text:
# Calculation of Temperature-Dependent Hadronic Correlation Functions of Pseudoscalar and Vector Currents

## I INTRODUCTION

In recent years we have seen a great deal of interest in the properties of dense matter, with particular attention given to diquark condensation and color superconductivity . Since it is difficult to study the properties of dense matter in lattice simulations of QCD , the Nambu-Jona-Lasinio (NJL) model and closely related instanton-based models have been used in such studies. We have become interested in a possible density dependence of the coupling constants of chiral Lagrangian models, since density dependence of the coupling parameters could affect the conclusions drawn from the studies of dense matter. We have introduced density-dependent coupling constants for the NJL model in earlier works , and have presented some arguments that such density dependence may be necessary . However, it is much easier to discuss the temperature dependence of NJL coupling parameters, rather that the density dependence, since a good deal is known concerning finite-temperature QCD thermodynamics . In particular, the study of a gluon gas at high temperature suggests that the system is well described as weakly interacting for $`T6T_c`$, where $`T_c`$ is the temperature of the confinement-deconfinement phase transition. (See Fig.1.3 of Ref. .)

In this work we suggest that rather straightforward calculations of hadronic current correlation functions at finite temperature can provide information concerning a possible temperature dependence of the NJL coupling parameters. We perform calculations of hadronic current correlation functions for pseudoscalar and vector currents in the range $`1.2T/T_c5.88`$. We make use of two models for the temperature dependence of the NJL coupling parameters. For model 1, we use $`G(T)=G[10.17(T/T_c)]`$, which was the form used in our previous studies of meson properties  and hadronic current correlation functions  at finite temperature. In this work we also introduce a model 2, for which $`G(T)=G[10.0289(T/T_c)^2]`$. In both cases, $`G(T)=0`$ for $`T/T_c=5.88`$. For values of $`T/T_c>5.88`$ we put $`G(T)=0`$ for both models.

For the sake of completeness we present the Lagrangian of a generalized NJL model that we have used in our studies of meson properties at finite temperature and density

$`=`$ $`\overline{q}(i\text{ / }m^0)q+{\displaystyle \frac{G_S}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{8}{}}}[(\overline{q}\lambda ^iq)^2+(\overline{q}i\gamma _5\lambda ^iq)^2]`$ (1.1)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{G_V}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{8}{}}}[(\overline{q}\lambda ^i\gamma _\mu q)^2+(\overline{q}\lambda ^i\gamma _5\gamma _\mu q)^2]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{G_D}{2}}\{det[\overline{q}(1+\gamma _5)q]+det[\overline{q}(1\gamma _5)q]\}`$
$`+_{conf}.`$
Here, $`m^0`$ is a current quark mass matrix, $`m^0=\text{diag}(m_u^0,m_d^0,m_s^0)`$. The $`\lambda ^i`$ are the Gell-Mann (flavor) matrices. Here, $`\lambda ^0=\sqrt{2/3}\mathbf{\hspace{0.17em}1}`$ with $`\mathbf{\hspace{0.17em}1}`$ being the unit matrix. The fourth term on the right-hand side of Eq. (1.1) is the ’t Hooft interaction. Finally, $`_{conf}`$ represents the model of confinement we have used in our work.

In order to specify the parameters in Eq. (1.1) we may refer to Ref . There, a quite detailed fit was made to the properties of the $`\eta `$ mesons. Our analysis yields fits the first four experimentally known levels and provides excellent fits to the mixing angles and decay constants of the $`\eta `$(547) and $`\eta `$(958). That work led to the specification of $`G_S=11.84`$ GeV-2. The ’t Hooft interaction strength, $`G_D`$, was taken to be in the range $`220`$ GeV-5 $`G_D180`$ GeV-5 when calculating the properties of the $`\eta `$ mesons. We also used $`G_V=13.0`$ GeV-2 in Ref.. (It is worth noting that Hatsuda and Kunihiro  have used a sharp moment cutoff of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_3=0.6314`$ GeV and a value of $`G_D=185.1`$ GeV-5. Their value of $`G_S`$ is smaller than ours, since they do not include a model of confinement in their analysis.)

In terms of these parameters we can introduce effective coupling constants for states with particular quantum numbers. The effective coupling parameter involves the vacuum condensates $`\alpha =<0|\overline{u}u|0>`$, $`\beta =<0|\overline{d}d|0>`$ and $`\gamma =<0|\overline{s}s|0>`$. For the pseudoscalar-isovector states, we have

$`G_P^{eff}=G_S+\gamma {\displaystyle \frac{G_D}{2}}.`$ (1.2)
We take $`\alpha =\beta =(0.241\text{GeV})^3`$ and $`\gamma =(0.258\text{GeV})^3`$ . If we put $`G_D=190`$ GeV-5, we find $`G_P=13.47`$ GeV-2.

In Ref.  we presented relativistic random phase approximation (RPA) calculations for the pion, kaon and several other mesons. It was found that in the case of pion, that the use of $`G_P^{eff}=13.49`$ GeV-2 gave a pion energy of 140 MeV at $`T=0`$. It is gratifying to see that an independent calculation gives rise to essentially the same effective coupling constant as that obtained from the parameters determined in Ref..

If we consider the scalar-isovector states, the effective coupling constant is

$`G_S^{eff}=G_S\gamma {\displaystyle \frac{G_D}{2}},`$ (1.3)
which, for $`G_S=11.84`$ GeV-2, $`G_D=190.0`$ GeV-5 and $`\gamma =(0.258\text{GeV})^3`$, yields $`G_S=10.21`$ GeV-2. When we compare $`G_P^{eff}`$ with $`G_S^{eff}`$, we see that we can expect the resonant enhancement of the spectral functions for the pseudoscalar-isovector channel will be larger in magnitude than that of the spectral function of the scalar-isovector channel. On the other hand, since the ’t Hooft interaction does not affect the vector or axial-vector coupling constants, these coupling constants would be equal in our model, leading us to expect quite similar spectral functions for these two channels.

In our study of the $`\eta `$ mesons we used $`G_V=13.00`$ GeV-2. However,the results for the $`\eta `$ mesons are not particularly sensitive to that parameter. In earlier work, with a sharp cutoff for the NJL model of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_3=0.622`$ GeV, we used $`G_V=12.46`$ GeV-2 to fit the energy of the $`\omega `$(782) . In other calculations we have used $`G_V=11.46`$ GeV-2. In this work we present the results for the latter value. (We have checked that the spectral functions calculated with either $`G_V=12.46`$ GeV-2 or $`G_V=11.46`$ GeV-2 differ by less than 4 percent.)

It was found in our various studies of meson properties, made after we completed Ref. , that the use of a sharp cutoff did not allow us to study radial excitations with a large number of nodes. However, we found that a Gaussian regulator, $`\mathrm{exp}[\stackrel{}{k}{}_{}{}^{2}/\alpha ^2]`$, with $`\alpha =0.605`$ GeV, gave similar results as that of the sharp cutoff $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_3=0.622`$ GeV for the low-lying states and also allowed us to describe radial excitations with many nodes. Therefore, all our more recent calculations have been made using the Gaussian regulator with $`\alpha =0.605`$ GeV. (The coupling parameters obtained in Ref., for example, were determined with this Gaussian regulator, so that any change of the regulator parameter, $`\alpha `$, would require that we provide a new set of coupling parameters corresponding to the new value of $`\alpha `$.)

We have recently reported results of our calculations of the temperature dependence of the spectra of various meons . These calculations were made using our generalized NJL model which includes a covariant model of confinement. We have presented results for the $`\pi `$, $`K`$, $`a_0`$, $`f_0`$ and $`K_0^{}`$ mesons in Ref.. In that work, temperature-dependent constituent quark masses were calculated using the equation

$`m(T)=m^0+2G_S(T)N_c{\displaystyle \frac{m(T)}{\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle _0^\mathrm{\Lambda }}𝑑p{\displaystyle \frac{p^2}{E_p}}\mathrm{tanh}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\beta E_p).`$ (1.4)
Here, $`m^0`$ is the current quark mass, $`G_S(T)`$ is a temperature-dependent coupling constant introduced in our model. (In Ref. we used model 1 for $`G_S(T)`$.) Here, $`N_c=3`$ is the number of colors, $`\beta =1/T`$ and $`E_p=\left[\stackrel{}{p}{}_{}{}^{2}+m^2(T)\right]^{1/2}`$. Further, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.631`$ GeV is a cutoff such that $`|\stackrel{}{p}|\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. We have put $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.631`$ GeV, since that is the cutoff that is often used when solving Eq. (1.4) . We have also used $`m_u^0=5.5`$ MeV and $`m_s^0=120`$ MeV. Since in our work dealing with meson spectra, we have used $`m_u=0.364`$ GeV and $`m_s=0.565`$ GeV as phenomenological parameters, we have put $`G_S(0)=2G`$, with $`G=5.691`$ GeV-2, in the notation of Ref., to reproduce those values. In Ref. $`G`$ is one-half of the $`G_S`$ defined in Eq.(1.1).

Since the use of temperature-dependent coupling constants is an unusual feature of our work, we now describe some advantages that follow from that choice. Our original introduction of temperature dependence, $`G(T)=G[10.17(T/T_c)]`$, with $`T_c=170`$ MeV, had the purpose of simulating the dynamical interactions which eliminate pion or kaon condensation at relatively low temperatures. However, we found when solving Eq.(1.4) for the temperature-dependent constituent mass of the up quark, chiral symmetry was (partially) restored at lower temperatures than when constant coupling parameters were used. This may be seen in Fig.1, where we show the results that follow from the use of a constant value of $`G(T)=5.691`$ GeV-2(in the notation of Ref.) as a dotted line. Here we have used $`m^0=5.5`$ MeV as the current quark mass. For the solid and dashed curves in Fig.1 we have used $`G(T)=G[10.17(T/T_c)]`$. For the sake of this discussion, let us consider the reduction of the constituent mass to 50 MeV from 364 MeV as signal of the (partial) restoration of chiral symmetry. For the dashed and solid curves, that restoration take place at about $`T_c=170`$ MeV, while for the dotted curve the (partial) restoration of chiral symmetry takes place at about 250 MeV. For QCD, the transition temperature is about 150-170 MeV. Since we are attempting to create a model that has some correspondence to QCD, with dynamical quarks, we see that the temperature-dependent coupling constants lead to the desired behavior.

The temperature dependence of the constituent mass in the case of temperature-dependent coupling constants is such that we described the mesonic confinement-deconfinement transition as taking place at $`TT_c`$ with $`T_c=170`$ MeV in Ref. . In that work we have studied the confinement-deconfinement transition for the $`\pi `$, $`K`$, $`a_0`$, $`f_0`$ and $`K_0^{}`$ mesons. We have checked that, without the introduction of the temperature-dependent coupling constants, the confinement-deconfinement transition would take place at a significantly higher temperature.

A further advantage of the use of our temperature-dependent coupling parameter is that the NJL interaction goes to zero for $`T=5.88T_c`$.(It is put equal to zero for $`T>5.88T_c`$.) We suggest that that is consistent with QCD thermodynamics, since it appears that the system is weakly coupled for $`T6T_c`$ .

In Fig.2 we show the behavior of both the up and strange quark constituent masses calculated with Eq.(1.4) using current masses $`m_u^0=5.50`$ MeV and $`m_s^0=120`$ MeV. For the calculations made in this work, we have used the temperature-dependent up (or down) quark masses shown in Fig.2 for temperatures for which the quark masses are quite small. Therefore, our results are insensitive to variations of the mass values shown in Fig.2.

