Shape-invariant Potentials and Singular Spaces

Peng Yu ,1 Yuan Zhong ,1, ∗ Ziqi Wang,1 Hui Wang,1 and Mengyang Zhang 2
1
MOE Key Laboratory for Nonequilibrium Synthesis and Modulation of Condensed Matter,
School of Physics, Xi’an Jiaotong University, Xi’an 710049, China
2
Institute for Quantum Science and Technology (IQST) and Department of Physics, Shanghai University, Shanghai 200444, China
(Dated: May 23, 2025)
We report two exact classical solutions in two-dimensional singular spaces. These solutions are lower-
dimensional versions of some five-dimensional brane world solutions. Unlike the higher-dimensional
model, our solutions have exactly solvable linear perturbation equations, namely, Schrödinger-like
equations with Pöschl-Teller I potential and Eckart potential. Both potentials are shape-invariant
and can be solved exactly using supersymmetric quantum mechanics methods. In our work, the
Pöschl-Teller I potential has infinitely many bound states, while the Eckart potential captures a finite
number of bound states. Both potentials are positive-definite which indicates that the background
solutions are stable against linear perturbations.
arXiv:2505.16108v1 [hep-th] 22 May 2025

I. INTRODUCTION Notably, in the models of Refs. [12, 15, 16], the back-
ground space-time geometry are smooth without singu-
Two-dimensional (2D) gravitational models have larities. In the study of 5D brane world models, however,
demonstrated significant potential in solving complex singular spaces might be physically meaningful [25–27].
problems [1, 2]. The simplicity and manageability make It is then natural to ask if there are also connections
these models effective tools for exploring diverse phenom- between singular gravitational soliton solutions and shape
ena across topics such as quantizing gravity [3, 4], black invariant potentials.
holes [5–7], cosmological models [8–10] and so on. With this question in mind, we will work on two solu-
In two-dimensional space-time, the Einstein tensor al- tions and show that the corresponding stability equations
ways vanishes for any metric, and one usually introduces can be related to the shape invariant Pöschl-Teller I [28–
a dilaton field to generate non-trivial gravitational dy- 30] and Eckart potential [31]. The Pöschl-Teller I poten-
namics. A well-known 2D gravity model that resembles tial is a well-known exactly solvable potential in quantum
Einstein gravity in many aspects, is the so-called Mann- mechanics, which has infinitely many bound states. The
Morsink-Sikkema-Steele (MMSS) model [11], which has Eckart potential is another exactly solvable potential first
the following action: studied by C. Eckart in 1930 [32]. Both potentials are
shape invariant, so that their eigenvalues can be deter-
√
Z  
1 1 mined using supersymmetric quantum mechanical (SUSY
S= d2 x −g − (∇φ)2 + φR + κL . (1)
κ 2 QM) methods [33].
The organization of this paper is as follows: in Sec. II,
Here φ is the dilaton field and L is the Lagrangian density
we review the model and the main results of Ref. [15]. In
of matter fields, which is assumed to be a real scalar field
Sec. III, we derive two exact solutions by selecting two
in this work. A virtue of this model is that for a metric
hyperbolic superpotentials and demonstrate that the ef-
of the following form
fective potentials in the stability equations are the Pöschl-
ds2 = −e2A(x) dt2 + dx2 , (2) Teller I and Eckart potentials. We give a brief summary
in Sec. IV.
the dynamical equations have a simple first-order formal-
ism, from which exact gravitating soliton solutions can
be easily constructed [12–19]. Many of these solutions II. THE MODEL
have asymptotic AdS2 metric, and can be regarded as
2D versions of some five-dimensional thick brane solu-
As in Ref. [15], we use the action in Eq. (1) with a
tions [20–24].
noncanonical scalar matter field L(ϕ, X), where X =
In particular, it was found that in some models with
− 21 ∇µ ϕ∇µ ϕ is the kinetic term of the scalar matter field
noncanonical scalar matter fields, there exists static sine-
ϕ. Variation of the action yields the Einstein equation,
Gordon type solitons, whose linear perturbation equa-
the scalar equation and the dilaton equation. For the
tions are Schrödinger-like equations with exactly solvable
metric in Eq. (2), the dilaton field becomes:
Pöschl-Teller II potetential [15] and Rosen-Morse poten-
tial [16]. The solvability of the linear perturbation equa- φ(x) = 2A(x), (3)
tion may be useful in studying the quantum properties of
and the independent equations need to be solved are the
gravitating solitons.
Einstein equations:
2
−4∂x2 A = κLX (∂x ϕ) , (4)
∗ 2
Corresponding author: [email protected] 4∂x2 A + 2 (∂x A) = κL , (5)
 2

where LX ≡ ∂X∂L
. Note that without specifying the form and Ξ ≡ 2Φ̇ − h′00 (where overdots and prime denote
of L(ϕ, X), there will be more unknown variables than derivatives with respect to time and space, respectively)
independent equations. So we need to impose some con- and work with the gauge condition δφ(r) = 0. After
straints. linearization we obtain three independent perturbation
We first introduce an arbitrary function “W (ϕ)”, equations. Two of them can be used to eliminate Ξ and
termed superpotential, by demanding: hrr in terms of δϕ, and finally one can obtain an equation
of the following form [14]:
1
X = − Wϕ2 , (6)
2 −∂t2 G + ∂y2 G − Veff (y)G = 0, (14)
or equivalently: afterRperforming another coordinate transformation r →
y = drγ −1/2 . Here, G and γ is defined as:
∂x ϕ = Wϕ , (7)
1/2
G(y, t) ≡ LX γ 1/4 δϕ(y, t), (15)
where Wϕ ≡ dW dϕ . LXX X
If L(ϕ, X) = X − V (ϕ), then the dynamical equations γ ≡ 1+2 , (16)
(4) and (5) can be rewritten as a very simple first-order LX
formalism: and the effective potential Veff (y) is:
1
∂x A = − κW, (8) ∂y2 f
4 Veff (y) ≡ , (17)
1 1 f
V = Wϕ2 − κW 2 . (9)
2 8 where
The advantage of this formalism is that, if we carefully 1/2 ∂y ϕ
choose the superpotential W (ϕ), exact soliton solutions f (y) ≡ LX γ 1/4 . (18)
∂y A
can be constructed easily as shown in [20–22] and [13].
For noncanonical models where L ̸= X − V (ϕ), the Obviously, to make the rescaling of δϕ as well as the co-
Einstein equations usually take more complicate form than ordinate transformation r → y well defined, the following
Eqs. (8) and (9). However, for the following Lagrangian: conditions must be satisfied [14]:
2
LX > 0, γ > 0. (19)

1
L = U (ϕ) X + Wϕ2 + X − V (ϕ), (10)
2
By performing mode expansions:
L and LX will be the same form as those of the canonical X
case, if Eq. (6) is satisfied [15, 16]. Thus the dynamical G(t, y) = eiωn t ψn (y), (20)
equations for a model with the above Lagrangian will n

retain the same form as the canonical model. However, we obtain a Schrödinger-like equation with factorizable
difference appears as soon as linear perturbations are Hamiltonian:
considered [15]. The model described by Eq. (10) is called
a twinlike model of the canonical model, which was first d2 ψn
Hψn ≡ AA† ψn = − + Veff (y)ψn = ωn2 ψn , (21)
discussed in cosmology and brane world models [34–36]. dy 2
To perform linear stability analysis, we first introduce
a coordinate transformation: where,
d d
Z
r ≡ e−A(x) dx, (11) A= + W, A† = − + W, (22)
dy dy

with which the metric in Eq. (2) becomes conformally and,

flat:
∂y f
W≡ , (23)
ds2 = e2A(r) −dt2 + dr2 . f


(12)
which is also called the superpotential in the context of
Suppose we have a static background solution {φ(r), ϕ(r),
supersymmetric quantum mechanics (SUSY QM), but is
A(r)} and let {δφ(r, t), δϕ(r, t), δgµν (r, t)} be small per-
different from the one defined in Eqs. (6) and (7). In
turbations. For convenience, we define [14, 15]:
SUSY QM, one can construct two partner Hamiltonian
operators:
δgµν (r, t) ≡ e2A(r) hµν (r, t)
d2
 
2A(r) h00 (r, t) Φ(r, t)
= e , (13) H± = − + V± (y), (24)
Φ(r, t) hrr (r, t) dy 2
 3

where V± (y) = W 2 ± dWdy are called partner potentials. If those boundaries, and its singular nature is revealed by
the partner potentials are non-singular, the eigenvalues of the scalar curvature:
the corresponding partner Hamiltonians are non-negative,
1 2
b k sec2 a2 bx k cos 2a2 bx + 8a2 − k .




and have equal spectra except the ground state [33]. More- R(x) =
over, the partner potentials are called shape invariant if 16
(32)
they satisfy the following equation: The presence of singularities at the two boundaries can
be observed in Fig. 1.
V+ (y; a0 ) = V− (y; a1 ) + F (a1 ) , (25)
We also note that the solutions (28) and (29) also
where a0 and a1 are two constants and F (a1 ) is an arbi- arise in certain five-dimensional (5D) brane world models
trary function of the parameter in the argument [33]. In [25, 27], which suggests that our solutions can be inter-
this case, the corresponding Schrödinger equation is ex- preted as 2D counterparts of some 5D brane world models.
actly solvable [37, 38]. Note that to derive the Schrödinger- Furthermore, as shown in [39], 5D brane world solutions
like equation, one needs to introduce two coordinate trans- of this type are closely related to N =1 super Yang-Mills
formations x → r → y. The above Schrödinger-like equa- (SYM) theory.
tion is obtained in the y-coordinates while background Inserting the solutions (28) and (29) into Eq. (18), we
solutions are usually derived in the x-coordinates. Usually, obtain:
it is hard to get the analytical expression of the effective

m

4 csc a2 bx sec a2 bx cos1− 8 a2 bx
potential Veff (y), needless to say to solve the stability f (x) = − , (33)
equation exactly. However, it was found that for some am
models with noncanonical scalar Lagrangian, such as the where m = κ
4a2 . The SUSY QM superpotential is given
one in Eq. (10), the second coordinate transformation by:
inverses the first one, provided that [15]:
m
1

κ
R W  W(x) = tan(x) − cot(x), (34)
Wϕ dϕ 8
U (ϕ) = 2 1−e 2
. (26)
2Wϕ
where we have set a2 b = 1. The effective potential can be
This makes the y-coordinate system and the x-coordinate calculated from Eq. (17) as:
equivalent and in this case, it is possible to obtain both the
2
background solutions and the Schrödinger-like equations Veff (x) = − (B + C) + B (B + 1) sec2 (x)
in the x-coordinate. In general, given the superpotential + C(C + 1) csc2 (x), (35)
W (ϕ), we can use Eqs. (7), (8) and (17) to find ϕ(x), A(x)
and Veff (y), respectively. where B = m 8 and C = 1. This is exactly the form of
the Pöschl-Teller I potential V+ (x; B, C) [33], and the
corresponding partner potential is:
III. 2D BRANE WORLD SOLUTIONS
V− (x) = −(B + C)2 + B(B − 1) sec2 (x). (36)
A. Solution 1
We draw V± (x; B, 1) for B = 1, 45 , 32 (which corresponds to
√ √ √
For our first solution, we choose the following superpo- a = 82 , 2010 , 123 , and b = 32, 40, 48, respectively) in Fig. 1.
tential: If supersymmetry is unbroken, the energy spectrum of
the above two potentials maintain a one-to-one corre-
W (ϕ) = b sinh(aϕ), (27) spondence, except the ground state [33]. However, Fig. 1
shows that the potential V+ (x; B, 1) has a singularity at
where a, b are parammeters to be specified. The solution the origin. This singularity breaks the supersymmetry
takes the following form: and disrupts the spectral correspondence between the two
potentials. We show this by calculating the eigenvalues
1 and eigenfunctions of the two potentials V+ (x; 1, 1) and
ϕ(x) = arcsinh(tan(a2 bx)), (28)
a V− (x; 1, 1). Note that the potential V− (x; 1, 1) = −4, and
κ
A(x) = ln(cos(a2 bx)), (29) we have an infinite square well.
4a2 Both the potentials V+ (x; 1, 1) and V− (x; 1, 1) capture
1
V (ϕ) = b2 4a2 cosh2 (aϕ) − k sinh2 (aϕ) ,


(30) infinite many bound states, here we give the first two
8   bound states of the potential V+ (x; 1, 1) [33]:
k
sech2 (aϕ) cosh 2a2 (aϕ) − 1
U (ϕ) = − . (31) E0+ = 12; ψ0+ (x) ∝ sin2 (x) cos2 (x), (37)
2a2 b2
E1+ = 32; ψ1+ (x) ∝ − sin(2x) sin(4x). (38)
It can be seen that the warp factor diverges at x = ± 2aπ2 b ,
so the background space-time is only well-defined within The first six bound states of the effective potential
 4

B=1 B = 1.25 B = 1.5

A(x; B, 1) R(x; B, 1)
0.0 20
0.5
0
1.0
20
1.5
2.0 40

2.5 60
3.0 80
1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5
x x
V+ (x; B, 1) = Veff (x; B, 1) V− (x; B, 1)
20.0 20
17.5 15
15.0
10
12.5
10.0 5
7.5 0
5.0
5
1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5
x x

Figure 1. Plots of the warp factor A(x; B, 1), the scalar curvature R(x; B, 1), the effective potential V+ (x; B, 1) and its partner
potential V− (x; B, 1) in Sec. III A.

V− (x; 1, 1) are: B. Solution 2

E0− = −3; ψ0− (x) ∝ cos(x), Now we consider another interesting example where:
E1− = 0; ψ1− (x) ∝ sin(2x), W (ϕ) = b cosh(aϕ) + c, (39)
E2− = 5; ψ2− (x) ∝ cos(3x),
E3− = 12; ψ3− (x) ∝ sin(4x), where a, b and c are parameters to be determined. Note
that here we add a constant c to the superpotential, and
E4− = 21; ψ4− (x) ∝ cos(5x),
it will be shown that special value of c will lead to the
E5− = 32; ψ5− (x) ∝ sin(6x), Eckart potentials in the perturbation equations. Using
the first-order formalism discussed previously, we obtain
where the subscript “0” in E0− and ψ0− denotes the ground the following solutions:
state. Moreover, it can be seen from Eqs. (37) and (38) 2 2
that there is no negative energy level in the spectrum of ϕ(x) = arctanh(ea bx ), (40)
V+ (x; 1, 1), so our solution is stable against linear per- a  
b+c 1 2
turbations. While the potential V− (x; 1, 1) has a tachy- A(x) = −κ x + 2 ln(1 − e−2a bx ) , (41)
onic ground state. The corresponding bound state wave 4 4a
functions are plotted in Fig. 2, and we can see that the 1 1
V (ϕ) = a2 b2 sinh2 (aϕ) − k(b cosh(aϕ) + c)2 , (42)
one-to-one correspondence between the energy levels of
"2 8
 κ2 #
V+ (x; 1, 1) and V− (x; 1, 1) is disrupted. For instance, it 
c aϕ 2a
can be checked that the states ψ0+ and ψ1+ of V+ (x; 1, 1) U (ϕ) = 1 − sinh(aϕ) tanh b ( )
2
corresponds to ψ3− and ψ5− of V− (x; 1, 1), respectively.
This is due to the presence of singularity at the origin of csch2 (aϕ)
V+ (x; 1, 1) which triggers supersymmetry breaking. × . (43)
2a2 b2
 5

V+ (x; 1, 1) V− (x; 1, 1)
35 35
30 30
25 25
20 20
15 15
10 10
5 5
0 0
5 5
1 0 1 1 0 1
x x

Figure 2. Plots of the bound states of the Pöschl-Teller I potentials V+ (x; 1, 1) and V− (x; 1, 1) in Sec. III A.

Note that this warp factor A(x) is only defined for x > For supersymmetry to be unbroken, at leat one of these
0 and divergence as x → 0+ , so that our background two ground states need to be normalizable [40], which
spacetime is the positive half-space. Moreover, the above requires C > B 2 in the present case. For the case with
solutions can be regarded as 2D analogue of the 5D brane B = 6 and C = 54 (which corresponds to c = 48 and
world solutions of Ref. [26]. Taking κ = 1 and from a = 14 ), the effective potential V+ (x; 6, 54) has only one
Eq. (18) we have: bound state:
− 12 1 416 54x
E0+ = ψ0+ (x) = e− sinh7 (x).
 2
8ab 1 − e2a bx
8a 2
e 8 x(8a b+b+c) ; 7 (48)
49
f (x) = − . (44)
(b − c)e2a2 bx + b + c The partner potential V− (x; 6, 54) has two:
The SUSY QM superpotential can be calculated from E0− = 0; ψ0− (x) = e−9x sinh6 (x),
Eq. (23) and in the case when c = −b, it has very simple
416 13 54x
form: E1− = ; ψ1− (x) = − e− 7 sinh6 (x)
49 42
c(8a2 + 1) c

× 42 cosh x − 54 sinh x .
W(x) = − coth(a2 cx). (45)
8 8
We draw the potentials V± (x; 6, 54) and their bound states
The parameter a2 c is not important here for our general in Fig. 4. It can be seen that V+ (x; 6, 54) remains positive
discussion and we can set it to unity, then the effective everywhere which means that the solution is stable under
potential in the Schrödinger-like equation can be obtained linear perturbations.
using Eq. (17): We remark that in [26], the authors studied a scalar-
C2 gravity model in d + 1 dimensions with the following
Veff (x) = B 2 + −2C coth(x)+B(B +1)csch2 (x), (46) action:
B2
d+1 √
Z  
1 1 µ
where B = 8c and C = c(c+8)64 . This is nothing but the
S = d x −g
2κ2
R − ∂µ ϕ∂ ϕ − V (ϕ) . (49)
2
Eckart potential V+ (x; B, C) [33]. The partner potential
V− (x; B, C) is: They showed that the warp factor obtained from the
superpotential in Eq. (39),
C2
V− (x; B, C) = B 2 + − 2C coth(x) + B(B − 1)csch2 (x).
B2 x − x∗ 1  ∗

(47) A(x) = A0 + + ln 1 − e−2d(x−x )/L , (50)
L d
In SUSY QM, the ground states of the two partner
potentials V+ (x; B, C) and V− (x; B, C) can be calculated coincides with that of the simplest flat domain wall so-
using Eq. (45) as the following [40]: lutions where the scalar potential becomes a constant.
R When d = 4, the above metric belongs to the type-IIB
ψ0− (x) ∝ e− W(x)dx , dilaton supergravity domain wall solution [41, 42]. Addi-
R tionally, the warp factor in Eq. (50) diverges at x = x∗ ,
ψ0+ (x) ∝ e W(x)dx . indicating that the background space-time is singular. In
 6

B = 2, C = 6 B = 6, C = 54 B = 10, C = 150

A(x; B, C) R(x; B, C)
100
0.000
0
0.002 100
0.004 200
0.006 300
0.008 400
500
0.010
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
x x
V+ (x; B, C) = Veff (x; B, C) V− (x; B, C)
35
30 30
25 20
20 10
15
0
10
5 10
0 20
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
x x

Figure 3. Plots of the warp factor A(x; B, C), the scalar curvature R(x; B, C), the effective potential V+ (x; B, C) and its partner
potential V− (x; B, C) in Sec. III B.

Figure 4. Plots of the Eckart potentials V+ (x; 6, 54), V− (x; 6, 54) and their bound state wave functions in Sec. III B.

[39], there is also such singularity in the supergravity Moreover, arguments from “good” singularity discussed
solution, but the solutions capture qualitative features in [43] also provide us insights to the physical meanings
of N = 1 SYM theory, such as confinement (area-law of these singularities. Based on these considerations, the
Wilson loop) and spontaneous chiral symmetry breaking. singularities present in our 2D brane world solutions could
 7

carry physical significance and thus deserve further study. tials are non-negative which confirms the stability of our
solutions.
The study of 2D brane world models with Schrödinger-
IV. CONCLUSION type perturbation equations and shape invariant poten-
tials provides an interesting framework for exploring the
In this paper we find two novel 2D brane world solutions interplay between gravity and quantum mechanics. The
in the MMSS gravity model with noncanonical scalar mat- presence of singularities in the background space-time
ter fields. These solutions are derived from the first-order raises intriguing questions about the nature of these so-
formalism of the field equations by choosing two simple lutions and their implications for the underlying physics.
hyperbolic superpotential functions. Both solutions have In this regard, we hope our work could provide some in-
singular metric, and is different from the solutions of sights towards better understanding connections between
Refs. [15, 16] where the background space-time is smooth. quantum theory and gravitational models.
More interestingly, the effective potentials related to
the linear stability analysis are governed by the shape in-
variant Pöschl-Teller I and Eckart potentials. For certain ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
parameter values, the former captures infinitely many
bound states, while the latter has finite number of bound This work was supported by the National Natural Sci-
states. Moreover, the energy levels in the effective poten- ence Foundation of China (Grant number 12175169).

[1] J. D. Brown, Lower Dimensional Gravity (1988), tating kinks, JHEP 09, 165, arXiv:2207.12681 [hep-th].
(World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., Singapore, [16] H. Wang, Y. Zhong, and Z. Wang, Rosen-Morse potential
https://doi.org/10.1142/0622. and gravitating kinks, Phys. Lett. B 858, 139071 (2024),
[2] D. Grumiller, W. Kummer, and D. V. Vassilevich, Dilaton arXiv:2409.14761 [hep-th].
gravity in two-dimensions, Phys. Rept. 369, 327 (2002), [17] Z. Wang, Y. Zhong, and H. Wang, Gravitating kinks
arXiv:hep-th/0204253. with asymptotically flat metrics, EPL 146, 59001 (2024),
[3] C. Rovelli, Loop quantum gravity, Living Rev. Rel. 11, 5 arXiv:2402.05486 [hep-th].
(2008). [18] Y. Zhong, H. Guo, and Y.-X. Liu, Kink solutions in
[4] S. Carlip, Quantum gravity: A Progress report, Rept. generalized 2D dilaton gravity, Phys. Lett. B 849, 138471
Prog. Phys. 64, 885 (2001), arXiv:gr-qc/0108040. (2024), arXiv:2308.13786 [hep-th].
[5] J. D. Brown, M. Henneaux, and C. Teitelboim, Black [19] J. Feng and Y. Zhong, Scalar perturbation of gravi-
Holes in Two Space-time Dimensions, Phys. Rev. D 33, tating double-kink solutions, EPL 137, 49001 (2022),
319 (1986). arXiv:2202.02946 [hep-th].
[6] J. G. Russo, L. Susskind, and L. Thorlacius, Black hole [20] O. DeWolfe, D. Z. Freedman, S. S. Gubser, and A. Karch,
evaporation in (1+1)-dimensions, Phys. Lett. B 292, 13 Modeling the fifth dimension with scalars and gravity,
(1992), arXiv:hep-th/9201074. Phys. Rev. D 62, 046008 (2000), arXiv:hep-th/9909134.
[7] A. M. Frassino, R. B. Mann, and J. R. Mureika, Lower- [21] M. Gremm, Four-dimensional gravity on a thick do-
Dimensional Black Hole Chemistry, Phys. Rev. D 92, main wall, Phys. Lett. B 478, 434 (2000), arXiv:hep-
124069 (2015), arXiv:1509.05481 [gr-qc]. th/9912060.
[8] A. R. Cooper, L. Susskind, and L. Thorlacius, Two- [22] C. Csaki, J. Erlich, T. J. Hollowood, and Y. Shirman,
dimensional quantum cosmology, Nucl. Phys. B 363, 132 Universal aspects of gravity localized on thick branes,
(1991). Nucl. Phys. B 581, 309 (2000), arXiv:hep-th/0001033.
[9] F. Devecchi and M. Froehlich, Non-linear terms in 2d [23] V. Dzhunushaliev, V. Folomeev, and M. Minamitsuji,
cosmology, Europhysics Letters 71, 179 (2005). Thick brane solutions, Rept. Prog. Phys. 73, 066901
[10] D. Anninos, C. Baracco, and B. Mühlmann, Remarks on (2010), arXiv:0904.1775 [gr-qc].
2D quantum cosmology, JCAP 10, 031, arXiv:2406.15271 [24] D. Bazeia, A. R. Gomes, L. Losano, and R. Menezes,
[hep-th]. Braneworld Models of Scalar Fields with Generalized
[11] R. B. Mann, S. M. Morsink, A. E. Sikkema, and T. G. Dynamics, Phys. Lett. B 671, 402 (2009), arXiv:0808.1815
Steele, Semiclassical gravity in (1+1)-dimensions, Phys. [hep-th].
Rev. D 43, 3948 (1991). [25] V. I. Afonso, D. Bazeia, and L. Losano, First-order for-
[12] B. Stötzel, Two-dimensional gravitation and Sine-Gordon malism for bent brane, Phys. Lett. B 634, 526 (2006),
solitons, Phys. Rev. D 52, 2192 (1995), arXiv:gr- arXiv:hep-th/0601069.
qc/9501033. [26] D. Z. Freedman, C. Nunez, M. Schnabl, and K. Skenderis,
[13] Y. Zhong, Revisit on two-dimensional self-gravitating Fake supergravity and domain wall stability, Phys. Rev.
kinks: superpotential formalism and linear stability, JHEP D 69, 104027 (2004), arXiv:hep-th/0312055.
04, 118, arXiv:2101.10928 [hep-th]. [27] M. Gremm, Thick domain walls and singular spaces, Phys.
[14] Y. Zhong, F.-Y. Li, and X.-D. Liu, K-field kinks in two- Rev. D 62, 044017 (2000), arXiv:hep-th/0002040.
dimensional dilaton gravity, Phys. Lett. B 822, 136716 [28] G. Pöschl and E. Teller, Bemerkungen zur Quanten-
(2021), arXiv:2108.10166 [hep-th]. mechanik des anharmonischen Oszillators, Z. Phys. 83,
[15] Y. Zhong, Singular Pöschl-Teller II potentials and gravi- 143 (1933).
 8

[29] F. Cooper, A. Khare, and U. Sukhatme, Supersymmetry invariance and exactly solvable noncentral potentials, Am.
and quantum mechanics, Phys. Rept. 251, 267 (1995), J. Phys. 62, 1008 (1994), arXiv:hep-th/9310104.
arXiv:hep-th/9405029. [38] C. Chuan, Exactly solvable potentials and the concept
[30] A. Khare, Supersymmetry in quantum mechanics, AIP of shape invariance, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical
Conf. Proc. 744, 133 (2004), arXiv:math-ph/0409003. and General 24, L1165 (1991).
[31] A. Gangopadhyaya, J. V. Mallow, and C. Rasinariu, [39] L. Girardello, M. Petrini, M. Porrati, and A. Zaffaroni,
Supersymmetric Quantum Mechanics: An Introduction The Supergravity dual of N=1 superYang-Mills theory,
(World Scientific, 2017). Nucl. Phys. B 569, 451 (2000), arXiv:hep-th/9909047.
[32] C. Eckart, The Penetration of a Potential Barrier by [40] A. Gangopadhyaya, J. Mallow, and C. Rasi-
Electrons, Phys. Rev. 35, 1303 (1930). nariu, Supersymmetric Quantum Mechan-
[33] R. Dutt, A. Khare, and U. P. Sukhatme, Supersymmetry, ics, 2nd ed. (WORLD SCIENTIFIC, 2017)
Shape Invariance and Exactly Solvable Potentials, Am. J. https://worldscientific.com/doi/pdf/10.1142/10475.
Phys. 56, 163 (1988). [41] A. Kehagias and K. Sfetsos, On Running couplings in
[34] M. Andrews, M. Lewandowski, M. Trodden, and D. Wes- gauge theories from type IIB supergravity, Phys. Lett. B
ley, Distinguishing k-defects from their canonical twins, 454, 270 (1999), arXiv:hep-th/9902125.
Phys. Rev. D 82, 105006 (2010), arXiv:1007.3438 [hep-th]. [42] N. R. Constable and R. C. Myers, Exotic scalar states in
[35] D. Bazeia, J. D. Dantas, A. R. Gomes, L. Losano, and the AdS / CFT correspondence, JHEP 11, 020, arXiv:hep-
R. Menezes, Twinlike Models in Scalar Field Theories, th/9905081.
Phys. Rev. D 84, 045010 (2011), arXiv:1105.5111 [hep-th]. [43] S. S. Gubser, Curvature singularities: The Good, the bad,
[36] C. Adam and J. M. Queiruga, Algebraic construction of and the naked, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 4, 679 (2000),
twinlike models, Phys. Rev. D 84, 105028 (2011). arXiv:hep-th/0002160.
[37] A. Khare and R. K. Bhaduri, Supersymmetry, shape