text:
# References

Disclaimer

> This document was prepared as an account of work sponsored by the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor The Regents of the University of California, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial products process, or service by its trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof, or The Regents of the University of California. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof of The Regents of the University of California and shall not be used for advertising or product endorsement purposes.

Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory is an equal opportunity employer.

The existence of anomalous $`U(1)`$ factors (hereafter denoted $`U(1)_X`$) in the effective theories derived from superstrings is generic. Indeed, in a recent study  of a large class of standard-like heterotic $`Z_3`$ orbifold models, it was found that 168 of 175 models had an anomalous $`U(1)_X`$. Since the underlying theory is anomaly free, it is known  that the apparent anomaly is canceled by a four-dimensional version of the Green-Schwarz (GS) mechanism . This leads to a Fayet-Illiopoulos (FI) term in the effective supergravity Lagrangian. Ignoring nonperturbative corrections to the dilaton Kähler potential,

$$D_X=\underset{i}{}\frac{K}{\varphi ^A}q_A^X\varphi ^A+\xi ,\xi =\frac{g_s^2\text{tr}Q_X}{192\pi ^2}m_P^2,$$
(1)
where $`K`$ is the Kähler potential, $`q_A^X`$ is the $`U(1)_X`$ charge of the (complex) scalar matter field $`\varphi ^A`$, $`\xi `$ is the FI term, $`Q_X`$ is the charge generator of $`U(1)_X`$, $`g_s`$ is the unified (string scale) gauge coupling, and $`m_P=1/\sqrt{8\pi G}=2.44\times 10^{18}`$ GeV is the reduced Planck mass. In the remainder we work in units where $`m_P=1`$.

At tree-level in the underlying theory, the chiral dilaton formulation has $`g_s^2=1/\mathrm{Re}s`$, where $`s=S|`$ is the lowest component of the chiral dilaton superfield $`S`$. However, once higher order and nonperturbative corrections are taken into account the chiral dilaton formulation becomes inconvenient. The dual linear multiplet formulation—which relates a (modified) linear superfield $`L`$ to $`\{S,\overline{S}\}`$ through a duality transformation—provides a more convenient arrangement of superfield degrees of freedom due to the neutrality of $`L`$ with respect to target-space duality transformations (hereafter called modular transformations). In the limit of vanishing nonperturbative corrections to the dilaton Kähler potential, $`g_s^2=2\mathrm{}`$, where $`\mathrm{}=L|`$. Throughout this article we use the linear multiplet formulation . Except where noted below, we use the $`U(1)_K`$ superspace formalism . (For a review of the $`U(1)_K`$ superspace formalism see ; for a review of the linear multiplet formulation see .)

In the linear multiplet formulation, the FI term becomes

$$\xi (\mathrm{})=\frac{2\mathrm{}\text{tr}Q_X}{192\pi ^2}.$$
(2)
Consequently, the background dependence of the FI term in (2) arises from $`\mathrm{}=L|`$. The FI term induces nonvanishing vacuum expectation values (vev’s) for some scalars $`\varphi ^i`$ as the scalar potential drives $`D_X0`$, if supersymmetry is unbroken. The nonvanishing $`vev`$’s in the supersymmetric vacuum phase can be related to the FI term. Then $`L|`$ serves as an order parameter for the vacuum and all nontrivial $`vev`$’s can be written as some fraction of $`L|`$. Our approach in what follows will be to promote this to a superfield redefinition.

Our starting point is the effective supergravity model of gaugino condensation developed by Binétruy, Gaillard and Wu (BGW)  as well as subsequent elaborations by Gaillard, Nelson and Wu . A significant modification is the inclusion of a $`U(1)_X`$ factor in the gauge group and the corresponding GS counterterm in the effective Lagrangian. The effective Lagrangian at the string scale is defined by

$$=\text{d}^4\theta \stackrel{~}{L}+_{th}+_Q.$$
(3)
The first term is the superspace integral of the real superfield functional

$$\stackrel{~}{L}=E\left[3+2Ls(L)+L\left(bG\delta _XV_X\right)\right].$$
(4)
This contains the usual kinetic term $`(3)`$ in the $`U(1)_K`$ formalism, as well as tree-level terms with explicit dependence on the (modified) linear superfield $`L`$. The contribution $`2Ls(L)`$ includes the gauge kinetic term of the more conventional supergravity formulation. (In the dual chiral formulation $`s(L)\mathrm{Re}s`$.) In the BGW articles , this was written in terms of a functional $`f(L)`$ such that $`2Ls(L)=1+f(L)`$. Note that $`s(L|)=g_s^2`$ determines the unified (string scale) gauge coupling $`g_s`$. The contribution $`L\left(bG\delta _XV_X\right)`$ provides the GS counter-terms which cure field theoretic anomalies associated with modular and $`U(1)_X`$ transformations. Here, $`V_X`$ is the $`U(1)_X`$ vector superfield and $`G`$ is defined by111 In our considerations we oversimplify by considering only the three “diagonal” Kähler moduli $`T^I=T^{II}`$ $`(I=1,2,3)`$, present in each of the $`Z_N`$ and $`Z_M\times Z_N`$ six-dimensional orbifolds, and transforming under an $`SL(2,𝐙)^3`$ subgroup of the full modular duality group .

$$G=\underset{I}{}g^I,g^I=\mathrm{ln}(T^I+\overline{T}^I).$$
(5)
A prominent advantage of the $`U(1)_K`$ formalism is that Weyl rescalings are performed at the superfield level, and no rescalings are necessary at the component field level to obtain a canonical Einstein term. For example in the Lagrangian (3) which we start with, we require

$$k^{}(L)+2Ls^{}(L)=0,$$
(6)
where $`k(L)`$ is the $`L`$-dependent part of the Kähler potential. Of chief concern in what follows will be the maintenance of the canonical normalization for the Einstein term—concurrent to field redefinitions. Therefore we lay out a general prescription for determining the necessary Einstein condition from $``$ rewritten in a new field basis.

The relevant part is (4). We define $`M`$ to stand collectively for the fields which are to be regarded as independent of $`L`$ in a given basis. We then define the functional $`S`$ by the identification

$$\stackrel{~}{L}E[3+2LS(L,M)].$$
(7)
The Einstein condition holds provided

$$\left(\frac{K}{L}\right)_M+2L\left(\frac{S}{L}\right)_M=0.$$
(8)
Here, the subscripts on parentheses instruct us to hold constant under differentiation the fields denoted collectively by $`M`$.

It can be seen from (4) that

$$S=s(L)+\frac{1}{2}(bG\delta _XV_X)$$
(9)
and that (8) applied to (9) is equivalent to (6).

It is our intent to integrate out the modes which become heavy due to the FI gauge symmetry breaking. Clearly the $`U(1)_X`$ vector multiplet becomes massive. Then the most relevant parts of the Lagrangian are those where the chiral field strength $`𝒲_X`$ appears. It is important to keep in mind the modified linearity conditions

$$(\overline{𝒟}^28R)L=\underset{a}{}(𝒲𝒲)_a,(𝒟^28\overline{R})L=\underset{a}{}(\overline{𝒲}\overline{𝒲})_a.$$
(10)
Because of this, the kinetic and $`L`$-dependent parts of the Lagrangian are the focus of most of our attention. Our manipulations involve superfield redefinitions which are intended to give $`\stackrel{~}{L}`$ a form where heavy modes are apparent and are not linearly coupled to light modes. Truncation of the field content to the new light field basis then accounts for tree level exchange of heavy modes.

Note that we are not using $`U(1)_K`$ superspace for the anomalous $`U(1)_X`$. That is, the covariant derivatives used to define component fields contain the connections for the unbroken gauge group $`G_C`$, but not $`U(1)_X`$. The vector superfield $`V_X`$ has to be introduced explicitly (as opposed to the geometric method of $`U(1)_K`$ superspace) both to regulate the QFT loops , and in the GS term . However, there is no problem including a Chern-Simons superfield for $`U(1)_X`$ in the duality transformation (discussed below) giving $`L`$, so the modified linearity conditions (10) still lead to gauge kinetic terms for $`U(1)_X`$.

