text:
# Printed on Giant magneto-conductance in twisted carbon nanotubes

## Abstract

Using the Landauer-Büttiker formalism, we calculate the effect of structural twist on electron transport in conducting carbon nanotubes. We demonstrate that even a localized region of twist scatters the propagating $`\pi `$ electrons and induces the opening of a (pseudo-) gap near the Fermi level. The subsequent conductance reduction may be compensated by an applied axial magnetic field, leading to a twist-induced, giant positive magneto-conductance in clean armchair nanotubes.

Carbon nanotubes  exhibit a range of unusual electronic properties associated with the morphology of these quasi-1D structures. Early one-electron theories successfully associated metallic or semiconducting behaviour with the chiral vector that characterizes a given nanotube . Further studies addressed the effect of atomic-level impurities  and inter-tube interactions  on electrical conductance, or magneto-transport . In parallel with the development of such one-electron theories, intensive studies of electron-electron correlations have been undertaken. Indeed, nonlinear current-voltage ($`IV`$) characteristics have recently been observed , which are reminiscent of Luttinger liquid behaviour. An intriguing question remains however, namely whether other effects may augment or even dominate such nonlinearities in the transport properties of nanotubes.

In this letter we predict that scattering of electrons from twistons may give rise to strongly non-linear $`IV`$ characteristics. Twistons , associated with regions of axial twist in otherwise perfect nanotubes, are intrinsic defects that are frozen into nanotube bundles during their synthesis and hence cannot be ignored when discussing electron transport. Unlike ideal straight and defect-free nanotubes, which have been shown to exhibit conventional magneto-resistive behavior , we find that nanotubes containing twistons may behave in a very different way. In twisted tubes, we predict the occurrence of a giant positive magneto-conductance, an unexpected effect that by far exceeds the positive magneto-conductance associated with weak localisation in disordered tubes .

To compute the effect of a finite scattering region on transport in an otherwise perfect $`(n,n)`$ armchair nanotube, we use a parameterized four-state ($`s,p_x,p_y,p_z`$) Hamiltonian, based on a global fit to Density Functional results for graphite, diamond and C2 as a function of the lattice parameter . A finite twiston is treated as a scattering region connecting two semi-infinite $`(n,n)`$ nanotubes. A recursive Greens function formalism is used to evaluate the transmission matrix t, describing the scattering of electrons of energy $`E`$ from one end of the semi-infinite nanotube to the other . The differential electrical conductance at bias voltage $`V_{\mathrm{bias}}`$ is related to scattering properties at energy $`E=E_\mathrm{F}eV_{\mathrm{bias}}`$ by the Landauer formula $`G=G_0\mathrm{Tr}\left\{𝐭^{}𝐭\right\}`$, where $`G_0=2e^2/h`$ is the conductance quantum. A twiston is formed by introducing a small angular distortion between neighboring axial slices within the scattering region. This is shown schematically in the inset of Fig. 1(a), which displays the local shear distortion within the unit cell of length $`L`$, containing two axial slices. The perturbation to the Hamiltonian matrix enters through the scaling of the nearest-neighbor hopping integrals that follow the changes in C-C bonds r1 and r2.

Fig. 1 shows the differential conductance for a straight and twisted $`(10,10)`$ nanotube. In the straight nanotube of Fig. 1(a), the non-degenerate bands, which cross near $`E_\mathrm{F}`$, open up two conductance channels at this energy. Additional conduction channels follow as an increasing number of subbands appear near $`E_\mathrm{F}eV_{\mathrm{bias}}`$ at higher bias voltages. In the presence of a localized twiston, the differential conductance is suppressed at all energies, in particular near the Fermi level. This is shown in Fig. 1(a) for a finite-length twiston, with a total twist of $`36^{}`$ extending over $`100`$ unit cells or $`24.6`$ nm. The occurrence of a conductance gap near $`E_\mathrm{F}`$ suggests that electron scattering by a finite twiston can be viewed as a tunneling phenomenon.

For comparison with Fig. 1(a), Fig. 1(b) shows results for a nanotube subject to an infinitely long uniform twist $`d\theta /dl`$. This shows that that a localized or infinitely long twist opens up a conductance gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ near $`E_\mathrm{F}`$. The predicted gap in the presence of infinitely long twists is shown in Fig. 1(c) and agrees with results of Refs.  and .

In the following, we discuss the dependence of the conductance gap on the twist distortion $`d\theta /dl`$, the spatial extent of the twiston, and an axially applied magnetic field. As shown in Fig. 1(c), we find that for a range of $`(n,n)`$ tubes subject to an infinitely long twist, the magnitude of the conductance gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ increases linearly with increasing twist distortion to its maximum value $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{max}}`$, and decreases thereafter. For an $`(n,n)`$ nanotube, we find the maximum value of the conductance gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{max}}`$ to be achieved at an “optimum tube twist” value $`(d\theta /dl)_0An^2`$ (with $`A=620^{}`$/nm), which depends on the chiral index $`n`$. The dependence of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{max}}`$ on the optimum tube twist $`(d\theta /dl)_0`$ corresponds to the envelope function in Fig. 1(c), and is well approximated by $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{max}}\mathrm{\Delta }(d\theta /dl)_01.30`$ eV $`(1e^{0.21(d\theta /dl)_0})`$, with $`(d\theta /dl)_0`$ in $`{}_{}{}^{}/`$nm units.

Details of conductance changes due to localized twistons, such as those of Fig. 1(a), are shown for small bias voltages in Fig. 2(a). In the present case, we subjected a straight $`(10,10)`$ nanotube to finite twists $`\mathrm{\Delta }\theta `$ extending over $`100`$ unit cells. We find that the conductance pseudo-gap associated with finite twistons is accompanied by conductance oscillations at small bias voltages. A tube subject to an infinitely long twist, on the other hand, possesses a real gap with no such oscillations. The zero-bias conductance as a function of the twist angle for finite twistons extending over $`100`$ unit cells is presented in Fig. 2(b) for a range of tube sizes. This type of conductance behaviour is reminiscent of that associated with tunneling through a potential barrier, where the twist-induced gap is analogous to the height of the barrier. These results, when combined, clearly demonstrate that finite twistons yield non-linear $`IV`$ characteristics.

It must be stressed that the degree of twist required to open a pseudo-gap is small. For example in the finite $`(10,10)`$ carbon nanotube of Fig. 2(a), $`\mathrm{\Delta }\theta =20^{}`$ over $`100`$ unit cells is equivalent to $`d\theta /dl1^{}/`$ nm only. The resulting perturbation to the Hamiltonian is therefore well within the limits of our model, where the twist is viewed as a frozen-in defect to the nanotube at low temperatures .

We now consider the effect of a uniform magnetic field on transport in straight and twisted nanotubes. Axially applied magnetic fields produce an Aharonov-Bohm effect in carbon nanotubes , which in the clean limit arises from the opening and closing of a band gap at the Fermi level. In the presence of a twiston, we now demonstrate that the reverse effect can occur, namely that an axial magnetic field can remove the twiston-induced conductance gap, resulting in a positive magneto-conductance. Our results show that a magnetic field may restore the zero-bias conductance of twisted armchair nanotubes from an essentially vanishing value to near half of the initial zero-twist value. To understand this behaviour, consider the simplest model of a twisted nanotube, depicted in the inset of Fig. 1(a). Let us assume that a single $`\pi `$ orbital per carbon atom is needed to describe the conductance changes near $`E_\mathrm{F}`$. In CNT’s the k vectors perpendicular to the tube surface are quantised and from

$`\mathrm{\Delta }(𝐤)=|\gamma _0+\gamma _1e^{i𝐤𝐫_\mathrm{𝟏}}+\gamma _2e^{i𝐤𝐫_\mathrm{𝟐}}|`$

in the untwisted armchair CNT the tight-binding dispersion relation can be calculated to give

$`E_{1D}(k)=\pm \gamma \left(1+4\mathrm{cos}({\displaystyle \frac{q\pi }{n}})\mathrm{cos}({\displaystyle \frac{ka}{2}})+4\mathrm{cos}^2({\displaystyle \frac{ka}{2}})\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}.`$

The structural twist is then modeled by changing the relative strength of the hopping integral $`\gamma _i`$ along the neighbor vector $`𝐫_i`$ with respect to the untwisted reference value $`\gamma _0=1`$. Upon exposing a twisted tube to a magnetic field we multiply by a phase factor  and find that the energy gap between the top of the valence and bottom of the conduction band of a twisted tube changes to

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(𝐤)=|1+\gamma _1e^{i𝐤𝐫_\mathrm{𝟏}}e^{i\varphi }+\gamma _2e^{i𝐤𝐫_\mathrm{𝟐}}e^{i\varphi }|.$$
(1)
The phase $`\varphi =2\pi \mathrm{\Phi }/\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ depends on the ratio between the magnetic flux $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ trapped in the tube and the fundamental unit of flux $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0=h/e`$. Note that the fundamental unit of flux used in this paper is twice the flux quantum, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0=h/2e`$. The fundamental gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\mathrm{\Delta }(𝐤_0)`$, occurring at $`𝐤_0`$, is the minimum value found in the Brillouin zone. We also note that $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0`$ for an undistorted tube in zero field.

In view of the twisted tube morphology defined in Fig. 1(a), it is convenient to introduce the quantity $`\alpha =𝐤𝐫_\mathrm{𝟏}=𝐤𝐫_\mathrm{𝟐}`$. From Eq. (1) we find that $`\mathrm{\Delta }(𝐤)=0`$ only if $`(\mathrm{sin}\varphi /\mathrm{sin}\alpha )=(\gamma _1\gamma _2)`$ and $`(\mathrm{cos}\varphi /\mathrm{cos}\alpha )=(\gamma _1\gamma _2)`$. Combining these equations, we find that the fundamental gap closes if

$$\mathrm{cos}2\varphi =\frac{(\gamma _1^2+\gamma _2^2)(\gamma _1^2\gamma _2^2)^2}{2\gamma _1\gamma _2}$$
(2)
and

$$\mathrm{cos}2\alpha =\frac{1\gamma _1^2\gamma _2^2}{2\gamma _1\gamma _2}.$$
(3)
In other words, according to Eq. (2), the twist-induced fundamental gap closes again, once the $`(n,n)`$ nanotube is exposed to a magnetic field $`B`$

$$B=B_c\mathrm{arccos}\left(\frac{(\gamma _1^2+\gamma _2^2)(\gamma _1^2\gamma _2^2)^2}{2\gamma _1\gamma _2}\right)$$
(4)
along its axis, where $`B_c=2.28\times 10^4`$T$`/n^2`$. According to Eq. (3), the longitudinal wavevector $`𝐤_0`$, at which the fundamental gap vanishes, must satisfy the condition

$$𝐤_0𝐫_1=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{arccos}\left(\frac{1\gamma _1^2\gamma _2^2}{2\gamma _1\gamma _2}\right).$$
(5)
The above heuristic model also demonstrates why the exact result yields $`GG_0`$ for the zero bias conductance in presence of a non-zero twist and flux, rather than the value $`G=2G_0`$ for a twist-free tube in zero field. In the latter case, the two open scattering channels at $`E_\mathrm{F}`$ correspond to values of $`\alpha `$ (or wavevector $`𝐤`$) of opposite sign. For a given nonzero flux $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and a corresponding sign of the phase $`\varphi `$, $`(\mathrm{sin}\varphi /\mathrm{sin}\alpha )=(\gamma _1\gamma _2)`$ can be satisfied by only one of these channels.

