text:
# Stochastic gradient approximation method applied to Hubbard model

## I Introduction

The one-band Hubbard Hamiltonian is the simplest lattice model for studying strongly correlated electrons . It is widely studied, especially in its two-dimensional version, as a model for the high-$`T_c`$ superconducting cuprates. Among the various methods used for studying the Hubbard model, the quantum Monte Carlo (QMC) methods have shown to be powerful tools, both at zero and finite temperatures. The studies of the Hubbard model at zero temperature include several QMC methods, namely, the variational (VMC) , the fixed-node diffusion (DMC) , and the constrained path QMC (CPMC) . From these zero temperature methods, only CPMC does not depend crucially on the variational wave function. Actually, the simple free-electron-like wave functions are rather generally found to be better importance functions for CPMC than the unrestricted Hartree-Fock wave functions . On the other hand, CPMC is limited to smaller lattice sizes than VMC. It can, however, give accurate results for system sizes far beyond the limits of exact diagonalizations  or the subspace techniques such as stochastic diagonalization . Also the finite temperature QMC simulations can be used to obtain ground state properties if the temperature used is low enough . This approach is, however, mainly applicable for half-filled systems due to the problems related to the negative weights of the configurations, i.e., the fermion sign problem.

Compared to the other approaches, the VMC methods are very potent for studying larger system sizes. The computational cost of the VMC method is roughly an order of magnitude smaller than of the more sophisticated QMC methods. The VMC method is basically free from any methodological problems such as the fermion sign problem. There is, however, one very serious limitation in the VMC approach. This is related to the ultimate connection of the method to the many-body wave function itself. The form of the wave function is an input to the VMC simulations, and choosing the form requires human creativity and insight into the problem. Due to this, VMC can hardly be called a reliable “black-box” simulation method. However, the recent advancements in the optimization of the variational wave functions  combined with the enormous increase in computing power indicate a possibility of having considerably more flexible VMC wave functions and making the VMC simulations less “human-biased”.

The crucial part of the VMC simulation is to locate the optimal values of the free parameters in the many-body wave function. An efficient optimization method allows one to have more variational parameters and thus a more flexible form of the wave function and saves computer time. In this paper, we show that the optimization method called the stochastic gradient approximation (SGA)  suits very well for the VMC also in the case of lattice Hamiltonians. We have previously used it for continuum models, mainly quantum dots .

The goal in the VMC optimization is to minimize the cost function

$$(𝜶)=\underset{k\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{1}{k}\underset{j=1}{\overset{k}{}}𝒬(𝐑_j;𝜶),$$
(1)
where configuration $`𝐑_j`$ contains the coordinates of the simulated particles at $`j`$th step of a random sequence, $`𝜶=(\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _n)`$ represents the vector of $`n`$ parameters to be optimized, and $`𝒬`$ is the “local” version of the cost function of a configuration $`𝐑`$ and $`𝜶`$. One can formulate the VMC optimization problem approximately as a “standard” optimization problem by taking a finite but large $`k`$ in the cost function above. One can then use the resulting approximation of the function as a deterministic function during the optimization. Doing this, one approximates the whole distribution of $`𝐑`$s by a finite set, and more importantly, one forgets the $`𝜶`$ dependence of $`𝐑`$. To some extent this error can be corrected by weighting the configurations by factors that depend on the change of the probability of the configuration in question.

In the SGA optimization method such truncation is not done. In SGA, the optimal parameter vector $`𝜶^{\mathbf{}}`$, defined so that

$$_𝜶(𝜶^{\mathbf{}})=\underset{k\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{1}{k}\underset{j=1}{\overset{k}{}}_𝜶𝒬(𝐑_j;𝜶^{\mathbf{}})=0,$$
(2)
is found by changing the parameters $`𝜶`$ to the direction of the unbiased stochastic approximation of the negative gradient, i.e., $`_𝜶𝒬`$. The approximate gradient $`_𝜶𝒬(𝐑;𝜶^{})`$ is not zero even for the optimal parameters, but the average of it over configurations $`𝐑`$ vanishes. Due to this, the stochastic simulation should include damping so that it actually converges. Without damping, the simulation would end up in oscillating around the optimal parameters. The damping should, however, be so slow that the simulation is able to reach the optimal parameters. A more detailed formulation of the SGA method for VMC is given in Sec. II.

## II Method

We use the two-dimensional Hubbard model given by the Hamiltonian

$$H=t\underset{i,j\sigma }{}(c_{i\sigma }^{}c_{j\sigma }+H.c.)+U\underset{i}{}n_in_i,$$
(3)
where $`\mathrm{}`$ stands for nearest neighbors, $`c_{i\sigma }^{}`$ ($`c_{i\sigma }`$) creates (destroys) an electron with spin $`\sigma `$ at site $`i`$ of the square lattice, and $`n_{i\sigma }=c_{i\sigma }^{}c_{i\sigma }`$. The electrons at the same site interact with strength $`U>0`$, and $`t`$ is the hopping parameter. We use $`t`$ as the energy scale, and set $`t=1`$. The periodic boundary conditions are used for both space directions. This choice of boundary conditions leads to non-interacting single particle states that are plane-waves $`\mathrm{exp}(i𝐤𝐫)`$ with energy $`ϵ_𝐤=2(\mathrm{cos}(k_x)+\mathrm{cos}(k_y))`$.

A commonly used variational wave function for the Hubbard model is the Gutzwiller wave function

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(g)=g^D\mathrm{\Psi }_0,$$
(4)
where $`D=_in_in_i`$ is the number of doubly occupied sites, $`g`$ is the only variational parameter, and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$ is the many-body wave function for the non-interacting ground state. In this case, it is made of the plane-waves discussed above, with the k values chosen to minimize the energy. The motivation for this wave function is that the Gutzwiller factor reduces the probability to find electrons on the same site and reduces the average interaction energy. This is done, of course, with a cost of higher kinetic energy. It is also possible to correlate electrons that are not on the same site by constructing a Gutzwiller-type wave function

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(g)=\underset{i}{}g_i^{C_i}\mathrm{\Psi }_0,$$
(5)
where the $`g_i`$’s are parameters and the $`C_i`$’s measure the number of nearest (and next nearest) neighbor electrons with various spin configurations, see Fig 1. for more details.

We calculate the energy using the standard Metropolis algorithm (see, e.g., Refs.  for more details and Ref.  for a modified algorithm), giving the estimate for the energy as $`\overline{E}=E_\mathrm{L}`$, where the local energy is defined as

$$E_\mathrm{L}(R)=\frac{H\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐑)}{\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐑)},$$
(6)
and the average in the calculation of $`\overline{E}`$ is over configurations $`𝐑`$ distributed according to probability distribution $`|\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐑)|^2`$. The standard deviation of the local energy is given by

$$\sigma =\sqrt{(E_\mathrm{L}\overline{E})^2}.$$
(7)
One can also define a modified version of $`\sigma `$, namely,

$$\stackrel{~}{\sigma }=\sqrt{(E_\mathrm{L}E_\mathrm{T})^2}=\sqrt{\sigma ^2+(\overline{E}E_\mathrm{T})^2},$$
(8)
which gives the root-mean-square distance of the local energy from the target energy $`E_\mathrm{T}`$. The deviation $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }`$ is particularly useful in the optimization of the wave function.

The SGA optimization method involves stochastic simulation in two spaces: the configuration and the parameter space. These spaces are coupled via the parameter vector. In the configuration space, a set of $`m`$ configurations $`\{𝐑_j\}`$ is sampled from a distribution $`|\mathrm{\Psi }(𝜶)|^2`$, where $`𝜶`$ is the current parameter vector. When the parameters are changed, the set of configurations follow this change because the new sampling distribution depends on the new parameters. In practice, the set of configurations is found by the Metropolis algorithm. In the parameter space, the parameters at iteration $`i+1`$ are obtained from the previous ones by the formula:

$$𝜶_{i+1}=𝜶_i\gamma _i_𝜶𝒬_i,$$
(9)
where $`\gamma _i`$ is a scaling factor of the step length. The scaling factor has an important role in averaging out the fluctuations in the approximate gradient, ensuring the convergence. On the other hand, too small a value of $`\gamma `$ would damp the simulation too much. These rules can be formulated mathematically as:

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\gamma _i^2<\underset{i=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\gamma _i=\mathrm{}.$$
(10)
There is a simple interpretation for these conditions. The sum of $`\gamma ^2`$ should be finite to dissipate the cumulative error given by the noise in the approximate gradient and the sum of $`\gamma `$ should diverge, because otherwise the maximum distance from the initial parameters would be limited. If one uses a formula $`\gamma _ii^\beta `$, one should have $`\frac{1}{2}<\beta 1`$. The choice of $`\beta =1`$, which is the maximally damped case, leads to a formula similar to the recursive calculation of a mean: $`\overline{x}_i=\overline{x}_{i1}\frac{1}{i}(\overline{x}_{i1}x_i)`$.

In Eq. (9), the approximate gradient is calculated using the set of $`m`$ configurations. There are several possibilities for the cost function $`𝒬`$. For the energy minimization, the cost function is simply the mean of the local energies over the set of configurations:

$$𝒬=E_\mathrm{L}=\frac{1}{m}\underset{j=1}{\overset{m}{}}E_\mathrm{L}(𝐑_j),$$
(11)
and for the variance minimization one has $`𝒬=1/m_{j=1}^m(E_\mathrm{L}(𝐑_j)E_\mathrm{L})^2`$. In the variance minimization, one can also use a target energy $`E_\mathrm{T}`$ instead of $`E_\mathrm{L}`$. This leads to the minimization of the function $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }`$ above.

In the original implementation of SGA as presented in Ref. , the gradient in Eq. (9) was the most difficult task and was calculated by using a finite-difference formulation. In this case, one should note that the configurations are distributed according to $`|\mathrm{\Psi }(𝜶)|^2`$ and not according to $`|\mathrm{\Psi }(𝜶\pm \mathrm{\Delta })|^2`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ represents a small change. Thus in the energy minimization, the finite-difference points are weighted as

$$\frac{1}{\stackrel{~}{m}}\underset{j=1}{\overset{m}{}}w_jE_\mathrm{L}[𝐑_j;𝜶\pm \mathrm{\Delta }],$$
(12)
where the points $`𝐑_j`$ are distributed according to $`|\mathrm{\Psi }(𝜶)|^2`$, $`\stackrel{~}{m}=w_j`$, and $`w_j=\left|\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐑_j;𝜶\pm \mathrm{\Delta })/\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐑_j;𝜶)\right|^2`$. The ‘weights’ $`w_j`$ of the local functions are very close to unity, because $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is only a small change.

