text:
# Galaxy groups in the 2dF galaxy redshift survey: Luminosity and Mass Statistics

## 1 Introduction

Groups of galaxies constitute one of the most suitable laboratories for the study of properties of intermediate galaxy density environments and their consequences on the process of galaxy formation and evolution. Furthermore, several hints about the large scale structure of the universe and how structures evolve in the universe can be drawn from the statistical studies of groups and their properties. Some of them, for instance the luminosities and morphological types of their member galaxies, are sensitive to the processes of mergers and interactions between individual galaxies inside a potential well. Meanwhile, other properties as group abundance as a function of total luminosity or mass, can provide constraints to hierarchical clustering scenarios and cosmological models. In this paper, we provide a robust statistical study about the luminosities of group galaxy members, and also on global group properties such as total luminosities and masses, using one of the largest group catalogues at the present. The accuracy of these determinations allow us a fair comparison with analytical and semianalytical predictions.

Most studies on the environmental dependence of the galaxy luminosity function have been carried out either in the field or in rich clusters using the largest two dimensional catalogues and small redshift surveys. Regarding field galaxy luminosity functions, several works have been devoted to its determination in the last decade (Loveday et al. 1992, Marzke, Huchra & Geller 1994, Lin et al. 1996, Zucca et al. 1997, Ratcliffe et al. 1998). With the advent of large redshift surveys such as the Two degree Field Galaxy Redshift Survey (2dFGRS) and the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS), more reliable statistical results have been obtained. The field luminosity functions determined by Blanton et al. (2001) (SDSS) and Norberg et al. (2002) (2dFGRS) show an excellent agreement, finding a luminosity function accurately described by a Schechter function with parameters $`M_{b_J}^{}5\mathrm{log}(h)19.66`$ and $`\alpha 1.21`$. In particular, the 2dFGRS allowed the determination of the field luminosity function for galaxies of different spectral types (Madgwick et al 2002) finding a systematic steepening of the faint end slope moving from passive $`(\alpha =0.54)`$ to active $`(\alpha =1.5)`$ star forming galaxies, and also a corresponding faintening of $`M^{}`$.

A controversial issue about the luminosity function of galaxies in clusters is the steepening at the faint end, compared with field galaxy luminosity function (Valotto et al 1997, Trentham 1997, López-Cruz et al 1997). Recently Goto et al. (2002) computed a composed luminosity function using 204 clusters taken from SDSS (York et al. 2000). They found that the slopes of the LF’s become flatter toward redder color band and that have brighter characteristic magnitude and flatter slopes than the field LF.

The lack of statistical results on smaller overdensities such as groups of galaxies is mainly due to the fact that two dimensional identification privileges the largest overdensities. Analyzing a sample of 66 groups of galaxies identified in redshift space, Muriel, Valotto & Lambas (1998) find a flat faint end for the galaxy luminosity function in groups ($`\alpha 1.0`$) compared with the luminosity function in clusters where a large relative number of faint galaxies is present. It is important to remark that most of the luminosity function estimations in groups and clusters of galaxies are computed subtracting background and foreground contamination due to the lack of spectroscopic information for galaxy members.

One step further, in order to understand the transition between galaxy and galaxy systems luminosities, is the computation of the luminosity function of galaxy groups. Moore, Frenk & White (1993), reanalysing the groups in the Center for Astrophysics (CfA) redshift survey, developed a method for the estimation of the total luminosity of groups identified in magnitude-limited galaxy surveys. This method allowed them the computation of the luminosity function of galaxy systems for a sample of 163 groups with at least tree members. Another attempt to determine the luminosity function of virialized systems was made by Marinoni, Hudson & Giuricin (2002). They used the Nearby Optical Galaxy (NOG) sample, which comprise $`7000`$ galaxies with $`cz6000\mathrm{k}\mathrm{m}\mathrm{s}^1`$ and $`B14`$, finding a very good agreement with Moore, Frenk & White (1993) previous determination.

On the other hand, the abundance of haloes as a function of mass constitutes a key point in both, the determination of a cosmological model and the understanding of the structure collapse. At the present, the more popular models for halo abundance are the analytical model of Press & Schechter (1974) for spherical collapse, the Sheth & Tormen (1999) model for ellipsoidal collapse and Jenkins et al. (2001) fit obtained from numerical simulations. Many efforts have been made to determine the mass function of galaxy systems from observations (Bahcall & Cen 1993, Biviano et al. 1993, Girardi et al. 1998). Recently, Girardi & Giuricin (2000) have computed the mass function for a sample of nearby loose groups by Garcia (1993). They found the group mass function to be a smooth extrapolation of the cluster mass function and a reasonable agreement with the Press & Schechter (1974) predictions.

Currently, one of the largest group catalogue was constructed by Merchán & Zandivarez (2002). They have identified groups on the 2dF public 100K data release using a modified Huchra & Geller (1982) group finding algorithm that takes into account 2dF magnitude limit and redshift completeness masks. This catalogue constitutes a large and suitable sample for both, the study of processes in group environment and the properties of the group population itself. The global effects of group environment on star formation was analysed by Martínez et al. (2002) using this catalogue. They have found a strong correlation between the relative fraction of different galaxy types and the parent group virial mass. For groups with $`M>10^{13}M_{}`$ the relative fraction of star forming galaxies is significantly suppressed, indicating that even intermediate mass environments affect star formation. Domínguez et al. (2002) presented hints toward understanding local environment effects affecting the spectral types of galaxies in groups by studying the relative fractions of different spectral types as a function of the projected local galaxy density and the group-centric distance. A similar analysis were performed in known galaxy clusters and their environments in the 2dFGRS by Lewis et al (2002).

The aim of this work is to use the Merchán & Zandivarez (2002) group catalogue to obtain reliable determinations of internal and global properties of groups: luminosity functions of galaxies in groups, group luminosity and mass functions. The outline of this paper is as follows. In section 2, we present a revised version of the 2dF Galaxy Group Catalogue (2dFGGC) used throughout this work. Section 3 describes the methods and results of the luminosity function of galaxies in groups while in section 4 description corresponds to the luminosity function of galaxy groups. The computation of group mass function and a comparison with analytical models are presented in section 5. Finally, in section 6 we summarize our conclusions.

## 2 The 2dFGGC

Samples of galaxies and groups used in this work are a new sample constructed using a revised version of the masks and mask software of the 2dFGRS 100k data release, which includes the $`\mu `$-masks described in Colless et al. (2001) (see http://msowww.anu.edu.au/2dFGRS/Public/Release/ Masks/index.html). The group catalogue is obtained following the same procedure as described by Merchán & Zandivarez (2002). In the previous work, the finder algorithm used for group identification is similar to that developed by Huchra & Geller (1982) but modified in order to take into account redshift completeness and magnitude limit mask present on the current release of galaxies. Here we include the effect introduced by the magnitude completeness mask ($`\mu `$-mask). In the construction of the 2dFGGC values of $`\delta \rho /\rho =80`$ and $`V_0=200\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ were used to maximize the group accuracy. The revised group catalogue comprises a total number of 2198 galaxy groups with at least 4 members and mean radial velocities in the range $`900\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{V}75000\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$. These groups have a mean velocity dispersion of $`265\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$, a mean virial mass of $`9.1\times 10^{13}h^1M_{}`$ and a mean virial radius of $`1.15h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$. These results show that the new identification keeps the mean properties of the group catalogue obtained by Merchán & Zandivarez (2002), as expected from the fact that the introduction of the magnitude completeness mask is a second order correction.

## 3 Luminosity function of galaxies in groups

In this section we estimate the luminosity functions (LF) of galaxies in groups. The following analysis comprises the study of the whole sample of galaxies in groups and different subsets defined by galaxy spectral types as defined by Madgwick et al (2002). This classification is based on the $`\eta `$ parameter which is very tightly correlated with the equivalent width of $`H_\alpha `$ emission line, correlates well with morphology for emission line galaxies and can be interpreted as a measure of the relative current star-formation present in each galaxy. The four spectral types are defined as:

* Type 1: $`\eta <1.4`$,
* Type 2: $`1.4\eta <1.1`$,
* Type 3: $`1.1\eta <3.5`$,
* Type 4: $`\eta 3.5`$.

The Type 1 class is characterised by an old stellar population and strong absorption features, the Types 2 and 3 comprise spiral galaxies with increasing star formation, finally the Type 4 class is dominated by particularly active galaxies such as starburst.

### 3.1 Luminosity function estimators

In a comparative study of different LF estimators using Monte Carlo simulations, Willmer (1997) shows that the $`C^{}`$ method of Lynden-Bell (1971) and the STY method derived by Sandage, Tammann & Yahil (1979) are the best estimators to measure the shape of the LF. Moreover, Willmer’s analysis states that the $`C^{}`$ is the most robust estimator, being less affected by different values of the faint end slope of the Schechter parametrisation and sample size. In this work we use both, the $`C^{}`$ method to make a non parametric determination of the LF and the STY method to calculate the maximum likelihood Schechter fit to the LF.

The $`C^{}`$ method was simplified and developed by Choloniewski (1987) in order to compute simultaneously the shape and normalisation of the luminosity function. The LF is obtained by differentiating the cumulative LF, $`\mathrm{\Psi }(M)`$. The function $`X(M)`$ defined as the observed density of galaxies with absolute magnitude brighter than $`M`$, represents only an undersampling of the $`\mathrm{\Psi }(M)`$,

$$\frac{dX}{X}<\frac{d\mathrm{\Psi }}{\mathrm{\Psi }};$$
(1)
the key point of the method is to construct a quantity $`C(M)`$, subsample of $`X(M)`$, such that

$$\frac{dX}{C}=\frac{d\mathrm{\Psi }}{\mathrm{\Psi }}.$$
(2)
Linden-Bell (1971) defined that quantity as the number of galaxies brighter than $`M`$ which could have been observed if their magnitude were $`M`$. Following Choloniewski (1987), and taking into account the sky coverage of the 2dF present release, the differential LF can be written as

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(M)=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_i^{M_i[M,M+\mathrm{\Delta }M]}\psi _i}{\mathrm{\Delta }M}$$
(3)
where

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }=\underset{k=2}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{C_k+w_k}{C_k}\left(V\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\psi _i\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{R(\alpha _j,\delta _j)}{N}\right)^1,$$
(4)
$$\psi _k=\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}\frac{C_i+w_i}{C_{i+1}}$$
(5)
and $`R(\alpha ,\delta )`$ is the redshift completeness of the parent catalogue. $`C_kC^{}(M_k)`$ is defined as $`C(M)`$ but excluding the object $`k`$ itself and weighting each object by the inverse of the magnitude-dependent redshift completeness defined as $`w^1=c_z(b_J,\mu )=0.99(1\mathrm{exp}(b_J\mu ))`$ where $`\mu =\mu (\alpha ,\delta )`$ (see Norberg et al. 2002).