The second term in (3), $`_{th}`$, accounts for threshold effects due to heavy states above the string scale. The third term, $`_Q`$, gives the quantum corrections from states below the string scale to the effective Lagrangian. The Kähler potential is kept to leading order222This approximation may not be justified for fields $`\mathrm{\Phi }^A`$ with large $`vev`$’s; corrections to it will be considered elsewhere. in matter fields $`\mathrm{\Phi }^A`$. For the compactification moduli $`T^I`$ we keep the well-known terms which have been extracted from the dimensional reduction of ten-dimensional supergravity  or the matching to four-dimensional string amplitudes . The linear multiplet contribution is allowed a nonperturbative contribution $`g(L)`$ which will be exploited for stabilization. Altogether,

$`K`$ $`=`$ $`k(L)+G+{\displaystyle \underset{A}{}}e^{G^A+2q_A^XV_X}|\mathrm{\Phi }^A|^2,`$
$`k(L)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{ln}L+g(L),G^A{\displaystyle \underset{I}{}}q_I^Ag^I.`$ (11)
For each $`\mathrm{\Phi }^A`$, the $`U(1)_X`$ charge is denoted $`q_A^X`$ while $`q_I^A`$ are the modular weights. The convention chosen in (11) implies $`U(1)_X`$ gauge invariance corresponds to the transformation

$$V_XV_X^{}=V_X+\frac{1}{2}\left(\mathrm{\Theta }+\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}\right),\mathrm{\Phi }^A\mathrm{\Phi }^A=e^{q_X^A\mathrm{\Theta }}\mathrm{\Phi }^A.$$
(12)
The threshold contribution from heavy string excitations is333A slight change in conventions has been made here and in $`_Q`$ below, versus Refs. , involving factors of $`8\pi ^2`$.

$$_{th}=\text{d}^4\theta \frac{E}{8R}\underset{a,I}{}b_a^I(𝒲𝒲)_a\mathrm{ln}\eta ^2(T^I)+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.$$
(13)
where $`𝒲_\alpha ^a`$ is the chiral field strength for the factor $`G_a`$ of the gauge group.

$`_Q`$ is the one-loop quantum correction that transforms anomalously under $`U(1)_X`$ and modular transformations. Thus, $`_Q`$ gives the field theory anomalies canceled by the GS terms included above. Following Refs. , we write $`_Q`$ as

$`_Q`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^4\theta \frac{E}{8R}\underset{a}{}𝒲_a^\alpha P_\chi B_a𝒲_\alpha ^a}+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.,`$ (14)
$`B_a(L,V_X,g^I)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{I}{}}(bb_a^I)g^I\delta _XV_X+f_a(L),`$ (15)
where $`P_\chi `$ is the chiral projection operator , $`P_\chi 𝒲^\alpha =𝒲^\alpha `$, that reduces in the flat space limit to $`(16\mathrm{})^1\overline{𝒟}^2𝒟^2`$, and the $`L`$-dependent piece $`f_a(L)`$ is the “2-loop” contribution . Of course, the full one-loop effective Lagrangian has many more terms than what is shown here; however, they are not important for our purposes.

The GS coefficients $`b`$ and $`\delta _X`$ appearing in (4) must be chosen to cancel the anomalous modular and $`U(1)_X`$ transformations that the Lagrangian would have in the absence of the GS counterterms. It is not hard to check that the correct choices are given by:

$`\delta _X`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{A}{}}C_{aX}^Aq_A^X={\displaystyle \frac{1}{48\pi ^2}}\text{tr}Q_X`$ (16)
$`8\pi ^2b`$ $`=`$ $`8\pi ^2b_a^I+C_a{\displaystyle \underset{A}{}}(12q_I^A)C_a^A.`$ (17)
In the remainder of this article, we specialize to the case with just one chiral matter multiplet $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ with $`U(1)_X`$ charge $`q`$ and modular weights $`q_I`$. Further, we take $`U(1)_X`$ to be the only $`U(1)`$. Then the Kähler potential (11) reduces to

$$K=k(L)+G+e^{G_q+2qV_X}|\mathrm{\Phi }|^2,G_q=\underset{I}{}q_Ig^I,$$
(18)
and (4) is unchanged. Since the scalar component $`\varphi \mathrm{\Phi }|`$ must get a vev to cancel the FI term, it is consistent to write $`\varphi =e^\theta `$, where $`\theta `$ is a complex scalar field. Promoting this approach to a superfield expression, we define a chiral superfield $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ such that

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=e^\mathrm{\Theta }.$$
(19)
We then make a field redefinition of the vector superfield $`V_X`$, which is equivalent to a $`U(1)_X`$ gauge transformation, to “eat” the chiral superfield $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$:

$$V_XV^{}=V_X+\frac{1}{2q}\left(\mathrm{\Theta }+\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}\right),\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }^{}=e^\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Phi }=1,$$
(20)
The field $`V^{}`$ describes a massive vector multiplet in the unitary gauge that we have chosen.

To summarize, we have made a sequence of field redefinitions

$$(V_X,\mathrm{\Phi },\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }})(V_X,\mathrm{\Theta },\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }})(V^{}).$$
(21)
Because $`V^{}`$ is a massive vector multiplet, it has more degrees of freedom than $`V_X`$, which accounts for the illusion of a smaller field content in the last step. Gauge invariance of $``$ assures that we need only set $`V_XV^{}`$, $`\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }^{}=1`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{}=1`$ in $``$ to account for the field redefinitions:

$$(V_X,\mathrm{\Phi },\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }})(V^{},1,1).$$
(22)
The expressions for $`K`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{L}`$ become

$`K`$ $`=`$ $`k(L)+G+e^{G_q+2qV^{}},`$ (23)
$`\stackrel{~}{L}`$ $`=`$ $`E\left[3+2Ls(L)+L(bG\delta _XV^{})\right].`$ (24)
Eqs. (14,13) are given by the replacement $`𝒲_X^\alpha 𝒲_V^{}^\alpha `$, where

$$𝒲_V^{}^\alpha =\frac{1}{4}(\overline{𝒟}^28R)𝒟^\alpha V^{},$$
(25)
and (15) instead has $`B_a(L,V^{},g^I)`$.

In the effective theory below the scale of $`U(1)_X`$ breaking we wish to eliminate the massive $`V^{}`$ multiplet but account for the leading effects of its tree exchange; we accomplish this by field redefinitions which eliminate linear couplings of light fields to $`V^{}`$. The coupling $`ELV^{}`$ which appears in (24) suggests we will need to shift $`L`$ to accomplish this. The presence of $`g^I`$ in $`K`$ suggests $`g^I`$ might also be involved; however, we opt to avoid redefinitions which involve $`g^I`$ so that manifest modular invariance is preserved. An important point in this regard is that in the supersymmetric vacuum phase, $`D_X=0`$ determines a modular invariant vev,

$$e^{G_q+2qV_X}|\mathrm{\Phi }|^2|=e^{G_q+2qV^{}}|0.$$
(26)
Thus it should be possible to have a modular invariant effective theory after the $`U(1)_X`$ symmetry breaking.