It is, however, possible to calculate the gradient also analytically. In Ref. , Lin et al. have shown that in the case of real wave function and energy minimization, the derivative of the energy $`E`$ with respect to a variational parameter $`\alpha _i`$ is simply

$$\frac{E}{\alpha _i}=2\left\{E_\mathrm{L}\times \frac{\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Psi }}{\alpha _i}E\times \frac{\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Psi }}{\alpha _i}\right\},$$
(13)
where the average $`\mathrm{}`$ is over the whole Metropolis simulation . One can implement this simple formula also for the SGA algorithm, with the small modification that the average is taken over only the current set of $`m`$ configurations. One should also note that the finite-difference formulation required calculation of the local energy with several parameters, whereas only a single evaluation is needed (for each configuration) if the analytic formula is used.

In this work, we have used the both schemes discussed above for the calculation of the gradient.

## III Results

### A Single Gutzwiller parameter

First, we will consider the wave function with correlation only between electrons on the same site, and thus only one free parameter $`g`$. In Fig. 2, the energy and the deviations of the local energy $`\sigma `$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }`$ are plotted as a function of the Gutzwiller parameter $`g`$. The system consists of $`101+101`$ electrons on a $`16\times 16`$ lattice with $`U=4`$. One can see that the minimum of the total energy is located at $`g0.56`$, and the minima of $`\sigma `$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }`$ are at $`g0.6`$. The energy as a function of $`g`$ is in a good agreement with Fig. 2. of Ref. . The predicted value of $`g`$ resulting from the minimization of energy in Ref.  is slightly higher, around $`g0.566`$. The statistical error in the energies is too large in order to locate the optimal value of $`g`$ with accuracy better than $`0.01`$.

Next, the SGA optimization method is used to locate the optimal values of $`g`$, with energy and $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }`$ as the cost functions. In Fig. 3, the Gutzwiller parameter $`g_i`$ is plotted as a function of the SGA optimization step $`i`$ for both energy and variance minimizations for the same system parameters as above. We have calculated the gradient using the original, finite-difference formulation. The simulations converge to $`g0.566`$ in the case of energy minimization, and to $`g0.603`$ in the optimization of $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }`$ with the target energy $`E_\mathrm{T}=280.5`$. Both parameter values are in a good agreement with the independent simulations presented above, and with the estimate of the optimal value of Ref. . One can also see that around 1000 steps are enough to estimate the optimal parameter values with a reasonable accuracy. The computational task of this is smaller than of one independent simulation presented in Fig. 2 for a single value of $`g`$. On the other hand, it seems that the accuracy of the optimal parameters found by SGA is one order of magnitude higher than in using the polynomial fit to the independent points. We have performed several simulations starting from different values of $`g_0`$. In every case, the performance of SGA is similar to those shown in Fig. 3.

Fig. 4 shows the first 200 values of the Gutzwiller parameter $`g_i`$ for the simulation using the analytic derivative of Eq. (13). This simulation converges also very accurately to the optimal value found above. The most important feature are that the fluctuations in the value of $`g`$ during the optimization process is much smaller than in the simulation where the finite-difference formula was used. This leads to a faster convergence.

To summarize, the performance of the SGA method has been found very satisfactory in finding the optimal parameter of the simple single-parameter Gutzwiller wave function. This is especially true in the case where the gradient is calculated analytically.

### B Generalized Gutzwiller wave function

Next, we will consider the generalized Gutzwiller wave function, defined in Eq (5). We consider only the generalization with 4 parameters related to typical configurations shown in Fig 1. The aim of these parameters is to capture partially the missing correlations. The generalization made to the Gutzwiller wave function is bosonic in the sense that it does not change the nodal structure of the one-parameter Gutzwiller wave function. The energy gain of this extra correlation could directly be compared to the energy of the fixed-node DMC simulations of Ref.  as the nodal structure used there is also given by the simple Gutzwiller wave function. This DMC energy is lower than the corresponding VMC energy by $`2.5`$ units. One should note that in the lattice formulation of DMC, unlike in the continuum formulation, the energy depends also on the bosonic correlation factor which does not change the nodes. This dependence is much smaller than the dependence of the VMC energy on $`g`$. There are also correlations that change the nodal structure, and the estimate for the importance of these can be estimated from the CPMC energy which is lower than the VMC energy by more than 6 units .

We have optimized the 4 free parameters of the generalized Gutzwiller wave function using the SGA and the analytic formulation of the gradient. The latter choice is due to better results in the one-parameter case. One should note that setting the parameter $`g_1=g`$ and $`g_2=g_3=g_4=1`$ one obtains the simple Gutzwiller wave function. We have again studied $`101+101`$ electrons on a $`16\times 16`$ lattice with $`U=4`$ as above.

The optimization of the energy leads to a reduced on-site correlation factor of $`g_10.51`$. The other parameters are $`g_20.92`$ and $`g_3g_40.98`$. The smaller value of $`g_1`$ does not cost as much kinetic energy in this case as in the case of a simple Gutzwiller wave function, because the values of $`g_2`$ and $`g_3`$ are also smaller than one. It is also interesting to compare the optimal value of $`g_1`$ found here with the optimal $`g0.52`$ of the simple Gutzwiller wave function determined from the $`g`$ dependence of the DMC energy . The optimization converges again in few hundred steps, in similar fashion as shown in Fig. 4.

The energy calculated with the optimal parameters is presented in the Table I with corresponding one-parameter VMC, DMC, and CPMC results. One can see that the generalization of the Gutzwiller wave function is able to lower the energy by 1.1 units, which is less than half of the difference to the DMC energy. The CPMC energy is still around 5 units lower in energy.

There are still important ingredients missing from the variational wave function. Possible extensions are three- and higher-particle correlation factors, modified single-particle states, and multiple-determinant wave functions. The good performance of the SGA method combined with the simple calculation of the energy gradient could be extremely useful in the studies exploring these directions.

## IV Conclusions

We have shown that the SGA optimization method finds the optimal values of the Gutzwiller wave function parameter in a reliable and efficient fashion. The computational cost of the optimization process is comparable to a single calculation of the expectation values with a fixed parameter value. The good performance is very important particularly if a variational wave function with several parameters is used. Due to this, SGA is very useful in finding more accurate wave functions for the Hubbard model.

## ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We would like to thank E. Koch, C. Dahnken and A.C. Cosentini for helpful discussions and R.M. Nieminen for reading the manuscript.


format: text

text:
# Capillary condensation in disordered porous materials: hysteresis versus equilibrium behavior.

## Abstract

We study the interplay between hysteresis and equilibrium behavior in capillary condensation of fluids in mesoporous disordered materials via a mean-field density functional theory of a disordered lattice-gas model. The approach reproduces all major features observed experimentally. We show that the simple van der Waals picture of metastability fails due to the appearance of a complex free-energy landscape with a large number of metastable states. In particular, hysteresis can occur both with and without an underlying equilibrium transition, thermodynamic consistency is not satisfied along the hysteresis loop, and out-of-equilibrium phase transitions are possible.

Capillary condensation of a gas inside a mesoporous material refers to the rapid change to a liquid-like state that occurs at a pressure (or chemical potential) lower than the bulk saturation value . This phenomenon is often thought of as a shifted gas-liquid transition. Theoretical studies of fluids confined in single pores of ideal geometry have clarified the mechanism for such a shifted transition and introduced the concept of capillary criticality that describes the fact that the liquid-vapor critical point in a pore occurs at a lower temperature than in the bulk. However, the situation in real mesoporous materials, such as porous glasses and silica gels, that consist of an interconnected network of winding pores of varying shape, curvature and size is not as clear. With the possible exception of fluids in aerogels of very high porosity ($`9598\%`$) for which a bona fide liquid-gas phase transition has been reported with no sign of hysteresis, there is no direct evidence of a first-order phase transition characterized, say, by a jump in the adsorbed amount of fluid, nor of true criticality signaled by density fluctuations on very large length scales. The typical experimental observation is the presence of a hysteresis loop in the sorption isotherms, a loop that is reproducible and vanishes at a temperature lower than the critical temperature of the bulk fluid. The main questions raised by this phenomenology are: is there a true phase transition associated with capillary condensation in disordered materials? What is the connection between this transition and the observed hysteresis? What are the sources of hysteretic behavior? No satisfactory answers have been provided so far. Indeed, in these systems that are locally heterogeneous, but macroscopically (statistically) homogeneous, the statistical-mechanical methods that have proved very efficient in dealing with bulk fluids and fluids in simple external fields, namely computer simulations, integral-equation theory and density functional theory, are plagued by many difficulties.

In this letter, we present a mean-field density functional theory of a disordered lattice-gas model. This model, introduced in a previous work, incorporates the main physical ingredients characterizing fluids in disordered mesoporous media: preferential adsorption of one phase of the fluid, connectivity of the pore space, geometric and energetic disorder, exclusion effect due to the matrix. (Note that the model could also be used to describe the demixing of binary mixtures in mesoporous materials.) The present approach allows us to study for the first time the interplay between out-of-equilibrium (hysteresis) and equilibrium behavior associated with capillary condensation in a disordered matrix. We show that the theory captures the main aspects of the phenomenology of capillary condensation in real systems. The combination of disorder and interconnectivity of the pore network drastically alters the picture of capillary condensation built upon the independent-pore model or the simple van der Waals description of metastability because it generates a complex free-energy landscape characterized by a large number of metastable states. In particular, we show that (i) hysteresis can occur with or without an underlying equilibrium phase transition, (ii) the disappearance of the hysteresis loop is not associated with capillary criticality, (iii) thermodynamic consistency is not satisfied along the hysteresis loop, and (iv) collective out-of-equilibrium phenomena such as macroscopic “avalanches” are possible.