In summary, we have analyzed for the first time the scattering properties of finite-size twistons and shown that these introduce non-linear $`IV`$ characteristics associated with the opening of a pseudo-gap at $`E_\mathrm{F}`$, thus effectively quenching the nanotube conductance. This conductance gap can be closed in an axial magnetic field, leading to a giant positive magneto-conductance. At small bias voltages, the conductance of a twisted tube in nonzero field can reach up to half the ballistic conductance value of a straight tube in zero field.

YKK and DT acknowledge financial support by the Office of Naval Research and DARPA under Grant Number N00014-99-1-0252.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Quaternion-Kähler (QK) manifolds have recently attracted a lot of attention in the context of $`N=2`$ gauged supergravity, both in four and five spacetime dimensions. In particular, those with negative scalar curvature appear as target spaces for $`N=2`$ hypermultiplets coupled to supergravity . The homogeneous QK spaces $`G/H`$ are classified by Wolf and Alekseevskii ; the compact ones are given by the three infinite series

$$\text{}\mathrm{P}(n)=\frac{Sp(n+1)}{Sp(n)\times Sp(1)},X(n)=\frac{SU(n+2)}{SU(n)\times U(2)},Y(n)=\frac{SO(n+4)}{SO(n)\times SO(4)},$$
(1.1)
of dimension $`4n`$, and the five exceptional cases

$$\frac{G_2}{SO(4)},\frac{F_4}{Sp(3)\times Sp(1)},\frac{E_6}{SU(6)\times Sp(1)},\frac{E_7}{Spin(12)\times Sp(1)},\frac{E_8}{E_7\times Sp(1)},$$
(1.2)
of dimensions 8, 28, 40, 64 and 112 respectively. Their non-compact versions have negative scalar curvature and hence are relevant for supergravity applications. For low dimensions, there are relations between these spaces: the four-sphere $`Y(1)\text{}\mathrm{P}(1)`$, and $`Y(2)X(2)`$. These isomorphisms are discussed in more detail below.

A complete classification of QK spaces does not exist. Because their Sp(1) curvature does not vanish, and their quaternionic two-forms are not closed, QK spaces are rather difficult to deal with. This complicates the study of hypermultiplet couplings to supergravity, which arise in the low energy effective action of type II superstring compactification on Calabi-Yau threefolds . In this paper, we focus on the $`Y(n)`$ spaces. Their noncompact versions

$$\stackrel{~}{Y}(n)=\frac{SO(n,4)}{SO(n)\times SO(4)},$$
(1.3)
describe the classical moduli spaces of type II Calabi-Yau compactifications down to four dimensions, either as dual quaternionic spaces from the c-map , or from dualizing $`n`$ tensor multiplets and a double-tensor multiplet .

Vector multiplet couplings to $`N=2`$ supergravity are geometrically much simpler. The scalar fields of the vector multiplets parametrize a special Kähler geometry in d=4  and a very special real geometry in d=5 . Both these geometries are completely determined in terms of a single function from which the target space metric, and other geometrical quantities, can easily be computed. It is desirable to have a similar description for QK manifolds, such that the whole geometry is encoded by a single function of the hypermultiplet scalars. Such a description was first given in the mathematics literature, where it was shown , that to every $`4n`$ dimensional QK manifold one can associate a $`4(n+1)`$ dimensional hyperkähler manifold which admits a conformal homothety and an isometric Sp(1)-action that rotates the three complex structures into each other. The conformal homothety $`\chi ^A`$ satisfies

$$D_A\chi ^B=\delta _A^B,(A,B=1,\mathrm{},4n),$$
(1.4)
such that locally $`\chi _A=_A\chi `$. The function $`\chi `$ is called the hyperkähler potential and the metric is

$$g_{AB}=D_A_B\chi .$$
(1.5)
Such a manifold is a hyperkähler cone (HKC) over a base which is an Sp(1) fibration over a QK space .

It was later anticipated in , and shown explicitly in  how this connection is precisely realised in the conformal calculus for hypermultiplets. The transition from the HKC to the QK space is called the $`N=2`$ superconformal quotient, and is associated with eliminating the compensating hypermultiplet by an $`SU(2)`$ quotient and gauge-fixing combined with a reduction along the homothety. The simplest QK manifolds are the quaternionic projective spaces $`\text{}\mathrm{P}(\mathrm{n})`$. Galicki has shown that the $`X`$ and $`Y`$ series can be obtained from these by performing quaternionic $`U(1)`$ and $`SU(2)`$ quotients, respectively . It is interesting to study these spaces in terms of the corresponding HKC’s. The HKC of $`\text{}\mathrm{P}(n1)`$ is simply $`\text{}^n\text{}^{2n}`$, and the explicit construction of the HKC of $`X(n2)`$ is a $`U(1)`$ hyperkähler quotient of $`\text{}^n`$ . In Section 2 of this paper, we derive the hyperkähler potential $`\chi `$ for the orthogonal Wolf spaces $`Y(n4)`$ by performing an $`SU(2)`$ hyperkähler quotient on $`\text{}^n`$. The action of the $`SU(2)`$ on the coordinates of $`\text{}^n`$ can be deduced from Galicki’s quaternionic quotient  because the diagram in Figure 1 is commutative . Hence quaternionic quotients between the QK manifolds lift to hyperkähler quotients between the corresponding HKC’s.

We also write down the moment maps and Killing vectors for the $`SO(n)`$ isometry group on the HKC. These appear in the scalar potential of gauged $`N=2`$ supergravity.

In Section 3 we consider the three special cases for which the hyperkähler potential of the HKC of $`Y(n4)`$ is known: $`n=4`$, where the HKC of $`Y(0)`$ is $`\text{}^4`$, $`n=5`$, where the HKC of $`Y(1)`$ is $`\text{}^8`$ and $`n=6`$, where the HKC of $`Y(2)`$ is the HKC of $`X(2)`$. We check our calculation by showing that each of these special cases agrees with the known results.

In Section 4 we construct the dual description of the HKC of the non-compact version $`\stackrel{~}{Y}(n)`$ in terms of $`n`$ tensor multiplets and a double tensor multiplet. This tensor multiplet description naturally appears in type IIB compactifications.

In Section 5 we show how the hyperkähler quotient can be lifted to $`N=2`$ superspace. Once we have this description, we can use the techniques of  to write down the quiver diagrams for the HKC’s of $`Y(n)`$. This point of view allows us to infer the existence of a new 8-dimensional ALE space.

Our long term goal is to understand the nonperturbative corrections to quaternionic geometries; we expect that these are most easily computed in terms of the hyperkähler potential $`\chi `$. We also note that HKC’s appear as moduli spaces of Yang-Mills instantons , e.g., the homogeneous QK $`G/H`$ manifolds determine the one-instanton moduli spaces with gauge group $`G`$ and stability group $`H`$. This suggests a connection between the moduli spaces of Calabi-Yau manifolds and Yang-Mills instantons .

## 2 The SU(2) Quotient

In this section, we explicitly perform the non-abelian hyperkähler quotient from $`\text{}^n=\text{}^{4n}`$ to the HKC of $`Y(n4)`$, $`n4`$. For simplicity, we do the analysis for the compact case; the non-compact case is very similar and we give the final result at the end of this section. The space $`\text{}^n`$ is flat, and has an isometry group $`SO(n)`$ which is linearly realized on the $`n`$ quaternions

$$q^M=\left(\begin{array}{cc}z_+^M& \overline{z}_{}^M\\ z_{}^M& \overline{z}_+^M\end{array}\right),M=1,\mathrm{},n.$$
(2.1)
Clearly, $`\text{}^n`$ is itself an HKC with hyperkähler potential (or equivalently, $`N=1`$ superspace Lagrangian)

$$\chi (\text{}^n)=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{Tr}(q^Mq_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{M})=z_+^M\overline{z}_+^M+z_{}^M\overline{z}_{}^M,$$
(2.2)
where a sum over repeated indices is understood. The closed hyperkähler two-forms on $`\text{}^n`$ are

$$\mathrm{\Omega }^3=i\left(\mathrm{d}z_+^M\mathrm{d}\overline{z}_+^M+\mathrm{d}z_{}^M\mathrm{d}\overline{z}_{}^M\right),\mathrm{\Omega }^+=\mathrm{d}z_+^M\mathrm{d}z_{}^M,\mathrm{\Omega }^{}=(\mathrm{\Omega }^+)^{},$$
(2.3)
such that the $`SO(n)`$ isometries $`q^MO^M{}_{N}{}^{}q_{}^{N}`$ are triholomorphic.

The infinitesimal $`SU(2)`$ action that we quotient by can be deduced from the quaternionic quotient in ; it acts by left multiplication on each quaternion, with corresponding Killing vector fields on $`\text{}^n`$

$`k_3`$ $`=`$ $`iz_+^M{\displaystyle \frac{}{z_+^M}}iz_{}^M{\displaystyle \frac{}{z_{}^M}}i\overline{z}_+^M{\displaystyle \frac{}{\overline{z}_+^M}}+i\overline{z}_{}^M{\displaystyle \frac{}{\overline{z}_{}^M}},`$
$`k_+`$ $`=`$ $`z_{}^M{\displaystyle \frac{}{z_+^M}}+\overline{z}_+^M{\displaystyle \frac{}{\overline{z}_{}^M}},`$
$`k_{}`$ $`=`$ $`z_+^M{\displaystyle \frac{}{z_{}^M}}\overline{z}_{}^M{\displaystyle \frac{}{\overline{z}_+^M}}.`$ (2.4)
Hence, for each $`M`$, $`(z_+,z_{})`$ transforms as an $`SU(2)`$ doublet111Ordinarily, in a hypermultiplet the $`N=1`$ chiral superfields $`z_+`$ and $`z_{}`$ transform in conjugate representations of the gauge group; however, since the spinor representation of $`SU(2)`$ is pseudoreal, one may consider an action that mixes them . In the literature, this is sometimes called a “half-hypermultiplet”. In section 5 we discuss a formulation in terms of full hypermultiplets that lifts to an $`N=2`$ superspace description.:

$`\delta z_\pm \lambda ^ik_iz_\pm ,`$ $`i=3,+,`$
$`\delta z_+=i\lambda ^3z_+\lambda ^+z_{},`$ $`\delta \overline{z}_+=i\lambda ^3\overline{z}_+\lambda ^{}\overline{z}_{},`$
$`\delta z_{}=i\lambda ^3z_{}+\lambda ^{}z_+,`$ $`\delta \overline{z}_{}=i\lambda ^3\overline{z}_{}+\lambda ^+\overline{z}_+.`$ (2.5)
This isometry group is also triholomorphic222This $`SU(2)`$ should not be confused with the $`Sp(1)=SU(2)`$ that rotates the complex structure and is used to perform the $`N=2`$ superconformal quotient. Under its action $`(z_+,\overline{z}_{})`$ transforms as a doublet, which corresponds to right multiplication on each quaternion. and commutes with $`SO(n)`$.

