text:
# Contents

## 1 Introduction

The AdS/CFT correspondence  (for reviews see ) relates a $`d`$-dimensional quantum field theory to a $`(d+1)`$-dimensional gravitational theory, the most notable example being $`𝒩=4`$, $`d=4`$ super-Yang-Mills theory and type IIB string theory on $`AdS_5\times S^5`$. Most of the checks and predictions of this duality have been at the level of classical supergravity. It is particularly difficult to carry out meaningful loop computations in AdS, corresponding to $`1/N`$ corrections in the gauge theory, simply because the supergravity theory is highly non-renormalizable, and the Ramond-Ramond fields make computations in the string genus expansion unwieldy at best. The aim of this note is to obtain a simple one-loop result in AdS that is finite in any dimension. The result is an expression for the difference of the vacuum energies that arises from changing boundary conditions on a tachyonic scalar field with mass in a particular range.

The inspiration for this computation came from Witten’s treatment  of multi-trace deformations of the gauge theory lagrangian and their dual descriptions in asymptotically anti-de Sitter space. Such a dual description was also discussed in ; however, our treatment will follow  more closely. Earlier work describing the same gauge theory deformations in terms of non-local terms in the string worldsheet action appeared in . To be definite, suppose one were to add to the gauge theory lagrangian a term $`\frac{f}{2}𝒪^2`$ where $`𝒪`$ is a single trace operator with dimension $`3/2`$, dual to a scalar field $`\varphi `$ whose mass satisfies $`m^2L^2=15/4`$.111Such a situation could arise in the theory dual to D3-branes at the tip of a conifold , where there are indeed dimension $`3/2`$ color singlet operators. The coefficient $`f`$ has dimensions of mass, so $`\frac{f}{2}𝒪^2`$ is a relevant deformation, and there is a renormalization group (RG) flow starting from a UV fixed point where $`f=0`$. The endpoint of this flow is, plausibly, an IR fixed point whose correlators are related to those of the original $`f=0`$ theory, in the large $`N`$ limit, by a Legendre transformation in a manner explained in .222We will discuss further in section 2 the reasoning behind the claim that the flow ends at an IR fixed point, as well as some caveats. In particular, the scalar that was for $`f=0`$ related to the operator $`𝒪`$ of dimension $`3/2`$, is at the IR fixed point related to an operator $`\stackrel{~}{𝒪}`$ of dimension $`5/2`$.

How is all this reflected in AdS? According to , the addition of $`\frac{f}{2}𝒪^2`$ amounts to specifying particular linear boundary conditions on the scalar $`\varphi `$ at the boundary of AdS. At the classical level, these boundary conditions are consistent with the original $`AdS_5`$ solution with $`\varphi =0`$. Superficially, this looks like a puzzle, since we were expecting an RG flow. In fact, conformal invariance is violated by the $`𝒪^2`$ deformation, but at leading order in $`N`$ its effects are restricted to certain correlators that we will describe in section 2. The crux of the matter is that it is impossible to satisfy the boundary conditions on $`\varphi `$ with a $`SO(4,2)`$-invariant bulk-to-bulk propagator, except when $`f=0`$ or $`\mathrm{}`$. This gives rise to one loop effects that cause deviations from $`AdS_5`$.

Although we will not obtain the full one-loop corrected solution corresponding to an RG flow due to the $`\frac{f}{2}𝒪^2`$ deformation, we will consider its endpoints and perform a one-loop supergravity check of the c-theorem. This “theorem,” conjectured in four dimensions by Cardy  as a generalization of Zamolodchikov’s celebrated two-dimensional c-theorem , has been shown to follow from AdS/CFT at the level of classical supergravity provided the null energy condition holds  (see also  for earlier work in this direction). The magnitude of the vacuum energy of $`AdS_5`$, measured in five-dimensional Planck units, is proportional to an appropriate central charge raised to the $`2/3`$ power. So the vacuum energy should be more negative in the infrared than in the ultraviolet, and at the classical level, that is what is shown in  (actually, the arguments on the AdS are dimension-independent, though it is not entirely how to translate the “holographic” central charge into field theory language in the case of odd-dimensional CFT’s). At the quantum level, the arguments of  have no force because it’s not clear that the null energy condition is valid or even relevant. So an explicit loop calculation is appropriate. All that is needed is the one-loop contribution of the scalar $`\varphi `$ to the vacuum energy. This quantity is divergent, but the difference between imposing the two simple boundary conditions (described above as $`f0`$ and $`f\mathrm{}`$) gives a finite result. The contributions of all other fields can be ignored because they do not change at the one loop level as one changes the boundary conditions on $`\varphi `$. Also, because we only desire a one-loop vacuum amplitude, we may entirely ignore interactions of the scalar with other fields, and work simply with the free action

$$S=d^5z\sqrt{g}\left(\frac{1}{2}(\varphi )^2\frac{1}{2}m^2\varphi ^2\right),$$
(1)
where we work in mostly plus signature, so that the metric of $`AdS_5`$ on the Poincaré patch is

$$ds^2=\frac{L^2}{z^2}\left(dt^2+d\stackrel{}{x}^2+dz^2\right).$$
(2)
For definiteness, our discussion has focused on $`AdS_5`$ and a scalar with a particular mass; however, the results we will obtain can be presented with considerable generality for $`AdS_{d+1}`$, as we will describe. For odd $`d`$, the formulas for the vacuum energy are much more complicated, and for the sake of efficiency we check the sign via numerics.

The organization of the paper is as follows. In section 2 we briefly review the prescription of  for treating multi-trace operators, and we demonstrate that general boundary conditions are incompatible with $`SO(4,2)`$-invariance of the scalar propagator. In section 3 we compute the finite change in the one-loop vacuum energy discussed above, and make some remarks on the interpolating geometry connecting the two anti-de Sitter endpoints. We conclude in section 4 by extracting the prediction for the central charge, and observing that the c-theorem is obeyed.

## 2 Multi-trace operators and scalar propagators

The proposal of  is a natural generalization of the original prescription for computing correlators , and it should in principle be derivable from it: see  for a more precise discussion. Suppose one starts with the complete set $`𝒪_a`$ of independent, local, color-singlet, normalized, single-trace operators: for $`𝒩=4`$ super-Yang-Mills theory these would include, for example, $`\frac{1}{N}trX_1X_2`$ and $`\frac{1}{N}trF_{\mu \nu }_\rho \lambda _1`$. The action can be written as $`I=N^2W(𝒪_a)`$ for some functional $`W`$, which for $`𝒩=4`$ super-Yang-Mills would be the integral of a linear function of those $`𝒪_a`$ which are Lorentz scalars. The general belief is that the $`𝒪_a`$ can be put into one-to-one correspondence with the quantum states of type IIB string theory in $`AdS_5`$.333There is considerable subtlety in this claim. It has been demonstrated that the Kaluza-Klein tower of supergravity modes in $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ is in correspondence with the chiral primaries of $`𝒩=4`$ super-Yang-Mills and their descendants; and the duals of certain non-perturbative states have been found, such as dibaryons (see for example  and giant gravitons . Evidence is growing that the operator-state map extends faithfully to excited string states (see for example ). Since the states in question can sometimes be extended across most of $`AdS_5`$ (as in ), it is not entirely clear that a second quantized treatment in terms of local fields is appropriate; but this is scarcely relevant to the situation at hand, since extended states are very massive, and we’re interested only in tachyons. Restricting ourselves to scalars in $`AdS_5`$, we have the standard relation $`\mathrm{\Delta }_a(\mathrm{\Delta }_ad)=m_a^2L^2`$ relating the dimension of $`𝒪_a`$ to the mass of the field $`\varphi _a`$. Writing the metric for the Poincaré patch of $`AdS_5`$ as

$$ds^2=\frac{L^2}{r^2}\left(dt^2+\underset{i=0}{\overset{d2}{}}dx_i^2+dr^2\right),$$
(3)
we have boundary asymptotics for $`\varphi _a`$ as follows:

$$\varphi _a\alpha _a(x)r^{d\mathrm{\Delta }_a}+\beta _a(x)r^{\mathrm{\Delta }_a}\text{for }r0\text{.}$$
(4)
The prescription of  is to replace $`W(𝒪_a)`$ by $`W(\beta _a)`$ and impose the following boundary conditions:

$$\alpha _a(x)=\frac{\delta W}{\delta \beta _a(x)}.$$
(5)
The partition function of the gravitational theory in AdS, subject to the boundary conditions (5), is then supposed to equal the partition function of the gauge theory.

The simplest non-trivial example is double trace operators: most simply, $`𝒪^2`$ where the scalar operator $`𝒪`$ has dimension $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ between $`\frac{d}{2}1`$ and $`d/2`$. Precisely in this range, unitarity bounds are satisfied, and both power law behaviors in (4) are normalizable. Then $`W`$ includes a term $`\frac{f}{2}d^dx𝒪^2`$. This brings us back to the discussion initiated in the introduction: nonzero $`f`$ plausibly drives the field theory from a UV fixed point where the boundary conditions are $`\alpha =0`$ to an IR fixed point where the boundary conditions are $`\beta =0`$. Since these two fixed points will be the focus of section 3, let us introduce an additional convenient notation: $`\mathrm{\Delta }_+`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{}`$ are the two solutions to $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{\Delta }d)=m^2L^2`$, with $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{}`$ being the lesser of the two (and thus in the aforementioned range, from $`\frac{d}{2}1`$ to $`d/2`$). Clearly $`\mathrm{\Delta }_+=d\mathrm{\Delta }_{}`$.

When $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{}<d/2`$, the addition of a trace-squared operator $`𝒪^2`$, where $`𝒪`$ has dimension $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\mathrm{\Delta }_{}`$, is a relevant deformation, so conformal invariance must be broken in the gauge theory. The results of  for $`d=4`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{}=2`$ suggests that even when $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{}=d/2`$ there is a logarithmic RG flow. The simplest indication of the breaking of conformal invariance in supergravity is that the bulk-to-bulk propagator for the scalar $`\varphi `$ dual to $`𝒪`$ cannot be $`SO(4,2)`$-invariant. We will now demonstrate this claim.

The propagator in question can be defined as

$$iG(z,z^{})=0|T\{\varphi (z)\varphi (z^{})\}|0,$$
(6)
and it satisfies the equation of motion

$$(\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }m^2)G(z,z^{})=\delta ^{d+1}(zz^{}),$$
(7)
where $`\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }=g^{\mu \nu }_\mu _\nu `$, and the delta function includes a $`1/\sqrt{g}`$ in its definition, so that

$$d^{d+1}z\sqrt{g}f(z)\delta (zz^{})=f(z^{})$$
(8)
for any continuous function $`f(z)`$. If the propagator is to respect $`SO(4,2)`$ invariance, it must be a function only of the geodesic distance $`\sigma (z,z^{})`$, which is known to be

$$\sigma (z,z^{})=L\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{1+\sqrt{1\zeta ^2}}{\zeta }\right)\text{where}\zeta =\frac{2rr^{}}{r^2+r^2(tt^{})^2+(\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{x}^{})^2},$$
(9)
where $`L`$ is the radius of AdS. The only solutions to (8) which are functions only of $`\zeta `$ are $`G(z,z^{})=pG_\mathrm{\Delta }_{}+(1p)G_{\mathrm{\Delta }_+}`$ where for any $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ (cf. ),444The expression for $`G(z,z^{})`$ above differs by a sign from that in  because the latter define the Green’s function as $`iG(z,z^{})=0|\mathrm{T}\varphi (z)\varphi (z^{})|0`$.

$$iG_\mathrm{\Delta }=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{\Delta })}{2^\mathrm{\Delta }\pi ^{d/2}L^{d1}(2\mathrm{\Delta }d)\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{\Delta }\frac{d}{2})}\zeta ^\mathrm{\Delta }F(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{2},\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }+1}{2};\mathrm{\Delta }\frac{d}{2}+1;\zeta ^2).$$
(10)
By keeping $`z^{}`$ fixed while $`z`$ approaches the boundary of AdS, it is straightforward to verify that for no choice of $`p(0,1)`$ and $`f(0,\mathrm{})`$ does the propagator $`G(z,z^{})=pG_\mathrm{\Delta }_{}+(1p)G_{\mathrm{\Delta }_+}`$ satisfy the boundary conditions (5), which in our case amount to $`\alpha =f\beta `$. For $`p=0`$ and $`f=0`$ the boundary conditions are satisfied with $`SO(4,2)`$ invariance preserved, corresponding to a fixed point of RG where $`\varphi `$ is dual to an operator $`𝒪`$ with dimension $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{}`$. Let us call this the $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{}`$ theory. And for $`p=1`$ and $`f=\mathrm{}`$ (formally speaking), again the boundary conditions are satisfied with $`SO(4,2)`$ invariance, and now $`\varphi `$ corresponds to an operator $`\stackrel{~}{𝒪}`$ with dimension $`\mathrm{\Delta }_+`$: this we will call the $`\mathrm{\Delta }_+`$ theory.

It was already remarked in  that a renormalization group flow should interpolate between the $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{}`$ theory in the UV and the $`\mathrm{\Delta }_+`$ theory in the IR. This is in fact a somewhat subtle claim: why should we think that the RG flow initiated by adding $`\frac{f}{2}𝒪^2`$ ends up at a non-trivial IR fixed point? We can argue as follows:555SSG thanks E. Silverstein for a discussion in which the following line of reasoning arose. the Legendre transformation prescription of  guarantees that the IR fixed point exists, at least in the large $`N`$ limit. The existence of a fixed point of RG is a generic phenomenon, so $`1/N`$ corrections should not spoil the claim, nor should they greatly alter the location of the fixed point in the space of possible couplings. Since a naive scaling argument (just looking at the dimension of $`f`$) tells us that the RG flow should end up at the desired IR fixed point if we ignore all $`1/N`$ corrections, it should be that some RG flow exists close to the approximately one we naively identified, ending at the non-trivial IR fixed point. A significant caveat to this reasoning is that AdS/CFT examples often (in fact, nearly always in the literature so far) have exactly marginal deformations. A line of fixed points of RG is not a generic phenomenon, and $`1/N`$ effects in the absence of supersymmetry generically could destroy such a line. Only one point could be left after $`1/N`$ effects are included; or, worse yet, only a point infinitely far out in coupling space could be left. Translated into supergravity terms, these remarks mean that the one-loop contribution to the potential could source the dilaton or other moduli, possibly leaving no extrema at finite values of the fields. If there are no such moduli in the first place (as perhaps one would expect for a truly generic non-supersymmetric quantum field theory with an AdS dual), then this caveat is not a problem. In practice, however, it is likely to interfere with constructing explicit string theory examples of the RG flow discussed in this paper. For the remainder of our discussion, we will ignore the caveat.

