text:
# The Abelian Sandpile Model on an Infinite Tree

## 1 Introduction

Global Markov processes for spatially extended systems have been around for about 30 years now and interacting particle systems have become a branch of probability theory with an increasing number of connections with the natural and human sciences. While standard techniques and general results have been collected in a number of books such as \[Liggett (1985), Chen (1992), Toom (1990)\] and are capable to treat the infinite volume construction for stochastic systems with locally interacting components, some of the most elementary questions for long range and nonlocal dynamics have remained wide open. We have in mind the class of stochastic interacting systems that during the last decade have invaded the soft condensed matter literature and are sometimes placed under the common denominator of self-organizing systems.

Since the appearance of the paper \[BTW (1988)\], the concept of self-organized criticality (SOC) has suscited much interest, and is applied in a great variety of domains (see e.g. \[Turcotte (1999)\] for an overview). From the mathematical point of view, the situation is however quite unsatisfactory. The models exhibiting SOC are in general very boundary condition dependent (especially the BTW model in dimension 2), which suggests that the definition of an infinite volume dynamics poses a serious problem. Even the existence of a (unique) thermodynamic limit of the finite volume stationary measure is not clear. From the point of view of interacting particle systems no standard theorems are at our disposal. The infinite volume processes we are looking for will be non-Feller and cannot be constructed by monotonicity arguments as in the case of the one-dimensional BTW model (see \[MRSV (2000)\]) or the long-range exclusion process (see \[Liggett (1980)\]). On the other hand in order to make mathematically exact statements about SOC, it is necessary to have some kind of infinite volume limit, both for statics and for dynamics.

In this paper we continue our study of the BTW-model for the case of the Bethe lattice, this is the abelian sandpile model on an infinite tree. For this system, many exact results were obtained in \[DM (1990b)\]. In contrast to the one-dimensional case this system has a non-trivial stationary measure. We show here that the finite volume stationary measures converge to a unique measure $`\mu `$ which is not Dirac and exhibits all the properties of a SOC-state. We then turn to the construction of a stationary Markov process starting from this measure $`\mu `$. The main difficulty to overcome is the strong non-locality: Adding a grain at some lattice site $`x`$ can influence the configuration far from $`x`$. In fact the cluster of sites influenced by adding at some fixed site has to be thought of as a critical percolation cluster which is almost surely finite but not of integrable size. The process we construct is intuitively described as follows: At each site $`x`$ of the Bethe lattice we have an exponential clock which rings at rate $`\phi (x)`$. At the ringing of the clock we add a grain at $`x`$. Depending on the addition rate $`\phi (x)`$, we show existence of a stationary Markov process which corresponds to this description. We also extend this stationary dynamics to initial configurations which are typical for a measure $`\mu ^{}`$ that is stochastically below $`\mu `$.

The paper is organized as follows. In section 2 we introduce standard results on finite volume abelian sandpile models, and summarize some specific results of \[DM (1990b)\] for the Bethe lattice which we need for the infinite volume construction. In section 3 we present the results on the thermodynamic limit of the finite volume stationary measures and on the existence of infinite volume Markovian dynamics. Section 4 is devoted to proofs and contains some additional remarks.

## 2 Finite Volume Abelian Sandpiles

In this section we collect some results on abelian sandpiles on finite graphs which we will need later on. Most of these results are contained in the review paper \[Dhar (1999)\], or in \[IP (1998)\].

### 2.1 Toppling Matrix

Let $`V`$ denote a finite set of sites and $`\mathrm{\Delta }^V=(\mathrm{\Delta }_{x,y}^V)_{x,yV}`$ a matrix indexed by the elements of $`V`$ satisfying the conditions :

1. For all $`x,yV`$, $`xy`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{x,y}^V=\mathrm{\Delta }_{y,x}^V0`$,
2. For all $`xV`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{x,x}^V1`$,
3. For all $`xV`$, $`_{yV}\mathrm{\Delta }_{x,y}^V0`$,
4. $`_{x,yV}\mathrm{\Delta }_{x,y}^V>0.`$

Such a matrix $`\mathrm{\Delta }^V`$ is called a toppling matrix. The fourth condition ensures that there are sites (so called dissipative sites) for which the inequality in the third condition is strict. This is fundamental for having a well defined toppling rule later on. In the rest of the paper we will choose $`\mathrm{\Delta }^V`$ to be the lattice Laplacian with open boundary conditions on a finite simply-connected set $`VS`$, where $`S`$ is a regular graph, like the $`d`$-dimensional lattice $`\text{ }\text{}^d`$, or the infinite rootless tree $`\text{I}\text{T}_d`$ of degree $`d+1`$. More explicitly:

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{x,x}^V`$ $`=`$ $`2d\text{ if}V\text{ }\text{}^d,`$
$`=`$ $`d+1\text{if }V\text{I}\text{T}_d,`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{x,y}^V`$ $`=`$ $`1\text{ if}x\text{and}y\text{are nearest neighbors}.`$ (2.1)
The dissipative sites then correspond to the boundary sites of $`V`$.

### 2.2 Configurations

A height configuration $`\eta `$ is a mapping from $`V`$ to $`\text{I}\text{N}=\{1,2,\mathrm{}\}`$ assigning to each site a natural number $`\eta (x)1`$ (“the number of sand grains” at site $`x`$). A configuration $`\eta \text{I}\text{N}^V`$ is called stable if, for all $`xV`$, $`\eta (x)\mathrm{\Delta }_{x,x}^V`$. Otherwise $`\eta `$ is unstable. We denote by $`\mathrm{\Omega }_V`$ the set of all stable height configurations. For $`\eta \text{I}\text{N}^V`$ and $`V^{}V`$, $`\eta |_V^{}`$ denotes the restriction of $`\eta `$ to $`V^{}`$.

### 2.3 Toppling Rule

The toppling rule  corresponding to the toppling matrix $`\mathrm{\Delta }^V`$ is the mapping

$$T_{\mathrm{\Delta }^V}:\text{I}\text{N}^V\times V\text{I}\text{N}^V$$

defined by

$`T_{\mathrm{\Delta }^V}(\eta ,x)(y)`$ $`=`$ $`\eta (y)\mathrm{\Delta }_{x,y}^V\text{if}\eta (x)>\mathrm{\Delta }_{x,x}^V,`$ (2.2)
$`=`$ $`\eta (y)\text{otherwise}.`$
In words, site $`x`$ topples if and only if its height is strictly larger than $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{x,x}^V`$, by transferring $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{x,y}^V`$ grains to site $`yx`$ and losing itself $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{x,x}^V`$ grains. Toppling rules commute on unstable configurations. This means for $`x,zV`$ and $`\eta `$ such that $`\eta (x)>\mathrm{\Delta }_{x,x}^V,\eta (z)>\mathrm{\Delta }_{z,z}^V`$,

$$T_{\mathrm{\Delta }^V}(T_{\mathrm{\Delta }^V}(\eta ,x),z)=T_{\mathrm{\Delta }^V}(T_{\mathrm{\Delta }^V}(\eta ,z),x)$$
(2.3)
We write $`[T_{\mathrm{\Delta }^V}(,z)T_{\mathrm{\Delta }^V}(,x)](\eta )=[T_{\mathrm{\Delta }^V}(,x)T_{\mathrm{\Delta }^V}(,z)](\eta )`$.

Choose some enumeration $`\{x_1,\mathrm{},x_n\}`$ of the set $`V`$. The toppling transformation is the mapping

$$𝒯_{\mathrm{\Delta }^V}:\text{I}\text{N}^V\mathrm{\Omega }_V$$

defined by

$$𝒯_{\mathrm{\Delta }^V}(\eta )=\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}\left(\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}T_{\mathrm{\Delta }^V}(,x_i)\right)^N(\eta ).$$
(2.4)
In \[IP (1998)\] it is recalled that

1. The limit in (2.4) exists, i.e. there are no infinite cycles, due to the presence of dissipative sites.
2. The stable configuration $`𝒯_{\mathrm{\Delta }^V}(\eta )`$ is independent of the chosen enumeration of $`V`$. This is the abelian property and follows from (2.3).

### 2.4 Addition Operators

For $`\eta \text{I}\text{N}^V`$ and $`xV`$, let $`\eta ^x`$ denote the configuration obtained from $`\eta `$ by adding one grain to site $`x`$, i.e. $`\eta ^x(y)=\eta (y)+\delta _{x,y}`$. The addition operator defined by

$$a_{x,V}:\mathrm{\Omega }_V\mathrm{\Omega }_V;\eta a_{x,V}\eta =𝒯_{\mathrm{\Delta }^V}(\eta ^x)$$
(2.5)
represents the effect of adding a grain to the stable configuration $`\eta `$ and letting the system topple until a new stable configuration is obtained. By (2.3), the composition of addition operators is commutative: For all $`\eta \mathrm{\Omega }_V,x,yV`$,

$$a_{x,V}(a_{y,V}\eta )=a_{y,V}(a_{x,V}\eta ).$$

### 2.5 Finite Volume Dynamics

Let $`p`$ denote a non-degenerate probability measure on $`V`$, i.e. numbers $`p_x`$, $`0<p_x<1`$ with $`_{xV}p_x=1`$. We define a discrete time Markov chain $`\{\eta _n:n0\}`$ on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_V`$ by picking a point $`xV`$ according to $`p`$ at each discrete time step and applying the addition operator $`a_{x,V}`$ to the configuration. This Markov chain has the transition operator

$$P_Vf(\eta )=\underset{xV}{}p_xf(a_{x,V}\eta ).$$
(2.6)
We can equally define a continuous time Markov process $`\{\eta _t:t0\}`$ with infinitesimal generator

$$L_V^\phi f(\eta )=\underset{xV}{}\phi (x)[f(a_{x,V}\eta )f(\eta )],$$
(2.7)
generating a pure jump process on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_V`$, with addition rate $`\phi (x)>0`$ at site $`x`$.

### 2.6 Recurrent Configurations, Stationary Measure

We see here that the Markov chain $`\{\eta _n,n0\}`$ has only one recurrent class and its stationary measure is the uniform measure on that class.

Let us call $`_V`$ the set of recurrent configurations for $`\{\eta _n,n0\}`$, i.e. those for which $`P_\eta (\eta _n=\eta \text{infinitely often})=1,`$ where $`P_\eta `$ denotes the distribution of $`\{\eta _n,n0\}`$ starting from $`\eta _0=\eta \mathrm{\Omega }_V`$. In the following proposition we list some properties of $`_V`$. For the sake of completeness we include a proof which we could not find worked out completely in the literature.

###### Proposition 2.1

1. $`_V`$ contains only one recurrent class.
2. The composition of the addition operators $`a_{x,V}`$ restricted to $`_V`$ defines an abelian group $`G`$.
3. $`|G|=|_V|`$.
4. For any $`xV`$, there exists $`n_x`$ such that for any $`\eta _V`$, $`a_{x,V}^{n_x}\eta =\eta `$.
5. $`|_V|=\text{det }\mathrm{\Delta }^V`$.

Proof: 1. We write $`\eta \zeta `$ if in the Markov chain $`\zeta `$ can be reached from $`\eta `$ with positive probability. Since sand is added with positive probability on all sites ($`p_x>0`$), the maximal configuration $`\eta _{max}`$ defined by

$$\eta _{max}(x)=\mathrm{\Delta }_{x,x}^V$$

can be reached from any other configuration. Hence, if $`\eta _V`$ then $`\eta \eta _{max}`$, therefore $`\eta _{max}_V`$ and $`\eta _{max}\eta `$ (see e.g. \[Chung (1960)\] p.19).

2. Fix $`\eta _V`$; then there exist $`n_y1`$ such that

$$\underset{yV}{}a_{y,V}^{n_y}\eta =\eta ,$$

and

$$g_x=a_{x,V}^{n_x1}\underset{yV,yx}{}a_{y,V}^{n_y}$$

satisfies $`(a_{x,V}g_x)(\eta )=(g_xa_{x,V})(\eta )=\eta `$. The set

$$^x=\{\zeta _V:(a_{x,V}g_x)(\zeta )=\zeta \}$$

is closed under the action of $`a_{x,V}`$, contains $`\eta `$, hence also $`\eta _{max}`$: it is a recurrent class. By part 1, $`^x=_V`$, $`a_{x,V}g_x`$ is the neutral element $`e`$, and $`g_x=a_{x,V}^1`$ if we restrict $`a_{x,V}`$ to $`_V`$.

