About this Journal Submit a Manuscript Table of Contents
Advances in High Energy Physics
Volume 2011 (2011), Article ID 630892, 30 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2011/630892
Research Article

Del Pezzo Singularities and SUSY Breaking

Center for Cosmology and Particle Physics, NYU, Meyer Hall of Physics, 4 Washington Place, New York, NY 10003, USA

Received 5 December 2010; Accepted 28 February 2011

Academic Editor: Yang-Hui He

Copyright © 2011 Dmitry Malyshev. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

An analytic construction of compact Calabi-Yau manifolds with del Pezzo singularities is found. We present complete intersection CY manifolds for all del Pezzo singularities and study the complex deformations of these singularities. An example of the quintic CY manifold with del Pezzo 6 singularity and some number of conifold singularities is studied in detail. The possibilities for the ‘‘geometric’’ and ISS mechanisms of dynamical SUSY breaking are discussed. As an example, we construct the ISS vacuum for the del Pezzo 6 singularity.

1. Motivation

Recently, there has been a substantial progress in Model building involving the D-branes at the singularities of noncompact Calabi-Yau manifolds. On the one hand, the singularities provide enough flexibility to find phenomenologically acceptable extensions of the Standard Model [1, 2] and solve some problems such as finding metastable susy breaking vacua [3, 4]. On the other hand, the presence of the singularity eliminates certain massless moduli, such as the adjoint fields on the branes wrapping rigid cycles [1, 5].

The main purpose of this paper is to study the del Pezzo and conifold singularities on compact CY manifolds that may be useful for the compactifications of dynamical SUSY breaking mechanisms. The stringy reallizations of metastable SUSY breaking vacua have been known for some time [6, 7]. We will focus on the two recent approaches to the dynamical SUSY breaking: on the “geometrical” approach of [8, 9] and on the ISS construction [10]. One of the main goals will be to study the topological conditions for the compactification of the above constructions.

An important topological property of “geometrical” mechanism is the presence of several homologous rigid two-cycles. This is not difficult to achieve in the case of conifold singularities. For example, in the geometric transitions on compact CY manifolds [11, 12], several conifolds may be resolved by a single Kahler modulus, that is, the two-cycles at the tip of these conifolds are homologous to each other. However, this is not always true for the del Pezzo singularities, that is, the two-cycles in the resolution of del Pezzo singularity may have no homologous rigid two-cycles on the compact CY. In the paper, we explicitly construct a compact CY manifold with del Pezzo 6 singularity and a number of conifolds such that some two-cycles on the del Pezzo are homologous to the two-cycles of the conifolds. This construction opens up the road for the generalization of geometrical SUSY breaking in the case of del Pezzo singularities, where one may hope to use the richness of deformations of these singularity for phenomenological applications.

A more direct way towards phenomenology is provided by the ISS mechanism. The realization of ISS construction for del Pezzo 5 and 8 singularities was considered in [4]. As an example, we find an ISS vacuum for the del Pezzo 6 singularity. The del Pezzo 6 surface can be embedded in 3 by a degree 3 polynomial. This is one of the most simple analytical representations of del Pezzo surfaces, which enables us to find an analytical embedding of the corresponding del Pezzo 6 singularity in a compact Calabi Yau manifold, the quintic CY embedded in 4 by a degree 5 polynomial.

A nice feature of the del Pezzo singularities is that they are isolated. Thus, the fractional branes, that one typically introduces in these models, are naturally stabilized against moving away from the singularity. But, for example, in the models involving quotients of conifolds [3, 13], the singularities are not isolated and one needs to pay special attention to stabilize the fractional branes against moving along the singular curves.

Apart from the application to SUSY breaking, the construction of compact CY manifolds with del Pezzo singularities may be useful for the study of deformations of these singularities. In particular, we will be interested in the D-brane interpretation of deformations.

In general, a singularity can be smoothed out in two different ways, it can be either deformed or resolved (blown up). The former corresponds to the deformations of the complex structure, described by the elements of 𝐻2,1; the latter corresponds to Kähler deformations given by the elements of 𝐻1,1 [1416]. In terms of the cycles, the resolution corresponds to blowing up some two-cycles (four-cycles), while the complex deformations correspond to the deformations of the three-cycles. For example, the conifold can be either deformed by placing an 𝑆3 at the tip of the conifold or resolved by placing an 𝑆2 [17]. The process where some three-cycles shrink to form a singularity and after that the singularity is blown up is called the geometric transition [11, 12]. For the conifold, the geometric transition has a nice interpretation in terms of the branes. The deformation of the conifold is induced by wrapping the D5-branes around the vanishing 𝑆2 at the tip [18]. The resolution of the conifold corresponds to giving a vev to a baryonic operator, that can be interpreted in terms of the D3-branes wrapping the vanishing 𝑆3 at the tip of the conifold [19].

The example of the conifold encourages to conjecture that any geometric transition can be interpreted in terms of the branes. The nonanomalous (fractional) branes produce the fluxes that deform the three-cycles. The massless/tensionless branes correspond to baryonic operators whose vevs are interpreted as the blow-up modes.

However, there are a few puzzles with the above interpretation. In some cases, there are less deformations than nonanomalous fractional branes; in the other cases there are deformations but no fractional branes, The quiver gauge theory on the del Pezzo 1 singularity has a nonanomalous fractional brane; moreover, it has a cascading behavior [20] similar to the conifold cascade. But it is known that there are no complex deformations of the cone over 𝑑𝑃1 [2123]. The relevant observation [24] is that there are no geometric transitions for the cone over 𝑑𝑃1. From the point of view of gauge theory, there is a runaway behavior at the bottom of the cascade and no finite vacuum [25].

On the other side of the puzzle, there are more complex deformations of higher del Pezzo singularities, than there are possible fractional branes. It is known that the cone over del Pezzo 𝑛 surface has 𝑐(𝐸𝑛)1 complex deformations [24], where 𝑐(𝐸𝑛) is the dual Coxeter number of the corresponding Lie group. For instance, the cone over 𝑑𝑃8 has 29 deformations. But there are only 8 nonanomalous combinations of fractional branes [1].

We believe that these puzzles can be managed more effectively if there were more examples of compact CY manifolds with local del Pezzo singularities. The advantage of working with compact manifolds is that they have finite a number of deformations and well-defined cohomology (there are no noncompact cycles).

The organization of the paper is as follows. In Section 2, we study the singularities on compact CY manifolds using the quintic CY manifold as an example. We restrict our attention to isolated singularities that admit crepant resolution, that is, their resolution does not affect the CY condition. There are two types of primitive isolated singularities on CY 3-folds: small contractions or conifold singularities, and del Pezzo singularities [26, 27]. We will study the example of del Pezzo 6 singularity and some number of conifolds on the quintic. The presence of conifold singularities is important if we want to put fractional branes at the del Pezzo singularity. Without conifolds, the nonanomalous two-cycles on del Pezzo (i.e., the ones that do not intersect the canonical class) are trivial within the CY manifold. It is impossible to put the fractional branes on such “cycles”, because the corresponding RR fluxes have “nowhere to go.” In the presence of conifolds, some of the two-cycles on del Pezzo may become homologous to the two-cycles of the conifolds (this will be the case in our example). Then we can put some number of D5-branes on the two-cycles of del Pezzo and some number of anti-D5-branes on the two-cycles of the conifolds. Such configuration of branes and antibranes is a first step in the geometrical SUSY breaking [8, 28]. Also the possibility to introduce the fractional branes will be crucial for the D-brane realizations of ISS construction.

In Section 3, we discuss the compactification of the geometrical SUSY breaking and the ISS model and find an ISS SUSY breaking vacuum in a quiver gauge theory for the 𝑑𝑃6 singularity.

In Section 4, we formulate the general construction of compact CY manifolds with del Pezzo singularities and discuss the complex deformations of these singularities. We observe that the number of deformations depends on the global properties of the two-cycles on del Pezzo that do not intersect the canonical class and have self-intersection (−2). Suppose all such cycles are trivial within the CY, then the singularity has the maximal number of deformations. This will be the case for our embeddings of del Pezzo 5, 6, 7, and 8 singularities and for the cone over 1×1. In the case of 𝑑𝑃0=2 and 𝑑𝑃1 singularities, we do not expect to find any deformations. In the case of del Pezzo 2, 3, and 4, our embedding leaves some of the (−2) two-cycles nontrivial within the CY; accordingly, we find less complex deformations. This result can be expected, since it is known that the del Pezzo singularities for 𝑛4 in general cannot be represented as complete intersections [27, 29]. In our case, the del Pezzo singularities are complete intersections but they are not generic. Specific equations for embedding of del Pezzo singularities and their deformations are provided in the appendix.

Section 5 contains discussion and conclusions.

2. Del Pezzo 6 and Conifold Singularities on the Quintic CY

The CY manifolds can have two types of primitive isolated singularities: conifold singularities and del Pezzo singularities [26, 27]. Correspondingly, we will have two types of geometric transitions. (1) Type I, or conifold transitions: several 1’s shrink to form conifold singularities and then these singularities are deformed.(2) Type II, or del Pezzo transition: a del Pezzo shrinks to a point and the corresponding singularity is deformed.

In order to illustrate the geometric transitions, we will study a particular example of transitions on the quintic CY. The example is summarized in the diagram in Figure 1. The type I transitions are horizontal, whereas the type II transitions are vertical. It is known [24] that the maximal number of deformations of a cone over 𝑑𝑃6 is 𝑐(𝐸6)1=11, where 𝑐(𝐸6)=12 is the dual Coxeter number of 𝐸6. Going along the left vertical arrow we recover all complex deformations of the cone over 𝑑𝑃6. In this case, all the two-cycles that do not intersect the canonical class on 𝑑𝑃6 are trivial within the CY.

630892.fig.001
Figure 1: Possible geometric transitions of quintic CY. The numbers in parentheses denote the dimensions (1,1,2,1).

For the CY with both del Pezzo and conifold singularities, the deformation of the del Pezzo singularity has only 7 parameters (right vertical arrow). The del Pezzo surface is not generic in this case. It has a two-cycle that is nontrivial within the full CY and does not intersect the canonical class inside del Pezzo. As a general rule, the existence of nontrivial two-cycles reduces the number of possible complex deformations.

