Arxiv:2010.04020V3 [Hep-Th] 24 Mar 2021 the Symmetry Group Corresponding to the Symmetry of the Lagrangian Is O(N),SO(N),SU(N) and So On

Home , Conformal bootstrap, Ising critical exponents

Derivative expansion for computing critical exponents of O(N) symmetric models at NNLO

Zoltán Péli∗ MTA-DE Particle Physics Research Group, H-4010 Debrecen, PO Box 105, Hungary (Dated: March 25, 2021) We apply the derivative expansion of the effective action in the exact renormalization group equation up to fourth order to the Z2 and O(N) symmetric scalar models in d = 3 Euclidean dimensions. We compute the critical exponents ν, η and ω using polynomial expansion in the field. We obtain our predictions for the exponents employing two regulators widely used in ERG computations. We apply Wynn’s epsilon algorithm to improve the predictions for the critical exponents, extrapolating beyond the next-to-next-to-leading order prediction of the derivative expansion.

I. INTRODUCTION convergent [10] at least for the Z2 and O(N) symmetric models. The corrections were shown to be dampened by In this work we compute the critical exponents ν, η and a factor of 1/4 ∼ 1/9, depending on the regulator function. The physical predictions depend on the regulator ω for the Z2 and O(N) symmetric scalar models in d = 3 Euclidean dimensions. We use the exact renormalization function at fixed order in the DE. This is similar to the group (ERG) equation for effective average action [1]. renormalization scale dependence in perturbative quan- The exact renormalization group (ERG) is a highly ver- tum field theory. satile method for tackling problems in statistical physics Here we compute the critical exponents at the next- and quantum field theory. Its modern formulation has to-next-to-leading order (NNLO) of the DE on the Z2 sprouted from Wilson’s approach to renormalization [2]. symmetric scalar model as a benchmark and then gen- There are a number of other ways in modern physics to eralize the computations to the O(N) symmetric mod- obtain critical exponents. Perhaps the first one to come els. Our results complement those of Ref. [11], where to mind is lattice simulation. The Monte-Carlo (MC) the authors employ the DE at NNLO as well, but there simulations provide one of the most precise determination are key differences: (i) we do not use truncation of mo- of the exponents for the Ising [3] and XY [4] universality menta in the derivation of our beta-functions, (ii) we em- classes. Generally, a larger lattice yields more precise pre- ploy Taylor expansion of the beta-functions in the field. dictions, but also increases the computational effort. The These beta-functions describe the scale dependence of most commonly applied method in quantum field theory different functions depending on the field. The Taylor is the loop-expansion, which requires a smallness of the expansion reduces these to the beta-functions for cou- couplings in the Lagrangian. In fixed d = 3 dimensions, pling strengths corresponding to different vertices of the the Ising exponents have been computed up to six-loop field. We compute the exponents with the exponential order [5] and the beta functions are determined at seven regulator, which is applicable at any order of the deriva- loops [6]. Wilson’s d = 4 − expansion has also been tive expansion and (iii) also with a Θ-type regulator [12], 6 applied up to [7]. Presently, the most precise compu- which is the simplest applicable regulator at NNLO. The tation for the Ising exponents comes from the conformal critical exponents of the Z2 symmetric model have al- bootstrap method (CB) [8] using conformal field theory. ready been computed in Ref. [13] using Taylor expansion This method also has a high computational cost, see Tab. in the field, although with a more severe truncation of II. of [9] for instance. The last highlight on this list is the Taylor series. the large-N expansion. It is applicable on theories, where By increasing the number of terms in the Taylor ex- arXiv:2010.04020v3 [hep-th] 24 Mar 2021 the symmetry group corresponding to the symmetry of the Lagrangian is O(N),SO(N),SU(N) and so on. pansion of the scale dependent functions, the values of The ERG is formulated in terms of functional equa- the critical exponents fluctuate and eventually stabilize tions, which are in general very hard to solve. In order around their limiting values. Reassuringly, similar be- to tackle this difficulty, a precise approximation scheme haviour has been observed in Ref. [13]. Interestingly, we has to be applied, which is most often the so called deriva- find that the exponents ν, η and ω of the O(N) symmetric tive expansion (DE). The DE consists of expanding the model are estimated remarkably well even at the zeroth action in terms of the gradient of the field. This approxi- order of the Taylor expansion in the field variable of the mation scheme contains no explicit small parameter, thus scale dependent functions corresponding to the NNLO of its convergence has been questioned. Recently however, the DE. Furthermore, this fluctuation of the exponents arguments have been put forward that the DE is indeed at the NNLO is much less pronounced in the O(N) symmetric case than in the Z2 symmetric one. This dampen- ing of the fluctuation is likely the result of having more scale dependent functions for the O(N) symmetric mod- ∗ [email protected] els than for the Z2 symmetric one. These scale dependent 2 functions have to interplay in such a way, that the pre- truncated order by order and at the same time increases dictions for the exponents are in good agreement with the number of terms in the truncated ansatz. One ex- other method’s predictions. This is true for at least large pects, that including higher orders in the derivative ex- values of N, where the higher order contributions from pansion improves the quality of the physical predictions. the DE are expected to be very small as the leading-order In fact, the convergence of this method has been demon- 3 of the DE becomes exact in the limit N → ∞ [14]. strated in Ref. [10] up to N LO for the Z2 universality We introduce the ERG briefly in Sec. II. The proce- class. dure we use to acquire the results is outlined in Sec. III. The dependence on the regulator is expected to vanish Our findings for the Z2 symmetric model are detailed in in the low-energy limit, k → 0. As we study the critical Sec. V, while those of the O(N) symmetric one can be theory, which is scale independent, we expect our phys- found in Sec. VI. ical predictions to be independent of the specific form of the regulator Rk. This is strictly true only if we do not truncate the functional space. The dependence of II. EXACT RENORMALIZATION GROUP the physical predictions and the magnitude of this spuri- ous dependence on the regulator is somewhat similar to The ERG uses functional integro-differential equations the renormalization scale dependence in the perturbative to describe the dependence of a theory on the variation of quantum field theory. the characteristic energy scale. These equations can be used to describe non-perturbative phenomena. A widely used form of the ERG is the Wetterich equation [1], which describes the scale dependence of the effective average action: III. DERIVING THE BETA-FUNCTIONS

1 The system is critical in the Wilson-Fisher fixed point, Γ˙ = STr R˙ (Γ(2) + R )−1 (1) k 2 k k k which is the non-trivial solution of the fixed-point equation of the β-functions. We need to obtain the β- where the dot is an abbreviation for the operation k∂k. functions and the Wilson-Fisher fixed point to com- The functional Γk is the Legendre transform of the gen- pute the critical exponents. The derivation of these β- erating functional of the connected Green functions plus functions is comprised of four steps for a given ansatz: (i) a scale-dependent mass term, called the regulator func- splitting the field to homogeneous and fluctuating pieces, (2) tion Rk, and Γk is the inverse propagator containing (ii) functional Taylor expansion of Eq. (1) in powers of the physical mass. All the different formulations of the the fluctuating field, (iii) expansion in the momenta cor- ERG equations require some sort of regularization. The responding to the fluctuating field, and finally (iv) clas- regulator vanishes in the low energy limit of the theory. sification and sorting of the different types of loop in- The super-trace contracts all momenta and group indices, tegrals, called threshold integrals. We automated these therefore this equation can be viewed as a one-loop ex- steps in a Mathematica code attached in a supplement. pression with an operator insertion (R˙ k) and no external legs. The functional Γk possesses the linear symmetries of the original Lagrangian if the regulator also does. In order to solve Eq. (1), one has to make an ansatz for Γk comprised of a finite number of functions, consistent A. Functional and momentum expansions with the symmetries of the original theory, and specify the regulator function. As an example, let us consider the ansatz for the Z2 A widely used approach in terms of the ansatz is the symmetric scalar model at the NLO of the DE: derivative expansion. In this method, the leading-order (or local potential approximation, LPA) only has a scale- Z Z dependent potential and a canonical kinetic term. An im- 1 2 Γk[φ] = Zk(ρx)(∂φx) + Uk(ρx), (2) portant feature of the exact renormalization group is that 2 x x even the irrelevant couplings acquire non-trivial scale dependence during the RG-flow. This observation leads where ρ = φ2 /2 ≡ φ(x)2/2, R ≡ R ddx (and simial- one to believe that the LPA prediction can be improved x x x R −d R d 2 by including couplings, corresponding to scale dependent rly p = (2π) d p, to be used later), and (∂f) ≡ µ functions, which multiply all operators but the unit op- (∂µf)(∂ f) for any f. The flow for Uk is obtained by erator. Consequently, the next-to-leading order (NLO) setting the field φ to be homogeneous φx = Φ (meaning introduces scale dependent functions multiplying every ∂Φ = 0) and solving Eq (1). In order to find Z˙k(ρ ≡ independent operator with two derivatives. Similarly, at Φ2/2) however, we expand Eq. (1) in terms a fluctuating the NNLO operators with four derivatives appear. This field ηx around a constant background φx = Φ + ηx and 2 expansion makes the functional space of Γk less and less collect the terms proportional to O(η ). In momentum 3 space, this is given by that the scale dependent functions can be acquired by Z any permutation of the momentum indices Qi in the dif- ˙ 2 ˙ 0 ˙ 00 ferentiation. Zk(ρ)Q + Uk(ρ) + 2ρUk (ρ) ηQη−Q = Q The O(N) symmetric models introduce an additional Z index on the field corresponding to the symmetry group ˙ 2 2 (3) 2 (3) 2 = Rk(p )G(p )(ηΓ )p,−rG(r )(ηΓ )r,−pG(p ) and can be generalized from the Z symmetric models p,r 2 Z in a straightforward way. The complete ansatz used in 1 2 2 (4) 2 − R˙ k(p )G(p )(ηΓ η)p,−pG(p ), this work is given in Eq. (23). A slightly different, but 2 p equivalent ansatz is used in Ref. [11]. (3)

