text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

One of the simplest situations where one can study quantum corrections to non-trivial background fields is the calculation of the quantum mass of 1+1-dimensional solitons with exactly known fluctuation spectra . One-loop corrections can be obtained from computing the difference of the sums (and integrals) of zero-point energies in the soliton background and in the topologically trivial vacuum. The regularization of these sums is a surprisingly delicate matter whose subtleties have been investigated only rather recently, starting with the observation  that for example a simple energy-momentum cutoff leads to incorrect results if the same cutoff is used in the topologically distinct sectors. This has been an actual problem in the calculation of the quantum mass of supersymmetric solitons . On the other hand, the extension of the mode-number cutoff regularization method introduced by Dashen et al., which begins by discretizing the problem by means of a finite volume, to fermions turns out to lead to new subtleties concerning the choice of boundary conditions which may or may not entail a contamination through energies localized at the boundaries .

However, there do exist methods which give correct results that can be formulated a priori in the continuum. In Ref.  it has been shown that the derivative of the quantum kink mass with respect to the mass of elementary scalar bosons is less sensitive and can be calculated by energy cutoff regularization, leading to a result for the quantum mass of susy kinks that agrees with S-matrix factorizations , validating also previous results obtained by Schonfeld who considered mode-number regularization of the kink-antikink system , and by Refs.  using a finite mass formula in terms of only the discrete modes. In Refs. , another viable continuum approach was developed that is based on subtracting successive Born approximations for scattering phase shifts. Ref.  introduced susy-preserving higher (space) derivative terms in the action and obtained the correct one-loop results for the energy and the central charge from simple Feynman graphs. Also heat-kernel and zeta-function regularization methods have been applied successfully to this problem .

In Ref.  it has been shown that dimensional regularization through embedding kinks as domain walls in extra dimensions reproduces the known result for the bosonic kink mass, but it was concluded that this method may be difficult to generalize.

In the present work, we extend the analysis of Ref.  and demonstrate that dimensional regularization also allows one to calculate the surface tensions of kink domain walls in a way that is far simpler than the methods used previously. Moreover, the consideration of domain walls gives insight into where precisely naive cutoff regularization fails, and resolves its ambiguities by observing that finite ambiguities become divergences in higher dimensions. Requiring finiteness in $`d+1`$ dimensions thus fixes the finite ambiguities in $`1+1`$ dimensions. In this way we confirm the recent observation in Ref.  that the defective energy cutoff method can be repaired by using smooth cutoffs, or sharp cutoffs as limits of smooth ones.

Through dimensional regularization we derive a remarkably compact formula for surface tensions that unifies the diverse results on kink domain walls in 2+1 and 3+1 dimensions, and yields a finite result even in 4+1 dimensions. We discuss the effects of using different renormalization schemes and confirm (most of the) previous one-loop results in the literature on kink domain walls in 2+1 and 3+1 dimensions.

We also show that this way of dimensional regularization works for the supersymmetric case by rederiving the quantum mass of the 1+1 supersymmetric kink, and find a new result for a 2+1 dimensional supersymmetric kink domain wall with chiral domain-wall fermions, which unlike its 3+1 dimensional analogue has nonzero quantum corrections.

## 2 Bosonic kink and domain walls

### 2.1 Bosonic kink and dimensional regularization

In 1+1 dimensions, a real $`\phi ^4`$ theory with spontaneously broken $`Z_2`$ symmetry ($`\phi \phi `$)

$$=\frac{1}{2}(_\mu \phi _0)^2\frac{\lambda _0}{4}(\phi _0^2\mu _0^2/\lambda _0)^2$$
(1)
has topologically non-trivial solutions to the field equations with finite energy: solitons called “kinks”, which interpolate between the two degenerate vacuum states $`\phi =\pm \mu _0/\sqrt{\lambda _0}\pm v_0`$. A kink/anti-kink at rest at $`x=x_0`$ is classically given by

$$\phi _{K,\overline{K}}=\pm v_0\mathrm{tanh}\left(\mu _0(xx_0)/\sqrt{2}\right).$$
(2)
Embedding the kink solution in ($`d+1`$) dimensions instead of (1+1) gives a domain wall separating the two distinct vacua. This is no longer a finite-energy solution—its energy is proportional to the transverse volume $`L^{d1}`$, with classical energy density (surface tension)

$$M_0/L^{d1}=2\sqrt{2}\mu _0^3/3\lambda _0.$$
(3)
In $`d+14`$ dimensions, (1) is renormalizable or superrenormalizable, and upon specifying one’s renormalization conditions, quantum corrections to the energy density should be calculable in perturbation theory without ambiguity. Some authors are somewhat cavalier with regard to fixing the meaning of the parameters of the theory through the renormalization conditions, making their results basically meaningless: since the lowest order involves two parameters, any one- or two-loop result is correct in some renormalization scheme.

In $`1+1`$ dimensions, where kinks correspond to particles with a calculable quantum mass determined by the parameters of the Lagrangian, the most frequently used renormalization scheme consists of demanding that the tadpole diagrams cancel in their entirety, while $`\lambda =\lambda _0`$ and $`\phi =\phi _0`$.

Such a renormalization scheme can still be used in $`2+1`$ dimensions, whereas in $`3+1`$ dimensions there is finally the need to renormalize the coupling constant non-trivially in order to absorb all one-loop divergences. In the following we shall concentrate on the particularly natural scheme which fixes the coupling constant renormalization such that in addition to the absence of tadpole diagrams the renormalized mass of the elementary scalar be equal to the pole of its propagator.

Wave-function renormalization $`\phi _0=\sqrt{Z}\phi `$ is finite to one-loop order in $`3+1`$ dimensions and to all orders in lower dimensions and it is therefore not mandatory for the one-loop corrections to the energies of kinks and kink domain walls. For simplicity we choose $`Z=1`$ for now, postponing the discussion of schemes with nontrivial $`Z`$ to sect. 2.2.2.

With $`\lambda _0=Z_\lambda \lambda =\lambda +\delta \lambda `$, $`v_0^2\mu _0^2/\lambda _0=Z_{v^2}v^2=v^2+\delta v^2`$, the renormalized Lagrangian for elementary excitations $`\eta `$ around $`\phi =v`$ then reads

$``$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(_\mu \eta )^2\mu ^2\eta ^2\mu \lambda ^{\frac{1}{2}}\eta ^3{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\lambda \eta ^4`$ (4)
$`+\mu \lambda ^{\frac{1}{2}}\delta v^2\eta +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\lambda \delta v^22v^2\delta \lambda )\eta ^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\delta \lambda (\eta ^4+4v\eta ^3)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(\lambda +\delta \lambda )(\delta v^2)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\delta \lambda \delta v^2(\eta ^2+2\eta v),`$
which shows that the renormalized mass of the elementary boson at tree-graph level is $`m^2=2\mu ^2`$.

The requirement that tadpole graphs are completely cancelled by the counterterm proportional to $`\eta `$ fixes $`\delta v^2`$ at one-loop level

$$\delta v^2=3i\mathrm{}\frac{dk_0d^dk}{(2\pi )^{d+1}}\frac{1}{k^2+m^2i\epsilon }=3\mathrm{}\frac{d^dk}{(2\pi )^d}\frac{1}{2[\stackrel{}{k}^2+m^2]^{1/2}}.$$
(5)
Using dimensional regularization, where for Euclidean momenta $`k_\mathrm{E}`$

$$d^{2\nu }k_\mathrm{E}(k_\mathrm{E}^2+M^2)^\alpha =\pi ^\nu (M^2)^{\nu \alpha }\mathrm{\Gamma }(\alpha \nu )/\mathrm{\Gamma }(\alpha ),$$
(6)
and writing $`d=1+s`$ so that $`s`$ denotes the number of spatial dimensions orthogonal to the kink axis, we have (setting $`\mathrm{}=1`$ henceforth)

$$\delta v^2=\frac{3}{2\pi }(1+s)\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{1s}{2})}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{1}{2})(4\pi )^{\frac{s}{2}}}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑k(k^2+m^2)^{\frac{s1}{2}},$$
(7)
which is written in a form that will turn out to be convenient shortly.

