text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The existence of the charged Higgs boson $`H^\pm `$ is predicted by many extensions of the Standard Model (see, for example, ). The search for a charged Higgs boson is carried out in $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation at LEP-2 collider at CERN  as well as at the Tevatron in the top quark decays . The search for the $`H^\pm `$-boson will be one of the main experimental tasks at future LHC machine . The main channels for $`H^\pm `$-boson search are the reactions of $`gbtH^{}`$ and $`ggt\overline{b}H^{}`$.

In the present paper we consider an additional possibility to study a signal from charged Higgs boson in the quark-antiquark annihilation subprocess:

$$q\overline{q}^{}H^+t\overline{b}.$$

Namely, we consider the charged Higgs boson contribution to the process of $`t\overline{b}`$-pair production in proton-proton collisions

$`ppt\overline{b}X.`$ (1)
Note, that $`t\overline{b}`$ quark production through $`W`$-boson exchange in the $`s`$-channel had been considered earlier (see ). This reaction plays a significant role in the study of electroweak $`t`$-quark production. In particular, this process is very important for the investigations of electroweak vertex of $`tWb`$ interactions .

The New Physics beyond the Standard Model (SM) can modify the nature of $`t`$-quarks interactions (see  and references therein). In particular, the contribution of charged Higgs boson into process (1) can be considered as a manifestation of New Physics. The existence of the $`H^\pm `$-boson leads not only to the modification of the total cross section for $`t\overline{b}`$-pair production, but also to the change of angular distributions of top quark decay products. The detailed consideration of the contribution due to several forms of the New Physics into $`t\overline{b}`$-pair hadronic production as well as the analysis of the top quark polarization properties resulted from such new interactions can be found, for example, in .

Here we investigate the charged Higgs boson production in proton-proton collisions at future CERN LHC machine at the energy of $`\sqrt{s}=14`$ TeV. Certainly, the strategy for the search for the $`H^\pm `$-boson production is determined, in particular, by the Higgs boson mass (see ). For relatively light $`H^\pm `$, say, $`m_{H^\pm }<m_t`$, the most promising possibility is the investigation of $`t`$-quark decay into $`H^\pm `$ and $`b`$-quark. In the present paper we assume that the charged Higgs is heavier than the top quark. As a result, we consider the top quark decays into $`W^\pm b`$ pair. Moreover, we consider only leptonic decays of $`W^\pm `$-boson, because for hadronic $`W^\pm `$ decays it is very difficult to separate a signal from a huge QCD background.

Note, that typical differential distributions ($`p_{}`$ and $`\eta `$) of the $`t`$-quark and its decay products are practically the same as for the SM production of $`t\overline{b}`$-pair (via $`W^+`$-boson exchange only). Therefore, for the separation of the $`H^\pm `$ contribution we explore $`t`$-quark polarization properties, which are different for $`W^+t\overline{b}`$ and $`H^+t\overline{b}`$ contributions for small values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. We find the specific kinematic cuts, which provide the separation of $`H^\pm `$ and $`W^\pm `$ contributions in reaction (1).

The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 we present an explicit form of matrix elements squared for the considered process. The behavior of the total cross section production of $`t\overline{b}`$-pair as a function of $`m_H`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ is considered in Section 3. The differential distributions on $`p_{}`$ and $`\eta `$ as well as the angular distributions of top decay products are also discussed in this Section. A detailed simulation of the signal and relevant background processes is given in Section 4. The main results are summarized in the Conclusion.

## 2 Matrix elements calculations

The Lagrangian describing the $`\overline{t}H^\pm b`$-vertex in the two doublet Higgs model has the following form :

$`=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}}}H^+\{\mathrm{tan}\beta \overline{U}_LV_{ij}M_DD_R+\mathrm{cot}\beta \overline{U}_RM_UV_{ij}D_L+\mathrm{tan}\beta \overline{N}_LM_LL_R\},`$ (2)
where the symbols $`U`$ and $`D`$ refer to ’up’ and ’down’-type quarks, while $`N`$ and $`L`$ correspond to the charged lepton and neutrino, $`V_{ij}`$ is the Cabbibo-Kobayashi-Maskawa matrix element, $`M_D`$ and $`M_U`$ are the quark masses, and $`M_L`$ is the mass of charged leptons, $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ is the ratio of values of vacuum expectation value for two Higgs doublets, $`G_F`$ is the Fermi constant.

The subprocesses of $`t\overline{b}`$-pair production through $`W^\pm `$ and $`H^\pm `$ exchange,

$$q_1\overline{q}_2(H^++W^+)t\overline{b},$$
(3)
is described by two diagrams presented in Fig. 1.

The corresponding matrix element squared is presented as a sum of three terms, corresponding to $`H^\pm `$-boson ($`M_H`$) and $`W^+`$-boson ($`M_W`$) exchanges and their interference ($`M_I`$):

$`|M_{22}|^2=|M_H|^2+|M_W|^2+|M_I|^2,`$ (4)
where

$`|M_H|^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{16G_F^2|V_{12}|^2|V_{tb}|^2}{\left(\widehat{s}m_H^2\right)^2+\mathrm{\Gamma }_H^2m_H^2}}\left[\left(m_t^2\mathrm{cot}^2\beta +m_b^2\mathrm{tan}^2\beta \right)(p_tp_b)2m_b^2m_t^2\right]`$
$`\times \left[\left(m_1^2\mathrm{cot}^2\beta +m_2^2\mathrm{tan}^2\beta \right)(p_1p_2)2m_1^2m_2^2\right],`$
$`|M_W|^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{128m_W^4G_F^2|V_{12}|^2|V_{tb}|^2}{\left(\widehat{s}m_W^2\right)^2+\mathrm{\Gamma }_W^2m_W^2}}(p_tp_2)(p_bp_1),`$
$`|M_I|^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{32G_F^2|V_{12}|^2|V_{tb}|^2m_tm_bA}{A^2+B^2}}`$
$`\times [m_1^2\mathrm{cot}^2\beta (p_tp_2)+m_2^2(p_tp_1)+m_1^2(p_bp_2)m_2^2\mathrm{tan}^2\beta (p_bp_1)],`$
where $`\widehat{s}`$ is the total energy squared of colliding partons, $`V_{ij}`$ is the Cabbibo-Kobayashi-Maskawa matrix element, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_H`$ is the $`H^+`$-boson decay width, $`m_i`$ and $`p_i`$ are the quark masses and 4-momenta, respectively, $`m_W`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_W`$ are the W-boson mass and decay width, $`A=(\widehat{s}m_W^2)(\widehat{s}m_H^2)+\mathrm{\Gamma }_Wm_W\mathrm{\Gamma }_Hm_H`$, $`B=(\widehat{s}m_W^2)\mathrm{\Gamma }_Hm_H(\widehat{s}m_H^2)\mathrm{\Gamma }_Wm_W`$.

Bearing in mind the study of the $`t`$-quark polarization properties in reaction (1), we also perform the calculations of subprocesses (3) with the consideration of further top quark decay. Namely, we calculate the matrix element squared for the subprocess $`24`$:

$$q_1\overline{q}_2(H^++W^+)\overline{b}t(bW^+)b\overline{b}l^+\nu _l.$$
(5)
Similarly to subprocesses (3), we present the $`|M_{24}|^2`$ as a sum of three terms corresponding to the $`H^\pm `$ and the $`W^\pm `$ exchanges and their interference:

