format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1  <br>Introduction

Quantum field theoretical predictions of physical quantities should in principle be independent of the particular scheme used to renormalize the theory. The renormalization program allows to get rid of the singularities by redefinition of the parameters in the Lagrangian in a consistent way for a renormalizable model. Also, in this process we must make sure that the relevant symmetries of the underlying theory are preserved and therefore avoid the appearance of spurious anomalies which otherwise would have to be controlled order by order in perturbation theory by imposing symmetry restoring constraint equations.

As for the existing regularization schemes whilst for the theories with low symmetry content nearly all regulators do a good job, this is not the case for most theories of particle interactions in which gauge symmetry, supersymmetry (SUSY) and so on play a fundamental role. Dimensional Regularization (DR)  is an efficient and pragmatical method which explicitly preserves gauge symmetry. However in the presence of dimension specific objects such as $`\gamma ^5`$ matrices, a suitable generalization of the Dirac algebra must be constructed to be compatible with analytical continuation on the space-time dimension. This is the case of the Electroweak sector of the Standard Model. Since chiral symmetry is broken in this case, the corresponding Ward-Slavnov-Taylor identities must be imposed order by order, what turns the computations beyond one loop order very hard.

For SUSY theories, the fact that the equality between Bose and Fermi degrees of freedom only holds for specific values of the space time dimension, SUSY is broken in DR. A naive scheme (Dimensional Reduction) in which the field components are left unchanged while the loop integrals are performed in d dimensions can be shown to be inconsistent, see reference.. Similar problems arise in Chern-Simons field theories in which the Levi-Civitta tensor is the three dimensional analogous of the $`\gamma ^5`$ matrix .

A particularly interesting regularization independent framework is the Differential Renormalization program pioneered by Freedman et al . The basic idea of this scheme is that renormalization comes from the fact that products of propagators must be extended to be distributions so that a Fourier transform is well defined. Working in (Euclidean) coordinate space one writes the amplitude as a derivative of a distribution less divergent at coincident points. The derivatives are understood in the sense of distribution theory, i.e. acting formally by parts. The amplitudes written in this way are identical to the bare ones for separate points but behave well at coincident points. An intrinsic arbitrary scale appears in this process which is used as a Callan-Symanzik renormalization group parameter. The advantage of this method is that it works in integer space-time dimension, and it has been shown to yield satisfactory results where it was tested . However no general procedure using Differential Renormalization beyond one loop order, such that gauge invariance is automatic, has been constructed yet.

Recently an essentially regularization independent procedure has been advanced (see refs.). It presents the same consistency as Differential Regularization, working however in momentum space. It has been recently shown that the method respects both abelian and nonabelian symmetries at a few loops level and the infrared divergence can be treated by the same procedure constructed for ultraviolet divergences, without any modification, as has been shown for the gluon self energy . All these results indicate that the method deserves further investigation, for example, the question of n-loops and perturbative renormalization in a theory. Encouraged by the previous results and also aware of the difficulties of setting up a consistent scheme for perturbative renormalization where there are already so many of the, so well established, we feel for the sake of completeness of the Implicit Regularization Technique to take one step in this direction This is precisely the purpose of present contribution,Since this is a major task, already pursued by several sophisticated schemes, we should like to start by investigating a simple, although non trivial theory (involving, e.g. overlapping divergences) to test our method further. If we succeed, it will be most important first step to construct a perturbatively n-loop renormalization scheme in the spirit and consistency of e.g. BPHZ and others. For our so far very humble purposes, we study specifically the $`\varphi _6^3`$ theory.

The IRT is essentially regularization independent in the sense that a specific regulator needs never be used. A convenient identity at level of the integrand enables us to rewrite the amplitude as a sum of three types of contributions namely local divergences (basic divergent integrals which characterize the divergent structure of theory), nonlocal divergences typical of divergent sub-structures contributions) and finite contributions. The local divergences obtained in this way are equivalent to those obtained by performing a Taylor expansion (like in BPHZ) only for primitive diagrams, with no subdivergences. In the case subdivergences are present some more subtle differences between our method and BPHZ should be pointed out: a) Taylor expansions modify the original Feynman integrand; this procedure may therefore violate symmetries. We circumvent this problem by means of using a mathematical identity, preserving thus the original content of the original Feynman amplitude. b) In order to classify the subdivergences, BPHZ uses graphic representation (forest formula). In our procedure we identify, in terms of integrals, divergences which occurred at lower loop orders. This avoids in particular the complicated topological graphs structures and substitutes this step by an algebraic procedure, (at least in this simple case)from which the counterterms appear in a natural systematic way. Specific examples are given in the text. Moreover, just like Differential Renormalization arbitrary local terms can be duly parametrized and properly adjusted on physical grounds. This is particularly important for finite renormalization in order to clear the calculation from regularization ambiguities. Finally our framework lives in the integer space-time dimension which avoids well-known problems with dimension specific theories.

In order to illustrate our method we study the renormalization of $`\varphi _6^3`$ theory to n-loop order.

## 2 Renormalization by the Implicit Regularization Technique

In this section we construct an extension of a technique firstly designed for one and two loop calculations  for performing a $`n^{th}`$order renormalizability proof.

In order to illustrate the procedure, consider the following divergent amplitude, typical of one loop order:

$$_\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{1}{[(k+p)^2m^2](k^2m^2)}$$
(1)
The symbol $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ under the integral sign presupposes, as discussed, an implicit regularization. Now, in order to separate the logarithmic divergence from the finite part, we use the following identity in the factor involving the external momentum $`p`$:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{[(k+p)^2m^2]}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\left(1\right)^j\left(p^2+2pk\right)^j}{\left(k^2m^2\right)^{j+1}}}`$ (2)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\left(1\right)^{N+1}\left(p^2+2pk\right)^{N+1}}{\left(k^2m^2\right)^{N+1}[\left(k+p\right)^2m^2]}}`$
In the above expression $`N`$ is chosen so that the last term is finite under integration over $`k`$. Notice also that in the first term in equation (2), the external momentum appears only in the numerator and thus after integration it can yield at most polynomials in $`p`$ multiplied by divergences. For our present example we need $`N=0`$, since we are dealing with a logarithmic divergence. We can rewrite (1) using (2) as

$$I=_\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{1}{(k^2m^2)^2}\frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{p^2+2pk}{[(k+p)^2m^2](k^2m^2)^2}$$
(3)
Now only the first of these two integrals is divergent. The others can be easily integrated out to yield

$$I=I_{log}(m^2)\frac{i}{(4\pi )^2}Z_0(m^2,p^2)$$
(4)
where

$$I_{log}(m^2)=_\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{1}{(k^2m^2)^2}$$
(5)
and

$$Z_0(m^2,p^2)=_0^1𝑑z\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{p^2z(1z)m^2}{m^2}\right).$$
(6)
Note that, since no explicit form for the regulator has been used, one can make immediate contact with other regularizations. Details of calculations of several one loop amplitudes and their associated Ward identities by using this method can be found in .

By convenience we divide the diagrams which contribute to a given order in two classes: the first which does not contain diagrams which possess two point functions as subdivergences and in the second class those which do.

Let us start with the first class of diagrams. To show how the procedure works it is enough to consider a general Feynman amplitude with one external momentum $`p`$, one coupling constant $`\lambda `$ and one mass parameter $`m`$. We work in the $`4`$-dimensional space-time although the generalization to any integer dimension is straightforward. We denote by $`q`$ a sum of internal momenta $`k_i`$. The amplitude in question can always be written as

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}_\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{d^4k_i}{(2\pi )^4}R(p,q,m,\lambda )\left[\underset{j=1}{\overset{l}{}}f_j(p,q_j,m^2)\right]$$
(7)
where

$$f_j(p,q_j,m^2)=\frac{1}{[(pq_j)^2m^2]}$$
(8)
and

$$\text{l}=\text{number of}f\text{structures}$$

$$\text{n}=\text{number of loops.}$$

Note that we have explicitly separated the terms involving the external momentum in the denominator, from which nonlocal divergent contributions can arise after integration over the internal momenta. The structure $`R(p,q,m,\lambda )`$ contains all other ingredients of the amplitude such as coupling constants, results of Dirac traces, and so on.

For simplicity we adopt the following notation

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }=(\mathrm{\Pi }R)(\mathrm{\Pi }f)$$
(9)
where

$$(\mathrm{\Pi }R)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}_\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{d^4k_i}{(2\pi )^4}R(p,q,m,\lambda )$$
(10)
and

$$(\mathrm{\Pi }f)=\underset{j=1}{\overset{l}{}}f_j(p,q_j,m^2)$$
(11)
As discussed before the source of all possible troubles in the renormalization process will arise from the structure $`(\mathrm{\Pi }f).`$Our method focus attention on these structures. In order to clearly separate finite, local divergences (whose dependence on the external momenta is only a polynomial) from the nonlocal divergences we use a strategy which is completely based on the identity (2)

Define the operator $`T^D`$ which acts on each structure $`f`$ in the following way

$$T^0f=\frac{1}{q_j^2m^2}+\frac{2p.q_jp^2}{(q_j^2m^2)}\left\{\frac{1}{[(pq_j)^2m^2]}\right\}$$
(12)
$$T^1f=\frac{1}{q_j^2m^2}+\frac{(2p.q_jp^2)}{(q_j^2m^2)^2}+\frac{(2p.q_jp^2)^2}{(q_j^2m^2)^2}\left\{\frac{1}{[(pq_j)^2m^2]}\right\}$$
(13)
$`T^2f`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{q_j^2m^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{(2p.q_jp^2)}{(q_j^2m^2)^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{(2p.q_jp^2)^2}{(q_j^2m^2)^3}}`$ (14)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{(2p.q_jp^2)^3}{(q_j^2m^2)^3}}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{[(pq_j)^2m^2]}}\right\}`$
Note that the action of the operator $`T^D`$ is equivalent to a Taylor expansion around zero external momentum where the first terms are kept and the rest of the series is resumed, yielding thus a convenient identity. Note also that the degree of divergence of the various terms is decreasing.

The procedure we have in mind consists of applying the operation, in a particular amplitude with superficial degree of divergence $`D`$, to each function $`f_j`$

$$T^D\mathrm{\Gamma }=(\mathrm{\Pi }R)\underset{j=1}{\overset{l}{}}T_j^Df_j(p,q_j,m^2)$$
(15)
The result of the operation will always have the form

$$T^Df(p,q,m^2)=f^{div}(p,q,m^2)+f^{fin}(p,q,m^2)$$
(16)
We define

$$f^{div}(p,q,m^2)=\underset{i=0}{\overset{D}{}}f^i(p,q,m^2)$$
(17)
Let us exemplify. Take a quadratically divergent amplitude. To each contribution of the form

$$\frac{1}{(pq_j)^2m^2}$$

we associate

$$f^0(q,m^2)=\frac{1}{q^2m^2}$$
(18)
$$f^1(p,q,m^2)=\frac{2p.qp^2}{(q^2m^2)^2}$$
(19)
$$f^2(p,q,m^2)=\frac{(2p.q)^2}{(q^2m^2)^3}$$
(20)
and

$$f^{fin}(p,q,m^2)=\frac{p^44p^2(p.q)}{(q^2m^2)^3}+\frac{(2p.qp^2)^3}{(q^2m^2)^3[(pq_j)^2m^2]}$$
(21)
The definitions (18),(19),(20),(21) are not unique. It is simply convenient for our purposes. Using these we rewrite the amplitude as a sum of various contributions. According to our notation

$$T^D\mathrm{\Gamma }=(\mathrm{\Pi }R)\underset{j=1}{\overset{l}{}}[f_j^{div}(p,q,m^2)+f_j^{fin}(p,q,m^2)]$$
(22)
In this way we can identify three distinct contributions for the amplitude

$$T^D\mathrm{\Gamma }=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{fin}^1+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{local}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{nonlocal}$$
(23)
where

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{fin}^1=(\mathrm{\Pi }R)\underset{j=1}{\overset{l}{}}f_j^{fin}(p,q,m^2)$$
(24)
The second contribution contains only local divergences and, for some particular $`(\mathrm{\Pi }R)`$ structures, it can contain finite contributions too. It is identified as

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{local}`$ $`=`$ $`(\mathrm{\Pi }R){\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{l}{}}}f_j^{div}(p,q,m^2)`$ (25)
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{fin}^2+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{local}^{div}`$
These local divergences correspond to counterterms which are characteristic of the order we are renormalizing. For example, they can have the form

$$_\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{1}{k^2m^2}+p^2I_{log}(m^2)+\text{finite\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em} part}$$
(26)
The last term in equation (23), namely the cross-terms, contain finite contributions as well as “nonlocal” divergences.

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{nonlocal}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{fin}^3+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{nonlocal}^{div}$$
(27)
These nonlocal divergence contributions will always appear due to the divergent subdiagrams (beyond two point functions) contained in the graph. As we will show next in a particular example, the renormalization of previous orders will always allow one to cancel these contributions if the theory is renormalizable. In the present scheme the result is automatic and follows from the operation we have just defined, in an algebraic manner. There is no need for graphic representations of relevant contributions, although it is possible.

