text:
# Soft matrix models and Chern-Simons partition functions

## 1. Introduction

Random matrix models  ( for a review) have attracted great amount of interest both due to its mathematical structure and for its manifold physical applications as well. When studying matrix models, one is especially interested in the solution of matrix models in the large $`N`$ approximation, which corresponds to the planar Feynman diagrams . These models are characterized by the $`N`$ by $`N`$ matrix variable $`M`$ and by an Hamiltonian $`H=\mathrm{Tr}V\left(M\right).`$ After diagonalization of the matrix, one is able to work in the eigenvalue space, and to consider the following expression for the partition function:

(1.1)
$$Z_M=\underset{i=1}{\overset{\lambda }{}}d\lambda _i\mathrm{exp}\left(V\left(\lambda _i\right)\right)\underset{i<j}{}\left(\lambda _i\lambda _j\right)^\beta ,$$

with $`\beta =1,2`$ or $`4`$, depending on the symmetry. Equivalently, from the perspective of random matrix theory one studies the joint probability distribution function for the $`N`$ eigenvalues of the matrix . It has the well-known general form:

(1.2) $`P(x_1,\mathrm{},x_N)`$ $`=`$ $`C_N{\displaystyle \underset{i<j}{}}\left|x_ix_j\right|^\beta {\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}\omega \left(x_i\right)=`$
$`=`$ $`C_N{\displaystyle \underset{i<j}{}}\left|x_ix_j\right|^\beta \mathrm{exp}[{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}V(x_i)],`$
$`\omega \left(x\right)`$ and $`V(x)`$ are named weight function and confining potential, respectively. If the elements of the random matrix are believed to be statistically independent from each other, one obtains the quadratic confinement potential $`V\left(x\right)=x^2`$, leading to the Gaussian ensembles of random matrices . In the usual physical applications of matrix models , the confining potentials $`V\left(x\right)`$ are such that the weight function $`\omega \left(x\right)=\mathrm{exp}\left[V\left(x\right)\right]`$ is determined by the knowledge of all of its positive integer moments $`\left\{\gamma _n\right\}_{n=0}^{\mathrm{}},`$ where $`\gamma _nx^n\omega \left(x\right)𝑑x.`$ In this paper, we want to study some general properties of matrix models with a weight function that does not satisfy this property. Interestingly enough, a very particular model in this category shows considerable interest in the context of Chern-Simons theory  and topological strings .

We briefly remind now the formalism of orthogonal polynomials. Recall that the relevant quantities, such as the density of states and the correlation functions, are obtained from the two-point kernel :

(1.3)
$$K_N(x,y)=\underset{k=0}{\overset{N1}{}}\phi _k\left(x\right)\phi _k(y),$$

with $`\phi _k\left(x\right)=\omega \left(x\right)p_k\left(x\right)`$, where $`p_k\left(x\right)`$ are the orthogonal polynomials associated to the weight function $`\omega \left(x\right).`$This is the fundamental object, due to the following classical result :

(1.4)
$$R_k(x_1,x_2,\mathrm{},x_k)=det\left[K_N(x_p,x_q)\right]_{q,p=1,2,\mathrm{},n}.$$

where the correlation functions are defined as:

(1.5)
$$R_k(x_1,x_2,\mathrm{},x_k)\frac{N!}{\left(Nk\right)!}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑x_{k+1}\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑x_NP(x_1,x_2,\mathrm{},x_N).$$

For Hermitian ensembles ($`\beta =2`$), the density of states is the kernel at the origin:

(1.6) $`\rho (x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{N1}{}}}\phi _k(x)^2`$
(1.7) $`=`$ $`\omega \left(x\right)\left(p_N(x)p_{N1}^{}(x)p_N^{}\left(x\right)p_{N1}\left(x\right)\right),`$
the second expression follows when applying the Christoffel-Darboux formula . For Gaussian ensembles for example, this quantity tends to the well-known semi-circle law in the limit $`N\mathrm{}`$ . In this work we shall consider Hermitian ensembles, and this expression for the density of states will be useful to understand relevant conceptual points in our discussion.

As mentioned, we are concerned with the special properties of matrix models with an indeterminate weight function. Our discussion is mainly based on the classical moment problem  (see  for a recent review, that we will follow). The connection with random matrix theory can be readily guessed by the fact that only the moments play a role in the orthogonalization procedure. Therefore the two sets, the moments and the orthogonal polynomials, are essentially equivalent.

The paper is organized as follows: In the next Section, we give a short introduction to Chern-Simons theory and, focussing on these recent developments, we show how the matrix models in  are directly related with an Hermitian matrix model with a log-normal weight function. In this way, one can do exact computations through the associated orthogonal polynomials. To illustrate this, we compute the partition function of Chern-Simons theory on $`S^3`$ with gauge group $`U(N).`$ Interestingly enough, the use of $`q`$-deformed orthogonal polynomials readily leads to the natural parameter of Chern-Simons theory $`q=\mathrm{e}^{g_s}=\mathrm{e}^{\frac{2\pi i}{N+k}}`$. Therefore, the orthogonal polynomials approach is a method for non-perturbative solutions in Chern-Simons theory. In Section 3, we show that there are actually infinitely many matrix models with the same partition function. Finally, we show that this is a general feature of models with very weak confining potential. To conclude, we present a summary and possible directions for further research.

## 2. Chern-Simons theory on $`S^3`$: Matrix Model formulation

We begin by outlining basic and well-known facts about Chern-Simons theory, emphasizing recent results and trends that connect Chern-Simons theory with matrix models . As it is well-known, Chern-Simons theory is a topological quantum field theory whose action is built out of a Chern-Simons term involving as gauge field a gauge connection associated to a group $`G`$ on a three-manifold $`M`$. The action is:

(2.1)
$$S(A)=\frac{k}{4\pi }_M\mathrm{Tr}\left(AdA+\frac{2}{3}AAA\right),$$

with $`k`$ an integer number. The natural associated observables are the correlators of Wilson loops, and its main interest come from the fact that these correlators lead to quantum-group polynomial invariants of knots and links . For a review of the field since the seminal work , see .

We mention now some few developments related to Chern-Simons theory. As advanced in , Chern-Simons gauge theory has a string description in the sense of ’t Hooft . Indeed, as it is well-known, gauge theories with the $`SU(N)`$ group admit a large $`N`$ expansion. In these expansions, correlators are expanded in powers of $`1/N`$ while keeping the ’t Hooft coupling fixed $`t=xN`$, with $`x`$ the coupling constant of the gauge theory. In the case of Chern-Simons theory, this large $`N`$ expansion is reminiscent of a string theory expansion. This connection between Chern-Simons and topological strings was first pointed out by Witten  and has been extended in . For example, in  it is shown that if one wraps $`N`$ $`D`$-branes on $`M`$ in $`T^{}M`$, then the associated topological A-model is a $`U(N)`$ Chern-Simons theory on the three manifold $`M`$.

On the other hand, regarding matrix models, in  it was already pointed out that the structure of the partition function of Chern-Simons theory on $`S^{3\text{ }}`$ with gauge group $`SU(N),`$ resembles the usual expression for the partition function of a one matrix model in terms of its associated orthogonal polynomials. Moreover, in , it is shown that the partition function of Chern-Simons theory on $`S^3`$ and with gauge group $`U(N)`$, is given by:

(2.2)
$$Z=\frac{\mathrm{e}^{\frac{g_s}{12}N\left(N^21\right)}}{N!}\underset{i<j}{}\left(2\mathrm{sinh}\frac{u_iu_j}{2}\right)^2\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\mathrm{e}^{u_i^2/2g_s}\frac{du_i}{2\pi },$$

that describes open topological $`A`$ strings on $`T^{}\text{S}^3`$ with $`N`$ branes wrapping $`S^3`$ (see the details in ). These type of models have been further considered in . In , it was shown that topological strings for $`B`$-branes are equivalent to Hermitian matrix models, then the idea in  is to obtain the results in , by applying mirror symmetry to obtain $`B`$-brane matrix models. We will comment further on the results in  later on. Now, we mainly focus on the study of $`\left(\text{2.2}\right)`$. For recent reviews along these lines see .

We remind that, as usual in Chern-Simons theory, the string coupling constant $`g_s`$ is related with the $`k`$ in $`\left(\text{2.1}\right)`$ by:

(2.3)
$$g_s=\frac{2\pi i}{k+N}.$$

As explained in , the limit of the parameter $`g_s0,`$ lead to the usual Gaussian Unitary ensemble. One can argue, for example, that in this limit, the Gaussian becomes a Dirac delta function, and therefore the results are independent of the correlation factor, or level repulsion. In , this model is essentially studied through the consideration of averages (in a Gaussian Unitary ensemble) of the following quantities:

(2.4)
$$\mathrm{e}^{_{k=1}^{\mathrm{}}a_k\sigma _k\left(u\right)},\text{with }a_k=\frac{B_{2k}}{k\left(2k\right)!}\text{and }\sigma _k\left(u\right)=\underset{i<j}{}\left(u_iu_j\right)^{2k}.$$

This method leads to a great amount of perturbative information. Nevertheless, we note that the connection with the usual Hermitian matrix models -that is, of the type given by $`(\text{1.1})`$ \- is much simpler. Let us consider the following simple change of variables:

(2.5)
$$\mathrm{e}^{u_i}=x_i,$$

then, $`\left(\text{2.2}\right)`$, reads:

(2.6)
$$Z=\frac{\mathrm{e}^{\frac{g_s}{12}N\left(N^21\right)}}{N!}\underset{i<j}{}\left(x_ix_j\right)^2\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}x_i^N\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{log}^2x_i/2g_s}\frac{dx_i}{2\pi }.$$

The factor $`_ix_i^{(N1)}`$ can be readily absorbed by considering a simple but remarkable property of the log-normal function $`\omega \left(x\right)=\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{log}^2x_i/2g_s}:`$

(2.7)
$$\omega \left(xq\right)=\sqrt{q}x\omega \left(x\right),$$

Note that this functional equation is just a particular case of the following elementary identity:

$`\mathrm{e}^{k^2\mathrm{log}^2\left(\mathrm{e}^{\left(\alpha /2k^2\right)}x\right)}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{e}^{k^2\left(\mathrm{log}^2x+\alpha ^2/4k^4\frac{\alpha }{k^2}\mathrm{log}x\right)}`$
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{e}^{\alpha ^2/4k^2}x^\alpha \mathrm{e}^{k^2\mathrm{log}^2x}.`$
Therefore, the Chern-Simons matrix model is directly related to an ordinary Hermitian ensemble with log-normal weight function $`\omega \left(x\right)=\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{log}^2x_i/2g_s}.`$ Equivalently, one could have used the change of variables $`\mathrm{exp}\left(u_i+Ng_s\right)=x_i`$. Notice that the term $`Ng_s`$ is necessary to cancel, together with the term coming from the Jacobian, the contribution $`_ix_i^{(N1)}=_{i<j}\frac{1}{x_ix_j}.`$ Actually, this method was already employed in , where the same matrix model seems to appear in a very different context. One of our goals is to make contact between this model and Chern-Simons theory. As we shall see, this will comes out rather easily, due to the existence of a closed system of orthogonal polynomials associated to the log-normal weight. These polynomials are $`q`$-deformed polynomials known as Stieltjes-Wigert polynomials . This opens the possibility of a complete solution for the model $`\left(\text{2.2}\right)`$ of  (see also ), using the classical results for Hermitian ensembles and these polynomials. Secondly, we shall show -giving explicit examples- that there exists infinitely many matrix models -deformations of $`\left(\text{2.6}\right)`$\- with exactly the same (Chern-Simons) partition function.