In calculating the constituent mass values we have neglected the confining interaction. That interaction was taken into account in our earlier Euclidean-space calculation of the quark self-energy , which also included the effects related to the ’t Hooft interaction. We found that, to a good approximation, we could neglect the confining and ’t Hooft interactions, if we modified the value of the NJL coupling constant, $`G_S`$, and we adopt that approach when using Eq.(1.4).

The organization of our work is as follows. In Sec.II we review our calculations of polarization functions at finite temperature. In Sec.III we discuss the calculation of hadronic current correlation functions, making use of the results presented in Sec.II. In Sections IV and V we present the results of our numerical calculations of correlators of pseudoscalar and vector currents, respectively. We also compare our results to some recent lattice calculations of pseudoscalar and vector correlators \[14-16\]. Finally, in Sec.VI we present same further discussion and conclusions.

## II Polarization Functions at finite temperature

The basic polarization function that is calculated in the NJL model is shown in Fig.3. We will consider calculations of such functions in the frame where $`\stackrel{}{P}=0`$. In our earlier work, calculations were made after a confinement vertex was included. That vertex is represented by the filled triangular region in Fig.3. However, we here consider calculations for $`T1.2T_c`$ where confinement may be neglected. We will, however, use the temperature-dependent mass values shown in Fig.2.

The procedure we adopt is based upon the real-time finite-temperature formalism, in which the imaginary part of the polarization function may be calculated. Then, the real part of the function is obtained using a dispersion relation. The result we need for this work has been already given in the work of Kobes and Semenoff . (In Ref.  the quark momentum in Fig.3 is $`k`$ and the antiquark momentum is $`kP`$. We will adopt that notation in this section for ease of reference to the results presented in Ref. .) With reference to Eq. (5.4) of Ref. , we write the imaginary part of the scalar polarization function as

$`\text{Im}J_S(\text{P}{}_{}{}^{2},T)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(2N_c)\beta _Sϵ(\text{P}{}_{}{}^{0}){\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi )^3}}e^{\stackrel{}{k}{}_{}{}^{2}/\alpha ^2}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{2E_1(k)2E_2(k)}}\right)`$ (2.1)
$`\{(1n_1(k)n_2(k))\delta (\text{P}{}_{}{}^{0}E_1(k)E_2(k))`$
$`(n_1(k)n_2(k))\delta (\text{P}{}_{}{}^{0}+E_1(k)E_2(k))`$
$`(n_2(k)n_1(k))\delta (\text{P}{}_{}{}^{0}E_1(k)+E_2(k))`$
$`(1n_1(k)n_2(k))\delta (\text{P}{}_{}{}^{0}+E_1(k)+E_2(k))\}.`$
Here, $`E_1(k)=[\stackrel{}{k}{}_{}{}^{2}+m_1^2(T)]^{1/2}`$. Relative to Eq. (5.4) of Ref., we have changed the sign, removed a factor of $`g^2`$ and have included a statistical factor of $`2N_c`$, where the factor of 2 arises from the flavor trace. In addition, we have included a Gaussian regulator, $`\mathrm{exp}[\stackrel{}{k}{}_{}{}^{2}/\alpha ^2]`$, with $`\alpha =0.605`$ GeV, which is the same as that used in most of our applications of the NJL model in the calculation of meson properties. We also note that

$`n_1(k)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{e^{\beta E_1(k)}+1}},`$ (2.2)
and

$`n_2(k)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{e^{\beta E_2(k)}+1}}.`$ (2.3)
For the calculation of the imaginary part of the polarization function, we may put $`k^2=m_1^2(T)`$ and $`(kP)^2=m_2^2(T)`$, since in that calculation the quark and antiquark are on-mass-shell. In Eq. (2.1) the factor $`\beta _S`$ arises from a trace involving Dirac matrices, such that

$`\beta _S`$ $`=`$ $`\text{Tr}[(\text{ / }k+m_1)(\text{ / }k\text{ / }P+m_2)]`$ (2.4)
$`=`$ $`2P^22(m_1+m_2)^2,`$ (2.5)
where $`m_1`$ and $`m_2`$ depend upon temperature. In the frame where $`\stackrel{}{P}=0`$, and in the case $`m_1=m_2`$, we have $`\beta _S=2P_0^2(14m^2/P_0^2)`$. For the scalar case, with $`m_1=m_2`$, we find

$`\text{Im}J_S(P^2,T)={\displaystyle \frac{N_cP_0^2}{4\pi }}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{4m^2}{P_0^2}}\right)^{3/2}e^{\stackrel{}{k}{}_{}{}^{2}/\alpha ^2}[12n_1(k)],`$ (2.6)
where

$`\stackrel{}{k}{}_{}{}^{2}={\displaystyle \frac{P_0^2}{4}}m^2(T).`$ (2.7)
For pseudoscalar mesons, we replace $`\beta _S`$ by

$`\beta _P`$ $`=`$ $`\text{Tr}[i\gamma _5(\text{ / }k+m_1)i\gamma _5(\text{ / }k\text{ / }P+m_2)]`$ (2.8)
$`=`$ $`2P^22(m_1m_2)^2,`$ (2.9)
which for $`m_1=m_2`$ is $`\beta _P=2P_0^2`$ in the frame where $`\stackrel{}{P}=0`$. We find, for the $`\pi `$ mesons,

$`\text{Im}J_P(P^2,T)={\displaystyle \frac{N_cP_0^2}{4\pi }}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{4m(T)^2}{P_0^2}}\right)^{1/2}e^{\stackrel{}{k}{}_{}{}^{2}/\alpha ^2}[12n_1(k)],`$ (2.10)
where $`\stackrel{}{k}{}_{}{}^{2}=P_0^2/4m_u^2(T)`$, as above. Thus, we see that, relative to the scalar case, the phase space factor has an exponent of 1/2 corresponding to a s-wave amplitude. For the scalars, the exponent of the phase-space factor is 3/2, as seen in Eq. (2.6).

For a study of the vector-isovector correlators, we introduce conserved vector currents $`j_{\mu ,i}(x)=\stackrel{~}{q}(x)\gamma _\mu \lambda _iq(x)`$ with i=1, 2 and 3. In this case we define

$`J_V^{\mu \nu }(P^2,T)=\left(g{}_{}{}^{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{P{}_{}{}^{\mu }P^\nu }{P^2}}\right)J_V(P^2,T)`$ (2.11)
and

$`C_V^{\mu \nu }(P^2,T)=\left(g{}_{}{}^{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{P{}_{}{}^{\mu }P^\nu }{P^2}}\right)C_V(P^2,T),`$ (2.12)
taking into account the fact that the current $`j_{\mu ,i}(x)`$ is conserved. We may then use the fact that

$`J_V(P^2,T)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}g_{\mu \nu }J_V^{\mu \nu }(P^2,T)`$ (2.13)
and

$`\text{Im}J_V(P^2,T)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{P_0^2+2m_u^2(T)}{4\pi }}\right]\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{4m_u^2(T)}{P_0^2}}\right)^{1/2}e^{\stackrel{}{k}{}_{}{}^{2}/\alpha ^2}[12n_1(k)]`$ (2.14)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\text{Im}J_P(P^2,T).`$ (2.15)
We now consider

$`\beta _{\mu \nu }^V=\text{Tr}[\gamma _\mu (\text{ / }k+m_1)\gamma _\nu (\text{ / }k\text{ / }P+m_2)],`$ (2.16)
and calculate

$`g^{\mu \nu }\beta _{\mu \nu }^V=4[P^2m_1^2m_2^2+4m_1m_2],`$ (2.17)
which, in the equal-mass case, is equal to $`4P_0^2+8m^2(T)`$, when $`m_1=m_2`$ and $`\stackrel{}{P}=0`$. This result will be needed when we calculate the correlator of vector currents in the next section. Note that for the elevated temperatures considered in this work $`m_u(T)=m_d(T)`$ is quite small, so that $`4P_0^2+8m_u^2(T)`$ can be approximated by $`4P_0^2`$ when we consider the vector current correlation functions. In that case, we have

$`\text{Im}J_V(P^2,T){\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\text{Im}J_P(P^2,T),`$ (2.18)
At this point it is useful to define functions that do not contain the Gaussian regulator:

$`\text{Im}\stackrel{~}{J}_P(P^2,T)={\displaystyle \frac{N_cP_0^2}{4\pi }}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{4m(T)^2}{P_0^2}}\right)^{1/2}[12n_1(k)],`$ (2.19)
and

$`\text{Im}\stackrel{~}{J}_V(P^2,T)={\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{N_cP_0^2}{4\pi }}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{4m(T)^2}{P_0^2}}\right)^{1/2}[12n_1(k)].`$ (2.20)
For the functions defined in Eq. (2.19) and (2.20) we need to use a twice-subtracted dispersion relation to obtain $`\text{Re}\stackrel{~}{J}_P(P^2,T)`$, or $`\text{Re}\stackrel{~}{J}_V(P^2,T)`$. For example,

$`\text{Re}\stackrel{~}{J}_P(P^2,T)=\text{Re}\stackrel{~}{J}_P(0,T)+{\displaystyle \frac{P^2}{P_0^2}}[\text{Re}\stackrel{~}{J}_P(P_0^2,T)\text{Re}\stackrel{~}{J}_P(0,T)]+`$ (2.21)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{P^2(P^2P_0^2)}{\pi }}{\displaystyle _{m^2(T)}^{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^2}}𝑑s{\displaystyle \frac{\text{Im}\stackrel{~}{J}_P(s,T)}{s(P^2s)(P_0^2s)}},`$
where $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^2`$ can be quite large since the integral over the imaginary part of the polarization function is now convergent. We may introduce $`\stackrel{~}{J}_P(P^2,T)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{J}_V(P^2,T)`$ as complex functions, since we now have both the real and imaginary parts of these functions. We note that the construction of either $`\text{Re}J_P(P^2,T)`$ or $`\text{Re}J_V(P^2,T)`$ by means of a dispersion relation does not require a subtraction. We use these functions to define the complex functions $`J_P(P^2,T)`$ and $`J_V(P^2,T)`$.

In order to make use of Eq.(2.21) we need to specify $`\text{Re}\stackrel{~}{J}_P(0)`$ and $`\text{Re}\stackrel{~}{J}_P(P_0^2)`$. We found it useful to take $`P_0^2=1.0`$ GeV2 and to put $`\text{Re}\stackrel{~}{J}_P(0)=\text{Re}J_P(0)`$ and $`\text{Re}\stackrel{~}{J}_P(P_0^2)=\text{Re}J_P(P_0^2)`$. The quantities $`\text{Re}\stackrel{~}{J}_V(0)`$ and $`\text{Re}\stackrel{~}{J}_V(P_0^2)`$ are determined in an analogous function. This procedure in which we fix the behavior of a function such as $`\stackrel{~}{J}_P(P^2)`$ or $`\stackrel{~}{J}_V(P^2)`$, which may be used when making calculations for large $`P^2`$, is quite analogous to the procedure used in Ref. . In that work we made use of dispersion relations to construct a continuous vector-isovector current correlation function that had the correct perturbative behavior for $`P^2\mathrm{}`$ and also described the low-energy resonance present in the correlator due to the excitation of the $`\rho `$ meson. In Ref.  the NJL model was shown to provide a quite satisfactory description of the low-energy resonant behavior of the vector-isovector correlation function.

