text:
# References

QUANTUM MECHANICS OF DIRAC PARTICLE BEAM TRANSPORT THROUGH OPTICAL ELEMENTS WITH STRAIGHT AND CURVED AXESTo appear in the Proceedings of the Joint 28th ICFA Advanced Beam Dynamics and Advanced & Novel Accelerators Workshop on QUANTUM ASPECTS OF BEAM PHYSICS and Other Critical Issues of Beams in Physics and Astrophysics, January 7-11, 2003, Hiroshima University, Higashi-Hiroshima, Japan, Ed. Pisin Chen (World Scientific, Singapore)

R. JAGANATHANE-mail: jagan@imsc.res.in

The Institute of Mathematical Sciences,
4th Cross Road, Central Institutes of Technology Campus, Tharamani
Chennai, TN 600113, INDIA

Abstract

> Classical mechanical treatment of charged particle beam optics is so far very satisfactory from a practical point of view in applications ranging from electron microscopy to accelerator technology. However, it is desirable to understand the underlying quantum mechanics since the classical treatment is only an approximation. Quantum mechanical treatment of spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ particle beam transport through optical elements with straight optic axes, based on the proper equation, namely, the Dirac equation, has been developed already to some extent. In such a theory the orbital and spin motions are treated within a unified framework. Here, after a brief review of the Dirac spinor beam optics for systems with straight optic axes it is outlined how the application of the formalism of general relativity leads to the use of the Dirac equation for getting a quantum theory of spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ beam transport through optical elements with curved axes.

1. Introduction

It is surprising that the development of a quantum theory of electron beam optics based on the proper equation, namely, the Dirac equation, has only a recent origin . The theory of charged particle beam optics, currently used in the design and operation of various beam devices, in electron microscopes or accelerators, is largely based on classical mechanics and classical electrodynamics. Such a treatment has indeed been very successful in practice. Of course, whenever it is essential, quantum mechanics is used in accelerator physics to understand those quantum effects which are prominent perturbations to the leading classical beam dynamics . The well-known examples are quantum excitations induced by synchrotron radiation in storage rings, the Sokolov-Ternov effect of spin polarization induced by synchrotron radiation, etc. Recently, attention has been drawn to the limits placed by quantum mechanics on achievable beam spot sizes in particle accelerators, and the need for the formulation of quantum beam optics relevant to such issues . In the context of electron microscopy scalar wave mechanics based on the nonrelativistic Schrödinger equation has been the main tool to analyze the image formation and its characteristics, and the spin aspects are not considered at all .

In the context of accelerator physics it should be certainly desirable to have a unified framework based entirely on quantum mechanics to treat the orbital, spin, radiation, and every aspect of beam dynamics, since the constituents of the beams concerned are quantum particles. First, this should help us understand better the classical theory of beam dynamics. Secondly, there is already an indication that this is necessary too: it has been found that quantum corrections can substantially affect the classical results of tracking for trajectories close to the separatrix, leading to the suggestion that quantum maps can be useful in finding quickly the boundaries of nonlinear resonances . Thus, a systematic formalism for obtaining the relevant quantum maps is required.

The aim of this article is present a brief summary of the formalism quantum beam optics of particles, in particular, Dirac particles, for treating problems of propagation through optical elements with straight and curved axes.

2. Quantum Beam Optics of Particles: An Outline

One may consider obtaining the relevant quantum maps for any particle optical system by quantizing the corresponding classical treatment directly. The best way to do this is to use the Lie algebraic formalism of classical beam dynamics developed particularly in the context of accelerator physics . The question that arises is how to go beyond and obtain the quantum maps more completely starting ab initio with the quantum mechanics of the concerned system since such a process should lead to other quantum corrections not derivable simply from the quantization of the classical optical Hamiltonian. Essentially, one should obtain a quantum beam optical Hamiltonian $`\widehat{}`$ directly from the original time-dependent Schrödinger equation of the system such that the quantum beam optical Schrödinger equation

$$i\mathrm{}\frac{}{z}\psi (\underset{¯}{r}_{};z)=\widehat{}\psi (\underset{¯}{r}_{};z)$$
(1)
describes the $`z`$-evolution of the beam wave function $`\psi (\underset{¯}{r}_{};z)`$ where $`z`$ stands for the coordinate along the optics axis and $`\underset{¯}{r}_{}`$ refers to $`(x,y)`$ coordinates in the plane perpendicular to the beam at $`z`$. Since $`\left|\psi (\underset{¯}{r}_{};z)\right|^2`$ represents the probability density in the transverse plane at $`z`$, with

$$𝑑x𝑑y\left|\psi (\underset{¯}{r}_{};z)\right|^2=1,$$
(2)
the average of any observable $`\widehat{𝒪}`$ at $`z`$ is

$`\widehat{𝒪}(z)`$ $`=`$ $`\psi (z)|\widehat{𝒪}|\psi (z)`$ (3)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑x𝑑y\psi ^{}(z)\widehat{𝒪}\psi (z)}.`$
We can write the formal solution of Eq. (1) as

$`|\psi (z_f)`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{U}_{fi}|\psi (z_i),`$
$`\widehat{U}_{fi}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{}\left\{\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{i}{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle _{z_i}^{z_f}}𝑑z\widehat{}(z)\right)\right\},`$ (4)
where $`i`$ and $`f`$ refer to some initial and final transverse planes situated at $`z_i`$ and $`z_f`$, respectively, along the beam axis and $`\mathrm{}`$ indicates the path (or $`z`$) ordering of the exponential. Then, the required quantum maps are given by

$`\widehat{𝒪}_f`$ $`=`$ $`\psi (z_f)|\widehat{𝒪}|\psi (z_f)`$ (5)
$`=`$ $`\psi (z_i)|\widehat{U}_{fi}^{}\widehat{𝒪}\widehat{U}_{fi}|\psi (z_i)`$
$`=`$ $`\widehat{U}_{fi}^{}\widehat{𝒪}\widehat{U}_{fi}_i.`$
As an example of the above formalism let us consider a kick in the $`xz`$-plane by a thin sextupole represented by the classical phase-space map

$`x_f`$ $`=`$ $`x_i,`$
$`p_f`$ $`=`$ $`p_i+ax_i^2.`$ (6)
This would correspond to $`\widehat{U}_{fi}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}(\frac{a}{3}\widehat{x}^3)`$ and following Eq. (5) the quantum maps for the averages become

$`\widehat{x}_f`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{x}_i,`$
$`\widehat{p}_f`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{p}_i+a\widehat{x}^2_i`$ (7)
$`=`$ $`\widehat{p}_i+a\widehat{x}_i^2+a(\widehat{x}\widehat{x})^2_i.`$
Now, we can consider the expectation values, such as $`\widehat{x}`$ and $`\widehat{p}`$, as corresponding to their classical values à la Ehrenfest. Then, as the above simple example shows, generally, the leading quantum effects on the classical beam optics can be expected to be due to the uncertainties in the initial conditions like the term $`a(\widehat{x}\widehat{x})^2_i`$ in Eq. (7). Such leading quantum corrections involve the Planck constant $`\mathrm{}`$ not explicitly but only through the uncertainty principle which controls the minimum limits for the initial conditions as has been already pointed out . This has been realized earlier also, particularly in the context of electron microscopy .

The above theory is only a single-particle theory. To include the multiparticle effects, it might be profitable to be guided by models such as the thermal wave model and the stochastic collective dynamical model developed for treating the beam phenomenologically as a quasiclassical many-body system .

3. Quantum Beam Optics of Dirac Particles: Optical Elements with Straight Axes

The proper study of spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ particle beam transport should be based on the Dirac equation if one wants to treat all the aspects of beam optics including spin evolution and spin-orbit interaction. Let us consider the particle to have mass $`m`$, electric charge $`q`$ and an anomalous magnetic moment $`\mu _a`$. It should be noted that the electromagnetic fields of the optical systems are time-independent. In this case one can start with the time-independent equation for the $`4`$-component Dirac spinor $`\psi (\underset{¯}{r}_{};z)`$

$`\widehat{H}\psi (\underset{¯}{r}_{};z)`$ $`=`$ $`E\psi (\underset{¯}{r}_{};z),`$
$`\widehat{H}`$ $`=`$ $`\beta mc^2+q\widehat{\varphi }+c\underset{¯}{\alpha }_{}\underset{¯}{\overset{^}{\pi }}_{}`$ (8)
$`+c\alpha _z\left(i\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{}{z}}q\widehat{A}_z\right)\mu _a\beta \underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}\underset{¯}{B},`$
including the Pauli term to take into account the anomalous magnetic moment. Here, we are using the standard notations as is clear from the context.

Let us assume that we are interested in studying the transport of a monoenergetic quasiparaxial particle beam through an optical element which has a straight optic axis along the cartesian $`z`$-direction. If $`p`$ is the design momentum of the beam the energy of a single particle of the beam is given by $`E`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{m^2c^4+c^2p^2}`$. Further, the quasiparaxial beam propagating along the $`z`$-direction should have $`|\underset{¯}{p}_{}|`$ $``$ $`|\underset{¯}{p}|`$ $`=`$ $`p`$ and $`p_z`$ $`>`$ $`0`$. Then, actually Eq. (8) has the ideal structure (compare Eq. (1)) for our purpose since it is already linear in $`\frac{}{z}`$. So, one can readily rearrange the terms in it to get the desired form of Eq. (1). However, it is difficult to work directly with such an equation since there are problems associated with the interpretation of the results using the traditional Schrödinger position operator. In the standard theory of relativistic quantum mechanics the Foldy-Wouthuysen (FW) transformation technique is used to reduce the Dirac Hamiltonian to a form suitable for direct interpretation in terms of the nonrelativistic part and a series of relativistic corrections. The FW technique was used originally by Derbenev and Kondratenko to get their Hamiltonian for radiation calculations. This theory has been reviewed and used to suggest a quantum formulation of Dirac particle beam physics, particularly for polarized beams, in terms of machine coordinates, observables, and the Wigner function .