We begin with a superfield redefinition such that we have, instead of $`V^{}`$, a massive vector superfield with vanishing vev for its scalar component. We do this by re-expressing the nonvanishing vev in terms of $`L`$. With the Kähler potential (18), the FI term (2), rewritten in in terms of (16), and the gauge fixing (20), we have

$$D_X=qe^{G_q+2qV^{}}|\frac{\delta _X}{2}L|.$$
(27)
For the supersymmetric vacuum phase $`D_X=0`$:

$$qe^{G_q+2qV^{}}|=\frac{\delta _X}{2}L|$$
(28)
We introduce a vector superfield $`U`$ with vanishing vev (i.e., all component fields are defined to vanish in the vacuum) such that this condition is maintained:

$$qe^{G_q+2qV^{}}=e^{2qU}\frac{\delta _X}{2}L,U=0.$$
(29)
This yields the redefinition

$$V^{}U+\frac{1}{2q}\left(\mathrm{ln}\frac{\delta _XL}{2q}G_q\right).$$
(30)
In terms of the new set of independent fields $`(L,U,g^I)`$ Eqs. (23) and (24) take the form

$`K`$ $`=`$ $`k(L)+G+e^{2qU}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta _XL}{2q}},`$ (31)
$`\stackrel{~}{L}`$ $`=`$ $`E\left[3+2Ls(L)+L\left(bG\delta _XU{\displaystyle \frac{\delta _X}{2q}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta _XL}{2q}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\delta _X}{2q}}G_q\right)\right].`$ (32)
The expression for $`_{th}+_Q`$ is modified in two ways, when expressed in terms of the basis $`(L,U,g^I)`$. First, the chiral field strength (25) now takes the form

$`𝒲_V^{}^\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`𝒲_U^\alpha +𝒴^\alpha `$ (33)
$`𝒲_U^\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(\overline{𝒟}^28R)𝒟^\alpha U,`$ (34)
$`𝒴^\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8q}}(\overline{𝒟}^28R)\left({\displaystyle \frac{𝒟^\alpha L}{L}}𝒟^\alpha G_q\right).`$ (35)
Thus $`𝒴^\alpha `$ will appear in $`_{th}+_Q`$. E.g.,

$$_{th}d^4\theta \frac{E}{8R}\underset{I}{}b_X^I(𝒲_U^\alpha +𝒴^\alpha )(𝒲_{U\alpha }+𝒴_\alpha )\mathrm{ln}\eta ^2(T^I)+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.$$
(36)
Note that (33) also effects (10):

$$(\overline{𝒟}^28R)L(𝒲𝒲)_V^{}=(𝒲_U+𝒴)^\alpha (𝒲_U+𝒴)_\alpha .$$
(37)
Thus terms other than the chiral field strengths of gauge multiplets appear in the modified linearity constraints when the redefinition (30) is made.

Second, $`B_a`$ in (15), re-expressed in terms of the new fields, takes the form

$$B_a(L,V^{},g^I)=B_a(L,U,g^I)\frac{\delta _X}{2q}\left(\mathrm{ln}\frac{\delta _XL}{2q}G_q\right).$$
(38)
Consequently $`_Q`$ now has terms due to the shift:

$$_Qd^4\theta \frac{E}{8R}\underset{a}{}𝒲_a^\alpha P_\chi \frac{\delta _X}{2q}\left(\mathrm{ln}\frac{\delta _XL}{2q}G_q\right)𝒲_\alpha ^a+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.$$
(39)
This is of course in addition to the $`𝒴^\alpha `$ which appears from the $`a=V^{}`$ terms in the sum in (14), analogous to (36).

Now consider the effect of the transformation $`(L,V^{},g^I)(L,U,g^I)`$ which we have made, on the Einstein condition. This is a Legendre transformation where in the new coordinates, $`(L,U,g^I)`$ are to be regarded as independent. In the $`(L,V^{},g^I)`$ variables the condition was satisfied:

$$\left(\frac{K}{L}\right)_{V^{},g^I}+2L\left(\frac{S}{L}\right)_{V^{},g^I}=0,$$
(40)
where from (24), $`S(L,V^{},g^I)`$ is given by (9) with $`V_X`$ replaced by $`V^{}`$. However in the $`(L,U,g^I)`$ basis the identification (7) now yields a different functional (cf. (32)):

$$S(L,U,g^I)=\stackrel{~}{s}(L)+\frac{1}{2}\left(\stackrel{~}{G}(g^I)\delta _XU\right),$$
(41)
where for convenience we define

$`\stackrel{~}{s}(L)`$ $`=`$ $`s(L){\displaystyle \frac{\delta _X}{4q}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta _XL}{2q}},`$ (42)
$`\stackrel{~}{G}(g^I)`$ $`=`$ $`bG(g^I)+{\displaystyle \frac{\delta _X}{2q}}G_q(g^I)={\displaystyle \underset{I}{}}\left(b+{\displaystyle \frac{\delta _X}{2q}}q^I\right)g^I.`$ (43)
We remark that the last expression defines effective GS coefficients in the new basis. With respect to the new variables $`(L,U,g^I)`$, taking into account (30), (31) and (41), the Einstein condition is no longer satisfied due to the presence of a “convective derivative” term:

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{K}{L}}\right)_{U,g^I}+2L\left({\displaystyle \frac{S}{L}}\right)_{U,g^I}`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{V^{}}{L}}\right)_{U,g^I}\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{K}{L}}\right)_{V^{},g^I}+2L\left({\displaystyle \frac{S}{L}}\right)_{V^{},g^I}\right]`$ (44)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta _X}{2q}}\left(e^{2qU}1\right)=𝒪(U).`$
Further redefinitions are required, even though this expression vanishes at vacuum according to $`U=0`$. We must generalize and allow a redefinition of the linear superfield $`L`$. However, a redefinition which involves $`L`$ will generally spoil the modified linearity conditions. We next describe how this is avoided.

We make a transformation $`(L,U,g^I)(\widehat{L},U,g^I)`$ defined by

$$L=e^{\mathrm{\Delta }k/3}\widehat{L}$$
(45)
which we associate with a Weyl transformation

$$E(K)=e^{\mathrm{\Delta }k/3}\widehat{E},K=\widehat{K}+\mathrm{\Delta }k,$$
(46)
so as to preserve the modified linearity condition (10). Here $`E(K)`$ denotes that $`E`$ is subject to the torsion constraints which depend on $`K`$ whereas $`\widehat{E}E(\widehat{K})`$ is subject to the same constraints but with $`K\widehat{K}`$. We find below that we can restrict $`\mathrm{\Delta }k`$ such that

$$\mathrm{\Delta }k=\mathrm{\Delta }k(\widehat{L},U)=\alpha (\widehat{L})U+\beta (\widehat{L})U^2+𝒪(U^3).$$
(47)
Thus (45) and (47) allow us to express $`L`$ as a function of $`(\widehat{L},U)`$.

From (46) we easily obtain $`\widehat{K}`$ as a function of $`(\widehat{L},U,g^I)`$:

$$\widehat{K}=G+\frac{\delta _X\widehat{L}}{2q}\mathrm{exp}\left(2qU+\frac{1}{3}\mathrm{\Delta }k\right)\mathrm{\Delta }k+k(L)|_{L=e^{\mathrm{\Delta }k/3}\widehat{L}}.$$
(48)
We expand the last term about $`\widehat{L}`$ to obtain a power series in $`U`$. This will have coefficients $`k^{}(\widehat{L})=dk(\widehat{L})/d\widehat{L}`$, etc. After some work we obtain the series

$$\widehat{K}=\stackrel{~}{k}(\widehat{L})+G+\widehat{K}^U(\widehat{L})U+\widehat{K}^{UU}(\widehat{L})U^2+𝒪(U^3)$$
(49)
with the $`\widehat{L}`$ dependent coefficients to $`𝒪(U^2)`$ given by

$`\stackrel{~}{k}`$ $`=`$ $`k(\widehat{L})+{\displaystyle \frac{\delta _X\widehat{L}}{2q}},\widehat{K}^U={\displaystyle \frac{\delta _X\widehat{L}}{\alpha _0}}\left(\alpha \alpha _0\right),`$ (50)
$`\widehat{K}^{UU}`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _X\widehat{L}\left(q+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{\alpha _0}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^2}{\alpha _0^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{L}\alpha _0^{}}{6}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^2}{6\alpha _0}}\right),`$ (51)
where for convenience we define the quantity

$$\alpha _0\frac{3\delta _X\widehat{L}}{3\widehat{L}\stackrel{~}{k}^{}(\widehat{L})}.$$
(52)
Substitution of (45) and (46) into (32) gives $`\stackrel{~}{L}`$ in the new basis444The $`\widehat{K}`$ which we include in the “basis” merely indicates that Kähler covariance is now with respect to this shifted functional. $`(\widehat{K};\widehat{L},U,g^I)`$. We can write this in the form

