text:
# Electron-Ion Recombination Rate Coefficients and Photoionization Cross Sections for Astrophysically Abundant Elements IV. Relativistic calculations for C IV and C V for UV and X-ray modeling

## 1 INTRODUCTION

Electron-ion recombination with H- and He-like ions is of particular interest in X-ray astronomy (Proc. X-ray Symposium, 2000). X-ray emission in the K$`\alpha `$ complex of He-like ions, such as C V, from the $`n=21`$ transitions yields perhaps the most useful spectral diagnostics for temperature, density, ionization balance, and abundances in the plasma source (Gabriel 1972, Mewe and Schrijver 1978, Pradhan and Shull 1981, Pradhan 1985). Li-like C IV is of considerable importance in UV emission spectra from active galactic nuclei and quasars (e.g. Laor et al. 1994), as well as absorption in AGN (Crenshaw and Kraemer 1999). In addition, the C IV and other Li-like ionization states are valuable tracers of the plasma in the ‘hot interstellar medium’ (Spitzer 1990, Spitzer and Fitzpatick 1993, Martin and Bowyer 1990, Bregman and Harrington 1986). The primary sets of atomic data needed for accurate calculations of ionization fractions are for photoionization and recombination.

Theoretical models of spectral formation also require excitation cross sections and transition probabilities. A considerable amount of atomic data is being computed for these atomic processes under the Iron Project (IP; Hummer et al. 1993) for electron impact excitation and radiative transition probabilities for astrophysically abundant elements using the Breit-Pauli R-matrix (BPRM) method that includes relativistic fine structure in intermediate coupling (Berrington et al. 1995). The present work is an extension of the IP work to photoionization and recombination.

The ionization balance equations usually correspond to photoionization equilibrium

$$_{\nu _0}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{4\pi J_\nu }{h\nu }N(X^z)\sigma _{PI}(\nu ,X^z)𝑑\nu =\underset{j}{}N_eN(X^{z+1})\alpha _R(X_j^z;T),$$
(1)
and collisional equilibrium

$$C_I(T,X^z)N_eN(X^z)=\underset{j}{}N_eN(X^{z+1})\alpha _R(X_j^z;T),$$
(2)
where the $`\sigma _{PI}`$ are the photoionization cross sections, and the $`\alpha _R(X_j^z;T)`$ are the total electron-ion recombination rate coefficients of the recombined ion of charge $`z`$, $`X_j^z`$, to state j at electron temperature T. The $`C_I`$ are the rate coefficients for electron impact ionization that can be reliably obtained from experimental measurements (Bell et al. 1983). On the other hand, the (e + ion) recombination cross sections and rates are difficult to compute or measure. However, several experimental measurements of electron-ion recombination cross sections using ion storage rings have been carried out in recent years (e.g. Wolf et al. 1991, Kilgus et al. 1990,1993; Mannervik et al. 1997). The experimental cross sections exhibit detailed resonance structures observed at very high resolution in beam energy, and measure absolute cross sections. Therefore they provide ideal tests for theoretical methods, as well as the physical effects included in the calculations. Many of these experimental measurements have been for recombination with H- and He-like C and O.

Among the recent theoretical developments is a self-consistent method for calculations for photoionization and (e + ion) recombination, as described in previous papers in this series. An identical eigenfunction expansion for the ion is employed in coupled channel calculations for both processes, thus ensuring consistently accurate cross sections and rates in an ab initio manner. The theoretical treatment of (e + ion) recombination subsumes both the non-resonant recombination (i.e. radiative recombination, RR), and the resonant recombination (i.e. di-electronic recombination, DR) processes in a unified scheme. In addition to the total, unified recombination rates, level-specific recombination rates and photoionization cross sections are obtained for a large number of atomic levels. The calculations are carried out in the close coupling approximation using the R-matrix method. Although the calculations are computationally intensive, they yield nearly all photoionization and recombination parameters needed for astrophysical photoionization models with higher precision than hitherto possible.

Previous calculations of unified (e + ion) recombination cross sections and rates, reported in the present series on photoionization and recombination, were carried out in LS coupling (Nahar and Pradhan 1997, paper I; Nahar 1999). There were two reasons. First, the calculations are extremely complex and involve both radiative photoionization and collisional electron-ion scattering calculations; the full intermediate coupling relativistic calculations are many times more computationally intensive than the LS coupling ones. Second, the effect of relativistic fine structure was expected to be small for these light elements.

For the highly charged H- and He-like ions, however, subsequent calculations showed that results including the relativistic effects are signficantly more accurate not only in terms of more detailed resonance structure, but also to enable a full resolution of resonances necessary to include radiative damping (Pradhan and Zhang 1997, Zhang et al. 1999, and references therein). The relativistic Breit-Pauli R-matrix (BPRM) method is now extended to calculate the total and level-specific recombination rate coefficients in the self consistent unified manner. In this paper we describe the first of a series of full-scale BPRM calculations of photoionization and photo-recombination, as inverse processes, and DR, to obtain total, unified (e + ion) recombination rates of He- and Li-like Carbon, C IV and C V.

## 2 THEORY

The extension of the close coupling method to electron-ion recombination is described in earlier works (Nahar & Pradhan 1994, 1995), together with the details of the unified treatment. Here we present a brief description of the theory relevant to the calculations of electron recombination cross sections with H-like and He-like ions. The calculations are carried out in the close coupling (CC) approximation employing the $`R`$-matrix method in intermediate coupling with the BP Hamiltonian. The target ion is represented by an $`N`$-electron system, and the total wavefunction expansion, $`\mathrm{\Psi }(E)`$, of the ($`N`$+1) electron-ion system of symmetry $`SL\pi `$ or $`J\pi `$ may be represented in terms of the target eigenfunctions as:

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(E)=A\underset{i}{}\chi _i\theta _i+\underset{j}{}c_j\mathrm{\Phi }_j,$$
(3)
where $`\chi _i`$ is the target wavefunction in a specific state $`SL\pi `$ or level $`J_i\pi _i`$ and $`\theta _i`$ is the wavefunction for the ($`N`$+1)-th electron in a channel labeled as $`S_iL_i(J_i)\pi _ik_i^2\mathrm{}_i(J\pi ))`$; $`k_i^2`$ being its incident kinetic energy. $`\mathrm{\Phi }_j`$’s are the correlation functions of the ($`N`$+1)-electron system that account for short range correlation and the orthogonality between the continuum and the bound orbitals.

In the relativistic BPRM calculations the set of $`SL\pi `$ are recoupled to obtain (e + ion) levels with total $`J\pi `$, followed by diagonalisation of the (N+1)-electron Hamiltonian,

$$H_{N+1}^{BP}\mathrm{\Psi }=\mathrm{E}\mathrm{\Psi }.$$
(4)
The BP Hamiltonian is

$$H_{N+1}^{\mathrm{BP}}=H_{N+1}+H_{N+1}^{\mathrm{mass}}+H_{N+1}^{\mathrm{Dar}}+H_{N+1}^{\mathrm{so}},$$
(5)
where $`H_{N+1}`$ is the nonrelativistic Hamiltonian,

$$H_{N+1}=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N+1}{}}\left\{_i^2\frac{2Z}{r_i}+\underset{j>i}{\overset{N+1}{}}\frac{2}{r_{ij}}\right\},$$
(6)
and the additional terms are the one-body terms, the mass correction term, the Darwin term and the spin-orbit term respectively. Spin-orbit interaction, $`H_{N+1}^{so}`$, splits the LS terms into fine-structure levels labeled by $`J\pi `$, where $`J`$ is the total angular momentum.

The positive and negative energy states (Eq. 4) define continuum or bound (e + ion) states.

$$\begin{array}{c}E=k^2>0continuum(scattering)channels\hfill \\ E=\frac{z^2}{\nu ^2}<0boundstates,\hfill \end{array}$$
(7)
where $`\nu `$ is the effective quantum number relative to the core level. If $`E<`$ 0 then all continuum channels are ‘closed’ and the solutions represent bound states.

The photoionization cross section can be obtained as

$$\sigma _{PI}=\frac{1}{g}\frac{4\pi ^2}{3c}\omega 𝐒,$$
(8)
where $`g`$ is the statistical weight factor of the bound state, $`𝐒`$ is the dipole line strength,

$$𝐒=|<\mathrm{\Psi }_B||𝐃||\mathrm{\Psi }_F>|^2$$
(9)
and $`𝐃`$ is the dipole operator (e.g. Seaton 1987).

For highly charged ions (such as the H- and the He-like) radiative transition probabilities in the core ion are very large and may be of the same order of magnitude as autoionization probabilities. Autoionizing resonances may then undergo significant radiative decay and the photoionization process may be written as

$$h\nu +X^+(X^+)^{}\{\begin{array}{c}(i)e+X^{++}\\ (ii)h\nu ^{}+X^+\end{array}$$
(10)
Branch (ii) represents radiation damping of autoionizing resonances. In the present work this radiative damping effect is included for all near-threshold resonances, up to $`\nu 10`$, using a resonance fitting procedure (Sakimoto et al. 1990, Pradhan and Zhang 1997, Zhang et al. 1999).

Recombination of an incoming electron to the target ion may occur through non-resonant, background continuum, usually referred to as radiative recombination (RR),

$$e+X^{++}h\nu +X^+,$$
(11)
which is the inverse process of direct photoionization, or through the two-step recombination process via autoionizing resonances, i.e. dielectronic recombination (DR):

$$e+X^{++}(X^+)^{}\{\begin{array}{c}(i)e+X^{++}\\ (ii)h\nu +X^+\end{array},$$
(12)
where the incident electron is in a quasi-bound doubly-excited state which leads either to (i) autoionization, a radiation-less transition to a lower state of the ion and the free electron, or to (ii) radiative stabilization to recombining ion states predominantly via decay of the ion core (usually to the ground state) and the bound electron.

In the unified treatment the photoionization cross sections, $`\sigma _{\mathrm{PI}}`$, of a large number of low-$`n`$ bound states – all possible states with $`nn_{\mathrm{max}}10`$ – are obtained in the close coupling (CC) approximation as in the Opacity Project (Seaton 1987). Coupled channel calculations for $`\sigma _{\mathrm{PI}}`$ include both the background and the resonance structures (due to the doubly excited autoionizing states) in the cross sections. The recombination cross section, $`\sigma _{\mathrm{RC}}`$, is related to $`\sigma _{\mathrm{PI}}`$, through detailed balance (Milne relation) as

$$\sigma _{\mathrm{RC}}(ϵ)=\frac{\alpha ^2}{4}\frac{g_i}{g_j}\frac{(ϵ+I)^2}{ϵ}\sigma _{\mathrm{PI}}$$
(13)
in Rydberg units; $`\alpha `$ is the fine structure constant, $`ϵ`$ is the photoelectron energy, and $`I`$ is the ionization potential. In the present work, it is assumed that the recombining ion is in the ground state, and recombination can take place into the ground or any of the excited recombined (e+ion) states. Recombination rate coefficients of individual levels are obtained by averaging the recombination cross sections over the Maxwellian electron distribution, $`f(v)`$, at a given temperature as

$$\alpha _{RC}(T)=_0^{\mathrm{}}vf(v)\sigma _{RC}𝑑v.$$
(14)
The contributions of these bound states to the total $`\sigma _{\mathrm{RC}}`$ are obtained by summing over the contributions from individual cross sections. $`\sigma _{\mathrm{RC}}`$ thus obtained from $`\sigma _{\mathrm{PI}}`$, including the radiatively damped autoionizing resonances (Eq. (10)), corresponds to the total (DR+RR) unified recombination cross section.

The recombination cross section, $`\sigma _{RC}`$ in Megabarns (Mb), is related to the collision strength, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{RC}}`$, as

$$\sigma _{RC}(ij)(Mb)=\pi \mathrm{\Omega }_{RC}(i,j)/(g_ik_i^2)(a_o^2/1.\times 10^{18}),$$
(15)
where $`k_i^2`$ is the incident electron energy in Rydberg. As $`\sigma _{RC}`$ diverges at zero-photoelectron energy, the total collision strength, $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, is used in the recombination rate calculations.

