text:
# Soft X-ray properties of a spectroscopically selected sample of interacting and isolated Seyfert galaxies All overlays can be retrieved via CDS anonymous ftp 130.79.128.5

## 1 Introduction

Interaction between galaxies is considered to have a wide importance in triggering starburst and AGN activity, which is thought to produce a rise in the luminosity.

Several studies of physical mechanisms which could trigger a burst of strong star formation have been investigated by Barnes & Hernquist (1991, 1996), Jog & Das (1992), Jog & Solomon (1992) and Mihos & Hernquist (1996).

Also many observations suggest that galactic encounters enhance star formation rates, as demonstrated by studies of the optical (e.g., Kennicutt et al. 1987; Bushouse 1987), infrared (e.g., Bernlöhr 1993; Telesco et al. 1993) and radio (e.g., Hummel 1981; Smith & Kassim 1993) emission from interacting systems. In the X-ray band, an enhanced starburst activity will result in an increase in the X-ray luminosity due to the enhanced supernova rate. In addition, galaxy interaction might cause an increase in the accretion rate onto the black hole, resulting in an additional increase in the X-ray luminosity.

We have investigated the X-ray properties of a spectroscopically selected sample of Seyfert 1, NLS1 and Seyfert 2 galaxies with $`z<0.11,m_\mathrm{v}15.5`$ and $`\delta 23^{}`$ (Rafanelli et al.,1995). The physical pairs have been selected on POSS plates using the following criteria: separation between components $`S<3D_\mathrm{p}`$, where $`D_\mathrm{p}`$ is the apparent major axis of the Seyfert galaxy, and magnitude-difference between Seyfert galaxy and companion $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_\mathrm{v}=m_{\mathrm{v},\mathrm{comp}}m_{\mathrm{v},\mathrm{Seyfert}}<3`$ (Rafanelli et al., 1995). Approximately 30 % of the ROSAT detected sources within the Rafanelli sample are Seyfert galaxies with separated physical companions, 32 Seyfert 1 and 11 Seyfert 2 galaxies match the criteria mentioned above. Some of the isolated sources with a disturbed morphology are probably merging galaxies or very close pairs, for which no separation $`S`$ is given by Rafanelli et. al. (1995).

The aim of this paper is to present the timing and spectral X-ray properties of Seyfert 1, NLS1 and Seyfert 2 galaxies. In Sect. 2 we describe the X-ray data analysis as well as the identification process. The spectral features and timing results, including the relation between the interaction strength $`Q`$ and the X-ray luminosity $`L_\mathrm{X}`$, are discussed in Sect. 3. The summary is given in Sect. 4. The database of X-ray detected Seyfert galaxies is quoted in the Appendix C. The X-ray light curves of variable Seyfert 1 galaxies are presented in Figs. 11 to 15 of the Appendix C.

## 2 ROSAT detected interacting and isolated Seyfert 1 & 2 galaxies

### 2.1 Identification procedure

For each source of the Rafanelli sample we have searched for X-ray detections within the ROSAT All-Sky Survey (RASS II catalogue; see Voges, Aschenbach, Boller et al., 1999 for references) and public PSPC111Position Sensitive Proportional Counter and HRI222High Resolution Imager pointed observations. The sources have been identified on X-ray contour maps overlaid to optical images taken from the Palomar Digitized Sky Survey (DSS). We have generated background subtracted contour maps for each selected ROSAT observation available for inspection as postscript files at http://wave.xray.mpe.mpg.de/publications/papers/2001. These files can also be retrieved via anonymous ftp from the address ftp.xray.mpe.mpg.de 333subdirectory: publications/papers/2001/interacting-xray-seyferts. Overlays with a dark background indicate pointed observations (HRI for HRI-data, without label for PSPC-data), whereas the grey background indicate ROSAT All-Sky survey data (PSPC). The quality of the identification of the X-ray source with the Seyfert galaxy is given in tables 1 and 2, 1 and 2 indicate high and low reliability of the identification, respectively.

### 2.2 Data reduction of survey and pointed observations

During the ROSAT All-Sky Survey the sources took from $``$ 5 s to $``$ 30 s to pass across the field of view of the PSPC detector on each orbit ($``$ 96 min). The difference in crossing time depends on the scan range over the field of view, which covers a circular area with a $`57^{}.3`$ radius. We have only counted crossing times of individual sources through the PSPC detector, when the centroid source position was at least $`5^{}`$ inside the detector. This prevents an underestimate of the source count rate due to the PSF. The resulting total exposure times, obtained taking the sum of crossing times of a source, are in the range of $``$ 200 s up to $``$ 2000 s spread over several days. For the ROSAT All-Sky Survey data reduction we have developed our own software modules, to take into account the requirements for data reduction of the survey scan mode.

The data analysis of pointed ROSAT PSPC and HRI observations was performed with the standard MIDAS/EXSAS software (Zimmermann et al. 1994). For this type of observation, the source is stationary centered on the detector. The exposure times are in general significantly higher with respect to the survey observations (see tables 3 and 4 in Appendix C).

### 2.3 Spectral analysis

For each source with more than 60 photons detected in the All-Sky Survey and for all sources within PSPC-pointed observations we have performed a spectral analysis. A power-law model

$$f_\mathrm{E}dEE^{\mathrm{\Gamma }+1}dE$$
(1)
fitted to the spectral data yields the power-law parameters; neutral absorbing hydrogen column density $`N_{\mathrm{H}_{\mathrm{fit}}}`$, photon index $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and the monochromatic flux at 1 keV. The term $`f_\mathrm{E}dE`$ is the galaxy’s energy flux between the photon energies $`E`$ and $`E+dE`$. The soft X-ray flux in the energy range 0.1–2.4 keV, corrected for absorption by neutral hydrogen, was calculated using the spectral fit parameters. In the case of $`N_{\mathrm{H}_{\mathrm{fit}}}<N_{\mathrm{H}_{\mathrm{gal}}}`$, we have used the galactic absorption column density $`N_{\mathrm{H}_{\mathrm{gal}}}`$ (Dickey & Lockman 1990).
For sources with $``$ 60 counts in the survey observations and for HRI observations we have converted the mean count rates to the flux using a power-law model with photon index fixed to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=2.3`$, which is the typical value found for extragalactic objects with ROSAT , and the galactic hydrogen column density $`N_{\mathrm{H}_{\mathrm{gal}}}`$.

The soft X-ray flux was converted to luminosity using Eq. (7) of Schmidt & Green (1986):

$$L(E_1,E_2)=4\pi (\frac{c}{H_\mathrm{o}})^2C(z,\mathrm{\Gamma })A(z)^2f(E_1,E_2)$$
(2)
where a power-law spectrum is assumed in the energy range $`(E_1,E_2)`$, so that the redshift-dependent functions $`C(z)`$ and $`A(z)`$ are given by:

$$C(z,\mathrm{\Gamma })=(1+z)^{\mathrm{\Gamma }2}$$
(3)
$$A(z)=2[(1+z)\sqrt{1+z}]$$
(4)
We adopted for the cosmological deceleration parameter $`q_\mathrm{o}=\frac{1}{2}`$ and for the Hubble constant $`H_\mathrm{o}=75\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$. The assumed photon index $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is given in tables 3 and 4 and the redshift in tables 1 and 2.

### 2.4 Timing analysis

We have compared the survey and pointed count rates of individual sources in order to study the long-term variability (0.5 up to 8.0 years). For all pointed observations and for the All-Sky Survey data with more than 60 source counts we have produced the corresponding X-ray light curves (timescales up to a few days).

To produce the light curve of a survey source ($``$ 60 counts), we have defined a source cell with radius of $`5^{}`$. The background was determined from a source-free cell with a radius of $`5^{}`$ located in the scan direction through the centroid position of the source. This was necessary, as the effective exposure time depends on the position of the scan direction and the background level may change for each time the path of source crosses the detector.

To take the ROSAT wobble for pointed observations into account we have used a minimum binsize of 400 s. From the light curve we have computed the mean count rate of the Seyfert 1 and Seyfert 2 galaxies, which are given in tables 3 and 4, respectively.
The light curves of variable Seyfert 1 galaxies are given in Appendix C.

## 3 Results

In this section we present the X-ray properties of interacting and isolated Seyfert 1 & 2 galaxies. A description of the database is given in Subsect. 3.1. The spectral properties are listed in tables 3 and 4, respectively. The light curves for variable Seyfert 1 galaxies are shown in Figs. 11 to 15. The X-ray light curves of Seyfert 2 galaxies are given in Subsect. 3.3.2. Relations between $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, $`L_\mathrm{X}`$, ($`L_{\mathrm{fir}}`$), $`Q`$ and the Seyfert type are presented in Sect. 3.2. The correlation of the interaction strength $`Q`$ and the X-ray luminosity $`L_\mathrm{X}`$ is described in Subsect. 3.2.2.

### 3.1 The catalogue

We have detected 91 out of 99 Seyfert 1 and 47 out of 98 Seyfert 2 galaxies of the Rafanelli sample in the ROSAT X-ray band in pointed and/or All-Sky Survey observations. We have performed spectral analysis of the ROSAT PSPC observations for sources with more than 60 counts s-1. The timing analysis has been performed for all sources. In this paper we only show light curves of sources with significant X-ray variability. Spectral information from the survey data could be obtained for 59 Seyfert 1 galaxies and only for one Seyfert 2 galaxy. The optical and X-ray properties of Seyfert 1 & 2 galaxies of this sample are listed in tables 1 & 2. The tables quote the name of the Seyfert galaxy (column 2), ROSAT name (column 3) , redshift $`z`$ (column 4), diameter of the Seyfert galaxy $`D_\mathrm{p}`$ (column 5), diameter of the companion galaxy $`D_\mathrm{c}`$ (column 6), separation between the components $`S`$ (column 7), dimensionless gravitational interaction strength $`Q`$ (column 8) (for description see Sect. 3.2.2) and the apparent visual magnitude $`V`$ (column 9). The values of $`z`$ and $`V`$ are taken from Veron-Cetty & Veron catalogue (1991) and the units of $`D_\mathrm{p}`$, $`D_\mathrm{c}`$ and $`S`$ are mm (POSS plates) with a scale $`13.4^{\prime \prime }/\mathrm{mm}`$ (Rafanelli et al., 1995). Columns 10 and 11 show the quality of the X-ray identifications both in the pointing and the survey observations, the identifications labeled either with 1 or 2, 1 and 2 indicating high and lower degree of reliability, respectively. In the last column we have listed the classification of the Seyfert type (Sy1.0, Sy1.2, Sy1.5, Sy1.8, Sy1.9, Sy2.0) taken from the Catalogue of Seyfert Galaxies (Lipovetski et al., 1987). We have modified the Rafanelli et al. conventions (S1 = Sy1.0 + Sy1.2 + Sy1.5 and S2 = Sy1.8 + Sy1.9 + Sy2.0) to S1 = Sy1.0 + Sy1.2 + Sy1.5 + Sy1.8 + Sy1.9 and S2 = S2.0. The classifications marked by a hash (#) indicate Narrow Line Seyfert 1 galaxies (NLS1) (e.g. Osterbrock & Pogge; Boller, Brandt & Fink 1996; Grupe 1996).

In Appendix C the X-ray properties obtained from the timing and spectral analysis are listed in tables 3 and 4. Columns 2 and 3 contain the ROSAT position. We mostly give the centroid source position from the pointed observation with the higher exposure times. The columns 4 and 5 list the count rates, columns 6 and 7 the corresponding exposure times, columns 8 and 9 the fluxes and columns 10 and 11 the luminosities of the sources detected in ROSAT pointing and survey observations, respectively. The survey count rates were taken from the RASS II catalogue and the pointing count rates were computed from the light curves of the sources. The apices $`p`$ and $`h`$ in column 4 indicate that the source data are taken from a PSPC or HRI observation. In the columns 8 and 9 we apply the apices $`f`$ and $`c`$ to mark the data produced by spectral fit or by count rates. This specification applies also for columns 10 and 11. The Galactic column density is given in column 12 (Dickey & Lockman, 1990), while the column density obtained from the spectral fit is given in column 13. The other spectral fit parameters, namely the monochromatic flux at 1keV and the photon index are also given in columns 14 and 15, respectively. The value $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=2.3`$ was used, if no reliable spectral fit could be obtained. When spectral information was available from the survey as well as from the pointed data, we quote the results from the pointed observations.

