## arXiv:1008.5223v2 [hep-ph] 24 Dec 2010

Limitation on Magnitude of _{D}-components

YoshiharuKawamura∗)

Department of Physics, Shinshu University, Matsumoto 390-8621, Japan

(Received September 1, 2010)

We study the magnitude of D-components in a generic supersymmetric field theory. There existsF-component whose vacuum expectation value is comparable to or bigger than that of D-component, in the absence of Fayet-Iliopoulos term, the large hierarchy in the charge spectrum and strongly interacting higher-dimensional couplings in the K¨ahler poten-tial, if contributions from other terms thanF andD-terms are negligible.

§1. Introduction

Much effort has been devoted to construct a realistic model beyond the standard model (SM) based on supersymmetry (SUSY) which is broken softly in our visible world. The SUSY is broken by non-vanishing vacuum expectation values (VEVs) of some auxiliary fields (F and/or D) in a SUSY breaking sector. The breakdown of SUSY is mediated to our visible world by some messengers. Then soft SUSY breaking parameters depend on the VEVs of F and D, reflecting on how to break SUSY and how to mediate the breakdown of SUSY.

Recently, the role of D-terms in the breakdown of SUSY has been attracted
attention for general gauge mediation.1), 2) _{The} _{D}_{-terms have also played an }
impor-tant role through the D-term contribution to scalar masses,3), 4) _{in various models,}
e.g., SUSY grand unified theories,5), 6) _{effective theories from string models,}7)–12)
effects due to the kinetic mixing,13) _{the gauge mediation,}14), 15) _{the anomaly }
media-tion,16), 17) _{the mirage mediation}18)_{and models with Dirac gauginos.}19), 20) _{Hence it}
would be useful to set a course of a model-building if we obtain constraints on the
VEVs ofF and D model-independently.

There is the theorem that if the VEV of all F-components vanish, i.e., _{h}FIi =

h∂W/∂φI_{i} = 0 whereW is the superpotential and φI are scalar fields, there exists

a SUSY preserving solution satisfying the D-flat conditions, _{h}Dα_{i} =_{h}φ†_{I}(Tαφ)I_{i} =
0.21), 22) _{It is known that the VEV of dominant} _{F}_{-component is comparable to or}
bigger than that of any D-components in most SUSY breaking solutions through
the analysis of explicit models. There are models that the VEV of dominant D
-component can be bigger than that of anyF-components in the presence of
Fayet-Iliopoulos (FI) term23) or the large hierarchy in the charge spectrum.24) It is
inter-esting to know whether or not these features hold in a more generic framework of
SUSY field theory. This is the motivation of our work.

In this paper, we study the magnitude of D-components model-independently, that is, without specifying the form of K¨ahler potential (matter kinetic function), superpotential and gauge kinetic function. In the next section, we consider a generic

∗) _{E-mail: haru@azusa.shinshu-u.ac.jp}

global SUSY field theory in the absence of FI term. In_{§}3, we extend our discussion
to the case with FI term, soft SUSY breaking terms and the local SUSY in order.
In_{§}4, we present conclusions and a discussion.

§2. Magnitude of D-component in global SUSY field theory

Let us consider the global SUSY Lagrangian density,

LSUSY=
Z
d2θd2θK(ΦI, Φ†_{J}, V) +
Z
d2θW(ΦI) +h.c.
+
1
4
Z
d2θfαβ(ΦI)WαWβ+h.c.
, (2.1)

where ΦI, Φ†_{J} and V =VαTα are chiral scalar superfields, anti-chiral scalar
super-fields and vector supersuper-fields,Tα are gauge transformation generators,h.c. stands for
the hermitian conjugate and Wα _{are chiral spinor superfields constructed from} _{V}α_{.}

K(ΦI_{, Φ}†

J, V), W(ΦI) and fαβ(ΦI) are K¨ahler potential (matter kinetic function),

superpotential and gauge kinetic function. BothK(ΦI_{, Φ}†

J, V) andW(ΦI) are gauge

invariant. The last terms in the right hand side of (2.1) come from the following terms, 1 2 Z d2θtrf(ΦI)(WαTα)(WβTβ)+h.c. , (2.2)

where tr represents the trace over the gauge generators. The scalar potential is given by

VSUSY =−FIKIJFJ −FI
∂W
∂φI −FJ
∂W
∂φ†_{J} −
1
2RefαβD
α_{D}β
−Dα(KI(Tαφ)I)
= ∂W
∂φ†_{J} K
−1I
J
∂W
∂φI +
1
2 Ref
−1
αβ(KI(T
α_{φ}_{)}I_{)(}_{K}
J(Tβφ)J) , (2.3)
where FI_{,} _{F}

