text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The present-day approach to Kaluza-Klein theories is based on the idea due to Rubakov and Shaposhnikov of localization of fields on a domain wall . In a first step it is natural to drop the mechanism of localization of fields and to treat the domain wall as an infinitely thin object, i.e. as a membrane, and to consider the effects due to the gravitational interaction of such 3-branes.

A particular realization of this scenario was proposed in paper . In this paper an exact solution for a system of two branes interacting with gravity in a five-dimensional space-time was found. This model is called the Randall-Sundrum model (usually abbreviated as RS1 model), and it is widely discussed in the literature (see Refs.  for reviews and references). A consistent analysis of this model without matter on the branes was made in . However, the equations of motion for metric fluctuations, when there is matter located on the branes, have not been studied in detail yet. In paper  the Randall-Sundrum model with matter on the branes was discussed for the cases of both one and two branes (the former is usually called RS2 model). This paper utilized the Gaussian normal coordinates and the bent-brane formalism, which was argued to be inconsistent in RS2 model in paper . Moreover, the use of Gaussian normal coordinates mixed the contributions of the graviton and the radion fields to the four-dimensional gravitational field. In the present paper we will decouple the equations for the graviton and the radion fields and solve exactly the equations of motion for the RS1 model with matter on the branes. Then we will calculate the Newtonian limit in this model and the light deflection by a point-like mass in the zero mode approximation.

The Randall-Sundrum model  describes the gravity in a five-dimensional space-time $`E`$ with two branes embedded into it. We denote the coordinates by $`\{x^M\}\{x^\mu ,y\}`$, $`M=0,1,2,3,4,\mu =0,1,2,3`$, the coordinate $`x^4y`$ parameterizing the fifth dimension. It forms the orbifold $`S^1/Z_2`$, which is realised as the circle of the circumference $`2R`$ with points $`y`$ and $`y`$ identified. Correspondingly, we have the usual periodicity condition in space-time $`E`$, which identifies points $`(x,y)`$ and $`(x,y+2nR)`$, and the metric $`g_{MN}`$ satisfies the orbifold symmetry conditions

$`g_{\mu \nu }(x,y)=g_{\mu \nu }(x,y),`$ (1)
$`g_{\mu 4}(x,y)=g_{\mu 4}(x,y),`$
$`g_{44}(x,y)=g_{44}(x,y).`$
The branes are located at the fixed points of the orbifold, $`y=0`$ and $`y=R`$.

The action of the model is

$$S=S_g+S_1+S_2,$$
(2)
where $`S_g`$, $`S_1`$ and $`S_2`$ are given by

$`S_g`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi \widehat{G}}}{\displaystyle _E}\left(R\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)\sqrt{g}d^4x𝑑y,`$ (3)
$`S_1`$ $`=`$ $`V_1{\displaystyle _E}\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{g}}\delta (y)d^4x𝑑y,`$
$`S_2`$ $`=`$ $`V_2{\displaystyle _E}\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{g}}\delta (yR)d^4x𝑑y.`$
Here $`\stackrel{~}{g}_{\mu \nu }`$ is the induced metric on the branes and the subscripts 1 and 2 label the branes. We also note that the signature of the metric $`g_{MN}`$ is chosen to be $`(1,1,1,1,1)`$.

The Randall-Sundrum solution for the metric is given by

$$ds^2=g_{MN}dx^Mdx^N=e^{2\sigma (y)}\eta _{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu +dy^2,$$
(4)
where $`\eta _{\mu \nu }`$ is the Minkowski metric and the function $`\sigma (y)=k|y|`$ in the interval $`RyR`$. The parameter $`k`$ is positive and has the dimension of mass, the parameters $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`V_{1,2}`$ are related to it as follows:

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }=12k^2,V_1=V_2=\frac{3k}{4\pi \widehat{G}}.$$

We see that brane 1 has a positive energy density, whereas brane 2 has a negative one. The function $`\sigma `$ has the properties

$$_4\sigma =ksign(y),\frac{^2\sigma }{y^2}=2k(\delta (y)\delta (yR))2k\stackrel{~}{\delta }.$$
(5)
Here and in the sequel $`_4\frac{}{y}`$.

We denote $`\widehat{\kappa }=\sqrt{16\pi \widehat{G}}`$, where $`\widehat{G}`$ is the five-dimensional gravitational constant, and parameterize the metric $`g_{MN}`$ as

$$g_{MN}=\gamma _{MN}+\widehat{\kappa }h_{MN},$$
(6)
$`h_{MN}`$ being the metric fluctuations. Substituting this parameterization into (2) and retaining the terms of the zeroth order in $`\widehat{\kappa }`$, we get the second variation action of this model . It is invariant under the gauge transformations

$`h_{MN}^{}(x,y)=h_{MN}(x,y)(_M\xi _N(x,y)+_N\xi _M(x,y)),`$ (7)
where $`_M`$ is the covariant derivative with respect to the background metric $`\gamma _{MN}`$, and the functions $`\xi _N(x,y)`$ satisfy the orbifold symmetry conditions

$`\xi ^\mu (x,y)`$ $`=`$ $`\xi ^\mu (x,y),`$ (8)
$`\xi ^4(x,y)`$ $`=`$ $`\xi ^4(x,y).`$
With the help of these gauge transformations we can impose the gauge

$$h_{\mu 4}=0,h_{44}=h_{44}(x)\varphi (x),$$
(9)
which will be called the unitary gauge (see ). We would like to emphasize once again that the branes remain straight in this gauge, i.e. we do not use the bent-brane formulation, which allegedly destroys the structure of the model (this problem was discussed in ).

The general form of interaction with matter is standard,

$$\frac{\widehat{\kappa }}{2}_{B_1}h^{\mu \nu }(x,0)T_{\mu \nu }^1𝑑x+\frac{\widehat{\kappa }}{2}_{B_2}h^{\mu \nu }(x,R)T_{\mu \nu }^2\sqrt{\gamma _2}𝑑x,$$
(10)
where $`T_{\mu \nu }^1`$ and $`T_{\mu \nu }^2`$ are energy-momentum tensors of the matter on brane 1 and brane 2 respectively:

$$T_{\mu \nu }^{1,2}=2\frac{\delta L^{1,2}}{\delta \gamma ^{\mu \nu }}\gamma _{\mu \nu }^{1,2}L^{1,2}.$$

As follows from formula (10), $`h_{\mu \nu }`$ is the only physical field of the model, since only this field interacts with matter on the branes. Obviously, the unitary gauge conditions (9) do not fix the gauge of this field. In fact, after imposing these gauge conditions there remain gauge transformations of the form

$$\xi _\mu =e^{2\sigma }ϵ_\mu (x),$$
(11)
which change the longitudinal components of the field $`h_{\mu \nu }`$. Nevertheless, it turns out that it is convenient to solve the equations of motion for linearized gravity in the unitary gauge and then to choose an appropriate gauge in our four-dimensional world on the brane. We will use the de Donder gauge for the field $`h_{\mu \nu }`$ on the branes, which corresponds to the choice of harmonic coordinates.

## 2 Newtonian limit

The equations of motion for different components of the metric fluctuations in the unitary gauge take the form (see ):

1) $`\mu \nu `$-component

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(_\rho ^\rho h_{\mu \nu }_\mu ^\rho h_{\rho \nu }_\nu ^\rho h_{\rho \mu }+{\displaystyle \frac{^2h_{\mu \nu }}{x_{}^{4}{}_{}{}^{2}}}\right)`$
$``$ $`2k^2h_{\mu \nu }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}_\mu _\nu \stackrel{~}{h}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}_\mu _\nu \varphi +`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\gamma _{\mu \nu }\left(^\rho ^\sigma h_{\rho \sigma }_\rho ^\rho \stackrel{~}{h}{\displaystyle \frac{^2\stackrel{~}{h}}{x_{}^{4}{}_{}{}^{2}}}4_4\sigma _4\stackrel{~}{h}_\rho ^\rho \varphi +12k^2\varphi \right)+`$
$`+`$ $`\left[2kh_{\mu \nu }3k\gamma _{\mu \nu }\varphi \right]\stackrel{~}{\delta }={\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{\kappa }}{2}}T_{\mu \nu },`$
2) $`\mu 4`$-component,

$$_4(_\mu \stackrel{~}{h}^\nu h_{\mu \nu })3_4\sigma _\mu \varphi =0,$$
(13)
which plays the role of a constraint,

3) $`44`$-component

$$\frac{1}{2}(^\mu ^\nu h_{\mu \nu }_\mu ^\mu \stackrel{~}{h})\frac{3}{2}_4\sigma _4\stackrel{~}{h}+6k^2\varphi =0,$$
(14)
with $`T_{\mu \nu }`$ being the energy-momentum tensor of the matter and $`\stackrel{~}{h}=\gamma ^{\mu \nu }h_{\mu \nu }`$. In what follows, we will also use an auxiliary equation, which is obtained by multiplying the equation for $`44`$-component by 2 and subtracting it from the contracted equation for $`\mu \nu `$-component. This equation contains $`\stackrel{~}{h}`$ and $`\varphi `$ only and has the form:

$$\frac{^2\stackrel{~}{h}}{x_{}^{4}{}_{}{}^{2}}+2_4\sigma _4\stackrel{~}{h}8k^2\varphi +8k\varphi \stackrel{~}{\delta }+_\mu ^\mu \varphi =\frac{\widehat{\kappa }}{3}T_\mu ^\mu .$$
(15)
If $`T_{\mu \nu }=0,`$ the physical degrees of freedom of the model can be extracted by the substitution

$$h_{\mu \nu }=b_{\mu \nu }+\gamma _{\mu \nu }(\sigma c)\varphi +\frac{1}{2k^2}\left(\sigma c+\frac{1}{2}+\frac{c}{2}e^{2\sigma }\right)_\mu _\nu \varphi .$$
(16)
with $`c=\frac{kR}{e^{2kR}1}`$. It turns out that the field $`b_{\mu \nu }(x^\mu ,y)`$ describes the massless graviton  and massive Kaluza-Klein spin-2 fields, whereas $`\varphi (x)`$ describes a scalar field called the radion. Apparentely, the radion field was first identified in Ref.  (see also ) and discussed in .

However, the situation is rather different, when there is matter on the branes. Let us first consider the case, where matter is located on the brane at $`0`$, i.e. the energy-momentum tensor is of the form $`T_{\mu \nu }=t_{\mu \nu }(x)\delta (y)`$. The substitution, which allows one to decouple the equations, looks like

$`h_{\mu \nu }=u_{\mu \nu }+\gamma _{\mu \nu }(\sigma c)\varphi +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2k^2}}\left(\sigma c+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}+ce^{2kR}\right)_\mu _\nu \varphi .`$ (17)
After this substitution equations (13), (14) and (15), rewritten in the flat metric (i.e. $`u=\eta ^{\mu \nu }u_{\mu \nu }`$), take the form:

$`_4(e^{2\sigma }(^\nu u_{\mu \nu }_\mu u))=0,`$ (18)
$`e^{4\sigma }(^\mu ^\nu u_{\mu \nu }\mathrm{}u)3_4\sigma _4(e^{2\sigma }u)+3ce^{2kR2\sigma }\mathrm{}\varphi =0,`$ (19)
$`_4(e^{2\sigma }_4(e^{2\sigma }u))+2{\displaystyle \frac{c}{k}}\delta (y)\left[e^{2kR}1\right]\mathrm{}\varphi ={\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{\kappa }}{3}}t_\mu ^\mu \delta (y).`$ (20)
Let us consider Fourier expansion of all terms of equation (20) with respect to coordinate $`y`$. Since the term with the derivative $`_4`$ has no zero mode, this equation implies that

$$\mathrm{}\varphi =\frac{\widehat{\kappa }}{6R}t,tt_\mu ^\mu ,$$
(21)
$$_4(e^{2\sigma }u)=0.$$
(22)
From the last equation and equation (18) it follows that

$`^\nu u_{\mu \nu }=e^{2\sigma }A_\mu (x),`$ (23)
$`_\mu u_\nu ^\nu =e^{2\sigma }B_\mu (x),`$ (24)
where $`A_\mu (x)`$ and $`B_\mu (x)`$ depend on four-dimensional coordinates only. It is easy to see that the remaining gauge transformations (11) allow us to impose the de Donder gauge condition on the field $`u_{\mu \nu }`$

$$^\nu \left(u_{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{2}\eta _{\mu \nu }u\right)=0.$$
(25)
Having imposed this gauge, we are still left with residual gauge transformation

$$\xi _\mu =e^{2\sigma }ϵ_\mu (x),\mathrm{}ϵ_\mu =0.$$
(26)
The gauge transformations with $`\xi _\mu `$ satisfying these conditions are important for determining the number of degrees of freedom of the massless graviton. It follows from equation (19) that

$$\mathrm{}u=e^{2\sigma }\frac{\widehat{\kappa }k}{1e^{2kR}}t.$$
(27)
Now let us consider $`\mu \nu `$-equation. After substitution (17) and in the de Donder gauge it takes the form

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}e^{2\sigma }\mathrm{}u_{\mu \nu }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}_4_4u_{\mu \nu }2k^2u_{\mu \nu }_4_4\sigma u_{\mu \nu }=`$ (28)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{\kappa }}{2}}f_{\mu \nu }\delta (y)+{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{\kappa }k}{12(1e^{2kR})}}\left(\eta _{\mu \nu }+2{\displaystyle \frac{_\mu _\nu }{\mathrm{}}}\right)t,`$
where

$$f_{\mu \nu }=t_{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{3}\left(\eta _{\mu \nu }\frac{_\mu _\nu }{\mathrm{}}\right)t.$$
(29)
One can see that $`f_{\mu \nu }`$ is transverse-traceless. Here and below the inverse d’Alembertian is an integral operator uniquely defined by the radiation conditions.

To solve this equation, we make the following substitution

$$u_{\mu \nu }=v_{\mu \nu }+\frac{\widehat{\kappa }k}{6(1e^{2kR})}e^{2\sigma }\mathrm{}^1\left(\eta _{\mu \nu }+2\frac{_\mu _\nu }{\mathrm{}}\right)t,$$
(30)
which does not violate (25) that takes the form

$`^\nu v_{\mu \nu }=0,`$ (31)
$`v_\mu ^\mu =0.`$
Substituting (30) into (28), we get

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}e^{2\sigma }\mathrm{}v_{\mu \nu }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{y^2}}v_{\mu \nu }2k^2v_{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{y^2}}\sigma v_{\mu \nu }={\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{\kappa }}{2}}f_{\mu \nu }\delta (y).`$ (32)
This equation can be solved exactly. To this end, let us first perform Fourier transform of the field $`v_{\mu \nu }`$ with respect to the $`x`$-coordinates

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}e^{2\sigma }(p^2)\stackrel{~}{v}_{\mu \nu }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{y^2}}\stackrel{~}{v}_{\mu \nu }2k^2\stackrel{~}{v}_{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{y^2}}\sigma \stackrel{~}{v}_{\mu \nu }={\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{\kappa }}{2}}\stackrel{~}{f}_{\mu \nu }\delta (y),`$ (33)
where $`p^2=p_0^2+\overline{p}^2`$.

