CERN-PH-TH/2006-230 OHSTPY-HEP-T-06-006 NSF-KITP-06-100 TUM-HEP-651/06

arXiv:hep-th/0611095v2 18 Dec 2006

A Mini–Landscape of Exact MSSM Spectra in Heterotic Orbifolds
Oleg Lebedev1,2, Hans Peter Nilles1, Stuart Raby3, Sa´ ul Ramos-S´ anchez1, Michael Ratz4, Patrick K. S. Vaudrevange1, Akın Wingerter3


Physikalisches Institut der Universit¨ at Bonn, Nussallee 12, 53115 Bonn, Germany


CERN, Theory Division, CH-1211 Geneva 23, Switzerland

Department of Physics, The Ohio State University, 191 W. Woodruff Ave., Columbus, OH 43210, USA


Physik Department T30, Technische Universit¨ at M¨ unchen, James-Franck-Strasse, 85748 Garching, Germany

Abstract We explore a “fertile patch” of the heterotic landscape based on a 6 -II orbifold with SO(10) and E6 local GUT structures. We search for models allowing for the exact MSSM spectrum. Our result is that of order 100 out of a total 3 × 104 inequivalent models satisfy this requirement.

2 . bulk fields are partially projected out and form incomplete GUT multiplets. even if one allows for chiral exotics. 2)−1/2 + (1. For instance. which leads to the standard hypercharge normalization. which comprises one generation of the SM matter plus a right–handed neutrino [26. while the 4D gauge symmetry is that of the SM. In this study. as opposed to a random scan. to a 16–plet of a local SO(10). However.20]. 27]. 1)−2/3 + (3. 1)0 . If matter fields are localized at such points.1 Introduction Although there are only a few consistent 10D string theories. which is described in detail in [17. Optimistically. one might still be able to assign probabilities to certain features. The probability of getting something close to the MSSM in the context of intersecting D–branes in an orientifold background is 10−9 [6. (1) where representations with respect to SU(3)C × SU(2)L are shown in parentheses and the subscript denotes hypercharge. Even if this is not the case. 9] compactified on an orbifold [10–16]. in the context of orientifolds of Gepner models. This applies. 16 = (3. We focus on the 6 -II orbifold. This offers an intuitive explanation for the observed multiplet structure of the SM [20–23]. realistic vacua are very rare. 2)1/6 + (3. 2]. On the other hand. We base our model scan on the heterotic E8 × E8 string [8. they form a complete GUT representation. 1)1 + (1. This leads to the picture that string theory has a vast landscape of vacua [3]. the fraction of models with the chiral matter content of the standard model is about 10−14 [4. 5]. there is a huge number of 4D string compactifications [1. Our study is motivated by recent work on an orbifold GUT interpretation of heterotic string models [17–19]. is successful and a considerable fraction of the models with SO(10) and E6 local GUT structures pass our criteria. allowing one to exclude certain patches of the landscape on a statistical basis. To obtain predictions from string theory one can employ the following strategy: first seek vacua that are consistent with observations and then study their properties. The (supersymmetric) standard model (SM) corresponds to one or more possible vacua which a priori might not be better than others. The search strategy is based on the concept of “local GUTs” [20–23] which inherits certain features of standard grand unification [24–26]. 7]. Local GUTs are specific to certain points in the compact space. We find that the above search strategy. 1)1/3 + (1. O(100) are phenomenologically attractive and can serve as an ultraviolet completion of the MSSM. This framework is consistent with MSSM gauge coupling unification as long as the SM gauge group is embedded in a simple local GUT Glocal ⊇ SU(5). we show that certain patches of the heterotic landscape are more “fertile” in the sense that the analogous probabilities are at the percent level. in particular. one might hope to identify certain features common to all realistic vacua. which would lead to predictions.19. Out of about 3 × 104 inequivalent models which involve 2 Wilson lines.