The model is described by the following Hamiltonian,

$`=`$ $``$ $`w_{ff}{\displaystyle \underset{<ij>}{}}\tau _i\eta _i\tau _j\eta _jw_{mf}{\displaystyle \underset{<ij>}{}}[\tau _i\eta _i(1\eta _j)`$ (1)
$`+`$ $`\tau _j\eta _j(1\eta _i)],`$ (2)
where $`\tau _i=0,1`$ and $`\left(1\eta _i\right)=0,1`$ denote the fluid and matrix occupancy variables, respectively, and the sums run over distinct pairs of nearest-neighbor (n.n.) sites. Although different disordered microstructures of the matrix could be considered, we choose here the simplest nontrivial case, a random matrix. The model is thus specified by two parameters, the average matrix density $`\rho _m`$ that fixes the porosity (equal to $`1\rho _m`$) and the ratio of the matrix-fluid over the fluid-fluid interactions, $`y=w_{mf}/w_{ff}`$, that determines the “wettability” . In the following we only consider attractive matrix-fluid interactions and we set $`\rho _m=0.25`$. We use a $`3`$D bcc lattice with linear size $`L=8,12,16,24,48`$ for which we consider many different configurations of the random matrix, from $`1400`$ for $`L=8`$ to $`5`$ for $`L=48`$. Most of the results are illustrated here for $`L=48`$ and typical matrix configurations, but when necessary, e.g., to check the existence of phase transitions, we have performed a finite-size analysis after averaging over all matrix configurations.

The mean-field density functional theory (or equivalently for a lattice, the local mean-field theory) starts with the formulation of a free-energy functional of the fluid density field for a given matrix realization $`\left\{\eta _i\right\}`$:

$`F`$ $`(\{\rho _i\})={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\beta }}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}[\rho _i\mathrm{ln}\rho _i+(\eta _i\rho _i)\mathrm{ln}(\eta _i\rho _i)]`$ (3)
$``$ $`w_{ff}{\displaystyle \underset{<ij>}{}}\rho _i\rho _jw_{mf}{\displaystyle \underset{<ij>}{}}[\rho _i(1\eta _j)+\rho _j(1\eta _i)],`$ (4)
where $`\beta =1/(k_BT)`$ and $`\rho _i=<\eta _i\tau _i>`$ is the average fluid density at site *i*. (The overall fluid density is then $`\rho _f=\left(1/N\right)_i\rho _i`$, where $`N=2L^3`$ is the total number of sites.) For a given chemical potential $`\mu `$, minimization of $`\mathrm{\Omega }(\{\rho _i\})=F(\{\rho _i\})\mu _i\rho _i`$ w. r. t. the $`\rho _i`$’s provides the grand potential $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ of the adsorbed fluid. The corresponding equations for the fluid density on each site are

$$\rho _i=\frac{\eta _i}{1+\mathrm{exp}\left[\beta \left[\mu +_{j/i}\left(w_{ff}\rho _j+w_{mf}\left(1\eta _j\right)\right)\right]\right]},$$
(5)
where the sum is over all n.n. of site *i*. The above set of nonlinear coupled equations has been solved by means of a simple iteration algorithm according to two different protocols: (1) to mimic the experimental procedure, we follow continuously the solutions under small variations of the chemical potential $`\mu `$ (typically, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mu =10^3`$) and (2) to search more exhaustively the solutions of Eq. (3) for a given $`\mu `$, we repeat the iteration procedure with a large number of initial conditions (typically, $`10^2`$) corresponding to uniform fillings of the lattice at different overall fluid densities (i.e., $`\rho _i^{(0)}=\rho ^{(0)}`$).

We show in Fig. 1 typical isotherms obtained by increasing continuously $`\mu `$ from $`\mathrm{}`$ (adsorption branch) and decreasing continuously $`\mu `$ from $`+\mathrm{}`$ (desorption branch). They look qualitatively similar to the experimental isotherms of fluids adsorbed in porous glasses and silica gels, with an asymmetric hysteresis loop (corresponding to the H2 shape in the IUPAC classification) characterized by a steep desortion branch

and a smoothly increasing adsorption branch. The so-called “hysteresis phase diagrams” that are constructed from the points at which the loop opens and closes are shifted to lower $`T`$ and higher $`\rho _f`$ compared to the bulk-fluid coexistence curve, and their (asymmetric) shape is also quite comparable to what is obtained from experimental data.

An important test for the relevance of any model of capillary condensation in disordered porous materials is the shape of the so-called “scanning curves”, i. e., curves that are obtained by reversing the sign of the evolution of $`\mu `$ at different points along the adsorption or the desorption branches. It has been stressed that these curves are not properly reproduced by the widely used independent-pore model. An illustration of the scanning curves on adsorption and desorption obtained within the present theory is shown in Fig. 2. They look strikingly similar to those observed experimentally, with an upward curvature on adsorption and a downward curvature on desorption. When varying the chemical potential up and down along different paths we find a hierarchy of inner scanning curves that display the “return-point memory” effect, in close analogy to the hysteretic behavior displayed by a variety of systems.

The above results confirm that the present approach reproduces qualitatively the phenomenology associated with capillary condensation in porous glasses and silica gels. This indicates that, despite its simplicity, the model does capture the main physical features of fluids adsorbed in real mesoporous systems and that equilibration via thermally activated processes, processes that are absent in the mean-field description, does not substantially modify the picture. Indeed, the implicit assumption behind

the direct comparison of the theoretical sorption curves with the experimental ones is that the system does not have time to equilibrate at constant $`T`$ and $`\mu `$ and that adsorption/desorption only proceeds under the influence of chemical-potential changes. (This assumption may break down when the perturbation induced by the matrix is small as in very dilute aerogels.)

Hysteresis and scanning curves are manifestations of out-of-equilibrium behavior. This is well understood for instance in systems like athermal martensites and low-$`T`$ ferromagnetic materials whose transformations are driven by an external field; these systems are well described by the $`T=0`$ limit of models with quenched disorder (models somewhat related to the lattice-gas studied here). On the other hand, in the case of capillary condensation one often assumes that hysteresis is also the signature of a true equilibrium phase transition with two possible metastable states, gas and liquid, as in the standard van der Waals loop for bulk fluids and fluids confined in a single pore. However, this simple van der Waals picture fails for the present system because this latter has (in the region where capillary condensation occurs) a complex free-energy landscape with a large number of metastable states, as can be seen from studying the solutions of the local mean-field equations, Eq. (3). For each $`T,\mu `$ and each matrix realization, we have investigated $`50`$ to $`100`$ different initial conditions to Eq. (3). When plotted as in Fig. 3 on the $`\rho _f\mu `$ diagram (for a typical matrix configuration of the $`L=48`$ system), all solutions fall inside the major hysteresis loop that is found to coincide with the curves of extremal solutions obtained from an initially empty lattice (lower branch) and an initially filled lattice (upper branch). We suspect that this picture corresponds to the situation encountered in real disordered porous materials (a similar behavior

has been observed for other disordered microstructures).

The most significant finding of our study is that hysteresis associated with capillary condensation in disordered porous media occurs with as well as without an underlying equilibrium phase transition, the existence of this latter depending on the strength of the perturbation induced by the matrix. We have computed the equilibrium properties of the model by means of the weighted mean-field approach: at each $`\mu `$ and $`T`$, densities of extensive quantities such as the fluid density $`\rho _f`$ are calculated as Boltzmann weighted sums over the different solutions of the mean-field equations (i.e., each solution $`\alpha `$ is weighted by $`e^{\beta \mathrm{\Omega }^\alpha }/_\alpha e^{\beta \mathrm{\Omega }^\alpha }`$). The average over the various matrix realizations is taken afterwards. For a large matrix-fluid interaction, e.g., for $`y=1.5`$, there is no equilibrium phase transition: this is illustrated in Fig. 3a where the equilibrium isotherm at $`T=0.8`$ is perfectly smooth (it stays so at lower temperatures). On the other hand, for $`y=0.5`$, the system undergoes a true thermodynamic transition at low $`T`$ as it becomes isomorphic to the site-diluted Ising model ($`\rho _m=0.25`$ is above the percolation threshold). For the intermediate value $`y=1`$, equilibrium isotherms may display steep portions, as illustrated in Fig. 3b for $`T=1`$ (however, a finite-size scaling analysis of the results for $`L=8,12`$ and $`16`$ seems to indicate that this isotherm is still supercritical). The capillary critical point certainly occurs at a $`T`$ significantly below the temperature $`T_{hyst}`$ at which hysteresis first appears. This result is at odds with the behavior predicted for a fluid confined in a single pore and is a consequence of the quenched disorder; on the other hand, the fact that true capillary criticality may still occur in disordered porous media is at odds with the prediction based on the independent-pore model and results from the connectivity of the void space accessible to the adsorbed fluid.

The breakdown of the simple van der Waals picture of metastability in the present problem shows up distinctly when considering thermodynamic consistency along the sorption isotherms. Since the theory provides both the grand potential and the fluid density, one can study the validity of the Gibbs adsorption equation, $`\left(\mathrm{\Omega }/\mu \right)_T=N\rho _f`$, along particular isotherms. As shown in Fig. 4 a,b, the equation is not satisfied, neither along the adsorption isotherm nor along the desorption one. This results from the fact that the system often jumps from a given grand potential minimum to another along these two isotherms and then looses thermodynamic consistency. An important consequence is that the thermodynamic integration procedure used for building equilibrium phase diagrams is no longer valid for this model. For instance, in the case $`y=1.5`$, this latter procedure predicts a capillary phase diagram whereas, as already discussed, no equilibrium phase transition takes place. We believe this may also be true more generally for other models of fluids in disordered porous materials. Note that the Gibbs adsorption equation is obeyed along the equilibrium isotherm, as illustrated in Fig. 4c. (Interestingly, in the cases studied here, the isotherm calculated from the weighted mean-field approach is virtually indistinguishable from that obtained by taking at each $`\mu `$ the solution with the lowest grand potential.)

As a final remark, we mention that the mean-field density functional theory also predicts the occurrence of out-of-equilibrium phase transitions. Similarly to the macroscopic avalanches observed in low-$`T`$ ferromagnetic materials, the adsorption and desorption branches of the major hysteresis loop may display sharp jumps. This is illustrated in Fig. 1 where one can see that the desorption isotherm has a discontinuity at the lowest temperature shown. Due to the asymmetry of the random chemical potentials exerted by the matrix on the fluid, the jump always occurs at a higher $`T`$ in the desorption branch than in the adsorption branch. Whether or not this out-of-equilibrium transition, with its associated critical behavior, can be observed in capillary condensation of fluids in real mesoporous materials depends on the efficiency of the thermally activated processes.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

In recent years there has been a resurgence of interest in theories with extra dimensions, which are in one way or another more accesible than dimensions compactified at the Planck scale. Working with dimensions larger than the Planck length allows us to study higher-dimensional physics in a “bottom-up” approach, within a sensible effective field theory. The new space in extra dimensions has opened up a number of novel approaches to old questions in beyond the standard model physics. Theories where the SM fields are stuck to a 3-brane while gravity is free to propagate in extra dimensions have been used to address the hierarchy problem , allowing us to lower the fundamental scale of gravity, and the ultimate cut-off on effective field theory, to TeV energies. This also opens up the possibility that the SM fields can propagate in extra dimensions of a size near the TeV scale . Since the higher-dimensional gauge theory becomes strongly coupled in the UV, it must be embedded in a sensible UV completion not far above a TeV, and this is possible if the fundamental scale is itself in this region.