In addition to the non-parametric method described above we also apply the STY method which uses a maximum likelihood technique to find the most probable parameters of an analytical $`\mathrm{\Phi }(M)`$, in general assumed to be a Schechter, function:

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(M)10^{0.4(MM^{})(\alpha +1)}\mathrm{exp}[10^{0.4(MM^{})}]$$
(6)
The probability $`p_i`$ of having an object with absolute magnitude $`M_i`$ is

$$p_i\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }(M_i)}{_{M_{\mathrm{bright}}}^{M_{\mathrm{faint}}}\mathrm{\Phi }(M)𝑑M}$$
(7)
where $`M_{\mathrm{bright}}`$ and $`M_{\mathrm{faint}}`$ are the brightest and faintest absolute magnitudes observable in the sample at the redshift of the considered galaxy with the corresponding $`k+e`$ correction. Consequently, the method seeks for the parameters $`M^{}`$ and $`\alpha `$ maximizing the likelihood function

$$=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}p_i.$$
(8)
As we did before, we use the $`\mu `$-mask to weight each galaxy by $`1/c_z(b_J,\mu )`$ to compensate for the magnitude-dependent incompleteness. The errors can be estimated from the error ellipsoid defined as

$$\mathrm{ln}=\mathrm{ln}_{\mathrm{max}}\frac{1}{2}\chi _\beta ^2(N),$$
(9)
where $`\chi _\beta ^2(N)`$ is the $`\beta `$ point of the $`\chi ^2`$ distribution with $`N`$ degrees of freedom.

The comoving volumes involved in previous equations are estimated with the general formula

$$V=\frac{\omega c}{H_0}_{z_1}^{z_2}\frac{d_L(z)^2(1+z)^2dz}{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_0(1+z)^3+(1\mathrm{\Omega }_0\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda })(1+z)^2+\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }}}$$
(10)
where $`\omega `$ is the solid angle, $`c`$ is the speed of light, $`H_0=100h\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$ and the $`d_L(z)`$ is the luminosity distance. Hereafter we adopt the cosmological model $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0=0.3`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.7`$.

### 3.2 Luminosity function results

In Figure 1 we show the luminosity function for all galaxies in groups in arbitrary units. It should be taken into account that the normalisation procedure is only necessary for the group LF. Absolute magnitudes are computed using the $`k+e`$ mean correction for galaxies in the 2dFGRS as derived by Norberg et al. (2002). Error bars are estimated using 10 mock catalogues constructed from numerical simulations of a cold dark matter universe according to the cosmological model adopted in this work with a Hubble constant $`h=0.7`$ and a relative mass fluctuation $`\sigma _8=0.9`$. These simulations were performed using $`128^3`$ particles in cubic comoving volume of $`180h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$ per side. The solid line shows the STY best fit which corresponds to the Schechter parameters $`M^{}=19.90\pm 0.03`$ and $`\alpha =1.13\pm 0.02`$. Quoted errors are the projections of 1$`\sigma `$ joint error ellipse (inset plot) onto each axis. The inset plot of Figure 1 also shows the error ellipsoids defined by 2 and 3 $`\sigma `$ error dispersion.

As pointed out by Martínez et al. (2002), the relative fraction of the spectral types in groups and field are different, being Type 1 galaxies the dominant population in groups. We are interested in deepening this result by studying the LF for the four spectral types in groups. The luminosity functions for different galaxy spectral types are shown in Figure 2. In these computations we applied a redshift cut-off $`z<0.15`$ since $`\eta `$ determinations are available only for galaxies in this redshift range. In this case, error bars were estimated using the bootstrap resampling technique. The corresponding STY best fit parameters are quoted in Table 1, and were computed using only those galaxies brighter than $`M_{b_J}5\mathrm{log}h=17`$ avoiding points with larger error bars.

At this point, a straightforward comparison between our results and those obtained for field galaxies in the 2dFGRS by Madgwick et al. (2002) can be made. The comparison between the LF Schechter parameters is shown in Figure 3. Overall, a brightening of the characteristic magnitude is observed for galaxies in groups with a statistical significance $`2\sigma `$. This is particularly significant for Type 1 galaxies that are the main contributors to the general LF of galaxies in groups ($`3\sigma `$). The denser environment of groups could be thought as the natural responsible of this brightening. In this particular environment, galaxy mergers seems to be the most probable cause since tidal interactions are more effective when the galaxy encounter is slow. The later situation, is more frequently observed in groups where smaller velocity dispersions contrast with the high velocity dispersions observed in rich clusters. Other processes, as ram-pressure (Abadi, Moore & Bower 1999) or galaxy harassment (Moore et al. 1996) should not be as effective as in rich cluster where the intra-cluster gas is much denser and the interaction rate is higher.
Nevertheless, the processes mentioned above may be important in the generation of red low mass galaxies, that are possibly the remnants of dynamical stripped galaxies in high mass systems and can be the responsible for the steepening of the luminosity function in clusters. The observed difference in the $`\alpha `$ parameter for Type 1 galaxies (lower panel of Figure 3) may be explained in this framework. In order to test this scenario, we reanalyze the LF for non star-forming galaxies (Type 1) splitting the sample in high ($`M10^{14}M_{}`$) and low ($`M<10^{14}M_{}`$) group mass subsets. A significant difference is observed at the faint end slope of the LF from this comparison, resulting Schechter $`\alpha `$ parameters of ($`1.10\pm 0.06`$) and ($`0.71\pm 0.04`$) for high and low mass subsamples respectively (Figure 4). These results may support our hypothesis that in groups, mergers are probably responsible for the $`M^{}`$ brightening, meanwhile process as the ram-pressure and galaxy harassment could generate the increase at the LF faint end slope as observed for non-star forming galaxies in high mass systems. Besides the steepening of the faint end slope of Type 1 galaxies LF in higher mass systems, the galaxy LF for high and low mass groups do not differ appreciatively between them showing roughly the same behaviour as the overall LF of galaxies in groups (Figure 1).

Despite the differences between the resulting luminosity functions per spectral type, the general LF of galaxies in groups is quite similar to that of 2dF field galaxies obtained by Norberg et al. (2002) and Madgwick et al. (2002). This behaviour could be possibly due to the different relative abundances of Type 1 galaxies in the field and groups. In groups Type 1 galaxies are by far the dominant population, consequently, these galaxies almost determine by themselves $`M^{}`$. Meanwhile, in the field, Types 2, 3 and 4 contribute more strongly to the LF, generating a $`M^{}`$ brighter than the corresponding to Type 1 galaxies alone. Regarding the faint end slope of the overall LF, the main contributors are late type galaxies (except for high mass groups, as stated above) in both, field and groups. Since there are no significant differences between the $`\alpha `$ parameters for late types in the field and groups, then the overall faint end slopes are similar.

## 4 Luminosity function of groups

The next step in this work is to analyse the luminosity distribution of groups independently of the detailed arrangement of luminous material within each object. In this section we determine individual group luminosities that allow us the computation of the group luminosity function and the subsequent comparison with previous determinations and predictions from semianalytical models of galaxy formation.

### 4.1 Group luminosities

We compute group luminosities following the prescription by Moore, Frenk & White (1993). For each group the total luminosity, $`L_{\mathrm{tot}}`$, is the sum of the luminosities of the galaxy members ($`L_{\mathrm{obs}}`$) plus the integrated luminosity of galaxies below the magnitude limit of the survey ($`L_{\mathrm{cor}}`$)

$$L_{\mathrm{tot}}=L_{\mathrm{obs}}+L_{\mathrm{cor}}.$$
(11)
In the computation of $`L_{\mathrm{cor}}`$ we assume that group members are independently drawn from the previously computed Schechter fit to the luminosity function of galaxies in groups. Consequently, the expected luminosity of faint group members is

$$L_{\mathrm{cor}}=N_{\mathrm{obs}}\frac{_0^{L_{\mathrm{lim}}}L\mathrm{\Phi }(L)𝑑L}{_{L_{\mathrm{lim}}}^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{\Phi }(L)𝑑L},$$
(12)
where $`L_{\mathrm{lim}}=10^{0.4(M_{}M_{\mathrm{lim}})}`$, $`M_{\mathrm{lim}}=m_{\mathrm{lim}}255\mathrm{log}(d_L(z))`$ and $`M_{}=5.30`$ ($`b_J`$ band). The reliability of this scheme for computing luminosities of virialized systems was widely tested by Moore, Frenk & White (1993) using groups from the CfA catalogue and flux and volume limited mock catalogues. In order to apply this procedure to our group catalogue we introduce some changes that take into account the particular sky coverage of the parent catalogue: $`m_{\mathrm{lim}}`$ is a function of the angular position of the group and $`N_{\mathrm{obs}}=_{i=1}^Nw_i`$, where the sum extends over the group members and each member is weighted with the inverse of the redshift completeness, $`w_i=1/R(\alpha _i,\delta _i)`$, at its angular position.

### 4.2 Group luminosity function

As a first step in computing the group luminosity function using the $`C^{}`$ method, it is necessary to find out the completeness limit in group apparent magnitude of our catalogue. Rauzy (2001) proposed a new tool in order to define this completeness limit for a magnitude-redshift sample. This method does not presuppose that the galaxy population does not evolve with time and is homogeneously distributed in space as the $`V/V_{\mathrm{max}}`$ test of Schmidt (1968). Rauzy’s method assumes that the sample is complete in apparent magnitude up to a given magnitude limit $`m_{\mathrm{lim}}`$. The limiting magnitude determines a correlation between the absolute magnitude $`M`$ and the $`k+e`$ corrected distance modulus $`Z`$. This method is based on the definition of a random variable

$$\zeta \frac{\mathrm{\Psi }(M)}{\mathrm{\Psi }[M_{\mathrm{lim}}(Z)]}$$
(13)
where $`M_{\mathrm{lim}}(Z)=m_{\mathrm{lim}}Z`$. $`\zeta `$ should be uniformly distributed between 0 and 1 and should be statistically independent of $`Z`$ and the angular selection function. For each object, an unbiased estimate of $`\zeta `$ is provided by

$$\widehat{\zeta }_i=\frac{r_i}{n_i+1},$$
(14)
where $`r_i`$ is the number of objects in the sample with $`MM_i`$ and $`ZZ_i`$, and $`n_i`$ is the number of objects such that $`MM_{\mathrm{lim}}^i(Z_i)`$ and $`ZZ_i`$. The expectation $`E_i`$ and variance $`V_i`$ of the $`\widehat{\zeta }_i`$ are $`1/2`$ and $`(n_i1)/(12(n_i+1))`$ respectively. Then, the statistic $`T_C`$, defined as

$$T_C=\frac{_{i=1}^{N_{\mathrm{gal}}}\left(\widehat{\zeta }_i\frac{1}{2}\right)}{\left(_{i=1}^{N_{\mathrm{gal}}}V_i\right)^{1/2}}$$
(15)
has mean zero and variance unity. The test consists in computing the quantity $`T_C`$ on truncated subsamples according to an increasing apparent magnitude limit $`m_{}`$. While $`m_{}`$ remains below $`m_{\mathrm{lim}}`$ the subsample is complete and $`T_C`$ statistics is distributed with a mean close to zero and unity fluctuations. When $`m_{}`$ becomes greater than $`m_{\mathrm{lim}}`$, the incompleteness introduces a lack of objects with $`M`$ fainter than $`M_{\mathrm{lim}}(Z)`$, therefore $`T_C`$ is expected to fall down systematically to negative values. The behaviour of $`T_C`$ for our group catalogue is shown in the upper panel of Figure 5, where it can be seen that $`T_C`$ decreases monotonously for limiting apparent magnitudes greater than $`m_{\mathrm{lim}}15.6`$ (vertical solid line), taking values under $`2`$($`2\sigma _{T_C}`$) (horizontal long dashed lines). The lower panel of the same figure shows the $`k+e`$ corrected distance modulus $`Z`$ as a function of the absolute magnitude for all groups, the vertical solid line corresponds to the $`15.6`$ limiting apparent magnitude cutoff as determined with the $`T_C`$ analysis. Dashed horizontal line in the lower panel of Figure 5 represents a low redshift cut-off ($`z_{\mathrm{co}}=0.04`$) that we impose in order to avoid small volume undersampling effects.