### 2.1. Chern-Simons partition function through the matrix model computation

Using the previous results and the Stieltjes-Wigert orthogonal polynomials , we can find a complete solution of the matrix model considered in , and, in particular, for the partition function. For this, we can use the following well-known result for the partition function in terms of the orthogonal polynomials :

(2.9)
$$Z=\mathrm{}\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\omega \left(x_i\right)dx_i\underset{i<l}{}\left(x_ix_l\right)^2=\frac{N!}{_{i=0}^{N1}a_i^2}=N!a_0^{2N}\underset{i=1}{\overset{N1}{}}\left(\left(\frac{a_{i1}}{a_i}\right)^2\right)^{Ni}.$$

where the coefficient $`a_i`$ is:

(2.10)
$$p_i\left(x\right)=a_ix^i+\mathrm{}$$

The first step is to compute the $`Z`$ associated to the Stieltjes-Wigert orthogonal polynomials. The coefficients are given by :

(2.11)
$$a_j=q^{\left(j+1/2\right)^2}\left\{\left(1q\right)\mathrm{}\left(1q^j\right)\right\}^{1/2},$$

then

(2.12)
$$\left(\frac{a_{j1}}{a_j}\right)^2=q^{4j}\left(1q^j\right),$$

and $`a_0=q^{1/4}.`$ Therefore:

$`Z_{sw}`$ $`=`$ $`N!q^{N/2}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N1}{}}}q^{4j\left(Nj\right)}\left(1q^j\right)^{Nj}`$
$`=`$ $`N!q^{\frac{1}{6}N\left(2N1\right)\left(2N+1\right)}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N1}{}}}\left(1q^j\right)^{Nj},`$
but we are interested in :

$`Z_{\mathrm{sinh}}={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{du_i}{2\pi }\mathrm{e}^{\frac{u_i^2}{2g_s}}\underset{i<j}{}\left(2\mathrm{sinh}\left(\frac{u_iu_j}{2}\right)\right)^2}`$
$`=`$ $`\left(2\pi \right)^N\mathrm{e}^{\frac{N^3g_s}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}dx_i\mathrm{e}^{\frac{\mathrm{log}^2\left(x_i\right)}{2g_s}}\underset{i<j}{}\left(x_ix_j\right)^2}.`$
Making the identification $`k^2=\frac{1}{2g_s}`$ , and therefore $`q=\mathrm{e}^{g_s}`$. It is remarkable that we have naturally obtained, from this $`q`$ deformed orthogonal polynomials, the usual $`q`$ parameter in Chern-Simons theory. The partition function with the usual Stieltjes-Wigert weight, corresponds to:

$`Z_{sw}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}dx_i\pi ^{1/2}k\mathrm{e}^{k^2\mathrm{log}^2\left(x_i\right)}\underset{i<j}{}\left(x_ix_j\right)^2}`$
$`=`$ $`\left(2\pi g_s\right)^{N/2}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\mathrm{e}^{\frac{\mathrm{log}^2\left(x_i\right)}{2g_s}}dx_i\underset{i<j}{}\left(x_ix_j\right)^2}.`$
Therefore:

(2.16)
$$Z_{\mathrm{sinh}}=\left(\frac{g_s}{2\pi }\right)^{N/2}N!\mathrm{e}^{\frac{1}{6}g_sN\left(N^21\right)}\underset{j=1}{\overset{N1}{}}\left(1q^j\right)^{Nj}.$$

To make explicit contact with the typical expressions for the Chern-Simons partition functions (as in  for example) we make some transformations on the product term.

(2.17) $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N1}{}}}\left(1q^j\right)^{Nj}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N1}{}}}\left(2\mathrm{sinh}{\displaystyle \frac{g_sj}{2}}\right)^{Nj}\mathrm{e}^{\frac{g_sj\left(Nj\right)}{2}}`$
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{e}^{\frac{1}{12}g_sN\left(N^21\right)}\mathrm{e}^{\frac{i\pi }{4}N\left(N1\right)}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N1}{}}}\left(2\mathrm{sin}{\displaystyle \frac{g_sj}{2i}}\right)^{Nj}.`$
The final expression for the partition function is :

$`Z`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{e}^{\frac{1}{12}g_sN\left(N^21\right)}}{N!}}Z_{\mathrm{sinh}}`$
$`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{g_s}{2\pi }}\right)^{N/2}\mathrm{e}^{\frac{i\pi }{4}N\left(N1\right)}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N1}{}}}\left(2\mathrm{sin}{\displaystyle \frac{g_sj}{2i}}\right)^{Nj},`$
and since $`g_s=\frac{2\pi i}{k+N}`$, we finally find:

(2.19)
$$Z=\mathrm{e}^{\frac{1}{4}i\pi N^2}\left(k+N\right)^{N/2}\underset{j=1}{\overset{N1}{}}\left(2\mathrm{sin}\frac{\pi j}{k+N}\right)^{Nj}.$$

It was already mentioned in , that the structure of the partition function resembled very much the general expression for the partition function of a one matrix model in terms of the associated orthogonal polynomials. Here, based on the result in , we are making this statement precise through the explicit computation. Notice that the differences between the $`SU(N)`$ and $`U(N)`$ comes essentially from the contribution of the partition function of $`U(1)`$ (see, for example, the first reference in  for more details).

## 3. Infinitely many matrix models with the same Chern-Simons partition function

In this second part we shall show that the matrix models involved that appear in Chern-Simons theory present a novelty in comparison with most of known matrix models (like the ones that are relevant in 2D quantum gravity). Broadly speaking, its weight function is so broad that there is a non-uniqueness issue that leads to very practical and concrete results for the matrix model: there are infinitely many models with identical properties. In particular, identical (Chern-Simons) partition function. We begin by briefly reviewing some introductory results in the theory of the moment problem.

### 3.1. Relevant results from the moment problem.

The two basic moment problems are :

#### 3.1.1. Hamburger moment problem.

Given a sequence of reals $`\gamma _{0,}\gamma _1,\mathrm{}`$ , when is there a measure, $`d\rho ,`$ on $`(\mathrm{},\mathrm{})`$ so that

(3.1)
$$\gamma _n=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}x^n𝑑\rho \left(x\right)$$

and if such measure exists, is it unique ?

#### 3.1.2. Stieltjes moment problem.

Given a sequence of reals $`\gamma _{0,}\gamma _1,\mathrm{}`$ , when is there a measure, $`d\rho ,`$ on $`(0,\mathrm{})`$ so that

(3.2)
$$\gamma _n=_0^{\mathrm{}}x^n𝑑\rho \left(x\right)$$

and if such measure exists, is it unique ?

In our case, we are not concerned with the question regarding existence, since we always refer to the weight function $`\omega \left(x\right)`$ and its associated moments. Then, the main point is to know whether we are in the determinate or indeterminate case. To fix ideas, let us mention that there is a natural boundary for functions of the form $`\mathrm{e}^{V(x)},`$ with $`V(x)`$ of polynomial form. In the Hamburger case, the boundary is given by $`V(x)=\left|x\right|^\alpha `$ with $`\alpha =1`$, while in the Stieltjes case it is given by $`V(x)=\left|x\right|^\alpha `$ with $`\alpha =1/2`$.

Then, in the usual matrix models considered (as reviewed in  for example), one is essentially always in the determined case.

Consider now the following generalization of the log-normal weight:

(3.3)
$$f_\theta (x)=\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{log}^2x}(1+\vartheta \mathrm{sin}(2\pi \mathrm{log}x)),\text{with}\vartheta [1,1].$$

The moments of this function are :

(3.4)
$$\gamma _n=_0^{\mathrm{}}f_\theta (x)x^n𝑑x=\sqrt{\pi }\mathrm{e}^{\frac{1}{4}(n^2+1)}.$$

Note that all the integer moments are completely independent of the parameter $`\vartheta `$. This means that all the functions in the family $`f_\theta (x)`$ have the same moments. Thus, they are all undetermined by them. Conversely, one can say that the set of moments $`\gamma _n=\sqrt{\pi }\mathrm{e}^{\frac{1}{4}(n^2+1)},`$ is an indeterminate set. We present now a detailed consideration of this family of functions. The main point is the computation of its Mellin transform.

First, note that for $`\theta =0`$ we have the log-normal distribution $`\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{log}^2\left(x\right)}.`$ Its Mellin transform is:

(3.5)
$$M[f\left(x\right);s]=\mathrm{e}^{\pi ^2/4}\mathrm{Erf}\left(\frac{s}{2}\right).$$

The other part of the Stieltjes function is $`\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{log}^2x}\mathrm{sin}\left(2\pi \mathrm{ln}x\right)`$. From $`(\text{3.4}),`$ we know that all of its integer moments are zero. The most enlightening possibility is to compute its Mellin transform:

(3.6)
$$I_0^{\mathrm{}}x^{s1}\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{log}^2\left(x\right)}\mathrm{sin}\left(2\pi \mathrm{log}x\right)𝑑x.$$

We use the change of variables $`y=\frac{s+1}{2}+\mathrm{log}x.`$ The integral becomes:

$`I`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}\mathrm{e}^{y^2+\frac{1}{4}\left(s^2+1\right)}\mathrm{sin}\left[2\pi \left(y+{\displaystyle \frac{s+1}{2}}\right)\right]𝑑y`$
$`=`$ $`\sqrt{\pi }\mathrm{e}^{\frac{1}{4}\left(s^2+1\right)}\mathrm{sin}\left(\pi \left(1+s\right)\right).`$
The change of variables is the one employed by Stieltjes , with a generic, complex $`s`$ instead of an integer $`k`$. Clearly, after the change of variables, since $`\mathrm{sin}`$ is a periodic and odd function, its value is zero at $`s=k.`$ Nevertheless, the result is even clearer when looking at the full Mellin Transform: the contribution of the additional function is zero only for integer values of $`s.`$

As a consequence, for example, we have that any of the following functions have the same integer moments.