$$|M_{24}|^2=|M_H|^2+|M_W|^2+|M_I|^2,$$
(6)
where

$`|M_H|^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2048m_W^4G_F^4|V_{tb}|^4|V_{12}|^2(p_bk_1)}{((\widehat{s}m_H^2)^2+\mathrm{\Gamma }_H^2m_H^2)C_WC_t}}`$
$`\times \{(q_1,q_2)[m_1^2\mathrm{cot}^2\beta +m_2^2\mathrm{tan}^2\beta ]2m_1^2m_2^2\}`$
$`\times \{m_b^2\mathrm{tan}^2\beta [2(k_2p_t)(p_{\overline{b}}p_t)(k_2p_{\overline{b}})p_t^2]`$
$`+m_t^4\mathrm{cot}^2\beta (k_2p_{\overline{b}})2m_b^2m_t^2(k_2p_t)\},`$
$`|M_W|^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8192m_W^8G_F^4|V_{tb}|^4|V_{12}|^2(p_bk_1)(p_{\overline{b}},q_1)}{((\widehat{s}m_W^2)^2+\mathrm{\Gamma }_W^2m_W^2)C_WC_t}}`$
$`\times [2(q_2p_t)(k_2,p_t)(q_2k_2)p_t^2],`$
$`|M_I|^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4096m_W^6G_F^4|V_{tb}|^4|V_{12}|^2Am_1m_2}{(A^2+B^2)C_WC_t}}`$
$`\times \{m_t^2\mathrm{cot}^2\beta [(q_1,p_{\overline{b}})(p_tk_2)+(q_1p_t)(p_{\overline{b}}k_2)(q_1k_2)(p_{\overline{b}}p_t)]`$
$`+m_t^2[(q_2k_2)(p_{\overline{b}}p_t)(q_2p_{\overline{b}})(p_tk_2)(q_2,p_t)(p_{\overline{b}},k_2)]`$
$`+m_b^2\mathrm{tan}^2\beta [2(q_2p_t)(p_tk_2)(q_2k_2)p_t^2]`$
$`+m_b^2[(q_1k_1)p_t^22(q_1p_t)(p_tk_2)]\},`$
where $`A`$ and $`B`$ is defined in (4); $`C_W=(p_W^2m_W^2)^2+\mathrm{\Gamma }_W^2m_W^2`$ and $`C_t=(p_t^2m_t^2)^2+\mathrm{\Gamma }_t^2m_t^2`$, $`p_W`$ and $`p_t`$ are the momenta of top quark and $`W`$-boson, respectively; $`k_1`$ and $`k_2`$ are the momenta of neutrino and charged lepton.

Note, that the matrix element squared (6) corresponding to subprocess (5) is calculated for the first time.

## 3 Total cross sections and differential distributions

In our calculations we use the parton distributions from . The evolution parameter $`Q^2`$ is chosen to be $`Q^2=\widehat{s}`$, where $`\widehat{s}`$ is the total energy squared of colliding partons. In our calculations we use the following values of the $`b`$ and $`t`$-quark masses

$$m_b=4.5\mathrm{GeV}\text{[16]}\mathrm{and}m_t=173.8\mathrm{GeV}.$$
(7)
For the fixed value of the charged Higgs boson mass the largest cross section is expected at large and small values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. The behavior of the cross section for reaction (1) as a function of the $`H^\pm `$-boson mass and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ is presented in Fig. 2. Note, that the cross section reaches its maximum at $`m_H200`$ GeV due to the pole character of cross section under consideration (see (4)).

The $`H^\pm `$-boson contribution into reaction (1) leads to the increasing of the $`t\overline{b}`$-pair cross section production. However, the modification of the “observable” number of events, $`N_{ev}(Wb\overline{b})\sigma (t\overline{b})\times \mathrm{B}(tbW^+)`$, depend on $`m_{H^\pm }`$. For the $`H^\pm `$-boson lighter than top quark ($`m_{H^\pm }<m_t`$), the branching fraction of $`tbW`$ decay (B$`(tbW)`$) may significantly decrease . As a result, we should expect the decrease of $`N_{ev}`$ as compared to the SM case. For heavy $`H^\pm `$-boson ($`m_{H^\pm }>m_t`$) there is no $`tbH^+`$ decay channel. Therefore, one has B$`(tbW^+)1`$ and we should expect the increase of $`W^+b\overline{b}`$ yield.

The “experimentally seen” cross sections for $`t`$-quark production in the reaction (1), i.e.

$$\sigma (pp\overline{b}t(bW)X)=\sigma (ppt\overline{b}X)\times \mathrm{B}(tbW)$$
(8)
are presented in Fig. 3 for two values of $`m_H`$=90 and 200 GeV. Note, that for the small and large values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ the $`H^\pm `$-boson contribution leads to a noticeable modification of the $`t\overline{b}`$-pair production, while for an intermediate range of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =0.8÷20`$ the $`H^\pm `$ contribution becomes negligible. The differential distributions of the final particles ($`t,W,b,l`$) on transverse momentum and pseudorapidity calculated at the parton level are shown in Figs. 4, 5. As is shown in the figures, the differential distributions for the cases of $`H^+`$ and $`W^+`$ exchange have practically the same shapes. Therefore, the contribution of New Physics may lead only to the deviation of the expected number of events. Therefore, to elucidate the nature of possible deviation from the SM predictions, one needs to examine additional quantities which have a differential behavior for the SM and beyond SM cases.

For this purpose we explore the polarization properties of the $`t`$-quark, widely considered in the literature (see, for example,  and references therein). It is well known that subprocess (3) leads to the production of almost left-handed $`t`$-quark . At the same time the charged Higgs boson contribution leads to the production of right(left)-handed $`t`$-quark for small (large) values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ (see ). Note, that for the left-handed $`t`$-quark the $`b`$-quark (the charged lepton) should fly mostly alongside (opposite) to the direction of the top quark momentum (see ). Naturally, for the right-handed quark one has the reverse situation.

Hereafter, in order to separate the $`W^\pm `$ and $`H^\pm `$ contributions, we examine the angular distributions,

$$\frac{dN}{dcos\theta ^{}},$$
(9)
where $`\theta ^{}`$ is the angle in the top rest frame between the direction of the top quark momentum and the momentum of the final particle from the top quark decay $`tbl\nu `$.

In Fig. 6 we present the corresponding angular distributions of the $`b`$-quark and charged lepton from $`t`$-quark decay calculated by means of the matrix element (6) separately for only $`W^+`$ or $`H^\pm `$ exchange (see the histograms “a, b, e, f” in the Fig. 6). For evaluating these distributions, we set $`m_{H^\pm }=200`$ GeV and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =0.1`$.

## 4  Signal and background calculations

We perform the detailed simulation of process (1) with the subsequent top quark decays into electron and muon ($`tbe\nu _e`$ and $`tb\mu \nu _\mu `$) and relevant background reactions for the three-year low luminosity run of LHC

$$\sqrt{s}=14\mathrm{TeV}\mathrm{and}𝑑t=30\mathrm{fb}^1.$$
(10)
As an example we choose the values of the charged Higgs boson parameters as follows:

$$m_{H^\pm }=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}200}\mathrm{GeV}\mathrm{and}\mathrm{tan}\beta =\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.1}.$$
(11)
Note, that our result is not very sensitive to the $`m_H`$ value, however, the chosen small value of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, namely, $`\mathrm{tan}\beta <0.2`$, is important for further analysis.

For the simulation of the signal and background processes we use the TOPREX 2.51 event generator . At present the TOPREX provides the generation at the parton level, the production of $`t\overline{t}`$-pair, three processes of single top (“$`Wg`$”, “$`tW`$”, and “$`W^{}`$”) and $`Wb\overline{b}`$ production with subsequent top quark decay into $`bW`$ and $`W`$ into fermion anti-fermion pair. One can generate also several processes of top quark production via anomalous $`t`$-quark interactions .

We use the PYTHIA 6.134  for simulation of quarks and gluons hadronization. We perform the simulation with taking into account the ability of CMS detector at LHC . For “fast” detector simulation all the events are passed through the package CMSJET 4.703 . As a result, the final event contains the information about momenta of “detected” photons, charged leptons ($`e,\mu `$), hadronic jets and missing energy $`E_{mis}`$ (see  for details). The efficiencies for $`b`$-tagging of jets originating from $`b`$-quark, $`c`$-quark and light partons ($`u,d,s`$-quarks and gluon) are about 60%, 10%, and $`1÷2\%`$, respectively . In what follows we refer to the $`b`$-tagged jet as the $`B`$-jet.

For our choice of the $`H^\pm `$-boson parameters, (see (11)), the cross section for ($`t\overline{b}+\overline{t}b`$) production in reaction (1) due to $`H^\pm `$-boson contribution at $`\sqrt{s}=14`$ TeV is equal to

$$\sigma (H^\pm )=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}9.7}\mathrm{pb}.$$
(12)
There are several sources of the background to the considered process (1). We present here the cross section values of these processes evaluated at LO approximation. The consideration of the higher order corrections is given, for example, in . These background processes are as follows (all the cross section values imply the summation on particles and anti-particles):

* three processes of single top production

$`q\overline{q}^{}W^\pm t\overline{b},`$ $`\sigma (W^{})=7.5\mathrm{pb},`$
$`gqq^{}t\overline{b},`$ $`\sigma (Wg)=180\mathrm{pb},`$
$`gbtW,`$ $`\sigma (tW)=60\mathrm{pb}`$
* $`t\overline{t}`$-pair production: $`gg(q\overline{q})t\overline{t},\sigma (t\overline{t})=600`$ pb
* $`Wb\overline{b}`$ production: $`q\overline{q}^{}Wb\overline{b},\sigma (Wb\overline{b})=360`$ pb
* $`W+jets`$ production (generated by PYTHIA)

$`\sigma (W+jets)=59000\mathrm{pb}`$

Signal process (1) and all the background reactions (except $`W`$+jets) are simulated by using TOPREX generator. For evaluation of the last process ($`W`$+jets) the PYTHIA parameter $`k_{min}`$ is chosen to be equal to 2 GeV (i.e. CKIN(1)=2 ).

