text:
# Recent Results in Trapped-Ion Quantum Computing at NIST

## I Introduction

Trapped ions are a promising candidate system for implementing quantum computing (QC), with potential applications like efficient factorization of large numbers  and efficient searching of large databases . While large-scale QC is still far off, trapped-ion quantum registers have already demonstrated all the essential ingredients of QC, including initialization to a known quantum state , efficient detection of final states , long qubit coherence times , and a universal set of quantum logic gates . Recent work on trapped-ion QC at NIST has used this basic set of tools to produce four-particle entanglement , observe violation of Bell’s inequality , and encode quantum information into a decoherence-free subspace .

In the experiments described below, the qubits are electronic states of $`{}_{}{}^{9}\mathrm{Be}_{}^{+}`$ions held in a linear RF trap  of the type described in reference . The relevant electronic energy levels of the $`{}_{}{}^{9}\mathrm{Be}_{}^{+}`$ion are shown in Fig. 1. Each ion encodes one qubit in its $`{}_{}{}^{2}\mathrm{S}_{1/2}^{}|F=2,m_F=2`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{2}\mathrm{S}_{1/2}^{}|F=1,m_F=1`$ hyperfine sublevels, denoted by $`|`$ and $`|`$, respectively. The ions are readily initialized in $`|`$ by optical pumping. We detect the number of ions in state $`|`$ by applying left circularly polarized laser light to excite the $`|`$ \- $`{}_{}{}^{2}\mathrm{P}_{3/2}^{}`$ transition at about 313 nm. The polarization of the light ensures excitation to the $`{}_{}{}^{2}\mathrm{P}_{3/2}^{}|F=3,m_F=3`$ hyperfine sublevel, which can only decay to the $`|`$ sublevel by dipole selection rules. Thus an ion in state $`|`$ can scatter thousands of photons without changing its hyperfine state. On the other hand, state $`|`$ is spectrally resolved from $`|`$ by the hyperfine splitting of 1.25 GHz and therefore scatters very little light. The resulting detection accuracy per ion is about 98% in a single shot of the experiment.

We produce controlled rotations of a single qubit by driving stimulated Raman transitions between states $`|`$ and $`|`$. The laser beams driving the transitions are tuned about midway between the $`{}_{}{}^{2}\mathrm{P}_{3/2}^{}`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{2}\mathrm{P}_{1/2}^{}`$ states. If the frequency difference $`\nu _{\mathrm{diff}}`$ between the Raman laser beams is equal to the energy splitting $`\nu _0`$ between states $`|`$ and $`|`$, we observe Rabi flopping between $`|`$ and $`|`$ corresponding to the evolution

$`|`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{\theta }{2}}|+e^{i\varphi }\mathrm{sin}{\displaystyle \frac{\theta }{2}}|`$ (1)
$`|`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{\theta }{2}}|e^{i\varphi }\mathrm{sin}{\displaystyle \frac{\theta }{2}}|`$ (2)
Here $`\theta `$ is proportional to the Raman pulse duration and $`\varphi `$ is the phase difference between the Raman beams at the position of the ion, referred to as the “ion phase”. For two ions, we write the ion phases as $`\varphi _1,\varphi _2`$. We can effect common-mode changes of $`\varphi _1`$ and $`\varphi _2`$ by changing the phase of the RF synthesizer that controls the Raman difference frequency. By changing the strength of the trap, we can control the ion spacing precisely, allowing us to make differential changes to $`\varphi _1`$ and $`\varphi _2`$. These two techniques combined allow us to control $`\varphi _1`$ and $`\varphi _2`$ independently for two ions, so that we can perform single-qubit rotations on one ion without affecting the other .

The potential created by the ion trap is harmonic with axial frequency $`\nu _{\mathrm{CM}}`$ of about 5 MHz. Doppler cooling allows us to cool the ions to temperatures $`Th\nu _{\mathrm{CM}}/k_B`$. The Doppler-cooled ions are strongly coupled by the Coulomb interaction and form a rigid crystal, which in these experiments is a string of ions lying along the trap axis. Because the ions are strongly coupled, their quantized motion is best described in terms of normal modes with frequencies $`\nu _i`$. For two ions, for instance, the motion of the ions along the axis decomposes into symmetric and antisymmetric normal modes at frequencies $`\nu _{\mathrm{CM}}`$ and $`\sqrt{3}\nu _{\mathrm{CM}}`$. The lowest-lying normal mode for any number of ions is the center-of-mass mode at frequency $`\nu _{\mathrm{CM}}`$. In this mode the ion string moves as a unit.

We can control the motional quantum state of the ions by driving stimulated Raman transitions that couple spin and motion. In our geometry, the wavevector difference between Raman beams lies along the axis of the ion trap, so the Raman beams exert a dipole force only along the axis. Setting $`\nu _{\mathrm{diff}}`$ equal to $`\nu _0+m\nu _i`$ ($`m`$ an integer) induces Rabi flopping between states $`||n`$ and $`||n+m`$ with evolution like that of Eq. (1). Here $`|n`$ denotes the $`n`$th Fock state of the $`i`$th normal mode. In particular, we can cool the ions by driving a pulse with $`\theta =\pi `$ at $`\nu _{\mathrm{diff}}=\nu _0\nu _i`$ (the “red sideband”) and optically pumping from $`|`$ back to $`|`$. Repeating the cycle several times permits preparation of the ion string in its motional ground state .

## II Generating Entanglement

We have entangled strings of up to four ions  using the technique proposed by Sørensen and Mølmer . In this method, one drives two Raman transitions simultaneously, with the same Rabi frequency on all ions. Fig. 2 shows an energy-level diagram including the relevant transitions. The detuning $`\delta `$ ensures that population transfer between motional states is nonresonant and therefore small. However, the sum of the two Raman transition frequencies is $`2\nu _{}`$, so that for any pair of ions the process $`||`$ is resonant. For $`N`$ ions initially in $`|`$, the resulting evolution produces the state

$$\begin{array}{cccc}|\psi _e\hfill & =\hfill & (|+|)/\sqrt{2}\hfill & \text{(two ions)}\hfill \\ & & (|+|)/\sqrt{2}\hfill & \text{(four ions)}\hfill \end{array}$$
(3)
both of which are maximally entangled states.

To implement this technique, we pass one of the Raman beams through an electro-optic modulator (EOM) to generate the two required Raman difference frequencies and uniformly illuminate the ion string with both Raman beams. For two ions, we tune the Raman difference frequencies close to the motional sidebands of the antisymmetric mode; for four ions, we use the mode with frequency $`\sqrt{29/5}\nu _{\mathrm{CM}}`$. In both cases, the mode we choose has equal amplitudes of motion for all ions, so that the Raman Rabi frequencies for all ions are the same under uniform illumination.