3. Fix $`\zeta _V`$ and put $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\zeta :G_V;gg(\zeta ).`$ As before $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\zeta (G)`$ is a recurrent class, hence $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\zeta (G)=_V`$. If for $`g,hG`$, $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\zeta (g)=\mathrm{\Psi }_\zeta (h)`$, then $`gh^1(\zeta )=\zeta `$, and by commutativity $`gh^1(g^{}\zeta )=g^{}\zeta `$ for any $`g^{}G`$. Therefore $`gh^1(\xi )=\xi `$ for all $`\xi _V`$, thus $`g=h`$. This proves that $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\zeta `$ is a bijection from $`G`$ to $`_V`$.

4. Since $`G`$ is a finite group, for any $`xV`$ there exists $`n_x1`$ such that $`a_{x,V}^{n_x}=e`$.

5. Adding $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{x,x}^V`$ particles at a site $`xV`$ makes the site topple, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{x,y}^V`$ particles are transferred to $`y`$. This gives

$$a_{x,V}^{\mathrm{\Delta }_{x,x}^V}=\underset{yx}{}a_{y,V}^{\mathrm{\Delta }_{x,y}^V}.$$

On $`_V`$ the $`a_{x,V}`$ can be inverted and we obtain the closure relation

$$\underset{yV}{}a_{y,V}^{\mathrm{\Delta }_{x,y}^V}=e,$$

which completely determines the one-dimensional representations of the group of addition operators, and in particular the cardinality of the latter, as obtained in \[Dhar (1990a)\].

Remark. $`_V`$ does not depend on the $`p_x`$, and does not change by going from discrete to continuous time, i.e. from (2.6) to (2.7).

The main consequence of the group property of $`G`$ is the fact that the unique stationary measure is uniform on $`_V`$.

###### Proposition 2.2

1. The measure

$$\mu _V=\underset{\eta _V}{}\frac{1}{|_V|}\delta _\eta $$
(2.8)
is invariant under the action of $`a_{x,V}`$, $`xV`$ ($`\delta _\eta `$ is the Dirac measure on configuration $`\eta `$).
2. On $`L^2(\mu _V)`$ the adjoint of $`a_{x,V}`$ is

$$a_{x,V}^{}=a_{x,V}^1.$$
(2.9)

Proof: Since $`a_{x,V}:_V_V`$ can be inverted, we have

$$\underset{\eta _V}{}f(a_{x,V}\eta )g(\eta )=\underset{\eta _V}{}f(\eta )g(a_{x,V}^1\eta ),$$

hence (2.9). By choosing $`g1`$, part 1 follows.

Remark. This shows that $`\mu _V`$ is invariant under the Markov processes generated by (2.6) and (2.7).

### 2.7 Burning Algorithm

The burning algorithm determines whether a stable configuration $`\eta \mathrm{\Omega }_V`$ is recurrent or not. It is described as follows: Pick $`\eta \mathrm{\Omega }_V`$ and erase all sites $`xV`$ satisfying the inequality

$$\eta (x)>\underset{yV,yx}{}(\mathrm{\Delta }_{x,y}^V).$$

This means “erase the set $`E_1`$ of all sites $`xV`$ with a height strictly larger than the number of neighbors of that site in $`V`$”. Iterate this procedure for the new volume $`VE_1`$, and the new matrix $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{VE_1}`$ defined by

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{x,y}^{VE_1}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{x,y}^V\text{if }x,yVE_1`$
$`=`$ $`0\text{otherwise},`$
and so on. If at the end some non-empty subset $`V_f`$ is left, $`\eta `$ satisfies, for all $`xV_f`$,

$$\eta (x)\underset{yV_f,yx}{}(\mathrm{\Delta }_{x,y}^V).$$

The restriction $`\eta |_{V_f}`$ is called a forbidden subconfiguration. If $`V_f`$ is empty, the configuration is called allowed, and the set $`𝒜_V`$ of allowed configurations satisfies

###### Proposition 2.3

$$𝒜_V=_V.$$

The main ingredient to prove this result (see \[IP (1998)\], \[Speer (1993)\]) is the fact that toppling or adding cannot create a forbidden subconfiguration. The set $`𝒜_V`$ is thus closed under the dynamics and contains the maximal configuration $`\eta _{max}`$.

Remark that the burning algorithm implies that for $`V^{}V`$, and $`\eta \mathrm{\Omega }_V`$, $`\eta _V`$, then any $`\zeta \mathrm{\Omega }_V^{}`$ such that $`\zeta |_V=\eta `$ satisfies $`\zeta _V^{}`$. Indeed, the property of having a forbidden subconfiguration in $`V_f`$ only depends on the heights at sites $`xV_f`$. Therefore $`\eta _V^{}`$ implies $`\eta |_V_V`$. This “consistency” property will enable us to define allowed configurations on infinite sets.

### 2.8 Expected Toppling Numbers

For $`x,yV`$ and $`\eta \mathrm{\Omega }_V`$, let $`n_V(x,y,\eta )`$ denote the number of topplings at site $`yV`$ by adding a grain at $`xV`$, i.e. the number of times we have to apply the operator $`T_{\mathrm{\Delta }^V}(,y)`$ to relax $`\eta ^x`$. Define

$$G_V(x,y)=\mu _V(d\eta )n_V(x,y,\eta ).$$
(2.10)
Writing down balance between inflow and outflow at site $`y`$, one obtains (cf. \[Dhar (1990a)\])

$$\underset{zV}{}\mathrm{\Delta }_{x,z}^VG_V(z,y)=\delta _{x,y},$$

which yields

$$G_V(x,y)=(\mathrm{\Delta }^V)_{x,y}^1.$$

In the limit $`VS`$ (where $`S`$ is $`\text{ }\text{}^d`$ or the infinite tree), $`G_V`$ converges to the Green’s function of the simple random walk on $`S`$.

### 2.9  Some specific results for the tree

When $`V_n`$ is a binary tree of $`n`$ generations, many explicit results have been obtained in \[DM (1990b)\]. We summarize here the results we need for the construction in infinite volume.

1. When adding a grain on a particular site $`0V_n`$ of height $`3`$, the set of toppled sites is the connected cluster $`C_3(0,\eta )`$ of sites including $`0`$ having height $`3`$. This cluster is distributed as a random animal (i.e. its distribution only depends on its cardinality, not on its form). Moreover

$$\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}\mu _{V_n}\left(|C_3(0,\eta )|=k\right)Ck^{3/2}$$
(2.11)
as $`k`$ goes to infinity. The notation $``$ means that if we multiply the left hand side of (2.11) by $`k^{3/2}`$, then the limit $`k\mathrm{}`$ is some strictly positive constant $`C`$.
2. When adding a grain on site $`x`$, the expected number of topplings at site $`y`$ satisfies

$$\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}\mu _{V_n}(d\eta )n_{V_n}(x,y,\eta )=G(x,y),$$
(2.12)
where $`G(x,y)`$ is the Green’s function of the simple random walk on the infinite tree, i.e.

$$G(0,x)=C2^{|x|},$$
(2.13)
and $`|x|`$ is the “generation number” of $`x`$ in the tree.
3. The correlations in the finite volume measures $`\mu _{V_k}`$ can be estimated in terms of the eigenvalues of a product of transfer matrices. This formalism is explained in detail in \[DM (1990b)\], section 5: Let $`f,g`$ be two local functions whose dependence sets (see below a precise definition) are separated by $`n`$ generations. To estimate the truncated correlation function

$$\mu _{V_k}(f;g)=fg𝑑\mu _{V_k}f𝑑\mu _{V_k}g𝑑\mu _{V_k},$$
(2.14)
consider the product of matrices

$$M_n^k=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}1+\gamma _i^{k,n}& 1+\gamma _i^{k,n}\\ 1& 2+\gamma _i^{k,n}\end{array}\right),$$
(2.15)
where $`\gamma _i^{k,n}[0,1]`$. Let $`\lambda _m^{n,k}`$ (resp. $`\lambda _M^{n,k}`$) denote the smallest (resp. largest) eigenvalue of $`M_n^k`$. Then

$$\mu _{V_k}(f;g)C(f,g)\frac{\lambda _m^{n,k}}{\lambda _M^{n,k}}.$$
(2.16)
If $`f`$ and $`g`$ have dependence sets “deep within” $`V_k`$, then $`\gamma _i^{k,n}`$ is very close to one, and the correlations are governed by the maximal and minimal eigenvalues of $`M_n=\left(\begin{array}{cc}2& 2\\ 1& 3\end{array}\right)^n`$.

## 3 Main results

### 3.1 Notation, definitions

From now on, $`S`$ denotes the infinite rootless binary tree, $`VS`$ a finite subset of $`S`$; $`\mathrm{\Omega }_V`$ is the set of stable configurations in $`V`$, i.e. $`\mathrm{\Omega }_V=\{\eta :V\{1,2,3\}\}`$, and the set of all infinite volume stable configurations is $`\mathrm{\Omega }=\{1,2,3\}^S`$. The set $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is endowed with the product topology, making it into a compact metric space. For $`\eta \mathrm{\Omega }`$, $`\eta |_V`$ is its restriction to $`V`$, and for $`\eta ,\zeta \mathrm{\Omega }`$, $`\eta _V\zeta _{V^c}`$ denotes the configuration whose restriction to $`V`$ (resp. $`V^c`$) coincides with $`\eta |_V`$ (resp. $`\zeta |_{V^c}`$). As in the previous section, $`_V\mathrm{\Omega }_V`$ is the set of all allowed (or recurrent) configurations in $`V`$, and we define

$$=\{\eta \mathrm{\Omega }:VS\text{finite,}\eta |_V_V\}.$$
(3.17)
A function $`f:\mathrm{\Omega }\text{I}\text{R}`$ is local if there is a finite $`VS`$ such that $`\eta |_V=\zeta |_V`$ implies $`f(\eta )=f(\zeta )`$. The minimal (in the sense of set ordering) such $`V`$ is called dependence set of $`f`$ and is denoted by $`D_f`$. A local function can be seen as a function on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_V`$ for all $`VD_f`$ and every function on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_V`$ can be seen as a local function on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. The set $``$ of all local functions is uniformly dense in the set $`𝒞(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ of all continuous functions on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$.

All along the paper, we use the following notion of limit by inclusion for a function $`f`$ on the finite subsets of the tree with values in a metric space $`(K,d)`$:

###### Definition 3.1

Let $`𝒮=\{VS,V\text{finite}\}`$, and $`f:𝒮(K,d)`$. Then

$$\underset{VS}{lim}f(V)=\kappa $$

if for all $`ϵ>0`$, there exists $`V_0S`$ such that for all $`VV_0`$, $`d(f(V),\kappa )<ϵ`$.

###### Definition 3.2

A collection of probability measures $`\nu _V`$ on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_V`$ is a Cauchy net if for any local $`f`$ and for any $`ϵ>0`$ there exists $`V_0D_f`$ such that for any $`V,V^{}V_0`$

$$|f(\eta )\nu _V(d\eta )f(\eta )\nu _V^{}(d\eta )|ϵ.$$

A Cauchy net converges to a probability measure $`\nu `$ in the following sense: The mapping

$$\mathrm{\Psi }:\text{I}\text{R};f\mathrm{\Psi }(f)=\underset{VS}{lim}f𝑑\nu _V$$

defines a continuous linear functional on $``$ (hence on $`𝒞(\mathrm{\Omega })`$) which satisfies $`\mathrm{\Psi }(f)0`$ for $`f0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }(1)=1`$. Thus by Riesz representation theorem there exists a unique probability measure on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Psi }(f)=f𝑑\nu `$. We denote $`\nu _V\nu `$, and call this $`\nu `$ the infinite volume limit of $`\nu _V`$.

We will also often consider an enumeration of the tree $`S`$, $`\{x_0,x_1,\mathrm{},x_n,\mathrm{}\}`$, and put

$$T_n=\{x_0,\mathrm{},x_n\}.$$
(3.18)
### 3.2  Thermodynamic limit of stationary measures

###### Theorem 3.1

The set $``$ defined in (3.17) is an uncountable perfect set, i.e.

1. $``$ is compact,
2. The interior of $``$ is empty,
3. For all $`\eta `$ there exists a sequence $`\eta _n\eta `$, $`\eta _n`$, converging to $`\eta `$.