Process (1) of $`t\overline{b}`$ pair production with the subsequent top decay into $`bl\nu `$ is characterized by the presence in the final state of one charged isolated lepton (from $`W`$-boson decay), the missing energy (neutrino) and two hard $`B`$-jets from $`b`$-quarks.

The appropriate cuts providing a signal selection from the background processes, are considered in detail in . In particular, these cuts include the requirement of two “hard” $`B`$-jets:

$$\mathrm{`}\mathrm{`}\mathrm{hard}^{\prime \prime }\mathrm{cut}:p_{}(B_1,B_2)p_{T0}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}75}\mathrm{GeV}$$
(13)
However, this cut leads to an essential modification of the form of the corresponding $`\mathrm{cos}\vartheta ^{}`$ distributions (9) of the top quark decay products.

Indeed, in Fig. 6 we present the angular distributions of the $`b`$-quark (from $`t`$-quark decay) evaluated at the parton level before and after the cut on the $`b`$-quark transverse momentum (see the histograms “b, c, f, g” in Fig. 6). One can see that after application of the cut (13) the form of the angular distribution of $`b`$-quark, originating from the decay of right-handed $`t`$-quark (produced via $`H^\pm `$ exchange) changes dramatically and even becomes qualitatively similar to that of $`b`$-quark from left-handed top decay (produced via $`W^+`$ exchange). In view of actual possibilities of the detector it will be even more difficult to distinguish these two distributions.

Therefore, we propose another $`p_{}`$-cut (“soft-hard”) on the final $`B`$-jets. Namely, we require that $`p_{}`$ of one $`B_1`$-jet (from top quark) should not exceed some value of $`p_{T1}=100`$ GeV, while $`p_{}`$ of the other $`B_2`$-jet should be greater than $`p_{T0}=75`$ GeV:

$$\mathrm{`}\mathrm{`}\mathrm{soft}\mathrm{hard}^{\prime \prime }\mathrm{cut}:p_{}(B_1\mathrm{from}\mathrm{t})p_{T1}\mathrm{and}p_{}(B_2)p_{T0}.$$
(14)
It is seen from the histograms “d” and “h” in Fig. 6 that this “soft-hard” cut (14) saves the forms of angular distributions of the decay products of $`t`$-quarks, produced through $`H^\pm `$ and $`W^\pm `$ exchange.

In the further analysis we apply both variants (13) and (14) of $`p_{}`$ cuts. Thus, for signal/background separation we require

* one and only one isolated lepton (with $`p_{}>10`$ GeV) and at least two hadronic jets (with $`p_{}>20`$ GeV and pseudorapidity $`|\eta |<4.5`$),
* explicitly two b-tagged jets (with $`p_{}>25`$ GeV and $`|\eta |<2.5`$) and no other hadronic jets,
* the transverse momentum of the reconstructed $`W`$-boson and two $`B_1`$ and $`B_2`$ jets should not exceed of 10 GeV, $`|\stackrel{}{p}_T(WB_1B_2)|10`$ GeV,
* $`H`$(“hard”)-cut on $`p_{}`$ of $`B`$-jets ($`p_{}(B_1,B_2)75`$ GeV),
* $`SH`$(“soft-hard”)-cut on $`p_{}`$ of $`B`$-jets (one $`B_1`$-jet with $`p_{}100`$ GeV and second $`B_2`$-jet with $`p_{}75`$ GeV),
* the reconstructed mass of the $`t`$-quark should be within $`150÷200`$ GeV,
$`|M_{rec}(BW)m_t|<25`$ GeV.

As usual, using the four-momentum of charged lepton and the transverse momentum of missing energy for the reconstruction of $`W`$-boson momentum, we get two solutions for $`p_{rec}(W)`$. For further reconstruction of top quark four-momentum, $`p_{rec}(t)`$, we should examine both two $`B`$-jets for the case of $`H`$-cut (13). As a result, we obtain four combinations for the reconstructed momentum of the $`t`$-quark. For $`SH`$-cut (14) we assume that the $`B_1`$-jet with the smallest transverse momentum results from the $`t`$-quark decay and we have two solutions for $`p_{rec}(t)`$. Then, the invariant mass of the ($`WB`$)-system, $`M(WB)`$, with the value nearest to $`m_t=173.8`$ GeV is treated as a reconstructed value of the $`t`$-quark mass. The corresponding $`p_{rec}(t)`$ is considered as a reconstructed $`t`$-quark momentum.

The resulted efficiencies after application of all the cuts to the signal and the background are given in Table 1. One can see that new $`SH`$ cut (14) provides slightly better efficiency for the signal reconstruction. However, the background suppression becomes also worth as compared to the application of old $`H`$-cut (13). The resulted number of reconstructed events (for $`𝑑t=30`$ fb<sup>-1</sup>) and the corresponding signal-to-background ratios are given in Table 2. It is seen that the application of the old and new $`p_{}`$-cuts result in almost the same $`S/B`$ ratios. Therefore, both of the two variants of $`p_{}`$-cut ($`SH`$ and $`H`$) provide a rather well reconstruction of the top quark in reaction (1).

The distributions on the reconstructed top quark mass are presented in Fig. 7. The symbol “SM” corresponds to calculations with the SM case, while the symbol “SM+$`H^\pm `$” corresponds to the SM and $`H^\pm `$-boson contribution. The standard fit gives the following values of the reconstructed $`t`$-quark mass (in GeV):

|  | SM | SM + $`H^\pm `$ |
| --- | --- | --- |
| S-H | $`172.4\pm 11.8`$ | $`171.6\pm 11.4`$ |
| H | $`172.8\pm 11.2`$ | $`172.4\pm 10.8`$ |

Now we proceed to the separation of the $`H^\pm `$-boson contribution into reaction (1). For this purpose we explore the difference in $`\mathrm{cos}\vartheta _l^{}`$-distributions resulted from different polarizations of the $`t`$-quark, produced within the SM (only $`W`$ exchange) and within $`W^\pm +H^\pm `$ exchange (see Fig. 6). The distributions on $`\mathrm{cos}\vartheta _l^{}`$, calculated for the sum of the signal and background events are given in Fig. 9. The upper two histograms correspond to new $`SH`$-cut, while two lower histograms are obtained by application of old $`H`$-cut. We fit these distributions by linear dependence on $`\mathrm{cos}\vartheta _l^{}`$:

$$\frac{dN}{d\mathrm{cos}\theta _l^{}}1+\alpha \mathrm{cos}\theta _l^{}$$
(15)
The results of the fit are given in Table 3. It is evident that the new $`SH`$-cut (14) is more sensitive to $`H^\pm `$-boson contribution. Indeed, the presence of charged Higgs leads to change of the sign of the slope of $`\mathrm{cos}\vartheta _l^{}`$-distribution, while the application of the old $`H`$-cut leads only to modification of the slope $`\alpha `$ (see Table 3).

Certainly, this result depends on the relative value of the $`H^\pm `$-boson contribution. Indeed, for a larger value of the $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ we should expect the decreasing of charged Higgs contribution and, as a result, the values of $`\alpha `$ should be more close to SM expectations. Note, that for the large value of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta >10`$, where we have a noticeable charged Higgs contribution, the produced top quark should be left-handed. As a result, the angular distribution should be the same as in the SM case.

## 5 Conclusion

In the present paper the contribution from charged Higgs bosons into the process of electroweak production of $`t\overline{b}`$-pair at LHC is considered and analyzed in detail. The expressions for matrix elements squared for the corresponding subprocesses are obtained and the role of the $`t`$-quark polarization is investigated. The cross sections and angular distributions at a parton level are calculated. The simulation of the signal and relevant background processes by means of PYTHIA in view of opportunities of the CMS detector at LHC is also performed.

