, before going into details. We ∞ know of no results in this direction however. T = dφ 2V (φ) (33) φ0 Let us now come back to a point raised in Sec. III.A, Z p and explain the obstacles to performing thought exper- The dominant tunneling process differs depending on 2 2 2 2 iments which prove the existence of multiple (isolated) whether V0MP >> T or V0MP << T . et al. Since we see that T √V1∆φ, this translates into the vacua of an effective potential (Banks, 2000; Farhi , ∼ 1990). For instance, suppose the effective potential for V0 V0 question of whether ∆φ << V1 or ∆φ >> V1 . The a single scalar φ has two vacua at φ . One can make ± former regime is called the “thinq wall limit” forq obvious a vacuum bubble interpolating between the two vacua, reasons. In this limit, the analysis of Coleman et al ap- whose surface tension we can call σ. Starting from the plies. The tunneling probability, is given by φ+ vacuum, suppose one nucleates a bubble of radius R in the φ phase. The Schwarzschild radius of the bub- 27π2T 4 − 2 P = exp (34) ble is σ(R/MP ) . So the bubble will be smaller than its − 2V 3  0  26

For dS vacua with small V0 << V1, the rate is clearly At present the subject is highly controversial and thus highly suppressed, easily yielding a lifetime in excess of we are only going to sketch a few of the basic ideas here. 1010 years. One general idea is that a theory of quantum gravity In the opposite regime of a low but thick poten- will have a preferred initial condition. The most famous 2 2 tial barrier, V0MP << T , the dominant instanton example is the wave function of Hartle and Hawking governing vacuum decay would instead be the more (1983), which is defined in terms of the Euclidean func- enigmatic Hawking-Moss instanton (Hawking and Moss, tional integral. Presumably, time evolving this wave 1982). The physical interpretation of this instanton is function and squaring it would lead to a probability dis- unclear; a description in terms of thermal fluctuations tribution on vacua. In the present context, this suggests of the φ field which yields the same estimate for the rate looking for a natural wave function on moduli space, or can be found in Linde (2005) and references therein. The on some larger configuration space of string/M theory. action of this instanton is the difference between the dS An idea in this direction appears in Ooguri et al. (2005). entropies of dS vacua with vacuum energies V0 and V1, Another idea, more popular in recent times, is that the resulting in a tunneling rate distribution of vacua is largely determined by the dynam- ics of inflation. Inflation involves an exponential expan- 24π2 P exp( S(φ )) = exp . (35) sion of spatial volume, which tends to wash away any ≃ − 0 − V  0  dependence on initial conditions. In particular, many of the standard arguments for inflation in our universe, such For small V0, this again is completely negligible. The for- mula Eq. (35) neglects a small multiplicative correction as the explanations of homogeneity, flatness, and the non- 2 observation of topological defects, rely on this property. factor of exp( 24π ) which accounts for the entropy at the V1 While these standard arguments do not in themselves “top of the hill.” bear on the selection of a particular vacuum, it is widely For V << V , this factor is not numerically impor- 0 1 believed that inflation also washes away all dependence tant, but its presence serves to prove a conceptual point. on the initial conditions relevant for vacuum selection Because of the existence of the Hawking-Moss instan- (say the choice of compactification manifold, moduli and ton, any dS vacuum which is accessible in the EFT ap- fluxes), because of the phenomenon of eternal inflation proximation to string theory, will have a lifetime which (Linde, 1986a,b; Vilenkin, 1983). is parametrically short compared to the Poincare recur- rence time of de Sitter space (considered as a thermal Without going into details, eternal inflation leads to a system with a number of degrees of freedom measured picture in which any initial vacuum, will eventually nu- by the de Sitter entropy) (Kachru et al., 2003a). cleate bubbles containing all the other possible vacua, This discussion illustrates how, within the regime of sometimes called “pocket universes.” Because of the EFT, one can find long-lived vacua. However, a question- exponential volume growth, the number distribution of which already appeared in Bousso and Polchinski (2000), these pocket universes will “very quickly” lose memory and has not been settled in more realistic models, is that of the initial conditions and, one hopes, converge on some besides the approximate Minkowski vacua at infinity we universal distribution. just discussed, there are many other possible endpoints For this to happen, the microscopic theory must sat- for the decay of a vacuum, both dS and AdS vacua. isfy certain conditions. First, the effective potential must Some of these tunneling rates have been computed in either contain multiple de Sitter vacua, or contain re- Ceresole et al. (2006); Frey et al. (2003); Kachru et al. gions in which inflation leads to large quantum fluctua- tions (essentially, one needs δρ/ρ 1). Then, to pop- (2003a, 2002), and generically they are also very small. ∼ However, one might wonder whether the large degener- ulate all vacua from any starting point, and thus have acy of possible targets could lead to enough “acciden- any hope to get a universal distribution, all vacua must tally” low barriers to substantially increase the overall be connected by transitions. These conditions are fairly decay rates. This might be addressed using the statisti- weak and very likely to be true in string/M theory. The cal techniques of Sec. V. first can already be satisfied by models of the type we discussed in Sec. II.F.4. One can find much evidence for the second condition, that all vacua are connected E. Early cosmology and measure factors through transitions, from the theory of string/M theory duality. For example, it is true for a wide variety of mod- In any theory with many vacua, one could ask: are els with extended supersymmetry (for example, = 2 N some vacua preferred over others? A natural answer in type II compactifications on Calabi-Yau (Avram et al., the present context is that if so, it will be for cosmologi- 1996; Greene et al., 1995)), and thus will be true for flux cal reasons: perhaps the “big bang” provides a preferred compactifications built from these. initial condition, or perhaps the subsequent dynamics fa- Either way, the result of such considerations would be vors the production of certain vacua. a probability distribution on vacua, usually referred to as This type of question has been studied by cosmolo- a “measure factor.” This probability distribution would gists for many years; some recent reviews include Guth then be used to make probabilistic predictions, along the (2000); Linde (2005); Tegmark (2005); Vilenkin (2006). lines we suggested in an example in Sec. II.F.3. 27

At this point, many difficult conceptual questions arise. of de Sitter space with vacuum energy E. This is the After all, our (the observable) universe is a unique event, leading approximation to the Hartle-Hawking wave func- and most statisticians and philosophers would agree that tion, where E is usually interpreted as the vacuum en- the standard “frequentist” concept of probability, which ergy in some initial stage of inflation. Since such a factor assumes that an experiment can be repeated an indef- is extremely sharply peaked at small E, its presence is inite number of times, is meaningless when applied to more or less incompatible with observed inflation, rul- unique events. While this may at first seem to be only ing this wave function out. There are some ideas for a philosophical difficulty, it will become practical at the how corrections in higher powers in E could fix this, see moment that our theoretical framework produces a claim Firouzjahi et al. (2004); Sarangi and Tye (2006). such as “the probability with which our universe appears Another common result is exp 24π2M 4 /Λ, formally the 10 P within our theory is .01”, or perhaps 10− , or perhaps same entropy factor, but now as a function of the cosmo- 1000 10− . How should we interpret such results? logical constant at the present epoch. This arose in the Many cosmologists have argued that the interpretation early attempts to derive a measure from eternal infla- of a measure factor requires taking into account the se- tion, and has a simple interpretation there: the proba- lection effects we discussed in Sec. II.E.1 in a quantitative bility that a randomly chosen point sits in some vacuum, way, estimating the “expected number of observers” con- includes a factor of the average lifetime of that vacuum, tained in each pocket universe, to judge whether a “typ- as predicted by Eq. (35). This interpretation suggests ical observer” should expect to make a certain observa- that this measure factor is also incorrect, as during al- tion. Such an analysis would be very complex, involving most all of this lifetime the universe is cold and empty, so a good deal of astrophysics, and perhaps even input from this factor has no direct bearing on the expected number other disciplines such as chemistry and biology, leading of observers. More technical arguments have also been many to wonder whether generally accepted conclusions made against it. could be obtained this way. If we ignore this problem, since this measure is heavily Other interpretations have been suggested. One is to peaked on small Λ, we might claim to have a dynamical consider a probability as having a clear interpretation solution to the c.c. problem. From the point of view we only if it is extremely small, and consider such unlikely are taking, this proposal has the amusing feature that it vacua as “impossible.” In other words, we choose some ǫ, predicts that the total number of Λ > 0 vacua is roughly and if our observations can only be reproduced by vacua 10120, which presumably could be checked independently. with probability less than ǫ, we consider the theory with If so, this would seem superficially attractive, as in prin- this choice of measure factor as falsified. While one might ciple it predicts a unique overwhelmingly preferred vac- debate the appropriate choice of ǫ, since some ideas for uum, the one with minimum positive Λ. On the other measure factors lead to extremely small probabilities for hand, the prospects for computing Λ accurately enough some vacua (say proportional to tunneling rates, which to find this vacuum seem very dim. Even if we could get as we saw in Sec. III.D are extremely small), this might exact results for Λ, there are arguments from computa- be interesting even with an ǫ so small as to meet general tional complexity theory that the problem of finding its acceptance. minimum is inherently intractable (Denef and Douglas, Another approach, which is probably the most sound 2006), making this measure factor nearly useless in prac- philosophically, is not to try to interpret absolute proba- tical terms. It is also far from obvious at present that the bilities defined by individual theories, but only compare number of Λ > 0 vacua is in the neighborhood of 10120. probabilities between different theories, considering the Perhaps a better response to the problem is to define theory which gives the largest probability as preferred. away the entropy factor. There are various closely re- Even without a competitor to string/M theory, this might lated ways to do this (Vilenkin, 2006); for example in be useful in judging among proposed measure factors, or Vanchurin and Vilenkin (2006) it is argued that it can be dealing with other theoretical uncertainties. Following done by restricting attention to the world-line of a single up this line of thought would lead us into Bayesian statis- “eternal observer,” and counting the number of bubbles tics; see MacKay (2003) for an entertaining and down- it enters. This leads to a prescription in terms of the to-earth introduction to this topic. stationary distribution of a Markov process constructed Anyhow, these questions are somewhat academic at from intervacuum tunneling rates; its detailed properties this point, as general agreement has not yet been reached are being explored, but at first sight this appears to lead about how to define a measure factor, or what structure to a wildly varying probability factor P (i) which, since it the result might have. In particular, doing this within is determined by the structure of high energy potential eternal inflation is notoriously controversial, though re- barriers, would have little correlation to most observ- cent progress is reported in Bousso (2006); Vilenkin able properties of the vacua themselves. As we discuss (2006) and references there, and perhaps generally ac- in Sec. V.F, this might still allow making probabilistic cepted candidate definitions will soon appear. predictions. Thus let us conclude this subsection by simply listing a Other factors which have appeared in such propos- few of the claims for measure factors which appear in ex- als, and while probably subleading to the ones we 2 4 isting literature. One such is the entropy exp 24π MP /E covered might be important, include a volume expan- 28 sion factor (the overall growth in volume during slow- these dual CFTs will have a sporadic set of low dimen- roll inflation), the volume in configuration space of sion operators (dual to the compactification moduli), and the basin of attraction leading to the local minimum then a much larger spacing between the operators dual (Horne and Moore, 1994), a canonical measure on phase to KK modes. space (Gibbons and Turok, 2006), dynamical symmetry So, given a class of AdS vacua in the landscape, it enhancement factors (Kofman et al., 2004), and the vol- seems reasonable to search for candidate dual CFTs that ume of the extra dimensions (Firouzjahi et al., 2004). could provide their exact definition. Further thought leads to difficulties with this idea. First, the AdS vacua whose existence is established using effective potential F. Holographic and dual formulations techniques, by definition lie in the regime in which the gravity description is weakly coupled. Since they have The advent of string/M theory duality in the mid-90’s no exact moduli (the compactification moduli are given led to an entirely novel perspective on many questions, small but nonzero masses by fluxes and other effects, and and several new candidate nonperturbative frameworks, are dual to irrelevant operators whose dimension is how- ever of (1)), they do not extrapolate (along lines of fixed such as matrix models, Matrix theory, and the AdS/CFT O correspondence. While at present it is not known how points) to a dual regime where the field theory would be to use any of them to directly address the problem at weakly coupled. So trying to find the dual field theory, hand, perhaps the most general of these is the AdS/CFT involves working on the wrong (strongly coupled) side of correspondence, which bears on the definition of solutions the duality, a difficult procedure at best. with negative cosmological constant. Second, we are not primarily interested in typical land- Consider a maximally symmetric four-dimensional so- scape vacua. Rather, we are most interested in those lution of string theory with negative cosmological con- highly atypical vacua in which fortuitous cancellations stant, in other words a product of 3 + 1 dimensional give rise to small Λ, as in the Bousso-Polchinski ar- anti-de Sitter space-time with a 6 dimensional internal gument. Such vacua rely on complicated cancellations space. According to AdS/CFT, there will exist a dual between many terms, and there are reasons to think 2 + 1-dimensional conformal field theory (without grav- they are exceedingly hard to find explicitly even in the ity), which is precisely equivalent to the quantum string more computable gravity description. This is the famil- theory in this space-time. This can be made more con- iar problem, that one would need to include Standard crete for questions which only involve observables on the Model and other loop corrections to very high orders in boundary of AdS; for example a scattering amplitude in perturbation theory, to claim that one had found a spe- AdS maps into a correlation function in the CFT, and cific vacuum with small Λ. Even worse, a small variation boundary conditions of the fields in AdS map into the to one of these complicated solutions (such as changing values of couplings in the CFT. a flux by one unit) will spoil the cancellation and give a This dictionary has been much studied. The most large cosmological term. This suggests that the CFT’s important entries for present purposes are the relation we would be most interested in finding (which are dual to between the 3 + 1 dimensional AdS c.c. and the num- the AdS vacua with atypically small Λ) are also compli- ber of degrees of freedom of the CFT, and the relation cated, and furthermore that we might need to compute between masses in AdS and operator dimensions in the very precisely to see the cancellations which single out CFT. For example, in Freund-Rubin compactification of the few solutions with small cosmological term. 5 Nevertheless, in principle we should be able to get the IIb string theory on AdS5 S , the curvature radius 4 2 × general features of the problem to agree on both sides. R /(α′) gsN, so the number of degrees of freedom N 2 scales∼ to very large values for weakly curved, weakly The basic picture would seem to be that we start with coupled vacua. Similarly, the map between operators QFT’s with many, many degrees of freedom, perhaps the and gravity modes shows that operators with dimension dual theory of Silverstein (2003), and then flow down to ∆ (1) map to KK modes with masses 1/R. CFT. To recover agreement with our effective potential ∼ O ∼ For the Freund-Rubin examples, the AdS curvature ra- analyses, we would need to find that a generic RG flow dius and the radius of the internal sphere are equal. For either loses almost all the degrees of freedom, and thus is dual to large Λ, or else has no weakly coupled space-time the AdS4 vacua which arise in discussions of the land- scape, one is usually interested instead in theories with interpretation at all. On the other hand, given appropri- ate tunings in the bare theory, more degrees of freedom compact dimensions having RKK << RAdS, so there is an effective 4d description. Such theories will have dual would survive the flow, leading to a theory whose dual CFTs that differ qualitatively from those appearing in had a tuned small Λ. standard examples of AdS/CFT. By the mapping from gravity modes to field theory operators, we see for in- stance that the number of operators with ∆ (1) will IV. EXPLICIT CONSTRUCTIONS be much smaller in these theories. Instead of∼ an O infinite tower of operators with regularly spaced conformal di- We now describe how flux vacua can be constructed in mension (dual to the KK tower in Freund-Rubin models), type II string theories. The most studied case involves 29

IIb/F-theory vacua, so we will begin there. We then action present more recent results about IIa flux vacua, discuss 1 10 1/2 2S µ mirror symmetry in this setting, and provide some defi- L = d x ( G) e− R +4∂ S∂ S 2κ2 − µ nite indications that many new classes of vacua are wait- 10 Z  ing to be explored. We cannot exhaustively review all ap- 1 1 1 F 2 G G F˜2 proaches to the subject; rather, we hope that this review, −2| 1| − 12 3 · 3 − 4 5! 5 ·  together with the excellent reviews (Frey, 2003; Grana, 1 2006; Silverstein, 2004b), will provide a good overview + eSC G G + S . (36) 8iκ2 4 ∧ 3 ∧ 3 loc of various approaches and classes of models. For discus- 10 Z sions of models without low energy supersymmetry, see The theory has an NS field strength H (with potential Silverstein (2004b). 3 B2) and RR field strengths F1,3,5 (with corresponding Before we begin, we should describe the approach we potentials C0,2,4). The field strength will use here to compute the effective potential. The di- mensional reduction of classical 10d supergravity (supple- G3 = F3 φH3 (37) mented by branes and fluxes) to 4d, is a well defined and − straightforward (if technically challenging) procedure. In is a combination of the RR and NS three-form field various flux compactifications, it yields a tree approxima- strengths, tion to the effective potential, as a function of the moduli S fields. This effective potential should be the leading term φ = C0 + ie− (38) 2 2 in a systematic expansion if gs and ls /R (in the lead- ing order solution) are sufficiently small. In some cases, is the axio-dilaton, and we will supplement this classical potential with quantum 1 1 corrections which have been computed in the gs or α′ ex- F˜5 F5 C2 H3 + B2 F3 . (39) pansion, or with known non-perturbative contributions ≡ − 2 ∧ 2 ∧ to the 4d effective superpotential. The general form of The 5-form field is actually self-dual; one must impose the latter can in many cases be inferred from holomorphy the constraint and symmetry considerations, or from known field the- ory results (applied to the low-energy limit of the string F˜5 = F˜5 (40) compactification). While this general strategy is likely to ∗ apply only to a small fraction of all vacua (those which by hand when solving the equations of motion. Finally, are self-consistently stabilized at weak coupling and large Sloc in (36) allows for the possibility that we include the volume), we will see that this fraction alone is enough to action of any localized thin sources in our background; indicate the existence of a landscape, and to suggest con- possible sources which could appear in string theory in- crete problems for further work. While this leaves open clude D-branes and orientifold planes. the conceptual questions of section III.A, it is also fair to We will start by looking for solutions with 4d Poincare say that the success of EFT in describing particle physics symmetry. The Einstein frame metric should take the to date gives us good reason to hope that it will be ap- form plicable to the study of pseudo-realistic string vacua. 2 2A(y) µ ν 2A(y) m n ds10 = e ηµν dx dx + e− g˜mn(y)dy dy (41) µ, ν run over 0, , 3 while m,n take values 4, , 9 and A. Type IIb D3/D7 vacua · · · · · · g˜mn is a metric on the compactification manifold M. We have allowed for the possibility of a warp factor A(y). In In this subsection, we consider type IIb / F-theory addition one should impose vacua whose 4d = 1 supersymmetry is of the type N preserved by D3/D7 branes in a Calabi-Yau orientifold. φ = φ(y), F˜ =(1+ )[dα(y) dx0 dx3] (42) 5 ∗ ∧ ···∧

and allow only compact components of the G3 flux 1. 10d solutions F , H H3(M, ZZ) . (43) 3 3 ∈ Here, we describe the 10d picture of flux compactifi- cations in the supergravity limit. We follow the treat- The G3 equation of motion then tells one to choose a ment in Giddings et al. (2002). Closely related solutions harmonic representative in the given cohomology class. One can show by using the trace-reversed Einstein (related to the IIb solutions via the F-theory lift of M- 4 theory) were first found in M-theory compactifications on equations for the IR components of the metric, that Calabi-Yau fourfolds in Becker and Becker (1996), and mnp 2 4A 2A GmnpG 6A m 4A m 4A some aspects of their F-theory lift were described in ˜ e = e + e− [∂mα∂ α + ∂me ∂ e ] Dasgupta et al. (1999); Gukov et al. (2000). ∇ 12Im(τ) The type IIb string in 10 dimensions has a string frame +κ2 e2A(T m T µ) . (44) 10 m − µ loc 30

We have denoted the stress-energy tensor of any localized This serves as a constraint on the kind of localized sources objects (whose action appears in Sloc) by Tloc. we will want to consider in finding solutions. The inequal- This equation already tells us something quite inter- ity is saturated by D3 branes and O3 planes, as well as esting. The first two terms on the right hand side are by D7 branes wrapping holomorphic cycles; it is satisfied 0, but on a compact manifold, the left hand side in- by D3 branes; and it is violated by O5 and O3 planes. tegrates≥ to zero (being a total derivative). Therefore, in Assuming we restrict our sources as above, it follows compact models, and in the absence of localized sources, from (49) that G3 must be imaginary self-dual there is a no-go theorem: the only solutions have G3 =0 A and e = constant, and IIb supergravity does not allow 6 G3 = iG3, (51) ∗ nontrivial warped compactifications. This is basically the no-go theorem proved in various ways in Gibbons (1984); that the warp factor and C4 are related

Maldacena and Nunez (2001); de Wit et al. (1987). 4A This does not mean that one cannot find warped solu- e = α, (52) tions in the full string theory. String theory does allow and that the inequality (50) is actually saturated. So so- localized sources. It was emphasized already in Verlinde lutions to the tree-level equations should include only D3, (2000) that one can make warped models by considering O3 and D7 sources. In the quantum theory, one can ob- compactifications with N D3 branes, and stacking the tain solutions on compact M with D3 sources as well; we D3 branes at a point on the compact space; then as is will describe this when we discuss supersymmetry break- familiar from the derivation of the AdS/CFT correspon- ing. dence (Maldacena, 1998), the geometry near the branes We did not write out the extra-dimensional Einstein can become highly warped. equation and the axio-dilaton equation of motion yet; For this loophole to be operative, one needs their detailed form will not be important for us. Impos- ing them, we find that this class of solutions describes (T m T µ) < 0 (45) m − µ loc F-theory models (Vafa, 1996) in the supergravity approx- to evade the global obstruction to solving Eq. (44). Be- imation, including the possibility of background flux. As fore finding nontrivial warped solutions with flux, we will noted earlier, these solutions are closely related to those of Becker and Becker (1996), whose F-theory interpreta- also need one more fact. The Bianchi identity for F˜5 gives rise to a constraint tion has also been described in Dasgupta et al. (1999); Gukov et al. (2000). 2 loc The simplest examples of such solutions are perturba- dF˜5 = H3 F3 +2κ T3ρ (46) ∧ 10 3 tive IIb orientifolds. An argument of Sen (1997) shows loc that every compactification of F-theory on a Calabi-Yau where T3 is the D3-brane tension, and ρ3 is the local D3 charge density on the compact space. The integrated fourfold has, in an appropriate limit, an interpretation as Bianchi identity then requires, for tadpole cancellation, a IIb orientifold of a Calabi-Yau threefold. We will there- fore develop the story in the language of IIb orientifolds,

1 loc but the formulae generalize in a straightforward way to 2 H3 F3 + Q3 = 0 (47) the more general case. In this special case of perturbative 2κ10T3 M ∧ Z orientifolds, at leading order, the metric on the internal where Qloc is the sum of all D3 charges arising from lo- space is conformally Calabi-Yau; it differs by the warp 3 2A calized objects. factor e . Now, one can rewrite the equation (46) more explicitly in terms of the function α(y) as 2. 4d effective description mnp ˜ 2 2A Gmnp 6 G 6A m 2 2A loc α = ie ∗ +2e− ∂mα∂ α+2κ10e T3ρ3 . In this section we describe the construction of the ∇ 12Im(τ) 4d effective action for IIb orientifolds with RR and NS (48) flux, following Giddings et al. (2002). The main result Subtracting this from the Einstein equation (44), one will be an explicit and computable result for the 4d ef- finds fective potential, which can be analyzed using analyt- 2A ical, numerical or statistical techniques. Earlier work ˜ 2 4A e 2 6A 4A 2 (e α) = iG3 6G3 + e− ∂(e α) in this direction appeared in Dasgupta et al. (1999); ∇ − 24Im(τ)| −∗ | | − | Gukov et al. (2000); Mayr (2001); Taylor and Vafa 2 2A 1 m µ loc loc (2000)), while related results in gauged supergrav- +2κ10e [ (Tm Tµ ) T3ρ3 ]. (49) 4 − − ity were presented in Andrianopoli et al. (2002a,b,c, et al. Let us make the assumption 2003a,b); Angelantonj (2004, 2003); Dall’Agata (2001, 2004a,b); D’Auria et al. (2003a,b, 2002); Ferrara 1 (2002); Ferrara and Porrati (2002); Michelson (1997); (T m T µ)loc T ρloc . (50) 4 m − µ ≥ 3 3 Polchinski and Strominger (1996). Generalizations of 31 this formalism to include effects of the warp factor appear where G3 = F3 φH3. in DeWolfe and Giddings (2003); Frey and Maharana To write down− a general expression for the potential, (2006); Giddings and Maharana (2006). we need to introduce one more ingredient. Thus far, we We consider a Calabi-Yau threefold M with h2,1 com- have described only a K¨ahler potential on the complex plex structure deformations, and choose a symplectic ba- structure moduli space. In general models, there are also a 2,1 1,1 sis A ,Bb for the b3 = 2h + 2 three-cycles a,b = K¨ahler moduli (up to h (M) of them, depending on how { } b 1, ,h2,1+1, with dual cohomology elements αa,β such many survive the orientifold projection). However, they that:· · · will cancel out of the tree-level effective potential in the IIb supergravity, in the following way (Giddings et al., a a a b b αb = δb , β = δb , αa β = δa . (53) 2002; Grimm and Louis, 2004). The K¨ahler potential for a − ∧ ZA ZBb ZM these moduli is Fixing a normalization for the holomorphic three-form = 2log(V ) (60) Ω, we then define the periods Kk −

a Given a basis of divisors Sα , α = 1, ,h1,1, the z = Ω, b = Ω (54) { } · · · Aa G B volume V is determined in terms of the K¨ahler form Z Z b α J = t Sα by and the period vector Π(z) = ( ,za). The za are projec- Gb tive coordinates on the complex structure moduli space 1 α β γ V = Sαβγt t t . (61) of the Calabi-Yau threefold, with b = ∂bG(z) (G(z) is 6 commonly known as the “prepotential”).G The K¨ahler Here S is the triple intersection form, and counts the potential for the za as well as the IIb axio-dilaton αβγ Ki intersections of the divisors Sα, Sβ and Sγ . Note that for φ = C0 + is given by gs this class of vacua, the flux superpotential (59) does not depend explicitly on the K¨ahler moduli. = log i Ω Ω¯ log( i(φ φ¯)) . (55) Now, on general grounds, the expression for the K − ∧ − − −  ZM  potential in = 1 supergravity takes the form N Note that given the period vector, one can re-write (Freedman et al., 1976)