Many interesting model-building possiblities involve non-gravitational fields propagating in the extra dimensions. For instance, sources for massive bulk fields can “shine” an exponentially falling profile for them in the bulk , which can be used to explain small Fermion masses. Another possibility is that different SM Fermions can be localized to different points in the extra dimensions ; their small overlapping wavefunctions could also lead to a mass hierarchy, or proton stability. Electroweak symmetry breaking can be triggered by the SM gauge interactions getting strong in extra dimensions , and a number of interesting models for SUSY breaking put the SM fields in the bulk .

Many of these mechanisms are generic to the existence of extra dimensions and have nothing to do with their size per-se: they could in principle work just as well with extra dimensions near the GUT scale as near the TeV scale. However, if these extra dimensions are to be far above the TeV scale, some physics other than a low fundamental cut-off must be used to stabilize the electroweak scale. Supersymmetry is a natural candidate to do this. Then, in order to be able to work with extra dimensions, we need to know the rules for building supersymmetric theories in higher dimensions. Furthermore, since many of the models use fields localized on 3-branes in the extra dimensions,(for instance on D-branes or at orbifold fixed points), it is also of interest to be able to couple bulk fields to localized fields in a way preserving at least $`𝒩=1`$ SUSY in 4D.

It is therefore desirable to have systematic rules for writing down supersymmetric Lagrangians in higher dimensions, allowing supersymmetric couplings to fields localized on 3-branes. The main work along these lines we are aware of is the pioneering paper of Peskin and Miraberlli , which showed how to couple 5D vector and hyper-multiplets to boundaries in a supersymmetric way, using an off-shell component formalism. However, the formalism is not familiar to 4D SUSY model-builders, and the extension of the formalism to higher dimensions is not obvious.

In this paper, we will present a formalism for explicilty constructing higher-dimensional SUSY theories in a simple way, within the familiar $`𝒩=1,𝒟=4`$ superspace. The simple observation is that, whatever the higher-dimensional theories are, they certainly contain the ordinary 4D SUSY, and therefore they must have an ordinary 4D superspace description. The superfield content of the 4D theory is easy to guess, simply by knowing the total number of SUSY generators in the full theory. For instance in 5D, the smallest spinor is a Dirac spinor with 8 real components, which means there are a minimum of 8 supercharges, or $`𝒩=2`$ in 4D. From the 4D viewpoint, we have either hypermultiplets or vector multiplets. Consider hypermultiplets for simplicity. In $`𝒩=1`$ language, they break into two chiral multiplets $`H,H^c`$. Furthermore, we have one of these superfields for each point $`x_5`$ in the 5’th dimension. So, our field content consist of superfields $`H(x_5),H^c(x_5)`$. From the 4D point of view $`x_5`$ can simply be thought of as a label. Now, our task is to write down a superspace action for these fields that, once all auxilliary fields have been integrated out, reduces to the correct component action for the 5D theory. This is very easy to do, as the possible terms are heavily constrained by various symmetries. For this particular example this was done in , and will be reviewed in the next section. We will carry this procedure out for all globally supersymmetric theories from $`𝒟=5`$ to 10 dimensions in this paper. But in any case, once we have the action for the bulk theory written in 4D superspace, it is trivial to couple bulk fields to fields localized on 3-branes, in a way preserving $`𝒩=1`$ SUSY. We simply add additional 4D superspace interactions localized at particular locations in the transverse dimensions.

We will begin by describing SUSY gauge theories in $`5,6`$ dimensions, where the field content is the same as $`𝒩=2`$ in 4D. We then move on to the cases $`𝒟=7`$ to 10, where the field content is that of $`𝒩=4`$ in 4D. For the gauge multiplets, we first discuss the Abelian theory before giving the non-Abelian generalizations. We then discuss a number of applications in the remainder of the paper.

After this work was posted to hep-th, we were informed by A. Sagnotti and W. Siegel that a superfield formulation of $`𝒟=10`$ SYM was given in . The formulation there is essentially identical to the one we present for this case. The action given in  has an extra Wess-Zumino-Witten type term required to make it fully gauge invariant–this term was missed in the first version of our paper. However, the new term vanishes in Wess-Zumino gauge, and so our previous results are unmodified in WZ gauge.  did not discuss the construction of minimally supersymmetric models in $`𝒟=5,6`$, nor the applications of the formalism to brane-bulk couplings and model-building.

## 2 $`𝒟=5,6`$

In $`𝒟=5`$ the smallest spinor is a 4 component Dirac spinor with 8 real degrees of freedom. In $`𝒟=6`$ the smallest spinor is a 4 component Weyl spinor with 8 real degrees of freedom. Therefore, for $`𝒟=5,6`$ the most simple supersymmetric theories, those with one copy of the supersymmetry generators ($`𝒩=1`$), will have the same field content as a $`𝒟=4`$ $`𝒩=2`$ theory when dimensionally reduced.

### 2.1 Free Hypermultiplets

The superfield formulation of the $`𝒟=5`$ hypermultiplet has been described in . In $`𝒩=1,𝒟=4`$ superspace, the 5D hypermultiplet consists of a collection of 4D chiral superfields $`H(x_5),H^c(x_5)`$ labeled by the 5’th co-ordinate $`x_5`$. Its free action is given by

$`S_5^{\text{Hyp.}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^5x\left\{d^4\theta \left(\overline{H}^cH^c+\overline{H}H\right)+\left(d^2\theta H^c\left(_5+m\right)H+\text{h.c.}\right)\right\}}`$ (1)
Expanding in components and integrating out the auxilliary $`F`$ components, the action (1) describes an $`𝒩=1`$ $`𝒟=5`$ supersymmetric theory containing two complex scalar and one Dirac fermion $`\mathrm{\Psi }_5^T=(\psi ,\overline{\psi ^c})`$ composed of the 2 component fermions $`\psi `$ and $`\overline{\psi ^c}`$:

$$\begin{array}{c}S_5^{\text{Hyp.}}=_MH^{}^MH_MH_{}^{c}{}_{}{}^{}^MH^ci\overline{\psi }\overline{\sigma }^m_m\psi i\overline{\psi ^c}\overline{\sigma }^m_m\psi ^c\psi ^c_5\psi \overline{\psi ^c}_5\overline{\psi }\hfill \\ \hfill m^2(|H^c|^2+|H|^2)m(\psi ^c\psi +\overline{\psi ^c}\overline{\psi })\\ \hfill =_MH^{}^MH_MH_{}^{c}{}_{}{}^{}^MH^cm^2(|H^c|^2+|H|^2)+\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_5(i\gamma ^M_Mm)\mathrm{\Psi }_5\end{array}$$
(2)
Here and throughout the paper, the capitalized indices run over $`0,1,2,3,5`$ while the lower-case ones run over $`0,1,2,3`$

In $`𝒟=6`$ there are only Weyl and Dirac fermions, so the smallest multiplet contains a left or right Weyl fermion. The action for massless hypermultiplets is.

$`S_6^{\text{L. Hyp.}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^6x\left\{d^4\theta \left(\overline{H}_L^cH_L^c+\overline{H}_LH_L\right)+\left(d^2\theta H_L^cH_L+\text{h.c.}\right)\right\}}`$
$`S_6^{\text{R. Hyp.}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^6x\left\{d^4\theta \left(\overline{H}_R^cH_R^c+\overline{H}_RH_R\right)+\left(d^2\theta H_R^c\overline{}H_R+\text{h.c.}\right)\right\}}`$ (3)
with

$`\begin{array}{cc}z=\frac{1}{2}(x_5+ix_6)\hfill & \overline{z}=\frac{1}{2}(x_5ix_6)\hfill \\ & \\ =\frac{}{z}=_5i_6\hfill & \overline{}=\frac{}{\overline{z}}=_5+i_6\hfill \end{array}`$ (7)
Note that the rotational invariance of the transverse 2 dimensional space is realized as $`ze^{i\theta }z,H_L^{(c)}e^{i\theta /2}H_L^{(c)},H_R^{(c)}e^{i\theta /2}H_R^{(c)}`$. Therefore, unlike the 5D case, we can not make a massive hypermultiplet out of just e.g. $`H_L,H_L^c`$. Instead we must combine a copy of each of the massless hypermultiplets.

$`S_6^{\text{Hyp. Massive}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }d^6x\{{\displaystyle }d^4\theta (\overline{H}_L^cH_L^c+\overline{H}_LH_L+\overline{H}_R^cH_R^c+\overline{H}_RH_R)`$ (13)
$`+({\displaystyle }d^2\theta \left(\begin{array}{cc}H_R^c& H_L^c\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}m& \overline{}\\ & m\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}H_L\\ H_R\end{array}\right)+\text{h.c.})\}`$
The Dirac spinor is now

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_6^{\text{Dirac}}=\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Psi }_6^{\text{Left Weyl}}\\ \mathrm{\Psi }_6^{\text{RightWeyl}}\end{array}\right).`$ (16)
Note that the superpotential term is just the Dirac operator in the transverse 2D space.

### 2.2 Abelian Gauge Theory

The first step in formulating the higher dimensional theories in terms of ordinary $`𝒟=4`$, $`𝒩=1`$ superspace is to identify the correct superfields for the theory. The $`𝒟=5`$ super Yang-Mills theory will have a 5-vector gauge field, a 4 component Dirac gaugino, and a scalar. When dimensionally reduced down to $`𝒟=4`$, the gauge field becomes a 4-vector and a scalar, the gaugino splits into two Majorana gauginos, and the scalar is unaffected. So we must have a vector multiplet and chiral multiplet. This is also obvious since there are 8 real supercharges in 5D, which translates to $`𝒩=2`$ SUSY in 4D, with the $`𝒩=2`$ vector multiplet composed on an $`𝒩=1`$ vector and chiral multiplet.