We show that the differential distributions ($`p_{}`$ and $`\eta `$) of the $`t`$-quark and its decay products are practically the same as for the SM production of $`t\overline{b}`$-pair. As a result, by using a conventional way for the top quark separation from the background, it would be difficult to distinguish the $`H^\pm `$-boson from $`W^\pm `$-boson exchange. At the same time the produced top quark through charged Higgs exchange has different polarization in comparison to the SM case. At small values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, one should expect the production of the right-handed $`t`$-quarks. The corresponding angular distributions of leptons essentially differ from those predicted by the SM.

In order to separate the $`W^\pm `$ and $`H^\pm `$ contributions into reaction (1) we propose the new $`p_{}`$-cut (14) for $`b`$-tagged hadronic jets. This “soft-hard” $`p_{}`$-cut provides not only the $`t`$-quark signal discrimination from the background processes, but also the selection of the contribution to the relevant process from a charged Higgs boson.

Certainly, the proposed $`p_{}`$-cut can help only for the small values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta <0.2`$. For the larger values (i.e., for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta >0.2`$) one needs find other variables, which should be sensitive to charge Higgs boson contribution into reaction (1). In principle, we can explore the SM prediction for the difference in top and anti-top quark production cross sections in reaction (1). This difference results due to the absence of the valence anti-quark contributions in the proton-proton collisions . At the same time, the main contribution to the $`H^\pm t\overline{b}`$ process comes from the interaction of charmed and strange quarks from initial hadrons. Since in the $`pp`$-collisions we have equal numbers of the $`c`$, $`s`$ quarks and anti-quarks, we should expect $`\sigma (H^+t\overline{b})\sigma (H^{}\overline{t}b)`$. Thus, the study of asymmetry in $`t`$\- and $`\overline{t}`$-quarks production in reaction (1) may provide an additional possibility to separate the charged Higgs boson contribution.

Acknowledgment

We are thankful to E. Boos, D. Denegri, V. Drollinger, V. Ilyin, A. Kostritsky, N. Krasnikov, M. Mangano, A. Nikitenko, V. Obraztsov, L. Sonnenschein, N. Stepanov and T. Tait for fruitful discussions. The work of S.R.S. was supported, in part, by Russian Foundation for Basic Research, projects no. 99-02-16558.


format: text

text:
# Untitled Document

hep-th/0008123

SHEP 00-09

Exact Scheme Independence

José I. Latorrea and Tim R. Morrisb

(a)Departament d’Estructura i Constituents de la Matèria,

Universitat de Barcelona

and

I.F.A.E.,

Diagonal 647, E-08028 Barcelona, Spain

(b)Department of Physics, University of Southampton,

Highfield, Southampton SO17 1BJ, UK

Abstract

Scheme independence of exact renormalization group equations, including independence of the choice of cutoff function, is shown to follow from general field redefinitions, which remains an inherent redundancy in quantum field theories. Renormalization group equations and their solutions are amenable to a simple formulation which is manifestly covariant under such a symmetry group. Notably, the kernel of the exact equations which controls the integration of modes acts as a field connection along the flow.

August 2000

1. Introduction

Quantum field theory provides a redundant tool to describe physics. A particular manifestation of this fact corresponds to the freedom to define a renormalization scheme in order for perturbative as well as non-perturbative computations to make explicit contact with observables. Independence of observables on different choices of scheme may be obscure if not impossible to check in practice, but it is a continuum property inherent to quantum field theory. In the framework of Wilson’s Renormalization Group (RG) and in particular the exact RG , this property is especially deeply embedded and scheme independence is an issue that it is essential to address. Thus, a particular form of the exact RG receives its very definition in part by specifying a cutoff function. Beyond this, it is clear that one also has considerable further freedom in formulating flow equations  –. This extra freedom in choosing a scheme can be put to great advantage –. We comment further below and in the conclusions.

The purpose of this note is to show that many changes of scheme in an exact RG equation can be implemented as field redefinitions. It is then clear that, within such a class of RGs, although the cutoff function and/or the form of the flow equation will vary, no universal properties will be modified; no observable prediction for the continuum quantum field theory will change. We shall proceed in three steps. First, we shall review what is already known and reanalyse Polchinski’s exact RG equation in order to provide a simple understanding of its parts. Second, we shall perform a general field redefinition to show that its effect is to recast the original equation into one written in a different form. A change of cutoff function is seen to be just a particular case of the freedom to perform field redefinitions. Third, we take a broader view and show that the exact RG equation operates as a covariance statement. The final form and understanding of the exact RG equation will be very simple.

Note that there are very many ways to derive the exact RGs currently in use  –. Almost all of these derivations yield the same exact RG however, in some cases after some small transformations. (The underlying reason is that all such derivations start effectively by making the simplest choice of placing the effective cutoff $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ only in the bilinear kinetic terms.) Thus the Wegner-Houghton RG  is the sharp cutoff limit –  of Polchinski’s RG . Polchinski’s RG is transformed into Wilson’s exact RG , by the momentum dependent change of variables $`\phi \phi \sqrt{K}`$ that eliminates Polchinski’s cutoff function $`K`$ from the propagator .1 The physical meaning of the equivalence is not so clear to us however. Finally the exact RG for the Legendre effective action, or effective average action –, is the Legendre transform of Polchinski’s equation .

There have also been a number of studies of the dependence on the different forms of exact RG and on the form of the cutoff function within certain approximation schemes

The freedom in formulating exact RGs is more than this, as was originally pointed out by Wegner . He noted that in principle a large class of exact RGs could be defined, based on three parts: the integrating out transformation, viz. “elimination of variables” (for some cases), the rescaling (or “dilatation”, which may be incorporated by a change to scaling-dimensionless variables using $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$), and a possible infinitessimal field redefinition

$$\phi _x\phi _x+\delta \mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Psi }_x$$

under the small reduction $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }\delta \mathrm{\Lambda }`$. In fact, importantly, the first two parts may also be cast as field redefinitions. In this way, all the exact RGs correspond precisely to certain reparametrizations of the partition function .

We show this in sec. 2 by showing that rescaling is equivalent to a field redefinition. The fact that an integrating out transformation is also equivalent to a field redefinition then follows from differing derivations of the same exact RG , and the equivalences between exact RGs recalled above –.

In sec. 2 we concentrate on the Polchinski equation and establish that it implies precisely a reparametrization of the partition function under a scale dependent field redefinition. In sec. 3 we consider general field redefinitions and establish the general form and transformation properties of the resulting exact RGs. As an example we show that change of cutoff function in Polchinski’s exact RG simply corresponds to one of these field redefinitions. Appendix A contains some details for this computation and sketches a general method for finding such field redefinitions. In sec. 4 we explain how the transformations work when the $`t`$ dependence is regarded as only inherited through the action. We recover the example of sec. 3 from this point of view. In sec. 5, we develop further the consequences of the resulting structures and show that they may all be simply understood in terms of a connection relating different scales. Finally in sec. 6 we draw our conclusions.

2. Revisiting Polchinski

To make the discussion concrete, consider Polchinski’s form of the exact RG  written for the total effective action $`S`$, which we need in its renormalized scaled version :2 The unscaled version was discussed in this light in ref. .

$$_tS+d_p\phi _p\frac{\delta S}{\delta \phi _p}+_p\phi _pp^\mu \frac{}{p^\mu }\frac{\delta S}{\delta \phi _p}=_pc^{}(p^2)\left(\frac{\delta S}{\delta \phi _p}\frac{\delta S}{\delta \phi _p}\frac{\delta ^2S}{\delta \phi _p\delta \phi _p}2\frac{p^2}{c(p^2)}\phi _p\frac{\delta S}{\delta \phi _p}\right),$$

where $`t\mathrm{ln}\frac{\mu }{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$, $`\mu `$ being some fixed physical scale and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ the Wilsonian cutoff which is taken towards 0, $`S[\phi ,t]`$ is a functional of $`\phi `$ and a function of $`t`$. On the l.h.s., the second term arises from rescaling the field, $`d`$ being the full scaling dimension of the field, and the third term arises from rescaling the momenta (which is often rewritten in terms of a derivative that does not act on momentum-conserving $`\delta `$ functions  or as $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{}`$, the space-time derivative counting operator ). The scheme is defined through the choice of the cutoff function, which after scaling is just $`c(p^2)`$ (and thus $`c^{}(p^2)`$ means $`c(p^2)/p^2`$). It is less obvious at this level that the form of the r.h.s. is also a choice of scheme.