0. 0 (0. 0 . 0. interactions generally break GUT relations since different local GUTs are supported at different fixed points. 0. An orbifold model is defined by the orbifold twist. the gauge shift V and the Wilson lines Wn . 0. V are such that the left–moving momenta p (we use the standard notation. 0. V E6 . 6. Furthermore. 0. 0. 0. In particular. 0. i. 0. 0. 0) . Also. 0. the torus lattice and the gauge embedding of the orbifold action.2 MSSM search strategy: local GUTs It is well known that with a suitable choice of Wilson lines it is not difficult to obtain the SM gauge group up to U(1) factors. while in the case of E6 we have 27 = 16 + 10 + 1 under SO(10). yet there are important differences. The Wilson lines are chosen such that the standard model gauge group is embedded into the local GUT as GSM ⊂ SU(5) ⊂ SO(10) or E6 . 0. 0. The spectrum has certain features of traditional 4D GUTs. It is thus necessary to decouple all (or part) of the 10–plets from the low energy theory. 3 . p2 = 2 (2) are roots of SO(10) or E6 (up to extra group factors). localized matter fields form complete GUT representations. e. In this construction. the massless states of the first twisted sector T1 are required to contain 16–plets of SO(10) at the fixed points with SO(10) symmetry or 27–plets of E6 at the fixed points with E6 symmetry. 1 3. 0. 1 3. Our model search is carried out in the 6 -II orbifold compactification of the heterotic E8 × E8 string. 3. gauge coupling unification is due to the fact that the 10D (not 4D) theory is described by a single coupling. 0. 0. that gives one complete SM generation. they all survive in 4D and appear as complete GUT multiplets. 1 2.1 = 1 1 1 2. 1 2. we base our strategy on the concept of local GUTs. V SO(10). for details see e.e. That is. To this end. there are 2 gauge shifts leading to a local SO(10) GUT [28]. The real challenge is to get the correct matter spectrum and the GUT hypercharge normalization. 0 0. 0 1 3 . 0 . 0. [18–20]) satisfying p · V = 0 mod 1 . 20]. 0.2 = 1 3.g. 0. 1 1 6. 6. 0. (3) such that the hypercharge is that of standard GUTs and thus consistent with gauge coupling unification. In the case of SO(10). We consider only the gauge shifts V which allow for a local SO(10) or E6 structure. 0. (4) and 2 shifts leading to a local E6 GUT. which is described in detail in [19. 0.1 = V SO(10). Since these massless states from T1 are automatically invariant under the orbifold action. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.g. 1 3.

0. Then the simplest options consistent with the SM anomaly cancellation are that the remaining matter either completes the 16–plet or provides vector–like partners of the untwisted sector. it does not work either since one cannot obtain GSM ⊂ SU(5) ⊂ SO(10) ⊂ E6 with 2 Wilson lines of order 2. 0. In the case of E6 . 0. 4 . [29.V E6 . 3 Results Let us now present our results for models with the SO(10) local structure. 0 . we focus on models of this type (although we include all models with 2 Wilson lines in the statistics). 0. If the extra states are vectorlike and can be given large masses. 3. (5) We will focus on these shifts and scan over possible Wilson lines to get the SM gauge group. Furthermore. The other massless states are often vector–like with respect to the SM gauge group and can be given large masses consistent with string selection rules. 6. These are realized when 1 Wilson line of order 3 and 1 Wilson line of order 2 are present. The 6 -II orbifold allows for up to two Wilson lines of order 2 and for one Wilson line of order 3 (cf. 0. Ž Select models with GSM ⊂ SU(5) ⊂ SO(10). We require that the spectrum contain 3 matter families plus vector–like states. 20]). 0 1 1 6. (4). The third generation would then have to come from other twisted or untwisted sectors. additional 16– or 16–plets can appear. The appearance of the third family can be linked to the SM anomaly cancellation. In more complicated cases. 0. whereas the third or “bulk” generation only has the SM quantum numbers of an additional 16–plet.  Identify “inequivalent” models. this strategy fails since all such models contain chiral exotic states [20]. However. we follow the steps: Œ Generate Wilson lines W3 and W2 . the untwisted sector contains part of a 16–plet.19. we discard models in which the SU(5) hypercharge is anomalous. the low energy spectrum will contain 3 matter families. typically it would not have the GUT normalization and thus would not be consistent with gauge unification. Indeed. In our MSSM search. We find that the above strategy is successful and one often gets net 3 families. 0.2 = 2 1 1 3. 0. The next–to–simplest possibility is to use 2 equivalent fixed points which give rise to 2 matter generations. 0. For each of the SO(10) shifts of Eq. The next question is how to get 3 matter generations. The simplest possibility is to use 3 equivalent fixed points with 16–plets [21] which appear in models with 2 Wilson lines of order 2. 3. Although a non–anomalous hypercharge could be defined. The localized 16– and 27– plets are true GUT multiplets.

