text:
# 𝐾-quantum nonlinear coherent states: formulation, realization and nonclassical effects

## I Introduction

The coherent state (CS) introduced in 1963  has become an useful and necessary tool to treat ideal boson fields subjected to external pumping sources. However, CS’s cannot describe nonclassical effects such as antibunching, squeezing, etc. The conventional squeezed states  has been generalized to different types of higher-order ones , still for ideal bosonic particles. Elementary excitations in matter, on the other hand, are quasi-particles often obeying neither Bose-Einstein nor Fermi-Dirac statistics. Recently, the notion of nonlinear coherent state (NCS) has emerged to adequately deal with such quasi-particles with commutation relations deformed from the usual boson/fermion ones. $`q`$-deformed oscillators  were found as a particular case of the general $`f`$-oscillators  which possess in themselves a kinematic nonlinearity causing orbit-dependent oscillation frequencies. The NCS  is defined as the right-hand eigenstate $`|\xi ;f`$ of the nonboson operator $`A=af(\widehat{n}),`$

$$A|\xi ;f=\xi |\xi ;f,$$
(1)
with $`\widehat{n}=a^+a,`$ $`a`$ the bosonic annihilation operator, $`\xi `$ a complex eigenvalue and $`f`$ an arbitrary nonlinear operator-valued function of $`\widehat{n}.`$ An island where NCS’s find their life is single trapped ions driven by lasers .

In this paper we introduce the $`K`$-quantum nonlinear coherent state ($`K`$NCS) which reduces to the usual NCS defined by Eq. (1) when $`K=1.`$ In Section II the formulation is given for the $`K`$NCS together with their mathematical properties. Section III is devoted to a physical scheme of generation of $`K`$NCS’s. Their nonclassical properties are studied in detail in Section IV. Conclusion is the final section.

## II $`K`$-quantum nonlinear coherent states

The $`K`$NCS is a generalization of the NCS to the $`K`$ right-hand eigenstates $`|\xi ;Kj,f`$ of the non-Hermitian operator $`a^Kf(\widehat{n})`$ as

$$a^Kf(\widehat{n})|\xi ;Kj,f=\xi |\xi ;Kj,f$$
(2)
where $`K=1,2,\mathrm{}`$ and $`j=0,1,\mathrm{},K1.`$ Spanned in the Fock basis $`|n,`$

$$|\xi ;Kj,f=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}c_n|n,$$
(3)
the expansion coefficients satisfy the recurrence equation

$$c_{m+K}=\frac{\xi \sqrt{m!}}{\sqrt{(m+K)!}f(m+K)}c_m.$$
(4)
Equation (4) determines all the $`c`$’s if $`c_j`$ with $`j=0,1,\mathrm{},K1`$ are known,

$$c_{nK+j}=\frac{\xi ^nc_j}{\sqrt{(nK+j)!}f(nK+j)(!)^K},$$
(5)
where

$$f(l)(!)^K\{\begin{array}{c}f(l)f(lK)f(l2K)\mathrm{}f(m)\text{ if }lK\hfill \\ 1\text{ if }0lK1\hfill \end{array}.$$
(6)
Of course, $`0mK1,`$ in Eq. (6). The $`c_j`$ in Eq. (5) are themselves determined by the normalization condition $`\xi ;Kj,f|\xi ;Kj,f=1`$ which yields

$`c_j`$ $``$ $`c_{Kj}c_{Kj}(|\xi |^2)`$ (7)
$`=`$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \underset{m=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{|\xi |^{2m}}{(mK+j)!|f(mK+j)(!)^K|^2}}\right]^{1/2}.`$ (8)
In principle, the $`c_{Kj}`$ is uncertain up to a phase factor. In Eq. (8) we have chosen the phase such that the usual CS results in the limit $`f1`$ and $`K=1.`$ The explicit form of the $`K`$NCS is then

$$|\xi ;Kj,f=c_{Kj}\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{\xi ^n}{\sqrt{(nK+j)!}f(nK+j)(!)^K}|nK+j.$$
(9)
Unlike the usual CS whose eigenvalues spread the whole complex plane, those of the $`K`$NCS are bounded in each particular case. This limitation is felt from Eq. (9) that requires $`c_{Kj}`$ not be zeros. Yet, the $`c_{Kj}`$ given by Eq. (8) would vanish if the sum over $`m`$ diverges. The constraint for the existence of $`K`$NCS’s, i.e. for $`c_{Kj}`$ not to be zeros, is thus imposed simultaneously on $`\xi ,`$ $`f`$ and $`K`$ so that

$$\underset{m\mathrm{}}{lim}\{|\xi |^{2m}[(mK+j)!|f(mK+j)(!)^K|^2]^1\}=0.$$
(10)
The importance of this constraint will be seen in the next section when the specific nonlinear function $`f`$ is addressed.

For a given $`K`$ the eigenvalue $`\xi `$ is $`K`$-degenerate. The $`K`$ corresponding eigenfunctions $`|\xi ;Kj,f`$ with $`j=0,1,\mathrm{},K1`$ are orthogonal to each other,

$$\xi ;Kj,f|\xi ;Kj^{},f=\delta _{jj^{}},$$
(11)
as easily verified from the expansion (9). However, with distinct eigenvalues $`\xi `$ and $`\xi ^{}\xi ,`$

$$\xi ;Kj,f|\xi ^{};Kj,f=\frac{c_{Kj}(|\xi ^{}|^2)c_{Kj}(|\xi |^2)}{c_{Kj}^2((\xi ^{})^{}\xi )}0.$$
(12)
Because of the non-orthogonality (12), the $`K`$NCS’s constitute an overcomplete set with the following resolution of unity

$$\frac{d^2\xi }{\pi }\underset{j=0}{\overset{K1}{}}|\xi ;Kj,f\xi ;Kj,f|=1.$$
(13)
This section is ended by an interesting observation that any state $`|\xi ;Kj,f`$ can be decomposed into a linear superposition of $`K`$ states $`|\xi _j^{};10,f.`$ Namely,

$$|\xi ;Kj,f=\underset{j^{}=0}{\overset{K1}{}}\zeta _{jj^{}}|\xi _j^{};10,f,$$
(14)
with

$$\xi _j^{}=\xi ^{1/K}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{2\pi ij^{}}{K}\right)$$
(15)
and

$$\zeta _{jj^{}}=\frac{\xi ^{j/K}}{K}\frac{c_{Kj}(|\xi |^2)}{c_{10}(|\xi |^{2/K})}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{2\pi ijj^{}}{K}\right).$$
(16)
The verification is straightforward by substituting Eqs. (9), (15) and (16) into the r.h.s. of Eq. (14) with subsequent use of the identities

$$\underset{q=0}{\overset{P1}{}}\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{2\pi i}{P}(ll^{})q\right]=P\delta _{ll^{}}$$
(17)
and

$$\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}b_n|n\underset{q=0}{\overset{P1}{}}\underset{m=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}b_{mP+q}|mP+q$$
(18)
for arbitrary coefficients $`b_n`$ and integer $`P.`$

## III Physical realization

Motivated by the physical scheme proposed in  we consider a single two-level ion trapped by a harmonic potential $`V=kx^2/2`$ with $`k`$ the trapping force and $`x`$ the ion’s center-of-mass position. In the quantized regime the ion vibrates around $`x=0`$ with frequency $`\nu =\sqrt{k/M},`$ $`M`$ the ion mass. As a whole, the ion Hamiltonian is ($`\mathrm{}=c=1`$ throughout)

$$H_0=\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _3+\nu a^+a$$
(19)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the energy gap between the two electronic levels of the ion, $`a`$ is the bosonic annihilation operator of a quantum of the quantized vibration of the ion and, $`\sigma _3`$ together with $`\sigma _\pm `$ are the pseudospin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ operators satisfying the commutation relations

$$[\sigma _3,\sigma _\pm ]=\pm \sigma _\pm ,\text{ }[\sigma _+,\sigma _{}]=2\sigma _3.$$
(20)
By controlling the trapping potential the vibration frequency $`\nu `$ can be made large enough for the sidebands due to the ion quantized motion to be well-resolved. Next, the trapped ion is manipulated by laser beams which couple the ion’s electronic to its vibrational degrees of freedom via the light-matter interaction Hamiltonian

$$H_{int}=\underset{l=1}{\overset{L}{}}\mathrm{\Omega }_l\mathrm{exp}\left(\omega _lt+\phi _l\right)g_l(\widehat{x})\sigma _{}+\text{ h.c.}$$
(21)
In Eq. (21) $`L`$ is the number of driving lasers, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_l`$ the pure electronic transition Rabi frequencies, $`\omega _l`$ ($`\phi _l`$) the laser frequencies (phases) and $`g_l(\widehat{x})`$ the laser spatial profile acting on the ion through its position operator

$$\widehat{x}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2M\nu }}\left(a^++a\right).$$
(22)
For traveling waves

$$g_l(\widehat{x})=\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{2\pi i\widehat{x}}{\lambda _l}\right)=\mathrm{exp}\left[i\eta \left(a^++a\right)\right]$$
(23)
with $`\lambda _l`$ the laser wavelengths and $`\eta \eta _l=2\pi /(\lambda _l\sqrt{2M\nu }),`$ the Lamb-Dicke parameter. In the resolved sideband limit the lasers can be tuned so as

$$\omega _l=\mathrm{\Delta }+n_l\nu $$
(24)
where $`n_l=1,2,\mathrm{}`$ ($`n_l=1,2,\mathrm{}`$) imply blue (red) detuning while resonant tuning corresponds to $`n_l=0.`$ In the interaction representation associated with $`_0=H_0`$ the laser-driven trapped ion is described by the total Hamiltonian

$$=_0+_{int}$$
(25)
with

$$_{int}=\mathrm{exp}\left(iH_0t\right)H_{int}\mathrm{exp}(iH_0t).$$
(26)
Putting Eqs. (19) and (21) into the r.h.s. of Eq. (26) with use of the Baker-Hausdorff identity and the relations (20) yields

$$_{int}=F\sigma _{}+\sigma _+F^+$$
(27)
with $`F`$ given by

$`F`$ $``$ $`F(\eta ,\widehat{n},a^+,a)=`$ (30)
$`\mathrm{exp}({\displaystyle \frac{\eta ^2}{2}}){\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{L}{}}}\{(i\eta )^{|n_l|}\mathrm{\Omega }_l\text{ }\left(a^+\right)^{(|n_l|n_l)/2}`$
$`\left[{\displaystyle \underset{m=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(\eta ^2)^m\widehat{n}!}{(m+|n_l|)!m!(\widehat{n}m)!}}\right]a^{(|n_l|+n_l)/2}\}.`$
In deriving Eq. (30) terms oscillating with frequencies $`m\nu `$ ($`m0`$) were omitted since those average to zero in the resolved sideband limit we are interested in.

