text:
# 1 CP violation studies in 𝑒⁺𝑒⁻→𝑡𝑡̄

## 1 CP violation studies in $`e^+e^{}t\overline{t}`$

CP violation in $`e^+e^{}t\overline{t}`$ can mainly arise through the couplings of the top quark to a virtual photon and a virtual $`Z`$, which are responsible for $`t\overline{t}`$ production, and the $`tbW`$ coupling responsible for the dominant decay of the top quark into a $`b`$ quark and a $`W`$. The CP-violating couplings of a $`t\overline{t}`$ current to $`\gamma `$ and $`Z`$ can be written as $`ie\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ^j`$, where

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ^j=\frac{c_d^j}{2m_t}i\gamma _5(p_tp_{\overline{t}})_\mu ,j=\gamma ,Z,$$
(1)
where $`ec_d^\gamma /m_t`$ and $`ec_d^Z/m_t`$ are the electric and “weak” dipole couplings.

While these CP-violating couplings may be studied using CP-violating correlations among momenta and spins which include the $`t`$ and $`\overline{t}`$ momenta and spins, it may be much more useful to study asymmetries and correlations constructed out of the initial $`e^+/e^{}`$ momenta and the momenta of the decay products, which are more directly observable. In addition, the observables using top spin depend on the basis chosen , and would require reconstruction of the basis which has the maximum sensitivity. In studying decay distributions, this problem is avoided.

Correlations of optimal CP-violating observables have been studied by Zhou . Using purely hadronic or hadronic-leptonic variables, limits on the dipole moment of the order of $`10^{18}`$ $`e`$ cm are shown to be possible with $`\sqrt{s}=500`$ GeV and integrated luminosity of 50 fb-1.

Examples of CP-violating asymmetries using single-lepton angular distributions and lepton energy correlations have been studied in . In addition, other CP-violating asymmetries which are functions of lepton energy have been studied in . Using suitable ranges for the lepton energy, it is possible to enhance the relative contributions of CP violation in production and CP violation in decay . It was shown  that charged-lepton angular distributions are independent of any anomalous $`tbW`$ couplings. Hence angular asymmetries of leptons can be used to study CP violation in the $`t\overline{t}`$production process, without pollution coming from CP violation in top decay.

One-loop QCD corrections can contribute as much as 30% to $`t\overline{t}`$ production cross section at $`\sqrt{s}=500`$ GeV . It is therefore important to include these in estimates of sensitivities of CP-violating observables. The effect of QCD corrections in the soft-gluon approximation in decay lepton distributions in $`e^+e^{}t\overline{t}`$ was discussed in . These were incorporated in CP-violating leptonic angular asymmetries and corresponding limits possible at JLC with longitudinal beam polarization were presented in . These are in the laboratory frame, do not need accurate detailed top energy-momentum reconstruction, and are insensitive to CP violation (or other CP-conserving anomalous effects) in the $`tbW`$ vertex.

Four different asymmetries have been studied in . In addition to two asymmetries $`A_{ch}(\theta _0)`$ and $`A_{fb}(\theta _0)`$ with the azimuthal angles integrated over, which are simple modifications of the asymmetries defined in , there are two others, which we call $`A_{ud}(\theta _0)`$ and $`A_{lr}(\theta _0)`$, and which depend on azimuthal distributions of the lepton. A cut-off $`\theta _0`$ in the forward and backward directions is assumed in the polar angle of the lepton. $`A_{ud}(\theta _0)`$ and $`A_{lr}(\theta _0)`$ were discussed earlier in , but in the absence of the cut-off $`\theta _0`$.

The charge asymmetry $`A_{ch}(\theta _0)`$, which is simply the cross section asymmetry between $`l^+`$ and $`l^{}`$ with a cut-off $`\theta _0`$, is defined by

$$A_{ch}(\theta _0)=\frac{{\displaystyle _{\theta _0}^{\pi \theta _0}}𝑑\theta _l\left({\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma ^+}{d\theta _l}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma ^{}}{d\theta _l}}\right)}{{\displaystyle _{\theta _0}^{\pi \theta _0}}𝑑\theta _l\left({\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma ^+}{d\theta _l}}+{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma ^{}}{d\theta _l}}\right)}.$$
(2)
The other asymmetry $`A_{fb}`$ is the leptonic forward-backward asymmetry combined with charge asymmetry, again with the angles within $`\theta _0`$ of the forward and backward directions excluded:

$$A_{fb}(\theta _0)=\frac{{\displaystyle _{\theta _0}^{\frac{\pi }{2}}}𝑑\theta _l\left({\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma ^+}{d\theta _l}}+{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma ^{}}{d\theta _l}}\right){\displaystyle _{\frac{\pi }{2}}^{\pi \theta _0}}𝑑\theta _l\left({\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma ^+}{d\theta _l}}+{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma ^{}}{d\theta _l}}\right)}{{\displaystyle _{\theta _0}^{\pi \theta _0}}𝑑\theta _l\left({\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma ^+}{d\theta _l}}+{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma ^{}}{d\theta _l}}\right)}.$$
(3)
The up-down asymmetry is defined by

$$A_{ud}(\theta _0)=\frac{1}{2\sigma (\theta _0)}_{\theta _0}^{\pi \theta _0}\left[\frac{d\sigma _{\mathrm{up}}^+}{d\theta _l}\frac{d\sigma _{\mathrm{down}}^+}{d\theta _l}+\frac{d\sigma _{\mathrm{up}}^{}}{d\theta _l}\frac{d\sigma _{\mathrm{down}}^{}}{d\theta _l}\right]𝑑\theta _l,$$
(4)
Here up/down refers to $`(p_{l^\pm })_y\stackrel{>}{<}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0},(p_{l^\pm })_y`$ being the $`y`$ component of $`\stackrel{}{p}_{l^\pm }`$ with respect to a coordinate system chosen in the $`e^+e^{}`$ center-of-mass (cm) frame so that the $`z`$-axis is along $`\stackrel{}{p}_e`$, and the $`y`$-axis is along $`\stackrel{}{p}_e\times \stackrel{}{p}_t`$. The $`t\overline{t}`$ production plane is thus the $`xz`$ plane. Thus, “up” refers to the range $`0<\varphi _l<\pi `$, and “down” refers to the range $`\pi <\varphi _l<2\pi `$.

The left-right asymmetry is defined by

$$A_{lr}(\theta _0)=\frac{1}{2\sigma (\theta _0)}_{\theta _0}^{\pi \theta _0}\left[\frac{d\sigma _{\mathrm{left}}^+}{d\theta _l}\frac{d\sigma _{\mathrm{right}}^+}{d\theta _l}+\frac{d\sigma _{\mathrm{left}}^{}}{d\theta _l}\frac{d\sigma _{\mathrm{right}}^{}}{d\theta _l}\right]𝑑\theta _l,$$
(5)
Here left/right refers to $`(p_{l^\pm })_x\stackrel{>}{<}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0},(p_{l^\pm })_x`$ being the $`x`$ component of $`\stackrel{}{p}_{l^\pm }`$ with respect to the coordinate system system defined above. Thus, “left” refers to the range $`\pi /2<\varphi _l<\pi /2`$, and “right” refers to the range $`\pi /2<\varphi _l<3\pi /2`$.

Fig. 2 shows the asymmetry $`A_{ch}`$ arising when either of the (imaginary parts of) electric and weak dipole couplings takes the value 1, the other taking the value 0, plotted as a function of the cut-off $`\theta _0`$, for the polarized and unpolarized cases, for two different cm energies. Fig. 2 is the corresponding figure for $`A_{fb}`$.

Similarly, the asymmetries $`A_{ud}`$ from eq. (4) and $`A_{lr}`$ from eq. (5), which depend respectively on the real and imaginary parts of $`c_d^{\gamma ,Z}`$, are shown in Figs. 4 and 4. Again, only one of the couplings takes a nonzero value, in this case 0.1, while the others are vanishing.

Tables 1-5 show the results on the limits obtainable for each of these possibilities. In all cases, the value of the cut-off $`\theta _0`$ has been chosen to get the best sensitivity for that specific item. In case of $`A_{fb}`$, the sensitivity is maximum for $`\theta _0=0`$. In that case, the cut-off has been arbitrarily chosen to be 10.

In Table 1 are given the 90% confidence level (CL) limits that can be obtained on Im$`c_d^\gamma `$ and Im$`c_d^Z`$, assuming one of them to be nonzero, the other taken to be vanishing. The limit is defined as the value of Im$`c_d^\gamma `$ or Im$`c_d^Z`$ for which the corresponding asymmetry $`A_{ch}`$ or $`A_{fb}`$ becomes equal to $`1.64/\sqrt{N}`$, where $`N`$ is the total number of events.

Table 2 shows possible 90% CL limits for the unpolarized case, when results from $`A_{ch}`$ and $`A_{fb}`$ are combined. The idea is that each asymmetry measures a different linear combination of Im$`c_d^\gamma `$ and Im$`c_d^Z`$. So a null result for the two asymmetries will correspond to two different bands of regions allowed at 90% CL in the space of Im$`c_d^\gamma `$ and Im$`c_d^Z`$. The overlapping region of the two bands leads to the limits given in Table 2. In this case, for 90% CL, the asymmetry is required to be $`2.15/\sqrt{N}`$, corresponding to two degrees of freedom. Incidentally, the same procedure followed for $`P_e=\pm 0.9`$ gives much worse limits.

Similarly, using one of the two asymmetries, but two different polarizations of the electron beam, one can get two bands in the parameter plane, which give simultaneous limits on the dipole couplings. The results for electron polarizations $`P_e=\pm 0.9`$ are given in Table 3 for each of the asymmetries $`A_{ch}`$ and $`A_{fb}`$.

Table 4 lists the 90% CL limits which may be obtained on the real and imaginary parts of the dipole couplings using $`A_{ud}`$ and $`A_{lr}`$, assuming one of the couplings to be nonzero at a time.

Table 5 shows simultaneous limits on Re$`c_d^\gamma `$ and Re$`c_d^Z`$ obtainable from combining the data on $`A_{ud}`$ for $`P_e=+0.9`$ and $`P_e=0.9`$, and similarly, limits on Im$`c_d^\gamma `$ and Im$`c_d^Z`$ from data on $`A_{lr}`$ for the two polarizations.

## 2 CP violation studies in $`\gamma \gamma t\overline{t}`$

CP-violating dipole couplings of the top quark to photons can be studied at $`\gamma \gamma `$ colliders. The advantage over the study using $`e^+e^{}`$ collisions is that the electric dipole moment is obtained independent of the weak dipole coupling to $`Z`$. Several proposals exist for the study of CP violation at $`\gamma \gamma `$ colliders.