The renormalized amplitude say, in $`n^{th}`$loop order, can therefore be defined as

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_R^{(n)}`$ $`=`$ $`T^D\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(n)}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{local}^{div(n)}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{nonlocal}^{div(n)}`$
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{fin}^{1(n)}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{fin}^{2(n)}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{fin}^{3(n)}`$
where the contributions $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{local}^{div(n)}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{nonlocal}^{div(n)}`$ contain the counterterms typical of order n as well as the counterterms coming from divergent subdiagrams of previous order as will become clear in the examples. Notice from the equation above that our framework automatically delivers the counterterms

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{CT}^1=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{local}^{div}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{nonlocal}^{div}$$
(29)
and just as in BPHZ, subtracting off the necessary counterterms leaves us with the finite part of the amplitude. The main difference between our method and BPHZ is that we never modify the original Feynman amplitude, since we use an identity at the level of the integrand and BPHZ a Taylor expansion. An immediate consequence of this difference is that in the present procedure symmetries can always be preserved as has been shown in references.

Now we proceed to evaluate the second class of diagrams, namely those which contain two point functions as subdiagrams. Let us call U all the two point diagrams contained in a given amplitude $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. It is easy to see that that they can be factored out inside of the total amplitude in the following sense

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }=\underset{all\mathrm{\Sigma }_jU}{}_j\mathrm{\Sigma }_j^{(l)}(q_j^2)$$
(30)
where $`_j`$ stands for the remaining pieces in the amplitude, $`j`$characterizes a specific two point function, $`q_j`$ is one of the integration momenta (but external to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_j`$). Now since the operation $`T^D\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is an identity, i.e. $`T^D\mathrm{\Gamma }=\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ we can define the partially renormalized amplitude (with all two point function subdiagrams properly renormalized ) as follows

$$\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}=\mathrm{\Gamma }+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{CT}^2$$
(31)
therefore we have

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{CT}^2=\underset{all\mathrm{\Sigma }_jU}{}_j[\delta _j^{(l)}m^2A_j^{(l)}q_j^2]$$
(32)
and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{CT}^2`$ are all counterterms characteristic subdiagrams involving two point functions. $`\delta _j^{(l)}m^2`$ stands for the mass renormalization and $`A_j^{(l)}`$ for the wave function renormalization. Explicit expressions for these objects will be given in the following section where a specific example is worked out. In order to get the renormalized amplitude of order n from $`\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$ one proceeds in the same way as for diagrams of class one defined above. We thus have

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_R`$ $`=`$ $`T^D\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{local}^{div}\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{nonlocal}^{div}`$ (33)
$`=`$ $`\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{fin}^1+\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{fin}^2+\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{fin}^3`$
The whole procedure will become apparent in the concrete example of the following section

## 3 $`\lambda \varphi _6^3`$ Theory as an example

Consider the $`\lambda \varphi _6^3`$ theory Lagrangian,

$$=\frac{1}{2}\left[\left(_\mu \varphi _0(x)\right)^2m_0^2\varphi _0^2(x)\right]\frac{\lambda _0}{3!}\varphi _0^3(x)$$
(34)
It is easy to show that a Feynman graph in this theory has the superficial degree of divergence $`D`$ written as

$$D=62N$$
(35)
where $`N`$ is the number of external legs. This means that only Green’s functions with $`N3`$ are divergent. For the one-point functions we will assume that we can impose the condition $`0\left|\widehat{\varphi }\right|0=0`$ at all orders and we will not worry about one-point diagrams. We will just work with the two and three-point Green’s functions which possess quadratic and logarithmic divergences.

We will effect the renormalization through the redefinition of the Lagrangian parameters as:

$$\varphi _0=\sqrt{Z_\varphi }\varphi $$
(36)
$$m_0^2=Z_mm^2$$
(37)
$$\lambda _0=Z_\lambda \lambda $$
(38)
which allow the Lagrangian to be rewritten as

$$=_F+_{CT}$$
(39)
where

$$_F=\frac{1}{2}\left[\left(_\mu \varphi \right)^2m^2\varphi ^2\right]\frac{\lambda }{3!}\varphi ^3$$
(40)
and

$$_{CT}=\frac{1}{2}\left[(Z_\varphi 1)\left(_\mu \varphi \right)^2(Z_\varphi Z_m1)m^2\varphi ^2\right](Z_\varphi ^{3/2}Z_\lambda 1)\frac{\lambda }{3!}\varphi ^3$$
(41)
At the $`n^{th}`$ order one has

$$_{CT}=_{CT}^{(1)}+_{CT}^{(2)}+\mathrm{}_{CT}^{(n)}$$
(42)
We effect the renormalization at each order imposing the conditions:

* Relative to the propagator

$$D_R^1(0)=m^2$$
(43)
and

$$\left|\frac{}{p^2}D_R^1(p^2)\right|_{p=0}=1$$
(44)
* Relative to vertex function

$$iM_R(0)=i\lambda (1+\mathrm{finite}\mathrm{corrections})$$
(45)
We can rewrite the bare Lagrangian (34) as

$$=\frac{1}{2}\left[(1+A)\left(_\mu \varphi \right)^2(m^2+\delta m^2)\varphi ^2\right](1+B)\frac{\lambda }{3!}\varphi ^3.$$
(46)

in order to identify the renormalization constants

$$Z_\varphi ^{(n)}=1+A^{(n)}$$
(47)
$$Z_m^{(n)}=\frac{1}{Z_\varphi ^{(n)}m^2}(m^2+\delta ^{(n)}m^2)$$
(48)
$$Z_\lambda ^{(n)}=\frac{1+B^{(n)}}{(Z_\varphi ^{(n)})^{3/2}}$$
(49)
at each order by the imposing renormalization conditions. Since, in practice we renormalize each diagram of the given order, the counterterms can be written as

$$B^{(n)}=\underset{j=1}{\overset{a}{}}B_j^{(n)}$$
(50)
$$A^{(n)}=\underset{j=1}{\overset{b}{}}A_j^{(n)}$$
(51)
$$\delta ^{(n)}m^2=\underset{j=1}{\overset{b}{}}\delta _j^{(n)}m^2$$
(52)
here $`a,(b)`$ is the number of three(two) point diagrams which contribute to order $`n`$ .

At the $`n^{th}`$ order the inverse propagator function is written as

$`D_R^1(p^2)`$ $`=`$ $`p^2m^2\mathrm{\Sigma }_R^{(1)}(p^2)\mathrm{\Sigma }_R^{(2)}(p^2)\mathrm{}`$ (53)
$`\delta ^{(n)}m^2+A^{(n)}p^2\mathrm{\Sigma }^{(n)}(p^2)`$
and the vertex function as

$`iM_R(p,p^{})`$ $`=`$ $`i\lambda \{1+V_R^{(1)}(p,p^{})+V_R^{(2)}(p,p^{})\mathrm{}`$ (54)
$`+V^{(n)}(p,p^{})+B^{(n)}\}`$
Using the technique in each diagram contained in the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{(n)}(p^2)`$ and in the $`V^{(n)}(p,p^{})`$ amplitudes we separate the local divergent part and identify all divergent substructures. Imposing renormalization conditions we can always identify $`A^{(n)}`$, $`\delta ^{(n)}m^2`$ and $`B^{(n)}`$.

In order to identify the counterterms of the order in question and to write the nonlocal ones in terms of divergences of lower orders, showing thus that one needs not worry about them, it is convenient to define the following functions:

* Relative to vertex correction counterterms(type $`j`$ diagrams)

$`iB_j^{(n)}`$ $`=`$ $`(i\lambda )^{2n+1}(i)^{3n}I_{\mathrm{log}1}^{(n)}(m^2,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ (55)
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{local}^{div(n)}`$
where

$$I_{\mathrm{log}1}^{(n)}(m^2,\mathrm{\Lambda })=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}_\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{d^6k_i}{(2\pi )^6}\mathrm{{\rm Y}}^{(n)}(k_1,k_2,\mathrm{}k_n,m^2)$$
(56)
with

$`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}^{(n)}(k_1,k_2,\mathrm{}k_n,m^2)`$ (57)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(k_1^2m^2)^3}}\left({\displaystyle \underset{j=2}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(k_j^2m^2)^2}}\right)Q(k_i,k_{i+1},m^2)`$
For $`n=1`$

$$Q=1,$$
(58)
otherwise

$$Q=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n1}{}}\left\{\frac{1}{[(k_ik_{i+1})^2m^2]}\right\}$$
(59)
Notice that what we have defined here are generalizations of the simple one-loop logarithmically divergent integral $`I_{log}(m^2)`$ which we encountered in our one-loop example.
* Relative to all finite contributions to vertex corrections(type $`j`$ diagram ), which corresponds to the renormalized diagram

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_R^{(n)}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{fin}^{1(n)}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{fin}^{3(n)}`$ (60)
$`=`$ $`(i\lambda )^{2n+1}(i)^{3n}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{d^6k_i}{(2\pi )^6}}\mathrm{\Xi }^{(n)}(k_1,\mathrm{},k_n,p,p^{},m^2)`$
* Relative to the finite contribution, defined in equation (24) for the overlapping diagrams

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{fin}^{1(n)}`$ $`=`$ $`(\mathrm{\Pi }R){\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}f_i^{fin}(p,k_i,m^2)`$ (61)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(i\lambda )^{2n}(i)^{3n1}}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{d^6k_i}{(2\pi )^6}}\mathrm{\Theta }^{(n)}(k_1,k_2,\mathrm{}k_n,p,m^2)`$

In each order there will appear new types of divergent integrals. Therefore throughout the text we will define some new divergent integrals similar to the ones above (eq.(56)). These quantities are always independent of external momenta. Next we apply the procedure to all diagrams up to two loops in order to exemplify how the method works. To $`n^{th}`$ order it suffices to treat four cases, the first related to the vertex function and the others to the self-energy, which contain the overlapping divergences, two point functions as subdivergences and nested two point functions.

### 3.1 Three point functions

#### 3.1.1 The one loop order

The vertex correction has only one contribution at one loop level whose diagram is depicted in figure 1. The corresponding amplitude is

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ $`=`$ $`iV^{(1)}(p,p^{})`$ (62)
$`=`$ $`\lambda ^3{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\displaystyle \frac{d^6k}{(2\pi )^6}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(k^2m^2)[(pk)^2m^2][(p^{}k)^2m^2]}}`$
Using the notation introduced in section 2 we write

$$iV^{(1)}(p,p^{})=_\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{d^6k}{(2\pi )^6}R(k,m^2,\lambda )f(p,k,m^2)f(p^{},k,m^2)$$
(63)
with

$$R(k,m^2,\lambda )=\frac{\lambda ^3}{(k^2m^2)}$$
(64)
According to (IRT) we write, given that the divergence is logarithmic and therefore $`D=0`$

$$iT^0V^{(1)}(p,p^{})=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{local}^{div}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{fin}^1+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{fin}^3$$
(65)
(recall that in this case $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{fin}^2=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{nonlocal}^{div}=0`$ ) where

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{local}^{div}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\displaystyle \frac{d^6k}{(2\pi )^6}}R(k,m^2,\lambda )f^0(k,m^2)f^0(k,m^2)`$ (66)
$`=`$ $`\lambda ^3{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\displaystyle \frac{d^6k}{(2\pi )^6}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(k^2m^2)^3}}`$
$`=`$ $`\lambda ^3I_{\mathrm{log}1}^{(1)}(m^2,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$
$`=`$ $`iB^{(1)}`$
and

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_R`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{fin}^1+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{fin}^3`$ (67)
$`=`$ $`\lambda ^3{\displaystyle \frac{d^6k}{(2\pi )^6}\mathrm{\Xi }^{(1)}(k,p,p^{},m^2)}`$
with

$`\lambda ^3\mathrm{\Xi }^{(1)}(k,p,p^{},m^2)`$ $`=`$ $`R(k,m^2,\lambda )\{f^{fin}(k,p,m^2)f^{fin}(k,p^{},m^2)`$ (68)
$`+`$ $`f^0(k,m^2)f^{fin}(k,p^{},m^2)`$
$`+f^{fin}(k,p,m^2)f^0(k,m^2)\}`$
Notice that the finite part of this diagram contains the cross-terms $`f_0f_{fin}`$ since its integral is finite.

