text:
# Evaluations of initial ideals and Castelnuovo-Mumford regularity

## 1. Introduction

Let $`S=k[x_1,\mathrm{},x_n]`$ be a polynomial ring over a field $`k`$ of arbitrary characteristic. Let $`IS`$ be an arbitrary homogeneous ideal and

$$0F_p\mathrm{}F_1F_0S/I0.$$

a graded minimal free resolution of $`S/I`$. Write $`b_i`$ for the maximum degree of the generators of $`F_i`$. The Castelnuovo-Mumford regularity

$$\mathrm{reg}(S/I):=\mathrm{max}\{b_ii|i=0,\mathrm{},p\}$$

is a measure for the complexity of $`I`$ in computational problems \[EG\], \[BM\], \[V\]. One can use Buchsberger’s syzygy algorithm to compute $`\mathrm{reg}(S/I)`$. However, such a computation is often very big. Theoretically, if char($`k`$) = 0, $`\mathrm{reg}(S/I)`$ is equal to the largest degree of the generators of the generic initial ideal of $`I`$ with respect to the reverse lexicographic order \[BS\]. But it is difficult to know when an initial ideal is generic. Therefore, it would be of interest to have other methods for the computation of $`\mathrm{reg}(S/I)`$.

The aim of this paper is to present a simple method for the computation of $`\mathrm{reg}(S/I)`$ which is based only on evaluations of $`\mathrm{in}(I)`$, where $`\mathrm{in}(I)`$ denotes the initial ideal of $`I`$ with respect to the reverse lexicographic order. We are inspired by a recent paper of Bermejo and Gimenez \[BG\] which gives such a method for the computation of the Castelnuovo-Mumford regularity of projective curves.

Let $`d=dimS/I`$. For $`i=0,\mathrm{},d`$ put $`S_i=k[x_1,\mathrm{},x_{ni}]`$. Let $`J_i`$ be the ideal of $`S_i`$ obtained from $`\mathrm{in}(I)`$ by the evaluation $`x_{ni+1}=\mathrm{}=x_n=0`$. Let $`\stackrel{~}{J}_i`$ denote the ideal of $`S_i`$ obtained from $`J_i`$ by the evaluation $`x_{ni}=1`$. These ideals can be easily computed from the generators of $`\mathrm{in}(I)`$. In fact, if $`\mathrm{in}(I)=(f_1,\mathrm{},f_s)`$, where $`f_1,\mathrm{},f_s`$ are monomials in $`S`$, then $`J_i`$ is generated by the monomials $`f_j`$ not divided by any of the variables $`x_{ni+1},\mathrm{},x_n`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{J}_i`$ by those monomials obtained from the latter by setting $`x_{ni}=1`$. Put

$$c_i(I):=\mathrm{sup}\{r|(\stackrel{~}{J}_i/J_i)_r0\},$$

with $`c_i(I)=\mathrm{}`$ if $`\stackrel{~}{J}_i=J_i`$ and

$$r(I):=\mathrm{sup}\{r|(S_d/J_d)_r0\}.$$

We can express $`\mathrm{reg}(S/I)`$ in terms of these numbers as follows. Assume that $`c_i(I)<\mathrm{}`$ for $`i=0,\mathrm{},d1`$. Then

$$\mathrm{reg}(S/I)=\mathrm{max}\{c_0(I),\mathrm{},c_{d1}(I),r(I)\}.$$

The assumption $`c_i(I)<\mathrm{}`$ for $`i=0,\mathrm{},d1`$ is satisfied for a sufficiently general choice of the variables. If $`I`$ is the defining saturated ideal of a projective (not necessarily reduced) curve, this assumption is automatically satisfied if $`k[x_{n1},x_n]`$ is a Noether normalization of $`S/I`$. In this case, $`c_0(I)=\mathrm{}`$ and $`\mathrm{reg}(S/I)=\mathrm{max}\{c_1(I),r(I)\}.`$ From this formula we can easily deduce the results of Bermejo and Gimenez.

Similarly we can compute the partial regularities $`\mathrm{}\text{}\mathrm{reg}(S/I):=\mathrm{max}\{b_ii|i\mathrm{}\}`$, $`\mathrm{}>0`$, which were recently introduced by Bayer, Charalambous and Popescu \[BCP\] (see also Aramova and Herzog \[AH\]). These regularities can be defined in terms of local cohomology. Let $`𝔪`$ denote the maximal homogeneous ideal of $`S`$. Let $`H_𝔪^i(S/I)`$ denote the $`i`$th local cohomology module of $`S/I`$ with respect to $`𝔪`$ and set $`a_i(S/I)=\mathrm{max}\{r|H_𝔪^i(S/I)_r0\}`$ with $`a_i(S/I)=\mathrm{}`$ if $`H_𝔪^i(S/I)=0`$. For $`t0`$ we define $`\mathrm{reg}_t(S/I):=\mathrm{max}\{a_i(S/I)+i|i=0,\mathrm{},t\}.`$ Then $`\mathrm{reg}_t(S/I)=(nt)\text{}\mathrm{reg}(S/I)`$ \[T2\]. Under the assumption $`c_i(I)<\mathrm{}`$ for $`i=0,\mathrm{},t`$ we obtain the following formula:

$$\mathrm{reg}_t(S/I)=\mathrm{max}\{c_i(I)|i=0,\mathrm{},t\}.$$

The numbers $`c_i(I)`$ also allow us to determine the place at which $`\mathrm{reg}(S/I)`$ is attained in the minimal free resolution of $`S/I`$. In fact, $`\mathrm{reg}(S/I)=b_tt`$ if $`c_t(I)=\mathrm{max}\{c_i(I)|i=0,\mathrm{},d\}`$. Moreover, $`r(I)`$ can be used to estimate the reduction number of $`S/I`$ which is another measure for the complexity of $`I`$ \[V\].

It turns out that the numbers $`c_i(I)`$ and $`r(I)`$ can be described combinatorially in terms of the lattice vectors of the generators of $`\mathrm{in}(I)`$ (see Propositions 4.1-4.3 for details). These descriptions together with the above formulae give an effective method for the computation of $`\mathrm{reg}(S/I)`$ and $`\mathrm{reg}_t(S/I)`$. From this we can derive the estimation

$$\mathrm{reg}_t(S/I)\mathrm{max}\{\mathrm{deg}g_in+i|i=0,\mathrm{},t\},$$

where $`g_i`$ is the least common multiple of the minimal generators of $`\mathrm{in}(I)`$ which are not divided by any of the variables $`x_{ni+1},\mathrm{},x_n`$.

This paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 we prepare some facts on the Castelnuovo-Mumford regularity. In Section 3 we prove the above formulae for $`\mathrm{reg}(S/I)`$ and $`\mathrm{reg}_t(S/I)`$. The combinatorial descriptions of $`c_i(I)`$ and $`r(I)`$ are given in Section 4. Section 5 deals with the case of projective curves.

Acknowledgement. The author would like to thank M. Morales for raising his interest in the paper of Bermejo and Gimenez \[BG\] and L.T. Hoa for useful suggestions.

## 2. Filter-regular sequence of linear forms

We shall keep the notations of the preceding section. Let $`𝐳=z_1,\mathrm{},z_{t+1}`$ be a sequence of homogeneous elements of $`S`$, $`t0`$. We call $`𝐳`$ a filter-regular sequence for $`S/I`$ if $`z_{i+1}𝔭`$ for any associated prime $`𝔭𝔪`$ of $`(I,z_1,\mathrm{},z_i)`$, $`i=0,\mathrm{},t`$. This notion was introduced in order to characterize generalized Cohen-Macaulay rings \[STC\]. Recall that $`S/I`$ is a generalized Cohen-Macaulay ring if and only if $`I`$ is equidimensional and $`(R/I)_𝔭`$ is a Cohen-Macaulay ring for every prime ideal $`𝔭𝔪`$. This condition is satisfied if $`I`$ is the defining ideal of a projective curve. We call $`𝐳`$ a homogeneous system of parameters for $`S/I`$ if $`t+1=d`$ and $`(I,z_1,\mathrm{},z_d)`$ is an $`𝔪`$-primary ideal. It is known that every homogeneous system of parameters for $`S/I`$ is a filter-regular sequence if $`S/I`$ is a generalized Cohen-Macaulay ring. In general, a homogeneous system of parameters needs not to be a filter-regular sequence. However, if $`k`$ is an infinite field, any ideal which is primary to the maximal graded ideal and which is generated by linear forms can be generated by a homogeneous filter-regular sequence (proof of \[T1, Lemma 3.1\]).

For $`i=0,\mathrm{},t`$ we put

$$a_𝐳^i(S/I):=\mathrm{sup}\{r|[(I,z_1,\mathrm{},z_i):z_{i+1}]_r(I,z_1,\mathrm{},z_i)_r\},$$

with $`a_𝐳^i(S/I)=\mathrm{}`$ if $`(I,z_1,\mathrm{},z_i):z_{i+1}=(I,z_1,\mathrm{},z_i)`$. These invariants can be $`\mathrm{}`$ and they are a measure for how far $`𝐳`$ is from being a regular sequence in $`S/I`$. It can be shown that $`𝐳`$ is a filter-regular sequence for $`S/I`$ if and only if $`a_𝐳^i(S/I)<\mathrm{}`$ for $`i=0,\mathrm{},t`$ \[T1, Lemma 2.1\]. Note that our definition of $`a_𝐳^i(S/I)`$ is one less than that in \[T1\]. There is the following close relationship between these numbers and the partial regularity of $`S/I`$.

###### Theorem 2.1.

\[T1, Proposition 2.2\] Let $`𝐳`$ be a filter-regular sequence of linear forms for $`S/I`$. Then

$$\mathrm{reg}_t(S/I)=\mathrm{max}\{a_𝐳^i(S/I)|i=0,\mathrm{},t\}.$$

We will use the following characterization of $`a_𝐳^i(S/I)`$.