2 (2) with G(p ) being the regularized propagator ((Γk + B. Threshold integrals −1 Rk) ), r = p ± Q , and R (3) After sorting the different types of integrals that (3) δ Γ p (ηΓ )p,q = η−p−q , ˙ δφpδφqδφ−p−q appear in the formula of a general Fk in the Z2 symmetric φx=Φ (4) model at NNLO, one finds three such types: Z (4) (4) δ Γ (ηΓ η)p,q = ηQ η−Q. Z ˙ 2 δφ δφ δφ δφ d+a a Rk(p ) Q p q Q −Q φx=Φ Lm = p 2 m , (9) p G(p ) Generally, in order to find F˙ , where F multiplies an op- Z R˙ (p2) erator with n derivatives one has to collect terms propor- d+a,β a β 2 b k Mm,b = p (∂p2 G(p )) 2 m , (10) tional to O(ηn). We denote the momentum of the fluctu- p G(p ) ating field η with Q for transparency. In case, there are Z ˙ 2 d+a,β,γ a β 2 b γ 2 c Rk(p ) multiple η fields in the same expression their momenta Nm,b,c = p (∂p2 G(p )) (∂p2 G(p )) 2 m (11) p G(p ) are denoted with Q1, Q2 and so on. The left hand side of Eq. (3) shows, that in order to where m, b, c, β and γ are positive integers and a is a non- 2 obtain Z˙k(ρ), we have to expand the right hand side in negative one. We have also introduced G(p ) as the reg- 2 (2) Qµ up to Q and finally, identify the terms proportional ularized inverse propagator ((Γ +Rk)). As we consider 2 k to Q as the beta function of Zk(ρ). The computations the NNLO of the DE, derivatives of the inverse propaga- become naturally more complicated at NNLO, since then tor appear up to the fourth derivative. This yields the there are multiple momenta Qi. For the sake of concrete- constraint bβ + cγ ≤ 4 for the threshold integral param- ness, the complete ansatz for the Z2 symmetric scalar eters. model at the fourth order of the derivative expansion In the O(N) symmetric models two types of propaga- reads as tors appear: one massive and one corresponding to the Z Z N − 1 Goldstone modes. This proliferates the types of 1 2 Γk[φ] = Zk(ρx)(∂φx) + Uk(ρ) threshold integrals. 2 x x Z 1 2 + Wk(ρx)(∂µ∂ν φx) 2 x C. Regulator functions Z (5) 1 2 2 + Hk(ρx)φx(∂φx) (∂ φx) 2 x The regulator itself is a function of the loop momen- Z 2 1 4 tum squared p and the running scale k. It is usu- + Jk(ρx)(∂φx) 2 x ally expressed as the function of the dimensionless ratio y = p2/k2: This form has been studied in great detail without and 2 2 also with expansion in the fields [10, 13]. The scale de- Rk(p ) = Zkk y r(y), (12) pendent functions Wk, Hk and Jk are obtained from Γk via where the explicit form of the regulator is defined by the 2 function r(y), Z = 1 at LPA and Z ≡ Z (ρ = ρ∗) at ∂ k k k W (ρ) = lim Γ(2) , (6) higher orders of the DE with ρ∗ being a reference value, k 2 Q1,Q2 Q1→0 ∂Q1 detailed in Sect. III D. In general the form of the regulator 1 ∂ ∂ H (ρ) = − lim Γ(3) , (7) is very flexible, yet it has to obey some requirements [1]. k 2 2 Q1,Q2,Q3 2Φ Q1,Q2→0 ∂Q1 ∂Q2 In order to obtain numerical results, one has to specify 1 ∂ ∂ the regulator function. In this work we use two different J (ρ) = − lim Γ(4) (8), k 2 Q1,Q2,Q3,Q4 types. The Θ2-regulator introduced in Ref. [12] reads as 4 Q1,Q2,Q3→0 ∂Q1 ∂(Q2 · Q3) as the coefficients of the integrands in the integrals (1 − y)2 R Qn Pn rΘ(y) = α Θ(1 − y) (13) ηQ δ( Qi) for n = 2, 3 and 4. Note, Q1,...,Qn i=1 i i=1 y 4 where Θ(x) is the Heaviside step function. The regula- some are given as tor (13) is the simplest possible regulator which can be used in ∂4-order calculations. The caveat is that it is [φ] = (d − 2 + ηk)/2, [U] = d, (17) not applicable beyond ∂4-order due to the appearance of undefined Dirac-delta functionals (δ(0)) in the final equa- where ηk is the running anomalous dimension, which is tions. Generally, at ∂n-order the integral containing the defined by highest G-derivative is: ∗ ηk = −k ∂k ln Zk(ρ ). (18) Z Ωd R˙ k(y) M d,n = kd dy y−1+d/2(∂nG(y)) , (14) The running anomalous dimension becomes the critical m,1 (2π)d y G(y)m exponent η in the fixed point. The Euclidean dimen- where we have changed to the variable y = p2/k2. For sion d is a continuous parameter in the beta functions of the regulator (13) and n = 4 this integral takes the form the dimensionless couplings. We set its value to d = 3 throughout this work. The beta functions for the dimen- Ω d,4 2 d 2 d+2 sionless scale dependent functions are partial differential Mm,1 = −4α d (Zk k )× (2π) equations with the scale k and the dimensionless field Z y−1+d/2(y2 − 1)Θ(1 − y) ρ˜ (we denote the dimensionless quantities with tilde) as × dy δ0(1 − y) (15) G(y)m independent variables. One strategy to solve these equations is to Taylor expand the dimensionless scale depen- 2 2 d+2 Ωd 1 ≡ 4α (Zk k ) d m . dent functions in power of the dimensionless field around (2π) G(1) a reference point ρ∗ This integral is ambiguous in the sense, that the result is MF ˜ obtained by integration by parts and then defining Θ(0) X fn(k) F˜ (ρ˜) = (˜ρ − ρ∗)n. (19) to be 1/2. This ambiguity is lifted, when one considers k n! (13) as the limit of a C∞-type regulator function, such n=0 as (A1). The process to do so is detailed in App. A. The This reduces the coupled set of partial differential equa- 3 2 integrals, which contain ∂y Gk(y) = −2α(Zkk )δ(1 − y) tions to a coupled set of ordinary differential equations. vanish, because the distributional product xδ(x) is zero This course of action has been taken for example in ˙ and every integral contains (1 − y) through Rk(y). Refs. [13, 16]. There are two well known choices for ρ∗. The second regulator we use here is called the expo- It can either be zero (ρ∗ = 0) or the running minimum ∗ nential regulator ρ = κk of the most basic scale dependent function, the ∗ e−y local potential Uk. Throughout this work we use ρ = κk, r (y) = α , (16) because it provides a faster convergence of the physical exp y results with increasing MF than expanding around the which is a C∞ function and has the advantage over the vanishing field [17, 18]. We denote the highest power in regulator containing the Θ-function that it can be used the Taylor series of a general scale dependent function Fk at any orders of the derivative expansion. Both rΘ and with MF , if the subscript contains multiple capital Latin rexp remain unchanged in the Z2 and O(N) symmetric letters such as MWHJ , it means that the scale depen- scalar models. dent functions Wk, Hk and Jk are truncated at identical We vary the value of α and compute its effect on the powers MW = MH = MJ ≡ MWHJ . critical exponents. We consider the extrema of these The Wilson-Fisher fixed point is the nontrivial fixed functions as the optimal values in our final predictions. point solution of the beta functions. Once it is lo- This is the implementation of the the principle of mini- cated, the critical value of the anomalous dimension η mal sensitivity (PMS) [15, 16]. In practice, we locate the is determined. The critical exponent of the correlation Wilson-Fisher fixed point for a fixed regulator for sev- length