text:
# On the UV renormalizability of noncommutative field theories

## 1 Introduction

Noncommutative spacetimes and field theories defined on them have been studied extensively for the past few years mainly motivated from string theory . Apart from this fact that these theories arise as low energy limits of string theory in a constant $`B_{\mu \nu }`$ background, their study as field theories in their own right is quite facinating . For reviews on the subject see . Various interesting aspects of these theories have been studied rigorously recently -. The most important of these being the intriguing mixing of UV and IR divergences which is a direct consequence of the noncommutavity of the background spacetime. Perturbative studies of these field theories carried out extensively revealed various nontrivial aspects arising from this transmutation of UV into IR divergences . One of the most important being the alteration of the conventional Wilsonian picture of renormalization group flows in the very low momentum domain. The UV renormalizability of these theories has been argued  and in some cases expiicitly shown upto two loops . The $`\lambda \varphi ^4`$ theory has been shown to be renormalizable as long as the external momenta, $`p`$ for the $`n`$-point functions are such that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^2pop>1`$.. However given that we are only interested in the continuum limit, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}`$, the inequality is not satisfied only when $`p`$ is restricted to the zero momentum value.

The possibility that these theories would ultimately be defined with an infrared cutoff still exists. It was shown  that phase transitions if possible can only occur at a finite momentum leading to a nonhomogeneous phase.

Normally in commutative field theories the renormalization conditions required to absorb the infinities in the Green’s functions of a particular configuration of fields, with momenta around some scale, leads to the infinities being absorbed from the Green’s functions at all scales i.e. the functional dependence of the divergent $`n`$-point functions on the UV cutoff $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$ is same at all values of external momenta. On the other hand, in noncommutative theories, due to coupling of the UV and IR sectors, the zero momentum limit of a particular configuration of fields is singular. We show that Greens’s functions scale with different coefficients of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ for configurations which differ by the number of zero external momenta. If the renormalization conditions are set at a point where all the external momenta are nonzero, then the bare couplings defined through this would have a different $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$ dependence from the case when the renormalization point consists of a number of zero momenta. This shows that with the former renormalization condition, the theory for all values of external momenta, $`p0`$ is renormalizable, while the latter leads to a nonrenormalizable theory. We discuss this issue in the noncommutative $`\varphi ^4`$ theory as well as in the Gross-Neveu model as shown in .

We next study the renormalizability of the globally $`O(N)`$ symmetric noncommutative scalar theory in its symmetric and its broken phases to all orders. First we review the same for the commutative case in the renormalization group approach. The noncommutative theory is then proved to be renormalizable to all orders with an infrared cutoff. Keeping in mind the observations stated in the previous paragraph, we seperate the sector with external momenta such that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^2pop>1`$ from that of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^2pop<1`$. In the latter case, since in the continuum limit $`p`$ is only restricted to zero, the full quantum theory for nonzero $`p`$ will thus be defined with an Infrared cutoff. Because of the presence of the infrared cutoff for the external momenta, we shall also formally introduce an IR cutoff for the internal loop momenta $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{IR})`$. However we shall see that the in the loop computations the IR cutoff for the internal momenta is not necessary as there are no IR divergences in the loop intergals in this RG approach. IR divergences appear in the continuum limit as the zero momentum field configuration is approached from a nonzero momentum field configuration. Ofcourse with an IR cutoff in the external momenta, $`p`$ such that, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^2pop>1`$, there are no IR divergences in the theory. However IR divergences do appear in perturbation theory. This is illustrated by an example of a 2-point diagram computation.

It may seem that $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{IR})`$ may be needed, so that the the cannonical scaling of the relevant and irrelevant operators are not affected by the UV/IR transmutation. However this is not the case. This point will be clarified in section 4.

We then demonstrate how the different scaling behaviors of the Green’s functions for configurations having different set of zero momenta plays a crucial role when proving the renormalizability of the spontaneously broken phase. It was shown in  that the renormalizability of the broken symmetric phase to one loop could be proved by shifting to a phase where the vacuum was a nonconstant background field. This nonconstant vacuum acts as an infrared regulator.

This paper is organised as follows. In section 2 we study the noncommutative $`\varphi ^4`$ theory and show that the UV cutoff ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$) dependence of the bare couplings are different depending on whether we set the renormalization conditions at $`p=0`$ or $`p0`$. In section 3 we analyse some more results for the noncommutative Gross-Neveu model along the same line as section 2. In section 4 we study SSB in noncommutative scalar theory with global $`O(N)`$ symmetry in its symmetric phase. We first review the one loop results from . Next we prove the renormalizability of the symmetric phase of the globally $`O(N)`$ symmetric noncommutative scalar theory to all orders, after reviewing the same for the commutative case. For the broken phase we demonstrate that, by going to a phase which is translationally noninvariant i.e. by keeping the shift $`v`$ as a nonconstant background field one is able to work with a infrared regulator so that the problem of different scaling behaviors of Green’s functions for nonzero external momenta from that of the zero momentum case does not arise. With this infrared regulator we prove the renormalizability of the broken phase of the theory to all orders. We give our conclusions in section 5.

## 2 UV/IR mixing and UV renormalizability

In this section we show that the one loop Green’s functions defines two different renormalization conditions depending on whether we set $`p=0`$ right in the begining or approach this limit with a nonsingular, $`p0`$ configuration. We study the noncommutative $`\varphi ^4`$ theory to show this. For an introduction to noncommutative scalar theory see .

The lagrangian for the theory is,

$`_E=[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(_\mu \varphi )^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m^2\varphi ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{4}}\varphi \varphi \varphi \varphi ]`$ (1)
where,

$$\varphi _1\varphi _2=e^{\frac{i}{2}_\mu ^y\theta ^{\mu \nu }_\nu ^z}\varphi _1(y)\varphi _2(z)|_{y=z=x}$$
(2)
and $`\theta `$ is an antisymmetric matrix. The propagator for the theory, is same as that of the commutative theory. Only the interaction term has a nontrivial momentum dependence. The inteaction vertex is given by,

$`2\lambda V(𝐩)=2\lambda [cos(p_1p_2)cos(p_3p_4)`$ $`+`$ $`cos(p_1p_3)cos(p_2p_4)`$ (3)
$`+`$ $`cos(p_1p_4)cos(p_2p_3)]`$
The only divergent functions for the theory are the two point and the four point functions. The diagrams corresponding to the one loop contributions to these functions are shown in figures 1 and 2.

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }^2=[p^2+m^2]\lambda {\displaystyle \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{2+cos(pk)}{k^2+m^2}}`$ (4)
The $`cos`$ term inside the integral regulates the second part of the integral and is finite for $`p0`$.

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }^2=[p^2+m^2]{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{8\pi ^2}}[\mathrm{\Lambda }^2m^2ln({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{m^2}})+O(1)]`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{16\pi ^2}}[\mathrm{\Lambda }_{eff}^2(p)m^2ln({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{eff}^2(p)}{m^2}})+O(1)]`$ (5)
where,

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{eff}^2(p)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}+pop}}`$
$`pop={\displaystyle \frac{p^\mu \theta _{\mu \nu }^2p^\nu }{4}}`$ (6)
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the UV cutoff. We shall call terms containing $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{eff}^2(p)`$ as nonplanar terms.

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }^4=2\lambda V(𝐩)+2\lambda ^2{\displaystyle \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{F(p_1,p_2,p_3,p_4,p,k)}{(k^2+m^2)[(pk)^2+m^2]}}+\text{ s and u channels}`$ (7)
where $`F(p_1,p_2,p_3,p_4,p,k)`$ is a function of terms containing cos of the external momenta.

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }^4=2\lambda V(𝐩)+4\lambda ^2V(𝐩){\displaystyle \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{1}{(k^2+m^2)[(pk)^2+m^2]}}+NP`$ (8)
where $`NP`$ are the Nonplanar terms. These terms would give rise to IR divergences as the external momenta goes to zero. The UV divergent piece for this four point amplitude is given by,

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }^4{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda ^2}{4\pi ^2}}V(𝐩)ln({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{m^2}})`$ (9)
The two and the four point contributions to the effective action to one loop is,

$`S_{eff}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2!}}{\displaystyle 𝑑p\varphi (p)\varphi (p)[p^2+m^2+\frac{\lambda }{8\pi ^2}\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\frac{\lambda }{8\pi ^2}m^2ln(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{m^2})+NP]}`$ (10)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4!}}{\displaystyle 𝑑p_1𝑑p_2𝑑p_3𝑑p_4[P+NP]\varphi (p_1)\varphi (p_2)\varphi (p_3)\varphi (p_4)\delta (p_i)}`$
where, $`P`$ is the planar term from the four point amplitude given by,

$`P=V(𝐩)\{2\lambda {\displaystyle \frac{\lambda ^2}{4\pi ^2}}ln({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{m^2}})\}`$ (11)
The renormalised parameters may now be defined as,

$`m_R^2`$ $`=`$ $`m^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{8\pi ^2}}[\mathrm{\Lambda }^2m^2ln({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{m^2}})]`$
$`\lambda _R`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda {\displaystyle \frac{\lambda ^2}{8\pi ^2}}ln({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{m^2}})`$ (12)
As the zero momentum limit is approached, the $`NP`$ terms in equation (7) give rise to $`IR`$ divergences, however the renormalization conditions in equation (2) lead to a UV renormalizable quantum theory at one loop.

Now let us consider the case where the effective action at the zero momentum field configuration is defined by ,

$`V_{eff}={\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n!}}\mathrm{\Gamma }^n(0,0,\mathrm{},0)\varphi ^n`$ (13)
We use this to define $`\lambda (\mathrm{\Lambda })`$. In this case at one loop level there are no nonplanar diagrams and the potential to one loop is exactly equal to the commutative theory. The external momenta are all put to zero before all loop calculations. To one loop the effective potential is given by,

$`V_{eff}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m^2\varphi ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{4}}\varphi ^4+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle ^\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\displaystyle \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}}ln(1+{\displaystyle \frac{3\lambda \varphi ^2}{k^2+m^2}})`$ (14)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m^2\varphi ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{4}}\varphi ^4+{\displaystyle \frac{3\lambda \varphi ^2}{32\pi ^2}}[\mathrm{\Lambda }^2m^2ln({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{m^2}})]+{\displaystyle \frac{9\lambda ^2}{64\pi ^2}}\varphi ^4ln({\displaystyle \frac{3\lambda \varphi ^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}})`$ (15)
where in the final expression we have dropped terms which have negative powers or are independent of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$.

The renormalized quantities would now be defined by,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^2V}{d\varphi ^2}}|_{\varphi =0}`$ $`=`$ $`m_R^2`$ (16)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^4V}{d\varphi ^4}}|_{\varphi =\varphi _0}`$ $`=`$ $`6\lambda _R`$ (17)
These lead to,

$`m_R^2`$ $`=`$ $`m^2+{\displaystyle \frac{3\lambda }{16\pi ^2}}[\mathrm{\Lambda }^2m^2ln({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{m^2}})]`$
$`\lambda _R`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda {\displaystyle \frac{9\lambda ^2}{16\pi ^2}}ln({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{3\varphi _0^2}})`$ (18)
From equations (2) and (2) it is clear that the renormalization conditions defined by equation (2) would not lead to a renormalizable noncommutative theory for non zero external momenta. As noted before, the configuration of fields with $`p=0`$ is singular and the two different renormalization conditions (2), (2) occur as a consequence of setting $`p=0`$ right in the begining or of approaching this configuration as a limit $`p0`$. This is a generic feature of noncommutative theories. The origin of this is the transmutation of UV divergences into the IR divergences.