###### Lemma 2.2.

$`a_𝐳^i(S/I)=\mathrm{max}\{r|[_{m1}(I,z_1,\mathrm{},z_i):z_{i+1}^m]_r(I,z_1,\mathrm{},z_i)_r\}.`$

###### Proof.

Put $`r_0=\mathrm{max}\{r|[_{m1}(I,z_1,\mathrm{},z_i):z_{i+1}^m]_r(I,z_1,\mathrm{},z_i)_r\}.`$ By definition, $`a_𝐳^i(S/I)r_0`$. Conversely, if $`y`$ is an element of $`_{m1}(I,z_1,\mathrm{},z_i):z_{i+1}^m]_{r_0}`$, then

$$yz_i[_{m1}(I,z_1,\mathrm{},z_i):z_{i+1}^m]_{r_0+1}=(I,z_1,\mathrm{},z_i)_{r_0+1}.$$

Hence $`y[(I,z_1,\mathrm{},z_i):z_{i+1}]_{r_0}`$. This implies $`r_0a_𝐳^i(S/I)`$. So we get $`r_0=a_𝐳^i(S/I)`$. ∎

Since $`\mathrm{reg}(S/I)=\mathrm{reg}_d(S/I)`$, to compute $`\mathrm{reg}(S/I)`$ we need a filter-regular sequence of linear forms of length $`d+1`$. But that can be avoided by the following observation.

###### Lemma 2.3.

Let $`𝐳=z_1,\mathrm{},z_d`$ be a filter-regular sequence for $`S/I`$, $`d=dim(S/I)`$. Then $`𝐳`$ is a system of parameters for $`S/I`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`𝔭`$ be an arbitrary associated prime $`𝔭`$ of $`(I,z_1,\mathrm{},z_i)`$ with $`dimS/𝔭=di`$, $`i=0,\mathrm{},d1`$. Then $`𝔭𝔪`$ because $`dimS/𝔭>0`$. By the definition of a filter-regular sequence, $`z_{i+1}𝔭`$. Hence $`𝐳`$ is a homogeneous system of parameters for $`S/I`$. ∎

If $`𝐳`$ is a homogeneous system of parameters for $`S/I`$, then $`S/(I,z_1,\mathrm{},z_d)`$ is of finite length. Hence $`(S/(I,z_1,\mathrm{},z_d))_r=0`$ for $`r`$ large enough. Following \[NR\] we call

$$r_𝐳(S/I):=\mathrm{max}\{r|(S/(I,z_1,\mathrm{},z_d))_r0\}$$

the reduction number of $`S/I`$ with respect to $`𝐳`$. It is equal to the maximum degree of the generators of $`S/I`$ as a module over $`k[z_1,\mathrm{},z_d]`$ \[V\]. Note that the minimum of $`r_𝐳(S/I)`$ is called the reduction number of $`S/I`$.

###### Theorem 2.4.

\[BS, Theorem 1.10\], \[T1, Corollary 3.3\] Let $`𝐳`$ be a filter-regular sequence of $`d`$ linear forms for $`S/I`$. Then

$$\mathrm{reg}(S/I)=\mathrm{max}\{a_𝐳^0(S/I),\mathrm{},a_𝐳^{d1}(S/I),r_𝐳(S/I)\}.$$

Remark. Theorem 2.4 was proved in \[BS\] under an additional condition on the maximum degree of the generators of $`I`$.

## 3. Evaluations of the initial ideal

Let $`c_i(I)`$, $`i=0,\mathrm{},d`$, and $`r(I)`$ be the invariants defined in Section 1 by means of evaluations of $`\mathrm{in}(I)`$, where $`\mathrm{in}(I)`$ is the initial ideal of $`I`$ with respect to the reverse lexicographic order. We will use the results of Section 2 to express $`\mathrm{reg}_t(S/I)`$ and $`\mathrm{reg}(S/I)`$ in terms of $`c_i(I)`$ and $`r(I)`$.

###### Lemma 3.1.

For $`𝐳=x_n,\mathrm{},x_{nt}`$ and $`i=0,\mathrm{},t`$ we have

$$a_𝐳^i(S/I)=c_i(I).$$

###### Proof.

By \[BS, Lemma (2.2)\], $`[(I,x_n,\mathrm{},x_{ni+1}):x_{ni}]_r=(I,x_n,\mathrm{},x_{ni+1})_r`$ if and only if $`[(\mathrm{in}(I),x_n,\mathrm{},x_{ni+1}):x_{ni}]_r=(\mathrm{in}(I),x_n,\mathrm{},x_{ni+1})_r`$ for all $`r0`$. Therefore

$$a_𝐳^i(S/I)=a_𝐳^i(S/\mathrm{in}(I)).$$

By Lemma 2.2 we get

$$a_𝐳^i(S/\mathrm{in}(I))=\mathrm{sup}\{r|[_{m1}(\mathrm{in}(I),x_n,\mathrm{},x_{ni+1}):x_{ni}^m]_r(\mathrm{in}(I),x_n,\mathrm{},x_{ni+1})_r\}.$$

Note that $`J_i`$ is the ideal of $`S_i=k[x_1,\mathrm{},x_{ni}]`$ obtained from $`\mathrm{in}(I)`$ by the evaluation $`x_{ni+1}=\mathrm{}=x_n=0`$ and that this evaluation corresponds to the canonical isomorphism $`S/(x_{ni+1},\mathrm{},x_n)S_i`$. Then we may rewrite the above formula as

$$a_𝐳^i(S/\mathrm{in}(I))=\mathrm{sup}\{r|[_{m1}J_i:x_{ni}^m]_r(J_i)_r\}.$$

Since $`J_i`$ is a monomial ideal, $`_{m1}J_i:x_{ni}^m`$ is generated by the monomials $`g`$ in the variables $`x_1,\mathrm{},x_{ni1}`$ for which there exists an integer $`m1`$ such that $`gx_{ni}^mJ_i`$. Such a monomial $`g`$ is determined by the condition $`g\stackrel{~}{J}_i`$. Hence

$$a_𝐳^i(S/\mathrm{in}(I))=\mathrm{sup}\{r|(\stackrel{~}{J}_i)_r(J_i)_r\}=c_i(I).$$

As a consequence of Lemma 3.1 we can use the invariants $`c_i(I)`$ to check when $`x_n,\mathrm{},x_{nt}`$ is a regular resp. filter-regular sequence for $`S/I`$.

###### Corollary 3.2.

$`x_{ni}`$ is a non-zerodivisor in $`S/(I,x_n,\mathrm{},x_{ni+1})`$ if and only if $`c_i(I)=\mathrm{}`$.

###### Proof.

By definition, $`a_𝐳^i(S/I)=\mathrm{}`$ if $`x_{ni}`$ is a non-zerodivisor in $`S/(I,x_n,\mathrm{},x_{ni+1})`$. Hence the conclusion follows from Lemma 3.1. ∎

###### Corollary 3.3.

Let $`𝐳=x_n,\mathrm{},x_{nt}`$. Then $`𝐳`$ is a filter-regular sequence for $`S/I`$ if and only if $`c_i(I)<\mathrm{}`$ for $`i=0,\mathrm{},t`$.

###### Proof.

It is known that $`𝐳`$ is a filter-regular sequence for $`S/I`$ if and only if $`a_𝐳^i(S/I)<\mathrm{}`$ for $`i=0,\mathrm{},t`$ \[T1, Lemma 2.1\]. ∎

Now we can characterize $`\mathrm{reg}_t(S/I)`$ as follows.

###### Theorem 3.4.

Assume that $`c_i(I)<\mathrm{}`$ for $`i=0,\mathrm{},t`$. Then

$$\mathrm{reg}_t(S/I)=\mathrm{max}\{c_i(I)|i=0,\mathrm{},t\}.$$

###### Proof.

This follows from Theorem 2.1, Lemma 3.1 and Corollary 3.3. ∎

We can also give a characterization of $`\mathrm{reg}(S/I)`$ which involves $`r(I)`$.

###### Lemma 3.5.

Assume that $`c_i(I)<\mathrm{}`$ for $`i=0,\mathrm{},d1`$. Then

$$r_𝐳(S/I)=r(I).$$

###### Proof.

By Corollary 3.3, $`𝐳=x_n,\mathrm{},x_{nd+1}`$ is a filter-regular sequence for $`S/I`$. By Lemma 2.3 and \[T2, Theorem 4.1\], this implies that $`𝐳`$ is a homogeneous system of parameters for $`S/\mathrm{in}(I)`$ with

$$r_𝐳(S/I)=r_𝐳(S/\mathrm{in}(I)).$$

Note that $`S/(x_{nd+1},\mathrm{},x_n)S_d`$ and that $`J_d`$ is the ideal obtained from $`\mathrm{in}(I)`$ by the evaluation $`x_{nd+1}=\mathrm{}=x_n=0`$. Then

$`r_𝐳(S/\mathrm{in}(I))`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{max}\{r|(S/(\mathrm{in}(I),x_n,\mathrm{},x_{nd+1}))_r0\}`$
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{max}\{r|(S_d/J_d)_r0\}`$
$`=`$ $`r(I).`$
###### Theorem 3.6.

Assume that $`c_i(I)<\mathrm{}`$ for $`i=0,\mathrm{},d1`$. Then

$$\mathrm{reg}(S/I)=\mathrm{max}\{c_0(I),\mathrm{},c_{d1}(I),r(I)\}.$$

###### Proof.

This follows from Theorem 2.4, Lemma 3.1, Corollary 3.3 and Lemma 3.5.∎

## 4. Combinatorial description

First, we want to show that the condition $`c_i(I)<\mathrm{}`$ can be easily checked in terms of the lattice vectors of the generators of $`\mathrm{in}(I)`$. Let $``$ be the (finite) set of monomials which minimally generates $`\mathrm{in}(I)`$. We set

$$E_i:=\{v^{ni}|x^v\},$$

where $`x^v=x_1^{\epsilon _1}\mathrm{}x_s^{\epsilon _s}`$ if $`v=(\epsilon _1,\mathrm{},\epsilon _s)`$. For $`j=1,\mathrm{},ni`$ we denote by $`p_j`$ the projection from $`^{ni}`$ to $`^{ni1}`$ which deletes the $`j`$th coordinate. For two lattice vectors $`a=(\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _s)`$ and $`b=(\beta _1,\mathrm{},\beta _s)`$ of the same size we say $`ab`$ if $`\alpha _j\beta _j`$ for $`j=1,\mathrm{},s`$.

###### Lemma 4.1.

$`c_i(I)<\mathrm{}`$ if and only if for every element $`ap_{ni}(E_i)E_{i+1}`$ there are elements $`b_jE_{i+1}`$ such that $`p_j(a)p_j(b_j)`$, $`j=1,\mathrm{},ni1`$.

