text:
# A Renormalization Group Method for Quasi One-dimensional Quantum Hamiltonians

## Abstract

A density-matrix renormalization group (DMRG) method for highly anisotropic two-dimensional systems is presented. The method consists in applying the usual DMRG in two steps. In the first step, a pure one dimensional calculation along the longitudinal direction is made in order to generate a low energy Hamiltonian. In the second step, the anisotropic 2D lattice is obtained by coupling in the transverse direction the 1D Hamiltonians. The method is applied to the anisotropic quantum spin half Heisenberg model on a square lattice.

The density-matrix renormalization group method introduced by White white  a decade ago has proven a remarkable efficiency in the computation of the ground-state white2 ; moukouri\_KONDO ; DMRG\_book , thermodynamic moukouri\_THERMO ; bursill  and dynamic hallberg ; shibata  properties of one-dimensional interacting electron models as well as electron-phonon systems caron ; zhang . An extension of the method to two dimensional systems is currently the object of some efforts xiang . But an efficient 2D algorithm is still lacking.

An interesting situation which has been so far overlooked is the possible application of the DMRG technique to strongly anisotropic 2D systems. In such systems, the interaction Hamiltonian can be written as the sum of two terms: $`H=H_{}+gH_{}`$; where $`H_{}`$ is a the sum over one-dimensional (1D) Hamiltonians (longitudinal direction) and $`H_{}`$ is the interaction between these 1D systems (transverse direction). $`H_{}`$ and $`H_{}`$ are of the same magnitude and $`g1`$. This type of situation arises in various physical systems including quasi 1D organic and inorganic materials, weakly coupled ladder systems, carbon nanotube ropes, quasi 1D antiferromagnets, quasi 1D spin-Peierls systems, etc. It is the purpose of this letter to show that a DMRG algorithm can be implemented for the study of such anisotropic models.

The standard approach to anisotropic Hamiltonians such as $`H`$ is to first diagonalize $`H_{}`$ and then use its eigenstates to compute the corrections introduced by $`H_{}`$. We present below an algorithm which follows this spirit. This method consists in applying a two-step DMRG method to Hamiltonians having the form of $`H`$. The standard DMRG is first used along the longitudinal direction until the scale of $`gH_{}`$ is reached. Then a transformation is made in order to keep only a small number ( a few tens) of low lying states of $`H_{||}`$. These states are then used as a starting point for a second DMRG calculation along the transverse direction. The validity of this procedure is discussed. As in the thermodynamic algorithm moukouri\_THERMO  which was introduced by the authors, the accuracy depends on not only the number of states $`m`$ kept by blocks, but also on the number of the target states $`M`$.

The two-step DMRG is illustrated in Fig. 1. The first step of the quasi 1D algorithm is the usual 1D DMRG method. For the sake of completeness, we briefly recall the main steps of the algorithm. For more details, we refer the reader to the more extensive presentations in refDMRG\_book . An iteration of the DMRG algorithm with the infinite system method proceeds as follows: (a) the Hamiltonian for the superblock 1+2+3+4 ( where the blocks 1 and 4 come from previous iterations and 2 and 3 are new added ones. Blocks 2 and 3 are usually single site blocks) is diagonalized in order to obtain the few $`M`$ lowest lying wave functions $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_k(1,2,3,4)`$, $`k=1,M`$. (b) the reduced density matrix of blocks 1+2 is constructed. This reduced density matrix is $`\rho =_k\omega _k\rho _k`$, where $`\rho _k`$ and $`\omega _k`$ are respectively the reduced density matrix of the $`k^{th}`$ state and its weight. $`\rho _k`$ is related to the superblock wave function $`\mathrm{\Psi }_k(1,2,3,4)`$ through the relation, $`\rho _k(1,2;1^{},2^{})=_{3,4}|\mathrm{\Psi }_k(1,2,3,4)\mathrm{\Psi }_k^{}(1^{},2^{},3,4)|`$. $`\rho `$ is diagonalized and the $`m`$ eigenstates with the highest eigenvalues $`\lambda _\alpha `$ are kept. Since $`_\alpha \lambda _\alpha =1`$, because $`\rho `$ is a density matrix, the error made by truncating this sum to $`m`$ states is $`p_m=1_{\alpha =1,m}\lambda _\alpha `$. (c) These states form a new reduced basis in which all the operators have to be expanded and the block 1+2 is renamed as block 1. New block 2 and 3 are added to form a new superblock. This procedure is repeated until one reaches the desired lattice size. This means typically, once the energy separation between the eigenstates of the 1D system are of the same magnitude as g.

Once the size $`L+2`$ of the superblock is large enough, i.e when the difference between the first excited state and the ground state is such that $`|E_0E_1|g`$, we perform a block transformation, of the type of the old RG method weinstein ; jullien , on blocks 1 and 4. The two $`L/2`$-lattices with $`m`$ states are coupled, then renormalized to a $`L`$-lattice with $`m`$ states. These $`m`$ states are the ground state and the low-lying excited states of the $`L`$-lattice. They can now be coupled through $`g`$. One can note that the boundary condition problem in the block RG method raised by White and Noack white-noack  does not exist here, this is because the block transformation is only applied once. A 2D lattice is then generated by using the 1D density-matrix renormalization group algorithm with chains as units instead of sites.

This new block 1 will serve, in the second DMRG step, as a building unit for a new series of iteration that are similar to those performed in step 1. This block is labelled block 2 in the second step since it plays the role played by a single site in step 1. This two-step method can be justified as follows: in the study of the ground state properties of a quasi 1D system, since $`g1`$, $`gH_{}`$ may be neglected in the early steps of the renormalization process. The reason is that finite size effects act as temperature. When the size is small, the excitation energies are far greater than the transverse coupling, $`g|E_0E_n|`$, therefore $`g`$ is irrelevant.

We now illustrate the two-step DMRG method in the case of weakly coupled spin-half Heisenberg chains on a square lattice. The Hamiltonian reads,

$`H_{spins}={\displaystyle \underset{i,l}{}}𝐒_{i,l}𝐒_{i+1,l}+J_{}{\displaystyle \underset{i,l}{}}𝐒_{i,l}𝐒_{i,l+1}`$ (1)
where the $`𝐒_{i,l}`$ are the usual spin-half operators. Following the prescriptions above, we start by applying the 1D DMRG on the single chain Hamiltonian $`H_{,l}=_i𝐒_{i,l}𝐒_{i+1,l}`$. It was shown by White white  that a relatively small number of $`m`$ states kept in block 1 can lead to an astonishingly high accuracy for the ground-state energy and spin correlation functions. An accuracy ranging from $`10^6`$ to better than $`10^{10}`$ for the ground state energy of a $`L=28`$ sites chain was obtained by keeping only $`m=16`$ to $`m=64`$ states with modest computational power.

A set of these highly accurate low energy eigenstates $`|\varphi _{n_l}>`$ and eigenvalues $`ϵ_{n_l}`$ of $`H_{,l}`$ is first obtained by the 1D DMRG. The eigensets of the disconnected chain Hamiltonian $`H_{}=_lH_{,l}`$ are given by the relations:

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_{[n]}={\displaystyle \underset{l}{}}|\varphi _{n_l}>,E_{[n]}={\displaystyle \underset{l}{}}ϵ_{n_l}`$ (2)
$`[n]=(n_1,n_2,\mathrm{},n_L)`$, $`n_l`$ corresponds to an eigenset on the chain $`l`$. The eigenset $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{[n]}`$, $`E_{[n]}`$ diagonalizes $`H_{}`$:

$`<\mathrm{\Phi }_{[n]}|H_{}|\mathrm{\Phi }_{[m]}>=E_{[n]}\delta _{[n],[m]}.`$ (3)
The matrix elements of $`H_{}`$ in the basis formed by the $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{[n]}`$ are:

$`<\mathrm{\Phi }_{[n]}|H_{}|\mathrm{\Phi }_{[m]}>={\displaystyle \underset{l}{}}<\mathrm{\Phi }_{[n]}|{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}𝐒_{i,l}𝐒_{i,l+1}|\mathrm{\Phi }_{[m]}>.`$ (4)
This last equation 4 can readily be transformed to:

$`<\mathrm{\Phi }_{[n]}|H_{}|\mathrm{\Phi }_{[m]}>={\displaystyle \underset{il}{}}\stackrel{~}{𝐒}_{i,l}^{n_l,m_l}\stackrel{~}{𝐒}_{i,l+1}^{n_{l+1},m_{l+1}}.`$ (5)
where $`\stackrel{~}{𝐒}_{i,l}^{n_l,m_l}=<\varphi _{n_l}|𝐒_{i,l}|\varphi _{m_l}>`$. The renormalized Hamiltonian $`\stackrel{~}{H}`$ in the basis of the $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{[n]}`$ is thus:

$`\stackrel{~}{H}{\displaystyle \underset{[n]}{}}E_{[n]}|\mathrm{\Phi }_{[n]}><\mathrm{\Phi }_{[n]}|+J_{}{\displaystyle \underset{il}{}}\stackrel{~}{𝐒}_{i,l}\stackrel{~}{𝐒}_{i,l+1}.`$ (6)
$`\stackrel{~}{H}`$ is studied by the usual 1D DMRG algorithm. It is however to be noted that the computational requirement for $`\stackrel{~}{H}`$ are greater than in the study of a simple spin chain performed in the first step. The renormalized spin operators $`\stackrel{~}{𝐒}_{i,l}`$ are now $`m\times m`$ matrices instead of $`2\times 2`$. The size of the superblock in the second step is $`m^2\times m^2`$ (it is $`4\times m^2`$ in step 1) if $`m^{}`$ states are kept in the two external blocks. We were nonetheless able to perform the calculations on a workstation for up to $`m=48`$.

It is instructive to compare the results which are obtained by the proposed method with a known case. A simple situation is the two-leg spin ladder model. We have computed the ground state energy of the ladder system in two ways. First, we use the usual DMRG algorithm which have been widely applied for the study of this system during the last decade azzouz . Second, we compute the ground-state energy of the two leg ladder by first obtaining the low energy Hamiltonian of a single chain. For this, we targeted $`M=5`$ states corresponding to the lowest states of the spin sectors $`S_z=\pm 2`$, $`\pm 1`$ and $`0`$. It is necessary to target other spin sectors when building the low energy Hamiltonian because, when forming the tensor product, they may lead to lower energy states than some $`S_z=0`$ states. A criteria for the selection of spin sector to be selected is similar to the one applied in the thermodynamic algorithm. If the lowest state of $`S_z`$ is higher than the highest state retained in $`S_z=0`$, the subspace $`S_z`$ is not retained. We then coupled two low energy 1D Hamiltonians with $`J_{}`$ to form a ladder. This corresponds to performing the second step of the two-step DMRG with one iteration and two blocks instead of four.

In table 1 we compare the ground state energies of the ladder obtained by the two methods as well as those of a single chain for $`L=32`$. The infinite system DMRG method with open boundary conditions was used. The energy per site of the $`32`$ site single chain for $`m=40`$ is $`0.4374`$ which is still far from the exact ground state energy of the infinite chain $`0.4431`$. This is because chains with open boundary conditions converge very slowly (as $`1/L`$) to the thermodynamic limit. It can be seen that the energy of the two step DMRG are systematically better than those of the simple DMRG. The latter are found to be even higher than those of a single chain. This can be understood by the fact that the DMRG method is less accurate in situations where the ground state is nearly degenerate. This type of situation is, for instance, encountered in the small coupling region of the Kondo lattice moukouri\_KONDO  where a large number of states must be kept to get reliable results. Another look at this is that when $`J_{}`$ is small, the two chains are nearly independent, the $`m`$ states are shared between the two chains $`\sqrt{m}`$ states for each chain caron2 .

The ground state energy of the two dimensional system ($`32\times 32`$) is shown in the last column of table 1 and Fig. 2 shows the variation of the ground state energy per chain as a function of the chain number $`l`$, the reference is a single chain with $`L=32`$. It displays a rapid convergence as $`l`$ increases. We kept the same number of states in the two external blocks as in the internal blocks during the second step of the DMRG. Truncation errors are between $`10^3`$ and $`10^5`$ for $`m=16`$ to $`40`$. One should note, however, that these errors are relative to the truncated Hamiltonian. Hence they do not necessarily represent the accuracy of the method. It is important to verify that the truncated Hamiltonian generated for the single chain is accurate enough, for the ground state and for the low lying state, to be used as a building block for the 2D lattice. This will depend indeed on $`m`$ and $`M`$, but also on $`J_{}`$ and $`L`$. One can easily see that for a fixed $`L`$ and $`J_{}\mathrm{\Delta }_\sigma (L)`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\sigma (L)`$ is the finite size spin gap, the interchain matrix elements will be negligible. The system will behave as a collection of free chains even if $`J_{}`$ is turned on. Now if $`J_{}\delta E(L)`$, $`\delta E(L)`$ is the width of the retained states, the matrix elements of the states having higher energy which have been truncated out have a non-negligible contribution. We thus expect the two-step DMRG technique to be reliable when $`J_{}`$ is within the range $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\sigma (L)J_{}\delta E(L)`$. Values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\sigma (L)`$ and $`\delta E(L)`$ are displayed in table 2. An estimate of the extrapolated ground state energy per site for the 2D system (Fig. 3) is -.4455 for $`J_{}=0.1`$ when $`m=32`$ (the same value of $`m`$ gives -.4428 for $`J_{}=0`$). This is to be compared to the quantum Monte Carlo (QMC) estimate -.4485 for the infinite system obtained using clusters with periodic boundary conditions alvarez .