Ma et al.  have discussed the CP-violating couplings of neutral Higgs in the context of a two-Higgs doublet model. They studied the CP-violating asymmetries

$$\xi _{\mathrm{CP}}=\frac{\sigma _{t_L\overline{t}_L}\sigma _{t_R\overline{t}_R}}{\sigma _{t\overline{t}}},$$
(6)
for the case of unpolarized photon beams, and

$$\xi _{\mathrm{CP},1}=\frac{\sigma _{t_L\overline{t}_L}^{++}\sigma _{t_R\overline{t}_R}^{}}{\sigma _{t_L\overline{t}_L}^{++}+\sigma _{t_R\overline{t}_R}^{}}$$
(7)
and

$$\xi _{\mathrm{CP},2}=\frac{\sigma _{t_R\overline{t}_R}^{++}\sigma _{t_L\overline{t}_L}^{}}{\sigma _{t_R\overline{t}_R}^{++}+\sigma _{t_L\overline{t}_L}^{}}$$
(8)
for the case of circularly polarized photon beams, where the superscripts on $`\sigma `$ denote the signs of the photon helicities, and the subscripts $`L`$ and and $`R`$ denote left- and right-handed polarizations for the quarks. They found that asymmetries of the order of 10-4 – 10-3 can get enhanced to the level of a few percent in the presence of beam polarization, for reasonable values of the model parameters. Similar CP-violating observables have been identified in the MSSM by M.-L. Zhou et al..

Choi and Hagiwara  and Baek et al.  have proposed the study of the number asymmetry of top quarks with linearly polarized photon beams, and found that a limit of about 10-17 $`e`$ cm can be put on the electric dipole moment (edm) of the top quark with an integrated $`e^+e^{}`$ luminosity of 20 fb-1 for $`\sqrt{s}=500`$ GeV.

Asymmetries of charged leptons from top decay in $`\gamma \gamma t\overline{t}`$ with longitudinally polarized photons have been studied in . These asymmetries do not need full reconstruction of the top or anti-top. Generalizations of the asymmetries $`A_{ch}`$ and $`A_{fb}`$ described in the previous section (eqs. (2) and (3)) can be used to measure the electric dipole moment. The total number of events, the asymmetries and the 90% C.L. limits on the dipole moment at shown for various helicity combinations of the initial beams in Table 6. Here a cut-off angle $`\theta _0`$ of $`30^{}`$ is assumed, and the beam energy is taken to be 250 GeV. The geometric luminosity is assumed to be 20 fb-1. The laser beam energy is assumed to be 1.24 eV. Table 7 shows the variation of various results with beam energy. Limits at the 90% confidence level of the order of $`2\times 10^{17}`$ $`e`$ cm on (the imaginary part of) the top edm can be obtained with an $`e^+e^{}`$ luminosity of 20 fb-1 and cm energy $`\sqrt{s}=500`$ GeV and suitable choice of electron beam and laser photon polarizations. The limit can be improved by a factor of 8 by going to $`\sqrt{s}=1000`$ GeV.

It should be emphasized that the method relies on direct observation of lepton asymmetries rather than top polarization asymmetries, and hence does not depend heavily on the accuracy of top reconstruction.

We have also considered  the asymmetries discussed in  to study the simultaneous presence of the top edm and an effective CP-violating $`Z\gamma \gamma `$ coupling. By using two different decay-lepton asymmetries, the top edm coupling and the $`Z\gamma \gamma `$ coupling can be studied in a model-independent manner.

Asakawa et al.  study the possibility of determining completely the effective couplings of a neutral Higgs scalar to two photons and to $`t\overline{t}`$ when CP is violated. They study the effects of a neutral Higgs boson without definite CP parity in the process $`\gamma \gamma t\overline{t}`$ around the pole of the Higgs boson mass. Near the resonance, interference between Higgs exchange and the continuum SM amplitude can be sizeable. This can permit a measurement in a model-independent way of 6 coupling constant combinations by studying cross sections with initial beam polarizations and/or final $`t`$, $`\overline{t}`$ polarizations. Using general (circular as well as linear) polarizations for the two photons, and different longitudinal polarizations for the $`t`$ and $`\overline{t}`$, in all 22 combinations could be measured, which could be used to determine the 6 parameters of the theory. Of these, half are CP-odd, and the remaining are CP-even. They also consider a specific example of MSSM, where CP-odd measurements are sensitive to the case of low $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$.

To enable the use of observables directly measureable, we are in the process of evaluating angular and energy distributions of decay leptons in the laboratory frame . Distributions are calculated for arbitrary photon polarizations and folded with the photon spectra arising from Compton scattering of polarized photons off longitudinally polarized electrons or positrons. Work is under progress to estimate CP-violating asymmetries and to examine the sensitivity of these to the CP-violating couplings.

## 3 Conclusions

The processes $`e^+e^{}t\overline{t}`$ and $`\gamma \gamma t\overline{t}`$ can be useful probes of CP violating electric and weak dipole couplings of the top quark to $`\gamma `$ and $`Z`$, as also of CP-violating couplings to neutral Higgs.

Polarization can play a useful role in enhancing the sensitivity, as well as providing an additional parameter to tune for simultaneous model-independent determination of more than one parameter.

Results were presented for angular asymmetries of decay leptons in the laboratory frame, including $`𝒪(\alpha _s)`$ QCD corrections, for the $`e^+e^{}`$ option. Only CP violation in production contributes to these asymmetries. Simultaneous model-independent 90% CL limits of order $`10^{17}`$ $`e`$ cm can be placed on electric and weak dipole moments of the top quark for $`\sqrt{s}=500`$ GeV and integrated luminosity of 200 fb-1, with electron beam polarization of $`\pm 0.9`$. The limit can be improved by a large factor by going to $`\sqrt{s}=1000`$ GeV and integrated luminosity 1000 fb-1.

Using the $`\gamma \gamma `$ option the electric dipole coupling can be measured independent of the weak dipole coupling. Linear or circular polarization of photons can be used as an extra handle to isolate useful CP-odd asymmetries. Again asymmetries of decay-lepton angles in the laboratory frame were shown to be useful in studying CP violation. Limits on the top edm are of order of a few times $`10^{17}`$ $`e`$ cm for the 500 GeV option, and somewhat better for higher $`\sqrt{s}`$.

The $`\gamma \gamma `$ option may also be used to study CP-violating $`\gamma \gamma H`$ couplings. Initial photon polarization combinations provide a number of asymmetries which could be measured. Decay lepton angular distributions in the laboratory frame could provide direct measurement of the CP-violating couplings.

It is clear that to reach sensitivities which can probe predictions of various extensions of SM which predict top electric dipole moment in the range of $`10^{19}10^{18}`$ $`e`$ cm, measurements from different asymmetries and from several decay channels, including hadronic ones, may have to be combined. Most important of all, future studies should concentrate on putting in realistic kinematic cuts against backgrounds and realistic detector efficiencies.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

In this paper we revisit a somewhat old controversy: the origin of higher-order perturbative contributions to the beta function in supersymmetric gauge theories. The relevance of infrared (IR) modes and the distinction between the Wilsonian action and the generator of 1PI functions are at the heart of this debate. A good understanding of these issues is relevant, for instance, for the comparison of field theory results with holographic renormalization group flows.111The calculation of the beta function of N=1 SYM in the context of the AdS/CFT correspondence has been recently considered in . In order to discriminate between the different possible results (which depend on the detailed UV/IR relation one uses), a preliminar requisite is to identify the field theory answer one would like to reproduce. This requires a correct field-theoretical interpretation of the rôle of the IR degrees of freedom.

The so-called “exact beta function” of general N=1 SYM was discovered by Novikov, Shifman, Vainshtein and Zakharov (NSVZ) using instanton analysis . In this approach it is clear that corrections to the one-loop result have an IR origin in an imbalance in the number of fermionic and bosonic zero modes. For pure SYM the NSVZ beta function reads

$$\beta (g)_{_{NSVZ}}=\frac{3C_A}{16\pi ^2}\frac{g^3}{1\frac{C_Ag^2}{8\pi ^2}}.$$
(1.1)
This formula was first derived by Jones in . Later on, superspace perturbative computations to two loops were carried out using regularization by dimensional reduction (DRed) . In this method the two-loop correction to the beta function arises from a local evanescent operator specific to DRed222This is the only local gauge invariant operator of the appropriate dimension: $`\mathrm{Tr}d^4xd^4\theta \mathrm{\Gamma }^a\mathrm{\Gamma }_b(\delta _a^b\widehat{\delta }_a^b)`$, where $`\delta `$ and $`\widehat{\delta }`$ are Kronecker deltas in four and $`n`$ dimensions, respectively. Using a Bianchi identity it can be cast in a form proportional to the classical action: $`ϵ\mathrm{Tr}d^4xd^2\theta W^aW_a`$.. This operator is not available in regularization schemes that stay in four dimensions and Grisaru, Milewski and Zanon pointed out that this seems to imply that no divergence should occur beyond one loop, in conflict with the DRed result . NSVZ then observed that in four dimensions the higher-loop corrections can only arise from nonlocal operators that are nonanalytic at vanishing external momentum . This behaviour can appear only from the domain of virtual momenta of order of the external momenta. Since this domain is excluded by definition in the Wilson action, the flow of the Wilsonian coupling constant is purely one-loop . The standard modern proof of this fact is based on the holomorphic dependence on the complexified coupling constant. The running of the physical coupling constant, on the other hand, has higher-order contributions that appear when one takes the expectation value (in an external field) of the operators in the Wilson action. Furthermore, the IR pole is related to an anomaly, and this is the crucial fact that allows to determine exactly the higher order contributions . In a later contribution, Arkani-Hamed and Murayama rederived the NSVZ beta function in a purely Wilsonian setup . They showed that the canonical Wilsonian coupling constant obeys a NSVZ flow. The reason is that keeping canonical kinetic terms at each scale requires a rescaling of gauge field which is anomalous. This anomaly generates the higher order corrections. These authors claimed that their calculation only depends on ultraviolet (UV) properties of the theory, and thus questioned the IR origin of the corrections. Furthermore, they pointed out that the method of differential renormalization  clearly displays an UV origin of the corrections. This interpretation has been criticized in .

