text:
# Stretched Exponential Decay of a Quasiparticle in a Quantum Dot

## Abstract

The decay of a quasiparticle in an isolated quantum dot is considered. At relatively small time the probability to find the system in the initial state decays exponentially: $`P(t)\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{\Gamma }t)`$, in accordance with the golden rule. However, the contributions to $`P(t)`$ accounting for the discreteness of final three-particle states, five-particle states, etc. decay much slower being $`(\mathrm{\Delta }_3/\mathrm{\Gamma })^n\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{\Gamma }t/(2n+1))`$ for $`2n+1`$ final particles. Here $`\mathrm{\Delta }_3\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the level spacing for three-particle states available via the direct decay. These corrections are dominant at large enough time and slow down the decay to become $`\mathrm{ln}(P)\sqrt{t}`$ asymptotically. $`P(t)`$ fluctuates strongly in this regime and the analytical formula for the distribution $`W(P)`$ is found.

today

The problem of the decay of a quasiparticle in closed mesoscopic systems has attracted a permanent interest last years . The very existence of the (irreversible) decay becomes nontrivial in the case of a discrete spectrum. In a many particle system one should in addition understand the role of the whole hierarchy of the discreteness, ranging from the single-particle levels (level spacing $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$) to the exponentially dense spectrum of complicated many-particle excitations. It was first realized that the decay into two particles and one hole, relevant for an infinite geometry, does not apply for the low excitation energies in the finite system. Namely, for a diffusive quantum dot, the coupling to the three-particle states describes the broadening of the quasiparticle only for excitation energy $`\epsilon \sqrt{g}\mathrm{\Delta }`$, where $`g1`$ is the dimensionless conductance . Utilization of the ideas of delocalization in the Fock space for the quasiparticle decay in Ref.  has stimulated further active research in this field . However, the main interest was concentrated around the limited range of excitation energies $`\sqrt{g/\mathrm{ln}(g)}<\epsilon /\mathrm{\Delta }<\sqrt{g}`$. In spite of the beauty of the applied theoretical approaches experimentally it may be difficult to look for the effects sensitive to the logarithm of large parameter (see however ). Therefore the goal of this paper is to consider the effect of the discreteness of the spectrum for much higher energy, where the usual three-particle decay is expected to determine the quasiparticle lifetime. As we will see, even for $`\epsilon \sqrt{g}\mathrm{\Delta }`$ the decay in the confined geometry at large enough time is strongly modified and slowed down.

The simple fermionic Hamiltonian models the effect of electron interaction in closed quantum dot  (in the nuclear physics an analogous Hamiltonian was introduced already a long time ago )

$$H=\epsilon _ic_i^+c_i+V_{ijkl}c_i^+c_j^+c_kc_l.$$
(1)
The single-particle energies $`\epsilon _i`$ are randomly distributed around $`ϵ_F=0`$ with mean level spacing $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. The depth of the Fermi sea is always much larger than the excitation energy. The Gaussian random two-particle interaction has zero mean and variance given by

$$\overline{V^2}=\mathrm{\Delta }^2/g^2.$$
(2)
The conductance $`g1`$ measured in units of $`e^2/h`$ is a large parameter in our problem. We are interested in the stability of simple single-particle excitations above the ground state of $`H`$. Due to the weak interaction the low lying excited states are almost unperturbed. However, the level spacing for three-particle states (two particles and one hole) accessible for the direct decay decreases while increasing the excitation energy $`\epsilon `$

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_3=4\mathrm{\Delta }^3/\epsilon ^2$$
(3)
and at $`\epsilon >\sqrt{g}\mathrm{\Delta }`$ the matrix element of the interaction (2) exceeds $`\mathrm{\Delta }_3`$. Now the Fermi golden rule is applied to find the width of the quasiparticle

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }=2\pi \frac{\overline{|V|^2}}{\mathrm{\Delta }_3}=\frac{\pi \epsilon ^2}{2g^2\mathrm{\Delta }}.$$
(4)
The natural quantity characterising the time evolution of the single-particle state is the return probability $`P(t)`$, which is the probability to find a system in the initial state $`|0`$ after time $`t`$

$$P=|0|e^{iHt}|0|^2=e^{i(\epsilon ^{}\epsilon )t}G_{00}(\epsilon )G_{00}^{}(\epsilon ^{})\frac{d\epsilon ^{}d\epsilon }{4\pi ^2}.$$
(5)
Here we have introduced $`G_{00}(\epsilon )`$, the diagonal matrix element of the single-particle Greens function of the Hamiltonian (1).

The authors of Ref.  have used the Cayley tree model in order to describe the quasi-particle disintegration into many-particle states. One site of the lattice (tree) is associated with the single-particle state which is connected with many three-particle states (sites). Each of the three-particle states is connected with a number of five-particle states, and so on. On the Cayley tree the exact Greens function is given by the simple formula

$$G_{00}(\epsilon )=\frac{1}{\epsilon _\lambda \epsilon _0{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{V_n^2}{\epsilon _\lambda E_n{\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{V_{nm}^2}{\epsilon _\lambda E_m\mathrm{}}}}}},$$
(6)
where $`\epsilon _\lambda =\epsilon +i\lambda `$ with some small $`\lambda `$. Each new denominator of the continued fraction corresponds to a mixing with the next generation (a set of states in the Fock space having one more excited particle and one more hole). $`E_n=\epsilon _{n_1}+\epsilon _{n_2}+\epsilon _{n_3}`$, $`E_m=\epsilon _{m_1}+\epsilon _{m_2}+\epsilon _{m_3}+\epsilon _{m_4}+\epsilon _{m_5}`$ and so on. $`V_n`$ is the matrix element connecting the single-particle and three particle states and $`V_{nm}`$ is the matrix element connecting the $`n`$-th three-particle and $`m`$-th five-particle states. All matrix elements satisfy Eq. (2). Not all effects of the two-particle interaction are taken into account by the Cayley tree model . Nevertheless, one may associate any term of the perturbative expansion (in $`V`$) of Eq. (6) with a certain class of true diagrams of many-body perturbation theory. The diagrams notpresent in Eq. (6) should be taken into account separately, but they will not change the results of this paper. In particular, the interaction of the initial particle with the three-particle states is completely taken into account by the Cayley tree. Replacing the first sum in the denominator in Eq. (6) by the integral over averages, one gets

$$\overline{G_{00}(\epsilon )}=𝒢_0(\epsilon )=(\epsilon \epsilon _0+i\mathrm{\Gamma }/2)^1,$$
(7)
where the width

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }=2\frac{\overline{V^2}}{\epsilon _\lambda x+i\mathrm{\Gamma }_n/2}\frac{dx}{\mathrm{\Delta }_3}=2\pi \frac{\overline{V^2}}{\mathrm{\Delta }_3}$$
(8)
essentially does not depend on the secondary width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_n`$. The pole of $`𝒢_0`$ leads to the exponential decay of the return probability $`P(t)\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{\Gamma }t)`$ and it is hard to change this result while considering separately $`\overline{G(\epsilon )}`$ and $`\overline{G^{}(\epsilon ^{})}`$. The slow tail of $`P(t)`$ at large $`t`$ may come only from terms in the correlation function $`\overline{G_{00}(\epsilon )G_{00}^{}(\epsilon ^{})}`$ that are non-analytic in $`\epsilon \epsilon ^{}`$.