The horizontal arrows represent the conifold transitions. In our example, we have 36 conifold singularities on the quintic CY. These singularities have 35 complex deformations. In the presence of 𝑑𝑃6 singularity, there will be only 32 conifolds that have, respectively, 31 complex deformations. (It may seem puzzling that we need exactly 36 or 32 conifolds. One can easily find the examples of quintic CY with fewer conifold singularities. But it is impossible to blow up these singularities unless we have a specific number of them at specific locations. In the example considered in [11, 12], the quintic CY has 16 conifolds placed at a 2 inside the CY.)

In general, the del Pezzo singularity and the conifold singularities are away from each other but they still affect the number of complex deformations, that is, the presence of conifolds reduces the number of deformations of del Pezzo singularity and vice versa. The diagram in Figure 1 is commutative, and the total number of complex deformations of the CY with the del Pezzo singularity and 32 conifold singularities is 42. But the interpretation of these deformations changes whether we first deform the del Pezzo singularity or we first deform the conifold singularities.

Before we go to the calculations, let us clarify what we mean by the deformations of the del Pezzo singularity. We will distinguish three kinds of deformations. The deformations of the shape of the cone, the deformations of the blown up del Pezzo with fixed canonical class and deformations that smooth out the singularity.

The first kind of deformations corresponds to the general deformations of del Pezzo surface at the base of the cone. Recall that the 𝑑𝑃𝑛 surface for 𝑛>4 has 2𝑛8 deformations that parameterize the superpotential of the corresponding quiver gauge theory [5].

The second kind of deformations is obtained by blowing up the singularity and fixing the canonical class on the del Pezzo. In this case, the deformations of del Pezzo 𝑛 surface can be described as the deformations of 𝐸𝑛 singularity on the del Pezzo [30]. The deformations of this singularity have 𝑛 parameters, corresponding to the 𝑛 two-cycles that do not intersect the canonical class. Note that the intersection matrix of these two-cycles is (minus) the Cartan matrix of 𝐸𝑛. The 𝐸𝑛 singularity on the del Pezzo is an example of du Val surface singularity [31] (also known as an ADE singularity or a Kleinian singularity). A three-dimensional singularity that has a du Val singularity in a hyperplane section is called compound du Val (cDV) [26, 31]. The conifold is an example of cDV singularity since it has the 𝐴1 singularity in a hyperplane section. The generalized conifolds [32, 33] also have an ADE singularity in a hyperplane section, that is, from the 3-dimensional point of view they correspond to some cDV singularities. In terms of the large 𝑁 gauge/string duality, the deformation of the 𝐸𝑛 generalized conifold singularity corresponds to putting some combination of fractional branes on the zero size two-cycles at the singularity. Hence, the deformtion of cDV singularity that restricts to 𝐸𝑛 singularity on the del Pezzo can be considered as a generalized type I transition.

We will be mainly interested in the the third type of deformations that correspond to smoothing of del Pezzo singularities. These deformations make the canonical class of del Pezzo surface trivial within the CY. If we put some number of nonanomalous fractional D-branes at the singularity, then the corresponding geometric transition smooths the singularity [24]. But not all the deformations can be described in this way.

In order to get some intuition about possible interpretations of these deformations, we will consider the del Pezzo 6 singularity. It is known that the 𝑑𝑃6 singularity has 11 complex deformations [21, 34] but there are only 6 nonanomalous fractional branes in the corresponding quiver gauge theory and there are only 6 two-cycles that do not intersect the canonical class [24]. It will prove helpful to start with a quintic CY that has 36 conifold singularities. The del Pezzo 6 singularity can be obtained by merging four conifolds at one point. There are 7 deformations of del Pezzo 6 singularity that separate these four conifolds (right vertical arrow). The remaining 4 deformations of 𝑑𝑃6 cone correspond to 4 deformations of the four “hidden” conifolds at the singularity. Note that the total number of deformations is 11 (left vertical arrow).

2.1. Quintic CY

The description of the quintic CY is well known [16]. Here, we repeat it in order to recall the methods [16] of finding the topology and deformations that we use later in more difficult situations.

The quintic CY manifold 𝑌3 is given by a degree five equation in 4𝑄5𝑧𝑖=0,(2.1) where (𝑧0,𝑧1,𝑧2,𝑧3,𝑧4)4. The total Chern class of this manifold is 𝑐𝑌3=(1+𝐻)51+5𝐻=1+10𝐻240𝐻3(2.2) and the first Chern class 𝑐1(𝑌3)=0.

Let us calculate the number of complex deformations. The complex structures are parameterized by the coefficients in (2.1) up to the change of coordinates in 4. The number of coefficients in a homogeneous polynomial of degree 𝑛 in 𝑘 variables is 𝑛=𝑛+𝑘1(𝑛+𝑘1)!𝑛!(𝑘1)!.(2.3) In the case of the quintic in 4, the number of coefficients is 95=9!5!4!=126.(2.4) The number of reparametrizations of 4 is equal to dim𝐺𝑙(5)=25. Thus, the dimension of the space of complex deformations is 101.

The number of complex deformations of CY threefolds is equal to the dimension of 𝐻2,1 cohomology group 2,1=1,1𝜒2,(2.5) where 1,1 can be found via the Lefschetz hyperplane theorem [16, 35] 1,1𝑌3=1,14=1(2.6) and the Euler characteristic is given by the integral of the highest Chern class over 𝑌3𝜒=𝑌3𝑐3=440𝐻35𝐻=200,(2.7) here, we have used that 5𝐻 is the Poincare dual class to 𝑌3 inside 4. Consequently, 2,1=101 which is consistent with the number of complex deformations found before.

2.2. Quintic CY with 𝑑𝑃6 Singularity

Suppose that the quintic equation is not generic but has a degree three zero at the point (𝑤0,𝑤1,𝑤2,𝑤3,𝑤4)=(0,0,0,0,1), 𝑃3𝑤0,,𝑤3𝑤24+𝑃4𝑤0,,𝑤3𝑤4+𝑃5𝑤0,,𝑤3=0,(2.8) where 𝑃𝑛’s denote degree 𝑛 polynomials. The shape of the singularity is determined by 𝑃3(𝑤0,,𝑤3) (we will see that this polynomial defines the del Pezzo at the tip of the cone). The deformations that smooth out the singularity correspond to adding less singular terms to (2.8), that is, the terms that have bigger powers of 𝑤4.

The resolution of the singularity in (2.8) can be obtained by blowing up the point (0,0,0,0,1)4. Away from the blowup, we can use the following coordinates on 4: 𝑤0,,𝑤3,𝑤4=𝑡𝑧0,,𝑡𝑧3,𝑠,(2.9) where (𝑠,𝑡)1 and (𝑧0,,𝑧3)3. The blowup of the point at 𝑡=0 corresponds to inserting the 3 instead of this point. Hence, the points on the blown up 4 can be parameterized globally by (𝑧0,,𝑧3)3 and (𝑠,𝑡)1. The projective invariance (𝑠,𝑡)(𝜆𝑠,𝜆𝑡) corresponds to the projective invariance in the original 4. In order to compensate for the projective invariance of 3, we need to assume that locally the coordinates on 1 belong to the following line bundles over 3, 𝑠𝒪 and 𝑡𝒪(𝐻). Thus, the blowup of 4 at a point is a 1 bundle over 3 obtained by projectivization of the direct sum of 𝒪3 and 𝒪3(𝐻) bundles, 4=𝑃(𝒪3𝒪3(𝐻)) (for more details on projective bundles see, e.g., [36, 37]). In working with projective bundles, we will use the technics similar to [37].

Using parametrization (2.9), we can write the equation on the blown up 4 as 𝑃3𝑧0,,𝑧3𝑠2+𝑃4𝑧0,,𝑧3𝑠𝑡+𝑃5𝑧0,,𝑧3𝑡2=0.(2.10) This equation is homogeneous of degree two in the coordinates on 1 and degree three in the 𝑧𝑖’s. Note that 𝑡𝒪(𝐻), that is, it has degree (1) in the 𝑧𝑖’s and 𝑠𝒪 has degree zero.

Let us prove that the manifold defined by (2.10) has vanishing first Chern class, that is, it is a CY manifold. Let 𝐻 be the hyperplane class in 3 and 𝐺 the hyperplane class on the 1 fibers. Let 𝑀=𝑃(𝒪3𝒪3(𝐻)) denote the 1 bundle over 3. The total Chern class of 𝑀 is 𝑐(𝑀)=(1+𝐻)4(1+𝐺)(1+𝐺𝐻),(2.11) where (1+𝐻)4 is the total Chern class of 3, (1+𝐺) corresponds to 𝑠𝒪3, and (1+𝐺𝐻) corresponds to 𝑡𝒪3(𝐻). Note that 𝐺(𝐺𝐻)=0 on this 1 bundle and, as usual, 𝐻4=0 on the 3.

Let 𝑌3 denote the surface embedded in 𝑀 by (2.10). Since the equation has degree 3 in 𝑧𝑖 and degree two in (𝑠,𝑡), the class Poincare dual to 𝑌3𝑀 is 3𝐻+2𝐺 and the total Chern class is 𝑐𝑌3=(1+𝐻)4(1+𝐺)(1+𝐺𝐻).1+3𝐻+2𝐺(2.12) Expanding 𝑐(𝑌3), it is easy to check that 𝑐1(𝑌3)=0.

The intersection of 𝑌3 with the blown up 3 at 𝑡=0 is given by the degree three equation 𝑃3(𝑧0,,𝑧3)=0 in 3. The surface 𝐵 defined by this equation is the del Pezzo 6 surface [16, 35]. The total Chern class and the Euler character of 𝐵𝑐(𝐵)=(1+𝐻)41+3𝐻=1+𝐻+3𝐻2,𝜒(2.13)(𝐵)=𝐵𝑐2(𝐵)=33𝐻23𝐻=9.(2.14) In the calculation of 𝜒(𝐵), we have used that 3𝐻 is the Poincare dual class to 𝐵 inside 3.

It is known that the normal bundle to contractable del Pezzo in a CY manifold is the canonical bundle on del Pezzo [38]. Let us check this statement in our example. The canonical class is minus the first Chern class that can be found from (2.13) (Slightly abusing the notations, we denote by 𝐻 both the class of 3 and the restriction of this class to 𝐵3.) 𝐾(𝐵)=𝐻.(2.15) The coordinate 𝑡 describes the normal direction to 𝐵 inside 𝑌3. Since 𝑡𝒪3(𝐻), restricting to 𝐵 we find that 𝑡 belongs to the canonical bundle over 𝐵. Hence locally, near 𝑡=0, the CY threefold 𝑌3 has the structure of the CY cone over the del Pezzo 6 surface.