Actually, (2.1) does not arise from rescaling Polchinski’s original formulation , unless we set $`d`$ to the engineering dimension of the field (i.e. $`d=D/21`$ for a scalar field in spacetime dimension $`D`$) whereas we mean to incorporate also the anomalous dimension ($`d(t)=D/21+\gamma (t)/2`$ for a scalar field) . Nevertheless, (2.1) is also a perfectly valid exact RG  which can be justified on the grounds that $`\gamma `$ can indeed be chosen as usual to constrain the normalisation of the kinetic term , that (2.1) still leaves the partition function invariant  (as we will confirm below) and most importantly that (2.1) still corresponds to integrating out. (This latter follows on quite general grounds, because the partition function is left invariant as $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ decreases, but since all quantum corrections are UV regularised by $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, i.e. limited above by $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, the lost modes are being incorporated in $`S`$ .) This is then one small but important example of the freedom allowed in the definition of the exact RGs.

The exact RG equation (2.1) can also be written in a more enlightening form

$$_t\mathrm{e}^S=_\alpha \left(\mathrm{\Psi }^\alpha \mathrm{e}^S\right),$$

where

$$\mathrm{\Psi }^\alpha [\phi ,t]=\left(Dd(t)\right)\phi _p+p^\mu \frac{\phi _p}{p^\mu }+c^{}(p^2)\left(\frac{\delta }{\delta \phi _p}2\frac{p^2}{c(p^2)}\phi _p\right),$$

discarding vacuum energy terms,3 corresponding to the Jacobian for scaling, and a term discarded in . and we have introduced the compact notation

$$_\alpha \frac{\delta }{\delta \phi _p},$$

(integration over $`p`$ being implied by the summation convention. The sub- and super-index $`\alpha `$ can also stand for any further quantum number associated with the field $`\phi `$.)

Note that (2.1) immediately implies that the partition function

$$𝒵=𝒟\phi \mathrm{e}^S$$

is left invariant by (2.1), i.e. $`_t𝒵=0`$, as claimed. Furthermore in this form, the r.h.s. of the exact RG equation corresponds to the integrand of a field redefinition , as we now explain in detail.

For an infinitessimal field redefinition $`\stackrel{~}{\phi }^\alpha =\phi ^\alpha \theta ^\alpha [\phi ,t]`$ (optionally scale dependent) the Jacobian is $`\left|\delta \phi /\delta \stackrel{~}{\phi }\right|=1+_\alpha \theta ^\alpha `$. Together with the term from the action itself, the changes in $`𝒵`$ combine to produce the identity

$$𝒟\phi _\alpha \left(\theta ^\alpha \mathrm{e}^S\right)=0.$$

Thus from (2.1), an infinitessimal step in $`t`$ to $`t+\delta t`$, corresponds to the field redefinition

$$\stackrel{~}{\phi }^\alpha =\phi ^\alpha \delta t\mathrm{\Psi }^\alpha [\phi ,t].$$

This is in effect the way Polchinski’s equation was originally deduced and brings separate meanings to both left and right hand sides of the exact RG equation. If integrated

$$0=_t𝒟\phi \mathrm{e}^S=𝒟\phi _\alpha \left(\mathrm{\Psi }^\alpha \mathrm{e}^S\right)=0,$$

the l.h.s. vanishes because low-energy observables do not depend on the cut-off, whereas the r.h.s. is zero because it is the total derivative term emerging from a field redefinition as in (2.1).

Thus we may regard the underlying structure of an exact RG equation as a trade-off. A change of cut-off is compensated by a field redefinition.

3. General field redefinitions

We are near to establishing the transformation properties of all the elements of (2.1) under field redefinitions. We shall now complete this analysis.

For the sake of precision let us start by recalling that the dependences of the kernel of the exact RG equation are

$$\mathrm{\Psi }=\mathrm{\Psi }^\alpha [\phi ,t],$$

and that we want to analyse its behaviour under an infinitessimal field redefinition

$$\phi ^\alpha \stackrel{~}{\phi }^\alpha =\phi ^\alpha \theta ^\alpha [\phi ,t].$$

On the one hand, we know that the integrand of the path integral $`\mathrm{exp}(S)`$ transforms as a density on absorbing the Jacobian of the field reparametrization:

$$\mathrm{e}^{\stackrel{~}{S}}=\left|\frac{\delta \phi }{\delta \stackrel{~}{\phi }}\right|\mathrm{e}^S.$$

Similarly we demand that the r.h.s. of (2.1) also transforms as a density i.e.

$$\stackrel{~}{}_\alpha \left(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}^\alpha \mathrm{e}^{\stackrel{~}{S}[\stackrel{~}{\phi }]}\right)=\left|\frac{\delta \phi }{\delta \stackrel{~}{\phi }}\right|_\alpha \left(\mathrm{\Psi }^\alpha \mathrm{e}^{S[\phi ]}\right).$$

This follows given (3.1), if we require that $`\mathrm{\Psi }^\alpha `$ transforms as a vector, $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}^\alpha =\frac{\delta \stackrel{~}{\phi }^\alpha }{\delta \phi ^\beta }\mathrm{\Psi }^\beta `$. On the other hand the l.h.s. transforms under a field redefinition as

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill _t|_{\stackrel{~}{\phi }}\mathrm{e}^{\stackrel{~}{S}[\stackrel{~}{\phi }]}& =\left(_t|_\phi +_t\phi ^\gamma |_{\stackrel{~}{\phi }}_\gamma \right)\left(\left|\frac{\delta \phi }{\delta \stackrel{~}{\phi }}\right|\mathrm{e}^S\right)\hfill \\ & =\left|\frac{\delta \phi }{\delta \stackrel{~}{\phi }}\right|_t|_\phi \mathrm{e}^S+\mathrm{e}^S_t|_\phi \left|\frac{\delta \phi }{\delta \stackrel{~}{\phi }}\right|+_t\phi ^\gamma |_{\stackrel{~}{\phi }}_\gamma \left(\left|\frac{\delta \phi }{\delta \stackrel{~}{\phi }}\right|\mathrm{e}^S\right).\hfill \end{array}$$

Substituting (2.1) and (3.1) for the first term, and expanding the other two to first order in $`\theta ^\alpha `$,

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill _t|_{\stackrel{~}{\phi }}\mathrm{e}^{\stackrel{~}{S}}=& \stackrel{~}{}_\alpha \left(\left(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}^\alpha +_t\theta ^\alpha \right)\mathrm{e}^{\stackrel{~}{S}}\right)\hfill \\ \hfill & \stackrel{~}{}_\alpha \left(\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}^\alpha \mathrm{e}^{\stackrel{~}{S}}\right)\hfill \end{array}$$

Thus, a field redefinition preserves the covariant form of the equation except for a shift in the functional form of the kernel. We may describe the change of $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ just in terms of the original fields $`\phi `$. Using the vector transformation law we get

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \delta \mathrm{\Psi }^\alpha [\phi ,t]& \widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}^\alpha [\phi ,t]\mathrm{\Psi }^\alpha [\phi ,t]\hfill \\ & =_t\theta ^\alpha +\theta ^\beta _\beta \mathrm{\Psi }^\alpha \mathrm{\Psi }^\beta _\beta \theta ^\alpha .\hfill \end{array}$$

This can be further framed as a standard vector field transformation plus the explicit $`t`$ derivative,

$$\delta \mathrm{\Psi }^\alpha _\alpha =_t\theta ^\alpha _\alpha +\left[\theta ^\beta _\beta ,\mathrm{\Psi }^\alpha _\alpha \right],$$

where we have introduced the notation $`_\alpha `$ to emphasise that here the $`_\alpha `$ is understood to act on all possible terms appearing on its right.4 up to eventually a functional on the far r.h.s e.g. $`\mathrm{e}^S`$, which is here only implicit A field redefinition modifies the kernel of the exact RG equation in this way. (Ref.  gives expressions for the transformation of the flow equation of the Legendre effective action, a.k.a. effective average action, under field redefinitions.)