Let at first stage forget about the decay of secondary states in Eq. (6) (i.e. we put $`V_{nm}0`$). Now the expansion of the Greens function (6) around the averaged value (Eq. (7)) gives

$$G_{00}=𝒢_0+𝒢_0^2\left\{\underset{n}{}\frac{V_n^2}{\epsilon _\lambda E_n}\frac{\overline{V^2}}{\epsilon _\lambda x}\frac{dx}{\mathrm{\Delta }_3}\right\}.$$
(9)
Again $`\epsilon _\lambda =\epsilon +i\lambda `$. Only the correlation of the second term $`\{\mathrm{}\}`$ in $`G_{00}(\epsilon )`$ with its analog in $`G_{00}^{}(\epsilon ^{})`$ may lead to the correction singular in $`\epsilon \epsilon ^{}`$. It is convenient to replace the first sum in Eq. (9) also by an integral via $`F(E_n)\delta (xE_n)F(x)dx`$. Now the only nontrivial part in the calculation of the correlation function is the averaging

$`\overline{\left({\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}V_n^2\delta (xE_n){\displaystyle \frac{\overline{V^2}}{\mathrm{\Delta }_3}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}V_m^2\delta (yE_m){\displaystyle \frac{\overline{V^2}}{\mathrm{\Delta }_3}}\right)}`$ (10)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{\overline{V^4}}{\mathrm{\Delta }_3}}\delta (xy).`$ (11)
We suppose that $`\epsilon _n`$ are independent random variables (Poisson statistics). In fact the problem of the decay of a simple state into the quasi-continuum of discrete states (just like our decay into three particles) has already been considered by several authors . In particular, the case of constant interaction and Wigner-Dyson statistics for secondary states is considered in .

With the use of Eqs. (9,10) one finds ($`𝒢_0^{}𝒢_0(\epsilon ^{})`$)

$`\overline{G_{00}(\epsilon )G_{00}^{}(\epsilon ^{})}=𝒢_0𝒢_0^{}+(𝒢_0𝒢_0^{})^2{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi i}{\epsilon ^{}\epsilon 2i\lambda }}{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{V^4}}{\mathrm{\Delta }_3}},`$ (12)
which after substitution into Eq. (5) gives (for Gaussian random interaction $`\overline{V^4}=3\mathrm{\Delta }^4/2g^4`$)

$$\overline{P(t)}=e^{\mathrm{\Gamma }t}+\frac{3\mathrm{\Delta }_3}{2\pi \mathrm{\Gamma }}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{\mathrm{\Gamma }2\lambda }\right)^3e^{2\lambda t}.$$
(13)
Here $`2\lambda `$ works effectively as the constant intrinsic width of the three-particle excited states. After the initial state spreads over the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }/\mathrm{\Delta }_3`$ directly connected states, the usual Breit-Wigner decay saturates. It is important for this result that the interaction matrix elements and(or) the three-particle interlevel spacings essentially fluctuate. Otherwise the coherent decay may proceed up to much larger times ($`\mathrm{\Delta }_3^1`$) and even may become reversible.

The many particle origin of the final states is in fact ignored in Eq. (13). In the real problem the energy and width of the “intermediate” final state are given by the sum of energies and widths of the constituent particles $`E_n=\epsilon _1+\epsilon _2+\epsilon _3\epsilon `$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_n=\mathrm{\Gamma }_i\epsilon _i^2`$ (4). In order to take into account this energy dependence of the secondary width one should return to Eq. (3) and consider the three-particle density of states as the sum over individual particle energies. This means that in Eq. (13) the following replacement should be made

$`{\displaystyle \frac{e^{2\lambda t}}{\mathrm{\Delta }_3}}{\displaystyle }`$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left\{{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_it\right\}\delta (\epsilon {\displaystyle \epsilon _i}){\displaystyle \frac{d\epsilon _i}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}`$ (15)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{2}{\sqrt{3}}}{\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }^2t}}e^{\mathrm{\Gamma }t/3}.`$
The return probability now takes the form

$$\overline{P}=e^{\mathrm{\Gamma }t}+\frac{27\sqrt{3}}{4}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_3}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }t}e^{\mathrm{\Gamma }t/3}+\mathrm{}.$$
(16)
Here the states from the second generation are allowed to decay and their widths are distributed within $`\mathrm{\Gamma }/3<\mathrm{\Gamma }_n<\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. However, the fluctuations of the widths, and even more important, correlations of the fluctuations, are still not taken into account. The second term in the r.h.s. of Eq. (16) is not small necessarily and for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }t>(3/2)L`$ even becomes dominant. Here we introduced a special notation for the large logarithm $`L=\mathrm{ln}(\mathrm{\Gamma }/\mathrm{\Delta }_3)`$. However even at these times the prefactor $`1/\mathrm{\Gamma }t`$ in the return probability is only logarithmically small. We will neglect the contributions of this type in the calculation of further corrections to the return probability.

In the way similar to the derivation of Eq. (9) we may extract from the Greens function the term responsible for fluctuations in the coupling of three-particle to five-particle states

$`G_{00}=𝒢_0+\mathrm{}+𝒢_0^2{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}𝒢_n^2V_n^2`$ (17)
$`\times {\displaystyle }({\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}V_{nm}^2\delta (xE_m){\displaystyle \frac{\overline{V^2}}{\mathrm{\Delta }_n}}){\displaystyle \frac{dx}{\epsilon _\lambda x}}+\mathrm{}.`$ (18)
Here $`\mathrm{\Delta }_n\mathrm{\Delta }_3`$ is the interval between the five-particle states into which the given three-particle state $`n`$ may decay.