In an independent and different approach an FW-like technique has been used to develop a systematic formalism of Dirac particle beam optics in which the aim has been to expand the Dirac Hamiltonian as a series of paraxial and nonparaxial approximations . This leads to the reduction of the original $`4`$-component Dirac spinor to an effective $`2`$-component spinor

$$\psi ^a(\underset{¯}{r}_{};z)=\left(\begin{array}{c}\psi _1^a(\underset{¯}{r}_{};z)\\ \psi _2^a(\underset{¯}{r}_{};z)\end{array}\right)$$
(9)
which satisfies an accelerator optical Schrödinger equation

$$i\mathrm{}\frac{}{z}\psi ^a(\underset{¯}{r}_{};z)=\widehat{}\psi ^a(\underset{¯}{r}_{};z).$$
(10)
It should be noted that the $`2`$-component $`\psi ^a`$ is an accelerator optical approximation of the original $`4`$-component Dirac spinor, valid for any value of the design momentum $`p`$ from nonrelativistic to extreme relativistic region.

As an example, consider the ideal normal magnetic quadrupole lens comprising of the magnetic field

$$\underset{¯}{B}=(Gy,Gx,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}),$$
(11)
associated with the vector potential

$$\underset{¯}{A}=(0,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},\frac{1}{2}G(x^2y^2)),$$
(12)
where $`G`$ is assumed to be a constant in the lens region and zero outside. The corresponding quantum accelerator optical Hamiltonian reads

$`\widehat{}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2p}}\left(\widehat{p}_x^2+\widehat{p}_y^2\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}qG\left(\widehat{x}^2\widehat{y}^2\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8p^3}}\left(\widehat{p}_x^2+\widehat{p}_y^2\right)^2`$ (13)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{q^2G^2\mathrm{}^2}{8p^3}}\left(\widehat{x}^2+\widehat{y}^2\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{(q+\gamma ϵ)G}{p}}\left(\widehat{x}S_y+\widehat{y}S_x\right),`$
where $`\gamma `$ $`=`$ $`E/mc^2`$, $`ϵ`$ $`=`$ $`2m\mu _a/\mathrm{}`$ and $`\underset{¯}{S}`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{\mathrm{}}{2}\underset{¯}{\sigma }`$ represents the spin of the particle defined with reference to its instantaneous rest frame. It is to be noted that this quantum accelerator optical Hamiltonian $`\widehat{}`$ contains all the terms corresponding to the classical theory plus the $`\mathrm{}`$-dependent quantum correction terms. Using the formalism outlined in the previous section it can be shown that the first two ‘classical’ paraxial terms of the above $`\widehat{}`$ account for the linear phase-space transfer map corresponding to the focusing (defocusing) action in the $`yz`$-plane and defocusing (focusing) action in the $`xz`$-plane when $`G`$ $`>`$ $`0`$ ($`G`$ $`<`$ $`0`$). The last spin-dependent term accounts for the Stern-Gerlach kicks in the transverse phase-space and the Thomas-Bargmann-Michel-Telegdi spin evolution .

The following interesting aspect of quantum beam optics should be mentioned. In the case of a spin-$`0`$ particle also one can derive the quantum beam optical Hamiltonian $`\widehat{}`$ starting from the Schrödinger-Klein-Gordon equation . It would also contain all the terms corresponding to the classical theory plus the quantum correction terms. But, these quantum correction terms are not identical to the quantum correction terms in the Dirac case. Thus, besides in the $`\mathrm{}`$-dependent effects of spin on the orbital quantum map (e.g., the last term in Eq. (13)), even in the spin-independent quantum corrections the Dirac particle has its own signature different from that of a spin-$`0`$ particle .

4. Quantum Beam Optics of Dirac Particles: Optical Elements with Curved Axes

For studying the propagation of spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ particle beams through optical elements with curved axes it is natural to start with the Dirac equation written in curvilinear coordinates adapted to the geometry of the system. Let us make the $`z`$-axis coincide with the space curve representing the optic axis of the system, or the ideal design orbit. Let the transverse, or off-axis, coordinates $`(x,y)`$ at each $`z`$ be defined in such a way that the spatial arc element $`ds`$ is given by

$$ds^2=dx^2+dy^2+\zeta ^2dz^2,\zeta =(1+\underset{¯}{K}_{}\underset{¯}{r}_{}),$$
(14)
where $`K_x(z)`$ and $`K_y(z)`$ are the curvature components at $`z`$.

Now, we have to start with the Dirac equation written in a generally covariant form. To this end, let us use the formalism of general relativity . Here, for the sake of simplicity let us drop the anomalous magnetic moment term. Then the generally covariant form of the time-dependent Dirac equation becomes

$`i\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Psi }}{t}}`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{H}\mathrm{\Psi },`$
$`\widehat{H}`$ $`=`$ $`\beta mc^2+q\widehat{\varphi }+c\underset{¯}{\alpha }_{}\underset{¯}{\overset{^}{\pi }}_{}+{\displaystyle \frac{c}{\zeta }}\alpha _z\left(i\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{}{z}}\zeta q\widehat{A}_z\mathrm{\Gamma }_z\right),`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_z`$ $`=`$ $`K_xS_yK_yS_x.`$ (15)
Further, it should be noted that

$`B_x`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\zeta }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{(\zeta A_z)}{y}}{\displaystyle \frac{A_y}{z}}\right),`$
$`B_y`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\zeta }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{A_x}{z}}{\displaystyle \frac{(\zeta A_z)}{x}}\right),`$
$`B_z`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{A_y}{x}}{\displaystyle \frac{A_x}{y}}\right).`$ (16)
For a monoenergetic beam with particle energy $`E`$

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(\underset{¯}{r},t)=\psi (\underset{¯}{r}_{};z)\mathrm{exp}(iEt/\mathrm{})$$
(17)
and $`\psi (\underset{¯}{r}_{};z)`$ satisfies the time-independent equation

$$\widehat{H}\psi (\underset{¯}{r}_{};z)=E\psi (\underset{¯}{r}_{};z)$$
(18)
where $`\widehat{H}`$ is the same as in Eq. (15). We should now cast Eq. (18) in the form of Eq. (1) so that the corresponding beam optical Hamiltonian $`\widehat{}`$ can be derived and the formalism of Sec.2 can be applied for obtaining the transfer maps for the quantum averages. It should be noted that the quantum operators for the transverse position ($`\underset{¯}{\overset{^}{r}}_{}`$) and momentum ($`\underset{¯}{\overset{^}{p}}_{}`$), and spin ($`\underset{¯}{S}`$), are unaltered. The method of deriving $`\widehat{}`$ proceeds in the same way as for systems with straight optic axes: a series of FW-like transformations are to be applied to Eq. (18) up to any desired order of accuracy so that finally a $`2`$-component equation like Eq. (10) is obtained . In general, for a magnetic system we get, up to the first order, or paraxial, approximation,

$$\widehat{}=\zeta pq\zeta \widehat{A}_z+\frac{\zeta }{2p}\widehat{\pi }_{}^2.$$
(19)
For a closed orbit in the $`xz`$-plane, with no torsion, writing $`\zeta `$ $`=`$ $`1+\frac{x}{\rho }`$, it is clear that $`\widehat{}`$ of Eq. (19) corresponds to the well known Hamiltonian of classical accelerator optics . To get a more complete form of $`\widehat{}`$ including the spin terms and other $`\mathrm{}`$-dependent quantum corrections one has to carry out the FW-like transformations to higher orders.

5. Concluding Remarks

In summary, it is seen that the quantum theory of transport of particle beams through optical elements is very simple. Starting from a beam optical Schrödinger equation the transfer maps for quantum averages of phase-space and spin variables across an optical element can be computed by a straightforward procedure. To this end, one has to obtain the appropriate quantum beam optical Hamiltonian starting from the corresponding time-dependent Schrödinger equation of the system. As example, quantum theory of propagation of Dirac particle beams through optical elements with straight and curved optic axes was considered briefly. So far, the development of such a theory has not taken into account multiparticle effects. Also, such a theory has been developed only for optical systems. Taking into account the multiparticle effects and treating accelerating elements are issues of the theory to be tackled in future.

Acknowledgments

I am very much thankful to Prof. Pisin Chen and Prof. Atsushi Ogata for the warm hospitality. I would also like to thank our Institute, and the director Prof. R. Balasubramanian, for the financial support for travel which made my participation in this workshop possible.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Quantum field theories on canonical-noncommutative spacetime have been introduced in . Since then, noncommutative field theories have been extensively studied in literature (for a review see ) especially for their connection with string theory . A key feature of canonical noncommutative theories is the so-called IR/UV mixing which connects the high-energy degrees of freedom of the theory with the low-energy degrees of freedom . IR/UV mixing is a direct consequence of the nonvanishing commutations relation. Besides having strong implication for the phenomenological predictions (see e.g. ), IR/UV mixing renders the renormalizability and the infrared structure of noncommutative field theories highly non-trivial (and interconnected) issues, even in the case of massive theories. Despite these mentioned infrared problems, in the $`\lambda \phi ^4`$-theory case, one-loop renormalization was explicitly carried out in . In  two-loop renormalization was obtained, and in , using the Polchinski method , renormalization was claimed to all orders of the perturbative expansion. The Polchinski method was also adopted in the discussion of the renormalizability of the $`O(N)`$-symmetric scalar theory reported in , where it was also argued that in order to achieve renormalizability of the ordered phase it would be necessary to relax the hypothesis of translational invariance of the vacuum. The idea that noncommutative scalar theory exhibits a transition to a non-uniform phase was first considered in some detail in  where, for the ordered phase, a “stripe phase” was proposed. Recently numerical studies provided support for this hypothesis in lower dimensional cases . Problems with the renormalization in the translationally invariant ordered phase where also encountered in  and  (however also see ).