The system state $`\mathrm{\Psi }(t)`$ evolves in time following the equation

$$i\frac{d\mathrm{\Psi }}{dt}=_{int}\mathrm{\Psi }.$$
(31)
We look for long-term nontrivial steady states $`\mathrm{\Psi }_S`$ in which the internal and external degrees of freedom of the ion become decoupled, i.e.

$$_{int}\mathrm{\Psi }_S=0.$$
(32)
Such nontrivial solutions would be either $`||\xi `$ or $`||\xi `$ where $`|`$ ($`|`$) is the electronic excited (ground) state and $`|\xi `$ describes the vibrational state. The state $`||\xi `$ is unstable due to spontaneous emission which was not treated explicitly here. The remaining “dark”state $`||\xi `$ is stable with $`|\xi `$ satisfying the condition

$$F^+|\xi =0.$$
(33)
Similar “dark” states have been obtained as an ansatz of master equations with spontaneous emission included . From Eqs. (31) and (33) it follows that the nontrivial state $`|\xi `$ exists iff there are at least two driving lasers. For generality, let there be $`P`$ ($`Q`$) red-detuned (blue-detuned) laser beams and a single resonant one. Then, the coefficients of the expansion of $`|\xi `$ in the Fock space,

$$|\xi =\underset{l=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}C_l|l,$$
(34)
are recurrent as

$`{\displaystyle \underset{p=1}{\overset{P}{}}}\left(i\eta \right)^{|n_p|}\mathrm{\Omega }_p\text{e}^{i\phi _p}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{l!}{(l+|n_p|)!}}}L_l^{|n_p|}(\eta ^2)C_{l+|n_p|}`$

$`+{\displaystyle \underset{q=1}{\overset{Q}{}}}\theta \left(ln_q\right)\left(i\eta \right)^{n_q}\mathrm{\Omega }_q\text{e}^{i\phi _q}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{(ln_q)!}{l!}}}L_{ln_q}^{n_q}(\eta ^2)C_{ln_q}`$

$$+\mathrm{\Omega }_0\text{e}^{i\phi _0}L_l^0(\eta ^2)C_l=0$$
(35)
where $`\theta \left(x\right)`$ is the step function and $`L_n^m(x)`$ the $`n`$-th generalized Laguerre polynomial in $`x`$ for parameter $`m`$.

For the purpose of generating the $`K`$NCS defined in the preceding section we restrict to $`P=1,`$ $`n_{p=1}=K`$ and $`Q=0`$ and get from Eq. (35)

$$C_{l+K}=\frac{\text{e}^{i\phi }\mathrm{\Omega }_0\sqrt{(l+K)!}L_l^0(\eta ^2)}{(i\eta )^K\mathrm{\Omega }_1\sqrt{l!}L_l^K(\eta ^2)}C_l$$
(36)
with $`\phi =\phi _1\phi _0.`$ Comparing Eqs. (36) and (4) indicates that $`|\xi `$ obeying Eq. (33) is a $`K`$NCS with the physical controllable eigenvalue

$$\xi =\frac{\text{e}^{i\phi }\mathrm{\Omega }_0}{(i\eta )^K\mathrm{\Omega }_1}$$
(37)
and the specific, also controllable, nonlinear function

$$f\left(\widehat{n}+K\right)=\frac{\widehat{n}!L_{\widehat{n}}^K(\eta ^2)}{\left(\widehat{n}+K\right)!L_{\widehat{n}}^0(\eta ^2)}.$$
(38)
In the next section the number distribution, squeezing and antibunching of the $`K`$NCS with the specific $`\xi `$ and $`f`$ given above will be studied in detail. To that aim let us define the function

$$g_{Kj}(n,l)=\frac{\xi ^{n+l/K}}{\sqrt{(nK+j+l)!}\text{ }f(nK+j+l)(!)^K}$$
(39)
in terms of which

$$|\xi ;Kj,f=\frac{_{n=0}^{\mathrm{}}g_{Kj}(n,0)|nK+j}{\sqrt{_{m=0}^{\mathrm{}}\left|g_{Kj}(m,0)\right|^2}}.$$
(40)
It is worth to emphasize that the $`K`$NCS does not exist for arbitrary control parameters $`\eta `$ and $`\xi .`$ For a fixed trapping potential characterized by $`\eta `$ the amplitudes (phases are not sensitive in this scheme with $`Q=0`$ and $`P=1`$) of the driving fields must be chosen such that the constraint (10) is met, i.e. $`lim_n\mathrm{}|g_{Kj}(n,0)|^2=0.`$ Figure 1, log($`|g_{Kj}(n,0)|^2`$) versus $`n,`$ shows opposite limiting behaviors for the same value of $`\eta `$ but different $`|\xi |.`$ In general, there is a critical $`|\xi _c|`$ above which the $`K`$NCS vanishes. This critical $`|\xi _c|`$ depends strongly on both $`\eta `$ and $`K`$ but not on $`j.`$ Phase diagrams for the existence domain of the $`K`$NCS are drawn in Fig. 2 in the ($`\eta `$,$`|\xi |`$)-plane for $`K=1,2`$ and $`3.`$ These diagrams guide the appropriate experimental choice of the control parameters to observe the $`K`$NCS with a concrete $`K.`$

## IV Nonclassical effects

### A Multi-peaked number distribution

The probability of finding $`n`$ quanta in the $`K`$NCS, i.e. its number distribution, is given by

$$P_{Kj}(n)=\frac{I(\frac{nj}{K})}{_{m=0}^{\mathrm{}}\left|g_{Kj}(m,0)\right|^2}\left|g_{Kj}(\frac{nj}{K},0)\right|^2$$
(41)
where $`I(x)`$ equals $`x`$ if $`x`$ is a non-negative integer and zero otherwise. The tortuous shape in Fig. 1 gives rise to a multi-peaked structure of $`P_{Kj}(n)`$ as depicted in Fig. 3 in the case $`K=1,`$ $`j=0.`$ The multi-peaked distribution is very peculiar compared to the Poisson’s in the usual CS. However, multiple peaking disappears in the Lamb-Dicke limit $`\eta 1`$ in which $`\left|g_{Kj}(n,0)\right|`$ varies monotonically (not tortuously) for increasing $`n`$ having only one peak at some value $`n>0`$ and then decreasing quickly. The developing from single- to multi-peaked structure as $`\eta `$ increases can be called self-splitting  which would bring about abundant nonclassical phenomena including quantum interferences if the peaks are located nearby and comparable in heights. As for higher orders $`K,`$ unexpectedly, the self-splitting tends to be less pronounced as seen from Fig. 4. Besides getting less tortuous, the more important fact is that the curve decreases much faster for higher $`K.`$ Hence, for $`K>1`$ the $`\eta `$-governed self-splitting is negligible physically. Instead, for $`K>1,`$ another kind of splitting, the $`K`$-governed one, appears independent of the Lamb-Dicke parameter. This is dictated by the presence of $`I(\frac{nj}{K})`$ in Eq. (41). Namely, for $`K>1`$ the number distribution “oscillates” with “period” $`K`$ and its “phase” is $`j`$-dependent. The $`P_{30},`$ $`P_{31}`$ and $`P_{32}`$ plotted in Fig. 5 illustrate that, in the state $`|\xi ;30,f`$ ($`|\xi ;31,f;`$ $`|\xi ;32,f`$), finite is only the probability of finding $`3,6,9,\mathrm{}`$ ($`4,7,10,\mathrm{}`$; $`5,8,11,\mathrm{}`$) quanta. Generally speaking, only a number of quanta equal to a multiple $`K`$ plus $`j`$ ($`j=0,`$ $`1,\mathrm{},`$ $`K1`$) can be found in the state $`|\xi ;Kj,f.`$ Given $`K`$ each $`j`$-state occupies its own subspace and all the different $`j`$-states fill the entire Fock space. Therefore, the notion “number-parity” might be introduced. A state is said to have a number-parity $`Kj`$ if it contains only $`nK+j`$ ($`n=0,`$ $`1,`$ $`2,\mathrm{}`$) quanta. For $`K=2`$ the parity gets its intuitive meaning: the state $`|\xi ;20,f`$ ($`|\xi ;21,f`$) contains only even (odd) numbers of quanta and it can be referred to as even (odd) NCS . This evenness (oddness) is also clear from the view point of the decomposition (14) according to which

$$|\xi ;20,f=\zeta _{00}|\xi _0;10,f+\zeta _{01}|\xi _1;10,f,$$
(42)
$$|\xi ;21,f=\zeta _{10}|\xi _0;10,f+\zeta _{11}|\xi _1;10,f.$$
(43)
By virtue of Eqs. (15) and (16), $`\xi _0=\xi _1`$ and $`\zeta _{00}=\zeta _{01}=\zeta _{10}=\zeta _{11}.`$ These mean that the combination in Eq. (42) is symmetric leading to evenness, while that in Eq. (43) is anti-symmetric leading to oddness.

Because the $`_{int}`$ determined in Eqs. (27) and (30) for $`P=1,`$ $`n_{p=1}=K,`$ $`Q=0`$ creates/annihilates $`K`$ quanta at a time the number-parity is conserved. If initially the vibration quanta are in a Fock state $`|m`$ then the steady state $`\mathrm{\Psi }_S`$ will have number-parity $`Kj`$ with $`j`$ the remainder of $`m`$ divided by $`K.`$ By sideband cooling modern techniques the fundamental limit has been reached in which the ion vibrational motion can be kept to zero-point energy 98% (92%) of the time in 1D (3D) . If such a ground state is further manipulated by lasers as proposed above, then the state $`|\xi ;K0,f`$ will be realized. If, the initial quanta are prepared in a CS $`|\alpha `$ then the eventual state will be a mixed state with weighted $`j`$-components

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_S=\mathrm{\Psi }_K^{mix}=\underset{j=0}{\overset{K1}{}}\beta _{Kj}|\xi ;Kj,f.$$
(44)
Assuming the weights $`\beta _{Kj}`$ be as in the CS,

$$\beta _{Kj}=\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{|\alpha |^2}{2}\right)\sqrt{\underset{m=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{|\alpha |^{2(mK+j)}}{(mK+j)!}},$$
(45)
the number distribution $`P_K^{mix}`$ of the mixed state $`\mathrm{\Psi }_K^{mix}`$ will differ noticeably under two situations: $`|\alpha |<K`$ and $`|\alpha |K.`$ For $`|\alpha |<K`$ the $`\beta _{Kj}`$ are scattered whereas for $`|\alpha |K`$ they get equal, $`\beta _{Kj}=1/\sqrt{K},`$ for all $`j`$ reducing $`P_K^{mix}`$ simply to

$$P_K^{mix}(n)=\frac{1}{K}\left(\underset{j=0}{\overset{K1}{}}\sqrt{P_{Kj}(n)}\right)^2$$
(46)
with $`P_{Kj}(n)`$ given in Eq. (41), independent of $`\alpha .`$ Figure 6 addresses the above-said issue for $`K=6`$ and several values of $`|\alpha |.`$ The $`P_K^{mix}(n)`$ spans the whole Fock space with different $`\alpha `$-dependent profiles. This is of course subject to experimental checking to which extent the assumption (45) is valid.