For $`\eta \mathrm{\Omega }`$, we denote by $`C_3(0,\eta )`$ the nearest neighbor connected cluster of sites containing the origin and having height 3.

###### Theorem 3.2

The finite volume stationary measures $`\mu _V`$ defined in (2.8) form a Cauchy net. Their infinite volume limit $`\mu `$ satisfies

1. $`\mu ()=1`$,
2. $`\mu `$ is translation invariant and exponentially mixing,
3. $`\mu (\eta :|C_3(0,\eta )|<\mathrm{})=1`$,
4. $`|C_3(0,\eta )|\mu (d\eta )=\mathrm{}`$.

Remark: Point 3. above remains true for the set $`C_1(0,\eta )`$, the nearest neighbor connected cluster of sites containing the origin and having height 1, and probably also for $`C_2(0,\eta )`$ but this we have not been able to prove.

### 3.3 Infinite volume dynamics

The finite volume addition operators $`a_{x,V}`$ (cf. (2.5)) can be extended to $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ via

$$a_{x,V}:\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Omega };\eta a_{x,V}\eta =(a_{x,V}\eta |_V)_V\eta _{V^c}.$$
(3.19)
###### Proposition 3.1

1. There exists a subset $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$ of $``$ with $`\mu (\mathrm{\Omega }^{})=1`$ on which the limit

$$\underset{VS}{lim}a_{x,V}\eta =a_x\eta $$
(3.20)
exists, and $`a_x\eta \mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$.
2. The measure $`\mu `$ of theorem 3.2 is invariant under the action of $`a_x`$.
3. For every $`\eta \mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$, $`a_x(a_y\eta )=a_y(a_x\eta )`$, for all $`x,yS`$.

Part 2 implies that the infinite volume addition operators $`a_x`$ (cf. (3.20)) define norm 1 operators on $`L^p(\mu )`$, for $`1p\mathrm{}`$ via

$$(a_xf)(\eta )=f(a_x\eta ).$$

We now construct a Markov process on $`\mu `$-typical infinite volume configurations which can be described intuitively as follows. Let $`\phi :S(0,\mathrm{})`$; this function will be the addition rate function. To each site $`xS`$ we associate a Poisson proces $`N_\phi ^{t,x}`$ (for different sites these Poisson processes are mutually independent) with rate $`\phi (x)`$. At the event times of $`N_\phi ^{t,x}`$ we “add a grain” at $`x`$, i.e. we apply the addition operator $`a_x`$ to the configuration. Then $`L_V^\phi `$ introduced in (2.7) generates a pure jump Markov process on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Indeed, this operator is well-defined and bounded on any $`L^p(\mu )`$ space by Proposition 3.1, which implies

###### Proposition 3.2

$`L_V^\phi `$ is the $`L^p(\mu )`$ generator of the stationary Markov process defined by

$$\mathrm{exp}(tL_V^\phi )f=\left(\underset{xV}{}a_x^{N_\phi ^{t,x}}f\right)𝑑\text{I}\text{P},$$

where IP denotes the joint distribution of the independent Poisson processes $`N_\phi ^{t,x}`$, and $`fL^p(\mu )`$.

The following condition on the addition rate $`\phi `$ is crucial in our construction. Remember $`|x|`$ is the generation number of $`x`$:

$$\text{Summability Condition:}\underset{xS}{}\phi (x)2^{|x|}<\mathrm{}$$
(3.21)
This condition ensures that the number of topplings at any site $`xS`$ remains finite during the addition process.

###### Theorem 3.3

If $`\phi `$ satisfies condition (3.21), then we have

1. The semigroups $`S_V^\phi (t)=\mathrm{exp}(tL_V^\phi )`$ converge strongly in $`L^1(\mu )`$ to a semigroup $`S_\phi (t)`$.
2. $`S_\phi (t)`$ is the $`L^1(\mu )`$ semigroup of a stationary Markov process $`\{\eta _t:t0\}`$ on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$.
3. For any $`f`$,

$$\underset{t0}{lim}\frac{S_\phi (t)ff}{t}=L^\phi f=\underset{xS}{}\phi (x)[a_xff],$$

where the limit is taken in $`L^1(\mu )`$.

Remarks.
1. In Proposition 4.1, we show that $`S_\phi (t)`$ is a strongly continuous function of $`\phi `$.

2. In Proposition 4.2, we show that condition (3.21) is in some sense optimal.

###### Theorem 3.4

The process $`\{\eta _t:t0\}`$ of Theorem 3.3 admits a cadlag version (right-continuous with left limits).

The intuitive description of the process $`\{\eta _t:t0\}`$ is actually correct under condition (3.21), i.e. the process has a representation in terms of Poisson processes:

###### Theorem 3.5

If $`\phi `$ satisfies condition (3.21), for $`\mu \times \text{I}\text{P}`$ almost every $`(\eta ,\omega )`$ the limit

$$\underset{VS}{lim}\underset{xV}{}a_x^{N_\phi ^{t,x}(\omega )}\eta =\eta _t$$

exists. The process $`\{\eta _t:t0\}`$ is a version of the process of Theorem 3.3, i.e. its $`L^1(\mu )`$ semigroup coincides with $`S_\phi (t)`$.

Finally, we can slightly generalize Theorem 3.5 in order to define the dynamics starting from a measure stochastically below $`\mu `$. For $`\eta ,\zeta \mathrm{\Omega }`$, $`\eta \zeta `$ if for all $`xS`$, $`\eta (x)\zeta (x)`$. A function $`f:\mathrm{\Omega }\text{I}\text{R}`$ is monotone if $`\eta \zeta `$ implies $`f(\eta )f(\zeta )`$. Two probability measures $`\mu `$ and $`\nu `$ satisfy $`\mu \nu `$ if for all monotone functions, $`f𝑑\mu f𝑑\nu `$.

###### Theorem 3.6

Let $`\mu ^{}\mu `$. If $`\phi `$ satisfies condition (3.21), for $`\mu ^{}\times \text{I}\text{P}`$ almost every $`(\eta ,\omega )`$ the limit

$$\underset{VS}{lim}\underset{xV}{}a_x^{N_\phi ^{t,x}(\omega )}\eta =\eta _t$$

exists. The process $`\{\eta _t:t0\}`$ is Markovian with $`\eta _0`$ distributed according to $`\mu ^{}`$.

Remark. The last Theorem implies that $`\eta 1`$ can be taken as initial configuration.

## 4 Proofs

This section is devoted to the proofs of the results described above. Some of them will be put in a slightly more general framework so that they can be applied to other cases (where $`S`$ is not a binary tree or where we have other addition operators $`a_x`$) as soon as the existence of a thermodynamic limit of the finite volume stationary measures is guaranteed. The essential cause of difficulty is the non-locality of the addition operators. The essential simplification is the abelian property which enables us to think of the $`a_x`$ as complex numbers of modulus one.

### 4.1  Thermodynamic limit of stationary measures

Proof of Theorem 3.1:
1,2. If $`\eta `$ and $`\zeta \eta `$, then $`\zeta `$ (by the burning algorithm $`\zeta |_V\eta |_V`$ implies that $`\zeta |_V_V`$). Since $`\eta 2`$ is in $``$ (again by the burning algorithm), we conclude that $``$ is uncountable. To see that $``$ has empty interior, notice that if $`\eta `$, there does not exist $`x,yS`$ nearest neighbors such that $`\eta (x)=\eta (y)=1`$ (that way, $`\eta |_{\{x,y\}}`$ would be a forbidden subconfiguration). Finally $``$ is closed as intersection of closed sets.

3. Let $`\eta _{max}`$ be the maximal configuration, $`\eta _{max}(x)=3`$ for all $`xS`$. If $`\eta |_V_V`$, then $`\eta _V(\eta _{max})_{V^c}`$. Therefore any $`\eta `$ containing an infinite number of sites $`x`$ for which $`\eta (x)3`$ has property 3 of Theorem 3.1. If $`\eta `$ contains only a finite number of sites having height $`1`$ or 2, then we choose a sequence $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=\{x_n:n\text{I}\text{N}\}\{xS:\eta (x)=3\text{and}\eta (y)=3\text{for any neighbor of}x\}`$ such that two elements of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ are never nearest neighbors, and $`|x_n|`$ is strictly increasing in $`n`$. We then define $`\eta _n(x)=\eta (x)`$ for $`xS\{x_k\mathrm{\Sigma }:0kn\}`$ and $`\eta _n(x_k)=2`$ for $`x_k\mathrm{\Sigma },kn+1`$. These $`\eta _n`$ belong to $``$ by the burning algorithm, and $`\eta _n\eta `$.

Proof of Theorem 3.2:

We use $`T_n`$ introduced in (3.18), but with the $`x_i`$ such that $`nm`$ implies that the generation numbers satisfy $`|x_n||x_m|`$. Then we have

$$|x_n|\mathrm{log}_2n.$$
(4.22)
To prove that the probability measures $`\mu _V`$ form a Cauchy net, it is sufficient to show that for any local function $`f:\mathrm{\Omega }\text{I}\text{R}`$ we have

$$\underset{n}{}|f𝑑\mu _{T_n}fd\mu _{T_{n+1}}|<\mathrm{}.$$
(4.23)
We do it for $`f(\eta )=\eta (x_0)`$ (a general local function can be treated in the same way), by giving an upper bound of the difference $`f𝑑\mu _{T_n}f𝑑\mu _{T_{n+1}}`$ by a truncated correlation function (cf. (2.14)). Then we estimate the latter by the transfer matrix method (cf. Section 2.9, part 3). We abbreviate in what follows $`\mu _n=\mu _{T_n}`$, $`_n=_{T_n}`$.

###### Lemma 4.1

$$|\mu _{n+1}[\eta (x_0)]\mu _n[\eta (x_0)]|C\mu _{n+1}[\eta (x_0);I(\eta (x_{n+1})=3)]$$

Proof: By the burning algorithm, every $`\eta _n`$ can be extended to an element of $`_{n+1}`$ by putting $`\eta (x_{n+1})=3`$. Moreover

$$\{\eta |_{T_n}:\eta _{n+1},\eta (x_{n+1})=3\}=_n,$$

thus

$$\mu _{n+1}[\eta (x_{n+1})=3]=\frac{|_n|}{|_{n+1}|},$$
(4.24)
which yields

$`\mu _n(\eta (x_0))`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\eta _n}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{|_n|}}\eta (x_0)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\eta _{n+1}}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{|_{n+1}|}}\eta (x_0)I(\eta (x_{n+1}=3){\displaystyle \frac{|_{n+1}|}{|_n|}}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\eta _{n+1}}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{|_{n+1}|}}\eta (x_0)I(\eta (x_{n+1})=3){\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mu _{n+1}[\eta (x_{n+1})=3]}}.`$
Therefore

$$|\mu _{n+1}(\eta (x_0))\mu _n(\eta (x_0))|\frac{\mu _{n+1}[\eta (x_0);I(\eta (x_{n+1})=3)]}{\mu _{n+1}[\eta (x_n+1)=3]}$$

The Lemma follows now from (4.24), and the fact that $`|_n|`$ grows like $`e^{cn}`$ for some $`c\mathrm{log}2`$.