The smoothing of the singularity corresponds to adding less singular terms in (2.8). These terms have 15 parameters, but also we get back 4 reparametrizations (now, we can add 𝑤4 to the other coordinates). Hence, smoothing of the singularity corresponds to 11 complex structure deformations that is the maximal expected number of deformations of 𝑑𝑃6 singularity.

In view of applications in Section 4, let us describe the geometric transition between the CY with the resolved 𝑑𝑃6 singularity and a smooth quintic CY in more details. As we have shown above, the CY with the blown up 𝑑𝑃6 singularity can be described by the following equation in the 1 bundle over 3: 𝑃3𝑧0,,𝑧3𝑠2+𝑃4𝑧0,,𝑧3𝑠𝑡+𝑃5𝑧0,,𝑧3𝑡2=0.(2.16) This equation can be rewritten as 𝑃3𝑡𝑧0,,𝑡𝑧3𝑠2+𝑃4𝑡𝑧0,,𝑡𝑧3𝑠+𝑃5𝑡𝑧0,,𝑡𝑧3=0.(2.17) Next, we note that, being a projective bundle, 𝑀 is equivalent [35, 36] to 𝑃(𝒪3(𝐻)𝒪3), where locally 𝑠 and 𝑡 are sections of 𝒪3(𝐻) and 𝒪3, respectively. We further observe that 𝑡𝑧𝑖, 𝑖=03 are also sections of 𝒪3(𝐻) and the equivalence (𝑡,𝑠)(𝜆𝑡,𝜆𝑠) induces the equivalence (𝑡𝑧0,,𝑡𝑧𝑖,𝑠)(𝜆𝑡𝑧0,,𝜆𝑡𝑧𝑖,𝜆𝑠). Consequently, if we blow down the section 𝑡=0 of 𝑀, then (𝑡𝑧0,,𝑡𝑧𝑖,𝑠)4. Now, we define (𝑤0,,𝑤3,𝑤4)=(𝑡𝑧0,,𝑡𝑧3,𝑠) and rewrite (2.17) as 𝑃3𝑤0,,𝑤3𝑤24+𝑃4𝑤0,,𝑤3𝑤4+𝑃5𝑤0,,𝑤3=0.(2.18) Not surprisingly, we get back (2.8).

Above we have found that there are 11 complex deformations of the 𝑑𝑃6 singularity embedded in the quintic CY manifold. In the view of further applications, let us rederive the number of complex deformations by calculating the dimension of 𝐻2,1.

Expanding (2.12), we get the third Chern class 𝑐3𝑌3=2𝐺313𝐻𝐺217𝐻2𝐺8𝐻3.(2.19) The Poincare dual class to 𝑌3𝑀 is 3𝐻+2𝐺 and 𝜒𝑌3=𝑌3𝑐3𝑌3=𝑀𝑐3𝑌3(3𝐻+2𝐺).(2.20) In calculating this integral, one needs to take into account that 𝐺(𝐺𝐻)=0 on 𝑀. Finally, we get 𝜒𝑌3=176,2,1=1,1𝜒2=90.(2.21) The number of complex deformations of the del Pezzo singularity is 10190=11, which is consistent with the number found above.

2.3. Quintic CY with 36 Conifold Singularities

In this subsection, we use the methods of geometric transitions [11, 12, 16] to find the quintic CY with conifold singularities, that is, we describe the upper horizontal arrow in Figure 1. Consider the system of two equations in 4×1𝑃3𝑢+𝑅3𝑃𝑣=0,2𝑢+𝑅2𝑣=0,(2.22) where (𝑢,𝑣)1 and 𝑃𝑛, 𝑅𝑛 denote polynomials of degree 𝑛 in 4.

Suppose that at least one of the polynomials 𝑃3, 𝑅3, 𝑃2, and 𝑅2 is nonzero, then we can solve for 𝑢, 𝑣 and substitute in the second equation, where we get 𝑃3𝑅2𝑅3𝑃2=0,(2.23) a nongeneric quintic in 4. The points where 𝑃3=𝑅3=𝑃2=𝑅2=0 (but otherwise generic) have conifold singularities. There are 3322=36 such points. The system (2.22) describes the blowup of the singularities, since every singular point is replaced by the 1 and the resulting manifold is non singular.

Let 𝐻 be the hyperplane class of 4 and 𝐺 by the hyperplane class of 1, then the total Chern class of 𝑌3 is 𝑐=(1+𝐻)5(1+𝐺)2(,1+3𝐻+𝐺)(1+2𝐻+𝐺)(2.24) since 𝑐1=0, 𝑌3 is a CY.

By Lefschetz hyperplane theorem 1,1(𝑌3)=1,1(4×1)=2, there are only two independent Kahler deformations in 𝑌3. One of them is the overall size of 𝑌3 and the other is the size of the blown up 1’s. Thus, the 36 1’s are not independent but homologous to each other and represent only one class in 𝐻2(𝑌3). If we shrink the size of blown up 1’s to zero, then we can deform the singularities of (2.23) to get a generic quintic CY. In this case, the 35 three chains that where connecting the 36 1’s become independent three cycles. Thus, we expect the general quintic CY to have 35 more complex deformations than the quintic with 36 conifold singularities.

Calculating the Euler character similarly to the previous subsections, we find 2,1=66.(2.25) Recall that the smooth quintic has 101 complex deformations. Thus, the quintic with 36 conifold singularities has 10166=35 less complex deformations than the generic one.

2.4. Quintic CY with 𝑑𝑃6 Singularity and 32 Conifold Singularities

The equation for the quintic CY manifold with the blown up 𝑑𝑃6 singularity was found in (2.10). Here, we reproduce it for convenience 𝑃3𝑧𝑖𝑠2+𝑃4𝑧𝑖𝑠𝑡+𝑃5𝑧𝑖𝑡2=0.(2.26) This equation describes an embedding of the CY manifold in the 1 bundle 𝑀=𝑃(𝒪3𝒪3(𝐻)). As before, (𝑧0,,𝑧3)3 and (𝑠,𝑡) are the coordinates on the 1 fibers over 3.

In order to have more Kahler deformations, we need to embed (2.26) in a space with more independent two-cycles. For example, we can consider a system of two equations in the product (1 bundle over 3) × 1𝑃1𝑠+𝑃2𝑡𝑄𝑢+1𝑠+𝑄2𝑡𝑅𝑣=0,2𝑠+𝑅3𝑡𝑆𝑢+2𝑠+𝑆3𝑡𝑣=0,(2.27) where (𝑢,𝑣) are the coordinates on the additional 1. Let 𝐺, 𝐻, and 𝐾 be the hyperplane classes on the 1 fibers, on the 3, and on the additional 1, respectively. Then, the total Chern class of 𝑌3 is 𝑐=(1+𝐻)4(1+𝐺)(1+𝐺𝐻)(1+𝐾)2,(1+𝐻+𝐺+𝐾)(1+2𝐻+𝐺+𝐾)(2.28) and it is easy to see that the first Chern class is zero.

For generic points on the 1 bundle over 3, at least one of the functions in front of 𝑢 or 𝑣 is nonzero. Thus, we can find a point (𝑢,𝑣) and substitute it in the second equation, which becomes a nongeneric equation similar to (2.26) 𝑃1𝑆2𝑄1𝑅2𝑠2+𝑃1𝑆3+𝑃2𝑆2𝑄1𝑅3𝑄2𝑅2𝑃𝑠𝑡+2𝑆3𝑄2𝑅3𝑡2=0.(2.29)

The CY manifold defined in (2.27) has the following characteristics: 𝜒=𝑌3𝑐3=112,1,1=3,2,1=1,1𝜒2=59.(2.30) Recall that the number of complex deformations on the quintic with the del Pezzo 6 singularity is 90. Since we lose 31 complex deformations, we expect that the corresponding three-cycles become the three chains that connect 32 1’s at the blowups of the singularities in (2.29). These singularities occur when all four equations in (2.27) vanish 𝑅2𝑠+𝑅3𝑆𝑡=0,2𝑠+𝑆3𝑃𝑡=0,1𝑠+𝑃2𝑄𝑡=0,1𝑠+𝑄2𝑡=0.(2.31) The number of solutions equals the number of intersections of the corresponding classes 𝑀(2𝐻+𝐺)2(𝐻+𝐺)=32, where 𝑀 is the 1 bundle over 3 and 𝐺(𝐺𝐻)=0.

The right vertical arrow corresponds to smoothing of del Pezzo singularity in the presence of conifold singularities. Before the transition, the CY has 2,1=59 deformations and after the transition it has 2,1=66 deformations. Hence, the number of complex deformations of 𝑑𝑃6 singularity is 6659=7 which is less than 𝑐(𝐸6)1=11. This is related to the fact that the del Pezzo at the tip of the cone is not generic. The equation of the del Pezzo can be found by restricting (2.27) to 𝑡=0, 𝑠=1 section 𝑃1𝑢+𝑄1𝑅𝑣=0,2𝑢+𝑆2𝑣=0.(2.32) This del Pezzo contains a two-cycle 𝛼 that is nontrivial within the full CY and does not intersect the canonical class inside 𝑑𝑃6.