ν and its subleading scaling corrections ω, ωi are eral values of α, which simultaneously yields η(α) as the obtained by linearizing the RG-flow in the vicinity of anomalous dimension is just a function of the couplings the fixed point. The eigenvalues of the Jacobian main the model. In each case we applied the PMS η(α) trix Jij = ∂βg˜i /∂g˜j, withg ˜i being a general dimen- is either an upside or downside facing paraboloid. The sionless coupling from the model, at the fixed point are opt −1 optimal value of η is the minimum/maximum of this −ν < ω < ω1 < . . . in increasing order. paraboloid at αopt and we accept ν(αopt) and ω(αopt) as The polynomial expansion gives very good predictions νopt and ωopt. In this sense, we only apply the PMS on at d = 3 as demonstrated in Ref. [13]. However, this the anomalous dimension. might not be the case for d < 3. As d is lowered, new 2n couplings gn corresponding to the vertex φ become marginal ([gn] = 0) at n = d/(d−2). If gn+1 is marginal, D. Polynomial expansion and exponents then gn is relevant. At d = 4 only the mass squared is a relevant coupling ([g1] > 0) and the quartic interaction is In order to compute the critical exponents one has marginal ([g2] = 0). At d = 3 there are two relevant cou- to use dimensionless quantities. The mass dimension of plings ([g1] > 0 and [g2] > 0) and thus a nontrivial fixed 5 point, the Wilson-Fisher fixed point appears. At d = 8/3 reliable predictions, we use the well-grounded error esti- the coupling g3 also becomes relevant and introduces a mate for the DE proposed in Ref. [11] detailed in App. B. new nontrivial fixed point besides the Wilson-Fisher one. This makes finding the Wilson-Fisher fixed point much more difficult. In particular, in Ref. [19] it has been found V. PREDICTIONS FOR THE Z2 SYMMETRIC that the Euclidean action is not bounded from below in SCALAR MODEL the fixed point, which sets a bound on the applicability of the polynomial expansion. We derived the beta functions for the dimensionless scale dependent functions (Uk,Zk,Wk,Hk,Jk) in the ansatz (5) using a Mathematica code. We verified the IV. WYNN’S EPSILON ALGORITHM 2 correctness of U˙ k and Z˙k (at ∂ -order) to be the same as in the literature [16, 22]. We expanded these functions In many instances, the prediction of an exponent X at in the powers of the field yielding the beta functions for successive orders of the DE, XLP A, XNLO, XNNLO and ˜ the dimensionless couplings fn(k) in Eq.(19). We have so on, form a convergent series alternating around the calculated the effect of increasing MF on the exponents. exact value X. This has been discussed in great detail in We start with the LPA, where the only scale dependent Ref. [10]. In Ref. [11] the authors use the small parameter function is Uk and locate the Wilson-Fisher fixed point 1/4 − 1/9 of the DE to improve their predictions on the with truncation threshold MU = 4. In the next step, critical exponents of the O(N) symmetric scalar models we locate the fixed point for MU = 5 using the previous at NNLO of the DE. fixed point solution withu ˜5 = 1 as initial value. After One may also turn to a similar, yet different approach this, we move on to MU = 6 using the previous fixed to improve exponent predictions in the derivative expan- point solution withu ˜6 = 1 as initial value. In this iter- sion. Several series acceleration methods exist and are ative manner, we find the Wilson-Fisher fixed point for used successfully to accurately compute the limit of a up to MU = 8. At the NLO, we have an additional scale slowly converging sequence. One of the most robust of dependent function Zk and nonzero anomalous dimen- these algorithms is Wynn’s epsilon algorithm [20, 21]. It sion. We start with locating the fixed point at MU = 8 is already applicable if one only has the first three el- and MZ = 0, but including the effect of anomalous di- ements a1, a2, a3 of a sequence (an). In that case, the mension and simply use the LPA values for MU = 8 as third element is improved as initial value. Next, we apply to MZ the iterative pro- 2 cedure used to find the fixed point for MU = 8 at the 1 −a2 + a1a3 a˜3 = a2 + 1 1 = . (20) LPA. We find the Wilson-Fisher fixed point for up to − + a1 − 2a2 + a3 −a1+a2 −a2+a3 MU = 8 and MZ = 8. At NNLO, we have three scale dependent functions W , H and J . We start looking Given the critical exponent X, this means, that the im- k k k for the Wilson-Fisher fixed point at M = M = 8 with proved prediction of the DE is U Z MW = MH = MJ = 0, and setting the initial values to 2 bew ˜ = h˜ = ˜j = 1 for the new couplings. Finally, −X + XLP AXNNLO 0 0 0 X˜ = NLO . (21) we also apply here the previously described iterative al- XLP A − 2XNLO + XNNLO gorithm but we increase simultaneously MW , MH and The formula is even simpler for the anomalous dimension MJ and denote this value with MWHJ . The upper limit as the LPA prediction for it is zero. We employ Wynn’s where we have located the Wilson-Fisher fixed point is algorithm when it works the best, i.e. with alternating MWHJ = 7. sequences. The ERG predictions for the O(N) critical We have computed the fixed points with the two reg- exponents at different orders of the DE show that while ulators discussed in Sect, III. Using (13) with α = 1/2 the predictions for ν and η do show an alternating be- reduces the integrals (9) to linear combinations of the havior, this is not always the case for ω. Among the 2F1 hypergeometric function, which greatly increases the exponents we have computed this is the case for ω corre- speed of computations compared to (16) with any value sponding to the O(2),O(3) and O(4) symmetric models. of α. In those instances we did not apply Wynn’s algorithm, The effect of the gradual inclusion of the new couplings and only cited our NNLO predictions as our final value can be seen on the left column of Fig. 1., which agrees for ω for the O(2),O(3) and O(4) symmetric models. with [13]. The most important conclusion is that while We use this method to accurately extrapolate to higher at ∂2-order the contributions of the Taylor expansion in orders of the DE and thus obtain more precise predic- field variable become small for MZ > 4 this threshold 4 tions, since the functional space of Γk is less truncated power value at ∂ -order is somewhat larger, MWHJ = 6. at higher orders of the DE. An other systematic source The magnitude of these contributions start to decrease of error is that of the DE itself. If one insists on using monotonically for MZ > 3 at NLO and MWHJ > 4 at Wynn’s epsilon algorithm, then it is necessary to com- NNLO. Next, we apply the principle of minimal sensi- 3 pute the N LO prediction of the DE in order to give a tivity to MWHJ ≥ 4, which corresponds to the last four conservative estimate on this error. In order to still give data points in each row of Fig. 1. We have found that 6