Consequently, it is manifest now that there are infinitely many matrix models with exactly the same partition function. Therefore, it turns out that the partition function of $`U\left(N\right)`$ Chern-Simons theory on $`S^3`$ can be given by an infinitely many different matrix models. From what we have seen, one possibility is:

(3.8)
$$Z_N=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\mathrm{e}^{u_i^2/2g_s}\left(1+\theta \mathrm{sin}\left(2\pi \left(u_i/g_s+N\right)\right)\right)\frac{du_i}{2\pi }\underset{i<j}{}\left(2\mathrm{sinh}\frac{u_iu_j}{2}\right)^2,$$

as always, with $`\theta [1,1].`$ Notice that due to the correspondence between $`(\text{2.2})`$ and $`(\text{2.6})`$ through $`(\text{2.5})`$, the density of states of $`(\text{3.8})`$ does *not* satisfy the property:

(3.9)
$$_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\rho _\theta \left(u\right)u^n𝑑u=\gamma _n,$$

(that is, the moments are different for each matrix model). But rather:

(3.10)
$$_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\rho _\theta \left(\mathrm{e}^u\right)\mathrm{e}^{\left(n+1\right)\left(u+Ng_s\right)}𝑑u=\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_n,withnZ.$$

To extract further physical consequences of these results and its implications for the connection between matrix models and topological quantum field theories seems an interesting open question.

## 4. On matrix models with soft potentials

In this concluding Section we show that the properties exhibited by the Chern-Simons matrix model are typical of models with weakly confining -soft\- potentials. The mathematically precise description is that the potential is such that $`\mathrm{e}^{V\left(x\right)}`$ is a function that is not determined by its moments. This feature has already been discussed in the context of random matrix theory and also in the particular case of $`q`$-deformed matrix models . In this last case, the one we are mainly interested, the non-uniqueness is strong since the potentials are asymptotically $`V(x)\mathrm{log}^2x`$ for $`x\mathrm{}`$  and we have already mentioned that we are in the soft regime when the confinement provided by the potential is weaker than $`V(x)x`$.

Employing basic results on indeterminate functions $`w\left(x\right),`$ and the classical random matrix formulae, one can prove that the density of states of a matrix model is an indeterminate function if its weight function is indeterminate by its moments. This can be readily shown if we consider the expression for the density of states (for any $`N`$) $`\left(\text{1.6}\right)`$ and Krein proposition , that essentially says that if $`_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{\mathrm{log}Q_N(x)}{1+x^2}𝑑x`$ is convergent, then the corresponding moment problem is undetermined. An analogous case holds for the Stieltjes case.

From $`\left(\text{1.6}\right)`$ we have:

(4.1) $`\mathrm{log}\rho (x)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{log}\omega \left(x\right)+\mathrm{log}\left(p_N(x)p_{N1}^{}(x)p_N^{}\left(x\right)p_{N1}\left(x\right)\right)`$
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{log}\omega \left(x\right)+\mathrm{log}Q_N(x).`$
with $`Q_N(x)`$ a polynomial. We write the expression in the second way, to emphasize that we just have the addition of a polynomial term. Then:

(4.2)
$$_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{\mathrm{log}Q_N(x)}{1+x^2}𝑑x<\mathrm{},$$

and

(4.3)
$$_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{\mathrm{log}Q_N(x)}{\sqrt{x}\left(1+x\right)}𝑑x<\mathrm{}.$$

Therefore, the convergence or divergence of $`_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{\mathrm{log}\rho (x)}{1+x^2}𝑑x`$ and $`_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{\mathrm{log}\rho (x)}{\sqrt{x}\left(1+x\right)}𝑑x`$ is exclusively given by the convergence or divergence of $`_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{\mathrm{log}\omega (x)}{1+x^2}𝑑x`$ and $`_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{\mathrm{log}\omega (x)}{\sqrt{x}\left(1+x\right)}𝑑x,`$ respectively. Then, taking into account Krein proposition, it turns out that the matrix models characterized by an indeterminate weight function, have different (but indeterminate) density of states but the same partition function. Thus, we have seen that the density of states is an indeterminate function. Let us show explicitly that their moments are all equal:

(4.4)
$$\rho _\theta (x)=\omega _\theta \left(x\right)Q_N\left(x\right),$$

that is clearly $`\theta `$ dependent and the moments:

(4.5)
$$\delta _n,_\theta =x^n\omega _\theta \left(x\right)Q_N\left(x\right)dx=\delta _n.$$

are $`\theta `$independent, since the polynomial $`Q_N\left(x\right)`$ is always the same and then we are lead to a sum of moments of the indeterminate function $`\omega _\theta \left(x\right)`$, each one of them $`\theta `$independent. Now, we can show that the partition functions are identical. We use the following expression:

(4.6)
$$Z_{N,\theta }=\rho _N\left(x\right)𝑑x=\omega _\theta \left(x\right)Q_N(x)𝑑x=Z_N.$$

That is, the partition function as the $`0`$-moment of the density of states. Alternatively, the usual expression for the partition function in terms of the orthogonal polynomials can be used :

(4.7)
$$Z_N=\frac{N!}{_{i=0}^{N1}a_i^2},$$

where $`a_i`$ are the following coefficients of the associated orthogonal polynomials: $`P_N\left(x\right)=a_Nx^N+\mathrm{}`$ This expression is valid for any weight function and only depends on the associated orthogonal polynomials, that are the same for any $`\theta .`$

Then, for example, all matrix models with the weight functions $`(\text{3.3})`$, have the same orthogonal polynomials (essentially the Stieltjes-Wigert , see above). Nevertheless, it is plain that each one will have a different density of states, since we have a different weight function (as we have seen in the previous figures).

In any case, it is clear that approaching matrix models only from the perspective of orthogonal polynomials, there is no a priori reason to choose the log-normal weight, since any member of the infinite family has identical orthogonal polynomials. Furthermore, the family of functions above discussed is by no means the only one. From our analysis with the Mellin transform, is clear that many other functions instead of $`\mathrm{sin}`$, can lead to the same phenomena. In addition, examples such as :

(4.8)
$$\omega \left(x\right)=\frac{x^{5/2}}{(x;q)_{\mathrm{}}(q/x;q)_{\mathrm{}}},0<x<\mathrm{},$$

can be relatively easily found in the literature. This weight function also leads to the Stieltjes-Wigert polynomials, that are actually terminating basic hypergeometric series and have intimate relationships with theta functions . In this work, we have discovered their remarkable connection with Chern-Simons theory and quantum topological invariants. In general, it turns out that the set $`V`$ of solutions to an indeterminate moment problem contains very different types of measures: measures $`\mu V`$ with a $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$density, discrete measures and measures which are continuous singular . Explicit cases of these last types are found in .

## 5.  Conclusions and outlook

We have seen that the matrix models that appear in Chern-Simons theory are exactly solvable and that have many interesting properties, which are novel in comparison with the matrix models that appear in 2D quantum gravity. Therefore, the orthogonal polynomials technique constitute an interesting non-perturbative method. We have checked this for the simple case of $`S^3`$ and gauge group $`U(N)`$ and, interestingly enough, the use of $`q`$-deformed orthogonal polynomials readily leads to the usual parameter of Chern-Simons theory. It seems feasible, and certainly an interesting task, to try to extend this result to other geometries -like lens spaces- and to other gauge groups as well .

On the other hand, the non-uniqueness property that we have established does not only seem to be interesting from a mathematical perspective, but it may have some physical meaning as well. We have emphasized the fact that the original Chern-Simons matrix model can be deformed in infinitely many ways, leaving the partition function always unmodified. Since this is a Chern-Simons partition function, we know it is a topological invariant. A well-known result in topology says that the topological invariant of a three-manifold is independent of the triangulation employed to compute the invariant. Thus, one is tempted to try to interpret all these matrix models as representing different triangulations of the manifold. Thus, in a sense, it would be interesting to try to obtain an analogous interpretation to the role of more ordinary matrix models in 2D quantum gravity, but in three dimensions. This is a bit speculative line of research, but it may still be worth. In any case, the non-uniqueness properties are a distinctive mathematical feature of the models and the way the it appears seems also rather interesting in itself, since the resulting logarithmic oscillations are quite typical of physical models where a quantum group structure is present. A more detailed account of this will appear elsewhere.

Acknowledgments

The author is indebted to Marcos Mariño for very enlightening discussions and correspondence, and also for a careful reading of the paper.


format: text

text:
# Wilson-Kadanoff Renormalization Group in Higher Orders: One-Dimensional g-ology Model as an Example

## I Introduction

The Renormalization Group (RG) approach, in its most enlightening formulation due to Wilson WK74 ; Wilson , is the theory designed to handle fields (quantum or classical) fluctuating over range of momentum (energy) scales.111Since the Wilson RG theory was strongly motivated by Kadanoff’s more intuitive original approach of successive averaging of the spin Hamiltonian in real space Kadanoff , it is often called the Wilson-Kadanoff (WK) RG, the term we apply in this study. In the momentum-space formulation, this range of scales where fluctuations matter is bounded by some initial ultraviolet (UV) cutoff $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$ (not necessarily finite) provided by the problem under consideration, and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$ is the scale where the RG procedure of the successive mode integration starts. For the most problems where RG was successfully applied (e.g., phase transition, field theories) the low-energy sector of interest resides near one point of the momentum space which can always be mapped to the origin of that space.

In practical loopwise calculations, the original WK infinitesimal scheme seems however to appear too involved beyond one-loop level, and, e.g., for the Wilson’s original problem of phase transition in higher orders various field-theoretic RG approaches were applied BGZ76 . In field theory the cutoff $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$ is essentially considered as a “troublesome” parameter to get rid of, either by eventually taking the limit $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0\mathrm{}`$, or, e.g, by using another regularization scheme, like the dimensional one where the cutoff is set to infinity from the start.

Contrary to the WK scheme, which specifically stipulates that at each RG step the momenta to be integrated out lie within infinitesimally narrow shell in the momentum space, in the field-theoretic RG only overall momentum conservation is taken care of, while separate momenta may lie outside of the (hyper)sphere of radius $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ (centered at the origin). This situation is well known, and contributions from the states lying outside of the action’s phase space at the distance of several radii $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$– or, in other terms, violating phase space constraints by $`𝒪(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$– do not affect the leading terms of the RG flow.

However, in condensed matter problems the Wilsonian effective action’s scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$ must be taken seriously. A priori it cannot be set to infinity or even to the largest scale provided by the underlying microscopics, i.e., inverse lattice, interatomic, etc, spacing. Even for a problem with the low-energy sector localized near the origin of the momentum space, aforementioned violations of the phase space constraints result in double counting of the degrees of freedom lying outside of the Wilsonian phase space (i.e., the degrees of freedom which are already “integrated out” in some way before we reached the Wilsonian scale from the microscopic scale). This can affect the next-to-leading terms, as well as finite renormalizations of the action’s parameters.