### B Squeezing and antibunching

In the small $`\eta `$ limit the $`K=1`$ NCS exhibits a single-peaked number distribution that may be super- or sub-poissonian. So happens as well for the envelope of the $`K>1`$ NCS distribution. Sub-poisson distribution featuring antibunching occurs whenever the Mandel parameter,

$$M=\frac{\widehat{n}^2}{\widehat{n}}\widehat{n},$$
(47)
is less than $`1`$. We shall also examine amplitude-quadrature squeezing of the ion center-of-mass position operator (in units of $`(2M\nu )^{1/2}`$, for convenience) $`\overline{x}=a^++a`$ by calculating its variance $`\left(\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{x}\right)^2=1+2S`$ with $`S`$ given by

$$S=\widehat{n}+\mathrm{}a^22\mathrm{}^2a.$$
(48)
The $`K`$NCS gets squeezed in $`\overline{x}`$ if $`0.5S<0.`$ In terms of the functions $`g_{Kj}(m,l)`$ defined in Eq. (39)

$$a^l_{Kj}=\frac{_{m=0}^{\mathrm{}}\left[\sqrt{\frac{(mK+j+l)!}{(mK+j)!}}g_{Kj}^{}(m,0)g_{Kj}(m,l)\right]}{_{m=0}^{\mathrm{}}\left|g_{Kj}(m,0)\right|^2},$$
(49)
$$\widehat{n}^l_{Kj}=\frac{_{m=0}^{\mathrm{}}\left[\left(mK+j\right)^l\left|g_{Kj}(m,0)\right|^2\right]}{_{m=0}^{\mathrm{}}\left|g_{Kj}(m,0)\right|^2}.$$
(50)
The analytic expressions of $`M`$ and $`S`$ are readily obtained using Eqs. (49) and (50) in (47) and (48). For $`K=1`$ it is found that $`S>0,`$ i.e. no squeezing, but $`M`$ decreases from $`1`$ for increasing $`|\xi |`$ (see Fig. 7), i.e. antibunching. Such effects are opposed to the usual CS for which $`S=0`$ and $`M=1`$ for all $`|\xi |.`$ As was well-known, for $`f1`$ the state $`|\xi ;20,1`$ possesses squeezing but no antibunching whereas the state $`|\xi ;21,1`$ does the inverse: antibunching but no squeezing. The $`K`$NCS with the specific nonlinear function $`f`$ given by Eq. (38) causes curious changes. The state $`|\xi ;20,f`$ is squeezed in a rather narrow range of small values of $`|\xi |`$ (see Fig. 8a) and turns from super- to sub-poisson’s as $`|\xi |`$ increases (see Fig. 8b). As for the state $`|\xi ;21,f`$ it remains unsqueezed but antibunched for all $`|\xi |`$ as were no affect of $`f.`$ For $`K=3`$, the state $`|\xi ;30,f`$ behaves qualitatively like the state $`|\xi ;20,f`$ does. The state $`|\xi ;31,f`$ is non-squeezed but, most curiously, its number distribution crosses $`1`$ twice (see Fig. 9). At small values of $`|\xi |`$, the Mandel parameter $`M_{31}`$ is less than $`1.`$ It crosses $`1`$ becoming super-poissonian but, after reaching a maximum, drops back below $`1`$ and remains there being sub-poissonian in the whole high-value side of $`|\xi |.`$ Finally, no squeezing and permanent antibunching are found in the state $`|\xi ;32,f.`$

## V Conclusion

We have introduced the $`K`$-quantum nonlinear coherent state. For a given $`K`$ there are $`K`$ mutually orthogonal substates belonging to the same eigenvalue. Each of such substates can be decomposed into a linear combination of $`K`$ usual nonlinear coherent states with correlated eigenvalues and weights determined respectively by Eqs. (15) and (16). States with the same $`K`$ and $`j`$ but belonging to two different eigenvalues $`\xi `$ and $`\xi ^{}\xi `$ are however non-orthogonal to each other and, the states with a fixed $`K`$ and all possible $`\xi `$ and $`j`$ are overcomplete. A harmonically trapped two-level ion driven properly by two laser beams, one in resonance with the ion’s electronic transition and the other detuned to the $`K^{th}`$ lower sideband, is shown to realize the $`K`$-quantum nonlinear coherent state in the steady regime for suitably chosen control parameters. These states show up two kinds of multiple self-peaking in their number distribution. One kind is associated with large values of the Lamb-Dicke parameter $`\eta `$ but is not pronounced for $`K>1.`$ The other kind originates from $`K>1`$ independent of $`\eta `$ and is manifested in the number distribution that fills the Fock space “periodically” with “period” $`K,`$ forming a multi-peaked structure. Squeezing and antibunching have been investigated in detail revealing curious features corresponding to the specific nonlinear function $`f(\widehat{n})`$ which is here well-determined in the context of a trapped ion driven by lasers with the certain setup. Another setup of driving lasers, say, with $`P=0`$ and $`Q=1`$, or whatever else, would lead to another class of states.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This work was supported by the National Center for Theoretical Sciences, Physics Division, Hsinchu, Taiwan, R.O.C.

FIGURE CAPTIONS

log($`|g_{Kj}(n,0)|^2`$) as a function of $`n`$ for $`K=1,`$ $`j=0,`$ $`\eta =0.5`$ while a) $`|\xi |=1.2,`$ a converging case, and b) $`|\xi |=3.2,`$ a diverging case.

Phase diagrams in the ($`\eta `$,$`|\xi |`$)-plane for various $`K`$ whose values are indicated near the curve. The curves, themselves, are the $`|\xi _c|`$ as a function of $`\eta .`$ The corresponding $`K`$NCS exists (does not exist) below (above) the curve.

Number distributions for the states $`|\xi ;10,f`$ with $`\eta =0.5`$ while a) $`|\xi |=1.5`$ and b) $`|\xi |=1.8,`$ featuring two-peaked structures.

log($`|g_{K0}(n,0)/\xi ^n|`$) versus $`n`$ for $`\eta =0.5`$ and different orders $`K`$ indicated near the curve. The curve gets less tortuous and drops much faster for a higher $`K.`$

Number distributions $`P_{Kj}`$ versus $`n`$ for $`\eta =0.05,`$ $`|\xi |=100,`$ $`K=3`$ while a) $`j=0`$, b) $`j=1`$ and c) $`j=2,`$ featuring multi-peaked structures.

Number distributions of the mixed state resulting from an initial coherent state $`|\alpha `$ for $`K=6,`$ $`\eta =0.05,`$ $`|\xi |=100`$ and different values of $`|\alpha |`$ as indicated. The curve with $`|\alpha |=6`$ remains unchanged for $`|\alpha |>6.`$

Mandel parameter against $`|\xi |`$ for $`K=1,`$ $`j=0`$ and $`\eta =0.05`$ showing antibunching as opposed to the case with $`f1.`$ Antibunching occurs as well for higher values of $`\eta .`$

a) Squeezing to non-squeezing and b) super- to sub-poisson’s transition as $`|\xi |`$ increases for the state $`|\xi ;20,f`$ with $`\eta =0.05`$ (similarly for higher $`\eta `$).

Mandel parameter as a function of $`|\xi |`$ for $`K=3,`$ $`j=1`$ and $`\eta =0.05`$ (similarly for higher $`\eta `$): the transition from sub-poisson’s to super-poisson’s and back to sub-poisson’s in the course of increasing $`|\xi |.`$


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

In recent years, significant progress has been made towards obtaining holographic renormalization group (RG) flows from deformations of AdS space, thereby generalizing the AdS/CFT correspondence to non-conformal field theories. This line of investigation began with the work of  and . Subsequently, different approaches have been pursued in order to obtain the crucial first-order differential equations from the supergravity equations of motion, in particular using supersymmetry  or the Hamilton-Jacobi equation . These approaches show in particular that holographic RG flows are gradient flows governed by a superpotential. Moreover, a C theorem valid in arbitrary even dimensions has been derived for deformed AdS spaces . The crucial positivity condition arises from the weak energy condition or equivalently from the Raychaudhuri equation within supergravity.

Within the AdS/CFT correspondence and its generalizations to non-conformal field theories, the supergravity fields are sources for composite operators in the dual field theory. This applies in particular to the supergravity scalars, which are sources for composite scalar operators. From the quantum field theory perspective, we may view these operators as insertions whose couplings are given by the corresponding sources originating from supergravity. Therefore the AdS/CFT correspondence and its generalizations naturally lead us to quantum field theories with space-time dependent couplings. This implies that also the holographic renormalization group is local. For instance the Callan-Symanzik equation derived in  is of the local form

$$\left(2g^{\mu \nu }(x)\frac{\delta }{\delta g^{\mu \nu }(x)}\beta ^i(x)\frac{\delta }{\delta \varphi ^i(x)}\right)e^{(SS_0)}$$

$$=(\mathrm{local}\mathrm{anomalies}\mathrm{involving}\mathrm{the}\mathrm{curvature}\mathrm{and}_\mu \varphi ^i),$$
(1.1)
with $`g^{\mu \nu }(x)`$ the metric on a $`d`$-dimensional hypersurface at $`r=r_0`$. The $`\beta `$ functions in (1.1) are given by derivatives of a superpotential with respect to the couplings. In a given regularization scheme, the anomalies on the r.h.s. arise from divergent local counterterms $`S_0`$ necessary to regulate the supergravity action $`S`$. Note that the l.h.s. of (1.1) is local - as opposed to global - since it involves functional derivatives. Of course the l.h.s. is also non-local in the sense that it contains operator insertions, and further functional derivatives of the l.h.s. will give rise to a Callan-Symanzik equation for correlation functions. The divergent counterterms $`S_0`$ and the anomaly on the r.h.s. however are local also in the sense that further functional derivatives give rise to terms involving delta functions.

The aim of this paper is to give a precise field-theoretical interpretation for this local holographic flow equation. This local equation expresses how Weyl symmetry is broken in the dual field theory, as opposed to the usual ‘global’ Callan-Symanzik equation which expresses how scale invariance is broken in a quantized field theory. Within standard quantum field theory, a local RG equation for general quantum field theories expressing how Weyl symmetry is broken has already been discussed comprehensively by Osborn in . There, the space-time dependence of the couplings was used essentially as a trick for obtaining a precise definition for insertions of finite composite operators as functional derivatives of the generating functional with respect to the couplings. Furthermore the space-time dependent couplings allow for the study of Weyl symmetry consistency conditions for the local anomalies present in the local RG equation. These have been used in  to give an alternative derivation of the Zamolodchikov C theorem in two dimensions, using the positivity of the Zamolodchikov metric, which is defined in terms of the two-point functions of $`d=2`$-dimensional operators, to give the essential positivity of the flow of the C function. Moreover in , the implications of the Weyl consistency conditions were also considered in four dimensions and used to relate the RG flow of a conjectured C function to a quadratic form. However in four dimensions it has so far not been possible to show that this quadratic form is positive definite.

The essential ingredient for the field-theoretical interpretation of the holographic RG is to note that the equation (1.1) is precisely of the form of the field-theoretical RG discussed in . This identification between the holographic and the field-theoretical local RG equation is confirmed by calculations of the anomalies on the r.h.s. of (1.1) for specific cases within the holographic RG approach . These results may all be expanded in the basis given for these local anomalies within field theory in .

The identification of the holographic RG with the field theoretical local RG expressing how Weyl symmetry is broken allows us to derive a number of new results for the holographic RG. In particular it gives a field-theoretical interpretation in both two and four dimensions to the holographic C theorem proved in . The holographic C function is given by

$$C=\frac{c_0}{|𝒲(\mathrm{\Phi })|^{d1}}$$
(1.2)
with $`𝒲(\mathrm{\Phi })`$ the superpotential generating the flow. $`c_0`$ is a constant chosen such that at the fixed points, $`C`$ coincides with the coefficient of the Euler anomaly. The dimension of the bulk space is $`d+1`$. The flow of $`C`$ is positive due to the weak energy condition. Furthermore it was shown in  that the flow of $`C`$ may also be written in the form

$$\mu \frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}\mu }C=\frac{2}{3}CL_{ij}\beta ^i\beta ^j0,$$
(1.3)
where $`L_{ij}`$ is the metric on the space of supergravity scalars. The result (1.3) is scheme dependent, and the scheme in which it holds was named ‘holographic’ scheme in .

