text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The vacuum expectation values (VEV)s of local fields play an important role in quantum field theory (QFT) and statistical mechanics . In QFT defined as perturbed conformal field theory (CFT), they constitute the basic ingredients for multipoint correlation functions, using short-distance expansions . Some times ago, important progress was made in the calculations of the VEVs in two dimensional integrable QFT. In ref. , an explicit expression for the VEVs of the exponential field in the sine-Gordon and sinh-Gordon models - $`A_1^{(1)}`$ affine Toda field theory (ATFT) - was proposed. Moreover, it was shown in  that this expression can be obtained as the minimal solution of certain “reflection relations” which involve the Liouville “reflection amplitude” , where the sinh-Gordon QFT was considered as a perturbed Liouville conformal field theory. Later, this “reflection relations” method was successfully generalized to other models, for which the VEVs were calculated. We refer the reader to refs.  for details.

Among the family of known integrable QFTs, it was thus natural to study the case of dual pairs of non-simply laced ATFTs, beyond the simply laced one which had been previously considered . Beside the technical aspect, such VEVs can provide interesting informations as this class of models appears in various physics contexts . For instance, in  the following applications were studied : particular correlation functions in a special case of 3-D $`U(1)`$ or XY model, VEV of the spin field $`\sigma `$ in the $`_n`$-Ising models  perturbed by the leading thermal operator, asymptotics of the cylindrically symmetric solutions of the classical Toda equations. More recently, exact off-shell results for coupled minimal models were considered in .

ATFTs can be considered as perturbed Toda field theories (TFT)s. In  the “reflection amplitudes” for all non-simply laced Toda field theories (TFT)s were proposed as well as the exact relation between the masses of the particles and the parameters in the action associated with ATFTs. On the one hand, reflection amplitudes are the main objects which can be used for studying the UV asymptotics of the ground state energy $`E(R)`$ (or effective central charge $`c_{eff}(R)`$) for the system on the circle of size $`R`$ . In particular, the comparison of its asymptotics at small $`R`$ with the same quantity which can be independently calculated from the $`S`$-matrix data using TBA method  can be considered as a non-trivial test for the $`S`$-matrix amplitudes  proposed in . On the other hand, reflection amplitudes were also used to calculate the exact VEVs for all dual pairs of non-simply laced ATFTs .

However, in order to support the exact VEVs, various checks are desirable. The main reason is that the “reflection relations” method has no mathematical proof yet. For the two simplest cases (sinh-Gordon and Bullough-Dodd), the exact VEVs have been checked non-perturbatively but also perturbatively using the standard perturbation theory , the perturbation theory in the radial  or angular quantization  framework. The purpose of this paper is to check the VEVs conjectures of general affine Toda theories using standard perturbative calculations upto two-loops. In the next section, we recall some basic facts about ATFTs and the axiomatic equations satisfied by the VEVs which lead to the exact solutions given in . Perturbative analysis follows in sect.3 where we carefully compute $`<𝝋>`$ perturbatively upto one-loop and also the VEVs of some composite operators upto two-loops.

## 2 Exact vacuum expectation values in affine Toda field theories

Let us first recall some known results about ATFTs which are relevant in further analysis. The ATFT with real coupling $`b`$ corresponding to the affine Lie algebra 111Throughout the paper, we denote an untwisted algebra as $`\widehat{𝒢}`$, while $`\widehat{𝒢}^{}`$ refers to a twisted one. Furthermore, $`𝒢`$ denotes a finite Lie algebra. $`\widehat{𝒢}`$ is generally described by the action in the Euclidean space :

$`𝒜={\displaystyle d^2x\left[\frac{1}{8\pi }(_\mu 𝝋)^2+\underset{i=0}{\overset{r}{}}\mu _{𝐞_i}e^{b𝐞_i𝝋}\right]},`$ (2.1)
where $`\{𝐞_i\}\mathrm{\Phi }_𝐬`$ $`(i=1,\mathrm{},r)`$ is the set of simple roots of $`\widehat{𝒢}`$ of rank $`r`$ and $`𝐞_0`$ is a maximal root satisfying

$`𝐞_0+{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{r}{}}}n_i𝐞_i=0.`$ (2.2)
The fields in (2.1) are normalized such that :

$`<\phi _a(x)\phi _b(y)>=\delta _{ab}\mathrm{log}|xy|^2.`$ (2.3)
For the simply laced case, since all vertex operators in the potential possess the same conformal dimension they all renormalize in the same way. It is then sufficient to introduce one scale parameter 222For the sinh-Gordon model ($`A_1^{(1)}`$ ATFT) $`\mu `$ is generally called the cosmological constant. $`\mu `$ in action (2.1). However, for the non-simply laced case (except $`BC_rA_{2r}^{(2)}`$ \- $`r2`$ \- affine Lie algebra in which case three different parameters are necessary) we have to introduce two different parameters 333We choose the convention that the length squared of the long roots are four for $`C_r^{(1)}`$ and two for the other untwisted algebras. : one is associated with the set of standard roots of length $`|𝐞_i|^2=2`$ and is denoted by $`\mu _{𝐞_i}=\mu `$ whereas the other, denoted by $`\mu _{𝐞_i}=\mu ^{}`$, is associated with the set of non-standard roots of length $`|𝐞_i|^2=l^22`$.

The ATFTs can be considered as perturbed CFTs. Without the term with the zeroth root $`𝐞_0`$, the action in (2.1) describes a TFT which is conformal. To do it, one introduce a charge to infinity defined by :

$`𝐐=b𝝆+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{b}}𝝆^{}\text{where}𝝆={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝜶>0}{}}𝜶\text{and}𝝆^{}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝜶>0}{}}𝜶^{}`$ (2.4)
are respectively the Weyl and dual Weyl vector of $`𝒢`$. The sums in their definitions run over all positive roots $`\{𝜶\}\mathrm{\Phi }_+`$, dual roots $`\{𝜶^{}\}\mathrm{\Phi }_+^{}`$. Then, the stress-energy tensor $`T(z)`$, where $`z=x_1+ix_2`$, $`\overline{z}=x_1ix_2`$ are complex coordinates of $`^2`$,

$`T(z)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(_z𝝋)^2+𝐐_z^2𝝋`$ (2.5)
ensures the local conformal invariance of the TFT. The corresponding central charges were calculated in . Defining $`𝒂=(a_1,\mathrm{},a_r)`$, the exponential fields

$`V_𝒂(x)=\mathrm{exp}(𝒂𝝋)(x)`$ (2.6)
are spinless conformal primary fields with dimensions :

$`\mathrm{\Delta }(𝒂)={\displaystyle \frac{𝐐^2}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{(𝒂𝐐)^2}{2}}.`$ (2.7)
By analogy with the Liouville field theory  the physical space of states $``$ in the TFTs consists of the continuum variety of primary states associated with the exponential fields (2.6) and their conformal descendents with :

$`𝒂=i𝐏+𝐐\text{and}𝐏^r.`$ (2.8)
Besides the conformal invariance TFTs possess an extended symmetry generated by $`W(𝒢)`$-algebra . Indeed, for any arbitrary Weyl group element $`\widehat{s}𝒲`$ the fields $`V_{𝐐+\widehat{s}(𝒂𝐐)}(x)`$ are reflection images of each other and are related by the linear transformation :

