Constructive Matrix Theory for Higher Order Interaction arXiv ...

arXiv:1712.05670v1 [math-ph] 15 Dec 2017

Constructive Matrix Theory for Higher Order Interaction Thomas Krajewski? , Vincent Rivasseau† , Vasily Sazonov† ?

†

Centre de Physique Th´eorique, CNRS UMR 7332 Universit´e Aix-Marseille, F-13009 Marseille Laboratoire de Physique Th´eorique, CNRS UMR 8627, Universit´e Paris-Sud, F-91405 Orsay December 18, 2017 Abstract This paper provides an extension of the constructive loop vertex expansion to stable matrix models with interactions of arbitrarily high order. We introduce a new representation for such models, then perform a forest expansion on this representation. It allows to prove that the perturbation series of the free energy for such models is analytic in a domain uniform in the size N of the matrix. Our method applies equally well to complex (rectangular) matrices and to Hermitian square matrices.

LPT-20XX-xx MSC: 81T08, Pacs numbers: 11.10.Cd, 11.10.Ef Key words: Matrix Models, constructive field theory, Loop vertex expansion.

1

I

Introduction

The loop vertex expansion (LVE) was introduced in [1] to provide a constructive method for quartic matrix models uniform in the size of the matrix. In its initial version it combines an intermediate field representation with replica fields and a forest formula [2, 3] to express the free energy of the theory in terms of a convergent sum over trees. This loop vertex expansion in contrast with traditional constructive methods is not based on cluster expansions nor involves small/large field conditions. • Like Feynman’s perturbative expansion, the LVE allows to compute connected quantities at a glance: the partition function of the theory is expressed by a sum over forests, and its logarithm is exactly the same sum but restricted to connected forests, i.e. trees. This is simply because the amplitudes factorize over the connected components of the forest, • the functional integrands associated to each forest or tree are absolutely and uniformly convergent for any value of the fields, • the convergence of the LVE implies Borel summability of the usual perturbation series and the LVE directly computes the Borel sum, • the LVE is in fact conceptually an explicit repacking of infinitely many subsets of pieces of Feynman amplitudes so that the packets provide a convergent rather than divergent expansion [4]. • in the case of combinatorial field theories of the matrix and tensor type [5, 6], suitably rescaled to have a non-trivial N → ∞ limit [7, 8, 9, 10], the Borel summability obtained in this way is uniform in the size N of the model [1, 11, 12, 13]. The LVE method can be developed for ordinary field theories with cutoffs [14]. A multiscale version (MLVE) [15] can include renormalization [16, 17, 18, 19, 20] 1 . This MLVE is especially adapted to resum the renormalized series of non-local field theories of the matrix or tensorial type. However 1

However models built so far are only of the superrenormalizable type.

2

for ordinary local field theories, until now, and in contrast with the more traditional constructive methods such as cluster and Mayer expansions, it does not conveniently provide the spatial decay of truncated functions. See however [14]. There was until recently a big limitation of the method: it did apply only to quartic interactions. Progress to generalize the LVE to interactions of higher order has been slow. It is possible to generalize the intermediate field representation to interactions of order higher than 4 [21, 22, 23], using several intermediate fields. However these representations all imply oscillating Gaussian integrals and lead for matrix or tensor models to analyticity domains for the free energy which are not uniform in the size N of the matrix or tensor [22, 23]. In [24] a new representation, called loop vertex representation (hereafter LVR), was introduced in the simple case of scalar monomial interactions of arbitrarily high even order. It does not suffer from the previous defects and it uses the initial fields of the model rather than intermediate fields. It was found through selective Gaussian integration of one particular field per vertex, hence giving rise to a new kind of “single loop” vertex similar to those found in the Gallavotti quantum field theoretic version of classical mechanics [25] or in the quantum field theory formulation of the Jacobian conjecture [26, 27], see also [28] for an algebraic version of this formalism. It was quickly noticed that this LVR representation is in fact a reparametrization of the functional integrand into a Gaussian one. The single loop vertices form the natural expansion of the Jacobian of the transformation, which is a determinant. This is the deep reason for which the LVE applied to this new representation then works. Indeed a determinant has slow “logarithmic” growth at large field. In particular its partial derivatives are typically bounded. The LVE could never converge for the initial Bosonic interactions because it has unbounded derivatives at large field. In this paper we apply the idea of reparametrization invariance to matrix models and essentially extend the results of [11] to monomial interactions of arbitrarily high even order. Our main results, Theorems III.1 and V.2 state that the free energy of such models is analytic for λ in an open “pacman domain” (see Figure 1) P (, η) := {0 < |λ| < η, | arg λ| < π − },

(I-1)

with  and η positive and small numbers independent of the size N of the matrix. Extension of this theorem to cumulants and a constructive version 3

Figure 1: A pacman domain of the 1/N expansion are also consequences of the method left to the reader. We intend also to explore links with the topological recursion approach to random matrices [29]. An unexpected difficulty of this paper compared to [1], [24] or [11] is to deal with the non-factorization of the two sides of the ribbon loop in a vertex of the loop vertex representation. Fortunately this difficulty can be solved by using Cauchy holomorphic matrix calculus, which allows to factorize the matrix dependence on the two sides of the ribbon, see Lemma II.3 below. The price to pay is that one has to prove convergence of these contour integrals and this requires a bit of convex analysis. The plan of our paper goes as follows. In section II we introduce the LVR representation and its factorization through holomorphic calculus in the complex matrix case. In section III we perform the LVE on this representation. In Section IV we establish the functional integral and contour bounds, completing the proof of Theorem III.1 in the complex matrix case. In Section V we extend all these results to the Hermitian matrix case and prove Theorem V.2. Four appendices gather some additional aspects: the first one is devoted to an alternative derivation of the LVR, the second one to an integral representation of the Fuss-Catalan function that we need for the third one, devoted to the justification of the LVR beyond perturbation theory and the last appendix is devoted to its relationship to ordinary perturbation theory.

4

II

Effective action

Consider a complex matrix model with stable interaction of order 2p, where p ≥ 2 is an integer which is fixed through all this paper. The model has partition function Z † Z(λ, N ) := dM dM † e−N S(M,M ) , (II-2) S(M, M † ) := Tr{M M † + λ(M M † )p }.

(II-3)

M is a random complex square matrix of size N and the stable case corresponds to a positive coupling constant λ. The goal is to compute the “free energy” 1 (II-4) F (λ, N ) := 2 log Z[λ, N ] N for λ in a domain independent of N . The case of a rectangular Nl ×Nr matrix is also important, as it allows to interpolate between vectors and matrices, and to better distinguish rows and columns. We can introduce the Hilbert spaces Hl with dim Hl = Nl and Hr with dim Hr = Nr . Remark that the two matrices M M † and M † M are distinct, the first one being Nl by Nl and the second Nr by Nr , but crucially for what follows they have the same trace, so all our computations will be done involving only one of them, say M M † . In tensor products we may distinguish left and right factors; for instance A ⊗lr B means an element of Hlr := Hl ⊗ Hr , 1lr the identity in Hlr and so on. For simplicity and without loss of generality we can assume Nl ≤ Nr . Then, the partition function in the rectangular case is Z † Z(λ, Nl , Nr ) := dM dM † e−Nr S(M,M ) , (II-5) S(M, M † ) := Trl {M M † + λ(M M † )p }.

(II-6)

and the quantity of interest is F (λ, Nl , Nr ) :=

1 log Z(λ, Nl , Nr ). Nl Nr

(II-7)

Of course there are similar formulas using right traces Trr . Also sources can be introduced to compute cumulants etc... The standard perturbative approach to models of type (II-2) or (II-5) expands the exponential of the interaction into a Taylor series. However, 5

polynomial interactions lead to divergent perturbative expansions. To avoid this problem, we folllow the strategy of [24] and first rewrite Z[λ, Nl , Nr ] in another integral representation, called the loop vertex representation (LVR), in which the interaction grows only logarithmically at large fields. One of the key elements of the LVR construction is the Fuss-Catalan function Tp [31] defined to be the solution analytic at the origin of the algebraic equation zTpp (z) − Tp (z) + 1 = 0 .

(II-8)

For any square matrix X we also define the matrix-valued function A(λ, X) := XTp (−λX p−1 )

(II-9)

X = A(λ, X) + λAp (λ, X) .

(II-10)

so that from (II-8) We often write simply A(X) for A(λ, X) when no confusion is possible. Finally we define an Nl by Nl square matrix Xl and an Nr by Nr square matrix Xr through Xl := M M † ,

Xr := M † M.

(II-11)

The loop vertex representation is then given by Theorem II.1. In the sense of formal power series in λ Z Z(λ, Nl , Nr ) = dM dM † exp{−Nr Trl Xl + S(Xl , Xr )} where S, the loop vertex action is h

S(Xl , Xr ) = −Trlr log 1lr + λ

p−1 X

k

p−1−k

A (Xl ) ⊗lr A

i (Xr ) .

k=0

(II-12) In (II-12) the Nl by Nl matrix Ak (Xl ) acts on the left index of Hlr and the Nr by Nr matrix Ap−1−k (Xr ) acts on the right index of Hlr . Proof. Remark first that this formula exactly coincides with equations (II.12) and (II.16) of [24] in the scalar case Nl = Nr = 1. We work first at the level 6

of formal power series in order not to worry about convergence. However Theorem II.1 holds beyond formal power series as proved in Appendix C. Since (II-12) is crucial for the rest of the paper we propose two different proofs. The first one, below, relies on a change of variables on M and the computation of a Jacobian2 . A second perhaps more concrete proof relies as in [24] on Gaussian integration and will be given in Appendix A. We perform a change of variables M → P where P is again an Nl by Nr rectangular matrix. We write Yl := P P † ,

Yr := P † P

(II-13)

and define P (M ) (up to unitary conjugation) through the implicit function formal power series equation Xl := A(Yl ),

Xr := A(Yr ).

(II-14)

The action then thanks to (II-10) transforms to S(M, M † ) = Trl (Xl + λXlp ) = Trl [A(Yl ) + λAp (Yl )] = Trl Yl . hence it becomes the ordinary Gaussian measure on P, P † . The new interaction lies therefore entirely in the Jacobian of the M → P transformation. According to the symbolic matrix differentiation rule valid for analytic functions f of a matrix δf (X) f (X) ⊗ 1 − 1 ⊗ f (X) = , δX X ⊗1−1⊗X

(II-15)

this Jacobian can be computed as dM dM † A(Yl ) ⊗lr 1 − 1 ⊗lr A(Yr ) = det (II-16) det dP dP † Yl ⊗lr 1 − 1 ⊗lr Yr n h A(Y ) ⊗ 1 − 1 ⊗ A(Y ) io l lr lr r = exp Trlr log , Yl ⊗lr 1 − 1 ⊗lr Yr where the trace and tensor product acts on the Hilbert space Hl ⊗ Hr . The absolute value in (II-16) can be omitted through a perturbative regularity check. 2

This change of variables is in fact well-defined on the eigenvalues of Xl and Xr , and the unitary group part plays no role.

7

Since it is a dummy variable, renaming P as M , hence Y as X, yields Z Z(λ, Nl , Nr ) = dM dM † exp{−Nr Trl Xl + S(Xl , Xr )}, (II-17) S(Xl , Xr ) = Trlr log

h A(X ) ⊗ 1 − 1 ⊗ A(X ) i l lr lr r . Xl ⊗lr 1 − 1 ⊗lr Xr

(II-18)

Taking into account the functional equation (II-10) one can rewrite the loop vertex action as h (A(X ) + λAp (X )) ⊗ 1 − 1 ⊗ (A(X ) + λAp (X )) i−1 l l lr lr r r S = Trlr log A(Xl ) ⊗lr 1 − 1 ⊗lr A(Xr ) h Ap (Xl ) ⊗lr 1 − 1 ⊗lr Ap (Xr ) i = −Trlr log 1lr + λ A(Xl ) ⊗lr 1 − 1 ⊗lr A(Xr ) p−1 h i X = −Trlr log 1lr + λ Ak (Xl ) ⊗lr Ap−1−k (Xr ) . (II-19) k=0

Let us now rewrite S in terms of Xl alone. Developing the logarithm in powers and taking the (factorized) tensor trace leads to S(Xl , Xr ) =

p−1 ∞ X (−λ)n X n=1

n

k1 =0

···

p−1 X

[Trl A

P

ki

P

(Xl )][Trr A

(p−ki −1)

(Xr )].

kn =0

(II-20) P q n q a x and since Tr X = Tr X for any q > 0 we can Since A(x) = ∞ l l r r n=1 n rewrite everything in this sum in terms of Xl alone hence as a tensor trace on Hl ⊗ Hl . We have however to be careful to the fact that Trl 1l = Nl 6= Trr 1r = Nr . A moment of attention therefore reveals that the loop vertex action S is the sum of a “square matrix” piece and a “vector piece” (without any tensor product) S(Xl ) = S Mat (Xl ) + S Vec (Xl ), (II-21) p−1 X   S Mat (Xl ) = −Trll log 1ll + λ Ak (Xl ) ⊗ll Ap−1−k (Xl ) , (II-22) k=0

S

Vec

(Xl ) = −(Nr − Nl )Trl log[1l + λAp−1 (Xl )].

(II-23)

For simplicity from now on we limit ourselves to the square case Nl = Nr = N , but we emphasize that our main result, namely uniform analyticity in N , 8

extends to the rectangular case, uniformity being in the largest dimension Nr in that case. The treatment of the additional vector piece S V ec in (II-21) is indeed almost trivial compared to the matrix piece, and the corresponding details are left to the reader. From now on since the right space has disappeared we simply write X instead of Xl , 1⊗ instead of 1ll etc... Our starting point rewrites in these simpler notations Z Z(λ, N ) = dM dM † exp{−N Tr X + S}, (II-24) p−1 i h X k p−1−k A (X) ⊗ A (X) . S(λ, X) = −Tr⊗ log 1⊗ + λ

(II-25)

k=0

Defining Σ(λ, X) :=

Pp−1

k=0

Ak (X) ⊗ Ap−1−k (X), a useful lemma is

Lemma II.1.

−1 ∂A  = 1⊗ + λΣ(λ, X) . (II-26) ∂X Proof From the algebraic rule (II-15) and the functional equation (II-10) h (A(X) + λAp (X)) ⊗ 1 − 1 ⊗ (A(X) + λAp (X)) i−1 ∂A = ∂X A(X) ⊗ 1 − 1 ⊗ A(X) h p A (X) ⊗ 1 − 1 ⊗ Ap (X) i−1 = 1⊗ + λ (II-27) A(X) ⊗ 1 − 1 ⊗ A(X) p−1 h i−1  X −1 = 1⊗ + λ Ak (X) ⊗ Ap−1−k (X) = 1⊗ + λΣ(λ, X) . k=0

II.1

Factorization through Holomorphic Calculus

We shall now establish another equivalent formula for S factorized over left and right pieces. Given a holomorphic function f on a domain containing the spectrum of a square matrix X, Cauchy’s integral formula3 yields a convenient expression for f (X), I f (w) f (X) = dw , (II-28) w−X Γ 3

It is our convention to include the

1 2iπ

factor of the Cauchy formula into

9

H

.

provided the contour Γ encloses the full spectrum of X. We work with Hermitian matrices such as X which have positive spectrum. Let us introduce a bit of notation for the contours that we shall use. Let’s assume we have two radii 0 < r < R < +∞ and an angle ψ ∈]0, π2 [. The finite keyhole contour Γfr,R,ψ is defined as the (counterclockwise) contour ± in the complex plane made of the two segments Hr,R,ψ joining the points re±iψ and Re±iψ , plus two arcs of circle namely CR,ψ corresponding to radius R and arguments in [−ψ, ψ] and C¯r,ψ corresponding to radius r and arguments out of ] − ψ, ψ[, see Figure 2. f Γr,R,ψ

y

ψ R r O

x

Figure 2: A finite keyhole contour Γfr,R,ψ encircling a segment on the real positive Ox axis, shown in boldface, which includes the spectrum of X. Since the matrix X is positive Hermitian, the condition for holomorphic calculus is fulfilled as soon as R > kXk. For the moment we always assume this condition to be fulfilled. We also define the infinite keyhole contour Γ∞ r,ψ which is the R → ∞ f limit of Γr,R,ψ . Of course we shall use them only when the associated infinite contour integral is absolutely convergent. We may omit the r, R, ψ indices when the context is clear. Lemma II.2. Suppose λ ∈ P (, η). For sufficiently small r and ψ the function ak (λ, u) is analytic in u in an open neighborhood of the contour Γfr,R,ψ 10

Figure 3: The cut-sector Dp (r, , η) containing the Fuss-Catalan cut starting at Rp (shown in boldface). for any integer k ∈ [0, p − 1]. Proof Write λ = ρeiθ with ρ < η, |θ| < π − , and remember Γfr,R,ψ = − + − + Hr,R,ψ ∪CR,ψ ∪Hr,R,ψ ∪ C¯r,ψ . For u ∈ Hr,R,ψ ∪CR,ψ ∪Hr,R,ψ we have | arg u | ≤ ψ 1 p−1 hence | arg u | ≤ (p−1)ψ, hence if we choose ψ < 2(p−1) , then arg(−λup−1 ) is out of the interval [− 2 , 2 ]. Finally if u ∈ C¯r,ψ then | − λup−1 | ≤ rp−1 η. In conclusion for u ∈ Γ, z = −λup−1 stays completely out of the cut-sector  Dp (r, , η) = {z ∈ C, |z| ≥ rp−1 η, | arg z| ≤ }. 2 p−1

(II-29)

Let us assume from now on that rp−1 η < Rp := (p−1) . Then this cut pp sector Dp (r, , η) fully contains the cut of the Fuss Catalan function Tp which is [Rp , ∞) [24, 31]. It follows that Tp (−λup−1 ), hence also ak (λ, u) for any integer k ∈ [0, p − 1], are analytic in u in a neighborhood of the keyhole contour Γfr,R,ψ and that the contour integrals (II-30)-(II-31) are well defined.

11

We can therefore write I du a(λ, u)

A(X) = Γ

1 u−X

(II-30)

where a(λ, z) = zTp (−λz p−1 ) (see (II-9)) and the contour Γ is a finite keyhole contour enclosing all the spectrum of X. The matrix derivative acting on a resolvent being easy to compute using (II-15) we obtain I ∂A 1 1 = du a(λ, u) ⊗ . (II-31) ∂X u−X u−X Γ 1 Resolvent factors such as u−X are obviously non-singular on keyhole contours such as Γ as they have all singularities inside by our choice of R > kXk. For safety of some formulas below and in the next sections we shall even always assume R ≥ 1 + kXk so that we never even come close to a singularity 1 . But the reader could worry about the a functions in (II-30)-(II-31), of u−X in particular when λ is complex in the pacman domain of (I-1). This is taken care of by our next Lemma. Combining (II-25), (II-26) and (II-31) we get, for Γ0 a finite keyhole contour enclosing the spectrum of X

∂λ S = −

p−1 I X k=0

Γ0

du a(λ, u)Tr⊗ ∂λ

 Ak (λ, X) Ap−k−1 (λ, X)  ⊗ . u−X u−X

(II-32)

Now we reapply the holomorphic calculus, but in different ways4 depending on the term chosen in the sum over k. p−1

(λ,X) • For k = 0, we apply the holomorphic calculus to the right A u−X factor, with a contour Γ2 surrounding Γ0 for a new variable called v2 , and we rename u and Γ0 as v1 and Γ1 (see Figure 4), p−1

(λ,X) • For k = p − 1, we apply the holomorphic calculus to the left A u−X factor, with a contour Γ2 surrounding Γ0 for a new variable called v2 , and we rename u and Γ0 as v1 and Γ1 ; we obtain a contribution identical to the previous case. 4

Our choices below are made in order to allow for the bounds of Section IV.

12

y

Γ1

Γ0 x

Figure 4: A keyhole contour Γ1 encircling a keyhole contour Γ0 . The spectrum of X lies on a real axis positive segment like the one shown in boldface. • In all other case, hence for 1 ≤ k ≤ p − 2 we apply the holomorphic calculus both to left and right factors in the tensor product, with two variables v1 and v2 and two equal contours Γ1 and Γ2 enclosing enclose the contour Γ0 . In this way defining the “loop resolvent” h 1 i 1 ih Tr R(v1 , v2 , X) := Tr v1 − X v2 − X

(II-33)

we obtain ∂S = − ∂λ

I

I dv1

dv2

nI

du a(λ, u)

p−2 X ∂λ [λak (λ, v1 )ap−k−1 (λ, v2 )]

(v1 − u)(v2 − u) k=1  p−1 o ∂λ λa (λ, v2 ) + 2a(λ, v1 ) R(v1 , v2 , X). (II-34) v1 − v2

Γ1

Γ2

Γ0

Therefore defining the weights φ(λ, u, v1 , v2 ) := −

p−2 X k=1

  1 1 a(λ, u)∂λ λak (λ, v1 )ap−k−1 (λ, v2 ) v1 − u v2 − u (II-35) 13

  2 a(λ, v1 )∂λ λap−1 (λ, v2 ) (II-36) v1 − v2 we have, provided Γ0 , Γ1 and Γ2 are finite keyholes contours all enclosing [0, kXk] and Γ1 and Γ2 enclose Γ0 : ψ(λ, v1 , v2 ) := −

Lemma II.3. Z S(λ, X) =

λ

I dt

0

I dv1

nI

dv2 du φ(t, u, v1 , v2 ) Γ0 o + ψ(t, v1 , v2 ) R(v1 , v2 , X). Γ1

Γ2

(II-37)

Proof. Simply remark that S|λ=0 = 0 and apply first order Taylor formula, using (II-34). The two traces in R can be thought either as the two sides of a single ribbon loop or as two independent ordinary loops (hence the name loop vertex representation). Remark indeed that these two loops are factorized in R. They are coupled only through the scalar factors (the u contour integral for the φ term or the (v1 − v2 )−1 factor for the ψ term). The condition on the contours Γfrj ,ψj ,Rj for j = 0, 1, 2, can be written 0 < r0 < min(r1 , r2 ); 0 < ψ0 < min(ψ1 , ψ2 ) ≤ max(ψ1 , ψ2 ) < π −  and kXk + 1 ≤ R0 < min(R1 , R2 ). The nice property of this representation is that it does not break the symmetry between the two factors in the tensor product. Beware that the three Γ contours in (II-37) have to be finite ones Γfrj ,ψj ,Rj , hence not universal in X, since they depend on X through the condition that R0 must be strictly bigger than kXk. A careful study using the bounds of Section IV reveals that the finiteness of these three contours, hence their X-dependence, cannot be removed because the integral (II-37) is not absolutely convergent as R → ∞ (this is linked to the fact that S is not uniformly bounded in X but grows logarithmically at large X). Fortunately this slightly annoying feature will fully disappear in the LVE formulas below, because these formulas do not use S but derivatives of S with respect to the field M or M † . These derivatives are uniformly bounded. Therefore contours of the LVE amplitudes can be taken as infinite keyholes Γ∞ r,ψ which are then completely independent of X.

14

III

The Loop Vertex Expansion

To generate a convergent loop vertex expansion [1, 24], we start by expanding the exponential of the effective action S(X) in (II-24) into the Taylor series Z ∞ X 1 Z(λ, N ) = dM dM † exp{−N TrX} S n . (III-38) n! n=0 The next step is to introduce replicas and to replace (for the term of order n) the integral over the single N × N complex matrix M by an integral over an n-tuple of such N × N matrices Mi , 1 ≤ i ≤ n. The Gaussian part of the integral is replaced by a normalized Gaussian measure dµC with a degenerate covariance Cij = N −1 ∀i, j. Recall that for any real positive symmetric matrix Cij one has Z † dµC Mi|ab Mj|cd = Cij δad δbc , (III-39) where Mi|ab denote the matrix element in the row a and column b of the matrix Mi . That Gaussian integral with a degenerate covariance is indeed equivalent to a single Gaussian integral, say over M1 times a product of n − 1 Dirac distributions δ(M1 − M2 ) · · · δ(Mn−1 − Mn ). From the perturbative point of view, this degenerate covariance produces all the edges in a Feynman graph expansion that connect the various vertices together. The partition function can be written as Z n ∞ Y X 1 dµC S(Mi ) . (III-40) Z(λ, N ) = n! n=0 i=1 The generating functional can be represented as a sum over the set Fn of forests F on n labeled vertices5 by applying the BKAR formula [2, 3] to (III-40). We start by replacing the covariance Cij = N −1 by Cij (x) = N −1 xij (xij = xji ) evaluated at xij = 1 for i 6= j and Cii (x) = N −1 ∀i. Then the Taylor BKAR formula yields Z ∞ X 1 X Z(λ, N ) = dwF ∂F Zn (III-41) n! xij =xF (w) ij n=0 F ∈F n

5

Oriented forests simply distinguish edges (i, j) and (j, i) so have edges with arrows.It ∂ ∂ ∂ ∂ allows to distinguish below between operators ∂M and ∂M . † † ∂M † ∂M † i

15

j

j

i

where Z dwF :=

Y Z (i,j)∈F

1

∂F :=

0

Z Zn :=

dwij ,

dµC(x)

Y (i,j)∈F

n Y

∂ , ∂xij

S(Mi )

(III-42)

(III-43)

i=1

xF ij

 =

F if Pi↔j exists , (III-44) F if Pi↔j does not exist .

F wkl inf(k,l)∈Pi↔j 0

In this formula wij is the weakening parameter of the edge (i, j) of the forest, F is the unique path in F joining i and j when it exists. and Pi↔j Substituting the contour integral representation (II-37) for each S(Mi ) factor in (III-40), we rewrite (III-43) as Z Z Zn = dµC(x) {dtdudv}Φn Rn (III-45) where Rn stands for the product of all resolvents Rn :=

n Y

Ri (v1i , v2i , Xi ),

(III-46)

i=1

R and the symbol {dtdudv}Φn Rn stands for "Z I I Z n nI λ Y i i i dui φ(ti , ui , v1i , v2i ) dv2 dv1 dt {dtdudv}Φn Rn = i=1

0

Γi2

Γi1

o + ψ(ti , v1i , v2i ) Ri

Γi0

# (III-47)

where the contours areas specified in the previous section. We put most of the time in what follows the replica index i in upper position but beware not to confuse it with a power. Since Gaussian integration can be represented as a differentiation   Z h N1 Pi,j xij Tr ∂ † ∂ † i ∂M ∂M i j f (M ) dµC(x) f (M ) = e . (III-48) Mi =0

16

Then, the differentiation with respect to xij in (III-53) results in Z Z   ∂ ∂  ∂  1 f (M ) . (III-49) dµC(x) f (M ) = dµC(x) Tr † ∂xij N ∂Mi ∂Mj†  ∂ ∂  The operator Tr ∂M acts on two distinct loop vertices (i and j) and † ∂M † i

j

connects them by an oriented edge. Introducing the notation Y  ∂ ∂  ∂FM = Tr ∂Mi† ∂Mj† (i,j)∈F

(III-50)

we can commute all functional derivatives in ∂F with all contour integrals, using the argument of Section II.1 that the contours are far from the singularities of the integrand. We can then also commute the functional integral and the contour integration. This results in Z Z Z ∞ X 1 X −|F | Z(λ, N ) = N dwF {dtdudv}Φn dµC(x) ∂FM Rn . n! F ∈F xij =xF ij (w) n=0 n

(III-51) As usual, since the right hand side of (III-51) is now factorized over the connected components of the forest F, which are spanning trees, its logarithm, which selects only the connected parts, is expressed by exactly the same formula but summed over trees. For a tree on n vertices |T | = n − 1. Taking into account the N −2 factor in the normalization of F in (II-4) we obtain the expansion of the free energy as (remark the sum which starts now at n = 1 instead of n = 0) ∞ X 1 X AT F (λ, N ) = n! T ∈T n=1 n Z Z Z AT := N −n−1 dwT {dtdudv}Φn dµC(x) ∂TM Rn

(III-52)

xij =xT ij (w)

,

(III-53)

where Tn is the set of oriented spanning trees over n ≥ 1 labeled vertices. Our main result is Theorem III.1. For any  > 0 there exists η small enough such that the expansion (III-52) is absolutely convergent and defines an analytic function of λ, uniformly bounded in N , in the “pacman domain” P (, η) := {0 < |λ| < η, | arg λ| < π − }, 17

(III-54)

a domain which is uniform in N . Here absolutely convergent and uniformly bounded in N means that for fixed  and η as above there exists a constant K independent of N such that for λ ∈ P (, η) ∞ X 1 X |AT | ≤ K < ∞. n! T ∈T n=1

(III-55)

n

Absolute convergence would be of course wrong for the usual expansion of F into connected Feynman graphs. Moreover the difficult part of the theorem is the uniformity in N of the domain P (, η) and of the bound (III-55). Indeed the fact that F is analytic and in fact Borel-Le Roy summable of order p − 1 (in the Nevanlinna-Sokal sense of [32, 23]) but in a domain which shrinks with N as N → ∞ is already known, see eg [23]. The next subsection is devoted to compute explicitly ∂TM Rn , and Section IV is devoted to bounds which prove this Theorem.

III.1

Derivatives of the action

We need now to compute ∂TM Rn . This will be relatively easy since Rn is a 1 type. Since trees have arbitrary coordination product of resolvents of the u−X numbers we need a formula for the action on a vertex factor Ri of a certain ∂ type and q¯i of the number ri = q i + q¯i of derivatives, q i of them of the ∂M i ∂ type. ∂Mi† Let us fix a given loop vertex and forget for a moment the index i. We need to develop a formula for the action of a differentiation operator 1 ∂r 1 on R = Tr v1 −X ⊗ Tr v2 −X . ∂M ···∂M ∂M † ···∂M † 1

q

1

q¯

To perform this computation we first want to know on which of the two traces (also simply called “loops”) of a loop vertex the differentiations act. Therefore we add to any oriented tree T of order n a collection of 2(n − 1) indices se . Each such index takes value in {1, 2}, and specifies at each end e 1 of an edge of the tree whether the field derivative for this end hits the Tr v1 −X 1 loop or the Tr v2 −X loop. There are therefore exactly 22(n−1) such decorated oriented trees for any oriented tree. Unless otherwise specified in the rest of the paper we simply use the word “tree” for an oriented decorated tree with these additional {s} data. Similarly the set Tn from now on means the set of oriented decorated trees at order n. Knowing the decorated tree T , at each vertex we know how to decompose the number of differentiations acting on it according to a sum over the two 18

loops of the number of differentiations on that loop, as q = q1 +q2 , q¯ = q¯1 + q¯2 . Hence we have the simpler problem to compute the differentiation operator 1 ∂r on a single loop Tr v−X . ∂M ···∂M ∂M † ···∂M † 1

q

q¯

1

We shall use the symbol t to indicate the place where the indices of the derivatives act6 . For instance we shall write 1 1 1 ∂ = t . ∂X v − X v−X v−X

(III-56)

To warm up let us compute explicitly some derivatives (writing ∂M for 1 v−X 1 ∂M † Tr v−X ∂M Tr

1 1 i t M† v−X v−X h 1 1 i = Tr Mt . v−X v−X =

h

∂ ) ∂M

Tr

(III-57)

Induction is clear: r = q + q¯ derivatives create insertions of tM † and of M t factors in all possible cyclically distinct ways but they can also create double insertions noted tt when a M † or M numerator is hit by a derivative. For instance at second order we have: h 1 1 1 i 1 † = Tr Mt t M† ∂M ∂M † Tr v−X v−X v−X v−X h 1 1 1 i † + Tr tM Mt v−X v−X v−X h 1 1 i + Tr t1t . (III-58) v−X v−X Remark the last term in which the second derivative hits the numerator created by the first. Since X = M M † the outcome for a q-th order partial derivative, is a bit difficult to write, but the combinatorics is quite inessential for our future analyticity bounds. The Fa`a di Bruno formula allows to write q this outcome as as sum over a set Πq,¯ of Fa`a di Bruno terms each with r prefactor 1: ∂r

Tr †

∂M1 · · · ∂Mq ∂M1† · · · ∂Mq¯

h i X 1 = Tr O0π tO1π t· · ·tOrπ . (III-59) v−X q,¯ q π∈Πr

6

The symbol t instead of ⊗ will hopefully convey the fact that these derivatives are half propagators for the LVE. The edges of the LVEs always glue two t symbols together.

19

In the sum (III-59) there are exactly r symbols t, separating r + 1 corner operators Ocπ . These corner operators can be of four different types, either 1 1 1 , M -resolvents v−X M , M † -resolvents M † v−X , or the identity resolvents v−X M† M operator 1. We call rπ , rπ , rπ and iπ the number of corresponding operators in π. We shall need only the following facts. Lemma III.1. We have |Πrq,¯q | ≤ 2r r!,

rπ = 1 + iπ ,

†

rπM + rπM = r − 2iπ .

(III-60)

Proof. Easy by induction, since at order r for each new derivative we have to hit any of the r Oc operators of order r − 1 (hence the r! factor), and eventually if that operator is an M -resolvent or M † -resolvent of the right type we can decide with a further factor 2 to hit either the resolvent or the M (or M † ) factor. The rest of the Lemma is trivial. Applying (III-59) at each of the two loops of each loop vertex, we get for any decorated tree T ∂TM Rn

=

n nY 2 h Y i=1

j=1

X

Tr

πi O0 j

t

πi O1 j

πji


t · · · t Ori

io

(III-61)

j

q i ,¯ qi πji ∈Π ji j r j

where the indices of the previous (III-59) are simply all decomposed into indices for each loop j = 1, 2 of each loop vertex i = 1, · · · , n. We need now to understand the gluing of the t symbols. Knowing the decoration of the tree, that is the 2(n − 1) indices se , we know exactly for which edge of the decorated tree which loops it connects. In other words the decorated tree Tn defines a particular forest on the 2n loops of the n loop vertices (see Figure 5). This forest having n − 1 edges must therefore have exactly n + 1 connected components, each of which is a tree but on the 2n loops. We call these trees the cycles C of the tree, since as trees, they have a single face. Now a moment of attention reveals that if we fix a particular choice {πji } in (III-61) expansion obtained by the action of ∂TM on Rn the t symbols since they are summed with indices forced to coincide along the edges of the tree simply glue the 2n traces of (III-61) into n + 1 traces, one for each cycle C of the decorated tree T . This is the fundamental feature of the LVE [1]. 20

v1 1

v2 2

1

2

v3

1

1

2

v5

v4 1

2

2

Figure 5: A tree of n − 1 lines on n loop vertices (depicted as rectangular boxes, hence here n = 5) defines a forest of n + 1 connected components or cycles C on the 2n elementary loops, since each vertex contains exactly two loops. To each such cycle corresponds a trace of a given product of operators in the LVE. Each trace acts on the product of all corners operators Oc cyclically ordered in the way obtained by turning around the cycle C. Hence we obtain, with hopefully transparent notations, ∂TM Rn

=

n nY 2 h Y i=1

j=1

X

io Yh

q i ,¯ qi πji ∈Π ji j r j

C

Tr

Y

i

Oc .

(III-62)

c C

We now bound the associated tree amplitudes of the LVE.

IV

LVE amplitude bound

The beauty of the LVE method is that the associated amplitudes can be bounded by a convergent geometric series uniformly in w, M and N . From now on let us suppose first that n ≥ 2, hence T is not the trivial tree T∅ with one vertex and no edge. To bound the amplitude of this trivial tree T∅ is much easier but requires, as usual in any LVE, a particular treatment given in Section IV.3. We perform first the functional integral bound, then

21

the contour integral bound. For that we rewrite (III-53) as Z AT (λ, N ) = {dtdudv}Φn FT (λ, N, u, v) FT (N, v) := N

−n−1

Z

Z dwT

dµC(x)

n nY 2 h Y i=1

Yh Y i Tr Oc C

c C

xij =xT ij (w)

j=1

(IV-63) X

πji ∈Π

io

q i ,¯ qi j j ri j

.

(IV-64)

and bound first the functional integral FT .

IV.1

Functional Integral Bound

Starting from (III-62) we simply bound every trace by the dimension of the space, which is N , times the product of the norms of all operators along that cycle. This is the same strategy than in [1]. Since there are exactly n + 1 traces, the factors N exactly cancel, all operator norms now commute as they are scalars, and taking into account Lemma III.1 we are left with 2n−2

|FT (N, v)| ≤ 2

n Y

Z ri !

Z dwT

dµC(x) sup π

i=1

i Yh kOc k c

xij =xT ij (w)

(IV-65)

Using that sup{kM k, kM † k} ≤ kXk1/2 , it is easy to now bound resolvent factors, for v’s on these keyhole contours, by k

vji

1 k ≤ K(1 + |vji |)−1 , − Xi

1 M i k ≤ K(1 + |vji |)−1/2 , − Xi 1 † kM i i k ≤ K(1 + |vji |)−1/2 . vj − X i k

vji

(IV-66) (IV-67) (IV-68)

where K denotes a generic constant which depends on the contour parameters r and ψ. Plugging into (IV-65) we can use again Lemma III.1 to prove that i we get exactly a decay factor (1 + |vji |)−(1+rj /2) for each of the 2n loops.

22

The corresponding R R bound being uniform in all π, {w}, {M }, and since the integrals dwT dµC(x) are normalized, we get 2n−2

|FT (N, v)| ≤ 2

K

n

n n Y

2 o Y i ri ! (1 + |vji |)−(1+rj /2)

i=1

(IV-69)

j=1

Recall that with our notations, ri = r1i + r2i .

IV.2

Contour Integral Bound

R We insert now the bound (IV-69) in the contour integral {dtdudv}, of course taking absolute values in the integrand, since we took an absolute value for |FT (N, v)|. ROur integration contours being complex we use the shortR dz ened notation | Γ |f (z)|dz| to mean |f (z)|| dx |dx where x is a real variable parametrizing the contour Γ. With these shortened notations, and absorbing the 22n−2 factor by changing the value of K, we get n n 2 Z o Y Y i |AT | ≤ K {dtdudv}|Φn | ri ! (1 + |vji |)−(1+rj /2) . n

i=1

(IV-70)

j=1

Remark that this bound is now factorized over the loop vertices, since Φn is factorized, see (III-47). Hence we shall now fix again a vertex of index i and we omit to write the i superscript for a while for the reader’s comfort. Remark that r1 + r2 = r > 0 (since each ri in (IV-70) is strictly positive, because T is not the trivial tree). Since (IV-70) is a decreasing function of r1 , r2 , we need only to bound the worst cases, namely r1 = 1, r2 = 0 or r1 = 0, r2 = 1. Since φ is symmetric in v1 , v2 , but not ψ, we end up with three different integrals to bound: Z −3/2 −1 I1 = dtdudv1 dv2 |φ(t, u, v1 , v2 )|(1 + |v1 |) (1 + |v2 |) , (IV-71) Z −3/2 −1 I2 = dtdv1 dv2 |ψ(t, v1 , v2 )|(1 + |v1 |) (1 + |v2 |) , Z I3 = dtdv1 dv2 |ψ(t, v1 , v2 )|(1 + |v1 |)−1 (1 + |v2 |)−3/2 .

23

(IV-72) (IV-73)

Returning to the definition (II-35) of φ we have first to compute the derivative h   ∂t tak (t, v1 )ap−k−1 (t, v2 ) = ak (t, v1 )ap−k−1 (t, v2 ) (IV-74) + t[k∂t a(t, v1 )ak−1 (t, v1 )ap−k−1 (t, v2 ) k

+ (p − k − 1)∂t a(t, v2 )a (t, v1 )a

p−k−2

(t, v2 )].

i

Therefore we need a bound on the factors a(t, v) and ∂t a(t, v) for v on a keyhole contour. Recalling Lemma III.1 in [24], for z in the complement of Dp (r, , η) we have |Tp (z)| ≤ |

K , (1 + |z|)1/p K

d Tp (z)| ≤ 1 . dz (1 + |z|)1+ p

(IV-75) (IV-76)

Since a(t, v) = vTp (−tv p−1 ) we find that for v ∈ Γ K , (1 + |t||v|p−1 )1/p K |∂t a(t, v)| ≤ |v|p 1 . (1 + |t||v|p−1 )1+ p |a(t, v)| ≤ |v|

(IV-77) (IV-78)

Defining A˜k (t, v) := since

|t||v|p−1 (1+|t||v|p−1 )

|

|v|k k

,

(IV-79)

(1 + |t||v|p−1 ) p

≤ 1 we find

 ∂ k ta (t, v1 )ap−k−1 (t, v2 ) | ≤ K A˜k (t, v1 )A˜p−k−1 (t, v2 ). ∂t

(IV-80)

We now insert this bound in the contour integral I1 and find Z A˜1 (t, u) I1 ≤ dtdudv1 dv2 (1 + |v1 |)−3/2 (1 + |v2 |)−1 |u − v1 ||u − v2 | X ˜ ˜ Ak (t, v1 )Ap−k−1 (t, v2 ) . (IV-81) 1≤k≤p−2

24

We need now to use a bit of convex analysis. On our contours we have |u − v| ≥ K(1 + |u|) and |u − v| ≥ K(1 + |v|), hence for any (α1 , α2 ) ∈ [0, 1]2 we have 1 ≤ (1 + |u|)−2+α1 +α2 (1 + |v1 |)−α1 (1 + |v2 |)−α2 . |u − v1 ||u − v2 |

(IV-82)

Furthermore for any 0 ≤ β ≤ 1 we have A˜k (t, v) ≤ |v|k−βk(p−1)/p |t|−βk/p .

(IV-83)

Therefore for any choice of the five numbers (α1 , α2 , β, β1 , β2 ) ∈ [0, 1]5 we have I X Z λ |u|1−β(p−1)/p − p1 (β+kβ1 +(p−k−1)β2 ) dt|t| I1 ≤ du (1 + |u|)2−α1 −α2 0 Γ0 1≤k≤p−2 I I |v1 |k(1−β1 (p−1)/p) |v2 |(p−k−1)(1−β2 (p−1)/p) dv1 dv2 . (IV-84) (1 + |v1 |)3/2+α1 Γ2 (1 + |v2 |)1+α2 Γ1 + p and distinguish two We choose β = 1 − p , β1 = β2 = 1 and α2 = p−k−1 p p cases. If 1 ≤ k < 2 we choose α1 = 0. Substituting in (IV-84) we find after some trivial manipulations such as 1 + |u| ≥ |u| we get λ

X Z

I1 ≤

1≤k≤p−2

−1+

dt|t|

p p

du

0

Γ0

I

− 32 + kp

I

dv1 (1 + |v1 |) Γ1

|u|

I

Γ2

1+(p−1)p p

(1 + |u|)1+

k+1 −p p

dv2 (1 + |v2 |)−1−p .

(IV-85)

The v1 and v2 contour integrals are now absolutely convergent and bounded by (p-dependent) constants. Since k ≥ 1, the u integral is also convergent 1 , since for that choice its integrand then for small p , for instance p = 2p −1−

1

2p2 . behaves, in the worst case k = 1, as u If p2 ≤ k ≤ p − 2 we choose α1 = kp − 21 + p and get

I1 ≤

X Z

λ −1+

dt|t|

p p

I du

|u|

1+(p−1)p p 3

1

(1 + |u|) 2 + p −2p I I −1−p dv1 (1 + |v1 |) dv2 (1 + |v2 |)−1−p .

1≤k≤p−2

0

Γ0

Γ1

Γ2

25

(IV-86)

The three contour integrals are now absolutely convergent and bounded by 1 (since p ≥ 2). (p-dependent) constants for instance if we choose p = 4p We conclude that I1 ≤ K|λ|κp (IV-87) for κp := 4p12 > 0 (we do not try to optimize this number). The bounds on I2 and I3 are simpler. Inserting (IV-80) in (IV-72)-(IV-73) we find Z 1 (1 + |v1 |)−3/2 (1 + |v2 |)−1 , I2 ≤ K dtdv1 dv2 A˜1 (t, v1 )A˜p−1 (t, v2 ) |v1 − v2 | (IV-88) Z 1 −3/2 −1 ˜ ˜ (1 + |v1 |) (1 + |v2 |) . I3 ≤ K dtdv1 dv2 Ap−1 (t, v1 )A1 (t, v2 ) |v1 − v2 | (IV-89) On our contours we have |v1 − v2 | ≥ K(1 + |v1 |) and |v1 − v2 | ≥ K(1 + |v2 |), hence for any α ∈ [0, 1] we have 1 ≤ (1 + |v1 |)−α (1 + |v2 |)−(1−α) . |v1 − v2 |

(IV-90)

Therefore using again (IV-83) for any choice of the three numbers (α, β1 , β2 ) ∈ [0, 1]3 we have I Z λ |v1 |1−β1 (p−1)/p − p1 (β1 +(p−1)β2 ) dt|t| I2 ≤ K dv1 (IV-91) (1 + |v1 |)3/2+α 0 Γ1 I |v2 |(p−1)(1−β2 (p−1)/p) (IV-92) dv2 . (1 + |v2 |)2−α Γ2 3 We can choose β1 = 21 , β2 = 1, α = 4p and we get I I Z λ 1 1 1 −1+ 2p dv1 dv I2 ≤ K dt|t| 2 1 1 0 Γ1 (1 + |v1 |)1+ 4p Γ2 (1 + |v2 |)1+ 4p 1

≤ K|λ| 2p .

(IV-93)

Similarly we have for any choice of the three numbers (α, β1 , β2 ) ∈ [0, 1]3 I Z λ |v1 |(p−1)(1−β1 (p−1)/p) − p1 ((p−1)β1 +β2 ) I3 ≤ K dt|t| dv1 (IV-94) (1 + |v1 |)3/2+α 0 Γ1 I |v2 |1−β2 (p−1)/p dv2 (IV-95) . (1 + |v2 |)2−α Γ2 26

We can choose β1 = 1, β2 = 21 , α = I3

Z ≤ K

λ

1 −1+ 2p

−

3 4p

I

dt|t|

0

1 2

dv1 Γ1

and we get the same outcome I

1 (1 + |v1 |)

1 1+ 4p

dv2 Γ2

1

≤ K|λ| 2p .

1 1

(1 + |v2 |)1+ 4p (IV-96)

We can gather our results in the following lemma: Lemma IV.1. For any  > 0, there exists η > 0 and a constant K > 0 such that any tree T with n vertices the amplitude AT (λ, N ) is analytic in λ in the pacman domain P (, η ) and satisfies in that domain to the uniform bound in N n

κp n

|AT (λ, N )| ≤ K |λ|

n Y

ri !

(IV-97)

i=1

where ri ≥ 1 is the coordination of the tree T at vertex i. Proof. We simply put together (IV-87) and (IV-93)-(IV-96). By Cayley’s theorem, the number of labeled trees with coordination ri on n vertices is Qn(n−2)! . Orientation and decoration add to the bound an i=1 (ri −1)! P Q 3(n−1) inessential factor 2 . Furthermore ri ≤ 2 i ri = 22(n−1) . Remembering the symmetry factor n!1 in (III-52), Theorem III.1 follows now easily from Lemma IV.1. Remark that the right hand side in (IV-97) is independent of N , so that our results hold uniformly in N .

IV.3

The trivial n = 1 tree

To bound the trivial tree amplitude AT∅ with a single vertex, hence n = 1, namely Z AT∅ = dµ S(λ, X) (IV-98) obviously does not require replicas but requires a little additional step namely integration by parts of one field. We return to (II-24)-(II-25) but now single out one of the X = M M † factors in the Σ(λ, X) numerator and do not write it through the holomorphic calculus technique. Hence we insert in (IV-98) the slightly different representation

27

Lemma IV.2. Z S(λ, X) =

λ

dv1

dt

dv2

Γ1

0

+

I

I

nI

Γ2

io ψ1 (t, v1 , v2 ) [Tr

h du φ1 (t, u, v1 , v2 )

Γ0

1 X ][Tr ] v1 − X v2 − X

(IV-99)

with the new contour weights  k  P a(t,u) ∂ p−k−2 (t, v2 ) φ1 (t, u, v1 , v2 ) := − p−2 k=1 (u−v1 )(u−v2 ) ∂t a (t, v1 )tTp (t, v2 )a   2 ∂ p−2 ψ1 (t, v1 , v2 ) := − v1 −v a(t, v ) tT (t, v )a (t, v ) (IV-100) 1 p 2 2 ∂t 2 where Tp (t, v) = Tp (−tv p−1 ). Proof. Exactly similar to the one of Lemma II.3. We then perform a single step of integration by parts on the M factor in in (IV-99) with respect to the functional measure. the numerator X of Tr v2X −X It gives Z Z λ I I nI h −3 AT∅ = N dt dv1 dµ dv2 du φ1 (t, u, v1 , v2 ) 0

ion X +ψ1 (t, v1 , v2 ) abc

Γ1

Γ2

∂ h † ∂Mba

Γ0

io 1 1 (M )ba ( )cc . (IV-101) v2 − X v1 − X †

Beware indeed that the indices of the ∂M † operator dual to M in the Gaussian integration by parts are inserted in the v2 trace but as a differential operator it can also act on the v1 trace. The ∂M † factor is then computed as in section III.1. Following the same steps than in the previous section and using the gain of one v1 or v2 numerators on φ1 or ψ1 compared to φ and ψ we get (more easily!) a bound for λ ∈ P (, η) |AT∅ | ≤ |λ|κp K.

(IV-102)

Observe that this bound is uniform in N because we have either one or three † 1 or the Tr v2M−X ) and traces (depending whether the ∂M † acts on the Tr v1 −X three N1 factors.

28

V

Hermitian Case

Consider a Hermitian matrix model with a stable interaction of order 2p defined by the action, partition function and free energy given by S(λ, H) := Tr{H 2 + λH 2p } , Z Z(λ, N ) = dH e−N S(λ,H) , F (λ, N ) :=

1 log Z(λ, N ), N2

(V-103) (V-104) (V-105)

where H is a random Hermitian matrix of size N and λ is the coupling constant (stability corresponds again to λ > 0). The loop vertex representation is provided by the following theorem. Theorem V.1. In the sense of formal power series in λ Z Z(λ, N ) = dH exp{−N TrH 2 + S(λ, H)} where the loop vertex action, S(λ, H), is I Z λ I I dt du dv1 S(λ, H) = dv2 φH (t, u, v1 , v2 )RH (v1 , v2 , H) 0

Γ0

Γ1

Γ2

(V-106) with Γ0 , Γ1 , Γ2 being finite non-intersecting keyhole contours, enclosing the spectrum of H 2 , and the functions RH (v1 , v2 , H), φH (t, u, v1 , v2 ) are given respectively by (V-119) and (V-120). Proof. To provide a proof in the sense of formal power series, we can perform all computations assuming λ ≥ 0. However Theorem V.1 also holds in a non-perturbative sense, see Appendix C. We perform a change of variables p 2 H = A(K ) (recall that A(K 2 ) = K 2 Tp (−λK 2p−2 )). Then, H 2 + λH 2p = K 2 Tp (−λK 2p−2 ) + λK 2p Tpp (−λK 2p−2 ) = K 2 . The Jacobian of the latter change of variables produces a new non-polynomial interaction p p δ pA(K 2 ) A(K 2 ) ⊗ 1 − 1 ⊗ A(K 2 ) (V-107) = det . δK K ⊗1−1⊗K 29

Applying to (V-107) the trace-log formula and renaming K back to H, we end up with the following expression for the partition sum Z Z(λ, N ) = dH exp{−N TrH 2 + S(λ, H)} (V-108) i h H ⊗1−1⊗H p , (V-109) S(λ, H) = −Tr log p A(H 2 ) ⊗ 1 − 1 ⊗ A(H 2 ) where the absolute value is omitted. Typically such step would make the formula (V-109) valid only in the sense of formal power series. However it is correct in the sense of functions for λ ≥ 0, see Appendix C. The action (V-109) can be represented as S(λ, H) = −Tr⊗ log(1 + λΣ) , with −1

(1 + λΣ)

p A(H 2 ) . = δH δ

(V-110)

(V-111)

Then, we rewrite (V-111) as p p A(H 2 ) + λA(H 2 )p ⊗ 1 − 1 ⊗ A(H 2 ) + λA(H 2 )p p p 1 + λΣ := A(H 2 ) ⊗ 1 − 1 ⊗ A(H 2 ) √ √ V 2 + λV 2p ⊗ 1 − 1 ⊗ V 2 + λV 2p = √ 2 V ⊗1−1⊗V V = A(H ) √ δ V 2 + λV 2p = (V-112) √ 2 . δV V = A(H ) The derivative of the action with respect to λ is therefore given by h 1
i ∂λ S(λ, H) = −Tr⊗ · ∂λ 1 + λΣ 1 + λΣ i h δ pA(H 2 )  δ √V 2 + λV 2p = −Tr⊗ · ∂λ . √ 2 δH δV V = A(H ) (V-113) The first multiplier under the trace in (V-113) can be written as p p I I p δ A(H 2 ) a(λ, u) δ du = du = a(λ, u) δH δH Γ0 u − H2 Γ0 h 1 1 1 1 i · H⊗ + ⊗H , u − H2 u − H2 u − H2 u − H2 30

(V-114)

where the finite integration contour Γ0 = Γfr0 ,R0 ,ψ0 , defined according to Section II.1, encloses the full spectrum of H 2 . The convergence of the latter 1 contour integral is guaranteed by the absence of singularities in factors u−H 2 p due to R0 > kH 2 k and by the analyticity of a(λ, u) due to the Lemma II.2. We now compute the second factor in (V-113) as q  δ √V 2 + λV 2p   δ I  v02 + λv02p ∂λ dv0 √ 2 = ∂λ √ 2 δV δV Γe v0 − V V = A(H ) V = A(H ) I q i h 1 1 2p 2 p p ⊗ , = ∂λ dv0 v0 + λv0 e v0 − A(H 2 ) v0 − A(H 2 ) Γ (V-115) p ˜ is a contour enclosing the spectrum of A(H 2 ) for λ ≥ 0. We where Γ compute the trace and tensor multiplication of the matrix factors h 1 1 1 1 i H ⊗ + ⊗ H · Tr⊗ u − H2 u − H2 u − H2 u − H2 h i 1 1 p p ⊗ v0 − A(H 2 ) v0 − A(H 2 ) H 1 p p = 2Tr Tr (V-116) (u − H 2 )(v0 − A(H 2 )) (u − H 2 )(v0 − A(H 2 )) We use again holomorphic calculus to write H 1 p p Tr Tr 2 2 2 (u − H )(v0 − A(H )) (u − H )(v0 − A(H 2 )) I I 1 (V-117) = dv1 dv2 (u − v1 )(u − v2 ) Γ1 Γ2 1 H 1 p p Tr[ ]Tr[ ]. 2 v2 − H 2 (v0 − a(λ, v1 ))(v0 − a(λ, v2 )) v1 − H The finite contours Γ1 = Γfr1 ,R1 ,ψ1 and Γ2 = Γfr2 ,R2 ,ψ2 are defined not to have p intersections, Γ1 ∩ Γ2 = ∅. In addition to enclose the spectrum of A(H 2 ), p e also enclose the images a(λ, Γ1 ) we also require that the previous contour Γ p and a(λ, Γ2 ) of contours Γ1 and Γ2 . This is always possible, since Γ1 and p Γ2 are finite and a(λ, u) is analytic for u ∈ Γ1 , Γ2 . The latter contour 31

embedding structure provides the possibility to integrate over v0 , to get I I I h p 1 H i ∂λ S(λ, H) = 2 du a(λ, u) dv1 dv2 Tr (u − v1 )(u − v2 ) v1 − H 2 Γ0 Γ1 Γ2 p p i  a(λ, v ) + λa(λ, v )p a(λ, v2 ) + λa(λ, v2 )p h 1 1 1 p p +p Tr . ∂λ p v2 − H 2 a(λ, v1 ) − a(λ, v2 ) a(λ, v2 ) − a(λ, v1 ) Using the functional equations a(λ, v1 ) + λa(λ, v1 )p = v1 and a(λ, v2 ) + λa(λ, v2 )p = v2 this simplifies as I I I p 1 ∂λ S(λ, H) = 2 du a(λ, u) dv1 dv2 (u − v1 )(u − v2 ) Γ0 Γ1 Γ2 √ √  h ih i v1 − v2 H 1 p ∂λ p Tr Tr . (V-118) v1 − H 2 v2 − H 2 a(λ, v1 ) − a(λ, v2 ) Defining the functions i 1 H ih Tr , (V-119) v1 − H 2 v2 − H 2 p √ √   v1 − v2 2 a(t, u) p φH (t, u, v1 , v2 ) := ∂t p , (u − v1 )(u − v2 ) a(t, v1 ) − a(t, v2 ) RH (v1 , v2 , H) :=

h

Tr

(V-120) formulas (V-118)-(V-120), plus Taylor’s formula and the fact that S|λ=0 = 0, prove (V-106). The contours Γ0 , Γ1 , Γ2 are finite and depend on H 2 . As in the case of complex matrices, this dependence cannot be eliminated because corresponding contour integrals are not absolutely convergent when R0 , R1 , R2 → ∞. However, again, contours of the building blocks for LVE amplitudes will imply not S itself but its derivatives with respect to H, hence they can be taken as infinite keyholes Γ∞ r,ψ , completely independent on H.

V.1

LVE for Hermitian matrices

In this case, the application of the LVE machinery goes along the same line as for complex matrices and allows one to express the free energy of the Hermitian matrix model as a sum over trees (which are no longer oriented!) ∞ X 1 X AT , F (λ, N ) = n! T ∈T n=1 n

32

(V-121)

Z {dtdudv}Φn N

AT :=

Z

−n−1

Z

dµC(x) ∂TH Rn

dwT

xij =xT ij (w)

,

(V-122)

with Tn being the set of spanning trees over n ≥ 1 labeled vertices. The equations (V-121) and (V-122) are equivalent to (III-52), (III-53), except of the substitution of the differential operator ∂TM by Y

∂TH =

(i,j)∈T

1 ∂ ∂ ] Tr [ 4 ∂Hi ∂Hj

(V-123)

and the redefinition of the integration contours and functions Φn and Rn in the tree amplitude (III-53), now Z {dtdudv} = Φn =

n hZ Y i=1 n Y

λ i

I

dt

i

I

du Γi0

0

Γi1

dv1i

I Γi2

dv2i

i

,

(V-124)

φiH (ti , ui , v1i , v2i ),

(V-125)

RiH (v1i , v2i , Hi ),

(V-126)

i=1

Rn =

n Y i=1

where the index i ∈ {1, · · · , n} labels matrix replicas, each contour Γi1 has an outer radius R1i = 1 + kHi2 k to enclose the spectrum of Hi2 , and the contours Γi1 and Γi2 surround Γi0 . The main result for the Hermitian matrix model is given by the following theorem. Theorem V.2. For any  > 0 there exists η small enough such that the expansion (V-121) is absolutely convergent and defines an analytic function of λ, uniformly bounded in N , in the uniform in N “pacman domain” P (, η) := {0 < |λ| < η, | arg λ| < π − } .

(V-127)

More precisely, for the fixed  and η as above there exists a constant K independent of N such that for λ ∈ P (, η) ∞ X 1 X |AT | ≤ K < ∞ . n! T ∈T n=1 n

33

(V-128)

V.1.1

Derivatives of the action

Here we compute the LVE derivatives ∂TH Rn . Since the coordination numbers of LVE trees can be arbitrary, we derive a formula for the action of a certain ∂ i number ri of derivatives ∂H i on a vertex factor R (hereafter we often omit the index i when there is no possible confusion). Each of r derivatives can act 1 H on the one of two traces (loops) in R = [Tr v1 −H 2 ][Tr v −H 2 ]. To distinguish 2 these derivatives, as in the complex case, we add to any tree T of order n a collection of 2(n − 1) indices se taking values in {1, 2} and specifying the trace on which acts corresponding derivative. From now on, also regarding the Hermitian matrix model, the set Tn means the set of decorated trees at order n. Decorated trees T provide the decomposition of the numbers of differentiations acting on each vertex, r = r1 + r2 with r1 derivatives of the first loop and r2 derivatives of the second loop. This simplifies the problem r and we have to compute separate action of operators of the type ∂H1∂···∂Hr on H 1 single loops [Tr v1 −H 2 ] and [Tr v −H 2 ]. The result of computations is given by 2 the two similar Fa`a-di-Bruno formulas h i X ∂r = Tr O0π t O1π t · · · t Orπ1 , (V-129) ∂H1 · · · ∂Hr1 π∈Π r1

h i X  1  ∂r π π π = Tr O0 t O1 t · · · t Or2 , Tr ∂H1 · · · ∂Hr2 v − H2 π∈Π

(V-130)

r2

where in both formulas the corner operators Ocπ , separated by symbols t, 1 H can be of three different types: identity operator, v−H 2 , v−H 2 . We denote iπj , rπj , rπHj , the number of corresponding operators in πj , j = 1, 2. The introduced numbers and the cardinalities of the sets Πrj obey the following Lemma. Lemma V.1. We have |Πrj | ≤ 2rj rj !,

j = 1, 2 ,

(V-131)

rπ1 = iπ1 , = r1 + 1 − 2iπ1 , rπ2 = 1 + iπ2 , rπH2 = r2 − 2iπ2 .

(V-132) (V-133)

rπH1

Proof. The proof is completely analogous to the proof of the Lemma III.1. 34

Applying (V-129) and (V-130) at each of the two loops of each loop vertex, we obtain for any decorated tree T ∂TH Rn

=

n 2 1 YnYh X

4n−1

i=1

j=1

πi

πi

πi


Tr O0 j t O1 j t · · · t Orij

io

(V-134)

j

πji ∈Πri j

where we also write explicitly the index of the each loop vertex, i = 1, · · · , n. As in the complex case, the operators t glue the 2n traces of loop vertices into n + 1 traces, one for each cycle of the decorated tree T . Then, each cycle trace contains all cyclically ordered corners operators O occuring during turning around the cycle C and ∂TH Rn =

n 2 1 Y n Y h X io Yh Y i Tr Oc . 4n−1 i=1 j=1 i C c C

(V-135)

πj ∈Πri

j

V.2

Amplitude bounds

In this section we construct bounds for the Hermitian LVE, which are uniform in w, H and N . We start by considering the contributions from the nontrivial trees T , so n ≥ 2, the case of the trivial tree T∅ is treated separately later on in Section V.2.3. To proceed with bounds for n ≥ 2, we perform first the functional integral bound, then the contour integral bound. For that we rewrite (V-122) as Z AT (λ, N ) = {dtdudv}Φn FT (λ, N, u, v), (V-136) N −n−1 FT (N, v) := 4n−1

Z

Z dwT

dµC(x)

n nY 2 h X io Y i=1

j=1

πji ∈Πri

j

Yh C

Tr

Y

i Oc

c C

xij =xT ij (w)

.

(V-137)

and bound first the functional integral FT . V.2.1

Functional Integral Bound

Bounding each trace as N times the product of operator norms of all operators along the cycle, consequently canceling factors N with N −n−1 from 35

(V-137) and tacking into account Lemma V.1, we end up with Z Z n i Y Yh |FT (N, v)| ≤ r˜i ! dwT dµC(x) sup kOc k , T π

i=1

(V-138)

xij =xij (w)

c

i

r1i + r2i

= r . The shape of the keyhole contours, chosen in Section where r˜i = II.1, provides a bound for the resolvent factors, for v’s on these keyhole contours, namely 1 k i k ≤ K(1 + |vji | + kHi k2 )−1 . (V-139) 2 vj − Hi Collecting all factors we obtain a total bound for a given loop vertex Vi of index i i Yh (1 + kHk)r1 +r2 +1−2iπ1 −2iπ2 sup kOc k ≤ K r (1 + |v1 | + kHk2 )r1 +1−iπ1 (1 + |v2 | + kHk2 )r2 +1−iπ2 π i c∈V i

(V-140) with K depending on the contour parameters r and ψ. For r1 > 0, we use Lemma V.1 and obtain the following bound (the i index is omitted everywhere in the right hand side for the sake of simplicity) i Yh r2 r1 +1 (V-141) sup kOc k ≤ K r (1 + |v1 |)− 2 (1 + |v2 |)−1− 2 . π i c∈V i

The right hand side of (V-141) is a decreasing function of r1 , r2 , hence we take its minimum, which occurs at at r1 = 1, r2 = 0, and is nothing but K r (1 + |v1 |)−1 (1 + |v2 |)−1 . If r1 = 0 we have iπ1 = 0, and, necessarily, (since we consider trees T , which are not trivial) r2 > 0 and r2 − 2iπ2 ≥ 0. Then, (1 + kHk)r2 +1−2iπ2 (1 + |v1 | + kHk2 )(1 + |v2 | + kHk2 )r2 +1−iπ2 (1 + kHk) r

Kr ≤ K

r2

(1 + |v1 |)(1 + |v2 | + kHk2 )1+ 2 ≤ K r (1 + |v1 |)−1 (1 + |v2 |)−1 .

(V-142)

Consequently, in allRcases we R obtain the same bound, uniform in π, {w}, {M }. Since the integrals dwT dµC(x) are normalized, we get n n o Y |FT (N, v)| ≤ K n r˜i !(1 + |v1i |)−1 (1 + |v2i |)−1 . (V-143) i=1

36

V.2.2

Contour Integral Bound

R Inserting the bound (V-143) in the contour integral {dtdudv} and taking absolute values in the integrand (with same notational conventions than in the complex case), we have n n Z o Y n (V-144) |AT | ≤ K {dtdudv}|Φn | r˜i !(1 + |v1i |)−1 (1 + |v2i |)−1 . i=1

Due to the fact that Φn is factorized over the loop vertices, we can fix the vertex index i (and omit it) and bound only Z (V-145) dtdudv1 dv2 |φH (t, u, v1 , v2 )|(1 + |v1 |)−1 (1 + |v2 |)−1 . To bound the function φH (given by (V-120)), we first compute the derivative √ √   v1 − v2 p p ∂t = a(t, v1 ) − a(t, v2 )  pa(t, v ) + pa(t, v )  v1 − v2 1 2 ∂t √ √ a(t, v1 ) − a(t, v2 ) v1 + v2 p p    a(t, v1 ) + a(t, v2 )  v1 − v2 + ∂t . (V-146) √ √ a(t, v1 ) − a(t, v2 ) v1 + v2 Employing the functional equation (II-8) and just differentiating in the second term, we rewrite the previous equation as p−1  X  pa(t, v ) + pa(t, v ) 1 2 k p−1−k ∂t t a (t, v1 )a (t, v2 ) + √ √ v + v 1 2 k=0 p−1   ∂ pa(t, v ) + ∂ pa(t, v )  X 1 t 2 t k p−1−k . 1+t a (t, v1 )a (t, v2 ) √ √ v v 1+ 2 k=0 (V-147) Then, the first multiplier in the first term is bounded by (IV-80), p−1 X k p−1−k a (t, v1 )a (t, v2 ) ≤ K|t| t k=0

sup

A˜k (t, v1 )A˜p−k−1 (t, v2 ) ,

k∈{0,p−1}

(V-148) p a(t, v) ≤ K A˜1/2 (t, v) , 37

(V-149)

tv p−1/2 p Tpp−1 (−tv p−1 )− p−1 1/2 T (−tv ) |∂t a(t, v)| = 2 1 + ptv p−1 Tpp−1 (−tv p−1 ) p |t||v|p−1/2 K K 2 1 + |t||v|p−1 (1 + |t||v|p−1 )1/(2p) |t| ˜ 1 = Ap+1/2 (t, v) ≤ A˜1/2 (t, v) . 2|v| 2

≤

(V-150)

. Then, combinwhere for the last inequality we used explicitly A˜p (t, v) ≤ |v| t ing the estimates above, we express the bound for |φH | as |φH | ≤ K

A˜1/2 (t, u) (1 + S) √ √ [A˜1/2 (t, v1 ) + A˜1/2 (t, v2 )] , (V-151) |u − v1 ||u − v2 | v1 + v2

where S := supk∈{0,p−1} A˜k (t, v1 )A˜p−k−1 (t, v2 ). We now insert this bound in the contour integral and find, using the symmetry of the total expression, Z A˜1/2 (t, u) (A˜1/2 (t, v1 ) + S 0 ) I ≤ K dtdudv1 dv2 (V-152) |u − v1 ||u − v2 | √v + √v 1

2

with S 0 :=

sup k0 ∈[0,2p−1]

A˜k0 /2 (t, v1 )A˜p− k0 +1 (t, v2 ).

(V-153)

2

Γ0

− Γ1

Figure 6: The square root contour for Γ0 and the reflected square root contour for Γ1 . √ √ For any 0 ≤ γ ≤ 1, since the contours for the variables v1 and − v2 do not intersect and separate linearly at infinity (see Figure 6) we have 1 (V-154) √ ≤ K(1 + |v1 |)−γ/2 (1 + |v2 |)−(1−γ)/2 √ v1 + v2 38

and A˜1/2 (t, u) |u − v1 ||u − v2 | 0 ˜ (A1/2 (t, v1 ) + S )(1 + |v1 |)−γ/2 (1 + |v2 |)−(1−γ)/2 ) . Z

I ≤ K

dtdudv1 dv2

(V-155)

As before we are now ready for a bit of convex analysis. Remembering (IV-82) for any (α1 , α2 ) ∈ [0, 1]2 we have 1 ≤ K(1 + |u|)−2+α1 +α2 (1 + |v1 |)−α1 (1 + |v2 |)−α2 . (V-156) |u − v1 ||u − v2 | Furthermore remembering (IV-83), for any 0 ≤ β ≤ 1 we have 0

k A˜k0 /2 (t, v) ≤ |v| 2 (1−β

p−1 ) p

0

|t|−βk /2p .

(V-157)

Therefore for any choice of the six numbers (γ, α1 , α2 , β, β1 , β2 ) ∈ [0, 1]6 we have a bound on (V-155). As a warm up, let us treat first the piece without the S 0 factor in (V-155). We can choose γ = 43 , α1 = 14 , α2 = 0, β = β1 = β2 = 0, and get A˜1/2 (t, u)A˜1/2 (t, v1 ) (1 + |v1 |)−1−γ/2 (1 + |v2 |)−1−(1−γ)/2 |u − v1 ||u − v2 | |u|1/2 |v1 |1/2 ≤ K (V-158) 7 5 3 (1 + |u|) 4 (1 + |v1 |)1+ 8 (1 + |v2 |)1+ 8 so that the corresponding integral for this part, say I1 is bounded by K|λ|. The other piece with the S 0 factor, which we call I 0 looks similar to the complex case and is treated in a similar way, namely 1 I Z λ (1−β p−1 ) 2 p 1 0 β +(2p−k 0 −1)β ) |u| − (β+k 0 1 2 2p dt|t| I ≤ sup du (1 + |u|)2−α1 −α2 k0 ∈[0,2p−1] 0 Γ0 p−1 2p−k0 −1 p−1 k0 I I |v1 | 2 (1−β1 p ) |v2 | 2 (1−β2 p ) dv2 (V-159) dv1 . γ γ 3 (1 + |v1 |)1+ 2 +α1 Γ2 (1 + |v2 |) 2 − 2 +α2 Γ1 We fix γ = I

0

1 2

≤

and instead of (V-159) obtain I Z λ 1 − 2p (β+k0 β1 +(2p−k0 −1)β2 ) sup dt|t| du

k0 ∈[0,2p−1]

I dv1 Γ1

|v1 |

0

Γ0

k0 (1−β1 p−1 ) 2 p

I dv2

5

(1 + |v1 |) 4 +α1

Γ2

39

|v2 |

2p−k0 −1 (1−β2 p−1 ) 2 p 5

(1 + |v2 |) 4 +α2

1

p−1

|u| 2 (1−β p ) (1 + |u|)2−α1 −α2 .

(V-160)

The latter bound is exactly the same for k 0 ∈ [0, p − 1] and for k 0 ∈ [p, 2p − 1], up to renaming v1 and v2 . Therefore, hereafter we restrict our consideration only to k 0 ∈ [0, p − 1]. , β = 3p−4 , β1 = 0, β2 = If k 0 = 0, we can take α1 = 0, α2 = 27p−16 32p 4p−4 16p2 −25p+8 , 16p2 −24p+8

then λ

Z ≤

Ik0 0 =0

dt|t|

du

0

Γ0

I dv1 Γ1

|u|

I

− 19−16p 16−16p

1

17

dv2

5

(1 + |v1 |) 4

37

1

(1 + |u|) 2p + 32 |v2 | 16 − 2p

I

1

p+4 8p

Γ2

67

1

(1 + |v2 |) 32 − 2p



3

≤ K|λ| 16(p−1) .

(V-161)

If k 0 ∈ [1, p − 1], there are two cases. The first of them is p = 2, k 0 = 1. 9 , β = β1 = 1, β2 = 12 and end up with Then, we fix α1 = 18 , α2 = 16 0 Ip=2,k 0 =1

≤

Z

sup k0 ∈[0,2p−1]

λ

− 34

dt|t|

Γ0 1

dv1 Γ1

du

0

|v1 | 4

I

1

|u| 4

I

21

(1 + |u|) 1 6 3

|v2 | 4

I 5

dv2

1

(1 + |v1 |) 4 + 8

Γ2

5

9

(1 + |v2 |) 4 + 16



1

≤ K|λ| 4 .

(V-162)

The second case is p > 2, k 0 ∈ [2, p−1] and, taking α1 = β = β2 = 1, β1 = 0 Ip>2,k 0 ∈[2,p−1]

2pk0 −2k0 −p , 2kp−2k

Z ≤

λ

p+4k0 , 8p

α2 =

13p−8k0 −8 , 16p

we obtain 4p−5 − 4p−4

1

I

dt|t|

du

|u| 2p 1

17

(1 + |u|) 2p + 16 2p−k0 −1 p+2k0 I I |v1 | 4p |v2 | 2p dv dv1 2 k0 11 33p−8k0 −8 Γ1 (1 + |v1 |) 2p + 8 Γ2 (1 + |v2 |) 16p 0

Γ0

1

≤ K|λ|2− 4p−4 .

(V-163)

We can gather our results in the following lemma: Lemma V.2. For any  > 0, there exists η > 0 and a constant K > 0 such that any tree T with n vertices the amplitude AT (λ, N ) is analytic in λ in the 40

pacman domain P (, η ) and satisfies in that domain to the uniform bound in N 1 (2− 4p−4 )n

n

|AT (λ, N )| ≤ K |λ|

n Y

ri !

(V-164)

i=1

where ri ≥ 1 is the coordination of the tree T at vertex i. Proof. The proof follows directly from (V-144) and (V-161), (V-162), (V-163). Using again Cayley’s theorem, the number of labeled trees with coor. Decoration adds to the bound an dination ri on n vertices is Qn(n−2)! i=1 (ri −1)! P i Q inessential factor 22(n−1) . Furthermore ri ≤ 2 i r = 22(n−1) . Remembering the symmetry factor n!1 in (V-121), Theorem V.2 follows now easily from Lemma V.2. Remark that the right hand side in (V-164) is independent of N , so that our results hold uniformly in N . V.2.3

The trivial n = 1 tree

To bound the trivial tree amplitude AT∅ with a single vertex, Z −2 A T∅ = N dµ S(λ, H) Z Z λ I I I = 2 dµ dt du dv1 dv2 φH (t, u, v1 , v2 ) 0

·

h Tr

H v1 − H 2

Γ0

ih

Tr

Γ1

Γ2

1 , v2 − H 2 i

(V-165)

we integrate by parts using the factor H in the first trace and get Z Z λ I I I −3 AT∅ = 2N dµ dt du dv1 dv2 φH (t, u, v1 , v2 ) 0

·

h Tr

Γ0

Γ1

Γ2

i H 1 1 1 H Tr Tr + Tr . v1 − H 2 v1 − H 2 v2 − H 2 v1 − H 2 (v2 − H 2 )2

Therefore taking into account the N −3 factor and the fact we have at most three traces we get as in the complex case a bound independent of N . More-

41

over taking into account 1 k ≤ K(1 + |v|) , v − H2 1 1 1 kH k = k Hk ≤ K(1 + |v|) 2 , 2 2 v−H v−H k

(V-166) (V-167)

we conclude that Z Z |AT∅ | ≤ K dµ

I

I

du 1 1 3 (1 + |v |) 2 (1 + |v1 |) 2 0

·

λ

dv1

dt

Γ0

I

Γ1

dv2 φH (t, u, v1 , v2 ) Γ2

(V-168)

is bounded by the integral (V-145), considered above.

VI

Discussion and Conclusion

Pushing further the functional integration over the replica fields creates additional loops on the tree T . If the loop is planar, we get a factor of 1/N (new edge) and a factor of N (new face), so that the scaling is left unchanged. But if the loop adds a non planar edge (an edge that connects distinct faces), then the scaling is reduced by a factor 1/N 2 . In this way we can build a constructive version of the topological expansion up to any fixed genus g similar to the one of [11]. Also cumulants could presumably be studied exactly as in [11]. This is left to the reader in order to keep this paper more readable. It seems now clear that the full reparametrization invariance of Feynman’s functional integral has not been fully exploited yet. Of course applying the idea of the LVR to ordinary quantum field theory leads to non-local interactions. Nevertheless non-local interactions are nowadays more studied than in the past because of the quantum gravity problematic [30]. Time has perhaps come to look at them with a fresh eye. We intend in any case to explore the consequence of the very general idea of the LVR for tensor models [6] and for ordinary field theories in future publications.

42

A

Effective action via partial integration

We give now a second proof of Theorem II.1 for the case of square matrices performing the partial Gaussian integration. The partial integration can be implemented by employing the formula (III-48), representing integration as differentiation: 1 † † p−1 † Z = eTr[ N ∂M ∂M † ] eN Tr[−λ(M M ) M M ] = M † =0,M =0    1 1 p−1 eTr N ∂M ∂A e N Tr[∂M ∂B ] eN Tr[−λ(M A) M B] , (I-169) B=0

where, for instance, Tr[∂M ∂M † ] =

∂ ∂ a,b ∂M † ∂M † . ab ba

P

†

A=0,M =0

Renaming matrix A back

as M , we obtain Z Z=

dM exp{−N Tr[M M † ] + S(M )}

with the effective action given by  1 † p−1 S = log e N Tr[∂M ∂B ] eN Tr[−λ(M M ) M B]

(I-170)



.

(I-171)

B=0

Within the framework of the perturbation theory, the exponent of S can be transformed as 1 † p−1 eS = e N Tr[∂C ∂B ] eN Tr[−λ((M +C)M ) (M +C)B] B=0,C=0 Z † p−1 = dC dB e−N Tr[CB]+N Tr[−λ((M +C)M ) (M +C)B] . (I-172) Then, the matrix B can be interpreted as a Lagrange multiplier and Z S e = dC δ(C + λ((M + C)M † )p−1 (M + C)) Z δ(C + λ((M + C)M † )p−1 (M + C)) −1 = dC δ(C − C0 ) det δC p−1 X = exp{−Tr⊗ [log 1LR + λ [(C0 + M )M † ]k ⊗ [(C0 + M )M † ]p−1−k ]} , ⊗ k=0

(I-173) 43

where the cyclicity of the trace of the formal power series determined by the logarithm was taken into account to obtain corresponding ordering of matrices M † . The matrix C0 in (I-173) is a solution of the equation C0 + λ((M + C0 )M † )p−1 (M + C0 ) = 0

(I-174)

C0 = M M † Tp (−λ(M M † )p−1 )(M † )−1 − M ,

(I-175)

and it is given by

where Tp (z) is the generation function of the Fuss-Catalan numbers. Combining (I-175) and (I-173) we arrive at (II-25).

B

Integral representation of the Fuss-Catalan functions

The Fuss-Catalan numbers of order p − 1 (with p being the degree in the functional equation (II-8)), are defined by   1 (p − 1)n + n F Cp−1 (n) := . (II-176) n (p − 1)n + 1 For p = 2 these Fuss-Catalan numbers are the ordinary Catalan numbers. They can be represented as moments Z 1/Rp dx xn Pp−1 (x) (II-177) F Cp−1 (n) = 0

of the distribution Pp−1 (x) = M−1 [F Cp−1 (σ), x] ,

(II-178)

where M−1 is the inverse Mellin transform [33]. The direct Mellin transform of a function f (x) and its inverse are defined by Z ∞ ∗ f (σ) := M[f (x), σ] = dx xσ−1 f (x) (II-179) 0

and 1 f (x) := M [f (σ), x] = 2πi −1

∗

44

Z

c+i∞

c−i∞

dσ x−σ f ∗ (σ)

(II-180)

with complex σ. Again, according to [33], properties of the Mellin transform of a convolution lead to for x ∈]0, 1/Rp [ .

Pp−1 (x) > 0 ,

Then, the Fuss-Catalan generation function can be expressed as Z 1/Rp dx Pp−1 (x) . Tp (z) = 1 − zx 0

(II-181)

(II-182)

The formula (II-182) provides an analytic continuation for the Fuss-Catalan series to the cut plane Ccut p := C − [Rp , +∞]. In particular, it follows from (II-181) and (II-182) that Tp (z) > 0 for z < 0 .

(II-183)

The latter positivity property is crucial for proving the correctness of effective actions (II-12) and (V-109) (see Appendix C).

C

Non-perturbative correctness of effective actions

In this section we justify effective actions (II-12) and (V-109) beyond the formal power series level. Lemma C.1. Complex case. For all λ > 0 the transformation (II-13), (II-14) is bijective and corresponding Jacobian (II-16) is positive. Proof. The transformation (II-13), (II-14) can be written more explicitly as (here the left and right indices are omitted due to the convention after the formula (II-23)) M := P P † Tp (−λ(P P † )p−1 )(P † )−1 = A(P P † )(P † )−1 , M † := P † . (III-184) The inverse transformation to (III-184) is given by P = (M M † + λ(M M † )p )(M † )−1 , Consequently, (III-184) is a bijection. 45

P † = M† .

(III-185)

Choosing the basis, where X is diagonal, denoting the X eigenvalues by si , we rewrite (II-12) as S(X) = −

X

h

log 1 + λ

i,j

p−1 X

k

a (λ, si )a

p−1−k

i (λ, sj ) .

(III-186)

k=0

The eigenvalues si > 0, consequently, according to (II-183) ak (λ, si ) > 0 and for λ > 0 the function S(X) is real and the Jacobian (II-16) is positive. Lemma C.2. Hermitian case. For all λ > 0 the transformation H = p A(K 2 ) is bijective and corresponding Jacobian (V-107) is positive. p √ Proof. The inverse transformation to H = A(K 2 ) is given by K = H 2 + λH 2p , therefore it is bijective. All eigenvalues of H 2 are positive and in the corresponding eigen-basis the Jacobian (V-107) can be written as q q p−1 X si Tp (−λsi ) − sj Tp (−λsp−1 ) j JH = exp log √ √ si − sj i,j = exp

X

log

h si Tp (−λsp−1 ) − sj Tp (−λsp−1 ) i i

j

si − sj

i,j

√ √ i si + sj + log q . q p−1 si Tp (−λsp−1 ) + s T (−λs ) j p i j h

(III-187)

Using the functional equation (II-8), we rewrite the argument of the first logarithm as 

) − spj Tpp (−λsjp−1 ) −1 spi Tpp (−λsp−1 i

= si Tp (−λsip−1 ) − sj Tp (−λsjp−1 p−1  −1 X 1+λ ak (λ, si )ap−1−k (λ, sj ) > 0,

1+λ

(III-188)

k=0

where the positivity follows from λ > 0, si > 0 and ap−1−k (λ, sj ) > 0. The argument of the second logarithm in (III-187) is always positive due to the same reasons. Therefore, JH > 0. The two lemmas above validate the changes of variables leading to the effective actions (II-12) and (V-109) for λ > 0. Consequently, according to 46

uniqueness of analytic continuation, the actions (II-12) and (V-109) define the same non-perturbative partition function and free energy than the initial actions (II-2)(II-4) and (V-104)-(V-105). But using the LVR we can prove its analyticity in λ in the N -independent “pacman domain” (I-1), something which was not known using the initial representation. Remember that in [23] Borel Le-Roy summability (of order p − 1) of the free energy was established for the complex matrix case, but in a domain which shrinked as N → ∞. Our main theorem now establishes analyticity of the same non-perturbative free energy function, but in a domain which no longer shrinks as N → ∞.

47

D

Relationship with Perturbation Theory

Compared to the quartic LVE case [4], it is a bit more difficult to describe the subset of (pieces of) Feynman graphs that the LVR developed in this paper associates to a given LVE tree. The resolvent R in (II-33) is very simple but the link to Feynman graphs is somewhat hidden in the complicated φ and ψ functions of (II-37). In this last Appendix we explain this relationship in an informal way. The goal is not to write more equations but to give a good intuitive understanding. The best way for this is to return to the partial integration point of view of Appendix A. Let us explain first how to visualize the LVR vertices associated to a Feynman graph. Taking an ordinary connected Feynman graph, we draw, at every vertex of the graph, one selected half-edge (say corresponding to an M † variable) as a dotted half-line. The set of edges which are so dotted then defines a subset of connected components, each of which has a single loop. They are the LVR vertices associated to this graph (see Figure 7).

Figure 7: A Feynman graph of the Tr(M † M )3 theory. All five vertices are 6valent. One M † field per vertex leads to a dotted line (for better lisibility we showed as dotted the hooked point plus a large fraction of the propagator) defines in this case two connected components, namely two loop vertices, each of which has exactly one red loop.

48

Selecting a spanning tree between these vertices through the BKAR formula, is like dividing each Feynman graph built around these LVR vertices into as many pieces as there are of spanning trees between them. Each piece is then attributed to the corresponding LVE tree (see Figure 8).

Figure 8: Adding a tree line in boldface between the two loop vertices gives one of the Feynman graph contributions to the LVE tree made of two loop vertices joined by a single edge. Conversely if we start from a given LVE tree and want to picture the whole set of (pieces of) Feynman graphs that it sums, we have to return to (II-25) and introduce a symbol, such as a hatched ellipse, to picture the sum of all p-ary trees in the generating Ap function. A loop vertex of the theory can be then pictured as in Figure 9, where the cilium and each derived leaf bear a factor t, each edge bears a (tensor) resolvent R and each ordinary leaf bears a factor Ap . Similarly a LVE tree is obtained by gluing n such loop vertices through along n−1 pairs of glued t factors, see Figure 10. Beyond the tree, additional cycles between the loopR vertices R can of course exist but they are hidden in the functional integral dwF dµC(x) in (III-51).

49

Figure 9: A loop vertex of the theory, bearing 4 derivatives, hence four sources t. We chose p = 5, hence all vertices are 6-valent. Hatched ellipses represent Ap insertions, ribbon edges represent resolvents (there are five such resolvents in this graph) and squares represent derived leaves which can be of three different types M t, tM † or t1t. In the case pictured, we have three squares because two derivatives acted on the same M † factor.

Figure 10: A tree of the loop vertex expansion. It is made of six loop vertices, joined by four edges each bearing a square, which corresponds to the gluing of two t of the previous picture, and the attentive reader can find seven traces in the drawing. 50

References [1] V. Rivasseau, “Constructive Matrix Theory,” JHEP 0709 (2007) 008, arXiv:0706.1224 [hep-th]. [2] D. Brydges and T. Kennedy, Mayer expansions and the Hamilton-Jacobi equation, Journal of Statistical Physics, 48, 19 (1987). [3] A. Abdesselam and V. Rivasseau, “Trees, forests and jungles: A botanical garden for cluster expansions,” arXiv:hep-th/9409094. [4] V. Rivasseau and Z. Wang, “How to Resum Feynman Graphs,” Annales Henri Poincar´e 15, no. 11, 2069 (2014), arXiv:1304.5913 [math-ph]. [5] R. Gurau and J. P. Ryan, “Colored Tensor Models - a review,” SIGMA 8, 020 (2012), arXiv:1109.4812 [hep-th]. [6] R. Gurau, “Random Tensors”, Oxford University Press (2016). [7] G. ’t Hooft, “A PLANAR DIAGRAM THEORY FOR STRONG INTERACTIONS,” Nucl. Phys. B 72, 461 (1974). [8] R. Gurau, “The 1/N expansion of colored tensor models,” Annales Henri Poincar´e 12, 829 (2011), arXiv:1011.2726 [gr-qc]. [9] R. Gurau and V. Rivasseau, “The 1/N expansion of colored tensor models in arbitrary dimension,” Europhys. Lett. 95, 50004 (2011), arXiv:1101.4182 [gr-qc]. [10] R. Gurau, “The complete 1/N expansion of colored tensor models in arbitrary dimension,” Annales Henri Poincar´e 13, 399 (2012), arXiv:1102.5759 [gr-qc]. [11] R. Gurau and T. Krajewski, “Analyticity results for the cumulants in a random matrix model,” arXiv:1409.1705 [math-ph]. [12] R. Gurau, “The 1/N Expansion of Tensor Models Beyond Perturbation Theory,” Commun. Math. Phys. 330, 973 (2014), arXiv:1304.2666 [math-ph].

51

[13] T. Delepouve, R. Gurau and V. Rivasseau, “Universality and Borel Summability of Arbitrary Quartic Tensor Models,” arXiv:1403.0170 [hep-th]. [14] J. Magnen and V. Rivasseau, “Constructive φ4 field theory without tears,” Annales Henri Poincar´e 9 (2008) 403, arXiv:0706.2457 [mathph]. [15] R. Gurau and V. Rivasseau, “The Multiscale Loop Vertex Expansion,” Annales Henri Poincar´e 16, no. 8, 1869 (2015), arXiv:1312.7226 [mathph]. [16] T. Delepouve and V. Rivasseau, “Constructive Tensor Field Theory: The T34 Model,” arXiv:1412.5091 [math-ph]. [17] V. Lahoche, “Constructive Tensorial Group Field Theory II: The U (1)− T44 Model,” arXiv:1510.05051 [hep-th]. [18] V. Rivasseau and F. Vignes-Tourneret, “Constructive tensor field theory: The T44 model,” arXiv:1703.06510 [math-ph]. [19] V. Rivasseau, “Constructive Tensor Field Theory,” SIGMA 12, 085 (2016), arXiv:1603.07312 [math-ph]. [20] V. Rivasseau and Z. Wang, “Corrected loop vertex expansion for Φ42 theory,” J. Math. Phys. 56, no. 6, 062301 (2015), arXiv:1406.7428 [mathph]. [21] V. Rivasseau and Z. Wang, “Loop Vertex Expansion for Phi**2K Theory in Zero Dimension,” J. Math. Phys. 51, 092304 (2010), arXiv:1003.1037 [math-ph]. [22] L. Lionni and V. Rivasseau, “Note on the Intermediate Field Representation of φ2k Theory in Zero Dimension”, arXiv:1601.02805. [23] L. Lionni and V. Rivasseau, “Intermediate Field Representation for Positive Matrix and Tensor Interactions,” arXiv:1609.05018 [math-ph]. [24] V. Rivasseau, “Loop Vertex Expansion for Higher Order Interactions,” arXiv:1702.07602 [math-ph].

52

[25] G. Gallavotti, “Perturbation Theory”, In: Mathematical physics towards the XXI century, 275-294, R. Sen and A. Gersten, eds., Ber Sheva, Ben Gurion University Press, 1994. [26] A. Abdesselam, “The Jacobian conjecture as a problem of perturbative quantum field theory,” Annales Henri Poincar´e 4, 199 (2003), math/0208173 [math.CO]. [27] A. de Goursac, A. Sportiello and A. Tanasa, “The Jacobian Conjecture, a Reduction of the Degree to the Quadratic Case,” Annales Henri Poincar´e 17, no. 11, 3237 (2016), ,arXiv:1411.6558 [math.AG]. [28] A. Abdesselam, “Feynman diagrams in algebraic combinatorics”. Sm. Lothar. Combin. 49 (2002/04), Art. B49c, 45 pp, arXiv:math/0212121. [29] B. Eynard, T. Kimura and S. Ribault, arXiv:1510.04430 [math-ph].

“Random matrices,”

[30] V. Rivasseau, “Random Tensors and Quantum Gravity,” SIGMA 12, 069 (2016), ,arXiv:1603.07278 [math-ph]. [31] W. Mlotkowski and K. A. Penson, “Probability distributions with binomial moments”, in Infinite Dimensional Analysis, Quantum Probability and Related Topics, Vol. 17, No. 2 (2014) 1450014, World Scientific. [32] A. D. Sokal, “An Improvement Of Watson’s Theorem On Borel Summability,” J. Math. Phys. 21, 261 (1980). ˙ [33] Karol A. Penson and Karol Zyczkowski. Product of Ginibre matrices: Fuss-Catalan and Raney distributions. Phys. Rev. E, 83:061118, Jun 2011.

53