The possible occurrence of long-range order is studied by observing the behavior of spin correlation functions. This is however complicated by the use of open boundary conditions. It is known that white ; caron2  the OBC induce a strong odd-even alternation in the spin correlation functions. This alternation is also observed for the 2D system with $`J_{}=0.1`$. In order to avoid this alternation, we defined the spin correlation function as the average between these two states. This is done by computing $`<𝐒_1𝐒_l>`$ in two ways. $`𝐒_1`$ is taken as the origin of a strong link or as the origin on a weak link. This averaging process reduces the even-odd alternation as shown in Fig. 4 for the single chain; the alternation is suppressed in the 2D system. The suppression of the alternation in the 2D system after averaging is probably due to the fact that the valence bond picture is not valid for the 2D system, even with open boundary conditions. The observation of the alternation before averaging is simply reminiscent of the starting point which is a single chain.

We have shown that the DMRG can successfully be applied to highly anisotropic 2D systems. We used the spin-half Heisenberg anisotropic model on a square lattice as a test case. Even in this simple case, the computational power required increases significantly with the number of block states kept as shown in the last column of Table. 2. An analysis of the program reveals that $`75`$ percent of the CPU time is spent during the calculation of the superblock wave function. This step involves mostly matrix-vector products. A significant improvement in speed is thus expected by the use of parallel computers. Furthermore, the initial guess for the superblock wave function was a random vector at each iteration. Another improvement of the program is to use a transformed state from the previous iteration as done in the standard DMRG method white-DAVIDSON .

###### Acknowledgements.

Part of this work was performed when S. M. was at the Groupe de Physique des Solides, Université Paris VI. We wish to thank Professor Claudine Noguéra and her group for their hospitality. We thank J.V Alvarez and A. Sandvik for sharing their QMC data.


format: text

text:
# The Information Geometry of the Spherical Model

## 1 The Information Geometry of Spin Models

The idea of endowing the space of parameters with a metric and geometrical structure has been borrowed from parametric statistics  and employed to some effect in statistical mechanics . The approach seems to be particularly fruitful for a spin model in field where the parameters are $`\beta `$, the inverse temperature, and $`h`$, the external field. In this case the (Fisher-Rao) metric is simply given by

$$G_{ij}=_i_jf,$$
(1)
where $`f`$ is the reduced free energy per site and $`_i=(/\beta ,/h)`$.

For such a metric the scalar curvature may be calculated as

$$=\frac{1}{2G^2}\left|\begin{array}{ccc}_\beta ^2f\hfill & _\beta _hf\hfill & _h^2f\hfill \\ _\beta ^3f\hfill & _\beta ^2_hf\hfill & _\beta _h^2f\hfill \\ _\beta ^2_hf\hfill & _\beta _h^2f\hfill & _h^3f\hfill \end{array}\right|,$$
(2)
where $`G=\mathrm{det}(G_{ij})`$ is the determinant of the metric itself.

The work in  has made it clear that, as one might expect, the scalar curvature plays a central role in any attempt to look at statistical mechanics from a geometrical perspective. In particular, for all the models that have been considered so far, the curvature diverges only at a phase transition point for physical ranges of the parameter values. We assume a standard scaling form for the free energy per site

$$f(ϵ,h)=\lambda ^1f(ϵ\lambda ^{a_ϵ},h\lambda ^{a_h}),$$
(3)
where $`ϵ=\beta _c\beta `$ (with $`\beta _c`$ marking the critical point) and $`a_ϵ,a_h`$ are the scaling dimensions for the energy and spin operators.

The spherical model has a one-sided critical point  and we are interested in the high-temperature domain (where $`ϵ>0`$). There, standard scaling assumptions allow us to write (3) as

$$f(ϵ,h)=ϵ^{1/a_ϵ}\psi _+(hϵ^{a_h/a_ϵ}),$$
(4)
where we have introduced the scaling function $`\psi _+`$. Consideration of the behaviour of the components of $``$ in equ. (2) then leads to the scaling

$$ϵ^{\alpha 2},$$
(5)
for the curvature itself.

Equation (5) shows that the scalar curvature not only characterises phase transition points as divergences, as do the more standard statistical mechanical quantities such as the specific heat $`C`$ and susceptibility $`\chi `$, it displays a scaling behaviour that allows the extraction of the critical exponent $`\alpha `$. Indeed, with hyperscaling, equ. (5) can be recast as

$$\xi ^d,$$
(6)
where $`\xi `$ is the correlation length and $`d`$ is the dimensionality of the system. So the curvature is proportional to the correlation volume, an intuitively reasonable result on dimensional grounds.

At first sight, our calculation of the scaling behaviour of $``$ in  for the Ising model on planar random graphs puts a spanner in the works. There, $`\alpha =1`$ but $`ϵ^2`$ rather than the expected $`ϵ^3`$. However, returning to the detailed scaling of the individual terms in equ. (2) showed that a negative $`\alpha `$ affected some of the scaling of the components and the end result could be traced back to these modifications. In principle this modified behaviour should apply to any model with negative $`\alpha `$, so an interesting test would be to calculate $``$, or at least its scaling limit, for another model with this property.

The spherical model provides just such a test case. It was solved (in field) in the classic Berlin and Kac paper  and the critical exponents in $`3`$D found to be $`\alpha =1,\beta =1/2,\gamma =2`$ which are identical to those of the Ising model on 2D planar random graphs . This is remarkable, because there are no obvious physical similarities between the two models. An additional motivation for any such calculation is the general paucity of spin models that have been solved in field. Indeed, $``$ for spin models has been obtained explicitly only for the $`1`$D Ising , Bethe lattice Ising  and $`1`$D Potts  models and the scaling form calculated for the Ising model on planar random graphs . This forms a rather small sample on which to formulate hypotheses about its general behaviour and its scaling properties. In the sequel, we extend this short list incrementally by looking at the scaling behaviour of $``$ in the spherical model. We concentrate on the $`3`$D case, but also discuss other dimensions, including the mean-field like behaviour which sets in at $`d=4`$.

## 2 The Spherical Model

Berlin and Kac  introduced the spherical model (and the Gaussian model) in an attempt to understand how generic some of the features of Onsager’s solution  of the $`2`$D Ising model are for ferromagnetic spin models, particularly for other dimensions. In the spherical model, the $`\pm 1`$ condition on the value of the Ising spins is relaxed, whilst retaining a global constraint on the total spin magnitude. With $`s_i`$ denoting the value of a spin at a site $`i`$ of a hypercubic lattice, the partition function is

$$𝒵=𝑑s_1\mathrm{}𝑑s_N\mathrm{exp}\left(\beta \underset{ij}{}s_is_j+h\underset{i}{}s_i\right)\delta \left(\underset{i}{}s_i^2N\right),$$
(7)
where $`N`$ is the total number of sites. This can be evaluated by exponentiating the constraint and using steepest descent, resulting in the following expression for the reduced free energy per site in the thermodynamic limit, $`N\mathrm{}`$:

$$f=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{\pi }{\beta }\right)+\beta z\frac{1}{2}g(z)+\frac{h^2}{4\beta (zd)},$$
(8)
where

$$g(z)=\frac{1}{(2\pi )^d}_0^{2\pi }𝑑\omega _1\mathrm{}𝑑\omega _d\mathrm{log}\left(z\underset{k=1}{\overset{d}{}}\mathrm{cos}(\omega _k)\right).$$
(9)
The saddle point value of $`z`$ which appears in the expression for the free energy in equ. (8) is determined from

$$g^{}(z)=2\beta \frac{h^2}{2\beta (zd)^2}.$$
(10)
The solution reveals no transition for $`d=1`$ and $`2`$, and a transition with the exponents $`\alpha =1,\beta =1/2,\gamma =2`$ for $`d=3`$. For $`d4`$, on the other hand, mean-field behaviour with $`\alpha =0,\beta =1/2,\gamma =1`$ sets in (modified by multiplicative logarithmic corrections in the $`d=4`$ case ). For the following formulae we confine our attention to the $`d=3`$ case.

It is useful to note that, with $`h=0`$, equ. (10) gives

$$\frac{dz}{d\beta }=\frac{2}{g^{\prime \prime }(z)},$$
(11)
and hence

$$\frac{d^2z}{d\beta ^2}=\frac{4g^{(3)}(z)}{[g^{\prime \prime }(z)]^3}.$$
(12)
The critical point is given by $`z=d=3`$ and $`h=0`$ , and the behaviour of $`g(z)`$ in this region is determined by differentiating equ. (9) twice and then expanding for the small $`\omega _k`$ values which give the dominant contribution. One finds

$`g^{\prime \prime }(z){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}\pi }}(z3)^{1/2}.`$ (13)
A further differentiation gives

$`g^{(3)}(z){\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\sqrt{2}\pi }}(z3)^{3/2},`$ (14)
and an integration yields

$$g^{}(z)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}\pi }(z3)^{1/2}+g^{}(3),$$
(15)
where $`g^{}(3)=(18+12\sqrt{2}10\sqrt{3}7\sqrt{6})[K(2\sqrt{3}+\sqrt{6}2\sqrt{2}3)]^2\mathrm{0.505\hspace{0.17em}462\hspace{0.17em}019}\mathrm{}`$ is the exactly known massless 3D lattice propagator at the origin, with $`K(k^2)`$ denoting the standard elliptic integral. This latter expression can be combined with equ. (10) with $`h=0`$ to give

$$(z3)8\pi ^2(\beta _c\beta )^2ϵ^2,$$
(16)
in which $`\beta _c=g^{}(3)/2\mathrm{0.252\hspace{0.17em}731\hspace{0.17em}009}\mathrm{}`$. Equations (13) and (14) may then be substituted in equs. (11) and (12) to give the scaling of $`dz/d\beta `$ and $`d^2z/d\beta ^2`$,

$`\underset{z3}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{dz}{d\beta }}`$ $`=`$ $`\underset{z3}{lim}\{4\sqrt{2}\pi (z3)^{1/2}\}=0,`$
$`\underset{z3}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2z}{d\beta ^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`16\pi ^2,`$ (17)
which we shall employ below in the calculation of the scalar curvature.

## 3 The Scalar Curvature

We recapitulate the general considerations of  before going on to discuss in detail the results for the spherical model. In (4), we define $`A=1/a_ϵ`$ and $`C=a_h/a_ϵ`$, which, in terms of the standard exponents, gives $`A=2\alpha `$ and $`A+C=\beta `$. If $`A>2`$ (which is the case for $`\alpha <0`$) the specific heat, rather than diverging, will be a constant at the critical point, which we denote by $`A(A1)\varphi (0)`$. With this in mind, substitution of the scaling function into equ. (2) gives

$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2G^2}}\times `$ (21)
$`\left|\begin{array}{ccc}A(A1)\varphi (0)& 0& ϵ^{A+2C}\psi _+^{^{\prime \prime }}(0)\\ A(A1)(A2)ϵ^{A3}\psi _+(0)& 0& (A+2C)ϵ^{A+2C1}\psi _+^{^{\prime \prime }}(0)\\ 0& (A+2C)ϵ^{A+2C1}\psi _+^{^{\prime \prime }}(0)& 0\end{array}\right|.`$
In equ. (LABEL:equcurv3) terms with an odd number of $`h`$ derivatives have been set to zero. These do not appear because of the $`hh`$ symmetry of the free energy. The scaling for the determinant of the metric $`G`$ is given by

$$G=A(A1)ϵ^{A+2C}\varphi (0)\psi _+^{^{\prime \prime }}(0),$$
(23)
so the leading term in $``$ (for $`A>2`$) is

$$=\frac{(A+2C)^2}{2A(A1)\varphi (0)}ϵ^2,$$
(24)
or, translating back to the standard critical exponents,

$$=\frac{\gamma ^2}{2(2\alpha )(1\alpha )\varphi (0)}ϵ^2.$$
(25)
In summary, if $`\alpha <0`$ the expected scaling of $``$ is $`ϵ^2`$ rather than the $`ϵ^{\alpha 2}`$, which is seen for positive $`\alpha `$.