For the important problem of fermions having a Fermi surface – that is a low-energy sector residing near a manifold in the momentum space – accounting for the modes within the phase space only during the RG procedure becomes a rather non-trivial task, as was explained by Shankar Shankar94 . Moreover, the error of violating the phase space constraints can be of order $`𝒪(K_F)`$, where $`K_F`$ is some characteristic size of the Fermi surface, even if the low-energy modes we are integrating out reside within a narrow shell $`\mathrm{\Lambda }K_F`$.

Note that the answers for many of the most interesting problems of the condensed-matter fermions lie in calculating the abovementioned “next-to-leading terms”, where the differences between various RG approaches matter. For instance, the problem of the Fermi-Liquid vs non-Fermi-Liquid regimes of the normal state of the cuprates, from an RG point of view is the difference in the behavior of the irrelevant (self-energy) terms in both regimes. So the choice of the optimal RG scheme and the control over the subleading terms are the issues far from being academical.

The main claim we want to make from the considerations of this paper is that for a condensed-matter problem cast in terms of the Wilsonian effective action with a physically meaningful UV cutoff $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$, the WK RG provides the only scheme definitely reliable in all orders of the loopwise expansions, where all modes from the phase space are integrated once and only once. (Strictly speaking, there are no new results in the RG equations we derive below, since for the $`g`$-ology model they have been known for a long time, either from field-theoretical RG scheme Kimura75 ; Solyom79  or more recent WK RG formulations Bourbon91 ). We address the issues of how to practically employ the WK RG in higher orders, to which technically simpler scheme the WK RG can be reduced and to what extend, by studying the $`g`$-ology model of 1D fermions.

The model we consider is the simplest case of the condensed-matter fermions where the Fermi surface manifold is just a set of two points. By going deeper into a recent suggestion to this problem Bourbon02 , we apply a WK RG transformation assuring that at each step of the procedure all momenta lie within the infinitesimal shell of integration and satisfy the conservation laws, so there are no contributions from the extra states nor double counting. We show how the higher order renormalizations of the effective action’s parameters appear from the summation of the cascades of contractions generated at each step of the WK procedure. We don’t go beyond the two-loop level, which is apparently the optimal one for feasible calculations. At this level, we show that the summations over the cascades in the WK scheme is equivalent (in the fixed-point limit of the decreasing cutoff $`\mathrm{\Lambda }0`$) to applying the cutoff regularization for the field-theoretic RG with the extra states excluded from the phase space. This result, to the best of our knowledge, was not explicitly shown before. Considerable simplifications for our analysis came from introducing the chiral matrix formalism. This is a naïve (for the simple 1D case) first attempt to build into the technique the disentanglement of geometry (characterized by the “large” rigid scale $`K_F`$) and the low-energy sector per se (characterized by the decreasing scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$), and to map the latter to the same origin. This mapping makes the exclusion of the extra states particularly simple.

The rest of this paper is organized as follows. Sections II.1-II.4 are introductory. Section II.1 defines the effective action. In Section II.2 the chiral matrix formalism is introduced. In Section II.4 we explain the terms and notations of the Wilson-Kadanoff RG as it is applied in this paper. In Sections III.1-III.2 we explain the procedure and give the results for the two-loop self-energy calculations, and in Sections III.3 we establish the relationship between the field-theoretic RG and the present approach. Section IV contains the two-loop results for the couplings flow equations. The conclusions and generalizations for other models and/or higher dimensions are presented in the final Section V.

## II Model and Formalism

### II.1 $`SU(N)`$-invariant $`d`$-dimensional $`\psi ^4`$-action

We treat $`d`$-dimensional interacting fermions at finite temperature in the standard path integral Grassmannian formalism Negele88 . The $`SU(N)`$-invariant fermionic $`\psi ^4`$-action along with the related quantities and notations of this subsection have been introduced earlier GD95 , and we recall these here in order to make the paper self-contained. The partition function is

$$𝒵=𝒟\overline{\psi }𝒟\psi e^{S_0+S_{\text{int}}}$$
(1)
The free part of the action is

$$S_0=_{(\text{1})}\overline{\psi }_\alpha (\text{1})\left[i\omega _1+\mu ϵ(\text{K}_1)\right]\psi _\alpha (\text{1})$$
(2)
and $`(d+1)`$-dimensional vectors and integrals mean

$`{\displaystyle _{(\text{i})}}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\beta }}{\displaystyle \frac{d\text{K}_i}{(2\pi )^d}\underset{\omega _i}{}}`$ (3a)
$`(\text{i})`$ $``$ $`(\text{K}_i,\omega _i)`$ (3b)
where $`\beta `$ is the inverse temperature, $`\mu `$ the chemical potential, $`\omega _i`$ the fermion Matsubara frequencies and $`\psi _\alpha (\text{i})`$ a $`N`$-component Grassmann field with a spin (flavor, if $`N2`$) index $`\alpha `$. Summation over repeated indices is implicit throughout this paper. We set $`k_B=1`$ and $`\mathrm{}=1`$. The $`SU(N)`$-invariant quartic interaction is

$$S_{\text{int}}=\frac{1}{4}_{(\text{1},\text{2},\text{3},\text{4})}\overline{\psi }_\alpha (\text{1})\overline{\psi }_\beta (\text{2})\psi _\gamma (\text{3})\psi _\epsilon (\text{4})U_{\gamma \epsilon }^{\alpha \beta }(\text{1},\text{2};\text{3},\text{4})\delta ^{(d+1)}(\text{1}+\text{2}\text{3}\text{4})$$
(4)
Here the conservation of energy and momentum is enforced by the symbolic delta function

$$\delta ^{(d+1)}(\text{1}+\text{2}\text{3}\text{4})\beta (2\pi )^d\delta (\text{K}_1+\text{K}_2\text{K}_3\text{K}_4)\delta _{\omega _1+\omega _2\omega _3\omega _4,0}$$
(5)
Note that for the lattice fermions the delta-function above conserves momenta up to an inverse lattice vector. The physical case of the spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ electrons is recovered by setting $`N=2`$. We decompose the interaction by factorizing its symmetric and antisymmetric frequency-momentum- and spin- dependent parts as

$$U_{\gamma \epsilon }^{\alpha \beta }=U^AI_{\gamma \epsilon }^{\alpha \beta }+U^ST_{\gamma \epsilon }^{\alpha \beta }$$
(6)
where the functions $`U^{S/A}`$ are symmetric/antisymmetric under exchange of the left or right pairs of their variables. Two operators $`\widehat{I}`$ and $`\widehat{T}`$, which are respectively symmetric and antisymmetric in the spin space, are defined as follows:

$`I_{\gamma \epsilon }^{\alpha \beta }`$ $``$ $`\delta _{\alpha \epsilon }\delta _{\beta \gamma }+\delta _{\alpha \gamma }\delta _{\beta \epsilon }`$ (7a)
$`T_{\gamma \epsilon }^{\alpha \beta }`$ $``$ $`\delta _{\alpha \epsilon }\delta _{\beta \gamma }\delta _{\alpha \gamma }\delta _{\beta \epsilon }`$ (7b)
The one-particle-irreducible (1PI) four-point vertex $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$, defined in the standard way, comprises two components ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }^A`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^S`$) and can be written in the same manner as (6). Along with such representation showing explicitly its antisymmetry, there is another one which separates the vertex into charge and spin components via

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\gamma \epsilon }^{\alpha \beta }=\mathrm{\Gamma }^AI_{\gamma \epsilon }^{\alpha \beta }+\mathrm{\Gamma }^ST_{\gamma \epsilon }^{\alpha \beta }=\frac{1}{N}\mathrm{\Gamma }_\text{c}\delta _{\alpha \gamma }\delta _{\beta \epsilon }\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_\text{s}\lambda _{\alpha \gamma }^a\lambda _{\beta \epsilon }^a$$
(8)
The latter representation is often more convenient since charge and spin components decouple in many practical calculations. $`\widehat{\lambda }^a`$ ($`a=1,\mathrm{},N^21`$) in Eq.(8) are Hermitian traceless generators of the $`SU(N)`$ group, coinciding with the Pauli matrices for $`N=2`$, and normalized such that

$$\text{tr}(\widehat{\lambda }^a\widehat{\lambda }^b)=2\delta ^{ab}$$
(9)
They also satisfy the following Fierz identity:

$$\lambda _{\alpha \beta }^a\lambda _{\gamma \epsilon }^a=2\left(\delta _{\alpha \epsilon }\delta _{\beta \gamma }\frac{1}{N}\delta _{\alpha \beta }\delta _{\gamma \epsilon }\right)$$
(10)
The components of the vertex in different representations are related as

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\text{c}`$ $`=`$ $`(N1)\mathrm{\Gamma }^S(N+1)\mathrm{\Gamma }^A`$ (11a)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\text{s}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^S\mathrm{\Gamma }^A`$ (11b)
### II.2 Chiral matrix formalism for the 1D effective action

The construction of the low-energy effective fermionic action as a simplified form of the generic $`\psi ^4`$-action (2,4) reduces in 1D essentially to the three key steps: extraction of a finite set of (marginal) couplings; decomposition of the physical electron $`\psi `$-field into two chiral fields “near” left and right Fermi points; linearization of the one-particle spectrum $`ϵ(K)`$ around these points. There exists an extensive literature on the derivation of the 1D effective action models (Tomonaga-Luttinger, $`g`$-ology), and on many subtleties it involves (see, e.g., Ref.\[Voit95, \] and more references therein). So below we simply present notations, approximations and highlight the main points. The chiral matrix representation we derive here is in fact only a way to re-write the well-known $`g`$-ology model. (For details see the next subsection.) However this matrix formalism and related to it diagrammatics help to facilitate bookkeeping of diagrams and handling their contributions to different couplings, and, eventually, to generalize the $`g`$-ology results for other cases.

We decompose 1D momenta as

$$K_ip_iK_F+k_i$$
(12)
where $`p_i=sign(K_i)=\pm 1`$ corresponds to the right (R) /left (L) Fermi points. In the quartic interaction function $`\widehat{U}(\text{1},\text{2};\text{3},\text{4})`$ (6) we retain only its dependence on the momenta at the Fermi points, neglecting that on $`k_i`$-s and frequencies Dzyaloshinskii72 . The $`SU(N)`$ and exchange symmetry constraints leave us with four independent marginal couplings:

$`g^A`$ $``$ $`U^A(LR;LR)=U^A(RL;LR)=U^A(LR;RL)`$ (13a)
$`g^S`$ $``$ $`U^S(LR;LR)=U^S(RL;LR)=U^S(LR;RL)`$ (13b)
$`g_4`$ $``$ $`U^S(LL;LL)=U^S(RR;RR)`$ (13c)
$`g_3`$ $``$ $`U^S(LL;RR)=U^S(RR;LL)`$ (13d)
Note that the Umklapp coupling $`g_3`$ is operative only in the half-filled case when $`4K_F=2\pi `$ (we set the lattice constant $`a=1`$). For the formalism we develop below this case is considered as the most general one, while the non-commensurate filling can be recovered by setting $`g_3=0`$.

