text:
# ℎ→𝜇𝜏 at Hadron Colliders

\[

MADPH–00–1188

hep-ph/0008141

## Abstract

We study the observability for a lepton flavor-changing decay of a Higgs boson $`h\mu \tau `$ at hadron colliders. Flavor-changing couplings of a Higgs boson exist at tree level in models with multiple Higgs doublets. The $`h\mu \tau `$ coupling is particularly motivated by the favorable interpretation of $`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$ oscillation. We find that at the Tevatron Run II the unique $`\mu \tau `$ signature could serve as the Higgs discovery channel, surpassing expectations for Higgs boson searches in the SM and in a large parameter region of the MSSM. The sensitivity will be greatly improved at the LHC, beyond the coverage at a muon collider Higgs factory.

\]

The standard model (SM) of electroweak interactions and many of its extensions generically predict the existence of Higgs bosons. Detecting Higgs bosons and studying their properties in future collider experiments would provide crucial information for the mechanism of electroweak symmetry breaking and hopefully fermion flavor physics as well. These have been the most prominent issues in contemporary particle physics.

The upgraded Fermilab Tevatron will start its mission next year with c. m. energy $`\sqrt{s}=2`$ TeV and an annual luminosity $`L2\mathrm{fb}^1`$ per detector (Run IIa). Ultimately, one would hope to reach an integrated luminosity of $`L1530\mathrm{fb}^1`$ (Run IIb). In terms of the search for the SM Higgs boson ($`h`$), the most promising processes beyond the LEP2 reach would be electroweak gauge boson-Higgs associated production  $`p\overline{p}Wh,Zh.`$ The leptonic decays of $`W,Z`$ provide a good trigger and $`hb\overline{b}`$ may be reconstructible with adequate $`b`$-tagging and $`b\overline{b}`$ mass resolution, allowing a Higgs boson reach of $`m_h120130`$ GeV . For a heavier Higgs boson $`m_h2M_W`$, the leading production channel via gluon fusion $`ggh`$ and the relatively clean decay mode $`hWW^{}\mathrm{}\overline{\nu }\overline{\mathrm{}}\nu `$ may be useful in digging out a weak Higgs boson signal . It is believed that a SM-like Higgs boson may be observable up to a mass of about 180 GeV at a $`3\sigma `$ statistical level for $`L25\mathrm{fb}^1`$ . In the minimal supersymmetric extension of the standard model (MSSM), the mass of the lightest CP-even Higgs boson is bounded by $`m_h<130`$ GeV . When the CP-odd Higgs state ($`A`$) of the MSSM is heavy $`m_A>2M_Z`$, the lightest Higgs boson has SM-like properties and the conclusion for a light SM Higgs boson search remains valid in a large parameter region of the MSSM. The only exception is when $`m_A𝒪(M_Z)`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ (ratio of the Higgs vacuum expectation values) is large, where the production of $`b\overline{b}h,b\overline{b}A`$ is enhanced by $`\mathrm{tan}^2\beta `$ and $`h,Ab\overline{b},\tau \overline{\tau }`$ may be accessible . At the CERN Large Hadron Collider (LHC) with $`\sqrt{s}=14`$ TeV and $`L100300\mathrm{fb}^1`$, one expects to fully cover the range of theoretical interest $`m_h<1`$ TeV for the SM Higgs boson, or to discover at least one of the MSSM Higgs bosons .

The Higgs sector is the least constrained in theories beyond the SM. It is thus prudent to keep an open mind when studying Higgs physics phenomenologically and experimentally. A particularly important question about the Higgs sector is its role in fermion flavor dynamics, i.e., the generation of fermion masses and flavor mixings. There have been attempts to explain flavor mixings by a generalized Higgs sector with multiple Higgs doublets. It is argued  that the fermion flavor mixing structure due to the Higgs coupling at tree level can be of the form,

$$\kappa _{ij}\frac{\sqrt{m_im_j}}{v}h^0\overline{\psi }_i\psi _j,$$
(1)
where $`i,j`$ are generation indices and $`v246`$ GeV is the Higgs vacuum expectation value. $`\kappa _{ij}`$ is a product of the model parameter $`\lambda _{ij}`$ and the neutral Higgs mixing $`\mathrm{cos}\alpha `$ . Although they are free parameters without a priori knowledge of a more fundamental theory, $`\lambda _{ij}`$ is naturally order of unity from a model-building point of view and $`\mathrm{cos}\alpha =1`$ corresponds to no Higgs mixing. Such Higgs-fermion couplings would yield flavor-changing neutral currents, and therefore lead to rich phenomenology . However, transitions involving the light generations are naturally suppressed and the largest couplings occur between the third and second generations.

In this Letter we explore the lepton flavor-changing coupling $`\kappa _{\mu \tau }`$ of a Higgs boson. This is particularly motivated by the favorable interpretation for $`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$ flavor oscillation from recent atmospheric neutrino experiments . If a large mixing between $`\nu _\mu `$ and $`\nu _\tau `$ exists as indicated by the Super-K experiment , then it will necessarily lead to the decay $`h\mu \tau `$. The branching fraction depends on the particular model of the Higgs sector, which can be parameterized by $`\kappa _{ij}`$. The current constraints on this coupling from low energy experiments are rather weak, giving $`\lambda _{\mu \tau }<10`$ derived from the muon anomalous magnetic moment . Other low energy probes are not expected to be sensitive enough to reach the natural size $`\lambda _{\mu \tau }𝒪(1)`$. The potentially interesting lepton flavor-changing decay modes for a Higgs boson were recently discussed , and their search at a muon collider  was studied . In this work, we propose to look for the signal at the upgraded Tevatron and the LHC. The leading production mechanism for a neutral Higgs boson through gluon fusion is

$$pp(\overline{p})ggXhX\mu \tau X.$$
(2)
We find that due to the unique flavor-changing signature and the distinctive kinematics of the signal final state, the Tevatron Run II will have significant sensitivity to such a coupling, making this signal a possible Higgs discovery channel for $`m_h100140`$ GeV if $`\kappa _{\mu \tau }𝒪(1)`$. At the LHC, the sensitivity is substantially improved leading to a probe for the coupling to a level of $`\kappa _{\mu \tau }0.15`$ and extending the mass coverage to 160 GeV.

$`h`$ production and decay at hadron colliders

The dominant decay mode for a SM-like Higgs boson is $`hb\overline{b}`$ for $`m_h<130`$ GeV and $`hWW^{}`$ for a heavier mass. The partial decay width for $`h\mu \tau `$ is given by

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(h\mu \tau )=\frac{\kappa _{\mu \tau }^2}{4\pi }\frac{m_\mu m_\tau }{v^2}m_h.$$
(3)
Here and henceforth $`\mu \tau \mu ^{}\tau ^++\mu ^+\tau ^{}`$. In comparison to the $`\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ mode in the SM, we have $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(h\mu \tau )/\mathrm{\Gamma }(h\tau \tau )=2\kappa _{\mu \tau }^2(m_\mu /m_\tau )`$. In Fig. 1, we show these decay branching fractions versus the Higgs boson mass. The $`\mu \tau `$ mode is plotted assuming $`\kappa _{\mu \tau }=1`$, for which BR($`h\mu \tau `$) is at the $`1\%`$ level. For $`\kappa _{\mu \tau }3`$, the $`\mu \tau `$ mode can be as large as the SM $`\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ mode. For $`m_h>140`$ GeV, this mode dies away quickly due to the opening of the large $`WW^{}`$ mode. This is the primary reason for the limitation to a low Higgs mass ($`m_h<140`$) at a muon collider .

In Fig. 2 we show the total cross section for $`ggh`$ as well as the final states from the $`h`$ decay versus $`m_h`$ at the (a) Tevatron and (b) LHC. The production is SM-like as we take $`\kappa _{tt}=1`$. We normalize our signal cross section to include next-to-leading order QCD corrections , and use the CTEQ4M distribution functions . The scales on the right-hand side give the number of events expected for 4 $`\mathrm{fb}^1`$ at the Tevatron (the 2 $`\mathrm{fb}^1`$ luminosity at the CDF and D0 detectors are combined) and 10 $`\mathrm{fb}^1`$ at the LHC. We see that for the $`m_h`$ range of $`110140`$ GeV and $`\kappa _{\mu \tau }=1`$, there may be about $`1040`$ events produced at the Tevatron and $`1004000`$ events at the LHC.