$`V_𝒂(x)=R_{\widehat{s}}(𝒂)V_{𝐐+\widehat{s}(𝒂𝐐)}(x)`$ (2.9)
where $`R_{\widehat{s}}(𝒂)`$ is called the “reflection amplitude”, an important object in CFT which defines the two-point functions of the operator $`V_𝒂`$. In  the following expression for the reflection amplitude $`R_{\widehat{s}}(𝒂)`$ for non-simply laced TFT was obtained :

$`R_{\widehat{s}}(𝒂)={\displaystyle \frac{A_{\widehat{s}i𝐏}}{A_{i𝐏}}}`$ (2.10)
where

$`A_{i𝐏}`$ $`A(𝐏)`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{r}{}}}[\pi \mu _{𝐞_i}\gamma (𝐞_i^2b^2/2)]^{i𝝎_i^{}𝐏/b}\times {\displaystyle \underset{𝜶>0}{}}\mathrm{\Gamma }(1i𝐏𝜶b)\mathrm{\Gamma }(1i𝐏𝜶^{}/b)`$
with (2.8), the fundamental co-weights $`𝝎_i^{}`$ and we denote $`\gamma (x)=\mathrm{\Gamma }(x)/\mathrm{\Gamma }(1x)`$ as usual. We accept (2.10) as the proper analytical continuation of the function $`R_{\widehat{s}}(𝒂)`$ for all $`𝒂`$. For $`\widehat{s}_i𝒲_𝐬`$, the subset of Weyl group elements associated with the simple roots $`𝐞_i`$, notice that the ratio $`A(\widehat{s}_i𝐏)/A(𝐏)`$ reduce to the reflection amplitude $`S_L(𝐞_i,𝐏)`$ of the Liouville field theory  :

$`{\displaystyle \frac{A(\widehat{s}_i𝐏)}{A(𝐏)}}`$ $`=`$ $`S_L(𝐞_i,𝐏)`$ (2.11)
$`=`$ $`[\pi \mu _{𝐞_i}\gamma (𝐞_i^2b^2/2)]^{i𝐏𝐞_i^{}/b}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+i𝐏𝐞_ib)\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+i𝐏𝐞_i^{}/b)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1i𝐏𝐞_ib)\mathrm{\Gamma }(1i𝐏𝐞_i^{}/b)}}.`$
Then, as ATFTs can be realized as CFTs perturbed by some relevant operators , in the conformal perturbation theory (CPT) approach one can formally rewrite any $`N`$-point correlation functions of local operators $`𝒪_a(x)`$ as :

$`<𝒪_{a_1}(x_1)\mathrm{}𝒪_{a_N}(x_N)>_{ATFT}=Z^1(\lambda )<𝒪_{a_1}(x_1)\mathrm{}𝒪_{a_N}(x_N)e^{\lambda {\scriptscriptstyle d^2x\mathrm{\Phi }_{pert}(x)}}>_{TFT}`$
where

$`Z(\lambda )=<e^{\lambda {\scriptscriptstyle d^2x\mathrm{\Phi }_{pert}(x)}}>_{TFT},`$
$`\mathrm{\Phi }_{pert}`$ is the perturbing local field, $`\lambda `$ is the CPT expansion parameter which characterizes the strength of the perturbation and $`<\mathrm{}>_{TFT}`$ denotes the expectation value in the TFT. Whereas vertex operators (2.6) satisfy reflection relations (2.9) in the CFT, the CPT framework provides 444At the moment, there is no rigorous proof of this assumption. similar relations among their expectation values in the perturbed case. In other words, if dots stands for any local insertion one has :

$`<V_𝒂(x)(\mathrm{})>_{TFT}=R_{\widehat{s}}(𝒂)<V_{𝐐+\widehat{s}(𝒂𝐐)}(x)(\mathrm{})>_{TFT}.`$ (2.12)
Then, if we define the one-point function $`G(𝒂)`$ as the VEV of the vertex operator $`V_𝒂(x)`$ for non-simply laced ATFT by :

$`G(𝒂)=<\mathrm{exp}(𝒂𝝋)(x)>_{ATFT}`$ (2.13)
one can formally rewrite this expression 555In fact, the integrals in (2.14) are highly infrared divergent. By analogy with the situation appearing in the perturbed Liouville QFT , one can get around this infrared problem by considering a 2D world-sheet $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_g`$ topologically equivalent to a sphere equipped by a background metric $`g_{\nu \sigma }(x)=\rho (x)\delta _{\nu \sigma }`$. Then the terms $`\rho (y_k)`$ which appear in the integrals analogous to those in (2.14) provide an efficient infrared cut-off. We report the reader to  for details. as :

$`<e^{𝒂𝝋}(x)>_{ATFT}=Z^1(\lambda ){\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(\lambda )^n}{n!}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}d^2y_j<e^{𝒂𝝋}(x)e^{b𝐞_0𝝋}(y_1)\mathrm{}e^{b𝐞_0𝝋}(y_n)>_{TFT}}.`$ (2.14)
Indeed, using (2.12) one expects that similar relations hold for $`G(𝒂)`$. If this VEV satisfies the system of functional equations associated with $`𝒲_𝐬`$ then it also automatically satisfies more complicated reflection relations. Furthermore, as was shown in previous works , ATFTs can be understood as different perturbation of TFTs. The simplest case (beyond the sinh-Gordon model) is the Bullough-Dodd model which can be understood alternatively  as a perturbed Liouville CFT with coupling constant $`b`$ or a perturbed Liouville CFT with coupling constant $`b/2`$. Here one can proceed similarly. We denote $`\mathrm{\Phi }_𝐬(𝒢)`$ as the set of simple roots of the finite Lie algebra $`𝒢`$, $`𝜼`$ the extra-root associated with the perturbation and $`\{ϵ_i\}`$ an orthogonal basis ($`ϵ_iϵ_j=\delta _{ij}`$) in $`^r`$. Each one of the ATFT Lagrangian representation, denoted $`_b\left[\mathrm{\Phi }_𝐬(𝒢)\right]`$, associated with $`\mathrm{\Phi }_𝐬(𝒢)`$ and the coupling constant $`b`$ can be rewrite in two different ways :

$`_b\left[\mathrm{\Phi }_𝐬(B_r^{(1)})\right]`$ $``$ $`_b\left[\mathrm{\Phi }_𝐬(B_r)𝜼𝐞_0=(ϵ_1+ϵ_2)\right],`$
$``$ $`_b\left[\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_𝐬(D_r)𝜼ϵ_r\right];`$
$`_b\left[\mathrm{\Phi }_𝐬(C_r^{(1)})\right]`$ $``$ $`_b\left[\mathrm{\Phi }_𝐬(C_r)𝜼𝐞_0=2ϵ_1\right],`$
$``$ $`_b\left[\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_𝐬(C_r)𝜼2ϵ_r\right];`$
$`_b\left[\mathrm{\Phi }_𝐬(F_4^{(1)})\right]`$ $``$ $`_b\left[\mathrm{\Phi }_𝐬(F_4)𝜼𝐞_0=ϵ_1ϵ_2\right],`$
$``$ $`_b\left[\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_𝐬(B_4)𝜼{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(ϵ_1ϵ_2ϵ_3ϵ_4)\right];`$
$`_b\left[\mathrm{\Phi }_𝐬(G_2^{(1)})\right]`$ $``$ $`_b\left[\mathrm{\Phi }_𝐬(G_2)𝜼𝐞_0=\sqrt{2}ϵ_1\right],`$
$``$ $`_b\left[\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_𝐬(A_2)𝜼\sqrt{2/3}ϵ_2\right].`$
where the different sets of simple roots are reported in Appendix B. Using (2.12), it implies that the VEV (2.13) must satisfy simultaneously two irreducible systems of functional equations corresponding to two different sets $`𝒲_𝐬`$. It results that $`G(𝒂)`$ obeys the functional equations