Finally, our flux-limited group sample comprises 922 groups with the constraints $`0.04z0.25`$ and $`m_{b_J}15.6`$. We compute for this sample the group LF with the $`C^{}`$ method in a similar way as we did for galaxies in groups in Section 3, but in this case no weight is needed in the $`C_kC^{}(M_k)`$ computation (i.e. $`w1`$ in equations 4 and 5) since the choice of the magnitude cut-off ensures the completeness of the final sample. The resulting group LF is shown in Figure 6. Error bars were computed by applying the same LF estimator to the mock catalogues in a similar way as explained is Section 3. In the same figure we show the results from groups in the CfA redshift survey by Moore, Frenk & White (1993) and from semianalytical models by Benson et al. (2000) for a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ cold dark matter model. A general good agreement with previous results is observed except for $`M_{b_J}5\mathrm{log}h>21.5`$. Since the 2dFGGC has only groups with at least 4 members, there is a lack of low luminosity systems that could explain the differences in the low luminosity tail in Figure 6 when comparing with previous works. As shown by Moore, Frenk & White (1993), the faint end of the group luminosity function is made up almost enterely of single galaxies; binaries and groups with three members link this to the steep bright tail of richer groups and clusters. We have checked whether the 4-member criterion is affecting the faint-end of the group luminosity function by re-computing it including groups with 3 and 2 members. The resulting group LF is in agreement with the results of Moore, Frenk & White (1993) in the whole absolute magnitude range. Nevertheless, it should be recalled that the 4 member cut-off is necessary in order to avoid spurious detections. As stated by Merchán & Zandivarez (2002), this false detections can reach aproximately $`40\%`$ when considering groups with only three members. Consequently, the 4-member criterion ensures a reliable determination of the luminosity function of virialised systems over a wide range of luminosities.

## 5 Mass function of groups

The statistical strength of our group sample allows us an accurate measurement of the group mass function. In this section we explore the mass function of intermediate mass systems, using the flux-limited sample defined in the previous section. For this purpose we use the $`1/V_{\mathrm{max}}`$ procedure, that is a non-parametric method consisting in weight each object with the inverse of the maximum comoving volume of the survey, $`V_{\mathrm{max}}`$,

$$V_{\mathrm{max}}(M_i)=_{\mathrm{min}(z_2,z_{\mathrm{max}})}^{\mathrm{max}(z_1,z_{\mathrm{min}})}\frac{dV}{dz}𝑑z$$
(16)
in which it remains observable given all the observational selection limits. The extremes of the volume integral are found by solving the equations

$$M_i=\{\begin{array}{c}m_25\mathrm{log}d_L(z_{\mathrm{max}})25k(z_{\mathrm{max}})\hfill \\ m_15\mathrm{log}d_L(z_{\mathrm{min}})25k(z_{\mathrm{min}})\hfill \end{array}$$
(17)
that are the redshifts of objects with the same absolute magnitude, $`M_i`$, of the considered object, but with apparent magnitude at the bright and faint limits of the survey. Consequently, the differential mass function can be computed as

$$\frac{dN}{d}()=\underset{|M_iM|d/2}{}\frac{1}{V_{\mathrm{max}}(M_i)\widehat{R}(\alpha _i,\delta _i)}$$
(18)
where $`_i`$ are the group masses and $`\widehat{R}(\alpha _i,\delta _i)`$ are the mean group redshift completeness.

For a meaningful comparison between the resulting group mass function and analytical mass function predictions (Press & Schechter 1974, Sheth & Tormen 1999 and Jenkins et al. 2001), it is necessary to relate the group virial masses with the mass definition in the models. Group virial masses were computed inside a galaxy density contrast $`(\delta \rho /\rho )_g=80`$ (Merchán & Zandivarez 2002), which corresponds to a mass density contrast $`(\delta \rho /\rho )_m=(\delta \rho /\rho )_g/b`$, where $`b`$ is the linear bias factor. If we estimate $`b=1/\sigma _8`$, assuming $`\sigma _8=0.9`$, the resulting density contrast is $`(\delta \rho /\rho )_m=72`$. In order to make a comparison with the analytical predictions, the masses should be computed for a particular density contrast depending on the cosmological model. Taken into account the relation between the virial density of collapsed objects in units of the critical density and the adimensional density parameter $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$, as quoted by Eke, Cole & Frenk (1996), we must have $`(\delta \rho /\rho )_m330`$ for our cosmological model, assuming spherical collapse approximation. To find the relation between the group virial masses and that corresponding to the matter overdensity $`330`$, we assume a simple mean overdensity profile for groups that scales as $`r^2`$, where $`r`$ is the group-centric distance. Given that in this case $`r`$ then the resulting scaling relation is $`_{330}_{72}\sqrt{72/330}`$.

Figure 7 shows the comparison between the group mass function, with masses scaled using the previous relation, and the analytical prediction for Press & Schechter (1974), Sheth & Tormen (1999) and Jenkins et al. (2001). Overall, analytical predictions are in excellent agreement with our results spanning two orders of magnitude in mass $`(10^{13}h^1M_{}<<10^{15}h^1M_{})`$. The differences for masses smaller than $`10^{13}h^1M_{}`$ arise as consequence of the lack of low mass groups, mainly due to the member number cut-off imposed to the 2dFGGC.

## 6 CONCLUSIONS

Here, we have applied several statistical analysis to groups and galaxies in groups taken from an updated version of the Merchán & Zandivarez (2002) group catalogue (2dFGGC). We have focused on an accurate determination of the luminosity functions of galaxies in groups, and the luminosity and mass functions of groups taking advantage of the statistical power of the 2dFGGC.

In the LF computations, we have used a version of the Choloniewski (1987) approach to the $`C^{}`$ method by Lynden-Bell (1971), adapted to the particular sky coverage of the 2dFGRS. The choice of this particular estimator of the luminosity function is inspired in the conclusions of the comparative analysis of LF estimators by Willmer (1997), who states that the $`C^{}`$ method is less affected by inhomogeneities in the sample. The resulting luminosity function for galaxies in groups (Figure 1) is well fitted by a Schechter function with shape parameters $`M^{}5\mathrm{log}(h)=19.90\pm 0.03`$ and $`\alpha =1.13\pm 0.02`$ as determined by a STY fitting procedure. These values are quite consistent with those obtained by Norberg et al. (2002) for field galaxies in the 2dFGRS.

We have performed a similar analysis in subsamples of galaxies (Figure 2 and Table 1) defined by the spectral types of Madgwick et al. (2002). In general, the characteristic magnitudes $`M^{}`$ are shifted to higher luminosities with respect to the field values found by Madgwick et al (2002), irrespectively of spectral type. This shift may be due to galaxy dynamical interactions such as mergers, which are expected to be much more frequent in systems with low velocity dispersions as the majority of our group sample.

The faint end slopes of the luminosity functions, $`\alpha `$, are consistent with those corresponding to field galaxies except for low star forming, Type 1, galaxies, that show a steeper value in groups (Figure 3). We deepen our analysis for Type 1 galaxies exploring the behaviour of $`\alpha `$ for two subsets of groups: low ($`10^{14}h^1M_{}`$) and high ($`>10^{14}h^1M_{}`$), virial masses. We observe an increase in the faint end slope of the Type 1 LF ($`\alpha =1.10\pm 0.06`$) for galaxies in high mass systems meanwhile for galaxies in low mass systems it remains closer to the global value ($`\alpha =0.71\pm 0.04`$) (Figure 4). This effect could be the result of internal processes in higher mass system environments such as ram-pressure and galaxy harassment, that are not expected to be significantly important in smaller overdensities.

We have defined group luminosities following Moore, Frenk & White (1993), as the sum of its observed luminosity plus a normalised integral of the galaxy luminosity function below the flux limit of the survey. This definition has proved to be reliable in the computation of group total luminosity using observations and artificial flux and volume-limited catalogues. The main aim of this computation is the determination of the luminosity function for our group catalogue. Since the $`C^{}`$ method for luminosity function estimation requires a fair selection criterion, we have used the Rauzy (2001) $`T_C`$ statistics to determine an apparent magnitude cut-off for the 2dFGGC that ensures the highest level of completeness. Our final flux-limited group sample comprises 922 groups with apparent magnitudes brighter than $`b_J=15.6`$ (Figure 5). The resulting group luminosity function for this sample (Figure 6) is consistent with Moore, Frenk & White (1993) determination for groups in the CfA redshift survey and with the semianalytical model prediction of a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ cold dark matter cosmology performed by Benson et al. (2000). This agreement is acceptable in the luminosity range $`M_{b_J}<21.5`$. The differences observed at fainter luminosities are mainly due to the lack of groups with less than 4 members in the 2dFGGC. The intrinsic characteristics of the group finding algorithm used in the construction of the 2dFGGC by Merchán & Zandivarez (2002), determine that below this limit any resulting sample has an unacceptable level of contamination by spurious detections.

The flux-limited group sample adopted in the luminosity function computation is also fair enough for the determination of the group mass function. This determination was achieved by using an adapted version of the $`1/V_{\mathrm{max}}`$ that considers the sky coverage of the group sample. Finally, a comparison with analytical predictions of halo abundances is made using a simple scheme to relate group virial masses and that corresponding to the adequate overdensity in our cosmological model. The results are displayed in Figure 7, where it can be seen a notorious agreement with the Press & Schechter (1974), Sheth & Tormen (1999) and Jenkins et al. (2001) mass functions for masses $`>10^{13}h^1M_{}`$. Again, the disagreement for low masses can be attributed to absence of poor groups.

The statistical significance of the group catalogue used in this work allowed us to obtain very important clues about internal properties of intermediate mass systems and also to observe the level of agreement obtained from both analytical and semianalytical predictions in the framework of a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ cold dark matter model.

## Acknowledgments

We are indebted with Diego G. Lambas and Hernán Muriel for interesting comments and discussions. We thank to Peder Norberg and Shaun Cole for kindly providing the software describing the mask of the 2dFGRS and to the 2dFGRS Team for having made available the current data sets of the sample. We would like to thank J. Coltrane. HJM, AZ and MEM are supported by fellowships from CONICET, Argentina. MJLD is supported by a fellowship from SECyT, Universidad Nacional de Córdoba, Argentina. This work has been partially supported by grants from Consejo de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas de la República Argentina (CONICET), the Secretaría de Ciencia y Técnica de la Universidad Nacional de Córdoba (SeCyT), Agencia Nacional de Promoción Científica de la República Argentina and Agencia Córdoba Ciencia.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

In recent years, it has become clear that extra dimensions can play an important role in our understanding of the hierarchy problem . In , it was noted that the cutoff scale of the standard model could be $`O(\mathrm{TeV})`$, and yet have weakly coupled gravity if the standard model fields were localized on a brane on the boundary of a slice of AdS5.