Ω Ω=¯ Π†ΣΠ (56) + k i¯j 2 M ∧ − V = eK K g D W D W 3 W (62) Z  i j − | |  i,j where Σ is the symplectic matrix. This structure on the X complex structure moduli space follows from so-called   where i, j run over indices labeling the complex structure special geometry, as derived in Candelas and de la Ossa and K¨ahler moduli as well as the dilaton. D W is the (1991); Dixon et al. (1990); Strominger (1990). The spe- i K¨ahler covariantized derivative D W = ∂ W +K W . At cial geometry governs the moduli space of vector multi- i i ,i this point, because of the special structure where W is plets in = 2 supersymmetric compactifications. How- independent of the ts at tree level, as well as the tree-level ever, toN leading approximation (i.e. tree level), it also form of the K¨ahler potential, in the expression (62) the governs the complex structure moduli space of = 1 3 W 2 term precisely cancels the terms where i, j run orientifolds of these models, which is the applicationN of −over| α,| β (the K¨ahler moduli). Therefore, one can express interest here. In general, some of the complex structure the full tree-level flux potential as (Giddings et al., 2002) moduli could be projected out in any given orientifold construction; in this circumstance, one should appropri- ately restrict the various quantities to the surviving sub- tot a¯b V = eK g D W D W (63) manifold of the moduli space.  a b  a,b Now, we consider turning on fluxes of the RR and X   NS-NS 3-form field strengths F3 and H3. In a self- where here the sum over a also includes φ. explanatory notation, we define these via integer-valued So surprisingly, despite the fact that we are working in b3-vectors f,h: an = 1 supergravity, the potential is positive semi- N 2 a definite with vacua precisely when V = 0! Further- F3 = (2π) α′(faα + fa+h2 1+1βa), (57) − , more, one sees immediately that generic vacua are not supersymmetric; supersymmetric vacua have D W = 2 a a H = (2π) α′(h α + h 2 1 β ) . (58) 3 − a a+h , +1 a DφW = DαW = 0, while non-supersymmetric vacua have D W = 0 for some α. This is precisely a re- These fluxes generate a superpotential for the com- α 6 plex structure moduli as well as the axio-dilaton alization of the cancellation that occurs in a general (Gukov et al., 2000) class of supergravities known as no-scale supergravities (Cremmer et al., 1983; Ellis et al., 1984). Unfortunately, 2 the miracle of vanishing cosmological constant for the W = G Ω(z)=(2π) α′(f φh) Π(z) (59) 3 ∧ − · non-supersymmetric vacua depended on the tree-level ZM 32 structure of the K¨ahler potential (60) which is not radia- What this means is that the allowed flux choices in an tively stable. Therefore this miracle, while suggestive, orientifold compactification on M, and hence the num- does not lead to any mechanism of attacking the cos- bers of flux vacua, are stringently constrained by the re- mological constant problem. The potential (63) receives quirement Nflux L. This will be important later in the important corrections both in perturbation theory and review, when we≤ discuss vacuum statistics for this class nonperturbatively. of models. A simple characterization of the points in moduli space We note here that in describing this classical story, which give solutions to V = 0 for a given flux arises as we have simplified matters by turning on only the back- follows. We need to solve the equations ground closed string fluxes. In general orientifold or F-theory models, D7 branes with various gauge groups DφW = DaW = 0 (64) are also present, and one can turn on background field strengths of the D7 gauge fields, generating additional which, more explicitly, means contributions to the tadpole condition (68) and the space- time potential energy. Because our story is rich enough ¯ (f φh) Π(z) = (f φh) (∂aΠ + Π∂a )=0 . (65) without considering these additional ingredients, we pro- − · − · K ceed with the development without activating them, but In fact, these equations have a simple geometric interpre- discussions which incorporate them in this class of vacua tation: for a given choice of the integral fluxes f,h, they can be found in e.g. Burgess et al. (2003); Haack et al. require the metric to adjust itself (by motion in complex (2006); Jockers and Louis (2005a,b); Garcia del Moral structure moduli space) so that the (3,0) and (1,2) parts (2006). of G3 vanish, leaving a solution where G3 is “imaginary self-dual” (ISD), as in (51). At this stage, since we are solving h2,1 + 1 equations a. Example: The conifold We now exemplify our previ- in h2,1 + 1 variables for each choice of integral flux, it ous considerations by finding flux vacua in one of the seems clear that generic fluxes will fix all of the complex simplest non-compact Calabi-Yau spaces, the deformed structure moduli as well as the axio-dilaton. Further- conifold. The metric of this space is known explicitly more, one might suspect that the number of vacua will (Candelas and de la Ossa, 1990). The vacua we discuss diverge, since we have not yet constrained the fluxes in below have played an important role in gauge/gravity any way. duality (Klebanov and Strassler, 2000), the study of ge- However, the fluxes also induce a contribution to the ometric transitions (Vafa, 2001), and warped compactifi- total D3-brane charge, arising from the term in the 10d cations of string theory (Giddings et al., 2002), including IIb supergravity Lagrangian models of supersymmetry breaking (Kachru et al., 2002). We will encounter some of these applications as we pro- 1 C(4) G3 G3 ceed. = + 2 ∧ ∧ + (66) L · · · 8iκ10 Imφ · · · The deformed conifold is a noncompact Calabi-Yau Z space, defined by the equation where C4 is the RR four-form potential which couples to D3 branes. This results in a tadpole for D3-brane charge, P (x,y,v,w)= x2 + y2 + v2 + w2 = ǫ2 (70) in the presence of the fluxes: in C4. As ǫ 0, the geometry becomes singular: the 1 origin is non-transverse,→ since one can solve P = dP =0 Nflux = 4 2 F3 H3 = f Σ h . (67) 3 (2π) (α′) M ∧ · · there. It is not difficult to see that an S collapses to Z zero size at this point in moduli space; e.g. for real ǫ2, This is important because: i) one can easily check that the real slice of (70) defines such an S3. In this limit, the for ISD fluxes N 0, and ii) in a given orientifold of geometry can be viewed as a cone over S3 S2. There are flux × M, there is a tadpole≥ cancellation condition (47), which two topologically nontrivial three-cycles; the A-cycle S3 we can write in the form we have already discussed, which vanishes when ǫ 0, and a dual B-cycle swept out by the S2 times the radial→ Nflux + ND3 = L (68) direction of the cone. The singularity (70) arises locally in many compact where L is some total negative D3 charge which needs Calabi-Yau spaces (at codimension one in the complex to be cancelled, arising by induced charge on D7 and O7 structure moduli space). In such manifolds, the B-cycle is planes (Giddings et al., 2002), and/or explicit O3 planes. also compact; the behavior of the periods of Ω is partially In practice, for an orientifold which arises in the Sen limit universal, being given by (Sen, 1997) of an F-theory compactification on elliptic z fourfold Y , one finds (Sethi et al., 1996) Ω= z, Ω= log(z) + regular = (z) . (71) A B 2πi G χ(Y ) Z Z L = . (69) Here z 0 is the singular point in moduli space where 24 → 33

A collapses, and the regular part of the B-period is non- 2003; Cascales and Uranga, 2003a,b; Dasgupta et al., universal. 1999; Frey and Polchinski, 2002; Greene et al., We can now study flux vacua using the periods (71) 2000; Kachru et al., 2003c) and in more nontrivial and the explicit formulae (59), (63) for the superpotential Calabi-Yau threefolds (Aspinwall and Kallosh, 2005; and potential energy function. Choosing Conlon and Quevedo, 2004; Curio et al., 2002, 2001; DeWolfe, 2005; DeWolfe et al., 2005a; Giryavets et al., F M, H K (72) 2004a,b; Tripathy and Trivedi, 2003). 3 ∼ 3 ∼− ZA ZB we find that the superpotential takes the form 3. Quantum IIb flux vacua W (z)= Kφz + M (z) (73) − G At the classical level, the K¨ahler moduli of IIb orien- Given the logarithmic singularity in , this superpo- tifolds with flux remain as exactly flat directions of the tential bears a striking resemblance toG the Veneziano- no-scale potential. However, quantum corrections will Yankielowicz superpotential of pure = 1 supersym- generally generate a potential for these moduli. This po- metric SU(M) , conjecturedN many years ago tential will have at least two different sources: (Veneziano and Yankielowicz, 1982). We’ll see that this is no accident. 1. In every model, there will be corrections to the The K¨ahler potential can be determined using the K¨ahler potential which depend on K¨ahler moduli. equation (55). We will be interested in vacua which arise The leading such corrections have been computed close to the conifold point where z is exponentially small; in e.g. Becker et al. (2002); Berg et al. (2005, 2006). As soon as takes a more general form to obtain such vacua we will consider K/gs to be large. Kk In this limit, the dominant terms in the equation for clas- than (60), the no-scale cancellation disappears and sical vacua are the scalar potential will develop dependence on the K¨ahler moduli. M K DzW = log(z) i + (74) 2πi − gs · · · 2. The superpotential in these models enjoys a non- renormalization theorem to all orders in perturba- where are (1) terms that will be negligible in a self- tion theory (Burgess et al., 2006). Nonperturba- · · · O consistent manner. For K/gs large, one finds that tively, it can be violated by Euclidean D3-brane instantons. The conditions for such instantons to z exp( 2πK/g M) (75) ∼ − s contribute in the absence of G3 flux, and assuming they have smooth worldvolumes, with vanishing in- and these flux vacua are exponentially close to the coni- tersection with other branes in the background, are fold point in moduli space. Due to the ambiguity arising described in Witten (1996b). The basic condition from the logarithm, there are M vacua, distributed in is familiar also from supersymmetric gauge theory: phase but with the magnitude of z as given above. there should be precisely two fermion zero modes For the noncompact Calabi-Yau, these are good flux in the instanton background. These zero modes vacua. In fact, the conifold with fluxes (72) is dual, via can be counted as follows. One can lift the Eu- gauge/gravity duality, to a certain = 1 supersymmet- clidean D3 brane to an M5 brane wrapping a divi- ric SU(N + M) SU(N) gauge theory,N with N = KM × sor D in the M-theory dual compactification on a (Klebanov and Strassler, 2000). While it is beyond the Calabi-Yau fourfold. Then, the number of fermion scope of our review to discuss this duality in detail, the IR zero modes can be related to the holomorphic Euler physics of the gauge theory involves gluino condensation character χ of the divisor: in pure SU(M) = 1 SYM. This fact, together with N the duality, explains the appearance of the Veneziano- 3 Yankielowicz superpotential in (73). The M vacua we number of zero modes = 2χ(D)=2 h0,p(D) . (76) found in the z-plane, are the M vacua which saturate p=0 the Witten index of pure SU(M) SYM. X In a compact Calabi-Yau, the dilaton φ is also dynami- In the simplest case of an isolated divisor with 0,0 0,p cal and we would need to solve the equation DφW =0as h = 1 and other h vanishing, the contribu- well. Naively, one would find an obstruction to doing this tion is definitely nonzero. For more elaborate cases in the limit described above (large K/gs and exponen- where χ = 1 but the divisor has a moduli space, it tially small z). In fact, one can do this even in compact is conceivable that the integral over the instanton situations, as described in Giddings et al. (2002). moduli could vanish. While this example is quite simple, we will use it to illustrate many points in our review. In the liter- The conditions under which such instantons con- ature, one can find many other examples of explicit tribute in the presence of various fluxes and/or vacua, both in toroidal orientifolds (Blumenhagen et al., space-filling D-branes (whose worldvolumes they 34 may intersect) remain a subject of active inves- value of W0 to obtain a vacuum which is in the regime of tigation (Blumenhagen et al., 2006; Florea et al., computational control, where further corrections are ex- 2006; Gorlich et al., 2004; Haack et al., 2006; pected to be small. Is it reasonable to expect such a small Ibanez and Uranga, 2006; Kallosh et al., 2005; value? Actually, in all string models of SUSY GUTs in Lust et al., 2006c; Saulina, 2005). The condition which Ms MP , such a tuning of W0 is inevitable. Re- (76) is certainly modified. More generally, there can be call from Sec.∼ II.F.1 that the largest F term which is contributions from nonperturbative dynamics in field allowed in a model where SUSY explains the gauge hi- theories arising on D7-brane worldvolumes, whose gauge erarchy is roughly (1011GeV)2. Taking into account Eq. coupling is K¨ahler-modulus dependent (Gorlich et al., (21), a small cosmological constant requires 2004; Kachru et al., 2003a). It was argued in Kachru et al. (2003a) (KKLT) that such corrections will allow one to find flux compactifica- 2 2 11 4 W 14 W MP (10 GeV) ( 3 ) 10− . (79) tions of the IIb theory that manifest landscapes of vacua | | ≤ → MP ≤ with all moduli stabilized. As a simple toy model for how such corrections may be important let us consider a model with a single K¨ahler modulus ρ, with For models of gauge mediation with low-scale breaking, the tune becomes even larger. This tune is absolutely k = 3 log( i(ρ ρ¯)) (77) necessary in the standard supergravity picture of unifica- K − − − 4 tion, and enters directly into cosmology via the gravitino R Here one should think of Im(ρ) ′ 2 where R is the inevitable ∼ (α ) mass. It is therefore an problem in standard radius of M, while Re(ρ) is related to the period of an SUSY scenarios with high string scale, that one will be axion arising from C4 (Giddings et al., 2002). If there is required to tune W to be small at any minimum. a D7 stack which gives rise to a pure SYM sector, whose This does not answer the question of whether such gauge coupling depends on ρ, one finds a superpotential small values of W are in fact attainable in actual flux of the general form 0 vacua. We will answer this in the affirmative in Sec. V. iaρ W = W0 + Ae . (78) Indeed, we will make far more detailed claims; for exam- ple that the (naive) expectation that this could be easily One should view W0 as being the constant arising from attained by an approximate R symmetry, is not true for evaluating the flux superpotential (59) at its minimum known flux vacua. in complex structure moduli space. A is a determinant Another interesting question is: when is one justified which a priori depends on complex structure moduli, and in using the tree-level K¨ahler potential while including a is a constant depending on the rank of the D7 gauge the nonperturbative correction to W ? Clearly, at very group. We noted above that A would generally depend large volume, corrections to (which are power-law on complex structure moduli. However, the scales in the k suppressed) are more importantK than instanton effects. flux superpotential make it clear that complex structure ′ α However, in the spirit of self-consistent perturbation the- moduli receive a mass at order 3 , while any K¨ahler R ory, this is not the relevant question. The relevant ques- moduli masses arising from the correction in (78) will be tion is, given the estimates above, if one then includes significantly smaller. Therefore, one can view the super- a first correction to and then re-expands around the gravity functions above as summarizing the EFT of the k solution one has obtainedK with the tree level , how light mode ρ, having integrated out the heavy complex k much does the solution shift? It is easy to verifyK that structure modes and dilaton. For a detailed discussion of for large Im(ρ), the perturbative corrections to (ex- possible issues with such a procedure, see e.g. de Alwis k panded around the minimum of the potential) shiftK the (2005); Choi et al. (2004). solution by a small amount, which can be tuned by tun- It is then straightforward to show that one can solve ing W0. the equation DρW = 0, yielding a vacuum with all moduli stabilized and with unbroken supersymmetry Naturally, however, this suggests that the corrections (Kachru et al., 2003a). For small W0, this vacuum moves to themselves can cause interesting new features at into the regime of control (large Im(ρ)) with logarithmic largeK volume, giving rise to further critical points in the speed. (Small a arising from large rank gauge groups also potential distinct from the KKLT minima. Such critical helps). This provides a loose proof-of-principle that one points were observed in Balasubramanian and Berglund can find models with all moduli stabilized. This picture (2004); Balasubramanian et al. (2005); Berg et al. has been substantially fleshed out and extended in fur- (2006); von Gersdorff and Hebecker (2005), using esti- ther work; the most explicit examples to date appear in mates for the first few quantum corrections to . These Denef et al. (2004, 2005); Lust et al. (2006b, 2005a). can yield vacua with very large volume, even realizingK the Before moving on to summarize further detailed con- large extra dimensions scenario of Arkani-Hamed et al. siderations, we discuss here two important questions (1998). The phenomenology of such models has been which may concern the reader. Firstly, under the as- described in Conlon and Quevedo (2006); Conlon et al. sumptions above, one requires an exponentially small (2005). 35

4. Supersymmetry breaking varies significantly as one moves over the compact six- manifold M, are often called “warped compactifications.” The vacua we have discussed so far are supersymmet- An important toy model of warped compactification ric. One would hope to learn also about vacua which is the Randall-Sundrum model (Randall and Sundrum, have supersymmetry breaking at or above the TeV scale, 1999a). This is a 5d model where a warp factor which and have positive cosmological constant. Here we dis- varies by an exponential amount over the 5th dimension cuss three ideas in this direction: one in some detail (which is compactified on an interval), can be used to (largely because it is novel and uses stringy ingredients), explain exponential hierarchies in physics. The basic idea and two more standard ideas quite briefly. We will fo- is that scales at the end of the 5th dimension where eA cus on theories with low energy breaking (i.e. break- has a minimum, are exponentially smaller than those at ing far below the KK scale). There are also known so- the UV end where eA is maximized. lutions with supersymmetry breaking at the KK scale The simplest realization of this idea in string the- (Saltman and Silverstein, 2006) or even higher scales ory uses precisely the same kinds of (deformed) conical (Silverstein, 2001). Examples of this type are discussed throats that arise in describing string duals of confining in a pedagogical way in (Silverstein, 2004b). gauge theories (Klebanov and Strassler, 2000). We found We will also only discuss the mechanisms of SUSY- for instance that in the conifold geometry, one can sta- breaking that have been explored in the IIb land- bilize moduli exponentially close to a conifold point in scape. One of the most important consequences of moduli space without tuning SUSY-breaking is of course the generation of soft terms. For flux-induced breaking, these terms have been F = M, H = K, z = exp( 2πK/g M) . 3 3 − − s investigated in (Allanach et al., 2005; Camara et al., ZA ZB 2004, 2005b; Font and Ibanez, 2005; Ibanez, 2005; (82) Lawrence and McGreevy, 2004a,b; Lust et al., 2006a, But the fluxes here are precisely those of the warped de- 2005b,c; Marchesano et al., 2005). More generally, formed conifold solution which appears in gauge/gravity 2A(y) constructions of models incorporating a standard- duality; hence the warp factor e at the “tip” of the like model together with flux stabilization have ap- deformed conifold, will take the same value it does there. peared in Cvetic et al. (2005); Cvetic and Liu (2005); This gives rise to an exponential warping

Marchesano and Shiu (2004, 2005). A 2πK/3gsM e e− . (83) ∼ As a result, compactifications of the conifold with flux, a. Warped Supersymmetry Breaking The idea presented can give rise to string theory models which accomo- in Kachru et al. (2003a), is as follows. Calabi-Yau com- date the exponential warping of scales used in Randall- pactification, at leading order in α′, gives rise to a com- Sundrum scenarios (Giddings et al., 2002). The pos- pactification metric of the form sibilities for making realistic R-S models in this gen- eral context have been investigated in much more de- 2 µ ν m n ds = ηµν dx dx + gmndy dy (80) tail in (Cascales et al., 2004, 2005; Franco et al., 2005; Gherghetta and Giedt, 2006) and references therein. 4 with µ, ν running over coordinates in our IR , and m,n = Instead of using the redshifting of scales to explain 1, , 6 parametrizing the coordinates on the “extra” six the Higgs mass directly, this warping can also be used · · · dimensions. in another way. Imagine that instead of engineering the However, in the presence of fluxes, one finds a more Standard Model in the region of minimal warp factor, general metric of the form one arranges for SUSY breaking to occur there. The Standard Model can be localized in the bulk of the 2 2A(y) µ ν 2A(y) m n A ds = e ηµν dx dx + e− gmndy dy . (81) Calabi-Yau space, where e (1). In this situation, the exponentially small scale∼ of O supersymmetry break- A(y) is a warp factor, which allows the “scale” in the 4d ing can be explained by warping, instead of by instan- Minkowski space to vary as one moves along the com- ton effects. It can be transmitted via gravity media- pact dimensions ym. 9 The equation determining A(y) tion or other mechanisms to the observable sector. Pre- in terms of the flux compactification data can be found cisely this scenario, combined with other assumptions, in Giddings et al. (2002). Compactifications where A(y) has been explored in a phenomenological context in e.g. Brummer et al. (2006); Choi et al. (2005a, 2006, 2005b); Kitano and Nomura (2005). To flesh out such scenarios, one should provide ex- 9 The fact that fluxes generate warping was described in plicit microscopic models of such SUSY breaking. Such a Becker and Becker (1996); Strominger (1986), this was discussed model was proposed already in Kachru et al. (2002). The in the IIb context in Dasgupta et al. (1999); Greene et al. (2000), and concrete ideas about Randall-Sundrum scenarios in string idea is to consider the conifold with flux, in the presence theory were first developed in Chan et al. (2000); Verlinde of a small number p<> 1, gs || along the anti-branes, iΦ is the interior derivative so we can solve A F3 = M by just setting F proportional to the warped volume form ǫ on the S3: 1 R i i B =ΦnΦmB dyp dys, (86) Φ Φ 6 mnpqrs 4! ∧···∧ 1 Fmnp = fǫmnp, f . (93) 3 Q is the matrix ∼ gs M

i i 2πi i k So the system we are studying consistsp of p anti-D3 Qj = δj + [Φ , Φ ](Gkj + gsCkj ) (87) gs branes transverse to a diffuse magnetic 3-form flux (that, is a flux whose flux density is small in the supergravity and B6 is given in an ISD flux background by regime of large gsM)), or equivalently, p anti-D3 branes 1 1 in an electric 7-form flux. dB6 = 2 10 H3 = dV4 F3 (88) This system is T-dual to D0-branes in an electric 4- g ∗ −gs ∧ s form flux. These D0-branes undergo the famous Myers 4 where dV4 is the volume form on IR at the brane location effect (Myers, 1999); p D0-branes in a background flux in the compact dimensions. expand into a fuzzy D2-brane carrying p units of world- It is best to summarize the dynamics in three steps volume gauge flux (to encode the D0 charge). Similarly (DeWolfe et al., 2004; Kachru et al., 2002). here, the anti-D3 branes should be expected to expand into 5-branes, carrying p units of worldvolume flux. Be- 1. Weight loss The non-commutator terms in the cause we are working in a duality frame where SCS con- ISD flux background yield the action tains a coupling to B6, in fact the anti-D3s will expand into an NS 5 brane. µ3 4 4A 1 2A i µ j We can see this in equations as follows. On the large p d x√g4e T r 2+ e− ∂µΦ ∂ Φ gij . 3 − gs 2 S , one can approximate Z  (89) 2π Therefore, the leading potential is C F Φl, G δ . (94) kj ∼ 3 kjl kj ∼ kj V (y)=2e4A(y) . (90) Therefore