$`\stackrel{~}{L}`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{E}\left[3+2\widehat{L}\widehat{S}(\widehat{L},U,g^I)\right],`$ (53)
$`\widehat{S}(\widehat{L},U,g^I)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2\widehat{L}}}\left(1e^{\mathrm{\Delta }k/3}\right)+S(L,U,g^I)|_{L=e^{\mathrm{\Delta }k/3}\widehat{L}},`$ (54)
where $`S`$ is the functional which appears in (41). After some manipulation $`\widehat{S}`$ can be brought to the form

$`\widehat{S}`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{s}(\widehat{L})+\stackrel{~}{G}(g^I)/2+\widehat{S}^U(\widehat{L})U+\widehat{S}^{UU}(\widehat{L})U^2+𝒪(U^3),`$ (55)
$`\widehat{S}^U`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta _X}{\alpha _0}}\left(\alpha \alpha _0\right),\widehat{S}^{UU}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta _X}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{\alpha _0}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^2}{\alpha _0^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{L}\alpha _0^{}}{6}}\right).`$ (56)
To obtain these results we have made repeated use of the identity

$$\stackrel{~}{k}^{}(\widehat{L})+2\widehat{L}\stackrel{~}{s}^{}(\widehat{L})=0.$$
(57)
which is easy to check from (50), (42) and (6).

We now determine the transformation parameters $`\alpha (\widehat{L}),\beta (\widehat{L})`$ such that the Einstein condition

$$\left(\frac{\widehat{K}}{\widehat{L}}\right)_{U,g^I}+2\widehat{L}\left(\frac{\widehat{S}}{\widehat{L}}\right)_{U,g^I}=0$$
(58)
is satisfied and linear couplings to $`U`$ are eliminated. To eliminate linear couplings to $`U`$ we demand $`\widehat{K}^U=\widehat{S}^U=0`$. It is remarkable that both quantities are proportional to $`\alpha \alpha _0`$ so that we can both eliminate the linear couplings and satisfy the Einstein condition to $`𝒪(U)`$ by choosing

$$\alpha \alpha _0=\frac{3\delta _X\widehat{L}}{3\widehat{L}\stackrel{~}{k}^{}(\widehat{L})}.$$
(59)
In this case the quadratic terms (51,56) simplify to

$`\widehat{K}^{UU}`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _X\widehat{L}\left(q+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{6}}{\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{\alpha }}+{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{L}\alpha ^{}}{6}}\right),`$ (60)
$`\widehat{S}^{UU}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta _X}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{\alpha }}{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{L}\alpha ^{}}{6}}\right).`$ (61)
From this we obtain

$$\widehat{K}^{UU}+2\widehat{L}\widehat{S}^{UU}=q\delta _X\widehat{L}\left(1+\frac{\alpha }{6q}\right)$$
(62)
This in turn implies

$$\left(\frac{\widehat{K}^{UU}}{\widehat{L}}\right)_{U,g^I}+2\widehat{L}\left(\frac{\widehat{S}^{UU}}{\widehat{L}}\right)_{U,g^I}=\delta _X\left(q+\frac{\alpha +\widehat{L}\alpha ^{}}{6}\right)2\widehat{S}^{UU}.$$
(63)
We demand that the RHS vanish for the Einstein condition to be satisfied to $`𝒪(U^2)`$. Using (61) this uniquely determines

$$\beta =\alpha \left(q+\frac{\alpha }{6}+\frac{\widehat{L}\alpha ^{}}{3}\right).$$
(64)
Finally, we use this to express the quadratic coefficients in terms of $`\alpha ,\alpha ^{}`$:

$$\widehat{K}^{UU}=\frac{\delta _X\widehat{L}^2\alpha ^{}}{6},\widehat{S}^{UU}=\frac{\delta _X}{2}\left(q+\frac{\alpha +\widehat{L}\alpha ^{}}{6}\right).$$
(65)
Now we must consider the effect of $`(K;L,U,g^I)(\widehat{K};\widehat{L},U,g^I)`$ on $`_{th}+_Q`$. First note that $`(E/R)W^\alpha W_\alpha `$ is Weyl invariant. This leaves the following modifications. We replace

$$\frac{E}{R}\frac{\widehat{E}}{\widehat{R}},𝒲_U^\alpha \widehat{𝒲}_U^\alpha ,𝒴^\alpha \widehat{𝒴}^\alpha ,$$
(66)
where the latter two are obtained from (34,35) by the replacement $`𝒟\widehat{𝒟}`$, $`\overline{𝒟}\widehat{\overline{𝒟}}`$ to have covariance with respect to the shifted Kähler potential $`\widehat{K}`$. In addition the transformation (45) must be accounted for in (35,38). Because of $`L`$ dependence in $`𝒴^\alpha `$, a contribution to $`𝒲_U^\alpha `$ comes from $`\widehat{𝒴}^\alpha `$ when the transformation (45) is made. We find it convenient to rewrite (33) as a series of terms with increasing orders of $`U`$:

$`\widehat{𝒲}_V^{}^\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`H_0^\alpha +H_1^\alpha +H_2^\alpha +𝒪(U^3)`$ (67)
$`H_0^\alpha `$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8q}}(\widehat{\overline{𝒟}}^28\widehat{R})\left(\widehat{𝒟}^\alpha G_q+\widehat{L}^1\widehat{𝒟}^\alpha \widehat{L}\right)`$ (68)
$`H_1^\alpha `$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(\widehat{\overline{𝒟}}^28\widehat{R})\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^{}U}{6q}}\widehat{𝒟}^\alpha \widehat{L}+\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{6q}}\right)\widehat{𝒟}^\alpha U\right]`$ (69)
$`H_2^\alpha `$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{24q}}(\widehat{\overline{𝒟}}^28\widehat{R})\left(\beta ^{}U^2\widehat{𝒟}^\alpha \widehat{L}+2\beta U\widehat{𝒟}^\alpha U\right)`$ (70)
The second effect follows from the reorganization of (38) in the new basis:

$`B_a(L,V^{},g^I)`$ $`=`$ $`B_a(L,U,g^I){\displaystyle \frac{\delta _X}{2q}}\left(\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta _XL}{2q}}G_q\right)`$ (71)
$`=`$ $`\widehat{B}_a{\displaystyle \frac{\delta _X}{2q}}\left(\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta _X\widehat{L}}{2q}}G_q\right)+U\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\delta _X\alpha }{6q}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha \widehat{L}}{3}}f_a^{}(\widehat{L})\delta _X\right]`$
$`+U^2\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\delta _X\beta }{6q}}+\widehat{L}f_a^{}(\widehat{L})\left({\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^2}{18}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^2\widehat{L}^2}{18}}f_a^{\prime \prime }(\widehat{L})\right]+𝒪(U^3)`$
$`\widehat{B}_a`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{I}{}}(bb_a^I)g^I+f_a(\widehat{L})`$ (72)
Note that $`\widehat{B}_a`$ is the functional which would be present if no $`U(1)_X`$ anomaly existed. Thus, the remainder of the terms are a reflection of the effects of the anomaly.

The bosonic terms for the $`U`$-multiplet coming from $`_{th}+_Q`$ are contained in the $`\theta =\overline{\theta }=0`$ components of $`\widehat{𝒟}^\beta \widehat{𝒲}_V^{}^\alpha \widehat{𝒟}_\beta \widehat{𝒲}_{V^{}\alpha }`$. By first appearances, it is a nontrivial task to extract the leading terms from Eqs. (67)-(70). However, we now show that in the supersymmetric vacuum where auxilliary fields have vanishing vevs and $`U=0`$, significant simplifications occur. For the purpose of illustration we extract $`\widehat{𝒟}^\beta \widehat{𝒲}_U^\alpha \widehat{𝒟}_\beta \widehat{𝒲}_{U\alpha }`$.