The correct identification of the fields inside the vector field $`V(x_5)`$ and chiral field $`\varphi (x_5)`$ is (with $`V`$ in the Wess-Zumino gauge, and $`\varphi `$ in the $`y`$-basis)

$`V`$ $`=`$ $`\theta \sigma ^m\overline{\theta }A_m+i\overline{\theta }^2\theta \lambda _1i\theta ^2\overline{\theta }\overline{\lambda }_1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\overline{\theta }^2\theta ^2D`$ (17)
$`\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }+iA_5\right)+\sqrt{2}\theta \lambda _2+\theta ^2F`$
In the above and for the rest of the paper, the dependence of the 4D superfields on the extra co-ordinates is implicit. We also demand full $`𝒟=5`$ gauge invariance of the theory. The gauge transformations of these 2 superfields are:

$`V`$ $`V+\mathrm{\Lambda }+\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ (18)
$`\varphi `$ $`\varphi +\sqrt{2}_5\mathrm{\Lambda }`$
The subset of these transformations that preserve the Wess-Zumino gauge, correspond exactly to the ordinary $`𝒟=5`$ gauge transformations.

It is easy to find a gauge invariant action

$$S_5^\text{A}=d^5x\left[\frac{1}{4g^2}d^2\theta W^\alpha W_\alpha +\text{h.c.}+d^4\theta \frac{1}{g^2}(_5V\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\varphi +\overline{\varphi }))^2\right]$$
(19)
The first term is familiar and obviously gauge invariant; the second term is also clearly invariant under gauge tranformations with the variation of $`_5V`$ being canceled by that of $`\varphi +\overline{\varphi }`$.

While the $`𝒩=1`$ SUSY is manifest in this Lagrangian, the full SUSY and higher-dimensional Lorentz invariance is not. To see this, we expand the Lagrangian in components in Wess-Zumino gauge. Keeping only the Bosonic fields the Lagrangian becomes

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4g^2}}F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2g^2}}D^2`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2g^2}}_5A_\mu _5A^\mu +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{g^2}}_5A_\mu ^\mu A_5{\displaystyle \frac{1}{g^2}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_5D`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2g^2}}(_\mu \mathrm{\Sigma }^\mu \mathrm{\Sigma }+_\mu A_5^\mu A_5).`$ (20)
We can integrate out the auxiliary field $`D`$ by setting it to its equation of motion, which is

$$D=_5\mathrm{\Sigma }$$
(21)
The Lagrangian then naturally arranges itself into the form

$$\frac{1}{4g^2}F_{MN}F^{MN}\frac{1}{2g^2}_M\mathrm{\Sigma }^M\mathrm{\Sigma }$$
(22)
which is precisely the bosonic part of the 5D vector multiplet composed of the vector field $`A_M`$ and the real scalar $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. The full Lagrangian including the fermions clearly also works out correctly.

This superspace form of the 5D Lagrangian is very simple but does not straightforwardly generalize to higher dimensions, because $`\varphi ,\overline{\varphi }`$ will transform oppositely under rotations in the transverse space. We can however re-write the action as

$$S_5^\text{A}=d^5x\left[\frac{1}{4g^2}d^2\theta W^\alpha W_\alpha +\text{h.c.}+d^4\theta \frac{1}{g^2}\left((\sqrt{2}_5V\overline{\varphi })(\sqrt{2}_5V\varphi )_5V_5V\right)\right]$$
(23)
The gauge invariance of the second and third terms are not as manifest in this form, but it is easy to check. Under a gauge transformation,

$`{\displaystyle d^4\theta (\sqrt{2}_5V\overline{\varphi })(\sqrt{2}_5V\varphi )}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle d^4\theta (\sqrt{2}_5V\overline{\varphi }+\sqrt{2}_5\mathrm{\Lambda })(\sqrt{2}_5V\varphi +\sqrt{2}_5\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }})}`$
$`={\displaystyle d^4\theta (\sqrt{2}_5V\overline{\varphi })(\sqrt{2}_5V\varphi )}`$ $`+`$ $`{\displaystyle d^4\theta \left[2_5V_5(\mathrm{\Lambda }+\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }})+2_5\mathrm{\Lambda }_5\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\right]}`$ (24)
where we have used the fact that purely chiral or anti-chiral terms vanish under the full superspace integration. Similarly,

$`{\displaystyle d^4\theta (_5V)^2}{\displaystyle d^4\theta (_5V+_5\mathrm{\Lambda }+_5\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }})^2}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^4\theta (_5V)^2}{\displaystyle d^4\theta \left[2_5V_5(\mathrm{\Lambda }+\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }})2_5\mathrm{\Lambda }_5\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\right]}`$ (25)
so that the sum of the last two terms in eqn. (23) is gauge invariant.

The extension to $`𝒟=6`$ is simple. The transverse rotational invariance is useful as a guide to constructing the action. $`z`$ transforms as $`ze^{i\theta }z`$, and we suspect that $`\varphi `$ will combine with $``$ to form a covariant derivative so we define $`\varphi `$ to transform as $`\varphi e^{i\theta }\varphi `$. $`V`$ is neutral. The gauge transformations are

$`V`$ $`V+\mathrm{\Lambda }+\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ (26)
$`\varphi `$ $`\varphi +\sqrt{2}\mathrm{\Lambda }`$
The 6D action is then the obvious extension of the 5D one:

$$S_6^\text{A}=d^6x\left[+\frac{1}{4g^2}d^2\theta W^\alpha W_\alpha +\text{h.c.}+d^4\theta \frac{1}{g^2}\left((\sqrt{2}\overline{}V\overline{\varphi })(\sqrt{2}V\varphi )V\overline{}V\right)\right]$$
(28)
In this case the lowest component of the superfield $`\varphi `$ is

$`\varphi |_{\theta =\overline{\theta }=0}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}A={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(A_6+iA_5\right).`$ (29)
This expression reproduces the $`𝒟=5`$ super Yang-Mills action when all dependence on $`x_6`$ is eliminated and identifying $`A_6`$ as the scalar, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, of the $`𝒟=5`$ super Yang-Mills theory. The auxiliary field $`D`$ is now proportional to $`F_{56}`$:

$`D={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\overline{A}+\overline{}A\right)=\left(_5A_6_6A_5\right)=F_{56}`$ (30)
### 2.3 Non-Abelian Theory

We now generalize to the case of a non-Abelian theory. Since $`\varphi `$ contains the components of the higher dimensional gauge field, it must transform in the adjoint. With the definitions:

$`\begin{array}{cc}h=e^\mathrm{\Lambda }& \overline{h}=e^{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}\end{array}`$ (32)
the gauge transforms become

$`\begin{array}{cc}\varphi h^1(\varphi \sqrt{2})h\hfill & e^Vh^1e^V\overline{h}^1\hfill \end{array}`$ (34)
where $`\varphi \varphi ^aT^a`$ and $`VV^aT^a`$.

The natural guess for the non-Abelian action would be to simply insert various factors of $`e^V`$:

$`S_6^{\text{NA}}={\displaystyle }d^6x\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4kg^2}}\text{ Tr}[{\displaystyle }d^2\theta W^\alpha W_\alpha +\text{h.c.}]`$
$`+{\displaystyle }d^4\theta {\displaystyle \frac{1}{kg^2}}\text{ Tr}[(\sqrt{2}\overline{}+\overline{\varphi })e^V(\sqrt{2}+\varphi )e^V+\overline{}e^Ve^V]\}`$ (35)
where Tr$`T^aT^b=k\delta ^{ab}`$. This action reproduces the $`𝒟=6`$ non-Abelian super Yang-Mills theory in Wess-Zumino gauge. However, this action is not fully gauge invariant under the gauge transformation. As pointed out in , we need to add one more term to make it perfectly gauge invariant:

$$d^6xd^4\theta \frac{1}{kg^2}\text{ Tr}\left[\overline{}V\frac{\mathrm{sinh}L_VL_V}{L_V^2}V\right]$$
(36)
This has the structure of a WZW term. We refer to  for details on the variation of this term. Here we note that the term is absent in $`𝒟=5`$ and in all cases, vanishes in Wess-Zumino gauge. Therefore, one can use (35), together with any desired couplings to brane fields, and obtain the correct Lagrangian in Wess-Zumino gauge. To find the $`𝒟=5`$ non-Abelian theory, one removes the $`x_6`$ dependence. This action also reproduces the appropriate Abelian theories when all fields commute.

The auxiliary field, $`D`$, in $`𝒟=6`$ again becomes the higher dimensional field strength, only this time it is the non-Abelian field strength $`F_{56}`$:

$`D={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\overline{}A+\overline{A}+[A,\overline{A}]\right)=F_{56}.`$ (37)
We can dimensionally reduce this to $`𝒟=5`$ to get

$`D=\left(_5\mathrm{\Sigma }+i[\mathrm{\Sigma },A_5]\right)=D_5\mathrm{\Sigma },`$ (38)
with $`D_5`$ being $`x_5`$ component of the covariant derivative.

### 2.4 Coupling to Hypermultiplets

It is easy to extend our action for free hypermultiplets to the case where they are charged under a gauge symmetry. With the hypermultiplets belonging to a representation $`R`$ of the gauge group $`G`$, we have the gauge transformations:

$`H`$ $``$ $`hH`$
$`H^c`$ $``$ $`h^c{}_{}{}^{1}H_{}^{c},`$ (39)
with $`h=e^{\mathrm{\Lambda }^aT_R^a}`$ and $`h^c=(h^1)^T=(e^{\mathrm{\Lambda }^aT_R^a})^T`$. The generalization of our previous hypermultiplet action is trivial; we simply replace the ordinary $`_5`$ derivatives with the covariant derivative $`_5\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\varphi `$:

$`S_5^{\text{Hyp. Gauge}}={\displaystyle }d^5x\{{\displaystyle }d^4\theta [H^ce^V\overline{H}^c+\overline{H}e^VH]`$
$`+[{\displaystyle }d^2\theta (H^c(m+(_5{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\varphi ))H)+\text{ h.c.}]\}`$ (40)
(of course here $`V=V^aT_R^a,\varphi =\varphi ^aT_R^a`$).