In most cases for optically separated close pairs, we detected in the X-ray band an unresolved single source (see overlays444overlays are available at
http://wave.xray.mpe.mpg.de/publications/papers/2001). The results of these spectral fits are listed in tables 3 and 4. When we detected two separate X-ray components, we created two spectra and we show the sum of the count rates, fluxes and luminosities and the single fit parameters ($`N_\mathrm{H}`$, $`f_{1\mathrm{k}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}}`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$) of the Seyfert galaxy in the tables.

### 3.2 Relations between $`\mathrm{\Gamma },L_\mathrm{X},L_{\mathrm{fir}},Q`$ and Seyfert type

In this section we present the spectral properties of Seyfert 1 and Seyfert 2 galaxies in terms of the relations between the photon index $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, the interaction strength $`Q`$, the X-ray luminosity $`L_\mathrm{X}`$, the far-infrared luminosity $`L_{\mathrm{fir}}`$ and the Seyfert type.

#### 3.2.1 Relations with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$

In Fig. 1 we have correlated the photon index obtained from the power-law fit with the X-ray luminosity. Different subtypes of Seyfert 1 galaxies are marked with different labels. For low-luminosity Seyfert 1’s, below about $`10^{42}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1`$, where a significant contribution from the starburst is expected to contribute to the total luminosity, there is no clear trend between $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{fit}}`$ and $`L_\mathrm{X}`$. However, for ’normal’ Seyfert 1 type galaxies, a clear trend of a steepening of the X-ray spectrum with increasing X-ray luminosity is detected. A possible explanation for this effect might be a shifted and strengthened accretion disk spectrum in high-luminosity Seyferts. This is expected, as the high X-ray luminosity is most probably related to the accretion rate and/or the black hole mass (Frank, King, Raine, 1985). When fitting a simple-power law to the spectral data in the ROSAT energy band, steeper values for the photon index are expected to arise in the high luminosity Seyfert 1 galaxies. Another well-known effect is also present in Fig. 1, i.e. the steeper X-ray continua of NLS1s compared to broad-line Seyfert 1 galaxies (Boller, Brandt & Fink 1996).

For Seyfert 2 galaxies, we found no significant trend for an increasing photon index with increasing X-ray luminosity. Higher sensitivity measurements, e.g. with XMM-Newton, are necessary to search for a correlation between the photon index and the X-ray luminosity for Seyfert 2 galaxies.

In Fig. 2 we show the distribution of photon indices, obtained from the spectral fits, versus the Seyfert type (we have plotted NLS1s at an x-axis value of 0.9). Only Seyfert galaxies with errors in the photon index smaller than 0.5 have been included. As expected, NLS1s show the largest values of the photon index, compared to Seyfert 1 galaxies. Seyfert 2 galaxies show similar steep X-ray continua compared to NLS1s. The Seyfert 1 galaxies show similar values of the photon indices as given by Walter & Fink (1993).

#### 3.2.2 Interaction strength $`Q`$ \- luminosity $`L_\mathrm{X}`$, $`L_{\mathrm{fir}}`$ relations

In order to derive the interaction strength $`Q`$ we concentrate on the tidal force per unit mass produced by a companion on a primary galaxy, which is proportional to $`M_\mathrm{c}R^3`$. $`M_\mathrm{c}`$ is the mass of the companion and $`R`$ is its distance from the center of the primary galaxy. In most cases, $`M_\mathrm{c}`$ and the absolute value of $`R`$ are unknown. Instead, these parameters are related to the dimensions of the pair. Rubin et al. (1982) describe the dependence of the mass $`M`$ of a galaxy on the size of its major axis $`d`$ as $`Md^\gamma `$ and we use $`\gamma =1.5`$ (Dahari, 1984). If we use the apparent diameter of the primary galaxy $`D_\mathrm{p}`$ as a scaling factor, we obtain:

$$M_\mathrm{c}(D_\mathrm{c}/D_\mathrm{p})^{1.5}andRS/D_\mathrm{p}$$
(5)
Using these relations we get as dimensionless gravitational interaction strength $`Q`$:

$$\frac{M_\mathrm{c}}{R^3}\frac{(D_\mathrm{c}D_\mathrm{p})^{1.5}}{S^3}Q$$
(6)
This parameter is obviously large for close and relatively large companions.

Fig. 3 shows the interaction strength $`Q`$ vs. the far-infrared luminosity $`L_{\mathrm{fir}}`$ for Seyfert 1 galaxies. For Seyfert 1 galaxies, the far-infrared luminosity increases with interaction strength. The low-luminosity Seyfert 1 galaxies NGC 5273, NGC 4278, NGC 3227, (NGC 4258 is not detected in the IRAS Faint Source Catalogue) also show the trend of increasing X-ray and far-infrared luminosity with interaction strength Q. We speculate a large interaction strength of $`Q=15.1\pm 4.4`$ for the galaxy Mkn 1040 causes the relatively high X-ray (see fig. 4) and far-infrared luminosity and that the galaxy belongs to the low-luminosity population discussed above. To test the correlation we have calculated the linear-correlation coefficient $`r`$ and the probability $`P(r,N)`$ for a linear correlation. For the high-luminosity objects we obtain $`r=0.3271`$ and $`P(r,22)85\%(1.5\sigma )`$, whereas we got for the low-luminosity Seyferts $`r=0.8478`$ and $`P(r,4)85\%(1.5\sigma )`$.

Fig. 4 shows the interaction strength $`Q`$ vs. the soft X-ray luminosity $`L_\mathrm{X}`$ for Seyfert 1 galaxies. For Seyfert 1 galaxies with $`L_\mathrm{X}>10^{42}`$ there is a tendency for a luminosity increase with increasing interaction strength. The labelled sources refer to the low-luminosity Seyfert 1 galaxies in our sample. As discussed for the relation between the far-infrared luminosity and the interaction strength Q, both the low-luminosity Seyfert 1’s and the high-luminosity Seyfert 1’s increase in X-ray luminosity when the interaction strength Q is increased. The high spread of the distribution is quite likely produced by an overlap of effects from starburst and AGN. In the case of infrared luminosity (fig. 3) only the starburst play a role. The linear-correlation test resulted in $`r=0.2880`$ and $`P(r,27)85\%(1.5\sigma )`$ for the high-luminosity Seyferts and in $`r=0.8233`$ and $`P(r,5)92\%(1.7\sigma )`$ for the low-luminosity objects.

The data points in Fig. 4 also include ROSAT pointed observations and Seyfert 1.8 and 1.9 galaxies, which complete the relation between $`L_\mathrm{X}`$ and $`Q`$ first discussed by Rafanelli et al. (1997). For Seyfert 2 galaxies we found no correlation between the soft X-ray luminosity and the interaction strength. In Sect. 4 we discuss the problems in determining precisely the X-ray properties of obscured Seyfert 2 galaxies.

#### 3.2.3 Far-infrared relations

In order to estimate the starburst activity we have investigated the far-infrared luminosity $`L_{\mathrm{fir}}`$ using the far-infrared fluxes $`f_{\mathrm{fir}}`$ at 60 and 100 $`\mu \mathrm{m}`$ from the IRAS Faint Source Catalogue. The total far-infrared fluxes $`f_{\mathrm{fir}}`$ ($`40120\mu \mathrm{m}`$) were computed following Helou (1985) from the IRAS 60 $`\mu \mathrm{m}`$ and 100 $`\mu \mathrm{m}`$ band fluxes:

$$f_{\mathrm{fir}}=1.2610^{11}(2.58f_{60}+f_{100})\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1$$
(7)
where $`f_{60}`$ and $`f_{100}`$ are given in Jansky. The far-infrared fluxes were converted to luminosities using Eq. 2 in Sect. 2.3. For the photon index we assumed $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=1.5`$.

The ratio between far-infrared and soft X-ray luminosity $`L_\mathrm{X}/L_{\mathrm{fir}}`$ and its dependence on the far-infrared luminosity $`L_{\mathrm{fir}}`$ is shown in fig. 5 for all Seyfert types. Interestingly, NLS1 galaxies show a similar distribution of the far-infrared luminosity as the Seyfert 2 galaxies. The far-infrared luminosity distribution is significantly different for Seyfert 1 galaxies compared to NLS1 and Seyfert 2’s.

In fig. 6 we plot the ratio $`L_\mathrm{X}/L_{\mathrm{fir}}`$ vs. the interaction strength $`Q`$ for all Seyfert types. For Seyfert 1 galaxies no correlation between the luminosity ratio and the interaction strength is found. If we can interprete the far-infrared luminosity as mainly caused by starburst activity, and the X-ray luminosity as mainly caused by accretion processes, this indicates that starburst and AGN activity increase proportionally.

The interpretations of the results are discussed in Sect. 4.

### 3.3 Timing properties

Below we discuss the long-term (time scales between half a year up to 8 years) X-ray and short-term (time scales of order up to a few days) variability of interacting and isolated Seyfert 1 and 2 galaxies.

#### 3.3.1 X-ray variable Seyfert 1 galaxies

In our sample $`59\%`$ of the X-ray detected Seyfert 1 galaxies show significant X-ray variability during the ROSAT All-Sky Survey and ROSAT pointed observations. The corresponding X-ray light curves are shown in Appendix C.

In fig. 7 we compare the ROSAT All-Sky Survey count rate with the count rate measured in ROSAT PSPC pointed observations. The most extreme factor of variability is found for NGC 3516 (a factor of about 33 on a timescale of 718 days).

#### 3.3.2 The X-ray light curves for Seyfert 2 galaxies

For interacting and isolated Seyfert 2 galaxies no indication for significant X-ray variability on timescales above 0.5 years is found by comparing the ROSAT All-Sky Survey and ROSAT PSPC pointed observations (Fig. 8). The galaxy NGC 5506 is classified by Lipovetski et al. (1987) as Seyfert type 2. This source exhibits the largest factor of variability of about 2.7 on a timescale of 375 days.

However, for three out of the 36 Seyfert 2 galaxies, NGC 1068, NGC 4388 and IRAS F01475-0740, indications for X-ray variability are found in ROSAT pointed observations. In fig.9 (top) the pointed observation light curve of the Seyfert 2 galaxy NGC 1068 is shown. An increase in count rate from 1.823 to 2.080 $`\mathrm{counts}\mathrm{s}^1`$, corresponding to a factor of 1.14 or $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{cps}=0.256`$, within 2 days is detected. A constant model fit using the $`\chi ^2`$ test can be rejected with a probability of $`99.83\%`$, corresponding to 3$`\sigma `$. Indications for X-ray variability in NGC 1068 are also found in other ROSAT pointed observations (cf. fig. 10). The ROSAT PSPC light curve for the Seyfert 2 galaxy IRAS 01475-0748 is shown in fig. 9 (middle). A decrease in the count rate from 0.064 to 0.021 $`\mathrm{counts}\mathrm{s}^1`$ within 12.9 hours is detected. This variability corresponds to a factor of 3 and to a change in the count rate of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{cps}=0.043`$. A constant model fit gives a probability of 99.9989$`\%`$ (4$`\sigma `$). In fig. 9 (bottom) the X-ray light curve of NGC 4388 is shown. The count rate decreases from 0.0586 to 0.0322 $`\mathrm{counts}\mathrm{s}^1`$ corresponding to a factor of variability of about 1.8 and a change in the count rate of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{cps}=0.026`$ within 21 days. A constant model fit can be rejected with a probability of 97.896$`\%`$, corresponding to 2$`\sigma `$.

Recently, Georgantopoulos & Papadakis (2000) found evidence for spectral (and timing) variability for four Seyfert 2 galaxies in RXTE observations.

## 4 Discussion and summary

We have detected $`92\%`$ of interacting or isolated Seyfert 1 and $`48\%`$ of Seyfert 2 galaxies in the optically selected sample of Rafanelli et al. (1995). The soft X-ray spectral and timing properties are presented in tables 3 & 4 (note the different combination of Seyfert types; 102 S1.x and 36 S2).

For Seyfert 1 galaxies we have found a correlation between photon index $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and the soft X-ray luminosity $`L_\mathrm{X}`$. A clear trend of a steepening of the X-ray spectrum with increasing X-ray luminosity is detected. High X-ray luminosity is most probably related to the accretion rate and/or the black hole mass. Therefore, a possible explanation for this effect might be a shifted and strengthened accretion disk spectrum in high-luminosity Seyferts. We confirm that NLS1s have steeper X-ray continua than broad-line Seyfert 1 galaxies. Seyfert 2 galaxies show similar steep X-ray continua compared to NLS1s. While the steep X-ray continua for NLS1s are expected to be related with high values for the Eddington luminosity in combination with small black hole masses, the steep X-ray continua for Seyfert 2 galaxies are probably due to the dominant X-ray line emission from the circumnuclear starburst.