The purpose of this paper is to try to contribute to the understanding of these issues by performing an explicit calculation in differential renormalization (DiffR) . The interest of using this method is twofold: on the one hand we are able to derive the beta function directly from the scale dependence of finite renormalized Green functions, rather than from “infinite” counterterms; in this derivation we see explicitly how nonlocal terms contribute to the beta function in a perturbative four-dimensional method. On the other hand, we clearly separate UV divergences from the off-shell IR divergences that afflict these calculations333In the dimensional methods UV and IR divergences are mixed. In  the IR divergences were removed by the choice of a nonlocal gauge fixing that kept the renormalized quantum propagator in the Feynman gauge. In  the IR divergences were simply subtracted by an $`\stackrel{~}{R}`$ operation . We shall also perfom an $`\stackrel{~}{R}`$ operation, but keeping track of the resulting finite part.. As a by-product, we develop some calculational tools that we believe have an intrinsic interest to the SUSY-community. In fact, DiffR is a computational program that seems to be especially taylored for supersymmetric theories: it neither requires continuation in spacetime dimensions, nor changing the field content of the bare lagrangian. It is rather an implementation of Bogoliubov’s $`R`$ operation, which yields directly renormalized correlation functions satisfying renormalization group equations. DiffR has been applied before to supersymmetric calculations in the Wess-Zumino model  to three loops, in pure SYM and SQED to one and two loops, respectively , and in supergravity to one loop . Its implementation in symbolic programs  enables efficient one-loop calculations in more involved models like the MSSM .

The layout of the paper is the following. In Section 2 we review the method of DiffR and introduce the new tools needed for our calculation. In Section 3 we quickly review the supercovariant background field method to settle the notation. In Section 4 we calculate, to two loops, the renormalized correlation function of two background gauge superfields in supersymmetric gluodynamics. The contribution of matter fields can also be computed using the techniques described here, but the results will be presented elsewhere. In Section 5 we write the renormalization group equation and determine the first two coefficients of the beta function. Section 6 is devoted to a discussion of the origin of the higher-order coefficients in our calculation and in previous works. In particular, we discuss the relation between our result and the flow of the Wilsonian coupling constant. Finally, in the Appendix we compute the two-point function of quantum gauge superfields at one loop, and determine the renormalization group coefficient associated to the gauge-fixing parameter.

## 2 Differential renormalization

Differential renormalization  is a method that defines renormalized correlation functions without intermediate regulator or counterterms. This is achieved by writing coordinate-space expressions that are too singular as derivatives of less singular ones. The derivatives are then understood in the sense of distribution theory, i.e., they are prescribed to act formally by parts on test functions, neglecting divergent surface terms. Diagrams with subdivergences are renormalized according to Bogoliubov’s recursion formula. This procedure leads to bona fide distributions that respect the requirements of quantum field theory. Consider as a simple example the singular function $`(1/x^2)^2`$. Its renormalized form is simply expressed by

$$\left[\frac{1}{x^4}\right]_R=\frac{1}{4}\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\frac{\mathrm{ln}x^2M^2}{x^2}+a_{UV}\delta (x),$$
(2.1)
where the D’Alembertian acts “by parts”. Note that the bare and the renormalized expressions, when understood as functions, coincide for $`x0`$. However, only the renormalized expression is a finite distribution on test functions defined over the complete space. The arbitrary scale $`M`$, with dimension of mass, must be included for dimensional reasons and plays the rôle of a renormalization group scale. Related to this is the fact that one can always add a local term of the appropriate dimension, which reflects the freedom in choosing a scheme. Note that the arbitrary constant $`a_{UV}`$ can be absorbed into a redefinition of $`M`$. Different renormalized expressions can in principle have different renormalization scales and/or different local terms. Our approach will be to write a single (UV) renormalization scale and adjust the contact terms in such a way that gauge invariance is preserved.

Analogously, IR divergent expressions can be made finite by differential renormalization in momentum space. For instance,

$$\left[\frac{1}{p^4}\right]_{\stackrel{~}{R}}=\frac{1}{4}\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }_p\frac{\mathrm{ln}p^2/\overline{M}_{IR}^2}{p^2}+a_{IR}\delta (p).$$
(2.2)
We have defined for convenience $`\overline{M}_{IR}=2M_{IR}/\gamma _E`$, where $`\gamma _E`$ is Euler’s constant, and distinguished the IR scale from the UV one. This is an explicit realization of the so-called $`\stackrel{~}{R}`$ operation that subtracts IR divergences. Again, diagrams with IR subdivergences are treated according to a recursion formula  analogous to the UV one.

Since UV and IR overall divergences are local in coordinate and momentum space, respectively, the $`R`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{R}`$ operations commute, and one can define an operation $`R^{}=\stackrel{~}{R}R`$ to renormalize both UV and IR divergences . The fact that the UV and IR renormalizations decouple means that the UV and IR renormalization scales should be independent. In DiffR this can be achieved by a careful adjustment of the local terms involving both scales444IR DiffR was investigated in  where it was concluded that the combination of UV and IR DiffR was inconsistent, as the results depended on the order in which integrations were performed. According to , however, this corresponds to the natural arbitrariness of the IR renormalization, and this author has actually proposed in  a consistent version of DiffR that deals with both UV and IR divergences. Our approach here will be closer to the original version of DiffR. Let us implement this idea in an example which will play a central role in the calculation of Section 4. Consider the IR singular expression

$$\frac{\mathrm{ln}p^2/\overline{M}^2}{p^4},$$
(2.3)
that arises in IR divergent expressions after renormalization of a UV subdivergence (with $`a_{UV}`$=0). The consistent IR renormalization of (2.3) is given by

$$\left[\frac{\mathrm{ln}p^2/\overline{M}^2}{p^4}\right]_{\stackrel{~}{R}}=\frac{1}{8}\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }_p\frac{\mathrm{ln}^2p^2/\overline{M}_{IR}^2+2\mathrm{ln}p^2/\overline{M}_{IR}^2(1+\mathrm{ln}p^2/\overline{M}^2)}{p^2}+(a_{IR}\mathrm{ln}\frac{M_{IR}^2}{M^2}+b_{IR})\delta (p).$$
(2.4)
This expression differs from the usual one given in  by scale-dependent local terms proportional to $`\mathrm{ln}^2M^2/M_{IR}^2`$ (appart from the explicit local terms with coefficients $`a_{IR}`$ and $`b_{IR}`$). It should be used whenever the “new” scale is to be treated as independent from the “old” one, for consistency of the loop expansion. The scale-dependent local terms of (2.4) are fixed by the requirement that the IR renormalization commute with a rescaling of $`M`$, that is to say,

$$M\frac{}{M}\left[\frac{\mathrm{ln}p^2/\overline{M}^2}{p^4}\right]_{\stackrel{~}{R}}=\left[M\frac{}{M}\frac{\mathrm{ln}p^2/\overline{M}^2}{p^4}\right]_{\stackrel{~}{R}}.$$
(2.5)
Observe that the UV scale $`M`$ only appears in (2.4) in single logarithms. This is fine, for double logarithms of $`M`$ are expected to appear only when the bare expression contains both a UV subdivergence and a UV overall divergence. Observe also that a rescaling of $`M_{IR}`$ in (2.4) gives a local term in $`p`$-space. This procedure can be extended to more general situations, but the identity (2.4) is all we need for the calculation at hand.

Let us finally deal with the scale-independent local terms. They must be chosen such that the renormalized correlation functions respect the fundamental symmetries of the theory. In our problem these are supersymmetry and gauge invariance. Since the first is automatically preserved in superspace, we only have to worry about the second. In ordinary DiffR, we would have to study the Ward identities order by order and adjust the local terms by hand so that they are satisfied. For the calculation of the two-loop beta function it is sufficient to impose the Ward identities at the one-loop level, but this is complicated in the framework of covariant supergraphs. Life gets much easier, however, when one uses the so-called constrained differential renormalization (CDR) . This is a procedure that fixes the arbitrary local terms a priori in such a way that the Ward identities are directly fulfilled . Furthermore, CDR respects supersymmetry in component field calculations . In superspace calculations CDR is particularly simple because, after performing the superalgebra, all subdivergences are Lorentz scalars. According to the CDR prescriptions, this means that the local terms in the renormalized subdiagrams are universal, i.e., they are independent of the Green function or diagram they appear in. Specifically, in our calculation we shall take $`a_{UV}=a_{IR}=0`$, and keep $`b_{IR}`$ arbitrary (but unique) till the very end. When calculating beta functions, this is all we need. Nevertheless, in order to calculate the complete two-point function, we shall also fix by hand the local terms that appear in superficially divergent tensor structures, so that gauge invariance be preserved. (We need this straightforward adjustment because CDR has not been developed beyond the one loop level.)

## 3 Supercovariant background field method

In the background field method, the total gauge superfield $`V_T`$ is splitted into background $`𝐁`$ and quantum $`V`$ superfields according to

$$e^{V_T}=e^𝛀e^{gV}e^{\overline{𝛀}};e^𝐁=e^𝛀e^{\overline{𝛀}}$$
(3.1)
We will follow closely the notation and conventions given in . Background covariant derivatives can be defined as follows

$`\mathbf{}_\alpha `$ $``$ $`e^𝛀D_\alpha e^𝛀=D_\alpha i𝚪_\alpha (𝛀)`$
$`\overline{\mathbf{}}_{\dot{\alpha }}`$ $``$ $`e^{\overline{𝛀}}\overline{D}_{\dot{\alpha }}e^{\overline{𝛀}}=\overline{D}_{\dot{\alpha }}i\overline{𝚪}_{\dot{\alpha }}(\overline{𝛀})`$ (3.2)
In the chiral representation for covariant derivatives, the “quantum-background” splitting amounts to

$`_\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`e^{V_T}D_\alpha e^{V_T}=e^{\overline{𝛀}}e^{gV}\mathbf{}_\alpha e^{gV}e^{\overline{𝛀}}`$
$`\overline{}_{\dot{\alpha }}`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{D}_{\dot{\alpha }}=e^{\overline{𝛀}}\overline{\mathbf{}}_{\dot{\alpha }}e^{\overline{𝛀}}.`$ (3.3)
The classical action of pure N=1 SYM then adopts the following form

$`S_{YM}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{g^2}}{\displaystyle d^4xd^2\theta \mathrm{Tr}W^2}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2g^2}}{\displaystyle d^4xd^2\theta \mathrm{Tr}\left(\frac{i}{2}[\overline{}^{\dot{\alpha }},\{\overline{}_{\dot{\alpha }},_\alpha \}]\right)^2}`$ (3.4)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2g^2}}{\displaystyle d^4xd^2\theta \mathrm{Tr}\left(\frac{1}{2}\left[\overline{\mathbf{}}^{\dot{\alpha }}\{\overline{\mathbf{}}_{\dot{\alpha }},e^{gV}\mathbf{}_\alpha e^{gV}\}\right]\right)^2}`$
The quantum-gauge fixing $`\mathbf{}^2V=0`$ retains background covariance. Usual averaging requires the introduction of Nielsen-Kallosh ghosts:

$`{\displaystyle 𝒟f𝒟\overline{f}𝒟b𝒟\overline{b}\delta (\mathbf{}^2Vf)\delta (\overline{\mathbf{}}^2V\overline{f})\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{1}{\alpha }d^4xd^4\theta (f\overline{f}+b\overline{b})\right)}`$
$`={\displaystyle 𝒟b𝒟\overline{b}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{1}{\alpha }d^4xd^4\theta [\frac{1}{2}V(\mathbf{}^2\overline{\mathbf{}}^2+\overline{\mathbf{}}^2\mathbf{}^2)V+b\overline{b}]\right)}`$ (3.5)
Expanding $`S_{YM}+S_{gf}`$ in powers of the quantum field $`V`$ yields

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`S_0+S_2+S_{int}`$ (3.6)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{g^2}}{\displaystyle d^4xd^2\theta \mathrm{Tr}𝐖^2}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle d^4xd^2\theta V[\widehat{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }}+\xi (\mathbf{}^2\overline{\mathbf{}}^2+\overline{\mathbf{}}^2\mathbf{}^2)]V}`$
$`{\displaystyle d^4xd^4\theta \left(\overline{c}^{}c+\overline{c}c^{}+(1+\xi )\overline{b}b\right)}+S_{int}(V,c,c^{})`$
where $`\xi =\frac{1}{\alpha }1`$, $`\widehat{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }}=\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }i𝚪^{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}_{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}\frac{i}{2}(_{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}𝚪^{\alpha \dot{\alpha }})\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}i𝐖^\alpha \mathbf{}_\alpha i\overline{𝐖}^{\dot{\alpha }}\overline{\mathbf{}}_{\dot{\alpha }}`$ and the dots stand for terms with higher powers of $`V`$ or $`c,c^{}`$. All anticommuting superfields, $`c,c^{}`$ and $`b`$ interact with the background field $`𝚪`$ through the constraint that they be background covariantly chiral, $`\overline{\mathbf{}}c=\overline{\mathbf{}}b=\mathbf{}\overline{c}=\mathbf{}\overline{b}=0`$. The Effective Action in the Background Field Gauge admits a gauge invariant expansion in the form

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }[𝐁]=d^4xd^4yd^2\theta \left[𝐖^\alpha (x)𝐖_\alpha (y)\right]G^{(2)}(yx)+\mathrm{}$$
(3.7)
Our aim is to calculate the 2-point 1PI function $`G^{(2)}`$. For the perturbative computation of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, we expand the action in powers of $`V`$ and distinguish the “free” part (in the presence of the background), $`S_0`$, from the interacting part, $`S_{int}`$:

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }[𝐁]`$ $`=`$ $`S_0+\mathrm{\Gamma }_\xi ^{1loop}`$ (3.8)
$`+\mathrm{exp}S_{\mathrm{int}}[{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta J}},{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta j}},{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta \overline{j}}}]\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle }d^4xd^4\theta ({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}J\widehat{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }}^1J\overline{j}\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }_+^1j)\right]_{J=j=\overline{j}=0}`$
where $`\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }_+\mathrm{\Phi }=\overline{}^2^2\mathrm{\Phi }=[\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }i𝐖^\alpha \mathbf{}_\alpha \frac{i}{2}(\mathbf{}^\alpha 𝐖_\alpha )]\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is the D’Alembertian acting on background-covariant chiral fields (similarly for anti-chiral fields $`\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }_{}\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}=^2\overline{}^2\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}=[\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }i\overline{𝐖}^{\dot{\alpha }}\overline{\mathbf{}}_{\dot{\alpha }}\frac{i}{2}(\overline{\mathbf{}}^{\dot{\alpha }}\overline{𝐖}_{\dot{\alpha }})]\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$), and $`J`$, $`j,\overline{j}`$ collectivelly denote sources for vector chiral superfields in (3.6). $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\xi ^{1loop}`$ stands for the 1-loop contribution in the gauge $`\xi `$. We are interested in computing the two-point amplitude at two loops in the Feynman gauge $`\xi =0`$. However the gauge parameter $`\xi `$ is renormalized and the RG equation will generically contain a term $`\gamma _\xi /\xi G^{(2)}|_{\xi =0}`$. Since $`\gamma _\xi =\xi /\mathrm{log}M=𝒪(g^2)+\mathrm{}`$ the linear dependence in $`\xi `$ of the 1-loop Green’s function will be needed.

## 4 Calculation of the two-point function

### 4.1 One Loop

Formally, the exact one-loop contribution in an arbitrary Lorentz gauge, $`\xi `$, is

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_\xi ^{1loop}=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{Tr}\mathrm{ln}\left(\widehat{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }}+\xi (\mathbf{}^2\overline{\mathbf{}}^2+\overline{\mathbf{}}^2\mathbf{}^2)\right)+2\mathrm{T}\mathrm{r}\mathrm{ln}(\mathbf{}^2\overline{\mathbf{}}^2)+\mathrm{Tr}\mathrm{ln}\left((1+\xi )\mathbf{}^2\overline{\mathbf{}}^2\right).$$
(4.1)
The three terms represent a loop of quantum gauge superfields, Faddeev-Popov ghosts and Nielsen-Kallosh ghosts, respectively. Expanding to linear order in $`\xi `$

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_\xi ^{1loop}=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{Tr}\mathrm{ln}\widehat{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }}+3\mathrm{T}\mathrm{r}\mathrm{ln}(\mathbf{}^2\overline{\mathbf{}}^2)+\frac{\xi }{2}\mathrm{Tr}[(\frac{1}{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }_{}}\frac{1}{\widehat{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }}})\mathbf{}^2\overline{\mathbf{}}^2+h.c.]+𝒪(\xi ^2).$$
(4.2)
From this expression, we are instructed to expand in powers of the external background field $`𝛀`$. The first term in (4.2) is well known to start contributing from four-point functions up . The second piece, stemming from the ghosts, yields the standard contribution to the 1-loop beta function in the Feynman gauge.

The diagram involved is shown in Figure 1-a) and yields

$`{\displaystyle \frac{3C_A}{2}}{\displaystyle d^4xd^4yd^4\theta 𝐖^\alpha (x)𝚪_\alpha (y)\mathrm{\Delta }^2(xy)}`$
$`\stackrel{R}{}{\displaystyle \frac{3C_A}{4^3\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle }d^4xd^4yd^2\theta 𝐖^\alpha (x)𝐖_\alpha (y)\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\left[\mathrm{\Delta }(xy)\mathrm{ln}(xy)^2M^2\text{}\right]`$ (4.3)
after use of (2.1) with $`a_{UV}=0`$. Here the free propagator is $`\mathrm{\Delta }(x){\displaystyle \frac{1}{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }}}(x)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x^2}}`$. The last term in (4.2) involves corrections to the gauge parameter. Standard $`\mathbf{}`$-algebra manipulations reduce it to

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\xi C_A}{4}}{\displaystyle d^4xd^4yd^2\theta 𝐖^\alpha (x)𝐖_\alpha (y)\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\left[\text{}\mathrm{\Delta }(xy)d^4z\mathrm{\Delta }(zy)\mathrm{\Delta }(zx)\right]}`$ (4.4)
The integral that remains to be done corresponds to the insertion diagram of figure 1b), and diverges logarithmically for large $`|z|`$. This is the first instance of an off-shell IR singularity, that we renormalize along the lines explained in Section 2:

$`{\displaystyle d^4z\frac{1}{(xz)^2}\frac{1}{(zy)^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^4p\frac{1}{p^4}e^{ip(xy)}}`$ (4.5)
$`\stackrel{\stackrel{~}{R}}{}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle d^4p\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }_p\frac{\mathrm{ln}\frac{p^2}{\overline{M}_{IR}^2}}{p^2}e^{ip(xy)}}`$
$`=`$ $`\pi ^2\mathrm{ln}(xy)^2M_{IR}^2.`$
We have used the identity (2.2) with $`a_{IR}=0`$. In the end we obtain the following contribution to linear order in $`\xi `$:

$$\frac{\xi C_A}{4^3\pi ^2}\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }[\mathrm{\Delta }(xy)\mathrm{ln}(xy)^2M_{IR}^2],$$
(4.6)
and the full one-loop contribution results in

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\xi ^{1loop}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{C_A}{4^3\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle }d^4xd^4yd^2\theta 𝐖^\alpha (x)𝐖_\alpha (y)\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }[\text{}3\mathrm{\Delta }(xy)\mathrm{ln}((xy)^2M^2)`$ (4.7)
$`\text{}\xi \mathrm{\Delta }(xy)\mathrm{ln}((xy)^2M_{IR}^2)]+𝒪(\xi ^2)+\mathrm{}`$
### 4.2 Two Loops

We will compute the two-loop contribution in the Feynman gauge, $`\xi =0`$. From (3.8), the higher-loop contributions come from the expansion of a vacuum diagram with propagators and vertices made out of background covariant derivatives (Figure 2). In particular there is a single such diagram at two loops, as shown in .

After performing the $`\mathbf{}`$-algebra we find the following nonvanishing contributions (up to a common factor $`3g^2C_A^2/2`$):

$`D_1`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle d^4xd^4yd^4\theta \overline{𝐖}^{\dot{\alpha }}(x,\theta )𝐖^\alpha (y,\theta )\sigma _{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}^\mu [\mathrm{\Delta }(xy)_\mu I^0(x,y)]},`$
$`D_2`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle d^4xd^4yd^4\theta \overline{𝐖}^{\dot{\alpha }}(x,\theta )𝐖^\alpha (y,\theta )\sigma _{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}^\mu \left[2\mathrm{\Delta }(xy)_\mu I^0(x,y)_\mu (\mathrm{\Delta }(xy)I^0(x,y))\right]}`$
$`D_3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle }d^4xd^4yd^4\theta 𝚪^\mu (x,\theta )𝚪^\nu (y,\theta )[_\mu _\nu (\mathrm{\Delta }I^0(x,y))`$
$`+4_\mu ((_\nu \mathrm{\Delta })I^0(x,y))4((_\mu _\nu \mathrm{\Delta })I^0(x,y))],`$
$`D_4`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle d^4xd^4yd^4\theta 𝚪^\mu (x,\theta )𝚪^\nu (y,\theta )\left(I_{\mu \nu }^1(x,y)I_{\mu \nu }^2(x,y)\right)},`$
$`D_5`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle d^4xd^4yd^4\theta 𝚪^\mu (x,\theta )𝚪^\nu (y,\theta )\delta _{\mu \nu }(\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\mathrm{\Delta }(xy))I^0(x,y)}.`$
Here and in the following, all derivatives act on $`x`$ unless otherwise stated. In $`D_5`$ we have replaced $`\delta (x)`$ by $`\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\mathrm{\Delta }(xy)`$. The integrals $`I^i`$ are defined as follows:

$`I^0(x,y)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^4ud^4v\mathrm{\Delta }(xu)\mathrm{\Delta }(yv)\mathrm{\Delta }^2(uv)}`$
$`I_{\mu \nu }^1(x,y)`$ $`=`$ $`\text{}{\displaystyle d^4ud^4v\mathrm{\Delta }(uv)\mathrm{\Delta }(xv)_\mu ^x\mathrm{\Delta }(xu)\mathrm{\Delta }(yv)_\nu ^y\mathrm{\Delta }(yu)}`$ (4.9)
$`I_{\mu \nu }^2(x,y)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^4ud^4v\mathrm{\Delta }(uv)\mathrm{\Delta }(xu)_\mu ^x\mathrm{\Delta }(xv)\text{}\mathrm{\Delta }(yv)_\nu ^y\mathrm{\Delta }(yu)}.`$
As shown above, all expressions but $`D_4`$ are obtained from a single integral $`I^0`$, which is both UV and IR logarithmically divergent. On the other hand, derivatives of $`I^0(x)`$ are just UV divergent. The integrals $`I^1`$ and $`I^2`$, which appear in $`D_4`$, are IR safe as well.