Our main result is to show - at least for a particular class of flows - that (1.3) coincides with the relation

$$\mu \frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}\mu }\stackrel{~}{a}=\beta ^i_i\stackrel{~}{a}=\chi _{ij}\beta ^i\beta ^j,\stackrel{~}{a}a+\beta ^iw_i,$$
(1.4)
derived within field theory in  using the Weyl consistency condition. Here $`a`$ is the coefficient of the Euler anomaly contributing to the r.h.s. of (1.1), and $`\chi _{ij}`$, $`w_i`$ are the coefficients of anomaly contributions involving derivatives of the couplings. Using the results of , we study in detail the scheme dependence of $`a`$, $`\chi `$, $`w`$ originating from the possibility of adding finite local counterterms to $`S_0`$ in (1.1). In two dimensions, the results of  allow to relate (1.3) to the field-theoretical C theorem which relies on the Zamolodchikov metric, but for $`d=4`$, (1.3) remains a scheme-dependent result from the quantum field-theoretical perspective.

We calculate $`a`$, $`\chi `$, $`w`$ explicitly for holographic theories within a minimal subtraction scheme. The essential ingredient for this calculation is that (1.1) imposes finiteness condition on the Weyl variation of the divergent local counterterms $`S_0`$ since the anomalies on the r.h.s. must be finite. We solve these finiteness conditions order by order in a strong-coupling perturbative expansion, in which each order is characterized by the number of derivatives of the superpotential with respect to the supergravity scalars. Since we use a cut-off $`\epsilon `$ in the radial direction as regulator, this procedure corresponds to an extension of the anomaly calculation method of  to scalars with unprotected dimension. We show that the higher order corrections to $`a`$, $`\chi `$, $`w`$ cancel. Since our calculation of $`a`$, $`\chi `$, $`w`$ is in agreement with (1.3), we conclude that the ‘holographic’ scheme corresponds in fact to minimal subtraction.

Since the holographic RG characterizes the Weyl transformation properties of holographic theories, we suggest that it may be possible to give an alternative derivation of the holographic RG by considering a bulk diffeomorphism which reduces to a Weyl transformation on the boundary. This will correspond to generalizing the so-called PBH transformation , a bulk diffeomorphism with this property which has been applied to holographic theories in , to deformed AdS spaces. As a starting point for this program we generalize the PBH transformation to scalars in the conformal case. When conformal symmetry is broken, the scalars are expected to acquire an anomalous Weyl weight related to their $`\beta `$ function.

Moreover we point out that for a complete field-theoretical understanding of the holographic RG, it will be necessary to show that there is agreement between the RG equation and the renormalization procedure for correlation functions, as there is in standard quantum field theory. In this context we restrict our attention again to the simple case when the $`\beta `$ functions vanish. For this case we show that there is consistency between the PBH transformation - or equivalently the holographic RG - at the level of the action and at the level of the two-point functions. For the general case $`\beta ^i0`$, the field-theoretical discussion of  indicates a possibility for proving the agreement between RG equation and correlator renormalization in general, and we hope that a generalization of the results presented here may serve as a basis for applying this analysis in the holographic context. This would provide a link between the holographic RG and two-point functions calculated for deformed AdS spaces for instance in .

Our analysis applies to smooth flows from an UV to an IR fixed point, which may be described within the supergravity approximation. Typically we consider the case where $`𝒩=4`$ supersymmetry at the boundary is broken down to $`𝒩=2`$ or $`𝒩=1`$ supersymmetry by operator deformations. The identification of the holographic RG with the field-theoretical local RG and the proposed generalization of the PBH transformation apply to theories were conformal symmetry is broken either by relevant (as in the examples given in ) or by marginal operator deformations. However the identification of (1.3) and (1.4) for the holographic C theorem applies so far only to the case when conformal symmetry is broken only by marginal operator deformations of engineering dimension $`d`$. It is essential for our analysis that these operators acquire an anomalous dimension $`\gamma _i{}_{}{}^{j}=_i\beta ^j`$ along the flow 111It will be interesting to construct an explicit example for such a holographic flow. We leave this for future work..

In the presence of relevant operator deformations, the relation between (1.3) and (1.4) is less obvious due to the following: Scalars dual to relevant operator deformations contribute anomalies of a different structure to the r.h.s. of (1.1) as those dual to marginal operators. This is due to the fact that the l.h.s. of (1.1) \- and therefore also its r.h.s. - is of dimension $`d`$. Since the scalars $`\varphi ^i`$ dual to relevant operators are dimensionful, their anomaly contribution to the r.h.s. of (1.1) will contain less derivatives than those of the scalars dual to marginal operators. This coincides with the fact that correlators of lower dimension operators are less divergent as distributions. - Of course all of the supergravity scalars $`\mathrm{\Phi }^i`$ appearing in the bulk supergravity action are dimensionless. However in an expansion in the radial cut-off $`\epsilon `$ of dimension (length)2, they have the form

$$\mathrm{\Phi }^i(r)=\epsilon ^{(d\mathrm{\Delta }^{(i)})/2}(\varphi ^i{}_{0}{}^{}(r_0)+\varphi ^i{}_{2}{}^{}(r_0)\epsilon +\mathrm{}),\epsilon =(rr_0)^2,$$
(1.5)
such that $`\varphi ^i{}_{0}{}^{}(r_0)`$ is of mass dimension $`(d\mathrm{\Delta }^{(i)})`$. It is $`\varphi ^i_0`$ and not $`\mathrm{\Phi }^i`$ which contributes to the anomaly in (1.1), since (1.1) holds in the case when $`\epsilon =0`$. For flows generated by relevant operators, we leave a complete study of the field-theory interpretation of the holographic C theorem for future work. Let us emphasize however that it was shown in the field theory analysis of  that the relation (1.4) is valid also in the presence of relevant operators whose coupling is of dimension two, ie. which corresponds to a supergravity scalar with $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{(i)}=2`$ in $`d=4`$. Still, in the field theory analysis of  the anomaly coefficients $`a`$, $`\chi `$, $`w`$ depend only on dimensionless couplings dual to marginal operators. Therefore when relevant operator deformations are present, the relation between (1.4) and (1.3) - which involves the $`\mathrm{\Phi }^i`$ \- is less clear.

A field-theoretical interpretation of the holographic RG complementary to the one presented here was given in  by relating the holographic RG to the exact renormalization group. A Wilsonian interpretation of the holographic RG was given in .

The paper is organized as follows: In section 2 we give a brief review of the field-theory results of  necessary for our analysis. In section 3 we discuss the conformal case, for which we generalize the PBH transformation to scalars and show that there is agreement between the holographic RG at the level of the action and at the level of the correlation functions. We also discuss contributions to the Weyl anomaly for scalars dual to lower-dimensional relevant operators in this context. In section 4 we suggest how to generalize the PBH transformation to deformed AdS spaces. Furthermore we show that the result (1.3) for the holographic C theorem is in agreement with the Weyl consistency condition for the holographic RG. We discuss its scheme dependence and use the results of  to relate (1.3) to the field-theoretical C theorem in two dimensions. In section 5 we calculate the anomaly coefficients of (1.4), which are relevant to the C theorem, from finiteness conditions for the Weyl variation of the local divergent counterterms $`S_0`$ in (1.1) in a strong-coupling perturbative approach. We conclude by pointing out further directions for research in section 6.

## 2 Local RG equations in QFT

Her we give a brief review of the results for the local RG derived in  which are needed below. For further details we refer to . We consider a renormalizable quantum field theory in $`d`$ dimensions which is coupled to a curved space background. Furthermore the couplings $`\lambda _i`$ are considered to be space-time dependent. We define insertions of the stress tensor and of scalar composite operators by virtue of

$$T_{\mu \nu }=\frac{2}{\sqrt{g}}\frac{\delta S}{\delta g^{\mu \nu }};𝒪_i=\frac{1}{\sqrt{g}}\frac{\delta S}{\delta \lambda ^i},$$
(2.1)
where the vacuum energy functional is given by $`\mathrm{exp}W=𝒟\varphi \mathrm{exp}(S)`$.

These definitions ensure in turn a well-defined expression for correlation functions , eg. for

$$𝒪_i(x)𝒪_j(y)=\frac{\delta ^2W}{\delta \lambda ^i(x)\delta \lambda ^j(y)}|_{\lambda _k=const.},$$
(2.2)
and similarly for higher point functions and for the energy-momentum tensor. The local RG equation discussed in  is of the form

$$d^dx\sqrt{g}\sigma (x)\left[2g^{\mu \nu }\frac{\delta }{\delta g^{\mu \nu }}\beta ^i\frac{\delta }{\delta \lambda ^i}\right]W=\frac{1}{4\pi }\mathrm{d}^dx\sqrt{g}\left[\sigma +_\mu \sigma Z^\mu \right].$$
(2.3)
The right hand side is a local anomaly which involves local terms depending on the curvature tensors and on derivatives of the coupling. The exact form of these terms depends on the dimension. $`\sigma (x)`$ is an arbitrary function. The interpretation of (2.3) is that the terms breaking Weyl symmetry in a renormalizable quantum field theory are either non-local terms with a $`\beta `$ function as their coefficient or local terms. Note that we are only considering dimensionless couplings - and thus dimension $`d`$ operators $`𝒪_i`$ \- in (2.3). Mass terms may be considered separately .

It was shown in  using a perturbative approach and dimensional regularisation that examples for both scalar and gauge theories satisfy a local RG equation of the form (2.3). Using the BPHZ approach, similar local RG equations have been derived for $`\varphi ^4`$ theory in .

When only dimensionless couplings are present, the vacuum energy functional satisfies the relation

$$\left(\mu \frac{}{\mu }+2\mathrm{d}^dxg^{\mu \nu }\frac{\delta }{\delta g^{\mu \nu }}\right)W=0$$
(2.4)
with $`\mu `$ the renormalization scale.

