text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The minimal supersymmetric standard model (MSSM) is the most promising candidate for physics beyond the Standard Model (SM), since it naturally solves the “hierarchy problem” and leads to a successful unification of the gauge coupling constants . Because SUSY is not observed in the real world, it should be broken around the TeV scale. Once we allow generic soft SUSY-breaking terms, we must face hundreds of new parameters, which makes the rate of flavour-changing neutral-current (FCNC) interactions many orders of magnitude larger than the present experimental bounds. In order to obtain a successful low-energy effective theory, various mediation mechanisms of SUSY-breaking effects have been proposed.

The scenario most commonly considered in phenomenology is the minimal gravity-mediated SUSY-breaking (mSUGRA) models. This scenario is very simple and aesthetically attractive, since gravity does exist in nature. In the mSUGRA models, we also have a promising candidate for dark matter. That is the lightest SUSY particle (LSP), which is usually the lightest neutralino. The severest difficulty in this scenario is the lack of a natural explanation for the suppression of the FCNC interactions. A specific form of the soft SUSY-breaking masses must be imposed by hand in order to suppress the FCNC interactions.

It has been argued that the suppression of the FCNC interactions can be naturally obtained in brane-world SUSY-breaking scenarios, such as anomaly-  and gaugino-  mediated SUSY-breaking models. In these scenarios, the fields relevant to SUSY breaking are assumed to reside on the hidden brane, which is geometrically separated from the visible brane where the SM fields are localized. Recently, however, a crucial observation has been made in Ref. , where the authors have found that the separation of the visible and hidden branes in a higher-dimensional space-time is not sufficient for suppressing the FCNC interactions. Consequently, we need additional ad hoc assumptions in those models. 111There is an attempt to realize anomaly-mediation models in a four-dimensional framework .

At present, the most attractive scenario seems to be the gauge-mediated SUSY breaking (GMSB) . In the GMSB models, the suppression of the FCNC interactions is realized in an automatic way, just because SUSY breaking occurs at a very low-energy scale. Furthermore, a whole spectrum of the superparticles in the MSSM sector is completely determined by only a few parameters, which allows us to discriminate the GMSB models from other candidates in the future collider experiments.

Unfortunately, from a cosmological perspective, there exists a big difficulty in the GMSB models. That is the so-called cosmological gravitino problem. In these models, we have no natural explanation for the dark matter in the present Universe. Thermal relics of the gravitino, the LSP in the GMSB models, overclose the Universe once they are thermalized in the early Universe. In order to avoid the overproduction of the gravitinos, there is a severe upper bound on the reheating temperature of inflation $`T_R`$, which is about $`T_{R}^{}{}_{}{}^{<}10^6\mathrm{GeV}`$ for $`m_{3/2}=10\mathrm{MeV}`$ for instance, and it even reaches $`T_{R}^{}{}_{}{}^{<}10^3\mathrm{GeV}`$ in the case of the lighter gravitinos $`m_{3/2}^{}{}_{}{}^{<}100\mathrm{keV}`$ . Furthermore, we have to fine-tune the reheating temperature just below this upper bound to explain the required mass density of the dark matter. We also have to generate the observed baryon asymmetry at just the same reheating temperature. Therefore, for successful cosmology in the GMSB models, we need incredible fine-tunings of various parameters, which apparently belong to independent physics, such as SUSY breaking, inflation and baryo/leptogenesis. 222If there exist extra matter multiplets of a SUSY-invariant mass of the order of the “$`\mu `$-term”, the observed baryon asymmetry and gravitino dark matter can be simultaneously explained in a way totally independent of the reheating temperature . This is a big drawback of the GMSB models with respect to the standard mSUGRA scenario.

In this letter, we point out that there are indeed no such difficulties in a certain class of GMSB models. We consider direct gauge-mediation models where the SUSY-breaking effects are directly transmitted to the messenger sector without loop suppressions . In this class of models, the specific form of the superpotential of the messenger sector is usually provided by the $`R`$-symmetry: since it is violated by the constant term in the superpotential $`W`$, which is anyhow required to cancel the cosmological constant, it is quite natural to expect that there are small mixings between the SM and messenger multiplets induced by the condensation $`W`$. As a result, the lightest messenger particle decays into the SM particle and gaugino through the mixings. As we will see, the resultant late-time decays of the lightest messengers provide an exquisite amount of entropy, which dilutes the thermal relics of the gravitinos down to just the observed mass density of the dark matter in the present Universe.

Surprisingly, this miracle turns out to be true almost irrespective of the mass of the gravitino and the reheating temperature, once the gravitinos and messenger particles are thermalized in the early Universe. Consequently, by assuming natural mixings between the SM and messenger fields, the severe upper bound on the reheating temperature is completely eluded. This fact makes it much easier to construct a realistic inflationary scenario in the GMSB models. This result also has an important implication on the origin of the observed baryon asymmetry. We will see that the standard thermal leptogenesis, through out-of-equilibrium decays of the right-handed Majorana neutrinos , is now the most attractive mechanism to generate the observed baryon asymmetry in the GMSB models.

## 2 Required Amount of Entropy

In the GMSB models, the longitudinal component of the gravitino ($``$ Goldstino) $`\psi `$ interacts fairly strongly with the SM particles. The total production cross section of $`\psi `$ by scattering processes is given by

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{scatt}}v_{\mathrm{rel}}5.9\frac{g_3^2m_{\stackrel{~}{G}}^2}{m_{3/2}^2M_{}^2},$$
(1)
where $``$ denotes the thermal average; $`M_{}=2.4\times 10^{18}\mathrm{GeV}`$ is the reduced Planck scale, $`m_{\stackrel{~}{G}}`$ is the mass of the gluino and $`g_3`$ is the coupling constant of the SU(3)C gauge group. Then, the resultant interaction rate is given by

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{scatt}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{scatt}}v_{\mathrm{rel}}n_{\mathrm{rad}},$$
(2)
with $`n_{\mathrm{rad}}=\left(\zeta (3)/\pi ^2\right)T^3`$ being the number density for one massless degree of freedom.

By the scattering interactions, the gravitinos are kept in thermal equilibrium if $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{scatt}}/H`$ $`_{}^>1`$, where $`H`$ is the Hubble parameter of the expanding Universe. The corresponding freeze-out temperature of $`\psi `$ is estimated to

$$T_f1\mathrm{TeV}\left(\frac{g_{}(T_f)}{230}\right)^{1/2}\left(\frac{m_{3/2}}{10\mathrm{keV}}\right)^2\left(\frac{1\mathrm{TeV}}{m_{\stackrel{~}{G}}}\right)^2,$$
(3)
where $`g_{}(T_f)`$ denotes the effective massless degrees of freedom when the cosmic temperature $`T=T_f`$333For the light gravitino $`m_{3/2}^{}{}_{}{}^{<}10\mathrm{keV}`$, the decay processes of SUSY particles are comparable with scattering ones and keep the gravitinos in thermal equilibrium until the temperature drops below the superparticle-mass scale. If the reheating temperature of inflation $`T_R`$ is higher than $`T_f`$, gravitinos are in thermal equilibrium in the early Universe. Here, we have assumed the radiation-dominated Universe at the freeze-out time of the gravitinos. We will justify this assumption later, even in the presence of the messenger particles.

If there is no additional entropy production, the resultant yield of the thermal gravitino is estimated to

$$Y_{3/2}\left(\frac{n_{3/2}}{s}\right)=\frac{45}{2\pi ^2g_{}(T_f)}\frac{\zeta (3)}{\pi ^2}\left(\frac{3}{2}\right),$$
(4)
where $`n_{3/2}`$ is the number density of gravitinos and $`s`$ is the entropy density. In terms of the density parameter, it is written as

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_{3/2}h^25.0\times \left(\frac{m_{3/2}}{10\mathrm{keV}}\right)\left(\frac{230}{g_{}(T_f)}\right),$$
(5)
where $`h`$ is the present Hubble parameter in units of $`100\mathrm{km}\mathrm{sec}^1\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{3/2}\rho _{3/2}/\rho _c`$; $`\rho _{3/2}`$ and $`\rho _c`$ are the energy density of the gravitino and the critical density in the present Universe, respectively. Since the observed mass density of the dark matter is $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{DM}}h^20.1\text{}0.2`$, the required dilution factor via the late-time entropy production is given by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }33\times \left(\frac{m_{3/2}}{10\mathrm{keV}}\right)\left(\frac{230}{g_{}(T_f)}\right)\left(\frac{0.15}{\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{DM}}h^2}\right).$$
(6)
The above entropy should be supplied after the freeze-out time of the gravitinos.

## 3 Decay of the Lightest Messenger and $`𝛀_{\mathrm{𝟑}/\mathrm{𝟐}}`$

In this section, we discuss the decay of the lightest messenger and the resultant mass density of gravitino dark matter. Further constraints will be discussed in the next section. In this letter, we adopt the simplest messenger sector, which consists of a pair of chiral supermultiplets $`\mathrm{\Phi }+\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$, describing a Dirac fermion of mass $`M`$ and two complex scalar fields of mass squared $`M^2\pm F`$, where $`F`$ is the $`F`$-term SUSY-breaking component of the mass of the messenger multiplets. In order to preserve the success of the gauge-coupling unification, we assume that $`\mathrm{\Phi }+\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$ transform as $`\mathrm{𝟓}+\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}`$ under the SU(5)GUT gauge group. 444Adopting a pair of $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}+\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}}`$ messenger multiplets does not change the basic results in this letter.

