text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

In this paper we study several aspects of zero-dimensional quantum field theory. Such theories may serve as a model (the static ultra-local limit) of more realistic quantum field theories, and as a useful didactic object in their own right, since zero-dimensional theories, for which the path integral is actually a simple integral, allow for many explicit and exact solutions that cannot be obtained in higher dimensions. As recent examples, we may quote ’t Hooft  and Bender et al. . Questions of particular interest here are the behavior of theories in high orders of perturbation theory (either many loops, or large number of external legs), and of the relation between the diagrammatic perturbation expansion and the full solution. The layout of this paper is as follows. We start by a diagrammatic (re)derivation of equations that govern the set of all connected Green’s functions of the theory. We show how for a general scalar theory with arbitrary interactions the Green’s functions may be obtained order by order. We point out how the Schwinger-Dyson equation, although derivable from purely diagrammatic arguments, in fact describes a much larger class of solutions. Next, we discuss the representation of these solutions as path integrals over contours in the complex $`\phi `$-plane. Exact solutions for theories with interactions up to $`\phi ^4`$ are obtained including explicitly perturbative and non-perturbative contributions. We show how a classification of the allowed contours in the complex $`\phi `$-plane can immediately determine properties of the non-perturbative character of these theories. Renormalization, which for these theories is equivalent to imposing restrictions to diagrams, is also studied. The wave function renormalizations are fully determined and their dependence on the renormalized coupling constant of the theory is presented and discussed.

## 2 Basic equations

In this section we derive equations for an arbitrary zero-dimensional field theory. The derivation is based entirely upon the diagrammatic representation of the theory. A theory is diagrammatically defined by a sequence of vertices that are weighted by the ‘coupling’ constants taken for convenience as $`\lambda _k`$, for the $`k`$-th vertex. In fact, the two-point coupling $`\lambda _2=m^2\mu `$ can be eliminated by the introduction of the propagator which means that every line of a diagram accounts for a factor $`1/\mu `$. Moreover a loop in a graph is counted by an additional parameter, $`\mathrm{}`$. A solution of a zero-dimensional theory is determined by a sequence of objects $`C_n`$, $`n=0,1,2,\mathrm{}`$ that represent the connected, $`n`$-point Green’s functions, i.e. the sum of all connected diagrams with $`n`$ external lines. One can define the generating function of the Green’s functions as

$$\varphi (x)=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{x^n}{n!}C_{n+1}.$$
(1)
We want to write down an equation for $`\varphi `$, and in order to do so, we represent it with a diagram:

$$\varphi (x)=\text{}.$$

Derivatives of $`\varphi `$ with respect to $`x`$ are represented by extra lines,

$$\varphi ^{}(x)=\text{},\varphi ^{\prime \prime }(x)=\text{},$$

and so on.

### 2.1 The Schwinger-Dyson equation

Let us consider a theory with a $`k`$-th vertex. In order to write an equation for $`\varphi `$ we start with the bare vertex and we attach $`k1`$ blobs

$$\text{}\mathrm{}^0\frac{\varphi ^{k1}}{(k1)!}.$$

The factor $`1/(k1)!`$ is due to the $`k1`$ identical blobs. Considering a one loop attachment we similarly have

$$\text{}\mathrm{}^1\frac{\varphi ^{}}{2!}\frac{\varphi ^{k3}}{(k3)!}.$$

The factor $`1/(k2)!`$ is again due to the $`k2`$ identical blobs, whereas the $`1/2!`$ is due to the symmetry factor of blob with two lines. Following this reasoning we can proceed with higher powers of $`\mathrm{}`$. For instance at the two-loop level we get two terms

$`\mathrm{}^2{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi ^{}_{}{}^{}2}{2!2!2!}}{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi ^{k5}}{(k5)!}}`$
$`\mathrm{}^2{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi ^{\prime \prime }}{3!}}{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi ^{k4}}{(k4)!}}.`$
Finally the last term, i.e the term with the largest number of loop attachments, will simply read

$$\text{}\mathrm{}^{k2}\frac{\varphi ^{(k2)}}{(k1)!}.$$

The result looks like

$$\text{}=\text{}+\text{}+\text{}+\text{}+\text{}+\mathrm{}+\text{}.$$

The equation reads

$$\begin{array}{c}x=\mu \varphi +\lambda _k(\frac{\varphi ^{k1}}{(k1)!}+\mathrm{}^1\frac{\varphi ^{}}{2!}\frac{\varphi ^{k3}}{(k3)!}\hfill \\ \hfill +\mathrm{}^2\frac{\varphi ^{}_{}{}^{}2}{2!2!2!}\frac{\varphi ^{k5}}{(k5)!}+\mathrm{}^2\frac{\varphi ^{\prime \prime }}{3!}\frac{\varphi ^{k4}}{(k4)!}+\mathrm{}+\mathrm{}^{k2}\frac{\varphi ^{(k2)}}{(k1)!}).\end{array}$$
(2)
For an arbitrary theory a sum over $`k`$ should be understood. It represents a non-linear differential equation for $`\varphi `$, the Schwinger-Dyson (SD) equation, which has been derived by the direct application of the Feynman rules.

In order to be more specific let us consider a theory with only a $`3`$-point and a $`4`$-point vertex. Following the abovementioned reasoning a diagrammatic equation for $`\varphi `$ looks like

$$\text{}=x\text{}+\text{}+\text{}+\text{}+\text{}+\text{}.$$

This reads

$$\varphi (x)=\frac{x}{\mu }\frac{\lambda _3}{2\mu }\left[\varphi (x)^2+\mathrm{}\varphi ^{}(x)\right]\frac{\lambda _4}{6\mu }\left[\varphi (x)^3+3\mathrm{}\varphi (x)\varphi ^{}(x)+\mathrm{}^2\varphi ^{\prime \prime }(x)\right].$$
(3)
This equation generates equations for the Green’s functions if the power series of $`\varphi (x)`$ is inserted. The first three are

$`C_1=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6\mu }}C_1^2(\lambda _4C_1+3\lambda _3){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{2\mu }}C_2(\lambda _4C_1+\lambda _3){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{6\mu }}\lambda _4C_3,`$
$`C_2=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\mu }}(2\lambda _3C_1C_22+\lambda _4C_1^2C_2){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{2\mu }}(\lambda _3C_3+\lambda _4C_1C_3+\lambda _4C_2^2){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{6\mu }}\lambda _4C_4,`$
$`C_3=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\mu }}(2\lambda _3C_1C_3+2\lambda _3C_2^2+\lambda _4C_3C_1^2+2\lambda _4C_2^2C_1)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{2\mu }}(3\lambda _4C_2C_3+\lambda _3C_4+\lambda _4C_1C_4){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{6\mu }}\lambda _4C_5.`$ (4)
The SD equation is invariant under certain redefinition of the parameters involved. It is not difficult to prove that if $`\varphi (\mu ,\lambda _k,\mathrm{};x)`$ is a solution, also $`c^\beta \varphi (c^{\alpha 2\beta }\mu ,c^{\alpha k\beta }\lambda _k,c^\alpha \mathrm{};c^{\alpha \beta }x)`$ is a solution for any $`c,\alpha ,\beta `$. This scaling property is also a concequence of the fact that $`\varphi (\mu ,\lambda _k,\mathrm{};x)/\sqrt{\mathrm{}/\mu }`$ is a dimensionless function of the scaled variables $`y=x/\sqrt{\mathrm{}\mu }`$ and $`g_k=\lambda _k\mathrm{}^{k/21}/\mu ^{k/2}`$. The scaling property can be expressed with the following equations, derived, for instance, by differentiating with respect to $`c`$ and taking $`c=1`$:

$`\left(x{\displaystyle \frac{}{x}}+\mu {\displaystyle \frac{}{\mu }}+\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{}{\mathrm{}}}+\lambda _k{\displaystyle \frac{}{\lambda _k}}\right)\varphi `$ $`=0,`$
$`\left(1+x{\displaystyle \frac{}{x}}+2\mu {\displaystyle \frac{}{\mu }}+k\lambda _k{\displaystyle \frac{}{\lambda _k}}\right)\varphi `$ $`=0.`$ (5)
These equations are equivalent to the usual topological relations that relate the number of external lines $`E`$, the number of internal lines $`I`$, the number of $`k`$-vertices $`V_k`$, and the number of loops $`L`$, appearing in any diagram,

$$kV_k=E+2IV_k=I+1L.$$

A sum over $`k`$ should be undesrtood in the general case.

### 2.2 Stepping equations

In the diagrammatic construction, one assumes that every Green’s function can be written as a sum of diagrams, consisting of vertices connected by lines (propagators). The power of $`1/\mu `$ in a diagram is equal to the number of propagators, and hence the operation $`/\mu `$ on this diagram corresponds to cutting a single propagator in all possible places in that diagram. There are two possibilities for the result: the chosen propagator may be either a part of a loop, in which case the diagram remains connected when we cut this line, or part of the ‘tree skeleton’, such that cutting it makes the diagram diconnected:

$$\text{}=\text{}+\text{}.$$

In the first case the cut diagram remains connected but gains two external lines at the price of one loop (i.e. on power of $`\mathrm{}`$); in the second place, the cut diagram falls apart into two connected diagrams:

$$\frac{}{\mu }\text{}=\text{}+\text{}.$$

Putting in the correct symmetry factors, we can express this procedure by

$$\text{S2: }\frac{}{\mu }\varphi (x)+\varphi (x)\varphi ^{}(x)+\frac{\mathrm{}}{2}\varphi ^{\prime \prime }(x)=0,$$
(6)
where the second term comes from diagrams that fall apart under cutting, and the third one from loops that are cut open. We call Eq.(6) the Step-2 equation (S2) since it describes a procedure in which the number of external legs is increased in steps of 2.

Like SD (Eq.(3)), the Stepping equation S2 implies relations between various $`C`$’s. The lowest few of these read

$`C_3`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{2}{\mathrm{}}}\left(C_1C_2+{\displaystyle \frac{}{\mu }}C_1\right),`$
$`C_4`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{2}{\mathrm{}}}\left(C_1C_3+C_2^2+{\displaystyle \frac{}{\mu }}C_2\right),`$
$`C_5`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{2}{\mathrm{}}}\left(C_1C_4+3C_2C_3+{\displaystyle \frac{}{\mu }}C_3\right),`$
$`C_6`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{2}{\mathrm{}}}\left(C_1C_5+4C_2C_4+C_3^2+{\displaystyle \frac{}{\mu }}C_4\right),`$ (7)
and so on. Note that S2 is completely independent of the interaction potential, and therefore perforce contains information independent of that contained in the SD. It follows that there must be solutions to SD that do not obey S2 and that these solutions cannot be represented by Feynman diagrams.

It is possible to combine SD and S2 in the following manner. Taking the first equation in Eq.(3), we express $`C_3`$ in $`C_2`$ and $`C_1`$, and solve for $`C_2`$:

$$C_2=\frac{2\lambda _4{\displaystyle \frac{C_1}{\mu }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{}}}\left(6\mu C_1+3\lambda _3C_1^2+\lambda _4C_1^3\right)}{3\lambda _3+\lambda _4C_1}.$$

Inserting this into the second equation of Eq.(3), we find a differential equation for $`C_1`$ alone:

$`0`$ $`=4\mathrm{}^2\lambda _4^3\left({\displaystyle \frac{C_1}{\mu }}\right)^22\mathrm{}^2\lambda _4^2{\displaystyle \frac{^2C_1}{\mu ^2}}\left(\lambda _4C_1+3\lambda _3\right)`$
$`\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{C_1}{\mu }}\left[9\lambda _3^2(3\lambda _3+\lambda _4C_1)+6\mu \lambda _4^2C_136\mu \lambda _3\lambda _4\right]`$
$`9\mu \lambda _3C_1^2(3\lambda _3+\lambda _4C_1)+3\mathrm{}\lambda _4^2C_1^254\mu ^2\lambda _3C_127\mathrm{}\lambda _3^2.`$ (8)
By inserting the series expansion

$$C_1=\underset{k1}{}\alpha _k\mathrm{}^k,$$

we can then successively determine the coefficients:

$`\alpha _1`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\mu ^2}}\lambda _3,`$
$`\alpha _2`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{24\mu ^5}}(15\lambda _3^316\mu \lambda _3\lambda _4),`$
$`\alpha _3`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{48\mu ^8}}(90\lambda _3^5185\mu \lambda _3^3\lambda _4+66\mu ^2\lambda _3\lambda _4^2),`$
$`\alpha _4`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{1152\mu ^{11}}}(9945\lambda _3^730270\mu \lambda _3^5\lambda _4+24280\mu ^2\lambda _3^3\lambda _4^24352\mu ^3\lambda _3\lambda _4^3),`$
and so on.