J and Dα are auxiliary components in ΦI, Φ†_{J} and Vα. Here K =

K(φI, φ†_{J}), W = W(φI), W = W(φ_{J}†), fαβ = fαβ(φI), KI = ∂K/∂φI, KIJ =

∂2K/∂φI∂φ†_{J} etc. TheφI andφ†_{J} are scalar components in ΦI and Φ†_{J}, respectively.
(Ref−1)αβ and (K−1)IJ are the inverse matrices of Refαβ andKIJ, respectively. The

last equality in (2.3) is derived using the equations of motion,

FIK_{I}J+ ∂W
∂φ†_{J} = 0 , K
J
IFJ+
∂W
∂φI = 0 , (2.4)
RefαβDβ+KI(Tαφ)I = 0 . (2.5)

The scalar potential is rewritten down by

VSUSY =FIKIJFJ+1

2RefαβD

where FI _{=} _{−}_{(}_{K}−1_{)}I

J∂W /∂φ

†

J, FJ = −(K−1)IJ∂W/∂φI and Dα = −(Ref−1)αβ

(KI(Tβφ)I).

The derivative ofVSUSY by φI

′
is given by
∂VSUSY
∂φI′ =−F
I_{K}J
II′FJ−FI
∂2_{W}
∂φI_{∂φ}I′
−1_{2}(Refαβ)I′DαDβ−(φ†Tα)_{I}K_{I}I′Dα , (2.7)

using the identity derived from the gauge invariance of K¨ahler potential,

KI(Tαφ)I = (φ†Tα)IKI . (2.8)

From the stationary condition _{h}∂VSUSY/∂φI′i= 0, we derive the formula:

hFI_{ih}K_{II}J′ihFJi+µII′hFIi
+1
2h(Refαβ)I′ihD
α
ihDβ_{i}+_{h}(φ†Tα)IihKII′ihDαi= 0 , (2.9)
whereµII′ ≡ h∂2W/∂φI∂φI
′

i is the SUSY mass coming from the superpotential.
By multiplying (Tα′φ)I′ to (2.7), we obtain
∂VSUSY
∂φI′ (T
α′
φ)I′ =_{−}FI(KI′(Tα
′
φ)I′)J_{I}FJ
− 1_{2}(Refαβ)I′(Tα
′
φ)I′DαDβ_{−}(φ†Tα)IKII′(Tα
′
φ)I′Dα , (2.10)
where we use (2.8) and the identities derived from the gauge invariance of the
su-perpotential,
∂W
∂φI′(T
α′
φ)I′ = 0 , ∂W
∂φI_{∂φ}I′(T
α′
φ)I′ + ∂W
∂φI′(T
α′
)I_{I}′ = 0. (2.11)
Taking its VEV and using the stationary condition, we derive the formula:

hFI_{i}D(KI′(Tα
′
φ)I′)J_{I}E_{h}FJi
+1
2h(Refαβ)I′ih(T
α′
φ)I′_{ih}Dα_{ih}Dβ_{i}+ ( ˆM_{V}2)αα′_{h}Dα_{i}= 0 , (2.12)
where ( ˆM_{V}2)αα′ =_{h}(φ†Tα)IKII′(Tα
′

φ)I′_{i} is the mass matrix of the gauge bosons up
to the normalization due to the gauge coupling constants. The formula (2.12) is a
counterpart of (B.13) in Ref.25).
By multiplying (K−1)I_{I}′′′KI
′′
to (2.7), we obtain
∂VSUSY
∂φI′ (K
−1_{)}I′
I′′KI
′′
=_{−}FIK_{II}J′FJ(K−1)I
′
I′′KI
′′
−FI ∂
2_{W}
∂φI_{∂φ}I′(K
−1_{)}I′
I′′KI
′′
−1_{2}(Refαβ)I′(K−1)I
′
I′′KI
′′
DαDβ + RefαβDαDβ . (2.13)

The relation (2.13) is a counterpart of the identity (4.5) in Ref.2). Taking its VEV and using the stationary condition, we derive the formula:

hFI_{ih}K_{II}J′ihFJih(K−1)I
′
I′′ihKI
′′
i+µ_{II}′hFIih(K−1)I
′
I′′ihKI
′′
i
+1
2h(Refαβ)I′ih(K
−1_{)}I′
I′′ihKI
′′
ihDα_{ih}Dβ_{i}=_{h}RefαβihDαihDβi . (2.14)