Under this setup, the gauginos and SUSY particles in the MSSM sector obtain the following soft SUSY-breaking masses, $`M_a`$ and $`m_{\mathrm{soft}}^2`$, via gauge interactions at the one- and two-loop level, respectively:

$`M_a{\displaystyle \frac{g_a^2}{16\pi ^2}}\mathrm{\Lambda },m_{\mathrm{soft}}^22{\displaystyle \underset{a}{}}\left\{C_a\left({\displaystyle \frac{g_a^2}{16\pi ^2}}\right)^2\right\}\mathrm{\Lambda }^2,`$ (7)
where $`g_a(a=1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2},3)`$ are gauge coupling constants and $`C_a`$ are the quadratic Casimir. Here, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }F/M`$ determines the overall scale of the soft SUSY-breaking masses; $`\mathrm{\Lambda }10^5\mathrm{GeV}`$ is required to obtain the correct size of soft masses. The mass of the messenger particles $`M`$ and the gravitino mass $`m_{3/2}`$ are related by the formula:

$$M=\frac{\sqrt{3}kM_{}}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}m_{3/2}4.2\times 10^8k\left(\frac{m_{3/2}}{10\mathrm{keV}}\right)\left(\frac{10^5\mathrm{GeV}}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\right)\mathrm{GeV}.$$
(8)
Here, we have defined $`kF/F_{\mathrm{DSB}}1`$, where $`F_{\mathrm{DSB}}`$ denotes the original $`F`$-term in the dynamical SUSY-breaking sector. In direct gauge-mediation models, this ratio is not loop-suppressed and naturally given by $`k_{}^<1`$.

In the present work, we assume that there is the following mixing term between the SM and messenger multiplets through the small $`R`$-symmetry-breaking effects caused by the constant term in the superpotential, $`W`$555Here, we assume, for instance, the $`R`$-charge for $`\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}`$ and $`\mathrm{𝟓}_𝐌`$ to be $`+1`$ and $`1`$, respectively.

$$\delta W=f\frac{W}{M_{}^2}\mathrm{𝟓}_M\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}=fm_{3/2}\mathrm{𝟓}_M\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}},$$
(9)
where $`f`$ denotes some unknown coefficient of the order of $`1`$ and the subscript $`M`$ denotes the multiplet that belongs to the messenger sector. In the present scenario, the lightest messenger superparticle is most likely the scalar component of a weak doublet. By virtue of the above small mixing term, the lightest messenger can decay into a SM lepton and a gaugino. 666We have neglected the decay channels through small Yukawa interactions. The decay rate is estimated to be

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_M\frac{g_2^2}{16\pi }\left(\frac{fm_{3/2}}{M}\right)^2M.$$
(10)
The resultant decay temperature of the lightest messenger is given by

$$T_d68\mathrm{MeV}\times \frac{f}{\sqrt{k}}\left(\frac{10}{g_{}(T_d)}\right)^{1/4}\left(\frac{m_{3/2}}{10\mathrm{keV}}\right)^{1/2}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{10^5\mathrm{GeV}}\right)^{1/2}.$$
(11)
Here, we have used the relation in Eq. (8). By comparing with Eq. (3), one can see that the decays of the lightest messenger always take place after the freeze-out of the gravitinos. Therefore, the entropy production associated with the decays of the lightest messengers dilutes the thermal relics of the gravitinos.

Now, let us estimate the amount of entropy produced by the late-time decays of the lightest messengers. We will also justify the assumption of the radiation-dominated Universe made in deriving Eq. (3). Assuming the stability of the lightest messengers, their relic density has been estimated in Ref.  as

$`Y_M\left({\displaystyle \frac{n_M}{s}}\right)3.65\times 10^{10}\left({\displaystyle \frac{M}{10^6\mathrm{GeV}}}\right),`$ (12)
$`\mathrm{\Omega }_Mh^210^5\left({\displaystyle \frac{M}{10^6\mathrm{GeV}}}\right)^2,`$ (13)
where $`n_M/s`$ denotes the frozen-out value of the yield of the lightest messengers and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M`$ is the corresponding density parameter. After the freeze-out of the lightest messengers, the total energy density of the Universe is given by

$$\rho =\frac{\pi ^2}{30}g_{}(T)T^4+\frac{2\pi ^2}{45}g_{}(T)T^3MY_M,$$
(14)
where the first and second terms represent the contributions from the radiation and from the lightest messengers, respectively. The thermal relics of the lightest messengers begin to dominate the energy density at

$$T_C=\frac{4}{3}MY_M84\mathrm{GeV}\times k^2\left(\frac{10^5\mathrm{GeV}}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\right)^2\left(\frac{m_{3/2}}{10\mathrm{keV}}\right)^2,$$
(15)
where we have used the relation in Eq. (8). From Eqs. (3) and (15), one can see that the matter-dominated Universe starts well after the freeze-out time of the gravitinos, and hence the assumption made in the derivation of Eq. (3) is justified.

By assuming the instantaneous decays of the lightest messengers, which is accurate enough for the present purpose, we can obtain the dilution factor from energy conservation as777 We are grateful to K.Hamaguchi for pointing out an error in the previous version.

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_M\left({\displaystyle \frac{s_{\mathrm{after}}}{s_{\mathrm{before}}}}\right)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{MY_M}{T_d}}`$ (16)
$``$ $`4.9\times 10^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{M}{10^8\mathrm{GeV}}}\right)^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{10\mathrm{MeV}}{T_d}}\right),`$
where $`s_{\mathrm{before}}(s_{\mathrm{after}})`$ denotes the entropy density of the Universe before (after) the decays of the lightest messengers. By substituting Eqs. (8) and (11) into Eq. (16), one can see that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_M`$ has the correct order of magnitude of the required dilution factor $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ in Eq. (6). From Eqs. (5), (8), (11) and (16), we can derive the final gravitino abundance as follows:

$`\mathrm{\Omega }_{3/2}h^2=\mathrm{\Omega }_{3/2}h^2|_{\mathrm{initial}}\times {\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }_M}}`$
$`0.14\times f\left({\displaystyle \frac{10}{g_{}(T_d)}}\right)^{1/4}\left({\displaystyle \frac{230}{g_{}(T_f)}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }/k}{3\times 10^5\mathrm{GeV}}}\right)^{5/2}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{keV}}{m_{3/2}}}\right)^{1/2}.`$ (17)
Astonishingly, a natural parameter $`k0.1\text{ – }1`$ in direct gauge-mediation models and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }10^5\mathrm{GeV}`$, which is needed so as to obtain the correct size of the soft SUSY-breaking masses, leads to just the mass density of the gravitinos required to be the dominant component of dark matter in the present Universe. Furthermore, the resultant abundance of gravitinos has only a mild dependence on its mass $`m_{3/2}`$. These facts can clearly be seen from Fig. 1, where we show a contour plot of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{3/2}h^2`$ in a $`(m_{3/2}\text{ – }k)`$ plane.

One can see that, for a given k-factor, the gravitino masses within one order of magnitude around a certain value give rise to a cosmologically interesting mass density of dark matter $`(0.03_{}^<\mathrm{\Omega }_{3/2}h_{}^{2}{}_{}{}^{<}0.3)`$. As a result, the gravitino dark matter is a very natural consequence of the direct gauge-mediation models with the mixing term between the SM and messenger multiplets given in Eq. (9).

Before closing this section, we briefly comment on the property of the resultant gravitino dark matter. The free-streaming length of the gravitino is given by

$$R_f0.1\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_{3/2}h^2}{0.15}\right)^{1/3}\left(\frac{1\mathrm{keV}}{m_{3/2}}\right)^{4/3}\mathrm{Mpc}.$$
(18)
The late-time entropy production does not change the result in this approximation. For a more accurate estimation, see Ref. . The gravitino of a mass in the range $`m_{3/2}(1\text{}1.5)\mathrm{keV}`$, whose free-streaming length is about $`R_f0.1\mathrm{Mpc}`$, is an interesting warm dark matter candidate, 888The possibility of the gravitino warm dark matter with a small entropy production has been discussed in Ref. , where the authors introduce the extra matter of mass $`M_X10^{12}\mathrm{GeV}`$ to obtain the required lifetime of the lightest messenger particle. For their scenario to work, we need an ad hoc tuning on $`M_X`$. Therefore, their model does not solve the fine-tuning problem for the gravitino dark matter stressed in the introduction of this letter. which may reconcile the predictions of the cold dark matter with observations . Heavier gravitinos with mass $`m_{3/2}>(\text{a few})\mathrm{keV}`$ serve as the cold dark matter. The gravitino with mass $`m_{3/2}^{}{}_{}{}^{<}1\mathrm{keV}`$ is now disfavoured by observations of Lyman-$`\alpha `$ forest  and the history of cosmological reionization .

## 4 Further Constraints

In this section, we consider the non-thermal gravitino production from decays of the next-to-lightest superparticles (NLSPs). This contribution may spoil the successful prediction in the previous section, since a huge number of NLSPs are produced in the decays of the lightest messengers below their freeze-out temperature. In addition, if the decay process of the NLSP takes place when $`T_{}^<5\mathrm{MeV}`$, it may also spoil the success of the Big Bang neucleosynthesis (BBN) .

Let us first consider the constraint from the BBN. The NLSP, which is the bino or stau in the GMSB models, decays into its superpartner and a gravitino, with the following decay width:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_\chi \frac{1}{48\pi }\frac{m_\chi ^5}{m_{3/2}^2M_{}^2},$$
(19)
where $`m_\chi `$ is the mass of the NLSP. The corresponding decay temperature of the NLSP is given by

$`T_\chi `$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{90}{\pi ^2g_{}(T_\chi )}}\right)^{1/4}\sqrt{\mathrm{\Gamma }_\chi M_{}}5\mathrm{MeV}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_\chi }{100\mathrm{GeV}}}\right)^{5/2}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1\mathrm{MeV}}{m_{3/2}}}\right).`$ (20)
In order not to spoil the success of the BBN, the decays of the NLSPs should be completed before the onset of the BBN, $`T_{\chi }^{}{}_{}{}^{>}5\mathrm{MeV}`$. If we take the natural range of the mass of the NLSP, for instance $`m_{\chi }^{}{}_{}{}^{<}250\mathrm{GeV}`$, $`m_{3/2}^{}{}_{}{}^{<}10\mathrm{MeV}`$ is required for the success of the BBN.