We now move on to examine the scaling of the various terms contributing to $``$ in equ. (2) for the spherical model itself. As we have remarked, the $`hh`$ symmetry in the free energy per site, $`f`$, of the spherical model means that any terms with an odd number of $`h`$ derivatives will automatically be zero when $`h=0`$, hence $`f_{\beta h}=f_{\beta \beta h}=f_{hhh}=0`$. This leaves the non-zero terms (again when $`h=0`$)

$`f_{\beta \beta }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{z}{\beta }}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\beta ^2}},`$
$`f_{hh}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\beta (z3)}},`$
$`f_{\beta \beta \beta }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{^2z}{\beta ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\beta ^3}},`$
$`f_{hh\beta }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\beta (z3)^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{z}{\beta }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\beta ^2(z3)}},`$ (26)
which, using equs. (16) and (17) have the following behaviour in the scaling region:

$`f_{\beta \beta }`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\beta _c^2}},`$
$`f_{hh}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi ^2\beta _c(\beta _c\beta )^2}}ϵ^2,`$
$`f_{\beta \beta \beta }`$ $``$ $`16\pi ^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\beta _c^3}},`$
$`f_{hh\beta }`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi ^2\beta _c(\beta _c\beta )^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi ^2\beta _c^2(\beta _c\beta )^2}}ϵ^3.`$ (27)
Comparing with the individual terms in equ. (LABEL:equcurv3) we see that the expected general scaling of each term (for $`\alpha <0`$) does indeed apply and that overall we have, as in equ. (25),

$$ϵ^2.$$
(28)
We thus see that calculating the scaling of $``$ for the $`3`$D spherical model for which $`\alpha =1`$ gives results in accordance with expectations from general scaling arguments which take into account the negative $`\alpha `$, similarly to the Ising model on planar random graphs.

In $`d4`$ dimensions the exponents of the spherical model attain their mean-field values, $`\alpha =0,\beta =1/2,\gamma =1`$. In this case $`g^{}(z)zd+g^{}(d)`$ near criticality and the resulting scaling of the components of the expression for $``$ is

$$=\frac{1}{2G^2}\left|\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{const}& 0& ϵ^1\\ \mathrm{const}& 0& ϵ^2\\ 0& ϵ^2& 0\end{array}\right|,$$
(29)
where the determinant of the metric scales as $`G=ϵ^1`$. Thus $``$ itself scales as $`ϵ^2`$, in the mean-field case. This is in agreement with the expected scaling of $`ϵ^{\alpha 2}`$ when $`\alpha 0`$ since, in that case ,

$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2G^2}}\times `$ (33)
$`\left|\begin{array}{ccc}A(A1)ϵ^{A2}\psi _+(0)& 0& ϵ^{A+2C}\psi _+^{^{\prime \prime }}(0)\\ A(A1)(A2)ϵ^{A3}\psi _+(0)& 0& (A+2C)ϵ^{A+2C1}\psi _+^{^{\prime \prime }}(0)\\ 0& (A+2C)ϵ^{A+2C1}\psi _+^{^{\prime \prime }}(0)& 0\end{array}\right|,`$
where the scaling of the metric determinant is

$$G=A(A1)ϵ^{2A+2C2}\psi _+(0)\psi _+^{^{\prime \prime }}(0).$$
(35)
The difference in scaling between the $`\alpha 0`$ and the $`\alpha <0`$ cases originates in the $`f_{\beta \beta }`$ term which contributes to both $``$ and $`G`$ in equ. (LABEL:equcurv2) and equ. (35). In the negative $`\alpha `$ case, the contribution of this term comes from the regular part of the free energy, and is non-diverging.

Note that for $`\alpha =0`$, $`A=2`$, and although the displayed scaling term $`A(A1)(A2)ϵ^{A3}\psi _+(0)`$ in equ. (LABEL:equcurv2) would be expected to vanish, a regular term could still contribute. This is indeed what is seen in the explicit calculation for the spherical model. Two further caveats arise. Firstly, for the upper critical dimension $`d=4`$ itself, there are multiplicative logarithmic corrections  which require a careful handling. Secondly, for $`d>4`$, where the scaling is described by mean-field theory, the hyperscaling relation fails. So one should be quite cautious in comparing the explicit calculation in terms of $`ϵ`$ with expressions involving the correlation length $`\xi `$.

## 4 Conclusions

We have calculated the scaling behaviour of the scalar curvature, $``$, of the information geometry metric for the $`3`$D spherical model, finding, as for the Ising model on planar random graphs, that $`ϵ^2`$. Careful considerations of the scaling of the various elements which contribute to $``$ show that this is in accordance with expectations. We also briefly discussed the scaling behaviour of $``$ for $`d4`$, corresponding to mean-field exponents.

The calculation reported here provides another example of a statistical mechanical model in which the curvature of the information geometry metric diverges at the critical point, with a clearly quantifiable scaling behaviour. Once again it is curious that the relevant exponent is shared with the Ising model on planar random graphs. All critical exponents now coincide in the two models though there is no obvious physical relation between them. It seems that the suggestion in the original Berlin and Kac paper  that the $`3`$D spherical model might provide a hint to the behaviour of the $`3`$D Ising model applies rather to the Ising model on 2D planar random graphs.

## 5 Acknowledgements

W.J. and D.J. were partially supported by EC IHP network “Discrete Random Geometries: From Solid State Physics to Quantum Gravity” HPRN-CT-1999-000161. D.J. and R.K. were also partially supported by an Enterprise Ireland/British Council Research Visits Scheme grant.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The subject of quantum field theory in curved spacetime has been extensively developed over the past thirty years. These developments include an understanding of cosmological and black hole particle creation, and a better understanding of the quantum stress tensor operator. Thus it is appropriate to ask if any of these insights help to understand the nature of the dark energy. One can phrase the question as follows: Is the dark energy of quantum origin, and if so, can it be understood without radical new physics?

## 2 The Expectation Value of the Quantum Stress Tensor

If quantum effects are to influence the large scale evolution of the universe, the simplest description is in terms of a semiclassical theory where the expectation value of the stress tensor, $`T_{\mu \nu }`$, acts as the source of gravity. This quantity is formally infinite, and hence needs to be modified before it can make physical sense. The simplest modification is a noncovariant frequency cutoff. For a massless field, such as the electromagnetic field, the energy density might then become

$$\rho =\frac{1}{(2\pi )^3}d^3k\omega \mathrm{e}^{\alpha \omega },$$
(1)
where $`\alpha `$ is an arbitrary cutoff parameter and the pressure is $`P=\frac{1}{3}\rho `$. The obvious objection to this modification is that it violates Lorentz invariance. However, in the context of cosmology, there is a preferred frame so this cutoff may not be quite as crazy as it seems. The energy density can be written as a function of $`\alpha `$ as

$$\rho =10^{30}\frac{\mathrm{gm}}{\mathrm{cm}^3}\left(\frac{10^2\mathrm{cm}}{\alpha }\right)^4.$$
(2)
There are several problems with this result. There would not seem to be any natural reason to select $`\alpha 10^2\mathrm{cm}`$ as a cutoff. A much smaller value of $`\alpha `$ leads to a radiation dominated universe which recollapses in less than the age of the present universe. In any case, this model does not describe anything resembling the dark energy.

A better approach is to use a covariant cutoff, which preserves local Lorentz invariance. There are various covariant regularization methods which have been developed, including dimensional regularization, zeta-function regularization, and covariant point-splitting with direction averaging . For our purposes, the details of these techniques are not important. The key result is that the divergent parts of $`T_{\mu \nu }`$ may be written in terms of geometrical quantities as follows:

$$T_{\mu \nu }_{\mathrm{div}}=A\frac{g_{\mu \nu }}{\beta ^4}+B\frac{G_{\mu \nu }}{\beta ^2}+\left(C_1H_{\mu \nu }^{(1)}+C_2H_{\mu \nu }^{(2)}\right)\mathrm{ln}\beta .$$
(3)
Here $`\beta `$ is a cutoff parameter with the dimensions of length, $`A`$, $`B`$, $`C_1`$, and $`C_2`$ are constants, $`G_{\mu \nu }`$ is the Einstein tensor, and the $`H_{\mu \nu }^{(1)}`$ and $`H_{\mu \nu }^{(2)}`$ tensors are covariantly conserved tensors which are quadratic in the Riemann tensor. Specifically, they are the functional derivatives with respect to the metric tensor of the square of the scalar curvature and of the Ricci tensor, respectively:

$`H_{\mu \nu }^{(1)}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{g}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta g^{\mu \nu }}}\left[\sqrt{g}R^2\right]`$ (4)
$`=`$ $`2_\nu _\mu R2g_{\mu \nu }_\rho ^\rho R{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_{\mu \nu }R^2+2RR_{\mu \nu },`$
and

$`H_{\mu \nu }^{(2)}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{g}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta g^{\mu \nu }}}\left[\sqrt{g}R_{\alpha \beta }R^{\alpha \beta }\right]=2_\alpha _\nu R_\mu ^\alpha _\rho ^\rho R_{\mu \nu }`$ (5)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_{\mu \nu }_\rho ^\rho R{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_{\mu \nu }R_{\alpha \beta }R^{\alpha \beta }+2R_\mu ^\rho R_{\rho \nu }.`$
Let us focus our attention on the leading term, that proportional to $`\beta ^4g_{\mu \nu }`$. This is of the form of a cosmological constant, so that the corresponding equation of state is $`P=\rho `$. Note that the price of a covariant regularization scheme is the breaking of conformal invariance, so massless fields no longer have traceless stress tensors. If $`\beta 10^2\mathrm{cm}`$, then the resulting cosmological constant is too large to be consistent with the observed universe, and must be removed by renormalization.

All of the cutoff-dependent terms in $`T_{\mu \nu }`$ may be absorbed into redefinitions of the constants appearing in the gravitational action

$$S_G=\frac{1}{16\pi G_0}d^4x\sqrt{g}\left(R2\mathrm{\Lambda }_0+\alpha _0R^2+\beta _0R_{\alpha \beta }R^{\alpha \beta }\right).$$
(6)
We now include a matter action, $`S_M`$, and vary the total action, $`S=S_G+S_M`$, with respect to the metric. If we replace the classical stress tensor in the resulting equation by the quantum expectation value, $`T_{\mu \nu }`$, we obtain the semiclassical Einstein equation including the quadratic counterterms:

$$G_{\mu \nu }+\mathrm{\Lambda }_0g_{\mu \nu }+\alpha _0H_{\mu \nu }^{(1)}+\beta _0H_{\mu \nu }^{(2)}=8\pi G_0T_{\mu \nu }.$$
(7)
We may remove the divergent parts of $`T_{\mu \nu }`$ in redefinitions of the coupling constants $`G_0`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$, $`\alpha _0`$, and $`\beta _0`$.

However, the renormalized values of these constants are free parameters which cannot be calculated by the theory. At this level, quantum field theory can no more calculate the cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ than it can find Newton’s constant or the mass of the electron. Thus, so far the answer to the question in the title of this article is “Nothing!”.

We might next inquire about the finite part of $`T_{\mu \nu }`$ which is not of the form of any of the counterterms used in renormalization. This part is unambiguous, and can be explicitly calculated for simple models, such as a massless scalar field in a Friedmann-Robertson-Walker universe . Unfortunately, the results are typically of order

$$T_{\mu \nu }_{\mathrm{fin}}\frac{1}{t^4},$$
(8)
where $`t`$ is the present age of the universe. This is too small by a factor of about $`10^{120}`$ to alter the dynamics of the universe at the present time. Conversely, if we use the cutoff dependent expressions Eqs. (1) or (3) with $`\beta `$ of the order of the Planck scale, our answer is too large by a factor of about $`10^{120}`$. It is not clear how to find a result which is the geometric mean of these two extremes in a natural way. In other words, a cosmologically interesting energy density arises from a scale of the order of $`10^2\mathrm{cm}`$, which is about the geometric mean of the size of the observable universe and the Planck length. It is far from clear why such a length scale should arise.

There have been a number of ideas proposed for mechanisms which might solve this puzzle by providing a model for the finite part of $`T_{\mu \nu }`$ which is much larger than given in Eq. (8). Parker and Raval have suggested that there could be a large contribution from low mass scalar fields, leading to a limiting value of the scalar curvature. In this model, the scalar curvature could drop as in standard cosmology until this limiting value is approached. Then the universe would enter a phase of accelerated expansion. Another model, due to Sahni and Habib also postulates a low mass scalar field. In this model, the $`T_{\mu \nu }`$ due to created particle is large and approximately of the form of a cosmological constant term. Schützhold has proposed a model in which the QCD trace anomaly may produce a term in the stress tensor of the form

$$T_{\mu \nu }_{\mathrm{fin}}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}^3}{t},$$
(9)
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}10^2\mathrm{MeV}`$ is the QCD scale. At the present age of the universe, $`t`$, this term has about the right order of magnitude to begin to dominate the cosmological expansion. The three models discussed in this paragraph are all somewhat speculative, but indicate that there are possible ways to get cosmologically significant energy densities in the present epoch from quantum effects.

## 3 Backreaction Models

Now I wish to turn to a class of models which attempt to explain why the cosmological constant term is not enormously large today, and also possibly explain there may be an effective cosmological constant term which is large enough to alter the present expansion rate. These are backreaction models (or adjustment mechanisms). The basic idea is that some type of instability which causes a large value of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{eff}`$ in the early universe to decay naturally to a smaller value today. Ideally, one would like have a mechanism which act slowly enough to allow inflation to proceed. Thus if deSitter space is unstable, it should be so on a scale of more than about sixty horizon lengths, the minimum time needed for inflationary models to explain the horizon and flatness problems. One would also like a natural evolution to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{eff}10^{30}\mathrm{g}/\mathrm{cm}^3`$ today. In such a model, the effective cosmological constant is now very small compared to particle physics energy scales because the universe is very old compared to particle physics time scales.

No compelling mechanism which accomplishes both of these goals has yet been found, and doubts have been expressed as to whether such a mechanism can exist in principle . Nonetheless, it is worth looking at some of the possibilities, as a successful backreaction model would be a great advance. It is also likely that any such model would rely upon quantum effects.

### 3.1 Quantum Instability of deSitter Space?

One way in which backreaction against a cosmological term could manifest itself is through an instability of deSitter space, the solution which is the attractor in the set of solutions of Einstein’s equations with a positive cosmological constant. There is one example of a quantum instability in deSitter space, if not of deSitter space. This is the case of a free, massless, minimally coupled scalar field, and arises from the infrared behavior of this theory. A massive scalar field has a well-defined deSitter invariant vacuum state. However, the two-point function diverges in the limit that the mass $`m`$ goes to zero:

$$\phi (x)\phi (x^{})\frac{1}{m^2}m0.$$
(10)
There exist a class of quantum states which are free of the infrared divergence, but which all break deSitter invariance. In all of these states, $`\phi ^2`$ becomes a function of time. In particular, in the representation of deSitter space as a spatially flat Robertson-Walker universe, all infrared-finite states lead to linear growth in the comoving time, $`t`$:

$$\phi ^2\frac{H^3t}{4\pi ^2}t\mathrm{},$$
(11)
where $`H`$ is the inverse expansion time. However, this instability of the massless free field does not not lead to any backreaction on the rate of expansion. The reason is that the stress tensor for this field is bounded

$$T_{\mu \nu }\mathrm{constant}t\mathrm{}.$$
(12)
The derivatives of $`\phi `$ in the expression for $`T_{\mu \nu }`$ remove the contribution of the long wavelength modes which cause $`\phi ^2`$ to grow.

In the case of an interacting field theory involving a massless scalar field, it is possible for $`T_{\mu \nu }`$ to grow for a finite amount of time. Consider, for example, a self-coupled field with a $`\lambda \phi ^4`$ interaction. In this case, there will be a term in the stress tensor of the form of $`\lambda \phi ^2^2g_{\mu \nu }`$, which will initially grow as $`t^2`$. This growth will only last a finite time, however, before higher order contributions become important and act to stop the growth of $`T_{\mu \nu }`$. The field begins to acquire an effective mass, which suppresses the infrared instability driving the growth.

A more promising source of instability comes when we quantize the gravitational field on the deSitter background. Consider classical gravitational wave perturbations of a spatially flat Robertson-Walker universe. If we impose the transverse-tracefree gauge condition, which removes all gauge freedom and is the analog of the Coulomb gauge in electrodynamics, then the independent components of the perturbation are equivalent to a pair of massless scalar fields. This means that linearized quantum gravity on a deSitter background is subject to the same infrared instability as is the massless scalar field. In particular, the mean square of the perturbation will grow in time:

$$h_{\mu \nu }h^{\mu \nu }tt\mathrm{}.$$
(13)
However, at this one loop level, there is no backreaction on the expansion, just as for the case of scalar fields. This raises the question of what happens in the next, two loop, order. This question has been examined by Dolgov, et al  and especially by Tsamis and Woodard , who find that the effective stress tensor of the gravitons does grow in this order, and will tend to react against the deSitter expansion. Unfortunately, the backreaction only begins to be significant at the point that the two-loop approximation becomes questionable, and higher loop corrections cannot be ignored. This leaves us with the intriguing possibility that quantum gravity may be a source of backreaction, but no means of testing this possibility beyond two loop perturbative quantum gravity.

### 3.2 Dolgov-type Models

#### 3.2.1 The Original Dolgov Model

In 1982, Dolgov  proposed a remarkably simple classical model for backreaction, based upon a massless, nonminimally coupled scalar field. This field has the Lagrangian

$$=\frac{1}{2}(_\alpha \phi ^\alpha \phi \xi R\phi ^2),$$
(14)
where $`R`$ is the scalar curvature and $`\xi `$ is a negative constant. The associated equation for $`\phi `$ is

$$_\alpha ^\alpha \phi +\xi R\phi =0,$$
(15)
and has growing solutions if $`\xi <0`$ and $`R>0`$. In deSitter space, where $`R`$ is a positive constant, the unstable solution grows exponentially:

$$\phi (t)e^{\gamma t},$$
(16)
where

$$\gamma =\frac{3}{2}H\left[\left(1+\frac{16}{3}|\xi |\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}1\right].$$
(17)
Here $`t`$ is the comoving time in the spatially flat Robertson-Walker coordinates. The stress tensor of this mode also grows exponentially,

$$T_{\mu \nu }e^{2\gamma t},$$
(18)
and causes the system to exit deSitter space on a time scale of the order of $`1/\gamma `$. This time scale is in turn determined by the coupling constant $`\xi `$, and can be long compared to the expansion time $`1/H`$ if $`|\xi |1`$.

At late times, the scalar field grows linearly in time

$$\phi \lambda t,$$
(19)
where $`\lambda `$ is a constant determined by $`\xi `$, and the scale factor grows as a power of time

$$a(t)t^\alpha \alpha =\frac{2|\xi |+1}{4|\xi |}.$$
(20)
Most importantly, the scalar field stress tensor approaches the form of a cosmological constant term:

$$T_{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{8\pi }\mathrm{\Lambda }_0g_{\mu \nu }+O(t^2),$$
(21)
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0=3H^2`$ is the effective value of the cosmological constant during the deSitter phase. The leading term in $`T_{\mu \nu }`$ cancels the effect of this cosmological constant. The remarkable feature of the backreaction is that it provides a natural cancellation of the original cosmological constant for any value of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$ and to just the accuracy needed. The residual term of order $`t^2`$ is of just the magnitude needed to be cosmologically significant at the present. It should be noted that Dolgov’s model evades Weinberg’s “no-go” theorem , which attempted to rule out backreaction models. Weinberg’s theorem assumes that all fields are asymptotically constant in the future, which is not the case here, as can be seen from Eq. (19). The Dolgov model basically uses the kinetic energy of the growing $`\phi `$ field to cancel the cosmological constant.

Unfortunately, this model also suffers from a fatal flaw, which was recognized in the original paper of Dolgov: The effective value of Newton’s constant is also driven to zero. This arises because the $`R`$ term in Eq. (14) is of the form of the Lagrangian for gravity. This leads to an effective value of Newton’s constant of

$$G_{eff}=\frac{G_0}{1+8\pi G_0|\xi |\phi ^2}\frac{1}{t^2},$$
(22)
where $`G_0`$ is the “bare” value of Newton’s constant when $`\phi =0`$. There is a lesser flaw in the Dolgov model as well. In order to achieve adequate inflation, we want $`|\xi |1`$, which implies that $`\alpha 1`$. In this case, inflation never really ends and we do not have a very realistic cosmology.

#### 3.2.2 A Variant of the Dolgov Model

An alternative model  uses the Lagrangian

$$=\frac{1}{2}\left[_\alpha \phi ^\alpha \phi \xi _0R\mathrm{ln}(R\mathrm{}^2)\phi ^2\right],$$
(23)
where $`\mathrm{}`$ is an arbitrary length scale. The motivation for the introduction of the $`\mathrm{ln}(R\mathrm{}^2)`$ factor comes from quantum effects in curved spacetime. It can be shown from renormalization group arguments that $`\phi ^2`$ for a free field always acquires the term

$$\phi ^2_R=\frac{\xi \frac{1}{6}}{96\pi ^2}R\mathrm{ln}(R\mathrm{}^2).$$
(24)
This means that one loop quantum corrections will cause a self coupled scalar field with a $`\lambda \phi ^4`$ interaction to acquire a $`\mathrm{ln}(R\mathrm{}^2)`$ term of the form of that in Eq. (23). The effect of this term is to cause $`\xi `$ to become a running coupling constant which scales with curvature. The effective value of $`\xi `$ is

$$\xi _{eff}=\xi _0\mathrm{ln}(R\mathrm{}^2).$$
(25)
The time dependence of $`\xi _{eff}`$ is sufficiently weak that we can arrange that it has one constant value during the initial deSitter phase, and another approximately constant value today. In particular, it is possible to have $`|\xi _{eff}|1`$ in the deSitter phase, but $`|\xi _{eff}|1`$ today. This solves the problem in the original model that one could not have both adequate inflation in the early universe, and noninflationary expansion today.

Unfortunately, the bigger problem of the vanishing of gravity on scales small compared to the horizon remains in this new model. However, we can see what might solve this problem. If one had a compelling reason to treat Eq. (23) only as an effective action for deriving the equation for $`\phi `$, but not the Einstein equations, then the problem would disappear. In other words, one needs a model in which quantum corrections create a Dolgov-type model on cosmological scales, but which do not modify gravity on much smaller scales. It is not clear if such a model is possible, but this seems to be worth exploring.

## 4 Summary

We have seen that the cutoff-dependent vacuum energy of quantum fields, whether given by Eq. (1) or by Eq. (3), is much too large if the cutoff is dictated by any particle physics length scale. If the cutoff is at the Planck scale, then the answer is too large by a factor of about $`10^{120}`$. On the other hand, the renormalized energy density, such as that in Eq. (8), is too small to influence the present expansion of the universe by a factor of about $`10^{120}`$. There are several models which give an intermediate value which is neither too large nor too small to be of interest. However, all of these models are somewhat speculative. It is not yet clear that there is a natural and compelling way to get a cosmologically interesting energy density from quantum effects.

A viable backreaction model would seem to be the best way both to resolve the fine tuning problem and to explain the dark energy. The outstanding question is whether any such model exists. The quantum instability of gravitons in deSitter space provides a possible route for the onset on an instability. The difficult problem is describe what happens next. The Dolgov model gives an intriguing picture of the form that late time backreaction might take. It remains to be seen if this sort of behavior can arise in a realistic theory.

Acknowledgement: This work was supported in part by the National Science Foundation under Grant PHY-9800965.


text:
# Interpolation properties for some scales of approximation spaces

## 1 Introduction and general notions

The subject of this paper is the real interpolation in approximation spaces.

Many of the approximation scales used in approximation theory are modeled by some sequence ideals such as $`l_p,`$ Lorentz, Lorentz-Zygmund or Lorentz-Marcinkiewicz.

A natural framework which includes most of these scales and gives a unified model for their study is provided by symmetric norming functions. Unfortunately the abstract shape of a symmetric norming function is too general to allow us to extend the basic interpolation results which hold for $`l_p,`$ Lorentz, Lorentz-Zygmund or Lorentz-Marcinkiewicz scales to this generality.

More precisely, while in the particular cases of $`l_p,`$ Lorentz etc. scales the stability under interpolation by the real method holds (the classical version for $`l_p`$ and Lorentz cases, respectively the extended one with functional parameter for Lorentz-Zygmund and Lorentz-Marcinkiewicz cases), nothing is known about the behavior under the real interpolation of the scale generated by symmetric norming functions .

Results given below give a partial extension of the known classical stability properties to the general framework given by a scale of approximation spaces generated by a certain class of symmetric norming functions. In fact we prove the following result (for the notation see below)

The main observation which leads to the results below is that the Boyd functions, which are the essential ingredient of the interpolation method with functional parameter, have a shape close enough to the symmetric norming functions of $`\mathrm{\Phi }^\epsilon `$ type to allow us to obtain informations about the interpolation process on the approximation spaces of $`\mathrm{\Phi }^\epsilon `$ type (for the notation see below).

Before continuing, let us fix the notation used throughout the paper. By $`E,F`$ we denote Banach spaces over $`\mathrm{\Gamma },`$ where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the real or the complex field. We let $`L(E,F):=\{T:EFT\text{ is linear and bounded}\}.`$ By $`\widehat{k}`$ we denote the set of all decreasing positive sequences $`x:=\left(x_n\right)_n`$ such that $`x_n=0`$ eventually.We denote by $`l_{\mathrm{}}`$ the set of all scalar sequences, $`\left(x_n\right)_n,`$ with the property $`x_{\mathrm{}}:=\underset{n}{sup}\left|x_n\right|<\mathrm{},`$ and by $`c_0`$ the set of all scalar sequences, $`\left(x_n\right)_n,`$ with the property $`\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}\left|x_n\right|=0.`$ For $`0<p<\mathrm{}`$ we let $`l_p`$ be the set of all scalar sequences $`\left(x_n\right)_n`$ such that $`x_p:=\left(\underset{n=1}{\overset{}{}}\left|x_n\right|^p\right)^{\frac{1}{p}}<\mathrm{}.`$

## 2 Approximation schemes

### 2.1 Generalities

We start with the general scheme described by a quasi-normed abelian group, i.e. an abelian group $`G`$ endowed with a non-negative valued function $`:G_+`$ satisfying:

1. $`g>0,`$ for every $`gG,`$ $`g0;`$
2. $`g=g,`$ for every $`gG;`$
3. there is a constant, depending on $`G,`$ $`c1`$ such that

$$g+fc\left(g+f\right),$$

for every $`g,fG.`$

###### Definition 1

(, )) An approximation scheme on a quasi-normed abelian group $`(G,)`$ consists of a pair $`(G,\left(G_n\right)_n)`$, where $`\left(G_n\right)_n`$ is a sequence of subsets of $`X`$ satisfying the following conditions:

1. $`G_0=\left\{0\right\};`$
2. $`G_nG_{n+1},`$ for every $`n;`$
3. $`G_n+G_mG_{n+m},`$ for every $`n,m;`$
4. $`G_nG_mG_{n+m},`$ for every $`n,m.`$

Associated with an approximation scheme $`(G,\left(G_n\right)_n)`$ one introduces the notion of an approximation space ((, )). We will use a function
$`E:Gl_{\mathrm{}},`$ defined by

$$E\left(g\right):=\left(E_n\left(g\right)\right)_n,\text{ for every }gG,$$

where, $`E_n\left(g\right)`$ is the best approximation of $`g`$ by elements of $`G_{n1},`$ i.e.

$$E_n\left(g\right):=inf\{gh:hG_{n1}\}.$$

The’s basic properties of $`E`$ are as follows:

1. $`g=E_1\left(g\right)E_2\left(g\right)\mathrm{}0,`$ for every $`gG`$ ();
2. $`E_n\left(g\right)=E_n\left(g\right),`$ for every $`n`$ and $`gG`$ ();
3. $`E_{n+m}\left(f+g\right)c\left(E_n\left(f\right)+E_m\left(g\right)\right),`$ for every $`n,m`$ and all $`f,gG`$ ().

### 2.2 Examples

We shall describe some important examples.

1. (Operator ideals) Let us take $`G:=L(E,F)`$ and $`G_n:=F_n(E,F),`$ where

$$F_n(E,F):=\{T_nL(E,F):dimT_nn\}.$$

Then for any $`TL(E,F),`$ the number $`E_n\left(T\right)`$ is the $`n`$-th approximation number of $`T,`$ denoted by $`a_n(T)`$ (, , ).
2. (Sequence ideals) Let us now take $`G:=l_p(0<p\mathrm{})`$ and

$$G_n:=f_p^{\left(n\right)}:=\{x:=\left(x_m\right)_ml_p:\mathrm{𝑐𝑎𝑟𝑑}\{x_m:x_m0\}n\}.$$

Then for any $`xl_p,`$ the number $`E_n\left(x\right)`$ is the $`n`$-th approximation number of $`x,`$ denoted by $`a_n(x).`$ Let us remark that, if the sequence $`x:=\left(x_n\right)_nl_p`$ is ordered such that $`\left|x_n\right|\left|x_{n+1}\right|,`$ for every $`n,`$ then $`a_n\left(x\right)=\left|x_n\right|`$ (, , ).

### 2.3 Boyd functions

One way to obtain approximation spaces is to use Boyd functions. We start with a brief review of the notion of Boyd functions and the related Lorentz-Marcienkiewicz scale.

###### Definition 2

$`([2],\text{ }\left[10\right],\text{ }[14])`$ We denote by B the class of all functions
$`\phi :(0,\mathrm{})(0,\mathrm{})`$ which have the following properties:

1. $`\phi `$ is continuous;
2. $`\phi \left(1\right)=1;`$
3. $`\overline{\phi }\left(t\right):=\underset{s>0}{sup}\frac{\phi \left(ts\right)}{\phi \left(s\right)}<\mathrm{}`$ for any $`t>0.`$

A straightforwards consequence of this definiton is that

$$\phi \left(st\right)\phi \left(s\right)\overline{\phi }\left(t\right),\text{ for any }s,t(0,\mathrm{}).$$

###### Definition 3

$`([2],\text{ }\left[10\right],\text{ }[14])`$ Given $`\phi `$ in B, the $`\overline{\mathrm{\phi }}`$ function’s Boyd indices $`\mathrm{\alpha }_{\overline{\mathrm{\phi }}},\mathrm{\beta }_{\overline{\mathrm{\phi }}}`$ are defined by:

$$\alpha _{\overline{\phi }}:=\underset{1<t<\mathrm{}}{inf}\frac{\mathrm{log}\overline{\phi }\left(t\right)}{\mathrm{log}t}=\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{\mathrm{log}\overline{\phi }\left(t\right)}{\mathrm{log}t},$$

and

$$\beta _{\overline{\phi }}:=\underset{0<t<1}{sup}\frac{\mathrm{log}\overline{\phi }\left(t\right)}{\mathrm{log}t}=\underset{t0}{lim}\frac{\mathrm{log}\overline{\phi }\left(t\right)}{\mathrm{log}t}.$$

The Boyd indices satisfy the following relation

$$\mathrm{}<\beta _{\overline{\phi }}\alpha _{\overline{\phi }}<\mathrm{}.$$

For future reference we collect some of the basic properties of the Boyd functions in the following.

###### Proposition 4

If $`\phi ,\phi _1,\phi _2`$ are in B and $`a`$ is a real number, then $`\phi _1\phi _2,\frac{\phi _1}{\phi _2}`$ are also in $`𝐁`$ and

1. $`\overline{\phi _1\phi _2}\overline{\phi _1}\overline{\phi _2}`$
2. $`\overline{\frac{\phi _1}{\phi _2}}\left(t\right)\frac{\overline{\phi _1}\left(t\right)}{\overline{\phi _2}\left(t\right)};`$
3. $`\beta _{\overline{\phi }}>0`$ if and only if $`\underset{t0}{lim}\overline{\phi }\left(t\right)=0`$

###### Definition 5

$`(\left[14\right],\text{ }\left[15\right])`$ Let $`(G,\left(G_n\right)_n)`$ be an approximation scheme, $`\phi `$B and $`0<q<\mathrm{}.`$ An approximation space  of Lorentz-Marcinkiewicz type is defined as follows:

$$G_{\phi ,q}:=\{gG:\underset{n=1}{\overset{}{}}\left[\phi \left(n\right)E_n(g)\right]^qn^1<\mathrm{}\}.$$

We also define an functional $`_{\phi ,q}:G_{\phi ,q}`$ by

$$g_{\phi ,q}:=\left(\underset{n=1}{\overset{}{}}\left[\phi \left(n\right)E_n\left(g\right)\right]^qn^1\right)^{\frac{1}{q}}\text{ for every }gG_{\phi ,q}.$$

We remark that $`(G_{\phi ,q},_{\phi ,q})`$ is a quasi-normed abelian group, and for the particular case $`\phi \left(t\right):=t^p,`$ $`0<p<\mathrm{},`$ we obtain the definition of the classical approximation spaces $`G_{p,q},`$ where

$$\left(G_{p,q}:=\{gG:g_{p,q}:=\left(\underset{n=1}{\overset{}{}}\left[n^pE_n(g)\right]^qn^1\right)^{\frac{1}{q}}<\mathrm{}\}\right).$$

Now if we take for $`(G,\left(G_n\right)_n)`$ the particular case $`(l_{\mathrm{}},\left(f_{\mathrm{}}^{\left(n\right)}\right)_n)`$ we obtain the well known quasi-normed sequence ideal

$$l_{\phi ,q}:=\{xl_{\mathrm{}}:x_{\phi ,q}:=\left(\underset{n=1}{\overset{}{}}\left[\phi \left(n\right)a_n(x)\right]^qn^1\right)^{\frac{1}{q}}<\mathrm{}\}.$$

Likewise, if we take for $`(G,\left(G_n\right)_n)`$ the particular case $`(L(E,F),\left(F_n(E,F)\right)_n)`$ we obtain the well known quasi-normed operator ideal

$$L_{\phi ,q}:=\underset{E,F\text{ Banach spaces}}{}L_{\phi ,q}(E,F),$$

where

$$L_{\phi ,q}(E,F):=\{TL(E,F):T_{\phi ,q}:=\left(\underset{n=1}{\overset{}{}}\left[\phi \left(n\right)a_n(T)\right]^qn^1\right)^{\frac{1}{q}}<\mathrm{}\}.$$

We note that equivalently we can define $`G_{\phi ,q}`$ as the set of those $`g`$ in $`G`$ for which the sequence $`\left(E_n\left(g\right)\right)_n`$ belongs to $`l_{\phi ,q}.`$

### 2.4 Symmetric norming functions

Another way for constructing approximation spaces uses a symmetric norming function. We recall the definitions involved here.

###### Definition 6

(, ) A function $`\mathrm{\Phi }:\widehat{k}`$ is called a symmetric norming function if there the following conditions are fulfilled:

1. $`\mathrm{\Phi }\left(x\right)>0`$ whenever $`x0;`$
2. $`\mathrm{\Phi }\left(\alpha x\right)=\alpha \mathrm{\Phi }\left(x\right)`$ for every $`\alpha >0`$ and $`x`$ in $`\widehat{k};`$
3. $`\mathrm{\Phi }\left(x+y\right)\mathrm{\Phi }\left(x\right)+\mathrm{\Phi }\left(y\right)`$ for every $`x`$ and $`y`$ in $`\widehat{k};`$
4. $`\mathrm{\Phi }\left(\{1,0,\mathrm{}\}\right)=1;`$
5. If $`\underset{n=1}{\overset{𝑚}{}}x_n\underset{n=1}{\overset{𝑚}{}}y_n`$ for some $`x=\left(x_n\right)_n`$ and $`y=\left(x_n\right)_n`$ in $`\widehat{k}`$ and for every $`m`$ in $`^{},`$ then $`\mathrm{\Phi }\left(x\right)\mathrm{\Phi }\left(y\right).`$

###### Remark 7

$`\left[14\right]`$ Notice that the above definition can be extended to the space $`l_{\mathrm{}}`$ of all bounded sequences in the following way. If $`\mathrm{\Phi }:\widehat{k}R`$ is a symmetric norming function and $`x:=\left(x_n\right)_nl_{\mathrm{}}`$ we define

$$\mathrm{\Phi }\left(x\right):=\underset{𝑛}{lim}\mathrm{\Phi }\left(\{a_1\left(x\right),\mathrm{},a_n\left(x\right),0,0,\mathrm{}\}\right),$$

when $`\underset{𝑛}{sup}`$ $`\mathrm{\Phi }\left(\{a_1\left(x\right),\mathrm{},a_n\left(x\right),0,0,\mathrm{}\}\right)<\mathrm{}.`$

The most important examples of symmetric norming functions are the extremal symmetric norming functions $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{}}`$. These are defined as follows:

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_1\left(x\right):=\underset{n=1}{\overset{n_x}{}}x_n\text{ and }\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{}}\left(x\right):=\underset{𝑛}{\mathrm{max}}\text{ }x_n,\text{ }x\widehat{k}.$$

It is easily seen that

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{}}\left(x\right)\mathrm{\Phi }\left(x\right)\mathrm{\Phi }_1\left(x\right)$$

for any symmetric norming function $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and any $`x\widehat{k}.`$

In our future considerations a significant place is taken by the symmetric norming functions of a certain type. These are the so-called $`\mathrm{\Phi }^\epsilon `$ function. Their definition is presented in the next proposition.

###### Proposition 8

$`\left(\left[13\right]\right)`$ Let $`\epsilon :=\left(\epsilon _n\right)_n`$ be a decreasing sequence of positive real numbers with $`\epsilon _1=1.`$ The function $`\mathrm{\Phi }^^\epsilon :\widehat{k}`$ defined by

$$\mathrm{\Phi }^^\epsilon \left(x\right)=\underset{m=1}{\overset{n_x}{}}\epsilon _mx_m,\text{ for every }x:=\left(x_m\right)_m\text{ in }\widehat{k},$$

is a symmetric norming function. If the sequence $`\epsilon `$ has in addition the properties $`\underset{m\mathrm{}}{lim}\epsilon _m=0`$ and $`\underset{m=1}{\overset{}{}}\epsilon _m=\mathrm{}`$ then $`\mathrm{\Phi }^^\epsilon \mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{}},`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }^^\epsilon \mathrm{\Phi }_1`$ ( $`\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Psi }`$ means $`\underset{x\widehat{k}}{sup}\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }\left(x\right)}{\mathrm{\Psi }\left(x\right)}<\mathrm{},`$ and $`\underset{x\widehat{k}}{sup}\frac{\mathrm{\Psi }\left(x\right)}{\mathrm{\Phi }\left(x\right)}<\mathrm{}).`$ Let $`\mathrm{\Phi }^^\epsilon `$ be a function like above and $`1p<\mathrm{}.`$ The function $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\left(p\right)}^^\epsilon :\widehat{k}`$ defined by

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{\left(p\right)}^^\epsilon \left(x\right)=\left(\mathrm{\Phi }^^\epsilon \left(\left(x_m^p\right)_m\right)\right)^{\frac{1}{p}},\text{ for every }x:=\left(x_m\right)_m\text{ in }\widehat{k},$$

is a symmetric function.

###### Definition 9

$`\left(\left[5\right]\right)`$ Let $`(G,\left(G_n\right)_n)`$ be an approximation scheme and $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ a symmetric norming function. An approximation space of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ type is defined as follows:

$$G_\mathrm{\Phi }:=\{gG:\mathrm{\Phi }\left(\left(E_n(g)\right)_n\right)<\mathrm{}\}.$$

We also define an functional $`_\mathrm{\Phi }:G_\mathrm{\Phi }`$ by

$$g_\mathrm{\Phi }:=\mathrm{\Phi }\left(\left(E_n(g)\right)_n\right)\text{ for every }gG_\mathrm{\Phi }.$$

We remark that $`(G_\mathrm{\Phi },_\mathrm{\Phi })`$ is a quasi-normed abelian group and for the particular case $`\mathrm{\Phi }:=\mathrm{\Phi }_{\left(q\right)}^\alpha `$, with $`\alpha :=\left(n^{pq\frac{1}{q}}\right),`$ we obtain, again, the definition of the classical approximation spaces $`G_{p,q}`$.

Now if we take for $`(G,\left(G_n\right)_n)`$ the particular case $`(l_{\mathrm{}},\left(f_{\mathrm{}}^{\left(n\right)}\right)_n)`$ we obtain the well known quasi-normed sequence ideal

$$l_\mathrm{\Phi }:=\{xl_{\mathrm{}}:x_\mathrm{\Phi }:=\mathrm{\Phi }\left(\left(a_n(x)\right)_n\right)<\mathrm{}\}.$$

Likewise, if we take for $`(G,\left(G_n\right)_n)`$ the particular case $`(L(E,F),\left(F_n(E,F)\right)_n)`$ we obtain the well known quasi-normed operator ideal

$$L_\mathrm{\Phi }:=\underset{E,F\text{ Banach spaces}}{}L_\mathrm{\Phi }(E,F),$$

where

$$L_\mathrm{\Phi }(E,F):=\{TL(E,F):T_\mathrm{\Phi }:=\mathrm{\Phi }\left(\left(a_n(T)\right)_n\right)<\mathrm{}\},$$

Equivalently we can define $`G_\mathrm{\Phi }`$ as the set of those $`gG`$ for which the sequence $`\left(E_n\left(g\right)\right)_n`$ belongs to $`l_\mathrm{\Phi }.`$

## 3 Stability results

### 3.1 Real interpolation

Before continuing let us recall some results on real interpolation.

We consider couples $`(E_0,E_1)`$ of quasi-normed spaces $`E_0`$ and $`E_1`$, which are both continuously embedded in a quasi-normed space $`E.`$ This means that $`E_iE`$ and there is a constant $`c_i`$ such that $`x_Ec_ix_{E_i}`$ for every $`x`$ in $`E_i,`$ $`i\{0,1\}.`$ In the sequel we let $``$ denote a continuous embedding. We say that such a couple $`(E_0,E_1)`$ is a quasi-normed interpolation couple.

Let $`(E_0,E_1)`$ be a quasi-normed interpolating couple. For every $`x`$ in $`E_0+E_1`$ J. Peetre defined the functional

$$K(t,x,E_0,E_1)=K(t,x):=\underset{x=x_0+x_1}{inf}\left(x_0_{E_0}+tx_1_{E_1}\right),$$

where $`x_iE_i,`$ $`i\{0,1\}`$ and $`0<t<\mathrm{}.`$ Let now $`(E_0,E_1)`$ be a quasi-normed interpolation couple, $`0<q<\mathrm{}`$ and $`\phi 𝐁.`$ We shall consider the set

$$(E_0,E_1)_{\phi ,q}:=\{xE_0+E_1:\underset{0}{\overset{}{}}\left[\phi \left(t\right)^1K(t,x)\right]^q\frac{dt}{t}<\mathrm{}\}.$$

It is important to notice that for any $`\phi `$B and $`0<q<\mathrm{},`$ the functional $`_{\phi ,q}:(E_0,E_1)_{\phi ,q}_+,`$ defined by

$$x_{(E_0,E_1)_{\phi ,q}}:=\left(\underset{0}{\overset{}{}}\left[\phi \left(t\right)^1K(t,x)\right]^q\frac{dt}{t}\right)^{\frac{1}{q}},$$

for every $`x(E_0,E_1)_{\phi ,q},`$ is a quasi-norm.

Consider now the space $`E_\mathrm{\Sigma }:=E_0+E_1`$ equipped with the quasi-norm

$$x_\mathrm{\Sigma }:=\underset{\begin{array}{c}x=x_0+x_1,\\ x_iE_i\end{array}}{inf}\left(x_0_0+x_1_1\right)=K(1,x)$$

and also the space $`E_\mathrm{\Delta }:=E_0E_1`$ equipped with the quasi-norm

$$x_\mathrm{\Delta }:=\mathrm{max}(x_0,x_1).$$

We remark that

$$(E_0,E_1)_{\phi ,q}E_\mathrm{\Sigma }$$
(1)
and,

$$\text{if }0<\beta _{\overline{\phi }}\alpha _{\overline{\phi }}<1\text{ then }E_\mathrm{\Delta }(E_0,E_1)_{\phi ,q}.$$
(2)
The above construction which starts with an interpolation couple $`(E_0,E_1)`$ and give us the space $`(E_0,E_1)_{\phi ,q}`$ (called real interpolation method with functional parameter) was introduced by T.F. Kalugina (, , , ) as an extension of the classical real method due to J. Peetre (, , , ). More precisely, if we take $`\phi (t)=t^\theta ,`$ where $`0<\theta <1`$, we get the classical real interpolation space $`(E_0,E_1)_{\theta ,q}.`$

We recall now the reiteration theorem of the real interpolation method with functional parameter which is the main ingredient of our proofs.

###### Theorem 10

$`\left(\left[10\right]\right)`$ Let $`\overline{A}=\{A_0,A_1\}`$ be an interpolation couple of quasi-normed spaces. Take $`f,f_0,f_1`$ in B, where $`f`$ in addition satisfies $`0<\beta _{\overline{f}}\alpha _{\overline{f}}<1`$ and let $`u=\frac{f_1}{f_0},`$ $`g=f_0\left(fu\right),`$ $`0<p,q_0,q_1\mathrm{}.`$ By $`E_i`$ we denote the interpolation space $`(A_0,A_1)_{f_i,q_i},`$ where $`i\{0,1\}.`$ If one of the following two hypotheses is fulfilled:
1. $`\beta _{\overline{f_0}}>0`$ in the case $`q_0<\mathrm{},`$ respectively $`\underset{t1}{sup}f_0<\mathrm{}`$ in the case $`q_0=\mathrm{},`$ and $`\alpha _{\overline{f_1}}<1`$ in the case $`q_1<\mathrm{},`$ respectively $`\underset{t1}{sup}\frac{f_1\left(t\right)}{t}<\mathrm{}`$ in the case $`q_1=\mathrm{},`$ when $`\beta _{\overline{u}}>0`$ or
2. $`\beta _{\overline{f_1}}>0`$ in the case $`q_1<\mathrm{},`$ respectively $`\underset{t1}{sup}f_1<\mathrm{}`$ in the case $`q_1=\mathrm{},`$ and $`\alpha _{\overline{f_0}}>0`$ in the case $`q_0<\mathrm{},`$ respectively $`\underset{t1}{sup}\frac{f_0\left(t\right)}{t}<\mathrm{}`$ in the case $`q_0=\mathrm{},`$ when $`\alpha _{\overline{u}}<0,`$
then

$$g𝐁\text{and }(E_0,E_1)_{f,p}=(A_0,A_1)_{g,p}.$$

Let us mention that, from this abstract reiteration theorem, F. Cobos has obtained the stability under functional parameter interpolation’s process for the operator ideals introduced by him.

###### Theorem 11

$`\left(\left[2\right]\right)`$ Take $`E,F`$ Banach spaces, the numbers $`q_0,q_1,q`$ in $`(0,\mathrm{}]`$ and the functions $`\chi ,\phi _0,\phi _1`$ in $`𝐁`$. Let now consider the functions $`\phi :(0,\mathrm{})(0,\mathrm{}),`$ $`\rho :(0,\mathrm{})(0,\mathrm{})`$ defined by

$$\phi \left(t\right):=\frac{\phi _0\left(t\right)}{\phi _1\left(t\right)},$$

respectively by

$$\rho \left(t\right)=\frac{\phi _0\left(t\right)}{\chi \left(\phi \left(t\right)\right)}.$$

If $`0<\beta _{\overline{\chi }}`$ $`\alpha _{\overline{\chi }}<1,\beta _{\overline{\phi _i}}>0\left(i=0,1\right)`$ and $`\beta _{\overline{\phi }}>0`$ or $`\alpha _{\overline{\phi }}<0,`$ then

$$\rho 𝐁\text{ and }(L_{\phi _0,q_0}(E,F),L_{\phi _1,q_1}(E,F))_{\chi ,q}=L_{\rho ,q}(E,F),$$

with equivalent quasi-norms.

### 3.2 Stability results for approximation spaces: The Lorentz-Marcinkiewicz case

The main result of this section is as follows.

###### Theorem 12

Take the numbers $`q_0,q_1,q`$ in $`(0,\mathrm{}]`$ and the functions $`\chi ,\phi _0,\phi _1`$ in $`𝐁`$. Let now consider the functions $`\phi ,`$ $`\rho :(0,\mathrm{})(0,\mathrm{})`$ defined by

$$\phi \left(t\right):=\frac{\phi _0\left(t\right)}{\phi _1\left(t\right)},\text{ respectively }\rho \left(t\right):=\frac{\phi _0\left(t\right)}{\chi \left(\phi \left(t\right)\right)}$$

If the following conditions are fulfilled:

$$0<\beta _{\overline{\chi }}\alpha _{\overline{\chi }}<1,\beta _{\overline{\phi _i}}>0\text{, where }i\{0,1\}$$
(3)
and

$$\beta _{\overline{\phi }}>0\text{ or }\alpha _{\overline{\phi }}<0$$
(4)
then

$$\rho 𝐁\text{ and }(G_{\phi _0,q_0},G_{\phi _1,q_1})_{\chi ,q}=G_{\rho ,q},$$

with equivalent quasi-norms.

The proof is constructed in two steps, the first of which has independent interest. We shall use the notation

$$G_p:=\{gG:\underset{n=1}{\overset{}{}}\left[E_n\left(g\right)\right]^p<\mathrm{}\}.$$

###### Theorem 13

Take $`\phi `$ in $`𝐁`$ which satisfies the condition $`0<\beta _{\overline{\phi }}`$ and $`q`$ in $`(0,\mathrm{}].`$ If $`0<p_0<p_1\mathrm{}`$ are such that

$$\frac{1}{p_1}<\beta _{\overline{\phi }}<\alpha _{\overline{\phi }}<\frac{1}{p_0}$$

and if $`\rho :(0,\mathrm{})(0,\mathrm{})`$ is defined by

$$\rho \left(t\right)=t^{\frac{p_1}{p_0p_1}}\left(\phi \left(t^{\frac{p_0p_1}{p_1p_0}}\right)\right)^1$$

(in the case $`p_1<\mathrm{}),`$ respectively

$$\rho \left(t\right)=t\left(\phi \left(t^{p_0}\right)\right)^1$$

(in the case $`p_1=\mathrm{}),`$ then

$$\rho 𝐁\text{ and }(G_{p_0},G_{p_1})_{\rho ,q}=G_{\phi ,q},$$

with equivalent quasi-norms.

Proof. The fundamental observation is that the equivalence

$$K(t,T,L_{p_0}^{\left(a\right)}(E,F),L_{p_1}^{\left(a\right)}(E,F))K(t,\left(a_n\left(T\right)\right)_n,l_{p_0},l_{p_1}),$$

proved by H. König in , where ”$`\mathrm{"}`$ indicates equivalence with constants that do not depend on $`t`$ or $`T,`$ remain valid for the abstract case of the application $`E:Xl_{\mathrm{}},`$ the proof being the same. Hence

$$K(t,g,G_{p_0},G_{p_1})K(t,\left(E_n\left(g\right)\right)_n,l_{p_0},l_{p_1}).$$

Now we obtain the following equivalences

$$g(G_{p_0},G_{p_1})_{\rho ,q}\underset{0}{\overset{}{}}\left[\rho \left(t\right)^1K(t,f,G_{p_0},G_{p_1})\right]^q\frac{dt}{t}<\mathrm{}$$

$$\underset{0}{\overset{}{}}\left[\rho \left(t\right)^1K(t,\left(E_n\left(f\right)\right)_n,l_{p_0},l_{p_1})\right]^q\frac{dt}{t}<\mathrm{}\left(E_n\left(f\right)\right)_n(l_{p_0},l_{p_1})_{\rho ,q}$$

$$\left(E_n\left(g\right)\right)_nl_{\phi ,q}\underset{𝑛}{}\left[\phi \left(n\right)E_n\left(g\right)\right]^qn^1<\mathrm{}gG_{\phi ,q}.$$

From the above result, applying Theorem 10, we can prove the main result of this section

Proof. (of Theorem 12) From the previous theorem we conclude that

$$G_{\phi _i,q_i}=(G_r,G)_{f_i,q_i},\text{ for }i\{0,1\}.$$

On the other hand we see that the hypotheses of Theorem 10 are fulfilled. In our case

$$f=\chi ,f_i\left(t\right)=\frac{t}{\phi _i\left(t^r\right)}(i\{0,1\}),$$

the number $`r`$ being chosen in such a way that $`\frac{1}{r}>\mathrm{max}\{\alpha _{\overline{\phi _0}},\alpha _{\overline{\phi _1}},\alpha _{\overline{\rho }}\},`$ and

$$u\left(t\right)=\frac{f_1\left(t\right)}{f_0\left(t\right)}=\phi \left(t^r\right).$$

Applying now Theorem 10 we obtain

$$(G_{\phi _0,q_0},G_{\phi _1,q_1})_{\chi ,q}=((G_r,G)_{f_0,q_0},(G_r,G)_{f_1,q_1})_{\chi ,q}=(G_r,G)_{g,q},$$

where

$$g\left(t\right)=f_0\left(t\right)\left(fu\right)\left(t\right)=\frac{t}{\phi _0\left(t^r\right)}\chi \left(\phi \left(t^r\right)\right).$$

Applying again the previous theorem, this time with $`\rho =g`$, we obtain

$$(G_r,G)_{g,q}=G_{\varpi ,q},$$

where

$$\varpi \left(t^r\right)=\frac{t}{g\left(t\right)}=\frac{\phi _0\left(t^r\right)}{\chi \left(\phi \left(t^r\right)\right)}.$$

Hence we have obtained

$$\varpi \left(t\right)=\frac{\phi _0\left(t\right)}{\chi \left(\phi \left(t\right)\right)}=\rho \left(t\right).$$

In conclusion,

$$(G_r,G)_{g,q}=G_{\rho ,q},$$

and moreover we can write the desired equality

$$(G_{\phi _0,q_0},G_{\phi _1,q_1})_{\chi ,q}=G_{\rho ,q}.$$

#### 3.2.1 Stability results for approximation schemes: The symmetric norming functions case

Speaking now about the frame constructed with symmetric norming functions the basic idea for finding interpolation results for the approximation spaces of of type $`G_\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is that the symmetric norming functions of $`\mathrm{\Phi }^\epsilon `$ can be arranged as some Boyd functions like we shall present in the following construction.

###### Definition 14

Let $`\alpha =\left(\alpha _n\right)_n`$ be a sequence of real numbers with the following properties:
1. $`1=\alpha _1\alpha _2\mathrm{}0;2.`$ $`\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}\alpha _n=0;3.`$ $`\underset{n=1}{\overset{}{}}\alpha _n=\mathrm{};4.`$ $`M\left(p\right):=\underset{𝑛}{sup}\frac{\alpha _{\left[\frac{n}{p}\right]}}{\alpha _n}<\mathrm{}`$ for every fixed $`p>1,`$where by $`\left[t\right]`$ we denote the greatest integer less or equal than $`t.`$For every sequence like above and every positive number $`p`$ we define the function $`\phi _{\alpha ,p}:(0,\mathrm{})(0,\mathrm{})`$ as follows

$$\phi _{\alpha ,p}\left(t\right):=\{\begin{array}{c}t^{\frac{1}{p}}\text{ if }t(0,1)\hfill \\ \left(\alpha _tt\right)^{\frac{1}{p}}\text{ if }t^{}\hfill \\ \left(1\left\{t\right\}\right)\phi _{\alpha ,p}\left(\left[t\right]\right)+\left\{t\right\}\phi _{\alpha ,p}\left(\left[t\right]+1\right)\text{ if }t(1,\mathrm{})\backslash \hfill \end{array}$$

where $`\left\{t\right\}:=t\left[t\right].`$

To prove that Definition 14 is not void we present the following.

###### Example 15

The sequence $`\left(\frac{1}{n^a}\right)_n,`$ $`a1`$ has the properties 1-4 from Definition 14.

Proof. The properties 1-3 are obviously fulfilled. To verify the fourth condition fix $`p`$ in $`,`$ $`p>1.`$ It is known that

$$\left[\frac{s}{p}\right]=\left[\frac{\left[s\right]}{p}\right]=\left[\left[s\right]\frac{1}{p}\right]\left[s\right]\left[\frac{1}{p}\right]$$

for every positive number $`s.`$ Hence we shall obtain

$$\alpha _{\left[\frac{s}{p}\right]}\alpha _{\left[s\right]\left[\frac{1}{p}\right]}$$

and furthermore

$$\frac{\alpha _{\left[\frac{n}{p}\right]}}{\alpha _n}\frac{\alpha _{n\left[\frac{1}{p}\right]}}{\alpha _n}=\frac{1}{\left[\frac{1}{p}\right]^\alpha }.$$

In conclusion

$$\underset{𝑛}{sup}\frac{\alpha _{\left[\frac{n}{p}\right]}}{\alpha _n}\frac{1}{\left[\frac{1}{p}\right]^\alpha }<\mathrm{}.$$

It is obvious that the function $`\mathrm{\Phi }^^\alpha :l_{\mathrm{}}`$ defined by

$$\mathrm{\Phi }^^\alpha \left(x\right):=\underset{n=1}{\overset{}{}}\alpha _na_n\left(x\right),$$

for all $`xl_{\mathrm{}}`$ is a symmetric norming function. More interesting is the fact that the above definition leads to a Boyd function.

###### Theorem 16

Let $`\alpha =\left(\alpha _n\right)_n`$ be a sequence which has the properties 1-4 from Definition 14 and $`p`$ $`(0,\mathrm{}).`$ Then $`\phi _{\alpha ,p}𝐁.`$

Proof. We shall verify the axioms from the definition of a B-function. The construction ensures the continuity of the function $`\phi _{\alpha ,p}`$ and also the equality

$$\phi _{\alpha ,p}\left(1\right)=\left(\alpha _1\right)^{\frac{1}{p}}=1.$$

In order verify the third condition we consider an arbitrary number $`t(0,\mathrm{})`$. We shall evaluate from above $`\frac{\phi _{\alpha ,p}\left(st\right)}{\phi _{\alpha ,p}\left(s\right)}`$ for $`s(0,\mathrm{}).`$ This is way in the sequel shall take account of the inequality $`\left[xy\right]\left[x\right]\left[y\right]`$ which is true for all positive $`x,y.`$ Without loss of generality we may assume that $`t1.`$ There are two cases. The first one is to consider all $`s(0,\mathrm{})`$ such that $`st<1.`$ Then we’ll have

$$\frac{\phi _{\alpha ,p}\left(st\right)}{\phi _{\alpha ,p}\left(s\right)}=\frac{\left(st\right)^{\frac{1}{p}}}{s^{\frac{1}{p}}}=t^{\frac{1}{p}}.$$

The second one case is to consider all $`s(0,\mathrm{})`$ such that $`st>1.`$ In that case we have to analyze two situations. For the moment we fix $`t<1`$. Then we obtain the following relations:

$$\frac{\phi _{\alpha ,p}\left(st\right)}{\phi _{\alpha ,p}\left(s\right)}=\frac{\left(1\left\{st\right\}\right)\phi _{\alpha ,p}\left(\left[st\right]\right)+\left\{st\right\}\phi _{\alpha ,p}\left(\left[st\right]+1\right)}{\left(1\left\{s\right\}\right)\phi _{\alpha ,p}\left(\left[s\right]\right)+\left\{s\right\}\phi _{\alpha ,p}\left(\left[s\right]+1\right)}=$$

$$=\frac{\left(1\left\{st\right\}\right)\left(\alpha _{\left[st\right]}\left(\left[st\right]\right)\right)^{\frac{1}{p}}+\left\{st\right\}\left(\alpha _{\left[st\right]+1}\left(\left[st\right]+1\right)\right)^{\frac{1}{p}}}{\left(1\left\{s\right\}\right)\left(\alpha _{\left[s\right]}\left[s\right]\right)^{\frac{1}{p}}+\left\{s\right\}\left(\alpha _{\left[s\right]+1}\left(\left[s\right]+1\right)\right)^{\frac{1}{p}}}=$$

$$=\frac{\left(1\left\{st\right\}\right)\left(\alpha _{\left[st\right]}\left(\left[st\right]\right)\right)^{\frac{1}{p}}+\left\{st\right\}\left(\alpha _{\left[st\right]+1}\left(\left[st\right]+1\right)\right)^{\frac{1}{p}}}{\left(1\left\{s\right\}\right)\left(\alpha _{\left[s\right]}\left[st\frac{1}{t}\right]\right)^{\frac{1}{p}}+\left\{s\right\}\left(\alpha _{\left[s\right]+1}\left(\left[st\frac{1}{t}\right]+1\right)\right)^{\frac{1}{p}}}$$

$$\frac{\alpha _{\left[st\right]}^{\frac{1}{p}}\left(\left(1\left\{st\right\}\right)\left[st\right]^{\frac{1}{p}}+\left\{st\right\}\left(\left[st\right]+1\right)^{\frac{1}{p}}\right)}{\alpha _{\left[s\right]+1}^{\frac{1}{p}}\left(\left(1\left\{s\right\}\right)\left[st\right]^{\frac{1}{p}}\left[\frac{1}{t}\right]^{\frac{1}{p}}+\left\{s\right\}\left(\left[st\right]\left[\frac{1}{t}\right]+1\right)^{\frac{1}{p}}\right)}=$$

$$=\left(\frac{\alpha _{\left[st\right]}}{\alpha _{\left[s\right]+1}}\right)^{\frac{1}{p}}\frac{\left(1\left\{st\right\}\right)\left[st\right]^{\frac{1}{p}}+\left\{st\right\}\left(\left[st\right]+1\right)^{\frac{1}{p}}}{\left(1\left\{s\right\}\right)\left[st\right]^{\frac{1}{p}}\left[\frac{1}{t}\right]^{\frac{1}{p}}+\left\{s\right\}\left(\left[st\right]\left[\frac{1}{t}\right]+1\right)^{\frac{1}{p}}}=$$

$$=\left(\frac{\alpha _{\left[st\right]}}{\alpha _{\left[s\right]+1}}\right)^{\frac{1}{p}}\frac{1}{\left[\frac{1}{t}\right]^{\frac{1}{p}}}\frac{\left(1\left\{st\right\}\right)+\left\{st\right\}\left(1+\frac{1}{\left[st\right]}\right)^{\frac{1}{p}}}{\left(1\left\{s\right\}\right)+\left\{s\right\}\left(1+\frac{1}{\left[st\right]\left[\frac{1}{t}\right]}\right)^{\frac{1}{p}}}$$

$$\left[M\left(\frac{1}{t}\right)\right]^{\frac{1}{p}}\frac{1}{\left[\frac{1}{t}\right]^{\frac{1}{p}}}\frac{\left(1\left\{st\right\}\right)+\left\{st\right\}\left(1+\frac{1}{\left[st\right]}\right)^{\frac{1}{p}}}{\left(1\left\{s\right\}\right)+\left\{s\right\}\left(1+\frac{1}{\left[st\right]\left[\frac{1}{t}\right]}\right)^{\frac{1}{p}}}.$$

Now we assume that $`t>1.`$ Then

$$\frac{\phi _{\alpha ,p}\left(st\right)}{\phi _{\alpha ,p}\left(s\right)}=\frac{\left(1\left\{st\right\}\right)\phi _{\alpha ,p}\left(\left[st\right]\right)+\left\{st\right\}\phi _{\alpha ,p}\left(\left[st\right]+1\right)}{\left(1\left\{s\right\}\right)\phi _{\alpha ,p}\left(\left[s\right]\right)+\left\{s\right\}\phi _{\alpha ,p}\left(\left[s\right]+1\right)}=$$

$$=\frac{\left(1\left\{st\right\}\right)\left(\alpha _{\left[st\right]}\left(\left[st\right]\right)\right)^{\frac{1}{p}}+\left\{st\right\}\left(\alpha _{\left[st\right]+1}\left(\left[st\right]+1\right)\right)^{\frac{1}{p}}}{\left(1\left\{s\right\}\right)\left(\alpha _{\left[s\right]}\left[s\right]\right)^{\frac{1}{p}}+\left\{s\right\}\left(\alpha _{\left[s\right]+1}\left(\left[s\right]+1\right)\right)^{\frac{1}{p}}}$$

$$\frac{\alpha _{\left[s\right]}^{\frac{1}{p}}\left(\left[st\right]+1\right)^{\frac{1}{p}}}{\alpha _{\left[s\right]+1}^{\frac{1}{p}}\left[s\right]^{\frac{1}{p}}}=\left(\frac{\alpha _{\left[s\right]}}{\alpha _{\left[s\right]+1}}\right)^{\frac{1}{p}}\left(\frac{\left(\left[st\right]+1\right)}{\left[s\right]}\right)^{\frac{1}{p}}$$

$$\left(\frac{\left(\left[st\right]+1\right)}{\left[s\right]}\right)^{\frac{1}{p}}\left(\frac{st+1}{s1}\right)^{\frac{1}{p}}.$$

In conclusion

$$\underset{s>0}{sup}\frac{\phi _{\alpha ,p}\left(st\right)}{\phi _{\alpha ,p}\left(s\right)}<\mathrm{}\text{ for every }t(0,\mathrm{}).$$

We are prepared now for the main result of this section.