Calculating the one-loop correction to the pole mass of the elementary bosons involves local sea-gull diagrams that are exactly cancelled by $`\delta v^2`$ and a non-local diagram with 3-vertices. According to (4) the renormalized mass $`m`$ will be equal to the pole mass, if the latter diagram evaluated on-shell is cancelled by the counterterm $`\delta \lambda \eta ^2`$. This determines $`\delta \lambda `$ as

$`\delta \lambda `$ $`=`$ $`9\lambda ^2{\displaystyle \frac{m^{s2}}{(4\pi )^{\frac{s+2}{2}}}}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{2s}{2})_0^1𝑑x[1x(1x)]^{\frac{s2}{2}}`$ (8)
$`=`$ $`9\lambda ^2{\displaystyle \frac{m^{s2}}{(4\pi )^{\frac{s+2}{2}}}}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{2s}{2})\left(\frac{3}{4}\right)^{\frac{s2}{2}}{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(\frac{2s}{2},\frac{1}{2};\frac{3}{2};\frac{1}{3}),`$
where we used $`{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a,b;c;z)=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(c)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(b)\mathrm{\Gamma }(cb)}_0^1t^{b1}(1t)^{cb1}(1zt)^a𝑑t`$. For $`s2`$, i.e. when considering the (3+1)-dimensional theory, $`\delta \lambda `$ contains a divergence. For $`s<2`$, as we have remarked, the choice $`\delta \lambda =0`$ is also a possible renormalization scheme, and we shall consider it, too, when applicable.

In 1+1 dimensions, the one-loop quantum corrections to the mass of a kink are determined by the functional determinant of the differential operator describing fluctuations around the classical solution (2) compared to that of the trivial vacuum, leading formally to a sum over zero-point energies which contribute according to

$$M^{(1)}=M_0+\frac{\mathrm{}}{2}\left(\omega \omega ^{}\right)+O(\lambda )$$
(9)
where $`\omega `$ and $`\omega ^{}`$ are the eigenfrequencies of fluctuations around a kink and the vacuum, respectively. The individual sums as well as their difference are ultraviolet divergent. The latter divergence is removed by the counterterms obtained by rewriting the bare kink mass $`M_0`$ in terms of renormalized parameters

$$M_0=\frac{2\sqrt{2}}{3}(v_0^2)^{3/2}\lambda _0^{1/2}=\frac{m_0^3}{3\lambda _0}=\frac{m^3}{3\lambda }+\delta M$$
(10)
with

$$\delta M=m\delta v^2+\frac{m^3}{6\lambda ^2}\delta \lambda \delta _vM+\delta _\lambda M$$
(11)
or, equivalently, by evaluating the counterterms to the potential as given by (4) in the kink background

$$\delta M=\frac{\lambda }{2}\delta v^2_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\left[\phi _K^2(x)\frac{m^2}{2\lambda }\right]𝑑x+\frac{\delta \lambda }{4}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\left[\phi _K^2(x)\frac{m^2}{2\lambda }\right]^2𝑑x.$$
(12)
However, as reviewed in the introduction, the regularization of the sums over zero-point energies is a highly delicate matter, and for instance a simple cutoff regularization fails . Using the same sharp cutoff in energy or, equivalently, momentum in both the trivial and soliton sector, gives a finite result where the cutoff can be removed, but this differs from other regularization procedures by a finite amount. In fact, it has been shown that cutoff regularization can be repaired by using smooth cutoffs  which are in fact also required in the calculation of Casimir energies in order that sums over zero-point energies there can be evaluated by means of the Euler-McLaurin formula . The limit of a sharp cutoff differs from a straightforward sharp cutoff by a delta-function peak in the spectral density at the integration boundary which must not be omitted. A completely different procedure using sharp cutoffs which depend on the coordinate $`x`$ has recently been proposed in Ref.  and independently in Ref. . This “local mode regularization” has been used in Ref.  to calculate the local distribution of the quantum energies of 1+1 dimensional solitons.

In the following, we shall however employ dimensional regularization, which has been shown in Ref.  to reproduce correctly the quantum mass of the bosonic 1+1 dimensional kink, and also consider the higher-dimensional kink domain walls.111Dimensional regularization adapted to domain wall configurations has in fact been discussed already long ago in Ref. , however without giving concrete results for the surface tension. By analytic continuation of the number $`s`$ of extra transverse dimensions of a kink domain wall, no further regularization is needed. In the vacuum this is indeed consistent with standard (isotropic) dimensional regularization over $`s+1`$ spatial dimensions, as its formulae continue to apply if one first integrates over a subset of dimensions.

Denoting the momenta pertaining to the $`s`$ transverse dimensions by $`\mathrm{}`$ and reserving $`k`$ for the momentum along the kink, i.e. perpendicular to the kink domain wall, the energy of the latter per transverse volume $`L^s`$ follows from (9)

$`{\displaystyle \frac{M^{(1)}}{L^s}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m^3}{3\lambda }}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{B}{}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^s\mathrm{}}{(2\pi )^s}}\sqrt{\omega _B^2+\mathrm{}^2}`$ (13)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dkd^s\mathrm{}}{(2\pi )^{s+1}}}\sqrt{k^2+\mathrm{}^2+m^2}\delta _K^{}(k)+\delta M`$
where the discrete sum is over the normalizable states $`B`$ of the 1+1-dimensional kink with energy $`\omega _B`$, and the integral is over the continuum part of the spectrum.

The spectrum of fluctuations for the 1+1-dimensional kink is known exactly . It consists of a zero-mode, a bound state with energy $`\omega _B^2/m^2=3/4`$, and scattering states in a reflectionless potential for which the phase shift $`\delta _K(k)=2\mathrm{arctan}(3mk/(m^22k^2))`$ in the kink background provides the difference in the spectral density between kink and trivial vacuum

$$_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑x(|\varphi _k(x)|^21)=\delta _K^{}(k)=\frac{3m}{2}\frac{2k^2+m^2}{(k^2+m^2)(k^2+m^2/4)}.$$
(14)
The zero mode ($`\omega _B=0`$), which trivially does not contribute to the mass of a kink because of its vanishing energy, corresponds to a massless mode with energy $`\sqrt{\mathrm{}^2}`$ for $`s0`$, but does also not contribute to the energy densities of kink domain walls in dimensional regularization, because in the latter integrals without a mass scale vanish. However, it does contribute in cut-off regularization, as we shall discuss further below.

The leading divergence in the last integral of (13) matches the divergence in $`\delta _vM`$ and can be combined with it using (7) to give (with $`xk/m`$)

$`{\displaystyle \frac{M^{(1)}}{L^s}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m^3}{3\lambda }}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{1s}{2})m^{s+1}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{1}{2})(4\pi )^{\frac{s}{2}}}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}\right)^{\frac{s+1}{2}}`$ (15)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}dx(x^2+1)^{\frac{s1}{2}}[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4x^2+1}}+s]\}+\delta _\lambda M.`$
Here the first term inside the braces is the contribution from the bound state with nonzero energy.

In the limit $`s0`$, which corresponds to the 1+1 dimensional kink, where one may renormalize “minimally” by putting $`\delta _\lambda M=0`$, one obtains

$$\mathrm{\Delta }M_{s=0}^{(1)}M_{s=0}^{(1)}\frac{m^3}{3\lambda }=\frac{m}{4\sqrt{3}}\frac{3m}{2\pi },$$
(16)
reproducing the well-known DHN result . It is interesting to note that it is the last term in (16) that would be missed in a sharp-cutoff calculation (see Ref. ) and that it now arises from the last term in the square brackets of (15). The latter arises because the counterterm due to $`\delta v^2`$ does no longer match all of the divergences of the integral involving $`\delta _K^{}`$ for $`s>0`$, but dimensional regularization gives a finite result as $`s0`$.

In energy cutoff regularization this term can be recovered by implementing the cutoff as $`\delta (k)\delta (k)\theta (\mathrm{\Lambda }k)`$ which gives a Dirac-delta in the spectral density by differentiating $`\theta `$  and a finite contribution because the scattering phase $`\delta (k)`$ decays only like $`1/k`$ at large momenta. The need for such subtle corrections is nicely avoided by dimensional regularization: for sufficiently negative transverse dimensionality $`s`$ the ultraviolet behaviour of the scattering phases in the longitudinal direction is made harmless.

For $`s=1,2,3`$, the integral in (15) is divergent and gives poles in dimensional regularization, but as the final results will show, these divergences are cancelled by the other terms in (15): for $`s=1,3`$, they come from the bound state contribution, whereas for $`s=2`$, they are provided by $`\delta _\lambda M`$.