We rearrange fields into those forming irreducible representations such as (Tα_{)}J
I =

Tα

(I)δJI under gauge groups where T(αI) is the representation matrix for ΦI and the
same notation for ΦI is used. In K =K(φI, φ†_{J}), fields with a same representation
can be mixed such that

K=aJ_{I}φ†_{J}φI +a
J
II′
Λ φ
†
JφIφI
′
+_{· · ·} , (2.15)
where aJ

I and aJII′ are coefficients and Λ is a high energy scale. The VEV of K_{I}J is

estimated as
hK_{I}J_{i}=aJ_{I} +a
J
II′
Λ hφ
I′
i+a
J
I′_{I}
Λ hφ
I′
i+_{· · ·}
=aJ_{I} +O(_{h}φI′_{i}/Λ) , (2.16)

where we assume that the magnitude of aJ_{II}′ and higher coefficients is at mostO(1)

and the magnitude of_{h}φI′_{i} is comparable to or less thanΛ.

The non-vanishing VEV ofD-component implies the breakdown of gauge
sym-metry by the VEV of some gauge non-singlet scalar fields, in the absence of FI term.
The non-vanishing components in _{h}D_{i ≡ h}Dα_{i}_{T}α _{are those for diagonal generators}

Ta_{because}_{h}_{D}_{i}_{is transformed into}_{h}_{D}a_{i}_{T}a _{by some unitary matrix}_{U}_{. Because the}

fields forming a same representation change in a same manner under the unitary
transformation, the form of K is invariant after the redefinition of fields by U and
we use the same notation for fields to avoid confusion. The VEV ofDa_{is written by}

hDa_{i}=_{−h}(Ref−1)aaihKI(Taφ)Ii=−g2aq(aφI_{)}hKIφIi
=_{−}g_{a}2q_{(}a_{φ}I_{)}
aJ_{I}_{h}φ†_{J}_{ih}φI_{i}+a
J
II′
Λ hφ
†
JihφIihφI
′
i+_{· · ·}
=_{−}g_{a}2q_{(}a_{φ}I_{)}
hK_{I}J_{i}+O(_{h}φI′_{i}/Λ)_{h}φ†_{J}_{ih}φI_{i}+a
J
II′
Λ hφ
†
JihφIihφI
′
i+_{· · ·}
,(2.17)
whereq_{(}a_{φ}I_{)} is the value ofT_{(}a_{I}_{)} for the non-vanishing component ofφI and the gauge

coupling constant ga is given by g2a=h(Ref−1)aai. We assume that the magnitude

of _{h}KJ

Ii isO(1). After the diagonalization of hKIJi,hDai is written by

hDa_{i}=_{−}g_{a}2q_{(}a_{φ}I_{)}
hφIi
2
1 +O(_{h}φI′_{i}/Λ) , (2.18)
where we also use the same notation for fields after their redefinition. Then the mass
matrix of gauge bosons is diagonalized and the mass of gauge boson forTa is given
by
(M_{V}2)a =g2_{a}( ˆM_{V}2)a=g2_{a}(q_{(}a_{φ}I_{)})2
hφIi
2
. (2.19)

The first term in the left hand side of (2.12) for the diagonal generator Ta _{is}
written by
hFI_{i}D(KI′(Taφ)I
′
)J_{I}E_{h}FJi
=_{h}FI_{ih}K_{I}J′i(Ta)J_{I}′hFJi+hFIihKIJ′_{I}ih(Taφ)I
′
ihFJi
=q_{(}a_{F}I_{)}
hFIi
2
+_{h}FI_{ih}K_{I}J′_{I}iqa_{(}_{φ}I′_{)}hφI
′
ihFJi
=q_{(}a_{F}I_{)}
hFIi
2
1 +O
qa
(φI′_{)}
qa
(FI_{)}
hφI′_{i}
Λ
!!
, (2.20)

whereqa_{(}_{F}I_{)} is the value ofT_{(}a_{I}_{)} for the non-vanishing component of FI.

The second term in the left hand side of (2.12) vanishes for Ta because the
relation _{h}(Refbc)Iih(Taφ)Ii= 0 holds from the gauge invariance of fbc(ΦI). Here a,

b and c are indices for the Cartan sub-algebra. Notice that fbc(ΦI), Db and Dc are

neutral under theU(1) charges relating the Cartan sub-algebra.