The components of the corresponding triplets of moment maps333We follow the conventions and notations of ; for each triholomorphic Killing vector field $`k_I`$, there is a triplet of moment maps $`\stackrel{}{\mu }_I=(\mu _I^3,\mu _I^+,\mu _I^{})`$. on $`\text{}^n`$ are, for $`SU(2)`$,

$`\mu _i^3`$ $`=`$ $`(z_+\overline{z}_+z_{}\overline{z}_{},iz_{}\overline{z}_+,iz_+\overline{z}_{}),`$
$`\mu _i^+`$ $`=`$ $`(iz_+z_{},\frac{1}{2}z_{}z_{},\frac{1}{2}z_+z_+),\mu _i^{}=(\mu _i^+)^{},`$ (2.6)
and for $`SO(n)`$ (with antihermitian generators $`T_I`$)

$$\mu _I^3=i\left((z_+T_I\overline{z}_+)+(z_{}T_I\overline{z}_{})\right),\mu _I^+=(z_+T_Iz_{}),\mu _I^{}=(\mu _I^+)^{}.$$
(2.7)
As indicated by these formulae, we sometimes suppress indices in inner products and bilinear forms on $`\text{}^n`$ to simplify the notation.

The $`SU(2)`$ hyperkähler quotient requires setting the moment maps (2.6) to zero. Hence the independent set of constraints are the non-holomorphic ones

$$\overline{z}_+z_+=\overline{z}_{}z_{},\overline{z}_+z_{}=0,\overline{z}_{}z_+=0,$$
(2.8)
and the holomorphic ones

$$z_+z_{}=0,z_+z_+=0,z_{}z_{}=0.$$
(2.9)
To perform the quotient one has to solve (2.8) and (2.9), reducing the number of real coordinates by $`3+6=9`$, and choose a gauge to fix the $`SU(2)`$ gauge freedom, further reducing the number of real coordinates by $`3`$; thus the dimension is reduced by $`12`$ real or $`6`$ complex coordinates, consistent with the dimension of the HKC of $`Y(n4)`$, namely, $`4(n3)`$. In practice it is hard to solve all the constraints; as explained in , one may complexify444The complexification of the gauge group means doubling of the number of generators (to the set of initial Killing vectors $`k_I`$ one adds the set $`J^3k_I`$, where $`J^3`$ is the complex structure determined by $`\mathrm{\Omega }^3(X,Y)=g(J^3X,Y)`$). the gauge group (in our case $`SU(2)SL(2,\text{}))`$ and solve just the holomorphic constraints, which are preserved by the complexified gauge group. This construction is completely natural in $`N=1`$ superspace, where the non-holomorphic constraints are solved for the $`N=1`$ gauge fields. If we choose 3 complex gauge conditions and impose the holomorphic constraints, we see that we still reduce the dimension by 12. The hyperkähler potential on the quotient space is found by gauging the $`N=1`$ Lagrangian for $`\text{}^n`$ and substituting the solution for the gauge fields.

Recall that the hyperkähler potential for the flat space $`\text{}^n`$ is (2.2). For each value of the index $`M`$ the pair $`(z_+^M,z_{}^M)`$ is a doublet under the $`SU(2)`$ which we quotient by (see (2.5)). Hence we have $`n`$ copies of the $`2`$-dimensional represenation of $`SU(2)`$ in (2.2).

We introduce a gauge field $`\mathrm{e}^V`$, such that the gauged hyperkähler potential of $`\text{}^n`$ is (, see also section five and appendix B of ):

$$\widehat{\chi }=\underset{M=1}{\overset{n}{}}\left(\overline{z}_+^M\overline{z}_{}^M\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{e}^V& \end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}z_+^M\\ z_{}^M\end{array}\right),$$
(2.10)
where $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{e}^V& \end{array}\right)`$ is the $`2\times 2`$ matrix of $`N=1`$ $`SU(2)`$ gauge fields and hence is hermitian with determinant $`1`$. The nonholomorphic constraints (2.8) (c.f. (2.6)) can be written as

$$\mu _i^3=\left(\overline{z}_+^M\overline{z}_{}^M\right)T_i\left(\begin{array}{c}z_+^M\\ z_{}^M\end{array}\right)=0,i=3,+,$$
(2.11)
where $`T_i`$ are the $`SU(2)`$ generators normalized as

$$T_3=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right),T_+=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right),T_{}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 0\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right).$$
(2.12)
The gauged nonholomorphic moment maps are :

$$\widehat{\mu }_i^3=\left(\overline{z}_+^M\overline{z}_{}^M\right)T_i\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{e}^V& \end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}z_+^M\\ z_{}^M\end{array}\right)=0.$$
(2.13)
Solving (2.13) for the gauge fields we find

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{e}^V& \end{array}\right)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{(\overline{z}_+z_+)(\overline{z}_{}z_{})(\overline{z}_+z_{})(\overline{z}_{}z_+)}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}\overline{z}_{}z_{}& \overline{z}_{}z_+\\ \overline{z}_+z_{}& \overline{z}_+z_+\end{array}\right),$$
(2.14)
and hence the hyperkähler potential of the quotient is

$$\chi _{quotient}=2\sqrt{\overline{z}_+^Mz_+^M\overline{z}_{}^Nz_{}^N\overline{z}_+^Mz_{}^M\overline{z}_{}^Nz_+^N},$$
(2.15)
with $`M,N`$ still running from $`1`$ to $`n`$. To find coordinates on the quotient we gauge-fix and solve the holomorphic constraints; we can choose

$$z_+^n=0,z_{}^{n1}=0,z_+^{n2}=1.$$
(2.16)
Now the holomorphic constraints (2.9) can be easily solved:

$$z_{}^{n2}=z_+^az_{}^a,z_+^{n1}=i\sqrt{1+z_+^az_+^a},z_{}^n=i\sqrt{z_+^az_{}^az_+^bz_{}^b+z_{}^az_{}^a},$$
(2.17)
where $`\{z_+^a,z_{}^b\},a,b=1,\mathrm{},n3`$ are the coordinates on the HKC of $`Y(n4)`$. Thus the hyperkähler potential on the HKC of $`Y(n4)`$ is given by (2.15), subject to (2.16) and (2.17). Furthermore the dilatations act on $`z_+`$ and $`z_{}`$ with scaling weights 0 and 2 respectively, and the holomorphic two-form on the HKC is simply

$$\mathrm{\Omega }^+=\mathrm{d}z_+^a\mathrm{d}z_{}^a,a=1,\mathrm{},n3.$$
(2.18)
The gauge choice (2.16) is legitimate, but not always the most convenient, as we see in the next section.

The moment maps of the $`SO(n)`$ isometry on the HKC can easily be computed from the $`SU(2)`$ quotient of (2.7). The $`SU(2)`$ gauged $`SO(n)`$ moment maps take a similar form to (2.13), and eliminating the gauge fields yields

$`\mu _I^3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2i}{\chi }}((\overline{z}_{}z_{})(\overline{z}_+T_Iz_+)(\overline{z}_+z_{})(\overline{z}_{}T_Iz_+)+(+)),`$
$`\mu _I^+`$ $`=`$ $`(z_+T_Iz_{}),\mu _I^{}=(\mu _I^+)^{},`$ (2.19)
subject to the constraints (2.16) and (2.17).

The $`SO(n)`$ Killing vectors on the quotient space can also be easily computed. On $`\text{}^n`$, the Killing vectors are simply $`k^M{}_{I\pm }{}^{}=(T_I)^M{}_{N}{}^{}z_{\pm }^{N}`$, but after the quotient we have to add local compensating $`SU(2)`$ transformations to preserve the gauge conditions (2.16). We find

$`k^M_{I+}`$ $`=`$ $`(T_I)^M{}_{N}{}^{}z_{+}^{N}+(T_I)^n{}_{N}{}^{}z_{+}^{N}{\displaystyle \frac{z_{}^{n2}z_+^Mz_{}^M}{z_{}^n}}(T_I)^{n2}{}_{N}{}^{}z_{+}^{N}z_+^M,`$ (2.20)
$`k^MI`$ $`=`$ $`(T_I)^M{}_{N}{}^{}z_{}^{N}(T_I)^n{}_{N}{}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{z_+^Nz_{}^{n2}z_{}^M}{z_{}^n}}(T_I)^{n1}{}_{N}{}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{z_{}^Nz_+^M}{z_+^{n1}}}+(T_I)^{n2}{}_{N}{}^{}z_{+}^{N}z_{}^M.`$
One can verify that they preserve (2.16) as well as (2.17).

These Killing vectors and moment maps form the main ingredients of the scalar potential on the HKC. Performing the superconformal quotient leads to the Killing vectors and moment maps on $`Y(n4)`$, which can be compared to those given in .

To end this section, we discuss the non-compact case; the QK space is now

$$\stackrel{~}{Y}(n4)\frac{SO(n4,4)}{SO(n4)\times SO(4)}.$$
(2.21)
The above formulae are modified by putting in a pseudo-Riemannian metric in the inner products: one starts with a metric $`\eta _{M\overline{N}}`$ on $`\text{}^{n4,4}`$ of signature $`\eta _{M\overline{N}}=\mathrm{diag}(+\mathrm{}+)`$. The metric then used in the products $`z^a\eta _{a\overline{b}}\overline{z}^b`$ on the HKC of $`\stackrel{~}{Y}(n4)`$ has signature $`\eta _{a\overline{b}}=\mathrm{diag}(+\mathrm{}+)`$, such that, in our conventions, the metric on the QK space is positive definite.555This differs by an overall sign from the conventions of .

