text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Non-commutative field theories have recently attracted much attention, mainly due to the discovery of their connection to string theory . The perturbative structure of these theories is interesting . Though they differ from ordinary theories by higher derivative terms, perturbative results seem to indicate that they do not flow to the ordinary theory in the infrared. Contributions from the UV affect the IR. This surprising behavior, called UV/IR mixing, seems to contradict the Wilsonian picture. We usually refer to higher dimensional operators as ’irrelevant’ in the IR. However, in the case of non-commutative theories, an infinite sum of irrelevant contributions conspire to be relevant in the IR.

The picture just described rests on one-loop calculations . In order to gain a complete understanding of the IR, non-perturbative methods might be required. In the case of $`𝒩=4`$ SYM, it was found, by using the AdS/CFT correspondence, that there is no UV/IR mixing and the theory converges to the commutative one in the IR . The reason is that the non-planar contributions, which are responsible to the UV/IR mixing, cancel in this case .

A model for analyzing the infra-red behavior of the non-commutative theories is pure $`𝒩=2`$ SYM. This theory is not finite and à priori we expect UV/IR mixing. Moreover, using the Seiberg-Witten theory we can analyze the IR physics. Several attempts in this directions were already made. In the first  the fate of the center of the gauge group was not addressed. We disagree with the results of the two other papers .

The one-loop effective action of the NC $`U(1)`$ $`𝒩=2`$ SYM was recently derived . Based on this one-loop calculation, it was suggested  that the $`U(1)`$ theory flows asymptotically to a free theory in the IR. Note, however, that non-perturbative effects might be essential for a generic value of $`\theta `$. 222 Shortly after the first version of our paper was published in hep-th, the paper  appeared. The authors arrive at the same conclusion that we have put forward, namely that the $`SU(N)`$ part is unchanged compared to the commutative case and that the $`U(1)`$ part is free in the IR at least at the two derivative level to which we have restricted our analysis.

In order to describe the theory at the IR, we parametrize it as an ordinary theory, namely in terms of a holomorphic prepotential. We assume higher derivatives to be irrelevant. The non-commutativity and the UV/IR mixing should enter via the prepotential. Note that an IR description of the $`U(N)`$ theory in terms of a set of non-commutative $`U(1)^{}s`$ does not make sense since the non-commutative $`U(1)`$ theory is asymptotically free. Thus, we assume an ordinary (commutative) description in the IR.

The summary of our results is the following: we find that the two-derivative effective action flows in the IR to the commutative one and there is no UV/IR mixing. Namely, the $`U(N)`$ theory is described in terms of a free $`U(1)`$ (the center) and a set of $`N1`$ additional $`U(1)^{}s`$ which are described by the ordinary Seiberg-Witten curve. In particular, we do not find in the IR any coupling between the center $`U(1)`$ and the other $`U(1)^{}s`$. We should emphasize, however, that this is probably due to the two-derivatives approximation that we use. At higher derivatives we do expect a coupling of the center $`U(1)`$ and the rest of the $`U(1)^{}s`$.

The organization of the manuscript is as follows: section 2 is devoted to field theory analysis whereas section 3 is devoted to string theory analysis. In section 2.1 we review the perturbative behavior of the model. In section 2.2 we describe the IR behavior of the $`U(1)`$ theory. Section 2.3 is devoted to a discussion about the expected behavior of the $`U(N)`$ model. In section 2.4 we present its solution. Section 3.1 and 3.2 are devoted to the description of the solution from the type IIA and M-theory points of view. It is used to support our findings in field theory.

## 2 Field Theory Analysis

### 2.1 Perturbative Dynamics

Non-commutative gauge theories exhibit an interesting perturbative behavior. First, it is important to note that, within the framework of  only certain gauge groups and representations can be consistently described over the non-commutative space. In particular we cannot discuss $`SU(N)`$ theories, only $`U(N)`$. The reason is that the $`SU(N)`$ theory is not gauge invariant under the generalized non-commutative gauge transformation since it contains anti-commutators of generators ; see however also .

The planar graphs of the non-commutative theories are exactly the same as the planar graphs of ordinary theory, apart from overall global phases . On the other hand, non-planar graphs are believed to be UV finite . However, these graphs lead to a new kind of infra-red divergences . Since the source of these new type of divergences is at high momenta, there is an interesting UV/IR mixing. For supersymmetric gauge theories the only new IR divergences are logarithmic, in contrast to the quadratic IR divergences in the non-supersymmetric theory . At one loop, these effects appear only in amplitudes which involve external legs in the center of the gauge group . For $`𝒩=4`$ theory theses effects cancel  and in the infrared the theory converges to the ordinary one .

It is important to note that even though the non-commutative field theories have been shown to have a ‘nicer’ UV behavior than the corresponding commutative theories, a proof of renormalizability has not been given yet. However, since these theories can be realized as a vacuum of string theory via brane configurations, they should be consistent at the quantum level, even in the field theory limit. (The simplest way of realizing non-commutative $`𝒩=2`$ theories in type IIA, is to consider type IIB with D3 branes on a $`Z_2`$ orbifold singularity with a constant NS-NS two-form background and then T-dualize to have D4 branes suspended between NS5 branes compactified on a circle ).

We assume that the $`𝒩=2`$ model is renormalizable (one loop evidence for the renormalizability of the model is given in  ). If the model is renormalizable, the structure of divergences should be the same as of the planar commutative theory. Namely, the same counter-terms are needed to regularize the theory and the beta-function consists of only the one loop contribution which is

$$\beta =N_f2N$$
(2.1)
for an $`U(N)`$ theory with $`N_f`$ hypermultiplets. In particular the pure $`U(1)`$ theory is asymptotically free . We will restrict ourselves to theories without matter, though the generalization to the cases when matter is present is straightforward.

### 2.2 The $`𝒩=2`$ $`U(1)`$ Non-Commutative SYM

$`𝒩=2`$ non-commutative Yang-Mills can be formulated in superspace similarly to the ordinary theory  (see also  and  for a recent application to the $`𝒩=4`$ case). The $`𝒩=2`$ gauge multiplet contains a complex scalar field in the adjoint representation. In contrast to the commutative theory, the NC theory is not free and there is a potential for the scalar. It is

$$V(\varphi \overline{\varphi }\overline{\varphi }\varphi )^2,$$
(2.2)
where the square is with respect to the star product. As usual, the classical moduli space of vacua is determined by finding physically inequivalent static solutions of $`V=0`$.