Whereas S2 is independent of the interaction potential, we can also derive stepping equations by deleting vertices rather than cutting lines. For example, let us depict all possible ways in which a selected $`\phi ^3`$ vertex (denoted by a dot) can occur in a connected graph:

$$\text{}=\text{}+\text{}+\text{}+\text{}.$$

Deleting this vertex gives us

$$\frac{}{\lambda _3}\text{}=\text{}+\text{}+\text{}+\text{}.$$

or, in terms of $`\varphi (x)`$, the following Step-3 equation (S3):

$$\text{S3: }\frac{}{\lambda _3}\varphi +\frac{1}{6}\mathrm{}^2\varphi ^{\prime \prime \prime }+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{}\left[\varphi \varphi ^{\prime \prime }+(\varphi ^{})^2\right]+\frac{1}{2}\varphi ^2\varphi ^{}=0.$$
(9)
A similar treatment holds for $`\phi ^4`$ vertices: the possible ways in which such a vertex can occur is given by

$`\text{}=\text{}`$ $`+`$ $`\text{}+\text{}+\text{}`$
$`+`$ $`\text{}+\text{}+\text{},`$
and the result of deleting is given by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{\lambda _4}}\text{}=\text{}`$ $`+`$ $`\text{}+\text{}+\text{}`$
$`+`$ $`\text{}+\text{}+\text{}.`$
The corresponding Step-4 equation (S4) is

$$\text{S4: }\frac{}{\lambda _4}\varphi +\frac{1}{24}\mathrm{}^3\varphi ^{\prime \prime \prime \prime }+\frac{1}{12}\mathrm{}^2\left[2\varphi \varphi ^{\prime \prime \prime }+5\varphi ^{}\varphi ^{\prime \prime }\right]+\frac{1}{4}\mathrm{}\left[\varphi ^2\varphi ^{\prime \prime }+2\varphi (\varphi ^{})^2\right]+\frac{1}{6}\varphi ^3\varphi ^{}=0.$$
(10)
### 2.3 The charged scalar field

Up to now we dealt with diagrammatic construction of zero-dimensional field theories involving only one field. As an illustrative extension, we consider a theory with two fields, i.e. a complex, or charged, scalar field. The Green’s functions are labeled with two integers, and the generating function has two expansion parameters $`x`$ and $`\overline{x}`$. Let us introduce the notation

$$:=\frac{}{x},\overline{}:=\frac{}{\overline{x}},$$

then

$$\varphi (x,\overline{x})=\underset{n,m=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{x^n}{n!}\frac{\overline{x}^m}{m!}C_{n,m+1}.$$

To write down the SD equation, we introduce two kind of lines, distinguishable by an arrow. The generating function is represented by

$$\varphi (x,\overline{x})=\text{},\overline{\varphi }(x,\overline{x})=\text{}.$$

An incoming external line represents a $`\overline{}`$, and an outgoing line represents a $``$. Notice that

$$\mathrm{}\overline{}\varphi =\mathrm{}\overline{\varphi }=\text{}.$$

We also introduce a four point vertex with two incoming and two outgoing lines, so that the SD equation we want $`\varphi `$ to satisfy is given by

$$\text{}=x\text{}+\text{}+\text{}+\text{}+\text{},$$

or

$$\varphi =\frac{x}{\mu }\frac{\lambda }{2\mu }\varphi ^2\overline{\varphi }\frac{\lambda \mathrm{}}{\mu }\varphi \varphi \frac{\lambda \mathrm{}}{2\mu }\overline{\varphi }\overline{}\varphi \frac{\lambda \mathrm{}^2}{2\mu }\overline{}\varphi .$$
(11)
Notice that incoming and outgoing lines are not equivalent, which is represented by the symmetry factors.

Also for the charged scalar field, we can write down stepping equations. For the first one, we use that in the diagrammatic interpretation

$$\text{}=\text{}+\text{}+\text{},$$

leading to

$$\frac{}{\mu }\varphi =\mathrm{}\overline{}\varphi \varphi \varphi \overline{\varphi }\overline{}\varphi .$$
(12)
The diagrammatic derivation of the stepping equation involving the derivative with respect to $`\lambda `$, although equally straightforward, is rather cumbersome, leading to many terms which we refrain from listing here.

## 3 Solutions to the equations

### 3.1 The integral representation

The SD equation is highly non-linear. Let us consider the general term connected with the coupling $`\lambda _k`$ in Eq.(2):

$$Q_k=\frac{\varphi ^{k1}}{(k1)!}+\mathrm{}^1\frac{\varphi ^{}}{2!}\frac{\varphi ^{k3}}{(k3)!}+\mathrm{}^2\frac{\varphi ^{}_{}{}^{}2}{2!2!2!}\frac{\varphi ^{k5}}{(k5)!}+\mathrm{}^2\frac{\varphi ^{\prime \prime }}{3!}\frac{\varphi ^{k4}}{(k4)!}+\mathrm{}+\mathrm{}^{k2}\frac{\varphi ^{(k2)}}{(k1)!}.$$

It can obviously be organized such that it can be written as

$$Q_k=\underset{m=1}{\overset{k1}{}}\underset{\{\stackrel{}{a}_{k1};m\}}{}\frac{\mathrm{}^{km1}}{(1!)^{a_1}a_1!(2!)^{a_2}a_2!\mathrm{}((k1)!)^{a_{k1}}a_{k1}!}(\varphi )^{a_1}(\varphi ^{})^{a_2}\mathrm{}(\varphi ^{(k2)})^{a_{k1}},$$
(13)
where $`_{\{\stackrel{}{a}_{k1};m\}}`$ stands for the summation with $`a_1,a_2,\mathrm{},a_{k1}`$ running over all positive integers under the restrictions that

$$a_1+2a_2+3a_3+\mathrm{}+(k1)a_{k1}=k1\text{and}a_1+a_2+\mathrm{}+a_{k1}=m.$$

This sum can be interpreted following the time-honored formula of Faà di Bruno :

$$\frac{d^n}{dx^n}f(g(x))=\underset{m=0}{\overset{n}{}}f^{(m)}(g(x))\underset{\{\stackrel{}{a}_n;m\}}{}(n;a_1,\mathrm{},a_n)\{g^{}(x)\}^{a_1}\{g^{\prime \prime }(x)\}^{a_2}\mathrm{}\{g^{(n)}(x)\}^{a_n}$$

where

$$(n;a_1,\mathrm{},a_n)=\frac{n!}{(1!)^{a_1}a_1!(2!)^{a_2}a_2!\mathrm{}(n!)^{a_n}a_n!}.$$

The identifications $`g^{}(x)=\varphi (x)`$ and $`f^{(m)}(g(x))=\mathrm{}^mf(g(x))`$ with the solution

$$g(x)=dx\varphi (x),f(g(x))=R(x)=\mathrm{exp}(\frac{1}{\mathrm{}}dx\varphi (x)),$$
(14)
lead to an equation for $`R`$, which, including all possible vertices, reads

$$\underset{k=3}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{\lambda _k}{(k1)!}\mathrm{}^{k1}R^{(k1)}+\mu \mathrm{}R^{}(x)(x\lambda _1)R(x)=0.$$
(15)
This is a linear equation, and a solution can be represented by an integral

$$R_\mathrm{\Gamma }(x)=_\mathrm{\Gamma }𝑑\phi \mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{1}{\mathrm{}}[x\phi S(\phi )]\right\},$$
(16)
where

$$S(\phi )=\lambda _1\phi +\frac{1}{2}\mu \phi ^2+\underset{k=3}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{\lambda _k}{k!}\phi ^k,$$

and where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is a contour in the complex $`\phi `$-plane, such that the difference between the values of the integrand in the end-points is zero. This is the well known path integral representation, with the action $`S`$.

A remark is in order. Although the SD equations resulted from a a purely diagrammatic construction, their solutions, expressed through the path integral representation, include non-perturbative ones that cannot be realized in a weak coupling expansion, as we will see below.

Secondly, we note that Eq.(15) can be used to write the original SD equation for $`\varphi `$ compactly as

$$x=\lambda _1+\mu \varphi +\underset{k3}{}\frac{\lambda _k}{(k1)!}\left(\mathrm{}\frac{}{x}+\varphi \right)^{k2}\varphi .$$
(17)
For a general interacting theory, differantiating $`R_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ with respect to $`\lambda _k`$ in Eq.(16), the stepping equation in terms of $`\varphi `$ can be rewritten as

$$\frac{\varphi }{\lambda _k}=\frac{1}{k!}\frac{}{x}\left(\varphi +\mathrm{}\frac{}{x}\right)^{k1}\varphi $$
(18)
and in case only a $`k`$-vertex and the tadpole $`\lambda _1`$ is present, combining with the SD a simpler form is obtained

$$\frac{\varphi }{\lambda _k}=\frac{1}{k\lambda _k}\left(\left(x\lambda _1\right)\varphi ^{}+\varphi 2\mu \varphi \varphi ^{}\mathrm{}\mu \varphi ^{\prime \prime }\right).$$
(19)
Moreover for a charged scalar field the stepping equation in terms of $`\varphi `$ can be written in a compact form

$$\frac{\varphi }{\lambda }=\frac{1}{4}\overline{}(\overline{\varphi }+\mathrm{})^2(\varphi +\mathrm{}\overline{})\varphi .$$
(20)
Finally, the linear SD equation for $`\phi ^3+\phi ^4`$-theory becomes simply

$$\frac{1}{6}\lambda _4\mathrm{}^3R^{\prime \prime \prime }(x)+\frac{1}{2}\lambda _3\mathrm{}^2R^{\prime \prime }(x)+\mu \mathrm{}R^{}(x)xR(x)=0,$$
(21)
and we see that $`R(x)`$ admits 3 linearly independent solutions (2 if $`\lambda _4=0`$). Hence $`\varphi (x)`$ has a 2-parameter family of solutions (a 1-parameter family if $`\lambda _4=0`$). In the sequel we will show how to get exact explicit solutions for a number of scalar theories.

### 3.2 Results for pure $`𝝋^\mathrm{𝟑}`$-theory

In this section we derive results for the pure $`\phi ^3`$-theory, with action

$$S(\phi )=\frac{1}{2}\mu \phi ^2+\frac{1}{6}\lambda \phi ^3.$$
(22)
This theory is interesting because as we will see the solution for the generating function can be expressed directly in terms of known special functions. Defining

$$y=\frac{x}{\sqrt{\mathrm{}\mu }},\xi =\frac{\lambda \sqrt{\mathrm{}}}{6\mu ^{3/2}}$$

the SD equation becomes

$$3\xi R^{\prime \prime }(y)+R^{}(y)yR(y)=0$$
(23)
which admits the following general solution

$$R(y)=e^{y/6\xi }\left[c_1\text{Ai}(t)+c_2\text{Bi}(t)\right]$$
(24)
where

$$t=(3\xi )^{1/3}\left(\frac{1}{12\xi }+y\right).$$

Ai and Bi are the Airy functions (cf. ). The solution for the generating function of connected Green’s functions is given by

$$\varphi (x)=\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{}}{\mu }}\left(\frac{1}{6\xi }+2^{1/2}t_0^{1/4}\frac{\text{Ai}^{}(t)+K\text{Bi}^{}(t)}{\text{Ai}(t)+K\text{Bi}(t)}\right)$$
(25)
with $`t_0=t(y=0)`$. The constant $`K`$ is not determined by the SD equation: in fact it could have been even a function of $`\xi `$.

For solutions that admit a diagrammatic representation extra information can be obtained by combining SD and stepping equations. For instance, the scaling and stepping equations of the previous section result to a $`K`$ that is independent of $`\xi `$. Moreover by combining SD and S2 an equation involving only $`C_1`$:

$$2\mu ^2C_1+\lambda \mu C_1^2+\mathrm{}\lambda ^2\frac{}{\mu }C_1+\mathrm{}\lambda =0,$$
(26)
can be obtained. The series of substitutions

$$v=\frac{\mathrm{}\lambda ^2}{\mu ^3},C_1=\frac{\lambda \mathrm{}}{2\mu ^2}f(v),w=\frac{1}{3v},f(v)=\frac{2k^{}(w)}{vk(w)},k(w)=w^{1/3}e^w\psi (w),$$

leads to the Bessel equation

$$w^2\psi ^{\prime \prime }(w)+w\psi ^{}(w)\left(w^2+\frac{1}{9}\right)\psi (w)=0.$$

The special solution choice $`\psi (w)=K_{1/3}(w)`$ gives the following tadpole and its asymptotic expansion:

$`f(v)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{2}{v}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{K_{2/3}(w)}{K_{1/3}(w)}}+1\right),`$
$`C_1`$ $`2{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{\lambda }}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}\lambda ^2}{2\mu ^2}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{5}{4}}v+{\displaystyle \frac{15}{4}}v^2{\displaystyle \frac{1105}{64}}v^3+{\displaystyle \frac{1695}{16}}v^4+\mathrm{}\right).`$ (27)
This tadpole, therefore, has a non-perturbative contribution. The more generic choice $`\psi =k_1I_{1/3}(w)+k_2I_{1/3}(w)`$, with $`k_1k_2`$, gives

$`f(v)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{2}{v}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{k_1I_{2/3}(w)+k_2I_{2/3}(w)}{k_1I_{1/3}(w)+k_2I_{1/3}(w)}}1\right),`$
$`C_1`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}\lambda ^2}{2\mu ^2}}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{5}{4}}v+{\displaystyle \frac{15}{4}}v^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1105}{64}}v^3+{\displaystyle \frac{1695}{16}}v^4+\mathrm{}\right),`$ (28)
which is the standard perturbative result . The coefficients $`k_1`$ and $`k_2`$ drop out for the perturbative expansion: they simply account for non-perturbative contributions that are not computable perturbatively!

A remark is in order here: although all the terms in the perturbative series for $`C_1`$ have strictly the same complex phase and according to the traditional wisdom the series is not Borel summable, the exact result is well defined, indicating that a suitable generalization of the Borel transform will produce the right answer .

Another interesting aspect is the large $`n`$ behavior of the Green’s functions, where $`n`$ refers to the number of external legs, a problem that is traditionally seen as relevant to the unitarity of the $`S`$ matrix . This can be traced from the analytical structure of the solution for the generating functions in the complex $`x`$-plane. As is evident from the fact that the solution, Eq.(24), for the generating function of all connected and disconnected graphs is an entire function, the corresponding Green’s function $`Z_n`$ grows slower than $`n!`$; in fact it grows like $`(n!)^{2/3}`$. On the other hand the $`C_n`$, the connected graphs, exhibit a factorial growth, since their generating function $`\varphi (x)`$ posesses poles at finite complex values of $`x`$.