In this paper we want to investigate these issues pertaining to the translationally invariant vacuum by means of the Cornwall-Jackiw-Tomboulis (CJT) formalism . This formalism has proven to be a powerful non-perturbative approach for the study of phase transitions in QFT in commutative spacetime , especially in those theories exhibiting severe infrared problems such as thermal field theories (see e.g. ). It is therefore natural to consider the application of the CJT formalism to canonical noncommutative field theories, where severe infrared problems, as mentioned, are present. We consider the scalar-$`\lambda \phi ^4`$ theory case. We construct the CJT effective potential and the gap equation for general values of the noncommutative parameter $`\theta _{\mu \nu }`$. We observe that under the hypothesis of translational invariance, which is assumed in the effective potential construction, differently from the commutative case ($`\theta _{\mu \nu }=0`$), the renormalizability of the gap equation is incompatible with the renormalizability of the effective potential. We argue that our result, is consistent with previous studies suggesting that a uniform ordered phase would be inconsistent with the infrared structure of canonical noncommutative theories.

The paper is organized as follows. In Section-2 we review the CJT formalism in the commutative scalar $`\lambda \phi ^4`$ theory also discussing the bubble approximation. In Section-3 we apply CJT formalism to the noncommutative scalar $`\lambda \phi ^4`$ theory. In Section-4 we calculate the gap equation and the effective potential and discuss their renormalizability. Then, in Section-5, we report our conclusions.

## 2 CJT formalism in commutative spacetime

In this section we briefly review the CJT formalism for the scalar-$`\lambda \phi ^4`$ theory111In this section, as well as in the rest of the paper, we will work in euclidean spacetime. the commutative case . The starting point is the definition of the partition function

$$Z[J,K]=\mathrm{exp}W[J,K]=D\varphi \mathrm{exp}\left\{S\left(\varphi \right)+𝑑x^4J(x)\varphi (x)+\frac{1}{2}𝑑y^4𝑑x^4\varphi (x)K(x,y)\varphi (y)\right\},$$

in which two sources $`J(x)`$ and $`K(x,y)`$ are introduced.

One defines also $`\phi (x)`$ and $`G(x,y)`$ by the relations

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta W[J,K]}{\delta J(x)}}`$ $`=\phi (x),`$ (1)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta W[J,K]}{\delta K(x,y)}}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left\{\phi (x)\phi (y)+G(x,y)\right\}.`$ (2)
Then one performs a Legendre transform of $`W[J,K]`$:

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }[\phi (x),G(x,y)]`$ $`=W[J(x),K(x,y)]{\displaystyle 𝑑x^4\phi (x)J(x)}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle 𝑑x^4𝑑y^4\phi (x)K(x,y)\phi (y)}+`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle 𝑑x^4𝑑y^4G(x,y)K(x,y)},`$ (3)
which satisfies the relations

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }[\phi ,G]}{\delta \phi (x)}}`$ $`=J(x){\displaystyle 𝑑y^4K(x,y)\phi (y)},`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }[\phi ,G]}{\delta G(x,y)}}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}K(x,y).`$
The conditions for vanishing sources $`K(x,y)=0`$ and $`J(x)=0`$ (the physical point), corresponds to choices of $`\phi (x)`$ and $`G(x,y)`$ such that they are solutions of the stationarity equations:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }[\phi ,G]}{\delta \phi (x)}}`$ $`=0,`$ (4)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }[\phi ,G]}{\delta G(x,y)}}`$ $`=0.`$ (5)
From (1) and (2) we see that, at the physical point, $`\phi (x)`$ is the vacuum-expectation-value of $`\varphi `$, while $`G(x,y)`$ is the expectation value of the connected part of the two point function:

$`\phi (x)|_{J=K=0}`$ $`=0|\varphi (x)|0,`$ (6)
$`G(x,y)|_{J=K=0}`$ $`=0|\varphi (x)\varphi (y)|00|\varphi (x)|00|\varphi (y)|0.`$ (7)
It can be shown  that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }[\phi ,G]`$ so defined is the generating functional for the two-particle irreducible(2PI) Green’s functions, with propagator given by $`G(x,y)`$ and vertices given by $`S_{int}(\phi ;\varphi )`$, where $`S_{int}(\phi ;\varphi )`$ is obtained from $`S(\phi )`$ by retaining only cubic and higher $`\phi `$-terms in the expression of $`S(\phi +\varphi )`$.

One can expand (3) to obtain

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(\phi ,G)=S(\phi )\frac{1}{2}TrLnD_0^1G+\frac{1}{2}Tr\left\{D^1G1\right\}+\mathrm{\Gamma }^2(\phi ,G),$$
(8)
where

$`D^1(x,y)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{\delta ^2S}{\delta \phi (x)\delta \phi (y)}},`$
$`D_0^1(x,y)`$ $`=D^1|_{\lambda =0},`$
and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^2(\phi ,G)`$ is the sum of the 2PI-vacuum diagrams with vertices given by $`S_{int}(\phi ;\varphi )`$ and propagators given by $`G(x,y)`$ (see Fig.1).

Using (8) the gap equation (5) may be rewritten in the form

$$G^1(x,y)=D^1(x,y)+2\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }^2(\phi ,G)}{\delta G(x,y)}.$$
(9)
One can also recover the usual 1PI-effective action $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\phi )`$ simply evaluating $`\mathrm{\Gamma }[\phi ,G]`$ at nonvanishing $`J(x)`$ but at vanishing $`K(x,y)`$:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{1PI}(\phi )=\mathrm{\Gamma }[\phi ,G_0],$$
(10)
where $`G_0`$ is solution of the gap equation (5).

As usual, if one is interested in the vacuum state of the theory (and the vacuum state preserves translational invariance), it is possible to adopt, in place of the effective action (10), the simpler effective potential $`V(\phi )`$ defined by

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }[\phi ,G_0]𝑑x^4V(\phi ).$$
(11)
This CJT formalism which at first sight might appear more involved than the standard formalism, with only the source $`J`$ coupled to the field, turns out to be very useful in the so-called bubble resummation, which takes into account all the vacuum to vacuum diagrams of the type of Fig.2. In the CJT formalism one obtains the whole bubble resummation  simply considering the “eight”-diagram ($`A`$ in Fig.1) contribution to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^2(\phi ,G)`$. We will use this approximation, also known as Hartree-Fock approximation, in the following sections.

## 3 CJT formalism in noncommutative field theories

Having outlined the basic features of the CJT formalism we can proceed to apply it to the noncommutative $`\lambda \phi ^4`$ scalar theory. We recall  that the action is given by

$$S=𝑑x^4\left\{\frac{1}{2}m^2\varphi ^2+\frac{1}{2}_\mu \varphi ^\mu \varphi +\frac{\lambda }{4!}\varphi \varphi \varphi \varphi \right\},$$
(12)
where $``$ represents the Moyal product:

$$\phi _1(x)\phi _2(x)=\phi _1(x)e^{\frac{i}{2}\theta ^{\mu \nu }\stackrel{}{}_\mu \stackrel{}{}_\nu }\phi _2(x),$$
(13)
with $`\theta ^{\mu \nu }`$ coordinate-independent antisymmetric matrix.

In terms od the Moyal $``$-product (13) the quadratic part of the action remains unaffected by noncommutativity, while a $`\theta `$-dependence arises for the interaction term. No specific assumptions are made in the CJT formalism about the form of the interaction therefore procedure outlined in Section-2 (and in particular Eq.(8)) is still valid in this noncommutative context.

It is easily seen that in the case under consideration:

$`D^1(x,y)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{\delta ^2S}{\delta \phi (x)\delta \phi (y)}}=`$ (14)
$`=\left[\mathrm{}+m^2\right]_x\delta ^4(xy){\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{3!}}\left\{\delta ^4(xy)\phi \phi +\phi \delta ^4(xy)\phi +\phi \phi \delta ^4(xy)\right\},`$
$`D_0^1(x,y)`$ $`=D^1|_{\lambda =0}=\left[\mathrm{}+m^2\right]_x\delta ^4(xy).`$ (15)
As expected $`D_0^1(x,y)`$ is not modified by noncommutativity since the integrals of terms quadratic in the fields are not modified by the $``$-product (13), while $`D^1(x,y)`$ acquires the $`\theta `$-dependence. The $``$-products which appear in (14) can be easily calculated in momentum space.

Next let us consider the $`S_{int}`$ action. One can proceed in two steps. The first step is the translation of the action $`S(\varphi )S(\varphi +\phi )`$. The second step is the one of retaining from the shifted action only cubic, and higher, terms in $`\varphi .`$ So doing one obtains

$$S_{int}(\varphi ;\phi )=\frac{\lambda }{4!}𝑑x^4\varphi \varphi \varphi \varphi +\frac{\lambda }{6}𝑑x^4\varphi \varphi \varphi \phi ,$$

where the cyclicity of the $``$-product (13) under integration has been used.

To proceed further we now need to adopt an ansatz for the form of $`G(x,y).`$ Since we intend to obtain the CJT effective potential we must assume translational invariance, so that the more general ansatz we can consider takes the form

$$G(x,y)=G(xy)=\frac{d\alpha ^4}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{\mathrm{exp}i\alpha (xy)}{\alpha ^2+M^2(\alpha )}$$
(16)
where $`M^2(\alpha )`$ is to be determined. Once the ansatz (16) has been done we can calculate the various terms in the left-hand-side of (8). The result is

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\phi ,G)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle 𝑑x^4\left\{(_\mu \phi )^2+m^2\phi ^2\right\}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{4!}}{\displaystyle 𝑑x^4\phi \phi \phi \phi }+`$ (17)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle 𝑑x^4\frac{dp^4}{(2\pi )^4}\mathrm{ln}\left\{\frac{p^2+M^2(p)}{p^2+m^2}\right\}}+`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle 𝑑x^4\frac{dk^4}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{m^2M^2(k)+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{3!}}\frac{dp_1^4dp_2^4}{(2\pi )^8}F(p_1,p_2,k)\mathrm{exp}ix(p_1+p_2)\stackrel{~}{\phi }(p_1)\stackrel{~}{\phi }(p_2)}{k^2+M^2(k)}}+`$
$`+\mathrm{\Gamma }^2(\phi ,G)`$
where $`\stackrel{~}{\phi }(p)`$ is the Fourier transform of $`\phi (x)`$. $`F(p_1,p_2,k)`$, using the notation $`p_i\theta p_jp_i^\mu \theta _{\mu \nu }p_j^\nu `$, takes the form

$`F(p_1,p_2,k)`$ $`=\mathrm{exp}{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\left(p_1\theta p_2+k\theta p_1+k\theta p_2\right)+`$
$`+\mathrm{exp}{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\left(p_1\theta k+p_1\theta p_2+k\theta p_2\right)+`$
$`+\mathrm{exp}{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\left(p_1\theta p_2+p_1\theta k+p_2\theta k\right).`$ (18)
The first row in (17) is just $`S(\phi )`$, the second row is $`Tr\mathrm{ln}(D_0^1G)`$, the third is $`Tr\left\{D^1G1\right\}`$.