Since the renormalization group flow is non-trivial, it is natural to expect that the supergravity geometry deviates from AdS. The surprise is that this does not happen classically. Roughly, this can be understood in field theory terms as a reflection of the fact that $`n`$-point functions involving only the stress energy tensor do not receive corrections at leading order in $`N`$.666Correlation functions which do receive corrections at leading order in $`N`$ when $`\frac{f}{2}𝒪^2`$ is added to the lagrangian are precisely those which pick up contributions from factorized forms $`𝒪\mathrm{}𝒪\mathrm{}`$, where the dots indicate any arrangement of the operators involved in the original correlator. At subleading order in $`N`$, or at one-loop in supergravity, deviations from AdS must occur, simply because a one-loop diagram where the $`SO(4,2)`$-non-invariant scalar propagator closes upon itself must give rise to an effective potential that varies over spacetime. Entertainingly, there is no classical scalar field which is varying; rather, the variation in the potential arises on account of proximity to the boundary. This is in contrast to previously studied examples of RG flow in $`AdS_5`$ (for instance ) where the flow is described in terms of scalars in the five-dimensional supermultiplet of the graviton with non-trivial dependence on radius.

There should be a solution to the one-loop-corrected supergravity lagrangian interpolating between one asymptotically AdS region near the boundary, corresponding to the $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{}`$ UV fixed point, and a different one in the interior, corresponding to the $`\mathrm{\Delta }_+`$ IR fixed point. For instance, one could require that the symmetries of $`𝐑^{3,1}`$ be preserved in the solution, which must then have the form

$$ds^2=e^{2A(r)}(dt^2+d\stackrel{}{x}^2)+dr^2,$$
(11)
where $`A(r)r/L_{}`$ as $`r\pm \mathrm{}`$. (Another choice would be to require the symmetries of $`𝐒^3\times 𝐑`$, which should lead to a solution with the conformal structure of global AdS). We will not find the full interpolating solution, but we will explore some properties of its AdS endpoints. We will be particularly interested in the central charge of the CFT’s dual to the two endpoints. To the leading non-trivial order, these may be computed as a one-loop saddle-point approximation to the supergravity “path integral” (supposing that such an object exists), but without deforming the AdS background itself.

## 3 One loop vacuum energy for the tachyon field

The full classical action that we wish to consider is

$$S=\frac{1}{2\kappa ^2}d^{d+1}z\sqrt{g}(R\mathrm{\Lambda }_0)+d^{d+1}z\sqrt{g}\left(\frac{1}{2}(\varphi )^2\frac{1}{2}m^2\varphi ^2\right).$$
(12)
Here $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$ is a negative constant. The scalar is subject to the boundary conditions

$$\varphi \alpha r^{d\mathrm{\Delta }}+\beta r^\mathrm{\Delta }\text{where}\alpha =f\beta .$$
(13)
As remarked previously, $`AdS_{d+1}`$ with $`\varphi =0`$ and $`1/L^2=\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}{d(d1)}`$ is a classical solution to the equations of motion from (13), but we expect that once one-loop effects are accounted for, this solution is corrected to an interpolation between $`AdS_{d+1}`$ spaces in the UR and IR with slightly different radii. The one-loop scalar bubble diagram corrects the gravitational lagrangian by an amount $`\delta `$, where

$$\sqrt{g}^1\delta =V=\frac{i}{2}tr\mathrm{log}(\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }+m^2).$$
(14)
Our main computation will be to evaluate this correction in the unperturbed background. In principle, one could go on to find the interpolating geometry perturbatively in the small parameter $`\kappa \mathrm{\Lambda }_0^{(d1)/2}`$. This would require separating $`\delta `$ into contributions to the cosmological term and two- and four-derivative expression in the metric—a much more involved computation than simply evaluating (14) in the unperturbed background. For brevity, we will use the notation $`V`$ in preference to $`\delta `$ for the scalar self-energy (14), despite the fact that in the full background-independent form involves derivative terms as well as finite non-local terms. $`V`$ is divergent, but we assume that the action (12) is part of well-defined theory of quantum gravity (presumably, a compactification of string theory or M-theory), so that all loop divergences are canceled in some physical way, leaving only finite renormalization effects. It may be that in the full theory, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$ is just the extremal value of a classical potential function of several scalars; if so, then we are operating on the understanding that the second derivative of this potential function with respect to $`\varphi `$ vanishes at $`\varphi =0`$ (that is, we’ve soaked up any such second derivative into what we call $`m^2`$ in (12)).

In general, it is difficult to compute one-loop corrections in an effective theory without knowing precisely how the full theory cancels divergences. Results obtained for a chiral anomaly in supergravity  for $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ can be used to show that the central charge is corrected at one loop in supergravity, leading to $`cN^21`$, as appropriate for $`SU(N)`$ super-Yang-Mills, rather than $`cN^2`$ (the leading order result). Thus in this case, the difficulties were overcome. Our situation is more generic, in that we do not depend on supersymmetry or a special spectrum of operators. What we are nevertheless able to do is to determine the finite difference between $`V`$ in the case where $`f=0`$ in (13) and the case where $`f=\mathrm{}`$. This we will then translate into a change in the central charge as one flows from the UV (the $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{}`$ theory) to the IR (the $`\mathrm{\Delta }_+`$ theory). What makes the computation clean is that at one loop, we do not have to worry about interactions of the scalar with other fields, and the only relevant diagram is the one where a single scalar propagator closes on itself, with no vertices.

### 3.1 Vacuum energy in limiting regions of AdS

The computation of the one-loop contribution to the vacuum energy by a scalar in curved space, like in flat space, amounts to summing the logarithm of the eigenvalues of the Klein-Gordon operator. A more easily computable expression is obtained by expressing the result in terms of an integral of the Green’s function with respect to some parameter such as proper time or mass.777For a different method of computing the effective potential based on the technique of Zeta-function regularization see . All of this is quite standard, so we just write down the result, referring the reader to  pp. 156-158 for a derivation: if the propagator $`G(z,z^{};m^2,f)`$ is defined by

$$(\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }_zm^2)G(z,z^{};m^2,f)=\delta ^{d+1}(zz^{}),$$
(15)
(with the delta-function including a $`\sqrt{g}`$ factor as in (8)) together with boundary conditions (13), as discussed in section 2, then formally,

$$V(z;m^2,f)=\frac{i}{2}\underset{zz^{}}{lim}_{m^2}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\stackrel{~}{m}^2G(z,z^{};\stackrel{~}{m}^2,f),$$
(16)
and for the cases $`f=0,\mathrm{}`$, the fact that we can make the scalar propagator $`SO(4,2)`$ invariant means that $`V`$ will be independent of the position $`z`$.888Actually, we have tucked an additional complication into our notation: $`V`$ is, more properly, minus the one-loop correction to the full gravitational lagrangian, and as such includes not just a scalar piece, but also terms depending on curvatures. For the central charge computation, as we shall explain, the relevant quantity is the sum of all these terms evaluated on AdS. The formula (16) is problematic because for large masses, $`G(z,z^{},\stackrel{~}{m}^2,0)`$ diverges at the boundary of AdS. This is unusual: the typical situation for quantum field theory in curved spacetime is that quantities become well-defined in the limit where masses are much larger that the inverse radius of curvature. Thus, instead of using (16), a well-defined procedure is to integrate down to the Breitenlohner-Freedman bound which is the smallest mass possible with normalizable modes in AdS. Thus we obtain

$$V(z;m^2,f)=V(z;m_{BF}^2,f)+\frac{i}{2}\underset{zz^{}}{lim}_{m_{BF}^2}^{m^2}𝑑\stackrel{~}{m}^2G(z,z^{};\stackrel{~}{m}^2,f),$$
(17)
where $`m_{BF}^2L^2=d^2/4`$ is the Breitenlohner-Freedman bound. (For a derivation see the Appendix). It is possible to argue that $`V(z;m_{BF}^2,f)`$ is the same for $`f=0`$ and $`f=\mathrm{}`$. Indeed, the eigenmodes for a tachyon of mass $`m^2`$ with boundary conditions specified by $`f=0`$ is given by $`\omega =\mathrm{\Delta }_{}+\mathrm{}+2n`$ and that specified by $`f=\mathrm{}`$ is given by $`\omega =\mathrm{\Delta }_++\mathrm{}+2n`$ , where $`\mathrm{}`$ is the orbital angular momentum quantum number and $`n`$ is the radial quantum number. But for a scalar with mass saturating the BF bound, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_+=\mathrm{\Delta }_{}=\frac{d}{2}`$. So from a viewpoint of canonical quantization it seems inevitable that $`V(z;m_{BF}^2,0)V(z;m_{BF}^2,\mathrm{})=0`$. We can argue further that for general $`f`$ the eigenfunctions would be a linear combination of those with $`f=0`$ and $`f=\mathrm{}`$. That would again imply that for $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\frac{d}{2}`$, the eigenvalues are unchanged. So we conclude that the $`V(z;m_{BF}^2,f)V(z;m_{BF}^2,0)=0`$ for all values of $`f`$.

Thus we are led to the formula that we will really use for computation:

$$V_+V_{}=\frac{i}{2}_{m_{BF}^2}^{m^2}𝑑\stackrel{~}{m}^2\left[G_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_+}(z,z)G_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{}}(z,z)\right]+V(z;m_{BF}^2,\mathrm{})V(z;m_{BF}^2,0),$$
(18)
where $`V_+=V(z,m^2,\mathrm{})`$ and $`V_{}=V(z,m^2,0)`$. We have used the fact that $`G_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_+}(z,z^{})`$, as defined in (10), is precisely $`G(z,z^{};\stackrel{~}{m}^2,\mathrm{})`$, while $`G_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{}}(z,z^{})=G(z,z,^{};\stackrel{~}{m}^2,0)`$. In light of the argument of the previous paragraph, the terms outside the integral cancel. The advantage of (18) is that $`G_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_+}(z,z)G_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{}}(z,z)`$ is finite, so that the final answer is also manifestly finite. We have confidence that no other finite renormalization effects can slip in to the calculation, because the only thing that changes between the $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_+`$ vacua is the boundary condition on $`\varphi `$.

As a warm-up let us first carry out the computation for $`AdS_5`$. To get the value of $`G_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_+}(z,z)G_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{}}(z,z)`$ for coincident points one has to first express the Green’s functions in terms of the geodesic distance $`\sigma `$. From (9) we see that in terms of the variable $`\zeta `$ the geodesic separation is given by $`\mathrm{cosh}(\frac{\sigma }{L})=\frac{1}{\zeta }`$ so we rewrite the propagator (10) in terms of $`\sigma `$ and then expand $`i\left[G_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_+}(z,z)G_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{}}(z,z)\right]`$ in a power series in powers of $`\frac{\sigma }{L}`$. The answer is finite and in the limit $`\frac{\sigma }{L}0`$, for $`AdS_5`$ we obtain the simple expression:

$$i\left[G_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_+}(z,z)G_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{}}(z,z)\right]=i\left[G_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}(z,z)G_{4\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}(z,z)\right]=\frac{(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}1)(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}2)(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}3)}{12\pi ^2L^3}.$$
(19)
The difference in the vacuum energies using (18) is therefore

| $`V_+V_{}`$ | $`={\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}{\displaystyle _{m_{\mathrm{BF}}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}^{m_0^2}}𝑑\stackrel{~}{m}^2\left[G_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_+}(z,z)G_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{}}(z,z)\right]`$ |
| --- | --- |
|  | $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _2^\mathrm{\Delta }_{}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}{L^2}}\left[2(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}2){\displaystyle \frac{(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}1)(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}2)(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}3)}{12\pi ^2L^3}}\right]`$ |
|  | $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{12\pi ^2L^5}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{\Delta }_{}2}}𝑑\stackrel{~}{\nu }\left[\stackrel{~}{\nu }^2(\stackrel{~}{\nu }^21)\right]={\displaystyle \frac{1}{12\pi ^2L^5}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{(\mathrm{\Delta }_{}2)^3}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{(\mathrm{\Delta }_{}2)^5}{5}}\right],`$ |

(20)
where in the second line we have used $`\stackrel{~}{m}^2L^2=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}4)`$ and the fact that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{BF}=\frac{d}{2}=2`$. Since $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{}<2`$ we find that $`V_+V_{}<0`$, and therefore $`c_{}>c_+`$ in agreement with the field theory prediction.

It is straightforward to generalize this for any odd-dimensional anti de-Sitter spacetime because for $`d`$ even, the difference $`i[G_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_+}(z,z)G_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{}}(z,z)]`$ is quite simple in form. Before writing this down, for convenience, let us define $`d2k`$ so that the spacetime is $`AdS_{2k+1}`$. In terms of $`k`$, $`i\left[G_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_+}(z,z)G_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{}}(z,z)\right]`$ is:

$$i\left[G_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_+}(z,z)G_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{}}(z,z)\right]=i\left[G_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}(z,z)G_{d\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}(z,z)\right]=\frac{(1)^k}{n_k\pi ^kL^{d1}}\underset{i=1}{\overset{2k1}{}}(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}i),$$
(21)
where $`n_k=2^k(2k1)!!`$.