Assuming that the minima of the potential are unchanged by quantum corrections, they are

$$\varphi =a=\mathrm{constant}.$$
(2.3)
There is, however, a crucial difference between the commutative and the non-commutative theories. Usually, in the ordinary $`SU(N)`$ theory there is a moduli space parameterized by $`vev`$’s of gauge invariant monomials of the scalar fields. Here, giving a $`vev`$ breaks the gauge symmetry spontaneously. In the $`U(1)`$ non-commutative case the transformation

$$\varphi \varphi +a,$$
(2.4)
with constant $`a`$ is a symmetry of the theory, i.e. there is no moduli space which is parameterized by $`a`$. Therefore, not only the vacuum is insensitive to this shift, but all the physics. For example, there are no $`W`$-boson masses which depend on $`a`$. Note that this symmetry holds also at the quantum level. This happens since both the action and the measure are invariant under the shift (as we shall see in the type IIA picture this corresponds to the fact that we have the freedom to change the location of the D4 branes without changing the physics on these branes).

One may therefore wonder what the theory in the IR is.

The symmetry (2.4) is spontaneously broken in the vacuum. The realization of this breaking is the appearance of a Goldstone boson. We assume here that the Goldstone theorem holds in the non-commutative case . One might wonder if this is indeed true, as the proof of Goldstone theorem assumes locality. However, non-commutativity is a mild non-locality, and in particular, we observe that there is a Goldstone boson in the UV regime. It is the scalar itself. The realization of the gauge theory via type IIA would give us further support that a Goldstone mode exists. By completion of the $`𝒩=2`$ multiplet, we arrive to the conclusion that we should have a massless $`𝒩=2`$ vector multiplet in the IR, as well. What is therefore the form of the low-energy affective action ?

To lowest order in derivatives, namely to quadratic order, the action can be written in terms of a prepotential $``$

$$d^2\theta \frac{^2(A)}{A^2}W_\alpha W^\alpha .$$
(2.5)
Since the shift (2.4) is a symmetry of the theory, the effective coupling cannot depend on $`a`$. It means that the prepotential must be of the following form

$$=\frac{1}{2}\tau _0A^2,$$
(2.6)
and at the quadratic level the IR theory is free, exactly as the commutative one. At first sight this looks surprising, since the UV theory is asymptotically free. However, note that the action (2.5) describes the dependence on the ’moduli’ $`A`$ at the IR and not the coupling constant as a function of the energy. Namely, though the gauge coupling runs, we cannot read its running from the prepotential. The reason is that the $`vev`$ of the scalar is not related to the energy scales, in contrast to the ordinary case where $`W`$ bosons exist.

We may recall that the standard way of deriving the one-loop prepotential is to find an effective action which reproduces the $`U(1)_{}`$ anomaly (see e.g. ). Supersymmetry requires the divergence of the $`U(1)_{}`$ to be controlled by the one-loop beta function. In the present case the one-loop beta function does not vanish and thus neither does the $``$-anomaly (see  for a related discussion). Neither of them is smooth in the $`\theta 0`$ limit. A quadratic prepotential, however, cannot reproduce the $`U(1)_{}`$ anomaly. Nevertheless, we claim that there is no contradiction between the shift symmetry and the existence of the $`U(1)_{}`$ anomaly. Moreover, a naively expected $`\mathrm{log}A`$ term in the effective action would, as in , require additional singularities which signal the appearance of massless states. We find such a scenario unlikely.

### 2.3 The $`U(N)`$ case

Now we turn to the case of non-commutative $`U(N)`$ Yang-Mills theory. At the generic point on the moduli space the theory is broken to $`U(1)^N`$. The infra-red theory is described by $`N`$ independent vector multiplets. In order to see this, let us use the following generators to describe the Cartan subalgebra

$$\stackrel{~}{T}^{\stackrel{~}{ı}}=\mathrm{diag}(0,..,0,1,0,\mathrm{},0)$$
(2.7)
Accordingly there are $`N`$ photons $`\stackrel{~}{A}_\mu ^{\stackrel{~}{ı}}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{ı}=1,\mathrm{},N`$. It is important to observe that the residual non-commutative gauge symmetry does not mix the photons $`\stackrel{~}{A}_\mu ^i`$. Indeed, under NC gauge transformation, each photon transform into itself in the following way

$$\stackrel{~}{A}_\mu ^{\stackrel{~}{ı}}\stackrel{~}{A}_\mu ^{\stackrel{~}{ı}}+_\mu \lambda ^{\stackrel{~}{ı}}+\mathrm{sin}(\theta ^{\nu \rho }_\nu ^{(1)}_\rho ^{(2)})\stackrel{~}{A}_\mu ^{\stackrel{~}{ı}}\lambda ^{\stackrel{~}{ı}},$$
(2.8)
where the derivative $`^{(1)}`$ acts on the photon and the derivative $`^{(2)}`$ acts on the gauge parameter. The non-commutative parameter has only non-vanishing space-space components, e.g. $`\theta ^{12}0`$.

The IR theory thus consists of $`N`$ photons. However, the low-energy action should be parameterized by only $`N1`$ $`vev`$’s. The reason is that the $`vev`$ of the ’center of mass’ $`U(1)`$ is not a modulus. This is as in sect. 2.2. In order to see this, it is better to parameterize the Cartan by the traceless generators

$$T^i=\stackrel{~}{T}^{\stackrel{~}{ı}}\stackrel{~}{T}^{\stackrel{~}{ı}+1}=\mathrm{diag}(0,\mathrm{},0,1,1,0,\mathrm{}0)$$
(2.9)
and by the ’center of mass’ generator $`T^0=1\mathrm{I}`$. The theory is invariant under a shift of the ’center of mass’ scalar by a constant.

Thus the low energy effective action should be written in the following way

$$d^2\theta \left(\frac{^2(A,A_{\{i\}})}{A^2}W_\alpha W^\alpha +\underset{ij}{}\frac{^2(A,A_{\{i\}})}{A_iA_j}W_\alpha ^iW^{\alpha ^j}\right),$$
(2.10)
where $`A`$ stands for $`A_0`$. By the same arguments as in the previous section it is clear that the prepotential should be of the form

$$=\frac{1}{2}\tau _0A^2+f(A_{\{i\}})$$
(2.11)
Therefore, the center of mass $`U(1)`$ is decoupled from the rest of the $`U(1)^{}s`$. This is precisely the same behavior as in the commutative case. The $`U(N)`$ commutative theory decouples to a trivial (center) $`U(1)`$ and $`U(1)^{}s`$ which are associated with the broken $`SU(N)`$. The difference is that the non-commutative theory in the UV does not split into two non-interacting pieces. Rather, the non-commutative $`U(1)`$ interacts with the $`SU(N)`$ part. Only at low energies such a decoupling occurs.