Now we must evaluate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^2(\phi ,G)`$ with vertices given by $`S_{int}(\varphi ;\phi )`$ and propagator given by $`G(x,y).`$ As a first application of the formalism one can recover the usual one-loop 1PI effective action  simply setting $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^2=0`$. In this case the gap equation (9) trivially reduces to

$$G^1(x,y)=D^1(x,y),$$
(19)
and (8) becomes

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(\phi )=S(\phi )+\frac{1}{2}Tr\mathrm{ln}D^1(\phi )D_0.$$

That is just the one-loop 1PI effective action.

While neglecting $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^2`$ completely gives us back the one-loop 1PI effective action, a more interesting result is obtained by approximating $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^2(\phi ,G)`$ including only the “eight” diagram (A in Fig.1). In this approximation one has that

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^2(\phi ,G)=\frac{1}{4!}\lambda \delta ^4(0)\frac{d\alpha ^4d\alpha ^4}{(2\pi )^8}\frac{1}{\alpha ^2+M^2(\alpha )}\frac{1}{\alpha ^2+M^2(\alpha ^{})}\left\{1+2\mathrm{cos}^2(\frac{\alpha \theta \alpha ^{}}{2})\right\}.$$
(20)
We observe that differently from the commutative case, where the momenta circulating in each of the two loops do not mix (so that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^2`$ is evaluated as the products of two single-variable integrals), in the commutative case this mixing occurs.

## 4 The CJT effective potential in noncommutative field theories

From the effective action (17) and (20), assuming translational invariance of the candidate vacua $`\phi (x)=\phi `$, one can extract the effective potential (11):

$`V(\phi )`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m^2\phi ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{4!}}\phi ^4+`$ (21)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{dp^4}{(2\pi )^4}\mathrm{ln}\left\{\frac{p^2+M^2(p)}{p^2+m^2}\right\}}+`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{dk^4}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{m^2M^2(k)+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{2}}\phi ^2}{k^2+M^2(k)}}+`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4!}}\lambda {\displaystyle \frac{d\alpha ^4d\alpha ^4}{(2\pi )^8}\frac{1}{\alpha ^2+M^2(\alpha )}\frac{1}{\alpha ^2+M^2(\alpha ^{})}\left\{2+\mathrm{cos}(\alpha \theta \alpha ^{})\right\}}.`$
The stationarity condition (5) in this case becomes $`\frac{V(\phi )}{\phi }=0`$ which implies the gap equation

$$M^2(\alpha )m^2\frac{\lambda }{2}\phi ^2\frac{\lambda }{6}\frac{db^4}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{2+\mathrm{cos}\left(b\theta \alpha \right)}{b^2+M^2(b)}=0.$$
(22)
Substituting equation (22) in the expression of the potential (21) we obtain

$`V(\phi ,G)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m^2\phi ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{4!}}\phi ^4+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{dp^4}{(2\pi )^4}\mathrm{ln}\left\{\frac{p^2+M^2(p)}{p^2+m^2}\right\}}+`$ (23)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{24}}{\displaystyle \frac{dk^4}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{1}{k^2+M^2(k)}\frac{db^4}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{1}{b^2+M^2(b)}\left\{2+\mathrm{cos}\left(b\theta k\right)\right\}}.`$
The term in the second row of the above expression is generated by the bubble summation. The terms appearing in the first row are already present at one-loop level but what is different here is that they now must be evaluated for $`M^2(p)`$ solution of the gap equation (22) which involves a non-trivial $`\theta `$-dependence. Clearly our CJT resummed effective potential has complicated $`\theta `$-dependence whereas the 1-loop effective potential is completely $`\theta `$-independent. We notice that $`\theta `$-dependence manifests in two different ways: the tree-level and the one-loop like contributions depend on $`\theta `$ only through $`M^2(p)`$ whereas the term generated by the bubble summation (the last one in (23)) also exhibits an explicit $`\theta `$-dependence.

Both (22) and (23) are ultraviolet divergent and they both are considered to be regularized with a cutoff $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ on the loop-momenta. In the next section we will deal with the problem of their renormalization but first we recall the strategy of renormalization adopted in the commutative case ($`\theta =0`$).

### 4.1 Renormalization of the effective potential for $`\theta =0`$

In the commutative case (22) and (23) become respectively

$$M^2(\alpha )=m^2+\frac{\lambda }{2}\phi ^2+\frac{\lambda }{2}\frac{db^4}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{1}{b^2+M^2(b)}$$
(24)
and

$$V(\phi ,G)=\frac{1}{2}m^2\phi ^2+\frac{\lambda }{4!}\phi ^4+\frac{1}{2}\frac{dp^4}{(2\pi )^4}\mathrm{ln}\left\{\frac{p^2+M^2(p)}{p^2+m^2}\right\}\frac{\lambda }{8}\frac{dk^4}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{1}{k^2+M^2(k)}\frac{db^4}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{1}{b^2+M^2(b)}.$$
(25)
We immediately see, from Eq.(24), that in this case $`M^2(\alpha )`$ does not depend on the loop-momentum $`\alpha `$ so that one can set $`M^2(\alpha )M^2`$ both in (24) and in (25).

Renormalization of the effective potential for $`\theta =0`$ is a well-known result (see e.g. ). We recall the procedure that one can use to renormalize (24) and (25) since we will use it widely in the rest of the paper. In order to renormalize this gap equation (24) it is convenient to introduce $`I_1,I_2,G_R`$ through the formula

$$\frac{db^4}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{1}{b^2+M^2}=I_1I_2M^2+G_R(M),$$
(26)
where

$`I_1`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{db^4}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{1}{b^2}},`$ (27)
$`I_2`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{db^4}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{1}{b^4}},`$ (28)
and $`G_R(M)`$ is the finite part of $`G(M)`$. The gap equation can then be rewritten in the form

$$M^2\left(\frac{1}{\lambda }+\frac{1}{2}I_2\right)=\frac{m^2}{\lambda }+\frac{1}{2}I_1+\frac{1}{2}\phi ^2+\frac{1}{3}G_R(M).$$
(29)
Introducing the renormalized parameters

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\lambda _R}}`$ $`=\underset{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}}{lim}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\lambda }}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}I_1\right],`$ (30)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{m_R^2}{\lambda _R}}`$ $`=\underset{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}}{lim}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{\lambda }}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}I_2\right],`$ (31)
one gets the renormalized gap equation

$$M^2=m_R^2+\frac{\lambda _R}{2}\phi ^2+\frac{\lambda _R}{3}G_R(M).$$

Next one verifies that the conditions (30) and (31) also renormalize the effective potential. For this objective one observes that using (24) one can write (25) as the sum of three contributions

$`V^0`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m^2\phi ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{4!}}\phi ^4,`$ (32)
$`V^I`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{dk^4}{(2\pi )^4}\mathrm{ln}(k^2)}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}I_1M^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}I_2M^4+T(M)`$ (33)
$`V^{II}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}GM^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\lambda }}M^4{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\lambda }}m^4{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m^2\phi ^2{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{8}}\phi ^4,`$ (34)
that gives

$$V=V^{II}+V^I+V^0=\frac{\lambda }{12}\phi ^4+\frac{1}{2}\frac{M^4}{\lambda _R}\frac{1}{2}M^2G_R(M)+T(M),$$
(35)
where $`T(M)`$ is a finite contribution to $`V^I`$ (which of course is not significant for renormalizability) and the field-independent terms have been discarded.

We observe that the CJT effective potential (35) in terms of the renormalized parameters, defined by (30) and (31), is finite. One could be concerned with the unrenormalized contribution $`\frac{\lambda }{12}\phi ^4`$ but since from Eq.(30) it follows that $`\lambda (\mathrm{\Lambda })(\lambda _R\frac{1}{2}I_2)^1`$ the term $`\frac{\lambda }{12}\phi ^4`$ vanishes upon removal of the cutoff.222Actually as emphasized in the literature (see e.g.), for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}`$ with fixed-positive nonzero $`\lambda _R`$ one finds from Eq.(30) that $`\lambda `$ is vanishingly small but negative ($`\lambda 0^{}`$). This non-positive value of the bare coupling can be concerning  for the stability of the theory. However it simply reflects the well known triviality of $`\lambda \phi ^4`$ theory (see e.g.) and is usually handled by considering a large but finite cutoff.

In preparation for a key observation made in the following section let us also emphasize the exact cancellation of the potentially dangerous divergent terms of type $`m^2\phi ^2`$ which appear with opposite signs in the tree level contribution $`V^0`$ and in the loop correction $`V^{II}`$.

### 4.2 Renormalization of the effective potential for $`\theta 0`$

Now we want to address the problem of evaluating the effective potential for nonvanishing values of the noncommutativity parameter $`\theta `$. In the analysis of the gap equation (22) one finds immediately an important complication due to nonvanishing $`\theta `$. In fact a constant $`M^2`$ clearly cannot be a solution of (22) and the gap equation must then be solved for a momentum-dependent function $`M^2(p)`$.