Using (2.18) and (2.20), the magnitude of _{h}Da_{i} and _{h}FI_{i}D(KI′(Taφ)I
′
)J_{I}E_{h}FJi
are bounded as
|hDa_{i| ≤}g_{a}2_{|}qa_{(}_{φ}I_{)}|
hφIi
2
1 +O(hφ
I′
i/Λ)
(2.21)
and
hFI_{i}D(KI′(Taφ)I
′
)J_{I}E_{h}FJi ≤ |qa_{(}_{F}I_{)}|
hFIi
2
1 +O
qa
(φI′_{)}
qa
(FI_{)}
hφI′_{i}
Λ
!
, (2.22)

respectively. Using (2.12), (2.19), (2.21) and (2.22), the magnitude of _{h}Da_{i}2 is
bounded as
qa
(φ)hD
a
i2≤(M_{V}2)a_{|h}Da_{i|}
1 +O(hφ
I′
i/Λ)
≤g_{a}2_{|}qa_{(}_{F}I_{)}|
hFIi
2
1 +O(_{h}φI′_{i}/Λ) +O
qa
(φI′_{)}
qa
(FI_{)}
hφI′_{i}
Λ
!
, (2.23)
whereqa
(φ) is defined by
q_{(}a_{φ}_{)}_{≡} ( ˆM
2
V)a
|q_{(}a_{I}_{)}(φ)_{| |h}φI_{i|}2 =
(q_{(}a_{φ}I_{)})2
hφIi
2
|q_{(}a_{I}_{)}(φ)_{| |h}φI_{i|}2 . (2.24)

Eq.(2.23) is our master formula and, from (2.23), we find that the magnitude of

hDa_{i} _{is comparable to}∗) _{or smaller than that of dominant} _{h}_{F}I_{i}∗∗) _{if the condition}

qa

(φ)≥O(ga2|qa_{(}_{F}I_{)}|) is fulfilled. Here we restate our basic assumptions:

hφIi
≤Λ ,
hK
J1J2···Jm
I1I2···In i
=O
1
Λn+m−2
(n+m_{≥}2) . (2.25)

∗) _{There are several models which generate comparable}_{h}_{D}a_{i}_{and}_{h}_{F}I_{i}_{.}2), 26)–28)

These mean that the breakdown of gauge symmetry occurs below the scale Λ and there are no strongly interacting higher-dimensional couplings in K, respectively.

In the case withg2_{a}_{|}q_{(}a_{F}I_{)}| ≫q_{(}a_{φ}_{)}, the magnitude ofhDaican be much bigger than

that of_{h}FI_{i}if the equalities in (2.23) hold approximately. Actually an explicit model
has been constructed with the large hierarchy in the charge spectrum.24) We explain
it briefly. Let us take the O’ Raifertaigh model with the following superpotentialW,

W =λ1Φ0(Φ1ΦN−1/N−1) +λ2Φ1Φ−1+λ3Φ′0Φ1/NΦ−1/N , (2.26)

where Φ0, Φ′0, Φ1, Φ−1 Φ1/N and Φ−1/N are chiral superfields with U(1) charges 0,

0, 1, _{−}1, 1/N and _{−}1/N. The relation _{|h}D_{i|}2 _{∼}N_{|h}FI_{i|}2 is derived, and it leads
to _{|h}D_{i| ≫ |h}FI_{i|}if √N _{≫}1. HereDis the D-component of U(1). As the relation
suggests,_{h}F1i dominates inhFIi andhφ−1/Nidominates in hDi.

In the case with_{|h}K_{I}J′_{I}ihφI
′
i| ≫O(1), the term _{h}FI_{ih}K_{I}J′_{I}ih(Taφ)I
′
ihFJi
domi-nates in _{h}FI_{i}D(KI′(Taφ)I
′
)J_{I}E_{h}FJi and hDai2 is bounded as
qa
(φ)hDai2 ≤g2a
hK
J
I′_{I}iq_{(}a_{φ}I′_{)}hφI
′
ihFI_{ih}FJi
. (2.27)

Then the magnitude of_{h}Da_{i} can be much bigger than that of_{h}FI_{i} if the equality in
(2.27) holds approximately and g_{a}2_{|h}K_{I}J′_{I}iq_{(}a_{φ}I′_{)}hφI

′

i| ≫qa_{(}_{φ}_{)}.

In the case that allF-components vanish, we obtain the relation
1
2h(Refαβ)I′ihD
α_{ih}_{D}β_{i}_{+}_{h}_{(}_{φ}†_{T}α_{)}
IihKII′ihDαi= 0 , (2.28)
from (2.9) or
1
2h(Refαβ)I′ih(K
−1_{)}I′
I′′ihKI
′′
ihDα_{ih}Dβ_{i}=_{h}RefαβihDαihDβi , (2.29)

from (2.14). Unless _{h}Refαβi equals to 1_{2}h(Refαβ)I′ih(K−1)I
′
I′′ihKI

′′

i,∗) the D-flat
conditions, _{h}Dα_{i}= 0, are derived and then the SUSY is unbroken.