In terms of the renormalization group flows, equations (2), (2) states that at the one loop level the relevant (relevant plus marginal) coupling $`\lambda `$ scales with respect to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ with different coefficients. This means that the functional dependence of the bare coupling on the UV cutoff $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ are different in the two cases. We shall see this in section 4, where the relevant couplings would scale with different coefficients of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ depending on whether or not the external momenta are such that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^2pop<<1`$.

## 3 The noncommutative Gross-Neveu model

In this section we review some of the results of the noncommutative Gross-Neveu model  which are along the same line as those of the previous section.

The lagrangian for the noncommutative Gross-Neveu model is,

$`_E=[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\overline{\psi }^i\gamma ^\mu _\mu \psi ^i+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{8N}}\overline{\psi }^i\psi ^i\overline{\psi }^j\psi ^j]`$ (19)
Where $`\psi `$ is a $`2`$-component spinor and $`\gamma ^\mu `$ are $`2\times 2`$ Dirac matrices. To evaluate the large $`N`$ limit of the effective action it is helpful to introduce an auxillary field $`\sigma `$, so that,

$`_E=[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\overline{\psi }^i\gamma ^\mu _\mu \psi ^i{\displaystyle \frac{8N}{\lambda }}\sigma ^22\sigma \overline{\psi }^i\psi ^i]`$ (20)
We now evaluate the effective action at the zero momentum field configuration as defined by equation (13). The processes with only $`\sigma `$ field on the external legs would contribute to the lowest order in $`\frac{1}{N}`$ . These diagrams contributing to this lowest order are shown in figure 3.

$`V_{eff}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8N}{\lambda }}\sigma ^2N{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2k}{(2\pi )^2}\frac{1}{2n}(\frac{4\sigma ^2}{k^2})^n}`$ (21)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8N}{\lambda }}\sigma ^2{\displaystyle \frac{N\sigma ^2}{2\pi }}[ln({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{4\sigma ^2}})+O(1)]`$ (22)
The renormalization condition,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{^2V_{eff}}{\sigma ^2}}|_{\sigma ^2=\sigma _0^2}=1`$ (23)
defines the renormalized coupling $`\lambda _R`$ as,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\lambda _R}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\lambda }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi }}ln({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{4\sigma _0^2}})`$ (24)
We now write down the effective action for nonzero external momenta in the large $`N`$ limit. Only the two point function is divergent. To extract the renormalization condition it is sufficient to evaluate the effective action with contributions upto the two point function only.

$`S_{eff}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle d^2p\sigma (p)\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\sigma \sigma }\sigma (p)}`$ (25)
where,

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\sigma \sigma }={\displaystyle \frac{8N}{\lambda }}N{\displaystyle \frac{d^2k}{(2\pi )^2}\frac{k.(p+k)}{k^2(k+p)^2}}+NP`$ (26)
$`NP`$ is the nonplanar term. The renormalized coupling will now be defined as,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\lambda _R}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\lambda }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{32\pi }}ln({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{p^2}})`$ (27)
The renormalization condition, equation (27) gives a UV renormalizable quantum theory for any nonzero value of external momenta, similar to the results obtained in the previous section. If one defines the renormalized coupling as equation (24), the quantum theory at nonzero external momenta is nonrenormalizable. These two renormalization conditions correspond to two different bare theories as argued at the end of section 2.

The ground state of the theory will be defined by a particular configuration of fields. If it is defined with zero external momenta, we have noted that this is a very singular field configuration and Green’s functions in this configuration has a different $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ dependence from the nonzero momenta field configurations. If the renormalization conditions are set at zero momentum the theory is nonrenormalizable. In the next section we shall see how this plays a crucial role in deciding the renormalizability of the Broken Phase in a spontaneously broken global symmetric theory.

## 4 SSB in Non-commutative scalar theory

In the previous two sections we have seen that due to the singular behavior of the IR limit in nncommutative field theories, the Green’s functions have different $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ dependences for nonzero and zero momentum field configurations. In this section we show how this plays a crucial role when proving renormalizability of the broken phase of a spontaneously broken globally $`O(N)`$ symmetric theory. We first review our one loop results  and then in the later part of this section we shall prove following , the renormalizability of the symmetric phase as long as the external momenta $`p0`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^2pop>1`$. Formally with an IR cutoff in the external momenta, one should also introduce an IR cutoff for the internal loop momenta $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{IR})`$. The presence of this IR cutoff in the loop computations would be implicitly assumed. This point is elaborated in section 4.2. The relevant couplings for the zero momentum configuration of fields scale with different coefficients of the UV cutoff from the $`p0`$ configurations. If the renormalization conditions are set in these two momentum regimes, the bare couplings will have different $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ dependences. At the end of the section we shall show the renormalizability of the broken phase of the theory to all orders in terms of the renormalization group.

### 4.1 One loop analysis

We consider a scalar field theory with global $`O(2)`$ symmetry in its symmetric phase in 4 dimensions. We refer the reader to  for the details of calculations.

The lagrangian for the theory is111Note that in the noncommutative theory, there are various possible inequivalent orderings of the fields for the quartic term. One of these terms has been chosen as an example. The proof of the renormalizability of the globally $`O(N)`$ symmetric theory, in its symmetric as well as in its broken phases, to all orders, outlined in the latter part of this section remains unaltered for any such $`O(N)`$ symmetric quartic term.,

$`L_S`$ $`=`$ $`[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(_\mu \varphi ^i)^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mu ^2(\varphi ^i)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{4}}\varphi ^i\varphi ^i\varphi ^j\varphi ^j]`$
$`i,j`$ $`=`$ $`1,2`$ (28)
Here $`\mu ^2>0`$, so that at the tree-level the theory undergoes SSB. The global O(2) symmetry of the quantum theory implies that the green’s functions satisfy the following set of Ward identities in the symmetric phase,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta ^2\mathrm{\Gamma }}{\delta \varphi _1^2}}|_{\varphi _1=\varphi _2=0}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta ^2\mathrm{\Gamma }}{\delta \varphi _2^2}}|_{\varphi _1=\varphi _2=0}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta ^4\mathrm{\Gamma }}{\delta \varphi _1^4}}|_{\varphi _1=\varphi _2=0}`$ $`=`$ $`3{\displaystyle \frac{\delta ^4\mathrm{\Gamma }}{\delta \varphi _1^2\delta \varphi _2^2}}|_{\varphi _1=\varphi _2=0}`$ (29)
and in the broken phase which is defined by shifting the fields, $`\varphi _1=\sigma +v`$ and $`\varphi _2=\pi `$,

$`v{\displaystyle \frac{\delta ^2\mathrm{\Gamma }}{\delta \pi ^2}}|_{\sigma =\pi =0}={\displaystyle \frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }}{\delta \sigma }}|_{\sigma =\pi =0}`$ (30)
where the $`\varphi _1`$ field has been shifted by a constant amount $`v`$ which fixes the vacuum for the broken phase.

The set of Ward identities, equation (4.1), can be verified to one loop , showing that the quantum theory is symmetric. However care must be taken in defining the broken phase so that equation (30) holds.

If one naively shifts to a translationally invariant vacuum, the Ward identity, equation (30) only holds when the order of the continuum and the IR limits is such that the IR divergences on the RHS of (30) are transmuted to UV divergences i.e. the vacuum is defined with $`p=0`$ before all loop calculations. It is important to note here that shifting fields by a constant amount $`v`$ at the tree-level itself causes the $`\sigma `$-tadpole amplitude to scale with respect to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ in the same way as the second case in section 2. Where as the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\pi \pi }`$ amplitude has the same $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ dependence when the external momenta are put to zero before all loop computations. This makes the broken phase nonrenormalizable with the same number of counterterms as the symmetric phase. This point will be elaborated at the end of this section. However in order to define a UV renormalizable theory for all values of $`p`$ we must work with an infrared cutoff and remove the cutoff only after all loop computations as the former case in section 2. To do so one has to shift the fields by $`v`$ which is not a constant. $`v`$ may be set to a constant after all loop calculations. This would mean that the singular field configuration, defined as the vacuum, is approached as a limit. One can also leave $`v`$ as a nonconstant leading to a translationally noninvariant vacuum. This later case was studied in  where phase transitions when a finite number of momentum modes condense is studied. In the present paper a nonconstant $`v`$ acts as an infrared regulator and help us to avoid proplems as noted earlier.

The Ward identity in the case where $`v`$ is not a constant will now be written as,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^4p}{(2\pi )^4}v(p)\frac{\delta ^2\mathrm{\Gamma }}{\delta \pi (p_1)\delta \pi (p)}}|_{\sigma =\pi =0}={\displaystyle \frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }}{\delta \sigma (p_1)}}|_{\sigma =\pi =0}`$ (31)
Explicit computations in this case shows that,

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }^\sigma =v_0\mu ^2\lambda v_0^3`$ $`+`$ $`v_0[3\lambda (\mathrm{\Lambda }^2+\mu ^2ln({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{\mu ^2}}))+IR+F]+`$ (32)
$`+`$ $`v_0^3[{\displaystyle \frac{5}{2}}ln({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{\mu ^2}})+IR+F]`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\pi \pi }=p^2+\mu ^2\lambda v_0^2`$ $`+`$ $`[3\lambda (\mathrm{\Lambda }^2+\mu ^2ln({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{\mu ^2}}))+IR+F]+`$ (33)
$`+`$ $`v_0^2[{\displaystyle \frac{5}{2}}ln({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{\mu ^2}})+IR+F]`$
Where IR are the infrared divergent terms and F are the finite terms. It can be seen that the UV divergence structure of the two amplitudes are exactly as the Ward identity (30). The IR divergences appear when we go to a translationally invariant vacuum i.e. $`v`$ is set to a constant $`v_0`$ after all loop calculations.

### 4.2 Renormalizability to all orders : Review of The commutative case

We now consider the commutative globally symmetric $`O(N)`$ scalar theory in its symmetric phase and review its renormalizability to all orders following Polchinski . We discuss here the set up of the RG equations and merely state the results, which will be necessary for the later parts of this section. The reader may refer to  for more elaborate details and proofs.

$`S(\varphi )={\displaystyle \frac{d^4p}{(2\pi )^4}[\frac{1}{2}\varphi ^\alpha (p)\varphi ^\alpha (p)(p^2\mu ^2)K^1(\frac{p^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2})]}+L_{int}(\varphi )`$
$`L_{int}(\varphi )={\displaystyle d^4x[\frac{1}{2}\rho _1^0(\varphi ^\alpha (x))^2\frac{1}{2}\rho _2^0(_\mu \varphi ^\alpha (x))^2\frac{1}{4}\rho _3^0(\varphi (x)^\alpha \varphi (x)^\alpha )^2]}`$ (34)
where, $`K(\frac{p^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2})`$ has a value of 1 for $`p^2<\mathrm{\Lambda }^2`$ and vanishes rapidly at infinity. $`\rho _a^0`$ are the bare couplings defined at an UV cutoff scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$.