### 3.3 Results for pure $`𝝋^\mathrm{𝟒}`$-theory

In this section we derive the lowest Green’s functions for the pure $`\phi ^4`$ theory, with action

$$S(\phi )=\frac{1}{2}\mu \phi ^2+\frac{1}{24}\lambda \phi ^4.$$
(29)
Defining

$$y=\frac{x}{\sqrt{\mathrm{}\mu }},\xi =\frac{\lambda \sqrt{\mathrm{}}}{24\mu ^2}$$

we get for the SD equation

$$4\xi R^{\prime \prime \prime }(y)+R^{}(y)yR(y)=0.$$
(30)
There are three solutions, which can be represented as follows:

$`R_1(y)`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{y^{2n}}{n!}}\left(32\xi \right)^{n/2}\text{U}(n;(8\xi )^{1/2})`$
$`R_2(y)`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}(1)^n{\displaystyle \frac{y^{2n}}{n!}}\left(32\xi \right)^{n/2}{\displaystyle \frac{\text{V}(n;(8\xi )^{1/2})}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(n+\frac{1}{2})}}`$
$`R_3(y)`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{y^{2n+1}}{(2n+1)!}}\left(4\xi \right)^{n/2}i^n\text{H}_n(i(16\xi )^{1/2}),`$ (31)
where $`\text{U}(\nu ;x)`$ and $`\text{V}(\nu ;x)`$ are the parabolic cylinder functions, and $`\text{H}_n`$ is the $`n^{\text{th}}`$ Hermite polynomial (cf. ). The general solution is a linear combination with arbitrary coefficients. As we can immediately see contrary to what is argued in many standard textbooks the odd Green’s functions do not necessarily vanish.

On the other hand on can study the S2 equation as well. For this we have to distinguish two possible cases: the ‘standard’ one, with $`C_1`$ and the higher odd Green’s functions vanishing, and the case where $`C_10`$.

Let us consider the first case with a zero tadpole. In this case we cannot, of course, directly use the results derived above, since these deal with $`C_1`$. The S2 becomes somewhat simpler, and in particular

$$C_4=\frac{2}{\mathrm{}}\left(C_2^2+\frac{}{\mu }C_2\right).$$

On dimensional grounds we see that we can write

$$C_2=\frac{1}{\mu }\beta (v),v=\frac{\lambda \mathrm{}}{\mu ^2},$$

where $`v`$ is dimensionless. Inserting all this into the first nonzero term (that with $`x^1`$) in SD, we find the following equation for $`\beta `$:

$$4v^2\beta ^{}(v)+v\beta (v)^2+(2v+6)\beta (v)6=0.$$

The substitutions

$$\beta (v)=4v\frac{g^{}(v)}{g(v)},g(v)=v^{1/4}e^w\psi (w),w=\frac{3}{4v},$$
(32)
lead then to

$$w^2\psi ^{\prime \prime }(w)+w\psi ^{}(w)\left(w^2+\frac{1}{16}\right)\psi (w)=0,$$
(33)
which has the modified Bessel functions for its solutions. The general solution can always be written as

$$\psi (w)=k_1I_{1/4}(w)+k_2I_{1/4}(w).$$

It is instructive to consider the perturbative form of these results, that is, the limit where $`\mathrm{}`$ becomes infinitesimally small, or $`w`$ goes to infinity. Since $`I_{1/4}`$ and $`I_{1/4}`$ have the same asymptotic expansion, a generic choice of $`k_{1,2}`$ will lead to a single perturbative expansion. The single exception is the choice $`k_1=k_2`$ which leads to $`\psi (w)K_{1/4}(w)`$, with asymptotic expansion

$$\beta (v)=\frac{3}{v}\left(\frac{K_{3/4}(w)}{K_{1/4}(w)}1\right)1\frac{1}{2}v+\frac{2}{3}v^2\frac{11}{8}v^3+\frac{34}{9}v^4+\mathrm{}.$$

This is the standard perturbative expansion, in which the propagator starts with $`\frac{1}{\mu }`$, and has loop corrections in powers of $`\mathrm{}`$:

$$C_2=C_2^{(1)}=\frac{1}{\mu }\left(1\frac{\lambda \mathrm{}}{2\mu ^2}+\frac{2\lambda ^2\mathrm{}^2}{3\mu ^4}+\mathrm{}\right).$$
(34)
The alternating signs are of course due to the fact that the Feynman rules prescribe a factor $`\lambda `$ for each vertex in our Euclidean model. The asymptotic expansion in all other cases is equal to that for the choice $`k_2=0`$, for which we find

$$\beta (v)=\frac{3}{v}\left(\frac{I_{3/4}(w)}{I_{1/4}(w)}+1\right)\frac{6}{v}+1+\frac{1}{2}v+\frac{2}{3}v^2+\frac{11}{8}v^3+\frac{34}{9}v^4+\mathrm{},$$

which gives a nonstandard expansion:

$$C_2=C_2^{(2)}=\frac{6\mu }{\lambda \mathrm{}}+\frac{1}{\mu }\left(1+\frac{\lambda \mathrm{}}{2\mu ^2}+\frac{2\lambda ^2\mathrm{}^2}{3\mu ^4}+\mathrm{}\right).$$
(35)
Note the occurrence of a ‘non-perturbative’ term $`1/\lambda `$ here: the rest of the expansion has an apparent opposite sign of the coupling constant. An other way to look at this solution is by examining the saddle point equation, $`\delta S/\delta \varphi =x`$: the abovementioned solution corresponds to the saddle point $`\varphi _c=\sqrt{6\mu /\lambda }+𝒪(x)`$.

In the case $`C_10`$ we can write, again on dimensional grounds,

$$C_1=\alpha (v)\sqrt{\frac{\mu }{\lambda }},C_2=\frac{1}{\mu }\beta (v),$$

with $`v`$ as before. The first term (with $`x^0`$) in SD now gives us a relation between $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$:

$$\beta (v)=\frac{1}{v\alpha (v)}\left((6v)\alpha (v)+4v^2\alpha ^{}(v)\right),$$

and then the second term ($`x^1`$) gives

$$16v^2\alpha (v)\alpha ^{\prime \prime }(v)32v^2\alpha ^{}(v)^2+(32v24)\alpha (v)\alpha ^{}(v)3\alpha (v)^2=0.$$

Using $`w`$ as before, we may now substitute

$$\alpha (v)=\frac{e^w\sqrt{v}}{\psi (w)},$$

to find that $`\psi (w)`$ again obeys the Bessel equation, Eq.(33). For the asymptotic expansions, again two distinct choices are possible. First, the choice

$$\psi (w)=\frac{1}{p}K_{1/4}(w)$$

gives

$$\alpha (v)=\frac{pe^w\sqrt{v}}{K_{1/4}(w)},\beta (v)=\frac{3}{v}(\frac{K_{3/4}(w)}{K_{1/4}(w)}1)\frac{p^2e^{2w}}{K_{1/4}(w)^2},$$

and the following asymptotic forms for $`C_{1,2}`$:

$$C_1p\sqrt{\frac{3\mu }{2\pi \lambda }}e^{2w},C_2C_2^{(1)}+\frac{2p^2we^{2w}}{\mu \pi }.$$
(36)
The alternative choice, for which we may take

$$\psi (w)=\frac{1}{p}I_{1/4}(w),$$

leads to

$$\alpha (v)=\frac{pe^w\sqrt{v}}{I_{1/4}(w)},\beta (v)=\frac{3}{v}(\frac{I_{3/4}(w)}{I_{1/4}(w)}+1)\frac{p^2e^{2w}}{I_{1/4}(w)^2},$$

and

$$C_1p\sqrt{\frac{3\pi \mu }{2\lambda }},C_2C_2^{(2)}\frac{2\pi p^2v}{\mu }(1\frac{1}{4}v\frac{13}{96}v^2\frac{73}{384}v^3\mathrm{}).$$
(37)
In contrast to the zero-tadpole case, there remains an arbitrary parameter in these solutions, $`p`$: it reflects the presence of the ‘non-perturbative’ tadpole-like contribution and has to be determined by additional requirements.

### 3.4 Results for $`𝝋^\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{+}𝝋^\mathrm{𝟒}`$-theory

For the general zero-dimensional $`\phi ^3+\phi ^4`$-theory, the action is given by

$$S(\phi )=\frac{1}{2}\mu \phi ^2+\frac{1}{6}\lambda _3\phi ^3+\frac{1}{24}\lambda _4\phi ^4.$$
(38)
In the dimensionless variables

$$y=\frac{x}{\sqrt{\mu \mathrm{}}},g_3=\frac{\lambda _3}{\mu }\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{}}{\mu }},g_4=\frac{\lambda _4\mathrm{}}{\mu ^2},$$

the SD equation becomes

$$\frac{1}{6}g_4R^{\prime \prime \prime }(y)+\frac{1}{2}g_3R^{\prime \prime }(y)+R^{}(y)yR(y)=0.$$
(39)
To solve this equation, let

$$R(y)=e^{yg_3/g_4}F(y).$$

Then $`F`$ satisfies the equation

$$\frac{1}{6}g_4F^{\prime \prime \prime }(y)+\alpha F^{}(y)(y+\beta )F(y)=0,$$
(40)
where

$$\alpha =1\frac{g_3^2}{2g_4},\beta =\frac{g_3}{g_4}(1\frac{g_3^2}{3g_4}).$$

Finally, changing variables

$$y+\beta =\frac{\eta }{\sqrt{\alpha }},4\xi =\frac{g_4}{6\alpha ^2}=\frac{g_4}{6}(1\frac{g_3^2}{2g_4})^2,$$

Eq.(40) becomes

$$4\xi F^{\prime \prime \prime }(\eta )+F^{}(\eta )\eta F(\eta )=0.$$
(41)
Eq.(41) is exactly Eq.(30) of the pure $`\phi ^4`$-theory, so that the solutions here are those of (31) with $`\xi `$ as given above and $`y`$ replaced by $`\eta `$.

### 3.5 Results for the charged scalar field

For the complex scalar field, the path integral solution is given by

$$R(x,\overline{x})=d\phi d\overline{\phi }\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{1}{\mathrm{}}[x\overline{\phi }+\overline{x}\phi S(\phi ,\overline{\phi })]\right\},S(\phi ,\overline{\phi })=\mu \overline{\phi }\phi +\frac{\lambda }{4}\left(\overline{\phi }\phi \right)^2.$$
(42)
Due to charge conservation ($`\text{O}(2)`$-symmetry) one can easily show that $`R`$ only depends on the modulus $`x\overline{x}`$, so that it satisfies the following equation

$$\zeta R^{\prime \prime \prime }(\zeta )+2R^{\prime \prime }(\zeta )+\alpha ^2[R^{}(\zeta )R(\zeta )]=0,\zeta =\frac{x\overline{x}}{\mu \mathrm{}},\alpha =\mu \left(\frac{2}{g\mathrm{}}\right)^{1/2}.$$
(43)
The third order equation can be solved by power series expansion in $`\zeta `$ and two of its solutions are given by

$$R_1(\zeta )=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{i(n!)^2}\left(\frac{i\zeta \alpha }{\sqrt{2}}\right)^n\text{H}_n\left(\frac{i\alpha }{\sqrt{2}}\right),R_2(\zeta )=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(\zeta \alpha )^n}{n!}\text{U}(n+\frac{1}{2},\alpha ),$$
(44)
where $`\text{H}_n`$ stands for the $`n^{\text{th}}`$ order Hermite polynomial and $`\text{U}(\nu ,x)`$ is the parabolic cylinder function. The third solution can be found by standard procedures but the actual result is rather cumbersome and we refrain from giving it explicitly.

Where $`R_1`$ is a purely non-perturbative solution, $`R_2`$ has an asymptotic series expansion which leads to the normal perturbation series for the connected Green’s functions: for instance the two point function is given by

$$C_{1,1}=\frac{1}{\mu }\frac{g\mathrm{}}{\mu ^3}+\frac{5}{2}\frac{g^2\mathrm{}^2}{\mu ^5}+𝒪(g^3\mathrm{}^3).$$
(45)
Although the standard integral representation of $`R`$ is given by (42), the differential equation in the variable $`\zeta `$ leads to another peculiar single contour integral representation

$$R(\zeta )=_\mathrm{\Gamma }𝑑\psi \mathrm{exp}\left(\zeta \psi \mathrm{ln}\psi \frac{\alpha ^2}{\psi }+\frac{\alpha ^2}{2\psi ^2}\right),$$

where the contour $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is from infinity to infinity such that the integral is convergent.

### 3.6 Contours in the integral representation

The integral representation of the solutions for the pure $`\phi ^3`$-theory, with $`\psi =\sqrt{\mu /\mathrm{}}\phi `$, can be written as

$$R(y;\xi )=K_\mathrm{\Gamma }𝑑\psi \mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{1}{2}\psi ^2\xi \psi ^3+y\psi \right),$$
(46)
where $`K`$ is a constant which can depend on $`\xi `$. In case the moduli of the endpoints of the contour $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ are taken to infinity the standard path-integral representation is recovered. In fact in this case the substitution

$$u=(3\xi )^{1/3}\psi \frac{1}{6\xi }$$

leads to

$$R(y;\xi )=K\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{1}{108\xi }\frac{y}{6\xi }\right)_\mathrm{\Gamma }𝑑u\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{1}{3}u^3+tu\right).$$

This integral can now be expressed in terms of the Airy functions

$$_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_j}𝑑u\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{1}{3}u^3+tu\right)=2\pi \omega ^j\text{Ai}(t\omega ^j),$$

where $`\omega =e^{i2\pi /3}`$, $`j=0,1,2`$ and the contours $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_j`$ are depicted in Fig.1.