We may compare our expressions for $`(1/\pi )\text{Im}J(P^2)`$ with those given in Eq.(2.7) of Ref.. We find that the scalar and pseudoscalar polarization functions are defined there with a sign opposite to ours. However, since we have defined the pseudoscalar current using the matrix $`i\gamma _5`$ rather than $`\gamma _5`$, which was used in Ref., our expression for the spectral function agrees with that of Ref. with respect to the sign in the pseudoscalar case. In the case of the vector and axial-vector spectral functions, we have the same sign convention as that of Ref.. We disagree with the expressions for the spectral functions given for the scalar and axial-vector currents in Ref. with respect to the exponent of the phase-space factor. In Ref., the phase-space factor for the scalar and axial-vector case is $`[1(2m/\omega )^2]^{1/2}`$, while we have $`[1(2m/\omega )^2]^{3/2}`$ for those spectral functions. We agree that the phase-space factor is $`[1(2m/\omega )^2]^{1/2}`$ for the pseudoscalar and vector current spectral functions.

In Ref. use is made of the hard-thermal-loop (HTL) approximation. It was found that the scalar channels are only moderately influenced by the HTL medium effects, while the HTL vertex corrections lead to divergent vector correlators.

## III calculation of hadronic current correlation functions

In this section we consider the calculation of temperature-dependent hadronic current correlation functions. The general form of the correlator is a transform of a time-ordered product of currents,

$`iC(P^2,T)={\displaystyle d^4xe^{iPx}}<<T(j(x)j(0))>>,`$ (3.1)
where the double bracket is a reminder that we are considering the finite-temperature case.

For the study of pseudoscalar states, we may consider currents of the form $`j_{P,i}(x)=\stackrel{~}{q}(x)i\gamma _5\lambda ^iq(x)`$, where, in the case of the $`\pi `$ mesons, $`i=1,2`$ and $`3`$. For the study of scalar-isoscalar mesons, we introduce $`j_{S,i}(x)=\stackrel{~}{q}(x)\lambda ^iq(x)`$, with $`i=0`$ for the flavor-singlet current and $`i=8`$ for the flavor-octet current .

In the case of the pseudoscalar-isovector mesons, the correlator may be expressed in terms of the basic vacuum polarization function of the NJL model, $`J_P(P^2,T)`$ . Thus,

$`C_P(P^2,T)=J_P(P^2,T){\displaystyle \frac{1}{1G_P(T)J_P(P^2,T)}},`$ (3.2)
where $`G_P(T)`$ is the coupling constant appropriate for our study of $`\pi `$ mesons. We have found $`G_P(T)=13.49`$ GeV-2 by fitting the pion mass in a calculation made at $`T=0`$, with $`m_u=m_d=0.364`$ GeV. The result given in Eq. (3.2) is only expected to be useful for small $`P^2`$, since the Gaussian regulator strongly modifies the large $`P^2`$ behavior. Therefore, we suggest that the following form is useful, if we are to consider the larger values of $`P^2`$

$`{\displaystyle \frac{C_P(P^2,T)}{P^2}}=\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{J}_P(P^2,T)}{P^2}}\right]{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1G_P(T)J_P(P^2,T)}}.`$ (3.3)
(As usual, we put $`\stackrel{}{P}=0`$.) This form has two important features. At large $`P_0^2`$, $`\text{Im}C_P(P_0,T)/P_0^2`$ is a constant, since $`\text{Im}\stackrel{~}{J}_P(P_0^2,T)`$ is proportional to $`P_0^2`$. Further, the denominator of the second term on the right-hand side of Eq.(3.3) goes to 1 for large $`P_0^2`$. On the other hand, at small $`P_0^2`$, that denominator is capable of describing resonant enhancement of the correlation function. ( We may again refer to Ref. , in which a similar approximation is described.)

We then have

$`C_V(P^2,T)=\stackrel{~}{J}_V(P^2,T){\displaystyle \frac{1}{1G_V(T)J_V(P^2,T)}},`$ (3.4)
where we have introduced

$`\text{Im}\stackrel{~}{J}_V(P^2,T)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{P_0^2+2m_u^2(T)}{4\pi }}\right]\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{4m_u^2(T)}{P_0^2}}\right)^{1/2}[12n_1(k)]`$ (3.5)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\text{Im}\stackrel{~}{J}_P(P^2,T).`$ (3.6)
(See Eq.(2.7) for the specification of $`k=|\stackrel{}{k}|`$.) In the literature, $`\omega `$ is used instead of $`P_0`$ \[ 14 -16 \]. We may define the spectral functions

$`\sigma _V(\omega ,T)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}\text{Im}C_V(\omega ,T),`$ (3.7)
and

$`\sigma _P(\omega ,T)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}\text{Im}C_P(\omega ,T).`$ (3.8)
We may use the notation $`\overline{\sigma }_P(\omega ,T)`$ and $`\overline{\sigma }_V(\omega ,T)`$ for the spectral functions given in the literature \[14-16\]. We have the following relations:

$`\overline{\sigma }_P(\omega ,T)=\sigma _P(\omega ,T)`$ (3.9)
and

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\sigma }_V(\omega ,T)}{2}}={\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}\sigma _V(\omega ,T),`$ (3.10)
where the factor of 3/4 arises because, in Refs. \[14-16\], there is a division by 4, while we have divided by 3 as in Eq. (2.13).

In addition to providing values of $`\sigma _V(\omega ,T)/\omega ^2`$ and $`\sigma _P(\omega ,T)/\omega ^2`$, the $`\tau `$-dependent hadronic correlators $`G_P(\tau ,T)`$ and $`G_V(\tau ,T)`$ were introduced \[ 14-16 \], with

$`G(\tau ,T)={\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\omega \sigma (\omega ,T)K(\omega ,\tau ,T).`$ (3.11)
Here,

$`K(\omega ,\tau ,T)={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cosh}[\omega (\tau \frac{1}{2T})]}{\mathrm{sinh}(\frac{\omega }{2T})}}.`$ (3.12)
We will present results of our calculations of $`G_P(\tau ,T)`$ and $`G_V(\tau ,T)`$ in Sections IV and V, respectively. We will also present the values obtained for $`\text{Im}C_P(P_0,T)/P_0^2`$ and $`\text{Im}C_V(P_0,T)/P_0^2`$ for various values of $`T/T_c`$ in Sections IV and V.

We note that values have been obtained for the spectral functions in the scalar, vector, pseudoscalar and axial-vector channels in Ref.. These functions exhibit resonant features at about 2, 7 and 14 GeV when $`T1.4T_c`$. High-energy resonances are still present at 5 and 13 GeV, when $`T1.9T_c`$. The interpretation of these high-energy resonances is uncertain .

## IV correlation functions for pseudoscalar-isovector currents - numerical results

In Fig.4 we show $`\text{Im}C_P(P_0,T)/P_0^2`$ for $`T/T_c=1.5`$, and for model 1, as a solid line. The dashed line represents the result at $`T/T_c=1.5`$, if we put $`G_P(T)=0`$. The results for a broader range of temperatures are shown in Fig.5. In Fig.6 we show the ratios $`R_P(P_0,T)=\text{Im}C_P(P_0,T)/\text{Im}C_P^{(0)}(P_0,T)`$ calculated for various temperatures. Here, $`\text{Im}C_P^{(0)}(P_0,T)/P_0^2`$ is calculated with $`G_P(T)=0`$. In Fig.7 we show the ratio $`R_G^{(P)}(\tau ,T)=G_P(\tau ,T)/G_P^{(0)}(\tau ,T)`$ for various temperatures. Here, $`G_P^{(0)}(\tau ,T)`$ represents $`G_P(\tau ,T)`$ evaluated for $`G_P(T)=0`$. In Fig.8 we exhibit $`\text{Im}C_P(P_0,T)/P_0^2`$ for various temperature for model 2.

In Fig.9 we show, as a dashed line, values of $`\text{Im}C_P(P_0,T)/P_0^2`$ at $`T/T_c=5.88`$ obtained using a constant value of $`G_P(T)=13.49`$ GeV-2. The solid line is the result for model 1 (or model 2) at $`T/T_c=5.88`$, in which case $`G_P(T)=0`$ for both models. Since we have argued that for $`T/T_c6`$ the quark-gluon plasma should be a weakly interacting system, the use of a constant value for $`G_P(T)`$ appears to be unacceptable. We present this result to support our argument that the coupling parameters of the chiral Lagrangian model should be made temperature dependent to be consistent with QCD thermodynamics.

In Fig.10 we show values of $`G_P(\tau ,T)/T^3`$ for $`T/T_c=1.5`$ \[dashed line\], $`T/T_c=3.0`$ \[dash-dotted line\] and $`T/T_c=5.88`$ \[solid line\]. In Fig.1 of Ref.  we see a marked difference in the behavior of $`G_P(\tau ,T)/T^3`$ and $`G_V(\tau ,T)/T^3`$. (We will present some discussion of this matter in Sec.V.)

## V correlation functions for vector-isovector currents - numerical results

In Fig.11 we show the values of $`\text{Im}C_V(P_0,T)/P_0^2`$ for model 1 and for $`T/T_c=1.5`$, as a solid line. The result for $`T/T_c=1.5`$ and $`G_V(T)=0`$ is represented by the dashed line. \[See Fig.4.\] In Fig.12 we show values of $`\text{Im}C_V(P_0,T)/P_0^2`$ for various values of $`T/T_c`$ and for model 1. Corresponding results for model 2 are given in Fig.13.

In Fig.14 we show the ratio $`R_V(P_0,T)=\text{Im}C_V(P_0,T)/\text{Im}C_V^{(0)}(P_0,T)`$, where $`\text{Im}C_V^{(0)}(P_0,T)`$ is calculated with $`G_V(T)=0`$. (See Fig.9). In Fig.15 we show the ratio $`R_G^{(V)}(\tau ,T)=G_V(\tau ,T)/G_V^{(0)}(\tau ,T)`$, where $`G_V(0)(\tau ,T)`$ represents $`G_V(\tau ,T)`$ calculated with $`G_V(T)=0`$. In Fig.16 we show, as a dashed line, values for $`T/T_c=5.88`$ of $`\text{Im}C_V(P_0,T)/P_0^2`$, which were calculated with a constant value of $`G_V(T)=11.46`$ GeV-2. The solid line represents the results for $`G_V(T)=0`$, which is characteristic of models 1 and 2 when $`T/T_c=5.88`$. The comments made with respect to Fig.9 are also applicable here.

In Fig.17 we show values of $`G_V(\tau ,T)/T^3`$ for $`T/T_c=1.5`$ \[dashed line\], $`T/T_c=3.0`$ \[dash-dotted line\] and $`T/T_c=5.88`$ \[solid line\]. These results were obtained with model 1, and may be compared to those shown in Fig.9, where we see generally similar behavior. That is in strong contrast to the results shown in Ref. , where $`G_V(\tau ,T)/T^3`$ and $`G_P(\tau ,T)/T^3`$ shows quite different behavior, with the result for the vector correlator close to the values for $`G(T)=0`$ at $`T/T_c=1.5`$ and $`T/T_c=3.0`$. This suggests that the value of $`G_V=11.46`$ GeV-2 that we have used in this work may be too large, or that the temperature dependence of $`G_V(T)`$ is such as to yield smaller values than those obtained in this work for model 1 or model 2. (In general, we prefer the the second of these possibilities, since our value of $`G_V`$ at $`T=0`$ is set by fitting meson spectra.) In Fig.18 we show $`\text{Im}C_V(P_0,T)/P_0^2`$ for $`T=1.5T_c`$, for model 1, with $`G_V=11.46`$ GeV-2 \[solid line\], $`G_V=8.00`$ GeV-2 \[dashed line\], $`G_V=4.0`$ GeV-2 \[dotted line\] and $`G_V=0.0`$ GeV-2 \[dot-dashed line\]. It would be of interest to consider the results of Ref.  for the Euclidean-space correlator to be correct and to then determine $`G_V(T)`$ so that we fit the values of $`G_V(\tau ,T)/T^3`$ obtained in the lattice calculations. We defer such a project to a future work.