### 2.4 The Seiberg-Witten curve

With the understanding (2.11) we can proceed in a similar way as in the commutative case. The generalization of the Seiberg-Witten curve to the $`U(N)`$ case seems to be

$`y^22P(z)y+1=0`$ (2.12)
$`P(z)={\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{~}{ı}=1}{\overset{N}{}}}(za_{\stackrel{~}{ı}})=z^N{\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{N1}{}}}u_iz^{Ni}`$ (2.13)
where, in particular, $`u_0=a_i`$. In the type IIA picture discussed below, the D4 branes end on the NS5 branes at the positions $`a_i`$ and $`u_0`$ is proportional to their center-of-mass position.

The kinetic term if the effective action can be written as

$$S=d^4xK_{i\overline{ȷ}}_\mu u_i^\mu \overline{u}_{\overline{ȷ}}$$

with $`i,j=1,\mathrm{},N`$. Where

$$K_{i\overline{ȷ}}=_\mathrm{\Sigma }d^2z\frac{z^{Ni1}}{yP(z)}\overline{\frac{z^{Nj1}}{yP(z)}}$$
(2.14)
Note that $`K_{0\overline{0}}`$, i.e. the kinetic energy associated with the center-of-mass, diverges. In fact, by going to center-of-mass coordinates via the shift $`zz+\frac{1}{N}a_i`$ we can eliminate $`u_0`$ so that (2.13) effectively only depends on $`N1`$ parameters. Thus, the solution at low-energy reduces to the ordinary solution, at the two-derivatives approximation. An indication that this is indeed the case is given by the gravity solution . Note however that the gravity solution is valid only at large $`N`$ and therefore the issue of the ’center of mass’ $`U(1)`$ cannot be addressed in this approach.

At first look it seems to contradict the UV/IR mixing of the non-commutative theories. There are one-loop non-planar graphs, associated with the $`U(1)`$, which indicate a mixing of the UV/IR. In fact, the one-loop effective action analysis which takes into account the UV/IR mixing also suggests a flow to a free $`U(1)`$ theory . We suggest that at very low energies, the $`𝒩=2`$ theory flows to a commutative theory.

## 3 The picture from string theory

### 3.1 Type IIA

The realization of non-commutative $`𝒩=2`$ SYM is as in the commutative case, but with an additional constant NS-NS two-form along the $`1,2`$ components. The brane configuration consists of $`N`$ coincident $`D4`$ branes in the $`0,1,2,3,6`$ directions and two parallel NS5 branes in the $`0,1,2,3,4,5`$. The D4 branes spans a finite segment of the 6-direction and the NS5 branes are located at the ends of this segment .

The type IIA pictures captures the classical theory and the one-loop effects . It does not describe the IR theory, only the UV. Let us see how it describes the $`U(N)`$ non-commutative theory.

First of all, it describes really $`U(N)`$ and not $`SU(N)`$. The reason is the following. Let us assume that the D-branes are separated. In the presence of NS-NS field there is a modified potential. The potential, due to their positions, is

$$\mathrm{tr}(\varphi \overline{\varphi }\overline{\varphi }\varphi )^2.$$
(3.1)
Let us shift the position of the branes by a 4d space-time dependent piece.

$$\varphi \varphi +a(x).$$
(3.2)
Without the NS-NS background (or, equivalently, without the star product), this shift does not affect the potential, only the kinetic term of the $`U(1)`$. However, the modified potential is not invariant under this shift. It means that the $`U(1)`$ field is not decoupled. On the other hand, when $`a`$ is constant, it is still a symmetry. One can always shift the D-brane positions by a constant. That means that the $`vev`$ is not a modulus. This shows that the symmetry (2.4) holds at the quantum level, at least perturbatively. The fixing of the position of the branes breaks this symmetry and the result is a Goldstone boson, exactly the same as in the ordinary case.

The bending of the NS5 brane is not affected by the NS-NS 4d background. It describes the dependence of the gauge coupling on the $`vev`$ of the scalars. This is why the one-loop beta function of the non-commutative theory is the same as the commutative one. The case of a single D4 brane (the $`U(1)`$ theory) is exceptional. In this case, even in the commutative theory, the NS5 branes bend. However, it does not imply a running of the gauge coupling as a function of the energy since a $`vev`$ (a separation of D4 branes) is needed to relate the bending to the “real” beta function.

### 3.2 M-theory

In the M-theory picture the brane configuration becomes a single M5. The configuration is non-compact and the non-compactness carries the additional $`U(1)`$, which is located at ’infinity’. Thus the low energy theory (even in the commutative case) is in fact $`U(1)^N`$ and not $`U(1)^{N1}`$. The point is that the additional $`U(1)`$ is not dynamical. No $`W`$-bosons are associated with it. Therefore, the conclusion in the commutative case is that this additional $`U(1)`$ must be free.

In order to realize non-commutativity, a constant 3-form background should be added . However, the 3-form background does not change the geometrical picture. The $`U(1)`$ case is described by a single M5 with zero genus. The $`U(1)`$ mode that lives on the zero genus M5 is non-normalizable and hence it supports our conclusion that the $`U(1)`$ theory becomes free in the infrared. Let us turn now to the $`U(N)`$ theory. The compact part of the M5 is still a genus $`g=N1`$ Riemann surface. So, it seems that also in this background there are only $`N1`$ dynamical photons and the additional $`U(1)`$ decouples from the dynamics.

We now provide some details. First we briefly summarize the structure of the theory (see for details ). The harmonic decomposition of the self-dual two-form on the M5 worldvolume gives rise to $`U(1)^g`$ gauge fields, while two out of five scalars, which parameterize the position of the curve $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ in the four-dimensional manifold $`Q=𝐑^3\times S^1`$ ($`𝐑^3=\{x^4,x^5,x^6\}`$) should be decomposed in the basis of the deformations of the normal bundle thus giving $`g`$ complex scalars needed to complete $`𝒩=2`$ vector multiplets. Finally, an extra scalar arises from the ”decomposition” of the two-form in terms of the volume form of the finite part of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ (alternatively seen as a Hodge-dual of the two-form in four dimensional space-time.). This compact mode joins the three remaining scalars on the fivebrane worldvolume to form a ”universal” hypermultiplet. As is , one can show explicitly by looking at the reduction of susy transformations that this multiplets decouples from the rest of the theory.

Dealing with the non-compactness of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ as in , one expands the field-strength of the two-form in terms of the harmonic one-forms $`\omega _i`$ on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ as

$$H=\underset{i}{\overset{g}{}}(F_i\omega _i+F_i\omega _i)$$
(3.3)
to find at the linearized level that the dynamics is governed by the intersection matrix $`\tau _{ij}=_\mathrm{\Sigma }\omega _i\omega _j`$. One has to bear in mind that in the full theory $`H`$ is not closed and is related to a closed three-form in a complicated non-linear fashion. While this nonlinearity greatly complicates the full analysis, it is not very important in the far infrared regime where we are working and where the theory is broken to $`U(1)^g`$. Most importantly, turning on the bulk $`C`$-field does not lead to additional deformations of this sector, and it is precisely this deformations that we are interested in. As we will argue now the only deformation induced by the $`C`$-field affects the center of mass $`U(1)`$, which also unfortunately is the weakest point of the M-theory derivation of SW theory (See e.g. ).