Note that

$$\underset{j}{}\omega ^j\text{Ai}(t\omega ^j)=0.$$

For a pure $`\phi ^4`$-theory, similar considerations allow us to express the functions $`R_j`$ defined in Eq.(31), $`j=1,2,3`$ as follows

$`R_1`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi }}}(2\xi )^{1/4}\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{32\xi }}\right){\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\psi \mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\psi ^2\xi \psi ^4+y\psi \right)`$
$`R_2`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{i}{\pi ^{3/2}}}(2\xi )^{1/4}\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{32\xi }}\right){\displaystyle _i\mathrm{}^i\mathrm{}}𝑑\psi \mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\psi ^2\xi \psi ^4+y\psi \right)`$ (47)
whereas for $`R_3`$

$$\begin{array}{c}\left(_0^{\mathrm{}}+_0^i\mathrm{}\right)d\psi \mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{1}{2}\psi ^2\xi \psi ^4+y\psi \right)\hfill \\ \hfill =\frac{\sqrt{\pi }}{2}(2\xi )^{1/4}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{1}{32\xi }\right)(R_1i\pi R_2)+\frac{i\pi }{2}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{1}{16\xi }\right)(2\xi )^{1/4}R_3.\end{array}$$
(48)
Let us have a closer look at the various possible contours in the case of general $`\phi ^3+\phi ^4`$-theory. Let us denote the various objects in the action as complex numbers:

$$\phi =|\phi |e^{i\omega },\lambda _3=|\lambda _3|e^{i\eta _3},\lambda _4=|\lambda _4|e^{i\eta _4}.$$

For simplicity and without loss of generality, we may keep $`\mu `$ real and positive. The direction in the $`\phi `$ plane where the term $`\lambda _4\phi ^4`$ goes to positive infinity as $`|\phi |\mathrm{}`$ are given by

$$\omega \mathrm{\Omega }_4(k),\mathrm{\Omega }_4(k)=(k\frac{\pi }{2}\frac{\pi }{8}\frac{\eta _4}{4},k\frac{\pi }{2}+\frac{\pi }{8}\frac{\eta _4}{4}),k=0,1,2,3.$$

Similarly ‘allowed’ directions for the $`\lambda _3\phi ^3`$ term are

$$\omega \mathrm{\Omega }_3(k),\mathrm{\Omega }_3(k)=(k\frac{2\pi }{3}\frac{\pi }{6}\frac{\eta _3}{3},k\frac{2\pi }{3}+\frac{\pi }{6}\frac{\eta _3}{3}),k=0,1,2.$$

Finally, the $`\mu \phi ^2`$ term goes to positive infinity for

$$\omega \mathrm{\Omega }_2(k),\mathrm{\Omega }_2(k)=(k\pi \frac{\pi }{4},k\pi +\frac{\pi }{4}),k=0,1.$$

By inspection of these endpoints, already statements can be made about the (non)perturbative character of the theory corresponding to a given contour.

To illustrate this, let us consider a pure $`\phi ^4`$-theory, i.e. with $`\lambda _3=0`$. Let the contour start at some $`\phi _1`$, chosen at infinity with argument $`\omega _1`$, and end at some $`\phi _2`$, also at infinity in some direction with argument $`\omega _2`$. These values each have to be in some interval $`\mathrm{\Omega }_4`$: let $`\omega _1`$ be in $`\mathrm{\Omega }_4(n_1)`$, and $`\omega _2`$ in $`\mathrm{\Omega }(n_2)`$. We can sufficiently specify the contour by giving $`n_1`$ and $`n_2`$ so that for instance the contour $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{20}`$ for $`\eta _4=0`$ denotes the standard $`\phi ^4`$-theory, where we may take the real line for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, start at $`\phi =\mathrm{}`$ and end at $`\phi =+\mathrm{}`$ (interchange of the endpoints corresponds to replacing $`R`$ by $`R`$ and hence does not influence $`\varphi (x)`$). In total, there are six contours that give a viable $`\phi ^4`$-theory: $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{01}`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{12}`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{23}`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{30}`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{02}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{13}`$. Note that these are related to each other by phase shifts: in fact,

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{30}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{12}(\eta _4\eta _4+2\pi )`$ , $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{23}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{12}(\eta _4\eta _4+4\pi ),`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{12}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{12}(\eta _4\eta _4+6\pi )`$ , $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{13}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{02}(\eta _4\eta _4+2\pi ).`$
Therefore, only $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{02}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{01}`$, say, give really different theories, all other cases being obtainable by an appropriate shift in $`\eta _4`$. All contours, as stated, corresponds to viable theories as long as $`\lambda _4`$ is non-vanishing, but when we let $`|\lambda _4|0`$ there are two possibilities. It may happen that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_4(n_1)`$ overlaps with one of the $`\mathrm{\Omega }_2`$ segments, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_4(n_2)`$ with the other $`\mathrm{\Omega }_2`$ segment. In that case, the limiting theory is equal to the free theory, and the limit $`|\lambda _4|0`$ is smooth: we may call this the perturbative limit. In the other case the limit is not smooth, and the path integral $`R`$ will diverge as $`|\lambda _4|0`$: we call this the non-perturbative limit. Clearly, the limiting behavior depends on the argument $`\eta _4`$: for the contour $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{02}`$ (the ‘standard one’) one has

$`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\pi <\eta _4<{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\pi ,{\displaystyle \frac{5}{2}}\pi <\eta _4<{\displaystyle \frac{11}{2}}\pi `$ $`:`$ $`\text{perturbative},`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\pi <\eta _4<{\displaystyle \frac{5}{2}}\pi ,{\displaystyle \frac{11}{2}}\pi <\eta _4<{\displaystyle \frac{13}{2}}\pi `$ $`:`$ $`\text{non-perturbative},`$
and for the other contour $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{01}`$:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\pi <\eta _4<{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\pi ,{\displaystyle \frac{9}{2}}\pi <\eta _4<{\displaystyle \frac{11}{2}}\pi `$ $`:`$ $`\text{perturbative},`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\pi <\eta _4<{\displaystyle \frac{9}{2}}\pi ,{\displaystyle \frac{11}{2}}\pi <\eta _4<{\displaystyle \frac{17}{2}}\pi `$ $`:`$ $`\text{non-perturbative},`$
For the pure $`\phi ^3`$-theory, there are of course three contours, related to each other: $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{20}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{01}(\eta _3\eta _3+2\pi )`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{12}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{01}(\eta _3\eta _3+4\pi )`$. For the limiting theory we find, for contour $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{01}`$:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{5}{4}}\pi <\eta _3<{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\pi ,{\displaystyle \frac{7}{4}}\pi <\eta _3<{\displaystyle \frac{13}{4}}\pi `$ $`:`$ $`\text{perturbative},`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\pi <\eta _3<{\displaystyle \frac{7}{4}}\pi ,{\displaystyle \frac{13}{4}}\pi <\eta _3<{\displaystyle \frac{19}{4}}\pi `$ $`:`$ $`\text{non-perturbative}.`$
In a theory with both $`\phi ^3`$ and $`\phi ^4`$ couplings, things become more interesting. Of course, as long as $`\lambda _4`$ is nonzero, we are allowed to let $`\lambda _3`$ go to zero without jeopardizing the perturbativity. On the other hand, we can only let $`\lambda _4`$ vanish with fixed $`\lambda _3`$ if the selected $`\mathrm{\Omega }_4`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_3`$ intervals overlap. We give in Fig.3 and Fig.4 the values of $`\eta _4`$ and $`\eta _3`$ that correspond to a perturbative $`\lambda _40`$ limit,

Finally, we may study the combined limits $`\lambda _40`$ followed by $`\lambda _30`$. The regions of perturbativity are given in Fig.2. Clearly, these are more restricted since we are in this case requiring a common overlap of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_2`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_3`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_4`$.

## 4 Renormalization

Even though zero-dimensional field theories have no infinities, we may still consider the effects of renormalization, which here take a graph-theoretical significance. Renormalizing the field so that the exact propagator is $`1/\mu `$, and the coupling constant so that the proper vertices assume their tree-order form, we are counting Green’s functions without self-energy and vertex insertions, that is, we are counting the skeleton diagrams of the theory. We shall restrict ourselves to theories that are known to be perturbatively renormalizable in the usual four-dimensional case.

### 4.1 Renormalization of pure $`𝝋^\mathrm{𝟑}`$-theory

In this case renormalization proceeds as usual with the introduction of the tadpole ($`z_1`$), the mass ($`z_2`$) and the vertex ($`z_3`$) counter terms, as well as the corresponding renormalization conditions that imply the dependence of these counter terms on the renormalized coupling constant. The renormalized action can be written as ($`\mu =1,\mathrm{}=1`$)

$$S=\frac{1}{2}z_2\phi ^2+\frac{1}{6}gz_3\phi ^3+z_1\phi ,$$
(49)
and the SD equation takes the form

$$z_2\varphi =(xz_1)\frac{G_3}{2}(\varphi ^2+\varphi ^{}),G_3gz_3.$$
(50)
Moreover using Eq.(19) we get,

$$3G_3\frac{\varphi }{G_3}=z_2\varphi ^{\prime \prime }+2z_2\varphi \varphi ^{}\varphi (xz_1)\varphi ^{},$$
(51)
whereas Eq.(6) becomes,

$$\frac{\varphi }{z_2}=\varphi \varphi ^{}\frac{1}{2}\varphi ^{\prime \prime }.$$
(52)
The renormalization conditions that have to be applied are

Condition 4.1.1. No tadpoles, i.e. $`\varphi (x=0)=0`$ ;

Condition 4.1.2. propagator $`=\varphi ^{}(0)=1`$ ;

Condition 4.1.3. vertex $`=\varphi ^{\prime \prime }(0)=g`$.

Application of these conditions to the SD equation and its derivative leads to the equations

$$z_1=\frac{1}{2}gz_3,z_2=1+\frac{1}{2}g^2z_3.$$
(53)
So if we know $`z_3`$ as function of $`g`$, we know $`z_1`$ and $`z_2`$ as function of $`g`$, and we can consider $`\varphi `$ to be a function of $`g`$ and $`x`$ only. Its derivative w.r.t. $`g`$ can, using $`/z_1=/x`$, be written as

$$\frac{\varphi }{g}=\varphi ^{}\dot{z_1}+\frac{\varphi }{z_2}\dot{z_2}+\frac{\varphi }{G_3}\dot{G_3}$$
(54)
where a dot denotes differentiation w.r.t. $`g`$. Because $`\varphi `$ is a function of $`x`$ and $`g`$ only, the l.h.s. is zero in $`x=0`$ by Condition 4.1, and evaluation of the r.h.s. leads to the equation

$$\frac{g}{2}\frac{dz_3}{dg}=\frac{2z_32(1+g^2)z_3^2}{4+(4+g^2)z_3}.$$
(55)
It is straightforward to derive that for $`g=0`$ the perturbative counter terms read

$$z_1(0)=0,z_2(0)=1,z_3(0)=1.$$

Eq.(55) is an Abel equation of the second kind . The perturbative solution, satisfying the above initial condition, is

$$z_3(g)=1g^2\frac{1}{2}g^44g^629g^8\frac{545}{2}g^{10}+\mathrm{},$$
(56)
an expansion previously given by Cvitanović et al. .

Having, however, solved the SD equation for $`\phi ^3`$-theory (Section 3.2), we also have an exact, albeit implicit, solution of Eq.(55), making use of Condition 4.1:

$$[c_1\text{Ai}^{}(t_0)+c_2\text{Bi}^{}(t_0)]\left(\frac{2}{gz_3}\right)^{1/3}\frac{z_2}{gz_3}[c_1\text{Ai}(t_0)+c_2\text{Bi}(t_0)]=0,$$
(57)
where

$$t_0=\left(\frac{2}{gz_3}\right)^{1/3}\left(\frac{1}{2}gz_3+\frac{z_2^2}{2gz_3}\right)=\frac{z_2^2}{(2g^2z_3^2)^{2/3}}\left(1+\frac{g^2z_3^2}{z_2^2}\right),$$

and Ai and Bi are the two independent solutions of the Airy equation $`f^{\prime \prime }(t)=tf(t)`$. The meaning of this equation Eq.(57) is that for a given $`g`$ and by using Eq.(53) as well as the functional form of Ai and Bi we can determine $`z_3`$. To show that Eq.(57) is an implicit solution of Eq.(55), let

$$F(g)=\frac{(2g^2z_3^2)^{1/3}}{z_2},$$

implying $`t_0F(g)^21=(gz_3/z_2)^2`$, and differentiate Eq.(57) with respect to $`g`$ to get

$$\left(F^{}(g)\frac{dt_0}{dg}\right)[c_1\text{Ai}^{}(t_0)+c_2\text{Bi}^{}(t_0)]+F(g)[c_1\text{Ai}^{\prime \prime }(t_0)+c_2\text{Bi}^{\prime \prime }(t_0)]\frac{dt_0}{dg}=0.$$

Using the Airy equation and Eq.(57), we get

$$F^{}(g)+\frac{dt_0}{dg}(t_0F(g)^21)=0.$$

Explicitly, this says

$$2z_2\frac{d(gz_3)}{dg}3gz_3\frac{dz_2}{dg}2z_3\frac{d(gz_3)}{dg}=0.$$

By using (53), one easily sees that the above equation is an equivalent form of Eq.(55).

In Fig.5 we present the results of a numerical calculation of $`z_3`$ for the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{10}`$-contour as function of $`g`$, as described in the Appendix.

The left graph shows the real and imaginary part of $`z_3`$ as function of real and positive values of $`g`$. Notice that $`z_3(0)=1`$ as demanded, and that the imaginary part does not stay zero for real $`g`$. This is, of course, an artifact of the definition of the path integral over a complex contour, which is the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{10}`$-contour for $`\phi ^3`$-theory in this case (Fig.2). The right graph combines the real and imaginary part in one curve in the complex $`z_3`$-plane.

Fig.6 shows what happens if we let $`g`$ run with real and positive values of $`gz_3`$, so that the actual coupling constant is real and positive.

