# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Spontaneously broken global supersymmetric theories, generate a positive vacuum energy making a flat space solution inconsistent. As is well known the proper framework for discussing spontaneous breaking of supersymmetry is supergravity. The natural scale for such a theory is however the Planck scale $`M_{Pl}`$, which is many orders of magnitude (at least 15) larger than the expected SUSY breaking splitting between standard model particles and their superpartners. The question then arises as to how this wide separation of scales can be generated. In gravity mediated supersymmetry breaking schemes an intermediate scale is typically generated by the condensation of gauginos in some hidden sector gauge group. If $`S`$ is the dilaton, a possible superpotential for the hidden sector could thus take the form

$$W=M_{Pl}^3e^{\frac{S}{b}}+kM_{Pl}^3$$
(1)   
with a constant $`k`$ in the superpotential whose origin is not understood at this point and $`b`$ a model dependent parameter. <sup>3</sup><sup>3</sup>3Another popular model, the so-called race track one where two or more gauge groups condense does not need a constant but appears to be ruled out on other grounds . Such a super potential can be used to stabilize the dilaton and give SUSY breaking at an intermediate scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\sqrt{m_{3/2}M_{Pl}}`$ with zero cosmological constant. The latter in fact involves cancellation between two terms both of which are of order $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^4`$ and thus can be accomplished by fine tuning a number of order one. Generically however such gravity mediated SUSY breaking models will lead to large flavor changing neutral currents, unless the $`F`$ term of the dilaton dominates the SUSY breaking <sup>4</sup><sup>4</sup>4If the SUSY breaking is dilaton dominated this could be avoided but it is fair to say that there is no natural framework coming from string theory in which this can be realized..

There are two other scenarios that have been discussed in the literature that lead to SUSY breaking, such that no large flavor changing neutral currents are generated, both of which communicate the SUSY breaking from a hidden sector to the visible by means of gauge interactions rather than by gravity. One, is when the information of supersymmetry breaking is communicated to the visible sector by the usual gauge (non-Abelian) interactions . This mechanism is called Gauge Mediated Supersymmetry Breaking (GMSB), an old idea recently revived in . The quantity that sets the scale for the soft masses is $`\frac{\alpha }{4\pi }\frac{F_X}{<X>}`$, where $`F_X`$ and $`<X>`$ are the highest and lowest components of a chiral superfield $`X`$ in the hidden sector. Phenomenological reasons <sup>5</sup><sup>5</sup>5One of the constraints on $`<X>`$ comes from standard Big Bang nucleosynthesis, giving an upper bound of $`<X>10^{12}`$ $`GeV`$ . require $`<X>`$ to be rather low compared to the cut-off scale $`MM_{Pl}`$.

In contrast to the gravity mediated case though, in these models the cancellation of the cosmological constant is rather artificial. In fact, at the minimum the scalar potential we need,

$$V_0|F|^23\frac{|W|^2}{M_{Pl}^2}=0.$$
(2)   
If the supersymmetry breaking scale is $`\sqrt{F}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{SUSY}`$ then to satisfy this we need a constant in the superpotential $`WM_{Pl}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{SUSY}^2`$ which is much larger than the SUSY breaking scale. Thus for instance for $`\sqrt{F}10^5GeV`$ as is typically the case in this scenario, then a constant at a much larger scale $`10^9GeV`$ needs to be added.

One may generate such a constant by adding yet another gauge sector to the model . Thus one possiblity is to add a SUSY preserving SQCD sector, which will generate a non-perturbative contribution to the superpotential giving for instance an effective additional piece,

$$W_{eff}=\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\frac{3N_c1}{N_c1}}(Q\overline{Q})^{\frac{1}{N_c1}}+\lambda Q\overline{Q}\stackrel{~}{S}\frac{g}{3}\stackrel{~}{S}^3$$
(3)   
where the gauge theory is $`SU(N_c)`$ and $`Q,\overline{Q}`$ are quark, anti quark superfields. The total superpotential is then $`W_{tot}=W(X,\mathrm{})+W_{eff}`$. The SUSY preserving conditions $`F_{\stackrel{~}{S}}=F_Q=F_{\overline{Q}}=0`$ then give $`\stackrel{~}{S}\sqrt{(Q\overline{Q})}\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ giving effectively a constant of the order of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^3`$ in the superpotential. Now the question arises as to how this scale is related to the fundamental scale of supergravity, namely $`M_{Pl}`$. In fact one should expect that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=e^{\frac{S}{3}}M_{Pl}`$ where $`S`$ is the four dimensional dilaton as in the above discussion of gravity mediated SUSY breaking. But now it is clear that without adding a constant to the super potential, $`S`$ will have runaway behaviour and we will not be able to generate an intermediate scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$.