We introduce left (right) chiral Grassmannian fields as:

$$\psi _\alpha (K_F+k_i,\omega _i)=\psi _\alpha ^{L/R}(k_i,\omega _i)$$
(14)
Small vectors

$$k_i[\mathrm{\Lambda }_0,\mathrm{\Lambda }_0]$$
(15)
are restricted by the bare momentum cutoff $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$ of the effective action. Then the effective quartic interaction \[cf. Eq.(4)\] can be represented as

$$S_{\text{eff}}^{(4)}=\frac{1}{4}_{(1,2,3,4)}_{\text{eff}}^{(4)}\delta ^{(1+1)}(1+234)$$
(16)
where the transition from bold to thin variables corresponds to $`K_ik_i`$ \[cf. notations (3,5,12)\], and

$`_{\text{eff}}^{(4)}`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\psi }_\alpha ^L(1)\overline{\psi }_\beta ^L(2)\psi _\gamma ^L(3)\psi _\epsilon ^L(4)[0I_{\gamma \epsilon }^{\alpha \beta }+g_4T_{\gamma \epsilon }^{\alpha \beta }]+(LR)`$ (17)
$`+`$ $`\overline{\psi }_\alpha ^L(1)\overline{\psi }_\beta ^L(2)\psi _\gamma ^R(3)\psi _\epsilon ^R(4)[0I_{\gamma \epsilon }^{\alpha \beta }+g_3T_{\gamma \epsilon }^{\alpha \beta }]+(LR)`$
$`+`$ $`\overline{\psi }_\alpha ^L(1)\overline{\psi }_\beta ^R(2)\psi _\gamma ^L(3)\psi _\epsilon ^R(4)[g^AI_{\gamma \epsilon }^{\alpha \beta }+g^ST_{\gamma \epsilon }^{\alpha \beta }]+(LR)`$
$`+`$ $`\overline{\psi }_\alpha ^L(1)\overline{\psi }_\beta ^R(2)\psi _\gamma ^R(3)\psi _\epsilon ^L(4)[g^AI_{\gamma \epsilon }^{\alpha \beta }+g^ST_{\gamma \epsilon }^{\alpha \beta }]+(LR)`$
Note that the delta-function in (16), contrary to its “bold” counterpart (5), conserves the small momenta $`k_i`$ exactly, since the lattice effects at half-filling ($`g_3`$-terms) are explicitly taken into account in (17).

Let us now introduce four $`2\times 2`$ matrices $`\widehat{t}^i`$ such that $`\widehat{t}^0`$ is the unit matrix, and $`\widehat{t}^i`$ for $`i=1,2,3`$ correspond to the Pauli matrices. Such distinct notation helps to avoid confusion, since $`\widehat{t}^i`$ operates in the chiral, and not in the spin space. We attribute an extra chiral index to the Grassmannian field as $`L1`$, $`R2`$. Then four terms in the last two lines of Eq.(17) can be written as:

$$_{\text{fb}}=[g^AI_{\gamma \epsilon }^{\alpha \beta }t_{\alpha ^{}\beta ^{}}^2t_{\gamma ^{}\epsilon ^{}}^2+g^ST_{\gamma \epsilon }^{\alpha \beta }t_{\alpha ^{}\beta ^{}}^1t_{\gamma ^{}\epsilon ^{}}^1]\overline{\psi }_\alpha ^\alpha ^{}(1)\overline{\psi }_\beta ^\beta ^{}(2)\psi _\gamma ^\gamma ^{}(3)\psi _\epsilon ^\epsilon ^{}(4)$$
(18)
while the first two lines in that equation give

$$_{\text{uc}}=T_{\gamma \epsilon }^{\alpha \beta }[g_pt_{\alpha ^{}\beta ^{}}^0t_{\gamma ^{}\epsilon ^{}}^0+g_mt_{\alpha ^{}\beta ^{}}^3t_{\gamma ^{}\epsilon ^{}}^3]\overline{\psi }_\alpha ^\alpha ^{}(1)\overline{\psi }_\beta ^\beta ^{}(2)\psi _\gamma ^\gamma ^{}(3)\psi _\epsilon ^\epsilon ^{}(4)$$
(19)
where

$$g_{p/m}\frac{1}{2}(g_4\pm g_3)$$
(20)
Thus

$$_{\text{eff}}^{(4)}=_{\text{fb}}+_{\text{uc}}$$
(21)
The one-particle Green’s function is spin-independent in the model we consider, but it depends on the chiral index:

$$\psi _\gamma ^\alpha (1)\overline{\psi }_\epsilon ^\beta (2)=G_\alpha (1)\delta _{\alpha \beta }\delta _{\gamma \epsilon }\delta ^{(1+1)}(12)$$
(22)
The linearized bare Green’s function is given by

$$G_{0,\alpha }^1(k_n,\omega _n)=i\omega _n+\mu ϵ(p_\alpha K_F+k_n)i\omega _np_\alpha v_Fk_n$$
(23)
where

$$p_\alpha =2(\alpha 1)1$$
(24)
Now we can define the 1PI four-point vertex $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$ in this formalism. We will be interested in a particular limiting form of this vertex when its dependence on the external momenta lying at the Fermi points (parametrized by the chiral indices) is retained only, while ($`k_n,\omega _n`$) are discarded. In the lowest order $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^{(0)}`$ can be read off from $`_{\text{eff}}^{(4)}`$ (18,19,21). As follows from the group-theory arguments, this structure of the vertex is preserved by interaction $`_{\text{eff}}^{(4)}`$: the latter results in only the renormalization of couplings, but no new couplings are generated. Thus, the following operator expansion with four couplings holds non-perturbatively:

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}=g^A\widehat{I}\widehat{t}^2\widehat{t}^2+\widehat{T}[g^S\widehat{t}^1\widehat{t}^1+g_p\widehat{t}^0\widehat{t}^0+g_m\widehat{t}^3\widehat{t}^3]$$
(25)
In order to keep the notations compact, we do not change them in (25), however couplings are renormalized by interaction comparatively to their bare values (13). To the same end we will not indicate explicitly the chiral and spin indices from now on (unless there is a possibility of confusion), incorporating them into the “thin variables”. So we imply

$$_{\text{fb}}+_{\text{uc}}\text{[cf. Eqs.(}\text{18}\text{,}\text{19}\text{)]}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(0)}(12;34)\overline{\psi }(1)\overline{\psi }(2)\psi (3)\psi (4)$$
(26)
Comparison of Eqs.(18,19,26) with the operator form (25) clarifies how we attribute the chiral and spin indices for the matrix elements of $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$. Note the explicit antisymmetry of the vertex $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(12;34)`$ under exchange of the left or right pairs of variables in the representation (25).

We can recover couplings from the vertex by appropriate convolutions, i.e.,

$`g^A`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{48}}\left(t_{21}^2\mathrm{\Gamma }(12;34)I_{21}^{43}t_{43}^2\right)`$ (27a)
$`g_p`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16}}\left(t_{21}^0\mathrm{\Gamma }(12;34)T_{21}^{43}t_{43}^0\right)`$ (27b)
and other two couplings are obtained from Eq.(27b) by obvious substitutions, namely, $`g^S:\widehat{t}^0\widehat{t}^1`$; $`g_m:\widehat{t}^0\widehat{t}^3`$.

### II.3 Contact with the $`g`$-ology model

Here we want to make a contact between the chiral matrix formalism and more commonly used $`g`$-ology language (see, e.g., Ref.\[Solyom79, \]). No surprise that this subsection’s formal manipulations with the fully (anti)symmetrized “chiral” action amount essentially to reducing it to the non-symmetrized form. The latter is usually used as a departure point of various $`g`$-ology models.

Let us show first how the charge- and spin-operator interaction action, involving forward and backscattering couplings called $`g_2`$, $`g_1`$ respectively in the $`g`$-ology nomenclature, can be recovered from the part $`_{\text{fb}}`$ (18) of the effective quartic interaction (21). $`_{\text{fb}}`$ can be split in two terms by the following projection in the chiral space:

$`_{\text{fb}}`$ $`=`$ $`\left([1t_{\alpha \gamma }^0t_{\beta \epsilon }^0]+t_{\alpha \gamma }^0t_{\beta \epsilon }^0\right)(g^A\widehat{I}t_{\alpha \beta }^2t_{\gamma \epsilon }^2+g^S\widehat{T}t_{\alpha \beta }^1t_{\gamma \epsilon }^1)[\psi ^4]_N`$ (28)
$``$ $`_{\text{cs1}}+_{\text{cs2}}`$
Above we indicate explicitly the chiral indices only, and $`[\psi ^4]_N`$ stands for the product of four $`\psi `$-fields “normally-ordered” as on the r.h.s. of Eq.(18). Using the Fierz identity (10) for the $`SU(2)`$ chiral operators $`t^i`$, one can prove that

$`_{\text{cs1}}`$ $``$ $`(1t_{\alpha \gamma }^0t_{\beta \epsilon }^0)(g^A\widehat{I}t_{\alpha \beta }^2t_{\gamma \epsilon }^2+g^S\widehat{T}t_{\alpha \beta }^1t_{\gamma \epsilon }^1)[\psi ^4]_N`$ (29)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(t_{\alpha \beta }^1t_{\gamma \epsilon }^1+t_{\alpha \beta }^2t_{\gamma \epsilon }^2)(g^A\widehat{I}+g^S\widehat{T})[\psi ^4]_N`$
It can be also shown that the above expression reduces to

$$_{\text{cs1}}=t_{\alpha \beta }^1(g^A\widehat{I}+g^S\widehat{T})\overline{\psi }^\alpha (1)\overline{\psi }^\beta (2)\psi ^\beta (3)\psi ^\alpha (4)$$
(30)
In the same manner we find

$$_{\text{cs2}}=t_{\alpha \beta }^1(g^A\widehat{I}+g^S\widehat{T})\overline{\psi }^\alpha (1)\overline{\psi }^\beta (2)\psi ^\alpha (3)\psi ^\beta (4)$$
(31)
Using the symmetry properties of the spin operators and changing the dummy variables, it is easy to see that the term $`_{\text{cs1}}`$ results in the same expression for the action \[cf. Eq.(16)\] as $`_{\text{cs2}}`$, so $`S_{\text{fb}}=2S_{\text{cs2}}`$. Applying then the Fierz identity (10) \[cf. also definitions (7)\] for the operators $`\widehat{I},\widehat{T}`$ in case of $`SU(2)`$, and using the conservation law for momentum-frequency such that $`3=1+Q`$, $`4=2Q`$, we get

$$S_{\text{fb}}=\frac{1}{4}t_{\alpha \beta }^1_Q\left(g_c\rho ^\alpha (Q)\rho ^\beta (Q)+4g_sS_a^\alpha (Q)S_a^\beta (Q)\right)$$
(32)
where we introduced the operators of the chiral (i.e., left/right) charge and of the chiral $`a`$-component of spin as