Our data result in an increasing far-infrared and increasing X-ray luminosity with increasing interaction strength for Seyfert 1 galaxies. Both strengthen the suggestion that galaxy interaction triggers an increased accretion rate and starburst rate. NLS1s and Seyfert 2 galaxies show the highest values of far-infrared luminosity compared to Seyfert 1 galaxies. This fact points to nuclear starburst activity taking place in NLS1 galaxies as suggested by Mathur (2000).

For Seyfert 2 galaxies, we found no significant correlations between the X-ray luminosity and photon index or interaction strength. The main reason is the lack of penetration through the high column densities in Seyfert 2 galaxies with soft X-rays. The ROSAT $`N_\mathrm{H}`$ values derived from the spectral fitting are therefore lower limits to the true absorbing columns in Seyfert 2 galaxies. This is supported by comparing our results with those from higher energy satellites. Bassani et al. (1999) investigated the hard X-ray spectra of a large sample of Seyfert 2 galaxies with Ginga, ASCA and BeppoSAX. The authors found a large population of strong-absorbed objects with column densities $`N_\mathrm{H}10^{23}\mathrm{cm}^2`$, including many Compton-thick candidates. The column densities obtained from the soft X-ray spectra show significantly lower values for many sources. The reason for this is the different origin of the hard and soft X-ray radiation. The column densities are likely able to determine the outer regions of the molecular torus at soft X-rays, because the radiation penetrates less absorbing material. Only the hard X-ray radiation above a few keV is able to pass interior regions of the torus and leads to higher column densities. Therefore, our results for Seyfert 2 galaxies are only a lower limit to the intrinsic column density. The fluxes and luminosities of Seyfert 2 galaxies given in table 4 are considered as lower limits to the intrinsic values. Finally, the soft X-ray emission of Seyfert 2 galaxies is probably due to emission from the circumnuclear starburst together with radiation from the nuclei, scattered and reflected by the molecular torus. Moreover, we found no correlation between the far-infrared luminosity and interaction strength for the Seyfert 2 sample.
Higher sensitivity observations with XMM-Newton and Chandra are expected to confirm the short-time variability of the three Seyfert 2 galaxies.

We have investigated the variability of Seyfert 1 and 2 galaxies on short and long timescales and found indications for variability in three Seyfert 2.0 galaxies on short timescales (NGC 1068, IRAS 0147-0740, NGC 4388). A possible explanation for this variability might be the presence of boreholes in the absorbing molecular torus around the central black hole region. Significant X-ray variability during the ROSAT pointed and survey observations were detected for 58 percent of the Seyfert 1 galaxies.

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank Prof. Joachim Trümper for comments and A. Vogler for help in producing the images with overlayed X-ray contours. We are grateful to Dr. W. Voges for his help in the catalogue preparation. The ROSAT project is supported by the Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (BMBF/DLR) and by the Max-Planck Society (MPG).
This paper can be retrieved via WWW from our pre-print server: http://www.xray.mpe.mpg.de/$``$pfefferk/

## Appendix A Notes on individual sources

* NGC 2992: In the case of NGC 2992 and its companion we detect two spatially separated X-ray components. In table 4 of Appendix C we give the sum of the count rates, fluxes and luminosities for this system. For the completion of the database we add here the individual values of the source and the companion. The spectrum of NGC2992 shows a high absorption and a low photon index with an integrated flux of $`2.81510^{12}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1`$ corresponding to a luminosity of $`2.61610^{41}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1`$. The spectrum of the companion results in a flux of $`1.06110^{12}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1`$ corresponding to a luminosity of $`9.98710^{40}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1`$. The spectral fit parameters for the companion are $`N_{\mathrm{H}_{\mathrm{fit}}}=0.85410^{21}\mathrm{cm}^2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=2.72`$.
NGC 2992 is classified by Lipovetski et al. (1987) as a Seyfert 1.9 galaxy and we found a variability of this object over short and long timescales (see Sect. 3.3.2).
* NGC 5506: The soft X-ray spectrum of the Seyfert galaxy NGC 5506 is highly absorbed and no reliable spectral fit parameters can be obtained. Thus, we have used for $`N_\mathrm{H}=1.010^{21}\mathrm{cm}^2`$ as a lower limit in table 4.
* NGC 5953: This interacting system (Rafanelli, Osterbrock, Pogge; 1990) is detected in the survey and pointed observations. The X-ray emission of this system in the pointed observation is mainly caused by the Seyfert 2 galaxy NGC 5953. In the survey observation the emission is centered on the companion of NGC 5953 and no emission from the Seyfert 2 galaxy is detected. Due to the PSPC pointing accuracy we are not able to decide whether NGC 5953 is a transient source in the soft X-ray band.
* Mkn 684: For Mkn 684 we assume the classification as a NLS1 galaxy by Osterbrock & Pogge (1985) and Grupe (1996).
* NGC 7319, a member of the Stefan’s Quintet group, is detected with the PSPC (pointed and survey) and HRI detector by ROSAT. The PSPC survey and pointed observations showed unresolved X-ray emission from the group and the intergalactic gas (Pietsch W. & Trinchieri G., 1997). The HRI pointed observation as used to determine the flux of the Seyfert 2 galaxy.
* NGC 3031: For NGC 3031 (M81) we used the distance of 3.63 Mpc given in Freedman et al. (1994) to compute the luminosity of this object ($`z<0`$).

## Appendix B Light curves of NGC 1068

In Fig. 10 we give the remaining PSPC and HRI light curves of the Seyfert 2 galaxy NGC 1068.

## Appendix C The Catalogue - data tables and light curves

In this section we show the results of our studies of the X-ray properties of the Seyfert 1 and 2 galaxies in tables 3 & 4, while in tables 1 & 2, general and optical properties are listed. The light curves of variable Seyfert 1 galaxies are also summarized in this appendix in Figs. 11 to 15. To distinguish the survey from the pointing light curves we have labeled the survey curves. The pointed light curves are distinguished by the y-axis in PSPC or HRI based data.


format: text

text:
# The Runge approximation theorem for generalized polynomial hulls

1. Introduction
We consider for a compact set $`K`$ in $`\text{I}\text{C}^n`$ the polynomially convex hull

$$\widehat{K}=\{z\text{I}\text{C}^n:|P(z)|P_KforallpolynomialsP\}$$

Where $`||P||_K=sup\{|P(z)|:zK\}`$.
It is known from the Runge approximation theorem that every function which is holomorphic in a neighborhood of compact sets $`K`$ with $`K=\widehat{K}`$ can be approximated uniformly on $`K`$ by analytic polynomials.
Our aim here is to prove the same result in the more general situation when the rôle of $`\widehat{K}`$ is played by the generalized polynomial hull $`h_q(K)`$ introduced by Basener  and which can be defined, for each integer $`q\{0,1,\mathrm{},n1\}`$, by

$$h_q(K)=\underset{P\text{I}\text{C}[z_1,\mathrm{},z_n]}{}\{z\text{I}\text{C}^n:|P(z)|\delta _K(P,z)\}$$

Where $`\delta _K(P,z)`$ denotes the lowest value of $`P_{Kf^1(0)}`$ when f ranges in the set of analytic polynomial maps $`\text{I}\text{C}^n\text{I}\text{C}^q`$ vanishing at z.
Notice, however, that this result does not give anything new when $`q=0`$, since $`h_o(K)=\widehat{K}`$.

2. Proof of the theorem

###### lemma 1

\- Let $`K`$ be a compact set in $`\text{I}\text{C}^n`$ with $`K=h_q(K)`$ and let $`\omega `$ be a neighborhood of $`K`$. Then one can find finitely many holomorphic polynomials $`P_{n+1},\mathrm{},P_m`$ and a closed polydisc $`\mathrm{\Delta }\text{I}\text{C}^n`$ such that

$$K\underset{j=n+1}{\overset{m}{}}\{z\mathrm{\Delta }:|P_j(z)|\delta _K(P_j,z)\}=L\omega $$

$`Proof.`$ We may, of course, assume that $`\omega `$ is bounded. Then there exists a closed polydisc $`\mathrm{\Delta }(0,r)`$ with center at $`0`$ and $`r=(r_1,\mathrm{},r_n)`$ such that $`\omega \mathrm{\Delta }(0,r)`$. It follows that

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(0,r)\backslash \omega \mathrm{\Delta }(0,r)\backslash h_q(K)\underset{P\text{I}\text{C}[z_1,\mathrm{},z_n]}{}\{z\text{I}\text{C}^n:P(z)>\delta _K(P,z)\}$$

We shall first prove that $`\{z\text{I}\text{C}^n:|P(z)|>\delta _K(P,z)\}`$ is open. To see this, let $`(z_j)_{j1}`$ be a sequence of points in $`K_P=\{z\text{I}\text{C}^n:|P(z)|\delta _K(P,z)\}`$ which converges to a point $`z\text{I}\text{C}^n`$, and let $`f:\text{I}\text{C}^n\text{I}\text{C}^q`$ be a polynomial map with $`f(z)=0`$. Define $`f_j:\text{I}\text{C}^n\text{I}\text{C}^q`$ by $`f_j=ff(z_j)`$. Then
$`|P(z_j)|P_{Kf_j^1(0)}`$. Let $`\zeta _j`$ be a point of $`Kf_j^1(0)`$ such that
$`|P(\zeta _j)|=P_{Kf_j^1(0)}`$. Then there is subsequence $`\zeta _{j_k}`$ converging towards a point $`\zeta `$. Since $`|P(z_{j_k})||P(\zeta _{j_k})|`$ and $`f(\zeta _{j_k})0`$ when $`k+\mathrm{}`$,
then a passage to the limit shows that

$$|P(z)||P(\zeta )|P_{Kf^1(0)}.$$

Hence $`|P(z)|\delta _K(P,z)`$, and $`zK_P`$.
Because $`\mathrm{\Delta }(0,r)\backslash \omega `$ is compact there are $`P_{n+1},\mathrm{},P_m`$ such that

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\backslash \omega \underset{j=n+1}{\overset{m}{}}\{z\text{I}\text{C}^n:|P_j(z)|>\delta _K(P_j,z)\}$$

Let $`P_j(z)=\frac{z_j}{r_j}`$ $`j=1,\mathrm{},n`$ . Since $`P_j_K1`$ then

$$KL=\underset{j=n+1}{\overset{m}{}}\{z\mathrm{\Delta }:|P_j(z)|\delta _K(P_j,z)\}\omega $$

###### lemma 2

\- Let $`L`$ be a compact set in $`\text{I}\text{C}^n`$ and $`f:\text{I}\text{C}^n\text{I}\text{C}^q`$ a holomorphic polynomial map with $`q`$ in the range $`1qn1`$ such that $`Lf^1(0)\mathrm{}`$.
If $`\zeta \widehat{L}f^1(0)`$ is nonsingular point of $`f^1(0)`$, then $`\zeta (Lf^1(0))^\widehat{}.`$
Where $`(Lf^1(0))^\widehat{}`$ denotes the polynomially convex hull of the set $`Lf^1(0)`$.

Proof.
Let $`F:\text{I}\text{C}^n\times \text{I}\text{C}\text{I}\text{C}^q`$ be the map defined by $`F(z,z_{n+1})=f(z)z_{n+1}`$. By identifying $`\text{I}\text{C}^n`$ to $`\text{I}\text{C}^n\times \{0\}`$, $`L`$ can be considered as a compact subset of the analytic variety $`F^1(0)=f^1(0)\times \text{I}\text{C}\text{I}\text{C}^n\times \{0\}`$. Since $`\zeta `$ lies in only one global branch $`Z_o`$ of $`f^1(0)`$, then $`Z_o\times \text{I}\text{C}`$ and $`\text{I}\text{C}^n\times \{0\}`$ are the unique global branches of $`F^1(0)`$ containing the point $`(\zeta ,0)`$. Set $`Z=Z_o\times \text{I}\text{C}\text{I}\text{C}^n\times \{0\}`$.
If $`(\zeta ,0)(LZ)^\widehat{}`$ then there exists a holomorphic function $`g`$ on $`F^1(0)`$ such that $`|g(\zeta ,0)|>1>g_{LZ}`$. Let $`h`$ be a holomorphic function on $`F^1(0)`$ such that $`h(\zeta ,0)=1`$ and $`h=0`$ on $`F^1(0)\backslash Z`$. Then for sufficiently large positive integer $`k`$, the holomorphic function $`g_k=g^kh`$ satisfies $`|g_k(\zeta ,0)|>g_k_L`$,
a contradiction. We conclude that $`(\zeta ,0)(LZ)^\widehat{}`$.

###### lemma 3

\- Let $`K`$ be a compact set in $`\text{I}\text{C}^n`$ with $`K=h_q(K)`$, and $`q`$ in the range $`1qn1`$. Let $`\omega `$ and $`L`$ be as in lemma 1. Then $`L`$ is polynomially convex, ie. $`L=\widehat{L}`$.

$`Proof.`$ The proof is by induction on $`mn`$. Suppose at first that

$$L=\{z\mathrm{\Delta }:|P(z)|\delta _K(P,z)\}$$

Given a point $`z\widehat{L}`$ and an analytic polynomial map $`f:\text{I}\text{C}^n\text{I}\text{C}^q`$ with $`f(z)=0`$, we shall prove that

$$|P(z)|P_{Lf^1(0)},ifLf^1(0)\mathrm{}$$

From lemma 2 we obtain the above inequality for any regular point
$`z\widehat{L}f^1(0)`$ in $`f^1(0)`$.
Now, let $`z\widehat{L}Sing(f^1(0))`$, and assume that $`|P(z)|>P_{Lf^1(0)}`$.
Let $`V`$ be a small neighborhood of $`Lf^1(0)`$ such that $`P_V<|P(z)|`$.
By perturbing slightly the coefficients of the components of $`f`$, we can get an analytic polynomial map $`g=(g_1,\mathrm{},g_q):\text{I}\text{C}^n\text{I}\text{C}^q`$ with $`g(z)=0`$,
$`z`$ a regular point of $`g^1(0)`$, and $`g^1(0)LV`$. (See ).
Which implies that $`|P(z)|>P_{Lg^1(0)}`$, a contradiction.
Hence $`|P(z)|P_{Lf^1(0)}`$ for all $`z\widehat{L}f^1(0)`$.
Let $`\zeta `$ be a point of $`Lf^1(0)`$ such that $`|P(\zeta )|=P_{Lf^1(0)}`$. Then, for all $`z\widehat{L}f^1(0),|P(z)||P(\zeta )|\delta _K(P,\zeta )P_{Kf^1(0)}.`$
Hence $`|P(z)|\delta _K(P,z)`$, and $`zL`$.
We now assume that the statement of our lemma is already known for all positif integers $`mn1`$, and let

$$L=\{zL_{m1}:|P_m(z)|\delta _K(P_m,z)\},$$

where $`L_{m1}=\{z\mathrm{\Delta }:|P_j(z)|\delta _K(P_j,z),j=n+1,\mathrm{},m1\}`$.
Since, by the induction hypothesis, $`L_{m1}`$ is polynomially convex, then

$$\widehat{L}\widehat{L}_{m1}\{z\mathrm{\Delta }:|P_m(z)|\delta _K(P_m,z)\}^\widehat{}=L$$

###### theorem 1

\- Let $`f`$ be an analytic function in a neighborhood of a compact set $`K\text{I}\text{C}^n`$ with $`K=h_q(K)`$, and $`q`$ in the range $`1qn1`$. Then there is a sequence $`f_j`$ of analytic polynomials such that $`f_jf`$ uniformly on $`K`$

$`Proof.`$ By lemma 3 we can find a compact polynomially convex set $`L`$
containing $`K`$ so that $`f`$ is analytic in a neighborhood of $`L`$. By the known version of the Runge approximation theorem , $`f`$ can be approximated uniformly by analytic polynomials on $`L`$. This completes the proof.
DEPARTEMENT DE MATHEMATIQUES, INSTITUT AGRONOMIQUE ET VETERINAIRE HASSAN II, BP 6202 INSTITUTS (10101)
RABAT, MAROC
REFERENCES
$`[1]`$ Basener, R.: Several dimensional properties of the spectrum of a
uniform algebra. Pacific J. math. 74, 297-306 (1978).
$`[2]`$ Hormander, Lars.: An introduction to complex analysis in several
variables. Third, revised, edition, 1990.
$`[3]`$ Lupacciolu, G. and Stout.: Holomorphic hulls in termes of nonnegative divisors and generalized polynomial hulls. Manuscripta Math. 98, 321-331 (1999)


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The Wilsonian Renormalization Group (RG) is formulated in such a way that modes with frequencies higher than a reference scale $`k`$ are integrated out to yield an effective action for lower momentum modes. The resulting action is shown to obey the exact RG flow equations\[2-5\], an invaluable tool in studies of field theories. In realizing gauge symmetries, however, one needs to deal with all the momentum scales on an equal footing, and it conflicts with the introduction of such a cutoff. Thus, the reconciliation between regularizations and gauge symmetries is a long-standing problem in the RG approach.

In recent years, there have been considerable efforts to investigate the problem\[6-17\]: Becchi showed in his seminal paper that symmetry breaking due to regularization can be compensated by gauge non-invariant counter terms. The compensation called “fine-tuning condition” was analyzed in detail within a perturbative framework. Further, Ellwanger made an important observation. He showed that once the “modified Ward-Takahashi (WT) or Slavnov-Taylor (ST) identity” is satisfied at a fixed IR cutoff $`k`$, it holds along the RG flow. A perturbative formulation to solve the identities was given in ref..

The attempts in the last decade suggest the possibility that there exists a cutoff-dependent effective gauge symmetry despite suffering from a deformation due to a regularization. This expectation has been enhanced by the recent breakthrough for the realization of a chiral symmetry on the lattice: Lüscher constructed an exact chiral symmetry transformation for lattice fermions, relying on the Ginsparg-Wilson relation. The transformation depends on the Dirac operator as well as a lattice spacing.

In our previous publications, we took a step further for the realization of effective symmetries. We showed that the WT identities for a Wilsonian effective action take the form of the quantum master equation (QME) in the Batalin-Vilkovisky (BV) antifield formalism, thereby formulating renormalized symmetries realized along the RG flow. The formalism is quite general and it applies to BRS as well as other global symmetries. The basic notions of the formalism are those introduced by Wetterich in a continuum analog of the block spin transformation: the average action of the macroscopic or IR fields, which are obtained by the coarse graining of microscopic or UV fields.111 A similar attempt which introduces two kinds of the fields was given in . It should be noticed in this connection that Ginsparg and Wilson used also the block spin transformation for lattice fermions in their pioneering work. Therefore, one might ask if the QME and the renormalized transformation formulated for the chiral symmetry actually produce the continuum counterparts of the Ginsparg-Wilson relation and the Lüscher’s chiral transformation. We showed in  that this is indeed the case. This result is certainly encouraging and considered as a nontrivial check on our formalism.

In the specific examples discussed in , the average actions have exact renormalized symmetries. It is however not the case for more general interacting theories. There, non-vanishing variation of the average action should be canceled by some other contributions, which have been recognized as “symmetry breaking terms” in the literature. However, it does not necessarily mean breakdown of the symmetry: one should take account not only of the transformation of the action but also of the jacobian factor associated with a change of the functional measure. Cancellation between these two effects makes it possible to define an exact symmetry for the quantum system under consideration. This is what the QME tells us.

Although the above results may be considered as desired conceptual progress, there remain the following questions to be clarified: (1) How can we specify the symmetry of the UV action in the presence of a BRS non-invariant UV regularization? (2) Can the antifield formalism give new insights into the RG approach? (3) Does the QME reduce to the standard WT identity when the regularization is removed? (4) How is the QME related to other WT identities given so far for the Wilsonian or the Legendre effective actions?

In this paper, we develop our formalism further to discuss these problems. To address the question (1), we arrange a regularization in such a way that the integration of the UV fields is performed for those modes with momenta between $`k`$ and an UV cutoff $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Our basic assumption on the UV action is that it is a solution of the QME. Its justification will be reported in the forthcoming paper . With the assumption, we show that the resulting average action obeys the QME expressed with the IR fields. It demonstrates the presence of an exact BRS symmetry along the RG flow. This generalizes our previous discussion where the UV action was assumed to satisfy the classical master equation.

Concerning the question (2), we will discuss the following two points in this paper. First we can deal with the most general gauge theories with open and/or reducible gauge algebra. It is straightforward to make this extension, once a local UV action for such a theory is given in the antifield formalism. Second we shall show that a change of the average action along the RG flow can be described by a canonical transformation in the space of the IR fields and their antifields. It has been known that a change in the Wilsonian effective action along the RG flow can be interpreted as a reparametrization of the fields. The antifield formalism provides its natural extension. We note that the jacobian factor of the canonical transformation should be added to the action. The action with the correction then satisfies the QME again.

In order to discuss the questions (3) and (4), we define a subtracted average action, which is the generating functional of the connected cutoff Green functions for the UV fields. The subtracted average action is well-defined in the IR limit, while the average action has a regulator which diverges in the limit $`k0`$. The Legendre effective action obtained from the subtracted action is also well-defined in the IR limit. There is a simple relation between the average action for the IR fields and the Legendre effective action for the UV fields. Using this, we shall show that the QME for the average action is equivalent to the “modified WT identity” for the Legendre effective action. For a specific case of pure Yang-Mills theory, it reduces to the “modified ST identity” given by Ellwanger. The “symmetry breaking terms” in the “modified WT identity”are thus identified with those coming from the jacobian factor in the path integral of the IR fields . The boundary conditions on the cutoff functions imply the validity of the “modified WT identity” in the IR limit. As for the UV cutoff, one can take the UV limit $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}`$ in renormalizable theories. We conclude therefore that the QME for the average action remains intact, and becomes equivalent to the Zinn-Justin equation for the Legendre effective action in the limit where the regulator is removed by taking $`k0,\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}`$.

This paper is organized as follows: the next section describes a brief summary of the antifield formalism and the construction of the average action. We show that the QME for the IR fields is obtained from the functional average of the QME for the UV fields. In section 3, the exact RG flow equation is given for the average action. The evolution equation of the WT functional is obtained as well. We also construct the canonical transformation which generates the RG flow. The section 4 discusses the relation between the average action and the Legendre effective action. The equivalence between the QME and the “modified WT identity” is shown. The final section contains our conclusions and a short outlook. Our notation and some notes on our computations are summarized in appendices.

## 2 The average action in the antifield formalism

### 2.1 The antifield formalism

To be self-contained, let us first summarize briefly the Batalin-Vilkovisky (BV) antifield formalism,222See  for reviews on this subject. and then use it to construct the average action. Our formulation applies to the most general gauge theories. Their gauge algebra can be open and/or reducible.

Let us consider a gauge theory in the d-dimensional Euclidean space. It consists of gauge and matter fields denoted collectively by $`\varphi _0^i`$, as well as ghosts, antighosts and B-fields. If the gauge algebra is reducible, we should further add ghosts for ghosts, their antighosts and B-fields. Let $`\varphi ^A=\{\varphi _0^i,\mathrm{}\}`$ be all the fields introduced above and $`\varphi _A^{}`$ be their antifields. The index $`A`$ labels Lorentz indices of tensor fields, the spinor indices of the fermions, and/or indices distinguishing different types of generic fields. The Grassmann parities for $`\varphi ^A`$ and $`\varphi _A^{}`$ are expressed as $`ϵ(\varphi ^A)=ϵ_A`$ and $`ϵ(\varphi _A^{})=ϵ_A+1`$. The antibracket in the space of $`\{\varphi ,\varphi ^{}\}`$ is then defined as

$`(F,G)_\varphi `$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{^rF}{\varphi ^A}}{\displaystyle \frac{^lG}{\varphi _A^{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{^rF}{\varphi _A^{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{^lG}{\varphi ^A}}`$ (2.1)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d^dp}{(2\pi )^d}\left[\frac{^rF}{\varphi ^A(p)}\frac{^lG}{\varphi _A^{}(p)}\frac{^rF}{\varphi _A^{}(p)}\frac{^lG}{\varphi ^A(p)}\right]}.`$
To make our equations simple, we use a matrix notation in the momentum space as given in appendix A.

We begin with a gauge invariant action $`S_0[\varphi _0]`$. The first step in the antifield formalism is to construct a classical extended action $`\stackrel{~}{S}_{cl}[\varphi ,\varphi ^{}]`$ as a power series expansion of the antifields:

$`\stackrel{~}{S}_{cl}[\varphi ,\varphi ^{}]=S_0[\varphi _0]+\varphi _A^{}P^A[\varphi ]+\varphi _A^{}\varphi _B^{}Q^{AB}[\varphi ]+\mathrm{}.`$ (2.2)
The coefficient functions such as $`P^A`$ and $`Q^{AB}`$ should be fixed by the requirement that the $`\stackrel{~}{S}_{cl}`$ satisfy the (classical) master equation,

$`(\stackrel{~}{S}_{cl},\stackrel{~}{S}_{cl})_\varphi =0.`$ (2.3)
It incorporates all the information of the underlying gauge algebra.

The next step is the gauge fixing. To this aim, one introduces the gauge fixing fermion $`\mathrm{\Psi }(\varphi ^A)`$, a function which does not depend on the antifields. A possible way of gauge fixing is to eliminate the antifields by imposing the conditions $`\varphi _A^{}=\mathrm{\Psi }/\varphi ^A`$. Alternatively, one may perform the canonical transformation in the space of fields and antifields: $`\varphi ^A\varphi ^A,\varphi _A^{}\varphi _A^{}+\mathrm{\Psi }/\varphi ^A`$, where the $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ acts as the generator of the canonical transformation. This choice of coordinates, called the gauge-fixed basis, allows us to retain antifields until the end of calculations. In the following, we take this basis and use the notation $`S_{cl}[\varphi ,\varphi ^{}]\stackrel{~}{S}_{cl}[\varphi ,\varphi ^{}+\mathrm{\Psi }/\varphi ]`$. In the new basis, the classical master equation still holds, because an antibracket is invariant under a canonical transformation.

In the BV quantization, the classical action $`S_{cl}[\varphi ,\varphi ^{}]`$ should be replaced by a quantum action $`S[\varphi ,\varphi ^{}]`$, on which one imposes the quantum master equation (QME) in place of (2.3):

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }[\varphi ,\varphi ^{}]\mathrm{}^2\mathrm{exp}(S/\mathrm{})\mathrm{\Delta }_\varphi \mathrm{exp}(S/\mathrm{})={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(S,S)_\varphi \mathrm{}\mathrm{\Delta }_\varphi S=0.`$ (2.4)
The functional $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ will be called as the WT functional in the rest of the paper. The $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\varphi `$ derivative reads

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_\varphi `$ $``$ $`()^{ϵ_A+1}{\displaystyle \frac{^r}{\varphi ^A}}{\displaystyle \frac{^r}{\varphi _A^{}}}=()^{ϵ_A+1}{\displaystyle \frac{d^dp}{(2\pi )^d}\frac{^r}{\varphi ^A(p)}\frac{^r}{\varphi _A^{}(p)}}.`$ (2.5)
It is a nilpotent operator,

$`\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_\varphi \right)^2=0.`$ (2.6)
The QME ensures the BRS invariance of the quantum system.

### 2.2 The IR fields and the average action

In this subsection, we construct a Wilsonian effective action, the average action. Let us begin with the path integral representation of the generating functional for a local quantum action $`S`$ in the presence of sources $`J_A`$:

$`Z[J]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝒟\varphi ^{}\underset{A}{}\delta (\varphi _A^{})Z[J,\varphi ^{}]},`$
$`Z[J,\varphi ^{}]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝒟\varphi \mathrm{exp}\frac{1}{\mathrm{}}\left(S[\varphi ,\varphi ^{}]+J_A\varphi ^A\right)}.`$ (2.7)
In this path integral (2.7), the antifields $`\varphi _A^{}`$ are integrated out for the gauge fixing. As is seen below, this is important also for the discussion on the canonical structure in the space of fields and antifields. For the fields $`\varphi ^A`$, the quantum modes with arbitrary momenta are to be integrated at the same time. The main idea of the Wilsonian RG is to perform the integration successively: one integrates the high frequency modes of the fields $`\varphi ^A`$ to obtain an effective theory for the low frequency modes. For the division of momenta, one introduces an IR cutoff $`k`$. Furthermore, in order for the integration of the higher frequencies to be well-defined, the presence of an UV regulator is assumed. We consider here a regularization in which an UV cutoff $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is introduced together with the IR cutoff $`k`$ in a same regulator, regarding the frequencies between $`k`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ as generating the “block spin action” for the frequencies lower than $`k`$. We shall construct this effective action called the average action, slightly modifying Wetterich’s method. This formalism uses two kinds of fields: the microscopic or UV fields $`\varphi ^A`$ in (2.7), and the macroscopic or IR fields $`\mathrm{\Phi }^A`$ identified roughly with the average fields obtained by the coarse graining of the UV fields. In order to realize this idea, we take the following steps. Consider a gaussian integral

$`1`$ $`=`$ $`N_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\displaystyle }𝒟\mathrm{\Phi }𝒟\mathrm{\Phi }^{}{\displaystyle \underset{A}{}}\delta (\mathrm{\Phi }_A^{}f_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}^1\varphi _A^{})\mathrm{exp}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{}}}[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\mathrm{\Phi }^Af_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}\varphi ^Af_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}^1J_C(R_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}^1)^{CA})`$ (2.8)
$`\times R_{AB}^{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}(\mathrm{\Phi }^Bf_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}\varphi ^B(R_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}^1)^{BD}f_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}^1J_D)],`$
where we have used the matrix notation and $`N_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ is the normalization function. Shortly we describe properties of the invertible matrix $`(R^{k\mathrm{\Lambda }})_{AB}`$ and the function $`f_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$. Let us insert (2.8) into (2.7) and rewrite it as

$`Z[J]=Z_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}[J]\mathrm{exp}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}J_Af_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}^2(R_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}^1)^{AB}J_B\right).`$ (2.9)
Here the cutoff-dependent partition function is given by a functional integral of the IR fields $`\mathrm{\Phi }^A`$:

$`Z_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}[J]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝒟\mathrm{\Phi }^{}\underset{A}{}\delta \left(\mathrm{\Phi }_A^{}\right)Z_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}[J,\mathrm{\Phi }^{}]},`$
$`Z_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}[J,\mathrm{\Phi }^{}]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝒟\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{exp}\frac{1}{\mathrm{}}\left(W_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}[\mathrm{\Phi },\mathrm{\Phi }^{}]+J_Af_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}^1\mathrm{\Phi }^A\right)}.`$ (2.10)
The Wilsonian effective action $`W_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ has a path integral representation333In our previous papers the notation $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_k`$ was used for the average action, but it is reserved here to denote the Legendre effective action.

$`\mathrm{exp}\left(W_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}[\mathrm{\Phi },\mathrm{\Phi }^{}]/\mathrm{}\right)=N_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\displaystyle 𝒟\varphi 𝒟\varphi ^{}\underset{A}{}\delta \left(f_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}\mathrm{\Phi }_A^{}\varphi _A^{}\right)\mathrm{exp}}S_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}[\varphi ,\mathrm{\Phi },\varphi ^{}]/\mathrm{},`$ (2.11)
where

$`S_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}[\varphi ,\mathrm{\Phi },\varphi ^{}]=S[\varphi ,\varphi ^{}]+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\mathrm{\Phi }f_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}\varphi )^A(R^{k\mathrm{\Lambda }})_{AB}(\mathrm{\Phi }f_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}\varphi )^B.`$ (2.12)
The action given in (2.11) is the average action, which was introduced by Wetterich to realize a continuum analog of the block spin transformation. The average action describes the dynamics below the IR cutoff. Obviously the path integral (2.10) over the IR fields must be the same as the original partition function (2.7). The relation is given in (2.9): there is a factor depending on the source $`J`$, which produces a trivial IR cutoff dependence for $`Z_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$.

Let us discuss some properties of the functions appeared in the definition of the average action in (2.11) and (2.12). The function $`f_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}(p^2)`$ is for the coarse graining of the UV fields. For our discussion in this paper, we do not need its concrete form, but require it to behave such that $`f_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}(p^2)0`$ for $`k^2<p^2<\mathrm{\Lambda }^2`$, and $`f_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}(p^2)1`$ outside of this interval. The cutoff functions $`(R^{k\mathrm{\Lambda }})_{AB}`$ are introduced to relate the IR fields with the UV fields. The IR fields are identified roughly with the average fields, $`\mathrm{\Phi }^A(p)f_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}(p^2)\varphi ^A(p)`$. Because of this relation for the fields, we impose the constraints $`\mathrm{\Phi }_A^{}=f_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}^1\varphi _A^{}`$ for the antifields in (2.8) and (2.11) to keep the canonical structure in the space of fields and antifields. We may choose the cutoff functions as

$`(R^{k\mathrm{\Lambda }})_{AB}(p,q)`$ $`=`$ $`(^{k\mathrm{\Lambda }})_{AB}(p)(2\pi )^d\delta (pq),`$
$`(^{k\mathrm{\Lambda }})_{AB}(p)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{}_{AB}(p)}{f_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}(1f_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }})}}.`$ (2.13)
The invertible matrix $`(R^{k\mathrm{\Lambda }})_{AB}`$ has the signature $`ϵ((R^{k\mathrm{\Lambda }})_{AB})=ϵ_A+ϵ_B`$. This matrix and its inverse satisfy

$`(R^{k\mathrm{\Lambda }})_{BA}`$ $`=`$ $`()^{ϵ_A+ϵ_B+ϵ_Aϵ_B}(R^{k\mathrm{\Lambda }})_{AB},`$
$`\left(R_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}^1\right)^{BA}`$ $`=`$ $`()^{ϵ_Aϵ_B}\left(R_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}^1\right)^{AB}.`$ (2.14)
All non-vanishing components of $`\overline{}_{AB}(p)`$ are assumed to be some polynomials in $`p`$. As a possible choice, it may be identified with $`D_{AB}^1`$, the inverse (free) propagator for the fields $`\varphi ^A`$ and $`\varphi ^B`$.

In (2.12), we find that the terms $`\varphi ^Af_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}^2(R^{k\mathrm{\Lambda }})_{AB}\varphi ^B`$ can be regarded as a regulator and that the integration of the UV fields is performed for those modes with momenta between $`k`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. The terms $`f_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}\mathrm{\Phi }^B(R^{k\mathrm{\Lambda }})_{BA}`$ act as sources for the UV fields $`\varphi ^A`$ in place of $`J_A`$ in (2.7). In order for this replacement to realize, we included $`J`$ dependent contributions in the gaussian integral (2.8). The remaining terms $`\mathrm{\Phi }^A(R^{k\mathrm{\Lambda }})_{AB}\mathrm{\Phi }^B`$ do not affect the path integral of the UV fields. We may define therefore a subtracted average action by removing these terms from $`W_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$:

$`\widehat{W}_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}[\mathrm{\Phi },\mathrm{\Phi }^{}]=W_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}[\mathrm{\Phi },\mathrm{\Phi }^{}]{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Phi }^A\left(R^{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}\right)_{AB}\mathrm{\Phi }^B.`$ (2.15)
It should be noticed that $`\widehat{W}_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ is the generating functional of the connected cutoff Green functions of the UV fields.

We now discuss the behaviors of the average action when the cutoff $`k`$ reaches the IR and UV boundary values, $`0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. At the UV scale, $`k\mathrm{\Lambda }`$,

$`\underset{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}{lim}f_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}(p^2)`$ $`=`$ $`1,`$
$`\underset{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}{lim}(^{k\mathrm{\Lambda }})_{AB}(p)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{}.`$ (2.16)
Then,

$`\underset{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}{lim}W_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}[\mathrm{\Phi },\mathrm{\Phi }^{}]=S[\varphi ,\varphi ^{}](\mathrm{\Phi }^A\varphi ^A).`$ (2.17)
This formally implies that the UV action $`S[\varphi ,\varphi ^{}]`$ is defined at the UV scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. For the IR limit $`k0`$,

$`\underset{k0}{lim}f_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}(p^2)`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$
$`\underset{k0}{lim}(^{k\mathrm{\Lambda }})_{AB}(p)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{}.`$ (2.18)
In this limit, one finds in (2.12) that the sources $`f_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}\mathrm{\Phi }^B(^{k\mathrm{\Lambda }})_{BA}`$ become finite as
$`lim_{k0}f_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}(^{k\mathrm{\Lambda }})_{AB}=\overline{}_{AB}`$, and the regulator contributions $`\varphi ^Af_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}^2(R^{k\mathrm{\Lambda }})_{AB}\varphi ^B`$ vanish. However, the remaining terms $`\mathrm{\Phi }^A(^{k\mathrm{\Lambda }})_{AB}\mathrm{\Phi }^B`$ become divergent, and act as infinite “mass terms” for the average action $`W_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$. The subtracted average action given in (2.15) thus suits the discussion of the IR limit.

### 2.3 The quantum master equation for the UV and IR fields

Now we show that an exact gauge (BRS) symmetry is realized along the RG flow, though deformed due to the regularization. It inherits from the original symmetry of the UV action $`S[\varphi ,\varphi ^{}]`$. Our basic assumption to specify the symmetry is that the UV action is a solution of the QME, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }[\varphi ,\varphi ^{}]=0`$. For a given classical action, such a solution is known to exist at least in perturbation theory. It is a nontrivial problem to fix BRS non-invariant counter terms for a given regularization scheme. We will discuss this issue in a forthcoming paper and assume here that the UV action solves the QME.

Let us consider the WT functional $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ for the IR fields,

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}[\mathrm{\Phi },\mathrm{\Phi }^{}]\mathrm{}^2\mathrm{exp}(W_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}/\mathrm{})\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{exp}(W_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}/\mathrm{})={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(W_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }},W_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }})_\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{\Phi }W_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }},`$ (2.19)
where $`(,)_\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and the $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{\Phi }`$ denote the antibracket and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ derivative for the IR fields. In order to relate the WT operator for the UV action (2.4) to that for the average action, we take the functional average of the former with respect to the regularized UV action. In the formulation given in this paper, the path integral of the UV fields includes integration over the antifields. This requires a slight modification of our previous discussion given in ref.. After some calculation, we find that

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }[\varphi ,\varphi ^{}]_{\varphi :f\mathrm{\Phi }R}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{}^2\mathrm{exp}(W_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}/\mathrm{})N_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\displaystyle 𝒟\varphi 𝒟\varphi ^{}\underset{A}{}\delta \left(f_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}\mathrm{\Phi }_A^{}\varphi _A^{}\right)}`$ (2.20)
$`\times \mathrm{exp}\left[(SS_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }})/\mathrm{}\right]\left[\mathrm{\Delta }_\varphi \mathrm{exp}(S/\mathrm{})\right]`$
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{}^2\mathrm{exp}(W_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}/\mathrm{})\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{exp}(W_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}/\mathrm{})=\mathrm{\Sigma }_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}[\mathrm{\Phi },\mathrm{\Phi }^{}].`$
Here $`F_{\varphi :J}`$ denotes the functional average of $`F`$ with respect to the fields $`\varphi ^A`$ in the presence of sources $`J_A`$.

As $`\mathrm{\Sigma }[\varphi ,\varphi ^{}]=0`$, therefore, the average action automatically obeys the QME, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}[\mathrm{\Phi },\mathrm{\Phi }^{}]=0`$ for any $`k`$. This clearly demonstrates the presence of exact BRS symmetry along the RG flow. We call it renormalized BRS (rBRS) symmetry. The result given here generalizes our previous results, where we assumed that the UV action is linear in the antifields and satisfies the classical master equation.

The QME is understood as follows. Let us consider a set of the rBRS transformation:

$`\mathrm{\Phi }^A\mathrm{\Phi }^A+\delta _r\mathrm{\Phi }^A\lambda ,\delta _r\mathrm{\Phi }^A=(\mathrm{\Phi }^A,W_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }})_\mathrm{\Phi },`$ (2.21)
where $`\lambda `$ is an anti-commuting constant. In general, the average action cannot remain invariant under (2.21). It transforms as

$`W_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}W_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(W_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }},W_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }})_\mathrm{\Phi }\lambda .`$ (2.22)
At the same time, the functional measure444Note that the functional measure for the IR fields is flat in (2.8). transforms as

$`𝒟\mathrm{\Phi }𝒟\mathrm{\Phi }\left(1+\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{\Phi }W_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}\lambda \right).`$ (2.23)
If the QME is satisfied, these two contributions cancel each other, leaving the functional integral $`𝒟\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{exp}(W_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}/\mathrm{})`$ invariant. Importance of the contribution from the jacobian factor in the QME was noticed already in  and .

Because of the presence of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{\Phi }W_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ term, one may introduce another effective transformation called the quantum BRS transformation  (See also ). For any operator $`F[\mathrm{\Phi },\mathrm{\Phi }^{}]`$, it is defined by

$`\delta _QF(F,W_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }})_\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{\Phi }F.`$ (2.24)
The quantum BRS transformation $`\delta _Q`$ is nilpotent,

$`\left(\delta _Q\right)^2F=(F,\mathrm{\Sigma }_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }})_\mathrm{\Phi }=0,`$ (2.25)
if the QME is satisfied. It is however no longer a graded derivation:

$`\delta _Q(FH)=F(\delta _QH)+()^{ϵ_H}(\delta _QF)H\mathrm{}()^{ϵ_H}(F,H)_\mathrm{\Phi }.`$ (2.26)
One may define the cohomology using the quantum BRS transformation $`\delta _Q`$. Observables can be specified as elements of the cohomology. A violation of the QME may induce a violation of the nilpotency condition for $`\delta _Q`$ and it corresponds to a gauge anomaly.

## 3 The exact RG flow equations and canonical transformation

### 3.1 The exact RG flow equations

The change in the average action resulting from lowering $`k`$ is described by the exact RG flow equations\[2-5\]. It is obtained by differentiating (2.12) with respect to $`k`$:

$`_k\mathrm{exp}\left(W_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}[\mathrm{\Phi },\mathrm{\Phi }^{}]/\mathrm{}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }𝒟\varphi 𝒟\varphi ^{}_k[N_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\displaystyle \underset{A}{}}\delta (f_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}\mathrm{\Phi }_A^{}\varphi _A^{})`$ (3.1)
$`\times \mathrm{exp}(S_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}[\varphi ,\mathrm{\Phi },\varphi ^{}]/\mathrm{})],`$
where the normalization function is given by $`N_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}=\mathrm{exp}[\mathrm{Str}(\mathrm{ln}R^{k\mathrm{\Lambda }})/2]`$. This yields

$`_k\mathrm{exp}\left(W_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}[\mathrm{\Phi },\mathrm{\Phi }^{}]/\mathrm{}\right)=\left(X+\mathrm{Str}\left[_k(\mathrm{ln}f_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }})\right]\right)\mathrm{exp}\left(W_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}[\mathrm{\Phi },\mathrm{\Phi }^{}]/\mathrm{}\right),`$ (3.2)
where

$`X=()^{ϵ_A+ϵ_B+1}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{^r}{\mathrm{\Phi }^A}}^{AB}{\displaystyle \frac{^r}{\mathrm{\Phi }^B}}+_k(\mathrm{ln}f_k)\left[\mathrm{\Phi }^A{\displaystyle \frac{^l}{\mathrm{\Phi }^A}}\mathrm{\Phi }_A^{}{\displaystyle \frac{^l}{\mathrm{\Phi }_A^{}}}\right],`$ (3.3)
$`^{AB}f_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}^2_k\left[f_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}^2(R_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}^1)^{AB}\right].`$
The operator $`X`$ is the fundamental operator which characterizes the RG flow. The first term in $`X`$ originates from the $`k`$ dependence of $`f_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}^2R_{AB}^{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$. The second corresponds to the effects of a scale transformation on $`\mathrm{\Phi }^A`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_A^{}`$. The scale transformation on the antifields appears in (3.3) because of the constraints $`\mathrm{\Phi }_A^{}=f_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}^1\varphi _A^{}`$.

We showed in the previous section that the QME, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}[\mathrm{\Phi },\mathrm{\Phi }^{}]=0`$, at an arbitrary scale $`k(<\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ results from the QME $`\mathrm{\Sigma }[\varphi ,\varphi ^{}]=0`$. The same conclusion may be obtained from the flow equation for $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$. The exact RG flow equation (3.2) and the functional $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ in (2.19) are characterized by differential operators, $`X`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{\Phi }`$, respectively. Since $`X`$ contains a term related to the scale transformation on $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{}`$,555In ref., such a term was not included in $`X`$ so that $`[\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{\Phi },X]0`$. it commutes with $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{\Phi }`$:

$`[\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{\Phi },X]=0.`$ (3.4)
It follows from (3.2), (2.19) and (3.4) that

$`_k\mathrm{\Sigma }_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}=\mathrm{exp}(W_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}/\mathrm{})\left[X\mathrm{exp}(W_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}/\mathrm{})\right]\mathrm{\Sigma }_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}\mathrm{exp}(W_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}/\mathrm{})X\left[\mathrm{exp}(W_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}/\mathrm{})\mathrm{\Sigma }_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}\right].`$ (3.5)
The rhs of this equation consists of terms proportional to functional derivatives of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$. Suppose that the QME, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}[\mathrm{\Phi },\mathrm{\Phi }^{}]=0`$, holds for some $`k`$. It is an identity for any $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{}`$ so that any functional derivatives of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ should also vanish. Therefore, if $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}=0`$ at some $`k`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{k+dk\mathrm{\Lambda }}=0(dk<0)`$: the flow equation for the WT functional $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ ensures that the rBRS invariance of the quantum system persists along the RG flow.

### 3.2 The canonical transformation generating the RG flow

Let us discuss the BRS invariance realized along the RG flow from a new perspective. In the antifield formalism, we may consider the canonical transformations, which leave the classical master equation invariant since it is written in the form of the antibracket. However the transformations do change the QME or the operator $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, since a canonical transformations in the field-antifield space induces a nontrivial jacobian factor (see appendix B). In order for a canonical transformation to make the QME invariant, one needs to take account of the associated jacobian factor: the action should be transformed suitably to cancel the jacobian factor as shown in appendix B.

Now take two actions on a RG flow, $`W_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}[\mathrm{\Phi },\mathrm{\Phi }^{}]`$ and $`W_{(k+dk)\mathrm{\Lambda }}[\mathrm{\Phi },\mathrm{\Phi }^{}](dk<0)`$, which satisfy the QME. An apparent question is then whether there is a canonical transformation which relates these actions. Let us answer to this question affirmatively.

As shown in appendix B, under the canonical transformation with the generator $`G`$,

$`\mathrm{\Phi }^A`$ $``$ $`\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}^A=\mathrm{\Phi }^A+(\mathrm{\Phi }^A,G)_\mathrm{\Phi },`$
$`\mathrm{\Phi }_A^{}`$ $``$ $`\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_A^{}=\mathrm{\Phi }_A^{}+(\mathrm{\Phi }_A^{},G)_\mathrm{\Phi },`$ (3.6)
the action changes by $`\delta _QG`$. For the following generator,

$`G[\mathrm{\Phi },\mathrm{\Phi }^{}]=()^{ϵ_B+1}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Phi }_A^{}^{AB}{\displaystyle \frac{^rW_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}}{\mathrm{\Phi }^B}}dk\mathrm{\Phi }_A^{}_k\left(\mathrm{ln}f_k\right)\mathrm{\Phi }^Adk,`$ (3.7)
we obtain up to $`O((dk)^2)`$

$`\delta _QG=_kW_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}[\mathrm{\Phi },\mathrm{\Phi }^{}]dk+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Phi }_B^{}^{BC}{\displaystyle \frac{^r}{\mathrm{\Phi }^C}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}[\mathrm{\Phi },\mathrm{\Phi }^{}]dk.`$ (3.8)
The second term in (3.8) vanishes for the average action $`W_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ satisfying the QME. However eq. (3.8) itself holds for any average action defined as (2.11), which does not necessarily satisfy the QME. A few more comments are in order. 1) The second term in (3.8) is proprotional to the antifields other than the WT operator $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. The term is zero for the BRS invariant system due to the gauge fixing condition, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_A^{}=0`$. 2) Note that the canonical transformation (3.6) with (3.7) does not affect the gauge fixing conditions $`\mathrm{\Phi }_A^{}=0`$ in (2.10), as the new antifields $`\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_A^{}`$ are proportional to $`\mathrm{\Phi }_A^{}`$.

Eq. (3.8) may be rewritten as

$`W_{(k+dk)\mathrm{\Lambda }}[\mathrm{\Phi },\mathrm{\Phi }^{}]=W_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}[\mathrm{\Phi },\mathrm{\Phi }^{}]\delta _QG.`$ (3.9)
As discussed in appendix B, it is exactly the transformation of the action which makes the QME invariant.

Thus there exists the canonical transformaiton which generates the infinitesimal change of the action along the RG flow keeping the QME intact. The entire RG flow is generated by a successive series of canonical transformations in the space of fields and antifields. To reach the physical limit $`k0`$ is equivalent to find the corresponding finite canonical transformation.

It has been pointed out that the RG flow for the effective action can be regarded as reparametrizations of the fields. The antifield formalism provides us with its extension as canonical transformations. It is certainly intriguing to realize this new perspective of the RG flow for gauge theories.

## 4 The average action and the Legendre effective action

We have given in previous sections a general formulation of the renormalized symmetry realized on the RG flow. The concept of the average action is of crucial importance to reveal the structure of the symmetry. In the literature, however, the RG flow has been discussed often by using the Legendre effective action rather than the average action. These two kinds of effective actions may play complementary roles. Construction of the Legendre effective action for the classical UV fields is the subject of this section. It allows us to make clear the relation between our approach and others.

We begin with an effective action:

$`\mathrm{exp}\widehat{W}_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}[\mathrm{\Phi },\mathrm{\Phi }^{}]/\mathrm{}=N_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\displaystyle 𝒟\varphi 𝒟\varphi ^{}\underset{A}{}\delta \left(f_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}\mathrm{\Phi }_A^{}\varphi _A^{}\right)}`$
$`\times \mathrm{exp}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{}}}\left(S[\varphi ,\varphi ^{}]+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\varphi ^Af_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}^2R_{AB}^{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}\varphi ^B\mathrm{\Phi }^Af_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}R_{AB}^{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}\varphi ^B\right).`$ (4.1)
It is the generating functional of the connected cutoff Green functions of the UV fields, and is related to the average action by (2.15). In (4.1) the background IR fields act as the sources for the UV fields in the following combinations:

$`j_A=\mathrm{\Phi }^Bf_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}R_{BA}^{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}.`$ (4.2)
We may perform the Legendre transformation

$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}[\phi ,\phi ^{}]`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{W}_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}[\mathrm{\Phi },\mathrm{\Phi }^{}]+j_A\phi ^A,`$ (4.3)
where the classical UV fields $`\phi ^A`$ are defined as the expectation values of the UV fields $`\varphi ^A`$ in the presence of the sources $`j_A`$,

$`\phi ^A`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{^l\widehat{W}_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}}{j_A}},`$
$`j_A`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{^r\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}}{\phi ^A}}.`$ (4.4)
The antifields are related as

$`\phi _A^{}=\varphi _A^{}=f_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}\mathrm{\Phi }_A^{}.`$ (4.5)
The above eqs. (4.2), (4.4) and (4.5) give the functional relations $`\phi ^A=\phi ^A[\mathrm{\Phi },\mathrm{\Phi }^{}]`$. Using

$`{\displaystyle \frac{^r\widehat{W}_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}}{\mathrm{\Phi }^A}}=\phi ^Bf_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}R_{BA}^{k\mathrm{\Lambda }},`$ (4.6)
eqs. (2.15), (4.2) and (4.4) one further obtains

$`{\displaystyle \frac{^rW_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}}{\mathrm{\Phi }^A}}=f_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}^1{\displaystyle \frac{^r\mathrm{\Gamma }_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}}{\phi ^A}},`$ (4.7)
where the Legendre effective action is defined by

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}[\phi ,\phi ^{}]`$ $``$ $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}[\phi ,\phi ^{}]{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\phi ^Af_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}^2R_{AB}^{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}\phi ^B`$ (4.8)
$`=`$ $`W_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}[\mathrm{\Phi },\mathrm{\Phi }^{}]{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\mathrm{\Phi }^Af_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}\phi ^A\right)R_{AB}^{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}\left(\mathrm{\Phi }^Bf_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}\phi ^B\right).`$
From (4.8), we find the following relations,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{^l\widehat{W}_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}}{\mathrm{\Phi }_A^{}}}|_{\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{fixed}}={\displaystyle \frac{^lW_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}}{\mathrm{\Phi }_A^{}}}|_{\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{fixed}}=f_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\displaystyle \frac{^l\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}}{\phi _A^{}}}|_{\phi \mathrm{fixed}}=f_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\displaystyle \frac{^l\mathrm{\Gamma }_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}}{\phi _A^{}}}|_{\phi \mathrm{fixed}}.`$ (4.9)
The identity $`\phi ^A/\phi ^B=\delta _B^A`$ leads to

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{^l^r\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}}{\phi \phi }}\right)_{AC}^1()^{ϵ_C+1}\left({\displaystyle \frac{^l^r\widehat{W}_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}}{j_Aj_C}}\right).`$ (4.10)
Using (4.1), (4.3) and (4.10), we derive the flow equation for the Legendre effective action:

$`_k\mathrm{\Gamma }_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{2}}()^{ϵ_A}\left[_k\left(f_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}^2R_{AB}^{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}\right)\right]\left({\displaystyle \frac{^l^r\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}}{\phi \phi }}\right)_{BA}^1{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{2}}_k\mathrm{Str}(\mathrm{ln}R^{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}).`$ (4.11)
The WT identity for the Legendre effective action can be obtained from the QME for the average action. One finds from (4.7) and (4.9) that

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(W_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }},W_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }})_\mathrm{\Phi }={\displaystyle \frac{^rW_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}}{\mathrm{\Phi }^A}}{\displaystyle \frac{^lW_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}}{\mathrm{\Phi }_A^{}}}={\displaystyle \frac{^r\mathrm{\Gamma }_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}}{\phi ^A}}{\displaystyle \frac{^l\mathrm{\Gamma }_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}}{\phi _A^{}}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }},\mathrm{\Gamma }_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }})_\phi ,`$ (4.12)
and from (4.4) and (4.10) that

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{\Phi }W_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{^r^lW_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}}{\mathrm{\Phi }^A\mathrm{\Phi }_A^{}}}=\left(f_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\displaystyle \frac{^r^l\mathrm{\Gamma }_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}}{\phi ^B\phi _A^{}}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{^r\phi ^B}{\mathrm{\Phi }^A}}`$ (4.13)
$`=`$ $`()^{1+ϵ_A(1+ϵ_C)}\left({\displaystyle \frac{^l^r\mathrm{\Gamma }_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}}{\phi _A^{}\phi ^B}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{^l^r\widehat{W}_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}}{j_Bj_C}}\right)f_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}^2R_{AC}^{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$
$`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{^l^r\mathrm{\Gamma }_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}}{\phi _A^{}\phi ^B}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{^l^r\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}}{\phi \phi }}\right)_{BC}^1f_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}^2R_{CA}^{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}.`$
Therefore, the QME takes the form

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}[\mathrm{\Phi },\mathrm{\Phi }^{}]={\displaystyle \frac{^r\mathrm{\Gamma }_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}}{\phi ^A}}{\displaystyle \frac{^l\mathrm{\Gamma }_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}}{\phi _A^{}}}\mathrm{}\left({\displaystyle \frac{^l^r\mathrm{\Gamma }_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}}{\phi _A^{}\phi ^B}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{^l^r\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}}{\phi \phi }}\right)_{BC}^1f_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}^2R_{CA}^{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}=0.`$ (4.14)
When applied to the pure Yang-Mills theory, (4.14) reduces to the “modified ST identity” obtained by Ellwanger. It might be understood as follows: the first term of (4.14) is equal to the antibrackets $`(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }},\mathrm{\Gamma }_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }})_\phi /2=(W_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }},W_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }})_\mathrm{\Phi }/2`$, which cannot vanish because the symmetry is violated by the regularization. It should be compensated by the remaining “symmetry breaking terms.” This is the reason why (4.14) has been called as the broken or modified WT identity. In our point of view, the origin of this symmetry breaking terms becomes more transparent. They are nothing but the $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{\Phi }W_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ term arising from the nontrivial jacobian factor associated with non-invariance of the functional measure for the IR fields $`\mathrm{\Phi }^A`$ under the rBRS transformation. It is necessary therefore for the quantum system under consideration to be BRS invariant. Note that this interpretation becomes possible only when we consider the average action $`W_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}[\mathrm{\Phi },\mathrm{\Phi }^{}]`$. On the other hand, the RG flow equations are shown to take a simpler form when expressed in terms of the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}[\phi ,\phi ^{}]`$. This is because the Legendre effective action consists only of the one-particle irreducible (1PI) cutoff vertex functions. In this sense, the average action and the Legendre effective action play complementary roles.

We shall close this section with the following remarks:
(1) Let us consider the IR limit $`k0`$. In the path integral (4.1), the regulator terms proportional to $`f_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}^2_{AB}^{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ are removed in this limit. Thus $`lim_{k0}\widehat{W}_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ and $`lim_{k0}\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}=lim_{k0}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ are found to be free from any singularities and well-defined. They are the generating functionals of the connected Green function and 1PI vertex function, respectively. In the WT identity (4.14), “the symmetry breaking terms” are again proportional to $`f_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}^2_{AB}^{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ and vanish in the IR limit. Thus, we conclude that $`lim_{k0}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}[\mathrm{\Phi },\mathrm{\Phi }^{}]=lim_{k0}(W_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }},W_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }})_\mathrm{\Phi }/2=lim_{k0}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }},\mathrm{\Gamma }_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }})_\phi /2=0`$: all the quantum fluctuations of the UV fields are integrated out to yield the Zinn-Justin equation.
(2) There is another way to reach the Zinn-Justin equation. We may consider the standard Legendre effective action based on the path integral (2.10) for the IR fields,

$`𝚪_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}[\mathrm{\Phi }_{cl},\mathrm{\Phi }^{}]=\mathrm{}\mathrm{ln}Z_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}[J,\mathrm{\Phi }^{}]+f_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}^1J_A\mathrm{\Phi }_{cl}^{}{}_{}{}^{A},`$ (4.15)
where

$$f_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}^1\mathrm{\Phi }_{cl}^A\mathrm{}\frac{^l\mathrm{ln}Z_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}}{J_A}.$$
(4.16)
In the construction of this effective action, all the quantum fluctuations of the UV fields are integrated out. Therefore, the action should obey the Zinn-Justin equation. Actually, one obtains

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(𝚪_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }},𝚪_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }})_{\mathrm{\Phi }_{cl}}={\displaystyle \frac{^r𝚪_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}}{\mathrm{\Phi }_{cl}^A}}{\displaystyle \frac{^l𝚪_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}}{\mathrm{\Phi }_A^{}}}=\mathrm{\Sigma }_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}[\mathrm{\Phi },\mathrm{\Phi }^{}]_{\mathrm{\Phi }:f_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}^1J}.`$ (4.17)
Thus, the QME $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}=0`$ yields the Zinn-Justin equation for the Legendre effective action, $`(𝚪_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }},𝚪_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }})_{\mathrm{\Phi }_{cl}}=0`$.

## 5 Conclusions

We have shown here that symmetries are not violated but only deformed by regularizations. This point of view emerges from a careful study of the WT identities for the effective theory. It is actually a nontrivial problem to derive them in the RG approach. Our observation is that when applied to a Wilsonian effective action called the average action, they take the form of the QME in the antifield formalism. It serves to make conceptually clear that there exist exact renormalized symmetries realized along the RG flow.

Because of generic interactions among the UV fields, neither the IR action nor the functional measure of the IR fields can remain BRS invariant. The QME ensures the cancellation between these contributions. We have used the relation between the average and the Legendre effective action to show that the QME for the former is equivalent to the “modified WT or ST identity” for the latter. This leads to the identification of the “symmetry breaking terms” with the jacobian factor mentioned above.

The use of the antifield formalism allows us not only to deal with most general gauge theories with open and/or reducible gauge algebra, but also to reveal the interesting structure of the RG flow and associated renormalized BRS symmetry. First, we may define the quantum BRS transformation for the symmetry. It is nilpotent, while it does not obey the Leibniz rule. Second, any two average actions on the RG flow are shown to be connected via a canonical transformation.

Our arguments on the renormalized BRS symmetry given here are based on the assumption that the UV action or the average action at some IR cutoff $`k=k_0`$ obeys the QME. In perturbation theory, imposing the QME or the WT identities at some value of $`k`$ is called the “fine-tuning”, which has been discussed extensively in refs.. There, used was a regularization where the IR and UV cutoffs are incorporated in a same regulator, and the boundary conditions were imposed on the relevant and irrelevant operators separately. This procedure makes solving the QME rather complicated. We shall discuss in a forthcoming paper an alternative method using the Pauli-Villars UV regularization. It allows us directly to confirm that the QME holds at one-loop level for a given anomaly-free UV action.