The strategy now is to look for a renormalized expression for the sum $`_{i=1}^5D_i`$. To begin with we renormalize the integral $`I^0`$. We must first cure the UV subdivergence, using the DiffR identity (2.1) with $`a_{UV}=0`$:

$`I^0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(4\pi ^2)^4}}{\displaystyle d^4ud^4v\frac{1}{(xu)^2}\frac{1}{(yv)^2}\frac{1}{(uv)^4}}.`$ (4.10)
$`\stackrel{R}{}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4(4\pi ^2)^4}}{\displaystyle d^4ud^4v\frac{1}{(xu)^2}\frac{1}{(yv)^2}\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }^u\frac{\mathrm{ln}(uv)^2M^2}{(uv)^2}}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4(4\pi ^2)^3}}{\displaystyle d^4v\frac{1}{(yv)^2}\frac{\mathrm{ln}(xv)^2M^2}{(xv)^2}}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4(4\pi ^2)^3}}{\displaystyle d^4p\frac{\mathrm{ln}p^2/\overline{M}^2}{p^4}e^{ip(xy)}}.`$
We are left with an IR divergent expression, which is renormalized using the identity (2.4) (with $`a_{IR}=0`$). Integrating by parts and Fourier transforming back into $`x`$ space we finally find

$$I_R^0=\frac{1}{32(4\pi ^2)^2}[\mathrm{ln}^2(xy)^2M_{IR}^2+2\mathrm{ln}(xy)^2M_{IR}^2(1\mathrm{ln}(xy)^2M^2)+b_{IR}]$$
(4.11)
Using this result we readily obtain, with $`\kappa =1/(4\pi )^4`$,

$`D_1+D_2`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle }d^4xd^4yd^4\theta 𝐖^\alpha (x,\theta )\overline{𝐖}^{\dot{\alpha }}(y,\theta )\times `$ (4.12)
$`\sigma _{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}^\mu _\mu (\kappa \mathrm{\Delta }(xy)\mathrm{ln}(xy)^2M^2+\mathrm{\Delta }(xy)I_R^0(xy)),`$
which, through the use of Bianchi identities $`\mathbf{}^\alpha 𝐖_\alpha =\overline{\mathbf{}}^{\dot{\alpha }}\overline{𝐖}_{\dot{\alpha }}`$, can be written as an F term:

$`D_1+D_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }d^4xd^4yd^2\theta 𝐖^\alpha (x,\theta )𝐖_\alpha (y,\theta )\times `$ (4.13)
$`\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }(\kappa \mathrm{\Delta }(xy)\mathrm{ln}(xy)^2M^2\mathrm{\Delta }(xy)I_R^0(xy)).`$
To calculate $`D_3+D_5`$ it is convenient to decompose the last term of $`D_3`$ (which has an overall divergence) into trace and traceless parts:

$$4\left[(_\mu _\nu \mathrm{\Delta })I^0\right]_R=\left[((4_\mu _\nu \delta _{\mu \nu }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ })\mathrm{\Delta })I^0\right]_R+\delta _{\mu \nu }\left[(\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\mathrm{\Delta })I^0\right]_R+c\delta _{\mu \nu }\delta (xy).$$
(4.14)
According to CDR, we have included a local term that can appear in the trace-traceless decomposition at the renormalized level . We shall fix its coefficient later on requiring gauge invariance. Up to this term, the trace cancels the complete diagram $`D_5`$. The rest of $`D_3`$ is overall UV finite. Renormalizing the subdivergences we find, after some algebra,

$`D_3+D_5`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^4xd^4yd^4\theta 𝚪^\mu (x,\theta )𝚪^\nu (y,\theta )}`$ (4.15)
$`\times \{\text{}(_\mu _\nu \delta _{\mu \nu }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ })({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Delta }(xy)I_{}^0(xy)+\kappa \mathrm{\Delta }(xy)[\mathrm{ln}(xy)^2M^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}])`$
$`+\delta _{\mu \nu }[{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa }{4}}\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\left(\mathrm{\Delta }(xy)\mathrm{ln}(xy)^2M^2\right)+e\delta (xy)]\text{}\}.`$
With $`e=\frac{3}{8}\kappa +\frac{c}{2}`$. The non-trasverse pieces in the last line must be cancelled by $`D_4`$. Let us consider this contribution next. Again, it is convenient to split it into traceless and trace parts:

$$I_{R\mu \nu }^1I_{R\mu \nu }^2=(I_{\mu \nu }^1\frac{\delta _{\mu \nu }}{4}I^1)(I_{\mu \nu }^2\frac{\delta _{\mu \nu }}{4}I^2)+\frac{\delta _{\mu \nu }}{4}(I_{R\rho \rho }^1I_{R\rho \rho }^2)+c^{}\delta _{\mu \nu }\delta (xy).$$
(4.16)
We have included again an arbitrary local term in the trace-traceless decomposition. The trace can be computed using Gegenbauer polynomials . (Alternatively, its scale dependent part can be easily obtained with “systematic” DiffR .) The traceless part is UV and IR finite. Therefore, it is fixed by dimensionality and by the traceless condition to be of the form $`a(_\mu _\nu \frac{\delta _{\mu \nu }}{4}\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ })\frac{1}{(xy)^2}`$. The coefficient $`a`$ may be determined from a rather cumbersome calculation with Feynman parameters. Adding trace and traceless parts we find

$`I_{R\mu \nu }^1I_{R\mu \nu }^2`$ $`=`$ $`a(_\mu _\nu \delta _{\mu \nu }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ })\mathrm{\Delta }(xy)`$
$`\delta _{\mu \nu }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\left[\mathrm{\Delta }(xy)({\displaystyle \frac{\kappa }{4}}\mathrm{ln}(xy)^2M^2({\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}\zeta (3)\kappa +c^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}a))\text{}\right].`$
Adding this to (4.15) we obtain

$`D_3+D_4+D_5`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle d^4xd^4yd^4\theta 𝚪^\mu (x,\theta )𝚪^\nu (y,\theta )}`$ (4.18)
$`\times (_\mu _\nu \delta _{\mu \nu }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ })\left[\text{}\mathrm{\Delta }(xy)(I_{}^0(xy)2\kappa \mathrm{ln}(xy)^2M^2a)\right]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{h}{2}}{\displaystyle d^4xd^4yd^4\theta 𝚪^\mu (x,\theta )𝚪^\nu (y,\theta )\delta _{\mu \nu }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\mathrm{\Delta }},`$
with $`h=\frac{3}{4}\kappa (1+\zeta (3))+\frac{3}{4}a+c+c^{}`$. The $`M`$\- and $`M_{IR}`$-dependent parts are automatically transverse, and the non transverse contribution of the scale independent local part can be set to zero (so that the sum is gauge invariant) adjusting $`c`$ and $`c^{}`$ appropiately. Thanks to its transversality, we can then rewrite this expression in a form proportional to the classical action:

$`D_3+D_4+D_5`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}{\displaystyle d^4xd^4yd^2\theta 𝐖^\alpha (x,\theta )𝐖_\alpha (y,\theta )}`$
$`\times \text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }[\mathrm{\Delta }(xy)(\text{}I_{}^0(xy))2\kappa \mathrm{ln}(xy)^2M^2a)].`$
Summing up all diagrams and using (4.11), we finally obtain for the full 2-loop contribution in the Feynman gauge $`(\xi =0)`$

$`{\displaystyle \frac{3g^2C_A^2}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{5}{}}}D_i`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3g^2C_A^2}{4^6\pi ^4}}{\displaystyle }d^4xd^4yd^2\theta 𝐖^\alpha (x,\theta )𝐖_\alpha (y,\theta )\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }[\text{}\mathrm{\Delta }(xy)`$
$`\times (\mathrm{ln}^2(xy)^2M_{IR}^2+2\mathrm{ln}(xy)^2M_{IR}^2(1\mathrm{ln}(xy)^2M^2)+4\mathrm{ln}(xy)^2M^2\text{})]`$
A possible local and scale-independent contribution has been cancelled by an adequate choice of $`b_{IR}`$ in (4.11). We see that only single logarithms of $`M`$ appear in the final result, as required by renormalization group invariance (see Section 5). This fact can also be understood in the following way: For a double $`M`$ logarithm we must have both UV subdivergences and overall UV divergences. By power counting, only the $`𝚪𝚪`$ terms may contain overall UV divergences. Furthermore, the traceless parts multiplying $`𝚪𝚪`$ are finite and can have only single logarithms of $`M`$, arising from the subdivergences. But gauge invariance, i.e. transversality, forces the trace part to have the same logarithm structure, so double logarithms of $`M`$ are also forbidden in the complete result. The same argument shows that were the theory scale independent (i.e., finite) to $`n`$ loops, the background two-point function would also be scale independent to $`n+1`$ loops555The corresponding properties for the $`1/ϵ`$ poles in DRed were found in .. This line of reasoning can be pushed even further if we distinguish in our calculation the two-loop UV scale, $`M^{}`$, from the one-loop scale, $`M`$. Requiring transversality on $`M`$ and $`M^{}`$ independently we see that $`M^{}`$ must cancel in the final result. (This means that the coefficient $`c`$ contains the expression $`\mathrm{ln}M_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}/M^2`$.) So, it is only the one-loop scale that appears in the renormalized two-loop function. The significance of this observation is discussed in Section 6.

