Arxiv:2011.07973V2 [Hep-Th]

Home , Chiral model, E6 (mathematics), Tachyon

arXiv:2011.07973v2 [hep-th] 5 Jan 2021 b a shin-s(at)kitasato-u.ac.jp nitta(at)phys-h.keio.ac.jp † ihrDrvtv uesmercNnierSgaModels Sigma Nonlinear Supersymmetric Derivative Higher ( n htteeaedsic rnhs htw alcanonical call we that branches, distinct are there that find sig 1/2 linear preserving gauged equations as Bogomol’nyi-Prasad-Sommerfield ghosts, f Ostrogradski’s terms, the derivative and higher problem with spaces symmetric Hermitian o the For xeddt h rsmn manifold Grassmann the to extended aoia rnhwiei h o-aoia rnhteLagr the branch C non-canonical the in while branch canonical te emta ymti pcssc steqarcsurfac quadric the as such spaces symmetric Hermitian other pcsi h o-aoia branch. fie non-canonical dynamical the the con in on spaces are constraints constraints additional these yield that but find branch We manifold. Grassmann or 2) F nHriinSmercSae,adBSSae Therein States BPS and Spaces, Symmetric Hermitian on eateto hsc,adRsac n dcto etrfo Center Education and Research and Physics, of Department P × efruaefour-dimensional formulate We N )bace,ascae ihsltost uiir fields auxiliary to solutions with associated branches, 0) 6= U eoUiest,Hysi411 ooaa aaaa223-85 Kanagawa Yokohama, 4-1-1, Hiyoshi University, Keio kreFdevtr ihu aoia iei em Thes term. kinetic canonical a without term Skyrme-Faddeev 1],w moeFtr hlmrhc osrit o embe for constraints (holomorphic) F-term impose we (1)]), C P N oe,w banasupersymmetric a obtain we model, ‡ eateto hsc,Ktst University Kitasato Physics, of Department ueoNitta Muneto aaiaa2207,Japan 252-0373, Sagamihara N G M,N uesmercnniersgamdl on models sigma nonlinear supersymmetric 1 = Abstract † a n hnSasaki Shin and = SU ( M C ) / P [ SU N kreFdevmdli the in model Skyrme-Faddeev ( M r14sprymtis We supersymmetries. 1/4 or e d hsrdcn h target the reducing thus lds amdl.W hnstudy then We models. ma nincnit fsll the solely of consists angian e rmteaxlayfield auxiliary the from ree ( − F Q ‡ N N b )adnon-canonical and 0) = dn hminto them dding itn ntecanonical the in sistent F − ) × 2 ncia multiplets. chiral in aua Sciences, Natural r = SU tutrscnbe can structures e SO 1 Japan 21, ( N ( N ) × ) oebr 2020 November, / U [ SO 1] For (1)]. C P ( N N − − 1 Contents

1 Introduction 1

2 Supersymmetric higher derivative terms in the chiral model 4

3 Nonlinear sigma models with D-term constraints 7 3.1 CP N−1 model...... 7

3.2 GM,N model...... 12

4 Nonlinear sigma models with D- and F-term constraints 15 4.1 Quadric surface QN−2 ...... 15 4.2 SO(2N)/U(N) and Sp(N)/U(N)models...... 18

4.3 E6/[SO(10) U(1)] and E7/[E6 U(1)]models ...... 20 × × 5 Bogomol’nyi-Prasad-Sommerﬁeld states 20 5.1 BPSstatesincanonicalbranch ...... 21 5.2 BPSstatesinnon-canonicalbranch ...... 22

6 Comment on fermionic interactions 22

7 Conclusion and discussions 24

1 Introduction

Nonlinear sigma models are typical examples of low-energy eﬀective theories. When a global symmetry G is spontaneously broken down to its subgroup H, there appear massless Nambu- Goldstone bosons dominant at low energy, and their low energy dynamics can be described by nonlinear sigma model whose target space is a coset space G/H [1, 2]. If one wants to study physics at higher energy, one needs higher derivative correction terms, typically appearing in the chiral perturbation theory of QCD [3]. Other examples of higher derivative terms can be found in various contexts such as the Skyrme model, low-energy eﬀective theories of superstring theory, and worldvolume theories of topological solitons and branes such as Nambu-Goto and Dirac-Born-Infeld actions.

1 In supersymmetric theories, higher derivative terms often bring us troubles. It is known that constructing derivative terms in the form of ∂mΦ suffers from a technical issue called the auxiliary field problem [4, 5]. This stems from the fact that the equation of motion for the auxiliary field F in the chiral superfield Φ ceases to be an algebraic equation and becomes a kinematical one. As a consequence, it is hard to integrate out the auxiliary field and the interactions of physical fields are not apparent. Supersymmetric extensions of the Wess-Zumino- Witten term [6] and the Skyrme-Faddeev model [7,8] are such examples with the auxiliary field problem, while low-energy Lagrangians for supersymmetric gauge theories in Refs. [9–11] (see also Refs. [12–14]), and supersymmetric extensions of Dirac-Born-Infeld action [15, 16] and K- field theories [17, 18] are free from this problem. A broad class of supersymmetric derivative terms free from the auxiliary field problem and the Ostrogradski’s ghost [19] was found as four-dimensional = 1 supersymmetric higher derivative chiral models formulated in terms N of superfields [20–32].1 The model consists of a Kähler potential K and a superpotential W together with a (2, 2) Kähler tensor Λ that determines derivative corrections. It was applied to a new mechanism of supersymmetry breaking in modulated vacua [36] (see also Refs. [37]). The general formulation was extended for other superfields: the most general ghost-free (and tachyon-free) higher derivative = 1 supersymmetric Lagrangian for vector multiplets (1- N form gauge fields) [38] and 3-form gauge field [39]. As for nonlinear sigma models of chiral superfields, only known examples are the supersymmetric CP 1 model (or baby Skyrme model) [24, 25, 27, 40–42] and the supersymmetric Skyrme model [30]. When one solves the auxiliary field equations of motion for the auxiliary field F , it in general allows more than one solutions F = 0 and F = 0. The former is called the canonical branch and the latter the non-canonical 6 branch. The bosonic part of the Lagrangian of the canonical branch consists of a canonical kinetic term and a four derivative term for the CP 1 model [43]. This admits lump (sigma model instanton) solutions identical to those in the CP 1 model without a higher derivative term [44], as Bogomol’nyi-Prasad-Sommerfield (BPS) states preserving 1/2 supersymmetric charges among the original supersymmetry [27]. On the other hand, in the non-canonical branch, the bosonic part of the Lagrangian consists of only the four derivative term of the Skyrme-Faddeev type [43] (that is without fourth order time derivatives) without any canonical kinetic term. This admits a compact baby Skyrmion [45] which is a BPS state preserving 1/4 supersymmetry [27]. While the general Lagrangian in superspace [20] can be defined on any Kähler target spaces, solving

1Another possibility is to gauge them away [33] if there are Ostrogradski’s higher derivative ghosts [34, 35].

2 auxiliary ﬁeld equations consisting of more than one chiral multiplets is still an open problem, except for a single matrix chiral superﬁeld [30]. The purpose of this paper is to present higher derivative supersymmetric nonlinear sigma models with a wider class of target spaces – Hermitian symmetric spaces:

CP N−1 = SU(N)/[SU(N 1) U(1)], − × G = U(M)/[U(M N) U(N)], M,N − × QN−2 = SO(N)/[SO(N 2) U(1)], − × SO(2N)/U(N), Sp(N)/U(N),

E6/[SO(10) U(1)], E7/[E6 U(1)], (1.1) × × for which we solve auxiliary field equations. In the case without higher derivative terms, supersymmetric nonlinear sigma models on Hermitian symmetric spaces can be constructed by imposing supersymmetric constraints on gauged linear sigma models [27]. This formulation is found to help us to solve auxiliary field equations even with higher derivative terms. We employ the gauged linear sigma models with higher derivative terms for chiral multiplets [29] and then take the strong gauge coupling (nonlinear sigma model) limit. Solving auxiliary field equations yields the canonical and non-canonical branches for the on-shell actions. For the CP N model, we obtain a supersymmetric extension of the CP N Skyrme-Faddeev model [47–50] in the canonical branch, while the on-shell Lagrangian in the non-canonical branch consists solely of the CP N Skyrme-Faddeev term (the term without fourth order time derivatives). We then study BPS states in these models, and find that lumps (sigma model instantons) identical to those without higher derivative terms remain 1/2 BPS states in the canonical branch, while compact baby Skyrmions are 1/4 BPS states in the non-canonical branch. The organization of this paper is as follows. In the next section, we introduce the supersymmetric higher derivative term in the gauged chiral models. We show that a derivative term determined by a (2, 2) Kähler tensor provides supersymmetric higher derivative terms free from the auxiliary field problem. We will see that there are two on-shell branches associated with the solutions to the auxiliary field in the chiral multiplets. In Section 3, we study the sigma model limit of the gauged chiral models. We first focus on the sigma models whose target spaces N−1 are the Hermitian symmetric spaces CP and GM,N . They are defined only by the D-term constraints. We examine the limit in the two distinct branches and write down the higher derivative terms in the nonlinear sigma models. In Section 4, we discuss the nonlinear sigma

3 models deﬁned by the F-term constraints in addition to D-term constraints, which include the N−2 target spaces Q , SO(2N)/U(N), Sp(N)/U(N), E6/[SO(10) U(1)], E7/[E6 U(1)]. We × × will show that the F-term constraints give additional conditions on the target spaces in the non- canonical branch thus reducing the target spaces, while they do not in the canonical branch. N−1 This distinguishes the situation from the CP and GM,N cases. In Section 5, we discuss the BPS states in the nonlinear sigma models, and in Section 6, we mention fermionic terms in the models. Section 7 is devoted to conclusion and discussions. As for a superﬁeld notation, we follow the Wess-Bagger convention [51].

2 Supersymmetric higher derivative terms in the chiral model

In this section, we brieﬂy introduce the supersymmetric higher derivative term to the chiral model that are free from the auxiliary ﬁeld problem. The Lagrangian is given by [20, 29]

¯ 4 † 1 4 cd † α ia kb †¯j α˙ †l = d θ K(Φ, Φ )+ d θ Λ ¯ ¯ (Φ, Φ )D Φ D Φ D¯ ˙ Φ D¯ Φ L 16 ijkl,ab α α c d Z Z + d2θ W (Φ) + h.c. , (2.1) Z † † where K(Φ, Φ ) is a Kähler potential, W (Φ) is a superpotential and Λi¯jk¯l(Φ, Φ ) is a (2, 2) Kähler † † † tensor defined by the chiral superfields Φ, Φ and their derivatives DαΦ, D¯ α˙ Φ , ∂mΦ, and ∂mΦ . We assume that the chiral superfields Φia (i = 1,..., dim G, a = 1,..., dim G′) belong to the fundamental representations of the global and gauge symmetries G and G′, respectively. The four-dimensional = 1 chiral superfield is expanded, in the chiral basis ym = xm + iθσmθ¯, as N Φia = ϕia(y)+ θψia(y)+ θ2F ia(y). (2.2)

We stress that the pure bosonic component in the fourth derivative part

¯ α ia kb ¯ †¯j ¯ α˙ †l D Φ DαΦ Dα˙ Φc D Φd (2.3) saturates the Grassmann coordinates, and only the bosonic ﬁelds in the K¨ahler tensor Λi¯jk¯l contribute to this pure bosonic term [20]. Indeed, the component expansion of the term (2.3)

4 can be evaluated as

¯ α iα kb ¯ †¯j ¯ α˙ †l 2 ¯2 ia m kb ¯j n ¯l D Φ DαΦ Dα˙ Φc D Φd = 16θ θ (∂mϕ ∂ ϕ )(∂nϕ¯c∂ ϕ¯d) 1 h ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ∂ ϕiaF kb + F ia∂ ϕkb ∂mϕ¯jF¯l + F¯j∂mϕ¯l + F iaF¯jF kbF¯l −2 m m c d c d c d + . (2.4) ··· Here are terms involving fermions. Due to this remarkable structure, a large class of ··· supersymmetric models with derivative corrections can be realized by the Lagrangian (2.1). For example, the = 1 supersymmetric Dirac-Born-Infeld model is given by the K¨ahler tensor N (scalar) [15, 16]

† 1 m † m † n † Λ(Φ, Φ )= , A = ∂mΦ∂ Φ , B = ∂mΦ∂ Φ∂nΦ ∂ Φ . (2.5) 1+ A + (1 + A)2 B − 2 −2 A supersymmetric Skyrme-Faddeevp model is given by the Kähler metric K ¯(1 + ϕ ) and ϕϕ | | the Kähler scalar [27] 1 Λ(Φ, Φ†)=(∂ Φ∂mΦ∂ Φ†∂nΦ†)−1 (∂ Φ†∂mΦ)2 ∂ Φ∂mΦ∂ Φ†∂nΦ† . (2.6) m n (1 + ΦΦ†)4 m − m n The other examples include the Galileon inflation and the ghost condensation models [21, 22] and a superconformal higher derivative nonlinear sigma model [52]. Now we make the global symmetry G′ be gauged by introducing the = 1 vector multiplet N V = V aˆT aˆ (â =0, 1,..., dim ′): G 1 V = (θσmθ¯)A (x)+ iθ2θ¯λ¯(x) iθ¯2θλ(x)+ θ2θ¯2D(x). (2.7) − m − 2 Here we have employed the Wess-Zumino gauge and T aˆ are the generators of ′ satisfying the ˆ ˆ G normalization Tr(T aˆT b)= kδaˆb. In the derivative corrections, the vector multiplet is introduced in the gauge covariantization of the supercovariant derivative:

D Φia Φia = D Φia + (Γ )a Φib. (2.8) α →Dα α α b

The gauge superconnection Γα is deﬁned by

a −2gV 2gV (Γα) b = e Dαe , (2.9) where g is the gauge coupling constant. The gauge invariant derivative term is given by a (2, 2) K¨ahler tensor of the following structure:

cd † 2gV c 2gV d Λi¯jk¯l,ab =Λi¯jk¯l(Φ, Φ )(e ) a(e ) b, (2.10)

5 † where Λi¯jk¯l is composed of gauge invariant quantities made of Φ, Φ ,V . These include the † gauge covariant derivatives of the chiral superﬁelds Φ, ¯ ˙ Φ . We note that terms made of Dα Dα † ∂mΦ, ∂mΦ , which are allowed in the ungauged case, are forbidden in the gauged models due to supersymmetry and the gauge covariance. Then, the gauged Lagrangian can be written as

4 † 1 4 † †¯j 2gV α i α˙ †¯l 2gV k = d θ K(Φ, Φ ,V ) d θ Λ ¯ ¯(Φ, Φ ) ¯ ˙ Φ e Φ ¯ Φ e Φ L − 16 ijkl Dα D D Dα Z Z 1 + d2θ W (Φ) + h.c. + Tr d2θ W αW + (h.c.) 2κg d4θ TrV, (2.11) 16kg2 α − Z Z Z where we have introduced the gauge kinetic and Fayet-Iliopoulos (FI) terms with the FI parameter κ. The superpotential and the FI term are necessary to impose the supersymmetric constraints. The bosonic part of the Lagrangian is given by [29]

2 2 ∂ K ¯j m ib ∂ K ¯¯j ib g aˆ ¯j aˆ c ∂K ∂K aˆ c id aˆ boson = ¯ Dmϕ¯aD ϕ ¯ Fa F + D ϕ¯c(T ) d ¯ + (T ) dϕ 2κδ 0 L − j ib − j ib 2 j ∂ϕic − ∂ϕ¯a∂ϕ ∂ϕ¯a∂ϕ ∂ϕ¯d ! ¯ 1 1 mn 1 2 ∂W ia ∂W ¯i + Tr FmnF + D + F + ¯ F¯ k −4 2 ∂ϕia ∂ϕ¯i a a ¯ ¯ ¯ m j n ia l kb +Λik¯jl(ϕ, ϕ¯) (D ϕ¯aD ϕ )(Dmϕ¯bDnϕ ) "

1 ia kb ia kb m ¯j ¯¯l ¯¯j m ¯l ia ¯¯j kb ¯¯l (Dmϕ F + F Dmϕ )(D ϕ¯aFb + Fa D ϕ¯b)+ F Fa F Fb , − 2 # (2.12) where F = ∂ A ∂ A + i[A , A ] and T 0 is the U(1) generator in G′. A notable fact mn m n − m n m n about the Lagrangian (2.12) is that, due to the derivative corrections, the equation of motion for the auxiliary ﬁeld F is not linear: 2 ¯ ∂ K ib ∂W ¯′ F + ¯′ j ib j − ∂ϕ¯a ∂ϕ ∂ϕ¯a

¯ 1 ib ka ib ka m j ¯j′¯l ¯j′¯j m ¯l ¯¯ +Λikjl(ϕ, ϕ¯) (Dmϕ F + F Dmϕ ) D ϕbδ + δ D ϕ¯b " − 2 ¯ ia ¯j′¯j kb ¯¯l ib ¯j ka ¯j′¯l + F δ F Fb + F Fb F δ =0. (2.13) #

This apparently allows several solutions for the auxiliary ﬁeld. The solutions provide several distinct on-shell Lagrangians. For example, when W = 0, the inhomogeneous term in (2.13) vanishes and it is obvious that F = 0 is a solution. We call this the canonical branch. In

6 addition, we have another solution F = 0 and we call the corresponding theory the non- 6 canonical branch. Both the branches exhibit remarkable features [16,23,26,27]. Although this shows an unusual situation in supersymmetric theories, we stress that Eq. (2.13) is the algebraic equation, not the kinematical one, which guarantees that F still keeps the role of the auxiliary ﬁeld. In the following sections, we examine the nonlinear sigma model limit g in the → ∞ gauged linear sigma models. In the limit, the vector multiplet carries non-propagating degrees of freedom and it will be integrated out. We in particular focus on the Hermitian symmetric spaces of the type G/H [46]. This procedure makes us to write down a variety of supersymmetric nonlinear sigma models with higher derivative terms.

3 Nonlinear sigma models with D-term constraints

In this section, we discuss supersymmetric nonlinear sigma models whose target spaces are the N−1 complex projective space CP and the Grassmann manifold GM,N . It is known that they are obtained in the sigma model limit g of supersymmetric gauge theories with D-term → ∞ constraints [46, 53, 57]. The former is obtained from an Abelian gauge theory while the latter comes from a non-Abelian gauge theory. In the following, we explicitly integrate out the gauge ﬁeld both in the canonical and the non-canonical branches in the sigma model limit g . →∞

N 1 3.1 CP − model

We first consider the nonlinear sigma model whose target space is CP N−1 = SU(N)/[SU(N − 1) U(1)]. We formulate this model as a gauged linear sigma model with the global symmetry × ′ ′ G = SU(N) and gauge symmetry G = U(1), where the latter is complexified GC = U(1)C. i †¯j †i i We consider the flat Kähler potential K = δi¯jΦ Φ = Φ Φ and W = 0. The chiral superfields Φi, Φ†i, (i =1,...,N) belong to the fundamental representation N of the global SU(N) symmetry, and their U(1) charges are assigned as (+1, 1). We assume that the (2, 2) Kähler − tensor is given by the flat metric as

† Λik¯j¯l = δi¯jδk¯lΛ(Φ, Φ ), (3.1)

7 where Λ(Φ, Φ)¯ is a gauge invariant Kähler scalar composed of the chiral superfields and their † 2 gauge covariant derivatives Φ, ¯ ˙ Φ . Then, the Lagrangian becomes [53] Dα Dα 4 †i 2V i 1 4 † 4V α i k †¯j α˙ †¯l = d θ Φ e Φ + d θ Λ(Φ, Φ )δ ¯δ ¯e Φ Φ ¯ ˙ Φ ¯ Φ L 16 ij kl D Dα Dα D Z Z 1 + d2θ W αW + (h.c.) 2κ d4θ V. (3.2) 16g2 α − Z Z Here we have rescaled V 1 V . We have introduced the FI term which provides the D-term → g constraints on the component fields in Φi. Note that for the Abelian gauge group, we have † α˙ † α˙ † Φ= D Φ+(D V )Φ, ¯ ˙ Φ = D¯ Φ +(D¯ V )Φ . The bosonic part of the Lagrangian (3.2) Dα α α Dα is then given by

i m i i i i i 1 2 1 mn boson = D ϕ D ϕ¯ + F F¯ + D(¯ϕ ϕ κ)+ D F F L − m − 2g − 4g2 mn ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ + δ ¯δ ¯Λ(ϕ, ϕ¯) (D ϕiD ϕ¯j)(DmϕkDnϕ¯l) 2(D ϕiDmϕ¯j)(F kF¯l)+ F iF¯jF kF¯l , ij kl m n − m (3.3) where F = ∂ A ∂ A and the gauge covariant derivative is defined by D ϕi = ∂ ϕi + mn m n − n m m m i iAmϕ . In the following, we assume that the gauge invariant Kähler scalar Λ(ϕ, ϕ¯) is given by a i m i function of X = Dmϕ D ϕ¯ as a typical example. The most plausible reason for this assumption is that this quantity contains only the first order time derivative of fields. This guarantees the absence of the Ostrogradski’s ghost [19] in the theory. This assumption is easily relaxed but i i i n i m j n j allowing other gauge and Lorentz invariant quantities such as X = ϕ ϕ¯ ,Dmϕ D ϕ¯ D ϕ D ϕ¯ and so on does not change the following discussions. In the sigma model limit g , the gauge kinetic and D2 terms vanish and the gauge → ∞ field Am becomes an auxiliary field. Before integrating out these fields, we first integrate out ¯ the auxiliary fields in the chiral superfields. The equation of motion for the auxiliary field F¯i is

∂ i j m j i j j i 0= L¯ = F 2Λ(X) (Dmϕ D ϕ¯ )F (F F¯ )F . (3.4) ∂F¯i − − As we have noticed, there are two branches associated with the solutions F i = 0 and F i = 0. 6 We examine each branch separately.

Canonical branch For the canonical branch corresponding to the solution F i = 0, the Lagrangian (3.3) becomes

i m i i i m j n j i i c = D ϕ D ϕ¯ + Λ(D ϕ D ϕ¯ )(D ϕ D ϕ¯ )+ D(¯ϕ ϕ κ). (3.5) L − m m n − 2The case of Λ = const. was studied in Appendix B of Ref. [50].

8 The equation of motion for the auxiliary ﬁeld D gives the following constraint for the scalar ﬁelds ϕi:

ϕiϕ¯i = κ. (3.6)

The equation of motion for the gauge ﬁeld Am is

∂ 1 ∂Λ 0= L = 2κ iκ− ϕi∂mϕ¯i + Am + i ϕiDmϕ¯i ϕ¯iDmϕi ∂Am − ∂X − +2iΛ( X) (ϕiD ϕ¯i)(D ϕjDpϕ¯j) (¯ϕiD ϕi)(D ϕ¯jDpϕj) . (3.7) p m − p m h i Using the constraint (3.6), we ﬁnd that the solution to this equation is given by

−1 i i Am = iκ ϕ¯ ∂mϕ . (3.8)

Substituting the solution (3.8) into (3.5) and using the constraint (3.6), we obtain the La- grangian in the canonical branch:

i m i i i m j n j c = D˜ ϕ¯ D˜ ϕ + Λ(X˜)(D˜ ϕ D˜ ϕ¯ )(D˜ ϕ D˜ ϕ¯ ), (3.9) L − m m n where we have deﬁned Dϕ˜ i = ∂ ϕi κ−1(¯ϕj∂ ϕj)ϕi and X˜ = D˜ ϕiD˜ mϕ¯i. m − m m It is convenient to solve the constraint (3.6) explicitly by using the parametrization

√κ ϕi = W i . (3.10) √W † W · 1 By using the U(1)C gauge symmetry, we can ﬁx W = 1. Then, we have the conventional parametrization of the CP N−1 model:

√κ 1 ¯ √κ ϕi = , ϕ¯i = 1, u¯s¯ , (s, s¯ =2,...,N), (3.11) 1+ ~u 2  us  1+ ~u 2 | | | | p   p where us, u¯s¯ are inhomogeneous coordinates of the CP N−1 manifold. By using this form, the Lagrangian in the canonical branch can be rewritten as

κ 2 ∗ m ∗ ∗ m c = (1 + ~u )(∂ ~u ∂ ~u) (~u ∂ ~u )(~u ∂ ~u) L − (1 + ~u 2)2 | | m · − · m · | | κ2 + Λ(u, u¯) (1 + ~u 2)2(∂ ~u∗ ∂ ~u)(∂m~u∗ ∂n~u) (1 + ~u 2)4 | | m · n · | | h 2(1 + ~u 2)(∂ ~u∗ ∂ ~u)(~u ∂m~u∗)(~u∗ ∂n~u)+(~u ∂ ~u∗)2(~u∗ ∂ ~u)2 . (3.12) − | | m · n · · · m · n i 9 By using the Fubini-Study metric

2 s t¯ (1 + ~u )δst¯ u u¯ g ¯ = κ | | − , (3.13) st (1 + ~u 2)2 | | for the CP N−1 manifold, the Lagrangian (3.12) can be simply written as

s m t¯ s t¯ m q n r¯ c = g ¯∂ u ∂ u¯ + g ¯g ¯Λ(u, u,¯ ∂ u, ∂ u¯)(∂ u ∂ u¯ )(∂ u ∂ u¯ ). (3.14) L − st m st qr m m m n The ﬁrst term is the ordinary kinetic term of the CP N−1 nonlinear sigma model and the second is the derivative corrections determined by the arbitrary scalar function Λ(u, u,¯ ∂mu, ∂mu¯). Before going to the discussion on the the non-canonical branch, two comments in this Lagrangian are in order. This Lagrangian with Λ =const. was obtained in Ref. [50] as the low- energy eﬀective theory of a BPS non-Abelian vortex in = 2 supersymmetric U(N) gauge N theory [54]; A non-Abelian vortex in this case allows the supersymmetric CP N−1 model on the vortex worldsheet, on which 1/2 BPS condition preserves four supercharges among eight supercharges that the = 2 supersymmetric theory in the bulk has. The bosonic part of the N four-derivative correction term is precisely in this form [50]. Without supersymmetry, the CP N−1 Skyrme-Faddeev model was proposed in Refs. [47–49] as the CP N−1 model with four derivative terms. In this case, there are three kinds of four derivative terms, and the one in Eq. (3.14) (with Λ =const.) corresponds to a particular choice among them. Thus, we call the Lagrangian in Eq. (3.14) (the bosonic part of) the supersymmetric CP N−1 Skyrme-Faddeev model.

Non-canonical branch We next study the non-canonical branch corresponding to solutions F = 0. Again, the equation of motion for F¯ is i 6

∂ i j m j i j j i 0= L¯ = F 2Λ(X) (Dmϕ D ϕ¯ )F (F F¯ )F . (3.15) ∂F¯i − − The solution F i =0 is found to be 6 1 F iF¯i = + D ϕiDmϕ¯i. (3.16) −2Λ m Substituting this solution into the Lagrangian (3.3), it becomes

i i m j n j j m j 2 1 i i nc = Λ(X) (D ϕ¯ D ϕ )(D ϕ¯ D ϕ ) (D ϕ D ϕ¯ ) + D(¯ϕ ϕ κ). (3.17) L m n − m − 4Λ(X) −

10 where we have assumed the sigma model limit g . The D-term condition leads to the → ∞ constraint (3.6) while the equation of motion for the gauge ﬁeld is ∂Λ 0= i ϕkDmϕ¯k ϕ¯kDmϕk (D ϕ¯iD ϕi)(Dmϕ¯jDnϕj) (D ϕjDmϕ¯j)2 ∂X − m n − m +2iΛ( X) ϕ¯jDqϕj(Dmϕ¯iD ϕi)+ ϕjDpϕ¯j(D ϕ¯iDmϕi) − q p h (D ϕiDpϕ¯i)(ϕjDmϕ¯j ϕ¯jDmϕj) − p − ∂Λ i +4iΛ−2(X) ϕiDmϕ¯i ϕ¯iDmϕi . (3.18) ∂X − By using the constraint (3.6), we ﬁnd that the equation (3.18) is again solved by

−1 i i Am = iκ ϕ¯ ∂mϕ . (3.19)

Substituting this solution into the Lagrangian (3.17), we ﬁnd the new sigma model given by

i i m j n j j m j 2 1 nc = Λ(X˜) (D˜ mϕ¯ D˜ nϕ )(D˜ ϕ¯ D˜ ϕ ) (D˜ mϕ D˜ ϕ¯ ) . (3.20) L − − 4Λ(X˜) h i The expression (3.11) enable us to rewrite the Lagrangian (3.20) as 2 κ 2 2 ∗ m n ∗ ∗ m 2 nc = Λ(u, u,¯ ∂ u, ∂ u¯) (1 + ~u ) (∂ ~u ∂ ~u )(∂ ~u ∂ ~u ) (∂ ~u ∂ ~u) L (1 + ~u 2)4 m m | | m · n · − m · | | 2 h 2(1 + ~u ) (∂ ~u∗ ∂ ~u)(~u ∂m~u∗)(~u∗ ∂n~u) (∂ ~u∗ ∂m~u)(~u ∂ ~u∗)(~u∗ ∂n~u) − | | { m · n · · − m · · n · } 2 1 +(~u ∂ ~u∗)2(~u∗ ∂ ~u)2 (~u ∂ ~u∗)(~u∗ ∂m~u) Λ−1(u, u,¯ ∂ u, ∂ u¯). (3.21) · m · n −{ · m · } − 4 m m By using the Fubini-Study metric (3.13), this can be simply expressed as

s t¯ m q n q¯ s m t¯ 2 nc = Λ(u, u,¯ ∂ u, ∂ u¯) (g ¯∂ u ∂ u¯ )(g ¯∂ u ∂ u¯ ) (g ¯∂ u ∂ u¯ ) (3.22) L m m st m n qr − st m 1 h i Λ−1(u, u,¯ ∂ u, ∂ u¯). − 4 m m This four derivative term does not contain fourth order time derivatives, unlike the one in Eq. (3.14) in the canonical branch. It is obvious that the target space of the scalar ﬁelds is the N−1 s m t¯ CP space but the canonical kinetic term gst¯∂mu ∂ u is absent. In particular for the N = 2 case of CP 1 , the Lagrangian reduces to m 2 m 2 2 (∂mu∂ u¯) ∂mu∂ u 1 nc = κ Λ −| | (3.23) L − (1 + u 2)4 − 4Λ | | which is known as the supersymmetric baby Skyrme model [24, 25, 27, 40–42]. One notices that the ﬁrst term (with Λ = 1) is nothing but the Skyrme-Faddeev fourth derivative term (without the fourth order time derivatives) while the second term provides higher derivative corrections determined by Λ(u, u,¯ ∂mu, ∂mu¯). The Lagrangian in Eq. (3.22) may be called the supersymmetric CP N−1 baby Skyrme model.