However, naive cutoff regularization would give rise to problems which in fact point to the necessity of its modification as in Ref. . In contrast to dimensional regularization, cutoff regularization leads to singularities for linear and quadratic divergences. Let us consider as an example the 2+1 case, i.e. $`s=1`$. Using a sharp cutoff in the $`k`$-integral of (13) and $`\delta M=\delta _vM`$, one can combine these integrals yielding

$`{\displaystyle \frac{M_{s=1}^{(1)}}{L}}={\displaystyle \frac{m^3}{3\lambda }}+{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{}}{2\pi }}\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\sqrt{\mathrm{}^2}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\sqrt{\mathrm{}^2+3m^2/4}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}[\sqrt{\mathrm{}^2}\mathrm{arctan}\sqrt{\mathrm{}^2/m^2}+\sqrt{\mathrm{}^2+3m^2/4}\mathrm{arctan}\sqrt{3+4\mathrm{}^2/m^2}]\}.`$ (17)
In this expression, the quadratic divergences cancel (for which it is necessary that the kink zero-mode is not omitted!), but because $`\mathrm{arctan}(x)=\pi /21/x+O(1/x^2)`$ for large $`x`$ the terms in the square bracket also contain linear divergences that do not cancel. However, if the $`k`$-integral in (13) is evaluated with a cutoff that is obtained from a smooth cutoff through a limiting procedure, the Dirac-delta peak in the spectral density  contributes the additional term

$$\underset{\mathrm{\Lambda }_k\mathrm{}}{lim}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{d\mathrm{}}{2\pi }\frac{3m\sqrt{\mathrm{\Lambda }_k^2+\mathrm{}^2+m^2}}{2\pi \mathrm{\Lambda }_k}$$
(18)
where we have used $`\delta (\mathrm{\Lambda }_k)3m/\mathrm{\Lambda }_k`$. This renders the complete result finite, and equal to that obtained in dimensional regularization.

Our study of domain walls thus resolves the ambiguities previously found in the calculation of the kink mass. Finite ambiguities in 1+1 dimensions become divergences in $`d+1`$ dimensions with $`d>1`$. Requiring finiteness in $`d+1`$ dimensions fixes the finite ambiguities in 1+1 dimensions.

### 2.2 Surface tension of bosonic kink domain walls

For $`d>1`$, it is straightforward to extract the finite answers for the one-loop surface tensions of the bosonic kink domain walls by expanding $`s`$ around integer values, which leads to elementary integrals. But instead of giving these individual results, some of which have been obtained previously, we shall aim at covering them all together.

#### 2.2.1 Renormalization schemes with $`Z=1`$

First we shall consider renormalization schemes where the wave-function renormalization constant is kept at $`Z=1`$ so that $`\phi =\phi _0`$, which is a valid and convenient choice at all loop orders for $`s<2`$ and to one-loop order for $`s=2`$.

For general non-integer $`s`$, the integral in (15) can be expressed in terms of the same hypergeometric function that appeared in the counterterm $`\delta \lambda `$, eq. (8), which was chosen so as to let $`m`$ coincide with the physical pole mass of the elementary scalar bosons.222Using for example formula (3.259.3) of Ref.  together with the linear transformation formulas (9.131), (9.132). This leads to the following remarkably compact formula for the energy densities of $`s`$-dimensional bosonic kink domain walls

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }M_{\mathrm{OS}}^{(1)}}{L^s}=\frac{m^{s+1}}{(4\pi )^{\frac{s+2}{2}}}\frac{2\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{2s}{2})}{s+1}\left\{(s+2)\left(\frac{3}{4}\right)^{\frac{s}{2}}{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(\frac{2s}{2},\frac{1}{2};\frac{3}{2};\frac{1}{3})3\right\},$$
(19)
where $`m`$ is the physical (pole) mass of the elementary scalar, and the term proportional to $`3`$ is produced by the term proportional to $`s`$ in (15). This is a finite expression for $`1<s<4`$. (The more minimal renormalization scheme where $`Z_\lambda =1`$, which is possible for $`s<2`$ only, is obtained by replacing $`(2+s)`$ in the first term by 1.)

For the integer values of $`s`$ of physical interest, the hypergeometric function in (19) can be reduced to elementary functions given in Table 1.

In the 3+1 dimensional case, one has $`{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(0,\mathrm{})1`$, giving a zero for the content of the braces in eq. (19), but multiplying a pole of the Gamma function. Here one has to expand around $`s=2`$, for which one needs the following, easily derivable relation

$`\underset{ϵ0}{lim}\mathrm{\Gamma }(ϵ)\left[{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(ϵ,{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}};{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}};\kappa )1\right]`$ (20)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(\kappa )^n}{n(2n+1)}}=\mathrm{ln}(1+\kappa ){\displaystyle \frac{2}{\sqrt{\kappa }}}\mathrm{arctan}(\sqrt{\kappa })+2.`$
The numerical results for $`s=0,1,2,3`$ following from (19) are given in Table 2 for both the physical on-shell renormalization scheme (OS) and, where applicable, the minimal one with $`\delta \lambda =0`$ (MR).

#### 2.2.2 Renormalization schemes with nontrivial $`Z`$

Because the kink represents a stationary point of the action, a nontrivial wave-function renormalization $`\phi _0=\sqrt{Z}\phi `$ does not introduce additional terms in (12), and correspondingly leaves the form of the counterterms in (10) and (11) unchanged (see the remarks at the end of section 5.4 in ). It does, however, modify the values of $`\delta v^2`$ and $`\delta \lambda `$ in these expressions, and thus changes the numerical result for $`\mathrm{\Delta }M^{(1)}`$.

In the OS scheme with a nontrivial $`Z=1+\delta _Z`$, the equation defining $`\delta v^2`$ is obtained by replacing $`\delta v^2\delta v^2v^2\delta _Z`$ in the left-hand side of (5) and the equation defining $`\delta \lambda `$ by the substitution $`\delta \lambda \delta \lambda +\lambda \delta _Z`$ in the left-hand side of (8)333In the latter case there is a contribution proportional to $`\delta _Z`$ from the kinetic term, while the seagull graph now cancels against a counterterm with $`\delta v^2v^2\delta _Z`$ instead of a counterterm with only $`\delta v^2`$.. For any $`\delta _Z`$ these replacements in the OS scheme preserve the relation $`\lambda =m^2/(2v^2)`$, but with the definition of $`m`$ fixed, that changes the coupling appearing in the classical expression $`M_{cl.}=m^3/(3\lambda )`$ according to $`\lambda =\lambda |_{Z=1}(1\delta _Z)`$. The extra contribution to $`\mathrm{\Delta }M^{(1)}`$ is therefore simply $`+M_{cl.}\delta _Z`$.

A natural refinement of the OS scheme, where $`m`$ is given by the physical (pole) mass, is to require that the residue of this pole be unity. This leads to

$`\delta _Z=9\lambda {\displaystyle \frac{m^{s2}}{(4\pi )^{\frac{s+2}{2}}}}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{4s}{2})_0^1𝑑xx(1x)[1x(1x)]^{\frac{s4}{2}}`$
$`=9\lambda {\displaystyle \frac{m^{s2}}{(4\pi )^{\frac{s+2}{2}}}}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{4s}{2})(\frac{3}{4})^{\frac{s2}{2}}\left[{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(\frac{2s}{2},\frac{1}{2};\frac{3}{2};\frac{1}{3})\frac{4}{3}{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(\frac{4s}{2},\frac{1}{2};\frac{3}{2};\frac{1}{3})\right].`$ (21)
Curiously enough, with the help of Gauss’ recursion relations  the particular combination of hypergeometric functions in this expression can be recast in a form proportional to (19),

$$\delta _Z=2\lambda \frac{m^{s2}}{(4\pi )^{\frac{s+2}{2}}}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{2s}{2})\left\{(s+2)\left(\frac{3}{4}\right)^{\frac{s}{2}}{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(\frac{2s}{2},\frac{1}{2};\frac{3}{2};\frac{1}{3})3\right\}.$$
(22)
The energy densities of kink domain walls in an on-shell renormalization scheme with physical pole mass and unit residue (OSR) is thus given by the simple conversion formula

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }M_{\mathrm{OSR}}^{(1)}}{L^s}=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }M_{\mathrm{OS}}^{(1)}}{L^s}+\frac{m^3}{3\lambda }\delta _Z=\frac{s+4}{3}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }M_{\mathrm{OS}}^{(1)}}{L^s}$$
(23)
and the particular results for the values $`s`$ of interest are listed in Table 3.