In this paper we will not worry about the origin of such a constant and will leave that to some unknown (stringy) mechanism as in the case of the gravity mediated model. We will simply add such a constant but ask whether whithin the assumptions of the gauge mediated suspersymmetry breaking model, one could stabilize the dilaton in the same way that one is able to do in the supergravity mediated models. The answer will turn out to be negative. This does not imply that this mechanism is not viable. But it suggests (given the remarks in the previuos paragraph) that the dilaton (and presumbaly all moduli) of string theory are stabilized by some nonperturbative stringy mechanism, and that it is frozen out of the low energy field theory dynamics. Indeed given the difficulties of finding viable mechanisms for the gravity mediated case this may be required in that case also (see for example the third paper of ).

The other scenario, is when supersymmetry breaking is communicated to the visible sector by a pseudoanomalous $`U(1)`$ gauge interaction (U1MSB) . The scale of the soft masses in this case is set either by the $`D`$-term corresponding to the $`U(1)`$ or, in the absence of $`D`$-term contributions, it is set by an $`F`$-term. Since the virtue of the pseudoanomalous $`U(1)`$ is mainly the generation of fermion masses, it is assumed to be flavor non universal over the visible sector. Then, however, in order to avoid conflict with data on flavor changing neutral currents (fcnc), one has to require that the $`D`$-terms essentially do not contribute to supersymmetry breaking. <sup>6</sup><sup>6</sup>6This can be achieved in some models with anomalous $`U(1)`$, under additional assumptions. Furthermore, to have universal masses at the scale $`M`$, (again for fcnc reasons) one would like, in addition, supersymmetry breaking to be dominated by the dilaton $`F`$-term, so that the superpartners would get universal masses $`F_S/M`$. We will analyze prototype models for each case and we will try to answer the question under what circumstances supersymmetry is unbroken or broken with vanishing cosmological constant and what are the main features of the corresponding unbroken or broken vacua.

For GMSB, we will take the tree level superpotential to be simply $`w_0=\lambda X\mathrm{\Phi }\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$, with $`\lambda `$ a Yukawa coupling. $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$ are the messenger fields, vector-like with respect to the gauge group that contains the standard model gauge group. $`X`$ is a field, singlet of the visible and hidden sector gauge groups. For concreteness, we will take a specific, $`SU(N_c)`$ hidden sector that contains one family ($`N_f=1`$) of fields $`Z`$ and $`\overline{Z}`$ transforming respectively as $`𝐍`$ and $`\overline{𝐍}`$ of $`SU(N_c)`$. If the hidden sector is asymptotically free, then at the confining scale the formation of gaugino condensates becomes possible. Below this scale, the relevant physical hidden sector field becomes the hidden sector singlet “meson” $`X\sqrt{Z\overline{Z}}`$, and the corresponding contribution to the superpotential, for $`N_c>N_f+1`$, will be  $`w(S,X)=cX^pe^{rS}`$. Here $`c`$, $`p`$ and $`r`$ are model dependent parameters and $`S`$ is the dilaton field. Given that we assumed one hidden sector flavor, $`p=2/(N_cN_f)`$ and $`r=8\pi ^2/(N_cN_f)`$ are both strictly positive quantities. This specific choice of the hidden sector, will not spoil the generality of our final conclusions concerning supersymmetry breaking and the vanishing of the cosmological constant. The full superpotential is then $`𝒲=w_0(X,\mathrm{\Phi },\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }})+w(S,X)+k`$. In $`𝒲`$ we allow for a constant term $`k`$ which can be either the vacuum value of a combination of fields that have been set to constants upon minimization of the scalar potential with respect to the corresponding fields, or a new, non perturbative contribution to $`𝒲`$. In either case what is important for us is that $`k`$ is independent of $`S`$, $`X`$, $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$.