Recalling Section 2.9, part 3, we have

$$\mu _n[\eta (x_0);I(\eta (x_n)=3)]C\frac{\lambda _m^{|x_n|,|x_n|}}{\lambda _M^{|x_n|,|x_n|}}$$
(4.25)
###### Lemma 4.2

$$\underset{n=1}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{\lambda _m^{|x_n|,|x_n|}}{\lambda _M^{|x_n|,|x_n|}}<+\mathrm{}$$

Proof: We abbreviate $`\lambda _m^{(n)}=\lambda _m^{|x_n|,|x_n|},\lambda _M^{(n)}=\lambda _M^{|x_n|,|x_n|},M(n)=M_{|x_n|}^n,\gamma _i=\gamma _i^{|x_n|,|x_n|}`$. Remember $`0\gamma _i^{|x_n|,|x_n|}1`$ is close to one for $`in`$ and $`n`$ large. In terms of the trace and the determinant of $`M(n)`$ we have

$`\lambda _M^{(n)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\text{Tr}(M(n))+\sqrt{[\text{Tr}(M(n))]^24\text{det}(M(n))}\right)`$
$`\lambda _m^{(n)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\text{Tr}(M(n))\sqrt{[\text{Tr}(M(n))]^24\text{det}(M(n))}\right).`$
Therefore,

$$\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}\left(\frac{\lambda _m^{(n)}}{\lambda _M^{(n)}}\right)\left(\frac{[\text{Tr}(M(n))]^2}{\text{det}(M(n))}\right)=1.$$

To prove the Lemma we show that (cf. (4.22))

$$\left(\frac{\text{det}(M(n))}{[\text{Tr}(M(n))]^2}\right)(\frac{4}{9})^{|x_n|}.$$
(4.26)
Use

$$\text{det}(M(n))=\underset{i=1}{\overset{|x_n|}{}}(1+\gamma _i)^2,$$

and

$`\text{Tr}(M(n))`$ $``$ $`\text{Tr}\left({\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{|x_n|}{}}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}1+\gamma _i& 0\\ 0& 2+\gamma _i\end{array}\right)\right)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{|x_n|}{}}}(1+\gamma _i)+{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{|x_n|}{}}}(2+\gamma _i),`$
to estimate (for $`1i|x_n|,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}(2+\gamma _i)3(1+\gamma _i)`$)

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\text{det}(M(n))}{[\text{Tr}(M(n))]^2}}\right)`$ $``$ $`\left(1+2{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{|x_n|}{}}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{2+\gamma _i}{1+\gamma _i}}\right]+{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{|x_n|}{}}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{2+\gamma _i}{1+\gamma _i}}\right]^2\right)^1`$
$``$ $`(1+2.(3/2)^{|x_n|}+(3/2)^{2|x_n|})^1`$
$``$ $`(4/9)^{|x_n|}.`$
For a general local function $`f`$, we have to replace $`|x_n|`$ by $`|x_n|N_0`$, where $`N_0`$ is the number of generations involved in the dependence set of $`f`$. Since $`f`$ is local, $`N_0`$ is finite, hence the convergence in (4.23) is unaffected.

### 4.2 Infinite volume toppling operators

###### Definition 4.1

Given the finite volume addition operators $`a_{x,V}`$ (defined in (3.19)) acting on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, we call a configuration $`\eta \mathrm{\Omega }`$ normal if for every $`xS`$ there exists a minimal finite set $`V_x(\eta )S`$ such that for all $`V^{}VV_x(\eta )`$

$$a_{x,V^{}}\eta =a_{x,V}\eta .$$

In other words, for a normal $`\eta `$, outside $`V_x(\eta )`$, no sites are affected by adding a grain at $`x`$. In our case, when a particle is added at some site $`xS`$, the cluster of toppled sites coincides with the cluster $`C_3(x,\eta )`$ of sites having height $`3`$ including $`x`$, thus

$$V_x(\eta )=C_3(x,\eta )_eC_3(x,\eta ),$$
(4.28)
where $`_e`$ denotes the exterior boundary. Notice that for a normal configuration $`\eta `$, by definition,

$$a_x(\eta )=\underset{VS}{lim}a_{x,V}(\eta )=a_{x,V_x(\eta )}(\eta )$$
(4.29)
Proof of Proposition 3.1:
1. We show that there is a full measure set $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$ of normal configurations. From (2.11) and Theorem 3.2,

$$I(|C_3(x,\eta )|=n)𝑑\mu Cn^{3/2}.$$

Therefore $`\mu `$ concentrates on the set $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$ of configurations for which all the clusters $`C_3(x,\eta )`$ are finite, hence for which $`\eta `$ is normal. Moreover this set $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$ is closed under the action of the addition operators $`a_y`$, since (cf. (4.28))

$$C_3(x,a_y\eta )V_x(\eta )V_y(\eta ).$$
(4.30)
2. Choose $`ϵ>0`$, pick a local function $`f`$, fix $`V_nS`$ and $`n_0`$ such that $`nn_0`$ implies

$$\mu \{\eta \mathrm{\Omega }:V_x(\eta )V_n\}\frac{ϵ}{4f_{\mathrm{}}+1}.$$
(4.31)
This $`n_0`$ exists since $`\mu `$ concentrates on normal configurations. We estimate

$`\left|{\displaystyle f(a_x\eta )𝑑\mu }f(\eta )d\mu \right|`$ $``$ $`\left|{\displaystyle f(a_{x,V_n}\eta )𝑑\mu }{\displaystyle f(\eta )𝑑\mu }\right|`$
$`+`$ $`2f_{\mathrm{}}\mu \{\eta \mathrm{\Omega }:V_x(\eta )V_n\}`$
$``$ $`\underset{m}{lim}\left|{\displaystyle f(a_{x,V_n}\eta )𝑑\mu _{V_m}}{\displaystyle f(\eta )𝑑\mu _{V_m}}\right|+{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ}{2}}`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ}{2}}+2f_{\mathrm{}}\underset{m}{lim}\mu _{V_m}\left(a_{x,V_n}(\eta )a_{x,V_m}(\eta )\right)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ}{2}}+2f_{\mathrm{}}\left(1\underset{m}{lim}\mu _{V_m}(V_x(\eta )V_n)\right)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ}{2}}+2f_{\mathrm{}}\left(1\mu (V_x(\eta )V_n)\right)ϵ.`$
In the last step we used that the indicator $`I(V_x(\eta )V_n)`$ is a local function.

3. Let $`\eta \mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$, $`x,yS`$ be two different sites and $`VV_x(\eta )V_x(a_x\eta )V_x(a_y\eta )`$. Since $`a_{x,V}`$ and $`a_{y,V}`$ commute, we have

$`a_x(a_y\eta )=a_x(a_{y,V}\eta )=a_{x,V}(a_{y,V}\eta )`$
$`=`$ $`a_{y,V}(a_{x,V}\eta )=a_{y,V}(a_x\eta )=a_y(a_x\eta ).`$
### 4.3 Infinite volume semigroup

We now turn to the proofs of Theorems 3.3 and 3.4.

###### Definition 4.2

We define the cluster of $`\eta \mathrm{\Omega }`$ at $`xS`$ as

$$𝒞(x,\eta )=\{yS:a_y\eta (x)\eta (x)\},$$
(4.32)
and put

$$G_\mu (x,y)=I(y𝒞(x,\eta ))𝑑\mu (\eta ).$$
(4.33)
Finally for $`\phi :S[0,\mathrm{})`$, write

$$f_\phi =\underset{xS}{}\phi (x)\mu (d\eta )|f(a_x\eta )f(\eta )|,$$

$$_\phi =\{f:\mathrm{\Omega }\text{I}\text{R}:f\text{bounded},f_\phi <\mathrm{}\}.$$

###### Lemma 4.3

If

$$\underset{xS}{}\phi (x)G_\mu (y,x)<\mathrm{}\text{for all}yS,$$
(4.34)
then all local functions are in $`_\phi `$.

Proof: Let $`f`$ be a local function with dependence set $`D_f`$. Then $`f(a_x\eta )f(\eta )`$ if for $`yD_f`$, $`a_x\eta (y)\eta (y)`$, i.e. $`x𝒞(y,\eta )`$:

$`f_\phi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{xS}{}}\phi (x){\displaystyle |a_xff|𝑑\mu }`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{x_{yD_f}𝒞(y,\eta )}{}\phi (x)|a_xff|d\mu }`$
$``$ $`2f_{\mathrm{}}{\displaystyle \underset{xS}{}}\phi (x){\displaystyle I(x_{yD_f}𝒞(y,\eta ))𝑑\mu }`$
$``$ $`2f_{\mathrm{}}{\displaystyle \underset{yD_f}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{xS}{}}G_\mu (y,x)\phi (x)<\mathrm{}.`$
The next lemma provides a link between $`G_\mu `$ and the Green’s function for simple random walk on $`S`$, i.e., between conditions (4.34) and (3.21).

###### Lemma 4.4

$$G_\mu (x,y)\underset{zx}{}G(y,z)=\delta _{x,y}+3G(x,y),$$

where $`zx`$ means that $`z`$ and $`x`$ are neighbors.

Proof: We have to estimate the probability that $`a_x\eta (y)\eta (y)`$. If by adding a grain at $`x`$ we influence $`y`$, this can only be achieved by the toppling of one of the nearest neighbor sites of $`y`$. Since $`\mu `$ concentrates on normal configurations,

$`\mu \left(a_x\eta (y)\eta (y)\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\underset{VS}{lim}\mu \left(a_x\eta (y)\eta (y),V_x(\eta )V_y(\eta )V\right)`$ (4.35)
$`=`$ $`\underset{VS}{lim}\underset{WS}{lim}\mu _W\left(a_{x,V}\eta (y)\eta (y),V_x(\eta )V_y(\eta )V\right)`$
$`=`$ $`\underset{VS}{lim}\underset{WS}{lim}\mu _W\left(a_{x,W}\eta (y)\eta (y),V_x(\eta )V_y(\eta )V\right)`$
$``$ $`\underset{WS}{lim}\mu _W\left(a_{x,W}\eta (y)\eta (y)\right)`$
$``$ $`\underset{WS}{lim}\mu _W\left(zW,zy,n_W(z,y,\eta )1\right)`$
$``$ $`\underset{WS}{lim}{\displaystyle \underset{zy}{}}{\displaystyle 𝑑\mu _W(\eta )n_W(z,y,\eta )}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{zy}{}}G(z,y),`$
where we used (2.10),(2.12), (4.28) and (4.30).

The following Lemma finishes the proof of Theorem 3.3 and shows that $`_\phi `$ is a natural core for the domain of the generator of the infinite volume semigroup.

###### Lemma 4.5

1. For $`f_\phi `$ the net

$$S_V^\phi (t)f=\mathrm{exp}(tL_V^\phi )f=\mathrm{exp}\left(t\underset{xV}{}\phi (x)(a_xI)\right)f$$
(4.36)
converges in $`L^1(\mu )`$ (as $`VS`$) to a function $`S_\phi (t)fL^1(\mu )`$. $`fS_\phi (t)f`$ defines a semigroup on $`_\phi `$ which is a contraction in both $`L^1(\mu )`$ and $`_\phi `$ norms.
2. Under condition (4.34), the semigroup $`S_\phi (t)`$ corresponds to a unique Markov process on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$.

Proof: We denote by $`f`$ the $`L^1(\mu )`$-norm of $`f`$, and we abbreviate $`S_V(t)=S_V^\phi (t),S(t)=S^\phi (t),L_V=L_V^\phi `$.

1. First note that $`S_V(t)`$ is well-defined on $`L^1(\mu )`$ by Proposition 3.2. By the abelian property (Proposition 3.1, part 3) we can write for $`VV^{}S`$:

$$S_V(t)fS_V^{}(t)f=(S_{V^{}V}(t)I)S_V(t)f$$

By Proposition 3.2, $`S_V(t)`$ is the semigroup of a stationary Markov process and hence a contraction on $`L^1(\mu )`$. Therefore

$`S_V(t)(S_{V^{}V}(t)I)f(S_{V^{}V}(t)I)f`$ (4.37)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^t}L_{V^{}V}S_{V^{}V}(s)f𝑑s`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle _0^t}L_{V^{}V}f𝑑s`$
$``$ $`t{\displaystyle \underset{xV^{}V}{}}\phi (x){\displaystyle |(a_xI)f|𝑑\mu }0\text{as}V,V^{}S,`$
where the last step follows from $`f_\phi `$. Hence $`S_V(t)fS(t)f`$ in $`L^1(\mu )`$. We show that $`S(t)f_\phi `$:

$`{\displaystyle \underset{xS}{}}\phi (x){\displaystyle |S(t)f(a_x\eta )S(t)f(\eta )|\mu (d\eta )}`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{xS}{}}\phi (x){\displaystyle S(t)|a_xff|𝑑\mu }`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{xS}{}\phi (x)|a_xff|d\mu }=f_\phi .`$
Thus $`S(t)`$ is also a contraction for the $`_\phi `$-norm. We finish with the semigroup property:

$`S(t)S(s)f`$ $`=`$ $`\underset{VS}{lim}S_V(t)[S(s)f]`$
$`=`$ $`\underset{VS}{lim}\underset{WS}{lim}S_V(t)S_W(t)f,`$
and

$$S(t+s)f=\underset{VS}{lim}S_V(t)S_V(s)f.$$

Then, since $`S_V(t)`$ is a contraction in $`L^1(\mu )`$,

$$S_V(t)S_W(t)fS_V(t)S_V(s)fS_W(s)fS_V(s)f,$$
(4.38)
By (4.37), the right hand side of (4.38) goes to zero as $`V,WS`$.