In this way, we obtain the following results.

(1) The magnitude of _{h}Dα_{i} is comparable to or smaller than that of dominant

hFI_{i} under the assumptions (2.25), unless the magnitude of the broken charge
of F-components contributing SUSY breaking is much bigger than that of the
broken charge of scalar components contributing gauge symmetry breaking.
(2) There always exists a SUSY vacuum in the case that allF-components vanish

and _{h}Refαβi is different from 12h(Refαβ)I′ih(K−1)I
′
I′′ihKI

′′

i. §3. Several extensions

We extend our discussion to several cases.

∗) _{As an example, the relation}_{h}_{Re}_{f}

αβi=1_{2}h(Refαβ)I′ih(K−1)I
′
I′′ihK

I′′

iholds for the canonical
K¨ahler potentialK=|φI|2 _{and the non-minimal gauge kinetic function}_{f}

3.1. Case with FI term

ForU(1) gauge symmetries, the following term called Fayet-Iliopoulos term can
be added to_{L}SUSY,

LFI= Z

d2θd2θξrVr =ξrDr , (3.1)

where ξr are constants, Vr are U(1) vector superfields and Dr are the auxiliary

components inVr. The equations of motions forD-components are modified as RefαβDβ+KI(Tαφ)I +ξrδαr = 0 . (3.2)

Then the scalar potential is modified as

VSUSY =−FIKIJFJ−FI
∂W
∂φI −FJ
∂W
∂φ†_{J}
− 1
2RefαβD
α_{D}β _{−}_{D}α _{K}
I(Tαφ)I +ξrδαr
= ∂W
∂φ†_{J} K
−1I
J
∂W
∂φI
+ 1
2 Ref
−1
αβ(KI(T
α_{φ}_{)}I _{+}_{ξ}
rδαr)(KI(Tβφ)I +ξrδβr) . (3.3)

Although the same types of formulae (2.9) and (2.12) are derived, the inequalities
on _{h}Dr_{i}2 are different from (2.23) such that

qr
(φ)hD
r_{i}2 _{≤}_{η}
r(MV2)r|hDri|
1 +O(hφ
I′
i/Λ)
≤ηrgr2|q(rFI_{)}|
hFIi
2
1 +O(_{h}φI′_{i}/Λ) +O
qr
(φI′_{)}
qr
(FI_{)}
hφI′
i
Λ
!
, (3.4)

whereg_{r}2=_{h}(Ref−1)rri, and q_{(}r_{φ}_{)} andηr are defined by

qr_{(}_{φ}_{)}_{≡} ( ˆM
2
V)r
|qr
(I)(φ)| |hφIi|
2 =
(q_{(}r_{φ}I_{)})2
hφIi
2
|qr
(φI_{)}| |hφIi|
2 (3.5)
and
ηr≡
|qr
(φI_{)}|
hφIi
2
+_{|}ξr|
|qr
(φI_{)}| |hφIi|
2 , (3.6)
respectively. Hereqr

(φI_{)}andqr_{(}_{F}I_{)}are values ofT_{(}r_{I}_{)}for the non-vanishing components

ofφI _{and}_{F}I_{, respectively. In the case with}_{η}

r =O(1), the same result (1) is obtained.

If ηr ≫ 1∗) and the equalities in (3.4) hold approximately, the magnitude of hDri
∗) _{In an extremal case, there is a possibility that the VEV of}_{D}r _{is}

ξr itself and non-vanishing
but theU(1) gauge symmetry is not broken withh(Trφ)I_{i}_{= 0 and}_{h}

FIi= 0, whereTr is theU(1) charge operator.

can be much bigger than that of_{h}FI_{i}_{such that}

|hDr_{i|}=O(_{|}ξr|)≫ |hFIi|. (3.7)

In the case that allF-components vanish, we obtain the relation (2.28) or
1
2h(Refαβ)I′ih(K
−1_{)}I′
I′′ihKI
′′
ihDα_{ih}Dβ_{i}+_{h}(φ†Tα)IKIihDαi= 0 . (3.8)

There can appear a non-SUSY vacuum with _{h}Dr_{i 6}= 0, in which the gauge
sym-metry is unbroken with _{h}(φ†Tr)Ii = 0, in the case that h(Refrr′)_{I}′i = 0 and all

F-components vanish with_{h}(φ†Tr)Ii= 0.