$`h\mu \tau `$ signal and SM backgrounds

The signal final state $`\mu \tau `$ is quite unique: two flavor-changing charged leptons back-to-back in the transverse plane without much hadronic activity. To estimate the observability of the signal in hadron collider environments, we consider the $`\tau `$ to decay to an electron or (at least one charged) hadrons, excluding the mode to a muon. We do not require explicit $`\tau `$ tagging in the analysis. We simulate the detector coverage at the Tevatron (LHC) by imposing some “basic cuts”

$`p_T^\mu >20\mathrm{GeV},p_T^\pm >10\mathrm{GeV},|\eta |<2(2.5),`$ (4)
where $`p_T^\mu (p_T^\pm )`$ is the transverse momentum for the muon (charged track and other observable hadrons from $`\tau `$ decay), and $`\eta `$ is their pseudo-rapidity. We further simulate the detector energy resolutions at the Tevatron

$`\mathrm{\Delta }E_j/E_j`$ $`=`$ $`0.8/\sqrt{E}_j\mathrm{for}\mathrm{hadrons},`$ (5)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }E_e/E_e`$ $`=`$ $`0.2/\sqrt{E}_e\mathrm{for}\mathrm{electrons},`$ (6)
and at the LHC

$`\mathrm{\Delta }E_j/E_j`$ $`=`$ $`0.65/\sqrt{E}_j0.05\mathrm{for}\mathrm{hadrons},`$ (7)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }E_e/E_e`$ $`=`$ $`0.1/\sqrt{E}_e0.005\mathrm{for}\mathrm{electrons}.`$ (8)
The muon is required to be well isolated and we neglect the $`p_T^\mu `$ smearing. We finally veto extra jets in the range

$$p_T^j>20\mathrm{GeV},|\eta ^j|<3$$
(9)
to maximally preserve the signal kinematics.

Although the lepton flavor-changing signal is quite spectacular, it is not background-free. The leading SM backgrounds include the Drell-Yan (DY) process

$`pp(\overline{p})`$ $``$ $`Z(\gamma ^{})\tau ^+\tau ^{}\mu \nu _\mu \nu _\tau \tau ,`$ (10)
and $`W^+W^{}`$ pair production ($`WW`$)

$`pp(\overline{p})`$ $``$ $`W^+W^{}\mu \nu _\mu \tau \nu _\tau .`$ (11)
The background processes are calculated with the full SM matrix elements at tree level including spin correlations of gauge boson decays. QCD corrections as $`K`$-factors for the total production rates are also taken into account . With the basic cuts of Eq. (4), the backgrounds turn out to be very large. The results are given by the entries under “basic cuts” in Tables I and II for the Tevatron and LHC, respectively.

There are several distinctive kinematical features for the signal that we can exploit to discriminate it from the backgrounds. First, the missing neutrinos from $`\tau `$ decay are collimated along the charged track since the $`\tau `$’s are ultra-relativistic. Thus, for the signal, the missing transverse momentum ($`p_T^{miss}`$) is along the charged track direction and is essentially back-to-back with respect to the muon $`\varphi (\mu ,\pm )180^{}`$. This is not the case for the $`WW`$ background. Secondly, the muons in the signal are stiff $`p_T^\mu m_h/2`$ as a result of the two-body Higgs decay; while the secondary tracks and hadrons from $`\tau `$ decay are softer. If we define momentum imbalance

$$\mathrm{\Delta }p_T=p_T^\mu p_T^\pm ,$$
(12)
we expect that it would be positive for the signal if the momentum measurements were perfect. This variable turns out to be very powerful in separating the DY background. We now define the “refined cuts” as

$$\varphi (\mu ,\pm )>160^{},\mathrm{\Delta }p_T>0,p_T^\mu >m_h/5.$$
(13)
The most important aspect for the signal observation is reconstruction of the Higgs boson mass. This is quite feasible for the signal under consideration. This can be done with the following steps: (1) define the missing transverse momentum $`p_T^{miss}`$ as the imbalance from the observable particles (which is $`\mathrm{\Delta }p_T`$ in Eq. (12) for the signal case); (2) reconstruct the $`\tau `$ transverse momentum $`\stackrel{}{p}_{T}^{}{}_{}{}^{\tau }=\stackrel{}{p}_{T}^{}{}_{}{}^{\pm }+\stackrel{}{p}_{T}^{}{}_{}{}^{miss}`$, and the longitudinal component $`p_z^\tau =p_z^\pm (1+p_T^{miss}/p_T^\pm )`$; (3) form the $`\mu \tau `$ invariant mass $`m_{\mu \tau }^2=(p^\mu +p^\tau )^2`$. This mass variable should be sharply peaked at $`m_h`$ for the signal, broadly peaked around $`M_Z`$ for the DY background, and rather smooth over a large range for the $`WW`$ background. Indeed, with the proper energy smearing, we find the reconstructed Higgs mass peak within a 5 GeV range. The results are summarized in Tables I and II for the Tevatron and LHC, respectively. The entries under “refined cuts” give the cross sections including the cuts of Eq. (13). The signal-to-background ratio $`S/B`$ within a 5 GeV window for $`m_{\mu \tau }`$ is shown next. The last rows illustrate the statistical significance $`S/\sqrt{B}`$ for the Tevatron with 20 $`\mathrm{fb}^1`$ (CDF and D0 combined) and for the LHC with 10 $`\mathrm{fb}^1`$.

Discussion and conclusion

So far, for our signal discussion, we have chosen the coupling parameter as $`\kappa _{\mu \tau }=1`$ for illustration. From a model-building point of view, it is natural for $`\kappa _{\mu \tau }`$ to be of order unity, while the upper bound from low energy constraint is about 10. Generically, the cross section scales like $`\kappa _{\mu \tau }^2`$. We explored to what value of this coupling the signal would yield a 3$`\sigma `$ evidence statistically near the Higgs mass peak. Figure 3 shows $`\kappa _{\mu \tau }`$ versus $`m_h`$ at the (a) Tevatron and (b) LHC for several luminosities. We see that at Run IIa where a luminosity of 4 $`\mathrm{fb}^1`$ is expected combining CDF and D0 data, $`\kappa _{\mu \tau }1.21.8`$ can be reached for $`m_h<140`$ GeV. With a higher luminosity of 30 $`\mathrm{fb}^1`$ per detector, one can reach a coupling of $`0.60.9`$. At the LHC, the sensitivity is significantly improved and a signal for $`\kappa _{\mu \tau }0.15`$ would even be observable with 100 $`\mathrm{fb}^1`$. Assuming $`\kappa _{\mu \tau }1`$, the reach could go beyond $`m_h160`$ GeV, in contrast to the accessible limit $`m_h<140`$ GeV at a muon collider . Similarly, one can ask how much luminosity is needed to reach a certain level of observation. Note that the statistical significance scales like $`S/\sqrt{B}\kappa _{\mu \tau }^2\sqrt{L}`$. The results are summarized in Fig. 4, where a 2$`\sigma (95\%`$ confidence level exclusion), 3$`\sigma `$ and 5$`\sigma `$ signals are illustrated versus $`m_h`$ at the (a) Tevatron and (b) LHC for $`\kappa _{\mu \tau }=1`$. Due to the large number of signal events near the $`m_h`$ peak at the LHC (see Table II), the statistical accuracy of determining a coupling $`\kappa _{\mu \tau }𝒪(1)`$ can be at a few percent level with only $`L=10\mathrm{fb}^1`$. Note that strictly speaking, all the bounds quoted here apply to the product $`\kappa _{tt}\kappa _{\mu \tau }`$. We have implicitly assumed $`\kappa _{tt}=1`$ throughout.

In summary, we have studied the observability for a lepton flavor-changing decay of a Higgs boson $`h\mu \tau `$ at the upgraded Tevatron and the LHC. At the Tevatron, the unique signature may serve as the Higgs discovery channel, yielding a 3$`\sigma `$ signal for $`m_h110`$ GeV and $`\kappa _{\mu \tau }1.2`$ with 4 $`\mathrm{fb}^1`$ (CDF and D0 combined), surpassing expectations for Higgs boson searches in the SM and in a large parameter region of the MSSM. The sensitivity will be greatly improved at the LHC, probing as small a coupling as $`\kappa _{\mu \tau }0.15`$ or determining $`\kappa _{\mu \tau }𝒪(1)`$ better than a few percent accuracy, and extending the reach to $`m_h160`$ GeV, beyond the coverage at a muon collider.

Acknowledgments: This work was supported in part by a DOE grant No. DE-FG02-95ER40896 and in part by the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation.


format: text

text:
# On the Dimensional Reduction Procedure

## 1 Introduction

Very recently, motivated by applications concerning the black hole physics initiated in  and calculation of the effective action after and before the dimensional reduction , Frolov, Sutton and Zelnikov have introduced the concept of dimensional-reduction anomaly  related to a dimensional reduction procedure. Subsequently, the symmetric space cases have been considered too . Very recently, consequences of the dimensional reduction anomaly in the Schwarzschild spacetime have also been analysed .

To begin with, let us recall the general arguments leading to the proposal contained in the above mentioned papers. Within the so-called one-loop approximation in Quantum Field Theory, the Euclidean one-loop effective action $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ may be expressed in terms of the functional determinant of an elliptic differential operator $`O`$, defined on a $`D`$-dimensional manifold, namely

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{ln}detO.`$ (1.1)
The ultraviolet one-loop divergences, which are present, may be regularised by means of analytic regularisations, for example the zeta-function regularisation (for recent reviews, see ).