### 4.2 Renormalization of pure $`𝝋^\mathrm{𝟒}`$-theory

In the case of $`\phi ^4`$-theory, the renormalized action is given by ($`\mu =\mathrm{}=1`$)

$$S=\frac{1}{2}z_2\phi ^2+\frac{1}{4!}gz_4\phi ^4.$$
(58)
The SD equation becomes

$$z_2\varphi =x\frac{G_4}{6}(\varphi ^3+3\varphi \varphi ^{}+\varphi ^{\prime \prime }),G_4=gz_4,$$
(59)
and the stepping equation Eq.(19), leads to

$$4G_4\frac{\varphi }{G_4}=z_2\varphi ^{\prime \prime }+2z_2\varphi \varphi ^{}\varphi x\varphi ^{},$$
(60)
whereas Eq.(6) assumes the form of Eq.(52). The renormalization conditions require that

Condition 4.2.1. $`\varphi (x=0)=0`$;

Condition 4.2.2. $`\varphi ^{}(0)=1`$;

Condition 4.2.3. $`\varphi ^{\prime \prime \prime }(0)=g`$,

and application to the SD equation leads to the relation

$$z_2=1\frac{1}{6}(3g)gz_4.$$
(61)
As in the case of $`\phi ^3`$-theory, $`\varphi `$ can be considered to be a function of $`x`$ and $`g`$ only, and its derivative w.r.t. $`g`$ can be written as

$$\frac{\varphi }{g}=\frac{\varphi }{z_2}\dot{z_2}+\frac{\varphi }{G_4}\dot{G_4}.$$
(62)
The l.h.s. is zero in $`x=0`$ by Condition 4.2, and evaluation of the r.h.s. leads to

$$\frac{dz_4}{dg}=\frac{6z_4+(69g+3g^2)z_4^2}{6gg(65g+g^2)z_4},$$
(63)
another Abel equation of the second kind. The perturbative solution is given by

$$z_4(g)=1+\frac{3}{2}g+\frac{3}{4}g^2+\frac{11}{8}g^3\frac{45}{16}g^4+\frac{499}{32}g^5+\mathrm{}.$$
(64)
We want to remark at this point that the statement by Cvitanović et al. that, in the case of $`\phi ^3`$-theory, the coefficients of the series expansion of $`ggz_3`$ count connected three-point diagrams with no self-energy or vertex insertions cannot be carried foreward to $`\phi ^4`$-theory: the coefficients of the series expansion of $`ggz_4`$ do not count connected four-point diagrams with no self-energy or (four-point) vertex insertions. There are, for example, no such diagrams with three vertices.

To find the exact implicit solution of Eq.(63), we apply Condition 4.2 to the solution (31) of $`\phi ^4`$-theory, resulting in

$$\frac{c_1t\text{U}(1;t)}{z_2}\frac{c_2t\text{V}(1;t)}{z_2\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{3}{2})}=c_1\text{U}(0;t)+\frac{c_2\text{V}(0;t)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{1}{2})},t=\left(\frac{3z_2^2}{gz_4}\right)^{1/2}.$$
(65)
Letting

$$F_1(t)=c_1\text{U}(1;t)\frac{c_2\text{V}(1;t)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{3}{2})}\text{and}F_0(t)=c_1\text{U}(0;t)+\frac{c_2\text{V}(0;t)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{1}{2})},$$

the above equation becomes

$$tF_1(t)=z_2F_0(t).$$

Using the properties of the parabolic functions we can easily show that

$$F_1^{}(t)=(\frac{z_2}{2}1)F_0(t),F_0^{}(t)=\frac{1}{2}(t+\frac{z_2}{t})F_0(t),$$

so that differentiation of Eq.(4.2) leads to

$$\frac{dt}{dg}\frac{z_2}{t}F_0(t)+t\frac{dt}{dg}\left(\frac{z_2}{2}1\right)F_0(t)=\frac{dz_2}{dg}F_0(t)\frac{z_2}{2}\frac{dt}{dg}\left(t+\frac{z_2}{t}\right)F_0(t).$$

This equation can be written as

$$\frac{d}{dg}\frac{t}{z_2}+\frac{dt}{dg}\left(\frac{1}{2}+\frac{t^2}{z_2^2}\frac{g3}{6}gz_4\right)=0,$$

where we used relation (61). Finally, since $`t/z_2=\sqrt{3/gz_4}`$ by definition of $`t`$, it is easily seen that the above equation becomes Eq.(63).

In Fig.7 we show the results of the numerical calculation of $`z_4(g)`$, as described in the Appendix. We used the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{20}`$-contour for $`\phi ^4`$-theory (Fig.2).

Starting at $`z_4(0)=1`$, $`z_4(g)`$ stays real and positive for real and positive values of $`g`$, as expected. Moreover $`z_2`$ exhibits a zero, whose position $`g_{}`$ can be calculated analytically and is given by

$$g_{}=3\frac{1}{4}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{1}{4}\right)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{3}{4}\right)}\right)^20.81155.$$
(66)
At this point the theory becomes ‘massless’, in the sense that the bare mass becomes zero, yet the Green’s functions do not exhibit singular behavior. In fact let us consider the 6-point function as an example. It can be explicitly calculated and it reads

$$C_6=6z_4^16+9g+g^2.$$

It is easy to see that the expansion around $`g=0`$ reproduces the known perturbative series. Moreover, the left graph Fig.8 presents $`C_6`$ as a function of $`g`$.

We also see that $`z_4`$ increases with increasing $`g`$, and explodes if $`g`$ approaches $`2`$. The graph on the right of Fig.8 suggests that the there is a simple pole at $`g=2`$. In fact, substitution of a Laurent series around $`g=2`$ in Eq.(63) results in a solution with a simple pole:

$$z_4(g)=\frac{6}{g2}+612(g2)+54(g2)^2399(g2)^3+3948(g2)^4\mathrm{}.$$
(67)
One can ask the question whether this series expansion corresponds to a solution with $`z_4(0)=1`$, that is, the perturbative solution. In order to get the perturbative solution from the implicit solution (65), in combination with Eq.(61), we should take the constants $`c_1`$ and $`c_2`$ such that the limit of $`t\mathrm{}`$ exists. Using the properties of the parabolic functions and their asymptotic expansions, we find that the perturbative solution has to satisfy

$$z_2=t^2\left(\frac{B_{3/4}(\frac{1}{4}t^2)}{B_{1/4}(\frac{1}{4}t^2)}1\right),B_\nu (\frac{1}{4}t^2):=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{1}{\mathrm{cos}\nu \pi }[I_\nu (\frac{1}{4}t^2)+I_\nu (\frac{1}{4}t^2)]\hfill & \text{if }\text{Re}t<0\hfill \\ \frac{\pi }{2\mathrm{sin}\nu \pi }[I_\nu (\frac{1}{4}t^2)I_\nu (\frac{1}{4}t^2)]\hfill & \text{if }\text{Re}t>0\text{,}\hfill \end{array}$$
(68)
together with Eq.(61). For $`g`$ close to, but smaller than, $`g=2`$ we see that $`z_2<0`$, so that $`\text{Re}t<0`$, and it is easy to see that the solution in this case has a simple pole at $`g=2`$. However, the coefficients for large powers in the series expansion seem to behave as $`(2n+2)!`$, so that the series has radius of convergence equal to zero, and the numerical solution of a curve around $`g=2`$ in the complex $`g`$-plane reveals that there is a branch point (Fig.9). In any case, for $`g2^{}`$ the bare coupling becomes strong and the bare mass squared large and negative whereas the connected Green’s functions are still perfectly calculable; for instance $`C_6(g=2)=16`$.

### 4.3 Renormalization of $`𝝋^\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{+}𝝋^\mathrm{𝟒}`$-theory

The renormalization of the $`\phi ^3+\phi ^4`$-theory is more involved, but straightforward. The action is given by

$$S=\frac{1}{2}z_2\phi ^2+\frac{1}{3!}G_3\phi ^3+\frac{1}{4!}G_4\phi ^4+z_1\phi ,G_3=g_3z_3,G_4=g_4z_4,$$

and the SD equation assumes the form

$$z_2\varphi =(xz_1)\frac{G_3}{2}(\varphi ^2+\varphi ^{})\frac{G_4}{6}(\varphi ^3+3\varphi \varphi ^{}+\varphi ^{\prime \prime }).$$
(69)
The stepping equations read

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi }{G_3}}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}\varphi ^{\prime \prime \prime }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\varphi \varphi ^{\prime \prime }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\varphi ^{}_{}{}^{}2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\varphi ^2\varphi ^{}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi }{G_4}}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{24}}\varphi ^{\prime \prime \prime \prime }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}\varphi \varphi ^{\prime \prime }{\displaystyle \frac{5}{12}}\varphi ^{}\varphi ^{\prime \prime }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\varphi ^2\varphi ^{\prime \prime }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\varphi \varphi ^{}_{}{}^{}2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}\varphi ^3\varphi ^{}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi }{z_2}}`$ $`=\varphi \varphi ^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\varphi ^{\prime \prime },`$
and the renormalization conditions are now

Condition 4.3.1. $`\varphi (x=0)=0`$;

Condition 4.3.2. $`\varphi ^{}(0)=1`$;

Condition 4.3.3. $`\varphi ^{\prime \prime }(0)=g_3`$;

Condition 4.3.4. $`\varphi ^{\prime \prime \prime }(0)=3g_3^2g_4`$.

Combining these conditions with the SD equation one easily gets

$$z_1=\frac{1}{2}g_3G_4\frac{1}{2}G_3,z_2=1\frac{1}{6}(3g_3^2g_4+3)G_4+\frac{1}{2}g_3G_3,$$
(70)
so that $`\varphi `$ becomes a function of $`g_3`$, $`g_4`$ and $`x`$ only, leading to the the four equations:

$$\frac{\varphi }{g_i}|_{x=0}\varphi ^{}(0)\frac{z_1}{g_i}+\frac{\varphi }{z_2}|_{x=0}\frac{z_2}{g_i}+\frac{\varphi }{G_3}|_{x=0}\frac{G_3}{g_i}+\frac{\varphi }{G_4}|_{x=0}\frac{G_4}{g_i}=0$$

and

$$\frac{\varphi ^{}}{g_i}|_{x=0}\varphi ^{\prime \prime }(0)\frac{z_1}{g_i}+\frac{\varphi ^{}}{z_2}|_{x=0}\frac{z_2}{g_i}+\frac{\varphi ^{}}{G_3}|_{x=0}\frac{G_3}{g_i}+\frac{\varphi ^{}}{G_4}|_{x=0}\frac{G_4}{g_i}=0$$

with $`i=3,4`$. The coefficients at $`x=0`$ can be inferred form the stepping equations. This way we have a system of four equations involving the partial derivatives of the functions $`G_3(g_3,g_4)`$ and $`G_4(g_3,g_4)`$ with respect to $`g_3`$ and $`g_4`$. Notice that the equations are linear with respect to the four partial derivatives but higly non-linear with respect to the functions $`G_3(g_3,g_4)`$ and $`G_4(g_3,g_4)`$. They can be solved perturbatively with the result

$`G_3`$ $`=`$ $`g_3g_3^3\mathrm{}+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}g_3g_4\mathrm{}+4g_3^5\mathrm{}^26g_3^3g_4\mathrm{}^2+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}g_3g_4^2\mathrm{}^24g_3^7\mathrm{}^3{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}g_3^5g_4\mathrm{}^3`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{19}{4}}g_3^3g_4^2\mathrm{}^3+{\displaystyle \frac{11}{8}}g_3g_4^3\mathrm{}^3+7g_3^9\mathrm{}^4{\displaystyle \frac{93}{2}}g_3^7g_4\mathrm{}^4+81g_3^5g_4^2\mathrm{}^4{\displaystyle \frac{100}{3}}g_3^3g_4^3\mathrm{}^4`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{45}{16}}g_3g_4^4\mathrm{}^4+47g_3^{11}\mathrm{}^5{\displaystyle \frac{807}{2}}g_3^9g_4\mathrm{}^5+927g_3^7g_4^2\mathrm{}^5{\displaystyle \frac{2787}{4}}g_3^5g_4^3\mathrm{}^5`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1785}{16}}g_3^3g_4^4\mathrm{}^5+{\displaystyle \frac{499}{32}}g_3g_4^5\mathrm{}^5`$
$`G_4`$ $`=`$ $`g_4+3g_3^4\mathrm{}6g_3^2g_4\mathrm{}+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}g_4^2\mathrm{}6g_3^6\mathrm{}^2+5g_3^4g_4\mathrm{}^2+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}g_3^2g_4^2\mathrm{}^2+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}g_4^3\mathrm{}^2`$
$`+`$ $`9g_3^8\mathrm{}^343g_3^6g_4\mathrm{}^3+{\displaystyle \frac{151}{2}}g_3^4g_4^2\mathrm{}^339g_3^2g_4^3\mathrm{}^3+{\displaystyle \frac{11}{8}}g_4^4\mathrm{}^3+33g_3^{10}\mathrm{}^4`$
$``$ $`324g_3^8g_4\mathrm{}^4+834g_3^6g_4^2\mathrm{}^4{\displaystyle \frac{1485}{2}}g_3^4g_4^3\mathrm{}^4+{\displaystyle \frac{1585}{8}}g_3^2g_4^4\mathrm{}^4{\displaystyle \frac{45}{16}}g_4^5\mathrm{}^4`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1029}{2}}g_3^{12}\mathrm{}^54610g_3^{10}g_4\mathrm{}^5+{\displaystyle \frac{27525}{2}}g_3^8g_4^2\mathrm{}^517020g_3^6g_4^3\mathrm{}^5+{\displaystyle \frac{68595}{8}}g_3^4g_4^4\mathrm{}^5`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{10705}{8}}g_3^2g_4^5\mathrm{}^5+{\displaystyle \frac{499}{32}}g_4^6\mathrm{}^5`$
where the $`\mathrm{}`$ dependence has been restored for convenience.

In the limit $`g_30`$, also $`G_30`$, and the equations reduce to

$`{\displaystyle \frac{G_4}{g_3}}`$ $`=0`$ $`,{\displaystyle \frac{G_4}{g_4}}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{2(2g_4)G_4^2}{6g_4(65g_4+g_4^2)G_4}},`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{G_3}{g_3}}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{G_4}{g_4}}`$ $`,{\displaystyle \frac{G_3}{g_4}}`$ $`=0.`$
Note that $`G_4(0,g_4)`$ can be identified as $`g_4z_4(g_4)`$ where $`z_4`$ is the same function is as in pure $`\phi ^4`$-theory. Another interesting result is that the term linear in $`g_3`$ in the expansion of $`G_3`$ is given by

$$G_3(g_3,g_4)=g_3z_4(g_4)+𝒪(g_3^2).$$

### 4.4 Renormalization of the charged scalar field

In the case of the charged scalar field we consider the integral representation

$$R(x,\overline{x})=\sqrt{\frac{\mu }{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\phi 𝑑\overline{\phi }\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{1}{\mathrm{}}\left[\mu z_2\phi \overline{\phi }+\frac{1}{4}\lambda z_4(\phi \overline{\phi })^2x\overline{\phi }\overline{x}\phi \right]\right\},$$
(71)
which satisfies the SD equation

$$\zeta R^{\prime \prime \prime }(\zeta )+2R^{\prime \prime }(\zeta )+\frac{2}{gz_4}[z_2R^{}(\zeta )R(\zeta )]=0,\zeta =\frac{x\overline{x}}{\mu \mathrm{}},g=\frac{\lambda \mathrm{}}{\mu ^2}.$$
(72)
In the dimensionless variables

$$u=\frac{x}{\sqrt{\mu \mathrm{}}},\overline{u}=\frac{\overline{x}}{\sqrt{\mu \mathrm{}}},\zeta =u\overline{u},\psi =\sqrt{\frac{\mu }{\mathrm{}}}\phi ,\overline{\psi }=\sqrt{\frac{\mu }{\mathrm{}}}\overline{\phi },$$

Eq.(71) becomes

$$R(u,\overline{u})=𝑑\psi 𝑑\overline{\psi }\mathrm{exp}\left(z_2\psi \overline{\psi }\frac{1}{4}gz_4(\psi \overline{\psi })^2+u\overline{\psi }+\overline{u}\psi \right),$$

implying

$$\frac{R}{g}=\frac{1}{4}\frac{d(gz_4)}{dg}\frac{^4R}{u^2\overline{u}^2}\frac{dz_2}{dg}\frac{^2R}{u\overline{u}}$$

or, in terms of the $`\zeta `$-variable

$$\frac{R}{g}=\frac{1}{4}\frac{d(gz_4)}{dg}(\zeta ^2R^{\prime \prime \prime \prime }+4\zeta R^{\prime \prime \prime }+2R^{\prime \prime })\frac{dz_2}{dg}(\zeta R^{\prime \prime }+R^{}).$$
(73)
Now, the generating function of the connected Green’s functions is given by

$$\varphi (x,\overline{x})=\mathrm{}\frac{}{\overline{x}}\mathrm{ln}R(\zeta )=\frac{x}{\mu }\frac{R^{}(\zeta )}{R(\zeta )},$$

and the renormalization conditions are

Condition 4.4.1. $`{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi }{x}}(x=\overline{x}=0)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mu }}`$ , implying $`R^{}(0)=R(0)`$ ;

Condition 4.4.2. $`{\displaystyle \frac{^3\varphi }{\overline{x}x^2}}(x=\overline{x}=0)={\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{\mu ^4}}`$ , implying $`R^{\prime \prime }(0)=\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{g}{2}}\right)R(0)`$ .

By combining equations Eq.(72) and Eq.(73) and the renormalization conditions we get

$$z_2=1\left(1\frac{g}{2}\right)gz_4$$

and

$$\frac{dz_4}{dg}=\frac{2z_4(3g^25g+2)z_4^2}{2g+g(g^23g+2)z_4},$$
(74)
with perturbative expansion

$$z_4(g)=1+\frac{5}{2}g+\frac{9}{4}g^2+\frac{49}{8}g^3\frac{271}{16}g^4+\frac{5025}{32}g^5+\mathrm{}.$$
(75)
To get an exact implicit solution of Eq.(74), we go back to Eq.(72) and change variables to get

$$\eta R^{\prime \prime \prime }(\eta )+2R^{\prime \prime }(\eta )+\alpha ^2[R^{}(\eta )R(\eta )]=0,\eta =\frac{\zeta }{z_2},\alpha =\sqrt{\frac{2}{gz_4}}z_2.$$
(76)
This equation has exactly the form of (43), and the perturbative solution is given by

$$R(\eta )=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(\eta \alpha )^n}{n!}\text{U}(n+\frac{1}{2};\alpha ).$$

Condition 4.4 implies the implicit exact solution of the form

$$\alpha \text{U}(\frac{3}{2};\alpha )=z_2\text{U}(\frac{1}{2};\alpha ),$$
(77)
where, of course, $`z_2=1(1g/2)gz_4`$.

To show that Eq.(77) is indeed an implicit solution of Eq.(74), differentiate Eq.(77) with respect to $`g`$:

$$[\text{U}(\frac{3}{2};\alpha )+\alpha \text{U}^{}(\frac{3}{2};\alpha )]\frac{d\alpha }{dg}=\frac{dz_2}{dg}\text{U}(\frac{1}{2};\alpha )+z_2\text{U}^{}(\frac{1}{2};\alpha )\frac{d\alpha }{dg},$$

and using parabolic cylinder functions properties together with Eq.(77) to get

$$\frac{dz_2}{dg}=\left(\frac{z_2}{\alpha }+\alpha z_2+\frac{z_2^2}{\alpha }\alpha \right)\frac{d\alpha }{dg},$$
(78)
with $`\alpha =\sqrt{\frac{2}{gz_4}}z_2`$. It is a straight forward calculation to show that this is indeed Eq.(74).

In the following we present a derivation of the initial condition for $`z_4(g=0)`$. Using the path integral expression of Eq.(71), we find the SD equation

$$\mu z_2\mathrm{}\overline{}R+\frac{\lambda z_4}{2}\mathrm{}^3\overline{}^2RxR=0.$$

The generating function $`\varphi =\mathrm{}\overline{}\mathrm{ln}R`$ of the connected diagrams satisfies

$$\varphi (0,0)=0,(\overline{}\varphi )(0,0)=0,\overline{\varphi }(0,0)=0,(\overline{\varphi })(0,0)=0.$$

as well as the SD equation

$$\varphi =\frac{x}{\mu z_2}\frac{\lambda z_4}{2\mu z_2}(\overline{\varphi }\varphi ^2+2\mathrm{}\varphi \varphi +\overline{\varphi }\overline{}\varphi +\mathrm{}^2\overline{}\varphi ),$$

with the renormalization conditions 4.4 and 4.4. These should hold for any value of $`\mathrm{}`$, and for $`\mathrm{}=0`$, the SD equation becomes

$$\varphi _0=\frac{x}{\mu z_2(0)}\frac{\lambda z_4(0)}{2\mu z_2(0)}\overline{\varphi }_0\varphi _0^2,$$

from which we derive for the perturbative solution that

$`(\varphi _0)(0,0)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mu z_2(0)}}`$ $`z_2(0)`$ $`=1,`$
$`(\overline{}^2\varphi _0)(0,0)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{\lambda z_4(0)}{\mu ^4}}`$ $`z_4(0)`$ $`=1.`$
Notice that the value $`\mathrm{}=0`$ is directly related to $`g=0`$ since $`g`$ is proportional to $`\mathrm{}`$.

## 5 Summary

In this paper we studied several aspects of zero-dimensional field theories. In the first place we derived a set of diagrammatic equations, including the well known Schwinger-Dyson equations as well as a set of ‘stepping’ equations generalizing some previous results. Then we showed how to solve these equations exactly in terms of known functions and we established integral representations of these solutions, best known as the ‘path integral’ representation. Explicit results were obtained for $`\phi ^3`$, $`\phi ^4`$, $`\phi ^3+\phi ^4`$ and the charged scalar field theories. Subsequently, we studied the ‘renormalization’ of such theories in zero dimensions, which is equivalent to counting diagrams with restrictions imposed on the type of diagrams considered, for instance diagrams without any tadpoles, self-energy insertions or vertex insertions. We were able to get explicit results for the dependence of the bare quantities such as the mass, the coupling, and the tadpole counter terms, on the renormalized (physical) coupling constant. Examples of interesting observations are the facts that in $`\phi ^4`$ theory, the bare mass exhibits a zero at a finite value of the renormalized coupling constant $`g=g_{}`$ (Eq.(66)), whereas at $`g2ϵ`$ the bare coupling becomes strong and the mass squared becomes large and negative. Yet in both cases the ‘physical’ connected Green’s functions remain finite and calculable.

## Appendix

Consider general $`\phi ^p`$-theory, and suppose that all but one renormalization conditions have been implemented through functions $`z_k(g,z_p)`$, $`k=1,2,..,p1`$ of two variables $`z_p`$ and $`g`$, like in Eq.(53) and Eq.(61). This means that we are considering a theory with an action

$$S(g,z_p;\phi )=\frac{gz_p}{p!}\phi ^p+\underset{k=1}{\overset{p1}{}}\frac{z_k(g,z_p)}{k!}\phi ^k.$$

Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ be a contour in the complex $`\phi `$-plane, such that $`\text{Re}\phi ^n\mathrm{}`$ at the endpoints, and define

$$Z_n(g,z_p):=_\mathrm{\Gamma }𝑑\phi \phi ^n\mathrm{exp}\{S(g,z_p;\phi )\}.$$

Such an integral is not defined for all complex values of $`gz_p`$. Let $`gz_p=|gz_p|e^{ip\eta }`$ and denote by $`e^{i\eta }\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ the contour that is obtained from $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ by clockwise rotation over $`\eta `$. For complex values of $`gz_p`$, we define

$`Z_n(g,z_p):=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{e^{i\eta }\mathrm{\Gamma }}}𝑑\phi \phi ^n\mathrm{exp}\{S(g,z_p;\phi )\}`$
$`=`$ $`e^{i(n+1)\eta }{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Gamma }}𝑑\phi \phi ^n\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{|gz_p|}{p!}}\phi ^p{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{p1}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{z_k}{k!}}e^{ik\eta }\phi ^k\right).`$
Integrals of this type can easily be calculated to high precision by numerical integration. One just has to choose $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ such that it goes through one or more saddle points, so that the integrand oscillates as little as possible.

To formulate the renormalization problem further, let us denote the connected moments by $`C_n`$, so

$$C_1=\frac{Z_1}{Z_0},C_2=\frac{Z_2}{Z_0}C_1^2,C_3=\frac{Z_3}{Z_0}3C_2C_1C_1^3,\mathrm{}$$

and so on. The problem is to solve $`z_p`$ as function of $`g`$ from the implicit function equation

$$C_p(g,z_p)=g,$$

which represents the final renormalization condition. This equation can be solved numerically. Given a value of $`g`$, we have to find the zero of the function

$$F(z_p):=C_p(g,z_p)+g,$$

which can be found using Newton-Raphson iteration

$$z_pz_p\frac{F(z_p)}{F^{}(z_p)}.$$

By making small steps in the value of $`g`$, the solution $`z_p(g)`$ on a curve in the complex $`g`$-plane can be determined. At the start of each iteration, the question arises of which initial value of $`z_p`$ to choose, and the obvious answer is to choose the final value of the previous iteration, which should lie close the the new final value if the steps in $`g`$ are not to large.

As a check one can look whether the results obtained with this method satisfy (numerically) the available differential equations for $`z_p(g)`$ (Eq.(55) and Eq.(63)).


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

In the Standard Model (SM) and its supersymmetric extensions, the masses of electroweak gauge bosons, leptons, and quarks are generated by interactions with Higgs fields . The Yukawa couplings between Higgs particles and fermions therefore grow with the masses $`M_f`$ of the fermions. The couplings obey a universal scaling law $`g_{ffH}=M_f/v`$ in the SM, with $`v246\mathrm{GeV}`$ being the ground-state value of the Higgs field. In supersymmetric models, which involve at least two Higgs doublets, the size of the Yukawa couplings is also set by the fermion masses, yet the relationship is more complex owing to the mixing among the Higgs fields. The Yukawa couplings  of the two CP-even light/heavy Higgs bosons $`h/H`$ and of the CP-odd Higgs boson $`A`$ in the minimal supersymmetric extension of the Standard Model (MSSM) , expressed in units of the SM couplings, are determined by the parameters $`\text{tg}\beta =v_2/v_1`$, the ratio of the vacuum expectation values of the two Higgs fields generating the masses of up- and down-type particles, and $`\alpha `$, the mixing angle in the CP-even sector. In the decoupling limit, in which the light Higgs mass reaches the maximum value for a given parameter $`\text{tg}\beta `$, the $`h`$ Yukawa couplings approach the SM values. In general, they are suppressed for up-type fermions and enhanced for down-type fermions; the enhancement increases with $`\text{tg}\beta `$ and can therefore be very strong.

Higgs radiation off top or off bottom quarks in $`e^+e^{}`$ collisions,

$$e^+e^{}Q\overline{Q}\varphi [Q=t,b;\varphi =H_{SM},h,H,A],$$
(1)
lends itself as a suitable process for measuring the Yukawa couplings of all Higgs bosons , particularly for the SM Higgs bosons, the light Higgs boson $`h`$ and for moderately heavy Higgs bosons $`H`$ and $`A`$. Within the SM it has been demonstrated that the top Yukawa coupling can be measured with an accuracy of 2–3% at linear colliders with $`\sqrt{s}=800`$ GeV . We present the cross sections for these processes including the next-to-leading order (NLO) QCD corrections . In this analysis we have calculated the complete set of $`𝒪(\alpha _\mathrm{s})`$ QCD corrections to all subchannels in (1) systematically. The large number of interfering subchannels in supersymmetric theories renders this program more complex than the corresponding calculation in the SM, in particular since the relative weight of the subchannels varies over the supersymmetric parameter space and over the phase space for different mass ratios. Moreover, the Higgs-energy distributions haven been obtained at NLO . They turn out to be relevant in the separation of the resonant parts and those, which depend on the Yukawa couplings. Introducing appropriate cuts in the Higgs energy the sensitivity to the Yukawa couplings can be increased experimentally.

