text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The issue of hierarchical supersymmetry breakdown in supersymmetric brane worlds is one of the central issues in the quest for a phenomenologically viable extra-dimensional extension of the Standard Model. Many attempts towards formulating scenarios of supersymmetry breakdown that use new features offered by extra-dimensional setup have been made ,,,,,,,,,,,,.One of them is supersymmetry breakdown triggered by imposing nontrivial boundary conditions on field configurations along the compact transverse dimensions usually referred to as the Scherk-Schwarz mechanism. In the work published so far the investigation concentrated on flat Minkowski-type geometries of the branes and bulk, neglecting the backreaction of the gauge sectors on the gravitational background (in particular assuming a fixed radii of the extra dimensions), and in general the interactions of various fields with (super)gravity (but see , ). On the other hand, it is precisely partial ‘unification’ of the Standard Model with gravity that makes the Brane World scenarios so intriguing and appealing. In this note we would like to clarify the status of the Scherk-Schwarz approach to supersymmetry breaking in the nontrivial gravity backgrounds using the class of simple warped gauged supergravities with flipped boundary conditions described in .

In particular, we find out that the simple flipped supergravity forms the locally supersymmetric extension of the $`(++)`$ bigravity model of Kogan et. al. ,,. In such a setup one circumvents the van Dam-Veltman-Zakharov observation about the nondecoupling of the additional polarization states of the massive graviton ,,. The size of the residual four-dimensional cosmological constant can be tuned to arbitralily small values by taking the distance between branes suitably large. We discuss the mass spectrum of gravitons and gravitini in the resulting super-bigravity.

To begin with let us notice that the brane-world version of the Scherk-Schwarz mechanism contains a number of ingredients. Assuming for simplicity that the extra dimension is just a circle $`S^1`$, and that the higher-dimensional theory has a group G of global symmetries, one can impose on various fields periodicity with a twist, that is instead of standard periodicity conditions $`\psi (y+2\pi \rho )=\psi (y)`$ it is consistent to demand that after following the circle a configuration goes back to itself up to a symmetry transformation $`U_\beta `$: $`\psi (y+2\pi \rho )=U_\beta \psi (y)`$. In particular, if the twist matrix is different for bosons and fermions, such boundary conditions lead to supersymmetry breakdown. If the extra dimension is an orbifold, say $`S^1/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is a discrete group, for instance $`Z_2`$ or $`Z_2\times Z_2^{}`$, then $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ may be embedded nontrivially into the group of global and local symmetries of the model, and its combined geometrical and internal action has to be taken into account. Finally, the matter and gauge fields located on the branes have in general nontrivial interaction with bulk fields, and bulk fields must be allowed to have selfinteractions. In the context of a locally supersymmetric theory bulk selfinteractions imply that one has a gauged supergravity in the bulk, with a number of hypermultiplets and vector and tensor multiplets. The coupling of gr avity and and bulk matter to branes implies that branes act as nontrivial sources for bulk configurations, and modify the behaviour of fields at the fixed points. We shall try to determine how the Scherk-Schwarz mechanism works in the presence of all these ingredients and how does it affect stability of the extra dimensions.

## 2 Flipped and detuned supergravity in five dimensions

The simple N=2 d=5 supergravity multiplet contains metric tensor (represented by the vielbein $`e_\alpha ^m`$), two gravitini $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha ^A`$ and one vector field $`A_\alpha `$ – the graviphoton. We shall consider gauging of a ($`U(1)`$) subgroup of the global $`SU(2)_R`$ symmetry of the 5d Lagrangian. In general, coupling of bulk fields to branes turns out to be related to the gauging, and the bulk-brane couplings will preserve only a subgroup of the $`SU(2)_R`$. Purely gravitational 5d action describing such a setup reads $`S=_{M_5}e_5_{grav},`$ where

$`_{grav}=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}R{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}_{\alpha \beta }^{\alpha \beta }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}}}A_\alpha _{\beta \gamma }_{\delta ϵ}ϵ^{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta ϵ}+`$ (1)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_\alpha ^A\gamma ^{\alpha \beta \gamma }D_\beta \mathrm{\Psi }_{\gamma A}+{\displaystyle \frac{3\mathrm{i}}{8\sqrt{2}}}\left(\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_\gamma ^A\gamma ^{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }\mathrm{\Psi }_{\delta A}+2\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}^{\alpha A}\mathrm{\Psi }_A^\beta \right)_{\alpha \beta }+`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{i}}{\sqrt{2}}}𝒫_{AB}\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_\alpha ^A\gamma ^{\alpha \beta }\mathrm{\Psi }_\beta ^B{\displaystyle \frac{8}{3}}\mathrm{Tr}(𝒫^2).`$
Covariant derivative contains both gravitational and gauge connections:

$$D_\alpha \mathrm{\Psi }_\beta ^A=_\alpha \mathrm{\Psi }_\beta ^A+A_\alpha 𝒫_B^A\mathrm{\Psi }_\beta ^B,$$
(2)
where $`_\alpha `$ denotes covariant derivative with respect to gravitational transformations and $`𝒫=𝒫_i\mathrm{i}\sigma ^i`$ is the gauge prepotential. The pair of gravitini satisfies symplectic Majorana condition $`\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}^A\mathrm{\Psi }_A^{}\gamma _0=(ϵ^{AB}\mathrm{\Psi }_B)^TC`$ where $`C`$ is the charge conjugation matrix and $`ϵ^{AB}`$ is antisymmetric $`SU(2)_R`$ metric (we use $`ϵ_{12}=ϵ^{12}=1`$ convention). Supersymmetry transformations are also modified by the gauging

$`\delta e_\alpha ^m={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\overline{ϵ}^A\gamma ^m\mathrm{\Psi }_{\alpha A},\delta A_\alpha ={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{i}}{2\sqrt{2}}}\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha ^Aϵ_A,`$ (3)
$`\delta \mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha ^A=D_\alpha ϵ^A{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{i}}{6\sqrt{2}}}\left(\gamma _\alpha ^{\beta \gamma }4\delta _\alpha ^\beta \gamma ^\gamma \right)_{\beta \gamma }ϵ^A+{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}\mathrm{i}}{3}}𝒫^{AB}\gamma _\alpha ϵ_B.`$ (4)
If one puts $`𝒫=0`$ and stays on the circle, then as the twist matrix one may take any $`SU(2)`$ matrix acting on the symplectic indices $`a=1,2`$. On a circle the $`U(1)`$ prepotential takes the form $`P=g_Ss_ai\sigma ^a`$ and the twist matrix is $`U_\beta =e^{i\beta s_a\sigma ^a}`$. However, in this case the unbroken symmetry is a local one, and the Scherk-Schwarz condition is equivalent to putting in a nontrivial Wilson line, , we shall come back to this issue later in the paper.

When one moves over to an orbifold $`S^1/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, one needs to define in addition to the gauging the action of the space group $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ on the fields. Let us take $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=Z_2`$ first. Then we have two fixed points at $`y=0,\pi `$, and we can define the action of $`Z_2`$ in terms of two independent boundary conditions ($`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ stands here for a doublet of symplectic-Majorana spinors or for a doublet of scalars, like two complex scalars from the hypermultiplet)

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(y)=\widehat{Q}_0\mathrm{\Psi }(y),\mathrm{\Psi }(\pi r_cy)=\widehat{Q}_\pi \mathrm{\Psi }(\pi r_c+y),$$
(5)
where $`\widehat{Q}_0`$, $`\widehat{Q}_\pi `$ are some arbitrary matrices, independent of the space-time coordinates, such that $`\widehat{Q}_0^2=\widehat{Q}_\pi ^2=1`$ . Conditions (5) imply:

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(y+2\pi r_c)=\widehat{Q}_\pi \widehat{Q}_0\mathrm{\Psi }(y).$$
(6)
Hence, if the boundary conditions at $`y=0`$ and $`y=\pi r_c`$ are different, one obtains twisted boundary conditions with $`U_\beta =\widehat{Q}_\pi \widehat{Q}_0`$. It is easy to see that $`U_\beta \widehat{Q}_{0,\pi }U_\beta =\widehat{Q}_{0,\pi }`$, which is the consistency condition considered in ,,. This is immediately generalized to $`S^1/(Z_2\times Z_2^{})`$ with two fixed points for each of the $`Z_2`$s, $`y=0,\frac{1}{2}\pi r_c,\pi r_c,\frac{3}{2}\pi r_c`$, and independent $`\widehat{Q}_y`$ at each of the fixed points.

If one writes $`\widehat{Q}_\pi \widehat{Q}_0=\mathrm{exp}(i\beta _a\sigma ^a)`$, the condition (5) is solved by

$$\mathrm{\Psi }=e^{i\beta _a\sigma ^af(y)}\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }},$$
(7)
where $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}`$ is periodic on the circle and $`f(y)`$ obeys the conditions

$$f(y+2\pi r_c)=f(y)+1,f(y)=f(y).$$
(8)
When one expresses the initial fields $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ through $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}`$, the kinetic term in the Lagrangian generates mass terms for periodic fields $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}`$:

$$\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\gamma ^M_M\mathrm{\Psi }if^{}\overline{\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}}\gamma ^5\beta _a\sigma ^a\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}.$$
(9)
### 2.1 Scherk-Schwarz mechanism in the $`SU(2)`$ R-symmetry of 5d gauged supergravity

Let us now move on to the specific case of a 5d supergravity with a gauged $`U(1)`$ subgroup of the $`SU(2)`$ R symmetry. The $`Z_2`$ action on the gravitino is defined as follows:

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_\mu ^A(y)=\gamma _5(Q_0)_B^A\mathrm{\Psi }_\mu ^B(y),\mathrm{\Psi }_5^A(y)=\gamma _5(Q_0)_B^A\mathrm{\Psi }_5^B(y),`$
$`\mathrm{\Psi }_\mu ^A(\pi r_cy)=\gamma _5(Q_\pi )_B^A\mathrm{\Psi }_\mu ^B(\pi r_c+y),\mathrm{\Psi }_5^A(\pi r_cy)=\gamma _5(Q_\pi )_B^A\mathrm{\Psi }_5^B(\pi r_c+y),`$ (10)
and the parameters $`ϵ^A`$ of the supersymmetry transformations obey the same boundary conditions as the 4d components of gravitini. Symplectic Majorana condition ($`(Q_{0,\pi })^C=\sigma _2(Q_{0,\pi })^{}\sigma _2=Q_{0,\pi }`$) and normalization $`(Q_{0,\pi })^2=1`$ imply $`Q_{0,\pi }=(q_{0,\pi })_a\sigma ^a`$, where $`(q_{0,\pi })_a`$ are real parameters . We would like to gauge a $`U(1)`$ subgroup of the global $`SU(2)`$. In the general case  we can choose the prepotential of the form

$$P=g_Rϵ(y)R+g_SS,$$
(11)
where $`R=r_ai\sigma ^a`$ and $`S=s_ai\sigma ^a`$. On an orbifold $`S^1/(Z_2\times Z_2^{})`$ the expression $`ϵ(y)R`$ gets replaced by $`\overline{R}(y)`$ which is a pice-wise constant matrix with discontinuities (jumps) at the positions of the four branes. The basic relation between the boundary conditions and the prepotential comes from the requirement, that under supersymmetry variations the transformed gravitino $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha ^A+\delta \mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha ^A`$ should obey the same boundary conditions as $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha ^A`$. Taking into account that the gauge field present in the supersymmetry transformation of the gravitini is that graviphoton, whose 4d part we choose to take $`Z_2`$-odd with respect to each brane (we need only $`N=1`$ supersymmetry on the branes), and the fifth component is always even, we obtain the relations valid for any segment containing a pair of naighbouring fixed points

$$[Q_{0,\pi },R]=0,\{Q_{0,\pi },S\}=0.$$
(12)
For nonzero $`R`$ this implies $`Q_y`$ proportional to $`R`$, i.e. $`Q_y=\alpha (i\sqrt{R^2})^1R`$ with $`\alpha =\pm 1`$. The simplest case of interest corresponds to $`Q_0=Q_\pi `$. As shown in , in this case the closure of supersymmetry transformations reqires putting on the branes equal tensions whose maginitude is determined by $`R`$ (we quote only the bosonic gravity part of the action):

$$M^3S=d^5x\sqrt{g_5}(\frac{1}{2}R+6k^2)6d^5x\sqrt{g_4}kT(\delta (x^5)+\delta (x^5\pi r_c))$$
(13)
where

$$k=\sqrt{\frac{8}{9}(g_R^2R^2+g_S^2S^2)}\mathrm{and}T=\frac{g_1\sqrt{\stackrel{}{R}^2}}{\sqrt{(g_1^2R^2+g_2^2S^2)}}.$$
(14)
This is easily generalized. If on a $`S^1/(\mathrm{\Pi }Z_2)`$ one takes boundary conditions given by pairs of $`Q`$ and $`Q`$ one after another, then this implies that all branes on $`S^1/Z_2`$, $`S^1/(Z_2\times Z_2^{})`$, $`S^1/(\mathrm{\Pi }Z_2)`$ have the same brane tension. Assuming also $`S0`$ such a system gives a static vacuum with $`AdS_4`$ foliation and fixed radius of the orbifold111For two equal and negative brane tensions the maximally symmetric solution doesn’t exist.. In the case of $`Z_2`$ the overall twist matrix is given by $`U_\beta =1`$ and in the case of $`Z_2\times Z_2^{}`$ there is no overall twist: $`U_\beta =+1`$. This may be generalized again. From the analysis of  it follows that if in the boundary conditions $`Q`$ is followed by $`+Q`$ (and not $`Q`$) on the next brane, then the brane tension on the second brane must be equal in magnitude but of opposite sign to that on the first brane. Together with the previous findings this leads to quasi-quiver diagrams where branes with brane tensions $`\pm \lambda `$ and boundary conditions $`(\pm Q),(\pm Q)\mathrm{}`$ follow each other respecting $`\mathrm{\Pi }Z_2`$ symmetry. At first glance possible strings of boundary conditions could be for instance $`(Q),(Q),(Q),(Q)`$ or $`(Q),(Q),(Q),(Q),(Q),(Q)`$. However, the stretches between $`(Q),(Q)`$ branes collapse to a point. This is easily seen from the fact, that to have a finite-length distance between $`(Q),(+Q)`$ branes the brane tensions must be smaller than the critical value $`\lambda <\lambda _{cr}`$, equivalently $`T<1`$, where the critical tension is that of the Randall–Sundrum brane. This implies, that the branes at the ends of a $`(Q),(Q)`$ segment have brane tensions of opposite sign and of the same magnitude smaller than the critical value. Soving boundary conditions on such a segment, with the maximally symmetric foliation ansatz, leads to the result $`|y_{b1}y_{b2}|=0`$, i.e. the branes coincide. Hence the possible static quasi-quivers correspond to the chains $`(Q),(Q),(Q),\mathrm{},(Q),(Q),(Q)`$. These are locally supersymmetric backgrounds corresponding to the models of the type discussed in .

Another extension of the picture is possible. Instead of cancellation of the supersymmetry variation of the brane tension by means of a ‘jumping’ prepotential in the bulk, one can consider, ,, adding 4d gravitino mass terms on branes, and modifying the variations of the fifth component of the gravitino. Also in this case one can impose different boundary conditions on different walls. The general case of such an extension shall be discussed elsewhere, here we quote a simple example with $`R=0`$ for illustration. In this case one has a brane action of the form

$$S_b=d^5xe_4\delta (yy_b)(\lambda _0+M_{AB}\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_\mu ^A\gamma ^{\mu \nu }\mathrm{\Psi }_\nu ^B)$$
(15)
with gravitini components $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\nu ^B`$ satisfying local boundary conditions given by a matrix $`Q_{y_b}`$. The necessary modification of the transformation law is $`\delta \mathrm{\Psi }_{\widehat{5}}^A=2\delta (yy_b)ϵ^{AC}M_{(CB)}\gamma _5ϵ^B`$ where the hat denotes a flat space index and $`(..)`$ is the symmetrization with the weight $`1/2`$. Cancellation of susy variations requires that the brane tension and the matrix $`M_{AB}`$ satisfy the equation

$$\lambda _0ϵ_{AB}+4\sqrt{2}i(M_{(AC)}P_B^C+P_{(AC)}ϵ^{CD}M_{(DB)})=0.$$
(16)
In the above suitable projections are made with the help of the projective operators $`\mathrm{\Pi }_\pm =1/2(\delta _B^A\pm \gamma _5Q_{y_b}^{}{}_{B}{}^{A})`$, remembering that $`\mathrm{\Psi }_5^A`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\mu ^B`$ have opposite parities, see (2.1). In particular, the simple choice $`\lambda _0=M_{AB}=0`$ is sufficient to illustrate the way the twisting works. In this case the relevant condition on the operators $`Q_{y_b}`$ is $`\{Q_{y_b},P\}=0`$.

Let us discuss the genaration of the Scherk-Schwarz (nonsupersymmetric) mass terms in the two limiting cases. First, let us take $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=Z_2`$ and $`Q_0`$ and $`Q_\pi `$ orthogonal to each other. In this case one is free to take $`Q_0=\sigma _3`$ and $`Q_\pi =\sigma _1`$. Then $`Q_\pi Q_0=i\sigma _2`$. Hence, the only possibility for the prepotential is $`gP=ig\sigma _2`$, because other directions do not commute or anticommute with both $`Q_0`$ and $`Q_\pi `$. In such case the only unbroken $`U(1)`$ subgroup is generated by the $`\sigma _2`$ direction of the global $`SU(2)`$ symmetry. Notice that we can write $`Q_\pi Q_0=i\sigma _2=\mathrm{exp}(i\beta _2\sigma ^2)`$, where $`\beta _2=\frac{3}{2}\pi +2k\pi `$ and $`kZ`$. Then the solution which satisfies the boundary conditions, expressed in terms of periodic fields, is:

$$\mathrm{\Psi }=e^{i\beta _2\sigma ^2f(y)}\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}.$$
(17)
Hence in the action expressed in terms of periodic fields, one obtains supersymmetry violating mass terms:

$$e_5\frac{\mathrm{i}}{2}\delta _{AB}\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_\mu ^A\gamma ^{\mu \nu }\gamma ^5\mathrm{\Psi }_\nu ^B\beta _2f^{}(y).$$
(18)
Let us take as an example the function $`f=y/(2\pi r_c)`$. This function leads to the mass term $`\frac{\mathrm{i}}{2}\delta _{AB}\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_\mu ^A\gamma ^{\mu \nu }\gamma ^5\mathrm{\Psi }_\nu ^B\frac{\beta _2}{2\pi r_c}`$. Already here one can conclude that the bulk Lagrangian after redefinition cannot be put into the form compatible with linearly realized supersymmetry. To see this, one should note that the only mass terms compatible with supersymmetry are given by a prepotential. Supersymmetry requires, that the same prepotential determines the bulk scalar potential. In our case, we have redefined the gravitini only, hence the bulk potential term stays unchanged, independent of $`\beta _2`$. At the same time any prepotential that should describe the Scherk-Schwarz mass terms shall depend on $`\beta _2`$, hence the supersymmetric relation between mass terms and the scalar potential is necessarily violated. This is what we mean when we call the Scherk-Schwarz mass terms explicitly non-supersymmetric. On the other hand it is obvious, that the Scherk-Schwarz picture is equivalent indeed to a spontaneosly broken flipped supergravity.

Let us now consider again the case where $`Q_0`$ and $`Q_\pi `$ are parallel. Let us take for simplicity $`Q_0=\sigma _3`$. Then $`Q_\pi =\alpha \sigma _3`$, where $`\alpha =\pm 1`$, and the twisted boundary conditions take the form:

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(y+2\pi r_c)=\alpha \mathrm{\Psi }(y).$$
(19)
For $`\alpha =1`$ we have usual case with periodic field. For $`\alpha =1`$ we obtain ‘flipped’ supersymmetry of . Let us take a nonzero $`S`$-part of (11). Assume the prepotential of the form

$$P=\frac{g}{\sqrt{2}}\left(ϵ(y)\sigma _3+\sigma _1\right).$$
(20)
For $`\alpha =1`$ we can write:

$$Q_\pi Q_0=1=e^{i\beta (ϵ(y)\sigma _3+\sigma _1)},$$
(21)
where $`\beta =\pi +2k\pi `$ and $`kZ`$. Similarly to the case of the previous paragraph one obtains the following solution

$$\mathrm{\Psi }=e^{i\beta (ϵ(y)\sigma _3+\sigma _1)f(y)}\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }},$$
(22)
and supersymmetry violating mass terms

$$e_5\frac{1}{2}ϵ_{AB}\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_\mu ^A\gamma ^{\mu \nu }\gamma ^5\left(_0^1𝑑se^{is\beta (ϵ(y)\sigma _3+\sigma _1)}(\mathrm{i}\beta (ϵf)^{}\sigma _3+\mathrm{i}\beta f^{}\sigma _1)e^{i(1s)\beta (ϵ(y)\sigma _3+\sigma _1)}\right)_C^B\mathrm{\Psi }_\nu ^C.$$
(23)
Let us take again $`f=y/(2\pi r_c)`$. This gives

$`e_5{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_\mu ^A\gamma ^{\mu \nu }\gamma ^5{\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{2\pi r_c}}(\sigma _{AB}^3ϵ(y)\sigma _{AB}^1)\mathrm{\Psi }_\nu ^Be_4\delta (y\pi r_c)\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_\mu ^A\gamma ^{\mu \nu }\gamma ^{\widehat{5}}\mathrm{sin}(\beta /2)\sigma _{AB}^1\mathrm{\Psi }_\nu ^B`$
$`=e_5{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_\mu ^A\gamma ^{\mu \nu }\gamma ^5{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2r_c}}(\sigma _{AB}^3ϵ(y)\sigma _{AB}^1)\mathrm{\Psi }_\nu ^Be_4\delta (y\pi r_c)\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_\mu ^A\gamma ^{\mu \nu }\gamma ^{\widehat{5}}\sigma _{AB}^1\mathrm{\Psi }_\nu ^B.`$ (24)
This example is more involved, but the same comments as in the previous case apply. The generalization to a quasi-quiver setup is obvious. One may notice, that only the bulk terms are proportional to the naive KK scale $`1/r_c`$. The scale of boundary terms is set by the 5d Planck scale.

Let us note already here, that even though the symmetry that we are using to implement the Scherk-Schwarz mechanism may be a local one, the Scherk-Schwarz masses cannot be removed, as one may naively think, by means of a gauge transformation. Such a transformation would have to be a ‘large’ one, leading from a periodic to an antiperiodic configuration. However, the definition of the model involves not only couplings in the Lagrangian but also the choice of specific boundary conditions. Hence such large gauge transformations connect two different (although physically equivalent) Hilbert spaces, and do not belong to the group of internal symmetries of our models.

We would like to note, that in a curved gravitational background different mass spectra for the ‘would be’ superpartners, like graviton and gravitino, is not an unambigous sign of broken supersymmetry. In particular, in flipped supersymmetry models the background is of the $`AdS_4`$-foliation form, and one knows , that the $`AdS_4`$ supermultiplets contain in general particles with different mass terms. For instance, massive higher spin representations ($`E_0>s+1,s1/2`$) are of the form

$$D(E_0,s)D(E_0+1/2,s+1/2)D(E_0+1/2,s1/2)D(E_0+1,s),$$
(25)
with the mass-squared operator $`m^2=E_0(E_03)(s+1)(s2)`$. However, if one is able to obtain an approximate formula for a mass spectrum as a function of the quantization parameter, then one can compare its shape to the towers of supersymmetric masses. Since in any case the mass terms are certainly of phenomenological interest, we shall compute them and come back to the issue of seeing supersymmetry breaking through the spectrum later in the paper. The unambigous sign of supersymmetry breakdown are nonzero vacuum values of the variations of fermions, or the absence of global Killing spinors, see .

### 2.2 Another picture of the Scherk-Schwarz mechanism in the presence of gauge symmetries

Let us consider again the 5d supergravity with $`U(1)`$ gauge symmetry and charged gravitno fields (i.e. $`U(1)`$ subgroup of $`SU(2)_R`$). The covariant derivative takes the form $`D_M\mathrm{\Psi }_N^A=_M\mathrm{\Psi }_N^A+gA_MP_B^A\mathrm{\Psi }_N^B`$ . In the case of unbroken supersymmetry all components of gauge fields should have vacuum expectation values equal to zero. To see this, one may have a look at the gravitino supersymmetry transformation, $`\delta _ϵ\mathrm{\Psi }_M^A_Mϵ^A+gA_MP_B^Aϵ^B`$. In the previous section we have assumed the expectation value of the gauge field to vanish, $`<A_M>=0`$, but the gravitini fields were choosen to satify twisted boundary conditions. On the other hand, one may try to eliminate twisted boundary conditions by a non-periodic (large) gauge transformation. Let us take for the sake of definiteness the first of the examples of the previous section, equations (17),(18), $`P=ig\sigma ^2`$. The necessary gauge transformation is given by

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_M\mathrm{\Psi }_M^{}=e^{\mathrm{i}\beta _2\sigma ^2f(y)}\mathrm{\Psi }_M,$$
(26)
and obviously the primed gravitino field is periodic. However in such a case one has to transform the gauge field as well

$$\stackrel{~}{A}_5\stackrel{~}{A}_5^{}=\stackrel{~}{A}_5+\mathrm{i}\beta _2\sigma ^2f^{}(y),$$
(27)
where the tilde denotes matrix gauge field. This implies in turn a non-zero vacuum expectation value of the transformed $`U(1)`$ gauge field $`<A_5^{}>=1/gf^{}(y)\beta _2`$. At present the bulk non-supersymmetric gravitino masses arises in the theory as a result of a non-zero expectation value of the gauge part of the covariant derivative in the kinetic term. This is the Wilson line breaking, see . Let us note that if one takes our standard choice $`f(y)=y/(2\pi r_c)`$, then the integrated Wilson line does not vanish, $`𝑑x^5<A_5>=\mathrm{i}\beta _2\sigma ^20`$, which is a sign that supersymmetry is broken globally.

## 3 The role of boundary couplings

The universal hipermultiplet $`\{\zeta ^a,q^i\}`$ consists of a doublet of fermions and of four real scalars $`q_i\{V,\sigma ,x,y\}`$ (we also use $`\xi =x+\mathrm{i}y`$). Scalars parametrize a quaternionic manifold, whose global symmetry group is $`Sp(2)\times SU(2)_R`$. The kinetic term of the bosonic part reads:

$$\mathrm{L}_{\mathrm{k}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{t}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{c}}=\mathrm{h}_{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{j}}\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{M}\mathrm{q}^\mathrm{i}\mathrm{D}^\mathrm{M}\mathrm{q}^\mathrm{j},\mathrm{h}_{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{j}}=\mathrm{V}_\mathrm{i}^{\mathrm{A}\mathrm{a}}\mathrm{V}_\mathrm{j}^{\mathrm{B}\mathrm{b}}ϵ_{\mathrm{A}\mathrm{B}}\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{a}\mathrm{b}},$$
(28)
where $`h_{ij}`$ is a quaternionic metric. We can write the quaternionic metric in the explicit form:

$$h_{ij}dq^idq^j=\frac{1}{4V^2}dV^2+\frac{1}{4V^2}\left[d\sigma +\mathrm{i}(\overline{\xi }d\xi \xi d\overline{\xi })\right]^2+\frac{1}{V}d\xi d\overline{\xi }.$$
(29)
As explained in ,, when some of the global symmetries are gauged, supersymmetry requires additional boundary terms involving bulk fields to be present in the model. This is the way the five-dimensional version of the Horava-Witten model, and brane-bulk supergravities of , work. For simplicity let us consider again the $`Z_2`$ orbifold (generalizations follow the same lines as in the previous chapters). In the case of flipped Horava-Witten and Randall-Sundrum models (with the hypermultiplet) the additional boundary terms in the action are

$$S_b=d^5xe_46k(\theta \frac{\alpha }{V}\theta \frac{|\xi |^2}{V})(\delta (y)+\delta (y\pi r_c)),$$
(30)
where $`\theta =0`$ gives the flipped Horava-Witten model, and $`\alpha =0`$ corresponds to the flipped Randall-Sundrum case. These terms, like the gauging in the bulk, preserve only a $`U(1)`$ subgroup of the product of the $`SU(2)_R`$ and the symmetry group of the quaternionic manifold. Moreover, these boundary terms break explicitly the $`N=2`$ bulk supersymmetry down to the local $`N=1`$. It has been shown in  that if one would have at ones disposal the exact $`SU(2)_R`$ symmetry and embed the twist of the boundary conditions into this group to break $`N=2`$ supersymmetry by the Scherk-Schwarz mechanism in the Horava-Witten model, and in addition project-out the $`Z_2`$-odd mode, then in four dimensions this breaking would be seen as a spontaneous breaking of the efective $`N=1`$ supergravity. However, the complete model contains also brane terms that break $`N=2`$ explicitly. Second, as we have seen having a net twist of the boundary conditions requires opposite boundary conditions on each wall, and the same sign of boundary terms on both. This makes a physical difference with respect to the original Horava-Witten model, where the boundary terms had to have opposite signs. These observations imply in particular, that the five-dimensional picture of the Scherk-Schwarz supersymmetry breaking in Horava-Witten and Randall-Sundrum type models is physically different from the breaking by gaugino or superpotential (or flux) condensation in these models, see for instance ,,.

To illustrate how the Scherk-Schwarz breaking would work in a model with a hypermultiplet, let us put $`\theta =0`$. One can check that in this case the full action (including boundary terms) is invariant under the following transformation:

$$\zeta ^ae^{\mathrm{i}\beta \sigma _3}\zeta ^a,\mathrm{\Psi }^Ae^{\mathrm{i}\beta \sigma _3}\mathrm{\Psi }^A,\xi e^{\mathrm{i2}\beta }\xi ,$$
(31)
where $`\beta `$ is the transformation parameter and $`\zeta ^a`$ is a hyperino. Now, one can impose associated boundary conditions:

$$\zeta ^a(y+2\pi r_c)=e^{\mathrm{i}\beta \sigma _3}\zeta ^a(y),\mathrm{\Psi }^A(y+2\pi r_c)=e^{\mathrm{i}\beta \sigma _3}\mathrm{\Psi }^A(y),\xi (y+2\pi r_c)=e^{\mathrm{i2}\beta }\xi (y).$$
(32)
It is obvious that fields

$$\zeta ^a=e^{\mathrm{i}\beta \sigma _3f(y)}\widehat{\zeta }^a,\mathrm{\Psi }^A=e^{\mathrm{i}\beta \sigma _3f(y)}\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}^A,\xi =e^{\mathrm{i2}\beta f(y)}\widehat{\xi }$$
(33)
expressed in terms of new periodic (hatted) fields satisfy the conditions (32). As the consequence the Scherk-Schwarz non-supersymmetric mass terms are generated for hyperini

$$\frac{1}{2}e_4(\mathrm{i}\beta )\overline{\zeta }^a\gamma ^{\widehat{5}}\sigma _{ab}^1\zeta ^bf^{}(y),$$
(34)
gravitini, and for the complex scalars $`\xi `$. In fact, one generates also new quartic terms in the scalar potential, in addition to the supersymmetric scalar potential $`V_{susy}=g^28/3tr(P^2)+g^2/2h_{ij}k^ik^j`$, where here $`k^\xi =2\mathrm{i}\xi `$. Assuming vanishing expectation values of brane sources for the scalar $`\sigma `$ the terms in the non-supersymmetric part of the potential that do not contain $`_5\xi `$ are

$$V(\widehat{\xi })=\frac{\beta ^2(f^{})^2}{V^2}|\widehat{\xi }|^2(4V+3|\widehat{\xi }|^2),$$
(35)
hence the mass-squared parameter for the normalized scalar is $`4\beta ^2(f^{})^2`$. One can see that performing the Scherk-Schwarz redefinition of scalar fields, which my be identified for instance with the higgs-like field in the observable sector, one can create a complicated scalar potential. However, it will always contain the same physics as the locally supersymmetric lagrangian in the spontaneously broken phase, which is usually much simpler to analyse. The same comment concerns the fermionic sector. The Scherk-Schwarz masses for matter fermions superficially look like terms breaking supersymmetry in a hard way (like quartic terms in the potential), but the equivalence to the spontaneously broken phase guarantees cancellation of dangerous divergencies. The fact that the Scherk-Schwarz masses for chiral fermions do not belong to a linearly realized 5d supersymmetry may be seen from the observation, that supersymmetric masses are defined by the geometry of the quaternionic manifold and by the Killing vectors $`k^i`$, none of which had changed under the Scherk-Schwarz redefinition. To summarize, the redefinitions have broken linear supersymmetry both in hipermultiplet and in gravity sectors.

Another issue concerning boundary couplings of bulk fields is a statement, that they may lead to dangerous singular terms in the equations of motion of the bulk fields, and therefore one should use various redefinitions of fields to redefine them away. In fact, in consistent theories such as bulk–branes supergravities these singularities are harmless, see ,. To see how the cancellation works, let us take the example of a $`Z_2`$-odd bulk field coupled derivatively to brane operators, which is of particular importance in Horava-Witten and Randall–Sundrum type models. In this case the Lagrangian includes a coupling to sources on the hidden wall and to operators consisting of observable fields on the visible wall

$`S(\mathrm{\Phi })`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^5x\left(\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }+_5\mathrm{\Phi }𝒮\delta (x^5\pi \rho )+_5\mathrm{\Phi }𝒪\delta (x^5)\right)}`$ (36)
The bulk equation of motion is

$$\mathrm{}_4\mathrm{\Phi }+_5^2\mathrm{\Phi }=𝒮(x)_5\delta (x^5\pi \rho )+𝒪(x)_5\delta (x^5)$$
(37)
The equation of motion for the non-zero mode $`\psi (x;x^5)`$ coincides then with the full equation of motion, the proper boundary conditions on the half-circle being

$`\underset{x^5\pi \rho }{lim}\psi ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}𝒮`$
$`\underset{x^50}{lim}\psi ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}𝒪`$ (38)
One easily finds the solution in the form

$$\psi =\frac{𝒮+𝒪}{2\pi \rho }x^5\frac{𝒪}{2}+\psi _1+\psi _2+\mathrm{}$$
(39)
where the higher terms in the series are vanishing on the branes and can be computed from the recursive relation $`\mathrm{}_4\psi _{n1}+_5^2\psi _n=0`$. One can check, that the sigular terms cancel out from the equations of motion of all fields $`\psi _n`$, $`n=1,2,\mathrm{}`$. For instance, the equation of motion for $`\psi _1`$ is

$$\mathrm{}_4\psi _1+_5^2\psi _1=\frac{\mathrm{}_4(𝒪+𝒮)}{2\pi r_c}y+\frac{\mathrm{}_4𝒪}{2}.$$
(40)
Hence the field $`\psi _1`$ has no discontinuities, and no singularities in the equation of motion. It is interesting to notice, that derivatives of boundary operators act effectively as bulk sources for $`\psi _1`$.

## 4 Wave functions and mass quantization in flipped supergravity

In this chapter we would like to have a closer look at the localization of wave functions and mass quantization in simple models with twisted supersymmetry, and compare this to the well known Randall-Sundrum case with supersymmetry and to the same model with supersymmetry explicitly broken through the ‘wrong’ sign of the brane tension on one of the walls. The specific twisted model we shall discuss here is the locally supersymmetric generalization of the $`(++)`$ bigravity model of .

### 4.1 Naive RS model with flipped boundary conditions

Let us focus on the supergravity action with the prepotential of the form $`P=gϵ(y)\mathrm{i}\sigma _3R`$. We define $`Z_2`$ action on the gravitino sector as:

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_\mu ^A(y)=\gamma _5(\sigma _3)_B^A\mathrm{\Psi }_\mu ^B(y),\mathrm{\Psi }_5^A(y)=\gamma _5(\sigma _3)_B^A\mathrm{\Psi }_5^B(y),`$ (41)
$`\mathrm{\Psi }_\mu ^A(\pi r_cy)=\gamma _5(\sigma _3)_B^A\mathrm{\Psi }_\mu ^B(\pi r_c+y),\mathrm{\Psi }_5^A(\pi r_cy)=\gamma _5(\sigma _3)_B^A\mathrm{\Psi }_5^B(\pi r_c+y)`$ $`,`$
which implies flipped ($`\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha ^A(y+2\pi r_c)=\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha ^A(y)`$) boundary conditions. Cosmological constant that arises from the prepotential is given by $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_5=\frac{16}{3}g^2R^2`$. To obtain the Randall-Sundrum exponential warp-factor, we assume the following brane action:

$$S_{brane}=6d^5x\sqrt{e_4}k(\delta (y)\delta (y\pi r_c)),$$
(42)
where we have defined $`k=\frac{2\sqrt{2}}{3}g|R|`$. Notice, that in this case we have broken supersymmetry on the second brane ,.

Let us investigate the spectrum of the effective theory. Consider small fluctuations of the 4d components of the metric tensor around RS vacuum solution: $`g_{\mu \nu }(x^\rho ,y)=e^{2k|y|}\eta _{\mu \nu }+\varphi _h(y)h_{\mu \nu }(x^\rho )`$, where $`h_{\mu \nu }(x^\rho )`$ is a 4d wave function ($`^\rho _\rho h_{\mu \nu }=m^2h_{\mu \nu }`$) in the gauge $`^\mu h_{\mu \nu }=h_\mu ^\mu =0`$. Linearized Einstein equations reduce to:

$$\frac{1}{2}\varphi _h^{\prime \prime }2k^2\varphi _h+2k(\delta (y)\delta (y\pi r_c))\varphi _h+\frac{1}{2}e^{2k|y|}m^2\varphi _h=0.$$
(43)
Massless and massive solution are $`\varphi _h=A_0e^{2k|y|}`$ and $`\varphi _h=A_mJ_2(\frac{m}{k}e^{k|y|})+B_mY_2(\frac{m}{k}e^{k|y|})`$ respectively. $`J_2`$ and $`Y_2`$ are Bessel and Newman function of the second kind. Matching delta function at the fixed points determines quantization mass condition:

$$J_1(\frac{m}{k})Y_1(\frac{m}{k}e^{k\pi r_c})Y_1(\frac{m}{k})J_1(\frac{m}{k}e^{k\pi r_c})=0.$$
(44)
To compare KK masses in bosonic and fermionic sectors, let us focus on the gravitino equation of motion:

$$\gamma ^{\alpha \beta \gamma }D_\beta \mathrm{\Psi }_\gamma ^A+\mathrm{i}\sqrt{2}gP_B^A\gamma ^{\alpha \gamma }\mathrm{\Psi }_\gamma ^B=0,$$
(45)
where $`D_\beta \mathrm{\Psi }_\gamma ^A=(_\beta +\frac{1}{4}(\omega _\beta )_{mn}\gamma ^{mn})\mathrm{\Psi }_\gamma ^A`$ are covariant derivative and $`(\omega _\beta )_{mn}`$ is a spinor connection. In the flat background and in gauge $`\mathrm{\Psi }_5=0`$ we can write:

$$\gamma ^{\mu \rho \nu }_\rho \mathrm{\Psi }_\nu ^A\gamma ^{\mu \nu }\gamma ^5_5\mathrm{\Psi }_\nu ^A+kϵ\gamma ^{\mu \nu }\gamma ^{\widehat{5}}\mathrm{\Psi }_\nu ^A\sqrt{2}gRϵ(\sigma _3)_B^A\gamma ^{\mu \nu }\mathrm{\Psi }_\nu ^B=0,$$
(46)
where a hat denotes a flat space Dirac matrix. In the next step we factorize the gravitino wave function as follows:

$`(\mathrm{\Psi }_\mu ^1)_R=\varphi _\psi ^+(y)(\psi _\mu ^+)_R(x^\rho ),(\mathrm{\Psi }_\mu ^1)_L=\varphi _\psi ^{}(y)(\psi _\mu ^+)_L(x^\rho ),`$
$`(\mathrm{\Psi }_\mu ^2)_L=\varphi _\psi ^+(y)(\psi _\mu ^{})_L(x^\rho ),(\mathrm{\Psi }_\mu ^2)_R=\varphi _\psi ^{}(y)(\psi _\mu ^{})_R(x^\rho ),`$ (47)
where 4d gravitini satisfy the Rarita-Schwinger equations with the mass parameter $`m`$

$`\gamma ^{\mu \nu \rho }_\nu \psi _\rho ^+=m\gamma ^{\mu \rho }\psi _\rho ^+`$ (48)
$`\gamma ^{\mu \nu \rho }_\nu \psi _\rho ^{}=m\gamma ^{\mu \rho }\psi _\rho ^{}`$ $`.`$
Gravitino equation of motion yields

$`\varphi _\psi ^++{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}kϵ\varphi _\psi ^+me^{k|y|}\varphi _\psi ^{}=0`$ (49)
$`\varphi _\psi ^{}{\displaystyle \frac{5}{2}}kϵ\varphi _\psi ^{}+me^{k|y|}\varphi _\psi ^+=0`$ $`.`$
For $`m=0`$ the solutions are $`\varphi _\psi ^+=A_0^+ϵ_\pi e^{\frac{k}{2}|y|}`$ and $`\varphi _\psi ^{}=A_0^{}ϵ_0e^{\frac{5k}{2}|y|}`$, where the ‘flipped’ step functions $`ϵ_0(y)=ϵ(\frac{y}{2})`$ and $`ϵ_\pi (y)=ϵ(\frac{y+\pi r_c}{2})`$ are needed to satisfy conditions (41). In this case both $`_5\varphi _\psi ^+`$ and $`_5\varphi _\psi ^{}`$ contain delta functions at points $`y=\pi r_c`$ and $`y=0`$ respectively, and those cannot be cancelled in the equation of motion (49). Hence, the massless modes do not exist in the model. Solutions for nonzero modes are

$`\varphi _\psi ^+=e^{\frac{3}{2}k|y|}ϵ_\pi \left(A_mJ_2({\displaystyle \frac{m}{k}}e^{k|y|})+B_mY_2({\displaystyle \frac{m}{k}}e^{k|y|})\right)`$ (50)
$`\varphi _\psi ^{}=e^{\frac{3}{2}k|y|}ϵ_0\left(A_mJ_1({\displaystyle \frac{m}{k}}e^{k|y|})+B_mY_1({\displaystyle \frac{m}{k}}e^{k|y|})\right)`$ $`.`$
Matching conditions imply vanishing of the functions $`\varphi _\psi ^+`$ and $`\varphi _\psi ^{}`$ at the points $`y=\pi r_c`$ and $`y=0`$ respectively. Associated mass quantization condition reads:

$$J_1(\frac{m}{k})Y_2(\frac{m}{k}e^{k\pi r_c})Y_1(\frac{m}{k})J_2(\frac{m}{k}e^{k\pi r_c})=0.$$
(51)
The quantization of the mass parameters for gravitons and gravitini can be read from the figures 2 and 2. The spectra, together with the absence of the zero modes for gravitini imply broken supersymmetry (the background is flat here).

### 4.2 $`AdS_4`$ compactification of the pure supergravity with flipped boundary conditions (super-bigravity)

In section 4.1 we saw, that in the Randall-Sundrum model with flipped boundary conditions, supersymmetry is broken in the effective 4d theory. The reason for this fact is twofold: flipped boundary conditions and explicitly broken supersymmetry at the point $`y=\pi r_c`$. To procede let us go on to the locally supersymmetric model with a flip along the fifth dimension. The price for local supersymmetry and the trouble one encounters is the nonzero curvature in 4d sections. Let us take the supergravity action with the prepotential of the form: $`P=g_Rϵ(y)\mathrm{i}\sigma _3R+g_S\mathrm{i}\sigma _1S`$, and the brane action required by supersymmetry:

$$S_{brane}=6d^5x\sqrt{e_4}kT(\delta (y)+\delta (y\pi r_c)),$$
(52)
where $`k=\frac{2\sqrt{2}}{3}\sqrt{g_R^2R^2+g_S^2S^2},`$ and $`T=g_R|R|/\sqrt{g_R^2R^2+g_S^2S^2}.`$ One should notice that brane tensions have the same sign. As a consequence gravitational background has no flat 4d Minkowski foliation, and the consistent solution is that of $`AdS_4`$ branes:

$$ds^2=a^2(y)\overline{g}_{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu +dy^2,$$
(53)
where

$$a(y)=\frac{\sqrt{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}}{k}\mathrm{cosh}\left(k|y|\frac{k\pi r_c}{2}\right),$$
(54)
and $`\overline{g}_{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu =\mathrm{exp}(2\sqrt{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}x_3)(dt^2+dx_1^2+dx_2^2)+dx_3^2`$ is the four dimensional $`AdS`$ metric.

The radius of the fifth dimension is determined by brane tensions:

$$k\pi r_c=\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{1+T}{1T}\right).$$
(55)
Normalization $`a(0)=1`$ leads to the fine tuning relation $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}=(T^21)k^2<0`$. As in the previous paragraph we look at small fluctuations around vacuum metric: $`g_{\mu \nu }(x^\rho ,y)=a^2(y)\overline{g}_{\mu \nu }+\varphi _h(y)h_{\mu \nu }(x^\rho )`$, where $`h_{\mu \nu }(x^\rho )`$ is a 4d wave function in $`AdS_4`$ background ($`(\mathrm{}_{AdS}+2\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }})h_{\mu \nu }=m^2h_{\mu \nu }`$ ,). The analog of the equation (43) reads:

$$\frac{1}{2}\varphi _h^{\prime \prime }2k^2\varphi _h+2k\mathrm{tanh}\left(\frac{k\pi r_c}{2}\right)(\delta (y)+\delta (y\pi r_c))\varphi _h+\frac{1}{2}a^2(y)(m^22\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }})\varphi _h=0.$$
(56)
It is easy to check, that the massless mode $`\varphi _h=A_0\mathrm{cosh}^2(k|y|k\pi r_c/2)`$ satisfies the equation of motion in the bulk and the boundary conditions. Massive modes can be written as

$`\varphi _h=`$ $`A_m\mathrm{LP}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(1+\sqrt{1+4\overline{m}^2}\right),2,\mathrm{tanh}\left(k|y|{\displaystyle \frac{k\pi r_c}{2}}\right))+`$ (57)
$`+B_m\mathrm{LQ}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(1+\sqrt{1+4\overline{m}^2}\right),2,\mathrm{tanh}\left(k|y|{\displaystyle \frac{k\pi r_c}{2}}\right))`$ $`,`$
where $`\mathrm{LP}(m,n,x)`$ and $`\mathrm{LQ}(m,n,x)`$ are associated Legendre functions of the first and second kind respectively. We have introduced the new symbol $`\overline{m}=\sqrt{m^2/\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}+2}`$. Matching delta functions at fixed points leads to the following mass quantization condition

$`0=`$ $`(2t\mathrm{LQ}(,,t)+c\mathrm{LQ}^{}(,,t))(2t\mathrm{LP}(,,t)+c\mathrm{LP}^{}(,,t))+`$ (58)
$`(2t\mathrm{LP}(,,t)+c\mathrm{LP}^{}(,,t))(2t\mathrm{LQ}(,,t)+c\mathrm{LQ}^{}(,,t))`$ ,
where we have introduced notation $`t=\mathrm{tanh}(k\pi r_c/2)`$ and $`c=\mathrm{cosh}^2(k\pi r_c/2)`$.

The gravitino equation of motion in the AdS background reads

$$\gamma ^{\mu \rho \nu }_\rho \mathrm{\Psi }_\nu ^A\gamma ^{\mu \nu }\gamma ^5_5\mathrm{\Psi }_\nu ^A+kϵ\gamma ^{\mu \nu }\gamma ^{\widehat{5}}\mathrm{\Psi }_\nu ^A\sqrt{2}\left(g_RRϵ(\sigma _3)_B^A+g_SS(\sigma _1)_B^A\right)\gamma ^{\mu \nu }\mathrm{\Psi }_\nu ^B=0,$$
(59)
where $`_\mu `$ denotes $`AdS_4`$ covariant derivative. Notice that the prepotential mixes $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\mu ^1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\mu ^2`$ fields. To eliminate this mixing, let us define the following functions

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_\mu ^+=g_S|S|\mathrm{\Psi }_\mu ^1+ϵ(\sqrt{g_R^2R^2+g_S^2S^2}g_R|R|)\mathrm{\Psi }_\mu ^2,`$
$`\mathrm{\Psi }_\mu ^{}=g_S|S|\mathrm{\Psi }_\mu ^2ϵ(\sqrt{g_R^2R^2+g_S^2S^2}g_R|R|)\mathrm{\Psi }_\mu ^1.`$ (60)
The factorization

$`(\mathrm{\Psi }_\mu ^+)_R=\varphi _\psi ^+(y)(\psi _\mu ^+)_R(x^\rho ),(\mathrm{\Psi }_\mu ^+)_L=\varphi _\psi ^{}(y)(\psi _\mu ^+)_L(x^\rho ),`$
$`(\mathrm{\Psi }_\mu ^{})_L=\varphi _\psi ^+(y)(\psi _\mu ^{})_L(x^\rho ),(\mathrm{\Psi }_\mu ^{})_R=\varphi _\psi ^{}(y)(\psi _\mu ^{})_R(x^\rho ),`$ (61)
where 4d gravitini satisfy the Rarita-Schwinger equations in $`AdS_4`$:

$`\gamma ^{\mu \nu \rho }_\nu \psi _\rho ^+=(m\sqrt{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}})\gamma ^{\mu \rho }\psi _\rho ^+,`$
$`\gamma ^{\mu \nu \rho }_\nu \psi _\rho ^{}=(m\sqrt{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}})\gamma ^{\mu \rho }\psi _\rho ^{},`$ (62)
leads to the equation

$`\varphi _\psi ^++kϵ\left(\mathrm{tanh}\left(k|y|{\displaystyle \frac{k\pi r_c}{2}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\right)\varphi _\psi ^+a^1(y)(m\sqrt{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}})\varphi _\psi ^{}=0`$ (63)
$`\varphi _\psi ^{}+kϵ\left(\mathrm{tanh}\left(k|y|{\displaystyle \frac{k\pi r_c}{2}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\right)\varphi _\psi ^{}+a^1(y)(m\sqrt{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}})\varphi _\psi ^+=0`$ .
The boundary conditions are imposed by the action of the $`Z_2`$ in the fermionic sector (41). One needs to demand that the fields $`(\mathrm{\Psi }_\mu ^2)_R`$ and $`(\mathrm{\Psi }_\mu ^1)_R`$ vanish at the points $`y=0`$ and $`y=\pi r_c`$ respectively. This implies

$$\varphi _\psi ^+(0)=e^{\frac{k\pi r_c}{2}}\varphi _\psi ^{}(0),\varphi _\psi ^{}(\pi r_c)=e^{\frac{k\pi r_c}{2}}\varphi _\psi ^+(\pi r_c).$$
(64)
This condition removes the mode $`m=0`$ from the spectrum. Solutions of the equation (63) with a nonzero mass can be written down as follows

$`\varphi _\psi ^+=e^{\frac{k}{2}\left(|y|\frac{\pi r_c}{2}\right)}\left(A_m(1z)_2F_1[M,M,2,{\displaystyle \frac{1z}{2}}]+B_m{\displaystyle \frac{M}{4}}(1+z)_2^2F_1[1M,1+M,3,{\displaystyle \frac{1+z}{2}}]\right)`$ (65)
$`\varphi _\psi ^{}=e^{\frac{k}{2}\left(|y|\frac{\pi r_c}{2}\right)}\left(A_m{\displaystyle \frac{M}{4}}(1z)_2^2F_1[1M,1+M,3,{\displaystyle \frac{1z}{2}}]+B_m(1+z)_2F_1[M,M,2,{\displaystyle \frac{1+z}{2}}]\right),`$
where we have introduced $`z=\mathrm{tanh}\left(k|y|\frac{k\pi r_c}{2}\right)`$ and $`M=(m/\sqrt{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}})1`$. The symbol $`_2F_1[a,b,c,x]`$ denotes a hypergeometric function. The condition (64) takes on the following form

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{M}{4}}(1+t)^2F[3,{\displaystyle \frac{1+t}{2}}]+(1+t)F[2,{\displaystyle \frac{1+t}{2}}]\right)\left((1+t)F[2,{\displaystyle \frac{1+t}{2}}]{\displaystyle \frac{M}{4}}(1+t)^2F[3,{\displaystyle \frac{1+t}{2}}]\right)+`$ (66)
$`+\left((1t)F[2,{\displaystyle \frac{1t}{2}}]{\displaystyle \frac{M}{4}}(1t)^2F[3,{\displaystyle \frac{1t}{2}}]\right)\left((1t)F[2,{\displaystyle \frac{1t}{2}}]+{\displaystyle \frac{M}{4}}(1t)^2F[3,{\displaystyle \frac{1t}{2}}]\right)=`$
$`=0,`$
where for simplicity we have introduced the notation $`F[2,\frac{1\pm t}{2}]=_2F_1[M,M,2,\frac{1\pm t}{2}]`$ and $`F[3,\frac{1\pm t}{2}]=_2F_1[1M,1+M,3,\frac{1\pm t}{2}]`$.

In the figures we have shown the mass quantization that follows from the conditions (58) and (66). The spectrum of the gravitino mass parameter $`m`$ is shifted by approximately half a distance between consecutive zeros with respect to the mass spectrum of the graviton. It turns out that one can compute analytically the graviton and gravitini mass spectra in the limiting cases of a large extra dimension ($`kr_c1`$) and in the case of a small extra dimension ($`kr_c1`$) (see Appendix). In the regime $`kr_c1`$ we obtain the ultra-light graviton mode

$$m_{light}^212k^2e^{k\pi r_c}\mathrm{cosh}^2(k\pi r_c/2),$$
(67)
and heavy modes

$$m_h^2k^2(2+n+n^2)\mathrm{cosh}^2(k\pi r_c/2)=(2+n+n^2)|\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}|,$$
(68)
for $`n>1`$. For gravitini we obtain:

$$m_f^2k^2(n+1)^2\mathrm{cosh}^2(k\pi r_c/2)=(n+1)^2|\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}|.$$
(69)
For large $`n`$ we can write for gravitons: $`mk(1/2+n)\mathrm{cosh}^1(k\pi r_c/2)`$.

In the limit $`kr_c1`$, the equations (56) and (63) together with the assumptions $`kr_c1`$, $`\overline{m}\sqrt{m^2/k^2+2}1`$ and $`Mm/k1`$ give the following mass quantization

$$m_h^2=\frac{n^2}{r_c^2},$$
(70)
and

$$m_\psi ^2=\frac{1}{r_c^2}(\frac{1}{2}+n)^2.$$
(71)
The approximate spectra for the gravitini masses that we have just obtained can be compared to the spectra of the massive spin-2 states belonging to the $`AdS_4`$ supermultiplets discussed earlier given the $`AdS_4`$ mass formula $`m^2=C_2(E_0,s)C_2(s+1,s)=E_0(E_03)(s+1)(s2)`$ for representations $`D(E_0,s)`$. In the limit of dimensional reduction  this implies the spin-2 and spin-3/2 spectra $`m_{2,n}^2=(E_0+1/2+n)(E_05/2+n)`$ and $`m_{3/2,n}^2=(E_0+n)(E_0+n3)+5/4`$, $`m_{}^{}{}_{3/2,n}{}^{2}=(E_0+n+1)(E_0+n2)+5/4`$, for some $`E_0`$ and $`n=0,1,2,\mathrm{}`$ (in units of $`\sqrt{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}`$). The above mass formula fits the limiting ($`kr_c1`$) spectra of graviton (except the first massive mode) and gravitino masses (68) and (69) if $`E_0=3/2`$, but this value does not correspond to a unitary supermultiplet, since the necessary condition $`E_0>s+1`$  is not fulfilled for $`s=3/2`$ and $`E_0=3/2`$. The natural value for dimensional reduction $`5d4d`$ would be $`E_0=3`$. This gives $`m_{2,n}^2=n^2+4n+7/4`$, $`m_{3/2,n}^2=(n+3/2)^21`$ and $`m_{}^{}{}_{3/2,n}{}^{2}=(n+5/2)^25`$, again in clear mismatch with (68) and (69). It is also clear that the graviton mass spectrum for a finite $`kr_c`$ differs from the supersymmetric one. In the case where the $`r_c`$ is much smaller than the curvature radius, the spectrum of gravitons and gravitini approaches the usual, flat space, KK form with gravitini masses shifted with respect to these of the gravitons. Also in this limit the spectrum is clearly nonsupersymmetric, and the shift is due solely to the twisted boundary conditions.

One can see that even in the limit $`r_c1/k`$ supersymmetry is not restored, and the branes do not decouple like in the supersymmetric Randall-Sundrum case. The nondecoupling may also be seen from the shape of the wave functions of the massive modes (figure 6 and 6).

However, when $`kr_c`$ goes to infinity, $`m_{light}0`$. In such a regime we can take the following linear combinations of the ultra-light mode and the zero modes:

$$\varphi _{left}(y)=\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{\varphi _0(y)}{\varphi _0(0)}+\frac{\varphi _{light}(y)}{\varphi _{light}(0)}\right),\varphi _{right}(y)=\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{\varphi _0(y)}{\varphi _0(0)}\frac{\varphi _{light}(y)}{\varphi _{light}(0)}\right).$$
(72)
Then $`\varphi _{left}`$ ($`\varphi _{right}`$) is localized on the brane at $`y=0`$ ($`y=\pi r_c`$) and vanishes on the brane located at $`y=\pi r_c`$ ($`y=0`$). Hence, effectively we have only one zero mode on each brane (figure 7).

To summarize the discussion of the supersymmetry breakdown in the case of the flipped supergravity let us inspect the equation for the Killing spinors:

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{a^{}}{a}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2\sqrt{2}}{3}}g_1ϵ(y)|R|\right)ϵ_+^A+{\displaystyle \frac{2\sqrt{2}}{3}}\gamma _5g_2|S|(\sigma ^1)_B^Aϵ_{}^B=0`$ (73)
$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{a^{}}{a}}{\displaystyle \frac{2\sqrt{2}}{3}}g_1ϵ(y)|R|\right)ϵ_{}^A+{\displaystyle \frac{2\sqrt{2}}{3}}\gamma _5g_2|S|(\sigma ^1)_B^Aϵ_+^B=0`$ $`,`$
where $`ϵ_\pm ^A=1/2(\delta _B^A\pm \gamma _5Q_B^A)ϵ^B`$. These equations result in the condition

$$\left(\left(\frac{a^2}{a^2}\frac{8}{9}g_1^2R^2\right)\frac{8}{9}g_2^2S^2\right)ϵ_\pm ^A=0,$$
(74)
and together with Einstein equations this implies that for non-vanishing $`S`$ there are no nontrivial solutions of the Killing equation.

## 5 Summary and conclusions

We have shown that flipped and gauged five-dimensional supergravity is closely related to the Scherk-Schwarz mechanism of symmetry breakdown. In this case the Scherk-Schwarz redefinition of fields connects two phases of the model. One phase is such that supersymmetry is broken spontaneously, in the sense that there do not exist vacua preserving some of the supercharges. In fact, one cannot undo this breakdown in a continous way, since the choice of the projectors on both branes is a discrete one - one cannot deform continously $`Q`$ into $`Q`$ within the model. In particular, in the limit $`r_c0`$ all gravitini (and all supercharges) get projected away. In the second, Scherk-Schwarz phase, linear supersymmetry is not realized explicitly in the Lagrangian, hence one finds susy breaking masses and potential terms in the bulk and/or on the branes. However, the physics of the two phases has to be the same, as they are related by a mere redefinition of variables.

We have found that the simple flipped 5d supergravity is a supersymmetrization of the $`(++)`$ bigravity with two positive tension branes. In the limit of the large interbrane separation there exists a ultra-light massive graviton mode in addition to the exactly massless mode (but there is no a nearly degenerate superpartner).

As an example the Scherk-Schwarz terms for gauged supergravity coupled to bulk matter have been worked out. In addition it has been shown that the five-dimensional Horava-Witten model is not of the Scherk-Schwarz type, since flipping of supersymmetry requires ‘wrong’ boundary terms on the branes.

In the class of models discussed here it is the $`AdS_4`$ background that appears naturally as a static solution of the equations of motion. However, firstly, there exist nearby time-dependent solutions leading to Robertson-Walker type cosmology on branes, and secondly, in more realistic models the gravitational background we have described shall be further perturbed by nontrivial gauge and matter sectors living on the branes.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank P. Brax and S. Theisen for very helpful discussions. Z. L. thanks CERN Theory Division where part of this project was done. This work was partially supported by the EC Contract HPRN-CT-2000-00152 for years 2000-2004, by the Polish State Committee for Scientific Research grant KBN 5 P03B 119 20 for years 2001-2002, and by POLONIUM 2002.

Appendix

In the regime $`kr_c1`$ we have used the following approximations:

$`\mathrm{LP}(,,t){\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}\mathrm{cos}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\sqrt{1+4\overline{m}^2}\pi \right)(e^{k\pi r_c}+\overline{m}^21)+O(e^{k\pi r_c}),`$
$`c\mathrm{LP}^{}(,,t){\displaystyle \frac{2}{\pi }}\mathrm{cos}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\sqrt{1+4\overline{m}^2}\pi \right)e^{k\pi r_c}+O(e^{k\pi r_c}),`$
$`\mathrm{LP}(,,t){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\overline{m}^2(\overline{m}^22)e^{k\pi r_c}+O(e^{2k\pi r_c}),`$
$`c\mathrm{LP}^{}(,,t)\overline{m}^2(\overline{m}^22)e^{k\pi r_c}+O(e^{2k\pi r_c}),`$
$`\mathrm{LQ}(,,t){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{sin}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\sqrt{1+4\overline{m}^2}\pi \right)(e^{k\pi r_c}+\overline{m}^21)+O(e^{k\pi r_c}),`$
$`c\mathrm{LQ}^{}(,,t)\mathrm{sin}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\sqrt{1+4\overline{m}^2}\pi \right)e^{k\pi r_c}+O(e^{k\pi r_c}),`$
$`\mathrm{LQ}(,,t){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(e^{k\pi r_c}+\overline{m}^21)+O(e^{k\pi r_c}),`$
$`c\mathrm{LQ}^{}(,,t)e^{k\pi r_c}+O(e^{k\pi r_c}),`$
$`t12e^{k\pi r_c}+O(e^{2k\pi r_c}),`$ (A.1)
and

$`(1+t)F[2,{\displaystyle \frac{1+t}{2}}]{\displaystyle \frac{2}{(M^21)M\pi }}\mathrm{sin}(M\pi )+O(e^{k\pi r_c}),`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{M}{4}}(1+t)^2F[3,{\displaystyle \frac{1+t}{2}}]{\displaystyle \frac{2}{(M^21)\pi }}\mathrm{sin}(M\pi )+O(e^{k\pi r_c}),`$
$`(1t)F[2,{\displaystyle \frac{1t}{2}}]2e^{k\pi r_c}+O(e^{2k\pi r_c}),`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{M}{4}}(1t)^2F[3,{\displaystyle \frac{1t}{2}}]Me^{2k\pi r_c}+O(e^{3k\pi r_c}).`$ (A.2)
Then the conditions (58) and (66) reduce down to

$$\mathrm{cot}\left(\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{9+4m^2}\pi \right)=\pi m^2\frac{m^2+2}{1m^2}e^{k\pi r_c}0,$$
(A.3)
and

$$\mathrm{sin}^2(M\pi )=\pi ^2M^2(M^21)e^{2k\pi r_c}0$$
(A.4)
respectively. Hence, we obtain the mass quantization for gravitons:

$$m_h^2k^2(2+n+n^2)\mathrm{cosh}^2(k\pi r_c/2),$$
(A.5)
and for gravitini:

$$m_f^2k^2(n+1)^2\mathrm{cosh}^2(k\pi r_c/2).$$
(A.6)
One can also obtain the analytic form of the spectrum in the limit $`kr_c1`$. In this regime the equations (56) and (63) together with the assumptions $`kr_c1`$, $`\overline{m}\sqrt{m^2/k^2+2}1`$ and $`Mm/k1`$ give

$$\varphi _h^{\prime \prime }+(m^22k^2)\varphi _h=0,$$
(A.7)
and

$`\varphi _\psi ^++{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}kϵ\varphi _\psi ^+m\varphi _\psi ^{}=0`$ $`,`$ (A.8)
$`\varphi _\psi ^{}{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}kϵ\varphi _\psi ^{}+m\varphi _\psi ^+=0`$
respectively. The solutions are very simple and take the form

$$\varphi _h=A_m\mathrm{cos}[\sqrt{(}m^22k^2)(|y|\frac{\pi r_c}{2})]+B_m\mathrm{sin}[\sqrt{(}m^22k^2)(|y|\frac{\pi r_c}{2})],$$
(A.9)
for gravitons, and

$`\varphi _\psi ^+=A_m\mathrm{cos}\left[\mu \left(|y|{\displaystyle \frac{\pi r_c}{2}}\right)\right]+B_m\mathrm{sin}\left[\mu \left(|y|{\displaystyle \frac{\pi r_c}{2}}\right)\right],`$
$`\varphi _\psi ^{}=\left({\displaystyle \frac{3k}{2m}}A_m+{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{m}}B_m\right)\mathrm{cos}\left[\mu \left(|y|{\displaystyle \frac{\pi r_c}{2}}\right)\right]+\left({\displaystyle \frac{3k}{2m}}B_m{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{m}}A_m\right)\mathrm{sin}\left[\mu \left(|y|{\displaystyle \frac{\pi r_c}{2}}\right)\right],`$
for gravitini. We have introduced above the notation $`\mu =\sqrt{m^2\frac{9}{4}k^2}`$. Boundary conditions lead to the following mass quantizations

$$m_h^2=\frac{n^2}{r_c^2},$$
(A.11)
and

$$m_\psi ^2=\frac{1}{r_c^2}(\frac{1}{2}+n)^2.$$
(A.12)


format: text

text:
# Applicability of the Fisher Equation to Bacterial Population Dynamics

## I  Introduction

Evolution of bacterial colonies is a subject of obvious medical importance and has been studied recently jaco ; waki ; lin ; nels ; thesis  experimentally as well as theoretically. Some theoretical descriptions have avoided phenomena such as mutation and have focused on growth, competition for resources, and diffusion. In terms of the respective parameters $`a`$ (growth rate), $`b`$ (competition parameter), and $`D`$ (diffusion coefficient), the basic equation governing the spatio-temporal dynamics of the bacterial population $`u(x,t)`$ at a position $`x`$ and time $`t`$ has been taken to be the Fisher equation fish

$$\frac{u(x,t)}{t}=D\frac{^2u(x,t)}{x^2}+au(x,t)bu^2(x,t).$$
(1)
For simplicity, we consider throughout this paper only the 1-dimensional situation which is indeed appropriate to the observations reported. Experiments have been carried out with moving masks lin  and observations have been reported about extinction transitions suggested earlier in theoretical calculations nels  and in numerical simulations thesis . Those theoretical calculations have focused on systems in which the growth rate $`a`$ varies from location to location in a disordered manner, and have employed techniques based on linearization of the Fisher equation. The first feature has allowed the analysis to use concepts from Anderson localization anderson , a phenomenon well-known in solid state physics of quantum mechanical systems. The second feature has relegated the nonlinearity character of Fisher’s equation to a secondary role. Because we suspect nonlinear features represented by $`bu^2`$ in (1) to be of central importance to bacterial evolution, we have developed a theoretical approach which generally retains the full nonlinearity of that competition term. In the present paper, which is the first of a series built on this approach of maintaining the nonlinearity in the equation, we focus our attention on the effect of a mask on the spatial distribution of the *stationary* population of the bacteria.

Consider, as in the moving mask experiments lin , an effectively linear petri dish in which a mask shades bacteria from harmful ultraviolet light which kills them in regions outside the mask but allows them to grow in regions under the mask. Unlike in the moving mask experiments, however, consider that the mask does not move but is left stationary. Interest is in the $`x`$ -dependence of the stationary population of the bacteria. As in previous considerations lin , we will assume that the growth rate has a positive constant value $`a`$ inside the mask, and a negative value outside the mask.

If we take the value of $`a`$ outside the mask to be negative infinite to reflect extremely harsh conditions (due to ultraviolet light) when the bacteria are not shaded from the light, we can take the population at the mask edges and outside to be identically zero. We will put $`u(x,t)/t=0`$ in (1 ) to reflect stationarity, introduce a scaled position variable $`\xi =x/\sqrt{D}`$ for simplicity, and begin our analysis with the ordinary differential equation for the stationary population $`u\left(\xi \right)`$:

$$\frac{d^2u\left(\xi \right)}{d\xi ^2}+au\left(\xi \right)bu^2\left(\xi \right)=0.$$
(2)
Our interest is in the regions in the interior of the mask of width $`2w`$, i.e., for $`wxw,`$ the boundary conditions being $`u\left(\pm w/\sqrt{D}\right)=0.`$

The purpose of our investigation is to give a practical prescription to decide on the applicability of the Fisher equation to bacterial evolution, and to extract the parameters $`D,a,b`$ from observations if the equation is found to be applicable.

## II Elliptic Solutions in the Interior and Extraction of Fisher Parameters

The solutions of (2) can be written in terms of Jacobian elliptic functions as follows. It is known ellip  that the square of any of cn$`(\xi ,k)`$, sn$`(\xi ,k)`$ or dn$`(\xi ,k)`$, satisfies an equation resembling (2). Here, we use the notation that $`k`$ is the elliptic parameter defi  rather than the elliptic modulus which is the square of $`k`$. Thus, $`y=`$ $`\text{sn}^2(\xi ,k)`$ is known to satisfy

$$\frac{d^2y}{d\xi ^2}+4\left(1+k^2\right)y6k^2y^2=2.$$
(3)
Comparison of (3) with (2) shows that the signs of the linear and quadratic coefficients are the same in the two equations but (3) has an extra constant term on the right hand side. This difference, as well as the fact that the bacterial system has more independent parameters than the single $`k`$ that appears in (3), suggests that we augment $`\text{sn}^2(x,k)`$ by phase and amplitude parameters, i.e., take as the solution of (2) within the mask

$$u_i\left(\xi \right)=\alpha \text{sn}^2(\beta \xi +\delta ,k)+\gamma ,$$
(4)
and obtain the quantities $`\alpha ,\beta ,\delta ,\gamma `$ by differentiating (4) or by other means. The suffix $`i`$ represents the interior of the mask. Symmetry considerations, specifically the requirement that the maximum of $`u_i\left(\xi \right)`$ be at $`\xi =0,`$ lead to an evaluation of $`\delta `$ as half the period of $`\text{sn}^2`$. A shift identity allows the rewriting of (4) as

$$u_i\left(\xi \right)=\alpha \text{cd}^2(\beta \xi ,k)+\gamma ,$$
(5)
the cd function ellip  being simply the ratio $`\text{cn}/\text{sn}.`$

On differentiating (5) twice w.r.t. $`x`$, using the relationships among the elliptic functions, and substituting in (2), we find:

$`4\beta ^2(k^2+1)a+2b\gamma `$ $`=`$ $`0,`$
$`6k^2\beta ^2b\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`0,`$
$`2\alpha \beta ^2(1k^2)+\gamma (a\gamma b)`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$
Solution of this algebraic system leads to the result that $`\alpha `$ and $`\gamma `$ are proportional to each other through a factor which is a function only of the elliptic parameter,

$$\gamma =\alpha \left[\frac{\left(k^2+1\right)+\sqrt{1k^2+k^4}}{3k^2}\right].$$

We also find explicit connections between the quantities $`\alpha ,\beta `$ and two of the Fisher parameters of the bacterial system $`a,b,`$

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\alpha \hfill & =\hfill & \left(\frac{3a}{2b}\right)k^2\left(1k^2+k^4\right)^{1/2}\hfill \\ \beta ^2\hfill & =\hfill & \left(\frac{a}{4}\right)\left(1k^2+k^4\right)^{1/2}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(6)
This allows us to write the stationary solution as

$$u_i\left(\xi \right)=\left(a/b\right)\left[f_\alpha \left(k\right)\text{cd}^2(\sqrt{a}f_\beta \left(k\right)\xi ,k)+f_\gamma \left(k\right)\right]$$
(7)
explicitly in terms of the Fisher parameters $`a,b`$ and three functions of $`k`$ alone:

$`f_\alpha \left(k\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(3/2\right)k^2\left(k^2+k^4\right)^{1/2}`$
$`f_\beta \left(k\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(1/2\right)\left(k^2+k^4\right)^{1/4}`$
$`f_\gamma \left(k\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(1/2\right)\left[1\left(k^2+1\right)\left(k^2+k^4\right)^{1/2}\right].`$ (8)
Here $`k^2=1k^2.`$

Equation (7) provides us with the means to meet the primary goal of this investigation. The practical prescription we seek for investigating the applicability of the Fisher equation begins with fitting (7) to the observed stationary profile. A least-squares procedure yields $`a,b,k`$. For sensitivity purposes we use the nome $`q=\mathrm{exp}\left(\pi K^{}/K\right)`$ for fitting nome  rather than $`k.`$ The relation

$`u_m`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{a}{b}}\left[f_\alpha \left(k\right)+f_\gamma \left(k\right)\right]`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{a}{2b}}\left(k^2k^2+(k^{}_{}{}^{}2+k^4)^{1/2}\right)(k^2+k^4)^{1/2}`$
between the maximum value of the bacterial population $`u_m`$ and the extracted parameters provides a check on the procedure. The determination of the diffusion constant $`D`$ follows the determination of $`k.`$ For this we can use the boundary condition mentioned above, that $`u(\xi )`$ vanishes at the edges of the mask: $`\xi =\pm w/\sqrt{D}.`$ Equation (7) leads then to an implicit expression which yields the diffusion constant $`D:`$

$`\text{cn}^2(\left(a/4\right)\left(1k^2+k^4\right)^{1/2}w/\sqrt{D},k)=`$ (10)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\left[(\left(k^2+1\right)\left(1k^2+k^4\right)^{1/2})(1k^2)\right]}{k^2(2k^2+\left(1k^2+k^4\right)^{1/2})}}.`$
Our prescription for the extraction of Fisher parameters $`D`$, $`a`$, $`b`$ is, thus, complete provided we can assume the conditions outside of the mask to be harsh enough to put $`u`$ at the edges to vanish. This assumption can be tested from the observations. The question of the very applicability of the Fisher equation to the bacterial system can be addressed by the quality of the fits of solution to the data. Fits of poor quality would necessitate a rethinking of the quadratic nonlinearities assumed in the equation, indeed of the entire form of the equation.

We illustrate our practical prescription in Fig. 1. We have considered two hypothetical cases of the observed stationary profile of he bacterial population. One pertains to a situation in which the Fisher equation is applicable: (1a); the other in which it is not: (1b). The ‘data’ correspond, respectively, to stationary solutions of (1) and of the so-called Nagumo equation kot

$$\frac{u}{t}=D\frac{^2u}{x^2}+\left(uC\right)\left(AuBu^2\right),$$
(11)
noise having been added in each case to simulate experiments.

The numerically generated data are plotted with circles while the full line curve shows the best fit. We see that in Fig. 1a, the Fisher solution matches well the data. By contrast, the fitting procedure fails in 1b. The intrinsic non-linearities in the data of 1b are different from those characteristic of the Fisher equation (compare Eqs. (1) and (11)). Some of the data features in 1b, as for example the change in concavity and the zero derivative at the borders of the mask can not be reproduced by the analytic solution Eq (7). Thus, we have shown here how one would determine clearly the applicability of the Fisher equation to a given set of observations.

How would one proceed if, in the light of experiment, the Fisher equation turns out to be inapplicable in this way? We suggest an additional prescription to obtain the form of the nonlinearity from the stationary mask observations. The observed stationary bacterial profile is $`u_i\left(x\right).`$ A numerical differentiation procedure can be made to produce $`d^2u_i\left(x\right)/dx^2.`$ A plot of $`d^2u_i\left(x\right)/dx^2`$ versus $`u_i\left(x\right),`$ the different points corresponding to different values of $`x`$, would either confirm Fisher behavior or point to nonlinearities, such as that in the Nagumo equation, other than that assumed in the Fisher equation. Fig. 2 illustrates this prescription in the context of the assumed observations in Fig. 1a and Fig. 1b. The ‘data’ were numerically differentiated in each case and the second spatial derivative was plotted versus $`u`$ as shown simple .

While the quadratic nonlinearity characteristic of the Fisher equation is compatible with Fig 2a, the curvature of the data in Fig. 2b immediately points out the incompatibility with the Fisher equation and suggests a Nagumo-like alternative.

## III Dependence on Mask Size

Obviously, good experimental practice should use for the extraction of the Fisher parameters not a single mask but masks of varying sizes. It is clear that the peak value of the profile, $`u_m,`$ will decrease as the mask size is decreased (alternatively as the diffusion coefficient is increased). However, what is the precise dependence of the stationary profile on the size of the mask, as the size is varied? In answering this question, one finds that the peculiarities of the elliptic solutions produce a bifurcation behavior: there is a minimum mask size below which bacteria cannot be supported because they diffuse into the harsh regions where they die. We suggest that this effect, known in the study of phytoplankton blooms kot , be used to validate the Fisher equation in bacterial population as follows.

The dependence of the peak value of the stationary bacterial population on $`k`$ is in (II) whereas the dependence of the mask width $`2w`$ on $`k`$ is obtained by inverting (10)

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill w& =& \frac{\sqrt{D}}{\left(a/4\right)\left(1k^2+k^4\right)^{1/2}}\hfill \\ & & \text{cn}^1\left(\left(\frac{\left[(\left(k^2+1\right)\left(1k^2+k^4\right)^{1/2})(1k^2)\right]}{k^2(2k^2+\left(1k^2+k^4\right)^{1/2})}\right)^{1/2}|k\right).\hfill \end{array}$$
(12)
The conjunction of (II) and (12) yield the dependence of the profile peak on the mask size. For a given set of Fisher parameters, a decrease in the mask width $`2w`$ from large values causes a decrease in $`k`$. This decrease is monotonic. The value $`k=0`$ is reached at a finite value of the width. In this limit, the elliptic function cd$`(\beta \xi ,k)`$ becomes its trigonometric counterpart cos$`(\beta \xi )`$, and (10) reduces to

$$\mathrm{cos}^2\left(\frac{w}{2}\sqrt{a/D}\right)=0.5.$$
(13)
Thus, there is a critical size $`2w_c`$ of the mask:

$$2w_c=\pi \sqrt{\frac{D}{a}}.$$
(14)
No stationary bacterial population can be supported below such a size. An excellent experimental check on the applicability of the Fisher equation could be the determination of this bifurcation behavior. On the basis of quoted lin ; thesis  values $`D10^5`$ cm2/s, $`a10^4`$/s, we obtain the critical mask size to be of the order of half a cm, a limit that should be observable.

If we relax the condition that the environment outside the mask is harsh enough to ensure zero population of the bacteria, Dirichlet boundary conditions used in the previous analysis are not appropriate. In the steady state, the bacterial concentration just outside the borders of the mask would then be different from zero as a result of finite diffusion. While the elliptic function solution in Eq. (7) (but without the Dirichlet boundary condition) is appropriate inside the mask, it turns out to be exceedingly difficult to find a solution outside the mask. If one starts out with the same (elliptic) form of the solution outside but with a negative but finite value of $`a,`$ one gets the requirement that $`u\left(\xi \right)`$ be negative. This is not allowable since $`u\left(\xi \right)`$ is a bacterial density which must remain positive. Other known solutions

$$u(\xi )=\frac{\left(3/2\right)\left(a/b\right)}{\mathrm{cosh}^2\left(\frac{\sqrt{a}\xi }{2}\right)}$$
(15)
are also rejected on account of their patent negativity. It is possible, however, to obtain reasonable solutions lud  if it is assumed that the bacterial densities outside the mask are so small that the quadratic term proportional to $`b`$ may be neglected in the Fisher equation for the analysis in the exterior of the mask. Such an analysis leads to a smaller critical size relative to that in (14). Fig. 3 shows the dependence of $`u_m`$ on mask size for both the cases of (a) infinite and (b) finite (b) (negative) $`a`$ outside the mask. The inset shows the $`x`$ dependence of the solution for the latter case.

## IV Remarks

Our interest in the present paper being in the determination of the applicability of the Fisher equation to experiments currently being conducted on the bacterial evolution in Petri dishes, we have displayed the explicit solution (7) to the Fisher equation (2) in the infinite-time limit when a stationary mask of given width shades the bacteria under it from harsh conditions outside it. Such stationary mask experiments we propose are easier and more direct for the purposes of determination of the validity of the Fisher equation, and for the extraction of the parameters of the equation. It is our suggestion that parameters extracted in this manner may be used subsequently for the analysis of moving mask experiments lin , with greater confidence in the reliability of the parameter values.

We have indicated explicitly how the extraction of the Fisher parameters may be carried out. The numerical fitting procedure in Fig. 1a shows the parameters relevant to the hypothetical observations to be $`D=10^5`$cm2/s , $`a=10^4`$/s, $`b=10^8`$ cm3/s and $`w=11`$ cm, while the nome $`q=0.8071`$ foot . The procedure does produce parameter values when applied to Fig. 1b but the quality of the fits is poor. Such a situation would signal the *inapplicability* of the Fisher equation. The ‘data’ in Fig. 1b have been generated from the Nagumo equation whose intrinsic nonlinearities are incompatible with those of the Fisher equation as is visually clear from the best fits. We have shown in Fig. 2 how general manipulations of the observed data may be used to suggest the particular form of nonlinearity to be used in the model. We have also concluded that the critical size effect which arises directly from the solution (7) is probably within observable limits for bacterial evolution, the size we predict in light of quoted parameters being of the order of 0.5 cm. This conclusion would necessitate modification if the actual values of $`D`$ and $`a`$ are different from those currently believed.

In forthcoming publications we will report our analyses of the spatio-temporal behavior of the bacterial population of relevance to time-dependent experiments. Our basis is the Fisher equation KK  and several interesting alternatives such as a formalism in which diffusion is negligible but coherent motion is present GK , and a formalism in which long-range competition interactions produce an influence function and consequently striking patterns FKK  in bacterial populations.

## V Acknowledgements

This work is supported in part by the Los Alamos National Laboratory via a grant made to the University of New Mexico (Consortium of The Americas for Interdisciplinary Science) and by National Science Fundation’s Division of Materials Research via grant No DMR0097204.


text:
# Cole–Hopf Like Transformation for a Class of Coupled Nonlinear Schrödinger Equations

## Abstract

In this paper we consider a class of coupled nonlinear Schrödinger equations for the fields $`\psi __i`$ containing complex nonlinearities, that has been obtained by requiring that the norms $`|\psi __i|^2`$ are conserved densities . For this class of equations we introduce a Cole-Hopf like transformation, whose effect is to reduce the complex nonlinearities into real ones, this way reducing the continuity equations of the system to the standard bilinear form. Some examples are presented to illustrate the applicability of the method.

Coupled nonlinear Schrödinger equations, Cole-Hopf transformation, Nonlinear transformations.

Systems of coupled nonlinear Schrödinger equations (CNLSEs) have attracted the attention of nonlinear physicists in recent years. These systems emerge from the study of important phenomena occuring in condensed matter physics, like, for instance, the propagation of light pulse in an optical fiber Hasegawa , propagation in a nonlinear birefringent medium Zakharov ; Ablowitz ; Agrawal ; Ryskin , or in the study of multi-species and spinor Bose-Einstein condensation Bose . The CNLSEs are more difficult to solve than the respective one-component NLSEs and, generally, these systems of equations cannot be integrated with usual methods. In the present work, by means of a Cole-Hopf like transformation on a class of CNLSEs with complex nonlinearities, it is possible to reduce such system of equations to another one containing only real nonlinearities. The method here proposed can be considered as a natural continuation of the work presented previously in Refs. noi1 ; noi2 .

Let us introduce the following system of $`q`$ coupled nonlinear Schrödinger equations in $`(n+1)`$-dimensions:

$`i{\displaystyle \frac{𝝍}{t}}+\widehat{A}\mathrm{\Delta }𝝍+\widehat{B}[𝝍^{},𝝍]𝝍=0,`$ (1)
being $`𝝍`$ a $`q`$-component vector. Without loss of generality, we can rearrange the system in order to reduce the $`q\times q`$ matrices $`\widehat{A}`$ and $`\widehat{B}`$ to diagonal form. The matrix $`\widehat{A}`$ has constant and real entries while the matrix $`\widehat{B}`$ has entries which are functional dependent on the fields $`𝝍`$ and $`𝝍^{}`$. We use the notation $`\widehat{M}[𝒗]`$ to indicate the functional dependence on the component of the vector $`𝒗^t=(v__1,\mathrm{},v__q)`$ and their spatial derivatives. In the following, $`M__k`$ are the $`k`$-th diagonal element of the matrix $`\widehat{M}`$. Besides the complex fields $`\psi __k`$ we introduce the hydrodynamic real fields $`\rho __k`$ and $`S__k`$ defined through:

$`\psi __k(𝒙,t)=\rho __k^{1/2}(𝒙,t)\mathrm{exp}\left[iS__k(𝒙,t)\right].`$ (2)
The matrix $`\widehat{B}`$ can be decomposed into its real $`\widehat{W}`$ and imaginary $`\widehat{𝒲}`$ parts, so that Eq. (1) can be written as:

$`i{\displaystyle \frac{𝝍}{t}}+\widehat{A}\mathrm{\Delta }𝝍+\left(\widehat{W}[𝝆,𝑺]+i\widehat{𝒲}[𝝆,𝑺]\right)𝝍=0.`$ (3)
The conservation of the quantities:

$`N__k={\displaystyle \rho __kd^nx},`$ (4)
for $`k=1,\mathrm{},q`$ imposes the existence of $`q`$ continuity equations:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\rho __k}{t}}+\mathbf{}𝒋__k=0,`$ (5)
with currents $`𝒋__k`$ given by:

$`𝒋__k=2\left(A__k\rho __k\mathbf{}S__k+𝑭__k\right),`$ (6)
where the vectors $`𝑭__k`$ are related with the entries $`𝒲__k`$ of the matrix $`\widehat{𝒲}`$ trough:

$`𝒲__k={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\rho __k}}\mathbf{}𝑭__k.`$ (7)
Note please, the structure of the elements $`𝒲__k`$ in Eq. (7) allows the existence of the $`q`$ ”motion constants” defined in Eq. (4).

Let us now introduce the transformation:

$`𝝍\mathit{\varphi }=\widehat{𝒰}𝝍,`$ (8)
where $`\widehat{𝒰}`$ is a diagonal and unitary matrix: $`\widehat{𝒰}^{}=\widehat{𝒰}^1`$; with entries:

$`𝒰__k[𝝆,𝑺]=\mathrm{exp}\left(i\sigma __k[𝝆,𝑺]\right),`$ (9)
since the generators $`\sigma __k[𝝆,𝑺]`$ are real functionals. The transformation $`\widehat{𝒰}`$ is chosen in order to eliminate the imaginary part of the nonlinearity in the evolution equation for the field $`\mathit{\varphi }`$, given now by:

$`\varphi _k(𝒙,t)=\rho __k^{1/2}(𝒙,t)\mathrm{exp}\left[i𝒮_k(𝒙,t)\right].`$ (10)
Since the matrix $`\widehat{𝒰}`$ is unitary, it results:

$`\rho __k=𝝍__k^{}𝝍__k=\mathit{\varphi }__k^{}\mathit{\varphi }__k,`$ (11)
while the phase $`𝒮__k`$ of $`\varphi __k`$ are given by:

$`𝒮__k=S__k+\sigma __k[𝝆,𝑺].`$ (12)
When Eq. (12) is invertible, we can express the ”old” phases $`S__k`$ as functionals of the fields $`𝝆`$ and $`𝓢:S__k=S__k[𝝆,𝓢]`$.

The generators $`\sigma __k`$ of the transformation are defined as:

$`\mathbf{}\sigma __k[𝝆,𝑺]={\displaystyle \frac{𝑭__k[𝝆,𝑺]}{A__k\rho __k}},`$ (13)
and from the definition (13) it follows the condition on the form of the functional $`𝑭__k`$:

$`\mathbf{}\times \left({\displaystyle \frac{𝑭__k}{\rho __k}}\right)=0.`$ (14)
Eq. (14) states the feasibility of the transformation in any $`n>1`$ spatial dimension.
If we introduce the functional $`𝑮__k[𝝍^{},𝝍]`$ trough

$`𝑮__\kappa =\mathbf{}\mathrm{log}\psi __\kappa +{\displaystyle \frac{i𝑭__k}{A__k\rho __k}},`$ (15)
the transformation (8), (9) assumes the form:

$`\mathbf{}\mathrm{log}\varphi __\kappa =𝑮__\kappa [𝝍^{},𝝍].`$ (16)
Eq. (16) in the $`n=1`$ case, and when $`G__\kappa [𝝍^{},𝝍]=\psi __\kappa `$ becomes:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dx}}\mathrm{log}\varphi __\kappa =\psi __\kappa ,`$ (17)
which is a Cole-Hopf transformations Ablowitz1 . In general, when $`𝑮__\kappa [𝝍^{},𝝍]`$ is an arbitrary functional, Eq. (8) defines a generalized Cole-Hopf transformation.
Performing now the transformation (8) in Eq. (3) we obtain the following new system of CNLSEs for the field $`\mathit{\varphi }`$:

$`i{\displaystyle \frac{\mathit{\varphi }}{t}}+\widehat{A}\mathrm{\Delta }\mathit{\varphi }+\widehat{R}[𝝆,𝓢]\mathit{\varphi }=0,`$ (18)
which contains a purely real nonlinearity $`\widehat{R}[𝝆,𝓢]`$ with entries given by:

$`R__k[𝝆,𝓢]=W__kA__k(\mathbf{}\sigma __k)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{𝑱__k\mathbf{}\sigma __k}{\rho __k}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma __k}{t}}.`$ (19)
Note that $`\widehat{R}`$ depends implicitly on the fields $`𝓢`$, since Eq. (12) defines $`𝑺`$ as a function of $`𝝆`$ and $`𝓢`$. It is easy now to verify that Eq. (18) admits the following continuity equations:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\rho __k}{t}}+\mathbf{}𝑱_k=0,`$ (20)
where the currents $`𝑱__k`$ assumes the standard form of the linear quantum mechanics and are given by:

$`𝑱__k=2A__k\rho __k\mathbf{}𝒮__k.`$ (21)
In the following, in order to show the feasibility of the proposed method, we consider some CNLSE, already studied in literature by different authors.

We start by considering the CNLSEs Coskun ; Kivshar  with complex nonlinearity given by:

$`\widehat{W}__k[𝝆,𝑺]`$ $`=`$ $`𝜹__k\mathbf{}S__k\gamma __k\rho __k2{\displaystyle \underset{jk}{}}\gamma __j\rho __j,`$ (22)
$`\widehat{𝒲}__k[𝝆]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}𝜹__k\mathbf{}\mathrm{log}\rho __k.`$ (23)
It is easy to verify that the transformation generated by:

$`\sigma __k={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{𝜹__k}{A__k}}𝒙,`$ (24)
eliminates the imaginary part in the nonlinearity and changes the real part in:

$`\widehat{R}__k[𝝆]=\gamma __k\rho __k2{\displaystyle \underset{jk}{}}\gamma __j\rho __j{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{𝜹__k^2}{A__k}},`$ (25)
so that the new CNLSEs become a system of coupled cubic nonlinear Schrödinger equations.

We consider now the 1-dimensional class of CNLSEs with complex nonlinearity given by:

$`W__k[𝝆,𝑺]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}\rho __j\left(\beta _{_{kj}}{\displaystyle \frac{S__k}{x}}+\gamma _{_{kj}}{\displaystyle \frac{S__j}{x}}\right)`$ (26)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j,i}{}}\lambda _{_{kji}}\rho __j\rho __i,`$
$`𝒲__k[𝝆]`$ $`=`$ $`2\delta _{_{kk}}{\displaystyle \frac{\rho __k}{x}}+{\displaystyle \underset{jk}{}}\delta _{_{kj}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\rho __j}{x}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\rho __j}{\rho __k}}{\displaystyle \frac{\rho __k}{x}}\right).`$
Remark that this class contains, as particular cases some very important equations, well known in literature. For instance, in the case $`q=1`$ we obtain, for $`\delta =\lambda =0`$, the Jackiw equation Jackiw , for $`4\delta +\beta +\gamma =0`$ and $`\lambda =0`$ the Chen-Lee-Liu equation Chen  and for $`4\delta +3(\beta +\gamma )=0`$ and $`\lambda =0`$ the Kaup-Newell equation Kaup . In the case $`q=2`$ with $`\lambda _{_{kij}}=0`$, the above CNLSEs have been studied recently in Ref. Wadati ; Wadati1 ; Tsuchida ).

It is easy to verify that the expression of $`𝒲__k`$ allows the conservation of the quantities $`\rho __kd^nx`$ and, in this case, the current appearing in the continuity equations (5) takes the form:

$`j__k=2\rho __k\left[A__k{\displaystyle \frac{S__k}{x}}+{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}\delta _{_{kj}}\rho __j\right].`$ (28)
The transformation which eliminates the imaginary part of the nonlinearity has generator $`\sigma __k`$ given by:

$`\sigma __k={\displaystyle \frac{1}{A__k}}{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}\delta _{_{kj}}{\displaystyle ^x}\rho __j𝑑x,`$ (29)
while the real nonlinearity in the new system of CNLSEs for the fields $`\mathit{\varphi }`$ becomes:

$`R__k[𝝆,𝑺]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}[(\beta _{_{kj}}+2\delta _{_{kj}}){\displaystyle \frac{𝒮__k}{x}}`$
$`+`$ $`(\gamma _{_{kj}}2{\displaystyle \frac{A__j}{A__k}}\delta _{_{kj}}){\displaystyle \frac{𝒮__j}{x}}]\rho __j`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j,i}{}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\delta _{_{kj}}}{A__k}}\left(\delta _{_{ki}}+\beta _{_{ki}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _{_{kj}}}{A__j}}\delta _{_{ji}}\lambda _{_{kji}}\right]\rho __j\rho __i.`$
Finally we summarize some particular cases of these new CNLSEs:

1. For $`\beta _{_{kj}}=2\delta _{_{kj}},\gamma _{_{kj}}=2A__j\delta _{_{kj}}/A__k,\lambda _{_{kji}}=\delta _{_{kj}}\left(2\delta _{_{ji}}\delta _{_{ki}}\right)/A__k,`$ we obtain a system of decoupled linear Schödringer equations:

$`i{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi __k}{t}}+A__k{\displaystyle \frac{^2\varphi __k}{x^2}}=0,`$ (31)
2. For $`\beta _{_{kj}}=2\delta _{_{kj}}`$ with $`kj,\gamma _{_{kj}}=2A__j\delta _{_{kj}}/A__k,`$

$`\{\begin{array}{c}\lambda _{_{kkk}}=\delta _{_{kk}}\left(\beta _{_{kk}}+3\delta _{_{kk}}\right)/A__k,\hfill \\ \lambda _{_{kjk}}=\delta _{_{kj}}\left(\beta _{_{kk}}+\delta _{_{kk}}+2\delta _{_{jk}}\right)/A__k,\hfill \\ \lambda _{_{kki}}=\delta _{_{kk}}\delta _{_{ki}}/A__k,\hfill \\ \lambda _{_{kji}}=\delta _{_{kj}}\left(2\delta _{_{ji}}\delta _{_{ki}}\right)/A__k,\mathrm{for}kji\mathrm{and}\kappa j=i,\hfill \end{array}`$ (36)
we obtain the following system of decoupled Jackiw-like NLSEs:

$`i{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi __k}{t}}+A__k{\displaystyle \frac{^2\varphi __k}{x^2}}+\eta __kJ__k\varphi __k=0,`$ (37)
with $`\eta __k=(\beta _{_{kk}}+2\delta _{_{kk}})/(2A__k)`$ and $`J__k`$ given by Eq. (21).
3. Finally, for $`\beta _{_{kj}}=2\delta _{_{kj}},\lambda _{_{kji}}=\gamma _{_{kj}}\delta _{_{ji}}/A__j\delta _{_{kj}}\delta _{_{ki}}/A__k`$ we obtain the CNLSEs:

$`i{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi __k}{t}}+A__k{\displaystyle \frac{^2\varphi __k}{x^2}}+{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}\eta _{_{kj}}J__j\varphi __k=0,`$ (38)
being $`\eta _{_{kj}}=(\gamma _{_{kj}}2A__j\delta _{_{kj}}/A__k)/(2A__j)`$. The nonlinear term in Eq. (38) has been considered in Ref. Calogero .

In conclusion, we have generalized the method introduced in Ref. noi1 ; noi2  to the case of CNLSEs with complex nonlinearities. In order to assure the conservation of the particle number $`N__i(i=1\mathrm{}q)`$, for each species, we assumed the system admits $`q`$ continuity equations. The condition given by Eq. (14) must be satisfied if the spatial dimension is $`n>1`$. Differently from noi1 ; noi2 , in the present approach we do not require the existence of a Lagrangian for the system. In particular, for $`q=1`$, the present theory can be viewed as a generalization to the case of noncanonical systems of the canonical theory of Ref. noi1 .

The general transformation here introduced gives us the possibility to deal, in the frame of a unifying scheme, different coupled nonlinear equations, some of which already known in literature.