In the rest of this subsection, we will argue that 𝛼 is homologous to four 1’s at the tip of the conifolds. The heuristic argument is the following. The formation of 𝑑𝑃6 singularity on the CY manifold with 36 conifolds reduces the number of conifolds to 32. Let us show that the deformation of the del Pezzo singularity that preserves the conifold singularities corresponds to separating 4 conifolds hidden in the del Pezzo singularity. The CY that has a 𝑑𝑃6 singularity and 32 resolved conifolds can be found from (2.27) by the following coordinate redefinition (𝑤0,,𝑤3,𝑤4)=(𝑡𝑧0,,𝑡𝑧3,𝑠) (compare to the discussion after (2.17)):𝑃1𝑤4+𝑃2𝑄𝑢+1𝑤4+𝑄2𝑅𝑣=0,2𝑤4+𝑅3𝑆𝑢+2𝑤4+𝑆3𝑣=0.(2.33) If we blow down the 1, then we get the quintic CY with 32 conifold singularities and a 𝑑𝑃6 singularity. For a finite size 1, the conifold singularities and one of the two-cycles in the 𝑑𝑃6 are blown up. The deformations of 𝑑𝑃6 singularity correspond to adding terms with higher power of 𝑤4. After the deformation, the degree two zeros of 𝑅2 and 𝑆2 will split into four degree one zeros that correspond to the four conifolds “hidden” in the 𝑑𝑃6 singularity. The blown up two-cycle of 𝑑𝑃6 is homologous to the two-cycles on the four conifolds. (Formally, we can prove this by calculating the corresponding Poincaré dual classes. The Poincaré dual of 1 on the blown up conifold is 𝐻3𝐺—this is the 1 parameterized by (𝑢,𝑣). The Poincaré dual of the canonical class on 𝑑𝑃6 is (𝐺𝐻)(𝐻+𝐾)(2𝐻+𝐾)(𝐻), where (𝐺𝐻) restricts to 𝑡=0 section of the 1 bundle, (𝐻+𝐾)(2𝐻+𝐾) restricts to 𝑑𝑃6 in (2.32), while the restriction of (𝐻) is the canonical class on 𝑑𝑃6 (see (2.15)). The class that does not intersect (𝐻) inside 𝑑𝑃6 is dual to (𝐺𝐻)(𝐻+𝐾)(2𝐻+𝐾)(2𝐻3𝐺)=4𝐻3𝐺, q.e.d.)

3. SUSY Breaking

In this paper, we compare two mechanisms for dynamical SUSY breaking: the “geometrical” approach of Aganagic et al. [8] and a more “physical” approach of ISS [10].

In both approaches, there is a confinement in the microscopic gauge theory leading to the SUSY breaking in the effective theory. But the particular mechanisms and the effective theories are quite different. In the “geometrical” approach the effective theory is a non-SUSY analog of Veneziano-Yankielowicz superpotential [39] for the gaugino bilinear field 𝑆. This potential has an interpretation as the GVW superpotential [40] for the complex structure moduli of the CY manifold. The original Veneziano-Yankielowicz potential [39] is derived for the pure YM theory without any flavors. It has a number of isolated vacua and no massless fields. This is a nice feature for the (meta) stability of the vacuum but, since all the fields are massive, the applications of this potential in the low-energy effective theories are limited (see, e.g., the discussion in [41]).

In the ISS construction, the number of flavors is bigger than the number of colors 𝑁𝑐<𝑁𝑓<3/2𝑁𝑐 (and probably 𝑁𝑓=𝑁𝑐). After the confinement, the low-energy effective theory contains classically massless fields that get some masses only at 1 loop. Hence, this theory is a more genuine effective theory but the geometric interpretation is harder to achieve [3]. Moreover, the geometric constructions similar to [3] generally have D5-branes wrapping vanishing cycles. In any compactification of these models, one has to put the O-planes or anti D5-branes somewhere else in the geometry, that is, the analysis of [8, 9] becomes inevitable.

In summary, it seems that the ISS construction is more useful for immediate applications to SUSY breaking in the low-energy effective theories, whereas more global geometric analysis of [8, 9] becomes inevitable in the compactifications.

In the previous section, we constructed the compact CY with del Pezzo 6 singularity and some number of conifold singularities. We have shown that it is possible to make some two-cycles on del Pezzo homologous to the two-cycles on the conifolds. This is the first step in the geometric analysis of [8]. In the next subsection, we show how the ISS story can be represented in the del Pezzo 6 quiver gauge theories.

3.1. ISS Vacuum for the 𝑑𝑃6 Singularity

Consider the quiver gauge theory for the cone over 𝑑𝑃6 represented in Figure 2. This quiver can be found by the standard methods [1] from the three-block exceptional collection of sheaves [42]. But, in order to prove the existence of this quiver, it is easier to do the Seiberg dualities on the nodes 4, 5, 6, and 1 and reduce it to the known 𝑑𝑃6 quiver [2].

630892.fig.002
Figure 2: Quiver gauge theory for the cone over 𝑑𝑃6.

In the compact CY manifold, one can put the D5-branes only on cycles that are nontrivial globally. A deformation of the 𝑑𝑃6 singularity in (2.33) leaves four conifold singularities. We will assume that after joining the 4 conifolds to form a 𝑑𝑃6 singularity the two-cycles remain nontrivial. We also expect that these two-cycles are represented by the four two-cycles on del Pezzo that have self-intersection (−2) and do not intersect with each other. Note that the total number of nonanomalous fractional branes and the number of (−2) two-cycles is 6, but there are only 4 two-cycles that do not intersect with each other and with the canonical class. (It is interesting to note the similarity between the branes wrapping the non intersecting cycles on 𝑑𝑃6 and the deformation D-branes in [3, 23].)

Let 𝐴𝑖 denote the two-cycle corresponding to the D5-brane charge [1] of the bound state of branes at the 𝑖th node in Figure 2. Then, the four non intersecting (−2) two-cycles can be chosen as 𝐴2-𝐴3, 𝐴4-𝐴5, 𝐴6-𝐴7, and 𝐴8-𝐴9. Now, we would like to add 𝐾 fractional branes to 𝐴4-𝐴5 and 𝑁 fractional branes to 𝐴6-𝐴7 and to 𝐴8-𝐴9. The corresponding quiver is depicted in Figure 3.

630892.fig.003
Figure 3: Quiver gauge theory for the cone over 𝑑𝑃6 after adding the fractional branes.

The gauge groups at the nodes 6 and 8 have 𝑁𝑓=𝑁𝑐. Consider the Seiberg duality in the strong coupling limit of these gauge groups. The moduli space consists of the mesonic and the baryonic branches [43, 44]. Suppose we are on the baryonic branch. For the generic Yukawa couplings, the two mesons Φ=𝐵𝐶 couple linearly to the fields 𝐴 and become massive together with two of the 𝐴 fields.

An important question is whether the baryons for the gauge groups in nodes 6 and 8 remain massless. The baryons are charged under the baryonic 𝑈(1)𝐵 symmetries. In the noncompact setting, these 𝑈(1)𝐵 symmetries are global [45]. If the baryons get vevs, then the symmetries are broken spontaneously and there are massless goldston bosons. But for the compact CY manifold the 𝑈(1)𝐵 symmetries are gauged and the goldstone bosons become massive [13, 45] through the Higgs mechanism. Integrating out the massive fields, we get the quiver in Figure 4.

630892.fig.004
Figure 4: Quiver gauge theory for the cone over 𝑑𝑃6 after confinement of nodes 6 and 8.

Next, we assume that the strong coupling scale for the gauge group 𝑆𝑈(𝑁+𝐾) at node 4 is bigger than the scale for the 𝑆𝑈(2𝑁). This assumption does not include a lot of tuning especially if 𝐾𝑁. The number of flavors for the gauge group 𝑆𝑈(𝑁+𝐾) is 𝑁𝑓=2𝑁>𝑁𝑐=𝑁+𝐾. Consequently, we can assume that the mesons do not get VEVs after the confinement of 𝑆𝑈(𝑁+𝐾) and remain massless. The corresponding quiver is shown in Figure 5. The subscripts of the bifundamental fields denote the gauge groups at the ends of the corresponding link. The subscript 𝑘=2,3 labels the two 𝑈(𝑁) gauge groups on the left. For example, 𝐴𝑘1 denotes both the field 𝐴21 going from the node 2 to the node 1 and 𝐴31 going from 3 to 1.

630892.fig.005
Figure 5: Quiver gauge theory for the cone over 𝑑𝑃6 after Seiberg duality on node 4.

The superpotential of the quiver gauge theory in Figure 5 has the form 𝑊=Tr𝑚𝐴21𝑀12+𝑚𝐴31𝑀13+Tr𝜆𝑀12𝐶24𝐵41+𝜆𝐴21𝐵15𝐶52+𝜆𝑀13𝐶34𝐵41+𝜆𝐴31𝐵15𝐶53.(3.1) In order to make the notations shorter, we do not write the subscripts of the couplings. (The couplings are different but have the same order of magnitude.)

If Λ1 for the 𝑆𝑈(2𝑁) gauge group at node 1 is close to Λ4 for 𝑆𝑈(𝑁+𝐾) at node 4 in Figure 4, then it is natural to assume that for small values of corresponding Yukawa couplings the mass parameters 𝑚 satisfy 𝑚Λ1. Now, we note that the 𝑆𝑈(2𝑁) gauge group has 𝑁𝑐=2𝑁 and 𝑁𝑓=3𝑁𝐾, that is, 𝑁𝑐+1𝑁𝑓<3/2𝑁𝑐. This group is a good candidate for the the microscopic gauge group in the ISS construction. After the Seiberg duality, the magnetic gauge group has 𝑁𝑐=𝑁𝐾. The superpotential of the dual theory is 𝑊=Tr𝑚𝑀22+𝑚𝑀33+Tr𝜆𝑀22𝑀21𝐴12+𝜆𝑀33𝑀31𝐴13+Tr𝑚𝑀42𝐶24+𝑚𝑀25𝐶52+𝑚𝑀43𝐶34+𝑚𝑀35𝐶53+Tr𝜆𝑀42𝑀21𝐵14+𝜆𝑀25𝐵51𝐴12+𝜆𝑀43𝑀31𝐵14+𝜆𝑀35𝐵51𝐴13.(3.2) The indices of the meson fields correspond to the two gauge groups under which they transform. In our case, this leads to unambiguous identifications, for example, 𝑀22=𝐴21𝑀12, 𝑀33=𝐴31𝑀13, 𝑀42=𝐵41𝑀12, and so forth. The mesons 𝑀22 and 𝑀33 are in adjoint representation of 𝑆𝑈(𝑁)2 and 𝑆𝑈(𝑁)3, and their F-term equations read 𝑀𝑚𝟏+𝜆21𝐴12𝑀=0,𝑚𝟏+𝜆31𝐴13=0,(3.3) where 𝟏 is the 𝑁×𝑁 identity matrix. The Seiberg dual gauge group at node 1 is 𝑆𝑈(𝑁𝐾); hence the rank of the matrices 𝑀21 and so forth, is at most 𝑁𝐾 and the SUSY is broken by the rank condition of [10]. Classically, there are massless excitations around the vacua in (3.3). In order to prove that the vacuum is metastable, one has to check that these fields acquire a positive mass at 1 loop. Similarly to [10], we expect this to be true, but a more detailed study is necessary.