The one-form, $`\omega _0`$, related to the center of mass $`U(1)`$, requires special attention. This is the only one-form on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ that extends to $`Q`$ (note that $`\omega _0`$ is fixed on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$) and hence is orthogonal to $`\omega _i`$ ($`\tau _{0i}=0`$). Moreover when extended to the bulk it should coincide with the only one-form on $`Q`$, namely the form supported on the M-theory circle. In order to obtain the relevant coupling, with a slight abuse of notation and omitting the pull-back signs, we take $`C=B\omega _0`$. The $`C`$-field coupling to M5, $`_{M_6}|HC|^2`$, gives a coupling to the center of mass $`U(1)`$ while leaving the other $`U(1)`$ fields unaffected:

$$_{M_4}|F_0B|^2.$$
(3.4)
As mentioned before the coefficient in front of this term is infinite but in the far infrared we can absorb it by a field redefinition 333 As already mentioned we are not discussing the matter fields, but at this point it is natural to ask what happens in situations corresponding to type IIA limit where we have multiple fivebranes. While the M-theoretic discussion, in particular the assertion that there is only one $`U(1)`$ field which can be coupled to the NS two-form via (3.4), does not change, at first sight the situation looks much different both from IIA and field theory point of view. However it is not hard to see that even in the case of multiple fivebranes (product gauge groups) there is only one Goldstone field and thus only one additional massless $`U(1)`$. Indeed, mutual motion of the groups of fourbranes in the adjacent areas of the interior of the fivebrane chain affects the masses of the hypermultiplets , and thus the only allowed shift now is that of the whole system. Field-theoretically speaking, one can also see that any shift, other than simultaneous shift in all scalars, will change the mass of the bifundamental hypers due to the change in the Yukawa couplings.. Unfortunately this argument only shows that the $`C`$-field coupling deforms only the center of mass $`U(1)`$ and that in the far infrared it does not affect the remaining gauge fields, confirming our field-theoretical findings. This conclusion is in complete agreement with the supergravity analysis  which shows that the commutative and the non-commutative moduli spaces coincide at large $`N`$. However since the adequate description of the center of mass is notoriously difficult in this picture, it does not shed much light on the nature of the $`U(1)`$ theory itself, and here we will have to rely solely on field theory arguments.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We would like to thank L. Alvarez-Gaume, C. Bachas, M. Douglas, F. Hassan, Y. Oz and A Schwimmer for useful discussions. Interesting conversations with O. Aharony, J. Barbon, M. Berkooz, S. Elitzur, K. Lansteiner, E. Lopez, N. Nekrasov, E. Rabinovici, S. Shatashvili and S. Yankielowicz are also gratefully acknowledged. The work of A.A. and R.M. is supported in part by EEC contract HPRN-CT-2000-00122. The work of S.T. is supported by GIF - the German-Israeli Foundation for Scientific Research and by European Commission RTN programme HPRN-CT-2000-00131 in which he is associated to U-Bonn.


format: text

text:
# The Noncommutative Supersymmetric Nonlinear Sigma Model

## I INTRODUCTION

Recently, a great amount of interest has been devoted to the subject of noncommutative field theory. This interest has various origins as quantum gravity, string theory or just the investigations of the conceptual basis of field theory. It was found that, contrary to initial expectations, noncommutative models based on Moyal products are in general plagued with inconsistencies like the breaking of unitarity and causality  and the mixing of infrared/ultraviolet divergences. Whenever possible, one could evade the problems of unitarity and causality by restricting the noncommutativity to the space coordinates only.

Noncommutative field theories are nonlocal field models where the nonlocality is a well defined consequence of the noncommutativity. For a given model it could happen that the ultraviolet divergences do not preserve the nonlocal Moyal structure of the bare vertices and the model turns out to be nonrenormalizable though it is renormalizable in ordinary space. After verifying renormalizability, one should yet determine up to what extent a noncommutative model retains the main features of its commutative counterpart. The answer to both questions depends on the details of the underlying interactions. For instance, it was recently shown that the $`O(N)`$ symmetry of the noncommutative linear sigma model can not be spontaneously broken for $`N>2`$, while, at least up to one loop, the same does not apply for the noncommutative $`U(N)`$ linear sigma model when the ordering of the quartic interaction is gauge invariant.

Most of the investigations on noncommutative field theories have been restricted to the first terms of the perturbative series. Extension to higher orders are hampered by technical difficulties and the UV/IR mixing. This last feature, namely, the entanglement of scales which mixes the ultraviolet and infrared behaviors leads to the breakdown of the perturbative scheme in many of the standard renormalizable theories. Fortunately, supersymmetric models  appear to be free from this drawback as it was shown for the Wess–Zumino model .

The question now is to decide whether the supersymmetric extension of a noncommutative field theory not only preserves the renormalizability but also other essential properties that its commutative counterpart may eventually possess.

In the present work we will use the $`D`$ dimensional ($`2D<4`$) $`O(N)`$ Gross-Neveu (GN) model to illustrate these points. Although perturbatively renormalizable only for $`D=2`$, its commutative version is $`1/N`$ expandable and exhibits dynamical mass generation for both $`D=2`$ and $`D=3`$ . As we shall see, noncommutativity breaks both these aspects. Nevertheless, as in the Wess–Zumino model , supersymmetry allows to recover renormalizability and dynamical mass generation.

The supersymmetric partner of the GN model is the nonlinear sigma model whose noncommutative extension is afflicted with UV/IR mixing. As will be seen, supersymmetry also corrects this problem. It should be stressed, however, that, due to the nonlocal character of the Moyal product, the renormalization program for the noncommutative supersymmetric nonlinear sigma model presents new aspects, which are not shared by its commutative counterpart. In particular, as we shall prove, multiplicative renormalizations for the auxiliary fields become mandatory to achieve finite radiative corrections.

The paper is organized as follows. In section II we start by stressing some basic aspects of the $`1/N`$ expansion of the commutative GN model which will prove crucial for our discussion. Afterwards, we introduce its noncommutative version and explicitly demonstrate the breakdown of renormalizability. In this section we also discuss the UV/IR mixing in the $`1/N`$ expansion of the nonlinear sigma model. In section III we pinpoint the tools needed to construct the $`1/N`$ expansion of the supersymmetric nonlinear sigma model, which contains both the nonlinear sigma model and the GN model . The noncommutative supersymmetric nonlinear sigma model is studied in section IV with special emphasis on the mechanism of mass generation. We also include in this section the computation of the leading corrections to the propagators of the basic fields. In section V we complete the renormalization program in $`2+1`$ dimensions, up to the subleading order in $`1/N`$. Some remarks on the renormalization of the $`1+1`$ dimensional model and the conclusions are presented in section VI.