The connected average of the five-particle term in Eq. (17) with the same contribution from $`G_{00}^{}(\epsilon ^{})`$ leads to a pole at $`\epsilon ^{}\epsilon =i\mathrm{\Gamma }/5`$ in complete analogy with Eq. (12). Here again $`\mathrm{\Gamma }/5`$ is the smallest total width for the five particles with given total energy $`\epsilon _i=\epsilon `$. The straightforward estimation of the five-particle contribution to the return probability gives

$$\overline{P_5}\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_3/\mathrm{\Gamma }\right)^2e^{\mathrm{\Gamma }t/5}$$
(19)
Neither the overall numerical constant nor the “weak” $`1/\mathrm{\Gamma }t`$ prefactor are shown here. Non-Cayley-tree contributions to $`\overline{P_5}`$ coming from the corrections to $`G_{00}`$ not included in the continued fraction Eq. (6) are $`\mathrm{\Gamma }/\mathrm{\Delta }`$ times smaller and decay also like $`e^{\mathrm{\Gamma }t/5}`$ (or faster) at large time $`t`$.

Generalisation of Eq. (19) for arbitrary number of final particles gives

$$\overline{P_{2n+1}}\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_3/\mathrm{\Gamma }\right)^ne^{\mathrm{\Gamma }t/(2n+1)}.$$
(20)
Adding one more particle-hole pair in the final state costs a small factor $`\mathrm{\Delta }_3/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, but the time evolution of this contribution is governed by the smallest joint width for $`2n+1`$ particles with fixed total energy, which is $`\mathrm{\Gamma }/(2n+1)`$. The total return probability is given by the sum over all many particle contributions (20) (starting from $`n=0`$). However, at any given moment of time one of the $`\overline{P_{2n+1}}`$ dominates and all others may be neglected. Figure 1 shows the function $`\mathrm{ln}P(t)`$ and illustrates how it is formed by different contributions from Eq. (20). The two consecutive values $`\overline{P_{2n+1}}`$ coincides and the strength of decay is changed at $`\mathrm{\Gamma }t=(2n1)(2n+1)L/2`$. For large $`\mathrm{\Gamma }t`$ one may also replace the piecewise linear $`\mathrm{ln}P`$ by single smooth function (see Figure) such that

$$\overline{P_{asym}}e^{\sqrt{2L\mathrm{\Gamma }t}}=\mathrm{exp}\left\{\sqrt{\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\epsilon }{\sqrt{g}\mathrm{\Delta }}\right)\frac{4\pi \epsilon ^2}{g^2\mathrm{\Delta }}t}\right\}.$$
(21)
This formula should be compared with the usual decay $`\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{\Gamma }t)=\mathrm{exp}\{\pi \epsilon ^2t/2g^2\mathrm{\Delta }\}`$. Eq. (21) is the main result of this paper. Since the true many particle density of states is $`\delta ^1\mathrm{exp}(2\pi \sqrt{\epsilon /6\mathrm{\Delta }})`$ this decay may formally proceed until time $`t(g^2/\epsilon )1/\mathrm{ln}(\epsilon /\sqrt{g}\mathrm{\Delta })`$.

Within the interval $`3L/2<\mathrm{\Gamma }t<15L/2`$ the second term in Eq. (16) dominates. Consider the distribution of $`P(t)`$ in this region. The direct generalisation of the calculation described by Eqs. (5,9,12) gives

$$\overline{P(t)^n}=n!\overline{P(t)}^n.$$
(22)
Here $`n!`$ simply accounts for the number of ways how $`n`$ Greens functions $`G_{00}(\epsilon _i)`$ may be contracted with $`n`$ $`G_{00}^{}(\epsilon _j^{})`$. The distribution function corresponding to the eq. (22) is evidently

$$W(P)=1/\overline{P}\mathrm{exp}\left\{P/\overline{P}\right\}.$$
(23)
Moreover, at any time only one contribution (20), corresponding to fixed number of final particles, dominates in $`P(t)`$. Therefore, Eq. (22) and consequently Eq. (23) are also valid for any large time $`\mathrm{\Gamma }t>3L/2`$. The strong fluctuations of $`P(t)`$ in the asymptotics (23) are in contrast with the usual decay of the return probability at $`\mathrm{\Gamma }t<3L/2`$, where one has $`\mathrm{var}P(t)P(t)^2`$.

It is seen from Eq. (23) that the stretched asymptotic decay of a quasiparticle in a finite system described by Eq. (21) does not require any special realization of the quantum dot. The interesting asymptotic effects due to rare fluctuations of disorder were considered more than a decade ago in Ref. . (See also the recent discussion of the decay in case of strong interaction .)

All the above results only correspond to the case of relatively high excitation energy. Below $`\epsilon \sqrt{g}\mathrm{\Delta }`$ the width expected from the golden rule become smaller then the level spacing for available three-particle states $`\mathrm{\Gamma }<\mathrm{\Delta }_3`$ (4). Still at $`\sqrt{g/\mathrm{ln}g}\epsilon /\mathrm{\Delta }\sqrt{g}`$ quasiparticles are unstable . Not much is known about the time dependence of the return probability $`P(t)`$ in this region. The decay now is not exponential at any time. One may convert the analysis of Ref.  in order to get the time dependent series

$$\overline{P_{\mathrm{\Gamma }<\mathrm{\Delta }_3}}=1\frac{\epsilon ^2}{g\mathrm{\Delta }^2}\underset{n=0}{}c_n\left(\frac{\epsilon ^2}{g\mathrm{\Delta }^2}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{g}t\right)\right)^n,$$
(24)
where the $`c_n`$ are some (unknown) numerical coefficients. Unfortunately, Eq. (24) is valid only for $`1\overline{P}1`$. This result may be used for an estimation of the time after which the decay of the return probability starts, but it does not teach us about the functional form of $`P(t)`$.

To conclude, in this paper we have considered the decay of a single-particle excitation in a finite fermionic system with random two-particle interaction. Our results may be interpreted as follows. At short time $`t`$ the decay into two-particles and one hole proceeds with the Breit-Wigner width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, in accordance with the golden rule. At a certain time the probabilities to find the system in the initial or any of the discrete final three-particle states became of the same order of magnitude. After that the further decay (exponential on average) is governed by smaller width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }/3`$, which is the minimal width of the corresponding three-particle state. At these times the probability $`P(t)`$ to find the initial quasiparticle unperturbed fluctuates strongly, but we were able to find the distribution function $`W(P)`$ describing these fluctuations (Eq. (23)). When the three-particle states become completely mixed with the five-particle states, the five-particle width come into play leading to $`P(t)\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{\Gamma }t/5)`$, and so on. This scenario with many stage decay takes place for the random interaction and an essentially irregular single-particle spectrum, which suppresses the interference between different decaying channels. At sufficiently large time this piece-wise linear exponential decay may be described by the smoothed formula (21) with $`\mathrm{ln}(P)\sqrt{t}`$. All these results are valid for high enough excitation energy ($`\epsilon \sqrt{g}\mathrm{\Delta }`$). The behaviour of $`P(t)`$ below the golden rule threshold, at $`\epsilon <\sqrt{g}\mathrm{\Delta }`$, requires a further investigation.