It has been recognized that the QME plays an important role in the investigation of the unitarity in string field theory. The formalism for the renormalized symmetry given here will be another example where the QME plays a crucial role. It is difficult but highly desirable to solve the QME in a non-perturbative truncation of the average action.

## Acknowledgment

K.I. would like to thank M. Bonini for discussions on the subject and the theory group of Parma University for their kind hospitality. H.S. (K.I.) is supported in part by the Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research No.12640259 (12640258) from Japan Society for the Promotion of Science.

## Appendix A A matrix notation

In this work we use a matrix notation which corresponds to the DeWitt’s condensed notation in the d-dimensional Euclidean momentum space. In this notation, the discrete indices, $`A,B,\mathrm{}`$, indicates the momentum variables as well. A generalized summation convention is used in which a repeated index implies not only a summation over various quantum numbers but also a momentum integration. For example,

$`f_B^A=g_C^Ah_B^C`$ (A.1)
is a shorthand description of

$`f_B^A(p,q)={\displaystyle \underset{C}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^dk}{(2\pi )^d}g_C^A(p,k)h_B^C(k,q)}.`$ (A.2)
The functional derivative is normalized as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi ^A}{\varphi ^B}}=\delta _B^A\delta _{AB}(2\pi )^d\delta (pq).`$ (A.3)
We often use

$`\varphi ^AM_{AB}^{(1)}\mathrm{}M_{CD}^{(n)}\varphi ^D`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d^dp_1}{(2\pi )^d}\mathrm{}\frac{d^dp_{n+1}}{(2\pi )^d}\varphi ^A(p_1)}`$
$`\times M_{AB}^{(1)}(p_1,p_2)\mathrm{}M_{CD}^{(n)}(p_n,p_{n+1})\varphi ^D(p_{n+1}),`$ (A.4)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{^r}{\varphi ^A}}M^{(1)AB}\mathrm{}M^{(n)CD}{\displaystyle \frac{^l}{\varphi _D^{}}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d^dp_1}{(2\pi )^d}\mathrm{}\frac{d^dp_{n+1}}{(2\pi )^d}\frac{^r}{\varphi ^A(p_1)}M^{(1)AB}(p_1,p_2)\mathrm{}}`$
$`\times M^{(n)CD}(p_n,p_{n+1}){\displaystyle \frac{^l}{\varphi _D^{}(p_{n+1})}},`$
where $`^r/\varphi ^A(^l/\varphi ^A)`$ denotes a right (left) derivative with respect to $`\varphi ^A`$. These derivatives are related as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{^rF}{\varphi ^A}}=()^{ϵ_A(ϵ_F+1)}{\displaystyle \frac{^lF}{\varphi ^A}}.`$ (A.5)
## Appendix B The canonical transformation for the RG flow

Take a generic action $`W[\mathrm{\Phi },\mathrm{\Phi }^{}]`$ and consider an infinitesimal canonical transformation with a generator $`G[\mathrm{\Phi },\mathrm{\Phi }^{}]`$:

$`\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}^A`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Phi }^A+(\mathrm{\Phi }^A,G)_\mathrm{\Phi },`$
$`\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_A^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Phi }_A^{}+(\mathrm{\Phi }_A^{},G)_\mathrm{\Phi }.`$ (B.1)
The path integral identity,

$`{\displaystyle 𝒟\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{}\delta (\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{})𝒟\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}\mathrm{exp}(W[\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }},\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{}]/\mathrm{})}`$ (B.2)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝒟\mathrm{\Phi }^{}\delta (\mathrm{\Phi }^{})𝒟\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{exp}\left[W[\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }},\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{}]/\mathrm{}+\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{Sdet}\left(\frac{𝒟\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}}{𝒟\mathrm{\Phi }}\right)\right]},`$
implies the infinitesimal transformation of the action is $`\delta _QG(G,W)_\mathrm{\Phi }+\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{\Phi }G`$:

$`W[\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }},\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{}]\mathrm{}\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{Sdet}{\displaystyle \frac{𝒟\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}}{𝒟\mathrm{\Phi }}}`$
$`=`$ $`W[\mathrm{\Phi }+(\mathrm{\Phi },G),\mathrm{\Phi }^{}+(\mathrm{\Phi }^{},G)]\mathrm{}\mathrm{ln}\left(1+()^{ϵ_A}{\displaystyle \frac{^r}{\mathrm{\Phi }^A}}{\displaystyle \frac{^l}{\mathrm{\Phi }_A^{}}}G\right)`$
$`=`$ $`W[\mathrm{\Phi },\mathrm{\Phi }^{}](G,W)_\mathrm{\Phi }+\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{\Phi }G=W[\mathrm{\Phi },\mathrm{\Phi }^{}]\delta _QG.`$
A comment is in order. In writing (B.2), we assumed that the generator $`G`$ itself is proportional to $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{}`$ so that the canonical transformation does not change the gauge fixing condition. The generator in (3.7) is in this category. However the change of the action obtained above is correct for more generic situation (See for example ).

Now choose the generator $`G[\mathrm{\Phi },\mathrm{\Phi }^{}]`$ in the form of (3.7) with $`W_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ replaced by $`W`$. Let us consider the contribution from the first term of (3.7),

$`G_1[\mathrm{\Phi },\mathrm{\Phi }^{}]=()^{1+ϵ_B}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Phi }_A^{}^{AB}{\displaystyle \frac{^rW}{\mathrm{\Phi }^B}}dk.`$ (B.4)
The IR fields transform as

$`\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}^A`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Phi }^A+(\mathrm{\Phi }^A,G_1)_\mathrm{\Phi }`$ (B.5)
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Phi }^A{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}()^{ϵ_B}^{AB}{\displaystyle \frac{^rW}{\mathrm{\Phi }^B}}dk{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}()^{ϵ_C+(ϵ_A+1)(ϵ_C+1)}\mathrm{\Phi }_B^{}^{BC}{\displaystyle \frac{^l^rW}{\mathrm{\Phi }_A^{}\mathrm{\Phi }^C}}dk,`$
$`\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_A^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Phi }_A^{}+(\mathrm{\Phi }_A^{},G_1)_\mathrm{\Phi }`$
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Phi }_A^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}()^{ϵ_C+ϵ_A(ϵ_C+1)}\mathrm{\Phi }_B^{}^{BC}{\displaystyle \frac{^l^rW}{\mathrm{\Phi }^A\mathrm{\Phi }^C}}dk,`$
which yield

$`W[\mathrm{\Phi }+(\mathrm{\Phi },G_1)_\mathrm{\Phi },\mathrm{\Phi }^{}+(\mathrm{\Phi }^{},G_1)_\mathrm{\Phi }]W[\mathrm{\Phi },\mathrm{\Phi }^{}]`$ (B.6)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{^rW}{\mathrm{\Phi }^A}}\left[()^{ϵ_B}^{AB}{\displaystyle \frac{^rW}{\mathrm{\Phi }^B}}+()^{ϵ_C+(ϵ_A+1)(ϵ_C+1)}\mathrm{\Phi }_B^{}^{BC}{\displaystyle \frac{^l^rW}{\mathrm{\Phi }_A^{}\mathrm{\Phi }^C}}\right]dk`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}()^{ϵ_C+ϵ_A(ϵ_C+1)}{\displaystyle \frac{^rW}{\mathrm{\Phi }_A^{}}}\mathrm{\Phi }_B^{}^{BC}{\displaystyle \frac{^l^rW}{\mathrm{\Phi }^A\mathrm{\Phi }^C}}dk`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}()^{ϵ_A+ϵ_B}^{BA}{\displaystyle \frac{^rW}{\mathrm{\Phi }^A}}{\displaystyle \frac{^rW}{\mathrm{\Phi }^B}}dk+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\mathrm{\Phi }_B^{}^{BC}{\displaystyle \frac{^r}{\mathrm{\Phi }^C}}\left[(W,W)_\mathrm{\Phi }\right]dk.`$
The $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ derivative of the generator reads

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{\Phi }G_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}()^{ϵ_A+ϵ_B+1}{\displaystyle \frac{^r}{\mathrm{\Phi }^A}}{\displaystyle \frac{^r}{\mathrm{\Phi }_A^{}}}(\mathrm{\Phi }_C^{}^{CB}{\displaystyle \frac{^rW}{\mathrm{\Phi }^B}})dk`$ (B.7)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}()^{ϵ_A+ϵ_B}{\displaystyle \frac{^r}{\mathrm{\Phi }^A}}^{AB}{\displaystyle \frac{^rW}{\mathrm{\Phi }^B}}dk{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Phi }_B^{}^{BC}{\displaystyle \frac{^r}{\mathrm{\Phi }^C}}\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{\Phi }Wdk.`$
From (B.6) and (B.7) we obtain the change of the action $`\delta _QG_1`$ as

$`\delta _QG_1`$ $`=`$ $`W[\mathrm{\Phi }+(\mathrm{\Phi },G_1)_\mathrm{\Phi },\mathrm{\Phi }^{}+(\mathrm{\Phi }^{},G_1)_\mathrm{\Phi }]W[\mathrm{\Phi },\mathrm{\Phi }^{}]+\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{\Phi }G_1`$ (B.8)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}()^{ϵ_A+ϵ_B+1}\left(^{AB}{\displaystyle \frac{^rW}{\mathrm{\Phi }^B}}{\displaystyle \frac{^rW}{\mathrm{\Phi }^A}}\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{^r}{\mathrm{\Phi }^A}}^{AB}{\displaystyle \frac{^rW}{\mathrm{\Phi }^B}}\right)dk`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Phi }_B^{}^{BC}{\displaystyle \frac{^r}{\mathrm{\Phi }^C}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(W,W)_\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{\Phi }W\right]dk.`$
Likewise, for the second term of the generator $`G[\mathrm{\Phi },\mathrm{\Phi }^{}]`$,

$`G_2[\mathrm{\Phi },\mathrm{\Phi }^{}]=\mathrm{\Phi }_A^{}\left[_k(\mathrm{ln}f_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }})\right]\mathrm{\Phi }^Adk,`$ (B.9)
we obtain

$`\delta _QG_2=_k(\mathrm{ln}f_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }})\left(\mathrm{\Phi }^A{\displaystyle \frac{^lW}{\mathrm{\Phi }^A}}\mathrm{\Phi }_A^{}{\displaystyle \frac{^lW}{\mathrm{\Phi }_A^{}}}\right)dk+\mathrm{}\mathrm{Str}[_k(\mathrm{ln}f_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }})]dk.`$ (B.10)
Eqs. (B.8) and (B.10) are combined to give the following:

$`\delta _QG`$ $`=`$ $`()^{ϵ_A+ϵ_B+1}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(^{AB}{\displaystyle \frac{^rW}{\mathrm{\Phi }^B}}{\displaystyle \frac{^rW}{\mathrm{\Phi }^A}}\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{^r}{\mathrm{\Phi }^A}}^{AB}{\displaystyle \frac{^rW}{\mathrm{\Phi }^B}}\right)dk+\mathrm{}\mathrm{Str}\left[_k(\mathrm{ln}f_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }})\right]dk`$ (B.11)
$`_k\left(\mathrm{ln}f_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}\right)\left(\mathrm{\Phi }^A{\displaystyle \frac{^lW}{\mathrm{\Phi }^A}}\mathrm{\Phi }_A^{}_k{\displaystyle \frac{^lW}{\mathrm{\Phi }_A^{}}}\right)dk+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Phi }_B^{}^{BC}{\displaystyle \frac{^r}{\mathrm{\Phi }^C}}\mathrm{\Sigma }[\mathrm{\Phi },\mathrm{\Phi }^{}]dk.`$
When the action $`W[\mathrm{\Phi },\mathrm{\Phi }^{}]`$ is an average action defined in (2.11), eq. (B.11) may be written as

$`\delta _QG=_kW[\mathrm{\Phi },\mathrm{\Phi }^{}]dk+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Phi }_B^{}^{BC}{\displaystyle \frac{^r}{\mathrm{\Phi }^C}}\mathrm{\Sigma }[\mathrm{\Phi },\mathrm{\Phi }^{}]dk.`$ (B.12)
Here we used the flow equation for the average action which may be obtained from (3.2).