For U1MSB, we assume a hidden sector which has exactly the same structure as the hidden sector of the GMSB model and we couple it to a visible sector singlet field $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$. Below the condensation scale, the physical degree of freedom is $`\sqrt{Z\overline{Z}}X`$. Both $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ and $`X`$ are assumed to be charged under the $`U(1)`$. The full superpotential in this case is taken to be $`𝒲=w_0+w+k=\lambda \mathrm{\Theta }X^2+cX^pe^{rS}+k`$, where $`k`$ is independent of $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ and $`X`$

Due to the dilaton dependence of $`w`$, it is naturally implied that these superpotentials arise from some string compactification which requires supergravity as the correct low energy effective theory. In supergravity, the scalar potential (ignoring $`D`$-terms), is given by :

$$V=e^{K/M^2}\left[\underset{\varphi _i}{}|F_{\varphi _i}|^23\frac{|𝒲|^2}{M^2}\right]\mathrm{with}F_{\varphi _i}𝒲^{(\varphi _i)}+\frac{K^{(\varphi _i)}}{M^3}𝒲,$$
(4)   
where $`K`$ is the K$`\ddot{\mathrm{a}}`$hler potential, and $`\varphi _i`$ denotes any of the physical fields. Superscripts in parentheses denote differentiation with respect to the corresponding fields. We will assume for simplicity that all the other moduli besides the dilaton (such as $`T`$ or $`U`$) can be neglected. The K$`\ddot{\mathrm{a}}`$hler potential $`K`$ then will simply be:

$$K=M^2\mathrm{log}(S+\overline{S})\underset{\varphi _i}{}\varphi _i\varphi _i^{}.$$
(5)   
The K$`\ddot{\mathrm{a}}`$hler potential has been assumed to have its usual tree level value. One could imagine adding other, weak coupling or strong coupling corrections to it, but it seems unlikely that such terms would significantly affect our analysis. In fact it should be noted that although we are assuming some stringy effect which will generate a constant in the superpotential this does not mean that the four dimensional dilaton $`S`$ is not in the weak coupling region. Indeed, the dilaton being related to the gauge coupling, ought to be fixed at some weak coupling value. The ten dimensional dilaton which governs string perturbation theory on the other hand may be at the S-dual point so that string nonperturbative effects are important. Thus, we believe that we are justified in using the weak coupling form of the K$`\ddot{\mathrm{a}}`$hler potential for $`S`$ and ignoring perturbative and nonperturbative corrections.

It is also convenient to set $`M=1`$ and to define $`𝒢K\mathrm{log}|𝒲|^2`$. The task is to minimize the potential (4) for the GMSB and U1MSB models and see if supersymmetry breaking vacua with desired phenomenological properties exist.

In section $`2`$, we investigate supersymmetric vacuum configurations with vanishing tree level cosmological constant. A necessary and sufficient condition for this is:

$$F_{\varphi _i}=0,D=0\mathrm{and}𝒲=0.$$
(6)   
The $`D=0`$ condition is necessary in the $`U(1)`$ case. In fact, we will show that there are no supersymmetric vacua for either case with a nonzero gauge coupling. In section $`3`$, we investigate supersymmetry breaking. To look for supersymmetry breaking vacua, we have to minimize the potential. The scalar potential $`V=e^K[\mathrm{}]`$ upon minimization, gives $`V^{(\varphi _i)}=K^{(\varphi _i)}e^K[\mathrm{}]+e^K[\mathrm{}]^{(\varphi _i)}=0`$, which implies that in a vacuum with vanishing tree level cosmological constant it is sufficient to solve for $`[\mathrm{}]^{(\varphi _i)}=0`$, provided that $`K\mathrm{}`$ at minimum. In section $`4`$, we discuss vanishing of the cosmological constant at one loop.

In section $`6`$, we give our conclusions.

## 2 Supersymmetric Vacua

GMSB model

Let us start by writing out our superpotential again as :

$$𝒲=w_0+w+k=\lambda X\mathrm{\Phi }\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}+cX^pe^{rS}+k.$$
(7)   
Using the K$`\ddot{\mathrm{a}}`$hler potential (5), the $`F`$-terms are computed to be:

$$F_X=\frac{1}{X}(w_0pw)X^{}𝒲,F_S=rw\sigma 𝒲,$$
(8)   
$$F_\mathrm{\Phi }=\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Phi }}w_0\mathrm{\Phi }^{}𝒲,F_{\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}}=\frac{1}{\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}}w_0\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{}𝒲,$$
(9)   
where we have defined for convenience $`\sigma 1/(S+\overline{S})`$. Since the supergravity framework in which we work is valid only up to the scale $`M`$, we will exclude from our analysis cases with the vevs of $`X`$, $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, $`\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$ or $`Y=\mathrm{}`$. We will denote a field and its vacuum value (vev) by the same symbol, since there is no possibility of confusion. We can distinguish the following possibilities:

* $`w0`$: The constraints (6) allow us to write the dilaton $`F`$-term condition as $`F_S=w(r)=0`$, which requires $`r=0`$. But this is not possible, since we saw that $`r`$ is a strictly positive quantity.
* $`w=0`$.

