text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

For many reasons it is important to know off-shell superfield actions of supersymmetric extensions of the Born-Infeld (BI) theory - and to understand the geometry behind them. One of the basic sources of interest in such actions is that their notable subclass, the BI actions with a hidden extra nonlinearly realized supersymmetry, provides a manifestly worldvolume supersymmetric description of various Dp-branes in a static gauge . As was demonstrated in  (see also ), this sort of BI actions supplies a nice example of systems with partial spontaneous breaking of global supersymmetry (PBGS). The covariant superfield gauge strengths in terms of which such actions are formulated, can be identified with the Goldstone superfields supporting a nonlinear realization of some underlying extended supersymmetry. The manifest supersymmetry of the given BI action is the linearly realized half of the underlying supersymmetry.

At present, the Goldstone superfield BI actions are known in a closed explicit form only for the 1/2 PBGS options $`N=2N=1`$ in $`d=4`$  and $`d=3`$ . They amount to the worldvolume actions of the spacetime-filling D3- and D2-branes in a fixed gauge and involve, respectively, the $`N=1,d=4`$ and $`N=1,d=3`$ vector multiplets as the Goldstone ones.

In  it was suggested that, by analogy with the construction of ref. , $`N=2,d=4`$ vector multiplet could serve as the Goldstone multiplet for the 1/2 spontaneous breaking of $`N=4,d=4`$ supersymmetry. The associated Goldstone superfield action should be a particular representative of the $`N=2`$ supersymmetric BI actions, such that it possesses a hidden $`N=2`$ supersymmetry in parallel with the manifest one. By inspection of the component field content of the $`N=2`$ vector multiplet, it is obvious that such action should describe a D3-brane in $`D=6`$, with the scalar component fields parameterizing two transverse directions. The $`N=2`$ BI action constructed in  reveals no hidden extra supersymmetry  and so it can be regarded merely as a part of the hypothetical genuine $`N=4N=2`$ BI action.

In recent papers  we showed how the full set of superfield equations describing the $`N=2N=1`$ BI system in $`d=3`$ and the $`N=2N=1`$, $`N=4N=2`$ and $`N=8N=4`$ ones in $`d=4`$ can be deduced from the customary nonlinear realizations approach applied to the relevant PBGS patterns. A characteristic common feature of these superfield systems is that the pure BI part of the corresponding bosonic equations always appears in a disguised form in which the Bianchi identity for the Maxwell field strength and the dynamical equation are mixed in a tricky way. On the other hand, the equations for the scalar fields (in the $`N=4N=2`$ and $`N=8N=4`$ cases in which the Goldstone vector multiplets include such fields) come out in a form explicitly derivable from the standard static-gauge Nambu-Goto actions. The disguised form of the BI equations can be split into the kinematical and dynamical parts by a nonlinear equivalence redefinition of the corresponding bosonic component field. As was demonstrated in  for the $`N=4N=2`$ example, the superfield version of this redefinition is an equivalence transformation from the original basic $`N=2`$ Goldstone superfield to the standard $`N=2`$ Maxwell superfield strength. It enables one to divide the original system of superfield equations into the pure kinematical and dynamical parts which are separately invariant under the original hidden supersymmetry, and to construct the correct $`N=2`$ superfield action yielding the dynamical part as the equation of motion. In this way we reconstructed the $`N=2`$ BI action with the hidden extra $`N=2`$ supersymmetry up to the sixth order in $`N=2`$ Maxwell superfield strength.

Although this approach can in principle be applied to restore, step by step, the $`N=4N=2`$ BI action to any order, it would be desirable to develop a more direct way for constructing such an action, similar to the method which was used in  in the $`N=2N=1,d=4`$ case (see also  and ). It deals with the linear Maxwell superfield strength from the very beginning, and it is based upon completing the latter to a linear off-shell supermultiplet of the full supersymmetry by adding a few extra superfields of the unbroken supersymmetry. After imposing a nonlinear covariant constraint on the superfields of the linear supermultiplet one ends up with a nonlinear realization of the full supersymmetry in terms of the Maxwell superfield strength as the only independent Goldstone superfield. In all the cases studied so far, both the BI superfield Lagrangian density and the Goldstone-Maxwell superfield strength belong to the linear supermultiplet just mentioned.

In this paper we propose a generalization of the method of  to the $`N=4N=2`$ BI case. Two essentially novel closely related points of our construction, as compared to the previously elaborated cases, are as follows: (i) We start from a proper extension of $`N=4,d=4`$ Poincaré superalgebra by a complex central charge, in order to gain a geometric place for the complex bosonic $`N=2`$ Maxwell superfield strength $`𝒲`$ as the Goldstone superfield ; (ii) The minimal linear $`N=4`$ supermultiplet into which one can embed $`𝒲`$ necessarily involves an infinite tower of chiral $`N=2`$ superfields of growing dimension interrelated by the central charge generators. As in the previous cases, the chiral $`N=2`$ Lagrangian density of the $`N=4N=2`$ BI theory is one of these extra superfields, but in order to express it in terms of $`𝒲,\overline{𝒲}`$ one is led to impose an infinite set of the covariant constraints which eliminate all the extra superfields as well. We give these constraints in the explicit form and solve them by iterations, in order to restore the correct $`N=4N=2`$ BI action up to the 10th order in $`𝒲,\overline{𝒲}`$. Surprisingly, up to the 8th order it reproduces the $`N=2`$ action found earlier to this order in  from the requirements of self-duality and invariance under a shift symmetry of $`𝒲,\overline{𝒲}`$ (in our approach it comes out as the symmetry generated by central charges). This is an indication that the requirements of  are equivalent to the single demand of hidden $`N=2`$ supersymmetry. As a consequence, the full $`N=4N=2,d=4`$ BI action is expected to be self-dual.

## 2 Getting started

The basic object we shall deal with is a complex scalar $`N=2`$ off-shell superfield strength $`𝒲`$. It is chiral and satisfies one additional Bianchi identity

$$(a)\overline{D}_{\dot{\alpha }i}𝒲=0,D_\alpha ^i\overline{𝒲}=0,(b)D^{ik}𝒲=\overline{D}^{ik}\overline{𝒲}.$$
(2.1)
Here

$`D_\alpha ^i={\displaystyle \frac{}{\theta _i^\alpha }}+i\overline{\theta }^{\dot{\alpha }i}_{\alpha \dot{\alpha }},\overline{D}_{\dot{\alpha }i}={\displaystyle \frac{}{\overline{\theta }^{\dot{\alpha }i}}}i\theta _i^\alpha _{\alpha \dot{\alpha }},\{D_\alpha ^i,\overline{D}_{\dot{\alpha }j}\}=2i\delta _j^i_{\alpha \dot{\alpha }},`$ (2.2)
$`D^{ij}D^{\alpha i}D_\alpha ^j,\overline{D}^{ij}\overline{D}_{\dot{\alpha }}^i\overline{D}^{\dot{\alpha }j}.`$ (2.3)
Due to the basic constraints (2.1) the superfields $`𝒲,\overline{𝒲}`$ obey the following useful relations:

$$D^4𝒲=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{}\overline{𝒲},\overline{D}{}_{}{}^{4}\overline{𝒲}=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{}𝒲,$$
(2.4)
where

$`D^4{\displaystyle \frac{1}{48}}D^{\alpha i}D_\alpha ^jD_i^\beta D_{\beta j},\overline{D}^4=\overline{(D^4)}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{48}}\overline{D}_{\dot{\alpha }}^i\overline{D}^{\dot{\alpha }j}\overline{D}_{\dot{\beta }i}\overline{D}_j^{\dot{\beta }},\mathrm{}_{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}^{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}.`$ (2.5)
The irreducible field content of $`𝒲`$, $`\overline{𝒲}`$ defined by (2.1) is the off-shell $`N=2,d=4`$ abelian vector multiplet. It consists of a $`SU(2)`$-singlet complex scalar field, a Maxwell field strength, a real $`SU(2)`$-triplet of the scalar bosonic auxiliary fields and a $`SU(2)`$-doublet of Weyl spinors, i.e. a total of $`(8+8)`$ independent components.