11 3.2 GM,N model

We next consider the nonlinear sigma model whose target space is the Grassmann manifold G = U(M)/[U(M N) U(N)]. We consider a gauged linear sigma model with the global M,N − × i symmetry G = SU(M) and gauge symmetry U(N), of which the chiral superﬁeld Φa (i = 1,...M; a =1,...N) belong to the (M, N¯ ) representation. The global symmetry G = SU(M) and gauge symmetry U(N)C = GL(N, C) act on it as

′ ′ ′† Φ gΦeiΘ , e2V e−iΘ e2V eiΘ , (3.24) → →

′ where g SU(M), Θ (x, θ, θ¯) is a chiral superﬁeld of a U(N)C gauge parameter, and we have ∈ introduced the associated U(N) vector superﬁeld V (x, θ, θ¯). The G G′ invariant Lagrangian × is therefore [46, 57]

4 2V † 1 4 † α 2V † 2V α˙ † = d θ Tr Φe Φ d θ Λ(Φ, Φ )Tr Φe ¯ ˙ Φ Tr Φe ¯ Φ L − 16 D Dα Dα D Z Z 1 + d2θ Tr[W αW ]+(h.c.) 2κ d4θ TrV. (3.25) 16g2 α − Z Z The derivative corrections are given in the double trace form and we have included the FI term which provides the D-term conditions on the chiral multiplets. In the nonlinear sigma model limit g , the bosonic part of the Lagrangian becomes →∞

m boson = Tr[D ϕD ϕ¯]+Tr[¯ϕDϕ κD] + Tr[F F¯] L − m − + Λ(ϕ, ϕ¯) Tr[D ϕD ϕ¯]Tr[DmϕDnϕ¯] Tr[D ϕDmϕ¯]Tr[F F¯] m n − m n Tr[FD ϕ¯]Tr[DmϕF¯] + Tr[F F¯]Tr[F F¯] . (3.26) − m o The gauge covariant derivative is Dmϕ = ∂mϕ + iϕAm. In the following, we assume Λ is m given by the gauge invariant quantity X = Tr[DmϕD ϕ¯]. As clariﬁed before, this condition is easily relaxed allowing for any other gauge invariant quantities. The equation of motion for the auxiliary ﬁeld D gives the constraint:

ϕϕ¯ = κ1N . (3.27)

On the other hand, the equation of motion for the auxiliary ﬁeld F¯ is given by

F + Λ(X) Tr[D ϕDmϕ¯]F Tr[FD ϕ¯]Dmϕ + 2Tr[F F¯]F =0. (3.28) − m − m n o

12 Canonical branch It is obvious that F = 0 is a solution. In this case, the Lagrangian becomes

m m n c = Tr[D ϕD ϕ¯]+Λ(X)Tr[D ϕD ϕ¯]Tr[D ϕD ϕ¯], (3.29) L − m m n where the scalar ﬁelds satisfy the constraint (3.27). The equation of motion for Am then becomes, ∂Λ ϕ∂¯ ϕ + iκA + i (ϕDmϕ¯ Dmϕϕ¯) m m ∂X − Λ(X)Tr D ϕD ϕ¯ + D ϕD ϕ¯ (¯ϕ∂nϕ + iκAn)=0, (3.30) − m n n m h i where we have used the constraint (3.27). We again ﬁnd that the exact solution to this equation is given by

−1 Am = iκ ϕ∂¯ mϕ. (3.31)

Plugging this solution back into the Lagrangian, we obtain the nonlinear sigma model supple- mented by the derivative corrections:

m m n c = Tr[D˜ ϕD˜ ϕ¯]+Λ(X˜)Tr[D˜ ϕD˜ ϕ¯]Tr[D˜ ϕD˜ ϕ¯]. (3.32) L − m m n Here D˜ ϕ = ∂ ϕ κ−1ϕ(¯ϕ∂ ϕ) and X˜ = Tr[D˜ ϕD˜ mϕ¯]. The constraint (3.27) is solved by m m − m m the parametrization: √κ ϕ = W , (3.33) √W †W where W is an M N matrix. Substituting this into the Lagrangian, the ﬁrst term in (3.32) × becomes the kinetic term of the sigma model whose target space is the Grassmann manifold

GM,N while the second term gives derivative corrections determined by the arbitrary gauge † † invariant function Λ(W, W , ∂mW, ∂mW ).

Non-canonical branch We next examine the non-canonical branch. It is obvious that there are non-zero solutions F = 0 to the equation (3.28). Compared with the case of the Abelian 6 gauge symmetry, it is not straightforward to write down explicit solutions for F . However, the gauge invariant solution Tr[F F¯] should be given by the gauge and the Lorentz invariant quantities Y such as

m m n n m Y = Tr[DmϕD ϕ¯], Tr[DmϕDnϕD¯ ϕD ϕ¯], Tr[DmϕDnϕD¯ ϕD ϕ¯], (3.34)

13 and so on. Using the equation of motion for F , the non-canonical Lagrangian becomes

m m n 2 nc = Tr[D ϕD ϕ¯]+Λ(X) Tr[D ϕD ϕ¯]Tr[D ϕD ϕ¯] Tr[F F¯(Y )] . (3.35) L − m m n − n o Here Tr[F F¯(Y )] is a solution F = 0 given by Y . The variation of the Lagrangian (3.35) by A 6 m is therefore

m m ∂Λ m m δ nc = iTr [(ϕ∂ ¯ ϕ + iκA )δA ]+ i Tr (ϕD ϕ¯ D ϕϕ¯) δA L m ∂X − m h i iΛ(X)Tr DmϕDnϕ¯ + DnϕDmϕ¯ Tr (¯ϕ∂ ϕ + iκA )δA − n n m h i h i 2Λ(ϕ, ϕ¯)Tr[F F¯]Tr (F F¯)′δY . (3.36) − Here (F F¯)′ stands for the diﬀerentiation with respect to Y . In the last term in (3.36), one ﬁnds that the variation of the gauge invariant quantity Y is proportional toϕ∂ ¯ mϕ + iκAm. Indeed, m for Y = Tr[DmϕD ϕ¯], we have

m m δY =2iTr[(ϕ∂ ¯ ϕ + iκA )δAm]. (3.37)

Therefore even in the non-canonical branch, we ﬁnd that the solution to the equation of motion −1 for Am is given by Am = iκ ϕ∂mϕ¯. For the other gauge invariant combinations Y such as (3.34), the result is the same. The constraint (3.27) is solved by the parametrization (3.33) and the Lagrangian becomes again the Grassmanian sigma model with the derivative corrections.

We comment on the symmetric nature of the Grassmanian manifold GM,N = GM,M−N . We have constructed the Grassmanian sigma models by gauging the symmetry G′ = U(N) but there is an alternative way to define the same target space by gauging G′ = U(M N). It − is obvious that the latter construction is essentially the same with the former one except the N−1 N = 1 case. In this case, one notices that GN,1 = GN,N−1 = CP . This equality implies that we can construct supersymmetric sigma model whose target space is CP N−1, either by gauging the non-Abelian U(N 1) symmetry or the Abelian U(1) symmetry. The former is nothing but − the construction discussed in this section while the latter is the formulation discussed in the previous section. We find apparently different Lagrangians (3.35) and (3.20) in the derivative corrections. This means that the equivalence of the target spaces in different formalism are not taken over to the derivative corrections in the superfield language. In the next section, we will see a similar situation in the canonical branch of the nonlinear sigma models defined by the F-term constraints. We will, among other things, encounter qualitatively different structures of the target spaces in the non-canonical branch.

14 4 Nonlinear sigma models with D- and F-term constraints

In this section, we discuss the nonlinear sigma models deﬁned by F-term constraints in addition to the D-term constraints [46,55]. Such Hermitian symmetric target spaces include the quadric surface QN−2 = SO(N)/[SO(N 2) U(1)], the quotient spaces of the types SO(2N)/U(N), − × Sp(2N)/U(N), E6/[SO(10) U(1)] and E7/[E6 U(1)]. We begin with the target space × × QN−2 = SO(N)/[SO(N 2) U(1)] as a typical example. − ×

N 2 4.1 Quadric surface Q −

We consider a gauged linear sigma model with the global symmetry G = SO(N) and the gauge symmetry U(1). The chiral superﬁeld Φi (i = 1,...,N) belongs to the fundamental representation N of SO(N) and has the U(1) charge +1. The Lagrangian in the nonlinear sigma model limit is

4 i 2V †i 2 t = d θ Φ e Φ 2κV + d θ Φ0Φ~ JΦ~ + h.c. L − Z Z 1 4 † 4V α i j †i α˙ †j + d θ Λ(Φ, Φ )e Φ Φ ¯ ˙ Φ ¯ Φ , (4.1) 16 D Dα Dα D Z t where we have introduced the gauge invariant superpotential W = Φ0Φ~ JΦ.~ This will provide the F-term constraints on the chiral multiplet. Here Φ0 is the SO(N) singlet and whose U(1) charge is assigned to 2, V is the U(1) vector multiplet and the matrix J is given by − 0 0 1

J =  0 1N−2 0  . (4.2)  1 0 0      The gauge transformations are given by

−iΦ′ 2iΘ′ 2V −iΘ′† 2V iΘ′ Φ e Φ, Φ0 e Φ0, e e e e . (4.3) → → → Then the bosonic part of the Lagrangian is evaluated as

i m i i i t t i i boson = D ϕ D ϕ¯ + F F¯ + F0(~ϕ J ~ϕ)+ F¯0(ϕ~¯ Jϕ~¯)+ D(¯ϕ ϕ κ) L − m − + Λ(X) (D ϕiD ϕ¯i)(DmϕjDnϕ¯j) 2(D ϕiDmϕ¯i)F jF¯j +(F iF i)2 m n − m n N−1 N−1 o 1 N N 1 î î 1 N N 1 î î +2ϕ0 ϕ F + ϕ F + ϕ F +2¯ϕ0 ϕ¯ F¯ +ϕ ¯ F¯ + ϕ¯ F¯ , (4.4)     ˆ=2 ˆ=2  Xi   Xi      15 where we have again assumed that Λ is a function of the gauge invariant quantity X = i m i Dmϕ D ϕ¯ . The equation of motion for D gives the constraint

ϕ¯iϕi = κ. (4.5)

Since Φ0 does not propagate, it is also integrated out. The F-term constraints are given by the equation of motions for F0,ϕ0:

t δF0 : ~ϕ J ~ϕ =0, (4.6) N−1 1 N N 1 î î δϕ0 : ϕ F + ϕ F + ϕ F =0. (4.7) ˆ=2 Xi These give the constraints for the fields ϕi, ϕ¯i. The equations of motion for F¯i are

1 1 j m j 1 j j 1 N δF¯ : F 2Λ(X) (D ϕ D ϕ¯ )F (F F¯ )F +2¯ϕ0ϕ¯ =0, − m − î î n j m j î j j î o î δF¯ : F 2Λ(X) (D ϕ D ϕ¯ )F (F F¯ )F +2¯ϕ0ϕ¯ =0, (î =2,...,N 1), − m − − N N n j m j N j j o N 1 δF¯ : F 2Λ(X) (D ϕ D ϕ¯ )F (F F¯ )F +2¯ϕ0ϕ¯ =0. (4.8) − m − n o The equations (4.5), (4.6), (4.7) and (4.8) should be solved simultaneously. In the following, we solve these equations in the canonical and the non-canonical branches separately.

Canonical branch One ﬁnds that a solution to the equations (4.8) is given by

i ϕ0 =0, F =0. (4.9)

This corresponds to the canonical branch. We note that in this branch, the constraint (4.7) becomes trivial. Then the Lagrangian becomes

i m i i i m j n j c = D ϕ D ϕ¯ + Λ(X)(D ϕ D ϕ¯ )(D ϕ D ϕ¯ ). (4.10) L − m m n

The equation of motion for Am is therefore ∂Λ κ(iκ−1ϕi∂ ϕ¯i + A )+ i (ϕiDmϕ¯i ϕ¯iDmϕi) − m m ∂X −

i i j n j i n i j n j + iΛ(ϕ, ϕ¯) (ϕ Dnϕ¯ )(Dmϕ D ϕ¯ ) (¯ϕ D ϕ )(Dmϕ¯ D ϕ ) =0, (4.11) ( − ) where we have used the constraint (4.5). We ﬁnd that the solution is given by

−1 i i Am = iκ ϕ¯ ∂mϕ . (4.12)

16 i Substituting this solution to the Lagrangian, the covariant derivative Dmϕ in the Lagrangian i (4.10) is replaced by D˜ mϕ . Now we solve the remaining constraints (4.5) and (4.6). The constraint (4.5) is solved by the following parametrization:

√κ ϕi = W i . (4.13) √W † W · Since we have

κ ˆ ~ϕtJ ~ϕ = (2W 1W N +(W i)2)=0, (ˆi =2,...,N 1), (4.14) W † W − · the last constraint (4.6) is solved by

1 ˆ W i =  ui  , (4.15) 1 ˆ 2  (ui)   − 2    1 where we have ﬁxed W = 1 by the U(1)C gauge transformation. Plugging this back into the Lagrangian, we obtain the QN−2 sigma model whose derivative corrections are completely † † determined by Λ(W, W , ∂mW, ∂mW ).

Non-canonical branch In the non-canonical branch, we ﬁnd that a solution to the equations (4.8) is given by

i i 1 i m i ϕ0 =0, F F¯ = + D ϕ D ϕ¯ . (4.16) −2Λ(X) m Then, the Lagrangian becomes

i i m j n j j m j 2 1 nc = Λ(X) (D ϕ¯ D ϕ )(D ϕ¯ D ϕ ) (D ϕ D ϕ¯ ) . (4.17) L m n − m − 4Λ(X) The equation of motion for Am is the same with (3.18) and it is again solved by (3.19). Substi- i i tuting this into the Lagrangian, the gauge covariant derivative Dmϕ is replaced by D˜ mϕ . The remaining constraints (4.5) and (4.6) are solved by the parametrizations (4.13) and (4.15) and the target space is QN−2. However, we should keep in mind that there is an extra constraint (4.7) given by

N−1 ˆ ˆ ϕ1F N (X˜)+ ϕN F 1(X˜)+ ϕiF i(X˜)=0, (4.18) ˆ=2 Xi

17 where F i(X˜) = 0 is the solution to the auxiliary ﬁeld in the non-canonical branch. The 6 ¯ constraint (4.18) generically contains space-time derivatives of the ﬁelds ϕi, ϕ¯i and this has to be solved together with the following equation of motion:

Λ′(X˜)D˜ mϕi (D˜ ϕ¯jD˜ ϕj)(D˜ mϕ¯kD˜ nϕk) (D˜ ϕjD˜ mϕ¯j)2 m n − m h i m j n j i j n j i1 ′ m i 2Λ(X˜) D˜ nϕ (D˜ ϕ¯ D˜ ϕ ) D˜ mϕ (D˜ nϕ D˜ ϕ¯ ) + Λ (X˜)D˜ ϕ =0, (4.19) − − 4Λ2(X˜) h i where the prime in Λ′(X˜) denotes the diﬀerentiation with respect to X˜. In general, it is uncertain whether the simultaneous equations (4.18) and (4.19) admit non-trivial solutions or not. Instead, the most plausible way to work with these equations is to restrict the dynamics to a subspace in QN−2. This subspace highly depends on explicit structures of the solution F i. For example, if we consider the N = 4 case, one ﬁnds that a solution to the equation of motion for F i in the non-canonical branch is

2 3 4 1 1 i m i F = F = F =0, F = + D˜ mϕ D˜ ϕ¯ . (4.20) s−2Λ(X˜) Substituting this solution to the constraint (4.18) gives a condition

4 1 i m i ϕ + D˜ mϕ D˜ ϕ¯ =0. (4.21) s−2Λ(X˜) In order that this is compatible with equation of motion, we first choose the subspace ϕ4 = 0 in Q2, and then solve the equation (4.19) in that subspace. 4 A comment is in order. As for the Grassmann case, we have an equality Q = G4,2. The constraint (4.18) is necessary in the construction of the Q4 sigma model discussed in this section but such a restriction to a subspace was absent in the construction of the G4,2 model in the previous section. Apparently, they have different Lagrangians even though there is a 1 1 target space isomorphism between them. The same is true for the relation Q = G2,1 = CP . In the non-canonical branch, the different constructions of sigma models result in the different derivative corrections and the field space that the dynamics occurs, although they give identical models in the canonical branches.

4.2 SO(2N)/U(N) and Sp(N)/U(N) models

Observed that the QN−2 model has remarkable structures in the non-canonical branch due to the F-term constraint, we next consider nonlinear sigma models with the target spaces

18 SO(2N)/U(N) or Sp(N)/U(N). The gauged linear sigma model has the global symmetry G = SO(2N) or Sp(N)[= USp(2N)] and gauge symmetry G′ = U(N). The chiral superﬁeld Φ belongs to the (2N, N¯ ) representation of G G′ and it is expressed as an 2N N matrix. × × The constraint is given by the F-term superpotential

t ′ W = Tr Φ0Φ J Φ , (4.22)

t where Φ0 is an N N symmetric (anti-symmetric) matrix superﬁeld satisfying Φ0 = ǫΦ0 for × G = SO(2N)[Sp(N)]. Here ǫ = 1 for G = SO(2N) and ǫ = 1 for G = Sp(N). The − U(1) U(N) charge of Φ0 is assigned to 2 to cancel the U(1) charge +1 of Φ. The 2N 2N D ⊂ − × matrix J ′ is given by

0 1N J ′ = , (4.23)  ǫ1N 0    which is an invariant tensor of SO(2N) (ǫ = 1) or Sp(N) (ǫ = 1). − The equation of motion for D gives the constraint (3.27) while that for F0 gives the constraint

ϕtJ ′ϕ =0, (4.24) and that for ϕ0 gives a constraint

ϕtJ ′F =0. (4.25)

The equation for F is (4.8), but the gauge symmetry is non-Abelian. One finds that ϕ0 = 0 and F = 0 are a solution to the equation of motion for F . Therefore the constraint (4.25) becomes trivial in the canonical branch. We find that the gauge field is integrated out by the solution −1 Am = iκ ϕ∂¯ mϕ in the sigma model limit which is the same with the case without the derivative corrections. Then the target space of the sigma model is nothing but the SO(2N)/U(N) or Sp(N)/U(N) and the derivative corrections appear as in the Grassmann case in Eq. (3.35). Compared with the QN−2 model, it is not straightforward to write down solutions F = 0 6 explicitly due to the non-Abelian gauge symmetry. However, similar to the Grassmann case, m the solution Tr[F F¯] is given by the gauge invariant quantities such as Tr[DmϕD ϕ¯]. Therefore −1 we again find that the gauge field Am is integrated out by Am = iκ ϕ∂¯ mϕ. The subsequent discussion is parallel to the QN−2 case. Due to the extra constraint (4.25), we find that the target spaces SO(2N)/U(N) or Sp(N)/U(N) should be restricted to their subspaces in the non-canonical branches.

19 4.3 E /[SO(10) U(1)] and E /[E U(1)] models 6 × 7 6 × For the case of the target space E6/[SO(10) U(1)], the global symmetry is G = E6 and the × G′ = U(1) symmetry is gauged in the gauged linear sigma model [46]. The chiral superﬁeld

Φ belongs to the fundamental representation 27 of E6. This is decomposed into the maximal subgroup SO(10) U(1). The F-term constraint is given by the superpotential × i j k W =ΓijkΦ0Φ Φ , (4.26) where Γijk is a rank-3 symmetric invariant tensor of E6. Since the gauge symmetry is Abelian, the structure of the sigma model is essentially the same with the QN−2 case. Due to the constraint

i k Γijkϕ F = 0 (4.27) derived by the superpotential, the target space of the sigma model is restricted to a subspace of E6/[SO(10) U(1)] in the non-canonical branch. × ′ For the target space E7/[E6 U(1)], the global symmetry is G = E7 and the G = U(1) × symmetry is gauged in the gauge linear sigma model. The F-term constraint is [46]

α β γ δ W = dαβγδΦ0 Φ Φ Φ , (4.28) where dαβγδ is a rank-4 symmetric invariant tensor of E7. Since the gauge symmetry is Abelian, the structure of the sigma model is essentially the same with the QN−2 case. Again, the constraint

α β γ dαβγδϕ ϕ F = 0 (4.29) deﬁnes a subspace in E7/[E6 U(1)] in the non-canonical branch. ×

5 Bogomol’nyi-Prasad-Sommerﬁeld states

In this section, we study the BPS conditions in the nonlinear sigma models discussed in the previous section. BPS properties of Skyrme type and higher derivative models have been studied in various contexts [59–62]. It has been discussed that the gauged chiral models admit the 1/2 BPS vortex state and the 1/4 BPS states [29]. In the following, we derive the 1/2 and 1/4 BPS conditions in the nonlinear sigma models in the limit g of those in the gauged →∞ chiral models.

20 5.1 BPS states in canonical branch

In the canonical branch, the 1/2 BPS vortex equation for the ﬁnite g for gauged linear sigma model is

i 1 D¯ ϕ =0, F12 (¯ϕϕ κ1)=0, (5.1) z g − − where z = x1 + ix2 is the complex coordinate in the (x1, x2)-plane. These are U(M) BPS semilocal vortex equations with N-ﬂavors in the case of Grassmann case [54, 58], for which we have found that higher derivative corrections do not appear. They reduce to the ordinary BPS vortex equations in the Abelian-Higgs model for the U(1) gauge theory. The energy bound for this conﬁguration is [29]3

0 = κF12. (5.2) E − 2 0 The configuration is classified by the vortex number d x F12. In the nonlinear sigma model limit g , the second condition in (5.1) gives the D-term →∞ R constraint while the first one becomes

∂¯ ϕi κ−1(¯ϕj∂¯ ϕj)ϕi =0. (5.3) z − z This implies the following 1/2 BPS lump equation in the sigma models:

i ∂¯zϕ =0. (5.4)

The bound (5.2) survives in the limit g and the result is →∞ 1 = ∂ ϕ 2. (5.5) E 2| z | This provides the lump charge density in the nonlinear sigma model. We note that the derivative corrections never show up in the equation (5.4) and the BPS bound (5.5) in the canonical branch.4 3We comment on the positive-semi definiteness of the energy in the higher derivative chiral models. It is not always true that the energy density derived from Eq. (2.1) is positive-semi definite for arbitrary Λ and the Kähler potential K. In order to define the BPS states as minima of energy, we have to choose appropriate Λ and K that makes the energy be positive-semi definite [27]. 4As denoted below Eq. (3.14), for the case of the CP N−1 model, the Lagrangian in Eq. (3.14) (with Λ =const.) can be obtained [50] as the low-energy effective theory of a BPS non-Abelian vortex in = 2 supersymmetric N U(N) gauge theory [54]. In this context, CP N−1 lumps (sigma model instantons) on the vortex worldsheet represent Yang-Mills instantons in the bulk theory, and such instanton-vortex composites are 1/4 BPS states [56]. It was discussed in Ref. [50] that this fact implies that lump solutions should not have derivative corrections.

21 5.2 BPS states in non-canonical branch

In the non-canonical branch, we have only 1/4 BPS state [29]. The BPS equations in the gauged linear sigma models are 1 D¯ ϕ = iF, F12 =ϕϕ ¯ κ1. (5.6) z − g − In the nonlinear sigma model limit g , the BPS equations become →∞ D¯ ϕ = iF, ϕϕ¯ = κ1. (5.7) z − The latter equation gives the D-term constraint. From the ﬁrst equation, we obtain

D¯ zϕDzϕ¯ = F F.¯ (5.8)

For the CP N−1, QN−2 cases, the gauge group is Abelian and we ﬁnd an explicit solution for F . Then the BPS condition is rewritten as

D˜¯ ϕ¯D˜ ϕ D˜¯ ϕiD˜ ϕ¯i =Λ−1(ϕ, ϕ¯). (5.9) z z − z z This is nothing but a compacton type equation. To see this, we choose an appropriate function Λ. For example, we consider the following function in the CP 1 model,

s u 2 − 2 Λ=2 | | , (5.10) 1+ u 2 | | where s is a constant. Then, the BPS equation (5.9) results in the following compacton equation [45]:

s ng = g 2 . (5.11) y − Here we have assumed the ansatz 1 r2 u = einθf(r), 1 g = , y = , (5.12) − 1+ f 2 2 where r and θ are the polar coordinates in the (x1, x2)-plane.

6 Comment on fermionic interactions

Finally, we comment on the fermionic interactions of the models, while in the previous sections, we have focused on the bosonic sector of the supersymmetric models and have shown that the

22 vector field Am is integrated out exactly. However, the integration of the gaugino is rather awkward from the reason described below. We illustrate the problem in the CP N−1 model. Assuming that Λ does not contain V for simplicity, the equation of motion for the vector superfield V in the sigma model limit g is given by →∞ 2Φie2V Φ†i κ − 1 † 4V α i j †i α˙ †j + Λ(Φ, Φ )e Φ Φ ¯ ˙ Φ ¯ Φ 4 D Dα Dα D 1 † 4V i α j †i α˙ †j + D Λ(Φ, Φ )e Φ Φ ¯ ˙ Φ ¯ Φ 4 α D Dα D 1 † 4V i α j †i α˙ †j + D¯ ˙ Λ(Φ, Φ )e Φ Φ Φ ¯ Φ =0. (6.1) 4 α Dα D D If the term in the second line is ignored, we find that the vector superfield is solved by

1 V = log(2κ−1ΦiΦ†i). (6.2) −2 This is easily conﬁrmed if one notices that the following relation holds for Eq. (6.2):

1 Φ†i Φi = Φ†i D Φi + 2(D V )Φi = Φ†iD Φi Φ†jD Φj(ΦiΦ†i)=0. (6.3) Dα α α α − Φ 2 α | | m −1 i i The would-be solution (6.2), whose θσ θ¯ component gives Am = iκ ϕ¯ ∂mϕ , precisely gives the correct Kähler potential K = log(2κ−1ΦΦ†) for the CP N−1 model. However, when the − term in the second line in Eq. (6.1) is included, Eq. (6.2) fails to be a solution. This implies that the expression in Eq. (6.2) is correct only in the bosonic sector. Including the second line in Eq. (6.1) modifies the equality in Eq. (6.2) in the fermionic sector. We note that in solving the auxiliary field F , the fermionic fields ψ in the chiral multiplets are introduced perturbatively around the bosonic solution F = F (ϕ, ϕ¯) [20]. The same is true for the vector multiplet. Since the interaction terms are all expressed by the superfields explicitly, it is in principle possible to write down the equations for the fermions. We can integrate out the vector multiplet starting from the bosonic part of the solution (6.2) and introduce the fermions perturbatively. This procedure determines the fermionic interactions in the sigma model limit g . Even though the fermionic interactions are rather cumbersome, →∞ we stress that the BPS conditions in the nonlinear sigma models are not affected by details of the fermionic interactions. As we have shown, this is obtained by those in the gauged chiral models.

23 7 Conclusion and discussions

In this paper, we have constructed = 1 supersymmetric higher derivative terms in nonlinear N sigma models whose target spaces are Hermitian symmetric spaces. We have considered the sigma model limit of the supersymmetric gauged linear sigma models involving the derivative terms for chiral multiplets that are free from the auxiliary field problem and the Ostrogradski’s ghost. In the sigma model limit, the vector multiplet does not propagate anymore and can be integrated out. Due to the supersymmetric derivative corrections, there are two distinct on-shell branches called the canonical and non-canonical branches. This structure is carried over to the nonlinear sigma models. We have shown that the gauge field Am is explicitly integrated out, both in the canonical and the non-canonical branches, even in the presence of higher derivative terms. In the canonical branch, where the auxiliary field is given by F = 0, we explicitly have written down the Lagrangians of the nonlinear sigma models. They consist of the canonical kinetic terms and the derivative corrections characterized by the arbitrary function Λ. This is a natural generalization of the sigma model construction discussed in Ref. [46]. For the CP N−1 model, we have obtained the supersymmetric CP N−1 Skyrme-Faddeev model. In the non-canonical branch, where the auxiliary field is given by F = 0, the situ- 6 ation changes drastically. For the CP N−1 model, an Abelian symmetry is gauged and we have found the explicit solutions of the non-zero auxiliary field F . We have solved all the constraints and have written down the explicit Lagrangians of the CP N−1 nonlinear sigma model. The canonical quadratic kinetic term is absent in the non-canonical branch, and there is only the fourth derivative term as a generalization of the Skyrme-Faddeev term of the CP 1 model. We thus have obtained the supersymmetric CP N−1 Skyrme-Faddeev model.

For the formulation of the GM,N model, a non-Abelian U(N) symmetry is gauged in the gauged linear sigma model. Compared with the CP N−1 case for which the gauge symmetry is Abelian in the gauged linear sigma model, the equation of motion for the auxiliary field in the G model is rather complicated. Although it is hard to find explicit F = 0 solutions, M,N 6 we have been able to integrate out the gauge field with the help of the gauge invariance of the higher derivative terms. For other Hermitian symmetric spaces, in addition to D-term constraints, we further impose F-term constraints yielding holomorphic embedding of the target spaces into CP N−1 or Grassmann manifold, as was done for the case without higher derivative terms. In the canonical

24 branches, these constraints are consistent in the presence of higher derivative terms, but we find that in the non-canonical branch these constraints yield further additional constraints reducing the target spaces to their submanifolds. For the formulation of the QN−2 model, an Abelian symmetry is gauged in the gauged linear sigma model, but we have an extra constraint coming from the F-term embedding QN−2 to CP N−1. The non-zero solution F = 0 yields an extra constraint on the scalar fields. We have 6 found that in order that these constraints are compatible with the equation of motion in the non-canonical branches, the dynamics of fields should be restricted to a subspace in the QN−2 manifold, which is a peculiar property of this model. We have also discussed the sigma models whose target spaces are SO(2N)/U(N), Sp(N)/U(N), E6/[SO(10) U(1)] and E7/[E6 U(1)]. × × The first two cases are essentially similar to the cases of the Grassmann and the QN−2 cases. For the latter two cases, although the superpotential is complicated compared with the QN−2 case, the structure of the higher derivative terms is similar to that of the QN−2 case. We also have found that these constructions provide the different sigma models even though there are several N−1 1 1 isomorphisms among the target spaces such as G 1 G 1 CP , Q G2 1 CP , N, ≃ N,N− ≃ ≃ , ≃ 4 Q G4 2 and so on. ≃ , Finally, we provide a comment on the BPS equations and the integration of the fermionic terms in the vector multiplet. In the canonical branches, BPS equations and their solutions are the same with those without higher derivative terms, while, in the non-canonical branches they give compacton type configurations. It would be interesting to study explicit solutions to the BPS equations in the non-canonical branch. As we have noted, the 1/4 BPS equation in the non-canonical branch of the CP N−1 model reduces to that of the compactons. Finding solutions in the other sigma models is interesting. We will come back to these issues in future studies. In this paper, we have considered the case that there are no potential terms in the nonlinear sigma models (although we have introduced superpotentials for the F-term constraints in the gauged linear sigma models). If we also introduce superpotentials or twisted masses (from dimensional reductions), there are more BPS states such as domain walls, their junctions and so on [27]. Introducing potential terms and studying associated BPS states remain as a future work.

25 Acknowledgments

This work was supported in part by Grant-in-Aid for Scientiﬁc Research, JSPS KAKENHI Grant Numbers JP18H01217 (M. N.) and JP20K03952 (S. S.).

References

[1] S. R. Coleman, J. Wess and B. Zumino, “Structure of phenomenological Lagrangians. 1.,” Phys. Rev. 177 (1969) 2239-2247.

[2] C. G. Callan, Jr., S. R. Coleman, J. Wess and B. Zumino, “Structure of phenomenological Lagrangians. 2.,” Phys. Rev. 177 (1969) 2247-2250.

[3] H. Leutwyler, “On the foundations of chiral perturbation theory,” Annals Phys. 235 (1994) 165 [hep-ph/9311274].

[4] S. J. Gates, Jr., “Why auxiliary fields matter: The Strange case of the 4-D, N=1 supersymmetric QCD effective action,” Phys. Lett. B 365 (1996) 132 [hep-th/9508153], “Why auxiliary fields matter: The strange case of the 4-D, N=1 supersymmetric QCD effective action. 2.,” Nucl. Phys. B 485 (1997) 145 [hep-th/9606109].

[5] S. J. Gates, Jr., M. T. Grisaru, M. E. Knutt and S. Penati, “The Superspace WZNW action for 4-D, N=1 supersymmetric QCD,” Phys. Lett. B 503 (2001) 349 [hep-ph/0012301]; S. J. Gates, Jr., M. T. Grisaru, M. E. Knutt, S. Penati and H. Suzuki, “Supersym- metric gauge anomaly with general homotopic paths,” Nucl. Phys. B 596 (2001) 315 [hep-th/0009192]; S. J. Gates, Jr., M. T. Grisaru and S. Penati, “Holomorphy, minimal homotopy and the 4-D, N=1 supersymmetric Bardeen-Gross-Jackiw anomaly,” Phys. Lett. B 481 (2000) 397 [hep-th/0002045].

[6] D. Nemeschansky and R. Rohm, “Anomaly Constraints On Supersymmetric Eﬀective La- grangians,” Nucl. Phys. B 249 (1985) 157; M. Nitta, “A Note on supersymmetric WZW term in four dimensions,” Mod. Phys. Lett. A 15 (2000) 2327 [hep-th/0101166].

[7] E. A. Bergshoeﬀ, R. I. Nepomechie and H. J. Schnitzer, “Supersymmetric Skyrmions in Four-dimensions,” Nucl. Phys. B 249 (1985) 93.

26 [8] L. Freyhult, “The Supersymmetric extension of the Faddeev model,” Nucl. Phys. B 681 (2004) 65 [hep-th/0310261].

[9] I. L. Buchbinder, S. Kuzenko and Z. Yarevskaya, “Supersymmetric eﬀective potential: Su- perﬁeld approach,” Nucl. Phys. B 411 (1994) 665.

[10] I. L. Buchbinder, S. M. Kuzenko and A. Y. Petrov, “Superﬁeld chiral eﬀective potential,” Phys. Lett. B 321 (1994) 372.

[11] S. M. Kuzenko and S. J. Tyler, “The one-loop eﬀective potential of the Wess-Zumino model revisited,” JHEP 09 (2014) 135 [arXiv:1407.5270 [hep-th]].

[12] A. T. Banin, I. L. Buchbinder and N. G. Pletnev, “On quantum properties of the four-dimensional generic chiral superﬁeld model,” Phys. Rev. D 74 (2006) 045010 [hep-th/0606242].

[13] M. Gomes, J. R. Nascimento, A. Y. Petrov and A. J. da Silva, “On the eﬀective potential in higher-derivative superﬁeld theories,” Phys. Lett. B 682 (2009) 229 [arXiv:0908.0900 [hep-th]].

[14] F. S. Gama, M. Gomes, J. R. Nascimento, A. Y. Petrov and A. J. da Silva, “On the higher- derivative supersymmetric gauge theory,” Phys. Rev. D 84 (2011) 045001 [arXiv:1101.0724 [hep-th]].

[15] M. Rocek and A. A. Tseytlin, “Partial breaking of global D = 4 supersymmetry, constrained superﬁelds, and three-brane actions,” Phys. Rev. D 59 (1999) 106001 [hep-th/9811232].

[16] S. Sasaki, M. Yamaguchi and D. Yokoyama, “Supersymmetric DBI inﬂation,” Phys. Lett. B 718 (2012) 1 [arXiv:1205.1353 [hep-th]].

[17] C. Adam, J. M. Queiruga, J. Sanchez-Guillen and A. Wereszczynski, “Supersymmetric K ﬁeld theories and defect structures,” Phys. Rev. D 84 (2011) 065032 [arXiv:1107.4370 [hep-th]].

[18] C. Adam, J. M. Queiruga, J. Sanchez-Guillen and A. Wereszczynski, “BPS bounds in supersymmetric extensions of K ﬁeld theories,” Phys. Rev. D 86 (2012) 105009 [arXiv:1209.6060 [hep-th]].

27 [19] M. Ostrogradski, “Memoires sur les equations diﬀerentielles relatives au probleme des isoperimetres,” Mem. Ac. St. Petersbourg VI (1850) 385.

[20] J. Khoury, J. L. Lehners and B. Ovrut, “Supersymmetric P(X,φ) and the Ghost Conden- sate,” Phys. Rev. D 83 (2011) 125031 [arXiv:1012.3748 [hep-th]].

[21] M. Koehn, J. -L. Lehners and B. Ovrut, “Ghost condensate in N = 1 supergravity,” Phys. Rev. D 87 (2013) no.6, 065022 [arXiv:1212.2185 [hep-th]].

[22] J. Khoury, J. -L. Lehners and B. A. Ovrut, “Supersymmetric Galileons,” Phys. Rev. D 84 (2011) 043521 [arXiv:1103.0003 [hep-th]].

[23] M. Koehn, J. -L. Lehners and B. A. Ovrut, “Higher-Derivative Chiral Superﬁeld Actions Coupled to N=1 Supergravity,” Phys. Rev. D 86 (2012) 085019 [arXiv:1207.3798 [hep-th]].

[24] C. Adam, J. M. Queiruga, J. Sanchez-Guillen and A. Wereszczynski, “N=1 supersymmetric extension of the baby Skyrme model,” Phys. Rev. D 84 (2011) 025008 [arXiv:1105.1168 [hep-th]].

[25] C. Adam, J. M. Queiruga, J. Sanchez-Guillen and A. Wereszczynski, “Extended Supersym- metry and BPS solutions in baby Skyrme models,” JHEP 05 (2013) 108 [arXiv:1304.0774 [hep-th]].

[26] F. Farakos and A. Kehagias, “Emerging Potentials in Higher-Derivative Gauged Chiral Models Coupled to N=1 Supergravity,” JHEP 11 (2012) 077 [arXiv:1207.4767 [hep-th]].

[27] M. Nitta and S. Sasaki, “BPS States in Supersymmetric Chiral Models with Higher Deriva- tive Terms,” Phys. Rev. D 90 (2014) no. 10, 105001 [arXiv:1406.7647 [hep-th]].

[28] M. Nitta and S. Sasaki, “Higher Derivative Corrections to Manifestly Supersymmetric Nonlinear Realizations,” Phys. Rev. D 90 (2014) 105002 [arXiv:1408.4210 [hep-th]].

[29] M. Nitta and S. Sasaki, “Classifying BPS States in Supersymmetric Gauge Theories Cou- pled to Higher Derivative Chiral Models,” Phys. Rev. D 91 (2015) 125025 [arXiv:1504.08123 [hep-th]].

28 [30] S. B. Gudnason, M. Nitta and S. Sasaki, “A supersymmetric Skyrme model,” JHEP 02 (2016) 074, [arXiv:1512.07557 [hep-th]]; S. B. Gudnason, M. Nitta and S. Sasaki, “Topolog- ical solitons in the supersymmetric Skyrme model,” JHEP 01 (2017) 014 [arXiv:1608.03526 [hep-th]].

[31] J. M. Queiruga, “Supersymmetric galileons and auxiliary ﬁelds in 2+1 dimensions,” Phys. Rev. D 95 (2017) no.12, 125001 [arXiv:1612.04727 [hep-th]].

[32] J. M. Queiruga and A. Wereszczynski, “Non-uniqueness of the supersymmetric extension of the O(3) σ-model,” JHEP 11 (2017) 141 [arXiv:1703.07343 [hep-th]].

[33] T. Fujimori, M. Nitta and Y. Yamada, “Ghostbusters in higher derivative supersymmetric theories: who is afraid of propagating auxiliary ﬁelds?,” JHEP 09 (2016) 106 [arXiv:1608.01843 [hep-th]]; T. Fujimori, M. Nitta, K. Ohashi and Y. Yamada, “Ghost- busters in f(R) supergravity,” JHEP 05 (2018) 102 [arXiv:1712.05017 [hep-th]].

[34] I. Antoniadis, E. Dudas and D. M. Ghilencea, “Supersymmetric Models with Higher Di- mensional Operators,” JHEP 03 (2008) 045 [arXiv:0708.0383 [hep-th]].

[35] E. Dudas and D. M. Ghilencea, “Eﬀective operators in SUSY, superﬁeld constraints and searches for a UV completion,” JHEP 06 (2015) 124 [arXiv:1503.08319 [hep-th]].

[36] M. Nitta, S. Sasaki and R. Yokokura, “Supersymmetry Breaking in Spatially Modulated Vacua,” Phys. Rev. D 96 (2017) no.10, 105022 [arXiv:1706.05232 [hep-th]]; S. Bjarke Gud- nason, M. Nitta, S. Sasaki and R. Yokokura, “Supersymmetry breaking and ghost Goldstino in modulated vacua,” Phys. Rev. D 99 (2019) no.4, 045012 [arXiv:1812.09078 [hep-th]].

[37] M. Nitta, S. Sasaki and R. Yokokura, “Spatially Modulated Vacua in a Lorentz-invariant Scalar Field Theory,” Eur. Phys. J. C 78 (2018) no.9, 754 [arXiv:1706.02938 [hep-th]]; S. B. Gudnason, M. Nitta, S. Sasaki and R. Yokokura, “Temporally, spatially, or light- like modulated vacua in Lorentz invariant theories,” Phys. Rev. D 99 (2019) no.4, 045011 [arXiv:1810.11361 [hep-th]].

[38] T. Fujimori, M. Nitta, K. Ohashi, Y. Yamada and R. Yokokura, “Ghost-free vector superﬁeld actions in supersymmetric higher-derivative theories,” JHEP 09 (2017) 143 [arXiv:1708.05129 [hep-th]].

29 [39] M. Nitta and R. Yokokura, “Higher derivative three-form gauge theories and their supersymmetric extension,” JHEP 10 (2018) 146 [arXiv:1809.03957 [hep-th]]; M. Nitta and R. Yokokura, “Topological couplings in higher derivative extensions of supersymmetric three-form gauge theories,” JHEP 05 (2019) 102 [arXiv:1810.12678 [hep-th]].

[40] S. Bolognesi and W. Zakrzewski, “Baby Skyrme Model, Near-BPS Approximations and Supersymmetric Extensions,” Phys. Rev. D 91 (2015) no. 4, 045034 [arXiv:1407.3140 [hep- th]].

[41] J. M. Queiruga, “Baby Skyrme model and fermionic zero modes,” Phys. Rev. D 94 (2016) no.6, 065022 [arXiv:1606.02869 [hep-th]].

[42] S. B. Gudnason, M. Barsanti and S. Bolognesi, “Near-BPS baby Skyrmions,” JHEP 11 (2020), 062 [arXiv:2006.01726 [hep-th]].

[43] L. D. Faddeev and A. J. Niemi, “Knots and particles,” Nature 387 (1997) 58 [arXiv:hep-th/9610193 [hep-th]].

[44] A. M. Polyakov and A. A. Belavin, “Metastable States of Two-Dimensional Isotropic Ferromagnets,” JETP Lett. 22 (1975) 245 [Pisma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 22, 503 (1975)].

[45] C. Adam, P. Klimas, J. Sanchez-Guillen and A. Wereszczynski, “Compact baby skyrmions,” Phys. Rev. D 80 (2009) 105013 [arXiv:0909.2505 [hep-th]]; C. Adam, T. Ro- manczukiewicz, J. Sanchez-Guillen and A. Wereszczynski, “Investigation of restricted baby Skyrme models,” Phys. Rev. D 81 (2010) 085007 [arXiv:1002.0851 [hep-th]]; C. Adam, J. Sanchez-Guillen, A. Wereszczynski and W. J. Zakrzewski, “Topological duality between vortices and planar Skyrmions in BPS theories with area-preserving diﬀeomorphism symmetries,” Phys. Rev. D 87 (2013) no. 2, 027703 [arXiv:1209.5403 [hep-th]]; C. Adam, T. Romanczukiewicz, J. Sanchez-Guillen and A. Wereszczynski, “Magnetothermodynamics of BPS baby skyrmions,” JHEP 11 (2014) 095 [arXiv:1405.5215 [hep-th]].

[46] K. Higashijima and M. Nitta, “Supersymmetric nonlinear sigma models as gauge theories,” Prog. Theor. Phys. 103 (2000) 635 [hep-th/9911139].

[47] L. A. Ferreira and P. Klimas, “Exact vortex solutions in a CP N Skyrme-Faddeev type model,” JHEP 10 (2010) 008 [arXiv:1007.1667 [hep-th]].

30 [48] L. A. Ferreira, P. Klimas and W. J. Zakrzewski, “Properties of some (3+1) dimensional vortex solutions of the CP N model,” Phys. Rev. D 84 (2011) 085022 [arXiv:1108.4401 [hep-th]].

[49] L. A. Ferreira, P. Klimas and W. J. Zakrzewski, “Some properties of (3+1) dimensional vortex solutions in the extended CP N Skyrme-Faddeev model,” JHEP 12 (2011) 098 [arXiv:1111.2338 [hep-th]].

[50] M. Eto, T. Fujimori, M. Nitta, K. Ohashi and N. Sakai, “Higher Derivative Corrections to Non-Abelian Vortex Eﬀective Theory,” Prog. Theor. Phys. 128 (2012) 67 [arXiv:1204.0773 [hep-th]].

[51] J. Wess and J. Bagger, “Supersymmetry and supergravity,” Princeton, USA: Univ. Pr. (1992) 259 p.

[52] S. M. Kuzenko, “Non-compact duality, super-Weyl invariance and eﬀective actions,” JHEP 07 (2020), 222 [arXiv:2006.00966 [hep-th]].

[53] A. D’Adda, P. Di Vecchia and M. Luscher, “Conﬁnement and Chiral Symmetry Breaking in CP**n-1 Models with Quarks,” Nucl. Phys. B 152 (1979) 125.

[54] A. Hanany and D. Tong, “Vortices, instantons and branes,” JHEP 07 (2003) 037 [hep-th/0306150]; R. Auzzi, S. Bolognesi, J. Evslin, K. Konishi and A. Yung, “NonAbelian superconductors: Vortices and conﬁnement in N=2 SQCD,” Nucl. Phys. B 673 (2003) 187 [hep-th/0307287]; M. Eto, Y. Isozumi, M. Nitta, K. Ohashi and N. Sakai, “Moduli space of non-Abelian vortices,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 96 (2006) 161601 [hep-th/0511088]; M. Eto, K. Konishi, G. Marmorini, M. Nitta, K. Ohashi, W. Vinci and N. Yokoi, “Non-Abelian Vortices of Higher Winding Numbers,” Phys. Rev. D 74 (2006) 065021 [hep-th/0607070]; M. Eto, Y. Isozumi, M. Nitta, K. Ohashi and N. Sakai, “Solitons in the Higgs phase: The Moduli matrix approach,” J. Phys. A 39 (2006) R315 [hep-th/0602170].

[55] K. Higashijima, T. Kimura, M. Nitta and M. Tsuzuki, “Large N limit of N=2 supersymmetric Q**N model in two-dimensions,” Prog. Theor. Phys. 105 (2001) 261-285 [arXiv:hep-th/0010272 [hep-th]].

[56] A. Hanany and D. Tong, “Vortex strings and four-dimensional gauge dynamics,” JHEP 04 (2004) 066 [hep-th/0403158];M. Shifman and A. Yung, “NonAbelian string junctions

31 as conﬁned monopoles,” Phys. Rev. D 70 (2004) 045004 [arXiv:hep-th/0403149 [hep-th]]; M. Eto, Y. Isozumi, M. Nitta, K. Ohashi and N. Sakai, “Instantons in the Higgs phase,” Phys. Rev. D 72 (2005) 025011 [hep-th/0412048]; T. Fujimori, M. Nitta, K. Ohta, N. Sakai and M. Yamazaki, “Intersecting Solitons, Amoeba and Tropical Geometry,” Phys. Rev. D 78 (2008) 105004 [arXiv:0805.1194 [hep-th]].

[57] S. Aoyama, “The Supersymmetric U(N,r) σ Model and Its 0(2) Extended Supersymmetry,” Nuovo Cim. A 57 (1980) 176.

[58] M. Shifman and A. Yung, “Non-Abelian semilocal strings in N=2 supersymmetric QCD,” Phys. Rev. D 73 (2006) 125012 [arXiv:hep-th/0603134 [hep-th]]; M. Eto, J. Evslin, K. Kon- ishi, G. Marmorini, M. Nitta, K. Ohashi, W. Vinci and N. Yokoi, “On the moduli space of semilocal strings and lumps,” Phys. Rev. D 76 (2007) 105002 [arXiv:0704.2218 [hep-th]].

[59] C. Adam and A. Wereszczynski, “BPS property and its breaking in 1+1 dimensions,” Phys. Rev. D 98 (2018) no.11, 116001 [arXiv:1809.01667 [hep-th]].

[60] R. Casana, A. C. Santos, C. F. Farias and A. L. Mota, “Self-dual solitons in a gen- eralized Chern-Simons baby Skyrme model,” Phys. Rev. D 100 (2019) no.4, 045022 [arXiv:1901.00655 [hep-th]].

[61] R. Casana, A. C. Santos, C. F. Farias and A. L. Mota, “Self-dual solitons in a Maxwell-Chern-Simons baby Skyrme model,” Phys. Rev. D 101 (2020) no.4, 045018 [arXiv:1910.02362 [hep-th]].

[62]L. T. St¸epie´n, “Bogomolny equations for the BPS Skyrme models with impurity,” JHEP 09 (2020) 140 [arXiv:1912.10173 [hep-th]].