###### Theorem 17

Consider an approximation scheme $`(G,\left(G_n\right)_n)`$. Let $`\alpha :=\left(\alpha _n\right)_n`$ and $`\beta :=\left(\beta _n\right)_n`$ be sequences having the properties 1-4 from Definition 14. If $`\alpha ,\beta `$ in addition satisfy the conditions
1. $`\beta _n\alpha _n,`$ for every $`n^{}`$ and $`2.`$ $`\underset{t0}{lim}M_\alpha \left(\frac{1}{t}\right)t=0,`$ respectively $`\underset{t0}{lim}M_\beta \left(\frac{1}{t}\right)t=0`$ and we choose the positive numbers $`p,q,l`$ satisfying the following four relations

$$1pq<\mathrm{},\text{ }l>1,\text{ }p+ql>q\text{ and }\frac{pql}{p+qlq}>1,$$

then

$$(G_{\mathrm{\Phi }_{\left(p\right)}^^^\alpha },G_{\mathrm{\Phi }_{\left(q\right)}^^^\beta })_{f,r}=G_{\mathrm{\Phi }_{\left(r\right)}^^^\gamma },\text{ with equivalent quasi-norms,}$$

where $`f:(0,\mathrm{})(0,\mathrm{})`$ is given by

$$f\left(t\right):=t^{\frac{1}{l}}$$

and $`\gamma :=\left(\gamma _n\right)_n`$ is given by

$$\gamma _n:=\alpha _n^{r\left(\frac{1}{p}\frac{1}{pl}\right)}\beta _n^{\frac{r}{ql}}.$$

Proof. We start by proving that $`l_{\phi _{\alpha ,p},p}=l_{\mathrm{\Phi }_{\left(p\right)}^^\alpha }.`$ From the definitions

$$l_{\mathrm{\Phi }_{\left(p\right)}^^\alpha }=\{xl_{\mathrm{}}:\left(\underset{n=1}{\overset{}{}}\alpha _n\left[a_n\left(x\right)\right]^p\right)^{\frac{1}{p}}<\mathrm{}\}$$

and

$$l_{\phi _{\alpha ,p},p}=\{xl_{\mathrm{}}:\left(\underset{n=1}{\overset{}{}}\left[\phi _{\alpha ,p}\left(n\right)a_n\left(x\right)\right]^pn^1\right)^{\frac{1}{p}}<\mathrm{}\}.$$

Consequently we obtain

$$l_{\phi _{\alpha ,p},p}=\{xl_{\mathrm{}}:\left(\underset{n=1}{\overset{}{}}\left[\left(\alpha _nn\right)^{\frac{1}{p}}a_n\left(x\right)\right]^pn^1\right)^{\frac{1}{p}}<\mathrm{}\}=$$

$$=\{xl_{\mathrm{}}:\left(\underset{n=1}{\overset{}{}}\alpha _n\left[a_n\left(x\right)\right]^p\right)^{\frac{1}{p}}<\mathrm{}\}=l_{\mathrm{\Phi }_{\left(p\right)}^^\alpha }.$$

It is easy to check $`_{\mathrm{\Phi }_{\left(p\right)}^^\alpha }=_{\phi _{\alpha ,p},p}.`$ Similarly $`l_{\mathrm{\Phi }_{\left(q\right)}^^\beta }=l_{\phi _{\beta ,q},q}.`$
Let $`gG.`$ From the definition of the approximation spaces $`G_{\mathrm{\Phi }_{\left(p\right)}^^^\alpha }`$ we obtain the following equivalences

$$gG_{\mathrm{\Phi }_{\left(p\right)}^^^\alpha }\left(E_n(g)\right)_nl_{\mathrm{\Phi }_{\left(p\right)}^^\alpha }\left(E_n(g)\right)_nl_{\phi _{\alpha ,p},p}gG_{\phi _{\alpha ,p},p}.$$

In conclusion

$$G_{\mathrm{\Phi }_{\left(p\right)}^^\alpha }=G_{\phi _{\alpha ,p},p}.$$

Similarly

$$G_{\mathrm{\Phi }_{\left(q\right)}^^\beta }=G_{\phi _{\beta ,q},q},\text{ respectively }G_{\mathrm{\Phi }_{\left(r\right)}^^\gamma }=G_{\phi _{\gamma ,r},r}.$$

The last step is to verify the hypotheses of Theorem 10 for

$$\phi _0:=\phi _{\alpha ,p},\phi _1:=\phi _{\beta ,q},\chi :=f.$$

From the definition of $`f`$ we obtain that $`\alpha _{\overline{f}}=\beta _{\overline{f}}=\frac{1}{l}`$ and hence

$$0<\alpha _{\overline{f}}=\beta _{\overline{f}}<1.$$

Because

$$\phi =\frac{\phi _0}{\phi _1}=\frac{\phi _{\alpha ,p}}{\phi _{\beta ,q}}$$

we can write

$$\overline{\phi }\left(t\right)=\underset{s>0}{sup}\frac{\phi _{\alpha ,p}\left(st\right)}{\phi _{\beta ,q}\left(st\right)}\frac{\phi _{\beta ,q}\left(s\right)}{\phi _{\alpha ,p}\left(s\right)}.$$

Now we are interested in computing $`\underset{t0}{lim}\overline{\phi }\left(t\right).`$ To start we notice that if $`t0`$ then $`st<1.`$ Consequently,

$$\underset{t0}{lim}\overline{\phi }\left(t\right)=\underset{t0}{lim}\underset{s>0}{sup}\frac{\phi _{\alpha ,p}\left(st\right)}{\phi _{\beta ,q}\left(st\right)}\frac{\phi _{\beta ,q}\left(s\right)}{\phi _{\alpha ,p}\left(s\right)}=$$

$$\underset{t0}{lim}\underset{s>0}{sup}\frac{\left(st\right)^{\frac{1}{p}}}{\left(st\right)^{\frac{1}{q}}}\frac{\phi _{\beta ,q}\left(s\right)}{\phi _{\alpha ,p}\left(s\right)}=\underset{t0}{lim}t^{\frac{1}{p}\frac{1}{q}}\underset{s>0}{sup}s^{\frac{1}{p}\frac{1}{q}}\frac{\phi _{\beta ,q}\left(s\right)}{\phi _{\alpha ,p}\left(s\right)}.$$

We only have to evaluate $`\underset{s>0}{sup}s^{\frac{1}{p}\frac{1}{q}}\frac{\phi _{\beta ,q}\left(s\right)}{\phi _{\alpha ,p}\left(s\right)}.`$ If $`s(0,1]`$ then

$$\underset{0<s<1}{sup}s^{\frac{1}{p}\frac{1}{q}}\frac{\phi _{\beta ,q}\left(s\right)}{\phi _{\alpha ,p}\left(s\right)}=\underset{0<s<1}{sup}s^{\frac{1}{p}\frac{1}{q}}\frac{s^{\frac{1}{q}}}{s^{\frac{1}{p}}}=1.$$

If $`s(1,\mathrm{})`$ then

$$\underset{1<s<\mathrm{}}{sup}s^{\frac{1}{p}\frac{1}{q}}\frac{\phi _{\beta ,q}\left(s\right)}{\phi _{\alpha ,p}\left(s\right)}=\underset{1<s<\mathrm{}}{sup}s^{\frac{1}{p}\frac{1}{q}}\frac{\left(1\left\{s\right\}\right)\left(\beta _{\left[s\right]}\left[s\right]\right)^{\frac{1}{q}}+\left\{s\right\}\left(\beta _{\left[s\right]+1}\left(\left[s\right]+1\right)\right)^{\frac{1}{q}}}{\left(1\left\{s\right\}\right)\left(\alpha _{\left[s\right]}\left[s\right]\right)^{\frac{1}{p}}+\left\{s\right\}\left(\alpha _{\left[s\right]+1}\left(\left[s\right]+1\right)\right)^{\frac{1}{p}}}$$

$$\underset{1<s<\mathrm{}}{sup}s^{\frac{1}{p}\frac{1}{q}}\frac{\beta _{\left[s\right]}^{\frac{1}{q}}}{\alpha _{\left[s\right]+1}^{\frac{1}{p}}}\frac{\left(\left[s\right]+1\right)^{\frac{1}{q}}}{\left[s\right]^{\frac{1}{p}}}\underset{1<s<\mathrm{}}{sup}\left(\frac{\alpha _{\left[s\right]}}{\alpha _{\left[s\right]+1}}\right)^{\frac{1}{p}}s^{\frac{1}{p}\frac{1}{q}}\frac{\left(\left[s\right]+1\right)^{\frac{1}{q}}}{\left[s\right]^{\frac{1}{p}}}$$

$$M\underset{1<s<\mathrm{}}{sup}s^{\frac{1}{p}\frac{1}{q}}\left[s\right]^{\frac{1}{q}\frac{1}{p}}\left(1+\frac{1}{\left[s\right]}\right)^{\frac{1}{q}}M\underset{1<s<\mathrm{}}{sup}\left(\left[s\right]+1\right)^{\frac{1}{p}\frac{1}{q}}\left[s\right]^{\frac{1}{q}\frac{1}{p}}\left(1+\frac{1}{\left[s\right]}\right)^{\frac{1}{q}}$$

$$M_1\underset{1<s<\mathrm{}}{sup}\left(1+\frac{1}{\left[s\right]}\right)^{\frac{1}{q}}<2^{\frac{1}{q}}M_1.$$

In conclusion for the both cases we obtain $`\underset{t0}{lim}\overline{\phi }\left(t\right)=0`$ and furthermore

$$\beta _{\overline{\phi }}>0.$$

Similarly we analyze the functions $`\phi _0`$ and $`\phi _1.`$ We have

$$\overline{\phi _{\alpha ,p}}\left(t\right)=\underset{s>0}{sup}\frac{\phi _{\alpha ,p}\left(st\right)}{\phi _{\alpha ,p}\left(s\right)},\text{ for every }t(0,\mathrm{}).$$

The following inequalitiy is true:

$$\overline{\phi _{\alpha ,p}}\left(t\right)\left(M\left(\frac{1}{t}\right)\frac{1}{\left[\frac{1}{t}\right]}\right)^{\frac{1}{p}},$$

hence we can write

$$0\underset{t0}{lim}\overline{\phi _{\alpha ,p}}\left(t\right)\underset{t0}{lim}\left(M\left(\frac{1}{t}\right)\frac{1}{\left[\frac{1}{t}\right]}\right)^{\frac{1}{p}}.$$

But

$$\underset{t0}{lim}\left(M\left(\frac{1}{t}\right)\frac{1}{\left[\frac{1}{t}\right]}\right)^{\frac{1}{p}}=0$$

so we conclude that $`\underset{t0}{lim}\overline{\phi _{\alpha ,p}}\left(t\right)=0`$ and furthermore

$$\beta _{\overline{\phi _0}}>0.$$

Similarly we proof that $`\underset{t0}{lim}\overline{\phi _{\beta ,q}}\left(t\right)=0`$ from which we derive again

$$\beta _{\overline{\phi _1}}>0.$$

The hypotheses of Theorem 10 being fulfilled we can aply it to obtain

$$(G_{\phi _{\alpha ,p},p},G_{\phi _{\beta ,q},q})_{f,r}=G_{\rho ,r},$$

where the function $`\rho :(0,\mathrm{})(0,\mathrm{})`$ is defined by

$$\rho \left(t\right):=\frac{\phi _{\alpha ,p}\left(t\right)}{\left(\frac{\phi _{\alpha ,p}\left(t\right)}{\phi _{\beta ,q}\left(t\right)}\right)^{\frac{1}{l}}}.$$

We compute

$$\rho \left(n\right)=\frac{\phi _{\alpha ,p}\left(n\right)}{\left(\frac{\phi _{\alpha ,p}\left(n\right)}{\phi _{\beta ,q}\left(n\right)}\right)^{\frac{1}{l}}}=\phi _{\alpha ,p}\left(n\right)^{1\frac{1}{l}}\phi _{\beta ,q}\left(n\right)^{\frac{1}{l}}=$$

$$=\alpha _n^{\frac{1}{p}\frac{1}{pl}}\beta _n^{\frac{1}{ql}}n^{\frac{p+qlq}{pql}}=\left(\alpha _n^{r\left(\frac{1}{p}\frac{1}{pl}\right)}\beta _n^{\frac{r}{ql}}\right)^{\frac{1}{r}}n^{\frac{1}{r}}=\left(\gamma _nn\right)^{\frac{1}{r}}.$$

In conclusion $`l_{\rho ,r}=l_{\mathrm{\Phi }_{\left(r\right)}^\gamma },`$ where $`\gamma =\left(\gamma _n\right)_n`$ and hence $`G_{\rho ,r}=G_{\phi _{\gamma ,r},r}.`$ Adding the two equalities proved before $`G_{\phi _{\alpha ,p},p}=G_{\mathrm{\Phi }_{\left(p\right)}^\alpha }`$ and $`G_{\phi _{\beta ,q},q}=G_{\mathrm{\Phi }_{\left(q\right)}^\beta }`$ we obtain the desired result.

###### Acknowledgement 18

I would like to express my gratitude to Professor N. Tita for many fruitful discussions and also to Professor C. Merucci for sending me material with valuable information on ”real interpolation method with functional parameter”. Also I want to thank to Professor R. Nest for careful reading of my manuscript and doing useful remarks and suggestions.