It arises by adding the BI and CS terms; for a D3-brane 2 these would instead cancel, as D3-branes in the ISD flux i i 2πi i 4π i k l Qj = δj + [Φ , Φj ]+ i Fkjl[Φ , Φ ]Φ . (95) backgrounds feel no force. gs 3 In the Klebanov-Strassler solution Then (Klebanov and Strassler, 2000), the warp factor depends only on the “radial” direction in the cone, A(y) = A(r) 2 2 2π k j l π i j 2 for some radial direction r. Then the potential (90) T r( detQ) p i FkjlT r [Φ , Φ ]Φ 2 T r[Φ , Φ ] . ≃ − 3 − gs simply yields a force in the radial direction p  (96) µ3 4A Now the B6 term in SCS would cancel the cubic term Fr(r)= 2 ∂re (r) . (91) − gs in the potential if we were considering D3 branes; they 37 do not undergo a Myers effect in this background. On But there are also supersymmetric states carrying this the other hand, for anti-D3 branes, the B6 term adds and same total charge; for instance, one could consider we find an effective potential 2 F = M, H = (K 1), N = M p 8πK/3Mgs µ3 4π f k j l 3 3 D3 Veff (Φ) = e− p i ǫkjlT r[Φ , Φ ]Φ A B − − − gs − 3 Z Z  Qtot = KM p . (103) π2 → − T r[Φi, Φj ]2 + . (97) − g2 · · · Since the two charge configurations (102) and (103) have s  It is important to emphasize that this potential is expo- the same behavior at infinity in the radial coordinate, nentially small, due to the warp factor at the tip of the they should be considered as two distinct states in the cone. same theory. In fact, one can explicitly write down a Now, demanding ∂Veff = 0, we find the equation vacuum bubble interpolating between them; it consists ∂Φ of an NS 5-brane wrapping the A-cycle, and was studied i j j 2 j k [[Φ , Φ ], Φ ] igs fǫijk[Φ , Φ ]=0 . (98) in detail in DeWolfe et al. (2004); Kachru et al. (2002). − This bubble can be interpreted as a bubble of false vac- We can solve this equation by choosing constant matrices i uum decay, carrying the metastable non-supersymmetric Φ that satisfy vacuum (102) to a stable supersymmetric vacuum. Be- i j 2 k [Φ , Φ ]= igs fǫijkΦ . (99) cause the scale of supersymmetry breaking in the ini- − tial vacuum is exponentially small, one can control these This is a very familiar equation. Up to a rescaling states quite well for 1 << p << M. A detailed study of fields, (99) is just the commutation relation satisfied shows that as p approaches M, the metastable vacuum by p p matrix representations of the SU(2) generators! disappears; the critical value of p/M is (1/10). Therefore,× we can find extrema of the anti-brane poten- This situation is reminiscent of someO recent exam- tial, by simply choosing (generally reducible) p p matrix ples where direct study of 4d supersymmetric field theo- representations of SU(2), i.e. there is an extremum× for ries has uncovered metastable non-supersymmetric vacua each partition of p. The full “landscape” of these ex- (Intriligator et al., 2006). Extending our knowledge of trema is somewhat complicated (see e.g. DeWolfe et al. such states (using either gauge/gravity duality or 4d field (2004); Jatkar et al. (2002) for some remarks about its theory techniques), and the interrelations between them, structure, and Gomis et al. (2005) for a more general dis- remains a very active area of research. cussion of open string landscapes). What is clear is that In addition to their interest as an example of the the energetically preferred solution is the p dimensional intricate dynamics that can occur with branes in flux irreducible representation, for which backgrounds, these states have also been used in the 2 2 8πK/3Mgs µ3 8π (p 1) 1 KKLT proposal to obtain de Sitter vacua in string the- V e− p 1 − . eff ≃ × g − 3 M b12 ory (Kachru et al., 2003a), and play an important role s  0  (100) in some models of string inflation (Kachru et al., 2003). The radius of the fuzzy S2 the branes unfurl into, is given 10 Of course, for the former role, other mechanisms of by supersymmetry breaking could serve as well. We now 2 2 discuss two less stringy, but very well motivated, ideas. ˜2 4π (p 1) 2 R = 8 −2 R (101) b0 M × 2 3 where R gsM controls the size of the S at the tip of b. Dynamical Supersymmetry Breaking An alternative to the geometry.∼ using warped compactification to obtain an exponen- It is clear from (101) that we can only trust this solu- tially small scale of supersymmetry breaking, is to tion for p << M; for larger p, the radius R˜ approaches use dimensional transmutation and instanton effects the radius of the S3, and global features of the geometry (Witten, 1981a). Many examples of field theories which may become important. dynamically break supersymmetry have been discov- ered over the years, starting with the work of Affleck, 3. Deflation We now comment on the ultimate Dine and Seiberg summarized in Affleck et al. (1985). fate of these non-supersymmetric anti-D3 states in the More recent reviews include (Poppitz and Trivedi, 1998; Klebanov-Strassler throat. The throat is characterized Shadmi and Shirman, 2000). by A F3 = M, B H3 = K. At very large values of the radial coordinate r (the− UV of the dual quantum R R field theory), the charge Qtot characterizing the throat 10 with the p probe antibranes is then: The argument of section IV.A.1 that one cannot solve the IIb equations of motion in warped Calabi-Yau flux compactifica- tions if one includes anti-D3 sources, is true only at tree level. F3 = M, H3 = K,N = p The same effects which allow one to stabilize the K¨ahler moduli, − D3 ZA ZB also allow the incorporation of anti-branes with sufficiently small Q = KM p . (102) (warped) tension, as shown in Kachru et al. (2003a). → tot − 38

It is clear that one can incorporate these dynamical B. Type IIa flux vacua breaking sectors as part of the low energy physics of a string compactification. The extra-dimensional pic- In this section, we briefly discuss the construction ture then does not a priori add much to the 4d discus- of Calabi-Yau flux vacua in type IIa string theory. sion, although to some extent it can be useful in “ge- Our exposition follows the notation and strategy of ometrizing” criteria for different mediation mechanisms DeWolfe et al. (2005b), using the = 1 supersymmet- to dominate (Diaconescu et al., 2006). Discussions of ric formalism developed in GrimmN and Louis (2005). DSB with gauge or gravity mediation of SUSY breaking Closely related work developing the basic formalism to the Standard Model, in fairly concrete pseudo-realistic for IIa flux compactification and presenting explicit string compactifications, appear in Braun et al. (2006); examples also appears in Acharya et al. (2006b); Diaconescu et al. (2006); Franco and Uranga (2006); Aldazabal et al. (2006); Benmachiche and Grimm Garcia-Etxebarria et al. (2006). (2006); Bovy et al. (2005); Camara et al. (2005a); Derendinger et al. (2005a,b); House and Palti (2005); Ihl and Wrase (2006); Kachru and Kashani-Poor (2005); Saueressig et al. (2006); Villadoro and Zwirner (2005). Candidate M-theory vacua which are in many ways similar to these IIa models were first described in c. Breaking by fluxes Perhaps the most direct analog of Acharya (2002); see also Behrndt et al. (2006). the original Bousso-Polchinski proposal, in the IIb flux landscape, is the following. We saw in the previous subsection that one can supersymmetrically stabilize all 1. Qualitative considerations moduli after including nonperturbative corrections to the superpotential which depend on K¨ahler moduli. Previ- Before we launch into a detailed study, it is worth con- ous to stabilizing K¨ahler moduli, it would have seemed trasting the present case with the class of IIb vacua we that one must solve the no-scale equation V = 0 to find just described. In the IIa string compactified on a Calabi- a IIb flux vacuum. However, given that one will stabilize Yau space M, one can imagine turning on background K¨ahler moduli anyway, it is no longer necessary to do fluxes of both the NS three-form field H3 and the RR this. Instead, consider the potential Vflux(za, φ) arising 2p form fields F0,2,4,6. The basic intuition that 3-form from the three-form fluxes. If one finds a critical point fluxes should yield complex structure dependent poten- of this potential in the a, φ directions, with tials, while even-form fluxes should yield K¨ahler structure dependent potentials, then suggests that the IIa flux su- perpotential will depend on all geometric moduli already ∂ V = ∂ V =0, ∂2V 0 (104) a φ ≥ at tree level. In fact, if we focus for a moment on just the dilaton then the vacuum would be stable in the a, φ directions and the volume modulus, which are normally two of the (despite the tree-level instability in the K¨ahler modulus more vexing moduli in string constructions, we can see directions). Now, including the instanton contributions by a simple scaling argument that the flux potential will to V , it becomes clear that one may stabilize the K¨ahler suffice to stabilize them in a regime of control. moduli and complex/dilaton moduli while using a “flux To find the potentials due to fluxes, one should reduce vacuum” for the complex/dilaton moduli which is not the flux kinetic and potential terms from 10d to 4d, re- of the ISD type, as long as the departure from the ISD membering to perform the necessary Weyl rescalings to condition is not too severe. Naively, any violation of the move to 4d Einstein frame. These are discussed in a ISD equations yields, via (59), a nonzero F-term for some pedagogical way in Silverstein (2004a). The results are complex/dilaton modulus. This means that the resulting as follows. If the compactification manifold has radius R φ vacuum will yield spontaneous supersymmetry breaking. and the string coupling is gs = e , then: N units of RR p-form flux contributes to the scalar This is too quick: one should really go back and solve • the full equations of the EFT, including any dependence potential with the scaling of the (prefactor to the) non-perturbative effects on the 4φ 2 e complex structure moduli. However, in many cases, this VRR = N 6+2p (105) intuition should be borne out. A toy model vacuum of R this type has been exhibited in Saltman and Silverstein N units of NS 3-form flux contribute • (2004). e2φ V = N 2 (106) Because the effects being used to stabilize K¨ahler mod- NS R12 uli are exponentially small, this mechanism is only vi- N orientifold p+3 planes wrapping a p-cycle in the com- able if one “tunes” in flux space to find proto-vacua pact• manifold and filling spacetime, contribute with a very small violation of the ISD condition. This was shown to be generically possible in IIb vacua in e3φ Denef and Douglas (2005), as we will discuss in Sec. V.C. VO(p+3) = N 12 p (107) − R − 39

(while of course N D-branes would, up to an overall coef- where ta = ba + iva are complex numbers, and ωa form a ficient, make the same contribution with a positive sign). basis for H1,1. The rather surprising fact that elements − The simplest class of = 1 supersymmetric IIa ori- of H1,1 correspond to moduli comes about because the N entifolds arise by acting with an anti-holomorphic invo- supersymmetric− IIa orientifolds are based on orientation lution on a Calabi-Yau space M. The fixed locus of reversing involutions, which reverse the sign of J and I I is some collection of special Lagrangian cycles, which are B2. Then in the dimensional reduction, these should be wrapped by O6 planes. Let us assume for a moment that expanded in a basis of two-forms which flip sign under there are (1) O6 planes in our construction. The tad- the involution (Grimm and Louis, 2005). O pole condition for D6-brane charge takes the schematic The K¨ahler potential for the reduced moduli space is form inherited from the = 2 parent Calabi-Yau theory, and is given by N ND6 + F0 H3 =2N06 . (108) Σ ∧ 4 4 Z KK(t )= log J J J = log κ vavbvc a − 3 ∧ ∧ − 3 abc where Σ is the three-cycle pierced by H flux. We can  M    3 Z (111) therefore cancel the tadpole by introducing (1) units of O where κabc is the triple intersection form F0 and H3 flux, without adding D6 branes. The other fluxes are unconstrained by tadpole conditions; so we can, κ = ω ω ω . (112) for instance, also turn on N units of F4 flux. The overall abc a ∧ b ∧ c result is a potential that takes the schematic form ZM Now, we turn to the projected hypermultiplet mod- e4φ e3φ e2φ e4φ uli space. Here, the formalism is more intricate V = + + N 2 . (109) R6 − R9 R12 R14 (Grimm and Louis, 2005). Choose a basis for the har- 2,1 monic three-forms αA,βB where A, B =0, ,h and 1/4 { } · · · This potential has minima with R N and gs 3/4 ∼ ∼ N − . Hence, as emphasized in DeWolfe et al. (2005b), αA βB = δAB . (113) the IIa theory can be expected to admit flux vacua M ∧ with parametrically large values of the compactification Z volume and parametrically weak string coupling, in a Without loss of generality, one can expand Ω as 1/N expansion. Unlike standard Freund-Rubin vacua Ω= Z α g β . (114) (Freund and Rubin, 1980), these theories are effectively A A − B B four-dimensional; the 4d curvature scale is parametrically XA less than the compactification radius. The ZA are homogeneous coordinates on complex struc- It is still important to verify that the qualitative con- 2,1 ture moduli space; we will denote by zC (C =1, ,h ) siderations here are born out in detail in real Calabi-Yau the inhomogeneous coordinates on this same space.· · · models. We now describe the relevant formalism. The complex structure moduli are promoted to quater- nionic multiplets in the = 2 parent theory by adjoining N RR axions. If we expand the C3 gauge potential whose 2. 4d multiplets and K¨ahler potential field strength is F4

To find the chiral multiplets in a 4d = 1 super- C3 = ξAαA ξ˜B βB (115) symmetric orientifold of M, we proceed asN follows. The − 1,1 2,1 = 2 compactification on M gives rise to h = 2 then we get h +1 axions. The axions from ξ0, ξ˜0 join the vectorN multiplets and h2,1 + 1 hypermultiplets (includ-N axio-dilaton to yield the universal hypermultiplet, while 2,1 ing the universal hyper). The projection will choose an the other h axions quaternionize the zC . 3 3 3 = 1 vector or chiral multiplet from each = 2 vector, The orientifold involution splits H = H+ H . Each Nand an = 1 chiral multiplet from each hyper.N of these eigenspaces is of (real) dimension h2,⊕1 +1.− Let us N 3 Let us first analyze the projected vector multiplet mod- split the basis for H so αk,βλ span the even subspace, 1,1 { } uli space. If in a basis of (1,1) forms on M there are h while αλ,βk span the odd subspace. Here k =0, , h˜ that are odd under the involution, then the surviving− { ˜ } 2,1 · · · 1,1 while λ = h +1, ,h . Then the orientifold restricts moduli space of K¨ahler forms is h dimensional. (The one to the subspace· · · of moduli space (Grimm and Louis, − even basis elements give rise to = 1 vector multiplets, 2005) which contain no moduli and willN not enter in our dis- cussion). We can write the complexified K¨ahler form on ImZk = Regk = ReZλ = Imgλ =0 . (116) the quotient as C3 is also even under the orientifold action; hence, one 1,1 ˜ h− keeps the axions ξk and ξλ while projecting out the oth- ˜ Jc = B2 + iJ = taωa (110) ers. In addition, the dilaton φ and one of ξ0, ξ0 are kept in a=1 the spectrum of the orientifold. So as expected, from each X 40 hypermultiplet, we get a single chiral multiplet, whose Here the total K¨ahler potential is scalar components are the real or imaginary part of the K Q complex structure modulus, and an RR axion. K = K + K (125) We can summarize the surviving hypermultiplet mod- and D W = ∂ W + W ∂ K is the K¨ahler covariantized uli in terms of the object i i i derivative. The superpotential W is defined as follows. Let Ωc = C3 +2iRe (CΩ) . (117)

Here, C is a “compensator” which incorporates the dila- W Q(N ,T )= Ω H = 2p N iq T (126) k λ c ∧ 3 − k k − λ λ ton dependence via ZM

D+Kcs/2 D φ+KK /2 and C = e− , e = √8e . (118) K 1 m0 One should think of eD as the four-dimensional dilaton; W (ta)= e0+ Jc F4 Jc Jc F2 Jc Jc Jc . M ∧ −2 M ∧ ∧ − 6 M ∧ ∧ Kcs is the K¨ahler potential for complex structure moduli Z Z Z (127) The full superpotential is then Kcs = log i Ω Ω¯ − ∧ W (t ,N ,T )= W Q(N ,T )+ W K(t ) . (128)  ZM  a k λ k λ a = log 2(ImZ Reg ReZ Img ) . (119) − λ λ − k k Our first qualitative point is now clear: the potential The surviving chiral multiplet moduli are then the ex- depends, in general, on all geometric moduli at tree level. 3 Detailed examination of the system of equations govern- pansion of Ωc in a basis for H+: ing supersymmetric vacua 1 1 Nk = Ωc βk = ξk + iRe(CZk) (120) D W = D W = D W =0 (129) 2 ∧ 2 ta Nk Tλ ZM and shows that under reasonable assumptions of genericity, one can stabilize all geometric moduli in these construc- ˜ tions (DeWolfe et al., 2005b). These same considerations Tλ = i Ωc αλ = iξλ 2Re(Cgλ) . (121) 2,1 M ∧ − show that in the leading approximation, h axions will Z + remain unfixed. An orientifold of a rigid Calabi-Yau The K¨ahler potential which governs the metric on this model (i.e., one with h2,1 = 0) was studied in detail moduli space is in DeWolfe et al. (2005b), where it was shown that this flux potential gives rise to an infinite number of 4d vacua KQ = 2log 2 Re(CΩ) Re(CΩ) . (122) with all moduli stabilized. Furthermore, as suggested by − ∧∗  ZM  the scaling argument in (IV.B.1), these solutions can be brought into a regime where gs is arbitrarily weak and 3. Fluxes and superpotential the volume is arbitrarily large. We note that to get a semi-realistic vacuum, one must impose physical criteria Now, we can contemplate turning on the fluxes which (a lower bound on KK masses, or a lower bound on the are projected in by the anti-holomorphic involution. It gauge couplings) which will regulate the infinite number of models found here. At present, it seems only a finite turns out that H3 and F2 must be odd, while F4 should be even. So we can write (though perhaps very large) number of such models can satisfy even such basic physical cuts. H = q α p β , F = m ω , F = e ω˜a (123) 3 λ λ − k k 2 − a a 4 a a 1,1 whereω ˜ are the 4-form duals of the H basis ωa. To 4. Comments on 10d description see that they are even under the orientifold− involution (as they must be to enter in the expansion of F4), one can The 10d description of the IIa solutions is less well simply recall that when nonzero,ω ˜a ωb Vol and the understood than the description of their IIb counter- volume form changes sign under the∧ involution.∼ There parts. That is because in the IIb case, one special are in addition two parameters m0 and e0, parametrizing class of solutions is conformally Calabi-Yau, at lead- the F0 and F6 flux on M. ing order (Giddings et al., 2002). In the IIa case, on In the presence of these fluxes, one can write the 4d the other hand, the metrics of the supersymmetric com- potential after dimensional reduction as (DeWolfe et al., pactifications are those of half flat manifolds with − 2005b; Grimm and Louis, 2005) SU(3) structure. The definition of such spaces can be found in Chiossi and Salamon (2002), and their rela- tion to supersymmetric IIa compactification is described ¯ V = eK gij D W D W 3 W 2 . (124) in Behrndt and Cvetic (2005a,b); Behrndt et al. (2005);  i j − | |  ta,N ,T House and Palti (2005); Lust and Tsimpis (2005). Xk λ   41

It is natural to wonder what relation these half-flat so- use to us. However, it is a conceptually simple relation lutions bear to the Calabi-Yau flux vacua we have been of a space and its mirror, and it will allow us to check discussing, where the fluxes are viewed as a perturba- whether the mirrors of IIb Calabi-Yau flux vacua are IIa tion of a IIa Calabi-Yau compactification. This issue has Calabi-Yau flux vacua. This general subject has been been clarified in (Acharya et al., 2006b). The descrip- explored in Bouwknegt et al. (2004); Chiantese et al. tion in terms of a Calabi-Yau metric perturbed by back- (2006); Fidanza et al. (2004, 2005); Grana et al. (2006a); reaction from the flux (and inclusion of thin-wall brane Gurrieri et al. (2003); Kachru et al. (2003b); Tomasiello sources) is valid at asymptotically large volume. Finite (2005). (but large) volume analysis of the supergravity solution with localized O6-planes, indicates that the backreaction deforms the metric to a half-flat, non Calabi-Yau met- 1. A warm-up: The twisted torus ric with SU(3) structure, outside a small neighborhood of the O-planes. The detailed formulae for the stabi- We first provide an illustrative example that should lization of moduli derived from the considerations of the make our conclusions intuitively clear. We follow the previous subsection, can be recovered precisely from the discussion in Kachru et al. (2003b). Imagine string com- supergravity solution in the approximation that the O6 pactification on a square T 3, M, with metric charge is smeared. ds2 = dx2 + dy2 + dz2 (130) and a nonzero NS three-form flux C. Mirror symmetry and new classes of vacua H3 = N . (131) ZM The constructions we have reviewed in detail here, are Since H = dB, we are free to choose a gauge in which based at the start on type II Calabi-Yau models. Such models enjoy mirror symmetry, a duality exchanging the Byz = Nx (132) IIb string on M with a IIa string on a “mirror manifold” with other components vanishing. This configuration is W . Dual theories must give rise to the same 4d physics, not a static solution of the equations of motion; the T 3 though in different regimes of parameter space one or is flat so there is no curvature contribution to the lower- the other may be a better description. Therefore, we dimensional effective potential, while the H flux energy see immediately that simply to match dimensions of hy- 3 can be diluted by expanding the volume of the T 3. We per and vector multiplet moduli spaces, one must have ignore this for now; we will use this setup as a module in h1,1(M) = h2,1(W ) and h2,1(M) = h1,1(W ). This can a more complicated configuration that provides a static be viewed as a mirror reflection on the Hodge diamond solution of the full equations of motion momentarily. of a Calabi-Yau space, which explains the name of the With the data at hand, we can proceed to T-dualize duality. in the z direction. Applying Buscher’s T-duality rules It is natural to wonder whether, since the parent (Buscher, 1987, 1988) (their generalizations to include Calabi-Yau theories enjoy mirror symmetry, the classes RR fields (Bergshoeff et al., 1995; Hassan, 2000) will also of flux vacua we have constructed above also come in play a role momentarily), we find a new background with: mirror pairs. Are they dual to one another in some way? This seems unlikely, given the qualitative differences be- B =0, ds2 = dx2 + dy2 + (dz + Nxdy)2 (133) tween the two classes of 4d EFT’s. We will see that it The coordinate identifications to be made in interpreting isn’t the case, but that nevertheless exploring analogues the metric are of mirror symmetry for these vacua will lead us to inter- esting conclusions, suggesting that the known portion of (x,y,z) (x, y +1,z) (x,y,z + 1) (x +1,y,z Ny) the landscape is a small piece of a much larger structure. ≃ ≃ ≃ −(134) While mirror symmetry was used to great effect al- This space is an example of a Nilmanifold – it has h1 = 2, ready in Candelas et al. (1991), methods of construct- and in particular is topologically distinct from T 3, which ing W given M were known then only for very special would have been the expected T-dual target space in the classes of models (Greene and Plesser, 1990). An impor- absence of H3 flux. So, we see that T-dualizing along tant advance came during the duality revolution, when a leg of an H3 flux, one can exchange the NS flux for it was realized that mirror symmetry is a generalization other NS data – namely, topology, as encoded by the of T-duality (Strominger et al., 1996). The known exam- metric. Here, the nontrivial topology arises because as ples of Calabi-Yau spaces admit, in some limit, a fibra- one winds around the x circle, one performs an SL(2, ZZ) tion structure where T 3 fibers vary over an S3 base. By transformation mixing the y,z directions. matching of BPS states, it was shown that mirror sym- If we T-dualize again, now along the y direction, metry can thought of as the operation of T-dualizing the straightforward application of the rules leads us to the T 3 fibers of M to obtain W , and vice-versa. metric Since the study of T 3 fibrations is in its infancy, it 1 ds2 = (dz2 + dy2)+ dx2 (135) may seem surprising that this construction will be of 1+ N 2x2 42 and the B-field It is easy to see that along the locus Nx B = . (136) φτ3 = 1, τ1τ2 = 1 (141) yz 1+ N 2x2 − − the equations ∂W = ∂W = 0 are satisfied, as is W = 0. ∂τi ∂φ Making sense of this data is not as simple as interpret- Therefore, there is a moduli space of supersymmetric ing the Nilmanifold metric above. In particular, as you vacua. In fact, these vacua preserveM = 2 supersym- wind around the circle coordinatized by x, the metric g metry – this is a special feature whichN arises because and B are not periodic in any obvious sense. There is the torus is a non-generic Calabi-Yau space. The non- are a “stringy” sense in which they periodic; there is an genericity of the torus also implies that one should im- ZZ O(2, 2; ) transformation that relates the values at x =1 pose primitivity conditions J G =0on G ; for a given ZZ 3 3 to the values at x = 0. However, this O(2, 2; ) transfor- choice of the integral fluxes, this∧ becomes a constraint on ZZ mation is not an element of SL(2, ), and so this data K¨ahler moduli. can at best make sense as the target space of a “stringy” We have chosen our fluxes so that in appropriate re- sigma model. Discussions of such non-geometric back- gions of , the “best” description (i.e. the description grounds (including and generalizing asymmetric orb- which seemsM to be most weakly coupled, among known ifolds) are a subject of current interest; see for instance duality frames) is either the model above, or its T-dual et al. Dabholkar and Hull (2003, 2006); Flournoy (2005); on one, two or three circles. In the gauge Flournoy and Williams (2006); Hellerman et al. (2004); Hull (2005, 2006a,b); Hull and Reid-Edwards (2005); 2 2 Bx1x3 =2x , By1x3 =2y (142) Lawrence et al. (2006); Shelton et al. (2005); Silverstein (2001). the relevant T-dual descriptions are the following. In the following, we will focus our discussion on open One T-duality along 1: questions about the geometric vacua. However, these x considerations suggest that once one considers general This gives rise to a IIa model with metric vacua, novel “stringy” geometric structures will play an important role in obtaining a thorough understanding. 2 1 1 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 ds = 2 (dx +2x dx ) +Rx2 (dx ) +Rx3 (dx ) + Rx1 · · · (143) 2. A full example Here, x1,2,3 sweep out a Nilmanifold over the T 3 spanned by the yi. There are also nonzero fluxes remaining: We will now provide full string solutions which incor- 2 porate the previous phenomena. We follow Kachru et al. By1x3 =2y (144) (2003b); see also (Grana et al., 2006b; Schulz, 2004, 2006) for further discussion of these models. in the NS sector and 6 Consider IIb string theory on the T /ZZ2 orientifold, 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 F2 =2dx dy , F4 = 2(dx +2x dx ) dy dy dy where the ZZ2 inverts all six circles (and is composed with ∧ ∧ ∧ ∧ the operation of worldsheet parity reversal). For sim- (145) 2 3 in the RR sector. plicity, focus attention on a (T ) , with complex moduli 1 τ : This manifold has h = 5 and is non-K¨ahler. In par- 1,2,3 ticular, it isn’t just that one does not use a Calabi-Yau i i i i metric in describing the physical theory (that is true even dz = dx + τidy , Ω = Πidz (137) for Calabi-Yau compactification, where α′ corrections de- Flux vacua in this model were studied in e.g. form the metric even in the absence of flux). There is a Dasgupta et al. (1999); Frey and Polchinski (2002); topological obstruction to putting such a metric on this Kachru et al. (2003c). One example from Kachru et al. space. (2003b) will suffice for us. Let Second T-duality along y1: F =2 dx1 dx2 dy3 + dy1 dy2 dy3 (138) Now we find the IIb theory with metric 3 ∧ ∧ ∧ ∧ 2 ˜2 1 2 3 2 2 2 2 and  ds = Rx1 (dx +2x dx ) + Rx2 (dx ) 2 3 2 1 1 2 3 2 1 2 3 1 2 3 +R 3 (dx ) + (dy +2y dx ) H3 =2 dx dx dx + dy dy dx . (139) x 2 ∧ ∧ ∧ ∧ Ry1  2 2 2 2 3 2 The factor of 2 is inserted in order to avoid sub- +Ry2 (dy ) + Ry3 (dy ) (146) tleties with flux quantization of the sort described in Frey and Polchinski (2002). We can easily read off the and with fluxes flux superpotential B =0, F = 2(dx1 +2x2dx3) dy2 dy3 3 ∧ ∧ W = 2(τ τ τ +1)+2φ(τ τ τ + τ ) . (140) +2(dy1 +2y2dx3) dx2 dy3 .(147) 1 2 3 1 2 3 3 ∧ ∧ 43