Fruitful discussions with Y. Imry have stimulated the author to work on this problem. The hospitality of the Weizmann Institute of Science (Israel) where this project was started is greatly acknowledged. I am thankful to Y. Aharonov, C. W. J. Beenakker, D. V. Savin and V. V. Sokolov for useful correspondence. This work was supported by the Dutch Science Foundation NWO/FOM. The work in Israel was supported by the Albert Einstein Minerva Center for Theoretical Physics and by grants from the German-Israeli Foundation (GIF) and the Israel Science Foundation, Jerusalem.


format: text

text:
# (Non-)perturbative tests of the AdS/CFT correspondence

## Abstract

I summarize perturbative and non-perturbative field theory tests of the holographic correspondence between type IIB superstring on $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ and $`𝒩=4`$ SYM theory. The holographic duality between D-instantons and YM instantons is briefly described. Non renormalization of two- and three-point functions of CPO’s and their extremal and next-to-extremal correlators are then reviewed. Finally, partial non-renormalization of four-point functions of lowest CPO’s is analyzed in view of the interpretation of short distance logarithmic behaviours in terms of anomalous dimensions of unprotected operators.

The AdS/CFT correspondence  is an unprecedented tool in the study of the interplay between gauge theory and gravity. In the simplest case it relates type IIB superstring on $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ to $`𝒩=4`$ supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory (SYM) with gauge group $`SU(N)`$. The correspondence is “holographic” in that the gauge theory lives on the boundary of AdS. The conjecture is motivated by the study of the low-energy dynamics of D-branes . Their open strings excitations include massless vector supermultiplets and a stack of $`N`$ coincident D3-branes is governed by $`U(N)`$ $`𝒩=4`$ SYM in $`D=4`$. The remarkable fact about this gauge theory is its exact superconformal invariance. This reflects into the the dilaton being constant and the metric being nowhere singular for the D3-brane solution! The D3-brane can thus be viewed as a smooth soliton interpolating between maximally supersymmetric flat Minkowski spacetime at infinity and maximally supersymmetric $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ near the horizon. The AdS scale $`L`$ is related to the RR 5-form flux $`N`$ by $`L^4=4\pi g_sN\alpha _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$. Due to the red-shift, the geometry near the horizon captures the low-energy limit where bulk supergravity effectively decouples from the boundary dynamics. Open-closed string duality suggests a perfect equivalence between the two descriptions should take place when

$$g_s=e^\mathrm{\Phi }=\frac{g_{_{YM}}^2}{4\pi }\vartheta _s=\chi =\frac{\theta }{2\pi }$$
(1)
and $`N`$ is identified with the number of colours. The type IIB “partition function” plays the role of a generating functional

$$Z_{IIB}[\mathrm{\Phi }[J]]=Z_{SYM}[J].$$
(2)
The boundary data $`J(x)`$ for type IIB bulk fields $`\mathrm{\Phi }_M(x,\rho )`$ are viewed as sources for gauge-invariant SYM local composite operators $`𝒪_\mathrm{\Delta }(x)`$. Since string theory on AdS spaces with RR background is still poorly understood even at the classical level, it is necessary to perform a double expansion in powers of the string coupling $`g_s`$ and inverse tension $`\alpha ^{}`$ or, equivalently, in powers of $`1/N`$ and $`1/\kappa `$, where $`\kappa =g_{YM}^2N`$ is the reduced ‘t Hooft coupling. Taking $`N`$ to infinity one is effectively neglecting string loops and restricting to the tree level (sphere) dual to the “planar series”. This is still insufficient for computational purposes. In order to suppress higher derivative corrections one has to restrict to large $`\kappa `$ i.e. to the strong coupling regime in the dual gauge theory. In principle, one can systematically take into account worldsheet corrections, string-loops and non-perturbative D-instanton corrections .

A string description of confinement has long been sought for. Just before Maldacena’s proposal, Alexander Polyakov observed that one of the drawbacks of previous attempts, i.e. the lack of zig-zag symmetry of the non-critical string, could be cured by assuming the flow to a fixed point at vanishing Liouville field $`\rho =0`$ . Maldacena’s proposal then looks like what the Doctor orders in that it puts forward the existence of a fifth coordinate $`\rho `$ (transverse to the boundary) that could be identified with the Liouville mode or, possibly equivalently, with a renormalization scale. What sounds surprising is that $`𝒩=4`$ SYM theory is not confining and has no mass-gap in the superconformal phase.

The superisometry group of $`AdS_5\times S_5`$, $`SU(2,2|4)`$, acts by superconformal transformations on the boundary CFT. Unitary irreducible representations of $`PSU(2,2|4)`$ are labelled by the quantum numbers $`\{\mathrm{\Delta },j_L,j_R;[k,l,m]\}`$. $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the scaling dimension, $`(j_L,j_R)`$ denote the $`SU(2)_L\times SU(2)_R`$ spins, and $`[k,l,m]`$ are the Dynkin labels of an irrep $`𝐫`$ of the $`SU(4)`$ R-symmetry group. The fundamental SYM fields $`\{\phi ^i,\lambda ^A,F_{\mu \nu }\}`$ describing the lowest lying open-string excitations belong to the singleton representation and live on the boundary. Gauge invariant composite operators $`𝒪_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ dual to type IIB bulk fields $`\mathrm{\Phi }_M`$ form doubleton or long multiplets. In particular, the “ultra-short” $`𝒩=4`$ supercurrent multiplet is dual to the “massless” AdS supergravity multiplet. Operators dual to higher KK excitations assemble into short multiplets with spin $`j=j_L+j_R2`$ and Dynkin labels $`k,m2`$. Their lowest components are chiral primary operators (CPO’s)

$$𝒬_{[0,\mathrm{},0]}^{i_1i_2\mathrm{}i_{\mathrm{}}}=\underset{\sigma }{}Tr[\phi ^{\sigma (i_1)}\phi ^{\sigma (i_2)}\mathrm{}\phi ^{\sigma (i_{\mathrm{}})}\mathrm{}]$$

of dimension $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\mathrm{}`$ belonging to the $`\mathrm{}`$-fold traceless symmetric product of the $`\mathrm{𝟔}`$ of $`SU(4)SO(6)`$. Other shortenings are possible for multi-trace operators. For scalar primaries, for instance, shortening occurs when $`𝐫=[k,\mathrm{},k]`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\mathrm{}+2k`$ or $`𝐫=[k+2n,\mathrm{},k]`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\mathrm{}+2k+3n`$ . The spin ranges over 6 or 7 units respectively. Operators dual to string excitations with AdS masses of order $`1/\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}`$ belong to long multiplets. Their spin ranges over 8 units and their dimension is expected to grow like $`\mathrm{\Delta }\kappa ^{1/4}`$ in the strong coupling limit. One such example is the $`𝒩=4`$ Konishi multiplet whose lowest component is the scalar $`SU(4)`$ singlet

$$𝒦_\mathrm{𝟏}=Tr(\phi ^i\phi _i)$$
(3)
with naive dimension $`\mathrm{\Delta }=2`$.