$`G(\tau 𝒂)=S_L(𝐞_j,𝐏)G(\tau (𝐐+\widehat{s}_j(𝒂𝐐)))\text{for all}\widehat{s}_j𝒲_𝐬`$ (2.15)
where
$``$ $`B_r^{(1)}`$ : $`(\tau )_{ij}=\delta _{ij}`$ for $`𝒢B_r`$ and $`(\tau )_{ij}=\delta _{ir+1j}`$ for $`𝒢D_r`$;
$``$ $`C_r^{(1)}`$ : $`(\tau )_{ij}=\delta _{ij}`$ and $`(\tau )_{ij}=\delta _{ir+1j}`$ for $`𝒢C_r`$;
$``$ $`F_4^{(1)}`$ : $`(\tau )_{ij}=\delta _{ij}`$ for $`𝒢F_4`$ and $`(\tau )_{ij}=\delta _{ij}(\delta _{2j}+\delta _{3j}+\delta _{4j}\delta _{1j})`$ for $`𝒢B_4`$;
$``$ $`G_2^{(1)}`$ : $`(\tau )_{ij}=\delta _{ij}`$ for $`𝒢G_2`$ and $`(\tau )_{ij}=\delta _{i3j}`$ for $`𝒢A_2`$
with coupling constant $`b`$. Notice that by simply looking at the Dynkin diagram symmetry of $`B_r^{(1)}`$ and $`C_r^{(1)}`$ \- see figure 1 - one can also differently deduce :

$`G(a_1,a_2,\mathrm{},a_{r1},a_r)=G(a_1,a_2,\mathrm{},a_{r1},a_r)\text{for}B_r^{(1)};`$ (2.16)
$`G(a_1,a_2,\mathrm{},a_{r1},a_r)=G(a_r,a_{r1},\mathrm{},a_2,a_1)\text{for}C_r^{(1)}.`$
The reflection relations (2.15) (or, equivalently the relations (2.16) for $`B_r^{(1)}`$ and $`C_r^{(1)}`$) constituted the starting point in deriving the expectation values $`G(𝒂)`$. Following previous works, we also assumed that $`G(𝒂)`$ is a meromorphic function of $`𝒂`$.

Figure 1 \- Automorphisms associated with the Dynkin diagram
$`B_r^{(1)}`$ and $`C_r^{(1)}`$ corresponding to (2.16).

Furthermore, for real coupling constant $`b`$, the spectrum for any dual pair of non-simply laced ATFT consists of $`r`$ particles with the masses $`M_a`$ ($`a=1,\mathrm{},r`$) expressed in terms of the mass parameter $`\overline{m}`$. These spectra are reported in appendix A. The exact relation between the parameters of the action $`\mu `$ and $`\mu ^{}`$ and the masses associated with the spectrum of the physical particles was obtained in  using the Bethe ansatz method (see for example ). We report the reader to  for details. By replacing these mass-$`\mu `$ relations in the “minimal” solution 666Notice that the prefactor which was given in ref.  was presented in a slightly different, but equivalent, form. of the functional equations (2.15), the following exact expression for the VEVs (2.13) was proposed  :

$`G(𝒂)`$ $`=`$ $`\left[\overline{m}k(𝒢)\kappa (𝒢)\right]^{𝒂^2}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\mu \gamma (1+b^2)}{\mu ^{}\gamma (1+b^2l^2/2)}}\right]^{\frac{𝐝.𝒂(1B)}{Hb}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\left(\pi \mu \gamma (1+b^2)\right)^{l^2/2}}{\pi \mu ^{}\gamma (1+b^2l^2/2)}}\right]^{\frac{𝐝.𝒂B}{Hb}}`$ (2.17)
$`\times \mathrm{exp}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dt}{t}}\left(𝒂^2e^{2t}(𝒂,t)\right)`$
with

$`(𝒂,t)={\displaystyle \underset{𝜶>0}{}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sinh}(a_𝜶bt)\mathrm{sinh}\left((a_𝜶b2Q_𝜶b+H(1+b^2))t\right)\mathrm{sinh}(\left(\frac{b^2|𝜶|^2}{2}+1\right)t)}{\mathrm{sinh}(t)\mathrm{sinh}(\frac{b^2|𝜶|^2}{2}t)\mathrm{sinh}(H(1+b^2)t)}}\right]`$
where we denote $`a_𝜶=𝒂𝜶`$ and

$`𝐝={\displaystyle \frac{𝝆^{}h^{}𝝆h}{1l^2/2}}.`$
The expressions $`k(𝒢)`$ and $`\kappa (𝒢)`$ can be found in . Here, it is convenient to introduce the “deformed” Coxeter number  :

$`H=h(1B)+h^{}B\text{with}B={\displaystyle \frac{b^2}{1+b^2}}`$ (2.18)
where $`h`$ (resp. $`h^{}`$) is the Coxeter (resp. dual Coxeter) number of $`𝒢`$ (resp. $`𝒢^{}`$). The integral in (2.17) is convergent iff :

$`𝜶𝐐H(b+1/b)<e(𝜶𝒂)<𝜶𝐐\text{for all}𝜶\mathrm{\Phi }_+`$ (2.19)
and is defined through analytic continuation outside this domain. Particular case of (2.17) corresponds to the simply laced one for which the result is in perfect agreement with .

Similarly, it is straightforward to obtain the VEVs of an ATFT based on a twisted affine Lie algebra $`\widehat{𝒢}^{}`$. The reflection amplitudes corresponding to the TFT, i.e. the conformal part were easily obtained from (2.10) by using the duality relation for the parameters $`\mu _{𝐞_i}`$ and $`\mu _{𝐞_i}^{}`$ associated with the dual pairs of ATFTs  :

$`\pi \mu _{𝐞_i}\gamma \left({\displaystyle \frac{b^2𝐞_i^2}{2}}\right)=\left[\pi \mu _{𝐞_i}^{}\gamma \left({\displaystyle \frac{𝐞_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{2b^2}}\right)\right]^{b^2𝐞_i^2/2}`$ (2.20)
and the change $`b1/b`$. Each one of the Lagrangian associated with $`\widehat{𝒢}^{}`$ can be written in two different ways. In any case, the resulting system of functional equations which has to be satisfied by the VEV is nothing else than the dual of (2.15). To express the corresponding solution in terms of the mass of the physical particles, the mass-$`\mu `$ relations in the twisted case  are used. Finally, the result for the VEV $`G(𝒂)`$ for all twisted affine Lie algebras is obtained from (2.17) with the change $`b1/b`$.

It is similarly straightforward to study the $`BC_rA_{2r}^{(2)}`$ (self-dual) remaining case which was considered in .