We start by defining $`M^2(\alpha )=M^2+\mathrm{\Pi }(\alpha )`$ so that the gap equation (22) can be rewritten as

$$\mathrm{\Pi }(\alpha )=M^2+m^2+\frac{\lambda }{2}\phi ^2+\frac{\lambda }{3}\frac{db^4}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{1}{b^2+M^2+\mathrm{\Pi }(b)}+\frac{\lambda }{6}\frac{db^4}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{\mathrm{cos}\left(b\theta \alpha \right)}{b^2+M^2+\mathrm{\Pi }(b)}.$$

We use the freedom in the choice of the “constant” part of $`M^2(\alpha )`$ to make it satisfy

$$M^2=m^2+\frac{\lambda }{2}\phi ^2+\frac{\lambda }{3}\frac{db^4}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{1}{b^2+M^2+\mathrm{\Pi }(b)},$$
(36)
and

$$\mathrm{\Pi }(\alpha )=\frac{\lambda }{6}\frac{db^4}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{\mathrm{cos}\left(b\theta \alpha \right)}{b^2+M^2+\mathrm{\Pi }(b)}.$$
(37)
We notice that the integral in the right-hand-side of Eq.(37) is finite both in the ultraviolet sector and in the infrared sector so that Eq.(37) does not need to be renormalized. We also observe that $`\mathrm{\Pi }(\alpha )\mathrm{}`$ for $`\alpha 0`$ and for $`\theta 0`$, and that $`\mathrm{\Pi }(\alpha )0`$ for $`\alpha \mathrm{}`$ and for $`\theta \mathrm{}`$.

Equation (36), on the contrary, is not UV-finite. It can be renormalized by a procedure similar to the one we have discussed previously. Introducing the renormalized parameters in the form

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\lambda _R}}`$ $`=\underset{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}}{lim}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\lambda }}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}I_2\right],`$ (38)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{m_R^2}{\lambda _R}}`$ $`=\underset{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}}{lim}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{\lambda }}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}I_1\right],`$ (39)
we get the renormalized gap equation

$$M^2=m_R^2+\frac{\lambda _R}{2}\phi ^2+\frac{\lambda _R}{3}F_R(M),$$

where $`F_R(M)`$ is the finite part of the divergent integral in (36):

$$F_R(M)=\frac{db^4}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{1}{b^2+M^2+\mathrm{\Pi }(b)}\left[\frac{db^4}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{1}{b^2}M^2\frac{db^4}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{1}{b^4}\right]$$
(40)
We come now to the important issue of the renormalization of the effective potential. We have seen that the way in which the gap equation renormalizes fixes uniquely the renormalization of the bare mass and the renormalization of the coupling. We must check if the same renormalization conditions provide us a finite effective potential. We can use (36) and (37) in the expression (23) to obtain the effective potential as the sum of the three following terms:

$`V^0`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m^2\phi ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{4!}}\phi ^4,`$ (41)
$`V^I`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{dk^4}{(2\pi )^4}\mathrm{ln}(k^2)}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}I_1M^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}I_2M^4+T(M,\mathrm{\Pi }),`$ (42)
$`V^{II}`$ $`=M^4\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}I_2+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\lambda }}\right\}+{\displaystyle \frac{M^2}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{dk^4}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{\mathrm{\Pi }(k)[\mathrm{\Pi }(k)+2k^2]}{k^4\left[k^2+\mathrm{\Pi }(k)\right]^2}}`$
$`+M^2\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}I_1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{dk^4}{(2\pi )^4}R(k)}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{dk^4}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{\mathrm{\Pi }(k)}{k^2+\mathrm{\Pi }(k)}\left(\frac{1}{k^2+\mathrm{\Pi }(k)}+\frac{2}{k^2}\right)}\right\}+`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{dk^4}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{\mathrm{\Pi }(k)}{k^2+\mathrm{\Pi }(k)}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{dk^4}{(2\pi )^4}\mathrm{\Pi }(k)R(k)}{\displaystyle \frac{3m^4}{4\lambda }}{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}m^2\phi ^2{\displaystyle \frac{3}{16}}\lambda \phi ^4,`$ (43)
where we have defined

$$T(M,\mathrm{\Pi })=\frac{1}{2}\frac{dk^4}{(2\pi )^4}\mathrm{ln}[k^2+M^2+\mathrm{\Pi }(k)]\left\{\frac{1}{2}\frac{dk^4}{(2\pi )^4}\mathrm{ln}[k^2]+\frac{M^2}{2}\frac{dk^4}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{1}{k^2}\frac{M^4}{4}\frac{dk^4}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{1}{k^4}\right\},$$

and

$$R(k)=\frac{1}{k^2+M^2+\mathrm{\Pi }(k)}\left\{\frac{1}{k^2+\mathrm{\Pi }(k)}\frac{M^2}{\left[k^2+\mathrm{\Pi }(k)\right]^2}\right\}.$$
(44)
We observe that in our CJT effective potential ($`V=V^0+V^I+V^{II}`$), thanks to the fact that $`\mathrm{\Pi }(k)`$ vanishes exponentially in the limit $`k\mathrm{}`$, all the field-dependent terms, with the exception of $`m^2\phi ^2`$ and $`\lambda \phi ^4`$ terms, are cutoff independent. The term in $`\lambda \phi ^4`$ is not divergent, it is similar to the $`\lambda \phi ^4`$-term present in the commutative case and can be handled in the same way. The term in $`m^2\phi ^2`$, on the contrary, is genuinely ultraviolet divergent. This is due to the fact that the corresponding contributions from $`V^0`$ and $`V^{II}`$ do not cancel each other (unlike the commutative case). This clearly originates from the well-known fact that nonvanishing $`\theta `$, by regularizing certain otherwise divergent diagrams, effectively changes the numerical coefficients in front of some divergent terms.

The presence of this $`\phi `$-dependent contribution that diverges upon cutoff removal leads to conjecture that it is impossible for this theory to be in an ordered translationally invariant phase333The fact that for $`\phi =0`$ this alarming divergence disappears might mean that instead a translationally invariant disordered phase is possible..

### 4.3 Renormalization of the effective potential in the planar limit ($`\theta \mathrm{}`$)

It is also interesting to consider the limit of strong noncommutativity ($`\theta \mathrm{}`$). In this limit the strong oscillations in the phases, which are present in the integrands of (22) and (23), induce the vanishing of the corresponding integrals. In this limit the nonplanar contribution of the eight diagram becomes negligible and only the planar contribution survives. In this strong commutativity limit the effective potential is given by the sum of the terms

$`V^0`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m^2\phi ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{4!}}\phi ^4,`$ (45)
$`V^I`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{dk^4}{(2\pi )^4}\mathrm{ln}(k^2)}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}I_1M^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}I_2M^4+T(M,0),`$ (46)
$`V^{II}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{3}{4\lambda }}m^4{\displaystyle \frac{3\lambda }{16}}\phi ^4+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4\lambda }}M^4{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}M^2G(M){\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}m^2\phi ^2,`$ (47)
so that one finds

$$V=\frac{3}{4}\frac{M^4}{\lambda _R}\frac{7}{48}\lambda \phi ^4\frac{1}{4}m^2\phi ^2\frac{1}{2}M^2G_R(M)+T(M,0).$$
(48)
This expressions for the effective potential is formally similar to the ones of the commutative case, (35). The crucial differences consist in the factors in front to the eight-diagram terms. It particular in this limit, as in the commutative case, the dressed mass $`M^2(k)=M^2+\mathrm{\Pi }(k)`$ becomes momentum independent since $`\mathrm{\Pi }(k)`$ vanishes exponentially.

Again the cancellation between the $`m^2\phi ^2`$ terms in (45) and (47) doesn’t occur and the resulting potential doesn’t renormalize.

## 5 Conclusions

Whereas in commutative spacetime the CJT effective potential can be renormalized and gives a satisfactory description of the vacua of a given field theory, in our canonical-noncommutativity analysis the CJT effective potential (in the bubble-resummation approximation) was found not to be renormalizable. From a conservative standpoint we should then assume that in this type of theories the CJT effective potential cannot provide reliable nonperturbative insight on the phase structure. This negative conclusion is also supported by the realization that canonical noncommutativity affects strongly the structure of the UV divergences of a field theory, and this might be particularly significant for those techniques that effectively rely on resummations of contributions from all orders in the coupling constant. When we establish that a field theory is renormalizable, we actually verify that it is “perturbatively renormalizable”: the divergences at any given order in coupling-expansion perturbation theory can be reabsorbed in redefinitions of the parameters of the Lagrangian density. The fact that the CJT technique gives rise to a renormalizable effective potential in the commutative-spacetime case is highly nontrivial, since we are not consistently summing all contributions up to a given order in the coupling constant (a calculation which would be “protected” by perturbative renormalizability), we are instead selectively summing a certain subset of the contributions at all orders in the coupling constant. It is therefore plausible that the fact that our CJT effective potential cannot be renormalized is simply a sign of an inadequacy of this technique to the canonical-noncommutativity context.

On the other hand it appears reasonable to explore an alternative, more optimistic, perspective, which is based on the observation that the only contribution to the CJT potential that ends up not being expressed in terms of renormalized quantities is the $`\frac{1}{4}m^2\phi ^2`$ contribution. This term however will vanish in a disordered phase $`\phi =0`$. In a certain sense we have a renormalizable effective potential in the disordered phase, and our results of nonrenormalizability in the translationally-invariant ordered phase $`\phi =C`$ could be interpreted as a manifestation of the fact that this phase is not admissable for these theories in canonical noncommutative spacetime. This hypothesis finds some support in the arguments presented in Ref. , which also concluded that the only admissible phases for these theories are the disordered phase and a (non-translationally-invariant) stripe phase with $`\stackrel{~}{\phi }(p)=C\delta (pp_c)`$ (where $`\stackrel{~}{\phi }(p)`$ is the Fourier transform of $`\phi (x)`$) and $`p_c`$ is a characteristic momentum scale of the stripe phase). This argument of inadmissability of the translationally-invariant ordered phase might be related with the delicate IR structure of these theories: $`\phi (x)=C`$ means $`\stackrel{~}{\phi }(p)=C\delta (p)`$, so the concept of a translationally-invariant ordered phase is closely connected with the zero-momentum structure of the theory of interest.