## VI discussion

It is difficult to make a definitive comparison of our results and the results obtained for the spectral functions in the lattice simulations, since those results are accompanied by large errors. Also, it is somewhat difficult to understand why the different behavior seen for $`G_V(\tau ,T)/T^3`$ and $`G_P(\tau ,T)/T^3`$ in Ref. , leads to values for $`\sigma _P(\omega ,T)/\omega ^3`$ and $`\sigma _V(\omega ,T)/\omega ^3`$ that are rather similar \[14-16\]. On the other hand, the chiral Lagrangian model provides a systematic study, which may yield some guidance for further studies of lattice QCD. This may be particularly important in the light of the comments made in Ref. :

> ”The reconstruction of $`\sigma _H(\omega ,T)`$ and in particular the determination of its low energy structure thus is difficult at non-zero temperature. Additional complications arise in lattice calculations which necessarily are performed on lattices with finite number of points $`(N_\tau )`$ in Euclidean time. The correlation functions $`G_H(\tau ,T)`$ can thus be calculated only at finite set of Euclidean times $`\tau T=k/N_\tau `$, with $`k=0,\mathrm{}N_\tau 1`$. In order to reconstruct the spectral functions from this limited set of information it is necessary to include in the statistical analysis of numerical results also prior information on the structure of $`G_H(\tau ,T)`$ as well as assumptions about the likelihood of a certain spectral function $`\sigma _H(\omega ,T)`$. It has been suggested to provide this additional information through the application of the Maximum Entropy Method (MEM) , which has been applied successfully to many other ill-conditioned problems in physics $`\mathrm{}`$.”

While it may be premature to compare our results for the spectral functions with those given in literature, the errors for the Euclidean-time correlation functions are small. Therefore, in Ref.  we have made an extensive comparison of our results with those presented in Ref. . In that work we provided additional evidence for the temperature dependence of the coupling parameters that we have introduced.


format: text

text:
# Introduction.

## Introduction.

String theory is usually thought of as a more fundamental theory of particle physics than current effective field theory descriptions are. The latter are very successful in describing accurately many aspects of particle physics, but it is thought that ultimately, at some (very) high energy scale, a string description is supposed to provide a fully consistent theoretical framework of high energy physics. In the low energy limit, one would hope to recover the effective field theory description. However, the precise link between these two theories is not always clear. To clarify this relationship, physicists try to reproduce previous string-derived results using effective field theory approaches.

It is the purpose of this work to address such a link for the problem of radiative corrections to the gauge couplings in the context of an effective field theory model compactified on a two-torus. Although we seek to clarify the link with (heterotic) string theory, the calculation is also relevant in the context of models with “large” extra-dimensions, without reference to string theory. The model is assumed to be a 4D $`𝒩=1`$ supersymmetric orbifold with an $`𝒩=2`$ sub-sector (e.g. $`Z_4`$ orbifold) which “survives” after compactification. The two extra dimensions compactified on the two-torus have associated Kaluza-Klein states – and at string level winding states as well – which fall into $`𝒩=2`$ multiplets, charged under the gauge group of the model. These states bring significant one-loop corrections to the gauge couplings. At (heterotic) string level, such corrections are well-known  (see also , , ), and will also be the subject of the discussion below.

An effective field theory (EFT) analysis of such one-loop corrections can only account for the effects of momentum states. Such analysis would correspond at string level to the limit of an infinite string scale or $`\alpha ^{}0`$ (with $`M_s^21/\alpha ^{}`$ ), when winding modes’ effects are suppressed. It was shown in  that such an EFT approach can recover the (gauge dependent part of the) string result for the radiative corrections to the gauge couplings due to massive momentum and winding modes only, in the limit $`\alpha ^{}0`$ (and up to worldsheet instantons contribution, vanishing in this limit). This is important for the EFT approach does not respect the full symmetries and spectrum of the string. For further details on this EFT approach and model description see . Here we continue this EFT analysis, to reveal an additional, interesting effect.

The one-loop corrections to the gauge coupling $`\alpha _i`$ in a $`𝒩=1`$ orbifold are usually separated as

$$\alpha _i^1(Q)=\alpha _o^1(M_s)+\frac{b_i}{4\pi }\mathrm{ln}\frac{M_s^2}{Q^2}+\mathrm{\Omega }_i,i\text{: gauge group index}$$
(1)
$`Q`$ is the low energy scale, $`M_s`$ is the string/UV scale, $`\alpha _o`$ is the “bare” coupling, the “log” term is due to $`𝒩=1`$ massless modes correction, usually identified with MSSM-like spectrum, with $`b_i`$ one-loop beta function. $`\mathrm{\Omega }_i`$ is the (gauge dependent part of the) one-loop correction due to massive $`𝒩=2`$ multiplets/states (momentum and in string case winding states as well).

A (heterotic) string calculation  of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_i`$ gives

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_i^H=\frac{\overline{b}_i}{4\pi }\mathrm{ln}\left[C_{reg.}U_2|\eta (U)|^4T_2\left|\eta \left(T\right)\right|^4\right],\eta (T)e^{\frac{\pi }{12}iT}\underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left(1e^{2\pi ikT}\right).$$
(2)
$`\overline{b}_i`$ is the beta function coefficient in the $`𝒩=2`$ sub-sector, $`C_{reg.}`$ is an infrared regularisation constant. $`T=T_1+iT_2`$, $`U=U_1+iU_2`$ are moduli expressed in function of the metric $`G_{ij}`$ (of determinant $`G`$) and anti-symmetric tensor background $`B_{ij}=Bϵ_{ij}`$ as $`T=2[B+i\sqrt{G}]=2[B+iR_1R_2\mathrm{sin}\theta /(2\alpha ^{})],`$ and $`U=1/G_{11}[G_{12}+i\sqrt{G}]=R_2/R_1\mathrm{exp}(i\theta ).`$ $`T_2`$ is expressed in $`\alpha ^{}`$ units and describes the area of compactification while $`U`$ describes the shape of the torus ($`\alpha ^{}`$ independent).

The EFT result for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_i`$, of summing one-loop effects of massive Kaluza-Klein modes only  is

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_i^{EFT}=\frac{\overline{b}_i}{4\pi }\mathrm{ln}\left[C_{reg.}U_2|\eta (U)|^4e^{T_2^{}}T_2^{}\right],T_2^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }^2R_1R_2\mathrm{sin}\theta ;\mathrm{\Lambda }\text{: UV scale}$$
(3)
Up to a UV regulator re-scaling/re-definition222This re-scaling by a constant $`(3/\pi )`$ is ultimately  an effect of winding modes (modular invariance) and has no physical meaning at EFT level; it only relates the EFT regulator to modular invariance “regularisation”. , eq.(3) has identical (UV divergent) behaviour to the limit $`\alpha ^{}0`$ of the string result (2) which includes the effects of the winding modes as well. If one uses the same regularisation in both cases, the regularisation constants $`C_{reg.}`$ in (2) and (3) are equal, but unlike the string case, $`C_{reg.}`$ of (3) is due to an UV regularisation (not IR as in eq.(2)).

In the analysis below we address further subtleties of the gauge couplings corrections in this two-torus compactification. So far we mentioned the one-loop effects of the massive (momentum, and in string case also winding) modes on the gauge couplings. Orbifold models also have massless modes, for example (but not only) the twisted modes “living” at the fixed points of the orbifold333Other massless states exist, for example if Wilson lines are present. The effect discussed is not (necessarily) due to (massless) twisted states, but more generally to the existence of massless states in a infinite Kaluza-Klein tower.. Considered separately, the massless states bring a logarithmic correction as in eq.(1), in addition to the massive modes’ correction. In this work we analyse more closely effects related to these states.

To compute the massless modes corrections to $`\alpha _i`$ one needs an IR regularisation. An UV regularisation is also required for their logarithmic correction. Surprisingly, the IR regularisation may have implications for the radiative effects of the massive Kaluza-Klein modes as well, in the EFT approach that we adopt in this work. Apparently it would seem that these two mass sectors are not connected. However, consistency of the regularisation requires us keep an IR regulator $`\chi `$ in the massive sector as well (only UV divergent in the EFT case), and only in the end remove this regulator, $`\chi 0`$. The result is the presence of an EFT correction to the gauge couplings which is a “mixing” term $`\chi \mathrm{ln}\xi `$ with UV regulator $`\xi 0`$ as well. This brings a “non-decoupling” of the IR effects from a UV logarithmically divergent correction. This correction must be added in the r.h.s. of eq.(1). This is a combined effect of the massless and massive sectors (via infrared effects).

This correction is not recovered from string calculations. In the one-loop string calculation of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_i^H`$ (only) an IR regularisation is needed . The aforementioned EFT correction can have a string correspondent of type $`ϵ\mathrm{ln}\alpha ^{}`$, with $`ϵ0`$ acting now as IR string regulator. As we will discuss, such terms do appear in string calculations. This term vanishes in the limit $`ϵ0`$ because $`\alpha ^{}`$ is non-zero and the limit of removing the IR string regulator in such terms is then possible/allowed. If we then take the field theory “limit” $`\alpha ^{}0`$ on the string, terms like $`ϵ\mathrm{ln}\alpha ^{}`$ are not encountered/kept. Thus the limit $`\alpha ^{}0`$ on the (regularised) string result will not recover the aforementioned EFT correction. This seems generic for the limit $`\alpha ^{}0`$ of string calculations with infrared regularisation.

String symmetries (e.g. modular invariance) ensure that calculations done in this framework show a better (finite) UV behaviour than the EFT does, though the string does require IR regularisation. When $`\alpha ^{}0`$ such symmetries do not necessarily survive, UV divergences (in $`\alpha ^{}`$) appear, may “interfere” with the IR regularisation and string symmetries (now broken) cannot teach us anymore in which order to remove the IR/UV regulators. If correct, the presence of the new EFT correction also tells us that one cannot address the UV behaviour (the $`\alpha ^{}0`$ limit) of a string model without simultaneously addressing its IR behaviour and the limit $`\alpha ^{}0`$ of the (regularised) string may not always recover the UV behaviour as found in the corresponding EFT theory!

In the next section one-loop corrections are computed in the EFT approach with particular attention to the effect of massless states. The link with string theory and its $`\alpha ^{}0`$ limit is then discussed, followed by conclusions. Some mathematical details are presented in the Appendix.

## One-loop corrections to the gauge couplings.

To give quantitative support to our statements, we use the Coleman-Weinberg formula for one-loop radiative effects to the gauge couplings, see for example . The one-loop corrected coupling is

$$\alpha _i^1|_{oneloop}=\alpha _i^1|_{treelevel}+\mathrm{\Omega }_i^T,i:\text{gauge group index}$$
(4)
In the context of two extra dimensions compactified on a two-torus the Coleman-Weinberg expression for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_i^T`$ due to summing the effects of all states in theory is

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_i^T=\frac{1}{4\pi }\underset{R}{}T_i(R)\underset{m_{1,2}𝐙}{}_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dt}{t}e^{\pi tM_{m_1,m_2}^2/\mu ^2}|_{reg.}$$
(5)
$`\mu `$ is a finite, non-zero mass parameter introduced to set this equation dimensionless. $`T_i(R)`$ is the beta function contribution of a state - charged under the symmetry group of the model - and which has an associated Kaluza-Klein tower. The sum over the integers $`m_{1,2}`$ runs over all Kaluza-Klein states of mass $`M_{m_1,m_2}`$ and the subscript “reg” emphasizes that the above expression only makes sense in the presence of a regularisation. Indeed, integral (5) is divergent in the UV ($`t0`$) so a regulator $`\xi `$ is introduced ($`\xi 0`$). For the massless states/modes the above integral is also IR divergent ($`t\mathrm{}`$), so an IR regulator $`\chi `$ ($`\chi 0`$) is also required. A well defined formula is then444Other regularisations are possible. For a discussion on this see .