For the sake of comparison with previous results in the literature, Table 3 also includes another widely used renormalization scheme , where the mass is renormalized at zero momentum (ZM) according to $`m_{ZM}^2=\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)}(0)`$ with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)}(k^2)`$ the inverse propagator to one-loop order and $`\delta _Z`$ is chosen such that $`[\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)}/k^2](0)=1`$. In this scheme, formula (19) gets replaced by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }M_{\mathrm{ZM}}^{(1)}}{L^s}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m^{s+1}}{(4\pi )^{\frac{s+2}{2}}}}{\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{2s}{2})}{s+1}}\{\left({\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}\right)^{\frac{s}{2}}{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}({\displaystyle \frac{2s}{2}},{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}};{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}};{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}})`$ (24)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}(s3){\displaystyle \frac{1}{16}}(s+1)(2s)\},`$
where the very last term within the braces is the contribution of $`\delta _Z`$.

The surface tension of $`\phi ^4`$ domain walls has been calculated in the ZM scheme to one-loop order in 3+1 dimensions in Ref.  by considering the energy splitting of the two lowest states in a finite volume using zeta-function techniques, and our result completely agrees with that. Our result is also consistent with the older Ref.  using $`ϵ`$-expansion (in the limit $`ϵ0`$), which employed yet another renormalization scheme that is closer (but not identical) to an $`\overline{\text{MS}}`$-scheme. We do not, however, agree with the ZM-scheme result reported in Ref.  nor with its correction in Ref.  444The latter reports the same result as that contained in Ref.  (for $`ϵ0`$), while formulating different renormalization conditions amounting to the ZM scheme at one-loop order..

In 2+1 dimensions, the surface tension of the kink domain wall has been calculated in Ref. , and in Ref.  to two-loop order in the ZM scheme. Our one-loop ZM result reproduces that given in Ref. , while the one-loop result of Ref.  cannot be directly compared with ours as it re-expresses the ZM result in terms of the physical pole mass without using the coupling of either our OS or OSR scheme. We also agree with the most recent work , where the 2+1 dimensional kink domain wall energy density was calculated using the Born approximation methodology of Refs.  in the MR scheme. Compared to Ref. , the present calculation in dimensional regularization turns out to be considerably simpler and more straightforward, as the former has to exert some care in identifying “half-bound” states and to employ certain non-trivial sum rules for phase shifts. On the other hand, the methods of  will be useful also in cases where one can determine phase shifts only numerically.

Comparing finally the size of the one-loop corrections in the four different renormalization schemes considered in Tables 2 and 3, one notices that the corrections are largest in the MR scheme and significantly smaller in the other schemes, with the ZM and OSR results being rather close, but with noticeable differences.

These issues are of relevance in practical applications, and, indeed, the surface tension of the $`\phi ^4`$ kink domain wall can be related to universal quantities that can be investigated by lattice simulations of the Ising model and experimentally in binary mixtures . In a comparison of the field-theoretic results with lattice studies, the different definitions of mass in the OS and in the ZM scheme correspond to the true (exponential) correlation length and to the second moment of the correlation function, respectively, both of which can be found in the literature (see e.g.  and references therein).

Of perhaps mere academic interest is the case of kink domain walls in 5 dimensions ($`s=3`$) where our formulae still give finite results. In 5 dimensions, $`\phi ^4`$ theory is of course no longer renormalizable, though it may still be of interest as an effective theory.

## 3 Supersymmetric kink and domain walls

### 3.1 The susy kink and domain string

In 1+1 and 2+1 dimensions ($`s=0`$ and $`s=1`$), the model (1) has the supersymmetric extension

$$=\frac{1}{2}\left[(_\mu \phi )^2+U(\phi )^2+\overline{\psi }\gamma ^\mu _\mu \psi +U^{}(\phi )\overline{\psi }\psi \right]$$
(25)
where $`\psi `$ is a Majorana spinor, $`\overline{\psi }=\psi ^\mathrm{T}C`$ and

$$U(\phi )=\sqrt{\frac{\lambda _0}{2}}\left(\phi ^2v_0^2\right),v_0^2\mu _0^2/\lambda _0.$$
(26)
(In 1+1 dimensions, $`U\mathrm{sin}(\sqrt{\gamma }\phi /2)`$ gives the sine-Gordon model, which is however not renormalizable in 2+1 dimensions.)

Imbedding the susy kink in 2+1 dimensions gives a domain wall centered about a one-dimensional string on which the fermion mass vanishes (since $`U^{}(\phi _K)\phi _K`$ vanishes at the center of the kink). In the following we shall succinctly refer to this particular domain wall as “domain string”, postponing a brief discussion of higher-dimensional kink domain walls to the next subsection.

Going from 1+1 to 2+1 dimensions, the discrete symmetry content of (25) in fact changes. In 1+1 dimensions, (25) has the $`Z_2`$ symmetry $`\phi \phi `$, $`\psi \gamma ^5\psi `$ with $`\gamma ^5=\gamma ^0\gamma ^1`$. In 2+1 dimensions, on the other hand, $`\gamma ^5=\gamma ^0\gamma ^1\gamma ^2\pm \mathrm{𝟏}`$, and the sign of the fermion mass term can no longer be reversed by $`\psi \gamma ^5\psi `$. By the same token, (25) breaks parity, because a sign change of one of the spatial $`\gamma `$ matrices cannot be effected by an equivalence transformation, but leads to the other of the two inequivalent irreducible representations of a Clifford algebra in odd space-time dimensions.

In what follows we shall consider the quantum corrections to both, the mass of the susy kink and the tension of the domain string, together. In both cases we shall continue to use a renormalization scheme where we put $`Z_\phi =1=Z_\psi `$ at one-loop order. For this reason we have already dropped a subscript 0 for the unrenormalized fields in (25). We shall however consider the possibility of (finite) coupling constant renormalization, again by requiring that the renormalized mass of elementary scalars and fermions be given by the physical pole mass, together with the requirement of vanishing tadpoles, which fixes $`\delta v^2`$.

Inclusion of the fermionic tadpole loop replaces $`3`$ by $`(32)`$ in (5) so that compared to the bosonic result we have

$$\delta v^2|_{\mathrm{susy}}\delta \stackrel{~}{v}^2=\frac{1}{3}\delta v^2|_{\mathrm{bos}.}$$

(When useful we distinguish quantities in the susy case by twiddles.)

In the OS scheme, the supersymmetric version of (8) is obtained by the replacement555The counterterm $`\frac{1}{2}\lambda \delta v^2\eta ^2`$ induced by the tadpole with a fermionic loop cancels only those contributions to the bosonic selfenergy due to a fermionic loop which contain one propagator. The remaining contributions have two propagators and are proportional to the bosonic contribution to the selfenergy.

$$9m^29m^22(2m^2+\frac{1}{2}q^2)|_{q^2=m^2}=6m^2,$$

and thus

$$\delta \stackrel{~}{\lambda }=\frac{2}{3}\delta \lambda |_{\mathrm{bos}.}.$$

In a Majorana representation of the Dirac matrices in terms of the usual Pauli matrices $`\tau ^k`$ with $`\gamma ^0=i\tau ^2`$, $`\gamma ^1=\tau ^3`$, $`\gamma ^2=\tau ^1`$ (added for $`s=1`$), and $`C=\tau ^2`$ so that $`\psi =\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\psi ^+}{\psi ^{}}\right)`$ with real $`\psi ^+(x,t)`$ and $`\psi ^{}(x,t)`$, the equations for the bosonic and fermionic normal modes with frequency $`\omega `$ and longitudinal momentum $`\mathrm{}`$ (nonzero only when $`s=1`$) in the kink background $`\phi =\phi _K`$ read

$`[_x^2+U^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+UU^{\prime \prime }]\eta =(\omega ^2\mathrm{}^2)\eta ,`$ (27)
$`(_x+U^{})\psi ^++i(\omega +\mathrm{})\psi ^{}=0,`$ (28)
$`(_xU^{})\psi ^{}+i(\omega \mathrm{})\psi ^+=0.`$ (29)
Acting with $`(_xU^{})`$ on (28) and eliminating $`\psi ^{}`$ as well as $`\phi ^{}=U`$ shows that $`\psi ^+`$ satisfies the same equation as the bosonic fluctuation $`\eta `$. Compared to $`\psi ^+`$, the component $`\psi ^{}`$ has a continuous spectrum whose modes differ by an additional phase shift $`\theta =2\mathrm{arctan}(m/k)`$ when traversing the kink from $`x_1=\mathrm{}`$ to $`x_1=+\mathrm{}`$, which is determined only by $`U^{}(\phi _K(x_1=\pm \mathrm{}))=\pm m`$. Correspondingly, the difference of the spectral densities of the $`\psi ^+`$-fluctuations in the kink and in the trivial vacuum equals that of the $`\eta `$-fluctuations, given in (14), whereas that of $`\psi ^{}`$-fluctuations is obtained by replacing $`\delta _K^{}\delta _K^{}+\theta ^{}`$.