One seeming consequence of having a cutoff at a TeV is that it is impossible to discuss issues of the UV, such as high scale unification. However, this apparent obstacle no longer applies when the gauge sector of the standard model is placed in the bulk of AdS. In particular, in  the couplings of fields on the UV brane were studied, and it was demonstrated explicitly that despite the dimensionful bulk gauge coupling, the effective coupling of the zero mode runs logarithmically below the AdS curvature scale. In , a position-dependent regulator motivated by holography was used to show that the predictions of perturbative high-scale unification were possible, even in theories where standard model fields experience a strong-coupling cutoff at the TeV scale. More recently,  have studied the behavior of gauge fields in AdS. All of these works agree that, at some level, gauge running in AdS is logarithmic, rather than power law, below the compactification scale. However, there nonetheless remains some confusion as to what constitutes a sensible regulator, and in what sense one can talk about a zero mode definitively above the IR brane scale.

Over the past year, “deconstruction”  has a appeared as a new tool for model building and understanding the properties of higher-dimensional gauge theories. By viewing the higher-dimensional theory as a product of four-dimensional theories, one can easily study the properties of the theory at intermediate energies. In this paper, we will employ deconstruction to give us an understanding of the properties of AdS gauge theories at energies above the scale of the IR brane.222Deconstructing gauge theories in RS was also discussed in . We, too, will recover log running above a TeV, but we will also see how position dependent regulators naturally arise in the deconstructed framework. We also will recover cutoff sensitive “power-law running” effects above the curvature scale, which will appear as threshold effects associated with the cutoff of the theory. We will also see in what sense we can discuss a renormalized zero mode above the IR brane scale. Lastly, the results we achieve can be straightforwardly applied to different geometries.

## 2 Gauge Theories in AdS

Five dimensional gauge field theories are defined as cutoff theories. Because the gauge coupling is dimensionful, there is an associated ultra-violet strong coupling scale. However, AdS gauge theories present a number of subtleties not found in flat extra dimensions.

In flat extra dimensions, we see the first Kaluza-Klein mode at a scale $`1/R`$. At a scattering energy $`En/R`$, one exchanges $`n`$ KK modes, giving a strong coupling scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }4\pi /Rg_4^24\pi ^2/g_5^2`$. Note that we could live on a brane at any point in the space and this formula would remain essentially unchanged.

In AdS, the situation is quite different. If we consider the RS1 space with UV and IR cutoff branes, the mass of the first KK mode is set by the IR scale as is the spacing between KK modes. Thus, a scattering at a high scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }M_{IR}`$ would naively be strongly coupled. The essential difference in AdS is that this is a position dependent question. In the language of KK modes, this is because the light KK modes are strongly coupled to the IR brane, but very weakly coupled to the UV brane.

This result is not surprising because it arises from the basic symmetries of AdS. Let us consider a $`U(1)`$ gauge theory in AdS. We can write the metric as

$$ds^2=e^{2\sigma (y)}dx^4dy^2.$$
(1)
For now and unless otherwise noted, we take $`\sigma (y)=ky`$. With this metric, the gauge boson action is

$$S=\frac{1}{4}d^4x𝑑y\frac{1}{g_5^2}\left[G_{\mu \nu }^22e^{2\sigma }G_{\mu 5}^2\right],$$
(2)
where all 4d contractions are with $`\eta _{\mu \nu }`$. Note that this action is invariant under the transformation

$`yy+\delta ,`$ (3)
$`xe^{k\delta }x,`$ (4)
$`_\mu e^{k\delta }_\mu ,`$ (5)
$`A_\mu e^{k\delta }A_\mu .`$ (6)
The transformation of the gauge field is necessary to insure that gauge covariant derivatives of charged fields are also covariant under the rescaling.

This symmetry tells us that a process with four-momentum $`p_\mu `$ at a point $`y=y_0`$ relates to an equivalent process with four-momentum $`e^{k\delta }p_\mu `$ at a point $`y^{}=y_0+\delta `$. Or (not surprisingly) the local (in $`y`$) strong coupling scale scales with the warp factor.

In going to the quantum theory, we have to be careful in how we define our couplings. In four-dimensional QED, for instance, we define the coupling $`e`$ at a scale $`\mu _0`$, with the same $`e`$ and the same $`\mu _0`$ everywhere. This is a requirement for preserving the Poincaré invariance of the theory. In AdS we do not have five-dimensional Poincaré invariance so we must be careful to define our theory to preserve the symmetries.

One way we cannot define the theory is to specify all couplings at the scale of the UV brane. This is because over most of the space the gauge theory becomes strongly coupled below this scale, and hence this is not even a region in which the perturbative field theory is defined.

Likewise, we could specify the couplings at the scale of the IR brane, but this is troubling as we take the IR brane to infinity, and, moreover, it would spoil the symmetries of the theory. Hence, the most natural definition, the one that maintains the symmetry of the space, is to assume that the couplings are specified at a scale which scales with the warp factor in $`y`$. This will be essential in writing down the deconstructed quantum theory.

## 3 The classical deconstructed theory

Let us begin by reviewing the standard process of deconstruction. Our goal will be to write a five-dimensional $`SU(n)`$ as a four-dimensional, $`SU(n)^N`$ gauge theory with bifundamental fields, $`Q_i`$ (see table 1) with333We will comment on the supersymmetric version of the theory at end of this section.

$$Q_i=v_i\mathrm{diag}(1,1,\mathrm{},1).$$
(7)
The lattice will more accurately reproduce intermediate scale physics with increasing $`N`$, the number of lattice sites. Most importantly, the theory is cut off at a local scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_jv_j`$, so that we can regulate our theory in a gauge-invariant fashion.

From the outset, deconstruction of an AdS gauge theory is quite different from the deconstruction of one in flat space. In flat space, if a fermion is localized at any point in the additional dimension(s), it will couple with comparable strength to each of the KK modes. Consequently, accurately reproducing the intermediate energy features in the deconstructed theory requires matching states and energies.

The AdS case is quite different. Above the local AdS curvature scale, the gauge theory quickly becomes strongly coupled. However, those KK modes are very weakly coupled to the UV brane, so in a deconstructed theory, these modes will be automatically grouped, depending on the coarseness of the latticization, into single modes whose effects will replace multiple modes in the extra dimensional theory. While this seems peculiar, it is precisely because those modes are so weakly coupled that this remains a true description of the features of the higher dimensional theory.

We begin by discretizing the 5th dimension in (2). We have

$$S=\frac{1}{4}d^4x\left[\underset{j}{}\frac{a_j}{g_{5j}^2}G_{\mu \nu }^{(j)}{}_{}{}^{2}2\underset{j}{}\frac{a_je^{2\sigma _j}}{g_{5j}^2}G_{\mu 5}^{(j)}{}_{}{}^{2}\right],$$
(8)
where $`j`$ denotes the lattice site, $`a_j`$ is the lattice spacing near site $`j`$, $`a_j=y_{j+1}y_j`$ and $`j=1\mathrm{}N`$, and

$$G_{\mu 5}^{(j)}=_\mu A_5^{(j)}\frac{1}{a_j}(A_\mu ^{(j+1)}A_\mu ^{(j)}).$$
(9)
To write down a lattice action we can replace $`A_5`$ by the link fields

$$U=e^{i_{y_j}^{y_{j+1}}𝑑yA_5(x,y)},$$
(10)
so that for small lattice spacing,

$$D_\mu Ui(a_j_\mu A_5^jA_\mu ^j+A_\mu ^{j+1}).$$
(11)
Let us now consider the action of the deconstructed theory,

$$S=d^4x\left[\frac{1}{4}\underset{j}{}\frac{1}{g_j^2}F_{\mu \nu }^{(j)}{}_{}{}^{2}+\underset{j}{}\frac{1}{g_j^2}D_\mu Q_j^{}D^\mu Q_j\right].$$
(12)
The peculiar normalization for the matter fields is convenient since they will ultimately supply the 5th component of the gauge fields. In the supersymmetric version of the theory, which we will later consider, this normalization allows for a holomorphic definition of the length of the 5th dimension, since the gauge coupling does not appear in the relation between this length and the VEVs.

Assuming all $`Q`$’s get VEVs we have $`N1`$ $`\sigma `$-models, coupled by the gauge interaction. Writing $`Q_j=v_j\stackrel{~}{U}_j`$, we choose the parameters of the deconstructed theory, $`v_j`$ ang $`g_j`$, so that the action (12) agrees with the 5d lattice action (8):

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{g_j^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{a_j}{g_{5j}^2}},`$ (13)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{v_j^2}{g_j^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^{2\sigma _j}}{a_jg_{5j}^2}},`$
so that,

$$v_j^2=\frac{e^{2\sigma _j}}{a_j^2}.$$
(14)
Here we see the effect of the AdS geometry. While a theory with five-dimensional Lorentz invariance naturally has a deconstructed description with all VEVs, $`v_j`$, equal, here the $`v_j`$’s scale with the warp factor. We also note that, with conventional normalization for the bifundamentals, the gauge coupling would appear in (14).

We thus have a “dictionary” between the 5d parameters — the gauge coupling, $`g_{5j}`$, and the lattice spacing $`a_j`$ — and the parameters of the deconstructed theory, $`v_j`$ and $`g_j`$.

One can consider different variations of this basic theory. For example, in order to study bulk matter, we can add matter fields for every $`SU(n)`$ factor. In the supersymmetric version of the theory (with $`𝒩=1`$ supersymmetry), one needs to add matter in order to cancel anomalies on the two ends of the chain. A simple possibility is to add fundamentals and antifundamentals as shown in table 2.

These fields can get mass through non-renormalizable operators , or through extra vectorlike matter . However, they do not affect our basic analysis and results.

### 3.1 Couplings at intermediate energies in the deconstructed theory

To get a sense of the behavior of the deconstructed theory, let us begin by considering the exchange of a bulk gauge field coupling to a field on the UV brane at energies $`R^1q\mathrm{TeV}`$. Being confined to the UV brane is equivalent to being charged under the gauge group $`G_1`$ in the deconstructed theory.

At very low energies, the entire theory is Higgsed to the diagonal. Then the two-point function in the Feynman-t’Hooft gauge for exchange of a bulk gauge boson between two fields on the UV brane is given simply by444We use normalization such that the gauge coupling is included in the propagator for clarity.

$$G_q(0)\eta ^{\mu \nu }i\frac{g^2}{N}\frac{\eta ^{\mu \nu }}{q^2}.$$
(15)
At a higher energy $`q\mathrm{TeV}`$, we have resolved the independent gauge groups Higgsed down below a scale q, and instead, the dominant contribution comes from the exchange of the diagonal gauge field of the groups which have been Higgsed down at energies above $`q`$. This behavior is shown in figure 1.