$`\rho ^\alpha (Q)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _1}\overline{\psi }_\beta ^\alpha (1)\psi _\beta ^\alpha (1+Q)`$ (33a)
$`S_a^\alpha (Q)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _1}\overline{\psi }_\beta ^\alpha (1)\lambda _{\beta \gamma }^a\psi _\gamma ^\alpha (1+Q)`$ (33b)
Note that in the above formulas there are no sums over $`\alpha `$. We have also defined the charge and spin couplings:

$`g_c`$ $`=`$ $`g^S3g^A`$ (34a)
$`g_s`$ $`=`$ $`g^Sg^A`$ (34b)
It is worth noting that although there is no one-to-one correspondence between 1D couplings (13a,b) and the vertex components $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^A,\mathrm{\Gamma }^S`$ \[the latter in 1D are rather products of corresponding couplings and operators in the chiral space, as can be seen from comparison of Eqs.(8,25)\], the definitions for the components which couple separated charge or spin modes (11) hold for the chiral ones (34). It is also useful to give the relationship between our constants and the standard (dimensionful) $`g`$-ology couplings: $`g_c=2g_2g_1`$, $`g_s=g_1`$.

The term $`S_{\text{uc}}`$ of the total quatric interaction generated by the contact coupling at the same Fermi point ($`g_4`$) and the Umklapp coupling ($`g_3`$) can be written as

$`S_{\text{uc}}=`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_4}{42}}{\displaystyle _Q}\left(\rho ^\alpha (Q)\rho ^\alpha (Q)4S_a^\alpha (Q)S_a^\alpha (Q)\right)`$ (35)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_3}{42}}t_{\alpha \beta }^1{\displaystyle _{1,2,Q}}\left(\delta _{\gamma \nu }\delta _{\sigma \epsilon }\lambda _{\gamma \nu }^a\lambda _{\sigma \epsilon }^a\right)\overline{\psi }_\gamma ^\alpha (1)\psi _\nu ^\beta (1+Q)\overline{\psi }_\sigma ^\alpha (2)\psi _\epsilon ^\beta (2Q)`$
The way we write the Umklapp contribution is to reinstate the known fact that since $`g_3`$ couples fields with different chiralities, it cannot be represented in terms of the local chiral charge or spin operators.

### II.4 Wilson-Kadanoff renormalization group for the chiral effective action

In this study we apply the original Wilson-Kadanoff momentum-space Renormalization Group scheme WK74 ; Wilson  to the effective action with the quartic interaction containing four coupling constants. This interaction in the chiral formalism is given by Eqs. (25,26). In that formalism all the constraints coming from the original two-point geometry of the Fermi surface, and consequently, occurrence of the two types (left/right) of fermion fields and of Green’s functions, are taken care of by the appropriate summations over chiral indices. In applying the RG procedure we successively integrate out the Grassmannian fields in the phase space of the small momenta $`k_i`$ (12). The latter, like in the quantum or classical $`\phi ^4`$-theories, can be seen now as having common origin towards which we eliminate modes in the $`k`$-space.

We start with the effective action (25,26) having momenta restricted by the initial (bare) ultra-violet (UV) cutoff $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$ (15). After $`N`$ steps of the mode elimination ($`N1`$), we end up with the cutoff $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ chosen such that:

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}1,\frac{v_F\mathrm{\Lambda }}{T}1$$
(36)
(We choose the RG scheme without rescaling of the cutoff.) Each step consists of mode integration within the infinitesimal shell $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ in the $`k`$-space, where

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0\mathrm{\Lambda }}{N}$$
(37)
(the equidistant step is chosen for simplicity only) such that after n steps the UV cutoff $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_n`$ is

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_n=\mathrm{\Lambda }_0n\mathrm{\Delta },1nN(\mathrm{\Lambda }_N\mathrm{\Lambda })$$
(38)
We define the $`n`$-th shell in the momentum space $`𝒮_n`$ as

$$𝒮_n[\mathrm{\Lambda }_{n1},\mathrm{\Lambda }_n][\mathrm{\Lambda }_n,\mathrm{\Lambda }_{n1}]𝒮_n^{}𝒮_n^+$$
(39)
In the final results given in the following sections we will smoothly take continuous limit $`\mathrm{\Delta }0`$ ($`N\mathrm{}`$) such that relationship (37) holds. Then the lowering cutoff $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ will be determined by the continuous RG flow parameter $`l`$ defined as:

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }(l)=\mathrm{\Lambda }_0\text{e}^l$$
(40)
As it was discussed in the closely related earlier study of the $`g`$-ology model Bourbon02 , the straightforward application of the Wilson-Kadanoff RG beyond one-loop level encounters some difficulties. They stem from the constraint on the momenta to be integrated out at the $`n`$-th step to lie within the shell $`𝒮_n`$, and on the total momentum flowing through a given graph to conserve. It was shown in Ref. \[Bourbon02, \] that the solution of this problem consistent with the logic of the WK RG can be found when multi-loop graphs (the standard ones for the field-theoretical RG) renormalizing action’s vertices are obtained through cascades of contractions at different steps of the RG procedure. In this study we refine the “cascade scheme” of the RG calculations put forward in Ref. \[Bourbon02, \] for the $`g`$-ology model. We show that the aforementioned constraints on the momenta can be cast in terms of the “selection rules” for the numbers of steps entering a given cascade of contractions. Summations over all allowed types of cascades provides the results particularly illuminating for understanding the origin of the (logarithmic) equivalence of the WK and field-theoretic RG versions.

## III Self-Energy at the two-loop level

### III.1 Cascades of contractions and kinematic constraints

We use the standard definition for the field renormalization constant relating it to the self-energy (assuming that the analytical continuation from Matsubara frequencies is done):

$$Z^1=1\frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }_\alpha (k,\omega )}{\omega }|_{k0}^{\omega 0}$$
(41)
It is easy to show that in our model $`Z`$ does not dependent on the chirality index. The first correction to $`Z`$ comes from the two-loop “sunrise” self-energy diagram. However, in the WK RG scheme such a diagram if obtained in the second order by a contraction of three legs of the four-leg interaction (16) with itself, gives a vanishingly small contribution. This is due to the momentum constraints discussed above. (See also Ref. \[Bourbon02, \] for more details.) The graphs we are looking for can come only from two types of cascades of contractions generated by the mode elimination of the original action (16): 3-step and 2-step cascades depicted in Fig. 1. 3-step cascade (Fig. 1a) is generated (in the second order over interaction) as follows: (i) at the $`n`$-th step of the mode elimination the four-point vertex is contracted with itself to generate the six-leg vertex; (ii) $`m`$ steps after \[i.e. at the ($`n+m`$)-th step\] two legs of this vertex are contracted; (iii) at the ($`n+m+k`$)-th step two other legs are contracted resulting in the final correction to the two-leg vertex (i.e., one-particle Green’s function). 2-step cascade (Fig. 1b) is generated as follows: (i) at the $`n`$-th step two pairs of legs of the four-point vertices are contracted; (ii) at the ($`n+m`$)-th step two more legs are contracted. The above description of the cascades was very schematic and illustrative. We did not take care of the kinematics of diagrams (that is why we did not indicate the momentum directions in the graphs of Fig. 1), and the integers numerating the steps are unrelated and free to take any values restricted only by the total number of steps of the RG procedure, i.e., $`1nn+mn+m+kN`$.222Note that 2-step cascade or “1-step cascade” (i.e., simple contraction) can be considered as special cases of a 3-step cascade if we allow the integers $`m,k`$ to take zero values.

To proceed with the further analysis of the pertinent cascades let us consider the renormalization of the one-particle Green’s function at $`k=\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. As the RG flows towards the fixed point ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }0`$) this quantity will provide us with the field renormalization constant $`Z`$ (41). For this purpose we consider the terms generated by the two types of cascades described above renormalizing the coefficient of the action’s Grassmannian binomial $`\overline{\psi }(1)\psi (1)`$. Diagrammatically they are shown in Fig. 2. Analysis reveals that there are three kinematically non-equivalent graphs ($`a,b,c`$ in that figure) generated by the 3-step cascades and two graphs ($`d,e`$) from 2-step cascades. We choose the external momentum

$$k_1=\mathrm{\Lambda }_N\mathrm{\Lambda }$$
(42)
and the other external variables (chirality, spin, frequency) are not specified at this point. For the further applications we approximate

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }=L\mathrm{\Delta }$$
(43)
where L is an integer ($`1LN`$). The error $`𝒪(\mathrm{\Delta })`$ of the representation (43) disappears when we eventually take the limit $`\mathrm{\Delta }0`$.

Let us start with the kinematics of the first three graphs. We find that for each of these graphs there are two solutions compatible with the constraints imposed by the WK procedure and the momentum conservation law. They are given in Table I.
Table I: Solutions for the momenta of the three graphs in Fig. 2 compatible with the kinematic constraints.
Graph a a b b c c   Solution I II I II I II  m’= m m-2L m m-2L m m-2L  $`k_2`$ $`𝒮_{Nm}^{}`$ $`𝒮_{Nm+2L}^+`$ $`𝒮_n^+`$ $`𝒮_n^{}`$ $`𝒮_{n+m}^{}`$ $`𝒮_{n+m}^+`$  $`k_3`$ $`𝒮_n^{}`$ $`𝒮_n^+`$ $`𝒮_{Nm}^+`$ $`𝒮_{Nm+2L}^{}`$ $`𝒮_{Nm}^+`$ $`𝒮_{Nm+2L}^{}`$  $`k_4`$ $`𝒮_{n+m}^+`$ $`𝒮_{n+m}^{}`$ $`𝒮_{n+m}^+`$ $`𝒮_{n+m}^{}`$ $`𝒮_n^{}`$ $`𝒮_n^+`$
The ranges for the integers $`n,m`$ satisfying the solutions I, II are:

$`I(a,b,c):`$ $`1`$ $`nN2m;1m{\displaystyle \frac{N}{2}}`$ (44a)
$`II(a,b,c):`$ $`1`$ $`nN+2(Lm);2L<m{\displaystyle \frac{N}{2}}+L`$ (44b)
Thus in order to obtain the total contribution of these cascade-generated graphs to the self-energy we have to integrate two independent momenta in each graph over available range (i.e. two possible configurations I, II for each graph) and to sum over all allowed types of cascades parameterized by ($`n,m`$) within the ranges (44). (And of course, there are always straightforward summations over other variables, i.e., chirality, spin, frequency which take all available values.)