3.2. Case with soft SUSY breaking terms

In the case that SUSY is broken in other sector at some high-energy scale, soft SUSY breaking terms can appear after mediating by some messengers. We consider the following type of soft SUSY breaking terms for the scalar potential,∗)

Vsoft= (m2)JIφ†JφI+

U(φI) +h.c.

. (3.9)

In the presence of V_{soft}, (2.9) and (2.12) are modified as

hFI_{ih}K_{II}J′ihFJi+µII′hFIi+
1
2h(Refαβ)I′ihD
α_{ih}_{D}β_{i}
+_{h}(φ†Tα)IihKII′ihDαi= (m2)J_{I}′hφ
†
Ji+hUI′i (3.10)
and
hFI_{i}D(KI′(Tα
′
φ)I′)J_{I}E_{h}FJi+
1
2h(Refαβ)I′ih(T
α′
φ)I′_{ih}Dα_{ih}Dβ_{i}
+ ( ˆM_{V}2)αα′_{h}Dα_{i}= (m2)J_{I}′hφ
†
Jih(Tα
′
φ)I′_{i} , (3.11)

respectively. The formula (3.11) is a counterpart of (3.54) in Ref.6).

If the soft SUSY breaking terms are related to the SUSY extension of SM
di-rectly, the magnitude of (m2)J_{I}′ should be the same size as or less than O(1)TeV2.

In this case with ( ˆM_{V}2)a _{≫} (m2)J_{I}′, the soft SUSY breaking terms are treated as

a perturbation. Then the same argument as that in the previous section is
ap-plied, and the same result (1) is obtained if _{h}FI_{i}D_{(}_{K}

I′(Taφ)I
′
)J
I
E
hFJi is bigger
than (m2)J_{I}′hφ
†
Jih(Taφ)I
′
i.

3.3. Case with local SUSY

In the Einstein supergravity, the scalar potential is given by29), 30)

VSG=M2eG/M
2
(GI(G−1)J_{I}GJ −3M2) +
1
2RefαβD
α_{D}β _{,} _{(3.12)}

∗) _{The form of}_{U}_{(}_{φ}I_{) is constrained by requiring that the gauge hierarchy achieved by a }
fine-tuning in the superpotential should not be violated by soft SUSY breaking terms.6)

where M is a gravitational scale defined byM _{≡}MPl/√8π using the Planck scale

MPl,G(φI, φ†_{J}) is the total K¨ahler potential defined by

G(φI, φ†_{J})_{≡}K(φI, φ†_{J}) +M2ln|W(φ

I_{)}_{|}2

M6 (3.13)

and D-auxiliary fields are defined by

Dα _{≡ −}(Ref−1)αβGI(Tβφ)I =−(Ref−1)αβ(φ†Tβ)JGJ . (3.14)

The F-auxiliary fields are given by

FJ =−M eG/2M

2

(G−1)I_{J}GI . (3.15)

The scalar potential is rewritten down by

VSG =FIKIJFJ −3M4eG/M

2 +1

2RefαβD

α_{D}β _{,} _{(3.16)}

whereDα and FI are given by (3.14) and (3.15), respectively. The derivative ofV byφI′ is given by

∂VSG
∂φI′ =GI′
VF
M2 +M
2_{e}G/M2
−FIK_{II}J′FJ−M eG/2M
2
GII′FI
−1_{2}(Refαβ)I′DαDβ−(φ†Tα)_{I}GI_{I}′Dα , (3.17)
where VF ≡FIKIJFJ −3M4eG/M
2

. Taking its VEV and using the stationary con-dition, we derive the formula:

hFI_{ih}K_{II}J′ihFJi+m3/2hGII′ihFIi+
1
2h(Refαβ)I′ihD
α_{ih}_{D}β_{i}
+_{h}(φ†Tα)IihGII′ihDαi=hG_{I}′i
hVFi
M2 +m
2
3/2
, (3.18)

wherem_{3}_{/}_{2} is the gravitino mass given by

m3/2 =hM eG/2M

2

i=_{|h}eK/2M2W/M2_{i|} . (3.19)
By multiplying (Tα′φ)I′ to (3.17) and using the identities derived from the gauge
invariance of the total K¨ahler potential,

GII′(Tα
′
φ)I′+GI′(Tα
′
)I_{I}′_{−}K_{I}J(φ†Tα′)J = 0 , (3.20)
K_{II}J′(Tα
′
φ)I′+K_{I}J′(Tα
′
)I_{I}′_{−}((φ†Tα′)J′GJ
′
)J_{I} = 0 , (3.21)
we obtain
∂V
∂φI′(T
α′
φ)I′ =
VF
M2 + 2M
2_{e}G/M2
GI′(Tα
′
φ)I′ _{−}FI(GI′(Tα
′
φ)I′)J_{I}FJ
−1_{2}(Refαβ)I′(Tα
′
φ)I′DαDβ_{−}(φ†Tα)IGII′(Tα
′
φ)I′Dα . (3.22)

Taking its VEV and using the stationary condition, we derive the formula:31)
hFI_{i}D(GI′(Tα
′
φ)I′)J_{I}E_{h}FJi+
1
2h(Refαβ)I′ih(T
α′
φ)I′_{ih}Dα_{ih}Dβ_{i}
+
( ˆM_{V}2)αα′ +
hVFi
M2 + 2m
2
3/2
hRefαα′i
hDα_{i}= 0 . (3.23)

The VEV ofVSG is given by

hVSGi ≡ hFIihKIJihFJi −3m23/2M2+ 1

2hRefαβihD

α_{ih}_{D}β_{i} _{.} _{(3.24)}

By the requirement of _{h}VSGi = 0, the relations hFIi = O(m3/2M) and/or hDαi =

O(m_{3}_{/}_{2}M) are derived for some components. If the soft SUSY breaking terms are
related to the SUSY extension of SM directly, the magnitude ofm_{3}_{/}_{2} should be the
same size as or less thanO(1)TeV. In this case with ( ˆM_{V}2)a_{≫}m2_{3}_{/}_{2}, the soft SUSY
breaking terms are treated as a perturbation and the same result (1) is obtained
with the following upper bound for the magnitude of dominant SUSY breaking F

component,

hDa_{i ≤}O(_{h}FI_{i})_{≤}O(m_{3}_{/}_{2}M) . (3.25)
If the gauge symmetry breaking scale is O(M), the following strong constraint is
derived,31)

hDa_{i ≤}O(m2_{3}_{/}_{2}) . (3.26)

In this case, the relation m2_{3}_{/}_{2}= hFIihKIJihFJi

3M2 holds.
By multiplying (K−1)I_{I}′′′GI

′′

to (3.17), taking its VEV and using the stationary condition, we derive the formula:

hFI_{ih}K_{II}J′ihFJih(K−1)I
′
I′′ihGI
′′
i − hGII′ihFIihFI
′
i
+ 1
2m_{3}_{/}_{2}h(Refαβ)I′ihF
I′
ihDα_{ih}Dβ_{i}
= hF
I_{ih}_{K}J
IihFJi
m2
3/2
hVFi
M2 +m
2
3/2
+_{h}RefαβihDαihDβi . (3.27)

If the VEVs of allF-components vanish andm_{3}_{/}_{2} _{6}= 0, i.e.,_{h}W_{i 6}= 0, we obtain the
relation

hRefαβihDαihDβi= 0 , (3.28)

which means theD-flat conditons, _{h}Dα_{i}= 0. There exists a SUSY AdS vacuum if

hFI_{i}= 0 and_{h}W_{i 6}= 0. This fact is directly understood from the definition (3.14) as
follows. From (3.15), the conditions_{h}FI_{i}=_{h}FJi= 0 for all species are equivalent to

Finally we comment on models with the Kachru-Kallosh-Linde-Trivedi (KKLT)
moduli stabilization. In the KKLT compactification, the extra potential Vlift is
in-troduced in order to uplift SUSY AdS vacua to dS vacua.32) In this case, (3.23) is
modified as
hFI_{i}D(GI′(Tα
′
φ)I′)J_{I}E_{h}FJi+
1
2h(Refαβ)I′ih(T
α′
φ)I′_{ih}Dα_{ih}Dβ_{i}
+
( ˆM_{V}2)αα′ +
hVFi
M2 + 2m
2
3/2
hRefαα′i
hDα_{i}
=_{h}∂Vlift/∂φI
′
ih(Tα′φ)I′_{i} . (3.29)

The formula (3.29) is a counterpart of (3.7) in Ref.18). If the magnitude of new
term_{h}∂Vlift/∂φI

′

ih(Tα′φ)I′_{i}is negligibly small compared with other terms, the same
result (1) holds.