Actually from (2.1) and (2.1), it is more appropriate for us to put the differential on the left. Let us define the following shorthand

$$\theta _\alpha \theta ^\alpha ,A_t_\alpha \mathrm{\Psi }^\alpha ,\delta A_t_\alpha \delta \mathrm{\Psi }^\alpha \mathrm{and}D_t_tA_t.$$

In this notation the exact RG (2.1) simply reads

$$D_t\mathrm{e}^S=0.$$

By (2.1), the change in the action under a field redefinition is just

$$\delta \mathrm{e}^S=\theta \mathrm{e}^S$$

and, either by integrating by parts the derivative in (3.1), or directly from (3.1),

$$\delta A_t=_t\theta [A_t,\theta ][D_t,\theta ].$$

Now it is easy to see that our transformation for $`\mathrm{\Psi }^\alpha `$ does indeed ensure that the exact RG transforms covariantly:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \delta \left(D_t\mathrm{e}^S\right)& =\delta A_t\mathrm{e}^S+D_t\delta \mathrm{e}^S\hfill \\ & =[D_t,\theta ]\mathrm{e}^S+D_t\theta \mathrm{e}^S\hfill \\ & =\theta \left(D_t\mathrm{e}^S\right).\hfill \end{array}$$

Let us illustrate the above discussion with the particular example of changing the cutoff in Polchinski’s equation. For the moment we set $`\gamma =0`$. The $`\gamma 0`$ case is a little more involved and is solved in appendix A. First we note from (2.1), that acting on $`\mathrm{e}^S`$ we may equivalently write

$$A_t_q\frac{\delta }{\delta \phi _q}\left((Dd)\phi _q+q^\mu \frac{}{q^\mu }\phi _qc^{}(q^2)\frac{\delta }{\delta \phi _q}2\frac{c^{}(q^2)}{c(q^2)}q^2\phi _q\right).$$

We consider the infinitessimal field redefinition

$$\theta ^\alpha =\frac{1}{2}\frac{\delta c(q^2)}{q^2}\frac{\delta S}{\delta \phi _q}\frac{\delta c(q^2)}{c(q^2)}\phi _q,$$

which in (3.1), may equivalently be written

$$\theta \frac{1}{2}_q\frac{\delta c(q^2)}{q^2}\frac{\delta }{\delta \phi _q}\left(\frac{\delta }{\delta \phi _q}+2\frac{q^2}{c(q^2)}\phi _q\right).$$

This can be derived by transforming the results of refs. – to the full action, however we construct it and for the first time the $`\gamma 0`$ version, from first principles by a method described in appendix A.

Using (3.1) and (3.1), we have by the algebraic steps in (3.1), that (3.1) induces a change $`\delta A_t`$ which acting on $`\mathrm{e}^S`$ is equivalent to (3.1). Observing that $`_t\theta =0`$, and computing the commutator, one readily discovers that

$$\delta A_t_q\frac{\delta }{\delta \phi _q}\left(\delta c^{}(q^2)\frac{\delta }{\delta \phi _q}+2\left(\frac{\delta c^{}(q^2)}{c(q^2)}c^{}(q^2)\frac{\delta c(q^2)}{c^2(q^2)}\right)q^2\phi _q\right),$$

i.e. $`\delta A_t`$ is just the change induced by $`cc+\delta c`$ in (2.1). We have thus seen that any infinitessimal change of the function $`c`$ in Polchinski’s exact RG equation can be obtained through a field redefinition.

Let us mention that a change in $`\gamma (t)`$ (e.g. from zero to non-zero) is also a field redefinition, whose form can be found similarly by the methods of appendix A.5 despite the fact that this maps between exact RGs with possibly strictly different fixed point structures Also note that a field redefinition induces a reparametrization in theory space, i.e. in the infinite dimensional coupling constant space that spans all effective actions. This latter viewpoint was pursued in ref. . Here we see that such reparametrizations of theory space connect large classes of exact RGs, but we stress that fundamentally all this follows from field redefinitions.

4. Revealing the dependence in $`S`$

The above discussion on field redefinitions owns its simplicity to the convenient interpretation of the dependences of the kernel in the exact RG equation $`\mathrm{\Psi }^\alpha [\phi ,t]`$. However, it is often the case that we want to think of it as a function of the action $`S`$. This is, for instance, the way we have first presented Polchinski’s equation (2.1). There the field functional derivatives in $`\mathrm{\Psi }[\phi ,t]`$ have acted on the $`\mathrm{exp}(S)`$ and the simple structure advocated in (2.1) and (2.1) is hidden.

To avoid confusion we shall denote this new functionality with a bar notation,

$$\mathrm{\Psi }^\alpha [\phi ,t]\mathrm{e}^S=\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}[\phi ,S[\phi ,t]]\mathrm{e}^S.$$

Because the $`\phi `$ functional derivatives have now acted explicitly on $`S`$, $`\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}`$ is just a function multiplying $`\mathrm{exp}(S)`$. The kernel dependence on $`t`$ is now coming only implicitly through the action. (Note that $`\gamma (t)`$ and $`S`$ are not independent: one may be regarded as a function of the other through (2.1).) Of course, the functional forms $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}`$ do transform differently under field redefinitions as we shall shortly show. It is arguable that, though natural, phrasing the dependences of the exact RG equation in terms of the action obscures its transformation properties.

We are now interested in equivalence under transformations whose $`t`$ dependence is restricted in the following way

$$\phi \stackrel{~}{\phi }^\alpha =\phi ^\alpha \overline{\theta }^\alpha [\phi ,S].$$

Similarly, we have a new functionality for $`A_t`$ which we denote by

$$\overline{A}_t\overline{A}_t[\phi ,S],\overline{D}_t_t\overline{A}_t.$$

Upon field redefinitions, the transformation in the functional form of $`\overline{A}_t`$ carries a new piece

$$\delta \overline{A}_t[\phi ,S]\stackrel{~}{\overline{A}}_t[\phi ,S]\overline{A}_t[\phi ,S]=[\overline{D}_t,\overline{\theta }]\delta _S\overline{A}_t,$$

i.e. requires subtracting the induced change $`\delta _S\overline{A}_t`$. This new piece amounts to the simple chain rule

$$\delta _S\overline{A}_t=_\psi \left(\overline{\theta }S[\psi ,t]\right)\frac{\delta \overline{A}_t}{\delta S[\psi ,t]}$$

It is straightforward to check that in this picture once again (3.1) is covariant: since the changes are described at constant $`S`$, (3.1) is missing in (3.1), but the new piece (4.1) in (4.1) supplies it instead – as can be seen by using the equation that follows from operating $`\delta /\delta S[\psi ,t]`$ on (3.1).

Note that at a fixed point $`S=S_{}`$, since we take $`\overline{\theta }`$ to depend on $`t`$ only through $`S`$, $`\overline{\theta }`$ is also $`t`$ independent. This means that fixed points $`S_{}^{(1)}`$ are mapped to fixed points $`S_{}^{(2)}`$. Furthermore, by the usual expansion in first order perturbations, the image fixed point $`S_{}^{(2)}`$ has the same spectrum of eigenoperators as $`S_{}^{(1)}`$. Therefore, at fixed points $`t`$-independent field redefinitions have no physical effects.

Two exact RGs are equivalent under field redefinitions if we can find a $`\overline{\theta }`$ such that we can map from one $`\overline{A}_t[\phi ,S]`$ to the other under (the exponential) of $`\overline{\theta }`$, and this in general will reduce to differential equations for the parts of $`\overline{\theta }`$. It is instructive to demonstrate (4.1) at a less formal level with the explicit transformation on $`\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}^\alpha `$ (again with $`\gamma =0`$). Substituting (2.1) and (3.1) into (3.1), one finds a non-zero $`_t\overline{\theta }^\alpha =(\delta c(q^2)/2q^2)\delta _tS/\delta \phi _q`$, which is expanded via (2.1). Even after some manipulation, the result however is not equivalent to (3.1). This is because $`\delta \overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}^\alpha `$ in (3.1) does not take into account the change induced via (3.1), of $`\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}^\alpha `$ as a functional of $`S`$. From (2.1), one needs to subtract from (3.1), the term $`c_p^{}\frac{\delta }{\delta \phi _p}\delta S`$, where from (3.1) and (3.1),

$$\delta S=_q\frac{\delta c(q^2)}{2q^2}\left(\frac{\delta S}{\delta \phi _q}\frac{\delta S}{\delta \phi _q}\frac{\delta ^2S}{\delta \phi _q\delta \phi _q}2\frac{q^2}{c(q^2)}\phi _q\frac{\delta S}{\delta \phi _q}\right).$$

(Incidentally the only restriction one has on such an infinitessimal $`\delta c`$ is that the integral over $`q`$ in this equation is bounded, in other words that $`\delta c`$ decay fast enough for large momentum as required for a change in cutoff function.) Finally we find

$$\begin{array}{c}\text{ }\delta \overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}^\alpha =\delta c^{}(p^2)\frac{\delta S}{\delta \phi _p}+2\left(c^{}(p^2)\frac{\delta c(p^2)}{c^2(p^2)}\frac{\delta c^{}(p^2)}{c(p^2)}\right)p^2\phi _p(4.1)\text{ }\hfill \\ \text{ }+\frac{1}{2}_q\left(\frac{\delta c(p^2)}{p^2}c^{}(q^2)\frac{\delta c(q^2)}{q^2}c^{}(p^2)\right)\left(\frac{\delta ^2S}{\delta \phi _q\delta \phi _p}\frac{\delta S}{\delta \phi _q}\frac{\delta ^3S}{\delta \phi _q\delta \phi _q\delta \phi _p}\right),\text{ }\hfill \end{array}$$

which corresponds to the required change in (2.1), because the second line vanishes after substitution in (2.1), by symmetry.