Notice that the expectation values (2.17) can be used to derive the bulk free energy of the ATFT :

$`f_{\widehat{𝒢}}=\text{ }\text{limV→∞}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{V}}\mathrm{ln}Z,`$ (2.21)
where $`V`$ is the volume of the 2D space and $`Z`$ is the singular part of the partition function associated with action (2.1). For specific values $`𝒂b\{𝐞_i\}`$, with $`\{𝐞_i\}\mathrm{\Phi }_𝐬`$ ($`i=1,\mathrm{},r`$) or $`𝐞_0`$, the integral in (2.17) can be evaluated explicitely. Using the exact mass-$`\mu `$ relations and the obvious relations:

$`_\mu f(\mu )={\displaystyle \underset{\{i\}}{}}<e^{b𝐞_i𝝋}>\text{or}_\mu ^{}f(\mu ^{})={\displaystyle \underset{\{i^{}\}}{}}<e^{b𝐞_i^{}𝝋}>`$ (2.22)
where $`\{i\}`$ and $`\{i^{}\}`$ denotes respectively the whole set of long and short roots, the following bulk free energy was obtained  :

$`f_{\widehat{𝒢}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{m}^2\mathrm{sin}(\pi /H)}{8\mathrm{sin}(\pi B/H)\mathrm{sin}(\pi (1B)/H)}},\widehat{𝒢}=B_r^{(1)}\text{and}C_r^{(1)},`$
$`f_{\widehat{𝒢}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{m}^2\mathrm{cos}(\pi (1/31/H))}{16\mathrm{cos}(\pi /6)\mathrm{sin}(\pi B/H)\mathrm{sin}(\pi (1B)/H)}},\widehat{𝒢}=G_2^{(1)}\text{and}F_4^{(1)}`$
and similarly with the change $`B(1B)`$ for $`(B_r^{(1)})^{}`$, $`(C_r^{(1)})^{}`$, $`(G_2^{(1)})^{}`$, and $`(F_4^{(1)})^{}`$. In particular, these results were in perfect agreement with the values obtained using the Bethe ansatz approach .

## 3 Perturbative checks

To support the result (2.17) of  beyond the non-perturbative check (provided by the bulk free energy calculation), we present here a perturbative check. We expand the vacuum expectation value (2.17) in power series in $`b`$ and compare each coefficient with the one obtained from standard Feynman perturbation theory associated with (2.1). In the first part of this section, we consider the VEV of the field $`<𝝋>`$ which is given by :

$`<𝝋>={\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta 𝒂}}G(𝒂)|_{𝒂=0}.`$ (3.1)
Since the result renders the same conclusion for all ATFTs, we choose $`D_r^{(1)}`$ series as illustrative examples and omit the details for other simply laced cases ($`A_r^{(1)}`$ case is trivial as seen shortly). It also provides a useful step to the calculation of $`B_r^{(1)}`$ series which is obtained from $`D_r^{(1)}`$ through folding procedure. Finally we present the result of an exceptional algebra $`G_2^{(1)}`$.

In a second part, as an additional check we also consider the “fully connected” composite operator expectation value of $`<𝝋^a𝝋^b>`$ defined by

$`<<𝝋^a𝝋^b>>`$ $``$ $`<𝝋^a𝝋^b><𝝋^a><𝝋^b>={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta ^2\mathrm{ln}G(𝒂)}{\delta 𝒂^a\delta 𝒂^b}}|_{𝒂=0}`$ (3.2)
Since these quantities are quite complicated to calculate perturbatively, we will content ourselves with considering only some simple combinations of them upto two loops for $`B_3^{(1)}`$, $`C_2^{(1)}`$ and $`G_2^{(1)}`$ cases.

### 3.1 Perturbative checks of $`<𝝋>`$

Using (2.17) and (3.1) one finds the result :

$`<𝝋>`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{𝐝}{Hb}}\mathrm{ln}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\mu \gamma (1+b^2)}{\mu ^{}\gamma (1+b^2l^2/2)}}\right]+B{\displaystyle \frac{𝐝}{Hb}}(l^2/21)\mathrm{ln}\left[\pi \mu \gamma (1+b^2)\right]`$ (3.3)
$`+`$ $`b{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑t{\displaystyle \underset{𝜶>0}{}}\left[𝜶{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sinh}\left((2𝜶𝐐bH(1+b^2))t\right)\mathrm{sinh}(\left(\frac{b^2|𝜶|^2}{2}+1\right)t)}{\mathrm{sinh}(t)\mathrm{sinh}(H(1+b^2)t)\mathrm{sinh}(\frac{b^2|𝜶|^2}{2}t)}}\right].`$
To proceed further 777However, notice that $`<𝝋>=0`$ identically for $`A_r^{(1)}`$ series since $`\mu ^{}=\mu `$, $`l^2=2`$ and $`_{𝜶>0}𝜶\mathrm{sinh}\left((2𝜶𝐐hQ)bt\right)=0`$ ., we expand $`<𝝋>`$ order by order in $`b`$ and write the result as :

$`<𝝋>={\displaystyle \frac{1}{b}}𝒦+b+𝒪(b^2).`$ (3.4)
For the simply laced case, this expression is drastically simplified :

$`𝒦={\displaystyle \underset{𝜶>0}{}}𝜶\mathrm{ln}\gamma \left({\displaystyle \frac{𝜶𝝆}{h}}\right);`$ (3.5)
$`={\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑t{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{coth}(t)}{\mathrm{sinh}(ht)}}\left\{{\displaystyle \underset{𝜶>0}{}}𝜶\mathrm{sinh}((h2𝜶𝝆)t)\right\}.`$
Let us introduce the component notation : $`𝒦_i=𝐞_i𝒦`$ and $`_i=𝐞_i`$.

For the $`D_r^{(1)}`$ series, the non-perturbative results are given as

$`𝒦_1=𝒦_{r1}=𝒦_r=(1{\displaystyle \frac{4}{h}})\mathrm{ln}2;`$ (3.6)
$`_1=_{r1}=_r={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2h}}\left(\xi ({\displaystyle \frac{1}{h}})+\xi ({\displaystyle \frac{2}{h}})\xi ({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{h}})\xi ({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})\right)`$
where $`h=2r2`$ and for $`k=2,3,\mathrm{},r2`$ we have

$`𝒦_k=\mathrm{ln}2(1{\displaystyle \frac{4}{h}})\mathrm{ln}2;`$ (3.7)
$`_k={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2h}}(\xi ({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{k}{h}})\xi ({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{k1}{h}})\xi ({\displaystyle \frac{k}{h}})\xi ({\displaystyle \frac{k1}{h}})`$
$`+\xi ({\displaystyle \frac{2k2}{h}})+2\xi ({\displaystyle \frac{2k1}{h}})+\xi ({\displaystyle \frac{2k}{h}}))`$
where we define $`\xi (x)=\mathrm{\Psi }(x)+\mathrm{\Psi }(1x)`$ in terms of the di-gamma function, $`\mathrm{\Psi }(x)=d\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Gamma }(x)/dx`$.

Perturbative analysis of the action (2.1) begins with shifting $`𝝋𝝋_{cl}+𝝋`$ such that $`𝝋_{cl}`$ satisfies the minimum of the ATFT potential. This classical solution reproduces exactly the leading term in (3.4) :

$`𝝋_{cl}𝐞_i=𝒦_i.`$ (3.8)
This identity provides the amusing relations among the $`\gamma (x)`$-functions, when $`x`$ is related to Lie algebra quantity, which is observed for general case in ref.