In the presence of space-times having some symmetries like the D-dimensional space-time is the ”warp” product $`M_D=M_P\times \mathrm{\Sigma }_Q`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_Q`$ being a Q-dimensional symmetric space with constant curvature, the harmonic analysis on it is normally used in order to dimensionally ”reduce” the relevant fluctuation operator $`O`$. It turns out that the quantum dimensional-reduced theory, defined by a specific procedure, might be not equivalent to the original one, and this fact is related to the presence of the dimensional-reduction anomaly.

The reason of this possible discrepancy has been explained in  as mainly due to the necessity of the regularisation and renormalisation of the effective action in spaces with different dimensions. There, it has also been observed a possible connection with the so called multiplicative anomaly. Regarding this issue, see, for instance, .

Let us consider a scalar field $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ propagating in the above mentioned space. Thus, one is mainly dealing with a second order self-adjoint non-negative differential operator

$`L_D=\mathrm{\Delta }_D+m^2+\xi R_D,`$ (1.2)
in which $`\mathrm{\Delta }_D`$ is the Laplace operator on $`M_D`$, $`m^2`$ a possible mass term and $`\xi R_D`$ a suitable ”potential term”, describing the non-minimal coupling with the gravitational field. We will assume that the spectrum is bounded from below. The ”exact” theory, namely the non-dimensional reduced one, may be described by the path integral (Euclidean partion function)

$`Z={\displaystyle D\mathrm{\Phi }e^{{\scriptscriptstyle 𝑑V_D\mathrm{\Phi }L_D\mathrm{\Phi }}}}=e^\mathrm{\Gamma },`$ (1.3)
$`dV_D`$ being the infinitesimal volume on $`M_D`$. The effective action $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ has to be regularised and may be expressed by means of a zeta-regularised functional determinant

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\mathrm{ln}Z={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[\zeta ^{}(0|L_D)+\mathrm{ln}\mu ^2\zeta (0|L_D)\right],`$ (1.4)
$`\mu ^2`$ being the renormalisation parameter. Here, the zeta-function is defined by

$`\zeta (s|L_D)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(s)}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑tt^{s1}K_tK_t=Tre^{tL_D},`$ (1.5)
valid for $`Res>D/2`$. Here $`Tre^{tL_D}=_ie^{t\lambda _i}`$, $`\lambda _i`$ being the eigenvalues of $`L_D`$. As a consequence, $`\zeta (s|L_D)=_i\lambda _i^s`$. If zero modes are present, one has to subtract them, replacing $`Tre^{tL_D}`$ with $`Tre^{tL_D}P_0`$, $`P_0`$ being the projector onto the zero modes.

Of course one may use other regularisation procedures. As an example, the dimensional regularisation is defined by

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\epsilon `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑tt^{\epsilon 1}Tre^{tL_D/\mu ^2}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\epsilon )\zeta (\epsilon |L_D/\mu ^2)`$ (1.6)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\zeta (0|L_D)}{\epsilon }}+\zeta ^{}(0|L_D)+(\mathrm{ln}\mu ^2\gamma )\zeta (0|L_D)+O(\epsilon )\right].`$
Other regularisations may be used with $`t^\epsilon `$ substituted by a suitable regularisation function $`\varrho _\epsilon (t)`$ (see, for example ). Recall that the zeta-function regularisation is a finite regularisation and corresponds to the choice

$`\varrho _\epsilon (t)={\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\epsilon }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{t^\epsilon }{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\epsilon )}}\right).`$ (1.7)
The other ones, as is clear from Eq. (1.6), give the same finite part, modulo a renormalisation, and contain divergent terms as the cutoff parameter $`\epsilon 0`$ and these divergent terms have to be removed by related counter-terms.

As a consequence, as will be shown in the following, a crucial role is played by the quantity $`Tre^{tL_D}`$. With regard to this quantity, its short-$`t`$ asymptotics has been extensively studied. For a second-order operator on a boundary-less $`D`$-dimensional (smooth) manifold, it reads

$`K_t{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}A_j(L_D)t^{jD/2},`$ (1.8)
in which $`A_j(L_D)`$ are the Seeley-DeWitt coefficients, which can be computed with different techniques . The divergent terms appearing in a generic regularisation depend on $`A_j(L_D)`$.

In the sequel, we shall also deal with local quantities, which can be defined by the local zeta-function. With this regard, it is relevant the local short $`t`$ heat-kernel asymptotics, which reads (see Appendix B)

$`K_t(L_D)(x)=e^{tL_D}(x){\displaystyle \frac{1}{(4\pi )^{D/2}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}a_j(x|L_D)t^{jD/2},`$ (1.9)
where $`a_j(x|L_D)`$ are the local Seeley-DeWitt coefficients. Some of them are well known and read

$`a_0(x|L_D)`$ $`=`$ $`1,a_1(x|L_D)={\displaystyle \frac{R}{6}}X.`$
$`a_2(x|L_D)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[a_1(x|L_D)]^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}\mathrm{\Delta }_Da_1(x|L_D)`$ (1.10)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{180}}\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_DR+R^{ijkr}R_{ijkr}R^{ij}R_{ij}\right),`$
where $`X`$ is a function which depends on the operator one is dealing with. For example, for the Laplace-like operator in (1.2), $`X=m^2+\xi R`$.

It may be convenient to re-sum partially this asymptotic expansion and one has

$`e^{tL_D}(x){\displaystyle \frac{e^{ta_1(x|L_D)}}{(4\pi )^{D/2}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}b_j(x|L_D)t^{j{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{D}{2}}}.`$ (1.11)
The advantage of the latter expansion with respect to the previous one, is due to the fact that now the $`b_j`$ coefficients depend on the ”potential” $`X`$ only through its derivatives. In fact one has

$`b_0(x|L_D)`$ $`=`$ $`1,b_1(x|L_D)=0,`$
$`b_2(x|L_D)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}\mathrm{\Delta }_Da_1(x|L_D)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{180}}\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_DR+R^{ijkr}R_{ijkr}R^{ij}R_{ij}\right).`$ (1.12)
Further coefficients $`b_j(x|L_D)`$ are reported in Appendix B.

The local zeta-function is defined by means of the Mellin transform, i.e.

$`\zeta (s|L_D)(x)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(s)}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑tt^{s1}e^{tL_D}(x).`$ (1.13)
Making use of the local zeta-function, one may evaluate the effective Lagrangian, which is proportional to $`\zeta ^{}(0|L_D/\mu ^2)(x)`$, and the vacuum-expectation value of the quantum fluctuation given by (see for example)

$`<\mathrm{\Phi }(x)^2>=\underset{\epsilon 0}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\epsilon }}\left[\epsilon \mu ^{2\epsilon }\zeta (1+\epsilon |L_D)\right],`$ (1.14)
which simplifies when $`D`$ is odd, due to the fact that in odd dimensions the zeta-function is regular at $`s=1`$ and so

$`<\mathrm{\Phi }(x)^2>=\zeta (1|L_D).`$ (1.15)
Since the exact expression of the local zeta-function is known only in a limited number of cases, in general one has to make use of some approximations. If the coefficient $`a_1(x|L_D)`$ is very large and negative (this is true if the case of large mass), one may obtain an asymptotic expansion of the local zeta-function by means of the short $`t`$ expansion (1.9) and the Mellin transform in the form

$`\zeta (s|L_D)(x)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(s\frac{D}{2})}{(4\pi )^{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{D}{2}}}\mathrm{\Gamma }(s)}}\left(a_1(x|L_D)\right)^{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{D}{2}}s}`$ (1.16)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{j=2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(s+j\frac{D}{2})}{(4\pi )^{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{D}{2}}}\mathrm{\Gamma }(s)}}\left(a_1(x|L_D)\right)^{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{D}{2}}sj}b_j(x|L_D).`$
The latter expansion directly gives the analytic continuation in the whole complex plane. The global zeta-function can be obtained integrating over the manifold.

The content of the paper is the following. In Sec. 2, the dimensional-reduced theory is introduced and the formalism is developed. In Secs. 3 and 4, the two symmetric spaces $`R^D`$ and HD are considered in some detail. In Sec. 5, the general case is considered making use of the heat-kernel asymptotics. The paper ends with the conclusions and two Appendices, where some technical details are reported.

## 2 Dimensional-reduced theory, dimensional reduced heat-kernel and dimensional-reduction anomaly

Here we introduce the dimensional-reduced theory according to . We indicate by $`\stackrel{~}{M}_D`$ a $`D`$-dimensional Riemannian manifold with metric $`\stackrel{~}{g}_{\mu \nu }`$ and coordinates $`\stackrel{~}{x}^\mu `$ ($`\mu ,\nu =1,\mathrm{},D`$) and by $`M_P`$ and $`\widehat{M}_Q`$ ($`Q=DP`$) two sub-manifolds with coordinates $`x^i`$ ($`i,j=1,\mathrm{},P`$) and $`\widehat{x}^a`$ ($`a,b=P+1,\mathrm{},D`$) and metrics $`g_{ij}`$ and $`\widehat{g}_{ab}`$ respectively, related to $`\stackrel{~}{g}_{\mu \nu }`$ by the warped product

$`d\stackrel{~}{s}^2=\stackrel{~}{g}_{\mu \nu }d\stackrel{~}{x}^\mu d\stackrel{~}{x}^\nu =g_{ij}(x)dx^idx^j+e^{2\sigma (x)}\widehat{g}_{ab}(\widehat{x})d\widehat{x}^ad\widehat{x}^b.`$ (2.1)
Here, $`\widehat{M}_Q=\mathrm{\Sigma }_Q`$ is a constant curvature symmetric space.