The difference in the vacuum energies is therefore

| $`V_+V_{}`$ | $`={\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}{\displaystyle _{m_{\mathrm{BF}}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}^{m_0^2}}𝑑\stackrel{~}{m}^2\left[G_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_+}(z,z)G_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{}}(z,z)\right]`$ |
| --- | --- |
|  | $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Delta }_{}^k}{\displaystyle \frac{d\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}{L^2}}\left[2(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}k){\displaystyle \frac{(1)^k}{n_k\pi ^kL^{d1}}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{2k1}{}}}(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}i)\right],`$ |

(22)
where in the second line we have used $`\stackrel{~}{m}^2L^2=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}d)`$ and the fact that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{BF}=\frac{d}{2}=k`$. Shifting the variable of integration by introducing a new variable $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{}k`$, the integrand can be written down in a terms of the Pochhammer symbol $`(a)_n=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(a+n)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(n)}`$:

$$2(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}k)\frac{(1)^k}{n_k\pi ^kL^{d+1}}\underset{i=1}{\overset{2k1}{}}(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}i)=\frac{(1)^k}{n_k\pi ^kL^{d+1}}\underset{i=0}{\overset{k1}{}}\left(\stackrel{~}{\nu }^2i^2\right)=\frac{1}{n_k\pi ^kL^{d+1}}(\stackrel{~}{\nu })_k(\stackrel{~}{\nu })_k.$$
(23)
The factor $`(1)^k`$ was nullified by an extra factor of $`(1)^k`$ from the product. Assembling all of this, we finally have

$$V_+V_{}=\frac{1}{2n_k\pi ^kL^{d+1}}_\nu ^0𝑑\stackrel{~}{\nu }\left[(\stackrel{~}{\nu })_k(\stackrel{~}{\nu })_k\right],$$
(24)
where we recall that $`n_k=2^k(2k1)!!`$. The lower limit of integration $`\nu `$ depends on the value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{}`$. Since $`k\mathrm{\Delta }_{}k1`$, the range of $`\nu `$ is $`1\nu 0`$. The function $`(\nu )_k(\nu )_k<0`$ for all $`k`$ and $`1\nu 0`$. So for any odd-dimension anti de-Sitter spacetimes we have shown that $`V_+V_{}<0`$.

For even dimensional spacetimes, an analytic proof seems cumbersome, so we resorted to numerics. As an explicit example, figure 1

shows a plot of $`i(G_{d\mathrm{\Delta }}G_\mathrm{\Delta })`$ as a function of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ for several even-dimensional anti-de Sitter spacetimes. In each dimension, we’ve plotted the integrand of (18) for $`d/21<\mathrm{\Delta }<d/2`$. Since the integrand is always negative on this range, we conclude that $`V_+<V_{}`$ in accordance with the c-theorem intuition. This is also true for $`d=3`$, and we believe it is true generally.

### 3.2 Vacuum energy throughout AdS

The results of the previous section were stated in terms of $`V_+V_{}=V(z;m^2,\mathrm{})V(z;m^2,0)`$ (both terms were in fact independent of the position $`z`$ in AdS). Here we would like to investigate $`V(z;m^2,f)`$ for finite $`f`$. This quantity diverges, but $`V(z;m^2,f)V_{}`$ is finite. We will be able to verify the formulas

$$\underset{z_00}{lim}\left[V(z;m^2,f)V_{}\right]=0,\underset{z_0\mathrm{}}{lim}\left[V(z;m^2,f)V_{}\right]=V_+V_{},$$
(25)
which we consider intuitively obvious since $`\frac{f}{2}𝒪^2`$ is a relevant operator in the CFT, and therefore unimportant in the UV but important in the IR.

As a first step, one needs the Green’s function for the scalar obeying mixed boundary conditions for all values of $`f`$ (not just the ones for $`f=0`$ and $`f=\mathrm{}`$ that we wrote down earlier). This would be needed to compute the vacuum energy contribution due to the bubble diagram. The one-loop corrected action would then induce corrections in the geometry which can be computed from the Einstein equations. Let us work in Euclidean $`AdS`$ to get the Green’s function $`G_E(x,y;f)`$ which we shall Wick rotate to obtain $`G(x,y;f)`$ in Minkowski signature. We shall follow the canonical method of obtaining Green’s functions. In Poincaré coordinates the scalar wave equation is

$$\left[x_0^2(\stackrel{}{}^2+_0^2)x_0(d1)_0m^2\right]\varphi (x_0,\stackrel{}{x})=0,$$
(26)
where from now on we shall denote the radial direction by $`x_0`$ or $`y_0`$ and $`\stackrel{}{x}`$ is a vector with components along the $`d`$ remaining directions. The two linearly independent solutions to this equation are: $`\varphi _1=x_0^2e^{i\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{x}}I_\nu (kx_0)`$ and $`\varphi _2=x_0^2e^{i\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{x}}I_\nu (kx_0)`$ where $`\nu =\sqrt{m^2L^2+\frac{d^2}{4}}`$. In the notation of our previous sections, the Green’s function obeys the equation

$$(\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }m^2)G_E(x,y;f)=\delta ^{d+1}(xy),$$
(27)
where we remind ourselves that the delta function includes a $`\frac{1}{\sqrt{g}}`$ in its definition. The right hand side is zero for $`x_0y_0`$, so we have

| $`G_E(x,y)`$ | $`=A_1\varphi _1(x)+A_2\varphi _2(x)\text{for}x_0<y_0`$ |
| --- | --- |
|  | $`=B_1\varphi _1(x)+B_2\varphi _2(x)\text{for}x_0>y_0.`$ |

(28)
The boundary behavior of the scalar we’re interested in is: $`\varphi (x_0,\stackrel{}{x})=f\beta (\stackrel{}{x})x_0^{\frac{d}{2}+\nu }+\beta (\stackrel{}{x})x_0^{\frac{d}{2}\nu }`$. We choose our $`\varphi _1`$ and $`\varphi _2`$ so that they have the right boundary behavior and also require that the Green’s function not diverge in the bulk (large values of the radial coordinate $`x_0`$) for two non-coincident points. One convenient choice of $`\varphi _1`$ and $`\varphi _2`$ is:

| $`\varphi _1`$ | $`=x_0^{\frac{d}{2}}e^{i\stackrel{}{k}.\stackrel{}{x}}\left(I_\nu (kx_0)+f({\displaystyle \frac{2}{k}})^{2n}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+\nu )}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1\nu )}}I_\nu (kx_0)\right)\text{and}\varphi _2=x_0^{\frac{d}{2}}e^{i\stackrel{}{k}.\stackrel{}{x}}K_\nu (kx_0),`$ |
| --- | --- |

(29)
so that $`\varphi _1`$ satisfies the boundary condition for small $`x_0`$ and $`\varphi _2`$ is finite in the bulk. From the asymptotics of Bessel functions, we see that $`\varphi _1`$ diverges as $`x_0\mathrm{}`$ and $`\varphi _2`$ diverges as $`x_00`$. This forces us to set $`A_2=B_1=0`$ in (28). The remaining two constants are determined by integrating (27) twice which gives us two conditions: (i) the Green’s function is continuous at $`x_0=y_0`$ , and (ii) its radial derivative has a jump discontinuity of $`\frac{1}{x_0^{d1}}`$ at $`x_0=y_0`$. This yields

| $`A_1`$ | $`={\displaystyle \frac{\varphi _2(y_0)}{𝒲[\varphi _1(y_0),\varphi _2(y_0)]}}B_2={\displaystyle \frac{\varphi _1(y_0)}{𝒲[\varphi _1(y_0),\varphi _2(y_0)]}},`$ |
| --- | --- |

(30)
where $`𝒲[\varphi _1(y_0),\varphi _2(y_0)]`$ is the Wronskian. For our choice of $`\varphi _1`$ and $`\varphi _2`$ the Wronskian is:

$$𝒲[\varphi _1(y_0),\varphi _2(y_0)]=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1\nu )+f(\frac{2}{k})^{2\nu }\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+\nu )}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1\nu )}\left(\frac{L}{y_0}\right)^{d1},$$
(31)
so combining (28), (30), and (31) we obtain the Green’s function:

$$G_E(x,y;f)=\frac{d\kappa _Ed^{d1}k}{(2\pi )^d}\frac{e^{i\stackrel{}{k}(\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{y})}(x_0y_0)^{\frac{d}{2}}K_\nu (ky_0)}{\left(1+(\frac{2}{k})^{2\nu }f\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+\nu )}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1\nu )}\right)L^{d1}}\left[I_\nu (kx_0)+f\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+\nu )}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1\nu )}(\frac{2}{k})^{2\nu }I_\nu (kx_0)\right]$$
(32)
for $`x_0<y_0`$ and a similar expression for $`x_0>y_0`$. In the above equation, $`\kappa _E`$ is the temporal component of momentum. Finally, we Wick rotate this component $`\kappa _E=ik`$ to get the Green’s function in Minkowski signature:

$$iG(x,y;f)=\frac{d^dk}{(2\pi )^d}\frac{e^{i\stackrel{}{k}(\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{y})}(x_0y_0)^{\frac{d}{2}}K_\nu (ky_0)}{\left(1+(\frac{2}{k})^{2\nu }f\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+\nu )}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1\nu )}\right)L^{d1}}\left[I_\nu (kx_0)+f\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+\nu )}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1\nu )}(\frac{2}{k})^{2\nu }I_\nu (kx_0)\right]$$
(33)
The integral for general values of $`f`$, $`d`$ and $`\nu `$ is hard. For $`f=0`$ and $`f=\mathrm{}`$ it can be evaluated and the result is an expression which is related to (10) by a quadratic hypergeometric transformation . A little bit more can be said about the radial dependence of the one-loop vacuum energy. This latter quantity depends on the Green’s function for coincident points $`G(x,x;f)`$. We saw before that this divergent quantity was best handled by subtracting out $`G(x,x;0)`$. The result is then finite:

$$i\left[G(x,x;f)G(x,x;0)\right]=\frac{1}{2^{d2}\pi ^{\frac{d}{2}}L^{d1}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\nu )\mathrm{\Gamma }(1\nu )\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{d}{2})}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\stackrel{~}{k}\stackrel{~}{k}^{d1}\frac{\stackrel{~}{f}}{\stackrel{~}{k}^{2\nu }+\stackrel{~}{f}}[K_\nu (\stackrel{~}{k})]^2,$$
(34)
where $`\stackrel{~}{f}=2^{2\nu }\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+\nu )}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1\nu )}fx_0^{2\nu }`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{k}=kx_0`$. Note that the excess vacuum energy depends on the radial coordinate $`x_0`$ in the particular combination $`fx_0^{2\nu }`$.

In order to make any further progress, one would need to first compute the momentum integral and then integrate over $`\nu `$ to obtain the vacuum energy. We argued earlier that $`V(x;m_{BF}^2,f)V(x;m_{BF}^2,0)=0`$ for all values of $`f`$, so using (18) and (34) we have:

| $`V(x;m^2,f)V(x;m^2,0)`$ | $`={\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}{\displaystyle _{m_{BF}^2}^{m_0^2}}𝑑\stackrel{~}{m}^2\left[G(x,x;f)G(x,x;0)\right]`$ |
| --- | --- |
|  | $`={\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}{\displaystyle _0^\nu }{\displaystyle \frac{d\stackrel{~}{\nu }^2}{L^2}}\left[G(x,x;f)G(x,x;0)\right]`$ |
|  | $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2^{d2}\pi ^{\frac{d}{2}}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{d}{2})L^{d+1}}}{\displaystyle _0^\nu }𝑑\stackrel{~}{\nu }{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{\nu }}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\stackrel{~}{\nu })\mathrm{\Gamma }(1\stackrel{~}{\nu })}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\stackrel{~}{k}{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{k}^{d1}\stackrel{~}{f}}{\stackrel{~}{k}+\stackrel{~}{f}}}\left[K_\nu (\stackrel{~}{k})\right]^2,`$ |

(35)
where we remind ourselves that $`\stackrel{~}{f}=2^{2\nu }\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+\nu )}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1\nu )}fx_0^{2\nu }`$. The double integral is difficult to perform explicitly. However, it is not hard to show from (35) that $`V(x;m^2,f)`$ decreases monotonically as $`f`$ increases from $`0`$ to $`\mathrm{}`$. To see this we note that the integrand depends on $`x_0`$ only through $`\stackrel{~}{f}`$ and since the integrand is a monotonic function of $`\stackrel{~}{f}`$, clearly $`V(x;m^2,f)`$ decreases monotonically with increasing $`f`$.

## 4 Conclusions

The upshot of section 3.1 was an evaluation of the change in the one-loop self-energy, $`V_+V_{}`$, between the IR and UV endpoints of a holographic RG flow. We would now like to convert this into a change in the central charge of the dual field theory.

In , the central charge was obtained by holographically computing the Weyl anomaly: on the field theory side,

$$\delta W[g_{\mu \nu }]=\frac{1}{2}d^4x\sqrt{g}\omega T_\mu ^\mu $$
(36)
upon a conformal variation $`g_{\mu \nu }e^{2\omega }g_{\mu \nu }`$, where $`W`$ is the generating functional for connected Green’s functions. At the one-loop level, the prescription of  asserts that $`W`$ is the classical supergravity action. The exact statement is that the partition functions of string theory and gauge theory coincide (subjected to boundary conditions and source terms in the usual way). In the calculation of , the supergravity action integral is evaluated with a radial cutoff, where the choice of radius amounts to a choice of metric within a conformal class. The supergravity lagrangian evaluates to a constant in AdS, and the central charge is proportional to this constant.999A priori, one might worry that boundary terms in the supergravity action also contribute to the central charge. That this does not happen depends on the circumstance, noted in , that the only log-divergent terms in the supergravity calculation arise from the integral of the bulk action. All that we need to do in order to correct the central charge computation at one loop is to ask by how much the one-loop-corrected lagrangian differs from the tree-level lagrangian, when evaluated in AdS. The tree level and one-loop lagrangians will stand in the same ratio as the leading large $`N`$ central charge and its $`1/N`$-corrected counterpart.