One-loop perturbative calculation is conveniently done using the classical mass eigenstate representation . $`D_r^{(1)}`$ series representation is given by :

$`𝐞_1=(l_1^1,l_1^2,\mathrm{},l_1^{r2},1,0)`$ (3.9)
$`𝐞_k=(l_{k1}^1l_k^1,l_{k1}^2l_k^2,\mathrm{},l_{k1}^{r2}l_k^{r2},0,0)\text{ for }k=2,\mathrm{},r2`$
$`𝐞_{r1}=(l_{r2}^1,l_{r2}^2,\mathrm{},l_{r2}^{r2},0,1)`$
$`𝐞_r=(l_{r2}^1,l_{r2}^2,\mathrm{},l_{r2}^{r2},0,1)`$
where $`l_k^a=\frac{2}{\sqrt{h}}\mathrm{sin}\frac{2ak\pi }{h}`$.

The next-to leading order term, i.e. the field expectation value to the one-loop order, $`<𝝋>_b`$ is given by tad-pole diagrams which in general needs to be appropriatly regularized. The perturbative result is, however, finite for the mass eigenstate representation and does not depend on the regularization scheme for $`D_r^{(1)}`$ series (and in general for simply laced cases).

To distinguish from the component notation, $`\phi _j`$, which is obtained from the proposed VEV, the perturbative mass eigenstate component is denoted as $`\mathrm{\Phi }^c`$. If the values are correct, then the relation between these two quantities should be $`\phi _j=_c\mathrm{\Phi }^c𝐞_j^c`$ where $`𝐞_j^c`$ is the $`c`$-th component of the mass eigenstate representation $`𝐞_j`$.

$`\mathrm{\Phi }^c`$ vanishes when $`c=r1,r`$ and $`c=`$ odd $`r2`$,

$$<\mathrm{\Phi }^c>_b=0;$$
(3.10)
and otherwise

$`<\mathrm{\Phi }^c>_b`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[\text{}+\text{}+\text{}+\text{}\right]`$ (3.11)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{b}{\sqrt{h}Z_c}}\left(Z_{\frac{c}{2}}^2\mathrm{ln}(4Z_{\frac{c}{2}}^2)Z_{\frac{hc}{2}}^2\mathrm{ln}(4Z_{\frac{hc}{2}}^2)\right),`$
where $`Z_a=\mathrm{sin}\frac{a\pi }{h}`$. The divergent terms cancel each other and the total contribution remains finite.

With the help of various relations of the di-gamma function and trigonometric function one can prove that $``$’s in (3.6) and (3.7) coincide with the ones in (3.11). Considering this as a non-trivial check, one can view this as a useful identity between di-gamma functions and trigonometric functions,

$$b_i=\underset{c=\mathrm{even}}{\overset{r2}{}}<\mathrm{\Phi }^c>_b𝐞_i^c.$$
(3.12)
For example, we have for $`i=1`$,

$`\xi ({\displaystyle \frac{1}{h}})+\xi ({\displaystyle \frac{2}{h}})\xi ({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{h}})\xi ({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{c=\mathrm{even}}{\overset{r2}{}}}8\mathrm{cos}({\displaystyle \frac{c\pi }{h}})\left[\mathrm{sin}^2({\displaystyle \frac{c\pi }{2h}})\mathrm{ln}(4\mathrm{sin}^2({\displaystyle \frac{c\pi }{2h}}))\mathrm{cos}^2({\displaystyle \frac{c\pi }{2h}})\mathrm{ln}(4\mathrm{cos}^2({\displaystyle \frac{c\pi }{2h}}))\right].`$ (3.13)
For the non-simply laced case, the situation becomes more involved. By expanding (3.3), one finds the following coefficients :

$`𝒦`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{𝐝}{h}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2\mu }{l^2\mu ^{}}}\right){\displaystyle \underset{𝜶>0}{}}𝜶^{}\mathrm{ln}\gamma \left({\displaystyle \frac{𝜶𝝆^{}}{h}}\right),`$
$``$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{𝐝}{h}}\left\{\left({\displaystyle \frac{l^2}{2}}1\right)[2\gamma _E+\mathrm{ln}(\pi \mu b^2)]+(hh^{})\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2\mu }{l^2\mu ^{}}}\right)\right\}`$
$`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}dt{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{sinh}(ht)}}\{\mathrm{coth}(t){\displaystyle \underset{𝜶>0}{}}𝜶\mathrm{sinh}((h2𝜶𝝆^{})t)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{h}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝜶>0}{}}𝜶^{}𝜶(h𝝆h^{}𝝆^{})\mathrm{cosh}((h2𝜶𝝆^{})t)\},`$
where $`\gamma _E=0.5772\mathrm{}`$ is the Euler’s number.

The explicit value for $`B_r^{(1)}`$ series takes the form :

$`𝒦_1={\displaystyle \frac{2}{h}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2\mu ^{}}{\mu }}\right)\mathrm{ln}2;`$ (3.14)
$`𝒦_k={\displaystyle \frac{2}{h}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2\mu ^{}}{\mu }}\right),k=2,3,\mathrm{},r1;`$
$`𝒦_r=(1{\displaystyle \frac{2}{h}})\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2\mu ^{}}{\mu }}\right)+\mathrm{ln}2;`$
and

$`_1={\displaystyle \frac{1}{h}}𝒥+_1+\mathrm{\Delta }_1;`$ (3.15)
$`_r=\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{h}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\right)𝒥+_r+\mathrm{\Delta }_r;`$
$`_k={\displaystyle \frac{1}{h}}𝒥+_k+\mathrm{\Delta }_k,k=2,3,\mathrm{},r1,`$
where

$$𝒥=\left(2\gamma _E+\mathrm{ln}(\pi \mu b^2)+\frac{2}{h}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\mu ^{}}{2\mu }\right)\right),$$
(3.16)
and

$`_1={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2h}}\left\{\xi ({\displaystyle \frac{1}{h}})+\xi ({\displaystyle \frac{2}{h}})\xi ({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{h}})\xi ({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})\right\};`$ (3.17)
$`_r={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2h}}\left\{2\xi ({\displaystyle \frac{1}{h}})\xi ({\displaystyle \frac{2}{h}})\xi ({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})\right\};`$
$`_k={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2h}}\{\xi ({\displaystyle \frac{2k2}{h}})+2\xi ({\displaystyle \frac{2k1}{h}})+\xi ({\displaystyle \frac{2k}{h}})\xi ({\displaystyle \frac{k}{h}})`$
$`\xi ({\displaystyle \frac{k1}{h}})\xi ({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{k1}{h}})\xi ({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{k}{h}})\}.`$
Note that $`_k`$’s ($`k=1,\mathrm{},r1`$) are identical to $`_k`$’s in (3.7) for $`D_{r+1}^{(1)}`$ series. $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$’s are given by :

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_1=\mathrm{\Delta }_r={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2h^2}}\left\{2\xi ({\displaystyle \frac{1}{h}})+4\xi ({\displaystyle \frac{2}{h}})2\xi ({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{h}})\right\};`$ (3.18)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_k={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2h^2}}\{(44k)\xi ({\displaystyle \frac{2k2}{h}})+4k\xi ({\displaystyle \frac{2k}{h}})2k\xi ({\displaystyle \frac{k}{h}})`$
$`+(2k2)\xi ({\displaystyle \frac{k1}{h}})+(2k2)\xi ({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{k1}{h}})2k\xi ({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{k}{h}})\},`$
and turn out to be identical to each other :

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_1=\mathrm{\Delta }_k=\mathrm{\Delta }_r={\displaystyle \frac{4}{h^2}}\mathrm{ln}2.`$ (3.19)
As noted for the simply laced case, $`𝒦`$ is identified with the classical value $`𝝋_{cl}`$. For $`B_r^{(1)}`$ series,

$$b𝐞_i𝝋_{cl}=\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\mu n_i}{\mu _{𝐞_i}}\right)\frac{1}{h}\underset{j=0}{\overset{r}{}}n_j\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\mu n_j}{\mu _{𝐞_j}}\right),$$
(3.20)
which agrees with $`𝒦`$ in (3.14).