## 5 Renormalization group equation

After adding up the partial results (4.7) and (4.2), the final renormalized expression for the background two-point function reads

$`G^{(2)}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2g^2}}\delta (x)`$ (5.1)
$`\text{}+{\displaystyle \frac{3C_A}{4^2(4\pi ^2)^2}}\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}(x^2M^2)}{x^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\xi C_A}{4^2(4\pi ^2)^2}}\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}(x^2M_{IR}^2)}{x^2}}+𝒪(\xi ^2)`$
$`\text{}+{\displaystyle \frac{3g^2C_A^2}{4^4(4\pi ^2)^3}}\{\text{}\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}^2(x^2M_{IR}^2)+2\mathrm{ln}(x^2M_{IR}^2)(1\mathrm{ln}(x^2M^2))+4\mathrm{ln}(x^2M^2)}{x^2}}`$
$`\text{}+𝒪(\xi )\text{}\}+𝒪(g^4).`$
Due to background gauge invariance, $`𝐖`$ undergoes no wave function renormalization. Thus the renormalization group equation for this Green function reads

$$\left(M\frac{}{M}+\beta (g)\frac{}{g}+\gamma _\xi (g)\frac{}{\xi }\right)G^{(2)}(x)|_{\xi =0}=0.$$
(5.2)
Note that we can only go into the Feynman gauge after evaluating the derivative with respect to $`\xi `$. We have not included a term $`\gamma _{IR}M_{IR}/M_{IR}`$ because in deriving the renormalization formula (2.4) we required that the UV and IR scales were independent from each other, and hence $`\gamma _{IR}=M/M_{IR}M_{IR}/M=0`$. In fact, $`M_{IR}`$ parametrizes nonlocal contributions, which are not object of UV renormalization.

We solve the renormalization group equation perturbatively to order $`g^2`$ (two loops). The first coefficient in the expansion of $`\gamma _\xi (g)`$ can be read off from the 1-loop vacuum polarization for the gauge superfield field $`V`$, which is calculated in the Appendix with the result $`\gamma _\xi (g)=\frac{3C_A}{4(4\pi ^2)}g^2+O(g^4)`$. With this input, all the nonlocal and scale dependent pieces cancel out in (5.2). This is a check of the consistency of our renormalization procedure. In particular, note that the IR scale generated in the gauge parameter at two loops is cancelled by corrections to the gauge parameter at one loop. The remaining local parts of the renormalization group equation (5.2) uniquely fix the first two coefficients of the beta function: 666 A word on normalization. The coupling constant $`g`$ as given in (3.4) is $`\sqrt{2}`$ times larger than the standard Yang-Mills coupling, $`g_{YM}`$ (see p. 55 in ). In terms of the latter, $`\beta (g_{YM})=\frac{3}{2}\frac{C_A}{8\pi ^2}g_{YM}^2\frac{3}{2}(\frac{C_A}{8\pi ^2})^2g_{YM}^5+\mathrm{}`$ which matches the expansion of expression (1.1).

$$\beta _(g)=\frac{3}{4}\frac{C_A}{8\pi ^2}g^3\frac{3}{8}[\frac{C_A}{8\pi ^2}]^2g^5+𝒪(g^7)$$
(5.3)
## 6 Discussion

Using DiffR, we have calculated the complete renormalized correlation function of two background gauge superfields in pure N=1 SYM. This calculation illustrates the power and simplicity of this method in applications to supersymmetric gauge theories. In particular, we have seen that DiffR can be employed to subtract IR divergencies as well, and that the corresponding IR scale can be clearly distinguished from the UV one. From the dependence of the two-point function on the renormalization scale we have derived the first and second coefficients of the beta function, $`b_0`$ and $`b_1`$. Furthermore, we have presented a new argument showing that the $`n+1`$-loop coefficient vanishes for any supersymmetric theory which is finite to $`n`$ loops. This important property had been proven before using DRed .

It is interesting to have a closer look at the way in which the two-loop coefficient of the beta function, $`b_1`$, is generated in our calculation.

1. UV one-loop subdivergencies are subtracted. This entails a one-loop wave-function renormalization of the quantum gauge superfield. The corresponding renormalized subdiagrams depend on the one-loop renormalization scale $`M`$ in a local way.
2. The overall UV divergencies are subtracted and a new renormalization scale $`M^{}`$ is introduced. However, the combination of supersymmetry, gauge invariance and power counting implies that $`M^{}`$ cancels out in the complete renormalized two-point function. On the other hand, there remains a nonlocal dependence on $`M`$ (see Eqs. (4.12) and (4.18)).777Note that the expression “dependence on $`M`$” refers to the derivative with respect to $`M`$ and not to the term in which $`M`$ appears, which is always nonlocal.
3. After integration over half the supercoordinates, the dependence on $`M`$ becomes local.
4. Finally, this local scale dependence is compensated by $`b_1`$ in the renormalization group equation. The off-shell IR divergencies only play a passive rôle, as they exactly cancel in the renormalization group equation.

Summarizing, the scale associated to the one-loop renormalization of the quantum superfield is the one that gives rise to the two-loop coefficient of the beta function! This is somewhat surprising because naïvely one would think that the two-loop coefficient should have its origin in $`M^{}`$, which is the scale associated to two-loop superficial divergencies. Should this be the case, the beta function would be purely one loop (remember that no overall scale can appear at any order $`n>1`$). However, we have seen explicitly in a two-loop calculation that the subdivergences play a nontrivial role. More generally, we expect that subdivergencies are responsible for all higher-order coefficients of the beta function. This agrees with the NSVZ form of the beta function. The fact that $`M^{}`$ disappears in our method is directly related to the observation in  that in invariant four-dimensional regularization methods there are no divergencies after all subdivergencies have been subtracted. As we have seen, this does not imply $`b_1=0`$. Therefore, it seems that the naïve perturbative derivation of the beta function from renormalization constants needs some modification in this case. This modification is surely related to the presence of the anomaly discussed in . From this point of view, the fact that the standard derivation from renormalization constants works in DRed seems related to the fact that there are no rescaling anomalies in this method .

As a matter of fact, the mechanism we have just described agrees with previous calculations in which the corrections to the one-loop result arise from a one-loop anomaly . This anomaly manifests itself in different ways: as a nonzero expectation value for the operator $`WW`$ ; as the noninvariance of the measure under the rescaling of the gauge field ; or as the quantum breaking of either supersymmetry or holomorphy in the framework of local coupling . In our description, the anomaly is to be associated with the external loop, and is responsible for the promotion of the $`M`$ dependence into a non-vanishing nonlocal structure that eventually generates $`b_1`$. This is completely analogous to the explicit calculations in SQED performed in  (except for the fact that we subtract the subdivergencies). Note that even though $`M^{}`$ cancels out, the presence of a $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{}`$ UV behaviour is crucial for the anomaly to exist. On the other hand, as emphasized in , this nonlocal structure is nonanalytic at vanishing external momentum. Such on-shell IR divergence, which cancels after integration over the $`\overline{\theta }`$ coordinates, is a manifestation of the “IR side” of the anomaly  and should not be confused with the off-shell IR divergences that we have renormalized in our calculation. More generally, IR effects are known to be responsible for quantum corrections to F terms in the 1PI effective action . The on-shell IR divergence arises from the region of virtual momenta of order the momentum of the external field. If this region is excluded, one finds $`b_1=0`$. Our subtraction of IR divergencies, on the other hand, is local in momentum space and does not modify the analiticity properties of the two-point function. The same applies to the IR subtractions in . Summarizing, the two-loop coefficient of the beta function arises from a one-loop UV scale which survives at two loops only when IR effects are included.

For completeness, we discuss in the rest of this section the connection between the Gell-Mann-Low beta function we have computed (1PI beta function) and the flow of the coupling in the Wilsonian action (Wilsonian beta function). The Wilsonian effective action can be understood as the generating functional of Green functions with an IR cutoff, for external momenta smaller that this cutoff . Therefore, at least in perturbation theory, the (“holomorphic”) Wilsonian coupling obeys a one-loop renormalization group flow. (For pure Super Yang-Mills this result also holds when nonperturbative effects are included.) The higher-order contributions to the physical beta function appear when calculating expectation values of the operators in the Wilsonian action . On the other hand, in  the “canonical” Wilsonian coupling was shown to obey instead an NSVZ flow. According to this work, in a Wilsonian setup this comes about because a rescaling of the gauge superfields at each scale is needed in order to keep kinetic terms canonically normalized. This rescaling induces an anomalous Jacobian, and it is this anomaly that induces the corrections to the one-loop result . In this reference, the anomaly is calculated à la Fujikawa. A basic element of the calculation is the introduction of a UV cutoff and one might believe that the anomaly (and thus the running of the canonical coupling) depends only on the UV properties of the theory. However, a closer look shows that the low-energy degrees of freedom play a fundamental rôle . In fact, the IR degrees of freedom must be included in the derivation of the anomaly if low-energy physics is to remain unchanged under the field rescalings. In this sense, taking the rescaling anomaly into account is equivalent to calculating the expectation value of the Wilsonian action .

It was also argued in  (see  as well) that the canonical Wilsonian coupling is closely related to the 1PI running coupling. (This implies that the expectation value of the canonical Wilsonian action is basically trivial.) This relation has been made more precise, in a general context, in . There it is shown that, when all kinetic terms are canonically normalized, the Wilsonian coupling becomes independent of the renormalization scale for large cutoff. Then one can derive the equation (see also )

$$\beta (g)=\left[\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }/\mathrm{\Lambda }g_{cW}(g,\mathrm{\Lambda }/M)}{/gg_{cW}(g,\mathrm{\Lambda }/M)}\right]_\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}.$$
(6.1)
Here $`g`$ is the physical coupling, $`g_{cW}`$ is the canonical Wilsonian coupling, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the flowing cutoff in the Wilsonian action and $`M`$ is the renormalization scale, introduced by low-energy normalization conditions. Using this equation, we show now that (at least for large $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$) the 1PI and the canonical Wilsonian beta functions agree to two loops in perturbation theory, as functions of $`g`$ and $`g_{cW}`$, respectively. The flow of $`g_{cW}`$ is of the generic form

$$\beta _{cW}(g_{cW})\mathrm{\Lambda }g_{cW}/\mathrm{\Lambda }=b_0g_{cW}^3+b_1g_{cW}^5+b_2g_{cW}^7+𝒪(g_{cW}^9),$$
(6.2)
with constant coefficients $`b_n`$. On the other hand, $`g_{cW}`$ can be perturbatively expanded in powers of $`g`$:

$$g_{cW}=g\left(1+C_0(\mathrm{\Lambda }/M)g^2+C_1(\mathrm{\Lambda }/M)g^4+𝒪(g^6)\right),$$
(6.3)
where we have taken $`g_{cW}=g`$ at tree level. Inserting (6.3) into (6.2) we see that

$`C_0(\mathrm{\Lambda }/M)`$ $`=`$ $`b_0\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{M}}+c_0,`$
$`C_1(\mathrm{\Lambda }/M)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}b_0^2\mathrm{ln}^2{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{M}}+(2b_0c_0+b_1)\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{M}}+c_1,`$ (6.4)
where $`c_n`$ are scheme dependent constants. Using (6.2) and (6.3) in Eq. (6.1) we find

$$\beta (g)=\left[b_0g^3+b_1g^5+(b_2+2b_1C_0+3b_0C_0^22b_0C_1)g^7+𝒪(g^9)\right]_\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{},$$
(6.5)
and using also (6.4) we see that the beta function is finite:

$$\beta (g)=b_0g^3+b_1g^5+(b_0(3c_0^2c_1)+b_1c_0+b_2)g^7+𝒪(g^9).$$
(6.6)
Hence, the first two coefficients of the 1PI beta function coincide, in any (mass-independent) scheme, with the first two coefficients of the canonical Wilsonian beta function. The other coefficients are scheme dependent, as expected. This scheme dependence has been studied for general N=1 theories in .