First let us solve this equation in the bulk (see , ). Here the solution of equation (33) looks like

$`\stackrel{~}{v}_{\mu \nu }(p,y)=C_{\mu \nu }J_2\left({\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{|p^2|}}{k}}e^{k|y|}\right)+D_{\mu \nu }N_2\left({\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{|p^2|}}{k}}e^{k|y|}\right),p^2<0`$ (34)
$`\stackrel{~}{v}_{\mu \nu }(p,y)=C_{\mu \nu }I_2\left({\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{|p^2|}}{k}}e^{k|y|}\right)+D_{\mu \nu }K_2\left({\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{|p^2|}}{k}}e^{k|y|}\right),p^2>0`$ (35)
Substituting it into equation (33) and comparing the terms at the boundaries, we get the values of the constant tensors $`C_{\mu \nu }`$ and $`D_{\mu \nu }`$. Having got them, we obtain the solutions of the $`\mu \nu `$-equation with matter on the positive tension brane:

1)$`p^2<0`$

$`\stackrel{~}{v}_{\mu \nu }(p,y)=[\stackrel{~}{t}_{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}(\eta _{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{p_\mu p_\nu }{p^2}})\stackrel{~}{t}]{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{\kappa }}{2\sqrt{p^2}}}\times `$ (36)
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{N_2\left(\frac{\sqrt{p^2}}{k}e^{k|y|}\right)J_1\left(\frac{\sqrt{p^2}}{k}e^{kR}\right)J_2\left(\frac{\sqrt{p^2}}{k}e^{k|y|}\right)N_1\left(\frac{\sqrt{p^2}}{k}e^{kR}\right)}{J_1\left(\frac{\sqrt{p^2}}{k}\right)N_1\left(\frac{\sqrt{p^2}}{k}e^{kR}\right)N_1\left(\frac{\sqrt{p^2}}{k}\right)J_1\left(\frac{\sqrt{p^2}}{k}e^{kR}\right)}},`$
2)$`p^2>0`$

$`\stackrel{~}{v}_{\mu \nu }(p,y)=[\stackrel{~}{t}_{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}(\eta _{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{p_\mu p_\nu }{p^2}})\stackrel{~}{t}]{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{\kappa }}{2\sqrt{p^2}}}\times `$ (37)
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{K_2\left(\frac{\sqrt{p^2}}{k}e^{k|y|}\right)I_1\left(\frac{\sqrt{p^2}}{k}e^{kR}\right)+I_2\left(\frac{\sqrt{p^2}}{k}e^{k|y|}\right)K_1\left(\frac{\sqrt{p^2}}{k}e^{kR}\right)}{I_1\left(\frac{\sqrt{p^2}}{k}\right)K_1\left(\frac{\sqrt{p^2}}{k}e^{kR}\right)I_1\left(\frac{\sqrt{p^2}}{k}e^{kR}\right)K_1\left(\frac{\sqrt{p^2}}{k}\right)}}.`$
Since we want to calculate the Newtonian limit, $`\stackrel{~}{t}_{\mu \nu }`$ is proportional to $`\delta (p_0)`$ in this case. It means, that we need the solution for $`p^2>0`$.

When matter is on brane 2 (at $`y=R`$), all the reasonings are the same, as presented above. The full substitution looks like

$`h_{\mu \nu }=u_{\mu \nu }+e^{2\sigma }\eta _{\mu \nu }(\sigma c)\varphi +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2k^2}}\left(\sigma +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\right)_\mu _\nu \varphi ,`$ (38)
$`u_{\mu \nu }=v_{\mu \nu }+{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{\kappa }k}{6(e^{2kR}1)}}e^{2\sigma }\mathrm{}^1\left(\eta _{\mu \nu }+2{\displaystyle \frac{_\mu _\nu }{\mathrm{}}}\right)t.`$
The gauge conditions are the same too. The equations of motion for the field $`\varphi `$ and solution for the field $`v_{\mu \nu }`$ with matter on brane 2 can be derived analogously and read

$$\mathrm{}\varphi =\frac{\widehat{\kappa }}{6R}t,$$
(39)
1)$`p^2<0`$

$`\stackrel{~}{v}_{\mu \nu }(p,y)=[\stackrel{~}{t}_{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}(\eta _{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{p_\mu p_\nu }{p^2}})\stackrel{~}{t}]{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{\kappa }}{2\sqrt{p^2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{e^{kR}}}\times `$ (40)
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{N_2\left(\frac{\sqrt{p^2}}{k}e^{k|y|}\right)J_1\left(\frac{\sqrt{p^2}}{k}\right)J_2\left(\frac{\sqrt{p^2}}{k}e^{k|y|}\right)N_1\left(\frac{\sqrt{p^2}}{k}\right)}{J_1\left(\frac{\sqrt{p^2}}{k}\right)N_1\left(\frac{\sqrt{p^2}}{k}e^{kR}\right)N_1\left(\frac{\sqrt{p^2}}{k}\right)J_1\left(\frac{\sqrt{p^2}}{k}e^{kR}\right)}},`$
2)$`p^2>0`$

$`\stackrel{~}{v}_{\mu \nu }(p,y)=[\stackrel{~}{t}_{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}(\eta _{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{p_\mu p_\nu }{p^2}})\stackrel{~}{t}]{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{\kappa }}{2\sqrt{p^2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{e^{kR}}}\times `$ (41)
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{K_2\left(\frac{\sqrt{p^2}}{k}e^{k|y|}\right)I_1\left(\frac{\sqrt{p^2}}{k}\right)+I_2\left(\frac{\sqrt{p^2}}{k}e^{k|y|}\right)K_1\left(\frac{\sqrt{p^2}}{k}\right)}{I_1\left(\frac{\sqrt{p^2}}{k}\right)K_1\left(\frac{\sqrt{p^2}}{k}e^{kR}\right)I_1\left(\frac{\sqrt{p^2}}{k}e^{kR}\right)K_1\left(\frac{\sqrt{p^2}}{k}\right)}}.`$
An important point is that these equations are written in the coordinates $`\{x^\mu \}`$, which are Galilean on brane 1 (not on brane 2) and are inappropriate for studying physical effects on brane 2 (we recall that coordinates are called Galilean, if $`g_{\mu \nu }=diag(1,1,1,1)`$ ).

Obviously, when there is matter on both branes, the solution for the metric fluctuation is just the sum of solutions for each brane separately, which follows from the linearity of the equations.

Now let us examine the four-dimensional theory on the branes. First we consider the case when matter and observer are located on brane 1. It is easy to see that $`h_{\mu \nu }`$ (17), (30) does not satisfy the de Donder gauge condition. The residual gauge transformations (26) are not sufficient to pass to this gauge. But since we consider only the effective theory on brane 1, we can drop the $`\mathrm{}ϵ_\mu =0`$ condition, which fixes the gauge for the field $`v_{\mu \nu }`$. Then we can pass to the de Donder gauge condition for the field $`h_{\mu \nu }`$ on brane 1 with the help of the gauge functions of the form

$$ϵ_\mu =\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{R}{2k}+\frac{1}{4k^2}\right)_\mu \varphi +\frac{kR}{e^{2kR}1}\frac{_\mu }{\mathrm{}}\varphi .$$
(42)
Having been made, these transformations result in

$$h_{\mu \nu }|_{y=0}=v_{\mu \nu }|_{y=0}+\eta _{\mu \nu }kR\varphi +2kR\frac{_\mu _\nu }{\mathrm{}}\varphi .$$
(43)
This formula gives the four-dimensional gravitational field on brane 1, and it takes into account the contributions of the massless and of the massive gravitons and the contribution of the radion.

Now let us calculate the Newtonian limit in this case. Let us consider a static point mass with energy-momentum tensor $`t_{00}=M\delta (\stackrel{}{x}),t_{0k}=t_{ij}=0`$ (and $`\stackrel{~}{t}_{00}=2\pi M\delta (p_0)`$), $`M`$ denoting the inertial mass. We need to calculate only $`h_{00}`$-component of the metric fluctuations (see (37))

$`\stackrel{~}{v}_{00}(p,0)={\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{\kappa }}{2\sqrt{p^2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{K_2\left(\frac{\sqrt{p^2}}{k}\right)I_1\left(\frac{\sqrt{p^2}}{k}e^{kR}\right)+I_2\left(\frac{\sqrt{p^2}}{k}\right)K_1\left(\frac{\sqrt{p^2}}{k}e^{kR}\right)}{I_1\left(\frac{\sqrt{p^2}}{k}\right)K_1\left(\frac{\sqrt{p^2}}{k}e^{kR}\right)I_1\left(\frac{\sqrt{p^2}}{k}e^{kR}\right)K_1\left(\frac{\sqrt{p^2}}{k}\right)}}\times `$ (44)
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{4\pi }{3}}M\delta (p_0)`$
and

$`h_{00}(x,0)=v_{00}(x,0)kR{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{\kappa }}{6R}}{\displaystyle \frac{M}{r}},`$ (45)
(see (43)) where $`r=\sqrt{\stackrel{}{x}^2}`$ and

$$v_{00}(x,0)=\frac{1}{(2\pi )^4}e^{i\eta _{\mu \nu }p^\mu x^\nu }\stackrel{~}{v}_{00}(p,0)d^4p.$$
(46)
Using the last relation and equation (44) one can easy find that

$`v_{00}(x,0)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi )^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi }{r}}{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi }{3}}M{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}g(p)sin(pr)p𝑑p,`$ (47)
$`g(p)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{\kappa }}{2p}}{\displaystyle \frac{K_2\left(\frac{p}{k}\right)I_1\left(\frac{p}{k}e^{kR}\right)+I_2\left(\frac{p}{k}\right)K_1\left(\frac{p}{k}e^{kR}\right)}{I_1\left(\frac{p}{k}\right)K_1\left(\frac{p}{k}e^{kR}\right)I_1\left(\frac{p}{k}e^{kR}\right)K_1\left(\frac{p}{k}\right)}},`$
where $`p=\sqrt{\stackrel{}{p}^2}`$. It is impossible to evaluate the integral in (47) analytically. But we can estimate the integrand in the following cases: 1) $`p<<e^{kR}k`$, 2) $`e^{kR}k<<p<<k`$ and 3) $`k<<p`$. Using these estimates in the intervals $`0pe^{kR}k`$, $`e^{kR}kpk`$ and $`k<p<\mathrm{}`$ respectively, we can estimate the integral in equation (47).

First, utilizing the recurrent relations for the McDonald functions, we represent the factor $`g(p)`$ in the integrand in the following form

$$g(p)=\frac{\widehat{\kappa }k}{p^2}\frac{\widehat{\kappa }}{2p}\frac{K_0\left(\frac{p}{k}\right)I_1\left(\frac{p}{k}e^{kR}\right)+I_0\left(\frac{p}{k}\right)K_1\left(\frac{p}{k}e^{kR}\right)}{I_1\left(\frac{p}{k}\right)K_1\left(\frac{p}{k}e^{kR}\right)I_1\left(\frac{p}{k}e^{kR}\right)K_1\left(\frac{p}{k}\right)}.$$
(48)
With the help of this transformation we have picked out the contribution of the zero mode to $`v_{00}`$. Substituting asymptotic formulas for McDonald functions into (48), we get

$`g(p){\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{\kappa }k}{p^2}}+[\begin{array}{ccc}\frac{\widehat{\kappa }k}{e^{2kR}1}\frac{1}{p^2}\frac{\widehat{\kappa }}{2k\left(1e^{2kR}\right)}ln\left(\frac{p}{k}\right)\hfill & ,& p<<e^{kR}k\hfill \\ \frac{\widehat{\kappa }}{2k}ln\left(\frac{p}{k}\right)\hfill & ,& e^{kR}k<<p<<k\hfill \\ \frac{\widehat{\kappa }}{2p}\hfill & ,& k<<p.\hfill \end{array}`$ (52)
All the integrals arising after substituting (52) into (47) can be calculated analytically. The integrals of the form $`_a^{\mathrm{}}sin(pr)𝑑p`$ are calculated with the use of the regularization

$$_a^{\mathrm{}}sin(pr)𝑑p=\underset{ϵ0}{lim}\left(_a^{\mathrm{}}e^{ϵp}\mathrm{sin}(pr)𝑑p\right)=\frac{\mathrm{cos}(ar)}{r}.$$
(53)
It is well known that the gravitational potential is expressed through the $`g_{00}`$-component of the metric as $`g_{00}=12V`$ . Since $`g_{00}=1+\widehat{\kappa }h_{00}`$, we get

$$V=\frac{\widehat{\kappa }}{2}h_{00}.$$
(54)
Thus, using equations (43), (47) and (52), we get

$$V\frac{M}{r}G_1\left(1+\frac{4\mathrm{cos}(kr)}{3\pi kr}\frac{4}{3\pi k^2r^2}\left[sin(kr)si(kr)\right]\right),$$
(55)
where $`G_1=\frac{\widehat{G}k}{1e^{2kR}}`$ and

$$si(b)=_0^b\frac{\mathrm{sin}t}{t}𝑑t.$$

Thus, we have examined the case of the mass and the observer being located on brane 1. But there are three more possible cases to be examined. It is the case of ”shadow” matter, when the mass is located on brane 2 and the observer is located on brane 1, the case of the mass and the observer being located on brane 2, and the case of the mass being located on brane 1, whereas the observer being located on brane 2 (”shadow” matter effect as well). All the calculations in these cases are the same, as described above. But if the observer is located on brane 2, it is necessary to pass to Galilean coordinates on brane 2 to get a correct result. This problem was discussed in detail in paper . The energy-momentum tensor $`t_{\mu \nu }`$ takes the form $`t_{00}=M\delta (\stackrel{}{x}),t_{0k}=t_{ij}=0`$ in the Galilean coordinates on the brane the mass is located on. In the formulas presented below (in the Galilean coordinates on the observer’s brane) the energy-momentum tensor always has this canonical form, and passing to the Galilean coordinates is taken into account by a factor in front of the brackets.

Now let us discuss, how to pass to Galilean coordinates on brane 2 by the example of the case when the mass is located on brane 1 and the observer is located on brane 2 (”shadow” matter effect). We consider the following form of the Fourier transform with the integrand appropriate for this case

$$A_{\mu \nu }(x_0,\stackrel{}{x})=\frac{1}{(2\pi )^4}B_{\mu \nu }e^{i\eta _{\mu \nu }p^\mu x^\nu }g(p)\delta (p_0)d^4p,$$
(56)
with $`B_{\mu \nu }`$ being a constant. One can easily find, that in Galilean coordinates on brane 2 this expression looks like

$$A_{\mu \nu }^{}(z_0,\stackrel{}{z})=\frac{1}{(2\pi )^4}B_{\mu \nu }e^{kR}e^{i\eta _{\mu \nu }q^\mu z^\nu }g(e^{kR}q)\delta (q_0)d^4q,$$
(57)
where $`\{z^\mu \}`$ are Galilean coordinates on brane 2. In particular, this means, that the intervals, in which we have to estimate the integrand, change. Now we have to choose the following domains of estimate: $`q<<k`$, $`k<<q<<e^{kR}k`$ and $`e^{kR}k<<q`$.

Another difficulty, which arises in this case, is that one of the integrals cannot be evaluated analytically. It has the following form

$$_k^{\mathrm{}}e^{\frac{q}{k}}\sqrt{q}\mathrm{sin}(qr)𝑑q=k^{3/2}_1^{\mathrm{}}\sqrt{t}\mathrm{sin}(tkr)e^t𝑑t,$$
(58)
where $`r=\sqrt{\stackrel{}{z}^2}`$. But we can estimate it in the limiting cases $`1<<kr`$ and $`kr<<1`$.