## II The Gross-Neveu and the non linear sigma models

The commutative $`O(N)`$ GN model is specified by the Lagrangian density

$$=\frac{i}{2}\overline{\psi }\overline{)}\psi +\frac{g}{4N}(\overline{\psi }\psi )(\overline{\psi }\psi ).$$
(1)
where $`\psi _i,i=1,\mathrm{}N`$ are two-component Majorana spinors. Only in two dimensions this model is perturbatively renormalizable. Although perturbatively nonrenormalizable in 2+1 dimensions, the model is $`1/N`$ expandable and presents some interesting aspects such as dynamical mass generation . From now on our discussion will be restricted to $`2D<4`$.

To implement the $`1/N`$ expansion one introduces an auxiliary field $`\sigma `$ which enables to write the Lagrangian of the theory as

$$=\frac{i}{2}\overline{\psi }\overline{)}\psi \frac{\sigma }{2}(\overline{\psi }\psi )\frac{N}{4g}\sigma ^2.$$
(2)
At the quantum level one should integrate over $`\sigma `$ which can develop a nonvanishing vacuum expectation value (VEV). We replace $`\sigma `$ by $`\sigma +M`$ where $`M`$ is the VEV of the original $`\sigma `$. The new Lagrangian is

$$=\frac{i}{2}\overline{\psi }\overline{)}\psi \frac{M}{2}\overline{\psi }\psi \frac{\sigma }{2}(\overline{\psi }\psi )\frac{N}{4g}\sigma ^2\frac{N}{2g}M\sigma .$$
(3)
Since, by construction, the new field $`\sigma `$ has zero VEV, the gap equation

$$\frac{M}{2g}i\frac{d^Dk}{(2\pi )^D}\frac{M}{k^2M^2}=0$$
(4)
must be obeyed. After a Wick rotation one has

$$\frac{M}{2g}\frac{d^Dk}{(2\pi )^D}\frac{M}{k_E^2+M^2}=0.$$
(5)
The ultraviolet divergence in the above integral may be eliminated by means of a coupling constant renormalization. Indeed, by defining the renormalized coupling constant through

$$\frac{1}{g}=\frac{1}{g_R}+2\frac{d^Dk}{(2\pi )^D}\frac{1}{k_E^2+\mu ^2},$$
(6)
the divergence is canceled. In 2+1 dimension one finds

$$\frac{1}{g_R}=\frac{\mu |M|}{2\pi }$$
(7)
and therefore only for $`\frac{1}{g_R}+\frac{\mu }{2\pi }>0`$ it is possible to have $`M0`$. Otherwise $`M`$ is necessarily zero. In two dimensions no such restriction exists. Whatever the case, we shall only focus on the massive phase.

We shall next compute the propagator for the auxiliary field. It is given by $`1/F(p)`$, where

$`F(p)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{iN}{2g}}N{\displaystyle \frac{d^Dk}{(2\pi )^D}\frac{k(k+p)+M^2}{(k^2M^2)[(k+p)^2M^2]}}`$ (8)
is the two point function of the sigma field. This last integral is divergent but after taking into account (4) it becomes

$`F(p)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(p^24M^2)N}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^Dk}{(2\pi )^D}\frac{1}{(k^2M^2)[(k+p)^2M^2]}},`$ (9)
which is finite for $`D<4`$. We see that the above cancellation of divergences results from a fine tuning between the divergence in the integral in (8) and the one in the gap equation.

Let us turn our attention to the noncommutative version of the model. By introducing Moyal products we arrive at

$$S_{GN}=d^Dx\left[\frac{i}{2}\overline{\psi }\overline{)}\psi \frac{M}{2}\overline{\psi }\psi \frac{1}{2}\sigma (\overline{\psi }\psi )\frac{N}{4g}\sigma ^2\frac{N}{2g}M\sigma \right].$$
(10)
As can be checked, the path integration on $`\sigma `$ leads to a noncommutative version of (1) in which the four–fermion interaction is $`\overline{\psi }_i\psi _i\overline{\psi }_j\psi _j`$. A more general $`O(N)`$ noncommutative four–fermion interaction may involve the term $`\overline{\psi }_i\overline{\psi }_j\psi _i\psi _j`$. However this last combination does not have a simple $`1/N`$ expansion and it will not be considered in this work.

Since the Moyal product does not affect the quadratic part, the propagator for $`\psi `$ is as before. On the other hand, in momentum space the trilinear vertex has to be multiplied by $`\mathrm{cos}(p_1p_2)`$ where $`p_1`$ and $`p_2`$ are the momenta through the fermion lines *** Here we have introduced the notation $`ab=1/2a^\mu b^\nu \mathrm{\Theta }_{\mu \nu }`$, where $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mu \nu }`$ is the anti-symmetric constant matrix characterizing the noncommutativity of the underlying space.. Then, the gap equation is not modified whereas, for the proper two point function of the $`\sigma `$ field, one obtains

$$(p)=\frac{iN}{2g}N\frac{d^Dk}{(2\pi )^D}\mathrm{cos}^2(kp)\frac{k(k+p)+M^2}{(k^2M^2)[(k+p)^2M^2]}$$
(11)
and we see that the divergent parts do not match anymore. The model is no longer renormalizable. A similar conclusion was arrived in .

An analogous situation arises in connection with the Goldstone theorem within the context of the $`O(N)`$ linear sigma model. Indeed, the pion propagator counterterm, which is determined by the vanishing of the VEV of the sigma field, is not modified by the noncommutativity. However, for $`N>2`$, the graphs contributing to the one loop corrections of the pion propagator are altered thus destroying the renormalizability of the model .

As a side observation, notice that, up to the leading order of $`1/N`$, no inconsistency would arise had we employed Dirac instead of Majorana spinors. This is so because the oscillating exponentials, characteristics of the noncommutativity, cancel in the leading order contributions to the self–energy parts. The same does not hold at higher orders of $`1/N`$.