#### 3.1.2 The two loop order

Three diagram types contribute to the vertex correction at two loops. The total amplitude can be written as

$$iV^{(2)}(p,p^{})=3iV_1^{(2)}(p,p^{})iV_2^{(2)}(p,p^{})iV_3^{(2)}(p,p^{})$$
(69)
In this order the counterterms will be identified as

$$B^{(n)}=3B_1^{(2)}+B_2^{(2)}+B_3^{(2)}$$
(70)
The first amplitude $`iV_1^{(2)}(p,p^{})`$ corresponds to the diagram in figure 2. This diagram contains a quadratic divergent subdiagram (a first order two-point function correction). It can be completely separated in terms of the internal momentum $`k_1`$ as mentioned before. Then

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ $`=`$ $`iV_1^{(2)}(p,p^{})`$ (71)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\displaystyle \frac{d^6k_1}{(2\pi )^6}}{\displaystyle \frac{(i\lambda )^3(i)^4}{(k_1^2m^2)^2[(pk_1)^2m^2][(p^{}k_1)^2m^2]}}`$
$`\times \left\{i\mathrm{\Sigma }^{(1)}(k_1^2)\right\}`$
where $`i\mathrm{\Sigma }^{(1)}(k_1^2)`$ is the one loop self-energy amplitude. The one loop renormalized self-energy is

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_R^{(1)}(k_1^2)=\mathrm{\Sigma }_{CT}^{(1)}(k_1^2)+\mathrm{\Sigma }^{(1)}(k_1^2)$$
(72)
where

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_{CT}^{(1)}(k_1^2)=\delta ^{(1)}m^2A^{(1)}k_1^2$$
(73)
Thus the amplitude containing no two point function substructure is directly obtained as

$`\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{CT}^2`$ (74)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\displaystyle \frac{d^6k_1}{(2\pi )^6}}{\displaystyle \frac{(i\lambda )^3(i)^4}{(k_1^2m^2)^2[(pk_1)^2m^2][(p^{}k_1)^2m^2]}}`$
$`\times \left\{i\mathrm{\Sigma }_R^{(1)}(k_1^2)\right\}`$
All possible nonlocal divergences in this case will be canceled when we consider the one loop renormalization. Next we use the IRT for the logarithmic divergence. In our notation we obtain

$$iT^0\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}=\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{local}^{div}+\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{fin}^1+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{fin}^3$$
(75)
with

$$\frac{d^6k_2}{(2\pi )^6}R(k_1,k_2,m^2,\lambda )=\frac{(i\lambda )^3(i)^4}{(k_1^2m^2)^2}\left\{i\mathrm{\Sigma }_R^{(1)}(k_1^2)\right\}=R(k_1,m^2,\lambda )$$
(76)
The explicit expression for $`i\mathrm{\Sigma }_R^{(1)}(k_1^2)`$ will be given in equation (107). Using the above expression for $`R(k_1,m^2,\lambda )`$

$`\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{local}^{div}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\displaystyle \frac{d^6k_1}{(2\pi )^6}}R(k_1,m^2,\lambda )f^0(k_1,m^2)f^0(k_1,m^2)`$ (77)
$`=`$ $`(i\lambda )^3(i)^4I_{\mathrm{log}2}^{(2)}(m^2,\lambda ^2,\mathrm{\Lambda })=iB_1^{(2)}`$
We have just defined another logarithmic divergent quantity which is characteristic of the two-loop order. Note the explicit appearance of coupling constant. This should emphasize the fact that the amplitude depends on a two point function subdiagram, which has been properly renormalized. All counterterms possessing such type of subdiagram will look like this.

$$I_{\mathrm{log}2}^{(2)}(m^2,\lambda ^2,\mathrm{\Lambda })=_\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{d^6k_1}{(2\pi )^6}\frac{1}{(k_1^2m^2)^4}\left\{i\mathrm{\Sigma }_R^{(1)}(k_1^2)\right\}.$$
(78)
The finite part is

$`\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{fin}^1+\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{fin}^3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{d^6k_1}{(2\pi )^6}}R(k_1,m^2,\lambda )\{`$ (79)
$`f^0(k_1,m^2)f^{fin}(p^{},k_1,m^2)`$
$`+f^{fin}(p,k_1,m^2)f^0(k_1,m^2)`$
$`+f^{fin}(p,k_1,m^2)f^{fin}(p^{},k_1,m^2)\}`$
It is not necessary to give explicit expressions for the finite part and therefore we make explicit the divergent contributions only.

Now we consider the diagram corresponding to the second contribution $`iV_2^{(2)}(p,p^{})`$ which belong to class one (figure 3). The amplitude reads

$`iV_2^{(2)}(p,p^{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\displaystyle \frac{d^6k_1}{(2\pi )^6}}{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\displaystyle \frac{d^6k_2}{(2\pi )^6}}R(k_1,k_2,m^2,\lambda )`$ (80)
$`\times f(p,k_1,m^2)f(p^{},k_1,m^2)f(p^{},k_2,m^2)`$
with

$$R(k_1,k_2,m^2,\lambda )=\frac{(i\lambda )^5(i)^6}{(k_1^2m^2)(k_2^2m^2)[(k_1k_2)^2m^2]}$$
(81)
Using the IRT we have

$$iT^0V_1^{(2)}(p,p^{})=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{local}^{div}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{fin}^1+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{nonlocal}$$
(82)
where

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{local}^{div}`$ $`=`$ $`(i\lambda )^5(i)^6I_{\mathrm{log}1}^{(2)}(m^2,\mathrm{\Lambda })=iB_2^{(2)}`$ (83)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\displaystyle \frac{d^6k_1}{(2\pi )^6}}{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\displaystyle \frac{d^6k_2}{(2\pi )^6}}{\displaystyle \frac{(i\lambda )^5(i)^6}{(k_1^2m^2)^3(k_2^2m^2)^2[(k_1k_2)^2m^2]}}`$
$`=`$ $`(i\lambda )^5(i)^6{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\displaystyle \frac{d^6k_1}{(2\pi )^6}}{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\displaystyle \frac{d^6k_2}{(2\pi )^6}}\mathrm{{\rm Y}}^{(2)}(k_1,k_2,m^2)`$
In this type of structure (to all orders) the nonlocal contribution $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{nonlocal}`$ will have the form

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{nonlocal}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{fin}^3+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{nonlocal}^{div}$$
(84)
and in this case we have

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{nonlocal}^{div}=(i\lambda )^5(i)^6=\frac{d^6k_1}{(2\pi )^6}_\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{d^6k_2}{(2\pi )^6}\mathrm{\Xi }^{(1)}(k_1,p,p^{},m^2)\mathrm{{\rm Y}}^{(1)}(k_2,m^2)$$
(85)
Note that this term is completely written in terms of one loop contributions already considered. Therefore it poses no problem to renormalization. This particular example illustrates a basic difference between the present method and others: the subdivergences need not be previously identified. They appear algebraically. In cases were it is simple to identify the subdivergences , this is not necessarily a great advantage. However in higher orders it might become considerably simpler to identify all divergent substructures in an algebraic fashion. In fact, as will become clear in what follows, the procedure is designed to display all relevant (to renormalization) subdivergences. The finite contributions can be written as

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_R^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{fin}^1+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{fin}^3`$ (86)
$`=`$ $`(i\lambda )^5(i)^6{\displaystyle \frac{d^6k_1}{(2\pi )^6}\frac{d^6k_2}{(2\pi )^6}\mathrm{\Xi }^{(2)}(k_1,k_2,p,p^{},m^2)}`$
with

$$\mathrm{\Xi }=(i\lambda )^5(i)^6\mathrm{\Xi }^{(2)}(k_1,k_2,p,p^{},m^2)$$

$`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ $`=`$ $`R(k_1,k_2,m^2,\lambda )`$ (87)
$`\times \{f^{fin}(k_1,p,m^2)f^{fin}(k_1,p^{},m^2)f^{fin}(k_2,p^{},m^2)`$
$`+f^0(k_1,m^2)f^0(k_1,m^2)f^{fin}(k_2,p^{},m^2)`$
$`+f^0(k_1,m^2)f^{fin}(k_1,p^{},m^2)f^{fin}(k_2,p^{},m^2)`$
$`+f^{fin}(k_1,p,m^2)f^0(k_1,m^2)f^{fin}(k_2,p^{},m^2)\}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{(i\lambda )^5(i)^6(2k_1.k_2k_1^2)\mathrm{\Xi }^{(1)}(k_1,p,p^{},m^2)}{(k_2^2m^2)^3[(k_1k_2)^2m^2]}}`$
The last term in the above equation is obtained by using the operation (12) considering $`k_1`$ as external momentum. This is necessary to identify the one loop structure.

The last two loop diagram $`iV_3^{(2)}(p,p^{})`$ is depicted in the figure 4. The corresponding amplitude is

$`iV_3^{(2)}(p,p^{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\displaystyle \frac{d^6k_1}{(2\pi )^6}}{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\displaystyle \frac{d^6k_2}{(2\pi )^6}}\{R(k_1,k_2,m^2,\lambda )f(p,k_1,m^2)`$ (88)
$`\times f(p^{},k_2,m^2)f(pp^{},k_1k_2,m^2)\}`$
with

$$R(k_1,k_2,m^2,\lambda )=\frac{(i\lambda )^5(i)^6}{(k_1^2m^2)(k_2^2m^2)[(k_1k_2)^2m^2]}$$
(89)
Using the IRT we have

$$iT^0V_1^{(2)}(p,p^{})=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{local}^{div}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_R$$
(90)
where

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{local}^{div}`$ $`=`$ $`i\lambda ^5{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\displaystyle \frac{d^6k_1}{(2\pi )^6}}{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\displaystyle \frac{d^6k_2}{(2\pi )^6}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(k_1^2m^2)^2(k_2^2m^2)^2[(k_1k_2)^2m^2]^2}}`$ (91)
$`=`$ $`i\lambda ^5I_{\mathrm{log}3}^{(2)}(m^2,\mathrm{\Lambda })=iB_3^{(2)}`$
We defined above another logarithmic divergent quantity. This diagram type is often called a primitively divergent diagram. Note that there are no subdivergences.

#### 3.1.3 The $`n`$-loop order

As discussed before we now consider only one contribution of each kind. The vertex type contribution depicted in figure 5 is the first one. It will appear as a substructure of the overlapping self-energy diagram which we will also consider.

The amplitude corresponding to the vertex correction in figure 5 is

$$iV_1^{(n)}(p,p^{})=(\mathrm{\Pi }R)(\mathrm{\Pi }f)$$
(92)
with

$$(\mathrm{\Pi }R)=(i\lambda )^{2n+1}(i)^{3n}\left\{\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}_\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{d^6k_j}{(2\pi )^6}\frac{1}{k_j^2m^2}\right\}Q(k_i,k_{i+1},m^2)$$
(93)
where $`Q`$ is the same function as defined in (58) and (59). The subscript $`1`$ in $`V_1^{(n)}(p,p^{})`$ refers to the fact that only one diagram is being considered (type $`1`$ ). The external momentum dependent part $`(\mathrm{\Pi }f)`$ is given by

$$(\mathrm{\Pi }f)=\left\{\frac{1}{(pk_1)^2m^2}\right\}\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}\left\{\frac{1}{(p^{}k_j)^2m^2}\right\}$$
(94)
Using the IRT, we get

$`T^0(\mathrm{\Pi }f)`$ $`=`$ $`\{f^0(k_1,m^2)+f^{fin}(k_1,p,m^2)\}`$ (95)
$`\times {\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}}\{f^0(k_j,m^2)+f^{fin}(k_j,p^{},m^2)\}`$
In the same way we have

$$iT^0V_1^{(n)}(p,p^{})=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{local}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{fin}^1+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{nonlocal}$$
(96)
Since $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{fin}^2=0`$ we can write

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{local}^{div}`$ $`=`$ $`iB_1^{(n)}`$ (97)
$`=`$ $`(\mathrm{\Pi }R)f_1^0(k_1,m^2){\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}}f_j^0(k_j,m^2)`$
$`=`$ $`(i\lambda )^{2n+1}(i)^{3n}I_{\mathrm{log}1}^{(n)}(m^2,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$
$`=`$ $`(i\lambda )^{2n+1}(i)^{3n}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\displaystyle \frac{d^6k_j}{(2\pi )^6}}\mathrm{{\rm Y}}^{(n)}(k_1,k_2,\mathrm{}k_n,m^2)`$
and

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{nonlocal}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{fin}^3+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{nonlocal}^{div}$$
(98)
where

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{nonlocal}^{div}`$ $`=`$ $`(i\lambda )^{2n+1}(i)^{3n}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\displaystyle \frac{d^6k_j}{(2\pi )^6}}`$ (99)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{a=1}{\overset{n1}{}}}\mathrm{\Xi }^{(a)}(k_1,..,k_a;p,p^{},m^2)\mathrm{{\rm Y}}^{(na)}(k_{a+1},..,k_n;m^2)`$
Note that the above equation contains subdivergences which have already appeared at lower orders and have already been included in the Lagrangian. Here we clearly see that the application of the method displays all the subdivergencies in an algebraic way. Moreover it stresses the inductive character of the method. If we assume that the theory is renormalized at $`(n1)^{th}`$ order, the contribution at $`n^{th}`$ order will solely depend on structures (finite and divergent) which have already played their role at lower orders. Also it is noteworthy that all divergencies and finite parts of all previous orders play an important role at $`n^{th}`$ order. The above expression clearly displays a difference between this method and BPHZ. In BPHZ one would have to deal with the detailed topology of the diagram first. Here the counterterms appear algebraically. This simplicity may be due to the example we are working with. However, it constitutes even in this case a notorious simplification.

### 3.2 Two-point functions

#### 3.2.1 The one loop order

The self-energy has only one diagram contribution at one loop level which we identify in figure 6. It corresponds to the amplitude

$$i\mathrm{\Sigma }^{(1)}(p^2)=\frac{\lambda ^2}{2}_\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{d^6k}{(2\pi )^6}\frac{1}{(k^2m^2)[(pk)^2m^2]}$$
(100)
where

$$R(k,m^2,\lambda )=\frac{\lambda ^2}{2}\frac{1}{(k^2m^2)}$$
(101)
Using IRT we have

$$(T^2)i\mathrm{\Sigma }^{(1)}(p^2)=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{local}^{div}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{fin}^1$$
(102)
with

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{local}^{div}=\frac{\lambda ^2}{2}\{I_{quad}^{(1)}(m^2,\mathrm{\Lambda })+p^2[g_{\mu \nu }\frac{4}{6}I_{\mathrm{log}}^{\mu \nu (1)}(m^2,\mathrm{\Lambda })I_{\mathrm{log}1}^{(1)}(m^2,\mathrm{\Lambda })]\},$$
(103)
where we have defined

$$I_{quad}^{(1)}(m^2,\mathrm{\Lambda })=_\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{d^6k}{(2\pi )^6}\frac{1}{(k^2m^2)^2}$$
(104)
and

$$I_{\mathrm{log}}^{\mu \nu (1)}(m^2,\mathrm{\Lambda })=_\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{d^6k}{(2\pi )^6}\frac{k^\mu k^\nu }{(k^2m^2)^4}$$
(105)
The finite part is

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{fin}^1`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_R={\displaystyle \frac{\lambda ^2}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^6k}{(2\pi )^6}\mathrm{\Theta }^{(1)}(k,p,m^2)}`$ (106)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda ^2}{2}}\{{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{d^6k}{(2\pi )^6}}{\displaystyle \frac{(p^4)}{(k^2m^2)^4}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{d^6k}{(2\pi )^6}}{\displaystyle \frac{(2p.kp^2)^3}{(k^2m^2)^4[(pk)^2m^2]}}\}`$
The explicit calculation of the integral in the above equation leads to

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_R=i\mathrm{\Sigma }_R^{(1)}(p^2)=\frac{\lambda ^2}{4}\frac{i}{(4\pi )^3}\left\{(p^23m^2)F(m^2,p^2)\frac{p^2}{2}\right\}$$
(107)
where $`F(m^2,p^2),`$ for $`p^2<4m^2`$ ,is given by

$$F(m^2,p^2)=\frac{\sqrt{4m^2p^2}}{\left|p\right|}\left[2\mathrm{arctan}\left(\frac{\sqrt{4m^2p^2}}{\left|p\right|}\right)+\pi \right]2$$
(108)
and for $`p^2>4m^2`$ ,

$$F(m^2,p^2)=\frac{\sqrt{p^24m^2}}{\left|p\right|}[\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\left|p\right|\sqrt{p^24m^2}}{\left|p\right|+\sqrt{p^24m^2}}\right)+i\pi ]2$$
(109)
We now summarize the results obtained so far for one loop the renormalization,

$$A^{(1)}=\frac{i\lambda ^2}{2}\left\{I_{\mathrm{log}1}^{(1)}(m^2,\mathrm{\Lambda })\frac{4}{6}g_{\mu \nu }I_{\mathrm{log}}^{\mu \nu (1)}(m^2,\mathrm{\Lambda })\right\}$$
(110)
$$\delta ^{(1)}m^2=\frac{\lambda ^2}{2}iI_{quad}^{(1)}(m^2,\mathrm{\Lambda })$$
(111)
and

$$B^{(1)}=i\lambda ^2I_{\mathrm{log}1}^{(1)}(m^2,\mathrm{\Lambda })$$
(112)
where $`I_{\mathrm{log}1}^{(1)}(m^2,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ , $`I_{\mathrm{log}}^{\mu \nu (1)}(m^2,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ and $`I_{quad}^{(1)}(m^2,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ are defined in (56), (105) and (104), respectively.

#### 3.2.2 The two loop order

Two types of diagram contribute to the self energy correction at two loops. The total amplitude can be written as

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }^{(2)}(p^2)=2\mathrm{\Sigma }_1^{(2)}(p^2)+\mathrm{\Sigma }_2^{(2)}(p^2)$$
(113)
Here the counterterms to be identified are

$$A^{(2)}=2A_1^{(2)}+A_2^{(2)}$$
(114)
$$\delta ^{(2)}m^2=2\delta _1^{(2)}m^2+\delta _2^{(2)}m^2$$
(115)
The first amplitude $`i\mathrm{\Sigma }_1^{(2)}(p^2)`$ corresponds to the diagram in figure 7. This is the same case we have seen in equation (71). Considering the one loop renormalization we can write

$$\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}=i\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_1^{(2)}(p^2)=_\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{d^6k_1}{(2\pi )^6}\frac{(i\lambda )^2(i)^3}{(k_1^2m^2)^2[(pk_1)^2m^2]}\{i\mathrm{\Sigma }_R^{(1)}(k_1^2)\}$$
(116)
Then we apply IRT and obtain

$$iT^2\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_1^{(2)}(p^2)=\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{local}^{div}+\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{fin}^1$$
(117)
in which

$`\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{local}^{div}`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda ^2i\{I_{quad2}^{(2)}(m^2,\lambda ^2,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ (118)
$`+p^2[{\displaystyle \frac{4g_{\mu \nu }}{6}}I_{\mathrm{log}2}^{\mu \nu (2)}(m^2,\lambda ^2,\mathrm{\Lambda })I_{\mathrm{log}2}^{(2)}(m^2,\lambda ^2,\mathrm{\Lambda })]\}`$
and

$$I_{quad2}^{(2)}(m^2,\lambda ^2,\mathrm{\Lambda })=_\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{d^6k_1}{(2\pi )^6}\frac{1}{(k_1^2m^2)^3}\left\{i\mathrm{\Sigma }_R^{(1)}(k_1^2)\right\}$$
(119)
$$I_{\mathrm{log}2}^{\mu \nu (2)}(m^2,\lambda ^2,\mathrm{\Lambda })=_\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{d^6k_1}{(2\pi )^6}\frac{k^\mu k^\nu }{(k_1^2m^2)^5}\left\{i\mathrm{\Sigma }_R^{(1)}(k_1^2)\right\}$$
(120)
whereas

$`\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{fin}^1`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda ^2i{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{d^6k_1}{(2\pi )^6}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{p^4}{(k_1^2m^2)^5}}`$ (121)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{(2p.k_1p^2)^3}{(k_1^2m^2)^5[(pk_1)^2m^2]}}\left\}\right\{i\mathrm{\Sigma }_R^{(1)}(k_1^2)\}`$
The second amplitude $`i\mathrm{\Sigma }_2^{(2)}(p^2)`$ corresponds to the diagram in figure 8. It reads

$$i\mathrm{\Sigma }_2^{(2)}(p^2)=_\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{d^6k_1}{(2\pi )^6}_\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{d^6k_2}{(2\pi )^6}R(k_1,k_2,m^2,\lambda )f(p,k_1,m^2)f(p,k_2,m^2)$$
(122)
with

$$R(k_1,k_2,m^2,\lambda )=\frac{1}{2}\{\frac{(i\lambda )^4(i)^5}{(k_1^2m^2)(k_2^2m^2)[(k_1k_2)^2m^2]}\}$$
(123)
The same procedure enables us to write

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{local}^{div}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i\lambda ^4}{2}}\{I_{quad1}^{(2)}(m^2,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ (124)
$`+2p^2[{\displaystyle \frac{4g_{\mu \nu }}{6}}I_{\mathrm{log}1}^{\mu \nu (2)}(m^2,\mathrm{\Lambda })I_{\mathrm{log}1}^{(2)}(m^2,\mathrm{\Lambda })]\}`$
where

$`I_{quad1}^{(2)}(m^2,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\displaystyle \frac{d^6k_1}{(2\pi )^6}}{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\displaystyle \frac{d^6k_2}{(2\pi )^6}}`$ (125)
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{1}{(k_1^2m^2)^2(k_2^2m^2)^2[(k_1k_2)^2m^2]}}`$
$`I_{\mathrm{log}1}^{\mu \nu (2)}(m^2,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\displaystyle \frac{d^6k_1}{(2\pi )^6}}{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\displaystyle \frac{d^6k_2}{(2\pi )^6}}`$ (126)
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{k_2^\mu k_2^\nu }{(k_1^2m^2)^2(k_2^2m^2)^4[(k_1k_2)^2m^2]}}`$
and the finite part coming from this contribution is

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{fin}^2=\frac{i\lambda ^4}{2}(I_1+2I_2+I_3)$$
(127)
with

$$I_1=\frac{d^6k_1}{(2\pi )^6}\frac{d^6k_2}{(2\pi )^6}\frac{p^4}{(k_1^2m^2)^3(k_2^2m^2)^3[(k_1k_2)^2m^2]}$$
(128)
$$I_2=\frac{d^6k_1}{(2\pi )^6}\frac{d^6k_2}{(2\pi )^6}\frac{4p^2(p.k_2)^2}{(k_1^2m^2)^3(k_2^2m^2)^4[(k_1k_2)^2m^2]}$$
(129)
$$I_3=\frac{d^6k_1}{(2\pi )^6}\frac{d^6k_2}{(2\pi )^6}\frac{16(p.k_1)^2(p.k_2)^2}{(k_1^2m^2)^4(k_2^2m^2)^4[(k_1k_2)^2m^2]}$$
(130)
$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{nonlocal}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{fin}^3+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{nonlocal}^{div}$$
(131)
In terms of functions $`\mathrm{\Theta }^{(1)}(k_i,p,m^2)`$ and $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}^{(1)}(k_i,m^2)`$ we can write

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{nonlocal}^{div}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(i\lambda )^4(i)^5}{2}}{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\displaystyle \frac{d^6k_1}{(2\pi )^6}}{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\displaystyle \frac{d^6k_2}{(2\pi )^6}}\{`$ (132)
$`\mathrm{\Theta }^{(1)}(k_1,p,m^2)\mathrm{{\rm Y}}^{(1)}(k_2,m^2)`$
$`+\mathrm{\Theta }^{(1)}(k_2,p,m^2)\mathrm{{\rm Y}}^{(1)}(k_1,m^2)\}`$
Note that $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}^{(1)}`$ is (the integrand of a) logarithmic divergence, which, in DR would give us $`1/ϵ`$ and when multiplied by the remaining pieces of the amplitude would produce the celebrated term $`\mathrm{ln}p^2/ϵ`$ . The (other) finite contributions are

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{fin}^1=\frac{(i\lambda )^4(i)^5}{2}\frac{d^6k_1}{(2\pi )^6}\frac{d^6k_2}{(2\pi )^6}\mathrm{\Theta }^{(2)}(k_1,k_2,p,m^2)$$
(133)
and

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{fin}^3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(i\lambda )^4(i)^5}{2}}{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{d^6k_1}{(2\pi )^6}}{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{d^6k_2}{(2\pi )^6}}\{`$ (134)
$`\mathrm{\Theta }^{(1)}(k_1,p,m^2){\displaystyle \frac{2k_1.k_2k_1^2}{(k_2^2m^2)^3[(k_1k_2)^2m^2]}}`$
$`+\mathrm{\Theta }^{(1)}(k_2,p,m^2){\displaystyle \frac{2k_1.k_2k_2^2}{(k_1^2m^2)^3[(k_1k_2)^2m^2]}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{d^6k_1}{(2\pi )^6}}{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{d^6k_2}{(2\pi )^6}}R(k_1,k_2,m^2,\lambda )\{`$
$`f^{fin}(p,k_1,m^2)[f_1(k_2,m^2)+f_2(k_2,m^2)]`$
$`+f^{fin}(p,k_2,m^2)[f_1(k_1,m^2)+f_2(k_1,m^2)]\}\}`$
Summarizing the two loop renormalization constants obtained are,

$`A^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda ^4}{2}}[{\displaystyle \frac{4}{6}}g_{\mu \nu }I_{\mathrm{log}1}^{\mu \nu (2)}(m^2,\mathrm{\Lambda })I_{\mathrm{log}1}^{(2)}(m^2,\mathrm{\Lambda })]`$ (135)
$`+\lambda ^2[{\displaystyle \frac{4}{6}}g_{\mu \nu }I_{\mathrm{log}2}^{\mu \nu (2)}(m^2,\lambda ^2,\mathrm{\Lambda })I_{\mathrm{log}2}^{(2)}(m^2,\lambda ^2,\mathrm{\Lambda })]`$
$$\delta ^{(2)}m^2=[\frac{\lambda ^4}{2}I_{quad1}^{(2)}(m^2,\mathrm{\Lambda })+\lambda ^2I_{quad2}^{(2)}(m^2,\lambda ^2,\mathrm{\Lambda })]$$
(136)
and

$$B^{(2)}=\lambda ^4[I_{\mathrm{log}1}^{(2)}(m^2,\mathrm{\Lambda })+I_{\mathrm{log}3}^{(2)}(m^2,\mathrm{\Lambda })]+3\lambda ^2I_{\mathrm{log}2}^{(2)}(m^2,\lambda ^2,\mathrm{\Lambda })$$
(137)
where

$$I_{\mathrm{log}1}^{(2)}(m^2,\mathrm{\Lambda }),I_{\mathrm{log}1}^{\mu \nu (2)}(m^2,\mathrm{\Lambda }),I_{\mathrm{log}2}^{(2)}(m^2,\lambda ^2,\mathrm{\Lambda }),I_{\mathrm{log}2}^{\mu \nu (2)}(m^2,\lambda ^2,\mathrm{\Lambda }),I_{\mathrm{log}3}^{(2)}(m^2,\mathrm{\Lambda })$$

and

$$I_{quad1}^{(2)}(m^2,\mathrm{\Lambda }),I_{quad2}^{(2)}(m^2.\lambda ^2,\mathrm{\Lambda })$$

are defined in equations (56), (126), (78), (120), (91), (125) and (119) respectively.

#### 3.2.3 The $`n`$-loop order

Let us first consider the overlapping self energy diagram of figure 9. It corresponds to the amplitude

$$i\mathrm{\Sigma }_1^{(n)}(p^2)=(\mathrm{\Pi }R)(\mathrm{\Pi }f)$$
(138)
with

$$(\mathrm{\Pi }R)=\frac{(i\lambda )^{2n}(i)^{3n1}}{2}\left\{\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}_\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{d^6k_j}{(2\pi )^6}\frac{1}{k_j^2m^2}\right\}Q(k_i,k_{i+1},m^2)$$
(139)
The external momentum dependent part is

$$(\mathrm{\Pi }f)=\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}\frac{1}{[(pk_j)^2m^2]}$$
(140)
Using the technique we have, as usual

$$iT^2\mathrm{\Sigma }_1^{(n)}(p^2)=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{fin}^1+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{local}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{nonlocal}$$
(141)
where

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{fin}^1=\frac{(i\lambda )^{2n}(i)^{3n1}}{2}\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}\frac{d^6k_j}{(2\pi )^6}\mathrm{\Theta }^{(n)}(k_1,k_2,\mathrm{}k_n;p,m^2)$$
(142)
and

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{local}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{fin}^2+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{local}^{div}`$ (143)
$`=`$ $`(\mathrm{\Pi }R){\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}}\{f^0(k_j,m^2)+f^1(k_j,m^2,p)+f^2(k_j,m^2,p)\}`$
In this case we have $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{fin}^20`$ . The counterterms characteristic of the $`n^{th}`$ order are identified in the equation

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{local}^{div}=i(\delta _1^{(n)}m^2A_1^{(n)}p^2)$$

The nonlocal part is

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{nonlocal}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{fin}^3+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{nonlocal}^{div}$$
(144)
where

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{nonlocal}^{div}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(i\lambda )^{2n}(i)^{3n1}}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\displaystyle \frac{d^6k_j}{(2\pi )^6}}`$
$`\{{\displaystyle \underset{a=1}{\overset{n1}{}}}\mathrm{\Theta }^{(a)}(k_1,k_2,..,k_a;p^2,m^2)\mathrm{{\rm Y}}^{(na)}(k_{a+1},..,k_n;m^2)+`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{a=1}{\overset{n1}{}}}\mathrm{{\rm Y}}^{(na)}(k_1,k_2,..,k_{na};m^2)\mathrm{\Theta }^{(a)}(k_{na+1},..,k_n;p^2,m^2)+`$
$$\underset{a,b=1}{\overset{n2}{}}\mathrm{{\rm Y}}^{(b)}(k_1,k_2,..,k_b;m^2)\mathrm{\Theta }^{(a)}(k_{b+1},..,k_a;p^2,m^2)\mathrm{{\rm Y}}^{(nab)}(k_{a+1},..,k_n;m^2)\}$$

From the above equation it becomes clear that the renormalization of the self energy to $`n^{th}`$-order requires all finite functions defined in previous self energy diagrams (up to $`(n1)^{th}`$-order) as well as all the divergent contributions of the three-point functions also to the $`(n1)^{th}`$-order. We may associate a graphical representation to the equation above and, in this way, compare with the BPHZ results. The first term in the equation (3.2.3) contains a sum of $`n1`$ terms comprising $`a`$ finite functions of the type $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ multiplied by the $`na`$ divergent vertex-type functions. The second term is the symmetric to the first one (the vertex functions and functions $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ swap sides). Finally the last term contains vertex corrections to the left and to the right and finite functions in the middle. This can be best visualized in the graph which follows (figure 10).

Notice that in the present procedure no special treatment has been given to the overlapping divergencies or to the nested ones, both appearing in the self-energy. The reason is that the algebraic procedure produces only disjoint divergent contributions.

In order to complete the renormalization of this theory we will still consider two cases, both belonging to the second class defined previously. Firstly we consider a specific case where two point functions explicitly appear as subdivergences (see figure 11) and the other is an amplitude containing an overlapping divergence diagram as substructure (figure 12). As we mentioned before, the total integral contains the two point function substructures in factorized form. We therefore effect the renormalization of the internal propagators directly using the counterterms of order. In this way we immediately obtain $`\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$ . Let us first consider the case in figure 11. This diagram contains subdiagrams involving nested two point functions. Following the prescription which display the renormalized contributions of previous orders we get

$`\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$ $`=`$ $`i\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_2^{(n)}(p^2)`$
$`=`$ $`(i\lambda )^2(i)^3{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\displaystyle \frac{d^6k_n}{(2\pi )^6}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(k_n^2m^2)^2[(pk_n)^2m^2]}}`$
$`\times i\left\{T_{k_n}^2\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_2^{(n1)}(k_n^2)+\delta _2^{(n1)}m^2A_2^{(n1)}k_n^2\right\}`$
with

$`i\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_2^{(n1)}(k_n^2)`$ $`=`$ $`(i\lambda )^2(i)^3`$
$`{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\displaystyle \frac{d^6k_{n1}}{(2\pi )^6}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(k_{n1}^2m^2)^2[(k_nk_{n1})^2m^2]}}`$
$`\times i\left\{T_{k_{n1}}^2\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_2^{(n2)}(k_{n1}^2)+\delta _2^{(n2)}m^2A_2^{(n2)}k_{n1}^2\right\}`$
$``$
$``$
$``$
$`i\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_2^{(2)}(k_3^2)`$ $`=`$ $`(i\lambda )^2(i)^3{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\displaystyle \frac{d^6k_2}{(2\pi )^6}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(k_2^2m^2)^2[(k_3k_2)^2m^2]}}`$
$`\times i\left\{T_{k_2}^2\mathrm{\Sigma }^{(1)}(k_2^2)+\delta ^{(1)}m^2A^{(1)}k_2^2\right\}`$
$$i\mathrm{\Sigma }^{(1)}(k_2^2)=(i\lambda )^2(i)^2/2_\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{d^6k_1}{(2\pi )^6}\frac{1}{(k_1^2m^2)[(k_2k_1)^2m^2]}$$
(149)
We can substitute the terms in brackets by renormalized function

$`\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{2R}^{(n1)}(k_n^2)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_R^{(n1)}`$
$`=`$ $`T_{k_n}^2\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_2^{(n1)}(k_n^2)+\delta _2^{(n1)}m^2A_2^{(n1)}k_n^2`$
In this example the two point functions counterterms can be obtained for any order $`n>1`$ as

$$i\delta _2^{(n)}m^2=(i\lambda )^2(i)^3_\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{d^6k_n}{(2\pi )^6}\frac{1}{(k_n^2m^2)^3}\left\{i\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{2R}^{(n1)}(k_n^2)\right\}$$
(151)
$`iA_2^{(n)}`$ $`=`$ $`(i\lambda )^2(i)^3\{`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{6}}g^{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\displaystyle \frac{d^6k_n}{(2\pi )^6}}{\displaystyle \frac{k_\mu k_\nu }{(k_n^2m^2)^5}}\left\{i\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{2R}^{(n1)}(k_n^2)\right\}`$
$`{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\displaystyle \frac{d^6k_n}{(2\pi )^6}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(k_n^2m^2)^4}}\left\{i\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{2R}^{(n1)}(k_n^2)\right\}\}`$
Finally we will consider type 3 diagram (which contain a type 1 diagram) show in figure 12. The corresponding amplitude reads

$$i\mathrm{\Sigma }_3^{(n)}(p^2)=(i\lambda )^2(i)^3_\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{d^6k_n}{(2\pi )^6}\frac{1}{(k_n^2m^2)^2[(pk_n)^2m^2]}\left\{i\mathrm{\Sigma }_1^{(n1)}(k_n^2)\right\}$$
(153)
Note that since the structure $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_1^{(n1)}(k_n^2)`$ can be renormalized at $`(n1)^{th}`$ order (see first example of order n), the $`n^{th}`$ order structure will also be renormalized by a $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{local}^{div}`$. Its counterterms have the same form as in the previous example. They are

$$i\delta _3^{(n)}m^2=(i\lambda )^2(i)^3_\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{d^6k_n}{(2\pi )^6}\frac{1}{(k_n^2m^2)^3}\left\{i\mathrm{\Sigma }_{1R}^{(n1)}(k_n^2)\right\}$$
(154)
$`iA_3^{(n)}`$ $`=`$ $`(i\lambda )^2(i)^3\{`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{6}}g^{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\displaystyle \frac{d^6k_n}{(2\pi )^6}}{\displaystyle \frac{k_\mu k_\nu }{(k_n^2m^2)^5}}\left\{i\mathrm{\Sigma }_{1R}^{(n1)}(k_n^2)\right\}`$
$`{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\displaystyle \frac{d^6k_n}{(2\pi )^6}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(k_n^2m^2)^4}}\left\{i\mathrm{\Sigma }_{1R}^{(n1)}(k_n^2)\right\}\}`$
Note that in this case the three point functions subdiagrams have been renormalized together with the two point subdiagram, since it is contained in the latter.

## 4 Momentum routing independence

In the examples of the previous sections we have chosen the momentum routing in such way as to obtain the simplest form for the final expressions. Of course, the counterterms so obtained must be independent of the particular routing one chooses. In order to exemplify this we consider the last example given (type 3 diagram). One of the possible choices for the momentum routing would be to arrange the labels in such a way that external momentum is present in an internal line of the diagram as follows

$`i\mathrm{\Sigma }_3^{(n)}(p^2)`$ $`=`$ $`(i\lambda )^2(i)^3`$
$`{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\displaystyle \frac{d^6k_n}{(2\pi )^6}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(k_n^2m^2)[(pk_n)^2m^2]^2}}\left\{i\mathrm{\Sigma }_1^{(n1)}((pk_n)^2)\right\}`$
and also,

$$i\mathrm{\Sigma }_3^{(n)}(p^2)=(i\lambda )^2(i)^3_\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{d^6k_n}{(2\pi )^6}\frac{1}{(k_n^2m^2)^2[(pk_n)^2m^2]}\left\{i\mathrm{\Sigma }_1^{(n1)}(k_n^2)\right\}$$
(157)
These two labels must be equivalent, so that the amplitude is momentum routing independent as it should. Note that if the amplitude were finite, this could immediately be accomplished through a shift $`pk_n=k_n^{}`$. However, since the amplitude is quadratically divergent, shifts are not allowed without the inclusion of surface terms. This point has been extensively discussed in our method (see refs.  ) and a similar procedure can cure this problem in the present model. More difficult would be theories with gauge symmetries and work along this line is in progress. Note that in Dimensional Regularization the problem does not appear since shifts are always allowed.

## 5 Conclusion

We have considered (in the self-energy) all possible complications which usually appear in renormalization procedures: overlapping divergences, nested divergencies and disjoint ones, all in the same graph at $`n`$-loops. We have explicitly shown how these problems can be systematically resolved order by order within our technique in a simple example, devoid of symmetries abelian or not. However, several generals aspects of the method can be learned already from this simple case :

there will always be a divergent (local) order dependent contribution. Also, there will always be a finite contribution composed by the product of all finite parts of $`f_j`$´s. These two structures (divergent and finite) are typical of the $`n^{th}`$ order and poses no problem for renormalization.

As we have seen in the examples given, the identities we use in the integrand leave us then with crossed products of divergent and finite contributions. All possible combinations will appear and all of them can either be recognized as structures (finite or divergent) already encountered in lower order amplitudes or they will give a finite contribution.

In summary we have presented a completely algebraic method of perturbative renormalization. All counterterms appear automatically, and presents a close correspondence to BPHZ where graphical representations are essential. We feel that if our method also works for abelian and non abelian theories this could be a major advance. At the one loop level we can preserve gauge symmetry if use is made of relations involving divergent integrals of the same degree of divergence ,. The difference among those integrals is source of both ambiguities and symmetry violations .The results we got at one loop are encouraging We are working on the application of this method at the two loops level the Quantum Electrodynamic (QED).

We see that the application of this method leads to a relatively simple renormalization procedure. There is no need for a graphic representation of the relevant contributions. When a diagram has divergent subdiagrams the subdivergences need not be previously identified because they will appear in an algebraic way. The procedure display all relevant subdivergences. Investigations of advantages of the present method (if at all!) over the existing ones remain as our main research interest right now.

## Acknowledgments

The work of M.C. Nemes was partially supported by CNPq, FAPEMIG. The work of S.R. Gobira was partially supported by FAPEMIG.

FIGURE CAPTIONS

* Figure 1: One-loop vertex correction $`iV^{(1)}(p,p^{})`$
* Figure 2: The two-loop vertex correction contribution $`iV_1^{(2)}(p,p^{})`$
* Figure 3: The two-loop vertex correction contribution $`iV_2^{(2)}(p,p^{})`$
* Figure 4: The two-loop vertex correction contribution $`iV_3^{(2)}(p,p^{})`$
* Figure 5: The n-loop vertex correction contribution $`iV_1^{(n)}(p,p^{})`$
* Figure 6: One-loop self energy $`i\mathrm{\Sigma }^{(1)}(p^2)`$
* Figure 7: The two-loop self energy contribution $`i\mathrm{\Sigma }_1^{(2)}(p^2)`$
* Figure 8: The two-loop self energy contribution $`i\mathrm{\Sigma }_2^{(2)}(p^2)`$
* Figure 9: The n-loop self energy contribution $`i\mathrm{\Sigma }_1^{(n)}(p^2)`$
* Figure 10: Graphic representation of equation (145).
* Figure 11: The n-loop self energy contribution $`i\mathrm{\Sigma }_2^{(n)}(p^2)`$
* Figure 12: The n-loop self energy contribution $`i\mathrm{\Sigma }_3^{(n)}(p^2)`$


text:
# A maximum-likelihood approach to removing radio sources from SZ observations, with application to Abell 611

## 1 Introduction

This paper is concerned with the subtraction of radio sources which would otherwise contaminate or obliterate detections of the Sunyaev-Zel’dovich (SZ) effect  towards galaxy clusters. The work described here is in connection with the Ryle Telescope (RT, see e.g. Jones et al. 2001 and Grainge et al. 2001b), but the issues are relevant to all cm-wavelength SZ observations with interferometers (see e.g. Reese et al. 2000). For a massive cluster at moderate or high redshift, the flux that the RT detects from the SZ effect at 15 GHz is typically $``$500 $`\mu `$Jy on its shortest baselines. This is sufficiently faint that radio sources will almost invariably be present with comparable or greater amplitudes. Thus removing the effects of radio sources is an essential step. We describe and compare two past methods of measuring SZ decrements in the presence of sources as well as a maximum-likelihood method. We then apply this to new RT observations of cluster A611 which we combine with X-ray data to estimate $`H_0`$. All coordinates are J2000 and, except where otherwise stated, we use an Einstein-de-Sitter world model.

## 2 Removing radio sources from SZ observations with the RT

As the RT is an interferometer with a wide range of baselines, it can simultaneously measure the extended SZ flux and the fluxes and positions of the small angular size radio sources. Figure 1 illustrates the variation of SZ flux with baseline for the RT when observing a massive Abell cluster at $`z=0.171`$. The variation with redshift is slight over the range $`z=0.15`$$`5`$, as shown in Grainge et al. \[2001b\]. The SZ effect has effectively been completely resolved out for baselines above $`1.5`$ k$`\lambda `$, and so these “long” baselines can be used to measure sources and so remove their effects from the SZ signal seen on the “short” baselines. The measurements are simultaneous and, of course, at the same frequency, and so the spectral index is unimportant. Variability is unimportant if the telescope configuration does not change; see Grainge et al.  for details. By choosing an interferometer configuration such that there are more long baselines than short, it is possible to optimise the observations to achieve good signal-to-noise for the SZ effect without it being dominated by noise from unsubtracted sources.

There are three methods of source subtraction that have been applied to RT data:

1. using Clean, which has been used for the bulk of published SZ measurements from the RT (e.g. Grainge et al. 1996);
2. the matrix method, which was first used by Grainge ; and
3. the FluxFitter method, first used by Das , and used here in modified form.

This sequence began with Clean, the classical radio-astronomy image deconvolution technique (see e.g. Greisen 1994 and Perley et al. 1989). The matrix method is a linear method for removing the effects of sidelobes, and FluxFitter – using maximum likelihood – addresses the problem of simultaneously fitting both radio sources and SZ decrement.

### 2.1 The test data

The three methods can be explained and compared with an example of a simulated dataset containing both sources and an SZ effect. The simulation is of a 54 $`\times `$ 12-hour long observation of a field at declination $`44^{}`$. The $`uv`$ coverage is based on a standard Cb configuration for the RT; in this configuration four aerials are parked on an east-west rail-track at locations 36, 72, 90 and 108 m from the closest fixed aerial (see Grainge et al. 1996 for details). The point-source fluxes and positions are shown in Table 1, and the noise level was set to 7 mJy visibility-1/2, corresponding to 200 $`\mu `$Jy day-1/2, as expected for a standard RT observation with five aerials. The SZ decrement is based on Abell 2218, and is modelled as an isothermal ellipsoid with a King electron density profile  at the centre of the map with a central electron density of $`10^4\mathrm{m}^3`$, $`\beta =0.65`$, a temperature of $`8.7\times 10^7`$ K and core radii of 60′′ and 40′′ on the sky and 49′′ ($`=\sqrt{60\times 40}`$) along the line of sight. The central temperature decrement for this cluster is 0.82 mK and, as observed with the RT, the cluster gives $``$660 $`\mu `$Jy beam-1 on the shortest baseline.

### 2.2 The CLEAN method

For this method, a dirty (i.e. unCleaned) map of all the baselines longer than 1.5 k$`\lambda `$ is produced within Aips . Natural weighting is used to give the best possible signal-to-noise ratio at the expense of larger sidelobes. The map is Cleaned in the standard way by placing Clean boxes around the obvious sources. After deconvolution, the source fluxes are measured, using the Aips verb Maxfit, which interpolates the position and value of the maximum flux density. The measured fluxes are then removed from the visibility data using the task Uvsub.

The sources and the positions found in the simulated dataset are listed in Table 2, and the Cleaned map is shown in Figure 2. The noise in the map due to the system temperature is 38 $`\mu `$Jy beam-1. The six model sources are labelled; note that only four brightest were found.

A map made with baselines longer than 1.5 k$`\lambda `$ was consistent with noise after these four sources had been subtracted. The SZ flux observed was $`675\pm 72`$ mJy beam-1, at a position ($`4`$, $`2`$) arcsec from the pointing centre. The SZ values were measured with Maxfit from a map made with the baselines shorter than 1.0 k$`\lambda `$.

A comparison of the sources found (Table 2) and the sources actually in the model (Table 1) shows the how well the Clean method works. The most glaring problem is that only four out of the original six sources have been detected. As lower-frequency surveys such as FIRST, NVSS or optical images often provide information about the source envirnoment at 15 GHz, the long-baseline map is rarely used in isolation. As such, a second test was performed, placing the Clean boxes as before, but adding small Clean boxes around the locations of the other two weaker sources. The positions and fluxes of the six sources are shown in Table 3. The noise on the long-baseline map is 38 $`\mu `$Jy beam-1. Thus additional radio or optical information leads to the detection of the two faintest sources.

#### 2.2.1 Source finding

Source finding is done in a non-linear, iterative manner. A typical source-subtraction process may involve many iterations of map making, running the subtraction algorithm on the sources found, mapping residuals, finding another source and then adding that into the model.

A high signal-to-noise source is easy to identify, and causes no problems. However, the process becomes subjective around signal-to-noise ratios of 4 to 3.5. This is the point at which the non-Gaussian, correlated statistics in the image plane conspire with the high RT sidelobes (when using a few antennas for source finding) to make source identification more difficult.

Radio sources in the clusters we observe have angular sizes smaller than the maximum resolution used. However, the number of Clean components is generally much larger than the number of sources in the field. With the test data, only four sources were identified, but Aips produced a model with 28 Clean components. Since the real sources are evidently point sources, this is over-modelling the data; and potentially biasing. There is also a degree of subjectivity in the placing and sizing of Clean boxes.

### 2.3 The matrix method

The matrix method was initally developed by KG , and we here describe it and assess its performance. In the matrix method, sources are first identified from a unCleaned long-baseline map, and Maxfit used to measure the positions and the fluxes of the sources. The convolution that occurs when observing with an interferometer means that the flux on the dirty map of the $`j^{\mathrm{th}}`$ source, $`S_{\mathrm{dirty},j}`$, is given by

$$S_{\mathrm{dirty},j}=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}S_{\mathrm{sky},i}B_{i,j}P_i,$$
(1)
where $`S_{\mathrm{sky},i}`$ is the true flux on the sky of the $`i^{th}`$ point source, $`B_{i,j}`$ is a factor due to the synthesised beam that depends on the displacement (on the sky) between the source in question and the $`i^{th}`$ source, and $`P_i`$ is the primary (envelope) beam attenuation. The value of $`B_{i,j}`$ is directly measured from the dirty beam produced by Horus. There is thus a matrix equation linking the measured dirty fluxes with the true sky fluxes, which is solved by inverting the matrix. This method has the advantage over Clean in that sources that are measured in the map to be point sources are modelled with one flux and position. With the simulated test data, the four sources identified with the Clean method were used. The resulting matrix was

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}2875\\ 473\\ 105\\ 585\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& 0.13& 0.03& 0.16\\ 0.13& 1& 0.02& 0.04\\ 0.03& 0.02& 1& 0.12\\ 0.16& 0.04& 0.12& 1\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}S_{\mathrm{sky},1}\\ S_{\mathrm{sky},2}\\ S_{\mathrm{sky},3}\\ S_{\mathrm{sky},4}\end{array}\right),$$
(2)
where the vector on the left side of the equation is a measurement of the dirty flux (in $`\mu `$Jy beam-1) at each point. The value $`S_{\mathrm{sky},x}`$ is the beam-attenuated flux on the sky of source $`x`$, using the same labelling as for sources found in the Clean method.

The matrix method is linear, an apparent advantage over the Clean method. If after the first subtraction attempt some sources are still present, then the additional terms for the matrix can then be measured and the solution recalculated.

Table 4 shows the fluxes found. A comparison with the sources known to be in the model (Table 1) shows that the flux of source three is significantly different. There are two reasons for this. Firstly, not all the flux has been subtracted – see Figure 3. Secondly, the positions used have been determined from the unCleaned map, by searching for extrema with Maxfit. Occasionally, the relative positions of sources are such that one source is in the steepest part of a sidelobe of another, and Maxfit does not find an extremum that corresponds to that source. This has occurred in this case with source 4. In this situation, Maxfit is not used, and the position from the Clean method is used. The flux value from the unCleaned map in that position is then used. The reliance on the Clean method combined positional problems and with difficulties automating the process for large numbers of sources means that the “matrix method” has only been applied in simple cases with a few well separated sources.

### 2.4 The FLUXFITTER method

In an attempt to overcome the problems of the Clean and matrix methods, the FluxFitter algorithm was introduced. The algorithm that it uses is straightforward:

1. An initial model of the sky is made, using a set of parameters that represents the positions and fluxes of each source, including the SZ decrement. This model is determined from the long-baseline RT maps (either raw or Cleaned) and, for the SZ parameters, from the X-ray image.
2. The flux that the RT would observe is calculated for every visibility point.
3. The misfit between the model and real $`uv`$ data is then calculated as $`\chi ^2`$.
4. The parameters are then varied to minimise $`\chi ^2`$.

The best-fitting parameter values are then used to subtract the radio sources; this is done within Aips. There are two advantages to this method. It works almost entirely in the aperture plane; only the source identification and approximate position finding is done in the image plane. Working in the aperture plane is preferred because the noise distribution is known to be Gaussian. The second advantage of this method is in point (i): a simultaneous fit to the positions and fluxes of the point sources and the SZ decrement is a clear improvement over either of the previous methods as there is no arbitrary “long” and “short” baseline split, and it allows full use of all visibility data, which increases the signal-to-noise ratio for point-source measurements.

The initial parameters for the sources are still estimated by iterating the Clean method. In a complex situation with both bright and faint sources, the map is Cleaned, and then positions measured. These sources are then subtracted and the subtracted data then mapped again. This loop can be performed many times to estimate the number of sources and their approximate positions and fluxes. In a less complex situation, Clean is not used, and sources are approximately subtracted and then the data remapped. Again, this is just to provide an initial guess for FluxFitter.

Currently only the amplitude of the SZ decrement is varied. The other parameters that describe the decrement – position, core radius and $`\beta `$-parameter for the cluster – are all fixed in advance from the X-ray data. This is done as the radio data do not constrain well the core-radius or $`\beta `$ value; with present telescopes, the X-ray measurements constrain the core radius, $`\beta `$ value and position much better.

FluxFitter was run twice on the simulated test data. The fluxes and positions from the Clean method were used as an initial guess for the first run. The fluxes and positions from this run are shown in Table 5; the errors are those reported by FluxFitter – see below. After subtraction with Uvsub, the map of baselines greater than 1.5 k$`\lambda `$ was consistent with noise. For a second run, the fluxes and positions from the Clean method were used, and the positions of the additional two sources were also used. The fluxes and positions from this run are shown in Table 6. This table shows that the two additional sources are detected with good significance. That the overall noise level of 30 $`\mu `$Jy beam-1 is lower than that for the Clean method is not surprising as all the baselines are being used in the determination of the fluxes and positions. After subtracting the six reported sources, a map of baselines shorter than 1.0 k$`\lambda `$ shows a decrement of flux $`700\pm 65`$ mJy beam-1 at an offset (9′′,4′′). FluxFitter itself finds a central decrement of $`0.87\pm 0.08`$ mK, close to the set value of 0.82 mK.

As an additional check, a third run of FluxFitter was performed, and the four sources found from the Clean method and two random points were used as the initial guess. In this case, FluxFitter reported that both of the two random “sources” had fluxes below the noise level and very large positional-errors.

FluxFitter also reports error bounds. As Figure 5 shows, the $`\chi ^2`$ contours are elliptical and orientated along the variable axes, which shows that the parameters are independent. The error on each parameter is calculated by finding the parameter values at which the reduced $`\chi ^2`$ increases by 1.

The error-bound reporting was checked by simulating a point source with differing signal-to-noise ratio. 500 observations of a single point source were simulated; the signal-to-noise was kept constant for groups of 10 simulations, and the position was held constant for all the simulations. The visibilities were simulated with Gaussian noise. The known position was then fed to FluxFitter as an initial guess, and the best-fitting position and flux recorded. It was found that the quoted error bar does enclose the position for 67% of the simulations. It was also found that the uncertainty of the position, that is the size of $`\sigma `$, varies as the inverse of the signal-to-noise. This result is shown in Figure 6. Note that this relation holds down to very low signal-to-noise ratios. The result is useful for determining whether a tentative source found with the RT at low signal-to-noise has a position coincident with higher significance data, for example from NVSS or POSS.

#### 2.4.1 Possible improvements

Source recognition is clearly the biggest problem that still remains. It is the only step that is still performed in the map plane rather than aperture plane. There are computational issues involved here: producing a map and identifying sources “by hand” is possible and fairly cheap in computer time, but the noise in the map plane is non-Gaussian. Minimising the misfit between the data and a given number of sources is also cheap; but allowing the number of sources to vary vastly increases the complexity of the problem and the time required. It is possible that more advanced minimising techniques such as simulated annealing (see e.g. Press et al. 1993) or using massive inference techniques will make this possible and robust in the aperture plane.