As a summary, in this section we have found an example of dymanical SUSY breaking in the quiver gauge theory on del Pezzo singularity. An interesting property of this example is that there are massless chiral fields after the SUSY breaking. This behavoir seems to be quite generic, and we expect that similar constructions are possible for other del Pezzo singularities.

4. Compact CY Manifolds with Del Pezzo Singularities

Noncompact CY singularities are useful in constructing local geometries that enable SUSY breaking configurations of D-branes. However, for a consistent embedding of these constructions in string theory, one needs to find compact CY manifolds that posses the corresponding singularities.

The noncompact CY manifolds with del Pezzo singularities are known [27, 29]. The 𝑑𝑃𝑛 singularities for 5𝑛8 and for the cone over 1×1 can be represented as complete intersections. (Note that in the mathematics literature, the del Pezzo surfaces are classified by their degree 𝑘=9𝑛, where 𝑛 is the number of blown up points in 2.) The CY cones over 2 and 𝑑𝑃𝑛 for 1𝑛4 are not complete intersections. The compact CY manifolds for complete intersection singularities where presented in [34].

Our construction is different from [34]. It enables one to construct the complete intersection compact CY manifolds for all del Pezzo singularities. This construction does not contradict the statement that for 𝑛4 the del Pezzo singularities are not complete intersections. The price we have to pay is that these singularities will not be generic, that is, they will not have the maximal number of complex deformations. Whereas for the del Pezzo singularities with 𝑛5 and for 1×1 we will represent all complex deformations in our construction.

4.1. General Construction

At first, we present the construction in the case of 𝑑𝑃6 singularity and, then, give a more general formulation.

The input data is the embedding of 𝑑𝑃6 surface in 3 via a degree three equation. The problem is to find a CY threefold such that it has a local 𝑑𝑃6 singularity. The solution has several steps. (1) Find the canonical class on 𝐵=𝑑𝑃6 in terms of a restriction of a class on 3. Let us denote this class as 𝐾𝐻1,1(3). 𝐾 can be found from expanding the total Chern class of 𝐵𝑐(𝐵)=(1+𝐻)41+3𝐻=1+𝐻+.(4.1) Thus, 𝐾=𝑐1(𝐵)=𝐻. (2) Construct the 1 fiber bundle over 3 as the projectivisation 𝑀=𝑃(𝒪3𝒪3(𝐾)).(3) The Calabi-Yau 𝑌3 is given by an equation of degree 3 in 3 and degree 2 in the coordinates on the fiber. The total Chern class of 𝑌3 is 𝑐𝑌3=(1+𝐻)4(1+𝐺𝐻)(1+𝐺).1+3𝐻+2𝐺(4.2) This has a vanishing first Chern class. By construction, this Calabi-Yau has a del Pezzo singularity at 𝑡=0.

This construction has a generalization for the other del Pezzo surfaces. Let 𝐵 denote a del Pezzo surface embedded in 𝑋 as a complete intersection of a system of equations [16]. Assume, for concreteness, that the system contains two equations and denote by 𝐿1 and 𝐿2 the classes corresponding to the divisors for these two equations in 𝑋. The case of other number of equations can be obtained as a straightforward generalization.(1)First, we find the canonical class of surface 𝐵𝑋, defined in terms of two equations with the corresponding classes 𝐿1,𝐿2𝐻1,1(𝑋), 𝑐(𝐵)=𝑐(𝑋)1+𝐿11+𝐿2=1+𝑐1(𝑋)𝐿1𝐿2+.(4.3) Thus, the canonical class of 𝑋 is obtained by the restriction of 𝐾=𝐿1+𝐿2𝑐1(𝑋).(2)Second, we construct the 1 fiber bundle over 𝑋 as the projectivisation 𝑀=𝑃(𝒪𝑋𝒪𝑋(𝐾)).(3)In the case of two equations, the Calabi-Yau manifold 𝑌3𝑀 is not unique. Let 𝐺 be the hyperplane class in the fibers, then we can write three different systems of equations that define a CY manifold: the classes for the equations in the first system are 𝐿1+2𝐺 and 𝐿2, the second one has 𝐿1+𝐺 and 𝐿2+𝐺, and the third one has 𝐿1 and 𝐿2+2𝐺 (here 𝐿1,𝐿2𝐻1,1(𝑀) are defined via the pull back of the corresponding classes in 𝐻1,1(𝑋) with respect to the projection of 1 the fibers 𝜋𝑀𝑋).

As an example, let us describe the first system. The first equation in this system is given by 𝐿1 in 𝑋 and has degree 2 in the coordinates on the fibers. The second equation is 𝐿2 in 𝑋. The total Chern class is 𝑐𝑌3=𝑐(𝑋)(1+𝐺+𝐾)(1+𝐺)1+𝐿1+2𝐺1+𝐿2.(4.4)

Since 𝐾=𝐿1+𝐿2𝑐1(𝑋), it is straightforward to check that the first Chern class is trivial.

Let us show how this program works in an example of a CY cone over 𝐵=1×1. The 1×1 surface can be embedded in 3 by a generic degree two polynomial equation [16, 35] 𝑃2𝑧𝑖=0,(4.5) where (𝑧0,,𝑧3)3. (By coordinate redefinition in 3 one can represent the equation as 𝑧0𝑧3=𝑧1𝑧2. The solutions of this equation can be parameterized by the points (𝑥1,𝑦1)×(𝑥2,𝑦2)1×1 as (𝑧0,𝑧1,𝑧2,𝑧3)=(𝑥1𝑥2,𝑥1𝑦2,𝑦1𝑥2,𝑦1𝑦2). This is the Segre embedding 1×13.)

The first step of the program is to find the canonical class of 𝐵 in terms of a class in 3. Let 𝐻 be the hyperplane class of 3. Then, the total Chern class of 𝐵 is 𝑐(𝐵)=(1+𝐻)41+2𝐻=1+2𝐻+2𝐻2.(4.6) The canonical class is 𝐾(𝐵)=𝑐1(𝐵)=2𝐻.(4.7)

Next, we construct the 1 bundle 𝑀=𝑃(𝒪3𝒪3(𝐾)) with the coordinates (𝑠,𝑡) along the fibers, where locally 𝑠𝒪3 and 𝑡𝒪3(2𝐻). The equation that describes the embedding of the CY manifold 𝑌3 in 𝑀 is 𝑃2𝑧𝑖𝑠2+𝑃4𝑧𝑖𝑠𝑡+𝑃6𝑧𝑖𝑡2=0.(4.8) This equation is homogeneous in 𝑧𝑖 of degree two, since 𝑡 has degree −2.

The section of 𝑀 at 𝑡=0 is contractable, and the intersection with the 𝑌3 is 𝑃2(𝑧𝑖)=0, that is, 𝑌3 is the CY cone over 1×1 near 𝑡=0.

The total Chern class of 𝑌3 is 𝑐𝑌3=(1+𝐻)4(1+𝐺)(1+𝐺2𝐻).1+2𝐻+2𝐺(4.9) It is easy to check that 𝑐1(𝑌3)=0.

4.2. A Discussion of Deformations

In this subsection, we will discuss the deformations of the del Pezzo singularities in the compact CY spaces. The explicit description of the singularities and their deformations can be found in the appendix.

The procedure is similar to the deformation of the 𝑑𝑃6 singularity described in Section 2. As before, let 𝑌3𝑀 be an embedding of the CY threefold 𝑌3 in 𝑀, a 1 bundle over products of (weighted) projective spaces. If we blowdown the section of the 1 bundle that contains the del Pezzo, then 𝑀 becomes a toric variety that we denote by 𝑉. After the blowdown, equation for the CY in 𝑀 becomes a singular equation for a CY embedded in 𝑉. The last step is to deform the equation in 𝑉 to get a generic CY. (In the example of 𝑑𝑃6 singularity on the quintic, the projective bundle is 𝑀=𝑃(𝒪3𝒪3(𝐻)), the manifold 𝑉, obtained by blowing down the exceptional 3 in 𝑀, is 4, and the singular equation is the singular quintic in 4.)

Let 𝑛 denote the number of two-cycles on del Pezzo with self-intersection (−2). The intersection matrix of these cycles is minus the Cartan matrix of the corresponding Lie algebra 𝐸𝑛.

The maximal number of complex deformations of del Pezzo singularity is 𝑐(𝐸𝑛)1, where 𝑐(𝐸𝑛) is the dual Coxeter number of 𝐸𝑛. These deformations can be performed only if the del Pezzo has a zero size. As a result of these deformations, the canonical class on the del Pezzo becomes trivial within the CY and the del Pezzo singularity is partially or completely smoothed out. In the generic situation, we expect that all (−2) two-cycles on del Pezzo are trivial within the CY, then the number of complex deformations is maximal (this will be the case for 1×1, 𝑑𝑃5, 𝑑𝑃6, 𝑑𝑃7, 𝑑𝑃8). If some of the (−2) two-cycles become nontrivial within the CY, then the number of complex deformations of the corresponding cone is smaller. We will observe this for our embedding of 𝑑𝑃2, 𝑑𝑃3, and 𝑑𝑃4. This reduction of the number of complex deformations depends on the particular embedding of del Pezzo cone. In [8], the generic deformations of the cones over 𝑑𝑃2 and 𝑑𝑃3 were constructed (Tables 1 and 2).

tab1
Table 1: Some characteristics of del Pezzo surfaces.
tab2
Table 2: Complex deformations of del Pezzo singularities studied in the paper.

5. Conclusions and Outlook

In this paper, we have constructed a class of compact Calabi-Yau manifolds that have del Pezzo singularities. The construction is analytic, that is, the CY manifolds are described by a system of equations in the 1 bundles over the projective spaces.

We argue that this construction can be used for the geometrical SUSY breaking [8] as well as for the compactification of ISS [10]. As an example, we find a compact CY manifold with del Pezzo 6 singularity and some conifolds such that some 2-cycles on del Pezzo are homologous to the 2-cycles on the conifolds, that is, this manifold can be used for the geometrical SUSY breaking. Also we find an ISS vacuum in the quiver gauge theory for 𝑑𝑃6 singularity.