5. The kernel $`\mathrm{\Psi }^\alpha `$ as a connection

We have shown that invariance under field redefinitions allows mapping an exact RG equation into its version in a different scheme, as described by change of cutoff function. We now take a higher point of view and observe that field redefinitions further relate different functional forms of equally valid exact RG equations. Generically a field redefinition induced by a $`\theta ^\alpha `$ functional will alter the form of the equation, and implement highly non-trivial changes of scheme.

All the RG equations obtained in such a way belong to the same ‘universality’ class, in the sense that no observable prediction for the continuum quantum field theory changes. It is apparent that exact RG equations can be transformed under field redefinitions, which correspond to a symmetry of the theory preserving low-energy observables. Working with a specific equation amounts to a choice for $`\mathrm{\Psi }^\alpha `$. The situation is reminiscent of the presence of local symmetries. Indeed this parallelism is already evident in our equations.

Thus, returning to a description in terms of a direct dependence on $`t`$, it is natural to interpret $`D_t`$ in (3.1) as a covariant derivative, where from (3.1), the role of an antihermitian connection is played by $`A_t`$. Of course (3.1) is then nothing but a gauge transformation, carried by $`\theta `$. Note that $`_\alpha `$ is the generator of reparametrizations (diffeomorphisms), i.e. the group we are dealing with. $`A_t`$ is just the field $`\mathrm{\Psi }^\alpha `$ contracted with the generators, i.e. valued in the Lie algebra. Similar remarks hold for $`\theta `$ and $`\delta A_t`$. We see from (3.1), that $`\mathrm{e}^S`$ transforms homogeneously analogous to a matter field. And (3.1) merely confirms the now obvious gauge covariance of (3.1).

Concrete calculations at a given $`t`$ need a choice of $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$, that is $`A_t`$, within an orbit spanned by field redefinitions (carried out by $`\theta `$). When moving to a lower cut-off, that is a different $`t`$, we are allowed to choose a different set of fields provided that a connection notifies the field redefinition which connect the two sets. The theory is field redefinition invariant, locally in $`t`$. Geometrically, the exact RG picks a covariant section through theory space (a.k.a. the space of actions) fibred over RG time.

However, the gauge theory interpretation is far from being just a formal viewpoint. Since this is one dimensional gauge theory, we know that any gauge field may at least locally be transformed into any other. In other words, locally in $`t`$, any exact RG can be transformed into any other (obviously however with the same fibres, i.e. field content). Furthermore, we can construct this transformation. We simply consider a Wilson line starting from say $`t=t_0`$:

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(t)=P\mathrm{exp}\left(_{t_0}^t𝑑sA_s\right),$$

where $`P`$ is path ordering, placing as usual the later $`A`$s to the right. Thus $`_t\mathrm{\Phi }(t)=\mathrm{\Phi }(t)A_t`$ and $`_t\mathrm{\Phi }^1(t)=A_t\mathrm{\Phi }^1(t)`$. Therefore we have immediately,

$$A_t=\mathrm{\Phi }^1(t)_t\mathrm{\Phi }(t).$$

By (3.1), $`\delta D_t=[D_t,\theta ]`$, and thus (5.1) is a finite gauge transformation of $`A_t=0`$. Since every gauge field is thus equivalent to $`A_t=0`$, over any finite range in $`t`$, every gauge field is equivalent to each other over any finite range. Indeed by substituting (5.1) into (3.1), we obtain that any exact RG is equivalent to the trivial $`\mathrm{\Psi }^\alpha =0`$ equation,

$$_t\mathrm{e}^{S_0}=0,$$

where

$$\mathrm{e}^{S_0}=\mathrm{\Phi }(t)\mathrm{e}^S.$$

By (5.1), $`S_0`$ is nothing but $`S`$ at $`t=t_0`$. Inverting this relation, we thus can write the solution of any exact RG in closed form as a series of integrals:

$$\mathrm{e}^S=\mathrm{\Phi }^1(t)\mathrm{e}^{S_0}.$$

It is easy to convince oneself that the momentum integrals obtained from expanding the notation in (5.1) converge, the result thus being a well defined series for $`\mathrm{exp}(S)`$.

Let us stress that the conclusion arrived at above, that every exact RG, i.e. $`A_t`$, is equivalent to every other over any finite range of $`t`$, holds when $`A_t`$ is expressed as a function of $`\phi `$ and $`t`$ only. Changing variables to $`\phi `$ and $`S`$ in order to properly compare exact RGs, as in (4.1) and sec. 4, means that such an equivalence may then hold only over a limited domain or indeed break down entirely (for example at a fixed point), because of the difficulty of inverting this change of variables. There are also global obstructions to equivalence that can be understood from the gauge theory interpretation.

So far, we have been discussing non-observable quantities. A gauge field can be made to vanish at a particular point, but gauge-invariant observables retain its traces, and these are also obstructions to completely gauge away $`A_t`$. Generally, these obstructions can be either local or non-local, but since the RG equation describes a one-dimensional flow in $`t`$, there are no local invariants which can be build from $`A_t`$. For instance, the equivalent of the field strength is identically zero in spite of the fact that the group of field redefinitions is non-Abelian. We are bound to use non-local invariants. Given that there are no flows that form closed loops in unitary Poincaré invariant theories6 corresponding to real Euclidean invariant theories, in Euclidean space. , the only remaining candidate is

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=P\mathrm{exp}\left(_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑sA_s\right),$$

providing these limits exist. However, the existence of these limits implies that $`A_t0`$ there, i.e. that we consider solutions of (2.1) that begin ($`t=\mathrm{}`$) and end ($`t=+\mathrm{}`$) at fixed points. This quantity of course transforms homogeneously at both extremes of the flow with $`t`$-independent field redefinitions. To be more precise, the path-ordered line that connects the initial ($`i`$) fixed point with the final ($`f`$) one does transform under general field redefinitions as

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{fi}\mathrm{\Omega }_f\mathrm{\Phi }_{fi}\mathrm{\Omega }_i^1,$$

where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{i,f}`$ are $`t`$-independent finite field redefinitions at the initial and final fixed points, respectively. Thus we have

$$\mathrm{exp}S_{}^f=\mathrm{\Phi }_{fi}\mathrm{exp}S_{}^i.$$

Given that the two theories display different universality properties, it is then impossible to gauge away $`A_t`$ since $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{fi}`$ would then be unity modulo end-point field redefinitions. Equally since such a relation (5.1) transforms covariantly under field redefinitions, two exact RGs which are equivalent under field redefinitions must have the same network of flows between fixed points displaying the same spectrum of eigenoperators. And on the contrary, for two exact RGs that do not display equivalent fixed points with the same spectrum and network of flows, there can be no exponentiated solution $`\theta `$ mapping one to the other via (4.1).

We can rephrase the above argument in more physical terms. The inherent freedom to use field redefinitions allows for deforming at will the pace of integration of modes along the RG trajectory. It is always possible to completely stop the integration of modes along a finite part of the path. Nevertheless, the above obstruction to gauge away the connection means that modes will have to be integrated somewhere else. The extreme (unphysical) case would correspond to integrate all modes at a single scale. Looking back at Wilson’s original deduction, it is clear that such freedom was present in the choice of scheme defined through his $`\alpha `$ function . Our analysis is, though, more general than such a simple scheme change.

Let us end up this section making clear the idea that field redefinitions play a double rôle in exact RG equations:

$``$ The kernel $`\mathrm{\Psi }^\alpha `$ of an exact RG equation is shaped as a field redefinition.

$``$ A change of this kernel, i.e. of scheme, is implemented via a field redefinition.