1 SO(10). In order to obtain the models listed under points Ž. The models with the chiral MSSM matter content are listed in [30].  Select models with non–anomalous U(1)Y ⊂ SU(5).1 It is instructive to compare our model scan to others. 2)  non–anomalous U(1)Y ⊂ SU(5) ‘ spectrum = 3 generations + vector-like V SO(10). ‘ Select models with net 3 SM families + Higgses + vector–like. In the E6 case. Before continuing further.2 V . Further ambiguities arise in certain cases when U(1)Y can be defined in different ways. These results are also presented in table 1.‘. Thus the inequivalent models under point  have been generated by exploiting symmetries of the gauge lattice along the lines discussed in [33]. criterion  inequivalent models with 2 Wilson lines Ž SM gauge group ⊂ SU(5) ⊂ SO(10) (or E6 )  3 net (3. We know that these ambiguities occur and it is possible that in some cases Yukawa couplings are affected. Thus. 800 1163 492 234 90 the V E6 . Our results are presented in table 1. Select models with three net (3. about 10% of the models scanned contained the SM gauge group. 000 3563 1170 528 128 V SO(10). generating all inequivalent models is not possible using these tools.2 7. 1 5 .V . Our result (step 3) is comparable.1 22. we generate all possible Wilson lines along the lines of Refs. models differing only in U(1) charges are treated as equivalent.2 E6 .1 E6 . some models differ only by the localization of states on the different fixed points. Two models are considered “equivalent” if they have identical spectra with respect to non–Abelian gauge groups and have the same number of non–Abelian singlets.V with two Wilson lines. However. we make a few comments. it was found that the probability of obtaining the SM gauge group and In the analysis of [34] looking at non-supersymmetric heterotic string vacua. (6) Again.V . we consider the SM embedding GSM ⊂ SU(5) ⊂ SO(10) ⊂ E6 . due to the rapid growth in computing time. 2). 700 63 32 22 2 orbifolds based on Table 1: Statistics of 6 -II SO(10). [31] and [32]. Hence our criterion may underestimate the number of truly inequivalent models.1 680 27 3 3 3 shifts V E6 . In addition. models with 2 Wilson lines of order 2 fail and the analysis proceeds similarly to the SO(10) case.2 1. In certain types of intersecting D–brane models.

for which we require only one small eigenvalue. are SM singlets. This breaks many of the gauge group factors. if the relevant Yukawa couplings are allowed by string selection rules. The criterion which comes closest to the requirements imposed in [6. . orientifolds of Gepner models were scanned for chiral MSSM matter spectra. GSM × Ghidden . 7]. Some singlets are required to get large (close to Mstr ) VEVs in order to cancel the Fayet–Iliopoulos (FI) term of an anomalous U(1). and it was found that the fraction of such models is 10−14 . Note also that. sb . .e. The fine-tuning can be ameliorated if the vacuum respects certain (approximate) symmetries [40. the fraction of models passing criterion ‘. 2)1/2 states gets a zero eigenvalue. 2 Clearly. We note that there are in general several pairs of Higgs doublets with a matrix of µ–like mass terms. this makes the vector–like matter heavy. Furthermore. such that the low energy gauge group can be GSM up to a hidden sector. . 41]. (1. is 10−9 [6. is of order 1 %. (7) where sa . The probability of finding something close to the MSSM is much higher than that in other patches of the landscape analyzed so far. It would be interesting to extend these results to other regions of the landscape where promising models exist [35–38] (see also [39]). This comparison shows that our sample of heterotic orbifolds is unusually “fertile” compared to other constructions. The mass terms for such states are provided by the superpotential W = xi x ¯ j sa sb . The supersymmetric field configurations are quite complicated and generally there are vacua in which all or most of the SM singlets get large VEVs.three generations of quarks and leptons. 2)−1/2 . one cannot switch on the singlet VEVs at will. 2 6 . Instead one has to ensure that they are consistent with supersymmetry. In our set of models. 7] is . . Supersymmetry requires vanishing of the To get a pair of massless Higgs doublets usually requires fine-tuning in the VEVs of the SM singlets such that the mass matrix for the (1. (8) where the SM matter is neutral under Ghidden . i. thus it decouples from the low energy theory. . 4 Towards realistic string models The next step on the path towards realistic models is the decoupling of the vector–like extra matter {xi }. This is the notorious supersymmetric µ–problem. We find that within our sample the corresponding probability is 5 %. in all of our models.5]. hypercharge is normalized as in standard GUTs and thus consistent with gauge coupling unification. . the corresponding probability. while allowing for chiral exotics. In [4.