In order to have a consistent string theory representation of the SUSY breaking vacua, one needs to find compact CY manifolds that have the necessary local singularities. In the last section, we present embedding of del Pezzo singularities in complete intersection CY manifolds and study the complex deformations of the singularities. The del Pezzo 𝑛 surface corresponds to the Lie group 𝐸𝑛. The expected number of complex deformations for the cone over del Pezzo is 𝑐(𝐸𝑛)1, where 𝑐 is the dual Coxeter number for the Lie group 𝐸𝑛. In the studied examples, the cones over 1×1 and over 𝑑𝑃5, 𝑑𝑃6, 𝑑𝑃7, and 𝑑𝑃8 have generic deformations. But the cones over 𝑑𝑃2, 𝑑𝑃3, and 𝑑𝑃4 have less deformations, that is, these cones do not describe the most generic embedding of the corresponding del Pezzo singularities. (It is known that the generic embeddings of del Pezzo𝑛 singularities for 𝑛4 (or rank 𝑘=9𝑛5) cannot be represented as complete intersections [27, 29], in our construction the del Pezzo singularities are nongeneric complete intersections.)

We propose that for the generic embedding the two-cycles on del Pezzo with self-intersection (−2) are trivial within the full Calabi-Yau geometry. The nontrivial two cycles with self-intersection (−2) impose restrictions on the complex deformations. This proposal agrees with the above examples of the embeddings of del Pezzo singularities. Also we get a similar conclusion when the CY has some number of conifolds in addition to the del Pezzo singularity. Although the conifolds are away from the del Pezzo and the del Pezzo itself is not singular, it acquires a nontrivial two-cycle and the number of deformations is reduced.

Sometimes the F-theory/orientifolds point of view has advantages compared to the type IIB theory. Our construction of CY threefolds can be generalized to find the 3-dimensional base spaces of elliptic fibrations in F-theory with the necessary del Pezzo singularities. Also we expect this construction to be useful as a first step in finding the warped deformations of the del Pezzo singularities and in the studies of the Landscape of string compactifications.

Appendix

A List of Compact CY with Del Pezzo Singularities

In the appendix, we construct the embeddings of all del Pezzo singularities in compact CY manifolds and describe the complex deformations of these embeddings. This description follows the general construction in Section 4.

In the following, 𝐵 denotes the two-dimensional del Pezzo surface and 𝑋 denotes the space where we embed 𝐵. The space 𝑋 will be either a product of projective spaces or a weighted projective space. For example, if 𝐵𝑋=𝑛×𝑚×𝑘, then the coordinates on the three projective spaces will be denoted as (𝑧0,,𝑧𝑛), (𝑢0,,𝑢𝑚), and (𝑣0,,𝑣𝑘), respectively. The hyperplane classes of the three projective spaces will be denoted by 𝐻, 𝐾, 𝑅, respectively.

A polynomial of degree 𝑞 in 𝑧𝑖, degree 𝑟 in 𝑢𝑗, and degree 𝑠 in 𝑣𝑙 will be denoted by 𝑃𝑞,𝑟,𝑠(𝑧𝑖;𝑢𝑗;𝑣𝑙).

If there are only two or one projective space, then we will use the first two or the first one projective spaces in the above definitions.

For the weighted projective spaces, we will use the notations of [30]. For example, consider the space 𝑊311𝑝𝑞, where 𝑝,𝑞. The dimension of this space is 3, the subscripts (1,1,𝑝,𝑞) denote the weights of the coordinates with respect to the projective identifications (𝑧0,𝑧1,𝑧2,𝑧3)(𝜆𝑧0,𝜆𝑧1,𝜆𝑝𝑧2,𝜆𝑞𝑧3).

The 1 bundles over 𝑋 will be denoted as 𝑀=𝑃(𝒪𝑋𝒪𝑋(𝐾)), where 𝐾 is the class on 𝑋 that restricts to the canonical class on 𝐵. The coordinates on the fibers will be (𝑠,𝑡) so that locally 𝑠𝒪𝑋 and 𝑡𝒪𝑋(𝐾). The hyperplane class of the fibers will be denoted by 𝐺, it satisfies the property 𝐺(𝐺+𝐾)=0 for 𝑀=𝑃(𝒪𝑋𝒪𝑋(𝐾)). In the construction of the 1 bundles, we will use the fact that 𝐾(𝐵)=𝑐1(𝐵) and will not calculate 𝐾(𝐵) separately.

The deformations of some del Pezzo singularities will be described via embedding in particular toric varieties. We will call them generalized weighted projective spaces. Consider, for example, the following notation:𝐺𝑊5111000020001100100000111(A.1) The number 5 is the dimension of the space. This space is obtained from 8 by taking the classes of equivalence with respect to three identifications. The numbers in the three rows correspond to the charges under these identifications 𝑧1,𝑧2,𝑧3,𝑧4,𝑧5,𝑧6,𝑧7,𝑧8𝜆1𝑧1,𝜆1𝑧2,𝜆1𝑧3,𝑧4,𝑧5,𝑧6,𝑧7,𝜆21𝑧8,𝑧1,𝑧2,𝑧3,𝑧4,𝑧5,𝑧6,𝑧7,𝑧8𝑧1,𝑧2,𝑧3,𝜆2𝑧4,𝜆2𝑧5,𝑧6,𝑧7,𝜆2𝑧8,𝑧1,𝑧2,𝑧3,𝑧4,𝑧5,𝑧6,𝑧7,𝑧8𝑧1,𝑧2,𝑧3,𝑧4,𝑧5,𝜆3𝑧6,𝜆3𝑧7,𝜆3𝑧8.(A.2)

(1)  𝐵=2𝑋=3.
The equation for 𝐵𝑃1𝑧𝑖=0.(A.3) The total Chern class of 𝐵𝑐(𝐵)=(1+𝐻)3=1+3𝐻+3𝐻2.(A.4) The 1 bundle is 𝑀=𝑃(𝒪𝑋𝒪𝑋(3𝐻)). The equation for the Calabi-Yau threefold 𝑌3𝑃1𝑧𝑖𝑠2+𝑃4𝑧𝑖𝑠𝑡+𝑃7𝑧𝑖𝑡2=0.(A.5) The embedding space 𝑉=𝑊411113 has the coordinates (𝑧0,,𝑧3;𝑤) and the singular CY is 𝑃1𝑧0,,𝑧3𝑤2+𝑃4𝑧0,,𝑧3𝑤+𝑃7𝑧0,,𝑧3=0.(A.6) This is already the most general equation, that is, there are no additional complex deformations.

(2)  𝐵=1×1𝑋=3.
The equation for 𝐵𝑃2𝑧𝑖=0.(A.7) The total Chern class of 𝐵𝑐(𝐵)=(1+𝐻)41+2𝐻=1+2𝐻+2𝐻2.(A.8) The 1 bundle is 𝑀=𝑃(𝒪𝑋𝒪𝑋(2𝐻)). The equation for the Calabi-Yau threefold 𝑌3𝑃2𝑧𝑖𝑠2+𝑃4𝑧𝑖𝑠𝑡+𝑃6𝑧𝑖𝑡2=0.(A.9) The embedding space 𝑉=𝑊411112 has the coordinates (𝑧0,,𝑧3;𝑤) and the singular CY is 𝑃2𝑧𝑖𝑤2+𝑃4𝑧𝑖𝑤+𝑃6𝑧𝑖=0.(A.10) This equation has one deformation 𝑘𝑤3, and the spaces 𝑀 and 𝑉 have the same number of coordinate redefinitions. Thus, the space of complex deformations is one dimensional.

(3)  𝐵=𝑑𝑃1𝑋=2×1.
The equation defining 𝐵 has degree one in 𝑧𝑖 and degree one in 𝑢𝑗𝑃1𝑧𝑖𝑢0+𝑄1𝑧𝑖𝑢1=0.(A.11) The total Chern class of 𝐵𝑐(𝐵)=(1+𝐻)3(1+𝐾)21+𝐻+𝐾=1+2𝐻+𝐾+𝐻2+3𝐻𝐾.(A.12) The 1 bundle is 𝑀=𝑃(𝒪𝑋𝒪𝑋(2𝐻𝐾)). The equation for the Calabi-Yau threefold 𝑌3 is 𝑃1,1𝑧𝑖;𝑢𝑗𝑠2+𝑃3,2𝑧𝑖;𝑢𝑗𝑠𝑡+𝑃5,3𝑧𝑖;𝑢𝑗𝑡2=0.(A.13) The embedding space 𝑉=𝐺𝑊4111002000111 has the coordinates (𝑧0,𝑧1,𝑧2;𝑢0,𝑢1;𝑤) and the singular CY is 𝑃1,1𝑧𝑖;𝑢𝑗𝑤2+𝑃3,2𝑧𝑖;𝑢𝑗𝑤+𝑃5,3𝑧𝑖;𝑢𝑗=0.(A.14) There are no complex deformations of this equation.

(4)  𝐵=𝑑𝑃2𝑋=2×1×1.
The del Pezzo surface is defined by a system of two equations. The first equation has degree one in 𝑧𝑖 and degree one in 𝑢𝑘. The second equation has degree one in 𝑧𝑖 and degree one in 𝑣𝑘𝑃1𝑧𝑖𝑢0+𝑄1𝑧𝑖𝑢1𝑅=0,1𝑧𝑖𝑣0+𝑆1𝑧𝑖𝑣1=0.(A.15) The total Chern class of 𝐵𝑐(𝐵)=(1+𝐻)3(1+𝐾)2(1+𝑅)2(1+𝐻+𝐾)(1+𝐻+𝑅)=1+2𝐻+𝐾+𝑅+2𝐻(𝐾+𝑅)+𝐾𝑅.(A.16) The 1 bundle is 𝑀=𝑃(𝒪𝑋𝒪𝑋(2𝐻𝐾𝑅)). The system of equations for the Calabi-Yau threefold 𝑌3 can be written as 𝑃1,1,0𝑧𝑖;𝑢𝑘;𝑣𝑘𝑠2+𝑃3,2,1𝑧𝑖;𝑢𝑘;𝑣𝑘𝑠𝑡+𝑃5,3,2𝑧𝑖;𝑢𝑘;𝑣𝑘𝑡2𝑄=0,1,0,1𝑧𝑖;𝑢𝑘;𝑣𝑘=0.(A.17) The space 𝑉=𝐺𝑊5111000020001100100000111 has the coordinates (𝑧0,𝑧1,𝑧2;𝑢0,𝑢1;𝑣0,𝑣1;𝑤), and the singular CY is 𝑃1,1,0𝑧𝑖;𝑢𝑘;𝑣𝑘𝑤2+𝑃3,2,1𝑧𝑖;𝑢𝑘;𝑣𝑘𝑤+𝑃5,3,2𝑧𝑖;𝑢𝑘;𝑣𝑘𝑄=0,1,0,1𝑧𝑖;𝑢𝑘;𝑣𝑘=0.(A.18) There are no complex deformations of this equation. This is in contradiction with the general expectation of one complex deformation, that is, the embedding is not the most general. This is connected to the fact that all the two-cycles on the del Pezzo are nontrivial within the CY.