## 2 QCD Corrections

The QCD corrections can be categorized into five classes. Virtual corrections of the internal quark lines, of the $`\gamma /Z`$–quark vertices, of the Higgs–quark vertices, and box diagrams interfere with the Born amplitude. Gluon radiation off internal and external quark lines adds incoherently to the cross sections. The value of the electromagnetic coupling is taken to be $`\alpha =1/128`$ and the Weinberg angle as $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W=0.23`$. The mass of the $`Z`$ boson is set to $`M_Z=91.187\mathrm{GeV}`$, and the pole masses of the top and bottom quarks are set to $`M_t=174\mathrm{GeV}`$  and111This value for the perturbative pole mass of the bottom quark corresponds in NLO to an $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ mass $`\overline{m}_b(\overline{m}_b)=4.28\mathrm{GeV}`$. $`M_b=4.62\mathrm{GeV}`$ , respectively. The masses of the MSSM Higgs bosons and their couplings are related to $`\text{tg}\beta `$ and the pseudoscalar Higgs boson mass $`M_A`$. In the relation we use, higher-order corrections up to two loops in the effective-potential approach are included . The SUSY parameters are chosen as $`\mu =A_t=A_b=0`$ and $`M_{\stackrel{~}{Q}}=1`$ TeV; this simple choice is sufficient to illustrate the main results.

The production of $`b\overline{b}\varphi `$ final states can be mediated by resonance channels $`e^+e^{}ZH_{SM},Zh,ZH`$ and $`e^+e^{}Ah,AH`$. We describe the resonance structures as Breit–Wigner forms by substituting $`M^2M^2iM\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ in all boson propagators. The decay widths of the Higgs bosons are calculated including higher-order corrections, as described in Refs. , while the $`Z`$ width is set to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_Z=2.49\mathrm{GeV}`$. For $`t\overline{t}\varphi `$ production the widths can be neglected, since the Higgs masses are taken below the $`t\overline{t}`$ threshold. The renormalization scale of the QCD coupling $`\alpha _\mathrm{s}`$, which is evaluated in NLO with five active flavors normalized to $`\alpha _\mathrm{s}(M_Z^2)=0.119`$ , is chosen at $`\mu _R^2=s`$, where $`s=E_{\mathrm{CM}}^2`$ is the center-of-mass (CM) energy squared.

The QCD radiative corrections have been calculated in the standard way. The Feynman diagrams have been evaluated within dimensional regularization. Ultraviolet divergences are consistently regularized in $`D=42ϵ`$ dimensions, with $`\gamma _5`$ treated naively since no anomalies are involved. The renormalization of the $`Q\overline{Q}\varphi `$ vertices is connected to the renormalization of the quark masses, which, in the case of the top quark, is defined on shell (see e.g. Refs.  for details). In the case of bottom quarks large logarithms are mapped into the running mass $`\overline{m}_b(Q_{\mathrm{Higgs}}^2)`$ for the Yukawa couplings of the $`b`$ quark, with $`Q_{\mathrm{Higgs}}^2`$ denoting the squared momentum flow through the corresponding Higgs-boson line. The infrared divergences encountered in the virtual corrections and in the cross section for real gluon emission, are treated in two different ways. Both calculations follow subtraction procedures, one using dimensional regularization and one introducing an infinitesimal gluon mass . The results obtained by the two different procedures are in mutual numerical agreement after adding the contributions from virtual gluon exchange and real gluon emission. A second, completely independent calculation of the QCD corrections to the total cross section was based on the evaluation of all relevant cut diagrams of the photon and $`Z`$-boson self-energies in two-loop order, generalizing the method applied to $`t\overline{t}(g)`$ intermediate states in Ref. . The results of the two approaches are in numerical agreement. Moreover, the parts that have been calculated in Refs. , i.e. photon exchange and resonant contributions, are in full agreement with our corresponding partial results.

## 3 Results

a.) Asymptotic behaviour. The QCD corrections to the top final states $`t\overline{t}\varphi `$ can be interpreted easily in two kinematical areas. Whenever the invariant mass of the $`t\overline{t}`$ pair is close to threshold, the gluonic Sommerfeld rescattering-correction is positive and becomes large. In the threshold region the $`K`$ factor approaches the asymptotic form

$$K_{\mathrm{thr}}^{t\overline{t}\varphi }1+\frac{32\alpha _s}{9\beta _t}$$
(2)
with the maximal quark velocity $`\beta _t=\sqrt{(\sqrt{s}M_\varphi )^24M_t^2}/2M_t`$ in the $`(t\overline{t})`$ rest frame.

For high energies, on the other hand, the QCD corrections are of order $`\alpha _s/\pi `$. In the energy region $`s4M_t^2M_H^2`$ but $`\mathrm{log}s/M_t^2\overline{)}𝒪(1)`$, which is relevant for the present analysis, the QCD corrections can qualitatively be traced back to vertex corrections and infrared gluon radiation. Since scalar Higgs bosons are radiated off top quarks preferentially with small energy \[$`x=E_\varphi /E_t0`$\], as is evident from the leading (universal) part of the fragmentation function

$$f(ttH;x)=\frac{g_{ttH}^2}{16\pi ^2}\left[4\frac{1x}{x}+x\mathrm{log}\frac{s}{M_t^2}\right],$$
(3)
the QCD correction of the scalar Yukawa vertex, regularized by soft gluon radiation, approaches the value

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_H^{V+IR}=\frac{4\alpha _s}{3\pi }\left[1+\frac{2x}{x}\mathrm{log}(1x)\right]4\frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }.$$
(4)
The scalar Yukawa vertex is therefore reduced by four units in $`\alpha _s/\pi `$ which are compensated only partly by one unit due to the increase of the $`t\overline{t}`$ production probability, leading in total  to

$$K_{\mathrm{cont}}^{t\overline{t}\varphi }13\frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }+\mathrm{}\text{for }\varphi =H_{SM},h,H.$$
(5)
The ellipsis accounts for hard Higgs and gluon radiation (of order $`+\alpha _s/\pi `$). Thus, the QCD corrections are expected negative for scalar Higgs particles in the high energy continuum.

By contrast, the corresponding fragmentation function for the pseudoscalar Higgs boson

$$f(ttA;x)=\frac{g_{ttA}^2}{16\pi ^2}x\mathrm{log}\frac{s}{M_t^2}$$
(6)
is hard so that the average of the vertex and IR gluon corrections over the Higgs spectrum amounts to

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_A^{V+IR}\frac{4\alpha _s}{3\pi }\left[1+\frac{2x}{x}\mathrm{log}(1x)\right]\frac{3}{2}\frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }.$$
(7)
Adding to this correction the increase of the $`t\overline{t}`$ production probability of one unit, the $`K`$ factor is very close to unity

$$K_{\mathrm{cont}}^{t\overline{t}A}1\frac{1}{2}\frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }+\mathrm{}$$
(8)
After hard gluon bremsstrahlung is taken into account (symbolized by the ellipsis), the overall QCD corrections for the pseudoscalar Higgs boson are therefore expected slightly positive. \[For ultra-high energies, i.e. $`\mathrm{log}s/M_t^21`$, hard gluon bremsstrahlung becomes important. Similarly to the leading terms in the fragmentation functions eqs. (3) and (6), the QCD corrections for scalar and pseudoscalar Higgs bosons approach each other as a result of chiral symmetry restoration in asymptotia; this has been verified in a numerical calculation.\]

Similar estimates can be applied to bottom final states which in general are dominated by resonance decays. After absorbing the large logarithms $`\mathrm{log}(Q_\varphi ^2/M_b^2)`$ into the Yukawa couplings, the non-leading effects are positive:

$$K_{\mathrm{res}}^{b\overline{b}\varphi }1+\{\frac{17}{3},1\}\frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }\text{for }\{\text{Higgs},Z\}b\overline{b}\text{ }.$$
(9)
Also close to the thresholds and in the high-energy limit the QCD corrections remain positive after mapping the large (negative) corrections into the running Yukawa couplings. Since different channels are activated at the same time, only a qualitative estimate can be given in the continuum regime,

$$K_{\mathrm{cont}}^{b\overline{b}\varphi }=1+c\frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }\text{with }c=𝒪(1)\text{,}$$
(10)
while details must be left to the numerical analysis.

b.) Numerical results.

The total cross sections for $`Ht\overline{t}`$ production in the SM are presented in Fig. 1 as a function of the Higgs mass for different collider energies . The NLO (LO) cross sections are given by the full (dotted) curves. The QCD corrections are large for $`\sqrt{s}=500`$ GeV due to the Coulomb singularity at threshold and moderate for high energies. At high energies the results agree with the approximation of eq. (5). The cross sections amount to more than about 0.1 fb, which leads to a significant number of events at the TESLA collider, being designed to reach integrated luminosities of about $`1`$ ab-1 in three years of operation. The corresponding Higgs-energy distribution is presented in Fig. 2 for $`M_H=120`$ GeV as a function of the scaled variable $`x_H=2E_H/\sqrt{s}`$ . The shape of the distribution is shifted towards larger values of $`x_H`$ due to the Coulomb singularity at threshold. The results for small values of $`x_H`$ reproduce the approximation of eq. (5).

The results for the MSSM are exemplified in Fig. 3 for $`\text{tg}\beta =3`$222Although the value $`\text{tg}\beta =3`$ is already excluded for vanishing mixing in the stop sector, this choice exemplifies the complete result for smaller values of $`\text{tg}\beta `$ and can easily be extended to the non-vanishing stop mixing case. and 30 and for the collider energy $`E_{\mathrm{CM}}=500\mathrm{GeV}`$ . If required by the size of the cross section, which should not fall below $`10^2`$ fb in order to be accessible experimentally, we switched to $`E_{\mathrm{CM}}=1\mathrm{TeV}`$. The Born terms are shown by the dotted curves, while the final results for the cross sections, including QCD corrections, are given by the full curves.

For $`E_{\mathrm{CM}}=500\mathrm{GeV}`$ the QCD corrections to Higgs-boson production in association with $`t\overline{t}`$ pairs increase the scalar Higgs-production cross sections significantly, as can be inferred from Fig. 3. Close to threshold the numerical results clearly exhibit the strong increase of the cross sections due to the Coulomb singularity (2). Moreover, for $`\text{tg}\beta =30`$ the cross sections are strongly suppressed except for the regions where the light (heavy) scalar Higgs mass is close to its upper (lower) bound. For $`\text{tg}\beta =3`$ the cross section amounts to about 1 fb, which leads to a significant number of events at the TESLA collider.

For CM energies of 1 TeV the QCD corrections to scalar Higgs production in association with $`t\overline{t}`$ pairs are of moderate size. They decrease the cross sections by about 3–5%. This is in accordance with the asymptotic form of the $`K`$ factor . For pseudoscalar Higgs production, the size of the QCD corrections is slightly positive at 1 TeV, in agreement with the qualitative discussion above.

The cross sections for Higgs-boson production associated with $`b\overline{b}`$ pairs are significantly larger due to the resonance contributions from on-shell $`Z`$ and Higgs-boson decays into $`b\overline{b}`$ pairs. The QCD corrections increase these cross sections by about 5–25%. The drop in the $`b\overline{b}A`$ production cross section for $`\text{tg}\beta =3`$ at $`M_A140\mathrm{GeV}`$ and $`175\mathrm{GeV}`$ can be attributed to the crossing of the thresholds for resonant $`HWW`$ and $`Hhh`$ decays, respectively, in $`HA`$ final states.

Without cuts, the intermediate resonance decays $`Z,h,H,Ab\overline{b}`$ dominate all $`b\overline{b}\varphi `$ production processes, whenever they are kinematically allowed, and it will be difficult to extract the bottom Yukawa couplings experimentally in regions where resonant Higgs decays to $`b\overline{b}`$ pairs are dominant. This is the case at large values of $`\text{tg}\beta `$ for all neutral Higgs particles and at small values of $`\text{tg}\beta `$ for Higgs masses below the $`WW`$ threshold. In these cases the branching ratios, which determine the size of the $`b\overline{b}\varphi `$ cross sections, will be nearly independent of the bottom Yukawa couplings. Resonance decays $`Rb\overline{b}`$ in the $`b\overline{b}h/H/A`$ final states can however be eliminated by cutting out the resonance energy of the final-state Higgs boson, $`E_{\varphi ,\mathrm{res}}=(s+M_\varphi ^2M_R^2)/2\sqrt{s}`$. After subtracting these resonance parts, the non-resonant contributions are suppressed by about one to three orders of magnitude. The resonances have been removed from the cross sections in the examples of Fig. 4 by subtracting the two-particle cross sections in the Breit–Wigner bands $`M_R\pm \mathrm{\Delta }`$ of the energy $`E_{\varphi ,\mathrm{res}}`$ with the resolution $`\mathrm{\Delta }=5\mathrm{GeV}`$. This theoretical definition is used for the sake of simplicity; wider cuts may be required in experimental analyses. Peaks and dips in the cross sections are the result of overlapping Breit-Wigner bands. For the scalar Higgs particles they arise from overlapping $`Z`$ and $`A`$ boson bands; in pseudoscalar Higgs production the light and heavy scalar resonance bands overlap for 100 GeV

<
[-0.07cm]
MA

<
[-0.07cm]
120

<
[-0.07cm]
subscript𝑀𝐴

<
[-0.07cm]
120~{}\raisebox{-3.69899pt}{~{}\shortstack{$<$ \\
[-0.07cm] $\sim$}}~{}M_{A}\raisebox{-3.69899pt}{~{}\shortstack{$<$ \\
[-0.07cm] $\sim$}}~{}120 GeV for $`\text{tg}\beta =30`$. The dips occur whenever the two resonance bands touch each other, while the peaks between the dips occur when the resonance masses coincide exactly. As shown in Fig. 4, the QCD-corrected cross sections are still close to $`1\mathrm{fb}`$ or slightly below, except for heavy masses at small values of $`\text{tg}\beta `$. Thus, ensembles of order $`10^3`$ events can be collected at a high-luminosity collider .