From (68)-(70) it is not hard to show that

$`\widehat{𝒟}^\beta H_0^\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8q\widehat{L}}}\widehat{𝒟}^\beta (\widehat{\overline{𝒟}}^28\widehat{R})\widehat{𝒟}^\alpha \widehat{L}+\mathrm{}`$ (73)
$`\widehat{𝒟}^\beta H_1^\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{6q}}\right)\widehat{𝒟}^\beta \widehat{𝒲}_U^\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^{}U}{24q}}\widehat{𝒟}^\beta (\widehat{\overline{𝒟}}^28\widehat{R})\widehat{𝒟}^\alpha \widehat{L}+\mathrm{}`$ (74)
$`\widehat{𝒟}^\beta H_2^\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\beta U}{3q}}\widehat{𝒟}^\beta \widehat{𝒲}_U^\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^{}U^2}{24q}}\widehat{𝒟}^\beta (\widehat{\overline{𝒟}}^28\widehat{R})\widehat{𝒟}^\alpha \widehat{L}+\mathrm{}`$ (75)
where $`\mathrm{}`$ indicates terms containing only $`\widehat{𝒟}_\alpha \widehat{\overline{𝒟}}_{\dot{\alpha }}\widehat{L}`$, $`\widehat{𝒟}_\alpha \widehat{\overline{𝒟}}_{\dot{\alpha }}U`$, $`\widehat{𝒟}_\alpha \widehat{𝒟}_\beta \widehat{L}`$, $`\widehat{𝒟}_\alpha \widehat{𝒟}_\beta U`$ and hermitian conjugates of these. Such terms do not contribute to the $`U`$-multiplet vector boson field strength or auxilliary field $`D_U`$ contained in $`\widehat{𝒟}^\beta \widehat{𝒲}_U^\alpha `$, so they are irrelevant for our immediate purpose.

It can be shown that

$`\widehat{𝒟}^\beta (\widehat{\overline{𝒟}}^28\widehat{R})\widehat{𝒟}^\alpha \widehat{L}`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ^{\alpha \beta }\mathrm{\Lambda }(\widehat{L},U)\widehat{𝒟}^\gamma \widehat{𝒲}_U^\delta \widehat{𝒟}_\gamma \widehat{𝒲}_{U\delta },`$
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }(\widehat{L},U)`$ $``$ $`\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{6q}}\right)^2\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{8\widehat{L}\widehat{K}^{}}{3\widehat{L}\widehat{K}^{}}}\right)+\mathrm{}.`$ (76)
It follows that

$`\widehat{𝒟}^\beta \widehat{𝒲}_V^{}^\alpha \widehat{𝒟}_\beta \widehat{𝒲}_{V^{}\alpha }=`$
$`\left[2{\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{2}{}}}\widehat{𝒟}^\gamma H_{i\gamma }\mathrm{\Lambda }(\widehat{L},U)\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{8q}}\right)\left(\widehat{L}^1+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^{}U+\beta ^{}U^2}{3q}}\right)+\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{6q}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\beta U}{3q}}\right)^2\right]`$
$`\times \widehat{𝒟}^\beta \widehat{𝒲}_U^\alpha \widehat{𝒟}_\beta \widehat{𝒲}_{U\alpha }+𝒪(U^4)+\mathrm{}.`$ (77)
Here we have kept explicit several terms which are $`𝒪(U^3)`$, so that we may illustrate terms which drop out at leading order due to $`U=0`$.

Examination of $`\widehat{𝒟}^\beta H_i^\alpha `$ shows that $`\widehat{𝒟}^\gamma H_{i\gamma }=0`$ for each $`i=0,1,2`$, provided supersymmetry is unbroken. Then (77) reduces to

$$\widehat{𝒟}^\beta \widehat{𝒲}_V^{}^\alpha \widehat{𝒟}_\beta \widehat{𝒲}_{V^{}\alpha }\left(1+\frac{\alpha }{6q}\right)^2(\widehat{𝒟}^\beta \widehat{𝒲}_U^\alpha \widehat{𝒟}_\beta \widehat{𝒲}_{U\alpha }).$$
(78)
Thus it can be seen that we need only look at $`\widehat{𝒟}^\beta H_1^\alpha \widehat{𝒟}_\beta H_{1\alpha }`$ and that furthermore we only need the first term in (74). Similar arguments can be made for the other leading terms relevant to the $`U`$-multiplet coming from $`\widehat{𝒟}^\beta \widehat{𝒲}_V^{}^\alpha \widehat{𝒟}_\beta \widehat{𝒲}_{V^{}\alpha }`$.

From (69) it is easy to show that

$$H_1^\alpha =\left(1+\frac{\alpha }{6q}\right)\widehat{𝒲}_U^\alpha \frac{1}{4}(\widehat{\overline{𝒟}}^28\widehat{R})\left(\frac{\alpha ^{}U}{6q}\widehat{𝒟}^\alpha \widehat{L}\right)\left(\frac{1}{24q}\right)\left(\widehat{\overline{𝒟}}^2\alpha \widehat{𝒟}^\alpha U+2\widehat{\overline{𝒟}}_{\dot{\alpha }}\alpha \widehat{\overline{𝒟}}^{\dot{\alpha }}\widehat{𝒟}^\alpha U\right).$$
(79)
We note that the coefficient of $`\widehat{𝒲}_U^\alpha `$ is proportional to (62). Thus we extract the leading term to obtain

$`_{th}^{(\widehat{𝒲}\widehat{𝒲})_U}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \text{d}^4\theta \frac{\widehat{E}}{8\widehat{R}}\underset{I}{}b_X^I\left(1+\frac{\alpha }{6q}\right)^2(\widehat{𝒲}\widehat{𝒲})_U\mathrm{ln}\eta ^2(T^I)}+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.`$ (80)
$`_Q^{(\widehat{𝒲}\widehat{𝒲})_U}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \text{d}^4\theta \frac{\widehat{E}}{8\widehat{R}}\left(1+\frac{\alpha }{6q}\right)^2\widehat{𝒲}_U^\alpha P_\chi \left[\widehat{B}_a\frac{\delta _X}{2q}\left(\mathrm{ln}\frac{\delta _X\widehat{L}}{2q}G_q\right)\right]\widehat{𝒲}_{U\alpha }}+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.,`$ (81)
We note that linear interactions with $`U`$ arise from the terms

$$\widehat{𝒟}^\beta \widehat{𝒲}_V^{}^\alpha \widehat{𝒟}_\beta \widehat{𝒲}_{V^{}\alpha }2\widehat{𝒟}^\beta H_0^\alpha \widehat{𝒟}_\beta H_{1\alpha }$$
(82)
Detailed examination shows that these terms are higher dimensional and either involve derivatives or auxiliary fields; thus they are suppressed and we neglect them in our leading order analysis. When shifts due to supersymmetry breaking are studied, it will be necessary to account for the effects of terms other than (79).

For the nonanomalous factors $`G_a`$ of the gauge group, the chiral field strengths are merely replaced according to $`𝒲_a^\alpha \widehat{𝒲}_a^\alpha `$ under the redefinitions (45) and (46). The shift in (71) yields

$$_Q^{aX}=\widehat{}_Q^{aX}+\mathrm{\Delta }_Q^{aX}$$
(83)
where $`\widehat{}_Q^{aX}`$ is the quantum correction in the absence of a $`U(1)_X`$ (i.e., with $`B_a`$ replaced by the $`\widehat{B}_a`$ of (72) in (14)) and

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_Q^{aX}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \text{d}^4\theta \frac{\widehat{E}}{8\widehat{R}}\widehat{𝒲}_a^\alpha P_\chi \left[B_a(L,V^{},g^I)\widehat{B}_a\right]\widehat{𝒲}_{a\alpha }}+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.`$ (84)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta _X}{2q}}{\displaystyle \text{d}^4\theta \frac{\widehat{E}}{8\widehat{R}}\widehat{𝒲}_a^\alpha P_\chi \left(\mathrm{ln}\frac{\delta _X\widehat{L}}{2q}G_q\right)\widehat{𝒲}_{a\alpha }}+𝒪(U)+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.`$
The shift $`(\delta _X/2q)P_\chi \mathrm{ln}(\delta _X\widehat{L}/2q)`$ cancels the contribution to the Yang-Mills kinetic terms arising from $`\stackrel{~}{s}s`$ in (42), and restores the gauge coupling to its original form. The shift $`(\delta _X/2q)P_\chi G_q`$ cancels a corresponding shift in $`\stackrel{~}{L}`$, so as to maintain modular invariance.