In order to be able to treat $`𝒲,\overline{𝒲}`$ as the Goldstone superfields associated with the PBGS pattern $`N=4N=2`$ in $`d=4`$ we should define, first of all, an appropriate modification of the standard $`N=4,d=4`$ Poincaré superalgebra. It should involve a complex bosonic generator to which one could put in correspondence $`𝒲,\overline{𝒲}`$ as the Goldstone superfields. As was shown in , the proper extension is given by the following superalgebra:

$`\{Q_\alpha ^i,\overline{Q}_{\dot{\alpha }j}\}=2\delta _j^iP_{\alpha \dot{\alpha }},\{S_\alpha ^i,\overline{S}_{\dot{\alpha }j}\}=2\delta _j^iP_{\alpha \dot{\alpha }},`$
$`\{Q_\alpha ^i,S_\beta ^j\}=2\epsilon ^{ij}\epsilon _{\alpha \beta }Z,\{\overline{Q}_{\dot{\alpha }i},\overline{S}_{\dot{\beta }j}\}=2\epsilon _{ij}\epsilon _{\dot{\alpha }\dot{\beta }}\overline{Z},(i,j=1,2),`$ (2.6)
with all other (anti)commutators vanishing. It was chosen in  as the starting point for constructing a nonlinear realization of the PBGS pattern $`N=4N=2`$, with the generators $`Q_\alpha ^i,\overline{Q}_{\dot{\alpha }j}`$, $`P_{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}`$ corresponding to the unbroken $`N=2`$ supersymmetry and the remaining ones to the spontaneously broken symmetries. Obviously, a linear realization of the same version of PBGS should proceed from the same superalgebra. The necessary presence of the complex central charge $`Z`$ in the anticommutators of the broken and unbroken $`N=2`$ spinor generators is the crucial difference of the case under consideration from the PBGS case $`N=2N=1`$ in $`d=4`$  and its $`d=3`$ counterpart . In the latter two cases one proceeds from the $`N=2`$ Poincaré supersymmetries in $`d=4`$ and $`d=3`$ with no central charge generators; the elementary Goldstone superfields are the fermionic ones which are eventually identified with the corresponding $`N=1`$ Maxwell superfield strengths. Note that the superalgebra (2.6) is a $`d=4`$ notation for the $`N=(2,0)`$ (or $`N=(0,2)`$) Poincaré superalgebra in $`D=6`$. In what follows, we shall not actually need to resort to the $`D=6`$ interpretation. We shall entirely deal with the $`N=2,d=4`$ superfields, viewing (2.6) as a central-charge extension of the standard $`N=4`$ Poincaré supersymmetry in $`d=4`$.

## 3 Embedding N=2 vector multiplet into a linear N=4 multiplet

In , starting from a nonlinear realization of $`N=4`$ supersymmetry defined by the superalgebra (2.6), we found, up to the 4th order in fields, an equivalence transformation from the $`N=2`$ Goldstone superfield associated with the generator $`Z`$ to the standard $`N=2`$ Maxwell superfield strength $`𝒲,\overline{𝒲}`$ defined by the constraints (2.1). We found that the nonlinear hidden $`N=2`$ supersymmetry and $`Z,\overline{Z}`$ symmetry are realized on $`𝒲,\overline{𝒲}`$ by the following transformations:

$$\delta 𝒲=f\left(1\frac{1}{2}\overline{D}^4\overline{𝒜}_0\right)+\frac{1}{4}\overline{f}\mathrm{}𝒜_0+\frac{1}{4i}\overline{D}^{i\dot{\alpha }}\overline{f}D_i^\alpha _{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}𝒜_0,\delta \overline{𝒲}=(\delta 𝒲)^{},$$
(3.1)
where the functions $`f,\overline{f}`$,

$$f=c+2i\eta ^{i\alpha }\theta _{i\alpha },\overline{f}=\overline{c}2i\overline{\eta }_{\dot{\alpha }}^i\overline{\theta }_i^{\dot{\alpha }},$$
(3.2)
collect the parameters of broken supersymmetry ($`\eta ^{i\alpha },\overline{\eta }_{\dot{\alpha }}^i`$) and those of the central charge transformations ($`c,\overline{c}`$). The complex chiral function $`𝒜_0`$ was specified up to the fourth order 111For further convenience, here we use a slightly different notation for this function as compared to ref. .

$`𝒜_0=𝒲^2\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\overline{D}^4\overline{𝒲}^2\right)+O(𝒲^6),`$ (3.3)
$`\overline{D}_{\dot{\alpha }i}𝒜_0=0.`$ (3.4)
Actually, the transformation law (3.1), (3.2) is the most general hidden supersymmetry transformation law of $`𝒲,\overline{𝒲}`$ compatible with the defining constraints (2.1), provided that the $`N=2`$ superfield function $`𝒜_0`$ obeys the chirality condition (3.4). By analogy with the $`N=1`$ construction of , in order to promote (3.1) to a linear (though still inhomogeneous) realization of the considered $`N=4`$ supersymmetry, it is natural to treat $`𝒜_0`$ as a new independent $`N=2`$ superfield constrained only by the chirality condition (3.4) and to try to define the transformation law of $`𝒜_0`$ under the $`\eta ,\overline{\eta },c,\overline{c}`$-transformations in such a way that the $`N=2`$ superfields $`𝒜_0`$, $`𝒲,\overline{𝒲}`$ form a closed set. Then, imposing a proper covariant constraint on these superfields one could hope to recover the structure (3.3) as a solution to this constraint. In view of the covariance of this hypothetical constraint, the correct transformation law for $`𝒜_0`$ to the appropriate order can be reproduced by varying (3.3) according to the transformation law (3.1). Since we know $`𝒜_0`$ up to the 4th order, we can uniquely restore its transformation law up to the 3d order. We explicitly find

$$\delta 𝒜_0=2f𝒲+\frac{1}{4}\overline{f}\mathrm{}𝒜_1+\frac{1}{4i}\overline{D}^{i\dot{\alpha }}\overline{f}D_i^\alpha _{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}𝒜_1,$$
(3.5)
where

$$𝒜_1=\frac{2}{3}𝒲^3+O(𝒲^5),\overline{D}_{\dot{\alpha }i}𝒜_1=0.$$
(3.6)
We observe the appearance of a new composite chiral superfield $`𝒜_1`$, and there is no way to avoid it in the transformation law (3.5). This is the crucial difference from the $`N=1`$ case of ref.  where a similar reasoning led to a closed supermultiplet with only one extra $`N=1`$ superfield besides the $`N=1`$ Goldstone-Maxwell one (the resulting linear multiplet of $`N=2`$ supersymmetry is a $`N=1`$ superfield form of the $`N=2`$ vector multiplet with a modified transformation law ).

Thus, we are forced to incorporate a chiral superfield $`𝒜_1`$ as a new independent $`N=2`$ superfield component of the linear $`N=4`$ supermultiplet we are seeking. Inspecting the brackets of all these transformations suggests that the only possibility to achieve their closure in accord with the superalgebra (2.6) is to introduce an infinite sequence of chiral $`N=2`$ superfields and their antichiral conjugates $`𝒜_n,\overline{𝒜}_n`$, $`n=0,1,\mathrm{}`$,

$$\overline{D}_{\dot{\alpha }i}𝒜_n=0,D_\alpha ^i\overline{𝒜_n}=0,$$
(3.7)
with the following transformation laws:

$`\delta 𝒜_0=2f𝒲+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\overline{f}\mathrm{}𝒜_1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4i}}\overline{D}^{i\dot{\alpha }}\overline{f}D_i^\alpha _{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}𝒜_1,`$ (3.8)
$`\delta 𝒜_1=2f𝒜_0+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\overline{f}\mathrm{}𝒜_2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4i}}\overline{D}^{i\dot{\alpha }}\overline{f}D_i^\alpha _{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}𝒜_2`$
$`\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}..`$
$`\delta 𝒜_n=2f𝒜_{n1}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\overline{f}\mathrm{}𝒜_{n+1}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4i}}\overline{D}^{i\dot{\alpha }}\overline{f}D_i^\alpha _{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}𝒜_{n+1},(n1)`$ (3.9)
$`\delta \overline{𝒜_n}=(\delta 𝒜_n)^{}.`$
It is a simple exercise to check that these transformations close off shell both among themselves and with those of the manifest $`N=2`$ supersymmetry just according to the $`N=4`$ superalgebra (2.6).