### 2.5 Comparison of results

Tables 3, 4 and 6 show the results of three different methods for source fitting. For both the Clean and FluxFitter methods, the results with six sources are considered. The positions and fluxes put into the model are shown in Table 1. The resultant position and depth of the SZ decrements after subtraction are shown in Table 7. The parameters are all measured from dirty maps, made with baselines shorter than 1 k$`\lambda `$. Note that the matrix method has a less deep SZ flux density, and that the FluxFitter and Clean method values are statistically consistent with the expected value for this model cluster ($`660`$ $`\mu `$Jy beam-1). Also, the positions of the SZ decrement are fully consistent with the model as the beam size is around 180′′. It is not surprising that the flux of the SZ decrement from the matrix method is less deep as the central 100 $`\mu `$Jy source has not been subtracted. Also, the matrix method does an incomplete subtraction of the sources it does find, resulting in more contamination of the SZ signal. Note that this does not imply that the matrix method will always will give a lower SZ decrement if the source subtraction is incomplete.

All three methods benefit from prior knowledge of the source distribution on the sky. This can be estimated from looking at lower frequency surveys such as NVSS or FIRST. Most falling-spectrum sources, i.e. with $`\alpha >0`$ (where $`Sv^\alpha `$ where $`v`$ is the observing frequency and $`\alpha `$ is the spectral index) will be detected in NVSS and or FIRST. However, as shown by Cooray et al.  in clusters and Taylor  generally, there are rising spectrum sources, i.e. with $`\alpha <0`$ that are present at 15 GHz and not detected in NVSS and FIRST.

## 3 Observations of Abell 611

### 3.1 X-ray

Abell 611 is a cluster at $`z=0.288`$  originally identified by Abell . It has an 0.1–2.4 keV luminosity of $`8.63\times 10^{44}`$ W \[\], with a temperature of $`7.95_{0.52}^{+0.56}\times 10^7`$ K . White derived this value from a 57-ks ASCA exposure by considering both a single-phase and two-phase cooling model. The temperature values found for the bulk of the gas are statistically equivalent and a mass deposit rate of $`0_0^{+177}`$ $`M_{}`$ yr-1 was found for the cooling model.

The 17-ks ROSAT HRI observation from April 1996 is shown in Figure 7. The image contains two bright pixels, which, on comparison with the POSS image, are coincident with a large galaxy. These pixels were removed. We calculate an X-ray emissivity constant of 1.29$`\times 10^{69}`$ counts s-1 from 1 m3 of $`7.95\times 10^7`$-K gas of electron density 1 m-3 at a luminosity distance of 1 Mpc, assuming a metallicity of $`0.21\pm 0.07`$ solar and an absorbing H column of $`4.88\times 10^{24}`$ m-2.

The best-fitting model parameters were $`\beta =0.59`$, core radii of 26′′ and 24′′ with a position angle of the major axis of 101 and a central electron density of $`n_0=11.6\times 10^3`$ m-3 (assuming a core radius along the line of sight of $`25=(24\times 26)^{1/2}`$ arcsec and $`H_0`$= 50 km s-1 Mpc-1). There is a degeneracy between the core radii fitted and $`\beta `$ but this has no significant effect on $`H_0`$ (see Grainge et al. 2001b and Jones et al. 2001).

### 3.2 RT observations

A611 was observed for 16 sets of 12 hours between November 1994 and January 1995 with the RT in configuration Cb. Flux and phase calibration and overall data reduction strategy are described in Grainge et al. \[2001a\]. Three days of data – taken in bad weather – were rejected after examining the 1-day maps and noise levels. A map of the combined 13 days of data using baselines longer than 1.5 k$`\lambda `$ had a noise level of 70 $`\mu `$Jy beam-1, and only one source was visible, with flux 299 $`\mu `$Jy beam-1 at $`\mathrm{RA}8^\mathrm{h}0^\mathrm{m}57^\mathrm{s}1`$ $`\mathrm{Dec}.+36^{}3^{}40^{\prime \prime }`$. This source was removed with Uvsub, using the flux and position from the dirty map. A long-baseline map of the subtracted data was consistent with noise, with no other sources in the field.

Table 8 lists the sources found in the FIRST catalogue around the pointing centre for A611. The NVSS catalogue contains no sources in this region. Neither of the two FIRST sources is detected at 15 GHz and the source that is present at 15 GHz is not detected at lower frequencies.

FluxFitter was then run using the X-ray data to provide a model of the SZ decrement and using all the baselines. Again, the initial guess was defined by the 1.5-k$`\lambda `$-only fitting. The source was found to be at $`\mathrm{RA}8^\mathrm{h}0^\mathrm{m}57^\mathrm{s}1`$ $`\pm 0.9`$ $`\mathrm{Dec}.+36^{}3^{}35^{\prime \prime }`$0 $`\pm 8`$ with a flux of $`188\pm 65`$ $`\mu `$Jy beam-1, which is lower than the long-baseline only values. As the angular size of A611 is small, it is likely that the SZ signal was contaminating the “long”-baseline map. Note that this source is not detected in the FIRST survey, and so in this case prior knowledge from a lower frequency survey has not helped. Figure 8 shows a Cleaned map of baselines shorter than 1 k$`\lambda `$ after this source has been subtracted. The decrement (as measured from the map) is $`540\pm 125`$ $`\mu `$Jy beam-1 at $`\mathrm{RA}8^\mathrm{h}0^\mathrm{m}57^\mathrm{s}3`$ $`\mathrm{Dec}.+36^{}2^{}38^{\prime \prime }`$. This location is 3′′ in RA and 36′′ in Dec away from the X-ray cluster location. Considering the Clean beam used is 92′′$`\times `$ 350′′, this is a good positional agreement between the X-ray and SZ observations. The slight extension to the south is not significant.

### 3.3 $`H_0`$ determination

From the source subtracted dataset and the X-ray parameters of the cluster, it is possible to estimate $`H_0`$, as described in Grainge et al. \[2001b\]. The likelihoods for different $`H_0`$ values are calculated and are shown in Figure 9. The best-fit $`H_0`$ for A611 is then $`52_{14}^{+22}`$ km s-1 Mpc-1. The error quoted is due to the noise in the SZ measurement, and does not include any of the other sources of error in the determination. The additional sources of error are described fully in Grainge et al. \[2001b\]. For A611, the error from the SZ measurement is by far the most important, and the final $`H_0`$ value is $`52_{16}^{+24}`$ km s-1 Mpc-1 for an Einstein-de-Sitter world model. Assuming a world model with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.7`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{M}=0.3`$, $`H_0`$=$`59_{18}^{+27}`$ km s-1 Mpc-1 from this cluster.

## 4 Conclusions

The problem of radio source contamination in interferometric SZ observations and methods to remove it have been investigated, demonstrating the following.

1. The non-linear Clean method can work well, but does not use all the available information and can over-complicate the problem.
2. The matrix method, though linear, fails in typical situations such as the one simulated here. The failure is mainly due to the high sidelobes from the Ryle Telescope; they make it difficult to determine accurate positions, and so fluxes, for sources close to each other on a map.
3. FluxFitter uses all the available information and produces the simplest model. It solves simultaneously for sources and SZ decrement, and it works with with the visibilities, where noise is known to be Gaussian, rather than in the map plane where the noise is correlated.
4. All three techniques suffer from the problem of source identification, which is currently performed in the image plane where the noise characteristics are complex. Source identification can be aided by prior information, for example from lower-frequency surveys.
5. The positional uncertainty, as determined in the aperture plane, is found to vary as $`\text{uncertainity}/\text{arcsec}(\mathrm{signal}/\mathrm{noise})^{0.99\pm 0.01}`$ even at signal-to-noise ratios below nominal detection limits. The constant of proportionality will be a function of the interferometer used.
6. Observations of the cluster A611 with the Ryle Telescope give a 4.3-$`\sigma `$ detection of an SZ decrement, and combination with X-ray data gives and estimate of $`H_0`$= $`52_{16}^{+24}`$ km s-1 Mpc-1, assuming an Einstein-de-Sitter cosmology, and $`59_{18}^{+27}`$ km s-1 Mpc-1 using $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.7`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{M}=0.3`$.

## 5 Acknowledgements

We thank the staff of the Cavendish Astrophysics group who ensure the continued operation of the Ryle Telescope. Operation of the RT is funded by PPARC. WFG acknowledges support from a PPARC studentship. We have made use of the ROSAT Data Archive of the Max-Planck-Institut für extraterrestrische Physik (MPE) at Garching, Germany.


text:
# On the 𝐷⁺→𝜔𝜋⁺ decay

## Abstract

The $`D^+\omega \pi ^+`$ decay is studied by decomposing its amplitude into a sum of factorizable and non-factorizable ones. Its rate is predicted as a function of mass and width of a hypothetical hybrid meson.

preprint:   YITP-01-9
(Quasi) two body decays of charm mesons can be described in terms of three different quark-line diagrams, i.e., spectator, color mismatched spectator and annihilation diagrams in the weak boson mass $`m_W\mathrm{}`$ limit. As is well known, the naively factorized amplitudes given by the last two diagrams are suppressed (color suppressed and helicity suppressed, respectively) in the BSW scheme  while the measured decay rates for color suppressed $`D^0\overline{K}^0\pi ^0`$, $`\overline{K}^0\pi ^0`$, etc. are not very small against the expectation. Therefore, the factorization has been implemented by taking into account final state interactions. However, amplitudes with final state interactions are given by non-leading terms in the large $`N_c`$ expansion which are not factorizable . It implies that the non-factorizable contributions play an essential role, at least, in hadronic weak decays of charm mesons.

In this short note, we study the $`D^+\omega \pi ^+`$ decay decomposing its amplitude into a sum of factorizable and non-factorizable ones as in two body decays . Therefore, our starting point is to decompose the effective weak Hamiltonian into a sum of the BSW Hamiltonian, $`H_w^{\mathrm{BSW}}`$, and an extra term, $`\stackrel{~}{H}_w`$, i.e., $`H_wH_w^{\mathrm{BSW}}+\stackrel{~}{H}_w`$, where $`H_w^{\mathrm{BSW}}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{H}_w`$ are responsible for factorizable and non-factorizable amplitudes, respectively. For more details, see Refs. .

The amplitude for the $`D^+\omega \pi ^+`$ decay includes all the three types of amplitudes mentioned above. Using the naive factorization in the BSW scheme, we calculate factorizable amplitudes $`M(DVP)_{\mathrm{FA}}`$ for $`DVP`$ decays, where $`D`$, $`V`$ and $`P`$ denote a charm, a vector and a pseudo-scalar (PS) meson, respectively. A typical result is given in Table I, in which $`𝒜`$ is defined by, for example, $`M(D^+\omega \pi ^+)_{\mathrm{FA}}=i(G_F/\sqrt{2})V_{cd}V_{ud}a_1f_\pi 𝒜(D^+\omega \pi ^+)_{\mathrm{FA}}`$, etc. The CKM matrix elements  are taken to be real in this note. In the above, matrix elements of currents have been taken in the same form as in Ref. . In both of the annihilation and the color suppressed decays, the factorized amplitudes are actually suppressed.

Next, we study non-factorizable amplitudes. As discussed in Refs.  and , they are dominated by dynamical contributions of various hadron states and can be estimated by using a hard PS-meson approximation in the infinite momentum frame (IMF) . In this approximation, the non-factorizable amplitude for $`DV\overline{P}`$ is given by $`MM_{\mathrm{ETC}}+M_\mathrm{S}`$, where $`M_{\mathrm{ETC}}`$ is written in the form, $`M_{\mathrm{ETC}}(DV\overline{P})=(i/f_P)V|[V_P,\stackrel{~}{H}_w]|D`$, by using $`[V_P+A_P,\stackrel{~}{H}_w]=0`$. $`V_P`$ is an $`SU_f(3)`$ charge and $`A_P`$ is its axial counterpart. $`M_\mathrm{S}`$ is given by a sum of all possible pole amplitudes, $`M_\mathrm{S}=_nM^{(n)}+_lM^{(l)}`$, where

$`M^{(n)}(DV\overline{P})={\displaystyle \frac{i}{f_P}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_V^2m_D^2}{m_n^2m_D^2}}\right)V|A_P|nn|\stackrel{~}{H}_w|D,`$ (1)
$`M^{(l)}(DV\overline{P})={\displaystyle \frac{i}{f_P}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_V^2m_D^2}{m_l^2m_V^2}}\right)V|\stackrel{~}{H}_w|ll|A_P|D.`$ (2)
The intermediate $`n`$ and $`l`$ run over all possible single meson states but the states $`n|`$ and $`|l`$ which sandwich $`\stackrel{~}{H}_w`$ with $`|D`$ and $`V|`$, respectively, should conserve spins . For the same reason, we discard $`M_{\mathrm{ETC}}(DV\overline{P})`$ which is proportional to $`V|\stackrel{~}{H}_w|D`$.

Four-quark $`\{qq\overline{q}\overline{q}\}`$ mesons in the $`s`$\- and $`u`$-channels of the spectator decays, $`\{qq\overline{q}\overline{q}\}`$ and ordinary $`\{q\overline{q}\}`$ (and hybrid $`\{q\overline{q}g\}`$) mesons in the $`s`$\- and $`u`$-channels, respectively, of the color mismatched spectator decays, and $`\{q\overline{q}\}`$ (and hybrid $`\{q\overline{q}g\}`$) and $`\{qq\overline{q}\overline{q}\}`$ mesons in the $`s`$\- and $`u`$-channels, respectively, of the annihilation decays can contribute. However, it has been known that the factorized amplitude dominates  the one for the $`D_s^+\varphi \pi ^+`$, which

> Table I. Factorized and non-factorizable amplitudes for typical quasi two-body decays, where $`h_D=\sqrt{2}D^0|A_\pi ^{}|D^+`$ and $`\widehat{g}_H=\omega |A_\pi ^{}|\widehat{\pi }_H^+/\sqrt{2}`$. The amplitudes $`𝒜_{\mathrm{FA}}`$ and $`_{\mathrm{NF}}`$ are defined in the text.

is an approximate spectator decay, although four-quark states can contribute to its $`s`$-channel intermediate states. Since the spin and parity of the intermediate four quark state in this decay should be $`J^P=0^{}`$ and such a four-quark meson state includes some orbital excitation in the system, its mass and width will be much higher and broader than the corresponding $`\{qq\overline{q}\overline{q}\}`$ mesons with positive parity which have played an important role in two body decays of charm mesons . Therefore, pole contributions of four-quark mesons to the $`D_s^+\varphi \pi ^+`$ are not very important and the factorized amplitude for the decay can be estimated by using its measured rate. For the same reason, we neglect possible four-quark meson contributions to a color mismatched decay, $`D^+\varphi \pi ^+`$, and will estimate its $`D^{}`$ pole amplitude in the $`u`$-channel using its measured rate. For contributions of excited meson poles in the $`u`$-channel, however, we expect that they are small as discussed in Ref. . In the $`D_s^+\omega \pi ^+`$, which is an approximate annihilation decay, its amplitude will be dominated by an $`s`$-channel pole contribution of hybrid meson ($`\widehat{\pi }_H`$) with $`I^GJ^{P(C)}=1^+0^{()}`$.

As seen in Eq. (2), the non-factorizable amplitudes are described in terms of asymptotic matrix elements (matrix elements taken between single hadron states with infinite momentum) of $`A_P`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{H}_w`$ since $`M_{\mathrm{ETC}}`$ has been discarded. Asymptotic matrix elements of $`A_P`$ are parameterized as $`\sqrt{2}D^0|A_\pi ^{}|D^+=h_D`$ and $`\omega |A_\pi ^{}|\widehat{\pi }_H^+=\sqrt{2}\widehat{g}_H`$. However, our result on the $`D^+\omega \pi ^+`$ in this short note does not explicitly depend on these matrix elements.

Constraints on (i.e., selection rules of) asymptotic matrix elements of $`\stackrel{~}{H}_w`$ can be obtained by using an intuitive quark counting  which is an analogue to the Miura-Minamikawa-Pati-Woo theorem in hyperon decays . Noting that the wave function of the ground-state $`\{q\overline{q}\}_0`$ meson is anti-symmetric under the exchange of its constituent quark and anti-quark , we obtain  $`\{q\overline{q}\}_0|\stackrel{~}{O}_+|\{q\overline{q}\}_0=0`$, which leads to

$`\pi ^+|\stackrel{~}{H}_w|D_s^+=\overline{K}^0|\stackrel{~}{H}_w|D^0,`$ (3)
$`\rho ^+|\stackrel{~}{H}_w|D_s^+=\overline{K}^0|\stackrel{~}{H}_w|D^0,`$ (4)
$`\pi ^+|\stackrel{~}{H}_w|D^+=\sqrt{2}\pi ^0|\stackrel{~}{H}_w|D^0=K^+|\stackrel{~}{H}_w|D_s^+=\mathrm{},`$ (5)
$`\rho ^+|\stackrel{~}{H}_w|D^+=\sqrt{2}\rho ^0|\stackrel{~}{H}_w|D^0=K^+|\stackrel{~}{H}_w|D_s^+`$ (6)
$`=\sqrt{2}\omega |\stackrel{~}{H}_w|D^0=\varphi |\stackrel{~}{H}_w|D^0=\mathrm{},`$ (7)
where approximate equalities $`V_{ud}=V_{cs}`$ and $`V_{us}=V_{cd}`$ have been used. Asymptotic flavor $`SU_f(3)`$ symmetry  relates the asymptotic matrix elements of the CKM-angle favored weak Hamiltonian to those of the CKM-angle suppressed one , for example,

$$\pi ^+|\stackrel{~}{H}_w|D^+=\frac{V_{cd}}{V_{cs}}\pi ^+|\stackrel{~}{H}_w|D_s^+,\mathrm{etc}.$$
(8)
Inserting the above parameterizations of asymptotic matrix elements of $`\stackrel{~}{H}_w`$ and $`A_P`$’s into the non-factorizable hard PS meson amplitudes, we obtain amplitudes for the annihilation and color mismatched types of $`DVP`$ decays whose surface terms are dominated by pole contributions of the ground-state $`\{q\overline{q}\}_0`$ and hybrid $`\{q\overline{q}g\}`$ mesons. In the approximation in which pole contributions of $`\{q\overline{q}\}_0`$ and hybrid $`J^{P(C)}=0^{()}`$ mesons are taken into account, the non-factorizable amplitudes for typical quasi two body decays are given in the third column of Table I, where the useless imaginary unit has been factored out, i.e., $`M_{\mathrm{NF}}=i_{\mathrm{NF}}`$. The amplitudes for the $`D_s^+\rho ^0\pi ^+`$ and $`D_s^+\omega \pi ^+`$ are described by two annihilation diagrams and they cancel each other in the former while they interfere constructively with each other in the latter .

To estimate the rate for the $`D^+\omega \pi ^+`$ decay, we take the central values of the measured ones  of the CKM matrix elements \[$`V_{ud}`$, $`V_{us}`$, $`V_{cd}`$, $`V_{cs}`$\], decay constants \[$`f_\pi `$, $`f_K`$\], and lifetimes of charm mesons \[$`\tau (D^+)`$, $`\tau (D^0)`$, $`\tau (D_s^+)`$\]. As seen in Table I, $`M(D^+\varphi \pi ^+)M^{(D^{})}(D^+\varphi \pi ^+)`$. Eliminating useless imaginary unit, we obtain

$`^{(D^{})}(D^+\omega \pi ^+)1.03\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\omega |\stackrel{~}{H}_w|D^0}{\varphi |\stackrel{~}{H}_w|D^0}}\right](D^+\varphi \pi ^+)\left\{5.3\right\}\times 10^7\mathrm{GeV}`$ (9)
using Eq. (7) and $`|(D^+\varphi \pi ^+)|7.4\times 10^7`$ GeV from $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(D^+\varphi \pi ^+)_{\mathrm{exp}}=(4.0\pm 0.4)\times 10^{15}`$ GeV , where the sign of $`\rho ^+|\stackrel{~}{H}_w|D^+`$ \[and hence $`\varphi |\stackrel{~}{H}_w|D^0`$ because of Eq. (7)\] have been taken to be the same as that of $`\pi ^+|\stackrel{~}{H}_w|D^+`$ in Ref.  as was in weak interactions of $`K`$ mesons , i.e., $`\rho ^0|\stackrel{~}{H}_w|K^0/\pi ^0|\stackrel{~}{H}_w|K^0>0`$.

The amplitude for the $`D_s^+\omega \pi ^+`$ decay is dominated by a pole contribution of $`\widehat{\pi }_H`$, i.e., $`(D_s^+\omega \pi ^+)^{(\widehat{\pi }_H)}(D_s^+\omega \pi ^+)`$. From the measured rate , $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(D_s^+\omega \pi ^+)_{\mathrm{exp}}=(3.9\pm 1.5)\times 10^{15}`$ GeV, we obtain $`|^{(\widehat{\pi }_H)}(D_s^+\omega \pi ^+)|6.8\times 10^7`$ GeV. Using the asymptotic $`SU_f(3)`$ relation in Eq.(8), we obtain

$$^{(\widehat{\pi }_H)}(D^+\omega \pi ^+)1.3\times \left(\frac{m_{D_s}^2m_{\widehat{\pi }_H}^2}{m_D^2m_{\widehat{\pi }_H}^2}\right)\widehat{\alpha }_H\times 10^7\mathrm{GeV}$$
(10)
where $`\widehat{\alpha }_H`$ is a parameter providing the sign of $`(D_s^+\omega \pi ^+)`$.

The factorized amplitude for the $`D^+\omega \pi ^+`$ includes a form factor $`A_0^{(\omega D)}(m_\pi ^2)`$. To estimate it, we put $`A_0^{(\omega D)}(m_\pi ^2)A_0^{(\varphi D_s)}(m_\pi ^2)`$ which can be obtained by applying (asymptotic)

Fig. I. $`B(D^+\omega \pi ^+)\times 10^3`$ vs. ($`m=m_{\widehat{\pi }_H},\mathrm{\Gamma }=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\widehat{\pi }_H})`$. (a) $`B_{}`$ for $`\widehat{\alpha }_H=1`$ and (b) $`B_+`$ for $`\widehat{\alpha }_H=+1`$.

$`SU_f(3)`$ symmetry to the current matrix elements. Then, comparing our amplitude for the $`D_s^+\varphi \pi ^+`$ decay with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(D_s^+\varphi \pi ^+)_{\mathrm{exp}}=(5.0\pm 1.3)\times 10^{14}`$ GeV, we obtain $`|A_0^{(\varphi D_s)}(m_\pi ^2)|0.76`$. It is reasonable since it is not very far from two predicted values , $`A_0^{(\varphi D_s)}(0)0.70`$ and $`0.85`$, by two different models, BSW  and ISGW , respectively. In this way, we obtain approximately

$$_{\mathrm{tot}}(D^+\omega \pi ^+)\left\{3.6a_15.31.3\widehat{\alpha }_H\left(\frac{m_{D_s}^2m_{\widehat{\pi }_H}^2}{m_D^2m_{\widehat{\pi }_H}^2}\right)\right\}\times 10^7\mathrm{GeV},$$
(11)
where the first, second and third terms on the right-hand-side of Eq.(11) are from $`_{\mathrm{FA}}`$, $`^{(D^{})}`$ and $`^{(\widehat{\pi }_H)}`$, respectively. Taking $`a_1=1.09`$ , we will study the branching ratio for the $`D^+\omega \pi ^+`$. If we neglected the non-factorizable contributions, we would obtain $`B(D^+\omega \pi ^+)_{\mathrm{FA}}2.1\times 10^3`$. When we take account for them, however, we predict $`B(D^+\omega \pi ^+)`$ as a function of mass $`m_{\widehat{\pi }_H}`$ and width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\widehat{\pi }_H}`$ of $`\widehat{\pi }_H`$. It depends on the relative sign between $`M_{\mathrm{FA}}`$ and $`M^{(\widehat{\pi }_H)}`$. As seen in Fig. I, however, gross features of the branching ratios, $`B_{}`$ for $`\widehat{\alpha }_H=1`$ and $`B_+`$ for $`\widehat{\alpha }_H=+1`$, are not very different from each other since $`^{(D^{})}`$ cancel almost $`_{\mathrm{FA}}`$ in the present case. Except for the neighborhood of the singular point, $`(m_{\widehat{\pi }_H}=m_D,\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\widehat{\pi }_H}=0)`$, both of $`B_{}`$ and $`B_+`$ are always lower than the experimental upper bound \[$`B(D^+\omega \pi ^+)_{\mathrm{exp}}<7\times 10^3`$\] and are very sensitive to the values of $`m_{\widehat{\pi }_H}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\widehat{\pi }_H}`$ in the region, ($`1.8m_{\widehat{\pi }_H}1.9`$ GeV, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\widehat{\pi }_H}0.10`$ GeV), and ($`1.75m_{\widehat{\pi }_H}1.9`$ GeV, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\widehat{\pi }_H}0.15`$ GeV), respectively. Outside of the above regions, however, they are very small, i.e., $`B_+`$ is around the level of $`1.5\times 10^3`$ for $`m_{\widehat{\pi }_H}1.8`$ GeV and much smaller for $`m_{\widehat{\pi }_H}1.9`$ GeV while $`B_{}0.5\times 10^3`$ outside the region, ($`1.8m_{\widehat{\pi }_H}1.9`$ GeV, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\widehat{\pi }_H}0.10`$ GeV).

In summary, the $`D^+\omega \pi ^+`$ decay has been studied by decomposing the amplitude into a sum of factorizable and non-factorizable ones. The former has been estimated by using the naive factorization in the BSW scheme while the latter has been calculated by using a hard pion approximation. As the result, its amplitude has been approximately given by a sum of $`M_{\mathrm{FA}}`$, $`M^{(D^{})}`$ and $`M^{(\widehat{\pi }_H)}`$. The first two have been estimated by using the measured rates for the $`D_s^+\varphi \pi ^+`$ and $`D^+\varphi \pi ^+`$. We have predicted $`B(D^+\omega \pi ^+)`$ as a function of mass and width of a hypothetical hybrid meson $`\widehat{\pi }_H`$ with $`I^GJ^{P(C)}=1^+0^{()}`$. If $`m_{\widehat{\pi }_H}`$ is close to $`m_D`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\widehat{\pi }_H}`$ is small, it will be strongly enhanced. If not, however, it will be $`1.5\times 10^3`$ or much smaller. The former is not very far from the result by the naive factorization.

The author would like to thank Prof. T. E. Browder for attracting his attention to the $`D^+\omega \pi ^+`$ decay. He also would like to appreciate Prof. H. Yamamoto for discussions and comments.