## 3 The Special Cases

In this section, we give more details about the $`SU(2)`$ gauge fixing, and compare our results with the known cases for $`n=4,5,6`$. It is convenient to introduce the $`SU(2)`$ gauge invariant variables (for all $`n`$),

$$z^{MN}z_+^Mz_{}^Nz_+^Nz_{}^M.$$
(3.1)
The hyperkähler potential on the quotient (2.15) is then, for all $`n`$,

$$\chi _{quotient}=\sqrt{2z^{MN}\overline{z}^{MN}},$$
(3.2)
and is manifestly $`SU(2)`$ gauge invariant. The variables (3.1) satisfy a Bianchi-like identity,

$$z^{MN}z^{PQ}+z^{MQ}z^{NP}+z^{MP}z^{QN}=0,$$
(3.3)
and the holomorphic constraints (2.9) imply

$$z^{MN}z^{NP}=0.$$
(3.4)
We show below how these constraints can be solved for $`n=4,5,6`$.

### 3.1 $`n=4`$

In this case the quaternion-Kähler manifold is just one point, and so the hyperkähler cone above it must be $`\text{}^4`$. The gauge choice (2.16) does not give the canonical quadratic hyperkähler potential on $`\text{}^2`$, so we look for a different gauge. For $`n=4`$, any antisymmetric matrix can be decomposed into its selfdual and anti-selfdual part. Notice then that (3.3) and (3.4) are solved by

$$z^{MN}=\pm ϵ^{MNPQ}z^{PQ},$$
(3.5)
so that we can parametrize

$$z^{MN}=u^i(\overline{\sigma })_{ij}^{MN}u^j.$$
(3.6)
Here, $`u^1,u^2`$ are two complex coordinates and $`(\overline{\sigma })_{ij}^{MN}`$ are the standard selfdual matrices666We use the conventions $`\overline{\sigma }^{MN}=\frac{1}{2}(\overline{\sigma }^M\sigma ^N\overline{\sigma }^N\sigma ^M)`$ with $`\sigma ^M=(\stackrel{}{\tau },i)`$ and $`\overline{\sigma }^M=(\stackrel{}{\tau },i)`$. The $`(\stackrel{}{\tau })`$ are the three Pauli matrices and $`i,j`$ indices are raised and lowered with $`ϵ_{ij}`$ such that $`(\overline{\sigma })_{ij}^{MN}`$ is symmetric. We could also choose the anti-selfdual matrices $`\sigma ^{MN}=\frac{1}{2}(\sigma ^M\overline{\sigma }^N\sigma ^N\overline{\sigma }^M)`$, but this leads to equivalent results..

Using sigma-matrix algebra, it is easy to check that the constraints (3.3) and (3.4) are satisfied and the hyperkähler potential becomes simply

$$\chi =4\underset{i=1}{\overset{2}{}}u^i\overline{u}^i,$$
(3.7)
which is the Kähler potential of $`\text{}^2`$ with flat metric.

The gauge choice (3.6) for the bilinears $`z^{MN}`$ implies

$$z_+=(u,v,iu,iv),z_{}=(iv,iu,v,u).$$
(3.8)
with $`u^1=u`$ and $`u^2=v`$. Notice that this $`SU(2)`$ gauge solves all the constraints (2.8) and (2.9).

### 3.2 $`n=5`$

It is well-known that

$$Y(1)=\frac{SO(5)}{SO(4)}=\frac{Sp(2)}{Sp(1)\times Sp(1)}=\text{}\mathrm{P}(1),$$
(3.9)
and hence the HKC above it must be $`\text{}^2=\text{}^8`$. The gauge (2.16) again does not give the canonical, quadratic hyperkähler potential on $`\text{}^4`$, so we search for a more suitable gauge.

The coordinates $`z_\pm ^M`$ transform in the vector representation of $`SO(5)`$:

$$z_\pm ^MO^M{}_{N}{}^{}z_{\pm }^{N},M,N=1,\mathrm{},5,$$
(3.10)
We rewrite this in $`Sp(2)`$ notation by using the Clifford algebra in four Euclidean dimensions, where all gamma matrices can be taken hermitian. We define $`4\times 4`$ matrices

$$(v_\pm )_{ij}\frac{1}{2}z_\pm ^M\gamma _{}^{M}{}_{i}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{k}𝒞_{kj}^{}i,j=1,\mathrm{},4,$$
(3.11)
where $`\gamma ^5=\gamma ^1\gamma ^2\gamma ^3\gamma ^4`$ and $`𝒞`$ is the charge conjugation matrix, which can be taken antisymmetric and with square $`1`$, such that $`(\gamma ^M𝒞)_{ij}`$ is antisymmetric. $`𝒞`$ serves as an $`Sp(2)`$ metric and can be used to lower and raise $`(i,j)`$ indices. Hence the matrices $`v_\pm `$ are antisymmetric; the relation $`(𝒞^1)^{ij}v_{\pm ij}=0`$, then leaves five independent components. We can invert (3.11),

$$z_\pm ^M=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{Tr}\left(\gamma ^Mv_\pm 𝒞^1\right).$$
(3.12)
Now we introduce $`SU(2)`$ gauge invariant variables analogous to (3.1):

$$w_i{}_{}{}^{j}(v_+𝒞^1v_{}𝒞^1v_{}𝒞^1v_+𝒞^1).$$
(3.13)
The matrix $`w_{ij}(w𝒞)_{ij}`$ is symmetric; the relation to (3.1) is

$$w=\frac{1}{4}z^{MN}\gamma ^{MN}.$$
(3.14)
It is straightforward to show that the hyperkähler potential (2.15) becomes

$$\chi =\sqrt{\mathrm{Tr}(ww^{})},$$
(3.15)
up to an irrelevant overall factor. In these variables, the moment map constraints (2.9) are

$$z_\pm z_\pm =\mathrm{Tr}\left(v_\pm 𝒞^1v_\pm 𝒞^1\right)=0,z_+z_{}=\mathrm{Tr}\left(v_+𝒞^1v_{}𝒞^1\right)=0.$$
(3.16)
Imposing them, one can check that the matrix $`ww`$ is zero as it should be according to (3.4).

Since we know that the HKC is flat, there should be coordinates $`u_i;i=1,\mathrm{},4`$, in which the hyperkähler potential is

$$\chi =\underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}u_i\overline{u}_i.$$
(3.17)
If we can find a gauge for $`v_\pm `$, satisfying (3.16), such that

$$w_{ij}=u_iu_j,$$
(3.18)
then (3.15) reduces to (3.17) and we have proven that (2.15) gives the correct result.

This can be achieved by choosing the three complex $`SU(2)`$ gauge conditions

$$v_{+14}=v_{13},v_{+13}=v_{14}=0,$$
(3.19)
and identifying

$$v_{+14}=v_{13}=u_1,v_{+12}=u_3,v_{12}=u_4.$$
(3.20)
Then we solve the moment map constraints (3.16) for $`v_{+23}`$, $`v_{24}`$ and $`v_{23}`$, and $`w_{ij}=u_iu_j`$ for $`v_{+24}`$. This gives

$$v_{+23}=\frac{u_3^2}{u_1},v_{+24}=\frac{u_3u_4}{u_1}+u_2,v_{23}=\frac{u_3u_4}{u_1}+u_2,v_{24}=\frac{u_4^2}{u_1}.$$
(3.21)
Using (3.12), (3.19), (3.20) and (3.21) it is straightforward to find the coordinates $`z_\pm `$ in terms of the flat coordinates $`u_i`$ for any explicit representation of the Clifford algebra. For example,

$`z_+=(2u_3,{\displaystyle \frac{iu_3^2}{u_1}}iu_1,{\displaystyle \frac{u_3^2}{u_1}}+u_1,{\displaystyle \frac{u_3u_4}{u_1}}+u_2,{\displaystyle \frac{iu_3u_4}{u_1}}iu_2),`$
$`z_{}=(\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}2}u_4,{\displaystyle \frac{iu_3u_4}{u_1}}iu_2,{\displaystyle \frac{u_3u_4}{u_1}}u_2,{\displaystyle \frac{u_4^2}{u_1}}+u_1,{\displaystyle \frac{iu_4^2}{u_1}}+iu_1).`$
One can easily check that these $`z_\pm ^M`$’s satisfy (2.9) and give $`\chi =_{i=1}^4u_i\overline{u}_i`$.

### 3.3 $`n=6`$

Recall that

$$X(2)=\frac{SU(4)}{SU(2)\times U(2)},Y(2)=\frac{SO(6)}{SO(2)\times SO(4)},$$
(3.22)
and hence $`X(2)=Y(2)`$ and their HKC’s must coincide. The hyperkähler potential of the HKC of $`X(n)`$ was obtained in  by a $`U(1)`$ hyperkähler quotient of $`\text{}^{n+2}`$. Denoting complex coordinates of $`\text{}^4=\text{}^8`$ by $`w_+^i`$ and $`w_i,i=1,\mathrm{},4`$, transforming in conjugate representations of $`SU(4)`$, we have

$$\chi (X)=2\sqrt{w_+^i\overline{w}_+^iw_j\overline{w}_j},\mathrm{where}w_{}^4=1w_+^4=w_+^aw_aa=1,2,3.$$
(3.23)
To compare the HKC of $`Y(2)`$ with (3.23), we follow the same strategy as for $`n=5`$, namely we make use of the local isomorphism $`SU(4)=SO(6)`$. To this end we define $`U(1)`$ gauge invariant (and traceless) matrix

$$w^i{}_{j}{}^{}=w_+^iw_ji,j=1,\mathrm{},4,$$
(3.24)
and write (3.23) in matrix notation as

$$\chi (X)=2\sqrt{\mathrm{Tr}(ww^{})}.$$
(3.25)
On the $`Y(2)`$-side, the coordinates $`z_\pm ^M`$, $`M=1,\mathrm{},6`$ are in the vector representation of $`SO(6)`$, similarly to (3.10). As in the $`n=5`$ case, we rewrite the hyperkähler potential (2.15) in $`SU(4)`$ notation. Then we make gauge choices and solve the holomorphic moment map constraints such that (2.15) coincides with (3.25).