Nevertheless. UTT . Then we consider only superpotential couplings up to order 8. (9) where U and T denote generic untwisted and twisted fields. Here. we require a renormalizable O(1) Yukawa coupling (3. if the mass matrices have maximal rank. the next two steps in our selection procedure are: ’ Select models with a heavy top.F – and D –terms. In many of the models. TTT . i. the vector–like states can mix with the localized 16– and 27–plets (if it is allowed by the SM quantum numbers) such that the physical states at low energies are neither localized nor “true” GUT multiplets. U T T is a local coupling and thus is unsuppressed. (7)) have a maximal rank such that no exotic states appear at low energies. We require that the models possess a renormalizable top–Yukawa coupling as motivated by phenomenology.3 We find that a significant fraction We also address to some extent the question of D–flatness. A full analysis of this issue is deferred to a subsequent publication. In the next step “. we assume that the relevant singlets develop large supersymmetric VEVs. 2)1/2 .e. Thus. The number of the F –term equations equals the number of complex fields sa . In this letter. 1)−2/3 (1. Thus. respectively. 3 7 . In order to simplify the task and to reduce the number of models. it is clear that whatever the mixing. First. The D –terms can be made zero by complexified gauge transformations [42] if each field enters a gauge invariant monomial [43]. we first impose an additional condition. one has to show that all SM singlets appearing in the mass matrices for the exotics enter gauge invariant monomials involving only SM singlets and carrying anomalous charge. while the T T T coupling is significant only when the twisted fields are localized at the same fixed point. we select models in which the mass matrices for the exotics (cf. therefore there are in general non–trivial singlet configurations with vanishing F –potential. The U U U coupling is given by the gauge coupling. to ensure that the decoupling of exotics is consistent with supersymmetry. We discard models in which the above couplings are absent or suppressed. in the end exactly 3 SM families will be left. we consider only superpotential couplings up to order 8 and for this analysis we assume that all relevant singlets can obtain supersymmetric vevs. To show that the decoupling of exotics is consistent with string selection rules is a technically involved and time consuming issue. 2)1/6 (¯ 3. Eq. one of the following types UUU . “ Select models in which the exotics decouple at order 8. In the process of decoupling. we find that all SM singlets enter gauge invariant monomials.

2 2 2 Table 2: A subset of the MSSM candidates. 6. we substantiate this statement by studying a specific example. (11) 1 1 1 1 1 1 −1 2. − 5 2. −2. 0. −2. 0. 3. −5. 1 −1 2 . 1 2 . To verify whether an MSSM candidate is consistent with phenomenology requires addressing several questions. −4. −2. − 2 . 0. −2. (10) where we have added an E8 ×E8 lattice vector to simplify computations. 4 0. The standard SU(5) hypercharge generator is given by tY = 1 1 1 0. 0. 1 1 1 1 1 −1 6. 4. 0. we identify 93 models that can serve as an ultraviolet completion of the MSSM in string theory.2 37 32 V E6 . 6. 0. −2. −2. In what follows. 0. −2. 3 1 5 3 1. 3 . 6. 1 1 1 1 1 −4 . −6. −2. The most important issues include • realistic flavour structures. 0) .criterion ’ heavy top “ exotics decouple at order 8 V SO(10). −3. (12) The gauge group after compactification is GSM × SO(8) × SU(2) × U(1)7 . A model that passes all of our criteria Ž–“ and comes very close to the supersymmetric standard model has been presented in [20. −2. 0. Example The model is based on the gauge shift V SO(10).1 3 3 V E6 . −2. 1 3 (0. In our scan. of our models passes requirements ’ and “ (see table 2 and for further details [30]). • hierarchically small supersymmetry breaking. 0. 22]. 6. − 3 . −4. 3 2 . −1. 0. 0 1 2. we obtain many comparable models. 6. − 7 3 . 0. 8 (13) . −2. 4.1 72 56 V SO(10). In particular. The Wilson lines are chosen as W2 = W3 = 1 4. • absence of fast proton decay. −1 4.1 = 1 3. 0. 1 6 1 4 10 3 . leaving a complete survey for future work. − 1 2. 3.