1. $`S\mathrm{}`$ ($`\sigma 0`$): $`w`$ can be zero only if $`X=0`$ provided $`p<0`$. However, since $`p`$ is a strictly positive quantity, this is not an allowed solution.

2. $`S=\mathrm{}`$ ($`\sigma =0`$): For $`p>0`$, there is a supersymmetric vacuum configuration with $`X0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}=0`$.

We conclude that there is no supersymmetric minimum with a vanishing tree level cosmological constant and a finite value for the dilaton and therefore a nonzero gauge coupling.

U1MSB model

The superpotential in this model is:

$$𝒲=w_0+w+k=\lambda \mathrm{\Theta }X^2+cX^pe^{rS}+k.$$
(10)   
With the K$`\ddot{\mathrm{a}}`$hler potential (5) the $`F`$-terms are:

$$F_\mathrm{\Theta }=\frac{w_0}{\mathrm{\Theta }}\mathrm{\Theta }^{}𝒲,F_S=rw\sigma 𝒲,F_X=\frac{1}{X}(w_0pw)X^{}𝒲.$$
(11)   
Again, we distinguish two possibilities:

* $`w0`$: Using $`𝒲=0`$ we can write $`F_S=w(r)=0`$ and since $`r>0`$, there is no such supersymmetric vacuum.
* $`w`$=0:

1. $`S\mathrm{}`$ ($`\sigma 0`$): $`w`$ can be zero only if $`\mathrm{\Theta }=0`$, which requires $`p<0`$. Since $`p`$ is strictly positive, this is not an allowed solution.

2. $`S=\mathrm{}`$ ($`\sigma =0`$): The $`F_\mathrm{\Theta }=0`$ equation implies $`X=0`$. There is a supersymmetric vacuum with $`p>0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ undetermined.

We conclude that in the U1MSB model too, there is no supersymmetric vacuum except with zero gauge coupling.

## 3 Supersymmetry Breaking Vacua

GMSB model

In the GMSB model, there are four types of fields, namely the hidden sector field $`X`$, the messengers $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$ and the dilaton $`S`$. The physically relevant case is when the standard model nonsinglet messenger fields do not take vacuum expectation values, i.e. $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}=0`$, which implies through equations (9) that $`F_\mathrm{\Phi }=F_{\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}}=0`$. The minimization conditions simplify considerably if we notice that the values of the fields $`X`$ and $`\sigma `$ that minimize the potential with $`V=0`$, will minimize $`\stackrel{~}{V}\frac{V}{3|𝒲|^2}`$ as well, since

$$\stackrel{~}{V}^{(\varphi _i)}=\frac{V^{(\varphi _i)}}{3|𝒲|^2}\frac{V}{3|𝒲|^4}(|𝒲|^2)^{(\varphi _i)},$$
(12)   
and that $`w_0`$ is essentially absent from the picture due to the vanishing of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$. Define then

$$\stackrel{~}{F}_a\frac{F_X}{\sqrt{3}𝒲}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\left(\frac{p(1\stackrel{~}{k})}{X}+X^{}\right)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\left(\frac{p(1\stackrel{~}{k})}{a}+a\right)e^{i\alpha },$$
(13)   
where $`\stackrel{~}{k}k/𝒲`$. We derived the second part of the above equation using the definition of the $`F`$-term and the expression for $`𝒲`$ and in the third part of the equation we have defined $`Xae^{i\alpha }`$. Similarly, we define

$$\stackrel{~}{F}_S\frac{F_S}{\sqrt{3}𝒲}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\left(r(1\stackrel{~}{k})+\sigma \right).$$
(14)   
The phase in the above is zero if $`k=0`$. These definitions allow us to write $`\stackrel{~}{V}=|\stackrel{~}{F}_a|^2+|\stackrel{~}{F}_S|^21`$. Now let us look for solutions to the minimization conditions with $`V=0`$ and try to find out if it is possible to generate the scale hierarchy necessary for a low energy gauge mediated supersymmetry breaking scenario. For simplicity, we will ignore all phases. The vacuum conditions become:

$$\stackrel{~}{V}^{(a)}:\stackrel{~}{F}_a\left[1\frac{p}{a^2}(1\stackrel{~}{k})(1+p\stackrel{~}{k})\right]+\stackrel{~}{F}_S\left[\frac{pr}{a}\stackrel{~}{k}(1\stackrel{~}{k})\right]=0,$$
(15)   
$$\stackrel{~}{V}^{(S)}:\stackrel{~}{F}_a\left[\frac{pr}{a}\stackrel{~}{k}(1\stackrel{~}{k})\right]+\stackrel{~}{F}_S\left[r^2\stackrel{~}{k}(1\stackrel{~}{k})\sigma ^2\right]=0,$$
(16)   
$$\stackrel{~}{V}=0:\left[\frac{p}{a}(1\stackrel{~}{k})+a\right]^2+\left[r(1\stackrel{~}{k})+\sigma \right]^2=3.$$
(17)   
We can rewrite (15) and (16) as

$$\frac{\stackrel{~}{F}_a}{\stackrel{~}{F}_S}=\frac{ar}{p}\frac{a\sigma ^2}{pr\stackrel{~}{k}(1\stackrel{~}{k})}=\frac{\frac{p}{a}(1\stackrel{~}{k})+a}{r(1\stackrel{~}{k})+\sigma },$$
(18)   
$$\left[1\frac{p}{a^2}(1\stackrel{~}{k})(1+p\stackrel{~}{k})\right]\left[r^2\stackrel{~}{k}(1\stackrel{~}{k})\sigma ^2\right]+\left[\frac{pr}{a}\stackrel{~}{k}(1\stackrel{~}{k})\right]\left[\frac{pr}{a}\stackrel{~}{k}(1\stackrel{~}{k})\right]=0.$$
(19)   
The first part of the equation (18) comes from the vacuum condition $`\stackrel{~}{V}^{(S)}=0`$ and the second from the expressions (13) and (14) for the $`F`$-terms. Having in mind the constraint $`a𝒪(\eta )10^6`$ mentioned in the introduction and that $`r𝒪(10)`$, $`p𝒪(1)`$, we first notice that (17) can be satisfied only if $`(1\stackrel{~}{k})`$ is also small, say $`(1\stackrel{~}{k})𝒪(\eta ϵ)`$, with $`ϵ`$ at most of order one. Then, (18) can be written as

$$𝒪\left(\eta r+\frac{\sigma ^2}{rϵ}\right)=𝒪\left(\frac{ϵ+\eta }{r\eta ϵ+\sigma }\right).$$
(20)   
We distinguish two possibilities. First, assume that $`\sigma 𝒪(1)`$. Then, (20) can be solved if $`ϵ𝒪(\frac{1}{\sqrt{r}})`$. Using, however, this value for $`ϵ`$, (19) becomes $`𝒪(\frac{1}{\eta \sqrt{r}})𝒪(r)`$, which can not be satisfied since $`\eta <<1`$. If on the other hand, $`\sigma <𝒪(1)`$, then from (17) we see that $`ϵ𝒪(1)`$ and (18) becomes

$$𝒪\left(\eta r+\frac{\sigma ^2}{r}\right)=𝒪\left(\frac{1}{r\eta +\sigma }\right).$$
(21)   
We now turn to (19), which can be solved only if $`\sigma ^2𝒪(\eta r^2)`$. Substituting this back into (21), we get the condition $`𝒪(\eta r)𝒪(\frac{1}{r\sqrt{\eta }})`$, which is not satisfied for $`\eta <<1`$. <sup>7</sup><sup>7</sup>7If we relax the constraint $`a\eta `$, we can solve the vacuum equations with $`\sigma 1`$, and $`a`$, $`(1\stackrel{~}{k})1/r`$. This seems to be the only possibility to avoid the negative conclusions of our analysis. We conclude that we can not satisfy the vacuum equations with $`a𝒪(\eta )`$ and a vanishing tree level cosmological constant.

It is natural to ask how general this conclusion is, given that we have considered only a certain class of superpotentials. More specifically, we have not considered additional fields and couplings possible in the superpotential involving the field $`X`$. Such a coupling, can be of the form of either $`XAB`$ or $`XXA`$ or $`XXX`$, where $`A`$ and $`B`$ are chiral superfields of the hidden sector. Clearly, the most important contribution comes from $`XAB`$, when $`A,B𝒪(1)`$. Then, defining $`l<AB>`$, $`\stackrel{~}{l}l/𝒲`$ and ignoring phases, we get the leading order modification to the $`F_a`$-term:

$$\sqrt{3}\stackrel{~}{F}_a\sqrt{3}\stackrel{~}{F}_a+\frac{p}{a}\stackrel{~}{l},$$
(22)   
which amounts to $`\stackrel{~}{k}\stackrel{~}{k}^{}`$, with $`\stackrel{~}{k}^{}=\stackrel{~}{k}+\stackrel{~}{l}`$. By similar arguments as before, we can see that our previous conclusion remains.

U1MSB model

The first question to address is if the $`U(1)`$ symmetry is flavor universal in the visible sector or not. The main argument for the existence of the pseudoanomalous $`U(1)`$ is that, provided that it is flavor dependent, it is an excellent candidate to explain fermion mass hierarchies . But then, after supersymmetry breaking, its $`D`$-term will contribute to the soft masses which in turn tend to give large flavor changing neutral current (fcnc) contributions. Without any uneven mass splittings between squark generations, the U1MSB scenario is therefore consistent with data only if the dilaton $`F`$-term dominates over the $`D`$-terms. Here, we will assume that the $`D`$-term is negligible (under some additional assumptions it can indeed be small ) and argue that there exists a supersymmetry breaking vacuum with vanishing tree level cosmological constant.

The most important feature in the U1MSB model is that we do not have to make any special assumptions about the vevs of any of the fields. Each minimization condition can in principle determine its corresponding field vev. Indeed, a solution to the minimization conditions, as an expansion in the small parameter $`ϵ\mathrm{\Theta }^2/Y^2`$, has been presented in . Finally, cancelation of the tree level cosmological constant can be achieved by an appropriate choice of $`k`$. Therefore, in this model, the vacuum conditions can be satisfied and at the same time a supersymmetry breaking scale of $`𝒪(100)`$ $`GeV`$ can be generated. This scenario of supersymmetry breaking, in the dilaton dominance limit, qualitatively is very similar to gravity mediation. The difference comes from the field $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ which when taking a vev, provides us with an additional supersymmetry breaking parameter.

## 4 One loop cosmological constant

To ensure the vanishing of the cosmological constant at one loop, one has to look at the one loop effective potential :

$$V_1=V+\frac{1}{64\pi ^2}Str^0M^4\mathrm{log}\frac{M^2}{\mu ^2}+\frac{1}{32\pi ^2}Str^2M^2+\frac{1}{64\pi ^2}Str^4\mathrm{log}\frac{^2}{M^2},$$
(23)   
with

$$Str^n=\underset{i}{}(1)^{2J_i}(2J_i+1)m_i^n$$
(24)   
the well known supertrace formula of supergravity. Clearly, to have a zero cosmological constant, it is not sufficient to set $`V=0`$ alone. The second term is zero in theories with equal number of bosons and fermions and in particular in all supersymmetric models, but the third and the last term have to be taken into account. The last term is one that does not destabilize the hierarchy, but its presence is important for the vanishing of the cosmological constant. It can be taken into account by modifying the constraint on the classical potential $`V=0`$, to $`V+1/(64\pi ^2)Str^4\mathrm{log}\frac{^2}{M^2}=0`$. The additional term, however, is expected to be negligible compared to $`V`$, so we could safely ignore it in the previous section. In fact, we used the constant $`k`$ introduced in the superpotential to carry out this “continuous” ($`V=0`$) fine tuning. The vanishing of the third term on the other hand is required in order to have a stable hierarchy, and it involves a “discrete” fine tuning. Given that $`Str^2=2Qm_{3/2}^2`$, with $`m_{3/2}`$ the gravitino mass and