In $`𝒟=6`$ we must choose our gaugino to be either a left or right handed Weyl field. To make a covariant derivative we must combine the left-handed $`\varphi `$ with $``$ and the right-handed field with $`\overline{}`$. Therefore, hypermultiplets of a given handedness can not couple to gauge fields of opposite handedness. The action for a $`𝒟=6`$ hypermultiplet coupled to a gauge field of the same handedness is

$`S_6^{\text{Hyp. Gauge}}={\displaystyle }d^6x\{{\displaystyle }d^4\theta [H^ce^V\overline{H}^c+\overline{H}e^VH]`$
$`+[{\displaystyle }d^2\theta \sqrt{2}H^c({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\varphi )H+\text{ h.c.}]\}`$ (41)
## 3 $`𝒟=7`$ to $`10`$

Spinors in $`𝒟=7`$ to $`10`$ dimensions have a minimum of 16 real components. This means that there are a minimum of 16 real supercharges and thus all theories in these dimensions must be constructed out of $`𝒩=4`$ multiplet in the 4D language. The $`𝒩=4`$ vector multiplet decomposes under $`𝒩=1`$ as 3 chiral multiplets $`\varphi _i`$ and a vector multiplet $`V`$, so we need to build our superspace Lagrangian out of these fields.

We will only consider the $`𝒟=10`$ theory because it is easy to dimensionally reduce to $`𝒟=7\text{ to }9`$. It will be convenient to use complex coordinates,$`z^i`$, for the transverse space with

$`\begin{array}{ccc}z^1=\frac{1}{2}(x_5+ix_6)\hfill & z^2=\frac{1}{2}(x_7+ix_8)\hfill & z^3=\frac{1}{2}(x_9+ix_{10})\hfill \end{array}.`$ (43)
The transverse rotational invariance is the $`SO(6)`$ rotating the $`x_5,\mathrm{},x_{10}`$ into each other. The $`SU(3)`$ subgroup rotating the $`z_i`$ will be useful in constructing invariant actions. We will use the convention that $`\overline{z}_i=(z^i)^{}`$, and that $`\overline{\varphi }^i=(\varphi _i)^{}`$.

Again we will find that the higher dimensional components of the gauge field will be the lowest components of $`\varphi _i`$:

$`\varphi _j|_{\theta =\overline{\theta }=0}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}A_j={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(A_{4+2j}+iA_{3+2j})`$ (44)
$`j`$ $``$ $`\{1,2,3\}`$
This choice of the embedding was to make the dimensional reduction from $`𝒟=10`$ most transparent.

### 3.1 Abelian Theory

The appropriate gauge transformation for this theory are

$`V`$ $``$ $`V+(\mathrm{\Lambda }+\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }})`$
$`\varphi _i`$ $``$ $`\varphi _i+\sqrt{2}_i\mathrm{\Lambda }.`$
The Kähler potential of the theory is the natural generalization of the $`𝒟=5,6`$ theory. However, this will not reproduce the correct theory. We need to introduce a superpotential that will complete the gauge potential kinetic term. This is also obvious since, if we reduce the theory to 6D eliminating the dependence on $`x_7,\mathrm{},x_{10}`$, $`\varphi _2,\varphi _3`$ form a hypermultiplet in 6D, and as we have seen the hyper-multiplet kinetic term is completed by a superpotential term. In any case, the $`SU(3)`$ symmetry and the known result when reduced to $`D=6`$ specifies everything, and we have for the action

$`S_{10}^\text{A}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }d^{10}x\{{\displaystyle }d^2\theta ({\displaystyle \frac{1}{4g^2}}W^\alpha W_\alpha +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2g^2}}ϵ^{ijk}\varphi _i_j\varphi _k)+\text{h.c.}`$ (45)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle }d^4\theta {\displaystyle \frac{1}{g^2}}[(\sqrt{2}_iV\varphi _i)(\sqrt{2}\overline{}^iV\overline{\varphi }^i)_iV\overline{}^iV]\}`$
Note that the gauge variation of the superpotential vanishes via integration by parts and the antisymmetry of $`ϵ^{ijk}`$. The auxiliary fields $`F_i,D`$ are given by

$`D`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(_i\overline{A^i}+\overline{}^iA_i)`$
$`F_{}^{i}{}_{}{}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}ϵ^{ijk}_jA_k.`$ (46)
### 3.2 Non-Abelian Theory

The non-Abelian action is the natural generalization of the Abelian one. The superpotential must be modified to make it gauge invariant, which is accomplished by replacing the $`_j\varphi _k`$ with $`_j\varphi _k[\varphi _j,\varphi _k]/3\sqrt{2}`$. The gauge transformations are

$`\begin{array}{cc}\varphi _ih^1(\varphi _i\sqrt{2}_i)h\hfill & e^Vh^1e^V\overline{h}^1\hfill \end{array}`$ (48)
$`S_{10}^{\text{NA}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }d^{10}x\{{\displaystyle }d^2\theta \text{ Tr}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{4kg^2}}W^\alpha W_\alpha +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2kg^2}}ϵ^{ijk}\varphi _i(_j\varphi _k{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3\sqrt{2}}}[\varphi _j,\varphi _k]))`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle }d^4\theta {\displaystyle \frac{1}{kg^2}}\text{ Tr}((\sqrt{2}\overline{}^i+\overline{\varphi }^i)e^V(\sqrt{2}_i+\varphi _i)e^V+\overline{}^ie^V_ie^V)\}`$
$`+`$ WZW term
Once again, the last term vanishes in W-Z gauge. Note that the superpotential has the structure of a Chern-Simons term. Under a gauge transformation, the superpotential transforms as

$`\text{Tr}ϵ^{ijk}\varphi _i(_j\varphi _k+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}[\varphi _j,\varphi _k])`$ $``$ $`\text{Tr}ϵ^{ijk}\varphi _i(_j\varphi _k+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}[\varphi _j,\varphi _k])`$ (50)
$``$ $`2\sqrt{2}\text{Tr}\left[ϵ^{ijk}(_ih)h^1(_jh)h^1(_kh)h^1\right]`$
The last term is a total derivative and is the Pontryagin density. For the transformations that preserve WZ gauge, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mathrm{exp}(i\theta \sigma ^m\overline{\theta }_m)a(x)`$ with no higher components, the Pontryagin term vanishes identically under the superspace integration.

Finally some brief comments on the $`R`$ symmetry of these theories. In $`𝒟=10`$, the transverse rotational symmetry is $`SO(6)`$ which is homomorphic to $`SU(4)`$. This SU(4) symmetry is the R symmetry of the $`𝒟=4`$ $`𝒩=4`$ theory. The superpotential and Kähler terms we have written have only an explicit SU(3) symmetry. This SU(3) is a subgroup of the $`SU(4)_R`$, keeping $`𝒩=1`$ SUSY manifest. By writing our theory in terms of $`𝒩=1`$ superfields, we choose a special supersymmetry generator and break the manifest $`SU(4)`$ R symmetry. We maintain an $`SU(3)`$ subgroup which transforms the three supersymmetry generators that are orthogonal to our $`𝒩=1`$ SUSY generator.

## 4 Some applications

### 4.1 Coupling to sources

In , the “shining” of bulk massive fields by sources localized on branes was considered as a mechanism for producing small parameters on the brane. This is a consequence of the exponentially small profile for the massive field in the bulk, which is given by the massive Yukawa propagator. It is natural to try and extend this mechanism to supersymmetric theories. This was done in  for the case of 5D theories, as we review below. A source was added to a massive bulk hypermultiplet of the form

$`{\displaystyle d^2\theta 𝑑x_5\delta (x_5)JH^c}`$ (51)
The F-flatness conditions become:

$`F^{}`$ $`=`$ $`(m_5)H^c=0`$ (52)
$`F_{}^{c}{}_{}{}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`J\delta (x_5)+(m+_5)H=0`$
These equations have solution $`H^c=0`$ and:

$`H=\theta (x_5)Je^{my}`$ (53)
in infinite space and

$`H={\displaystyle \frac{Je^{my}}{1e^{2\pi mR}}}`$ (54)
on a circle of radius $`R`$.

We can do a similar thing for the free hypermultiplets in 6D . We add:

$`{\displaystyle d^6xd^2\theta \delta (x_5)\delta (x_6)JH_L^c}`$ (55)
The F flatness conditions are:

$`F_L^{}`$ $`=`$ $`H_L^c+mH_R^c=0`$ (56)
$`F_{L}^{c}{}_{}{}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`H_L+mH_RJ\delta (z\overline{z})=0`$ (57)
$`F_{R}^{c}{}_{}{}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{}H_R+mH_L=0`$ (58)
$`F_{R}^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{}H_R^c+mH_L^c=0`$ (59)
Consider first the massless case $`m=0`$ and $`H_R^c=H_L^c=H_R=0`$; then we have

$`H_L=J\delta (z\overline{z})`$
which has solution:

$`H_L=J{\displaystyle \frac{\theta (z\overline{z})}{\overline{z}}}=J{\displaystyle \frac{\theta (x_5^2+x_6^2)}{x_5ix_6}}=J{\displaystyle \frac{e^{i\varphi }}{r}}\theta (r^2)`$ (60)
in infinite space. In order to find the solution on a compact space, say a torus, we could use the method of images.

In the massive case, we take $`H_{L,R}^c=0`$ and combine equations (57) and (58) to get:

$`\overline{}H_Rm^2H_R`$ $`=`$ $`mJ\delta ^2(z\overline{z})`$ (61)
$`H_L`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m}}\overline{}H_R`$
The first equation, is just the Klein-Gordon equation in 2D, so the solution is the Yukawa potential in 2D. For large $`mr`$, we have

$`H_RJme^{mr},H_L=Jme^{mr}e^{i\varphi }`$ (62)
It is interesting that $`H_L`$ acquires a “vortex” profile in the transverse two dimensions. Even if all the parameters in the Lagrangian are real, this vortex profile breaks CP. If the Standard Model Yukawa couplings arise through shining via branes that do not all fall on a straight line, the phase in $`H_L`$ can be used to introduce CP violation into the SM in an amusing way.

### 4.2 Charged matter on Branes

Using our formalism, it is very easy to couple bulk gauge fields to charged matter on boundaries. We simply add the following term to the appropriate higher-dimensional action:

$`{\displaystyle d^4xd^4\theta \overline{X}e^V}|_{z=0}X`$ (63)
where $`X`$ is a 4 dimensional chiral superfield living on a brane and $`z`$ represents the extra dimensions. For example, in 5D Abelian case, the action would be:

$$\begin{array}{c}\text{5D free action}+\text{4D free action}\hfill \\ \hfill +\frac{1}{g^2}d^4x[A^n[\frac{1}{2}\overline{\lambda _X}\overline{\sigma }^n\lambda _X\frac{i}{2}\overline{A_X}_nA_X]+i\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(A_X\overline{\lambda _X}\overline{\lambda _1}+h.c)\\ \hfill \frac{1}{4}A_nA^n\overline{A_X}A_X\frac{1}{2}D\overline{A_X}A_X]\end{array}$$
(64)
where $`A_X`$ is the scalar component of the $`X`$ multiplet. These are just the usual couplings of a 4D chiral superfield with a 4D vector superfield. But, in our case, the $`D`$ term is different. Let’s examine the D part of the Lagrangian in detail:

$`_D={\displaystyle \frac{1}{g^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}D^2+D_5\mathrm{\Sigma }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\overline{A}_XA_XD\delta (x_5)\right)`$
The first two terms come from the free 5D action part. Upon eliminating $`D`$ we get

$`_D`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2g^2}}\left(_5\mathrm{\Sigma }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\overline{A_X}A_X\delta (x_5)\right)^2`$ (65)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2g^2}}\left((_5\mathrm{\Sigma })^2_5\mathrm{\Sigma }\overline{A_X}A_X\delta (x_5)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(\overline{A_X}A_X)^2\delta (0)\delta (x_5)\right).`$
This result was obtained earlier in , but our derivation makes the ease of the superspace formalism transparent. It is also trivial to extend the result to higher dimensions, for instance in 6D we have

$`_D`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2g^2}}\left(F_{56}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\overline{A_X}A_X\delta (z)\right)^2`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2g^2}}\left(F_{56}^2F_{56}\overline{A}_XA_X\delta ^2(z)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(\overline{A_X}A_X)^2\delta ^2(0)\delta ^2(z)\right)`$
where $`F_{56}=(_5A_6_6A_5)`$. We note that if $`F_{56}(z=0)0`$ then we get SUSY breaking soft scalar masses proportional to the strength of the magnetic field on the brane.

### 4.3 Orbifolds

Our formalism is also useful for constructing field-theoretic orbifolds  preserving $`𝒩=1`$ SUSY in 4D. Such constructions are useful both for obtaining chiral fermions as well as reduced supersymmetry in the low-energy 4D theory.

The simplest canonical example is the $`S_1/Z_2`$ orbifold in the 5D case . Consider as an example a $`U(1)`$ gauge theory in 5D. It is trivial to see that our 5D action is invariant under

$`V(x_\mu ,x_5)`$ $``$ $`V(x_\mu ,x_5)`$ (67)
$`\varphi (x_\mu ,x_5)`$ $``$ $`\varphi (x_\mu ,x_5)`$
To construct the orbifolded model, we only keep states that are invariant under the symmetry, as well as periodic under $`x_5x_5+2L`$. That is we impose

$`V(x_\mu ,x_5)`$ $`=`$ $`V(x_\mu ,x_5)`$ (68)
$`\varphi (x_\mu ,x_5)`$ $`=`$ $`\varphi (x_\mu ,x_5)`$
as well as

$`V(x_\mu ,x_5+2L)`$ $`=`$ $`V(x_\mu ,x_5)`$ (69)
$`\varphi (x_\mu ,x_5+2L)`$ $`=`$ $`\varphi (x_\mu ,x_5)`$
The physical space is then the interval $`[0,L]`$. In order to obtain the low-energy theory, we only need to look at $`x_5`$ independent modes that satisfy the above boundary conditions. Evidently, we get a zero mode from $`V`$ but not from $`\varphi `$, and so the low-energy theory is pure 4D, $`𝒩=1`$ U(1) theory.

In 6D, we can e.g. compactify on $`T^2/Z_3`$, by imposing ($`\omega ^3`$ = 1)

$`V(x_\mu ,z,\overline{z})`$ $`=`$ $`V(x_\mu ,\omega z,\overline{\omega }\overline{z})`$ (70)
$`\varphi (x_\mu ,z,\overline{z})`$ $`=`$ $`\omega \varphi (x_\mu ,\omega z,\overline{\omega }\overline{z})`$
together with the periodicity conditions on the torus. Again, $`\varphi =0`$ at the fixed points of the torus, and this projects out the theory to $`𝒩=1`$ SYM in 4D.

The non-Abelian case offers more interesting possibilities, since we can combine a gauge transformation with the orbifold symmetry. Of course, for chiral theories in even dimensions, we need to worry about anomaly cancellation in the bulk. A simple anomaly-free example in say $`D=6`$ is obtained, however, by imagining that we dimensionally reduce from e.g. seven dimensions where there are no anomalies. The 6D particle content is then a vector multiplet and a hypermultiplet in the adjoint representation. The 6D pure gauge anomaly is proportional to

$$trF_{\text{Adj.}}^4trF_{\text{Hyper}}^4$$
(71)
which clearly vanishes for a simple hyper in the adjoint rep. (The gravitational anomalies can be canceled with the Green-Schwarz mechanism.)

For an amusing example, suppose we start with an $`SU(9)`$ theory in 6D. We will again compactify on $`T^2/Z_3`$, but this time using the orbifold symmetry

$`V(x_\mu ,z,\overline{z})=U^{}V(x_\mu ,\omega z,\overline{\omega }\overline{z})U`$ (72)
$`\varphi _i(x_\mu ,z,\overline{z})=\omega U^{}\varphi _i(x_\mu ,\omega z,\overline{\omega }\overline{z})U`$ (73)
Where $`U`$ is a $`9\times 9`$ matrix written in term of $`3\times 3`$ blocks:

$`U=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 0& 0\\ 0& \omega & 0\\ 0& 0& \omega ^2\end{array}\right)`$ (74)
$`V,\varphi `$ can also be written as a general $`9\times 9`$ matrix:

$`V=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}A& B& C\\ D& E& F\\ G& H& I\end{array}\right),\varphi =\left(\begin{array}{ccc}A^{}& B^{}& C^{}\\ D^{}& E^{}& F^{}\\ G^{}& H^{}& I^{}\end{array}\right)`$ (75)
Now,

$`U^{}VU=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}A& \omega B& \omega ^2C\\ \omega ^2D& E& \omega F\\ \omega G& \omega ^2H& I\end{array}\right),\omega U^{}\varphi U=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\omega A^{}& \omega ^2B^{}& C^{}\\ D^{}& \omega E^{}& \omega ^2F^{}\\ \omega ^2G^{}& H^{}& \omega I^{}\end{array}\right)`$ (76)
We see that for the zero modes of $`V`$, only $`(A,E,I)`$ survive. This means that the low-energy theory is $`𝒩=1`$ with gauge group $`SU(3)^3`$. On the other hand, from the $`\varphi _i`$, $`(C^{},D^{},H^{})`$ survive, which transform under $`SU(3)^3`$ as $`\psi _i(\overline{3},3,1,),(3,1,\overline{3}),(1,\overline{3},3)`$. There is also a superpotential coupling $`\psi _1\psi _2\psi _3`$ which is inherited from the $`H^c\varphi H`$ superpotential term. This model is just the particle content of “trinification”, with 3 generations, and a single large Yukawa coupling.

## 5 Localizing chiral fermions

It is well-known that it is possible to localize chiral Fermions on defects in extra dimensions . The simplest example are Fermions localized to domain walls. Consider a Fermion in 5 dimensions with a spatially varying mass term $`m(x_5)`$ (which could for instance arise from a Yukawa coupling to a scalar field with a “kink” profile in the 5’th dimension). It is easy to see that if $`m(+\mathrm{})>0`$ and $`m(\mathrm{})<0`$, then upon solving for the spectrum of the Dirac operator we find a chiral zero mode with wavefunction peaked around the location where the mass term goes through zero. Of course, if we attempt to compactify the fifth dimension on a circle, then we necessarily have a kink and an anti-kink, and we don’t get a chiral spectrum in the 4D theory. However, we can combine Fermion localization with an orbifold to keep the e.g. the left-handed localized zero mode but project out the right handed one, as in .

In this section we will supersymmetrize these models and address some physical questions that arise. Consider 5D theories. Note that charged hyper-multiplets in the bulk have a superpotential coupling $`H^c\varphi H`$, which is an effective mass term when $`\varphi `$ is non-zero. If we can arrange for $`\varphi `$ to vary and change sign from one side of a brane to another, then we can localize one of $`H,H^c`$ to the brane. It is easy to arrange for this to happen. The simplest example to consider is a 5D theory with a $`U(1)`$ gauge field in the bulk, and a brane located at $`x_5=0`$. We will add a Fayet-Iliopoulos term for the gauge bulk gauge field on the brane. The action is

$$\text{Free 5D action}+d^4xd^4\theta 2\zeta V(x,x_5=0)$$
(77)
The $`D`$ term is now given by

$$D=_5\mathrm{\Sigma }+2\zeta \delta (x_5)$$
(78)
The most general solution to the $`D`$flatness conditions is then

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }(x_5)=\mathrm{\Sigma }_0+\zeta \text{sgn}(x_5)$$
(79)
This is a “kink” for $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. There is moduli space of vacua labeled by $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_0`$. Note that in the range $`|\mathrm{\Sigma }_0|<|\zeta |`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(x_5)`$ changes sign as it goes through the origin, while for $`|\mathrm{\Sigma }_0|>|\zeta |`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(x_5)`$ is non-vanishing and of the same sign everywhere.

Now, let us add a bulk Hypermuliplet with charge $`+1`$ under the $`U(1)`$. Treating the gauge field as a background,the hypermultiplet action becomes

$$𝑑x_5d^4\theta \overline{H}H+\overline{H^c}H^c+d^2\theta H^c(_5\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Sigma }(x_5))H+\text{h.c.}$$
(80)
If we are to have zero modes for $`H`$ or $`H^c`$, their wavefunctions $`\psi (x_5),\psi ^c(x_5)`$ must satisfy

$`(_5{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Sigma }(x_5))\psi `$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (81)
$`(_5+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Sigma }(x_5))\psi ^c`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (82)
The solutions are trivially

$`\psi (x_5)=\psi (0)e^{_0^{x_5}𝑑y\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Sigma }(y)}=\psi (0)e^{\frac{1}{2}(\mathrm{\Sigma }_0+\zeta \text{sgn}(x_5))x_5}`$ (83)
$`\psi ^c(x_5)=\psi ^c(0)e^{_0^{x_5}𝑑y\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Sigma }(y)}=\psi ^c(0)e^{\frac{1}{2}(\mathrm{\Sigma }_0+\zeta \text{sgn}(x_5))x_5}`$ (84)
Clearly for $`|\mathrm{\Sigma }_0|>|\zeta |`$, neither of these solutions is normalizable and there are no localized chiral zero modes. However, for $`|\mathrm{\Sigma }_0|<|\zeta |`$, one (but not the other) of the above two wavefunctions will be normalizable and we localize a chiral fermion to the brane at $`x_5=0`$.