Let us now estimate the contribution of the non-thermal gravitinos to the total mass density of the dark matter. If $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_M>\mathrm{\Gamma }_\chi `$, the produced NLSPs have enough time to annihilate before they decay into gravitinos. This case corresponds to

$$m_{3/2}^{}{}_{}{}^{>}27\mathrm{keV}\frac{1}{f^{2/3}}\left(\frac{m_\chi }{100\mathrm{GeV}}\right)^{5/3}\left(\frac{3\times 10^5\mathrm{GeV}}{\mathrm{\Lambda }/k}\right)^{1/3}.$$
(21)
In this case, the resultant yield of the NLSPs before they decay is given by the following value, to a good approximation :

$$\frac{n_\chi }{s}=\sqrt{\frac{45}{8\pi ^2g_{}(T_d)}}\frac{\sigma v_\chi ^1}{M_{}T_d},$$
(22)
where $`\sigma v_\chi `$ denotes the $`s`$-wave annihilation cross section of the NLSP. The subsequent decays of the NLSPs produce the same number of gravitinos. Therefore, combined with Eq. (11), the resultant abundance of the non-thermal gravitinos is given by

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_{3/2}^{\mathrm{NT}}h^21.3\times 10^2\frac{\sqrt{k}}{f}\left(\frac{10}{g_{}(T_d)}\right)^{\frac{1}{4}}\left(\frac{m_{3/2}}{10\mathrm{MeV}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\left(\frac{10^5\mathrm{GeV}}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\left(\frac{10^{11}\mathrm{GeV}^2}{\sigma v_\chi }\right).$$
(23)
In the case of the stau NLSP, the $`s`$-wave annihilation cross section is approximately given by $`\sigma v_\chi 10^7\mathrm{GeV}^2\left(100\mathrm{GeV}/m_\chi \right)^2`$. Even in the case of the bino NLSP, $`\sigma v_{\chi }^{}{}_{}{}^{>}10^{11}\mathrm{GeV}^2`$ is naturally obtained for relatively large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, which is about $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ $`_{}^>15(30)`$ for $`m_\chi 100(250)\mathrm{GeV}`$, via small higgsino contamination.

The above estimation is not valid if $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_M<\mathrm{\Gamma }_\chi `$, since the produced NLSPs immediately decay into gravitinos. In this case, we have to follow the full evolution by solving coupled Boltzmann equations. 999 Significant annihilations take place also in this case. The result is given in Fig. 2.

In this calculation, we have conservatively assumed that the number of NLSPs produced per decay of the lightest messenger particle is given by $`N_\chi M/E_{\mathrm{th}}`$, where $`E_{\mathrm{th}}m_\chi ^2/T_d`$ is the threshold energy to produce the NLSPs by scatterings with the thermal backgrounds with $`T=T_d`$. One can see that the contribution of the non-thermal gravitinos is smaller than several per cent of the total mass density of the dark matter as long as $`\sigma v_{\chi }^{}{}_{}{}^{>}10^{11}\mathrm{GeV}^2`$.

In summary, the prediction of the gravitino dark matter given in Eq. (17) is not spoiled in most of the parameter region. The relevant constraint comes only from the BBN, which is satisfied as long as $`m_{3/2}^{}{}_{}{}^{<}10\mathrm{MeV}`$ for a reasonable range of $`m_\chi `$. Finally, we briefly comment on another interesting aspect. The non-thermal gravitinos produced from the NLSPs behave as a hot/warm component of dark matter, which contributes several per cent to the total mass density of dark matter in the case of the bino NLSP with moderate $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. Therefore, the present model can naturally realize a mixed dark matter scenario. By virtue of the late-time production of the NLSPs, an unnaturally large hierarchy between the slepton and the bino masses is not required to realize a mixed dark matter scenario .

## 5 Thermal Leptogenesis

As we have mentioned in the introduction, the present model has important implications on the origin of the baryon asymmetry in the present Universe. By virtue of the entropy production by the decays of the lightest messengers, we obtain the required mass density of the dark matter without any adjustments of the reheating temperature. Consequently, the standard thermal leptogenesis  now becomes the most promising candidate for the origin of the observed baryon asymmetry in the GMSB models.

Let us start by introducing the relevant terms in the superpotential:

$$W=\frac{1}{2}M_{Ri}N_iN_i+h_{i\alpha }N_iL_\alpha H_u,$$
(24)
where $`N_i(i=1,2,3)`$ denote the heavy right-handed Majorana neutrinos of mass $`M_{Ri}`$; $`L_\alpha (\alpha =e,\mu ,\tau )`$ and $`H_u`$ denote the lepton doublets and the Higgs doublet that couples to up-type quarks, respectively. The lepton-number asymmetry per decay of a right-handed neutrino $`N_i`$ is given by

$`ϵ_i`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{_\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }(N_iL_\alpha +H_u)_\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }(N_i\overline{L_\alpha }+\overline{H_u})}{_\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }(N_iL_\alpha +H_u)+_\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }(N_i\overline{L_\alpha }+\overline{H_u})}}`$ (25)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(hh^{})_{ii}}}{\displaystyle \underset{ki}{}}\mathrm{Im}\left[\left\{(hh^{})_{ik}\right\}^2\right]\left[_V\left({\displaystyle \frac{M_{Rk}^2}{M_{Ri}^2}}\right)+_S\left({\displaystyle \frac{M_{Rk}^2}{M_{Ri}^2}}\right)\right],`$
where $`N_i`$, $`L_\alpha `$ and $`H_u`$ ($`\overline{L_\alpha }`$ and $`\overline{H_u}`$) symbolically denote fermionic or scalar components of corresponding supermultiplets (and their antiparticles); $`_V(x)`$ and $`_S(x)`$ represent the contributions from vertex and self-energy diagrams, respectively :

$$_V(x)=\sqrt{x}\mathrm{ln}\left(1+\frac{1}{x}\right),_S(x)=\frac{2\sqrt{x}}{x1}.$$
(26)
For hierarchical right-handed neutrinos $`M_{R1}M_{R2},M_{R3}`$, the lepton asymmetry is dominantly supplied by decays of the lightest right-handed (s)neutrinos. In the following discussion, we assume that this is the case for simplicity. In this case, the expression of the asymmetry parameter $`ϵ_1`$ is given by

$$ϵ_1=\frac{3}{8\pi }\frac{M_{R1}m_{\nu 3}}{H_u^0^2}\delta _{\mathrm{eff}},$$
(27)
where $`m_{\nu 3}`$ is the mass of the heaviest left-handed neutrino and $`\delta _{\mathrm{eff}}`$ is an effective CP-violating phase. If the lightest right-handed (s)neutrinos are in thermal equilibrium, the resultant lepton asymmetry is given by the following formula:

$$\left|\frac{n_L}{s}\right|=\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\times \frac{45}{2\pi ^2g_{}(T_B)}\frac{\zeta (3)}{\pi ^2}\left(\frac{3}{2}+2\right)|ϵ_1|\kappa ,$$
(28)
where $`T_B`$ is the freeze-out temperature of $`N_1`$, and $`g_{}(T_B)270`$101010In this expression, we have assumed that a pair of messenger multiplets $`(\mathrm{𝟓}+\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}})`$ are in thermal equilibrium. After the decoupling of the messenger particles, the contents of the MSSM give rise to $`g_{}230`$. If we take into account the effective degrees of freedom in the dynamical SUSY-breaking sector, $`g_{}(T_B)`$ would be larger than this value, but it changes the resultant asymmetry by only a factor of at most $`𝒪(1)`$. $`\kappa `$ denotes the fraction of the produced asymmetry that survives washout processes by lepton-number-violating interactions after $`N_1`$ decay. Here, we have assumed that there is no entropy production before the decays of the lightest messengers, and set $`\mathrm{\Delta }_M=\mathrm{\Delta }`$ for simplicity. For $`\kappa 1`$, the following out-of-equilibrium condition should be satisfied :

$$\stackrel{~}{m}_1=\frac{8\pi H_u^0^2}{M_{R1}^2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{N_1}=(hh^{})_{11}\frac{H_u^0^2}{M_{R1}}_{}^<5\times 10^3\mathrm{eV}.$$
(29)
The lepton asymmetry produced by the right-handed (s)neutrino decays is subsequently converted into the baryon asymmetry by the sphaleron effects:

$$\frac{n_B}{s}=C\frac{n_L}{s},$$
(30)
where $`C`$ is a number of $`𝒪(1)`$, which takes the value $`C=8/23`$ in the MSSM.

From Eqs. (6), (27), (28) and (30), we can derive the baryon asymmetry in the present Universe. In terms of the density parameter it is written as

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_Bh^20.02\left(\frac{10\mathrm{keV}}{m_{3/2}}\right)\left(\frac{g_{}(T_f)}{230}\right)\left(\frac{270}{g_{}(T_B)}\right)\left(\frac{M_{R1}}{10^{10}\mathrm{GeV}}\right)\left(\frac{m_{\nu 3}}{0.06\mathrm{eV}}\right)\kappa \delta _{\mathrm{eff}}.$$
(31)
In Fig. 3, we show the lower bound of $`M_{R1}`$ (and hence, it is the lower bound on the reheating temperature $`T_R`$) to obtain the required baryon asymmetry. Here, we have assumed the following relation for simplicity:

$$\left(\frac{g_{}(T_f)}{230}\right)\left(\frac{270}{g_{}(T_B)}\right)\left(\frac{m_{\nu 3}}{0.06\mathrm{eV}}\right)\kappa \delta _{\mathrm{eff}}1.$$
(32)
As can be seen, the observed baryon asymmetry $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Bh^20.02`$ can be naturally explained by the thermal leptogenesis in a wide range of the gravitino mass. 111111In the simplest chaotic inflationary scenario, for example, $`𝒪(1)`$ couplings of the inflaton to the SM fields lead to $`T_R10^{13}\mathrm{GeV}`$. From Eq. (8), one can see that the required lower mass bound on the right-handed neutrino is always larger than the mass of the messenger fields, and then the thermalization condition for the messenger particles is always satisfied. We should stress that we do not have to fine-tune the couplings of the inflaton to the SM particles to reduce the reheating temperature, which is usually imposed in SUSY inflationary models because of the cosmological gravitino problem. We should also stress that there is an interesting possibility to determine $`m_{3/2}`$ directly in future collider experiments if the gravitino is lighter than about $`100\mathrm{keV}`$ . Note that such a light gravitino has been considered as unlikely because of the cosmological gravitino problem. However, as we have seen, it is now indeed favoured from cosmological perspectives.