In two dimensions the explicit form of the local anomaly terms in (2.3) is

$$d^2x\sigma \left(2g^{\mu \nu }\frac{\delta }{\delta g^{\mu \nu }}\beta ^i\frac{\delta }{\delta \lambda ^i}\right)W$$

$$=\frac{1}{4\pi }d^2x[\sigma (aR+\chi _{ij}^\mu \lambda ^i_\mu \lambda ^j)+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}^\mu \sigma w_i_\mu \lambda ^i].$$
(2.5)
The generating functional $`W`$ satisfies Wess-Zumino consistency conditions for Weyl symmetry. Defining

$$\mathrm{\Delta }[\sigma ]\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}d^dx\sigma g^{\mu \nu }\frac{\delta }{\delta g^{\mu \nu }},\mathrm{\Delta }_\beta [\sigma ]d^dx\sigma \beta ^i\frac{\delta }{\delta \lambda ^i},$$
(2.6)
the consistency conditions read

$$[\left(\mathrm{\Delta }[\sigma ]\mathrm{\Delta }_\beta [\sigma ]\right),\left(\mathrm{\Delta }[\sigma ^{}]\mathrm{\Delta }_\beta [\sigma ^{}]\right)]W=0.$$
(2.7)
These conditions imply relations for the coefficients of the local anomaly terms. In particular they imply, with $`\delta g^{\mu \nu }=2\sigma g^{\mu \nu }`$, $`\delta R=2\sigma R+2^2\sigma `$,

$$\beta ^i_i\stackrel{~}{a}=\chi _{ij}\beta ^i\beta ^j;\stackrel{~}{a}a+\beta ^iw_i.$$
(2.8)
This relation is invariant under the addition of finite local counterterms to W. For instance, adding

$$\delta W=\frac{1}{4\pi }d^2x\sqrt{g}(bRc_{ij}_\mu \lambda ^i^\mu \lambda ^j),$$
(2.9)
to $`W`$, we have

$$\delta a=\beta ^i_ib,\delta \chi _{ij}=_\beta c_{ij},\delta w_i=_ib+c_{ij}\beta ^j,\delta \stackrel{~}{a}=c_{ij}\beta ^i\beta ^j,$$
(2.10)
with $`_\beta `$ the Lie derivative

$$_\beta c_{ij}=\beta ^k_kc_{ij}+_i\beta ^kc_{kj}+_j\beta ^kc_{ik}.$$
(2.11)
Differentiating (2.5) further with respect to $`\lambda _j`$ for $`\sigma 1`$ gives

$$𝒟𝒪_i(x)𝒪_j(0)+_i\beta ^k𝒪_k(x)𝒪_j(0)+_j\beta ^k𝒪_i(x)𝒪_k(0)=8\pi \chi _{ij}^2\delta ^{(2)}(x),$$
(2.12)
$$𝒟\mu \frac{}{\mu }+\beta ^i\frac{}{\lambda ^i}.$$
(2.13)
The form of the scalar two-point function is determined by rotational invariance and the dimension of the operators even when conformal symmetry is broken. Furthermore it has to be ensured that the two-point function has a well-defined Fourier transform such that it does not contain any poles in particular for $`x0`$. A form for the two-point function which meets these requirements is given by

$$𝒪_i(x)𝒪_j(0)=^2^2\mathrm{\Omega }_{ij}(t),t=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}\mu ^2x^2.$$
(2.14)
The extraction of derivatives is similar to the method of differential regularisation . For the energy-momentum tensor two-point function we have similarly

$$T_{\mu \nu }(x)T_{\sigma \rho }(0)=(\delta _{\mu \nu }^2_\mu _\nu )(\delta _{\sigma \rho }^2_\sigma _\rho )\mathrm{\Omega }(t).$$
(2.15)
Inserting (2.14) into (2.12) we obtain, using $`_\mu (x_\mu /x^2)=2\pi \delta ^{(2)}(x)`$,

$$𝒟\mathrm{\Omega }_{ij}^{}+_i\beta ^k\mathrm{\Omega }_{kj}^{}+_j\beta ^k\mathrm{\Omega }_{ik}^{}=4\chi _{ij},$$
(2.16)
and in an analogous calculation a similar result for $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ defined in (2.15). The positive definite Zamolodchikov metric is defined by

$$G_{ij}(x)\frac{1}{16}(x^2)^2𝒪_i(x)𝒪_j(0).$$
(2.17)
Using (2.12) and (2.16) we find

$`G_{ij}`$ $`=\frac{1}{4}(\mathrm{\Omega }_{ij}^{\prime \prime }\mathrm{\Omega }_{ij}^{\prime \prime \prime }+\frac{1}{4}\mathrm{\Omega }_{ij}^{\prime \prime \prime \prime })=\chi _{ij}+_\beta c_{ij},`$ (2.18)
$`c_{ij}`$ $`=\frac{1}{4}(\mathrm{\Omega }_{ij}^{}+\mathrm{\Omega }_{ij}^{\prime \prime }\frac{1}{4}\mathrm{\Omega }_{ij}^{\prime \prime \prime }).`$ (2.19)
The two-dimensional C theorem is then easily obtained by defining the C function to be

$$C3(\stackrel{~}{a}+c_{ij}\beta ^i\beta ^j)=\frac{3}{4}(\mathrm{\Omega }^{}+\mathrm{\Omega }^{\prime \prime }\frac{1}{4}\mathrm{\Omega }^{\prime \prime \prime })$$
(2.20)
which satisfies

$$C^{}=\beta ^i_iC=3G_{ij}\beta ^i\beta ^j0.$$
(2.21)
Note that the linear combination of derivatives of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ in (2.20) corresponds exactly to the C function originally considered by Zamolodchikov .

In four dimensions the structure of the local anomaly is more complicated due to the larger number of possible independent forms. With the definitions in (2.6) we have

$$(\mathrm{\Delta }[\sigma ]\mathrm{\Delta }_\beta [\sigma ])W=\mathrm{d}^4x\sqrt{g}\left[\sigma +^\mu \sigma Z_\mu \right],$$
(2.22)
where

$`=`$ $`cFaG+\frac{1}{9}\beta _cR^2`$
$`+\frac{1}{3}\chi _i^e_\mu \lambda ^i^\mu R+\frac{1}{6}\chi _{ij}^f_\mu \lambda ^i^\mu \lambda ^jR\frac{1}{2}\chi _{ij}^g_\mu \lambda ^i_\nu \lambda ^jG^{\mu \nu }+\frac{1}{2}\chi _{ij}^a^2\lambda ^i^2\lambda ^j`$
$`+\frac{1}{2}\chi _{ijk}^b_\mu \lambda ^i^\mu \lambda ^j^2\lambda ^k+\frac{1}{4}\chi _{ijkl}^c_\mu \lambda ^i^\mu \lambda ^j_\nu \lambda ^k^\nu \lambda ^l.`$ (2.23)
Here $`R`$ is the Ricci scalar, F the square of the Weyl tensor $`C_{\mu \sigma \rho \nu }`$, $`G`$ the Euler density and $`G_{\mu \nu }`$ the Einstein tensor. For $`Z^\mu `$ we have

$`Z_\mu =`$ $`G_{\mu \nu }w_i^\nu \lambda ^i+\frac{1}{3}_\mu (qR)+\frac{1}{3}RY_i_\mu \lambda ^i`$
$`+_\mu (U_i^2\lambda ^i+\frac{1}{2}V_{ij}_\nu \lambda ^i^\nu \lambda ^j)+S_{ij}_\mu \lambda ^i^2\lambda ^j+\frac{1}{2}T_{ijk}_\nu \lambda ^i^\nu \lambda ^j_\mu \lambda ^k.`$ (2.24)
In this case the consistency condition (2.7) implies a number of relations for the anomaly coefficients, among which

$$\beta ^i_i\stackrel{~}{a}=\frac{1}{8}\chi _{ij}^g\beta ^i\beta ^j,\stackrel{~}{a}a+\frac{1}{8}w_i\beta ^i.$$
(2.25)
This is analogous to the relation (2.8). However in four dimensions it has not been possible so far to relate $`\chi _{ij}^g`$ to the Zamolodchikov metric, unlike the two-dimensional result (2.18). This may be traced back to the fact that (2.22) relates $`\chi _{ij}^g`$ to the three-point function $`T_{\mu \nu }𝒪_i𝒪_j`$ rather than just to the two-point function $`𝒪_i𝒪_j`$.

## 3 The $`𝜷^𝒊\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}`$ limit of the holographic RG

To show that the holographic RG is consistent with the results presented in section 2, we begin by considering the simple case in which the $`\beta `$ functions vanish. We extend the PBH transformation to scalars and show how it gives rise to a holographic local RG. We discuss the anomalies present in this RG, and demonstrate consistency with the local RG for correlation functions. We also discuss operators of lower dimension.

We consider $`(d+1)`$-dimensional AdS space with metric of Fefferman-Graham form

$$ds^2=G_{MN}dX^MdX^N=\frac{L^2}{4}\left[\left(\frac{d\rho }{\rho }\right)^2+\frac{1}{\rho }g_{\mu \nu }(x,\rho )dx^\mu dx^\nu \right]$$
(3.1)
where $`M,N=1,\mathrm{},5`$ and $`\mu ,\nu =1,\mathrm{},4`$. The boundary is at $`\rho =0`$. $`L`$ is the AdS radius, and $`\rho `$ is of dimension (length)2. Moreover we consider the bosonic part of the supergravity action222Throughout we use the conventions of .

$$S=\frac{1}{16\pi G_N}\left[d^{(d+1)}x\sqrt{G}\left[R+2\mathrm{\Lambda }+L_{ij}^\mu \mathrm{\Phi }^i_\mu \mathrm{\Phi }^j\right]\mathrm{d}^dx\sqrt{\gamma }\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}K\right],$$
(3.2)
where $`L_{ij}`$ is a metric on the space of supergravity scalars.

As discussed in , there is a $`(d+1)`$-dimensional diffeomorphism $`v_M`$  which reduces to a Weyl transformation on the boundary. This is the so-called PBH transformation. With the ansatz

$`\rho =`$ $`\rho ^{}e^{2\sigma (x^{})}\rho ^{}(1+2\sigma (x^{})),`$ (3.3)
$`x_\mu =`$ $`x_\mu ^{}+a_\mu (x^{},\rho ^{}),v_M=(2\sigma ,a_\mu ),`$ (3.4)
where the requirement of diffeomorphism invariance of the $`(d+1)`$-dimensional metric constrains the form of $`a_\mu `$ , $`g^{\mu \nu }`$ has the transformation property

$$\delta g^{\mu \nu }=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\sigma (1\rho \rho )g^{\mu \nu }(x,\rho )+^\mu a^\nu (x,\rho )+^\nu a^\mu (x,\rho ).$$
(3.5)
Similarly the PBH transformation for the scalars is obtained using

$$\mathrm{\Phi }^i(x,\rho )=\rho ^{(d\mathrm{\Delta }^{(i)})/2}\varphi ^i(x,\rho ).$$
(3.6)
This gives

$$\delta \varphi ^i(x,\rho )=\sigma (\mathrm{\Delta }^{(i)}d)\varphi ^i(x,\rho )+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\sigma \rho \rho \varphi ^i(x,\rho )+a^\mu _\mu \varphi ^i(x,\rho ).$$
(3.7)
$`i`$ is an index in the field space.