A careful examination of the component expansion of the redefined superfield Lagrangian described above yields for the mass of the $`U`$ vector multiplet

$$m^2=\frac{1}{s(\widehat{\mathrm{}})}\left(1+\frac{\alpha (\widehat{\mathrm{}})}{6q}\right)^2\left[\widehat{K}^{UU}(\widehat{\mathrm{}})+2\widehat{\mathrm{}}\widehat{S}^{UU}(\widehat{\mathrm{}})\right]=\frac{q\delta _X\widehat{\mathrm{}}}{s(\widehat{\mathrm{}})[1+\alpha (\widehat{\mathrm{}})/6q]}$$
(85)
Next we perform the component field calculation. We will not assume WZ gauge. This is not as daunting as it may seem, because we can use results from . To simplify matters we neglect $`T`$-moduli here. First consider a general vector superfield in global supersymmetry:

$`V`$ $`=`$ $`C+i\theta \chi i\overline{\theta }\overline{\chi }+\theta ^2h+\overline{\theta }^2\overline{h}+\theta \sigma ^m\overline{\theta }a_m`$ (86)
$`+i\theta ^2\overline{\theta }(\overline{\lambda }+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\overline{\sigma }^m_m\chi )i\overline{\theta }^2\theta (\lambda +{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\sigma ^m_m\overline{\chi })`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\theta ^2\overline{\theta }^2(D+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{}C).`$
In the WZ gauge $`C=\chi =h=0`$. We get a massive vector field when a massless one eats a chiral multiplet $`\mathrm{\Theta }=(\theta ,\chi ,h)`$ with $`C=\theta +\overline{\theta }`$ in U-gauge. So in supergravity it is natural to define

$$H=\frac{1}{4}𝒟^2V,\overline{H}=\frac{1}{4}\overline{𝒟}^2V,h=H|,\overline{h}=\overline{H}|.$$
(87)
Then comparing with Eqs. (3.4)-(3.6) of  we have

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[𝒟_\alpha ,\overline{𝒟}_{\dot{\alpha }}]V|`$ $`=`$ $`\sigma _{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}^ma_m{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}C\sigma _{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}^ab_a=\sigma _{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}^mv_m,C=V|,`$
$`(\overline{𝒟}^28R)V|`$ $`=`$ $`4\overline{h}{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}MC,(𝒟^28\overline{R})V|=4h{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}\overline{M}C,`$ (88)
where

$$\frac{1}{6}M=R|,\frac{1}{6}\overline{M}=\overline{R}|,\frac{1}{3}b_a=G_a|,$$
(89)
are the auxiliary components of supergravity multiplet. In addition

$`4F`$ $``$ $`𝒟^2(\overline{𝒟}^28R)V|=𝒟^2\overline{𝒟}^2V|+8C𝒟^2R|+{\displaystyle \frac{16}{3}}Mh,`$
$`4\overline{F}`$ $``$ $`\overline{𝒟}^2(𝒟^28\overline{R})V|=\overline{𝒟}^2𝒟^2V|+8C\overline{𝒟}^2\overline{R}|+{\displaystyle \frac{16}{3}}\overline{M}\overline{h}.`$ (90)
Further comparison with  gives

$`F\overline{F}`$ $`=`$ $`4\left(i^mv_m+{\displaystyle \frac{2i}{3}}C^mb_m+\overline{h}\overline{M}hM\right),`$
$`𝒟^2R\left|\overline{𝒟}^2\overline{R}\right|`$ $`=`$ $`4i𝒟^aG_a|={\displaystyle \frac{4i}{3}}^mb_m,`$
$`\overline{𝒟}^2𝒟^2V\left|𝒟^2\overline{𝒟}^2V\right|`$ $`=`$ $`16i^mv_m{\displaystyle \frac{32}{3}}\left(\overline{M}\overline{h}Mh+ib_m^mC\right).`$ (91)
The expression for $`F+\overline{F}`$ contains the auxiliary field $`D`$:

$`D`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}𝒟^\beta (\overline{𝒟}^28R)𝒟_\beta V|={\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}𝒟_{\dot{\beta }}(𝒟^28\overline{R})𝒟^{\dot{\beta }}V|.`$ (92)
We can evaluate $`D`$ using Eqs. (3.25) and (3.28) of . We drop all superfields except $`V`$ and make the substitutions

$$k(V)=\mathrm{ln}(V)+g(V)V,Vg_1+1=Vk^{}(V)V,V^2g_21=V^2k^{\prime \prime }(V)0,$$

$$X_\alpha \frac{1}{8}(\overline{𝒟}^28R)𝒟_\alpha V,𝒟^\alpha X_\alpha |D.$$

Then we obtain

$`2D`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}\left(\overline{𝒟}^2𝒟^2V\left|+𝒟^2\overline{𝒟}^2V\right|\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}\left(v^mb_mhM\overline{h}\overline{M}\right)2\mathrm{}C.`$ (93)
So finally we get

$$\frac{1}{8}𝒟^2\overline{𝒟}^2V|=D+\frac{4}{3}\overline{h}\overline{M}\frac{2}{3}v^mb_m+\mathrm{}C+i^mv_m+\frac{2i}{3}b_m^mC.$$
(94)
The $`V`$-dependent part of the (bosonic) Lagrangian is (aside from the usual gauge term)

$$(V)=e[s(V)+\overline{s}(V)r(V)\overline{M}\overline{r}(V)M\frac{1}{2}𝒟^\alpha X_\alpha (V)|],$$
(95)
with (dropping fermions)

$`r(V)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta _X}{8}}(\overline{𝒟}^28R)LV|={\displaystyle \frac{\delta _X}{2}}\overline{h}\mathrm{},`$
$`s(V)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta _X}{8}}C\left(F^2iF\stackrel{~}{F}2D^2\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{\delta _X}{4}}\left(v^mi^mC\right)B_m`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta _X\mathrm{}}{4}}D{\displaystyle \frac{\delta _X\mathrm{}}{2}}\overline{h}\overline{M}+\mathrm{total}\mathrm{deriv}.,`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}𝒟^\alpha X_\alpha (V)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16}}𝒟^\alpha (\overline{𝒟}^28R)𝒟_\alpha e^{2qV}|\mathrm{\Phi }|^2=e^{2qC}\{qD|\varphi ^2|+|F_\mathrm{\Phi }+2qh\varphi |^2`$ (96)
$`[^m\varphi +q\varphi (iv^m+^mC)][_m\overline{\varphi }q\overline{\varphi }(iv_m_mC)]\},`$
where the one-form $`B_m`$ is dual to a linear combination of the curl of a two-form $`b_{mn}`$ and the Yang-Mills Cern-Simons form $`\omega _{lmn}^{YM}`$. The first term on the RHS of $`s(V)`$ is canceled by the quantum correction. All the terms linear in $`\overline{M},b_m`$ cancel in $`(V)`$, so in the absence of a superpotential, they vanish by their equations of motion. However we wish to keep local supersymmetry explicit down to scales where supersymmetry is broken; hence we will not set these auxiliary fields to zero. Now set

$$\varphi =\sigma e^{i\alpha },\varphi =\left(\sigma +i\sigma \alpha \right)e^{i\alpha }.$$
(97)
Including the standard Yang-Mills term, the Lagrangian for $`D`$ is

$$(D,C)=\frac{1}{2g_s^2}D^2+\left(e^{2qC}q\sigma ^2\frac{\delta _X\mathrm{}}{2}\right)D.$$
(98)
The equation of motion for $`D`$ gives

$$D=g_s^2\left(e^{2qC}q\sigma ^2\frac{\delta _X\mathrm{}}{2}\right)=g_s^2\frac{\delta _X\mathrm{}}{2}\left(e^{2qc}1\right)=g_s^2\delta _X\mathrm{}qc+O(c^2).$$
(99)
The field redefinitions in (99) are the scalar projections of (20) and (30):

$$C^{}=C+\frac{1}{q}\mathrm{ln}\sigma ,e^{2qC^{}}=\frac{\delta _X\mathrm{}}{2q}e^{2qc},c=U|=0.$$
(100)
The one-form plus axion Lagrangian is

$`(B,v,b,\alpha )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{k^{}(\mathrm{})}{4\mathrm{}}}B^mB_m+{\displaystyle \frac{\delta _X}{2}}v^mB_m\sigma ^2e^{2qC}\left(qv^m+^m\alpha \right)\left(qv_m+_m\alpha \right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{9}}\left(\mathrm{}k^{}3\right)b_mb^m`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{k^{}(\mathrm{})}{4\mathrm{}}}B^mB_m+{\displaystyle \frac{\delta _X}{2}}v^mB_mq^2{\displaystyle \frac{\delta _X\mathrm{}}{2}}v^mv_m^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{9}}\left(\mathrm{}k^{}3\right)b_mb^m+O(c),`$
$`v_m^{}`$ $`=`$ $`v_m+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{q}}_m\alpha .`$ (101)
We dropped from (101) a term (dropping also a total derivative)

$$\frac{\delta _X}{2q}^m\alpha B_m=\frac{\delta _X}{2q}\alpha ^mB_m=\frac{\delta _X}{4q}\alpha F\stackrel{~}{F}$$

that is canceled by a shift in $`_Q`$ under the redefinition $`vv^{}`$, which is just an ordinary gauge transformation, i.e. the vector projection of (20). The vector projection of the first equality in (30) is:

$$v_m^{}=u_m+\frac{1}{2q\mathrm{}}\left(B_m\frac{2\mathrm{}}{3}b_m\right).$$
(102)
This gives

$`(B,b,v^{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{k^{}(\mathrm{})}{4\mathrm{}}}B^mB_m{\displaystyle \frac{1}{9}}\left(\mathrm{}k^{}3\right)b_mb^m+{\displaystyle \frac{\delta _X}{2}}v^mB_m{\displaystyle \frac{q\delta _X\mathrm{}}{2}}v^mv_m^{}+O(c),`$ (103)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{k}^{}(\mathrm{})}{4\mathrm{}}}B^mB_m{\displaystyle \frac{1}{9}}\left(\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{k}^{}3\right)b_mb^m+{\displaystyle \frac{\delta _X\mathrm{}}{3}}u^mb_m{\displaystyle \frac{q\delta _X\mathrm{}}{2}}u^mu_m+O(c)`$
Solving for $`b_m`$ then gives

$`(B,u)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{k}^{}(\mathrm{})}{4\mathrm{}}}B^mB_m{\displaystyle \frac{q\delta _X\mathrm{}}{2}}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{6q}}\right)u^mu_m+O(c),`$
$`b_m`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta _X\mathrm{}}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{3u_m}{\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{k}^{}3}},`$ (104)
which gives the same mass as in (85) when we take into account the normalization of the kinetic term for $`u_m`$. Indeed, when we substitute the last equality in (104) into (102), we see $`u_m`$ gets renormalized relative to $`v_m^{}`$ by a factor $`(1+\alpha /6q)`$, and hence its kinetic term is multiplied by a factor $`(1+\alpha /6q)^2.`$ Alternatively, we can redefine $`b_m`$:

$`(B,\widehat{b},u)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{k}^{}(\mathrm{})}{4\mathrm{}}}B^mB_m{\displaystyle \frac{1}{9}}\left(\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{k}^{}3\right)\widehat{b}_m\widehat{b}^m{\displaystyle \frac{q\delta _X\mathrm{}}{2}}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{6q}}\right)u^mu_m+O(c),`$ (105)
$`\widehat{b}_m=b_m{\displaystyle \frac{3\delta _X\mathrm{}u_m}{2(\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{k}^{}3)}}.`$
The last equality in (105), which again provides the correct normalization of the $`u_m`$ kinetic term,555After these field redefinitions the squared field strength $`v_{mn}v^{mn}`$ also contains higher derivative terms of the type that we have neglected throughout. is the vector projection of (45) with $`\widehat{B}=B`$, up to order $`c`$ corrections. (Note that $`\widehat{B}=B`$ preserves the relation $`^mB_m=F\stackrel{~}{F}/2`$ that follows from (10).) The equations of motion for $`F_\mathrm{\Phi },h,\overline{h}`$ give

$$F_\mathrm{\Phi }+2qh\varphi =0.$$
(106)
For the $`𝒟^2`$ projections of (20) and (30) we have

$$h^{}=\frac{1}{4}𝒟^2V^{}=h+\frac{1}{2q\varphi }F_\mathrm{\Phi }=f+\frac{1}{6q}\overline{M},f\frac{1}{4}𝒟^2U,$$
(107)
so in (96) $`e^{2qC}|F_\varphi +2qh\varphi |^22q\delta _X\mathrm{}e^{2qc}|f+\frac{1}{6q}\overline{M}|^2`$ which still vanishes when the equations of motion for $`f`$ are imposed. However if we keep the full $`M`$-dependence, we can cast these terms in a form that is the supersymmetric counterpart of the one-form Lagrangian:

$`(M,f)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{9}}(\mathrm{}k^{}3)M\overline{M}+2q\delta _X\mathrm{}e^{2qc}|f+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6q}}\overline{M}|^2`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{9}}(\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{k}^{}3)M\overline{M}+{\displaystyle \frac{\delta _X\mathrm{}}{3}}\left(\overline{f}\overline{M}+fM\right)+2\delta _X\mathrm{}|f|^2+O(c)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{9}}(\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{k}^{}3)\widehat{M}\widehat{\overline{M}}+2q\delta _X\mathrm{}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{6q}}\right)|f|^2+O(c)=(\widehat{M},f),`$
$`\widehat{M}`$ $`=`$ $`M+{\displaystyle \frac{3\delta _X\mathrm{}\overline{f}}{\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{k}^{}3}}.`$ (108)
The last equality is the $`D^2`$ projection of (45), and $`(\widehat{M},f)`$ is the supersymmetric counterpart of $`(B,\widehat{b},u)`$ in (105).666In the expansion (86) the field $`h`$ is related to Wess-Bagger auxiliary fields by $`h=\frac{i}{2}\left(NiM\right)`$, which explains the extra factor 4 in the $`|f^2|`$ term, relative to the $`u^2`$ term in (105); cf. Eq. (6.18) of .) Since $`D`$ is invariant under the gauge transformation (20), we have