## 6 Conclusions and Discussion

In this letter, we have pointed out that there is no fine-tuning problem to obtain the required mass density of the dark matter in a certain class of GMSB models. By virtue of the small mixing between the SM fields, which is induced by the $`R`$-symmetry-breaking effects, the lightest messenger particle has a finite lifetime and provides an exquisite amount of entropy, which dilutes the thermal relics of the gravitinos down to just the mass density required for the dark matter. This phenomenon takes place naturally, regardless of the gravitino mass and the reheating temperature of inflation as long as the gravitinos and messenger fields are thermalized in the early Universe. There is no severe upper bound on the reheating temperature in this class of GMSB models, which makes the standard thermal leptogenesis very attractive as the origin of the observed baryon asymmetry.

The present scenario should have important implications also on other candidates for the origin of the present baryon asymmetry. It would be very interesting to reanalyse those models with the disappearance of the cosmological gravitino problem taken into account.

## Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank K.Hamaguchi for a useful discussion. M.F. thanks the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science for financial support. This work was partially supported by Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (S) $`14102004`$ (T.Y.).


format: text

text:
# Asymptotics of Polynomials and Eigenfunctions

## 1. Introduction

In many measures of ‘complexity’, eigenfunctions $`\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }}\phi _\lambda =\lambda \phi _\lambda `$ of first order elliptic operators behave like polynomials $`p(x)=_{|\alpha |x}c_\alpha x^\alpha `$ of degree $`N\lambda `$ . The basic example we have in mind is the Laplacian $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ on a compact Riemannian manifold $`(M,g)`$, but the same is true of Schroedinger operators. The comparison is more than an analogy, since polynomials of degree $`N`$ are eigenfunctions of a first order elliptic system.

The comparison between eigenfunctions and polynomials is an essentially local one, most accurate on small balls $`B(x_0,\frac{1}{\lambda })`$. Globally, eigenfunctions reflect the dynamics of the geodesic flow $`G^t`$ on the unit (co-)tangent bundle $`S^{}M`$. This is one of the principal themes of quantum chaos.

In this article, we review some recent results on the asymptotics of polynomials and eigenfunctions, concentrating on our work in collaboration with P. Bleher, A. Hassell, B. Shiffman, C. Sogge, J. Toth and M. Zworski. A unifying feature is the asymptotic properties of reproducing kernels, namely Szegö kernels $`\mathrm{\Pi }_N(z,w)`$ in the case of polynomials, and spectral projections $`E_\lambda (x,y)`$ for intervals $`[\lambda ,\lambda +1]`$ in the case of eigenfunctions of $`\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$. For other recent expository articles, see .

## 2. Polynomials

There are several sources of interest in random polynomials. One is the desire to understand typical properties of real and complex algebraic varieties, and how they depend on the coefficients of the defining equations. Another is their use as a model for the local behavior of more general eigenfunctions. A third is that they may be viewed as the eigenvectors of random matrices. Just as random matrices model the spectra of ‘quantum chaotic’ systems, so random polynomials model their eigenfunctions.

### 2.1. $`𝑺𝑼\mathbf{(}𝒎\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}`$ polynomials on $`^𝒎`$ and holomorphic sections

Complex polynomials of degree $`p`$ in $`m`$ variables form the vector space

$$𝒫_p^m:=\{f(z_1,\mathrm{},z_m)=\underset{\alpha ^m:|\alpha |p}{}c_\alpha z_1^{\alpha _1}\mathrm{}z_m^{\alpha _m},c_\alpha \}.$$

To put a probability measure on $`𝒫_p^m`$ is to regard the coefficients $`c_\alpha `$ as random variables. The simplest measures are Gaussian measures corresponding to inner products on $`𝒫_p^m`$. By homogenizing $`f`$ to $`F(z_0,z_1,\mathrm{},z_m)`$ of degree $`p`$, we may identify $`𝒫_p^m`$ with the space $`H^0(^m,𝒪(p))`$ of holomorphic sections of the $`p`$th power of the hyperplane bundle. It carries the standard $`\mathrm{SU}(m+1)`$-invariant Fubini-Study inner product $`F_1,\overline{F}_2_{FS}=_{S^{2m+1}}F_1\overline{F}_2𝑑\sigma ,`$ where $`d\sigma `$ is Haar measure on the $`(2m+1)`$-sphere $`S^{2m+1}`$. An orthonormal basis of $`H^0(^m,𝒪(p))`$ is given by $`\{\frac{z^\alpha }{z^\alpha _{FS}}\}.`$ The corresponding $`\mathrm{SU}(m+1)`$-invariant Gaussian measure $`\gamma _\delta `$ is defined by

$$d\gamma _\delta (s)=\frac{1}{\pi ^{k_p}}e^{|\lambda |^2}d\lambda ,s=\underset{|\alpha |p}{}\lambda _\alpha \frac{z^\alpha }{z^\alpha _{FS}}.$$

Thus, the coefficients $`\lambda _\alpha `$ are independent complex Gaussian random variables with mean zero and variance one.

More generally, we can define Gaussian ensembles of holomorphic sections $`H^0(M,L^N)`$ of powers of a positive line bundle over any Kähler manifold $`(M,\omega )`$. Endowing $`L`$ with the unique hermitian metric $`h`$ of curvature form $`\omega `$, we induce an inner product $`,`$ on $`H^0(M,L^N)`$ and a Gaussian measure $`\gamma _N`$. We denote the unit sphere in $`H^0(M,L^N)`$ relative to this inner product by $`SH^0(M,L^N)`$. The Haar measure on $`SH^0(M,L^N)`$ will be denoted $`\mu _N`$. It is closely related to the Gaussian measure.

### 2.2. Zeros

The problems we discuss in this section involve the geometry of zeros of sections $`sH^0(M,L^N)`$ of general positive line bundles. There is a similar story for critical points.

* Problem 1 How are the simultaneous zeros $`Z_s=\{z:s_1(z)=\mathrm{}=s_k(z)=0\}`$ of a k-tuple $`s=(s_1,\mathrm{},s_k)`$ of typical holomorphic sections distributed?
* Problem 2 How are the zeros correlated? When $`k=m`$, the simultaneous zeros form a discrete set. Do zeros repel each other like charged particles? Or behave independently like particles of an ideal gas? Or attract like gravitating particles?

By the distribution of zeros we mean either the current of integration over $`Z_s`$ or more simply the Riemannian $`(2m2k)`$-volume measure $`(|Z_s|,\phi )=_{Z_s}\phi d\mathrm{Vol}_{2m2k}.`$ By the $`n`$-point zero correlation functions, we mean the generalized functions

$$K_{nk}^N(z^1,\mathrm{},z^n)dz=𝐄|Z_s|^n,$$

where $`|Z_s|^n`$ denotes the product of the measures $`|Z_s|`$ on the punctured product $`M_n=\{(z^1,\mathrm{},z^n)M\times \mathrm{}\times M:z^pz^q\mathrm{for}pq\}`$ and where $`dz`$ denotes the product volume form on $`M_n`$.

The answer to Problem 1 is that zeros almost surely become uniformly distributed relative to the curvature $`\omega `$ of the line bundle . Curvature causes sections to oscillate more rapidly and hence to vanish more often. More precisely, we consider the space $`𝒮=_{N=1}^{\mathrm{}}SH^0(M,L^N)`$ of random sequences, equipped with the product measure measure $`\mu =_{N=1}^{\mathrm{}}\mu _N`$. An element in $`𝒮`$ will be denoted $`𝐬=\{s_N\}`$. Then, $`\frac{1}{N}Z_s\omega ,`$ as $`N\mathrm{}`$ for almost every $`𝐬.`$

The answer to Problem 2 is more subtle: it depends on the dimension. We assume $`k=m`$ so that almost surely the simultaneous zeros of the $`k`$-tuple of sections form a discrete set. We find that these zeros behave almost independently if they are of distance $`\frac{D}{\sqrt{N}}`$ apart for $`D1`$. So they only interact on distance scales of size $`\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}`$. Since also the density of zeros in a unit ball $`B_1(z_0)`$ around $`z_0`$ grows like $`N^m`$, we rescale the zeros in the $`1/\sqrt{N}`$-ball $`B_{1/\sqrt{N}}(z_0)`$ by a factor of $`\sqrt{N}`$ to get configurations of zeros with a constant density as $`N\mathrm{}.`$ We thus rescale the correlation functions and take the scaling limits

$$\stackrel{~}{K}_{nkm}^{\mathrm{}}(z^1,\mathrm{},z^n)=\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}K_{1k}^N(z_0)^nK_{nk}^N(z_0+\frac{z^1}{\sqrt{N}},\mathrm{},z_0+\frac{z^n}{\sqrt{N}}).$$
(2.1)
In , we proved that the scaling limits of these correlation functions were universal, i.e. independent of $`M,L,\omega ,h`$. They depend only on the dimension $`m`$ of the manifold and the codimension $`k`$ of the zero set.

In , we found explicit formulae for these universal scaling limits. In the case $`n=2`$, $`\stackrel{~}{K}_{2km}^{\mathrm{}}(z^1,z^2)`$, depends only on the distance between the points $`z^1,z^2`$, since it is universal and hence invariant under rigid motions. Hence it may be written as:

$$\stackrel{~}{K}_{2km}^{\mathrm{}}(z^1,z^2)=\kappa _{km}(|z^1z^2|).$$
(2.2)
We refer to  for details.

###### Theorem 1

 The pair correlation functions of zeros when $`k=m`$ are given by

$$\kappa _{mm}(r)=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{m+1}{4}r^{42m}+O(r^{82m}),\hfill & \text{as }r0\hfill \\ 1+O(e^{Cr^2}),(C>0)\hfill & \text{as }r\mathrm{}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(2.3)
When $`m=1,\kappa _{mm}(r)0`$ as $`r0`$ and one has “zero repulsion.” When $`m=2`$, $`\kappa _{mm}(r)3/4`$ as $`r0`$ and one has a kind of neutrality. With $`m3`$, $`\kappa _{mm}(r)\mathrm{}`$ as $`r0`$ and there is some kind of attraction between zeros. More precisely, in dimensions greater than 2, one is more likely to find a zero at a small distance $`r`$ from another zero than at a small distance $`r`$ from a given point; i.e., zeros tend to clump together in high dimensions.

