format: text

text:
# Theorem 0.1

## Introduction

Herein we study two families of noncommutative deformations of the Hopf fibration $`S^3S^2`$. The first one is based on the idea of local triviality. We can view $`S^2`$ as the gluing of two discs along their boundaries, and $`S^3`$ as the gluing of two solid tori along their boundaries (a Heegaard splitting of $`S^3`$). Then the classical discs can be replaced by Klimek-Lesniewski quantum discs , and subsequently a two-parameter family of noncommutative Hopf fibrations can be constructed . The other family originates from the theory of quantum groups. First, one considers $`S^3`$ as $`SU(2)`$ and deforms it into the quantum group $`SU_q(2)`$ . Then the classification of $`SU_q(2)`$-quantum homogeneous spaces yields a two-parameter family of noncommutative two-spheres . The latter form the base of the Hopf fibrations of $`SU_q(2)`$ .

Function algebras of total spaces of principal $`U(1)`$-bundles always decompose into direct sums of sections of all associated line bundles. The same phenomenon occurs for both of the aforementioned deformations, i.e., the coordinate algebras $`𝒪(S_{pq}^3)`$ and $`𝒪(SU_q(2))`$ are direct sums of associated finitely generated projective modules. The aim of this paper is to prove that these modules are mutually non-isomorphic.

To achieve this, we take an advantage of the K-homology Chern character  and the Chern-Galois character . The former produces cyclic cocycles out of bounded representations of the base algebra, and the latter cyclic cycles out of finite dimensional corepresentations of the structure coalgebra that define associated modules. The evaluation of these cocycles on these cycles gives $`K_0`$-invariants of the modules. The noncommutative index formula  shows that these invariants are indices of Fredholm operators, so that they have to be integers. This fact is essentially used in carrying out the computations.

Throughout this paper we work with unital algebras over a field (complex numbers in the studied examples) and adopt the standard Hopf-algebraic notation $`m,\mathrm{\Delta },\epsilon ,S`$ for the multiplication, comultiplication, counit and antipode, respectively. The symbolic notation $`𝒪(\text{quantum space})`$ means a polynomial algebra defined by generators and relations, and $`\mathrm{Tr}`$ stands for the operator trace.

## 1 Principal extensions and summable Fredholm modules

Let $`C`$ be a coalgebra and $`P`$ an algebra and a right $`C`$-comodule via $`\mathrm{\Delta }_R:PPC`$. Put $`B=P^{coC}:=\{bP|\mathrm{\Delta }_R(bp)=b\mathrm{\Delta }_R(p),pP\}.`$ We say that the inclusion $`BP`$ is a $`C`$-extension. A $`C`$-extension $`BP`$ is called principal  iff

1. the Galois map $`P_BP\stackrel{can}{}PC,pp^{}p\mathrm{\Delta }_R(p^{})`$ is bijective;
2. there exists a left $`B`$-linear right $`C`$-colinear splitting of the multiplication map $`BPP`$;
3. the canonical entwining map $`CP\stackrel{\psi }{}PC`$, $`cpcan(can^1(1c)p)`$ is bijective;
4. there is a group-like $`eC`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_R(p)=\psi (ep)`$, $`pP`$.

In order to define a strong connection on a principal extension, first we need to define a bicomodule structure on $`PP`$. The tensor product $`PP`$ is a right $`C`$-comodule via $`\mathrm{\Delta }_R^{}:=\text{id}\mathrm{\Delta }_R`$. Since $`\psi `$ is bijective, it is also a left $`C`$-comodule via $`\mathrm{\Delta }_L^{}:=(\psi ^1(\text{id}e))\text{id}`$. The two coactions evidently commute. Now, let $`\pi _B:PPP_BP`$ be the canonical surjection. A linear map $`\mathrm{}:CPP`$ is called a strong connection  iff it satisfies $`can\pi _B\mathrm{}=1\text{id}`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_R^{}\mathrm{}=(\mathrm{}\text{id})\mathrm{\Delta }`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_L^{}\mathrm{}=(\text{id}\mathrm{})\mathrm{\Delta }`$, and $`\mathrm{}(e)=11`$. If $`BP`$ is a principal $`C`$-extension and $`\phi :V_\phi V_\phi C`$ is a finite dimensional corepresentation, then the left $`B`$-module $`\text{Hom}^C(V_\phi ,P)`$ of all colinear maps from $`V_\phi `$ to $`P`$ is finitely generated projective . Denote by $`\text{Corep}_f(C)`$ the space of all finite-dimensional corepresentations of $`C`$. Then a principal $`C`$-extension $`BP`$ yields a map $`\phi [\text{Hom}^C(V_\phi ,P)]`$ from $`\text{Corep}_f(C)`$ to $`K_0(B)`$. The composition of this map with the Chern character $`K_0(B)HC_{even}(B)`$ (e.g., see ) is called the Chern-Galois character  and is denoted by $`chg`$. Explicitly, in degree 0, we have $`chg_0(\phi )=[c_\phi ^{<2>}c_\phi ^{<1>}]`$. Here $`c_\phi `$ is the character of $`\phi `$, i.e., $`c_\phi =_{i=1}^{dimV}e_{ii}`$, $`\phi (e_j)=_{i=1}^{dimV}e_ie_{ij}`$, $`\{e_i\}`$ a basis of $`V_\phi `$, and $`\mathrm{}(c)=:c^{<1>}c^{<2>}`$ (summation understood).

Let us now recall the analytic tool of Fredholm modules that are used in the sequel. A $`p`$-summable Fredholm module over a $``$-algebra $`B`$ can be viewed as a pair $`(\rho _1,\rho _2)`$ of bounded $``$-representations of $`B`$ such that $`\mathrm{Tr}|\rho _1(b)\rho _2(b)|^p<\mathrm{}`$ for all $`bB`$ (see \[6, p.88\] for related details). The $`K`$-homology Chern character assigns to finitely summable Fredholm modules cyclic cocycles . For $`p=1`$ it takes a particularly simple form, notably it turns $`(\rho _1,\rho _2)`$ into a trace (cyclic 0-cocycle) on $`B`$ via the formula $`\mathrm{tr}_\rho (b)=\mathrm{Tr}(\rho _1(b)\rho _2(b))`$.

## 2 A locally trivial quantum Hopf bundle

Let us consider the two-parameter family  of $``$-algebras $`𝒪(S_{pq}^3)`$, $`0p,q1`$, generated by $`a`$ and $`b`$ satisfying $`a^{}aqaa^{}=1q,b^{}bpbb^{}=1p,ab=ba,a^{}b=ba^{},(1aa^{})(1bb^{})=0.`$ The $``$-subalgebra of $`𝒪(S_{pq}^3)`$ generated by $`ab`$ and $`bb^{}`$ can be identified with the $``$-algebra $`𝒪(S_{pq}^2)`$ generated by $`f_0`$ and $`f_1`$ satisfying  $`f_0=f_0^{},f_1^{}f_1qf_1f_1^{}=(pq)f_0+1p,f_0f_1pf_1f_0=(1p)f_1,(1f_0)(f_1f_1^{}f_0)=0.`$ The isomorphism is given by $`f_0bb^{}`$ and $`f_1ab`$. It follows from \[8, Lemma 4.2\] that $`𝒪(S_{pq}^2)𝒪(S_{pq}^3)`$ is a principal $`𝒪(U(1))`$-extension. Moreover, we have

###### Lemma  2.1 ()

Let $`u`$ be the unitary generator of $`𝒪(U(1))`$. The linear map $`\mathrm{}:𝒪(U(1))𝒪(S_{pq}^3)𝒪(S_{pq}^3)`$ given on the basis elements $`u^\mu `$, $`\mu `$, by the formulas

$$\mathrm{}(1)=11,\mathrm{}(u)=a^{}a+qb(1aa^{})b^{},\mathrm{}(u^{})=b^{}b+pa(1bb^{})a^{},$$
(2.1)
$$\mathrm{}(u^\mu )=u^{[1]}\mathrm{}(u^{\mu 1})u^{[2]},\mathrm{}(u^\mu )=u^{[1]}\mathrm{}(u^{(\mu 1)})u^{[2]},\mu >0,$$
(2.2)
defines a strong connection on $`𝒪(S_{pq}^2)𝒪(S_{pq}^3)`$.

The one-dimensional corepresentations of $`𝒪(U(1))`$ are labelled by integers. Explicitly, we have $`\phi _\mu (1)=1u^\mu `$. Each $`\phi _\mu `$ yields a finitely generated projective $`𝒪(S_{pq}^2)`$-module (quantum line bundle) $`𝒪(S_{pq}^3)_\mu :=\text{Hom}^{𝒪(U(1))}(_{\phi _\mu },𝒪(S_{pq}^3))`$. On the other hand, we have the following irreducible bounded $``$-representations of $`𝒪(S_{pq}^2)`$ \[4, Proposition 19\]:

$`\rho _1(f_0)e_k=(1p^k)e_k,\rho _1(f_1)e_k=\sqrt{1p^{k+1}}e_{k+1},k0;`$ (2.3)
$`\rho _2(f_0)e_k=e_k,\rho _2(f_1)e_k=\sqrt{1q^{k+1}}e_{k+1},k0.`$ (2.4)
Here $`\{e_k\}_{k0}`$ is an orthonormal basis of a separable Hilbert space. Moreover, we have

###### Lemma  2.2

The pair of representations $`(\rho _2,\rho _1)`$ given by (2.3)–(2.4) yields a 1-summable Fredholm module over $`𝒪(S_{pq}^2)`$, so that $`\mathrm{tr}_\rho (f):=\mathrm{Tr}(\rho _2(f)\rho _1(f))`$ defines a trace on $`𝒪(S_{pq}^2)`$.

###### Theorem  2.3

For all $`\mu `$, the pairing between the cyclic 0-cocycle $`\mathrm{tr}_\rho `$ and the $`K_0`$-class of $`𝒪(S_{pq}^3)_\mu `$ (Chern number) coincides with the winding number $`\mu `$, i.e., $`\mathrm{tr}_\rho ,[𝒪(S_{pq}^3)_\mu ]=\mu .`$

Proof outline: The pairing of cyclic cohomology and $`K`$-theory is given by the evaluation of a cyclic cocycle on the image of the Chern character. In our case (see Section 1) it gives $`\mathrm{tr}_\rho ,[𝒪(S_{pq}^3)_\mu ]=\mathrm{tr}_\rho (chg_0(\phi _\mu ))=\mathrm{tr}_\rho ((u^\mu )^{<2>}(u^\mu )^{<1>}).`$ The last expression can be computed explicitly as a function of $`p`$ or $`q`$, depending on whether $`\mu `$ is positive or negative. Surprisingly, these functions can be identified with a certain expression appearing in the index computation carried out in . Since the latter is proven therein to be the constant $`\mu `$, the assertion of the theorem follows. $`\mathrm{}`$

The trace $`\mathrm{tr}_\rho `$ computes the Chern numbers of $`𝒪(S_{pq}^3)_\mu `$. In order to determine the rank of these modules, we can employ any character of $`𝒪(S_{pq}^3)`$. Indeed, let $`\delta `$ be an algebra homomorphism from $`𝒪(S_{pq}^3)`$ to $``$. (See  for the classification of irreducible representations of $`𝒪(S_{pq}^3)`$, including one-dimensional ones.) Then $`\delta ,[𝒪(S_{pq}^3)_\mu ]=\delta ((u^\mu )^{<2>}(u^\mu )^{<1>})=\delta ((u^\mu )^{<1>}(u^\mu )^{<2>})=\epsilon (u^\mu )=1.`$ The last two equalities follow from the general properties $`m\mathrm{}=\epsilon `$ (see ) and $`\epsilon (\text{group-like})=1`$, respectively. The characters always pair integrally with $`K_0`$ (e.g., see ). On the other hand, as $`\mathrm{tr}_\rho `$ comes from a 1-summable Fredholm module, its pairing with $`K_0`$ is an index of a Fredholm operator \[6, p.60\], whence also an integer. Therefore, it follows from the linearity of the pairing that we have a group homomorphism $`(\delta ,\mathrm{tr}_\rho ):K_0(𝒪(S_{pq}^2)),[p](\delta ,[p],\mathrm{tr}_\rho ,[p]).`$ The point here is that for any $`\mu `$ there exists a rank one projective module with its Chern number equal to $`\mu `$. More formally, we have

###### Corollary  2.4

The image of the positive cone of $`K_0(𝒪(S_{pq}^2))`$ under $`(\delta ,\mathrm{tr}_\rho ):K_0(𝒪(S_{pq}^2))\times `$ contains $`_+\times `$.

## 3 Hopf fibrations of $`𝑺𝑼_𝒒\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}`$ over generic Podleś spheres

In this section, we work with the Hopf $``$-algebra $`𝒪(SU_q(2))`$, $`q]0,1[`$, generated by elements $`\alpha `$ and $`\gamma `$ satisfying  $`\alpha \gamma =q\gamma \alpha ,\alpha \gamma ^{}=q\gamma ^{}\alpha ,\gamma \gamma ^{}=\gamma ^{}\gamma ,\alpha ^{}\alpha +\gamma ^{}\gamma =1,\alpha \alpha ^{}+q^2\gamma \gamma ^{}=1,`$ and with the Podleś spheres . A uniform description of all Podleś spheres can be obtained by rescaling generators used in . Then the coordinate $``$-algebras of the quantum spheres $`S_{q,s}^2`$, $`s[0,1]`$, are defined by generators $`K`$ and $`L`$ satisfying the relations $`K=K^{},LK=q^2KL,L^{}L+K^2=(1s^2)K+s^2,LL^{}+q^4K^2=(1s^2)q^2K+s^2.`$ We can view $`𝒪(S_{q,s}^2)`$ as a subalgebra of $`𝒪(SU_q(2))`$ via the formulas $`K=s(\gamma \alpha +\alpha ^{}\gamma ^{})+(1s^2)\gamma ^{}\gamma ,L=s(\alpha ^2q\gamma _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})+(1s^2)\alpha \gamma ^{}.`$ Next, let us define the quotient coalgebra $`𝒪(SU_q(2))/J_s`$, where $`J_s`$ is the coideal right ideal generated by $`K`$, $`Ls`$, $`L^{}s`$. One can show that it coincides with $`𝒪(U(1))`$ viewed as a coalgebra, and that $`𝒪(S_{q,s}^2)=𝒪(SU_q(2))^{co𝒪(SU_q(2))/J_s}`$ . Moreover, one can prove that $`𝒪(S_{q,s}^2)𝒪(SU_q(2))`$ is a principal $`𝒪(SU_q(2))/J_s`$-extension . With the help of , the latter follows from an explicit construction of a strong connection:

###### Lemma  3.1 ()

Let $`i:𝒪(U(1))𝒪(SU_q(2))`$ be the linear map defined on the basis elements $`u^\mu `$, $`\mu `$, by the formulas

$$i(u^\mu ):=\{\begin{array}{cc}_{j=0}^{\mu 1}h_j& \hfill \text{for }\mu <0\\ 1& \hfill \text{for }\mu =0\\ _{j=0}^{\mu 1}k_j& \hfill \text{for }\mu >0,\end{array}\text{(products increase from left to right)}$$
(3.1)
$$h_j:=\frac{\alpha +q^js(\gamma q\gamma ^{})+q^{2j}s^2\alpha ^{}}{1+q^{2j}s^2},k_j:=\frac{\alpha ^{}q^js(\gamma q\gamma ^{})+q^{2j}s^2\alpha }{1+q^{2j}s^2}.$$
(3.2)
Then $`\mathrm{}=(S\text{id})\mathrm{\Delta }i`$ is a strong connection on $`𝒪(S_{q,s}^2)𝒪(SU_q(2))`$.

Much as before, we associate to every corepresentation $`\phi _\mu `$ a finitely generated projective left $`𝒪(S_{q,s}^2)`$-module $`𝒪(SU_q(2))_{\mu ,s}:=\text{Hom}^{𝒪(SU_q(2))/J_s}(_{\phi _\mu },𝒪(SU_q(2)))`$. On the other hand, using the representations

$$\pi _{}(K)e_n=s^2q^{2n}e_n,\pi _{}(L)e_n=\lambda _n^{}(q,s)e_{n1},\lambda _n^{}(q,s)=s\sqrt{1(1s^2)q^{2n}s^2q^{4n}}$$
(3.3)
$$\pi _+(K)e_n=q^{2n}e_n,\pi _+(L)e_n=\lambda _n^+(q,s)e_{n1},\lambda _n^+(q,s)=\sqrt{s^2+(1s^2)q^{2n}q^{4n}},$$
(3.4)
one can prove

###### Lemma  3.2 ()

For any $`q]0,1[,s[0,1]`$, the pair of representations $`(\pi _{},\pi _+)`$ yields a 1-summable Fredholm module over $`𝒪(S_{q,s}^2)`$, so that $`\mathrm{tr}_\pi :=\mathrm{Tr}(\pi _{}\pi _+)`$ is a trace on $`𝒪(S_{q,s}^2)`$.

###### Theorem  3.3

For all $`\mu `$, the pairing between the cyclic 0-cocycle $`\mathrm{tr}_\pi `$ and the $`K_0`$-class of $`𝒪(SU_q(2))_{\mu ,s}`$ (Chern number) coincides with the winding number $`\mu `$, i.e., $`\mathrm{tr}_\pi ,[𝒪(SU_q(2))_{\mu ,s}]=\mu .`$

Proof outline: The proof rests on the following three facts: $`\mathrm{tr}_\pi ,[𝒪(SU_q(2))_{\mu ,s}]`$ is a rational function of $`q`$ and $`s`$, it is an integer, and $`\mathrm{tr}_\pi ,[𝒪(SU_q(2))_{\mu ,s}](q,0)=\mu `$. The first claim can be proven with the help of the Chern-Galois character , the second follows from the noncommutative index formula \[6, p.60\], and the third has been obtained in \[7, Theorem 2.1\]. Since an integer-valued rational function on a connected set has to be constant, we can conclude that $`\mathrm{tr}_\pi ,[𝒪(SU_q(2))_{\mu ,s}](q,s)=\mathrm{tr}_\pi ,[𝒪(SU_q(2))_{\mu ,s}](q,0)=\mu `$. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Corollary  3.4

The image of the positive cone of $`K_0(𝒪(S_{q,s}^2))`$ under $`(\epsilon ,\mathrm{tr}_\pi ):K_0(𝒪(S_{q,s}^2))\times `$ contains $`_+\times `$. (Here $`\epsilon `$ is the counit of $`𝒪(SU_q(2))`$.)

Acknowledgements. This work has been partially supported by a Marie Curie Fellowship HPMF-CT-2000-00523 (P.M.H.), Universität Leipzig (P.M.H., W.S.), Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (R.M.), Research Grants Committee of the University of Newcastle and Max-Planck-Institut für Mathematik Leipzig (W.S.). All three authors are grateful to Mathematisches Forschungsinstitut Oberwolfach for support via its Research in Pairs programme.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

In supersymmetric (SUSY) theories, there are important states called BPS states . They preserve part of the supersymmetry of the theory and play a crucial role in quantum field theories. One of the simplest example of BPS states is a BPS domain wall. In particular, BPS domain walls in four-dimensional (4D) $`𝒩=1`$ SUSY theories have been thoroughly investigated in a number of papers because such theories are tractable and have various types of BPS walls with interesting features .

Besides that BPS domain walls are an intriguing subject to research in their own rights, they are also important in the brane-world scenario  because they can provide a natural realization of 5D $`𝒩=1`$ SUSY (eight supercharges) to 4D $`𝒩=1`$ SUSY (four supercharges), which is relevant to the phenomenology. Of course, since our world is four-dimensional, we should discuss a domain wall in 5D theories for the realistic model-building. However, 5D SUSY theory is quite restrictive and difficult to handle. So it is useful and instructive to study BPS walls in 4D $`𝒩=1`$ theories as a toy model. In this paper, we will concentrate ourselves on BPS walls in the 4D $`𝒩=1`$ generalized Wess-Zumino model for simplicity. To discuss the physics in the BPS-wall background, it is useful to investigate a low-energy effective theory on the wall. Since a BPS wall preserves a half of the bulk SUSY, such an effective theory can be expressed by 3D superfields. There are mainly two approaches to derive the effective theory described by 3D superfields.

The first one is the nonlinear realization approach . From the 3D viewpoint, SUSY breaking by a BPS wall can be regarded as the partial SUSY breaking from 3D $`𝒩=2`$ to $`𝒩=1`$. Thus, we can obtain the effective theory on the wall by constructing an invariant action under the broken SUSY, which is realized nonlinearly. This approach is useful for the discussion of the general properties of BPS supermembranes since this method uses only information on the breaking pattern of the symmetries. This also means, however, that we cannot determine parameters of the effective theory in this approach.

The second one is the mode-expansion approach . In this approach, the 3D effective theory is directly derived from the original 4D theory. Specifically, we expand the fluctuation fields around the wall-background into an infinite number of 3D superfields, and integrating out the heavy modes. In this approach, we can see explicitly how the 3D superfields in the effective theory are embedded into the original 4D superfields. Unlike the previous approach, parameters of the effective theory are obtained as the overlap integrals of the background field configuration and the mode functions. However, this approach does not respect the symmetries broken by the wall.

These two approaches are complementary to each other. So it is useful and instructive to clarify the relation between them. This is the purpose of this paper. Specifically, we will propose the modification of the naive mode-expansion of the bulk superfields so that the broken SUSY is nonlinearly realized on each mode. Using our modified mode-expansion, we can obtain an invariant effective action under the broken SUSY, and can also calculate parameters of the effective theory. In the latter part of this paper, we try to modify the mode-expansion further so that it also respects the Lorentz and $`U(1)_R`$ symmetries broken by the wall.

The paper is organized as follows. In the next section, we will provide a brief review of the nonlinear realization approach. In Sec.3, we will review our previous work  where a naive mode-expansion is discussed. Then, in Sec.4, we will modify it so that the broken SUSY is nonlinearly realized on each mode. In Sec.5, we will discuss the further modification of the mode-expansion which also respects the broken Lorentz and $`U(1)_R`$ symmetries. Sec.6 is devoted to the summary and the discussion. Notations and some formulae are listed in the appendices.

## 2 Review of the nonlinear realization approach

In this section, we will briefly review the nonlinear realization approach to construct an effective action for the supermembrane . Throughout this paper, we will assume that the background space-time is flat and has a 4D $`𝒩=1`$ supersymmetry.

From the 3D viewpoint, the 4D $`𝒩=1`$ SUSY algebra is a central extended $`𝒩=2`$ SUSY algebra.

$`\{Q_{1\alpha },Q_{1\beta }\}`$ $`=`$ $`\{Q_{2\alpha },Q_{2\beta }\}=2(\gamma _{(3)}^m\sigma ^2)_{\alpha \beta }P_m,`$
$`\{Q_{1\alpha },Q_{2\beta }\}`$ $`=`$ $`\{Q_{2\alpha },Q_{1\beta }\}=2i(\sigma ^2)_{\alpha \beta }P_2,`$ (1)
where $`m=0,1,3`$ denotes the 3D space-time index, and $`\alpha ,\beta `$ denote the 3D Majorana spinor indices111 In this paper, we will choose the $`x_2`$-direction to be perpendicular to the membrane or the domain wall. .

The existence of the BPS membrane breaks the bulk symmetry $`G=\{P_m,P_2,Q_{1\alpha },Q_{2\alpha }\}`$ to the vacuum stability subgroup $`H=\{P_m,Q_{2\alpha }\}`$. Then, a coset element $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ can be parameterized as

$$\mathrm{\Omega }=e^{ix^mP_m+\theta _2Q_2}e^{i\kappa \rho _0P_2+\kappa \zeta _0Q_1}.$$
(2)
Here $`\rho _0=\rho _0(x^m,\theta _2)`$ and $`\zeta _{0\alpha }=\zeta _{0\alpha }(x^m,\theta _2)`$ are scalar and spinor superfields corresponding to the Nambu-Goldstone (NG) modes for $`P_2`$ and $`Q_{1\alpha }`$ respectively, and $`\kappa `$ is a constant222 The mass scale $`f\kappa ^{2/3}`$ corresponds to the scale where $`P_2`$ and $`Q_1`$ are broken, and $`f^3=\kappa ^2`$ is a tension of the membrane. whose mass-dimension is $`3/2`$.

The transformation laws of each superfield for the broken symmetries can be read off as follows by multiplying $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ by corresponding group elements from the left.

$`\delta _a^{P_2}\rho _0`$ $`=`$ $`a,`$
$`\delta _a^{P_2}\zeta _{0\alpha }`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _a^{P_2}\varphi =0,`$ (3)
$`\delta _{\xi _1}^{Q_1}\rho _0`$ $`=`$ $`2\kappa ^1\xi _1\theta _2i\kappa \xi _1\gamma _{(3)}^m\zeta _0_m\rho _0,`$
$`\delta _{\xi _1}^{Q_1}\zeta _{0\alpha }`$ $`=`$ $`\kappa ^1\xi _{1\alpha }i\kappa \xi _1\gamma _{(3)}^m\zeta _0_m\zeta _{0\alpha },`$
$`\delta _{\xi _1}^{Q_1}\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`i\kappa \xi _1\gamma _{(3)}^m\zeta _0_m\varphi ,`$ (4)
where $`a`$ and $`\xi _{1\alpha }`$ are transformation parameters, and $`\varphi `$ denotes a matter superfield. Indeed, the above transformations satisfy the SUSY algebra (1). In this paper, we will call the above transformation laws for the broken symmetries the standard non-linear transformations.

Note that the NG superfields $`\rho _0`$ and $`\zeta _0`$ introduced by Eq.(2) are not independent of each other, because the NG modes for $`P_2`$ and $`Q_1`$ form a supermultiplet for the unbroken $`Q_2`$-SUSY. The relation between them can be obtained by setting a covariant constraint (inverse Higgs effect ),

$$𝒟_{2\alpha }\rho _0=0,$$
(5)
where $`𝒟_{2\alpha }`$ is a covariant spinor derivative in the presence of the NG superfields, and its explicit form is listed in Eq.(84) in Appendix A.1. From this constraint, we can express $`\zeta _{0\alpha }`$ in terms of $`\rho _0`$.

$$\zeta _{0\alpha }=\frac{1}{2}D_{2\alpha }\rho _0+𝒪(\kappa ^2).$$
(6)
Namely, the essential NG superfield is $`\rho _0(x^m,\theta _2)`$ only.

By using $`\rho _0`$, we can construct a 3D $`𝒩=2`$ invariant action perturbatively for $`\kappa `$ by the standard procedure of the nonlinear realization .

For an invariant action for the NG modes $`S_{\mathrm{NG}}`$, there is an alternative method to derive the effective action for all orders in $`\kappa `$ . We will explain this method in the following.

Let us introduce a scalar NG superfield $`\phi _0(x^m,\theta _2)`$. As will be shown, $`\phi _0`$ coincides with $`\rho _0`$ at the lowest order in $`\kappa `$. Then, define a spinor superfield $`\psi _{0\alpha }(x^m,\theta _2)`$ as

$$\psi _{0\alpha }\frac{1}{2}D_{2\alpha }\phi _0.$$
(7)
This means that $`\psi _0`$ satisfies the following constraint.

$$D_2^2\psi _{0\alpha }=2i(\gamma _{(3)}^m_m\psi _0)_\alpha .$$
(8)
Noticing that $`\psi _{0\alpha }`$ is the NG superfield for $`Q_1`$, we can write its $`Q_1`$-transformation law which preserves the constraint (8) and satisfies the SUSY algebra (1) as

$$\delta _{\xi _1}^{Q_1}\psi _{0\alpha }=\kappa ^1\xi _{1\alpha }+\frac{\kappa }{4}\xi _{1\alpha }D_2^2\mathrm{\Xi }\frac{i\kappa }{2}(\gamma _{(3)}^m\xi _1)_\alpha _m\mathrm{\Xi }.$$
(9)
Here $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ is a scalar superfield and transforms under the $`Q_1`$ transformation as

$$\delta _{\xi _1}^{Q_1}\mathrm{\Xi }=2\kappa ^1\xi _1\psi _0=\kappa ^1\xi _1D_2\phi _0.$$
(10)
From Eqs.(9) and (10), we can see that $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ satisfies the following recursive equation.

$$\mathrm{\Xi }=\frac{\psi _0^2}{1+\frac{\kappa ^2}{4}D_2^2\mathrm{\Xi }}.$$
(11)
This equation can be solved and the solution is

$$\mathrm{\Xi }=\frac{2\psi _0^2}{1+\sqrt{1+\kappa ^2D_2^2(\psi _0^2)}}.$$
(12)
From the transformation law (10), we can see that

$$S_{\mathrm{NG}}=\mathrm{d}^3x\mathrm{d}^2\theta _2\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}\mathrm{\Xi }$$
(13)
is $`Q_1`$-invariant. So this is a good candidate for the effective action of the NG modes. The right-hand-side of Eq.(13) is expanded by $`\kappa `$ as

$$S_{\mathrm{NG}}=\mathrm{d}^3x\mathrm{d}^2\theta _2\left\{\frac{1}{2}(D_2\phi _0)^2+𝒪(\kappa ^2)\right\}.$$
(14)
This certainly is an action for a massless superfield. Actually, after eliminating the auxiliary field of $`\phi _0`$, the bosonic part of $`S_{\mathrm{NG}}`$ becomes the Nambu-Goto action in the static gauge. (See Appendix B.)

Now we define the quantity

$$E\frac{1}{1+\frac{\kappa ^2}{4}D_2^2\mathrm{\Xi }}.$$
(15)
Then the relation between $`\psi _{0\alpha }`$ and $`\zeta _{0\alpha }`$ can be written by

$$\zeta _{0\alpha }=\frac{\psi _{0\alpha }}{E}.$$
(16)
In fact, we can easily show that the right-hand-side of this equation transforms as $`\zeta _{0\alpha }`$ in Eq.(4) under the $`Q_1`$-SUSY.

From Eq.(16), we can see that

$$\psi _{0\alpha }=\zeta _{0\alpha }+𝒪(\kappa ^2).$$
(17)
This means that

$$\phi _0=\rho _0+𝒪(\kappa ^2),$$
(18)
as mentioned before.

Using $`E`$ defined by Eq.(15), an invariant action for a matter field $`\varphi `$ can be written in the form of

$$S_{\mathrm{matter}}=\mathrm{d}^3x\mathrm{d}^2\theta _2E(\varphi ,𝒟_{2\alpha }\varphi ,𝒟_m\varphi ,\mathrm{}),$$
(19)
where $``$ is a 3D Lorentz invariant function of $`\varphi `$ and its covariant derivatives.

From Eqs.(7) and (9), we can read off the $`Q_1`$-transformation law of $`\phi _0`$ as

$$\delta _{\xi _1}^{Q_1}\phi _0=2\kappa ^1\xi _1\theta _2+\kappa \xi _1D_2\mathrm{\Xi }.$$
(20)
If we define a complex scalar superfield

$$\varphi _0\kappa \phi _0+i\kappa ^2\mathrm{\Xi },$$
(21)
Eqs.(10) and (20) are collectively written as333 By using $`\varphi _0`$, we can construct a linear realization for partial SUSY breaking: 3D $`𝒩=2𝒩=1`$ .

$$\delta _{\xi _1}^{Q_1}\varphi _0=2\xi _1\theta _2i\xi _1D_2\varphi _0.$$
(22)
The $`P_2`$-transformation law of $`\varphi _0`$ can be defined as

$$\delta _a^{P_2}\varphi _0=a.$$
(23)
Eqs.(22) and (23) form the SUSY algebra (1).

## 3 Mode-expansion approach

Now we will discuss the mode-expansion approach to obtain the effective action on the BPS wall. Here we will consider the 4D $`𝒩=1`$ generalized Wess-Zumino model as a bulk theory. The action is

$$S=\mathrm{d}^4x\mathrm{d}^2\theta \mathrm{d}^2\overline{\theta }K(\mathrm{\Phi },\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }})+\mathrm{d}^4x\mathrm{d}^2\theta W(\mathrm{\Phi })+\mathrm{d}^4x\mathrm{d}^2\overline{\theta }\overline{W}(\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}),$$
(24)
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }^i`$ ($`\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{\overline{i}}`$) are (anti-) chiral superfields and

$$\mathrm{\Phi }^i(y,\theta )=A^i(y)+\sqrt{2}\theta \mathrm{\Psi }^i(y)+\theta ^2F^i(y).(y^\mu x^\mu +i\theta \sigma ^\mu \overline{\theta })$$
(25)
We assume that this theory has a BPS domain wall $`A^i=A_{\mathrm{cl}}^i(x_2)`$. The classical solution $`A_{\mathrm{cl}}^i(x_2)`$ satisfies the following BPS equation.

$$_2A^i=e^{i\delta }K^{i\overline{j}}\overline{W}_{\overline{j}},$$
(26)
where $`_2/x_2`$, and $`K^{i\overline{j}}`$ is an inverse matrix of the Kähler metric $`K_{i\overline{j}}^2K/\mathrm{\Phi }^i\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{\overline{j}}`$. Lower indices denote derivatives in terms of corresponding superfields. $`\delta `$ is a phase determined by $`A_{\mathrm{cl}}^i`$,

$$\delta \mathrm{arg}\left(_\mathrm{\Gamma }dW\right),$$
(27)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is an orbit for $`A_{\mathrm{cl}}^i(x_2)`$ on the target space of the scalar field.

Now we decompose the Grassmannian coordinates $`\theta `$ and $`\overline{\theta }`$ as

$$\theta ^\alpha =\frac{e^{i\delta /2}}{\sqrt{2}}(\theta _1^\alpha +i\theta _2^\alpha ),\overline{\theta }^{\dot{\alpha }}=\frac{e^{i\delta /2}}{\sqrt{2}}(\theta _1^\alpha i\theta _2^\alpha ),$$
(28)
where $`\theta _i^\alpha `$ ($`i=1,2`$) are 3D Majorana spinors, and corresponding to this, we decompose the supercharges as

$$Q_\alpha =\frac{e^{i\delta /2}}{\sqrt{2}}(Q_{1\alpha }iQ_{2\alpha }),\overline{Q}_{\dot{\alpha }}=(Q_\alpha )^{}=\frac{e^{i\delta /2}}{\sqrt{2}}(Q_{1\alpha }+iQ_{2\alpha }).$$
(29)
Then it follows that

$$\theta Q+\overline{\theta }\overline{Q}=\theta _1Q_1+\theta _2Q_2.$$
(30)
In this case, $`Q_1`$ and $`Q_2`$ correspond to the broken and the unbroken supercharges, respectively. Under the decomposition (29), the 4D $`𝒩=1`$ SUSY algebra is rewritten as Eq.(1).

After performing the integration in terms of $`\theta _1`$, the original action (24) becomes

$$S=\mathrm{d}^3x\mathrm{d}^2\theta _2dx_2\left\{K_{i\overline{j}}D_2^\alpha \phi ^iD_{2\alpha }\overline{\phi }^{\overline{j}}2iK_i_2\phi ^i+4\mathrm{I}\mathrm{m}\left(e^{i\delta }W(\phi )\right)\right\}.$$
(31)
Here

$$\phi ^i(x^m,x_2,\theta _2)e^{ix^mP_m+ix_2P_2+\theta _2Q_2}\times A^i(0),$$
(32)
where the definition of the action of the generators on the fields $`\times `$ is given in Appendix A.2, and its relation to the 4D chiral superfield $`\mathrm{\Phi }^i`$ is

$$\mathrm{\Phi }^i(x^m,x_2+\theta _1\theta _2,\theta _1,\theta _2)=e^{i\theta _1D_2+i\theta _1^2_2}\phi ^i(x^m,x_2,\theta _2).$$
(33)
Using $`\phi ^i`$, we can rewrite the superfield equations of motion

$$\frac{1}{4}D^2K_i+W_i=0,$$
(34)
as

$$\frac{i}{2}\left\{K_{i\overline{j}}D_2^2\overline{\phi }^{\overline{j}}+K_{i\overline{j}\overline{k}}D_2^\alpha \overline{\phi }^{\overline{j}}D_{2\alpha }\overline{\phi }^{\overline{k}}\right\}K_{i\overline{j}}_2\phi ^{\overline{j}}+e^{i\delta }W_i=0.$$
(35)
Then, the equations of motion for the fluctuation field $`\stackrel{~}{\phi }^i`$ around the background $`\phi _{\mathrm{cl}}^i=A_{\mathrm{cl}}^i(x_2)`$ can be obtained by substituting $`\phi ^i=\phi _{\mathrm{cl}}^i+\stackrel{~}{\phi }^i`$ into Eq.(35). Using the BPS equation (26), it can be written as

$$\frac{1}{2}K_{i\overline{j}}(A_{\mathrm{cl}})D_2^2\overline{\stackrel{~}{\phi }}^{\overline{j}}+i\left\{𝒟_y\overline{\stackrel{~}{\phi }}_ie^{i\delta }𝒟_iW_j(A_{\mathrm{cl}})\stackrel{~}{\phi }^j\right\}+\mathrm{}=0,$$
(36)
where the ellipsis denotes higher terms for $`\stackrel{~}{\phi }`$, and

$$\overline{\stackrel{~}{\phi }}_iK_{i\overline{j}}(A_{\mathrm{cl}})\overline{\stackrel{~}{\phi }}^{\overline{j}},𝒟_y\overline{\stackrel{~}{\phi }}_i_2\overline{\stackrel{~}{\phi }}_i\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^k(A_{\mathrm{cl}})_2A_{\mathrm{cl}}^j\overline{\stackrel{~}{\phi }}_k,𝒟_iW_jW_{ij}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^kW_k.$$
(37)
Here $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^kK^{k\overline{l}}K_{ij\overline{l}}`$ is a connection on the Kähler manifold.

From Eq.(36), we can find the mode equation,

$$i\left\{𝒟_y\overline{u}_{(n)i}e^{i\delta }𝒟_iW_j(A_{\mathrm{cl}})u_{(n)}^j\right\}=m_{(n)}\overline{u}_{(n)i},$$
(38)
where $`\overline{u}_{(n)i}K_{i\overline{j}}(A_{\mathrm{cl}})\overline{u}_{(n)}^{\overline{j}}`$.

Using the mode function $`u_{(n)}^i(x_2)`$, we can expand the 4D field $`\phi ^i`$ as

$$\phi ^i(x^m,x_2,\theta _2)=A_{\mathrm{cl}}^i(x_2)+\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}u_{(n)}^i(x_2)\phi _{(n)}(x^m,\theta _2).$$
(39)
Here we have chosen the normalization of $`u_{(n)}^i(x_2)`$ as444 We have assumed eigenvalues $`m_{(n)}`$ to be real. See Appendix C in Ref..

$$dx_2\mathrm{Re}\left\{\overline{u}_{(n)i}(x_2)u_{(m)}^i(x_2)\right\}=\delta _{nm}.$$
(40)
By substituting Eq.(39) into Eq.(31) and performing the $`x_2`$-integration, the original 4D action (24) can be rewritten in terms of infinite 3D superfields as follows.

$$S=\mathrm{d}^3x\mathrm{d}^2\theta _2\left[\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left\{\frac{1}{2}(D_2\phi _{(n)})^2+m_{(n)}\phi _{(n)}^2\right\}+(\text{interaction terms})\right].$$
(41)
Finally, by integrating out the heavy modes, we can derive the low-energy effective action on the domain wall.

## 4 Modified mode-expansion

### 4.1 Nambu-Goldstone mode

In the expression (41), the $`Q_2`$-SUSY is manifest since it is written in terms of superfields for the $`Q_2`$-SUSY. However, the nonlinear $`Q_1`$-SUSY is not unclear. In fact, the $`Q_1`$-transformation of each mode $`\phi _{(n)}`$ defined by the mode-expansion (39) does not close on $`\phi _{(n)}`$.

Considering Eq.(39) and the $`Q_1`$-transformation of the 4D field $`\phi ^i`$, which is derived in Appendix C, we can extract the $`Q_1`$-transformation law of $`\phi _{(n)}`$ as follows.

$$\delta _{\xi _1}^{Q_1}\phi _{(n)}=2\kappa ^1\xi _1\theta _2\delta _{n,0}2\xi _1\theta _2\underset{m}{}U_{nm}\phi _{(m)}+\underset{m}{}V_{nm}\xi _1D_2\phi _{(m)},$$
(42)
where

$`\kappa ^2`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle dx_2\left\{K_{i\overline{j}}(A_{\mathrm{cl}})_2A_{\mathrm{cl}}^i_2\overline{A}_{\mathrm{cl}}^{\overline{j}}+K^{i\overline{j}}(A_{\mathrm{cl}})W_i(A_{\mathrm{cl}})\overline{W}_{\overline{j}}(\overline{A}_{\mathrm{cl}})\right\}}`$ (43)
$`=`$ $`2{\displaystyle dx_2K_{i\overline{j}}(A_{\mathrm{cl}})_2A_{\mathrm{cl}}^i_2\overline{A}_{\mathrm{cl}}^{\overline{j}}}`$
is the tension of the domain wall, and

$`U_{nm}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle dx_2\mathrm{Re}\left\{\overline{u}_{(n)i}_2u_{(m)}^i\right\}},`$
$`V_{nm}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle dx_2\mathrm{Im}\left\{\overline{u}_{(n)i}u_{(m)}^i\right\}}.`$ (44)
Here we have used the fact that

$$\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}u_{(0)}^i(x_2)=\kappa _2A_{\mathrm{cl}}^i(x_2).$$
(45)
We can derive the $`P_2`$-transformation law of $`\phi _{(n)}`$ in a similar way.

$$\delta _a^{P_2}\phi _{(n)}=a\left(\kappa ^1\delta _{n,0}+\underset{m}{}U_{nm}\phi _{(m)}\right).$$
(46)
As mentioned above, either transformation (42) or (46) does not close on each $`\phi _{(n)}`$.

Next, we will modify the mode-expansion (39) so that the broken symmetries $`Q_1`$ and $`P_2`$ are nonlinearly realized on each mode. Consider the following mode-expansion.

$$\phi ^i(x^m,x_2,\theta _2)=A_{\mathrm{cl}}^i(x_2+\varphi _0)+\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\underset{n0}{}u_{(n)}^i(x_2+\varphi _0)\phi _{(n)}(x^m,\theta _2),$$
(47)
where $`\varphi _0`$ is a complex scalar function of the NG mode $`\phi _0`$. From this mode-expansion and Eqs.(98) and (99) in Appendix C, the transformation laws of $`\varphi _0`$ are read off as

$`\delta _{\xi _1}^{Q_1}\varphi _0`$ $`=`$ $`2\xi _1\theta _2i\xi _1D_2\varphi _0,`$
$`\delta _a^{P_2}\varphi _0`$ $`=`$ $`a.`$ (48)
These coincide with Eqs.(22) and (23). Therefore, $`\varphi _0`$ defined by the modified mode-expansion (47) can be identified with $`\varphi _0`$ in Eq.(21) in the previous section.

Indeed, by substituting Eq.(47) into Eq.(31), dropping the massive modes $`\phi _{(n)}`$ ($`n0`$), and carrying out the $`x_2`$-integration, we will reproduce the supersymmetric Nambu-Goto action Eq.(13).

### 4.2 Matter action

Although the NG mode $`\phi _0`$ is identified with that of the nonlinear realization in the mode-expansion (47), the $`Q_1`$-transformation law of the other modes $`\phi _{(n)}`$ ($`n0`$) does not close on themselves. Then, in this subsection, we will further modify the mode-expansion so that $`\phi _{(n)}`$ ($`n0`$) transforms in the standard nonlinear transformation under the $`Q_1`$-SUSY.

Before we proceed, let us comment on the validity of such modification. From the 3D viewpoint, the modification of mode-expansion from Eq.(39) to Eq.(47) corresponds to the redefinition of the superfield $`\phi _{(n)}`$. Note that such field redefinition involves space-time derivatives. In fact, although the original theory (24) contains no derivative couplings, the resulting effective theory has derivative couplings. (See Eq.(13) or (97).) Hence, this field redefinition induces a new cut-off scale into the theory, which is $`f\kappa ^{2/3}`$.

Naively thinking, the mass of the first excited mode is thought to be $`𝒪(f)`$, and thus all modes except the NG mode $`\phi _0`$ in Eq.(47) should be integrated out. However, there can be exist modes lighter than the cut-off scale $`f`$ in some models. For example, the theory with

$`K(\mathrm{\Phi },\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }},X,\overline{X})`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Phi }\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}+X\overline{X},`$
$`W(\mathrm{\Phi },X)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\mathrm{\Phi }{\displaystyle \frac{g}{3}}\mathrm{\Phi }^3h\mathrm{\Phi }X^2,(\mathrm{\Lambda },g,h>0)`$ (49)
has the following BPS domain wall.

$`A_{\mathrm{cl}}^\mathrm{\Phi }(x_2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\sqrt{g}}}\mathrm{tanh}(\sqrt{g}\mathrm{\Lambda }x_2),`$
$`A_{\mathrm{cl}}^X(x_2)`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (50)
In this case, the dynamical scale of the domain wall $`f`$ is

$$f=\left(\frac{8}{3\sqrt{g}}\right)^{1/3}\mathrm{\Lambda },$$
(51)
and a “matter field” $`X`$ contains modes with the mass eigenvalues

$$m_{(n)}=\sqrt{n\left(\frac{4h}{g}n\right)}\sqrt{g}\mathrm{\Lambda }.(n=0,1,2,\mathrm{}<\frac{2h}{g})$$
(52)
This means that in the case of $`gh<1`$, which corresponds to the fat brane , there are many light modes which satisfy the condition $`m_{(n)}f`$. In the brane-world model-building, such light modes, especially the massless modes besides the NG mode, play important roles. Therefore, the further modification of the mode-expansion involving the “matter” modes $`\phi _{(n)}`$ ($`n0`$) is a useful work.

The modified mode-expansion is

$$\phi ^i=A_{\mathrm{cl}}^i(x_2+\varphi _0)+\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\underset{n0}{}u_{(n)}^i(x_2+\varphi _0)\stackrel{~}{\phi }_{(n)}(x^m,\theta _2),$$
(53)
with

$$\stackrel{~}{\phi }_{(n)}\phi _{(n)}i\kappa \zeta _0D_2\phi _{(n)}\kappa ^2\zeta _0^\alpha D_{2\alpha }\zeta _0^\beta D_{2\beta }\phi _{(n)}+\frac{\kappa ^2}{4}\zeta _0^2D_2^2\phi _{(n)}+𝒪(\kappa ^3).$$
(54)
Here $`\zeta _0`$ is defined by Eq.(16). In this case, each mode transforms under the broken symmetries as follows.

$`\delta _a^{P_2}\phi _{(n)}`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$
$`\delta _{\xi _1}^{Q_1}\phi _{(n)}`$ $`=`$ $`i\kappa \xi _1\gamma _{(3)}^m\zeta _0_m\phi _{(n)}+𝒪(\kappa ^2).`$ (55)
These coincide with Eqs.(3) and (4) up to $`𝒪(\kappa )`$.

In fact, by substituting Eq.(53) into Eq.(31), we can obtain the following Lagrangian after somewhat tedious calculation555 For simplicity, we have assumed the minimal Kähler potential. .

$`^{(3)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }\mathrm{d}^2\theta _2\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}\mathrm{\Xi }+{\displaystyle }\mathrm{d}^2\theta _2E[{\displaystyle \underset{n0}{}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(𝒟_2\phi _{(n)}\right)^2+m_{(n)}\phi _{(n)}^2\}+V(\phi _{(n)})`$ (56)
$`+\kappa {\displaystyle \underset{n,m}{}}g_{(nm)}\phi _{(m)}\left(𝒟_2^2\zeta _0𝒟_2\phi _{(n)}+2i𝒟_2\gamma _{(3)}^m\zeta _0𝒟_m\phi _{(n)}\right)+\kappa 𝒟_2^\alpha \zeta _{0\alpha }U(\phi _{(n)})`$
$`+\kappa ^2({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}𝒟_2^\alpha \zeta _0^\beta 𝒟_{2\alpha }\zeta _{0\beta }+𝒟_2^\alpha \zeta _0^\beta 𝒟_{2\beta }\zeta _{0\alpha })\left(𝒟_2\phi _{(n)}\right)^2+\kappa ^2𝒟_2^\alpha \zeta _0^\beta 𝒟_{2\beta }\zeta _{0\alpha }\stackrel{~}{V}(\phi _{(n)})]`$
$`+𝒪(\kappa ^3),`$
where $`E`$ is defined by Eq.(15), and

$`g_{(nm)}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle dx_2\mathrm{Im}\left(\overline{u}_{(n)i}u_{(m)}^i\right)},`$
$`V`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{N=3}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{n_1,\mathrm{},n_N}{}}\left\{4{\displaystyle dx_2\mathrm{Im}\left(\frac{e^{i\delta }}{N!}u_{(n_1)}^{i_1}\mathrm{}u_{(n_N)}^{i_N}W_{i_1\mathrm{}i_N}\right)}\right\}\phi _{(n_1)}\mathrm{}\phi _{(n_N)},`$
$`\stackrel{~}{V}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{N=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{n_1,\mathrm{},n_N}{}}\left\{4{\displaystyle dx_2\mathrm{Im}\left(\frac{e^{i\delta }}{N!}u_{(n_1)}^{i_1}\mathrm{}u_{(n_N)}^{i_N}W_{i_1\mathrm{}i_N}\right)}\right\}\phi _{(n_1)}\mathrm{}\phi _{(n_N)},`$
$`U`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{N=2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{n_1,\mathrm{},n_N}{}}\left\{4{\displaystyle dx_2\mathrm{Re}\left(\frac{e^{i\delta }}{N!}u_{(n_1)}^{i_1}\mathrm{}u_{(n_N)}^{i_N}W_{i_1\mathrm{}i_N}\right)}\right\}\phi _{(n_1)}\mathrm{}\phi _{(n_N)}.`$ (57)
The above Lagrangian certainly has an invariance under the $`Q_1`$-SUSY, which is nonlinearly realized. The first term is the supersymmetric Nambu-Goto Lagrangian, and the remaining part corresponds to the matter Lagrangian.

## 5 Broken Lorentz and $`U(1)_R`$ symmetries

In the matter Lagrangian in Eq.(56), note that the NG mode $`\phi _0`$ appears not only through $`E`$ and $`𝒟_2`$, but also in the form such as $`𝒟_2^\alpha \zeta _{0\beta }`$. This means that even if we know the Lagrangian in the limit of $`\kappa 0`$ in some way, we cannot reproduce the full Lagrangian Eq.(56) by using the method of the nonlinear realization. This stems from the fact that we did not respect the broken Lorentz symmetry and the $`U(1)_R`$ symmetry in the modification of the mode-expansion (53) and (54).

In the nonlinear realization for space-time symmetries, if we take into account only the (super-)translational generators as generators of the whole bulk symmetry $`G`$, there will be an ambiguity of inserting a dimensionless tensor, such as $`\kappa 𝒟_2^\alpha \zeta _{0\beta }`$, into the $`G`$-invariant effective action . For example, let us assume that the Lagrangian at $`\kappa 0`$ is666 In fact, such Lagrangian can be calculated much easier than Eq.(56) since Eqs.(53) and (54) become very simple forms by dropping $`\phi _0`$ (and thus $`\zeta _0`$) from Eq.(53).

$$_{\kappa 0}^{(3)}=\mathrm{d}^2\theta _2\underset{n0}{}\left\{\frac{1}{2}\left(D_2\phi _{(n)}\right)^2+m_{(n)}\phi _{(n)}^2\right\}+V(\phi _{(n)}).$$
(58)
Then, the most general Lagrangian that is $`P_2`$\- and $`Q_1`$-invariant is written as

$`^{(3)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }\mathrm{d}^2\theta _2E[{\displaystyle \underset{n0}{}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(𝒟_2\phi _{(n)}\right)^2+m_{(n)}\phi _{(n)}^2\}+V(\phi _{(n)})`$ (59)
$`+(𝒟_2^\alpha \zeta _{0\beta },𝒟_m\zeta _{0\alpha },𝒟_2^\alpha 𝒟_2^\beta \zeta _{0\gamma },\mathrm{})],`$
where $``$ denotes 3D Lorentz-invariant terms that include at least one covariant derivative of $`\zeta _0`$. Note that the above Lagrangian has an ambiguity of adding terms including arbitrary numbers of $`\kappa 𝒟_2^\alpha \zeta _{0\beta }`$ since such tensor is dimensionless. In fact, the second and the third lines in Eq.(56) correspond to $``$ in Eq.(59), and cannot be determined by the nonlinear realization.

The above ambiguity already exists in the definition of $`\stackrel{~}{\phi }_{(n)}`$ in Eq.(54). We may add terms, such as $`\kappa 𝒟_2^\alpha \zeta _{0\alpha }\phi _{(n)}`$, to the definition of $`\stackrel{~}{\phi }_{(n)}`$ since the resulting transformation laws of $`\phi _{(n)}`$ do not change. Such terms contribute to $``$ in Eq.(59).

In order to remove such ambiguity, we should take the full symmetry group $`G`$ as

$$G_{\mathrm{max}}=\{P_m,P_2,Q_{1\alpha },Q_{2\alpha },M_{mn},K_m,R\},$$
(60)
which contains the maximal automorphism group of the 4D $`𝒩=1`$ SUSY algebra. Here $`M_{mn}`$ and $`K_mM_{m2}`$ denote the 4D Lorentz generators, and $`R`$ is a generator of $`U(1)_R`$. In this case, the vacuum stability subgroup is

$$H_{\mathrm{max}}=\{P_m,Q_{2\alpha },M_{mn}\}.$$
(61)
The algebra among these generators is listed in Eq.(102) in Appendix D.1.

The transformation laws of $`\varphi _0`$ in the nonlinear realization under the $`K`$\- and $`R`$-transformations can be defined by

$`\delta _v^K\varphi _0`$ $`=`$ $`v^m\left(x_m\varphi _0_m\varphi _0+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\theta _2\gamma _{(3)m}D_2\varphi _0\right),`$ (62)
$`\delta _r^R\varphi _0`$ $`=`$ $`r\left(\theta _2^2+i\theta _2D_2\varphi _0\right),`$ (63)
where $`v^m`$ and $`r`$ are transformation parameters. These form the SUSY algebra (102) together with Eqs.(22) and (23).

From Eq.(62),

$$\delta _v^K\mathrm{\Xi }=v^m\left\{\kappa _m\left(\phi _0\mathrm{\Xi }\right)+\frac{i}{2}\kappa ^1D_2^\alpha \left((\gamma _{(3)m}\theta _2)_\alpha \phi _0\right)\right\}.$$
(64)
This is a total derivative and thus the NG action $`S_{\mathrm{NG}}`$ in Eq.(13) is invariant under the $`K`$-transformation.

For the $`U(1)_R`$ symmetry, on the other hand, we can see from Eq.(63),

$$\delta _r^R\mathrm{\Xi }=\kappa ^1r\theta _2D_2\phi _0.$$
(65)
This means

$$\delta _r^RS_{\mathrm{NG}}=\kappa ^1r\mathrm{d}^3x\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}f_0,$$
(66)
where $`f_0`$ is the auxiliary field of $`\phi _0`$. So $`S_{\mathrm{NG}}`$ does not have the off-shell $`U(1)_R`$ symmetry. However, considering the fact that $`f_0=0`$ on shell as mentioned in Appendix B, we can see that $`S_{\mathrm{NG}}`$ is $`R`$-invariant on shell.

As a result, $`S_{\mathrm{NG}}`$ obtained in the nonlinear realization is invariant under the full $`G_{\mathrm{max}}`$ symmetry.

On the other hand, the NG action obtained by the mode-expansion (53) does not have an invariance under the broken Lorentz symmetry. Although it has the same form as Eq.(13), the $`K`$-transformation of $`\varphi _0`$ does not coincide with Eq.(62). Unlike the nonlinear realization, the transformation laws of each mode are determined from those of the bulk theory in the mode-expansion approach. The $`K`$-transformation law of $`\phi ^i`$ is listed in Eq.(100) in Appendix C. Due to the explicit appearance of $`x_2`$ in Eq.(100), the $`K`$-transformation of $`\varphi _0`$ does not close on $`\varphi _0`$.

Now we will try to modify the mode-expansion (53) further, so that $`\varphi _0`$ transforms properly under all broken symmetries $`G_{\mathrm{max}}/H_{\mathrm{max}}`$.

We propose the following mode-expansion.

$$\phi ^i(x^m,x_2,\theta _2)=A_{\mathrm{cl}}^i(\widehat{x}_2)+\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\underset{n0}{}u_{(n)}^i(\widehat{x}_2)\stackrel{~}{\phi }_{(n)}(\widehat{x}^m,\theta _2),$$
(67)
where

$`\widehat{x}^m`$ $``$ $`x^mx_2^m\varphi _0{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa ^2}{2}}^m(\phi _0^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa ^2}{2}}x_2^m(^n\phi _0_n\phi _0)+𝒪(\kappa ^3),`$
$`\widehat{x}_2`$ $``$ $`x_2+\varphi _0{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa ^2}{2}}x_2^n\phi _0_n\phi _0+𝒪(\kappa ^3),`$ (68)
and $`\stackrel{~}{\phi }_{(n)}`$ is the one defined in Eq.(54).

With this mode-expansion and Eq.(100), we can derive the $`K`$-transformation of each mode.

$`\delta _v^K\varphi _0`$ $`=`$ $`v^m\left(x_m+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\theta _2\gamma _{(3)m}D_2\varphi _0\right)+𝒪(\kappa ^2),`$ (69)
$`\delta _v^K\stackrel{~}{\phi }_{(n)}`$ $`=`$ $`v^m\left(\varphi _0_m\stackrel{~}{\phi }_{(n)}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\theta _2\gamma _{(3)m}D_2\stackrel{~}{\phi }_{(n)}\right)+𝒪(\kappa ^2).`$ (70)
Eq.(69) coincides with Eq.(62) up to $`𝒪(\kappa )`$. Considering the definition of $`\stackrel{~}{\phi }_{(n)}`$ in Eq.(54), Eq.(70) is translated into

$$\delta _v^K\phi _{(n)}=v^m\left\{\kappa \phi _0_m\phi _{(n)}+\frac{\kappa }{2}\zeta _0\gamma _{(3)m}\theta _2_m\phi _{(n)}+\frac{i}{2}\kappa \zeta _0\gamma _{(3)m}D_2\phi _{(n)}\right\}+𝒪(\kappa ^2).$$
(71)
Noticing that $`\phi _0=\rho _0+𝒪(\kappa ^2)`$, this coincides with the standard nonlinear transformation Eq.(106) in Appendix D.2.

In a similar way, we can derive the transformation laws for other symmetries.

For the broken SUSY, we obtain

$`\delta _{\xi _1}^{Q_1}\varphi _0`$ $`=`$ $`2\xi _1\theta _2i\xi _1D_2\varphi _0+𝒪(\kappa ^2),`$ (72)
$`\delta _{\xi _1}^{Q_1}\phi _{(n)}`$ $`=`$ $`i\kappa \xi _1\gamma _{(3)}^m\zeta _0_m\phi _{(n)}+𝒪(\kappa ^2).`$ (73)
For the $`U(1)_R`$ symmetry, by using Eq.(101) in Appendix C, we obtain

$`\delta _r^R\varphi _0`$ $`=`$ $`r(\theta _2^2+i\theta _2D_2\varphi _0)+𝒪(\kappa ^2),`$ (74)
$`\delta _r^R\phi _{(n)}`$ $`=`$ $`i\kappa r\zeta _0\gamma _{(3)}^m\theta _2_m\phi _{(n)}\kappa r\zeta _0D_2\phi _{(n)}+𝒪(\kappa ^2).`$ (75)
Thus, $`\varphi _0`$ transforms in the desired way in the case of our modified mode-expansion (67) and (68). Note that Eqs.(73) and (75) are the standard nonlinear transformations, which are listed in Eq.(105) and (107) in Appendix D.2. Therefore, the modified mode-expansion (67) and (68) defines modes on which all the broken symmetries are nonlinearly realized at least up to $`𝒪(\kappa )`$.

## 6 Summary and discussion

There are mainly two different approaches to derive the low-energy effective theory in the background of a BPS domain wall. Each approach has its own advantages and disadvantages.

The first one is the nonlinear realization approach. We can construct an effective action on the wall that is invariant under both the broken and the unbroken SUSYs by using the nonlinear realization technique. This approach is useful when we discuss the general properties of BPS brane-like objects, such as BPS walls or supermembranes. However, in this approach, we neglect the wall width and cannot discuss the specific wall profile. Namely, we cannot determine parameters of the effective theory by this approach.

The second one is the mode-expansion approach. In this approach, we start directly from the bulk theory. So we need to specify the bulk theory and thus the results are model-dependent. Since we explicitly derive the effective theory from the bulk theory, the relation between the bulk 4D superfields and the 3D superfields in the effective theory is clear in this approach. On the other hand, SUSY broken by the wall is not respected since its transformation of each mode does not close on itself.

Therefore, it is very useful and instructive to clarify the relation between the above two approaches.

In this paper, we proposed a modified mode-expansion so that the broken SUSY is nonlinearly realized on each mode. Indeed, our mode-expansion leads to a supersymmetric Nambu-Goto action for the NG mode, and to a matter action with a form expected from the nonlinear realization for the other modes. In particular, the NG mode $`\phi _0`$ defined by our mode-expansion can be identified with that of the nonlinear realization for all orders in $`\kappa `$. For the other modes, their transformation law under the broken SUSY coincides with the standard nonlinear transformation up to $`𝒪(\kappa )`$.

Note that our modification of the mode-expansion corresponds to the redefinition of the 3D superfields. This field redefinition involves space-time derivatives and the scale $`f\kappa ^{2/3}`$. So the cut-off scale of the effective theory becomes $`f`$ after the field redefinition.

We also showed that it is possible to modify the mode-expansion so that each mode transforms in the standard nonlinear transformation under not only the broken SUSY but also the broken Lorentz and $`U(1)_R`$ symmetries at least up to $`𝒪(\kappa )`$. However, whether the extension to higher orders in $`\kappa `$ is possible is not clear to us.

In this paper, we have discussed the BPS domain wall. When we construct a realistic brane-world model in a SUSY theory, we must consider the SUSY breaking mechanism. One of the simplest mechanism of SUSY breaking is the coexistence of the BPS and anti-BPS walls . In such a case, each domain wall preserves an opposite half of the bulk SUSY, and all of the supersymmetries are broken in the whole system. In the thin wall limit, this corresponds to the one called the pseudo-supersymmetry . The author of Ref. derives the effective theory of the brane-antibrane system by using the nonlinear realization technique. In this case, the SUSY breaking effects are induced at loop level because tree-level couplings between the branes are absent. For the wall-antiwall system with a finite wall-width, on the other hand, SUSY breaking appears at tree level although its effects are exponentially suppressed for the distance between the walls . To discuss the phenomenological arguments, it is useful to describe the effective theory on the wall in terms of the superfields and the SUSY breaking terms. Combining the method in Ref. and the result of this paper, we can derive the effective theory in the wall-antiwall system in terms of the 3D superfields and the SUSY breaking terms. This work is now in progress.

Acknowledgments

The author thanks the Yukawa Institute for Theoretical Physics at Kyoto University, where this work was initiated during the YITP-W-99-99 on “Extra dimensions and Braneworld”. The author also thanks Koji Hashimoto for useful discussion.

## Appendix A Notations

Basically, we follow the notations of Ref. for the 4D bulk theory. The notations for the 3D theories are as follows.

We take the space-time metric as

$$\eta ^{mn}=\mathrm{diag}(1,+1,+1).$$
(76)
The 3D $`\gamma `$-matrices, $`(\gamma _{(3)}^m)_\alpha ^\beta `$, can be written by the Pauli matrices as

$$\gamma _{(3)}^0=\sigma ^2,\gamma _{(3)}^1=i\sigma ^3,\gamma _{(3)}^3=i\sigma ^1,$$
(77)
and these satisfy the 3D Clifford algebra,

$$\{\gamma _{(3)}^m,\gamma _{(3)}^n\}=2\eta ^{mn}.$$
(78)
The spinor indices are raised and lowered by multiplying $`\sigma ^2`$ from the left.

$$\psi _\alpha =(\sigma ^2)_{\alpha \beta }\psi ^\beta ,\psi ^\alpha =(\sigma ^2)^{\alpha \beta }\psi _\beta .$$
(79)
We take the following convention of the contraction of spinor indices.

$$\psi _1\psi _2\psi _1^\alpha \psi _{2\alpha }=(\sigma ^2)_{\alpha \beta }\psi _1^\alpha \psi _2^\beta =\psi _2\psi _1.$$
(80)
### A.1 Covariant derivatives

The algebra of the 3D $`𝒩=1`$ SUSY preserved by the wall is

$$\{Q_{2\alpha },Q_{2\beta }\}=2(\gamma _{(3)}^m\sigma ^2)_{\alpha \beta }P_m.$$
(81)
The representation of the generators on the 3D $`𝒩=1`$ superspace $`(x^m,\theta _2)`$ is

$`\widehat{P}_m`$ $`=`$ $`i_m,`$
$`\widehat{Q}_{2\alpha }`$ $`=`$ $`_{2\alpha }+i(\gamma _{(3)}^m\theta _2)_\alpha _m.`$ (82)
The SUSY covariant derivative for $`\theta _2`$ is

$$D_{2\alpha }_{2\alpha }i(\gamma _{(3)}^m\theta _2)_\alpha _m.$$
(83)
We list the covariant derivatives for superspace coordinates in the presence of the NG superfields as follows. They can be obtained by calculating the Cartan one-form $`\mathrm{\Omega }^1\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Omega }`$ where $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is defined in Eq.(2).

$`𝒟_m\rho _0`$ $`=`$ $`(\omega ^1)_m^n_n\rho _0=_m\rho _0+𝒪(\kappa ^2),`$
$`𝒟_{2\alpha }\rho _0`$ $`=`$ $`D_{2\alpha }\rho _0+2\zeta _{0\alpha }i\kappa ^2D_{2\alpha }\zeta _0\gamma _{(3)}^m\zeta _0(\omega ^1)_m^n_n\rho _0,`$
$`𝒟_m\zeta _{0\beta }`$ $`=`$ $`(\omega ^1)_m^n_n\zeta _{0\beta }=_m\zeta _{0\beta }+𝒪(\kappa ^2),`$
$`𝒟_{2\alpha }\zeta _{0\beta }`$ $`=`$ $`D_{2\alpha }\zeta _{0\beta }i\kappa ^2D_{2\alpha }\zeta _0\gamma _{(3)}^m\zeta _0(\omega ^1)_m^n_n\zeta _{0\beta },`$
$`𝒟_m\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`(\omega ^1)_m^n_n\varphi =_m\varphi +𝒪(\kappa ^2),`$
$`𝒟_{2\alpha }\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`D_{2\alpha }\varphi i\kappa ^2D_{2\alpha }\zeta _0\gamma _{(3)}^m\zeta _0(\omega ^1)_m^n_n\varphi ,`$ (84)
where $`\varphi `$ denotes a matter field, and

$$\omega _m^n\delta _m^n+i\kappa ^2_m\zeta _0\gamma _{(3)}^n\zeta _0.$$
(85)
### A.2 Action of the generators on the fields

The SUSY transformation $`\delta _\xi ^Q`$ of a chiral supermultiplet $`(A,\mathrm{\Psi }^\alpha ,F)`$ is defined by

$`\delta _\xi ^QA`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{2}\xi \mathrm{\Psi },`$
$`\delta _\xi ^Q\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`i\sqrt{2}(\sigma ^\mu \overline{\xi })_\alpha _\mu A+\sqrt{2}\xi _\alpha F,`$
$`\delta _\xi ^QF`$ $`=`$ $`i\sqrt{2}\overline{\xi }\overline{\sigma }^\mu _\mu \mathrm{\Psi }.`$ (86)
We define an action of the generators $`P_\mu `$, $`Q_\alpha `$ and $`\overline{Q}^{\dot{\alpha }}`$ on the fields $`\varphi =A,\mathrm{\Psi }^\alpha ,F`$ as

$`P_\mu \times \varphi `$ $``$ $`i_\mu \varphi ,`$
$`(\xi Q+\overline{\xi }\overline{Q})\times \varphi `$ $``$ $`\delta _\xi ^Q\varphi .`$ (87)
Under the above definition, the chiral superfield $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ can be written as

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(x,\theta ,\overline{\theta })=e^{ix^\mu P_\mu +\theta Q+\overline{\theta }\overline{Q}}\times A(0).$$
(88)
There is a useful formula that converts covariant derivatives $`𝒟_M`$ into the corresponding generators $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_M`$.

$$𝒟_Me^{iX^N\mathrm{\Gamma }_N}=e^{iX^N\mathrm{\Gamma }_N}\mathrm{\Gamma }_M,$$
(89)
where $`X^M`$ are coordinates for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_M`$.

For the SUSY generator $`Q_2`$, for instance,

$$𝒟_{2\alpha }e^{ix^mP_m+\theta _2Q_2}=e^{ix^mP_m+\theta _2Q_2}Q_{2\alpha }.$$
(90)
Using this formula, we can rewrite the chiral condition for $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ as follows.

$`\overline{D}_{\dot{\alpha }}\mathrm{\Phi }`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{D}_{\dot{\alpha }}e^{\theta Q+\overline{\theta }\overline{Q}}\times A(x)`$ (91)
$`=`$ $`e^{\theta Q+\overline{\theta }\overline{Q}}\overline{Q}_{\dot{\alpha }}\times A(x)=0.`$
Then,

$$\overline{Q}_{\dot{\alpha }}\times A(x)=\frac{e^{i\delta /2}}{\sqrt{2}}(Q_{1\alpha }+iQ_{2\alpha })\times A(x)=0.$$
(92)
Namely,

$$Q_{1\alpha }\times A=iQ_{2\alpha }\times A.$$
(93)
## Appendix B Bosonic part of $`S_{\mathrm{NG}}`$

Here we will provide a brief derivation of the Nambu-Goto action from the effective action $`S_{\mathrm{NG}}`$ defined in Eq.(13). We denote the component fields of $`\phi _0`$ as

$$\phi _0=a_0+\theta _2\eta _0+\frac{1}{2}\theta _2f_0.$$
(94)
In order to concentrate on the bosonic part of $`S_{\mathrm{NG}}`$, we will neglect the fermionic component $`\eta _0`$ in the following. Then,

$$\psi _0^2|_{\mathrm{bosonic}}=\frac{1}{4}\theta _2^2(f_0^2^ma_0_ma_0),$$
(95)
and

$$D_2^2(\psi _0^2)|_{\mathrm{bosonic}}=f_0^2+^ma_0_ma_0.$$
(96)
Therefore, the auxiliary field $`f_0`$ enters in $`S_{\mathrm{NG}}`$ only in a bilinear way. This means that an equation of motion for $`f_0`$ is $`f_0`$=0. Hence, after the elimination of $`f_0`$, the bosonic part of $`S_{\mathrm{NG}}`$ becomes

$`S_{\text{NG bosonic}}^{\text{on-shell}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \mathrm{d}^3x\frac{^ma_0_ma_0}{1+\sqrt{1+\kappa ^2^ma_0_ma_0}}}`$ (97)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \mathrm{d}^3x\kappa ^2\left\{1\sqrt{1+\kappa ^2^ma_0_ma_0}\right\}}.`$
This is the Nambu-Goto action in the static gauge, as expected.

## Appendix C Transformation of $`\phi ^i`$ under the broken symmetries

The transformation laws of $`\phi ^i`$ for the broken symmetries are obtained from the definition of $`\phi ^i`$ in Eq.(32) and the SUSY algebra (1).

For example, for the $`Q_1`$-transformation,

$`\delta _{\xi _1}^{Q_1}\phi ^i`$ $`=`$ $`\xi _1Q_1\times \phi ^i=\xi _1Q_1e^{ix^mP_m+ix_2P_2+\theta _2Q_2}\times A^i(0)`$ (98)
$`=`$ $`e^{ix^mP_m+ix_2P_2+\theta _2Q_2}(2i\xi _1\theta _2P_2+\xi _1Q_1)\times A^i(0)`$
$`=`$ $`e^{ix^mP_m+ix_2P_2+\theta _2Q_2}(2i\xi _1\theta _2P_2i\xi _1Q_2)\times A^i(0)`$
$`=`$ $`(2\xi _1\theta _2_2i\xi _1D_2)\phi ^i.`$
Here we have used the chiral condition Eq.(93) and the formula Eq.(89).

Similarly, for the $`P_2`$-transformation,

$$\delta _a^{P_2}\phi ^i=iaP_2\times \phi ^i=a_2\phi ^i.$$
(99)
For the broken Lorentz transformation,

$$\delta _v^K\phi ^i=iv^mK_m\times \phi ^i=v^m\left\{x_2_m\phi ^ix_m_2\phi ^i+\frac{1}{2}\theta _2\gamma _{(3)m}D_2\phi ^i\right\}.$$
(100)
For the $`U(1)_R`$ transformation,

$$\delta _r^R\phi ^i=irR\times \phi ^i=r\left\{\theta _2^2_2\phi ^i+i\theta _2D_2\phi ^i\right\}.$$
(101)
## Appendix D In the case of $`G=G_{\mathrm{max}}`$

Here we collect the main results of the nonlinear realization in the case that the full symmetry group $`G`$ is taken to be $`G_{\mathrm{max}}=\{P_m,P_2,Q_{1\alpha },Q_{2\alpha },M_{mn},K_m,R\}`$. The vacuum stability subgroup is $`H_{\mathrm{max}}=\{P_m,Q_{2\alpha },M_{mn}\}`$ in this case.

### D.1 Super-Poincaré algebra

The 3D $`𝒩=2`$ super-Poincaré algebra with central extension is as follows.

$`\{Q_{1\alpha },Q_{1\beta }\}`$ $`=`$ $`\{Q_{2\alpha },Q_{2\beta }\}=2(\gamma _{(3)}^m\sigma ^2)_{\alpha \beta }P_m,`$
$`\{Q_{1\alpha },Q_{2\beta }\}`$ $`=`$ $`\{Q_{2\alpha },Q_{1\beta }\}=2i(\sigma ^2)_{\alpha \beta }P_2,`$
$`[M_{mn},Q_{1\alpha }]`$ $`=`$ $`i\left(\gamma _{(3)mn}Q_1\right)_\alpha ,[M_{mn},Q_{2\alpha }]=i\left(\gamma _{(3)mn}Q_2\right)_\alpha ,`$
$`[K_m,Q_{1\alpha }]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\gamma _{(3)m}Q_2\right)_\alpha ,[K_m,Q_{2\alpha }]={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\gamma _{(3)m}Q_1\right)_\alpha ,`$
$`[R,Q_{1\alpha }]`$ $`=`$ $`iQ_{2\alpha },[R,Q_{2\alpha }]=iQ_{1\alpha },`$
$`[M_{mn},P_l]`$ $`=`$ $`i(\eta _{lm}P_n\eta _{ln}P_m),[M_{mn},P_2]=0,`$
$`[K_m,P_n]`$ $`=`$ $`i\eta _{mn}P_2,[K_m,P_2]=iP_m,`$
$`[M_{mn},M_{lp}]`$ $`=`$ $`i(\eta _{ml}M_{np}\eta _{nl}M_{mp}\eta _{pn}M_{lm}+\eta _{pm}M_{ln}),`$
$`[M_{mn},K_l]`$ $`=`$ $`i(\eta _{ml}K_n\eta _{nl}K_m),`$
$`[K_m,K_n]`$ $`=`$ $`iM_{mn}.`$ (102)
### D.2 Standard nonlinear transformations

A coset element $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ can be parameterized as

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}=e^{ix^mP_m+\theta _2Q_2}e^{i\rho _0P_2+\zeta _0Q_1}e^{i\lambda _0^mK_m+i\sigma _0R},$$
(103)
where $`\rho _0`$, $`\zeta _{0\alpha }`$, $`\lambda _0^m`$ and $`\sigma _0`$ are the NG superfields for the corresponding generators.

The transformation laws of each superfield are obtained by multiplying $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ by corresponding group elements from the left.

For $`P_2`$-transformation,

$`\delta _a^{P_2}\rho _0`$ $`=`$ $`\kappa ^1a,`$
$`\delta _a^{P_2}\zeta _{0\alpha }`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _a^{P_2}\lambda _0^m=\delta _a^{P_2}\sigma _0=\delta _a^{P_2}\varphi =0.`$ (104)
For the broken SUSY,

$`\delta _{\xi _1}^{Q_1}\rho _0`$ $`=`$ $`2\kappa ^1\xi _1\theta _2i\kappa \xi _1\gamma _{(3)}^m\zeta _0_m\rho _0,`$
$`\delta _{\xi _1}^{Q_1}\zeta _{0\alpha }`$ $`=`$ $`\kappa ^1\xi _{1\alpha }i\kappa \xi _1\gamma _{(3)}^m\zeta _0_m\zeta _{0\alpha },`$
$`\delta _{\xi _1}^{Q_1}\lambda _0^m`$ $`=`$ $`=i\kappa \xi _1\gamma _{(3)}^n\zeta _0_n\lambda _0^m,`$
$`\delta _{\xi _1}^{Q_1}\sigma _0`$ $`=`$ $`=i\kappa \xi _1\gamma _{(3)}^m\zeta _0_m\sigma _0,`$
$`\delta _{\xi _1}^{Q_1}\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`=i\kappa \xi _1\gamma _{(3)}^m\zeta _0_m\varphi .`$ (105)
For the broken Lorentz symmetry,

$`\delta _v^K\rho _0`$ $`=`$ $`\kappa ^1v^mx_m+𝒪(\kappa ),`$
$`\delta _v^K\zeta _{0\alpha }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\kappa ^1v^m\left(\gamma _{(3)m}\theta _2\right)_\alpha +𝒪(\kappa ),`$
$`\delta _v^K\lambda _0^m`$ $`=`$ $`\kappa ^1v^m+𝒪(\kappa ),`$
$`\delta _v^K\sigma _0`$ $`=`$ $`𝒪(\kappa ),`$
$`\delta _v^K\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`\kappa v^m\left\{\left(\rho _0+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\zeta _0\gamma _{(3)}^n\gamma _{(3)m}\theta _2\right)_n\varphi +{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\zeta _0\gamma _{(3)m}D_2\varphi \right\}.`$ (106)
For the $`U(1)_R`$ symmetry,

$`\delta _r^R\rho _0`$ $`=`$ $`r\left\{\kappa ^1\theta _2^2\kappa \zeta _0^2i\kappa \zeta _0\gamma _{(3)}^m\theta _2_m\rho _0\kappa \zeta _0D_2\rho _0\right\},`$
$`\delta _r^R\zeta _{0\alpha }`$ $`=`$ $`r\left\{\kappa ^1\theta _{2\alpha }i\kappa \zeta _0\gamma _{(3)}^m\theta _2_m\zeta _{0\alpha }\kappa \zeta _0D_2\zeta _{0\alpha }\right\},`$
$`\delta _r^R\lambda _0^m`$ $`=`$ $`r\left\{i\kappa \zeta _0\gamma _{(3)}^n\theta _2_n\lambda _0^m\kappa \zeta _0D_2\lambda _0^m\right\},`$
$`\delta _r^R\sigma _0`$ $`=`$ $`r\left\{\kappa ^1i\kappa \zeta _0\gamma _{(3)}^m\theta _2_m\sigma _0\kappa \zeta _0D_2\sigma _0\right\},`$
$`\delta _r^R\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`r\left\{i\kappa \zeta _0\gamma _{(3)}^m\theta _2_m\varphi \kappa \zeta _0D_2\varphi \right\}.`$ (107)
Here, $`a`$, $`\xi _{1\alpha }`$, $`v^m`$ and $`r`$ are transformation parameters, and $`\varphi `$ denotes a matter field.

### D.3 Inverse Higgs effect

The NG superfields introduced in Eq.(103) are not independent. The relation between them are obtained by the following covariant constraints .

$$\widehat{𝒟}_{2\alpha }\rho _0=0,\widehat{𝒟}_{2\alpha }\zeta _0^\beta =0,\widehat{𝒟}_m\rho _0=0.$$
(108)
Here $`\widehat{𝒟}_m`$ and $`\widehat{𝒟}_{2\alpha }`$ are covariant derivatives in the presence of the NG superfields, which are derived from the Cartan one-form $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}^1\mathrm{d}\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$.

Solving these constraints, we can express all NG superfields in terms of a single superfield $`\rho _0`$.

$`\zeta _{0\alpha }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}D_{2\alpha }\rho _0+𝒪(\kappa ^2),`$
$`\lambda _0^m`$ $`=`$ $`iD_2\gamma _{(3)}^m\zeta _0+𝒪(\kappa ^2)=^m\rho _0+𝒪(\kappa ^2),`$
$`\sigma _0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}D_2^\alpha \zeta _{0\alpha }+𝒪(\kappa ^2)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}D_2^2\rho _0+𝒪(\kappa ^2).`$ (109)


text:
# Dynamic critical behavior of the classical anisotropic BCC Heisenberg antiferromagnet

## I Introduction

Despite their relative simplicity, classical Heisenberg models can be used to describe the dynamic critical behavior of magnetic materials whose ions have large effective spin values. For example, RbMnF3 is well modeled by an isotropic Heisenberg antiferromagnet, whereas MnF2 and FeF2 are good physical realizations of the Heisenberg antiferromagnet with weak and strong uniaxial anisotropies, respectively.

The effect of uniaxial anisotropy on the critical dynamics has been the subject of many theoretical dynscal ; modecpg ; rngt  and experimental studies fef2 ; mnf2 . Although both indicate that the dynamic structure factor has a dominant purely diffusive longitudinal component and a suppressed propagative transverse component, there is still controversy about the dynamic critical exponent $`z`$. While a dynamic scaling argument dynscal  and mode-coupling theory modecpg  indicate that $`z=2`$, a combination of renormalization group theory and $`ϵ`$-expansion rngt  predicts that $`z=2+\alpha /\nu `$. Using the Ising value $`\nu =0.6289(8)`$ from a high resolution Monte Carlo study FL  and $`\alpha =0.110(5)`$ from field theory GZJ , the latter prediction is $`z=2.175(10)`$. Experiments on FeF2 fef2  have not had enough resolution to distinguish between these two predictions, and on MnF2 mnf2  the exponent obtained was that of the isotropic antiferromagnet, $`z=1.5`$. Presumably this very low value is due to crossover effects resulting from the weak anisotropy in MnF2.

Our approach to this problem is to use spin dynamics simulations with an efficient integration scheme. The dynamic critical exponent is estimated using a dynamic finite-size scaling theory and compared with the predictions by the different theories and with experiments.

## II Model and Methods

The Hamiltonian of the model is given by

$$=J\underset{<𝐫,𝐫^{}>}{}𝐒_𝐫𝐒_𝐫^{}D\underset{𝐫}{}(S_{𝐫}^{}{}_{}{}^{z})^2$$
(1)
where $`𝐒_𝐫=(S_𝐫^x,S_𝐫^y,S_𝐫^z)`$ is a three-dimensional classical spin of unit length, $`<𝐫,𝐫^{}>`$ denotes nearest-neighbor pairs of spins coupled by the antiferromagnetic exchange interaction $`J>0`$, and $`D`$ is the uniaxial single-site anisotropy. We use $`D=0.0591J`$ and the inverse critical temperature $`1/T_c=0.478k_B/J`$ appropriate for MnF2 LBC . We consider body-centered-cubic lattices with linear sizes $`12L60`$, corresponding to $`2L^3`$ sites, and periodic boundary conditions.

The time evolution of the spins is governed by coupled equations of motion, and the dynamic structure factor $`S(𝐪,\omega )`$, for momentum transfer $`𝐪`$ and frequency $`\omega `$, observable in neutron scattering experiments, is the Fourier transform of the space-displaced, time-displaced spin-spin correlation function $`C^k(𝐫𝐫^{},t)`$, defined as

$$C^k(𝐫𝐫^{},t)=S_𝐫^k(t)S_𝐫^{}^k(0)S_𝐫^k(t)S_𝐫^{}^k(0).$$

with $`k=x,y,`$ or $`z`$. Because of the periodic boundary conditions, we can only access a set of discrete values of momentum transfer given by $`q=2\pi n_q/L`$, where $`n_q=\pm 1,\pm 2,\mathrm{},\pm L/2`$.

Equilibrium configurations at $`T_c`$ were generated using a hybrid Monte Carlo method where each hybrid step consisted of two Metropolis sweeps through the lattice and eight Wolff cluster spin flips. Typically 3000 hybrid Monte Carlo steps were used to generate each equilibrium configuration, which was then used as an initial spin configuration in the integration of the coupled equations of motion. We use $`2040`$ initial configurations to compute the averages. For the largest lattice used ($`L=60`$), there are 432,000 coupled equations to integrate. These numerical integrations were performed to a maximum time of $`t_{max}=400/J`$, using an iterative second-order Suzuki-Trotter decomposition method implemented by Krech et al krech , with two iterations and a time step of $`\delta t=0.04/J`$. This method consists of performing explicit rotations of a spin about its local effective field. The lattice is divided into two sublattices $`𝒜`$ and $``$, and a formal solution of the equations of motion yields $`y(t+\delta t)=e^{(\mathrm{A}+\mathrm{B})\delta t}y(t)`$, where $`y=(y_A,y_B)`$ denotes collectively all the spins, and the matrices A and B are the infinitesimal generators of rotation of the spin configurations $`y_A`$ on sublattice $`𝒜`$ at fixed $`y_B`$ and of the spin configurations $`y_B`$ on $``$ at fixed $`y_A`$, respectively. The spin configurations on sublattices $`𝒜`$ and $``$ are updated in succession, using the second-order Suzuki-Trotter decomposition of the exponential operator SU , given by $`e^{(\mathrm{A}+\mathrm{B})\delta t}=e^{\mathrm{A}\delta t/2}e^{\mathrm{B}\delta t}e^{\mathrm{A}\delta t/2}+O(\delta t^3)`$. A similar scheme using a fourth-order decomposition of the exponential operator has also been tested in Ref.krech . The iterative procedure is necessary because of the single-site anisotropykrech .

The finite integration time introduces oscillations when the Fourier transform of $`C^k(𝐫𝐫^{},t)`$ is taken to produce $`S(𝐪,\omega )`$ and we smooth them out by convoluting the spin-spin correlation function with a Gaussian resolution function in frequency, with characteristic width $`\delta _\omega `$. The dynamic structure factor thus obtained is denoted as $`\overline{S}^k(𝐪,\omega )`$.

The dynamic critical exponent $`z`$ can be determined from dynamic finite-size relations kun , given by $`\omega \overline{S}_L^k(𝐪,\omega )/\overline{\chi }_{L}^{}{}_{}{}^{k}(𝐪)=G(\omega L^z,qL,\delta _\omega L^z)`$ and

$$\overline{\omega }_m=L^z\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}(qL,\delta _\omega L^z),$$
(2)
where $`\overline{\chi }_{L}^{}{}_{}{}^{k}(𝐪)=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\overline{S}_L^k(𝐪,\omega )𝑑\omega /2\pi `$ is the momentum dependent susceptibility and $`\overline{\omega }_m`$ is a characteristic frequency, given by $`_{\overline{\omega }_m}^{\overline{\omega }_m}\overline{S}_L^k(𝐪,\omega )𝑑\omega /2\pi `$ $`=\overline{\chi }_{L}^{}{}_{}{}^{k}(𝐪)/2.`$ To estimate $`z`$ we choose the width of the resolution function to be $`\delta _\omega =0.015(60/L)^z`$ so that the function $`\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}(qL,\delta _\omega L^z)`$ in Eq. (2) is a constant if $`qL`$ is fixed, yielding

$$\overline{\omega }_mL^z.$$
(3)
Because $`\delta _\omega `$ depends on $`z`$, this exponent had to be determined iteratively. The coefficient $`0.015`$ of $`\delta _\omega `$ was chosen empirically as a compromise between effectively reducing the oscillations in $`S(𝐪,\omega )`$ and not excessively broadening its structure.

## III Results and Discussion

Our simulations, performed at the critical temperature for MnF2 LBC , show that while the transverse component $`S^T(𝐪,t)`$ of the space-Fourier-transformed correlation function $`S(𝐪,t)`$ has a short relaxation time, the longitudinal component $`S^z(𝐪,t)`$ decays extremely slowly \[see Fig.(1)\], and this requires that the equations of motion be integrated to very long times. Although our $`t_{max}`$ is still not large enough for the longitudinal component to decay to a value that is close to zero, it is a significant improvement over the maximum time we could reach with more standard integration methods, such as the fourth-order predictor-corrector method, with our current computing resources. Whenever not shown, error bars are smaller than the symbol sizes in the figures.

The longitudinal component of the dynamic structure factor, $`S^z(𝐪,\omega )`$, shown in Fig.(2a), has a purely dissipative behavior, as indicated by the single central peak. In contrast, the transverse component $`S^T(𝐪,\omega )`$ contains a propagative mode, indicated by the spin wave peak in Fig.(2b), with a possible small central peak as well. A comparison between Figs.(2a) and (2b) shows that the longitudinal component has a much larger intensity.

The dispersion curve $`\omega (q)`$ of the spin waves along the  direction is shown in Fig.(3), where the solid line represents a fit to the function $`\omega =\omega _0+cq^x`$. The non-zero value of the frequency in the limit as $`q0`$ is characteristic of an anisotropic model. These results for the dynamic structure factor are in qualitative agreement with theory and experimental results.

An estimate for the dynamic critical exponent $`z`$ was obtained iteratively using Eq.(3) for different values of $`n_q`$. Such estimates are denoted as $`z_q`$ and are shown in Fig.(4). For the weakly anisotropic system considered here, the onset of the asymptotic critical region occurs at very low values of $`q`$, accessible only with very large lattice sizes (and not accessible to experiments yet). Therefore, a better estimate for $`z`$ is given by $`z_0`$, obtained by extrapolating $`z_q`$ to the limit $`q0`$. We fitted $`z_q`$ with the function $`z_q=z_0+an_q+bn_{q}^{}{}_{}{}^{c}`$, using $`n_q=1,2,\mathrm{},n_{q}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{max}}`$, where $`z_0`$, $`a`$, $`b`$, and $`c`$ are fitting parameters. To check the robustness of the extrapolated $`z_0`$, we have also performed fittings with fixed $`c=2`$. The systematic change in the value of $`z_0`$ for both types of fittings was studied as the number of points included in the fittings increased, from $`n_{q}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{max}}=4`$ and $`5`$, for the fittings with $`c=2`$ and variable $`c`$, respectively, to $`n_{q}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{max}}=15`$. For $`n_{q}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{max}}`$ up to 7, the $`\chi ^2`$ of the fittings is reasonable, and there is no clear systematic change in the value of $`z_0`$; hence, the average $`z_0`$ from these fittings yields $`z=2.25\pm 0.08`$, which is the first numerical estimate of the dynamic critical exponent for this model.

## IV Summary and Conclusions

Because of difficulties for experiments to probe the critical region, experimental data have not yet been able to distinguish between competing theories. While limited by finite lattice size and finite integration time, simulations offer the hope of shedding light on the differences between theories and experiment. Although not yet conclusive, our estimate of $`z=2.25\pm 0.08`$ is slightly larger than, but consistent with, the prediction by the renormalization group theory. It is not consistent with mode-coupling theory and the dynamic scaling prediction.

This work was partially supported by NSF grant DMR-0094422. Simulations were performed on the Cray T90 and IBM SP (Blue Horizon) at SDSC.