Recombination into the high-$`n`$ states must also be included, i.e. $`n_{\mathrm{max}}<n\mathrm{}`$, (Fig. 1 of Nahar & Pradhan 1994). To each excited threshold $`S_iL_i(J_i)\pi _i`$ of the $`N`$-electron target ion, there corresponds an infinite series of ($`N`$+1)-electron states, $`S_iL_i(J_i)\pi _i\nu \mathrm{}`$, to which recombination can occur, where $`\nu `$ is the effective quantum number. For these states DR dominates the recombination process and the background recombination is negligibly small. The contributions from these states are added by calculating the collision strengths, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{DR}}`$, employing the precise theory of radiation damping by Bell and Seaton (1985, Nahar & Pradhan 1994). Several aspects related to the application of the theory to the calculation of DR collision strengths are described in the references cited. General details of the theory and close coupling BPRM calculations are described in paper I and Zhang et al. (1999, and references therein).

## 3 COMPUTATIONS

The electron-ion recombination calculations entail CC calculations for photoionization and electron-ion scattering. Identical eigenfunction expansion for the target (core) ion is employed for both processes; thus enabling inherently self-consistent photoionization/recombination results in an ab initio manner for a given ion. The total recombination cross sections, $`\sigma _{\mathrm{RC}}`$, are obtained from the photoionization cross sections, $`\sigma _{\mathrm{PI}}`$, and DR collision strengths, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{DR}}`$, are calculated as descriped in paper I and Zhang et al. (1999). However, the computations for the cross sections are repeated with a much finer energy mesh in order to delineate the detailed resonance structures as observed in the experiments.

Computations of photoionization cross sections, $`\sigma _{\mathrm{PI}}`$, in the relativistic BPRM intermediate coupling approximations are carried out using the package of codes from the Iron Project (Berrington et al. 1995; Hummer et al. 1993). However, radiation damping of resonances up to $`n=10`$ are included through use of the extended codes of STGF and STGBF (Pradhan & Zhang 1997). The $`R`$-matrix calculations are carried out for each total angular momentum symmetry $`J\pi `$, corresponding to a set of fine structure target levels $`J_t`$.

In the energy region from threshold up to about $`\nu =\nu _{\mathrm{max}}`$ = 10 ($`\nu `$ is the effective quantum number of the outer orbital of the recombined ion bound state), detailed photorecombination cross sections are calculated as is Eq. (12). The electrons in this energy range recombine to a large number of final (e + ion) states and recombination cross sections are computed for all coupled symmetries and summed to obtain the total $`\sigma _{\mathrm{RC}}`$. The number of these final recombined states in the BPRM case is larger, owing to more channels involving fine structure, than the $`LS`$ coupling case.

In the higher energy region, $`\nu _{\mathrm{max}}<\nu <\mathrm{}`$ below each threshold target level, where the resonances are narrow and dense and the background is negligible, we compute the detailed and the resonance averaged DR cross sections. The DR collision strengths in BPRM are obtained using extensions of the $`R`$-matrix asymptotic region codes (paper I; Zhang and Pradhan 1997) respectively. It is necessary to use extremely fine energy meshes in order to delineate the resonance structures belonging to each $`n`$-complex.

The level specific recombination rate coefficients are obtained using a new computer program, BPRRC (Nahar and Pradhan 2000). The program extends the photoionization cross sections at the high energy region, beyond the highest target threshold in the CC wavefunction expansion of the ion, by a tail from Kramers fit of $`\sigma _{PI}(E)=\sigma _{PI}^o(E_o^3/E^3)`$. The level specific rates are obtained for energies going up to infinity. These rates include both non-resonant and resonant contributions up to energies $`z^2/\nu _{\mathrm{max}}^2`$; Contributions from all autoionizing resonances up to $`\nu \nu _{\mathrm{max}}10`$ are included.

The program BPRRC sums up the level specific rates, which is added to the contributions from the high-n DR, to obtain the total recombination rates. As an additional check on the numerical calculations, the total recombination rate coefficients, $`\alpha _R`$, are also calculated from the total recombination collision strength, obtained from all the photoionization cross sections, and the DR collision strengths. The agreement between the two numerical approaches is within a few percent.

The background contribution from the high-n states, ($`10<n\mathrm{}`$), to the total recombination is also included as the ”top-up” part (Nahar 1996). This contribution is important at low temperatures, but is negligible at high temperatures. The rapid rise in $`\alpha _R`$ toward very low temperatures is due to low energy recombination into the infinite number of these high-n states, at electron energies not usually high enough for resonant excitations.

Below we describe the calculations individually for the ions under consideration.

### 3.1 e + C V $``$ C IV

The fine structure levels of the target ion, C V, included in the wavefunction expansion for C IV are given in Table 1. The 13 fine structure levels of C V up to $`3p`$ correspond to configurations $`1s^2`$, $`1s2s`$, $`1s2p`$, $`1s3s`$, $`1s3p`$ (correlation configurations also involve the n = 4 orbitals). Although calculated energies are within a few percent of the observed ones, the latter are used in the computations for more accurate positions of the resonances. The bound channel wavefunction, second term in $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ in Eq. (3), contains configuration $`3d^2`$. Levels of angular momentum symmeties $`1/2J9/2`$ are considered. With largest partial wave of the outer electron is $`l=9`$, these correspond to $`0L7`$ in doublet and quartet spin symmetries. The R-matrix basis set is represented by 30 continuum functions. It is necessary to represent the wavefunction expansion in the inner region of the R-matrix boundary with a relatively large number of terms in order to avoid some numerical problems that result in slight oscillation in computed cross sections.

### 3.2 e + C VI $``$ C V

The wavefunction expansion of C V is represented by 9 fine structure levels (Table 1) of hydrogenic C VI from $`1s`$ to $`3d`$. Correlation orbitals $`4s`$, $`4p`$, $`4d`$, and $`4f`$ are also included. The $`SL\pi `$ symmetries consist of $`0L7`$ of singlet and triplet spin symmetries, for even and odd parities. All levels of C V with total angular momentum symmetry $`0J6`$ are included. The R-matrix basis set consist of 40 terms to reduce numerical instablities that might otherwise result in slight oscillations in the cross sections.

## 4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Results for photoionization and recombination are presented below, followed by a discussion of the physical features and effects.

### 4.1 Photoionization

The ground state cross sections are needed for various astrophysical models, such as in determination of ionization fraction in photoionization equilibrium of plasma. Figs. 1 and 2 present the ground state photoionization cross section for C IV ($`1s^22s(^2S_{1/2})`$) and C V $`(1s^2(^1S_0))`$. Plots (a,b) in each figure show the total cross section (a), and the partial cross section (b) into the ground level of the residual ion. The total cross sections Fig. 1(a) and Fig. 2(a) show the K-shell ionization jump at the n = 2 target levels, i.e. inner-shell photoionization

$$h\nu +CIV(1s^22s,2p)e+1s2s(,2p),$$

and

$$h\nu +CV(1s^2,1s2p)e+2s(,2p).$$

In X-ray photoionization models these inner-shell edges play an important role in the overall ionization efficiency.

For both C IV and C V, the first excited target n = 2 threshold(s) lie at a high energy and the cross sections show a monotonic decrease over a relatively large energy range. (Slight oscillations are seen in the ground level of C V due to some numerical instability; as mentioned earlier, such oscillations are reduced using larger R-matrix basis set.) The resonances at high energies belong to Rydberg series of $`n=2,3`$ levels.

## 5 Recombination cross sections and rate coefficients

Figs. 3(a,b) present the total recombination cross sections, $`\sigma _{RC}`$, for C IV and C V. In contrast to the earlier presentation for the small energy range (Zhang et al. 1999) to compare with experiments, the figures display the cross sections from threshold up to the energy of the highest target threshold, $`3d`$, considered in the present work. The resonances belong to different n-complexes; these are in close agreeement with experimental data (Zhang et al. 1999).

Fig. 4 presents total unified recombination rate coefficients for $`e+CVCIV`$. The solid curve is the present $`\alpha _R`$ in relativistic BP approximation, and short-long dashed is earlier unified rates in LS coupling and where radiation damping effect was not included (Nahar & Pradhan 1997). In the high temperature region, the earlier LS rates significantly overestimat the recombination rate. We compare the present BPRM rates with several other available sets of data, e.g. ‘experimentally derived DR’ rates (dot-long dashed curve, Savin 1999; which in fact include both the RR+DR contribution - see below), and previous theoretical DR rate coefficients in LS coupling (dot-dashed curve, Badnell et al. 1990).

Zhang et al (1999) compared in detail the BPRM cross sections with experimental data from ion storage rings for $`e+CVCIV`$, with close agreement in the entire range of measurements for both the background (non-resonant) cross sections and resonances. The reported experimental data is primarily in the region of low-energy resonances that dominate recombination (mainly DR) with H- and He-like ions. The recombination rate coefficients, $`\alpha _R`$, obtained using the cross sections calculated by Zhang et al. (dotted curve) agree closely with those of Savin (1999) (dot-long dash curve) who used the experimental cross sections to obtain ’experimentally derived DR rates’. However, these rates do not include contributions from much of the low energy non-resonant RR and very high energy regions. The total unified $`\alpha _R(T)`$ (solid curve) which include all possible contributions is, therefore, somewhat higher than that obtained from limited energy range. The LS coupling DR rate by Badnell et al. (1990) (dot-dash curve) is lower than the others. The dashed and the long-dashed curves in the figure are RR rates by Aldrovandi & Pequignot (1973), and Verner and Ferland (1996); the latter agrees with the present rates at lower temperatures.

In Figs. 5 and 6 we show the level-specific recombination rate coefficients into the lowest, and the excited, bound levels of C IV, for the $`1s^2ns,np`$ Rydberg series up to n = 10. These are the first such calculations; level-specific data have been obtained for all $`\mathrm{}9`$ and associated $`J\pi `$ symmetries. The behavior of the level-specific rates mimics that of the total (this is only true for the simple systems under consideration; in general the level specifc rates show significantly different structure for complex ions, as seen in our previous works). The only distinguishing feature is the DR bump. Since the numerical computations are enormously involved, particularly related to the resolution of resonances, the absence of any unidentified features in the level-specific rates is re-assuring.

Total $`\alpha _R(T)`$ for $`e+CVICV`$ are given in Table 2, and are plotted in Fig. 7. The total unified recombination rate coefficients in the present BPRM calculations are plotted in the solid curve. The short-long dashed curve represents earlier rates obtained in LS coupling and with no inclusion of radiation damping of low-n autoionizing resonanes (Nahar & Pradhan 1997). The earlier LS rates overestimate the recombination rates at high temperatures. The dotted curve shows the rate coefficient computed using the Zhang et al. cross sections in a limited energy range with resonances, i.e. mainly DR. The DR rate by Shull & Steenberg (1982; dot-dash curve) agrees closely with the dotted curve. The dashed and the long-dashed curves are RR rates by Aldrovandi & Pequignot (1973), and Verner and Ferland (1996); they agrees with the present rates at lower temperatures.

Table 2 presents the unified total BPRM recombination rate coefficients of C IV and C V averaged over a Maxwellian distribution.

#### 5.0.1 Level-specific recombination rate coefficients

Fig. 8 shows the level-specific rate coefficients for the ground and the excited n = 2 levels that are of considerable importance in X-ray spectroscopy, as they are responsible for the formation of the w,x,y,z lines from the 4 transitions $`1s^2(^1S_0)1s2p(^1P_1^o),1s2p(^3P_2^o),1s2p(^3P_1^o),1s2s(^3S_1)`$. The present work is particularly relevant to the formation of these X-ray lines since recombination-cascades from excited levels play an important role in determining the intensity ratios in coronal equilibrium and non-equilibrium plasmas (Pradhan 1985).

The rates in Fig. 8 differ considerably from those by Mewe & Schrijver (1978, hereafter MS) that have been widely employed in the calculation of X-ray spectra of He-like ions (e.g. Pradhan 1982). We compare with the direct (RR + DR) rates separately calculated by MS using approximate Z-scaled RR and DR rates for the individual n = 2 levels of He-like ions. Their RR rates were from Z-scaled recombinaton rate of He<sup>+</sup> given by Burgess & Seaton (1960); the LS coupling data were divided according to the statistical weights of the fine structure levels. Their DR rates were obtained using averaged autoionization probabilities, Z-scaled from iron (Z = 26) and calculated with hydrogenic wavefunctions, together with radiative decay probabilities of the resonant $`2s2p,2p^2,(2p3s,2p3p,2p3d)`$ levels, decaying to the final n = 2 levels of He-like ions. The present work on the other hand includes DR contributions from all resonances up to $`2pn\mathrm{};n10,\mathrm{}n1`$. Figs. 3 and 4 of Zhang et al. (1999) show the detailed photorecombination cross sections for these resonance complexes. But the present rate coefficients are much lower (Fig. 8). It is surprising that the MS rates are much higher than the present ones. If we consider, for example, the level-specific rate for the $`1s2s(^3S_1)`$ level, the MS value includes contributions from only $`2s2p,3s2p,3p2p`$ autoionizing levels. That the MS values overestimate the rates is also indicated by the fact that, at Log T = 6.4 (the DR-peak temperature, Fig. 7), the sum of their individual n = 2 level-specific rates is 1.5 $`\times 10^{12}`$ cm<sup>-3</sup> sec<sup>-1</sup>, compared to our unified total $`\alpha _R`$ = 2.27 $`\times 10^{12}`$ cm<sup>-3</sup> sec<sup>-1</sup> (Table 2; C V). That would imply that the MS rates for the n = 2 levels alone account for 2/3 of the total recombination (RR + DR) rate for C V; which is unlikely.

Fig. 9 presents level specific recombination rate coefficients of $`1sns(^3S)`$ Rydberg series of C V levels up to $`n`$ = 10. The features are similar to those of C IV. Although resolution of resonances in each cross section is very cumbersome, the sum of the level-specific rate coefficients, together with the DR contribution, agrees within a few percent of the total recombination rate coefficient.

Recombination-cascade matrices may now be constructed for C IV and C V, and effective recombination rates into specific levels obtained accurately, using the direct recombination rates into levels with $`n10,\mathrm{}n1`$ (Pradhan 1985). The present data is more than sufficient for extrapolation to high-n,$`\mathrm{}`$ necessary to account for cascade contributions. Also needed are the radiative transition probabilities for all fine structure levels of C IV and C V, up to the n = 10 levels. They have also been calculated using the BPRM method, and will be available shortly (Nahar, in preparation). These data will be similar to that for Fe XXIV and Fe XXV calculated earlier under the Iron Project (Nahar and Pradhan 1999).

We discuss below some of the important atomic effects relavant to the present calculations in particular, and electron-ion recombination in general.

### 5.1 Resolution and radiation damping of resonances

It is important to resolve near-threshold resonances ($`\nu 10`$) at an adequately fine energy mesh in order to (a) compute accurately their contribution to the rate coefficient or the averaged cross section, and (b) to determine the radiative and autoionization rates through the fitting procedure referred to eariler (Sakimoto et al. 1990, Pradhan and Zhang 1997, Zhang et al. 1999). Resonances that are narrower than the energy intervals chosen have very low autoionization rates and are mostly damped out; their contribution to (a) should be small.

### 5.2 Intereference between resonant (DR) and non-resonant (RR) recombination

In general there is quantum mechanical interference between the resonant and the non-resonant components of the wavefunction expansion. Close coupling photoioniation calculations for strongly coupled near-neutral atomic systems cross sections considerable overlap between members of several Rydberg series of resonances that coverge on to the excited, coupled target levels.

Unified (e + ion) rates have been calculated for over 40 atoms and ions of astrophysical interest. The resonance structures in a number of these are extremely complicated and show considerable interference. The large number of photoionization calculations under the Opacity Project, for the ground state and the excited states (typically, a few hundred excited states for each atom or ion), show overlapping resonances to often dominate the cross sections. These are archived in the Opacity Project database TOPBASE and may be accessed on-line via the Website: http://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov, or via the link from www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/$``$pradhan). Furthermore, the excited state cross sections of excited metastable states may exhibit even more extensive resonance structures than the ground state (e.g. in photoionization of O III; Luo et al. 1989). Strictly speaking, one needs to consider the partial photoionization cross sections for each of the three cases (dipole photoionization): $`\mathrm{\Delta }S=0,\mathrm{\Delta }l=0,\pm 1`$ in LS coupling, or $`\mathrm{\Delta }J=0,\pm 1`$ in BPRM calculations. Although these are not often tabulated or displayed, an examination thereof reveals that for near-neutrals each partial cross section shows overlapping resonances. As the ion charge increases, the resonances separate out, the intereference decreases, and isolated resonance approximations may be used (Pindzola et al. 1992, Zhang 1998).

Therefore, in general, we expect interference between the non-resonant RR and resonant DR recombination processes, particularly for many-electron systems where a separation between the two processes is unphysical and imprecise. Of course experimentally such a division is artificial and is not possible. For example, the recent experimental measurements on electron recombination with Fe XVIII to Fe XVII (Savin et al. 1999) clearly show the near threshold cross section to be dominated by the non-resonant recombination (RR) towards E $``$ 0, with superimposed resonance structures (the DR contribution) at higher energies. In a recent work Savin (1999) cited the work of Pindzola et al. (1992) to state that the effect of interferences is small (Pindzola et al. did not carry out close coupling calculations such as in the Opacity Project). Although this is not true in general, for highly ionized few-electron ions one expects sufficient resonance separation so that an independent treatment of RR and DR may be accurate; such is the case for recombination with H-like and He-like ions. The present unified treatment accounts for interference effects in an ab initio manner, and (e + ion) rates have been calculated for over 40 atoms and ions of astrophysical interest (heretofore, in LS coupling).

### 5.3 Comparision with experimental data and uncertainties

Although experimental results are available for relatively few ions in limited energy ranges, and mostly for simple atomic systems such as the H-like and He-like ions, they are very useful for the calibration of theoretical cross sections. There is very good agreement with experimentally measured cross sections for electron recombination to C IV, C V, and O VII, as discussed in detail by Zhang et al. (1999). However, the energy range of experimental measurements is much smaller; the theoretical calculations are from E = 0 to very high energies necessary to obtain rate coefficients up to T = $`10^9`$K. For recombination with H- and He-like ions most (but not all) of the rates depends on relatively few low-n complex of resonances in the low-energy region covered by experiments. In a recent work Savin (1999) used the experimental cross sections for recombination with C V to C IV, and O VIII to O VII, to obtain ‘experimentally derived DR’ rate coeffcients and compared those with several sets of theoretical data including those in papers I and II. (Strictly speaking these rates include ‘RR + DR’ contributions since the experimental cross sections always include both, and which the unified method aims to obtain). Whereas the previous LS coupling results for C IV (paper I) were 43% higher than Savin’s values, the results for O VII were in reasonable agreement, $``$20% higher, within estimated uncertainties.

The agreement between the unified rates and the experimentally derived DR rates is within our 10-20% in the region (i.e. at temperatures) where DR contribution peaks, around Log(T) = 6.3 for C IV (Fig. 2). As the reported experimental data did not extend to low energies, where the non-resonant RR contribution dominates, the unified rates are higher towards lower temperatures from the DR peak, and deviate in a predictably straightforward manner from the DR-only results. The ‘experimentailly derived’ data by Savin (1999) was obtained with a limited energy range, while our present results include a much larger range. Therefore our results are higher. The dotted curve in Fig. 4, which we also obtained over a limited energy range, agrees well with the dot-long-dashed curve (Savin 1999). The differences are within our estimate of uncertainty in the present results, up to 20%. Given that the experimental cross sections are also likely to be uncertain to about this range, the agreement seems remarkably good.

While the present unified cross sections can be compared directly with experimental measurements, and the new rate coefficients are in good agreement with the experimentaly derived DR rates for recombination with simple ions such as the H- and He-like, the experimental data may represent a lower bound on the field-free theoretical recombination rates owing to (a) high-n and $`\mathrm{}`$ ionization reducing the ’DR’ peak, and (b) limited energy range in experiments.

### 5.4 General features of (e + ion) recombination rates

The non-resonant ‘RR’ recombination peaks as E, T $``$ 0. This is due to the dominant contribution from an infinite number of high Rydberg states of the (e + ion) system into which the slow moving electron may recombine. At low-E and T, the total $`log_{10}(\alpha _R(T)`$) is shown as a straight line on the Log-Log scale due to the exponential Maxwellian damping factor exp(-E/kT). It is not entirely trivial to compute the low-E and T contributions (that we refer to as “high-n top-up”). We adapt the accurate numerical procedure developed by Storey & Hummer (1992) to calculate the n,$`\mathrm{}`$ hydrogenic photoionization cross section for $`11n\mathrm{}`$ (Nahar 1996). It is noted that the high-n top-up also represents the otherwise missing background contribution due to high-n resonant recombination (DR). Although this background contribution is small (negligibly so for the H- and He-like ions), it is included in the unified treatment.

The resonant contribution (DR) peaks at higher E and T corresponding to the excitation energies and temperatures of the strong dipole transition(s) in the core ion. This is the broad peak in $`\alpha _R(T)`$.

### 5.5 Ionization fractions of Carbon

Fig. 10 presents coronal ionization fractions of C using the new BPRM recombinaton rates for C IV and C V (solid lines). Also given are the results (dashed lines) from Arnaud and Rothenflug (1985), and previous results (dotted lines) using LS coupling rates from (Nahar and Pradhan 1997). Differences with both sets of data may be noted for C IV, C V, C VI, and C VII. The most significant change (enhancement) is for C VI, owing to the decrease in C V recombination rate, and the new ionization fractions appear to be in better agreement with Arnaud and Rothenflug (1985) than the Nahar and Pradhan (1997) results. Also discernible is the steeper fall-off in the C V ionization fraction on the high temperatures side.

## 6 CONCLUSION

New relativistic calculations are presented for the total, unified (e + ion) rates coefficients for C IV and C V of interest in X-ray astronomy. As the photo-recombination cross sections in the dominant low-energy region have earlier been shown to be in very good agreeement with experiments (Zhang et al. 1999), it is expected that the present rates should be definitive, with an uncertainty that should not exceed 10–20%.

The unified theoretical formulation and experimental measurements both suggest that the unphysical and imprecise division of the recombination process into ’radiative recombination (RR)’ and ’di-electronic recombination (DR)’ be replaced by ’non-resonant’ and ’resonant’ recombination, since these are naturally inseparable.

Further calculations are in progress for Oxygen (O VI and O VII) and Iron (Fe XXIV and FeXXV).

The available data includes:

(A) Photoionization cross sections for bound fine structure levels of C IV and C V up to n = 10 – both total and partial (into the ground level of the residual ion). !!!!

(B) Total, unified recombination rates for C IV and C V, and level-specific recombination rate coefficients for levels up to n = 10.

All photoionization and recombination data are available electronically from the first author at: nahar@astronomy.ohio-state.edu. The total recombination rate coefficients are also available from the Ohio State Atomic Astrophysics website at: www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/$``$pradhan.

This work was supported partially by grants from NSF (AST-9870089) and NASA (NAG5-8423). The computational work was carried out on the Cray T94 at the Ohio Supercomputer Center.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Field theories with N=2 extended supersymmetry are known to possess remarkable properties that sometimes allow one to obtain their exact (non-perturbative) low-energy solutions, pioneered by Seiberg and Witten . The natural way to produce such exact results is to relate the field theory problem to an integrable system (or Whitham dynamics in the Seiberg-Witten case) . The origin of an elliptic curve behind the exact solution  also becomes apparent in this approach. Another (related) interpretation of the Seiberg-Witten result is possible from the viewpoint of anomalous breaking of N=2 superconformal symmetry and uniformization theory on Riemann surfaces . It is not very surprising since N=2 superconformal symmetry is well-known to be instrumental in deriving the classical structure of all (non-conformal) N=2 supersymmetric field theories, including N=2 supergravity, in four spacetime dimensions. It is natural to examine first the constraints imposed by N=2 superconformal invariance and then study compensation of unwanted N=2 superconformal symmetries. Or one can start from a classical field theory that is N=2 superconformally invariant, and then investigate its superconformal anomalies that can be developed in quantum field theory.

Much work in the recent past was devoted to investigating the constraints imposed by N=4 superconformal symmetry on the correlation functions of the N=4 super-Yang-Mills theory in the context of AdS/CFT correspondence . More recently, similar constraints on the correlation functions were studied in the context of four-dimensional N=2 conformal supersymmetry . We recall that all N=2 supersymmetric field theories can be brought into the manifestly N=2 supersymmetric form, by using off-shell (unconstrained) N=2 superfields in Harmonic Superspace (HSS) . It makes the effective field theory methods to be very efficient in the N=2 case contrary to the N=4 case where only on-shell N=4 supersymmetry is possible. The next obvious step is to make manifest N=2 superconformal invariance of the N=2 supersymmetric quantum effective action, and then study its superconformal anomalies. Truly non-perturbative results are expected to be obtained along these lines.

As regards quantum field theories with rigid N=2 supersymmetry, their building blocks are given by N=2 vector multiplets and hypermultiplets. At the level of the Low-Energy Effective Action (LEEA), on the (abelian) N=2 vector multiplet side we have to deal with the Seiberg-Witten-type action specified by a holomorphic potential and the associated special Kähler geometry. This topic is well-known, and we are going to use it as our basic pattern to follow. Hypermultiplets (e.g., if they are magnetically charged) may also develop the non-trivial LEEA that takes the form of a hyper-Kähler Non-Linear Sigma-Model (NLSM) by N=2 supersymmetry. After being formulated in HSS, the N=2 NLSM also possess an (analytic) potential. Our purpose in this paper is to impose and make manifest N=2 superconformal invariance in the N=2 NLSM, and then formulate an anomalous N=2 superconformal Ward identity on the hyper-Kähler potential.

The paper is organized as follows. In sect. 2 we briefly review the N=2 supercurrents, the anomalous N=2 superconformal Ward identities in the N=2 gauge sector, and their relation to the solution of Seiberg and Witten . In sect. 3 we construct in HSS the most general N=2 superconformal NLSM that gives a general solution to the special hyper-Kähler geometry. The anomalous N=2 superconformal Ward identity on the hypermultiplet LEEA (N=2 NLSM) is found for the first time in sect. 4, by using the N=2 supergravity compensators in HSS. In sect. 5 we give our conclusions. In Appendix we briefly review a construction of N=2 supergravity in HSS.

## 2 N=2 supercurrent and Ward identities

An N=2 supercurrent is the irreducible representation of N=2 supersymmetry in four spacetime dimensions, having superspin one. The independent field components of the N=2 supercurrent (of some N=2 matter system) include the energy-momentum tensor, the N=2 supersymmetry current, the central charge current, the axial current, the $`SU(2)`$ current of R-symmetry and some auxiliary field components of lower dimension.

The relevant field components of the N=2 supercurrent were first identified in ref.  by analyzing the free field theory of a massive (Fayet-Sohnius) hypermultiplet. The systematic way of derivation of the N=2 supercurrent superfield is provided by a construction of the irreducible N=2 superfields in the conventional (flat) N=2 superspace $`\{𝒵\}=(x^m,\theta _\alpha ^i,\overline{\theta }_j^\stackrel{_{{}_{}{}^{}}}{\alpha })`$, where $`m=0,1,2,3`$, $`\alpha =1,2`$ and $`i,j=1,2`$. All irreducible N=2 superprojectors were found in ref. , whereas all irreducible (scalar) N=2 superfields were explicitly derived in ref. . Amongst the irreducible N=2 superfields, comprising a general N=2 real scalar superfield, one finds almost all off-shell N=2 supermultiplets that usually appear in any discussion of N=2 supersymmetry (with a finite number of the auxiliary fields). In particular, an N=2 (restricted) chiral superfield $`\mathrm{\Phi }(x,\theta ,\overline{\theta })`$ is defined by the N=2 superspace (off-shell) constraints

$$\overline{D}_\stackrel{_{{}_{}{}^{}}}{\alpha }^i\mathrm{\Phi }=0,D^4\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{}\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }},$$
$`(2.1)`$
where $`(D_i^\alpha ,\overline{D}_\stackrel{_{{}_{}{}^{}}}{\alpha }^j)`$ are the usual (flat) N=2 superspace covariant derivatives. 222We use the notation $`D_{\alpha \beta }=D_{i\alpha }D_\beta ^i`$, $`D^{ij}=D^{i\alpha }D_\alpha ^j`$ and $`D^4=\frac{1}{12}D_{ij}D^{ij}`$, and similarly for the
conjugated quantities. As a consequence of the constraints (2.1), the N=2 restricted chiral superfield $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ possess a two-form $`F=F_{mn}dx^mdx^n`$ satisfying the ‘Bianchi identity’ $`dF=0`$. A solution to the ‘Bianchi identity’, $`F=dA`$, in terms of the one-form $`A`$ subject to the gauge transformations $`\delta A=d\lambda `$, allows one to represent the N=2 superfield strength $`W`$ of an abelian N=2 vector multiplet by a restricted chiral N=2 superfield too.

The N=2 restricted chiral superfield $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is dual to an N=2 linear superfield $`L^{ij}`$. The latter is symmetric with respect to its $`SU(2)`$ indices and satisfies the off-shell constraints

$$D_\alpha ^{(i}L^{jk)}=\overline{D}{}_{\stackrel{_{{}_{}{}^{}}}{\alpha }}{}^{(i}L_{}^{jk)}=0,\overline{(L^{ij})}=\epsilon _{ik}\epsilon _{jl}L^{kl}.$$
$`(2.2)`$
The duality relation in N=2 superspace is just given by

$$L^{ij}=D^{ij}\mathrm{\Phi }.$$
$`(2.3)`$
Both superfields $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`L^{ij}`$ represent the irreducible N=2 multiplets of superspin zero and superisospin zero.

Similarly, an irreducible N=2 scalar superfield $`R`$ of superspin zero and superisospin one is defined by the constraints

$$D_{\alpha \beta }R=\overline{D}_{\stackrel{_{{}_{}{}^{}}}{\alpha }\stackrel{_{{}_{}{}^{}}}{\beta }}R=iD_\alpha ^j,\overline{D}_{j\stackrel{_{{}_{}{}^{}}}{\alpha }}R=0.$$
$`(2.4)`$
The irreducible N=2 scalar superfield $`R`$ is dual to an N=2 projective superfield $`T^{ijkl}`$,

$$T^{ijkl}=D^{(ij}\overline{D}^{kl)}R,$$
$`(2.5)`$
where $`T^{ijkl}`$ is totally symmetric with respect to its $`SU(2)`$ indices and obeys the (off-shell) constraints

$$D_\alpha ^{(i}T^{jklm)}=\overline{D}{}_{\stackrel{_{{}_{}{}^{}}}{\alpha }}{}^{(i}T_{}^{jklm)}=0,\overline{(T^{i_1i_2i_3i_4})}=\epsilon _{i_1j_1}\epsilon _{i_2j_2}\epsilon _{i_3j_3}\epsilon _{i_4j_4}T^{j_1j_2j_3j_4}.$$
$`(2.6)`$
The N=2 supercurrent $`J`$ is also in the list of the irreducible N=2 scalar superfields, being defined by the constraints

$$D_{ij}J=\overline{D}_{ij}J=0.$$
$`(2.7)`$
The N=2 superspace constraints (2.7) imply that the energy-monentum tensor is symmetric, conserved and traceless, whereas all the vector currents are conserved. In other words, $`J`$ is a multiplet of N=2 superconformal currents.

An N=2 superconformal anomaly amounts to breaking the N=2 supercurrent conservation relations (2.7) by an N=2 anomaly multiplet of lower superspin, i.e. of superspin zero. This is equivalent to activating an irreducible superspin-zero superfield in the N=2 scalar superfield $`J`$. As is clear from the above discussion, there are potentially two ways of assigning the N=2 anomaly multiplet with an N=2 irreducible superspin-zero superfield: either $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ (or, equivalently, $`L^{ij}`$) or $`R`$ (or, equivalently, $`L^{ijkl}`$). The main difference between the two choices is the fact that $`L^{ij}`$ still contains a conserved vector current (associated with unbroken central charge transformations), whereas the vector current in $`L^{ijkl}`$ is not conserved. The first choice yields the N=2 superconformal anomaly relation in the standard form

$$\frac{i}{4}D_{ij}J=L_{ij}.$$
$`(2.8)`$
For example, the N=2 supercurrent conservation law in the quantum N=2 SYM theory takes the form

$$\frac{i}{4}D_{ij}J=\overline{D}_{ij}\overline{S},S=\frac{c}{2}\mathrm{tr}W^2,$$
$`(2.9)`$
where the (Lie algebra-valued) N=2 SYM superfield strength $`W`$ has been introduced. The constant $`c`$ is proportional to the one-loop renormalization group beta-function. Though $`\mathrm{tr}W^2`$ is merely a chiral (not a restricted chiral) N=2 superfield, eq. (2.9) can be easily brought into the form (2.8) by a local shift of the supercurrent, $`JJ4iS`$.

The most general N=2 supersymmetric Ansatz for the LEEA of some number $`(r)`$ of abelian N=2 vector multiplets is governed by a holomorphic potential $`(W)`$ of the N=2 (restricted chiral) superfield strengths $`W_p`$  ,333Our normalization differs from that used in ref.  by a factor $`i/(16\pi )`$.

$$I[W]=d^4xd^4\theta (W_p)+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.$$
$`(2.10)`$
The superfield $`W`$ has conformal weight $`+1`$, in accordance with its canonical dimension, whereas the N=2 chiral superspace measure in eq. (2.10) has conformal weight $`(2)`$. It is, therefore, clear that the N=2 superconformal Ward identity for the LEEA (2.10) is given by

$$\underset{p=1}{\overset{r}{}}W_p\frac{}{W_p}2=0.$$
$`(2.11)`$
The N=2 superconformal solution to the holomorphic potential $`(W)`$ is thus given by a homogeneous (of degree two) function. The (rigid) N=2 superconformal invariance of the action (2.10) is the necessary pre-requisite for its coupling to N=2 conformal supergravity .

Given a non-trivial renormalization flow (like in the N=2 SYM theory), the N=2 superconformal Ward identity (2.11) is going to be broken by the anomaly $`S`$,

$$\underset{p=1}{\overset{r}{}}W_p\frac{}{W_p}2=4S.$$
$`(2.12)`$
This equation is just the anomalous N=2 superconformal Ward identity for (abelian) N=2 vector multiplets, which was found in ref.  by ‘averaging’ the anomaly relation (2.9) with respect to the quantum effective action (2.10). A simple derivation of eq. (2.12) by using the N=2 supergravity compensators is discussed in sect. 4.

Equation (2.12) can be applied to a derivation of the Seiberg-Witten solution  provided that one knows the anomaly $`S`$ as the function of $`W`$, in the context of the N=2 SYM theory based on the gauge group $`SU(2)`$ spontaneously broken to $`U(1)`$. The original derivation  made use of the electric-magnetic duality and renormalization flow. Since the anomaly $`S`$ is N=2 chiral, gauge-invariant and of dimension two, its vacuum expectation value has to be proportional to the order parameter $`u=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{tr}W^2`$, with the coefficient being dictated by the one-loop beta-function $`\beta _1`$ — see eq. (2.9). A comparision with ref.  yields

$$c=2\pi i\beta _1.$$
$`(2.13)`$
To close eq. (2.12), as the equation on $``$, one needs a relation between $`a=W`$ and $`u`$. It was obtained in ref.  by using the modular invariance of $`u=u(a)`$, in the form of a non-linear differential equation,

$$(1u^2)u^{\prime \prime }+\frac{1}{4}au^{}{}_{}{}^{3}=0.$$
$`(2.14)`$
A connection to integrable systems arises after identifying the moduli space of the Coulomb branch in the Seiberg-Witten model with the moduli space of complex structures on an elliptic curve. The Seiberg-Witten solution then appears to be a classical solution to the equations of motion of a particular spin chain system , while the origin of the elliptic curve underlying the dynamics becomes apparent in this approach. 444The origin of the elliptic curve in the Seiberg-Witten exact solution is also explained by brane
technology in the context of M-theory . Generalizations to the larger gauge groups and the presence of N=2 matter are straightforward, in principle.

Our main goal, however, is to explore what can happen on the hypermultiplet side, at the level of the LEEA. Unlike the N=2 vector multiplets, the universal and most symmetric off-shell formulation of hypermultiplets is only possible in HSS, with the infinite number of the auxiliary fields.

## 3 Rigid N=2 superconformal symmetry in HSS

In the HSS approach  the standard N=2 superspace coordinates $`\{𝒵\}=(x^m,\theta _\alpha ^i,\overline{\theta }_j^\stackrel{_{{}_{}{}^{}}}{\alpha })`$ are extended by bosonic harmonics (or twistors) $`u^{\pm i}`$, $`i=1,2`$, belonging to the group $`SU(2)`$ and satisfying the unimodularity condition

$$u^{+i}u_i^{}=1,\overline{u^{i+}}=u_i^{}.$$
$`(3.1)`$
The hidden analyticity structure of the N=2 superspace constraints defining both N=2 vector multiplets and FS hypermultiplets, as well as their solutions in terms of unconstrained N=2 superfields, can be made manifest in HSS .

Instead of an explicit parametrization of the twistor sphere $`S^2=SU(2)/U(1)`$, the $`SU(2)`$-covariant HSS approach deals with the equivariant functions of harmonics, having the definite $`U(1)`$ charges defined by $`U(u_i^\pm )=\pm 1`$. The simple harmonic integration rules,

$$𝑑u=1\mathrm{and}𝑑uu^{+(i_1}\mathrm{}u^{+i_m}u^{j_1}\mathrm{}u^{j_n)}=0\mathrm{otherwise},$$
$`(3.2)`$
are similar to the (Berezin) integration rules in superspace. In particular, any harmonic integral over a $`U(1)`$-charged quantity vanishes. The harmonic covariant derivatives, preserving the defining equations (3.1) in the original (central) basis, are given by

$$^{++}=u^{+i}\frac{}{u^i},^{}=u^i\frac{}{u^{+i}},^0=u^{+i}\frac{}{u^{+i}}u^i\frac{}{u^i}.$$
$`(3.3)`$
They satisfy an $`su(2)`$ algebra and commute with the standard (flat) N=2 superspace covariant derivatives $`D_i^\alpha `$ and $`\overline{D}_\stackrel{_{{}_{}{}^{}}}{\alpha }^j`$. The operator $`^0`$ measures $`U(1)`$ charges.

The key feature of HSS is the existence of the analytic subspace parametrized by

$$(\zeta ^M;u)=\left\{\begin{array}{c}x_{\mathrm{analytic}}^{\alpha \stackrel{_{{}_{}{}^{}}}{\alpha }}=x^{\alpha \stackrel{_{{}_{}{}^{}}}{\alpha }}4i\theta ^{i\alpha }\overline{\theta }^{\stackrel{_{{}_{}{}^{}}}{\alpha }j}u_{(i}^+u_{j)}^{},\theta _\alpha ^+=\theta _\alpha ^iu_i^+,\overline{\theta }_\stackrel{_{{}_{}{}^{}}}{\alpha }^+=\overline{\theta }_\stackrel{_{{}_{}{}^{}}}{\alpha }^iu_i^+;u_i^\pm \end{array}\right\},$$
$`(3.4)`$
which is invariant under N=2 (rigid) supersymmetry :

$$\delta x_{\mathrm{analytic}}^{\alpha \stackrel{_{{}_{}{}^{}}}{\alpha }}=4i\left(\epsilon ^{i\alpha }\overline{\theta }^{\stackrel{_{{}_{}{}^{}}}{\alpha }+}+\theta ^{\alpha +}\overline{\epsilon }^{\stackrel{_{{}_{}{}^{}}}{\alpha }i}\right)u_i^{}4i\left(\epsilon ^\alpha \overline{\theta }^{\stackrel{_{{}_{}{}^{}}}{\alpha }+}+\theta ^{\alpha +}\overline{\epsilon }^\stackrel{_{{}_{}{}^{}}}{\alpha }\right),$$

$$\delta \theta _\alpha ^+=\epsilon _\alpha ^iu_i^+\epsilon _\alpha ^+,\delta \overline{\theta }_\stackrel{_{{}_{}{}^{}}}{\alpha }^+=\overline{\epsilon }_\stackrel{_{{}_{}{}^{}}}{\alpha }^iu_i^+\overline{\epsilon }_\stackrel{_{{}_{}{}^{}}}{\alpha }{}_{}{}^{+},\delta u_i^\pm =0.$$
$`(3.5)`$
The analytic dependence includes $`\theta _{\widehat{\alpha }}^+`$ but not $`\theta _{\widehat{\alpha }}^{}`$, where $`\widehat{\alpha }=(\alpha ,\stackrel{_{{}_{}{}^{}}}{\alpha })`$.

The usual complex conjugation does not preserve analyticity. However, it does, after being combined with another (star) conjugation that only acts on the $`U(1)`$ indices as $`(u_i^+)^{}=u_i^{}`$ and $`(u_i^{})^{}=u_i^+`$. One has $`\stackrel{}{\overline{u^{\pm i}}}=u_i^\pm `$ and $`\stackrel{}{\overline{u_i^\pm }}=u^{\pm i}`$.

Analytic superfields $`\varphi ^{(q)}(\zeta (𝒵,u),u)`$ of any positive (integral) $`U(1)`$ charge $`q`$ in HSS are defined by the off-shell constraints (cf. the definition of N=1 chiral superfields)

$$D_\alpha ^+\varphi ^{(q)}=\overline{D}_\stackrel{_{{}_{}{}^{}}}{\alpha }^+\varphi ^{(q)}=0,\mathrm{where}D_\alpha ^+=D_\alpha ^iu_i^+\mathrm{and}\overline{D}_\stackrel{_{{}_{}{}^{}}}{\alpha }^+=\overline{D}_\stackrel{_{{}_{}{}^{}}}{\alpha }^iu_i^+.$$
$`(3.6)`$
The analytic measure reads $`d\zeta ^{(4)}dud^4x_{\mathrm{analytic}}^md^2\theta ^+d^2\overline{\theta }^+du`$, and it is of $`U(1)`$ charge $`(4)`$. The covariant derivatives in the analytic basis (3.4) receive certain connection terms. For example, the harmonic derivative $`^{++}`$ in the analytic subspace is replaced by

$$D^{++}=^{++}4i\theta ^{\alpha +}\overline{\theta }^{\stackrel{_{{}_{}{}^{}}}{\alpha }+}\frac{}{x^{\alpha \stackrel{_{{}_{}{}^{}}}{\alpha }}}.$$
$`(3.7)`$
This derivative preserves analyticity and permits integration by parts. Similarly, one easily finds the $`U(1)`$ charge operator in the analytic subspace reads

$$D^0=u^{+i}\frac{}{u^{+i}}u^i\frac{}{u^i}+\theta ^{\alpha +}\frac{}{\theta ^{\alpha +}}+\overline{\theta }^{\stackrel{_{{}_{}{}^{}}}{\alpha }+}\frac{}{\overline{\theta }^{\stackrel{_{{}_{}{}^{}}}{\alpha }+}}.$$
$`(3.8)`$
In what follows we always use the analytic basis and the associated HSS covariant derivatives denoted by capital $`D`$, without making explicit references.

The use of harmonics also gives us control over the (linearly realised) $`SU(2)_R`$ symmetry (or its absence), in the context of manifest N=2 supersymmetry (see ref.  for more details). Since the translational and Lorentz symmetries, as well as N=2 supersymmetry, are manifestly realized in HSS, the latter provides us with the natural arena for a study of ‘truly’ N=2 superconformal symmetries on the top of N=2 non-conformal (rigid or Poincaré) supersymmetry.

The superfield transformation rules with respect to dilatations (with the infinitesimal parameter $`\rho `$) are dictated by conformal weights $`w`$ of the superfields, together with the weights of the N=2 superspace coordinates,

$$w[x]=1,w[\theta ]=w[\overline{\theta }]=\frac{1}{2},w[u]=0.$$
$`(3.9)`$
The non-trivial part of the N=2 superconformal transformations is given by $`SU(2)_{\mathrm{conf}.}`$ internal rotations with the parameters $`l^{ij}`$, special conformal transformations with the parameters $`k_{\alpha \stackrel{_{{}_{}{}^{}}}{\alpha }}`$, and N=2 special supersymmetry with the parameters $`\eta _\alpha ^i`$ and $`\overline{\eta }_i^\stackrel{_{{}_{}{}^{}}}{\alpha }`$.

The N=2 superconformal extension of the spacetime conformal transformations,

$$\delta x^{\alpha \stackrel{_{{}_{}{}^{}}}{\alpha }}=\rho x^{\alpha \stackrel{_{{}_{}{}^{}}}{\alpha }}+k_{\beta \stackrel{_{{}_{}{}^{}}}{\beta }}x^{\alpha \stackrel{_{{}_{}{}^{}}}{\beta }}x^{\beta \stackrel{_{{}_{}{}^{}}}{\alpha }},$$
$`(3.10)`$
is dictated by the requirement of preserving the unimodularity and analyticity conditions in eqs. (3.1) and (3.6), respectively. As regards the non-trivial part of the N=2 superconformal transformation laws, one finds

| $`\delta x^{\alpha \stackrel{_{{}_{}{}^{}}}{\alpha }}`$ | $`=4i\lambda ^{ij}u_i^{}u_j^{}\theta ^{\alpha +}\overline{\theta }^{\stackrel{_{{}_{}{}^{}}}{\alpha }+}+k_{\beta \stackrel{_{{}_{}{}^{}}}{\beta }}x^{\alpha \stackrel{_{{}_{}{}^{}}}{\beta }}x^{\beta \stackrel{_{{}_{}{}^{}}}{\alpha }}+4i\left(x^{\alpha \stackrel{_{{}_{}{}^{}}}{\beta }}\overline{\theta }^{\stackrel{_{{}_{}{}^{}}}{\alpha }+}\overline{\eta }_\stackrel{_{{}_{}{}^{}}}{\beta }^{}x^{\stackrel{_{{}_{}{}^{}}}{\alpha }\beta }\theta ^{\alpha +}\eta _\beta ^{}\right),`$ |
| --- | --- |
| $`\delta \theta ^{\alpha +}`$ | $`=\lambda ^{ij}u_i^+u_j^{}\theta ^{\alpha +}+k_{\beta \stackrel{_{{}_{}{}^{}}}{\beta }}x^{\alpha \stackrel{_{{}_{}{}^{}}}{\beta }}\theta ^{\beta +}2i(\theta ^{\beta +}\theta _\beta ^+)\eta ^\alpha +x^{\alpha \stackrel{_{{}_{}{}^{}}}{\beta }}\overline{\eta }_\stackrel{_{{}_{}{}^{}}}{\beta }^+,`$ |
| $`\delta \overline{\theta }^{\stackrel{_{{}_{}{}^{}}}{\alpha }+}`$ | $`=\stackrel{}{\overline{(\delta \theta ^{\alpha +})}},`$ |
| $`\delta u_i^+`$ | $`=\left[\lambda ^{kj}u_k^+u_j^++4ik_{\alpha \stackrel{_{{}_{}{}^{}}}{\alpha }}\theta ^{\alpha +}\overline{\theta }^{\stackrel{_{{}_{}{}^{}}}{\alpha }+}+4i\left(\theta ^{\alpha +}\eta _\alpha ^++\overline{\eta }_\stackrel{_{{}_{}{}^{}}}{\alpha }^+\overline{\theta }^{\stackrel{_{{}_{}{}^{}}}{\alpha }+}\right)\right]u_i^{},`$ |
| $`\delta u_i^{}`$ | $`=0.`$ |

$`(3.11)`$
Since the building blocks of invariant actions in HSS are given by the measure, analytic superfields and HSS covariant derivatives, only their transformation properties under the rigid ‘truly’ N=2 superconformal transformations are needed. It follows from eq. (3.11) that

$$\mathrm{Ber}\frac{(\zeta ^{},u^{})}{(\zeta ,u)}=12\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{or}\delta [d\zeta ^{(4)}du]=2\mathrm{\Lambda }[d\zeta ^{(4)}du],$$
$`(3.12)`$
where the HSS superfield parameter

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }=\left(\rho +k_{\alpha \stackrel{_{{}_{}{}^{}}}{\alpha }}x^{\alpha \stackrel{_{{}_{}{}^{}}}{\alpha }}\right)+\left(\lambda ^{ij}+4i\theta ^{\alpha i}\eta _\alpha ^j+4i\overline{\eta }_\stackrel{_{{}_{}{}^{}}}{\alpha }^j\overline{\theta }^{\stackrel{_{{}_{}{}^{}}}{\alpha }i}\right)u_i^+u_j^{}$$
$`(3.13)`$
has been introduced. Similarly, one easily finds that

$$(D^{++})^{}=D^{++}(D^{++}\mathrm{\Lambda })D^0\mathrm{and}(D^0)^{}=D^0.$$
$`(3.14)`$
The truly (rigid) N=2 superconformal infinitesimal parameters can, therefore, be encoded into the single scalar harmonic superfield $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ that is subject to the constraint

$$(D^{++})^2\mathrm{\Lambda }=0,$$
$`(3.15)`$
and the reality condition

$$\stackrel{}{\overline{(\mathrm{\Lambda }^{++})}}=\mathrm{\Lambda }^{++},\mathrm{where}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{++}D^{++}\mathrm{\Lambda }.$$
$`(3.16)`$
The transformations rules of the harmonics,

$$\delta u_i^+=\mathrm{\Lambda }^{++}u_i^{},\delta u_i^{}=0,$$
$`(3.17)`$
together with eqs. (3.12), (3.14), (3.15) and (3.16) yield the very simple and convenient description of rigid N=2 conformal supersymmetry (on the top of N=2 Poincaré supersymmetry) in N=2 HSS.

The special hyper-Kähler geometry of the N=2 (rigidly) superconformal NLSM in components was investigated in ref. . A general solution to the special hyper-Kähler geometry in HSS was described in our recent paper . We use the pseudo-real $`Sp(1)`$ notation for a Fayet-Sohnius (FS) hypermultiplet superfield,

$$q_a^+=(\stackrel{}{\overline{q}}{}_{}{}^{+},q^+),a=1,2,q^{a+}=\epsilon ^{ab}q_b^+,$$
$`(3.18)`$
which can be easily generalized to the case of several FS hypermultiplets, $`q^{a+}q^{A+}`$ and $`q_A^+=\mathrm{\Omega }_{AB}q^{B+}`$, with a constant (antisymmetric) $`Sp(k)`$-invariant metric $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{AB}`$, $`A,B=1,\mathrm{},2k`$.

First, we recall that the most general (rigidly) N=2 supersymmetric NLSM can be formulated in terms of the FS hypermultiplet superfields,

$$I_{\mathrm{NLSM}}[q]=\frac{1}{\kappa ^2}𝑑\zeta ^{(4)}𝑑u\left[\frac{1}{2}q_A^+D^{++}q^{A+}+𝒦^{(+4)}(q^{A+},u_i^\pm )\right],$$
$`(3.19)`$
where the real analytic function $`𝒦^{(+4)}=\stackrel{}{\overline{𝒦^{(+4)}}}`$ of $`U(1)`$ charge $`(+4)`$ is known as a hyper-Kähler (pre-)potential 555The HSS superfields $`q`$ are dimensionless. The dimensionality of the measure in the action (3.19)
is compensated by the coupling constant $`\kappa `$ of dimension of length. By manifest N=2 supersymmetry of the NLSM action (3.19), the NLSM metric must be hyper-Kähler for any choice of $`𝒦^{(+4)}`$. Unfortunately, an explicit general relation between a hyper-Kähler potential and the corresponding hyper-Kähler metric is not available (see, however, refs.  for the explicit hyper-Kähler potentials of (ALF) multi-Taub-NUT and Atiyah-Hitchin metrics, and their derivation from the NLSM (3.19) in HSS, and ref.  for a review or a general introduction into the supersymmetric NLSM).

Eq. (3.19) formally solves the hyper-Kähler constraints on the NLSM metric in terms of an arbitrary function $`𝒦^{(+4)}`$ that may be considered as the (analytic) hypermultilet counterpart to the (holomorphic) potential $``$ of abelian N=2 vector superfields in eq. (2.10). It is, therefore, natural to impose extra N=2 superconformal invariance on the action (3.19), in order to determine a general solution to the special hyper-Kähler geometry, since the free part of the action (3.19) is N=2 superconformally invariant . The FS superfields $`q^+`$ have conformal weight one, $`\delta q^+=\mathrm{\Lambda }q^+`$. Together with eqs. (3.12), (3.17) and (3.19) it implies two constraints :

$$\frac{𝒦^{(+4)}}{q^{A+}}q^{A+}=2𝒦^{(+4)}\mathrm{and}\frac{𝒦^{(+4)}}{u_i^+}=0.$$
$`(3.20)`$
This means that the special hyper-Kähler potentials are given by homogeneous (of degree two) functions $`𝒦^{(+4)}(q^{A+},u_i^{})`$ of $`q^{A+}`$. There is no restriction on the dependence of $`𝒦^{(+4)}`$ upon $`u_i^{}`$, though there should be no dependence upon $`u_i^+`$.

The HSS description of the N=2 superconformal hypermultiplet actions depending upon the FS superfields in terms of a homogeneous (degree 2) potential is thus formally the same as that of the N=2 superconformal (abelian) vector multiplet actions in the standard N=2 (chiral) superspace (sect. 2). However, the special Kähler geometry in the target space of the NLSM arising in the scalar sector of the N=2 superconformal action (2.10) is very different from the special hyper-Kähler geometry arising from the N=2 superconformal NLSM action (3.19) in components.

## 4 Ward identities and supergravity compensators

The best way of derivation of the superconformal anomaly relations is based on the use of the supergravity (SG) compensators . To compensate the unwanted (local) N=2 superconformal symmetries in N=2 conformal SG, one needs two compensators . This also implies the existence of two anomaly relations in the N=2 case (cf. sect. 2).

In the case of N=2 superfield SG, its most universal formulation is provided by HSS  — see Appendix for a short introduction and our notation. Having an N=2 matter action $`I`$ coupled to N=2 SG, one can naturally define an N=2 supercurrent $`𝒥`$ by a variation of the action $`I`$ with respect to the N=2 conformal SG potential $`𝒢`$,

$$𝒥=\frac{\delta I}{\delta 𝒢},$$
$`(4.1)`$
in the flat limit where all N=2 conformal SG fields vanish. The N=2 conformal SG potential $`𝒢`$ is defined by eq. (A.4), where it is introduced as the general N=2 harmonic real superfield, subject to the pre-gauge transformations (A.5) and the gauge transformations (A.7) whose linearized form reads

$$\delta 𝒢=D^{++}l^{}.$$
$`(4.2)`$
The N=2 superconformal anomalies are also naturally defined in HSS by variational derivatives of the N=2 matter action with respect to the N=2 SG compensators $`v_5^{++}(\zeta ,u)`$ and $`\omega (\zeta ,u)`$ ,

$$L^{++}=\frac{\delta I}{\delta v_5^{++}},$$
$`(4.3)`$
and

$$𝒯^{++++}=\frac{\delta I}{\delta \omega },$$
$`(4.4)`$
where $`v_5^{++}`$ is the real analytic gauge superfield, associated with the central charge and transforming under the (linearized) gauge transformations (A.13) as

$$\delta v_5^{++}=D^{++}\lambda _5,$$
$`(4.5)`$
whereas the analytic density $`\omega `$ transforms according to eq. (A.14) that implies (in the linearized approximation)

$$\delta \omega =D^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{++}=D^{}(D^+)^4l^{},$$
$`(4.6)`$
where we have used the last eq. (A.6). The HSS superfields, $`L^{++}`$ and $`𝒯^{(+4)}𝒯^{++++}`$, representing the N=2 superconformal anomalies, are analytic by their definition.

Given the N=2 matter action $`I`$ that is entirely formulated in the ordinary N=2 superspace without harmonics (it is certainly the case in the N=2 gauge sector, without FS hypermultiplets), one can make a connection to the standard N=2 anomaly relation (2.8). The invariance of the action $`I`$ with respect to the gauge transformations (4.2) obviously yields

$$D^{++}𝒥=0,$$
$`(4.7)`$
whereas the invariance of the same action with respect to the gauge transformations (4.5) implies

$$D^{++}L^{++}=0.$$
$`(4.8)`$
Equation (4.7) means that $`𝒥`$ is independent upon harmonics too, whereas eq. (4.8) implies that $`L^{++}=u_i^+u_j^+L^{ij}(x,\theta ,\overline{\theta })`$, where $`L^{ij}`$ satisfies the N=2 linear multiplet constraints (2.2) due to the analyticity of $`L^{++}`$. Finally, the invariance of the action $`I`$ with respect to the pre-gauge transformations (A.5) and (A.11) yields

$$\frac{i}{4}(D^+)^2𝒥=L^{++},$$
$`(4.9)`$
which is equivalent to eq. (2.8), as expected.

The HSS results about N=2 SG potentials and compensators imply the natural definitions of the latter in the ordinary N=2 superspace by linear relations,

$$G=𝑑u𝒢(\zeta ,u,\overline{\theta }^{})$$
$`(4.10)`$
and

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=𝑑u(\overline{D}^{})^2v_5^{++}(\zeta ,u).$$
$`(4.11)`$
The N=2 real superfield $`G(x,\theta ,\overline{\theta })`$ gives the N=2 conformal SG potential (cf. ref. ), whereas the abelian N=2 (restricted chiral) superfield strength squared, $`\mathrm{\Phi }^2`$, can serve as an N=2 (unrestricted) chiral density, i.e. as the N=2 chiral compensator (cf. ref. ). The anomaly relation (2.8) is then the direct consequence of the definitions

$$J=\frac{\delta I}{\delta G}\mathrm{and}S=\frac{\delta I}{\delta \mathrm{\Phi }^2}.$$
$`(4.12)`$
Having identified the compensator $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ with one of the (abelian) N=2 gauge superfield strengths, $`\mathrm{\Phi }=W_1`$, taking the N=2 gauge LEEA (2.10) to represent the N=2 matter action $`I`$ above results in the anomalous N=2 superconformal Ward identity (2.12). The second compensator decouples from the effective N=2 gauge matter action, so that it does not have any impact on its anomaly structure. The situation is just the opposite one in the case where the effective N=2 matter action represents a selfinteraction of FS hypermultiplets. The analytic compensator $`\omega `$ can be considered as a part (density) of the hypermultiplet matter, while the invariance of the most general N=2 matter action in HSS with respect to the gauge transformations (4.2) and (4.6) gives rise to the second anomaly relation in the form

$$D^{++}𝒥=D^{}𝒯^{(+4)}.$$
$`(4.13)`$
Being applied to the hypermultiplet LEEA $`I`$ in the form of the N=2 NLSM (3.19) in HSS, eq. (4.13) gives rise to the following anomalous N=2 superconformal Ward identity:

$$\underset{A}{}q^{A+}\frac{𝒦^{(+4)}}{q^{A+}}2𝒦^{(+4)}=𝒯^{(+4)}.$$
$`(4.14)`$
This is the key equation in our paper. A generic anomaly $`𝒯^{(+4)}(q,u)`$ is analytic, while it has to be invariant under the unbroken gauge symmetries, internal symmetries, and modular transformations, if any. The anomalous Ward identity (4.14) then gives us the equation on the hyper-Kähler potential $`𝒦^{(+4)}`$ of the effective N=2 NLSM (LEEA).

## 5 Examples

To ‘close’ the anomalous N=2 superconformal Ward identity (4.14), as the equation on the effective hyper-Kähler potential $`𝒦(q,u)`$, one has to know the anomaly $`𝒯`$ as a function of $`(q,u)`$ explicitly. In the absence of a general solution for the anomaly (at least, we are unaware ot it), it is worthy to discuss some examples. The non-anomalous symmetries play the major rôle in determining the form of the anomaly $`𝒯(q,u)`$.

The crucial simplification arises when the $`SU(2)_R`$ automorphisms of N=2 supersymmetry algebra are not broken (together with the N=2 supersymmetry that we always assume). Since the $`SU(2)_R`$ transformations are linearly realised in HSS, the R-invariance of the hypermultilet LEEA amounts to the independence of the anomaly $`𝒯`$ (and, hence, of the hyper-Kähler potential $`𝒦`$) upon harmonics. Since both have $`U(1)`$ charge $`(+4)`$, the most general (analytic) invariant ‘Ansatz’ is given by a real quartic polynomial of the analytic FS superfields $`q^{A+}`$ ,

$$𝒯^{(+4)}(q)𝒦^{(+4)}(q)=\lambda _{ABCD}q^{A+}q^{B+}q^{C+}q^{D+},$$
$`(5.1)`$
whose coefficients $`\lambda _{(ABCD)}`$ are totally symmetric, being subject to the reality condition, $`\stackrel{}{\overline{𝒦}}{}_{}{}^{(+4)}=𝒦^{(+4)}`$. Not all of the coefficients in eq. (5.1) are really significant since the FS kinetic terms in eq. (3.19) have the manifest global $`Sp(n)`$ symmetry. It may be not accidental that this $`Sp(n)`$ symmetry coincides with the maximal $`Sp(n)`$ holonomy group of the hyper-Kähler manifolds in $`4n`$ real dimensions.

In the case of a single FS hypermultiplet, eq. (5.1) is simplified to

$$𝒯^{(+4)}𝒦^{(+4)}=\frac{\lambda }{2}(\stackrel{}{\overline{q}}{}_{}{}^{+})^2(q^+)^2+[\gamma \stackrel{}{\overline{(q^+)}}{}_{}{}^{4}+\beta \stackrel{}{\overline{(q^+)}}{}_{}{}^{3}q_{}^{+}+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.]$$
$`(5.2)`$
with one real $`(\lambda )`$ and two complex $`(\beta ,\gamma )`$ parameters. The $`Sp(1)`$ transformations of $`q_a^+`$ leave the form of eq. (5.2) invariant, but not its coefficients, which can be used to reduce the number of coupling constants in the family of the hyper-Kähler metrics described by the hyper-Kähler potential (5.2) from five to two. In addition, eq. (5.2) implies the (on-shell) conservation laws

$$D^{++}𝒦^{(+4)}=D^{++}𝒯^{(+4)}=0,$$
$`(5.3)`$
which are valid on the equations of motion of the hypermultiplet (FS) superfield,

$$D^{++}\stackrel{}{\overline{q}}{}_{}{}^{+}=𝒦^{(+4)}/q^+\mathrm{and}D^{++}q^+=𝒦^{(+4)}/\stackrel{}{\overline{q}}{}_{}{}^{+}.$$
$`(5.4)`$
To understand the physical significance of eq. (5.2), it is instructive to consider first a simpler case, by assuming the additional (translational) $`U(1)_T`$ symmetry that acts on the complex superfields $`(q^+,\stackrel{}{\overline{q}}{}_{}{}^{+})`$ by phase rotations (with a constant parameter $`\alpha `$),

$$q^+e^{i\alpha }\theta ^+,\stackrel{}{\overline{q}}{}_{}{}^{+}e^{i\alpha }\stackrel{}{\overline{q}}{}_{}{}^{+},$$
$`(5.5)`$
but does not move the hyper-Kähler structure in the target space of the N=2 NLSM (3.19). It happens, e.g., in the N=2 supersymmetric QED with a single charged hypermultiplet, or in the Coulomb branch of the Seiberg-Witten model . In geometrical terms, the $`U(1)_T`$ symmetry amounts to the existence of a tri-holomorphic (translational) isometry in the N=2 NLSM target space. It is worth mentioning that the $`SU(2)_R`$ isometries are not tri-holomorphic but rotational: they rotate three independent complex structures in the N=2 NLSM hyper-Kähler target space. Given the $`SU(2)_R\times U(1)_T`$ isometry of the N=2 NLSM target space, it must be the symmetry of the NLSM hyper-Kähler potential, which implies further restrictions in eq. (5.2). The unique, $`SU(2)_R\times U(1)_T`$ invariant, hyper-Kähler potential is obviously given by

$$𝒦_{\mathrm{Taub}\mathrm{NUT}}^{(+4)}=\frac{\lambda }{2}\left(\stackrel{}{\overline{q}}{}_{}{}^{+}q_{}^{+}\right)^2,$$
$`(5.6)`$
while it is known as the hyper-Kähler potential of the Taub-NUT metric with the mass parameter $`M=\frac{1}{2}\lambda ^{1/2}`$ .

The induced coupling constant $`\lambda `$ in the one-loop approximation is determined by the HSS graph depictured in Fig. 1. As was shown in ref. , this graph does lead to the non-vanishing anomalous contribution having the form (5.6), provided that the matter hypermultiplet has a non-vanishing central charge. The wave lines in Fig. 1 denote the analytic propagators of the N=2 (abelian) vector superfields $`V^{++}`$ (in N=2 supersymmetric Feynman gauge) ,

$$iV^{++}(1)V^{++}(2)=\frac{1}{\mathrm{}_1}(D_1^+)^4\delta ^{12}(𝒵_1𝒵_2)\delta ^{(2,2)}(u_1,u_2),$$
$`(5.7)`$
where $`\delta ^{(2,2)}(u_1,u_2)`$ stands for the harmonic delta-function . The hypermultiplet analytic propagators (the solid lines in Fig. 1) with non-vanishing central charges are given by

$$iq^+(1)q^+(2)=\frac{1}{\mathrm{}_1+m^2}\frac{(D_1^+)^4(D_2^+)^4}{(u_1^+u_2^+)^3}e^{\tau _3[v(2)v(1)]}\delta ^{12}(𝒵_1𝒵_2),$$
$`(5.8)`$
where the ‘bridge’ $`v`$ satisfies an equation $`𝒟_Z^{++}e^v=0`$, and $`m^2=\left|Z\right|^2`$ stands for the hypermultiplet (BPS) mass. We find

$$\lambda =\frac{g^4}{\pi ^2}\left[\frac{1}{m^2}\mathrm{ln}\left(1+\frac{m^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}\right)\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2+m^2}\right],$$
$`(5.9)`$
where the gauge coupling constant $`g`$ and the IR-cutoff $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ have been introduced. It is not difficult to check that $`\lambda 0`$ only if $`Z0`$. The naive ‘non-renormalization theorem’ usually forbids the quantum corrections given by the integrals over a subspace of the full N=2 superspace, like the one in eq. (3.19). However, this ‘theorem’ does not apply here, because of the non-vanishing central charges that give rise to the explicit dependence of the superpropagators (5.8) upon the N=2 superspace Grassmann (anticommuting) coordinates via the bridges $`v(\theta ,\overline{\theta })`$ that are responsible for the N=2 superconformal anomaly.

The more general $`SU(2)_R`$-invariant anomaly (5.2) cannot be generated in N=2 perturbation theory, but it can be generated non-perturbatively, due to instanton contributions . Of course, in an abelian N=2 supersymmetric field theory no instantons exist. This means that the N=2 perturbative anomaly described by the Taub-NUT metric is exact in the abelian case. If, however, the underlying N=2 supersymmetric quantum field theory has a non-abelian gauge group of rank larger than one (say, $`SU(3)`$), then one may expect the nonperturbative contributions to the hypermultiplet LEEA (in the Higgs branch) from instantons and anti-instantons that break the $`U(1)_T`$ symmetry. The on-shell relations (5.3) imply that in this case both the anomaly $`𝒯^{(+4)}`$ and the hyper-Kähler potential $`𝒦^{(+4)}`$ can be expressed in terms of a real analytic superfield $`T^{++++}`$ satisfying the constraints

$$D^{++}T^{++++}=0\mathrm{and}\stackrel{}{\overline{T}}{}_{}{}^{++++}=T^{++++},$$
$`(5.10)`$
which are the same as the off-shell constraints (2.6) defining an $`O(4)`$ projective superfield $`T^{ijkl}`$, in the ordinary N=2 superspace, $`T^{++++}(\zeta ,u)=u_i^+u_j^+u_k^+u_l^+T^{ijkl}(x,\theta ,\overline{\theta })`$. Unlike the $`O(2)`$ tensor multiplet defined by eq. (2.2), the $`O(4)`$ multiplet does not have a conserved vector amongst its field components. Hence, the $`U(1)`$ isometry, if any, in the N=2 NLSM to be constructed in terms of $`T^{++++}`$, is no longer tri-holomorphic (or translational). The Taub-NUT NLSM (5.6) arises in the limit $`T^{++++}(L^{++})^2`$.

The two-parametric family of the hyper-Kähler potentials (5.2) describes the (hyper-Kähler and $`SU(2)_R`$-invariant) deformations of the Atiyah-Hitchin (AH) metric . The N=2 (projective) superspace description of the AH metric in terms of an $`O(4)`$ projective supermultiplet (2.6) was found in ref. . The AH metric is known to be the only regular metric in the family . The ‘difference’ between the AH and Taub-NUT metrics, being considered as the metrics in the quantum moduli space of an N=2 gauge theory (in the region where quantum perturbation theory applies), can be interpreted as the (exponentially small) instanton contributions . Similar remarks are valid in the more general case (5.1) .

Another simple example of the N=2 superconformal anomaly, which is still under control, is possible in the case of the unbroken $`U(1)_T`$ symmetry (5.5). It implies that the function $`𝒯^{(+4)}(q^+,\stackrel{}{\overline{q}}{}_{}{}^{+};u)`$ be a function of the invariant product $`(q^+\stackrel{}{\overline{q}}{}_{}{}^{+})`$ and harmonics $`u_i^{}`$ only. The most general ‘Ansatz’ reads

$$𝒯^{(+4)}(q^+\stackrel{}{\overline{q}}{}_{}{}^{+};u)=\underset{l=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\xi ^{(2l)}\frac{(\stackrel{}{\overline{q}}{}_{}{}^{+}q_{}^{+})^{l+2}}{l+2},$$
$`(5.11)`$
whose harmonic-dependent ‘coefficients’ $`\xi ^{(2l)}`$ are given by

$$\xi ^{(2l)}=\xi ^{(i_1\mathrm{}i_{2l})}u_{i_1}^{}\mathrm{}u_{i_{2l}}^{},l=1,2,\mathrm{},$$
$`(5.12)`$
and obey the reality condition

$$\stackrel{}{\overline{\xi }}{}_{}{}^{(2l)}=(1)^l\xi ^{(2l)}.$$
$`(5.13)`$
The associated solution to eq. (4.14) takes the similar form (5.11), while it appears to be the hyper-Kähler potential describing the multi-Taub-NUT metrics . The multi-Taub-NUT metrics are known to describe static configurations of several (BPS) monopoles . This is not surprising from the viewpoint of the brane engineering of the effective N=2 supersymmetric gauge field theories in M-theory , where the N=2 field theory hypermultiplets are associated with (parallel) D6-branes whose configurations in M-theory are just described by the multi-Taub-NUT metrics .

The brane technology/M-theory also suggest a possibility of yet another generalization, by adding a (parallel) orientifold $`O6^{}`$ to the D6-branes . In geometrical terms, this means replacing the $`U(1)_T`$ translational isometry by a rotational $`U(1)_R`$ isometry in the N=2 NLSM target space. Though the associated N=2 NLSM in HSS were recently constructed in terms of an $`O(4)`$ projective superfield , we are unaware about their explicit reformulation in terms of the FS superfields. We conjecture that this should give rise to the $`D_k`$ series of the asymptotically locally flat (self-dual) metrics in the four-dimensional target space of N=2 NLSM.

## 6 Conclusion

In the preceeding section we gave a few non-trivial examples of the N=2 superconformal anomaly $`𝒯^{(+4)}`$ that saturates the hyper-Kähler potential of the effective hypermultilet LEEA given by an N=2 NLSM. To get more (non-perturbative) solutions to our main eq. (4.14), it may be better to find first the organizing principle behind all those solutions. In the Seiberg-Witten case (2.12), it was the underlying Riemann surface or an integrable system. It is natural to expect a similar hidden curve behind the hypermultiplet LEEA too . The $`SU(2)_R`$-invariant effective NLSM metrics in our examples (sect. 5) coincide with the standard metrics in the (BPS) monopole moduli space of the classical $`SU(2)`$-Yang-Mills-Higgs system, with magnetic charge $`n=1`$ (Taub-NUT) or $`n=2`$ (Atiyah-Hitchin). In the N=2 NLSM, whose target space metric is given by the monopole moduli space metric of higher magnetic charge $`n>2`$, the $`SU(2)_R`$ symmetry is necessarily broken . As was shown in ref. , a BPS monopole of magnetic charge $`n>1`$ can always be described by the spectral curve (Riemann surface) of genus $`(n1)^2`$. It is therefore, conceivable that more general solutions to the anomalous N=2 superconformal Ward identity (4.14) are also encoded in terms of the spectral curve, like the Seiberg-Witten-type solutions to eq. (2.12). After a dimensional reduction to three spacetime dimensions, our results support the conjectured mirror symmetry between the Coulomb and Higgs branches .

Quantum breaking of conformal symmetry in a (classically) superconformal field theory is related to the appearance of dynamically generated scales. The superconformal compensators can be naturally interpreted as the superfield extensions of the scale parameters. From this physical point of view, the (first) N=2 chiral compensator is apparently related to the N=2 superfield extension of the renormalization scale squared, whereas the second N=2 compensator appears to be the N=2 superfield extension of the induced N=2 NLSM coupling constant that is (roughly) proportional to the inverse central charge squared (sect. 5). It would be interesting to understand better the physical significance of the second N=2 compensator from the viewpoint of the underlying (non-abelian) N=2 gauge theory and brane technology.

## Acknowledgements

I am indebted to L. Alvarez-Gaumé, J. Ambjorn, S. Cherkis, S. Gates Jr., A. Gorsky and E. Ivanov for useful discussions. I am also grateful to Niels Bohr Institute in Copenhagen for hospitality extended to me during the completion of this work.

## Appendix: N=2 supergravity in HSS

All (rigid) N=2 supersymmetric field theories can be naturally defined in HSS, in terms of unconstrained analytic superfields, with manifest N=2 supersymmetry . N=2 matter (FS) hypermultiplets are described by complex analytic superfields $`q^+`$ of $`U(1)`$ charge $`+1`$, whereas their coupling to N=2 super-Yang-Mills fields is described via the (Lie algebra-valued) extension of the FS hypermultiplet kinetic operator $`D^{++}`$ by a gauge connection $`V^{++}`$, so that the new gauge-covariant operator $`𝒟^{++}=D^{++}+V^{++}`$ preserves analyticity. The rigid N=2 superconformal transformations also preserve the analytic subspace of flat N=2 HSS (sect. 3), so it is natural to define N=2 conformal supergravity (SG) in HSS along the similar lines : by preserving analyticity (of N=2 matter & gauge fields), the analytic conjugation (= the product of usual complex conjugation and Weyl reflection of the sphere $`S^2`$), and unimodularity (of harmonics). In this Appendix we briefly review the HSS formulation of N=2 SG along the lines of ref.  — see refs.  for more details.

Let $`\{\zeta ^M,u,\theta ^{\widehat{\alpha }}\}`$ be the coordinates of the full N=2 HSS in the analytic basis, $`\widehat{\alpha }=(\alpha ,\stackrel{_{{}_{}{}^{}}}{\alpha })`$. The conformal N=2 SG transformations are naturally defined in HSS as the analyticity-preserving diffeomorphisms ,

| $`\delta \zeta ^M=`$ | $`\lambda ^M(\zeta ,u),`$ |
| --- | --- |
| $`\delta u^{i+}=`$ | $`\lambda ^{++}(\zeta ,u)u^i,\delta u^i=0,`$ |
| $`\delta \theta ^{\widehat{\alpha }}=`$ | $`\lambda ^{\widehat{\alpha }}(\zeta ,u,\theta ^{}).`$ |

$`(A.1)`$
Accordingly, the covariant derivative $`𝒟^{++}`$ in N=2 conformal SG can be put into the form

$$𝒟^{++}=D^{++}+H^{M++}D_M+H^{(+4)}D^{}+H^{\widehat{\alpha }+}D_{\widehat{\alpha }}^+,$$
$`(A.2)`$
where the SG vielbeine $`(H^{M++},H^{(+4)}H^{++++},H^{\widehat{\alpha }+})`$ have been introduced in front of the flat N=2 HSS covariant derivatives $`D_M=(_{\alpha \stackrel{_{{}_{}{}^{}}}{\alpha }},D_{\widehat{\alpha }}^{})`$, $`D^{}`$ and $`D_{\widehat{\alpha }}^+`$. The N=2 conformal SG parameters (A.1) can be similarly organized into the one-forms

$$\lambda =\mathrm{\Lambda }^MD_M+\mathrm{\Lambda }^{++}D^{}\mathrm{and}\rho =\rho ^{\widehat{\alpha }}D_{\widehat{\alpha }}^+.$$
$`(A.3)`$
Since the SG derivative $`𝒟^{++}`$ is supposed to preserve analyticity, $`D_{\widehat{\alpha }}^+𝒟^{++}\mathrm{\Phi }^{(+p)}=0`$, of the analytic superfield $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{(+p)}`$ of a positive $`U(1)`$ charge $`p`$, $`D_{\widehat{\alpha }}^+\mathrm{\Phi }^{(+p)}=0`$, the vielbeine of eq. (A.2) have to obey certain linear constraints, whose solution is given by

$$H^{\alpha \stackrel{_{{}_{}{}^{}}}{\alpha }++}=iD^{\alpha +}\overline{D}^{\stackrel{_{{}_{}{}^{}}}{\alpha }+}𝒢,H^{\alpha +++}=\frac{1}{8}D^{\alpha +}(\overline{D}^+)^2𝒢,H^{(+4)}=(D^+)^4𝒢,$$
$`(A.4)`$
where $`(D^+)^4=\frac{1}{16}(D^+)^2(\overline{D}^+)^2`$, and the real unconstrained (general HSS superfield) N=2 SG pre-potential $`𝒢(\zeta ,u,\theta ^{})`$ is subject to the pre-gauge transformations

$$\delta 𝒢=\frac{1}{4}(D^+)^2\mathrm{\Omega }^{}+\frac{1}{4}(\overline{D}^+)^2\stackrel{}{\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}}^{}$$
$`(A.5)`$
with the complex unconstrained HSS parameter $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}(\zeta ,u,\theta ^{})`$. Accordingly, the gauge HSS superfield parameters $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }^M,\mathrm{\Lambda }^{++})`$ are to be expressed in terms of a single real unconstrained HSS superfield $`l^{}(\zeta ,u,\theta ^{})`$ ,

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\alpha \stackrel{_{{}_{}{}^{}}}{\alpha }}=iD^{\alpha +}\overline{D}^{\stackrel{_{{}_{}{}^{}}}{\alpha }+}l^{},\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\alpha +}=\frac{1}{8}D^{\alpha +}(\overline{D}^+)^2l^{},\mathrm{\Lambda }^{++}=(D^+)^4l^{}.$$
$`(A.6)`$
It is easy to see that $`H^{\widehat{\alpha }+}`$ is pure gauge, so that we can simply ignore it, $`H^{\widehat{\alpha }+}=0`$. Then the transformation law of $`𝒢`$ under the remaining gauge transformations with the parameters $`(\lambda ,l^{})`$ is given by a simple formula,

$$\delta 𝒢=\lambda 𝒢+𝒟^{++}l^{}.$$
$`(A.7)`$
In the absence of superconformal anomalies, there exist a (WZ-type) gauge, where the HSS superfield $`𝒢`$ is independent upon harmonics, being subject to the constraints

$$D_{ij}𝒢(x,\theta ,\overline{\theta })=\overline{D}_{ij}𝒢(x,\theta ,\overline{\theta })=0.$$
$`(A.8)`$
This equation coincides with eq. (2.7) defining the N=2 conformal supercurrent, so that the independent field components of $`𝒢`$ (in the WZ gauge) are in one-to-one correspondence with the field content of the off-shell N=2 conformal SG, as it should.

To construct N=2 matter and gauge couplings in N=2 Poincaré (non-conformal or Einstein) SG, one has to compensate ‘truly’ N=2 superconformal gauge transformations, namely, dilatations, special conformal transformations, $`U(1)`$ chiral and $`SU(2)_{\mathrm{conf}.}`$ rotations, and N=2 special supersymmetry . Some of them are compensated by a real analytic gauge superfield $`V_5^{++}(\zeta ,u)`$ as the first compensator, subject to abelian gauge transformations in HSS,

$$\delta V_5^{++}=𝒟^{++}\mathrm{\Lambda }_5,$$
$`(A.9)`$
with the real analytic parameter $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_5(\zeta ,u)`$. In the context of gauging the N=2 supersymmetry algebra, the $`V_5^{++}`$ superfield is associated with the central charge generator $`\widehat{Z}`$. Though the N=2 conformal SG itself has the vanishing central charge, N=2 matter hypermultiplets may have non-vanishing central charges. It is natural to incorporate the central charge generator into the HSS covariant derivatives by redefining $`𝒟^{++}`$ to $`𝒟_Z^{++}=𝒟^{++}+V_5^{++}\widehat{Z}`$, etc. At the component level the N=2 supermultiplet $`V_5^{++}`$ (in a WZ gauge) adds extra $`8_B+8_F`$ off-shell (field) degrees of freedom to the N=2 Weyl multiplet, thus forming together the so-called minimal off-shell N=2 SG multiplet with $`32_B+32_F`$ field components .

The extended HSS covariant derivative $`𝒟_Z^{++}`$ also has to preserve analyticity, which implies a linear constraint on $`V_5^{++}`$. A solution to the constraint reads

$$V_5^{++}=\frac{i}{4}(D^+)^2𝒢\frac{i}{4}(\overline{D}^+)^2𝒢+v_5^{++},$$
$`(A.10)`$
where $`v_5^{++}`$ is real analytic. The pre-gauge transformations (A.5) are to be appended by

$$\delta v_5^{++}=i(D^+)^4(\mathrm{\Omega }^{}\stackrel{}{\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}}{}_{}{}^{}).$$
$`(A.11)`$
The related restrictions on the HSS parameter $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_5`$ in eq. (A.9) are

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_5=\frac{i}{4}(D^+)^2l^{}\frac{i}{4}(\overline{D}^+)^2l^{}+\lambda _5,$$
$`(A.12)`$
where $`\lambda _5`$ is real analytic. One easily finds

$$\delta v_5^{++}=\lambda v_5^{++}+𝒟^{++}\lambda _5.$$
$`(A.13)`$
To compensate the remaining unwanted gauge symmetries (e.g., $`SU(2)_{\mathrm{conf}.}`$), one needs a second compensator that may have either a finite or the infinite number of the auxiliary field components. The three minimal formulations of N=2 Poincaré SG, each having $`40_B+40_F`$ off-shell (field) degrees of freedom, were described in ref. . Unfortunately, all of them impose some restrictions on allowed N=2 matter couplings, which makes them of limited use in the context of generic N=2 NLSM. The most universal choice is given by a real analytic compensator $`\omega `$ that compensates the N=2 local supersymmetry transformations of the analytic measure,

$$\omega ^{}(\zeta ^{},u^{})=Ber^1\left(\frac{(\zeta ^{},u^{})}{(\zeta ,u)}\right)\omega (\zeta ,u).$$
$`(A.14)`$
It allows one to accommodate any N=2 NLSM in N=2 SG via the ‘covariantization’ of the (rigid) N=2 NLSM action in HSS, by using the invariant analytic measure $`d\zeta ^{(4)}du\omega `$. It is the absence of an analytic density that is responsible for the restricted N=2 matter couplings in the more conventional formulations of N=2 SG . Coupling to N=2 SG deformes hyper-Kähler geometry of the N=2 NLSM target space into quaternionic geometry . The actions of quaternionic NLSM coupled to N=2 SG in HSS were recently investigated in ref. , where the density $`\omega `$ was constructed in terms of a FS hypermultiplet superfield $`q^+`$ as $`\omega (u_a^{}q^{a+})^2`$. When going in the opposite direction, a rigidly N=2 superconformal (special hyper-Kähler) NLSM arises from the quaternionic one after putting all the N=2 conformal SG fields to zero, $`𝒢=0`$, together with the vanishing Maxwell multiplet, $`v_5^{++}=0`$, and $`\omega =1`$.