The tree level lagrangian is

$$\sqrt{g}^1_{\mathrm{tree}}=\frac{1}{\kappa _{d+1}^2}(R\mathrm{\Lambda }_0)=\frac{2d}{\kappa _{d+1}^2L^2}.$$
(37)
The calculation indicated by the discussion in the previous paragraph is

$$\frac{c_{\mathrm{corrected}}}{c_{\mathrm{tree}}}=\frac{_{\mathrm{tree}}+\delta }{_{\mathrm{tree}}},$$
(38)
where $`\delta =\sqrt{g}V`$ is the one-loop correction to the lagrangian that we computed in section 3. Because we are only able to compute $`V`$ up to an additive constant that is independent of boundary conditions, the only meaningful ratio that we can form is

$$\frac{c_+}{c_{}}=\frac{_{\mathrm{tree}}\sqrt{g}V_+}{_{\mathrm{tree}}\sqrt{g}V_{}}=1+\frac{V_{}V_+}{\sqrt{g}^1_{\mathrm{tree}}}.$$
(39)
so that

$$\frac{c_+c_{}}{c_{}}=(V_+V_{})\left(\frac{\kappa _{d+1}^2L^2}{2d}\right).$$
(40)
To check if $`c_{}`$ is indeed greater than $`c_+`$, all that we have to show is that $`V_+<V_{}`$. But that is exactly what we saw above.

As an example, in $`AdS_5`$, we obtain from (22) and (40) the result

$$\frac{c_+c_{}}{c_{}}=\frac{\kappa _5^2}{120\pi ^2L^3}\left[\frac{(\mathrm{\Delta }_{}2)^3}{3}\frac{(\mathrm{\Delta }_{}2)^5}{5}\right].$$
(41)
One can go further and translate the function $`V(z;m^2,f)V_{}`$ into a correction to the central charge whose scale dependence is monotonic. It is not clear how well-defined such a function can be on the supergravity side: because the bulk theory includes gravity, it has no local observables. Poetically, we would like to relate this to the fact that renormalization group effects in field theory are scheme-dependent—but it is difficult to make this precise.

It would be interesting to see how the construction discussed in this paper might be realized as part of a compactification of string theory to four dimensions, along the lines of . One of the most interesting questions in that context is one that we glossed over here: before considering the loop effects in supergravity, one generally expects a moduli space of vacua, and this statement probably translates into field theory terms as the existence of a line of fixed points. Mapping the lifting of moduli into field theory terms might at least gain us a restatement of the moduli problem in terms of the existence of isolated fixed points of the renormalization group.

## Acknowledgments

This work was supported in part by DOE grant DE-FG02-91ER40671. We thank E. Silverstein and E. Witten for useful discussions.

## Appendix

In this appendix we shall sketch the derivation of (17). Our starting point is the familiar field theory result that the one-loop effective potential is

$$V(z;m^2,f)=\frac{i}{2}\mathrm{tr}\mathrm{log}(\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }+m^2).$$
(42)
We shall denote the Klein-Gordon operator $`(\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }+m^2)`$ by $`\widehat{K}(m^2,f)`$ and as an operator, it is related to our definition of the Green’s function (15) by $`\widehat{G}(m^2,f)=[\widehat{K}(m^2,f)]^1`$. The representations of operators such as $`\widehat{G}(m^2,f)`$ in an orthonormal basis shall be denoted by the obvious notation: $`z|\widehat{G}(m^2,f)|z=G(z,z^{};m^2,f)`$. In terms of the Green’s function, the effective potential is then

$$V(z;m^2,f)=\frac{i}{2}\underset{z^{}z}{lim}\mathrm{log}[G(z,z^{};m^2,f)].$$
(43)
We shall use the Schwinger proper-time formalism to evaluate this. One needs two simple operator relations both of which follow from the relation between $`\widehat{G}(m^2,f)`$ and $`\widehat{K}(m^2,f)`$

| $`\widehat{G}(m^2,f)`$ | $`=i{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}e^{is\widehat{K}(m^2,f)}𝑑s`$ |
| --- | --- |
| $`\mathrm{log}[\widehat{G}(m^2,f)]`$ | $`={\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{is\widehat{K}(m^2,f)}}{is}}i𝑑s+\gamma ,`$ |

(44)
where $`\gamma `$ is the Euler’s constant. For the effective potential, we see from (43) that we need $`\mathrm{log}[\widehat{G}(m^2,f)]`$ which differs by a factor of $`is`$ from the integral representation of $`\widehat{G}(m^2,f)`$ above.

To proceed any further we need the DeWitt-Schwinger representation of the Green’s function (the reader is referred to  pg. 75 for a derivation)

$$G(z,z^{};m^2,f)=i\frac{\sqrt{M(z,z^{})}}{(4\pi is)^{\frac{d+1}{2}}}_0^{\mathrm{}}i𝑑se^{im^2s+\frac{\eta (z,z^{})}{2is}}F(z,z^{};is),$$
(45)
where $`\eta (z,z^{})`$ is one-half the proper distance between the points $`z`$ and $`z^{}`$, and $`M(z,z^{})=\mathrm{det}[_\mu _\nu \eta (z,z^{})]`$. For our purposes we shall just need to use the fact that the only place where the mass appears is in the exponent and integrating with respect to $`m^2`$ will bring down an extra factor of $`is`$ that we need. So integrating both sides of (45) between two arbitrary masses $`m_1^2`$ and $`m_2^2`$ and using (44) we obtain

$$_{m_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}^{m_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}𝑑\stackrel{~}{m}^2[G(z,z^{};\stackrel{~}{m}^2,f)]=\mathrm{log}[G(z,z^{};m_2^2,f)]+\mathrm{log}[G(z,z^{};m_1^2,f)].$$
(46)
In the usual treatment one chooses one of the masses to be infinite, but as we explained in the main text, this cannot be done here. Instead of integrating toward heavier masses, we integrate in the opposite direction down to the Breitenlohner-Freedman bound. Therefore, we set $`m_1^2=m_{\mathrm{BF}}^2`$ and $`m_2^2=m^2`$ in (46) and use (43) to get

$$V(z;m^2,f)=\frac{i}{2}\underset{zz^{}}{lim}_{m_{\mathrm{BF}}^2}^{m^2}𝑑\stackrel{~}{m}^2G(z,z^{};m^2,f)+V(z;m_{\mathrm{BF}}^2,f).$$
(47)


format: text

text:
# Energy level statistics in weakly disordered systems: from quantum to diffusive regime

## I Introduction

Much research interest has been attracted by the universal properties of quantum systems with randomness; the randomness arises from various sources such as complexity of the system for the case of, e.g., complex nuclei, stochasticity for disorderd conductors and instability of classical trajectories for chaotic systems . If wave functions have enough time to diffuse throughout the system, the spatial strucure of the system becomes immaterial. For such cases, the system is called to belong to the ergodic regime where the statistical properties have been extensively studied. For example, correlation functions of the energy levels  or the scattering matrices  are shown to have the universal forms where specific features of individual systems are represented by a few parameters . These universal forms can be calculated with use of standard random matrix models belonging to pertinent Gaussian ensembles.

If the relevant time scale is comparable with the diffusion time, we need to turn to spatial dependent parts of the correlation functions which are not included in the universal random matrix results. These spatial dependent parts for weakly disordered systems are the subject of this paper. The weakly disorderd systems are characterized by the condition that $`g1`$ where $`g`$ is the dimensionless conductance. The spatial dependent parts of the correlation functions are expected to appear as higher order corrections with respect to $`1/g`$ to the universal random matrix results. The two-point energy level correlation function $`R(s)`$ (see Eq. (1)) with corrections up to $`1/g^2`$ has been calculated by several authors: In their seminal work, using diagrammatic perturbation theory, Altshuler and Shklovskii  obtained the smooth part of $`R(s)`$ valid for large energy differences $`s1`$. Deviations from the universal statistics are determined by the diffusive classical dynamics of the system. However, diagrammatic perturbation does not give an oscillatory part of $`R(s)`$ characteristic of the universal random matrix result.

The $`1/g^2`$ corrections including the oscillatory part were first obtained by Kravtsov and Mirlin (KM)  using the supersymmetric $`\sigma `$ model , the effective theory of a particle moving through a disorderd conductor. Their result is, however, valid only for small energy differences $`sg`$ . Later, also using the supersymmetric $`\sigma `$ model, Andreev and Altshuler (AA)  claimed that the oscillatory part can be obtained from perturbation around a novel saddle point in additon to the ordinary one. Their result relies on perturbation and hence is restricted to the region of large energy differences $`s1`$. The AA’s result was subsequently reproduced with use of the replica  and Keldysh  $`\sigma `$ model. In quantum chaotic systems, the analysis based on the semiclassical periodic orbit theory  and the ballistic $`\sigma `$ model  led to similar results to the AA’s.

In all these results, deviations from the universal form is expressed in terms of eigenvalues of a certain operator or its spectral determinant. This operator is a diffusion operator for the case of disorderd conductors or a Perron-Frobenius operator for quantum chaotic systems . We can surmise from these results that universal forms also exist in the deviations from universal random matrix resuls where parameters representing system specific features are now the spectra of this operator.

At present the available results are yet insufficient because KM’s result is valid for $`sg`$ and AA’s one is valid for $`s1`$. The method to calculate an expression valid for entire range of energy differences is desirable . This paper presents one such method. Extending the KM’s procedure, we calculate $`1/g^2`$ corrections to the two-point energy level correlation function

$$R(s)=\mathrm{\Delta }^2\rho (E)\rho (E+\omega )$$
(1)
valid for arbitrary $`\omega `$, where $`s=\omega /\mathrm{\Delta }`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the mean level spacing, $`\rho (E)`$ is the density of states at energy $`E`$, and $`\mathrm{}`$ denotes averaging over realization of the random potential. We consider disorderd systems with broken time reversal symmetry because the pertinent random matrix ensemble (unitary ensemble) is the simplest among the three classical ensembles (unitary, orthogonal, and symplectic). We follow the KM’s procedure but do not use $`\omega `$ expansion which limits the range of their result’s validity to small $`\omega `$. As a result, we verify that the AA’s expression gives the correct $`g1`$ asymptotic at arbitrary $`\omega `$ for unitary ensemble. For the unitary case, invoking a mathematical theorem, it is implicitly shown  that AA’s result is exact in spite of their use of perturbation. Here, we want to show it by explicit calculation which we expect to be applicable in other ensembles with some modifications.

## II Model and method

The supersymmetric $`\sigma `$ model is a field theory whose variables $`Q`$ are supermatrices . Statistical properties of a particle moving through random potentials can be derived from a generating functional of $`Q`$. The expression for $`R(s)`$ reads

$$R(s)=\frac{1}{16V^2}\text{Re}𝑑Qe^{S(Q)}\left[𝑑\stackrel{}{r}\text{str}k\mathrm{\Lambda }Q(\stackrel{}{r})\right]^2,$$
(2)
$$S(Q)=\frac{\pi }{4V}𝑑\stackrel{}{r}\text{str}\left[\frac{D}{\mathrm{\Delta }}(Q(\stackrel{}{r}))^2+2\text{i}s^+\mathrm{\Lambda }Q(\stackrel{}{r})\right].$$
(3)
Here str denotes the supertrace, $`Q(\stackrel{}{r})=T(\stackrel{}{r})^1\mathrm{\Lambda }T(\stackrel{}{r})`$ is a $`4\times 4`$ supermatrix with $`T(\stackrel{}{r})`$ belonging to the coset space $`U(1,1|2)`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\text{diag}(1,1,1,1)`$, $`k=\text{diag}(1,1,1,1)`$, $`V`$ is the system volume, $`D`$ is the classical diffusion constant, $`s^+=s+\text{i}0^+`$, and $`0^+`$ is positive infinitesimal. We use the notaions of Ref.  everywhere.

The ordinary saddle point is $`Q=\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and AA’s novel one is $`Q=k\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. The expansion around these saddle points and calculation of the functional integral by Gaussian approximation gives AA’s result. The quadratic term of the action $`S(Q)`$ defines the diffusion propagator in terms of which a pertubation series is constructed by Wick’s contraction. When $`s`$ goes to zero, the diffusion propagator diverges for spatially homogeneous modes (which we hereafter call the zero-momentum modes, or zero modes for short, because their momentum is zero). Thus their approach is restricted to the region $`s1`$.

KM have overcome the dfficulty of zero mode divergence by treating the zero modes and the other spatially inhomogeneous modes with non-zero momenta (heareafter called non-zero modes) separately. The matrix $`Q(\stackrel{}{r})`$ is decomposed in the follwing way:

$$Q(\stackrel{}{r})=T_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\stackrel{~}{Q}(\stackrel{}{r})T_0,$$
(4)
where $`T_0`$ is a spatially homogeneous matrix from the coset space and $`\stackrel{~}{Q}(\stackrel{}{r})`$ describes all non-zero modes (see Eqs. (5), (6)). After perturbative calculation of the contributions by non-zero modes, there remains a defnite integral over a few zero mode variables, which can be evaluated without use of perturbation. This amalgamation of both perturbative and non-perturbative calculation, in principle, could give the weak localization corrections valid for entire range of $`s`$. In the course of calculation, however, assuming small $`\omega `$, KM expand the exponential of the energy term (the second term of the action (3)). Thus their result is restricted to $`sg`$.

The difficulty arising when the energy term is kept on the shoulder of exponent is that the propagators of non-zero modes become dependent on zero mode variables. Then after eliminating non-zero modes by perturbation, the resulting zero mode integral contains infinite sums and products of non-zero mode propagators (see Eq.(44)) as an integrand. Hence the zero mode integral, though still being defnite over a few variables, does not seem feasible. In this paper, we show this is not the case: by replacing the order of integration, it turns out that we can first integrate out the zero mode exactly. Then integration over the non-zero modes by perturbation can be done without any trouble.