1) $`1<<kr`$. In this case (58) can be estimated by integration by parts

$$_1^{\mathrm{}}\sqrt{t}\mathrm{sin}(tkr)e^t𝑑te^1\frac{\mathrm{cos}(kr)}{kr}.$$
(59)
2) $`kr<<1`$. In this case we can make the expansion of $`sin(tkr)`$ for the small argument

$`{\displaystyle _1^{\mathrm{}}}\sqrt{t}\mathrm{sin}(tkr)e^t𝑑t{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}\sqrt{t}\mathrm{sin}(tkr)e^t𝑑t`$ (60)
$`{\displaystyle _0^1}\sqrt{t}\left(krt{\displaystyle \frac{(kr)^3t^3}{6}}+\mathrm{}\right)e^t𝑑t.`$
The first integral was taken from the table of integrals  and the second one was calculated numerically. The result reads as follows

$$_1^{\mathrm{}}\sqrt{t}\mathrm{sin}(tkr)e^t𝑑t\left(\frac{3}{4}\sqrt{\pi }0.2\right)kr+0.099\frac{1}{6}(kr)^3.$$
(61)
And the last very interesting point of ”shadow” matter cases is passing to the de Donder gauge. Let us show it in the case of the field $`h_{\mu \nu }|_{y=R}`$. It does not satisfy the de Donder gauge condition on brane 2 (see (38)), analogously to the case of matter located on brane 1. With the help of the gauge functions of the following form

$$ϵ_\mu =\frac{e^{2kR}}{8k^2}_\mu \varphi +\frac{kRe^{2kR}}{e^{2kR}1}\frac{_\mu }{\mathrm{}}\varphi $$
(62)
we can pass to the de Donder gauge. But after this transformation $`h_{\mu \nu }|_{y=R}`$ appears to have the following form

$$h_{\mu \nu }|_{y=R}=v_{\mu \nu }|_{y=R}.$$
(63)
This means, that $`h_{\mu \nu }|_{y=R}`$ satisfies transverse-traceless gauge conditon

$`^\nu h_{\mu \nu }|_{y=R}=0,`$ (64)
$`h_\nu ^\nu |_{y=R}=0,`$
which is quite natural, because there is no matter on brane 2.

Thus, the Newtonian limit in this case has the following form
1) $`1<<kr`$

$$V\frac{4}{3}G_1e^{kR}\frac{M}{r}\left(1+\sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi }}e^1\frac{\mathrm{cos}(kr)}{kr}\right),$$
(65)
2) $`kr<<1`$

$`VG_1e^{kR}Mk{\displaystyle \frac{8}{3\pi }}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{3\pi }{4\sqrt{2}}}0.2\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}}+0.099\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}(kr)^2\right)`$ (66)
$`G_1e^{kR}Mk\left(2.05+0.02(kr)^2\right).`$
Below the results for the last two cases are presented. All calculations were made similarly to the presented above.

I) The mass and the observer are located on brane 2:

$`VG_2{\displaystyle \frac{M}{r}}\left(1e^{2kR}+{\displaystyle \frac{8e^{2kR}}{3\pi }}si(kr)+{\displaystyle \frac{2e^{2kR}}{3\pi }}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}(kr)}{kr}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}(kr)}{(kr)^2}}\right]\right),`$ (67)
where $`G_2=\frac{\widehat{G}k}{e^{2kR}1}`$ is the effective gravitational constant on brane 2.

II) The mass is located on brane 2 and the observer is located on brane 1 (”shadow” matter also):
1) $`e^{kR}<<kr`$

$`V{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}e^{kR}G_2{\displaystyle \frac{M}{r}}\left(1+\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\pi }}}e^{kR}e^1{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}(kre^{kR})}{kr}}\right),`$ (68)
2) $`kr<<e^{kR}`$

$`V`$ $``$ $`G_2Mk{\displaystyle \frac{8}{3\pi }}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{3\pi }{4\sqrt{2}}}0.2\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}}+0.099e^{2kR}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}(kr)^2\right)`$
$``$ $`G_2Mk\left(2.05+0.02e^{2kR}(kr)^2\right).`$
We would like to note that in all formulas for the Newtonian limit, presented above, parameter $`M`$ denotes the physical mass in Galilean coordinates on the brane the mass is located on.

In paper  possible values of parameter $`k`$ were discussed. It was shown that the value $`k1Tev`$ is the only one admissible for a correct physical interpretation of the theory on brane 2. This means, that for $`r1cm`$ the value $`kr10^{17}`$ and the terms proportional to $`\mathrm{sin}(kr)`$ and $`\mathrm{cos}(kr)`$ can be dropped as negligible. For example, since $`si(t\mathrm{})\frac{\pi }{2}`$, equation (67) takes the form

$$VG_2\frac{M}{r}\left(1+\frac{1}{3}e^{2kR}\right).$$
(70)
The same arguments can be applied to other cases of matter and observer disposition. Since the contribution of massive modes are negligible for $`r>>10^{17}cm`$, only the zero modes constitute the Newtonian limit. Unfortunately, in formulas (55), (65), (67) and (68) the contributions of the massless graviton and of the radion are ”mixed”. This problem can be solved with the help of the zero mode approximation.

## 3 Zero mode approximation

Let us consider equations (2), (13) and (13) with the energy-momentum tensor of the form $`T_{\mu \nu }=t_{\mu \nu }(x)\delta (y)`$ (in the unitary gauge). As described above, with the help of (17) these equation (except for the $`\mu \nu `$-equation) take the form (18), (19) and (20). Then we can get equations (21) and (22) as it was made above. It is well known that the field $`u_{\mu \nu }`$ in the presence of matter is a combination of zero and massive modes , whose eigenfunctions are orthogonal . In particular, the zero mode can be represented as $`u_{\mu \nu }^0=e^{2\sigma }\alpha _{\mu \nu }`$, where $`\alpha _{\mu \nu }`$ depends on $`x`$ only. It also means that with the help of the residual gauge transformations $`\xi _\mu =e^{2\sigma }ϵ_\mu (x)`$ it is possible to impose the gauge condition

$`^\nu u_{\mu \nu }^m=0,`$ (71)
$`u_\mu ^{m\mu }=0,`$
on the massive modes $`u_{\mu \nu }^m`$ and the de Donder gauge condition on the zero mode

$$^\nu \left(\alpha _{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{2}\eta _{\mu \nu }\alpha \right)=0.$$
(72)
After imposing this gauge, we are still left with residual gauge transformation (26). It follows from equations (19), (21),(71), (25) that

$$\mathrm{}\alpha =\frac{\widehat{\kappa }ce^{2kR}}{R}t.$$
(73)
Now let us consider equation (2). Making substitution (17) with condition (21) and passing to the gauge (71), (72) we get

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{}(\alpha _{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\eta _{\mu \nu }\alpha )+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}e^{2\sigma }\mathrm{}u_{\mu \nu }^m+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}_4_4u_{\mu \nu }^m2k^2u_{\mu \nu }^m_4_4\sigma u_{\mu \nu }^m=`$ (74)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{\kappa }}{2}}t_{\mu \nu }\delta (y)+{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{\kappa }ke^{2kR}}{6(e^{2kR}1)}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{_\mu _\nu }{\mathrm{}}}\eta _{\mu \nu }\right)t{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{\kappa }}{6}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{_\mu _\nu }{\mathrm{}}}\eta _{\mu \nu }\right)t\delta (y).`$
Since we are going to calculate the Newtonian limit and light deflection in the zero mode approximation, we have to find an equation for the field $`\alpha _{\mu \nu }`$. If we multiply equation (74) by $`e^{2\sigma }`$, integrate it over $`y`$ and take into account the orthonormality condition for the wave functions of the modes, we get

$$\mathrm{}(\alpha _{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{2}\eta _{\mu \nu }\alpha )=\frac{\widehat{\kappa }k}{(1e^{2kR})}t_{\mu \nu }.$$
(75)
The equation for massive modes takes the form

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}e^{2\sigma }\mathrm{}u_{\mu \nu }^m+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}_4_4u_{\mu \nu }^m2k^2u_{\mu \nu }^m_4_4\sigma u_{\mu \nu }^m={\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{\kappa }}{2}}t_{\mu \nu }\delta (y)+`$ (76)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{\kappa }ke^{2kR}}{2(e^{2kR}1)}}t_{\mu \nu }+{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{\kappa }ke^{2kR}}{6(e^{2kR}1)}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{_\mu _\nu }{\mathrm{}}}\eta _{\mu \nu }\right)t{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{\kappa }}{6}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{_\mu _\nu }{\mathrm{}}}\eta _{\mu \nu }\right)t\delta (y).`$
We note that equation (74) has been solved exactly in Section 2. But it turned out to be impossible to evaluate analytically all the arising integrals even for a simple form of $`t_{\mu \nu }`$ (for example, for a static point mass).

When matter is on brane 2 (at $`y=R`$), all the reasonings are the same, as presented above. The substitution has the form (38). The gauge conditions are the same as in case of matter on brane 1 too. The equations of motion for the fields $`\alpha _{\mu \nu }`$, $`\varphi `$ in the presence of matter on brane 2 can be derived analogously and read

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{}(\alpha _{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\eta _{\mu \nu }\alpha )`$ $`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}e^{2\sigma }\mathrm{}u_{\mu \nu }^m+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}_4_4u_{\mu \nu }^m2k^2u_{\mu \nu }^m_4_4\sigma u_{\mu \nu }^m=`$ (77)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{\kappa }}{2}}t_{\mu \nu }\delta (yR)`$ $`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{\kappa }k}{6(e^{2kR}1)}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{_\mu _\nu }{\mathrm{}}}\eta _{\mu \nu }\right)t_\rho ^\rho `$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{\kappa }}{6}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{_\mu _\nu }{\mathrm{}}}\eta _{\mu \nu }\right)t_\rho ^\rho \delta (yR),`$
$`\mathrm{}(\alpha _{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\eta _{\mu \nu }\alpha )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{\kappa }k}{(e^{2kR}1)}}t_{\mu \nu },`$ (78)
$`\mathrm{}\varphi ={\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{\kappa }}{6R}}t_\mu ^\mu .`$ (79)
We would like to note once again that these equations are written in the coordinates $`\{x^\mu \}`$, which are Galilean on brane 1 and are inappropriate for studying physical effects on brane 2.

Now we are ready to find the Newtonian limit and light deflection by a point-like static mass. Let us first make it for brane 1. The substitution (17) in the zero mode approximation is

$`h_{\mu \nu }^0=e^{2\sigma }\alpha _{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{kR}{e^{2kR}1}}\eta _{\mu \nu }\varphi +{\displaystyle \frac{R}{2k}}_\mu _\nu \varphi +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4k^2}}_\mu _\nu \varphi .`$ (80)
The equation for $`h_{\mu \nu }`$ on brane 1 in the zero mode approximation looks like

$`\mathrm{}h_{\mu \nu }^0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{\kappa }ke^{2kR}}{e^{2kR}1}}\left(t_{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\eta _{\mu \nu }t_\rho ^\rho \right)`$ (81)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{\kappa }k}{6(e^{2kR}1)}}\eta _{\mu \nu }t`$ $`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{\kappa }}{12k^2R}}\left(kR+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\right)_\mu _\nu t.`$
Let us consider a static point mass with energy-momentum tensor $`t_{00}=M\delta (\stackrel{}{x}),t_{0k}=t_{ij}=0`$, $`M`$ denoting the inertial mass again. Then we can find a solution of equation (81) for $`h_{00}`$-component

$$h_{00}=\frac{\widehat{\kappa }k(e^{2kR}+\frac{1}{3})}{8\pi (e^{2kR}1)}\frac{M}{r},$$
(82)
where $`r=\sqrt{\stackrel{}{x}^2}`$. Thus, we get

$$V=\widehat{G}k\frac{(e^{2kR}+\frac{1}{3})}{(e^{2kR}1)}\frac{M}{r}=G_1\left(1+\frac{1}{3}e^{2kR}\right)\frac{M}{r}.$$
(83)
Now let us show that the Randall-Sundrum model in the zero mode approximation is equivalent to the linearized Brans-Dicke theory (apparently, it was first noted in ). Appropriate formulas for the light deflection in the Brans-Dicke theory are well known and can be found, for example, in .

The equation for the fluctuations of metric in the linearized Brans-Dicke theory looks like

$`\mathrm{}\left(h_{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\eta _{\mu \nu }h\right)=16\pi G\left(t_{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\omega +3}}\left(\eta _{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{_\mu _\nu }{\mathrm{}}}\right)t\right),`$ (84)
where $`\omega `$ is the BD-parameter. It is easy to see that $`h_{\mu \nu }`$ satisfies the de Donder gauge condition $`^\nu \left(h_{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{2}\eta _{\mu \nu }h\right)=0`$. The light deflection angle is given by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\phi \frac{4MG}{r_0}\left(\frac{2\omega +3}{2\omega +4}\right),$$
(85)
with $`r_0`$ being the impact parameter and $`M`$ being the mass of the static point-like source.

Now let us examine the four-dimensional effective theory on brane 1. It is easy to see that $`h_{\mu \nu }^0`$ (80) does not satisfy the de Donder gauge condition. We can impose it with the help of the gauge functions (42).

In this gauge equation (81) takes the form

$`\mathrm{}\left(h_{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\eta _{\mu \nu }h\right)=16\pi G_1\left(t_{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{e^{2kR}}{3}}\left(\eta _{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{_\mu _\nu }{\mathrm{}}}\right)t\right).`$ (86)
Here and in what follows we drop the superscript $`0`$ of the zero mode approximation. By comparing (86) with (84), we get $`\omega =\frac{3}{2}\left(e^{2kR}1\right)`$. Substituting this into (85), we find the angle of light deflection by a static point-like source on brane 1

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\phi \frac{4MG_1}{r_0}\left(\frac{1}{1+\frac{1}{3}e^{2kR}}\right).$$
(87)
The second term in the denominator of formula (87) and the second term in formula (83) correspond to the contribution of the radion. One can see that the contribution of the radion is $`e^{2kR}`$ times smaller than the contribution of the massless graviton.

Direct calculations lead us to the following results for the remaining cases. All the reasonings concerning Galilean coordinates are the same as in section 2.

1) We live on brane 1, the mass is located on brane 2 (”shadow” matter)

$`\mathrm{}\left(h_{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\eta _{\mu \nu }h\right)=16\pi G_1e^{kR}\left(t_{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\left(\eta _{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{_\mu _\nu }{\mathrm{}}}\right)t\right).`$ (88)
The light deflection angle is

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\phi \frac{3MG_1e^{kR}}{r_0}=4MG_1e^{kR}\left(\frac{1}{1+\frac{1}{3}}\right)\frac{1}{r_0}.$$
(89)
Newton’s Law looks like

$$V=\frac{4}{3}G_1e^{kR}\frac{M}{r}=\left(1+\frac{1}{3}\right)G_1e^{kR}\frac{M}{r}.$$
(90)
The second term in the denominator of formula (89) and the second term in the brackets in formula (90) correspond to the contribution of the radion. One can see that the contribution of the radion is of the same order, as the contribution of the massless graviton, but the effect of the ”shadow” matter is $`e^{kR}`$ times smaller, than the effect of the ordinary matter (compare with (87) and (83)). It means that the effective theory on brane 1 is phenomenologically acceptable, but not interesting (see ).

2) We live on brane 2, and the mass is located on the same brane

$`\mathrm{}\left(h_{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\eta _{\mu \nu }h\right)=16\pi G_2\left(t_{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{e^{2kR}}{3}}\left(\eta _{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{_\mu _\nu }{\mathrm{}}}\right)t\right)`$ (91)
with $`G_2=\widehat{G}k\frac{1}{e^{2kR}1}`$.

