\section{Introduction
The stability theory of functional equations deals with the following question: When it is true that the solution of an equation differing slightly from a given one, must of necessity be close to the solution of the given equation. In case of a positive answer to the previous problem, we say that the equation in question is \textit{stable}.
This problem was raised by Ulam (see \cite{Ula40}) and answered by Hyers who proved that the Cauchy equation is stable (\cite{Hye41}). Since then, this result has been extended and generalized in several ways (see e.g. \cite{For95}, \cite{Ger94} and \cite{HIR98}).
The investigation of the stability of the exponential Cauchy equation highlighted a new phenomenon which is now usually called \textit{superstability} (see e.g. \cite{HIR98}). The question of superstability is also dealt with in this paper.
Solving a stability problem, raised in \cite{Mak07} we give an affirmative answer to the case of higher dimensional information functions. \\
Throughout this paper let $k$ and $n$ be an arbitrary but fixed positive integers and denote
	\[
	\Gamma_{n}:=\left\{\left(p_{1}, \ldots, p_{n}\right)\in\R^{kn}\vert p_{i}\geq \mathbf{0}, \sum^{n}_{i=1}p_{i}=\mathbf{1}\right\}
\]
and
	\[
	D_{k}:=\left\{\left(x, y\right)\in\R^{2k}\vert x, y\in[0, 1[^{k}, x+y\leq \mathbf{1}\right\}.
\]
Furthermore, let
\[
\R^{k+}=\left\{x\in \R^{k}\vert x>\mathbf{0}\right\}.
\]
Here $\mathbf{1}$ represents the $k$-vector $\left(1, \ldots, 1\right)\in\R^{k}$ and all operations on vectors are to be done componentwise, i.e., $p_{i}\geq\mathbf{0}$ denotes that all coordinates of the vector $p_{i}\in\R^{k}$ are non-negative and we write $x+y\leq\mathbf{1}$ if $x_{i}+y_{i}\leq 1$ holds for all $i=1, \ldots, k$, where $x_{i}$ and $y_{i}$ denote the $i^{th}$ coordinates of the vector $x$ and $y$, respectively. \\
In what follows, we present some basic results from the theory of functional equations which we shall use throughout the paper, these results can be found for instance in \cite{Kuc85}. \\
\noindent
A function $M:[0, 1]^{k}\rightarrow\R$ is called \emph{multiplicative}, if
\begin{equation}
	M\left(x\cdot y\right)=M\left(x\right)\cdot M\left(y\right)
\end{equation}
holds for all $x, y\in\left[0, 1\right]^{k}$.\\
\noindent
We say that $A:\left[0, 1\right]^{k}\rightarrow\R$ is \emph{additive on $D_{k}$} if
\begin{equation}
A\left(x+y\right)=A\left(x\right)+A\left(y\right)
\end{equation}
holds for all pairs $\left(x, y\right)\in D_{k}$.

\begin{Lem}
If $M:[0,1]^{k}\rightarrow\R$ is both multiplicative on $[0,1]^{k}$ and additive on $D_{k}$, then $M$ is either identically zero or a projection, i.e.,
\begin{equation}
	M\left(x\right)=M\left(x_{1}, \ldots, x_{k}\right)=x_{j}, \qquad x\in [0,1]^{k},
\end{equation}
for some $j\in \left\{0, \ldots, k\right\}$.
\end{Lem}
In the proof of our theorem we shall use the following lemma.
\begin{Lem}\label{lemma}
Let $M:[0,1]^{k}\rightarrow\R$ be a multiplicative function. Then the following statements are equivalent.
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
	\item $M$ is additive on $D_{k}$;
	\item $M\left(x\right)+M\left(\mathbf{1}-x\right)=1$ holds for all $x\in [0,1]^{k}$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{Lem}

\begin{Lem}
Let $M:[0,1]^{k}\rightarrow\R$ be a multiplicative function then
\[
M\left(x\right)\geq 0
\]
holds for all $x\in [0,1]^{k}$.
\end{Lem}

\begin{Lem}
Let $M:[0,1]^{k}\rightarrow\R$ be multiplicative. Then
\begin{equation}
M\left(x\right)=M\left(x_{1}, \ldots, x_{k}\right)=\prod^{k}_{i=1}m_{i}\left(x_{i}\right)
\end{equation}
for all $x\in [0,1]^{k}$, where each $m_{i}:[0,1]\rightarrow\R$ is multiplicative $(i=1, \ldots, k)$.
\end{Lem}
Now we fall to dealing with information measures (see \cite{AD75}, \cite{ESS98}).
\begin{Def}
A sequence of functions $I_{n}:\Gamma_{n}\rightarrow\R$ ($n=2, 3, \ldots$) is called \emph{information measure}.
\end{Def}
The usual information-theoretical interpretation is that $I_n\left(p_{1},\ldots, p_{n}\right)$
is a measure of uncertainty as to the outcome of an experiment having $n$
possible outcomes with probabilities $p_{1},\ldots, p_{n}$. \\
Some desiderata for measures of information can be found in \cite{AD75} as well as in \cite{ESS98}. Although in this paper we will use only the following properties.
\begin{Def}
The sequence of functions $I_{n}:\Gamma_{n}\rightarrow\R$ ($n=2, 3, \ldots$) is
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
	\item \emph{M-recursive}, if
	\[
	I_{n}\left(p_{1}, \ldots, p_{n}\right)=I_{n-1}\left(p_{1}+p_{2}, p_{3}, \ldots, p_{n}\right)+
	M\left(p_{1}+p_{2}\right)I_{2}\left(\frac{p_{1}}{p_{1}+p_{2}}, \frac{p_{2}}{p_{1}+p_{2}}\right)
\]
holds for all $n=3, 4, \ldots$ and $\left(p_{1}, \ldots, p_{n}\right)\in\Gamma_{n}$, with some multiplicative function
$M:\left[0, 1\right]^{k}\rightarrow\R$ and with the convention $\frac{0}{0+0}=0$.
\item \emph{3-semisymmetric}, if
	\[
	I_{3}\left(p_{1}, p_{2}, p_{3}\right)=I_{3}\left(p_{1}, p_{3}, p_{2}\right)
\]
holds for all $\left(p_{1}, p_{2}, p_{3}\right)\in\Gamma_{3}$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{Def}
\noindent
Using the following theorem the characterization of information measures can be transformed into solving functional equations, see e.g., \cite{ESS98}.
\begin{Thm}
If the sequence of functions $I_{n}:\Gamma_{n}\rightarrow\R$ $\left(n=2, 3, \ldots\right)$ is M-recursive and 3-semisymmetric then the function
$f:[0, 1]^{k}\rightarrow\R$ defined by
	\[
	f(x):=I_{2}\left(\mathbf{1}-x, x\right)
\]
satisfies the so-called fundamental equation of information of multiplicative type M, i.e.,
\begin{equation}\label{FEIM}
f(x)+M\left(\mathbf{1}-x\right)f\left(\frac{y}{\mathbf{1}-x}\right)=
f(y)+M\left(\mathbf{1}-y\right)f\left(\frac{x}{\mathbf{1}-y}\right)
\end{equation}
for all $\left(x, y\right)\in D_{k}$.
\end{Thm}

\section{Known results}

In \cite{Mak07} it is proved that (\ref{FEIM}) is stable, moreover superstable assuming that $k=1$ and the function $M:[0, 1]^{k}\rightarrow\R$ is the power function, i.e.,  the stability of the following equation was investigated
	\[
	f(x)+\left(1-x\right)^{\alpha}f\left(\frac{y}{1-x}\right)=
	f\left(y\right)+\left(1-y\right)^{\alpha}f\left(\frac{x}{1-y}\right),
\]
where $0<\alpha \neq 1$. \\
In \cite{Mor01} a stability type result is proved for $k=1$ and $\alpha=1$, i.e., for the Shannon entropy.
However, Morando's theorem claims stability only on the rationals.

\section{Main result

In this section we will show stability type
results concerning the fundamental equation of
information of multiplicative type. Our main result is the following
\begin{Thm}\label{main}
Let $\varepsilon\geq 0$ be arbitrary, $M:[0,1]^{k}\rightarrow\R$ be multiplicative but not additive and $f:[0,1]^{k}\rightarrow\R$ be a function. Assume that
\begin{equation}\label{stab}
\left|f\left(x\right)+M\left(\mathbf{1}-x\right)f\left(\frac{y}{\mathbf{1}-x}\right)-
f\left(y\right)-M\left(\mathbf{1}-y\right)f\left(\frac{x}{\mathbf{1}-y}\right)\right|\leq \varepsilon
\end{equation}
holds for all $\left(x, y\right)\in D_{k}$. Then there exist $a, b\in\R$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{stab.ineq}
\begin{array}{l}
\left|f\left(x\right)-\left(aM\left(x\right)+b\left(M\left(\mathbf{1}-x\right)-1\right)\right)\right|\leq  \\
\left|M\left(q*\right)+M\left(\mathbf{1}-q*\right)-1\right|^{-1} \cdot
\left(4\varepsilon +3\varepsilon M\left(\mathbf{1}-xq*\right)\right)
\end{array}
\end{equation}
holds for all $x\in [0, 1]^{k}$, where $q*\in ]0, 1[^{k}$ is such that
$M\left(q*\right)+M\left(\mathbf{1}-q*\right)\neq 1$.
\end{Thm}
\begin{proof}
Define the function $F$ on $]0,1[^{k}\times [0,1]^{k}$ by
\begin{equation}
F\left(p, q\right)= f\left(\mathbf{1}-p\right)+M\left(p\right)f\left(q\right)-
f\left(pq\right)-M\left(\mathbf{1}-pq\right)f\left(\frac{\mathbf{1}-p}{\mathbf{1}-pq}\right).
\end{equation}
Then equation (\ref{stab}) with the substitution
$x=\mathbf{1}-p$ and $y=pq$ implies that
\begin{equation}\label{eps}
\left|F\left(p, q\right)\right|\leq \varepsilon
\end{equation}
holds for all $p, q\in ]0, 1[^{k}$.
On the other hand we have that
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{l}
\left|\left[M\left(q\right)+M\left(\mathbf{1}-q\right)-1\right]\cdot
\left[f\left(p\right)-f\left(\mathbf{1}\right)M\left(p\right)\right]\right. \\
-\left[M\left(p\right)+M\left(\mathbf{1}-p\right)-1\right]\cdot
\left[f\left(q\right)-f\left(\mathbf{1}\right)M\left(q\right)\right]\left.\right| \\
=F\left(q, p\right)+F\left(p, q\right)-F\left(q, \mathbf{1}\right)+F\left(p, \mathbf{1}\right) \\
+M\left(\mathbf{1}-pq\right)\left[F\left(\frac{\mathbf{1}-p}{\mathbf{1}-pq}, \mathbf{1}\right)
+F\left(\frac{\mathbf{1}-p}{\mathbf{1}-pq}, \mathbf{1}\right)
-F\left(\frac{\mathbf{1}-p}{\mathbf{1}-pq}, q\right)\right]
\end{array}
\end{equation}
holds for all $p, q \in ]0,1[^{k}$. \\
Now using equation (\ref{eps}) we get that
\begin{equation}\label{becsl}
\begin{array}{l}
\left|\left[M\left(q\right)+M\left(\mathbf{1}-q\right)-1\right]\cdot
\left[f\left(p\right)-f\left(\mathbf{1}\right)M\left(p\right)\right]\right. \\
-\left[M\left(p\right)+M\left(\mathbf{1}-p\right)-1\right]\cdot
\left[f\left(q\right)-f\left(\mathbf{1}\right)M\left(q\right)\right]\left.\right| \\
\leq 4\varepsilon +3\varepsilon M\left(\mathbf{1}-pq\right)
\end{array}
\end{equation}
Since $M$ is not additive there exists a $q*\in ]0,1[^{k}$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{neq}
M\left(q*\right)+M\left(\mathbf{1}-q*\right)\neq 1.
\end{equation}
\noindent
Then with the substitution $q=q*$ in (\ref{becsl}) we have that
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{l}
\left|\left[M\left(q*\right)+M\left(\mathbf{1}-q*\right)-1\right]\cdot
\left[f\left(p\right)-f\left(\mathbf{1}\right)M\left(p\right)\right]\right. \\
-\left[M\left(p\right)+M\left(\mathbf{1}-p\right)-1\right]\cdot
\left[f\left(q*\right)-f\left(\mathbf{1}\right)M\left(q*\right)\right]\left.\right| \\
\leq 4\varepsilon +3\varepsilon M\left(\mathbf{1}-pq*\right)
\end{array}
\end{equation}
Due to (\ref{neq}) we obtain that
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{r}
\left|
\left[f\left(p\right)-f\left(\mathbf{1}\right)M\left(p\right)\right]-
\frac{f\left(q*\right)-f\left(\mathbf{1}\right)M\left(q*\right)}
{M\left(q*\right)+M\left(\mathbf{1}-q*\right)-1} \cdot
\left[M\left(p\right)+M\left(\mathbf{1}-p\right)-1\right]\right| \\
\leq \left|M\left(q*\right)+M\left(\mathbf{1}-q*\right)-1\right|^{-1} \cdot
\left(4\varepsilon +3\varepsilon M\left(\mathbf{1}-pq*\right)\right)
\end{array}
\end{equation}
Let
\[
a=f\left(\mathbf{1}\right)M\left(p\right)+
\frac{f\left(q*\right)-f\left(\mathbf{1}\right)M\left(q*\right)}
{M\left(q*\right)+M\left(\mathbf{1}-q*\right)-1}
\]
and
\[
b=\frac{f\left(q*\right)-f\left(\mathbf{1}\right)M\left(q*\right)}
{M\left(q*\right)+M\left(\mathbf{1}-q*\right)-1},
\]
\noindent
Therefore
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{l}
\left|f\left(p\right)-\left[aM\left(p\right)+b\left(M\left(\mathbf{1}-p\right)-1\right)\right]\right| \leq \\
\left|M\left(q*\right)+M\left(\mathbf{1}-q*\right)-1\right|^{-1} \cdot
\left(4\varepsilon +3\varepsilon M\left(\mathbf{1}-pq*\right)\right)
\end{array}
\end{equation}
holds for all $p\in ]0,1[^{k}$. \\
\noindent
A direct calculation shows that (\ref{stab.ineq}) holds in case $p\in [0,1]^{k}\setminus ]0,1[^{k}$.
\end{proof}
\noindent
In what follows we define a function $K:[0,1]^{k}\rightarrow\R$ by
\begin{equation}\label{def.K}
K(x)=\frac{4\varepsilon+3\varepsilon M\left(\mathbf{1}-xq*\right)}
{\left|M\left(q*\right)+M\left(\mathbf{1}-q*\right)-1\right|}
\end{equation}
where $M:[0,1]^{k}\rightarrow\R$ is multiplicative but not additive,
$\varepsilon\geq 0$ arbitrary but fixed and $q*\in [0,1]^{k}$ is such that
$M\left(q*\right)+M\left(\mathbf{1}-q*\right)\neq 1$. \\
\noindent
Using the previous theorem we shall conclude the following.

\begin{Cor}
In case $\varepsilon=0$ in Theorem \ref{main}., then we get the general solution of equation
(\ref{FEIM}).
\end{Cor}

\begin{Cor}\label{rem1}
If the function $M:[0, 1]^{k}\rightarrow\R$ is bounded above by a constant $B\in\R$ then we get that inequality
(\ref{stab}) on $D_{k}$ implies
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{l}
\left|f(x)-\left(aM\left(x\right)+b\left(M\left(\mathbf{1}-x\right)-1\right)\right)\right|\leq  \\
\left|M\left(q*\right)+M\left(\mathbf{1}-q*\right)-1\right|^{-1} \cdot
\left(4\varepsilon +3B\varepsilon\right)
\end{array}
\end{equation}
on $[0, 1]^{k}$, where $q*\in ]0, 1[^{k}$ is such that $M\left(q*\right)+M\left(\mathbf{1}-q*\right)\neq 1$.
\end{Cor}

\begin{Cor}
Due to Corollary \ref{rem1}. we obtain that the equation
\begin{equation}
f\left(x\right)+M\left(\mathbf{1}-x\right)f\left(\frac{y}{\mathbf{1}-x}\right)=
f\left(y\right)+M\left(\mathbf{1}-y\right)f\left(\frac{x}{\mathbf{1}-y}\right)
\end{equation}
is superstable on $D_{k}$ in case $M$ is bounded above.
\end{Cor}

\begin{Rem}
If $M\left(x\right)=x^{\alpha}$, $\left(x\in [0, 1]\right)$, where $0<\alpha\neq 1$
 then we get the result of Maksa (see \cite{Mak07}).
\end{Rem}
\noindent
Finally, the following theorem concerns the stability of a system of equations.

\begin{Thm}
Let $I_{n}$ be the sequence of functions
$I_{n}:\Gamma_{n}\rightarrow\R$ $(n\geq 2)$,
$M:[0,1]^{k}\rightarrow\R$ be a multiplicative function.
Suppose that there exist a sequence $\left(\varepsilon_{n}\right)$
of non-negative real numbers such that
\begin{equation}\label{ineq.syst}
\begin{array}{l}
\left| I_{n}\left(p_{1}, \ldots, p_{n} \right)-
I_{n-1}\left( p_{1}+p_{2}, p_{3}, \ldots, p_{n}\right) \right.\\
-M\left(p_{1}+p_{2}\right)
\left. I_{2}\left(\frac{p_{1}}{p_{1}+p_{2}}, \frac{p_{2}}{p_{1}+p_{2}}\right)\right|\leq \varepsilon_{n-1}
\end{array}
\end{equation}
holds for all $n\geq 3$ and $\left(p_{1}, \ldots, p_{n}\right)\in\Gamma_{n}$, and
\[
\left|I_{3}\left(p_{1}, p_{2}, p_{3}\right)-
I_{3}\left(p_{1}, p_{3, p_{2}}\right)\right|\leq \varepsilon_{1}
\]
holds on $\Gamma_{3}$.
Then there exist $c, d\in\R$ and a
$q*\in [0,1]^{k}$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{stab.syst}
\begin{array}{l}
\left|
I_{n}\left(p_{1}, \ldots, p_{n}\right)-
\left[c\left(\sum^{n}_{i=1}M(p_{i})-1\right)-
d\left(M\left(p_{1}\right)-1\right)\right]\right| \\
\leq
\sum^{n-1}_{k=2}\varepsilon_{k}+
\left(1+\left(n-2\right)M\left(p_{1}+p_{2}\right)\right)K\left(p_{2}\right)
\end{array}
\end{equation}
holds for all $n\geq 2$ and $\left(p_{1}, \ldots, p_{n}\right)\in\Gamma_{n}$, where
the convention $\sum^{1}_{k=2}\varepsilon_{k}=0$ is adapted and the function $K$
is defined by formula (\ref{def.K}).
\end{Thm}
\begin{proof}
The proof runs by induction on $n$.
Let $\left(x, y\right)\in D_{k}$, $n=3$ and substitute
\[
p_{1}=1-x-y
\quad
p_{2}=y
\quad
p_{3}=x
\]
into (\ref{ineq.syst}). Then
\[
\left|
I_{3}\left(\mathbf{1}-x-y, y, x\right)-I_{2}\left(\mathbf{1}-x, x\right)-
M\left(\mathbf{1}-x\right)
I_{2}\left(\mathbf{1}-\frac{y}{\mathbf{1}-x}, \frac{y}{\mathbf{1}-x}\right)
\right|
\leq \varepsilon_{2}
\]
holds.
Hence we get that the function $f:[0,1]^{k}\rightarrow\R$ defined by
\[
f(x)=I_{2}\left(\mathbf{1}-x, x\right) \qquad \left(x\in [0,1]^{k}\right)
\]
satisfies
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{l}
\left|
f\left(x\right)+M\left(\mathbf{1}-x\right)f\left(\frac{y}{\mathbf{1}-x}\right)-
f(x)-M\left(\mathbf{1}-x\right)f\left(\frac{x}{\mathbf{1}-y}\right)
\right| \\
\leq
\left|
f(x)+M\left(\mathbf{1}-x\right)f\left(\frac{y}{\mathbf{1}-x}\right)-
I_{3}\left(\mathbf{1}-x-y, y, x\right)
\right| \\
+ \left|
I_{3}\left(\mathbf{1}-x-y, y, x\right)-I_{3}\left(\mathbf{1}-y-x, x, y\right)
\right| \\
+
\left |
I_{3}\left(\mathbf{1}-y-x, y, x\right)-f(y)-M\left(\mathbf{1}-y\right)f\left(\frac{y}{\mathbf{1}-y}\right)
\right|
\leq \varepsilon_{1}+2\varepsilon_{2}
\end{array}
\end{equation}
for all $(x, y)\in D_{k}$.
Thus, by Theorem \ref{main}. we get that there exist $a, b\in\R$ and
a $q*\in [0,1]$ such that
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{l}
\left|f\left(x\right)-\left[aM\left(x\right)+b\left(M\left(\mathbf{1}-x\right)-1\right)\right]\right|\\
 \leq \left|M\left(q*\right)+M\left(\mathbf{1}-q*\right)-1\right|^{-1} \cdot \\
\left(4\left(\varepsilon_{1}+2\varepsilon_{2}\right) +
3\left(\varepsilon_{1}+2\varepsilon_{2}\right) M\left(\mathbf{1}-xq*\right)\right)
\end{array}
\end{equation}
holds for all $x\in [0,1]^{k}$. Let now
$\left(p_{1}, p_{2}\right)\in \Gamma_{2}$, then we obtain that
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{l}
\left|
I_{2}\left(p_{1}, p_{2}\right)-
\left[aM\left(p_{2}\right)+b\left(M\left(p_{1}\right)-1\right)\right]\right. \\
\left. \leq
\left|M\left(q*\right)+M\left(\mathbf{1}-q*\right)-1\right|^{-1} \cdot
\left(4\varepsilon +3\varepsilon M\left(\mathbf{1}-p_{2}q*\right)\right)
\right|
\end{array}
\end{equation}
holds. Define $c=a$ and $d=b-a$, then we get that
\[
\begin{array}{l}
\left|
I_{2}\left(p_{1}, p_{2}\right)-
c\left[\sum^{2}_{k=1}M\left(p_{k}\right)-d\left(M(p_{1})-1\right)\right]\right. \\
\left. \leq
\left|M\left(q*\right)+M\left(\mathbf{1}-q*\right)-1\right|^{-1} \cdot
\left(4\varepsilon +3\varepsilon M\left(\mathbf{1}-p_{2}q*\right)\right)
\right|\\
= \sum^{2-1}_{k=2}\varepsilon_{k}+
\left(1-\left(1-1\right)M\left(p_{1}+p_{2}\right)\right)\cdot K\left(p_{2}\right),
\end{array}
\]
hence the statement holds for $n=2$.  Assume now that (\ref{ineq.syst}) holds and
introduce the following notation
\[
J_{n}\left(p_{1}, \ldots, p_{n}\right)=c\left(\sum^{n}_{k=1}M\left(p_{k}\right)-1\right)
+d\left(M\left(p_{1}\right)-1\right)
\]
for all $n\geq 2$, $\left(p_{1}, \ldots, p_{n}\right)\in\Gamma_{n}$.
It can be easily seen that $J_{n}:\Gamma_{n}\rightarrow\R$ is an
$M$--recursive and $3$-semisymmetric information measure $\left(n\in\N\right)$.
Therefore we get that
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{l}
\left|I_{n+1}\left(p_{1}, \ldots, p_{n+1}\right)-J_{n+1}\left(p_{1}, \ldots, p_{n+1}\right) \right| \\
=
\left|I_{n+1}\left(p_{1}, \ldots, p_{n+1}\right)-J_{n}\left(p_{1}+p_{2}, \ldots, p_{n+1}\right)-
M\left(p_{1}+p_{2}\right)I_{2}\left(\frac{p_{1}}{p_{1}+p_{2}}, \frac{p_{2}}{p_{1}+p_{2}}\right) \right|\\
\leq
\left|I_{n+1}\left(p_{1}, \ldots, p_{n+1}\right)-
I_{n}\left(p_{1}+p_{2}, \ldots, p_{n+1}\right)-
M\left(p_{1}+p_{2}\right)I_{2}\left(\frac{p_{1}}{p_{1}+p_{2}}, \frac{p_{2}}{p_{1}+p_{2}}\right)\right| \\
+
\left|
I_{n}\left(p_{1}+p_{2}, \ldots, p_{n+1}\right)- J_{n}\left(p_{1}+p_{2}, \ldots, p_{n}\right)
\right| \\
+
\left|
M\left(p_{1}+p_{2}\right)I_{2}\left(\frac{p_{1}}{p_{1}+p_{2}}, \frac{p_{2}}{p_{1}+p_{2}}\right)-
M\left(p_{1}+p_{2}\right)J_{2}\left(\frac{p_{1}}{p_{1}+p_{2}}, \frac{p_{2}}{p_{1}+p_{2}}\right)
\right| \\
\leq
\varepsilon_{n}+ \sum^{n-1}_{k=2}\varepsilon_{n}+
\left(1+\left(n-2\right)M\left(p_{1}+p_{2}\right)\right)K\left(p_{2}\right)+
M\left(p_{1}+p_{2}\right)K\left(p_{2}\right)\\
=
\sum^{n}_{k=2}\varepsilon_{k}+\left(1+\left(n-1\right)M\left(p_{1}+p_{2}\right)\right)K\left(p_{2}\right),
\end{array}
\end{equation}
 for all $\left(p_{1}, \ldots, p_{n}\right)\in \Gamma_{n+1}$, that is, (\ref{stab.syst}) holds for
 $n+1$ instead of $n$, which ends the proof.
\end{proof}

\begin{Rem}
Our argument does not work in case $M$ is a projection, i.e., we cannot prove stability concerning the
fundamental equation of information in this case neither on the closed nor on the open domain.
\end{Rem}


\section{Introduction}

Recently, many efforts have been made for finding Very Low-Mass (VLM) objects down to the planetary mass regime in young associations. Several reasons can account for this. First, the atmospheres of free-floating planetary mass objects can be easily studied as giant exoplanet analogs, because these objects would not be masked by a bright, primary star. The first such objects that have been found seem to show great diversity of spectral features, even at a fixed age and temperature, which strengthens the possibility those objects are analogs to giant, gaseous exoplanets, as well as demands for more such discoveries. Since young objects are warmer and brighter, they are also easier to study. They even provide good targets for the direct imaging of exoplanets, since such young exoplanets would also be brighter than their old counterparts, and the contrast ratio required to achieve such discoveries would be lower for a fainter primary star. Another great outcome of finding those objects would be the possibility to study the bottom of the Initial Mass Function (IMF) in a coeval environment, not to mention the possibility to improve atmospheric models of young brown dwarfs, which are still imprecise because of the lack of observations, as well as the difficulty of dealing with the large amount of dust contained in their photospheres. We have chosen to focus our search on young very low-mass stars and brown dwarfs in Nearby, Young Associations (NYAs) such as TW Hydrae (TWA; 8 - 12 Myr; \citealp{2004ARA&A..42..685Z}), $\beta$ Pictoris (BPMG; 12 - 22 Myr; \citealp{2001ApJ...562L..87Z}), Tucana-Horologium (THA; 10 - 40 Myr; \citealp{2000AJ....120.1410T}, \citealp{2001ASPC..244..122Z}), Carina (CAR; 10 - 40 Myr; \citealp{2008hsf2.book..757T}), Columba (COL; 10 - 40 Myr; \citealp{2011ApJ...732...61Z}),  Argus (ARG; 10 - 40 Myr; \citealp{2011ApJ...732...61Z}) and AB Doradus (50 - 120 Myr ; \citealp{2004ApJ...613L..65Z}). Even though these NYAs are all closer than 100~pc, most of their low-mass members ($>$K5) remain to be identified because their currently known members were uncovered in the Hipparcos mission, which is limited to relatively bright objects. Since those moving groups are close and have ages between 8~\textendash~120 Myr, they present several advantages for the task of identifying young low-mass objects: 1) their members will be even brighter and thus easier to study, 2) they are old enough so that they are no longer embedded in dust, 3) they have not significantly dispersed yet, so their members share similar Galactic position ($XYZ$) and space velocities ($UVW$) and 4) they span a significant age range, which means each NYA will serve as a benchmark for their evolution in time. Furthermore, the 10~\textendash~30 Myr range is well covered, corresponding to the period where gaseous and terrestrial planets form \citep{2003ApJ...599..342S}. However, we must overcome a significant difficulty in order to identify such new members to those NYAs: since they are close-by and have begun dispersing, they cover great portions of the sky as viewed from earth. The fact that we do not have access to parallaxes and radial velocities for most low-mass objects renders this task even more difficult. Even worse, we expect that most of the potential members won't even have been spectroscopically confirmed as brown dwarfs.\\

\begin{figure}[]
\resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics[clip=true]{CMD.eps}}
\caption{
\footnotesize
Color-magnitude sequence for field objects (brown line and shaded region), and our candidates with (red dots) and without (blue dots) spectroscopic confirmation of low-gravity. We can see that they are significantly redder than the old sequence, consistent with those being low-gravity objects with more dust in their photosphere.
}
\label{fig:CMD}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure*}[]
	\begin{center}
		\subfigure{
		 \includegraphics[width=0.485\textwidth]{dstat.eps}
		}
		\subfigure{
		 \includegraphics[width=0.485\textwidth]{vrad.eps}
		}
	\end{center}
\caption{
\footnotesize
Predicted distances and radial velocities for \emph{Bona Fide} members of NYAs (triangles), synthetic Montecarlo objects drawn from our NYAs models (small dots) and our candidates for which those measurements are available (thick open circles). The dark brown line represents a dependence. Our estimated errors agree well with the observed scatter. True distances (radial velocities) are retrieved within 8.0~\% (1.6~$\mathrm {km s}^{-1}$).
}
\label{fig:dstat}
\end{figure*}

\section{Method}

In order to overcome the precise difficulties previously described, \cite{2013ApJ...762...88M} proposes using bayesian inference in order to identify highly probable candidates to NYAs within possibly large samples of objects for those we have at least a position and proper motion. Here, we use a slightly modified version of this method and apply it to an all-sky sample of 650 000 red objects which we have built from a correlation of the 2MASS \citep{2003yCat.2246....0C} and WISE \citep{2012yCat.2311....0C} surveys. We have limited our search outside of the galactic plane ($\left | b \right | >$ 15\textdegree) in order to avoid crowded fields. Various filters have been applied in order to reject possible contaminants such as red galaxies and giant stars, and to keep only objects whose photometry is consistent with $>$M4 objects. Applying bayesian inference to this sample has yielded more than 300 highly probable candidates to NYAs, which are currently being followed so that we can confirm them as new \emph{Bona Fide} members. Included in the bayesian inference, we have used $J$ - $K_s$, as well as $H$ - $W2$ colors as a function of absolute $W1$ magnitude in order to give a bigger weight to young hypotheses for objects which have very red colors (see Figure~\ref{fig:CMD}). \\

We have estimated the mass distribution of our candidates by using the predicted distance (see Figure~\ref{fig:dstat} for an accuracy assessment of these predictions) to compute 2MASS and WISE absolute magnitudes, as well as the known NYA ages in combination with the AMES-Cond isochrones \cite{2003A&A...402..701B} and the BT-SETTL atmosphere models (\citealp{2013arXiv1302.6559A}, \citealp{Rajpurohit:ta}). The resulting distribution is displayed in Figure~\ref{fig:IMF} and compared with the expected remaining members to be discovered when supposing 1) that the NYAs are approximately complete at masses around 1~M$_\odot$ and 2) that the IMF of NYAs can be approximately described as a fiducial log-normal function with $m_c$ = 0.25~M$_\odot$ and $\sigma$~=~0.5~dex (\citealp{2012EAS....57...45J}, \citealp{2005ASSL..327...41C}). We seem to be finding more planetary mass candidates than predicted with this IMF, which could be a sign that we are finding planetary-mass objects that were not formed as brown dwarfs, but rather as ejected planets. However, we must confirm these candidate members before we can draw any conclusions of this kind. We have estimated our contamination rate to be between 20~\% and 30~\% for M5~\textendash~L0

\begin{figure}[t!]
\resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics[clip=true]{hist04_num.eps}}
\caption{\footnotesize
Mass population for (1) \emph{Bona Fide} members of NYAs, (2) a fiducial log-normal IMF (described in text), candidates from this project (3) with and (4) without spectroscopic confirmation of low-gravity. We seem to find too many planetary mass candidates compared to the predictions of the IMF
}
\label{fig:IMF}
\end{figure}

\section{Candidates follow-up}

\begin{figure*}[]
	\begin{center}
		\subfigure{
		 \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{KiJ.eps}
		}
		\subfigure{
		 \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{Hcont.eps}
		}
		\subfigure{
		 \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{FeH.eps}
		}
		\subfigure{
		 \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{NaI2.eps}
		}
	\end{center}
\caption{
\footnotesize
K~I$_J$, FeH and $H$-cont indices defined by \cite{Allers:2013tq} and Na~I equivalent widths for our intermediate (circles) and very low gravity (triangles) candidates. The black line and beige region delimit the high gravity dwarfs sequence along with its scatter. The dotted grey line delimits the very low gravity region from the one where intermediate gravity objects typically fall. Filled symbols indicate objects with low resolution spectra (R~$\approx$~300) and open symbols indicate those with moderate resolution spectra (R~$\approx$~1200).
}
\label{fig:Allers}
\end{figure*}

We have used SpeX on the 3.0-m IRTF and OSIRIS on the SOAR 4.1-m telescope in order to obtain medium-resolution (R~$\approx$~1200) Near-InfraRed (NIR) spectroscopy of our brightest candidates, in order to confirm their low surface gravity (and thus youth) by using several gravity sensitive indices described in \cite{Allers:2013tq}. As a result, we have yet found 16 $>$M5 objects classified as intermediate (5) or very low (11) gravity displayed in Figure~\ref{fig:Allers}. For two of our faint candidates, we have used FIRES on the MAGELLAN 6.5-m telescope to obtain low-resolution (R~$\approx$~300) NIR spectroscopy, from which we can assess low-gravity in the same way albeit with fewer indices. Both objects turned out as very low-gravity, highly probable candidates to the TWA, which makes them potential 11~\textendash~13 M$_{Jup}$ and 13~\textendash~15 M$_{Jup}$ objects at the boundary of planetary masses. Earlier targets were followed with GMOS-S and GMOS-N on both Gemini telescopes in order to measure the equivalent width of the Na I doublet at $8174~\AA$, which is also gravity sensitive (\citealp{2004MNRAS.355..363L}, \citealp{2011AJ....142..104R}). This has yet yielded 20 M4~\textendash~M8 very strong candidates that show weaker Na I equivalent width, consistent with them being low-gravity and thus young dwarfs (see Figure~\ref{fig:NAI}). Several of our strongest bright candidates are currently being observed with CRIRES at the VLT, in order to obtain high-resolution $K$-band spectroscopy which will allow us to measure their radial velocities at a precision of 1~$\mathrm {km s}^{-1}$, which is sufficient distinguish between field objects and NYAs \emph{Bona Fide} members. More observations for NIR spectroscopy are also already planned for completing the spectroscopic characterization of our whole sample, and more candidates in the $>$L0 regime are also being currently uncovered.

\begin{figure}[]
\resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics[clip=true]{NaI.eps}}
\caption{
\footnotesize
NaI index sequence for old dwarfs (thick line and gray region), various NYAs and low-gravity candidates from our survey (open circles), as defined by \cite{2004MNRAS.355..363L}. We can see that their relative gravity corresponds to the 6~\textendash~100 Myr age range, in agreement with the ages of NYAs considered here. Sequences are drawn from \cite{2011AJ....142..104R}.
}
\label{fig:NAI}
\end{figure}

\section{Conclusions}

We have summarized our survey for $>$M4 members to NYAs. We show that bayesian analysis can be used to significantly cut down the initial number of candidates in an all-sky search, and then show first results from this study. It is expected that this project will unveil a significant portion of young, planetary-mass objects in NYAs, which will be easy to study in details due to their short distance and larger intrinsic brightness than old objects.

\begin{acknowledgements}
We would like to address special thanks to Adric Riedel for generously sharing valuable parallax data with our team. This work was supported in part through grants from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada. This research has made use of the SIMBAD database and VizieR catalogue, operated at Centre de Donn\'ees astronomiques de Strasbourg (CDS), Strasbourg, France.
\end{acknowledgements}
\bibliographystyle{aa}


\section*{Appendix \thesection\protect\indent \parbox[t]{11.15cm}{#1}}
\addcontentsline{toc}{section}{Appendix \thesection\ \ \ #1}}

\newcommand{\be}{\begin{eqnarray}}
\newcommand{\ee}{\end{eqnarray}}
\newcommand{\bea}{\begin{eqnarray}}
\newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}}
\newcommand{\ba}{\begin{array}}
\newcommand{\ea}{\end{array}}
\newcommand{\nn}{\nonumber \\}

\newcommand{\la}{\label}

\def\a{\alpha}
\def\b{\beta}
\def\l{\lambda}
\def\g{\gamma}
\def\z{\zeta}
\def\d{\delta}
\def\t{\theta}
\def\s{\sigma}
\def\e{\epsilon}
\def\rh{P}
\def\T{\Theta}
\def\L{\Lambda}
\def\G{\Gamma}
\newcommand{\vt}{\vartheta}
\newcommand{\vp}{\varphi}
\def\th{\theta}
\def\c{\chi}
\def\ep{\epsilon}
\def\cF{{\cal{F}}}
\def\Th{\Theta}
\def\mn{{\muN}}
\def\ls{{\lambda\sigma}}
\def\vx{{\vec x}}

\def\CL{{\cal L}}
\def\CG{{\cal G}}
\def\CM{{\cal M}}
\def\CP{{\cal P}}
\def\CJ{{\cal J}}
\def\cL{{\cal L}}
\def\CH{{\cal H}}
\def\hL{{\hat{L}}}
\def\hp{{\hat{\phi}}}
\def\hK{{\hat{K}}}
\def\hZ{{\hat{Z}}}
\def\hA{{\hat{A}}}
\def\hB{{\hat{B}}}
\def\hO{{\hat{\Omega}}}
\def\hr{{\hat{\rho}}}
\def\hn{{\hat{\nu}}}
\def\bo{{\bar{1}}}
\def\bt{{\bar{2}}}
\def\lp{{\lambda^1_+}}
\def\lm{{\lambda^1_-}}
\def\lpb{{\lambda^{\bar{1}}_+}}
\def\lmb{{\lambda^{\bar{1}}_-}}
\def\hN{{\hat{N}}}
\def\bbe{{\bf{e}}}
\font\mybb=msbm10 at 11pt
\font\mybbb=msbm10 at 17pt
\def\bb#1{\hbox{\mybb#1}}
\def\bbb#1{\hbox{\mybbb#1}}
\def\bZ {\bb{Z}}
\def\bR {\bb{R}}
\def\bE {\bb{E}}
\def\bH {\bb{H}}
\def\bC {\bb{C}}
\def\bP {\bb{P}}
\def\cH {{\cal{H}}}
\def\lc{\lrcorner}
\def\ra{\rangle}

\def\ui {{\underline {I}}}
\def\uj {{\underline {J}}}
\def\uk {{\underline {k}}}
\def\uell {{\underline {\ell}}}

\def\ua{{\underline {a}}}
\def\ub{{\underline {b}}}
\def\uc{{\underline {c}}}

\def\uM{{\underline {M}}}
\def\uN{{\underline {N}}}

\def\uA{{\underline {A}}}
\def\uB{{\underline {B}}}

\def\pa{{ {a'}}}
\def\pb{{ {b'}}}
\def\pc{{{c'}}}

\def\pr{{{r'}}}
\def\ps{{{s'}}}
\def\pt{{ {t'}}}

\def\ur{{\underline {r}}}
\def\us{{\underline {s}}}
\def\ut{{\underline {t}}}
\def\hn {{\tilde{\nabla}}}

\def\km{\mathfrak{m}}
\def\kn{\mathfrak{n}}
\def\kp{\mathfrak{p}}

\begin{document}
\begin{titlepage}
\begin{center}
\vspace{5.0cm}

\vspace{3.0cm} {\Large \bf Brane solitons of (1,0) superconformal theories in six dimensions with hypermultiplets}
\\
[.2cm]

{}\vspace{2.0cm}
 {\large
M.~Akyol and  G.~Papadopoulo
 }

{}

\vspace{1.0cm}
Department of Mathematics\\
King's College London\\
Strand\\
London WC2R 2LS, UK\\

\end{center}
{}
\vskip 3.0 cm
\begin{abstract}
We solve the Killing spinor equations of  6-dimensional (1,0) superconformal theories which include hyper-multiplets   in all cases. We show that the solutions
preserve 1,2,3,4 and 8 supersymmetries. We find models with  self-dual string solitons which are smooth and supported by instantons with an arbitrary gauge group, and 3-brane solitons  as expected from the M-brane intersection rules.
\end{abstract}

\vfill
{{\small ~~~~ ~ mehmet.akyol@kcl.ac.uk}

{\small ~~~~ ~ george.papadopoulos@kcl.ac.uk}}

\end{titlepage}

\setcounter{section}{0}
\setcounter{subsection}{0}

\newsection{Introduction}

A consequence of AdS/CFT correspondence is that the field theory dual of $AdS_7\times S^4$ M-theory background is a (2,0) superconformal theory in six dimensions \cite{maldacena}.
So far  an action\footnote{Apart from the well-known problem with self-dual 3-forms, there may not be an action for such a theory but we shall consider superconformal theories with an action
  as a working hypothesis.}  for such a  theory has not been constructed which is local and  6D Lorentz covariant, though there have been suggestions \cite{lp, chu, chu2} which either preserve a subset
of the required symmetries or do not have a general gauge group because of the rigidity in the existence of Euclidean 3-Lie algebras \cite{gp, gg}. Within this context a (1,0) superconformal theory was suggested in \cite{ssw} and later modified in \cite{ssw3} to include hyper-multiplets.
Although  some of these models admit a local action \cite{bandos} and are manifestly classically (1,0)-supercovariant, they  suffer from several pathologies which include the non existence of a ground state and possibly the presence of negative norm states. Nevertheless they exhibit some desirable features like classical superconformal invariance and have smooth  string solitons supported by instantons \cite{ap3}, see also \cite{wolf} for some mathematical aspects. These string solitons  are in accordance with  the M-brane intersection rules \cite{strominger, pktgp}.  So these theories can be thought of  belonging in the same universality  class of theories
as that which is dual to  $AdS_7\times S^4$, and possibly describe  multiple M5-branes.

An exhaustive investigation of the solutions to the Killing spinor equations (KSEs) of the models described in \cite{ssw} has been presented in \cite{ap3}. In particular, the KSEs have been solved in
all cases and the fractions of supersymmetry preserved by the solitons have been identified.  Moreover a class of string solitons solutions have been found in some models
which are smooth and are supported by instanton configurations.

In this paper, we shall extend the investigation of the KSEs to the models of \cite{ssw3} which include hyper-multiplets.
The technique we use to solve the KSEs is based on spinorial geometry \cite{uggp} as it has been adapted in \cite{ap1} to investigate the solutions to the KSEs
of 6-dimensional (1,0) supergravity.  Because of this, we shall not provide  details of the calculation and the proof. Instead, we shall directly state the results for the hyperini KSEs, which are the KSEs
associated with the hyper-multiplets, and refine some of the conditions that appear on the fields. The solution of the gaugini and tensorini KSEs, which are the KSEs associated to the vector and tensor multiplets, is the same as that given in \cite{ap3} and so the analysis will not be repeated here.
Then we shall use the solution of the gaugini and tensorini KSEs in \cite{ap3} and that of the hyperini KSEs presented here to find   new string   and  3-brane solitons in some of the models of \cite{ssw3}. The new string solitons we find are supported by instantons of arbitrary gauge group, they are smooth at a generic point of the instaton moduli space and the string charge is related to the instanton number. The 3-brane solitons
are supported by holomorphic maps of the hyper-scalars and they are complex curves in the hyper-multiplets target space which is a hyper-K\"ahler cone.
The existence of such solitons are in agreement with expectations from the M-brane intersection rules.

This paper has been organized as follows. In section 2, we present the fields, couplings, field equations and Bianchi identities of (1,0) superconformal theories with hyper-multiplets. In section 3,
we give the solutions to the hyperini KSEs. In section 4, we construct new string and 3-brane solutions and in section 5, we give our conclusions.

\newsection{(1,0) superconformal theory and KSEs}

\subsection{Fields and KSEs}

The (1,0) superconformal models constructed in \cite{ssw, ssw3} have vector, tensor and hyper-multiplets as well as   appropriate higher form fields which appear  in Stuckelberg-type of couplings.
The field content of the vector multiplets is $(A_\mu^r, \lambda^{ir}, Y^{ijr})$, where $r$ labels the different vector multiplets and $i, j = 1,2$ are the $Sp(1)$ R-symmetry indices, $A_\mu^r$ are 1-form gauge potentials, $\lambda^{ir}$ are symplectic Majorana-Weyl spinors and $Y^{ijr}$ are auxiliary fields.
The field content of the tensor multiplets is  $(\phi^I, \chi^{iI}, B_{\mu\nu}^I)$, where $I$ labels the different tensor multiplets, $\phi^I$ are scalars, $\chi^{iI}$ are symplectic Majorana-Weyl spinors, of opposite chirality from those
of the vector multiplets, and $B_{\mu\nu}^I$ are the 2-form gauge potentials.
The field content of the hyper-multiplets are $(q^\alpha , \psi^a)$, where $q^\alpha$ are the ``hyper-scalars'', which are maps from the spacetime to a  hyper-K\"ahler cone\footnote{Supersymmetry
requires that the hyper-scalars take values on a hyper-K\"ahler manifold. In addition superconformal symmetry requires that the hyper-K\"ahler manifold
admits a homothetic motion associated with a potential making the hyper-K\"ahler manifold locally a hyper-K\"ahler cone.}, and $\psi^a$ are symplectic Majorana-Weyl spinors of the same chirality as $\chi^{iI}$.

The field strengths of the 1- and 2-form gauge potentials associated with the vector and tensor multiplets are
\be
\mathcal{F}_{\mu\nu}^r &\equiv& 2\partial_{[\mu}A_{\nu]}^r - f_{st}{}^rA_\mu^s A_\nu^t + h_I^rB_{\mu\nu}^I~,\\
\mathcal{H}_{\mu\nu\rho}^I &\equiv& 3D_{[\mu}B_{\nu\rho]}^I + 6d_{rs}^I A_{[\mu}^r\partial_\nu A_{\rho]}^s - 2f_{pq}{}^s d_{rs}^I A_{[\mu}^r A_\nu^p A_{\rho]}^q + g^{Ir}C_{\mu\nu\rho r}~,
\ee
respectively, where $f_{rs}{}^t$   $h_I^r, g^{Ir}$ and $d_{rs}^I=d_{(rs)}^I$ are coupling constants, and $C_{\mu\nu\rho r}$ are  three-form gauge potentials introduced
via a St\"uckelberg-type of coupling. In addition,
\be
D_\mu \Lambda^s \equiv \partial_\mu \Lambda^s+ A_\mu^r(X_r)_t{}^s \Lambda^t~,~~~~D_\mu \Lambda^I \equiv \partial_\mu \Lambda^I+ A_\mu^r(X_r)_J{}^I \Lambda^J~,
\ee
where $X_r$ are given by
\bea
 (X_r)_t{}^s=-f_{rt}{}^s+d^I_{rt} h^s_I~,~~~(X_r)_J{}^I=2 h^s_J d^I_{rs}-g^{Is} b_{Jsr}~.
 \eea
The various coupling satisfy a long list of restrictions required by gauge invariance and for these models to have an action which is given in \cite{ssw}, see also \cite{ap3} for a summary,  and it will not be repeated here.
In particular, these models are described by an action provided there is a maximally split signature metric\footnote{Since the metric is maximally split,
the kinetic energy of some of the fields is negative which may lead to ghosts in the spectrum. This is an issue affecting this class of theories.}  $\eta_{IJ}$ such that
\bea
g^{Ir}=\eta^{IJ} h^r_I~,~~~d^I_{rt}={1\over2}\eta^{IJ}b_{Jrt}~.
\eea
From now on, the indices $I,J$ are raised and lowered with $\eta$.

To couple hyper-multiplets to the above system \cite{ssw3}, one assumes that the hyper-K\"ahler cone, which is the target space of hyper-multiplet scalars,  admits tri-holomorphic isometries generated by the
vector fields $X_{(\mathfrak{m})}=X^\alpha_{(\mathfrak{m})}\partial_\alpha$. Typically only some of the vector multiplets will be gauged. For this introduce the embedding tensor $\theta^\mathfrak{m}_r$
and define
\be
A^{\mathfrak{m}} = A^r \theta_r{}^{\mathfrak{m}}~,~~~ \lambda^{\mathfrak{m}} = \lambda^r\theta_r{}^{\mathfrak{m}}~,~~~Y^{\mathfrak{m}}_{ij} = Y^r_{ij} \theta_r{}^{\mathfrak{m}}~,
\label{theta1}
\ee
where for consistency with the gauge transformations
\be
h^r{}_I\theta_r{}^{\mathfrak{m}} = 0~,~~~~~~f_{rs}{}^t\theta_t{}^{\mathfrak{m}} = \theta_r{}^{\mathfrak{n}}\theta_s{}^{\mathfrak{p}}f_{\mathfrak{n}\mathfrak{p}}{}^{\mathfrak{m}}~,
\label{theta2}
\ee
and where $[X_{(\mathfrak{n})}, X_{(\mathfrak{p})}]=-f_{\mathfrak{n}\mathfrak{p}}{}^{\mathfrak{m}} X_{(\mathfrak{m})}$.
The KSEs of the model, which are the vanishing conditions for the supersymmetry transformations of the fermions evaluated at the locus where all fermions vanish, are
\bea
\delta \lambda^{ir} &=& \frac{1}{8}\mathcal{F}_{\mu\nu}^r\Gamma^{\mu\nu} \epsilon^i - \frac{1}{2}Y^{ijr}\epsilon_j + \frac{1}{4}h_I^r\phi^I\epsilon^i=0~,\cr
\delta \chi^{iI} &=& \frac{1}{48}\mathcal{H}_{\mu\nu\rho}^I \Gamma^{\mu\nu\rho}\epsilon^i + \frac{1}{4}D_\mu\phi^I \Gamma^\mu \epsilon^i =0~,\cr
\delta \psi^a &=& \frac{1}{2}D_\mu q^\alpha \Gamma^\mu \epsilon_i E^{ia}{}_{\alpha} =0~,
\label{kse}
\eea
where
\be
D_\mu q^\alpha = \partial_\mu q^\alpha -A^{\mathfrak{m}}_\mu X^\alpha_{(\mathfrak{m})}~.
\ee
In addition, $E^\alpha_{ia}$ is the symplectic frame of the hyper-K\"ahler cone, ie the hyper-K\"ahler metric and hypercomplex structure   are given as
\bea
g_{\alpha\beta}= \epsilon_{ij} \epsilon_{ab} E^{ia}{}_{\alpha} E^{jb}{}_{\beta}~,~~~(I_\tau)^\alpha{}_\beta=-i\, (\sigma_\tau)^i{}_j\, \delta^a{}_b\, E_{ia}^\alpha\, E^{jb}_\beta~,~~~
\eea
where $\epsilon_{ij}$ and $\epsilon_{ab}$ are the symplectic (fundamental) forms of $Sp(1)$ and $Sp(n)$, respectively,  and $\sigma_\tau,  \tau=1,2,3$ are the Pauli matrices. In analogy with similar variations in 6-dimensional (1,0) supergravity, we refer to these KSEs as the gaugini, tensorini and hyperini KSEs, respectively.

The Lagrangian for these theories consist of two parts. One  part, $\mathcal{L}_{VT}$,  involves the vector and tensor multiplets, and the second part, $\mathcal{L}_H$, contains the hyper-multiplets. These two parts are independently supersymmetric and the supersymmetry transformation of the vector multiplets used in the coupling of the hyper-multiplets in $\mathcal{L}_H$ is obtained by contraction with the embedding tensor.

\subsection{Field equations }

The field equations of the system are
\bea
D^\mu D_\mu \phi^I &=& -\frac{1}{2}d_{rs}^I(\mathcal{F}_{\mu\nu}^r\mathcal{F}^{\mu\nu s} - 4Y_{ij}^rY^{ijs}) - 3d_{rs}^Ih_J^rh_K^s\phi^J\phi^K~,\label{eqa}
\cr
b_{Irs}Y_{ij}^s\phi^I &=&{1\over2\lambda} \theta_r{}^\km\, \mu_{\km ij} ~,\label{eqb}
\cr
b_{Irs}\mathcal{F}_{\mu\nu}^s\phi^I &=&\frac{1}{4!}\epsilon_{\mu\nu\lambda\rho\sigma\tau}\mathcal{H}_r^{(4)\lambda\rho\sigma\tau}~,
\cr
g_{\a\b} \nabla_\mu D^\mu q^\b&=&-Y^\km_{ij} \partial_\a \mu^{ij}_{(\km)}~,
\label{eqc}
\eea
where
\bea
\nabla_\mu D^\mu q^\a=\partial_\mu D^\mu q^\a+\Gamma^\a_{\b\g} D^\mu q^\b  D_\mu q^\g-\partial_\b X_{(\km)}^\a  \theta^\km_r A_\mu^r D^\mu q^\b~,
\eea
$\lambda$ is a constant, and $\mu_{(\mathfrak{m})\tau}$,
\bea
X_{(\mathfrak{m})}^\beta (\omega_\tau)_{\beta\alpha}=-\partial_\alpha\mu_{(\mathfrak{m})\tau}~,~~~(\omega_\tau)_{\alpha\beta}=g_{\alpha\gamma}(I_\tau)^\gamma{}_\beta~,
\eea
are the moment maps.
Observe that generically the theory has a cubic scalar field interaction and so the potential term is not bounded
from below. These field equations are also supplemented with
the Bianchi identities
\bea
D_{[\mu}\mathcal{F}_{\nu\rho]}^r &=& \frac{1}{3}h_I^r\mathcal{H}_{\mu\nu\rho}^I~,
\cr
D_{[\mu}\mathcal{H}_{\nu\rho\sigma]}^I &=& \frac{3}{2}d_{rs}^I\mathcal{F}_{[\mu\nu}^r\mathcal{F}_{\rho\sigma]}^s + \frac{1}{4}g^{Ir}\mathcal{H}_{\mu\nu\rho\sigma r}^{(4)}~,
\cr
D_{[\mu}\mathcal{H}^{(4)}_{\nu\lambda\rho\sigma]r}&=&-4d_{Irs} {\mathcal F}^s_{[\mu\nu} {\mathcal H}^I_{\lambda\rho\sigma]}+{1\over5}\theta_r{}^\km {\cal H}^{(5)}_{\km \mu\nu\lambda\rho\sigma}~,
 \label{idh}
\eea
where $\mathcal{H}_{\mu\nu\rho\sigma r}^{(4)}$ is the field strength of the 3-form, and the duality relations
\bea
{1\over 5!} \epsilon_{\mu\nu\rho\lambda\sigma \tau} \theta_r{}^\km \mathcal {H}^{(5)\nu\rho\lambda\sigma \tau}_\km =(X_r)_{IJ} \phi^I D_\mu \phi^J+{2\over\lambda} \theta_r{}^\km X_{(\km)}{}_\alpha D_\mu q^\alpha~,
\eea
ie the 5-form field strength is dual to the hyper-scalars.

\section{Solution Hyperini KSEs}

\subsection{Spinorial geometry}

The inclusion of the hyper-multiplets does not alter the  first two KSEs in (\ref{kse}).  Because of this, the solution of these equations  described  in \cite{ap3}, using the spinorial geometry technique of \cite{uggp}, still applies and the results will not be repeated here.

It remains to solve the hyperini KSEs in (\ref{kse}). This has a  similar structure to that of  the hyperini  KSEs which has been solved  in the context of
6-dimensional (1,0) supergravity \cite{ap1}. Because of this we shall not give details of the derivation. Instead, we shall state the result of the spinorial geometry calculation and then
 re-express it in a way which allows for an improved interpretation of the conditions that arise.  This is instrumental in the description of 3-brane solitons in some of the
 (1,0) superconformal models in section 4.

The Killing spinors and their isotropy groups in $Spin(5,1)\cdot Sp(1)$ that arise in the solution  of all KSEs in (\ref{kse}) are summarized in table 1. The isotropy groups are either compact or non-compact and we shall use this to distinguish solutions with the same supersymmetry. Note that
solutions with $N=3$ supersymmetry arise only when hyper-multiplets are present.

\begin{table}[ht]
 \begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|}
\hline
$N$&${\mathrm{Isotropy ~Groups}}$  & ${\mathrm{Killing ~Spinors}}$ \\
\hline
\hline
$1$  & $Sp(1)\cdot Sp(1)\ltimes \bH$ & $1+e_{1234}$\\
\hline
$2$  & $(U(1)\cdot
Sp(1))\ltimes\bH$ & $1+e_{1234}~, ~i(1-e_{1234})$\\
\hline
$3$  & $
Sp(1)\ltimes \bH$ & $1+e_{1234}~, ~i(1-e_{1234})~,~e_{12}-e_{34}~$ \\
\hline
$4$  & $
Sp(1)\ltimes \bH$ & $1+e_{1234}~, ~i(1-e_{1234})~,~e_{12}-e_{34}~,~i(e_{12}+e_{34})$\\
\hline
\hline
$2$  & $
Sp(1)$ & $1+e_{1234}~, ~e_{15}+e_{2345}$\\
\hline
$4$  & $
U(1)$ & $1+e_{1234}~,~i(1-e_{1234})~, ~e_{15}+e_{2345}~,~ i(e_{15}-e_{2345})$\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{\small
The first column gives the number of invariant spinors, the second column the associated isotropy groups and the third column representatives of the invariant spinors.
The isotropy group of more than 4 linearly independent spinors is the identity.}
\end{table}

A detailed analysis of how the Killing spinors in table 1 are selected is given in \cite{ap1}.  Here we shall use this selection and substitute it in the hyperini KSEs to find the conditions
that arise on the fields. For this note that in the context of spinorial geometry the lowering of the $Sp(1)$ indices on the supersymmetry parameter $\epsilon$ that appears in the hyperini KSEs
is implemented by
\be
\epsilon_1 = -\epsilon^2~, ~~~\epsilon_2 = \Gamma_{34}\epsilon^1~,
\label{hypspin}
\ee
where $(\epsilon^i)=(\epsilon^1, \epsilon^2)$ and $\epsilon^1, \epsilon^2$ are the two Weyl spinors that we used to construct the symplectic-Majorana representation, and the gamma matrices
$\Gamma_3, \Gamma_4$ are along two auxiliary directions which arise because we have identified the 6-dimensional symplectic-Majornana spinors with the $SU(2)$ invariant spinors of the positive chirality  Majorana-Weyl
representation of $Spin(9,1)$. For the spinor notation we use and other details see \cite{ap1, ap3}.

\subsection{N=1}
The Killing spinor can be chosen as $\epsilon = 1 +e_{1234}$ which is invariant under the subgroup $Sp(1)\cdot Sp(1)\ltimes \bH$ of $Spin(5,1)\cdot Sp(1)$. In this case, $(\epsilon^i)=(\epsilon^1, \epsilon^2)=
(1, e_{1234})$, and using the relations in (\ref{hypspin}) we have $(\epsilon_i)=(\epsilon_1, \epsilon_2)=(-e_{1234}, e_{34})$. Substituting  these into the hyperini KSEs, we find
\be
D_+q^\alpha E^{ia}{}_\alpha = 0~,~~~ -D_1 q^\alpha E^{1a}{}_\alpha + D_{\bar{2}}q^\alpha E^{2a}{}_\alpha = 0~,~~~D_{2}q^\alpha E^{1a}{}_\alpha + D_{\bar{1}}q^\alpha E^{2a}{}_\alpha = 0~,
\la{n1c}
\ee
where in the evaluation of the above conditions the 6-dimensional spacetime decomposes into two light-cone directions and four transverse directions which are written in terms of complex coordinates, eg the Minkowski  spacetime metric is written as
\bea
ds^2= \eta_{\mu\nu} dx^\mu dx^\nu=2 dx^+ dx^-+ \delta_{mn} dx^m dx^n=2 (dx^+ dx^-+  dz^1 dz^{\bar 1}+dz^2 dz^{\bar 2})~.
\eea
The first condition simplifies to
\be
D_+q^\alpha = 0~,
\ee
ie the hyper-scalars are covariantly constant along one of the lightcone directions and so in the gauge $A_+^\mathfrak{m}=0$  do not depend on $x^+$.  The remaining two conditions in (\ref{n1c})  can be written in a more covariant form as
\be
(\tau^m)^i{}_j D_m q^\alpha E^{ja}{}_\alpha = 0~,
\ee
where $(\tau^m)=( -i\sigma_\tau, 1_{2\times 2})$, $m=1,2,3, 4$ and $\sigma_\tau$ are the Pauli matrices, or equivalently in a coordinate basis as
\bea
(\mathfrak{I}^m)^\alpha{}_\beta D_{m} q^\beta=0~,
\eea
where $(\mathfrak{I}^m)= (I_\tau, 1_{4n\times 4n})$.

\subsection{N=2 Non-Compact}
From table 1, the Killing spinors can be chosen as $ 1+e_{1234}$ and $i(1-e_{1234})$. Using these in the hyperini KSEs, we find the following conditions
\be
D_+q^\alpha = 0~, ~~~ D_1q^\alpha E^{1a}{}_\alpha = D_2q^\alpha E^{1a}{}_\alpha = 0~,~~~ D_{\bar{1}}q^\alpha E^{2a}{}_\alpha = D_{\bar{2}}q^\alpha E^{2a}{}_\alpha = 0~.
\ee
The last two conditions in the above equation  can be rewritten as a Cauchy-Riemann (CR) type of equation
\be
D_m q^\alpha(I_3)^{ia}{}_{jb}E^{jb}{}_\alpha = J^{n}{}_{m} D_{n}q^\alpha E^{ia}{}_{\alpha}~,
\ee
where $(I_3)^{ia}{}_{jb} = (-i\sigma_3)^i{}_j\delta^a{}_b$ and $J^n{}_m = (i\delta^{\mathrm{s}}{}_{\mathrm {r}}, -i\delta^{\bar{\mathrm{s}}}{}_{\bar{\mathrm {r}}})$, $\mathrm {r},\mathrm{s}=1,2$.  Therefore in the absence of gauge
fields, the above condition becomes the CR equation and $q$ is a holomorphic map from the transverse space to the light-cone to the hyper-K\"ahler cone with respect to the pair of complex structures\footnote{The choice of complex structure
on the hyper-K\"ahler cone depend on the choice of representatives for the Killing spinors. For a generic choice, the complex structure $I_3$ should be replaced
with a linear combination of all three complex structures.} $(J, I_3)$.

\subsection{N=2 Compact}
The two Killing spinors can be chosen as $ 1+e_{1234}$ and $e_{15} + e_{2345}$. The conditions imposed by the hyperini KSEs  evaluated on $e_{15} + e_{2345}$ can be written
\be
D_-q^\alpha E^{ia}{}_\alpha = 0~, ~~~ -D_2q^\alpha E^{1a}{}_\alpha + D_1q^\alpha E^{2a}{}_\alpha = 0~, ~~~ D_{\bar{1}}q^\alpha E^{1a}{}_\alpha + D_{\bar{2}}q^\alpha E^{2a}{}_\alpha = 0~.
\ee
Combining these  conditions with those associated with $ 1+e_{1234}$, we find that the hyper-scalars satisfy
\be
D_{\underline r}q^\alpha =0~,~~~~~~{\underline r}=-, +, 1~,
\ee
and
\be
D_{r'}q^\alpha = -\epsilon_{r'}{}^{s't'}(K_{s'})^\alpha{}_\beta D_{t'}q^\beta~,~~~r', s', t'=2,3,4~,
\label{cn2}
\ee
where we have made a 3+3 (real) split of the spacetime  and $(K_{s'})^{ia}{}_{jb} = -i(\sigma_{s'-1})^i{}_j\delta^a{}_b$ with $\epsilon_{234}=1$.  Therefore the hyper-scalars are covariantly constant along the first three directions of the spacetime and obeys (\ref{cn2}) along the other three.

\subsection{N=3 Non-Compact}
The three Killing spinors  are $1+e_{1234}$, $i(1-e_{1234})$ and $e_{12}-e_{34}$. The conditions imposed by the hyperini KSEs on the hyper-scalars  are
\be
D_+q^\alpha  = 0~, ~~~ D_1q^\alpha E^{1a}{}_\alpha = D_2q^\alpha E^{1a}{}_\alpha = 0~,~~~ D_{\bar{1}}q^\alpha E^{2a}{}_\alpha = D_{\bar{2}}q^\alpha E^{2a}{}_\alpha = 0~, \nonumber \\
D_{\bar{1}} q^\alpha E^{1a}{}_\alpha - D_2q^\alpha E^{2a}{}_\alpha = 0~,~~~D_{\bar{2}}q^\alpha E^{1a}{}_\alpha + D_{1}q^\alpha E^{2a}{}_\alpha = 0~.
\ee
As in the previous non-compact cases, the hyper-scalars are covariantly constant along one of the lightcone directions. The remaining conditions can be written as
\bea
(J_\tau)^m{}_n D_m q^\alpha=(I_\tau)^\alpha{}_\beta D_n q^\beta~,~~~\tau=1,2,3~,
\la{quatr}
\eea
for an appropriate choice of a hypercomplex structure $J_\tau$ in the directions transverse to the light cone with $J_3=J$. Therefore in the absence of gauge couplings, the hyper-scalars are quaternionic maps\footnote{Clearly, the directions transverse to the lightcone can be identified with the quaternions $\bH$. If the Obata curvature vanishes, then it is possible to introduce quaternionic coordinates on the hyper-K\"ahler cone. In such a case $q$'s can be written as  quaternions ${\bf q}$ and (\ref{quatr}) implies that ${\bf q}={\bf q}({\bf x}, x^-)$, ${\bf x}\in \bH$.}  from the
directions transverse to the lightcone to the hyper-K\"ahler cone.
\subsection{N=4 Non-Compact}
The four Killing spinors can be chosen as $1+e_{1234}$, $i(1-e_{1234})$, $e_{12}-e_{34}$ and $i(e_{12}+e_{34})$. The only non-vanishing component of the hyper-scalars is
$D_-q^\alpha$,
i.e. in the absence of gauge fields the hyper-scalars depend only on the light-cone direction $x^-$.

\subsection{N=4 Compact}
The four Killing spinors can be chosen as $1+e_{1234}$, $i(1-e_{1234})$,  $e_{15}+e_{2345}$ and $i(e_{15}-e_{2345})$. The conditions imposed on the hyper-scalars  from the hyperini KSEs are
\bea
D_\ur q^\alpha = 0~, ~~~~~~ \ur = -,+,1, \bar{1}~,\cr
D_2q^\alpha E^{1a}{}_\alpha = D_{\bar{2}}q^\alpha E^{2a}{}_\alpha = 0~.
\la{n4comp}
\eea
Therefore there is a 4+2 (real) split of the spacetime and  the hyper-scalars are covariantly constant along the first four directions. In the remaining two directions, the hyper-scalars satisfy a CR type of equation
\bea
J^{r'}{}_{s'} D_{r'} q^\alpha =  (I_3)^{\alpha}{}_{\beta}  D_{s'} q^\beta~,
\la{n4compb}
\eea
where $J^{r'}{}_{s'}=(i \delta^2{}_2, -i \delta^{\bar 2}{}_{\bar 2})$.

\subsection{Maximal Supersymmetry}

All solutions of the hyperini KSEs with more than 4 Killing spinors are maximally supersymmetric, ie they preserve all 8 supersymmetries.
In addition, the hyperini KSEs imply that for maximally supersymmetric backgrounds the hyper-scalars are covariantly constants, ie
\bea
D_\mu q^\alpha=0~.
\eea
This concludes the description of solutions of the hyperini KSEs.

\newsection{Brane solitons}

\subsection{Self-dual string solitons}

\subsubsection{A class of models}

A large class of models has been constructed in \cite{ssw, ssw3}  by considering a Lie algebra $\mathfrak{g}$ and a representation ${\cal R}$. The bosonic fields of the
 vector and tensor multiplets are chosen as
\bea
A^r=(A^\km, A^A)~,~~~Y^r=(Y^\km, Y^A)~,~~~B^I=(B^A, B_A)~,~~~\phi^I=(\phi^A, \phi_A)~,
\eea
ie $A$ and $Y$ take values in $\mathfrak{g}\oplus {\cal R}$ while $B$ and $\phi$ take values in  ${\cal R}\oplus {\cal R}^* $.  Moreover the
non-vanishing couplings are chosen as
\bea
&&\eta^A{}_B=\eta_B{}^A=\delta^A_B~,~~~h^B{}_A=g_A{}^B=\delta^B_A~,~~~f_{\km A}{}^B=-{1\over2} (T_\km)_A{}^B~,~~~f_{\km\kn}{}^\kp~,
\cr
&&d^B{}_{\km A}={1\over2} b^B{}_{A\km}={1\over2} b^B{}_{\km A}={1\over2} (T_\km)_A{}^B~,~~~d_{ABC}=d_{(ABC)}=b_{BCA}~,~~~
\cr
&&d_{AB\km}=d_{(AB)\km}={1\over2} b_{AB\km}={1\over2} b_{A\km B}~,~~~d_{A\km\kn}~,~~~
b_{A(\km\kn)}=2 d_{A(\km\kn)}~,~~~\theta_\km{}^\kn=\delta_\km{}^\kn~,
\eea
where $T_\km$ are the representation matrices of $\mathfrak{g}$ in ${\cal R}$. These solve all the constraints on the couplings imposed on these models
provided that $d_{\km AB}, d_{\km\kn A}$ and $d_{ABC}$ are invariant under the action of $\mathfrak{g}$.

\subsubsection{Self-dual string solitons from instantons}

Motivated from the M-brane intersection rules, we shall seek   self-dual string solitons in the  class of models described in the previous section which preserve $1/2$ of the supersymmetry. The relevant class of
supersymmetric backgrounds for self-dual string solitons are those with 4 Killing spinors that have isotropy group $Sp(1)\ltimes \bH$ in table 1.  The conditions
on the field of the vector and tensor multiplets are given in \cite{ap3} and in section (3.6) for the hyper-scalars. Similar solutions have been found in \cite{ap3} for another class of
models. The string soliton on a single M5-brane has been found in \cite{howe} and it is singular at the position of the brane.

To solve the supersymmetry conditions, Bianchi identities and field equations, suppose that the fields have support on 4-directions transverse to the lightcone which are identified with the world-sheet of the string. In addition  choose
\bea
\mathcal{F}^r=(\mathcal{F}^\km,0)~,~~\mathcal{H}^I=(0, \mathcal{H}_A)~,~~\phi^I=(0, \phi_A)~,~~\mathcal{H}_r^{(4)}=Y^r=\mathcal{H}^{(5)}=0~,
\eea
with $\mathcal{F}^r$ purely magnetic.
We focus on models for which the only non-vanishing coupling constants with all indices lowered are $b_{A\km\kn}, d_{A\km\kn}$.  In addition we assume that either the model is not coupled
to hyper-multiplets or if it couples the hyper-scalars are at a maximally supersymmetric vacuum for consistency, ie the gauging and the hyper-K\"ahler cone have chosen such that there is a value $q=q_0$ such that
\bea
\mu_\km(q_0)=0~,~~~\partial_\alpha\mu_\km(q_0)=0~.
\eea
For the flat hyperk\"ahler cone, such a value is $q_0=0$ or any other fixed point of rotational isometries that are gauged. In either case, the contribution
from the hyper-multiplets decouples.

The remaining  non-trivial Bianchi identities and field equations that one has to demonstrate are
\bea
D_{[m}\mathcal{F}^\km_{n\ell]}=0~,~~~b^B{}_{A\kn }\mathcal{F}^\kn_{m\ell} \phi_B=0~,~~~
d^B{}_{A\mathfrak{n}} \mathcal{F}^\kn_{[\mu\nu} \mathcal{H}_{\lambda\rho\sigma ]B}=0~,~~~\la{cona}
\eea
and
\bea
D_{[\mu} \mathcal {H}_{\nu\rho\sigma] A}={3\over2} d_{A\km\kn} \mathcal{F}^\km_{[\mu\nu} \mathcal{F}^\kn_{\rho\sigma]}~,  D_m D^m\phi_A=-{1\over2} d_{A\km\kn}  \mathcal{F}^\km_{mn}  \mathcal{F}^{\kn mn}~.
\la{conb}
\eea

These conditions can be solved provided that ${\cal R}$ can be decomposed as ${\cal R}=I\oplus {\cal R}'$, where $I$ is a trivial representation of $\mathfrak{g}$ and take that
$\phi_A$ and $\mathcal{H}_A$ vanish unless they lie along the trivial representation, and denote the non-vanishing fields with $\phi_0$ and $\mathcal{H}_0$, respectively. Such a choice will solve the last two conditions in (\ref{cona}) as $T_\km$ vanishes
along the trivial representation. The first condition in (\ref{cona}) is solved by identifying $\mathcal{F}^\km$ with the field strength of a gauge field with Lie algebra $\mathfrak{g}$.

It remains to solve the conditions in (\ref{conb}). First observe that $D_m D^m\phi_0=\partial_m\partial^m \phi_0$, and similarly on $\mathcal{H}_0$, and identify $d_{0\km\kn}$ with a bi-invariant metric on $\mathfrak{g}$.   Next set
\bea
\mathcal{H}_0=- \partial_m\phi_0 dx^-\wedge dx^+\wedge dx^m+{1\over3!}
\partial_\ell\phi_0\,\epsilon^\ell{}_{m_1m_2m_3}\,\,dx^{m_1}\wedge dx^{m_2}\wedge dx^{m_3} ~,~~
\la{exh}
\eea
Then recall that the KSEs for $Sp(1)\ltimes \bH$ invariant spinors
require that $\mathcal{F}$ is an anti-self dual instanton. Because of this and (\ref{exh}), the second condition in (\ref{conb}) implies the first.  Finally, the last condition
in (\ref{conb}) is solved because the Pontryagin form of instantons can be written as the Laplacian on a scalar \cite{osborn}.  A similar calculation has been
done for the self-dual string solution in \cite{ap3} and so no further details will be presented.  Notice though that this new class of self-dual string solutions
is more general than that of \cite{ap3} as there is no restriction on the gauge group. In addition for generic values of instanton moduli space, all the string solutions
are smooth and  the string charge is related to the instanton number, see also \cite{halfhet} for more details.

\subsection{3-branes}

Motivated from the M-brane intersection rules which state that two M5-branes intersect on a 3-brane, we shall describe a class of models which exhibit 3-brane solitons. These are those for which all the potentials vanish and the only active fields are those of the hyper-multiplets.
Moreover, the hyper-multiplet scalars depend only on the two transverse directions of the 3-brane soliton. First to identify the models with 3-brane solitons
suppose that the hyper-multiplets are not gauged, ie the embedding tensor $\theta=0$.  Moreover set all the fields apart from the hypermultiplet scalars $q$
and $\mathcal{H}^{(5)}$ equal to zero. The only non-trivial conditions that have to be satisfied to construct solutions are the field equations for $q$
and the hyperini KSEs.

To solve the hypernini KSEs, we shall take the case with 4 supersymmetries and compact isotropy group.  The relevant equations are given in (\ref{n4comp}) and (\ref{n4compb}).  From the KSEs, the hyper-multiplet scalars do not depend on four directions as expected for a 3-brane soliton and (\ref{n4compb})  is a   Cauchy-Riemann
equations implying that $q$ is a holomorphic curve into the hyper-K\"ahler cone.  In addition, the field equation for the $q$'s  is automatically satisfied.

A similar argument based on the supersymmetry conditions in section 3.3 leads to the existence of a string soliton preserving 1/4 of supersymmetry supported by a homolorphic surface embedded
into the hyper-K\"ahler cone. Such solitons are expected to exist as they can be  associated with a triple M5-brane intersection on a string. Similarly, the ``quaternionic'' solitons
of section 3.5 can be associated with M-brane intersections at angles.

\newsection{Concluding Remarks}

Combining the results of \cite{ap3} with those of this paper, we have solved the KSEs of the (1,0) superconformal models of \cite{ssw, ssw3} in all cases and identified  the fractions of supersymmetry preserved.  The theories have a large number of solitons. Here we have presented new self-dual string solutions and  3-brane solutions which are expected to exist
because of the M-brane intersection rules. The former  supported by instantons with arbitrary gauge group, they are smooth at a generic point of the instanton  moduli space and the string charge is related to the instanton number. The latter
are  holomorphic curves from the 6-dimensional spacetime  into the hyper-K\"ahler cone of the hyper-multiplets.

Although it may appear that the techniques we have used to solve the KSEs apply to a particular class of models, this is not the case. In fact, the same method can be applied
to solve the KSEs of any (1,0) supersymmetric theory in 6 dimensions as it has been demonstrated in \cite{ap1}.

It is clear that there are many more supersymmetric solutions like the string solitons mentioned in the previous section associated with triple M5-brane intersections that preserve $1/4$ of supersymmetry. This can be seen either by directly inspecting the solutions of the KSEs  we have presented or by continuing to explore the analogy with the M-brane intersection rules. The KSEs that we have solved are the most general ones for models with (1,0) supersymmetry in six dimensions. So, there is now a systematic way to find all solitons of these superconformal theories and to explore
their applications.

\vskip 1.0cm
\noindent{\bf Acknowledgements} \vskip 0.1cm
\noindent
MA has been partially supported by a STFC studentship.
GP is partially supported by the STFC rolling grant ST/G000/395/1.
\vskip 0.5cm
\setcounter{section}{0}
\setcounter{subsection}{0}