In general, the state produced by this method is characterized by some density matrix $`\rho `$ that approximates the desired state $`|\psi _e`$. To show entanglement of the experimental state $`\rho `$, it is sufficient to show that the fidelity $`F=\psi _e|\rho |\psi _e`$ exceeds $`1/2`$ . We have

$$F=(\rho _{\mathrm{}}+\rho _{\mathrm{}})/2+|\rho _{\mathrm{}}|$$
(4)
We measure the diagonal density matrix elements $`\rho _\mathrm{},\mathrm{},\rho _\mathrm{},\mathrm{}`$ by detecting the number of ions in $`|`$. To find the far-off-diagonal coherence $`|\rho _{\mathrm{}\mathrm{}}|`$, we rotate all ions together as in Eq. (1) with $`\theta =\pi /2`$ and with phases $`\varphi _i=\varphi `$ relative to the entangling pulse. Then we measure the parity $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ of the ion string, defined as $`+1`$ for an even number of ions in $`|`$, $`1`$ for an odd number in $`|`$. It is easy to show that

$$\mathrm{\Pi }=2|\rho _{\mathrm{}}|\mathrm{cos}N\varphi $$
(5)
for $`N`$ ions, if all other off-diagonal coherences are absent. Sweeping the phase of the RF synthesizer that generates the Raman difference frequency gives a sinusoidal signal of $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ vs. $`\varphi `$, as shown in Fig. 3. We extract the coherence $`|\rho _{\mathrm{}}|`$ by fitting a sine wave to the data of Fig. 3. The density matrix elements needed to calculate the fidelity are given in Table 1 for two and four ions. For two ions we find $`F=0.83\pm 0.01`$, while for four ions $`F=0.57\pm 0.02`$, demonstrating entanglement in both cases . It is important to note that the data used to calculate $`F`$ are not post-selected. Since the evolution is deterministic, our method produces an entangled state in each shot of the experiment.

## III Violation of a Bell Inequality

Classical physics obeys the principle of local realism, which states that objects have definite properties whether or not they are measured and that measurements of an object’s properties are not affected by events taking place sufficiently far away. As shown by Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen , quantum mechanics is incomplete if we assume local realism. Bell  proved that quantum mechanics is actually inconsistent with local realism. Quantitative conditions for falsifying local realism by experimental measurements were first proposed by Bell  and were developed further by Clauser, Horne, Shimony, and Holt (CHSH) . In such an experiment, one prepares a pair of particles in a repeatable way, subjects them to independent classical manipulations parametrized by variables $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1,\mathrm{\Phi }_2`$, and measures a classical property yielding a value $`P_1(\mathrm{\Phi }_1),P_2(\mathrm{\Phi }_2)=\pm 1`$ for each particle. Defining the correlation function $`q(\mathrm{\Phi }_1,\mathrm{\Phi }_2)=P_1(\mathrm{\Phi }_1)P_2(\mathrm{\Phi }_2)`$, one finds that the Bell inequality

$`B(\alpha _1,\delta _1,\beta _2,\gamma _2)`$ $`=`$ $`|q(\delta _1,\gamma _2)q(\alpha _1,\gamma _2)|`$ (7)
$`+|q(\delta _1,\beta _2)+q(\alpha _1,\beta _2)|2`$
holds for any values $`\alpha _1,\delta _1`$ (resp. $`\beta _2,\gamma _2`$) of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1`$ (resp. $`\mathrm{\Phi }_2`$) under the assumption of local realism.

In our experiment , we apply the entangling operation of Eq. (3) to two ions to prepare our initial state. Then we perform a carrier rotation as in Eq. (1) with $`\theta =\pi /2`$ and phases $`\varphi _1`$, $`\varphi _2`$ relative to the entangling pulse phases. Finally, we detect the number of bright ions. The calibration of $`\varphi _1`$ and $`\varphi _2`$ against the trap strength and the RF synthesizer phase were performed using assumptions from classical physics only . We can therefore identify $`\varphi _1,\varphi _2`$ with the classical control parameters $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1,\mathrm{\Phi }_2`$, so the experiment is of the type proposed by Bell and CHSH. Quantum mechanics predicts that, for an ideal realization of our experiment, $`B(\alpha _1,\delta _1,\beta _2,\gamma _2)`$ attains a maximum value of $`2\sqrt{2}`$ for

$$\begin{array}{ccccccc}\alpha _1\hfill & =\hfill & \pi /8\hfill & & \delta _1\hfill & =\hfill & 3\pi /8\hfill \\ \beta _2\hfill & =\hfill & \pi /8\hfill & & \gamma _2\hfill & =\hfill & 3\pi /8\hfill \end{array}$$
(8)
contradicting the bound $`B(\alpha _1,\delta _1,\beta _2,\gamma _2)2`$ required by local realism.

We repeated the experiment $`N_{\mathrm{tot}}=`$ 20 000 times for each of the four sets of phases given by Eq. (8). These data are presented as histograms in Fig. 4. We see that the three cases of zero, one, and two ions bright are readily distinguishable. The overlap of histograms corresponding to the three cases gives an inaccuracy of 2% in discriminating between the three cases. This inaccuracy mostly arises from pumping of the $`|`$ state to the $`|`$ state because of imperfect polarization of the detection light. Counting the number of events $`N_0`$ ($`N_1,N_2`$) with zero (one, two) ions bright, we extract the correlation function using

$$q=\frac{(N_0+N_2)N_1}{N_{\mathrm{tot}}}$$
(9)
and obtain a set of four values of $`q(\varphi _1,\varphi _2)`$. We repeated the entire procedure five times to ensure that the measured Bell signal did not vary significantly from run to run. The five sets of correlation functions and the resulting Bell signals are shown in Table 2. The statistical error of each Bell signal was $`\pm 0.01`$. Averaging the Bell signals together, we find

$$B(\frac{\pi }{8},\frac{3\pi }{8},\frac{\pi }{8},\frac{3\pi }{8})=2.25\pm 0.03$$
(10)
an $`8\sigma `$ violation of the Bell inequality Eq. (7). The error in the average Bell signal significantly exceeds the error of each individual measurement of the Bell signal. This discrepancy arises from errors in setting the phases of Eq. (8).

This experiment gives the first violation of the Bell inequality for massive particles obtained using a complete set of correlation measurements. A previous experiment  deduced a violation from an incomplete set of measurements. Furthermore, our data uses the outcome of every shot of the experiment, so the violation is obtained without the use of the fair-sampling hypothesis. In principle, sampling or post-selection of the data allows violation of Eq. (7) even by local hidden-variable theories, the so-called “detector loophole” . Our experiment closes the detector loophole for the first time. However, the “locality loophole”  remains open for our data; since the detection events on the two ions occur within each other’s lightcones, in principle the detections could influence each other, leading to spurious correlations.

## IV Encoding into a Decoherence-Free Subspace

Information stored in a quantum system is liable to be lost through coupling of the system to its environment, a process called decoherence . In particular, many proposed quantum computer implementations decohere through a mechanism that couples each qubit to the environment equally strongly . Encoding quantum information into a decoherence-free subspace (DFS)  whose states are invariant under coupling to the environment allows information storage even in the presence of this type of decoherence. We have demonstrated the immunity of a DFS of two atoms to environment-induced dephasing and implemented a technique for encoding an arbitrary physical qubit state into the DFS.

The type of decoherence considered here is collective dephasing, in which each qubit undergoes the transformation $`||,|e^{i\zeta }|`$ for $`\zeta `$ an unknown phase that is the same from qubit to qubit. One can construct a DFS of two qubits that protects against collective dephasing from the basis states $`|,|`$. Any superposition of these states is clearly invariant under collective dephasing, and since there are two states, we can encode one “logical qubit” in this subspace of the two “physical qubits”. To demonstrate our encoding technique, we first prepare a state of form

$$|(a|+b|)|a|^2+|b|^2=1a,b\mathrm{complex}$$
(11)
where one of the two physical qubits initially contains the quantum information. In general, we can prepare this state by driving the carrier transition of Eq. (1) on both ions simultaneously, once with $`\theta =\beta `$, and again with $`\theta =\beta `$ and $`\varphi _1`$ shifted by $`\pi `$. We set $`\varphi _2=\alpha `$ for both pulses. The final state has $`a=\mathrm{cos}2\beta ,b=e^{i\alpha }\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$.