This space is also non-K¨ahler. of crystals with impurities, spin glasses and other dis-

3 ordered systems, by taking a “random potential.” In Third T-duality along y : other words, one chooses the potential randomly from an This just flips the radius of the y3 circle in (146) and ensemble of potentials chosen to reflect general features changes the flux to of the microscopic physics, and does statistical studies. Given a simple choice of ensemble, one can even get an- 1 2 3 2 1 2 3 2 alytic results, which besides adding understanding, are F2 = 2(dx +2x dx ) dy +2(dy +2y dx ) dx . (148) ∧ ∧ particularly important in studying rare phenomena. As At this point, we have T-dualized on some T 3 in we will explain, by treating the ensemble of flux super- the original starting model, and so we can consider potentials as a random potential, one can get good an- this an analog of mirror symmetry in the spirit of alytical results for the distribution of flux vacua, which Strominger et al. (1996). This example suggests that the bear on questions of phenomenological interest. IIb Calabi-Yau flux vacua of the general class studied in We begin our treatment with a careful explanation of (IV.A) are not mirror to the IIa Calabi-Yau flux vacua the definitions, as while they are simple, they are differ- described in (IV.B). In less simple examples, we expect ent from those commonly used in statistical mechanics that dualizing flux vacua with one leg of the H3 flux along and quantum cosmology. This is so that we can avoid the T 3 fiber could lead to a geometric but non Calabi- ever having to postulate that a given vacuum “exists” or Yau dual, while duals of theories with more legs of H3 on “is created” with a definite probability, an aspect of the the T 3 fiber will in general be “non-geometric” vacua. theory which, as we discussed in Sec. III.E, is not well One might wonder whether every geometric flux vac- understood at present. Rather than a probability dis- uum admits some dual description that brings it into one tribution, we will discuss vacuum counting distributions, of the two large classes we’ve explored in the IIb and IIa which can be unambiguously defined. theories in the previous subsections. A study of exam- One reason to be careful about these definitions, is that ples strongly suggests that this is false. For instance, the the need for making theoretical approximations will lead class of vacua described in Chuang et al. (2005) does not us to introduce approximate vacuum counting distribu- admit a dual description involving IIa, IIb or heterotic tions, which are also interpreted in probabilistic terms. Calabi-Yau compactification. Furthermore, Grana et al. However, the underlying definition of probability in this (2006b) exhibit an explicit vacuum based on Nilmanifold case is clear; it expresses our confidence in the particu- compactification that is not dual to a Calabi-Yau with lar theoretical arguments being used, and in this sense is flux. subjective. The payoff for this methodological interlude will be a clear understanding of how statistics of string theory vacua can lead to a precise definition of stringy V. STATISTICS OF VACUA naturalness, as introduced in Sec. II.F.3. We proceed to describe counting of flux vacua, and Given a systematic construction of a set of string some of the exact results. This will enable us to con- vacua, besides working out individual examples, one can tinue the discussion of Sec. II.F.3 on the scale of super- try to get some understanding of the possibilities from symmetry breaking. We continue with a brief survey statistical studies. As we mentioned earlier, such studies of what is known about other distributions, such as of date back to the late 1980’s, and while at that time mod- Calabi-Yau manifolds, and distributions governing the uli stabilization was not understood, still interesting re- matter content. We then survey various simpler distri- sults were obtained. Perhaps the most influential of these butions which have been suggested as models for the ac- came out of the related study of the set of Calabi-Yau tual distributions coming from string theory. Finally, we threefolds, which provided the first evidence that mirror discuss the general interpretation of statistical results, symmetry was a general phenomenon (Candelas et al., and the prospects for making arguments such as those in 1995; Kreuzer et al., 1992). We will briefly review some Sec. II.F.3 precise. of these results in V.D.3. The systematic constructions we have discussed of flux superpotentials and other effective potentials enable us A. Methodology and basic definitions for the first time to find statistics of large, natural classes of stabilized vacua. In this section, we describe a general Suppose we have a large class of vacua, constructed framework for doing this (Douglas, 2003), and some of along the lines of Sec. IV or otherwise. As we discussed, these results. See Douglas (2004a); Kumar (2006) for we have no a priori reason to prefer one over the other. other recent reviews. While we have many a posteriori ways to rule out vacua, The large number of flux vacua suggests looking for by fitting data, computing measure factors, or otherwise, commonalities with other areas of physics involving large this requires detailed analysis to do. In this situation, we numbers, such as statistical mechanics. As it turns out, may need to know the distributions of vacua, or of their there are very close analogies with the theory of disor- observable properties, to make theoretical progress. dered systems, in which one constructs idealized models As in Sec. II.F.3, it is useful to motivate the subject 44 as an idealization of the problem of testing string the- universes, not some sort of superposition or dynamical ory. If we had a list of all possible vacua, call these Vi, system which explores multiple vacua. The point of the then all we would need to do this, is to compute a list of list, or the equivalent distribution Eq. (149), is simply the observables for each, and check whether the actual to have a precise way to think about the totality of pos- observables appear on this list. sibilities. To be a bit more concrete, let us grant that physics is Another possible confusion is between Eq. (149), and well described by the Standard Model, a 4d EFT TSM . the definition of a measure factor used in quantum cos- The problem would then reduce to finding the list of all mology. As we discussed in Sec. III.E, to define a measure the EFT’s Ti which are low energy limits of the vacua Vi, factor, we need to assign a “probability factor” to each and checking whether TSM appears on this list. vacuum, call this P (i). The measure factor correspond- To be even more concrete, let us consider the data ing to a given list Ti and probability factor P (i) is then which goes into explicitly specifying a particle physics { } EFT. This will include both discrete and continuous dµ (T )= P (i) δ(T T ). (152) P − i choices. Discrete choices include the gauge group G i and matter representation R of fermions and bosons. X Choices involving parameters include the effective poten- Its integral over a region , gives the probability with R tial, Yukawa couplings, kinetic terms and so on; let us de- which a vacuum in will be produced in the associated R note the vector containing these parameters as ~g. While cosmological model. we will not do it here, in a complete discussion, we would We already discussed some aspects of the interpreta- need to specify the cutoff prescription used in defining the tion of such distributions in Sec. III.E, and we will con- EFT as well. In any case, we can regard the sum total tinue this in Sec. V.F. The main point we want to make of these choices as defining a point Ti = (G, R,~g) in a here is simply that, unlike a measure factor, a vacuum “theory space” . counting distribution is not a probability distribution, T Now, given a set of vacua Ti , the corresponding vac- and does not require any concept of a “probability that uum counting distribution is{ a density} on , a universe of type T exists” for its definition. Rather, it T summarizes information about the set of consistent vacua dN (G, R,~g)= δ(G, G )δ(R, R )δ(n)(~g ~g ), of the theory. vac i i − i i X (149) or, for conciseness, 1. Approximate distributions and tuning factors

dNvac(T )= δ(T Ti). (150) A reason to be careful about the difference between a − i X vacuum counting distribution and a measure factor, is so that we can properly introduce the idea of an approx- Its integral over a subset of theory space is the R ⊂ T imate vacuum counting distribution. To motivate this, number of vacua contained in this subset, suppose that we know how to construct a set of vacua Vi, but that our theoretical technique is not adequate N( )= dNvac . (151) to compute the exact value of a coupling g in each vac- R ZR uum, only some approximation to it. In practice this will It should be clear that Eq. (149) contains the same always be true, but it gains particular significance for pa- rameters which we must fit to an accuracy far better than information as the set of vacua Ti . What may be less obvious, but will emerge from{ the} discussion below, is our computational abilities, with the prime example be- that one can find useful approximations to such distri- ing the cosmological constant as we discussed earlier. butions, which are far easier to compute than the actual Suppose for sake of discussion that we are interested in vacuum counting distribution. This is because these dis- the cosmological constant Λ, but can compute it only to tributions show a great deal of structure, which is not an accuracy roughly ∆Λ. We might model our relative apparent if one restricts attention to quasi-realistic mod- ignorance by modifying our definition Eq. (149) to els from the start. This observation is the primary formal 1 (Λ Λ )2 motivation for introducing the definition. dN (Λ) = exp − i , (153) vac √π∆Λ − (∆Λ)2 At this point, if the definition Eq. (149) is clear, one i can proceed to the next subsection. However, since many X similar but different definitions can be made, and the a sum of Gaussian distributions of unit weight. The issue of interpretation may confuse some readers, let us choice of the Gaussian, while not inevitable, would fol- briefly expand on these points. low if the total error was the sum of many independent To eliminate one possible source of confusion at the terms, which is reasonable as the cosmological constant start, the list we are constructing is of “possible uni- receives corrections from many sectors in the theory. verses” within string theory. Our own universe at the If we use the resulting approximate vacuum counting present epoch is supposed to correspond to one of these distribution to compute integrals like Eq. (151), we will 45 get results like “we expect region to contain half a vac- their distribution dNrep, and the total number of vacua 10 R uum,” or perhaps 10− vacua. What could this mean? Nvac, we could infer an approximation to the total vac- Of course, given that string theory and the effective uum counting distribution, potential have a precise definition, any particular vac- uum has some definite cosmological constant Λ . The Nvac i,true dNvac(T ) dNrep(T ). problem is just that we don’t know it. In modelling our ∼ Nrep ignorance with a Gaussian (or any other distribution), we have again introduced probabilities into the discussion – While elementary, this idea is probably our main hope of but note that this is a different and less problematic sense ever characterizing the true dNvac of string/M theory in of probability than the P (i) we introduced in discussing practice, so making careful use of it is likely to become the measure factor. It is not intrinsic to string theory or an increasingly important element of the discussion. cosmology, but rather it expresses our judgement of how accurate we believe our theoretical computations to be, and nothing else. As such, it is a technical device, but a B. Counting flux vacua useful one as we shall see. Having understood this, the meaning of results like “we The simplest example of the general framework we are 10 about to describe is the counting of supersymmetric IIb expect region to contain 10− vacua” in this context becomes clear.R In actual fact, the region must contain flux vacua for a Calabi-Yau with no complex structure zero, one or some other definite number of vacua. While moduli. This leads to flux vacua with stabilized dilaton- given the theoretical information to hand, we do not axion, and a one-parameter distribution which can be know the actual number, we now have good reasons to worked out using elementary arguments. One can explic- think probably does not contain any vacua. However, itly see the nature of the continuous flux approximation. this conclusionR is not ironclad; numerical coincidences in We then discuss general results for supersymmetric the computations might put one or more vacua into . vacua, an explicit two parameter distribution, and some If our model for the errors is correct, the probabilityR of of the general conclusions from this analysis. Finally, we 10 this happening is 10− , in the usual “frequentist” sense: discuss the formalism, which combines elements of ran- if we have 1010 similar regions to consider, we expect one dom potential theory with the mathematical theory of of them to actually contain a vacuum. random sections of holomorphic line bundles. The reader will probably have already realized that what we have just discussed, gives a precise sense within string theory to the usual discussion of fine tuning made 1. IIb vacua on a rigid CY in EFT. Although in principle every coupling constant in every string vacuum has some definite value, and in This problem was studied in Ashok and Douglas this sense is “tuned” to arbitrary precision, in practice (2004); Denef and Douglas (2004). We write τ for the we cannot compute to this precision, and need to work dilaton-axion; by definition it must satisfy Im τ > 0, in with approximations. The preceding discussion gives us other words it takes values in the upper half plane. A 6 a way to do this and to combine the results of various rigid CY, for example the resolved T /ZZ3 orbifold, has 2,1 3 approximations. This could be used to justify the style b = 0 and thus b = 2; thus there are two NS fluxes of discussion we made in II.F.3, where we compared hy- ai and two RR fluxes bi, which we take to be integrally pothetical numbers of vacua with and without low en- quantized. ergy supersymmetry. In combining the ingredients of an The flux superpotential Eq. (59) is approximate vacuum counting distribution, small tuning W = (f + Πf )τ + g + Πg F τ + G, factors can be compensated by multiplicity factors, to 1 2 1 2 ≡ produce seemingly counterintuitive results. We will come back to this idea after discussing some concrete results. where we group the NS and RR fluxes into two complex combinations F and G. Here Of course, the specific ansatz Eq. (153) was a way to feed in explicit knowledge about computational accu- Ω racy and tuning. As we will see, there are many other Π B ≡ Ω approximations one might make in computing a vacuum RA counting distribution, sometimes with explicit control pa- is a which isR determined by the geome- rameters and sometimes not, but with the same general try of the CY; let us take Π = i for simplicity. interpretation. We will discuss the “continuous flux ap- The K¨ahler potential on this moduli space is K = proximation” in some detail below. log Im τ, and it is very easy to solve DW = 0 for the Finally, let us cite the standard statistical concept of location− of the supersymmetric vacuum as a function of a representative sample. This is a sample from a larger the fluxes; it is population, in which the distribution of properties of in- terest well approximates the distribution in the larger G DW =0 τ¯ = , (154) population. Given a representative sample of Nrep vacua, ↔ −F 46 so there will be a unique vacuum if Im G/F > 0, and otherwise none. The tadpole condition Eq. (68) becomes 3 Im F ∗G L. (155) ≤ Finally, the SL(2, ZZ) duality symmetry of IIb superstring theory acts on the dilaton and fluxes as a b aτ + b F aF + bG : τ τ ′ = ; . c d → cτ + d G → cF + dG       (156) 2 Two flux vacua which are related by an SL(2, ZZ) trans- formation are physically equivalent, and should only be counted once. Since the duality group is infinite, gauge fixing this symmetry is essential to getting a finite result. A direct way to classify these flux vacua, is to first enumerate all choices of F and G satisfying the bound 1 Eq. (155), taking one representative of each orbit of Eq. (156), and then to list the flux vacua for each. Now it is not hard to see that this can be done by taking f2 = 0, 0 g1 < f1 and f1g2 L. By Eq. (154), each choice of≤ flux stabilizes a unique≤ vacuum, and thus the total number of vacua is finite,

Nvac(L)=2σ(L)=2 k, (157) -0.5 0.5 k L | X FIG. 1 Values of τ for rigid CY flux vacua with Lmax = 150. where σ(L) is a standard function discussed in textbooks From Denef and Douglas (2004). on number theory, with the asymptotics π2 σ(L)= N 2 + (NlogN) . the geometry of the configuration space to decide what 12 O L N is a natural “uniform” distribution. Now the configura- X≤ tion space of an EFT always carries a metric, the “sigma Finally, we can use Eq. (154) to get the distribution model metric,” defined by the kinetic terms in the La- of vacua in configuration space. Let us suppose that in grangian, the resulting low energy theory, τ controls a gauge cou- i j pling, but there is no direct dependence of the low energy = Gij ∂φ ∂φ + .... (158) theory on the values F, G of the fluxes apart from the de- L pendence encoded in τ. In this case, it is useful to use Thus, the natural definition of a “uniform measure” on SL(2, ZZ) transformations to bring all of the vacua into configuration space, is just the volume form associated the fundamental region τ 1 and Re τ 1/2, as to the sigma model metric, this is the moduli space| of| physically ≥ | distinct| ≤ theories, ignoring the flux. dµ = dnφ det G(φ). (159) We plot the results for L = 150 in Figure V.B.1. Each point on this graph is a possible value of τ in some In the problem at hand, thisp is flux vacuum; many of the points correspond to multiple vacua. d2τ dµ = . (160) While the figure clearly displays a great deal of struc- 4(Im τ)2 ture, one might worry about its intricacy and ask: if this is what comes out of the simplest class of models, what Of course, this is a continuous distribution, unlike the hope is there for understanding the general distribution actual vacuum counting distributions which are sums of of vacua in string theory? Fortunately, there is a very delta functions. However, if we take a limit in which the simple approximate description, which captures much of number of vacua becomes arbitrarily large, the limiting the structure of this distribution. It is a uniform distri- distribution of vacua might become continuous. Since bution, modified by a sort of “symmetry enhancement” the discreteness of the allowed moduli values was due to phenomenon. flux quantization, and intuitively the effects of this should We first discuss the uniform distribution. A very naive become less important as L increases, it is reasonable to first guess might be d2τ, but of course this is not in- conjecture that in the limit L , the distribution of variant under field redefinitions; rather we must look at flux vacua in moduli space approaches→ ∞ Eq. (160). 47

If we are a bit more precise and keep track of the total which is the product of axion-dilaton and complex struc- number of vacua, we can make a similar conjecture for ture moduli spaces. The prefactor depends on the tad- the vacuum counting distribution itself. Normalizing Eq. pole number L defined in Eq. (68), and on b3, the third (160) so that its integral over a fundamental region is Eq. Betti number of M. Instead of the density for a single (157), we find L, we have added in all L Lmax; in the large L limit the relation between these≤ is the obvious one, but such d2τ a sum converges to the limiting density far more quickly lim dNvac = π L . (161) L (Im τ)2 than results at fixed L. →∞ The density det( R ω 1) is entirely determined by For example, a disc of area A should contain 4πAL vacua the metric on moduli− − space· Eq. (158); all the depen- in the large L limit. dence on the other data entering the flux superpotential While this is true, as can be deduced from the for- Eq. (59) cancels out of the result. It is a determinant of malism we will describe shortly, at first glance the finite a (b3/2) (b3/2) dimensional matrix of two-forms, con- L distribution may not look very uniform. Comparing structed× from the K¨ahler form ω on , with the matrix with the L = 150 figure, we see that around points such valued curvature two-form R constructedM from the metric as τ = ni with n ZZ, there are holes of various sizes on . ∈ M containing no vacua. Where do these holes come from, Thus, while the volume form Eq. (159) was a natural and how can they be consistent with the claim? first guess for the distribution of flux vacua, as we will In fact, at the center of each of these holes, there is see the actual distribution can be rather different. The a large degeneracy of vacua, which after averaging over agreement between Eq. (161) and Eq. (160) in the exam- a sufficiently large region recovers the uniform distribu- ple of Sec. V.B.1 was particular to this case, and follows tion. For example, there are 240 vacua at τ =2i, which from R ω for that moduli space. Similar, though more compensate for the lack of vacua in the hole. As dis- complicated,∝ explicit results can be obtained for the ac- cussed in Denef and Douglas (2004), while this leads to tual vacuum counting distribution (Denef and Douglas, a local enhancement, just beyond the radius of the hole 2004; Douglas et al., 2006b), and distributions of non- the uniform approximation becomes good. supersymmetric flux vacua (Denef and Douglas, 2005). This behavior can be understood as coming from align- Let us plot the number density in another exam- ments between the lattice of quantized fluxes and the ple, compactification on the mirror of the quintic CY constraints following from the equations DW = 0. Using (Candelas et al., 1991; Greene and Plesser, 1990). Here this, one can argue that the continuous flux approxima- C(M) is one complex dimensional and thus the distri- tion will well approximate the total number of vacua in Mbution depends on two parameters; however it is a prod- a region of radius r satisfying uct distribution whose dependence on the dilaton-axion is again Eq. (160) for symmetry reasons. The depen- K L> . (162) dence on the complex structure modulus is non-trivial; if r2 we plot it along a real slice, we get Figure V.B.2. The striking enhancement as ψ 1 is because this Another rough model for the approximation might be limit produces a conifold singularity→ as discussed in Sec. a Gaussian error model as in Eq. (153), with variance IV.A.2.a. As discussed in Denef and Douglas (2004), σ K/L. Finally, one can also understand the correc- near the conifold point Eq. (163) becomes11 tions∼ to the large L approximation as a series in inverse fractional powers of L, using mathematics discussed in d2ψ Douglas et al. (2006b). dN . (164) vac ∼ ψ 1 2(log ψ 1 )3 | − | | − |

2. General theory As discussed in Sec. IV.A.2.a, under flux-gauge duality, the parameter ψ 1 is dual to the dynamically induced − scale (analogous to ΛQCD) in the gauge theory, and thus The result we just discussed is a particular case of a 2 general formula for the large L limit of the index den- dimensional transmutation explains the leading d ψ/ ψ 1 2 dependence here. However the log factors have to| do− sity of supersymmetric flux vacua in IIb theory on an | arbitrary Calabi-Yau manifold M (Ashok and Douglas, with details of the sum over fluxes. 2004),

b3 (2πLmax) dI (L)= det( R ω). (163) 11 While in general this formula is the index density Eq. (166), vac b3/2 π b3! − − it is not hard to show that all vacua near the conifold point L Lmax ≤X have (−1)F = +1, so that in this case it is also the number density. More generally, globally supersymmetric vacua (which We will explain what we mean by “index density” shortly; do not depend on the (∂K)W term in DW ) always have (−1)F = like the vacuum counting distribution, it is a density on +1. Conversely, the (−1)F = −1 vacua are in a sense “K¨ahler moduli space, here a b3/2 complex dimensional space stabilized.” 48

flux vacua, for reasons we discuss at the end of this πρ g /12 subsection.