$$Q=N1𝒢^iH_{i\overline{j}}𝒢^{\overline{j}},$$
(25)   
with $`H_{i\overline{j}}=_i_{\overline{j}}\mathrm{log}det𝒢_{m\overline{n}}_i_{\overline{j}}\mathrm{log}detRe[f_{ab}]`$, a necessary condition for the vanishing of the cosmological constant is $`Q=0`$ . In the above, $`𝒢_i=\frac{𝒢}{\varphi ^i}`$, $`N`$ is the total number of chiral multiplets, $`f_{ab}=S\delta _{ab}`$ is the gauge kinetic function and $`𝒢_{m\overline{n}}`$ is the K$`\ddot{\mathrm{a}}`$hler metric of the K$`\ddot{\mathrm{a}}`$hler manifold for the $`N`$ chiral superfields. We can readily calculate $`Q`$ for both cases. $`𝒢_S=\frac{F_S}{𝒲}`$, $`𝒢_{\overline{S}}=\overline{𝒢}_S`$ and the K$`\ddot{\mathrm{a}}`$hler metric is $`𝒢_{i\overline{j}}=diag(1/(S+\overline{S})^2,1)`$, where the $`1`$ is to be understood as multiplied by the $`(N1)\times (N1)`$ unit matrix, where $`N`$ is the total number of chiral superfields. This is true only if the only modulus in the model is the dilaton and the K$`\ddot{\mathrm{a}}`$hler potential is as we have chosen it. In more complicated situations the above formulas have to be modified accordingly. Also, $`𝒢^{i\overline{j}}=diag((S+\overline{S})^2,1)`$ and $`𝒢^i=𝒢^{i\overline{j}}𝒢_{\overline{j}}`$, $`𝒢^{\overline{i}}=𝒢_j𝒢^{j\overline{i}}`$. A simple computation then yields:

$$Q=N13(S+\overline{S})^2|\frac{F_S}{𝒲}|^2.$$
(26)   
Remembering that $`S+\overline{S}=\frac{2}{g^2}𝒪(1)`$ and that in realistic models $`N𝒪(150)`$ (in the second reference in  $`N=143`$), we conclude that if $`|\frac{F_S}{𝒲}|𝒪(1)`$ (this does not exclude the case $`|\frac{F_X}{𝒲}|𝒪(1)`$), using the condition for the vanishing of the tree level cosmological constant $`|\frac{F_S}{𝒲}|3`$, we get the following condition for $`Q=0`$: $`N1\frac{36}{g^4}`$ <sup>8</sup><sup>8</sup>8This relation is rather stable. By including in $`K`$ the $`3\mathrm{log}(T+\overline{T})`$ term, it changes to $`N\frac{36}{g^4}`$.. It is amusing to notice that $`N=150`$ implies $`\alpha 1/26`$. In other words, in dilaton dominated models with $`V=0`$ at the minimum (the same goes through for other moduli dominated models), the one loop cosmological constant vanishes for values of the coupling constant remarkably close to its unification value. The dilaton $`F`$-term, therefore, has to be of at least equal order of magnitude as the $`F_X`$ term.

## 5 Conclusions

We analyzed two simple models of gauge mediated supersymmetry breaking in the context of supergravity and in particular we looked for supersymmetry breaking vacua with zero cosmological constant. To be able to cancel the tree level cosmolological constant, we allowed for a constant $`k`$ in the superpotential. With a K$`\ddot{\mathrm{a}}`$hler potential of the form (5) and $`k=0`$ it is not only impossible to do the latter but also it does not seem possible to get a weak coupling minimum .

For the GMSB model, we showed that it is not possible to have a supersymmetry breaking vacuum state with zero tree level cosmological constant, with $`X`$ in the desired range for low energy gauge mediation. We can speculate what would happen if we relaxed some of our simplifying assumptions. We could generalize the K$`\ddot{\mathrm{a}}`$hler potential by including $`T`$ or $`U`$ moduli but our conclusions regarding the vanishing of the cosmological constant are unlikely to be changed, except that some other modulus $`F`$-term or a linear combination of them would take the place of $`F_S`$. Corrections to the tree level K$`\ddot{\mathrm{a}}`$hler potential would be small in the weak coupling limit and thus unlikely to change these conclusions. Our conclusion then is not that these models are ruled out but that they require a dilaton stabilization at the string scale so that it is frozen out of the low energy field theory dynamics.

For the U1MSB model, on the other hand, we had to assume that the $`D`$-terms were negligible in order to avoid conflict with fcnc data. Provided that this was the case, we argued that there might exist (dilaton dominated) supersymmetry breaking minima with vanishing tree level and one loop cosmological constant with a field theoretic mechanism for dilaton stabilization.

## 6 Acknowledgments

This work was supported in part by the United States Department of Energy under grant DE-FG02-91-ER-40672.