###### Proof.

Recall that $`c_i(I)=\mathrm{sup}\{r|(\stackrel{~}{J}_i/J_i)_r0\}`$. Then $`c_i(I)<\mathrm{}`$ if and only if $`\stackrel{~}{J}_i/J_i`$ is of finite length. By the definition of $`J_i`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{J}_i`$, the latter condition is equivalent to the existence of a number $`r`$ such that $`x_j^r\stackrel{~}{J}_iJ_i`$ for $`j=1,\mathrm{},ni`$. It is clear that $`J_i`$ is generated by the monomials $`x^v`$ with $`vE_i`$. From this it follows that $`\stackrel{~}{J}_i`$ is generated by $`J_i`$ and the monomials $`x^a`$ with $`ap_{ni}(E_i)E_{i+1}`$. For such a monomial $`x^a`$ we can always find a number $`r`$ such that $`x_{ni}^rx^aJ_i`$. For $`j<ni`$, $`x_j^rx^aJ_i`$ if and only if $`x_j^rx^a`$ is divided by a generator $`x^{b_j}`$ of $`J_i`$. Since $`x_j^rx^a`$ does not contain $`x_{ni},\mathrm{},x_n`$, so does $`x^{b_j}`$. Hence $`b_jE_{i+1}`$. Setting $`x_j=1`$ we see that $`x_j^rx^a`$ is divided by $`x^{b_j}`$ for some number $`r`$ if and only if $`p_j(a)p_j(b_j)`$. ∎

If $`c_i(I)=\mathrm{}`$, we should make a random linear transformation of the variables $`x_1,\mathrm{},x_{ni}`$ and test the condition $`c_i(I)<\mathrm{}`$ again. By Lemma 3.1 the linear transformation does not change the invariants $`c_j(I)`$ for $`j<i`$. Moreover, instead of $`\mathrm{in}(I)`$ we only need to compute the smaller initial ideal $`\mathrm{in}(I_i)`$, where $`I_i`$ denotes the ideal of $`S_i`$ obtained from $`I`$ by the evaluation $`x_{ni+1}=\mathrm{}=x_n=0`$. Let $`_i`$ be the set of monomials which minimally generates $`\mathrm{in}(I_i)`$. It is easy to see that $`_i`$ is the set of the monomials of $``$ which are not divided by $`x_{ni+1},\mathrm{},x_n`$. From this it follows that $`E_j=\{v^{nj}|x^v_i\}`$ for $`ji`$. Thus, we can use this formula to compute $`E_j`$ and to check the condition $`c_j(I)<\mathrm{}`$ for $`ji`$. Once we know $`c_i(I)<\mathrm{}`$ we can proceed to compute $`c_i(I)`$.

In the lattice $`^{ni}`$ we delete the shadow of $`E_i`$, that is, the set of elements $`a`$ for which there is $`vE_i`$ with $`va`$. The remaining lattice has the shape of a staircase and we will denote by $`F_i`$ the set of its corners. It is easy to see that $`F_i`$ is the set of the elements of the form $`a=\mathrm{max}(v_1,\mathrm{},v_{ni})(1,\mathrm{},1)`$ with $`av`$ for any element $`vE_i`$, where $`v_1,\mathrm{},v_{ni}`$ is a family of $`ni`$ elements of $`E_i`$ for which the $`j`$th coordinate of $`v_j`$ is greater than the $`j`$th coordinate of $`v_h`$ for all $`hj`$, $`j=1,\mathrm{},ni`$, and $`\mathrm{max}(v_1,\mathrm{},v_{ni})`$ denotes the element whose coordinates are the maxima of the corresponding coordinates of $`v_1,\mathrm{},v_{ni}`$. If $`a=(\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _{ni})`$, we set

$$|a|:=\alpha _1+\mathrm{}+\alpha _{ni}.$$

###### Proposition 4.2.

Assume that $`c_i(I)<\mathrm{}`$. Then $`c_i(I)=\mathrm{}`$ if $`F_i=\mathrm{}`$ and $`c_i(I)=\mathrm{max}_{aF_i}|a|`$ if $`F_i\mathrm{}`$ .

###### Proof.

Let $`a`$ be an arbitrary element of $`F_i`$. Then $`a=\mathrm{max}(v_1,\mathrm{},v_{ni})(1,\mathrm{},1)`$ for some family $`v_1,\mathrm{},v_{ni}`$ of $`S_i`$. Let $`v_j=(\epsilon _{j1},\mathrm{},\epsilon _{jni})`$, $`j=1,\mathrm{},ni`$. Then $`a=(\epsilon _{11}1,\mathrm{},\epsilon _{nini}1)`$. Since $`\epsilon _{jj}>\epsilon _{hj}`$ for $`hj`$, we get $`a(\epsilon _{ni1},\mathrm{},\epsilon _{nini1},0).`$ Therefore, $`x^a`$ is divided by the monomial obtained from $`x^{v_{ni}}`$ by setting $`x_{ni}=1`$. Note that $`J_i`$ is generated by the monomials $`x^v`$ with $`x_vE_i`$. Since $`v_{ni}E_i`$, we have $`x^{v_{ni}}J_i`$, whence $`x^a\stackrel{~}{J}_i`$. On the other hand, $`x^aJ_i`$ because $`av`$ for any element $`vE_i`$. Since $`|a|=\mathrm{deg}x^a`$, this implies $`(\stackrel{~}{J}_i/J_i)_{|a|}0`$. Hence $`|a|c_i(I)`$. So we obtain $`\mathrm{max}_{aF_i}|a|c_i(I)`$ if $`F_i\mathrm{}`$.

To prove the converse inequality we assume that $`\stackrel{~}{J}_i/J_i0`$. Since $`c_i(I)<\mathrm{}`$, there is a monomial $`x^b\stackrel{~}{J}_iJ_i`$ such that $`\mathrm{deg}x^b=c_i(I)`$. Since $`x^bJ_i`$, $`bv`$ for any element $`vE_i`$. For $`j=1,\mathrm{},ni`$ we have $`x_jx^bJ_i`$ because $`\mathrm{deg}x_jx^b=c_i(I)+1`$. Therefore, $`x_jx^b`$ is divided by some monomial $`x^{v_j}`$ with $`v_jE_i`$. Let $`b=(\beta _1,\mathrm{},\beta _{ni})`$ and $`v_j=(\epsilon _{j1},\mathrm{},\epsilon _{jni})`$. Then $`\beta _h\epsilon _{jh}`$ for $`hj`$ and $`\beta _j+1\epsilon _{jj}`$. Since $`bv_j`$, we must have $`\beta _j<\epsilon _{jj}`$, hence $`\beta _j=\epsilon _{jj}1`$. It follows that $`\epsilon _{jj}=\beta _j+1>\epsilon _{hj}`$ for all $`hj`$. Thus, the family $`v_1,\mathrm{},v_{ni}`$ belongs to $`𝒮_i`$ and $`b=\mathrm{max}(v_1,\mathrm{},v_{ni})(1,\mathrm{},1)`$. So we have proved that $`bF_i`$. Hence $`c_i(I)=\mathrm{deg}x^b=|b|\mathrm{max}_{aF_i}|a|.`$

The above argument also shows that $`F_i\mathrm{}`$ if $`\stackrel{~}{J}_iJ_i`$. So $`c_i(I)=\mathrm{}`$ if $`F_i=\mathrm{}`$.∎

By Corollary 3.3, if $`c_i(I)<\mathrm{}`$ for $`i=0,\mathrm{},d1`$, then $`𝐳=x_n,\mathrm{},x_{nd+1}`$ is a filter-regular sequence for $`S/I`$. By Lemma 2.3 and Lemma 3.5, that implies $`r(I)=r_𝐳(S/I)<\mathrm{}`$. In this case, we have the following description of $`r(I)`$.

###### Proposition 4.3.

Assume that $`r(I)<\mathrm{}`$. Then $`r(I)=\mathrm{max}_{aF_d}|a|`$.

###### Proof.

This can be proved similarly as in the proof of Lemma 4.2. ∎

Combining the above results with Theorem 3.4 and Theorem 3.6 we get a simple method to compute $`\mathrm{reg}_t(S/I)`$ and $`\mathrm{reg}(S/I)`$. We will illustrate the above method by an example at the end of the next section. Moreover, we get the following estimation for $`\mathrm{reg}_t(S/I)`$.

###### Corollary 4.4.

Let $`x_n,\mathrm{},x_{nt}`$ be a filter-regular sequence for $`S/I`$. Let $`g_i`$ denote the least common multiple of the minimal generators of $`\mathrm{in}(I)`$ which are not divided by any of the variables $`x_{ni+1},\mathrm{},x_n`$. Then

$$\mathrm{reg}_t(S/I)\mathrm{max}\{\mathrm{deg}g_in+i|i=0,\mathrm{},t\}.$$

###### Proof.

By Corollary 3.3, the assumption implies that $`c_i(I)<\mathrm{}`$ for $`i=0,\mathrm{},t`$. Thus, combining Theorem 3.4 and Lemma 4.2 we get

$$\mathrm{reg}_t(S/I)\mathrm{max}\{|a||aF_i,i=0,\mathrm{},t\}.$$

It is easily seen from the definition of $`F_i`$ that $`\mathrm{max}_{aF_i}|a|\mathrm{deg}g_in+i`$, $`i=0,\mathrm{},t`$, hence the conclusion. ∎

Remark. Bruns and Herzog \[BH, Theorem 3.1(a)\] resp. Hoa and Trung \[HT, Theorem 3.1\] proved that for any monomial ideal $`I`$, $`\mathrm{reg}(S/I)\mathrm{deg}f1`$ resp. $`\mathrm{deg}f\mathrm{ht}I`$, where $`f`$ is the least common multiple of the minimal generators of $`I`$. Note that the mentioned result of Bruns and Herzog is valid for multigraded modules.

## 5. The case of projective curves

Let $`I_Ck[x_1,\mathrm{},x_n]`$ be the defining saturated ideal of a (not necessarily reduced) projective curve $`C^{n1}`$, $`n3`$. We will assume that $`k[x_{n1},x_n]S/I_C`$ is a Noether normalization of $`S/I_C`$. In this case, Theorem 3.6 can be reformulated as follows.