Beyond the classical result, however, renormalization should be carefully incorporated unlike in the simply laced case. The classical mass eigenstate representation of $`B_r^{(1)}`$ is obtained by folding the one of $`D_{r+1}^{(1)}`$ (3.9),

$`𝐞_1=(l_1^1,l_1^2,\mathrm{},l_1^{r1},1)`$ (3.21)
$`𝐞_k=(l_{k1}^1l_k^1,l_{k1}^2l_k^2,\mathrm{},l_{k1}^{r1}l_k^{r1},0)\text{ for }k=2,\mathrm{},r1`$
$`𝐞_r=(l_{r1}^1,l_{r1}^2,\mathrm{},l_{r1}^{r1},0)`$
from which we obtain the one-loop contribution $`<𝝋>_b`$ :

$`<\mathrm{\Phi }^r>_b=0;`$
$`<\mathrm{\Phi }^c>_b={\displaystyle \frac{b}{4\sqrt{h}Z_c^2}}g_rZ_{2c}\text{ when }c=\text{ odd }r1.;`$ (3.22)
$`<\mathrm{\Phi }^c>_b={\displaystyle \frac{b}{4\sqrt{h}Z_c^2}}\left\{4Z_c\left(g_{\frac{c}{2}}Z_{\frac{c}{2}}^2g_{\frac{hc}{2}}Z_{\frac{hc}{2}}^2\right)+g_rZ_{2c}\right\}\text{ when }c=\text{ even}r1,`$
where $`Z_a=\mathrm{sin}(a\pi /h)`$ as is given in (3.11). $`g_a`$ is the Euclidean integration of the tad-pole diagram,

$$g_a\frac{d^2k}{(2\pi )^2}\frac{1}{k^2+m_a^2},$$
(3.23)
where $`m_a`$ is the physical mass equivalent to $`M_a`$ in Appendix A up to this order of $`b^2`$. Its explicit value is given by $`m_a=2\overline{m}_0\mathrm{sin}(\frac{\pi a}{h})`$ for $`a=1,2,\mathrm{},r1`$ and $`m_r=\overline{m}_0`$ with $`\overline{m}_0^2=2^{2+\frac{2}{h}}(\pi \mu b^2)(\mu ^{}/\mu )^{\frac{2}{h}}`$ .

Here, to evaluate the one-loop diagram we are using the normal ordering with respect to the free field theory. In this scheme $`g_a`$ is given by

$`g_a`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi }}(\mathrm{ln}({\displaystyle \frac{m_a}{2}})^2+2\gamma _E)`$ (3.24)
$`=`$ $`[𝒥+\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_a}{\overline{m}_0}}\right)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{h}}\mathrm{ln}2].`$
Then, using the identity

$$\left(\underset{c=\mathrm{odd}}{\overset{r1}{}}\underset{c=\mathrm{even}}{\overset{r1}{}}\right)\mathrm{csc}^2(\frac{c\pi }{h})\mathrm{sin}(\frac{2c\pi }{h})\mathrm{sin}(\frac{2kc\pi }{h})=\frac{k}{2h},k=1,\mathrm{},r1,$$
(3.25)
we find that the $`𝒥`$ parts of (3.1) agree exactly with those of (3.15), i.e.

$$b_i|_{𝒥\text{-part}}=\underset{c}{}𝐞_i^c<\mathrm{\Phi }^c>_b|_{𝒥\text{-part}}.$$

Furthermore, since the term $`\mathrm{ln}(m_a/\overline{m}_0)^2`$ in (3.24) reproduces $`_k`$’s which are the same as $`_k`$’s in (3.7) of $`D_{r+1}^{(1)}`$ series for $`k=1,\mathrm{},r1`$, the agreement (3.12) in $`D_r^{(1)}`$ case immediately implies

$$b_i|_{\text{-part}}=\underset{c}{}𝐞_i^c<\mathrm{\Phi }^c>_b|_{\text{-part}}.$$

Finally, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_k`$ terms come from the last term $`\frac{2}{h}\mathrm{ln}2`$ in (3.24). This establishes the exact agreement between the perturbative and nonperturbative results for the $`B_r^{(1)}`$ case.

For the exceptional algebra $`G_2^{(1)}`$, we have

$`𝒦_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{ln}({\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^{}}{3\mu }})+2\mathrm{ln}\gamma ({\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}})4\mathrm{ln}\gamma ({\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}});`$ (3.26)
$`𝒦_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{ln}({\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^{}}{3\mu }})\mathrm{ln}\gamma ({\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}})+2\mathrm{ln}\gamma ({\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}});`$
$`_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}\left[4\gamma _E+\mathrm{ln}((\pi \mu b^2)({\displaystyle \frac{\pi \mu ^{}b^2}{3}}))\right]+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{ln}3+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{9}}\mathrm{ln}2;`$
$`_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\left[2\gamma _E+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{ln}((\pi \mu b^2)({\displaystyle \frac{\pi \mu ^{}b^2}{3}}))\right]{\displaystyle \frac{2}{9}}\mathrm{ln}2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\mathrm{ln}3.`$
On the other hand, the corresponding one-loop diagram is given by :

$`<\mathrm{\Phi }^1>_b`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[\text{}\right]`$ (3.27)
and

$`<\mathrm{\Phi }^2>_b`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[\text{}+\text{}\right].`$ (3.28)
After explicit calculations as in the previous case, we find $`<\mathrm{\Phi }^2>_b=b_2`$ and $`<\mathrm{\Phi }^1>_b=\frac{1}{2}_1+_2`$ which completes the perturbative check for $`G_2^{(1)}`$.