The fact that various lines of analysis appear to suggest that a non-translationally-invariant ordered phase should naturally be considered in these theories is rather intriguing. In fact canonical noncommutativity is naturally in conflict with invariance under space rotations and/or boosts, but, when analyzed as a pure algebra of coordinates, appears to be perfectly compatible with classical translational invariance. If a non translational invariant ordered phase emerges from field theories in canonical noncommutative spacetime it would mean that these theories might favour spontaneous breaking of their only residual spacetime symmetry444It might be interesting to investigate the possibility of analogous spontaneous symmetry-breaking mechanism in noncommutative geometries such as the ones considered in  which are instead naturally invariant under space rotations and (deformed ) boosts. (the one under spacetime translations).

To explore these issues it would be necessary to consider the CJT effective action, which explores the more general class of candidate vacua $`\phi (x)`$, rather than stopping, as we did here, at the level of the CJT effective potential (which assumes from the beginning a translationally-invariant vacuum). With the CJT effective action one could investigate the renormalizability of the stripe phase (which is not translationally invariant, and therefore cannot be studied with the effective potential). Unfortunately even in commutative-spacetime theories the evaluation of the CJT effective action turns out to be very complex (basically intractable analytically and a troublesome calculation even numerically). It is likely that in the canonical-noncommutativity context the evaluation of the CJT effective action may prove even more troublesome, but from the indications that emerged from our analysis of the CJT effective potential it appears that such an analysis is well motivated, as it could provide insight for the understanding of some key physical predictions of these theories.

## Note added

These results were first presented in Chapter 5, of my Ph.D. thesis . As I was rewriting the discussion in a format more suitable for the article-style presentation here provided the study in Ref. was announced. The results reported in Ref. are consistent (and partially overlap) with the ones presented here and in Ref..

## Acknowledgements

I thank Giovanni Amelino-Camelia for the constant support during the whole period of preparation of this paper, for the enlightening discussions, for bringing to my attention Ref. and for the careful reading of the manuscript. I also thank Luisa Doplicher for valuable suggestions and stimulating comments.


text:
# The Orchard relation of a generic symmetric or antisymmetric function

## 1 Definitions and main results

We consider a finite set $`E`$ and denote by $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{E}{d}\right)`$ the set of subsets containing exactly $`d`$ elements of $`E`$. In the sequel we move often freely from sets to sequences: we identify a subset $`\{x_1,\mathrm{},x_d\}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{E}{d}\right)`$ with the finite sequence $`(x_1,\mathrm{},x_d)`$ where the order of the elements is for instance always increasing with respect to a fixed total order on $`E`$.

A function $`\phi :\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{E}{d}\right)𝐑`$ is symmetric if

$$\phi (x_1,\mathrm{},x_i,x_{i+1},\mathrm{},x_d)=\phi (x_1\mathrm{},x_{i1},x_{i+1},x_i,x_{i+1},\mathrm{},x_d)$$

for $`1i<d`$ and all $`\{x_1,\mathrm{},x_d\}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{E}{d}\right)`$.

Similarly, such a function $`\phi :\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{E}{d}\right)𝐑`$ is antisymmetric if

$$\phi (x_1,\mathrm{},x_i,x_{i+1},\mathrm{},x_d)=\phi (x_1\mathrm{},x_{i1},x_{i+1},x_i,x_{i+2},\mathrm{},x_d)$$

for $`1i<d`$ and all $`x_1,\mathrm{},x_dE`$.

$`\phi `$ is generic if $`\phi (x_1,\mathrm{},x_d)0`$ for all subsets $`\{x_1,\mathrm{},x_d\}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{E}{d}\right)`$ of $`d`$ distinct elements in $`E`$.

In the sequel of this paper all functions will be generic. We will mainly be concerned with sign properties of generic symmetric or antisymmetric functions: Given any symmetric generic function $`\sigma :\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{E}{d}\right)𝐑_{>0}`$ and a symmetric or antisymmetric generic function $`\phi :\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{E}{d}\right)𝐑^d`$, the two functions

$$(x_1,\mathrm{},x_d)\phi (x_1,\mathrm{},x_d)$$

and

$$(x_1,\mathrm{},x_d)\sigma (x_1,\mathrm{},x_d)\phi (x_1,\mathrm{},x_d)$$

behave similarly with respect to all properties adressed in this paper.

We have also an obvious sign rule: symmetric or antisymmetric functions on $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{E}{d}\right)`$ behave with respect to multiplication like the elements of the multiplicative group $`\{\pm 1\}`$ with symmetric functions corresponding to $`1`$ and antisymmetric functions corresponding to $`1`$.

We fix now a generic symmetric or antisymmetric function $`\phi :\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{E}{d+1}\right)𝐑`$. Consider two elements $`a,bE`$. A subset $`\{x_1,\mathrm{},x_d\}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{E\{a,b\}}{d}\right)`$ not containing $`a`$ and $`b`$ separates $`a`$ from $`b`$ with respect to $`\phi `$ if

$$\phi (x_1,\mathrm{},x_d,a)\phi (x_1,\mathrm{},x_d,b)<0$$

(this definition is of course independent of the particular linear order $`(x_1,\mathrm{},x_d)`$ on the set $`\{x_1,\mathrm{},x_d\}`$).

We denote by $`n(a,b)=n_\phi (a,b)`$ the number of subsets in $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{E\{a,b\}}{d}\right)`$ separating $`a`$ from $`b`$ (with respect to the function $`\phi `$).

###### Proposition 1.1

(i) If $`\phi :\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{E}{d+1}\right)𝐑`$ is symmetric and generic then

$$n(a,b)+n(b,c)+n(a,c)0(mod2)$$

for any subset $`\{a,b,c\}`$ of $`3`$ distinct elements in $`E`$.

(ii) If $`\phi :\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{E}{d+1}\right)𝐑`$ is antisymmetric and generic then

$$n(a,b)+n(b,c)+n(a,c)\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\mathrm{}(E)3}{d1}\right)(mod2)$$

for any subset $`\{a,b,c\}`$ of $`3`$ distinct elements in $`E`$.

Proof. Consider first a subset $`\{x_1,\mathrm{},x_d\}`$ not intersecting $`\{a,b,c\}`$. Such a subset separates no pair of elements in $`\{a,b,c\}`$ if

$$\phi (x_1,\mathrm{},x_d,a),\phi (x_1,\mathrm{},x_d,b)\text{ and }\phi (x_1,\mathrm{},x_d,c)$$

all have the same sign. Otherwise, consider a reordering $`\{a^{},b^{},c^{}\}=\{a,b,c\}`$ such that $`\phi (x_1,\mathrm{},x_d,a^{})\phi (x_1,\mathrm{},x_d,b^{})<0`$ and $`\phi (x_1,\mathrm{},x_d,a^{})\phi (x_1,\mathrm{},x_d,c^{})<0`$. The subset $`\{x_1,\mathrm{},x_d\}`$ contributes in this case $`1`$ to $`n(a^{},b^{}),n(a^{},c^{})`$ and $`0`$ to $`n(b^{},c^{})`$. Such a subset $`\{x_1,\mathrm{},x_d\}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{E\{a,b,c\}}{d}\right)`$ yields hence always an even contribution (0 or 2) to the sum $`n(a,b)+n(a,c)+n(b,c)`$.

Consider now a subset $`\{x_1,\mathrm{},x_{d1}\}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{E\{a,b,c\}}{d1}\right)`$. We have to understand the contributions of the sets

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\{x_1,\mathrm{},x_{d1},c\}\hfill & \text{to }\hfill & n(a,b),\hfill \\ \{x_1,\mathrm{},x_{d1},b\}\hfill & \text{to }\hfill & n(a,c),\hfill \\ \{x_1,\mathrm{},x_{d1},a\}\hfill & \text{to }\hfill & n(b,c).\hfill \end{array}$$

Since the product of the six factors

$$\begin{array}{c}\phi (x_1,\mathrm{},x_{d1},c,a)\phi (x_1,\mathrm{},x_{d1},c,b)\\ \phi (x_1,\mathrm{},x_{d1},b,a)\phi (x_1,\mathrm{},x_{d1},b,c)\\ \phi (x_1,\mathrm{},x_{d1},a,b)\phi (x_1,\mathrm{},x_{d1},a,c)\end{array}$$

is always positive (respectively negative) for a generic symmetric (respectively antisymmetric) function, such a subset $`\{x_1,\mathrm{},x_{d1}\}`$ yields an even contribution to $`n(a,b)+n(a,c)+n(b,c)`$ in the symmetric case and an odd contribution in the antisymmetric case.

Proposition 1.1 follows now from the fact that $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{E\{a,b,c\}}{d1}\right)`$ has $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\mathrm{}(E)3}{d1}\right)`$ elements. $`\mathrm{}`$

Given a generic symmetric or antisymmetric function $`\phi :\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{E}{d+1}\right)𝐑`$ on some finite set $`E`$ we set $`xy`$ if either $`x=yE`$ or if

$$n(x,y)0(mod2)\text{ for symmetric }\phi $$

respectively

$$n(x,y)\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\mathrm{}(E)3}{d1}\right)(mod2)\text{ for antisymmetric }\phi .$$

We call the relation $``$ defined in this way on the set $`E`$ the Orchard relation.

###### Theorem 1.2

The Orchard relation is an equivalence relation having at most two classes.

Proof. Reflexivity and symmetry are obvious. Transitivity follows easily from Proposition 1.1.

If $`a\sim ̸b`$ and $`b\sim ̸c`$ then $`n(a,b)+n(b,c)`$ is even. It follows then from Proposition 1.1 that $`ac`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

Example. A tournament is a generic antisymmetric function $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{E}{1+1}\right)\{\pm 1\}`$. It encodes for instance orientations of all edges in the complete graph with vertices $`E`$ and can be summarized by an antisymmetric matrix $`A`$ with coefficients in $`\{\pm 1\}`$.