We encode the state of Eq. (11) into the DFS in two steps. First we apply the inverse of the entangling gate, yielding $`a(|i|)+b(|i|)`$. Then we drive the carrier with $`\theta =\pi /4,\varphi _1=\pi /2,\varphi _2=0`$ to obtain $`|\psi _{\mathrm{DFS}}=a(|+i|)+b(|i|)`$. The information stored in the physical qubit of ion 2 is now encoded in the logical qubit of the DFS. In the experiment we take $`|a|=|b|`$, though our method permits preparation and encoding of any state of the more general form.

To read out the encoded information, we reverse the carrier pulse in the encoding and apply the entangling gate to decode $`|\psi _{\mathrm{DFS}}`$ into $`|(a|+b|)`$. After decoding, we rotate ion 2 as in preparing the state of Eq. (11) but with the phase on ion 2 changed to $`\alpha ^{}`$. We then measure the probability $`P_2`$ of finding both ions in $`|`$. $`P_2`$ varies sinusoidally with $`\alpha \alpha ^{}`$, and the magnitude of oscillation is equal to the coherence, $`C`$, of ion 2. Since we set $`|a|=|b|=1/\sqrt{2}`$, ideally $`C=1`$. Departures from $`C=1`$ measure the effects of both decoherence and imperfect logic. We verified that $`C`$ is independent of $`\alpha `$, thus showing that our encoding method works even if we have no information about the phase of the input state.

To study the effects of decoherence on the DFS-encoded state, we engineered a collective dephasing environment using an off-resonant laser beam with a randomly varying intensity. The beam induces shifts of $`\nu _0`$ that are common to both ions through the AC Stark effect. The DFS state should resist the dephasing effect of this environment. The coherence of ion 2 in the test state $`|(|+e^{i\varphi }|)/\sqrt{2}`$, however, should be sensitive to collective dephasing. We measure the decay of the test state by simply turning off the encoding and decoding sequences in the procedure used to measure the decay of the DFS-encoded state. We applied the noise beam to the test state and encoded state during a delay time of about 25 $`\mu `$s, as shown in Fig. 5. The coherence without applied noise is about 0.69 for the test state and about 0.43 for the encoded state; they depart from 1 because of imperfect logic gates and detection. For white-noise intensity fluctuations of the Stark-shifting beam, we expect $`C`$ to decay exponentially for the test state, as shown by the fit line. We also fit the coherence of the DFS state to an exponential decay for comparison. The decay rate of the test state is $`0.18(1)\mu \mathrm{s}^1`$, while the decay rate of the DFS state is $`0.0035(50)\mu \mathrm{s}^1`$, consistent with zero decay.

We have also measured the storage times of the encoded and test states under ambient conditions in our laboratory. The data are shown in Fig. 6. Here we leave a variable delay time between encoding and decoding to give the ambient noise time to act. The decoherence of the test state is dominated by ambient fluctuating magnetic fields whose frequencies lie primarily at 60 Hz and its harmonics. These fields randomly shift $`\omega _0`$ through the Zeeman effect. Since these fields are roughly uniform across the ion string, they induce collective dephasing similar to that created by the engineered environment. We empirically find the decay of both test and encoded states to be roughly exponential, as indicated by the fit lines. The decay rate of the test state is $`7.9(1.5)\times 10^3\mu \mathrm{s}^1`$, while the decay rate of the DFS state is $`2.2(0.3)\times 10^3\mu \mathrm{s}^1`$. The long lifetime of the DFS state shows that collective dephasing from magnetic field noise is the major ambient source of decoherence for the test state. The loss of coherence of the encoded state is consistent with degradation of the decoding pulses  due to heating of the ion motional state over the delay time .

## V Conclusion and Outlook

We have demonstrated four-particle entanglement, violation of Bell’s inequality, and encoding into a decoherence-free subspace using a small quantum register of trapped ions. While these experiments are important steps on the road to quantum computation, the major challenge remains: scaling up the techniques developed for a few ions to build a large-scale quantum computer with thousands or millions of qubits. Fortunately, we have a plausible roadmap to our goal, the “quantum CCD” model of ion-trap quantum computing (Fig. 7). We envision a large ion trap with many independent DC electrodes, which could be used to move ions between storage regions and “accumulator” regions in which quantum logic operations take place. Such a trap could hold thousands of ions, but avoids the slow gate speeds and detection inefficiency associated with large ion crystals by allowing us to work with only a few qubits at a time. Though the ions would most likely heat up while being moved around, the addition of another ion species would enable us to sympathetically cool the ions before performing logic . The DFS encoding demonstrated above would permit us to move qubits around without incurring dephasing from the spatial variation of magnetic fields across the device. In pursuit of the “quantum CCD” goal, we have built a trap supporting a double-well potential with spacing about 1 mm and plan to explore ways of maintaining quantum coherence and entanglement over these large distances.

###### Acknowledgements.

This research was supported by the NSA, ARDA, ARO, and ONR. This paper is a contribution of the National Institute of Standards and Technology and is not subject to U.S. copyright.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Noncommutative theories have generated considerable interest since the discovery that they arise in a certain limit of string theory . They occur in the low energy descriptions of a class of brane configurations that have a non-zero $`B_{NS}`$-field turned on. Noncommutative manifolds also make their appearance in discussions of brane configurations in external Ramond-Ramond (RR) fields .

Theories on noncommutative manifolds also offer a novel method of discretization that is quite different from lattice discretization. In this approach the manifold $``$ is treated as a phase space and is “quantized”. If the manifold is compact, the total number of states is finite and we end up with a matrix model. The continuum physics corresponds to the limit in which the coordinates commute.

Quantum properties of noncommutative theories are often very different from the corresponding conventional ones, however. A striking demonstration of this fact is the peculiar mixing between ultraviolet (UV) and infrared (IR) degrees of freedom that occurs in quantum noncommutative theories . More concretely, the correlation functions show extreme sensitivity to low momenta because of this mixing. In fact, it was shown by  that the two-point correlation function develops new poles and branch cuts at zero momentum. This makes the low energy analysis considerably more subtle.

In this article, we will explore the quantum version of a class of noncommutative theories in a controlled setting: scalar theories with quartic interaction on a fuzzy $`S^2`$ and $``$P2. Because these manifolds are compact, modes of the scalar field are quantized and labelled by an angular momentum label $`l`$. Working on a compact manifold also provides a natural infrared cutoff, which gives us a better understanding about the nature of the IR singularities of the correlation functions. Also, since theories on the fuzzy $`S^2`$ are simply matrix models, we will be able to develop a scheme for doing renormalization by integrating out “shells” of high momenta. Roughly speaking, integrating out a single high (angular) momentum shell corresponds to writing the theory in terms of a matrix of smaller dimension. Rescaling corresponds to embedding this smaller matrix into a matrix of original size that we started with. In the case of ordinary theories, this procedure of integrating out a high momentum shell allows us to write down the renormalization group (RG) equations for the various couplings. We will show that as a consequence of UV-IR mixing, the low-momentum correlation functions will behave very differently for even and odd (angular) momenta. In other words, there is no smooth way to approach zero momentum.