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_i^T=\frac{1}{4\pi }\underset{R}{}T_i(R)\underset{m_{1,2}𝐙}{}_\xi ^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dt}{t}e^{\pi tM_{m_1,m_2}^2/\mu ^2}e^{\pi \chi t}$$
(6)
To evaluate the above integral we must specify the compactification manifold/spectrum. To keep the analysis model independent, we note that for a two-torus compactification (radii $`R_{1,2}`$, cycles’ angle $`\theta `$, $`\theta =\pi /2`$ for orthogonal torus) the masses of Kaluza-Klein states have the generic structure (see details in e.g. )

$$M_{m_1,m_2}^2=\frac{1}{\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }\left[\frac{m_1^2}{R_1^2}+\frac{m_2^2}{R_2^2}\frac{2m_1m_2\mathrm{cos}\theta }{R_1R_2}\right]=\frac{|m_2Um_1|^2}{(\mu ^2T_2)U_2}.$$
(7)
In the EFT approach we use the following definitions for the (dimensionless) quantities $`T`$ and $`U`$

$$T(\mu )iT_2(\mu )=i\mu ^2R_1R_2\mathrm{sin}\theta ,U=U_1+iU_2=\frac{R_2}{R_1}e^{i\theta }$$
(8)
In eq.(6) one can isolate the contribution of the massless mode (in our case $`(0,0)`$) from that of massive modes, in our case $`(m_1,m_2)(0,0)`$ as

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_i^T=\mathrm{\Omega }_i^{}+\mathrm{\Omega }_i^0$$
(9)
where555We denote by $`\gamma `$ the Euler constant, $`\gamma =0.57721`$

$`\mathrm{\Omega }_i^0`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{b_i}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle _\xi ^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dt}{t}}e^{\pi \chi t}={\displaystyle \frac{b_i}{4\pi }}\mathrm{\Gamma }(0,\pi \chi \xi )={\displaystyle \frac{b_i}{4\pi }}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}1}/\xi }{(\pi e^\gamma )\chi }}`$ (10)
$`\mathrm{\Omega }_i^{}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{b}_i}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{m_{1,2}𝐙}{\overset{}{}}}{\displaystyle _\xi ^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dt}{t}}e^{\pi tM_{m_1,m_2}^2/\mu ^2}e^{\pi \chi t}`$ (11)
A “prime” on the double sum stands for the absence of $`(0,0)`$ mode. $`\mathrm{\Omega }_i^0`$ is due to massless modes, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_i^{}`$ is due to massive modes only. In general $`\mathrm{\Omega }_i^0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_i^{}`$ have in front different beta functions coefficients ($`b_i`$, $`\overline{b}_i`$). The exact value of the latter, a sum (of $`T_i(R)`$) over a model dependent spectrum, is not relevant for our purposes. In general $`b_i\overline{b}_i`$ since in the class of models we address the massless modes include “twisted” states (MSSM-like matter states) living at the fixed points of the orbifold considered, where the spectrum is different from that of the “bulk” modes $`(m_1,m_2)(0,0)`$.

$`\mathrm{\Omega }_i^0`$ is both IR and UV (logarithmically) divergent as the regulators dependence shows. Ultimately the logarithm in (10) is just the log term of (1), as we will see upon relating the regulators ($`\chi `$ and $`\xi `$) to some IR and UV physical scales ($`Q`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$) respectively. We now address the massive/”bulk” modes’ correction $`\mathrm{\Omega }_i^{}`$. Except its $`\chi `$ additional dependence, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_i^{}`$ is identical to that in (3) and in , where the effect of massive modes alone was analysed. Since $`\mathrm{\Omega }_i^{}`$ is IR finite666If Wilson lines exist, “bulk” modes may be massless and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_i^{}`$ is not IR finite, requiring itself an IR regularisation., it only needs UV regularisation. However, we cannot remove its $`\chi `$ dependence i.e. set $`\chi =0`$ in $`\mathrm{\Omega }_i^{}`$ of (11) before performing the integral. This is because of the massless sector ($`\chi `$ dependent) which prevents us from doing so at this stage, and because the limits $`\xi 0`$ and $`\chi 0`$ of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_i^{}`$ may not commute.

The $`\chi `$ independent part of the integrand of eq.(11) can be written, using eq.(A-5):

$``$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{m_{1,2}𝐙}{\overset{}{}}}e^{\frac{\pi t}{T_2U_2}|Um_1m_2|^2}={\displaystyle \underset{m_2𝐙}{\overset{}{}}}e^{\frac{\pi t}{T_2U_2}m_2^2}+{\displaystyle \underset{m_1𝐙}{\overset{}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{m_2𝐙}{}}e^{\frac{\pi t}{T_2U_2}|Um_1m_2|^2}`$ (12)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{m_2𝐙}{\overset{}{}}}e^{\frac{\pi t}{T_2U_2}m_2^2}+\left[{\displaystyle \frac{T_2U_2}{t}}\right]^{\frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{m_1𝐙}{\overset{}{}}}e^{\pi t\frac{U_2}{T_2}m_1^2}+\left[{\displaystyle \frac{T_2U_2}{t}}\right]^{\frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{m_1𝐙}{\overset{}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{~}{m}_2𝐙}{\overset{}{}}}e^{\pi t\frac{U_2}{T_2}m_1^2\frac{\pi }{t}T_2U_2\stackrel{~}{m}_2^22i\pi m_1\stackrel{~}{m}_2U_1}`$
A “prime” on a single sum stands for the absence of the zero-mode. $`m_2`$ was replaced in (12) by the Poisson re-summed index $`\stackrel{~}{m}_2`$. Further, each of the sums above (multiplied by $`exp(\pi \chi t)`$) can be integrated over $`t[\xi ,\mathrm{})`$ separately. From (11), (12) we have

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_i^{}=\frac{\overline{b}_i}{4\pi }\left(𝒥_1+𝒥_2+𝒥_3\right),$$
(13)
where

$`𝒥_1`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle _\xi ^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dt}{t}}{\displaystyle \underset{m_2𝐙}{\overset{}{}}}e^{\frac{\pi t}{T_2U_2}m_2^2}e^{\pi \chi t}=\mathrm{ln}\left[4\pi e^\gamma U_2{\displaystyle \frac{T_2}{\xi }}\right]+2\left[{\displaystyle \frac{T_2U_2}{\xi }}\right]^{\frac{1}{2}},`$ (14)
$`𝒥_2`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle _\xi ^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dt}{t}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{T_2U_2}{t}}\right]^{\frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{m_1𝐙}{\overset{}{}}}e^{\pi t\frac{U_2}{T_2}m_1^2}e^{\pi \chi t}={\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{3}}U_2+{\displaystyle \frac{T_2}{\xi }}+\pi T_2\chi \mathrm{ln}\left[4\pi e^\gamma {\displaystyle \frac{U_2}{T_2}}\xi \right]2\left[{\displaystyle \frac{T_2U_2}{\xi }}\right]^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ (15)
$`𝒥_3`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle _\xi ^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dt}{t}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{T_2U_2}{t}}\right]^{\frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{m_1𝐙}{\overset{}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{~}{m}_2𝐙}{\overset{}{}}}e^{\pi t\frac{U_2}{T_2}m_1^2\frac{\pi }{t}T_2U_2\stackrel{~}{m}_2^22i\pi m_1\stackrel{~}{m}_2U_1}e^{\pi \chi t}`$ (16)
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \underset{m_11}{}}\left|1e^{2i\pi m_1U}\right|^4.`$ (17)
$`𝒥_1`$, $`𝒥_2`$ and $`𝒥_3`$ are evaluated in detail in the Appendix, see eqs.(A-1), (B-1) and (C-1). The above results are only valid in the limit of removing the UV and IR regulators, $`\xi 0`$ and $`\chi 0`$. Particular care must be taken when the two limits do not “commute”, in which case such terms are kept in the final result. The term $`\chi \mathrm{ln}\xi `$ in (15) is such an example. This is the only correction in the massive modes contributions $`𝒥_1`$, $`𝒥_2`$, $`𝒥_3`$ compared to their value when $`\chi =0`$ of , where only the radiative effects of the massive sector alone were addressed.

The final result for the total one-loop correction to the tree level coupling of eq.(4) is then (using eqs.(9) to (17))

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_i^T=\frac{b_i}{4\pi }\mathrm{ln}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{Q^2}\frac{\overline{b}_i}{4\pi }\mathrm{ln}\left[4\pi e^\gamma e^{T_2^{}}T_2^{}U_2|\eta (U)|^4\right]+\frac{\overline{b}_i}{4\pi }Q^2R_1R_2\mathrm{sin}\theta e^\gamma \mathrm{ln}\left[4\pi e^\gamma \frac{U_2}{T_2^{}}\right]$$
(18)
We denoted

$$T_2^{}\frac{T_2}{\xi }|_{\xi 0}=\mathrm{\Lambda }^2R_1R_2\mathrm{sin}\theta ,\text{and}\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\frac{\mu ^2}{\xi }|_{\xi 0},Q^2\pi e^\gamma \mu ^2\chi |_{\chi 0}$$
(19)
$`Q`$ is associated with a low-energy scale and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the UV scale. Eq.(19) also clarifies the link between the UV/IR regulators and their associated mass scales.

The main result (18) is valid in the limit of removing the regulators when higher order corrections in these are vanishing (see Appendix D eqs.(D. Vanishing errors in the regularised field theory result.), (D-9), (D. Vanishing errors in the regularised field theory result.)). For the mass scales $`Q`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ of the model, this means that

$`Q{\displaystyle \frac{1}{R_2\mathrm{sin}\theta }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{R_1}}\mathrm{\Lambda },(U_21)\text{or}Q{\displaystyle \frac{1}{R_1}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{R_2\mathrm{sin}\theta }}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{R_1}}\right]^{1/2}\mathrm{\Lambda },(U_2<1)`$ (20)
from which one can also find $`T_2^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }^2R_1R_2\mathrm{sin}\theta 1`$. $`Q`$ is the lowest mass scale of the theory.

Eq.(18) shows an interesting result. The first term is just the massless modes logarithmic contribution from the UV cut-off ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$) to the low energy scale ($`Q`$) where such states decouple. It corresponds to the second term in the r.h.s. of (1). The second term in (18) is the contribution (IR finite, UV regularised) of massive Kaluza-Klein modes alone mentioned in the introduction, eq.(2) in the string case and eq.(3) in the EFT approach (with $`C_{reg.}=4\pi \mathrm{exp}(\gamma )`$). Its relationship to the result of the heterotic string case  was extensively discussed in .

The last term in (18) is a new correction logarithmic in the UV scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and is not present in the limit $`\alpha ^{}0`$ of the string calculation eq.(2) or previous effective field theory calculations , . It is due to the term $`\pi T_2\chi \mathrm{ln}\xi `$ of eq.(15) which is relating/mixing the IR and UV scales through their associated regulators $`\chi `$ and $`\xi `$ respectively. This term arises from the sector of massive Kaluza-Klein modes in the presence of the IR regulator $`\chi `$. The infrared dependent part of the massive (“bulk”) modes is controlling (part of) the UV behaviour of the gauge couplings. The effect is related to the infinite number of momentum states that we summed over, see also its origin in the first integral in (B-4), and in (B-5), (B-8) of Appendix B. These equations also show the effect is present in models with two additional compact dimensions (more generally, for an even number of these). The effect arises from Poisson re-summed (0,0) levels777Note that these levels are different from the “original” (0,0) Kaluza-Klein modes. with respect to both dimensions compactified on the two-torus. These are the levels which also bring the leading power-like correction to the couplings.