The effective number of groups contained in the diagonal at a scale $`q`$ can be written approximately as

$$aN_{eff}R\mathrm{log}(q/\mathrm{\Lambda }).$$
(16)
Now we can approximate the exchange of the gauge field by the diagonal mode, yielding

$$G_q(0)\eta ^{\mu \nu }i\frac{g^2}{N_{eff}}\frac{\eta ^{\mu \nu }}{q^2}i\frac{g_5^2k}{\mathrm{log}(q/\mathrm{\Lambda })q^2}\eta ^{\mu \nu },$$
(17)
where we have used the relation $`g_5^2=g^2a`$.

It is notable that the dominant classical logarithmic scaling for the AdS gauge field two-point function falls out automatically from the deconstructed theory, without invoking any further assumptions about the holographic nature of the theory. This is an excellent indication that the deconstructed theory is effectively reproducing the physics of the five-dimensional theory.

### 3.2 Couplings at high energies in the deconstructed theory

At high energies, our coarse latticization is insufficient. If we want to understand physics near the strong coupling scale of the theory, we should latticize such that each $`\alpha _j=g_j^2/4\pi 4\pi `$. However in this case the separation of VEVs is small, that is, the $`\sigma _j`$’s are close together, and one would need to diagonalize the gauge boson mass matrix, and determine couplings to each mode. However, since the VEVs are close together, the result is obvious: groups Higgsed down significantly below the UV cutoff are irrelevant (classically), and groups Higgsed at a scale roughly an factor of a few down from the cutoff act nearly as a flat extra dimension with radius $`R_{eff}1/k`$, as expected.

## 4 Gauge coupling running in deconstructed RS

Before we can talk about running of the gauge coupling, we must define what we mean, precisely. We cannot speak perturbatively about fields on the TeV brane scattering at energies well above a TeV. In what sense can we discuss running?

The answer is actually quite straightforward. At low energies, fields on the TeV brane scatter through the zero mode of the five-dimensional theory. Likewise, fields on the UV brane scatter at low energies with equal couplings (as required by the remaining four dimensional gauge invariance). Thus, we can relate measured gauge couplings on the TeV brane to those that would exist for fields on the UV brane. We can then ask questions about two-point functions at higher energies on the UV brane.

The deconstructed theory is characterized by two sets of parameters: the dimensionless couplings $`g_j`$, and the dimensionful VEVs $`v_j`$. As discussed above, in order to mimic the continuum theory, we choose

$$v_j=ve^{jw},$$
(18)
with $`w=ka`$. In addition, the individual couplings are defined at the scale of the corresponding VEVs, that is,

$$g_j=g_j(v_j)=g,$$
(19)
or, in terms of the strong coupling scales of the individual groups,

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_j^b=v_j^be^{\frac{8\pi ^2}{g^2}},$$
(20)
where $`b`$ is the one-loop beta function coefficient, which is the same for all groups. Examining the relations (13), we see that this indeed corresponds to taking $`g_{5j}=const`$ and $`a_j=a`$.555Note that the same holds with conventional normalization for the matter fields: Taking the VEVs to warp and defining the individual couplings to equal a common value at exponentially varying scales corresponds to a 5d coupling and lattice spacing that have uniform values at exponentially varying scales.

It is instructive to start by considering a coarse lattice, with the lattice spacing larger than the AdS curvature: $`ak^1`$. Then we have

$$v_1v_2\mathrm{}v_{N1}.$$
(21)
This simplifies the analysis considerably: we can study the running by turning on the VEVs one at a time. It is amusing that the RS case turns out to be simpler to analyze than the flat case, where all VEVs are equal and therefore have to be considered together.

Let us now derive the coupling of the low energy theory. At the scale $`v_1`$, $`SU(n)_1\times SU(n)_2`$ is broken to the diagonal subgroup, which we label $`SU(n)_{2D}`$ (with the diagonal group of $`j`$ groups labeled $`SU(n)_{jD}`$), with gauge coupling,

$$\frac{1}{g_{2D}^2(v_1)}=\frac{1}{g_1^2(v_1)}+\frac{1}{g_2^2(v_1)}.$$
(22)
We can now run down to the scale $`v_2`$, where,

$$\frac{1}{g_{2D}^2(v_2)}=\frac{1}{g_1^2(v_1)}+\frac{1}{g_2^2(v_1)}+\frac{b}{8\pi ^2}\mathrm{ln}\frac{v_2}{v_1},$$
(23)
where we used the fact that the diagonal subgroups have the same beta function coefficients as the original group factors.

Repeating this $`j`$ times we find,

$$\frac{1}{g_{jD}^2(v_j)}=\frac{1}{g_1^2(v_1)}+\mathrm{}+\frac{1}{g_j^2(v_j)}+\frac{b}{8\pi ^2}\mathrm{ln}\frac{v_j}{v_1}.$$
(24)
Using the fact that $`k=w^1\mathrm{ln}v_j/v`$, and $`g_5^2=ag^2`$, this can be written as

$$\frac{1}{g_D^2(v_j)}=\frac{1}{kg_5^2}\mathrm{ln}\frac{v_j}{v}+\frac{b}{8\pi ^2}\mathrm{ln}\frac{\mu }{v}\frac{b}{8\pi ^2}ka$$
(25)
Indeed, the low energy coupling depends logarithmically on the scale. In fact, we see that the low energy coupling contains two pieces with logarithmic energy dependence. The first term on the RHS of eqn. (25) is a classical piece, which reproduces the fact that the 4d and 5d couplings are related by the “radius”. In the deconstructed theory, it is obtained by summing over KK modes at tree level. The second piece is a loop effect. It is obtained from running the coupling between adjacent KK modes.

Let us now consider the supersymmetric theory. In the presence of $`𝒩=1`$ supersymmetry, holomorphy and symmetries dictate the dependence of the diagonal $`SU(n)`$ strong coupling scale, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_D`$, on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_j`$, $`v_j`$, at any stage of the Higgsing. In particular, at low energies,

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_D^b\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_1^b\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_N^b}{N^bv_1^b\mathrm{}v_{N1}^b}.$$
(26)
The factor of $`N^b`$ is not dictated by symmetries, but can be found from explicit computation .666The factor $`N^b`$ can also be motivated by the following argument: Consider the flat space theory. To properly reproduce the continuum theory, the scale of the unbroken diagonal subgroup should remain fixed as we take $`N\mathrm{}`$. Since $`v`$ scales as $`N`$ (recall $`v`$ is the inverse lattice spacing), and $`g`$ scales as $`\sqrt{N}`$ (so that the classical diagonal coupling is fixed), the expression (26) should contain the factor $`N^b`$.

The relation (26) allows us to obtain the low energy coupling for any profile of the VEVs. In particular, for the RS geometry, with (18), (20), we have at low energy

$$\frac{1}{g_L^2(\mu )}=\frac{N}{g^2}+\frac{b}{8\pi ^2}\mathrm{ln}\frac{\mu }{v/N}.$$
(27)
Running from a scale below $`k`$, deconstruction yields ordinary logarithmic running with a beta function set by the four-dimensional gauge theory. In terms of the parameters of the theory, this gives us

$$\frac{1}{kg_5^2}\mathrm{ln}\frac{v_{N1}}{v}+\frac{b}{8\pi ^2}\mathrm{ln}\frac{\mu }{v/N}=\frac{R}{g_5^2}+\frac{b}{8\pi ^2}\mathrm{ln}\frac{\mu }{v/N}.$$
(28)
This indeed reproduces the expression we found for the non-supersymmetric theory. Again, we see the logarithmic dependence on the energy scale in both the tree-level and one-loop pieces.

### 4.1 Fine Latticizations and Power Law Running

So far we have seen that a coarse latticization of AdS can generate the log running behavior which is characteristic of these gauge theories. But what about energies above $`k`$? At these energies the space is approximately flat and there is a possible power law contribution between $`k`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$777We are indebted to Nima Arkani-Hamed for very useful discussions on these issues.

This arises from a subtlety which we have to this point ignored. We have defined our couplings $`g_j`$ at the scale $`v_j`$. This was reasonable because the scales varied with energy, preserving the symmetries of the theory. Also, $`v_j`$ is approximately the local cutoff, so if we believe the unfication is only manifest in a microscopic theory (e.g. string theory), this is the approximately the cutoff scale (which is ambiguous).

These ambiguities make little difference when the coupling scales logarithmically with the cutoff, but is very important in the power law piece. To extract the behavior most straightforwardly, we will consider the supersymmetric theory, but the presence of the power law piece will not depend on the supersymmetric matter content. Consider again (26). If we state that the couplings unify at a scale $`M_jv_j`$ we have

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_D^b`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_1^b\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_N^b}{N^bv_1^b\mathrm{}v_{N1}^b}},`$ (29)
$`\mu e^{8\pi ^2/g_D^2(\mu )}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_1^b\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_N^b}{N^bM_1^b\mathrm{}M_{N1}^b}}\times {\displaystyle \frac{M_1^b\mathrm{}M_{N1}^b}{v_1^b\mathrm{}v_{N1}^b}},`$ (30)
$``$ $`v^be^{8\pi ^2N/g^2}e^{\gamma Nb},`$ (31)
where $`\gamma =\mathrm{log}(M_j/v_jN^{1/N})`$ is independent of $`j`$.

Restating this in terms of gauge couplings, we have

$$\frac{1}{g_D^2(\mu )}=\frac{N}{g^2}+\frac{b}{8\pi ^2}\mathrm{log}(v/\mu )+\frac{Nb\gamma }{8\pi ^2}.$$
(32)
Note that we have made no assumptions about the background geometry to derive this result - it can be applied to any space. In AdS we recognize the first term as the usual $`R/g_5^2=\mathrm{log}(v/v_{N1})/kg_5^2`$ piece, and the second we recognize as the log running piece. The final piece is the power law running piece. Using the relation

$$N=\frac{R}{a}=\frac{v\mathrm{log}(v/v_{N1})}{k},$$
(33)
we can rewrite (32) as

$$\frac{1}{g_D^2(\mu )}=\frac{N}{g^2}+\frac{b}{8\pi ^2}\mathrm{log}(v/\mu )+\frac{vb\gamma }{8\pi ^2k}\mathrm{log}(v/v_{N1}).$$
(34)
Taking $`v\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, we see the linear cutoff dependence (“power law running”) explicitly. This term is worthy of two observations. The first is that it seems that merely by restating the each $`g_j`$ at $`v_j`$ we could remove the power dependence. It is true that a suitable redefinition of $`g_5^2`$ can absorb this piece entirely. However, since we are ultimately considering the possibility of unification, we cannot do this as the separate redefinitions of couplings for $`321`$ would not be $`SU(5)`$ symmetric. Hence, in considering differences of couplings, this is a real effect.

The second observation is that there is essentially a free parameter in the theory, $`\gamma `$. This is not surprising because the theory has a linear divergence, implying cutoff sensitivity. We have employed a particular cutoff which has an ambiguity: namely the unification scale relative to the cutoff scale. This uncertainty is reasonable from an effective field theory perspective as it merely parameterizes our ignorance of the physics which generates the low energy field theory. In terms of the continuum theory, the upshot is that while there is true power law dependence on the cutoff, the coefficient of this term is unknown. That being said, it should also be noted that the relative strengths of these cutoff terms are still proportional to the relevant $`\beta `$ functions.