We also examine field theories on fuzzy $``$P2, i.e. theories constructed from fields that take the same value at antipodes of the two-sphere. Interestingly, we find that these theories show no UV-IR mixing and behave much more like conventional field theories. In particular, we will demonstrate that they have a low energy effective Wilsonian description, which will allow us to calculate the 1-loop $`\beta `$-function. For a single component scalar theory, we will find that the non-trivial fixed point is very far away from the zero mass Gaussian fixed point, and hence its existence cannot be trusted. For $`O(N)`$ theories however, there is a nontrivial fixed point at small coupling if $`N`$ is sufficiently large, and the perturbative calculation is trustworthy.

The earliest investigations of the fuzzy sphere $`S_F^2`$ were by done by , followed by works of . Solitons and monopoles in non-linear $`\sigma `$-models were studied by  (see also ). Topological issues such as instantons, $`\theta `$-term and derivation of the chiral anomaly on fuzzy $`S^2`$ were discussed in . (For an alternate derivation of the chiral anomaly, see .) The continuum limit of the fuzzy non-linear $`\sigma `$-model has been discussed in . Interest in $`S_F^2`$ has also increased since Myers showed that $`D0`$-branes in a constant $`RR`$ field arrange themselves in the form of a fuzzy sphere . There have also been investigations by  regarding open string versions of WZW models which naturally lead to $`S_F^2`$. Gauge theories on $`S_F^2`$ have also been studied by . Continuum limits of gauge theories on fuzzy sphere have also been discussed by .

The organization of the paper is as follows: in section 2, we describe scalar field theories on fuzzy $`S^2`$ and $``$P2, and make notational explanations. The details of the renormalization group procedure, namely decimation (i.e. integrating out a high energy shell) and rescaling, are explained in section 3. In section 4, we apply these techniques to quartic theories on fuzzy $`S^2`$ and demonstrate UV-IR mixing. We also look at theories on $``$P2 and derive the RG equations in section 5. The generalization to $`O(N)`$ theories is easy, and we show that there is a nontrivial fixed point at large $`N`$. Our conclusions are in section 6.

## 2 Scalar theory on the fuzzy sphere

Scalar theories on the fuzzy sphere were first discussed by . We will review their work in a notation convenient for our purposes.

The fuzzy sphere $`S_F^2`$ is described by three operators $`X_a`$ subject to the relations

$$\underset{a=1}{\overset{3}{}}X_aX_a=R^2\mathrm{𝟏},\text{and}[X_a,X_b]=\frac{Riϵ_{abc}}{\sqrt{j(j+1)}}X_c.$$
(2.1)
The limit $`j\mathrm{}`$ reproduces the ordinary sphere $`X_aX_a=R^2`$. We will henceforth work with $`R=1`$.

Functions on an ordinary sphere may be written as

$$f(x_a)=(f_0+f_ax_a+f_{ab}x_ax_b+\mathrm{})\underset{l,m}{}f_{lm}Y_{lm}(\theta ,\varphi ).$$
(2.2)
where $`Y_{lm}(\theta ,\varphi )`$ are the spherical harmonics. Under the replacement $`X_a(1/\sqrt{j(j+1)})J_a`$, $`f`$ is not a function anymore, but a $`(2j+1)\times (2j+1)`$ matrix. The set of all such matrices forms an algebra $`𝒜_j`$, which is the analog of the algebra of functions on an ordinary sphere. In particular, hermitian matrices are analogous to real functions. The scalar product on $`𝒜_j`$ is defined by

$$(f,g)_j=\frac{1}{2j+1}\text{Tr}(f^{}g),f,g𝒜_j.$$
(2.3)
An arbitrary “function” (i.e. a matrix) on the fuzzy sphere can be expanded in terms a special basis of matrices, namely the polarization operators $`T_{lm}^{(j)}`$. These are constructed out of the angular momentum operators $`J_3,J_\pm =J_1\pm iJ_2`$ and various powers thereof (see for example ). For example, $`T_{00}^{(j)}=\frac{1}{2j+1}\mathrm{𝟏},T_{1m}^{(j)}=\sqrt{\frac{3}{2j(j+1)(2j+1)}}J_\pm `$, etc. They are rank $`l`$ irreducible tensors

$$[J_\pm ,T_{lm}^{(j)}]=\sqrt{l(l+1)m(m\pm 1)}T_{l,m\pm 1}^{(j)},[J_3,T_{lm}^{(j)}]=mT_{lm}^{(j)},$$
(2.4)
and satisfy the relations

$$(T_{lm}^{(j)})^{}=(1)^mT_{l,m}^{(j)},\text{Tr}[T_{lm}^{(j)}T_{l^{}m^{}}^{(j)}]=(1)^m\delta _{ll^{}}\delta _{m+m^{},0}.$$
(2.5)
These allow us to expand any matrix $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ as

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=\underset{l=0}{\overset{2j}{}}\underset{m=l}{\overset{l}{}}\varphi _{lm}[(2j+1)^{1/2}T_{lm}^{(j)}]\varphi _{lm}\mathrm{\Psi }_{lm}^{(j)}.$$
(2.6)
The $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{lm}^{(j)}`$’s form an orthonormal set with respect to the product (2.3). The inner product of two arbitrary “functions” has the correct $`j\mathrm{}`$ limit.

If $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is hermitian, then $`\varphi _{l,m}=(1)^m\overline{\varphi }_{lm}`$. Thus for a given $`l`$, the total number of independent real parameters is $`2l+1`$.

We will study actions for for $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ that are of the form

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2j+1}}\text{Tr}\left[[J_i,\mathrm{\Phi }][J_i,\mathrm{\Phi }]+\mu _j^2\mathrm{\Phi }^2+{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _j^{(n)}}{n!}}\mathrm{\Phi }^n\right],`$ (2.7)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2j+1}}\text{Tr}\left[\mathrm{\Phi }[J_i,[J_i,\mathrm{\Phi }]]+\mu _j^2\mathrm{\Phi }^2+{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _j^{(n)}}{n!}}\mathrm{\Phi }^n\right],`$
$``$ $`S_0+S_{int}.`$
As $`j\mathrm{}`$, this action goes over to

$$S=\frac{1}{4\pi }𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }\left[_i\mathrm{\Phi }_i\mathrm{\Phi }+\mu ^2\mathrm{\Phi }^2+\underset{n}{}\frac{\lambda ^{(n)}}{n!}\mathrm{\Phi }^n\right],\text{where}_i=iϵ_{ijk}x_j_k.$$
(2.8)
This is the same as the action for a scalar field on the the sphere.

Using (2.6), we write the free action as

$$S_0=\left[\underset{l=0}{\overset{2j}{}}\underset{m=l}{\overset{l}{}}|\varphi _{lm}|^2[l(l+1)+\mu _j^2]\right],$$
(2.9)
and the quartic interaction term $`\mathrm{\Phi }^4`$ as

$`S_{int}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _j}{4!}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2j+1}}\text{Tr}\mathrm{\Phi }^4`$ (2.10)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _j}{4!}}(2j+1)\varphi _{l_1m_1}\varphi _{l_2m_2}\varphi _{l_3m_3}\varphi _{l_4m_4}\text{Tr}[\mathrm{\Psi }_{l_1m_1}^{(j)}\mathrm{\Psi }_{l_2m_2}^{(j)}\mathrm{\Psi }_{l_3m_3}^{(j)}\mathrm{\Psi }_{l_4m_4}^{(j)}]`$
$``$ $`\varphi _{l_1m_1}\varphi _{l_2m_2}\varphi _{l_3m_3}\varphi _{l_4m_4}V(l_1,m_1;l_2,m_2;l_3,m_3;l_4,m_4;j).`$
We will henceforth use the shorthand $`V(1234;j)`$ for the function $`V(l_1,m_1;l_2,m_2;l_3,m_3;l_4,m_4;j)`$ from now on. It can be conveniently written as

$`V(1234;j)={\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _j}{4!}}(2j+1){\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}}(2l_i+1)^{1/2}\times `$ (2.15)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{l,m}{\overset{l=2j}{}}}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}l_1& l_2& l\\ j& j& j\end{array}\right\}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}l_3& l_4& l\\ j& j& j\end{array}\right\}(1)^mC_{m_1m_2m}^{l_1l_2l}C_{m_3m_4m}^{l_3l_4l}.`$
The $`C_{m_1m_2m}^{l_1l_2l}`$ are the Clebsch-Gordan coefficients and the objects with 6 entries within brace brackets are the $`6j`$ symbols.