The generating functional for the theory with the cutoff, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ may be written as

$`Z[J,\mathrm{\Lambda }]={\displaystyle }𝒟\varphi exp[{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{d^4p}{(2\pi )^4}}[`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\varphi ^\alpha (p)\varphi ^\alpha (p)(p^2\mu ^2)K^1({\displaystyle \frac{p^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}})`$ (35)
$`+`$ $`J^\alpha (p)\varphi ^\alpha (p)]+L_{int}(\varphi )]`$
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }{\displaystyle \frac{dZ[J,\mathrm{\Lambda }]}{d\mathrm{\Lambda }}}={\displaystyle }𝒟\varphi [{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{d^4p}{(2\pi )^4}}[`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\varphi ^\alpha (p)\varphi ^\alpha (p)(p^2\mu ^2)\mathrm{\Lambda }{\displaystyle \frac{K^1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}({\displaystyle \frac{p^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}})`$ (36)
$`+`$ $`J^\alpha (p)\varphi ^\alpha (p)]+\mathrm{\Lambda }{\displaystyle \frac{L_{int}(\varphi )}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}]exp(S(\varphi ))`$
The RHS of equation (36) vanishes if $`L`$ varies as,

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }{\displaystyle \frac{L}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}=`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle d^4p(2\pi )^4(p^2\mu ^2)^1\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{K}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}`$ (37)
$`[`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{L}{\varphi ^\alpha (p)}}{\displaystyle \frac{L}{\varphi ^\alpha (p)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{^2L}{\varphi ^\alpha (p)\varphi ^\alpha (p)}}]`$
$`L`$ can now be expanded in terms of its Fourier modes. The global $`O(N)`$ symmetry of the quantum theory implies that we can arrange the expansion as follows.

$`L={\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2n!}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\underset{j=n+1}{\overset{2n}{}}d^4p_id^4p_j\varphi ^\alpha (p_i)\varphi ^\alpha (p_j)L_{2n}(p_1\mathrm{}p_{2n},\mathrm{\Lambda })\delta ^4(\underset{i,j}{}p_i+p_j)}`$ (38)
Define the relevant operators as,

$`\rho _1(\mathrm{\Lambda })=L_2(p,p,\mathrm{\Lambda })|_{p^2=p_0^2}`$ (39)
$`\rho _2(\mathrm{\Lambda })={\displaystyle \frac{^2}{p^2}}L_2(p,p,\mathrm{\Lambda })|_{p^2=p_0^2}`$ (40)
$`\rho _3(\mathrm{\Lambda })=L_4(p_1,p_2,p_3,p_4,\mathrm{\Lambda })|_{p=\overline{p}}`$ (41)
Now, construct $`V(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ such that,

$`V(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0{\displaystyle \frac{L(\mathrm{\Lambda })}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}}{\displaystyle \underset{a,b}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{L(\mathrm{\Lambda })}{\rho _a^0}}{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _a^0}{\rho _b(\mathrm{\Lambda })}}\mathrm{\Lambda }_0{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _b(\mathrm{\Lambda })}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}}`$
where, $`a,b`$ runs from 1 to 3. To prove that the theory is renormalizable or in other words to show that, for the low energy theory to be finite one has to tune a finite number of parameters, $`V(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ must be shown to vanish at the low energy limit, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }/\mathrm{\Lambda }_00`$.

Expanding the following quantities similar to equation (38),

$`{\displaystyle \frac{L(\mathrm{\Lambda })}{\rho _b(\mathrm{\Lambda })}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{a}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{L(\mathrm{\Lambda })}{\rho _a^0}}{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _a^0}{\rho _b(\mathrm{\Lambda })}}`$ (43)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^{42n2\delta _{b1}}}{2n!}}{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{_{i=1}^n_{j=n+1}^{2n}d^4p_id^4p_j}{(2\pi )^{8n4}}}\varphi ^\alpha (p_i)\varphi ^\alpha (p_j)\times `$
$`\times `$ $`B_{b,2n}(p_1\mathrm{}p_{2n},\mathrm{\Lambda })\delta ^4({\displaystyle \underset{i,j}{}}p_i+p_j)`$
$`V(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^{42n}}{2n!}}{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{_{i=1}^n_{j=n+1}^{2n}d^4p_id^4p_j}{(2\pi )^{8n4}}}\varphi ^\alpha (p_i)\varphi ^\alpha (p_j)\times `$ (44)
$`\times `$ $`V_{2n}(p_1\mathrm{}p_{2n},\mathrm{\Lambda })\delta ^4({\displaystyle \underset{i,j}{}}p_i+p_j)`$
Now defining,

$`Q(p,\mathrm{\Lambda },\mu ^2)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{(p^2\mu ^2)}}\mathrm{\Lambda }^3{\displaystyle \frac{K(\frac{p^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2})}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}`$ (45)
one arrives at the RG equations for $`L,B,V`$, shown in the appendix, equations (102),(A),(A) where,

$`f(p_1,\mathrm{},p_{2n},\mathrm{\Lambda })=\underset{p_i^2<c\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{\mathrm{max}}|f(p_1,\mathrm{},p_{2n},\mathrm{\Lambda })|`$ (46)
so that,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^4p}{(2\pi )^4}Q(p,\mathrm{\Lambda })L_{2n}(p_1,\mathrm{},p_{2n2},p,p,\mathrm{\Lambda })}<C\mathrm{\Lambda }^4L_{2n}(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ (47)
where, $`c`$ and $`C`$ are constants independent of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Now define the following initial conditions for the couplings,

$`\rho _1(\mathrm{\Lambda }_R,\mathrm{\Lambda }_0,\rho ^0)`$ $`=`$ $`0`$
$`\rho _2(\mathrm{\Lambda }_R,\mathrm{\Lambda }_0,\rho ^0)`$ $`=`$ $`0`$
$`\rho _3(\mathrm{\Lambda }_R,\mathrm{\Lambda }_0,\rho ^0)`$ $`=`$ $`6\lambda _R`$ (48)
Note that because of the $`O(N)`$ symmetry of the quantum theory it is sufficient to set boundary conditions as above. The irrelevant couplings are set to vanish at $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$. Perturbative renormalizability now means that order by order in $`\lambda _R`$ the following limit exists,

$`\underset{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0\mathrm{}}{lim}\overline{L}(\varphi ,\mathrm{\Lambda }_R,\lambda _R,\mathrm{\Lambda }_0)=\overline{L}(\varphi ,\mathrm{\Lambda }_R,\lambda _R,\mathrm{})`$ (49)
where,

$`\overline{L}(\varphi ,\mathrm{\Lambda }_R,\lambda _R,\mathrm{\Lambda }_0)=L(\varphi ,\mathrm{\Lambda }_R,\mathrm{\Lambda }_0,\rho ^0(\mathrm{\Lambda }_R,\lambda _R,\mathrm{\Lambda }_0))`$ (50)
and specifically to $`rth`$ order in $`\lambda _R`$,

$`\overline{L}_{2n}^{(r)}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_R,\mathrm{\Lambda }_0)\overline{L}_{2n}^{(r)}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_R`$ , $`\mathrm{})`$ (51)
$``$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_R^{42n}({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_R}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}})^2P^{2rn}ln({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_R}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}}),r+1n0`$
$`=`$ $`0,r+1n<0`$
where, $`P^{2rn}`$ is a polynomial of degree $`2rn`$. We do not include the proof here, for which the reader may refer to the original paper , but merely state that it follows by induction from the following assertions,

(i) At order $`r`$ in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_R`$,

$`_{i_1,j_1}^{\mu _1}\mathrm{}_{i_p,j_p}^{\mu _p}A_{2n}^{(r)}(p_i,\mathrm{},p_{2n},\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^pP^{2rn}ln({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_R}}),r+1n0`$ (52)
$`=`$ $`0,r+1n<0`$
where, $`A_{2n}=\mathrm{\Lambda }^{2n4}L_{2n}`$ and,

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{}{p_i^\mu }}{\displaystyle \frac{}{p_j^\mu }}\right)A_{2n}=_{i,j}^\mu A_{2n}`$ (53)
(ii) At order $`r`$ in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_R`$,

$`_{i_1,j_1}^{\mu _1}\mathrm{}_{i_p,j_p}^{\mu _p}B_{b,2n}^{(r)}(p_i,\mathrm{},p_{2n},\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^pP^{2rn+1+\delta _{b3}}ln({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_R}}),r+2n0`$ (54)
$`=`$ $`0,r+2n<0`$
(iii) At order $`r`$ in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_R`$,

$`_{i_1,j_1}^{\mu _1}\mathrm{}_{i_p,j_p}^{\mu _p}V_{2n}^{(r)}(p_i,\mathrm{},p_{2n},\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^p({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}})^2P^{2rn}ln({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_R}}),r+1n0`$ (55)
$`=`$ $`0,r+1n<0`$
We end this part of the section by writing down the tree-level and the one loop forms for the relevant and irrelevant parts of $`L`$. We use (102) to obtain the perturbative expansion for $`L_{2n}`$ order by order in $`\lambda _R`$.

Expanding the two and four point parts of $`L`$,

$`L_2(p,p,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ $`=`$ $`L_2(p,p,\mathrm{\Lambda })|_{p^2=p_0^2}+(p^2p_0^2){\displaystyle \frac{}{p^2}}L_2(p,p,\mathrm{\Lambda })|_{p^2=p_0^2}+\mathrm{\Delta }L_2`$ (56)
$`=`$ $`\rho _1(\mathrm{\Lambda })(p^2p_0^2)\rho _2(\mathrm{\Lambda })+\mathrm{\Delta }L_2`$
$`L_4(p_i,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ $`=`$ $`L_4(p_i,\mathrm{\Lambda })|_{p_i=\overline{p}_i}+\mathrm{\Delta }L_4`$ (57)
$`=`$ $`\rho _3(\mathrm{\Lambda })+\mathrm{\Delta }L_4`$
Solutions for equation (102) with boundary conditions (4.2) for zero and one loop gives,

$`\rho _1^{(0)}=0,\rho _2^{(0)}=0,\rho _3^{(0)}=6\lambda _R`$ (58)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }L_2^{(0)}=0,\mathrm{\Delta }L_4^{(0)}=0`$ (59)
The $`L_6^{(0)}`$ vertex is obtained from two $`L_4^{(0)}`$ vertices as shown in Figure 4.

$`L_6^{(0)}={\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Lambda }^{^{}}}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}_{}{}^{}3}}Q`$ $`(`$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{^{}},P)L_4^{(0)}(p_1,p_2,p_3,P,\mathrm{\Lambda }^{^{}})L_4^{(0)}(p_4,p_5,p_6,P,\mathrm{\Lambda }^{^{}})`$ (63)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\begin{array}{c}6\\ 3\end{array}\right)1\text{ permutations for all same external fields or,}`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\begin{array}{c}4\\ 2\end{array}\right)\text{ permutations for 2 different external fields}`$ (66)
where, $`P=p_1+p_2+p_3`$

Contracting two of the legs of the $`L_4^{(0)}`$ vertices we get the one loop $`L_2`$ amplitude, Figure 5. The weights of $`N`$ coming from the global $`O(N)`$ symmetry are indicated in brackets in the figure.

$`\rho _1^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^4p}{(2\pi )^4}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_R}^\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{d\mathrm{\Lambda }^{^{}}}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}_{}{}^{}3}Q(\mathrm{\Lambda }^{^{}},p)L_4^{(0)}(p,p,q,q,\mathrm{\Lambda }^{^{}})}|_{q^2=p_0^2}`$ (67)
$`=`$ $`(N+2){\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _R}{16\pi ^2}}\mathrm{\Lambda }^2`$
where we have only kept the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ dependent term.

$`\rho _2^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`0,\mathrm{\Delta }L_2^{(1)}=0`$ (68)
Contracting two legs of the $`L_6^{(0)}`$ vertex, Figure 6, we obtain the one loop $`L_4`$ amplitude. The $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ dependent part of $`\rho _3^{(1)}`$ comes from this term only.