(5)  𝐵=𝑑𝑃3𝑋=1×1×1.
The del Pezzo surface is defined by an equation of degree one in 𝑧𝑖, degree one in 𝑢𝑗 and degree one in 𝑣𝑘𝑃1,1,1𝑧𝑖;𝑢𝑗;𝑣𝑘=0.(A.19) The total Chern class of 𝐵𝑐(𝐵)=(1+𝐻)2(1+𝐾)2(1+𝑅)2(1+𝐻+𝐾+𝑅)=1+(𝐻+𝐾+𝑅)+2(𝐻𝐾+𝐻𝑅+𝐾𝑅),(A.20) where 𝐻, 𝐾, and 𝑅 are the hyperplane classes on the three 1's. The 1 bundle is 𝑀=𝑃(𝒪𝑋𝒪𝑋(𝐻𝐾𝑅)). The equation for the Calabi-Yau threefold 𝑌3 is 𝑃1,1,1𝑧𝑖;𝑢𝑗;𝑣𝑘𝑠2+𝑃2,2,2𝑧𝑖;𝑢𝑗;𝑣𝑘𝑠𝑡+𝑃3,3,3𝑧𝑖;𝑢𝑗;𝑣𝑘𝑡2=0.(A.21) The embedding space 𝑉=𝐺𝑊4110000100110010000111 has the coordinates (𝑧0,𝑧1;𝑢0,𝑢1;𝑣0,𝑣1;𝑤), and the singular CY is 𝑃1,1,1𝑧𝑖;𝑢𝑗;𝑣𝑘𝑤2+𝑃2,2,2𝑧𝑖;𝑢𝑗;𝑣𝑘𝑤+𝑃3,3,3𝑧𝑖;𝑢𝑗;𝑣𝑘=0.(A.22) This equation has one deformation 𝑘𝑤3, and the spaces 𝑀 and 𝑉 have the same number of reparameterizations. Consequently, there is one complex deformation of the cone. This is related to the fact that 3 out of 4 two-cycles on 𝑑𝑃3 are independent within the CY and there is only one (−2) two-cycle on 𝑑𝑃3 that is trivial within the CY.

(6)  𝐵=𝑑𝑃4𝑋=2×1.
Equation defining 𝐵 has degree two in 𝑧𝑖 and degree one in 𝑢𝑗𝑃2𝑧𝑖𝑢0+𝑄2𝑧𝑖𝑢1=0.(A.23) The total Chern class of 𝐵𝑐(𝐵)=(1+𝐻)3(1+𝐾)21+2𝐻+𝐾=1+𝐻+𝐾+𝐻2+3𝐻𝐾,(A.24) where 𝐻 and 𝐾 are the hyperplane classes on 2 and 1, respectively. The 1 bundle is 𝑀=𝑃(𝒪𝑋𝒪𝑋(𝐻𝐾)). The equation for the Calabi-Yau threefold 𝑌3 is 𝑃2,1𝑧𝑖;𝑢𝑗𝑠2+𝑃3,2𝑧𝑖;𝑢𝑗𝑠𝑡+𝑃4,3𝑧𝑖;𝑢𝑗𝑡2=0.(A.25) The embedding space 𝑉=𝐺𝑊4111001000111 has the coordinates (𝑧0,𝑧1,𝑧3;𝑢0,𝑢1;𝑤), and the singular CY is 𝑃2,1𝑧𝑖;𝑢𝑗𝑤2+𝑃3,2𝑧𝑖;𝑢𝑗𝑤+𝑃4,3𝑧𝑖;𝑢𝑗=0.(A.26) The deformations of the singularity have the form of degree one polynomial in 𝑧0, 𝑧1, 𝑧2 times 𝑤3. Consequently, there are three deformation parameters and the spaces 𝑉 and 𝑀 have the same reparameterizations. In this case, we have three complex deformations and three (−2) two-cycles on 𝑑𝑃4 that are trivial within CY.

(7)  𝐵=𝑑𝑃5𝑋=4.
The del Pezzo surface is defined by a system of two equations. Both equation have degree 2 in 𝑧𝑖𝑃2𝑧𝑖𝑅=0,2𝑧𝑖=0.(A.27) The total Chern class of 𝐵𝑐(𝐵)=(1+𝐻)5(1+2𝐻)2=1+𝐻+2𝐻2.(A.28) The 1 bundle is 𝑀=𝑃(𝒪𝑋𝒪𝑋(𝐻)). The system of equations for the first possible Calabi-Yau threefold 𝑌3 is 𝑃2𝑧𝑖𝑠2+𝑃3𝑧𝑖𝑠𝑡+𝑃4𝑧𝑖𝑡2𝑅=0,2𝑧𝑖=0.(A.29) It has the following characteristics: 𝜒𝑌3=160,1,1𝑌3=2,2,1=82.(A.30) Now we find the deformations of this cone over 𝑑𝑃5. The 1 bundle 𝑀 is, in fact, the 5 blown up at one point. By blowing down the 𝑡=0 section of 𝑀, we get 5. The CY three-fold with the 𝑑𝑃5 singularity is embedded in 5 by the system of two equations 𝑃2𝑧𝑖𝑤2+𝑃3𝑧𝑖𝑤+𝑃4𝑧𝑖𝑅=0,2𝑧𝑖=0.(A.31) The deformations of the singularity correspond to taking a general degree four polynomial in the first equation. This general CY has 𝜒=176,1,1𝑌3=1,2,1=89.(A.32) Since the system (A.31) has only the 𝑑𝑃5 singularity and the general CY manifold has 8982=7 more complex deformations, we interpret these extra 7 deformations as the deformations of the cone over 𝑑𝑃5. This number is consistent with the general expectation, since 𝑐(𝐷5)1=7, where 𝑐(𝐷5)=8 is the dual Coxeter number for 𝐷5.
The second CY with the 𝑑𝑃5 singularity is described by 𝑃2𝑧𝑖𝑠+𝑃3𝑧𝑖𝑅𝑡=0,2𝑧𝑖𝑠+𝑅3𝑧𝑖𝑡=0.(A.33) Using the same methods as for the first CY, one can show that this singularity also has 7 complex deformations.

(8)  𝐵=𝑑𝑃6𝑋=3.
The case of 𝑑𝑃6 was described in details in Section 2; here we just repeat the general results.
The equation defining 𝑑𝑃63𝑃3𝑧𝑖=0.(A.34) The 1 bundle is 𝑀=𝑃(𝒪𝑋𝒪𝑋(𝐻)).
The equation for the Calabi-Yau threefold 𝑌3𝑃3𝑧𝑖𝑠2+𝑃4𝑧𝑖𝑠𝑡+𝑃5𝑧𝑖𝑡2=0.(A.35) The total Chern class of 𝑌3𝑐𝑌3=(1+𝐻)4(1+𝐺)(1+𝐺𝐻).1+3𝐻+2𝐺(A.36) The Euler number and the cohomologies for the CY with the 𝑑𝑃6 singularity are 𝜒=176,1,1=2,2,1=90.(A.37) The deformation of this singularity is a quintic in 4, that has 2,1=101(A.38) complex deformations. The difference between the number of complex deformations is 10190=11, which is consistent with 𝑐(𝐸6)1=11.

(9)  𝐵=𝑑𝑃7𝑋=𝑊31112.
The equation defining 𝐵 is homogeneous of degree four in 𝑧𝑖’s 𝑃4𝑧𝑖=0.(A.39) The 1 bundle is 𝑀=𝑃(𝒪𝑋𝒪𝑋(𝐻)). The equation for the Calabi-Yau threefold 𝑌3𝑃4𝑧𝑖𝑠2+𝑃5𝑧𝑖𝑠𝑡+𝑃6𝑧𝑖𝑡2=0.(A.40) The total Chern class of 𝑌3𝑐𝑌3=(1+𝐻)3(1+2𝐻)(1+𝐺)(1+𝐺𝐻).1+4𝐻+2𝐺(A.41) The Euler number and the cohomologies for the CY with the 𝑑𝑃6 singularity are 𝜒=168,1,1=2,2,1=86.(A.42) Blowing down the 𝑡=0 section of 𝑀, we get 𝑉=𝑊411112. The general CY is given by the degree six equation in 𝑉. The total Chern class of this CY is 𝑐=(1+𝐻)4(1+2𝐻).(1+6𝐻)(A.43) And the number of complex deformations 2,1=103.(A.44) The difference 10386=17 is equal to 𝑐(𝐸7)1=17, where 𝑐(𝐸7)=18 is the dual Coxeter number of 𝐸7. Consequently, we can represent all complex deformations of 𝑑𝑃7 singularity in this embedding.

(10)  𝐵=𝑑𝑃8𝑋=𝑊31123.
The equation defining 𝐵 has degree six 𝑃6𝑧𝑖=0.(A.45) The 1 bundle is 𝑀=𝑃(𝒪𝑋𝒪𝑋(𝐻)). The equation for the Calabi-Yau threefold 𝑌3𝑃6𝑧𝑖𝑠2+𝑃7𝑧𝑖𝑠𝑡+𝑃8𝑧𝑖𝑡2=0.(A.46) The total Chern class of 𝑌3𝑐𝑌3=(1+𝐻)2(1+2𝐻)(1+3𝐻)(1+𝐺)(1+𝐺𝐻).1+6𝐻+2𝐺(A.47) The problem with this CY is that for any polynomials 𝑃6, 𝑃7, and 𝑃8, it has a singularity at 𝑠=𝑧0=𝑧1=𝑧2=𝑧3=0 and 𝑧4=1. As a consequence, the naive calculation of the Euler number gives a fractional number 2𝜒=1503.(A.48) The good feature of this singularity is that it is away from the del Pezzo; thus one can argue that, this singularity should not affect the deformation of the 𝑑𝑃8 cone. In order to justify that we will calculate the number of complex deformations of the CY manifold with 𝑑𝑃8 singulariy by calculating the number of coefficients in the equation minus the number of reparamterizations of 𝑀. The result is 2,1=77.(A.49) Blowing down the 𝑡=0 section of 𝑀, we get 𝑉=𝑊411123. The general CY is given by the degree eight equation in 𝑉. The number of coefficients minus the number of reparamterizations of 𝑉=𝑊411123 is 2,1=106.(A.50) The difference 10677=29 is equal to 𝑐(𝐸8)1=29, where 𝑐(𝐸8)=30 is the dual Coxeter number of 𝐸8. Thus, all complex deformations of 𝑑𝑃8 singularity can be realized in this embedding.