The partition function for the theory is

$`𝒵_j`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝒟[\mathrm{\Phi }]e^{(S_0+S_{int})}}\text{where}`$ (2.16)
$`𝒟[\mathrm{\Phi }]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{lm}{\overset{l=2j}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\overline{\varphi }_{lm}d\varphi _{lm}}{2\pi i}}.`$ (2.17)
Correlation functions

$$\varphi _{l_1m_1}\mathrm{}\varphi _{l_km_k}=𝒟[\mathrm{\Phi }]\varphi _{l_1m_1}\mathrm{}\varphi _{l_km_k}e^{(S_0+S_{int})}$$
(2.18)
can be calculated using the standard procedure, by adding a source term $`\frac{1}{2j+1}\text{Tr}(J\mathrm{\Phi })=_{lm}(\overline{J}_{lm}\varphi _{lm}+J_{lm}\overline{\varphi }_{lm})`$ to the action and then taking derivatives with respect to $`J_{lm}`$. In particular, the two-point correlation function or the propagator for the free action is

$$\varphi _{l_1m_1}\varphi _{l_2m_2}=\frac{\delta _{l_1l_2}\delta _{m_1+m_2,0}(1)^{m_2}}{l(l+1)+\mu _j^2}.$$
(2.19)
### 2.1 Scalar theories on fuzzy $``$P2

The manifold $``$P2 is obtained from $`S^2`$ by identifying diametrically opposite points $`\widehat{r}`$ and $`\widehat{r}`$. Functions on $``$P2 are simply a subset of the functions on $`S^2`$ that are invariant under this identification. This means that only even $`l`$ values are allowed when the function is expanded in terms of spherical harmonics, because $`Y_{lm}(\widehat{r})=(1)^lY_{lm}(\widehat{r})`$.

In the noncommutative case, we will be interested in fields that are invariant under $`\stackrel{}{J}\stackrel{}{J}`$. Again, since $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{lm}^{(j)}(\stackrel{}{J})=(1)^l\mathrm{\Psi }_{lm}^{(j)}(\stackrel{}{J})`$, we have to restrict $`l`$ to even values. We stress that it is only in this sense that we use the phrase ‘fuzzy $``$P2’.

We can now write the scalar action on the fuzzy $``$P2: it is of the same form as (2.7), with the additional restriction that all the $`l`$’s be even, and hence $`j`$ an integer.

### 2.2 Multicomponent Scalar field theories

It is easy to generalize to $`O(N)`$ scalar field theories. There are $`N`$ hermitian scalar fields $`\mathrm{\Phi }^\alpha ,\alpha =1\mathrm{}N`$. The “linear” $`\sigma `$-model on $`S_F^2`$ has the action

$$S=\frac{1}{2j+1}\text{Tr}\left([J_i,\mathrm{\Phi }^\alpha ][J_i,\mathrm{\Phi }^\alpha ]+\mu _j^2\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }+V(\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi })\right)$$
(2.20)
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }=_{\alpha =1}^N\mathrm{\Phi }^\alpha \mathrm{\Phi }^\alpha `$. We expand the fields $`\mathrm{\Phi }^\alpha `$ as

$$\mathrm{\Phi }^\alpha =\underset{l,m}{\overset{l=2j}{}}\varphi _{lm}^\alpha \mathrm{\Psi }_{lm}^{(j)}.$$
(2.21)
The free action can be evaluated to be

$$S_{free}=\underset{\alpha }{}\underset{l,m}{}(l(l+1)+\mu _j^2)|\varphi _{lm}^\alpha |^2$$
(2.22)
and the propagator is

$$\varphi _{l_1m_1}^\alpha \varphi _{l_2m_2}^\beta =\frac{\delta ^{\alpha \beta }\delta _{l_1l_2}\delta _{m_1+m_2,0}(1)^{m_2}}{l(l+1)+\mu _j^2}.$$
(2.23)
If $`V(\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi })=\frac{\lambda _j}{4!}(\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi })^2`$, then we write this quartic interaction as

$$S_{int}=\underset{\alpha ,\beta }{}\underset{l_i,m_i}{}\varphi _{l_1m_1}^\alpha \varphi _{l_2m_2}^\alpha \varphi _{l_3m_3}^\beta \varphi _{l_4m_4}^\beta V(1234;j),$$
(2.24)
where $`V(1234;j)`$ is the same as in (2.15).

For fuzzy $``$P2 the formulae are the same as above, but with the restriction that all the $`l`$’s are even and $`j`$ is an integer.

## 3 Renormalization Procedure

From our expansion for the matrix $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, we notice that the “energy” of the mode $`\varphi _{lm}`$ increases as $`l(l+1)`$. In other words, modes with large $`l`$ correspond to high energy fluctuations. Our strategy from renormalization will be very simple and very much in the spirit described by Wilson  (there are many excellent reviews as well, see for e.g. ). We start with a theory with some large value of the cutoff $`j`$. The field $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is described in terms of $`(2j+1)\times (2j+1)`$ matrices, and the theory has modes going all the way till $`\varphi _{2j,m}`$. We separate the modes $`\varphi _{2j,m}`$ as the fast degrees of freedom and explicitly integrate out these modes in the partition function, to get an effective action that depends only on the modes $`\varphi _{00},\mathrm{},\varphi _{2j1,m},\mathrm{},\varphi _{2j1,m}`$. For large $`j`$, the effective action should be describable in terms of the field $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{slow}=_{lm}^{l=2j1}\varphi _{lm}\mathrm{\Psi }_{lm}^{(j\frac{1}{2})}`$, i.e. in terms of $`2j\times 2j`$ matrices. We now “rescale” the field $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{slow}`$ by embedding the $`2j\times 2j`$ matrix in a $`(2j+1)\times (2j+1)`$ matrix. This rescaling redefines

$`\varphi _{lm}`$ $``$ $`\varphi _{l^{}m^{}}^{}l^{}=0\mathrm{}2j,`$ (3.1)
$`\mu _j^2`$ $``$ $`\mu _{}^{}{}_{j}{}^{2},`$ (3.2)
$`\lambda _j`$ $``$ $`\lambda _j^{},`$ (3.3)
and so on. Comparing the rescaled action to the original one gives us the renormalization group equations for $`\mu _j^2`$ and $`\lambda _j`$. Since rescaling corresponds to $`(2j1)2j`$, the rate of change of the various couplings is given by the equations

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\mu _j^2}{dt}}2j(\mu _{}^{}{}_{j}{}^{2}\mu _j^2)`$ $`=`$ $`M(\mu _j^2,\lambda _j),`$ (3.4)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\lambda _j}{dt}}2j(\lambda _{}^{}{}_{j}{}^{}\lambda _j)`$ $`=`$ $`G(\mu _j^2,\lambda _j)`$ (3.5)
where $`dt`$ is given by $`(2j1)/2j=e^{dt}`$. In particular the zeroes of $`G(\mu _j^2,\lambda _j)`$ tells us the fixed points of the $`\beta `$-function.