$`\rho _3^{(1)}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^4p}{(2\pi )^4}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_R}^\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{d\mathrm{\Lambda }^{^{}}}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}_{}{}^{}3}Q(p,\mathrm{\Lambda }^{^{}})L_6^{(0)}(p_1,p_2,p_3,p_4,p,p,\mathrm{\Lambda }^{^{}})}|_{p_i=\overline{p}_i}`$ (70)
In the large $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ limit,

$`\rho _3^{(1)}(N+8){\displaystyle \frac{3\lambda _R^2}{8\pi ^2}}ln({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{\mu ^2}})`$ (71)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }L_4^{(1)}{\displaystyle \frac{f(\overline{p}_i)}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}`$ (72)
$`f(\overline{p}_i)`$ is a function of external momenta. The relevant and the irrelevant operators scale at zero and one loop in the way asserted by equation (52) which is the primary step towards proving the renormalizability of the theory order by order in the loops by induction.

### 4.3 The noncommutative case

We have seen that the $`O(N)`$ symmetry of the quantum theory enables us to use the same set of RG equations for any $`N`$ as the $`N=1`$ case. We now discuss the renormalizability of the noncommutative theory to all orders in its symmetric as well as in its broken phases. Apart from the UV cutoff $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, we shall also introduce an IR cutoff, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{IR}`$ as mentioned earlier.

First note that the components of $`L`$, $`L_{2n}(p_1,\mathrm{}p_{2n},\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ contain a phase factor which accounts for the noncommutavity of the theory. This factor is of the form $`e^{\frac{i}{2}_{i<j}p_ip_j}`$ with all possible permutations of the external momenta. Now consider equation (47),

$`{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{d^4p}{(2\pi )^4}}Q(p,\mathrm{\Lambda })L_{2n}`$ $`(`$ $`p_1,\mathrm{}p_{2n},p,p,\mathrm{\Lambda })+\text{ all possible permutations of }p_i`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d^4p}{(2\pi )^4}Q(p,\mathrm{\Lambda })e^{\frac{i}{2}_{i<j}p_ip_j}}.\stackrel{~}{L}_{2n}(p_1,\mathrm{}p_{2n2},p,p,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$
$`+`$ all possible permutations of $`p_i`$
where $`\stackrel{~}{L}_{2n}(p_1,\mathrm{}p_{2n2},p,p,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ is the part of $`L_{2n}`$ not containing the phase factor. Equation (4.3) corresponds to the one loop vertex $`L_{2n2}`$ evaluated from the $`L_{2n}`$ vertex.

Evaluating (4.3) for one particular permutation of the external momenta gives,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^4p}{(2\pi )^4}Q(p,\mathrm{\Lambda })e^{\frac{i}{2}_{i<j}p_ip_j}e^{i(p_lp_l)}}e^{\frac{i}{2}_{i<j}p_ip_j}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^4}{1+\mathrm{\Lambda }^2(_lp_l)o(_lp_l)}}`$ (75)
The term on the RHS of equation (75) is the nonplanar term. Depending upon whether the two external momenta being contracted are consecutive to each other or not we get the usual commutative planar term or nonplanar terms respectively. See Figure 7.

The exact weights of the planar and the nonplanar graphs would not be necessary for our following discussions. We just label the weight of the planar graph by $`N_p`$. For all permutations of the external momenta, the scaling behavior of (75) with respect to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is,

$`N_p\mathrm{\Lambda }^4+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^4}{1+\mathrm{\Lambda }^2(_lp_l)o(_lp_l)}}+\mathrm{}\text{other nonplanar parts}`$ (76)
At this point it may be noted that, with every external momentum put to zero the weight of the planar term changes due to the transmutation of the nonplanar term into the planar term.

We now turn to the question of UV renormalizability of the theory by discussing the assertions as stated in (52), (54) and (55). First, let us consider the case where all the external momenta are such that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^2pop>>1`$, $`p`$ being some combination of external momenta. In this limit the nonplanar term in (76) scales as $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^2`$. The scaling behavior of (76) is thus dominated by the planar term for large $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Therefore in this case the proof of assertion (i) follows exactly as the commutative case. Assuming that the assertion holds for $`r=s1`$, from the RG equation (102), we have,

$`(\mathrm{\Lambda }{\displaystyle \frac{}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}_{i_1,j_1}^{\mu _1}\mathrm{}_{i_p,j_p}^{\mu _p}L_{2n}^{(s)}`$ $`(`$ $`p_1,\mathrm{},p_{2n},\mathrm{\Lambda })`$
$``$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{42np}[N_p+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+\mathrm{\Lambda }^2(_lp_l)o(_lp_l)}}+\mathrm{}]P^{2sn1}ln({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_R}})`$
For the case considered, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^2pop>>1`$, we have,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+\mathrm{\Lambda }^2(_lp_l)o(_lp_l)}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2(_lp_l)o(_lp_l)}}`$ (78)
The two powers of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ in the denominator, decreases the overall power of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ for $`L_{2n}`$ in the nonplanar terms so that the overall scaling of $`L_{2n}`$ with respect to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ for large $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is dominated by the planar term.

For $`n3`$ and $`n=2,p1`$ ,the boundary values are set to zero at $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$. Therefore,

$`_{i_1,j_1}^{\mu _1}\mathrm{}_{i_p,j_p}^{\mu _p}L_{2n}^{(s)}`$ $`(`$ $`p_1,\mathrm{},p_{2n},\mathrm{\Lambda })`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Lambda }^{^{}}}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^{^{}}}}(\mathrm{\Lambda }^{^{}})^{42np}[N_p+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}_{}{}^{}2(_lp_l)o(_lp_l)}}+\mathrm{}]P^{2sn1}ln({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_R}})`$
$``$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{42np}P^{2sn1}ln({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_R}})`$
In general $`L_{2n+2}^{s1}`$ would have nonplanar terms as shown above. When evaluating the $`L_{2n}^s`$ vertex from $`L_{2n+2}^{s1}`$, one has to integrate over all momenta thus including the small momentum modes. For these soft modes, $`k`$ one can expand the nonplanar term as,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{eff}(k)}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+\mathrm{\Lambda }^2kok}}=[1\mathrm{\Lambda }^2kok+(\mathrm{\Lambda }^2kok)^2\mathrm{}]`$ (80)
such that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^2kokO(1)`$. However in this region of internal momenta, $`kO(1/\theta \mathrm{\Lambda })`$, the integral (75) without further exponential suppression is,

$`e^{\frac{i}{2}_{i<j}p_ip_j}{\displaystyle _0^{\frac{1}{\theta \mathrm{\Lambda }}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}}Q(k,\mathrm{\Lambda })[1\mathrm{\Lambda }^2kok+(\mathrm{\Lambda }^2kok)^2\mathrm{}]`$ (81)
The contribution from this momentum shell is suppressed by $`1/\theta \mathrm{\Lambda }`$. For larger values of $`k`$ the integral is again suppressed by powers of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ in the denominator. Therefore even though the very small momentum modes in the internal lines are included, it does not affect the cannonical scaling of the irrelevant operators. We restrict ourselves to configurations of external momenta, $`p`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^2pop>1`$ because relevant operators scale with different coefficients from the configurations with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^2pop<1`$ and in the continuum limit IR divergences appear when the external momenta are put to zero. It is thus clear that there is really no need for an IR cutoff, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{IR}`$ in the loop integrals. The integrals are IR finite since we are always working with a finite UV cutoff $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. However restriction to configurations with external momenta such that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^2pop>1`$ implies the presence of an IR cutoff for the external momenta. Due to this reason the IR cutoff for the internal loop momenta would be formally assumed. The IR divergences in loop integrals however appear in perturbation theory. This is illustrated by an example (eqn. 93) at the end of this proof of UV renormalizability.

For $`n=2,p=0`$, the boundary values are set at $`p_i=\overline{p}_i`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mathrm{\Lambda }_R`$. So from (4.3),

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }{\displaystyle \frac{}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}L_4^{(s)}(\overline{p}_i,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ $``$ $`P^{2s3}ln({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_R}})`$ (82)
which gives,

$`L_4^{(s)}(\overline{p}_i,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ $``$ $`L_4^{(s)}(\overline{p}_i,\mathrm{\Lambda }_R)+P^{2s2}ln({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_R}})`$ (83)
$``$ $`P^{2s2}ln({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_R}})`$
where $`L_4^{(s)}(\overline{p}_i,\mathrm{\Lambda }_R)`$ is a constant independent of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. $`L_4^{(s)}(p_i,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ can now be constructed for a general momentum configuration from (83) using the Taylor’s expansion,

$`L_4^{(s)}(p_i,\mathrm{\Lambda })=L_4^{(s)}(\overline{p}_i,\mathrm{\Lambda })+{\displaystyle \underset{i,j=1}{\overset{3}{}}}p_i^\mu p_j^\nu {\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑\lambda (1\lambda )_{i,4}^\mu _{j,4}^\nu L_4^{(s)}(p_i^{^{}},\mathrm{\Lambda })|_{p_i^{^{}}=\lambda p}`$ (84)
The terms on the RHS of (84) being bounded by (4.3) and (83), $`L_4^{(s)}(p_i,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ is also bounded. The bound for the components of $`L`$ for $`n=1`$ and $`p=0,2`$ follows along the same line as above. This proves the assertion (i).

Let us now see the scaling behaviors of the Green’s functions with respect to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ for a momentum configuration where some or all the external momenta are zero. As noted earlier, with each external momentum put to zero, the weights of the planar terms increases due to the transmutation of the nonplanar terms to the planar terms. Therefore although the components of $`L`$ scale with same power of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ as for the configuration with all momenta nonzero, they scale with different coefficients for the two configurations. Specifically let us take the example of $`L_4`$ where $`p_3=p_4=0`$. The configuration of fields for which not all external momenta are nonzero is singular and so the scaling behavior of functions for this configuration cannot be obtained from (84). Instead one has to define the renormalization conditions at a point where there are same number of zero external momenta so that, from (82) we have

$`L_4^{(s)}(\overline{p}_1,\overline{p}_2,0,0,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ $``$ $`L_4^{(s)}(\overline{p}_1,\overline{p}_2,0,0,\mathrm{\Lambda }_R)+P^{2s2}ln({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_R}})`$ (85)
$``$ $`P^{2s2}ln({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_R}})`$
The constant $`L_4^{(s)}(\overline{p}_1,\overline{p}_2,0,0,\mathrm{\Lambda }_R)`$ differs from that of (83), but does not affect the scaling behavior with respect to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. $`L_4(p_1,p_2,0,0,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ can now be obtained form the Taylor’s expansion about $`(\overline{p}_1,\overline{p}_2,0,0)`$. However due to (76) with $`p_3=0`$, $`p_4=0`$ $`L_4^{(s)}(p_1,p_2,0,0,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ scales with a different weight of $`ln(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_R})`$ from that of (84).

It is clear form these discussions that with the renormalization conditions set at nonzero external momenta the Green’s functions for configurations of fields with some or all momenta zero cannot be renormalized. This was the issue in the initial sections of this paper. The bare couplings defined through the renormalization conditions for the different configurations will have different $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$ dependences. Again the different scaling of the greens funcions with respect to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ for these configurations plays a crucial role in studying the renormalizability of the broken phase of a spontaneously broken $`O(N)`$ theory. We shall discuss this at the end of this section.