Acknowledgments

The author is thankful to Herman Verlinde, Igor Klebanov, Nikita Nekrasov, Matt Buican, Sebastian Franco, Sergio Benvenuti, and Yuji Tachikawa for their valuable discussions and comments. The work is supported in part by Russian Foundation of Basic Research under Grant no. RFBR 06-02-17383.

References

  1. H. Verlinde and M. Wijnholt, “Building the standard model on a D3-brane,” Journal of High Energy Physics, vol. 2007, no. 1, p. 106, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet
  2. M. Wijnholt, “Geometry of particle physics,” Advances in Theoretical and Mathematical Physics, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 947–990, 2009. View at Zentralblatt MATH
  3. R. Argurio, M. Bertolini, S. Franco, and S. Kachru, “Metastable vacua and D-branes at the conifold,” Journal of High Energy Physics, vol. 2007, no. 6, p. 17, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet
  4. D.-E. Diaconescu, B. Florea, S. Kachru, and P. Svrček, “Gauge-mediated supersymmetry breaking in string compactifications,” Journal of High Energy Physics, vol. 2006, no. 2, p. 20, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet
  5. M. Wijnholt, “Large volume perspective on branes at singularities,” Advances in Theoretical and Mathematical Physics, vol. 7, no. 6, pp. 1117–1153, 2003.
  6. S. Kachru, J. Pearson, and H. Verlinde, “Brane/flux annihilation and the string dual of a non-supersymmetric field theory,” Journal of High Energy Physics, vol. 2002, no. 6, p. 21, 2002. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet
  7. S. Kachru, R. Kallosh, A. Linde, and S. P. Trivedi, “de Sitter vacua in string theory,” Physical Review D, vol. 68, no. 4, Article ID 046005, 10 pages, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet
  8. M. Aganagic, C. Beem, J. Seo, and C. Vafa, “Geometrically induced metastability and holography,” Nuclear Physics B, vol. 789, no. 1-2, pp. 382–412, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at MathSciNet
  9. M. R. Douglas, J. Shelton, and G. Torroba, “Warping and supersymmetry breaking,” http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.4001.
  10. K. Intriligator, N. Seiberg, and D. Shih, “Dynamical SUSY breaking in meta-stable vacua,” Journal of High Energy Physics, vol. 2006, no. 4, p. 21, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet
  11. P. Candelas, P. S. Green, and T. Hübsch, “Rolling among Calabi-Yau vacua,” Nuclear Physics B, vol. 330, no. 1, pp. 49–102, 1990. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at MathSciNet
  12. B. R. Greene, D. R. Morrison, and A. Strominger, “Black hole condensation and the unification of string vacua,” Nuclear Physics B, vol. 451, no. 1-2, pp. 109–120, 1995. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at MathSciNet
  13. R. Argurio, M. Bertolini, S. Franco, and S. Kachru, “Gauge/gravity duality and meta-stable dynamical supersymmetry breaking,” Journal of High Energy Physics, vol. 2007, no. 1, p. 83, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet
  14. P. Candelas and X. C. de la Ossa, “Moduli space of Calabi-Yau manifolds,” Nuclear Physics B, vol. 355, no. 2, pp. 455–481, 1991. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at MathSciNet
  15. M. B. Green, J. H. Schwarz, and E. Witten, Superstring Theory, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1987.
  16. T. Hübsch, Calabi-Yau Manifolds. A Bestiary for Physicists, World Scientific, River Edge, NJ, USA, 1991.
  17. P. Candelas and X. C. de la Ossa, “Comments on conifolds,” Nuclear Physics B, vol. 342, no. 1, pp. 246–268, 1990. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet
  18. I. R. Klebanov and M. J. Strassler, “Supergravity and a confining gauge theory: duality cascades and chiSB-resolution of naked singularities,” The Journal of High Energy Physics, vol. 2000, no. 8, p. 52, 2000. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet
  19. I. R. Klebanov and E. Witten, “AdS/CFT correspondence and symmetry breaking,” Nuclear Physics B, vol. 556, no. 1-2, pp. 89–114, 1999. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at MathSciNet
  20. C. P. Herzog, Q. J. Ejaz, and I. R. Klebanov, “Cascading RG flows from new Sasaki-Einstein manifolds,” Journal of High Energy Physics, vol. 2005, no. 2, p. 9, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet
  21. K. Altmann, “The versal deformation of an isolated toric Gorenstein singularity,” Inventiones Mathematicae, vol. 128, no. 3, pp. 443–479, 1997. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at MathSciNet
  22. M. Gross, “Deforming Calabi-Yau threefolds,” Mathematische Annalen, vol. 308, no. 2, pp. 187–220, 1997. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at MathSciNet
  23. S. Franco, A. Hanany, F. Saad, and A. M. Uranga, “Fractional branes and dynamical supersymmetry breaking,” Journal of High Energy Physics, vol. 2006, no. 1, p. 11, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet
  24. F. Cachazo, B. Fiol, K. Intriligator, S. Katz, and C. Vafa, “A geometric unification of dualities,” Nuclear Physics B, vol. 628, no. 1-2, pp. 3–78, 2002. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at MathSciNet
  25. K. Intriligator and N. Seiberg, “The runaway quiver,” Journal of High Energy Physics, vol. 2006, no. 2, p. 31, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet
  26. P. M. H. Wilson, “The Kähler cone on Calabi-Yau threefolds,” Inventiones Mathematicae, vol. 107, no. 3, pp. 561–583, 1992. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at MathSciNet
  27. M. Gross, “Deforming Calabi-Yau threefolds,” Mathematische Annalen, vol. 308, no. 2, pp. 187–220, 1997. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at MathSciNet
  28. J. J. Heckman, J. Seo, and C. Vafa, “Phase structure of a brane/anti-brane system at large N,” Journal of High Energy Physics, vol. 2007, no. 7, p. 73, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet
  29. M. Reid, “Canonical 3-folds,” in Journées de Géometrie Algébrique d'Angers, A. Beauville, Ed., pp. 273–310, Sijthoff and Noordhoff, Alphen aan den Rijn, The Netherlands, 1980.
  30. R. Friedman, J. Morgan, and E. Witten, “Vector bundles and F theory,” Communications in Mathematical Physics, vol. 187, no. 3, pp. 679–743, 1997. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at MathSciNet
  31. M. Reid, “Young person's guide to canonical singularities,” in Algebraic Geometry, Bowdoin, 1985 (Brunswick, Maine, 1985), Vol. 1, S. Bloch, Ed., vol. 46 of Proceedings of Symposia in Pure Mathematics, pp. 345–414, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, USA, 1987. View at Zentralblatt MATH
  32. S. S. Gubser, N. Nekrasov, and S. Shatashvili, “Generalized conifolds and four-dimensional N = 1 superconformal theories,” The Journal of High Energy Physics, vol. 1999, no. 5, p. 3, 1999. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at MathSciNet
  33. R. Corrado and N. Halmagyi, “N = 1 field theories and fluxes in IIB string theory,” Physical Review D, vol. 71, no. 4, Article ID 046001, 17 pages, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet
  34. G. Kapustka and M. Kapustka, “Primitive contractions of Calabi-Yau threefolds I,” Communications in Algebra, vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 482–502, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  35. P. Griffiths and J. Harris, Principles of Algebraic Geometry, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, USA, 1994.
  36. D. R. Morrison and C. Vafa, “Compactifications of F-theory on Calabi-Yau threefolds. I,” Nuclear Physics B, vol. 473, no. 1-2, pp. 74–92, 1996. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet
  37. B. Andreas, “N = 1 heterotic/F-theory duality,” Fortschritte der Physik, vol. 47, no. 6, pp. 587–642, 1999. View at Zentralblatt MATH
  38. M. Buican, D. Malyshev, D. R. Morrison, H. Verlinde, and M. Wijnholt, “D-branes at singularities, compactification, and hypercharge,” Journal of High Energy Physics, vol. 2007, no. 1, p. 107, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet
  39. G. Veneziano and S. Yankielowicz, “An effective lagrangian for the pure N = 1 supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory,” Physics Letters B, vol. 113, no. 3, pp. 231–236, 1982.
  40. S. Gukov, C. Vafa, and E. Witten, “CFT's from Calabi-Yau four-folds,” Nuclear Physics B, vol. 584, no. 1-2, pp. 69–108, 2000, Erratum in: Nuclear Physics B, vol. B608, pp. 477–478, 2001.
  41. K. Intriligator, R. G. Leigh, and N. Seiberg, “Exact superpotentials in four dimensions,” Physical Review D, vol. 50, no. 2, pp. 1092–1104, 1994. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet
  42. B. V. Karpov and D. Y. Nogin, “Three-block exceptional collections over del Pezzo surfaces,” Izvestiya Mathematics, vol. 62, no. 3, pp. 429–463, 1998.
  43. N. Seiberg, “Exact results on the space of vacua of four-dimensional SUSY gauge theories,” Physical Review D, vol. 49, no. 12, pp. 6857–6863, 1994. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet
  44. K. Intriligator and N. Seiberg, “Lectures on supersymmetric gauge theories and electric-magnetic duality,” Nuclear Physics B, vol. 45, no. 2-3, pp. 1–28, 1996. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet
  45. S. S. Gubser, C. P. Herzog, and I. R. Klebanov, “Symmetry breaking and axionic strings in the warped deformed conifold,” Journal of High Energy Physics, vol. 2004, no. 9, p. 36, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet