text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Supersymmetry (SUSY) has been a most promising guiding principle to construct realistic unified models beyond the standard model. In recent years there have been vigorous studies on models with extra dimensions, where our world is assumed to be realized on an extended topological defects such as domain walls or various branes. Supersymmetry can be combined with this brane-world scenario and helps the construction of the extended topological defects.

Solitons saturating an energy bound, called the BPS bound, have played a crucial role also in non-perturbative studies of supersymmetric (SUSY) field theories in four dimensions. BPS domain walls are topological solitons of co-dimension one, which depend on one spatial coordinate and connect two SUSY vacua. Since they preserve half of the original SUSY, they are called $`\frac{1}{2}`$ BPS states. Such BPS domain walls were well studied in various models with global $`𝒩=1`$ SUSY in four dimensions. Non-BPS multi-wall solutions were also studied to understand the SUSY breaking mechanism on the brane due to the coexistence of the other brane.- More recently we have constructed an exact BPS wall solution as well as non-BPS multi-wall solutions in the supergravity theory in four dimensions. The intersections or junctions of domain walls preserve $`\frac{1}{4}`$ of the original SUSY and have been discussed in $`𝒩=1`$ models in four dimensions.-

In order to consider models with extra dimensions, we need to discuss supersymmetric theories in spacetime with dimensions higher than four. They should have at least eight supercharges. The simplest field theory with eight SUSY is based on hypermultiplets containing only scalar and spinor as physical fields. Recently we have formulated $`\frac{1}{2}`$ BPS domain walls in an eight SUSY model in four dimensions. Moreover we have also succeeded in constructing the $`\frac{1}{2}`$ BPS wall consistently in five-dimensional supergravity. Before discussing the SUSY five-dimensional theories, it is useful to consider models with eight SUSY in four dimensions without gravity.

The rest of our paper is organized as follows. Sec. 2 explains how to obtain nonlinear sigma models of hypermultiplets with eight SUSY. Secs.3, 4 and 5 are devoted to $`𝒩=1`$ superfield formulation of the model. In Sec. 3, we present the model using the $`U(1)`$ gauge field. We give the bosonic part of the action and eliminate auxiliary fields in the Wess-Zumino gauge. The hyper-Kähler quotient method in terms of the so-called moment map becomes very clear. In Sec. 4, we eliminate auxiliary superfields in the superfield level, taking a gauge compatible with SUSY rather than the Wess-Zumino gauge. This has the advantage because we obtain the Lagrangian in terms of independent superfields. In Sec. 5, we use the $`O(2)`$ gauge field to formulate the model instead of the $`U(1)`$ gauge field. Sec. 6 is devoted to a brief review of harmonic superspace formalism (HSF). In Sec. 7, we formulate the model in HSF and eliminate auxiliary fields in the Wess-Zumino gauge. In Sec. 8, the constraints are solved by independent fields. We close our paper by Sec. 9, in which the BPS equation and the domain wall solution are given.

## 2 $`𝒩=2`$ Model with Hypermultiplets in $`4`$ Dimensions

If we take two free chiral scalar supermultiplets $`\varphi `$ and $`\chi `$ with a complex mass term $`m`$ between them, they together become a free massive hypermultiplet with $`𝒩=2`$ SUSY

$``$ $`=`$ $`[\varphi ^{}\varphi +\chi ^{}\chi ]_{\theta ^2\overline{\theta }^2}+(m\left[\chi \varphi \right]_{\theta ^2}+\mathrm{c}.\mathrm{c}.)`$ (1)
$`=`$ $`_\mu \varphi ^{}^\mu \varphi _\mu \chi ^{}^\mu \chi +F_\varphi ^{}F_\varphi +F_\chi ^{}F_\chi `$
$`+`$ $`(m(F_\varphi \chi +F_\chi \varphi )+\mathrm{c}.\mathrm{c}.)+\mathrm{fermionic}\mathrm{terms}`$
$`=`$ $`_\mu \varphi ^{}^\mu \varphi _\mu \chi ^{}^\mu \chi |m|^2\left(\varphi ^{}\varphi +\chi ^{}\chi \right)`$
$`+`$ $`\mathrm{fermionic}\mathrm{terms},`$
where complex conjugate is denoted as c.c. , and the scalar components are denoted by the same letter as the superfields111 We follow mostly the notation of Ref. , except that $`\mu ,\nu ,\mathrm{}`$ denote space time in four dimensions,  $`\varphi ,\chi `$. Since four real scalar fields Re$`\varphi `$, Im$`\varphi `$, Re$`\chi `$, and Im$`\chi `$ are symmetric, we can form three complex fields using any one of the fields, say Re$`\varphi `$ with any one of the other three fields : Re$`\varphi +i`$Re$`\chi `$, and Re$`\varphi +i`$Im$`\chi `$ beside the ordinary $`\mathrm{Re}\varphi +i\mathrm{Im}\varphi =\varphi `$. These three complex structures are completely symmetric and serve as a characterization of $`𝒩=2`$ SUSY for hypermultiplets. It has been shown that any nonlinear sigma model consisting of hypermultiplets should have a triplet of complex structures, and the target manifold should be hyper-Kähler (HK) in contrast to Kähler of the $`𝒩=1`$ SUSY nonlinear sigma model.

Theories with eight SUSY are so restrictive that the nontrivial interactions require the nonlinearity of kinetic term (nonlinear sigma model) if there are only hypermultiplets. In order to obtain a wall solution, we need to have a nontrivial potential. In the case of $`𝒩=2`$ SUSY nonlinear sigma model containing only hypermultiplets, one can introduce a nontrivial potential which is the square of the Killing vector acting on the HK manifold multiplied by a mass parameter. Moreover the Killing vector has to be holomorphic with respect to the three complex structures (tri-holomorphic) . These models are called “massive HK nonlinear sigma models”.

Let us now explain a mechanism to obtain a nontrivial potential as a Sherk-Schwarz reduction from six or five dimensions. It is usually best to start from a model in spacetime with maximal dimensions which is allowed by the postulated number of SUSY charges. In the present case of eight SUSY, we should consider hypermultiplets in six dimensions. Let us first illustrate the dimensional reduction by a free massless hypermultiplet in six dimensions, since a mass term is forbidden by SUSY. If two (one) spatial dimensions are compactified, a nonvanishing momentum in these compactified dimensions gives a complex (real) mass term resulting in Eq.(1). This mass parameter gives rise to a central term $`Z=i(_5+i_6)`$ in the $`𝒩=2`$ SUSY algebra in four dimensions. In the case of a nonlinear sigma model with the target space metric $`g_{ij}`$ in six dimensions, the kinetic term (of bosonic part of the Lagrangian) reads

$$=g_{ij}_M\varphi ^i_N\varphi ^j\eta ^{MN},$$
(2)
where $`\eta ^{MN}=\mathrm{diag}.(1,1,1,1,1)`$, $`M,N=0,\mathrm{},5`$. Then we can twist the boundary condition for the compactified directions, say $`x^4`$ and $`x^5`$ using a Killing vector $`k^i(\varphi ,\varphi ^{})`$ for the isometry of the target space metric $`g_{ij}`$

$$i(_5+i_6)\varphi ^i=\mu k^i(\varphi ,\varphi ^{}),\mu 𝐂.$$
(3)
Then we obtain a nontrivial potential term $`V(\varphi )`$ from the Lagrangian (2)

$$=g_{ij}_\mu \varphi ^i_\nu \varphi ^j\eta ^{\mu \nu }V(\varphi ,\varphi ^{}),$$
(4)
$$V(\varphi ,\varphi ^{})=|\mu |^2g_{ij}k^i(\varphi ,\varphi ^{})k^j(\varphi ,\varphi ^{}).$$
(5)
This is the Sherk-Schwarz dimensional reduction. Since theories with eight SUSY have three complex structures, the Killing vector $`k^i`$ has to be holomorphic with respect to all three complex structures (tri-holomorphic).

Many target space metrics can be embedded in higher dimensional flat space as illustrated by a sphere embedded in three dimensions in Fig.1.

The nonlinear sigma models with these target space metrics can be realized by giving a constraint on hypermultiplets with minimal kinetic terms. One of the most convenient methods to impose the constraint is to introduce a vector multiplet without a kinetic term. If we integrate the vector multiplet, it acts as a Lagrange multiplier field to produce a constraint on hypermultiplets, resulting in a curved target manifold such as the Eguchi-Hanson manifold. In this process, the mass term automatically becomes a nontrivial potential which is a square of a Killing vector corresponding to the isometry of the resulting curved target space. Since the gauge field serves to identify the gauge orbit, the introduction of the gauge field without a kinetic term gives a quotient manifold. In particular, we call the method as hyper-Kähler quotient method, when the resulting manifold is hyper-Kähler. In our SUSY case, the curved manifold is a result of the constraint coming from integrating the auxiliary fields in the gauge supermultiplet as well as from the gauge orbit quotient. Since we also have a mass term as a central extension of the SUSY algebra, this procedure is called the massive hyper-Kähler quotient method. In this way, we can understand the potential term as the square of the tri-holomorphic Killing vector and the mass parameter multiplying the potential as the central extension of the $`𝒩=2`$ SUSY algebra in four dimensions.

There have been a number of works to study nonlinear sigma models with eight supercharges.- The massive nonlinear sigma model with nontrivial Kähler metric as target space was studied, and BPS equations and BPS solutions such as walls and junctions were obtained.- Multi domain walls solution was also obtained and the dynamics of those walls was examined. Single or parallel domain walls in such models preserve $`\frac{1}{2}`$ SUSY, whereas their intersections preserve $`\frac{1}{4}`$ SUSY. In most papers, nonlinear sigma models were studied in terms of component fields. However, it is often useful to maintain as much SUSY as possible . Harmonic superspace formalism (HSF)  is most suited to maintain the SUSY maximally, but there has been relatively few attempt to formulate the BPS equations and to obtain BPS solutions in the HSF  until our recent work.

Our nonlinear sigma model can most easily be obtained by a quotient method in terms of a $`U(1)`$ vector multiplet without a kinetic term. In $`𝒩=1`$ formalism, the massless HK sigma model on $`T^{}𝐂P^n`$ was obtained as the HK quotient. The massive HK quotient was obtained in component level. The massless model with the Eguchi-Hanson target manifold ($`T^{}𝐂P^1`$)  has been constructed in $`𝒩=2`$ formalism, and its central extension was analysed. In order to obtain also a potential term, we need to perform a quotient method for a massive hypermultiplet charged under the $`U(1)`$ vector multiplet. When we are writing this up this work, another interesting work appeared discussing various wall and flux tube solutions in similar $`𝒩=2`$ models.

## 3 Eguchi-Hanson Nonlinear Sigma Model in $`𝒩=1`$ Superfields in the $`U(1)`$ Basis

The massive hyper-Kähler quotient method for the massive Eguchi-Hanson  nonlinear sigma model requires two hypermultiplets : $`\varphi ,\chi `$ as doublets. The doublet $`\varphi (\chi )`$ has charge $`+1(1)`$ under an $`𝒩=2`$ $`U(1)`$ vector multiplet $`(V,\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ without a kinetic term which serves as a Lagrange multiplier constraining hypermultiplets to form a four-dimensional (in terms of number of real degrees of freedom) target manifold. Here $`V`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ are vector and chiral superfields in $`𝒩=1`$ superfield formalism, respectively. Representing two doublets $`\varphi ,\chi `$ as column vectors, the action is given in terms of $`𝒩=1`$ superfields as

$$=[\mathrm{e}^V\varphi ^{}\varphi +\mathrm{e}^V\chi ^{}\chi cV]_{\theta ^2\overline{\theta }^2}+([\mathrm{\Sigma }(\chi ^T\varphi b)+\frac{\mu }{2}\chi ^T\sigma _3\varphi ]_{\theta ^2}+\mathrm{c}.\mathrm{c}.),$$
(6)
where we have absorbed a common mass of hypermultiplets into the field $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and denote $`\mu `$ as a complex parameter for the mass splitting. The electric and magnetic Fayet-Iliopoulos (FI) parameters are denoted as $`c𝐑,b𝐂`$. We see below that these parameters become the value of the triplet of the moment map for the $`U(1)`$ gauge symmetry.

In the limit of $`\mu =0`$, the model has a global (flavor) symmetry $`U(2)=SU(2)\times U(1)_\mathrm{A}`$ defined by

$$\varphi \varphi ^{}=g\varphi ,\chi \chi ^{}=g^{}\chi ,\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}=\mathrm{\Sigma },gU(2),$$
(7)
and, in the case of $`b=0`$, it has the additional $`U(1)_\mathrm{D}`$ symmetry

$$\varphi \varphi ^{}=\mathrm{e}^{i\theta _\mathrm{D}}\varphi ,\chi \chi ^{}=\mathrm{e}^{i\theta _\mathrm{D}}\chi ,\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}=\mathrm{e}^{2i\theta _\mathrm{D}}\mathrm{\Sigma }.$$
(8)
The $`U(2)`$ symmetry is consistent with the $`𝒩=2`$ SUSY, but the $`U(1)_\mathrm{D}`$ symmetry is only with the manifest $`𝒩=1`$ SUSY. The mass splitting parameter breaks this $`U(2)[\times U(1)_\mathrm{D}]`$ global symmetry (for $`b=0`$) down to $`U(1)\times U(1)U(2)`$ defined by $`\varphi \mathrm{e}^{i\theta _1\mathrm{𝟏}+i\theta _2\sigma _3}\varphi ,\chi \mathrm{e}^{i\theta _1\mathrm{𝟏}i\theta _2\sigma _3}\chi `$, with $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ unchanged. The $`U(1)`$ subgroup parametrized by $`\theta _1`$ is gauged. Since this mass splitting parameter affects only the potential term without affecting the kinetic term, the curved target manifold has Killing vectors for the isometry $`SU(2)[\times U(1)_\mathrm{D}`$ for $`b=0`$\]. The $`U(1)_\mathrm{A}`$ symmetry of $`U(2)=SU(2)\times U(1)_\mathrm{A}`$ is gauged away and is absent in the target manifold. However, only the Killing vectors for the isometry $`SU(2)`$ are consistent with the $`𝒩=2`$ SUSY and hence tri-holomorphic. The Killing vector for the $`U(1)_\mathrm{D}`$ isometry for $`b=0`$ is holomorphic, but not tri-holomorphic. Since we have introduced the mass parameter through the $`\sigma _3`$ generator, we will eventually obtain the potential term which is a square of the tri-holomorphic Killing vector corresponding to $`\sigma _3`$, after eliminating the vector multiplet.

In the Wess-Zumino gauge, the bosonic action is given by

$$_{\mathrm{boson}}=_{\mathrm{kin}}+_{\mathrm{constr}}+_{\mathrm{pot}},$$
(9)
$`_{\mathrm{kin}}`$ $`=`$ $`\left|\left(_\mu +{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}v_\mu \right)\varphi \right|^2\left|\left(_\mu {\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}v_\mu \right)\chi \right|^2`$ (10)
$`=`$ $`|_\mu \varphi |^2|_\mu \chi |^2+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}v^\mu \left(\varphi ^{}\stackrel{}{_\mu }\varphi \chi ^{}\stackrel{}{_\mu }\chi \right)`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}v^\mu v_\mu \left(\varphi ^{}\varphi +\chi ^{}\chi \right)`$
where $`\varphi ^{}\stackrel{}{_\mu }\varphi \varphi ^{}(_\mu \varphi )(_\mu \varphi ^{})\varphi `$.

$$_{\mathrm{constr}}=\frac{D}{2}(\varphi ^{}\varphi \chi ^{}\chi c)+(F_\mathrm{\Sigma }(\chi ^T\varphi b)+\mathrm{c}.\mathrm{c}.),$$
(11)
$`_{\mathrm{pot}}`$ $`=`$ $`F_\varphi ^{}F_\varphi +F_\chi ^{}F_\chi `$ (12)
$`+`$ $`(F_\chi ^T(\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{𝟏}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{2}}\sigma _3)\varphi +\chi ^T(\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{𝟏}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{2}}\sigma _3)F_\varphi +\mathrm{c}.\mathrm{c}.)`$
$``$ $`V(\varphi ,\chi ,\mathrm{\Sigma }).`$
The equation of motion for gauge field $`v_\mu `$ in (9) allows us to write gauge field $`v_\mu `$ in terms of scalar fields

$$v_\mu =\frac{i\left(\varphi ^{}\stackrel{}{_\mu }\varphi \chi ^{}\stackrel{}{_\mu }\chi \right)}{\varphi ^{}\varphi +\chi ^{}\chi }.$$
(13)
If we eliminate the gauge field by this algebraic equation of motion, we obtain the kinetic term for hypermultiplets as

$`_{\mathrm{kin}}=|_\mu \varphi |^2|_\mu \chi |^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\left|i\left(\varphi ^{}\stackrel{}{_\mu }\varphi \chi ^{}\stackrel{}{_\mu }\chi \right)\right|^2}{4(\varphi ^{}\varphi +\chi ^{}\chi )}}.`$ (14)
If we integrate the Lagrange multiplier fields $`D`$ and $`F_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ in (11), we obtain two constraints

$$\varphi ^{}\varphi \chi ^{}\chi =c,\chi ^T\varphi =b.$$
(15)
The Lagrangian (12) gives algebraic equations of motion for the auxiliary fields $`F_\varphi ,F_\chi `$

$`F_\varphi ^{}=\chi ^T\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{𝟏}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{2}}\sigma _3\right),F_\chi ^{}=\varphi ^T\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{𝟏}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{2}}\sigma _3\right).`$ (16)
After eliminating the auxiliary fields $`F_\varphi ,F_\chi `$ by these algebraic equations of motion, we obtain the potential term

$`V(\varphi ,\chi ,\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ $`=`$ $`|F_\varphi |^2+|F_\chi |^2`$ (17)
$`=`$ $`\left|\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{𝟏}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{2}}\sigma _3\right)\varphi \right|^2+\left|\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{𝟏}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{2}}\sigma _3\right)\chi \right|^2`$
$`=`$ $`\left(\left|{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{2}}\right|^2+|\mathrm{\Sigma }|^2\right)\left(\left|\varphi \right|^2+\left|\chi \right|^2\right)+\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^{}}{2}}\mathrm{\Sigma }+{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{2}}\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}\right)\left(\varphi ^{}\sigma _3\varphi +\chi ^{}\sigma _3\chi \right)`$
$`=`$ $`\left|{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{2}}\right|^2\left[|\varphi |^2+|\chi |^2{\displaystyle \frac{\left(\varphi ^{}\sigma _3\varphi +\chi ^{}\sigma _3\chi \right)^2}{|\varphi |^2+|\chi |^2}}\right].`$
In the last line, we have eliminated the scalar field $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ in the $`𝒩=2`$ vector multiplet $`(V,\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ by its algebraic equation of motion

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }=\frac{\mu }{2}\frac{\varphi ^{}\sigma _3\varphi +\chi ^{}\sigma _3\chi }{|\varphi |^2+|\chi |^2}.$$
(18)
In Eq. (15) the left hand sides constitute the triplet of the moment map (Killing potential) for the $`U(1)`$ gauge symmetry. Hence we see that these values are fixed to the FI parameters by integrating the auxiliary fields $`D`$ and $`F_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, and that the hyper-Kähler quotient is obtained together with the $`U(1)`$ quotient (13). In the limit of $`b=c=0`$ the singularity appears and the manifold becomes the orbifold $`𝐂^2/𝐙_2`$, whereas the non-zero values of $`b`$ and $`c`$ resolve the orbifold singularity through the deformation of the complex structure and the blow up, respectively.

## 4  Eguchi-Hanson Nonlinear Sigma Model After Integrating Vector Multiplet in the $`U(1)`$ Basis

Instead of taking the Wess-Zumino gauge in the component level, we can eliminate the auxiliary superfields $`V`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ directly in the superfield formalism. Their equations of motion read from Eq.(6) as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{V}}=\mathrm{e}^V|\varphi |^2\mathrm{e}^V|\chi |^2c=0,`$ (19)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}}=\chi ^T\varphi b=0,`$ (20)
in which $`V`$ can be solved immediately to give $`\mathrm{e}^V=(c\pm \sqrt{c^2+4|\varphi |^2|\chi |^2})/2|\varphi |^2`$. We thus obtain the Kähler potential

$$K=c\sqrt{1+\frac{4}{c^2}|\varphi |^2|\chi |^2}c\mathrm{log}\left(1+\sqrt{1+\frac{4}{c^2}|\varphi |^2|\chi |^2}\right)+c\mathrm{log}|\varphi |^2,$$
(21)
where we have chosen the plus sign of the solution for the positivity of the metric.

Fixing the complexified $`U(1)`$ gauge symmetry and solving (20), we can obtain the Lagrangian of the nonlinear sigma model in terms of independent superfields. We have presented some gauge fixing  applied to $`T^{}𝐂P^n`$ for general $`n`$. Here we give a more symmetric gauge for $`T^{}𝐂P^1`$ in the case of $`b=0`$. In this case, we can fix the gauge as $`\chi _1/\varphi _2=1`$, and (20) can be solved as $`\varphi ^T=(x,y)`$ and $`\chi ^T=(y,x)`$ (and hence $`|\varphi |^2=|\chi |^2=|x|^2+|y|^2`$). The Kähler potential becomes

$$K=c\sqrt{1+\frac{4}{c^2}|\varphi |^4}c\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{1+\sqrt{1+\frac{4}{c^2}|\varphi |^4}}{|\varphi |^2}\right),$$
(22)
and the superpotential is given by

$$W=\mu xy.$$
(23)
The metric and its inverse can be calculated to give

$`g_{ij^{}}={\displaystyle \frac{c}{|\varphi |^4\sqrt{1+\frac{4}{c^2}|\varphi |^4}}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}|y|^2+\frac{4}{c^2}|\varphi |^6& x^{}y\\ y^{}x& |x|^2+\frac{4}{c^2}|\varphi |^6\end{array}\right),`$ (26)
$`g^{ij^{}}={\displaystyle \frac{c}{4|\varphi |^4\sqrt{1+\frac{4}{c^2}|\varphi |^4}}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}|x|^2+\frac{4}{c^2}|\varphi |^6& y^{}x\\ x^{}y& |y|^2+\frac{4}{c^2}|\varphi |^6\end{array}\right),`$ (29)
where $`g_{ij^{}}=^2K/\varphi ^i\varphi ^j`$ and $`\varphi ^i=(x,y)`$. The scalar potential can be calculated as

$`V=g^{ij^{}}_iW_j^{}W^{}={\displaystyle \frac{c|\mu |^2}{|\varphi |^4\sqrt{1+\frac{4}{c^2}|\varphi |^4}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{c^2}}|\varphi |^8+|x|^2|y|^2\right).`$ (30)
The manifold admits the tri-holomorphic isometry $`SU(2)`$, defined in Eq.(7).222 The $`SU(2)`$ transformation law of $`\varphi ^i`$ as the coordinates of the quotient target manifold is unchanged from the one in Eq. (7) and hence is still linear, because the gauge fixing condition is invariant under the $`SU(2)`$ action. This is the advantage of our gauge fixing condition. To define the $`SU(2)`$ action in the cases of the other gauge condition , we need an appropriate $`U(1)`$ gauge action to compensate the variation of the gauge condition, which makes the transformation law of $`\varphi ^i`$ nonlinear. The diagonal $`U(1)_\mathrm{D}`$ isometry defined in Eq.(8) of $`U(2)\times U(1)_\mathrm{D}=SU(2)\times U(1)_\mathrm{A}\times U(1)_\mathrm{D}`$ isometry is holomorphic but not tri-holomorphic.  The Killing vectors for this action $`k_A^i=\frac{1}{ϵ}\delta _ϵ\varphi ^i=\frac{i}{2}(\sigma _A)^i{}_{j}{}^{}\varphi _{}^{j}`$ ($`A=1,2,3`$) are given as

$$(k_1,k_2,k_3)=\frac{i}{2}(\left(\begin{array}{c}y\\ x\end{array}\right),\left(\begin{array}{c}iy\\ ix\end{array}\right),\left(\begin{array}{c}x\\ y\end{array}\right)).$$
(31)
The Killing potential $`D_A(\varphi ,\varphi ^{})`$ for these vectors, defined by $`k_A^i=ig^{ij^{}}_j^{}D_A`$, are given as

$$(D_1,D_2,D_3)=\frac{c}{2}\frac{\sqrt{1+\frac{4}{c^2}|\varphi |^4}}{|\varphi |^2}(xy^{}+yx^{},i(xy^{}yx^{}),|x|^2|y|^2).$$
(32)
Using these geometric quantities, the scalar potential can be rewritten by the square of the Killing vector

$$V=|\mu |^2g_{ij^{}}k_3^ik_3^j=|\mu |^2g^{ij^{}}_iD_3_j^{}D_3$$
(33)
as was shown in Eq. (5). It is now manifest that only the action of $`k_3`$ among three Killing vectors preserves the potential term and therefore is the symmetry of the whole Lagrangian as expected from the mass term in (6). The vacua are fixed points of the Killing vectors $`k_3`$ or the critical points of the Killing potential $`D_3`$.

## 5 Eguchi-Hanson Nonlinear Sigma Model in $`𝒩=1`$ Superfields in the $`O(2)`$ Basis

It is also useful to rewrite the model in terms of $`O(2)`$ gauge group instead of $`U(1)`$, since $`O(2)`$ basis is most frequently employed in the harmonic superspace formalism as given in the next section. Introducing $`O(2)`$ doublets $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }^a`$ as a column vector and $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_a`$ as a row vector, superspace action in the $`O(2)`$ basis is given by

$`^{O(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`\left[\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_a^{}(\mathrm{e}^{VT})^a{}_{b}{}^{}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_{}^{b}+\stackrel{~}{\chi }_a(\mathrm{e}^{VT})^a{}_{b}{}^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{}^{b}cV\right]_{\theta ^2\overline{\theta }^2}`$ (34)
$`+([\mathrm{\Sigma }(\stackrel{~}{\chi }_aT^a{}_{b}{}^{}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_{}^{b}b)+{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{2}}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_a\stackrel{~}{\varphi }^a]_{\theta ^2}+\mathrm{c}.\mathrm{c}.),`$
where the hermitian $`O(2)`$ generator is given from a diagonal generator $`\sigma _3`$ by

$$T\sigma _2=\mathrm{e}^{i\frac{\pi \sigma _1}{4}}\sigma _3\mathrm{e}^{i\frac{\pi \sigma _1}{4}}=\frac{1+i\sigma _1}{\sqrt{2}}\sigma _3\frac{1i\sigma _1}{\sqrt{2}}.$$
(35)
In order to establish a relation between superspace action in the $`U(1)`$ and $`O(2)`$ bases, it is convenient to define fields $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }^{},\stackrel{~}{\chi }^{}`$ with definite $`U(1)`$ charge by means of a rotation from the $`O(2)`$ basis

$$\stackrel{~}{\varphi }^{}\frac{1i\sigma _1}{\sqrt{2}}\stackrel{~}{\varphi },\stackrel{~}{\chi }^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }\frac{1i\sigma _1}{\sqrt{2}}.$$
(36)
In terms of these superfields, the action becomes

$`^{O(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`\left[\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_a^{{}_{}{}^{}}(\mathrm{e}^{V\sigma _3})^a{}_{b}{}^{}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_{}^{{}_{}{}^{}b}+\stackrel{~}{\chi }_a^{}(\mathrm{e}^{V\sigma _3})^a{}_{b}{}^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{}^{{}_{}{}^{}b}cV\right]_{\theta ^2\overline{\theta }^2}`$ (37)
$`+`$ $`([\mathrm{\Sigma }(\stackrel{~}{\chi }_a^{}\left(\sigma _2\right)^a{}_{b}{}^{}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_{}^{{}_{}{}^{}b}b)+{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{2}}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_a^{}\left(i\sigma _1\right)^a{}_{b}{}^{}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_{}^{{}_{}{}^{}a}]_{\theta ^2}+\mathrm{c}.\mathrm{c}.).`$
By identifying the $`O(2)`$ and $`U(1)`$ gauge fields, we find that the superfields $`\varphi _i,\chi _i`$ in the $`U(1)`$ basis should be related to the superfields $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }^{}_{}{}^{}i,\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^{^{}}`$ in the $`O(2)`$ basis as

$`|\stackrel{~}{\varphi }^{}_{}{}^{}1|^2+|\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{}|^2`$ $`=`$ $`|\varphi _1|^2+|\varphi _2|^2,`$ (38)
$`|\stackrel{~}{\varphi }^{}_{}{}^{}2|^2+|\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^{}|^2`$ $`=`$ $`|\chi _1|^2+|\chi _2|^2,`$ (39)
$`i\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^{^{}}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }^{}_{}{}^{}1i\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }^{}_{}{}^{}2`$ $`=`$ $`\chi _1\varphi _1+\chi _2\varphi _2,`$ (40)
$`i\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^{^{}}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }^{}_{}{}^{}1+i\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }^{}_{}{}^{}2`$ $`=`$ $`\chi _1\varphi _1\chi _2\varphi _2.`$ (41)
The most general solution of the conditions (38) and (39) is given in terms of two unitary matrices $`U,V`$

$`\left(\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }^{}_{}{}^{}1\\ \stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{}\end{array}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`U\left(\begin{array}{c}\varphi _1\\ \varphi _2\end{array}\right),U^{}U=1,`$ (46)
$`\left(\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }^{}_{}{}^{}2\\ \stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^{}\end{array}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`V\left(\begin{array}{c}\chi _1\\ \chi _2\end{array}\right),V^{}V=1.`$ (51)
The constraints (40) and (41) give conditions

$$V^T\sigma _2U=1,V^Ti\sigma _1U=\sigma _3,$$
(52)
respectively. The first condition gives $`V^T=U^{}\sigma _2`$. By substituting it to the second condition we obtain

$$U^{}\sigma _3U=\sigma _3.$$
(53)
The most general solution of these conditions is now given in terms of two arbitrary angle parameters $`\alpha ,\beta `$ by

$$U=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{e}^{i\alpha }& 0\\ 0& \mathrm{e}^{i\beta }\end{array}\right),V=\sigma _2\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{e}^{i\alpha }& 0\\ 0& \mathrm{e}^{i\beta }\end{array}\right).$$
(54)
These angles $`\alpha ,\beta `$ clearly represent the $`U(1)\times U(1)`$ symmetry of our Lagrangian. Therefore a general solution for the identification of superfields $`\varphi _i,\chi _i`$ in the $`U(1)`$ basis and superfields $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }^a,\stackrel{~}{\chi }_a`$ in the $`O(2)`$ superfields is given by

$`\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{c}\varphi _1\\ \varphi _2\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{e}^{i\alpha }\stackrel{~}{\varphi }^{}_{}{}^{}1\\ \mathrm{e}^{i\beta }\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{}\end{array}\right)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{e}^{i\alpha }(\stackrel{~}{\varphi }^1i\stackrel{~}{\varphi }^2)\\ \mathrm{e}^{i\beta }(\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1i\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2)\end{array}\right),`$ (61)
$`\chi `$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{c}\chi _1\\ \chi _2\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{c}i\mathrm{e}^{i\alpha }\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^{^{}}\\ i\mathrm{e}^{i\beta }\stackrel{~}{\varphi }^{}_{}{}^{}2\end{array}\right)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{e}^{i\alpha }(\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1+i\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2)\\ \mathrm{e}^{i\beta }(\stackrel{~}{\varphi }^1i\stackrel{~}{\varphi }^2)\end{array}\right).`$ (68)
From now on, we shall take $`\alpha =\beta =0`$ case as a representative choice which is given by

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}\varphi _1\\ \varphi _2\end{array}\right)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }^1i\stackrel{~}{\varphi }^2\\ \stackrel{~}{\chi }_1i\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2\end{array}\right),\left(\begin{array}{c}\chi _1\\ \chi _2\end{array}\right)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1+i\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2\\ \stackrel{~}{\varphi }^1i\stackrel{~}{\varphi }^2\end{array}\right).$$
(69)
Bosonic part of the Lagrangian in the $`O(2)`$ basis (34) is given in the Wess-Zumino gauge

$$_{\mathrm{boson}}^{O(2)}=_{\mathrm{kin}}^{O(2)}+_{\mathrm{constr}}^{O(2)}+_{\mathrm{pot}}^{O(2)},$$
(70)
$`_{\mathrm{kin}}^{O(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`\left|\left(_\mu +{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}v_\mu T\right)\stackrel{~}{\varphi }\right|^2\left|\left(_\mu +{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}v_\mu T\right)\stackrel{~}{\chi }^T\right|^2`$ (71)
$`=`$ $`|_\mu \stackrel{~}{\varphi }|^2|_\mu \stackrel{~}{\chi }|^2+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}v^\mu \left(\stackrel{~}{\varphi }^{}T\stackrel{}{}_\mu \stackrel{~}{\varphi }+\stackrel{~}{\chi }T\stackrel{}{}_\mu \stackrel{~}{\chi }^{}\right)`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}v^\mu v_\mu \left(\stackrel{~}{\varphi }^{}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }+\stackrel{~}{\chi }\stackrel{~}{\chi }^{}\right),`$
$`_{\mathrm{constr}}^{O(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{D}{2}}(\stackrel{~}{\varphi }^{}T\stackrel{~}{\varphi }\stackrel{~}{\chi }T\stackrel{~}{\chi }^{}c)+(F_\mathrm{\Sigma }(\stackrel{~}{\chi }T\stackrel{~}{\varphi }b)+\mathrm{c}.\mathrm{c}.),`$ (72)
$`_{\mathrm{pot}}^{O(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`F_{\stackrel{~}{\varphi }}^{}F_{\stackrel{~}{\varphi }}+F_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}F_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}^{}`$ (73)
$`+`$ $`(F_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}(\mathrm{\Sigma }T+{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{2}}\mathrm{𝟏})\stackrel{~}{\varphi }+\stackrel{~}{\chi }(\mathrm{\Sigma }T+{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{2}}\mathrm{𝟏})F_{\stackrel{~}{\varphi }}+\mathrm{c}.\mathrm{c}.)`$
$``$ $`V(\varphi ,\chi ,\mathrm{\Sigma }).`$
The equation of motion for gauge field $`v_\mu `$ is given by

$$v_\mu =\frac{i\left(\stackrel{~}{\varphi }^{}T\stackrel{}{}_\mu \stackrel{~}{\varphi }+\stackrel{~}{\chi }T\stackrel{}{}_\mu \stackrel{~}{\chi }^{}\right)}{\stackrel{~}{\varphi }^{}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }+\stackrel{~}{\chi }\stackrel{~}{\chi }^{}}.$$
(74)
Eliminating the gauge field by this algebraic equation of motion, we obtain the kinetic term for hypermultiplets as

$`_{\mathrm{kin}}=|_\mu \stackrel{~}{\varphi }|^2|_\mu \stackrel{~}{\chi }|^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\left|i\left(\stackrel{~}{\varphi }^{}T\stackrel{}{}_\mu \stackrel{~}{\varphi }+\stackrel{~}{\chi }T\stackrel{}{}_\mu \stackrel{~}{\chi }^{}\right)\right|^2}{4(\stackrel{~}{\varphi }^{}\varphi +\stackrel{~}{\chi }^{}\chi )}}.`$ (75)
Integrating the Lagrange multiplier fields $`D`$ and $`F_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ in (72), we obtain two constraints

$$\stackrel{~}{\varphi }^{}T\stackrel{~}{\varphi }\stackrel{~}{\chi }T\stackrel{~}{\chi }^{}c=0,\stackrel{~}{\chi }T\stackrel{~}{\varphi }b=0.$$
(76)
Eliminating the algebraic equations of motion for the auxiliary fields $`F_\varphi ,F_\chi `$

$`F_\varphi ^{}=\stackrel{~}{\chi }\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }T+{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{2}}\mathrm{𝟏}\right),F_\chi ^{}=\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }T+{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{2}}\mathrm{𝟏}\right)\stackrel{~}{\varphi }.`$ (77)
After eliminating the auxiliary fields $`F_\varphi ,F_\chi `$ by these algebraic equations of motion, we obtain the potential term

$`V(\stackrel{~}{\varphi },\stackrel{~}{\chi },\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ $`=`$ $`|F_{\stackrel{~}{\varphi }}|^2+|F_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}|^2`$ (78)
$`=`$ $`\left|\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }T+{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{2}}\mathrm{𝟏}\right)\stackrel{~}{\varphi }\right|^2+\left|\stackrel{~}{\chi }\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }T+{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{2}}\mathrm{𝟏}\right)\right|^2`$
$`=`$ $`\left(\left|{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{2}}\right|^2+|\mathrm{\Sigma }|^2\right)\left(|\stackrel{~}{\varphi }|^2+\left|\stackrel{~}{\chi }\right|^2\right)+\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^{}}{2}}\mathrm{\Sigma }+{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{2}}\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}\right)\left(\stackrel{~}{\varphi }^{}T\stackrel{~}{\varphi }+\stackrel{~}{\chi }T\stackrel{~}{\chi }^{}\right)`$
$`=`$ $`\left|{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{2}}\right|^2\left[|\stackrel{~}{\varphi }|^2+|\stackrel{~}{\chi }|^2{\displaystyle \frac{\left(\stackrel{~}{\varphi }^{}T\stackrel{~}{\varphi }+\stackrel{~}{\chi }T\stackrel{~}{\chi }^{}\right)^2}{|\stackrel{~}{\varphi }|^2+|\stackrel{~}{\chi }|^2}}\right].`$
In the last line, we have eliminated the scalar field $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ in the $`𝒩=2`$ vector multiplet $`(V,\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ by its algebraic equation of motion

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }=\frac{\mu }{2}\frac{\stackrel{~}{\varphi }^{}T\stackrel{~}{\varphi }+\stackrel{~}{\chi }T\stackrel{~}{\chi }^{}}{|\stackrel{~}{\varphi }|^2+|\stackrel{~}{\chi }|^2}.$$
(79)
## 6  A Brief Survey of Harmonic Superspace Formalism

Harmonic superspace is defined as $`(x^\mu ,\theta _i,\overline{\theta }^i,u_i^\pm )`$ which is called the central basis. The $`u_i^\pm `$ are called the harmonic variables which parameterize the coset $`SU(2)_R/U(1)_rS^2`$, where $`i=1,2`$ is $`SU(2)_R`$ index and $`\pm `$ denotes $`U(1)_r`$ charge. The superfield in the Harmonic Superspace Formalism (HSF) is not defined in the central basis but in the subspace which is called the analytic subspace

$$\{\zeta _A,u_i^\pm |x_A^\mu =x^\mu 2i\theta ^{(i}\sigma ^\mu \overline{\theta }^{j)}u_{(i}^+u_{j)}^{},\theta ^+=\theta ^iu_i^+,\overline{\theta }^+=\overline{\theta }^iu_i^+,u_i^\pm \},$$
(80)
where parentheses for indices $`i,j`$ mean symmetrization, for instance,

$$u_{(i}^+u_{j)}^{}=(u_i^+u_j^{}+u_j^+u_i^{})/2.$$
(81)
Hypermultiplet and vector multiplet superfields are defined as the function in the analytic subspace as $`q^+(\zeta _A,u)`$ and $`V^{++}(\zeta _A,u)`$, respectively, which are called the analytic superfields.

To describe the real action in terms of the analytic superfield, the star conjugation must be introduced in addition to the usual complex conjugation. The complex conjugation rules for the coefficients in the harmonic expansions $`f^{i_1\mathrm{}i_n}`$ (see (96)), the Grassmann variables $`\theta _{i\alpha }`$ and the harmonic variables $`u_i^\pm `$ are defined as

$`\overline{f^{i_1\mathrm{}i_n}}`$ $``$ $`\overline{f}_{i_1\mathrm{}i_n},\overline{f_{i_1\mathrm{}i_n}}=(1)^n\overline{f}^{i_1\mathrm{}i_n},`$ (82)
$`\overline{\theta _{i\alpha }}`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\theta }_{\dot{\alpha }}^i,\overline{\theta _\alpha ^i}=\overline{\theta }_{\dot{\alpha }i},`$ (83)
$`\overline{u^{+i}}`$ $`=`$ $`u_i^{},\overline{u_i^+}=u^i,`$ (84)
respectively. The star conjugation rules are defined as

$`(f^{i_1\mathrm{}i_n})^{}=f^{i_1\mathrm{}i_n},`$ (85)
$`(\theta _\alpha ^i)^{}=\theta _\alpha ^i,`$ (86)
$`(u^{+i})^{}=u^i,(u_i^+)^{}=u_i^{},(u^i)^{}=u^{+i},(u_i^{})^{}=u_i^+,`$ (87)
$`(u_i^\pm )^{}=u_i^\pm .`$ (88)
Note that the star conjugate acts only on the quantity having $`U(1)_r`$ charge. We write the combination of the complex and the star conjugation as

$`(\overline{q^+(\zeta _A,u)})^{}\stackrel{~}{q^+}(\zeta _A,u).`$ (89)
The combined conjugation rules are defined by

$`\stackrel{~}{f^{i_1\mathrm{}i_n}}=\overline{f^{i_1\mathrm{}i_n}}\overline{f}_{i_1\mathrm{}i_n},`$ (90)
$`\stackrel{~}{\theta ^+}=\overline{\theta }^+,\stackrel{~}{\theta ^{}}=\overline{\theta }^{},\stackrel{~}{\overline{\theta }^+}=\theta ^+,\stackrel{~}{\overline{\theta }^{}}=\theta ^{},`$ (91)
$`(\stackrel{~}{u_i^\pm })=u^{\pm i},(\stackrel{~}{u^{\pm i}})=u_i^\pm .`$ (92)
The simple example of the real action is the free massless action of the Fayet-Sohnius hypermultiplet;

$`S={\displaystyle 𝑑\zeta _A^{(4)}𝑑u\stackrel{~}{\varphi ^+}D^{++}\varphi ^+}`$ (93)
where $`D^{++}`$ is defined by

$`D^{++}=^{++}2i\theta ^+\sigma ^\mu \overline{\theta }^+_\mu ^A(\theta ^{+2}\overline{Z}\overline{\theta }^{+2}Z),`$ (94)
with $`Z=0`$ for a massless hypermultiplet. Suffix $`A`$ in the spacetime derivative $`_\mu ^A`$ denotes the variable appropriate in the analytic superspace, $`^{++}`$ is the harmonic differential defined by $`^{++}=u_i^+\frac{}{u_i^{}}`$. For details of notation in HSF, we refer to our paper  or a textbook.

The action is real in the sense of ordinary complex conjugation $`\overline{S}=S`$. This property follows from the fact that $`\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{~}{q^+}}=q^+`$.

Analytic superfields for the hypermultiplet $`q_a^+(x_A,\theta ^\pm ,u)`$ can be expanded in powers of Grassmann numbers $`\theta `$ as

$`q_a^+(x_A,\theta ^\pm ,u)=F_a^+(x_A,u)+\sqrt{2}\theta ^+\psi _a(x_A,u)+\sqrt{2}\overline{\theta }^+\overline{\phi }_a(x_A,u)`$ (95)
$`+`$ $`i\theta ^+\sigma ^\mu \overline{\theta }^+A_{a\mu }^{}(x_A,u)+\theta ^+\theta ^+M_a^{}(x_A,u)+\overline{\theta }^+\overline{\theta }^+N_a^{}(x_A,u)`$
$`+`$ $`\sqrt{2}\theta ^+\theta ^+\overline{\theta }^+\overline{\chi }_a^{}(x_A,u)+\sqrt{2}\overline{\theta }^+\overline{\theta }^+\theta ^+\xi _a^{}(x_A,u)`$
$`+`$ $`\theta ^+\theta ^+\overline{\theta }^+\overline{\theta }^+D_a^{}(x_A,u),`$
where $`a`$ is a flavor index. Note that each component in the hypermultiplet analytic superfield (95) is a function of $`x_A`$, and the harmonic variables $`u_i^\pm `$. Therefore it includes infinite series of functions of $`x_A`$ when expanded by the harmonic variables $`u_i^\pm `$ (harmonic expansions), for instance,

$`F_a^+(x_A,u)={\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}f^{(i_1\mathrm{}i_{n+1}j_1\mathrm{}j_n)}(x_A)u_{(i_1}^+\mathrm{}u_{i_{n+1}}^+u_{j_1}^{}\mathrm{}u_{j_n)}^{}.`$ (96)
Thus, the hypermultiplet includes infinitely many auxiliary fields in addition to physical fields.

We also use the convention to raise and lower the $`SU(2)`$ indices by means of $`ϵ_{ij}`$ and $`ϵ^{ij}`$,

$`ϵ_{21}=ϵ^{12}=1,ϵ_{12}=ϵ^{21}=1.`$ (97)
For instance the scalar fields for hypermultiplet $`f_a^i,i=1,2`$ have the property :

$`f_a^i`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ^{ij}f_{aj},f_{ai}=ϵ_{ij}f_a^j,`$ (98)
$`\overline{f}_{ai}`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ_{ij}\overline{f}_a^j,\overline{f}_a^i=ϵ^{ij}\overline{f}_{aj},`$ (99)
where lower index $`a`$ denotes fundamental representation in flavor symmetry group. Therefore the scalar fields for hypermultiplet has the following reality property in conformity with our convention of complex conjugate in HSF (82) :

$`\left(f_a^i\right)^{}=\overline{f_a^i}\overline{f}_{ai}.`$ (100)
Namely we have $`\overline{f}_{a1}=\overline{f}_a^2`$, $`\overline{f}_{a2}=\overline{f}_a^1`$. We shall use $`f_a^i`$ and its complex conjugate field $`\overline{f}_{ai}`$ as much as possible instead of $`\overline{f}_a^i=ϵ^{ij}\overline{f}_{aj}`$.

## 7  The Eguchi-Hanson Nonlinear Sigma Model in HSF

The massive HK sigma model on Eguchi-Hanson manifold  ($`T^{}𝐂P^1`$) is described in terms of harmonic superfields  integrated over the analytic subspace $`d\zeta _A^{(4)}du`$

$$S=𝑑\zeta _A^{(4)}𝑑u\left(\stackrel{~}{q_1^+}D^{++}q_1^++\stackrel{~}{q_2^+}D^{++}q_2^++V^{++}(\stackrel{~}{q_1^+}q_2^+\stackrel{~}{q_2^+}q_1^++\xi ^{++})\right)$$
(101)
where the covariant derivative $`D^{++}`$ defined in (94) contains the central charge $`Z`$ satisfying the following eigenvalue equation

$`Zq_a^+(\zeta _A,u)={\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{2}}q_a^+(\zeta _A,u).`$ (102)
This mass parameter can be attributed to the Sherk-Schwarz reduction from six dimensions : $`Z=i(_5+i_6)`$.

The Lagrangian (101) is invariant under $`O(2)`$ gauge transformation

$`\delta q_1^+(\zeta _A,u)`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda (\zeta _A,u)q_2^+(\zeta _A,u),`$ (103)
$`\delta q_2^+(\zeta _A,u)`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda (\zeta _A,u)q_1^+(\zeta _A,u),`$ (104)
$`\delta V^{++}(\zeta _A,u)`$ $`=`$ $`D^{++}\lambda (\zeta _A,u).`$ (105)
Similarly to the Grassmann expansion of hypermultiplets (95), the vector multiplet $`V(\zeta _A,u)`$ can also be expanded into infinitely many components when expanded in powers of Grassmann numbers $`\theta `$. These components can then be expanded into power series in harmonic variables $`u_i^\pm `$. However, we can exploit the gauge transformation (105) to eliminate most of the auxiliary components in powers of Grassmann number $`\theta `$ and also in powers of harmonic variables $`u_i^\pm `$ in the vector multiplet. After eliminating infinitely many auxiliary fields by the gauge transformations, we obtain a gauge fixing

$`V_{\mathrm{WZ}}^{++}(x_A,\theta ^\pm ,u)`$ $`=`$ $`\theta ^+\theta ^+\overline{M}_v(x_A)+\overline{\theta }^+\overline{\theta }^+M_v(x_A)2i\theta ^+\sigma ^\mu \overline{\theta }^+V_\mu (x_A)`$ (106)
$`+`$ $`\sqrt{2}\theta ^+\theta ^+\overline{\theta }^+\overline{\lambda }^i(x_A)u_i^{}+\sqrt{2}\overline{\theta }^+\overline{\theta }^+\theta ^+\lambda ^i(x_A)u_i^{}`$
$`+`$ $`\theta ^+\theta ^+\overline{\theta }^+\overline{\theta }^+D_v^{(ij)}(x_A)u_{(i}^{}u_{j)}^{},`$
which is called the Wess-Zumino gauge and is denoted by the suffix WZ. As a result, the remaining fields $`M_v(x_A),V_\mu (x_A),\lambda ^i(x_A)`$ in (106) are physical fields except $`D_v(x_A)^{(ij)}`$, if there is a kinetic term for vector multiplet. The field $`D_v(x_A)^{(ij)}`$ is the usual SUSY auxiliary field. However, we will use here a vector multiplet with no kinetic term. Therefore we will eventually eliminate all these component fields in the vector multiplet giving rise to constraints for hypermultiplets.

After integrating Grassmann variables and the harmonic variables, and eliminating infinitely many auxiliary fields of the hypermultiplet expanded in powers of harmonic variables $`u_i^\pm `$, and taking the Wess-Zumino gauge for the vector multiplet in HSF, we obtain the bosonic part of the action as

$`_{\mathrm{boson}}^{\mathrm{HSF}}`$ (107)
$`=`$ $`\left(_A^\mu f_1^i+V^\mu f_2^i\right)\left(_\mu ^A\overline{f}_{1i}+V_\mu \overline{f}_{2i}\right)\left(_A^\mu f_2^iV^\mu f_1^i\right)\left(_\mu ^A\overline{f}_{2i}V_\mu \overline{f}_{1i}\right)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\overline{M}_v\overline{f}_{1i}{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\mu }}{2}}\overline{f}_{2i}\right)\left(M_vf_1^i{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{2}}f_2^i\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\overline{M}_v\overline{f}_{2i}+{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\mu }}{2}}\overline{f}_{1i}\right)\left(M_vf_2^i+{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{2}}f_1^i\right)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(M_v\overline{f}_{1i}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{2}}\overline{f}_{2i}\right)\left(\overline{M}_vf_1^i+{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\mu }}{2}}f_2^i\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(M_v\overline{f}_{2i}{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{2}}\overline{f}_{1i}\right)\left(\overline{M}_vf_2^i{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\mu }}{2}}f_1^i\right)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}D_{v(ij)}(\overline{f}_1^{(i}f_2^{j)}+\overline{f}_2^{(i}f_1^{j)}+\xi ^{(ij)})`$
$`=`$ $`_{\mathrm{kin}}^{\mathrm{HSF}}+_{\mathrm{constr}}^{\mathrm{HSF}}+_{\mathrm{pot}}^{\mathrm{HSF}},`$
$`_{\mathrm{kin}}^{\mathrm{HSF}}`$ $`=`$ $`_\mu ^Af_a^i_A^\mu \overline{f}_{ai}+_\mu ^Af_a^iϵ_{ab}V^\mu \overline{f}_{bi}ϵ_{ab}V^\mu f_a^i_\mu ^A\overline{f}_{bi}`$ (108)
$`V^\mu V_\mu f_a^i\overline{f}_{ai},`$
$`_{\mathrm{constr}}^{\mathrm{HSF}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}D_{v(ij)}(\overline{f}_1^{(i}f_2^{j)}+\overline{f}_2^{(i}f_1^{j)}+\xi ^{(ij)}),`$ (109)
where $`a=1,2`$ denotes fundamental representation in $`O(2)`$ gauge group. The scalar potential $`V(f,\overline{f})`$ is given by

$`_{\mathrm{pot}}^{\mathrm{HSF}}`$ $`=`$ $`V(f,\overline{f})`$ (110)
$`=`$ $`\left(\left|{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{2}}\right|^2+|M_v|^2\right)\left(f_1^i\overline{f}_{1i}+f_2^i\overline{f}_{2i}\right)`$
$`+`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{2}}\overline{M}_v\overline{{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{2}}}M_v\right)\left(f_1^i\overline{f}_{2i}f_2^i\overline{f}_{1i}\right).`$
Let us stress once again that we adopt a convention for complex conjugation of complex scalar fields $`\left(f_a^i\right)^{}\overline{f}_{ai}=ϵ_{ij}\overline{f}_a^j,`$ and use $`f_a^i`$ and $`\overline{f}_{ai}`$ to denote a complex conjugate pair.

There are still auxiliary fields $`M_v`$ and $`V^\mu `$ and $`D_{v(ij)}`$ of the vector multiplet. By changing variables, we can also introduce the most frequently used parameterization given by Curtright and Freedman  : four complex fields $`\varphi _i^\alpha ,\alpha =1,2,i=1,2`$

$`\varphi _1^\alpha ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(f_1^{2,\alpha }+if_2^{2,\alpha }),\varphi _2^\alpha ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(f_1^{1,\alpha }+if_2^{1,\alpha }),`$ (111)
where $`f_a^{i,1}=f_a^i`$ and $`f_a^{i,2}=\overline{f}_a^i`$.

The Lagrangian in the HSF (107)-(110) can be related to the component Lagrangian (70)-(73) in terms of $`𝒩=1`$ superfields in the $`O(2)`$ basis in the Wess-Zumino gauge by the following identification :

$$M_v=i\mathrm{\Sigma },V_\mu =\frac{v_\mu }{2},$$
(112)
and fields $`f_a^i`$ of HSF can be identified with $`𝒩=1`$ fields $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }^a,\stackrel{~}{\chi }_a`$ in the $`O(2)`$ basis (70)-(73) as

$$f_a^1=\left(\stackrel{~}{\varphi }^a\right)^{},f_a^2=\stackrel{~}{\chi }_a.$$
(113)
The Fayet-Iliopoulos parameters $`\xi ^{(ij)}`$ in HSF are identified with Fayet-Iliopoulos parameters $`c,b,b^{}`$ in the $`𝒩=1`$ superfield formalism as

$$\xi ^{11}=ib^{},\xi ^{22}=ib,\xi ^{12}=\xi ^{21}=\frac{ic}{2}.$$
(114)
The auxiliary fields $`D_{v(ij)}`$ in HSF are identified with the auxiliary fields $`D,F_\mathrm{\Sigma },F_\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ in the $`𝒩=1`$ superfield formalism as

$$D_{v(11)}=3iF_\mathrm{\Sigma }^{},D_{v(22)}=3iF_\mathrm{\Sigma },D_{v(12)}=\frac{3iD}{2}.$$
(115)
These results are in conformity with the reality property of the Fayet-Iliopoulos parameters $`\xi ^{(ij)}`$ and the auxiliary fields $`D_{v(ij)}`$ in HSF and those in $`𝒩=1`$ superfield formalism

$$\xi ^{(ij)}=ϵ^{ik}ϵ^{jl}\left(\xi ^{(kl)}\right)^{},D_{v(ij)}=ϵ_{ik}ϵ_{jl}\left(D_{v(kl)}\right)^{}.$$
(116)
$$b𝐂,c𝐑,F_\mathrm{\Sigma }𝐂,D𝐑.$$
(117)
The identification (113) implies that the complex scalar fields $`f_a^1`$ belong to anti-chiral scalar superfields, and $`f_a^2`$ to chiral scalar superfields. The suffix $`a`$ denotes fundamental representation of the gauge group $`O(2)`$.

The complex fields $`\varphi _i^\alpha `$ in the Curtright-Freedman basis (111) are more directly related to the complex scalar fields of the $`𝒩=1`$ superfields $`\varphi _i,\chi _i`$ in the $`U(1)`$ basis in (9)-(12) as

$`\varphi _1^1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(f_1^2+if_2^2\right)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1+i\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2\right)=\chi _1,`$ (118)
$`\varphi _2^1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(f_1^1+if_2^1\right)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_1+i\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_2\right)=\left(\varphi _1\right)^{},`$ (119)
$`\varphi _1^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(\overline{f}_1^2+i\overline{f}_2^2\right)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(\overline{f}_{11}i\overline{f}_{21}\right)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(\stackrel{~}{\varphi }^1i\stackrel{~}{\varphi }^2\right)=\chi _2,`$ (120)
$`\varphi _2^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(\overline{f}_1^1+i\overline{f}_2^1\right)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(\overline{f}_{12}+i\overline{f}_{22}\right)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{}+i\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^{}\right)=\left(\varphi _2\right)^{}.`$ (121)
Therefore the complex scalar fields $`\varphi _1^i`$ are identified as those of chiral scalar superfield, and $`\varphi _2^i`$ are identified as those of anti-chiral scalar superfield. We also notice that all the complex fields $`\varphi _i^\alpha ,i=1,2,\alpha =1,2`$ in the Curtright-Freedman basis have $`U(1)`$ charge $`1`$ in conformity with the charge assignment obtained in the model constructed by the tensor calculus for supergravity. This supergravity model shows that our model can be embedded into supergravity. Moreover it explicitly demonstrates that our model can be extended to a model in five dimensions.

The equation of motion for the gauge field $`V_\mu `$ gives

$`V_\mu ={\displaystyle \frac{ϵ_{ab}\left(_\mu ^Af_a^i\overline{f}_{bi}f_a^i_\mu ^A\overline{f}_{bi}\right)}{2f_a^i\overline{f}_{ai}}}.`$ (122)
After eliminating the vector field $`V^\mu `$, we obtain the kinetic term for the scalar fields $`f_a^i`$ in the hypermultiplets

$`_{\mathrm{kin}}^{\mathrm{HSF}}`$ $`=`$ $`_A^\mu f_1^i_\mu ^A\overline{f}_{1i}_A^\mu f_2^i_\mu ^A\overline{f}_{2i}+{\displaystyle \frac{(f_2^i\stackrel{}{_A^\mu }\overline{f}_{1i}f_1^i\stackrel{}{_A^\mu }\overline{f}_{2i})^2}{4(f_1^i\overline{f}_{1i}+f_2^i\overline{f}_{2i})}}.`$ (123)
Integrating over scalar $`M_v`$ and the auxiliary fields $`D_{v(ij)}`$ in the vector multiplet, we obtain constraints

$`\overline{f}_1^{(i}f_2^{j)}+\overline{f}_2^{(i}f_1^{j)}+\xi ^{(ij)}=0.`$ (124)
This constraint makes the target space of the massive nonlinear sigma model into the Eguchi-Hanson manifold. In the case of massless (without potential) model, the target metric for the four independent real bosonic fields has been shown to be just the Eguchi-Hanson metric.

The equation of motion for scalar field $`M_v`$ gives

$`M_v={\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ_{ab}f_a^i\overline{f}_{bi}}{f_c^i\overline{f}_{ci}}}`$ (125)
where the flavor indices are summed. Integrating over $`M_v`$ gives the potential term as

$$V(f_1,f_2)=\left|\frac{\mu }{2}\right|^2\frac{1}{f_1^i\overline{f}_{1i}+f_2^i\overline{f}_{2i}}\left\{|f_1^i\overline{f}_{2i}f_2^i\overline{f}_{1i}|^2+(f_1^i\overline{f}_{1i}+f_2^i\overline{f}_{2i})^2\right\}.$$
(126)
The parameters $`\xi ^{(ij)}`$ have mass dimensions two and represent the scale of the curvature of the target manifold.

The bosonic action becomes in the Curtright-Freedman basis as

$`_{\mathrm{boson}}=_A^\mu \varphi _1_\mu ^A\overline{\varphi }_1_A^\mu \varphi _2_\mu ^A\overline{\varphi }_2{\displaystyle \frac{(\varphi _1\stackrel{}{_A^\mu }\overline{\varphi _1}+\varphi _2\stackrel{}{_A^\mu }\overline{\varphi _2})^2}{4(|\varphi _1|^2+|\varphi _2|^2)}}`$ (127)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2}{4(|\varphi _1|^2+|\varphi _2|^2)}}\left((\varphi _1\sigma ^3\overline{\varphi }_1+\varphi _2\sigma ^3\overline{\varphi }_2)^2+(|\varphi _1|^2+|\varphi _2|^2)^2\right).`$
## 8  Nonlinear Sigma Model in Independent Fields : Spherical Coordinates and Gibbons-Hawking Parameterization

Here we shall describe the model in terms of independent fields in several parameterizations by solving the constraints (124). In the following we shall take

$$\xi ^{(12)}i\xi ,\xi ^{(11)}=\xi ^{(22)}=0$$
(128)
for simplicity. Then the constraints (124) become

$$|\varphi _1|^2|\varphi _2|^2=2\xi ,\varphi _1^{}\varphi _2=\varphi _2^{}\varphi _1=0.$$
(129)
It is convenient to introduce independent fields $`z^\alpha ,\overline{z}^\alpha ,\alpha =1,2`$ through the following Ansatz

$`\varphi _1^\alpha =g(r){\displaystyle \frac{z^\alpha }{\sqrt{r}}},\varphi _2^\alpha =f(r)i\sigma _2^{\alpha \beta }{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{z}^\beta }{\sqrt{r}}},`$ (130)
$`r=z^1\overline{z}^1+z^2\overline{z}^2,`$ (131)
where $`z^\alpha `$ are complex fields satisfying

$`\varphi _1^1\varphi _2^2\varphi _1^2\varphi _2^1=z^1\overline{z}^1z^2\overline{z}^2.`$ (132)
The real functions $`f(r)`$ and $`g(r)`$ are uniquely determined by the constraints (124) and (132) as

$`f(r)^2=\xi +\sqrt{r^2+\xi ^2},g(r)^2=\xi +\sqrt{r^2+\xi ^2}.`$ (133)
The action can be described without constraint by the independent complex fields $`z^\alpha `$. These fields $`z^\alpha `$ are invariant under the $`O(2)(U(1))`$ gauge transformations in (105) which is used to take the quotient of the target manifold.

Another useful parameterization of the model is given by the spherical coordinates which are invariant under the $`U(1)`$ gauge transformations

$`z^1=\sqrt{r}\mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Theta }}{2}}\mathrm{exp}{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}(\mathrm{\Psi }+\mathrm{\Phi }),`$ (134)
$`z^2=\sqrt{r}\mathrm{sin}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Theta }}{2}}\mathrm{exp}{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}(\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Phi }),`$ (135)
$`0r\mathrm{},0\mathrm{\Theta }\pi ,0\mathrm{\Phi }2\pi ,0\mathrm{\Psi }2\pi .`$ (136)
$`f_1^1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi _2^1\overline{\varphi }_1^2}{\sqrt{2}}}={\displaystyle \frac{g(r)f(r)}{\sqrt{2r}}}\overline{z}^2={\displaystyle \frac{g(r)f(r)}{\sqrt{2}}}\mathrm{sin}({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Theta }}{2}})\mathrm{e}^{\frac{i}{2}(\mathrm{\Psi }+\mathrm{\Phi })},`$ (137)
$`f_2^1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi _2^1+\overline{\varphi }_1^2}{i\sqrt{2}}}={\displaystyle \frac{g(r)+f(r)}{i\sqrt{2r}}}\overline{z}^2={\displaystyle \frac{g(r)+f(r)}{i\sqrt{2}}}\mathrm{sin}({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Theta }}{2}})\mathrm{e}^{\frac{i}{2}(\mathrm{\Psi }+\mathrm{\Phi })},`$ (138)
$`f_1^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi _1^1+\overline{\varphi }_2^2}{\sqrt{2}}}={\displaystyle \frac{g(r)f(r)}{\sqrt{2r}}}z^1={\displaystyle \frac{g(r)f(r)}{\sqrt{2}}}\mathrm{cos}({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Theta }}{2}})\mathrm{e}^{\frac{i}{2}(\mathrm{\Psi }+\mathrm{\Phi })},`$ (139)
$`f_2^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi _1^1\overline{\varphi }_2^2}{i\sqrt{2}}}={\displaystyle \frac{g(r)+f(r)}{i\sqrt{2r}}}z^1={\displaystyle \frac{g(r)+f(r)}{i\sqrt{2}}}\mathrm{cos}({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Theta }}{2}})\mathrm{e}^{\frac{i}{2}(\mathrm{\Psi }+\mathrm{\Phi })}.`$ (140)
$`\varphi _1^1`$ $`=`$ $`g(r)\mathrm{cos}({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Theta }}{2}})\mathrm{exp}({\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}(\mathrm{\Psi }+\mathrm{\Phi })),`$ (141)
$`\varphi _1^2`$ $`=`$ $`g(r)\mathrm{sin}({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Theta }}{2}})\mathrm{exp}({\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}(\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Phi })),`$ (142)
$`\varphi _2^1`$ $`=`$ $`f(r)\mathrm{sin}({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Theta }}{2}})\mathrm{exp}({\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}(\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Phi })),`$ (143)
$`\varphi _2^2`$ $`=`$ $`f(r)\mathrm{cos}({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Theta }}{2}})\mathrm{exp}({\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}(\mathrm{\Psi }+\mathrm{\Phi })).`$ (144)
The bosonic action becomes in the spherical coordinates as

$`_{\mathrm{boson}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\sqrt{\xi ^2+r^2}}}[_\mu ^Ar_A^\mu r(r^2+\xi ^2)_\mu ^A\mathrm{\Theta }_A^\mu \mathrm{\Theta }`$ (145)
$`\left(r^2+\xi ^2\mathrm{sin}^2\mathrm{\Theta }\right)_\mu ^A\mathrm{\Phi }_A^\mu \mathrm{\Phi }r^2_\mu ^A\mathrm{\Psi }_A^\mu \mathrm{\Psi }2r^2\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Theta }_\mu ^A\mathrm{\Phi }_A^\mu \mathrm{\Psi }`$
$`|\mu |^2(r^2+\xi ^2\mathrm{sin}^2\mathrm{\Theta })].`$
It is also useful to change variables into the following parameterization appropriate to describe the Gibbons-Hawking multi-center metric

$`X^1`$ $`=`$ $`r\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Psi },`$ (146)
$`X^2`$ $`=`$ $`r\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Psi },`$ (147)
$`X^3`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{r^2+\xi ^2}\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Theta },`$ (148)
$`\phi `$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Phi }+\mathrm{\Psi }.`$ (149)
By using the parameterisation (111)-(135) and (146)-(149), the bosonic part of the action (123) can be rewritten as

$$=\frac{1}{2}\left\{U_\mu 𝐗^\mu 𝐗+U^1𝒟_\mu \phi 𝒟^\mu \phi +\mu ^2U^1\right\},$$
(150)
where $`𝒟_\mu \phi =_\mu \phi +𝐀_\mu 𝐗`$ and

$`\mathbf{}\times \text{A}=\mathbf{}U.`$ (151)
The harmonic function $`U`$ can be described

$$U=\frac{1}{2}\left[\frac{1}{|𝐗\xi 𝐧|}+\frac{1}{|𝐗+\xi 𝐧|}\right],$$
(152)
where $`𝐧`$ is a unit three vector, which is given by $`𝐧=(0,0,1)`$. $`𝐀`$ is a potential whose solution is given as

$`A_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{X^2}{|𝐗\xi 𝐧|(X^3\xi +|𝐗\xi 𝐧|)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{X^2}{|𝐗+\xi 𝐧|(X^3+\xi +|𝐗\xi 𝐧|)}}\right\},`$
$`A_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{X^1}{|𝐗\xi 𝐧|(X^3\xi +|𝐗\xi 𝐧|)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{X^1}{|𝐗+\xi 𝐧|(X^3+\xi +|𝐗+\xi 𝐧|)}}\right\},`$
$`A_3`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (153)
It is found that the target metric of the action (150) is just the Eguchi-Hanson metric.

## 9  BPS Equation and Domain Wall Solution

In this Sec., we give the BPS domain wall solution in our model. In the following the complex mass parameter $`\mu `$ is taken to be real for simplicity. By requiring that the fermions conserve half of SUSY we obtain the BPS equations in HSF

$`(M_v+V_2)f_2^1+\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{2}}+_2^A\right)f_1^1`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (154)
$`(M_vV_2)f_2^2+\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{2}}_2^A\right)f_1^2`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (155)
$`(M_v+V_2)f_1^1+\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{2}}+_2^A\right)f_2^1`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (156)
$`(M_vV_2)f_1^2+\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{2}}_2^A\right)f_2^2`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (157)
BPS wall solution should approach the supersymmetric discrete vacua as $`y\pm \mathrm{}`$. From the trivial solution of BPS equation (translational invariant solution), we find  that there are only two vacua : $`(r,\mathrm{\Theta })=(0,0),(0,\pi )`$ in terms of the spherical coordinates (134), (135). Another way of understanding these vacua is to observe from Eq.(145) that these two points are the minima of the scalar potential

$`V(r,\mathrm{\Theta },\mathrm{\Phi },\mathrm{\Psi })={\displaystyle \frac{|\mu |^2\left(r^2+\xi ^2\mathrm{sin}^2\mathrm{\Theta }\right)}{2\sqrt{\xi ^2+r^2}}}`$ (158)
with vanishing vacuum energy

$`V(r=0,\mathrm{\Theta }=0)=V(r=0,\mathrm{\Theta }=\pi )=0.`$ (159)
Therefore we consider the domain wall solution connects these vacua, and we can expect that $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ has nontrivial configuration. After some algebra, we obtain four independent differential equations in terms of the spherical coordinates

$`r^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\mu \mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Theta }r,r\mathrm{\Psi }^{}=0,`$ (160)
$`\mathrm{\Theta }^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\mu \mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Theta },\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Phi }^{}=0.`$ (161)
The boundary condition of $`r=0`$ at $`y=\mathrm{}`$ dictates the solution of (160) to be $`r=0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }=0`$. The other two equations in (161) gives a nontrivial dependence in $`y`$ resulting in the following BPS solutions

$`\mathrm{\Theta }=\mathrm{arccos}[\mathrm{tanh}\mu (y+y_0)],\mathrm{\Phi }=\phi _0,`$ (162)
where $`y_0`$ and $`\phi _0`$ are real constants: $`y_0`$ determines the position of the domain wall along $`y`$ direction and $`\phi _0`$ corresponds to the Nambu-Goldstone (NG) mode of $`U(1)`$ isometry of target space. The BPS wall solution is illustrated in Fig.2.

Our BPS wall solution is obtained from $`𝒩=2`$ SUSY theory in four dimensions. However, subsequent study revealed that our model can be extended to an $`𝒩=2`$ SUSY theory in five dimensions. In fact we obtain precisely the same BPS solution as in (162) by taking the limit of vanishing gravitational coupling in the BPS wall solution in five-dimensional supergravity. Therefore we can now use our BPS wall solution as a starting point for an interesting phenomenology for a unified model : our four-dimensional spacetime being a wall in higher dimensional spacetime following the brane-world scenario.

In terms of harmonic superfields (101) and their bosonic components (123), the BPS solution is given by

$`q_1^+=f_1^iu_i^+`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\xi }{2}}}\mathrm{e}^{\frac{i}{2}\phi _0}\left(\begin{array}{c}\sqrt{1\mathrm{tanh}(\mu (y+y_0))}u_1^+\\ \sqrt{1+\mathrm{tanh}(\mu (y+y_0))}u_2^+\end{array}\right),`$ (165)
$`q_2^+=f_2^iu_i^+`$ $`=`$ $`i\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\xi }{2}}}\mathrm{e}^{\frac{i}{2}\phi _0}\left(\begin{array}{c}\sqrt{1\mathrm{tanh}(\mu (y+y_0))}u_1^+\\ \sqrt{1+\mathrm{tanh}(\mu (y+y_0))}u_2^+\end{array}\right).`$ (168)
In terms of the fields in the Curtright-Freedman basis (127), the BPS wall solution is given by

$`\varphi _1^1`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{\xi (1+\mathrm{tanh}\mu (y+y_0))}\mathrm{e}^{\frac{i}{2}\phi _0},`$ (169)
$`\varphi _1^2`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{\xi (1\mathrm{tanh}\mu (y+y_0))}\mathrm{e}^{\frac{i}{2}\phi _0},`$ (170)
$`\varphi _2^1`$ $`=`$ $`\varphi _2^2=0.`$ (171)
The BPS wall solution in the Gibbons-Hawking multi-center metric parameterization (150) is given by

$`X^1`$ $`=`$ $`X^2=0,`$ (172)
$`X^3`$ $`=`$ $`\xi \mathrm{tanh}\mu (y+y_0),`$ (173)
$`\phi `$ $`=`$ $`\phi _0.`$ (174)
## Acknowledgements

One of the authors (NS) thanks Yoshiaki Tanii for useful discussion on hypermultiplets in six dimensions. This work is supported in part by Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research from the Japan Ministry of Education, Science and Culture 13640269. The work of M. Naganuma is supported by JSPS Fellowship. The work of M. Nitta is supported by the U. S. Department of Energy under grant DE-FG02-91ER40681 (Task B).


format: text

text:
# Jets in Supermassive and Stellar-Mass Black Holes

## 1 The quasar-microquasar analogy

Microquasars are scaled-down versions of quasars and both are believed to be powered by spinning black holes with masses of up to a few tens that of the Sun (see Figure 1). The word microquasar was chosen by Mirabelnat92  to suggest that we could learn about microquasars from previous decades of studies on Active Galactic Nuclei (AGN). A major difference is that the linear and time scales of the phenomena are proportional to the black hole mass. In quasars and microquasars are found the following three basic ingredients: 1) a spinning black hole, 2) an accretion disk heated by viscous dissipation, and 3) collimated jets of relativistic particles.

Because of the relative proximity and shorter time scales, in microquasars it is possible to firmly establish the relativistic motion of the sources of radiation, and to better study the physics of accretion flows and jet formation near the horizon of black holes. Jets in microquasars are easier to follow because their apparent motions in the sky are $``$103 faster than in quasars. Because microquasars are found in our Galaxy the two-sided moving jets are more easily seen than in AGN Mirabelnat94 . However, to know how the jets are collimated in units of length of the black hole’s horizon, AGN up to distances of a few Mpc may present an advantage. Biretta  find that the initial collimation of the non-thermal jet in the galaxy M87 of the Virgo cluster takes place on a scale of 30-100 RS, which is consistent with poloidal collimation by an accretion disk.

## 2 The microquasar gamma-ray-burst analogy

There is increasing evidence that the central engine of the most common form of gamma-ray bursts (GRBs), those that last longer than a few seconds, are afterglows from ultra-relativistic jets produced during the formation of stellar-mass black holes MacFadyen . Mirabelrev  proposed that ultra-relativistic bulk motion and beaming are needed to explain: 1) the enormous energy requirements of $``$ 1054 erg if the emission were isotropic (e.g. Kulkarni et al., 1999; Castro-Tirado et al., 1999); 2) the statistical correlation between time variability and brightness Ramirez-Ruiz , and 3) the statistical anti-correlation between brightness and time-lag between hard and soft components Norris . Beaming reduces the energy release by the beaming factor f = $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$$`\mathrm{\Omega }`$/4$`\pi `$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$$`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the solid angle of the beamed emission. Additionally, the photon energies can be boosted to higher values. Extreme flows from collapsars with bulk Lorentz factors $`>`$ 100 have been proposed as sources of $`\gamma `$-ray bursts Meszaros . High collimation Dado ; Pugliese  can be tested observationally Rhoads , since the statistical properties of the bursts will depend on the viewing angle relative to the jet axis.

Recent multi-wavelength studies of gamma-ray afterglows suggest that they are highly collimated jets. The brightness of the optical transient associated to some GRBs show a break (e.g. Kulkarni et al., 1999), and a steepening from a power law in time t proportional to t-1.2, ultimately approaching a slope t-2.5 (e.g. Castro-Tirado et al., 1999). The achromatic steepening of the optical light curve and early radio flux decay of some GRBs are inconsistent with simple spherical expansion, and well fit by jet evolution. It is interesting that the power laws that describe the light curves of the ejecta in microquasars show similar breaks and steepening of the radio flux density Mirabelrev . In microquasars, these breaks and steepenings have been interpreted Hjellming88  as a transition from slow intrinsic expansion followed by free expansion in two dimensions. Besides, linear polarizations of about 2% were recently measured in the optical afterglows (e.g. Covino, ), providing strong evidence that the afterglow radiation from gamma-ray bursts is, at least in part, produced by synchrotron processes. Linear polarizations in the range of 2-10% have been measured in microquasars at radio (e.g. Rodriguez95, ), and optical Scaltriti  wavelengths.

The jets in microquasars of our own Galaxy seem to be less extreme local analogs of the super-relativistic jets associated to the more distant gamma-ray bursts. But the latter do not repeat, seem to be related to catastrophic events, and have much larger super-Eddington luminosities. According to the latest models, the same symbiotic disk-jet relationship as in microquasars and quasars powers the GRBs. In fact, it is now believed that the Lorentz factors at the base of the jets inside the collapsing star are $``$10 as in microquasars and quasars, and they reach values $``$100 when they break free from the infalling outer layers of the progenitor star. Because of the enormous difference in power, the scaling laws in terms of the black hole mass that are valid for the analogy between microquasars and quasars may not apply in the case of gamma-ray bursts.

## 3 Accretion disk origin of relativistic jets

Synergism between results from multiwavelength simultaneous observations in microquasars and quasars is providing important insights into the connection between accretion disk instabilities and the genesis of jets. Since the characteristic times in the flow of matter onto a black hole are proportional to its mass, the accretion-ejection phenomena in quasars should last 105-107 longer than analogous phenomena in microquasars Sams . Therefore, variations on scales of tens of minutes of duration in microquasars could be sampling phenomena that had been difficult to observe in quasars.

Simultaneous multiwavelength observations of a microquasar revealed in an interval of time of a few tens of minutes the connection between the sudden disappearance of the inner $``$200 km of the accretion disk with the ejection of expanding clouds of relativistic plasma (see Figure 2). One possible interpretation of the observations shown in Figure 2 is that the plasma of the inner disk that radiates in the X-rays falls beyond the horizon of the black hole in $``$5min, and subsequently the inner accretion disk is refilled in $``$20 min. While the inner disk is being replenished, we observe the ejection of a relativistic plasma cloud, first at 2$`\mu `$m, and latter at radio wavelengths as the cloud expands and becomes transparent for its proper radiation at longer wavelengths. The delay between the maxima at radio and infrared wavelengths is equal to the one computed with the model for a spherically symmetric expanding clouds in relativistic AGN jets by vanderLaan . Although VLBA images of these transient ejecta by Dhawan1  have shown that they are in fact connical jets, the model first developed for AGN is a good first approximation, and allows to demonstrate that the infared flares that preceed the radio flares are synchrotron, rather than thermal emission. This implies the presence in the jets of electrons with Lorentz factors $``$ 103 Fender98 ; Mirabel98 .

Analogous accretion disk-jet connections were observed in the quasar 3C 120 by Marscher . Jets were detected with VLBI after sudden X-ray dips observed with RXTE, but on scales of a few years. The scales of time of the phenomena are within a factor of 10 the black hole mass ratios between the quasar and microquasar, which is relativelly small when compared with the uncertainties in the data.

## 4 Compact jets in accreting black holes

The class of stellar-mass black holes that are persistent X-ray sources (e.g. Cygnus X-1, 1E 1740-2942, GRS 1758-258, etc.) and some super-massive black holes at the centre of galaxies (e.g. Sgr A and many AGN) do not exhibit luminous outbursts with large-scale sporadic ejections. However, despite the enormous differences in mass, steadily accreting black holes have analogous radio cores with steady, flat (Sν$``$$`\nu `$α; $`\alpha `$$``$0) emission at radio wavelengths. The fluxes of the core component in AGN are typically of a few Janskys (e.g. Sgr A$``$1Jy) allowing VLBI high resolution studies, but in stellar mass black holes the cores are much fainter, typically of a few mJy, which makes difficult high resolution observations of the core.

From the spectral shape it was proposed that the steady compact radio emission in black hole X-ray binaries are jets (e.g. Rodriguez95, ; Fender99, ; Fender2000, ; Corbel, ). Recently, this has been confirmed by VLBI observations at AU scale resolution of GRS 1915+105 Dhawan1 , and Cyg X-1 Stirling  in the low-hard X-ray state. VLBA images of GRS 1915+105 show compact jets with sizes $``$10$`\lambda `$cm AU along the same position angle as the superluminal large-scale jets. As in the radio cores of AGN, the brightness temperature of the compact jet in GRS 1915+105 is TB$``$109 K. The VLBA images of GRS 1915+105 are consistent with the conventional model of a conical expanding jet with synchrotron emission Hjellming88 ; Falcke99  in an optically thick region of solar system size. These compact jets are also found in neutron star X-ray binaries such as LS 5039 (Paredes et al. 2000) and Sco X-1 Fomalont , and are currently used to track the path of black holes and neutron stars in our Galaxy (see Mirabelcargese, , for a review).

## 5 Interaction of jets with the interstellar medium

If a compact source injects relativistic plasma into its environment, it is expected that some fraction of the injected power will be dissipated by shocks, where reacceleration of particles may take place. Evidences of such interactions are the radio lobes of 1E 1740.7-2942 Mirabelnat92 , GRS 1758-258 Rodriguez92 , and the two lateral extensions in the nebula W50 that hosts at its center SS 433. The interaction of SS 433 with the shells of W50 has been studied in the X-rays Brinkmann96  and radio wavelengths (Dubner, , and references therein).

Besides the well known relativistic jets seen at sub-arcsec scales in the radio, large-scale jets become visible in the X-rays at distances $``$ 30 arcmin ($``$ 25 pc) from the compact source Brinkmann96 . In the radio and X-rays, the lobes reach distances of up to 1 ($``$50 pc). These large-scale X-ray jets and radio lobes are the result of the interaction of the mass outflow with the interstellar medium. From optical and X-ray emission lines it is found that the sub-arcsec relativistic jets have a kinetic energy of $``$ 1039 erg s-1 Margon84 , which is several orders of magnitude larger than the energy radiated in the X-rays and in the radio. Dubner  estimate that the kinetic energy transferred into the ambient medium is $``$ 2 1051 ergs, thus confirming that the relativistic jets from SS433 represent an important contribution to the overall energy budget of the surrounding nebula W50.

Large-scale, decelerating relativistic jets from the microquasar XTE J1550-564 have been discovered with CHANDRA by Corbel2002 . The broadband spectrum of the jets is consistent with synchrotron emission from electrons with Lorentz factors of $``$107 that are probably accelerated in the shock waves formed by the interaction of the jets with the interstellar medium. Corbel2002  demonstrated that in microquasars we can study in real time the formation and dynamical evolution of the working surfaces (lobes) of relativistic jets far away from the centres of ejection, on time scales inaccessible for AGN. Working surfaces of microquasar jets as in SS433 and XTE J1550-564 are potential sources of cosmic rays.

## Acknowledgments

I thank Irapuan Rodrigues for help with the original manuscript.