1. coupling # ¯j u qi ℓ ¯k 1 ¯j d ¯k u ¯i d 0 ¯k q i ℓj d 4 e ¯i ℓj ℓk 4 Table 4: Renormalizable interactions involving the SM fields. 1)−1/2 (1. while the massless spectrum is given in table 3. 1)−1/3 (3. 2. thus. the up–type Higgs doublet and the quark doublet of the third ¯i . 8. 1)0 label mi m′ i si hi wi Table 3: Massless spectrum. 1. 1)1/2 label ¯i ℓ 4 4 20 2 (3. (Here we denote the leptons and Higgses collectively by ℓi . 1. 2)0 (1. 1. What happens precisely depends on the form of the matrix of µ-like mass terms for the vector–like states and. 1)1/3 (3. 1. 1)0 (1. Renormalizable Yukawa couplings involving the SM fields are shown in table 4. due to the absence of the u ¯i d proton is stable at this level. We note that. 1. 1. 1. 1)−2/3 (3. 1. We have checked that the rank of all the mass matrices is maximal. 2. the vector–like states get large masses. 2)1/2 label qi ℓi e ¯i u ¯i ¯i d vi s+ i + s ˜i # 5 anti-irrep (1. 1)1/2 (1. At the same time.# 3 8 3 3 7 4 20 2 irrep (3. 1)1/6 (1. 1. such that the exotics do decouple (assuming all singlets acquire supersymmetric vevs).) Other renorgeneration. the hypercharge is given by the subscript. 1. 1. 1)−1/2 (1. 1. 1)1/6 (1. which allows us to identify the right–handed top. 2. 1. 1)−1/6 (1. 1)1 (3. 1. The ¯j u top Yukawa coupling comes from the U U U interaction qi ℓ ¯k . 1. (14) where Ghidden = SO(8) × SU(2). Below we present most of them. The model has three generations of SM matter plus vector–like exotics. 1. 2. 1. 1. 2)−1/2 di v ¯i s− i − s ˜i # 4 2 47 26 9 irrep (1. 1. Once the SM singlets si get VEVs. Each entry usually contains many terms and involves different singlets as well as coupling 9 . on ¯j d ¯k operator. 1. ℓ ¯k and e malizable interactions qi ℓj d ¯i ℓj ℓk can produce the down–type quark and lepton masses as well as lepton number violating interactions. 1. 1. 1. the gauge group reduces to GSM × Ghidden . 1. 1. the the vacuum configuration. 1. 2)0 (1. 1. The quantum numbers are shown with respect to SU(3)C × SU(2)L × SO(8) × SU(2). 1. An entry sn indicates that the coupling appears first when n singlets are involved. 2. 1)0 (1. 1.