One can understand this dimensional dependence heuristically in terms of the geometry of the discriminant varieties $`𝒟_N^mH^0(M,L^N)^m`$ of systems $`S=(s_1,\mathrm{},s_m)`$ of $`m`$ sections with a ‘double zero’. The ‘separation number’ $`sep(F)`$ of a system is the minimal distance between a pair of its zeros. Since the nearest element of $`𝒟_N^m`$ to $`F`$ is likely to have a simple double zero, one expects: $`sep(F)\sqrt{dist(F,𝒟_N^m})`$. Now,the degree of $`𝒟_N^m`$ is approximately $`N^m`$. Hence, the tube $`(𝒟_N^m)_ϵ`$ of radius $`ϵ`$ contains a volume $`ϵ^2N^m`$. When $`ϵN^{m/2}`$, the tube should cover $`PH^0(M,L^N)`$. Hence, any section should have a pair of zeros whose separation is $`N^{m/4}`$ apart. It is clear that this separation is larger than, equal to or less than $`N^{1/2}`$ accordingly as $`m=1,m=2,m3.`$

### 2.3. Bergman-Szegö kernels

A key object in the proof of these results is the Bergman-Szegö kernel $`\mathrm{\Pi }_N(x,y)`$, i.e. the kernel of the orthogonal projection onto $`H^0(M,L^N)`$ with respect to the Kähler form $`\omega .`$ For instance, the expected distribution of zeros is given by $`𝐄_N(Z_f)=\frac{\sqrt{1}}{2\pi }\overline{}\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Pi }_N(z,z)+\omega `$. Of even greater use is the joint probability distribution (JPD) $`D_N(x^1,\mathrm{},x^n;\xi ^1,\mathrm{},\xi ^n;z^1,\mathrm{},z^n)`$ of the random variables $`x^j(s)=s(z^j),\xi ^j(s)=s(z^j),`$ which may be expressed in terms of $`\mathrm{\Pi }_N`$ and its derivatives. In turn, the correlation functions may be expressed in terms of the JPD by $`K^N(z^1,\mathrm{},z^n)=D_N(0,\xi ,z)_{j=1}^n\left(\xi ^j^2d\xi ^j\right)d\xi `$ .

The scaling asymptotics of the correlation functions then reduce to scaling asymptotics of the Bergman-Szegö kernel: In normal coordinates $`\{z_j\}`$ at $`P_0M`$ and in a ‘preferred’ local frame for $`L`$, we have :

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^m}{N^m}}\mathrm{\Pi }_N(P_0+{\displaystyle \frac{u}{\sqrt{N}}},{\displaystyle \frac{\theta }{N}};P_0+{\displaystyle \frac{v}{\sqrt{N}}},{\displaystyle \frac{\phi }{N}})`$
$``$ $`e^{i(\theta \phi )+u\overline{v}\frac{1}{2}(|u|^2+|v|^2)}\left[1+b_1(u,v)N^{\frac{1}{2}}+\mathrm{}\right].`$
To be precise, $`\mathrm{\Pi }_N`$ is the natural lift of the kernel as an equivariant kernel on the boundary $`D^{}`$ of the unit (co-) disc bundle of $`L^{}`$. Note that $`e^{i(\theta \phi )+u\overline{v}\frac{1}{2}(|u|^2+|v|^2)}`$ is the Bergman-Szegö kernel of the Heisenberg group. These asymptotics use the Boutet de Monvel -Sjostrand parametrix for the Bergman-Szegö kernel , as applied in  to the Fourier coefficients of the kernel on powers of positive line bundles.

### 2.4. Polynomials with fixed Newton polytope

The well-known Bernstein-Kouchnirenko theorem states that the number of simultaneous zeros of (a generic family of) $`m`$ polynomials with Newton polytope $`P`$ equals $`m!Vol(P).`$ Recall that the Newton polytope $`P_f`$ of a polynomial is the convex hull of its support $`S_f=\{\alpha ^m:c_\alpha 0\}`$. Using the homogenization map $`fF`$, the space of polynomials $`f`$ whose Newton polytope $`P_f`$ contained in $`P`$ may be identified with a subspace

$$H^0(^m,𝒪(p),P)=\{FH^0(^m,𝒪(p)):P_fP\}$$
(2.4)
of $`H^0(^m,𝒪(p)).`$

The problem we address in this section is:

* Problem 3 How does the Newton polytope influence on the distribution of zeros of polynomials?

Again, one could ask the same question about $`L^2`$ mass, critical points and so on and obtain a similar story. In  we explore this influence in a statistical and asymptotic sense. The main theme is that for each property of polynomials under study, $`P`$ gives rise to classically allowed regions where the behavior is the same as if no condition were placed on the polynomials, and classically forbidden regions where the behavior is exotic.

Let us define these terms. If $`P_+^m`$ is a convex integral polytope, then the classically allowed region for polynomials in $`H^0(^m,𝒪(p),P)`$ is the set

$$𝒜_P:=\mu _\mathrm{\Sigma }^1\left(\frac{1}{p}P^{}\right)^m$$

(where $`P^{}`$ denotes the interior of $`P`$), and the classically forbidden region is its complement $`^m𝒜_P`$. Here, $`\mu _\mathrm{\Sigma }(z)=(\frac{|z_1|^2}{1+z^2},\mathrm{},\frac{|z_m|^2}{1+z^2})`$ is the moment map of $`^m.`$

The result alluded to above is statistical. Since we view the polytope $`P`$ of degree $`p`$ as placing a condition on the Gaussian ensemble of $`SU(P)`$ polynomials of degree $`p`$, we endow $`H^0(^m,𝒪(p),P)`$ with the conditional probability measure $`\gamma _\delta |_P`$:

$$d\gamma _{\delta |P}(s)=\frac{1}{\pi ^{\mathrm{\#}P}}e^{|\lambda |^2}d\lambda ,s=\underset{\alpha P}{}\lambda _\alpha \frac{z^\alpha }{z^\alpha },$$
(2.5)
where the coefficients $`\lambda _\alpha `$ are again independent complex Gaussian random variables with mean zero and variance one.

Our simplest result concerns the the expected density $`𝐄_{|P}(Z_{f_1,\mathrm{},f_m})`$ of the simultaneous zeros of $`(f_1,\mathrm{},f_m)`$ chosen independently from $`H^0(^m,𝒪(p),P)`$. It is the measure on $`^m`$ given by

$`𝐄_{|P}(Z_{f_1,\mathrm{},f_m})(U)`$ (2.6)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑\gamma _{p|P}(f_1)\mathrm{}𝑑\gamma _{p|P}(f_m)\left[\mathrm{\#}\{zU:f_1(z)=\mathrm{}=f_m(z)=0\}\right]},`$
for $`U^m`$, where the integrals are over $`H^0(^m,𝒪(p),P)`$. We will determine the asymptotics of the expected density as the polytope is dilated $`PNP,N.`$

###### Theorem 2

 Suppose that $`P`$ is a simple polytope in $`^m`$. Then, as $`P`$ is dilated to $`NP`$,

$$\frac{1}{(N\delta )^m}𝐄_{|NP}(Z_{f_1,\mathrm{},f_m})\{\begin{array}{cc}\omega _{\mathrm{FS}}^m\hfill & \text{on }𝒜_P\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{on }^m𝒜_P\hfill \end{array},$$

in the distribution sense; i.e., for any open $`U^m`$, we have

$$\frac{1}{(N\delta )^m}𝐄_{|NP}\left(\mathrm{\#}\{zU:f_1(z)=\mathrm{}=f_m(z)=0\}\right)m!\mathrm{Vol}_^m(U𝒜_P).$$

There are also results for $`k<m`$ polynomials. The distribution of zeros is $`\omega _{\mathrm{FS}}^k`$ in $`𝒜_P`$ as if there were no constraint, while there is an exotic distribution in $`^m𝒜_P`$ which depends on the exponentially decaying asymptotics of the conditional Bergman- Szegö kernel

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{|NP}(z,w)=\underset{\alpha NP}{}\frac{z^\alpha \overline{w}^\alpha }{z^\alpha _{FS}w^\alpha _{FS}},$$

i.e. the orthogonal projection onto the subspace (2.4). It is obtained by sifting out terms in the (elementary) Szegö projector of $`H^0(^m,𝒪(pN))`$ using the polytope character $`\chi _{NP}(e^{i\phi })=_{\alpha NP}e^{i\alpha ,\phi }.`$ To obtain asymptotics in the forbidden region, we write $`\chi _{NP}(e^{i\phi })=_{M_P}\mathrm{\Pi }_N^{M_P}(e^{i\phi }w,w)𝑑V(w)`$, where $`\mathrm{\Pi }^{M_P}`$ is Bergman-Szegö kernel of the toric variety $`M_P`$ associated to $`P`$. We then make an explicit construction of $`\mathrm{\Pi }_N^{M_P}`$ as a complex oscillatory integral. An alternative is to express $`\chi _{NP}`$ as a Todd derivative of an exponential integral over $`P`$ (following works of Khovanskii-Pukhlikov, Brion-Vergne and Guillemin). We thus obtain a complex oscillatory integral formula for $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{|NP}(z,w)`$. To obtain asymptotics in the forbidden region we carefully deform the contour into the complex and apply a complex stationary phase method.

Although we only discuss expected behavior of zeros here, the distribution of zeros is self-averaging: i.e., almost all polynomials exhibit the expected behavior in an asymptotic sense. We also expect similar results for critical points.

## 3. Eigenfunctions

We now turn to the eigenvalue problem $`\mathrm{\Delta }_g\phi _\nu =\lambda _\nu ^2\phi _\nu ,\phi _\nu ,\phi _\nu ^{}=\delta _{\nu \nu ^{}}`$ on a compact Riemannian manifold $`(M,g)`$. We denote the $`\lambda `$-eigenspace by $`V_\lambda .`$ The role of the Szegö kernel is now played by the kernel $`E_\lambda (x,y)=_{\lambda _\nu \lambda }\phi _\nu (x)\overline{\phi _\nu (y)}`$ of the spectral projections.

