text:
# Parametric Evolution for a Deformed Cavity

## I Introduction

### A The local density of states

Consider a system that is described by an Hamiltonian $`(Q,P;x)`$ where $`(Q,P)`$ are canonical variables and $`x`$ is a constant parameter. Our interest in this paper is in the case where $`(Q,P)`$ describe the motion of a particle inside a cavity, and $`x`$ controls the deformation of the confining boundary. The 1D version of a cavity, also known as ‘potential well’, is illustrated in Fig.1. However, we are mainly interested in the case of chaotic cavities in $`d>1`$ dimensions. Cavities in $`d=2`$ dimensions, also known as billiard systems, are prototype examples in the studies of classical and quantum chaos, and we shall use them for the purpose of numerical illustrations.

The eigenstates of the quantized Hamiltonian are $`|n(x)`$ and the corresponding eigen-energies are $`E_n(x)`$. The eigen-energies are assumed to be ordered, and the mean level spacing will be denoted by $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. We are interested in the parametric kernel

$`P(n|m)=|n(x)|m(x_0)|^2=\text{trace}(\rho _n\rho _m)`$ (1)
In the equation above $`\rho _m(Q,P)`$ and $`\rho _n(Q,P)`$ are the Wigner functions that correspond to the eigenstates $`|m(x_0)`$ and $`|n(x)`$ respectively. The trace stands for $`dQdP/(2\pi \mathrm{})^d`$ integration. The difference $`xx_0`$ will be denoted by $`\delta x`$. We assume a dense spectrum, so that our interest is in ‘classically small’ but ‘quantum mechanically large’ energy scales. It is important to realize that the kernel $`P(n|m)`$ has a well defined classical limit. The classical approximation (see remark ) is obtained by using microcanonical distributions instead of Wigner functions.

Fixing $`n`$, the vector $`P(n|m)`$ describes the shape of the $`n`$-th eigenstate in the $`_0=(Q,P;x_0)`$ representation. By averaging over several eigenstates one obtains the average shape of the eigenstate (ASOE). We can also identify $`P(n|m)`$ as the local density of states (LDOS), by regarding it as a function of $`n`$, where $`m`$ is considered to be a fixed reference state. In the latter case an average over few $`m`$-states is assumed. We shall denote the LDOS by $`P(r)`$ where $`r=(nm)`$. The ASOE is just $`P(r)`$. Note that the ASOE and the LDOS are given by the same function. One would have to be more careful with these definitions if $`_0`$ were integrable while $``$ non-integrable.

A few words are in order regarding the definition of the LDOS, and its importance in physical applications. The LDOS, also known as strength function , describes an energy distribution. Conventionally it is defined as follows:

$`\text{LDOS}(E)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}m|\mathrm{}𝐆(E)|m`$ (2)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}P(n|m)\delta (EE_n)`$ (3)
where $`𝐆(E)=1/(E+i0)`$ is the retarded Green function. We are interested in chaotic systems, so it should be clear that our $`P(r)`$ is related by trivial change of variable ($`Er`$) to the above defined $`\text{LDOS}(E)`$. Our $`P(r)`$ also incorporates an average over the reference state. The LDOS is important in studies of either chaotic or complex conservative quantum systems that are encountered in nuclear physics as well as in atomic and molecular physics. Related applications may be found in mesoscopic physics. Going from $`_0`$ to $``$ may signify a physical change of an external field, or switching on of a perturbation, or a sudden-change of an effective-interaction (as in molecular dynamics ). The so called ‘line shape’ of the LDOS is important for the understanding of the associated dynamics. It is also important to realize that the LDOS is the Fourier transform of the so-called ‘survival probability amplitude’  (see  for concise presentation of this point).

### B Parametric Evolution

Textbook  formulations of perturbation theory can be applied in order to find the LDOS. Partial summations of diagrams to infinite order can be used in order to get an improved Lorentzian-type approximation. However most textbooks do not illuminate the limitations and the subtleties which are involved in using the conventional perturbative schemes. It is therefore interesting to take a somewhat different approach to the study of LDOS. The roots of this alternate approach can be traced back to the work of Wigner  regarding a simple banded random matrix (BRM) model $`=𝐄+\delta x𝐁`$. Here $`𝐄`$ is a diagonal matrix whose elements are the ordered energies $`\{E_n\}`$, and $`𝐁`$ is a banded matrix. The study of this model can be motivated by the realization that in generic circumstances it is possible to write $`(Q,P;x)_0(Q,P)+\delta x(Q,P)`$. Using a simple semiclassical argument  it turns out that the matrix representation of any generic $``$, in the eigen-basis that is determined by the chaotic Hamiltonian $`_0`$, is a banded matrix.

The important ingredient (from our point of view) in the original work by Wigner, is the emphasis on the parametric-evolution (PE) of the LDOS. The LDOS describes an energy distribution: For $`\delta x=0`$ the kernel $`P(r)`$ is simply a Kroneker delta function. As $`\delta x`$ becomes larger, the width as well as the whole profile of this distribution ‘evolves’. Wigner has realized that for his WBR model there are three parametric regimes. For very small $`\delta x`$ we have the standard perturbative structure where most of the probability is concentrated in $`r=0`$. For larger $`\delta x`$ we have a Lorentzian line shape. But this Lorentzian line shape does not persist if we further increase $`\delta x`$. Instead we get a semi-circle line shape. Many works about the LDOS have followed , but the issue of PE has not been further discussed there. The emphasis in those works is mainly on the case where $`_0`$ is an integrable or non-interacting system, while $``$ is possibly (but not necessarily) chaotic due to some added perturbation term.

The line of study which is pursued in the present work has been originated and motivated by studies of quantum dissipation . Understanding PE can be regarded as a preliminary stage in the analysis of the energy spreading process in driven mesoscopic systems. Note that the LDOS gives the energy re-distribution due to a ‘sudden’ (very fast) change of the Hamiltonian. Unlike the common approach for studies of LDOS, we assume both $``$ and $`_0`$ to be chaotic. Both correspond to the same parametrically dependent Hamiltonian $`(Q,P;x)`$, and there is nothing special in choosing a particular value $`x=x_0`$ as a starting point for the PE analysis.

### C Main results

The theory of PE, as discussed in general in  and in particular in  takes us beyond the random-matrix-theory considerations of Wigner. There appear five (rather than two) different parametric scales (see remark ). These are summarized by Table 1.

In the present paper we consider cavities with hard walls. We are going to explain that because of the ‘hard wall limit’ there are only two independent parametric scales: One is $`\delta x_c^{\text{qm}}`$ and the others (see remark ) coincide with $`\delta x_{\text{NU}}`$. Assuming that $`\delta x_c^{\text{qm}}`$ and $`\delta x_{\text{NU}}`$ are well separated, it follows that there are three distinct parametric regimes in the PE of our system. These are the standard perturbative regime ($`\delta x\delta x_c^{\text{qm}}`$), the core-tail regime ($`\delta x_c^{\text{qm}}\delta x\delta x_{\text{NU}}`$), and the non-universal regime ($`\delta x\delta x_{\text{NU}}`$).

The exploration of the three parametric regimes in the PE of a deformed cavity with hard walls is the main issue of the present paper. To the best of our knowledge such detailed exploration has not been practical in the past. We owe our ability to carry out this task to a new powerful technique for finding clusters of billiard eigenstates . There are also some secondary issues that we are going to address:

(a) In the strict limit of hard walls the PE becomes non-unitarity. We shall use the 1D well example in order to shed light on this confusing issue. In particular we demonstrate that any truncation of the PE equation leads to false unitarity due to a finite-size edge effect.

(b) For special deformations, namely those that constitute linear combination of translations rotations and dilations, the parametric scales $`\delta x_c^{\text{qm}}`$ and $`\delta x_{\text{NU}}`$ coincide. Consequently there is no longer distinct core-tail regime, and the PE features a quite sharp transition from the standard perturbative regime to the non-universal regime.

(c) In the non-universal regime we demonstrate that our numerical results are in accordance with our theoretical expectation . Namely, the width of the LDOS profile is determined by time-domain semiclassical considerations, rather then by phase-space or random-wave considerations.

(d) The last section puts our specific study in a larger context. We explain why Wigner’s scenario of PE is not followed once hard walls are considered.

## II The cavity system

We consider a particle moving inside $`d`$ dimensional cavity whose volume is $`𝖵`$. The kinetic energy of the particle is $`E=\frac{1}{2}mv^2`$, where $`m`$ is its mass, and $`v`$ is its velocity. It is assumed that this motion is classically chaotic. The ballistic mean free path is $`\mathrm{}_{\text{bl}}`$. One can use the estimate $`\mathrm{}_{\text{bl}}𝖵/𝖠`$, where $`𝖠`$ is the total area of the walls. The associated time scale is $`\tau _{\text{bl}}=\mathrm{}_{\text{bl}}/v`$.

The penetration distance upon a collision is $`\mathrm{}=E/f`$, where $`f`$ is the force that is exerted by the wall. Upon quantization we have an additional length scale, which is the De-Broglie wavelength $`\lambda _\text{B}=2\pi \mathrm{}/(mv)`$. We shall distinguish between the hard walls case where we assume $`\mathrm{}<\lambda _\text{B}\mathrm{}_{\text{bl}}`$, and soft walls for which $`\lambda _\text{B}\mathrm{}`$. Note that taking $`\mathrm{}0`$ implies soft walls.

There is a class of special deformations that are shape-preserving. These are generated by translations, rotations and dilations of the cavity. A general deformation need not preserve the billiard shape nor its volume. We can specify any deformation by a function $`D(𝐬)`$, where $`𝐬`$ specifies the location of a wall element on the boundary (surface) of the cavity, and $`D(𝐬)\delta x`$ is the normal displacement of this wall element. In many practical cases it is possible to use the convention $`|D(𝐬)|1`$. With this convention $`\delta x`$ has units of length, and its value has the meaning of typical wall displacement.

The eigen-energies of a particle inside the cavity are in general $`x`$-dependent, and can be written as $`E_n=(\mathrm{}k_n)^2/(2m)`$. The mean level spacing is

$`\mathrm{\Delta }=\mathrm{}v\times {\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{\mathrm{\Omega }_d}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{𝖵}}\lambda _\text{B}^{d1}`$ (4)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_d=2\pi ,4\pi ,\mathrm{}`$ for $`d=2,3,\mathrm{}`$. In our numerical study we shall consider a quarter stadium with curved edge of radius $`1`$ and straight edge of length $`1`$. The ‘volume’ of the quarter stadium is $`𝖵=1+\pi /4`$. The ’area’ of its boundary $`𝖠=4+\pi /2`$ is just the perimeter. We shall look on the parametric evolution of eigenstates around $`k400`$ where the mean level spacing in $`k`$ units is $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}=\mathrm{\Delta }/(\mathrm{}v)0.0088`$.

## III Parametric evolution

Consider the quantum-mechanical state $`\psi =|m(x_0)`$. We can write $`\psi =_na_n(x)|n(x)`$. The parametric kernel can be written as $`P(n|m)=|a_n(x)|^2`$. It is a standard exercise to obtain (from $`d\psi /dx=0`$ and differentiating by parts) the following equation for the amplitudes:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{da_n}{dx}}={\displaystyle \frac{i}{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}𝐖_{nm}(x)a_m`$ (5)
In order to get $`P(n|m)`$ one should solve this equation with the initial conditions $`a_n(x_0)=\delta _{nm}`$. The transitions between levels are induced by the matrix elements

$`𝐖_{nm}={\displaystyle \frac{i\mathrm{}}{E_nE_m}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{}{x}}\right)_{nm}`$ (6)
and we use the ‘gauge’ convention $`𝐖_{nm}=0`$ for $`n=m`$. (Only one parameter is being changed and therefore Berry’s phase is not an issue).

Eq.(5) is a possible starting point for constructing a perturbation theory for the PE of $`P(r)`$. See Ref. for more details. As an input for this equation we need the matrix elements of $`/x`$. These can be calculated using a simple boundary integral formula  whose simplest derivation  is as follows: The position of the particle in the vicinity of a wall element is $`Q=(z,𝐬)`$, where $`𝐬`$ is a surface coordinate and $`z`$ is a perpendicular ‘radial’ coordinate. We take $`f=\mathrm{}`$ so that

$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{x}}=D(𝐬)V_0\delta (z)`$ (7)
The logarithmic derivative of the wavefunction on the boundary is $`\phi (𝐬)/\psi (𝐬)`$ where $`\phi (𝐬)=𝐧\psi `$, and $`𝐧`$ is a unit vector in the $`z`$ direction. For $`z>0`$ the wavefunction $`\psi (Q)`$ is a decaying exponential. If $`V_0`$ is large enough, then the exponential decay is fast, and we can treat the boundary as if it were locally flat. It follows that the logarithmic derivative of the wavefunction on the boundary should be equal to $`\sqrt{2mV_0}/\mathrm{}`$. Consequently one obtains the following expression for the matrix elements:

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{}{x}}\right)_{nm}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}}{\displaystyle \phi _n(𝐬)\phi _m(𝐬)D(𝐬)𝑑𝐬}`$ (8)
In the one-dimensional case the boundary integral is replace by the sum $`_s\phi _n(s)\phi _m(s)D(s)`$ where $`s=1,2`$ are the two turning points of the potential well.

## IV Hard walls and non-Unitarity

For the purpose of the following argumentation it is convenient to take $`f=\mathrm{}`$, but to keep $`V_0`$ large but finite. Mathematically it is also convenient to think of the embedding space as having some huge but finite volume. We would like to illuminate a subtlety which is associated with the hard wall limit $`V_0\mathrm{}`$. For any finite $`V_0`$ the parametric kernel satisfies

$`{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}P(n|m)=p_{\text{total}}`$ (9)
with $`p_{\text{total}}=1`$. This follows from the fact that $`|n(x)`$ is a complete orthonormal basis for any $`x`$. However, for hard walls ($`V_0=\mathrm{}`$) this statement is not true. This implies that for hard walls the PE in non-unitary. We are going to explain this point below.