The light deflection angle is

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\phi \frac{4MG_2}{r_0}\left(\frac{1}{1+\frac{e^{2kR}}{3}}\right).$$
(92)
Newton’s Law looks like

$$V=G_2\left(1+\frac{e^{2kR}}{3}\right)\frac{M}{r}.$$
(93)
The second term in the denominator of formula (92) and the second term in the brackets in formula (93) correspond to the contribution of the radion. Now the contribution of the radion is $`e^{2kR}`$ times stronger than the contribution of the massless graviton. It means that, in the case of the massless radion, scalar gravity is realized on brane 2. However, if one assumes some mechanism for generating the radion mass, for example, the Goldberger-Wise mechanism , gravity in the zero mode approximation becomes tensor and the hierarchy problem solves.

3) We live on brane 2, the mass is located on brane 1 (”shadow” matter also)

$`\mathrm{}\left(h_{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\eta _{\mu \nu }h\right)=16\pi G_2e^{kR}\left(t_{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\left(\eta _{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{_\mu _\nu }{\mathrm{}}}\right)t\right).`$ (94)
The light deflection angle is

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\phi \frac{4MG_2e^{kR}}{r_0}\left(\frac{1}{1+\frac{1}{3}}\right)=\frac{3MG_1e^{kR}}{r_0}.$$
(95)
Newton’s Law looks like

$$V=\left(1+\frac{1}{3}\right)G_2e^{kR}\frac{M}{r}=\frac{4}{3}G_1e^{kR}\frac{M}{r}.$$
(96)
As before, the second term in the denominator of formula (95) and the second term in the brackets in formula (96) correspond to the contribution of the radion. We can see that the contribution of the radion is of the same order, as contribution of the massless graviton, but the contribution of the ”shadow” matter to the Newtonian limit is $`e^{kR}`$ times smaller, than the contribution of the ordinary matter, because of the interaction with the massless radion (compare with (93)). But if the radion is massive (otherwise we have scalar gravity in ”our” world on brane 2), the contribution of the ”shadow” matter to the Newtonian limit is $`e^{kR}`$ times stronger, than the contribution of the ordinary matter. It could lead to some observable effects, resulting from the distribution of matter in the ”mirror” world (brane 1).

One can shaw that equations (83), (90), (93) and (96) coincide with the zero-mode parts of equations (55), (68), (67) and (65) respectively.

We would like to note that in paper  the effects of the ”shadow” matter were also considered. In this paper the deflection angles with the same impact parameters and by the same Newtonian masses were compared (Newtonian mass is the coefficient in front of the $`\frac{1}{r}`$ term in Newton’s Law). We have compared the effects of the ”shadow” and the ordinary matter, as it was made in , and we have got the following results: 44% instead of 25% in  for brane 1 and the difference of the order of $`e^{4kR}`$ instead of 25% in  for brane 2. This discrepancy appears because we use the Galilean coordinates on brane 2. In the case of the massive radion there is no difference in the zero mode approximation at all for both branes.

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to E.E. Boos, Yu.V. Grats, Yu.A. Kubyshin, A.A. Rossikhin and V.A. Rubakov for valuable discussions. The work was supported by the grant 990588 of the programme ”Universities of Russia” . I.V. was also supported in part by the programme SCOPES (Scientific co-operation between Eastern Europe and Switzerland) of the Swiss National Science Foundation (project No. 7SUPJ062239) and financed by the Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Consider the following problem: $`N`$ random walkers set off from the vicinity of the origin, in $`d`$-dimensional euclidean space, at time $`t=0`$. They are divided into $`p`$ different families: the number of walkers in the $`j`$th family is $`n_j`$, so that $`N=_{j=1}^pn_j`$. Within a particular family, walkers are indifferent to each other: their paths may cross. However, each family behaves viciously towards all the others: if two walkers from different families meet, both are annihilated. We may ask many different questions about this problem, but a fundamental quantity is the probability $`P(\{n_j\};t)`$ that all the walkers have still survived up to time $`t`$. Equivalently, we may consider the ensemble of $`N`$ independent random walks: $`P(\{n_j\};t)`$ is the fraction of these in which no walkers of different families have intersected up to time $`t`$.

For a discrete time process on a lattice, if $`𝐫_j^{\nu _j}(t)`$ is the position at time $`t`$ of the $`\nu _j`$th walker of the $`j`$th family, then $`P(\{n_j\};t)`$ is the expected value of the indicator function

$$\underset{t^{}=0}{\overset{t}{}}\underset{1j<kp}{}\underset{\nu _j=1}{\overset{n_j}{}}\underset{\nu _k=1}{\overset{n_k}{}}\left(1\delta (𝐫_j^{\nu _j}(t^{}),𝐫_k^{\nu _k}(t^{}))\right)$$
(1.1)
This problem is of interest for several reasons. It generalises a number of cases:

1. $`n_j=1`$ ($`1jp`$) corresponds to vicious walkers, a term first introduced by Fisher . It has been studied using $`\epsilon `$-expansion methods  similar to those of the present paper. The survival probability is known exactly for $`d=1`$ in the case when all walkers have the same diffusion constants: it decays as a power $`t^{p(p1)/4}`$ . These methods rely essentially on a fermionic description of the problem . Krattenthaler et al. introduced the method of the Schur functions and Katori and Tanemura  developed this and discussed the relation with the random matrix theory. These methods do not appear to extend to the case when the diffusion constants are different. Results in this case have been reported for $`p=2`$ .
2. The case $`p=2`$, with $`n_1=n`$ and $`n_2=1`$, has been studied by Krapivsky and Redner as a model of $`n`$ predators (‘lions’) hunting a prey (‘lamb’). They were able to obtain exact results for the asymptotic behaviour of the survival probability, again in $`d=1`$, for the cases $`n=1,2`$ and arbitrary diffusion constants. For general $`n`$, the exponent is related to the smallest eigenvalue of a Dirichlet problem in a certain $`(n1)`$-dimensional compact region, and is probably not expressible analytically, but for large $`n`$ these authors were able to estimate its behaviour. The ‘lion-lamb’ problem for $`d=1`$ is related to a version of the ‘ballot problem’ in which it is required to know the probability that one candidate in a ballot remains ahead of the $`n`$ others at all stages in the poll. Exact results are known only for $`n2`$ .
3. The ‘lion-lamb’ problem has another interpretation, in terms of multiscaling: if we first regard the trajectory $`\mathrm{}`$ of the lamb as fixed, and if $`p_{\mathrm{}}(t)`$ is the probability that it has not been met by a single lion, then

$$P(n,1;t)=p_{\mathrm{}}(t)^n_{\mathrm{}}$$
(1.2)
where the average is over all the realisations of $`\mathrm{}`$. The fact that $`P(n,1;t)`$ decays with $`t`$ with an exponent which is not simply linear in $`n`$ is symptomatic of multiscaling in this problem.
4. More generally, we can regard $`P(n_1,n_2,\mathrm{},n_p;t)`$ as being the average of the $`n_1`$th power of the survival probability of a single walker of family 1, in the presence of $`(n_2,\mathrm{},n_p)`$ walkers of the $`(p1)`$ other families.
5. Our problem has a strong resemblance to that of the intersection probabilities of Brownian paths. In this case, one studies the ensemble of $`N`$ random walks in $`d`$ dimensions each of which begin a distance $`𝒪(a)`$ from the origin and which arrive on a hypersphere of radius $`r=Ra`$ before they cross $`r=a`$, irrespective of how long this takes. Once again the walkers are divided into families, and in this case one is interested in the probability $`\stackrel{~}{P}(\{n_j\},R,a)`$ that the paths of walkers of different families do not intersect. Thus, instead of (1.1), $`\stackrel{~}{P}`$ is the expected value of

$$\underset{1j<kp}{}\underset{\nu _j=1}{\overset{n_j}{}}\underset{\nu _k=1}{\overset{n_k}{}}\underset{t^{}=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\underset{t^{\prime \prime }=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left(1\delta (𝐫_j^{\nu _j}(t^{}),𝐫_k^{\nu _k}(t^{\prime \prime }))\right)$$
(1.3)
and it is supposed to decay as $`(R/a)^{\stackrel{~}{\alpha }}`$ as $`R/a\mathrm{}`$, where $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }`$ depends nontrivially on the $`\{n_j\}`$. This problem is trivial in $`d=1`$, and turns out to have an upper critical dimension $`d=4`$, below which an $`\epsilon `$-expansion is possible. For $`d=2`$ an exact formula for $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }(\{n_j\})`$ has been derived, by exploiting the conformal invariance of the problem.

Given these remarks, it seems important to investigate the general case described in the opening paragraph. As far as we know, the fermionic methods used to attack the vicious walker problem for $`d=1`$ do not extend to this case. We have therefore employed a renormalisation group (RG) method, which yields, for $`d<2`$, results for the exponent $`\alpha (\{n_j\})`$ of the power law decay of $`P(\{n_j\};t)`$ as a power series in $`\epsilon 2d`$. By using field-theoretic methods, the calculation is streamlined, and, once the formalism is set up, involves relatively little explicit calculation. We have carried this computation through $`𝒪(\epsilon ^2)`$, and for arbitrary diffusion constants of each family. It would be tedious, but not difficult, to carry it further, as the actual Feynman integrals are elementary. We also show that in two dimensions $`P(\{n_j\};t)`$ decays as a universal power of $`\mathrm{ln}t`$.

The layout of this paper is as follows: in Sec. 2, for completeness, we collect all our results and show how they reduce in the above-mentioned special cases. In Sec. 3 we set up the field-theoretic formulation of the problem, then in the next section carry out the RG analysis. Sec. 5 contains a summary and further remarks. Several of the detailed calculations are relegated to Appendices.

## 2 Results

Let $`p`$ be the number of families, $`n_j`$ be the number of walkers in the $`j`$th family, and $`D_j`$ be their diffusivity. Let $`P(\{n_j\};t)`$ be the survival probability

$$P(\{n_j\};t)=E\left[\underset{t^{}=0}{\overset{t}{}}\underset{1j<kp}{}\underset{\nu _j=1}{\overset{n_j}{}}\underset{\nu _k=1}{\overset{n_k}{}}\left(1\delta (𝐫_j^{\nu _j}(t^{}),𝐫_k^{\nu _k}(t^{}))\right)\right]$$
(2.1)
### 2.1 $`d>2`$

In this case there is a finite probability that any pair of walkers will never meet. As a result, $`P(\{n_j\};t)`$ approaches a non-universal constant value less than 1, with leading power-law corrections of the form $`t^{(2d)/2}`$.

### 2.2 $`d<2`$

$$P(\{n_j\};t)\mathrm{const}.t^{\alpha (\{n_j\})}\mathrm{as}t\mathrm{},$$
(2.2)
where, with $`\epsilon =2d`$,

$$\alpha =_1\epsilon +_2\epsilon ^2+𝒪(\epsilon ^3)$$
(2.3)
with

$`_1`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{1}{2}{\displaystyle \underset{1j_1<j_2p}{}}n_{j_1}n_{j_2}`$
$`=`$ $`\frac{1}{4}(C_1^2C_2),`$
$`_2`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{1}{2}{\displaystyle \underset{1j_1<j_2<j_3p}{}}n_{j_1}n_{j_2}n_{j_3}\left\{\mathrm{ln}R(D_{j_1},D_{j_2},D_{j_3})+\mathrm{ln}R(D_{j_2},D_{j_3},D_{j_1})+\mathrm{ln}R(D_{j_3},D_{j_1},D_{j_2})\right\}`$ (2.4)
$`+`$ $`\frac{1}{4}{\displaystyle \underset{1j_1<j_2p}{}}n_{j_1}n_{j_2}\left\{(n_{j_1}1)\mathrm{ln}R(D_{j_1},D_{j_2},D_{j_1})+(n_{j_2}1)\mathrm{ln}R(D_{j_2},D_{j_1},D_{j_2})\right\}`$
$`=`$ $`\frac{1}{2}{\displaystyle \underset{1j_1<j_2<j_3p}{}}n_{j_1}n_{j_2}n_{j_3}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{(D_{j_1}D_{j_2}+D_{j_1}D_{j_3}+D_{j_2}D_{j_3})^3}{(D_{j_1}+D_{j_2})^2(D_{j_2}+D_{j_3})^2(D_{j_3}+D_{j_1})^2}}\right)`$
$`+`$ $`\frac{1}{4}{\displaystyle \underset{1j_1<j_2p}{}}n_{j_1}n_{j_2}\left\{n_{j_1}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{D_{j_1}(D_{j_1}+2D_{j_2})}{(D_{j_1}+D_{j_2})^2}}\right)+n_{j_2}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{(2D_{j_1}+D_{j_2})D_{j_2}}{(D_{j_1}+D_{j_2})^2}}\right)\right\}`$
$``$ $`\frac{1}{4}{\displaystyle \underset{1j_1j_2<p}{}}n_{j_1}n_{j_2}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{D_{j_1}D_{j_2}(D_{j_1}+2D_{j_2})(2D_{j_1}+D_{j_2})}{(D_{j_1}+D_{j_2})^4}}\right),`$
where

$$C_k=\underset{j=1}{\overset{p}{}}n_j^kk=1,2,\mathrm{},$$
(2.5)
and

$`R(D_j,D_k,D_{\mathrm{}})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{D_jD_k+D_jD_{\mathrm{}}+D_kD_{\mathrm{}}}{(D_j+D_k)(D_k+D_{\mathrm{}})}}.`$ (2.6)
From this may be deduced various special cases:

#### 2.2.1 Equal diffusion constants

Assume that $`D_j=D`$ for all $`j=1,2,\mathrm{},p`$. Then

$$\alpha =_1\epsilon +_2\mathrm{ln}\frac{3}{4}\epsilon ^2+𝒪(\epsilon ^3)$$
(2.7)
with

$`_1`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{1}{2}{\displaystyle \underset{1j_1<j_2p}{}}n_{j_1}n_{j_2}`$
$`=`$ $`\frac{1}{4}\left(C_1^2C_2\right),`$
$`_2`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{3}{2}{\displaystyle \underset{1j_1<j_2<j_3p}{}}n_{j_1}n_{j_2}n_{j_3}+\frac{1}{4}{\displaystyle \underset{1j_1<j_2p}{}}n_{j_1}n_{j_2}(n_{j_1}+n_{j_2})\frac{1}{2}{\displaystyle \underset{1j_1<j_2p}{}}n_{j_1}n_{j_2}`$ (2.8)
$`=`$ $`\frac{1}{4}\left(C_1^3C_1^22C_1C_2+C_2+C_3\right),`$
Note that these are expressed in terms of symmetric polynomials in the $`\{n_j\}`$. This in fact holds to all orders in $`\epsilon `$.