### 3.1. $`𝑳^𝒑`$ bounds

Our first concern is with $`L^p`$ norms of $`L^2`$-normalized eigenfunctions. We measure the growth rate of $`L^p`$ norms by $`L^p(\lambda ,g)=sup_{\phi V_\lambda :\phi _{L^2}=1}\phi _{L^p}.`$ By the local Weyl law, $`E_\lambda (x,x)=_{\lambda _\nu \lambda }|\phi _\nu (x)|^2=(2\pi )^n_{|\xi |\lambda }𝑑\xi +O(\lambda ^{n1}),`$ it follows that $`L^{\mathrm{}}(\lambda ,g)=0(\lambda ^{\frac{n1}{2}})`$ on any compact Riemannian manifold. This bound, which is based entirely on a local analysis, is sharp in the case of the standard round sphere, $`S^n`$ or on any rotationally invariant metric on $`S^2`$, but is far off in the case of flat tori. This motivates:

* Problem 5 For which $`(M,g)`$ is this estimate sharp? Which $`(M,g)`$ are extremal for growth rates of $`\phi _\lambda _p`$, both maximal and minimal? What if $`M`$ has a boundary? What is the expected $`L^p`$ norm of a ‘random’ $`L^2`$-normalized polynomial or eigenfunction?

In , we give a necessary condition for maximal eigenfunction growth: there must exist a point $`xM`$ for which the set $`_x=\{\xi S_x^{}M:T:\mathrm{exp}_xT\xi =x\}`$ of directions of geodesic loops at $`x`$ has positive surface measure.

###### Theorem 3

 If $`_x`$ has measure $`0`$ in $`S_x^{}M`$ for every $`xM`$ then

$$L^p(\lambda ,g)=o(\lambda ^{\delta (p)}),p>\frac{2(n+1)}{n1}\delta (p)=\{\begin{array}{cc}n(\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{p})\frac{1}{2},\frac{2(n+1)}{n1}p\mathrm{}\hfill & \\ \frac{n1}{2}(\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{p}),2p\frac{2(n+1)}{n1}.\hfill & \end{array}$$
(3.1)
The $`L^p`$-bounds $`O(\lambda ^{\delta (p)})`$ were proved by Sogge to hold for all $`(M,g)`$.

We further prove:

###### Theorem 4

 (see also ) Suppose that $`(M,g)`$ is:

* Real analytic and that $`L^{\mathrm{}}(\lambda ,g)=\mathrm{\Omega }(\lambda ^{(n1)/2})`$. Then $`(M,g)`$ is a $`Y_{\mathrm{}}^m`$ -manifold, i.e. $`m`$ such that all geodesics issuing from the point $`m`$ return to $`m`$ at time $`\mathrm{}`$. In particular, if dim $`M`$ = 2, then $`M`$ is topologically a 2-sphere $`S^2`$ or a real projective plane $`P^2`$.
* Generic. Then $`L^{\mathrm{}}(\lambda ,g)=o(\lambda ^{(n1)/2})`$.

Here, $`\mathrm{\Omega }(\lambda ^{\frac{n1}{2}})`$ means $`O(\lambda ^{\frac{n1}{2}})`$ but not $`o(\lambda ^{\frac{n1}{2}})`$. The generic result holds because $`_x`$ has measure $`0`$ in $`S_x^{}M`$ for all $`xM`$ for a residual set of metrics.

In the case of random polynomials, or random combinations of eigenfunctions in short spectral intervals, the almost sure growth of $`L^{\mathrm{}}`$ norms is $`O(\sqrt{\mathrm{log}N})`$ while the $`L^p`$ norms for $`p<\mathrm{}`$ are bounded. This was proved by J. Vanderkam  for $`S^m`$, Nonnenmacher-Voros  for elliptic curves and Shiffman-Zelditch (to appear) for the general case using Levy concentration of measure estimates.

### 3.2. Integrable case

Results on minimal growth have been obtained by J. A. Toth and the author in the quantum completely integrable case, where $`\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }}=P_1`$ commutes with $`n1`$ first order pseudodifferential operators $`P_2,\mathrm{},P_n\mathrm{\Psi }^1(M)`$ ($`n`$ = dim $`M`$) satisfying $`[P_i,P_j]=0`$ and whose symbols define a moment map $`𝒫:=(p_1,\mathrm{},p_n)`$ satisfying $`dp_1dp_2\mathrm{}dp_n0`$ on a dense open set $`\mathrm{\Omega }T^{}M0`$. Since $`\{p_i,p_j\}=0`$, the functions $`p_1,\mathrm{},p_n`$ generate a homogeneous Hamiltonian $`^n`$-action whose orbits foliate $`T^{}M0`$. We refer to this foliation as the Liouville foliation.

We consider the $`L^p`$ norms of the $`L^2`$-normalized joint eigenfunctions $`P_j\phi _\lambda =\lambda _j\phi _\lambda `$. The spectrum of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ often has bounded multiplicity, so the behaviour of joint eigenfunctions has implications for all eigenfunctions.

###### Theorem 5

 Suppose that the Laplacian $`\mathrm{\Delta }_g`$ of $`(M,g)`$ is quantum completely integrable and that the joint eigenfunctions have uniformly bounded $`L^{\mathrm{}}`$ norms. Then $`(M,g)`$ is a flat torus.

This is a kind of quantum analogue of the ‘Hopf conjecture’ (proved by Burago-Ivanov) that metrics on tori without conjugate points are flat. In , a quantitative improvement is given under a further non-degeneracy assumption. Unless $`(M,g)`$ is a flat torus, the Liouville foliation must possess a singular leaf of dimension $`<n.`$ Let $`\mathrm{}`$ denote the minimum dimension of the leaves. We then construct a sequence of eigenfunctions satisfying:

$$\phi _k_L^{\mathrm{}}C(ϵ)\lambda _k^{\frac{n\mathrm{}}{4}ϵ},\phi _k_{L^p}C(ϵ)\lambda _k^{\frac{(n\mathrm{})(p2)}{4p}ϵ},(2<p)$$

for any $`ϵ>0`$. It is easy to construct examples were $`\mathrm{}=n1`$, but it seems plausible that in ‘many’ cases $`\mathrm{}=1`$. To investigate this, one would study the boundary faces of the image $`𝒫(T^{}M0)`$ of $`TM0`$ under a homogeneous moment map. For a related study in the case of torus actions, see Lerman-Shirokova .

### 3.3. Quantum ergodicity

Quantum ergodicity is concerned with the sums ($`A\mathrm{\Psi }^0(M)`$):

$$S_p(\lambda )=\underset{\nu :\lambda _\nu \lambda }{}|A\phi _\nu ,\phi _\nu \omega (A)|^p,\omega (A)=\frac{1}{Vol(S^{}M)}_{S^{}M}\sigma _A𝑑\mu .$$
(3.2)
In work of A.I. Schnirelman , Colin de Verdiere and the author , it is shown that $`S_p(\lambda )=o(N(\lambda ))`$ if $`G^t`$ is ergodic. In the author’s view , this is best viewed as a convexity theorem. We mention briefly some new results.

In work of Gerard-Leichtnam  and Zelditch-Zworski , the ergodicity result was extended to domains $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ with piecewise smooth boundary and ergodic billiard flow. Since the billiard map on $`B^{}\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is ergodic whenever the billiard flow is, suitable boundary values of ergodic eigenfunctions (e.g. $`\phi _k|_\mathrm{\Omega }`$ in the Neumann case or $`_\nu \phi _k|_\mathrm{\Omega }`$ in the Dirichlet case) should also have the ergodic property. This was conjectured by S. Ozawa in 1993. A proof is given in our work with A. Hassell  for convex piecewise smooth domains with ergodic billiards (in the case of domains with Lipschitz normal and with Dirichlet boundary conditions, this had earlier been proved in  by a different method).

Little is known about the rate of decay. For sufficiently chaotic systems (satisfying the central limit theorem) one can get the tiny improvement $`S_p(\lambda )=O(N(\lambda )/(\mathrm{log}\lambda )^p))`$ . The asymptotics $`S_2(\lambda )B(A)\lambda `$ have recently been obtained by Luo-Sarnak  for Hecke eigenfunctions of the modular group, exploiting the connections with $`L`$-functions. These asymptotics (though not the coefficient) are predicted by the random polynomial model. Other strong bounds in the arithmetic case were obtained by Kurlberg-Rudnick for eigenfunctions of certain quantized torus automorphisms . Bourgain-Lindenstrauss  and Wolpert  have developed the ’non-scarring’ result of  to give entropy estimates of possible quantum limit measures in arithmetic cases.

A natural problem is the converse:

* Problem 6 What can be said of the dynamics if $`S_p(\lambda )=o(N(\lambda ))`$? Does quantum ergodicity imply classical ergodicity?

It is known that classical ergodicity is equivalent to this bound plus estimates on off-diagonal terms . The existence of KAM quasimodes (due to Lazutkin , Colin de Verdiere , and Popov ) makes it very likely that KAM systems are not quantum ergodic, nor are $`(M,g)`$ which have stable elliptic orbits.

A further problem which may be accessible is:

* Problem 7 How are the nodal sets $`\{\phi _\nu =0\}`$ distributed in the limit $`\nu \mathrm{}`$?

In  (for elliptic curves) and  (general Kähler manifolds) it is proved that the complex zeros of quantum ergodic eigenfunctions become uniformly distributed relative to the volume form. Can one prove an analogue for the real zeros?


text:
# Fermionic zeromodes in heterotic fivebrane backgrounds

## I Introduction

Supersymmetry is a very attractive symmetry, but we do not have any concrete experimental evidences which support this symmetry at low energies. Therefore it must be broken spontaneously in some way. It is desirable that supersymmetry is broken dynamically, and one interesting scenario was proposed in Ref.Witten . In this scenario, local supersymmetry is broken due to the topological effect of the gravity. As an explicit realization of this scenario, four-dimensional supersymmetry breaking in the background of Eguchi-Hanson metric is well-knownKonishi . In this special background there are non-trivial gravitino zeromodes, and these zeromodes induce the gravitino condensation $`\psi _{ab}\psi ^{ab}0`$ which means the breaking of supersymmetry through the Konishi anomaly relation.