Let us first understand the scaling of the field $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. Recall that the free massless action is

$$S=\frac{1}{2j+1}\text{Tr}(\mathrm{\Phi }[J_i,[J_i,\mathrm{\Phi }]])=\underset{l=0}{\overset{2j}{}}\underset{m=j}{\overset{j}{}}|\varphi _{lm}|^2[l(l+1)].$$
(3.6)
The action for the slow variables is simply

$$S_{slow}=\underset{l=0}{\overset{2j1}{}}\underset{m=j+1/2}{\overset{j1/2}{}}|\varphi _{lm}|^2[l(l+1)]$$
(3.7)
which we rewrite as

$$S_{slow}=\frac{1}{2j}\text{Tr}(\mathrm{\Phi }_{slow}[J_i,[J_i,\mathrm{\Phi }_{slow}]]),$$
(3.8)
where

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{slow}=\underset{l=0}{\overset{2j1}{}}\varphi _{lm}\mathrm{\Psi }_{lm}^{(j\frac{1}{2})},$$
(3.9)
the $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{lm}^{(j\frac{1}{2})}`$ being $`2j\times 2j`$ matrices. These $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{lm}^{(j\frac{1}{2})}`$ are simply the orthonormal basis in terms of which we can expand any $`2j\times 2j`$ matrix. We embed each $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{lm}^{(j\frac{1}{2})}`$ in a $`(2j+1)\times (2j+1)`$ matrix as

$$\left[\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{\Psi }_{lm}^{(j\frac{1}{2})}& 0\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right]\mathrm{\Psi }_{}^{}{}_{lm}{}^{(j)}$$
(3.10)
allowing us to write

$$\mathrm{\Phi }^{}=\underset{l=0}{\overset{2j1}{}}\varphi _{lm}\mathrm{\Psi }_{}^{}{}_{lm}{}^{(j)}.$$
(3.11)
This $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{}`$ is a $`(2j+1)\times (2j+1)`$ matrix, and hence can be re-expressed using the $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{lm}^{(j)}`$’s:

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{(j)}=\underset{l=0}{\overset{2j}{}}\varphi _{lm}^{}\mathrm{\Psi }_{lm}^{(j)}.$$
(3.12)
This is the rescaling operation in our RG procedure. It gives us the relation between the $`\varphi _{lm}`$’s and the $`\varphi _{lm}^{}`$’s:

$$\varphi _{l^{}m^{}}^{}=\underset{l,m}{\overset{l=2j1}{}}\left[\varphi _{lm}\sqrt{\frac{(2l+1)(2l^{}+1)}{2j(2j+1)}}\left(\underset{\nu ,\nu ^{}}{}C_{\nu m\nu ^{}}^{j\frac{1}{2}lj\frac{1}{2}}C_{\nu +\frac{1}{2}m^{}\nu ^{}+\frac{1}{2}}^{jl^{}j}\right)\right].$$
(3.13)
Thus

$$S_{slow}=\frac{1}{2j}\text{Tr}(\mathrm{\Phi }^{}[J_i,[J_i,\mathrm{\Phi }^{}]])=\frac{2j+1}{2j}\underset{l=0}{\overset{2j}{}}\underset{m}{}|\varphi _{lm}^{}|^2[l(l+1)]$$
(3.14)
The actions $`S`$ and $`S_{slow}`$ can now be identified. In order that the kinetic energy term look the same in the original and the rescaled action, the $`\varphi `$’s must be scaled as

$$\varphi _{lm}=\left(\frac{2j+1}{2j}\right)^{1/2}\varphi _{l^{}m^{}}^{}\delta _{ll^{}}\delta _{mm^{}}=\left(\frac{2j+1}{2j}\right)^{1/2}\varphi _{lm}^{}$$
(3.15)
for $`l<<2j`$. Similar considerations tell us that the mass $`\mu _j^2`$ scales as:

$$\mu _{}^{}{}_{j}{}^{2}=\frac{2j+1}{2j}\mu _j^2.$$
(3.16)
Now that we know how to do the rescaling, it is straightforward to write down the effective action. We separate $`S`$ into $`S_{slow}`$ and $`S_{fast}`$:

$`𝒵={\displaystyle 𝒟[\mathrm{\Phi }]e^{(S_0+S_{int})}}=`$ (3.17)
$`{\displaystyle 𝒟[\mathrm{\Phi }_{slow}]e^{(S_0(slow)+S_{int}(slow))}𝒟[\mathrm{\Phi }_{fast}]e^{(S_0(fast)+\delta S[\mathrm{\Phi }_{slow},\mathrm{\Phi }_{fast}])}}.`$
We explicitly do the integral over the fast variables $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{fast}=\varphi _{2j,m}\mathrm{\Psi }_{2j,m}^{(j)}`$:

$$𝒟[\varphi _{fast}]e^{(S_0(fast)+\delta S[\mathrm{\Phi }_{slow},\mathrm{\Phi }_{fast}])}e^{\delta S[\mathrm{\Phi }_{slow},\mathrm{\Phi }_{fast}]}_f=e^{S_{slow}^{}}$$
(3.18)
where $`𝒪_f`$ stands for the expectation value of $`𝒪`$ over the fast degrees of freedom.

Finally, we rescale the variables so that the two actions look similar:

$$𝒟[\mathrm{\Phi }_{slow}]e^{(S_0(slow)+S_{int}(slow)+S_{slow}^{})}=𝒟[\mathrm{\Phi }^{}]e^{(S_0[\mathrm{\Phi }^{}]+S_{int}[\mathrm{\Phi }^{}])}.$$
(3.19)
A comparison of the coupling constants of the original theory and the rescaled theory gives us the RG equations.

For fields on fuzzy $``$P2, the analysis is almost identical. Since $`j`$ takes only integer values, integrating out the high energy modes $`\varphi _{2j,m}`$ leaves us with the modes $`\varphi _{00},\mathrm{},\varphi _{2j2,m}`$, which are then reassembled into a $`(2j2)\times (2j2)`$ matrix. Rescaling corresponds to $`(2j2)2j`$. For $`l<<2j`$ we find that $`\varphi _{lm}`$ and $`\mu _j^2`$ must scale as

$`\varphi _{lm}`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{2j+2}{2j}}\right)^{1/2}\varphi _{lm}^{},`$ (3.20)
$`\mu _{}^{}{}_{j}{}^{2}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2j+2}{2j}}\mu _j^2.`$ (3.21)
## 4 Quartic Theories

We are now ready to apply the RG technique described above to quartic interactions. The action cannot be evaluated exactly, and we will resort to perturbation theory.