Given such a matrix $`A`$ with coefficients $`a_{i,j},1i,jn`$, we have

$$n_A(i,j)=\frac{n2_ka_{ik}a_{jk}}{2}.$$

This implies $`i_Aj`$ if and only if

$$\underset{k}{}a_{ik}a_{jk}n(mod4)$$

for $`ij`$. In the language of tournaments (cf. for instance ), this result can be restated in terms of score vectors: Two elements $`i`$ and $`j`$ are Orchard equivalent if and only if the corresponding coefficients of the score vector (counting the number of $`1`$’s in line $`i`$ respectively $`j`$) have the same parities.

Main Example. A finite set $`𝒫=\{P_1,\mathrm{},P_n\}𝐑^d`$ of $`n>d`$ points in real affine space $`𝐑^d`$ is generic if the affine span of any subset containing $`(d+1)`$ points in $`𝒫`$ is all of $`𝐑^d`$. Such a generic set $`𝒫`$ is endowed with a generic antisymmetric function by restricting

$$\phi (x_0,\mathrm{},x_d)=det(x_1x_0,x_2x_0,\mathrm{},x_dx_0)$$

to $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{𝒫}{d+1}\right)`$. The Orchard relation partitions hence a generic subset $`𝒫𝐑^d`$ into two (generally non-empty) subsets. Its name originates from the fact that the planar case ($`d=2`$) yields a natural rule to plant trees of two different species at specified generic locations in an orchard, see  and .

###### Proposition 1.3

Given a finite set $`E`$ let $`\phi `$ and $`\psi `$ be two generic symmetric or antisymmetric functions on $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{E}{d+1}\right)`$.

(i) If the numbers

$$\phi (x_0,\mathrm{},x_d)\psi (x_0,\mathrm{},x_d)$$

have the same sign for all $`\{x_0,\mathrm{},x_d\}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{E}{d+1}\right)`$ then the two Orchard relations $`_\phi `$ and $`_\psi `$ induced by $`\phi `$ and $`\psi `$ coincide.

(ii) If there exists exactly one subset $`=\{x_0,\mathrm{},x_d\}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{E}{d+1}\right)`$ such that

$$\phi (x_0,\mathrm{},x_d)\psi (x_0,\mathrm{},x_d)<0$$

then the restrictions of $`_\phi `$ and $`_\psi `$ to the two subsets $``$ and $`E`$ coincide but $`a_\phi ba\sim ̸_\psi b`$ for $`a`$ and $`bE`$.

We call two symmetric or antisymmetric functions $`\phi `$ and $`\psi `$ satisfying the condition of assertion (ii) above flip-related. Coulouring the equivalence classes of an Orchard relation with two distinct coulours, one can express assertion (ii) by the statement that changing a generic (symmetric or antisymmetric) function by a flip switches the coulours in the flip-set $`=\{x_0,\mathrm{},x_d\}`$ and leaves the coulours of the remaining elements unchanged.

Assertion (i) shows that we can restrict our attention to symmetric or antisymmetric functions from $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{E}{d+1}\right)`$ into $`\{\pm 1\}`$ when studying properties of the Orchard relation.

Proof of Proposition 1.3. Assertion (i) is obvious.

For proving assertion (ii) it is enough to remark that the numbers $`n_\phi (a,b)`$ and $`n_\psi (a,b)`$ of separating sets (with respect to $`\phi `$ and $`\psi `$) are identical if either $`\{a,b\}`$ or $`\{a,b\}E`$ and they differ by exactly one in the remaining cases. $`\mathrm{}`$

## 2 An easy characterisation in the symmetric case

In this section we give a different and rather trivial description of the Orchard relation in the symmetric case.

Given a generic symmetric function $`\phi :\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{E}{d+1}\right)𝐑`$ on some finite set $`E`$ we consider the function

$$\mu (x)=\mathrm{}(\{\{x_1,\mathrm{},x_d\}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{E\{x\}}{d}\right)|\phi (x,x_1,\mathrm{},x_d)>0\})$$

from $`E`$ to $`𝐍`$.

###### Theorem 2.1

Two elements $`x,yE`$ are Orchard equivalent with respect to $`\phi `$ if and only if $`\mu (x)\mu (y)(mod2)`$.

Proof. The result holds if $`\phi `$ is the constant function

$$\phi (x_0,\mathrm{},x_d)=1$$

for all $`\{x_0,\mathrm{},x_d\}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{E}{d+1}\right)`$.

Given two generic symmetric functions $`\phi ,\psi `$ related by a flip with respect to the set $`=\{x_0,\mathrm{},x_d\}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{E}{d+1}\right)`$ we have

$$\mu _\phi (x)=\mu _\psi (x)$$

if $`x`$ and

$$\mu _\phi (x)=\mu _\psi (x)\pm 1$$

otherwise. Proposition 1.3 implies hence the result since any generic symmetric function can be related by a finite number of flips to the constant function. $`\mathrm{}`$

## 3 Reducing $`d`$

Let $`\phi :\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{E}{d+1}\right)𝐑`$ be a generic symmetric or antisymmetric function. Consider the function

$$R\phi :\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{E}{d}\right)𝐑$$

defined by

$$R\phi (x_1,\mathrm{},x_d)=\underset{xE\{x_1,\mathrm{},x_d\}}{}\phi (x,x_1,\mathrm{},x_d).$$

$`R\phi `$ is generic symmetric if $`\phi `$ is generic symmetric.

For $`\phi `$ generic antisymmetric, the function $`R\phi `$ is generic symmetric if $`\mathrm{}(E)d(mod2)`$ and $`R\phi `$ is generic antisymmetric otherwise.

Dependencies of the Orchard relations associated to $`\phi `$ and $`R\phi `$ are described by the following result.

###### Proposition 3.1

Let $`\phi :\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{E}{d+1}\right)𝐑`$ be a generic symmetric or antisymmetric function.

(i) If $`d0(mod2)`$ then the Orchard relation of $`R\phi `$ is trivial (i.e. $`x_{R\phi }y`$ for all $`x,yE`$).

(ii) If $`d1(mod2)`$ then the Orchard relations $`_\phi `$ and $`_{R\phi }`$ coincide on $`E`$.

The main ingredient of the proof is the following lemma.

###### Lemma 3.2

Let $`\phi ,\psi :\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{E}{d+1}\right)𝐑`$ be two generic symmetric or antisymmetric functions which are flip-related with respect to the set $`=\{x_0,\mathrm{},x_d\}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{E}{d+1}\right)`$. Then

$$R\phi (y_1,\mathrm{},y_d)R\psi (y_1,\mathrm{},y_d)<0$$

if $`\{y_1,\mathrm{},y_d\}`$ and

$$R\phi (y_1,\mathrm{},y_d)R\psi (y_1,\mathrm{},y_d)>0$$

otherwise.

Proof of Lemma 3.2. If $`\{y_1,\mathrm{},y_d\}`$ then $`\phi (x,y_1,\mathrm{},y_d)=\psi (x,y_1,\mathrm{},y_d)`$ for all $`xE\{y_1,\mathrm{},y_d\}`$ and hence $`R\phi (y_1,\mathrm{},y_d)=R\psi (y_1,\mathrm{},y_d)`$. Otherwise, exactly one factor of the product yielding $`R\psi (y_1,\mathrm{},y_d)`$ changes sign with respect to the factors yielding $`R\phi (y_1,\mathrm{},y_d)`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

Proof of Proposition 3.1. We consider first the case where $`\phi :\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{E}{d+1}\right)𝐑`$ is generic and symmetric.

Proposition 3.1 holds then for the constant symmetric application $`\phi :\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{E}{d+1}\right)\{1\}`$.

Two generic symmetric functions $`\phi ,\psi `$ on $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{E}{d+1}\right)`$ which are flip-related with respect to $`=\{x_0,\mathrm{},x_d\}`$ give rise to $`R\phi `$ and $`R\psi `$ which are related through $`d+1`$ flips with respect to all $`d+1`$ elements in $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{}{d}\right)`$ by Lemma 3.2. Proposition 1.3 implies hence the result since an element of $`E`$ is contained in no element of $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{}{d}\right)`$ and since all elements of $``$ are contained in exactly $`d`$ such sets.

Second case: $`\phi :\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{E}{d+1}\right)𝐑`$ generic and antisymmetric. This case is slightly more involved. As in the symmetric case, we prove the result for a particular function $`\phi `$ and use the fact that flips of $`\phi `$ affect the Orchard relation $`_{R\phi }`$ only for odd $`d`$. This shows that it is enough to prove that $`_{R\phi }`$ is trivial for a particular function $`\phi `$ in the case of even $`d`$ and that $`_{R\phi }`$ and $`_\phi `$ coincide (for a particular generic antisymmetric function $`\phi `$) in the case of odd $`d`$.

We consider now the set $`E=\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$ endowed with the generic antisymmetric function $`\phi :\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{E}{d+1}\right)\{\pm 1\}`$ defined by

$$\phi (i_0,\mathrm{},i_d)=1$$

for all $`1i_0<i_1<\mathrm{}<i_dn`$.

Each element of $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{E\{i,i+1\}}{d1}\right)`$ separates then $`i`$ from $`i+1`$ with respect to the generic function $`R\phi `$. We have indeed

$$\begin{array}{c}R\phi (j_1,\mathrm{},j_{d1},i)\hfill \\ =\phi (i+1,j_1,\mathrm{},j_{d1},i)\underset{jE\{j_1,\mathrm{},j_{d1},i,i+1\}}{}\phi (j,j_1,\mathrm{},j_{d1},i)\hfill \\ =\phi (i,j_1,\mathrm{},j_{d1},i+1)\underset{jE\{j_1,\mathrm{},j_{d1},i,i+1\}}{}\phi (j,j_1,\mathrm{},j_{d1},i+1)\hfill \\ =R\phi (j_1,\mathrm{},j_{d1},i+1)\hfill \end{array}$$

showing that the number $`n_{R\phi }(i,i+1)`$ of sets separating $`i`$ from $`i+1`$ equals $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n2}{d1}\right)`$.

The proof splits now into four cases according to the parities of $`n`$ and $`d`$.

If $`nd0(mod2)`$, then $`R\phi `$ is symmetric and $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n2}{d1}\right)`$ is even (recall that

$$\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\underset{i=0}{}\nu _i2^i}{_{i=0}\kappa _i2^i}\right)\underset{i}{}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\nu _i}{\kappa _i}\right)(mod2)$$

for $`\nu _i,\kappa _i\{0,1\}`$, cf. for instance Exercice 5.36 in Chapter 5 of ). Since $`n_{R\phi }(i,i+1)=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n2}{d1}\right)`$ is even for all $`i<n`$, the Orchard relation $`_{R\phi }`$ associated to the symmetric function $`R\phi `$ is trivial.

If $`n1(mod2),d0(mod2)`$, then $`R\phi `$ is antisymmetric. We have then $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n3}{d1}\right)0(mod2)`$ and thus $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n3}{d2}\right)\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n3}{d2}\right)+\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n3}{d1}\right)=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n2}{d1}\right)(mod2)`$ which implies again the triviality of the Orchard relation $`_{R\phi }`$ since we have $`n_{R\phi }(i,i+1)=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n2}{d1}\right)\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n3}{d2}\right)(mod2)`$ which shows $`i_{R\phi }(i+1)`$ for all $`i`$.

If $`nd1(mod2)`$ then $`R\phi `$ is symmetric. Since $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n3}{d2}\right)0(mod2)`$ we have $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n2}{d1}\right)=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n3}{d2}\right)+\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n3}{d1}\right)\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n3}{d1}\right)(mod2)`$ proving that the Orchard relations $`_\phi `$ and $`_{R\phi }`$ coincide.

If $`n0(mod2),d1(mod2)`$, then $`R\phi `$ is antisymmetric. The equality $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n2}{d1}\right)=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n3}{d2}\right)+\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n3}{d1}\right)`$ implies $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n3}{d1}\right)\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n3}{d2}\right)+\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n2}{d1}\right)(mod2)`$. This shows hat the Orchard relations $`\phi `$ and $`_{R\phi }`$ coincide. $`\mathrm{}`$

## 4 Homology

We recall that $`R\phi :\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{E}{d}\right)𝐑`$ is defined by

$$R\phi (x_1,\mathrm{},x_d)=\underset{xE\{x_1,\mathrm{},x_d\}}{}\phi (x,x_1,\mathrm{},x_d)$$

for a given generic symmetric or antisymmetric function $`\phi :\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{E}{d+1}\right)𝐑`$.

###### Lemma 4.1

We have

$$R(R\phi )(x_1,\mathrm{},x_{d1})ϵ^{\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\mathrm{}(E)d+1}{2}\right)}𝐑_{>0}$$

where $`ϵ=1`$ if $`\phi `$ is generic and symmetric and $`ϵ=1`$ if $`\phi `$ is generic and antisymmetric.

Proof. Setting $`𝒮=\{x_1,\mathrm{},x_{d1}\}`$ we have

$$\begin{array}{c}R(R\phi )(x_1,\mathrm{},x_{d1})\hfill \\ =_{yE𝒮}R\phi (y,x_1,\mathrm{},x_{d1})=_{xyE𝒮}\phi (x,y,x_1,\mathrm{},x_{d1})\hfill \\ =_{\{x,y\}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{E𝒮}{2}\right)}\phi (x,y,x_1,\mathrm{},x_{d1})\phi (y,x,x_1,\mathrm{},x_{d1})\hfill \end{array}$$

which is positive if $`\phi `$ is symmetric or if $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\mathrm{}(E)d+1}{2}\right)`$ is even and negative otherwise. $`\mathrm{}`$

Writing as in the beginning $`[n]=\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$, the set $`\{\pm 1\}^{\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{[n]}{d+1}\right)}`$ (endowed with the the usual product of functions) of all symmetric generic functions $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{[n]}{d+1}\right)\{\pm 1\}`$ is a vector space of dimension $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{d+1}\right)`$ over the field $`𝐅_2`$ of 2 elements. The map $`R`$ considered above defines group homomorphisms between these vector spaces and the above Lemma allows to define homology groups. These groups are however all trivial except for $`d=0`$ since one obtains the ordinary (simplicial) homology with coefficients in $`𝐅_2`$ of an $`(n1)`$ dimensional simplex.

## 5 Increasing $`d`$

This section is a close analogue of section 3.

Given a generic symmetric or antisymmetric function $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{E}{d+1}\right)𝐑`$ we define a function $`A\phi :\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{E}{d+2}\right)𝐑`$ by setting

$$A\phi (x_0,\mathrm{},x_{d+1})=\underset{i=0}{\overset{d+1}{}}\phi (x_0,\mathrm{},x_{i1},x_{i+1},\mathrm{},x_{d+1}).$$

The function $`A\phi `$ is generic symmetric if $`\phi `$ is symmetric. For $`\phi `$ antisymmetric it is generic symmetric if $`d0(mod2)`$ and generic antisymmetric otherwise.

The dependency between the Orchard relations $`_\phi `$ and $`_{A\phi }`$ for a generic symmetric or antisymmetric function $`\phi :\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{E}{d+1}\right)𝐑`$ is described by the following result.

###### Proposition 5.1

Let $`\phi :\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{E}{d+1}\right)𝐑`$ be a generic symmetric or antisymmetric function.

The Orchard relation $`_{A\phi }`$ of $`A\phi `$ is trivial if $`\mathrm{}(E)d(mod2)`$. Otherwise, the Orchard relations $`_\phi `$ and $`_{A\phi }`$ of $`\phi `$ and $`A\phi `$ coincide.

The main ingredient of the proof is the following lemma whose easy proof is left to the reader.

###### Lemma 5.2

Let $`\phi ,\psi :\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{E}{d+1}\right)𝐑`$ be two generic symmetric or antisymmetric functions which are flip-related with respect to the set $`=\{x_0,\mathrm{},x_d\}`$. Then

$$A\phi (y_0,\mathrm{},y_{d+1})A\psi (y_0,\mathrm{},y_{d+1})>0$$

if $`\{y_0,\mathrm{},y_{d+1}\}`$ and

$$A\phi (y_0,\mathrm{},y_{d+1})A\psi (y_0,\mathrm{},y_{d+1})<0$$

otherwise.

Proof of Proposition 5.1. Lemma 5.2 shows that $`_{A\phi }`$ is independent of $`\phi `$ if $`\mathrm{}(E)d(mod2)`$. Otherwise, the Orchard relations of $`\phi `$ and $`A\phi `$ behave in a similar way under flips. Indeed, given $`\psi `$ which is flip-related with flipset $`=\{x_0,\mathrm{},x_d\}`$ to $`\phi `$ the functions $`A\psi `$ and $`A\phi `$ are related through $`(\mathrm{}(E)(d+1))`$ flips with flipsets $`\{x\}`$, $`xE`$. Each element of $`E`$ is hence flipped once and each element of $``$ is flipped $`\mathrm{}(E)(d+1)`$ times.

Proposition 1.3 implies hence that $`_{A\phi }`$ is independent of $`\phi `$ if $`1\mathrm{}(E)(d+1)`$ and that $`_\phi `$ and $`_{A\phi }`$ behave similarly under flips otherwise. It is hence enough to proof Proposition 5.1 in a particular case.

If $`\phi `$ is symmetric, then Proposition 5.1 clearly holds for the constant application $`\phi :\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{E}{d+1}\right)\{1\}`$.

In the antisymmetric case we set $`E=\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$ and we consider the generic antisymmetric function $`\phi :\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{E}{d+1}\right)\{\pm 1\}`$ defined by

$$\phi (i_0,\mathrm{},i_d)=1$$

for all $`1i_0<i_1<\mathrm{}<i_dn`$. The function $`A\phi :\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{E}{d+2}\right)\{\pm 1\}`$ is now given by

$$A\phi (i_0,\mathrm{},i_d,i_{d+1})=1$$

for all $`1i_0<i_1<\mathrm{}<i_d<i_{d+1}n`$. The numbers $`n_{A\phi }(i,i+1)`$ of subsets in $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{E\{i,i+1\}}{d+1}\right)`$ separating $`i`$ from $`i+1`$ are hence all $`0`$ and we split the discussion into several cases according to the parities of $`n=\mathrm{}(E)`$ and $`d`$.

$`nd0(mod2)`$ implies $`A\phi `$ symmetric and hence $`_{A\phi }`$ trivial.

$`n1(mod2),d0(mod2)`$ implies $`A\phi `$ symmetric and hence $`_{A\phi }`$ trivial. Since then $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n3}{d1}\right)0(mod2)`$ we have also $`_\phi `$ trivial.

$`n0(mod2),d1(mod2)`$ implies $`A\phi `$ antisymmetric. We have then $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n3}{d1}\right)+\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n3}{d}\right)=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n2}{d}\right)0(mod2)`$ proving equality of the two Orchard relations $`_\phi `$ and $`_{A\phi }`$.

$`nd1(mod2)`$ implies $`A\phi `$ antisymmetric and $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n3}{d}\right)0(mod2)`$ thus proving triviality of the Orchard relation $`_{A\phi }`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Remark 5.3

One sees easily that the function $`A(A\phi )`$ is strictly positive for a generic symmetric or antisymmetric function $`\phi :\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{E}{d+1}\right)𝐑`$.

This allows the definition of cohomology groups on the set of generic symmetric functions $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{E}{d+1}\right)\{\pm 1\}`$. The resulting groups are of course not interesting since this boils down once more to the cohomology groups of the $`(\mathrm{}(E)1)`$dimensional simplex with coefficients in the field $`𝐅_2`$ of $`2`$ elements.