0.03 a. Definition of the index density This is a sum over vacua, weighed by 1 factors, 0.025 ± dN (T )= δ(T T )( 1)F . (166) vac − i − i 0.02 i X F The factor ( 1)i will be defined shortly; it is essentially 0.015 the sign of the− determinant of the fermionic mass matrix. The primary reason to consider this quantity is that 0.01 it leads to much simpler explicit results than Eq. (149). To explain why, we recall the general formula for the distribution of critical points of a random potential V . 0.005 As is well known in the theory of disordered systems, this is

ψdN (z)= δ(V ′(z)) det V ′′(z) , (167) -3 -2 -1 1 2 3 vac h | |i where the expectation value is taken in the ensemble of FIG. 2 The susy vacuum number density per unit ψ coordi- random potentials; here the ensemble of flux potentials. nate volume, on the real ψ-axis, for the mirror quintic. From Formally, such a density is proportional to the delta func- Denef and Douglas (2004). tion δ(V ′(z)), however the integral of such a delta func- tion over field space is not 1. To get a normalized density in which each vacuum has unit weight, we multiply by This distribution is (just barely) integrable; doing so the Jacobian factor. over a disc, the number of susy vacua with L L and Now, upon incorporating the sign factor in Eq. (166), ψ 1 R is ≤ ∗ | − |≤ this becomes 4 4 π L dIvac(z)= δ(V ′(z)) det V ′′(z) , (168) Nvac = ∗1 . (165) h i 18 ln 2 R and the somewhat troublesome absolute value sign from The logarithmic dependence on R implies that a substan- the Jacobian is removed. The virtue of this is that the tial fraction of vacua are extremely close to the conifold index turns out to be much simpler to compute than point. For example when L = 100, there are still about dNvac, yet provides a lower bound for the actual number ∗ 100 one million susy vacua with ψ 1 < 10− . of vacua. There is some evidence that the ratio of the Despite this enhancement,| from− the| figure one sees that index to the actual number of vacua is of order 1/cb3 for the majority of vacua are not near the conifold point. On some order one c (Douglas et al., 2004). the other hand, in many parameter models, a sizable frac- We can use essentially the same formulae Eq. (167) tion of vacua can be expected to contain conifold limits, and Eq. (168) to count supersymmetric vacua, by re- by a simple probabilistic argument we give in Sec. V.E.3. placing V with a flux superpotential W (z), taking into Many of the other general results for flux vacuum dis- account that it and the chiral fields are complex. Com- tributions which we called upon in Sec. IV also follow bining these ideas, and taking the continuous flux limit as from Eq. (163), by inserting known behaviors of moduli in the previous subsection, leads to the integral formula space metrics, introducing further constraints and so on. lim dIvac(z; L)= (169) For example, L →∞ ¯ The fraction of flux vacua with string coupling g 2b3 (2n) DiDj W DiDj W • s ≤ d N δ (DW (z)) det ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ǫ << 1 goes as ǫ. This follows from the expression L=NηN DiDj W DiDj W Z   Eq. (160) for the tree level metric on dilaton-axion moduli space. where the tadpole constraint was schematically written L = NηN in terms of a known quadratic form η. The fraction of weakly coupled vacua with • eK W 2 ǫ goes as ǫ.12 This is particular to IIb | | ≤ b. Computational techniques Without going into the de- tails of the subsequent computations leading to Eq. (163), two general approaches have been used. In the 12 While we omit the derivation, the key step is Eq. (172). original computation, the integral over fluxes satisfying 49

the tadpole constraint was rewritten as a Laplace trans- What makes this rewriting very useful, is that the form of a Gaussian integral with weight exp NηN. In change of variables N (W,F,Z) turns out to be this way, one can think of the random superpotential− as very simple, with a constant→ Jacobian det ∂N/∂(W,F,Z) defined by its two-point function, (in appropriate conventions, unity) (Denef and Douglas, i 2004). Let n = b3/2, and denote the moduli as t with W (z ) W¯ (¯z ) = exp K(z , z¯ ), h 1 2 i − 1 2 i = 0,...,n 1, where i 1 label complex structure moduli and t0−is the dilaton-axion.≥ Then where K(z1, z¯2) is the formal continuation of the K¨ahler potential K(z, z¯) to independent holomorphic and anti- n 1 2K 2 2 − 2 2 holomorphic variables. In this sense, the flux superpoten- d N d W d F0 d Fi d Z0i → 2 2 2 L=NηN L= W F + Z i=1 tial is a Gaussian random field, however a rather peculiar Z Z | | −| | | | Y one as its correlations can grow with distance. Still, one (172) can proceed formally, and then justify the final results. The tadpole constraint is also simple. The other com- The other approach (Denef and Douglas, 2004) is to ponents Zij are then determined in terms of the Z0i: make a direct change of variables from the original fluxes Z00 = 0 and F, H to the relevant derivatives of the superpotential. kl¯ Z = g Z¯¯; 1 i, j n 1, Since this provides more physical intuition for the results, ij Fijk l ≤ ≤ − let us discuss it a bit. where ijk are the standard “Yukawa couplings” of spe- One of the main simplifications which allows obtaining cial geometryF (Candelas et al., 1991). It is a short step explicit results for a density such as Eq. (163), is that its from these formulae to Eq. (163) and its generalizations. definition restricts attention to a point z in configuration The rewriting Eq. (172) is the simplest way to describe space. Because of this, we only need a finite amount of the ensemble of IIb flux vacua, if one only needs to find information, namely the superpotential W (z) and some distributions of single vacua and their properties. On finite number of its derivatives at z, to compute it. the other hand, the approach in which W is a generalized For example, to evaluate Eq. (169), we only need ¯ Gaussian random field, could also be used to compute dis- DiW (z), DiDj W (z), DiDjW (z), and their complex con- tributions depending on the properties of more than one jugates. Standard results in supergravity (or, the fact ¯ vacuum, or on the effective potential away from its crit- that W is a holomorphic section), imply that DiDj W = ical points, for example average barrier heights between gi¯j W , so this is known in terms of W . Thus, for a model vacua, or the average number of e-foldings of slow-roll with n moduli, we only need the joint distribution of inflationary trajectories. In fact, modelling the inflation- 1+n+n(n+1)/2 = (n+1)(n+2)/2 independent param- ary potential as a Gaussian random field has been tried eters derived from the potential to compute the vacuum in cosmology (Tegmark, 2005); it would be interesting to counting index. Let us give these names; in addition to do the same with this more accurate description of the W W (z) we have13 ≡ effective potentials for flux vacua. F = D W (z); Z = D D W (z). (170) All of these precise results are in the continuous A A AB A B flux approximation. As before, the general theory sug- By substituting Eq. (59) into these expressions and fixing gests that this should be good for L >> K. The z, we get F and Z as functions of the fluxes N; in fact results have been checked to some extent by numeri- they are linear in the N. cal study (Conlon and Quevedo, 2004; Giryavets et al., Now, we can rewrite Eq. (169) as 2004a), finding agreement with the distribution in z, and usually (though not always) the predicted scaling with lim dIvac(z; L)= (171) L. It should be said that numerous subtleties had to L →∞ first be addressed in the works which eventually found 2 2 2 (2n) gi¯j W Zij agreement; such as the need to avoid double-counting [d W d F d Z]L δ (Fi) det ¯ ¯ , Z¯i¯j g¯ij W flux configurations related by duality, and the need to Z   2 2 2 consider fairly large values of the flux. where the notation [d W d F d Z]L symbolizes the inte- gral over whatever subset of these variables corresponds to the original integral over fluxes satisfying the tadpole c. Other ensembles of flux vacua These can be treated condition. by similar methods, say by working out the analog to Eq. (172). This was done for G2 compactifications in Acharya et al. (2005). A useful first picture can be formed by considering the ratio (DeWolfe et al., 2005b) 13 Strictly speaking, one needs to include the K¨ahler potential in these definitions, to get quantities which are invariant under number of independent fluxes K¨ahler-Weyl transformations. An alternate convention, which η , saves a good deal of notation and which we follow here, is to do ≡ number of (real) moduli a K¨ahler-Weyl transformation to set K(z, z¯) = 0 at the point z under consideration, and use an orthonormal frame for the tan- as this determines the number of parameters gent space to z; see Denef and Douglas (2004) for more details. (W, Fi,Zij ,...) which can be considered as roughly 50

independent. While for IIb flux vacua η = 2, for all In other words, tuning the cosmological constant is not of the other well understood flux ensembles (M theory, helped by supersymmetry. IIa,heterotic) η = 1 as there is only one type of flux. To see this, we start from Eq. (21), and the claim For η = 1, one generally finds the uniform distribution that Λ is the value of the potential at the minimum, so Eq. (159), and W is of order the cutoff scale. This is that Λ = M 4 3 W 2/M 2 . Intuitively, this formula | | susy − | | Pl,4 because the conditions DiW = Fi = 0 already set almost expresses the cancellation between positive energies due all of the fluxes, so there are too few fluxes to tune W to supersymmetry breaking (the F and D terms), and a to a small value. This is perhaps the main reason why negative “compensating” energy from the 3 W 2 term. controlled small volume compactifications are easier to However, one should not fall into the trap− of| thinking| discuss in the IIb theory. Of course, it may yet turn that any of these terms are going to “adjust themselves” out that additional choices in the other theories, less well to cancel the others. Rather, there is simply some com- understood at present, allow similar constructions there. plete set of vacua with some distribution of Λ values, out of which a Λ 0 vacuum will be selected by some other consideration∼ (anthropic, cosmological, or just fit- C. Scale of supersymmetry breaking ting the data). For the purpose of understanding this distribution, it is best to forget about this later selection Let us now resume the discussion of Sec. II.F.3, com- effect, only bringing it in at the end. bining results from counting flux vacua with various gen- On general grounds, since the cosmological constant is eral observations, to try to at least identify the impor- a sum of many quasi-independent contributions, it is very tant questions here. We would like some estimate of the plausible that it is roughly uniformly distributed out to number distribution of vacua described by spontaneously some cutoff scale M, so that the basic structure we are broken supergravity,14 looking for in Eq. (173) is this scale. Clearly by Eq. (21) this is set by the cutoffs in the F , D and W distributions; dNvac[Msusy,MEW , Λ] (173) more specifically by the largest of these. Let us now focus on the W distribution, coming back at the observed values of Λ and MEW , with Msusy as to the F and D distributions shortly. According to the defined by Eq. (22). If this were approximately a power definition Eq. (59), the effective superpotential W re- law, ceives contributions from all the fluxes, including those which preserve supersymmetry. Because of this, the dis- α dNvac[Msusy, 100GeV, 0] dMsusyMsusy, tribution of W values has little to do with supersymmetry ∼ breaking; rather it is roughly uniform (as a complex vari- then for α< 1 vacuum statistics would favor low scale able) out to a cutoff scale set by flux physics, namely M − F susy, while for α> 1 it would not. as defined in Eq. (27). Since For purposes of comparison,− let us begin with the pre- 1 diction of field theoretic naturalness. This is d( W 2)=2 W d W = d2W, | | | | | | π 2 2 F T M M Λ dN EW Pl f(M ), (174) 2 vac ∼ M 4 M 4 susy this implies that W is uniformly distributed out to this  susy   susy  scale, and thus that| | Λ will be uniformly distributed at 4 where the first factor follows from Eq. (24). As for least out to this scale, leading to a tuning factor Λ/MF . To summarize, the distribution of the cosmological f(Msusy), if we grant that this is set by strong gauge constant is not directly tied to supersymmetry break- dyanmics, a reasonable ansatz might be dMsusy/Msusy, analogous to Eq. (164). This would lead to α = 9 and ing, because it receives contributions from supersymmet- a clear (statistical) prediction. − ric sectors as well. This correction to Eq. (174) would result in α = 5, still favoring low scale supersymmetry, Now, while we cannot say we have a rigorous disproof − of Eq. (174), the approach we are discussing gives us but rather less so. many reasons to disbelieve it, based both on computation Now, there is a clear loophole in this argument, namely in toy models, and on simple intuitive arguments. Let us that there might be some reason for the supersymmet- explain these in turn. ric contributions to W to be small. In fact, one can The simplest problem with Eq. (174) is the factor get this by postulating an R symmetry, which is only Λ/M 4 . Instead, distributions of flux vacua generally broken along with supersymmetry breaking. However, susy within the framework we are discussing, it is not enough go as Λ/M 4 ,Λ/M 4 or some other fundamental scale. KK Pl just to say this to resolve the problem. Rather, one now has to count the vacua with the proposed mechanism (here, R symmetry), and compare this to the total num- ber of vacua, to find the cost of assuming the mechanism. 14 There are also vacua with no such description, because super- symmetry is broken at the fundamental scale. While these might Only if this cost is outweighed by the gain (here a factor 4 4 further disfavor TeV scale supersymmetry, at present it is hard MF /Msusy) will the mechanism be relevant for the final to be quantitative about this. prediction. We will come back and decide this shortly. 51

Before doing this, since the correction we just discussed in terms of (F,Z) and moduli space geometry. A good would by itself not change the prediction of low scale zeroth order picture of the result is that (F,Z,U) are supersymmetry, we should discuss the justification of the independent and uniformly distributed complex parame- other factors in Eq. (174). First, we will grant the factor ters, up to the flux potential cutoff scale MF . All three 2 4 MEW /Msusy, not because it is beyond question – after complex parameters must be tuned to be small in mag- all this assumes some generic mechanism to solve the nitude, leading directly to Eq. (175). µ problem – but because the information we would need The upshot is that “generic” supersymmetry break- about vacuum distributions has not yet been worked out. ing flux vacua exist, but with a distribution heavily fa- On the other hand, the claim that the distribution of voring the high scale, enough to completely dominate 4 supersymmetry breaking scales among string/M theory the 1/Msusy benefit from solving the hierarchy problem. vacua is dMsusy/Msusy, can also be questioned. While Indeed, this would be true for any set of vacua arising this sounds like a reasonable expectation for theories from generic superpotentials constructed according to the which break supersymmetry dynamically, one has to ask rules of traditional naturalness with a cutoff scale MF . whether there are other ways to break supersymmetry, The flaw in the naturalness argument in this case is what distributions these lead to, and how many vacua very simple; one needs to tune several parameters in the realize these other possibilities. microscopic theory to accomplish a single tuning at the Given the definition of supersymmetry breaking vac- low scale. Of course, if the underlying dynamics cor- uum we used in Sec. II.F.1, namely a metastable min- related these parameters, one could recover natural low imum of the effective potential with F or D = 0, one scale breaking. This would be a reasonable expectation might well expect a generic effective potential6 to con- if W was entirely produced by dynamical effects, or per- tain many supersymmetry breaking vacua, not because of haps in some models in which it is a combination of any “mechanism,” but simply because generic functions dynamical and high scale contributions. Besides mod- have many minima. We discussed this idea in IV.A.4.c, els based on gauge theory, it is entirely possible that a and it was shown to be generic for IIb flux vacua in more careful analysis of the distribution of flux vacua Denef and Douglas (2005), leading to the distribution on Calabi-Yau, going beyond the “zeroth order picture” we just described by taking into account more of the 12 Msusy structure of the actual moduli spaces, would predict such dNvac[Msusy] . (175) ∼ MF vacua as well.   Of course, even if such vacua exist, we must go on to Although the high power 12 may be surprising at decide how numerous they are. Following Dine (2004b); first, it has a simple explanation (Dine et al., 2005; Dine et al. (2004, 2005), we can summarize the picture so Giudice and Rattazzi, 2006). Let us consider a generic far by dividing the set of supersymmetry breaking vacua flux vacuum with Msusy << MF . Since one needs a gold- into “three branches,” stino for spontaneous susy breaking, at least one chiral i.e. superfield must have a low mass; call it φ. Generically, 1. Generic vacua; with all of the F , D and W dis- tributions as predicted by the flux vacuum counting the flux potential gives order MF masses to all the other chiral superfields, so they can be ignored, and we can argument we just discussed. analyze the constraints in terms of an effective superpo- 2. Vacua with dynamical supersymmetry break- tential reduced to depend on the single field φ, ing (DSB). Here we assume the distribution 2 3 dMsusy/Msusy for the breaking parameters; how- W = W0 + aφ + bφ + cφ + .... ever W is uniformly distributed out to high scales. The form of the K¨ahler potential K(φ, φ¯) is also impor- 3. Vacua with DSB and tree level R symmetry. Be- tant for this argument; however one can simplify this by sides the dMsusy/Msusy distribution, we also as- replacing (a,b,c) by invariant variables generalizing Eq. sume W is produced by the supersymmetry break- (170), ing physics.

F DφW ; Z DφDφW ; U Dφ DφDφW. In option (1), TeV scale supersymmetry would seem very ≡ ≡ ≡ unlikely. While both (2) and (3) lead to TeV scale super- In terms of these, the conditions for a metastable su- symmetry, they can differ in their expectations for W persymmetric vacuum are F = M 2 (by definition), and thus the gravitino mass: in (3) this should be low,| | | | susy Z = 2 F (this follows from the equation V ′ = 0), while in (2) the prior distribution is neutral, so the pre- and| | finally| |U F (as explained in Denef and Douglas diction depends on the details of mediation as discussed (2005) and| many| ∼ | previous| discussions, this is necessary in Sec. II.F.1. so that V ′′ > 0. This also requires a lower bound on the What can we say about which type of vacuum is more curvature of the moduli space metric). numerous in string/M theory? There is a simple argu- Now, the distribution of the (F,Z,U) parameters in ment against (3), and indeed against most discrete sym- flux superpotentials can be worked out; we gave the re- metries in flux vacua (Dine and Sun, 2006). First, a dis- sult for F and Z in Eq. (171), and one can also find U crete symmetry which acts on Calabi-Yau moduli space, 52 will have fixed points corresponding to particularly sym- 1. Gauge groups and matter content metric Calabi-Yau manifolds; at one of these, it acts as a discrete symmetry of the Calabi-Yau. Such a symmetry By now, the problem of trying to realize the Standard of the Calabi-Yau will also act on the fluxes, trivially on Model has been studied in many classes of constructions. some and non-trivially others. To get a flux vacuum re- Let us consider type IIa orientifolds of a Calabi-Yau M, specting the symmetry, one must turn on only invariant (see Blumenhagen et al. (2005a) for a recent review). In fluxes. Now, looking at examples, one finds that typi- the vast majority of such vacua which contain the SM, cally an order one fraction of the fluxes transform non- one finds that the tadpole and other constraints force trivially; for definiteness let us say half of them. Thus, the inclusion of “exotic matter,” charged matter with applying Eq. (163) and putting in some typical numbers unusual Standard Model quantum numbers or with ad- for definiteness, we might estimate ditional charges under other gauge groups. One also finds hidden sectors, analogous to the second E8 of the orig- K/2 100 Nvac symmetric L 10 inal CHSW models. While less well studied, other con- K 200 . structions such as more general heterotic vacua, F and Nvac all ∼ L ∼ 10 M theory vacua, often contain exotic matter as well. Thus, discrete symmetries of this type come with a huge All this might lead to striking predictions for new penalty. While one can imagine discrete symmetries with physics, if we could form a clear picture of the possi- other origins for which this argument might not apply, bilities, and which of them were favored within string/M since W receives flux contributions, it clearly applies to theory. One is naturally led to questions like: Should the R symmetry desired in branch (3), and probably leads we expect to see such exotic matter at low energies? 4 Could the extra matter be responsible for supersymme- to suppressions far outweighing the (MF /Msusy) gain. try breaking? Could the hidden sectors be responsible for Thus, R symmetry appears to be heavily disfavored, some or all of the dark matter, or have other observable with the exception of R parity: since the superpotential consequences? has R charge 2, it is invariant under a ZZ R symmetry. 2 A systematic base for addressing these questions While crucial for other phenomenology, R parity does not would be to have a list of all vacua, with their gauge force small W . groups and matter content, as well as the other EFT What about branches (1) versus (2) ? Among the data. While this is a tall order, finding statistics of large many issues, we must estimate what fraction of vacua sets of vacua, such as the number of vacua with a given realize dynamical supersymmetry breaking. Looking at low energy gauge group G and matter representation R, the literature on this, much of it adopts a very strong def- is within current abilities (Blumenhagen et al., 2005b; inition of supersymmetry breaking, in which one requires Dienes, 2006; Dijkstra et al., 2005; Douglas and Taylor, that no supersymmetric vacua exist. And, although the 2006; Gmeiner, 2006a,b; Gmeiner et al., 2006; situation is hardly clear, it appears that very few models Kumar and Wells, 2005a,b). Besides providing a work according to this criterion. This might be regarded rough picture of the possibilities, such statistics can as evidence against (2). guide a search for interesting vacua, or used to check However, this is a far stronger definition of supersym- that samples are representative. metry breaking than we used elsewhere in our review. Thus, let us consider a vacuum counting distribution Rather, the question we want to answer is the diffi- culty of realizing metastable dynamical supersymmetry Nvac(G, R). (176) breaking vacua. Recent work such as (Dine et al., 2006; Intriligator et al., 2006) suggests that this is not so diffi- To be precise, G and R should refer to all matter with cult, but it is still a bit early to evaluate this point. mass below some specified energy scale µ. The existing Again, according to the point of view taken here, the results count = 1 supersymmetric vacua and ignore N goal is to show that metastable dynamical supersymme- quantum effects, considering gauge groups which remain try breaking vacua are generic in a quantitative sense. unbroken at all scales, and massless matter. Doing this requires having some knowledge about the Most systematic surveys treat intersecting brane mod- distributions of gauge theories among string/M theory els (IBM’s), in which the possible gauge groups G are vacua, to which we turn. products of the classical groups U(N), SO(N) and Sp(N), while all charged matter transforms as two-index : adjoint, symmetric and anti-symmetric tensors, and bifundamentals. In a theory with r factors in the D. Other distributions gauge group, the charged matter content can be largely summarized in an r r matrix I , whose (i, j) entry × ij Understanding the total number and distribution of denotes the number of bifundamentals in the (Ni, N¯j ), vacua requires combining information from all sectors of called the “generalized intersection matrix.” Thus, we the theory. Here we discuss some of the other sectors, can rewrite Eq. (176) as while the problem of combining information from differ- ent sectors is discussed in Douglas (2003). N ( N , I ). (177) vac { i} ij 53

Following the procedure outlined in Sec. II.A.3, one An element not fully discussed in any of these works can make lists of models, and compute Eq. (177). The is that to compute Eq. (176) as defined in Sec. V.A, results from the studies so far are rather intricate, so a one needs to stabilize all other moduli, and incorporate basic question is to find some simple approximate de- multiplicities from these sectors. One can try to estimate scription of the result. In particular, one would like to these multiplicities in terms of the number of degrees know to what extent the data (Ni, Iij ) shows structure, of freedom in the “hidden” (non-enumerated) sectors by such as preferred patterns of matter content, or other using generic results such as Eq. (163), for example as is correlations, which might lead to predictions. done in Kumar and Wells (2005a). Alternatively, one might propose a very simple model, To state one conclusion on which all of these works such as that the (Ni, Iij ) are (to some approxima- agree, the fraction of brane models containing the Stan- tion) independent random variables.15 While one might dard Model gauge group and matter representations is 10 be tempted to call this a “negative” claim, of course somewhere around 10− , as first suggested by heuristic we should not be prejudiced about the outcome, and arguments in Douglas (2003). In this sense, reproduc- methodologically it is useful to try to refute “null hy- ing the SM is not the hard part of model construction, potheses” of this sort. Actually, since even in this case and indeed has been done in all model classes with “suf- there would be preferred distributions of the individual ficient complexity” (for example, enough distinct homol- ranks and multiplicities, such a result would carry im- ogy classes) which have been considered. This is counting portant information. models with and without exotic matter; while it is clearly The studies so far (Blumenhagen et al., 2005b; more difficult to get SM’s without exotic matter, we still Dijkstra et al., 2005; Douglas and Taylor, 2006) in gen- await simple quantitative statements about just how con- eral are consistent with the null hypothesis, but suggest straining this is, or how constraining it is to get exotic some places to look for structure. As yet they are rather matter which is consistent with current phenomenologi- exploratory and show only partial agreement, even about cal constraints. distributions within the same model classes. Among the many other open questions, it would be 6 In Blumenhagen et al. (2005b), the T /ZZ2 ZZ2 orien- very interesting to know if the heterotic constructions, tifold (and simpler warm-up models) were studied,× and which one might expect to favor GUTs and thus work all gauge sectors enumerated. Simple analytical models more generically, are in fact favored over the brane mod- were proposed in which Eq. (177) is governed by the els. The one existing survey (Dienes, 2006), of non- statistics of the number of ways of partitioning the to- supersymmetric models, indeed finds GUT and SM gauge tal tadpole among supersymmetric branes. For example, groups with far higher frequency. However a mere 1010 the total number of vacua with tadpole L goes roughly16 advantage here might well be swamped by multiplicities as exp √L, and the fraction containing an SU(M) gauge from fluxes and other sectors. group goes as exp M/√L. Computer surveys supported these claims, and− found evidence for a anticorrelation between total gauge group rank and the signed number 2. Yukawa couplings and other potential terms of chiral matter fields, and for a relative suppression of three generation models. However, it is not clear whether These have various sources in explicit constructions: these surveys used representative samples, for reasons world-sheet instantons in IIa models; overlap between discussed in Douglas and Taylor (2006). gauge theoretic wave functions in IIb and heterotic mod- In Douglas and Taylor (2006), were devel- els; all with additional space-time instanton corrections. oped to perform complete enumerations of “k-stack mod- While very interesting for phenomenology, at this point els,” in other words the distribution of k of the gauge none of this is understood in the generality required to groups and associated matter. These obey power law do statistical surveys. n α distributions such as Nvac L /Ni with α depending However one can suggest interesting pictures. As an on the types of branes involved.∼ example, let us suppose that in some large class of vacua, The work (Dijkstra et al., 2005) enumerated orien- quark and lepton masses were independent “random” tifolds of Gepner models, and restricted attention to the variables, each with distribution dµ(m). Is there any SM sector, again finding that the majority of models had dµ(m) with both plausible top-down and bottom-up mo- exotic matter, and multiple Higgs doublets. tivations? In Donoghue (2004); Donoghue et al. (2006), the distribution dµ(m) dm/m was proposed, both as a best fit among power law∼ distributions to the observed masses, and as naturally arising from the combination of 15 While this cannot literally be true of the entire spectrum as this (1) uniform distributions of moduli z, and (2) the general must cancel anomalies, these constraints are relatively simple for dependence of Yukawa couplings brane models, so the simplest model of the actual distribution is to take a distribution of matter contents generated by taking m λ exp z these parameters independent, and then keeping only anomaly ∼ ∼ − free spectra. 16 There are log L corrections in the exponent. expected if they arise from world-sheet instantons. 54