### 3.2 Perturbative checks of the composite operators $`<𝝋_a𝝋_b>`$

¿From the expression (2.17) and using (3.2) we have the VEV of composite operator,

$`G^{ab}`$ $``$ $`<<𝝋^a𝝋^b>>`$
$`=`$ $`\delta ^{ab}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{r}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{n_i}{H(1+b^2)}}\mathrm{ln}(\pi \mu _{𝐞_i}\gamma (1+b^2𝐞_i^2/2))+{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dt}{t}}[\delta ^{ab}e^{2t}^{ab}]`$
where

$`^{ab}=b^2t^2{\displaystyle \underset{𝜶>0}{}}𝜶^a𝜶^b{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sinh}((1+b^2𝜶^2/2)t)\mathrm{cosh}\left(((1+b^2)H2b𝜶𝐐)t\right)}{\mathrm{sinh}(t)\mathrm{sinh}(b^2𝜶^2t/2)\mathrm{sinh}((1+b^2)Ht)}}.`$ (3.29)
These are in general rather complicated quantities to calculate perturbatively due to various divergences to be taken care of up to some finite part. For some combinations such as the relative value of the composite operator $`G^{aa}G^{rr}`$ ($`a=1,\mathrm{},r1`$), however, the propagators are renormalized with an over-all renormalization constant and therefore, most of the complications due to the renormalization scheme disappears. Therefore, such quantities provides an additional independent check of the non-perturbative result in a simple way. Since the perturbative calculation is done in the classical mass eigenstate representation, in this section we will use the mass eigenstate representation for $`𝜶`$ in (3.29).

For $`C_2^{(1)}`$, the composite operator value is given by :

$`G^{12}=0;`$
$`G^{11}G^{22}={\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑t{\displaystyle \frac{b^2t\mathrm{sinh}(1+b^2)t(4\mathrm{cosh}(4+8b^2)t4)}{\mathrm{sinh}t\mathrm{sinh}b^2t\mathrm{sinh}(4+6b^2)t}}`$
$`=\mathrm{ln}2+b^2(0.79221\mathrm{})+𝒪(b^4).`$ (3.30)
The corresponding value is confirmed perturbatively: $`<<\mathrm{\Phi }^1\mathrm{\Phi }^2>>=0`$ since there is no vertex at all for this case. The other one is given by :

$`<<\mathrm{\Phi }^1\mathrm{\Phi }^1\mathrm{\Phi }^2\mathrm{\Phi }^2>>`$ (3.31)
$`=\left[\text{}\text{}\right]+\left[\text{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\times \text{}\right]+𝒪(b^4)`$
$`=\mathrm{ln}2+b^2(0.79221\mathrm{})+𝒪(b^4)`$
whose Feynman integration is done in the Appendix C. This agrees with the non-perturbative results (3.30).

For the case $`B_3^{(1)}`$, the non-perturbative result gives :

$`G^{12}=G^{23}=0;`$
$`G^{11}G^{33}=2{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dt}{t}}(^{11}^{33})=b^2(0.195326\mathrm{})+𝒪(b^4);`$ (3.32)
$`G^{22}G^{33}=2{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dt}{t}}(^{22}^{33})=\mathrm{ln}3+b^2(0.321552\mathrm{})+𝒪(b^4)`$
where

$`^{11}^{33}={\displaystyle \frac{b^2t^2}{\mathrm{sinh}(t)\mathrm{sinh}((6+5b^2)t)}}\times `$
$`\{{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sinh}((1+b^2)t)}{\mathrm{sinh}(b^2t)}}(\mathrm{cosh}((4+3b^2)t)+2\mathrm{cosh}(b^2t)\mathrm{cosh}((2+b^2)t))`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sinh}((1+b^2/2)t)}{2\mathrm{sinh}(b^2t/2)}}(\mathrm{cosh}((4+4b^2)t)+\mathrm{cosh}((2+b^2)t)2)\};`$
$`^{22}^{33}={\displaystyle \frac{b^2t^2}{\mathrm{sinh}(t)\mathrm{sinh}((6+5b^2)t)}}\times `$
$`\{{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sinh}((1+b^2)t)}{\mathrm{sinh}(b^2t)}}(\mathrm{cosh}((4+3b^2)t)\mathrm{cosh}((2+b^2)t))`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sinh}((1+b^2/2)t)}{2\mathrm{sinh}(b^2t/2)}}(\mathrm{cosh}((4+4b^2)t)+\mathrm{cosh}((2+b^2)t)2)\}.`$
The perturbative calculation gives the result, $`<<\mathrm{\Phi }^1\mathrm{\Phi }^3>>=<<\mathrm{\Phi }^2\mathrm{\Phi }^3>>=0`$ since there is no vertex at all in this case. The relative values of the composite operators are :

$`<<\mathrm{\Phi }^1\mathrm{\Phi }^1\mathrm{\Phi }^3\mathrm{\Phi }^3>>`$ $`=`$ $`\left[\text{}+\text{}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\times \text{}\right]`$ (3.33)
$`\left[\text{}+\text{}+\text{}\right]+𝒪(b^4)`$
$`=`$ $`b^2(0.195326\mathrm{})+𝒪(b^4);`$
$`<<\mathrm{\Phi }^2\mathrm{\Phi }^2\mathrm{\Phi }^3\mathrm{\Phi }^3>>`$ $`=`$ $`\text{}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\times \left\{\text{}+\text{}+\text{}\right\}`$ (3.34)
$`\left[\text{}+\text{}+\text{}\right]+𝒪(b^4)`$
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{ln}3+b^2(0.321552\mathrm{})+𝒪(b^4)`$
which exactly reproduces (3.32).

Similar check can be done for $`G_2^{(1)}`$. $`G^{12}`$ is not vanishing but is given by :

$`G^{12}`$ $`=\sqrt{3}b^2{\displaystyle \underset{𝜶>0}{}}\left(({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}𝜶_1+𝜶_2)𝜶\right)(𝜶_1𝜶)`$ (3.35)
$`\times {\displaystyle }dt{\displaystyle \frac{t\mathrm{sinh}((1+b^2\alpha ^2/2)t)\mathrm{cosh}((1+b^2)H2b𝜶𝐐)t}{\mathrm{sinh}(t)\mathrm{sinh}(b^2𝜶^2t/2)\mathrm{sinh}((1+b^2)Ht)}}`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{2}{\sqrt{3}}}b^2(0.0488314\mathrm{})+O(b^4)`$
whose value is also obtained from the perturbative diagram

$`<<\mathrm{\Phi }^1\mathrm{\Phi }^2>>={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\times \text{}+𝒪(b^4).`$ (3.36)
Finally, the relative value of the composite operators

$`G^{11}G^{22}={\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dt}{\mathrm{sinh}(t)\mathrm{sinh}((6+4b^2)t)}}`$
$`\left\{\mathrm{sinh}((1+b^2)t)\left(\mathrm{cosh}(2t)\mathrm{cosh}(4t+2b^2t)\right)\right\}`$
$`+\mathrm{sinh}(t+{\displaystyle \frac{b^2t}{3}})(2\mathrm{cosh}({\displaystyle \frac{2b^2t}{3}})\mathrm{cosh}(4t+{\displaystyle \frac{10b^2t}{3}})\mathrm{cosh}(2t+{\displaystyle \frac{4b^2t}{3}}))\}`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{ln}3+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}b^2(0.183165\mathrm{})+𝒪(b^4)`$ (3.37)
is reproduced by the following perturbative diagrams,

$`<<\mathrm{\Phi }^1\mathrm{\Phi }^1\mathrm{\Phi }^2\mathrm{\Phi }^2>>=\left[\text{}+\text{}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\times \text{}\right]`$
$`\left[\text{}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\times \text{}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\times \text{}\right]+𝒪(b^4).`$ (3.38)
It is straightforward to generalize the above perturbative calculation to other remaining cases and to confirm the proposed VEV.