The latter effect of field redefinitions is natural and shows intuitively that scheme changes are immaterial to physical observables. Instead, the first rôle may be confusing as it seems to go against the (irreversible) integration of modes picture underlying the RG. This paradox can be traced to the fact that $`A_t`$ can be locally gauged away due to the 1-dimensional (that is in $`t`$) nature of the flow.

This element of confusion would be absent in other contexts, e.g. a standard 4-dimensional gauge theory where $`A_\mu `$ cannot be gauged away. There, $`A_\mu `$ carries physical particles as it is further reflected in the obstruction to get rid of the field strength $`F_{\mu \nu }`$. In the case of exact RG equations the very nature of the equation is attached to its kernel $`\mathrm{\Psi }^\alpha `$ which cannot be gauged away globally as quantified by the $`t`$-ordered Wilson line $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$.

6. Conclusions

Exact renormalization group equations make quantitative the statement that low-energy physics is independent of the details of the cut-off. A specific change of that cut-off can be absorbed into a suitable field redefinition. This idea leads hierarchically to the standard Callan-Symanzik covariance statement in perturbation theory.

A particular exact RG equation is characterized by its kernel $`\mathrm{\Psi }^\alpha `$. The freedom to choose the form of this kernel is thus related to field redefinitions. Infinitessimally, two kernels, expressed in terms of the action $`S`$, are physically equivalent if they are related by (4.1). Globally, two kernels descibe the same RG flow between fixed points $`i`$ and $`f`$ if their corresponding connections $`A_1`$ and $`A_2`$ produce $`t`$-ordered lines which are related by

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{fi}[A_1]=\mathrm{\Omega }_f\mathrm{\Phi }_{fi}[A_2]\mathrm{\Omega }_i^1,$$

where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{i,f}`$ are $`t`$-independent field redefinitions of the fixed points actions at points $`i`$ and $`f`$. In perturbation theory, an operator basis in chosen and all field redefinitions turn into finite coupling constant redefinitions. A change of perturbative scheme, that is of local counterterms, is tantamount to a finite redefinition of coupling constants.

Of course field redefinitions could be chosen which obscure the symmetries of the field theory. Equally, symmetries that are apparently broken by some exact RG, through its cutoff function or/and other parts of its structure, may only be deformed, rather than lost. This would be established if (the exponential of) a $`\overline{\theta }`$ satisfying (4.1) could be found that maps the exact RG to one preserving the symmetry.

Freedom under field redefinition should be used for the practitioner’s benefit. Though physics is independent of such redefinitions it is obvious that practical schemes do truncate in one way or another such freedom. Within a particular truncation, some a priori equivalent forms of exact RG equations will differ. Accurate results for observables may be approached faster in a particular renormalization scheme. Using the above results it is possible to construct a RG equation which carries higher functional derivatives than Polchinski’s. Such an equation could be contrived so that its local potential approximation  is two-loop exact. Truncations, in particular this and higher orders in the derivative expansion, may well be more accurate than the corresponding results from the standard flow equations.

Acknowledgments J.I.L. acknowledges financial support from CICYT (contract AEN98-0431) and CIRIT (contract 1998SGR-00026). T.R.M. acknowledges financial support of PPARC grant GR/K55738. We both acknowledge the financial support of a BC-MEC Acciones Integradas grant MDR(A998/99)1799.

Appendix A. Finding the field redefinition corresponding to changing cutoff

If we restore a non-zero $`\gamma (t)`$, $`A_t`$ may still be written equivalently as (3.1). We require to find $`\theta [\phi ,t]`$ such that formula (3.1) reproduces (3.1). It is helpful to introduce the operators:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{\Delta }^0[a]& =_pa(p^2)\frac{\delta }{\delta \phi _p}\phi _p,\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{\Delta }^1& =_p\frac{\delta }{\delta \phi _p}p^\mu \frac{}{p^\mu }\phi _p,\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{\Delta }^2[a]& =_pa(p^2)\frac{\delta }{\delta \phi _p}\frac{\delta }{\delta \phi _p}.\hfill \end{array}$$

They form a closed algebra:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill [\mathrm{\Delta }^0[a],\mathrm{\Delta }^0[b]]& =[\mathrm{\Delta }^2[a],\mathrm{\Delta }^2[b]]=0\hfill \\ \hfill [\mathrm{\Delta }^0[a],\mathrm{\Delta }^2[b]]& =2\mathrm{\Delta }[ab]\hfill \\ \hfill [\mathrm{\Delta }^1,\mathrm{\Delta }^0[a]]& =2\mathrm{\Delta }^0[p^2a^{}]\hfill \\ \hfill [\mathrm{\Delta }^1,\mathrm{\Delta }^2[a]]& =\mathrm{\Delta }^2[Da2p^2a^{}].\hfill \end{array}$$

We may readily express (3.1) and (3.1) in terms of these. Taking as an ansatz

$$\theta =\mathrm{\Delta }^0[H(p^2,t)]+\mathrm{\Delta }^2[K(p^2,t)],$$

we find from (3.1) and (A.1):

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \frac{}{t}H& +2p^2H^{}=2p^2\left(\delta c/c\right)^{}\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{and}\frac{}{t}K& +(2\gamma )K+2p^2K^{}+2Hc^{}4p^2Kc^{}/c=\delta c^{}.\hfill \end{array}$$

\[Here $`cc(p^2)`$.\] We take the simplest solution to the first equation: $`H=\delta c/c`$, after which the second can be solved by the method of characteristics:

$$K(p^2,t)=\frac{\delta c(p^2)}{2p^2}\frac{c^2(p^2)}{2p^2}\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{\Gamma }(t)}^t𝑑s\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{\Gamma }(s)}\gamma (s)\frac{\delta c(p^2\mathrm{e}^{2s2t})}{c^2(p^2\mathrm{e}^{2s2t})},$$

where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(t)=^t𝑑s\gamma (s)`$. In the case that $`\gamma =0`$, this solution collapses to (3.1).

References

relax K. G. Wilson and J. Kogut, Phys. Rep. 12C (1974) 75. relax F. J. Wegner and A. Houghton, Phys. Rev. A8 (1972) 401. relax F.J. Wegner, J. Phys. C7 (1974) 2098. relax T. R. Morris, in The Exact Renormalization Group, Eds Krasnitz et al, World Sci (1999) 1, and hep-th/9810104. relax T. R. Morris, Nucl. Phys. B573 (2000) 97, hep-th/9910058. relax T. R. Morris, hep-th/0006064. relax S. Weinberg, Erice lectures, Subnucl. Phys. (1976) 1. relax J. F. Nicoll and T. S. Chang, Phys. Lett. 62A (1977) 287. relax J. Polchinski, Nucl. Phys. B231 (1984) 269. relax C. Wetterich, Phys. Lett. B301 (1993) 90. relax Bonini et al, Nucl. Phys. B409 (1993) 441, hep-th/9301114. relax T. R. Morris, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A9 (1994) 2411, hep-ph/9308265. relax T. R. Morris, Phys. Lett. B334 (1994) 355, hep-th/9405190 ; Nucl. Phys. B458\[FS\] (1996) 477, hep-th/9508017. relax J.-I. Sumi et al, hep-th/0002231. relax T. R. Morris, Phys. Lett. B329 (1994) 241, hep-ph/9403340. relax T. R. Morris, in Yukawa International Seminar ’97, Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl. 131 (1998) 395, hep-th/9802039. relax R. D. Ball, P. E. Haagensen, J. I. Latorre and E. Moreno, Phys. Lett. B347 (1995) 80, hep-th/9411122. relax D. F. Litim, Phys. Lett. B393 (1997) 103, hep-th/9609040; J. Comellas, Nucl. Phys. B509 (1998) 662, hep-th/9705129; R. Neves, Y. Kubyshin and R. Potting, in The Exact Renormalization Group, Eds Krasnitz et al, World Sci (1999), hep-th/9811151; T. R. Morris and J. F. Tighe, JHEP 08 (1999) 7, hep-th/9906166 ; D. F. Litim, Phys. Lett. B486 (2000) 92, hep-th/0005245. relax C. Wetterich, Z. Phys. C72 (1996) 139, hep-ph/9604227. relax E. K. Riedel, G. R. Golner and K. E. Newman, Ann. Phys. 161 (1985) 178. relax C. Bagnuls and C. Bervillier, hep-th/0002034. relax S. Forte and J. I. Latorre, Nucl. Phys. B535 (1998) 709-728; hep-th/9805015. relax J.F. Nicoll, T.S. Chang and H.E. Stanley, Phys. Rev. Lett. 33 (1974) 540.