3. Calabi-Yau manifolds

All the explicit results we discussed assumed a choice of Calabi-Yau manifold. Now we do not know this choice 6 p h11 + h12 502 p a priori, so to count all vacua we need to sum over it, and ≤ thus we need the distribution of Calabi-Yau manifolds. p p

Of course, we might also use statistics to try to decide p p p a priori what is the most likely type of Calabi-Yau to p p p p p p p p contain realistic models, or use this data in other ways. p pp pp p p p p p p p pp pp p p pp p In any case it is very fundamental to this whole topic. p pp p pppp pppp p p p p p p p p p p p ppp ppp p Unfortunately, we do not know this distribution. The p p p p p pp pp p pppp p pppp p pppp p pppp pppp p pppp pp p p p p p p p p pp p p pppp p p ppp pppp pppp ppp ppp ppppp ppppp p p p p p p p p p p pp ppppppppp ppppppppp pp p p only large class of Calabi-Yau manifolds which is under- pp pppp p pp p ppp p pp p pppp p pppp p pp p ppp p pp p pppp p pppppp pppp ppp p pp p pppp p ppppppppp pppppppppppp pppppp p pppppp pppppppppppp ppppppppp p pppp pp p p p pppp p pppp p p p ppp p p p pppp p pppp p p p ppp p p p pppp p pppp p p p ppppp p p ppppp p pppp ppppp ppppppp ppppp pppp p ppppp p p p p p pp p p p p p p p pppp p p p p p pppp p pppp pp p p pppppp ppppppppppppp p p p ppppppppppppp pppppp pp pp pp p pp pp pp p p pp p p pp p ppp pp p p p ppppppp p pppp ppppppppppp p p ppppppppp p ppppp p ppppppppp p p pp ppp stood in any detail at present is the subset which can be p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p pppppp ppppppppppppp p p pppp pp p ppppppppppppppppp p p p pp p pp p ppppppp pppp p pp p ppppp pp p pppp pppppp pppp ppp p pppp ppppppp ppppppp ppppppppp ppppp ppppppp ppppppp ppppp ppppp ppppp pppppp pppp p p p pppp pp p ppp pp pp pppp p pppp p p p ppp ppppppppppppppppppppp p pppppp pp ppppppp p ppppppppppppppppppp ppppppppppp p pppppp pp ppppp p pp p p p pppp p p p pppp ppppppp ppppp p ppppp p ppp p pp p ppppppp ppppppppppppppppp p ppppp p ppppppppppppp p realized as hypersurfaces in toric varieties. In more phys- ppppppp ppppp p p pppppppppppppppppppppppppp pppp ppp pp pppppp pppppppppppppppp pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp ppppppppp ppppppppppppppp p pp p p p pppp ppppppppp pppp p pppppppp p pppp p p p pp p pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp pp p pp p p pp p pp pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp ppp pppppppppppppppppppppp p p pppp pppp pppp ppppp pppppppp p p p p p pppppp ppppp pp ppppppp p ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp pp p ical terms, these are the Calabi-Yau manifolds which can pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp p pp pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp p pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp ppppppp p p pp p ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp p pppppppppppppppppp pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp p ppp p ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp p p be realized as linear sigma models with a superpoten- ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp p p p p ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp p pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp p pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp pp tial of the form W = Pf(Z), leading to a single defin- ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp p ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp pp pp ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp pp ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp pp ing equation. Mathematically, the toric varieties which pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp p can be used are in one-to-one correspondence with re- ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp p flexive polytopes in four dimensions. Such a polytope ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp encodes the geometry and determines the Betti num- ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp bers, intersection forms, prepotential and flux superpo- pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp pp ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp tential, and supersymmetric cycles; for examples of how pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp this information is used in explicitly constructing vacua pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp p see Denef et al. (2004, 2005). pppppppppppppppppppppppp p p ppppppp p We leave the definitions for the references, but the p main point for our present discussion is that this is - 100 500 900 χ a combinatorial construction, so that the set of such polytopes can be shown to be finite, and in principle listed. In practice, the number of possibilities makes this rather challenging. Nevertheless, this was done by Kreuzer and Skarke (2002a,b, 2004), who maintain databases and software packages to work with this in- formation. This data, as illustrated by Figure V.D.3, is the ev- idence for our earlier assertion that “most Calabi-Yau FIG. 3 The toric hypersurfaces with χ ≥ 0, from 1 1 2 1 manifolds have b 20 300,” in the range needed to Kreuzer and Skarke (2002a). The vertical axis is h , + h , , 1,1 2,1 solve the cosmological∼ constant− problem along the lines while the horizontal axis is χ = 2(h −h ). The full set also of Bousso and Polchinski (2000), but not leading to dras- contains the mirror manifolds obtained from these by taking →− tically higher vacuum multiplicities. χ χ. At present, the number of topologically distinct toric hypersurface Calabi-Yau manifolds is not known. While the 15122 points on this plot are clearly distinct, one with the theoretical uncertainties outlined in Sec. III, point can correspond to several polytopes; furthermore make these estimates rather heuristic at present. Let the correspondence between polytopes and Calabi-Yau us quote a few numbers anyways. manifolds is not one-to-one; thus one has only lower and To the extent that we can estimate numbers of other upper bounds. Furthermore, this set is known not to in- choices in heterotic and IIa, they are subleading to num- clude all Calabi-Yau manifolds. One can at least hope bers of IIb flux vacua. One can get a lower bound on that it is a representative subset; most but not all math- this from Eq. (163), if one can compute the integral ematicians would agree that this is reasonable. over moduli space. This has only been done in one and two parameter examples, and for T 6 moduli space in Ashok and Douglas (2004), and in these cases gave dim C 4. Absolute numbers π M times order one factors (one over the order of a discrete symmetry group), and thus were subleading Combining the various sectors and multiplicities we to the prefactor. We will assume this is generally true, discussed, leads to rough estimates for numbers of vacua but it would be worth checking, as it is not inconceivable arising in different classes of constructions. The ex- that CY moduli spaces have very large symmetry groups, ploratory nature of much of the discussion, combined and this would drastically reduce the numbers. See 55

Douglas et al. (2006b); Zelditch (2006) for many more 1. Central limit theorem issues in making these estimates precise. The number L can be computed either by choosing a As is very familiar, random variables which arise by IIb orientifolding, or using the relation to F theory on an combining many different independent sources of ran- elliptically fibered fourfold N, for which L = χ(N)/24. domness, tend to be Gaussian (or normally) distributed. While it would be interesting to survey the expected This observation is made mathematically precise by cen- number of flux vacua over all the manifolds we discussed tral limit theorems. Thus, if we find that some observ- in Sec. V.D.3, at present it is not entirely clear that all of able in string theory is the sum (or combination) of many these allow stabilizing K¨ahler moduli. For the three ex- moduli, or many independent choices in our definition of amples which were shown to do so in Denef et al. (2004), vacuum, it becomes plausible that this observable will be one finds 10307, 10393, and 10506. While there are further normally distributed as well. requirements, such as small W0 and gs, metastability One can design model field theory landscapes in after supersymmetry breaking,| and| so on, as discussed which this postulate holds (Arkani-Hamed et al., 2005b; in Sec. V.B.2 and elsewhere in the review these cuts ap- Dienes et al., 2005; Distler and Varadarajan, 2005). A pear to lead to comparatively small factors. Thus, one simple example is to take a large number N of scalar 500 can take 10 as a reasonable estimate at present, unless fields φi, with scalar potential and until we can argue that further conditions of the sort discussed in Sec. III are required. V = Vi(φi) (178) i One might worry that this is an underestimate, as we X have left out many other known (and unknown) construc- and where each V is a quartic potential with two vacua, tions. The only handle we have on this is the set of F i at φ±. This kind of model would arise if the N fields theory compactifications, which are so similar to IIb that i are localized at distinct points in extra dimensions, for the same formulas might be applied. Since typical four- instance, so their small wavefunction overlaps highly sup- folds have K 1000, this might drastically increase the press cross terms in the potential. For simplicity, we will numbers, to say∼ 101000. Or it might not, both because further take the quartics to be identical, though our con- one is typically not in the regime L K where these siderations would hold more generally. formulas are justified, and because the≥ additional mod- It follows immediately from the central limit theorem uli (compared to IIb orientifolds) correspond to charged that, despite the fact that there are 2N vacua, very few of matter, leading to additional corrections to the superpo- them have small cosmological constant! More concretely, tential. More generally, while one might expect that as let V be the average of the energies of the φ vacua, and more constructions come under control the estimate will av V be the difference. Then the distribution± governing increase, this need not be, as new dualities between these diff the vacuum energies of the vacua is constructions will also come into play.

N 2 2 (Λ NVav) ρ(Λ) = exp − 2 . (179) 2πNVdiff − 2NVdiff ! E. Model distributions and other arguments In a non-supersymmetricp system with UV cutoff M , we 4 ∗ As we have seen, the computation of any distribution would a priori expect Vav M , and therefore the dis- from microscopic string theory considerations is a lot of tribution of vacua peaks at∼ cosmological∗ constant NM 4, work. Since it is plausible that many results will have with a width of order √NM 4. Vacua around zero cos-∗ simple explanations, having to do with statistics and gen- mological constant are not scanned.∗ In some fraction of eral features of the problem, it is tempting to try to guess such ensembles of order 1/√N, where for some reason them in advance. 1 4 one fortuitously found Vav √ M , one would be able ≤ N ∗ The simplest examples are the uniform distributions, to scan around zero cosmological constant. In a trivial such as Eq. (159). At first these may not look very supersymmetric generalization of this landscape, with an interesting; for example Eq. (160) for the dilaton-axion unbroken R-symmetry (which guarantees that V = 0 is prefers order one couplings. Another well known example special), again one would be able to scan around zero cos- is a mass parameter in an EFT, such as a boson mass mological constant, while supersymmetric theories with- m2φ2. The standard definition of naturalness includes out R-symmetry would not in general be expected to al- the idea that in a natural theory, this parameter will be low such scanning. uniformly distributed up to the cutoff scale. In some Suppose now that an observable coupling constant g cases this is a good model of the results, for example is controlled by the sum of the vevs i φi characteriz- in one parameter flux vacuum distributions away from ing a given vacuum. The same logic would teach one singular points. that despite the vast landscape of 2NPvacua, the cou- Even when individual parameters are simply dis- pling constant does not scan very much; it fluctuates by tributed, on combining many such parameters, one finds δg/g 1/√N around its mean value. More generally, new structure, which can lead to peaking and predictions. there∼ exist landscapes with a large number of vacua, in 56 which many physical quantities can be predicted with the resulting mass matrix is 1/√N precision. Since in nature only a few quantities 2 seem plausibly to be environmentally determined, while (M )ij = HiαHαj† , many others beg for explanations based on dynamics and α K+N symmetries, one could hope that the cosmological term is ≤X one of a few variables that is scanned, while other quanti- where H is a K (K + N) matrix with randomly dis- ties of interest do not scan (Arkani-Hamed et al., 2005b). tributed entries. For× large K,N, the limiting distribution To decide whether this is a good model for a particu- for M 2 is very generally the Marcenko-Pastur distribu- lar parameter, one must look at microscopic details. As tion, a simple distribution depending on the ratio K/N. we mentioned, it is very plausible that the cosmological While these are interesting universal predictions, they constant works this way. On the other hand, there is no apply to moduli masses at scales MF , and it is not obvious sense in which a modulus is a sum of indepen- completely obvious how they would relate to observable dent random variables, and indeed the AD distribution physics. In Easther and McAllister (2006) it was pro- Eq. (163) does not look like this. This would also be true posed that they favor “N-flation,” a mechanism for slow- for an observable which was a simple function of one or roll inflation (Dimopoulos et al., 2005). a few moduli, for example a gauge coupling in a brane Similar ansatzes assuming less struc- model, proportional to the volume of a cycle. On the ture appear in Aazami and Easther (2006); other hand, a hypothetical observable which was a sum Holman and Mersini-Houghton (2005); or combination of many moduli, might be well modelled Kobakhidze and Mersini-Houghton (2004); in this way. These observables would be the ones that Mersini-Houghton (2005). are most clearly amenable to prediction (or post-diction) using statistical techniques. 3. Other concentrations of measure

2. theory This is the general term in mathematics for the “large N limits” and other universal phenomena exhibited by Other universal distributions which appear very often integrals over high dimensional spaces. in physics are the random matrix ensembles, for example As a simple example, recall from Figure V.B.2 that in the gaussian unitary ensemble (GUE) (Mehta, 1991). In a one parameter model, most flux vacua are not near a the large N limit, these “peak” and exhibit universal conifold point. Suppose the probability of a given mod- properties such as the semicircle law, level repulsion and ulus being away from a conifold point is 1 ǫ, then − so on. the probability of n moduli being away from conifold points should be (1 ǫ)n, which for nǫ >> 1 will be On general grounds, one might expect moduli masses − to be modelled by a random matrix distribution. This small. In this sense, most vacua with many moduli will was made more precise in Denef and Douglas (2005), who be near some conifold point; some numbers are given in observed that since the matrix of fermion masses DiDjW Hebecker and March-Russell (2006). in supersymmetric field theories is a complex symmet- Another example is that the vast bulk of an n- ric matrix, it can be modelled by the CI distribution of parameter CY moduli space is at order one volume (of Altland and Zirnbauer (1997). This leads to level repul- the CY itself); the fraction which sits at volume greater n/3 sion between moduli masses ma, characterized by the than Vol falls off as (Vol)− (Denef et al., 2004). This distribution applies for example to the large volume regime we dis- cussed in Sec. V.E.2; it is also relevant for IIb flux vacua dµ[m ]= d(m2 ) m2 m2 . (180) in its mirror interpretation. a a | a − b | a Y a , positive power of N. Thus, if our definition of “quasi- MP realistic” includes an upper bound on this volume, these where m is the mass of the lightest charged particle. Be- infinite series will not pose a problem. Such a bound fol- sides verifying this in examples, they argue for this by lows from Eq. (1) and a phenomenological lower bound considering entropy bounds on the end states of charged on the fundamental scale, say MP,D > 1TeV. black holes; see also Banks et al. (2006). It may be that Various arguments have been given that the num- such arguments, using only general features of quan- ber of choices arising from a particular part of tum gravity, can lead to further interesting constraints the problem are finite in this sense: the num- (Ooguri and Vafa, 2006; Vafa, 2005). ber of generations (Douglas and Zhou, 2004); the number of IIb flux vacua (Douglas and Lu, 2006; 5. Finiteness arguments Eguchi and Tachikawa, 2006); the choice of compact- ification manifold (Acharya and Douglas, 2006), and In counting vacua, one is implicitly assuming that the the choice of brane configuration (Douglas and Taylor, number of quasi-realistic vacua of string/M theory is fi- 2006). This rules out postulated infinite series such as nite. As it is easy to write down effective potentials with that of Dvali and Vilenkin (2004a), as well as others. an infinite number of local minima, clearly this is a non- However at present there is no completely general ar- trivial hypothesis, which must be checked. Actually, if gument for finiteness, so this is an important point to interpreted too literally, it is probably not true: there check in each new class of models. are many well established infinite series of compactifi- cations, such as the original Freund-Rubin example of Sec. II.D.1. While the well established examples are not F. Interpretation quasi-realistic, at first one sees no obvious reason that such series cannot exist. We come finally to the question of how to use distri- A basic reason to want a finite number of quasi-realistic butions such as Eq. (149) or Eq. (152). One straightfor- vacua, under some definition, is that if this is not true, ward answer is that they are useful in guiding the search one runs a real risk that the theory can match any set for explicit vacua. For example, if it appears unlikely of observations, and in this sense will not be falsifiable. that a vacuum of some type exists, one should probably Again, this may not be obvious at first, and one can pos- not put a major effort into constructing it. tulate hypothetical series which would not lead to a prob- Going beyond this, distributions give us a useful short- lem, or even lead to more definite predictions. Suppose cut to finding explicit vacua with desired properties. As for example that the infinite series had an accumulation one example, in the explicit construction of Sec. IV.A.3, point, so that almost all vacua made the same predic- we needed to assert that IIb flux vacua exist with a speci- tions; one might argue that this accumulation point was fied small upper bound on W0 . For many purposes, one | | the preferred prediction (Dvali and Vilenkin, 2004a). does not need to know an explicit set of fluxes with this However, the problem which one will then face, is that property; a statistical argument that one exists would be any general mechanism leading to infinite series of vacua enough. The cosmological constant itself is a very im- in the observable sector, would also be expected to lead to portant example because, for the reasons we discussed infinite sets of choices in every other sector of the theory, earlier, there is little hope in this picture to find the ac- including hidden sectors. Now, while a hidden sector is tual vacua with small Λ. not directly observable, still all sectors are coupled (at Going further, it would be nice to know to what extent least through gravity; in our considerations through the arguments such as those in Sec. II.F.3 and Sec. V.C could structure of the moduli space as well), so choices made be made precise, and what assumptions we would need there do have a small influence on observed physics. For to rely on. At first, one may think that such arguments example, the precise values of stabilized moduli in flux require knowing the measure factor, plunging us into the vacua, will depend on flux values in the hidden sector. difficulties of Sec. III.E. However, if the absolute num- Thus, an infinite-valued choice in this sector, would be ber of vacua is not too large, this is not so; one could get expected to lead to a set of vacua which densely populates strong predictions which are independent of this. After even the observable sector of theory space, eliminating all, if we make an observation X, and one has a convinc- any chance for statistical predictions. ing argument that no vacuum reproducing X exists, one 58