We shall use the notation $`\stackrel{~}{R}_{\beta \gamma \delta }^\alpha `$, $`R_{jmn}^i`$ and $`\widehat{R}_{bcd}^a`$ for Riemann tensors in $`\stackrel{~}{M}_D`$, $`M_P`$ and $`\widehat{M}_Q`$ respectively, and similarly for all other quantities. In the Appendix A, one can find the relationship between the geometrical quantities related to the sub-manifolds.

We start with a scalar field $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\stackrel{~}{x})`$ in the Riemannian manifold $`\stackrel{~}{M}_D`$. Using Eqs. (A.4) and (A.1) in the appendix A, for the Laplacian-like operator we have

$`L_D\mathrm{\Phi }(\stackrel{~}{x})=\stackrel{~}{L}\mathrm{\Phi }(\stackrel{~}{x})=(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}+\xi \stackrel{~}{R}+m^2)\mathrm{\Phi }(\stackrel{~}{x})=(L+e^{2\sigma }\widehat{L})\mathrm{\Phi }(\stackrel{~}{x}),`$ (2.2)
where

$`L=\mathrm{\Delta }+Q\sigma ^k_k+\xi \left[R+2Q\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma Q(Q+1)\sigma ^k\sigma _k\right]+m^2,`$ (2.3)
$`\widehat{L}=\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}.`$ (2.4)
In order to dimensionally reduce the theory, let us introduce the harmonic analysis on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_Q`$ by means of

$`\widehat{L}Y_\alpha (\widehat{x})=\lambda _\alpha Y_\alpha (\widehat{x}),`$ (2.5)
$`\lambda _\alpha ,Y_\alpha `$ being the eigenvalues and eigenfunctions of $`\widehat{L}`$ on the symmetric space $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_Q=\widehat{M}_Q`$. For any scalar field in $`\stackrel{~}{M}_D`$, we can write

$`\mathrm{\Phi }(\stackrel{~}{x})={\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}\varphi _\alpha (x)Y_\alpha (\widehat{x})`$ (2.6)
and for the partition function, after integration over $`Y_\alpha `$ in the classical action,

$`Z^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d[\overline{\varphi }]e^{{\scriptscriptstyle \widehat{\varphi }\stackrel{~}{L}\widehat{\varphi }\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{g}}d^Pxd^Q\widehat{x}}}}={\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}Z_\alpha ,`$ (2.7)
where

$`Z_\alpha ={\displaystyle d[\overline{\varphi }_\alpha ]e^{{\scriptscriptstyle \overline{\varphi }_\alpha L_\alpha \overline{\varphi }_\alpha d^Px}}}.`$ (2.8)
Here $`\overline{\varphi }=\sqrt[4]{\stackrel{~}{g}}\varphi `$ and $`\overline{\varphi }_\alpha =\sqrt[4]{g}\varphi _\alpha `$ are scalar densities of weight $`1/2`$ and the dimensional reduced operators read

$`L_\alpha =\mathrm{\Delta }+V+e^{2\sigma }\lambda _\alpha ,`$
$`V=m^2+\xi \left[R+2Q\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma Q(Q+1)\sigma ^k\sigma _k\right]{\displaystyle \frac{Q}{2}}\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma +{\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{4}}\sigma ^k\sigma _k.`$ (2.9)
In the following, we will denote by an asterix all the quantities associated with the dimensional reduced operators. As a result, we formally have

$`Z^{}={\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}\left(det{\displaystyle \frac{L_\alpha }{\mu ^2}}\right)^{1/2}.`$ (2.10)
If we ignore the multiplicative anomaly associated with functional determinants, we have

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}=\mathrm{ln}Z^{}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}\mathrm{ln}det{\displaystyle \frac{L_\alpha }{\mu ^2}}.`$ (2.11)
This formal expression may be regularised and renormalized and we have

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\epsilon ^{}={\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^{2\epsilon }}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑tt^1g_\epsilon (t)Tre^{tL_\alpha }.`$ (2.12)
Removing the cutoff and, for example making use of a finite regularisation, one arrives at

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}\zeta ^{}(0|{\displaystyle \frac{L_\alpha }{\mu ^2}}).`$ (2.13)
Within this procedure, a quite natural definition of the dimensional-reduction anomaly is

$`A_{DRA}=\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}.`$ (2.14)
However, there exists another possible procedure: if we do not remove the ultraviolet cutoff $`\epsilon `$, we may interchange the harmonic sum and the integral and arrive at

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\epsilon ^{}={\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^{2\epsilon }}{2}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑tt^1g_\epsilon (t)K_t^{},`$ (2.15)
where we have introduced the dimensionally reduced heat-kernel trace

$`K_t^{}={\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}Tre^{tL_\alpha }.`$ (2.16)
It is clear that within this second procedure, the existence of a non vanishing dimensional reduction anomaly is strictly related to the fact whether the identity

$`K_t^{}=K_t`$ (2.17)
holds.

In the following Sections, the validity of the identity (2.17) will be investigated.

## 3 The flat symmetric space $`R^D`$

In this Section we shall show that, by performing exactly the harmonic sum, the Eq. (2.17) holds.

Let us consider a free massive scalar field in the D-dimensional Euclidean space $`R^D`$. The relevant operator is

$`L_D=\mathrm{\Delta }_D+m^2`$ (3.1)
and the corresponding heat-kernel reads

$`K_t(L_D)={\displaystyle \frac{e^{tm^2}}{(4\pi t)^{D/2}}}V(R^D),V(R^D)={\displaystyle 𝑑\tau 𝑑\stackrel{}{x}}.`$ (3.2)
Here $`V(R^D)`$ is the (infinite) volume of the manifold.

We can also use spherical co-ordinates. Then

$`ds^2=d\tau ^2+dr^2+r^2dS_Q^2,`$ (3.3)
where $`dS_Q^2`$ is the measure of the $`Q=(D2)`$-dimensional unitary sphere $`S_Q`$, which plays the role of the symmetric space $`\widehat{M}_Q`$ in the previous section. In spherical co-ordinates, the volume is given by

$`V(R^D)=\mathrm{\Omega }_Q{\displaystyle 𝑑\tau r^Q𝑑r},\mathrm{\Omega }_Q={\displaystyle \frac{2\pi ^{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{Q+1}{2}}}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{Q+1}{2})}},`$
$`\mathrm{\Omega }_Q`$ being the volume of the sphere $`S_Q`$. The warp factor $`e^{2\sigma }=r^2`$ and $`V`$, in Eq. (2.9), becomes

$`V=m^2+{\displaystyle \frac{Q}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{Q}{2}}1\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^2}}.`$
The spectrum of the Laplacian $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ on the sphere $`S_Q`$ is well known. In fact, the eigenvalues $`\lambda _\alpha \lambda _l`$ and the corresponding degeneration are given by

$`\lambda _l=l(l+Q1),l0,`$ (3.4)
$`D_l^Q=(2l+Q1){\displaystyle \frac{(l+Q2)!}{(Q1)!l!}},D_0^Q=1.`$ (3.5)
From Eq. (2) then we directly have

$`L_l=_\tau ^2_r^2+{\displaystyle \frac{C_l}{r^2}}+m^2,C_l={\displaystyle \frac{(2l+Q1)^21}{4}}.`$ (3.6)
Using the factorisation property of the heat kernel , for the operator $`L_l`$ we get

$`K_t(L_l)=K_t\left(_r^2+{\displaystyle \frac{C_l}{r^2}}\right)K_t(_\tau ^2+m^2)=K_t\left(_r^2+{\displaystyle \frac{C_l}{r^2}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{e^{tm^2}}{\sqrt{4\pi t}}}{\displaystyle 𝑑\tau }.`$
The spectrum of $`_r^2+C_l/r^2`$ is continuous and non negative. We indicate by $`\lambda ^2`$ the eigenvalues and by $`\psi _l`$ the eigenfunctions which are given by

$`\psi _l(r)=\sqrt{r}J_{\nu _l}(\lambda r),\nu _l=l+{\displaystyle \frac{Q1}{2}},`$
$`J_\nu `$ being the Bessel functions of the the first kind. The heat-kernel density, by definition, is given by

$`K_t(r|L_l)={\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}e^{t\lambda ^2}|\psi _l(r)|^2\lambda 𝑑\lambda ={\displaystyle \frac{re^{r^2/2t}}{2t}}I_{\nu _l}\left({\displaystyle \frac{r^2}{2t}}\right).`$
For the whole operator we finally get

$`K_t^{}(L_D)={\displaystyle \frac{e^{tm^2}}{\sqrt{4\pi t}}}{\displaystyle 𝑑\tau \frac{re^{r^2/2t}}{2t}\underset{l=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}D_l^QI_{\nu _l}\left(\frac{r^2}{2t}\right)dr}.`$ (3.7)
This must be compared with Eq. (3.2). To this aim we recall some properties of the modified Bessel functions $`I_\nu `$ and the Legendre polynomials, that is

$`{\displaystyle \underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}t^nI_n(z)=e^{\frac{z(t^2+1)}{2t}},I_n(z)=I_n(z),n=1,2,\mathrm{}`$ (3.8)
$`2\nu I_\nu (z)=z\left[I_{\nu 1}(z)I_{\nu +1}(z)\right],`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{l=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}(2l+1)P_l(t)I_{l+1/2}(z)=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2z}{\pi }}}e^{zt},P_l(1)=1.`$ (3.9)
From the latter equations with $`t=1`$ we obtain

$`{\displaystyle \underset{l=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}D_l^1I_l(z)={\displaystyle \underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}I_n(z)=e^z,`$ (3.10)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{l=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}D_l^2I_{l+1/2}(z)={\displaystyle \underset{l=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}(2l+1)I_{l+1/2}(z)=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2z}{\pi }}}e^z.`$ (3.11)
Now, by induction, we are able to prove the following equation:

$`{\displaystyle \underset{l=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}D_l^QI_{\nu _l}(z)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(2\nu _0+1)}}{\displaystyle \underset{\nu =\nu _0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\nu +\nu _0)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\nu +1\nu _0)}}\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}\nu I_\nu (z)={\displaystyle \frac{z^{\nu _0}e^z}{2^{\nu _0}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\nu _0+1)}},`$ (3.12)
where the sum is over integer or half-integer $`\nu `$ according to whether $`\nu _0=(Q1)/2`$ is integer or half-integer.

For $`Q=1`$ ($`\nu _0=0`$) and $`Q=2`$ ($`\nu _0=1/2`$), the latter equation reduces to (3.10) and (3.11) respectively. Then, let us suppose Eq. (3.12) to be true for a given $`\nu _0`$ and show that it remains true also for $`\nu _0+1`$. In fact we have

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(2\nu _0+3)}}{\displaystyle \underset{\nu =\nu _0+1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\nu +\nu _0+1)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\nu \nu _0)}}\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}\nu I_\nu (z)=`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{z}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(2\nu _0+3)}}{\displaystyle \underset{\nu =\nu _0+1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\nu +\nu _0+1)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\nu \nu _0)}}\left[I_{\nu 1}(z)I_{\nu +1}(z)\right]=`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{z}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(2\nu _0+3)}}{\displaystyle \underset{\nu =\nu _0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\nu +\nu _0)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\nu \nu _0+1)}}I_\nu (z)\left[(\nu +\nu _0)(\nu +\nu _0+1)(\nu \nu _0)(\nu \nu _01)\right]=`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{z(2\mu _0+1)}{2(\nu _0+1)}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(2\nu _0+1)}}{\displaystyle \underset{\nu =\nu _0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\nu +\nu _0}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\nu \nu _0+1)}}\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}\nu I_\nu (z)=`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{z^{\nu _0+1}e^z}{2^{\nu _0+1}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\nu _0+2)}}.`$
Using (3.12) in (3.7) we finally obtain the announced result

$`K_t^{}(L_D)={\displaystyle \frac{e^{tm^2}}{(4\pi t)^{D/2}}}\mathrm{\Omega }_Q{\displaystyle 𝑑\tau r^Q𝑑r}=K_t(L_D).`$ (3.13)
We conclude this Section observing that the above result also holds for an Euclidean Rindler space, since it can be regarded as the product of an Euclidean space in polar coordinates times an Euclidean transverse space.

## 4 The non-flat symmetric spaces $`H^D`$

In this Section, we complete the analysis on the validity of the Eq. (2.17) considering the case $`H^D`$. For the sake of simplicity, we shall not deal with $`S^D`$, which is more involved and can be found in .

It is convenient to make use of the Poincaré form for the metric of $`H^D`$, namely

$`ds^2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{x^2}}\left(d^2\stackrel{}{y}+dx^2\right).`$ (4.1)
Thus, we have the warp product $`R\times R^Q`$ ($`P=1`$, $`Q=D1`$). The manifold is non compact and the spectrum of $`L_D=\mathrm{\Delta }_D`$ is continuous. The diagonal part of the heat-kernel of $`L_D`$ on $`H^D`$ can be obtained directly making use of the Selberg transform (see, for example,  and references cited there) and reads

$`K_t(L_D)=V_D{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\lambda e^{t\lambda ^2}\mathrm{\Phi }_D(\lambda ),`$ (4.2)
where $`V_D`$ is the volume of $`H^D`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_D(\lambda )`$ the Harish-Chandra-Plancherel measure given by

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_D(\lambda )={\displaystyle \frac{2}{(4\pi )^{D/2}\mathrm{\Gamma }(D/2)}}{\displaystyle \frac{|\mathrm{\Gamma }(i\lambda +(D1)/2)|^2}{|\mathrm{\Gamma }(i\lambda )|^2}}.`$ (4.3)
Now let us start the computation of $`K_t^{}(L_D)`$. In the Poincaré representation, $`\widehat{M}_Q=R^Q`$ is again a non compact manifold and the spectrum of the Laplacian $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}_Q`$ on it is continuous and formed by $`\lambda _\alpha \lambda _\stackrel{}{k}=\stackrel{}{k}^2>0`$. The reduced harmonic operator is

$`L_\alpha =L_\stackrel{}{k}=x^2_x^2+(Q1)x_x+\stackrel{}{k}^2x^2.`$ (4.4)
The related heat-kernel can be computed by means of the Harish-Chandra method , namely by solving the generalized eigenfunction equation

$`\left[x^2_x^2+(Q1)x_x+\stackrel{}{k}^2x^2\right]f_\lambda (x)=\lambda ^2f_\lambda (x).`$ (4.5)
The only solutions with the corrected behavior at the infinity are

$`f_\lambda (x)=x^{Q/2}K_{i\lambda }(xk),k=|\stackrel{}{k}|,`$ (4.6)
where $`K_z(x)`$ is the modified Bessel function. The spectral theorem gives for the local reduced heat-kernel

$`K_t(x|L_\stackrel{}{k})={\displaystyle \frac{x^Q}{(2\pi )^Q}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\lambda \mu (\lambda )e^{t\lambda ^2}K_{i\lambda }^2(xk),`$ (4.7)
where $`\mu (\lambda )`$ is the Kontarevich measure, namely

$`\mu (\lambda )={\displaystyle \frac{2}{\pi |\mathrm{\Gamma }(i\lambda )|^2}}={\displaystyle \frac{2}{\pi ^2}}\lambda \mathrm{sinh}\pi \lambda .`$ (4.8)
The harmonic sum is now replaced by an integral and we have

$`K_t^{}(x|L_D)={\displaystyle _{R^Q}}𝑑\stackrel{}{k}K_t(L_\stackrel{}{k})={\displaystyle \frac{x^Q\mathrm{\Omega }_{Q1}}{(2\pi )^Q}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\lambda \mu (\lambda )e^{t\lambda ^2}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑kk^{Q1}K_{i\lambda }^2(xk).`$ (4.9)
The integration over $`k`$ involving the modified Bessel function can be done as well as the trivial integration over the coordinates and the result is

$`K_t^{}(L_D)=V_D{\displaystyle \frac{2}{(4\pi )^{D/2}\mathrm{\Gamma }(D/2)}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\lambda {\displaystyle \frac{|\mathrm{\Gamma }(i\lambda +(D1)/2)|^2}{|\mathrm{\Gamma }(i\lambda )|^2}}e^{t\lambda ^2}.`$ (4.10)
Recalling Eqs. (4.2) and (4.3), one finally gets

$`K_t^{}(L_D)=K_t(L_D).`$ (4.11)
As a consequence, also in the constant curvature space $`H^D`$, Eq. (2.17) holds.

## 5 The general case

The result of the previous Sections tell us that it is very crucial to be able to perform the harmonic sum. In general, this is not possible. For this reason, we shall restrict ourselves to the class of non-trivial warped space-time of the kind considered in Sec. 2 and make use of the short $`t`$ heat-kernel expansion. For the exact theory we have (here $`L_D=\stackrel{~}{L}`$)

$`K_t(\stackrel{~}{L})=Tre^{t\stackrel{~}{L}}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(4\pi t)^{D/2}}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\stackrel{~}{a}_n(\stackrel{~}{x}|\stackrel{~}{L})t^n,`$ (5.1)
with

$`\stackrel{~}{a}_1`$ $`=`$ $`a_1+e^{2\sigma }\widehat{a}_1{\displaystyle \frac{Q}{6}}\left[\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma \left({\displaystyle \frac{Q}{2}}1\right)\sigma ^k\sigma _k\right],`$ (5.2)
$`\stackrel{~}{a}_2`$ $`=`$ $`a_2+e^{4\sigma }\widehat{a}_2+e^{2\sigma }a_1\widehat{a}_1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{90}}\sigma ^k_kR{\displaystyle \frac{1}{45}}\mathrm{}`$ (5.3)
where, as in Sec. 2, all quantities with tilde refers to the whole manifold $`\stackrel{~}{M}_D`$ and all quantities with hat refers to the sub-manifold $`\widehat{M}_Q`$.

With regard to the dimensional reduced kernel

$`K_t^{}(\stackrel{~}{L})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}Tre^{tL_\alpha },`$ (5.4)
where

$`L_\alpha =\mathrm{\Delta }+V+e^{2\sigma }\lambda _\alpha ,`$
$`V=m^2+\xi \left[R+2Q\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma Q(Q+1)\sigma ^k\sigma _k\right]{\displaystyle \frac{Q}{2}}\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma +{\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{4}}\sigma ^k\sigma _k,`$ (5.5)
the short $`t`$ expansion can be computed by means of a straightforward computation, which is summarized in the following. Recalling the heat-kernel expansion relations (see Appendix B), we can write

$`K_t^{}(\stackrel{~}{L})`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(4\pi t)^{D/2}}}{\displaystyle _{\stackrel{~}{M}_D}}\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{g}}d^D\stackrel{~}{x}e^{t(a_1e^{2\sigma }\lambda _\alpha )}{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}b_n(x|L_\alpha )t^n`$ (5.6)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(4\pi t)^{D/2}}}{\displaystyle _{\stackrel{~}{M}_D}}\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{g}}d^D\stackrel{~}{x}e^{t(a_1e^{2\sigma }\lambda _\alpha )}`$
$`\times \left[1+{\displaystyle \underset{n2;0k2n/3}{}}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{nk}\lambda _\alpha ^kt^n\right].`$
Now we observe that

$`K_\tau ^{}(\widehat{L})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(4\pi \tau )^{Q/2}}}{\displaystyle _{\widehat{M}_Q}}\sqrt{\widehat{g}}d^Q\widehat{x}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}e^{\tau \lambda _\alpha }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(4\pi \tau )^{Q/2}}}{\displaystyle _{\widehat{M}_Q}}\sqrt{\widehat{g}}d^Q\widehat{x}{\displaystyle \underset{l=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\widehat{a}_l\tau ^l,`$ (5.7)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^kK_\tau ^{}(\widehat{L})}{d\tau ^k}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(1)^k}{(4\pi \tau )^{Q/2}}}{\displaystyle _{\widehat{M}_Q}}\sqrt{\widehat{g}}d^Q\widehat{x}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}e^{\tau \lambda _\alpha }\lambda _\alpha `$ (5.8)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(4\pi \tau )^{Q/2}}}{\displaystyle _{\widehat{M}_Q}}\sqrt{\widehat{g}}d^Q\widehat{x}{\displaystyle \underset{l=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(lQ/2+1)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(lQ/2+1k)}}\widehat{a}_l\tau ^{lk}.`$
By setting $`\tau =e^{2\sigma }`$ and using Eq. (5.8) in Eq. (5.6), we finally obtain

$`K_t^{}(\stackrel{~}{L})`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(4\pi t)^{D/2}}}{\displaystyle _{\stackrel{~}{M}_D}}\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{g}}d^D\stackrel{~}{x}{\displaystyle \underset{l,j=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{a_1^j\widehat{a}_lt^{l+j}}{j!}}e^{2l\sigma }`$ (5.9)
$`\times \left[1+{\displaystyle \underset{n2;0k2n/3}{}}(1)^k{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(lQ/2+1)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(lQ/2+1k)}}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{nk}e^{2k\sigma }t^{nk}\right]`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(4\pi t)^{D/2}}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\stackrel{~}{a}_n^{}(\stackrel{~}{x}|\stackrel{~}{L})t^n.`$
By the latter equation we immediately read off the heat kernel coefficients. In particular, we get

$`a_1^{}(\stackrel{~}{x}|\stackrel{~}{L})`$ $`=`$ $`a_1+e^{2\sigma }\widehat{a}_1+{\displaystyle \frac{Q}{2}}e^{2\sigma }\mathrm{\Lambda }_{21}+{\displaystyle \frac{Q}{4}}(Q+2)e^{4\sigma }\mathrm{\Lambda }_{32},`$ (5.10)
$`a_2^{}(\stackrel{~}{x}|\stackrel{~}{L})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}a_1^2+e^{4\sigma }\widehat{a}_2+e^{2\sigma }a_1\widehat{a}_1+\mathrm{\Lambda }_{20}+{\displaystyle \frac{Q}{2}}a_1e^{2\sigma }\mathrm{\Lambda }_{21}`$ (5.11)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{Q}{4}}(Q2)\widehat{a}_1\mathrm{\Lambda }_{21}+{\displaystyle \frac{Q}{2}}e^{2\sigma }\mathrm{\Lambda }_{31}+{\displaystyle \frac{Q}{4}}(Q+2)a_1e^{4\sigma }\mathrm{\Lambda }_{32}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{Q}{4}}(Q2)\widehat{a}_1e^{2\sigma }\mathrm{\Lambda }_{32}+{\displaystyle \frac{Q}{4}}(Q+2)e^{4\sigma }\mathrm{\Lambda }_{42}+{\displaystyle \frac{Q}{8}}(Q+2)(Q+4)e^{6\sigma }\mathrm{\Lambda }_{53}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{Q}{16}}(Q+2)(Q+4)(Q+6)e^{8\sigma }\mathrm{\Lambda }_{64},`$
Using the relations in Appendices A and B one can show that the latter coefficients $`a_1^{}(\stackrel{~}{x}|\stackrel{~}{L})`$ and $`a_2^{}(\stackrel{~}{x}|\stackrel{~}{L})`$ exactly coincide with $`\stackrel{~}{a}_1`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{a}_2`$, Eqs. (5.2), (5.3).

As a consequence, one has

$`K_t(\stackrel{~}{L}){\displaystyle \frac{e^{t\stackrel{~}{a}_1(\stackrel{~}{x}|\stackrel{~}{L})}}{(4\pi t)^{D/2}}}\left[1+b_2(\stackrel{~}{x}|\stackrel{~}{L})t^2+b_3(\stackrel{~}{x}|\stackrel{~}{L})t^3+\mathrm{}\right],`$ (5.12)
$`K_t^{}(\stackrel{~}{L}){\displaystyle \frac{e^{t\stackrel{~}{a}_1(\stackrel{~}{x}|\stackrel{~}{L})}}{(4\pi t)^{D/2}}}\left[1+b_2(\stackrel{~}{x}|\stackrel{~}{L})t^2+b_3^{}(\stackrel{~}{x}|\stackrel{~}{L})t^3+\mathrm{}\right].`$ (5.13)
What about $`b_3^{}(\stackrel{~}{x}|\stackrel{~}{L})`$, $`b_4^{}(\stackrel{~}{x}|\stackrel{~}{L})`$, …? Within our short $`t`$ approximation, we are not able to say anything about the relationship with $`b_3(\stackrel{~}{x}|\stackrel{~}{L})`$, $`b_4(\stackrel{~}{x}|\stackrel{~}{L})`$, … However, it is quite natural to make the conjecture that $`b_n^{}(\stackrel{~}{x}|\stackrel{~}{L})=b_n(\stackrel{~}{x}|\stackrel{~}{L})`$ for every $`n`$ and Eq. (2.17) holds exactly.

## 6 Conclusions.

In this paper, the issue related to the dimensional reduction procedure has been revisited. In the symmetric and constant curvature space-times, as $`R^D`$ and $`H^D`$, we have shown that the two local diagonal heat-kernels, namely the exact one and the one obtained summing the dimensional reduced harmonic heat-kernels, are equal. This result holds for a generic symmetric space.

In the general case, due to the impossibility to deal with exact quantities, we have used a short $`t`$ expansion and a partial re-summation of the heat-kernel expansion. We have conjectured that the exact and total dimensional reduced kernel are equal. Let us discuss about the consequences of this statement.

After the dimensional reduction, as far as the effective action is concerned, the operation of renormalisation (addition of counter-terms and remotion of the cutoff) and the evaluation of the harmonic sum do not commute. If we keep fixed and non vanishing the regularisation parameter, we may perform the harmonic sum, and if (2.17) holds, we may reconstruct the exact partition function, after renormalisation. In such a case, it is evident that no dimensional reduction anomaly occurs.

On the other hand, one may remove the cutoff, adding the necessary counter-terms or using a finite regularisation like the zeta-function and perform the harmonic sum at the end. In this case, as shown in reference , one has to correct the result by adding dimensional reduction anomaly terms.

It has to be stressed that the appearance of the reduction anomaly is independent on the regularisation scheme one is dealing with, since the regularised effective action, after the removal of divergences, is the same for all regularisations .

There exists also a mathematical reason for the necessity of these reduction anomaly terms. In fact, the harmonic sum of the renormalized dimensionally reduced effective action diverges and the dimensional anomaly reduction terms are also necessary to recover the exact and finite result. This is a consequence of the following asymptotic behaviour of the partial renormalized effective action, valid for very large $`\lambda _\alpha `$ (for the sake of simplicity here $`D`$ is assumed to be odd)

$`\zeta ^{}(0|L_\alpha )\mathrm{\Gamma }(D/2)(V+\lambda _\alpha e^{2\sigma })^{D/2}+\mathrm{}.`$ (6.1)
As a result, the harmonic sum over $`\alpha `$ is badly divergent! This fact stems also from the necessity of the presence of the multiplicative anomaly, since it also diverges, being associated with a product of an infinite number of dimensional reduced operators .

As a consequence, any approximation  based on the truncation in the harmonic sum of the dimensional reduced theory, may lead, with regard to the comparison with the exact theory, to incorrect conclusions (see also the discussions and further references reported in ).

## A Relations between curvatures

Here we write down the relations between curvatures and Laplacian on the manifolds we are dealing with.

For the non vanishing components of connections and curvatures we directly obtain

$`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{ij}^k`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^k,\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{ab}^k=e^{2\sigma }\sigma ^k\widehat{g}_{ab},`$
$`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{bc}^a`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{bc}^a,\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{kb}^a=\sigma _k\delta _b^a,`$
$`\stackrel{~}{R}_{ijmn}`$ $`=`$ $`R_{ijmn},`$
$`\stackrel{~}{R}_{abcd}`$ $`=`$ $`e^{2\sigma }\widehat{R}_{abcd}e^{4\sigma }\left(\widehat{g}_{ac}\widehat{g}_{bd}\widehat{g}_{ad}\widehat{g}_{bc}\right),`$
$`\stackrel{~}{R}_{iajb}`$ $`=`$ $`e^{2\sigma }\left(\sigma _{ij}\sigma _i\sigma _j\right),`$
where

$`\sigma _k=_k\sigma (x),\sigma ^k=g^{kj}\sigma _j,\sigma _{ij}=_i_j\sigma (x),`$
are the covariant derivatives, in the metric $`g`$, of the scalar function $`\sigma (x)`$. By contraction we get

$`\stackrel{~}{R}_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`R_{ij}+Q\left(\sigma _{ij}\sigma _i\sigma _j\right),`$
$`\stackrel{~}{R}_{ab}`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{R}_{ab}+e^{2\sigma }\widehat{g}_{ab}\left(\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma Q\sigma ^k\sigma _k\right),`$
$`\stackrel{~}{R}=R+e^{2\sigma }\widehat{R}+2Q\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma Q(Q+1)\sigma ^k\sigma _k,`$ (A.1)
and also

$`\stackrel{~}{R}^{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }\stackrel{~}{R}_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }`$ $`=`$ $`R^{ijmn}R_{ijmn}+e^{4\sigma }\widehat{R}^{abcd}\widehat{R}_{abcd}4e^{2\sigma }\widehat{R}\left(\sigma ^k\sigma _k\right)`$ (A.2)
$`+4Q\sigma ^{ij}\sigma _{ij}8Q\sigma ^{ij}\sigma _i\sigma _j+2+Q(Q+1)(\sigma ^k\sigma _k)^2,`$
$`\stackrel{~}{R}^{\alpha \beta }\stackrel{~}{R}_{\alpha \beta }`$ $`=`$ $`R^{ij}R_{ij}+e^{4\sigma }\widehat{R}^{ab}\widehat{R}_{ab}+2QR^{ij}\left(\sigma _{ij}\sigma _i\sigma _j\right)`$ (A.3)
$`+2e^{2\sigma }\widehat{R}\left(\mathrm{\Delta }siQ\sigma ^k\sigma _k\right)+Q^2\sigma ^{ij}\sigma _{ij}2Q^2\sigma ^{ij}\sigma _i\sigma _j`$
$`+Q(\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma )^22Q^2\sigma ^k\sigma _k\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma +Q^2(Q+1)(\sigma ^k\sigma _k)^2.`$
Finally, for the Laplacian of any scalar function $`f(\stackrel{~}{x})`$ on $`\stackrel{~}{M}_D`$ we have

$`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}f(\stackrel{~}{x})=\left(\mathrm{\Delta }+e^{2\sigma }\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}Q\sigma ^k_k\right)f(\stackrel{~}{x}).`$ (A.4)
## B Heat kernel coefficients

The heat kernel for a Laplacian-like operator $`L=\mathrm{\Delta }+X`$ on a $`P`$-dimensional curved manifold without boundary is usually written in the form

$`K_t(x|L)\left(4\pi t\right)^{P/2}{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}a_nt^{n/2},`$ (B.1)
where the spectral coefficients $`a_n`$ are computable quantities depending on $`V`$, its covariant derivatives and all geometric invariants. There exists also an alternative expansion  which has the advantage with respect to the previous one that the expansion coefficients depend on $`V`$ only by its covariant derivatives. It reads

$`K_t(x|L){\displaystyle \frac{e^{ta_1}}{\left(4\pi t\right)^{P/2}}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}b_nt^{n/2}.`$ (B.2)
Some coefficients are explicitly known and can be found in Refs. . They read ($`a_0=b_0=1`$ by definition),

$`a_1={\displaystyle \frac{R}{6}}X,b_1=0,`$ (B.3)
$`b_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}\mathrm{\Delta }a_1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{180}}\left(\mathrm{\Delta }R+R^{ijrs}R_{ijrs}R^{ij}R_{ij}\right),`$ (B.4)
$`b_3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}^kX_kX{\displaystyle \frac{1}{60}}\mathrm{\Delta }^2X{\displaystyle \frac{1}{90}}R^{ij}_i_jX{\displaystyle \frac{1}{30}}^kR_kX+\mathrm{},`$ (B.5)
$`b_4`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{72}}(\mathrm{\Delta }X)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{90}}^i^jX_i_jX`$ (B.6)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{30}}^kX_k\mathrm{\Delta }X+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{60}}R^{ij}_iX_jX+\mathrm{},`$
$`b_5`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{72}}^kX_kX\mathrm{\Delta }X{\displaystyle \frac{1}{60}}^iX^jX_i_jX+\mathrm{},`$ (B.7)
$`b_6`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{288}}\left(^kX_kX\right)^2+\mathrm{},`$ (B.8)
where $`\mathrm{}`$ stand for lower terms in $`X`$.

The operator we are dealing with in the paper is

$`L_\alpha =\mathrm{\Delta }+V+e^{2\sigma }\lambda _\alpha `$
and so we write

$`b_n={\displaystyle \underset{0k2n/3}{}}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{nk}\lambda _\alpha ^k,n2.`$
In the latter equation, the restriction on the range of $`k`$ can be easily derived by dimensional considerations. Using the above results, for the quantities we need in the paper, after straightforward calculations we get

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{20}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}\mathrm{\Delta }\left({\displaystyle \frac{R}{6}}V\right),`$ (B.9)
$`e^{2\sigma }\mathrm{\Lambda }_{21}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma {\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\sigma ^k\sigma _k,`$ (B.10)
$`e^{2\sigma }\mathrm{\Lambda }_{31}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\sigma ^k_k\left({\displaystyle \frac{R}{6}}V\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{90}}\sigma ^k_kR{\displaystyle \frac{1}{45}}R^{ij}(7\sigma _{ij}+2\sigma _i\sigma _j)`$ (B.11)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{30}}\mathrm{\Delta }^2\sigma {\displaystyle \frac{1}{15}}(\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma )^2{\displaystyle \frac{4}{15}}\sigma ^k\sigma _k\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma `$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{15}}\left[4(\sigma ^k\sigma _k)^2+4\sigma ^k_k\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma +2\sigma ^{ij}\sigma _{ij}+8\sigma ^{ij}\sigma _i\sigma _j\right],`$
$`e^{4\sigma }\mathrm{\Lambda }_{32}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\sigma ^k\sigma _k`$ (B.12)
$`e^{4\sigma }\mathrm{\Lambda }_{42}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{15}}R^{ij}\sigma _i\sigma _j+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{18}}(\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma )^2+{\displaystyle \frac{14}{15}}(\sigma ^k\sigma _k)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{22}{45}}\sigma ^k\sigma _k\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma `$ (B.13)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{15}}\sigma ^k_k\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma +{\displaystyle \frac{2}{45}}\sigma ^{ij}\sigma _{ij}+{\displaystyle \frac{32}{45}}\sigma ^{ij}\sigma _i\sigma _j,`$
$`e^{6\sigma }\mathrm{\Lambda }_{53}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{9}}\sigma ^k\sigma _k\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma {\displaystyle \frac{22}{45}}(\sigma ^k\sigma _k)^2{\displaystyle \frac{2}{15}}\sigma ^{ij}\sigma _i\sigma _j,`$ (B.14)
$`e^{8\sigma }\mathrm{\Lambda }_{64}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{18}}(\sigma ^k\sigma _k)^2.`$ (B.15)


text:
# Three Loop Free Energy Using Screened Perturbation Theory aafootnote a Talk given at Conference on Strong and Electroweak Matter (SEWM 2000), Marseille, France, 14-17 June 2000.