###### Proposition 5.1.

$`\mathrm{reg}(S/I_C)=\mathrm{max}\{c_1(I_C),r(I_C)\}.`$

###### Proof.

By the above assumption $`S/I_C`$ is a generalized Cohen-Macaulay ring of positive depth and $`x_n,x_{n1}`$ is a homogeneous system of parameters for $`S/I_C`$. Therefore, $`x_n,x_{n1}`$ is a filter-regular sequence for $`S/I_C`$. In particular, $`x_n`$ is a non-zerodivisor in $`S/I_C`$. By Lemma 3.2, $`c_0(I_C)=\mathrm{}`$. Hence the conclusion follows from Theorem 3.6. ∎

Since $`S/I_C`$ has positive depth, the graded minimal free resolution of $`S/I_C`$ ends at most at the $`(n1)`$th place:

$$0F_{n1}\mathrm{}F_1F_0S/I_C0.$$

¿From Theorem 3.4 we obtain the following information on the shifts of $`F_{n1}`$. Note that $`F_{n1}=0`$ if $`S/I_C`$ is a Cohen-Macaulay ring or, in other words, if $`C`$ is an arithmetically Cohen-Macaulay curve.

###### Proposition 5.2.

If $`C`$ is not an arithmetically Cohen-Macaulay curve, $`c_1(I_C)+n1`$ is the maximum degree of the generators of $`F_{n1}`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`b_{n1}`$ be the maximum degree of the generators of $`F_{n1}`$. As we have seen in the introduction, $`b_{n1}n+1=(n1)\text{}\mathrm{reg}(S/I_C)=\mathrm{reg}_1(S/I_C).`$ By Theorem 3.4, $`\mathrm{reg}_1(S/I_C)=\mathrm{max}\{c_0(I_C),c_1(I_C)\}=c_1(I_C)`$ because $`c_0(I_C)=\mathrm{}`$. So we obtain $`b_{n1}=c_1(I_C)+n1`$. ∎

Now we shall see that Proposition 5.1 contains all main results of Bermejo and Gimenez in \[BG\]. It should be noted that they did not use strong results such as Theorem 2.4. We follow the notations of \[BG\].

Let $`E:=\{a^{n2}|x^a\mathrm{in}(I_C)\}`$ and denote by $`H(E)`$ the smallest integer $`r`$ such that $`aE`$ if $`|a|=r`$.

###### Corollary 5.3.

\[BG, Theorem 2.4\] Assume that $`C`$ is an arithmetically Cohen-Macaulay curve. Then $`\mathrm{reg}(S/I_C)=H(E)1.`$

###### Proof.

Since $`x_n,x_{n1}`$ is a regular sequence in $`S/I_C`$, we have $`c_1(I_C)=\mathrm{}`$ by Corollary 3.2. By Proposition 5.1 this implies $`\mathrm{reg}(S/I_C)=r(I_C)`$. But

$$r(I_C)=\mathrm{sup}\{r|(S_2/J_2)_r0\}=H(E)1$$

because $`J_2`$ is generated by the monomials $`x^a`$, $`aE`$. ∎

Let $`I_0`$ be the ideal in $`S`$ generated by the polynomials obtained from $`I_C`$ by the evaluation $`x_{n1}=x_n=0`$. Then $`S/I_0`$ is a two-dimensional Cohen-Macaulay ring. Let $`\stackrel{~}{I}`$ denote the ideal in $`S`$ generated by the monomials obtained from $`\mathrm{in}(I_C)`$ by the evaluation $`x_{n1}=x_n=1`$. Let

$$F:=\{a^{n2}|x^a\stackrel{~}{I}\mathrm{in}(I_0)\}.$$

For every vector $`aF`$ let

$$E_a:=\{(\mu ,\nu )^2|x^ax_{n1}^\mu x_n^\nu \mathrm{in}(I_C)\}.$$

Let $`\mathrm{}:=_{aF}\{a\times [^2E_a]\}`$ and denote by $`H(\mathrm{})`$ the smallest integer $`r`$ such that the number of the elements $`b\mathrm{}`$ with $`|b|=s`$ becomes a constant for $`sr`$.

###### Corollary 5.4.

\[BG, Theorem 2.7\] $`\mathrm{reg}(S/I_C)=\mathrm{max}\{\mathrm{reg}(S/I_0),H(\mathrm{})\}.`$

###### Proof.

As in the proof of Corollary 5.3 we have $`\mathrm{reg}(S/I_0)=r(I_0)`$. But $`r(I_0)=r(I_C)`$ because $`\mathrm{in}(I_0)`$ is the ideal generated by the monomials obtained from $`\mathrm{in}(I_C)`$ by the evaluation $`x_{n1}=x_n=0`$. Thus,

$$\mathrm{reg}(S/I_0)=r(I_C).$$

It has been observed in \[BG\] that the number of the elements $`b\mathrm{}`$ with $`|b|=s`$ is the difference $`H_{S/I_C}(s)H_{S/\stackrel{~}{I}}(s)=H_{S/\mathrm{in}(I_C)}(s)H_{S/\stackrel{~}{I}}(s)=H_{\stackrel{~}{I}/\mathrm{in}(I_C)}(s),`$ where $`H_E(s)`$ denotes the Hilbert function of a graded $`S`$-module $`E`$. Since $`x_n`$ is a non-zerodivisor in $`S/\mathrm{in}(I_C)`$, $`H(\mathrm{})+1`$ is the least integer $`r`$ such that $`H_{(\stackrel{~}{I},x_n)/(\mathrm{in}(I_C),x_n)}(s)=0`$ for $`sr`$. On the other hand, since $`\mathrm{in}(I_C)`$ is generated by monomials which do not contain $`x_n`$ and since $`J_1`$ is the ideal in $`k[x_1,\mathrm{},x_{n1}]`$ obtained from $`\mathrm{in}(I_C)`$ by the evaluation $`x_n=0`$, we have $`\mathrm{in}(I_C)=J_1S`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{I}=\stackrel{~}{J}_1S`$, whence $`(\stackrel{~}{I},x_n)/(\mathrm{in}(I_C),x_n)\stackrel{~}{J}_1/J_1`$. Note that $`c_1(I_C)=\mathrm{max}\{r|(\stackrel{~}{J}_1/J_1)_r0\}`$ with $`c_1(I_C)=\mathrm{}`$ if $`\stackrel{~}{J}_1=J_1`$. Then

$$H(\mathrm{})=\mathrm{max}\{0,c_1(I_C)\}.$$

Thus, applying Proposition 5.1 we obtain $`\mathrm{reg}(S/I_C)=\mathrm{max}\{\mathrm{reg}(S/I_0),H(\mathrm{})\}.`$

Example. Let $`C^3`$ be the monomial curve $`(t^\alpha s^\beta :t^\beta s^\alpha :s^{\alpha +\beta }:t^{\alpha +\beta })`$, $`\alpha >\beta >0`$, g.c.d$`(\alpha ,\beta )=1`$. It is known that the defining ideal $`I_Ck[x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4]`$ is generated by the quadric $`x_1x_2x_3x_4`$ and the forms $`x_1^{\beta +r}x_3^{\alpha \beta r}x_2^{\alpha r}x_4^r`$, $`r=0,\mathrm{},\alpha \beta `$, and that this is a Gröbner basis of $`I_C`$ for the reverse lexicographic order with $`x_1>x_2>x_3>x_4`$ \[CM, Théorèm 3.9\]. Therefore,

$$\mathrm{in}(I_C)=(x_1x_2,x_2^\alpha ,x_1^{\beta +1}x_3^{\alpha \beta 1},x_1^{\beta +2}x_3^{\alpha \beta 2},\mathrm{},x_1^\alpha ).$$

Using the notations of Section 3 we have

$`E_1`$ $`=`$ $`\{(1,1,0),(0,\alpha ,0),(\beta +1,0,\alpha \beta 1),(\beta +2,0,\alpha \beta 2),\mathrm{},(\alpha ,0,0)\},`$
$`E_2`$ $`=`$ $`\{(1,1),(0,\alpha ),(\alpha ,0)\}.`$
¿From this it follows that

$`F_1`$ $`=`$ $`\{(\beta +1,0,\alpha \beta 2),(\beta +2,0,\alpha \beta 3),\mathrm{},(\alpha 1,0,0)\},`$
$`F_2`$ $`=`$ $`\{(0,\alpha 1),(\alpha 1,0)\}.`$
By Proposition 4.2, $`c_1(I_C)=\alpha 1`$ if $`\alpha \beta 2`$ ($`c_1(I_C)=\mathrm{}`$ if $`\alpha \beta =1`$) and $`r(I_C)=\alpha 1`$ by Proposition 4.3. Applying Proposition 5.1 we obtain $`\mathrm{reg}(S/I_C)=\alpha 1`$.

The direct computation of the invariant $`H(\mathrm{})`$ is more complicated than that of $`c_1(I_C)`$. First, we should interpret $`F`$ as the set of the elements of the form $`a^2`$ such that $`ab`$ for some elements $`bp(E_1)`$ but $`ac`$ for any element $`cE_2`$. Then we get

$$F=\{(\beta +1,0),(\beta +2,0),\mathrm{},(\alpha 1,0)\}.$$

For all $`\epsilon =\beta +1,\mathrm{},\alpha 1`$ we verify that $`E_{(\epsilon ,0)}=(\alpha \epsilon ,0)+^2`$. It follows that

$$\mathrm{}=\{(\epsilon ,0,\mu ,\nu )^4|\epsilon =\beta +1,\mathrm{},\alpha 1;\mu \alpha \epsilon 1\}.$$

If $`\alpha \beta =1`$, we have $`\mathrm{}=\mathrm{}`$, hence $`H(\mathrm{})=0`$. If $`\alpha \beta 2`$, we can check that $`H(\mathrm{})=\alpha 1.`$

## References

\[AH\] A. Aramova and J. Herzog, Almost regular sequences and Betti numbers, preprint.

\[BCP\] D. Bayer, H. Charalambous and S. Popescu, Extremal Betti numbers and applications to monomial ideals, J. Algebra 221 (1999), 497-512.

\[BM\] D. Bayer and D. Mumford, What can be computed in algebraic geometry ? in: D. Eisenbud and L. Robbiano (eds.), Computational Algebraic Geometry and Commutative Algebra, Proceedings, Cortona (1991), Cambridge University Press, 1993, 1-48.

\[BS\] D. Bayer and M. Stillman, A criterion for detecting $`m`$-regularity, Invent. Math. 87 (1987), 1-11.

\[BG\] I. Bermejo and P. Gimenez, On the Castelnuovo-Mumford regularity of projective curves, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 128 (2000), 1293-1299.

\[BH\] W. Bruns and J. Herzog, On multigraded resolutions, Math. Proc. Cambridge Phil. Soc. 118 (1995), 245-275.

\[CM\] L. Coudurier and M. Morales, Classification des courbes toriques dans l’espace projectif, module de Rao et liaison, J. Algebra 211 (1999), 524-548.