has falsified the theory, no matter what the probabilities more vacua. Let us illustrate this by supposing that of the other vacua might be. we find good evidence for a varying fine structure con- These comments may seem a bit general, but when stant. As we discussed in Sec. II.F.2, fitting this would combined with the formalism we just discussed, and un- require an effective potential which is almost independent der the hypothesis that there are not too many vacua, of αEM , and this is highly non-generic; in Banks et al. could have force. Let us return to the problem of the (2002), it was argued that the first 8 coefficients in the se- scale of supersymmetry breaking. According to the argu- ries expansion of V (αEM ) would have to be tuned away. ments of Sec. II.E and the distribution results of Sec. V.B, However, in a large enough landscape, even this might tuning the cosmological constant requires having 10120 happen statistically. Taking the cutoff at a hypothetical 600 vacua which, while realizing a discretuum of cosmologi- Msusy 10TeV, this is a tuning factor of order 10− , so ∼ 800 cal constants, are otherwise identical. Now suppose we if string/M theory had fewer than 10 or so vacua, such found only 10100 vacua with high scale supersymmetry an observation would rule it out with some confidence, breaking; since finding the observed c.c. would require while if it had more, we would be less sure. 20 an additional 10− tuning, we would have a good rea- This is an instructive example, both because the point son to believe that high scale supersymmetry breaking is is clear, and because the stated conclusions taken lit- not just disfavored, but inconsistent with string/M the- erally sound absurd. If we really thought the observa- ory. While there would be a probabilistic aspect to this tions required a varying fine structure constant, we would claim, it would not be based on unknowns of cosmology quickly proceed to the hypothesis that the framework we or anthropic considerations, but the theoretical approx- are discussing based on the effective potential is wrong, imations which were needed to get a definite result. If that there is some other mechanism for adjusting the c.c., this were really the primary source of uncertainty in the or perhaps some mechanism other than varying moduli claim, one would have a clear path to improving it. for varying the apparent fine structure constant. Any such prediction depends on all of the assumptions, in- This argument is a simple justification for defining the cluding the basic ones, which should be suspected first. “stringy naturalness” of a property in terms of the num- However, we can start to see how statistical and/or prob- ber of string/M theory vacua which realize it, or theo- abilistic claims of this sort, might unavoidably enter the retical approximations to this number. Of course, to the discussion. extent that one believes in a particular measure factor But what if there are 101000 vacua? And what hope is or can bring in other considerations, one would prefer there for estimating the actual number of vacua? All one a definition which takes these into account; however at can say about the second question is that, while there are present one should probably stick to the simplest version too many uncertainties to make a convincing estimate of the idea. at present, we have a fairly good record of eventually The downside of this type of argument is, not having answering well posed formal questions about string/M made additional probabilistic assumptions, if there are theory. “too many” vacua, so that each alternative is represented Regarding the first question, in this case one probably by at least one vacuum, one gets no predictions at all. needs to introduce the measure factor, which will increase How many is “not too many” for this to have any chance the predictivity. This might be quantified by the stan- 230 of succeeding? A rough first estimate is, fewer than 10 . dard concept of the entropy of a probability distribution, This comes from multiplying together the observed ac- curacies of dimensionless couplings, the tuning factors S = P log(1/P ). 10 i i of the dimensionful parameters, and the estimated 10− i difficulty of realizing the Standard Model spectrum. This X 17 70 120 30 10 230 produces roughly 10− − − − 10− . Neglect- The smaller the entropy, the more concentrated the mea- ing all the further structure in the problem,∼ one might sure, and the more predictive one expects the theory to say that, if string/M theory has more than 10230 vacua, be. To some extent, one can repeat the preceding discus- there is no obvious barrier to reproducing the SM purely sion in this context, by everywhere replacing the number statistically, so one should not be able to falsify the the- of vacua with the total statistical weight eS. However, ory, on the basis of present data, using statistical reason- justifying this would require addressing the issues raised ing. Conversely, if there are fewer vacua, in principle this in Sec. III.E. might be possible. There is another reason to call on the measure factor, The number 10230 is a lower bound; if the actual distri- namely the infinite series of M theory and IIa vacua dis- bution of vacua were highly peaked, or if we were inter- cussed in Sec. IV.B. Since these run off to large volume, ested in a rare property, we could argue similarly with all but a finite number are already ruled out, as discussed in Sec. V.E.5. However, since their number appears to grow with volume, any sort of probabilistic reasoning is likely to lead to the prediction that extra dimensions are 17 just about to be discovered, an optimistic but rather sus- The exponent 70 includes α1 (10), α2 (6), α3 (2), mproton (10), mn (10), and 14 less well measured SM parameters, contributing picious conclusion. say 32. An alternate hypothesis (Douglas, 2005) is that the 59 correct measure factor suppresses large extra dimen- VI. CONCLUSIONS sions, which would be true for example if it had a factor exp vol(M). Possible origins for such a factor might The primary goal of superstring compactification is − be whatever dynamics selects 3 + 1 dimensions (some to find realistic or quasi-realistic models. Real world of the many suggestions include Brandenberger and Vafa physics, both the Standard Model and its various sug- (1989); Easther et al. (2005)), or decoherence effects as gested extensions, is rather complicated, and it should suggested in Firouzjahi et al. (2004). not be surprising that this goal is taking time to achieve. One cannot go much further in the absence of more Already when the subject was introduced in the mid- definite information about the measure factor. But an 1980’s, good plausibility arguments were given that the important hypothesis to confirm or refute, is that its general framework of grand unified theories and low en- only important dependence is on the aspects of a vac- ergy supersymmetry could come out of string theory. uum which are important in early cosmology, while for While there were many gaps in the picture, and some all other aspects one can well approximate it by a uni- of the most interesting possibilities from a modern point form measure, in which the probability that one of a set of view were not yet imagined, it seems fair to say that of N similar vacua appears, is taken to be 1/N. the framework we have discussed in this review is the re- sult of the accumulation of many developments built on The former clearly include the scale of inflation and that original picture. the size of the extra dimensions, and may include other In this framework, we discussed how recent develop- couplings which enter into the physics of inflation and ments in flux compactification and superstring duality, reheating. However, since the physics of inflation must along with certain additional assumptions such as the take place at energy scales far above the scales of the validity of the standard interpretation of the effective po- Standard Model, most features of the Standard Model, tential, allow one to construct models which solve more such as the specific gauge group and matter content, the of the known problems of fundamental physics. Most Yukawa couplings, and perhaps the gauge couplings, are notably, this includes models with a small positive cos- probably decorrelated from the measure factor. For such mological constant, but also models of inflation and new parameters, the uniform measure P (i) 1/N should be models which solve the hierarchy problem. ∼ a good approximation. Regarding selection effects, we We emphasize that our discussion rests on assumptions can try to bypass this discussion with the observation which are by no means beyond question. We have done that we know that the Standard Model allows for our ex- our best in this review to point out these assumptions, so istence, and we will not consider the question of whether that they can be critically examined. But we would also in some other vacuum the probability or number of ob- say that they are not very radical or daring assumptions, servers might have been larger. but rather follow general practice in the study of string compactification, and in particle physics and other areas. It is not a priori obvious whether a measure factor will Any of them might be false, but in our opinion that would depend on two particularly important parameters, the in itself be a significant discovery. cosmological constant and the supersymmetry breaking scale. As we discussed in Sec. III.E, the cosmological Even within the general framework we have discussed, constant does enter into some existing claims, but this there are significant gaps in our knowledge of even the leads to its own problems. As for supersymmetry break- most basic facts about the set of string vacua. Our ing, one might argue that this should fall into the cate- examples were largely based on Calabi-Yau compactifi- gory of physics below the scale of inflation and thus not cation of type II theories, where there are tools coming enter the measure factor, but clearly the importance of from = 2 supersymmetry that make the calculations particularlyN tractable. General = 1 flux vacua in this point makes such pat arguments unsatisfying. See N Kallosh and Linde (2004) for arguments suggesting a link these theories, which involve “geometric flux” (discretely between these two scales. varying away from the Calabi-Yau metric) or even the non-geometric compactifications of Sec. IV.C, are Let us conclude by suggesting that, while an under- poorly understood. In the heterotic string, Calabi-Yau standing of the measure factor is clearly essential to models do not admit a sufficiently rich spectrum of put these arguments on any firm footing, it might turn fluxes to stabilize moduli in a regime of control (though out that the actual probabilities of vacua are essentially for work in this direction, see (Becker et al., 2004b; decorrelated from almost all low energy observables, per- Curio and Krause, 2006; Gukov et al., 2004)). The more haps because they are determined by the high scale general non-K¨ahler compactifications, which are dual physics of eternal inflation, perhaps because they are con- to our type II constructions and should lead to similar trolled by the value of the c.c. which is itself decorrelated moduli potentials, are being intensely investigated as from other observables, or perhaps for other genericity of this writing (Becker et al., 2003a,b, 2006, 2004a; reasons. In any of these cases, decorrelation and the Fu and Yau, 2005, 2006; Goldstein and Prokushkin, large number of vacua would justify using the uniform 2004; Kim and Yi, 2006; Kimura and Yi, 2006; measure, and the style of probabilistic reasoning we used Li and Yau, 2004; Lopes Cardoso et al., 2004, 2003). in Sec. II.F.3 would turn out to be appropriate. For work on moduli potentials in G2 compactifications 60 of M-theory, which also provide a promising home While we discussed many of the ingredients which would for SUSY GUTs; see Acharya et al. (2006a); Acharya go into making a well motivated string/M theory pre- (2002); Beasley and Witten (2002). diction, we are not at present taking a position as to These investigations may still be of too limited a scope: what the eventual prediction might be. Conceivably, af- in a full survey, one should not require a strict definition ter much further theoretical development, we might find in terms of world-sheet conformal field theory. For ex- that TeV scale supersymmetry is disfavored. Of course, ample, compactifications of non-critical strings (Myers, a successful prediction that Cern and Fermilab will pre- 1987) should also be explored. There have been interest- cisely confirm the Standard Model would be something ing investigations in this direction (Maloney et al., 2002), of a Pyrrhic victory. As physicists, we would clearly be but as yet little is yet known about the possible phe- better off with new data and new physics. nomenology of these models. For the near term, the main goal here is not really We think many readers will agree that what has prediction, but rather to broaden the range of theories emerged has at least answered Pauli’s famous criticism of under discussion, as we will need to keep an open a previous attempt at unification. The picture is strange, mind in confronting the data. The string phenomenol- perhaps strange enough to be true. But is it true? That ogy literature contains many models with TeV scale is the question we now face. signatures; as examples inspired by this line of work, Let us briefly recap a few areas in which we might we can cite Arkani-Hamed and Dimopoulos (2005); find testable predictions of this framework, as outlined Arkani-Hamed et al. (2005b); Giudice and Rattazzi in Sec. II.F. Perhaps the most straightforward applica- (2006); Giudice and Romanino (2004); Kane et al. tion, at least conceptually, is to inflation, as the physics (2006). In the longer term, a statistical approach may we are discussing determines the structure of the infla- become an important element in bridging the large gap tionary potential. There are by now many promising between low energy data and fundamental theory. inflationary scenarios in string theory, involving brane We may stand at a crossroads; perhaps much more di- motion, moduli, or axions as inflatons. In each scenario, rect evidence for or against string/M theory will be found however, there are analogues of the infamous eta prob- before long, making statistical predictions of secondary lem (Copeland et al., 1994), where Planck-suppressed interest. Or perhaps not; nature has hidden her cards corrections to the inflaton potential spoil flatness and pretty well for the last twenty years, and perhaps we will require mild (1 part in 100) tuning to achieve 60 e- have to play the odds for some time to come. foldings. While this may be a small concern relative to other hierarchies we have discussed, it has neverthe- less made it difficult to exhibit very explicit inflation- Acknowledgements ary models in string theory. In addition to surmount- We would like to thank B. Acharya, N. Arkani-Hamed, ing these obstacles through explicit calculation in spe- S. Ashok, R. Bousso, M. Cvetic, F. Denef, O. DeWolfe, cific examples, it will be important to develop some in- S. Dimopoulos, M. Dine, R. Donagi, G. Dvali, B. Flo- tuition for which classes of models are most generic; this rea, S. Giddings, A. Giryavets, G. Giudice, A. Grassi, A. will involve sorting out the vexing issues of measure that Guth, R. Kallosh, G. Kane, A. Kashani-Poor, P. Lan- were discussed in III.E. Even lacking this top-down in- gacker, A. Linde, J. Maldacena, L. McAllister, J. Mc- put, clear signatures for some classes of models have been Greevy, B. Ovrut, J. Polchinski, R. Rattazzi, N. Saulina, found, via cosmic string production (Copeland et al., M. Schulz, N. Seiberg, S. Shenker, B. Shiffman, E. Silver- 2004; Sarangi and Tye, 2002) or non-Gaussianities of the stein, P. Steinhardt, L. Susskind, W. Taylor, S. Thomas, perturbation spectrum (Alishahiha et al., 2004); perhaps A. Tomasiello, S. Trivedi, H. Verlinde, A. Vilenkin, E. our first clue will come from experiment. Witten and S. Zelditch for sharing their understanding Moduli could in principle lead to observable physics at of these subjects with us over the years. later times, such as a varying fine structure constant, or The work of M.R.D. was supported by DOE grant DE- quintessence. The first is essentially ruled out, while the FG02-96ER40959; he would also like to acknowledge the second appears even less natural than a small cosmolog- hospitality of the Isaac Newton Institute, the KITP, the ical term, with no comparable “anthropic” motivation. Banff Research Station, and the Gordon Moore Distin- Implicit in the word “natural,” is the fact that many guished Scholar program at Caltech. The work of S.K. predictions in this framework are inherently statistical, was supported in part by a David and Lucile Packard referring to properties of large sets but not all vacua. The Foundation Fellowship, the DOE under contract DE- statistics of vacua provides precise definitions of “stringy AC02-76SF00515, and the NSF under grant number naturalness,” which take into account not just values of 0244728. He is grateful to KITP for hospitality during couplings and the renormalization group, but all of the the completion of this review. choices involved in string compactification. This shares some features of “traditional naturalness,” but may differ dramatically in others. References In particular, TeV scale supersymmetry is not an in- evitable prediction of string/M theory in this framework. Aazami, A., and R. Easther, 2006, JCAP 0603, 013. 61

Abbott, L. F., 1985, Phys. Lett. B150, 427. Avram, A. C., P. Candelas, D. Jancic, and M. Mandelberg, Acharya, B., K. Bobkov, G. Kane, P. Kumar, and D. Vaman, 1996, Nucl. Phys. B465, 458. 2006a, eprint hep-th/0606262. Babich, D., P. Creminelli, and M. Zaldarriaga, 2004, JCAP Acharya, B. S., 2002, eprint hep-th/0212294. 0408, 009. Acharya, B. S., F. Benini, and R. Valandro, 2006b, eprint Bachas, e. ., C., e. . Bilal, A., e. . Douglas, M., e. . Nekrasov, hep-th/0607223. N., and e. . David, F., 2002. Acharya, B. S., F. Denef, C. Hofman, and N. Lambert, 2003, Balasubramanian, V., and P. Berglund, 2004, JHEP 11, 085. eprint hep-th/0308046. Balasubramanian, V., P. Berglund, J. P. Conlon, and Acharya, B. S., F. Denef, and R. Valandro, 2005, JHEP 06, F. Quevedo, 2005, JHEP 03, 007. 056. Banks, T., 1984, Phys. Rev. Lett. 52, 1461. Acharya, B. S., and M. R. Douglas, 2006, eprint hep- Banks, T., 1985, Nucl. Phys. B249, 332. th/0606212. Banks, T., 1995a, prepared for International School of As- Adams, F. C., J. R. Bond, K. Freese, J. A. Frieman, and A. V. trophysics, D. Chalonge: 4th Course: String Gravity and Olinto, 1993, Phys. Rev. D47, 426. Physics at the Planck Energy scale (A NATO Advanced Affleck, I., M. Dine, and N. Seiberg, 1984, Nucl. Phys. B241, Study Institute), Erice, Italy, 8-19 Sep 1995. 493. Banks, T., 1995b, eprint hep-th/9601151. Affleck, I., M. Dine, and N. Seiberg, 1985, Nucl. Phys. B256, Banks, T., 1999, eprint hep-th/9911068. 557. Banks, T., 2000, eprint hep-th/0011255. Aharony, O., S. S. Gubser, J. M. Maldacena, H. Ooguri, and Banks, T., 2004, eprint hep-th/0412129. Y. Oz, 2000, Phys. Rept. 323, 183. Banks, T., M. Dine, and M. R. Douglas, 2002, Phys. Rev. Aldazabal, G., P. G. Camara, A. Font, and L. E. Ibanez, 2006, Lett. 88, 131301. JHEP 05, 070. Banks, T., M. Dine, P. J. Fox, and E. Gorbatov, 2003, JCAP Alexander, S. H. S., 2002, Phys. Rev. D65, 023507. 0306, 001. Alishahiha, M., E. Silverstein, and D. Tong, 2004, Phys. Rev. Banks, T., M. Dine, and E. Gorbatov, 2004, JHEP 08, 058. D70, 123505. Banks, T., M. Dine, and N. Seiberg, 1991, Phys. Lett. B273, Allanach, B. C., A. Brignole, and L. E. Ibanez, 2005, JHEP 105. 05, 030. Banks, T., L. J. Dixon, D. Friedan, and E. J. Martinec, 1988, Altland, A., and M. R. Zirnbauer, 1997, Phys. Rev. B55, Nucl. Phys. B299, 613. 1142. Banks, T., M. Johnson, and A. Shomer, 2006, eprint hep- Alvarez-Gaume, L., P. H. Ginsparg, G. W. Moore, and th/0606277. C. Vafa, 1986, Phys. Lett. B171, 155. Banks, T., D. B. Kaplan, and A. E. Nelson, 1994, Phys. Rev. de Alwis, S. P., 2005, Phys. Lett. B628, 183. D49, 779. Andrianopoli, L., R. D’Auria, and S. Ferrara, 2002a, Nucl. Barrow, J., and F. Tipler, 1988, The anthropic cosmological Phys. B628, 387. principle (Oxford University Press). Andrianopoli, L., R. D’Auria, S. Ferrara, and M. A. Lledo, Baumann, D., et al., 2006, eprint hep-th/0607050. 2002b, JHEP 07, 010. Beasley, C., and E. Witten, 2002, JHEP 07, 46. Andrianopoli, L., R. D’Auria, S. Ferrara, and M. A. Lledo, Becker, K., and M. Becker, 1996, Nucl. Phys. B477, 155. 2002c, Nucl. Phys. B640, 46. Becker, K., M. Becker, K. Dasgupta, and P. S. Green, 2003a, Andrianopoli, L., R. D’Auria, S. Ferrara, and M. A. Lledo, JHEP 04, 007. 2003a, JHEP 03, 044. Becker, K., M. Becker, K. Dasgupta, and S. Prokushkin, Andrianopoli, L., S. Ferrara, and M. Trigiante, 2003b, eprint 2003b, Nucl. Phys. B666, 144. hep-th/0307139. Becker, K., M. Becker, J.-X. Fu, L.-S. Tseng, and S.-T. Yau, Angelantonj, C., R. D’Auria, S. Ferrara, and M. Trigiante, 2006, Nucl. Phys. B751, 108. 2004, Phys. Lett. B583, 331. Becker, K., M. Becker, P. S. Green, K. Dasgupta, and Angelantonj, C., S. Ferrara, and M. Trigiante, 2003, JHEP E. Sharpe, 2004a, Nucl. Phys. B678, 19. 10, 015. Becker, K., M. Becker, M. Haack, and J. Louis, 2002, JHEP Antoniadis, I., C. P. Bachas, and C. Kounnas, 1987, Nucl. 06, 060. Phys. B289, 87. Becker, M., G. Curio, and A. Krause, 2004b, Nucl. Phys. Appelquist, E. ., T., E. . Chodos, A., and E. . Freund, B693, 223. P. G. O., 1987, reading, USA: Addison-Wesley (1987) 619 Behrndt, K., and M. Cvetic, 2005a, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, P. (Frontiers in Physics, 65). 021601. Arkani-Hamed, N., H.-C. Cheng, P. Creminelli, and L. Ran- Behrndt, K., and M. Cvetic, 2005b, Nucl. Phys. B708, 45. dall, 2003, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 221302. Behrndt, K., M. Cvetic, and P. Gao, 2005, Nucl. Phys. B721, Arkani-Hamed, N., and S. Dimopoulos, 2005, JHEP 06, 073. 287. Arkani-Hamed, N., S. Dimopoulos, and G. R. Dvali, 1998, Behrndt, K., M. Cvetic, and T. Liu, 2006, Nucl. Phys. B749, Phys. Lett. B429, 263. 25. Arkani-Hamed, N., S. Dimopoulos, G. F. Giudice, and A. Ro- Benmachiche, I., and T. W. Grimm, 2006, Nucl. Phys. B748, manino, 2005a, Nucl. Phys. B709, 3. 200. Arkani-Hamed, N., S. Dimopoulos, and S. Kachru, 2005b, Berg, M., M. Haack, and B. Kors, 2005, JHEP 11, 030. eprint hep-th/0501082. Berg, M., M. Haack, and B. Kors, 2006, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, Arkani-Hamed, N., L. Motl, A. Nicolis, and C. Vafa, 2006, 021601. eprint hep-th/0601001. Berger, M., 1955, Bull. Soc. Math. de France 83, 279. Ashok, S., and M. R. Douglas, 2004, JHEP 01, 060. Bergshoeff, E., C. M. Hull, and T. Ortin, 1995, Nucl. Phys. Aspinwall, P. S., and R. Kallosh, 2005, JHEP 10, 001. B451, 547. 62

Berkooz, M., M. R. Douglas, and R. G. Leigh, 1996, Nucl. Cascales, J. F. G., and A. M. Uranga, 2003a, JHEP 05, 011. Phys. B480, 265. Cascales, J. F. G., and A. M. Uranga, 2003b, eprint hep- Binetruy, P., and M. K. Gaillard, 1986, Phys. Rev. D34, 3069. th/0311250. Blanco-Pillado, J. J., et al., 2004, JHEP 11, 063. Ceresole, A., G. Dall’Agata, A. Giryavets, R. Kallosh, and Blanco-Pillado, J. J., et al., 2006, eprint hep-th/0603129. A. Linde, 2006, eprint hep-th/0605266. Blumenhagen, R., M. Cvetic, P. Langacker, and G. Shiu, Chan, C. S., P. L. Paul, and H. L. Verlinde, 2000, Nucl. Phys. 2005a, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 55, 71. B581, 156. Blumenhagen, R., M. Cvetic, and T. Weigand, 2006, eprint Chen, X., 2005a, JHEP 08, 045. hep-th/0609191. Chen, X., 2005b, Phys. Rev. D71, 063506. Blumenhagen, R., F. Gmeiner, G. Honecker, D. Lust, and Chen, X., M.-x. Huang, S. Kachru, and G. Shiu, 2006, eprint T. Weigand, 2005b, Nucl. Phys. B713, 83. hep-th/0605045. Blumenhagen, R., D. Lust, and T. R. Taylor, 2003, Nucl. Chiantese, S., F. Gmeiner, and C. Jeschek, 2006, Int. J. Mod. Phys. B663, 319. Phys. A21, 2377. Bousso, R., 2006, eprint hep-th/0605263. Chiossi, S., and S. Salamon, 2002, eprint math.dg/0202282. Bousso, R., and J. Polchinski, 2000, JHEP 06, 006. Choi, K., A. Falkowski, H. P. Nilles, and M. Olechowski, Bouwknegt, P., J. Evslin, and V. Mathai, 2004, Phys. Rev. 2005a, Nucl. Phys. B718, 113. Lett. 92, 181601. Choi, K., A. Falkowski, H. P. Nilles, M. Olechowski, and Bovy, J., D. Lust, and D. Tsimpis, 2005, JHEP 08, 056. S. Pokorski, 2004, JHEP 11, 076. Brandenberger, R. H., and C. Vafa, 1989, Nucl. Phys. B316, Choi, K., K. S. Jeong, T. Kobayashi, and K.-i. Okumura, 391. 2006, Phys. Lett. B633, 355. Braun, V., E. I. Buchbinder, and B. A. Ovrut, 2006, Phys. Choi, K., K. S. Jeong, and K.-i. Okumura, 2005b, JHEP 09, Lett. B639, 566. 039. Brown, J. D., and C. Teitelboim, 1987, Phys. Lett. B195, Chuang, W.-y., S. Kachru, and A. Tomasiello, 2005, eprint 177. hep-th/0510042. Brown, J. D., and C. Teitelboim, 1988, Nucl. Phys. B297, Coleman, S. R., 1977, Phys. Rev. D15, 2929. 787. Coleman, S. R., 1988, Nucl. Phys. B310, 643. Brummer, F., A. Hebecker, and M. Trapletti, 2006, eprint Coleman, S. R., and F. De Luccia, 1980, Phys. Rev. D21, hep-th/0605232. 3305. Brustein, R., S. P. De Alwis, and E. G. Novak, 2003, Phys. Conlon, J. P., and F. Quevedo, 2004, JHEP 10, 039. Rev. D68, 023517. Conlon, J. P., and F. Quevedo, 2006, JHEP 06, 029. Burgess, C. P., C. Escoda, and F. Quevedo, 2006, JHEP 06, Conlon, J. P., F. Quevedo, and K. Suruliz, 2005, JHEP 08, 044. 007. Burgess, C. P., R. Kallosh, and F. Quevedo, 2003, JHEP 10, Copeland, E. J., A. R. Liddle, D. H. Lyth, E. D. Stewart, and 056. D. Wands, 1994, Phys. Rev. D49, 6410. Burgess, C. P., P. Martineau, F. Quevedo, G. Rajesh, and Copeland, E. J., R. C. Myers, and J. Polchinski, 2004, JHEP R. J. Zhang, 2002, JHEP 03, 052. 06, 013. Burgess, C. P., et al., 2001, JHEP 07, 047. Copeland, E. J., M. Sami, and S. Tsujikawa, 2006, eprint Buscher, T. H., 1987, Phys. Lett. B194, 59. hep-th/0603057. Buscher, T. H., 1988, Phys. Lett. B201, 466. Cremmer, E., S. Ferrara, C. Kounnas, and D. V. Nanopoulos, Callan, J., Curtis G., and S. R. Coleman, 1977, Phys. Rev. 1983, Phys. Lett. B133, 61. D16, 1762. Cremmer, E., and J. Scherk, 1976, Nucl. Phys. B108, 409. Camara, P. G., A. Font, and L. E. Ibanez, 2005a, JHEP 09, Curio, G., A. Klemm, B. Kors, and D. Lust, 2002, Nucl. Phys. 013. B620, 237. Camara, P. G., L. E. Ibanez, and A. M. Uranga, 2004, Nucl. Curio, G., A. Klemm, D. Lust, and S. Theisen, 2001, Nucl. Phys. B689, 195. Phys. B609, 3. Camara, P. G., L. E. Ibanez, and A. M. Uranga, 2005b, Nucl. Curio, G., and A. Krause, 2006, eprint hep-th/0606243. Phys. B708, 268. Cvetic, M., T. Li, and T. Liu, 2005, Phys. Rev. D71, 106008. Candelas, P., X. C. De La Ossa, P. S. Green, and L. Parkes, Cvetic, M., and T. Liu, 2005, Phys. Lett. B610, 122. 1991, Nucl. Phys. B359, 21. Dabholkar, A., and C. Hull, 2003, JHEP 09, 054. Candelas, P., G. T. Horowitz, A. Strominger, and E. Witten, Dabholkar, A., and C. Hull, 2006, JHEP 05, 009. 1985, Nucl. Phys. B258, 46. Dall’Agata, G., 2001, JHEP 11, 005. Candelas, P., and X. de la Ossa, 1991, Nucl. Phys. B355, Dall’Agata, G., 2004a, Nucl. Phys. B695, 243. 455. Dall’Agata, G., 2004b, Class. Quant. Grav. 21, S1479. Candelas, P., X. de la Ossa, and S. Katz, 1995, Nucl. Phys. Dasgupta, K., C. Herdeiro, S. Hirano, and R. Kallosh, 2002, B450, 267. Phys. Rev. D65, 126002. Candelas, P., and X. C. de la Ossa, 1990, Nucl. Phys. B342, Dasgupta, K., G. Rajesh, and S. Sethi, 1999, JHEP 08, 023. 246. D’Auria, R., S. Ferrara, F. Gargiulo, M. Trigiante, and de Carlos, B., J. A. Casas, F. Quevedo, and E. Roulet, 1993, S. Vaula, 2003a, JHEP 06, 045. Phys. Lett. B318, 447. D’Auria, R., S. Ferrara, M. A. Lledo, and S. Vaula, 2003b, Carroll, S. M., 2001, Living Rev. Rel. 4, 1. Phys. Lett. B557, 278. Cascales, J. F. G., M. P. Garcia del Moral, F. Quevedo, and D’Auria, R., S. Ferrara, and S. Vaula, 2002, New J. Phys. 4, A. M. Uranga, 2004, JHEP 02, 031. 71. Cascales, J. F. G., F. Saad, and A. M. Uranga, 2005, JHEP Denef, F., and M. R. Douglas, 2004, JHEP 05, 072. 11, 047. Denef, F., and M. R. Douglas, 2005, JHEP 03, 061. 63

Denef, F., and M. R. Douglas, 2006, eprint hep-th/0602072. Dvali, G., and A. Vilenkin, 2004a, Phys. Rev. D70, 063501. Denef, F., M. R. Douglas, and B. Florea, 2004, JHEP 06, Dvali, G., and A. Vilenkin, 2004b, JCAP 0403, 010. 034. Dvali, G. R., 1995, eprint hep-ph/9503259. Denef, F., M. R. Douglas, B. Florea, A. Grassi, and S. Kachru, Dvali, G. R., Q. Shafi, and S. Solganik, 2001, eprint hep- 2005, eprint hep-th/0503124. th/0105203. Derendinger, J. P., C. Kounnas, P. M. Petropoulos, and Dvali, G. R., and S. H. H. Tye, 1999, Phys. Lett. B450, 72. F. Zwirner, 2005a, Fortsch. Phys. 53, 926. Easther, R., B. R. Greene, M. G. Jackson, and D. Kabat, Derendinger, J.-P., C. Kounnas, P. M. Petropoulos, and 2005, JCAP 0502, 009. F. Zwirner, 2005b, Nucl. Phys. B715, 211. Easther, R., and L. McAllister, 2006, JCAP 0605, 018. DeWolfe, O., 2005, JHEP 10, 066. Eguchi, T., and Y. Tachikawa, 2006, JHEP 01, 100. DeWolfe, O., and S. B. Giddings, 2003, Phys. Rev. D67, Ellis, J. R., A. B. Lahanas, D. V. Nanopoulos, and K. Tam- 066008. vakis, 1984, Phys. Lett. B134, 429. DeWolfe, O., A. Giryavets, S. Kachru, and W. Taylor, 2005a, Farhi, E., A. H. Guth, and J. Guven, 1990, Nucl. Phys. B339, JHEP 02, 037. 417. DeWolfe, O., A. Giryavets, S. Kachru, and W. Taylor, 2005b, Feng, J. L., J. March-Russell, S. Sethi, and F. Wilczek, 2001, JHEP 07, 066. Nucl. Phys. B602, 307. DeWolfe, O., S. Kachru, and H. L. Verlinde, 2004, JHEP 05, Ferrara, S., 2002, eprint hep-th/0211116. 017. Ferrara, S., and M. Porrati, 2002, Phys. Lett. B545, 411. Diaconescu, D.-E., B. Florea, S. Kachru, and P. Svrcek, 2006, Fidanza, S., R. Minasian, and A. Tomasiello, 2004, Fortsch. JHEP 02, 020. Phys. 52, 618. Dienes, K. R., 2006, Phys. Rev. D73, 106010. Fidanza, S., R. Minasian, and A. Tomasiello, 2005, Commun. Dienes, K. R., E. Dudas, and T. Gherghetta, 2005, Phys. Rev. Math. Phys. 254, 401. D72, 026005. Firouzjahi, H., S. Sarangi, and S. H. H. Tye, 2004, JHEP 09, Dijkstra, T. P. T., L. R. Huiszoon, and A. N. Schellekens, 060. 2005, Nucl. Phys. B710, 3. Fischler, W., A. Kashani-Poor, R. McNees, and S. Paban, Dimopoulos, S., and H. Georgi, 1981, Nucl. Phys. B193, 150. 2001, JHEP 07, 003. Dimopoulos, S., and G. F. Giudice, 1996, Phys. Lett. B379, Florea, B., S. Kachru, J. McGreevy, and N. Saulina, 2006, 105. eprint hep-th/0610003. Dimopoulos, S., S. Kachru, J. McGreevy, and J. G. Wacker, Flournoy, A., B. Wecht, and B. Williams, 2005, Nucl. Phys. 2005, eprint hep-th/0507205. B706, 127. Dine, M., 2004a, eprint hep-th/0402101. Flournoy, A., and B. Williams, 2006, JHEP 01, 166. Dine, M., 2004b, eprint hep-th/0410201. Font, A., and L. E. Ibanez, 2005, JHEP 03, 040. Dine, M., J. L. Feng, and E. Silverstein, 2006, eprint hep- Franco, S., A. Hanany, and A. M. Uranga, 2005, JHEP 09, th/0608159. 028. Dine, M., E. Gorbatov, and S. D. Thomas, 2004, eprint hep- Franco, S., and A. M. . Uranga, 2006, JHEP 06, 031. th/0407043. Freedman, D. Z., P. van Nieuwenhuizen, and S. Ferrara, 1976, Dine, M., D. O’Neil, and Z. Sun, 2005, JHEP 07, 014. Phys. Rev. D13, 3214. Dine, M., and Z. Sun, 2006, JHEP 01, 129. Freese, K., J. A. Frieman, and A. V. Olinto, 1990, Phys. Rev. Distler, J., and U. Varadarajan, 2005, eprint hep-th/0507090. Lett. 65, 3233. Dixon, L. J., and J. A. Harvey, 1986, Nucl. Phys. B274, 93. Freund, P. G. O., and M. A. Rubin, 1980, Phys. Lett. B97, Dixon, L. J., V. Kaplunovsky, and J. Louis, 1990, Nucl. Phys. 233. B329, 27. Frey, A. R., 2003, eprint hep-th/0308156. Dixon, L. J., V. Kaplunovsky, and C. Vafa, 1987, Nucl. Phys. Frey, A. R., M. Lippert, and B. Williams, 2003, Phys. Rev. B294, 43. D68, 046008. Donagi, R., Y.-H. He, B. A. Ovrut, and R. Reinbacher, 2005, Frey, A. R., and A. Maharana, 2006, JHEP 08, 021. JHEP 06, 070. Frey, A. R., and J. Polchinski, 2002, Phys. Rev. D65, 126009. Donoghue, J. F., 2004, Phys. Rev. D69, 106012. Fu, J.-X., and S.-T. Yau, 2005, eprint hep-th/0509028. Donoghue, J. F., K. Dutta, and A. Ross, 2006, Phys. Rev. Fu, J.-X., and S.-T. Yau, 2006, eprint hep-th/0604063. D73, 113002. Garcia-Bellido, J., R. Rabadan, and F. Zamora, 2002, JHEP Douglas, M., and Z. Lu, 2006, eprint math.dg/0603414. 01, 036. Douglas, M. R., 2003, JHEP 05, 046. Garcia-Etxebarria, I., F. Saad, and A. M. Uranga, 2006, Douglas, M. R., 2004a, Comptes Rendus Physique 5, 965. JHEP 08, 069. Douglas, M. R., 2004b, eprint hep-th/0405279. Gepner, D., 1987, Phys. Lett. B199, 380. Douglas, M. R., 2004c, eprint hep-ph/0401004. von Gersdorff, G., and A. Hebecker, 2005, Phys. Lett. B624, Douglas, M. R., 2005. 270. Douglas, M. R., R. L. Karp, S. Lukic, and R. Reinbacher, Gherghetta, T., and J. Giedt, 2006, Phys. Rev. D74, 066007. 2006a, eprint hep-th/0606261. Gibbons, G. W., 1984, three lectures given at GIFT Seminar Douglas, M. R., B. Shiffman, and S. Zelditch, 2004, Commun. on Theoretical Physics, San Feliu de Guixols, Spain, Jun Math. Phys. 252, 325. 4-11, 1984. Douglas, M. R., B. Shiffman, and S. Zelditch, 2006b, Com- Gibbons, G. W., and N. Turok, 2006, eprint hep-th/0609095. mun. Math. Phys. 265, 617. Giddings, S. B., 2003, Phys. Rev. D68, 026006. Douglas, M. R., and W. Taylor, 2006, eprint hep-th/0606109. Giddings, S. B., 2006, eprint hep-th/0605196. Douglas, M. R., and C.-g. Zhou, 2004, JHEP 06, 014. Giddings, S. B., S. Kachru, and J. Polchinski, 2002, Phys. Duff, M. J., 1996, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A11, 5623. Rev. D66, 106006. 64

Giddings, S. B., and A. Maharana, 2006, Phys. Rev. D73, th/0607120. 126003. Hellerman, S., N. Kaloper, and L. Susskind, 2001, JHEP 06, Gimon, E. G., and J. Polchinski, 1996, Phys. Rev. D54, 1667. 003. Giryavets, A., S. Kachru, and P. K. Tripathy, 2004a, JHEP Hellerman, S., J. McGreevy, and B. Williams, 2004, JHEP 08, 002. 01, 024. Giryavets, A., S. Kachru, P. K. Tripathy, and S. P. Trivedi, Herdeiro, C., S. Hirano, and R. Kallosh, 2001, JHEP 12, 027. 2004b, JHEP 04, 003. Holman, R., and L. Mersini-Houghton, 2005, eprint hep- Giudice, G., and R. Rattazzi, 1998, in *Kane, G.L. (ed.): th/0511102. Perspectives on supersymmetry* 355- 377. Horava, P., and E. Witten, 1996, Nucl. Phys. B460, 506. Giudice, G. F., M. A. Luty, H. Murayama, and R. Rattazzi, Horne, J. H., and G. W. Moore, 1994, Nucl. Phys. B432, 109. 1998, JHEP 12, 027. House, T., and E. Palti, 2005, Phys. Rev. D72, 026004. Giudice, G. F., and R. Rattazzi, 1999, Phys. Rept. 322, 419. Hull, C. M., 2005, JHEP 10, 065. Giudice, G. F., and R. Rattazzi, 2006, eprint hep-ph/0606105. Hull, C. M., 2006a, eprint hep-th/0605149. Giudice, G. F., and A. Romanino, 2004, Nucl. Phys. B699, Hull, C. M., 2006b, eprint hep-th/0604178. 65. Hull, C. M., and R. A. Reid-Edwards, 2005, eprint hep- Gmeiner, F., 2006a, eprint hep-th/0608227. th/0503114. Gmeiner, F., 2006b, Fortsch. Phys. 54, 391. Ibanez, L. E., 2005, Phys. Rev. D71, 055005. Gmeiner, F., R. Blumenhagen, G. Honecker, D. Lust, and Ibanez, L. E., and A. M. Uranga, 2006, eprint hep- T. Weigand, 2006, JHEP 01, 004. th/0609213. Goldstein, E., and S. Prokushkin, 2004, Commun. Math. Ihl, M., and T. Wrase, 2006, JHEP 07, 027. Phys. 251, 65. Intriligator, K., N. Seiberg, and D. Shih, 2006, JHEP 04, 021. Gomez-Reino, M., and I. Zavala, 2002, JHEP 09, 020. Intriligator, K. A., R. G. Leigh, and N. Seiberg, 1994, Phys. Gomis, J., F. Marchesano, and D. Mateos, 2005, JHEP 11, Rev. D50, 1092. 021. Itzhaki, N., 2006, JHEP 08, 020. Gorlich, L., S. Kachru, P. K. Tripathy, and S. P. Trivedi, 2004, Jatkar, D. P., G. Mandal, S. R. Wadia, and K. P. Yogendran, JHEP 12, 074. 2002, JHEP 01, 039. Grana, M., 2006, Phys. Rept. 423, 91. Jockers, H., and J. Louis, 2005a, Nucl. Phys. B718, 203. Grana, M., J. Louis, and D. Waldram, 2006a, JHEP 01, 008. Jockers, H., and J. Louis, 2005b, Nucl. Phys. B705, 167. Grana, M., R. Minasian, M. Petrini, and A. Tomasiello, Johnson, C., 2003, D-branes (Cambridge Univ. Press). 2006b, eprint hep-th/0609124. Jones, N. T., H. Stoica, and S. H. H. Tye, 2002, JHEP 07, Green, M. B., J. H. Schwarz, and E. Witten, 1987a, cam- 051. bridge, Uk: Univ. Pr. ( 1987) 469 P. ( Cambridge Mono- Jones, N. T., H. Stoica, and S. H. H. Tye, 2003, Phys. Lett. graphs On ). B563, 6. Green, M. B., J. H. Schwarz, and E. Witten, 1987b, cam- Kachru, S., R. Kallosh, A. Linde, and S. P. Trivedi, 2003a, bridge, Uk: Univ. Pr. ( 1987) 596 P. ( Cambridge Mono- Phys. Rev. D68, 046005. graphs On Mathematical Physics). Kachru, S., and A.-K. Kashani-Poor, 2005, JHEP 03, 066. Greene, B., and A. Weltman, 2006, JHEP 03, 035. Kachru, S., A. Klemm, W. Lerche, P. Mayr, and C. Vafa, Greene, B. R., K. H. Kirklin, P. J. Miron, and G. G. Ross, 1996, Nucl. Phys. B459, 537. 1986, Nucl. Phys. B278, 667. Kachru, S., J. McGreevy, and P. Svrcek, 2006, JHEP 04, 023. Greene, B. R., D. R. Morrison, and A. Strominger, 1995, Nucl. Kachru, S., J. Pearson, and H. L. Verlinde, 2002, JHEP 06, Phys. B451, 109. 021. Greene, B. R., and M. R. Plesser, 1990, Nucl. Phys. B338, Kachru, S., M. B. Schulz, P. K. Tripathy, and S. P. Trivedi, 15. 2003b, JHEP 03, 061. Greene, B. R., K. Schalm, and G. Shiu, 2000, Nucl. Phys. Kachru, S., M. B. Schulz, and S. Trivedi, 2003c, JHEP 10, B584, 480. 007. Grimm, T. W., and J. Louis, 2004, Nucl. Phys. B699, 387. Kachru, S., and C. Vafa, 1995, Nucl. Phys. B450, 69. Grimm, T. W., and J. Louis, 2005, Nucl. Phys. B718, 153. Kachru, S., et al., 2003, JCAP 0310, 013. Gukov, S., S. Kachru, X. Liu, and L. McAllister, 2004, Phys. Kallosh, R., A.-K. Kashani-Poor, and A. Tomasiello, 2005, Rev. D69, 086008. JHEP 06, 069. Gukov, S., C. Vafa, and E. Witten, 2000, Nucl. Phys. B584, Kallosh, R., and A. Linde, 2004, JHEP 12, 004. 69. Kaluza, T., 1921, Sitzungsber. Preuss. Akad. Wiss. Berlin Gurrieri, S., J. Louis, A. Micu, and D. Waldram, 2003, Nucl. (Math. Phys. ) 1921, 966. Phys. B654, 61. Kane, G. L., P. Kumar, and J. Shao, 2006, eprint hep- Guth, A. H., 2000, Phys. Rept. 333, 555. ph/0610038. Haack, M., D. Krefl, D. Lust, A. Van Proeyen, and M. Zager- Kaplunovsky, V. S., 1988, Nucl. Phys. B307, 145. mann, 2006, eprint hep-th/0609211. Katz, S., A. Klemm, and C. Vafa, 1997, Nucl. Phys. B497, Hartle, J. B., and S. W. Hawking, 1983, Phys. Rev. D28, 173. 2960. Katz, S., and C. Vafa, 1997, Nucl. Phys. B497, 196. Hassan, S. F., 2000, Nucl. Phys. B568, 145. Kawai, H., D. C. Lewellen, and S. H. H. Tye, 1986, Phys. Hawking, S. W., 1984, Phys. Lett. B134, 403. Rev. Lett. 57, 1832. Hawking, S. W., and I. G. Moss, 1982, Phys. Lett. B110, 35. Kawai, H., D. C. Lewellen, and S. H. H. Tye, 1987, Nucl. Headrick, M., and T. Wiseman, 2005, Class. Quant. Grav. Phys. B288, 1. 22, 4931. Kim, S., and P. Yi, 2006, eprint hep-th/0607091. Hebecker, A., and J. March-Russell, 2006, eprint hep- Kimura, T., and P. Yi, 2006, JHEP 07, 030. 65

Kitano, R., and Y. Nomura, 2005, Phys. Lett. B631, 58. Press). Klebanov, I. R., and M. J. Strassler, 2000, JHEP 08, 052. Mersini-Houghton, L., 2005, Class. Quant. Grav. 22, 3481. Klein, O., 1926, Z. Phys. 37, 895. Michelson, J., 1997, Nucl. Phys. B495, 127. Kobakhidze, A., and L. Mersini-Houghton, 2004, eprint hep- Moore, G. W., 2003, eprint hep-th/0304018. th/0410213. Garcia del Moral, M. P., 2006, JHEP 04, 022. Kofman, L., et al., 2004, JHEP 05, 030. Murphy, M. T., J. K. Webb, and V. V. Flambaum, 2003, Kreuzer, M., R. Schimmrigk, and H. Skarke, 1992, Nucl. Phys. Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 345, 609. B372, 61. Myers, R. C., 1987, Phys. Lett. B199, 371. Kreuzer, M., and H. Skarke, 2002a, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. Myers, R. C., 1999, JHEP 12, 022. 4, 1209. Narain, K. S., M. H. Sarmadi, and C. Vafa, 1987, Nucl. Phys. Kreuzer, M., and H. Skarke, 2002b, Rev. Math. Phys. 14, 343. B288, 551. Kreuzer, M., and H. Skarke, 2004, Comput. Phys. Commun. Nepomechie, R. I., 1985, Phys. Rev. D31, 1921. 157, 87. Nobbenhuis, S., 2004, eprint gr-qc/0411093. Kumar, J., 2006, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A21, 3441. Ooguri, H., and C. Vafa, 2006, eprint hep-th/0605264. Kumar, J., and J. D. Wells, 2005a, Phys. Rev. D71, 026009. Ooguri, H., C. Vafa, and E. P. Verlinde, 2005, Lett. Math. Kumar, J., and J. D. Wells, 2005b, JHEP 09, 067. Phys. 74, 311. Landsberg, G., 2006, J. Phys. G32, R337. Padmanabhan, T., 2003, Phys. Rept. 380, 235. Lawrence, A., and J. McGreevy, 2004a, JHEP 06, 007. Peebles, P. J. E., and B. Ratra, 1988, Astrophys. J. 325, L17. Lawrence, A., and J. McGreevy, 2004b, eprint hep- Polchinski, J., 1995, Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 4724. th/0401233. Polchinski, J., 1996, Rev. Mod. Phys. 68, 1245. Lawrence, A., M. B. Schulz, and B. Wecht, 2006, JHEP 07, Polchinski, J., 1998a, String theory. Vol. 2: Superstring theory 038. and beyond (Cambridge Univ. Press). Lerche, W., D. Lust, and A. N. Schellekens, 1987, Nucl. Phys. Polchinski, J., 1998b, String theory, Vol. I: An introduction B287, 477. to the bosonic string (Cambridge Univ. Press). Li, J., and S.-T. Yau, 2004, eprint hep-th/0411136. Polchinski, J., 2006, eprint hep-th/0603249. Linde, A. D., 1984, Rept. Prog. Phys. 47, 925. Polchinski, J., and A. Strominger, 1996, Phys. Lett. B388, Linde, A. D., 1986a, Mod. Phys. Lett. A1, 81. 736. Linde, A. D., 1986b, Phys. Lett. B175, 395. Poppitz, E., and S. P. Trivedi, 1998, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Linde, A. D., 1994, Phys. Rev. D49, 748. Sci. 48, 307. Linde, A. D., 2005, Contemp. Concepts Phys. 5, 1. Quevedo, F., 2002, Class. Quant. Grav. 19, 5721. Loeb, A., 2006, JCAP 0605, 009. Randall, L., and R. Sundrum, 1999a, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, Lopes Cardoso, G., G. Curio, G. Dall’Agata, and D. Lust, 3370. 2004, Fortsch. Phys. 52, 483. Randall, L., and R. Sundrum, 1999b, Nucl. Phys. B557, 79. Lopes Cardoso, G., et al., 2003, Nucl. Phys. B652, 5. Randall, L., and S. D. Thomas, 1995, Nucl. Phys. B449, 229. Luciani, J. F., 1978, Nucl. Phys. B135, 111. Rubakov, V., 2000, Phys. Rev. D61, 061501. Lust, D., P. Mayr, S. Reffert, and S. Stieberger, 2006a, Nucl. Sakharov, A. D., 1984, Sov. Phys. JETP 60, 214. Phys. B732, 243. Saltman, A., and E. Silverstein, 2004, JHEP 11, 066. Lust, D., S. Reffert, E. Scheidegger, W. Schulgin, and Saltman, A., and E. Silverstein, 2006, JHEP 01, 139. S. Stieberger, 2006b, eprint hep-th/0609013. Sarangi, S., and S. H. H. Tye, 2002, Phys. Lett. B536, 185. Lust, D., S. Reffert, W. Schulgin, and S. Stieberger, 2005a, Sarangi, S., and S. H. H. Tye, 2006, eprint hep-th/0603237. eprint hep-th/0506090. Saueressig, F., U. Theis, and S. Vandoren, 2006, Phys. Lett. Lust, D., S. Reffert, W. Schulgin, and P. K. Tripathy, 2006c, B633, 125. JHEP 08, 071. Saulina, N., 2005, Nucl. Phys. B720, 203. Lust, D., S. Reffert, and S. Stieberger, 2005b, Nucl. Phys. Schellekens, A. N., 1998, The landscape “avant la lettre”, B706, 3. URL http://arXiv.org/physics/0604134. Lust, D., S. Reffert, and S. Stieberger, 2005c, Nucl. Phys. Scherk, J., and J. H. Schwarz, 1979, Nucl. Phys. B153, 61. B727, 264. Schnabl, M., 2005, eprint hep-th/0511286. Lust, D., and D. Tsimpis, 2005, JHEP 02, 027. Schulz, M. B., 2004, Fortsch. Phys. 52, 963. Luty, M. A., 2005, eprint hep-th/0509029. Schulz, M. B., 2006, JHEP 05, 023. Lyth, D. H., and A. Riotto, 1999, Phys. Rept. 314, 1. Seiberg, N., 1988, Nucl. Phys. B303, 286. MacKay, D. J. C., 2003, , Inference and Seiberg, N., and E. Witten, 1986, Nucl. Phys. B276, 272. Learning Algorithms (Cambridge Univ. Press). Seiberg, N., and E. Witten, 1994, Nucl. Phys. B426, 19. Maldacena, J. M., 1998, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 2, 231. Sen, A., 1997, Phys. Rev. D55, 7345. Maldacena, J. M., and C. Nunez, 2001, Int. J. Mod. Phys. Sethi, S., C. Vafa, and E. Witten, 1996, Nucl. Phys. B480, A16, 822. 213. Maloney, A., E. Silverstein, and A. Strominger, 2002, eprint Shadmi, Y., and Y. Shirman, 2000, Rev. Mod. Phys. 72, 25. hep-th/0205316. Shelton, J., W. Taylor, and B. Wecht, 2005, JHEP 10, 085. Marchesano, F., and G. Shiu, 2004, JHEP 11, 041. Shenker, S. H., 1990, presented at the Cargese Workshop on Marchesano, F., and G. Shiu, 2005, Phys. Rev. D71, 011701. Random Surfaces, Quantum Gravity and Strings, Cargese, Marchesano, F., G. Shiu, and L.-T. Wang, 2005, Nucl. Phys. France, May 28 - Jun 1, 1990. B712, 20. Shifman, M. A., and A. I. Vainshtein, 1991, Nucl. Phys. Martin, S. P., 1997, eprint hep-ph/9709356. B359, 571. Mayr, P., 2001, Nucl. Phys. B593, 99. Shiu, G., and S. H. H. Tye, 2001, Phys. Lett. B516, 421. Mehta, M. L., 1991, Random matrices (2nd ed) (Academic Silverstein, E., 2001, eprint hep-th/0106209. 66

Silverstein, E., 2003, eprint hep-th/0308175. 043520. Silverstein, E., 2004a, eprint hep-th/0407202. Veneziano, G., and S. Yankielowicz, 1982, Phys. Lett. B113, Silverstein, E., 2004b, eprint hep-th/0405068. 231. Silverstein, E., and D. Tong, 2004, Phys. Rev. D70, 103505. Verlinde, H. L., 2000, Nucl. Phys. B580, 264. Smolin, L., 1997, The life of the cosmos (Oxford University Vilenkin, A., 1983, Phys. Rev. D27, 2848. Press). Vilenkin, A., 2006, eprint hep-th/0609193. Spergel, D. N., et al., 2006, eprint astro-ph/0603449. Villadoro, G., and F. Zwirner, 2005, JHEP 06, 047. Steinhardt, P. J., and N. Turok, 2006, Science 312, 1180. Wales, D. J., 2003, Energy Landscapes (Cambridge Univ. Strominger, A., 1986, Nucl. Phys. B274, 253. Press). Strominger, A., 1990, Commun. Math. Phys. 133, 163. Weinberg, S., 1987, Phys. Rev. Lett. 59, 2607. Strominger, A., S.-T. Yau, and E. Zaslow, 1996, Nucl. Phys. Weinberg, S., 1989, Rev. Mod. Phys. 61, 1. B479, 243. Wess, J., and J. Bagger, 1992, Supersymmetry and supergrav- Susskind, L., 2003, eprint hep-th/0302219. ity (Princeton Univ. Press). Susskind, L., 2004, eprint hep-th/0405189. Wilczek, F., 2005, eprint hep-ph/0512187. Susskind, L., 2005, The cosmic landscape: String theory and de Wit, B., D. J. Smit, and N. D. Hari Dass, 1987, Nucl. the illusion of intelligent design (Little, Brown). Phys. B283, 165. Svrcek, P., 2006, eprint hep-th/0607086. Witten, E., 1981a, Nucl. Phys. B188, 513. Taylor, T. R., and C. Vafa, 2000, Phys. Lett. B474, 130. Witten, E., 1981b, Nucl. Phys. B186, 412. Tegmark, M., 2005, JCAP 0504, 001. Witten, E., 1996a, Nucl. Phys. B460, 335. Teitelboim, C., 1986, Phys. Lett. B167, 69. Witten, E., 1996b, Nucl. Phys. B474, 343. Tian, G., and S.-T. Yau, 1986, in San Diego 1986 proceedings, Witten, E., 1996c, Nucl. Phys. B471, 135. Mathematical aspects of string theory, 543-559. Witten, L., and E. Witten, 1987, Nucl. Phys. B281, 109. Tomasiello, A., 2005, JHEP 06, 067. Wright, S., 1932, Proceedings of the Sixth International Tripathy, P. K., and S. P. Trivedi, 2003, JHEP 03, 028. Congress on Genetics 1, 356. Uzan, J.-P., 2003, Rev. Mod. Phys. 75, 403. Yau, S.-T., 1977, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 74, 1798. Uzan, J.-P., 2005, AIP Conf. Proc. 736, 3. Zelditch, S., 2006, eprint math-ph/0603066. Vafa, C., 1996, Nucl. Phys. B469, 403. Zwiebach, B., 1993, eprint hep-th/9305026. Vafa, C., 2001, J. Math. Phys. 42, 2798. Zwiebach, B., 2004, A first course in string theory (Cam- Vafa, C., 2005, eprint hep-th/0509212. bridge Univ. Press). Vanchurin, V., and A. Vilenkin, 2006, Phys. Rev. D74,