Let us denote the volume of the original cavity by $`𝖵_0`$ and of the deformed cavity by $`𝖵`$. The volume shared by the deformed and the undeformed cavities will be denoted by $`𝖵_0𝖵`$ and we shall use the notation $`\eta =(𝖵_0𝖵)/𝖵_0`$. For the purpose of the following argumentation let us consider a reference state $`m`$ whose energy $`E_m`$ is well below $`V_0`$. Let us also assume that the wall displacement is large compared to De-Broglie wavelength. Consequently the expression for $`P(n|m)`$ has the following semiclassical structure:

$`P(n|m)\eta \times f(E_nE_m)+(1\eta )\times g(E_nE_c)`$ (10)
where $`E_c=(V_0+E_m)V_0`$. The above result can be deduced by assuming that the wavefunctions look ergodic in space, but still that they are characterized by a well-defined local wavelength. An equivalent derivation is obtained by using the phase-space picture of . Both $`f`$ and $`g`$ in the above expression have unit normalization, and therefore $`p_{\text{total}}=1`$ for any finite $`V_0`$. However, for hard walls ($`V_0=\mathrm{}`$) we have $`E_c=\mathrm{}`$ and therefore $`p_{\text{total}}=\eta `$. We may say the the operation of taking the hard wall limit does not commute with the summation in Eq.(9). An analogous statement can be derived regarding the summation $`_mP(n|m)`$, with the respective definition $`\eta =(𝖵_0𝖵)/𝖵`$.

The correctness of the above observation becomes less trivial if we consider (5) with expressions (6) and (8) substituted for the matrix elements. Looking on (6) with (8) it looks as if the matrix $`𝐖_{nm}`$ is hermitian, and therefore should generate unitary PE. But this statement is mathematically correct only for (any) finite truncation $`N`$ of the PE equation. For $`N=\mathrm{}`$ the matrix $`𝐖_{nm}`$ becomes non-hermitian. It turns out that for any finite $`N`$, there is a pile-up of probability in the edges of the spreading profile, due to finite-size effect. We shall demonstrate this effect in the next section using a simple 1D example. In other words, if we solve Eq.(5) for hard-walled cavity, we get as a result Eq.(10) with $`E_c=E_N`$. For $`N=\mathrm{}`$ we get $`E_c=\mathrm{}`$ and therefore $`p_{\text{total}}=\eta `$ in accordance with the conclusion of the previous paragraph.

Thus if either $`V_0<\mathrm{}`$ or $`N<\mathrm{}`$ then we have unitary PE. But for hard walls, meaning $`V_0=\mathrm{}`$ with $`N=\mathrm{}`$, we have non-unitary PE. The lost probability is associated with the second term in Eq.(10). This term is peaked around a high energy $`E_c`$. For hard walls $`E_c=\mathrm{}`$ and consequently some probability is lost. The above picture is supported by the simple pedagogical example of the next section.

## V Parametric evolution for a 1D box

Consider a 1D box with hard walls, where the free motion of the particle is within $`0<Q<𝖺`$. The eigenstates of the Hamiltonian are

$`|n(𝖺)(1)^n\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{𝖺}}}\mathrm{sin}(k_nQ)`$ (11)
where $`k_n=n\times (\pi /𝖺)`$ is the wavenumber, and $`n=1,2,\mathrm{}`$ is the level index. The phase factor $`(1)^n`$ has been introduced for convenience. We consider now the parametric evolution as a function of $`𝖺`$. One easily obtains

$`n(𝖺)|m(𝖺_0)=(1)^n\sqrt{\eta }{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}(\pi \eta n)}{\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{2m}{\eta ^2n^2m^2}}`$ (12)
where $`\eta 𝖺_0/𝖺`$ is assumed to be smaller than $`1`$, corresponding to expansion of the box. The probability kernel is $`P(n|m)=|n|m|^2`$. One can verify that the parametric evolution in the $`𝖺_0𝖺`$ direction is unitary, meaning that $`_nP(n|m)=1`$. On the other hand in the $`𝖺𝖺_0`$ direction the parametric evolution is non-unitary, because $`_mP(n|m)=\eta `$. The profile of $`P(n|m)`$ for fixed $`n`$ is illustrated by a dashed line in Fig.2.

We can restore unitarity by making $`V_0`$ large but finite. In such case, a variation of the above calculation leads to the following picture: Consider the overlap of a reference level $`n(𝖺)`$ with the levels $`m(𝖺_0)`$. As in the case $`V_0=\mathrm{}`$ there is a probability $`\eta `$ which is located in the levels whose energies are $`E_mE_n`$. But now the “lost” probability $`(1\eta )`$ is located in the levels whose energies are $`E_mE_n+V_0`$. Thus we have $`_mP(n|m)=1`$ rather than $`_mP(n|m)=\eta `$.

We consider again the case $`V_0=\mathrm{}`$. The normal derivative on the boundary is $`\phi _n(𝖺)=\sqrt{(2/𝖺)}k_n`$. Hence we can easily get the following result

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{}}}𝐖_{nm}={\displaystyle \frac{i}{k_n^2k_m^2}}\phi _n(𝖺)\phi _m(𝖺)=i{\displaystyle \frac{1}{𝖺}}{\displaystyle \frac{2nm}{n^2m^2}}`$ (13)
It is more convenient to use $`\alpha =\mathrm{ln}(𝖺)`$ for parameterization. Hence the equation that describes the parametric evolution is

$`{\displaystyle \frac{da_n}{d\alpha }}={\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{2nm}{n^2m^2}}a_m`$ (14)
For any finite truncation $`N<\mathrm{}`$ this equation manifestly generates unitary parametric evolution. It is only for $`N=\mathrm{}`$ that it becomes equivalent to the non-unitary evolution of the 1D box. Again, one can wonder where the ‘lost’ probability is located if $`N<\mathrm{}`$. The answer is illustrated in Fig.2. We see that the ‘lost’ probability piles up at the edge of the (truncated) tail.

## VI Matrix elements for chaotic cavity

It is possible to use semiclassical considerations  in order to determine the band profile of the matrix Eq.(8). The application to the cavity example has been introduced in , and numerically demonstrated in . The accuracy of this semiclassical estimate is remarkable. Here we summarize the recipe. First one should generate a very long (ergodic) trajectory, and define for it the fluctuating quantity

$`(t)={\displaystyle \frac{}{x}}={\displaystyle \underset{\text{col}}{}}2mv\mathrm{cos}(\theta _{\text{col}})D_{\text{col}}\delta (tt_{\text{col}})`$ (15)
where $`t_{\text{col}}`$ is the time of a collision, $`D_{\text{col}}`$ stands for $`D(𝐬)`$ at the point of the collision, and $`v\mathrm{cos}(\theta _{\text{col}})`$ is the normal component of the particle’s velocity. Each delta spike (for soft walls it is actually a narrow rectangular spike) corresponds to one collision. Now one can calculate the correlation function $`C(\tau )`$ of the fluctuating quantity $`(t)`$, and its Fourier transform $`\stackrel{~}{C}(\omega )`$. The semiclassical estimate for the band profile is

$`\left|\left({\displaystyle \frac{}{x}}\right)_{nm}\right|^2{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{2\pi \mathrm{}}}\stackrel{~}{C}\left({\displaystyle \frac{E_nE_m}{\mathrm{}}}\right)`$ (16)
Ref. contains a systematic study of the function $`\stackrel{~}{C}(\omega )`$. For large $`\omega `$, meaning $`\omega 1/\tau _{\text{bl}}`$, one can use

$`\stackrel{~}{C}(\omega )2m^2v^3|\mathrm{cos}\theta |^3{\displaystyle \frac{1}{𝖵}}{\displaystyle [D(𝐬)]^2𝑑𝐬}`$ (17)
where the geometric factor is $`|\mathrm{cos}(\theta )|^3=1,4/3\pi ,\mathrm{}`$ for $`d=1,2,\mathrm{}`$. A lengthy calculation  reveals that Eq.(16) with (17) substituted, is an exact global result if we could assume that the cavity eigenfunctions look like ‘random waves’, and that different wavefunctions are uncorrelated. However, it turns out that to take this ‘random wave’ result as a global approximation is an over-simplification. For $`\omega 1/\tau _{\text{bl}}`$, using the semiclassical recipe and assuming strongly chaotic cavity, one obtains

$`\stackrel{~}{C}(\omega )\stackrel{~}{C}(\mathrm{})\times (\tau _{\text{bl}}\omega )^\gamma `$ (18)
with $`\gamma =4`$ for dilations and translations, $`\gamma =2`$ for rotations, and $`\gamma =0`$ for normal deformations. We use the term ’special deformations’  in order to distinguish those deformations that has the property $`\stackrel{~}{C}(\omega )0`$ in the limit $`\omega 0`$. Any combination of dilations, translations and rotations is a special deformation. Around the bouncing frequency ($`\omega 1/\tau _{\text{bl}}`$) the function $`\stackrel{~}{C}(\omega )`$ typically displays some non-universal (system and deformation specific) structure. This is true for any typical deformation, but for some deformations the non-universal features are more pronounced. If the cavity has bouncing ball modes, we may get also a modified (non-universal) behavior in the small frequency limit. For the purpose of general discussion it is convenient to assume that the interpolation between (18) and (17) is smooth, but in actual numerical calculation the actual $`\stackrel{~}{C}(\omega )`$ is computed (see below).

As a numerical example we have picked the stadium billiard. We have found the eigenstates of a de-symmetrized (quarter) stadium as described in Ref.. We have selected those eigenstates whose eigen-energies $`k_n`$ are in the vicinity of $`k=400`$. Our two representative deformations are: (a) rotation around the stadium center; and (b) generic (non-special) deformation involving the curved edge. In the latter case the curved edge of the quarter stadium ($`0<s<\pi /2`$) is pushed outwards with $`D(s)=(\mathrm{cos}(s))^2`$, while for the straight edges $`D(s)=0`$. (The corner $`s=0`$ is the $`90^{}`$ intersection of the curved edge with the long straight edge). The respective band profiles are displayed in Fig.3. The band profile has been defined as

$`B(\kappa )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4k^2}}\left|{\displaystyle \phi _n(𝐬)\phi _m(𝐬)D(𝐬)𝑑𝐬}\right|^2`$ (19)
where $`\kappa =(k_nk_m)`$ is the distance from the diagonal. Note that $`B(\kappa )`$ is just a scaled version of the semiclassical $`\stackrel{~}{C}(\omega )`$ as implied by Eq.(16) with (8). The remarkable agreement of $`B(\kappa )`$ with the semiclassical calculation has been demonstrated in .

It is important to realize that in the hard wall limit (which is assumed here) the matrix $`(/x)_{nm}`$ is not a banded matrix. It would become banded if we were assuming soft walls. For soft walls $`\stackrel{~}{C}(\omega )`$ becomes vanishingly small for $`\omega v/\mathrm{}`$. The bandwidth in energy units is $`\mathrm{\Delta }_b=\mathrm{}v/\mathrm{}`$, and in dimensionless units it is

$`b={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_b}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}={\displaystyle \frac{𝖵}{\mathrm{}\lambda _\text{B}^{d1}}}`$ (20)
Unless stated otherwise we have $`b=\mathrm{}`$.

## VII Parametric evolution - numerical results

The parametric evolution of $`P(r)`$ for rotation and for generic deformation of the stadium is illustrated by the images of Fig.4 and by the plots of Figs.5-6. The calculation of each $`P(r)`$ profile is carried out as follows: Given $`\delta x`$ we use the method which is described in  in order to calculate the matrix $`P(n|m)`$. Then we plot the elements of $`P(n|m)`$ versus $`\kappa =(k_n(x)k_m(0))`$. In order to obtain the average profile the plot is smeared using standard procedure (see remark ). The transformation from $`\kappa `$ to $`r=(nm)`$ is done using the relation (see remark ):

$`\kappa =\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}r{\displaystyle \frac{1}{d}}k\times {\displaystyle \frac{\delta 𝖵}{𝖵}}`$ (21)
Above $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ is the mean level spacing of the $`\{k_n\}`$ spectrum, and $`\delta 𝖵`$ is the volume change that is associated with the deformation (it is approximately proportional to $`\delta x`$). If the deformation is volume preserving (as in the case of rotation) then the second term equals zero. But for the generic deformation that we have picked in our second numerical example, the volume is not preserved, and the systematic ‘downwards’ shift of the levels should be taken into account.

Looking first in the case of rotation, we see clearly two parametric regimes: The standard perturbative regime ($`\delta x<0.2`$), and the non-universal regime ($`\delta x>0.2`$). Let us clarify this observation. We see that for $`\delta x<0.2`$ most of the probability is well concentrated in $`r=0`$. This implies that we can use standard perturbation theory in order to estimate the $`r0`$ probabilities. On the other hand for $`\delta x>0.2`$ the perturbative nature of $`P(r)`$ is destroyed. Now $`P(r)`$ becomes smoother, and eventually (for $`\delta x>0.5`$) there is a very good fitting with Lorentzian (see lower plot in Fig.5).

The qualitative explanation for the Lorentzian profile is as follows: For $`\delta x>0.5`$ the typical displacement of the walls is of the order of $`\lambda _\text{B}`$. Therefore the $`|n(x)`$ eigenstates become uncorrelated with the $`|m(0)`$ eigenstates. Consequently $`P(r)`$ becomes $`\delta x`$ independent. The Lorentzian profile agrees with the assumption of uncorrelated random waves as explained in Appendix A.