We would like to remark that the noncommutative version of the nonlinear sigma model, which happens to be the supersymmetric partner of the GN model, also presents inconsistencies. The model is specified by the Lagrangian

$$=\frac{1}{2}\phi (^2+M^2)\phi +\frac{1}{2}\lambda \phi \phi \frac{N}{2g}\lambda ,$$
(12)
where $`\phi _i`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},N`$ are real scalar fields, $`M`$ is, as before, the generated mass and $`\lambda `$ is an auxiliary field which implements the nonlinear constraint $`\phi \phi =N/g`$. The leading correction to the self-energy of the $`\phi `$ field, shown in Fig. 1$`a`$, is

$$i\frac{d^2k}{(2\pi )^2}\frac{\mathrm{cos}^2(kp)}{(k+p)^2M^2}\mathrm{\Delta }_\lambda (k),$$
(13)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\lambda `$ is the propagator for the $`\lambda `$ field. This expression may be decomposed into a sum of a planar (quadratically divergent) piece and a nonplanar one. The nonplanar contribution is ultraviolet finite but diverges quadratically for small momenta (UV/IR mixing ) thus destroying the $`1/N`$ expansion of the model. Moreover, an attempt to solve this difficulty by generalizing the definition of 1PI diagram  amounts to add the contribution from graph in Fig. 1$`b`$ which is given by

$$i\mathrm{\Delta }_\lambda (0)\frac{d^2k}{(2\pi )^2}\frac{d^2q}{(2\pi )^2}\frac{\mathrm{cos}^2(kq)}{(k+q)^2M^2}\frac{1}{(q^2M^2)^2}\mathrm{\Delta }_\lambda (k).$$
(14)
Like in the commutative case, the $`\lambda `$ field propagator $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\lambda (k)`$ behaves as $`k^2`$ when $`k\mathrm{}`$. Then, for small $`p`$ the integral (13) gives origin to a quadratic infrared divergence which cannot be compensated by (14). This is the UV/IR mixing which, as already mentioned, breaks the $`1/N`$ expansion.

Before demonstrating that the noncommutative supersymmetric nonlinear sigma model remains renormalizable, we shall recall some aspects of its commutative counterpart .

## III The Supersymmetric Nonlinear sigma Model

The commutative supersymmetric nonlinear sigma model is described by the Lagrangian density

$$=\frac{1}{2}\phi ^2\phi +\frac{i}{2}\overline{\psi }\overline{)}\psi +\frac{1}{2}F^2+\sigma \phi _jF_j+\frac{1}{2}\lambda \phi ^2\frac{1}{2}\sigma \overline{\psi }\psi \overline{\xi }\psi _j\phi _j\frac{N}{2g}\lambda ,$$
(15)
where $`\phi _i,\psi _i`$ and $`F_i`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},N`$, are, respectively, real scalar, two-component Majorana spinor and auxiliary scalar fields. Furthermore, $`\sigma ,\lambda `$ and $`\xi `$ are Lagrange multipliers which implement the supersymmetric constraints

$`\phi _i\phi _i`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N}{g}},`$ (16)
$`\phi _i\psi _i`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (17)
$`\phi _iF_i`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\overline{\psi }\psi .`$ (18)
A more symmetric form for (15) is obtained after the linear change of variables $`\lambda \lambda +2M\sigma `$, $`FFM\phi `$ where $`M=<\sigma >`$. Afterwards, one performs the shifts $`\sigma \sigma +M`$ and $`\lambda \lambda +\lambda _0`$, where $`\lambda _0=<\lambda >`$, yielding

$``$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\phi (^2+M^2)\phi +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\overline{\psi }(i\overline{)}M)\psi +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}F^2+M^2\phi ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\lambda _0\phi ^2`$ (19)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\lambda \phi ^2+\sigma \phi _jF_j{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\sigma \overline{\psi }\psi \overline{\xi }\psi _j\phi _j{\displaystyle \frac{N}{2g}}\lambda {\displaystyle \frac{N}{g}}M\sigma .`$ (20)
Supersymmetry demands $`\lambda _0=2M^2`$ and the gap equations arising from $`<\lambda >=<\sigma >=0`$, for $`M0`$, are found to imply

$$\frac{d^Dk}{(2\pi )^D}\frac{i}{k^2M^2}=\frac{1}{g},$$
(21)
so that as for the GN model an infinite coupling constant renormalization is required. We must again investigate up to what extent such normalization affects the computation of the propagator for the sigma field. To that end we list the propagators for the basic fields $`\phi `$, $`\psi `$ and for the auxiliary field $`F`$. They are

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\phi _i\phi _j}(p)=\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}={\displaystyle \frac{i\delta _{ij}}{p^2M^2}},`$ (23)
$`S_F(p)={\displaystyle \frac{i\delta _{ij}}{\overline{)}pM}},`$ (24)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{F_iF_j}=i\delta _{ij}.`$ (25)
Unlike the GN model, the finiteness of the $`\sigma `$ field propagator does not depend on the renormalization of the coupling constant $`g`$. In fact, the proper part $`F_\sigma `$ of the two point function of the sigma field receives contributions from the second and third terms in the second line of (20). One finds that

$`F_\sigma (p)`$ $`=`$ $`N{\displaystyle \frac{d^Dk}{(2\pi )^D}\frac{1}{k^2M^2}}N{\displaystyle \frac{d^Dk}{(2\pi )^D}\frac{k(k+p)+M^2}{[(p+k)^2M^2][k^2M^2]}},`$ (26)
where the first term arises from the second order contribution of the $`\sigma \phi F`$ vertex and the last one originates from the second order contribution of the $`\sigma \overline{\psi }\psi `$ vertex. After a straightforward algebra one arrives at

$$F_\sigma (p)=\frac{(p^24M^2)N}{2}\frac{d^Dk}{(2\pi )^D}\frac{1}{(k^2M^2)[(k+p)^2M^2]},$$
(28)
which is identical to (9). We strongly remark that, in contradistinction to (9), the finiteness here is not a consequence of a gap equation.

## IV  The Noncommutative Supersymmetric Nonlinear sigma Model: Renormalization of the two point functions

The noncommutative supersymmetric nonlinear sigma model is specified by

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\phi (^2+M^2)\phi +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\overline{\psi }(i\overline{)}M)\psi +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}F^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{2}}\phi \phi `$ (29)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}F_j(\sigma \phi _j+\phi _j\sigma ){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\sigma \overline{\psi }\psi {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\overline{\xi }\psi \phi +\overline{\xi }\phi \psi )`$ (30)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{N}{2g}}\lambda {\displaystyle \frac{NM\sigma }{g}}\}d^Dx.`$ (31)
It should be noticed that the symmetrized forms used above are the only noncommutative supersymmetric extensions for the terms $`\sigma \phi F`$ and $`\overline{\xi }\psi \phi `$. It must also be emphasized that the noncommutative supersymmetry transformations are identical to the commutative ones since they are linear in the fields and no Moyal products are, therefore, involved.

Since the quadratic part of the action was not modified, the free propagators of the basic fields $`\phi `$, $`\psi `$ and $`F`$ remain unaltered. As for the vertices, they acquire cosine factors as follows

$`\lambda \phi ^2\text{vertex:}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\mathrm{cos}(p_1p_2),`$ (33)
$`\sigma \phi F\text{vertex:}`$ $`i\mathrm{cos}(p_1p_2),`$ (34)
$`\overline{\psi }\psi \sigma \text{vertex:}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\mathrm{cos}(p_1p_2),`$ (35)
$`\overline{\xi }\psi \phi \text{vertex:}`$ $`i\mathrm{cos}(p_1p_2).`$ (36)
Using the above rules one can compute the leading order propagators for the Lagrange multiplier fields. For the proper part of the $`\sigma `$ field, $`_\sigma `$, one merely obtains the expression (LABEL:17) modified by the presence of the factor $`\mathrm{cos}^2(kp)`$ in each integral. Hence,

$$_\sigma (p)=\frac{(p^24M^2)N}{2}\frac{d^Dk}{(2\pi )^D}\frac{\mathrm{cos}^2(kp)}{(k^2M^2)[(k+p)^2M^2]},$$
(37)
which is well behaved in both the infrared and ultraviolet regions. The propagator for the $`\sigma `$ field is, of course, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\sigma =1/_\sigma `$.

The expressions for the $`\lambda `$ and $`\xi `$ propagators are given by $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\lambda =1/_\lambda `$ and $`S_\xi =1/_\xi `$, respectively, where

$$_\lambda (p)=\frac{N}{2}\frac{d^Dk}{(2\pi )^D}\mathrm{cos}^2(kp)\frac{1}{[(k+p)^2M^2][k^2M^2]}$$
(38)
and

$`_\xi (p)=N{\displaystyle \frac{d^Dk}{(2\pi )^D}\mathrm{cos}^2(kp)\frac{\overline{)}k+M}{[(k+p)^2M^2][k^2M^2]}}`$ (39)
$`=N{\displaystyle \frac{(\overline{)}p+2M)}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^Dk}{(2\pi )^D}\mathrm{cos}^2(kp)\frac{1}{[(k+p)^2M^2][k^2M^2]}},`$ (40)
which are ultraviolet finite and without singularities for small $`p`$. We observe that all the Lagrange multiplier field propagators are of order $`1/N`$.

Our graphical notation for the propagators is presented in Fig. 2. Observe that, being a constant, the $`F`$ propagator could be omitted altogether, but one is not to forget the cosine factors in the original graph.

Due to the oscillating nature of the cosines some of the integrals constructed with the above rules will be finite but in general divergences will survive. The degree of superficial divergence for a generic 1PI graph $`\gamma `$ is

$$d(\gamma )=D\frac{(D1)}{2}N_\psi \frac{(D2)}{2}N_\phi \frac{D}{2}N_FN_\sigma \frac{3}{2}N_\xi 2N_\lambda ,$$
(41)
where $`N_𝒪`$ is the number of external lines associated to the field $`𝒪`$. Potentially dangerous diagrams are those contributing to the self–energies of the $`\phi `$ and $`\psi `$ fields since, in principle, they are quadratic and linearly divergent, respectively.

In lowest order there are three graphs contributing to the $`\phi `$ field self–energy which are shown in Fig.3. In a self explanatory notation, the analytic expressions associated with them are

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_\phi ^a=i\frac{d^Dk}{(2\pi )^D}\frac{\mathrm{cos}^2(kp)}{(k+p)^2M^2}\mathrm{\Delta }_\lambda (k),$$
(42)
$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_\phi ^b=i\frac{d^Dk}{(2\pi )^D}\mathrm{Tr}\left\{\frac{\mathrm{cos}^2(kp)}{(\overline{)}k+\overline{)}p)M}\frac{1}{\overline{)}k+2M}\right\}\mathrm{\Delta }_\lambda (k),$$
(43)
and

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_\phi ^c=i\frac{d^Dk}{(2\pi )^D}\frac{\mathrm{cos}^2(kp)}{k^24M^2}\mathrm{\Delta }_\lambda (k).$$
(44)
By adding these three expressions we get

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_\phi =i(p^2M^2)\frac{d^Dk}{(2\pi )^D}\frac{\mathrm{cos}^2(kp)}{[(k+p)^2M^2][k^24M^2]}\mathrm{\Delta }_\lambda (k).$$
(45)
Individually each of the graphs in Fig. 3 is quadratically divergent but their sum diverges only logarithmically. This divergence can be eliminated by a wave function renormalization of the $`\phi `$ field. Notice that, in spite of the presence of $`\mathrm{cos}^2(kp)`$, the divergent part of (45) coincides with the corresponding one in the commutative case. Similar result holds for the self–energy of the $`\psi `$ field. Indeed, from Fig. 4 we obtain

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_\psi ^a=i\frac{d^Dk}{(2\pi )^D}\frac{(\overline{)}k+\overline{)}p+M)\mathrm{cos}^2(kp)}{[(k+p)^2M^2][k^24M^2]}\mathrm{\Delta }_\lambda (k)$$
(46)
and

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_\psi ^b=i\frac{d^Dk}{(2\pi )^D}\frac{(\overline{)}k+2M)\mathrm{cos}^2(kp)}{[(k+p)^2M^2][k^24M^2]}\mathrm{\Delta }_\lambda (k),$$
(47)
so that

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_\psi =i(\overline{)}pM)\frac{d^Dk}{(2\pi )^D}\frac{\mathrm{cos}^2(kp)}{[(k+p)^2M^2][k^24M^2]}\mathrm{\Delta }_\lambda (k).$$
(48)
We see that the leading divergence is again canceled and just remains a logarithmic one which may be absorbed by a wave function renormalization of the $`\psi `$ field. A similar analysis of the logarithimic divergence present in the $`F`$ field propagator reveals that it can be also removed by a wave function renormalization of the $`F`$ field.

We stress that the renormalization factors for the fields $`\phi `$, $`\psi `$ and $`F`$ are the same. Thus, up to this point, the renormalization of the noncommutative model preserves supersymmetry.

## V Renormalization of the $`N`$ point functions

To complete our study of the renormalization program we focus next on the four point function of the scalar field $`\phi `$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{i_1i_2i_3i_4}^{(4)}(p_1,p_2,p_3,p_4)`$, where the subscripts are $`O(N)`$ indices. Without loosing generality we choose $`i_1=i_3`$ and $`i_2=i_4`$ but $`i_1i_2`$. The diagrams are those in Fig. 5 whose associated amplitudes are

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_a^{(4)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d^Dk}{(2\pi )^D}\frac{i}{(k+p_1)^2M^2}\frac{i}{(k+p_2)^2M^2}\mathrm{\Delta }_\lambda (k)\mathrm{\Delta }_\lambda (k+p_1p_3)𝒞(k)},`$ (50)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_b^{(4)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d^Dk}{(2\pi )^D}i^2\mathrm{\Delta }_\sigma (k)\mathrm{\Delta }_\sigma (k+p_1p_3)𝒞(k)},`$ (51)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_c^{(4)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d^Dk}{(2\pi )^D}Tr\left[\frac{i}{(\overline{)}k+\overline{)}p_1)M}S_\xi (k+p_1p_3)\frac{i}{(\overline{)}k\overline{)}p_2)M}S_\xi (k)\right]𝒞(k)},`$ (52)
where

$$𝒞(k)\mathrm{cos}(kp_1)\mathrm{cos}(kp_2)\mathrm{cos}[(k+p_1)p_3]\mathrm{cos}[(kp_2)p_4].$$
(53)
In $`D=3`$ the above integrals are linearly divergent. However, as far as the sum of these amplitudes is concerned, it is readily seen that the leading divergence cancels and that the subleading one vanishes under symmetric integration. These considerations hold irrespective of the presence of the cosine factors in the function $`𝒞(k)`$. Thus, there is no UV/IR mixing that would eventually give rise to infrared divergences.

For $`D=2`$ each integral in (V) is quadratically divergent and in their sum a logarithmic divergence still survives. An explicit calculation shows that this divergence cannot be removed by a counterterm whose nonlocal structure arises from a combination of Moyal products of $`\phi `$ fields. Because of this, in the remaining of this section, we restrict our discussion to $`D=3`$. Further remarks on $`D=2`$ will be postponed to the conclusions.

The graphs contributing to the six point vertex functions of the $`\phi `$ field are displayed in Fig. 6. Since each graph in the set has the same number of vertices, the cosine factor is the same for all of them and, therefore, the cancellation among the divergent parts proceeds as in the commutative case.

As for the three point function, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\lambda \phi \phi }`$, depicted in Fig. 7, we notice that the diagrams can be grouped into two sets according to the number of cosine factors. Indeed, diagram 7$`a`$ exhibits three cosine factors while diagrams 7$`b`$, 7$`c`$ and 7$`d`$ each contains five cosine factors. We have

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_a^{(3)}(p_1,p_2)=\frac{d^3k}{(2\pi )^3}I_a(k,p_1,p_2)𝒞_3$$
(54)
and

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{b+c+d}^{(3)}(p_1,p_2)=\frac{d^3k}{(2\pi )^3}\frac{d^3q}{(2\pi )^3}I_{b+c+d}(k,q,p_1,p_2)𝒞_5$$
(55)
where $`I_a`$ and $`I_{b+c+d}`$ are the same integrands as in the commutative case, and $`𝒞_3`$ and $`𝒞_5`$ are the cosine factors

$`𝒞_3`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}(kp_1)\mathrm{cos}(kp_2)\mathrm{cos}(kp_1+kp_2+p_1p_2)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\mathrm{cos}(p_1p_2)+\mathrm{}`$ (56)
$`𝒞_5`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}(qp_1)\mathrm{cos}(qp_2)\mathrm{cos}(kp_1+kp_2+p_1p_2)\mathrm{cos}(qp_1kp_1+qk)`$ (57)
$`\mathrm{cos}(kp_2qp_2+qk)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{16}}\mathrm{cos}(p_1p_2)+\mathrm{},`$ (58)
where the ellipsis indicate terms which give finite nonplanar contributions to the corresponding Feynman integrals. Hence, the divergent part of each set of graphs becomes altered with respect to the commutative regime  in such a way that it can no longer be absorbed by just a wave function renormalization of the $`\phi `$ field. A wave function renormalization of the auxiliary field $`\lambda `$ is now needed. The same applies to the three point functions $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\sigma \overline{\psi }\psi }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\overline{\psi }\xi \phi }`$. Supersymmetry requires that the renormalization of $`\sigma `$, $`\xi `$ and $`\lambda `$ be the same, which can be verified to be case. This is to be contrasted with the situation in the commutative setting where no renormalization is required for the Lagrange multiplier fields.

## VI Final remarks and conclusions

In the commutative GN model the coupling constant plays a dual role, eliminating divergences in both, the gap equation and the proper two point function of the Lagrange multiplier field $`\sigma `$. Due to the presence of the cosine factors, this property is no longer valid at the noncommutative level and the $`O(N)`$ model becomes nonrenormalizable. The noncommutative nonlinear sigma model is afflicted by a different type of inconsistency, namely the UV/IR mixing which destroys its $`1/N`$ expansion. However, supersymmetry blends these models together and, for $`D=3`$, leaves us with a consistent noncommutative quantum field theory. It is worth mentioning that the noncommutative $`U(N)`$ GN model by itself does not suffer from the above inconsistencies in the leading order of $`1/N`$. Nevertheless, this does not apply to higher orders.

In $`D=2`$ the noncommutative supersymmetric nolinear model possesses certain peculiarities which are not present in $`D=3`$. Since the scalar field in $`D=2`$ is dimensionless, any graph involving an arbitrary number of external $`\phi `$ lines is quadratically divergent. As exemplified by the four point function $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{i_1i_2i_3i_4}^{(4)}(p_1,p_2,p_3,p_4)`$ of the $`\phi `$ field, supersymmetry provides a partial cancellation of divergences but a logarithmic one remains. The counterterm needed to remove such divergence would have the form

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}\frac{d^2k_i}{(2\pi )^2}\mathrm{cos}[k_1k_2k_3k_4](2\pi )^2\delta (k_1+k_2+k_3+k_4)\stackrel{~}{\phi }_i(k_1)\stackrel{~}{\phi }_j(k_2)\stackrel{~}{\phi }_i(k_3)\stackrel{~}{\phi }_j(k_4),$$
(59)
where $`\stackrel{~}{\phi }_l(k)`$ is the Fourier transform of $`\phi (x)`$. However, (59) can not be written in terms of the two independent Moyal orderings $`d^2x\phi _i\phi _i\phi _j\phi _j`$ and $`d^2x\phi _i\phi _j\phi _i\phi _j`$. Alternatively, one may entertain the possibility of canceling the divergences by generalizing the definition of 1PI diagram as suggested in  for the commutative nonlinear sigma model. Nevertheless, the unbalance of cosine factors precludes this mechanism. These observations cast doubts on the renormalizability of the noncommutative supersymmetric $`O(N)`$ nonlinear sigma model in two space–time dimensions.

As remarked before, the formulation of the noncommutative four–fermion interaction allows for a term of the form $`\overline{\psi }_i\overline{\psi }_j\psi _i\psi _j`$. This is an interesting problem since the $`1/N`$ expansion involves now an auxiliary tensor field. In this connection, the $`1/N`$ expansion for matrix models in comutative space has been discussed in the literature

Summarizing, in this paper and in a previous one we have verified that supersymmetrization corrects some of the difficulties arising in the formulation of a noncommutative model as, for example the UV/IR mixing. We would like to mention that another possibility for solving the UV/IR problem, based on a resummation of the perturbative series, has been considered in the literature .

## VII Acknowledgments

This work was partially supported by Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP) and Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq). H.O.G and V.O.R also acknowledge support from PRONEX under contract CNPq 66.2002/1998-99.