Fig. 5 presents the pseudoscalar Higgs-energy distribution in $`t\overline{t}A`$ production at $`\sqrt{s}=1`$ TeV for $`M_A=120`$ GeV and $`\text{tg}\beta =3`$ as a function of the scaled Higgs energy $`x_A=2E_A/\sqrt{s}`$ . As in the case of the SM Higgs boson the distribution is shifted towards larger Higgs energies due to the Coulomb singularity at threshold. Moreover, it is clearly visible from the comparison of Figs. 2 and 5 that the pseudoscalar energy spectrum is harder than the scalar one, which is related to the absence of the $`1/x`$ enhancement in eq. (6).

The corresponding Higgs-energy distributions of $`b\overline{b}h`$ production for $`M_h=110`$ GeV is exemplified in Fig. 6 and for $`b\overline{b}A`$ production for $`M_A=120`$ GeV in Fig. 7 as functions of the corresponding scaled Higgs energies for $`\text{tg}\beta =30`$ at $`\sqrt{s}=500`$ GeV . The resonance peaks of $`A,Zb\overline{b}`$ are dominating the distribution of $`b\overline{b}h`$ production and of $`h,Hb\overline{b}`$ the distribution of $`b\overline{b}A`$ production. The continuum contributions are suppressed by several orders of magnitude. The QCD corrections are moderate for all Higgs energies.

## 4 Conclusions

Top- and bottom-Yukawa couplings in the SM and supersymmetric theories can be measured at future linear $`e^+e^{}`$ colliders in Higgs radiation off top and bottom quarks. We have presented the total cross sections and Higgs-energy distributions including the full NLO QCD corrections. The corrections turn out to be large for Higgs radiation off top quarks at c.m. energies $`\sqrt{s}=500`$ GeV, while they are moderate at larger energies. The QCD corrections to Higgs radiation off bottom quarks are moderate after absorbing large logarithms in the running bottom Yukawa couplings.

Measurements of the top Yukawa coupling in SM Higgs radiation off top quarks can be performed quite accurately at the future TESLA collider thanks to the high luminosities. Measurements of Yukawa couplings in supersymmetric Higgs radiation off heavy quarks at $`e^+e^{}`$ linear colliders are difficult. This is a result of the large number of subchannels contributing to the $`Q\overline{Q}h/H/A`$ final states in supersymmetric theories in general, and the contamination by two-Higgs final states in particular. Nevertheless, the continuum cross sections appear large enough to allow for a solution of this experimental problem as shown in the present analysis. Even though experimental simulations are beyond the scope of this note, it may be concluded from earlier SM analyses that the method will work at least in part of the MSSM parameter space, thus providing us with the absolute size of the quark–Higgs Yukawa couplings in the minimal supersymmetric theory.

Acknowledgements. I would like to thank S. Dittmaier, M. Krämer, Y. Liao and P.M. Zerwas for the pleasant collaboration on the topic presented here. Moreover, I am grateful to the organizers of RADCOR–2000 for the stimulating atmosphere during the symposium and financial support.


text:
# Baryon Transport in Dual Models and the Possibility of a Backward Peak in Diffraction

## Abstract

Dual string models contain significant baryon transfers and seem essentially consistent with the available data. We here turn to a careful consideration of the relevant topological structures. The baryon transfer is associated with one of two possible types of cuts in various baryonium exchanges. As the baryonium with the highest intercept easily couples to two Pomerons such transfers should occur abundantly in percolating dense Pomerons systems. From the color structure this quark-less baryonium can be identified with an Odderon exchange. As the Odderon is predicted to have an almost Pomeron-like trajectory it has to involve small coupling constants so that steeper trajectories can initially determine the data. As this suppression is not anticipated for diffractive processes a tiny observable backward peak should occur in the initial baryon distribution for massive diffractive systems.

SI-01-2

Baryon transfer in particle scattering

The suppression of the long range transfer of baryon charges in inclusive spectra and in annihilation is in the range below $`\sqrt{\text{s}}=10`$ GeV resp. $`\mathrm{\Delta }y=2`$ determined by a baryonium intercept of $`\alpha _{Transfer}\alpha _{Pomeron}=1`$ . At the center of ISR  there is an indication of a flattening. New preliminary data from the H1 experiment at HERA  support this turnover. The trajectories required by a HERA ratio compared with its ISR value can be estimated as (see also )

$$\alpha _{Transfer}\alpha _{Pomeron}=0.4\pm 0.2.$$

Both obtained slopes correspond to the classical Dual Topological model  expectation $`\alpha _{junction}^I1=1.0`$ and $`\alpha _{junction}^01=0.5`$ for both trajectories. However the value of the final trajectory is rather uncertain. Values of $`\alpha _{junction}^01=0.8\mathrm{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}0}`$ can be found in the literature .

Such baryonium trajectories are included in most fragmentation codes in a somewhat indirect way (see e.g. ). The splitting functions usually contain all possible quark and diquark transition. It includes a pure diquark contribution which corresponds to baryonium cut. In the widely used JETSET code  the combinatoric suppression is tuned to yield effectively the initial steep slope.

Concepts for slowing-down initial baryons in heavy ion scattering

To understand the data it seems necessary to include interplay of string if they get sufficiently dense in transverse space. It was proposed that there are new special strings . In contrast, we shall here maintain the general factorization hypothesis between initial scattering in the quark phase and the final hadronization within standard strings. Final state interactions are known to introduce some correction to the simple picture.

An obvious mechanism involves the incoming baryons. The usual Pomeron exchange in the Dual Parton model leaves a quark and a diquark for the string ends. Diquarks are no fixed entities and multiple scattering processes can split them in a conventional two Pomeron interaction . It is natural to expect that diquark break-ups considerably slow down the baryons evolving. The probability for such an essentially un-absorbed  process strongly depends on the density. As required by the experiment this is a drastic effect for heavy ion scattering  while for hadron-hadron scattering multiple scattering is sufficiently rare to preserve the known hadron-hadron phenomenology .

The behavior of the baryon quantum number slowed down by such a break-up is not trivial. In topological models the baryon contains Y-shaped color electric fluxes connected by a vortex line. The energy distribution of quarks with vortex lines (or of the fully separated vortex lines) in the structure function is a priory not known and requires special consideration.

Special baryon transfers in the Topological model

For this question we return to the Dual Topological model  on which models like the Dual Parton model are based (for a recent discussion on baryonium see also ) and emphasize topological aspects. The Pomeron exchange corresponds to a cylinder connecting the two scattering hadrons. On an arbitrary plane intersecting this t-channel exchange the intersection is topologically a circle. More specifically amplitudes with clockwise respectively anticlockwise orientation have to be considered and the cylinders or the circles come with two orientations. This distinction is usually not very important as it is always topologically possible to attach hadrons in a matching way. Except for $`C`$-parity conservation (which follows from cancellations) no special restrictions result.

Pomerons have a transverse extent and if they are close in transverse space they should interact. Hadronic interaction is sufficiently strong to be largely determined by geometry as long as there is no mechanism of suppression. It is therefore reasonable to expect that the coupling does not strongly depend on orientation.

The two distinct configurations occur. Two Pomerons with the same orientation can if they touch (starting locally at one point in the exchange-channel time) shorten their circumference and form a single circle:

This then corresponds to the usual triple Pomeron coupling experimentally well-known from diffractive processes.

For two Pomerons with opposite orientation the situation is more complicated. Like for soap bubbles the two surfaces which get in contact can merge and form a single membrane, starting locally with the creation of a vortex pair. The joining inverts the orientation of the membrane. On the intersecting plane one now obtains – instead of the single circle – three lines originating in a vortex point and ending in an anti-vortex point as shown below:

Lacking a topological name for the object the term membraned cylinder will be used in the following.

How do this membraned cylinder contribute to particle production? Similar to the triple Pomeron case there are three different ways to cut through a membraned cylinder:

The symmetric cut (numbered 1) which also intersects the membrane has vortex lines on both sides. They present a topological description of the baryon transfers considered above. By symmetry they contribute with a positive sign. Cuts which intersect only two sheets (numbered 2) contribute to the two string contributions. Their sign is unknown. As they contain a closed internal fermion (vortex line) loop we here assume a negative sign.

The identification with the Odderon

It is widely believed that calculable hard processes can be used as a guide to model corresponding soft processes as a suitable extrapolation.

The topological considerations in perturbative QCD are based on the $`1/N_C`$ \- expansion. This approximation selects contributions according to the magnitude of their color factors reflecting ”coloring” choices of suitably drawn color lines. For an amplitude of a given structure with a given number of couplings the leading order $`1/N_C`$ contribution can be drawn without crossing color lines. In special situations the drawing has to be done on topological structures which are more complicated than the simple plane considered above. An example is the cylinder which is assumed to be responsible for the Pomeron contribution.

The known example of the soft hard correspondence is the connection between soft and hard Pomerons. To identify the hard partner of the soft Pomeron we first observe that the simplest representation of a Pomeron in PQCD involves the exchange of two gluons which form a color singlet with the required positive charge parity. Following this concept it can be shown  that a generalization of such an exchange gives the dominant contribution at very high energies in a well defined approximation. It is called “hard” or BFKL Pomeron and involves a ladder of two exchanged Reggeized gluons linked by a number of gluons. In the topological expansion the leading structure of a BFKL Pomeron corresponds to a cylinder. The two basic Reggeized gluons are exchanged on opposite sides parallel to the axis:

Their matching inner color lines can be linked in front of the cylinder without color line crossing. Analogously their matching outer lines can be connected on the back of the cylinder.

Going back to the soft regime the basic assumption in topological models is that the $`1/N`$-expansion stays valid and that the soft Pomeron therefore maintains its cylindrical structure needed for the two string phenomenology of hadronic final states. If cut, soft and hard Pomerons lead to similar two string final states. As difference it remains that the trajectory of the observed soft Pomeron is just shifted downward roughly by a third of a unit from hard Pomeron calculated in leading logarithmic approximation.

Can one find a similar connection for the membraned cylinder? The simplest representation spanning such a topological structure involves three gluons, one on each sheet exchanged parallel to the axis. Any gluon linking these exchanges has then to pass through a vortex line in which the three sheets join. In the $`1/N`$ expansion extended to baryons this means that the color lines have to cross passing this line. The basic QCD structure of the membraned cylinder exchange is therefore the following:

Looking from the other side a color singlet of three gluons can have the quantum numbers of a Pomeron or an Odderon . There is a simple topological property of the Odderon. A single uncrossed gluon link would project the color structure of the pair of exchanged Reggeized gluons to that of a single gluon, $`(8)_F`$, and the exchange would have to correspond to a Pomeron-like contribution. The Odderon will therefore have to involve crossed links. Hence it has exactly the topology of the membraned cylinder.

To visualize the baryonic color structure of the Odderon with its crossed exchanges one can replace the exchanged gluons by quark antiquark pairs without changing color lines. The so modified membraned cylinder just represents an exchanged baryon antibaryon pair.

In the QCD approximation used for the “hard” Pomeron the properties of the “hard” or BKP Odderon  were calculated and the predicted intercept is $`0.96`$  or $`1.0`$ , depending of the details of the considered state. Again a mismatch between this hard leading logarithmic Odderon intercept and the possibly experimentally observed soft value by about a third is indicated by the data.

General consequences of membraned cylinder exchanges

Our preferred hypothesis is that the membraned cylinder exchange has a small or almost vanishing imaginary part. In this way there are no constraints from total cross section fits. Also, there is no coupling of the total C odd Odderon on a C even Pomeron pair. The cancellation allows a small or vanishing Odderon to contain sizable individual components of opposite sign, which (by looking at baryon exchange) can be used to determine the soft Oddderon trajectory.

In heavy ion scattering where the Pomerons are dense in transverse space they can join and form a Pomeron or an Odderon. The individual strings are no longer independent but the general picture of particle production in separate universal strings survives. The probability of such an interaction of strings is growing proportional to the density and eventually to rapidity range. The transition from a Pomeron pair to the centrally cut membraned cylinder involves baryon antibaryon pair production, which should occur quite abundantly. Between a proton and Pomerons the cut membraned-cylinder is a very efficient mechanism of baryon stopping.

Both effects correspond to experimental observations. As the trajectory is not well determined it is hard to obtain really reliable quantitative estimates which can be tested convincingly with on heavy ion data.

The backward peak in diffraction and possibly in electro production

There is however a very specific qualitative prediction which can be tested. Consider a massive diffractive system. Usually the diffractively produced particles will originate in two strings of a cut Pomeron and the baryon charge will stay on the side of the initial proton. As usual there might be some migration to the center with a slope in rapidity eventually corresponding to the difference of the Odderon and the Pomeron trajectory. Topologically it involves a horizontal cut through the following structure:

The high Odderon trajectory requires a clear suppression from the coupling constants to stay consistent with low energy data. The natural candidate for such a suppression is the Pomeron-Baryonium vertex, which involves no large overlap and for which cancellation between separate contributions can be expected. In consequence at a certain distance it should be more favorable for the membraned cylinder to span the total diffractive region and to utilize the more favorable coupling to the two Pomerons. In this way the initial baryon will end up exactly at the backward end of the diffractive system.

It should be visible if one plots the rapidity distribution in relation to the inner end of the diffractive region, i.e. as function of $`y_{\{Pomeron\}}=y_{\{CMS\}}\mathrm{ln}(m\sqrt{s}/M(diffr.)^2)`$. To illustrate the expected small backward peak we show the result of a calculation with the PHOJET Monte Carlo code  of the incoming proton spectrum for diffractive events with a mass of $`300`$ GeV for $`pp`$-scattering of $`1.8`$ TeV with standard parameters below. To select diffractive events a lower cutoff of $`x_F=0.95`$ was used. PHOJET contains diquark exchanges and yields reasonable baryon spectra in the forward region. To obtain the postulated backward peak we just mixed in a suitable sample of inverted events (with disabled diquark exchanges ).