In addition to perturbative symmetries, both type IIB superstring and $`𝒩=4`$ SYM are expected to be invariant under S-duality. Charge quantization of solitonic states breaks the non-compact $`SL(2,R)`$ symmetry of “classical” type IIB supergravity to $`SL(2,Z)`$. The breaking is manifest in the D-istanton corrections to the type IIB effective action , that are dual to SYM instanton corrections . The Type IIB D3-brane soliton is self-dual, while strings, 5-branes and 7-branes form multiplets of the discrete non-compact symmetry. Similarly, stable dyonic states of $`𝒩=4`$ SYM transform into one another under $`SL(2,Z)`$. For simply laced gauge groups the theory is expected to be self-dual since the spectra of electric and magnetic charges coincide. For non-simply laced groups S-duality maps one into the other. Theories with orthogonal and symplectic groups are dual to the near horizon geometry of D3-brane configurations in the presence of unorientifold planes with quantized possibly vanishing two form background .

Finally, three $`U(1)`$’s play an interesting subtle role in the correspondence. The first, $`U(1)_Z`$, is a central extension of $`PSU(2,2|4)`$. Fundamental fields as well as their composites are neutral with respect to it so that one usually neglects it. It is conceivable that solitonic states could carry non-vanishing $`U(1)_Z`$ charge and form novel $`SU(2,2|4)`$ multiplets . The second, $`U(1)_C`$, is the abelian factor in $`U(N)`$. From the D3-brane perspective it corresponds to the center of mass degrees of freedom. Its low-energy dynamics on the boundary cannot be reproduced by the bulk supergravity action. In the supergravity limit one could simply say there is an additional singleton multiplet not captured by the correspondence if not for its contribution to “boundary anomalies” . When higher-derivative Born-Infeld corrections take over the theory is better described in terms of open strings. The third, $`U(1)_B`$, is a “bonus” symmetry of a restricted class of correlation functions and their dual amplitudes . In SYM it corresponds to a chiral rotation accompanied by a continuous electric-magnetic duality transformation. Its type IIB counterpart is the $`U(1)_B`$ anomalous chiral symmetry. When supergravity loops and higher derivative string corrections are negligible the “bonus” symmetry becomes a true symmetry. Independently of the coupling $`\kappa `$ and $`N`$, all two-point correlation functions, three-point functions with at most one insertion of unprotected operators and four-point functions of single-trace protected operators seem to respect this symmetry .

In a superconformal field theory, two-point functions of normalized primary operators $`𝒪_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ are completely specified by their dimensions

$$𝒪_\mathrm{\Delta }^{}(x)𝒪_\mathrm{\Delta }(y)=\frac{1}{(xy)^{2\mathrm{\Delta }}}$$
(4)
The first step in computing two-point functions of (scalar) gauge-invariant composite operators using the correspondence is to solve the linearized field equation

$$^2\mathrm{\Phi }_M+M^2\mathrm{\Phi }_M=0$$
(5)
with near-boundary behaviour111The other possible near-boundary behaviour $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\rho ,x)\rho ^\mathrm{\Delta }V(x)`$ corresponds to turning on a VEV $`𝒪=V`$ for the operator dual to $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$.

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_M(\rho ,x)\rho ^{4\mathrm{\Delta }}J(x)$$
(6)
as $`\rho 0`$. The solution may be expressed in terms of the bulk-to-boundary propagator

$$K_\mathrm{\Delta }(\rho ,x;x^{})=\frac{a_\mathrm{\Delta }\rho ^\mathrm{\Delta }}{(\rho ^2+(xx^{})^2)^\mathrm{\Delta }}$$
(7)
It is not at all a coincidence that $`K_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ resembles a YM instanton form factor. Plugging $`K_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ into the scalar field equation one finds the following mass-to-dimension relation

$$(ML)^2=\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{\Delta }4)$$
(8)
and its inverse

$$\mathrm{\Delta }=2\pm \sqrt{4+(ML)^2}$$
(9)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is real, as expected in a unitary theory, once the Breitenlohner Freedman bound $`(ML)^24`$ is enforced . Only the positive branch is relevant for $`𝒩=4`$ SYM. Carefully computing the quadratic on-shell type IIB action and differentiating wrt to the sources $`J`$ exactly reproduce the field theory result (4).

Three-point functions, although largely fixed by superconformal invariance, encode the dynamics of the theory since one can in principle reconstruct all correlation functions by factorization. A particularly interesting class of three-point functions are those of CPO’s

$$Q_\mathrm{}_1(x_1)Q_\mathrm{}_2(x_2)Q_\mathrm{}_3(x_3)=\frac{C(\mathrm{}_1,\mathrm{}_2,\mathrm{}_3)}{(x_{ij}^2)^{\mathrm{}_i+\mathrm{}_j\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Sigma }}}$$

where $`x_{ij}=x_ix_j`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=\mathrm{}_1+\mathrm{}_2+\mathrm{}_3`$. The trilinear couplings $`C(\mathrm{}_1,\mathrm{}_2,\mathrm{}_3)`$ can be easily computed at weak coupling for large $`N`$. In order to perform the dual AdS computation one has to go beyond the linearized approximation. Quadratic terms in the field equations, or equivalently cubic terms in the action are necessary. These are in general very complicated to extract but the computation turns out to be feasible for CPO’s. Quite remarkably, one finds the same result as in free-field theory at large $`N`$ . The exact matching suggests the validity of a non-renormalization theorem for any $`\kappa `$ and $`N`$. This has been tested at one-loop  and to two-loops . A judicious use of the “bonus” $`U(1)_B`$ symmetry  in the context of $`𝒩`$=2 harmonic superspace gives a demonstration of the non-renormalization of two- and three-point functions of CPO’s . The extremal case, $`\mathrm{}_1=\mathrm{}_2+\mathrm{}_3`$, is subtler. We will return to this issue after discussing non-perturbative effects.

Using the AdS/CFT dictionary (1), the charge-$`k`$ type IIB D-instanton action coincides with the action of a charge-$`k`$ YM instanton. This strongly indicates a correspondence between these sources of non-perturbative effects . Moreover, it is known that the $`k=1`$ $`SU(2)`$ YM instanton moduli space coincides with Euclidean $`AdS_5`$ and the same is true for a type IIB D-instanton on $`AdS_5`$. The fifth radial coordinate transverse to the boundary plays the role of the YM instanton size $`\rho `$. The correspondence can be made more quantitative by noticing that the super-instanton measure contains an overall factor $`g_{_{YM}}^8`$ that arises from the combination of bosonic and fermionic zero-mode norms and exactly matches the power expected on the basis of the AdS/CFT correspondence.

The computation of the one-instanton contribution to the SYM correlation function $`G_{16}=\mathrm{\Lambda }(x_1)\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Lambda }(x_{16})`$, where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^A=Tr(F_{\mu \nu }\sigma ^{\mu \nu }\lambda ^A)`$ is the fermionic composite operator dual to the type IIB dilatino, and its comparison with the D-instanton contribution to the dual type IIB amplitude has given the first truly dynamical test of the correspondence . Correlation functions of this kind are almost completely determined by the systematics of fermionic zero-modes in the YM instanton background. Performing (broken) superconformal transformations on the instanton field-strength

$$F_{\mu \nu }(\rho _0,x_0;x)=K_2(\rho _0,x_0;x)\sigma _{\mu \nu }$$
(10)
yields the relevant gaugino zero-modes

$$\lambda ^A=\frac{1}{2}F_{\mu \nu }\sigma ^{\mu \nu }\zeta ^A$$
(11)
where $`\zeta ^A=\eta ^A+x\sigma \overline{\xi }^A`$, with $`\eta ^A`$ and $`\overline{\xi }^A`$ constant Weyl spinors of opposite chirality. The exact matching with the corresponding type IIB amplitude is quite impressive and somewhat surprising. Indeed the SYM computation initially performed for an $`SU(2)`$ gauge group at weak coupling , i.e. in a regime which is clearly far from the large $`N`$ limit at strong coupling, has since then been extended to the $`k=1`$ instanton sector for $`SU(N)`$ and to any $`k`$ in the large $`N`$ limit . The resulting 16-point functions have the same dependence on the insertion points. In the large $`N`$ limit the overall coefficients of the dominant terms are those predicted by the analysis of type IIB D-instanton effects . For $`N2`$ all but the 16 superconformal zero-modes (11) are lifted by Yukawa interactions. Additional bosonic coordinates parameterizing $`S^5`$ appear in the large $`N`$ limit as bilinears in the lifted fermionic zero-modes.

Other correlators that are related by supersymmetry to the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{16}`$ function and can thus saturate the 16 exact zero-modes have been computed . Correlators that cannot absorb the exact zero-modes receive vanishing contributions. This is the case for two- and three-point functions of CPO’s as well as for extremal and next-to-extremal correlators to which we now turn our attention.

The correlator of CPO’s

$$G_{extr}=𝒬^{(\mathrm{})}(x)𝒬^{(\mathrm{}_1)}(x_1)\mathrm{}𝒬^{(\mathrm{}_n)}(x_n)$$
(12)
is said to be “extremal” when $`\mathrm{}=\mathrm{}_1+\mathrm{}_2+\mathrm{}+\mathrm{}_n`$. It is easy to check that (12) contains only one $`SU(4)`$ tensor structure so that computing (12) is equivalent to computing

$$Tr[(\varphi )^{\mathrm{}}(x)]Tr[(\varphi ^{})^\mathrm{}_1(x_1)]\mathrm{}Tr[(\varphi ^{})^\mathrm{}_n(x_n)]$$
(13)
where $`\varphi `$ is $`\varphi ^I=\phi ^I+i\phi ^{I+3}`$, with, say, $`I=1`$. The tree-level contribution corresponds to a diagram with $`\mathrm{}`$ lines exiting from the point $`x`$, which form $`n`$ different “rainbows” connecting $`x`$ to the points $`x_i`$, the $`i`$th rainbow containing $`\mathrm{}_i`$ lines. The result is schematically of the form

$$G(x,x_1,\mathrm{},x_n)=c(g,N)\underset{i}{}(xx_i)^{2\mathrm{}_i}.$$
(14)
The dual supergravity computation is very subtle in that the relevant AdS integrals are divergent but at the same time extremal trilinear coupling are formally vanishing . If one carefully analytically continue the computation away from extremality , one finds a non-vanishing result of the same form as at tree-level in SYM theory . One is thus lead to conjecture extremal correlators should satisfy a non-renormalization theorem of the same kind as two- and three-point functions of CPO’s. This has been tested both at one-loop and non-perturbatively .

At one loop, there are two sources of potential corrections. The first corresponds to the insertion of a vector line connecting chiral lines of the same rainbow. Its vanishing is in some sense related to the vanishing of one-loop corrections to two-point functions of CPO’s. The second corresponds to insertion of a vector line connecting chiral lines belonging to different rainbows. Its vanishing is in the same sense as above related to the vanishing of one-loop correction to three-point functions of CPO’s. The same analysis can be repeated step by step in the case of extremal correlators involving multi-trace operators in short multiplets .

As far as the instanton contributions are concerned, it is easy to check that (13) cannot absorb the relevant 16 zero-modes. The induced scalar zero-modes read

$$\phi ^i=\frac{1}{2}\tau _{AB}^i\zeta ^AF_{\mu \nu }\sigma ^{\mu \nu }\zeta ^B$$
(15)
and the 4 exact zero-modes with flavour $`I=1`$ could only be possibly absorbed at $`x`$. Since however $`\zeta (x)^4=0`$, the non perturbative corrections to (13) vanishes for any instanton number and for any gauge group in the leading semiclassical approximation.

Other correlators, involving only one $`SU(4)`$ singlet projection, enjoy similar non-renormalization properties. Two- and three-point functions of CPO’s belong to this class. The identification of $`U(1)_B`$-violating nilpotent super-invariants beginning at five points  prevents one from generically extending the same argument to higher-point functions. However the absence of the relevant nilpotent super-invariants for next-to-extremal correlators, with $`\mathrm{}=(_i\mathrm{}_i)2`$, allows one to add them to the above list . The absence of one-loop and instanton corrections in this case  can be verified along the same line as for the extremal ones . Supergravity computations confirm the weak coupling result  and suggest that near-extremal correlators, with $`\mathrm{}=(_i\mathrm{}_i)4`$, satisfy a partial non renormalization of some sort . The a priori independent contributions to a given correlation function are functionally related to one another. Functional relations of this form easily emerge in instanton computations . Some additional effort allows one to derive them in perturbation theory .

The dynamics of the theory is elegantly encoded in the four-point functions. The simplest ones have been computed both at weak coupling, up to order $`g^4`$  as well as in the semiclassical instanton approximation , and at strong coupling from the AdS perspective . At short distance they generically display logarithmic behaviours that are to be interpreted in terms of anomalous dimensions. At first sight this might seem surprising in a theory, such as $`𝒩=4`$ SYM, that is known to be finite. Indeed, operators which belong to short multiplets have protected scaling dimensions and cannot contribute to the logarithmic behaviours. Completeness of the operator product expansion (OPE) requires the inclusion of “unprotected” operators in addition to the “protected” ones. Single-trace operators in Konishi-like multiplets  contribute to the logarithms at weak coupling but are expected to decouple at strong coupling. On the contrary unprotected multi-trace operators that are holographically dual to multi-particle states appear both at weak and at strong coupling since their anomalous dimensions are at most of order $`1/N^2`$ .

To clarify the point in a simpler setting, consider the two-point function of a primary operator of scale dimension $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\mathrm{\Delta }^{^{(0)}}+\gamma `$. In perturbation theory $`\gamma =\gamma (g_{_{YM}})`$ is expected to be small and to admit an expansion in the coupling constant $`g_{_{YM}}`$. Expanding in $`\gamma `$ yields

$`𝒪_\mathrm{\Delta }^{}(x)𝒪_\mathrm{\Delta }(y)={\displaystyle \frac{a_\mathrm{\Delta }}{(xy)^{2\mathrm{\Delta }^{^{(0)}}}}}(1`$ (16)
$`\gamma \mathrm{log}[\mu ^2(xy)^2]+{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma ^2}{2}}(\mathrm{log}[\mu ^2(xy)^2])^2+\mathrm{})`$
Although the exact expression (4) given above is conformally invariant, at each order in $`\gamma `$ (or in $`g_{_{YM}}`$) ((Non-)perturbative tests of the AdS/CFT correspondence) contains logarithms that are an artifact of the pertrubative expansion.

Similar considerations apply to arbritary correlation functions. Assuming the convergence of the OPE, a four-point function of primary operators can be schematically expanded as

$`𝒬_A(x)𝒬_B(y)𝒬_C(z)𝒬_D(w)=`$ (17)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{K}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{C_{AB}{}_{}{}^{K}(xy,_y)}{(xy)^{\mathrm{\Delta }_A+\mathrm{\Delta }_B\mathrm{\Delta }_K}}}{\displaystyle \frac{C_{CD}{}_{}{}^{K}(zw,_w)}{(zw)^{\mathrm{\Delta }_C+\mathrm{\Delta }_D\mathrm{\Delta }_K}}}`$
$`𝒪_K(y)𝒪_K(w),`$
where $`K`$ runs over a (possibly infinite) complete set of primary operators. Descendants are implicitly taken into account by the presence of derivatives in the Wilson coefficients, $`C`$’s. To simplify formulae we assume that $`𝒬`$’s are protected operators, i.e. they have vanishing anomalous dimensions. In general the operators $`𝒪_K`$ may have anomalous dimensions, $`\gamma _K`$, so that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_K=\mathrm{\Delta }_K^{^{(0)}}+\gamma _K`$. Similarly $`C_{IJ}{}_{}{}^{K}=C_{IJ}^{^{(0)}}{}_{}{}^{K}+\eta _{IJ}^K`$. Indeed, although three-point functions of single-trace CPO’s are not renormalised beyond tree level , a priori nothing can be said concerning corrections to three-point functions also involving unprotected operators.

Neglecting descendants and keeping the lowest order terms in $`\gamma `$ and $`\eta `$

$`𝒬_A(x)𝒬_B(y)𝒬_C(z)𝒬_D(w)_{_{(1)}}=`$ (18)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{K}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{𝒪_K(y)𝒪_K(w)_{_{(0)}}}{(xy)^{\mathrm{\Delta }_A+\mathrm{\Delta }_B\mathrm{\Delta }_K^{^{(0)}}}(zw)^{\mathrm{\Delta }_C+\mathrm{\Delta }_D\mathrm{\Delta }_K^{^{(0)}}}}}`$
$`\times [\text{}\eta _{AB}{}_{}{}^{K}C_{CD}^{^{(0)}}{}_{}{}^{K}+C_{AB}^{^{(0)}}{}_{}{}^{K}\eta _{CD}^{}{}_{}{}^{K}+`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _K}{2}}C_{AB}^{^{(0)}}{}_{}{}^{K}C_{CD}^{^{(0)}}{}_{}{}^{K}\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{(xy)^2(zw)^2}{(yw)^4}}].`$
whence one can extract both corrections to OPE coefficients and anomalous dimensions.

For definiteness, let us consider the four-point function of the lowest CPO’s in the $`𝒩`$=4 current multiplet222AdS computations have also produced four-point functions of the scalar $`SU(4)`$ singlets in the dilaton-axion sector  that are less amenable to explicit computations at weak coupling. To the best of my knowledge the only concrete proposal at weak coupling has been made in  for the instanton contribution., defined by

$$𝒬_{\mathrm{𝟐𝟎}^{}}^{ij}=\mathrm{tr}(\phi ^i\phi ^j\frac{\delta ^{ij}}{6}\phi _k\phi ^k).$$
(19)
Due to the lack of a manifestly $`𝒩=4`$ off-shell superfield formalism, perturbative computations have to be either performed in components or in one of the two available off-shell superfield formalisms. Although the number of diagrams is typically larger in the $`𝒩=1`$ superfield approach  its simplicity makes it more accessible than the less familiar $`𝒩=2`$ harmonic superpace . It is remarkable that up to some overall normalization factors depending on the (not always standard) conventions adopted the two results are in perfect quantitative agreement with one another and in qualitative agreement with the AdS predictions at strong coupling.