We separate the interaction piece $`S_{int}`$ of the full action into slow and fast parts:

$`S_{int}`$ $`=`$ $`\varphi _1\varphi _2\varphi _3\varphi _4V(1234;j)`$ (4.1)
$`=`$ $`S_{int}^{slow}+4\varphi _1\varphi _2\varphi _3\varphi _{f_4}V(123f_4)+4\varphi _1\varphi _2\varphi _{f_3}\varphi _{f_4}V(12f_3f_4)`$
$`+`$ $`2\varphi _1\varphi _{f_2}\varphi _3\varphi _{f_4}V(1f_23f_4)+4\varphi _1\varphi _{f_2}\varphi _{f_3}\varphi _{f_4}V(1f_2f_3f_4)+S_{int}^{fast}`$
$``$ $`S_{int}^{slow}+\delta S_1+\delta S_2+\delta S_3+S_{int}^{fast}=S_{int}^{slow}+\delta S.`$
We have used the shorthand

$`\varphi _1`$ $`=`$ $`\varphi _{l_1m_1},\varphi _{f_1}=\varphi _{2j,m_1},\text{etc}`$
$`V(123f_4)`$ $`=`$ $`V(l_1,m_1;l_2,m_2;l_3,m_3;2j,m_4;j)\text{etc}.`$
Having separated the action into slow and fast parts, we proceed to evaluate (3.18) using perturbation theory. In order to do so, we make use of the cumulant expansion:

$$e^{\delta S}_f=\mathrm{exp}\left(\delta S_f+\frac{\delta S^2_f\delta S_f^2}{2}+\mathrm{}\right).$$
(4.2)
The first term of the exponent is

$`\delta S_f`$ $`=`$ $`S_{int}^{fast}_f+4\varphi _1\varphi _2\varphi _3V(123f_4)\varphi _{f_4}_f+4\varphi _1V(1f_2f_3f_4)\varphi _{f_2}\varphi _{f_3}\varphi _{f_4}_f`$ (4.3)
$`+`$ $`4\varphi _1\varphi _2V(12f_3f_4)\varphi _{f_3}\varphi _{f_4}_f+2\varphi _1\varphi _3V(1f_23f_4)\varphi _{f_2}\varphi _{f_4}_f.`$
The second and the third terms are zero, while the first term is an irrelevant constant. The fourth term involves summing over $`m_3`$ and $`m_4`$, each sum going over the range $`2j`$ to $`2j`$. Similarly the last term involves summing over $`m_2`$ and $`m_4`$. To calculate these sums, we will make extensive use of identities for summing $`3j`$\- and $`6j`$ symbols found in . Using (2.19), we can write this term as

$$\delta S_f=|\varphi _{lm}|^2\frac{\lambda _j}{4!}\left[\frac{4(4j+1)}{2j(2j+1)+\mu _j^2}+(1)^l\frac{2(2j+1)(4j+1)}{2j(2j+1)+\mu _j^2}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}j& j& l\\ j& j& 2j\end{array}\right\}\right].$$
(4.4)
The scaling relation for $`\varphi `$’s (3.15) gives us the renormalized two-point vertex:

$$G^1(\varphi \varphi ^{})=\varphi _{lm}\varphi _{l^{}m^{}}^1=\delta _{ll^{}}\delta _{m+m^{},0}(1)^m[l(l+1)+\mu _{}^{}{}_{j}{}^{2}]$$
(4.5)
where

$$\mu _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}=\left(\frac{2j+1}{2j}\right)\left[\mu _j^2+\frac{2\lambda _j}{4!}A(2j)(2+(1)^lB(l,2j))\right],$$
(4.6)
and

$$A(2j)=\frac{2(2j)+1}{2j(2j+1)+\mu _j^2},B(l,2j)=\frac{(2j+1)!(2j)!}{(2jl)!(2j+l+1)!}.$$
(4.7)
The term in (4.6) with $`(1)^l`$ is due to noncommutative effects, and is not present in ordinary theories.

To calculate the one-loop contribution to the four-point function, we need the next term of the cumulant expansion (4.2). This automatically counts only the connected diagrams. The contribution to the four-point function comes only from $`\delta S_2`$. We find that

$`\delta S_2^2`$ $`=`$ $`16\varphi _1\varphi _2\varphi _1^{}\varphi _2^{}V(12f_3f_4)V(1^{}2^{}f_3^{}f_4^{})\varphi _{f_3}\varphi _{f_4}\varphi _{f_3^{}}\varphi _{f_4^{}}_f`$ (4.8)
$`+`$ $`16\varphi _1\varphi _2\varphi _1^{}\varphi _3^{}V(12f_3f_4)V(1^{}f_2^{}3^{}f_4^{})\varphi _{f_3}\varphi _{f_4}\varphi _{f_2^{}}\varphi _{f_4^{}}_f`$
$`+`$ $`4\varphi _1\varphi _3\varphi _1^{}\varphi _3^{}V(1f_23f_4)V(1^{}f_2^{}3^{}f_4^{})\varphi _{f_2}\varphi _{f_4}\varphi _{f_2^{}}\varphi _{f_4^{}}.`$
The three terms can be evaluated using various Clebsch-Gordan identities  to give the following:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\delta S^2\delta S^2)={\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _j^2}{(4!)^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{l_i,m_i}{}}\varphi _1\varphi _2\varphi _3\varphi _4A^2(2j)(2j+1)^2{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}}(2l_i+1)^{1/2}\times `$ (4.9)
$`[{\displaystyle \underset{l,m}{}}F(l_i,m_i;l)(\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(l_i;l,2j)+\mathrm{\Gamma }_2(l_i;l,2j)+\mathrm{\Gamma }_3(l_i;l,2j)],`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{l_i,m_i}{}}\varphi _1\varphi _2\varphi _3\varphi _4\mathrm{\Gamma }_4^{(1loop)}(l_i,m_i;j)`$ (4.10)
where $`A(2j)`$ is from (4.7) and

$`F(l_i,m_i;l)`$ $`=`$ $`(1)^mC_{m_1m_2m}^{l_1l_2l}C_{m_3m_4m}^{l_3l_4l},`$ (4.11)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(l_i;l,2j)`$ $`=`$ $`8(1+(1)^l)\times `$ (4.18)
$`\times \left\{\begin{array}{ccc}l_1& l_2& l\\ j& j& j\end{array}\right\}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}l_3& l_4& l\\ j& j& j\end{array}\right\}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}2j& 2j& l\\ j& j& j\end{array}\right\}^2,`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2(l_i;l,2j)`$ $`=`$ $`8(1)^{2j+l_4}(1+(1)^l)\times `$ (4.26)
$`\times \left\{\begin{array}{ccc}l_1& l_2& l\\ j& j& j\end{array}\right\}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}2j& 2j& l\\ j& j& j\end{array}\right\}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}l_3& l_4& l\\ j& j& 2j\\ j& j& 2j\end{array}\right\},`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_3(l_i;l,2j)`$ $`=`$ $`2[(1)^{l_2+l_4}+(1)^{l_3+l_4}](1)^l\times `$ (4.33)
$`\times \left\{\begin{array}{ccc}l_1& l_2& l\\ j& j& 2j\\ j& j& 2j\end{array}\right\}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}l_3& l_4& l\\ j& j& 2j\\ j& j& 2j\end{array}\right\},`$
where the objects with 9 entries within brace brackets are the $`9j`$-symbols. This tells us the renormalized four-point function and hence the RG equation for the quartic coupling:

$$V^{}(1234;j)=\left(\frac{2j+1}{2j}\right)^2\left[V(1234;j)\mathrm{\Gamma }_4^{(1loop)}(l_i,m_i;j)\right]$$
(4.34)
### 4.1 UV-IR mixing

Let us recall how the $`\beta `$-function is calculated for ordinary scalar theories. Integrating out the fast modes gives equations analogous to (4.6,4.34). These renormalized $`n`$-point correlation functions are slowly varying functions of external momenta $`l_i`$, at least for small momenta: for example at large $`j`$, the 2-point function with $`l_i=0`$ differs only slightly from that at $`l_i=1`$. If the momenta take continuous values, this translates to saying that the correlation functions are analytic functions of external momenta in the neighborhood of zero external momentum. This allows us to derive a difference (or differential) equation for the mass and the coupling constant.

The situation in our case is clearly different. From either (4.6) or (4.34), it is obvious that the correlation functions are not slowly varying functions of $`l_i`$ for small values of the external momenta $`l_i`$: the relative factors of $`(1)^{l_i}`$ make the values of the correlation functions change abruptly as one moves from $`l_i`$ to $`l_i+1`$. This is a clear signature of UV-IR mixing: integrating out a high energy mode has a violent effect on the low energy properties of the correlation functions, and traditional Wilsonian RG cannot be implemented.

## 5 RG equations on fuzzy $``$P2

As explained before, scalar fields on $``$P2 come only with even values of $`l`$. There are no factors of $`(1)^{l_i}`$ in the two- and four-point correlation functions, and so they are indeed slowly varying functions of external momenta. They can thus be thought of as coming from a low-energy Wilsonian action, and can be used to write the RG equations for the mass and the coupling constant.

If we define the square of the mass and the coupling constant as the two- and four-point vertices respectively at zero external momentum, we get the following RG equations:

$`j(\mu _{}^{}{}_{j}{}^{2}\mu _j^2)`$ $`=`$ $`\mu ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{6\lambda _j}{4!}}[jA(2j)]+O(1/j),`$ (5.1)
$`\beta (\lambda _j)j(\lambda _j^{}\lambda _j)`$ $`=`$ $`2\lambda _j+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _j}{j}}{\displaystyle \frac{4\lambda _j^2}{4!}}{\displaystyle \frac{18j(4j+1)}{[2j(2j+1)+\mu _j^2]^2}}.`$ (5.2)
Let $`ϵ=1/j`$. For $`ϵ`$ small, these equations can be written as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mu _{}^{}{}_{j}{}^{2}\mu _j^2}{ϵ}}`$ $`=`$ $`\mu _j^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _j}{4}},`$ (5.3)
$`\beta (\lambda _j)`$ $`=`$ $`(2+ϵ)\lambda _j{\displaystyle \frac{3\lambda _j^2ϵ^2}{4}}+O(ϵ^3).`$ (5.4)
The interpretation of the $`\beta `$-function equation is standard: the first term tells us that the coupling increases until nonlinear effects (described by the second term) kick in. There exists a critical value $`\lambda _c`$ at which the increase in the coupling due to rescaling is compensated by the decrease due to the nonlinear effect. However this non-trivial fixed point occurs at $`\lambda _c=4(2+ϵ)/3ϵ^2`$ i.e. at large $`\lambda `$, since $`ϵ=1/j`$ is small. This fixed point was deduced using perturbation theory, and so its existence cannot be trusted. In order to know if there is really a non-trivial fixed point, one would need to know the $`\beta `$-function to all orders in $`\lambda `$. We do not know how to do this, but can estimate the two-loop contribution. At large $`j`$,

$$\beta (\lambda _j)=(2+ϵ)\lambda _j\frac{3\lambda _j^2ϵ^2}{4}+C\lambda _j^3ϵ^5,$$
(5.5)
where $`C`$ is a constant of order 1. Although its numerical value changes, the nontrivial fixed point continues to exist. However, as mentioned before, in order to really trust the new fixed point, we will need $`\beta (\lambda _j)`$ to all orders in $`\lambda _j`$.

### 5.1 $`O(N)`$ theories on $``$P2

The large $`N`$ limit of $`O(N)`$ theories solves the problem we faced regarding the fixed point of the $`\beta `$-function. The RG equations for the mass and coupling constant are

$`\mu _{}^{}{}_{j}{}^{2}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2j+2}{2j}}\left[\mu _j^2+{\displaystyle \frac{(2N+2)\lambda _j}{4!}}{\displaystyle \frac{4j+1}{2j(2j+1)+\mu _j^2}}\right],`$ (5.6)
$`\lambda _j^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{2j+2}{2j}}\right)^2\left[\lambda _j{\displaystyle \frac{(8N+64)\lambda ^2}{4!}}{\displaystyle \frac{4j+1}{[2j(2j+1)+\mu _j^2]^2}}\right].`$ (5.7)
From (5.7, 5.6), it is easy to see that the non-trivial fixed point is at

$`\mu _c^2`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\frac{1}{2}\frac{N+1}{N+8}\frac{j(2j+1)^2}{j+1}}{1+\frac{1}{4}\frac{N+1}{N+8}\frac{2j+1}{j+1}}}\right),`$ (5.8)
$`\lambda _c`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{N+8}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2j+1}{4j+1}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{2j(2j+1)+\mu _c^2}{j+1}}\right)^2,`$ (5.9)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{N+8}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{4j^2(2j+1)^3}{(j+1)^2(4j+1)}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+\frac{1}{4}\frac{N+1}{N+8}\frac{2j+1}{j+1}}}\right)^2.`$ (5.10)
Thus if $`N+8>>32j^2/3`$, the new fixed point occurs at small value of $`\lambda _j`$, and its deduction is consistent with perturbation theory.

## 6 Conclusion and Outlook

We have done a careful perturbative analysis of quartic theories on noncommutative $`S^2`$ and $``$P2. Although the classical theory on the noncommutative $`S^2`$ is the same as the corresponding theory on the ordinary $`S^2`$ in the limit of large $`j`$, the quantum theories are very different. Even in the limit of large $`j`$, the low energy behavior of correlation functions of the quantum theory on noncommutative $`S^2`$ shows a mixing between UV and IR that is characteristic of noncommutative theories.

Surprisingly, we also find that if we restrict ourselves field theories on noncommutative $``$P2, we can avoid the effects of UV-IR mixing. In the large $`j`$-limit, the quartic theory on $``$P2 flows away from the zero mass Gaussian fixed point in the infrared. For a single component scalar theory, it is difficult to find the new fixed point in perturbation theory. The situation for $`O(N)`$ theories is much better. For $`N`$ sufficiently large, these theories have a fixed point that is “close” to $`\lambda =0`$, and hence can be trusted in perturbation theory.

There are several questions that may be studied in light of our results. One can try to look for situations in supergravity/string theory that correspond to branes distributed on a fuzzy $``$P2 instead of a fuzzy $`S^2`$. If such configurations exist, our results could have significant implications for their low energy dynamics.

Compactification scenarios that use fuzzy torus as extra dimensions have been suggested recently . It may illuminating to understand the implications of compactifying on the fuzzy sphere in light of the non-trivial UV-IR mixing.

Our approach to quantum theories on fuzzy manifolds in this article relies on such theories being expressible as models of finite-dimensional matrices. In particular, the realization of the sphere $`S^2`$ as a coadjoint orbit $`SU(2)/U(1)`$ allows us to make extensive use of $`SU(2)`$ representation theory. Using the coadjoint orbit method, one can also construct fuzzy versions of $``$P2 and $`\frac{SU(3)}{U(1)\times U(1)}`$, which in the continuum limit correspond to four- and six-dimensional manifolds respectively . It would be interesting to use techniques analogous to the ones in this article to study explicitly the nature of UV-IR mixing on these fuzzy manifolds, and whether UV-IR mixing can be avoided by imposing restrictions on the modes as we found for the case of fuzzy $``$P2.

Acknowledgments: It is a pleasure to thank A. P. Balachandran, Sumit Das, Steve Carlip, Doug McKay, Jim Wells and especially Denjoe O’Connor for discussions. This work was supported in part by Department of Energy grant DE-FG03-91ER40674.