We have not shown in Table 1 available kinematic solutions for the 2-step cascade graphs d, e, since their contribution is negligible in comparison to that of a-c. Indeed, as can be shown from the results below, the graphs d, e as well as a-c at a fixed m give the contributions $`𝒪(\mathrm{\Delta }/\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ to the constant $`Z`$. However the extra sum over $`m`$ renders the latter logarithmic $`𝒪(\mathrm{ln}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}{\mathrm{\Lambda }})`$, while the former do not have this extra sum and thus strictly disappear in the limit $`\mathrm{\Delta }0`$. For the same reason we drop some extra solutions for the graphs a-c which occur only under special relationships between $`n`$ and $`m`$ (i.e., there is no double sum over $`n,m`$): they give vanishing contributions.333In the light of the previous comment (see the footnote on p. 2) it is clear that special configurations (or “lower-order” cascades) are in fact recovered in the double integrals appearing in the limit $`\mathrm{\Delta }0`$ as some points or lines, i.e., manifolds of inferior measure.

### III.2 Two-loop calculations

Now we can proceed with the RG calculations via a straightforward evaluation of the graphs from Fig. 2. For certainty we fix the external chiral index of those graphs to be 2, i.e. corresponding to the right component of the Grassmannian field. Since graph’s contributions in the spin space are diagonal and spin-independent, the external spin can be “up” or “down”. After summation over chiral and spin indices we obtain for the sunrise graph contribution $`\text{F}_+(1)`$ (here plus stands to indicate our choice of the external chiral index):

$$\text{F}_+(1)=_{(2,3,4)}\left[\frac{1}{2}\left(g_c^2+3g_s^2\right)_+^{cs}+2g_3^2_+^u+2g_4^2_+^4\right]\delta ^{(1+1)}(1+234)$$
(45)
where thin variables signify momenta and frequencies, i.e., the only ones left, and

$`_+^{cs}`$ $``$ $`G_{}(2)\left[G_{}(3)G_+(4)+G_+(3)G_{}(4)\right]`$ (46a)
$`_+^u`$ $``$ $`G_+(2)G_{}(3)G_{}(4)`$ (46b)
$`_+^4`$ $``$ $`G_+(2)G_+(3)G_+(4)`$ (46c)
Note that until the integration ranges for the momenta $`k_2,k_3,k_4`$ are specified, the same analytical expression $`\text{F}_+(1)`$ (45) corresponds to the each of graphs depicted in Fig. 2.

The following summation of Matsubara frequencies in (45) is straightforward. Due to conditions (36) we approximate the occurring hyperbolic functions up to exponentially small terms $`𝒪(\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{\Lambda }/T))`$. With this accuracy we drop all contributions from the term $`_+^4`$. Analysis of the available kinematic configurations from Table 1 for other terms shows that some of them are also exponentially small, so we put

$`_+^{cs}|_{bI,II}=0`$ (47a)
$`_+^u|_{aI,II}=0`$ (47b)
$`_+^u|_{cI,II}=0`$ (47c)
Our calculations show that the term $`_+^{cs}`$ evaluated for the configurations of the graph a (solutions I, II) and c (I, II) gives four equal contributions to the self-energy. Analogously, two contributions of $`_+^u`$ from b (I, II) are equal to each other. In order to demonstrate how these calculations are done, let us consider as an example $`_+^{cs}`$ for the configuration (a, I). To obtain its total contribution to the self-energy, we have to to integrate two independent momenta within the ranges indicated in Table I for fixed $`n,m`$ and then to sum over all available cascades (a, I) according to (44a). This gives: 444Strictly speaking, couplings in the sunrise graphs depend on the smallest shell number, i.e., n. By pulling them out of sums and integrals, as should be clear from the content of this section, we actually approximate them by their values at the largest shell number (i.e., at $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$). This approximation (called “local” in Ref.\[Bourbon02, \]) is common for all RG schemes, and in any case possible corrections to it lie beyond the two-loop level.

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_+^{cs}(1)|_{a1}=\frac{v_F}{16}\left(g_c^2+3g_s^2\right)\underset{m=1}{\overset{N/2}{}}\underset{n=1}{\overset{N2m}{}}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }m\mathrm{\Delta }}^{\mathrm{\Lambda }m\mathrm{\Delta }+\mathrm{\Delta }}𝑑k_2_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_nm\mathrm{\Delta }}^{\mathrm{\Lambda }_nm\mathrm{\Delta }+\mathrm{\Delta }}\frac{dk_4}{a_+k_2+k_4}$$
(48)
where

$$\frac{1}{a_+}2v_FG_{0,+}(1)$$
(49)
In Eq. (48) and in the following we use dimensionless couplings absorbing the density of states factor in their definition, i.e.,

$$\frac{g_{\mathrm{}}}{\pi v_F}g_{\mathrm{}}$$
(50)
In the limit $`\mathrm{\Delta }0`$ the sums above neatly combine into a simple double integral

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_+^{cs}(1)|_{a1}=\frac{v_F}{16}\left(g_c^2+3g_s^2\right)_{\frac{1}{2}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_0+\mathrm{\Lambda })}^\mathrm{\Lambda }𝑑k_2_{k_2}^{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0+\mathrm{\Lambda }+k_2}\frac{dk_4}{a_+k_2+k_4}$$
(51)
which gives

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }_+^{cs}(0)}{\omega }|_{a1}=\frac{g_c^2+3g_s^2}{416}\left(\mathrm{ln}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}+\mathrm{}\right)$$
(52)
where the omitted terms $`const+𝒪(\mathrm{\Lambda }/\mathrm{\Lambda }_0)`$ are irrelevant for the RG flow equations. Combining evaluated in the same way other contributions and using the definitions (40,41), we obtain the two-loop RG equation

$$\frac{\mathrm{ln}Z}{l}=\frac{1}{16}(g_c^2+3g_s^2+2g_3^2)$$
(53)
This equation was first obtained in Ref.\[Kimura75, \].

### III.3 Wilson-Kadanoff vs field-theoretic schemes

In order to get more insights from the obtained results, let us first rewrite some of the previous formulas. Using the transfer momentum vector $`q=k_2k_4`$ in Eq.(51), we get

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_+^{cs}(1)|_{a1}=\frac{v_F}{16}\left(g_c^2+3g_s^2\right)_{\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}^\mathrm{\Lambda }𝑑k_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}^{2k}\frac{dq}{a_+q}$$
(54)
In the above equation we dropped the index of the vector $`k_2`$ and neglected terms $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$ in the limits of integrals, since we are eventually interested only in the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }0`$ limit. Other three non-zero contributions \[cf. Eq.(47a)\] to the $`cs`$-term of the self-energy after analogous variable changes can be reduced to the form (54) but with different integration ranges. Combined together, these contributions can be written as:

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_+^{cs}(1)=\frac{v_F}{16}\left(g_c^2+3g_s^2\right)_{\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}^{\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}𝑑k\mathrm{\Theta }(k^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}^{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}\frac{dq\mathrm{\Theta }(q^24k^2)}{a_+q}$$
(55)
where $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is the event (Heaviside) function.

Thus, by applying the canonical Wilson-Kadanoff scheme where all momenta in the diagrams lie strictly within an infinitesimal shell at each step of the RG procedure, and by summing all pertinent infinitesimal contributions through singling out kinematically-allowed cascades, we end up with results which could have been obtained in the field-theoretic scheme. As one can see, formula (55) for the self-energy resembles the one derived in the RG scheme where momenta are let to run freely within a whole band restricted only by the IR and UV cutoffs.

To sharpen the last statement, let us derive now the self-energy in the field-theoretic RG scheme with the cutoff regularization. (Thorough description of various field-theoretic RG approaches can be found, e.g., in Ref.\[Zinn99, \].) Let us assume that we have the same bare effective action as we used before. Since the theory is logarithmical, we regularize divergent integrals by introducing IR and UV cutoffs. We assume that they satisfy the same conditions as those for the WK effective action (36). Since a priori the cutoffs in the field-theoretic and WK approaches are not the same, we will mark the former with tildes.555For the IR cutoff $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ to be the smallest scale of the problem we will work with the theory in the zero-temperature limit. For the following comparisons note that the second condition (36) effectively brings the WK RG results to the zero-temperature limit as well. Contrary to the WK scheme, in the field-theoretic approach the self-energy contribution we are looking for: (i) comes from the only one sunrise graph as those depicted in Fig. 2; (ii) independent momenta in the graph are restricted by the model cutoffs only ; (iii) the graph has a combinatorial factor $`1/2`$. All the summations before the final momentum integrations in this graph lead to the same formulas as in the previous subsection (except the overall factor $`1/2`$). We choose a couple of independent momenta $`k_i`$ restricted by the cutoffs $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }},\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_0`$. It can be shown that the term of the self-energy involving charge and spin couplings can be brought to the form (55) with $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_0\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$ up to $`𝒪(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}/\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_0)`$. With the same accuracy the self-energy Umklapp terms coincide in the WK and field-theoretic approaches. Thus both schemes result in the same leading $`\mathrm{ln}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_0/\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ term in the derivative of the self-energy with respect to the frequency, and therefore to the same RG equation (53).

The relationship between the two RG schemes can be seen even in a simpler way in the limit $`\mathrm{\Lambda }0`$, i.e., the fixed point limit we are always interested in. Let us draw the regions of momenta integrations corresponding to the solutions from Table I summed over available $`n`$ and $`m`$. As a couple of independent momenta we choose $`(k_3,k_4)`$. These regions are shown in Fig. 3. Let us remind also that while showing kinematically non-equivalent cascades (a-c) in Fig. 2 we have used the (anti)symmetry of the vertex, and, correspondingly, that of graph’s contributions under the exchange ($`34`$). So the sum of these three graphs can also be written as $`(a+b+c)=\frac{1}{2}(a+b+c+a^{}+b^{}+c^{})`$, where the primed graphs correspond to the above exchange. As one can see from Fig. 3 the regions for unprimed and primed solutions (the primed solutions are obtained from their unprimed counterparts by the reflection over the main diagonal), fill completely the hexagon shown in bold. The latter is nothing but the whole phase space of the sunrise graph

$$𝒮_{\text{restr}}:|k_i|\mathrm{\Lambda }_0,i=2,3,4;k_1=0.$$
(56)
Now assuming that the summations and integrations commute we can write the total sunrise self-energy correction $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\text{sr}}^{\text{casc}}`$ resulting from the sum of three kinematically distinct graphs 2a-c over two solutions for each graph and over all available cascades as a single term

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\text{sr}}^{\text{casc}}(1)=\frac{1}{2}_{(2,3,4);k_i𝒮_{\text{restr}}}\mathrm{\Gamma }(12,34)G(2)G(3)G(4)\mathrm{\Gamma }(34,12)\delta ^{(1+1)}(1+234)$$
(57)
Here we came back to the original thin variables comprising chiral and spin indices, Matsubara frequencies, and momenta ($`\omega _1,k_10`$). Thus the self-energy correction has the same analytical form as the one written in the cutoff field-theoretic approach. In the latter however, after removing one momentum by the delta-function (e.g., $`k_2`$) only two independent momenta are explicitly restricted by $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$. This results in the contributions from the extra states forbidden by the whole phase space constraints. These extra states lie in the triangles in the first and third quadrants of the $`(k_3,k_4)`$-plane (cf. Fig. 3). In the logarithmic theory as the one we are dealing with, integration over these forbidden states may result in only the finite terms to the self-energy correction, thus leaving the RG equation (53) unaffected.666It is possible, (e.g., it happens for the component $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\text{cs}}`$) that summation over frequencies bringing the Fermi functions into play, suppresses completely the differences between two schemes coming from the extra states. For $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\text{cs}}`$ the contributions from the first and third quadrants are completely eliminated by the Fermi functions \[cf. Eq.(47a)\]. But generically there are no reasons for that, and the Umklapp contribution provides a counterexample for $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\text{cs}}`$. Cf. Eqs.(47b,c).