$`D^{}`$ $`=`$ $`D=D_U+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}𝒟^\beta (\overline{𝒟}^28R){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2q}}𝒟_\beta \mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\delta _XL}{2q}}\right)|`$
$`=`$ $`D_U+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2q(3\mathrm{}k^{})}}(\delta _X\mathrm{}D+3D^2)+X+O(cD),`$
$`D`$ $`=`$ $`\left(1+\alpha /6q\right)\left(D_U+X\right)+O(D^2),`$
$`X`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3\mathrm{}^1\mathrm{}\mathrm{}+r}{2q(3\mathrm{}k^{})}}+\mathrm{},`$ (109)
where the ellipses represent terms quadratic in auxiliary fields and/or derivatives of fields. Since

$$\frac{}{D_U}=\frac{D}{D_U}\frac{}{D},$$

is solved by $`/D=0`$, the scalar Lagrangian should not be modified by this redefinition. However in order to cast the full component Lagrangian in a manifestly supersymmetric form, we do not eliminate the auxiliary field $`D`$ or $`D_U`$. Expressing (98) in terms of $`D_U`$, we have

$$(D,C)=(D_U,c)+(X,c)+(X,D_U),$$
(110)
where

$$(D_U,c)=\frac{1}{2}g_X^2D_U^2+\left(1+\frac{\alpha }{6q}\right)qc\delta _X\mathrm{}D_U+O(c^3),g_X^1=g_s^1\left(1+\frac{\alpha }{6q}\right),$$
(111)
contains the supersymmetric counterparts of the kinetic term for $`u_m`$, with $`g_X`$ the effective $`U(1)_X`$ gauge coupling constant, and of the last terms in (105) and (108). To evaluate the terms containing $`X`$, we first write

$$(X,c)=\left(1+\frac{\alpha }{6q}\right)qc\delta _X\mathrm{}X=\frac{\alpha }{2}c\left(\mathrm{}^1\mathrm{}\mathrm{}+\frac{1}{3}r+\mathrm{}\right).$$
(112)
Evaluating the first term by partial integration, and performing a Weyl transformation

$$\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{g}r\left(1+\frac{\alpha c}{3}\right)=\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\widehat{g}}\left[\widehat{r}+\frac{\alpha ^2}{6}^mc_mc\mathrm{}(\alpha c)\right]+c(\mathrm{})$$
(113)
to restore the Einstein term to canonical form, we obtain from (112) a contribution

$$\delta =\frac{\alpha }{2\mathrm{}}^m\mathrm{}_mc\frac{\alpha ^2}{12}^mc_mc+c(\mathrm{}),$$
(114)
where the ellipses have the same meaning as in (109). Combining this with

$`_{KE}(\mathrm{},\sigma ,C)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{k^{}(\mathrm{})}{4\mathrm{}}}^m\mathrm{}_m\mathrm{}^m(e^{qC}\sigma )_m(e^{qC}\sigma )`$ (115)
$`=`$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{k}^{}(\mathrm{})}{4\mathrm{}}}^m\mathrm{}_m\mathrm{}+{\displaystyle \frac{\delta _X}{2}}^m\mathrm{}_mc+{\displaystyle \frac{q\delta _X\mathrm{}}{2}}^mc_mc\right]\left[1+O(c)\right],`$
the full scalar kinetic energy term take the form

$`_{KE}(\mathrm{},c)`$ $`=`$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{k}^{}(\mathrm{})}{4\mathrm{}}}\left(^m\mathrm{}_m\mathrm{}2{\displaystyle \frac{\delta _X\mathrm{}^2}{3\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{k}^{}}}^m\mathrm{}_mc\right)+\left({\displaystyle \frac{q\delta _X\mathrm{}}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^2}{12}}\right)^mc_mc\right]\left[1+O(c)\right]`$
$`=`$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{k}^{}(\widehat{\mathrm{}})}{4\widehat{\mathrm{}}}}^m\widehat{\mathrm{}}_m\widehat{\mathrm{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta _X\widehat{\mathrm{}}q}{2}}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{6q}}\right)c\mathrm{}c\right]\left[1+O(c)\right],`$
$`\mathrm{}`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{\mathrm{}}\left[1+\alpha c/3+O(c^2)\right].`$ (116)
The last equality is the scalar projection of (45), and the Lagrangian in (116) contains the supersymmetric counterparts of the terms quartic in $`B_m`$ and $`v_m`$, respectively. Now in terms of the hatted variables, the $`\mathrm{}c`$ terms cancel in $`X`$, and we have

$`X`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3\mathrm{}^1\mathrm{}\mathrm{}+r}{2q(3\mathrm{}k^{})}}+\mathrm{}={\displaystyle \frac{3\widehat{\mathrm{}}^1\mathrm{}\widehat{\mathrm{}}+\widehat{r}}{2q(3\widehat{\mathrm{}}k^{})}}\left[1+O(c)\right]+\mathrm{}`$ (117)
$`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{3}{\stackrel{~}{k}^{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{V}{\widehat{\mathrm{}}}}4V\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2q(3\widehat{\mathrm{}}k^{})}}\left[1+O(c)\right]+\mathrm{}=O(c^2)+\mathrm{},`$
where in the second line we used the equations of motion for the metric $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ and the scalar $`\widehat{\mathrm{}}`$. Then finally we obtain

$$(X,D_U)=\frac{1}{2}g_X^2\left(2D_UX+X^2\right)=O(c^3).$$
(118)
Now solving (111) for $`D_U`$ to obtain the scalar potential, and using the normalization of the $`c`$ kinetic term in (116), we again recover the mass (85) for $`c`$.

Note that if we had first solved for $`D`$ as in (99), the scalar Lagrangian would have taken the form

$`(\mathrm{},c)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g^2\delta _X^2\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}^2q^2c^2\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{k}^{}(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}})}{4\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}}}^m\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}_m\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\delta _X\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}}{4}}\left(2q{\displaystyle \frac{\delta _X}{\stackrel{~}{k}^{}}}\right)^mc_mc\right]\left[1+O(c)\right]+O(c^3),`$
$`\mathrm{}`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta _X\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}}{\stackrel{~}{k}^{}(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}})}}c.`$ (119)
This would give

$$m_c^2=\frac{2g_s^2q^2\delta _X\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}\stackrel{~}{k}^{}}{2q\stackrel{~}{k}^{}\delta _X}=g_s^2\left(q\delta _X\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}+\frac{\delta _X^2q\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}}{2q\stackrel{~}{k}^{}\delta _X}\right)=g_s^2\left(q\delta _X\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}+\frac{\delta _X^2\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}}{2k^{}}\right)$$
(120)
for the mass of the scalar component $`c`$, in agreement with the mass of the $`U(1)_X`$ vector boson found in  using the chiral multiplet formulation for the dilaton. The same result can be obtained in the linear multiplet formulation by first eliminating $`b_m`$ by its equation of motion, and then eliminating the $`B_mv^m`$ coupling by a redefinition of $`B_m`$, although this breaks both the linearity condition and manifest supersymmetry in the two-form and dilaton kinetic terms. Thus the result for the masses is prescription-dependent, which suggests that they are not really physical, i.e. that they do not correspond to poles in the propagators. What we have shown here is that it is possible to maintain explicitly local supersymmetry and the linearity condition (as well as modular invariance when the moduli are included) by making consistent superfield redefinitions.

The work performed in this article suggests further research, which is in progress : first, the incorporation of complicating aspects: systems with more matter fields; dynamical supersymmetry breaking by gaugino condensation, and second, the extraction of supersymmetry breaking soft parameters and the consequent electroweak scale phenomenology.

Already without these more realistic features, we have arrived at some interesting conclusions. The modified linearity constraints (10) are significantly modified when rewritten in the light field basis, due to the several terms in (67). Yet the disturbance is in some sense minimal since the new pieces are compactly encoded (at a superfield level, no less) in the functional (67). In addition, the one-loop effective contribution is modified significantly in the new basis, as can be seen in (71). We have shown how to fix to unitary gauge at the superfield level. We have eliminated the important linear couplings to the heavy vector multiplet. The remaining linear couplings appear through (67), but are all higher-order derivative interactions or suppressed by the supersymmetry breaking scale due to the presence of auxiliary fields. We do not seem to be able to dispose of these terms in a simple fashion. Modular invariant field redefinitions were made all along. Because of this, the effective theory of light fields is manifestly modular invariant with modified modular weights for $`U(1)_X`$-charged chiral multiplets. We have also shown that our results at the superfield level can be reproduced at the component field level.

Acknowledgments

We wish to thank Pierre Binétruy for disucssions during the early stages of this work. This work was supported in part by the Director, Office of Science, Office of High Energy and Nuclear Physics, Division of High Energy Physics of the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract DE-AC03-76SF00098 and in part by the National Science Foundation under grant PHY-0098840.