where m
4
hidden
=
P
i
|F
i
|
2
+
1
2
P
α
D
2
α
is a mass scale associated with the hidden sector
(and usually in SUGRA-mediated models it is assumed m
hidden
∼ 10
12
GeV such that the
gravitino gets a mass m
3/2
∼ m
2
hidden
/m
P
).
According to Douglas et al. [14] from investigations of flux compactifications in IIB
string theory, the distribution of vacua ought to have the form
dN
vac
[m
2
hidden
, m
weak
, Λ] = f
SUSY
(m
2
hidden
) · f
EWFT
· f
cc
· dm
2
hidden
(2.4)
where we define the weak scale m
weak
' m
W,Z,h
' 100 GeV and where m
hidden
sets the scale
for SUSY breaking with m
2
hidden
=
P
i
|F
i
|
2
+
1
2
P
α
D
2
α
for a (in general) more complicated
SUSY breaking sector containing multiple sources of SUSY breaking, as may be expected
to occur in string theory.
The function f
SUSY
contains the expected statistical distribution of SUSY breaking
scales. This is related to the mass scale of MSSM soft terms as m
soft
' m
2
hidden
/m
P
. If the
sources of SUSY breaking have uniformly distributed vacuum expectation values (vevs),
then it is surmised that
f
SUSY
(m
2
hidden
) ∼ (m
2
hidden
)
2n
F
+n
D
−1
(2.5)
where n
F
is the number of F-breaking fields and n
D
is the number of D-term breaking
fields in the hidden sector [11–14]. We will denote the collective exponent in f
SUSY
as
n ≡ 2n
F
+ n
D
− 1. Since the F terms are complex-valued but the modulus |F | sets the
scale of SUSY breaking, then they contribute as (m
2
hidden
)
2n
F
whereas the real valued D
terms contribute as (m
2
hidden
)
n
D
. In terms of MSSM soft SUSY breaking parameters, one
would expect a statistically uniform distribution of soft terms m
0
soft
only for a single D-
term breaking field so that n
D
= 1. A single F -term breaking field leads to f
SUSY
∼ m
1
soft
so that there is a linearly increasing preference for large soft terms. For more complex
configurations with larger number of n
F
and n
D
, then there is an even greater statistical
preference for large soft terms which could lead to a preference for models with high scale
SUSY breaking.
Regarding the role of the cosmological constant in determining the SUSY breaking
scale, a key observation of Denef and Douglas [13, 14] and Susskind [12] was that W
at the minima is distributed uniformly as a complex variable, and the distribution of
e
K/m
2
P
|W |
2
/m
2
P
is not correlated with the distributions of F
i
and D
α
. Setting the cosmo-
logical constant to nearly zero, then, has no effect on the distribution of supersymmetry
breaking scales. Physically, this can be understood by the fact that the superpotential
receives contributions from many sectors of the theory, supersymmetric as well as non-
supersymmetric. The cosmological fine-tuning penalty is f
cc
∼ Λ/m
4
where the above
discussion leads to m
4
∼ m
4
string
rather than m
4
∼ m
4
hidden
, rendering this term inconse-
quential for determining the number of vacua with a given SUSY breaking scale.
The final term f
EWFT
merits some discussion. Following ref. [21], an initial guess [12,
14, 16, 17] for f
EWFT
was that f
EWFT
∼ m
2
weak
/m
2
soft
which may be interpretted as con-
ventional naturalness in that the larger the Little Hierarchy between m
weak
and m
soft
, then
the greater is the fine-tuning penalty. As pointed out in ref. [22], there are several problems
with this ansatz.
– 4 –