For $`G^{MN}(x,\rho ),\mathrm{\Phi }^i(x,\rho )`$ which are solutions of an equation of motion, we have the expansion

$$g^{\mu \nu }(x,\rho )=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}g_{(n)}^{\mu \nu }(x)\rho ^n,\varphi ^i(x,\rho )=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\varphi ^i{}_{(n)}{}^{}(x)\rho ^n.$$
(3.8)
For $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{(i)}=d/2`$ we have, instead of (3.6),

$$\mathrm{\Phi }^i(x,\rho )=\rho \mathrm{ln}\rho \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\varphi ^i{}_{(n)}{}^{}(x)\rho ^n.$$
(3.9)
$`\varphi ^i_{(0)}`$ is of mass dimension $`d\mathrm{\Delta }^{(i)}`$. At the boundary the PBH transformation reduces to a Weyl transformation under which in particular

$$\delta g_{(0)}^{\mu \nu }(x)=2\sigma g_{(0)}^{\mu \nu }(x),\delta \varphi ^i{}_{(0)}{}^{}(x)=(\mathrm{\Delta }^{(i)}d)\sigma \varphi ^i{}_{(0)}{}^{}(x).$$
(3.10)
As is well known, the action (3.2) is divergent near the boundary an requires regularization by subtraction of appropriate divergent counterterms $`S_0`$. Introducing a cut-off at $`\rho =\epsilon `$, the PBH transformation of the action reduces near the boundary to

$`\left(2\epsilon {\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta \epsilon }}+2g_{(0)}^{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta g_{(0)}^{\mu \nu }}}(\mathrm{\Delta }^{(i)}d)\varphi ^i{}_{(0)}{}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta \varphi ^i_{(0)}}}\right)e^{SS_0}=𝒜_4`$ $`.`$ (3.11)
In (3.11) we may take the limit $`\epsilon 0`$ such as to obtain

$$\left(2g_{(0)}^{\mu \nu }\frac{\delta }{\delta g_{(0)}^{\mu \nu }}(\mathrm{\Delta }^{(i)}d)\varphi ^i{}_{(0)}{}^{}\frac{\delta }{\delta \varphi ^i_{(0)}}\right)e^W=𝒜_4$$
(3.12)
with $`e^Wlim_{\epsilon 0}e^{SS_0}`$ the generating functional and $`𝒜_4`$ a local anomaly. This equation coincides with the field-theoretical local RG equation (2.3) for the case when $`\beta ^i=0`$.

We proceed by calculating the local anomaly terms on the r.h.s. of (3.12) explicitly. We begin with the contributions from supergravity scalars dual to operators of dimension $`d=4`$. As discussed in  and later in , the counterterm $`S_0^{(4)}`$ necessary to regulate $`S`$ as far as fields dual to dimension $`d=4`$ operators are concerned is given by the action of four-dimensional conformal supergravity,

$`S_0^{(4)}`$ $`=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}\epsilon {\displaystyle \frac{N^2}{4(4\pi ^2)}}S_{\mathrm{CSG}},S_{\mathrm{CSG}}={\displaystyle d^4x\sqrt{g}L_{\mathrm{CSG}}},`$
$`L_{\mathrm{CSG}}`$ $`=C^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }C_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }\epsilon _{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }\epsilon _{\rho \sigma \gamma \delta }R^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }R^{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }+L_{ij}^{(4)}\varphi _{(0)}^i\mathrm{\Delta }_4\varphi _{(0)}^j,`$ (3.13)
where $`L_{ij}^{(4)}`$ is the metric on the space of supergravity scalars dual to dimension 4 operators and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_4`$ is the Riegert operator

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_4^2^2+2^\mu (R_{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{3}g_{\mu \nu }R)^\nu .$$
(3.14)
This result for $`S_0^{(4)}`$ agrees with the anomaly calculation of Henningson and Skenderis , extended to scalar fields in . Inserting (3.13) into the local RG equation (3.11) with $`\mathrm{\Delta }=d=4`$, and subsequently taking the limit $`\epsilon 0`$, we obtain for the local anomaly

$$𝒜_4=\frac{N^2}{4(4\pi ^2)}L_{\mathrm{CSG}}.$$
(3.15)
Comparing with the field-theoretical local RG (2.22) with (2) we identify

$$\chi _{ij}^a=\frac{N^2}{2(4\pi ^2)}L_{ij}^{(4)},\chi _{ij}^g=\frac{N^2}{(4\pi )^2}L_{ij}^{(4)},c=a=\frac{N^2}{4(4\pi )^2}.$$
(3.16)
The result for $`\chi _{ij}^a`$ may also be obtained from considering the implications of the local RG for the two-point function $`𝒪_i(x)𝒪_j(0)`$, which provides a consistency check. With the definition

$$𝒪_i(x)𝒪_j(0)\frac{\delta }{\delta \varphi ^i_{(0)}}\frac{\delta }{\delta \varphi ^j_{(0)}}\mathrm{e}^{SS_0}|_{\varphi ^k{}_{(0)}{}^{}=\mathrm{const}},$$
(3.17)
the standard AdS/CFT procedure gives the result

$$𝒪_i(x)𝒪_j(0)=\frac{N^2}{2(4\pi )^2}L_{ij}^{(4)}^2^2\left(\frac{1}{(x^2)^2}\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}\epsilon \delta ^{(4)}(x)\right),$$
(3.18)
where the local term guarantees a well-defined expression with a regular Fourier transform also when $`\stackrel{}{x}0`$. In (3.18) , derivatives have been extracted following the prescription of differential regularization  in order to obtain a less singular expression. A similar structure of the AdS/CFT correlators was discussed in  using dimensional regularization.

On the other hand, integrating the local RG (3.11) for $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{(i)}=d=4`$ using

$$\left(\mu \frac{}{\mu }+2d^4x\sqrt{g}g^{\mu \nu }\frac{\delta }{\delta g^{\mu \nu }}\right)e^W=0,\epsilon \frac{}{\epsilon }=d^4x\sqrt{g}\epsilon \frac{\delta }{\delta \epsilon },$$
(3.19)
and varying the result twice with respect to $`\varphi ^i_{(0)}`$, we obtain

$$\left(\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\epsilon \frac{}{\epsilon }+\mu \frac{}{\mu }\right)𝒪_i^{(4)}(x)𝒪_j^{(4)}(0)=\frac{N^2}{2(4\pi )^2}L_{ij}^{(4)}^2^2\delta ^4(x).$$
(3.20)
It is easy to check that the expression (3.18), which is independent of the renormalizaion scale $`\mu `$, satisfies (3.20). From the results of  for general conformal field theories, we expect a similar consistency between the RG equation for the energy-momentum tensor two-point function, and the Weyl tensor squared anomaly in the RG equation at the level of the generating functional.

For scalar operators of dimension $`d2=2`$ , the dual scalar $`\varphi ^i_{(0)}`$ as given by (3.9) is of mass dimension $`2`$. The appropriate boundary counterterm for regulating the action $`S`$ is given by

$$S_0^{(2)}=\frac{N^2}{2\pi ^2}\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}\epsilon d^4x\sqrt{g}L_{ij}^{(2)}\varphi _{(0)}^i\varphi ^j{}_{(0)}{}^{}.$$
(3.21)
In the RG equation (3.11), the counterterm (3.21) gives rise to an anomaly

$$𝒜_4{}_{}{}^{(2)}=\frac{N^2}{2\pi ^2}L_{ij}^{(2)}\varphi _{(0)}^i\varphi ^j{}_{(0)}{}^{},$$
(3.22)
and for the correlation function as defined in (3.17) we obtain

$$𝒪_i(x)𝒪_j(0)=\frac{N^2}{2\pi ^2}L_{ij}^{(2)}\left(\frac{1}{(x^2)^2}\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}\epsilon \delta ^{(4)}(x)\right),$$
(3.23)
which is consistent with

$$\left(\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\epsilon \frac{}{\epsilon }+\mu \frac{}{\mu }\right)𝒪_i^{(2)}(x)𝒪_j^{(2)}(0)=\frac{N^2}{2\pi ^2}L_{ij}^{(2)}\delta ^4(x).$$
(3.24)
Note the different structure of the anomalies for operators with $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{(i)}=4`$ in (3.15) with (3.13) and with $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{(i)}=2`$ in (3.22).

## 4 Local RG equation from deformed AdS space

For the general case $`\beta ^i0`$, we consider a $`(d+1)`$-dimensional space with metric

$$ds^2=e^{2A(r)}g_{\mu \nu }(x)dx^\mu dx^\nu +dr^2.$$
(4.1)
Our analysis applies to flows from an UV to an IR fixed point, ie. the space is asymptotically AdS both for $`r\mathrm{}`$ and for $`r\mathrm{}`$. The bosonic part of the supergravity action is given by

$$S=\frac{1}{16\pi G_N}\left[_{}d^{d+1}x\sqrt{G}\left[R+G^{\mu \nu }L^{ij}(\mathrm{\Phi })_\mu \mathrm{\Phi }_i_\nu \mathrm{\Phi }_j+V(\mathrm{\Phi })\right]_{}\mathrm{d}^dx\sqrt{\gamma }\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}K\right].$$
(4.2)
Here $`G`$ denotes the $`(d+1)`$-dimensional metric, $`\gamma `$ is the induced metric on the boundary and $`L^{ij}`$ is the metric on the space of the scalar supergravity fields which is positive definite. As may be derived using either supersymmetry  or the Hamilton-Jacobi approach to holographic RG flows , the RG flow is generated by the first-order equations

$$\frac{dA(r)}{dr}=\frac{g}{3}𝒲(\mathrm{\Phi }),\frac{\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Phi }^i(r)}{\mathrm{d}r}=\frac{g}{2}L^{ij}\frac{𝒲(\mathrm{\Phi })}{\mathrm{\Phi }^j},$$
(4.3)
with the superpotential

$$V(\varphi )=\frac{g^2}{8}L^{ij}\frac{𝒲}{\mathrm{\Phi }^i}\frac{𝒲}{\mathrm{\Phi }^j}\frac{g^2}{3}𝒲(\mathrm{\Phi })^2.$$
(4.4)
Here $`g`$ is the Yang-Mills coupling.

For the definition of the renormalization scale and of the $`\beta `$ functions we follow  and define

$$\mathrm{ln}\mu A(r),\beta ^i\mu \frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}\mu }\mathrm{\Phi }^i=\frac{d\mathrm{\Phi }^i}{dA(r)}.$$
(4.5)
Using (4.3) we have

$$\beta ^i=\frac{3}{2}\frac{1}{𝒲}L^{ij}\frac{𝒲}{\mathrm{\Phi }^j}.$$
(4.6)
The choice (4.5) for the definition of the $`\beta `$ functions corresponds to the choice of a particular renormalization scheme. However requiring (4.6) to be covariant under a change of scheme puts some restrictions on the possible definitions for $`\beta ^i`$ : Suppose we would define

$$\beta ^i\frac{\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Phi }^i}{\mathrm{d}f(r)}$$
(4.7)
with some arbitrary function $`f(r)`$. Then

$$\beta ^i=\frac{\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Phi }^i}{\mathrm{d}f(r)}=\frac{\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Phi }^i}{\mathrm{d}r}\frac{1}{f^{}}=\frac{g}{2}L^{ij}\frac{𝒲}{\mathrm{\Phi }^j}\frac{1}{f^{}}=\frac{3}{2}\frac{L^{ij}}{𝒲}\frac{𝒲}{\mathrm{\Phi }^j}\frac{A^{}}{f^{}}.$$
(4.8)
We see that covariance of (4.6) requires $`f`$ to be related to $`A`$ in general, though it is conceivable that for a given theory, redefinitions of $`\varphi _i`$ and $`𝒲`$ exist such as to ensure the relation (4.6) for more general $`f^{}`$s.