Employing a search strategy based on the concept of 10 . x. −3. one can assign large VEVs to the singlets without inducing the D –terms. 0.   =       . Such supersymmetric vacua would correspond to isolated solutions in field space. x. so there are 3 4×7 such that there are 3 massless d lepton doublets. Then.   Mmm 0 s5 s6 s6  5   s 0 s6 s6    . 0. s6 s6 s3  6 6 3  s s s =   s3 0 0  s6 s3 0 s1 s5 s5 s1  s5 s5 s6 s6 s5 s5 s6 s6 . 2 . Finally. the matter parity (or family reflection symmetry [44. one can make the F – and D –terms vanish simultaneously.        (15) with arbitrary x. using complexified gauge transformations. 5 Conclusion We have analyzed the heterotic E8 × E8 string compactified on a 6 -II orbifold. 1. That is. If B − L gauge symmetry is broken by VEVs of these fields. (This is just the ℓℓ the supersymmetric “µ–problem”). An interesting feature is that the spectrum contains a pair of fields which have B − L charges ±2. 45]) (−1)3(B −L) is conserved and proton decay is suppressed. 0. We have checked that the required vacuum configuration is D –flat. The dd mass matrix is ¯ states. the model allows us to define a suitable B − L generator which leads to the standard charges for the SM matter. Although we expect such solutions to exist. = 6 6 5  s s 0 s   s6 s6 s5 0        =                 . tB −L = 2 2 1. 0. − 2 3.   Mℓℓ ¯ Mm′ m′ = Mvv ¯ ¯ Similarly. The ℓℓ ¯ mass matrix is 8×5. their explicit form remains undetermined and will be studied elsewhere. there are generally non–trivial solutions to F = 0. s5 s5 s1 s5 s5 s5 s5 s1    s6 s6 s6 s6 s3 0 s6 s3 s1 s1 s6 s6 s1 s1 s6 s6   s3 s1 s1 s1 s1 s1 s4 s4 s1 s3 s3 s3 s3 s3 s2 s2  s1 s3 s3 s3 s3 s6 s6 s6 s1 s3 s3 s3 s3 s6 s2 s2 s1 s3 s3 s3 s3 s3 s2 s2  Mdd ¯    . the mass matrices for s± ˜± i and s i have a maximal rank. −3 1 1 2x − 2 . allowing for up to two discrete Wilson lines. Since the number of the F –term equations equals the number of the field variables. 0. 0 .strengths. Thus we end up with the exact MSSM spectrum. By choosing a special vacuum configuration one can reduce the rank of ¯ mass matrix to 4 such that there is a pair of massless Higgs doublets. 0.

This result shows that orbifold compactifications of the heterotic string considered here correspond to a particularly fertile region in the landscape and the probability of getting something close to the MSSM is significantly higher than that in other constructions. [5] P. Douglas and W. A. E. Bousso and J. Gross. amended by a hidden sector. T. (2006). J. Susskind. T. [4] T. J. B256 (1985). Honecker. and A. B287 (1987). Schellekens. Phys. Schellekens. Rohm. L. R. and A. 502–505. Huiszoon. 004. E. Wingerter received partial support from DOE grant DOE/ER/01545870. Harvey. and R. Schellekens. B710 (2005). P. N. Taylor for correspondence. [hep-th/0004134]. (2006). Raby and A. and A. R. Blumenhagen. N. Nucl. Lerche. Acknowledgments We would like to thank A. D. Taylor. Rohm. Polchinski. and T. J. L¨ ust. The most important outcome of our scan is the construction of O(100) models consistent with the MSSM gauge group and matter content. L¨ ust. JHEP 01 (2006). Harvey. Martinec. Dijkstra. J. [hep-th/0510170]. Weigand. 3–57. E. Nucl. [2] R. Gross. 253. T. PHY99-07949. [9] D. N.local GUTs. and would like to thank the KITP for their hospitality during the completion of this work. [3] L. 54 (1985). [hep-th/0411129]. A detailed phenomenological analysis of these models is in progress. JHEP 06 (2000). [8] D. (2003). Anastasopoulos. 11 . Lett. hep-th/0606109. Kiritsis. and R. Gmeiner. Phys. Rev. G. Dijkstra. 477. S. [7] M. References [1] W. N. Martinec. J. Nucl. we have obtained about 3 × 104 inequivalent models. J. Almost 1 % of these models have the gauge group and the chiral matter content of the MSSM. P. [6] F. Phys. This research was supported in part by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. Phys. This work was partially supported by the European Union 6th Framework Program MRTNCT-2004-503369 “Quest for Unification” and MRTN-CT-2004-005104 “ForcesUniverse”. R. hep-th/0302219. Schellekens and W. A. hep-th/0605226. D. 006.

and M. L. ed. O. Phys. Carlson (AIP. B261 (1985). K. Nucl. Ann. Nilles. Quevedo. P. 121602. [12] L. Katehou. Harvey. and A. Rev. K. Phys. J. A. P. Buchm¨ uller. Phys. Phys. F¨ orste. hep-ph/0512326. C. E. S. Zhang. Georgi and S. Ratz. Lett.-J. Lett. Minkowski. Nucl. and E. Rev. 1975) p. 332. Ratz. [18] S. J. E. Vafa. 171. J. Kobayashi. Phys. K. Lett. Phys. Ratz. [21] W. (2005). [19] T. K. Nilles. 93 (1975). Raby. 678– 686. Ib´ an ˜ez. and M. Rev. Lebedev. Kim. [15] J. [11] L. in: Particles and Fields 1974. Buchm¨ uller. Lebedev. Salam. Lett. Casas and C. A. Quevedo. NY. Lett. J. and C. A. Harvey. and M. Raby. and F. [27] H. Nilles. Georgi. 193–266. Kobayashi and N. Nucl. B593 (2004). Nilles.[10] L. H. J. Lett. D70 (2004). P. [13] L. 3–55. 25–32. Phys. S. Nucl. Phys. C. [hep-ph/0412318]. Pati and A. 96 (2006). 139–156. [17] T. Lett. [26] H. [22] W. Vaudrevange. [28] Y. Quevedo. Lett. O. and M.. B192 (1987). Hamaguchi. 32 (1974). E. 282–286. Wingerter. B257 (1991). and R. and R. B214 (1988). P. Phys. Dixon. K.-J. Katsuki et al. Buchm¨ uller. [hep-th/0406208]. E. Nucl. (2006). [25] H. C. [16] J. Kobayashi. [14] L. Zhang. 56–62. and F. Ib´ an ˜ez. 438–441. S. Vafa. Lebedev. DPKU-8904. B187 (1987). Lebedev. Witten. E. H. Phys. Mu˜ noz. 106008. Phys. P. 275–289. 285– 314. [29] T. Hamaguchi. B712 (2005). A. Ohtsubo. O. 12 . Witten. Glashow. H. [hep-ph/0511035]. Ratz. E. Ib´ an ˜ez. [hep-ph/0403065]. Phys. C. Phys. Buchm¨ uller. [hep-ph/0409098]. O. 63. B704 (2005). Hamaguchi. 575. Casas. Dixon. [23] W. B274 (1986). Rev. Mu˜ noz. and E. D10 (1974). and F. B317 (1989). K. hep-th/0606187. [24] J. Phys. B191 (1987). Phys. [20] W. Fritzsch and P. Phys. Hamaguchi. 262–270. H.

ulb. P. [37] J. S. 050. Ovrut. Kim and H. B115 (1982). A.physik. (2006). S. E. hep-th/0608085. Lett. Dimopoulos and H. Kyae. Raby and F. Lett. [hep-th/0009104]. 289 (2001). Rev.-H. and A. Giudice and A. B 138 (1984) 150. A. Dienes. Rev. [hep-th/0512177]. P. 133 (1982). Georgi. Pantev. [44] S. He. Blumenhagen. [hep-th/0603086]. Kim and B. P. Faraggi and D. S. Phys. Masiero. Moster and T. Ramos-S´ anchez. Lett. D 73 (2006) 106010 [arXiv:hep-th/0602286].uni-bonn. S. [36] V. Phys. Vaudrevange. Lebedev. S. Phys. K. [42] B. V. Wingerter thesis (2005) http://hss. J. Lett. Weigand. Phys. B 112. Phys. Cleaver. S. [33] A. H. Nucl. Phys. online/math nat fak/2005/wingerter akin/ [34] K. [35] V. [45] S. 375. Phys. http://www.uni-bonn. Braun. 043. Donagi. K. F. Minilandscape tables. Phys. Ferrara. [38] G. B633 (2006). P. [43] F. Nilles. Lett. E. Bouchard and R. Wilczek. Ann. 13 . JHEP 04 (2006). and C. M. [32] H. [40] J. B 193. and A. Savoy. Nanopoulos. JHEP 05 (2006). [39] R. B 455 (1999) 135 [arXiv:hep-ph/9811427]. Wingerter. Phys. [hep-th/0512149]. P. D25 (1982). Nilles. Derendinger. 251. Y. Nucl. Nilles. Raby. Lett. A. Dimopoulos. Vaudrevange. Wess. 2006. S. Wingerter. B 751 (2006) 186 [arXiv:hep-th/0603015]. Buccella. B. P. [41] G. Ramos-S´ anchez. B. 783–791. 409. [31] J. and T. Ovrut and J. 150 (1981). E. B 206 (1988) 480. S.[30] O. Phys. Ratz. A.