\[EG\] D. Eisenbud and S. Goto, Linear free resolutions and minimal multiplicities, J. Algebra 88 (1984), 89-133.

\[HT\] L.T. Hoa and N.V. Trung, On the Castelnuovo-Mumford regularity and the arithmetic degree of monomial ideals, Math. Z. 229 (1998), 519-537.

\[NR\] D.G. Northcott and D. Rees, Reductions of ideals in local rings, Proc. Cambridge Phil. Soc. 50 (1954), 145-158.

\[STC\] P. Schenzel, N.V. Trung and N.T. Cuong, Über verallgemeinerte Cohen-Macaulay-Moduln, Math. Nachr. 85 (1978), 57-73.

\[T1\] N.V. Trung, Reduction exponent and degree bounds for the defining equations of a graded ring, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 102 (1987), 229-236.

\[T2\] N.V. Trung, Gröbner bases, local cohomology and reduction number, to appear in Proc. Amer. Math. Soc.

\[V\] W. Vasconcelos, Cohomological degree of a module, in: J. Elias, J.M. Giral, R.M. Miro-Roig, S. Zarzuela (eds.), Six Lectures on Commutative Algebra, Progress in Mathematics 166, pp. 345-392, Birkhäuser, 1998.


format: text

text:
# A Renormalization Group Analysis of Coupled Superconducting and Stripe Order in 1+1 Dimensions

## I Introduction

In $`La_{2x}Sr_xCuO_4`$ (LSCO) compounds, there are three well-established ordering tendencies: antiferromagnetism, superconductivity and charge/spin stripes.Tranquada . Some experiments indicate that stripes and superconductivity can even coexist in these compoundscoexist . Furthermore, neutron scattering experiments by Lake et al.Lake  show that a moderate magnetic field can have large effects on the incommensurate magnetic fluctuations. This is widely taken as evidence suggesting the stabilization of stripes by the magnetic field.

In mean field theory, when two order parameters are in close competition it is possible for them to coexist in a certain region of the phase diagramKivelson . In such a coexistence region quantum fluctuations of both order parameters dominate the low-energy physics. In a recent paper LeeLee  examined such a situation. That paper described how the Goldstone modes of stripe and superconducting orders and their respective topological defects interact.

We stress that the theory presented in Ref.Lee  differs in important ways from the conventional self-dual charge-density wave/superconductivity action in one dimension. Indeed, in one dimension the displacement field of the charge density wave is conjugate to the phase of the superconducting order. As a result the charge density wave and the superconducting orders are mutually exclusive (i.e. whenever superconducting susceptibility strongly diverges the charge density wave susceptibility does not and vice versa). In contrast, in the theory of Ref.Lee  there exists a generic region in phase diagram where both orders exist.

In this paper we examine in detail a one-dimensional analog of the model studied in Ref.Lee . The motivation for this is that well-developed calculational methods (such as the renormalization group) can be used to analyze the phase structure of the model. This can be used to check the correctness of the asserted phase structure in Ref.Lee

Now we describe the theory proposed by Lee Lee . Since the stripe order is a one dimensional charge density wave, its Goldstone mode (i.e. stripe displacement) is a $`U(1)`$ scalarLee . The superconducting order, of course, also possesses a $`U(1)`$ Goldstone mode. The important question is: how do these two $`U(1)`$ modes couple together? A hint of how this coupling works comes from the experimental fact that the period of incommensurate spin correlation decreases as the doping density increases. Motivated by this LeeLee  constructed the following Lagrangian density

$``$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2K_{\varphi \mu }}}J_\mu ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2K_{\rho \mu }}}q_\mu ^2+J_\mu \overline{\varphi _0}_\mu \varphi _0+q_x(\overline{\rho _0}_x\rho _0ig_1J_t)`$ (1)
$`+q_t(\overline{\rho _0}_t\rho _0ig_2J_x).`$
In the above $`\varphi _0=e^{i\theta _s}`$ is the U(1) phase factor of the superconducting order parameter, and $`\rho _0=e^{i\theta _p}`$ is the phase factor of the stripe order. That is, $`\theta _p=(2\pi /\lambda )\widehat{𝐱}𝐮(x,t)`$, with $`\lambda `$ the stripe period and $`𝐮(x,t)`$ the displacement field of the stripe order. $`J_\mu `$ and $`q_\mu `$ are auxiliary fields coupling to the superconducting and stripe phases, respectively. These auxiliary fields have the physical interpretation of energy-momentum currents. (In this paper greek indices run over $`x,t`$ and repeated indices are summed.)

Without the coupling ($`g_{1,2}=0`$), integrating out $`J_\mu `$ and $`q_\mu `$ produces the field theory for two independent U(1) Goldstone modes and their respective vortices. The effect of the coupling is to favor stripe displacement ($`𝐮`$) in the presence of local charge imbalance ($`J_t`$).

To analyze Eq. (1), Lee used a duality transformation plus an educated guess about the four possible quantum phases corresponding to combinations of stripe and superconducting order/disorder. In this paper we study a one-dimensional version of Eq. (1), applying the well-developed techniques of duality transformation and the renormalization group to determine the possible phases in a more unbiased fashion. We find that all four combinations of stripe order/disorder and superconducting order/disorder are stable phases. This supports the conjectured phase structure in Ref. Lee .

In the following we use a real-space renormalization procedure similar to that used by Kosterlitz and Thouless to treat the phase transition of the 2-dimensional coulomb gasKT ; Jose . In section two we derive the vortex action (the vortex of the stripe order parameter is the dislocation). In section three we obtain the renormalization group recursion relations for the coupling constants in that theory. As in the Kosterlitz-Thouless theory we make the small vortex fugacity approximation. We analyze the implications of these flows for phase stability in section four.

## II Duality Transformation to 2-Species Coulomb Gas

Following the work of Jose et alJose  we first perform a duality transformation and write the theory in terms of vortex degrees of freedom.

Starting with Eq. (1), we first separate the phase of $`\varphi _0`$ and $`\rho _0`$ into a topologically trivial part and a topologically non-trivial part:

$`\varphi _0=e^{i\eta _0}\varphi `$
$`\rho _0=e^{i\xi _0}\rho `$ (2)
In the above $`\eta _0`$ and $`\xi _0`$ are single valued, while $`\varphi `$ and $`\rho `$ contain configurations with non-zero windings. After integrating over the topologically trivial phases ($`\eta _0,\xi _0`$) we obtain two conservation laws:

$`_\mu J_\mu =0`$
$`_\mu q_\mu =0.`$ (3)
To explicitly fulfill these conservation laws we write $`J_\mu =ϵ_{\mu \nu }_\nu \mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`q_\mu =ϵ_{\mu \nu }_\nu \chi `$, where $`\chi `$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ are scalar fields. Substitution leads to

$``$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2K_{\rho \overline{\mu }}}}(_\mu \chi )^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2K_{\varphi \overline{\mu }}}}(_\mu \mathrm{\Lambda })^2+ϵ_{\mu \nu }_\nu \mathrm{\Lambda }\overline{\varphi }_\mu \varphi `$ (4)
$`+ϵ_{\mu \nu }_\nu \chi \overline{\rho }_\mu \rho +ig_1_t\chi _x\mathrm{\Lambda }+ig_2_x\chi _t\mathrm{\Lambda }.`$
Upon integrating by parts and identifying the vortex densities $`N=iϵ_{\mu \nu }_\nu (\overline{\rho }_\mu \rho )`$ and $`M=iϵ_{\mu \nu }_\nu (\overline{\varphi }_\mu \varphi )`$ the Lagrangian density becomes

$``$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2K_{\rho \overline{\mu }}}}(_\mu \chi )^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2K_{\varphi \overline{\mu }}}}(_\mu \mathrm{\Lambda })^2+i\mathrm{\Lambda }M+i\chi N`$ (5)
$`i(g_1+g_2)\mathrm{\Lambda }_t_x\chi .`$
The above equation can be written in momentum space as

$``$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\begin{array}{cc}\chi (𝐤)& \mathrm{\Lambda }(𝐤)\end{array})^{}(\begin{array}{cc}\frac{k_\mu ^2}{K_{\rho \overline{\mu }}}& iGk_xk_t\\ iGk_xk_t& \frac{k_\mu ^2}{K_{\varphi \overline{\mu }}}\end{array})(\begin{array}{c}\chi (𝐤)\\ \mathrm{\Lambda }(𝐤)\end{array})`$ (15)
$`+i(\begin{array}{cc}\chi (𝐤)& \mathrm{\Lambda }(𝐤)\end{array})^{}(\begin{array}{c}N(𝐤)\\ M(𝐤)\end{array})`$
where $`G=g_1+g_2`$. Integrating out the $`\chi `$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ fields then produces

$``$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\begin{array}{cc}N& M\end{array})^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{det}}(\begin{array}{cc}\frac{k_\mu ^2}{K_{\varphi \overline{\mu }}}& iGk_xk_t\\ iGk_xk_t& \frac{k_\mu ^2}{K_{\rho \overline{\mu }}}\end{array})(\begin{array}{c}N\\ M\end{array})`$ (21)
$`det`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{k_\mu ^2}{K_{\rho \overline{\mu }}}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{k_\nu ^2}{K_{\varphi \overline{\nu }}}}\right)+G^2k_x^2k_t^2.`$ (22)
Eq. (22) is the starting point of our renormalization group analysis. It describes a system of two interacting (anisotropic) coulomb gases – the vortices of the superconducting order parameter and the dislocations of the stripe order parameter. Inspired by the work of Kosterlitz and Thouless we perform a real space renormalization group analysis of Eq. (22) in the following.

## III Renormalization Group Analysis

Eq. (22) is more complicated than the one species Coulomb gas problem in two respects: 1) there are two species of vortices and 2) the interactions are not rotationally invariant (i.e. the interaction depends not only on the distance between vortices but also on their relative orientation). In order to complete the renormalization group program we have to characterize the interaction in terms of a discrete set of coupling constants. One way of achieving this is to Fourier transform the angular dependence of the vortex-vortex interaction. In momentum space each element of the interaction matrix is of the form $`G(𝐤)=G(k,\theta )=\frac{g(\theta )}{k^2}`$ ($`\theta `$ is the angle made by $`𝐤`$ and the $`k_x`$ axis). Therefore we expand each of these terms in a fourier series, e.g. $`g(\theta )=_na_ne^{(in\theta )}`$. When transformed back to real space, our action then becomes

$`𝒮`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle d^2𝐑_1d^2𝐑_2N(𝐑_1)G_N(𝐑_1𝐑_2)N(𝐑_2)}`$ (23)
$`+M(𝐑_1)G_M(𝐑_1𝐑_2)M(𝐑_2)`$
$`+2M(𝐑_1)i\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝐑_1𝐑_2)N(𝐑_2),`$
where

$`G_N(𝐑)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d^2𝐤}{(2\pi )^2}\left(\underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}a_ne^{in\theta }\right)\frac{e^{i𝐤𝐑}}{k^2}}`$ (24)
$`G_M(𝐑)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d^2𝐤}{(2\pi )^2}\left(\underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\alpha _ne^{in\theta }\right)\frac{e^{i𝐤𝐑}}{k^2}}`$ (25)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝐑)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d^2𝐤}{(2\pi )^2}\left(\underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}c_ne^{in\theta }\right)\frac{e^{i𝐤𝐑}}{k^2}}`$ (26)
In the above

$`a_n=(1)^na_n^{}`$
$`\alpha _n=(1)^n\alpha _n^{}`$
$`c_n=(1)^nc_n^{}`$ (27)
to ensure the interaction functions are real. We stress that because of the angular dependence of Eqs. 24, 25, and 26, $`G_N,G_M`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ depend not only on the distance $`|𝐑_\mathrm{𝟏}𝐑_\mathrm{𝟐}|`$ but also on the relative orientation $`(𝐑_\mathrm{𝟏}𝐑_\mathrm{𝟐})/|𝐑_\mathrm{𝟏}𝐑_\mathrm{𝟐}|`$. In general $`a_n`$ and $`\alpha _n`$ are nonzero only for even $`n`$. The physical reason for this is indistinguishability of two charges of the same type (for details see the appendix). $`c_n`$ can be nonzero for both odd and even $`n`$.

The limit where all the $`a_n`$, $`\alpha _n`$, and $`c_n`$ are zero except $`a_0`$ and $`\alpha _0`$ describes two decoupled isotropic 2-D X-Y models in their coulomb gas representations – the Kosterlitz and Thouless problem. Before we attack Eq. (22), as a warm up, let us briefly review the Kosterlitz-Thouless results for the one component system. In the renormalization group approach one integrates out one pair of tightly bound dipole (i.e. a dipole with $`r_c+dr_c<size<r_c`$) at a time. The renormalization group proceeds iteratively by treating $`r_c`$ as a running length scale. The two coupling constants in that case are the vortex-vortex interaction strength $`a_0`$ and vortex fugacity $`y=e^\mu `$ where $`\mu `$ is the core energy of vortices. In the limit of $`y<<1`$, the renormalization group equations for $`a_0`$ and $`y`$ are given by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dy}{dl}}`$ $`=`$ $`y\left(2{\displaystyle \frac{a_0}{4\pi }}\right)`$ (28)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{da_0}{dl}}`$ $`=`$ $`\pi y^2a_0^2.`$ (29)
The above equations have the entire $`y=0`$ axis as fixed points. However depending on whether $`a_08\pi `$ is positive/negative the fixed point is stable/unstable. The point $`y=0,a_0=8\pi `$ is a critical point. Near it, the flow trajectories are given by

$$a_0^2(4\pi )^4y^2=C$$
(30)
Here C is a constant labelling each trajectory. This flow is shown in figure 1. Note that the $`C=0`$ separatrix $`y=\frac{1}{(4\pi )^4}(a_08\pi )`$ separates the basins of attraction for the ordered and disordered phases. In the ordered phase the density of vortices renormalizes to zero ($`y0`$) at large length scales, signifying the presence of a bound dipole phase. In the disordered phase the density of vortices increases ($`y`$ increases) at large length scales, signifying the existence of a vortex plasma (unbound dipole) phase.

The two-component vortex gas problem we are facing is not so different. However, we have to painstakingly keep track of all the Fourier coefficients in Eq. (24), Eq. (25) and Eq. (26) and examine how they renormalize. Interestingly, even in the presence of these anisotropic interactions the Kosterlitz-Thouless renormalization group program closes.

All the technical details are given in the appendix. Here we just note the following point. Because the “Coulomb charge” of the superconducting vortices is not related to the “Coulomb charge” of the stripe vortices, only intra-species dipoles are possible. This implies that the positions of vortices belonging to different species do not have to obey the constraint that the minimum distance is $`r_c`$. To lowest order in $`y`$ the resulting renormalization group equations are given by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dy_N}{dl}}`$ $`=`$ $`y_N\left(2{\displaystyle \frac{a_0}{4\pi }}\right)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dy_M}{dl}}`$ $`=`$ $`y_M\left(2{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _0}{4\pi }}\right)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{da_n}{dl}}`$ $`=`$ $`\pi {\displaystyle \underset{k,m}{}}\delta _{n,k+m}\left(y_N^2a_ka_m+y_M^2(1)^{m+1}c_kc_m\right)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\alpha _n}{dl}}`$ $`=`$ $`\pi {\displaystyle \underset{k,m}{}}\delta _{n,k+m}\left(y_M^2\alpha _k\alpha _m+y_N^2(1)^{m+1}c_kc_m\right)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dc_n}{dl}}`$ $`=`$ $`\pi {\displaystyle \underset{k,m}{}}\delta _{n,k+m}\left(y_N^2a_k+y_M^2\alpha _k\right)c_m.`$ (31)
Note that the renormalization of $`y_{N,M}`$ only depends on the isotropic part of the coupling ($`a_0`$ and $`\alpha _0`$). The renormalization of an anisotropy coefficient, (e.g. $`a_n`$) includes many terms. Each term is a quadratic function of $`a_k`$, $`\alpha _k`$, or $`c_k`$. If we set all coupling constants except $`a_0`$ and $`\alpha _0`$ to zero we recover the Kosterlitz-Thouless flow equations (for two separate species). It is easily verified that the condition for $`G_N,G_M`$, and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ to be real ($`a_n=(1)^na_n^{}`$, etc.) is preserved by these flow equations. It is also clear from the form of these equations that these coefficients form a closed set under renormalization.

## IV Phases of the Two-Species Coulomb Gas

Eq. (31) predicts fixed points for $`y_M=y_N=0`$ and $`a_n`$, $`\alpha _n`$, $`c_n=`$ anything. As in the normal Kosterlitz-Thouless case, we interpret $`y=0`$ as the absence of unbound dipoles. From first line of Eq. (31), $`y_N=0`$ is linearly stable if $`a_0>8\pi `$. For $`a_0>8\pi `$ the renormalization group brings $`y_N`$ to larger values. Similar statements hold for $`\alpha _0`$ and $`y_M`$. This suggests the presence of four phases depending on whether the vortices of $`N`$ or $`M`$ species form dipoles or unbind.

However, this is not quite enough for our purposes. What we really need to know is whether all four phases can be reached by varying the five parameters in Eq. (21). Put another way, the physical system of Eq. (21) lives in a five dimensional subspace of the infinite dimensional space formed by the $`a_n`$, $`\alpha _n`$, and $`c_n`$. We need to check which phases can be reached by trajectories originating in the physical subspace, not just which phases exist for the infinite dimensional space.

In order to obtain a tractable problem, in the following we concentrate on the case in which $`K_{\rho \mu }=K_\rho `$, $`K_{\varphi \mu }=K_\varphi `$ and $`GK_{\rho ,\varphi }<<1`$. When $`GK_{\rho ,\varphi }`$ are small it is easy to evaluate the fourier coefficients in equations Eqs. 24, 25, and 26 in powers of $`GK_{\rho ,\varphi }`$. If $`GK_{\rho ,\varphi }=𝒪(ϵ)`$ we find that the leading contribution to $`a_n`$, $`\alpha _n`$, $`c_n`$ is $`𝒪(ϵ^{|n|/2})`$. For the specific form of interaction in Eq. (21) it is simple to see that besides Equations 27 there are additional constraints on $`a_n`$,$`\alpha _n`$ and $`c_n`$ :

$`a_n=\alpha _n=0\mathrm{unless}n=4m`$
$`c_n=0\mathrm{unless}n=4m+2.`$ (32)
All of these conditions are preserved by the flow equations. In terms of the original parameters in Eq. (21), the non-vanishing coefficients up to order $`ϵ`$ are:

$`a_0=K_\rho (1K_\varphi K_\rho G^2/8)`$
$`\alpha _0=K_\varphi (1K_\varphi K_\rho G^2/8)`$
$`c_2=c_2^{}=iGK_\rho K_\varphi /4`$ (33)
In the following we truncate the space considered to only these coefficients, which is correct to lowest order in $`ϵ`$. Furthermore, this restricts us to a five-dimensional space of parameters, which we can take to be independently determined by the five parameters in Eq. (21).

In this case, the flow equations 31 become

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dy_N}{dl}}`$ $`=`$ $`y_N\left(2{\displaystyle \frac{a_0}{4\pi }}\right)`$ (34)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dy_M}{dl}}`$ $`=`$ $`y_M\left(2{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _0}{4\pi }}\right)`$ (35)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{da_0}{dl}}`$ $`=`$ $`\pi \left(y_N^2a_0^2y_M^2|c_2|^2\right)`$ (36)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\alpha _0}{dl}}`$ $`=`$ $`\pi \left(y_M^2\alpha _0^2y_N^2|c_2|^2\right)`$ (37)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dc_2}{dl}}`$ $`=`$ $`\pi \left(y_N^2a_0c_2+y_M^2\alpha _0c_2\right)`$ (38)
First, by multiplying Eq. (38) by $`c_2^{}`$ and then adding the result to its complex conjugate, we obtain

$$\frac{d|c_2|^2}{dl}=2\pi \left(y_N^2a_0+y_M^2\alpha _0\right)|c_2|^2$$
(39)
Using this in Eq. (36) and Eq. (37) then gives us

$`{\displaystyle \frac{da_0}{dl}}`$ $`=`$ $`\pi y_N^2\left(a_0^2+|c_2|^2\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{d|c_2|^2}{dl}}`$ (40)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\alpha _0}{dl}}`$ $`=`$ $`\pi y_M^2\left(\alpha _0^2|c_2|^2\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{d|c_2|^2}{dl}}`$ (41)
At this point, we examine closely the region of parameter space around the critical point by making the change of variables

$`a`$ $`=`$ $`a_08\pi `$
$`\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`\alpha _08\pi `$
$`c`$ $`=`$ $`c_2\overline{c}`$
In the above $`\overline{c}`$ is the fixed point of $`c_2`$. After some algebra, and keeping terms to lowest order in $`a`$, $`\alpha `$, $`c`$, $`y_N`$, and $`y_M`$, the flow equations for $`a`$ and $`\alpha `$ are, after some algebra,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dy_N^2}{dl}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}y_N^2a`$ (43)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dy_M^2}{dl}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}y_M^2\alpha `$ (44)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{da^2}{dl}}`$ $`=`$ $`2\pi y_N^2a\left((8\pi )^2+|\overline{c}|^2\right){\displaystyle \frac{a}{16\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{d|c_2|^2}{dl}}`$ (45)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\alpha ^2}{dl}}`$ $`=`$ $`2\pi y_M^2\alpha \left((8\pi )^2|\overline{c}|^2\right){\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{16\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{d|c_2|^2}{dl}}`$ (46)
Finally, we can combine these equations to yield

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\left(a^2Xy_N^2\right)}{dl}}={\displaystyle \frac{dC_N}{dl}}={\displaystyle \frac{a}{8\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{d|c_2|^2}{dl}}`$ (48)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\left(\alpha ^2Xy_M^2\right)}{dl}}={\displaystyle \frac{dC_M}{dl}}={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{8\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{d|c_2|^2}{dl}}`$ (49)
Here $`X=(4\pi )^4(1+|\overline{c}|^2/(8\pi )^2)`$. To understand these equations, note that the quantity in parentheses on the LHS of each equation is precisely of the form of the contour numbers for trajectories in the Kosterlitz-Thouless case (cf. Eq. (30)), with the slope of the separatrix renormalized from $`\frac{1}{(4\pi )^4}`$ to $`1/X`$. In the absence of interactions ($`c=0`$) these contour numbers $`C_N`$ and $`C_M`$ are conserved, but in the presence of interactions the renormalization group pushes the flow from one contour to the next. Furthermore, by Eq. (48) and Eq. (39), for $`a>0`$ (i.e. $`a_0>8\pi `$) the contour number $`C_N`$ increases, while for $`a<0`$ (i.e. $`a_0<8\pi `$) $`C_N`$ decreases. Similarly for $`C_M`$ and $`\alpha `$. The resulting flow is diagrammed in figure 2.

It is clear from this that for a trajectory originating below the separatrices ($`y_N<(a_08\pi )/X`$ and $`y_M<(\alpha _08\pi )/X`$), the flow leads to both $`y_N`$ and $`y_M`$ zero. In other words, there is a stable phase with both types of vortices bound as dipoles, corresponding to a stripe ordered/superconducting ordered phase. If the trajectory starts with $`(a_08\pi )<0`$ and $`(\alpha _08\pi )<0`$, the flow leads to both $`y_N`$ and $`y_M`$ increasing and unbound dipoles of both species. Thus there is a stripe disordered/superconducting disordered phase. Finally, in the mixed case, e.g. $`y_N<(a_08\pi )/X`$ and $`(\alpha _08\pi )<0`$, $`y_N`$ flows to zero but $`y_M`$ increases. Thus there are phases with stripe disorder/superconducting order and stripe order/superconducting disorder.

We have seen that, with weak $`(g_1+g_2)`$ all four phases corresponding to stripe order/superconducting order, stripe disorder/superconducting order, stripe order/superconducting disorder, and stripe disorder/superconducting disorder are stable and can be realized in the system described by Lee’s theory in (1+1) dimensions (Eq. (1)). We emphasize that we have analyzed only the case with isotropic couplings $`K_{\rho \mu }=K_\rho `$ and $`K_{\varphi \mu }=K_\varphi `$ and weak coupling. In this case, the phase diagram in the $`K_\varphi /K_\rho `$ plane is shown in Fig. 3.

## V Summary

The main results of this paper are the interacting coulomb gas representation of the competing stripe and superconducting orders, Eq. (22); and the renormalization group flow Eq. (31). Analysis of these flow equations shows that the 1+1 dimensional version of the theory proposed in ref. Lee  supports stable phases corresponding to stripe order/superconducting order, stripe disorder/superconducting order, stripe order/superconducting disorder, and stripe disorder/superconducting disorder.

Acknowledgments: I thank Qiang-Hua Wang and Dung-Hai Lee for useful discussions and comments on the manuscript. H.F. was supported in part by the Department of Defense through a National Defense Science and Engineering Graduate Fellowship.

## Appendix A Details of renormalization group calculation

Here we present the details for the renormalization of the system described by Eq. (21) and Eq. (22), and parametrized in fourier coefficients via equations 24, 25, and 26. The details closely follow the procedure used by Jose et. al.Jose . The basic idea is to introduce a small length scale cutoff $`r_c`$, and then integrate out configurations with pairs of the same type of charge which are $`r_c+dr_c`$ apart to find a new system with a longer minimum length scale.

In our action Eq. (23), the fields $`N`$ and $`M`$ consist of point charges, e.g. $`N(𝐫)=_\alpha N_\alpha \delta (𝐫𝐫_\alpha )`$. We will express the terms Eq. (23) involving $`G_N`$ and $`G_M`$ as sums over pairs of these charges. This results in the cancellation of all odd fourier components of $`G_N`$ and $`G_M`$, i.e. $`a_n`$ and $`\alpha _n`$ are zero for odd $`n`$. To see this, note that in re-expressing the sum as a sum over pairs, we combine terms like $`N_\alpha N_\beta G_N(𝐑_\alpha 𝐑_\beta )+N_\beta N_\alpha G_N(𝐑_\beta 𝐑_\alpha )`$. The two $`G_N`$’s above differ by reversing the relative vector (i.e. $`\theta \theta +\pi `$). Since odd fourier components pick up a relative minus sign under this reversal, they cancel each other, and only the even fourier components survive. On the other hand, since the terms with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ describe the interaction between distinguishable vortices, we cannot convert them into sums over pairs, and therefore the fourier coefficients $`c_n`$ can be nonzero for both odd and even $`n`$.

As in the Kosterlitz-Thouless case, $`G_N`$ and $`G_M`$ diverge logarithmically at short length scales. In Eq. (21) this translates to divergences when $`𝐑_1=𝐑_2`$. To remove this divergence, we must enforce charge neutrality ($`_\alpha N_\alpha =_\alpha M_\alpha =0`$) and impose a small distance cut-off $`r_c`$Kogut . To account for the microscopic physics lost in this procedure, we introduce core energies $`\mathrm{\Delta }_N`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_M`$ for the vortices (charges). After this our action is written as

$`𝒮`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{(\alpha ,\beta )}{}}N_\alpha N_\beta G_N(𝐑_\alpha 𝐑_\beta )+{\displaystyle \underset{(\alpha ,\beta )}{}}M_\alpha M_\beta G_M(𝐑_\alpha 𝐑_\beta )+{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ,\beta }{}}M_\alpha N_\beta i\mathrm{\Gamma }_N(𝐑_\alpha 𝐑_\beta )+{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}N_\alpha ^2\mathrm{\Delta }_N+{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}M_\alpha ^2\mathrm{\Delta }_M`$
where $`(\alpha ,\beta )`$ denotes a sum over pairs and $`\alpha ,\beta `$ denotes an unrestricted sum over both $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$. At this point we make the simplifying assumption that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_N`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_M`$ are very large, so we may restrict to $`N_\alpha ,M_\alpha =\pm 1`$. Introducing the fugacities $`y_N=e^{\mathrm{\Delta }_N}`$ and $`y_M=e^{\mathrm{\Delta }_M}`$, we can write the partition function as a sum over $`j`$ N-dipoles and $`k`$ M-dipoles:

$`Z`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}y_N^{2j}y_M^{2k}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{j!^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{k!^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2𝐱_1}{r_c^2}\mathrm{}\frac{d^2𝐱_{2j}}{r_c^2}\frac{d^2𝐳_1}{r_c^2}\mathrm{}\frac{d^2𝐳_{2k}}{r_c^2}e^{\stackrel{~}{S}}}`$ (51)
$`\stackrel{~}{S}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{(\alpha ,\beta )}{}}N_\alpha N_\beta G_N(𝐱_\alpha 𝐱_\beta )+{\displaystyle \underset{(\alpha ,\beta )}{}}M_\alpha M_\beta G_M(𝐳_\alpha 𝐳_\beta )+{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ,\beta }{}}M_\alpha N_\beta i\mathrm{\Gamma }_N(𝐳_\alpha 𝐱_\beta )`$ (52)
The first step in the real-space renormalization procedure is to integrate over dipoles of size $`r_c+dr_c`$. Because $`y_N,y_M1`$ we need only consider configurations with one dipole of either type. Furthermore, mixed M-N dipoles are not integrated out because doing so would violate overall charge neutrality for each species. This means that the M and N charges are configured freely with respect to each other. Writing out these single dipole contributions, the partition function gains an extra factor:

$`e^{\stackrel{~}{s}}`$ $``$ $`e^{\stackrel{~}{s}}\times \left\{1+{\displaystyle \frac{d^2𝐑_N}{r_c^2}_{r_c}^{r_c+dr_c}\frac{d^2𝐫_N}{r_c^2}y_N^2e^{S_N^{}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{d^2𝐑_M}{r_c^2}_{r_c}^{r_c+dr_c}\frac{d^2𝐫_M}{r_c^2}y_M^2e^{S_M^{}}}+𝒪(y^4)\right\}`$ (53)
$`S_N^{}`$ $`=`$ $`G_N(𝐫_N)+{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{\overset{2k}{}}}N_\alpha \left(G_N(𝐑_N+{\displaystyle \frac{𝐫_N}{2}}𝐱_\alpha )G_N(𝐑_N{\displaystyle \frac{𝐫_N}{2}}𝐱_\alpha )\right)+`$ (54)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{\overset{2j}{}}}M_\alpha \left(i\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝐑_N+{\displaystyle \frac{𝐫_N}{2}}𝐳_\alpha )i\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝐑_N{\displaystyle \frac{𝐫_N}{2}}𝐳_\alpha )\right)`$
$`S_M^{}`$ $`=`$ $`G_M(𝐫_M)+{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{\overset{2j}{}}}M_\alpha \left(G_M(𝐑_M+{\displaystyle \frac{𝐫_M}{2}}𝐳_\alpha )G_M(𝐑_M{\displaystyle \frac{𝐫_M}{2}}𝐳_\alpha )\right)+`$ (55)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{\overset{2k}{}}}N_\alpha \left(i\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝐑_M+{\displaystyle \frac{𝐫_M}{2}}𝐱_\alpha )i\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝐑_N{\displaystyle \frac{𝐫_N}{2}}𝐱_\alpha )\right)`$
where $`𝐑`$ signifies the center and $`𝐫`$ the separation of the dipole being integrated out. To obtain the above, we have used the fact that the combinatorial factor for $`j+1`$ pairs of charges, one of which is a dipole (i.e. $`\frac{j+1)^2}{(j+1)!^2}`$), is equal to the combinatorial factor of j pairs of charges(i.e. $`\frac{1}{j!^2}`$).

To proceed, rewrite equations 54 and 55 using identities like $`\left(G_N(𝐑_N+\frac{𝐫_N}{2}𝐱_\alpha )G_N(𝐑_N\frac{𝐫_N}{2}𝐱_\alpha )\right)=𝐫_N_{𝐑_N}G_N(𝐑_N𝐱_\alpha )`$. In Eq. (53), these expressions enter into exponentials, which we expand. The linear terms in this expansion produce nothing interesting. To see this, note that there are two types of these terms: those with a gradient, and those without. The linear terms involving the gradient do not contribute since their integral with respect to $`𝐫`$ is zero. The linear terms involving no gradient ($`G_N(𝐫_N)`$ and $`G_M(𝐫_M)`$) integrate to constants independent of $`j`$, $`k`$, and the $`N_\alpha `$, $`M_\alpha `$, so they merely produce an overall constant multiplying the partition function.

Since the linear terms in the expansion of the exponentials of Eq. (53) are uninteresting, we look at the second order terms. There are three types of terms here: those involving no gradients (e.g. $`G_NG_N`$); those involving one gradient (e.g. $`G_N𝐫G_N`$); and those involving two gradients (e.g. $`𝐫G_N𝐫G_N`$). The first type of term, with no gradients, integrates to a constant independent of $`j`$, $`k`$, and the $`N_\alpha `$, $`M_\alpha `$, so we ignore it.

The second type of term, with only one gradient, integrates to zero. For example, one such expression is $`_\alpha N_\alpha G(𝐫_N)𝐫_N_{𝐑_N}G_N(𝐑_N𝐱_\alpha )`$. However, in each term of the sum we can change integration variables to $`𝐑_N^{}=𝐑_N𝐱_\alpha `$, producing $`_\alpha N_\alpha G(𝐫_N)𝐫_N_{𝐑_N^{}}G_N(𝐑_N^{})`$. Charge neutrality then makes the sum over $`N_\alpha `$ zero.

The third type of term, with two gradients, does contribute to renormalization. A typical term of this type is (using the fourier expansion of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$)

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2!}}{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{d^2𝐑_N}{r_c^2}}{\displaystyle _{r_c}^{r_c+dr_c}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2𝐫_N}{r_c^2}}y_N^2{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ,\beta }{}}M_\alpha M_\beta 𝐫_N_{𝐑_N}\left[i{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{d^2𝐤}{(2\pi )^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{k^2}}\left({\displaystyle }c_ne^{in\theta }\right)e^{i𝐤(𝐳_\alpha 𝐑_N)}\right]\times `$
$`𝐫_N_{𝐑_N}\left[i{\displaystyle \frac{d^2𝐤}{(2\pi )^2}\frac{1}{k^2}\left(c_me^{im\theta }\right)e^{i𝐤(𝐳_\beta 𝐑_N)}}\right]`$
Using $`𝐫_Nr_c(\mathrm{cos}\varphi ,\mathrm{sin}\varphi )`$ we can integrate over $`𝐫_N`$ to obtain

$$\frac{1}{2!}\frac{2\pi }{2}\frac{r_c^3dr_c}{r_c^2}y_N^2\frac{d^2𝐑_N}{r_c^2}\underset{\alpha ,\beta }{}M_\alpha M_\beta \frac{d^2𝐤^{}}{(2\pi )^2}\frac{d^2𝐤}{(2\pi )^2}(i𝐤)(i𝐤^{})\frac{1}{k^2k^2}\underset{n,m}{}c_nc_me^{in\theta +im\theta ^{}}e^{i𝐤𝐳_\alpha +i𝐤^{}𝐳_\beta }e^{i(𝐤+𝐤^{})𝐑_N}$$

$$=\frac{\pi }{2!}\frac{dr_c}{r_c}y_N^2\underset{\alpha ,\beta }{}M_\alpha M_\beta \frac{d^2𝐤}{(2\pi )^2}\frac{1}{k^2}e^{i𝐤(𝐳_\alpha 𝐳_\beta )}\underset{n,m}{}c_nc_me^{i(n+m)\theta }e^{im\pi }$$

$$=\frac{\pi }{2}\frac{dr_c}{r_c}y_N^2\underset{\alpha ,\beta }{}M_\alpha M_\beta \frac{d^2𝐤}{(2\pi )^2}\frac{1}{k^2}e^{i𝐤(𝐳_\alpha 𝐳_\beta )}\underset{n}{}\left(\underset{l,m}{}\delta _{n,l+m}c_lc_m(1)^{m+1}\right)e^{in\theta }$$

After many calculations like this and some algebra, we obtain a new partition function in the form of Eq. (51) again, except that the interaction functions have been redefined to $`G_N^{}`$, $`G_M^{}`$, and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$ via the new coefficients

$`a_n^{}`$ $`=`$ $`a_n\pi {\displaystyle \underset{k,m}{}}\delta _{n,k+m}(y_N^2a_ka_m+y_M^2(1)^{m+1}c_kc_m)dl`$
$`\alpha _n^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha _n\pi {\displaystyle \underset{k,m}{}}\delta _{n,k+m}(y_M^2\alpha _k\alpha _m+y_N^2(1)^{m+1}c_kc_m)dl`$
$`c_n^{}`$ $`=`$ $`c_n\pi {\displaystyle \underset{k,m}{}}\delta _{n,k+m}(y_N^2a_k+y_M^2\alpha _k)c_mdl.`$ (56)
Here $`dl=dr_c/r_c`$.

At this point it is useful to examine more closely the structure of the contributions to the interaction functions and understand what sorts of interactions we are dealing with. To this end we evaluate a typical term,

$$\frac{d^2𝐤}{(2\pi )^2}e^{in\theta }\frac{e^{i𝐤𝐫}}{k^2}$$

using $`𝐤𝐫=kr\mathrm{cos}\varphi `$ this becomes

$$\frac{1}{(2\pi )^2}_0^{2\pi }𝑑\theta _{\frac{1}{L}}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dk}{k}e^{ikr\mathrm{cos}(\theta \varphi )}e^{in\theta }$$
(57)
$$=\frac{i^ne^{in\varphi }}{2\pi }_{\frac{r}{l}}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dx}{x}J_n(x)$$
(58)
where we have introduced the Bessel function $`J_n`$. Due to the oscillatory nature of the Bessel function the integral is dominated by the infrared so we employ the asymptotic form $`J_n(x)\frac{1}{n!}(\frac{x}{2})^n`$ to obtain

$$\frac{(\pm i)^n}{2\pi n!}e^{in\varphi }\left\{\text{const}+_{\frac{r}{L}}^1𝑑x\frac{1}{x}\left(\frac{x}{2}\right)^{\left|n\right|}\right\}$$
(59)
where the negative sign refers to $`n<0`$. For the case $`n0`$, the infrared part converges and we are left with a function of the spatial angle $`\varphi `$ independent of $`r`$. For the case $`n=0`$ we obtain a logarithmic divergence in $`r`$. Using the cut-off $`r_c`$ the precise form for the $`n=0`$ contribution to the interaction functions is

$$\frac{d^2𝐤}{(2\pi )^2}\frac{e^{i𝐤𝐫}}{k^2}=\frac{1}{2\pi }\mathrm{ln}\left|\frac{r}{r_c}\right|$$
(60)
Thus in the interaction terms only the zero-mode fourier component has any mention of $`r_c`$. To complete the renormalization group program, we must write the partition function in a form containing only the renormalized core size $`r_c^{}=(1+dl)r_c`$. After we do this the partition function is (up to an overall constant)

$`Z`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}y_N^{2j}y_M^{2k}(1+dl)^{4k+4j}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{j!^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{k!^2}}{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{d^2𝐱_1}{r_c^2}}\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2𝐱_{2j}}{r_c^2}}{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{d^2𝐳_1}{r_c^2}}\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2𝐳_{2k}}{r_c^2}}\times `$
$`\mathrm{exp}(\stackrel{~}{S^{}})\times \mathrm{exp}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}a_0^{}\mathrm{ln}(1+dl){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha \beta }{}}N_\alpha N_\beta {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}\alpha _0^{}\mathrm{ln}(1+dl){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha \beta }{}}M_\alpha M_\beta {\displaystyle \frac{i}{\pi }}c_0^{}\mathrm{ln}(1+dl){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha \beta }{}}N_\alpha M_\beta \right\}`$
where $`\stackrel{~}{S^{}}`$ is the same as in equation 52, but with $`r_c`$, $`G_N`$, $`G_M`$, and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ replaced by $`r_c^{}`$, $`G_N^{}`$, $`G_M^{}`$, and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$, respectively. The second exponential is the correction from changing $`r_c`$ to $`r_c^{}`$ in the zero modes of the interactions.

Now, by charge neutrality $`N_\alpha =M_\alpha =0`$. Therefore $`_{\alpha ,\beta }M_\alpha N_\beta =0`$. Also $`_{\alpha \beta }N_\alpha N_\beta =\left(N_\alpha \right)^2N_\alpha ^2=2j`$ and similarly $`_{\alpha \beta }M_\alpha M_\beta =2k`$, so that the last exponential in equation LABEL:newZ becomes $`(1+dl)^{2j\frac{a_0^{}}{4\pi }}(1+dl)^{2k\frac{\alpha _0^{}}{4\pi }}`$. With these contributions the renormalization of $`y_N`$ and $`y_M`$ is

$`y_N^{}`$ $`=`$ $`y_N+y_N(2{\displaystyle \frac{a_0}{4\pi }})dl`$
$`y_M^{}`$ $`=`$ $`y_M+y_M(2{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _0}{4\pi }})dl`$ (62)
to lowest order in the $`y`$. At this point, the partition function is in the same form as in equation 51 except that $`r_c`$ has been replaced by $`r_c^{}`$, and the fourier coefficients and fugacities have changed according to equations 56 and 62. This completes the renormalization group program and gives us the the differential renormalization group flow equations 31 stated in the text.