Let us look now in the case of generic deformation. Here we see clearly three parametric regimes: The standard perturbative regime ($`\delta x<0.004`$), the core-tail regime ($`0.004<\delta x<0.2`$), and the non-universal regime ($`\delta x>0.2`$). Let us clarify this observation. As in the case of rotation there is a standard perturbative regime ($`\delta x<0.004`$) where most of the probability is well concentrated in $`r=0`$. For larger deformation, namely for $`\delta x>0.004`$, standard perturbation theory is no longer applicable because the $`n=m`$ level is mixed non perturbatively with other (neighboring) levels. As a result $`P(r)`$ contains a non-perturbative ‘core’ component. However, for $`0.004<\delta x<0.2`$ we definitely do not get a Lorentzian. Rather the tails of $`P(r)`$ keep growing in the same way as in the standard perturbative regime.

In the case of the generic deformation, as in the case of rotation, we enter the non-universal regime, and eventually (for $`\delta x>0.6`$) we get a smooth Lorentzian-like distribution. However, the Lorentzian-like distribution is not identical with that of the rotation case. Also the similarity to proper Lorentzian is far from being satisfactory. (see lower plot in Fig.6). This means that the random-wave picture of Appendix A is an oversimplification.

In the following sections we are going to summarize the theoretical considerations  that explain the observed parametric scenario. In particular we are going to illuminate the way in which non-perturbative features emerge; to clarify the crossover to the non-universal regime; and to explain the specific nature of the non-universal distribution.

## VIII The standard perturbative regime

Standard perturbation theory gives the following first order expression for the LDOS

$`P(n|m)\delta _{nm}+\delta x^2{\displaystyle \frac{|(/x)_{nm}|^2}{(E_nE_m)^2}}`$ (22)
This expression is most straightforwardly obtained by inspecting Eqs.(5) and (6). We can define the (total) transition probability as

$`p(\delta x)={\displaystyle \underset{r0}{}}P(r)`$ (23)
Using Eq.(22) combined with (16) we get the following estimate:

$`p(\delta x)\delta x^2\times {\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{}^2}}{\displaystyle _{|\omega |>\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{\mathrm{}}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\omega }{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{C}(\omega )}{\omega ^2}}`$ (24)
Standard perturbation theory is applicable as long as $`p(\delta x)1`$. This can be converted into an equivalent inequality $`\delta x\delta x_c^{\text{qm}}`$. By this definition $`\delta x_c^{\text{qm}}`$ is the parametric deformation which is needed in order to mix the initial level $`m`$ with other levels $`nm`$.

If we use Eq.(24) for a special deformation, then we have $`\gamma >1`$, and consequently the integral is not sensitive to the exclusion of the $`|r|<\mathrm{\Delta }`$ region. As a result we have $`\delta x_c^{\text{qm}}\mathrm{}`$. Using Eq.(18) with (17) we get

$`\delta x_c^{\text{qm}}|_{\text{special}}=\left(\mathrm{}_{\text{bl}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{𝖵}}{\displaystyle [D(𝐬)]^2𝑑𝐬}\right)^{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}}\times \lambda _\text{B}`$ (25)
In case of generic deformation Eq.(25) is not valid because the value of the integral in (24) is predominantly determined by the $`\omega \mathrm{\Delta }/\mathrm{}`$ lower cutoff rather than by an effective $`\omega 1/\tau _{\text{bl}}`$ lower cutoff. As a result one obtains

$`\delta x_c^{\text{qm}}|_{\text{generic}}=\left(\mathrm{}_\text{H}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{𝖵}}{\displaystyle [D(𝐬)]^2𝑑𝐬}\right)^{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}}\times \lambda _\text{B}`$ (26)
where $`\mathrm{}_\text{H}=vt_\text{H}`$ is the length which is associated with the Heisenberg time $`t_\text{H}=2\pi \mathrm{}/\mathrm{\Delta }`$.

It is illuminating to use the convention $`D(𝐬)1`$, such that $`\delta x`$ measures the typical displacement of a wall element. With this convention we get from Eqs.(25)-(26) the following:

$`\delta x_c^{\text{qm}}`$ $`|_{\text{special }}`$ $`\lambda _\text{B}`$ (27)
$`\delta x_c^{\text{qm}}`$ $`|_{\text{generic }}`$ $`=\left({\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _\text{B}^{d1}}{𝖠_{\text{eff}}}}\right)^{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}}\times \lambda _\text{B}`$ (28)
$`\delta x_c^{\text{qm}}`$ $`|_{\text{diffractive}}`$ $`\lambda _\text{B}`$ (29)
In the generic case the effective area of the deformed boundary $`𝖠_{\text{eff}}`$ may be smaller than the total area $`𝖠`$ of the boundary. The effective area $`𝖠_{\text{eff}}`$ can be formally defined by comparing Eq.(28) with Eq.(26). Eq.(29) has been added for sake of completeness of our presentation. It correspond to the diffractive limit $`𝖠_{\text{eff}}\lambda _\text{B}^{d1}`$. Note that this limit is beyond the scope of the present study. Thus in the generic case, the wall displacement needed to mix levels is much smaller than $`\lambda _\text{B}`$. In the generic case $`\delta x_c^{\text{qm}}\mathrm{}^{(d+1)/2}`$ rather than $`\delta x_c^{\text{qm}}\mathrm{}`$. What happens with perturbation theory beyond $`\delta x_c^{\text{qm}}`$? This is the subject of the next section.

## IX The core-tail regime

For $`\delta x>\delta x_c^{\text{qm}}`$ standard perturbation theory diverges due to the non-perturbative mixing of neighboring levels on small scale: Once $`\delta x`$ becomes of the order of $`\delta x_c^{\text{qm}}`$ several levels are mixed, and as $`\delta x`$ becomes larger, more levels are being mixed non-perturbatively. Consequently it is natural to distinguish between core and tail regions . Most of the spreading probability is contained within the core region, which implies a natural extension of first-order perturbation theory (FOPT): The first step is to transform Eq.(5) into a new basis where transitions within the core are eliminated; The second step is to use FOPT (in the new basis) in order to analyze the core-to-tail transitions. Details of this procedure, which is in the spirit of degenerate perturbation theory, were discussed in . The most important (and non-trivial) consequence of this procedure is the observation that mixing on small scales does not affect the transitions on large-scales. Therefore we have in the tail region $`P(n|m)\delta x^2`$ rather than $`P(n|m)\delta x`$. The validity of this observation has been numerically illustrated in .

Following the above reasoning we define the tail region as consists of those levels whose ‘occupation’ can be calculated using perturbation theory, while the core is the non-perturbative component in the vicinity of $`r=0`$. Assuming that only one scale characterize the core width, one arrives at the following practical approximation:

$`P_{\text{prt}}(r)={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{2\pi \mathrm{}}}\stackrel{~}{C}\left({\displaystyle \frac{E_nE_m}{\mathrm{}}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{\delta x^2}{(\mathrm{\Gamma }(\delta x))^2+(E_nE_m)^2}}`$ (30)
It is implicit in this definition that $`(E_nE_m)`$ should be regarded as a function of $`r=(nm)`$. The parameter $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\delta x)`$ is determined (for a given $`\delta x`$) such that $`P_{\text{prt}}(r)`$ has a unit normalization. One may say that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\delta x)`$ regularizes the behavior around $`r=0`$. For generic deformation we get

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\delta x)b_0\mathrm{\Delta }\left({\displaystyle \frac{\delta x}{\delta x_c^{\text{qm}}}}\right)^2\times \mathrm{\Delta }`$ (31)
The core is defined as the region $`|r|<b_0`$, and the outer ($`|r|>b_0`$) regions are the tails. For $`\delta x\delta x_c^{\text{qm}}`$ we get $`b_01`$ and the core-tail structure Eq.(30) becomes equivalent to the standard perturbative result Eq.(22). It should be clear that the core-tail structure is a generalization of Wigner’s Lorentzian. It is indeed a Lorentzian in the special case of a ‘flat’ band profile.

We turn now to analyze our numerical results. We have verified (see eg Fig.7) that for $`\delta x<0.2`$ we have good agreement with perturbation theory irrespective of whether we have a core component (which is the case for the generic deformation) or not (which is the case for the rotation). As we come closer to $`\delta x0.2`$ the agreement becomes worse, and for $`\delta x>0.3`$ we have a total collapse of perturbation theory. In Fig.8 we display the total transition probability $`p(\delta x)`$ as a function of $`\delta x`$. This plot should be used in order to numerically determine the value of $`\delta x_c^{\text{qm}}`$, say as the value where $`p(\delta x)=1/2`$.

Fig.8 also displays comparison with the corresponding perturbative calculation (using Eq.(23) with(30)). The agreement (for $`\delta x<\delta x_c^{\text{qm}}`$) in case of the rotation is remarkable. For larger values of $`\delta x`$ one observes a linear drop of the total probability due to the non-unitary nature of the evolution. (This drop is clearly linear in a linear-linear scale which is not displayed). The eventual rise of the total transition probability (beyond $`1`$) in case of the generic deformation, reflects numerical errors in the determination of the small $`\kappa `$ overlaps. See  for further details.

The lower subfigure in Fig.8 displays the calculated core width $`b_0`$ for the generic deformation. Recall that $`b_0`$ is determined, given $`\delta x`$, such that $`P_{\text{prt}}(r)`$ of Eq.(30) is normalized. Also calculated is the width $`b_c`$ of the region that contains $`50\%`$ of the probability. The width $`b_c`$ is calculated for both $`P_{\text{prt}}(r)`$ and $`P(r)`$. Note that $`b_c=1`$ in the standard perturbative regime. The determination of $`\delta x_c^{\text{qm}}`$ for the generic deformation becomes more convenient by using this plot. Also the crossover (at $`\delta x_{\text{NU}}0.2`$) to the non-universal regime is most pronounced.

## X The non-universal regime

The validity of Eq.(30) as a global approximation relies on the assumption that the core is characterized only by one scale (which is $`b_0`$). But this assumption ceases to be true if $`\delta x`$ is large enough. We have explained in Ref. that the width of the core defines a ‘window’ through which we can view the ‘landscape’ of the semiclassical analysis. As $`\delta x`$ becomes larger, this ‘window’ becomes wider, and eventually some of semiclassical structure is exposed. This is marked by the non-universal parametric scale $`\delta x_{\text{NU}}`$. For $`\delta x`$ larger than $`\delta x_{\text{NU}}`$, the non-universal structure of the core is exposed.

What is the semiclassical structure of the LDOS? Time-domain semiclassical considerations (See Eq.(10) of  and related discussion there) imply that the non-universal structure of the core is

$`P(nm){\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta E_{\text{SC}}}{\delta E_{\text{SC}}^2+(E_nE_m)^2}}`$ (32)
with $`\delta E_{\text{SC}}=\mathrm{}/\tau _{\text{col}}`$. The definition of the collision rate $`1/\tau _{\text{col}}`$ is similar to that of $`1/\tau _{\text{bl}}`$. The former is the collision rate with the deformed area $`𝖠_{\text{dfr}}`$, and therefore it may be smaller than $`1/\tau _{\text{bl}}`$, because $`\tau _{\text{bl}}`$ is related to the total area $`𝖠`$.

If, by mistake, we identified $`\tau _{\text{col}}`$ with $`\tau _{\text{bl}}`$, then we would get the random wave result which is derived in Appendix A. This would be an over simplification. If it were true, it would imply that for $`\delta x>\delta x_{\text{NU}}`$ we should have got the same Lorentzian-distribution in both cases (the rotation and the generic deformation). What we see, as a matter of fact, is that for the rotation (Fig.5) we have a reasonably good agreement with Lorentzian whose width is $`\delta k_{\text{SC}}=1.5`$, whereas for the generic deformation (Fig.6) there is rough agreement with Lorentzian whose width is $`\delta k_{\text{SC}}=0.26`$. The smaller width in the latter case clearly reflects having larger $`\tau _{\text{col}}`$. For the generic deformation we also have pronounced non-Lorentzian features. Actually the global fitting to Lorentzian is quite bad. Our understanding is that these features are due to the bouncing-ball trapping: It leads to non-exponential decay of the time-dependent survival probability (see  for definition of the latter term), and hence to the observed non Lorentzian features of the spreading profile.

We turn now to explain how $`\delta x_{\text{NU}}`$ is determined. By definition it is the deformation which is required in order to expose features of the semiclassical landscape. These features start to be exposed once $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\delta x)\delta E_{\text{SC}}`$ which should be converted into an equivalent expression $`\delta x\delta x_{\text{NU}}`$. Thus we get

$`\delta x_{\text{NU}}=\left({\displaystyle \frac{𝖠_{\text{dfr}}}{𝖠_{\text{eff}}}}\right)^{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}}\times \lambda _\text{B}\lambda _\text{B}`$ (33)
Here $`𝖠_{\text{dfr}}`$ is the geometric area of the deformation (in the sense of scattering cross-section), while $`𝖠_{\text{eff}}`$ is the effective area of the deformation. The definition of the latter is implied by comparing Eq.(28) with Eq.(26). By rescaling $`D(𝐬)\alpha D(𝐬)`$ and $`\delta x\delta x/\alpha `$, we can make $`𝖠_{\text{eff}}=𝖠_{\text{dfr}}`$ by convention. For special deformations $`\delta x_{\text{NU}}`$ coincides with $`\delta x_c^{\text{qm}}`$ implying that we get into the non-universal regime as soon as we have a breakdown of standard perturbation theory.

Our theoretical consideration so far do not imply a total collapse of perturbation theory. We may have in principle a co-existence of non-universal core component and perturbative tails. Actually we see such co-existence in the lower subfigures of Fig.7, mainly for $`\delta x=0.2512`$. The right peak around $`\kappa =0`$ is clearly non-perturbative, while the rest of the profile is in reasonable (though not very good) agreement with the perturbative calculation. We are going to explain in the next section that the total collapse of perturbation theory for $`\delta x>0.3`$ is actually not related at all to the appearance of non-universal features in the core structure. It is only circumstantial that in the hard wall limit this collapse happens as soon as we enter the non-universal regime.

## XI The collapse of perturbation theory

A good starting for the following discussion is to consider the classical approximation for $`P(r)`$. Namely, in Eq.(1) one approximates $`\rho _n(Q,P)`$ and $`\rho _m(Q,P)`$ by microcanonical distributions. A phase-space illustration of the energy surfaces which support $`\rho _n(Q,P)`$ and $`\rho _m(Q,P)`$ can be found in Fig.1 of Ref.. The classical $`P(n|m)`$ equals to the overlap of these surfaces.

If we were dealing with a generic system we could introduce a linearized version of the Hamiltonian $`(Q,P;x)=_0(Q,P)+\delta x(Q,P;\delta x=0)`$, where $`(Q,P;x)=/x`$. By definition this linearization is a good approximation provided $`\delta x\delta x_c^{\text{cl}}`$, where $`\delta x_c^{\text{cl}}`$ is the classical correlation scale of $`(Q,P;x)`$ with respect to $`x`$. In the classical linear regime the classical $`P(r)`$ has the scaling property $`P(r)=1/\delta x\widehat{P}(r/\delta x)`$.

An equivalent definition of $`\delta x_c^{\text{cl}}`$ in the quantum-mechanical case is obtained by looking on the $`x`$ dependence of the matrix elements of $`(Q,P;x)`$ in some fixed basis. Again we define $`\delta x_c^{\text{cl}}`$ as the respective correlation scale. It is quite clear that for cavity with soft walls we have

$`\delta x_c^{\text{cl}}=\mathrm{}\text{[soft walls]}`$ (34)
where $`\mathrm{}=E/f`$ has been defined as the penetration distance upon collision. From purely classical point of view the hard wall limit $`\mathrm{}0`$ is a non-linear limit. But this is not true quantum-mechanically. Here we have

$`\delta x_c^{\text{cl}}\lambda _\text{B}\text{[hard walls]}`$ (35)
for $`\mathrm{}<\lambda _\text{B}`$. The terminology ‘classical correlation scale’ while referring to $`\delta x_c^{\text{cl}}`$ becomes misleading here, but we shall keep using it anyway.

The theory of the core-tail structure  is valid only in the linear regime $`\delta x\delta x_c^{\text{cl}}`$. Let us assume for a moment soft walls. We can ask: Is $`\delta x\delta x_c^{\text{cl}}`$ a sufficient condition for having a core-tail structure? The answer is definitely not. Perturbation theory has a final collapse once the core width $`b_0(\delta x)`$ becomes of the order of the band width $`b`$. This defines a parametric scale $`\delta x_{\text{prt}}`$. For $`\delta x>\delta x_{\text{prt}}`$ the LDOS becomes purely non-perturbative. In Wigner’s theory of random banded matrices this corresponds to the crossover from Lorentzian to semicircle line shape.

However, in the limit of hard walls the above mechanism of collapse becomes irrelevant because the band width is infinite ($`b=\mathrm{}`$). On the other hand we still have to satisfy the inequality $`\delta x\delta x_c^{\text{cl}}`$. Thus, for $`\delta x>\lambda _\text{B}`$ we expect a total collapse of perturbation theory, as indeed observed in the numerical study.

## A Overlap of uncorrelated random waves

It is possible to estimate the overlap $`|n|m|^2`$ if we assume that $`|n`$ and $`|m`$ are uncorrelated random-superpositions of plane-waves: A random-superpositions of plane-waves is characterized by the correlation function

$`\psi _\text{R}(𝐱_1)\psi _\text{R}(𝐱_2)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{𝖵}}\text{Cos}(k|𝐱_2𝐱_1|)`$ (A1)
where $`\text{Cos}(kr)\mathrm{exp}(i𝐤𝐫)_\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is a generalized Bessel function (for further details see Appendix D of ). Assuming that the wavefunction of $`|n`$ is uncorrelated with the wavefunction of $`|m`$ one obtains

$`|n|m|^2=\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{𝖵}}\right)^2\times `$ (A2)
$`{\displaystyle \text{Cos}(k_n|𝐱_2𝐱_1|)\text{Cos}(k_m|𝐱_2𝐱_1|)}d𝐱_1d𝐱_2`$ (A3)
The integration is over the whole volume of the cavity. Using the definition of the Cos function we can cast this expression into the form $`|n|m|^2=f(𝐪)_q`$ where the average is over the difference $`𝐪=(𝐤_2𝐤_1)`$, with all possible orientations for $`|𝐤_1|=k_m`$ and for $`|𝐤_2|=k_n`$. The function $`f(𝐪)`$ is defined as follows:

$`f(𝐪)=\left|{\displaystyle \text{e}^{i𝐪𝐱}𝑑𝐱}\right|^2`$ (A4)
The function $`f(𝐪)`$ depends mainly on $`q=|𝐪|`$. We can obtain an estimate for $`f(q)`$ by considering a spherical cavity $`|𝐱|<R`$ with the same volume. Using spherical coordinates it is straightforward to obtain the following:

$`f(q)\left(𝒯\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{d1}}(R^2x^2)^{(d1)/2}\right]\right)^2`$ (A5)
above $`𝒯`$ is a Fourier transform from $`x`$ to $`q`$. For $`q1/R`$ we have simply $`f(q)=(𝖵)^2`$. For $`q1/R`$ we have $`f(q)=(𝖵)^2/(Rq)^{d+1}`$. This is because of the singularity at $`x=\pm R`$. The average over $`q`$ can be done using again spherical coordinate. We have $`q((\mathrm{\Delta }k)^2+2k^2(1\mathrm{cos}\theta ))^{\text{1/2}}`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }k=|k_nk_m|`$, and we can transform the $`d\theta `$ integration into $`dq`$ integration:

$`f(𝐪)_q={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_{d2}}{\mathrm{\Omega }_{d1}}}\times `$ (A6)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{qdq}{k^2}\left(\frac{\sqrt{(q^2(\mathrm{\Delta }k)^2)((2k)^2q^2)}}{2k^2}\right)^{d3}f(q)}`$ (A7)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_d`$ is the solid angle in $`d`$ dimensions. There is no point in trying to carry an exact integration. Rather, it is important to observe that a practical approximation for the overlap is:

$`|n|m|^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{kR}}\right)^{d1}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+(R(k_nk_m))^2}}`$ (A8)
In the latter expression we have neglected the $`d`$-dependent normalization prefactor. It is a ‘practical’ approximation since it gives the correct behavior for both small and large values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }k`$. The interpolation around $`\mathrm{\Delta }k1/R`$ cannot be trusted.

Acknowledgments:

This work was funded by ITAMP and the National Science Foundation.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Supersymmetric field theories have softer ultraviolet behavior than non-supersymmetric theories. The structure of ultraviolet divergence cancellations in supersymmetric field theories including non-renormalizable theories is reviewed in Ref. . In renormalizable theories, the $`𝒩=4`$ supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory in four dimensions and the $`𝒩=4`$ supersymmetric nonlinear sigma model in two dimensions were found to be finite to all orders in perturbation theory. In non-renormalizable theories, the maximal super Yang-Mills theories in $`d=5`$, $`6`$, and $`7`$ were found to be divergent at four, three, and two loops respectively.

Three-dimensional nonlinear sigma models are perturbatively non-renormalizable, but they are argued to be renormalizable in the $`1/N`$ expansion . The $`O(N)`$ and $`CP^{N1}`$ sigma models were studied to next-to-leading order in $`1/N`$ and their $`\beta `$-functions were determined to this order . Supersymmetry appears to play a role in controlling the $`\beta `$-function through UV divergences in this class of field theories. In the $`𝒩=1`$ supersymmetric $`O(N)`$ nonlinear sigma model, the next-to-leading order term in the $`\beta `$-function (the part due to logarithmic divergences) turned out to be absent . In the $`𝒩=2`$ supersymmetric $`CP^{N1}`$ sigma model, the next-to-leading order term in the $`\beta `$-function (due to both logarithmic and power divergences) was found to vanish . These results are reminiscent of the UV properties of $`𝒩=1`$ and $`𝒩=2`$ supersymmetric gauge theories in four dimensions.

It is very interesting to study whether the three-dimensional nonlinear sigma model with higher (i.e., $`𝒩=4`$) extended supersymmetry has better UV properties. In this view we study the UV properties of the $`𝒩=4`$ supersymmetric nonlinear sigma model in three dimensions using the $`1/N`$ expansion. One model of this kind which comes to our mind is the supersymmetric $`HP^{N1}`$ model (an extension of $`O(N)`$ and $`CP^{N1}`$ models), but this model is known to be a consistent model only when it is coupled to supergravity . In four dimensions we have the $`𝒩=2`$ supersymmetric nonlinear sigma model employing the cotangent bundle of $`CP^{N1}`$ . This model can be used to construct the $`𝒩=4`$ supersymmetric nonlinear sigma model in three dimensions which serves the purpose of our $`1/N`$ study. In this letter we evaluate the effective action at leading order in $`1/N`$ and find that the model is finite to this order.

## 2 The $`𝒩=4`$ SUSY Nonlinear Sigma Model in Three Dimensions

We start by considering the $`𝒩=2`$ supersymmetric nonlinear sigma model in four dimensions. This model has been constructed both in $`𝒩=1`$ superfields  and in the component language . We follow the work of Curtright and Freedman . The model has $`2N`$ complex scalar fields $`\varphi _i^\alpha `$ and $`N`$ Dirac fields $`\psi ^\alpha `$, the superpartnars of $`\varphi _i^\alpha `$, where $`i=1,2`$ and $`\alpha =1,\mathrm{},N`$. These fields are subject to the constraints

$`\overline{\varphi }_i^\alpha (\sigma _I)_{ij}\varphi _j^\alpha =b_I,I=1,2,3,`$ (2.1)
$`R(\varphi _i^\alpha \psi ^{C\alpha }ϵ_{ij}\overline{\varphi }_j^\alpha \psi ^\alpha )+L(\overline{\varphi }_i^\alpha \psi ^\alpha ϵ_{ij}\varphi _j^\alpha \psi ^{C\alpha })=0,`$ (2.2)
where $`\sigma _I`$ are the Pauli matrices and $`b_I`$ is a fixed constant vector. $`R,L=\frac{1}{2}(1\pm \mathrm{\Gamma }_5)`$ are the projection operators and $`ϵ_{ij}=\frac{1}{2}[()^j()^i]`$. In this letter we use $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$’s for the Dirac matrices in four dimensions. The action is given by

$$S=d^4x[\overline{D_\mu \varphi _i^\alpha }D^\mu \varphi _i^\alpha +i\overline{\psi }^\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu D^\mu \psi ^\alpha +\rho \overline{\psi }^\alpha \psi ^\alpha +i\sigma \overline{\psi }^\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }_5\psi ^\alpha (\rho ^2+\sigma ^2)\overline{\varphi }_i^\alpha \varphi _i^\alpha ],$$
(2.3)
where $`D_\mu =_\mu +iA_\mu `$, and $`\rho `$, $`\sigma `$, and $`A_\mu `$ are real auxiliary fields. The target space of the model is known to be a Calabi manifold with hyper-Kähler metric on the cotangent bundle of $`CP^{N1}`$ .

The action and the constraints are invariant under the pair of supersymmetry transformations

$`\delta \varphi _i^\alpha =\overline{ϵ}_iL\psi ^\alpha ϵ_{ij}\overline{ϵ}_jR\psi ^\alpha ,`$ (2.4)
$`\delta \psi ^\alpha =(i\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu D^\mu +\rho i\mathrm{\Gamma }_5\sigma )(R\varphi _i^\alpha ϵ_iLϵ_{ij}\varphi _i^\alpha ϵ_j),`$ (2.5)
provided we use the on-shell values for the auxiliary fields $`\rho `$, $`\sigma `$ and $`A_\mu `$. Here $`ϵ_i`$ are Majorana spinor parameters. The supersymmetry transformations of the auxiliary fields need not be specified in the present on-shell formulation.

We construct the $`𝒩=4`$ supersymmetric nonlinear sigma model in three dimensions by dimensional reduction of the four-dimensional $`𝒩=2`$ model considered above. We express the four-dimensional Dirac matrices as

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu =\gamma _\mu \sigma _2,\mu =0,1,2,\mathrm{\Gamma }_3=i\sigma _3,\mathrm{\Gamma }_5=1\sigma _1,`$ (2.6)
where $`\gamma _\mu `$ are the Dirac matrices in three dimensions and they are given by $`\gamma _0=\sigma _2`$, $`\gamma _1=i\sigma _3`$ and $`\gamma _2=i\sigma _1`$. We write the four-component Dirac spinors in four dimensions as

$$\psi ^\alpha =\left(\begin{array}{c}\psi _1^\alpha \\ i\psi _2^\alpha \end{array}\right),\psi ^{C\alpha }=\left(\begin{array}{c}\psi _1^\alpha \\ i\psi _2^\alpha \end{array}\right),$$
(2.7)
where $`\psi _1^\alpha `$ and $`\psi _2^\alpha `$ are two-component complex spinors in three dimensions. We substitute (2.6) and (2.7) into (2.2) and (2.3) and pick up only the zero mode (with respect to the third space coodinate) parts of the fields. We obtain the three-dimensional action

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }d^3x[\overline{D_\mu \varphi _i^\alpha }D^\mu \varphi _i^\alpha +i\overline{\psi }_i^\alpha \gamma _\mu D^\mu \psi _i^\alpha +\tau \overline{\psi }_1^\alpha \psi _2^\alpha +\overline{\tau }\overline{\psi }_2^\alpha \psi _1^\alpha \sigma (\overline{\psi }_1^\alpha \psi _1^\alpha \overline{\psi }_2^\alpha \psi _2^\alpha )`$ (2.8)
$`(\overline{\tau }\tau +\sigma ^2)\overline{\varphi }_i^\alpha \varphi _i^\alpha ],`$
where $`\tau =\rho iA_3`$ is a complex scalar field. As for the constraints, the direction of $`b_I`$ is immaterial, and we choose the bosonic constraint (2.1) to be $`b_I=(0,0,N/g)`$, where $`g`$ is the coupling constant of the model. The costraints now read

$`\overline{\varphi }_1^\alpha \varphi _1^\alpha \overline{\varphi }_2^\alpha \varphi _2^\alpha =N/g,\overline{\varphi }_1^\alpha \varphi _2^\alpha =0,`$ (2.9)
$`\overline{\varphi }_1^\alpha \psi _1^\alpha i\varphi _2^\alpha \psi _2^\alpha =0,\overline{\varphi }_1^\alpha \psi _2^\alpha +i\varphi _2^\alpha \psi _1^\alpha =0.`$ (2.10)
The supersymmetry transformations in three dimensions can be obaind by dimensional reduction of the supersymmetry transformations (2.4) and (2.5). To this end we decompose the two four-component Majorana spinor parameters $`ϵ_i`$ into four two-component Majorana spinor parameters $`ϵ_i^1`$ and $`ϵ_i^2`$ in the same way as (2.7). The three-dimensional supersymmetry transformations are then given by

$`\delta \varphi _i^\alpha ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}i[\overline{\zeta }_i^{}(\psi _1^\alpha +i\psi _2^\alpha )+ϵ_{ij}\overline{\zeta }_j(\psi _1^\alpha i\psi _2^\alpha )],`$ (2.11)
$`\delta \psi _1^\alpha ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[(\gamma _\mu D^\mu i\sigma +\tau )\varphi _i^\alpha \zeta _i^{}+(\gamma _\mu D^\mu i\sigma \tau )ϵ_{ij}\varphi _i^\alpha \zeta _j],`$ (2.12)
$`\delta \psi _2^\alpha ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}i[(\gamma _\mu D^\mu +i\sigma \overline{\tau })\varphi _i^\alpha \zeta _i^{}(\gamma _\mu D^\mu +i\sigma +\overline{\tau })ϵ_{ij}\varphi _i^\alpha \zeta _j],`$ (2.13)
where $`\zeta _i=ϵ_i^1+iϵ_i^2`$ are complex spinor parameters. The supersymmetry transformations of the auxiliary fields $`\tau `$, $`\sigma `$ and $`A_\mu `$ need not be specified for the same reason as given previously.

We have derived the three-dimensional $`𝒩=4`$ supersymmetric nonlinear sigma model (2.8) with (2.9) and (2.10). Introducing the Lagrange multiplier fields $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$, $`c`$ and $`e`$, the Euclidean action is written as

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }d^3x[\overline{D_\mu \varphi _i^\alpha }D_\mu \varphi _i^\alpha +i\overline{\psi }_i^\alpha \gamma _\mu D_\mu \psi _i^\alpha \tau \overline{\psi }_1^\alpha \psi _2^\alpha \overline{\tau }\overline{\psi }_2^\alpha \psi _1^\alpha +\sigma (\overline{\psi }_1^\alpha \psi _1^\alpha \overline{\psi }_2^\alpha \psi _2^\alpha )`$ (2.14)
$`+(\overline{\tau }\tau +\sigma ^2)\overline{\varphi }_i^\alpha \varphi _i^\alpha \alpha (\overline{\varphi }_1^\alpha \varphi _1^\alpha \overline{\varphi }_2^\alpha \varphi _2^\alpha N/g)\beta \overline{\varphi }_1^\alpha \varphi _2^\alpha \overline{\beta }\overline{\varphi }_2^\alpha \varphi _1^\alpha +\overline{\varphi }_1^\alpha \overline{c}\psi _1^\alpha +\varphi _1^\alpha \overline{\psi }_1^\alpha c`$
$`+i\overline{\varphi }_2^\alpha \overline{c}^{}\psi _2^\alpha i\varphi _2^\alpha \overline{\psi }_2^\alpha c^{}+\overline{\varphi }_1^\alpha \overline{e}\psi _2^\alpha +\varphi _1^\alpha \overline{\psi }_2^\alpha ei\overline{\varphi }_2^\alpha \overline{e}^{}\psi _1^\alpha +i\varphi _2^\alpha \overline{\psi }_1^\alpha e^{}].`$
The model contains seven kinds of auxiliary fields: a $`U(1)`$ vector $`A_\mu `$, two complex scalars $`\tau `$, $`\beta `$, two real scalars $`\sigma `$, $`\alpha `$, and two complex spinors $`c`$, $`e`$.

## 3 The Leading Order

Integrating over the fields $`\varphi _i^\alpha `$, $`\overline{\varphi }_i^\alpha `$, $`\psi _i^\alpha `$ and $`\overline{\psi }_i^\alpha `$, we obtain from (2.14) the effective action

$$S_{eff}=N\mathrm{Tr}\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Delta }_{B1}+N\mathrm{Tr}\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Delta }_{B2}N\mathrm{Tr}\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Delta }_{F1}N\mathrm{Tr}\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Delta }_{F2}+\frac{N}{g}d^3x\alpha +\mathrm{},$$
(3.1)
where

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{F1}`$ $`=`$ $`i\gamma _\mu D_\mu +\sigma ,`$ (3.2)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{F2}`$ $`=`$ $`i\gamma _\mu D_\mu \sigma \overline{\tau }\mathrm{\Delta }_{F1}^1\tau ,`$ (3.3)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{B1}`$ $`=`$ $`D_\mu D_\mu +\overline{\tau }\tau +\sigma ^2\alpha \overline{c}\mathrm{\Delta }_{F1}^1c(\overline{e}+\overline{c}\mathrm{\Delta }_{F1}^1\tau )\mathrm{\Delta }_{F2}^1(e+\overline{\tau }\mathrm{\Delta }_{F1}^1c)`$ (3.4)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{B2}`$ $`=`$ $`D_\mu D_\mu +\overline{\tau }\tau +\sigma ^2+\alpha \overline{e}^{}\mathrm{\Delta }_{F1}^1e^{}(\overline{c}^{}\overline{e}^{}\mathrm{\Delta }_{F1}^1\tau )\mathrm{\Delta }_{F2}^1(c^{}\overline{\tau }\mathrm{\Delta }_{F1}^1e^{})`$ (3.5)
$`[\overline{\beta }i\overline{e}^{}\mathrm{\Delta }_{F1}^1c+i(\overline{c}^{}\overline{e}^{}\mathrm{\Delta }_{F1}^1\tau )\mathrm{\Delta }_{F2}^1(e+\overline{\tau }\mathrm{\Delta }_{F1}^1c)]\mathrm{\Delta }_{B1}^1[\beta +i\overline{c}\mathrm{\Delta }_{F1}^1e^{}`$
$`i(\overline{e}+\overline{c}\mathrm{\Delta }_{F1}^1\tau )\mathrm{\Delta }_{F2}^1(c^{}\overline{\tau }\mathrm{\Delta }_{F1}^1e^{})].`$
Setting all fields to constants, we obtain the effective potential

$`{\displaystyle \frac{V}{N}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi )^3}}[\mathrm{ln}(k^2+\overline{\tau }\tau +\sigma ^2\alpha )`$ (3.6)
$`+\mathrm{ln}\left(k^2+\overline{\tau }\tau +\sigma ^2+\alpha +{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\beta }\beta }{k^2+\overline{\tau }\tau +\sigma ^2\alpha }}\right)`$
$`\mathrm{tr}\mathrm{ln}(k/+\sigma )\mathrm{tr}\mathrm{ln}(k/\sigma {\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\tau }\tau }{k/+\sigma }})]`$
$`+(\overline{\tau }\tau +\sigma ^2)(\overline{v}_1v_1+\overline{v}_2v_2)\alpha (\overline{v}_1v_1\overline{v}_2v_21/g)`$
$`\beta \overline{v}_1v_2\overline{\beta }\overline{v}_2v_1`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi )^3}}[\mathrm{ln}((k^2+\overline{\tau }\tau +\sigma ^2)^2\alpha ^2+\overline{\beta }\beta )\mathrm{ln}(k^2+\overline{\tau }\tau +\sigma ^2)^2]`$
$`+(\overline{\tau }\tau +\sigma ^2)(\overline{v}_1v_1+\overline{v}_2v_2)\alpha (\overline{v}_1v_1\overline{v}_2v_21/g)`$
$`\beta \overline{v}_1v_2\overline{\beta }\overline{v}_2v_1,`$
where $`v_i=\varphi _i^N/\sqrt{N}`$. The vacuum expectation values of fields which are not in (3.6) have been set to zero.

The vacuum of the model is fixed by the saddle point conditions

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}{\displaystyle \frac{V}{\tau }}=\overline{\tau }(\overline{v}_1v_1+\overline{v}_2v_2)=0,`$ (3.7)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}{\displaystyle \frac{V}{\sigma }}=2\sigma (\overline{v}_1v_1+\overline{v}_2v_2)=0,`$ (3.8)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}{\displaystyle \frac{V}{\alpha }}=2\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi )^3}\frac{1}{(k^2+\overline{\tau }\tau +\sigma ^2)^2}}\left(\overline{v}_1v_1\overline{v}_2v_2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{g}}\right)=0,`$ (3.9)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}{\displaystyle \frac{V}{\beta }}=\overline{\beta }{\displaystyle \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi )^3}\frac{1}{(k^2+\overline{\tau }\tau +\sigma ^2)^2}}\overline{v}_1v_2=0,`$ (3.10)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}{\displaystyle \frac{V}{v_1}}=(\overline{\tau }\tau +\sigma ^2\alpha )\overline{v}_1=0,`$ (3.11)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}{\displaystyle \frac{V}{v_2}}=(\overline{\tau }\tau +\sigma ^2+\alpha )\overline{v}_2=0.`$ (3.12)
We look for the supersymmetric vacuum and have set $`\alpha ^2+\overline{\beta }\beta =0`$. The solution of (3.7) through (3.12) is

$$\overline{v}_1v_1=1/g,v_2=0,\tau =\sigma =\alpha =\beta =0.$$
(3.13)
The saddle point conditions (3.9) and (3.10) contain the infrared divergences when $`\tau =\sigma =0`$. In deriving the solution (3.13) we have introduced the infrared cutoff. Since the $`\varphi _1^\alpha `$ fields have a vacuum expectation value, $`SU(N)`$ symmetry of the action is broken. The model has only the broken phase. Performing the shift

$$\varphi _1^N\varphi _1^N+\sqrt{N}v_1$$
(3.14)
in (2.14) and calculating the effective action, we obain

$`S_{eff}`$ $`=`$ $`N\mathrm{Tr}\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Delta }_{B1}+N\mathrm{Tr}\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Delta }_{B2}N\mathrm{Tr}\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Delta }_{F1}N\mathrm{Tr}\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Delta }_{F2}`$ (3.15)
$`+N\overline{v}_1v_1{\displaystyle }d^3x(A_\mu A_\mu +A_\mu _\mu \mathrm{\Delta }_{B1}^1_\nu A_\nu +\overline{\tau }\tau +\sigma ^2\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }_{B1}^1\alpha \beta \mathrm{\Delta }_{B2}^1\overline{\beta }`$
$`\overline{c}\mathrm{\Delta }_{F1}^1c\overline{e}\mathrm{\Delta }_{F2}^1e)+{\displaystyle \frac{N}{g}}{\displaystyle }d^3x\alpha +\mathrm{}.`$
The two-point functions of the auxiliary fields are obtained by evaluating functional derivatives of the effective action (3.15). All of these functions are finite because of cancellations between boson and fermion loops. This is in accord with the renormalizabiliaty of the model. The effective propagators of the auxiliary fields are given by

$`D_{\mu \nu }^A(p)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}{\displaystyle \frac{4}{\sqrt{p^2}+8\overline{v}_1v_1}}\left(\delta _{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{p_\mu p_\nu }{p^2}}\right),`$
$`D^\tau (p)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}{\displaystyle \frac{8}{\sqrt{p^2}+8\overline{v}_1v_1}},D^\sigma (p)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}{\displaystyle \frac{4}{\sqrt{p^2}+8\overline{v}_1v_1}},`$
$`D^\alpha (p)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}{\displaystyle \frac{4p^2}{\sqrt{p^2}+8\overline{v}_1v_1}},D^\beta (p)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}{\displaystyle \frac{8p^2}{\sqrt{p^2}+8\overline{v}_1v_1}},`$
$`D^c(p)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}{\displaystyle \frac{8p/}{\sqrt{p^2}+8\overline{v}_1v_1}},D^e(p)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}{\displaystyle \frac{8p/}{\sqrt{p^2}+8\overline{v}_1v_1}}.`$ (3.16)
We note that the mixing terms between $`A_\mu `$ and $`\alpha `$, $`\sigma `$ vanish in the effective action (3.15) as those in the supersymmetric $`CP^{N1}`$ sigma model in three dimensions . In the present model the fields $`\psi _i^\alpha `$ remain massless, so the term which involves $`ϵ_{\mu \nu \rho }`$ is not induced in the two-point function of $`A_\mu `$. Such a term is induced in the symmetric phase of the supersymmetric $`CP^{N1}`$ sigma model in three dimensions where the fermion fields become massive .

## 4 The $`\beta `$-Function and Finiteness

The saddle point conditions have turned out to be free from UV divergences. The coupling constant is not renormalized at leading order, so the $`\beta `$-function of the model is given by

$$\beta (\stackrel{~}{g})=\stackrel{~}{g},$$
(4.1)
where $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$ is the dimensionless coupling constant. The $`\beta `$-function has no fixed point and there is no phase transition. This $`\beta `$-function differs from that of the $`O(N)`$, $`CP^{N1}`$ sigma models and their supersymmetric versions. In these models only the coupling constant is renormalized at leading order, and the $`\beta `$-function of these models is given by $`\beta (\stackrel{~}{g})=\stackrel{~}{g}(1\stackrel{~}{g}/\stackrel{~}{g}_c)`$, where $`\stackrel{~}{g}_c`$ is the critical point.

We have confirmed that the superficially divergent two- and three-point functions of the auxiliary fields are all finite at leading order. Therefore, the model is finite to leading order in $`1/N`$. This result is same as that of the two-dimensional model, where the supergraph techniques are used .

It is an important question whether the finiteness of the model persists to higher orders in $`1/N`$. This question can be invesigated to next-to-leading order in the same manner as the supersymmetric $`CP^{N1}`$ sigma model .

## Acknowledgements

This work is supported partially by the Grants in Aid of Ministry of Education, Culture and Science (Priority Area B ”Supersymmetry and Unified Theory” and Basic Research C). M. Y. is supported by a Research Assistant Fellowship of Chuo University.


text:
# I Introduction

## I Introduction

It is well known that the perturbative series in a typical quantum field theory is at best asymptotic: the coefficients in front of a typical perturbative expansion grow like $`n!`$ where n is the order of the perturbation series (see e.g. the book ). There are two sources of the $`n!`$ behavior which correspond to two different situations. In the first case all Feynman diagrams are $`1`$ but their number is large ($`n!`$) . In the second case, we have just one diagram but it is abnormally big – $`n!`$ (the famous ‘t Hooft renormalon ). The first type of factorial behavior is not specific to a field theory; for example, it can be studied in the anharmonic-oscillator quantum mechanics. On the contrary, renormalon singularities can occur only in field theories with running coupling constant (for the review of the renormalons, see ref. and references therein).

It is convenient to visualize the large-order behavior of perturbative series using the ’t Hooft picture of singularities. Consider Adler’s function related to the polarization operator in QCD

$`D(q^2)=4\pi ^2q^2{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dq^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3q^2}}\mathrm{\Pi }(q^2),`$ (1)
$`\mathrm{\Pi }(q^2)={\displaystyle 𝑑xe^{iqx}D\overline{\psi }D\psi DAj_\mu (x)j_\mu (0)e^{S_{\mathrm{QCD}}}}`$ (2)
Suppose we write down $`D(q^2)`$ as a Borel integral

$$D(\alpha _s(q))=_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑tD(t)e^{\frac{4\pi }{\alpha _s(q)}t}$$
(3)
The divergent behavior of the original series $`D(\alpha _s(q)`$ is encoded in the singularities of its Borel transform shown in Fig.1.

In QCD, we have two types of singularities: renormalons (ultraviolet or infrared) and instanton-induced singularities *** Actually, the instanton itself is not related to the divergence of perturbative series since it belongs to a different topological sector. The first topologically trivial classical configuration, which contributes to the divergence of perturbation theory, is a weakly coupled instanton-antiinstanton pair . . The ultraviolet (UV) renormalons are located at $`t=\frac{1}{b},\frac{2}{b},\frac{3}{b}\mathrm{}`$ ($`b=11\frac{2}{3}n_f`$). In terms of Feynman diagrams they come from the regions of hard momenta in renormalon bubble chain, see Fig. 2.

The infrared (IR) renormalons placed at $`t=\frac{2}{b},\frac{3}{b}\mathrm{}`$ come from the region of soft momenta in the bubble chain diagrams. The instanton singularities are located at $`t=1,2,3,\mathrm{}`$ and they correspond to the large number of graphs which are summed up to the contribution of $`I\overline{I}`$ configurations in the functional space. The main result of this paper is that unlike the instanton-type singularities, the renormalons do not correspond to a particular configuration but manifest themselves as dilatation modes in the functional space.

The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 we relate Borel representation to the functional integral along the instanton-antiinstanton valley in the double-well quantum mechanics. In Section 3 we describe the conformal valley in QCD and discuss the relation between valleys and Borel representation in the field theories with running coupling constant. Sect. 4 and 5 are devoted to the interpretation of IR and UV renormalons as dilatation modes of the valley. In the last section we discuss general aspects of our approach and outline the direction of the future work.

## II Valleys and Borel plane in quantum mechanics

The interpretation of renormalons as dilatation modes is based upon the similarity of the functional integral in the vicinity of a valley in the functional space to the Borel representation (2). At first, we will consider the quantum mechanical example without renormalons and then demonstrate that in a field theory the same integral along the valley leads to renormalon singularities. With QCD in view, we consider the double-well anharmonic oscillator described by the functional integral

$$Z=D\varphi e^{\frac{S(\varphi )}{g^2}}$$
(4)
where

$$S(\varphi )=𝑑t\left(\frac{\dot{\varphi }^2}{2}+\frac{\varphi ^2(1\varphi )^2)}{2}\right)$$
(5)
The large-order behavior in this model is determined by the instanton-antiinstanton ($`I\overline{I}`$) configuration. The $`I\overline{I}`$ valley for the double-well system may be chosen as

$$f_\alpha (t\tau )=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{tanh}\frac{t\tau +\alpha }{2}\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{tanh}\frac{t\tau \alpha }{2}$$
(6)
It satisfies the valley equation

$$\frac{12}{\xi ^2}w_\alpha (t)f_\alpha ^{}(t)=L_\alpha (t)$$
(7)
where $`\xi e^\alpha `$, $`f_\alpha ^{}\frac{}{\alpha }f_\alpha `$, and $`L_\alpha (t)=\frac{\delta S}{\delta \varphi }|_{\varphi =f_\alpha (t)}`$. Here $`w_\alpha (t)=\frac{\xi }{4}\mathrm{sinh}\alpha (\mathrm{cosh}\alpha \mathrm{cosh}t+1)^1`$ is the measure in the functional space so $`(f,g)𝑑tw_\alpha (t)f(t)g(t)`$. The valley (6) connects two classical solutions: the perturbative vacuum at $`\alpha =0`$ and the infinitely separated $`I\overline{I}`$ pair at $`\alpha \mathrm{}`$. The $`I\overline{I}`$ separation $`\alpha `$ and the position of the $`I\overline{I}`$ pair $`\tau `$ are the two collective coordinates of the valley. In order to integrate over the small fluctuations near the configuration (6), we introduce two $`\delta `$-functions $`\delta (\varphi (t)f_\alpha (t\tau ),\dot{f}_\alpha (t\tau ))`$ and $`\delta (\varphi (t)f_\alpha (t\tau ),f_\alpha ^{}(t\tau ))`$ restricting the integration along the two collective coordinates. Following the standard procedure (Faddeev-Popov trick), we insert

$$1=𝑑\alpha \left[(f_\alpha ^{},f_\alpha ^{})+(\varphi f_\alpha ,f_\alpha ^{}+\frac{w^{}}{w}f_\alpha )\right]\delta (\varphi f_\alpha ,f_\alpha ^{})$$
(8)
and

$$1=𝑑\tau \left[(\dot{f}_\alpha ,\dot{f}_\alpha )+(\varphi f_\alpha ,\dot{f}_\alpha +\frac{\dot{w}}{w}f_\alpha )\right]\delta (\varphi f_\alpha ,\dot{f}_\alpha )$$
(9)
in the functional integral (4). Next steps are the shift $`\varphi (t)\varphi (t)+f_\alpha (t\tau )`$, expansion in quantum deviations $`\varphi (t)`$ and the gaussian integration in the first nontrivial order in perturbation theory. After the shift, the the linear term in the exponent $`𝑑t\varphi (t)L_\alpha (t)`$ is disabled due to the valley equation (7) (recall $`\delta (\varphi ,f_\alpha ^{})`$ in the integrand coming from eq. (8)) so the functional integral (4) for the vacuum energy in the leading order in $`g^2`$ reduces to

$`T{\displaystyle 𝑑\alpha D\varphi (f_\alpha ^{},f_\alpha ^{})(\dot{f}_\alpha ,\dot{f}_\alpha )\delta (\varphi ,f_\alpha ^{})\delta (\varphi ,\dot{f}_\alpha )e^{\frac{1}{g^2}\left[S_\alpha +\frac{1}{2}{\scriptscriptstyle 𝑑t\varphi (t)\mathrm{}_\alpha \varphi (t)}\right]}}+O(g^2).`$ (10)
Here T (the total ”volume” in one space-time dimension) is the result of trivial integration over $`\tau `$, $`\mathrm{}_\alpha =^2+16f_\alpha (1f_\alpha )`$ is the operator of second derivative of the action and

$$S_\alpha S(\xi )=\frac{6\xi ^414\xi ^2}{(\xi ^21)^2}\frac{17}{3}+\frac{12\xi ^2+4}{(\xi ^21)^3}\mathrm{ln}\xi $$
(11)
is the action of $`I\overline{I}`$ valley. Performing Gaussian integrations we get

$`T{\displaystyle \frac{1}{g^2}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\alpha e^{\frac{1}{g^2}S_\alpha }F(\alpha ),`$ (12)
$`F(\alpha )={\displaystyle \frac{(det\mathrm{}_\alpha )^{1/2}(f_\alpha ^{},f_\alpha ^{})(\dot{f}_\alpha ,\dot{f}_\alpha )}{(f_\alpha ^{},\mathrm{}_\alpha ^1w_\alpha f_\alpha ^{})^{1/2}(\dot{f}_\alpha ,\mathrm{}_\alpha ^1w_\alpha \dot{f}_\alpha )^{1/2}}}.`$ (13)
At $`\alpha \mathrm{}`$ we have the widely separated $`I`$ and $`\overline{I}`$. In this case, the determinant of the $`I\overline{I}`$ configuration factorizes into a product of two one-instanton determinants (with zero modes excluded) so that $`F(\alpha )\mathrm{const}`$ at $`\alpha \mathrm{}`$. The divergent part of the integral (12) corresponds to the second iteration of the one-instanton contribution to the vacuum energy, therefore it must be subtracted from the $`I\overline{I}`$ contribution to $`E_{\mathrm{vac}}`$:

$$g^2E_{\mathrm{vac}}(g^2)=𝑑\alpha \left(e^{\frac{1}{g^2}S_\alpha }F(\alpha )e^{\frac{1}{g^2}2S_I}F(\mathrm{})\right)$$
(14)
where $`S_I`$ is the one-instanton action. Since $`S_\alpha `$ is a monotonous function of $`\alpha `$ one can invert Eq. (11) and obtain

$$g^2E_{\mathrm{vac}}(g^2)=_0^{2S_I}𝑑Se^{\frac{1}{g^2}S}F(S)\left(\frac{1}{S2S_I}\right)_+$$
(15)
which has the desired form of the Borel integral (1) for the vacuum energy. Thus the leading singularity for $`E_{\mathrm{vac}}(S)`$ is $`F(2S_I)/(S2S_I)`$. Note that our semiclassical calculation does not give the whole answer for the Borel transform of vacuum energy ($`F(S)\overline{)}=E_{\mathrm{vac}}(S)`$ in general) since we threw away the higher quantum fluctuations around the $`I\overline{I}`$ pair in Eq. (10) yet it determines the the leading singularity in the Borel plane.

## III $`I\overline{I}`$ valley and Borel integral in QCD

The situation with the instanton-induced asymptotics of perturbative series in a field theory such as QCD is pretty much similar to the case of quantum mechanics with one notable exception: in QCD there is an additional dimensional parameter – the overall size of the $`I\overline{I}`$ configuration $`\rho `$. The classical $`I\overline{I}`$ action does not depend on this parameter but the quantum determinant does, leading to the replacement

$$e^{\frac{1}{g^2}S}e^{\frac{1}{g^2(\rho )}S}$$
(16)
so the Borel integrand have the following generic form

$$F(S)𝑑\rho e^{\frac{1}{g^2(\rho )}S}(\rho )$$
(17)
The divergence of this integral at either large or small $`\rho `$ determines the position of singularities of $`F(s)`$. We will demonstrate (by purely dimensional analysis) that $`(\rho )\rho ^5`$ at $`\rho \mathrm{}`$ and $`(\rho )\rho `$ at $`\rho 0`$ leading to the IR renormalon at $`S=\frac{32\pi ^2}{b}`$ and the UV renormalon at $`S=\frac{16\pi ^2}{b}`$, respectively In its present form, our analysis of renormalons is applicable to the “off-shell” processes which can be related to the Euclidean correlation functions of two (or more) currents. An example of a different type is the IR renormalon in the pole mass of a heavy quark located at $`S=\frac{16\pi ^2}{b}`$.

The $`I\overline{I}`$ valley in QCD can be chosen as a conformal transformation of the spherical configuration

$$A_\mu (x)=i\frac{\overline{\sigma }_\mu xx_\mu }{x^2}f_\alpha (t)$$
(18)
with $`t=\mathrm{ln}x^2/d^2`$ where $`d`$ is an arbitrary scale. (We use the notations $`xx_\mu \sigma _\mu ,\overline{x}x_\mu \overline{\sigma }_\mu `$ where $`\sigma _\mu =(1,i\stackrel{}{\sigma }),\overline{\sigma }_\mu =(1,i\stackrel{}{\sigma })`$). To obtain the $`I\overline{I}`$ configuration with arbitrary sizes $`\rho _1,\rho _2`$ and separation $`R`$ one performs shift $`xxa`$, inversion $`x\frac{d^2}{x^2}x`$ and second shift $`xxx_0`$ (see Fig. 3).

The resulting valley is the sum of the $`I`$ and $`\overline{I}`$ in the singular gauge in the maximum attractive orientation plus the additional term (which is small at large $`I\overline{I}`$ separations)

$$A_\mu ^v(x)=A_\mu ^I(xx_0)+A_\mu ^{\overline{I}}(xx_0)+B_\mu (xx_0)$$
(19)
where

$`A_\mu ^I(x)`$ $`=`$ $`i\rho _1^2{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _\mu \overline{x}x_\mu }{x^2(x^2+\rho _1^2)}}`$ (20)
$`A_\mu ^{\overline{I}}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`i\rho _2^2{\displaystyle \frac{R\overline{\sigma }_\mu (xR)\overline{R}(xR)_\mu }{R^2(xR)^2((xR)^2+\rho _2^2)}}.`$ (21)
The explicit expression for $`B_\mu `$ can be found in . The action of the $`I\overline{I}`$ valley (19) is equal to the action of the spherical configuration (18) given by (11):

$$S^v(z)=48\pi ^2S(\xi ),\xi =z+\sqrt{z^21},$$
(22)
where the ”conformal parameter” $`z`$ is given by

$$z=(\rho _1^2+\rho _2^2+R^2)/(2\rho _1\rho _2).$$
(23)
Let us now calculate the polarization operator (1) in the valley background. The collective coordinates are the sizes of instantons $`\rho _i`$, separation $`R`$, overall position $`x_0`$ and the orientation in the color space (the valley of a general color orientation has the form $`𝒪_{ab}A_b^v`$ where $`𝒪`$ is an arbitrary $`SU(3)`$ matrix). The structure of Gaussian result for the polarization operator in the valley background is

$$_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{d\rho _1d\rho _2}{\rho _1^5\rho _2^5}d^4Rd^4x_0𝑑𝒪\mathrm{\Pi }^v(q)\frac{1}{g^{17}}e^{\frac{S^v(z)}{g^2}}\mathrm{\Delta }(\rho _i,R)$$
(24)
where 17 is a number of the collective coordinates At $`z\mathrm{}`$ (for weakly interacting $`I`$ and $`\overline{I}`$) the mode corresponding to relative orientation in the color space becomes non-gaussian so one should introduce an additional collective coordinate corresponding to this quasizero mode. We are interested, however, in $`z1`$ where this mode is still Gaussian so it is taken into account in quantum determinant $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. . Here $`\mathrm{\Pi }^v(q)`$ is a Fourier transform of

$$\mathrm{\Pi }^v(x)=(e_q^2)\mathrm{Tr}\gamma _\mu G(x,0)\gamma _\mu G(0,x)$$

where $`G(x,y)`$ is the Green function in the valley background. The factor $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\rho _i,R)`$ in Eq. (24) is the quantum determinant - the result of Gaussian integrations near the valley (19) with the additional factors due to the restricted integrations along the collective coordinates (cf. eq. (13)). For our purposes, it is convenient to introduce the conformal parameter $`z`$ and the average size $`\rho =\sqrt{\rho _1\rho _2}`$ as the collective coordinates in place of $`\rho _1`$ and $`\rho _2`$. We have

$`{\displaystyle 𝑑z\frac{d\rho }{\rho ^9}d^4Rd^4x_0\mathrm{\Pi }^v(q)\frac{1}{g^{17}(\rho )}F(z,R^2/\rho ^2)e^{\frac{S^v(z)}{g^2(\rho )}}}`$ (25)
where $`F(z,R^2/\rho ^2)`$ contains $`\theta (z1\frac{R^2}{2\rho ^2})`$ (see Eq. (23)). We have included in $`F`$ the trivial integral over color orientation which gives the volume of $`SU(3)`$ group.

The main effect of the quantum determinant $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the replacement of the bare coupling constant $`g^2`$ in Eq. (24) by the effective coupling constant $`g^2(\rho )`$ so the remaining function $`F`$ is the (dimensionless) function of the ratio $`R^2/\rho ^2`$ and the conformal parameter. This is almost evident from the renormalizability of the theory since the only dimensional parameters are $`\rho `$ and $`R`$. Formally, one can prove that rescaling of the configuration by factor $`\lambda `$ (so that $`\rho \lambda \rho `$ and $`R\lambda R`$) leads at the one-loop level to multiplication of the determinant by a factor $`\lambda ^{bS^v(z)/8\pi ^2}`$ due to conformal anomaly (see Appendix).

## IV IR renormalon from the dilatation mode of the $`I\overline{I}`$ valley

Consider the singularities of the integral (25). The function $`F(z,R^2/\rho ^2)`$ is non-singular since the singularity in $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ ($``$ singularity in $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$) would mean a non-existing zero mode in quantum determinant. Moreover, the integration over $`R`$ is finite due to $`\theta (z1\frac{R^2}{2\rho ^2})`$ indicating that the only source of singularity at finite $`z`$ is the divergence of the $`\rho `$ integral at either large or small $`\rho `$. (At $`z\mathrm{}`$, in a way similar to the derivation of Eq. (15) we obtain the first instanton-type singularity located at $`t=1`$).

Let us demonstrate that the singularity of the integral (25) at large $`\rho \frac{1}{q}`$ corresponds to the IR renormalon. The polarization operator $`\mathrm{\Pi }(q)`$ in the background of the large-scale vacuum fluctuation reduces to (see Fig. 3)

$`\mathrm{\Pi }(q)={\displaystyle d^4xe^{iqx}j_\mu (x)j_\mu (0)_A}{\displaystyle \frac{e_q^2}{16\pi ^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{G^2(0)}{q^2}}+c\alpha _s{\displaystyle \frac{G^3(0)}{q^4}}+\mathrm{}\right)`$ (26)
where $`G^22\mathrm{T}\mathrm{r}G_{\xi \eta }G_{\xi \eta }`$, $`G^32\mathrm{T}\mathrm{r}G_{\xi \eta }G_{\eta \sigma }G_{\sigma \xi }`$, and $`c`$ is an (unknown) constant. (The coefficient in front of $`G^3`$ vanishes at the tree level).

Consider the leading term in this expansion; since the field strength for the valley configuration (19) depends only on $`xx_0`$

$$d^4x_0\mathrm{Tr}G_{\xi \eta }^v(0)G_{\xi \eta }^v(0)=4S^v(z),$$
(27)
the intergal (25) takes the form

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{q^2}}{\displaystyle _1^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑z{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\rho }{\rho ^9}}d^4R{\displaystyle \frac{1}{g^{17}(\rho )}}F(z,R^2/\rho ^2)e^{\frac{S^v(z)}{g^2(\rho )}}`$ (28)
where we have included the factor $`\frac{1}{4\pi ^2}e_q^2S^v(z)`$ in $`F`$. The (finite) integration over $`R`$ can be performed resulting in an additional dimensional factor $`\rho ^4`$:

$$d^4RF(\rho ,z,R)=\rho ^4\mathrm{\Phi }(z)$$

where the function $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is dimensionless so it can depend only on $`z`$. Finally, we get

$$\frac{1}{q^2}_1^{\mathrm{}}𝑑z_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{d\rho }{\rho ^5}\frac{1}{g^{17}(\rho )}\mathrm{\Phi }(z)e^{\frac{1}{g^2(\rho )}S^v(z)}.$$
(29)
Inverting Eq. (11), we can write the corresponding contribution to Adler’s function as an integral over the valley action ($`t\frac{S}{16\pi ^2}`$):

$`D(q^2)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3q^4}}{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑t{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\rho }{\rho ^5}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{g^{17}(\rho )}}\mathrm{\Phi }(t)e^{\frac{4\pi }{\alpha _s(\rho )}t}.`$ (30)
Note that extra $`\frac{1}{g^2(\rho )}`$ in the numerator can be eliminated using integration by parts:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{16\pi ^2}{g^2(\rho )}}{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑te^{\frac{4\pi }{\alpha _s(\rho )}t}\mathrm{\Phi }(t)={\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑t\mathrm{\Phi }^{}(t)e^{\frac{4\pi }{\alpha _s(\rho )}t}\mathrm{\Phi }(1)e^{\frac{4\pi }{\alpha _s(\rho )}}+\mathrm{\Phi }(0).`$ (31)
The last two terms are irrelevant for the would-be renormalon singularity at $`t=\frac{2}{b}`$ (the term $`e^{\frac{4\pi }{\alpha _s(\rho )}}`$ corresponds to the $`I\overline{I}`$ singularity and the term $`\mathrm{\Phi }(0)`$ does not depend on coupling constant). Likewise, extra $`g(\rho )`$ can be absorbed by Laplace transformation

$`g(\rho ){\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑t\mathrm{\Phi }(t)e^{\frac{4\pi }{\alpha _s(\rho )}t}=4\sqrt{\pi }{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑te^{\frac{4\pi }{\alpha _s(\rho )}t}{\displaystyle _0^t}𝑑t^{}(tt^{})^{1/2}\mathrm{\Phi }(t^{})`$ (32)
leading to

$`D(q^2)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{q^4}}{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑t{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\rho }{\rho ^5}}e^{\frac{4\pi }{\alpha _s(\rho )}t}\mathrm{\Psi }(t)`$ (33)
where $`\mathrm{\Psi }(t)=\frac{1}{3\sqrt{\pi }(4\pi )^{17}}_0^t𝑑t^{}(tt^{})^{1/2}\mathrm{\Phi }^{(9)}(t^{})`$ after nine integrations by parts and a Laplace transformation. Using the two-loop formula for $`\alpha _s`$ we get

$`D(t)\mathrm{\Psi }(t){\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\rho }{q^4\rho ^5}}(q^2\rho ^2)^{bt}\left(\alpha _s(\rho )/\alpha _s(q)\right)^{\frac{2b^{}t}{b}}`$ (34)
where $`b^{}=51\frac{19}{3}n_f`$. It is clear now that the integral over $`\rho `$ diverges in the IR region starting from $`t=\frac{2}{b}`$ §§§ Strictly speaking, at finite $`q`$ we cannot get to the singularity since our semiclassical approach is valid up to $`\rho <\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}`$ which translates to $`\frac{2}{b}t>\frac{1}{\mathrm{ln}q\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}}`$; therefore we must take the limit $`q^2\mathrm{}`$ as well.  leading to in a singularity in $`D(t)`$ at $`t=\frac{2}{b}`$. This singularity is the first IR renormalon. At the one-loop level we can drop the ratio $`\left(\alpha _s(\rho )/\alpha _s(q)\right)^{\frac{2b^{}t}{b}}`$ so the renormalon is a simple pole $`\frac{1}{t2/b}`$. To get he character of this singularity at the two-loop level, we recall that an extra $`\alpha (\rho )`$ factor does not affect the singularity while an extra $`\frac{1}{\alpha (q)}`$ factor changes it from $`(t\frac{2}{b})^\lambda `$ to $`(t\frac{2}{b})^{\lambda 1}`$, as one can easily see from the integration by parts  To avoid confusion, note that in proving that extra $`\frac{1}{\alpha _s(\rho )}`$ does not change the singularity, we used the fact that before the $`\rho `$ integration the function $`\mathrm{\Phi }(t)`$, which is constructed from valley determinants, can be singular only at $`t1`$ where these determinants acquire zero modes.:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{16\pi ^2}{g^2(q)}}{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑te^{\frac{4\pi }{\alpha _s(q)}t}\left(t{\displaystyle \frac{2}{b}}\right)^\lambda ={\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑t\lambda \left(t{\displaystyle \frac{2}{b}}\right)^{\lambda 1}e^{\frac{4\pi }{\alpha _s(q)}t}+\mathrm{}`$ (35)
Therefore, the extra factor $`\left(\alpha _s(\rho )/\alpha _s(q)\right)^{\frac{2b^{}t}{b}}`$ will convert the simple pole $`\frac{1}{t2/b}`$ into a branching point singularity $`(t\frac{2}{b})^{14\frac{b^{}}{b^2}}`$.

It is easy to see that the second term in the expansion (26) gives the second renormalon singularity located at $`t=\frac{3}{b}`$. Higher terms of the expansion of the polarization operator (26) will give the subsequent IR renormalons located at $`t=\frac{4}{b},\frac{5}{b},\frac{6}{b}`$ etc.

## V UV renormalon as a dilatation mode

Next we demonstrate that the divergence of the integral (25) at small $`\rho `$ leads to the UV renormalon. In order to find the polarization operator in the background of a very small vacuum fluctuation (19) we recall that this fluctuation is an inversion To get the Eq. (19) literally, this inversion must be accompanied by the gauge rotation with the matrix $`x(xR)R/\sqrt{x^2(xR)^2R^2}`$, see ref. .

$`A_\mu ^v(xx_0)={\displaystyle \frac{\rho ^2}{(xx_0)^2}}\left(\delta _{\mu \alpha }2{\displaystyle \frac{(xx_0)_\mu (xx_0)_\alpha }{y^2}}\right)A_\alpha ^s\left({\displaystyle \frac{\rho ^2}{(xx_0)^2}}(xx_0)\right)`$ (36)
of the spherical configuration (18) (gauge rotated by $`x/\sqrt{x^2}`$)

$`A_\alpha ^s(x)=`$ (37)
$`i[\sigma _\alpha (\overline{x}\overline{a})(xa)_\alpha ]\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{(xa)^2+\rho ^2\xi }}+{\displaystyle \frac{\rho ^2/\xi }{(xa)^2((xa)^2+\rho ^2/\xi }}\right),`$ (38)
where $`a=R(\xi 1/\xi )`$ (we chose $`d=\rho `$ for the inversion). The corresponding transformation of the polarization operator has the form

$`\mathrm{\Pi }^v(x)=\left(\delta _{\mu \alpha }2{\displaystyle \frac{y_\mu y_\alpha }{y^2}}\right)j_\alpha \left({\displaystyle \frac{\rho ^2}{y^2}}y\right)j_\beta \left({\displaystyle \frac{\rho ^2}{x_0^2}}x_0\right)_{A_s}\left(\delta _{\beta \mu }2{\displaystyle \frac{x_{0\beta }x_{0\mu }}{x_0^2}}\right)`$ (39)
where we use the notation $`yxx_0`$. In the limit $`\rho 0`$ we need the polarization operator in the background of $`A^s`$ at small distances (see Fig. 4),

so we can use the expansion (26) (in the coordinate space)

$`j_\mu (x)j_\nu (0)_A{\displaystyle \frac{e_q^2}{384\pi ^4}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{2x_\mu x_\nu +x^2\delta _{\mu \nu }}{x^4}}G^2(0)+c\alpha _sG^3(0)\left(2{\displaystyle \frac{x_\mu x_\nu }{x^2}}3\delta _{\mu \nu }\mathrm{ln}x^2\right)+\mathrm{}\right]`$ (40)
and obtain

$`\mathrm{\Pi }^v(x)`$ (41)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{e_q^2}{192\pi ^4}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\rho ^8G_s^2(0)}{y^4x_0^4x^2}}\left\{1{\displaystyle \frac{4(x_0y)^2}{x_0^2y^2}}\right\}+c\alpha _s{\displaystyle \frac{\rho ^{12}G_s^3(0)}{y^6x_0^6}}\left\{\left(3\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\rho ^2x^2}{y^2x_0^2}}1\right){\displaystyle \frac{2(x_0y)^2}{x_0^2y^2}}+1\right\}\right]`$ (42)
where $`G_{\mu \nu }^s(0)`$ is the field strength of the spherical configuration (38) calculated at at the origin. After the integration over $`x`$ and $`x_0`$ the first term $`G_s^2`$ vanishes and the second gives

$`{\displaystyle 𝑑xe^{iqx}𝑑x_0\frac{1}{y^6x_0^6}\left[\left(3\mathrm{ln}\frac{x^2}{y^2x_0^2}1\right)\frac{2(x_0y)^2}{x_0^2y^2}+1\right]}={\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^4}{32}}(6\mathrm{ln}\pi +3C2)q^4\mathrm{ln}^2q^2,`$ (43)
leading to

$`{\displaystyle 𝑑x𝑑x_0e^{iqx}\mathrm{\Pi }^v(x)}=c^{}\alpha _s(q){\displaystyle \frac{e_q^2}{64}}\rho ^6𝒢(z,R^2/\rho ^2)q^4\mathrm{ln}^2q^2`$ (44)
where

$$𝒢(z,R^2/\rho ^2)=\rho ^6G_s^3(0)$$
(45)
is a dimensionless non-singular function of $`z`$ and $`R^2/\rho ^2`$ (the explicit expression can be easily found from Eq. (38)). The argument of $`\alpha _s`$ in Eq. (42) is determined by the characteristic momenta in the loop with one extra gluon in the valley background. After inversion, the characteristic distances in the loop diagram determining the coefficient in front of $`G_s^3`$ are $`\rho ^2\sqrt{\frac{x^2}{x_0^2y^2}}`$ which means that before inversion the characteristic momenta in the loop were $`q`$ (in the integral (46) $`x^2x_0^2y^2q^2`$).

Performing the integration over $`R`$ we obtain the analog of the Eq. (33) for the UV renormalon

$$D(q^2)q^2\alpha _s(q)_0^1𝑑t_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\rho \rho (\mathrm{ln}q^2\rho ^2)^2e^{\frac{4\pi }{\alpha _s(\rho )}t}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}(t)$$
(46)
leading to

$`D(t)\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}(t)q^2{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\rho ^2(q^2\rho ^2)^{bt}(\mathrm{ln}q^2\rho ^2)\left(\alpha _s(\rho )/\alpha _s(q)\right)^{\frac{2b^{}t}{b}}.`$ (47)
Note that extra $`\alpha _s(q)`$ in Eq. (46) is compensated by one power of $`\mathrm{ln}q^2\rho ^2`$. The integral over $`\rho `$ diverges at $`t=\frac{1}{b}`$ which is the position of the first UV renormalon. At the one-loop level this renormalon is a double pole $`(1+t/b)^2`$, same as in the perturbative analysis ). Subsequent terms in the expansion (26) correspond to the UV renormalons located at $`t=\frac{2}{b},\frac{3}{b},\frac{4}{b}\mathrm{}`$ \**\**\** We do not see the singularity at $`t=\frac{1}{b}`$ which is proposed in . However, this singularity is due to the small-size monopoles which are beyond the scope of this paper (our results are based on the gaussian integration near the finite-action vacuum fluctuations while monopoles have infinite action).. It should be mentioned that the Eq. (47) cannot reproduce the strength of the first UV renormalon at the two-loop level. The reason is that in Eqs. (26), (42) we have neglected the anomalous dimensions of the operators $`(\alpha _s(q)/\alpha _s(\rho ))^{\frac{\gamma }{b}}`$. Such factors can change the strength of the singularity. For the IR renormalon this does not matter since the operator $`G^2`$ is renorm-invariant ($`\gamma =0`$) and for the subsequent renormalons we can easily correct our results by corresponding $`\gamma `$’s. Unfortunately, for the UV renormalons we do not know how to use the conformal invariance with the anomalous dimensions included.

## VI Conclusions

We have demonstrated that the integration along the dilatation modes in the functional space near the $`I\overline{I}`$ configuration leads to the renormalon singularities in the Borel plane. It is very important to note that we actually never use the explicit form of the valley configuration. What we have really used are the three facts: (I) conformal anomaly $``$ the fact that the rescaling of the vacuum fluctuation with an action S by a factor $`\lambda `$ multiplies the determinant by $`\lambda ^{bS/8\pi ^2}`$ leading to the formula (16), (II) the expansion of the polarization operator (26) in slow varying fields, and (III) the conformal invariance of QCD at the tree level (for the UV renormalon we wrote down the small-size configuration as an inversion of a large-scale vacuum fluctuation). All of these properties hold true for an arbitrary vacuum fluctuation so we could take an arbitrary valley and arrive at the same results Eq. (34) and Eq. (47) †††††† The only difference would be that the upper limit for the integration over $`t`$ will be $`\mathrm{}`$ rather than 1 because the arbitrary valley starts at the perturbative vacuum and goes to the infinity with constantly increasing action .. It means that our result about the renormalon singularity coming from the dilatation mode in the functional space is general.

The form of the polarization operator in a valley background suggests the following parametrization of Adler’ function as a double integral in $`S`$ and $`\rho `$

$$D(\alpha _s(q))=_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑t\frac{d\rho ^2}{\rho ^2}d(q^2\rho ^2,t)e^{\frac{4\pi }{\alpha _s(\rho )}t}$$
(48)
where

$$d(q^2\rho ^2,t)(q^2\rho ^2)^2\mathrm{at}\rho \mathrm{},d(q^2\rho ^2,t)(q^2\rho ^2)\mathrm{at}\rho 0$$
(49)
The function $`d(q^2\rho ^2,t)`$ contains only instanton-induced singularities in $`t`$ whereas the IR and UV renormalons come from the divergence of the integral (48) at large or small $`\rho `$, respectively. If we “switch off” the running coupling constant (e.g consider the conformal theory without $`\beta `$-function) the representation of Adler’s function takes the form

$$D^{\mathrm{conf}}(\alpha _s)=_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑te^{\frac{4\pi }{\alpha _s}t}D^{\mathrm{conf}}(t)$$
(50)
where $`D^{\mathrm{conf}}(t)=\frac{d\rho ^2}{\rho ^2}d(q^2\rho ^2,t)`$ (the integral over $`\rho `$ converges due to Eq. (49)). In real QCD the function $`D^{\mathrm{conf}}(\alpha _s)`$ defines the “conformal expansion” of the Adler’s function with the coefficients coming from the “skeleton diagrams” in terms of usual perturbation theory.

As we mentioned above, our analysis of renormalons is applicable to the “off-shell” processes which can be related to the Euclidean correlation functions of two (or more) currents. One of possible directions of the future work would be to generalize these ideas to the renormalons in the ”on-shell” (Minkowskian) processes intensively discussed in the current literature (see discussion in ref. ).

Finally, we note that our method gives same results as the conventional approach - namely position and strength of the renormalon singularity, but not the coefficient in front of it. The coefficient in front of the first IR renormalon is expremely important since it determines the numerical value of asymptotics of perturbative series for $`R_{e^+e^{}\mathrm{hadrons}}`$. In principle, for a given valley it is possible to calculate this coefficient in the first order in coupling constant $`g^2(\rho )`$ since it is given by a product of the determinants in the valley background, which can at least be computed numerically. However, the fact that an extra $`g^2(\rho )`$ does not change the position and/or character of the singularity means that all terms in the perturbative series in $`g^2(\rho )`$ contribute on equal footing. This is closely related to the fact that the choice of the valley is not unique: after the change of the valley, the new leading-order coefficient, which comes from the determinants in the background of a new configuration, is given by an infinite perturbative series in $`g^2(\rho )`$ (coming from quantum corrections) in terms of the original valley. As a result, finding the coefficient in front of the leading IR singularity would require the integration over all possible valleys. This study is in progress.

### Acknowledgements.

One of us (I.B.) is grateful to V.M. Braun, S.J. Brodsky, R.L. Jaffe, A.H. Mueller, and E.V. Shuryak for valuable discussions. This work was supported by the US Department of Energy under contracts DE-AC05-84ER40150 and DE-FG02-97ER41028.

## VII Appendix

We will prove that rescaling of the arbitrary configuration by factor $`\lambda `$ (so that $`\rho \lambda \rho `$) leads at the one-loop level to multiplication of the determinant by a factor of

$$\lambda ^{bS/8\pi ^2}$$
(51)
where $`S`$ is the action of this configuration. Let us demonstrate it for the determinant of the Dirac operator in the background of a field $`A_\mu (x;\rho )`$ characterized by the size $`\rho `$. We will prove that ‡‡‡‡‡‡ For simplicity, we assume that the Dirac operator has no zero modes, as in the case of the $`I\overline{I}`$ valley (for the treatment of Dirac operator with zero modes see e.g. ).

$$\sqrt{det\overline{)}\stackrel{~}{P}^2}=\sqrt{det\overline{)}P^2}\lambda ^{\frac{S}{12\pi ^2}}$$
(52)
where $`P_\mu =i_\mu +A_\mu (x)`$ is the operator of the covariant momentum for our configuration and $`\stackrel{~}{P}_\mu =i_\mu +\stackrel{~}{A}_\mu (x)`$ is the covariant momentum in the background of the stretched configuration $`\stackrel{~}{A}_\mu (x)=A_\mu (x;\lambda \rho )=\lambda ^1A_\mu (\lambda ^1x;\rho )`$. Using Schwinger’s notations we can write down

$$\mathrm{ln}det\overline{)}\stackrel{~}{P}^2=_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{ds}{s}d^4x\mathrm{Tr}(x|e^{s\overline{)\stackrel{~}{P}}^2}|x)$$
(53)
where $`|x)`$ are the eigenstates of the coordinate operator normalized according to $`(x|y)=\delta ^{(4)}(xy)`$. For the Dirac operator, the integral in Eq. (53) diverges so we will assume a cutoff $`s>ϵ`$ and take $`ϵ0`$ in the final results. After change of variables $`x\lambda ^1x`$, the integral in the r.h.s. of Eq. (53) reduces to

$$\mathrm{ln}det\overline{)}\stackrel{~}{P}^2=_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{ds}{s}d^4x\mathrm{Tr}(x|e^{s\lambda ^2\mathit{}^2}|x)$$
(54)
so

$`\mathrm{ln}det\overline{)}\stackrel{~}{P}^2\mathrm{ln}det\overline{)}P^2=`$ (55)
$`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{ds}{s}}{\displaystyle d^4x\mathrm{Tr}(x|e^{s\lambda ^2\mathit{}^2}e^{s\mathit{}^2}|x)}=\underset{ϵ0}{lim}{\displaystyle _{\lambda ^2ϵ}^ϵ}{\displaystyle \frac{ds}{s}}{\displaystyle d^4x\mathrm{Tr}(x|e^{s\mathit{}^2}|x)}`$ (56)
Using the well-known result for the DeWitt-Seeley coefficients for the Dirac operator (see e.g. )

$$\mathrm{Tr}(x|e^{s\mathit{}^2}|x)=\frac{3}{4\pi ^2s^2}+\frac{1}{48\pi ^2}G_{\mu \nu }^a(x)G_{\mu \nu }^a(x),$$
(57)
we obtain

$$\mathrm{ln}det\overline{)}\stackrel{~}{P}^2=\mathrm{ln}det\overline{)}P^2\frac{\mathrm{ln}\lambda }{24\pi ^2}d^4xG_{\mu \nu }^{va}G_{\mu \nu }^{va}$$
(58)
which corresponds to the Eq. (52). In the case of $`n_f`$ quark flavors, the coefficient $`\frac{1}{12\pi ^2}`$ in r.h.s. of Eq. (52) will be multiplied by $`n_f`$ leading to the factor $`\lambda ^{\frac{2}{3}n_fS/8\pi ^2}`$. This factor is easily recognized as a quark part of the one-loop coefficient $`b`$ for Gell-Mann-Low $`\beta `$-function in Eq. (51). Similarly, the rescaling of the gluon (and ghost) determinants reproduces $`11`$ \- the gluon part of the one-loop coefficient $`b`$ in Eq. (51). Thus we have shown that $`e^{\frac{S}{g^2}}e^{\frac{S}{g^2(\rho )}}`$ with one-loop accuracy. Using the two-loop formulas for the Seeley coefficients one could prove that $`e^{\frac{S}{g^2(\rho )}}`$ reproduces at the two-loop level and demonstrate that $`g^2g^2(\rho )`$ in the pre-exponential factor $`g^{17}`$ as well (as it follows from the renormalizability of the theory).