Instead of computing the most general four-point function of lowest CPO’s we simply display the one-loop result for illustrative purposes. One of the six $`SU(4)`$ singlet projections reads

$`G_H(x_1,x_1,x_3,x_4)=`$ (20)
$`(\varphi ^1)^2(x_1)(\varphi _1^{})^2(x_2)(\varphi ^2)^2(x_3)(\varphi _2^{})^2(x_4)=`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{2g_{_{YM}}^2N(N^21)\pi ^2}{(2\pi )^{12}x_{12}^2x_{34}^2x_{13}^2x_{24}^2}}B(r,s),`$
where $`B(r,s)`$ is a box-type integral that can be expressed as a combination of logarithms and dilogarithms as follows

$`B(r,s)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{p}}}\{\mathrm{ln}r\mathrm{ln}s`$
$`\mathrm{ln}^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{r+s1\sqrt{p}}{2}}\right)`$
$`2\mathrm{L}\mathrm{i}_2\left({\displaystyle \frac{2}{1+rs+\sqrt{p}}}\right)`$ (21)
$`2\mathrm{L}\mathrm{i}_2\left({\displaystyle \frac{2}{1r+s+\sqrt{p}}}\right)\}`$
As indicated, $`B(r,s)`$ depends only on the two independent conformally invariant cross ratios

$$r=\frac{x_{12}^2x_{34}^2}{x_{13}^2x_{24}^2},s=\frac{x_{14}^2x_{23}^2}{x_{13}^2x_{24}^2}.$$
(22)
and

$$p=1+r^2+s^22r2s2rs.$$
(23)
Thanks to crossing symmetry, the only other a priori independent four-point function of lowest CPO’s is

$`G_V(x_1,x_1,x_3,x_4)=`$ (24)
$`(\varphi ^1)^2(x_1)(\varphi _1^{})^2(x_2)(\varphi ^1)^2(x_3)(\varphi _1^{})^2(x_4)`$
The non-perturbative contributions, computed in , are quite involved and we refrain to display them. We simply notice that the relation

$`(x_1x_3)^2(x_2x_4)^2G_H(x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4)=`$
$`(x_1x_4)^2(x_2x_3)^2G_V(x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4)`$ (25)
can be easily derived from the systematics of the fermionic zero-modes . Some additional effort allows one to derive it in perturbation theory . The AdS computation is even more involved and the final result is quite uninspiring .

In order to extract some physics one has to perform an OPE analysis. Restricting for brevity our attention to the sectors $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$, $`\mathrm{𝟐𝟎}^{}`$, $`\mathrm{𝟖𝟒}`$, and $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎𝟓}`$ the results can be summarized as follows333Recall that in addition to these irreps, $`\mathrm{𝟐𝟎}^{}\times \mathrm{𝟐𝟎}^{}`$ contains $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟓}+\mathrm{𝟏𝟕𝟓}`$ in the antisymmetric part..

In the $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎𝟓}`$ one finds only subdominant logarithms, consistently with the expected absence of any corrections to the dimension of protected single- and double-trace operators of dimension $`\mathrm{\Delta }=4`$ in the $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎𝟓}`$ .

In the $`\mathrm{𝟖𝟒}`$ channel, the dominant contribution at one and two loops is purely logarithmic and consistent with the exchange of the operator $`𝒦_{\mathrm{𝟖𝟒}}`$ in the Konishi multiplet. The absence of dominant logarithmic terms in the instanton as well as AdS results suggests confirms the absence of any corrections to the dimension and trilinear of a protected operator $`\widehat{𝒟}_{\mathrm{𝟖𝟒}}`$ of dimension 4, defined by subtracting the Konishi scalar $`𝒦_{\mathrm{𝟖𝟒}}`$ from the projection on the $`\mathrm{𝟖𝟒}`$ of the naive normal ordered product of two $`𝒬_{\mathrm{𝟐𝟎}^{}}`$ .

In the $`\mathrm{𝟐𝟎}^{}`$ sector, there is no dominant logarithm suggesting a vanishing anomalous dimension for the unprotected operator $`:𝒬_{\mathrm{𝟐𝟎}^{}}𝒬_{\mathrm{𝟐𝟎}^{}}:_{\mathrm{𝟐𝟎}^{}}`$ . This striking result seems to be a consequence of the partial non-renormalization of four-point functions of lowest CPO’s  summarized by (25) that is valid not only at each order in perturbation theory (beyond tree level!) but also non-perturbatively and at strong coupling (AdS). In order to disentangle the various scalar operators of naive dimension 4 exchanged in this channel it is necessary to compute other independent four-point functions involving the insertions of the lowest Konishi operator $`𝒦_\mathrm{𝟏}`$ .

The analysis of the singlet channel is very complicated by the presence of a large number of operators. In perturbation theory one has logarithmically-dressed double pole associated to the exchange of $`𝒦_\mathrm{𝟏}`$ with444Notice that the coupling constant $`g_{_{YM}}`$ is related to the one in  by $`2g_{_{YM}}=g`$. I thank H. Osborn for pointing out to me the discrepancy with .

$$\gamma _𝒦^{(1)}=3\frac{g_{_{YM}}^2N}{4\pi ^2}\gamma _𝒦^{(2)}=3\frac{g_{_{YM}}^4N^2}{16\pi ^2}$$
(26)
Non-perturbative and strong coupling results only show a logarithmic singularity that is associated to the exchange of some double-trace unprotected operator $`𝒪_\mathrm{𝟏}`$ with $`\gamma 1/N^2`$.

The picture that emerges is very interesting. In addition to protected single an multi-trace operators satisfying shortening conditions as well as single- and multi-trace operators in long multiplets there seems to be a new class of operators that, though not satisfying any known shortening condition, have vanishing anomalous dimensions.

Konishi-like operators decouple both from non-perturbative (instanton) correlators as well as from the strong coupling AdS results but they represent the only available window on genuine string dynamics . The OPE algebra at strong coupling requires the inclusion of multi-trace operators of three kinds. Those dual to multi-particle BPS states, those dual to non BPS-states with gravitational corrections to their binding energy and those dual to non BPS states without mass corrections. A deeper understanding of the last two classes of operators would help clarifying profound issues in the AdS/CFT correspondence such as the string exclusion principle that is expected to take over at finite $`N`$ .

More importantly, by deforming $`𝒩=4`$ SYM it is possible to flow from the superconformal point to phenomenologically more interesting gauge theories with a dynamically generated mass gap . Some insight on RG flows can be gained by means of the open-closed string duality. The running of the gauge coupling can be associated to dilaton-like tadpoles  much in the same way as chiral anomalies are associated to RR tadpoles .

It is a pleasure to thank the organizers of the D.V. Volkov Memorial Conference “Supersymmetry and Quantum Field Theory” in Kharkov, July 2000, for the kind invitation and the pleasant and stimulating atmosphere. I would also like to thank O. De Wolfe, D. Freedman, M. Green, S. Kovacs, J. F. Morales, K. Pilch, G. Rossi, K. Skenderis and Ya. Stanev for several enjoyable collaborations on the subject of this talk. This work was partly supported by the EEC contract HPRN-CT-2000-00122, a PPARC grant and the INTAS project 991590.