0.90 nating series. In the asymptotic regime however, shown 0.88 with the PMS optimized exponent on Fig. 2, these cor- 0.86 rections alternate around their limiting value with peri- odicity of at least two. For instance, we expect that the

ω 0.84 opt correction from MWHJ = 8 increase the value of ν 0.82 compared to MWHJ = 7 and the higher corrections to 0.80 have smaller eﬀect than this. The model function (22) 0.78 takes this into account correctly. 0.66

0.64 0.86 ν 0.62 0.84 0.60 opt ω 0.82 0.58 0.80 0.05 0.650 0.04 0.645 η 0.03 0.640 opt 0.02 ν 0.635 0.630 0.01 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0.625

MZ MWHJ 0.038

FIG. 1. The eﬀect of the polynomial truncation in the Z2 0.036 symmetric scalar model at NLO (left) and NNLO (right) on 0.034 the critical exponents ν, η and ω at MU = 8. The continuous opt η 0.032 line with disks corresponds to the regulator rΘ with α = 1/2, the dashed line with squares to the regulator rexp with α = 0.030 1. The CB values are shown for reference with the dotted 0.028 horizontal line. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

MWHJ the optimal values αopt for the regulators (13) and (16) exhibit only small fluctuations around αopt = 0.35 and FIG. 2. A decaying function fit on the PMS optimized 0.8 for MWHJ = 0, .., 7. The only instance we have not values of the exponents of the Z2 symmetric scalar model at truncation M = 4 and above. The disks correspond found a PMS solution is for the truncation MWHJ = 0. WHJ The explicit values for the optimal parameter value αopt to the values obtained with rΘ, the squares to the values corresponding to M = 7 are found to be αopt = 0.30 obtained with rexp. The dashed horizontal line shows the CB WHJ values. for the regulator (13) and αopt = 0.76 for (16). Once we acquire the optimized results in this asymptotic regime, Every beta function contains terms proportional to η where each successive contribution from the Taylor ex- ˙ pansion is smaller than the previous one, we fit a decay- through Rk. Considering only the exponents ν and η, ˜˙ ing and alternating function to these data points in an the inclusion of these terms in Uk gives a 1% and 5% ˙ attempt to capture the behavior of the Taylor series and correction, while in Z˜k they give 0.1% and 0.5% cor- resum the corrections from the Taylor expansion. The rection compared to not including those. We have also model function in every instance is ˙ ˙ ˙ inspected the inclusion of these terms into W˜ k, H˜k and J˜k X(M) = a + b e−c M sin(d M + e), (22) for the truncation MU = 8 and MZ = 8 with MWHJ ≤ 4 and found that this characteristically gives a 0.02% and with the independent variable being M the degree of 0.008% correction to the exponents. We have neglected ˙ ˙ ˙ polynomial truncation and the fitted parameters are this correction in W˜ k, H˜k and J˜k for MWHJ ≥ 5 and con- a, b, d, e and c > 0. This step is shown in Fig. 2. We sidered it as one source of uncertainty. The other source consider our findings to be the MWHJ → ∞ limit of comes from the truncation of U˜k and Z˜k. As a double these fitted functions, that is we identify the exponent check, we have computed the fixed point for truncation as X(M → ∞) = a from the model function (22). We MU = 9, MZ = 8 and MU = 9, MZ = 9 at NLO. We do not apply Wynn’s epsilon algorithm here, because the have found that the inclusion of the couplingu ˜9 has neg- corrections from increasing MWHJ is not a simple alter- ligible effect compared to the inclusion ofz ˜9. Our final 7 predictions for the critical exponents of the Z2 symmet- tion. We have suppressed the field dependence of the ric model are shown in Tab. I. The method to obtain scale dependent functions in (23) to be more transpar- the predictions and their corresponding uncertainty are ent. Due to the appearance of the Goldstone modes in detailed in App. B. addition to the one massive mode in the Z2 symmetric model, we have two anomalous dimensions corresponding Method ν η ω to these modes:

LPA 0.6504(7) 0 0.654(1) ∗ NLO 0.629(5) 0.042(11) 0.84(4) η = −k ∂k ln Zk(ρ ) (24) NNLO 0.6302(4) 0.0347(30) 0.820(10) ∗ ∗ ∗ ˜ ∗ improved 0.6301(4) 0.0358(30) 0.822(10) η˜ = −k ∂k ln Zk(ρ ) + ρ Yk(ρ ) ≡ −k ∂k ln Zk(ρ ) 4 ∂ , field exp. 0.632 0.033 (25) ∂6, no field exp. 0.63012(16) 0.0362(12) 0.832(14) MC 0.63002(10) 0.03627(10) 0.832(6) These anomalous dimensions are equal in the critical six-loop PT 0.6304(13) 0.0335(25) 0.799(11) point. In our numerical check, we use this fact to en- 6 , epsilon exp. 0.6292(5) 0.0362(6) 0.820(7) sure the correctness of our equations. Besides the field, CB 0.629971(4) 0.0362978(20) 0.82968(23) the regulator function also receives O(N) indices. We choose TABLE I. Our findings for the exponents of the Z2 symmetric scalar model in d = 3 Euclidean dimensions (top four rows) ab ab ∗ 2 Rk (y) = δ Zk(ρ )k y r(y) (26) for different orders of the DE and the improved, final prediction. The uncertainties are the sum of the uncertainties from where δab is the Kronecker-delta matrix, such that the the polynomial expansion and the regulator dependence. We regulator mass matrix is already diagonalized in the 4 compared these to some other methods: DE at NNLO (∂ ) O(N) space. In order to facilitate the bookkeeping with field expansion [13], at N3LO (∂6) without field expan- ab of the O(N) indices, we introduce projectors PA with sion [11], MC [3], six-loop perturbation theory at fixed d = 3 (A =k, ⊥) to the radial (P ab = eaeb) and perpendicular [5], d = 4 − expansion at 6 [7] and the CB method [8]. k ab ab a b (Goldstone) (P⊥ = δ − e e ) directions in the O(N) space, with ea being the unit vector. The scale dependent functions Yk, Wi,k, Hi,k and Ji,k are obtained by VI. NNLO FOR THE O(N) SYMMETRIC the same momentum derivatives (Eq. (6)) as Zk, Wk, Hk SCALAR MODELS and Jk in the Z2 symmetric model as coefficients of the R Qn Ai Pn integrands in η δ( Qi). The capital Q1,...,Qn i=1 Qi i=1

A. Modifications compared to the Z2 symmetric Latin letters correspond to either k or (⊥, a). Using the case projectors defined above one has P abηa = ηk and P abηa = η⊥,a. (27) There are more scale dependent functions in the O(N) k x x ⊥ x x symmetric scalar model beyond the LPA than in the Z2 In this method, every O(N) index is contracted in the symmetric one, due to an additional group index. At final result, so that η⊥,a may occur only in pairs, such as NLO, there are two instead of the one Z , but at NNLO Q k η⊥,aη⊥,a. For instance, the left-hand side the Wetterich the number of independent scale dependent functions in- Q −Q equation for O(η2) Eq. (3) modifies to crease to ten, compared to the three Wk,Hk and Jk. The 4 complete ∂ -order ansatz is Z η⊥,aη⊥,a Z˙ Q2 + W˙ Q4 + U˙ 0 Z 1 1 Q −Q k 1,k Γ [φ~] = U + Z (∂φa)2 + Y (∂ρ )2 Q k k 2 k x 4 k x Z x k k ˙ ˙ 2 ˙ ˙ 4 1 1 + ηQη−Q (Zk + Yk)Q + (W1,k + W2,k)Q (28) a 2 a a 2 Q + W1,k(∂µ∂ν φx) + W2,k(φx∂µ∂ν φx) 2 4 1 + U˙ 0 + 2ρU˙ 00 + H (∂φa)2(φb ∂2φb ) + H (∂ ρ )(∂µφb )(∂2φb ) 2 1,k x x x 2,k µ x x x 1 2 a 2 a 1 4 with the ansatz in Eq. (23). + H3,k(∂ρx) (φx∂ φx) + J5,k(∂ρx) 4 8 We have followed the same steps of numerical anal- 1 1 a 2 b 2 a a µ b ν b ysis as we did for the Z2 symmetric model. The sys- + J1,k(∂φx) (∂φx) + J2,k(∂µφx)(∂ν φx)(∂ φx)(∂ φx) 2 2 tem of β-functions are generated by a Mathematica code, 1 1 which are then verified to reproduce the ∂2-order results + J (∂ρ )2(∂φa)2 + J (∂ ρ )(∂ ρ )(∂µφb )(∂ν φb ) . 4 3,k x x 4 4,k µ x ν x x x [23]. We applied the same iterative algorithm to find the (23) Wilson-Fisher fixed point for high values of truncation M as for the Z2 symmetric model. At the LPA, we have ~ a a where φ is the N component scalar field and ρx = φxφx/2 computed the exponents for up to MU = 8. In the NLO is the invariant under the O(N) symmetry transforma- we have increased simultaneously the truncation MZ of 8

0.96 0.92 0.94 0.90 0.92 0.88 ω ω 0.90 0.86 0.88 0.84 0.86 0.82 0.589 0.635 0.588 0.630 0.587 ν ν 0.625 0.586 0.585 0.620

0.050 0.055 0.045 0.050 0.045 η 0.040 η 0.035 0.040 0.030 0.035 0.025 0.030 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4

MZY MWHJ MZY MWHJ

FIG. 3. The dependence of the critical exponents ν, η and ω FIG. 4. The dependence of the critical exponents ν, η and ω on the order of polynomial truncation for the O(0) symmetric on the order of polynomial truncation for the O(1) symmetric model at MU = 8. The vertical line separates our NLO re- model at MU = 8. The vertical line separates our NLO results (left) from the NNLO ones (right). The dotted horizon- sults (left) from the NNLO ones (right). The dotted horizontal line shows the corresponding MC result. The continuous tal line shows the corresponding CB result. The continuous curve with disk markers belongs to the Θ-type regulator (13) curve with disk markers belongs to the Θ-type regulator (13) with α = 1/2, while the dashed curve with rectangle markers with α = 1/2, while the dashed curve with rectangle markers belong to the exponential-type regulator (16) with α = 1. At belong to the exponential-type regulator (16) with α = 1. the points, where ω is not shown, it is a complex number.