The last term in (18) also shows that even though the massive Kaluza-Klein modes may have a large mass, of the order the compactification scale, they can still bring a contribution proportional to the (much) lower scale $`Q`$ (where they are actually decoupled!). The logarithm can be large since $`U_2T_2^{}`$ (equivalently $`1/R_1\mathrm{\Lambda }`$). However the coefficient in front is small $`Q^2R_1R_2\mathrm{sin}\theta 1`$ for our result to hold, see (20), and vanishes when the two cycles of the torus collapse onto each other $`\theta 1`$, (one extra dimension case). The new correction implies the existence in some compactified effective field theories of a connection between the IR and UV sectors. This effect is due to the presence of the IR regulator (required by the massless sector) combined with the UV divergence due to infinitely many massive states. It seems that the overall effect of the infinite Kaluza-Klein tower on the gauge couplings cannot be split into massive and massless contributions only, as done in eq.(1), and an additional term is present, the last term in eq.(18). This term is ultimately a combined effect of these two mass sectors, through infrared effects.

There remains the difficult question of regularisation independence. The UV regularisation employed here is supported by previous works  which match the string result  for the corrections due to massive modes alone (no massless state present). The IR regularisation using $`exp(\chi t),\chi 0`$ is similar to the IR regularisation used in some string theory approaches . The discussion in the next section also gives support to the regularisation choice independence of the result obtained.

The new correction found may have interesting implications. At the phenomenological level an example would be its effects on the exact value of the unification scale in the class of models addressed here, and the matching of the MSSM unification scale vs. the heterotic string scale.

## The limit $`\alpha ^{}0`$ of the string.

The presence of the new correction found at the EFT level may have additional implications, in particular on the link between this approach and string theory. At the (heterotic) string level the role of the UV scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ (or equivalently $`\xi 0`$) is replaced by the string scale $`M_s`$ or equivalently $`\alpha ^{}1/M_s^2`$. In the limit $`\alpha ^{}0`$ one would expect that the string result and the effective field theory result (18) would match. This does actually happen for the effects of the massive modes alone, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_i^H`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_i^{EFT}`$ while ignoring the massless modes role in the theory, as discussed in the introduction, eqs.(1), (2), (3) and in reference .

The difference between the (limit $`\alpha ^{}0`$ of the) string results and those of the EFT approach appears when considering the role of the massless states. At the EFT level they introduced the IR regulator whose presence in the massive sector brought in the last term in (18). This term is not recovered from available string results in the limit $`\alpha ^{}0`$, (see eq.(1) and (2)). To understand why this is so, it is important to mention that the string evaluation of the corrections to the gauge couplings requires an infrared regularisation . This is because the contribution of the degenerate orbits of the modular group SL(2,Z) contributing to the gauge couplings (see Appendix of ) is IR divergent. In the dimensional regularisation version  of the (IR divergent) string calculation, the total string correction to the “bare” gauge couplings888In this work we always refer to the gauge dependent part of the string correction to the gauge couplings. The universal part (gauge independent) is “absorbed” into the definition of the “bare” or string coupling $`\alpha _o`$ of eq.(1) to ensure this is invariant (as it should) under the symmetries of the string, $`SL(2,Z)_T\times SL(2,Z)_U\times Z_2^{TU}`$ . is evaluated to (the beta functions are not shown explicitly)

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_{string}^T\underset{ϵ0}{lim}_\mathrm{\Gamma }\frac{d^2\tau }{\tau _2^{1+ϵ}}Z\left[\frac{1}{ϵ}+\mathrm{\Omega }^H+ϵ\mathrm{ln}(T_2/\alpha ^{})+𝒪(ϵ)\right]_{ϵ0}$$
(21)
$`ϵ`$ is the infrared regulator in string case ($`ϵ0`$), $`Z`$ the string partition function including the massless (“zero”) modes contribution, and with the $`\alpha ^{}`$ dependence of $`T_2`$ as defined in string case, shown explicitly. $`1/ϵ`$ accounts for the massless modes infrared divergence, which is logarithmic in scale, and included in eq.(1). Finally $`\mathrm{\Omega }^H`$ is just $`\mathrm{\Omega }_i^H/\overline{b}_i`$ with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_i^H`$ given in eq.(2), and stands for the massive modes contribution. Additional terms like $`ϵ\mathrm{ln}(T_2/\alpha ^{})`$ with $`ϵ0`$ do appear in (21) during the IR regularisation of the string (see details in Appendix A of ) and are similar in structure to $`\chi \mathrm{ln}\xi `$ of eq.(15) leading to the last term in (18). Other terms relevant for the field theory limit $`\alpha ^{}0`$, may be present in eq.(21) e.g. $`ϵ(T_2/\alpha ^{})`$ or may have a more complicated structure like $`ϵ\times g(T)`$ with $`g(T)`$ being some $`SL(2,Z)_T`$ invariant function and $`ϵ0`$.

In the limit of removing the IR string regulator $`ϵ0`$, the term $`ϵ\mathrm{ln}(T_2/\alpha ^{})`$ of eq.(21) vanishes and is not present in the final string correction to the gauge couplings given by eqs.(1), (2). This is true only if $`\alpha ^{}`$ is non-zero as assumed by string calculations. However, in the limit $`\alpha ^{}0`$ supposed to give the field theory regime, such term can bring corrections to the gauge couplings999There are other IR string regularisations, considered to be modular invariant  which introduce a mass gap parameter $`\mu ^2/M_s^21`$ as IR regulator. The correspondent of this regulator in our EFT approach is $`\chi `$. In this IR string regularisation it would be useful to know if a calculation of the massive modes effects gives \[in addition to $`\mathrm{\Omega }_i^H`$ of (2)\], correction terms $`𝒪(\mu ^2/M_s^2)`$ of structure $`\mu ^2/M_s^2(T_2/\alpha ^{})\mathrm{ln}(T_2/\alpha ^{})\mu ^2R_1R_2\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{ln}(T_2/\alpha ^{})`$. Such $`𝒪(\mu ^2/M_s^2)`$ terms were not computed in this regularisation scheme. as it was the case in the EFT analysis, and should be added to the final result. Therefore the limits $`\alpha ^{}0`$ and $`ϵ0`$ do not commute (similar to the EFT case where $`\xi 0`$ and $`\chi 0`$ limits on $`\chi \mathrm{ln}\xi `$ did not commute). This also requires an analysis at the string level, to explain if any string symmetry can still prescribe (upon compactification) the order to take such limits in eq.(21). In a sense this tells us that to understand the UV behaviour of an effective field theory model from the limit $`\alpha ^{}0`$ of its string embedding, one may have to address the IR behaviour of the string!

We think that one can recover in the string case the additional correction found in the EFT approach, the last term in eq.(18), using the regularisation approach of . At string level this correction may have a more general form, invariant under string symmetries left after compactification. The limit $`\alpha ^{}0`$ on such additional string correction should recover the last term in eq.(18) computed in the EFT approach.

The above discussion explains why there is no string counterpart available for the last term in (18), even though terms of structure similar to it can arise in the string case. This supports our expectation that the last term in (18) is not a result of the regularisation choice, but a generic presence in the EFT approach. This gives an example where one cannot recover from the $`\alpha ^{}0`$ limit of available string results the UV behaviour as obtained on pure EFT grounds. The effect may be associated with the non-renormalisability of the EFT approach and the infinite number of momentum states. The extra term found in the EFT case raises questions on the exact matching procedure of the $`\alpha ^{}0`$ limit of some (infrared regularised) string calculations with effective field theory results.

## Conclusions

The effects of two extra dimensions compactified on a two-torus were studied in an effective field theory approach by summing one-loop radiative corrections to the gauge couplings, due to massless and massive Kaluza-Klein modes. First, if one considered the one-loop correction to the gauge couplings of the massive modes alone (i.e. if no massless states existed in the theory) one would only need an UV regularisation. The result obtained would be equal to that of the heterotic string in the limit $`\alpha ^{}0`$, as previous works showed. However when including in the field theory approach the effects of the massless states of the theory an IR regularisation is required in addition to the UV regularisation. A consistent treatment of these regularisations brings an additional correction to the gauge couplings, which is logarithmic in the UV scale. This (one-loop) correction originates from a UV-IR mixing term $`\chi \mathrm{ln}\xi `$ (with $`\chi 0`$, $`\xi 0`$) between the UV and IR sectors through their associated regulators $`\xi `$ and $`\chi `$ respectively. Consequently, one obtains the surprising result that these sectors do not decouple from each other and this is due to the presence of infinitely many Kaluza-Klein states. This also shows that the UV behaviour of the couplings is sensitive to IR regulator effects associated with massive (“bulk”) modes. The effect is present for two compact dimensions.

Regarding the link with string theory, we discussed why the new field theory correction is not recovered from known heterotic string results in the limit $`\alpha ^{}0`$. While evaluating this limit, one should note that string calculations for radiative corrections (to gauge couplings) usually require an IR regularisation. In the limit of removing the IR string regulator $`ϵ0`$, one discards those $`\alpha ^{}`$ dependent terms which are multiplied by the regulator, for example $`ϵ\mathrm{ln}\alpha ^{}`$, ($`\alpha ^{}`$ non-zero). Such terms are relevant for the gauge couplings, at least in the limit $`\alpha ^{}0`$ of the string. This is because such $`\alpha ^{}`$ dependent terms considered on their own, without the $`ϵ`$ dependence are divergent in the limit $`\alpha ^{}0`$ supposed to give the field theory regime. The discrepancy between the EFT and the limit $`\alpha ^{}0`$ of the string is ultimately due to the fact that the limits $`\alpha ^{}0`$ and $`ϵ0`$ of the string do not commute. This issue and its implications deserve further investigation.

The effective field theory result applies to models with “large” extra dimensions and is valid without reference to string theory. The additional radiative correction to the gauge couplings that was found shows a connection via infrared regulator effects between the massless and massive sectors (of infinitely many states) of a compactified theory. The example discussed tells us that the limit $`\alpha ^{}0`$ on the results of the (IR regularised) string as well as its matching with corresponding effective field theory results is more subtle than initially thought, if massless states are present in the theory.

Acknowledgements:

It is a pleasure to thank H.P. Nilles and F. Quevedo for helpful discussions and observations on this work. The author thanks S. Stieberger for his many helpful suggestions and comments on the manuscript. He also thanks S. Groot-Nibbelink for discussions on related topics. The author acknowledges the financial support from PPARC (UK).

## Appendix

### A. Kaluza-Klein Integrals: $`𝒥_1`$

General integrals present in Kaluza-Klein models are evaluated below (see also Appendix C in ).

$``$ We evaluate the integral: ($`\beta >0`$, $`y>0`$)

$$𝒥_1^{}(\beta ,y)_\xi ^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dt}{t}\underset{m_2}{\overset{}{}}e^{\pi \beta t(m_2^2+y)}$$
(A-1)
in the limit $`\xi 0`$ and $`y0`$.
For $`\beta =1/(T_2U_2)`$, $`y=\chi /\beta `$ one recovers the integral $`𝒥_1`$ of eq.(14) in the text.