## Acknowledgements

It is a pleasure to thank D.Z. Freedman, M.T. Grisaru, J.I. Latorre and D. Zanon for useful discussions. The work of J.M. was partially supported by DGCIYT under contract PB96-0960. The work of M.P.V. was supported in part by the European Program HPRN-CT-2000-00149 (Physics at Colliders).

## Appendix A Calculation of $`\gamma _\xi `$

The classical action in a generic Lorentz gauge reads

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2g^2}}{\displaystyle d^8z(e^{gV}D^\alpha e^{gV})\overline{D}^2(e^{gV}D_\alpha e^{gV})}(\xi +1){\displaystyle d^8z(D^2V)(\overline{D}^2V)}.`$ (A.1)
To second order in the quantum field $`V`$ it reduces to

$`S^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle d^8zVD^\alpha \overline{D}^2D_\alpha V}{\displaystyle \frac{(\xi +1)}{2}}{\displaystyle d^8zV(D^2\overline{D}^2+\overline{D}^2D^2)V}`$ (A.2)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle d^8zV\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\mathrm{\Pi }_{1/2}V}{\displaystyle \frac{(\xi +1)}{2}}d^8zV\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\mathrm{\Pi }_0V,`$
were we have defined the projectors

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_{1/2}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{D^\alpha \overline{D}^2D_\alpha }{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }}}`$ (A.3)
$`\mathrm{\Pi }_0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{D^2\overline{D}^2+\overline{D}^2D^2}{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }}}.`$ (A.4)
The one-loop correction to this quadratic action can be easily computed. The result in the Feynman gauge is

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3C_Ag^2}{4(4\pi ^2)^2}}{\displaystyle d^8z_1d^8z_2V(z_1)D^\alpha \overline{D}^2D_\alpha V(z_2)\delta _{12}\frac{1}{(x_1x_2)^4}}`$ (A.5)
$`\stackrel{R}{}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3C_Ag^2}{16(4\pi ^2)}}{\displaystyle d^8z_1d^8z_2V(z_1)D^\alpha \overline{D}^2D_\alpha V(z_2)\delta _{12}\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\left[\mathrm{\Delta }(x_{12})\mathrm{ln}x_{12}^2M^2\right]}.`$
Therefore, the one loop effective action quadratic in the quantum gauge field is

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^8z_1d^8z_2V(z_1)\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(2)}(z_1,z_2)V(z_2)}`$ (A.6)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }d^8z_1d^8z_2V(z_1)[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\delta ^{(8)}(z_{12})\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\mathrm{\Pi }_{1/2}{\displaystyle \frac{(\xi +1)}{2}}\delta ^{(8)}(z_{12})\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\mathrm{\Pi }_0`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3C_Ag^2}{16(4\pi ^2)}}(\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\left[\mathrm{\Delta }(x_{12}^2)\mathrm{ln}x_{12}^2M^2\right]\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\mathrm{\Pi }_{1/2}+𝒪(\xi ))]V(z_2).`$
The renormalization group equation for the correlation function of two quantum gauge fields has the form:

$`\left(M{\displaystyle \frac{}{M}}+\beta {\displaystyle \frac{}{g}}+\gamma _\xi {\displaystyle \frac{}{\xi }}2\gamma _V\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(2)}|_{\xi =0}=0.`$ (A.7)
To order $`g^2`$ (one loop) it is solved for

$`\gamma _V`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3C_A}{8(4\pi ^2)}}g^2+\mathrm{}`$ (A.8)
$`\gamma _\xi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3C_A}{4(4\pi ^2)}}g^2+\mathrm{}`$ (A.9)


text:
# A Minimal Growth Equation For Conservative Non Equilibrium Growth From Vapor

\[

## Abstract

A continuum growth equation in 1+1 dimensions is obtained by considering the contributions to the underlying current from kinetics of adatoms on the surface . These considerations reproduce the slope dependent term that represents a stable or an unstable growth depending on the sign of the associated coefficient. In addition an $`hh`$ symmetry breaking nonlinear term is obtained. Implications of this term on the stable$``$ unstable growth transition are discussed. This term is tilt independent and is expected to be present independent of the source of the current in the conserved growth. computer simulation based on a zero diffusion bias model is used to verify some of the predictions of the minimal growth equation. It is shown that the growth equations for cellular automata type models involving instantaneous relaxations can be obtained from the proposed method by addressing the corresponding kinetics of adatoms.

\]

A continuum description of conserved growth from vapor is obtained from Langevin type equation $`_th+𝐉=F`$ where $`h(𝐫,t)`$ is height function , J is current due to adatom relaxation on the growing surface and $`F`$ is the average flux with white noise. The current J includes an equilibrium and a nonequilibrium(NE) contribution. Most of the experimental growth is far from equilibrium and has been studied over last many years . Description of such growth is essentially through the nonequilibrium current JNE. The contributing terms to JNE are obtained by comparing the behaviour of growth equation containing sets of different terms, satisfying required symmetry and invariances of the problem, with the experimental observations or, appealing to the underlying kinetics . Former is an empirical approach while later, a direct approach. It is desired that from kinetic considerations , JNE could be constructed, describing the experimental observations.Such an approach was adopted by Villain earlier. In reference, from computer based solutions of the equations describing step velocities in 1+1 dimensions, and the consequent interface profiles, it was concluded that the local form of the growth equation should comprise of a) a term of the form $`\frac{\pm m}{(1+a^{}|m|)(1+b^{}|m|)}`$ where $`a^{}`$ and $`b^{}`$ are constants, related to the diffusion kinetics, b) an $`hh`$ symmetry breaking term and c) a term of the form $`^4h`$.

In what follows we show that these terms can be derived by appropriately identifying the kinetic processes that contribute to the nonequilibrium current. To our knowledge the method proposed in this work has not been used to obtain JNE in any of the previous work related to growth from vapor. Most of our discussion will be pivoted around the symmetry breaking term that assumes the form $`^2(h)^2`$ for small inclinations while at large slopes takes the form $`\frac{1}{m^3}_xm`$ thus unifying the descriptions at small and large slopes. While obtaining the NE contributions to the current, we will consider growth with Schwoebel-Ehrlich (SE) barrier to account the stable as well as unstable growth. However the method of obtaining these contributions can be applied to any other models not employing the SE barrier . We have applied it later to a stochastic model with cellular automata type rules that mimic the molecular beam epitaxial (MBE) growth at low temperature  referred in the literature as DT model.

Consider growth on a 1 dimensional flat substrate with lattice constant $`a`$. We will consider the situation depicted in Fig. 1 for obtaining various contributions to the current where steps are such that positive slope is obtained. Adatoms are randomly deposited on the substrate. Let $`D_s`$ be the diffusion constant on the terrace, $`l_c`$ be the average distance that an adatom travels on a terrace before encountering another adatom. Detachment from steps or nuclei on the terrace is negligible. Adatoms hopping down the descending steps contribute to the downward current $`j_d`$ while those hopping on the terrace can get attached to an ascending step contribute to the in-plane current $`j_i`$. Referring to Fig. 1 , the adatoms reaching site $`A`$ and hopping down the step to the left constitute $`j_d`$ and those reaching site $`B`$ and hopping to the right towards the ascending step constitute $`j_i`$. The net current is $`j_d+j_i`$. These are obtained as follows,

$`j_{d(i)}`$=(local density of site A(B))$``$(flux of adatoms
approaching A(B))$``$(probability for hopping across A(B)).

(1)
Since the relaxation of adatoms is through the diffusion on the terrace or across the step edges, the density of sites A and B is same as density of steps which is approximately given by $`\frac{|m|}{1+|m|}`$, where $`m`$ is the local slope.

In the absence of nucleation, lateral flux(LF) approaching site B or A is $`\frac{\pm \widehat{n}F}{2|m|a^1}`$, $`a|m|^1`$ being the average local terrace width and $`\widehat{n}`$ is unit vector in the x direction. When terrace size is large enough, this flux is restricted due to the nucleation. The nucleation process will restrict the diffusion to an average length $`l_c`$ on a large terrace. As a result, even for very large terraces, the approaching flux LF is almost constant. The effect of nucleation is incorporated by introducing $`l_c`$ in the expression for LF as $`\frac{\widehat{n}F}{2(l_c^1+|m|a^1)}`$, so that for small slopes the expression is reduced to a constant value. Let $`P_A`$ and $`P_B`$ represent the probabilities of hopping across sites A and B respectively. The Schwoebel length  $`l_s(P_BP_A)`$ . Hence from the Eq.(1) the current is

$$𝐣_s=\frac{\widehat{n}|m|F(P_BP_A)}{2(1+|m|)(l_c^1+|m|a^1)}$$
(2)
The LF approaching sites A and B is however modified due to the relative motion of the steps. Consider the situation in Fig.1 where $`v`$ is the velocity of the step bearing the terrace while $`v^{}`$ that of the higher one on the positive slope. For $`v^{}>v`$ the terrace width is reduced, depleting the LF approaching sites A and B. The reduction in flux is $`\delta v`$ where $`\delta v=(v^{}v)`$. Adatoms hopping across upper step as well as those attaching in-plane, both contribute to the velocity of the step. Thus the velocity $`vj_s`$ except that the coefficient $`(P_BP_A)`$ is replaced by $`(P_A+P_B)`$. Hence $`\delta v\frac{(P_A+P_B)}{l_c^1+|m|a^1}_x\frac{|m|}{2(1+|m|)(l_c^1+|m|a^1)}`$. Corresponding current will not depend on $`(P_BP_A)`$ since this part of the flux is removed from the LF. The current is therefore obtained by multiplying the LF by density of steps. $`P_A`$ and $`P_B`$ are relative probabilities so that $`P_A+P_B=1`$. Accounting for this effect the expression for the current becomes,

$`𝐣(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{n}|m|F(P_BP_A)}{2(1+|m|)(l_c^1+|m|a^1)}}`$ (5)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{n}|m|F}{(1+|m|)(l_c^1+|m|a^1)}}`$
$`_x\left({\displaystyle \frac{|m|}{2(1+|m|)(l_c^1+|m|a^1)}}\right)`$
In the limit of small $`m`$, the current reduces to,

$$𝐣(x)=\widehat{n}(P_BP_A)|m|l_c/2\widehat{n}l_c^1_x(m^2F)$$
(6)
The second term in general will have the form $`(h)^2`$. This term was derived using the Burton-Cabrera-Frank (BCF) theory and assuming that at small slopes the particle density on the terraces depends on the even powers of local gradient . In the presnt case the difference in the velocities of two consecutive steps on a slope is related to the difference in the adatom densities on their terraces. However we do not explicitly assume the dependence of density on the even powers of slope. Further, in ref.  it was conjectured that such a term can arise due to the differences in the velocities of the steps near the top and the bottom of a profile.