#### Acknowledgements

P.B. is very grateful to V.A. Fateev for valuable discussions and for the hospitality of KIAS where part of this work was done. This work is supported in part by MOST 98-N6-01-01-A-05 (CA), and KOSEF 1999-2-112-001-5(CA,CR). PB’s work is supported in part by the EU under contract ERBFMRX CT960012 and Marie Curie fellowship HPMF-CT-1999-00094.

## Appendix A

Differently to the simply laced case for which the mass ratios correspond to the classical values, mass ratios for non-simply laced case get quantum corrections . The mass spectrum for the dual cases remains the same with the change $`b1/b`$, where the mass spectrum depends only on one parameter $`\overline{m}`$ :

$`B_r^{(1)}:`$ $`M_r=\overline{m},M_a=2\overline{m}\mathrm{sin}(\pi a/H),a=1,2,\mathrm{},r1`$
$`C_r^{(1)}:`$ $`M_a=2\overline{m}\mathrm{sin}(\pi a/H),a=1,2,\mathrm{},r`$
$`G_2^{(1)}:`$ $`M_1=\overline{m},M_2=2\overline{m}\mathrm{cos}(\pi (1/31/H))`$
$`F_4^{(1)}:`$ $`M_1=\overline{m},M_2=2\overline{m}\mathrm{cos}(\pi (1/31/H)),`$ (A.1)
$`M_3=2\overline{m}\mathrm{cos}(\pi (1/61/H)),M_4=2M_2\mathrm{cos}(\pi /H).`$
For non-simply laced Lie algebras, the Coxeter and dual Coxeter numbers are :

$`h_{B_r^{(1)}}=h_{(C_r^{(1)})}=2r,h_{(B_r^{(1)})^{}}=h_{A_{2r1}^{(2)}}=2r1,h_{(C_r^{(1)})^{}}=h_{D_{r+1}^{(2)}}=2(r+1),`$
$`h_{F_4^{(1)}}=12,h_{(F_4^{(1)})^{}}=9,h_{G_2^{(1)}}=6,h_{(G_2^{(1)})^{}}=h_{D_4^{(3)}}=4.`$
## Appendix B : Notations

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_𝐬(A_2)`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{2}ϵ_2,\sqrt{3/2}ϵ_11/\sqrt{2}ϵ_2;`$
$`\mathrm{\Phi }_𝐬(B_r)`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ_iϵ_{i+1}1ir1,ϵ_r;`$
$`\mathrm{\Phi }_𝐬(C_r)`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ_iϵ_{i+1}1ir1,2ϵ_r;`$
$`\mathrm{\Phi }_𝐬(D_r)`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ_iϵ_{i+1}1ir1,ϵ_r+ϵ_{r1};`$
$`\mathrm{\Phi }_𝐬(F_4)`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ_iϵ_{i+1}i\{2,3\},ϵ_4,{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(ϵ_1ϵ_2ϵ_3ϵ_4);`$
$`\mathrm{\Phi }_𝐬(G_2)`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{2/3}ϵ_2,1/\sqrt{2}ϵ_1\sqrt{3/2}ϵ_2;`$
and

$`\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_𝐬(C_r)=\mathrm{\Phi }_𝐬(C_r)|_{ϵ_iϵ_{r+1i}};\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_𝐬(D_r)=\mathrm{\Phi }_𝐬(D_r)|_{ϵ_iϵ_{r+1i}};`$
$`\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_𝐬(A_2)=\mathrm{\Phi }_𝐬(A_2)|_{ϵ_1ϵ_2};\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_𝐬(B_4)=\mathrm{\Phi }_𝐬(B_4)|_{ϵ_iϵ_i,i\{2,3,4\}}.`$
## Appendix C : Feynman integrals

The Feynman integration for $`C_2^{(1)}`$ in (3.31) is presented as the following. The lowest order diagrams (order of $`b^0`$) are represented as the Feynman integration :

$`<<\mathrm{\Phi }^1\mathrm{\Phi }^1\mathrm{\Phi }^2\mathrm{\Phi }^2>>_0=4\pi {\displaystyle \frac{d^2p_E}{(2\pi )^2}\left(\frac{1}{p_E^2+M_1^2}\frac{1}{p_E^2+M_2^2}\right)}=\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{M_2^2}{M_1^2}}=\mathrm{ln}2,`$ (C.1)
where $`p_E`$ is the Euclidean momentum. $`M_i`$ is the physical mass and its value at the integration is considered up to this appropriate perturbative order in $`b`$. Since the wavefunction and mass renormalization is already done, the next-to leading order diagrams (order of $`b^2`$) are represented as :

$`<<\mathrm{\Phi }^1\mathrm{\Phi }^1\mathrm{\Phi }^2\mathrm{\Phi }^2>>_b=(4\pi )^2{\displaystyle \frac{d^2p_E}{(2\pi )^2}\left(\frac{32I_{12}}{(p_E^2+M_1^2)^2}\frac{16I_{11}}{p_E^2+M_2^2}\right)}=0.79221\mathrm{}`$ (C.2)
where

$`I_{ij}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{d^2k_E}{(2\pi )^2}\frac{1}{(k_E^2+M_i)^2}\frac{1}{(k_E+p_E)^2+M_j)^2}}`$ (C.3)
$`={\displaystyle _0^1}{\displaystyle \frac{dx}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x(1x)p_E^2+(1x)M_i^2+xM_j^2}}`$
The Feynman integrations (3.33) and (3.34) of the next-to leading order for $`B_3^{(1)}`$ are given by :

$`<<\mathrm{\Phi }^1\mathrm{\Phi }^1\mathrm{\Phi }^3\mathrm{\Phi }^3>>_b=(4\pi )^2{\displaystyle \frac{d^2p_E}{(2\pi )^2}\left(\frac{(I_{33}+2I_{12})}{(p_E^2+M_1^2)^2}\frac{(2I_{13}+2I_{23})}{(p_E^2+M_3^2)^2}\right)}`$
$`=0.195326\mathrm{}`$
$`<<\mathrm{\Phi }^2\mathrm{\Phi }^2\mathrm{\Phi }^3\mathrm{\Phi }^3>>_b=(4\pi )^2{\displaystyle \frac{d^2p_E}{(2\pi )^2}\left(\frac{(I_{33}+I_{11}+9I_{22})}{(p_E^2+M_2^2)^2}\frac{(2I_{13}+2I_{23})}{(p_E^2+M_3^2)^2}\right)}`$
$`=0.321552\mathrm{}`$ (C.4)
The Feynman integrations (3.36) and (3.38) of the next-to leading order for $`G_2^{(1)}`$ are evaluated respectively as :

$`<<\mathrm{\Phi }^1\mathrm{\Phi }^2>>_b=(4\pi )^2{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\sqrt{3}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2p_E}{(2\pi )^2}\left(\frac{I_{11}}{(p_E^2+M_1^2)(p_E^2+M_2^2)}\right)}`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{2}{\sqrt{3}}}\times 0.0488314\mathrm{}`$
$`<<\mathrm{\Phi }^1\mathrm{\Phi }^1\mathrm{\Phi }^2\mathrm{\Phi }^2>>_b=(4\pi )^2{\displaystyle \frac{d^2p_E}{(2\pi )^2}\left(\frac{(2I_{12}+\frac{4}{3}I_{11})}{(p_E^2+M_1^2)^2}\frac{(9I_{12}+I_{11})}{p_E^2+M_2^2}\right)}`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\times 0.183165\mathrm{}`$ (C.5)