In the sum over zero-point energies for the one-loop quantum mass of the kink (when $`s=0`$),

$$\stackrel{~}{M}=\stackrel{~}{M}_{cl.}+\frac{1}{2}\left(\omega _B\omega _B^{}\right)\frac{1}{2}\left(\omega _F\omega _F^{}\right)+\delta \stackrel{~}{M},$$
(30)
one thus finds that the bosonic contributions from the continuous spectrum are canceled by the fermionic contributions except for the additonal contribution involving $`\theta ^{}(k)`$ in the spectral density of the $`\psi ^{}`$ modes.

The discrete bound states cancel exactly, apart from the subtlety that the fermionic zero mode should be counted as half a fermionic mode . In strictly 1+1 dimensions, the zero modes do not contribute simply because they carry zero energy, and for $`s>0`$, where they become massless modes, they do not contribute in dimensional regularization.

In a cutoff regularization in $`s=1`$, as we already discussed and shall further discuss below, they in fact do play a role. Remarkably, the half-counting of the fermionic zero mode for $`s=0`$ has an analog for $`s=1`$ where the bosonic and fermionic zero modes of the kink correspond to massless modes with energy $`|\omega |=|\mathrm{}|`$. From (28) and (29) one finds that the fermionic kink-zero mode $`\psi ^+\phi _K^{}`$, $`\psi ^{}=0`$ is a solution only for $`\omega =+\mathrm{}`$. It therefore cancels only half of the contributions from the bosonic kink-zero mode which for $`s=1`$ have $`\omega =\pm \mathrm{}`$. For $`s=1`$ one thus finds that the fermionic zero mode of the kink corresponds to a chiral (Majorana-Weyl) fermion on the ($`s`$=1)-dimensional domain string .666Choosing a different sign for $`\gamma _1`$ reverses the allowed sign of $`\mathrm{}`$ for these fermionic modes and thus their chirality (with respect to the domain string world sheet). This corresponds to the other, inequivalent representation of the Clifford algebra in 2+1 dimensions.

In dimensional regularization, however, the kink zero modes and their massless counterparts for $`s>0`$ can be dropped, and the energy density of the susy domain wall reads

$$\frac{\stackrel{~}{M}^{(1)}}{L^s}=\frac{m^3}{3\lambda }\frac{1}{4}\frac{dkd^s\mathrm{}}{(2\pi )^{s+1}}\sqrt{k^2+\mathrm{}^2+m^2}\theta ^{}(k)+\delta \stackrel{~}{M},$$
(31)
where

$$\theta ^{}(k)=\frac{2m}{k^2+m^2}.$$
(32)
With $`\delta _v\stackrel{~}{M}=\frac{1}{3}\delta _vM`$ the logarithmic divergence in the integral in (31) as $`s0`$ gets cancelled. A naive cut-off regularization at $`s=0`$ would actually lead to a total cancellation of the $`k`$-integral with the counterterm $`\delta _v\stackrel{~}{M}`$, giving a vanishing quantum correction in renormalization schemes with $`\lambda =\lambda _0`$. In dimensional regularization there is now however a mismatch for $`s0`$ and a finite remainder in the limit $`s0`$ proportional to $`s\mathrm{\Gamma }(s/2)`$. Including the optional $`\lambda `$-renormalization the final result reads

$$\frac{\stackrel{~}{M}^{(1)}}{L^s}=\frac{m^3}{3\lambda }\frac{m^{s+1}}{(4\pi )^{\frac{s+2}{2}}}\frac{2\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{2s}{2})}{s+1}+\delta _\lambda \stackrel{~}{M}.$$
(33)
In the minimal renormalization (MR) scheme one has $`\delta _\lambda \stackrel{~}{M}=0`$, whereas in the more physical OS scheme, where $`m`$ is the pole mass of the elementary bosons as well as fermions, one has $`\delta _\lambda \stackrel{~}{M}=\frac{2}{3}\delta _\lambda M`$, yielding

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{M}^{(1)}}{L^s}=\frac{m^{s+1}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{2s}{2})}{(4\pi )^{\frac{s+2}{2}}}\left\{\left(\frac{3}{4}\right)^{\frac{s2}{2}}{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(\frac{2s}{2},\frac{1}{2};\frac{3}{2};\frac{1}{3})\frac{2}{s+1}\right\}.$$
(34)
The respective results for the 1+1 dimensional susy kink ($`s=0`$) and for the (s=1)-dimensional susy kink domain “wall” (domain string) are given in Table 4. Again we find that there is much faster apparent convergence in the OS scheme compared to the MR one where only the tadpoles are subtracted.

In the literature, at least to our knowledge, only the case of a supersymmetric kink ($`s=0`$) in the MR scheme777In Refs.  the respective results have also been expressed in terms of the physical pole mass, but keeping $`\lambda `$ as in the MR scheme. Such a renormalization scheme yields a tadpole contribution proportional to $`\delta \lambda `$ and should not be confused with the OS scheme considered here, where both the mass and the coupling is renormalized such as to have both vanishing tadpoles and a physical pole mass for the elementary bosons. has been considered and dimensional regularization reproduces the result obtained before by Refs. . However, a (larger) number of papers have missed the contribution $`m/(2\pi )`$ because of the (mostly implicit) use of the inconsistent energy cutoff scheme  or have obtained different answers because of the use of boundary conditions that accumulate a finite amount of energy at the boundaries . The former result is however now generally accepted and, in the case of the super-sine-Gordon model (where the same issues arise with the same results) in agreement with S-matrix factorization .

In Ref.  the correct susy kink mass has also been obtained by employing a smooth energy (momentum) cutoff, the necessity of which becomes apparent, as in the purely bosonic case, by considering the 2+1 dimensional domain wall. Using a naive cutoff for $`s=1`$ one finds quadratic divergences which cancel only upon inclusion of the zero modes (which become massless modes in 2+1 dimensions). As we have discussed above, unlike the other bound states, these do not cancel because the fermionic zero mode becomes a chiral fermion on the domain-string world-sheet and thus cancels only half of the bosonic zero (massless) mode contribution, yielding

$`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{}}{2\pi }}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\sqrt{\mathrm{}^2}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{\Lambda }_k}^{\mathrm{\Lambda }_k}}{\displaystyle \frac{dk}{2\pi }}\left[\sqrt{k^2+\mathrm{}^2+m^2}{\displaystyle \frac{m}{k^2+m^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{k^2+\mathrm{}^2+m^2}}}\right]\right\}`$
$`\stackrel{\mathrm{\Lambda }_k\mathrm{}}{}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{}}{2\pi }}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{\pi }}\mathrm{arctan}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{m}}\right\}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{}}{\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{m}{2\pi }}`$ (35)
which is however still linearly divergent. Smoothing out the cutoff in the $`k`$-integral does pick an additional (and for $`s=0`$ the only) contribution $`m/(2\pi )`$, which is now necessary to have a finite result for $`s=1`$. This finite result then reads

$$\frac{\stackrel{~}{M}_{s=1}^{(1)}}{L}=\frac{1}{\pi }_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{d\mathrm{}}{2\pi }\left(m\mathrm{}\mathrm{arctan}\frac{m}{\mathrm{}}\right)=\frac{m^2}{8\pi }$$
(36)
in agreement with the result obtained above in dimensional regularization.

### 3.2 Susy kink domain walls in 3+1 dimensions

For completeness we shall also briefly discuss kink domain walls in the 3+1-dimensional Wess-Zumino-model . In accordance with Ref.  we shall demonstrate that in this model there is no nontrivial quantum correction to the surface tension.

A Wess-Zumino model with a spontaneously broken $`Z_2`$ symmetry now requires two real scalar fields to pair up with the now four-component Majorana spinor. For the classical Lagrangian we choose

$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(A)^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(B)^2V(A,B){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\overline{\psi }[\overline{)}+\sqrt{2\lambda }(A+i\gamma _5B)]\psi `$
$`V(A,B)={\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{4}}(A^2B^2v^2)^2+\lambda A^2B^2,`$ (37)
where $`A`$ is a real scalar with non-vanishing vacuum expectation value, while $`B`$ is a real pseudo-scalar without one. For $`B0`$ the potential coincides with that of the kink model (1), and correspondingly a classical domain wall solution is given by $`A_K(x)=\varphi _K(x_1)`$ and all other fields zero.