In the limit of large slope, $`|m|a^1l_c^1`$ the current reduces to,

$$𝐣(x)=\frac{\widehat{n}(P_BP_A)aF}{2|m|}\frac{\widehat{n}Fa^2}{2|m|}_x\left(\frac{1}{|m|}\right)$$
(7)
The second term is proportional to $`\frac{1}{m^3}_xm`$, which was derived in the large slope limit in reference . Thus the geometrical dependence of the symmetry breaking term in Eq.(3) exactly matches with previously derived two terms in the small and large slope limits. This shows that present method of deriving current, appropriately accounts for the physical processes contributing to it.

We further argue that a curvature dependent current must be present in any adatom relaxation process that involves downward hops across the descending step edges. This argument is based on the observation that, in a 1+1 dimensional simulation, if adatoms are restricted completely to the in-plane hops (infinite SE barrier) then correlations do not grow beyond the diffusion length. On the other hand, when such hops are allowed, correlation length for stable growth and mound size for unstable growth increases in time. Hence if the downward hops are allowed but the current is tilt-independent, then it may be expressed as a linear combination $`a_1^3h+a_2^5h+\mathrm{}`$ including the nonlinear terms of the form $`(^3h)^2`$. We will retain only $`^3h`$ in the current corresponding to our minimal growth equation. Thus the form of the current corresponding to the minimal growth equation is

$`𝐣(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{n}|m|F(P_BP_A)}{2(1+|m|)(l_c^1+|m|a^1)}}`$ (10)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{n}|m|F}{2(1+|m|)(l_c^1+|m|a^1)}}`$
$`_x\left({\displaystyle \frac{|m|}{(1+|m|)(l_c^1+|m|a^1)}}\right)+k{\displaystyle \frac{^3h}{x^3}}`$
The first term has been studied widely as the stable growth mode  and as the unstable growth mode. In order to find the effect of asymmetry term on the growth exclusively, we have performed simulations of a 1+1 dimensional solid-on-solid model with no diffusion bias. A fourth ordered equation was earlier proposed by Villain  for similar situation. Under this condition $`P_A=P_B`$ and first term vanishes in the Eq(3). The resultant growth equation in the moving frame with growth front is of the form,

$$_th=\nu ^4h+\nu _a_x\left(\frac{m}{(1+|m|)((l_c^1+|m|a^1)}\right)^2+\eta $$
(11)
where, $`\nu _a`$ is the appropriate constant for the asymmetry term and $`\eta `$ is white noise with $`<\eta (x^{},t^{})\eta (x,t)>=D\delta (x^{}x)\delta (t^{}t)`$. In the limit of small slopes, renormalization group (RG) analysis shows that the roughness exponent $`\alpha =1`$ and the roughness evolves with the exponent $`\beta =1/3`$. For large slopes, asymmetric term, on power counting leads to $`z3\alpha `$, while noise term gives $`z12\alpha `$. If $`\nu _a`$ is assumed to be invarient under renormalization, then again $`\alpha =1`$ and $`\beta =1/3`$ as in the case of small slope. Corresponding model is as follows. Atoms are rained on a 1-d substrate of length $`L`$ randomly with constant flux. On deposition a given adatom is allowed to hop n times, as in a random walk. If the hopping adatom encounters another adatom before n hops are exausted, the adatom stays there permanently. If n hops are exausted without any encounter, it stays permanently at the last position occupied after n hops. Thus for hopping, all sites with zero neighbor are equivalent, ensuring $`P_A=P_B`$. We have measured width $`w_2`$, height- height correlations $`G(𝐫,t)`$ and skewness $`\sigma `$ for this model where, $`w_2=\frac{1}{N}_i(h_i\overline{h})t^{2\beta }`$ and $`G(𝐫,t)=\frac{1}{N}_𝐫^{}(h(𝐫+𝐫^{},t)h(𝐫^{},t))^2`$. The skewness $`\sigma =w_3/w_2^{3/2}`$ , where $`w_3=\frac{1}{N}_i(h_i\overline{h})^3`$.

Presence of $`^4h`$ term is verified from the flatness of the saturated width for small $`L`$. We have chosen, n=25 giving $`l_c5`$. The saturated width is flat almost up to 5$`l_c`$, showing that $`^4h`$ dominates at small lengths. Fig. 2(a) shows the morphology of the interface after 80000ML are grown. As predicted by the Eq.(7), the asymmetry is evident in the figure with $`\sigma =0.47\pm 0.05`$. . Fig. 2(b) shows plot of $`w_2`$ in time. We obtain initially $`\beta `$ around 0.3 that attains a steady value of $`0.355\pm 0.015`$. Initial small value can be related to the small slope region that predicts a value of 1/3 (compare data in the region from 10 ML to 200 ML in the figure with the line having slope of $`2/3`$). Correspondingly h-h correlations lead to the roughness exponent $`\alpha `$ that increases from 0.5 to $`0.65\pm 0.01`$. These results indicate that most of the morphological features of the growth with diffusion without detachment are captured by the current expression in Eq.(6). It also shows that diffusion of the adatoms roughens the growing surface. Diffusion bias causes additional effects in terms of stability or instability of growth. In particular, if the bias is varied from extreme -ve SE barrier to extreme +ve SE barrier, a stable$``$ unstable transition is observed. In this transition however $`hh`$ symmetry is broken asymptotically. Note that for -ve SE barrier $`\nu _2^2h`$ term dominates with +ve value of $`\nu _2`$, so that asymptotically, asymmetric term becomes irrelevant rendering $`\sigma =0`$. At exactly zero SE barrier, finite value of $`\sigma (0.5)`$ is obtained. $`\sigma `$ can be regarded as the symmetry parameter, that changes abruptly at the transition point. Thus the growth transition is like 2nd order phase transition. Details of such a transition in computer simulations of suitable models will be discussed elsewhere.

Extension of this equation to 2+1- dimensions is possible by similar kinetic considerations. For isotropic diffusion, same form as Eq.(6) is obtained with $`\widehat{n}=h/|h|`$ and replacing length-derivative product in asymmetric term by $`\frac{h}{(l_c^1+|h|)|h|}`$. For small slopes one obtains $`(h)^2`$ term which seems to describe many experimentally observed growth roughness measurements from vapor.

As mentioned earlier, the present method for obtaining current from kinetic considerations appropriately brings out the geometrical dependence in growth equation. We have applied this method to one of the stochastic growth models proposed to capture the essential feature of low temperature molecular beam epitaxy (MBE) the DT model. Based on noise reduction technique, the simulations of this model confirm that, 1) exponent $`\beta =3/8`$, 2) the morphology is asymmetric with $`\sigma 0.5`$ and 3) the current is tilt independent . The observed $`\beta `$ value of 3/8 is constant almost over 8 orders of magnitude . The relaxation rules for adatom in this model allows it to hop only when it is deposited at site A or B (see Fig. 1). Also only downward hop is allowed, if deposited at A and towards the step, if deposited at B. If it has choice of sites A,A or B,B or A,B etc. on two neighboring sites, then it will hop randomly to the left or right. Applying the considerations for obtaining current for this situation shows that the LF approaching sites A or B in the present set of rules is $`\frac{F}{a^1+|m|a^1}`$, since the flux is affected only at large enough slope when site A and B overlap due to the short terrace width. Further, the LF is affected by relative motion of steps only when sites A and B differ by a lattice constant. The expression for the current is then,

$`J_{DT}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`\nu {\displaystyle \frac{^2m}{x^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{n}Fa^2}{2}}`$ (13)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{m}{1+|m|}}_x{\displaystyle \frac{m}{(1+|m|)^2}}`$
From the rules it is clear that $`P_A=P_B`$. The growth equation corresponding to this current in the moving frame will be,

$$_th=\nu \frac{^4h}{x^4}+\nu _a_x\frac{m}{1+|m|}_x\frac{m}{(1+|m|)^2}+\eta $$
(14)
where, $`\nu _a`$ accounts for various constants in the corresponding expression for current. The power counting in this equation leads to , $`z=4`$ from the first term, and $`z=1+2\alpha `$ for large slopes corresponding to the second term which is expected to be operative mainly over large inclinations. The relation obtained from the second term is exactly same as the one obtainable from the noise term $`\eta `$. For $`z=4`$ all the terms are marginal. This implies that $`z=4`$ and $`\beta =3/8`$. The second term is symmetry breaking. Hence, above equation accounts for all the observed facts mentioned above in the simulation of DT model. In 2+1-dimensions, with above rules for adatom relaxation, the local density of sites A and B need not be equal since, fluctuations in step edges render configurations that show bias for sites A or B. As a result, slope dependent current will dominate the growth. Further implications of this equation are presently under study.

In conclusion, we have proposed a simple method for obtaining current in a solid-on-solid growth in 1+1- dimension. The resultant equation shows that presence of diffusion alone is resposible for roughning of a singular surface. It induces an asymmetric term in the continuum equation. As a result a stable to unstable transition will be associated with symmetry breaking. We have also demonstrated the application of this method of obtaining current to a stochastic model referred as DT model. The corresponding continuum equation is shown to predict observed exponents and the nature of the interface profile correctly.

Acknowledgement: Author acknowledges useful suggestions by Prof. S. Das Sarma, Univ. of Maryland, College Park, U.S.A..