Realizing (formally) the central charge generators as derivatives in some extra complex “central-charge coordinate” $`z`$

$$Z=\frac{i}{2}\frac{}{z},\overline{Z}=\frac{i}{2}\frac{}{\overline{z}},$$
(3.10)
and assuming all the involved $`N=2`$ superfields to be defined on a $`z,\overline{z}`$ extension of the standard $`N=2`$ superspace, it is instructive to rewrite the transformation laws under the $`c,\overline{c}`$ transformations as follows:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{𝒲}{z}}=\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\overline{D}^4\overline{𝒜}_0\right),{\displaystyle \frac{𝒲}{\overline{z}}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\mathrm{}𝒜_0,`$ (3.11)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{𝒜_0}{z}}=2𝒲,{\displaystyle \frac{𝒜_0}{\overline{z}}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\mathrm{}𝒜_1,`$ (3.12)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{𝒜_n}{z}}=2𝒜_{n1},{\displaystyle \frac{𝒜_n}{\overline{z}}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\mathrm{}𝒜_{n+1}.`$ (3.13)
These relations imply, in particular,

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{^2}{z\overline{z}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{}\right)𝒲=0,\left({\displaystyle \frac{^2}{z\overline{z}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{}\right)𝒜_n=0.`$ (3.14)
If we regard $`z,\overline{z}`$ as the actual coordinates, which extend the $`d=4`$ Minkowski space to the $`D=6`$ one, the relations (3.14) mean that the constructed linear supermultiplet is on shell from the $`D=6`$ perspective. On the other hand, from the $`d=4`$ point of view this multiplet is off-shell, and the relations (3.11) - (3.13), (3.14) simply give a specific realization of the central charge generators $`Z,\overline{Z}`$ on its $`N=2`$ superfield components. In this sense this multiplet is similar to the previously known special $`N=2,d=4`$ and $`N=4,d=4`$ supermultiplets, which are obtained from the on-shell multiplets in higher dimensions via non-trivial dimension reductions and inherit the higher-dimensional translation generators as non-trivially realized central charges in $`d=4`$  (a renowned example of this sort is the $`(8+8)`$ Fayet-Sohnius hypermultiplet ). Since the superalgebra (2.6) is just a $`d=4`$ form of the $`N=(2,0)`$ (or $`N=(0,2)`$) $`D=6`$ Poincaré superalgebra, it is natural to think that the above supermultiplet has a $`D=6`$ origin and to try to reveal it.222By analogy with the previously known examples , one could expect, at first glance, that this multiplet is a $`d=4`$ form of the vector $`N=2,D=6`$ multiplet which is known to exist only on shell (in $`D=6`$) . However, this cannot be true because such a multiplet can be defined only for the $`N=(1,1)`$ supersymmetry in $`D=6`$  while we are facing $`N=(2,0)`$ or $`N=(0,2)`$ supersymmetry in our case. Note that the PBGS option $`N=4N=2,d=4`$, with the $`N=4,d=4`$ supersymmetry being isomorphic just to the $`N=(1,1),D=6`$ one, was discussed in . It requires the $`N=2`$ hypermultiplet, as the Goldstone multiplet. We hope to come back to this interesting problem in the future. For the time being we prefer to treat the above infinite-dimensional representation in the pure $`d=4`$ framework as a linear realization of the partial spontaneous breaking of the central-charge extended $`N=4,d=4`$ supersymmetry (2.6) to the standard $`N=2`$ supersymmetry. The Goldstone character of this realization is manifested in the transformation law (3.1) which contains pure shifts by the parameters of the spontaneously broken symmetries. Therefore, the appropriate components of the superfield strength $`𝒲`$ are the Goldstone fields, and this superfield itself can be interpreted as the Goldstone $`N=2`$ superfield of the linear realization of the considered PBGS pattern $`N=4N=2`$.

## 4 Superfield action of the $`N=4N=2`$ BI theory

As was already mentioned, in the approach proceeding from a linear realization of PBGS, the Goldstone superfield Lagrange density is, as a rule, a component of the same linear supermultiplet to which the relevant Goldstone superfield belongs. This is also true for the case under consideration. A good candidate for the chiral $`N=2`$ Lagrangian density is the superfield $`𝒜_0`$. Indeed, the “action”

$$S=d^4xd^4\theta 𝒜_0+d^4xd^4\overline{\theta }\overline{𝒜}_0$$
(4.1)
is invariant with respect to the transformation (3.8) up to surface terms, because, taking into account the basic constraints (2.1) and the precise form of these transformations, the integrand is shifted by $`x`$-derivatives. With the interpretation of the central charge transformations as shifts with respect to the coordinates $`z,\overline{z}`$, the action (4.1) does not depend on these coordinates in virtue of eqs. (3.12), though the Lagrangian density can bear such a dependence.

It remains for us to define covariant constraints which would express $`𝒜_0`$, $`\overline{𝒜}_0`$ in terms of $`𝒲`$, $`\overline{𝒲}`$, with preserving the linear representation structure (3.1), (3.8), (3.9). Because an infinite number of $`N=2`$ superfields $`𝒜_n`$ is present in our case, there should exist an infinite set of constraints trading all these superfields for the basic Goldstone ones $`𝒲`$, $`\overline{𝒲}`$.

As a first step in finding these constraints let us note that the following expression:

$$\varphi _0=𝒜_0\left(1\frac{1}{2}\overline{D}{}_{}{}^{4}\overline{𝒜}_{0}^{}\right)𝒲^2\underset{k=1}{}\frac{(1)^k}{28^k}𝒜_k\mathrm{}^k\overline{D}{}_{}{}^{4}\overline{𝒜}_{k}^{}$$
(4.2)
is invariant, with respect to the $`f`$ part of the transformations (3.1), (3.8) - (3.9). This leads us to choose

$$\varphi _0=0$$
(4.3)
as our first constraint. For consistency with $`N=4`$ supersymmetry, the constraint (4.3) should be invariant with respect to the full transformations (3.1), (3.8), (3.9), with the $`\overline{f}`$ part taken into account as well. We shall firstly specialize to the $`\overline{c}`$ part of the $`\overline{f}`$ transformations. The requirement of the $`\overline{c}`$ covariance produces the new constraint

$$\varphi _1=\mathrm{}𝒜_1+2\left(𝒜_0\mathrm{}𝒲𝒲\mathrm{}𝒜_0\right)\underset{k=0}{}\frac{(1)^k}{28^k}\left(\mathrm{}𝒜_{k+1}\mathrm{}^k\overline{D}{}_{}{}^{4}\overline{𝒜}_{k}^{}𝒜_{k+1}\mathrm{}^{k+1}\overline{D}{}_{}{}^{4}\overline{𝒜}_{k}^{}\right)=0.$$
(4.4)
It is invariant under the $`f`$ transformations, but requiring it to be invariant also under the $`\overline{c}`$ part gives rise to the new constraint

$`\varphi _2`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{}^2𝒜_2+2\left(𝒜_0\mathrm{}^2𝒜_0\mathrm{}𝒜_0\mathrm{}𝒜_0+2\mathrm{}𝒜_1\mathrm{}𝒲𝒜_1\mathrm{}^2𝒲𝒲\mathrm{}^2𝒜_1\right)`$ (4.5)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{(1)^k}{28^k}}\left(\mathrm{}^2𝒜_{k+2}\mathrm{}^k\overline{D}{}_{}{}^{4}\overline{𝒜}_{k}^{}2\mathrm{}𝒜_{k+2}\mathrm{}^{k+1}\overline{D}{}_{}{}^{4}\overline{𝒜}_{k}^{}+𝒜_{k+2}\mathrm{}^{k+2}\overline{D}{}_{}{}^{4}\overline{𝒜}_{k}^{}\right)=0.`$
Applying the same procedure to (4.5), we find the next constraint

$`\varphi _3`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{}^3𝒜_3+2(3\mathrm{}^2𝒜_2\mathrm{}𝒲+3\mathrm{}𝒜_1\mathrm{}^2𝒜_0+𝒜_0\mathrm{}^3𝒜_1𝒜_1\mathrm{}^3𝒜_0+𝒜_2\mathrm{}^3𝒲`$ (4.6)
$`𝒲\mathrm{}^3𝒜_23\mathrm{}^2𝒜_1\mathrm{}𝒜_03\mathrm{}𝒜_2\mathrm{}^2𝒲)+\mathrm{}=0,`$
and so on. The full infinite set of constraints is by construction invariant under the $`f`$ and $`\overline{c}`$ transformations. Indeed, using the relations (3.11)-(3.13) one may explicitly check that

$$\frac{\varphi _n}{z}=0,\frac{\varphi _n}{\overline{z}}=\frac{1}{4}\varphi _{n+1},$$
(4.7)
so the full set of constraints is indeed closed.

The variation of the basic constraints with respect to the $`\overline{f}`$ transformations has the following general form:

$$\delta \varphi _n=\overline{\eta }{}_{}{}^{i\dot{\alpha }}\overline{\theta }_{i\dot{\alpha }}^{}_n+\overline{\eta }{}_{}{}^{i\dot{\alpha }}(_n)_{i\dot{\alpha }}^{}.$$
(4.8)
Demanding this variation to vanish gives rise to the two sets of constraints

$$(\text{a})_n=0,(\text{b})(_n)_{i\dot{\alpha }}=0.$$
(4.9)
The constraints (4.9a) are easily recognized as those obtained above from the $`\overline{c}`$ covariance reasoning. One can show by explicit calculations that

$$\overline{D}{}_{}{}^{i\dot{\alpha }}(_n)_{j\dot{\beta }}^{}\delta _j^i\delta _{\dot{\beta }}^{\dot{\alpha }}_n.$$
(4.10)
Thus the fermionic constraints (4.9b) seem to be more fundamental. For example, for the constraint $`\varphi _1`$ (4.4) the basic fermionic constraint reads

$`(_1)_{i\dot{\alpha }}`$ $`=`$ $`D_i^\alpha _{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}𝒜_1+2\left(𝒜_0D_i^\alpha _{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}𝒲𝒲D_i^\alpha _{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}𝒜_0\right)`$ (4.11)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{(1)^k}{28^k}}\left(D_i^\alpha _{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}𝒜_{k+1}\mathrm{}^k\overline{D}{}_{}{}^{4}\overline{𝒜}_{k}^{}𝒜_{k+1}\mathrm{}^kD_i^\alpha _{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}\overline{D}{}_{}{}^{4}\overline{𝒜}_{k}^{}\right)=0.`$
In order to prove that the basic fermionic constraints (4.9b) are actually equivalent to the bosonic ones (4.9a), one has to know the general solution to all constraints. For the time being we have explicitly checked this important property only for the iteration solution given below. Taking for granted that this is true in general, we can limit our attention to the type $`(\text{a})`$ constraints only. The constraints (4.2), (4.4) are just of this type.

At present we have no idea, how to explicitly solve the above infinite set of constraints and find a closed expression for the Lagrangian densities $`𝒜_0`$, $`\overline{𝒜}_0`$ similar to the one known in the $`N=2N=1`$ case . What we are actually able to do, so far, is to restore a general solution by iterations. E.g., in order to restore the action up to the 10th order, we have to know the following orders in $`𝒜_k`$:

$`𝒜_0=𝒲^2+𝒜_0^{(4)}+𝒜_0^{(6)}+𝒜_0^{(8)}+\mathrm{},`$
$`𝒜_1=𝒜_1^{(3)}+𝒜_1^{(5)}+𝒜_1^{(7)}+\mathrm{},`$
$`𝒜_2=𝒜_2^{(4)}+𝒜_2^{(6)}+\mathrm{},𝒜_3=𝒜_3^{(5)}+\mathrm{}.`$ (4.12)
These terms were found to have the following explicit structure:

$`𝒜_0^{(4)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}𝒲^2\overline{D}{}_{}{}^{4}\overline{𝒲}_{}^{2},𝒜_0^{(6)}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\overline{D}{}_{}{}^{4}[𝒲^2\overline{𝒲}^2(D^4𝒲^2+\overline{D}{}_{}{}^{4}\overline{𝒲}_{}^{2}){\displaystyle \frac{1}{9}}𝒲^3\mathrm{}\overline{𝒲}^3],`$
$`𝒜_0^{(8)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}\overline{D}{}_{}{}^{4}[4𝒲^2\overline{𝒜}_0^{(6)}+4\overline{𝒲}^2𝒜_0^{(6)}+𝒲^2\overline{𝒲}^2D^4𝒲^2\overline{D}{}_{}{}^{4}\overline{𝒲}_{}^{2}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{9}}𝒲^3\mathrm{}\left(\overline{𝒲}^3D^4𝒲^2\right)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{9}}𝒲^3\overline{D}{}_{}{}^{4}\overline{𝒲}_{}^{2}\mathrm{}\overline{𝒲}^3+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{144}}𝒲^4\mathrm{}^2\overline{𝒲}^4],`$
$`𝒜_1^{(3)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}𝒲^3,𝒜_1^{(5)}={\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}𝒲^3\overline{D}{}_{}{}^{4}\overline{𝒲}_{}^{2},`$
$`𝒜_1^{(7)}`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{D}{}_{}{}^{4}[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}𝒲^3\overline{𝒲}^2\overline{D}{}_{}{}^{4}\overline{𝒲}_{}^{2}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}𝒲^3\overline{𝒲}^2D^4𝒲^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{24}}𝒲^4\mathrm{}\overline{𝒲}^3],`$
$`𝒜_2^{(4)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}𝒲^4,𝒜_2^{(6)}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}𝒲^4\overline{D}{}_{}{}^{4}\overline{𝒲}_{}^{2},𝒜_3^{(5)}={\displaystyle \frac{2}{15}}𝒲^5.`$ (4.13)
Note that, despite the presence of growing powers of the operator $`\mathrm{}`$ in our constraints, in each case the maximal power of $`\mathrm{}`$ can be finally taken off from all the terms in the given constraint, leaving us with this maximal power of $`\mathrm{}`$ acting on an expression which starts from the appropriate $`𝒜_n`$. Equating these final expressions to zero allows us to algebraically express all $`𝒜_n`$ in terms of $`𝒲,\overline{𝒲}`$ and derivatives of the latter. For example, for $`𝒜_3^{(5)}`$ we finally get the following equation:

$$\mathrm{}^3𝒜_3^{(5)}=\frac{2}{15}\mathrm{}^3𝒲^5𝒜_3^{(5)}=\frac{2}{15}𝒲^5.$$
(4.14)
This procedure of taking off the degrees of $`\mathrm{}`$ with discarding possible “zero modes” can be justified as follows: we are interested in an off-shell solution that preserves the manifest standard $`N=2`$ supersymmetry including the Poincaré covariance. This rules out possible on-shell zero modes as well as the presence of explicit $`\theta `$’s or $`x`$’s in the expressions which remain after taking off the appropriate powers of $`\mathrm{}`$. It can be checked to any desirable order that these “reduced” constraints yield correct local expressions for the composite superfields $`𝒜_n`$, which prove to transform just in accordance with the original transformation rules (3.1), (3.8), (3.9). We have explicitly verified this for our iteration solution (4). We do not know, for the time being, how to demonstrate the possibility to take off the powers of $`\mathrm{}`$ from the original constraints in general, without explicitly solving them. In Appendix we deduce a set of purely algebraic constraints which immediately give the above iteration solution and so are candidates for the general form of the “reduced” constraints.

The explicit expression for the action, up to the 8th order in $`𝒲,\overline{𝒲}`$, reads

$`S^{(8)}=({\displaystyle }d^4xd^4\theta 𝒲^2+\text{c.c.})+{\displaystyle }d^4xd^4\theta d^4\overline{\theta }\{𝒲^2\overline{𝒲}^2[1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(D^4𝒲^2+\overline{D}{}_{}{}^{4}\overline{𝒲}_{}^{2})]`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{18}}𝒲^3\mathrm{}\overline{𝒲}^3+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}𝒲^2\overline{𝒲}^2\left[\left(D^4𝒲^2+\overline{D}{}_{}{}^{4}\overline{𝒲}_{}^{2}\right)^2+D^4𝒲^2\overline{D}{}_{}{}^{4}\overline{𝒲}_{}^{2}\right]`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}D^4𝒲^2\overline{𝒲}^3\mathrm{}𝒲^3{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}\overline{D}{}_{}{}^{4}\overline{𝒲}_{}^{2}𝒲^3\mathrm{}\overline{𝒲}^3+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{576}}𝒲^4\mathrm{}^2\overline{𝒲}^4\}.`$ (4.15)
This action, up to a slight difference in the notation, coincides with the action found by Kuzenko and Theisen  from the requirements of self-duality and invariance under nonlinear shifts of $`𝒲,\overline{𝒲}`$ (the $`c,\overline{c}`$ transformations in our notation). Let us point out that the structure of nonlinearities in the $`c,\overline{c}`$ transformations of $`𝒲,\overline{𝒲}`$ in our approach is uniquely fixed by the original $`N=4`$ supersymmetry transformations and the constraints imposed. In  it was guessed order by order from the requirement that the action be invariant.

The next, 10th order part of the $`N=4`$ invariant $`N=2`$ BI action can be easily restored from eqs. (4). Its explicit form looks not too enlightening, so here we present only the relevant part of the chiral Lagrangian density in the condensed notation

$`𝒜_0^{(10)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\overline{D}{}_{}{}^{4}[𝒲^2\overline{𝒜}_0^{(8)}+\overline{𝒲}{}_{}{}^{2}𝒜_{0}^{(8)}+𝒜_0^{(4)}\overline{𝒜}_0^{(6)}+\overline{𝒜}_0^{(4)}𝒜_0^{(6)}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}𝒜_1^{(3)}\mathrm{}\overline{𝒜}_1^{(7)}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}𝒜_1^{(7)}\mathrm{}\overline{𝒜}_1^{(3)}`$ (4.16)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}𝒜_1^{(5)}\mathrm{}\overline{𝒜}_1^{(5)}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{64}}𝒜_2^{(4)}\mathrm{}^2\overline{𝒜}_2^{(6)}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{64}}𝒜_2^{(6)}\mathrm{}^2\overline{𝒜}_2^{(4)}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{512}}𝒜_3^{(5)}\mathrm{}^3\overline{𝒜}_3^{(5)}].`$
It would be interesting to compare it with the 10th order of the Kuzenko-Theisen action (which, unfortunately, was not explicitly given in ). Anyway, the coincidence of the action of  with the $`N=4N=2`$ BI action, up to the 8th order, can be regarded as a strong indication that these actions coincide at any order and, hence, that the $`N=4N=2`$ BI action is self-dual like its $`N=2N=1`$ prototype .

Finally, let us point out that after doing the $`\theta `$ integral, the pure Maxwell field strength part of the bosonic sector of the above action (and of the hypothetical complete action) comes entirely from the expansion of the standard Born-Infeld bosonic action. Just in this sense the above action is a particular $`N=2`$ extension of the bosonic BI action. The difference from the action of ref.  is just in higher-derivative terms with the $`\mathrm{}`$ operators. These correction terms are crucial for the invariance under the hidden $`N=2`$ supersymmetry, and they drastically change, as compared to ref. , the structure of the bosonic action, both in the pure scalar fields sector and the mixed sector involving couplings between the Maxwell field strength and the scalar fields. By a reasoning of , the additional terms are just those needed for the existence of an equivalence field redefinition bringing the scalar fields action into the standard static-gauge Nambu-Goto form.

The analysis of the auxiliary field sector shows that the equation for the auxiliary field $`P^{(ik)}(x)`$ has the following generic structure:

$$P^{(ik)}M_{(ik)}^{(nl)}=0,$$

where $`M`$ is a non-singular matrix, $`M=I+\mathrm{}`$, and “dots” stand for terms involving fields and their derivatives. Hence, $`P^{(ik)}=0`$ on shell, i.e. the auxiliary field is non-propagating, as in the standard $`N=2`$ Maxwell theory.

## 5 Conclusion

In this paper we proposed a systematic way of constructing a $`N=2`$ superfield BI action with a hidden second $`N=2`$ supersymmetry. It is based on extending the $`N=2`$ vector multiplet to an infinite-dimensional linear off-shell multiplet of the central-charge modified $`N=4`$ supersymmetry and imposing an infinite set of covariant constraints which give rise to a nonlinear realization of the $`N=4`$ supersymmetry in terms of the $`N=2`$ Maxwell (Goldstone-Maxwell) superfield strengths $`𝒲,\overline{𝒲}`$. Solving these constraints by iterations, we have restored the $`N=4`$ supersymmetric BI action to 10th order in $`𝒲,\overline{𝒲}`$. In order to construct the full action, we need to know the general solution of the constraints. For this purpose it seems necessary to work out another, technically more feasible way of tackling the infinite set of these constraints, perhaps in a $`z,\overline{z}`$ extended $`N=4`$ superspace, rather than in the $`N=2`$ one. We hope to report soon on a progress in this direction. Another project for a future study is to apply our approach to construct a genuine non-abelian version of the $`N=4N=2`$ BI action as a proper modification of the action proposed in .

In the course of writing this paper we learned that a construction conceptually closed to ours was independently worked out by A. Galperin .

Acknowledgements. This work was supported in part by the Fondo Affari Internazionali Convenzione Particellare INFN-JINR, grants RFBR-CNRS 98-02-22034, RFBR-DFG-99-02-04022, RFBR 99-02-18417 and NATO Grant PST.CLG 974874.

## Appendix

Let us consider the following constraint

$$\phi _1=𝒜_1\left(1\frac{1}{2}\overline{D}{}_{}{}^{4}\overline{𝒜}_{0}^{}\right)\frac{2}{3}𝒲𝒜_0\underset{k=1}{}\frac{(1)^k}{8^k}\left(\frac{k}{3}+\frac{1}{2}\right)𝒜_{k+1}\mathrm{}^k\overline{D}{}_{}{}^{4}\overline{𝒜}_{k}^{}=0.$$
(A.1)
Using (3.11),(3.12),(3.13) and the following useful relation:

$$\frac{}{z}\left(\underset{k=1}{}\frac{(1)^k}{8^k}a_k𝒜_{k+m}\mathrm{}^{k+p}\overline{D}{}_{}{}^{4}\overline{𝒜}_{k+n}^{}\right)=\frac{1}{4}\underset{k=0}{}\frac{(1)^k}{8^k}\left(a_ka_{k+1}\right)𝒜_{k+m}\mathrm{}^{k+p+1}\overline{D}{}_{}{}^{4}\overline{𝒜}_{k+n+1}^{}$$
(A.2)
($`a_00`$), one can easily check that

$$\frac{}{z}\phi _1=\frac{4}{3}\varphi _0.$$
(A.3)
In other words, (A.1) is the result of “integrating” the basic constraint (4.2), with respect to $`z`$. The same “integration” procedure can be continued further to get the successive set of the algebraic constraints

$$\phi _2=𝒜_2\left(1\frac{1}{2}\overline{D}{}_{}{}^{4}\overline{𝒜}_{0}^{}\right)\frac{1}{2}𝒲𝒜_1\underset{k=1}{}\frac{(1)^k}{8^k}\left(\frac{k^2}{8}+\frac{k}{2}+\frac{1}{2}\right)𝒜_{k+2}\mathrm{}^k\overline{D}{}_{}{}^{4}\overline{𝒜}_{k}^{}=0,$$
(A.4)
$$\frac{}{z}\phi _2=\frac{3}{2}\phi _1,$$

$$\phi _3=𝒜_3\left(1\frac{1}{2}\overline{D}{}_{}{}^{4}\overline{𝒜}_{0}^{}\right)\frac{2}{5}𝒲𝒜_2\underset{k=1}{}\frac{(1)^k}{8^k}\left(\frac{k^3}{30}+\frac{k^2}{4}+\frac{37k}{60}+\frac{1}{2}\right)𝒜_{k+3}\mathrm{}^k\overline{D}{}_{}{}^{4}\overline{𝒜}_{k}^{}=0,$$
(A.5)
$$\frac{}{z}\phi _3=\frac{8}{5}\phi _2,$$

and so on.

We have checked that the iteration solution of the constraints (A.1), (A.4), (A.5), up to the 8th order, exactly coincides with (4), but we still have no general proof that this set of constraints is indeed fundamental. It is, by construction, covariant under the $`c`$\- transformations and $`\eta `$-supersymmetry, but its covariance under the $`\overline{f}`$ transformations remains to be proved. Note the interesting relations betweeen the constraints (4.4) - (4.6) and (A.1), (A.4), (A.5)

$$\varphi _1=\frac{}{\overline{z}}\varphi _0=\frac{4}{3}\frac{^2}{z\overline{z}}\phi _1,\varphi _2=\frac{32}{9}\left(\frac{^2}{z\overline{z}}\right)^2\phi _2,\varphi _3=\frac{80}{9}\left(\frac{^2}{z\overline{z}}\right)^3\phi _3,\mathrm{}.$$
(A.6)


format: text

text:
# Higgs Bosons and the Indirect Search for WIMPs

## 1 Introduction

The Weakly-Interacting Massive Particles (WIMPs) as the most attractive and well-motivated cold dark-matter candidates in the Galactic Halo may be gravitationally trapped by astrophysical objects like the Earth or the Sun due to subsequent energy losses via elastic scatterings off the nuclei therein. The trapped WIMPs would undergo pair annihilations in the core of the Earth or the Sun, producing all kinds of ordinary particles like quarks, leptons, gauge and Higgs bosons. The neutrinos produced in the decays of these WIMP annihilation products provide detectable signals, because among all particles from WIMPs annihilation only neutrinos can pass through the astrophysical bodies and reach the detectors. The flux of the neutrinos of type $`i`$ (e.g. $`i=\nu _\mu `$, $`\overline{\nu }_\mu `$, or $`\nu _\tau `$, $`\overline{\nu }_\tau `$) from WIMP annihilation in the Earth or Sun is Jun96

$$\left(\frac{d\varphi }{dE}\right)_i=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_A}{4\pi R^2}\underset{F}{}B_F\left(\frac{dN}{dE}\right)_{F,i}$$
(1)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_A`$ is the annihilation rate of the WIMPs in the Sun or Earth, $`R`$ is the distance the neutrinos have to travel to the detector, $`B_F`$ is the branching ratio for annihilation into final state $`F`$, and $`(dN/dE)_{F,i}`$ is the differential energy spectrum of the $`i`$-type neutrinos at the surface of the Sun or Earth expected from decays of particles produced in channel $`F`$ in the core of the Sun or Earth. Recent information about indirect WIMP detection can be found in e.g. Jun96 ; suv99 ; Bottino ; Bergstrom , or in the talks given by T. Montaruli, O. Suvorova, J. A. Djilkibaev, N. Fornengo, A. Bottino at this conference.

Among all WIMPs, the neutralinos are the most considered, which arise from the supersymmetric extensions of the Standard Model and are most likely the Lightest Supersymmetric Particle (LSP). In SUSY scenarios with large sfermion and gaugino masses even the LSP should also be heavy and thus cannot be produced at current or near-future colliders. In this case the Higgs bosons still have chances to be light and specifically the detection of the charged Higgs boson could serve as first evidence for supersymmetry.

With this interest in the Higgs bosons, in this work we perform an investigation within the framework of the Minimal Supersymmetric extension of the Standard Model on the Higgs bosons produced in the neutralino annihilation in the Earth and Sun and their role in the detection of the WIMPs. Following our approach in approach , we relax any constraints from unification assumptions on the parameters. On the other hand we use the results from collider searches for supersymmetric particles, rare FCNC $`bs\gamma `$ decay, as well as bounds on the WIMPs relic abundances to constrain the MSSM parameter space. Our free parameters are $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, $`\mu `$, $`M_1`$, $`M_2`$, $`M_A`$, $`m_{\stackrel{~}{Q}}^2`$, $`m_{\stackrel{~}{L}}^2`$, $`m_{\stackrel{~}{Q_3}}^2`$, $`m_{\stackrel{~}{L_3}}^2`$ and $`A_t`$ (see approach ).

## 2 Higgs Boson Contribution to Indirect WIMP Search

The Minimal Supersymmetric extension of the Standard Model (MSSM) possesses two complex scalar doublets, after the spontaneous electroweak-symmetry breaking five physical Higgs bosons appear in the MSSM particle spectrum. Assuming $`CP`$ invariance, the MSSM Higgs sector contains a neutral $`CP`$-odd Higgs boson $`A^0`$, two neutral $`CP`$-even Higgs bosons $`H^0`$, $`h^0`$, which are mixtures of the neutral Higgs interaction eigenstates, and a pair of charged Higgs bosons $`H^\pm `$. All the five MSSM Higgs bosons can be produced in neutralino pair annihilation processes, either in pairs or accompanied by a gauge boson. However, since the pair annihilation of the neutralinos captured in the Sun and Earth takes place practically at rest, only processes allowed by $`CP`$ conservation in the $`v0`$ limit are relevant for the indirect WIMPs detection:

$$\chi \chi h^0Z^0,h^0A^0,H^0Z^0,H^0A^0,W^\pm H^{}.$$
(2)
The Higgs bosons produced in neutralino annihilation decay immediately before losing energy. Because the Higgs couplings to fermion pairs are proportional to the fermion masses (see for example Higgs-Hunters ), the neutral Higgs bosons do not decay into neutrinos directly, and the branching ratio for charged Higgs boson decay into muon neutrino is negligible. Also, for the Higgs bosons produced in the LSP neutralino annihilation at rest the decay into superpartners is kinematically forbidden. Therefore we consider the following two-body decay channels of the five MSSM Higgs bosons which can produce energetic muon neutrinos

$`h^0`$ $``$ $`\tau \overline{\tau },b\overline{b},c\overline{c},t\overline{t},W^+W^{},Z^0Z^0,Z^0\gamma ;`$ (3)
$`H^0`$ $``$ $`\tau \overline{\tau },b\overline{b},c\overline{c},t\overline{t},W^+W^{},Z^0Z^0,Z^0\gamma ,Z^0A^0,h^0h^0,A^0A^0,W^\pm H^{};`$ (4)
$`A^0`$ $``$ $`\tau \overline{\tau },b\overline{b},c\overline{c},t\overline{t},Z^0\gamma ,Z^0h^0;`$ (5)
$`H^+`$ $``$ $`\tau ^+\nu _\tau ,c\overline{b},c\overline{s},t\overline{b},h^0W^+,A^0W^++\mathrm{charge}\mathrm{conjugation}.`$ (6)
The decay branching ratios for the above channels are calculated with the computer code HDECAY written by A. Djouadi et al. HDECAY , in which all relevant higher-order QCD corrections to decays into quarks and gluons, all important below-threshold three-body decays, and complete radiative corrections in the effective potential approach are included.

We investigate the Higgs boson contribution to the WIMPs detection signal (1) by switching off the final states containing Higgs bosons in our calculation (that is, we do not count the neutrinos from these channels) and compare the results $`\varphi _{\mathrm{noHiggs}}`$ with that from all channels including Higgs final states $`\varphi _{\mathrm{withHiggs}}`$, which is calculated using the formulae given in Jun96 .

In figure 1 we plot our results for $`\varphi _{\mathrm{noHiggs}}`$ and $`\varphi _{\mathrm{withHiggs}}`$ versus the neutralino mass $`m_\chi `$. Comparing figure 1(c) with 1(d) we see (it can be seen more easily in the case of the Sun), that there are significant differences between them mainly in the region where the total detection rate for upward-going muons induced by neutrinos from the Sun is $`10^7÷10^9`$ m-2 yr-1 for neutralinos heavier than about 200 GeV. In order to see the Higgs final state contribution quantitatively we plot in figure 2 the ratio of the two detection rates $`\varphi _{\mathrm{noHiggs}}/\varphi _{\mathrm{withHiggs}}`$ (a), (b) versus neutralino mass $`m_\chi `$ and (c), (d) versus the upward-going muon detection rate with contribution from all channels $`\varphi _{\mathrm{all}}`$.

In figure 2(a) and 2(b) it can be seen that for neutralinos heavier than 200 GeV the Higgs final states are in general important. If their contributions were not included the indirect WIMP detection rate could be roughly $`10^1`$ to $`10^3`$ times lower. Figure 2(d) shows that in the case of the Sun, the Higgs final state contribution is important in the region $`10^7\varphi _{\mathrm{all}}^{}10^3`$ m-2 yr-1 where one should expect the signals.

The Higgs contribution is not important in the region where the upward-going muon detection rate from the Sun is lower than $`10^7`$ m-2 yr-1, because such low detection rates are expected mainly for neutralinos lighter than about 200 GeV (see figure 1(d)). In this case the neutralino annihilation into final states containing Higgs bosons may have chances to compete with, or even dominate over the fermion and/or gauge boson pair final states if kinematically allowed, but since the Higgs bosons do not produce neutrinos directly, the neutrinos from the Higgses are not so energetic compared to those directly produced in the fermion or gauge boson decay. As a consequence, their contribution to the total detection rate which is proportional to the product of their branching ratios $`B_F`$ and the second moment of the neutrino spectra $`\left(dN/dE\right)_{F,i}`$, is not important for lighter neutralinos.

The indirect dark matter search experiments have now reached a sensitivity of $`10^3`$ m-2 yr-1, so our conclusion is that the Higgs bosons are important as far as the current indirect dark matter search experiments are concerned. The contribution from final states containing Higgs bosons results in a lower bound for the muon flux from the Sun of $`10^7÷10^8`$ m-2 yr-1 for neutralinos heavier than about 200 GeV. In other words, if the collider experiments show that the neutralino is so heavy, one should see signals at the latest as the indirect search experiments reach a sensitivity of about $`10^7`$ m-2 yr-1. And this is due to the contribution from the Higgs final states.

## 3 Energetic Tau Neutrinos from Charged Higgs Boson

In the last section we saw that the charged Higgs boson can decay directly into $`\tau `$ neutrinos via $`H^+\tau ^+\nu _\tau `$, which is the dominant channel below the $`tb`$ threshold in most cases except for small $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ values.

The $`\tau `$ neutrinos as the direct decay product of the charged Higgs from neutralino annihilation can be expected to have the highest energies among all $`\tau `$ neutrinos from WIMPs and have a harder energy spectrum. The charged Higgs boson produced in $`\chi \chi W^\pm H^{}`$ decays with energy between $`m_\chi `$ and $`2m_\chi `$ depending on the charged Higgs mass (currently we know that $`m_{\mathrm{Ch}}78.6`$ GeV PDG2000 ). The maximum energy the $`\tau `$ neutrinos can obtain from the charged Higgs boson produced in neutralino annihilation is always about the neutralino mass $`m_\chi `$, independent of the charged Higgs mass $`m_{\mathrm{Ch}}`$. The channel $`\chi \chi W^\pm H^{}`$ is open when the kinematic condition $`2m_\chi >m_W+m_{\mathrm{Ch}}`$ is satisfied. One thing interesting is that when the charged Higgs mass $`m_{\mathrm{Ch}}`$ not deviates too much from $`2m_\chi m_W`$, the $`\tau `$ neutrino energy spectrum should have the form of a relatively sharp peak at half the energy of the decaying charged Higgs 111 Indeed, if one assumes $`M_Wm_{\mathrm{Ch}}`$ (or equivalently $`M_W0`$), after the annihilation $`\chi \chi W^\pm H^{}`$ both $`W`$ and Higgs bosons can appear at rest and $`E_{H^+}=m_{\mathrm{Ch}}2m_\chi `$. Therefore the decay $`H^+\tau ^+\nu _\tau `$ gives $`E_\nu =E_\tau =m_{\mathrm{Ch}}/2=m_\chi `$. Under the same assumption the competitive annihilation $`\chi \chi W^\pm W^{}`$ with $`W\tau \nu `$ gives $`E_{W^\pm }=m_\chi `$ followed by $`E_\nu =E_\tau =m_\chi /2`$. Therefore the hardest part of the $`\nu _\tau `$ energy spectrum one can connect with the decay of the (very) heavy charged Higgs boson.  . In contrast, other neutralino annihilation products like fermion and gauge boson pairs decay always with energy equal to $`m_\chi `$ and generate a much flatter $`\tau `$ neutrino spectrum.

The flux of the $`\tau `$ neutrinos from the charged Higgs bosons produced in WIMPs annihilation and decaying with energy and velocity $`E_{\mathrm{Ch}}`$ and $`\beta _{\mathrm{Ch}}`$, respectively, can be calculated using the formulae for gauge boson decays given in Jun95

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{d\varphi }{dE}}\right)_{H^+}^{}(E_\nu )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_A}{4\pi R^2}}Br(\chi \chi H^\pm W^{})\left({\displaystyle \frac{dN}{dE}}\right)_{H^+}(E_\nu )`$ (7)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_A}{4\pi R^2}}Br(\chi \chi H^\pm W^{}){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(H^+\tau ^+\nu _\tau )}{E_{\mathrm{Ch}}\beta _{\mathrm{Ch}}}}\times `$ (11)
$`\mathrm{\Theta }(E_{\mathrm{low}}^{}<E_\nu <E_{\mathrm{upp}}^{}),`$
where

$$E_{\mathrm{low}}^{}=\frac{E_{\mathrm{Ch}}}{2}(1\beta _{\mathrm{Ch}}),E_{\mathrm{upp}}^{}=\frac{E_{\mathrm{Ch}}}{2}(1+\beta _{\mathrm{Ch}})$$
(12)
are the lower and upper boundaries for the $`\tau `$ neutrino energy. $`\mathrm{\Theta }(x)`$ is the Heaviside step function, $`\mathrm{\Theta }(x)=1`$ if $`x`$ is true and 0 otherwise.

In figure 3 we plot the differential $`\tau `$ neutrino flux from charged Higgs boson decay in the Earth versus the maximum $`\tau `$ neutrino energy $`E_{\mathrm{upp}}^{}`$; we also integrate the differential neutrino flux (11) over $`E_\nu `$ to obtain the total flux of the $`\tau `$ neutrinos from charged Higgs decay in the Earth and plot it versus the neutralino mass. The dependences of the maximum and mean energy of these $`\tau `$ neutrinos on the neutralino mass are also shown. The maximum energy a $`\tau `$ neutrino can obtain from the neutralino annihilation via charged Higgs decay $`E_{\mathrm{upp}}^{}`$ is roughly the neutralino mass, as expected.

For the $`\tau `$ neutrinos produced in the core of the Sun, the neutrino interactions with the solar medium play an important role in determining the $`\tau `$ neutrino spectrum at the Sun’s surface. We make a rough estimate for this effect following Rit88

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{d\varphi }{dE}}\right)_{H^+}^{}(E_\nu )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_A}{4\pi R^2}}Br(\chi \chi H^\pm W^{}){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(H^+\tau ^+\nu _\tau )}{E_{\mathrm{Ch}}\beta _{\mathrm{Ch}}}}\times `$ (15)
$`\left(1E_\nu \tau _\nu \right)^{\alpha _\nu 2}\mathrm{\Theta }(E_{\mathrm{low}}^{}<E_\nu <E_{\mathrm{upp}}^{})`$
with

$$E_{\mathrm{low}}^{}\frac{E_{\mathrm{low}}^{}}{1+E_{\mathrm{low}}^{}\tau _\nu },E_{\mathrm{upp}}^{}\frac{E_{\mathrm{upp}}^{}}{1+E_{\mathrm{upp}}^{}\tau _\nu }$$
(16)
the lower and upper boundaries for the energy of the $`\tau `$ neutrinos from the Sun. The coefficients $`\tau _{\nu _\tau }`$, $`\tau _{\overline{\nu }_\tau }`$, $`\alpha _{\nu _\tau }`$ and $`\alpha _{\overline{\nu }_\tau }`$ are used to parametrize the neutrino stopping and absorption effects in the Sun Rit88 ; Mori93 . Due to the interactions with the solar medium, the $`\tau `$ neutrino differential flux from the Sun depends on the neutrino energy $`E_\nu `$ explicitly. We choose to plot $`(d\varphi /dE)^{}`$ versus $`E_{\mathrm{upp}}^{}`$, since the flux is largest for the highest energy.

In figure 4 we show our results for the $`\tau `$ neutrinos from the charged Higgs decay in the Sun. By comparing it with figure 3 we see that the energy of the $`\tau `$ neutrinos from the Sun is to a large extent degraded due to the interactions with the solar medium, however, since all neutrinos produced by the neutralino annihilation in the core of the Sun suffer from these effects while propagating through the Sun, the $`\tau `$ neutrinos from charged Higgs decay are still the most energetic among all neutrinos from neutralino annihilation in the Sun. Furthermore, we can expect a much larger $`\tau `$ neutrino flux from the Sun than from the Earth.

All other neutralino annihilation products can also produce $`\tau `$ neutrinos. But for our purpose only those channels which can produce $`\tau `$ neutrinos with comparable fluxes in the same energy range as the charged Higgs boson does should be taken into account. Therefore, the light fermion pairs need not be considered, since the annihilation of neutralino into them are negligible when the channel $`\chi \chi H^\pm W^{}`$ is open. The annihilation into top quark pair is one of the dominant channels for heavier neutralinos. Top quark decays almost exclusively via $`tW^+b`$ with energy $`m_\chi `$. We make an estimate using the formulae given in Jun95  and found that though the maximum $`\tau `$ neutrino energy from top quark decay is also roughly $`m_\chi `$, the differential flux at the maximum energy value is negligible. Furthermore, the energy spectrum is much softer. Therefore we do not take into account the contribution from top quark decay when considering energetic $`\tau `$ neutrinos from charged Higgs decay. Following similar arguments, the neutral Higgs bosons $`h^0`$, $`H^0`$ and $`A^0`$ are also excluded. The gauge bosons $`W^\pm `$ and $`Z`$ decay with energy $`m_\chi `$ into $`\tau `$ neutrinos with branching ratios 0.105 and 0.067, respectively. For heavier neutralinos, the maximum energy of the $`\tau `$ neutrinos from gauge boson decay is also roughly $`m_\chi `$, the mean energy is always $`m_\chi /2`$. Our calculations show that the $`\tau `$ neutrino flux from gauge boson decays is comparable to or even greater than that from charged Higgs decay in the same energy range. One can expect an enhancement of the total $`\tau `$ neutrino flux by a factor of 2 due to the contributions from gauge boson pairs from neutralino annihilation.

Therefore the $`\nu _\tau `$ signal from the charged Higgs bosons one can in principle find only searching for an enhancement of the $`\nu _\tau `$ spectrum at highest $`\tau `$ neutrino energies. The larger the LSP and the charged Higgs boson masses the stronger can be the expected enhancement.

## 4 Conclusions

In this work we studied the role of the Higgs bosons in the indirect detection of the WIMPs via their annihilation into energetic neutrinos. We performed our calculations on the basis of the MSSM parameter space at the electroweak scale, we did not assume any universality relations for the parameters at the unification scale.

First we have investigated the contribution to the total upward-going muon detection rate from neutrinos produced in the neutralino annihilation final states containing Higgs bosons. We found that their contribution is in general significant if the neutralino is heavier than about 150 GeV, and is becoming dominant in the case of the Sun as the current indirect WIMPs detection experiments reach the sensitivities of $`10^3÷10^4`$ m-2 yr-1. But most important, the final states containing Higgs bosons result in a lower bound on the expected detection rate from the Sun of $`10^7÷10^8`$ m-2 yr-1 for neutralinos heavier than about 200 GeV.

While the neutral Higgs bosons do not decay into muon neutrinos directly, the charged Higgs boson produced in the neutralino annihilation channel $`\chi \chi W^\pm H^{}`$ has a large probability to decay into $`\tau `$ neutrinos directly via $`H^\pm \tau \nu _\tau `$. We expect them to be amongst the most energetic neutrinos from WIMPs annihilations and to have a very hard energy spectrum. We have estimated the energy and flux of these $`\tau `$ neutrinos from the Earth and the Sun, whereby in the case of the Sun the effects of neutrino stopping and absorption due to neutrino interactions with the solar medium were taken into account following Rit88 . Our results show that the maximum energy of the $`\tau `$ neutrinos from charged Higgs decay in the Earth is roughly the neutralino mass $`m_\chi `$, and their mean energy is just the energy of the charged Higgs boson, which depends only on the masses of the neutralino and the charged Higgs. The flux is in most cases below 1 m-2 yr -1 and lower for heavier neutralinos. Only for neutralino masses around 150–250 GeV one can expect higher $`\tau `$ neutrino flux.

In the case of the Sun, the energies of the $`\tau `$ neutrinos are strongly degraded due the interactions with the solar medium (not greater than 150 GeV even for the largest neutralino mass), the energy spectrum is also softer. But since all neutrinos propagating from the core of the Sun to the surface suffer from the same effects, the $`\tau `$ neutrinos from charged Higgs decay in the Sun are still among the most energetic and in principle can be separated when detected. Furthermore, one can expect much higher $`\tau `$ neutrino flux from the Sun, about $`10^2÷10^4`$ m-2 yr-1, than from the Earth.

The possible observation of such energetic $`\tau `$ neutrinos would be an evidence of the neutralino annihilation into charged Higgs bosons. In SUSY scenarios with very heavy sfermion and gaugino masses the existence of the charged Higgs boson could be considered as a clear signal of the supersymmetry.

## Acknowledgments

We thank Prof. Pran Nath and Dr. O. V. Suvorova for the helpful discussions.