As is well known , in the 3+1-dimensional Wess-Zumino-model there is only one non-trivial renormalization constant $`Z`$ for the kinetic term, which implies $`\mu ^2=Z\mu _0^2`$ and $`\lambda =Z^{3/2}\lambda _0`$ and thus a vanishing counter-term $`\delta M`$ for the kink wall energy density.

The fluctuation equations for $`\eta =AA_K`$, $`B`$, and $`\psi `$ read

$`^2\eta (U_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+UU^{\prime \prime })\eta =0`$
$`^2B(\lambda A_K^2+\mu ^2)B=0`$
$`[\overline{)}+U^{}]\psi =0,`$ (38)
with $`U`$ as in (26). $`A_K`$ satisfies the Bogomolnyi equation $`A_K^{}=U(A_K)`$, and the $`x`$-dependent parts of the $`\eta `$ and $`B`$ field equations factorize as $`(_xU^{})(_x+U^{})`$ and $`(_x+U^{})(_xU^{})`$, respectively.

Both the $`\eta `$ and $`B`$ fluctuation equations involve reflectionless potentials of the form

$$_z^2\frac{n(n+1)}{\mathrm{cosh}^2z}+n^2,$$
(39)
where $`z:=\frac{mx}{2},m:=\sqrt{2}\mu `$.

The kink fluctuation modes $`\varphi _K(x)`$ correspond to $`n=2`$, and the $`\eta `$ fluctuations are given by the former multiplied by plane waves with momentum $`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{}}=(\mathrm{}_2,\mathrm{}_3)`$ in the trivial directions. Their spectrum thus consists of one massless mode and one massive mode localized on the domain wall with $`\omega _0^2(\mathrm{})=\mathrm{}^2`$ and $`\omega _B^2(\mathrm{})=\frac{3}{4}m^2+\mathrm{}^2`$ and delocalized ones with $`\omega _k^2(\mathrm{})=k^2+\mathrm{}^2+m^2`$.

The $`x`$-dependence of the $`B`$-fluctuations on the other hand involves the potential (39) with $`n=1`$, like the fluctuation equations for the sine-Gordon soliton, but with different energies according to

$$\left(_z^2\frac{2}{\mathrm{cosh}^2z}+1\right)s(z)=[\frac{4}{m^2}(\omega ^2\mathrm{}^2)3]s(z).$$
(40)
The spectrum of the sine-Gordon system is now shifted by $`\mathrm{}^2+\frac{3}{4}m^2`$ so that the sine-Gordon zero-mode matches the bound state of the kink, and the continuous part of the spectrum also coincide. The spectrum of the $`B`$-fluctuations thus equals that of the $`\eta `$-fluctuations apart from the absence of the massless (zero) mode. The spectral densities for the delocalized modes are, however, different and the bosonic contribution to the one-loop surface tension reads

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }^\mathrm{b}\stackrel{~}{M}^{(1)}}{L^s}=\frac{1}{2}\frac{d^s\mathrm{}}{(2\pi )^s}\left(\omega _0(\mathrm{})+2\omega _B(\mathrm{})+\frac{dk}{2\pi }\omega _k(\mathrm{})[\delta _K^{}(k)+\delta _{SG}^{}(k)]\right)$$
(41)
where $`s=2ϵ`$.

Choosing the Majorana representation for the Dirac matrices

$$\gamma ^0=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{0}{1}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{1}{0}\right),\gamma ^1=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{1}{0}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{0}{1}\right),\gamma ^2=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{0}{\tau _1}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\tau _1}{0}\right),\gamma ^3=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{0}{\tau _3}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\tau _3}{0}\right),$$
(42)
and writing $`\psi `$ in terms of two 2-component spinors $`e^{i\omega t+\mathrm{}x_{}}(\psi _A,\psi _B)`$, the fermionic fluctuation equation of (3.2) becomes

$`(_x+U^{})\psi _A+i[\omega +\overline{)}\mathrm{}]\psi _B=0`$ (43)
$`i[\omega \overline{)}\mathrm{}]\psi _A+(_xU^{})\psi _B=0,`$ (44)
where $`\overline{)}\mathrm{}=\tau _1\mathrm{}_2+\tau _3\mathrm{}_3`$. Through (43), $`\psi _B`$ can be expressed algebraically in terms of $`\psi _A`$, except when $`\omega ^2=\mathrm{}^2`$, and inserting into (44) shows that the latter satisfies the same fluctuation equation as the bosonic fluctuation $`\eta `$. Using that $`(_x+U^{})\varphi _k=\omega _{Kink}s_k`$, one finds that $`\psi _B`$ has the same spectrum as the $`B`$ fluctuations.

For the massless (zero) mode ($`\omega _{Kink}=0`$) only $`(_x+U^{})\psi _A=0`$ in (43) has a normalizable solution, which is located at the domain wall. The other equation, $`(_xU^{})\psi _B=0`$, has normalizable solutions only if boundaries for the $`x`$-direction were introduced, and would be localized there.

As a result, the fermionic contribution to the one-loop correction of the domain wall tension becomes identical to the bosonic one, but with a negative sign,

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }^\mathrm{f}\stackrel{~}{M}^{(1)}}{L^s}=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }^\mathrm{b}\stackrel{~}{M}^{(1)}}{L^s}.$$
(45)
In perfect agreement with the non-renormalization theorem of the superpotential (which does not apply at the lower dimensions considered above), there is no quantum correction to the classical value of the surface tension of the susy kink domain wall in 3+1 dimensions.

This cancellation of the quantum corrections can also be linked to the cancellation of quantum corrections to the $`N=2`$ susy kink mass .

Such a cancellation is also to be expected for 4+1 dimensional supersymmetric theories with domain walls. In contrast to 2+1 dimensions, in 4+1 dimensions there are no Majorana fermions, so one needs to extend the supersymmetry algebra to involve a Dirac fermion. From the point of view of the 1+1 dimensional kink, this will imply $`N=4`$ supersymmetry. On the then 4-dimensional domain wall one may have chiral fermions, but as pointed out in Ref. , these domain-wall fermions necessarily come in pairs containing both chiralities.

## 4 Conclusion

In this paper we have shown that dimensional regularization allows one to compute the one-loop contributions to the quantum energies of bosonic and supersymmetric kinks and kink domain walls in a very simple manner. The ambiguities associated with ultraviolet regularization observed in the 1+1 dimensional kinks has been shown to be eliminated by considering their extension to kink domain walls in higher dimensions.

For the bosonic kink domain walls, which are of interest also in the context of condensed matter physics, we have derived a compact $`d`$-dimensional formula, which reproduces and (mostly) confirms existing results in the literature, and we have also discussed in detail the dependence on particular renormalization schemes.

In the supersymmetric case, we confirmed previous results in 1+1 and 3+1 dimensions. While in the latter case quantum corrections to the surface tension vanish, we have obtained a nontrivial one-loop correction for a 2+1 dimensional $`N=1`$ susy kink domain wall with chiral domain wall fermions. The nontrivial quantum corrections to the supersymmetry algebra in the 1+1 and 2+1 dimensional models will be discussed in a forthcoming publication.

### Acknowledgments

The authors are much indebted to Gernot Münster (University of Münster) for a clarifying correspondence. P.v.N. thanks the Technical University of Vienna and Wolfgang Kummer for einen wundervollen Aufenthalt of two months. R.W. has been supported by the Austrian Science Foundation, project no. P15449.


format: text

text:
# PseudoSkyrmion Effects on Tunneling Conductivity in Coherent Bilayer Quantum Hall States at 𝜈=1

## Abstract

We present a mechamism why interlayer tunneling conductivity in coherent bilayer quantum Hall states at $`\nu =1`$ is anomalously large, but finite in the recent experiment. According to the mechanism, pseudoSkyrmions causes the finite conductivity, although there exists an expectation that dissipationless tunneling current arises in the state. PseudoSkyrmions have an intrinsic polarization field perpendicular to the layers, which causes the dissipation. Using the mechanism we show that the large peak in the conductivity remains for weak parallel magnetic field, but decay rapidly after its strength is beyond a critical one, $`0.1`$ Tesla.

preprint: Nisho-02/1

It has recently been observed  that interlayer tunneling conductivity in bilayer quantum Hall states at $`\nu =1`$ shows anomalous zero bias peak when layer distance $`d`$ is comparable with magnetic length $`l=\sqrt{1/eB}`$. This suggests  that the condensation of exitonic excitation ( a pair of an electron in a layer and a hole in the other layer ) is realized and the interlayer phase coherence between the two layers comes out. Subsequent observations of Nambu-Goldstone mode and quantized Hall drag have strongly supported this intriguing feature in the bilayer quantum Hall states.