Lastly, we note that here the power law piece can be subdominant to the log running piece. We would expect additional threshold effects comparable to the power law piece in any complete model, which could easily spoil quantitative unification. In AdS, because the log piece can dominate for unification scales below the strong coupling cutoff of the theory, the GUT-violating threshold effects are under control and one can still speak reliably about unification.

## 5 Position Dependent Regularizations from Deconstruction

In , a position dependent cutoff was used to study the evolution of gauge couplings in a warped background. The regularization employed was an energy dependent IR brane, which was motivated by holography and the presence of strong coupling away from the UV brane at intermediate energy. Here, this regularization arises naturally from the deconstructed theory, without appealing to holography.

Let us begin by running the theory down from high energies. In the deconstructed theory, we gradually Higgs down more and more groups such that the highest energy group becomes more weakly coupled. At each level we integrate out the classical and quantum fluctuations of only the left-most groups in the quiver diagram. If we treat deconstruction as an invertible map, the resulting position space regularization is illustrated in figure 1.

In the deconstructed picture the appropriate regularization is obvious. One merely integrates out the heavy modes, which exist near the UV brane, and replaces the theory with a different one, with a new UV brane positioned nearer to the IR, but now with large boundary kinetic terms corresponding to the modes integrated out.

Of course, this relates the fundamental Lagrangian with a lower energy effective theory. We also want to ask questions about the relationship between low-energy and high-energy scatterings on the UV brane. Here, our interpretation of the above diagram is somewhat different. At any given momentum $`q`$, we are cut off from the sites Higgsed at scales less than $`q`$. As a consequence, we should calculate loops only with the modes from the sites at energies above $`q`$. In particular, as we have already argued, the dominant contribution to the two-point function comes from the diagonal mode of the sites at energies above $`q`$.

Mapping the deconstructed theory back to the continuum, we see that we have introduced an IR cutoff on the theory, and the diagonal mode of the sites above $`q`$ maps to the zero mode of the theory with this IR brane in place. Thus, while one cannot safely talk about couplings of the zero mode of the complete theory at high energies (because of strong couplings in the IR) one can reasonably talk about the zero mode of the theory with a different IR cutoff. It is notable that the deconstructed picture forces this regularization on us, and we need not appeal to holographic intuition.

Lastly, we note that these regularizations should also appear automatically in other, non-trivial geometries. In situations without an obvious regularization, the deconstructed approach, with VEVs following the warp factor, should give the appropriate position dependent regularization.

## 6 Conclusions

Extra dimensional theories with TeV-scale cutoffs invite careful analysis of questions regarding the ultra-violet. In the AdS slice of RS1, the introduction of gauge fields into the bulk offers the possibility of discussing short distance physics, such as coupling constant unification.

The application of deconstruction to this question obviates many of the questions raised in continuum theory analyses. Position dependent regulators appear automatically in the deconstructed framework, motivating their use in studying continuum theories.

Note added: While this work was being prepared,  appeared which addresses similar issues. The authors would also like to acknowledge unpublished work on this subject by N. Arkani-Hamed and A. Cohen.

Acknowledgements The authors thanks Kaustubh Agashe, Antonio Delgado, Walter Goldberger, Witek Skiba, Veronica Sanz, Erich Popptiz and especially Yuri Shirman and Nima Arkani-Hamed for useful discussions. Y.S. and N.W. would like to thank the visitor program at Harvard University where this work was initiated, and the Aspen Center for Physics where much of this work was completed.


text:
# Excited baryons from Bayesian priors and overlap fermions presented by F.X. Lee at Lattice 2002. This work is supported in part by U.S. Department of Energy under grants DE-FG05-84ER40154 and DE-FG02-95ER40907.

## Abstract

Using the constrained-fitting method based on Bayesian priors, we extract the masses of the two lowest states of octet and decuplet baryons with both parities. The calculation is done on quenched $`16^3\times 28`$ lattices of $`a=0.2`$ fm using an improved gauge action and overlap fermions, with the pion mass as low as 180 MeV. The Roper state $`N(1440)\frac{1}{2}^+`$ is clearly observed for the first time as the 1st-excited state of the nucleon from the standard interpolating field. Together with other baryons, our preliminary results indicate that the level-ordering of the low-lying baryon states on the lattice is largely consistent with experiment. The realization is helped by cross-overs between the excited $`\frac{1}{2}^+`$ and $`\frac{1}{2}^{}`$ states in the region of $`m_\pi `$ 300 to 400 MeV.

The rich structure of the excited baryon spectrum, as documented by the particle data group , provides a fertile ground for exploring the nature of quark-quark interactions. One outstanding example is the ordering of the lowest-lying states which has the order of positive and negative-parity excitations inverted between $`N`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ channels. Conventional quark models have difficulty explaining the ordering in a consistent manner. There are two contrasting views. One is from the constituent quark model  which has the interaction dominated by one-gluon-change type, i.e., color-spin $`\lambda _1^c\lambda _2^c\stackrel{}{\sigma }_1\stackrel{}{\sigma }_2`$. The other is based on Goldstone-boson-exchange  which has flavor-color $`\lambda _1^f\lambda _2^f\stackrel{}{\sigma }_1\stackrel{}{\sigma }_2`$ as the dominant part. Even though evidence from valence QCD  supports the flavor-color picture, the challenge of reproducing the ordering still faces lattice QCD.

There exist a number of lattice studies of the excited baryon spectrum using a variety of actions . The nucleon channel is the most-studied, focusing on two independent local fields:

$$\chi _1=ϵ^{abc}\left(u^{Ta}C\gamma _5d^b\right)u^c,$$
(1)
$$\chi _2=ϵ^{abc}\left(u^{Ta}Cd^b\right)\gamma _5u^c.$$
(2)
$`\chi _1`$ is the standard nucleon operator, while $`\chi _2`$, which has a vanishing non-relativistic limit, is sometimes referred to as the ‘bad’ nucleon operator. Note that baryon interpolating fields couple to both positive and negative-parity states, which can be separated by well-established parity-projection techniques. The consensus so far appears to be that, first, the negative-parity splitting of $`N(\frac{1}{2}^{})`$ is largely established and consistent with experiment. Secondly, the Roper state $`N^{}(\frac{1}{2}^+)`$ as the 1st-excited state of the nucleon is still elusive. Since $`\chi _2`$ couples little to the nucleon ground state, there was initial speculation that it couples to the Roper state. But that identification has been mostly abandoned since the mass extracted from $`\chi _2`$ is consistently too high. What $`\chi _2`$ couples to remains an open question.

The lattice size we use is $`16^3\times 28`$ with the scale of $`a=0.202(1)`$ fm set from $`f_\pi `$, which is our preferred choice for scale . We consider a wide range of quark masses: 26 masses with the lowest $`m_\pi =180`$ MeV (or $`m_\pi /m_\rho `$=0.248), very close to the physical limit, and with 18 masses below the strange quark mass. We analyzed 80 configurations. Details of the simulation can be found in .

We adapted the constrained curve-fitting method advocated in , adhering to the following guidelines: a) fit as many time slices in the correlation function $`G_{\mathrm{data}}(t)`$ and as many terms in $`G_{\mathrm{theory}}(t)`$ as possible; b) use prior knowledge, such as $`A>0`$ and $`E_nE_{n1}>0`$; c) seek guide for priors from a subset of data (empirical Bayes method); d) un-constrain the term of interest in $`G_{\mathrm{theory}}(t)`$ to have conservative error bars. The details of the implementation are discussed in .

Fig. 1 to Fig. 5 show the results in various channels. To emphasize the small mass region, only the masses starting from the strange quark mass are shown. The most significant feature is that the ordering among $`N(938)\frac{1}{2}^+`$, $`N^{}(1440)\frac{1}{2}^+`$, $`N(1535)\frac{1}{2}^{}`$, and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(1405)\frac{1}{2}^{}`$ is consistent with experiment, which is the first time this has been seen on the lattice. It comes about with cross-overs between the excited $`\frac{1}{2}^+`$ and $`\frac{1}{2}^{}`$ states in the region of $`m_\pi `$ 300 to 400 MeV.

Further study is under way to check the stability of the fitting algorithm, especially in the small mass region where the signal worsens, and to automate the fitting process. To make sure that the results are not due to finite-volume effects  (our lowest $`Lm_\pi 3`$), we are repeating the entire calculation on a smaller lattice of $`12^3\times 28`$ with all other parameters fixed. The lowest $`m_\pi `$ on this lattice is about 250 MeV, small enough to probe the crossover region.


text:
# UV and IR divergences within Dimensional Regularization in Non-Commutative theories and Phenomenological Implications

## 1 Introduction

At present, one expects that our current understanding of space-time may be modified at a very short distance scale. One possible modification, inspired by quantum mechanics and also motivated by string theory arguments, is that the space-time coordinates become noncommutative . The characteristic scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ of the NC models, above which one may expect a modification of the Standard Model, can be parametrized by an “angle” $`\theta `$ defined from the $`x`$-space commutation relation:

$$[\widehat{X}_\mu ,\widehat{X}_\nu ]=i\theta _{\mu \nu },\mathrm{where}:\theta _{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}.$$
(1)
Though it can be premature to perform an explicit calculation before a complete understanding of the geometrical and mathematical foundations of the models and of its connection with the physical world, it is interesting to check the self-consistency of the existing calculations for a given framework. In particular, one of the peculiar features of the NC approach is the correlation between the UV and IR divergences of the theories, explicitly shown in some scalar models , using the Pauli-Villars cut-off regularization (PVR). In this short note, we test, if the correlation of the UV and IR divergences is, whether an articaft of PVR, or a more general phenomena independent of the regularization procedure. In so doing, we use ’t Hooft-Veltman  Dimensional Regularization (DR) , which is known to be a powerful method in gauge theories as it implictly preserves gauge invariance and avoids quadratic divergences.