reduces a large number of the threshold integrals to 2F1- Zk and MY of Yk for up to MZ = MY = 5 and denote this type hypergeometric functions. This yields a significant with MZY . At NNLO, we have ten scale dependent func- speed boost in the computations compared to (16) with tions. In order to make it easier to find the Wilson-Fisher any value of α. fixed point, we further divide the iterative algorithm to three parts. First, we locate the fixed point for the trun- The effect of the gradual inclusion of the new couplings cation M = 8, M = 5, M = M = 0 with the ini- for the O(N) symmetric scalar model is shown in Figs. 3 - U ZY W1 W2 7 for N = 0 − 4. We have also computed the exponents tial valuesw ˜1,0 =w ˜2,0 = 1. In the next step, we use this ˜ ˜ ˜ for the N = 10 and N = 100 cases but omitted to show fixed point as initial value with h1,0 = h2,0 = h3,0 = 1 their field dependence, as it is very small. The leading for the truncation M = 8, M = 5, M = M = 0 U ZY W1 W2 order of the DE, the local potential approximation (LPA) and M = M = M = 0. In the last step we locate H1 H2 H3 is exact for O(N → ∞). The anomalous dimension de- the fixed point with M = 0 (i = 1, .., 5) also included. Ji creases monotonically at large N values with increasing We denote this truncation with MWHJ = 0 when all N and vanishes completely in the limit N → ∞. This the NNLO level scale dependent functions are included means that the derivative expansion has to yield very with zeroth order truncation in their Taylor expansion. precise predictions for the exponents for large N values. We have computed the exponents for up to MU = 8, This is reflected in the fact, that the field dependence is MZY = 5 and MWHJ = 4. very small at N = 10 and at N = 100. We have chosen N = 10 and 100 as benchmark points to compare our predictions with those of the large-N expansion. We also B. Numerical findings show the field dependence of the O(1) symmetric model, which should give the critical exponents for Z2 universal- We have computed the critical exponents for the reg- ity class. This feature is nicely shown in Fig. 4. Going ulators (13) and (16). The former one with α = 1/2 back to the Figs. 3 - 7, we can clearly see, that the field 9 expansion is very stable at NNLO even when one consid- 0.82 ers the correction of MWHJ = 1 compared to MWHJ = 0. 0.80 Due to this smoothness of predictions from the field ex- 0.78 pansion at NNLO, we apply the principle of minimal sen-

ω 0.76 sitivity for MWHJ ≥ 0. In order to reduce the amount of computation, we have only looked for a PMS solu- 0.74 tion for the anomalous dimension and accepted the cor- 0.72 responding parameter value as the optimal αopt. We have 0.70 opt found that α depends weakly both on the truncation 0.675 MWHJ and on the O(N) model considered. We have 0.670 found at NNLO with truncation MWHJ = 4 for the reg- opt ulator (13) that α = 0.340(10) while for (16) we have ν 0.665 opt obtained α = 0.87(1). The uncertainty corresponds 0.660 to the dependence of αopt on the specific O(N) model considered. For instance, we obtained αopt = 0.337 for 0.655 the regulator (13) in case of the O(0) model with trunca- opt 0.055 tion MWHJ = 4 and α = 0.344 in case of the O(3) model in the same setting. We attempt to find the 0.050 limiting value of the optimized exponents correspond- 0.045 η ing to M = 0,..., 4 in the range N = 0 − 4 for WHJ 0.040 MWHJ → ∞ in the same fashion as we did for the Z2 symmetric model (see Fig. 2). We have also checked the 0.035 stability of the predictions from (22). We have computed 0.030 the extrapolated values of the critical exponents from 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 M M (22) by fitting those to the PMS optimized exponents cor- ZY WHJ responding to MWHJ = 0,..., 4 and MWHJ = 0,..., 3. In the latter case we also incorporated an assumption for FIG. 5. The dependence of the critical exponents ν, η and ω the fit. Namely, whether we expect (from the trend of on the order of polynomial truncation for the O(2) symmetric model at MU = 8. The vertical line separates our NLO re- the polynomial expansion) X(MWHJ = 4) to be greater sults (left) from the NNLO ones (right). The dotted horizon- or smaller than X(MWHJ = 3). As a result we obtained tal line shows the corresponding CB result. The continuous that the difference between the predictions obtained from curve with disk markers belongs to the Θ-type regulator (13) the fits are 2 − 3 times smaller than the difference be- with α = 1/2, while the dashed curve with rectangle markers tween the raw values corresponding to MWHJ = 4 and belong to the exponential-type regulator (16) with α = 1. MWHJ = 3. This is the method to obtain the uncer- (4) tainty ∆polyX detailed in App. B. As for N = 10 and N = 100 the fluctuation of the exponents is very VII. BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE O(N) small with varying MWHJ . In these instances we con- CRITICAL EXPONENTS FROM VARIOUS sider our final predictions corresponding to MWHJ = 3 METHODS and MWHJ = 2 respectively, with PMS optimization applied. The O(N) symmetric scalar model was first introduced as the n-vector model as a generalization of some physi- cally relevant models [37] in d Euclidean dimensions. The N = 0 case describes the self avoiding walk [38, 39]. It is also noteworthy, that the O(0) model probably does not have a Minkowskian counterpart, because in case the Eu- clidean dimension d and N are not positive integers the Considering the above discussed details, our predic- unitarity of the corresponding Minkowskian model is lost tions for O(N) critical exponents at fixed orders of the or at least highly nontrivial. At the level of the n-vector DE are summarized in Tab. II. Our findings at the level of model, O(1) model describes the Ising universality class. LPA correspond to the exponents computed at MU = 8 In the ERG however the Z2 and O(N) symmetric mod- with the method detailed at the end of Sec. III C. We els at N = 1 seem to be different because of the different opt obtain that the optimal value αLP A of the parameter α content of scale dependent functions and the appearance is 0.9 for (13) and 5 for (16) at LPA. Going further, our of an additional, massless excitation in the O(N) model. NLO findings are computed at MU = 8 and MZY = 5 The two models are equivalent however. The flow equa- opt with αNLO = 0.4 and 1.4 for (13) and (16) respectively. tions for the O(N) model in the limit of N → 1 are The results for the NNLO level results are discussed regular. Furthermore the contribution of the Goldstone above. The method we used to compute the central val- modes in the flow equations vanish for N = 1, and the ues and the uncertainties are detailed in App. B. extra flow equations decouple from those which have di- 10