$`𝒥_1^{}`$ does not have divergences in $`y0`$, (see eq.(A-1) in  where $`y=0`$ case is evaluated) thus terms $`\xi /y`$ or $`\xi \mathrm{ln}y`$ and alike are not present or “missed” when in the second integral in (A-3) we set $`\xi =0`$. For the error introduced by doing so, see eq.(D-1). We have ($`\xi 0`$)

$`𝒥_1^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _\xi ^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dt}{t}}\left[1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{\beta t}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{\beta t}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{~}{m}_2}{\overset{}{}}}e^{\frac{\pi }{\beta t}\stackrel{~}{m}_2^2}\right]e^{\pi \beta yt}`$ (A-2)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _\xi ^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dt}{t}}\left[1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{\beta t}}}\right]e^{\pi \beta yt}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{\beta }}}{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{~}{m}_2}{\overset{}{}}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dt}{t^{3/2}}}e^{\frac{\pi }{\beta t}\stackrel{~}{m}_2^2\pi \beta ty}`$ (A-3)
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }[0,\pi \beta \xi y]+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\sqrt{\beta \xi }}}e^{\pi \beta \xi y}2\pi \sqrt{y}\left[1\text{Erf}[\sqrt{\pi \beta \xi y}]\right]2\mathrm{ln}\left[1e^{2\pi \sqrt{y}}\right]`$ (A-4)
In (A-2) we used

$$\underset{n𝐙}{}e^{\pi A(n+\sigma )^2}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{A}}\underset{\stackrel{~}{n}𝐙}{}e^{\pi A^1\stackrel{~}{n}^2+2i\pi \stackrel{~}{n}\sigma }$$
(A-5)
We also used

$$\text{Erf}[x]\frac{2}{\sqrt{\pi }}_0^x𝑑te^{t^2};\text{Erf}[x]=\frac{2x}{\sqrt{\pi }}\frac{2x^3}{3\sqrt{\pi }}+𝒪(x^5),\text{if }(x1)$$
(A-6)
and

$$_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑xx^{\nu 1}e^{bx^pax^p}=\frac{2}{p}\left[\frac{a}{b}\right]^{\frac{\nu }{2p}}K_{\frac{\nu }{p}}(2\sqrt{ab}),Re(a),(b)>0,K_{\frac{1}{2}}(z)=\sqrt{\frac{\pi }{2z}}e^z$$
(A-7)
From (A-4) we find the leading behaviour

$$𝒥_1^{}(\beta ,y)=\mathrm{ln}\left[4\pi e^\gamma \frac{1}{\beta \xi }\right]+\frac{2}{\sqrt{\beta \xi }},\xi 0,y0.$$
(A-8)
(A-8) is a good approximation to (A-4) if $`\xi `$ and $`y`$ respect additional conditions, converted into constraints on the mass scales, see Appendix D eq.(D-9). The two limits $`\xi 0`$ and $`y0`$ on (A-1) commute (see also eq.(A-1) of the Appendix of ). Eqs.(A-1), (A-8) give $`𝒥_1`$ used in the text.

### B. Kaluza-Klein Integrals: $`𝒥_2`$

$``$ We evaluate the integral ($`\beta >0`$, $`y>0`$)

$$𝒥_2^{}(\beta ,y)_\xi ^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dt}{t^{3/2}}\underset{m_1}{\overset{}{}}e^{\pi \beta t(m_1^2+y)}$$
(B-1)
in the limits $`\xi 0`$, $`y0`$.
For $`\beta =U_2/T_2`$ and $`y=\chi /\beta `$ one recovers $`𝒥_2`$ of eq.(15) up to an overall factor, $`𝒥_2=\sqrt{T_2U_2}𝒥_2^{}`$.

$`𝒥_2^{}`$ does not have divergences in $`y0`$, (see eq.(A-12) of  where $`y=0`$ case is evaluated); thus terms divergent in $`y`$ for example $`\xi /y`$ or $`\xi \mathrm{ln}y`$ are not present or “missed” when in the second integral in (B-3) we set $`\xi =0`$. For the error introduced by doing so see eq.(D-2). We have ($`\xi 0`$):

$`𝒥_2^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _\xi ^1}{\displaystyle \frac{dt}{t^{3/2}}}\left[1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{\beta t}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{~}{m}_1}{}}e^{\pi \frac{\stackrel{~}{m}_1^2}{\beta t}}\right]e^{\pi \beta ty}+{\displaystyle _1^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dt}{t^{3/2}}}{\displaystyle \underset{m_1}{\overset{}{}}}e^{\pi \beta t(m_1^2+y)}`$ (B-2)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _\xi ^1}{\displaystyle \frac{dt}{t^{3/2}}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{\beta t}}}1\right]e^{\pi \beta yt}+{\displaystyle _1^{1/\xi }}{\displaystyle \frac{dt}{\sqrt{\beta }}}{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{~}{m}_1}{\overset{}{}}}e^{\pi t\frac{\stackrel{~}{m}_1^2}{\beta }}e^{\pi \beta y/t}+{\displaystyle _1^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dt}{t^{3/2}}}{\displaystyle \underset{m_1}{\overset{}{}}}e^{\pi \beta t(m_1^2+y)}`$ (B-3)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _\xi ^1}{\displaystyle \frac{dt}{t^{3/2}}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{\beta t}}}1\right]e^{\pi \beta yt}+{\displaystyle _1^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑t\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{\beta }}}{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{~}{m}_1}{\overset{}{}}}e^{\pi t\frac{\stackrel{~}{m}_1^2}{\beta }}e^{\pi \beta y/t}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{t^{3/2}}}{\displaystyle \underset{m_1}{\overset{}{}}}e^{\pi \beta t(m_1^2+y)}\right]`$ (B-4)
We denote the first integral in (B-4) by $`𝒥_{2,\xi }^{}`$ while the second integral (finite) can be written as a well defined limit $`lim_{ϵ0}𝒥_{2,ϵ}`$ with $`𝒥_{2,ϵ}`$ defined/computed in (B-9). For $`𝒥_{2,\xi }^{}`$ we have

$`𝒥_{2,\xi }^{}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle _\xi ^1}{\displaystyle \frac{dt}{t^{3/2}}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{\beta t}}}1\right]e^{\pi \beta yt}`$ (B-5)
$`=`$ $`(\pi \beta y)^{\frac{1}{2}}\left[\mathrm{\Gamma }[1/2,\pi \beta y]\mathrm{\Gamma }[1/2,\pi \beta y\xi ]\right]{\displaystyle \frac{e^{\pi \beta y}}{\beta ^{1/2}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{e^{\pi \beta \xi y}}{\xi \beta ^{1/2}}}`$
$``$ $`\pi y\beta ^{\frac{1}{2}}\left[\text{Ei}[\pi \beta y]\text{Ei}[\pi \beta y\xi ]\right]`$
Using that

$$\text{Ei}[z]=\gamma +\mathrm{ln}z+\underset{k1}{}\frac{(z)^k}{k!k},\text{ for }z>0$$
(B-6)
$$\mathrm{\Gamma }[\alpha ]\mathrm{\Gamma }[\alpha ,x]=x^\alpha \underset{n0}{}\frac{(1)^nx^n}{n!(\alpha +n)},\alpha 0,1,2,\mathrm{}$$
(B-7)
one can expand (B-5) for $`\xi `$ and $`y`$ small enough, to find the leading behaviour

$$𝒥_{2,\xi }^{}=\beta ^{\frac{1}{2}}\left[\frac{1}{\xi \beta }\frac{2}{\sqrt{\xi \beta }}+\pi y\mathrm{ln}\xi \frac{1}{\beta }+\frac{2}{\sqrt{\beta }}\right],\xi 0,y0.$$
(B-8)
For the term $`y\mathrm{ln}\xi `$ the limits $`y0`$ and $`\xi 0`$ do not commute and it is for this reason that this term is kept in (B-8). This is the only such case. This term is a mixing of IR/UV contributions, with implications discussed in the text. Its origin is traced to $`_\xi ^1𝑑t/t^2exp(\pi \beta yt)`$ of eq.(B-4) arising from “Poisson re-summed (0,0)” Kaluza-Klein modes with respect to both dimensions.

In the step from (B-4) to (B-8) additional corrections (convergent series) are discarded. These can be neglected if $`\xi `$ and $`y`$ respect additional conditions converted into bounds on the mass scales of the theory in Appendix D eq.(D. Vanishing errors in the regularised field theory result.).

We now compute the last integral in eq.(B-4) which is equal to the finite limit $`lim_{ϵ0}𝒥_{2,ϵ}`$ with

$`𝒥_{2,ϵ}^{}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle _1^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑t\left[{\displaystyle \frac{t^ϵ}{\sqrt{\beta }}}{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{~}{m}_1}{\overset{}{}}}e^{\pi t\frac{\stackrel{~}{m}_1^2}{\beta }}e^{\pi \beta y/t}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{t^{3/2+ϵ}}}{\displaystyle \underset{m_1}{\overset{}{}}}e^{\pi \beta t(m_1^2+y)}\right]`$ (B-9)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{\beta }}}{\displaystyle _0^1}{\displaystyle \frac{dt}{t^{2+ϵ}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{~}{m}_1}{\overset{}{}}}e^{\pi \frac{\stackrel{~}{m}_1^2}{\beta t}}e^{\pi \beta yt}+{\displaystyle _1^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dt}{t^{3/2+ϵ}}}{\displaystyle \underset{m_1}{\overset{}{}}}e^{\pi \beta t(m_1^2+y)}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{\beta }}}{\displaystyle _0^1}{\displaystyle \frac{dt}{t^{2+ϵ}}}\left[1+(\beta t)^{\frac{1}{2}}\right]e^{\pi \beta yt}+{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dt}{t^{3/2+ϵ}}}{\displaystyle \underset{m_1}{\overset{}{}}}e^{\pi \beta t(m_1^2+y)}`$
$``$ $`_1+_2`$
where $`_{1,2}`$ denote the first/second integral respectively. The second integral is similar to a DR regularised version of the initial integral (B-1), for details see also Appendix B, C of .

To evaluate the first integral ($`_1`$) of (B-9) we have

$`_1`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{\beta }}}{\displaystyle _0^1}{\displaystyle \frac{dt}{t^{2+ϵ}}}\left[1+(\beta t)^{\frac{1}{2}}\right]e^{\pi \beta yt}`$ (B-10)
$`=`$ $`(\pi \beta y)^{ϵ+\frac{1}{2}}\left\{(\pi y)^{\frac{1}{2}}\left[\mathrm{\Gamma }[1ϵ,\pi \beta y]\mathrm{\Gamma }[1ϵ]\right]+\mathrm{\Gamma }[1/2ϵ]\mathrm{\Gamma }[1/2ϵ,\pi \beta y]\right\}`$
$`=`$ $`\beta ^{\frac{1}{2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\beta }}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\sqrt{\beta }}}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi y}{ϵ}}\right]{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{\beta }}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(\pi \beta y)^n}{n!(n1)}}+{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(\pi \beta y)^n}{n!(n1/2)}}+𝒪(ϵ)`$
We used eq.(B-7) to isolate the only “mixing” term $`\pi y/ϵ`$ from the remaining (convergent) series.

To evaluate the second integral ($`_2`$) of (B-9) we have:

$`_2`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dt}{t^{3/2+ϵ}}}{\displaystyle \underset{m_1}{\overset{}{}}}e^{\pi \beta t(m_1^2+y)}=2\mathrm{\Gamma }[1/2ϵ](\pi \beta )^{\frac{1}{2}+ϵ}{\displaystyle \underset{m_1>0}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(m_1^2+y)^{1/2ϵ}}}`$ (B-11)
$`=`$ $`2(\pi \beta )^{\frac{1}{2}+ϵ}{\displaystyle \underset{m=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(y)^m}{m!}}\mathrm{\Gamma }[m1/2ϵ]\zeta (2m12ϵ)`$
In the last step we used the convergent expansion  ($`0<y<1`$)

$$\underset{n>0}{}\frac{1}{(n^2+y)^s}=\underset{m=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }[m+s]}{\mathrm{\Gamma }[s]m!}(y)^m\zeta (2s+2m)$$
(B-12)
In (B-11) the terms with $`m1`$ give finite contributions for $`ϵ0`$ and $`0<y<1`$ (in these we can set $`ϵ=0`$). However, the term with $`m=1`$ brings $`\zeta (12ϵ)`$, singular in $`ϵ0`$. Expanding in $`ϵ`$ the factors of this term leads to

$`\zeta (12ϵ)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2ϵ}}+\gamma +𝒪(ϵ)`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }[1/2ϵ]`$ $`=`$ $`\pi ^{\frac{1}{2}}(1ϵ\psi (1/2)+𝒪(ϵ^2)),\psi (x)d(\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Gamma }[x])/dx`$
$`(\pi \beta )^ϵ`$ $`=`$ $`1+ϵ\mathrm{ln}(\pi \beta )+𝒪(ϵ^2)`$ (B-13)
Altogether we find for $`_2`$

$`_2`$ $`=`$ $`\beta ^{\frac{1}{2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi y}{ϵ}}\right]+\pi \beta ^{\frac{1}{2}}y\mathrm{ln}\left(4\pi e^\gamma \beta \right)`$ (B-14)
$`+`$ $`2(\pi \beta )^{\frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{m=2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(y)^m}{m!}}\mathrm{\Gamma }[m1/2]\zeta (2m1)+𝒪(ϵ)`$
We find again a term $`\pi y/ϵ`$, cancelled in $`_1+_2`$. This is a DR “equivalent” of $`y\mathrm{ln}\xi `$ of (B-8).

Adding $`_1`$ of (B-10) and $`_2`$ of (B-14) we find the finite value of $`lim_{ϵ0}𝒥_{2,ϵ}`$ of eq.(B-9)

$`\underset{ϵ0}{lim}𝒥_{2,ϵ}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`_1+_2`$ (B-15)
$`=`$ $`\beta ^{\frac{1}{2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\beta }}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\sqrt{\beta }}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{3}}\right]{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{\beta }}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(\pi \beta y)^n}{n!(n1)}}+{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(\pi \beta y)^n}{n!(n1/2)}}`$
$`+`$ $`\pi \beta ^{\frac{1}{2}}y\mathrm{ln}\left(4\pi e^\gamma \beta \right)+2(\pi \beta )^{\frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{m=2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(y)^m}{m!}}\mathrm{\Gamma }[m1/2]\zeta (2m1),\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}0}<y<1`$
Eqs.(B-5) and (B-15) give the result for $`𝒥_2^{}`$ when $`0<y<1`$.

The leading term of eq.(B-15) is

$`\underset{ϵ0}{lim}𝒥_{2,ϵ}^{}=\beta ^{\frac{1}{2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\beta }}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\sqrt{\beta }}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{3}}+\pi y\mathrm{ln}\left(4\pi e^\gamma \beta \right)\right],y0`$ (B-16)
The leading term in $`𝒥_2^{}`$ is (using (B-8), (B-16))

$$𝒥_2^{}𝒥_{2,\xi }^{}+\underset{ϵ0}{lim}𝒥_{2,ϵ}^{}=\beta ^{\frac{1}{2}}\left[\frac{1}{\xi \beta }\frac{2}{\sqrt{\xi \beta }}+\pi y\mathrm{ln}\left(4\pi e^\gamma \beta \xi \right)+\frac{\pi }{3}\right],y0,\xi 0$$
(B-17)
This result holds if $`y`$ and $`\xi `$ respect additional conditions, converted into constraints on the mass scales in Appendix D. Eqs.(B-1), (B-17) give $`𝒥_2`$ used in the text eq.(15). For comparison see eqs.(A-12) to (A-19) in ref..

### C. Kaluza-Klein Integrals: $`𝒥_3`$

$``$ We introduce $`𝒥_3^{}`$ ($`y>0`$)

$$𝒥_3^{}(\beta ,y)=\underset{m_1}{\overset{}{}}\underset{\stackrel{~}{m}_2}{\overset{}{}}\frac{1}{\sqrt{\beta }}_\xi ^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dt}{t^{3/2}}e^{\frac{\pi \stackrel{~}{m}_2^2}{\beta t}\pi \beta t(U_2^2m_1^2+y)}e^{2\pi i\stackrel{~}{m}_2U_1m_1}$$
(C-1)
and evaluate it in the limit $`\xi 0`$, $`y0`$.
For $`\beta =1/(T_2U_2)`$ and $`y=\chi /\beta `$ one recovers the integral of $`𝒥_3`$ of eq.(16) in the text.

$`𝒥_3^{}`$ is well defined and finite in the UV limit, $`t0`$ due to the non-vanishing exponentially suppressed term $`exp(\stackrel{~}{m}_2^2/t)`$. Thus no UV divergence (in $`\xi `$) can appear and one can then set $`\xi =0`$. To evaluate the error introduced while doing so, see eq.(D-3). Note that $`𝒥_3^{}`$ does not have divergences in $`y0`$ (we assume $`U_20`$), see eq.(14) of  where $`y=0`$ case is evaluated; thus terms divergent in $`y`$ e.g. $`\xi /y`$ or $`\xi \mathrm{ln}y`$ are not present or “missed” when we set $`\xi =0`$).

Using the integral representation of Bessel functions, eq.(A-7) we find

$`𝒥_3^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{m_1=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{~}{m}_2=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\stackrel{~}{m}_2}}e^{2\pi \stackrel{~}{m}_2(y+m_1^2U_2^2)^{1/2}}e^{2\pi iU_1\stackrel{~}{m}_2m_1}+c.c.`$ (C-2)
$`=`$ $`2\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \underset{m_11}{}}\left|1e^{2\pi (y+m_1^2U_2^2)^{1/2}}e^{2\pi iU_1m_1}\right|^2`$
The product above may further be written as $`(1+a_{m_1})`$ and converges uniformly since the associated series $`|a_{m_1}|`$ converges uniformly. One can therefore take the limit $`y0`$ on $`𝒥_3^{}`$ to find

$$𝒥_3^{}=2\mathrm{ln}\underset{m_11}{}\left|1e^{2\pi im_1U}\right|^2$$
(C-3)
Eq.(C-1) and (C-3) give $`𝒥_3`$ in the text eq.(16) for $`\chi \beta `$.

### D. Vanishing errors in the regularised field theory result.

While computing $`𝒥_1`$ of eq.(14), $`𝒥_2`$ of eq.(15) and $`𝒥_3`$ of eq.(16) we introduced additional errors for each of these. We ensure these errors are negligible for “small enough” $`\xi `$ and $`\chi \beta y`$ and would like to convert this condition into bounds on the mass scales of the theory.

$``$ For $`𝒥_1`$ an error $`\delta _1`$ arises in the step from (A-2) to (A-3); for $`𝒥_2`$ an error $`\delta _2`$ arises in the step from (B-3) to (B-4); for $`𝒥_3`$ an error $`\delta _3`$ arises from (C-1) (by setting $`\xi =0`$). Their expressions are

$`\delta _1`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{\beta }}}{\displaystyle _0^\xi }{\displaystyle \frac{dt}{t^{3/2}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{~}{m}_2}{\overset{}{}}}e^{\pi \stackrel{~}{m}_2^2/(\beta t)\pi \beta ty},\beta ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{T_2U_2}},y=\chi (T_2U_2)`$ (D-1)
$`\delta _2`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{T_2U_2}}{\sqrt{\beta }}}{\displaystyle _{1/\xi }^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑t{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{~}{m}_1}{\overset{}{}}}e^{\pi t\stackrel{~}{m}_1^2/\beta \pi \beta y/t},\beta ={\displaystyle \frac{U_2}{T_2}},y=\chi {\displaystyle \frac{T_2}{U_2}}`$ (D-2)
$`\delta _3`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{\beta }}}{\displaystyle _0^\xi }{\displaystyle \frac{dt}{t^{3/2}}}{\displaystyle \underset{m_1}{\overset{}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{~}{m}_2}{\overset{}{}}}e^{\pi \stackrel{~}{m}_2^2/(\beta t)\pi \beta t(m_1^2U_2^2+y)2\pi iU_1\stackrel{~}{m}_2m_1},\beta ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{T_2U_2}},y=\chi (T_2U_2)`$ (D-3)
This gives, for any positive $`y`$

$`|\delta _1|`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle _{T_2U_2/\xi }^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dt}{t^{1/2}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{~}{m}_2}{\overset{}{}}}e^{\pi \stackrel{~}{m}_2^2t}`$ (D-4)
$`|\delta _2|`$ $``$ $`U_2{\displaystyle _0^{\xi U_2/T_2}}{\displaystyle \frac{dt}{t^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{~}{m}_1}{\overset{}{}}}e^{\pi \stackrel{~}{m}_1^2/t}`$ (D-5)
$`|\delta _3|`$ $``$ $`\sqrt{T_2U_2}{\displaystyle _0^\xi }{\displaystyle \frac{dt}{t^{3/2}}}{\displaystyle \underset{m_1}{\overset{}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{~}{m}_2}{\overset{}{}}}e^{\pi \stackrel{~}{m}_2^2T_2U_2/t\pi tm_1^2U_2/T_2}`$ (D-6)
A sufficient condition for the $`\delta _i`$ to vanish is (using eqs.(A-20) to (A-34) of Appendix A.1 of ref. )

$$\frac{T_2U_2}{\xi }\text{max}\{U_2^2,\frac{1}{U_2^2}\}$$
(D-7)
With the notation $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\mu ^2/\xi `$ this means

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }R_2\mathrm{sin}\theta >\mathrm{\Lambda }R_11,(U_2>1),`$
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }R_1>\mathrm{\Lambda }R_2\mathrm{sin}\theta (\mathrm{\Lambda }R_1)^{\frac{1}{2}},(U_2<1),`$ (D-8)
used in the text, eq(19). These also lead to a large compactification area $`T_2^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }^2R_1R_2\mathrm{sin}\theta 1`$.

$``$ The limit of “removing” the infrared regulator $`\chi y\beta `$, provides further bounds on the mass scales of the theory:

(a). While computing $`𝒥_1`$ in the text using $`𝒥_1^{}`$ of eq.(A-1) in the step from eq.(A-4) to (A-8) a (vanishing) correction (in $`\xi `$ and $`\chi \beta y`$) is discarded when the regulators are removed. This is converted into the following bounds on the mass scale $`Q^2\pi e^\gamma \chi \mu ^2`$ associated with the infrared regulator $`\chi `$

$$Q^2e^\gamma \mathrm{\Lambda }^2,Q^2\frac{e^\gamma }{4}\frac{1}{(R_2\mathrm{sin}\theta )^2}$$
(D-9)
(b). In computing $`𝒥_2`$ in the text eq.(15) using $`𝒥_2^{}`$ of eq.(B-1) in the steps from eq.(B-5) to eq.(B-8) and from eq.(B-15) to eq.(B-16) respectively, we discarded additional corrections (in $`\xi `$ and $`y\chi /\beta `$) while removing the regulators. Ensuring that these corrections are negligible provides the following (sufficient) conditions for the mass scales of the theory

$`Q^2e^\gamma \mathrm{\Lambda }^2,Q^2e^\gamma {\displaystyle \frac{1}{R_1R_2\mathrm{sin}\theta }},`$
$`Q^2e^\gamma \mu ^2,Q^2\pi e^\gamma {\displaystyle \frac{1}{R_1^2}}`$ (D-10)
Eqs.(D. Vanishing errors in the regularised field theory result.), (D-9), (D. Vanishing errors in the regularised field theory result.) combined together lead to eq.(19) up to (regularisation dependent) coefficients of order unity, not shown there explicitly.