## 1 Introduction

The heavy-ion collision experiments at RHIC and LHC give us for the first time the possibility to study the properties of the high-temperature phase of QCD. There are many methods that can be used to calculate the properties of the quark-gluon plasma. One of these methods is lattice gauge theory, which gives reliable results for equilibrium properties such as the pressure but cannot easily be applied to real-time processes. Another method is the weak-coupling expansion, which can be applied to both static and dynamical quantities. However, it turns out that the weak-coupling expansion for e.g. the pressure does not converge unless the strong coupling constant $`\alpha _s`$ is tiny. This corresponds to a temperature which is several orders of magnitude larger than those relevant for experiments at RHIC and LHC.

The poor convergence of weak-coupling expansion also shows up in the case of scalar field theory. For a massless scalar field theory with a $`g^2\varphi ^4/4!`$ interaction, the weak-coupling expansion for the pressure to order $`g^5`$ is $`^\mathrm{?}`$$`^{}`$$`^\mathrm{?}`$

$`𝒫`$ $`=`$ $`𝒫_{\mathrm{ideal}}[1{\displaystyle \frac{5}{4}}\alpha +{\displaystyle \frac{5\sqrt{6}}{3}}\alpha ^{3/2}+{\displaystyle \frac{15}{4}}(\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{2\pi T}}+0.40)\alpha ^2`$ (1.1)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{15\sqrt{6}}{2}}(\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{2\pi T}}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\mathrm{log}\alpha 0.72)\alpha ^{5/2}+𝒪(\alpha ^3\mathrm{log}\alpha )],`$
where $`𝒫_{\mathrm{ideal}}=(\pi ^2/90)T^4`$ is the pressure of the ideal gas of a free massless boson, $`\alpha =g^2(\mu )/(4\pi )^2`$, and $`g(\mu )`$ is the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ coupling constant at the renormalization scale $`\mu `$. In Fig. 1, we show the successive perturbative approximations to $`𝒫/𝒫_{\mathrm{ideal}}`$ as a function of $`g(2\pi T)`$. Each partial sum is shown as an error band obtained by varying $`\mu `$ from $`\pi T`$ to $`4\pi T`$. To express $`g(\mu )`$ in terms of $`g(2\pi T)`$, we use the numerical solution to the renormalization group equation $`\mu \frac{}{\mu }\alpha =\beta (\alpha )`$ with a five-loop beta function.

The lack of convergence of the perturbative series is evident in Fig. 1. The band obtained by varying $`\mu `$ by a factor of two is a lower bound on the theoretcal error involved in the calculations. Another indicator of the error is the difference between successive approximations. From Fig. 1, we conclude that the error grows quickly for $`g1.5`$.

## 2 Screened Perturbation Theory

Screened perturbation theory, which was introduced by Karsch, Patkós and Petreczky $`^\mathrm{?}`$, is simply a reorganization of the perturbation series for thermal field theory.

The Lagrangian density for a massless scalar field with a $`\varphi ^4`$ interaction is

$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}_\mu \varphi ^\mu \varphi {\displaystyle \frac{1}{24}}g^2\varphi ^4+\mathrm{\Delta },`$ (2.2)
where $`g`$ is the coupling constant and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ includes counterterms. The Lagrangian density is written as

$`_{\mathrm{SPT}}=_0+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}_\mu \varphi ^\mu \varphi {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(m^2m_1^2)\varphi ^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{24}}g^2\varphi ^4+\mathrm{\Delta }+\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{SPT}},`$ (2.3)
where $`_0`$ is a vacuum energy density parameter and we have added and subtracted mass terms. If we set $`_0=0`$ and $`m_1^2=m^2`$, we recover the original Lagrangian (2.2). Screened perturbation theory is defined by taking $`m^2`$ to be of order $`g^0`$ and $`m_1^2`$ to be of order $`g^2`$, expanding systematically in powers of $`g^2`$, and setting $`m_1^2=m^2`$ at the end of the calculation. This defines a reorganization of perturbation theory in which the expansion is around the free field theory defined by

$`_{\mathrm{free}}=_0+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}_\mu \varphi ^\mu \varphi {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m^2\varphi ^2.`$ (2.4)
The interaction term is

$`_{\mathrm{int}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{24}}g^2\varphi ^4+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m_1^2\varphi ^2+\mathrm{\Delta }+\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{SPT}}.`$ (2.5)
At each order in screened perturbation theory, the effects of the $`m^2`$ term in (2.4) are included to all orders. However when we set $`m_1^2=m^2`$, the dependence on $`m`$ is systematically subtracted out at higher orders in perturbation theory by the $`m_1^2`$ term in (2.5). At nonzero temperature, screened perturbation theory does not generate any infrared divergences, because the mass parameter $`m^2`$ in the free Lagrangian (2.4) provides an infrared cutoff. The resulting perturbative expansion is therefore a power series in $`g^2`$ and $`m_1^2=m^2`$ whose coefficients depend on the mass parameter $`m`$.

This reorganization of perturbation theory generates new ultraviolet divergences, but they can be canceled by the additional counterterms in $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{SPT}}`$. The renormalizability of the Lagrangian in (2.3) guarantees that the only counterterms required are proportional to 1, $`\varphi ^2`$, $`_\mu \varphi ^\mu \varphi `$, and $`\varphi ^4`$.

### 2.1 Mass Prescriptions

At this point I would like to emphasized that the mass parameter in SPT is completely arbitrary, and we need a prescription for it. The prescription of Karsch, Patkós, and Petreczky for $`m_{}(T)`$ is the solution to the “one-loop gap equation”:

$`m_{}^2=4\alpha (\mu _{})\left[{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑k{\displaystyle \frac{k^2}{\omega (e^{\beta \omega }1)}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}\left(2\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{\mu _{}}{m_{}}}+1\right)m_{}^2\right],`$ (2.6)
where $`\omega =\sqrt{k^2+m_{}^2}`$ and $`\alpha (\mu _{})=g^2(\mu _{})/(4\pi )^2`$.

There are many posibilities for generalizing (2.6) to higher orders in $`g`$. Here, I consider three generalizations.

* The screening mass $`m_s`$ is defined by the location of the pole of the static propagator:

$`𝐩^2+m^2+\mathrm{\Pi }(0,𝐩)=0,\text{at}𝐩^2=m_s^2.`$ (2.7)
* The tadpole mass $`m_t`$ is defined by the expectation value of $`\varphi ^2`$:

$`m_t^2=g^2\varphi ^2.`$ (2.8)
* The variational mass $`m_v`$ is the solution to

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dm^2}}(T,g(\mu ),m,m_1=m,\mu )=0`$ (2.9)
Thus the dependence of the free energy on $`m`$ is minimized by $`m_v`$.

The above mass prescriptions all coincide at the one-loop order and is given by (2.6) above. The three masses differ at the two-loop level and beyond. The two-loop gap equation for the tadpole mass turns out to be identical to the one-loop gap equation. Note that the tadpole mass cannot be generalized to gauge theories since the expectation value $`A_\mu A^\mu `$ is a gauge-variant quantity. Moreover, the screening mass in nonabelian gauge theories is not defined beyond leading order in perturbation theory due to a logarithmic infrared divergence.

### 2.2 Results

A thourough study of screened perturbation theory is presented in Ref. $`^\mathrm{?}`$. Here, I only present a few selected results.

In Fig. 2, we show the one-, two- and three-loop SPT-improved approximations to the pressure using the tadpole gap equation. The bands are obtained by varying $`\mu `$ by a factor of two around the central values $`\mu =2\pi T`$ and $`\mu =m_{}`$. The choice $`\mu =m_{}`$ gives smaller bands from varying the renormalization scale, but this is mainly due to the fact that $`g(2\pi T)`$ is larger than $`g(m_{})`$. The vertical scale in Fig. 2 has been expanded by a factor of about two compared to Fig. 1, which shows the successive approximations using the weak-coupling expansion. All the bands in Fig. 2 lie within the $`g^5`$ band in Fig. 1. Thus we see a dramatic improvement in the apparent convergence compared to the weak-coupling expansion.

## 3 Summary

In this talk, I have briefly discussed SPT, which is a reorganization of the perturbative expansion. In contrast to the weak-coupling expansion, the SPT-improved approximations to pressure appear to converge for rather large values of the coupling constant.

Screened perturbation theory has been generalized to gauge theories and is called hard-thermal-loop (HTL) perturbation theory $`^\mathrm{?}`$. A one-loop calculation of the pressure with and without fermions has already been carried out $`^\mathrm{?}`$. Two-loop calculations are in progress $`^\mathrm{?}`$

The fact that SPT shows very good convergence properties gives us hope that HTL perturbation theory will be a consistent approach that can used for calculating static and dynamical quantities of a quark-gluon plasma.

## Acknowledgments

This work was carried out in collaboration with Eric Braaten and Michael Strickland. The author would like to thank the organizers of SEWM 2000 for a stimulating meeting. This work was supported in part by the U. S. Department of Energy Division of High Energy Physics (grants DE-FG02-91-ER40690 and DE-FG03-97-ER41014) and by a Faculty Development Grant from the Physics Department of the Ohio State University.

## References