#### 2.2.2 Vicious walkers with unequal diffusion constants

When

$$n_j=\{\begin{array}{cc}1\hfill & \text{for}1jp\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{otherwise},\hfill \end{array}$$
(2.9)
$`\alpha `$ should be equal to the survival exponent $`\psi _{S,p}`$ of the vicious walkers. In this case $`C_k=p`$ for $`k=1,2,\mathrm{}`$ and the result (2.3) gives

$`\psi _{S,p}`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha |_{n_j=1(1jp),n_k=0(kp+1)}`$
$`=`$ $`\frac{1}{2}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{p}{2}}\right)\epsilon +\frac{1}{2}{\displaystyle \underset{1j_1<j_2<j_3p}{}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{(D_{j_1}D_{j_2}+D_{j_1}D_{j_3}+D_{j_2}D_{j_3})^3}{(D_{j_1}+D_{j_2})^2(D_{j_2}+D_{j_3})^2(D_{j_3}+D_{j_1})^2}}\right)\epsilon ^2+𝒪(\epsilon ^3).`$
#### 2.2.3 Vicious walkers with equal diffusion constants

The result (2.7) gives

$`\psi _{S,p}`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha |_{n_j=1(1jp),n_k=0(kp+1)}`$ (2.11)
$`=`$ $`\frac{1}{2}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{p}{2}}\right)\epsilon +\frac{3}{2}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{p}{3}}\right)\mathrm{ln}\frac{3}{4}\epsilon ^2+𝒪(\epsilon ^3)`$
$`=`$ $`\frac{1}{4}p(p1)\epsilon +\frac{1}{4}p(p1)(p2)\mathrm{ln}\frac{3}{4}\epsilon ^2+𝒪(\epsilon ^3).`$
This agrees with the result reported as Eqn. (5.2), with Eqn. (3.13) in Mukherji and Bhattacharjee (see also ).

It has been proved that

$$\psi _{S,p}=\frac{1}{4}p(p1)\text{for}d=1(i.e.\epsilon =1).$$
(2.12)
Note that although this exact result agrees with that from the first-order $`\epsilon `$-expansion (2.11) on setting $`\epsilon =1`$, this is probably fortuitous, as, in the case of unequal diffusivities the exact result depends on their ratio, while the first-order term in (LABEL:eqn:result2) does not.

#### 2.2.4 ‘Lion-lamb’ problem with unequal diffusion constants

The ‘$`n`$ lions and one lamb’ problem studied by Krapivsky and Redner  is a special case of the present model in which

$$n_j=\{\begin{array}{cc}n\hfill & \text{for}j=1\hfill \\ 1\hfill & \text{for}j=2\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{otherwise}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(2.13)
In this case $`C_k=1+n^k`$ for $`k=1,2,\mathrm{}`$ and the result (2.3) gives

$`\beta _n`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha |_{n_1=n,n_2=1,n_j=0(j3)}`$ (2.14)
$`=`$ $`\frac{1}{2}n\epsilon +\frac{1}{4}n(n1)\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1+2\eta }{(1+\eta )^2}}\right)\epsilon ^2+𝒪(\epsilon ^3),`$
where $`\eta =D_2/D_1`$. Redner and Krapivsky  reported the exact solution for $`n=2`$ in $`d=1`$ (i.e., $`\epsilon =1`$),

$$\beta _2^{\mathrm{exact}}(\eta )=\left[2\frac{2}{\pi }\mathrm{cos}^1\frac{\eta }{1+\eta }\right]^1.$$
(2.15)
It was shown that $`\beta ^{\mathrm{exact}}(\eta )`$ is monotonically decreasing in $`\eta `$ and

$$\beta _2^{\mathrm{exact}}(0)=1,\beta _2^{\mathrm{exact}}(1)=\frac{3}{4},\underset{\eta \mathrm{}}{lim}\beta _2^{\mathrm{exact}}(\eta )=\frac{1}{2}.$$
(2.16)
If we neglect $`𝒪(\epsilon ^3)`$ and set $`n=2,\epsilon =1`$ in (2.14), we have

$$\beta _2^{\mathrm{approx}.}(\eta )=1+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{1+2\eta }{(1+\eta )^2}\right),$$

which is monotonically decreasing in $`\eta `$ and

$$\beta _2^{\mathrm{approx}.}(0)=1,\beta _2^{\mathrm{approx}}(1)=1+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}\frac{3}{4}0.856,\underset{\eta \mathrm{}}{lim}\beta _2^{\mathrm{approx}.}(\eta )=\mathrm{}.$$

### 2.3 Two dimensions

In this case, there is a logarithmic decay with universal exponent:

$$P(\{n_j\};t)\mathrm{const}.(\mathrm{ln}t)^{\overline{\alpha }}\left(1+𝒪\left(\frac{1}{\mathrm{ln}t}\right)\right)$$
(2.17)
where

$$\overline{\alpha }=\underset{1j_1<j_2p}{}n_{j_1}n_{j_2}$$
(2.18)
Note that this is independent of the $`D_j`$ (as long as no pair of them both vanish): the dependence shows up only in the prefactor and the non-leading terms.

## 3 Field-theoretic formulation

In this section, we set up the general problem as a continuum field theory, so that the powerful techniques of the field-theoretic RG may be applied. The general method for formulating such stochastic particle systems as field theories, as originally proposed by Doi and Peliti, has been described at length elsewhere and we shall only summarise how this is applied in the case of interest.

Initially, the problem is formulated on a lattice, for example $`𝐙^d`$, the sites of which are labelled by a vector $`𝐫`$. The microstate of the system at a given time is specified by occupation numbers $`\{m_j(𝐫)\}`$, which specify that there are $`m_j(𝐫)`$ walkers of family $`j`$ at the site $`𝐫`$. Note that we treat walkers of the same family as identical particles: this makes no difference in the problem of interest. To each microstate is associated a vector in a Fock space $``$, built by applying raising operators to the vacuum, or empty state, $`|0`$:

$$|\{m_j(𝐫)\}=\underset{𝐫𝐙^d}{}\underset{j=1}{\overset{p}{}}a_j^{}(𝐫)^{m_j(𝐫)}|0,$$
(3.1)
where $`[a_j(𝐫),a_k^{}(𝐫^{})]=\delta _{jk}\delta _{\mathrm{𝐫𝐫}^{}}`$, and $`a_j(𝐫)|0=0`$. Let $`p(\{m_j(𝐫)\};t)`$ be the probability of finding the system in this microstate at time $`t`$, and define the state $``$

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }(t)\underset{\{m_j(𝐫)\}}{}p(\{m_j(𝐫)\};t)|\{m_j(𝐫)\}.$$
(3.2)
Then the master equation, which is linear equation describing the time-evolution of the probabilities $`p(\{m_j(𝐫)\};t)`$, is equivalent to the Schrödinger-like equation

$$d|\mathrm{\Psi }(t)/dt=\widehat{H}|\mathrm{\Psi }(t)$$
(3.3)
where $`\widehat{H}:`$ may be expressed explicitly in terms of the raising and lowering operators. For the case of independent random walks in continuous time,

$$\widehat{H}=\widehat{H}_0=\underset{j=1}{\overset{p}{}}(D_j/b^2)\underset{(𝐫,𝐫^{})}{}\left(a_j^{}(𝐫)a_j^{}(𝐫^{})\right)\left(a_j(𝐫)a_j(𝐫^{})\right)$$
(3.4)
where $`b`$ is the lattice spacing, and the sum is over nearest neighbour pairs of sites $`(𝐫,𝐫^{})`$.

The probability of finding the walkers at sites $`𝐫_j^{\nu _j}`$ at time $`t`$ (where $`1\nu _jn_j`$ with $`1jp`$) is then given by

$$0|\underset{j=1}{\overset{p}{}}\underset{\nu _j=1}{\overset{n_j}{}}a_j(𝐫_j^{\nu _j})\mathrm{e}^{t\widehat{H}_0}|\mathrm{\Psi }(0)$$
(3.5)
Of course, when this is summed over all the $`𝐫_j^{\nu _j}`$, it gives unity.

Before considering how to implement the non-intersection constraint, let us first discuss the continuum limit and the path integral representation. In this non-interacting case, the continuum limit may be taken rigorously. The raising and lowering operators go over into (distribution-valued) field operators satisfying $`[\varphi _j(𝐫),\varphi _k^{}(𝐫^{})]=\delta _{jk}\delta (𝐫𝐫^{})`$, and the generator of time evolution becomes

$$\widehat{H}_0=\left[\underset{j=1}{\overset{p}{}}D_j(\varphi _j^{})(\varphi _j)\right]d^dr$$
(3.6)
Since the walkers are all supposed to begin in the vicinity of the origin at $`t=0`$, that is, a finite number of lattice spacings away, in the continuum limit $`b0`$

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }(0)=𝒪^{}|0\underset{j=1}{\overset{p}{}}\left(\varphi _j^{}(\mathrm{𝟎})\right)^{n_j}|0$$
(3.7)
The path integral representation is derived by breaking the time interval $`(0,t)`$ into slices of length $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$, so that the time-evolution operator $`\mathrm{e}^{t\widehat{H}_0}`$ is the product of factors $`\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{\Delta }t\widehat{H}_0}1\mathrm{\Delta }t\widehat{H}_0`$, and inserting a complete set of coherent states at each time slice. This has the effect of replacing the operators $`\varphi _j(𝐫)`$ and $`\varphi _j^{}(𝐫)`$ by time-dependent $`c`$-number fields $`\varphi _j(t,𝐫)`$ and $`\varphi _j^{}(t,𝐫)`$ respectively. After taking the limit $`\mathrm{\Delta }t0`$, the matrix element (3.5) becomes a functional integral

$$\underset{j=1}{\overset{p}{}}𝒟\varphi _j^{}𝒟\varphi _j\underset{j=1}{\overset{p}{}}\underset{\nu _j=1}{\overset{n_j}{}}\varphi (t,𝐫_j^{\nu _j})𝒪^{}(0,\mathrm{𝟎})\mathrm{e}^{S_0}$$
(3.8)
where

$$S_0=\left[\underset{j=1}{\overset{p}{}}\varphi ^{}_t\varphi \underset{j=1}{\overset{p}{}}D_j(\varphi _j^{})(\varphi _j)\right]𝑑td^dr$$
(3.9)
and $`𝒪^{}=_{j=1}^p\varphi _{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{n_j}`$.

### 3.1 Interactions

We now discuss how to incorporate the constraint that walkers of different families should not meet. Rather than insert the indicator function (1.1) into the path integral, it more convenient to consider a slightly more general problem in which, before taking the limits $`b0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }t0`$, each set of trajectories is weighted by a factor

$$\underset{t^{}=0}{\overset{t}{}}\underset{𝐫}{}\mathrm{exp}\left(\underset{1j_1<j_2p}{}\lambda _{j_1j_2}(b^d/\mathrm{\Delta }t)m_{j_1}(t^{},𝐫)m_{j_2}(t^{},𝐫)\right)$$
(3.10)
where the $`\lambda _{j_1j_2}(b^d/\mathrm{\Delta }t)>0`$ are a set of dimensionless parameters (the factors of $`b`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ are inserted to make the continuum limit simpler.) The case of strict non-intersection corresponds to the limit $`\lambda _{j_1j_2}\mathrm{}`$. However, we shall show that, for $`d2`$, the leading behaviour is independent of the precise value of these parameters (as long as they are all strictly positive) and, moreover, the RG fixed point, at which non-leading corrections to the asymptotic behaviour disappear, corresponds to the limit of infinite $`\lambda _{j_1j_2}`$.

In the formal continuum limit, this corresponds to a modification of the action in the path integral

$$S=S_0+\underset{1j_1<j_2p}{}\lambda _{j_1j_2}\varphi _{j_1}^{}\varphi _{j_2}^{}\varphi _{j_1}\varphi _{j_2}𝑑td^dr$$
(3.11)
### 3.2 Feynman rules

The Feynman rules for this theory are very simple and are illustrated in Fig. 1. We denote averages and correlations with respect to the bare action $`S_0`$ by the subscript 0: averages with respect to the full action $`S`$ are denoted by $``$.

* the Fourier-Laplace transform of the bare propagator

$`G_j^{(1,1)}(s,𝐤)_0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑t{\displaystyle d^dre^{st}e^{i𝐤𝐫}\varphi _j(t,𝐫)\varphi _j^{}(0,\mathrm{𝟎})_0}`$ (3.12)
$`=`$ $`(s+D_jk^2)^1`$
is represented by a line directed towards increasing time (conventionally, right-to-left). In the $`(t,𝐤)`$ representation the bare propagator is simply $`\mathrm{e}^{D_jk^2t}`$;
* the interaction $`(\lambda _{j_1j_2})`$ is represented by a vertex with one incoming and one outgoing pair of lines each of type $`j_1`$ and $`j_2`$;
* As usual, wave number $`k`$ and (imaginary) frequency $`s`$ are conserved at the vertices, and internal loop integrations $`(ds/2\pi i)`$ and $`(d^dk/(2\pi )^d)`$ are carried out.

### 3.3 Renormalisation and operator product expansion

The survival probability is now given by the correlation function

$$\overline{G}_𝒪(t)=\underset{j=1}{\overset{p}{}}\underset{\nu _j=1}{\overset{n_j}{}}\varphi _j(t,𝐫_j^{\nu _j})𝒪^{}(0,\mathrm{𝟎}),$$
(3.13)
evaluated with the weight $`\mathrm{e}^S`$.

However, this does not exist in the formal continuum limit, because the perturbative Feynman diagram expansion of $`\overline{G}`$ contains ultraviolet (short-distance or short-time) divergences. Physically this is because two walkers, having interacted once, are, in the continuum limit, likely to interact an infinite number of times as $`\mathrm{\Delta }t0`$. This divergence may be regulated, either by imposing an explicit cut-off $`|k|<\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ in the Feynman integrals, or, more easily, by dimensional regulation. For $`d2`$ this field theory is renormalisable: the singular dependence on the regulator may be absorbed into a finite number of parameters. In the case of the theory of interest, this procedure is particularly simple: no renormalisation of the field $`\varphi (t,𝐫)`$ nor of the diffusion constants is required, only a simple renormalisation of the coupling constants $`\lambda _{jj^{}}`$, which can be computed exactly to all orders. The lack of field and diffusion constant renormalisation holds mathematically because there are no loop corrections to the propagators. Physically it is because an isolated walker does not interact, even with itself, in the absence of any branching processes. When the coupling constant renormalisation is done, all correlation functions of products of $`\varphi `$ and $`\varphi ^{}`$, at distinct space-time points, have a finite limit as the regulator is removed, when expressed in terms of the renormalised couplings. The fact that the renormalised theory must be defined at some arbitrary scale then leads to RG equations.

However, this procedure is not sufficient to render finite correlation functions involving so-called composite operators like $`𝒪^{}=_{j=1}^p\varphi _j^{}(0,\mathrm{𝟎})^{n_j}`$. Physically, this is because if the walkers all begin at exactly the same point, they will all annihilate each other immediately! In order to obtain finite renormalised correlation functions, it is first necessary to point-split the fields:

$$\underset{j=1}{\overset{p}{}}\varphi _j^{}(0,\mathrm{𝟎})^{n_j}\underset{j=1}{\overset{p}{}}\varphi _j^{}(0,𝐫_j)^{n_j}$$
(3.14)
(Note that it is not necessary to split the starting points of walkers of the same family, since they do not interact.) Now consider a correlation function of this product with an arbitrary product $`A`$ of fields whose time arguments are all strictly positive:

$$A\underset{j=1}{\overset{p}{}}\varphi _j^{}(0,𝐫_j)^{n_j}$$
(3.15)
In the cut-off theory, we could simply make a Taylor expansion of this in powers of the $`𝐫_j`$. This would have the form

$$A𝒪^{}(0,\mathrm{𝟎})+\underset{n}{}C_n(\{𝐫_j\})A𝒪_n^{}(0,\mathrm{𝟎})$$
(3.16)
where the summation is taken over all possible derivatives $`\{𝒪_n^{}\}`$ of $`_j\varphi _j^{}(0,𝐫_j)^{n_j}`$ with respect to the $`\{𝐫_j\}`$. On the basis of dimensional analysis, the first term gives the leading behaviour for $`\overline{G}_𝒪(t)`$ as $`t\mathrm{}`$, at least at $`d=2`$. In the interacting theory, however, each term in (3.16) has to be renormalised separately. As a result

$$A\underset{j=1}{\overset{p}{}}\varphi _j^{}(0,𝐫_j)^{n_j}=Z_𝒪^1A𝒪_R^{}+\underset{n}{}Z_{𝒪_n}^1C_{n,R}(\{𝐫_j\})A𝒪_{n,R}^{}$$
(3.17)
where all the correlation functions are finite as the regulator is removed. Since each of the $`\{𝒪_{n,R}\}`$ may acquire a nontrivial anomalous dimension through this procedure, the renormalised functions $`C_{n,R}(\{𝐫_j\})`$ have a non-trivial dependence on their arguments. The important feature of (3.17) is that the renormalisation constants $`Z_𝒪,Z_{𝒪_n}`$ are independent of $`A`$. This we may write the operator product expansion (OPE)

$$\underset{j=1}{\overset{p}{}}\varphi _j^{}(0,𝐫_j)^{n_j}=Z_𝒪^1𝒪_R^{}(0,\mathrm{𝟎})+\underset{n}{}Z_{𝒪_n}^1C_{n,R}(\{𝐫_j\})𝒪_{n,R}^{}(0,\mathrm{𝟎})$$
(3.18)
where the OPE functions $`C_{n,R}(\{𝐫_j\})`$, etc. are in general nontrivial.

Each term in the OPE (3.18), when substituted into $`\overline{G}`$, will give rise to nontrivial power-law dependence on $`t`$ for $`d2`$. However, since in the noninteracting theory we know that only the first term is important as $`t\mathrm{}`$, we shall assume that this remains true for sufficiently small $`\epsilon `$. Further discussion of this point will be postponed to Sec. 5.

### 3.4 $`d>2`$

In the absence of any interactions, the survival probability $`\overline{G}_𝒪(t)=1`$, as can be seen by evaluating the first diagram in the expansion shown in Fig. 2 with all the wave numbers $`𝐪_j^{\nu _j}`$ set to $`\mathrm{𝟎}`$.

For $`d>2`$, the higher order terms give contributions which correct this constant, as well as terms which are subleading as $`t\mathrm{}`$. For example, a typical one-loop diagram like that in Fig. 2 is proportional to

$$\lambda _{j_1j_2}_0^t𝑑t^{}d^dk\mathrm{e}^{(D_{j_1}+D_{j_2})𝐤^2t^{}}\frac{1\mathrm{e}^{(D_{j_1}+D_{j_2})𝐤^2t}}{𝐤^2}d^dk$$
(3.19)
This integral diverges at large $`|𝐤|`$ for $`d2`$, a consequence of taking the naive continuum limit. If we impose a cut-off $`|𝐤|<\mathrm{\Lambda }=𝒪(b)`$, the leading term behaves as $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{d2}`$, with a non-universal coefficient, while the remainder is finite as $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}`$ and behaves as $`t^{(d2)/2}`$. The non-universal constant term corresponds to a finite probability that the walkers annihilate at short times, before escaping each other. This behaviour persists at higher orders in the interactions.

For $`d2`$, however, each successive term in the bare perturbation grows as a larger and larger positive power of $`t`$, and it is necessary to resum the expansion. The renormalisation group (RG) provides a consistent framework within which to carry this out.

## 4 Renormalisation Group Analysis

### 4.1 Coupling constant renormalisation

As usual, the renormalised couplings $`\lambda _{Rjk}`$ are defined as the values at the normalisation point of the irreducible vertex functions $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{jk}^{(2,2)}((s_j^{},𝐪_j^{}),(s_k^{},𝐪_k^{});(s_j,𝐪_j),(s_k,𝐪_k))`$, which are the truncated Laplace-Fourier transforms of $`\varphi _j(t_j^{},𝐫_j^{})\varphi _j(t_k^{},𝐫_k^{})\varphi _j^{}(t_j,𝐫_j)\varphi _j^{}(t_k,𝐫_k)`$. (There is no field renormalisation in this theory.) It is convenient to choose the normalisation point as

$$s_j^{}=s_k^{}=s_j=s_k=\sigma 0;𝐪_j^{}=𝐪_k^{}=𝐪_j=𝐪_k=0$$
(4.1)
This class of theories has the special property that the renormalised coupling constants may be computed to all orders. The calculation is summarised in Appendix A. The result is

$$\lambda _{Rjk}=\frac{\lambda _{jk}}{1+(b_d/\epsilon )\lambda _{jk}((D_j+D_k)/2)^{d/2}(2\sigma )^{\epsilon /2}}$$
(4.2)
where

$$b_d\frac{2d}{2^{3d/2}\pi ^{d/2}}\mathrm{\Gamma }(1d/2)=1/(4\pi )+𝒪(\epsilon ).$$
(4.3)
It is convenient to define the dimensionless renormalised couplings as

$$g_{Rjk}\lambda _{Rjk}\left(\frac{2}{D_j+D_k}\right)^{d/2}(2\sigma )^{\epsilon /2}.$$
(4.4)
As will be seen, these are the natural expansion parameters for the renormalised perturbation expansion.

### 4.2 Renormalisation of $`𝒪^{}`$

As discussed in the previous section, we are interested in computing the asymptotic behaviour at large $`t`$ of

$$\overline{G}_𝒪(t)=\underset{j=1}{\overset{p}{}}\underset{\nu _j=1}{\overset{n_j}{}}d^dr_j^{\nu _j}\varphi _j(t,𝐫_j^{\nu _j})𝒪^{}(0,\mathrm{𝟎}),$$
(4.5)
in the regularised bare theory, where $`𝒪^{}=_{j=1}^p\left(\varphi _j^{}\right)^{n_j}`$. However, for the purposes of renormalising $`𝒪^{}`$, it is more convenient to choose the time arguments of the fields $`\varphi _j`$ to be independent, and to consider the laplace transform with respect to these times. Thus we define

$$G_𝒪(\{t_j^{\nu _j}\})=\underset{j=1}{\overset{p}{}}\underset{\nu _j=1}{\overset{n_j}{}}d^dr_j^{\nu _j}\varphi _j(t_j^{\nu _j},𝐫_j^{\nu _j})𝒪^{}(0,\mathrm{𝟎}),$$
(4.6)
and

$$\stackrel{~}{G}_𝒪(\{s_j^{\nu _j}\})=_0^{\mathrm{}}\underset{j=1}{\overset{p}{}}\underset{\nu _j=1}{\overset{n_j}{}}\left\{dt_j^{\nu _j}e^{s_j^{\nu _j}t_j^{\nu _j}}\right\}G_𝒪(\{t_j^{\nu _j}\})$$
(4.7)
From this we may define the irreducible vertex function, by truncating the external propagators:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_𝒪(\{s_j^{\nu _j}\};\{\lambda _{jk}\})=\frac{\stackrel{~}{G}_𝒪(\{s_j^{\nu _j}\})}{_{j=1}^p_{\nu _j=1}^{n_j}\left(s_j^{\nu _j}\right)^1}.$$
(4.8)
The renormalised vertex function is

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{𝒪R}(\{s_j^{\nu _j}\};\{g_{Rjk}\},\sigma )=Z_𝒪(\{\lambda _{jk}\},\sigma )\mathrm{\Gamma }_𝒪(\{s_j^{\nu _j}\};\{\lambda _{jk}\})$$
(4.9)
where $`Z_𝒪`$ is fixed by the normalisation condition

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{𝒪R}(\{s_j^{\nu _j}\};\{g_{Rjk}\},\sigma )|_{s_1^1=s_1^2=\mathrm{}=s_p^{n_p}=\sigma }=1.$$
(4.10)
In writing (4.9), we have made it clear that that the (un)renormalised vertex function is to be thought of as depending on the (un)renormalised couplings.

Now, although we have used the condition (4.10) on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{𝒪R}`$ to define $`Z_𝒪`$, the same multiplicative renormalisation also renders

$$\overline{G}_{𝒪R}(t;\{\lambda _{Rjk}\},\sigma )=Z_𝒪\overline{G}_𝒪(t;\{\lambda _{jk}\})$$
(4.11)
finite, for $`t>0`$, where $`\overline{G}_𝒪`$ is defined in (4.5). For this to be true, it is important that the fields $`\varphi _j(t,𝐫_j^{\nu _j})`$ are not evaluated at the same point. This would lead to further UV divergences. However, these occur on a set of measure zero in the integration in (4.5), and are harmless.

### 4.3 Callan-Symanzik equation for $`\overline{G}_𝒪`$

Define the RG functions

$$\beta _{jk}(g_{Rjk})=\sigma \left(\frac{g_{Rjk}}{\sigma }\right)_{\{\lambda _{jk},D_j\}}.$$
(4.12)
and

$$\gamma _𝒪(\{g_{Rjk}\})=\left(\sigma \frac{}{\sigma }\mathrm{ln}Z_𝒪(\{\lambda _{jk}\},\sigma )\right)_{\{\lambda _{jk}\}}.$$
(4.13)
The fact that $`\sigma (/\sigma )\overline{G}_𝒪|_{\{\lambda _{jk}\}}=0`$ then implies the Callan-Symanzik equation

$$\left(\sigma \frac{}{\sigma }\gamma _𝒪(\{g_{Rjk}\})+\underset{1j<kp}{}\beta _{jk}(g_{Rjk})\frac{}{g_{Rjk}}\right)\overline{G}_{𝒪R}(t,\{g_{Rjk}\},\sigma )=0.$$
(4.14)
If the couplings $`\{g_{Rjk}\}`$ flow towards a nontrivial fixed point $`\{g_{Rjk}^{}\}`$ at which $`\beta _{jk}(g_{Rjk}^{})=0`$ (as we shall show happens for $`d<2`$), then in estimating the leading asymptotic behaviour as $`\sigma \mathrm{}`$ it is sufficient to replace (4.14) by

$$\left(\sigma \frac{}{\sigma }\gamma _𝒪^{}\right)\overline{G}_{𝒪R}(t,\sigma )=0,$$
(4.15)
where $`\gamma _𝒪^{}=\gamma _𝒪(\{g_{Rjk}^{}\})`$. This has the solution $`\overline{G}_{𝒪R}(t,\sigma )\sigma ^{\gamma _𝒪^{}}`$, as $`\sigma \mathrm{}`$ at fixed $`t`$.

However, simple dimensional analysis implies that $`\overline{G}_{𝒪R}(t,\sigma )`$ is function of only the combination $`(\sigma t)`$. Hence we find that

$$\overline{G}_{𝒪R}(t,\sigma )\mathrm{const}.t^\alpha $$
(4.16)
with

$$\alpha =\gamma _𝒪^{}.$$
(4.17)
### 4.4 $`\beta `$-functions

From (4.2) and (4.4), we find after some algebra (see App. A)

$$\beta _{jk}(g_{Rjk})=\frac{1}{2}(\epsilon g_{Rjk}b_dg_{Rjk}^2).$$
(4.18)
Note that this is exact to all orders in $`g_{Rjk}`$, and that, for $`\epsilon >0`$, there is an infrared stable fixed point at

$$g_{Rjk}^{}=\epsilon /b_d=4\pi \epsilon +𝒪(\epsilon ^2),$$
(4.19)
whose value is independent of the diffusion constants.

### 4.5 One-loop calculation of $`\gamma _𝒪`$

Consider the expansion of the vertex function (4.8) as a power series in the coupling constants $`\{\lambda _{jk}\}`$. To first order, this is given by the sum of diagrams like that in Fig. 3, explicitly

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_𝒪=1\underset{1j_1<j_2p}{}n_{j_1}n_{j_2}\lambda _{j_1j_2}I_1(s_{j_1}^\mu ,s_{j_2}^\nu ;D_{j_1},D_{j_2})+𝒪(\{\lambda _{jk}^2\}),$$
(4.20)
where the integral $`I_1(s_{j_1}^\mu ,s_{j_2}^\nu ;D_{j_1},D_{j_2})`$ is the same as occurs in the coupling constant renormalisation: see Appendix A. The combinatorial factor $`n_{j_1}n_{j_2}`$ counts the number of ways the walkers from family $`j_1`$ can interact just once with those of family $`j_2`$. The renormalisation constant $`Z_𝒪`$ is then the inverse of this evaluated at the normalisation point $`s_j^{\nu _j}=\sigma `$. Thus

$$\mathrm{ln}Z_𝒪=\underset{1j_1<j_2p}{}n_{j_1}n_{j_2}\lambda _{j_1j_2}\frac{b_d}{\epsilon }\left(\frac{2}{D_{j_1}+D_{j_2}}\right)^{d/2}(2\sigma )^{\epsilon /2}+𝒪(\{\lambda _{jk}^2\}),$$
(4.21)
and so, by (4.13)

$`\gamma _𝒪`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{1}{2}{\displaystyle \underset{1j_1<j_2p}{}}n_{j_1}n_{j_2}\lambda _{j_1j_2}b_d\left({\displaystyle \frac{2}{D_{j_1}+D_{j_2}}}\right)^{d/2}(2\sigma )^{\epsilon /2}+𝒪(\{\lambda _{jk}^2\})`$ (4.22)
$`=`$ $`\frac{1}{2}{\displaystyle \underset{1j_1<j_2p}{}}n_{j_1}n_{j_2}\times b_dg_{Rj_1j_2}+𝒪(\{g_{Rjk}^2\}).`$
Next we set $`g_{Rj_1,j_2}=g^{}`$. By (4.19),

$$\gamma _𝒪^{}=\frac{1}{2}\underset{1j_1<j_2p}{}n_{j_1}n_{j_2}\epsilon +𝒪(\epsilon ^2).$$
(4.23)
Through (4.17), this gives the result (2.3) up to $`𝒪(\epsilon )`$. We remark that to this order the result is independent of the diffusion constants, as long as no pair $`D_{j_1}+D_{j_2}`$ vanishes. This last is of course a pathological case, since then the two families are immobile and cannot meet.

### 4.6 Two-loop calculation

There are three types of diagrams contributing to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_𝒪`$ at order $`\lambda ^2`$. They are illustrated in Figs. 4a-c.

Contributions of types (a) and (b) involve the one-loop integrals $`I_1`$ defined above, while those of type (c) involve

$`I_2(s_{j_1}^\mu ,s_{j_2}^\nu ,s_{j_3}^\rho ;D_{j_1},D_{j_2},D_{j_3})=`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\left(d^dq/(2\pi )^d\right)\left(d^dk/(2\pi )^d\right)}{\{(s_{j_2}^\nu +s_{j_3}^\rho )+(D_{j_2}+D_{j_3})(𝐤+𝐪)^2\}\{(s_{j_1}^\mu +s_{j_2}^\nu +s_{j_3}^\rho )+D_{j_1}𝐤^2+D_{j_2}𝐪^2+D_{j_3}(𝐤+𝐪)^2\}}},`$
(4.24)
Define

$`\widehat{I}_1(\sigma ;D_{j_1},D_{j_2})`$ $`=`$ $`I_1(s_{j_1}^\mu ,s_{j_2}^\nu ;D_{j_1},D_{j_2})|_{s_{j_1}^\mu =s_{j_2}^\nu =\sigma },`$
$`\widehat{I}_2(\sigma ;D_{j_1},D_{j_2},D_{j_3})`$ $`=`$ $`I_2(s_{j_1}^\mu ,s_{j_2}^\nu ,s_{j_3}^\rho ;D_{j_1},D_{j_2},D_{j_3})|_{s_{j_1}^\mu =s_{j_2}^\nu =s_{j_3}^\rho =\sigma },`$ (4.25)
Then

$`Z_𝒪^1=1`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{1j_1<j_2p}{}}n_{j_1}n_{j_2}\lambda _{j_1j_2}\widehat{I}_1(\sigma ;D_{j_1},D_{j_2})`$ (4.26)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{1j_1<j_2p}{}}n_{j_1}n_{j_2}(\lambda _{j_1j_2})^2(\widehat{I}_1(\sigma ;D_{j_1},D_{j_2}))^2`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{1j_1<j_2<j_3<j_4p}{}}n_{j_1}n_{j_2}n_{j_3}n_{j_4}\{\lambda _{j_1j_2}\lambda _{j_3j_4}\widehat{I}_1(\sigma ;D_{j_1},D_{j_2})\widehat{I}_1(\sigma ;D_{j_3},D_{j_4})`$
$`+\lambda _{j_1j_3}\lambda _{j_2j_4}\widehat{I}_1(\sigma ;D_{j_1},D_{j_3})\widehat{I}_1(\sigma ;D_{j_2},D_{j_4})+\lambda _{j_1j_4}\lambda _{j_2j_3}\widehat{I}_1(\sigma ;D_{j_1},D_{j_4})\widehat{I}_1(\sigma ;D_{j_2},D_{j_3})\}`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{1j_1<j_2<j_3p}{}}\{n_{j_1}(n_{j_1}1)n_{j_2}n_{j_3}\lambda _{j_1j_2}\lambda _{j_1j_3}\widehat{I}_1(\sigma ;D_{j_1},D_{j_2})\widehat{I}_1(\sigma ;D_{j_1},D_{j_3})`$
$`+n_{j_1}n_{j_2}(n_{j_2}1)n_{j_3}\lambda _{j_1j_2}\lambda _{j_2j_3}\widehat{I}_1(\sigma ;D_{j_1},D_{j_2})\widehat{I}_1(\sigma ;D_{j_2},D_{j_3})`$
$`+n_{j_1}n_{j_2}n_{j_3}(n_{j_3}1)\lambda _{j_1j_3}\lambda _{j_2j_3}\widehat{I}_1(\sigma ;D_{j_1},D_{j_3})\widehat{I}_1(\sigma ;D_{j_2},D_{j_3})\}`$
$`+`$ $`\frac{1}{2}{\displaystyle \underset{1j_1<j_2p}{}}n_{j_1}(n_{j_1}1)n_{j_2}(n_{j_2}1)(\widehat{I}_1(\sigma ;D_{j_1},D_{j_2}))^2`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{1j_1<j_2<j_3p}{}}n_{j_1}n_{j_2}n_{j_3}\{\lambda _{j_1j_2}\lambda _{j_2j_3}\widehat{I}_2(\sigma ;D_{j_1},D_{j_2},D_{j_3})+\lambda _{j_1j_2}\lambda _{j_1j_3}\widehat{I}_2(\sigma ;D_{j_2},D_{j_1},D_{j_3})`$
$`+\lambda _{j_1j_3}\lambda _{j_2j_3}\widehat{I}_2(\sigma ;D_{j_1},D_{j_3},D_{j_2})+\lambda _{j_1j_3}\lambda _{j_1j_2}\widehat{I}_2(\sigma ;D_{j_3},D_{j_1},D_{j_2})`$
$`+\lambda _{j_2j_3}\lambda _{j_1j_3}\widehat{I}_2(\sigma ;D_{j_2},D_{j_3},D_{j_1})+\lambda _{j_2j_3}\lambda _{j_1j_2}\widehat{I}_2(\sigma ;D_{j_3},D_{j_2},D_{j_1})\}`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{1j_1<j_2p}{}}n_{j_1}(n_{j_1}1)n_{j_2}(\lambda _{j_1j_2})^2\widehat{I}_2(\sigma ;D_{j_1},D_{j_2},D_{j_1})`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{1j_1<j_2p}{}}n_{j_1}n_{j_2}(n_{j_2}1)(\lambda _{j_1j_2})^2\widehat{I}_2(\sigma ;D_{j_2},D_{j_1},D_{j_2})+𝒪(\{\lambda _{jk}^3\})`$
Each term in this sum corresponds to a diagram of class $`(a)`$ to $`(c3)`$ in Fig. 4. The combinatorial factors, polynomials in the $`n_j`$, count the number of ways different walkers from a given family can contribute to each of these processes. (It is simplest to check these factors for small values of $`p`$ and $`n_j`$.) From Appendix A

$$\widehat{I}_1(\sigma ;D_j,D_k)=\frac{b_d}{\epsilon }\left(\frac{2}{D_j+D_k}\right)^{d/2}(2\sigma )^{\epsilon /2}.$$
(4.27)
Moreover, as shown in Appendix B

$`\widehat{I}_2(\sigma ;D_j,D_k,D_{\mathrm{}})`$ (4.28)
$`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{2}{D_j+D_k}}\right)^{d/2}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2}{D_k+D_{\mathrm{}}}}\right)^{d/2}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\epsilon ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\epsilon }}\mathrm{ln}R(D_j,D_k,D_{\mathrm{}})+𝒪(1)\right]b_d^2(2\sigma )^\epsilon ,`$
where $`b_d`$ is given by (4.3) and $`R(D_j,D_k,D_{\mathrm{}})`$ is given by (2.6).

Next we compute $`\mathrm{ln}Z_𝒪`$ through $`𝒪(\{\lambda _{jk}^2\})`$, perform the differentiation $`\sigma /\sigma `$ at fixed bare couplings $`\lambda _{jk}`$, then re-express the result as a series in the $`g_{Rjk}`$, to the same order. The result has the form

$$\gamma _𝒪(\{g_{Rjk}\})=B_1+\frac{1}{\epsilon }B_2b_d^2+B_3+𝒪(\{g_{Rjk}^3\})$$
(4.29)
with

$`B_1`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{1}{2}{\displaystyle \underset{1j_1<j_2p}{}}n_{j_1}n_{j_2}b_dg_{Rj_1j_2},`$
$`B_2`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{1}{2}{\displaystyle \underset{1j_1<j_2p}{}}n_{j_1}n_{j_2}(g_{Rj_1j_2})^2+{\displaystyle \underset{1j_1<j_2p}{}}n_{j_1}n_{j_2}(g_{Rj_1j_2})^2`$ (4.30)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{1j_1<j_2<j_3<j_4p}{}}n_{j_1}n_{j_2}n_{j_3}n_{j_4}(g_{Rj_1j_2}g_{Rj_3j_4}+g_{Rj_1j_3}g_{Rj_2j_4}+g_{Rj_1j_4}g_{Rj_2j_3})`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{1j_1<j_2<j_3p}{}}n_{j_1}n_{j_2}n_{j_3}\{(n_{j_1}1)g_{Rj_1j_2}g_{Rj_1j_3}+(n_{j_2}1)g_{Rj_1j_2}g_{Rj_2j_3}`$
$`+(n_{j_3}1)g_{Rj_1j_3}g_{Rj_2j_3}\}`$
$`+\frac{1}{2}{\displaystyle \underset{1j_1<j_2p}{}}n_{j_1}(n_{j_1}1)n_{j_2}(n_{j_2}1)(g_{Rj_1j_2})^2`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{1j_1<j_2<j_3p}{}}n_{j_1}n_{j_2}n_{j_3}(g_{Rj_1j_2}g_{Rj_2j_3}+g_{Rj_2j_3}g_{Rj_1j_3}+g_{Rj_1j_3}g_{Rj_1j_2})`$
$`+\frac{1}{2}{\displaystyle \underset{1j_1<j_2p}{}}n_{j_1}n_{j_2}(n_{j_1}+n_{j_2}2)(g_{Rj_1j_2})^2\frac{1}{2}\left({\displaystyle \underset{1j_1<j_2p}{}}n_{j_1}n_{j_2}g_{Rj_1j_2}\right)^2,`$
$`B_3`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{1}{2}{\displaystyle \underset{1j_1<j_2<j_3p}{}}n_{j_1}n_{j_2}n_{j_3}\{g_{Rj_1j_2}g_{Rj_2j_3}\mathrm{ln}R(D_{j_1},D_{j_2},D_{j_3})`$
$`+g_{Rj_2j_3}g_{Rj_1j_3}\mathrm{ln}R(D_{j_2},D_{j_3},D_{j_1})+g_{Rj_1j_3}g_{Rj_1j_2}\mathrm{ln}R(D_{j_3},D_{j_1},D_{j_2})\}b_d^2`$
$`\frac{1}{4}{\displaystyle \underset{1j_1<j_2p}{}}n_{j_1}n_{j_2}\left\{(n_{j_1}1)\mathrm{ln}R(D_{j_1},D_{j_2},D_{j_1})+(n_{j_2}1)\mathrm{ln}R(D_{j_2},D_{j_1},D_{j_2})\right\}b_d^2(g_{Rj_1j_2})^2.`$
An important check of this calculation is that the double poles in $`\epsilon `$ in the two-loop contributions are cancelled by the coupling constant renormalisation in the one-loop contributions. This has the consequence that $`\gamma _𝒪(\{g_{Rjk}\})`$ has a finite limit as $`\epsilon 0`$, that is, $`B_2`$ vanishes. This is shown in Appendix C.

Now we set

$$g_{Rjk}=g_R^{}=\frac{\epsilon }{b_d}\text{for all}(j,k),$$
(4.31)
following (4.19). Then we have

$$\gamma _𝒪^{}=B_1^{}\epsilon +B_3^{}\epsilon ^2+𝒪(\epsilon ^2)$$
(4.32)
with

$`B_1^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{1}{2}{\displaystyle \underset{1j_1<j_2p}{}}n_{j_1}n_{j_2}`$
$`B_3^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{1}{2}{\displaystyle \underset{1j_1<j_2<j_3p}{}}n_{j_1}n_{j_2}n_{j_3}\left\{\mathrm{ln}R(D_{j_1},D_{j_2},D_{j_3})+\mathrm{ln}R(D_{j_2},D_{j_3},D_{j_1})+\mathrm{ln}R(D_{j_3},D_{j_1},D_{j_2})\right\}`$
$``$ $`\frac{1}{4}{\displaystyle \underset{1j_1<j_2p}{}}n_{j_1}n_{j_2}\left\{(n_{j_1}1)\mathrm{ln}R(D_{j_1},D_{j_2},D_{j_1})+(n_{j_2}1)\mathrm{ln}R(D_{j_2},D_{j_1},D_{j_2})\right\}`$
$`=`$ $`\frac{1}{2}{\displaystyle \underset{1j_1<j_2<j_3p}{}}n_{j_1}n_{j_2}n_{j_3}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{(D_{j_1}D_{j_2}+D_{j_1}D_{j_3}+D_{j_2}D_{j_3})^3}{(D_{j_1}+D_{j_2})^2(D_{j_2}+D_{j_3})^2(D_{j_3}+D_{j_1})^2}}\right)`$
$``$ $`\frac{1}{4}{\displaystyle \underset{1j_1<j_2p}{}}n_{j_1}n_{j_2}\left\{n_{j_1}\mathrm{ln}R(D_{j_1},D_{j_2},D_{j_1})+n_{j_2}\mathrm{ln}R(D_{j_2},D_{j_1},D_{j_2})\right\}`$
$`+`$ $`\frac{1}{4}{\displaystyle \underset{1j_1j_2p}{}}n_{j_1}n_{j_2}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{D_{j_1}D_{j_2}(D_{j_1}+2D_{j_2})(2D_{j_1}+D_{j_2})}{(D_{j_1}+D_{j_2})^4}}\right).`$
Through (4.17), this gives the result (2.3).

### 4.7 Two Dimensions

When $`d=2`$ the couplings $`\{g_{Rjk}\}`$ are marginally irrelevant, that is they flow logarithmically slowly towards zero. In that case, it is not sufficient to set them equal to their fixed-point values, but instead the full Callan-Symanzik equation (4.14) must be solved. Using the fact that $`\overline{G}_{𝒪R}(t,\{g_{Rjk}\},\sigma )`$ depends on $`\sigma `$ and $`t`$ only through combination $`(\sigma t)`$, this may be rewritten

$$\left(t\frac{}{t}\gamma _𝒪(\{g_{Rjk}\})+\underset{1j<kp}{}\beta _{jk}(g_{Rjk})\frac{}{g_{Rjk}}\right)\overline{G}_{𝒪R}(t,\{g_{Rjk}\},\sigma )=0.$$
(4.33)
The solution by the method of characteristics is standard. Define running couplings $`\{\stackrel{~}{g}_{jk}(u)\}`$ by

$$u\frac{d}{du}\stackrel{~}{g}_{jk}(u)=\beta _{jk}(\stackrel{~}{g}_{jk}(u))$$
(4.34)
with initial conditions $`\stackrel{~}{g}_{jk}(1)=g_{Rjk}`$. Then

$$\overline{G}_{𝒪R}(t,\{g_{Rjk}\},\sigma )=\mathrm{e}^{_1^{\sigma t}\gamma _𝒪(\{\stackrel{~}{g}_{Rjk}\})(du/u)}\overline{G}_{𝒪R}(\sigma ^1,\{\stackrel{~}{g}_{jk}(\sigma t)\},\sigma )$$
(4.35)
In our case,

$$\stackrel{~}{g}_{jk}(u)=\frac{1}{\frac{1}{2}b_2\mathrm{ln}u+g_{Rjk}^1}=\frac{2}{b_2\mathrm{ln}u}+𝒪((\mathrm{ln}u)^2)$$
(4.36)
so that, using (4.22) the exponent in (4.35) is

$$\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{ln}(\sigma t)\underset{1j_1<j_2p}{}n_{j_1}n_{j_2}+𝒪((\mathrm{ln}(\sigma t))^1)$$
(4.37)
Exponentiating this yields the result quoted in (2.17). The dependence of the last factor in (4.35) on $`\{\stackrel{~}{g}_{jk}(\sigma t)\}`$ also generates corrections which are down by $`𝒪((\mathrm{ln}(\sigma t))^1`$. All the non-universal behaviour resides in these, and higher order, corrections. Note the absence of corrections $`𝒪(\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{ln}t/\mathrm{ln}t)`$, which may be traced to the lack of higher-order terms in the beta-functions (4.18).

## 5 Discussion

We have presented a generalisation of the vicious walker problem in which walkers from different families annihilate on meeting, but walkers from the same family ignore each other. We have studied the problem in a field-theoretic renormalisation group framework, suitable for understanding universal quantities such as critical exponents. We have focussed on the probability that all walkers have survived up to time $`t`$, and we have showed that, in dimension $`d<2`$, this decays as a power, $`t^{\alpha (\{n_j\})}`$, where $`n_j`$ is the number of walkers in the $`j`$th family. While this result is true to all orders in $`\epsilon 2d`$, the actual values of the exponents can, by this method, be evaluated only as a power series in $`\epsilon `$, which we have carried out to second order. The coefficient of the $`𝒪(\epsilon ^2)`$ term depends on the ratios of the diffusivities of each family, as well as the $`\{n_j\}`$. The lack of dependence of the $`𝒪(\epsilon )`$ term on this ratio may be traced mathematically to the fact that the same bubble diagram enters into the coupling constant renormalisation (Fig. 5) and the renormalisation of the composite operator $`𝒪^{}`$ (Fig. 3).

For the same reason, the exponent for $`N=2`$ walkers does not depend on the ratio of their diffusivities, because in this case the one-loop result is correct to all orders (as long as we do not expand the coefficients in powers of $`\epsilon `$.) The same would be true, to first order for $`N>k`$, and to all orders for $`N=k`$, if the two-body interactions we consider were generalised to $`k`$-body interactions with $`k>2`$, although in this case the upper critical dimension would be reduced to $`d_c(k)=2/(k1)`$.

The value of $`\alpha (\{n_j\})`$ was shown to be related to the anomalous dimension of a certain composite operator $`𝒪_{\{n_j\}}^{}=_j\varphi _{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{n_j}`$. This structure means that our results can be straightforwardly extended to other physical observables. For example, the reunion probability $`R(t)`$ that all the walkers have survived up to time $`t`$ and are all located within a distance $`𝒪(b)t^{1/2}`$ of each other (where $`b`$ is for example the lattice spacing), is related to a correlation function

$$R(t)𝒪(t,𝐫)𝒪^{}(0,\mathrm{𝟎})d^dr$$
(5.1)
where $`𝒪_j\varphi _j^{n_j}`$. Since the theory is symmetric under $`(tt,\varphi _j\varphi _j^{})`$, $`𝒪`$ has the same anomalous dimension as $`𝒪^{}`$. Hence

$$R(t)\mathrm{const}.t^{(N1)(d/2)2\alpha (\{n_j\})}$$
(5.2)
where the first term in the exponent comes from simple power counting, and the factor of 2 in the second reflects the important fact that the anomalous scaling of composite operators at different times (and points) is multiplicative.

The fact that $`𝒪_{\{n_j\}}^{}`$ is symmetric under permutations of the families $`j=1,\mathrm{},p`$ has the important consequence that the exponents $`\alpha (\{n_j\})`$ are also symmetric. The form of the $`\epsilon `$-expansion implies that this is true to all orders in $`\epsilon `$. It may be traced to the operator product expansion (3.18): the next-to-leading terms on the right-hand side, which do not vanish on integration over the spatial coordinates must contain at least two derivatives, for example

$$(\varphi _1\varphi _2)\varphi _1^{n_11}\varphi _2^{n_21}\underset{3jp}{}\varphi _j^{n_j}$$
(5.3)
Power-counting shows that, at $`d=2`$, the contribution of such terms is at least $`𝒪(t^1)`$ down on the leading term, and therefore, for sufficiently small $`\epsilon `$, they yield only corrections to the leading behaviour which we have computed. However, since each term in (3.18) is renormalised separately, each gives rise to an independent scaling exponent. It is a very interesting question whether the first term in the OPE is dominant all the way down to $`d=1`$. Such a result would imply that the asymptotic exponents (but not necessarily the prefactors) for the cases $`\{n_1,n_2,n_3\}=\{2,1,1\}`$ and $`\{1,2,1\}`$, for example, are equal. Yet, in one dimension, the two problems are certainly not isomorphic, because the ordering of the families along the real line makes a difference. A very similar situation occurs in the problem of intersections of families of Brownian paths in two dimensions: in that case the exponents have been computed exactly and are known to be symmetric, despite the fact that the ordering of the families around the annulus is a priori relevant. In this example, this symmetry is also suggested by the $`\epsilon `$-expansion below the upper critical dimension, in this case $`d_c=4`$ . However, a recent result of Bray and Blythe suggests that the situation in $`d=1`$ is not so straightforward for our problem. In their Eq. (4) they report a result for the survival exponent for a single lamb, with diffusion constant $`D^{}`$, with $`N_L`$ lions to the left and $`N_R`$ lions to the right. The diffusion constant of the lions is $`D`$, and their result is an expansion to first order in $`D^{}/D`$. It is reported to depend on the asymmetry $`N_LN_R`$ as well as the sum $`N_L+N_R`$, while our analysis shows that it should depend only on the sum, to all orders in the $`\epsilon `$-expansion.

There are at least two possible resolutions:

1. the qualitative conclusions of the $`\epsilon `$-expansion break down in $`d=1`$, either because the non-leading terms in the OPE dominate, or through some more systemic failure;
2. for $`d=1`$ there is a qualitative difference between the case when walkers if different families strictly cannot pass each other, and that, more appropriate to the field theory approach, when the annihilation rate is finite and therefore the order along the real line is not preserved.

In any case, it may be shown, by generalising the arguments of Krapivsky and Redner, that for infinite annihilation rate in $`d=1`$ the exponents $`\alpha (\{n_j\})`$ (and indeed all the non-leading exponents), are simply related to the eigenvalues of the Dirichlet problem in a certain compact region consisting of a spherical hyperpolygon on the sphere $`S_{N2}`$. Thus, if the postulated symmetry were to hold, it would imply that the Laplacians in different regions which are related by permutations of the $`\{n_j\}`$ are isospectral. We plan to address this question in a future publication.

Acknowledgements. JC was supported in part by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council under Grant GR/J78327. This work was done during a stay of MK in Theoretical Physics, Oxford University. MK would like to thank the department for hospitality.

## Appendix A Coupling constant renormalisation

The diagrams contributing to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{j_1j_2}^{(2,2)}`$ are shown in Fig. 5.

In $`(s,𝐪)`$ space they give a geometric sum. We have therefore the exact result

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{j_1j_2}^{(2,2)}((s_{j_1}^{},𝐪_{j_1}^{}),(s_{j_2}^{},𝐪_{j_2}^{});(s_{j_1},𝐪_{j_1}),(s_{j_2},𝐪_{j_2}))=\frac{\lambda _{j_1j_2}}{1+\lambda _{j_1j_2}\frac{d^dk}{(2\pi )^d}\frac{1}{s+D_{j_1}𝐤^2+D_{j_2}(𝐪𝐤)^2}}$$
(A.1)
where $`ss_{j_1}^{}+s_{j_2}^{}=s_{j_1}+s_{j_2}`$ and $`𝐪𝐪_{j_1}^{}+𝐪_{j_2}^{}=𝐪_{j_1}+𝐪_{j_2}`$. The renormalised coupling is the value of this at $`s_{j_1}^{}=s_{j_2}^{}=s_{j_1}=s_{j_2}=\sigma `$ and $`𝐪_{j_1}^{}=𝐪_{j_2}^{}=𝐪_{j_1}=𝐪_{j_2}=0`$. Thus

$$\lambda _{Rj_1j_2}=\frac{\lambda _{j_1j_2}}{1+\lambda _{j_1j_2}\widehat{I}_1(\sigma ;D_{j_1},D_{j_2})}$$
(A.2)
where

$`\widehat{I}_1(\sigma ;D_{j_1},D_{j_2})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d^dk}{(2\pi )^d}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\alpha \mathrm{e}^{\alpha (2\sigma +(D_{j_1}+D_{j_2})𝐤^2)}}`$ (A.3)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi )^d}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{D_{j_1}+D_{j_2}}}\right)^{d/2}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\alpha \alpha ^{d/2}\mathrm{e}^{\alpha (2\sigma )}`$ (A.4)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1d/2)}{2^{3d/2}\pi ^{d/2}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2}{D_{j_1}+D_{j_2}}}\right)^{d/2}(2\sigma )^{\epsilon /2}`$ (A.5)
The dimensionless coupling (4.4) is then given as

$$g_{Rj_1j_2}=\frac{\lambda _{j_1j_2}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2}{D_{j_1}+D_{j_2}}}\right)^{d/2}(2\sigma )^{\epsilon /2}}{1+{\displaystyle \frac{b_d}{\epsilon }}\lambda _{j_1j_2}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2}{D_{j_1}+D_{j_2}}}\right)^{d/2}(2\sigma )^{\epsilon /2}}.$$
(A.6)
Thus

$$\lambda _{j_1j_2}\left(\frac{D_{j_1}+D_{j_2}}{2}\right)^{d/2}(2\sigma )^{\epsilon /2}=\frac{g_{Rj_1j_2}}{1g_{Rj_1j_2}{\displaystyle \frac{b_d}{\epsilon }}}$$
(A.7)
Differentiating this equation with respect to $`\sigma `$ at fixed $`(\lambda _{j_1j_2},D_{j_1},D_{j_2})`$ and using the definition of the beta-function (4.12)

$$(\epsilon /2)\frac{g_{Rj_1j_2}}{1g_{Rj_1j_2}\frac{b_d}{\epsilon }}=\left(\frac{1}{1g_{Rj_1j_2}\frac{b_d}{\epsilon }}\right)^2\beta _{j_1j_2}(g_{Rj_1j_2})$$
(A.8)
That is,

$$\beta _{j_1j_2}(g_{Rj_1j_2})=\frac{1}{2}(\epsilon g_{Rj_1j_2}b_dg_{Rj_1j_2}^2).$$
(A.9)
## Appendix B The integral $`\widehat{I}_2`$

At the normalisation point, the two-loop diagram Fig. 4$`c`$ leads to the integral

$`\widehat{I}_2(\sigma ;D_1,D_2,D_3)`$ (B.1)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d^dq}{(2\pi )^d}\frac{d^dk}{(2\pi )^d}\frac{1}{\left(2\sigma +(D_2+D_3)𝐤^2\right)\left(3\sigma +D_1𝐪^2+D_2(𝐤+𝐪)^2+D_3𝐤^2\right)}}`$
As usual, the denominators may be combined using a Feynman parameter integration over $`x`$:

$$\widehat{I}_2(\sigma ;D_1,D_2,D_3)=_0^1𝑑x\frac{d^dq}{(2\pi )^d}\frac{d^dk}{(2\pi )^d}\frac{1}{\left((D_2+D_3)𝐤^2+x(D_1+D_2)𝐪^2+2xD_2𝐤𝐪\right)^2}$$
(B.2)
The wave-number integrals are now standard, and yield

$$\widehat{I}_2=\frac{\pi ^d}{(2\pi )^d}\mathrm{\Gamma }(2d)(D_1+D_2)^{d/2}(D_2+D_3)^{d/2}\sigma ^{d2}\times J$$
(B.3)
where

$$J=_0^1𝑑xx^{d/2}(2+x)^{d2}\left(1\frac{xD_2^2}{(D_1+D_2)(D_2+D_3)}\right)^{d/2}$$
(B.4)
This has a simple pole at $`d=2`$, arising from the end-point at $`x=0`$. However, we also have to extract the finite part. This may be done by writing $`J=J_1+J_2`$ where

$`J_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑xx^{d/2}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}^{d2}={\displaystyle \frac{2}{\epsilon }}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}^{d2}`$ (B.5)
$`J_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑xx^{d/2}\left[(2+x)^{d2}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{xD_2^2}{(D_1+D_2)(D_2+D_3)}}\right)^{d/2}2^{d2}\right]`$ (B.6)
The second integral is finite at $`d=2`$:

$`J_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^1}{\displaystyle \frac{dx}{x}}\left[\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{xD_2^2}{(D_1+D_2)(D_2+D_3)}}\right)^11\right]+𝒪(\epsilon )`$ (B.7)
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{ln}R(D_1,D_2,D_3)+𝒪(\epsilon )`$
where

$$R(D_1,D_2,D_3)\frac{D_1D_2+D_2D_3+D_1D_3}{(D_1+D_2)(D_2+D_3)}$$
(B.8)
Recalling the definition (4.3) of $`b_d`$, we therefore find, after some algebra,

$$\frac{\widehat{I}_2}{b_d^2}=\left(\frac{2}{D_1+D_2}\right)^{d/2}\left(\frac{2}{D_2+D_3}\right)^{d/2}(2\sigma )^\epsilon \left[\frac{1}{2\epsilon ^2}\frac{1}{4\epsilon }\mathrm{ln}R+𝒪(1)\right]$$
(B.9)
which leads directly to (4.28). It should be remarked that a crucial simplification in this calculation arises because

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(2d)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1d/2)^2}=\frac{\epsilon }{4}\left(1+𝒪(\epsilon ^2)\right).$$
(B.10)
## Appendix C Verification that $`B_2=0`$

By (4.30),

$`B_2=\frac{1}{2}{\displaystyle \underset{1j_1<j_2p}{}}n_{j_1}n_{j_2}(g_{Rj_1j_2})^2`$ (C.1)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{1j_1<j_2<j_3<j_4p}{}}n_{j_1}n_{j_2}n_{j_3}n_{j_4}(g_{Rj_1j_2}g_{Rj_3j_4}+g_{Rj_1j_3}g_{Rj_2j_4}+g_{Rj_1j_4}g_{Rj_2j_3})`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{1j_1<j_2<j_3p}{}}n_{j_1}n_{j_2}n_{j_3}(n_{j_1}g_{Rj_1j_2}g_{Rj_1j_3}+n_{j_2}g_{Rj_1j_2}g_{Rj_2j_3}+n_{j_3}g_{Rj_1j_3}g_{Rj_2j_3})`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{1j_1<j_2<j_3p}{}}n_{j_1}n_{j_2}n_{j_3}(g_{Rj_1j_2}g_{Rj_1j_3}+g_{Rj_1j_2}g_{Rj_2j_3}+g_{Rj_1j_3}g_{Rj_2j_3})`$
$`+\frac{1}{2}{\displaystyle \underset{1j_1<j_2p}{}}n_{j_1}^2n_{j_2}^2(g_{Rj_1j_2})^2\frac{1}{2}{\displaystyle \underset{1j_1<j_2p}{}}n_{j_1}n_{j_2}(n_{j_1}+n_{j_2})(g_{Rj_1j_2})^2+\frac{1}{2}{\displaystyle \underset{1j_1<j_2p}{}}n_{j_1}n_{j_2}(g_{Rj_1j_2})^2`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{1j_1<j_2<j_3p}{}}n_{j_1}n_{j_2}n_{j_3}(g_{Rj_1j_2}g_{Rj_2j_3}+g_{Rj_2j_3}g_{Rj_1j_3}+g_{Rj_1j_3}g_{Rj_1j_2})`$
$`+\frac{1}{2}{\displaystyle \underset{1j_1<j_2p}{}}n_{j_1}n_{j_2}(n_{j_1}+n_{j_2})(g_{Rj_1j_2})^2{\displaystyle \underset{1j_1<j_2p}{}}n_{j_1}n_{j_2}(g_{Rj_1j_2})^2\frac{1}{2}\left({\displaystyle \underset{1j_1<j_2p}{}}n_{j_1}n_{j_2}g_{Rj_1j_2}\right)^2`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{1j_1<j_2<j_3<j_4p}{}}n_{j_1}n_{j_2}n_{j_3}n_{j_4}(g_{Rj_1j_2}g_{Rj_3j_4}+g_{Rj_1j_3}g_{Rj_2j_4}+g_{Rj_1j_4}g_{Rj_2j_3})`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{1j_1<j_2<j_3p}{}}n_{j_1}n_{j_2}n_{j_3}(n_{j_1}g_{Rj_1j_2}g_{Rj_1j_3}+n_{j_2}g_{Rj_1j_2}g_{Rj_2j_3}+n_{j_3}g_{Rj_1j_3}g_{Rj_2j_3})`$
$`+\frac{1}{2}{\displaystyle \underset{1j_1<j_2p}{}}n_{j_1}^2n_{j_2}^2(g_{Rj_1j_2})^2\frac{1}{2}\left({\displaystyle \underset{1j_1<j_2p}{}}n_{j_1}n_{j_2}g_{Rj_1j_2}\right)^2`$
$`=`$ $`0.`$