It is well known that quantum Hall states in a single layer can be understood as a condensed state of bosonized electrons with a single spin degree of freedom. In the state, however, there is no physically relevant phase associated with the bosonized electrons because there exists a Chern-Simons gauge symmetry which can make the phase vanish. On the other hand, in the bilayer quantum Hall states there are electrons with two degree of freedom, i.e. pseudo-Spin. We have, in general, two Chern-Simons gauge symmetries corresponding to bosonization of these two types of electrons. They can also make the phases of the electrons vanish. Hence, there are no physically relevant phases. But some of the bilayer quantum Hall states  are described only by using a single Chern-Simons gauge symmetry. The gauge symmetry rotates the phase of each type of bosonised electrons identically. Thus, the difference of the two phases can not be made to vanish so that it is a physically relevant variable. This physically relevant phase difference comes out as a result of the condensation of the exitons. In this way the bilayer quantum Hall states with the interlayer phase coherence are realized . Especially, the states at total filling factor $`\nu _1+\nu _2=1`$ are under theoretical and experimental investigation at present.

It has been recognized that these bilayer quantum Hall states possesses various interesting features corresponding to parameters present in this system, parallel magnetic field $`B_{}`$, layer distance $`d`$, imbalance $`\sigma =(\rho _1\rho _2)/(\rho _1+\rho _2)`$ of electron densities $`\rho _i`$ between the layers, etc; the index $`i`$ denotes $`i`$-th layer. Among them, the interlayer phase coherence associated with the condensation of electron-hole pairs is the most intriguing feature of the states realized by choosing parameters $`dl(=\sqrt{1/eB})`$ at filling factor $`2\pi \rho /eB=1`$ ( $`\rho =\rho _1+\rho _2`$ ). The state is stable against with changing charge imbalance. This feature is associated with the indefiniteness of the electron number difference in the state, which is a result of the exiton condensation. Furthermore, the energies of excitations in the state with $`\sigma 0`$ decrease rapidly with the parallel magnetic field, while those of excitations in the state with $`\sigma 1`$ i.e. in a single layer, increase with $`B_{}`$. The decrease of the excitation energy is a property of pseudoSkyrmion, which is topological excitation with pseudo-spin. On the other hand, the increase of the excitation energy is that of Skyrmion with real spin.

In the observation of the interlayer tunneling conductance around $`\sigma 0`$, the pseudoSkyrmions are relevant excitations and may affect seriously on the tunneling current. Although we expect the presence of dissipationless tunneling current  in the state with the phase coherence, any small disturbance of the phase coherence caused by such excitations may give rise dissipation in the tunneling current.

In this letter we point out that pseudoSkyrmions induce the dissipation of the energy of the tunneling current $`\stackrel{}{J}`$. The point is that the pseudoSkyrmion has a polarization field $`\stackrel{}{E_p}`$ associated with it’s polarized electric charge distribution so that the dissipation $`\stackrel{}{E_p}\stackrel{}{J}0`$ occurs. The dissipation by the pseudoSkyrmion only arises in the states with the imbalance of the charge densities, $`\sigma 0`$. In other words, the dissipation by the pseudoSkyrmions does not arise by adjusting exactly the parameter such as $`\sigma =0`$.

Let us first derive briefly the Josephson equation in the presence of the condensation, $`<\mathrm{\Psi }_1^{}\mathrm{\Psi }_2>e^{i\theta }0`$, of the exitons. Hereafter, we consider only the quantum Hall states with the interlayer phase coherence at $`\nu =1`$. The condensation is a result of intralayer and interlayer Coulomb interactions among electrons in the highly degenerate lowest Landau level. It is easy to see that the condensation naturally leads to Josephson equations governing I-V characteristics of dissipationless currents. We start with Schrodinger equations of electron fields $`\mathrm{\Psi }_i`$, $`i_t\mathrm{\Psi }_1=v_1\mathrm{\Psi }_1\mathrm{\Delta }_{sas}\mathrm{\Psi }_2`$ and $`i_t\mathrm{\Psi }_2=v_2\mathrm{\Psi }_2\mathrm{\Delta }_{sas}\mathrm{\Psi }_1`$, where $`v_i`$ is a chemical potential of electrons in the $`i`$-th layer and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{sas}`$ is a tunneling strength. Note that the kinetic term of electrons is quenched by strong magnetic field $`B`$ perpendicular to the layers. It follows that the Josephson tunneling current is given by

$$e_t<\mathrm{\Psi }_1^{}\mathrm{\Psi }_1>=ie\mathrm{\Delta }_{sas}(<\mathrm{\Psi }_1^{}\mathrm{\Psi }_2><\mathrm{\Psi }_1\mathrm{\Psi }_2^{}>)=2e\mathrm{\Delta }_{sas}\sqrt{\rho _1\rho _2}\mathrm{sin}\theta .$$
(1)
where we have used the normalization of the field determined from more detail calculations; $`<\mathrm{\Psi }_1^{}\mathrm{\Psi }_2>\sqrt{\rho _1\rho _2}e^{i\theta }`$. Similarly, we obtain the other equation governing the development of the phase $`\theta `$, $`_t\theta =(v_1v_2)=eV`$. Therefore, it is very natural to expect that Josephson effects arise in this coherent bilayer quantum Hall system. In the above derivation, however, the effect of pseudoSkyrmions is not included. As far as the filling factor is exactly equal to $`1`$, such Skyrmion excitations are absent in the quantum Hall states. But, in general, the Skyrmions are present in the state with $`\nu 1`$. It seems apparently that their effects are negligible because their number is relatively so small that the effects are of the order of $`\delta \nu =\nu 1`$; we can choose any small values of $`\delta \nu `$, e.g. $`1/100`$. We should mention, however, that the phase coherence is needed for dissipationless tunneling current, but the presence of the pseudoSkyrmions disturbs the coherence because of their distorted phase configuration. Therefore, even if the number of the pseudoSkyrmions are negligibly small, we need to take account of their effects on the conductivity.

As we have shown in the previous paper, solutions of the pseudoSkyrmions in bosonized electron theory of quantum Hall states are given by

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_1=\sqrt{\rho _1}(z+c_1)\mathrm{exp}(a(r))\mathrm{exp}(i\theta _1)\text{and}\mathrm{\Psi }_2=\sqrt{\rho _2}(z+c_2)\mathrm{exp}(a(r))\mathrm{exp}(i\theta _2),$$
(2)
with $`z=xiy`$ and $`r=|z|`$, where bosonized electron field $`\mathrm{\Psi }_i`$ in the i-th layer goes to, $`\sqrt{\rho _i}\mathrm{exp}(\theta _i)`$, as $`r\mathrm{}`$; $`\theta =\theta _1\theta _2`$. The function $`a(r)`$ is approximately given by $`\mathrm{exp}(a(r))\sqrt{1/(r^2+c^2)}`$ for $`c>l`$. Here the parameter $`c`$ represents length scale of the pseudoSkyrmion; $`c_1=c\sqrt{\rho _2/\rho _1}`$ and $`c_2=c\sqrt{\rho _1/\rho _2}`$. The scale is determined by minimizing the energy of the pseudoSkyrmions,

$$E_{psk}=4\pi \rho _{ss}+\frac{0.46e^2}{ϵc}+\frac{0.4e^2\sigma ^2}{ϵl}\frac{d}{l}\frac{c^2}{l^2}+\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_{sas}\sqrt{1\sigma ^2}}{2\pi }\frac{c^2}{l^2},$$
(3)
with $`\rho _{ss}0.005(1\sigma ^2)e^2/ϵl`$ for $`d/l=1.5`$ and dielectric constant $`ϵ`$. The first term represents exchange energy of pseudo-spin, the second one does Coulomb energy, the third one does charging energy and the final term represents tunneling energy. Thus, the typical scale of pseudoSkyrmion $`c`$ is given by

$$cl\left\{\frac{0.46e^2/2ϵl}{\mathrm{\Delta }_{sas}\sqrt{1\sigma ^2}+(0.4e^2\sigma ^2/ϵl)(d/l)}\right\}^{1/3}$$
(4)
Later, we will determine the scale $`c`$ by using the data in the observation of the $`B_{}`$ dependence of the tunneling conductivity. Then, we will find that $`c10l`$ and $`\sigma 0.01`$.