§4. Conclusions and discussion

We have studied the magnitude of D-components in a generic framework of SUSY field theory. We have found that there exists F-component whose VEV is comparable to or bigger than that of D-component in the absence of FI term, the large hierarchy in the charge spectrum and strongly interacting higher-dimensional couplings in the K¨ahler potential, if contributions from other terms than F and D -terms, such as soft SUSY breaking terms or the uplifting potential, are negligible. If allF-components vanish, the SUSY is unbroken in most cases. HenceF-components have the initiative in the breakdown of SUSY.

We have shown that the features of magnitude on _{h}Dα_{i} and _{h}FI_{i}, which are
obtained through explicit models, also hold in models with a generic K¨ahler
poten-tial and a generic gauge kinetic function if K¨ahler potential contains no strongly
interacting couplings and contributions from other terms than F and D-terms are
negligibly small. Though we do not obtain completely new constraints, it would be
meaningful to report our results and clarify our statement because it is applicable
to a broad class of SUSY field theory including effective theories derived from a
fundamental theory.

Acknowledgements

This work was supported in part by scientific grants from the Ministry of Ed-ucation, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology under Grant Nos. 18540259 and 21244036.

References

1) K. Intriligator and M. Sudano, J. High Energy Phys.06_{(2010), 047.}

2) T. T. Dumitrescu, Z. Komargodski and M. Sudano, arXiv:1007.5352 [hep-th]. 3) M. Drees, Phys. Lett. B181(1986), 279.

4) J. S. Hagelin and S. Kelley, Nucl. Phys. B342_{(1990), 95.}

5) Y. Kawamura, H. Murayama and M. Yamaguchi, Phys. Lett. B324(1994), 52. 6) Y. Kawamura, H. Murayama and M. Yamaguchi, Phys. Rev. D51(1995), 1337.

7) Y. Kawamura and T. Kobayashi, Phys. Lett. B375(1996), 141; Phys. Rev. D56(1997), 3844.

8) E. Dudas, S. Pokorski and C. A. Savoy, Phys. Lett. B369_{(1996), 255.}

9) E. Dudas, C. Grojean, S. Pokorski and C. A. Savoy, Nucl. Phys. B481(1996), 85. 10) Y. Kawamura, Phys. Lett. B446(1999), 228.

11) T. Higaki, Y. Kawamura, T. Kobayashi and H. Nakano, Phys. Rev. D69_{(2004), 086004.}
12) E. Dudas and S. K. Vempati, Nucl. Phys. B727_{(2005), 139.}

13) K. R. Dienes, C. Kolda and J. March-Russell, Nucl. Phys. B492(1997), 104. 14) I. Antoniadis and S. Hohenegger, Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl.171(2007), 176.

15) Y. Nakayama, M. Taki, T. Watari and T. T. Yanagida, Phys. Lett. B655_{(2007), 58.}
16) A. Pomarol and R. Rattazzi, J. High Energy Phys.05(1999), 013.

17) I. Jack and D. R. T. Jones, Phys. Lett. B482(2000), 167. 18) K. Choi and K.-S. Jeong, J. High Energy Phys.08(2006), 007.

19) P. J. Fox, A. E. Nelson and N. Weiner, J. High Energy Phys.08_{(2002), 035.}
20) A. E. Nelson, N. Rius, V. Sanz and M. Unsal, J. High Energy Phys.08_{(2002), 039}
21) F. Buccella, J. P. Derendinger, S. Ferrara and C. A. Savoy, Phys. Lett. B115(1982), 375.
22) J. Wess and J. Bagger,Supersymmetry and Supergravity, 2nd Edition (Princeton, 1992)
23) P. Fayet and J. Iliopoulos, Phys. Lett. B51(1974), 461.

24) T. Gregoire, R. Rattazzi and C. A. Scrucca, Phys. Lett. B624_{(2005), 260.}
25) J. Polchinski and L. Susskind, Phys. Rev. D26(1982), 3661.

26) M. Dine, A. E. Nelson, Y. Nir and Y. Shirman, Phys. Rev. D53(1996), 2658. 27) L. M. Carpenter, P. J. Fox and D. E. Kaplan, arXiv:hep-ph/0503093.

28) L. Matos, arXiv:0910.0451 [hep-ph].

29) E. Cremmer, B. Julia, J. Scherk, S. Ferrara, L. Girardello and P. van Nieuwenhuizen, Phys. Lett. B79(1978), 231; Nucl. Phys. B147(1979), 105.

30) E. Cremmer, S. Ferrara, L. Girardello and A. van Proeyen, Phys. Lett. B116(1982), 231;
Nucl. Phys. B212_{(1983), 413.}

31) I. Joichi, Y. Kawamura and M. Yamaguchi, hep-ph9407385.