We introduce a basis of selfdual and anti-selfdual four by four matrices $`\eta ,\overline{\eta }`$ and write

$$v_{\pm ij}z_\pm ^a\eta _{ij}^a+iz_\pm ^{a+3}\overline{\eta }_{ij}^az,$$
(3.26)
where $`a=1,2,3`$ and $`\eta ^a`$ and $`\overline{\eta }^a`$ are selfdual and anti-selfdual respectively, see e.g., . We can raise and lower pairs of indices using $`ϵ^{ijkl}`$,

$$v_\pm ^{ij}\frac{1}{2}ϵ^{ijkl}v_{\pm kl},$$
(3.27)
such that

$$z_\pm ^a=\frac{1}{4}\eta _{ij}^av_\pm ^{ij},z_\pm ^{a+3}=\frac{i}{4}\overline{\eta }_{ij}^av_\pm ^{ij}.$$
(3.28)
The $`SU(2)`$ gauge invariant variables can be put in the traceless matrix

$$v^i{}_{j}{}^{}v_+^{ik}v_{kj}v_{}^{ik}v_{+kj},$$
(3.29)
and the hyperkähler potential is then, up to a numerical factor,

$$\chi (Y(2))=\sqrt{\mathrm{Tr}(vv^{})}.$$
(3.30)
The holomorphic moment map constraints (2.9) take the form

$$\mathrm{Tr}(v_+v_+)=0\mathrm{Tr}(v_{}v_{})=0\mathrm{Tr}(v_+v_{})=0.$$
(3.31)
We must fix a gauge in which the matrices $`v^i_j`$ and $`w^i_j`$ of (3.24) coincide. This can be done by setting

$$v_{+13}=v_{12}=0,v_{13}=\frac{1}{2},$$
(3.32)
and identifying

$$v_{+12}=w_+^1,v_{+23}=w_+^3,v_{14}=\frac{1}{2}w_{}^3.$$
(3.33)
We then solve (3.31) in such a way that the matrices $`w`$ and $`v`$ become equal. The answer is

$`v_{+14}=w_+^1w_{}^2,v_{+24}=w_+^1w_{}^2+w_+^3w_{}^3,v_{+34}=w_{}^2w_+^3,`$
$`v_{23}=\frac{1}{2}{\displaystyle \frac{w_+^2}{w_+^1}},v_{24}=\frac{1}{2}{\displaystyle \frac{w_{}^3w_+^2}{w_+^1}},v_{34}=\frac{1}{2}w_{}^2\frac{1}{2}{\displaystyle \frac{w_+^2w_{}^2}{w_+^1}}.`$ (3.34)
Using (3.28) it is straightforward to find $`z_\pm ^M`$, $`M=1,\mathrm{},6`$ in terms of $`w_\pm ^N`$ $`N=1,\mathrm{},4`$.

## 4 The Dual Description of the HKC

As is well known, whenever there is an abelian isometry group one can find a dual description in terms of $`N=2`$ tensor multiplets. In this section, we consider the noncompact case, which is the one relevant for the low energy limit of string compactifications . The isometry group of $`\stackrel{~}{Y}(n)`$ is $`SO(n,4)`$ (see (1.3)). Since the coordinates $`z_+^M,z_{}^M,M=1,\mathrm{},n+4`$ transform in the vector representation of this group, from (2.15) it follows that the hyperkähler potential of the HKC of $`\stackrel{~}{Y}(n)`$ is also invariant, as are the two-forms (2.3).

To find the generators of a maximal abelian subgroup of $`SO(n,4)`$ note that any two matrices $`T,T^{}`$ of the form

$$T=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& a\\ 0& 0& a\\ a^t& a^t& 0\end{array}\right),$$
(4.1)
where $`a`$ is an arbitrary $`(n+2)`$-dimensional row vector, commute with each other for any $`a,a^{}`$, and are nilpotent of third order. Such $`T`$’s are generators in the Lie algebra of the pseudo-orthogonal group that preserves the metric $`\eta =diag(+\widehat{\eta })`$, for any $`\widehat{\eta }`$. If, for example, we arrange the coordinates as follows: $`(1,5,2,3,\mathrm{},n+4)`$, then the flat metric on $`\text{}^{n,4}`$ has this form, and we can write the generators of an $`n+2`$ dimensional abelian subgroup of $`SO(n,4)`$ as

$$(T_I)_M{}_{}{}^{N}=(\delta _M^1+\delta _M^5)\delta _I^N\sigma _I+\delta _{MI}(\delta _1^N\delta _5^N),I1,5,$$
(4.2)
where $`\sigma _I`$ is defined by $`\eta _{MN}=\delta _{MN}\sigma _M`$. It is easy to check that

$$(T_I)_M{}_{}{}^{L}\eta _{LN}^{}+(T_I)_N{}_{}{}^{L}\eta _{LM}^{}=0.$$
(4.3)
We dualize with respect to the subgroup $`U(1)^{n+2}`$ generated by the set $`\{T_I\}`$ by starting with the flat space Lagrangian for $`\text{}^{n,4}`$, gauging both the $`n+2`$ dimensional abelian symmetry found above as well as the $`SU(2)`$ of Section 2, and constraining the $`U(1)`$ gauge fields with $`N=1`$ tensor multiplet Lagrange multipliers $`G_I`$. We also have to solve the holomorphic moment map constraints for the action of the $`SU(2)`$ (2.9) and those for the action of the $`U(1)^{n+2}`$:

$$z_{+M}z_N\eta ^{MK}(T_I)_K{}_{}{}^{N}=v_I,$$
(4.4)
where the $`v_I`$ are $`N=1`$ chiral superfields that together with $`G_I`$ make up an $`N=2`$ tensor multiplet. Finally, we gauge fix both $`SU(2)`$ and $`U(1)^{n+2}`$. The dual description is given by a Lagrangian which is a function of $`v,\overline{v}`$ and the real coordinates $`G`$.

Let us see that all of the above requirements can be fulfilled consistently. Using (4.2), (4.4) becomes

$$(z_{+5}z_{+1})z_I\sigma _I+(z_1z_5)z_{+I}\sigma _I=v_I.$$
(4.5)
The $`SU(2)`$ action on each pair $`(z_+^M,z_{}^M)`$ (2.5) is fixed completely by setting

$$z_{+1}=z_5\varphi ,z_1=z_{+5}=0.$$
(4.6)
The $`U(1)^{n+2}`$ transformation rules on $`\text{}^{n,4}`$, $`\delta z_{\pm M}=\lambda _I(T_I)_M{}_{}{}^{N}z_{\pm N}^{}`$, or explicitly

$$\delta z_{\pm 1}=\lambda _Iz_{\pm I}\sigma _I,\delta z_{\pm 5}=\lambda _Iz_{\pm I}\sigma _I,\delta z_{\pm I}=\lambda _I(z_{\pm 1}z_{\pm 5}),$$
(4.7)
acquire, on the HKC of $`\stackrel{~}{Y}`$, compensating $`SU(2)`$ transformations in order to preserve the gauge (4.6), similar to (2.20). They become

$`\delta z_{+1}=\delta z_5=\delta \varphi ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\sigma _I\lambda _I(z_{+I}+z_I),`$
$`\delta z_{+I}=\lambda _I\varphi {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\sigma _J{\displaystyle \frac{z_{+I}\lambda _J(z_{+J}z_J)}{\varphi }}\sigma _J{\displaystyle \frac{z_I\lambda _Jz_{+J}}{\varphi }},`$ (4.8)
$`\delta z_I=\lambda _I\varphi {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\sigma _J{\displaystyle \frac{z_I\lambda _J(z_{+J}z_J)}{\varphi }}\sigma _J{\displaystyle \frac{z_{+I}\lambda _Jz_J}{\varphi }}.`$
The holomorphic $`SU(2)`$ moment map constraints (2.9) reduce to

$$\varphi ^2=z_{+I}z_{+J}\eta ^{IJ},\varphi ^2=z_Iz_J\eta ^{IJ},0=z_{+I}z_J\eta ^{IJ}.$$
(4.9)
We choose a $`U(1)^{n+2}`$ gauge

$$z_{+I}=1\mathrm{for}\mathrm{all}I1,5.$$
(4.10)
Then (4.9) become

$$\varphi ^2=n4,\varphi ^2=z_I^2\sigma _I,z_I\sigma _I=0,$$
(4.11)
which we can solve for $`\varphi `$ and two of the $`z_I`$’s. The $`U(1)^{n+2}`$ holomorphic moment map (4.5) after substituting (4.6), (4.10) and the solution for $`\varphi `$ is

$$\sqrt{n4}(z_I+1)\sigma _I=v_I.$$
(4.12)
As a consequence of (4.11), there are $`n`$ independent $`v`$’s.

The Lagrangian of the dual theory is

$$\underset{M,N=1}{\overset{n+4}{}}\sigma _N\left(e^{i_IT_IV_I}\right)_{MN}\left(\overline{z}_+^M\overline{z}_{}^M\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{e}^V& \end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}z_+^N\\ z_{}^N\end{array}\right)\underset{M1,5}{}\sigma _MG_MV_M,$$
(4.13)
after we eliminate all gauge fields in (4.13) via their equations of motion and impose the conditions (4.6), (4.10) as well as the solutions to (4.11), (4.12). Thus the dual description is in terms of $`n`$ $`N=1`$ chiral superfields $`v`$ and $`n+2`$ $`N=1`$ tensor multiplets $`G`$.

Unfortunately we haven’t been able to solve for all gauge fields ($`V`$ and $`V_I`$) explicitly; and thus we have not been able to construct the dual Lagrangian. However the analysis that we made above shows that there is a consistent solution of all requirements (constraints and allowed gauge choices) for the existence of a dual description. In $`N=2`$ language, $`n`$ of the $`G`$’s combine with the $`n`$ $`v`$’s into $`n`$ $`N=2`$ tensor multiplets and the remaining two $`G`$’s combine into a double-tensor multiplet. This is consistent with the expectations from type IIB compactifications . There the double-tensor multiplet appears naturally: it contains the dilaton, axion and the RR and NS two-forms.