So, in one region of moduli space $`|\mathrm{\Sigma }_0|<|\zeta |`$, we have a chiral zero mode but for $`|\mathrm{\Sigma }_0|>|\zeta |`$ it disappears. How can the net chirality change as we smoothly move around in moduli space? Mathematically, as $`|\mathrm{\Sigma }_0||\zeta |`$, the wavefunction of the chiral zero mode spreads out more and more till at $`|\mathrm{\Sigma }_0|=|\zeta |`$ it it is unnormalizable. Physically, what is going on is also transparent. For $`|\mathrm{\Sigma }_0|<|\zeta |`$, there is a normalizable zero mode, and then ( since the Fermions are massive both for $`x_5>0`$ and $`x_5<0`$) there is mass gap above which we have the full 5D continuum. Therefore the low-energy theory is indeed 4-dimensional, and remains that way as we smoothly vary $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_0`$. However, as $`|\mathrm{\Sigma }_0|`$ approaches $`|\zeta |`$, the bulk Fermion mass on one side of the brane approaches zero till exactly at $`|\mathrm{\Sigma }_0|=\zeta `$, the bulk mass term is zero on one side and the low-energy theory is not 4D. As we continue to $`|\mathrm{\Sigma }_0|>|\zeta |`$, the bulk Fermion become massive in the bulk again. But to an observer on the brane, net chirality has been changed. There is of course no contradiction with the usual statement that net chirality cannot change in 4D, because as we move around in moduli space we go through a region where there is no effective 4D description. This is an elementary analog of the chirality-changing transitions in string theory discussed in . There, chirality changing transitions occured while moving around in moduli space, when the effective 4D field theory description of the physics broke down due to the appearance of tensionless strings.

There are simple variations on the above model. For instance, instead of introducing a FI term on the brane, we could introduce a pair of chiral fields $`X,\overline{X}`$ of charge $`+1,1`$, which can take arbitrary vevs. Normally, this would violate $`D`$ flatness, but in this case we simply have

$$D=_5\mathrm{\Sigma }+(|X|^2|\overline{X}|^2)\delta (x_5)$$
(85)
and so we have have the same $`D`$flat solution for $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ as before with $`\zeta (|X|^2|\overline{X}|^2)`$.

We can also easily discuss compactification and the supersymmetric generalization of the models in . We will consider an $`S_1/Z_2`$ of the model with a $`U(1)`$ gauge field and a hypermultiplet in the bulk. The orbifold symmetry is

$`V(x,x_5)`$ $``$ $`V(x,x_5)`$ (86)
$`\varphi (x,x_5)`$ $``$ $`\varphi (x,x_5)`$ (87)
$`H(x,x_5)`$ $``$ $`H(x,x_5)`$ (88)
$`H^c(x,x_5)`$ $``$ $`H^c(x,x_5)`$ (89)
Furthermore, on the orbifold fixed point at $`x_5=0`$ we will write down a FI term, while on the fixed point at $`x_5=L`$ we will put a pair of chiral fields $`Y,\overline{Y}`$ of charge $`+1,1`$. The $`D`$ flatness condition is now

$$_5\mathrm{\Sigma }+2\zeta \delta (x_5)+(|Y|^2|\overline{Y}|^2)\delta (x_5L)=0$$
(90)
The general solution to this equation is

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }(x_5)=\mathrm{\Sigma }_0+\zeta \text{sgn}(x_5)+\frac{1}{2}(|\chi |^2|\overline{\chi }|^2)\text{sgn}(x_5L).$$
(91)
However, in order to be able to find a solution invariant under the orbifold symmetry we must have

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_0=0,|\chi |^2|\overline{\chi }|^2+2\zeta =0.$$
(92)
So the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ modulus has been projected out, and the second condition is just the usual $`D`$-flatness condition in 4D, (as it had to be from the low-energy point of view).

Now, we can look at what happens to the hypermultiplets in this background. The solutions for the zero mode wavefunctions of $`H,H^c`$ are

$$\psi =Ae^{\frac{\zeta }{2}x_5},\psi ^c=Be^{\frac{\zeta }{2}x_5}$$
(93)
however, by the orbifold symmetry, the zero mode of $`H^c`$ must vanish at the orbifold fixed points, so $`B`$ must vanish and there is therefore no zero mode for $`H^c`$. The zero mode for $`H`$, on the other hand, can be localized at either $`x_5=0`$ or $`x_5=L`$ depending on the sign of $`\zeta `$.

Finally, we can replace the FI term on the fixed point at $`x_5=0`$ by another pair of chiral multiplets $`X,\overline{X}`$ of charge $`\pm 1`$. Then everything goes through the same with $`\zeta (|X|^2|\overline{X}|^2)`$. There is a moduli space of solutions corresponding to the usual $`D`$flat space in 4D. As we move along this moduli space, the chiral fermion wavefunction can shift from being localized around $`x_5=0`$, to having a flat wavefunction, to being localized around $`x_5=L`$.

## 6 Anomalies and super-Chern-Simons Theory

We have shown how to localize chiral fermions in a fifth direction. It is then natural to ask what happens with anomalies in such a theory. In the case of domain-wall fermions, it is well-known that the apparent anomaly due to the localized chiral zero mode is canceled by the variation of a Chern-Simons term in the bulk . We will not repeat the whole story here. The important point is that the variation of the Chern-Simons action on a manifold $`M`$, under a gauge transformation $`\delta A=d\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, is

$$\delta _MAFF=_M𝑑\mathrm{\Lambda }FF=_Md(\mathrm{\Lambda }FF)=_M\mathrm{\Lambda }FF$$
(94)
and the integral over the boundary has precisely the form of a 4D anomaly. As such, it can cacel the 4D anomaly induced by fields living at the boundaries.

What we would like to do here is show how to supersymmetrize the 5D Chern-Simons term in our 4D superspace formalism. Note that the usual Chern-Simons term contains $`A_5F\stackrel{~}{F}`$. It is easy to see that this term must come from the term $`d^2\theta \varphi WW`$. However, note that the gauge coupling of the 5D YM theory can be absorbed by shifting $`\varphi `$. This leads us to guess that 5D SYM + 5D super-Chern-Simons theory is actually on the moduli space of pure 5D super-Chern-Simons. As we will see, this is indeed correct. We will therefore only construct the action for pure super-Chern-Simons theory.

The piece of the action we have so far, $`d^2\theta \varphi WW`$, is clearly not fully gauge invariant, nor fully 5D Lorentz-invariant. It is not difficult to find the correct combination of terms required. The correct action for super-Chern-Simons theory, on an interval between $`x_5=[y_1,y_2]`$, is

$`S^{\text{5D CS}}={\displaystyle d^4x_{y_1}^{y_2}𝑑x_5d^2\theta \varphi WW}+\text{h.c}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}}{3}}{\displaystyle d^4\theta (_5VD_\alpha VW^\alpha VD_\alpha _5VW^\alpha )}+\text{h.c}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}{\displaystyle d^4\theta (\sqrt{2}_5V(\varphi +\overline{\varphi }))^3}`$ (95)
The bosonic part of the component action is:

$`S_{\text{bosonic}}^{\text{5D CS}}={\displaystyle d^4x_{y_1}^{y_2}𝑑x_5}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}}}ϵ^{MNOPQ}A_MF_{NO}F_{PQ}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\mathrm{\Sigma }F^{MN}F_{MN}+\sqrt{2}\mathrm{\Sigma }_M\mathrm{\Sigma }^M\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ (96)
It is easy to verify with this action that under the gauge transformation $`\delta \varphi =_5\mathrm{\Lambda },\delta V=\mathrm{\Lambda }+\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$, the above action has a variation

$$\delta S^{5DCS}=d^4xd^2\theta (\mathrm{\Lambda }WW)(y_2)(\mathrm{\Lambda }WW)(y_1)+\text{h.c}$$
(97)
which is the full supermultiplet of chiral anomalies on the boundaries at $`y_1,y_2`$.

## 7 Conclusions

In this paper we have given the rules for constructing globally supersymmetric Lagrangians from $`𝒟=5`$ to $`𝒟=10`$ dimensions in the familiar $`𝒩=1,𝒟=4`$ superspace. This makes it easy to do explicit supersymmetric model-building in extra dimensions, in particular allowing us to couple bulk fields to fields localized on 3-branes with ease. We illustrated the utility of the formalism with a number of simple examples. It would be interesting to explore some generalizations of these examples in detail. For instance, it would be nice to generalize the supersymmetric localization of chiral fermions to higher dimensions.

There are also a number of possible extensions of the ideas in this paper that we have not touched on. For instance, when we have dynamical branes which fluctuate, with finite tension, there are massless scalar fields living on the branes which are the goldstone bosons of spontaneously broken translational invariance. They non-linearly realize the full translational symmetry of the theory . In the case where the brane preserves some SUSY, these goldstone modes must fall into supermultiplets, and it would be interesting to know how to systematically construct Lagrangians non-linearly realizing the full SUSY. A related possible application of our formalism is the construction of BPS ($`𝒩=1`$ preserving) solitons in the higher-dimensional theory. These would be $`F`$ and $`D`$ flat solutions with non-trivial variation of fields in the extra dimensions. Finally, it would of be desirable to extend our formalism to the case of supergravity. While a full treatment may be difficult, the case of linearized supergravity could be tractable, and would already contain much of the interesting physics.

## 8 Acknowledgements

We would like to thank L. Hall, M. Luty, Y. Nomura, U. Varadarajan and N. Weiner for useful discussions. We also thank A. Sagnotti, W. Siegel, S.Gates and N. Berkovitz for informing us of the early reference . This work was supported in part by the D.O.E. under Contracts DE-AC03-76SF00098, and in part by the National Science Foundation under grant PHY-95-14797. The work of N.A-H is also supported by the Alfred P. Sloan foundation and by the David and Lucile Packard Foundation. T. Gregoire is also supported by an NSERC fellowship.