The pseudoSkyrmion has positive electric charge $`|e|`$ and is present in the region of $`\delta \nu <0`$, on the other hand, anti-pseudoSkyrmion has negative charge $`|e|`$ and is present in the region of $`\delta \nu >0`$. Speculated from the fact that it possesses the charging energy, the electric charge of the pseudoSkyrmion on $`1`$st layer is different from that on $`2`$nd layer when $`\rho _1\rho _20`$. Hence, it produces a polarization field, $`E_p`$, perpendicular to the layers,

$$E_p(\stackrel{}{x})=\frac{1}{dϵ}𝑑y^2(\frac{1}{|\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{y}|}\frac{1}{\sqrt{(\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{y})^2+d^2}})(\rho _1(\stackrel{}{y})\rho _2(\stackrel{}{y}))$$
(5)
where $`\rho _1(\stackrel{}{y})=e(|\mathrm{\Psi }_1|^2\rho _1)`$ and $`\rho _2(\stackrel{}{y})=e(|\mathrm{\Psi }_2|^2\rho _2)`$ with $`\mathrm{\Psi }_i`$ given in eq(2).

This electric field dissipates the energy of the tunneling current and gives rise to a finite conductivity. To see it we note that the interlayer tunneling current $`J`$ involving the effect of a pseudoSkyrmion is given by

$`J(\stackrel{}{x})`$ $`=`$ $`e\mathrm{\Delta }_{sas}\rho \sqrt{1\sigma ^2}\mathrm{exp}(2a(r))\{(r^2c^22cx{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma }{\sqrt{1\sigma ^2}}})\mathrm{sin}\theta +`$ (6)
$`+`$ $`2cy({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{1\sigma ^2}}})\mathrm{cos}\theta \},`$ (7)
where we have used the formula in eq(1) and the solutions in eq(2). Then, it follows that the rate $`w`$ of the energy dissipation is

$$w=𝑑x^2𝑑E_p(\stackrel{}{x})J(\stackrel{}{x})=2e^2\pi ^2\sigma \mathrm{\Delta }_{sas}c^2\rho ^{3/2}f(c^2/l^2,d^2/l^2)\mathrm{sin}\theta /ϵ$$
(8)
where we have taken only the term with the order of $`\sigma `$ in the limit as $`\sigma 0`$ and $`f(c^2/l^2,d^2/l^2)`$ is numerically of the order of $`0.1`$ for $`c10l`$, $`d2\times 10^6\text{cm}`$ and $`\rho 5\times 10^{10}/\text{cm}^2`$. We find that the dissipation only arises at $`\sigma 0`$. It results from the fact that the pseudoSkyrmion possesses polarization only when $`\sigma 0`$. Actually, the charging energy in eq(3) vanishes at $`\sigma =0`$.

We now calculate interlayer tunneling conductivity in the presence of $`N_0`$ pseudoSkyrmions. We suppose that the contribution of each pseudoSkyrmion is incoherently taken into account. Then, The total rate $`W`$ of the energy dissipation is $`N_0w`$, which is equal to the product, $`W=VI`$, of the everage voltage $`V`$ and the total tunneling current $`I=I_0+I_s=𝑑x^2(J_0+N_0J_s(\stackrel{}{x}))`$, where the first term $`I_0`$ represents the contribution of the groundstate and the second term $`I_s`$ represents the contribution of the pseudoSkyrmions; $`J_0=2e\sqrt{\rho _1\rho _2}\mathrm{\Delta }_{sas}\mathrm{sin}\theta `$, $`J_s(\stackrel{}{x})=J(\stackrel{}{x})J_0`$ and $`I_s=2\pi N_0e\mathrm{\Delta }_{sas}\rho c^2\sqrt{1\sigma ^2}k_0\mathrm{sin}\theta `$ ( $`k_0`$ is a numerical constant ). Then, the conductivity $`G=I/V`$ is approximately given by

$$G\frac{I}{V}=\frac{(I_0+I_s)^2}{N_0w}=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_{sas}N(12\pi \rho c^2k_0\delta \nu )^2ϵ\mathrm{sin}\theta }{2\pi ^2c^2\sigma \rho ^{3/2}f\delta \nu }6\times 10^5\mathrm{\Omega }^1\frac{(12\pi \rho c^2k_0\delta \nu )^2\mathrm{sin}\theta }{f\sigma \delta \nu }$$
(9)
in the limit of $`\sigma 0`$, where we have used the parameters taken in the experiment, $`d/l1.6`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{sas}0.1\text{mK}`$ and surface area ($`(0.2\text{mm})^2`$ ) occupied by two dimensional electrons. $`N=𝑑x^2\rho `$ denotes total number of electrons; $`\delta \nu =N_0/N`$ and $`k_0`$ is of the order of $`1`$.

Although the absolute value of $`G`$ is much larger than that of the observation, the dependence on $`\delta \nu `$ agrees roughly with the observation. Even if we take $`\delta \nu `$ to be $`0`$, there would be residual pseudoSkyrmions. It seems that such residual excitations induce finite conductivity observed around $`\nu =1`$ , although there is a possibility that other mechanisms of the current dissipation still work. We note that the dependence of $`G`$ on the imbalance parameter $`\sigma `$ is the same as that on $`\delta \nu `$. It may be easy to check the dependence observationally. We also note that in our formula both of $`G`$ and $`I`$ are proportional to $`\mathrm{sin}\theta `$. Therefore, it is interesting to check this point by an experiment with current feed.

Now, let us consider the dependence of the conductivity on parallel magnetic field $`B_{}`$ pointing to $`y`$ direction. The effect is taken only by changing the phase factor $`\theta `$ in the currents $`J`$ in eq(6) and $`J_0`$ such that $`\theta \theta +Qx`$ with $`Q=edB_{}`$; the polarization field $`E_p`$ is not changed. Then, we see that the current $`I_s(Q)=𝑑x^2J_s(\stackrel{}{x},Q)`$ involving the effect of pseudoSkyrmion decays such as $`I_s(Q)\mathrm{exp}(Qc)`$ for $`Q\mathrm{}`$. We also note that the groundstate current $`I_0(Q)=𝑑x^2J_0(Q)`$ behaves such as $`I_0(Q)\mathrm{sin}(e\mathrm{\Phi }/\mathrm{\Phi }_0)/(e\mathrm{\Phi }/\mathrm{\Phi }_0)`$ where $`\mathrm{\Phi }=d𝑑xB_{}`$ denotes flux penetrating the region between the two layers; $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0=e/\pi `$. This term is negligibly small even for $`B_{}=0.1`$T, while the other term $`I_s(Q)`$ is not small for such $`B_{}`$. Therefore, the conductivity behaves such that $`G(Q)(I_0(Q)+I_s(Q))^2/(N_0w(Q))I_s(Q)^2/(N_0w(Q))\mathrm{exp}(Qc)`$ as $`Q`$ becomes large. Comparing this one with the observation, we can determine the scale of pseudoSkyrmion, $`c10l`$. This value agrees roughly with the one derived with a different method . We find that the pseudoSkyrmion in the observation is large so that even if we take $`\delta \nu =1/100`$, the whole plain is occupied by the pseudoSkyrmions.

We stress that not only the presence of the zero bias peak even at small $`B_{}0`$, but also the rapid decay of the peak as $`B_{}`$ going beyond $`0.1`$ Tesla, can be explained as the effect of the pseudoSkyrmions. This fact strongly suggests that the finite interlayer tunneling conductivity in the recent observation is caused mainly by the pseudoSkyrmions, although our estimation of the conductivity is much larger than that of the observation.

Finally we wish to point out that in order to check our conclusion and observe dissipationless Josephson tunneling current, the imbalance $`\sigma =(\rho _1\rho _2)/\rho `$ should be diminished with carefully adjusting bias voltage between the two layers. Then, we expect that the balance state $`\sigma =0`$ would be realized automatically when $`\sigma `$ is adjusted to be less than a critical one, and we will be able to see Josephson effects in the quantum Hall states even in the presence of residual pseudoSkyrmions.

We thank F.Z. Ezawa and A. Sawada for fruitful discussions and members of theory group in KEK for their hospitality.