It is an interesting question whether this scenario is possible in the string theory, because the string theory can be considered as a consistent theory of the quantum gravity. The heterotic fivebranes, or the Callan-Harvey-Strominger (CHS) solitons, are known as exact solutions of the heterotic string theoryCHS . These solitons keep just a half of the supersymmetry of the heterotic string theory. In Ref.Rey  a background field configuration, which is similar to the one of the heterotic fivebrane, was studied, and the existence of the gravitino zeromodes which can contribute to the gravitino condensation was explicitly shown. Therefore, we can expect the existence of gravitino zeromodes also in the heterotic fivebrane background.

The supersymmetry breaking in ten-dimensional spacetime of the heterotic string theory has no direct relation to the supersymmetry breaking in the real world. We need further ideas to construct realistic models. But it is interesting to study the dynamics of fermions in the string theory which could trigger some interesting phenomena like the supersymmetry breaking as a first step.

In this paper, we find the explicit form of two fermionic zeromodes in the heterotic fivebrane background by explicitly solving the field equations of fermions. They can be considered as well-defined physical zeromodes which can contribute to the gravitino condensation.

This paper is organized as follows. A short review of the heterotic fivebrane is given in the next section. In Sec.III, we explicitly derive the field equations for fermionic zeromodes. In Sec.IV we give the explicit solution of these field equations. The argument of physical conditions of these fermionic zeromodes is also given in this section. In Sec.V a possible scenario of the gravitino pair condensation is suggested.

## II A short review of the heterotic fivebrane

The soliton is the solution of the classical field equation, and it is distinguished from other vacuum solutions by being translationally non-invariant. In the string theory, many objects with solitonic properties have been discovered. Especially, the heterotic fivebrane, or the CHS soliton, is one of the important solitons. It is an exact solution of the heterotic supergravity, and moreover, its validity as a solution of the heterotic string theory can be confirmed using the conformal field theory in a certain limit. In this section, we give a short review of the construction of this soliton.

The action of the heterotic supergravity is given in Ref.BdR . After the field redefinition of Ref.Bellisai ,

$`H^{BdR}={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}}{3}}H,\lambda ^{BdR}=\sqrt{2}\lambda ,\varphi ^{BdR}=e^{\frac{2}{3}\mathrm{\Phi }},`$ (1)
it becomes

$`S_{hetero}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^{10}x\left\{_B+_F\right\}},`$ (2)
$`_B`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{g}e^{2\mathrm{\Phi }}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}R(\omega ){\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}H_{MNP}H^{MNP}+2_M\mathrm{\Phi }^M\mathrm{\Phi }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}F_{MN}^\alpha F^{\alpha MN}\right\},`$ (3)
$`_F`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{g}e^{2\mathrm{\Phi }}\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\overline{\psi }_M\mathrm{\Gamma }^{MNP}D(\omega )_N\psi _P+8\overline{\lambda }\mathrm{\Gamma }^MD(\omega )_M\lambda +4\overline{\lambda }\mathrm{\Gamma }^{MN}D(\omega )_M\psi _N`$ (4)
$`+4\overline{\psi }_M\mathrm{\Gamma }^N\mathrm{\Gamma }^M\lambda _N\mathrm{\Phi }\overline{\psi }_M\mathrm{\Gamma }^M\psi _N^N\mathrm{\Phi }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\overline{\chi }^\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }^M𝒟(\omega ,A)_M\chi ^\alpha `$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{24}}H^{RST}\left[\overline{\psi }_M\mathrm{\Gamma }^{[M}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{RST}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{N]}\psi _N+8\overline{\psi }_M\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^{M}{}_{RST}{}^{}\lambda 16\overline{\lambda }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{RST}\lambda \right]`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\overline{\chi }^\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }^M\mathrm{\Gamma }^{NR}F_{NR}^\alpha (\psi _M+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_M\lambda )+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{24}}tr\overline{\chi }\mathrm{\Gamma }^{MNR}\chi H_{MNR}\},`$
where $`M,N,\mathrm{}`$ are indices of ten-dimensional spacetime coordinates, $`\alpha `$ stands for $`E_8\times E_8`$ adjoint index, and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{MNP\mathrm{}}`$ are totally anti-symmetrized gamma matrices. They are normalized as $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{MN}=1/2!(\mathrm{\Gamma }^M\mathrm{\Gamma }^N\mathrm{\Gamma }^N\mathrm{\Gamma }^M)`$. This action has $`𝒩=1`$ local supersymmetry. The three-form tensor field $`H`$ plays an important role in the construction of the heterotic fivebrane. It is related to the two form potential $`B`$ as described in Ref.GS .

$`H=dB+\alpha ^{}\left(\omega _3^{Lorentz}(\mathrm{\Omega }_+){\displaystyle \frac{1}{30}}\omega _3^{YM}(A)\right)+\mathrm{},`$ (5)
where dots mean higher-order $`\alpha ^{}`$ corrections and $`\omega _3^{Lorentz}(\mathrm{\Omega }_+)`$ and $`\omega _3^{YM}(A)`$ are the Chern-Simons three-forms whose exterior derivatives give $`TrR(\mathrm{\Omega }_+)R(\mathrm{\Omega }_+)`$ and $`trF(A)F(A)`$, respectively. Taking the exterior derivative of Eq.(5), the famous anomalous Bianchi identity is obtained.

$`dH=\alpha ^{}\left(TrR(\mathrm{\Omega }_+)R(\mathrm{\Omega }_+){\displaystyle \frac{1}{30}}trF(A)F(A)\right)+\mathrm{}.`$ (6)
We define the generalized spin connection $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\pm `$ as

$`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\pm M}^{}{}_{}{}^{AB}=\omega _{M}^{}{}_{}{}^{AB}\pm H_{M}^{}{}_{}{}^{AB},`$ (7)
where $`\omega _{M}^{}{}_{}{}^{AB}`$ is the usual spin connection (the sign of our $`\omega `$ is opposite in comparison with the one in Ref.BdR ), and $`H`$ plays a role of the tortion in $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\pm `$. In order to obtain the solitonic solution, it is convenient to look for the bosonic backgrounds which are annihilated by a part of supersymmetry transformations. Only the vacuum is annihilated by all of the supersymmetry variations.

In zero fermionic backgrounds, supersymmetry variations take especially simple form. All the variations of bosonic fields vanish, and the variations of fermionic fields areBdR

$`\delta \psi _M`$ $`=`$ $`\left(_M+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\mathrm{\Omega }_{M}^{}{}_{}{}^{AB}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{AB}\right)ϵ,`$ (8)
$`\delta \chi ^\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}F_{MN}^\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }^{MN}ϵ,`$ (9)
$`\delta \lambda `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }^M_M\mathrm{\Phi }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}H_{MNP}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{MNP}\right)ϵ,`$ (10)
where the infinitesimal parameter $`ϵ`$ belongs to the 16 dimensional Majorana-Weyl spinor representation with positive ten-dimensional chirality.

Now we consider the solitonic solution with the fivebrane structure. We assume that all the fields are independent of the coordinates along the fivebrane. Then, the Lorentz symmetry is decomposed into $`SO(5,1)\times SO(4)SO(9,1)`$, and the supersymmetry variations are parameterized by the spinors of $`ϵ_+ϵ_{}=(4,2_+)(4^{},2_{})`$. It can be verified that the following backgrounds are annihilated by just a half of the supersymmetry transformation parameterized by $`ϵ_+`$.

$`F_{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{F}_{\mu \nu },`$ (11)
$`H_{\mu \nu \rho }`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{g}ϵ_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }^\sigma \mathrm{\Phi },`$ (12)
$`g_{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`e^{2\mathrm{\Phi }}\delta _{\mu \nu }.`$ (13)
Here, indices $`\mu ,\nu ,\mathrm{}`$ stand for the four-dimensional Euclidean coordinates transverse to the fivebrane.

The explicit form of the dilaton field $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is not determined yet. It can be determined using the anomalous Bianchi identity of Eq.(6). With Eq.(12), this identity can be rewritten as

$`e^{2\mathrm{\Phi }}\mathrm{}e^{2\mathrm{\Phi }}=\alpha ^{}\left(TrR(\mathrm{\Omega }_+)R(\mathrm{\Omega }_+){\displaystyle \frac{1}{30}}trF(A)F(A)\right)+\mathrm{}.`$ (14)
Here, we take the gauge field configuration as $`SU(2)`$ selfdual instanton embedded in the $`SU(2)`$ part of $`E_8SU(2)\times E_7`$, and make the following identification.

$`R_{\mu \nu }(\mathrm{\Omega }_+)^{ab}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\overline{\eta }^{Iab}F_{\mu \nu }^I,`$ (15)
where $`I`$ is the $`SU(2)`$ adjoint index and $`\overline{\eta }`$ is the ’t Hooft’s anti-selfdual $`\eta `$ symbol. To realize this identification, $`R_{\mu \nu }(\mathrm{\Omega }_+)`$ should be anti-selfdual. The anti-selfduality is ensured by the condition of $`\mathrm{}e^{2\mathrm{\Phi }}=0`$, where $`\mathrm{}`$ is the usual four-dimensional Laplacian $`\delta ^{ab}_a_b`$. As a result of this identification, the right-hand side of Eq.(14) vanishes, and we obtain an exact formula: $`e^{2\mathrm{\Phi }}\mathrm{}e^{2\mathrm{\Phi }}=0`$. This procedure is the analogy of the familiar trick used in the Calabi-Yau compactification of the heterotic string theory (standard embedding, see Refs.Calabi-Yau\_1 ; Calabi-Yau\_2 ). As a solution of the equation $`\mathrm{}e^{2\mathrm{\Phi }}=0`$, we adopt the following dilaton field $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ which was given originally in Ref.CHS  (other type of solutions were found in Refs.Dilaton\_Sol\_1 ; Dilaton\_Sol\_2 ; Dilaton\_Sol\_3 ):

$`e^{2\mathrm{\Phi }}=e^{2\mathrm{\Phi }_0}+{\displaystyle \underset{I}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{𝒬_I}{\left(xx_{0I}\right)^2}},𝒬_I𝐙,`$ (16)
where the constant term $`e^{2\mathrm{\Phi }_0}`$ is determined by the value of the dilaton field at the infinity and $`x_{0I}`$ is the position where the Ith fivebrane is located. $`𝒬_I`$ are interpreted as the charges of heterotic fivebranes, and they are quantized as the integral multiple of $`\alpha ^{}`$Charge\_Quantization . The global geometry of this soliton is considered as half-cylinders glued into a flat Euclidean space, or a collection of semi-wormholes. We will consider only the single fivebrane from now on.