The proof of assertions (ii) and (iii) follow along the same line as the commutative case and the theory is renormalizable as long as we keep away from the zero momentum limit. This concludes the proof of the renormalizability of the noncommutative $`O(N)`$ symmetric theory.

We now give some computations of zero and one loop contributions of the relevant and irrelevant parts of $`L`$ with the following boundary conditions.

$`\rho _1(\mathrm{\Lambda }_R,\mathrm{\Lambda }_0,\rho ^0)`$ $`=`$ $`0`$
$`\rho _2(\mathrm{\Lambda }_R,\mathrm{\Lambda }_0,\rho ^0)`$ $`=`$ $`0`$
$`\rho _3(\mathrm{\Lambda }_R,\mathrm{\Lambda }_0,\rho ^0)`$ $`=`$ $`2V(\overline{𝐩})\lambda _R`$ (86)
where $`V(\overline{𝐩})`$ is given by (3). The boundary values for the irrelevant couplings are set to zero at $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$ like the commutative case. As mentioned earlier the momentum integrals will now also be regulated in the IR by $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{IR}`$. However in the expressions for the one loop functions, to show the UV behavior, we drop all the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{IR}`$ dependent terms and retain only the UV cutoff dependent pieces.

$`\rho _1^{(0)}=0,\rho _2^{(0)}=0,\rho _3^{(0)}=2V(\overline{𝐩})\lambda _R`$ (87)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }L_2^{(0)}=0,\mathrm{\Delta }L_4^{(0)}=0`$ (88)
$`\rho _1^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda _R{\displaystyle \frac{d^4p}{(2\pi )^4}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_R}^\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{d\mathrm{\Lambda }^{^{}}}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}_{}{}^{}3}Q(\mathrm{\Lambda }^{^{}},p)[N+1+cos(pq)]}|_{q^2=p_0^2}`$ (89)
$``$ $`(N+1){\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _R}{16\pi ^2}}[\mathrm{\Lambda }^2+\mu ^2ln({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{\mu ^2}})]`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _R}{16\pi ^2}}[\mathrm{\Lambda }_{eff}^2(p_0)+\mu ^2ln({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{eff}^2(p_0)}{\mu ^2}})]`$
$`\rho _2^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{}{p^2}}L_2^{(1)}(p,p,\mathrm{\Lambda })|_{p^2=p_0^2}`$ (90)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _R}{16\pi ^2}}tr(\theta ^2)[\mathrm{\Lambda }_{eff}^4(p_0)+\mu ^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_{eff}^2(p_0)]`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }L_2^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _R}{16\pi ^2}}[\mathrm{\Lambda }_{eff}^2(p)+\mu ^2ln({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{eff}^2(p)}{\mu ^2}})]|_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}`$ (91)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _R}{16\pi ^2}}[\mathrm{\Lambda }_{eff}^2(p_0)+\mu ^2ln({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{eff}^2(p_0)}{\mu ^2}})]|_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _R}{16\pi ^2}}(p^2p_0^2)tr(\theta ^2)[\mathrm{\Lambda }_{eff}^4(p_0)+\mu ^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_{eff}^2(p_0)]|_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}`$
$`\rho _3^{(1)}(N+3)V(\overline{𝐩}){\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _R^2}{4\pi ^2}}ln({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{\mu ^2}})+G(\overline{p}_i)`$ (92)
$`G(\overline{p}_i)`$ contains the nonplanar terms which in the continuum limit is only a function of the external momenta $`\overline{p}_i`$ and is divergent at low momenta.

Equations (87-92) show the scaling of the relevant and irrelevant operators with respect to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ at zero and one loop. As long as the external momenta are such that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0^2pop>1`$, these parts scale as asserted in (52). However we stress again that, ultimately one is interested in the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0\mathrm{}`$ limit, so that these scaling behaviors persist as long as we keep away from the $`p=0`$ limit.

There are two points that may be noted here. For values of external momenta, $`p`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0^2pop<<1`$,

(i) One can expand $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{0eff}^2(p)`$ in powers of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0^2pop`$, as in (80). The irrelevant coupling (91) now is dependent on the UV cutoff $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$, spoiling the usual Wilsonian picture as also noted in . Thus a renormalizable noncommutative quantum theory has to be defined with an IR cutoff.
(ii) The relevant couplings scale with different coefficients from the noncommutative case where all external momenta are nonzero. They infact scale like the corresponding one loop commutative theory couplings. In the limit $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\overline{p}_io\overline{p}_j<<1`$, the would be IR divergences terms in $`G(\overline{p}_i)`$, equation (92) are transmuted into UV divergences and the noncommutative 4-point function scales with respect to $`ln(\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)`$ with the same coefficient as the commutative 4-point function (70).

Before discussing the renormalizability of the broken phase of the spantaneously broken theory we now take a look at an example of the two point function in perturbation theory and see the appearance of IR divergences.

The contribution from the diagram, shown in Figure 8 is given by,

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }^2{\displaystyle d^4k\frac{I(k)}{(k^2+m^2)^2}}`$ (93)
where the nonplanar part of $`I(k)`$ with $`n`$ tadpole insertions is given by,

$`I(k)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{(\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}+kok)^n}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(k^2+m^2)^{n1}}}+\text{less singular terms}`$ (94)
The effect of high momenta in the tadpole insertions is encoded in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. As all the high momenta modes are included, the singularities in $`I(k)`$ appears in the form of $`1/(kok)^n`$. The loop integral 93 is thus IR divergent. Note that this IR divergence in the loop integrals never comes up in the RG approach, as the loop integrals are always performed at a finite $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$.

We now turn to the issue of renormalizability of the broken phase in the spontaneously broken theory. The broken phase of the theory is defined by shifting the fields $`\varphi ^\alpha `$ such that,

$`\varphi ^\alpha `$ $``$ $`\sigma +v,\alpha =1`$ (95)
$``$ $`\pi ^\alpha ,\alpha =2,N`$
The two and the four point contributions to the effective lagrangian of the broken phase is now given by,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle }d^4p\varphi ^\alpha (p)\varphi ^\alpha (p)L_2(p,`$ $``$ $`p,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle }d^4p[\sigma (p)\sigma (p)`$ $`+`$ $`2\sigma (p)v(p)+\pi ^\alpha (p)\pi ^\alpha (p)]L_2(p,p,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ (96)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4!}}{\displaystyle }d^4p_1d^4p_2d^4p_3d^4p_4[\varphi ^\alpha (p_1)\varphi ^\alpha (p_2)][\varphi ^\alpha (p_3)\varphi ^\alpha (p_4)`$ $`]`$ $`L_4(p_1,p_2,p_3,p_4,\mathrm{\Lambda })\times `$
$`\times `$ $`\delta ^4({\displaystyle p_i})`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4!}}{\displaystyle d^4p_1d^4p_2d^4p_3d^4p_4}`$ $`[`$ $`\sigma (p_1)v(p_2)v(p_3)v(p_4)+permutations+\pi ^\alpha (p_1)\pi ^\alpha (p_2)v(p_3)v(p_4)`$ (97)
$`+`$ $`(p_1p_3,p_2p_4)+\mathrm{}]L_4(p_1,p_2,p_3,p_4,\mathrm{\Lambda })\delta ^4({\displaystyle }p_i)`$
We have shown only these two contributions because these are the only divergent functions. The Ward identity (30), which is the consequence of the $`O(N)`$ symmetry of the symmetric phase tells that $`v`$ times the two point $`\pi `$-$`\pi `$ amplitude equals the $`\sigma `$-tadpole amplitude. This is manifest from the above two expansions. However, from the foregoing analysis we have seen that the relevant couplings scale with different coefficients whether or not the external momentum is such that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0^2pop<<1`$. In the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0\mathrm{}`$ limit this inequality is satisfied for $`p0`$. The renormalization conditions at this limit defines different $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$ dependences of the bare couplings from the renormalization conditions at $`p0`$.

In particular, the contributions to the $`\pi `$-$`\pi `$ amplitude are from,

$`L_2\pi ^\alpha (p)\pi ^\alpha (p)+L_4\pi ^\alpha (p_1)\pi ^\alpha (p_2)v(p_3)v(p_4)+(p_1p_3,p_2p_4)`$ (98)
and for the $`\sigma `$-tadpole amplitude from,

$`2L_2\sigma (p)v(p)+L_4\sigma (p_1)v(p_2)v(p_3)v(p_4)+\text{permutations}`$ (99)
We have seen that the behavior of Green’s functions with respect to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ changes once we put one or more external momenta to zero. The same is true for the expressions (98) and (99). Once $`v`$ is set to a constant at the tree level the momenta associated with $`v`$ are set to zero. It is clear that in this case the $`L_2`$ and $`L_4`$ functions would have different $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ dependences from the case where $`v`$ is not a constant, for reasons outlined earlier. Now, since an unequal number of $`v`$’s multiply (98) and (99), the weights of the UV divergent, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ dependent terms obtained due to transmutation of the nonplanar terms to the planar terms by setting $`v`$ to a constant, are different in (98) and (99). This leads to a different $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ dependence in the $`\sigma `$-tadpole amplitude and the $`\pi `$-$`\pi `$ amplitude. Consequently these two amplitudes cannot be renormalized by the same counterterm, thus violating the Ward irentity (30). However the origin of the problem lies in the nonplanarity of the diagrams induced by external momenta in the loop diagrams, the resolution lies in keeping $`v`$ as a nonconstant background field, so that the components of (98) and (99) scale in the same way and that the Ward identity (30) holds. The symmetric phase of the theory has already been proved to be renormalizable as long as we have an infrared regulator. Spontaneous symmetry breaking does not affect the renormalizability and the broken phase is also renormalizable as long as $`v`$ is kept as a nonconstant background field.

## 5 Conclusion

We have studied the UV renormalizability of noncommutative field theories. In our discussions we have investigated this issue in the context of the $`\lambda \varphi ^4`$ theory, the Gross-Neveu model and the globally $`O(N)`$ symmetric $`\varphi ^4`$ model in its symmetric as well as its spontaneously broken phases. The renormalizability of the globally $`O(N)`$ symmetric $`\varphi ^4`$ theory is proved to all orders for both the symmetric as well as the broken phases with an IR cutoff.

The zero momentum configuration for these theories is singular. Through our discussions of one loop results followed by a general analysis in the language of the Wilsonian renormalization group, the following general features of noncommutative field theories evolved.

(i) We have seen that with the renormalization conditions set at a momentum configuration where all the external momenta are nonzero, a general Green’s function with some or all the external momenta zero, cannot be renormalized. With each external momentum set to zero, the weights of the UV divergent planar graphs increases due to UV/IR mixing. This leads to a scaling behavior of the greens functions with respect to the cutoff ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$), with a different weight than a nonzero momenta configuration. This implies that for the relevant operators, the bare couplings will have different UV cutoff dependences for these different configurations.
(ii) The different scaling of greens functions for these seperate configurations with respect to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ has crucial implications on the renormalizability of the spontaneously broken phase of the $`O(N)`$ symmetric theory. In general the renormalizability of the broken phase of the theory is unaffected by spontaneous symmetry breaking. The underlying $`O(N)`$ symmetry makes the broken phase renormalizable with the same number of counterterms as the symmetric phase. However in the case of noncommutative theory the one loop results indicate that this only happens when we break the symmetry by going to a vacuum which is translationally noninvariant. This can easily be understood in the language of the Wilsonian renormalization group. One of the consequences of the global $`O(N)`$ symmetry is the broken phase Ward identity (30). It can be seen from (98) and (99), keeping in mind the scaling behaviors in the foregoing discussions, that the $`\sigma `$-tadpole amplitude and the $`\pi `$-$`\pi `$ amplitude would scale differently with respect to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ when $`v`$ is set to a constant. However when the constant $`v`$ configuration is approached as a limit of the nonconstant $`v`$ configuration, the Ward identity (30) is still preserved. We have proved this to all orders following the proof of the symmetric phase of the $`O(N)`$ symmetric theory.
(iii) There are no IR divergences in the loop integrals of the Renormalization group equations. This is as a consequence of always working with a finite UV cutoff $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. IR divergences only show up when we approach a singular, zero external momentum configuration after taking the continuum limit in the solutions for the RG equations. If one keeps away from these singular field configurations, for generic external momenta, $`p`$, the theory is free from infrared divergences. It is because of this reason and the scaling behaviors of Green’s functions in the two different momentum domains as discussed in (i), that an IR cutoff for the external momenta is necessary. IR divergences appearing in equation (93) are thus artifacts of perturbation theory. (iv) Finally (91) indicates that the irrelevant operators are badly behaved at the zero momentum configuration.

In the light of all these remarks it may be concluded that the zero momentum configuration in noncommutative seems to make sense only when it is approached as a limit from a nonzero momentum configuration, or in other words, the noncommutative theories are renormalizable as long as one works with an infrared cutoff.

Acknowledgements

I am indebted to B. Sathiapalan for numerous discussions and suggestions on the manuscript. I would also like to thank N. D. Haridass and H. S. Sharatchandra for valuable discussions and carefully reading the manuscript.

## Appendix A RG equations for $`L`$, $`B`$ and $`V`$

RG equation for $`L`$ :

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }{\displaystyle \frac{}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}L_{2n}={\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{n}{}}}[{\displaystyle \frac{Q(P,\mathrm{\Lambda })}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}}L_{2l}(p_1,\mathrm{},p_{2l1},P,\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ $`)`$ $`L_{2n+22l}(p_{2l},\mathrm{},p_{2n},P,\mathrm{\Lambda })+`$ (102)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\begin{array}{c}2n\\ 2l1\end{array}\right)1\text{ permutations}]`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^4p}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{Q(p,\mathrm{\Lambda })}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}L_{2n+2}(p_1,\mathrm{},p_{2n},p,p,\mathrm{\Lambda })}`$ (103)
where, $`P=_{i=1}^{2l1}p_i`$, such that,

$`(\mathrm{\Lambda }^3{\displaystyle \frac{}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}L_{2n}){\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{n}{}}}[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}D_0L_{2l}(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ . $`L_{2n+22l}(\mathrm{\Lambda })]`$ (104)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}C\mathrm{\Lambda }^4L_{2n+2}(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$
where, $`D,C`$ are constants independent of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$.

RG equation for $`B`$ :

$`(\mathrm{\Lambda }{\displaystyle \frac{}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}`$ $`+`$ $`42n2\delta _{b1})B_{b,2n}(p_1,\mathrm{},p_{2n})=`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{n}{}}}[Q(P,\mathrm{\Lambda })A_{2l}(p_1,\mathrm{},P,\mathrm{\Lambda })B_{b,2n+22l}(p_{2l},\mathrm{},p_{2n},\mathrm{\Lambda })+\left(\begin{array}{c}2n\\ 2l1\end{array}\right)1\text{ permutations}]`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^4p}{(2\pi \mathrm{\Lambda })^4}B_{b,2n+2}(p_1,\mathrm{},p_{2n},p,p,\mathrm{\Lambda })Q(p,\mathrm{\Lambda })}`$
$`+`$ $`B_{1,2n}(p_1,\mathrm{},p_{2n},\mathrm{\Lambda }){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^4q}{(2\pi \mathrm{\Lambda })^4}B_{b,4}(p,p,q,q)Q(q,\mathrm{\Lambda })}|_{p^2=p_0^2}`$
$`+`$ $`B_{2,2n}(p_1,\mathrm{},p_{2n},\mathrm{\Lambda }){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^4q}{(2\pi \mathrm{\Lambda })^4}\frac{}{p^2}B_{b,4}(p,p,q,q)Q(q,\mathrm{\Lambda })}|_{p^2=p_0^2}`$
$`+`$ $`B_{3,2n}(p_1,\mathrm{},p_{2n},\mathrm{\Lambda }){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^4q}{(2\pi \mathrm{\Lambda })^4}B_{b,6}(p_i,q,q)Q(q,\mathrm{\Lambda })}|_{p_i=\overline{p}_i}`$ (108)
$`(\mathrm{\Lambda }{\displaystyle \frac{}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}`$ $`+`$ $`42n2\delta _{b1})B_{b,2n}(p_1,\mathrm{},p_{2n})`$ (109)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{n}{}}}[D_0A_{2l}(\mathrm{\Lambda }).B_{b,2n+22l}(\mathrm{\Lambda })]`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}CB_{b,2n+2}(\mathrm{\Lambda })+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}CB_{1,2n}(\mathrm{\Lambda }).B_{b,4}(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}C\mathrm{\Lambda }^2B_{2,2n}(\mathrm{\Lambda })._{1,2}^\mu _{1,2}^\mu B_{b,4}(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}CB_{3,2n}(\mathrm{\Lambda }).B_{b,6}(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$
RG equation for $`V`$ :

$`(\mathrm{\Lambda }{\displaystyle \frac{}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}`$ $`+`$ $`42n)V_{2n}(p_1,\mathrm{},p_{2n})=`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{n}{}}}[Q(P,\mathrm{\Lambda })A_{2l}(p_1,\mathrm{},P,\mathrm{\Lambda })V_{2n+22l}(p_{2l},\mathrm{},p_{2n},\mathrm{\Lambda })+\left(\begin{array}{c}2n\\ 2l1\end{array}\right)1\text{ permutations}]`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^4p}{(2\pi \mathrm{\Lambda })^4}V_{2n+2}(p_1,\mathrm{},p_{2n},p,p,\mathrm{\Lambda })Q(p,\mathrm{\Lambda })}`$
$`+`$ $`B_{1,2n}(p_1,\mathrm{},p_{2n},\mathrm{\Lambda }){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^4q}{(2\pi \mathrm{\Lambda })^4}V_4(p,p,q,q)Q(q,\mathrm{\Lambda })}|_{p^2=p_0^2}`$
$`+`$ $`B_{2,2n}(p_1,\mathrm{},p_{2n},\mathrm{\Lambda }){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^4q}{(2\pi \mathrm{\Lambda })^4}\frac{}{p^2}V_4(p,p,q,q)Q(q,\mathrm{\Lambda })}|_{p^2=p_0^2}`$
$`+`$ $`B_{3,2n}(p_1,\mathrm{},p_{2n},\mathrm{\Lambda }){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^4q}{(2\pi \mathrm{\Lambda })^4}V_6(p_i,q,q)Q(q,\mathrm{\Lambda })}|_{p_i=\overline{p}_i}`$ (113)
$`(\mathrm{\Lambda }{\displaystyle \frac{}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}`$ $`+`$ $`42n)V_{2n}(p_1,\mathrm{},p_{2n})`$ (114)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{n}{}}}[D_0A_{2l}(\mathrm{\Lambda }).V_{2n+22l}(\mathrm{\Lambda })]`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}CV_{2n+2}(\mathrm{\Lambda })+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}CB_{1,2n}(\mathrm{\Lambda }).V_4(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}C\mathrm{\Lambda }^2B_{2,2n}(\mathrm{\Lambda })._{1,2}^\mu _{1,2}^\mu V_4(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}CB_{3,2n}(\mathrm{\Lambda }).V_6(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$


format: text

text:
# All-electron 𝐺𝑊 calculation based on the LAPW method: application to wurtzite ZnO

## I Introduction

Density-functional theory (DFT) provides a foundation for modern electronic-structure calculations, and the local-density approximation (LDA) is an efficient way to calculate the ground-state properties of material. However, the LDA eigenvalues should not necessarily identified with the quasiparticle (QP) energies, although eigenvalue differences are often used to describe the excited state. Time-dependent DFT can in principle describe the excited state, but a good approximation for the time-dependent exchange-correlation kernel is not known. The $`GW`$ approximation (GWA) of Hedin Hedin  provides a practical method to calculate the QP energy. Hybertsen and Louie presented the first $`GW`$ calculation for real materials in 1986 HL86 . They employed eigenfunctions given by the LDA as input, using additionally a pseudopotential approximation.

Several methods have since been developed within various band-structure-calculation schemes Arya00 . Calculated QP energies typically agree well with experiment, for many kinds of materials. However, various kinds of approximations in addition to the $`GW`$ approximation itself are usually employed, whose adequacy has not been well tested. Here we present a method that makes minimal approximations in addition to the $`GW`$ and random-phase approximations. We start with the LDA eigenfunctions generated by the full-potential linearized augmented-plane-wave (LAPW) FLAPW  or a variant of the full-potential linearized muffin-tin-orbital (LMTO) method NFP ; SSC , where in either case eigenfunctions are expanded in atomic-like local functions in the muffin-tin (MT) sphere regions, and in plane waves in the interstitial region. In order to treat the localized electrons accurately, the Coulomb interaction $`v`$ and the screened Coulomb interaction $`W`$ are expanded with a newly-developed mixed basis that consists of two kinds of basis functions. One is the product-basis function developed by Aryasetiawan and Gunnarsson AG94 , which is constructed from the products of the local functions in the MT-sphere regions. The other is the interstitial plane wave (IPW) that takes zero in the MT-sphere regions and equals to the usual plane wave in the interstitial region. With the mixed basis, we can treat localized electrons, even core electrons, on the same footing as the other extended electrons. The mixed basis is by construction essentially a complete basis for the expansion of $`W`$; therefore, for given eigenfunctions as input, our method can produce reasonably well converged QP energies rather more efficiently than a method that expands $`W`$ in plane waves alone.

The LMTO method employs smooth Hankel functions as envelope functions NFP , which are smoother and more accurate than the ordinary Hankel functions customary to the LMTO method. About 100 envelope functions were employed in this calculation. To check convergence, empty sphere was added to some of the calculations, mainly to enlarge the basis set. However, little difference was found whether the empty sphere was added or not.

We apply this approach to wurtzite-type ZnO, whose valence bands consist of extended O $`2p`$ and Zn $`4s`$ orbitals, and rather localized Zn $`3d`$ and O $`2s`$ orbitals. ZnO is important for optical device technology since the material is optically transparent and can be doped with both electrons and holes JTK99 . Compared with most other II-VI and III-V compounds such as ZnS, GaN, etc., the position of the cation $`d`$ levels are rather high, and relatively close to the anion $`p`$-derived valence band maximum (VBM). The effect of the Zn $`3d`$ state is not negligible for the various properties. For example, the $`3d`$ state couples to the VBM and pushes it upward, reducing the bandgap.

This paper is organized as follows. Section II briefly describes the method. In Sec. III, we show LDA and $`GW`$ results for ZnO, and compare them to experimental data and previously reported $`GW`$ results. A summary is given in Sec. IV.

## II Overview of the $`GW`$ calculation

The brief procedure of our $`GW`$ calculation is presented here; it will be described in more detail elsewhere future . In the Green’s-function approach, the QP energy $`E_{𝐤n}`$ and wavefunction $`f_{𝐤n}(𝐫)`$ of a many-electron system are given as the solution of the equation

$`[E_{𝐤n}TV_\mathrm{H}(𝐫)]f_{𝐤n}(𝐫)`$ (1)
$`{\displaystyle \mathrm{\Sigma }(𝐫,𝐫^{},E_{𝐤n})f_{𝐤n}(𝐫^{})d^3r^{}}=0,`$
where $`T`$ is the kinetic-energy operator, $`V_\mathrm{H}`$ is the Hartree potential plus the electrostatic potential from nuclei, and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is the self-energy. In the $`GW`$ approximation, the self-energy is written as

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }(𝐫,𝐫^{},\omega )=i_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{d\omega ^{}}{2\pi }e^{i\omega ^{}\delta }G(𝐫,𝐫^{},\omega +\omega ^{})W(𝐫,𝐫^{},\omega ^{}).$$
(2)
It is convenient to divide $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ into $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{x}+\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{c}`$, with $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{x}=iGv`$ the bare exchange term, and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{c}=iGW_\mathrm{c}`$ the correlation term. Here $`W_\mathrm{c}Wv`$.

We take a perturbative approach to find $`E_{𝐤n}`$. First, we solve the Kohn-Sham (KS) equation,

$$[ϵ_{𝐤n}TV_\mathrm{H}(𝐫)V_{\mathrm{xc}}^{\mathrm{LDA}}(𝐫)]\psi _{𝐤n}(𝐫)=0,$$
(3)
where $`V_{\mathrm{xc}}^{\mathrm{LDA}}(𝐫)`$ is the exchange-correlation potential in the LDA. We assume that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }V_{\mathrm{xc}}^{\mathrm{LDA}}`$ is small enough to be treated a first-order quantity. Expanding $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(E_{𝐤n})`$ around $`ϵ_{𝐤n}`$, we obtain to first order

$$E_{𝐤n}ϵ_{𝐤n}+Z_{𝐤n}[\psi _{𝐤n}|\mathrm{\Sigma }(ϵ_{𝐤n})|\psi _{𝐤n}\psi _{𝐤n}|V_{\mathrm{xc}}^{\mathrm{LDA}}|\psi _{𝐤n}],$$
(4)
where $`Z_{𝐤n}`$ is the renormalization factor defined by

$$Z_{𝐤n}=[1\psi _{𝐤n}|(\mathrm{\Sigma }/\omega )|_{\omega =ϵ_{𝐤n}}|\psi _{𝐤n}]^1.$$
(5)
We also estimate the first-order energy in the Hartree-Fock approximation (HFA) through

$$E_{𝐤n}^{\mathrm{HFA}}=ϵ_{𝐤n}+\psi _{𝐤n}|\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{x}|\psi _{𝐤n}\psi _{𝐤n}|V_{\mathrm{xc}}^{\mathrm{LDA}}|\psi _{𝐤n},$$
(6)
although the KS wavefunction may be different from the HFA one, and, therefore, $`E_{𝐤n}^{\mathrm{HFA}}`$ is not the true self-consistent HFA value.

In the augmented-waves methods, space is divided into the MT-sphere regions and the interstitial region. In both LAPW and the present LMTO method, the KS wavefunction is expanded as

$$\psi _{𝐤n}(𝐫)=\underset{lm}{}\underset{\beta =1,2}{}A_{alm\beta }(𝐫)\alpha _{alm\beta }^{𝐤n}+\underset{𝐆}{}P_𝐆^𝐤(𝐫)z_n^{𝐤+𝐆}$$
(7)
where the atomic-like local function $`A_{alm\beta }(𝐫)`$ is defined by

$$A_{alm\beta }(𝐫)=\{\begin{array}{cc}\varphi _{al\beta }(r)Y_{lm}(\widehat{𝐫})\hfill & \text{in the }a\text{-atom MT-sphere}\hfill \\ & \\ 0\hfill & \text{otherwise}\hfill \end{array}$$
(8)
with orthogonal radial wavefunctions $`\varphi _{al\beta }(r)`$ ($`\beta =1`$ or $`2`$), and spherical harmonics $`Y_{lm}(\widehat{𝐫})`$. The IPW $`P_𝐆^𝐤(𝐫)`$ is defined by

$$P_𝐆^𝐤(𝐫)=\{\begin{array}{cc}0\hfill & \text{in the MT-sphere regions}\hfill \\ & \\ e^{i(𝐤+𝐆)𝐫}\hfill & \text{in the interstitial region .}\hfill \end{array}$$
(9)
The interactions, $`v`$ and $`W`$, are well expressed by the product of two KS eigenfunctions in our perturbative treatment. The product $`\psi _{𝐤_1n_1}(𝐫)\psi _{𝐤_2n_2}(𝐫)`$ is expanded by the product of two local functions, $`A_{al_1m_1\beta _1}(𝐫)A_{al_2m_2\beta _2}(𝐫)`$, in the MT-sphere regions, and by the product of two plane waves, $`P_{𝐆_1}^{𝐤_1}(𝐫)P_{𝐆_2}^{𝐤_2}(𝐫)`$, in the interstitial region. Following Aryasetiawan and Gunnarsson AG94  the complete set of product functions is reduced by eliminating nearly linearly dependent ones. Taking the Bloch sum of the product functions, we finally obtain the product-basis function expressed as $`B_{a\mu }^𝐤(𝐫)`$ in the $`a`$-atom MT-sphere region. The product of IPW’s is also IPW in the interstitial region: $`P_{𝐆_1}^{𝐤_1}(𝐫)P_{𝐆_2}^{𝐤_2}(𝐫)=P_{𝐆_1+𝐆_2}^{𝐤_1+𝐤_2}(𝐫)`$. Thus, we obtain a mixed basis $`\{M_i^𝐤(𝐫)\}\{B_{a\mu }^𝐤(𝐫),P_𝐆^𝐤(𝐫)\}`$ which is suitable for expansions of $`v`$ and $`W`$. The index $`i`$ specifies a member of the basis and runs through $`𝐆`$ and $`a\mu `$.

Because of the nonorthogonality of IPW’s, the overlap integral of the mixed-basis functions,

$$S_{ij}M_i^𝐤|M_j^𝐤,$$

is nonvanishing for $`ij`$. We therefore define the dual-basis function:

$$\stackrel{~}{M}_i^𝐤(𝐫)\underset{i^{}}{}M_i^{}^𝐤(𝐫)S_{i^{}i}^1.$$
(10)
The Coulomb interaction $`v`$ is expanded as

$`v(𝐫,𝐫^{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤}{\overset{\mathrm{BZ}}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}\stackrel{~}{M}_i^𝐤(𝐫)v_{ij}(𝐤)(\stackrel{~}{M}_j^𝐤(𝐫^{}))^{}`$
$`v_{ij}(𝐤)`$ $`=`$ $`M_i^𝐤|v|M_j^𝐤.`$ (11)
The Coulomb matrix $`v_{ij}(𝐤)`$ can be calculated by using the structure constants future .

The self-energy is calculated by using $`ϵ_{𝐤n}`$, $`v_{ij}(𝐤)`$ and $`\psi _{𝐪n}|\psi _{𝐪𝐤n^{}}\stackrel{~}{M}_i^𝐤`$. The diagonal part of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{x}`$ is given by

$`\psi _{𝐪n}|\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{x}|\psi _{𝐪n}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤}{\overset{\mathrm{BZ}}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{n^{}}{\overset{\mathrm{occ}.}{}}}\psi _{𝐪n}|\psi _{𝐪𝐤n^{}}\stackrel{~}{M}_i^𝐤v_{ij}(𝐤)\stackrel{~}{M}_j^𝐤\psi _{𝐪𝐤n^{}}|\psi _{𝐪n}.`$
The non-interacting polarization function $`D`$ is expanded in the same manner as Eq.(11):

$`D_{ij}(𝐪,\omega )`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤}{\overset{\mathrm{BZ}}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{n}{\overset{\mathrm{occ}.}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{n^{}}{\overset{\mathrm{unocc}.}{}}}M_i^𝐪\psi _{𝐤n}|\psi _{𝐤+𝐪n^{}}\psi _{𝐤+𝐪n^{}}|\psi _{𝐤n}M_j^𝐪`$
$`\times [{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\omega ϵ_{𝐤+𝐪n^{}}+ϵ_{𝐤n}+i\delta }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\omega +ϵ_{𝐤+𝐪n^{}}ϵ_{𝐤n}i\delta }}].`$
We use the tetrahedron method for the Brillouin zone (BZ) summation in Eq.(LABEL:eq.\_D) following Ref.RF75 . The screened Coulomb interaction is given by $`W=(1vD)^1v`$ in the random-phase approximation (RPA). $`W`$ is also represented by the mixed basis.

The correlation part of the self-energy is calculated as

$`\psi _{𝐪n}|\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{c}(\omega )|\psi _{𝐪n}`$ (14)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤}{\overset{\mathrm{BZ}}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{n^{}}{\overset{\mathrm{All}}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}\psi _{𝐪n}|\psi _{𝐪𝐤n^{}}\stackrel{~}{M}_i^𝐤\stackrel{~}{M}_j^𝐤\psi _{𝐪𝐤n^{}}|\psi _{𝐪n}`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{i}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{W_{ij}^\mathrm{c}(𝐤,\omega ^{})}{\omega +\omega ^{}ϵ_{𝐪𝐤n^{}}\pm i\delta }}𝑑\omega ^{},`$
where $`i\delta `$ is taken for the occupied states and $`+i\delta `$ for the unoccupied states. We perform the frequency integration in Eq.(14) with a method devised by Aryasetiawan Arya00 .

The evaluation of the exchange self-energy must be carried out carefully since the Coulomb interaction $`v_{ij}(𝐤)`$ shows a singular behavior $`v_{ij}(𝐤)\frac{U_i^0(𝐤)U_j^0(𝐤)}{|𝐤|^2}`$ as $`𝐤0`$, where $`U_j^0(𝐤)`$ denotes the corresponding normalized eigenfunction. The singularity also exists in $`W`$. To handle the singular behavior, we use the offset $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-point method future , which is essentially equivalent to the method to integrate the divergent part analytically HL86 .

The QP energies are calculated with including the core contributions through the following equation,

$`E_{𝐤n}`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ_{𝐤n}+Z_{𝐤n}[\psi _{𝐤n}|\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{x}^{\mathrm{core1}}+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{xc}}^{\mathrm{core2}+\mathrm{valence}}|\psi _{𝐤n}`$ (15)
$`\psi _{𝐤n}|V_{\mathrm{xc}}^{\mathrm{LDA}}(n_{\mathrm{total}})|\psi _{𝐤n}],`$
where we divide the core states into two groups: core1 is the deep core state, which affects the QP energies only through $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{x}`$, and core2 is the relatively shallow core, which is treated on the same footing as the valence electrons.

## III Results for Zinc Oxide

We first describe the LDA calculation performed using the full-potential LAPW method. The local exchange-correlation functional of Vosko, Wilk and Nusair VWN  is employed. The space group of wurtzite ZnO is $`P6_3mc`$. The lattice constant and the MT-sphere radii are given in Table 1. The angular-momentum in the spherical-wave expansion is truncated at $`l_{\mathrm{max}}=6`$ and $`l_{\mathrm{max}}=4`$ for the potential and the wavefunction, respectively. This $`l_{\mathrm{max}}=4`$ value is rather small, which gives errors compared with more accurate calculations with $`l_{\mathrm{max}}=7`$, but the differences of them are within 0.02 eV for the LDA band gap. The energy cut-off of the IPW is 16Ry for the wavefunction. We take 1152 $`k`$-points in the first Brillouin zone (BZ). The Zn $`(3d)^{10}(4s)^2`$ and O $`(2s)^2(2p)^4`$ electrons are treated as valence electrons.

The $`GW`$ calculation is performed with 32 $`k`$-points in the BZ. The energy cut-off of the IPW is 10 Ry for the Coulomb matrix. We treat 18 occupied bands and take into account 100 unoccupied bands. When producing the product basis, we ignore the product functions including $`\varphi _{al\beta =2}`$ because the terms make small contributions. The Zn $`3p`$ states, which is relatively shallow in the core states, are chosen to be core2 electrons, i.e., the Zn $`3p`$ states are treated on the same footing as valence states and taken into account for the calculation of the correlation part of the self-energy. All the core and valence electrons are included into the calculation of the exchange part of the self-energy. In Sec. III.3, we check the convergence of the QP energies in $`k`$-points, plane waves, unoccupied states, and product functions.

### III.1 LDA

Unless otherwise stated, results in this section refer to the LAPW method. The LDA band structure for ZnO is shown in Fig. 1 and the density of states (DOS) is shown in Fig. 2. All energies are given with respect to the top of the valence band. Around $``$17 eV, we obtain two bands originating from the O $`2s`$ states. The narrow bands between $``$6 and $``$4 eV consist mainly of the Zn $`3d`$ orbitals, and the moderately dispersive bands from $``$4 to 0 eV consist mainly of the O $`2p`$ orbitals. Fig. 2 shows significant $`p`$-$`d`$ hybridization. The Zn $`3d`$-derived bands are split into two groups, leading to a double-peak structure in the DOS. The lower peak is characterized by the strong $`p`$-$`d`$ hybridization. The sharp upper peak between $``$4.8 and $``$4.2 eV has strong Zn $`3d`$ character and the hybridization with the O $`2p`$ states is very small. The band gap opens between the 18th and 19th bands and the fundamental gap of 0.77 eV is located at the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ point. The lowest two conduction bands consist mainly of the Zn $`4s`$ orbitals. The energy levels at the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ point computed by the LAPW method are shown in Table 2. Also shown are the levels computed by the LMTO method. Agreement is excellent; the bandgaps are nearly identical and the bands agree to within 0.1 eV over the entire valence bands. A further check was made using an entirely different kind of LMTO method OFP , and similar agreement was found.

The band dispersion is similar to the result of the norm-conserving pseudopotential method by Schröer, Krüger and Pollmann SKP93 . One important discrepancy is the magnitude of the band gap: their fundamental gap is only 0.23 eV. Other reported LDA gaps are 0.93 eV calculated with the full-potential LAPW method MRPB95  and 1.15 eV within the LMTO-ASA method OA00 .

### III.2 GWA

The $`GW`$ band structure computed with LAPW input is shown in Fig. 3 together with the LDA band structure. In the figure, all energies are given with respect to the top of the valence band (the valence-band top in the GWA was shifted up 0.49 eV relative to the LDA). We also show the LDA, $`GW`$ and HFA energies at the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ point in Table 2. The first and second bands are the O $`2s`$ bands, the 3-12th are mostly Zn $`3d`$ character, bands 13-18 are of mostly O $`2p`$ character, and bands 19-20 the Zn $`4s`$ conduction bands. Because the Zn $`3d`$ bands and the O $`2p`$ bands overlap in energy, the characterization of the band is more complicated: e.g., at the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ point, the LDA 8th state has an O $`2p`$ character, while the 13th state has a Zn $`3d`$ character.

The self-energy correction is sensitive to the character of the band, as seen from Table 2. The lowest O $`2s`$ bands are shifted by $`1`$ eV; the Zn $`3d`$ bands by $`1`$ eV; the conduction Zn $`4s`$ bands by $`+2`$ eV. The Zn $`3d`$ bandwidth shrinks, while the O $`2p`$ bandwidth and the Zn $`4s`$ bandwidth are enhanced. The O $`2s`$ bandwidth does not change.

The LAPW gaps are 0.77 eV, 2.44 eV and 11.39 eV in the LDA, GWA and HFA, respectively, as Table 2 shows, for the 32 $`k`$-point mesh employed. The LMTO results are very similar. The experimental gap is 3.44 eV OA00 . The large HFA gap reflects the neglect of screening the exchange while the LDA gap is too small largely because it neglects the nonlocality in the (screened) exchange altogether Maksimov . The $`GW`$ gap is closer to the experiment but still smaller by $``$1 eV than the experimental gap. Previously reported $`GW`$ gaps are somewhat larger. Using a model $`GW`$ approach, Massidda et al. found a gap of 4.23 eV MRPB95  and Oshikiri et al. found a gap of 4.28 eV OA00  using an all-electron approach within the atomic spheres approximation. The major part of the error in our gap energy is thought to be derived from the overestimate of the dielectric function, originating from underestimated LDA gap used to generate it. We have found previously SSC  that $`GW`$ gaps are systematically underestimated in semiconductors, with the error increasing with ionicity. Using an all-electron $`GW`$ implementation within the PAW method (albeit including valence-only electrons in the $`GW`$ calculation), Arnaud and Alouani AA00  have also noted a tendency for the $`GW`$ band gaps to be smaller than the experimental ones. For example, for Si, they find a gap of 1.00 eV. Using a fully converged 512 $`k`$-point mesh, our LAPW-$`GW`$ gap is 0.88 eV and our LMTO-$`GW`$ gap is 0.89 eV. Wei Ku WeiKu  has recently reported the LAPW-$`GW`$ gap of 0.85 eV using a 512 $`k`$-point mesh.

The centers of the O $`2s`$ band and the Zn $`3d`$ band are $``$20.7 eV LPMKS74  and $``$8.81 eV Zn3d , respectively, in experiment. Table 2 shows that those $`GW`$ bands are located higher by about 2 eV than the experimental positions. The HFA result is rather closer to the experiment. In our calculation, the dielectric function is overestimated for the reasons listed below. (1) In the RPA, the electric attractive force is neglected between excited electron and hole; there is no restoring force for the polarization, leading to the overestimation of the polarization function. (2) The LDA band structure has a much smaller band gap than the experimental one. The electron-hole pair excitation energy is smaller than the real system. Since we use the LDA band structure to calculate the polarization function, we overestimate it. (3) The Zn $`3d`$ and O $`2p`$ bands are well separated in experiment, while they partly overlap in the LDA. The hybridization between the Zn $`3d`$ orbital and the O $`2p`$ orbital is overestimated. The hybridization between the Zn $`4s`$ orbital and the O $`2p`$ orbital is also overestimated because of the smaller bandgap in the LDA. This property of the LDA wavefunction makes the charge transfer between Zn and O, leading to the overestimation of the polarization function. All those procedures of our calculation causes the overestimation of the dielectric function, and, therefore, the screened Coulomb interaction, $`W`$. In order to improve our calculation in the latter two points of (2) and (3), we need to perform a self-consistent calculation, that is, to use the QP energies and wavefunctions to calculate the screened Coulomb interaction $`W`$.

In Table 3, we show the real part of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ at the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ point. In the table, we take notations, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{𝐤n}^{\mathrm{GWA}}\psi _{𝐤n}|\mathrm{\Sigma }(ϵ_{𝐤n})|\psi _{𝐤n}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{𝐤n}^{\mathrm{LDA}}\psi _{𝐤n}|V_{\mathrm{xc}}^{\mathrm{LDA}}|\psi _{𝐤n}`$; the self-energy corrections are given by $`Z_{𝐤n}[\mathrm{\Sigma }_{𝐤n}^{\mathrm{GWA}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{𝐤n}^{\mathrm{LDA}}]`$. The normalization factor $`Z_{𝐤n}`$ is between 0.66 and 0.81, which is comparable to simple metals or semiconductors. As noted before, the self-energy corrections are negative for the valence bands and positive for the conduction bands and are larger for the localized states. Table 4 shows the decomposition of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{𝐤n}^{\mathrm{GWA}}`$ at the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ point to the core-exchange part $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{𝐤n}^{\mathrm{xcore1}}`$, the exchange part $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{𝐤n}^\mathrm{x}`$, and the correlation part $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{𝐤n}^\mathrm{c}`$. The contributions of the core2 electrons are included in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{𝐤n}^\mathrm{x}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{𝐤n}^\mathrm{c}`$. The exchange part $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{𝐤n}^\mathrm{x}`$ has a large discontinuity across the Fermi level, leading to the wide gap in the HFA. The correlation part $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{𝐤n}^\mathrm{c}`$ are positive for the valence bands and negative for the conduction bands, leading to the reduction of the bandgap from the HFA value.

### III.3 Convergence check

The $`GW`$ band structures described in Sec.III.2 have been calculated using 32 $`k`$-points in the BZ, an IPW energy cutoff of 10 Ry for the Coulomb matrix, 100 unoccupied states, and neglecting products including $`\varphi _{al\beta =2}`$. To check the convergence of the QP energies, we have performed $`GW`$ calculations with some different conditions. The conditions we have used are 64 $`k`$-points 144 $`k`$-points, the energy cut-off of 16 Ry for the IPW, or 200 unoccupied states. The results are shown in Table 5-7, compared to the result in Sec.III.2. In any case, the errors are within 0.1 eV. We have also performed the calculation with the products including $`\varphi _{al\beta =2}`$ for Zn. The improvement is quite small, within 0.005 eV. Our $`GW`$ result thus shows good convergence; especially, a small number of IPW is enough to achieve a good result.

We have checked the influence of the Zn $`3p`$ core states. In Sec.III.2, we have treated the states as core2, i.e. they treated on the same footing as valence states. Now, we treat the Zn $`3p`$ states as core1 (and include the products with $`\varphi _{al\beta =2}`$ for Zn). The fundamental gap becomes 2.47 eV and the Zn $`3d`$ bands are shifted lower by $``$ 0.1 eV. The effect of the Zn $`3p`$ electrons on the valence band through the correlation term in the self-energy is about 0.1 eV.

## IV Summary

We have presented a procedure for calculating the self-energy in the GWA with the mixed-basis expansion based on the full-potential LAPW and LMTO methods, and have applied the all-electron $`GW`$ calculation to wurtzite ZnO. The mixed-basis method works well for this system which has both extended states and localized states; the $`GW`$ calculation has a good convergence in various parameters, and can be performed on a workstation-level computer.

The $`GW`$ bandgap of ZnO is smaller than experiment by $``$ 1 eV. The self-energy correction is orbital dependent and the localized O $`2s`$ and Zn $`3d`$ states are lowered by $``$ 1eV relative to the LDA values, while still higher than experiment. The $`GW`$ calculation overestimates the screening effect for localized states such as the Zn $`3d`$ states, because of the RPA and the LDA band structure. These errors are apparently systematic in zincblende semiconductors SSC . We have indicated that a self-consistent calculation can improve the result.

For a four-atom system having localized $`3d`$ orbitals such as wurtzite ZnO, we can complete the $`GW`$ calculation with 32 $`k`$-points in the BZ within three days by using a DEC alpha 21264 667MHz workstation. Our $`GW`$ code is available in a web site. The address is http://al1.phys.sci.osaka-u.ac.jp

###### Acknowledgements.

We would like to thank Dr. Ferdi Aryasetiawan for many helpful discussions. This work is supported by the Research Fellowships of the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science for Young Scientists. This work is also supported by a Grant-in-Aid for ”Research for the Future” Program from the Promotion of Science. MvS was supported by the Office of Basic Energy Sciences, under contract no. DE-AC04-94AL85000.