## 2 Scalar two-point functions in $`\varphi ^4`$ theory

The lagrangian density of the NC $`\varphi ^4`$ theory is:

$$(x)=\frac{1}{2}\left(_\mu \varphi \right)^2+\frac{1}{2}m^2\varphi ^2+\frac{g^2}{4!}\varphi \varphi \varphi \varphi ,$$
(2)
where the $``$ product is defined as:

$$\left(\varphi _1\varphi _2\right)(x)=e^{\frac{i}{2}\theta _{\mu \nu }_\mu ^y_\nu ^z}\varphi _1(y)\varphi _2(z)|_{y=z=x}.$$
(3)
Let’s consider the 1PI two-point function, which, to lowest order, corresponds to the inverse propagator:

$$S^{(0)}(p^2)=p^2+m^2.$$
(4)
In NC theory, the one-loop corrections come from the planar and non-planar diagrams shown in (Fig. 2), which lead to the corrections in $`n`$-space-time dimensions:

$`S_{planar}^{(1)}={\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^nk}{(2\pi )^n}\frac{1}{k^2+m^2}},`$ (5)
$`S_{nonplanar}^{(1)}={\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{3!}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^nk}{(2\pi )^n}\frac{1}{k^2+m^2}e^{ik\times p}},`$
where the NC-phase argument is: $`k\times pk_\mu \theta ^{\mu \nu }p_\nu .`$ It is usual in NC-calculations to parametrize the propagator à la Schwinger:

$$\frac{1}{p^2+m^2}=_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑ze^{z(k^2+m^2)},$$
(6)
while we use in $`n`$-dimensions the property:

$$\frac{d^nk}{(2\pi )^n}e^{zk^2}=\frac{1}{(4\pi z)^{n/2}}.$$
(7)
Using the previous inputs and the definition of the Gamma-function, the evaluation of the integrals in Eq. (5) is straightforward. $``$ The planar diagram
The planar diagram gives for $`n=4ϵ`$:

$`S_{planar}^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{48\pi ^2}}m^2\mathrm{\Gamma }(ϵ/2)\left({\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{\nu ^2}}\right)^{ϵ/2}`$ (8)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{48\pi ^2}}m^2\left[{\displaystyle \frac{2}{ϵ}}\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{\nu ^2}}+\mathrm{}\right],`$
where $`\nu `$ is the typical UV scale of dimensional regularization, and $`\mathrm{}`$ indicate regular terms. As expected, the quadratic divergence obtained in the PV cut-off scheme is absent in DR. In effective theories, like e.g. the well-known chiral perturbation theory of QCD, the $`m^2\mathrm{log}(m^2/\nu ^2)`$ is a typical one-loop correction induced by a pion loop with a mass $`m`$, while $`\nu `$ is fixed to be about the hadronic scale of about 1 GeV, where beyond this value the effective approach is expected to be not valid.
$``$ Non-planar diagram: $`pp0`$ after integration
The evaluation of the non-planar diagram is slightly more involved, but the strategy is very similar. One obtains in $`n`$-dimensions:

$$S_{nonplanar}^{(1)}=\frac{g^2}{96\pi ^2}_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dz}{z^{n/2}}e^{zm^2\frac{pp}{4z}},$$
(9)
where: $`pqp^\mu \theta _{\mu \nu }^2q^\nu =|p_\mu \theta _{\mu \nu }^2q_\nu |.`$ We use the prescription where $`n=4ϵ`$ (4 is the space-time dimension and $`ϵ0`$). The evaluation of this integral in $`n4ϵ`$ dimension leads to:

$`S_{nonplanar}^{(1)}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{96\pi ^2}}2m^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{4m^2}{pp}}\right)^{(1/2ϵ/4)}`$ (10)
$`\times `$ $`K(1ϵ/2,\sqrt{m^2pp}).`$
Expanding the Bessel function for $`pp0`$:

$$K(1ϵ/2,y0)\frac{1}{y}+\frac{y}{2}\mathrm{log}y+𝒪(ϵ,y),$$
(11)
one obtains for $`ϵ0`$:

$$S_{nonplanar}^{(1)}\frac{g^2}{24\pi ^2}\left[\frac{1}{pp}+\frac{m^2}{2}\mathrm{log}m^2pp\right].$$
(12)
This expression demonstrates that the non-planar diagram is UV finite in the $`ϵ0`$ limit, i.e. in 4-dimensions, and there is no need for introducing an UV cut-off. One may also deduce from this expression that the UV ($`ϵ0`$) limit and the IR ($`pp0`$) one are independent to this order of perturbation theory. This result has to be contrasted with the one:

$$S_{nonplanar}^{(1)}\frac{g^2}{96\pi ^2}\left[\mathrm{\Lambda }_{eff}^2+m^2\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{m^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{eff}^2}\right)\right],$$
(13)
obtained using the PV cut-off scheme  in 4-dimensions, where

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_{eff}^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2+pp.$$
(14)
Indeed, in Eqs. (13) and (14), taking the UV ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}`$) or/and IR ($`pp0`$) limits is ambiguous due to the mixing of the UV and IR divergences in the quadratic terms. The results of the DR and PV regularization schemes for the IR divergence coïncide in the limit where the UV cut-off $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}`$. One should also notice that, in this limit, both regularization schemes lead to a IR $`1/pp`$ pole from the non-planar diagrams specific of the NC-theories. This pole differs from the non-analytical $`\mathrm{log}(pp)`$ pole present in calculations having only logarithmic UV divergences using PV-cut’off regularizations, such as the renormalization of the coupling constant $`g^2`$ in NC $`\varphi ^4`$ theory in four-dimensions, the vertex corrections in $`\varphi ^3`$ scalar theory in six-dimension…which have been explicitly discussed in . This feature presumably indicates that the DR regularization though (apparently) decoupling the UV and IR divergences and transforming the UV quadratic divergence into a logarithmic one, does not affect the structure of the IR $`1/pp`$ pole from non-planar diagrams specific of the NC-theories.
$``$ Non-planar diagram: $`pp`$=0 before integration:
However, one may also ask the question whether the operation taking the limit $`ϵ=0`$ and $`pp=0`$ is commutative 111Related questions have been addressed by the referee and by  in a slightly different form. However, contrary to the claim of Ref. , the result is not related to the fact of taking the intermediate step $`n=2`$ before analytically continuing to $`n=4ϵ`$ dimension, but only by taking first $`pp`$=0 before integration.. Therefore, we put $`pp=0`$ in Eq. (9) before integration. We obtain:

$$S_{nonplanar}^{(1)}\frac{g^2}{96\pi ^2}(m^2)^{1ϵ/2}\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+ϵ/2),$$
(15)
which has now a $`1/ϵ`$ pole 222In the case of massless integral, we do not have such a pole if we use the standard prescription that a tadpole-like integral $`d^nk/k^2=0`$ within dimensional regularization.. This result indicates that the $`pp`$ term also acts (in an indirect way) as a regulator of the UV integral, which may be another aspect of the UV/IR mixing within dimensional regularization. However, the question is to know if this second case is physically interesting ? Indeed, taking $`pp=0`$ inside the integral is equivalent to reduce the non-planar into the planar one, and the result in Eq. (15) is nothing else (modulo normalization) than the planar one in Eq. (8).

## 3 Resummation of higher loops in $`\varphi ^4`$ scalar theory

One may generalize the previous one-loop result by resumming infinite series of divergent non-planar graphs including planar one-loop mass corrections. This yields to :

$$=\frac{d^nk}{S^{(2)}(k)},$$
(16)
with:

$$S^{(2)}(k)=m_R^2+k^2+\frac{g^2}{24\pi ^2kk}+\mathrm{},$$
(17)
where $`m_R`$ is the renormalized scalar mass. The integral is IR finite and has the typical $`1/ϵ`$ UV divergence for $`n=4ϵ`$ space-time:

$$m_R^2\left(\frac{m_R^2}{4\pi \nu ^2}\right)^{ϵ/2}\mathrm{\Gamma }(ϵ/2).$$
(18)
However, the extension of this resummed result to NC-Yang-Mills theory is not straightforward due to the presence of tachyonic mass implying that the series does not have alternating signs .

## 4 Some phenomenological implications

The absence of quadratic divergences within dimensional regularization can (a priori) affect different phenomenological constraints on NC-models based on the existence of this term. In general, in a theory with a massive particle $`m`$, one should do the replacement:

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }^2m^2\mathrm{log}\frac{\nu ^2}{m^2},$$
(19)
where $`\nu `$ is the UV scale of DR and corresponds to the scale until which the effective theory approach is expected to be valid. This log-term is also present in PVR but non-leading compared with the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^2`$ one and then is regularization independent. Using this result, one expects that most of the stringent bounds on the scale of spacetime noncommutativity derived from the low-energy tests of Lorentz violation, and which are based on the quadratic term are regularization dependent. Regularization independent constraints should then come from the $`\mathrm{log}`$ term.
$``$ In the case of NCQCD 333A consistent construction of NCQCD has been proposed recently in ., the magnetic operator $`\overline{q}\theta _{\mu \nu }\sigma ^{\mu \nu }q`$ acts like a $`\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{B}`$ interaction with a fixed $`\stackrel{}{B}`$ and leads to sidereal variations in e.g. the hyperfine splittings 444Some other low-energy constraints have been derived in , while constraints from high-energy accelerators have been e.g. derived in . We plan to re-examine these existing constraints in a future publication .. Such variations in the differences between Cs and Hg atomic clocks sensitive to external $`\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{B}`$ interactions are bounded at the $`10^{31}`$ GeV level. The authors in Ref. , have estimated this operator in a nuclear environnment using a constituent quark model and  QCD spectral sum rules (QSSR) approach . Ref.  obtained:

$$\left(\frac{\alpha _s}{12\pi }\right)p_0\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\theta \mathrm{\Delta }E\theta \mathrm{\Lambda }^210^{29},$$
(20)
where $`p_0m_{con}300`$ MeV is the off-shell light quark momentum; $`\alpha _s1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ is the bound on the sidereal variation. Using our previous result in Eq. (19), the constraint in Eq. (20) becomes:

$$\theta m_{con}^2\mathrm{log}\frac{\nu ^2}{m_{con}^2}10^{29},$$
(21)
which leads to the tight lower bound on the scale of NCQCD:

$$1/\sqrt{\theta }\nu 10^{15}\mathrm{GeV}.$$
(22)
The numerical value is apparently not affected by the choice of the regularization schemes. However, one should note that, in the PVR, one has taken the cut-off $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ to be about 1 TeV  for deriving the constraint on $`\theta `$. As this bound is stringent, it is also necessary to check the reliability of the QSSR result (effect of choice of the nucleon operators, stability,…) and to use alternative tests such as lattice calculations.
$``$ In the case of NCQED, the effect of a similar operator has been analyzed in . In the case of the electron and light quark constituents, the bound has typically the size:

$$\theta \mathrm{\Lambda }^210^{19}.$$
(23)
The one from the electron is expected to be much weaker due to the electron mass suppression. Using again our result in Eq. (19), one obtains for constituent light quarks:

$$\theta m_{con}^2\mathrm{log}\frac{\nu ^2}{m_{con}^2}10^{19},$$
(24)
which leads to the lower bound on the scale of NCQED:

$$1/\sqrt{\theta }\nu 10^{10}\mathrm{GeV}.$$
(25)
This bound is again much stronger than the one from collider data.

## 5 Conclusions

We have explictly shown that, to one-loop, the type of correlation between the UV and IR divergences of the NC models encountered using the Pauli-Villars cut-off regularization (PVR) procedure is not present or is different within dimensional regularization (DR) due to the absence of quadratic divergence. We also note that the IR structure obtained from DR is reproduced by PVR in the limit where the UV cut-off $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}`$. We plan to check if the previous conclusions continue to hold for some other processes , and to higher orders of PT series. Finally, we have studied the phenomenological consequences of our result, by revising some bounds on the NC-theories based on the existence of the quadratic divergences. The most stringent bound for the NCQCD scale derived from low-energy data is given in Eq. (22), while the one for the NCQED is in Eq. (25).