The phase space mapping of Fig. 3 holds in the fixed-point limit $`\mathrm{\Lambda }0`$ at non-zero temperature as well. Thus the temperature effects can be calculated from the UV cutoff RG scheme upon integration of the all phase space restricted by the hexagon in Fig. 3.777Note, however that the explicit form of the flow equations, i.e., the Gell-Mann–Low functions, derived here in the limit $`T0`$, are modified at $`T0`$ when decreasing cutoff $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(l)`$ reaches the scale provided by the temperature. As it should be clear, this is not equivalent either to calculation within WK RG stopped at some $`l^{}`$ when $`v_F\mathrm{\Lambda }(l^{})T`$, or within the two-cutoffs RG with the IR cutoff provided by $`T`$: such two ways of calculations give, strictly speaking, approximations only.

## IV Couplings at the two-loop level

After explaining most of technicalities in the previous section, we will be brief in presenting the results for the RG coupling equations. Let us first write the two-loop perturbative expansion for the four-point 1PI vertex. It is depicted graphically in Fig. 4. (The tadpole self-energy corrections are absorbed in the one-particle Green’s functions renormalizations.) We calculate the couplings from $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(12,34)`$ at

$$k_i=0,\omega _i=\omega _{}(i=1,\mathrm{..4})$$
(58)
where $`\omega _{}`$ is the minimal Matsubara fermionic frequency. The latter is set to zero after appropriate analytical continuation. The couplings are extracted from $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ by convolutions \[cf. Eqs.(27) and below\]. The limits (58) considerably reduce the number of cascades to take into account while calculating the renormalized couplings.

One-loop corrections are generated by a simple contraction shown in the first line of Fig. 1b. After summations over the shell number these contributions reduce to three one-loop graphs with the signs and factors as in the pertubrative expansion in Fig. 4 and the loop momentum $`\mathrm{\Lambda }|k|\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$.

Pertinent double-loop graphs are generated by the 2-step cascade as follows: at the $`n`$-th step a simple one loop is generated (cf. first line of Fig. 1b) and at the $`m`$-th step the left (or right) pair of legs of this graph is contracted with the four-leg vertex. The shell numbers $`n`$ and $`m`$ are independent and can take any value from 1 to $`N`$. The sums of these cascades result in the three double-loop graphs (DL) as they stand in the second line in Fig. 4 with the loop momenta restricted by $`\mathrm{\Lambda }|k|\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$.

The two-loop graphs combined in the groups (ZZ, ZC, CZ) in Fig. 4 are generated by the 3-step cascades. For concreteness let us take the first graph from the group ZZ. For each type of this loop configuration with a fixed position of external variables (top left in Fig. 5) there are six graphs corresponding to all possible types of the 3-step contractions shown in this figure. Direct inspection shows that the sign and combinatorial factor of all these six graphs are the same and coincide with those of their counterpart in the perturbative expansion in Fig. 4. Due to conditions (58) we retain only such cascades that the legs of the vertex $`\alpha `$ are contracted at the same step. From the conservation law the momenta $`k_5,k_6`$ are equal (opposite for the CZ graphs), so the phase space constraints near the vertex $`\alpha `$ are satisfied trivially. To find the allowed kinematic solutions from the second independent momentum conservation (e.g., at the vertex $`\beta `$ of this graph) we can use directly the results of the previous section. Indeed, if we identify $`k_2,k_8,k_5,k_7`$ of the graphs in Fig. 5 with $`k_1,k_2,k_3,k_4`$ of Fig. 2, respectively, we recover the situation analysed previously for the self-energy graphs. The kinematic solutions for the graphs of Fig. 5 can be taken from Table I (in the limit $`L=0`$) as follows: $`ia`$, $`iic^{}`$, $`iiia^{}`$, $`ivb^{}`$, $`vc`$, $`vib`$. Then contributions $`ivi`$ (cf. footnote on p. 4) can be combined into a single graph (top left in Fig. 5) with two independent momenta lying in the phase space shown in Fig. 3. Analogous conclusions can be reached for other graphs of the groups ZZ, ZC, CZ. Thus, provided the stipulated above phase space of each graph, the renormalization of the vertex after mode elimination between $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$ ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }0`$) is given by Fig. 4.

The rest of the calculations is straightforward. We introduce the renormalized (dimensionless) couplings as follows:

$$g_{\mathrm{}}=Z^2Z_{\mathrm{}}^1g_{\mathrm{}}^{\text{(bare)}}$$
(59)
The vertex renormalization constants $`Z_{\mathrm{}}^1`$ in terms of $`g_{\mathrm{}}`$ are found to be:

$`Z_c^1`$ $`=`$ $`1+{\displaystyle \frac{g_3^2}{g_c}}l+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}(g_c^2+3g_s^22g_3^2)lg_3^2\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{g_3^2}{g_c^2}}\right)l^2`$ (60a)
$`Z_s^1`$ $`=`$ $`1+g_sl+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}(g_c^2g_s^2+2g_3^2)l`$ (60b)
$`Z_3^1`$ $`=`$ $`1+g_cl{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}(g_c^23g_s^2)l+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(g_c^2g_3^2)l^2`$ (60c)
Combining the equations

$$\frac{d\mathrm{ln}g_{\mathrm{}}}{dl}=2\frac{\mathrm{ln}Z}{l}+\frac{\mathrm{ln}Z_{\mathrm{}}^1}{l}+\underset{i=c,s,3}{}g_i\frac{\mathrm{ln}Z_{\mathrm{}}^1}{g_i}\frac{d\mathrm{ln}g_i}{dl}$$
(61)
with Eqs.(53,60) we obtain the RG flow equations for couplings:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dg_c}{dl}}`$ $`=`$ $`g_3^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_cg_3^2`$ (62a)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dg_s}{dl}}`$ $`=`$ $`g_s^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_s^3`$ (62b)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dg_3}{dl}}`$ $`=`$ $`g_3g_c{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}g_3(g_3^2+g_c^2)`$ (62c)
These equations were obtained earlier within the field-theoretic RG analysis Kimura75 . Note that in the above equations we dropped all the contributions from $`g_4`$ assuming that they can be absorbed in the renormalization of Fermi velocities. (See, e.g., Ref. \[Solyom79, \] and more references therein.)

## V Conclusions

The equivalence of the RG flow equations in the WK and field-theoretic schemes at the two-loop level is proven explicitly for the 1D $`g`$-ology model. To obtain the higher-order RG equations within the canonical WK approach, it is crucial to sum over all available cascades of contaractions occurring at the infinitesimal steps of the WK procedure. Moreover, in the fixed-point limit $`\mathrm{\Lambda }0`$ the diagrammatics of the WK RG summed over all cascades is shown to be the same as that of the field-theoretic RG with the cutoff regularization and restricted phase space.

Generalizations for the cases of classical or quantum bosonic and fermionic fields and higher dimensions are straightforward within the developed technique, resulting in the same conclusion about the diagrammatics, provided that the relevant phase space of those fields (i.e., the low-energy sector) can be brought to the same origin.

If the latter condition can not be satisfied easily, like, e.g, for the low-energy sector of higher dimensional condensed-matter fermions possessing a Fermi surface, the proof of equivalence is not a straightforward extension within the proposed approach, and more explicit work is needed to demonstrate it. However we conjecture that even in that case the summation over cascades within the WK RG tantamount to applying the field-theoretic RG with a (bare) UV cutoff for the low-energy sector and locally-imposed phase-space constraints of the integrated momenta. (For the examples of how these constraints may be realized, see the review by Shankar \[Shankar94, \].)

At the level of three loops and higher, different RG schemes may result in different flow equations. Within the present approach, it follows from the necessity to take into account the dependence of running couplings on the shell number in higher orders (cf. footnote on p. 4). So various cascade contributions could not be “compactified” in a single “field-theoretic” graph as it occurs at the two-loop level. The latter conclusion is hardly surprising, since the differences in the Gell-Mann–Low functions in higher orders are known to occur even within different versions of the field-theoretic RG. (See, e.g, Ref.\[Zinn99, \]. In the context of the 1D $`g`$-ology, see also Ref.\[Rezayi79, \] for the discussion of the bandwidth- and transfer-cutoff regularizations in higher orders of RG.)

In condensed-matter problems, where the bare UV cutoff $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$ might be a meaningful scale and other scales (e.g., $`T`$, $`K_F`$) may be present as well, the WK RG scheme should be applied, as the one which is just an exact way to to integrate the partition function WK74 ; Wilson . The WK RG does not rely on any assumptions of the scales involved, scaling/logarithmicity of theory, etc, and includes contributions only from the states lying within the phase space of the problem. This allows to control the results (at least in principle) in all orders. In practical terms, after summations over all cascades the WK scheme asymptotically maps to the much easier to handle field-theoretic RG (up to three loops) with forbidden states excluded. We did not verify whether possible simplifications of the WK scheme can be done in even higher orders, but going beyond two-loop level is a formidable problem in any case.

###### Acknowledgements.

G.Y.C. is grateful to M.E. Fisher and A.M. Tsvelik for helpful discussions, and to McGill University for hospitality. C.B. thanks R. Wortis for important remarks at the early stage of this work. This work is supported by NSERC (Canada), FCAR (Qébec), and German Science Foundation.


text:
# Rare decay 𝐵→𝑋_𝑠𝜈𝜈̄ in the two-Higgs-doublet model of type-III

## ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Xiao Zhenjun acknowledges the support by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant No.10075013, and by the Research Foundation of Nanjing Normal University under Grant No.214080A916.