N Order of DE ν η ω N Method ν η ω LPA 0.5924(3) 0 0.656(2) this work 0.5875(1) 0.031(3) 0.903(16) 0 NLO 0.588(1) 0.038(9) 0.95(8) ∂4, raw 0.5875 0.0292 0.901 NNLO 0.5876(1) 0.030(3) 0.894(16) ∂4, improved 0.5876(2) 0.0312(9) 0.901(24) LPA 0.6504(7) 0 0.654(1) 0 MC [24, 25] 0.58759700(40) 0.0310434(30) 0.899(14) 1 NLO 0.628(6) 0.045(11) 0.85(5) six-loop PT 0.5882(11) 0.0284(25) 0.812(16) 6 NNLO 0.630(1) 0.035(3) 0.829(6) , -exp. 0.5874(3) 0.0310(7) 0.841(13) CB [26] 0.5876(12) 0.0282(4) LPA 0.7098(10) 0 0.672(1) 2 NLO 0.667(10) 0.047(13) 0.79(3) this work 0.672(2) 0.038(3) 0.784(8) NNLO 0.673(2) 0.036(3) 0.784(8) ∂4, raw 0.6732 0.0350 0.793 4 LPA 0.7629(12) 0 0.702(1) ∂ , improved 0.6716(6) 0.0380(13) 0.791(8) 2 3 NLO 0.705(15) 0.047(13) 0.75(3) MC [4] 0.67169(7) 0.03810(8) 0.789(4) NNLO 0.713(3) 0.036(3) 0.765(3) six-loop PT 0.6703(15) 0.0354(25) 0.789(11) 6, -exp. 0.6690(10) 0.0380(6) 0.804(3) LPA 0.8060(12) 0 0.737(2) CB [27] 0.6718(1) 0.03818(4) 0.794(8) 4 NLO 0.741(20) 0.045(13) 0.73(3) NNLO 0.749(3) 0.034(3) 0.763(9) this work 0.712(3) 0.038(3) 0.765(3) ∂4, raw 0.7136 0.0347 0.773 LPA 0.9193(5) 0 0.874(2) ∂4, improved 0.7114(9) 0.0376(13) 0.769(11) 10 NLO 0.878(10) 0.027(7) 0.79(2) 3 MC [28, 29] 0.7116(10) 0.0378(3) 0.773 NNLO 0.877(1) 0.022(2) 0.810(7) six-loop PT 0.7073(35) 0.0355(25) 0.782(13) LPA 0.9925(1) 0 0.9881(2) 6, -exp. 0.7059(20) 0.0378(5) 0.795(7) 100 NLO 0.989(1) 0.0030(7) 0.978(3) CB [30, 31] 0.7120(23) 0.0385(13) 0.791(22) NNLO 0.9888(3) 0.00264(8) 0.9780(6) this work 0.748(3) 0.036(3) 0.763(9) ∂4, raw 0.7500 0.0332 0.765 TABLE II. The main findings of this work. Our predictions 4 for the critical exponents ν, η and ω at the LPA, NLO and ∂ , improved 0.7478(9) 0.0360(12) 0.761(12) 4 NNLO of the DE for the O(N) symmetric models in d = 3 Eu- MC [29, 32] 0.7477(8) 0.0360(4) 0.765 six-loop PT 0.741(6) 0.0350(45) 0.774(20) clidean dimensions. These values are the average of the PMS 6 optimized predictions, computed from the Θ-regulator (13) , -exp. 0.7397(35) 0.0366(4) 0.794(9) and the exponential regulator (16) and the deviation from the CB [31, 33] 0.7472(87) 0.0378(32) 0.817(30) average is one source of the uncertainties. The other source this work 0.877(1) 0.023(2) 0.805(7) ∂4, raw 0.8771 0.0218 0.808 of uncertainty correspond to the polynomial truncation of the 10 scale dependent functions. ∂4, improved 0.8776(10) 0.0231(6) 0.807(7) large-N 0.87(2) 0.023(2) 0.77(1) this work 0.9887(3) 0.00267(8) 0.9780(6) ∂4, raw 0.98877 0.00260 0.977 rect interpretation in terms of the Z2 symmetric model. 100 The O(2) model is more commonly known as the XY - ∂4, improved 0.9888(2) 0.00268(4) 0.9770(8) model, which is used to describe the phase transition in large-N 0.9890(2) 0.002681(1) 0.9782(2) the superfluid helium-4. The O(3) model is also known as the Heisenberg model for ferromagnetism. Lastly but TABLE III. Critical exponents of the O(N) symmetric scalar model in d = 3 Euclidean dimensions for several N values with not the least, the O(4) model can be considered as a toy different methods: our improved predictions using Wynn’s model for the standard model’s Higgs sector, but also epsilon algorithm, the DE at NNLO (∂4) without field ex- applicable to chiral phase transitions. pansion with raw (computed with the exponential regulator) Some of the most precise computations of the O(N) and improved values [11], Monte-Carlo simulations, six-loop critical exponents in d = 3 Euclidean dimensions are perturbation theory at fixed d = 3 [5], d = 4 − expansion summarized in Tab. III. Comparing these with our find- at 6 [7], the conformal bootstrap method and the large-N ings, ’this work’ entry in the same table, one can see expansion [34–36]. that the central values are in excellent agreement. The improved results of Ref. [11] take advantage of the convergence of the DE as well as the alternating behavior of the corrections from the successive orders of the DE. In dimensions. We have employed the exact renormalization group equation for the effective average action. We have contrast our improvement, the Wynn epsilon algorithm 4 detailed in Sec. IV, is a robust series acceleration method used the derivative expansion at NNLO (or ∂ -order) and applicable to any alternating sequence. calculated the β-functions for the scale dependent functions, shown in (5) for the Z2 and in (23) for the O(N) symmetric models. In order to locate the Wilson-Fisher fixed point which is the nontrivial fixed point solution of VIII. CONCLUSION the beta-functions, we have expanded the scale dependent functions in powers of the field. We interpret the We have computed the critical exponents for the Z2 scale dependent coefficients fn(k) from the Taylor ex- and O(N) symmetric scalar models in d = 3 Euclidean pansion as effective coupling strengths for the interaction 11

0.80 0.80

0.75 0.75 ω ω 0.70 0.70

0.65 0.65 0.73

0.72 0.76 0.75

ν 0.71 ν

0.70 0.74

0.69 0.73 0.055 0.055 0.050 0.050 0.045 0.045 η η 0.040 0.040 0.035 0.035 0.030 0.030 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4

MZY MWHJ MZY MWHJ

FIG. 6. The dependence of the critical exponents ν, η and ω FIG. 7. The dependence of the critical exponents ν, η and ω on the order of polynomial truncation for the O(3) symmetric on the order of polynomial truncation for the O(4) symmetric model at MU = 8. The vertical line separates our NLO re- model at MU = 8. The vertical line separates our NLO results sults (left) from the NNLO ones (right). The dotted horizon- (left) from the NNLO ones (right). The dotted horizontal line tal line shows the corresponding MC result. The continuous shows the MC bootstrap result. The continuous curve with curve with disk markers belongs to the Θ-type regulator (13) disk markers belongs to the Θ-type regulator (13) with α = with α = 1/2, while the dashed curve with rectangle markers 1/2, while the dashed curve with rectangle markers belong to belong to the exponential-type regulator (16) with α = 1. the exponential-type regulator (16) with α = 1.

vertices of the field they multiply. We have located the and O(N) symmetric models, the location of the Wilson- fixed point in the theory space spanned by the (canoni- Fisher fixed point roughly takes 1 − 2 hours, while com- cal mass) dimensionless couplings, with truncated Taylor puting the Jacobian matrix at the fixed point takes an series of the scale dependent functions. Our main find- additional hour on a single desktop PC. ings for the Z2 symmetric model shown in Tab. I are in In a recent paper [11] the authors have performed simi- agreement with predictions obtained using other meth- lar computations with the ERG. The differences are that ods. We have used the Z2 symmetric model as a test- (i) we have not truncated our formulas in the momenta ing ground for the correctness of our Mathematica code. (denoted here with Qi); (ii) we have employed Taylor ex- We then generalized this code for the O(N) symmetric pansion for the scale dependent functions in powers of model and computed the critical exponents for some rel- the field instead of shooting for a solution for the com- evant N values. We have tested the O(N) Mathematica plete scale dependent functions; (iii) we have computed code for the N = 1, 10 and 100 cases. The first bench- the exponents with the regulator (13), which is the sim- mark point N = 1 is chosen, because it should reproduce plest regulator at NNLO. Although this Θ-regulator is the Ising critical exponents as the O(1) and Z2 symmet- argued to perform poorly in [10], we have found that it ric models are equivalent as discussed in Sect. VII. We yields excellent predictions for the exponents in the mod- chose N = 10, 100 to be second and third benchmark els studied here. We also provide improved predictions points, because the effect of the derivative expansion is using Wynn’s espilon algorithm on our predictions of the diminished with N → ∞, hence it can give very accurate DE, yielding central values which are in excellent agree- results for large N values. Our main findings are summa- ment with other precise methods used to compute critical rized in Tab. II. A great advantage of the computations exponents. employed in this work is that they require noticeably less We also produces the subleading scaling corrections ωi computer time than most of the other methods. For our (from the eigenvalue spectrum −1/ν < ω < ω1 < ω2 < highest employed polynomial truncation both for the Z2 ... of the Jacobian of the beta-functions) as a byprod- 12 uct of computing the exponents ν and ω. The expansion N. of the scale dependent functions in powers of the field is also applicable to explore the phase structure of a model and the RG running of its couplings. The derivative ex- ACKNOWLEDGMENTS pansion can also be improved to N3LO (or ∂6-order) with some effort for the O(N) symmetric models, which would The author would like to thank Z. Trócsányi for the provide more precise exponent values for many cases of careful reading of the manuscript.

[1] C. Wetterich, Exact evolution equation for the effective (1998), https://academic.oup.com/ptp/article- potential, Physics Letters B 301, 90 (1993). pdf/99/3/451/5222556/99-3-451.pdf. [2] K. G. Wilson and J. Kogut, The renormalization group [18] D. F. Litim, Critical exponents from optimised renormal- and the expansion, Physics Reports 12, 75 (1974). isation group flows, Nuclear Physics B 631, 128 (2002). [3] M. Hasenbusch, Finite size scaling study of lattice models [19] Z. Peli, S. Nagy, and K. Sailer, Effect of the quartic in the three-dimensional ising universality class, Phys. gradient terms on the critical exponents of the Wilson- Rev. B 82, 174433 (2010). Fisher fixed point in O(N) models, Eur. Phys. J. A 54, [4] M. Hasenbusch, Monte carlo study of an improved clock 20 (2018), arXiv:1704.07087 [hep-th]. model in three dimensions, Phys. Rev. B 100, 224517 [20] P. Wynn, On a device for computing the em(sn) trans- (2019). formation, Mathematical Tables and Other Aids to Com- [5] R. Guida and J. Zinn-Justin, Critical exponents of theN- putation 10, 91 (1956). vector model, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and [21] P. Graves-Morris, D. Roberts, and A. Salam, The ep- General 31, 8103 (1998). silon algorithm and related topics, Journal of Computa- [6] O. Schnetz, Numbers and functions in quantum field the- tional and Applied Mathematics 122, 51 (2000), numer- ory, Phys. Rev. D 97, 085018 (2018). ical Analysis in the 20th Century Vol. II: Interpolation [7] M. V. Kompaniets and E. Panzer, Minimally subtracted and Extrapolation. six-loop renormalization of o(n)-symmetric φ4 theory and [22] N. Tetradis and C. Wetterich, Critical exponents from critical exponents, Phys. Rev. D 96, 036016 (2017). the effective average action, Nuclear Physics B 422, 541 [8] S. El-Showk, M. F. Paulos, D. Poland, S. Rychkov, (1994). D. Simmons-Duffin, and A. Vichi, Solving the 3d ising [23] G. v. Gersdorff and C. Wetterich, Nonperturbative renor- model with the conformal bootstrap, Phys. Rev. D 86, malization flow and essential scaling for the kosterlitz- 025022 (2012). thouless transition, Phys. Rev. B 64, 054513 (2001). [9] D. Simmons-Duffin, A semidefinite program solver for [24] N. Clisby and B. Dünweg, High-precision estimate of the the conformal bootstrap, Journal of High Energy Physics hydrodynamic radius for self-avoiding walks, Phys. Rev. 2015, 174 (2015). E 94, 052102 (2016). [10] I. Balog, H. Chaté, B. Delamotte, M. Marohnić,and [25] N. Clisby, Scale-free monte carlo method for calculating N. Wschebor, Convergence of nonperturbative approx- the critical exponent γ of self-avoiding walks, Journal imations to the renormalization group, Phys. Rev. Lett. of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 50, 264003 123, 240604 (2019). (2017). [11] G. De Polsi, I. Balog, M. Tissier, and N. Wschebor, Preci- [26] H. Shimada and S. Hikami, Fractal dimensions of self- sion calculation of critical exponents in the o(n) univer- avoiding walks and ising high-temperature graphs in 3d sality classes with the nonperturbative renormalization conformal bootstrap, Journal of Statistical Physics 165, group, Phys. Rev. E 101, 042113 (2020). 1006 (2016). [12] D. F. Litim, Optimized renormalization group flows, [27] S. M. Chester, W. Landry, J. Liu, D. Poland, Phys. Rev. D 64, 105007 (2001). D. Simmons-Duffin, N. Su, and A. Vichi, Carving out ope [13] L. Canet, B. Delamotte, D. Mouhanna, and J. Vidal, space and precise o(2) model critical exponents, Journal Nonperturbative renormalization group approach to the of High Energy Physics 2020, 142 (2020). ising model: A derivative expansion at order ∂4, Phys. [28] M. Hasenbusch and E. Vicari, Anisotropic perturba- Rev. B 68, 064421 (2003). tions in three-dimensional o(n)-symmetric vector models, [14] M. D’Attanasio and T. R. Morris, Large N and the Phys. Rev. B 84, 125136 (2011). renormalization group, Phys. Lett. B 409, 363 (1997), [29] M. Hasenbusch, Eliminating leading corrections to scal- arXiv:hep-th/9704094. ing in the three-dimensional o(n)-symmetric φ4 model: [15] P. M. Stevenson, Optimized perturbation theory, Phys. N= 3 and 4, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Rev. D 23, 2916 (1981). General 34, 8221 (2001). [16] L. Canet, B. Delamotte, D. Mouhanna, and J. Vidal, Op- [30] F. Kos, D. Poland, D. Simmons-Duffin, and A. Vichi, timization of the derivative expansion in the nonpertur- Precision islands in the ising and o(n ) models, Journal bative renormalization group, Phys. Rev. D 67, 065004 of High Energy Physics 2016, 36 (2016). (2003). [31] A. C. Echeverri, B. von Harling, and M. Serone, The ef- [17] K.-I. Aoki, K. Morikawa, W. Souma, J.-I. fective bootstrap, Journal of High Energy Physics 2016, Sumi, and H. Terao, Rapidly Converging Trun- 97 (2016). cation Scheme of the Exact Renormalization [32] Y. Deng, Bulk and surface phase transitions in the three- Group, Progress of Theoretical Physics 99, 451 dimensional o(4) spin model, Phys. Rev. E 73, 056116 13

(2006). where [33] F. Kos, D. Poland, D. Simmons-Duﬃn, and A. Vichi, Z ∞ −1+d/2 Bootstrapping the o(n) archipelago, Journal of High En- (1 + ) Iβ = d ergy Physics 2015, 106 (2015). 2 2 m −1 (ω + (1 + )Z + (1 + ) W + α 2β ) [34] Y. Okabe and M. Oku, 1/n Expansion Up to Or- 1+e ) der 1/n2. III: Critical Exponents γ and ν for × × I. d=3, Progress of Theoretical Physics 60, 1287 (A4) (1978), https://academic.oup.com/ptp/article- pdf/60/5/1287/5192266/60-5-1287.pdf. Here we organized all the derivatives of the regulator into [35] A. N. Vasil’ev, Y. M. Pis’mak, and Y. R. Khonkonen, the function I: 1/n expansion: Calculation of the exponent ν in the or- 3 e6β der 1/n by the conformal bootstrap method, Theoretical I = β2 β( + 1) sinh(β)+ and Mathematical Physics 50, 127 (1982). (1 + e2β)7 [36] D. J. Broadhurst, J. A. Gracey, and D. Kreimer, Beyond the triangle and uniqueness relations: non-zeta countert- + ((β + β − 1) − 2) cosh(β)) (3(sinh(β) erms at large n from positive knots, Zeitschrift f¨urPhysik (A5) C Particles and Fields 75, 559 (1997). + sinh(3β)) + β(β(sinh(3β) − 11 sinh(β)) [37] H. E. Stanley, Dependence of critical properties on di- mensionality of spins, Phys. Rev. Lett. 20, 589 (1968). + 12 cosh(β) − 4 cosh(3β)) . [38] P. de Gennes, Exponents for the excluded volume prob- lem as derived by the wilson method, Physics Letters A 38, 339 (1972). We have also written the inverse propagator G explicitly [39] G. Gaspari and J. Rudnick, n-vector model in the limit and ω, Z and W correspond to the scale dependent func- 00 n→0 and the statistics of linear polymer systems: A tions 2ρUk (ρ), Zk(ρ) and Wk(ρ). If one considers the ginzburg-landau theory, Phys. Rev. B 33, 3295 (1986). integral Iβ as the sum of three integration regions [40] This would be the case if we attempted to use (13) at N3LO of the DE. Z −a Z a Z ∞ + + (A6) −1 −a a with 0 < a 1, then in the limit β → ∞, the integrands Appendix A: The theta-regulator as a limit of a of the integrals over the regions [−1, −a] and [a, ∞) van- continuous regulator ish. Hence, in our computations we need the limit

∞ lim Iβ = lim Iβ(a) (A7) Regulators, which are not C functions are not appli- β→∞ β→∞ cable beyond a certain order in the DE. Some threshold integrals at the NNLO of the DE evaluated with (13) where are ambiguous, or even undeﬁned [40] when δ(0) appears Z a (1 + )−1+d/2 after performing the integration of the threshold func- Iβ(a) = d 2 2 m tions. The purpose of this appendix is to prove that the −a (ω + (1 + )Z + (1 + ) W + α 1+e2β) ) ambiguity of the threshold integrals is lifted when one × × I , ∞ considers (13) as the limit of a C -type regulator. We (A8) consider with a being a small positive integer, so we can expand (1 − y)2 1 the dimension dependent and inverse propagator part of rβ(y) = α , (A1) y 1 + e−2β(1−y) Iβ(a) in Taylor series. At leading order (LO), this Taylor expansion leads to with the property Z a LO 1 Iβ (a) = m d × I (ω + Z + W ) −a lim rβ(y) = rΘ(y). (A2) a (A9) β→∞ 1 Z ≡ m d × I, G(1) −a Actually, the only ambiguous integral with (13) is of type M d,4 . Thus we are going to compute this integral with This integral can be computed analytically and results in m,1 a very long combination of polynomials of β, and poly- (A1) and prove that in the β → ∞ limit we unambigu- logarithms, we do not show the explicit result here as it ously recover the result in Eq. (15). It is convenient to can be veriﬁed with the integrator of for introduce the integration variable = y − 1 and to com- Mathematica instance. Now, we are in the position to take the limit pute explicitly the derivatives of (A1), resulting in β → ∞ of the integral, which is independent of a, Ω 1 1 M d,4 = −128α2(Z2kd+2) d I (A3) ILO = − . (A10) m,1 k (2π)d β β→∞ 32 (ω + Z + W )m 14