## Acknowledgements

This work has been initiated when the author has visited the NCTS-Hsinchu and NTU-Taipei (Taiwan) in 2001. It is a pleasure to thank Luis Alvarez-Gaumé for various email communications, and George Zoupanos for stimulating the publication of this note.


text:
# Nuclear Shadowing at Low 𝑄²

## Abstract

We re-examine the role of vector meson dominance in nuclear shadowing at low $`Q^2`$. We find that models which incorporate both vector meson and partonic mechanisms are consistent with both the magnitude and the $`Q^2`$ slope of the shadowing data.

preprint:   January 2003 ADP-02-79/T518 JLAB-THY-02-32

There has been renewed interest recently in the problem of nuclear shadowing in structure functions at low and intermediate $`Q^2`$. In part, this has been prompted by the analysis of the NuTeV Collaboration  of neutrino–nucleus cross sections and subsequent questions about nuclear shadowing corrections when extracting nucleon quark distributions or electroweak parameters . Indeed, shadowing in neutrino scattering has received considerably less attention than in electromagnetic reactions, and currently there are proposals to utilize high intensity neutrino and antineutrino beams to perform high statistics measurements of $`\nu /\overline{\nu }`$–nucleus cross sections at Fermilab . A pressing need exists, therefore, to understand the differences between nuclear shadowing effects in charged lepton and neutrino scattering , especially at low $`Q^2`$.

An extensive review of both data and models of nuclear shadowing was given recently by Piller and Weise . Before one can reliably tackle nuclear corrections in neutrino scattering, however, it is vital to determine the relevant degrees of freedom responsible for shadowing in charged lepton scattering, where data are much more copious. The best available data on nuclear shadowing, including the $`Q^2`$ dependence, are from the New Muon Collaboration . We shall concentrate on a model based on a two-phase picture of nuclear shadowing , similar to that pioneered by Kwiecinski and Badelek , which we published just before the release of the final NMC data . For clarity we briefly review this model.

At high virtuality the interaction of a photon with a nucleus can be efficiently parameterized through a partonic mechanism, involving diffractive scattering through the double and triple Pomeron . For $`Q^22`$ GeV2, the contribution to the nuclear structure function $`F_2^A`$ (per nucleon) from this mechanism can be written as

$`\delta ^{(\mathrm{I}\mathrm{P})}F_2^A(x,Q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{A}}{\displaystyle _{y_{min}}^A}𝑑yf_{\mathrm{I}\mathrm{P}/A}(y)F_2^{\mathrm{I}\mathrm{P}}(x_{\mathrm{I}\mathrm{P}},Q^2),`$ (1)
where $`f_{\mathrm{I}\mathrm{P}/A}(y)`$ is the Pomeron ($`\mathrm{I}\mathrm{P}`$) flux, and $`F_2^{\mathrm{I}\mathrm{P}}`$ is the effective Pomeron structure function . The variable $`y=x(1+M_X^2/Q^2)`$ is the light-cone momentum fraction carried by the Pomeron ($`M_X`$ is the mass of the diffractive hadronic debris), and $`x_{\mathrm{I}\mathrm{P}}=x/y`$ is the momentum fraction of the Pomeron carried by the struck quark. The dependence of $`F_2^{\mathrm{I}\mathrm{P}}`$ on $`Q^2`$ at large $`Q^2`$, in the region where perturbative QCD can be applied, arises from radiative corrections to the parton distributions in the Pomeron , which leads to a weak, logarithmic, $`Q^2`$ dependence for the shadowing correction $`\delta ^{(\mathrm{I}\mathrm{P})}F_2^A`$. Alone, the $`\mathrm{I}\mathrm{P}`$ contribution to shadowing would give a structure function ratio $`F_2^A/F_2^D`$ that would be almost flat for $`Q^22`$ GeV2 .

On the other hand, the description of shadowing at low $`Q^2`$ requires a higher-twist mechanism, such as vector meson dominance (VMD), which can map smoothly onto the photoproduction limit at $`Q^2=0`$. The VMD model is empirically based on the observation that some aspects of the interaction of photons with hadronic systems resemble purely hadronic interactions . In QCD language this is understood in terms of the coupling of the photon to a correlated $`q\overline{q}`$ pair with low invariant mass, which may be approximated as a virtual vector meson. One can then estimate the amount of shadowing in terms of the multiple scattering of the vector meson using Glauber theory . The corresponding VMD correction to $`F_2^A`$ is

$`\delta ^{(V)}F_2^A(x,Q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{A}}{\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{V}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{M_V^4\delta \sigma _{VA}}{f_V^2(Q^2+M_V^2)^2}},`$ (2)
where $`\delta \sigma _{VA}`$ is the shadowing correction to the vector meson–nucleus cross section, $`f_V`$ is the photon–vector meson coupling strength , and $`M_V`$ is the vector meson mass. In practice, only the lowest mass vector mesons ($`V=\rho ^0,\omega ,\varphi `$) are important at low $`Q^2`$. (Inclusion of higher mass states, including continuum contributions, leads to so-called generalized vector meson dominance models .) The vector meson propagators in Eq. (2) lead to a strong $`Q^2`$ dependence of $`\delta ^{(V)}F_2^A`$ at low $`Q^2`$, which peaks at $`Q^21`$ GeV2, although one should note that the nucleon structure function itself also varies rapidly with $`Q^2`$ in this region. For $`Q^20`$ and fixed $`x`$, $`\delta ^{(V)}F_2^A`$ disappears because of the vanishing of the total $`F_2^A`$. Furthermore, since this is a higher twist effect, shadowing in the VMD model dies off quite rapidly between $`Q^21`$ and 10 GeV2, so that for $`Q^210`$ GeV2 it is almost negligible — leaving only the diffractive partonic term, $`\delta ^{(\mathrm{I}\mathrm{P})}F_2^A`$.

The accuracy of the model can be tested by looking for deviations from logarithmic $`Q^2`$ dependence of shadowing at low and intermediate $`Q^2`$. Actually, a detailed analysis of the $`Q^2`$ dependence of the NMC data, as well as the lower-$`Q^2`$ Fermilab-E665 data , was performed in Refs. for various nuclei from $`A=2`$ to $`A=208`$ (viz., for D, Li, Be, C, Al, Ca, Fe, Sn, Xe and Pb). Ratios of $`F_2^A/F_2^D`$ were calculated  for a range of $`x`$ ($`10^5x0.1`$) and $`Q^2`$ ($`0.03Q^2100`$ GeV2). Subsequent to these analyses, high precision data on the $`Q^2`$ dependence of Sn/C structure function ratios were published , which provided the first detailed evidence concerning the $`Q^2`$-dependence of nuclear shadowing.

In Fig. 1 we show the calculated ratio $`R(\mathrm{Sn}/\mathrm{C})F_2^{\mathrm{Sn}}/F_2^\mathrm{C}`$ as a function of $`Q^2`$ for $`x=0.0125`$ (solid curve) and $`x=0.045`$ (dashed), compared with the NMC data . The overall agreement between the model and the data is clearly excellent. In particular, the observed $`Q^2`$ dependence of the ratios is certainly compatible with that indicated by the NMC data. At large $`Q^2`$ ($`Q^210`$ GeV2) the $`Q^2`$ dependence is very weak, as expected from a partonic, leading-twist mechanism  — see also Refs.. In the smallest $`x`$ bins, however, the $`Q^2`$ values reach down to $`Q^21`$ GeV2. The data on the C/D and Ca/D ratios analyzed in Ref.  at even smaller $`x`$ ($`x0.0003`$) extend down to $`Q^20.05`$ GeV2. This region is clearly inaccessible to any model involving only a partonic mechanism, and it is essential to invoke a non-scaling mechanism here, such as vector meson dominance. One should also note that, even though the shadowing corrections may depend strongly on $`Q^2`$, because the nucleon structure function itself is rapidly varying at low $`Q^2`$, the $`Q^2`$ dependence of the ratio will not be as strong as in the absolute structure functions. In any case, the fact that the two-phase model  describes the NMC data over such a wide range of $`Q^2`$ gives one added confidence in extending this model to neutrino scattering .

To illustrate the $`Q^2`$ dependence of $`R`$ over the full range of $`x`$ covered in the NMC experiment, Arneodo et al.  parameterized the Sn/C ratio as $`R(\mathrm{Sn}/\mathrm{C})=a+b\mathrm{ln}Q^2`$, and extracted the logarithmic slopes $`b=dR/d\mathrm{ln}Q^2`$ as a function of $`x`$. As illustrated in Fig. 2, the NMC find that the slopes are positive and differ significantly from zero for $`0.01<x<0.05`$, indicating that the amount of shadowing decreases with increasing $`Q^2`$ . The logarithmic slope $`b`$ is found to decrease from $`0.04`$ at the smallest $`x`$ value to zero at $`x0.06`$. The result of the model calculation  is perfectly consistent with the NMC data over the full range of $`x`$ covered, as Fig. 2 demonstrates (see also Fig. 3(b) of Ref. ). In particular, the $`\mathrm{I}\mathrm{P}`$-exchange mechanism alone, modified by applying a factor $`Q^2/(Q^2+Q_0^2)`$  to ensure that $`\delta ^{(\mathrm{I}\mathrm{P})}F_2^A0`$ as $`Q^20`$, is clearly insufficient  to describe the logarithmic slope in $`Q^2`$ at low $`x`$, whereas the addition of a VMD component does allow one to describe the data quite well (the shaded region indicates an estimate of the uncertainty in the model calculation).

In summary, the results of this analysis demonstrate that a combination of VMD at low $`Q^2`$ to describe the transition to the photoproduction region, with parton recombination, parameterized via $`\mathrm{I}\mathrm{P}`$-exchange, at high $`Q^2`$ allows one to accurately describe shadowing in electromagnetic nuclear structure functions over a large range of $`Q^2`$. As well as confirming that higher twist effects are numerically important at intermediate $`Q^21`$–4 GeV2, our findings also suggest that the two-phase model can serve as an excellent basis on which to reliably tackle the question of shadowing in neutrino reactions.

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank M. Arneodo, A. Brüll, and M. Szleper for providing the NMC data. This work was supported by the Australian Research Council, and the U.S. Department of Energy contract DE-AC05-84ER40150, under which the Southeastern Universities Research Association (SURA) operates the Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility (Jefferson Lab).


text:
# Untitled Document

Generalized Serre–Tate Ordinary Theory

Adrian Vasiu **Department of Mathematical Sciences, Binghamton University, Binghamton, P. O. Box 6000, NY 13902-6000, U.S.A. e-mail: adrian@math.binghamton.edu

final version, April 30, 2012, to be published by International Press, Inc.

Abstract. We study a generalization of Serre–Tate theory of ordinary abelian varieties and their deformation spaces. This generalization deals with abelian varieties equipped with additional structures. The additional structures can be not only an action of a semisimple algebra and a polarization, but more generally the data given by some “crystalline Hodge cycles” (a $`p`$-adic version of a Hodge cycle in the sense of motives). Compared to Serre–Tate ordinary theory, new phenomena appear in the generalized context.

We give an application of the generalized theory to the existence of “good” integral models of those Shimura varieties whose adjoints are products of simple, adjoint Shimura varieties of $`D_l^𝐇`$ type with $`l4`$.

Key words: $`p`$-divisible groups and objects, $`F`$-crystals, Newton polygons, ordinariness, canonical lifts, reductive group schemes, formal Lie groups, abelian varieties, Shimura varieties, integral models, Hodge cycles, complex multiplication, and deformation spaces.

MSC 2000: 11G10, 11G15, 11G18, 14F20, 14F30, 14F40, 14G35, 14K10, 14K22, 14L05, 14L15, and 17B45.

All copyrights reserved to International Press, Inc.

Final version 196 pages (including contents and index) to be published by International Press, Inc. Until publication the pdf file is available at http://www.math.binghamton.edu/adrian/”