## III Field Equations for Fermionic Zeromodes

In the previous section, the concrete structure of the heterotic fivebrane was introduced. We are now ready to discuss about the fermionic zeromodes in this backgrounds. Following Ref.Bellisai , fermionic field equations are explicitly derived from the action of Eq.(2).

$`e^{2\mathrm{\Phi }}`$ $`[\mathrm{\Gamma }^{MNR}(D_N_N\mathrm{\Phi })\psi _R2^{[M}\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Gamma }^{N]}\psi _N{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}H^{RST}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{[M}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{RST}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{N]}\psi _N`$ (17)
$`+4\mathrm{\Gamma }^{MN}(D_N{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}_N\mathrm{\Phi })\lambda 6^M\mathrm{\Phi }\lambda {\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}H^{RST}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^{M}{}_{RST}{}^{}\lambda +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}F_{RS}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{RS}\mathrm{\Gamma }^M\lambda ]=0,`$
$`e^{2\mathrm{\Phi }}`$ $`[8\mathrm{\Gamma }^M(D_M_M)\lambda +{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}H^{RST}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{RST}\lambda 2\mathrm{\Gamma }^{MN}(D_M{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}_M\mathrm{\Phi })\psi _N`$ (18)
$`(3^M\mathrm{\Phi }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}H^{RST}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{RST}^{}{}_{}{}^{M})\psi _M{\displaystyle \frac{1}{24}}F_{NR}\mathrm{\Gamma }_M\mathrm{\Gamma }^{NR}\mathrm{\Gamma }^M\chi ]=0,`$
$`e^{2\mathrm{\Phi }}`$ $`\left[\mathrm{\Gamma }^M(𝒟_M{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}_M)\chi {\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}H_{MNR}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{MNR}\chi +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\mathrm{\Gamma }^M\mathrm{\Gamma }^{NR}F_{NR}(\psi _M+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_M)\lambda \right]=0.`$ (19)
We are interested in the solution of these field equations. Since the action of Eq.(2) is invariant under the supersymmetry transformation, the fermionic variations of Eqs.(8), (9) and (10) are possible candidates for fermionic zeromodes. As we have seen in the previous section, the heterotic fivebrane holds a half of supersymmetry by $`ϵ_+`$. Therefore, the supersymmetry variations by $`ϵ_{}`$ are relevant to the fermionic zeromodes. The explicit formulae of these variations in the heterotic fivebrane backgrounds are

$`\psi _\rho `$ $`=`$ $`(_\rho +^\sigma \mathrm{\Phi }\gamma _{\rho }^{}{}_{\sigma }{}^{})\eta ,`$ (20)
$`\lambda `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}_\mu \mathrm{\Phi }\gamma ^\mu \eta ,`$ (21)
$`\chi ^I`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}F_{}^{I}{}_{\mu \nu }{}^{}\gamma ^{\mu \nu }\eta ,`$ (22)
where $`\eta `$ is an arbitrary Weyl spinor with negative four-dimensional chirality, $`I`$ is the $`SU(2)`$ adjoint index, and ten-dimensional gamma matrix $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is replaced by the four-dimensional one $`\gamma `$. The field equations for fermionic zeromodes can be obtained by simply neglecting their dependence along the fivebrane. This simple dimensional reduction of Eqs.(17), (18) and (19) to four-dimensional space gives the following equations.

$`\gamma ^{\mu \nu \rho }\left(D_\nu {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}_\nu \mathrm{\Phi }\right)\psi _\rho ^{}+2^{[\mu }\mathrm{\Phi }\gamma ^{\nu ]}\psi _\nu ^{}+4\gamma ^{\mu \nu }(D_\nu _\nu )\lambda _+6^\mu \mathrm{\Phi }\lambda _+=0,`$ (23)
$`\gamma ^\mu \left(𝒟_\mu _\mu \mathrm{\Phi }\right)\chi _{}^I+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\gamma ^\mu \gamma ^{\nu \rho }F_{\nu \rho }^I\psi _\mu ^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}\gamma ^\mu \gamma ^{\nu \rho }F_{\nu \rho }^I\gamma _\mu \lambda _+=0,`$ (24)
$`8\gamma ^\mu \left(D_\mu {\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}_\mu \mathrm{\Phi }\right)\lambda _{}2\gamma ^{\mu \nu }(D_\mu +_\mu \mathrm{\Phi })\psi _\nu ^{}^\mu \mathrm{\Phi }\psi _\mu {\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}F_{\mu \nu }\gamma ^{\mu \nu }\chi _{}^I=0.`$ (25)
## IV Explicit Calculations

In this section, we find the explicit form of the solution of the fermionic field equations and check its validity as physical fermionic zeromodes.

First, we solve the dilatino field equation of Eq.(25). It contains a term $`\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu \nu }^I\gamma ^{\mu \nu }\chi ^I`$ whose order in the derivative expansion does not coincide with the one of the other terms. We can neglect this higher-derivative term, since all the fields are considered to be leading order in the derivative expansion of the full heterotic supergravitiy theory. Therefore, the dilatino field equation which we should solve is

$`8\gamma ^\mu \left(D_\mu {\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}_\mu \mathrm{\Phi }\right)\lambda 2\gamma ^{\mu \nu }(D_\mu +_\mu \mathrm{\Phi })\psi _\nu ^\mu \mathrm{\Phi }\psi _\mu =0.`$ (26)
It is easy to see that supersymmetry variation of Eqs.(20), (21) and (22) are the solution of the field equations of (23), (24) and (26).

Notice that the kinetic terms of dilatino and gravitino fields are not diagonalized in the action of Eq.(2) and the four-dimensional field equations of Eqs.(23) and (26). We can diagonalize this kinetic mixing in Eqs.(23) and (26) with the field redefinition of

$`\psi _\mu \psi _\mu 2\gamma _\mu \lambda .`$ (27)
The solution of the diagonalized field equations is

$`\psi _\mu `$ $`=`$ $`(_\mu _\mu \mathrm{\Phi })\eta ,`$ (28)
$`\lambda `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}_\mu \mathrm{\Phi }\gamma ^\mu \eta ,`$ (29)
$`\chi ^I`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}F_{\rho \sigma }^I\gamma ^{\rho \sigma }\eta .`$ (30)
The explicit form of the spinor $`\eta `$ has not been determined yet. It can be fixed by imposing the gauge condition to the gravitino solution. $`\gamma `$-tracelessness, $`\gamma ^\mu \psi _\mu =0`$, is usually used as a gauge condition, but in the present case the other gauge condition, namely $`D^\mu \psi _\mu =0`$, gives simpler result. This gauge condition requires $`\eta `$ to be a constant $`\eta _0`$, and the explicit form of the solution is

$`\psi _\mu `$ $`=`$ $`_\mu \mathrm{\Phi }\eta _0,`$ (31)
$`\lambda `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}_\mu \mathrm{\Phi }\gamma ^\mu \eta _0,`$ (32)
$`\chi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}F_{\rho \sigma }^I\gamma ^{\rho \sigma }\eta _0.`$ (33)
The normalizability of this solution in the four-dimensional space can be checked easily. We can find two zeromodes, since $`\eta _0`$ is defined as a four-dimensional Weyl spinor. Here, notice that these zeromodes are derived as supersymmetry variations. Therefore, there is a possibility that the zeromodes are gauged away and unphysical. But as we will see in the followings, they cannot be gauged away. The gauge parameter which define a gauge transformation should be normalizable. In the present case, corresponding gauge parameter $`\eta _0`$ is not normalizable, since it is a constant. Therefore, $`\eta _0`$ does not define gauge transformation. This means that the zeromodes can not be gauged away, and they are physical. We can expect some fermion pair condensations since the number of the obtained zeromodes is exactly two.

## V Conclusion

We found two physical fermionic zeromodes in the heterotic fivebrane backgrounds by explicitly solving the fermionic field equations. Two gravitino zeromodes are found in contrast with the result in Ref.Bellisai , in which no gravitino zeromodes were found using the extended index formula. A possible scenario of the gravitino condensation is as follows.

It has been pointed out in Ref.GSW  that a four-fermion term, which appears in the next order of the $`\alpha ^{}`$ expansion in the action of the ten-dimensional heterotic supergravity, can give a perfect square term

$`(H_{MNP}{\displaystyle \frac{g^2\varphi }{12}}tr(\overline{\chi }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{MNP}\chi ))^2.`$ (34)
If we can demand that the cosmological constant vanishes in the heterotic fivebrane backgrounds, the gaugino bilinear $`tr(\overline{\chi }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{MNP}\chi )`$ in Eq.(34) should have the vacuum expectation value to compensate the non-vanishing field strength $`H_{MNP}`$. On the other hand, the supersymmetry transformations of the gravitino and dilatino have the following next order corrections in the $`\alpha ^{}`$ expansionBdR .

$`\delta \psi _M{\displaystyle \frac{1}{192}}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{NPS}\mathrm{\Gamma }_Mϵ\left[tr(\overline{\chi }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{NPS}\chi )+\overline{\psi }^{ab}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{NPS}\psi _{ab}\right],`$ (35)
$`\delta \lambda {\displaystyle \frac{1}{384}}\sqrt{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{NPS}ϵ\left[tr(\overline{\chi }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{NPS}\chi )+\overline{\psi }^{ab}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{NPS}\psi _{ab}\right].`$ (36)
From this transformation rule, it is clear that the gaugino condensation $`tr\overline{\chi }\mathrm{\Gamma }^{MNP}\chi 0`$ breaks all supersymmetry. But the heterotic fivebrane should be invariant under a half of the supersymmetry transformations induced by $`ϵ_+(4,2_+)`$. Therefore, the gravitino should condensate so that the gaugino condensation are cancelled out in Eqs.(35) and (36). The fact that the existence of both gravitino and gaugino zeromodes could suggest such a phenomenon.

## VI acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank S. Saito for fruitful discussions and comments. N.K. would like to thank S.-J.Rey for useful comments.