2. If condition (4.34) is met, then $`_\phi `$ contains all local functions by Lemma 4.3. Therefore, by contractivity the semigroup $`S(t)`$ on $`_\phi `$ uniquely extends to a semigroup of contractions on $`L^1(\mu )`$. Since by Proposition 3.2, $`S_V(t)`$ is a Markov semigroup, so is $`S(t)`$, i.e. $`S(t)1=1`$, $`S(t)f0`$ if $`f0`$. Hence, by Kolmogorov’s theorem there is a unique Markov process with semigroup $`S(t)`$.

Remark. When $`\phi 1`$, condition (4.34) is equivalent to

$$\underset{xS}{}\mu (d\eta )I(x𝒞(y,\eta ))=|𝒞(y,\eta )|\mu (d\eta )<+\mathrm{},$$

i.e., the clusters must be integrable under $`\mu `$. For models which exhibit “self-organized criticality”, $`𝒞(y,\eta )`$ is usually a “finite but critical percolation cluster”, implying that $`|𝒞(y,\eta )|𝑑\mu =\mathrm{}`$ (cf. Theorem 3.2 part 4, because $`𝒞(y,\eta )_eC_3(y,\eta )`$). Therefore this formalism breaks down for addition rate $`\phi 1`$.

The following Lemma proves Theorem 3.4.

###### Lemma 4.6

Under condition (4.34), the process $`\{\eta _t:t0\}`$ of Theorem 3.3 is almost surely right-continuous, i.e.

$$\text{I}\text{P}_\mu \left[\underset{t0}{lim}d(\eta _t,\eta _0)ϵ\right]=0,$$
(4.39)
where $`\text{I}\text{P}_\mu `$ is its path-space measure, and the distance $`d`$ is defined below (in (4.42)).

Proof: Pick a function $`\mathrm{\Psi }:S(0,1)`$ such that

$$\underset{xS}{}\mathrm{\Psi }(x)=1,$$
(4.40)
and

$$\underset{x,yS}{}\phi (x)G_\mu (x,y)\mathrm{\Psi }(y)<\mathrm{}$$
(4.41)
The distance

$$d(\eta ,\zeta )=\underset{xS}{}|\eta (x)\zeta (x)|\mathrm{\Psi }(x)$$
(4.42)
generates the product topology. Denote by $`\text{I}\text{E}_\mu `$ the expectation w.r.t. $`\text{I}\text{P}_\mu `$. For $`f_y(\eta )=\eta (y)`$,

$$f_y(\eta _t)f_y(\eta _0)=_0^tL^\phi f_y(\eta _s)𝑑s+M_t^y,$$

where $`M_t^y`$ is a centered martingale with quadratic variation

$$\text{I}\text{E}_\mu \left[(M_t^y)^2\right]=\text{I}\text{E}_\mu \left[_0^t(L^\phi f_y^2(\eta _s)2f_y(\eta _s)L^\phi f_y(\eta _s))𝑑s\right].$$
(4.43)
Using stationarity of $`\eta _s`$ and

$$𝑑\mu |L^\phi g|2g_{\mathrm{}}\underset{xS}{}\underset{yD_g}{}\phi (x)G_\mu (y,x),$$

for a local bounded function on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, we obtain from (4.43)

$$\text{I}\text{E}_\mu \left[(M_t^y)^2\right]Ct\underset{xS}{}\phi (x)G_\mu (y,x).$$

Now we can estimate

$`\text{I}\text{P}_\mu [st:{\displaystyle \underset{yS}{}}|\eta _s(y)\eta _0(y)|\mathrm{\Psi }(y)ϵ]`$
$``$ $`\text{I}\text{P}_\mu \left[{\displaystyle _0^t}𝑑s{\displaystyle \underset{yS}{}}|L^\phi f_y(\eta _s)|\mathrm{\Psi }(y)ϵ/2\right]+\text{I}\text{P}_\mu \left[\underset{0st}{sup}\left|{\displaystyle \underset{yS}{}}M_s^y\mathrm{\Psi }(y)\right|ϵ/2\right]`$
$``$ $`(12t/ϵ){\displaystyle \underset{x,yS}{}}\phi (x)G_\mu (y,x)\mathrm{\Psi }(y)+(2/ϵ)^2\text{I}\text{E}_\mu \left|{\displaystyle \underset{yS}{}}M_t^y\mathrm{\Psi }(y)\right|^2`$
$``$ $`(12t/ϵ){\displaystyle \underset{x,yS}{}}\phi (x)G_\mu (y,x)\mathrm{\Psi }(y)+(2/ϵ)^2\text{I}\text{E}_\mu \left[{\displaystyle \underset{yS}{}}(M_t^y)^2\mathrm{\Psi }(y)\right]`$
$``$ $`tC_ϵ{\displaystyle \underset{x,yS}{}}\phi (x)G_\mu (y,x)\mathrm{\Psi }(y).`$
Here we used Markov’s and Doob’s inequalities in the second step and the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality combined with (4.40) in the third step. The result (4.39) follows.

### 4.4 Poisson representation

In this section we prove Theorems 3.5 and 3.6. Intuitively it is clear from the abelian property that the process of which we showed existence in the previous subsection can be represented as $`_{xS}a_x^{N_\phi ^{t,x}}\eta `$, where $`N_\phi ^{t,x}`$ are independent Poisson processes of intensity $`\phi (x)`$.

We take $`T_n`$ as in (3.18). We say that the product $`_{xS}a_x^{n_x}\eta `$ exists if for every $`yS`$ there exists $`N_y`$ such that for all $`m,nN_y`$

$$\left|\left[\underset{xT_n}{}a_x^{n_x}\eta \right](y)\left[\underset{xT_m}{}a_x^{n_x}\eta \right](y)\right|=0.$$

This is equivalent to the convergence of the sequence $`_{xT_n}a_x^{n_x}\eta `$ in the product topology.

###### Lemma 4.7

Under condition (4.34), the product

$$\underset{xS}{}a_x^{N_\phi ^{t,x}}\eta =\stackrel{~}{\eta }_t$$

exists for $`\mu `$-almost every realization of $`N_\phi ^{t,x}`$ and almost every $`\eta `$. The process $`\{\stackrel{~}{\eta }_t:t0\}`$ is a version of the Markov process of Lemma 4.5.

Proof: Choose a realization of $`N_\phi ^{t,x}`$ such that

$$\underset{xS}{}N_\phi ^{t,x}G_\mu (x,y)<\mathrm{}$$
(4.44)
for every $`y`$. This happens with probability one by condition (4.34). Define for $`\eta \mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$

$$\eta _{T_n}(t)=\underset{xT_n}{}a_x^{N_\phi ^{t,x}}\eta .$$
(4.45)
Under $`\mu `$, $`\eta _{T_n}(t)`$ is stationary in $`n`$ and $`t`$. We have

$`\mu \left[\left|(\eta _{T_n}(t))(y)(\eta _{T_{n+1}}(t))(y)\right|1\right]`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \left|\left[a_{x_{n+1}}^{N_\phi ^{t,x_{n+1}}}\eta _{T_n}(t)\right](y)(\eta _{T_n}(t))(y)\right|\mu (d\eta )}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \left|\left[a_{x_{n+1}}^{N_\phi ^{t,x_{n+1}}}\eta \right](y)\eta (y)\right|\mu (d\eta )}`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N_\phi ^{t,x_{n+1}}}{}}\left|\left[a_{x_{n+1}}^j\eta \right](y)\left[a_{x_{n+1}}^{j1}\eta \right](y)\right|\mu (d\eta )}`$
$``$ $`6N_\phi ^{t,x_{n+1}}G_\mu (x_{n+1},y).`$
In the second and last steps we used the invariance of $`\mu `$ under $`a_x`$. By the Borel Cantelli Lemma, (4.44) implies that for almost every realization of $`N_\phi ^{t,x}`$

$$\mu [n_0:nn_0(\eta _{T_n}(t))(y)=(\eta _{T_{n_0}}(t))(y)]=1.$$

This proves $`\mu `$-a.s. convergence of the product. To see that $`\stackrel{~}{\eta }_t`$ is a version of the Markov process with semigroup $`S_\phi (t)`$, combine Proposition 3.2 with Theorem 3.3, part 1 to get, for any local function $`f`$,

$$𝑑\mu \left|𝑑\text{I}\text{P}f(\stackrel{~}{\eta }_t)S_\phi (t)f\right|=0.$$

In the preceding argument we used a particular enumeration of the countable set $`S`$. But changing it gives again a process with semigroup $`S_\phi (t)`$. Therefore the limiting process will not depend (up to sets of measure zero) on the chosen enumeration of $`S`$.

Proof of Theorem 3.6:
For $`\eta \mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$ and $`yS`$ we have the relation (remember (4.45))

$$\eta _V(t)(y)=\eta (y)+I(yV)\underset{xV}{}N_\phi ^{t,x}\mathrm{\Delta }n_V^t(y),$$
(4.46)
where $`n_V^t(x)`$, an integer valued random variable, is the number of topplings at site $`x`$ in the time interval $`[0,t]`$, when sand is added in $`V`$. For $`T_n`$ defined in (3.18) we will first prove that $`n_{T_n}^t`$ increases $`\mu \times \text{I}\text{P}`$ almost surely to an $`L^1(\mu \times \text{I}\text{P})`$ random variable $`n^t`$, interpreted as the number of topplings in $`[0,t]`$ when we add grains according to $`N_\phi ^{t,x}`$. By the abelian property the sequence $`n_{T_k}^t(0)`$ is increasing in $`k`$. The following estimate is similar to (4.35)

$`(\mu \times \text{I}\text{P})`$ $`(`$ $`|n_{T_k}^t(0)n_{T_{k+1}}^t(0)|ϵ)=(\mu \times \text{I}\text{P})(n_{x_{k+1}}^t(0)ϵ)`$ (4.47)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ}}{\displaystyle n_{x_{k+1}}^t(0)\mu (d\eta )\times \text{I}\text{P}(d\omega )}`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ}}\underset{VS}{lim}{\displaystyle n_{x_{k+1}}^t(0)I(V_{x_{k+1}}(\eta )V_0(\eta )V)\mu (d\eta )\times \text{I}\text{P}(d\omega )}`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ}}\underset{WS}{lim}{\displaystyle n_W^t(x_{k+1},0,\eta )\mu _W(d\eta )\times \text{I}\text{P}(d\omega )}`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ}}t\phi (x_{k+1})G(0,x_{k+1}).`$
In the fourth line, $`n_W^t(x_{k+1},0,\eta )`$ denotes the number of topplings up to time $`t`$ at site $`0W`$ by adding grains at site $`x_{k+1}W`$. By the Borel Cantelli Lemma, condition (3.21) implies the a.s. convergence of $`n_{T_k}^t(0)`$, and analogously of every $`n_{T_k}^t(x)`$. Pick $`(\eta ,\omega )`$ such that $`n_{T_k}^t(\eta ,\omega )`$ converges, i.e. such that $`sup_kn_{T_k}^t(\eta ,\omega )=n^t(\eta ,\omega )`$ is finite (indeed, $`n_{T_k}^t(\eta ,\omega )`$ is an integer). If $`\eta ^{}\eta `$, then $`n_{T_k}^t(\eta ^{},\omega )n_{T_k}^t(\eta ,\omega )`$ because we can obtain $`\eta `$ from $`\eta ^{}`$ by adding sand at sites $`xS`$ for which $`\eta ^{}(x)<\eta (x)`$ thereby increasing the number of topplings. We thus conclude that the convergence of $`n_{T_k}^t(\eta ,\omega )`$ implies the convergence of $`n_{T_k}^t(\eta ^{},\omega )`$ for all $`\eta ^{}\eta `$.

Now let $`\mu ^{}\mu `$ in the FKG sense. There is a coupling $`\text{I}\text{P}_{12}`$ of $`\mu ^{}\times \text{I}\text{P}`$ and $`\mu \times \text{I}\text{P}`$ such that

$$\text{I}\text{P}_{12}(((\eta _1,\omega _1),(\eta _2,\omega _2)):\omega _1=\omega _2,\eta _1\eta _2)=1,$$

i.e. we use the same Poisson events and couple $`\mu ^{}`$ and $`\mu `$ according to the optimal coupling (see \[Strassen (1965)\]). Then

$`(\mu ^{}\times \text{I}\text{P})\left(n_{T_k}^t(\eta ,\omega )n^t(\eta ,\omega )\right)=\text{I}\text{P}_{12}\left(n_{T_k}^t(\eta _1,\omega _1)n^t(\eta _1,\omega _1)\right)`$
$`=`$ $`\text{I}\text{P}_{12}\left(n_{T_k}^t(\eta _1,\omega _1)n^t(\eta _1,\omega _1),n_{T_k}^t(\eta _2,\omega _2)n^t(\eta _2,\omega _2),\omega _1=\omega _2,\eta _1\eta _2\right)`$
$``$ $`\text{I}\text{P}_{12}\left(n_{T_k}^t(\eta _2,\omega _2)n^t(\eta _2,\omega _2)\right)`$
$`=`$ $`(\mu \times \text{I}\text{P})\left(n_{T_k}^t(\eta ,\omega )n^t(\eta ,\omega )\right)=1.`$
This shows the $`\mu ^{}\times \text{I}\text{P}`$-almost sure convergence of $`n_{T_k}^t`$, hence by (4.46) the product $`_{xS}a_x^{N_\phi ^{t,x}(\omega )}\eta ^{}`$ converges $`\mu ^{}\times \text{I}\text{P}`$ almost surely.

As a further result we show that the semigroup $`S_\phi (t)`$ is continuous as a function of the addition rate $`\phi `$. We define

$$\mathrm{}_1=\{\phi :S[0,\mathrm{}):\phi =\underset{xS}{}\phi (x)G(0,x)<\mathrm{}\}.$$

It is a complete metric space (as a closed subset of a Banach space) with the property: If $`\phi _n\mathrm{}_1`$, $`\phi _n\phi `$ (pointwise), and $`\phi \mathrm{}_1`$ then $`\phi _n\phi `$ in $`\mathrm{}_1`$.

###### Proposition 4.1

The semigroup $`S_\phi (t)`$ of Theorem 3.3 is a strongly continuous function of $`\phi `$, i.e. if $`\phi _n\phi `$ in $`\mathrm{}_1`$, then for any local function $`f`$, $`S_{\phi _n}(t)fS_\phi (t)f`$.

Proof: Let $`n_\phi ^t=lim_k\mathrm{}n_{T_k}^t`$ be the number of topplings in $`[0,t]`$ from sand addition at rate $`\phi `$. In the proof of Theorem 3.5 we have shown that this random variable is $`\mu \times \text{I}\text{P}`$ almost surely well defined and, after taking limits in (4.46), satisfies

$$\eta _t=\eta _0+N_\phi ^t\mathrm{\Delta }n_\phi ^t,$$
(4.48)
where $`N_\phi ^t=lim_{VS}_{xV}N_\phi ^{t,x}`$. Note that if $`\psi _1\psi _2`$, the Poisson processes $`N_{\psi _1}^t`$ and $`N_{\psi _2}^t`$ can be coupled in such a way that for all $`xS`$, $`N_{\psi _1}^{t,x}N_{\psi _2}^{t,x}`$, and hence, by the abelian property, $`n_{\psi _1}^t(x)n_{\psi _2}^t(x)`$. Consider a coupling of the four Poisson processes $`N_\phi ^t`$, $`N_{\phi \phi _n}^t`$, $`N_{\phi \phi _n}^t`$ and $`N_{\phi _n}^t`$ under which the inequalities $`X_1(t)X_2(t)`$, $`X_2(t)X_3(t)`$, $`X_3(t)X_4(t)`$, are satisfied with probability one. Let $`\stackrel{~}{\text{I}\text{P}}`$ denote the law of the marginal $`(X_1,X_4)`$. We have, by a reasoning similar to (4.47),

$`{\displaystyle 𝑑\mu \left(\stackrel{~}{\text{I}\text{E}}|n_{\phi _n}^t(0)n_\phi ^t(0)|\right)}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle }d\mu (\stackrel{~}{\text{I}\text{E}}(n_{\phi _n}^t(0)n_{\phi _n\phi }^t(0))`$ (4.49)
$`+`$ $`\stackrel{~}{\text{I}\text{E}}\left(n_{\phi \phi _n}^t(0)n_{\phi \phi _n}^t(0)\right)`$
$`+`$ $`\stackrel{~}{\text{I}\text{E}}(n_{\phi \phi _n}^t(0)n_\phi ^t(0)))`$
$``$ $`t{\displaystyle \underset{xS}{}}|\phi _n(x)\phi (x)|G(0,x),`$
which tends to zero for $`\phi _n\phi `$ in $`\mathrm{}_1`$. Take now a local function $`f`$, and denote $`\stackrel{~}{D_f}=D_f_eD_f`$,

$`|S_{\phi _n}(t)(f)S_\phi (t)(f)|`$ $``$ $`\stackrel{~}{\text{I}\text{P}}\left(n_{\phi _n}^t(x)n_\phi ^t(x)\text{for some}x\stackrel{~}{D_f}\right)`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{x\stackrel{~}{D_f}}{}}\stackrel{~}{\text{I}\text{E}}|n_\phi ^t(x)n_{\phi _n}^t(x)|.`$
Combining this with (4.49) concludes the proof.

One might ask whether we can go beyond condition (3.21), which essentially guarantees that the expected number of topplings stays finite in the addition process. In the following proposition we show that it is impossible to keep integrable toppling numbers and “rate 1” addition. The relation (4.50) should be regarded as the infinitesimal version of (4.48), where $`\alpha (x)`$ replaces the rate $`\phi (x)`$. We then show that $`\phi `$ has to depend on $`x`$.

###### Proposition 4.2

Let $`\alpha :S\{0,1\}`$ be a stationary and ergodic random field distributed according to $`\nu `$. Denote by $`\alpha (0)\nu (d\eta )=\rho `$ its density. Suppose there exists a measurable transformation $`T:\{0,1\}^S\times \mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Omega }`$ which satisfies the conditions

1. The measure $`\mu `$ of Theorem 3.2 is invariant under $`T(\alpha ,)`$ for any $`\alpha `$.
2. $$T(\alpha ,\eta )(x)=\eta (x)+\alpha (x)\mathrm{\Delta }n(\alpha ,\eta ,x),$$
(4.50)
with $`n(\alpha ,\eta ,.)L^1(\mu )`$ for $`\nu `$ almost every $`\alpha `$.

Then, $`\rho =0`$.

Proof: Taking expectation over $`\mu `$ in (4.50) gives

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Psi }(\alpha ,x)=\alpha (x),$$
(4.51)
where $`\mathrm{\Psi }(\alpha ,x)=n(\alpha ,\eta ,x)\mu (d\eta )`$. By stationarity of $`\mu `$ and $`\nu `$, $`\mathrm{\Psi }(\alpha ,x)`$ is a stationary random field. Let $`(x_t:t0)`$ denote continuous time simple random walk on $`S`$, starting at $`0`$. From (4.51),

$$\text{I}\text{E}\mathrm{\Psi }(\alpha ,x_t)=\mathrm{\Psi }(\alpha ,0)+\text{I}\text{E}_0^t\alpha (x_s)𝑑s.$$

Divide this last line by $`t`$ and let $`t+\mathrm{}`$. As $`\nu `$ is ergodic (making the last term equal to $`\rho `$) and as the process $`\mathrm{\Psi }(\alpha ,x_t)`$ is stationary, we conclude that $`\rho =0`$.

Adresses:
C.M.: Instituut voor Theoretische Fysica, K.U.Leuven, Celestijnenlaan 200D, B-3001 Leuven, Belgium - email: christian.maes@fys.kuleuven.ac.be
F.R.: On leave from Instituut voor Theoretische Fysica, K.U. Leuven, Celestijnenlaan 200D, B-3001 Leuven, Belgium - email: f.h.j.redig@tue.nl
E.S.: CNRS, UMR 6085, Université de Rouen, 76821 Mont-Saint-Aignan cedex, France. \- email: Ellen.Saada@univ-rouen.fr


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Recent reports from ALEPH,DELPHI, and SLD  of measurements of the $`\overline{MS}`$ mass of the b-quark at the mass scale of the Z mass, combined with previous determinations at the scale of the b mass , show the running of this mass, and invite comparison with theory. So far, this has been done entirely in the context of QCD. In this paper we note that because the t-quark is so heavy its Yukawa coupling to the scalar sector (including the charged Goldstone bosons in Feynman-t’Hooft gauge) is comparable to the strong QCD coupling constant at the scale of $`M_Z`$. Here we consider what role these nonQCD interactions may play in the analysis of these observations.

II One-loop perturbative treatment

We work in a truncated version of the standard model in which only the strong QCD gauge coupling ($`g_3`$ or $`g_s`$),the Yukawa couplings of the heavy t and b quarks, and the quartic self coupling of the scalar fields are kept nonzero. The weak gauge couplings ($`g_1,g_2`$) and all the other Yukawa couplings are taken to zero.(and $`m_bm_t`$ is set to zero except when it is the object being determined). For physical values of these masses and coupling constants, these approximations are too crude for precision calculations, but they provide dramatic simplification and hence are very useful for orientation for more heavy duty calculations, and in some cases, are sufficiently dominant to provide useful estimates.

We compute the one-point and two-point functions of the model through one-loop order in $`\overline{MS}`$ renormalization and in on-shell momentum subtraction renormalization (OS MOM) in order to determine the counter terms required for these two different renormalization schemes. The relation between the perturbative pole mass and the $`\overline{MS}`$ mass follows from the pole condition

$$0=m^{}\overline{m}\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}(m^{})$$
(1)
We use $`m`$ for generic renormalized mass,$`\overline{m}`$ for $`\overline{MS}`$ masses, and (sometimes) $`m^{}`$ for perturbative pole mass.

(1) t-quark $`\overline{MS}`$ mass

Through two loop order for QCD  and one loop for electroweak  , the relation for t-quark is

$`\overline{m}_t(\mu )=m_t^{}\{1{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }}({\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}+\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2}{m_t^2}})`$
$`({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }})^2((15.371.04n_f)+({\displaystyle \frac{7}{6}}{\displaystyle \frac{185}{24}}+{\displaystyle \frac{13}{36}}n_f)\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2}{m_t^2}}+({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{11}{8}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}n_f)(\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2}{m_t^2}})^2)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{y_t^2}{16\pi ^2}}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}d(r)+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2}{m_t^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2N_c}{r^2}}(1+\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2}{m_t^2}}){\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{16\pi ^2}}(3+3\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2}{M_h^2}})\}`$ (2)
Here $`N_c=3`$ and

$$r=\frac{M_h}{m_t},d(r)=\frac{1}{2}+_0^1𝑑x(2x)\mathrm{ln}(r^2(1x)+x^2)$$
(3)
For a perturbative treatment, we input to the right hand side the star quantities which are either measurable or expressible as combinations of measurable quantities (We consider that the pole mass of a heavy quark can be determined up to an ambiguity of order $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}`$)

$`m_t^{}=174`$ $`v^{}=250`$ $`m_b^{}=4.9`$ (4)
The Higgs mass is put in as one of a series of values ranging from $`100`$ to $`300`$ GeV. The coupling constants are fixed by the relations

$$y_i=\sqrt{2}\frac{m_i}{v},i=t,b,\lambda =\frac{m_h^2}{2v^2}$$
(5)
In particular, $`y_t^{}=0.9843`$ while $`y_b^{}`$ is so small that we neglect its contribution to other quantities. These relations hold for all orders for bar and star quantities.

The conventional definition of $`the`$ $`\overline{MS}`$ mass is $`\overline{m}_t(\overline{m}_t)`$. With this definition, the $`\mathrm{ln}(\frac{\mu ^2}{m_t^2})`$’s in (2) are zero, and (2) reduces to

$`\overline{m}_t=m_t^{}\{1{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }}({\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}})({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }})^2(15.371.04n_f)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{y_t^^2}{16\pi ^2}}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}d(r)+{\displaystyle \frac{2N_c}{r^2}}){\displaystyle \frac{\lambda ^{}}{16\pi ^2}}(3+3\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{m_t^2}{M_h^2}})`$ (6)
In Table 1. we give values of the nominal $`\overline{MS}`$ top quark mass,$`\overline{m_t}`$($`\overline{m_t}`$), computed with just the QCD contribution ($`\alpha _s`$) and with the nonQCD contribution ($`y_t,\lambda `$) included. We see sensitivity to the Higgs mass. For the lightest Higgs considered, $`m_h=100`$, the nonQCD contribution is twice as large as and of opposite sign as the QCD contribution. For the heaviest Higgs,$`m_h=300`$, the nonQCD contribution is only a small correction to the QCD only result.

(2) b-quark $`\overline{MS}`$ mass

For the b-quark, the flavor independent QCD contribution to the relation is the same, but the electroweak contribution is different.

$`\overline{m}_b(\mu )=m_b^{}\{1{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }}({\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}+\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2}{m_b^2}})`$
$`({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }})^2((15.371.04n_f)+({\displaystyle \frac{7}{6}}{\displaystyle \frac{185}{24}}+{\displaystyle \frac{13}{36}}n_f)\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2}{m_b^2}}+({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{11}{8}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}n_f)(\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2}{m_b^2}})^2)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{y_t^2}{16\pi ^2}}({\displaystyle \frac{5}{8}}{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}\mathrm{ln}({\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2}{m_t^2}})+{\displaystyle \frac{2N_c}{r^2}}(1+\mathrm{ln}({\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2}{m_t^2}}))){\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{16\pi ^2}}(3+3\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2}{M_h^2}})\}`$ (7)
Now when we set $`\mu =m_b`$ to get the nominal $`\overline{MS}`$ b-quark mass, the QCD logs are again zero but in the electroweak contribution there remain large logarithms of $`\frac{m_b}{m_t}`$. These logs are not the result of running anything from $`\mu =m_t`$ to $`\mu =m_b`$. They arise from two features of the electroweak interactions which are not present in QCD. First is the existence of large mass splitting between members of a multiplet, in particular, t and b. The first $`ln\frac{m_t}{m_b}`$ in (7)comes from the b-quark self-energy diagram in which a b-quark emits a virtual charged Goldstone boson and propagates as a t-quark until the boson is reabsorbed. In QCD gluons change color, not flavor, and quarks of same flavor, but different color have same mass. Second is the feature of Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking for mass generation and the concurrent existence of a scalar field which acquires a vev. When the scalar field is shifted to get into the proper vacuum, the vev propagates into the boson 1-,2-,and 3-point functions and the fermion 2-point functions, and is the source of the second $`\mathrm{ln}\frac{m_t}{m_b}`$ and the $`\mathrm{ln}\frac{M_h}{m_b}`$ in (7). (For more detail, see the appendix).

For the smaller Higgs masses considered (100,150 GeV), the perturbative mass shifts with $`\mu `$ fixed at 4.9 are large enough that the condition $`\overline{m}=\overline{m}(\mu =\overline{m})`$ is badly violated, so we let $`\mu `$ float and solve by iteration until the $`\mu `$ put into (7) is the same as the output $`\overline{m}(\mu )`$. The results are given in Table.2. For Higgs mass of 300 GeV, the electroweak contribution is again a small correction to QCD contribution, but for lighter Higgs, including the electroweak contribution leads to substantially smaller $`\overline{MS}`$ b-quark mass than given by QCD contribution alone. For Higgs mass 100 GeV, the iteration is unstable and does not converge to any positive value. (The connection between a “light” Higgs and breakdown of $`\overline{MS}`$ perturbation theory has been noted before ).

III Evolution of $`\overline{m}_b(\mu )`$ from $`\mu `$ equal $`m_b`$ to $`M_Z`$

From $`\mu =4.9to\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}91.19}`$ is a large change in scale, leading to large $`\mathrm{ln}[\frac{M_Z^2}{m_b^2}`$. We therefor differentiate (7) to obtain the one-loop differential equation for the running of $`\overline{m}_b(\mu )`$ By keeping just the dominant one-loop QCD and electroweak Yukawa terms, we can obtain a simple analytic solution. With $`t=\mathrm{ln}(\frac{\mu }{4.9})`$

$$\frac{d}{dt}\overline{m}_b(t)=m_b^{}\{\frac{g_s^2(t)}{16\pi ^2}(8)+\frac{y_t^2(t)}{16\pi ^2}(\frac{4N_c}{r^2}\}m_b^{}A(t)$$
(8)
$$\overline{m}_b(t)=m_b^{}\mathrm{exp}(_{t_0}^t𝑑t^{}A(t^{}))+const$$
(9)
The initial condition

$$\overline{m}(t_0)=\overline{m}$$

fixes

$$const=\overline{m}m^{}$$

Then we need the solutions of the one-loop RG equations for the QCD and electroweak Yukawa coupling constants. The one-loop QCD coupling constant is

$$g_s^2=\frac{g_{s_0}^2}{1+g_{s_0}^2b_0t}$$
(10)
with

$$b_0=\frac{1}{16\pi ^2}(22\frac{4}{3}n_f)$$

and $`g_{s_0}^2=2.599`$ fixed to make $`\alpha _s=.119`$ at $`\mu =M_Z`$.

For the electroweak Yukawa coupling constant, we start with the equation relating $`\overline{y}`$ and $`y^{}`$

$`\overline{y}_t^2=y_t^^2\{1{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }}({\displaystyle \frac{8}{3}}2\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{m_t^2}{\mu ^2}})`$ (11)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{y_t^2}{16\pi ^2}}((N_c+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}})\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{m_t^2}{\mu ^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{N_c}{2}}d(r))+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{16\pi ^2}}(1)`$
Differentiating, the one-loop RG equation for $`\overline{y}_t^2`$ is ($`y=y_t=y_{top}`$ to be distinguished from $`t=\mathrm{ln}\frac{\mu ^2}{4.9}`$)

$$\frac{d}{dt}y^2=\frac{1}{16\pi ^2}((2N_c+3)(y^{2^2}12C_Fg_s^2y^2)$$
(12)
After substitution of $`g_s^2(t)`$ (10)into (12) the resulting differential equation for $`y^2(t)`$ can be solved.

$$y^2(t)=y_0^2\{(1+\gamma t)^{\frac{b}{\gamma }}+\frac{ay_0^2}{\gamma b}(1+\gamma t)^{\frac{b}{\gamma }}(1+\gamma t))\}^1$$
(13)
with

$`a={\displaystyle \frac{9}{16\pi ^2}},`$ $`b={\displaystyle \frac{g_{s_0}^2}{\pi ^2}}`$ $`\gamma =b_0g_{s_0}^2`$
and the initial condition that $`\overline{y}_t^2(\mu =m_t)`$ is given by (11) fixes $`y_0^2`$. With $`\overline{g}_s^2(t),\overline{y}_t^2(t)`$ determined, the integral (9) can be done numerically ($`t_Z=\mathrm{ln}\frac{M_Z}{4.9}=2.9237`$).

$$_{t_0}^{t_Z}𝑑t^{}A(t^{})F$$

and

$$\overline{m}_t(t_Z)=m_b^{}e^F+\overline{m}_bm_b^{}$$
(14)
Results are given in Table.3.

There is no entry in the table for $`M_h=100`$ GeV because there is no solution for that $`M_h`$ in table.2. The values of $`\overline{m}_b(t_Z)`$ obtained for $`M_h`$ ranging from 150 to 250 GeV fairly well span the range of experimental values  For $`M_h=300`$ GeV the obtained value is probably high. Global fits to electroweak precision data  disfavor Higgs mass greater than 200 GeV. For Higgs mass from 150 to 200 GeV, the values of $`\overline{m}_b(M_Z)`$ in Table.3 are consistent with the data while the values of $`\overline{m}_b(\overline{m}_b)`$ in Table.2 are not consistent with the generally accepted value (4.1 to 4.3 GeV). This leads us to question the provenance of the generally accepted value of $`\overline{m}_b(\overline{m}_b)`$. It comes from QCD sum rule calculations, Lattice gauge calculations, and potential models. All done in context of pure QCD. Thus it is necessary to investigate the contributions of the electroweak Yukawa couplings to these calculations and see if they might then agree with the smaller values we have obtained for $`\overline{m}_b(\overline{m}_b)`$ from the transformation (7), in the case of the smaller Higgs masses.

The calculations just referred to are generally substantial undertakings without the added complication of the electroweak Yukawa contributions, and we do not propose to repeat and generalize any of them in this paper. However, we can identify one dominant term responsible for most of the electroweak contribution seen in Tables 2 and 3, for the lighter Higgs masses. And to incorporate that term into a simple version of the QCD sum rule analysis is not a major undertaking.

IV Electroweak contribution to QCD sum rule analysis.

Returning to (7) we see that for light Higgs the term $`\frac{y_t^2}{16\pi ^2}\frac{2N_c}{r^2}`$ is almost the whole electroweak contribution. This term appears as an $`\overline{MS}`$ counter term for the quark selfenergy function. Its origin is in the elimination of the tadpoles introduced by the shift of the Higgs field to do perturbation theory about the stable vacuum. See Appendix A and . In the QCD sum rule calculations, one computes moments of the dispersion representation of the vacuum polarization.

$$idxe^{iqx}<0|T(j_\mu (x)j_\nu (0))|0>=(q_\mu q_\nu q^2g_{\mu \nu })(C_I(q^2)+\mathrm{}$$
(15)
$$C(Q^2)=\frac{Q^2}{\pi }_{4m^2}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑s\frac{\mathrm{}C(s)}{s(s+Q^2)}$$
(16)
$$_n=\frac{1}{\pi }𝑑s\frac{\mathrm{}C(s)}{s^{n+1}}=\frac{1}{12\pi ^2Q_q^2}𝑑s\frac{R(s)}{s^{n+1}}$$
(17)
The QCD Feynman diagrams we include are the basic one-and two-loop vacuum polarization diagrams (contributions to the moments available in the literature ) and two diagrams with a single $`\frac{\delta m}{m}`$ mass insertion in one or the other of the quark propagator lines in the first diagram . The new contribution to $`\mathrm{}C(s)`$ is

$$\mathrm{}\delta C(s)=\frac{2N_c}{\pi }\frac{\delta m}{m}\frac{m^4}{s^2}\frac{1}{\sqrt{1\frac{4m^2}{s}}}$$
(18)
with

$$\frac{\delta m}{m}\frac{y_t^2}{16\pi ^2}\frac{2N_c}{r^2}(1\mathrm{ln}\frac{m_t^2}{m_b^2})$$
(19)
This gives calculated

$$_n=_n^{(0)}+_n^{(1)}+\delta _n^{(1)}$$
(20)
to be matched against the integral of R(s) evaluated from experimental data on the upsilon resonance plus continuum.

In the purely QCD analysis, the convergence of the perturbation series is acceptable up to fairly high n moments.

Recently Jamin and Pich  have done an exhaustive treatment of the purely QCD analysis. They found that the optimal choice of moments to employ was n from 7 to 15. (Smaller n is sensitive to poorly known continuum threshold, and for larger n perturbation theory gets worse and nonperturbative contributions come into play) Furthermore the value of the mass obtained is rather stable in this range. But precisely because the dominant $`\overline{MS}`$ electroweak term is so large,the perturbative treatment fails rapidly as the order n of the moment increases. We give the results for the moment $`_1`$ in table.4. For the integral over R in (17)we used PDG data for six upsilon resonances and asymptotic form 0f R for continuum starting at 11.1 GeV. There is no entry in Table.4 for Higgs mass 100 GeV. For this value of Higgs mass, the perturbative calculation gives an unphysical negative value for $`_1`$ So again we see the breakdown of the $`\overline{MS}`$ electroweak perturbation series for this “light” Higgs. For the other values of $`M_h`$ from 150 to 300 GeV, the values of $`\overline{m}_b(\overline{m}_b)`$ obtained from this crude implementation of the QCD sum rule, augmented by electroweak contribution, look at least recognizably like the results in Table.2,obtained from the transformation equation (7).

V.Conclusions

Although none of the numerical results presented here are definitive - the approximations have been too many and too crude, a consistent pattern has emerged, with nonnegligible electroweak contributions and values of $`\overline{m}_b(\overline{m}_b)`$ substantially smaller than currently accepted, and furthermore, sensitive to the mass of the Higgs boson. We have started from the position that we have a pretty good knowledge of the perturbative pole mass of a heavy quark from threshold behavior,potential models,and lattice calculations. We have chosen 4.9 GeV (and don’t protest if someone prefers 4.8 or 5.0). We have then used the perturbative definition of the pole mass and $`\overline{MS}`$ perturbation theory to convert to the nominal $`\overline{m}_b`$ mass $`\overline{m}_b(\overline{m}_b)`$. We pointed out some features present in the electroweak sector which do not appear in QCD. And we found values of $`\overline{m}_b`$ which depend on the Higgs mass, and for range of Higgs masses favored by global fits to precision electroweak data, are significantly smaller than currently accepted value. At this point in the argument we are in conflict with one or the other of two accepted positions: $`M_h`$ should be less than 200 GeV and $`\overline{m}_b`$ is 4.1 to 4.3. We pointed out that this value for $`\overline{m}_b`$ is not directly a measured number, but depends on the analysis used to fit experimental data. In particular, the analyses which led to this value are all purely QCD. We then made an (admittedly crude) analysis of what value might come out of the QCD sum rule approach if one included the electroweak contribution. The results were gratifyingly similar to those obtained from the conversion from pole mass. We also carried out the evolution 0f $`\overline{m}_b`$ from $`\mu =\overline{m}_b`$ to $`\mu =M_Z`$, and found results consistent with the recently reported experimental results. There is a possible problem here. Just as in the case of $`\overline{m}_b(\overline{m}_b)`$, the analysis presented in the experimental papers was purely $`\overline{MS}`$ QCD. I have not found a quick way to incorporate the electroweak contribution in this analysis, but I refer to a paper by Rodrigo  which is aware of the possibility of important electroweak Yukawa contributions, but claims that they can be suppressed by taking appropriate ratios of ratios of the experimental data. Then our analysis of the evolution including electroweak contribution would remain consistent with the experimental results. Finally, the dominant large electroweak contribution we have exploited,$`\delta \overline{\zeta }_v`$, is specific to the $`\overline{MS}`$ scheme. As explained in the Appendix, in a theory with a global symmetry and Goldstone theorem,$`\delta \zeta _v^{}`$ may simply be taken to be zero in a MOM scheme. There will still be a strong $`y_t`$ Yukawa coupling connecting the two members of the t,b-doublet,which suggests that even with $`\delta \zeta _v^{}=0`$,the electroweak Yukawa interactions may make a contribution to the QCD sum rule analyses. From the point of view of a MOM scheme, the various $`\overline{m}_b`$’s are a nonissue, and the QCD sum rules become a more general testing ground for the whole theory, QCD plus electroweak . In the absence of one dominant contribution, it will be necessary to do a complete perturbative calculation of the electroweak contribution to the QCD moment functions, to see how it works out.

## Appendix A details of renormalization schemes

Since the $`2N_cy^2(\frac{m_t}{M_h^2})`$ term is the primary source of our results which differ from the received wisdom,we explain here in some detail how it arises and is propagated in the $`\overline{MS}`$ two-point and three-point functions

The original Lagrangian for the Higgs-Goldstone sector is

$$=(\mathrm{\Phi }_B^{})(\mathrm{\Phi }_B)\mu _B^2\mathrm{\Phi }_B^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_B\lambda _B(\mathrm{\Phi }_B^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_B)^2$$
(21)
with

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_B=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}& \mathrm{\Phi }_+^B& \\ & \mathrm{\Phi }_0^B& \end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{c}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\varphi _1^Bi\varphi _2^B)\hfill \\ \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(h^Bı\varphi _3^B)\hfill \end{array}\right)$$
(22)
For $`\mu _0^2<0`$ we are in the broken symmetry phase and $`<h_B>`$ is not zero in the stable vacuum. In order to be perturbing about the true ground state, rewrite everything in terms of the shifted field which has zero vev in the true ground state.

$$<h_B>=V_B,h_B=V_B+\widehat{h}_B,<\widehat{h}_B>=0$$
(23)
Renormalize

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Phi }_B=\sqrt{Z_\varphi }\mathrm{\Phi }\\ V_B=\sqrt{Z_\varphi }V\\ \mu _B^2=Z_{\mu ^2}\mu ^2,\lambda _B=Z_\lambda \lambda \end{array}$$
(24)
The quartic scalar vertex renormalization is $`Z_4=Z_\lambda Z_\varphi ^2`$

The complete all orders vev V is determined by the requirement that the vev of $`\widehat{h}`$ be zero, order by order in the loop expansion. Our notation for the order by order expansion of $`V`$ is

$$\begin{array}{ccc}V=\zeta _vv\hfill & & \\ \zeta _v=1+\frac{\delta V}{v}\hfill & =1+(\zeta _v1)& \hfill =1+\delta \zeta _v\end{array}$$
(25)
We use the notation $`\zeta _v`$ rather than $`Z_v`$, to emphasize that (25) is not the renormalization of any bare field or bare parameter in the Lagrangian (21). It is the loop expansion of the vev of the renormalized field (and is UV finite in the truncated theory considered here, but both UV divergent and gauge variant when the gauge couplings are turned on).

The field shift (23) generates in the Lagrangian (21) terms linear in the shifted field.

$$\begin{array}{c}_{linear}=V(Z_\varphi Z_{\mu ^2}\mu ^2+Z_4\lambda V^2)\widehat{h}\\ =v(\mu ^2+\lambda v^2)\widehat{h}\left[((\zeta _v1)(\mu ^2+\lambda v^2))v((Z_\varphi Z_{\mu ^2}1)\mu ^2+(Z_4\zeta _v^21)\lambda v^2)\right]\widehat{h}\end{array}$$
(26)
Treated as a perturbing interaction, the first term in (26) will generate tree tadpole diagrams. We eliminate them by fixing the tree level vev of the unshifted field as

$$v^2=\frac{\mu ^2}{\lambda },(\mu ^2<0)$$
(27)
Then inspection of the terms in the Lagrangian which are quadratic in the fields after the shift, leads to identification of the masses,

$$M_\varphi ^2=0,M_h^2M^2=2\lambda v^2$$
(28)
Although this is a relation between quantities identified at tree level,in our treatment there are no higher order corrections. In an OS MOM scheme this mass is the physical Higgs mass (modulo problems with unstable particles) ().

The field shift also generates in (21) terms trilinear in the scalar fields. There are also trilinear Yukawa couplings between the quarks and the scalars, which have been the subject of the bulk of this paper. These terms generate one-loop tadpole diagrams (fig.1). After the condition (27) has been applied, (26) is still a term of the Lagrangian linear in the shifted field, but the coefficients are formally of one-loop order, so the tadpole trees generated by it now act as counter terms to the one-loop tadpole diagrams (fig.1).

$$_{linear}^{(1)}=v(Z_\varphi Z_{\mu ^2}Z_4\zeta _v^2)\frac{M^2}{2}\widehat{h}v\delta \mu ^2\widehat{h}$$
(29)
The elimination of the one-loop tadpoles fixes this particular combination of $`\delta Z^{}s`$ and $`\delta \zeta _v`$

$$\delta \mu ^2=3\lambda (A_0+A_M)2N_cy^2A_m,(m=m_t)$$
(30)
A is the standard tadpole loop integral, dimensionally regularized.

$$A_M=i_{reg}(d\mathrm{})\frac{1}{\mathrm{}^2M^2+ı\delta }=\frac{M^2}{16\pi ^2}(\mathrm{\Delta }_ϵ+\mathrm{ln}\frac{M^2}{\mu ^2}1)$$
(31)
$$\mathrm{\Delta }_ϵ=\frac{2}{ϵ}\gamma _E+\mathrm{ln}4\pi ,ϵ=4d$$

In $`\overline{MS}`$ all of the $`\delta Z^{}s`$ are only of form constant times $`\mathrm{\Delta }_ϵ`$ and cannot cancel log and constant pieces of combined (30),(31). Then the condition that the vev of the shifted field vanish in one-loop order fixes

$$\delta \overline{\zeta }_v=\frac{1}{16\pi ^2}\left[3\lambda (1\mathrm{ln}\frac{M^2}{\mu ^2})2N_cy^2\frac{m^2}{M^2}(1\mathrm{ln}\frac{m_t^2}{\mu ^2})\right]$$
(32)
The field shift introduces V, and hence $`\delta \zeta _v`$, into the quadratic terms in (21) as well as generating the linear terms (26). This is the origin of the large electroweak contribution to the transformation from OS to $`\overline{MS}`$ for $`M_h<m_t`$.

In OS MOM renormalization, any of the Z’s, as well as $`\delta \zeta _v`$. can contribute to finite part of (30). In addition to the condition of the vanishing of the vev of the shifted Higgs field, we have to specify a number of renormalization conditions equal to the number of bare parameters ($`\mu _B^2,\lambda _B`$) and field multiplets ($`\mathrm{\Phi }_B`$) in the Lagrangian. We could take those to be the mass shell conditions (pole and residue)

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_\varphi (0)=0,\mathrm{\Sigma }_h^{}(M^2)=0,\mathrm{\Sigma }_h(M^2)=0.$$
(33)
(For $`\overline{MS}`$ these conditions have zero replaced by finite,i.e. $`\overline{MS}`$ counter terms remove all $`\mathrm{\Delta }_ϵ`$’s) In our notations, the two-point counter terms appear in combinations

$$\begin{array}{c}D_\varphi ^1(q^2)=q^2\mathrm{\Sigma }_\varphi ^{FD}(q^2)+(Z_\varphi 1)(q^2)+\delta \mu ^2\\ D_h^1(q^2)=q^2M^2\mathrm{\Sigma }_h^{FD}(q^2)+(Z_\varphi 1)q^2+\delta \mu ^2(Z_4\zeta _v^21)M^2\end{array}$$
(34)
The same $`\delta \mu ^2`$ (30) satisfies both $`<\widehat{h}>=0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\varphi (0)=0`$. This is a manifestation of Goldstone’s theorem and is a check on our renormalization procedure. From these conditions one can determine $`Z_\varphi ,Z_{\mu ^2}`$,and the product $`Z_4\zeta _v^2`$. For $`\overline{MS}`$ , $`\delta \overline{\zeta }_v`$ is separately determined by the vanishing vev condition, so all the $`\overline{Z}`$’s are determined (and it is verified that $`\delta \overline{\zeta }_v`$ is finite). For OS MOM scheme another renormalization condition is required to separate $`Z_4`$ from $`\zeta _v`$. For this, we can choose $`h\varphi _+\varphi _{}`$ vertex. This is related to the above two-point functions by a Ward Identity.

$$V\mathrm{\Gamma }_{h\varphi _+\varphi _{}}(0,q)=D_\varphi ^1(q^2)D_h^1(q^2)$$
(35)
Separate this into tree and one-loop and also write separately integrals from Feynman diagrams and counter terms.

$$\begin{array}{c}(v+\delta V)(2\lambda v+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^{FD}+2\lambda v(Z_4\zeta _v1))=\\ q^2\mathrm{\Sigma }_\varphi ^{FD}+(Z_\varphi 1)q^2+\delta \mu ^2q^2+M^2+\mathrm{\Sigma }_h^{FD}(Z_\varphi 1)q^2\delta \mu ^2+(Z_4\zeta _v^21)M^2\end{array}$$
(36)
$$\begin{array}{c}v2\lambda v=M^2\\ v\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^{FD}(0,q)=\mathrm{\Sigma }_\varphi ^{FD}(q^2)+\mathrm{\Sigma }_h^{FD}(q^2)\\ \delta V2\lambda v+v2\lambda v(\delta Z_4+\delta \zeta _v)=0+(\delta Z_4+2\delta \zeta _v)2\lambda v^2\end{array}$$
(37)
The last line is an identity, The Ward Identity is satisfied for any values of $`\delta Z_4`$ and $`\delta \zeta _v`$. We complete the the renormalization conditions for the OS MOM scheme by the condition

$$v\mathrm{\Gamma }_{h\varphi _+\varphi _{}}(0,q)|_{q^2=M^2}=D_\varphi ^1(M^2)$$
(38)
This condition requires $`\delta \zeta _v^{}`$ to be zero ($`V^{}=v^{}`$) and $`Z_4`$ is now fixed by (33) with the Ward Identity then implying (38).

Acknowledgments I thank U.Baur for calling the LEP and SLD papers to my attention, I. Rothstein and A Vainstein for enlightening conversations, and A.Duncan for advice and encouragement.