d,3 One can of course take into account higher order terms As check, one can compute numerically the integral Mm,1 in the Taylor expansion of the dimension dependent and for arbitrary values of β using the regulator (A1) and inverse propagator part of (A8) so that the n-th order compare it to the analytical result in Eq. (A15). Us- term in this expansion will be proportional to ing the numerical integrations similar to those used for −5 Z a Fig. 8, we obtain −1.5100 × 10 from the direct numer- d1+n × I. (A11) ical integration and −1.5098 × 10−5 from the analytical −a d,2 result (A15) at β = 200. The integrands of Mm,1 and d,1 Such higher order terms vanish in the limit β → ∞, which Mm,1 using the regulator (A1) unambiguously reduce to we show here for the next-to-leading order (NLO) ap- those corresponding to the Θ-regulator (13) in the limit proximation – also independent of a – to (A8), β → ∞. This is also the case for the threshold integrals N d+a,β,γ , when β and γ are 1 or 2. If either β or γ is 3, 1 1 1 7π4 − 360 m,b,c NLO d,3 Iβ = − 1 + × 32 G(1)m β 1200 then the integral behaves as Mm,1, which we have already (A12) discussed. d 1 + 2W 1 × − 1 − m + O . 2 G(1) β3 As the ﬁnal result in the β → ∞ limit we obtain Appendix B: The error estimates and central values

d,4 Ωd 1 M = 4α2(Z2kd+2) , (A13) In this work we follow the instructions of Ref. [11] for m,1 k (2π)d G(1)m appropriate error bars. However, due to the polynomial which coincides with (15). We conclude that the regula- expansion an additional source of error appears. We sum- tor is unambiguous at the NNLO of the DE once consid- marize here the steps we take in this work to obtain the ered as the limit of a C∞ type regulator. A numerical final prediction for the exponent X and also to obtain its example is also shown in Fig. 8. We have claimed in the uncertainty. First, at a given order (∂s) of the DE we compute the PMS optimized value for various order M of the polynomial truncation of the scale dependent func- 0.024 tions (where M belongs to the least truncated case) for the regulators (13) and (16). This way we obtain the set 0.022 (s),opt (s),opt of raw data {XM,Θ ,XM,exp }. Let us now discuss the d ,4 m ,1 0.020 computation of the final values and the different sources

M of uncertainties considered in this work point by point. (s) 0.018 (i) One can choose for the final result X at a (s) (s) given order of the DE the central value X ≡ XM = 0.016 (s),opt (s),opt (XM,Θ +XM,exp )/2, which is indeed our choice at LPA 1 5 10 50 100 and NLO approximations. However we apply further im- β provement to the NNLO result. Namely, we first apply the ansatz (22) on the NNLO dataset to extrapolate to d,4 the exponents corresponding to MWHJ → ∞ and after FIG. 8. The threshold function Mm,1 evaluated by numerical integration of the integral (A4) (open circles) at different val- this step we compute the central value of the result from ues of β versus the analytical result (corresponding to β → ∞) the regulators. We consider the values obtained this way shown in Eq. (15) (straight line). We considered dimension- to be our NNLO prediction, with the polynomial trunca- less variables and set d = 3, α =ω ˜ = Z˜ = W˜ = 1 for the sake tion improvement. Furthermore, we extrapolate our pre- of example. dictions at NNLO employing Wynn’s epsilon algorithm whenever it is applicable, i.e. when the predictions at suc- main text, that with the regulator (13) cessive orders of the DE show an alternating behaviour. We cited those extrapolated predictions in Tab. III. d,3 Mm,1 = 0, (A14) (ii) One source of uncertainty originates from the (s) due to the properties of the Dirac delta. Here we show choice of regulators, which we denote by ∆regX corre- (s) that this integral with the regulator (A1) indeed vanishes sponding to the prediction X . We define it to be half in the limit β → ∞. Using an identical derivation as used (s) (s),opt (s),opt d,4 of the largest difference ∆regXM = |XM,Θ −XM,exp |/2 for Mm,1 above, it is straightforward to show that between the two predictions obtained with different regulators. Considering empirical data, such as in Ref. [11] we d,3 2 2 d+2 Ωd 1 Mm,1 = lim −α (Zk k ) see that the Θn-type regulator, with the smallest possible β→∞ (2π)d G(1)m (A15) n at the given order in the DE yields predictions closest to 7π4 − 360 1 the most precise ones, obtained from other methods. The × + O . 450β β3 exponential regulator (16) on the other hand seems to 15 produce predictions farthest from the most precise ones. dimensionless couplingsg ˜i. In order to find the nontrivial This is true at least up to NNLO, which supports our root of this system of equations we have used the Affine (s) Covariant Newton method with the iterative algorithm choice for ∆regX at least up to NNLO of the DE. (iii) Next, we compute the uncertainty of the DE ac- detailed in Sec. V. and VI B. In the rare case it did not cording to Ref. [11], exploiting the hidden small param- converge in 100 iterations we further applied the secant eter 1/4 − 1/9 of the DE. Calling this source of error method. This requires two initial values, to obtain those (s) (s) (s) (s−2) we simply multiply the output from the Affine Covariant ∆DEX , we have ∆DEX = |X − X |/4, where Newton method with 0.9 and 1.1. (s−2) X corresponds to the result from the previous order The numerical integration of the threshold integrals (∂s−2) of the DE. Of course, this implies that we are un- L, M and N (from Sec. III B) are computed with the able to estimate the error from the DE at the LPA this optimized NIntegrate command of Mathematica, which way. selects the Gauss-Konrod quadrature formula as the most (s) (s) efficient numerical integration method. (iv) In addition to ∆regX and ∆DEX , the finite truncation M of the scale dependent functions In every instance we have worked with 12 or more dig- also introduces another source of systematic uncertainty its of precision in our numerical computations. (s) ∆polyX . Every order of the DE introduces new scale dependent functions F and thus additional sources of un- Appendix D: Subleading scaling corrections (s) certainty if we truncate them. Thus we have ∆polyX = P (s) We also provide the scaling corrections ω < ω < ω < {F } ∆F X where we sum over all scale dependent 1 2 functions F available at the ∂s-order of the DE. We ... to the correlation length as discussed in Sect. III D. (s) These smallest one ω is shown in Tab. II for the O(N) define these independent contributions as ∆F X = (s) (s) model at various N values. The larger scaling corrections |XM − XM −1|. We do this because we go so far in F F ω1, ω2 are summarized in Tab. IV. Generally ωn becomes (s) the polynomial expansion that ∆F X decreases mono- more susceptible to the polynomial truncation with in- (4) creasing n, ω , ω are only stable in the first two or three tonically for higher values of MF . To estimate ∆polyX 1 2 at NNLO, we take the absolute difference between the significant digits with our employed truncation, detailed data improved by (22). We have already elaborated in in Sec. VI B. the main text, that we apply the same degree of trunca- N Order of DE ω ω tion to all scale dependent functions corresponding to a 1 2 LPA - 3.3 given order of the DE. For instance, in the Z2 symmet- (4) (4) 0 NLO 1.4 4.0 ric models at NNLO, we have ∆polyX = ∆U X + NNLO 1.4 3.3 (4) (4) ∆Z X + ∆WHJ X . With the truncation used in this LPA - 3.2 (4) (4) (4) 1 NLO 1.7 3.9 work, we have ∆U X < ∆Z X ∆WHJ X , so that (4) (4) NNLO 1.7 3.2 ∆ X ≈ ∆ X . poly WHJ LPA - 3.1 (v) Finally we have to combine the different sources 2 NLO 1.9 ± 0.1i 3.6 of uncertainties in order to obtain the total uncertainties (s) NNLO 1.8 3.3 ∆X quoted in the tables of the main text. There is no LPA - 3.0 straightforward way to prove that the discussed sources 3 NLO 2.0 ± 0.5i 3.5 are uncorrelated, so we decided to use a simple sum, NNLO 1.9 3.4 LPA - 2.94 (s) (s) (s) (s) ∆X = ∆DEX + ∆regX + ∆polyX (B1) 4 NLO 1.9 3.4 NNLO 1.9 3.3 as conservative estimate. As mentioned in point (ii) LPA - 2.90 (0) (0) 10 NLO 1.96 2.8 ∆ X is unavailable. Furthermore, ∆ X DE reg NNLO 1.96 2.9 (0) (0) (0) ∆polyX . Thus in practice we have ∆X = ∆regX LPA - 2.99 (2) at LPA. At the NLO ∆DEX is the dominant source of 100 NLO 2.00 2.97 uncertainty. NNLO 1.99 2.97

TABLE IV. The first two subleading scaling corrections ω1 and ω2 at the LPA, NLO and NNLO of the DE for the O(N) Appendix C: Technical details of numerical symmetric models in d = 3 Euclidean dimensions. We have computations only kept the first few significant digits, which coincide for the predictions computed from the Θ-regulator (13) and the We locate the Wilson-Fisher fixed point corresponding exponential regulator (16). to the complete set of beta-functions ({βg˜i = 0}) for the