We assume that the PBH transformation as discussed in section 3 may be generalized to deformed AdS spaces, i.e. we assume that there is a $`(d+1)`$-dimensional diffeomorphism under which both the metric (4.1) - after a suitable coordinate transformation to a generalized Fefferman-Graham form - and the action $`S`$ are invariant, and which reduces to a Weyl transformation on the $`d`$-dimensional hypersurface at $`r=r_0`$. $`A(r_0)=\mathrm{ln}\mu _0`$ defines a renormalization scale $`\mu _0`$. For deformed AdS spaces, we expect the supergravity scalars to acquire an anomalous Weyl weight related to their $`\beta `$ function. Of course it would be very interesting to work out the exact form of the corresponding $`(d+1)`$-dimensional diffeomorphism. We leave this for future work. For our purposes here, we assume that the Weyl transformation induced by the PBH transformation is of the form

$$\delta \varphi _0{}_{}{}^{i}(x,r_0)=\sigma (\mathrm{\Delta }^{(i)}d+\beta ^{(i)})\varphi _0{}_{}{}^{i}(x,r_0)$$
(4.9)
for the lowest order term in the expansion of $`\varphi ^i(r,x)`$ in $`\epsilon =(rr_0)^2`$. $`\beta ^{(i)}`$ is related to the $`\beta `$ function by

$$\beta ^i=\beta ^{(i)}\mathrm{\Phi }^i.$$
(4.10)
In the limit $`\epsilon 0`$, subject to suitable regularization, the equation expressing $`(d+1)`$-dimensional diffeomorphism invariance of the action $`S`$ then reduces to

$$\underset{\epsilon 0}{lim}\mathrm{d}^dx\sigma (x)\left(\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\epsilon \frac{\delta }{\delta \epsilon }2g_0{}_{}{}^{\mu \nu }\frac{\delta }{\delta g_0^{\mu \nu }}+(\mathrm{\Delta }^{(i)}d+\widehat{\beta }^{(i)})\varphi _0{}_{}{}^{i}\frac{\delta }{\delta \varphi _0^i}\right)\mathrm{e}^{SS_0}$$

$$=\mathrm{d}^dx\left(\sigma (x)+^\mu \sigma Z_\mu \right),$$
(4.11)
where

$$\mathrm{d}^dx\left(\sigma (x)+^\mu \sigma Z_\mu \right)$$

$$=\underset{\epsilon 0}{lim}\mathrm{d}^dx\sigma \left(2\epsilon \frac{\delta }{\delta \epsilon }+2g_0{}_{}{}^{\mu \nu }\frac{\delta }{\delta g_0^{\mu \nu }}(\mathrm{\Delta }^{(i)}d+\widehat{\beta }^{(i)})\varphi _0{}_{}{}^{i}\frac{\delta }{\delta \varphi _0^i}\right)S_0.$$
(4.12)
(4.12) imposes a finiteness condition on the Weyl variation of the divergent local counterterms $`S_0`$ since $``$, $`Z_\mu `$ have to be finite. We investigate the implications of this finiteness condition in detail in section 5 below. Note also that

$$\widehat{\beta }^i=\frac{\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Phi }^i(r,x)}{\mathrm{d}A(r)}=\frac{\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Phi }^i(r_0,x)}{\mathrm{d}A(r_0)}+𝒪(\epsilon )=\beta ^i+𝒪(\epsilon ).$$
(4.13)
Since the limit in (4.11) is finite, we obtain

$$\mathrm{d}^dx\sigma (x)\left(2g_0{}_{}{}^{\mu \nu }\frac{\delta }{\delta g_0^{\mu \nu }}+(\mathrm{\Delta }^{(i)}d+\beta ^{(i)})\varphi _0{}_{}{}^{i}\frac{\delta }{\delta \varphi _0^i}\right)\mathrm{e}^{SS_0}=\mathrm{d}^dx\left(\sigma (x)+^\mu \sigma Z_\mu \right).$$
(4.14)
Since $`\sigma (x)`$ is an arbitrary function, this equation is identical to the local Callan-Symanzik equation obtained in the Hamilton-Jacobi formalism in , up to terms involving $`(\mathrm{\Delta }^{(i)}d)\varphi ^i_{(0)}`$. These terms are due to the fact that (4.14) is a RG equation rather than a Callan-Symanzik equation333Note that in standard quantum field theory, the RG equation determines how a renormalized theory evolves under a change of the renormalization scale, while the Callan-Symanzik equation determines how a renormalized theory evolves under a scale transformation. The two equations coincide only in the case when the theory is massless in the classical limit, or more generally when all couplings are dimensionless, which corresponds to $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{(i)}=d`$.. In the special case when $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{(i)}=d`$ for all $`i`$, the local Callan-Symanzik equation and (4.14) coincide to give

$$\mathrm{d}^dx\sqrt{g}\sigma (x)\left(2g_0{}_{}{}^{\mu \nu }\frac{\delta }{\delta g_0^{\mu \nu }}+\beta ^i\frac{\delta }{\delta \varphi _0^i}\right)\mathrm{e}^{SS_0}=\mathrm{d}^4x\sqrt{g}\left[\sigma +^\mu \sigma Z_\mu \right].$$
(4.15)
For general $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{(i)}`$, using that

$$\left(\mu \frac{}{\mu }+\mathrm{d}^dx\sqrt{g}\left(2g_0{}_{}{}^{\mu \nu }\frac{\delta }{\delta g_0^{\mu \nu }}+(\mathrm{\Delta }^{(i)}d)\varphi _0{}_{}{}^{i}\frac{\delta }{\delta \varphi _0^i}\right)\right)\mathrm{e}^{SS_0}=0,$$
(4.16)
and in the limit when the $`x`$-dependent fluctuations of $`\varphi _0{}_{}{}^{i}(x,r_0)`$ vanish, (4.14) gives

$$(\mu \frac{}{\mu }+\beta ^i_i)\mathrm{e}^{SS_0}=\mathrm{d}^dx,$$
(4.17)
for $`\sigma (x)=\mathrm{const}.`$. (4.17) is the well-known global form for the Callan-Symanzik equation.

The main point of our analysis is that (4.15) is exactly of the same form as the field-theoretical local RG equation (2.3) presented in section 2. As a consequence we find that the field-theoretical discussion of the implications of Weyl consistency on $``$ and $`Z_\mu `$ applies in particular to the holographic RG, such that we may use the results of the field theory discussion in order to obtain new information about the holographic flow. On the field theory side, a basis for the local anomaly contributions $``$ and $`Z_\mu `$ is given in (2). On the supergravity side, the local anomaly contributions were calculated for specific cases for instance in . These results agree with the field-theoretical basis.

For analyzing the implications of the Weyl consistency conditions for the holographic RG flows, we restrict ourselves first to the case when all active supergravity scalars are dual to operators with $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{(i)}=d`$, such that (4.15) applies.

The implications of the Weyl consistency conditions enable us in particular to relate the $`C`$ function of supergravity ,

$$C(r)=\frac{c_0}{|𝒲|^{d1}},,$$
(4.18)
whose flow is positive definite due to the weak energy condition, to the coefficients in the anomalies $``$ and $`Z_\mu `$. These coefficients are functions of the scalar supergravity fields once conformal symmetry is broken. Let us first consider the case $`d=2`$, for which we know within quantum field theory that the $`C`$ theorem holds. Weyl consistency implies the relation

$$_ia=\chi _{ij}\beta ^j\beta ^j_jw_i_i\beta ^jw_j,$$
(4.19)
with the notation of (2.5), For the holographic flows this relation is satisfied in particular by

$$a=CL_{ij}\beta ^i\beta ^j,C=\frac{c_0}{|𝒲|},w_i=L_{ij}\beta ^j=\frac{3}{2}_iln𝒲,\chi _{ij}=\frac{2}{3}CL_{ij}.$$
(4.20)
Of course, this is just a particular solution. In section 5 below, we calculate these anomaly coefficients in a well-defined regularization scheme.

The result (4.20) corresponds just to the “holographic” scheme as defined in . With (4.20) the equation

$$\beta ^i_i\stackrel{~}{a}=\chi _{ij}\beta ^i\beta ^j,\stackrel{~}{a}=a+\beta ^iw_i,$$
(4.21)
for the anomaly coefficients corresponds just to the well-known holographic $`C`$ theorem

$$\dot{C}=\beta ^i_iC=\frac{2}{3}CL_{ij}\beta ^i\beta ^j0,$$
(4.22)
where the inequality follows from the weak energy condition, or equivalently from the positivity of $`L_{ij}\beta ^i\beta ^j`$ and of $`C`$. Of course, the results (4.20) for the anomaly coefficients are scheme dependent and in particular the addition of finite local counterterms would change the result in exactly the same way as obtained in field theory, (2.9). This implies that the holographic $`C`$ theorem is scheme-dependent. For instance, $`w_i`$ may be set to zero, and correspondingly $`a`$ to $`C`$, by adding a finite local term

$$S_f{}_{}{}^{R}=\frac{3}{2}\mathrm{d}^2x\sqrt{g}(\mathrm{ln}𝒲)R$$
(4.23)
to the vacuum energy functional. $`\stackrel{~}{a}=a+\beta ^iw_i`$ remains invariant under this change. Moreover, when a finite local boundary term

$$S_f{}_{}{}^{}=\mathrm{d}^2x\sqrt{g}c_{ij}^\mu \varphi _0{}_{}{}^{i}_{\mu }^{}\varphi _0^j$$
(4.24)
is added to the vacuum energy functional such that

$$\delta \stackrel{~}{a}=c_{ij}\beta ^i\beta ^j,\delta \chi _{ij}=_\beta c_{ij},$$
(4.25)
with $`_\beta `$ the Lie derivative as in (2.11), then although the equation (4.21) remains invariant under this change of scheme, it is not clear if the new

$$\chi _{ij}^{}\chi _{ij}+\delta \chi _{ij}=\frac{2}{3}CL_{ij}+_\beta c_{ij}$$
(4.26)
remains positive. In two dimensions however, the field theory $`C`$ theorem holds independently of the scheme chosen. As discussed in section 2, within the Weyl consistency approach, the key ingredient for the proof of the C theorem is $`G_{ij}=\chi _{ij}+_\beta c_{ij}`$ with $`G_{ij}`$ the Zamolodchikov metric. This implies that $`\chi _{ij}+_\beta c_{ij}`$ is positive definite independently of the scheme, such that the flow of $`C_{\mathrm{ft}}\stackrel{~}{a}+c_{ij}\beta ^i\beta ^j`$ is positive for any renormalization scheme, ie. independently of the explicit form of $`c_{ij}`$. For the holographic flows in $`d=2`$ this implies that the $`C`$ theorem holds independently of the form of possible finite counterterms. We note that for the “holographic” scheme, which corresponds to $`c_{ij}=0`$, ie. to minimal subtraction, the field-theoretical and the holographic $`C`$ theorem coincide.

Similarly for $`d=4`$ we may show that for the holographic scheme, the holographic C function (4.18), which satisfies

$$\beta ^i_iC=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}CL_{ij}\beta ^i\beta ^j,$$
(4.27)
coincides with the field theory relation

$$\beta ^i_i\stackrel{~}{a}=\frac{1}{8}\chi _{ij}^g\beta ^i\beta ^j,\stackrel{~}{a}=a+\frac{1}{8}\beta ^iw_i,$$
(4.28)
with the anomaly coefficients defined by (2), if

$$a=CL_{ij}\beta ^i\beta ^j,w_i=8L_{ij}\beta ^j\chi _{ij}^g=16CL_{ij},\stackrel{~}{a}=C,$$
(4.29)
or equivalently - after adding the appropriate finite counterterm - by

$$a=C,w_i=0\chi _{ij}^g=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}16}CL_{ij}.$$
(4.30)
Again the relation (4.28) is invariant under the addition of finite boundary counterterms under which $`\chi _{ij}^g\chi _{ij}^g+_\beta c_{ij}`$. However in $`d=4`$ it has not yet been possible to relate $`\chi _{ij}^g+_\beta c_{ij}`$ to the Zamolodchikov metric, such as to show positivity. Therefore, from a field-theoretical point of view, the holographic C theorem in $`d=4`$ is a scheme-dependent result.