We resume a summary of notations: When $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_c`$ (where $`E_c=D/L^2`$ and $`L`$ is the system size), the matrix $`\stackrel{~}{Q}(\stackrel{}{r})`$ fluctuates only weakly around $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Then the fluctuations can be treated by perturbation with the expansion parameter $`1/g`$ (where $`g=E_c/\mathrm{\Delta }`$). A convinient parametrization is

$$\stackrel{~}{Q}(\stackrel{}{r})=(1W(\stackrel{}{r})/2)\mathrm{\Lambda }(1W(\stackrel{}{r})/2)^1,$$
(5)
where

$$W(\stackrel{}{r})=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& W_{12}(\stackrel{}{r})\\ W_{21}(\stackrel{}{r})& 0\end{array}\right),$$
(6)
$`W_{21}(\stackrel{}{r})=kW_{12}(\stackrel{}{r})^{}`$. $`W_{12}(\stackrel{}{r})`$ is expanded as $`W_{12}(\stackrel{}{r})=_{\stackrel{}{q}0}\varphi _\stackrel{}{q}(\stackrel{}{r})W_{12}^{}{}_{\stackrel{}{q}}{}^{}`$ where $`\varphi _\stackrel{}{q}`$ is an eigenfunction of the diffusion operator $`D^2`$ with an eigenvalue $`D|\stackrel{}{q}|^2`$. $`\{\varphi _\stackrel{}{q}(\stackrel{}{r})\}`$ constitute a complete orthonormal set and $`\varphi _0(\stackrel{}{r})=1/\sqrt{V}`$. Thus $`𝑑\stackrel{}{r}W(\stackrel{}{r})𝑑\stackrel{}{r}W(\stackrel{}{r})\varphi _0(\stackrel{}{r})=0`$. The Jacobian of the transformation Eqs. (4) and (5) from the variable $`Q`$ to $`\{T_0,W\}`$ is

$$J\left(W\right)=1\frac{1}{16V^2}𝑑\stackrel{}{r}𝑑\stackrel{}{r^{}}\left(\text{str}W_{12}(\stackrel{}{r})W_{21}(\stackrel{}{r^{}})\right)^2+O(W^5).$$
(7)
The derivation is given in Appendix A.

The spatially homogeneous supermatrix $`T_0`$ is parametrized in a quasi-diagonalized form

$$T_0=U^1\widehat{T}_0U$$
(8)
with ‘eigenvalue’ matrix $`\widehat{T}_0`$ given by

$$\widehat{T}_0=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cos}\frac{\widehat{\theta }}{2}& \text{i}\mathrm{sin}\frac{\widehat{\theta }}{2}e^{\text{i}\widehat{\phi }}\\ \text{i}\mathrm{sin}\frac{\widehat{\theta }}{2}e^{\text{i}\widehat{\phi }}& \mathrm{cos}\frac{\widehat{\theta }}{2}\end{array}\right),$$
(9)
$$\widehat{\theta }=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\theta _F& 0\\ 0& \text{i}\theta _B\end{array}\right),\widehat{\phi }=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\phi _F& 0\\ 0& \phi _B\end{array}\right),$$
(10)
where $`0\theta _B<\mathrm{}`$, $`0\theta _F\pi `$, $`0\phi _B2\pi `$, $`0\phi _F2\pi `$. The ‘diagonalizing’ matrix $`U`$ is given by

$$U=\left(\begin{array}{cc}v_1& 0\\ 0& v_2\end{array}\right),$$
(11)
$$v_1=\mathrm{exp}\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \xi _1\\ \xi _1^{}& 0\end{array}\right),v_2=\mathrm{exp}\text{i}\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \xi _2\\ \xi _2^{}& 0\end{array}\right),$$
(12)
where $`\xi _1`$ and $`\xi _2`$ are anticommuting variables. For this parametrization, the measure $`dT_0`$ is given by

$$dT_0=\frac{\mathrm{sinh}\theta _B\mathrm{sin}\theta _F}{\left(\mathrm{cosh}\theta _B\mathrm{cos}\theta _F\right)^2}d\theta _Bd\theta _Fd\phi _Bd\phi _Fd\xi _1d\xi _1^{}d\xi _2d\xi _2^{}.$$
(13)
## III Changing the variables

To simplify the zero mode integration, we change the variables. Substituting the decomposition (4) into Eq. (2), we obtain

$$\text{str}\left(Q(\stackrel{}{r})\right)^2=\text{str}\left(\stackrel{~}{Q}(\stackrel{}{r})\right)^2,$$
(14)
$$𝑑\stackrel{}{r}\text{str}\mathrm{\Lambda }Q(\stackrel{}{r})=\text{str}\mathrm{\Lambda }T_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}YT_0,$$
(15)
$$𝑑\stackrel{}{r}\text{str}k\mathrm{\Lambda }Q(\stackrel{}{r})=\text{str}k\mathrm{\Lambda }T_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}YT_0,$$
(16)
where $`Y=𝑑\stackrel{}{r}\stackrel{~}{Q}(\stackrel{}{r})`$. We make the supermatrix $`Y`$ a block diagonal form as follows (for detail see Appendix B):

$$e^XYe^X=\widehat{Q},$$
(17)
where $`X`$ is a block off-diagonal supermatrix and

$$\widehat{Q}=\mathrm{\Lambda }\left(V+\frac{1}{2}𝑑\stackrel{}{r}W^2(\stackrel{}{r})+\frac{1}{8}𝑑\stackrel{}{r}W^4(\stackrel{}{r})+O(W^6)\right).$$
(18)
Up to $`1/g^2`$ order calculated here, $`e^XT_0`$ can be replaced with $`T_0`$ (see Appendix B). Thus in Eqs. (15) and (16), $`Y`$ can be replaced with $`\widehat{Q}`$.

To eliminate the anticommuting variables of the zero modes in the action $`S(Q)`$, we change the variables as $`UWU^1W`$. Eventually, we get

$$𝑑\stackrel{}{r}\text{str}\mathrm{\Lambda }Q(\stackrel{}{r})=\text{str}\mathrm{\Lambda }\widehat{T}_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\widehat{Q}\widehat{T}_0,$$
(19)
$$𝑑\stackrel{}{r}\text{str}k\mathrm{\Lambda }Q(\stackrel{}{r})=\text{str}k\mathrm{\Lambda }U^1\widehat{T}_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\widehat{Q}\widehat{T}_0U.$$
(20)
## IV Integration over the zero-momentum mode variables

Expanding the pre-exponential term of Eq. (2) in the anticommuting variables of the zero modes, we obtain

$$\left(\text{str}k\mathrm{\Lambda }U^1\widehat{T}_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\widehat{Q}\widehat{T}_0U\right)^2=\left(\text{str}k\mathrm{\Lambda }\widehat{T}_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\widehat{Q}\widehat{T}_0\right)^22\xi _1^{}\xi _1\xi _2^{}\xi _2\left(\text{str}\mathrm{\Lambda }\widehat{T}_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\widehat{Q}\widehat{T}_0\right)^2+\mathrm{}$$
(21)
where we have used that $`\text{str}\widehat{Q}=0`$ and the dots indicate terms which vanish after integration of the zero mode anticommuting variables. We write the contribution by the first (second) term of Eq. (21) to $`R(s)`$ as $`R_1(s)`$ ($`R_2(s)`$). With use of Parisi-Sourlas-Efetov-Wegner theorem , integration of zero mode variables in $`R_1(s)`$ becomes the value of its integrand at $`\theta _B=\theta _F=0`$:

$$R_1(s)=\frac{1}{16V^2}\text{Re}𝑑WJ\left(W\right)e^{S(W)}\left(\text{str}k\mathrm{\Lambda }\widehat{Q}\right)^2+O(1/g^3),$$
(22)
where

$$S(W)=\frac{\pi }{4V}\text{str}\left[\frac{D}{\mathrm{\Delta }}𝑑\stackrel{}{r}\left(\stackrel{~}{Q}(\stackrel{}{r})\right)^2+2\text{i}s^+\mathrm{\Lambda }\widehat{Q}\right].$$
(23)
Integrating the zero mode anticommuting variables, we obtain

$$R_2(s)=\frac{1}{8V^2}\text{Re}𝑑W𝑑\theta _B𝑑\theta _FJ\left(W\right)\frac{\mathrm{sinh}\theta _B\mathrm{sin}\theta _F}{\left(\mathrm{cosh}\theta _B\mathrm{cos}\theta _F\right)^2}e^{S(\widehat{T}_0,W)}\left(\text{str}\mathrm{\Lambda }\widehat{T}_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\widehat{Q}\widehat{T}_0\right)^2+O(1/g^3),$$
(24)
$$S(\widehat{T}_0,W)=\frac{\pi }{4V}\text{str}\left[\frac{D}{\mathrm{\Delta }}𝑑\stackrel{}{r}\left(\stackrel{~}{Q}(\stackrel{}{r})\right)^2+2\text{i}s^+\mathrm{\Lambda }\widehat{T}_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\widehat{Q}\widehat{T}_0\right].$$
(25)
Here,

$$\text{str}\mathrm{\Lambda }\widehat{T}_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\widehat{Q}\widehat{T}_0=\mathrm{cosh}\theta _B\text{str}P(B)\mathrm{\Lambda }\widehat{Q}+\mathrm{cos}\theta _F\text{str}P(F)\mathrm{\Lambda }\widehat{Q},$$
(26)
where $`P(B)=(\mathrm{𝟏}k)/2`$ and $`P(F)=(\mathrm{𝟏}+k)/2`$ and $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$ is an unit matrix. Using $`\mathrm{cosh}\theta _B=\lambda _B`$, $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _F=\lambda _F`$, $`\text{str}P(B)\mathrm{\Lambda }\widehat{Q}=2V\left(1+A\right)`$, and $`\text{str}P(F)\mathrm{\Lambda }\widehat{Q}=2V\left(1+B\right)`$, we obtain

$$R_2(s)=\frac{1}{2}\text{Re}𝑑WJ\left(W\right)\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{\pi D}{4V\mathrm{\Delta }}𝑑\stackrel{}{r}\text{str}\left(\stackrel{~}{Q}(\stackrel{}{r})\right)^2\right]I(s,W)+O(1/g^3),$$
(27)
where

$$I(s,W)=_1^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\lambda _B_1^1𝑑\lambda _Ff(\lambda _B,\lambda _F)g(\lambda _B,\lambda _F),$$
(28)
$$f(\lambda _B,\lambda _F)=\frac{1}{\left(\lambda _B\lambda _F\right)^2}e^{\text{i}\pi s^+\left(\lambda _B\lambda _F\right)},$$
(29)
$$g(\lambda _B,\lambda _F)=e^{\text{i}\pi s^+\left(\lambda _BA\lambda _FB\right)}\left[\lambda _B\left(1+A\right)\lambda _F\left(1+B\right)\right]^2.$$
(30)
We introduce an indefinite integral of $`f(\lambda _B,\lambda _F)`$: $`\frac{^2}{\lambda _F\lambda _B}F(\lambda _B,\lambda _F)=f(\lambda _B,\lambda _F),`$

$`F(\lambda _B,\lambda _F)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\lambda _F}}𝑑b{\displaystyle _{\lambda _B}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑ae^{\text{i}\pi s^+(ab)}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(ab)^2}}`$ (31)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _1^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑xe^{\text{i}\pi s^+(\lambda _B\lambda _F)x}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{x}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x^2}}\right),`$ (32)
where we have used the transformation $`(ab)^2=_0^{\mathrm{}}te^{t(ab)}𝑑t`$ and $`\text{i}\pi s^+t=\text{i}\pi s^+x`$. Then partial integration gives

$`I(s,W)`$ $`=`$ $`\left[\left[F(\lambda _B,\lambda _F)g(\lambda _B,\lambda _F)\right]_{\lambda _B=1}^{\lambda _B=\mathrm{}}\right]_{\lambda _F=1}^{\lambda _F=1}\left[{\displaystyle _1^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\lambda _BF(\lambda _B,\lambda _F){\displaystyle \frac{}{\lambda _B}}g(\lambda _B,\lambda _F)\right]_{\lambda _F=1}^{\lambda _F=1}`$ (34)
$`\left[{\displaystyle _1^1}𝑑\lambda _FF(\lambda _B,\lambda _F){\displaystyle \frac{}{\lambda _F}}g(\lambda _B,\lambda _F)\right]_{\lambda _B=1}^{\lambda _B=\mathrm{}}+{\displaystyle _1^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\lambda _B{\displaystyle _1^1}𝑑\lambda _FF(\lambda _B,\lambda _F){\displaystyle \frac{^2}{\lambda _B\lambda _F}}g(\lambda _B,\lambda _F).`$
After $`\lambda `$-integration, we obtain

$`I(s,W)`$ $`=`$ $`\left[\left[e^{\text{i}\pi s^+\left(\lambda _BA\lambda _FB\right)}{\displaystyle _1^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑xe^{\text{i}\pi s^+(\lambda _B\lambda _F)x}(\lambda _B,\lambda _F,x)\right]_{\lambda _B=1}^{\lambda _B=\mathrm{}}\right]_{\lambda _F=1}^{\lambda _F=1}`$ (35)
$`=`$ $`e^{\text{i}\pi s^+\left(AB\right)}{\displaystyle _1^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑x(1,1,x)e^{\text{i}\pi s^+\left(A+B\right)}{\displaystyle _1^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑xe^{2\text{i}\pi s^+x}(1,1,x),`$ (36)
where

$`(\lambda _B,\lambda _F,x)`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{x}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x^2}}\right)\widehat{A}^1\widehat{B}^1\left[\lambda _B\left(1+A\right)\lambda _F\left(1+B\right)\right]^2`$ (39)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\text{i}\pi s^+}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{x^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x^3}}\right)\widehat{A}^2\widehat{B}^2\left[\widehat{A}\left(1+B\right)+\widehat{B}\left(1+A\right)\right]\left[\lambda _B\left(1+A\right)\lambda _F\left(1+B\right)\right]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{(\text{i}\pi s^+)^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{x^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x^4}}\right)\widehat{A}^3\widehat{B}^3\left[\widehat{A}^2\left(1+B\right)^2+\widehat{A}\widehat{B}\left(1+A\right)\left(1+B\right)+\widehat{B}^2\left(1+A\right)^2\right].`$
Here, $`\widehat{A}=1+\frac{A}{x}`$ and $`\widehat{B}=1+\frac{B}{x}`$. From Eq. (36) we can read that the propagator do not include zero mode variables. Therefore the difficulty of KM’s approach mentioned in Sec. II is resolved. We write the contribution by the first (second) term of Eq. (36) to $`R_2(s)`$ as $`R_2^{(1,1)}(s)`$ ($`R_2^{(1,1)}(s)`$).

## V Integration over the non-zero-momentum mode variables

In order to calculate the remaining integral over the non-zero mode variables $`W`$ with use of the Wick theorem, we need to know the contraction rules for the action

$$S_0=\frac{\pi }{4V}𝑑\stackrel{}{r}\text{str}\left[\frac{D}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\left(W(\stackrel{}{r})\right)^2+\text{i}s^+\left(\lambda _BP(B)+\lambda _FP(F)\right)W(\stackrel{}{r})^2\right].$$
(40)
The result is summarized as

$$\text{str}𝒳W(\stackrel{}{r})𝒴W(\stackrel{}{r^{}})=\frac{1}{2}\underset{g,g^{}}{}\mathrm{\Pi }(\stackrel{}{r},\stackrel{}{r^{}})_{gg^{}}\left[\text{str}P(g)𝒳\text{str}P(g^{})𝒴\text{str}\mathrm{\Lambda }P(g)𝒳\text{str}\mathrm{\Lambda }P(g^{})𝒴\right],$$
(41)
$$\text{str}𝒳W(\stackrel{}{r})\text{str}𝒴W(\stackrel{}{r^{}})=\frac{1}{2}\underset{g,g^{}}{}\mathrm{\Pi }(\stackrel{}{r},\stackrel{}{r^{}})_{gg^{}}\left[\text{str}P(g)𝒳P(g^{})𝒴\text{str}\mathrm{\Lambda }P(g)𝒳\mathrm{\Lambda }P(g^{})𝒴\right],$$
(42)
where $`𝒳`$ and $`𝒴`$ are arbitrary $`4\times 4`$ supermatrices, $`g`$ and $`g^{}`$ are $`B`$ or $`F`$,

$$\mathrm{}=𝒟^1(s,\lambda _B,\lambda _F)𝑑W(\mathrm{})e^{S_0},$$
(43)
$$𝒟(s,\lambda _B,\lambda _F)=\underset{\stackrel{}{q}\stackrel{}{0}}{}\frac{\mathrm{\Pi }(q;\lambda _B,\lambda _B)\mathrm{\Pi }(q;\lambda _F,\lambda _F)}{\mathrm{\Pi }(q;\lambda _B,\lambda _F)^2},$$
(44)
$$\mathrm{\Pi }(q;\lambda _g,\lambda _g^{})=\frac{2V}{\pi }\left(\frac{D}{\mathrm{\Delta }}q^2\text{i}s^+\frac{\lambda _g+\lambda _g^{}}{2}\right)^1,$$
(45)
$$\mathrm{\Pi }(\stackrel{}{r},\stackrel{}{r^{}})_{gg^{}}=\underset{\stackrel{}{q}\stackrel{}{0}}{}\varphi _\stackrel{}{q}(\stackrel{}{r})\varphi _\stackrel{}{q}^{}(\stackrel{}{r^{}})\mathrm{\Pi }(q;\lambda _g,\lambda _g^{}).$$
(46)
For $`R_1(s)`$, using the contraction rules with $`\lambda _B=1`$ and $`\lambda _F=1`$ we obtain

$`R_1(s)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16V^2}}\text{Re}16V^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left({\displaystyle 𝑑\stackrel{}{r}\text{str}kW(\stackrel{}{r})^2}\right)^2_{(\lambda _B,\lambda _F)=(1,1)}+O(1/g^3)`$ (47)
$`=`$ $`1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8V^2}}\text{Re}{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{}{q}\stackrel{}{0}}{}}\mathrm{\Pi }(q;1,1)^2+O(1/g^3)`$ (48)
$`=`$ $`1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2}{ds^2}}\mathrm{ln}𝒟(s,1,1)+O(1/g^3).`$ (49)
In order to get $`R_2(s)`$, we need to estimate the order of the each term of Eq. (39) with use of the fact that (i) $`W^2O(1/g)`$ for all $`s`$, (ii) the property of the exponential integral

$$E_n(a)=_1^{\mathrm{}}\frac{e^{ax}}{x^n}𝑑x$$
(50)
where $`\mathrm{Re}a>0`$ and $`n𝐍`$, and (iii) KM’s result : for $`s<1`$,

$$R(s)=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{C_n(s)}{g^n}$$
(51)
where $`C_n(s)`$ is $`O(1)`$.

### A $`(\lambda _B,\lambda _F)=(1,1)`$ point

Expanding $`(1,1,x)`$ in $`W`$, there appears a term proportional to $`1/x`$, $`(AB)^2/x`$. The $`x`$-integration of this term, at first glance, seems to diverge. Actually it causes no problem becaue it vanishes after $`W`$-integration. In order to obtain the corrections up to $`1/g^2`$, it is sufficient to expand the remaing terms up to the 4th order of $`W`$ for entire range of $`s`$ ;

$`(1,1,x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x^2}}(AB)^2`$ (55)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\text{i}\pi s^+}}\left[2\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{x^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x^3}}\right)(AB)+\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{x^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{4}{x^3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{x^4}}\right)(A^2B^2)\right]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{(\text{i}\pi s^+)^2}}\left[3\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{x^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x^4}}\right)+3\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{x^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{3}{x^4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{x^5}}\right)(A+B)+\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{x^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{9}{x^4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{18}{x^5}}{\displaystyle \frac{10}{x^6}}\right)(A^2+B^2+AB)\right]`$
$`+O(1/g^3).`$
After $`x`$-integration, we obtain

$$_1^{\mathrm{}}(1,1,x)𝑑x=(AB)^2\frac{2}{\text{i}\pi s^+}(AB)+\frac{1}{(\text{i}\pi s^+)^2}+O(1/g^3).$$
(56)
After $`W`$-integration, we obtain

$$R_2^{(1,1)}(s)=\frac{1}{2\pi ^2s^2}.$$
(57)
### B $`(\lambda _B,\lambda _F)=(1,1)`$ point

For $`s1`$, $`E_n(\text{i}2\pi s^+)`$ in Eq. (36) is $`O(1)`$. Accordingly, by the same reason as the case of $`(\lambda _B,\lambda _F)=(1,1)`$ point, it is sufficient to expand $`(1,1,x)`$ up to the 4th order of $`W`$ for entire range of $`s`$ again.

$`(1,1,x)`$ $`=`$ $`4\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{x}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x^2}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{\stackrel{~}{s}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{x^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x^3}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{6}{\stackrel{~}{s}^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{x^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x^4}}\right)\right]`$ (62)
$`+4\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{x}}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{x^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x^3}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\stackrel{~}{s}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2}{x^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{5}{x^3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{x^4}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{6}{\stackrel{~}{s}^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{x^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{3}{x^4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{x^5}}\right)\right](A+B)`$
$`+\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{x}}{\displaystyle \frac{5}{x^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{7}{x^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{3}{x^4}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{\stackrel{~}{s}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{x^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{7}{x^3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{12}{x^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{6}{x^5}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{6}{\stackrel{~}{s}^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{x^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{9}{x^4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{18}{x^5}}{\displaystyle \frac{10}{x^6}}\right)\right](A+B)^2`$
$`+\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{x^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x^4}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{4}{\stackrel{~}{s}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{x^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{3}{x^4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{x^5}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\stackrel{~}{s}^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{x^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{9}{x^4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{18}{x^5}}{\displaystyle \frac{10}{x^6}}\right)\right](AB)^2`$
$`+O(1/g^3)`$
where $`\stackrel{~}{s}=\text{i}2\pi s^+`$. Using the relation $`E_n(\stackrel{~}{s})+\frac{n}{\stackrel{~}{s}}E_{n+1}(\stackrel{~}{s})=e^{\stackrel{~}{s}}/\stackrel{~}{s}`$, we obtain

$$_1^{\mathrm{}}𝑑xe^{\stackrel{~}{s}x}(1,1,x)=4\frac{e^{\stackrel{~}{s}}}{\stackrel{~}{s}^2}+\frac{1}{\stackrel{~}{s}^2}\left[e^{\stackrel{~}{s}}+2_1^{\mathrm{}}𝑑xe^{\stackrel{~}{s}x}\left(\frac{1}{x^3}\frac{3}{x^4}\right)\right](AB)^2+O(1/g^3),$$
(63)
$`e^{\text{i}\pi s^+(A+B)}{\displaystyle _1^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑xe^{\text{i}2\pi s^+x}(1,1,x)`$ $`=`$ $`e^{\text{i}\pi s^+(A^{(2)}+B^{(2)})}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{\text{i}2\pi s^+}}{(\text{i}\pi s^+)^2}}`$ (66)
$`+e^{\text{i}\pi s^+(A^{(2)}+B^{(2)})}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{e^{\text{i}2\pi s^+}}{\text{i}\pi s^+}}(A^{(4)}+B^{(4)})+{\displaystyle \frac{(s)}{4(\text{i}\pi s^+)^2}}(A^{(2)}B^{(2)})^2\right]`$
$`+O(1/g^3),`$
where $`(s)=e^{\text{i}2\pi s^+}+2_1^{\mathrm{}}𝑑xe^{\text{i}2\pi s^+x}\left(\frac{1}{x^3}\frac{3}{x^4}\right)`$. The contribution by the second term of Eq. (66) is $`O(1/g^3)`$, because for $`sg`$ it is obvious and for $`s<g`$ it is found after $`W`$-integration.

By the same way, the contributions by $`O(W^4)`$ terms emerging from $`\left(\stackrel{~}{Q}(\stackrel{}{r})\right)^2`$ and the jacobian $`J(W)`$ turn out to be $`O(1/g^3)`$. Finally, we obtain

$`R_2^{(1,1)}(s)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\text{Re}{\displaystyle 𝑑WJ\left(W\right)\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{\pi D}{4V\mathrm{\Delta }}𝑑\stackrel{}{r}\text{str}\left(\stackrel{~}{Q}(\stackrel{}{r})\right)^2\right]e^{\text{i}\pi s^+(A^{(2)}+B^{(2)})}\frac{e^{\text{i}2\pi s^+}}{(\text{i}\pi s^+)^2}}+O(1/g^3)`$ (67)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}2\pi s}{2\pi ^2s^2}}𝒟(s,1,1)+O(1/g^3).`$ (68)
## VI Result and summary

Equations (49), (57), and (68) give

$`R(s)`$ $`=`$ $`1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2}{ds^2}}\mathrm{ln}𝒟(s,1,1){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi ^2s^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}2\pi s}{2\pi ^2s^2}}𝒟(s,1,1)+O(1/g^3)`$ (69)
$`=`$ $`1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2}{ds^2}}\mathrm{ln}\stackrel{~}{𝒟}(s)+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}2\pi s}{2\pi ^2}}\stackrel{~}{𝒟}(s)+O(1/g^3),`$ (70)
where $`\stackrel{~}{𝒟}(s)=𝒟(s,1,1)/s^2`$ is the spectral determinant of the classical diffusion operator, in agreement with Refs. . Here the contribution of the $`(\lambda _B,\lambda _F)=(1,1)`$

$$\frac{1}{4\pi ^2}\frac{d^2}{ds^2}\mathrm{ln}\stackrel{~}{𝒟}(s)=\frac{1}{8V^2}\text{Re}\underset{\stackrel{}{q}}{}\mathrm{\Pi }(\stackrel{}{q},1,1)^2$$
(71)
is the ordinary perturbative result .

In summary, using KM’s separate treatment of the zero and non-zero modes, performing the integration over the zero modes exactly and subsequent integration over the non-zero modes perturbatively, we find the expression for the two-point energy level correlation function valid for arbitrary energy differences up to $`1/g^2`$ order for unitary ensemble. This expression is same as the one  obtained in a saddle-point approximation which in general valid only for $`\omega \mathrm{\Delta }`$ . By explicit calculation, we verify that the exactness of the saddle-point answer for unitary ensemble, which is guaranteed in the ergodic regime due to the Duistermaat-Heckman theorem , holds even in the diffusive regime. Since this is a specific feature of the unitary ensemble, it is very interesting to investigate the expressions for the other (orthogonal, symplectic, etc.) ones.

The reason why AA’s novel saddle point appears is as follows: The zero-mode integral is carried out exactly. Then the remaining expression for non-zero modes is evaluated at terminal points of the integral region, $`1\lambda _B<\mathrm{},1\lambda _F<1`$. These terminal points precisely correspond to the ordinary ($`\lambda _B=\lambda _F=1`$) and AA’s novel saddle point ($`\lambda _B=1,\lambda _F=1`$). This correspondence between the terminal points of zero-mode variables and saddle points seems to hold for the orthogonal ensemble. Hence, for the orthogonal case, a similar way of calculation may work: although exact integration of zero mode variables is no longer probable, the iteration of partial integration enables one to evaluate the integral on the terminal points up to a necessary order of $`1/g`$, if the additional terms generated by these iterations are only higher order term of $`1/g`$. For the symplectic case, the correspondence seems more subtle because the novel saddle points are not isolated but consist of a saddle point maifold. Further investigation will be necessary for the symplectic case.

## Acknowledgments

We would like to thank K. Takahashi for valuable comments. S.I. wish to acknowledge helpful discussions with participants in the workshop “ quantum chaos, theory and experiment 2002 ” held at Yukawa institute for theoretical physics, Kyoto, Japan, where part of this work was presented.

## A Calculation of the Jacobian

We give the calculation of the Jacobian $`J`$ of the transformation $`Q\{W,T_0\}`$ because, to the best of our knowledge, there is no explicit expression of it in literature. It is calculated by the following Gaussian integral :

$$d(\delta W)d(\delta T_0)\mathrm{exp}\left[𝑑\stackrel{}{r}\text{str}\left(\delta Q(\stackrel{}{r})\right)^2\right]=J^1.$$
(A1)
Here $`\delta Q(\stackrel{}{r})`$ is variation of Eq. (4) :

$$\delta Q(\stackrel{}{r})=T_0^1\left(\delta \stackrel{~}{Q}(\stackrel{}{r})+[\stackrel{~}{Q}(\stackrel{}{r}),\delta T_0^{}]\right)T_0,$$
(A2)
where $`\delta T_0^{}=\delta T_0T_0^1`$. Then,

$$𝑑\stackrel{}{r}\text{str}\left(\delta Q(\stackrel{}{r})\right)^2=𝑑\stackrel{}{r}\text{str}\left(\delta \stackrel{~}{Q}(\stackrel{}{r})\right)^2+2𝑑\stackrel{}{r}\text{str}\delta \stackrel{~}{Q}(\stackrel{}{r})[\stackrel{~}{Q}(\stackrel{}{r}),\delta T_0^{}]+𝑑\stackrel{}{r}\text{str}[\stackrel{~}{Q}(\stackrel{}{r}),\delta T_0^{}]^2.$$
(A3)
The integrand of Eq. (A1) is expanded up to 4th order in $`W`$.

The $`\delta W`$ dependent part of the integrand is

$`\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle 𝑑\stackrel{}{r}\text{str}\left(\delta \stackrel{~}{Q}(\stackrel{}{r})\right)^2}2{\displaystyle 𝑑\stackrel{}{r}\text{str}\delta \stackrel{~}{Q}(\stackrel{}{r})[\stackrel{~}{Q}(\stackrel{}{r}),\delta T_0^{}]}\right]`$ (A4)
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle 𝑑\stackrel{}{r}\text{str}(\delta W)^2}\right]`$ (A11)
$`\times \{1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle }d\stackrel{}{r}\text{str}W^2(\delta W)^2+2\left({\displaystyle }d\stackrel{}{r}\text{str}X_1(\delta W)\delta T_0^{}\right)^2`$
$`+2\left({\displaystyle 𝑑\stackrel{}{r}\text{str}X_1(\delta W)\delta T_0^{}}\right)\left({\displaystyle 𝑑\stackrel{}{r}\text{str}X_2(\delta W)\delta T_0^{}}\right)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}{\displaystyle 𝑑\stackrel{}{r}\text{str}W^4(\delta W)^2}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16}}{\displaystyle 𝑑\stackrel{}{r}\text{str}(W^2\delta W)^2}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}\left[{\displaystyle 𝑑\stackrel{}{r}\text{str}W^2(\delta W)^2}\right]^2`$
$`+\left({\displaystyle 𝑑\stackrel{}{r}\text{str}X_1(\delta W)\delta T_0^{}}\right)\left({\displaystyle 𝑑\stackrel{}{r}\text{str}X_3(\delta W)\delta T_0^{}}\right)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle 𝑑\stackrel{}{r}\text{str}X_2(\delta W)\delta T_0^{}}\right)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\left({\displaystyle 𝑑\stackrel{}{r}\text{str}X_1(\delta W)\delta T_0^{}}\right)^4`$
$`+\left[{\displaystyle }d\stackrel{}{r}\text{str}W^2(\delta W)^2\right]\left({\displaystyle }d\stackrel{}{r}\text{str}X_1(\delta W)\delta T_0^{}\right)^2+O(W^5)\},`$
where

$$X_n(\delta W)=\underset{k=0}{\overset{n}{}}(1)^kW^k\delta WW^{nk}.$$
(A12)
The $`\delta W`$ independent part is

$`\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle 𝑑\stackrel{}{r}\text{str}[\stackrel{~}{Q}(\stackrel{}{r}),\delta T_0^{}]^2}\right)`$ (A13)
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left[2V\text{str}(\delta T_0^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }\delta T_0^{}\mathrm{\Lambda })\delta T_0^{}\right]`$ (A18)
$`\times \{12{\displaystyle }d\stackrel{}{r}\text{str}\mathrm{\Lambda }\delta T_0^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }(W^2\delta T_0^{}W\delta T_0^{}W)`$
$`{\displaystyle 𝑑\stackrel{}{r}\text{str}\mathrm{\Lambda }\delta T_0^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }\left(W^3\delta T_0^{}2W^2\delta T_0^{}W\right)}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle 𝑑\stackrel{}{r}\text{str}\mathrm{\Lambda }\delta T_0^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }\left(W^4\delta T_0^{}2W^3\delta T_0^{}W+W^2\delta T_0^{}W^2\right)}`$
$`+2\left[{\displaystyle }d\stackrel{}{r}\text{str}\mathrm{\Lambda }\delta T_0^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }(W^2\delta T_0^{}W\delta T_0^{}W)\right]^2+O(W^5)\}.`$
The integral of the $`\delta W`$ dependent part over $`\delta W`$ can be calculated by using the Wick theorem and the contraction rules:

$$\text{str}𝒳\delta W(\stackrel{}{r})𝒴\delta W(\stackrel{}{r^{}})_{\delta W}=\frac{1}{4}\left(\frac{1}{V}\delta (\stackrel{}{r}\stackrel{}{r^{}})\right)\left(\text{str}𝒳\text{str}𝒴\text{str}\mathrm{\Lambda }𝒳\text{str}\mathrm{\Lambda }𝒴\right),$$
(A19)
$$\text{str}𝒳\delta W(\stackrel{}{r})\text{str}𝒴\delta W(\stackrel{}{r^{}})_{\delta W}=\frac{1}{4}\left(\frac{1}{V}\delta (\stackrel{}{r}\stackrel{}{r^{}})\right)\left(\text{str}𝒳𝒴\text{str}\mathrm{\Lambda }𝒳\mathrm{\Lambda }𝒴\right),$$
(A20)
where $`𝒳`$ and $`𝒴`$ are arbitrary supermatrices and

$$\mathrm{}_{\delta W}=d(\delta W)(\mathrm{})\mathrm{exp}\left[𝑑\stackrel{}{r}\text{str}(\delta W)^2\right].$$
(A21)
The result is

$`{\displaystyle d(\delta W)\mathrm{exp}\left[𝑑\stackrel{}{r}\text{str}\left(\delta \stackrel{~}{Q}(\stackrel{}{r})\right)^22𝑑\stackrel{}{r}\text{str}\delta \stackrel{~}{Q}(\stackrel{}{r})[\stackrel{~}{Q}(\stackrel{}{r}),\delta T_0^{}]\right]}`$ (A22)
$`=`$ $`1+{\displaystyle 𝑑\stackrel{}{r}\text{str}\left(\delta T_0^{}+\mathrm{\Lambda }\delta T_0^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)\left(W^2\delta T_0^{}W\delta T_0^{}W\right)}+{\displaystyle 𝑑\stackrel{}{r}\text{str}\mathrm{\Lambda }\delta T_0^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }\left(W^3\delta T_0^{}2W^2\delta T_0^{}W\right)}`$ (A28)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}{\displaystyle 𝑑\stackrel{}{r}\text{str}\left(W^2\delta T_0^{}\right)^2}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}{\displaystyle 𝑑\stackrel{}{r}\text{str}\mathrm{\Lambda }\delta T_0^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }\left(4W^4\delta T_0^{}8W^3\delta T_0^{}W+5W^2\delta T_0^{}W^2\right)}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[{\displaystyle 𝑑\stackrel{}{r}\text{str}\left(\delta T_0^{}+\mathrm{\Lambda }\delta T_0^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)\left(W^2\delta T_0^{}W\delta T_0^{}W\right)}\right]^2`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8V}}{\displaystyle }d\stackrel{}{r}d\stackrel{}{r^{}}\text{str}(\delta T_0^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }\delta T_0^{}\mathrm{\Lambda })(2W(\stackrel{}{r})^2W(\stackrel{}{r^{}})^2\delta T_0^{}2W(\stackrel{}{r})^2W(\stackrel{}{r^{}})\delta T_0^{}W(\stackrel{}{r^{}})`$
$`2W(\stackrel{}{r})W(\stackrel{}{r^{}})^2\delta T_0^{}W(\stackrel{}{r^{}})+2W(\stackrel{}{r})^2\delta T_0^{}W(\stackrel{}{r^{}})^2+W(\stackrel{}{r})W(\stackrel{}{r^{}})\delta T_0^{}W(\stackrel{}{r^{}})W(\stackrel{}{r}))`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{64V}}{\displaystyle 𝑑\stackrel{}{r}\left(\text{str}W^2\right)^2}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{64V^2}}\left({\displaystyle 𝑑\stackrel{}{r}\text{str}W^2}\right)^2+O(W^5).`$
Multiplying this by Eq. (A18), we find

$`{\displaystyle d(\delta W)\mathrm{exp}\left[𝑑\stackrel{}{r}\text{str}\left(\delta Q(\stackrel{}{r})\right)^2\right]}`$ (A29)
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left[2V\text{str}(\delta T_0^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }\delta T_0^{}\mathrm{\Lambda })\delta T_0^{}\right]`$ (A35)
$`\times \{1+{\displaystyle }d\stackrel{}{r}\text{str}(\delta T_0^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }\delta T_0^{}\mathrm{\Lambda })(W^2\delta T_0^{}W\delta T_0^{}W)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[{\displaystyle 𝑑\stackrel{}{r}\text{str}\left(\delta T_0^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }\delta T_0^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)\left(W^2\delta T_0^{}W\delta T_0^{}W\right)}\right]^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{64V^2}}\left({\displaystyle 𝑑\stackrel{}{r}\text{str}W^2}\right)^2`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8V}}{\displaystyle }d\stackrel{}{r}d\stackrel{}{r^{}}\text{str}(\delta T_0^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }\delta T_0^{}\mathrm{\Lambda })(2W(\stackrel{}{r})^2W(\stackrel{}{r^{}})^2\delta T_0^{}2W(\stackrel{}{r})^2W(\stackrel{}{r^{}})\delta T_0^{}W(\stackrel{}{r^{}})`$
$`2W(\stackrel{}{r})W(\stackrel{}{r^{}})^2\delta T_0^{}W(\stackrel{}{r^{}})+2W(\stackrel{}{r})^2\delta T_0^{}W(\stackrel{}{r^{}})^2+W(\stackrel{}{r})W(\stackrel{}{r^{}})\delta T_0^{}W(\stackrel{}{r^{}})W(\stackrel{}{r}))`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}{\displaystyle }d\stackrel{}{r}\text{str}(\delta T_0^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }\delta T_0^{}\mathrm{\Lambda })W^2\delta T_0^{}W^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{64V}}{\displaystyle }d\stackrel{}{r}\left(\text{str}W^2\right)^2+O(W^5)\}.`$
The remaining $`\delta T_0`$ integral can be also calculated with use of the Wick theorem and the contraction rules:

$$\text{str}𝒳(\delta T_0^{})_{12}𝒴(\delta T_0^{})_{21}_{\delta T_0}=\frac{1}{8V}\text{str}𝒳\text{str}𝒴,$$
(A36)
$$\text{str}𝒳(\delta T_0^{})_{12}\text{str}𝒴(\delta T_0^{})_{21}_{\delta T_0}=\frac{1}{8V}\text{str}𝒳𝒴,$$
(A37)
where $`𝒳`$ and $`𝒴`$ are arbitrary supermatrices and

$$\mathrm{}_{\delta T_0}=d(\delta T_0)(\mathrm{})\mathrm{exp}\left[2V\text{str}(\delta T_0^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }\delta T_0^{}\mathrm{\Lambda })\delta T_0^{}\right].$$
(A38)
Since the zero mode variables enter into Eq. (A35) only through $`(\delta T_0^{})_{12}`$ and $`(\delta T_0^{})_{12}`$, the Jacobian does not contain the zero mode variables. We finally obtain the Jacobian (7) from the expression

$$d(\delta W)d(\delta T_0)\mathrm{exp}\left[𝑑\stackrel{}{r}\text{str}\left(\delta Q(\stackrel{}{r})\right)^2\right]=1+\frac{1}{16V^2}𝑑\stackrel{}{r}𝑑\stackrel{}{r^{}}\left(\text{str}W_{12}(\stackrel{}{r})W_{21}(\stackrel{}{r^{}})\right)^2+O(W^5).$$
(A39)
## B Block diagonalization

We can diagonalize $`Y=𝑑\stackrel{}{r}\stackrel{~}{Q}(\stackrel{}{r})`$ in the retarded-advanced space as follows. For Eq. (17),

$$Y=\underset{n=0}{}Y^{(n)},$$
(B1)
$$X=\underset{n=0}{}X^{(2n+1)},\{X^{(2n+1)},\mathrm{\Lambda }\}=0,$$
(B2)
$$\widehat{Q}=\underset{n=0}{}\widehat{Q}^{(2n)},[\widehat{Q}^{(2n)},\mathrm{\Lambda }]=0,$$
(B3)
where $`Y^{(n)}`$, $`X^{(n)}`$, $`\widehat{Q}^{(n)}`$ mean $`O(W^n)`$ term for $`Y,X,\widehat{Q}`$ and $`\{,\}`$ stands for an anticommutator. Then $`\widehat{Q}`$ and $`X`$ are perturbatively determined and given by Eq. (18) and

$$X=\frac{1}{8V}𝑑\stackrel{}{r}W^3(\stackrel{}{r})+O(W^5).$$
(B4)
We can parametlize $`e^XT_0`$ in terms of $`𝒯`$ and $`R`$:

$$e^XT_0=𝒯R,$$
(B5)
where $`𝒯`$ and $`R`$ obey the properties

$$𝒯^1=\mathrm{\Lambda }𝒯\mathrm{\Lambda },[R,\mathrm{\Lambda }]=0,$$
(B6)
and are given by

$$𝒯=\left(e^XT_0^2e^X\right)^{1/2}=T_0+O(W^3)+O(W^5),$$
(B7)
$$R=𝒯^1e^X\left(e^X𝒯^2e^X\right)^{1/2}=\mathrm{𝟏}+O(W^3)+O(W^5).$$
(B8)
From Eq. (B7),

$$dT_0=\left(1+O(W^3)+O(W^5)\right)d𝒯.$$
(B9)
Substituting the transformation (17) and (B5) in Eqs. (15) and (16), we find

$$𝑑\stackrel{}{r}\text{str}\mathrm{\Lambda }Q(\stackrel{}{r})=\text{str}\mathrm{\Lambda }𝒯^1\widehat{Q}𝒯,$$
(B10)
$$\left(𝑑\stackrel{}{r}\text{str}k\mathrm{\Lambda }Q(\stackrel{}{r})\right)^2=\left(\text{str}k\mathrm{\Lambda }𝒯^1\widehat{Q}𝒯\right)^2+O(W^3)+O(W^5).$$
(B11)
In Eqs. (B9) and (B11), $`O(W^3)`$ terms contribute to $`O(W^6)`$ in $`R(s)`$ and are negligible. Therefore we replace $`𝒯`$ with $`T_0`$.


text:
# Can supercooling explain the HBT puzzle?

## 1 Introduction

Two-particle interferometry has become a powerful tool for studying the size and duration of particle production from elementary collisions ($`e^+e^{}`$, $`pp`$ and $`p\overline{p}`$) to heavy ions like $`Au+Au`$ at RHIC or $`Pb+Pb`$ at SPS . For the case of nuclear collisions, the interest mainly focuses on the possible transient formation of a deconfined state of matter. This could affect the size of the region from where the hadrons (mostly pions) are emitted as well as the time for particle production.

Comparing recent data  from RHIC with SPS data one finds a “puzzle” : all the HBT radii are pretty similar although the center of mass energy is changed by an order of magnitude. Discussions at ”Quark Matter 2002”  lead to the conclusion that the duration of particle emission, as well as the lifetime of the system before freeze out, appear to be shorter than the predictions of most of the model at the physics market.

It was demonstrated that a strong first-order QCD phase transition within continuous hydrodynamical expansion would lead to long lifetimes of the particle source 111 If we use some microscopic model for hadronization, for example nucleation of relativistic first-order phase transition , the lifetime is even longer - it was estimated to be about $`50100fm/c`$ in Ref. ., which would manifest itself as a large $`R_{out}/R_{side}`$ ratio. Now this type of hadronization is excluded by experimental data.

An alternative possibility, discussed in Refs. , is the hadronization from the supercooled QGP. This is expected to be a very fast shock-like process. If the hadronization from supercooled QGP coincides with freeze out, like it was assumed in Ref. , then this could explain a part of the HBT puzzle, i.e. the flash-like particle emission ($`R_{out}/R_{side}1`$). In this work we are asking the following question – can the hadronization from supercooled QGP explain also the another part of the HBT puzzle, i.e. a very short ($`6`$ $`10`$ $`fm/c`$) expansion time before freeze out?

## 2 Shock hadronization of a sQGP

Relativistic shock phenomena were widely discussed with respect to their connection to high-energy heavy ion collisions (see, for example, ). In thermal equilibrium by admitting the existence of the sQGP and the superheated hadronic matter (HM) we have essentially richer picture of discontinuity-like transitions than in standard compression and rarefaction shocks. The system evolution in relativistic hydrodynamics is governed by the energy-momentum tensor $`T^{\mu \nu }=(ϵ+p)u^\mu u^\nu pg^{\mu \nu }`$ and conserved charge currents (in our applications to heavy ion collisions we consider only the baryonic current $`nu^\mu `$). They consist of local thermodynamical fluid quantities (the energy density $`ϵ`$, pressure $`p`$, baryonic density $`n`$) and the collective four-velocity $`u^\mu =\sqrt{1𝐯^2}(1,𝐯)`$. Continuous flows are the solutions of the hydrodynamical equations:

$$_\mu T^{\mu \nu }=0,_\mu nu^\mu =0,$$
(1)
with specified initial and boundary conditions. These equations are nothing more than the differential form of the energy-momentum and baryonic number conservation laws. Along with these continuous flows, the conservation laws can also be realized in the form of discontinuous hydrodynamical flows which are called shock waves and satisfy the following equations:

$$T_o^{\mu \nu }d\sigma _\nu =T^{\mu \nu }d\sigma _\nu ,n_ou_o^\mu d\sigma _\mu =nu^\mu d\sigma _\mu ,$$
(2)
where $`d\sigma ^\mu `$ is the unit 4-vector normal to the discontinuity hypersurface. In eq. (2) the zero index corresponds to the initial state ahead of the shock front and quantities without an index are the final state values behind it. A general derivation of the shock equations (valid for both space-like and time-like normal vectors $`d\sigma ^\mu `$) was given in Ref. .

The important constraint on the transitions (2) (thermodynamical stability condition) is the requirement of non- decreasing entropy ($`s`$ is the entropy density):

$$su^\mu d\sigma _\mu s_ou_o^\mu d\sigma _\mu .$$
(3)
To simplify our consideration and make our arguments more transparent we consider only one-dimensional hydrodynamical motion. To study the shock transitions at the surface with space-like (s.l.) normal vector (we call them s.l. shocks) one can always choose the Lorentz frame where the shock front is at rest. Then $`d\sigma ^\mu =(0,1)`$ at the surface of shock discontinuity, and eq. (2) in this (standard) case becomes:

$$T_o^{01}=T^{01},T_o^{11}=T^{11},n_ou_o^1=nu^1.$$
(4)
Solving eq. (4) one obtains

$$v_o^2=\frac{(pp_o)(ϵ+p_o)}{(ϵϵ_o)(ϵ_o+p)},v^2=\frac{(pp_o)(ϵ_o+p)}{(ϵϵ_o)(ϵ+p_o)},$$
(5)
and the well known Taub adiabat (TA)

$$n^2X^2n_o^2X_o^2(pp_o)(X+X_o)=0,$$
(6)
where $`X(ϵ+p)/n^2`$.222It has been shown in a series of works , that freeze out through the space-like hypersurface leads to nonequilibrium post FO distribution.

For discontinuities on a hypersurface with a time-like (t.l.) normal vector $`d\sigma ^\mu `$ (we call them t.l. shocks) one can always choose another convenient Lorentz frame (“simultaneous system”) where $`d\sigma ^\mu =(1,0)`$. Equation (2) is then

$$T_o^{00}=T^{00},T_o^{10}=T^{10},n_ou_o^0=nu^0.$$
(7)
Solving eq. (7) we find

$$\stackrel{~}{v}_o^2=\frac{(ϵϵ_o)(ϵ_o+p)}{(pp_o)(ϵ+p_o)},\stackrel{~}{v}^2=\frac{(ϵϵ_o)(ϵ+p_o)}{(pp_o)(ϵ_o+p)},$$
(8)
where we use the $`\mathrm{`}\mathrm{`}\mathrm{"}`$ sign to distinguish the t.l. shock case (8) from the standard s.l. shocks of (5). Another relation contains only the thermodynamical variables. It appears to be identical to the TA of eq. (6). Eqs. (8) and (5) are connected to each other by simple relations :

$$\stackrel{~}{v}_o^2=\frac{1}{v_o^2},\stackrel{~}{v}^2=\frac{1}{v^2}.$$
(9)
These relations show that only one kind of transition can be realized for a given initial state and final state. The physical regions $`[0,1)`$ for $`v_o^2,v^2`$ (5) and for $`\stackrel{~}{v}_o^2,\stackrel{~}{v}^2`$ (8) can be easily found in $`(ϵ`$$`p)`$-plane . For a given initial state $`(ϵ_o,p_o)`$ they are shown in Fig. 1. For supercooled initial QGP states the TA no longer passes through the point $`(ϵ_o,p_o)`$ and new possibilities of t.l. shock hadronization transitions to regions III and VI in Fig. 1 appear.

## 3 Hadronization of the sQGP within Bjorken hydrodynamics

For a study of the expanding QGP we have chosen a framework of the one dimensional Bjorken model  (actually our principal results will not change if we use 3D Bjorken model). Within the Bjorken model all the thermodynamical quantities are constant along constant proper time curves, $`\tau =\sqrt{t^2z^2}=const`$. The important result of Bjorken hydrodynamics (which assumes a perfect fluid) is that the evolution of the entropy density, is independent of the Equation of State (EoS), namely

$$s(\tau )=\frac{s(\tau _{init})\tau _{init}}{\tau }.$$
(10)
In Bjorken model the natural choice of the freeze out hypersurface is $`\tau =const`$ hypersurface, where normal vector is parallel to the Bjorken flow velocity, $`v=z/t`$. Thus, $`d\sigma ^\nu =(1,0)`$ in the rest frames of each fluid element. This leads to the simple solution of the t.l. shock equations (7):

$$\stackrel{~}{v}^2=\stackrel{~}{v}_o^2=0,ϵ=ϵ_o,n=n_o,pp_o.$$
(11)
The entropy condition (3) is reduced to

$$ss_o.$$
(12)
Now let us try to answer the main question of this work – can QGP expansion with t.l. shock hadronization of supercooled state be faster than the hadronization through the mixed phase? The initial state is given at the proper time $`\tau _{init}\tau _Q`$, when the local thermal equilibrium is achieved in the QGP state $`Q(ϵ_Q,p_Q,s_Q)`$. The final equilibrium hadron state is also fixed, by experiment or otherwise, as $`H(ϵ_H,p_H,s_H)`$. For the continuous expansion given by eq. (10) the proper time for the $`QH`$ transition is (see Fig. 2 \- subplot A):

$$\tau _H=\frac{s_Q\tau _Q}{s_H}.$$
(13)
If our system enters the sQGP phase and the particle emission is flash-like, i.e. the system hadronizes and freezes out at the same time, then eq. (10) is also valid all the time with final t.l. shock transition to the same $`H`$ state. We call this as a scenario number one (see Fig. 2 \- subplot A). Our system should go into supercooled phase to the point where $`ϵ_o^{(1)}=ϵ_H,n_o^{(1)}=n_H`$, as it is required by eq. (11). At this point our sQGP has entropy density $`s_o^{(1)}`$. It’s value depend on the EoS, but t.l. shock transition is only possible if $`s_o^{(1)}s_H`$ according to eq. (12). Thus, for the proper time of $`QH`$ transition according to first scenario we have:

$$\tau _H^{(1)}=\frac{s_Q\tau _Q}{s_o^{(1)}}\tau _H.$$
(14)
We can also study a scenario number two when our system supercools to the state $`(ϵ_o^{(2)},p_o^{(2)},s_o^{(2)})`$, then hadronizes to a superheated HM state $`(ϵ^{(2)},p^{(2)},s^{(2)})`$, and then this HM state expands to the same freeze out state $`H(ϵ_H,p_H,s_H)`$. (see Fig. 2 \- subplot C). At the point of the shock transition one has:

$$\tau _o^{(2)}=\frac{s_Q\tau _Q}{s_o^{(2)}},$$
(15)
Then we have a t.l. shock transition satisfying eq. (11), and following the HM branch of the hydrodynamical expansion we find:

$$\tau _H^{(2)}=\frac{s^{(2)}\tau _o^{(2)}}{s_H}=\frac{s_Q\tau _Q}{s_H}\frac{s^{(2)}}{s_o^{(2)}}\tau _H,$$
(16)
since $`s^{(2)}s_o^{(2)}`$ due to non-decreasing entropy condition (12). In this second scenario the value of the of entropy density $`s_o^{(2)}`$ of sQGP can be both smaller and larger than HM final value $`s_H`$. Depending on details of the EoS the proper time $`\tau _H^{(2)}`$ (16) of the $`QH`$ transition can also be smaller as well as larger than $`\tau _H^{(1)}`$ (14), but always larger than $`\tau _H`$.

## 4 Conclusions

The conclusion of our analysis seems to be a rather general one: the system’s evolution through a supercooled phase and time-like shock hadronization can not be shorter than a continuous expansion within the perfect fluid hydrodynamics independently of the details of EoS and the parameter values of the initial, $`Q`$, and final, $`H`$, states. Although in such a way we may achieve flash-like particle emission, supported by the HBT data, the expansion time becomes longer, making it harder to reproduce the experimental HBT radii.

So, how can we achieve shorter freeze out time than the minimal one coming from (very fast) Bjorken expansion via thermal and phase equilibrium? Any delay in the phase equilibration (see assignment 9 in Ref. ) or/and any dissipative process in our system lead to the entropy production, what increases the time needed to reduce entropy density to $`s_os_H`$ (for the flash-like particle emission).

The system may, nevertheless, freeze out and hadronize into a non-equilibrated hadron gas well before $`\tau _H`$. This is possible e.g. through a dominantly s.l. hypersurface with non-decreasing entropy condition, eq. (12) , at earlier times from a slightly supercooled QGP. On the other hand a dominantly s.l. hypersurface gives a finite duration of the particle emission, making it harder to reproduce experimental $`R_{out}/R_{side}`$ ratio.

The construction of a full reaction model, which simultaneously describes data on two particle interferometry, hadron spectra and hadron abundances is a formidable task which is still ahead of us.

## Acknowledgements

We have benefitted from discussions with I. Mishustin, L. Satarov and Yu.M. Sinyukov. The financial support from the Humboldt Foundation and INTAS grant 00-00366 are acknowledged.