Though we cannot solve for all gauge fields simultaneously, we can easily solve for either the $`SU(2)`$ prepotential $`V`$ or all $`V_I`$’s that gauge the $`U(1)^{n+2}`$. Eliminating the first gives the same answer for the dual Lagrangian as (2.15), but with $`U(1)^{n+2}`$ gauged as above. On the other hand, integrating out the $`U(1)^{n+2}`$ gauge fields gives us a dual description, although the result is still a function of the $`SU(2)`$ gauge fields, which for convenience we now write as $`U=\mathrm{e}^V`$. Using the nilpotency properties of the generators (and arranging the indices as $`1,5,2,\mathrm{},n+4`$),

$`\mathrm{e}^{i_{I1,5}T_IV_I}`$ $`=`$ $`1_{(n+4)\times (n+4)}+i\left(\begin{array}{ccccc}0& 0& \sigma _2V_2& \sigma _3V_3& ..\\ 0& 0& \sigma _2V_2& \sigma _3V_3& ..\\ V_2& V_2& 0& 0& ..\\ V_3& V_3& 0& 0& ..\\ :& :& :& :& :\end{array}\right)+`$ (4.19)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\begin{array}{ccccc}_{I1,5}\sigma _IV_I^2& _{I1,5}\sigma _IV_I^2& 0& 0& ..\\ _{I1,5}\sigma _IV_I^2& _{I1,5}\sigma _IV_I^2& 0& 0& ..\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& ..\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& ..\\ :& :& :& :& :\end{array}\right),`$ (4.25)
we can rewrite (4.13) as

$$\overline{Z}^\alpha M_{\alpha \beta }\sigma _\beta Z^\beta \sigma _IG_IV_I,\alpha ,\beta =1,\mathrm{},2(n+4).$$
(4.26)
We have denoted $`\overline{Z}=(\overline{z}_+^1,\overline{z}_{}^1,\overline{z}_+^5,\overline{z}_{}^5,\overline{z}_+^2,\overline{z}_{}^2,\mathrm{},\overline{z}_+^{n+4},\overline{z}_{}^{n+4})`$ and

$$M=\left(\begin{array}{ccccc}(1\frac{1}{2}_I\sigma _IV_I^2)U& (\frac{1}{2}_I\sigma _IV_I^2)U& i\sigma _2V_2U& i\sigma _3V_3U& ..\\ (\frac{1}{2}_I\sigma _IV_I^2)U& (1+\frac{1}{2}_I\sigma _IV_I^2)U& i\sigma _2V_2U& i\sigma _3V_3U& ..\\ iV_2U& iV_2U& U& 0& ..\\ iV_3U& iV_3U& 0& U& ..\\ :& :& :& :& :\end{array}\right),$$
(4.27)
where $`M`$ is a $`(n+4)\times (n+4)`$ matrix of $`2\times 2`$ matrices. The solution for the $`U(1)^{n+2}`$ gauge fields is

$$V_I=\frac{G_Ii(\overline{z}_+^1+\overline{z}_+^5,\overline{z}_{}^1+\overline{z}_{}^5)U\left(\begin{array}{c}z_+^I\\ z_{}^I\end{array}\right)+i(\overline{z}_+^I,\overline{z}_{}^I)U\left(\begin{array}{c}z_+^1+z_+^5\\ z_{}^1+z_{}^5\end{array}\right)}{(\overline{z}_+^1\overline{z}_+^5,\overline{z}_{}^1\overline{z}_{}^5)U\left(\begin{array}{c}z_+^1z_+^5\\ z_{}^1z_{}^5\end{array}\right)}.$$
(4.28)
Finally we note that if we dualize only $`n+1`$ instead of all $`n+2`$ generators of $`U(1)^{n+2}`$, we find $`n+1`$ $`N=1`$ tensor multiplets and $`n+1`$ $`N=1`$ chiral superfields, or equivalently, $`n+1`$ $`N=2`$ tensor multiplets.

## 5 Half-hypermutliplets and $`N=2`$ Superspace

We close with a few comments on other representations of the HKC. The half-hypermultiplet formulation that we have used so far is not easily described in $`N=2`$ superspace; however, a half-hypermultiplet has an alternative formulation as the double cover of an $`A_1`$ singularity, that is, a $`U(1)`$ hyperkähler quotient of a full hypermultiplet doublet with vanishing Fayet-Iliopoulos terms.

Explicitly, consider a hypermultiplet doublet $`z_\pm ^{(1)},z_\pm ^{(2)}`$, with $`z_+`$ and $`z_{}`$ in conjugate representations of a $`U(1)`$ gauge group with an $`N=1`$ gauge prepotential $`V_0`$ as well as the $`SU(2)`$ gauge group of the previous sections with an $`N=1`$ gauge prepotential $`V`$:

$$\chi =\mathrm{e}^{V_0}\left(\overline{z}_+^{(1)}\overline{z}_+^{(2)}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{e}^V& \end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}z_+^{(1)}\\ z_+^{(2)}\end{array}\right)+\mathrm{e}^{V_0}\left(z_{}^{(1)}z_{}^{(2)}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{e}^V& \end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\overline{z}_{}^{(1)}\\ \overline{z}_{}^{(2)}\end{array}\right).$$
(5.1)
This must be supplemented by the holomorphic moment map constraints; in particular, the holomorphic $`U(1)`$ moment map is

$$z_+^{(1)}z_{}^{(1)}+z_+^{(2)}z_{}^{(2)}=0.$$
(5.2)
We shall see that integrating out $`V_0`$, imposing (5.2), and choosing a convenient gauge for the $`U(1)`$ symmetry gives us back the half-hypermultiplet formulation.

Integrating out the $`U(1)`$ gauge field $`V_0`$ gives

$$2\sqrt{\left(\overline{z}_+^{(1)}\overline{z}_+^{(2)}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{e}^V& \end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}z_+^{(1)}\\ z_+^{(2)}\end{array}\right)\left(z_{}^{(1)}z_{}^{(2)}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{e}^V& \end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\overline{z}_{}^{(1)}\\ \overline{z}_{}^{(2)}\end{array}\right)}$$
(5.3)
We can choose a $`U(1)`$ gauge

$$z_+^{(2)}=z_{}^{(1)}z_{}.$$
(5.4)
Then the holomorphic $`U(1)`$ moment map (5.2) implies

$$z_{}^{(2)}=z_+^{(1)}z_+.$$
(5.5)
Using (5.4) and (5.5) we express everything in (5.3) in terms of $`z_\pm `$:

$$2\sqrt{\left(\overline{z}_+\overline{z}_{}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{e}^V& \end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}z_+\\ z_{}\end{array}\right)\left(z_{}z_+\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{e}^V& \end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\overline{z}_{}\\ \overline{z}_+\end{array}\right)}.$$
(5.6)
The second factor in the square root can be rewritten as

$`\left(z_{}z_+\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{e}^V& \end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\overline{z}_{}\\ \overline{z}_+\end{array}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\overline{z}_{}\overline{z}_+\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{e}^{V^T}& \end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}z_{}\\ z_+\end{array}\right)`$ (5.13)
$`=`$ $`\left(\overline{z}_+\overline{z}_{}\right)\sigma _2\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{e}^{V^T}& \end{array}\right)\sigma _2\left(\begin{array}{c}z_+\\ z_{}\end{array}\right)`$ (5.17)
$`=`$ $`\left(\overline{z}_+\overline{z}_{}\right)\mathrm{e}^{\left(\begin{array}{cc}\sigma _2V^T\sigma _2& \end{array}\right)}\left(\begin{array}{c}z_+\\ z_{}\end{array}\right).`$ (5.21)
Since $`V`$ is an $`SU(2)`$ gauge prepotential, we write it as $`V=V^i\sigma _i,i=1,2,3`$, where $`\sigma _i`$ are the Pauli matrices, and

$$\sigma _2\sigma _i^T\sigma _2=\sigma _i.$$
(5.22)
Hence (5.21) is equal to the first factor under the square root in (5.6) and we confirm that (5.1) is the same as (2.10) (up to an insignificant factor of 2).

To complete the proof of the equivalence of (5.1) and (2.10), we must also compare the $`SU(2)`$ holomorphic moment maps. For (5.1) the $`SU(2)`$ moment map is

$$\left(z_{}^{(1)}z_{}^{(2)}\right)T_i\left(\begin{array}{c}z_+^{(1)}\\ z_+^{(2)}\end{array}\right)=0,$$
(5.23)
where $`T_i`$ are the same generators as (2.12). Using (5.4) and (5.5) to express $`z_\pm ^{(1,2)}`$ in terms of $`z_\pm `$, we get the same constraints as (2.9).

Having this description in hand, we can now give the $`N=2`$ projective superspace formulation; we use the polar multiplet formulation (for a pedagogical summary as well as a definition of our notation, see the appendix B of ; earlier references are contained therein and include ). The HKC for $`Y(n4)`$ has the projective superspace Lagrangian

$$L_{N=2}=\frac{d\xi }{2\pi i}\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\mathrm{e}^{𝐕_i}\overline{\mathrm{{\rm Y}}}_i\mathrm{e}^𝐕\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_i,$$
(5.24)
where each $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_i`$ is a doublet of polar multiplets, each $`\mathrm{e}^{𝐕_i}`$ is a tropical multiplet describing a $`U(1)`$ gauge prepotential (analogous to the $`N=1`$ gauge prepotential), and $`\mathrm{e}^𝐕`$ is a hermitian unimodular tropical multiplet describing the $`SU(2)`$ gauge prepotential. Formally, we may integrate out the latter and obtain:

$$L_{N=2}=\frac{d\xi }{2\pi i}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\left(det\left[\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_i\mathrm{e}^{𝐕_𝐢}\overline{\mathrm{{\rm Y}}}_i\right]\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}.$$
(5.25)
The full hypermultiplet description can also be written as a quiver; indeed, the quiver for the HKC of $`Y(1)`$ was explored in quite some detail in the last section of . The general quiver is a higher dimensional extension of (a cover of) the orbifold limit of the $`D_4`$ ALE space, and is shown in Figure 2:

The observation that the HKC of $`Y(1)`$ is flat implies that the specific quiver discussed in , when the orbifold singularity is blown up (rather than removed by going to the cover) gives rise to a genuine 8-dimensional ALE manifold that has not been studied before. However, the higher dimensional analogs cannot be ALE, as the limit without any blowing up is not flat.

Acknowledgements

SV thanks B. de Wit and M. Trigiante for stimulating discussions. MR thanks the NSF for partial support under grant NSF PHY-0098527.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The production of net baryon asymmetry requires baryon number violating interactions, C and CP violation and a departure from thermal equilibrium. The first two of these ingredients are naturally contained in GUTs or other string-motivated scenarios, and the third can be realized in an expanding universe where it is not uncommon that interactions come in and out of equilibrium, producing the stable heavy particles or cosmological defects. In the original and simplest model of baryogenesis, a heavy GUT gauge or Higgs boson decays out of equilibrium producing a net baryon asymmetry.

Another mechanism for generating the cosmological baryon asymmetry in supersymmetric theories is proposed by Affleck and Dine who utilized the decay of the scalar condensate along the flat direction. This mechanism is a natural product of supersymmetry, which contains many flat directions that break $`U(1)_B`$. The scalar potential along this direction vanishes identically when supersymmetry breaking is not induced. Supersymmetry breaking lifts this degeneracy,

$$Vm_{soft}^2|\varphi |^2$$
(1.1)
where $`m_{soft}^2`$ is the supersymmetry-breaking scale and $`\varphi `$ is the direction in the field space corresponding to the flat direction. For large initial value of $`\varphi `$, a large baryon number asymmetry may be generated if the condensate of the field breaks $`U(1)_B`$. The mechanism also requires the presence of baryon number violating operators that may appear through higher dimensional A-terms. The decay of these condensates through such an operator can lead to a net baryon asymmetry. In the most naive consideration the baryon asymmetry is computed by tracking the evolution of the sfermion condensate in the flat direction of the supersymmetric standard model. Considering a toy model with the potential

$$V(\varphi ,\varphi ^{})=m_{soft}^2|\varphi |^2+\frac{1}{4}[\lambda \varphi ^4+h.c.],$$
(1.2)
the equation of motion becomes

$$\ddot{\varphi }+3H\dot{\varphi }=m_{soft}^2\varphi +\lambda (\varphi ^{})^3.$$
(1.3)
The baryon (or lepton) number density is given by;

$$n_B=q_B\left(\dot{\varphi }^{}\varphi \varphi ^{}\dot{\varphi }\right),$$
(1.4)
where $`q_B`$ is the baryon (or lepton) charge carried by the field. Now one can write down the equation for the baryon number density

$$\dot{n_B}+3Hn_B=2q_BIm\left[\lambda (\varphi ^{})^4\right].$$
(1.5)
Integrating this equation, one can obtain the baryon (or lepton) number produced by the Affleck-Dine oscillation. For a large initial amplitude, the produced baryon number is estimated as $`n_B\frac{4q_B|\lambda |}{9H}|\varphi _{ini}|^4\delta _{eff}`$, where $`\delta _{eff}`$ is the effective CP violation phase of the initial condensate. This crude estimation suggests that by generating some angular motion one can generate a net baryon density.

In the conventional scenario of Affleck-Dine baryogenesis, one should assume large $`H>m_{3/2}`$ before the time of Affleck-Dine baryogenesis so that the flat directions are destabilized to obtain the large initial amplitude of baryon-charged directions.

Although it seems plausible that Affleck-Dine baryogenesis generates the baryon asymmetry of the Universe, there are some difficulties in the naive scenario. The formation of Q-ball is perhaps the most serious obstacle that puts a serious constraint on the baryon number density at the time of Q-ball formation. Q-balls are formed due to the spatial instability of the Affleck-Dine field, and have been shown by numerical calculations that they absorb almost all the baryonic charges in the Universe when they form. This means that the baryon asymmetry of the Universe in the later period must be provided by decaying Q-balls. In general, the stability of Q-balls are determined by their charge that are inevitably fixed by Affleck-Dine mechanism itself. The reason is that the formation of Q-balls occurs almost immediately, which makes it hard to expect any additional diluting mechanism before Q-ball formation. The point is that in general Affleck-Dine baryogenesis the initial baryon number density becomes so huge that the produced Q-balls become stable. The stable Q-balls that produce the present baryon asymmetry of the Universe by their decay are dangerous, because such Q-balls can also produce dangerous relics at the same time when they decay to produce the baryons. The decay temperature of the associated huge Q-balls becomes in general much lower than the freeze-out temperature of the dangerous lightest supersymmetric particle, which causes serious constraint.

Another obstacle is the problem of the early oscillation caused by the thermalization. When the fields that couple to the Affleck-Dine field are thermalized, they induce the thermal mass to the Affleck-Dine field. The early oscillation starts when the thermal mass term exceeds the destabilizing mass. The serious constraint appears because the destabilizing mass, which is about the same order of the Hubble parameter, is in general much smaller than the temperature of the plasma.

However, in our model these difficulties do not appear since the mechanism of the destabilization of the Affleck-Dine field is not a consequence of large Hubble parameter. The size of the Q-ball is naturally suppressed, since our mechanism does not produce huge baryon number density after Affleck-Dine baryogenesis.

What we will consider in this paper is a mechanism in which Affleck-Dine mechanism is realized after thermal brane inflation. Before discussing the baryogenesis with extra dimensions, we must first specify the scenario of the early Universe to a certain extent. In this paper we consider Affleck-Dine baryogenesis after thermal brane inflation.222 In theories with extra dimensions there are two possible choices for the Affleck-Dine field. It could either be a brane field localized on a brane or a bulk field. In ref., it is discussed that naive realization of Affleck-Dine mechanism with a brane field cannot produce sufficient baryon number. We show how our mechanism works in models with supersymmetry breaking at the distant brane. Here we consider two different cases for supersymmetry breaking. In one case we assume an alternative source of supersymmetry breaking on the distant brane, and in the other case we deal with the realistic bulk field mediation of supersymmetry breaking. It is often the case that the brane distance is used to control the direct contact terms that produce unwanted soft terms preventing the FCNC bound. Our mechanism is expected to work in these models if the relevant brane distance is reduced during a period after inflation. Besides the thermal inflation model that we have considered in this paper, there are many models in which the temporally reduced extra dimension is used to prevent difficulties related to the large extra dimensions.

## 2 Thermal brane inflation

In this section we make a brief review of thermal brane inflation proposed by Dvali. The following conditions are required so that the mechanism functions.

1) Exchange of the bulk modes such as graviton, dilaton or RR fields governs the brane interaction at the large distance.

2) In the case when branes initially come close, bulk modes are in equilibrium and their contribution to the free energy can create a positive $`T^2`$ mass term for $`\varphi `$ to stabilize the branes on top of each other until the Universe cools down to a certain critical temperature $`T_cm_s`$.333 Authours of ref. considered open string modes stretched between the different branes. If the branes are on top of each other, these string modes that get mass when the brane distance grows are in equilibrium and their contribution to the free energy creates a positive $`T^2`$ mass term so that the resulting curvature becomes positive.  Here $`m_s`$ represents the negative curvature of $`\varphi `$ at the origin determined by the supersymmetry breaking, and $`\varphi `$ is the moduli field for the brane distance.

The resulting scenario of thermal inflation is straightforward. Assuming that there was a period of an early inflation with a reheat temperature $`T_RM`$, and at the end of inflation some of the repelling branes sit on top of each other stabilized by the thermal effects, one can obtain the number of e-foldings

$$N_e=ln(\frac{T_R}{T_c}).$$
(2.1)
Taking $`T_R10TeV`$ and $`T_c10^310`$ MeV, one finds $`N_e1015`$, which is consistent with the original thermal inflation and is enough to get rid of unwanted relics.444 In this paper we also consider situations where the reheating temperature after the first inflation is as high as $`T_R10^{10}GeV`$, and the critical temperature $`T_c10^2GeV`$. Unlike the original model of thermal brane inflation, large extra dimensions are not specially supposed in this paper. Since we are taking interest in whether our mechanism of baryogenesis works, we also deal with the case where the thermal brane inflation itself is not a necessary ingredient to solve the cosmological problems. In such cases, what we should concern is whether there can be a short period of thermal brane inflation that enables our mechanism of Affleck-Dine baryogenesis to work.

## 3 Affleck-Dine baryogenesis after thermal brane inflation

In this section we show how to realize Affleck-Dine baryogenesis after thermal brane inflation. Our model requires the mechanism of supersymmetry breaking at the distant brane. To proceed, we should first discuss the mechanism of supersymmetry breaking. In our model the negative soft term is not a simple consequence of the large Hubble parameter, but rather related to the distance between the matter brane and the supersymmetry-breaking brane. We should also discuss the origin of the baryon number violating A-terms, which plays the crucial role in Affleck-Dine baryogenesis. Because of the constraint from proton stability, additional mechanism for suppressing dangerous higher dimensional A-terms is always required when the fundamental scale is much lower than the Planck scale.

In the oldest version of supergravity mediation, it is assumed that all higher-dimension operators that directly connect the fields in the hidden sector with the ones in the observable sector are present but suppressed only by powers of $`1/M_4`$, where $`M_4`$ denotes the Planck mass in four dimensions. In this case the required soft supersymmetry-breaking term is given by the higher-dimension terms of the form:

$$L_{soft}d^4\theta \frac{1}{M_4^2}X^{}XQ^{}Q$$
(3.1)
Here $`X`$ is a chiral superfield in the hidden sector whose $`F`$ component $`F_X`$ breaks supersymmetry. $`Q`$ is a matter field in the visible sector. Higher dimensional operators in the superpotential $`W_A\frac{1}{M_p^{n+3}}\mathrm{\Phi }^{n+3}`$ produce the A-terms and determines the phase of the AD direction at large $`<\mathrm{\Phi }>`$.

$$L_Ad^4\theta (\frac{1}{M_4^{n+3}}X^{}X\mathrm{\Phi }^{n+3}+h.c.)+d^2\theta (\frac{1}{M_4^{n+1}}X\mathrm{\Phi }^{n+3}+h.c.)$$
(3.2)
where $`n1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ represents the flat direction.

Contact terms of the similar form appear in the models of extra dimensions, where $`M_4`$ is replaced by the fundamental scale $`M`$ that is much lower than $`M_4`$. On the other hand, the contact terms connecting the fields in the hidden and the observable branes are suppressed because they are localized along the extra dimension. In these cases the supersymmetry breaking is mediated by bulk fields such as scalar fields or fermions where the scale of the supersymmetry breaking in the hidden brane can be as large as the fundamental scale of the higher-dimensional theory, while the direct soft terms for the standard model sfermions are suppressed.

Simplest toy model

For the simplest toy model we consider an example where the fundamental scale $`M`$ is as low as $`10TeV`$ and the realistic supersymmetry breaking is realized within the matter brane without specific fine-tuning. In addition to these simplest settings, we also include a distant brane where the supersymmetry is maximally broken by an auxiliary component of a localized field $`|F_X|^{1/2}M`$. In such a case the effect of $`F_X`$ on the matter brane is expected to be exponentially suppressed because they are localized at the distant brane. The soft terms are given by:

$$V(\varphi _{AD})\left[m_{soft}^2+c\left(\frac{|F_X|}{M}\right)^2e^{Mr_{susy}}\right]|\varphi _{AD}|^2.$$
(3.3)
Here $`\varphi _{AD}`$ is the flat direction of Affleck-Dine mechanism, and $`r_{susy}`$ is the distance between the matter brane and the hidden supersymmetry-breaking brane on which $`F_X`$ is localized. $`m_{soft}`$ denotes the supersymmetry breaking induced on the matter brane, which is assumed to be a constant. When two branes sit on their true positions, the second term is negligible. On the other hand, when the hidden brane stays on top of the matter brane during thermal brane inflation, then the supersymmetry breaking of order $`F_X/M`$ is induced on the matter brane by the direct contact terms. Assuming that the effective soft mass appears with the negative sign (i.e. $`c<0`$), the flat direction $`\varphi _{AD}`$ is destabilized during thermal inflation if $`m_{soft}<|F_X|/M`$. At the same time A-terms are modified to generate the required misalignment of the phase. Here we assume that the A-term is effectively given by using the four dimensional Planck mass,

$$V_A\left(\frac{a_0m_{soft}}{M_p}+\frac{a_1|F_X|e^{Mr_{susy}}/M}{M_p}\right)\varphi _{AD}^4$$
(3.4)
where $`a_0`$ and $`a_1`$ are constants of O(1). The situation here is very similar to the original Affleck-Dine baryogenesis. The sole difference is that the supersymmetry is not induced by the Hubble parameter, but is induced by the brane distance. The resultant baryon to entropy ratio is:555 See ref. for more detail.

$$\frac{n_B}{s}\frac{T_{R2}}{M_pH_o\rho _I}|am_{soft}(\varphi _{AD}^i)^4|\delta _{eff}$$
(3.5)
where $`T_{R2}`$ is the reheating temperature after thermal brane inflation, and $`\varphi _{AD}^i`$ is the initial amplitude of $`\varphi _{AD}`$. $`H_o`$ denotes the Hubble parameter when the AD oscillation starts, which can be taken to be $`H_oH_I=M^2/M_p`$. It is naturally assumed that the initial amplitude is $`\varphi _{AD}^{ini}M`$, and the inflaton density is still $`\rho _IM^4`$ at the beginning of the oscillation. Then we obtain:

$$\frac{n_B}{s}10^{10}\left(\frac{T_{R2}}{10MeV}\right)\left(\frac{10^8GeV}{H_o}\right)$$
(3.6)
which is the most naive result, but is enough to explain the origin of the baryon asymmetry of the present Universe.666 Modifications of parameters are allowed, but in general they are strongly model dependent. The magnitude of the A-term can be modified at the time of AD oscillation, which we shall discuss in the next paragraph.

Realistic mediation of supersymmetry breaking

Here we consider gaugino mediation as a more realistic example of such “Hidden” supersymmetry breaking777 Here we have assumed that the gaugino can propagate only one extra dimension that is about $`1010^2`$ times larger than $`M^1`$. . In this case the MSSM scalar mass squareds derived from five-dimensional Feynman diagrams are suppressed relative to the gaugino masses by at least a loop factor when the brane distance is larger than $`M^1`$.

Even in the limit of small brane distance, it does not exceed the masses generated from the four-dimensional renormalization-group evolution between the compactification scale and the weak scale888Details of the calculations are given in ref.. This conclusion is generic and also holds for the other soft parameters such as A-terms.

Besides the contributions from five-dimensional Feynman diagrams of gauginos propagating through extra dimension, there are direct contact terms that can destabilize the flat direction during thermal brane inflation.

Here we consider two sources of supersymmetry breaking, the four-dimensional effect and the direct contact term. Assuming that the soft terms of the relevant flat direction is produced by these two sources, it takes the following form:

$$V(\varphi _{AD})\left[c_1\left(\frac{g_4^2}{(4\pi )^2}\right)^2\left(\frac{|F_X|}{M}\right)^2+c_3\left(\frac{|F_X|}{M}\right)^2e^{Mr_{susy}}\right]|\varphi _{AD}|^2$$
(3.7)
for small $`\varphi _{AD}`$ and

$$V(\varphi _{AD})c_2\left(\frac{g_4^2}{(4\pi )^2}\right)^2(|F_X|)^2\left(ln\frac{|\varphi _{AD}|^2}{M^2}\right)^2+c_3\left(\frac{|F_X|}{M}\right)^2e^{Mr_{susy}}|\varphi _{AD}|^2$$
(3.8)
for large $`\varphi _{AD}`$. Here $`\varphi _{AD}`$ is the flat direction of Affleck-Dine mechanism, and $`M`$ is the fundamental scale. $`r_{susy}`$ is the distance between the supersymmetry-breaking brane and the matter brane.

If the supersymmetry-breaking hidden brane stays on top of our brane during thermal brane inflation, the supersymmetry breaking on our brane during this period is naturally the order of $`O(|F_X|/M)`$ because the $`e^{Mr_{susy}}`$ factor in the direct contact term is $`O(1)`$. Relevant soft mass is then given by:

$$m^2(\varphi _{AD})c_1\left(\frac{g^2}{(4\pi )^2}\right)^2\left(\frac{|F_X|}{M}\right)^2+c_3\left(\frac{|F_X|}{M}\right)^2e^{Mr_{susy}}$$
(3.9)
for $`\varphi _{AD}<M`$. It is obvious that the source of supersymmetry breaking during thermal brane inflation is in general different from the one at the true vacuum. At this time the flat directions on the observable brane are lifted or destabilized by the supersymmetry breaking induced by the direct contact terms, which will soon disappear as soon as the brane distance grows. Then the situation is similar to the conventional Affleck-Dine baryogenesis, where the destabilization is induced by the alternative supersymmetry breaking induced by the inflaton. Assuming that the direct supersymmetry breaking destabilizes the flat direction with the negative soft mass, which corresponds to taking the constant $`c_3<0`$, the potential of the Affleck-Dine flat direction at the end of thermal inflation is given by

$$V_{soft}(\varphi _{AD})|c_3|\left(\frac{|F_X|}{M}\right)^2|\varphi _{AD}|^2.$$
(3.10)
This negative soft mass disappears soon after the end of thermal brane inflation, as the brane distance $`r_{susy}`$ grows.

The direct contact terms decreases exponentially, while terms produced by the four-dimensional effect are not modified by $`r_{susy}`$, because the supersymmetry-breaking gaugino mass is determined by the size of the relevant extra dimension that is assumed to be a constant during thermal brane inflation. Then there should be an oscillation of the Affleck-Dine field that starts at $`r_{susy}M^1`$.

We should also consider another important ingredient of Affleck-Dine baryogenesis, the evolution of the A-term. To discuss the magnitude of A-terms during thermal brane inflation, we must first discuss a concrete model for suppressing the baryon number violating interactions. The most naive idea is to assume that the baryon number is maximally broken on the hidden brane and its effect on our brane is exponentially suppressed by $`e^{r_B}`$ where $`r_B`$ is the distance between the hidden brane and the matter brane. A popular mechanism for explaining the smallness of the observed Yukawa couplings or baryon number violating operators is to expect higher dimension operators of the generic form:

$$𝒪\lambda \left(\frac{\chi }{M}\right)^k𝒪_{MSSM}$$
(3.11)
with $`\lambda O(1)`$. If $`ϵ\frac{\chi }{M}`$ is small, the small couplings in these operators are understood as the small parameter $`ϵ`$. The smallness of $`ϵ`$ is understood if the shined value of $`<\chi >`$ is assumed on matter brane. Assuming that $`<\chi >M`$ at the distant brane and their mass in the bulk is about $`M`$, the suppression factor is given by the shining method:999 See ref. for more detail.

$$ϵ\frac{e^{Mr_B}}{r_B^{n_E2}}$$
(3.12)
for $`n_E>2`$ and $`r_BM1`$, where $`n_E`$ denotes the number of the relevant extra dimensions. For $`n_E=2`$ and $`r_BM1`$,

$$ϵ\frac{e^{Mr_B}}{\sqrt{Mr_B}}.$$
(3.13)
Thus one can obtain the $`e^{Mr_B}`$ suppression for each $`ϵ`$. Here $`r_B`$ denotes the distance between the baryon number breaking brane and the matter brane. In this case, because of the suppression $`ϵ^k`$, baryon number violating A-terms are safely suppressed by the exponential factor at the true vacuum in order not to produce dangerous operators. On the other hand, because the suppression factor originates from the brane distance $`r_B`$, such A-terms are not suppressed when branes are on top of each other.101010 Of course one can assume that the baryon number breaking hidden brane is identical to the supersymmetry-breaking hidden brane. In such a case, the brane distance $`r_{susy}`$ is identified with $`r_B`$. Let us consider an example where a higher dimensional term with the lowest $`k`$ determines the phase of the Affleck-Dine condensate in the true vacuum, while other therms dominate when $`r_B=0`$. The phases of these direct contacting A-terms are in general different from the one at the true vacuum, thus producing the misalignment of the phase during thermal brane inflation. Because these alternative contributions become tiny right after the end of thermal brane inflation, misalignment of the phase is expected to appear just after thermal brane inflation.

Of course one can expect the case where the thermal brane inflation does not modify the baryon number violating operators in the superpotential. This happens when the smallness of the operator is produced by other mechanisms that are not relevant to the brane distance, or in the case where $`r_B`$ is not modified during thermal inflation. In this case the modification of the A-term is induced only by the supersymmetry breaking, which is precisely the same as what happens in the conventional Affleck-Dine baryogenesis.

In both cases, one can expect that the baryogenesis starts at $`r_BM^1`$ or $`r_{susy}M^1`$, where the exponential suppression becomes significant. The calculation of the resultant baryon to entropy ratio is similar to the conventional Affleck-Dine baryogenesis. Here we assume that the A-term of the form

$$V_A\frac{am_{soft}}{M}\varphi _{AD}^4$$
(3.14)
is already recovered at the beginning of the AD oscillation. Taking the initial amplitude $`\varphi _{AD}^{ini}M`$, we obtain

$$\frac{n_B}{s}\frac{T_{R2}}{H_o}\frac{|am_{soft}(\varphi _{AD}^i)^4|}{M\rho _I}\delta _{eff}.$$
(3.15)
Here the inflaton density is denoted by $`\rho _IM^4`$. Then we can obtain

$$\frac{n_B}{s}10^{10}\left(\frac{a}{10^7}\right)\left(\frac{T_{R2}}{10GeV}\right)\left(\frac{10^8GeV}{M}\right)^3.$$
(3.16)
Of course in some cases the inflaton density may be determined by the scale of the supersymmetry-breaking auxiliary component $`F_X`$, such as $`\rho _I|F_X|^2`$. In this case the baryon to entropy ratio becomes about $`O\left(\left|\frac{M}{F_X^{1/2}}\right|^4\right)`$ times larger than eq.(3.16).

The most significant difference from the conventional Affleck-Dine baryogenesis with extra dimensions is the absence of the problematic suppression factor that makes it impossible to realize Affleck-Dine baryogenesis on the brane.

## 4 Conclusions and Discussions

In this paper we have considered an alternative mechanism of Affleck-Dine baryogenesis that starts after thermal brane inflation. Our mechanism works in models with supersymmetry breaking at the distant brane. The brane distance is required to be modified during thermal brane inflation in order to activate the alternative source of supersymmetry breaking. Besides the thermal inflation that we have considered in this paper, there are many models in which the initially reduced extra dimensions are used to prevent difficulties related to the large extra dimensions. Extensions to these models will be discussed in the next publication.

## 5 Acknowledgment

We wish to thank K.Shima for encouragement, and our colleagues in Tokyo University for their kind hospitality.