## 5 Anomaly coefficients within minimal subtraction

In this section we show that the particular solution for the anomaly coefficients which corresponds to the holographic C theorem (4.27), with $`w^i`$ set to zero as in (4.30), may be obtained as a consistent solution of equation (4.12), which imposes a finiteness condition on the Weyl variation of the divergent local counterterms $`S_0`$444Within standard perturbative quantum field theory, finiteness conditions of the form (4.12) have been considered in .. For definiteness we consider the four-dimensional case, the argument for $`d=2`$ being exactly analogous. As before, we restrict the calculation to the case that all active scalars have $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{(i)}=d`$. We solve (4.15) order by order in a perturbative approach, expanding around $`r=r_0`$ and in derivatives with respect to the couplings. For instance for the superpotential we have the expansion

$`𝒲(\mathrm{\Phi }(r))`$ $`=𝒲(\mathrm{\Phi }(r_0))+_i𝒲(\mathrm{\Phi }(r_0))\delta \mathrm{\Phi }^i(\epsilon )+\frac{1}{2}_i_j𝒲(\mathrm{\Phi }(r_0))\delta \mathrm{\Phi }^i(\epsilon )\delta \mathrm{\Phi }^j(\epsilon )+\mathrm{},`$ (5.1)
$`\mathrm{\Phi }^i(r)`$ $`=\varphi _0{}_{}{}^{i}(r_0)+\epsilon \varphi _2{}_{}{}^{i}(r_0)+\mathrm{}`$ (5.2)
$`\delta \mathrm{\Phi }^i(\epsilon )`$ $`=\delta \varphi _0{}_{}{}^{i}(r_0)+\epsilon \delta \varphi _2{}_{}{}^{i}(r_0)+\mathrm{},\epsilon =(rr_0)^2.`$ (5.3)
Here $`\epsilon `$ is the regulator. According to , we expect logarithms of $`\epsilon `$ in the expansion of $`\delta \mathrm{\Phi }^i(\epsilon )`$. $`\varphi _2`$ and all higher order contributions may be expressed in terms of $`\varphi _0`$, but their explicit form is not relevant here. Note that due to (4.6), the beta functions correspond to one derivative of the superpotential. Due to (4.3) we expect this expansion to be equivalent to a Taylor expansion of $`A^{}(r)`$. In the conformal case, $`A^{\prime \prime }`$ and all higher order derivatives vanish.

For solving (4.12) perturbatively for $`d=4`$, we note that a basis for the anomaly terms $``$, $`Z_\mu `$ is given by (2). Here we restrict ourselves to considering only those contributions to the anomaly which are relevant for the C theorem, ie. those involving the coefficients $`a`$, $`w_i`$ and $`\chi ^g_{ij}`$. The divergent local counterterm contributing to these anomaly contributions is given by

$$S_0{}_{}{}^{C}=\mathrm{d}^4x\sqrt{g}[b\stackrel{~}{R}\stackrel{~}{R}+\frac{1}{2}\eta _{ij}G^{\mu \nu }_\mu \varphi _0{}_{}{}^{i}_{\nu }^{}\varphi _0{}_{}{}^{j}]$$
(5.4)
with divergent coefficients $`b`$, $`\eta _{ij}`$. Here $`\stackrel{~}{R}\stackrel{~}{R}`$ is the Euler density and $`G^{\mu \nu }`$ is the Einstein tensor. The finiteness condition (4.12) implies

$`(2\epsilon _\epsilon \widehat{\beta }^i_i)b`$ $`=a`$
$`(2\epsilon _\epsilon _\beta )\eta _{ij}`$ $`=\chi ^g_{ij}`$ (5.5)
$`8_ib\eta _{ij}\widehat{\beta }^j`$ $`=w_i.`$
$`_\beta \eta _{ij}\beta ^k_k\eta _{ij}+_i\beta ^k\eta _{kj}+_j\beta ^k\eta _{ik}`$ is the Lie derivative. The right hand side of these equations - and therefore also the left hand side - must be finite. To lowest order, ie. up to terms involving derivatives of $`𝒲(\varphi )`$ and $`L_{ij}(\varphi )`$, (5.5) is solved by

$`b`$ $`=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}\epsilon {\displaystyle \frac{c_0}{|𝒲|^3}}\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}\epsilon C,a={\displaystyle \frac{c_0}{|𝒲|^3}}C`$
$`\eta _{ij}`$ $`=8\mathrm{ln}\epsilon CL_{ij},\chi _{ij}=16CL_{ij}`$ (5.6)
$`w_i`$ $`=0.`$
We see that there is agreement with the result $`\beta ^i_i\stackrel{~}{a}=\frac{1}{8}\chi ^g{}_{ij}{}^{}\varphi _{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{i}\varphi _{0}^{}^j`$ obtained from the Weyl consistency condition. To next order, ie. including terms involving two derivatives with respect to $`\varphi ^i`$, (5.5) has the solution

$`b`$ $`=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}\epsilon C+\frac{1}{4}\mathrm{ln}^2\epsilon CL_{ij}\beta ^i\beta ^j,a=C,`$
$`\eta _{ij}`$ $`=8\mathrm{ln}\epsilon CL_{ij}+2\mathrm{ln}^2\epsilon _\beta (CL_{ij}),\chi _{ij}=16CL_{ij},`$ (5.7)
$`w_i`$ $`=\mathrm{ln}\epsilon (4_iC8CL_{ij}\beta ^j)=0.`$
The contributions to $`a,\chi ,w`$ involving $`\mathrm{ln}\epsilon `$ cancel and the contributions involving $`\mathrm{ln}^2\epsilon `$ are of higher order since they contain at least three derivatives with respect to $`\varphi ^i`$. Therefore we have obtained the finite result

$$a=C,\chi _{ij}=16CL_{ij},w_i=0$$
(5.8)
satisfying the Weyl consistency condition to second order in the derivatives with respect to $`\varphi ^i`$. The appearance of $`\mathrm{ln}^2\epsilon `$ is natural in a perturbation expansion and the essential feature is that the result for the anomalies is finite to a given order in the expansion. To obtain the result (5.8) including terms involving four derivatives, we have to include terms involving $`\mathrm{ln}^3\epsilon `$ in order to cancel the terms involving $`\mathrm{ln}^2\epsilon `$ :

$`b`$ $`=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}\epsilon C+\frac{1}{4}\mathrm{ln}^2\epsilon CL_{ij}\beta ^i\beta ^j+\frac{1}{24}\mathrm{ln}^3\epsilon \beta ^k_k(CL_{ij}\beta ^i\beta ^j),a=C,`$
$`\eta _{ij}`$ $`=8\mathrm{ln}\epsilon CL_{ij}+2\mathrm{ln}^2\epsilon _\beta (CL_{ij})+\frac{1}{3}\mathrm{ln}^3\epsilon _\beta (_\beta (CL_{ij})),\chi _{ij}=16CL_{ij},`$ (5.9)
$`w_i`$ $`=\mathrm{ln}^2\epsilon (2_i(CL_{jk}\beta ^j\beta ^k)2_\beta (CL_{ij})\beta ^j)=0.`$ (5.10)
The calculation showing that $`w_i`$ in (5.10) vanishes is non-trivial and relies on the result (4.5) expressing $`\beta ^i`$ in terms of the superpotential and its derivative. We expect that we may continue this calculation to any given order in the derivatives of $`𝒲`$. It seems possible to use induction to show that the result (5.8) holds to all orders in the expansion.

These results show that for operators with $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{(i)}=d`$, the holographic C theorem may be obtained from a consistent perturbative solution of the finiteness condition (4.12) in a well-defined regularization scheme, together with the Weyl consistency condition originating from the local structure of the holographic RG.

## 6 Conclusion and Perspectives

For our analysis of holographic RG flows we have made use of results for local RG equations obtained within standard quantum field theory. There are further examples of field theory results relevant to holographic flows, for instance concerning the possibility of constructing a four-dimensional C function based on the energy-momentum tensor two-point function. This two-point function is generally of the form

$`T_{\mu \nu }(x)T_{\sigma \rho }(0)`$ $`=\frac{1}{3}S_{\mu \nu }S_{\sigma \rho }\mathrm{\Omega }_0(x)+(S_{\mu (\sigma }S_{\rho )\nu }\frac{1}{3}S_{\mu \nu }S_{\sigma \rho })\mathrm{\Omega }_2(x),`$ (6.1)
$`S_{\mu \nu }`$ $`\delta _{\mu \nu }^2_\mu _\nu .`$
It was shown in , based on the spectral representation approach to the C theorem , that in four dimensions the function $`C_F(\lambda )`$, which is directly related to $`\mathrm{\Omega }_2`$ in (6.1) and which at the fixed points coincides with the coefficient $`c`$ of the Weyl tensor squared contribution to the anomaly, satisfies

$$\beta ^i_iC_F=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}C_FG,$$
(6.2)
with $`G`$ positive definite555For a precise definition of $`C_F`$ and $`G`$ see .. This result indicates that in general the flow of $`C_F`$ is not expected to be monotonic. In fact, counterexamples for a C theorem based on $`C_F`$ have been found in . As discussed for instance in section 2 above, it is expected that a four-dimensional C theorem will involve a C function which at the fixed points coincides with the coefficient $`a`$ of the Euler density anomaly (see also ). However for holographic flows, whose anomaly coefficients generally satisfy $`a=c`$ and which therefore represent a special class of field theories, examples for which the flow of $`C_F`$ is indeed monotonic have been discussed in . It will therefore be interesting to determine the exact form of (6.2) for holographic flows. \- Moreover the field-theoretical analysis of the geometrical structure of the renormalization group in  is also related to the holographic RG.

Furthermore it will be very interesting to investigate if the results of this paper may be applied to examples for holographic flows which go beyond the supergravity approximation. For example, the structure of the conformal anomaly in the Polchinski-Strassler model  has been investigated very recently in . We expect that the local RG may be useful for obtaining further results about the conformal anomaly in this and in related models.

In , the question was raised if it is possible to find a general criterion for the existence of a holographic dual for any given quantum field theory. In  it was suggested for four-dimensional conformal field theories that a necessary criterion for the existence of a gravity dual is that the coefficients of the Euler and Weyl tensor squared anomalies must coincide, $`a=c`$. In the light of our results here, and noting that in the framework of perturbative quantum field theory, local RG equations have been shown to hold for a number of renormalizable quantum field theories, including $`\varphi ^4`$-theory and gauge theories in four dimensions, we may speculate that it may be possible to construct holographic duals also for theories with $`ac`$, starting from their local RG. These gravity duals, if they exist, would presumably be of a very different form than those obtained from deformations of the AdS/CFT correspondence.

Acknowledgements

I am grateful to Djordje Minic and to Dan Freedman for very useful discussions. Moreover I would like to thank the CIT-USC Center for Theoretical Physics for hospitality during the course of this work.

This work was supported by an Emmy Noether fellowship of the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG).