Arxiv:1908.00373V4 [Hep-Th] 11 Feb 2020 Infrared Renormalon in the Supersymmetric Model on R × S1

arXiv:1908.00373v4 [hep-th] 11 Feb 2020 nrrdrnrao ntesupersymmetric C the in renormalon Infrared oueIshikawa Kosuke 1 ioh Suzuki Hiroshi 12/2/2020 ∗ eateto hsc,Kuh nvriy74Mtoa Nish Motooka, 744 University Kyushu Physics, of Department -al [email protected] E-mail: P N − ...... h obnto Λ combination the h large- the iapas nta,a naiirrnrao singularity renormalon unfamiliar an Instead, disappears. osata h assae1 scale mass the at constant ntegun(r oeaporaey htn odnaei h 2D the in condensate photon) appropriately, more (or, C gluon the in h ytmo h uncompactified the on system the xd(estΛ set (we fixed transform sntcerbecause clear not is inpcueo h nrrdrenormalon. infrared the of picture bion opcie space compactified u bevto o h ytmon system the for observation our ujc ne 0,B6 3,B4 B35 B34, B32, B16, B06, Index Subject ...... ntelaigodro h large- the of order leading the In 1 P N 1 oe on model − , ∗ 1 1 n ioaaTakaura Hiromasa and , kt Morikawa Okuto , oe on model N B ( xrsino h lo odnaeadoti h corresponding the obtain and condensate gluon the of expression u .For ). R ≪ R R R × u ota h etraieepninwt epc otecoupling the to respect with expansion perturbative the that so 1 hr stednmclsaeand scale dynamical the is Λ where , R × 3 = S × 1 S S ihthe with 1 / R h eicasclitrrtto fti euirsingularity peculiar this of interpretation semi-classical The . sntdvdbeb h iia inato.I per that appears It action. bion minimal the by dividable not is 2 1 efidta h oe iglrt at singularity Borel the that find we , /R 1 × kr Nakayama Akira , smaigu) eetatteprubtv atfrom part perturbative the extract We meaningful). is N Z R R S N 1 2 prxmto,w td h eomlnambiguity renormalon the study we approximation, × 1 n orsod otietemnmlbo action, bion minimal the twice to corresponds and wse onaycniin.I u large our In conditions. boundary twisted S 1 1 rmt eosdrto ntesemi-classical the on reconsideration prompts rpitnme:KYUSHU-HET-196 number: Preprint ...... -u uuk,8909,Japan 819-0395, Fukuoka, i-ku, 1 auaShibata Kazuya , ...... emerges R yee using typeset sthe is u ,wiheit in exists which 2, = at S 1 supersymmetric u ais skept is radius, 1 3 = , P T / P o the for 2 N T E limit, Borel X.cls 1. Introduction In Refs. [1–4], it was claimed that the ambiguity in perturbation theory caused by the infrared (IR) renormalon [5, 6]—a single Feynman diagram whose amplitude grows factorially as a function of the order—is canceled by the ambiguity associated with a semi-classical object called the (neutral) bion—a pair of the fractional instanton [7–12] and the fractional anti- instanton. This cancellation mechanism between perturbation theory and a semi-classical object is analogous to the cancellation between the ambiguity caused by the proliferation of the number of Feynman diagrams [13, 14] (see also Ref. [15] for a review) and the ambiguity associated with the instanton–anti-instanton pair [16, 17]. Such a cancellation of the ambiguity will be crucial for the enterprise of a fully semi-classical understanding of the low-energy physics of gauge theory; see Ref. [18] and references therein. A crucial element in such a semi-classical argument is an S1 compactification; the S1 radius R provides a mass scale and if it is sufficiently small compared to the dynamical scale Λ, ΛR 1, it would ≪ allow a semi-classical (weak coupling) treatment. On the other hand, a non-trivial holon- omy along S1, or, equivalently, twisted boundary conditions along S1, allow the fractional (anti-)instanton. For the 4D SU(N) gauge theory, the above cancellation between the IR renormalon and the bion is still conjectural. In particular, the ambiguity associated with the bion does 4 not exactly correspond to that of the renormalon on Ê , which is typically characterized by e 2SI /(Nβ0), where S is the instanton action and β = 11/3 2n /3 is the coefficient of − I 0 − W the one-loop beta function for the ’t Hooft coupling; nW is the number of Weyl fermions in the adjoint representation. It remains a non-trivial task to investigate if the ambiguity due to the bion coincides with the above form by possible renormalization and de-compactification N 1 effects; see also Ref. [19]. For the 2D CP − model, which shares many similarities with 4D gauge theory, the beta function is simply β0 = 1 and one might further push the above semi-classical interpretation of the renormalon. In a recent interesting paper [20], the authors carried out a systematic investigation on this issue in the 2D supersymmetric CP N 1 model on R S1 with the Z twisted boundary − × N conditions. They computed a one-loop-order effective action for quasi-collective coordinates associated with the bion configuration. Then, by employing the Lefschetz thimble method [21, 22], they computed the bion contribution to the vacuum energy as a function of the supersymmetry breaking parameter δǫ. They found that the bion induces ambiguity in the O(δǫ2) term of the vacuum energy with the strength e 2SI /Nβ0 ; they then inferred ∼ − that this ambiguity is canceled by the ambiguity caused by the IR renormalon. Although the above computation is very explicit, the interpretation of the result may be disputable. It is generally not well understood whether the ambiguity due to the bion truly corresponds to the renormalon ambiguity. In particular, there is a study [23] that sounds incompatible with the above result; this study asserts that in gauge theory on R3 S1, × the S1 compactification works as an IR cutoff and, as a consequence, the IR renormalon disappears in an S1 compactified space. If we assume this mechanism to be general, what cancels the ambiguity caused by the bion? On the other hand, there is also a study where the ambiguity due to the bion cancels the perturbative ambiguity. In Refs. [24, 25], it was found that the bion and perturbative ambiguities in the ground-state energy indeed have the same magnitude with opposite signs in an (approximately) supersymmetric CP 1 quantum

2 mechanics; this system is obtained by a reduction of the 2D = (2, 0) supersymmetric CP 1 N model to lower-lying Kaluza–Klein (KK) momentum modes. To have some insight into this confused situation and investigate the relation between the bion and the renormalon more directly, it would be useful to consider the large-N limit (see Ref. [26] for a classical exposition). The large-N limit distinguishes the instanton and the renormalon because their effects differ by the factor N. Typically, as the matrix model illustrates [27], the perturbative series tends to become a convergent series in the large-N limit, possibly leaving the effect of renormalons. Motivated by this reasoning, in this paper, we consider the large N approximation of the 2D supersymmetric CP N 1 model on R S1 − × with the ZN twisted boundary conditions and investigate the IR renormalon via systematic calculations. For the system in the uncompactified space R2, the large-N solution is well known [28]. We generalize this solution to the compactified space, R S1. × In our large-N limit, we assume

ΛR = const. as N , (1.1) →∞ where Λ is a dynamical scale (i.e., the Λ parameter) and R is the S1 radius.1 We also assume that ΛR is suﬃciently small (ΛR 1) so that the perturbative expansion with respect to ≪ the coupling constant at the mass scale 1/R is meaningful. In this paper, as a simple and non-trivial quantity, we study the gluon (or more appropriately, photon) condensate in the above system in the leading order of the large-N approximation. We use the following deﬁnitions in studying a factorially divergent series. For the perturbative series of a quantity f(λ),

k+1 ∞ λ f(λ) f , (1.3) ∼ k 4π Xk=0 where λ denotes the ’t Hooft coupling constant, we deﬁne the Borel transform by

∞ f B(u) k uk. (1.4) ≡ k! Xk=0 Then the Borel sum is given by

∞ 4πu/λ f(λ) du B(u) e− . (1.5) ≡ Z0 If the perturbative coeﬃcient f in Eq. (1.3) grows factorially f b kk! as k , the k k ∼ − →∞ Borel transform B(u) (1.4) develops a singularity located at u = b. If this singularity is on the positive real u axis, b> 0, then the Borel integral (1.5) becomes ill deﬁned and produces an ambiguity proportional to e 4πb/λ. In this convention, the IR renormalon in the present ∼ − system in the large-N limit is generally expected to produce Borel singularities at positive integers u = 1, 2, . . . . Since the minimum action of the bion is 4π/λ (when the constituent

1 We assume this for technical reasons. An alternative large-N limit, in which ΛRN = const. as N , (1.2) → ∞ might be natural for a semi-classical consideration, because the potential height between N degenerate classical vacua of the present system is characterized by the scale 1/(RN). We could not find, however, a convincing way to analyze the resulting expressions in this large-N limit. 3 fractional instanton and the anti-instanton are infinitely separated), the ambiguity caused by the bion for the vacuum energy [20] corresponds to u = 1. On the other hand, as we will see below, the gluon condensate in the system in R2 suffers from the IR renormalon at u = 2; the associated factor in the exponential, 8π/λ, is twice the minimum bion action. In this paper, we show that for the gluon condensate in the compactified space R S1, the × renormalon singularity at u = 2, which exists for R2, disappears. This sounds consistent with the claim in Ref. [23] that there is no IR renormalon in an S1 compactified space. However, for R S1, we find that an unfamiliar renormalon singularity emerges at u = 3/2. Our × observation thus indicates that an S1 compactification significantly affects the renormalon structure. Furthermore, we do not know any semi-classical interpretation of this singularity. It appears that our finding prompts reconsideration on the above semi-classical picture of the IR renormalon. This paper is organized as follows: In Sect. 2, we define our system starting from the expressions in Ref. [20] but using the ’t Hooft coupling λ g2N (the ’t Hooft coupling is ≡ extensively used in this paper). For the large-N approximation, it is highly convenient to N 1 employ the homogeneous coordinate of CP − and its “superpartner”; these are introduced in Sect. 2.2. Then, as a standard procedure in the large-N approximation, we introduce auxiliary fields to impose constraints among original N fields and to make the action quadratic in the N fields. In Sect. 3, we obtain the effective action for the auxiliary fields by integrating over the N fields. We find the saddle point in the large N limit (1.1) and then compute the effective action for fluctuations around the saddle point to the quadratic order. In Sect. 4, we compute the gluon condensate in the leading order of the large N approximation. We then extract the perturbative part from the large-N expression and obtain the corresponding Borel transform. By studying singularities of the Borel transform, we arrive at the above conclusion. We also argue that a perturbative calculation of a physical observable inherits the renormalon ambiguity found in the gluon condensate. Section 5 is devoted to the conclusion and discussion. Appendix A contains some useful formulas to translate expressions in the inhomogeneous coordinate to those in the homogeneous coordinate. Appendix B gives some rigorous bounds on functions appearing in the effective action. In Appendix C, we explain in some detail how the chiral symmetry breaking term Slocal (3.39) emerges with our convention for γ5 in the dimensional regularization.

2. N = (2, 2) supersymmetric CP N−1 model on R × S1 2.1. Deﬁnition of the system We suppose that the spacetime is R S1 and denote the coordinate of R by x and that × of S1 by y; the radius of S1 is R and thus 0 y < 2πR. The Greek indices µ, ν, etc. run ≤ 4 over x and y. We start with Eq. (4.1) of Ref. [20] in a somewhat diﬀerent notation:2

2 2N a ¯b a ¯b S d x G ¯ ∂ϕ ∂¯ϕ¯ + ∂ϕ¯ ∂ϕ¯ ≡ λ ab Z h ¯¯b a a c d a ¯ ¯¯b ¯b ¯ c¯ ¯d¯ + ψ (∂ψ + Γ cd∂ϕ ψ )+ ψ+(∂ψ+ + Γ c¯d¯∂ϕ¯ ψ+) − − − i 1 a ¯¯b c ¯d¯ Ra¯bcd¯ψ+ψ+ψ ψ − 2 − − + Stop. (2.1) In this paper, we use the ’t Hooft coupling λ that is deﬁned by λ g2N from the coupling ≡ constant g in Ref. [20]. The lowercase indices a, ¯b etc. run over 1, . . . , N 1, and − 2 N 1 ∂ − c 2 G ¯ ln 1+ ϕ ab ≡ a ¯b | | ∂ϕ ∂ϕ¯ c=1 ! X δab ϕ¯a¯ϕb = (2.2) 1+ ϕc 2 − (1 + ϕc 2)2 c | | c | | N 1 N 1 is the Fubini–Study metric on CP −P. The connectionP and the curvature on CP − are given by a aa¯ a¯ aa¯ a¯ a¯ Γ G ∂ G , Γ ¯ G ∂¯G ,R ¯ ¯ ∂ Γ ¯¯. (2.3) bc ≡ b ca¯ bc¯ ≡ b ac¯ bcd ≡ c db In Eq. (2.1), the spacetime derivatives are denoted as 1 1 ∂ (∂ i∂ ), ∂¯ (∂ + i∂ ), (2.4) ≡ 2 x − y ≡ 2 x y and the topological term Stop is deﬁned by

2 iθ a ¯b a ¯b S d x G ¯ ∂ϕ ∂¯ϕ¯ ∂ϕ¯ ∂ϕ¯ . (2.5) top ≡ π ab − Z 1 Now, along S , we impose the following ZN invariant twisted boundary conditions:

ϕa(x,y + 2πR)= e2πimaRϕa(x,y),

a 2πimaR a a 2πimaR a ψ (x,y + 2πR)= e ψ (x,y), ψ¯ (x,y + 2πR)= e− ψ¯ (x,y), (2.6) ± ± ± ± where the twist angles are proportional to the index a: a 1 m = , a = 1,...,N 1. (2.7) a N R − These boundary conditions allow the so-called fractional instanton with a particular index b (b = 1, 2, . . . , N 1): − a=b b mb (x+iy) ϕ 6 = 0, ϕ = e , C, (2.8) C C ∈

2 Unless stated otherwise, the summation over repeated indices is always understood. This = (2, 2) action can be obtained by the dimensional reduction of the 4D = 1 Wess–Zumino modelN [29] a a √ a a a √ a N a a √ ¯a ¯a by setting Φ ϕ + 2θψ + θθF , where ψ1 = (ψ+ + ψ−)/ 2, ψ2 = ( ψ+ + ψ−)/ 2, ψ1˙ = (ψ+ + ≡ − 1 ψ¯a )/√2, and ψ¯a = ( ψ¯a + ψ¯a )/√2. The Kähler potential is taken as K = N ln(1 + N− Φ¯ aΦa). − 2˙ − + − λ a=1 Note that we are working in the Euclidean space (the Lorentzian time is given by x0 = ix); the P Boltzmann weight in the functional integral is thus e−S. − 5 which has the classical action θ N 2π θ S = 2πi i m R = + i b. (2.9) 2π − λ b λ N Thus the action of a pair of the bth fractional instanton and the bth fractional anti- instanton—called the bth bion—approaches N 4π S 4π m R = b, (2.10) ∼ λ b λ as the separation between the fractional instanton and the fractional anti-instanton goes to infinity. Since the bth bion possesses the action S 4πb/λ, this would produce a singularity ∼ for the Borel transform B(u) in Eq. (1.5) (of a quantity in the topologically trivial sector) at the value of the classical action [13–15], i.e., u = b, where b = 1, 2, . . . , N 1. − 2.2. Homogeneous coordinates For the large-N approximation, it is highly convenient to express the above system in terms of the homogeneous coordinate of CP N 1. That is, introducing a new variable zN C, we − ∈ set za ϕa , z¯AzA = 1. (2.11) ≡ zN Here and in what follows, uppercase indices A, B, etc. run over 1, . . . , N. We denote fields with the indices A, B, ... as N fields. Note that this description of the system in terms of zA is redundant; i.e., the original variables ϕa are invariant under the U(1) gauge transformation, zA gzA, g U(1). (2.12) → ∈ For the fermionic fields, we find that the following variables work quite well (see also Ref. [30]). We introduce new variables χA and set ± 1 za ψa χa χN . (2.13) ± ≡ zN ± − (zN )2 ± The original variables ψa are invariant under the U(1) gauge transformation, defined by the ± combination of Eq. (2.12) and χA gχA, g U(1). (2.14) ± → ± ∈ We then impose the constraint z¯AχA = 0. (2.15) ± This constraint has the solution with respect to χN : ± χN = (zN )2z¯aψa , (2.16) ± − ± under the conditionz ¯AzA = 1. We may assume the following boundary conditions for the homogeneous coordinate variables: zA(x,y + 2πR)= e2πimARzA(x,y),

A 2πimAR A A 2πimAR A χ (x,y + 2πR)= e χ (x,y), χ¯ (x,y + 2πR)= e− χ¯ (x,y), (2.17) ± ± ± ± where we have deﬁned m 0, (2.18) N ≡ such that these conditions are consistent with Eq. (2.6). 6 Then, using the basic formulas given in Appendix A, we ﬁnd a rather simple expression for the action: 2N S = d2x ∂z¯A∂z¯ A + ∂¯z¯A∂zA 2j j λ − z z¯ Z A A A ¯ A +χ ¯ (∂ ijz)χ +χ ¯+(∂ ijz¯)χ+ − − − − 1 A A B B 1 A A B B χ+χ¯ χ χ¯+ + χ+χ¯+χ χ¯ − 2 − − 2 − − + Stop, (2.19) where 1 1 j = (¯zA∂zA zA∂z¯A), j = (¯zA∂z¯ A zA∂¯z¯A), (2.20) z 2i − z¯ 2i − and θ S = d2x ∂j ∂j¯ . (2.21) top π z¯ − z Z This is basically the action given in Eq. (15) of Ref. [28]. Note that under the U(1) gauge transformation (2.12), the current (2.20) transforms inhomogeneously:

1 1 1 1 j j + g− ∂g, j j + g− ∂g.¯ (2.22) z → z i z¯ → z¯ i

2.3. Auxiliary ﬁelds We now introduce various auxiliary ﬁelds. One of their roles is to impose the constraint in Eq. (2.11) and the fermionic constraint (2.15); the corresponding Lagrange multiplier

ﬁelds are f and (η , η¯ ), respectively. We also introduce auxiliary ﬁelds Az,z¯ and (σ, σ¯) to ± ± make the action quadratic in the homogeneous coordinate variables. We thus set

2 2N 1 A A A A A A A A A A S′ S + d x f(¯z z 1) +η ¯ z¯ χ+ +η ¯+z¯ χ +χ ¯+z η +χ ¯ z η+ ≡ λ 2 − − − − − Z 1 1 + 2 A + j + iχ¯AχA A + j + iχ¯BχB z¯ z¯ 2 z z 2 + + − − 1 + (¯σ +χ ¯AχA)(σ +χ ¯BχB) 2 + + − − 2 θ 1 A A ¯ 1 A A d x ∂ Az¯ + jz¯ + iχ¯ χ ∂ Az + jz + iχ¯+χ+ . (2.23) − π 2 − − − 2 Z

We impose the periodic boundary conditions for all the auxiliary ﬁelds. The action S′ can be cast into the form

2 N A 1 A S′ = d x f +σσ ¯ +z ¯ DµDµ + f 4¯η(D / +σP ¯ + + σP )− η z λ − − − − Z ( A A A χ+ + (χ¯ χ¯+)(D / +σP ¯ + + σP ) A − − χ !) − e iθ e e d2x ǫ ∂ A , (2.24) − 2π µν µ ν e Z 7 where, setting A = A + A and A = i(A A ), x z z¯ y z − z¯

A A A A χ+ χ+ Dµz (∂µ + iAµ)z , D/ A γµ(∂µ + iAµ) A , (2.25) ≡ χ ! ≡ χ ! − −

0 1 0 i 1 γ5 γx , γy − , P ± , γ5 iγxγy, (2.26) ≡ 1 0! ≡ i 0 ! ± ≡ 2 ≡− and

η+ η¯ (¯η η¯+), η , (2.27) ≡ − ≡ η −! and ǫ = ǫ = +1. Also, we have deﬁned xy − yx

A A A A A 1 (χ¯ χ¯+) (¯χ χ¯+)+2¯ηz¯ (D / +σP ¯ + + σP )− , − ≡ − − χA χA e e+ + 1 A A A + 2(D / +σP ¯ + + σP )− z η. (2.28) χ ! ≡ χ ! − − − e Since the current (2.20)e transforms inhomogeneously under the U(1) gauge transformation as Eq. (2.22), the auxiliary ﬁeld Aµ receives a U(1) gauge transformation of the form

1 1 A A g− ∂ g, (2.29) µ → µ − i µ in order for the term added in Eq. (2.23) to be gauge invariant. Aµ is therefore regarded as a U(1) gauge potential and the last term of Eq. (2.24) can give rise to a non-trivial topological charge.

3. Leading-order large-N approximation 3.1. The saddle point The large-N approximation consists of the saddle point approximation of the functional integral of auxiliary fields, after the Gaussian integration over the original N fields [26]. From Eq. (2.24), the integration over the N fields yields the effective action of the auxiliary fields:

N S = d2x ( f +σσ ¯ ) eﬀ λ − Z 1 + Tr Ln DµDµ + f 4¯η(D / +σP ¯ + + σP )− η − − − A X Tr Ln(D / +σP ¯ + + σP ). (3.1) − − XA In this expression, the twisted boundary conditions in Eq. (2.17) that depend on the index A have to be taken into account. 8 First, we look for the saddle point of the eﬀective action, by assuming that it is given by3

Aµ0 = const., f0 = const., σ0 = const., η0 =η ¯0 = 0. (3.2) For such a constant conﬁguration, one can see that

Tr Ln(D / +σP ¯ + + σP ) = TrLn( DµDµ +σσ ¯ ), (3.3) − − by using the charge conjugation invariance. Then, for the configuration (3.2), going to the momentum space by taking the twisted boundary conditions (2.17) into account, we have N S = d2x ( f +σ ¯ σ ) eff λ − 0 0 0 Z dp 1 + d2x x ln (p + A )2 + (p + m + A )2 + f 2π 2πR x x0 y A y0 0 A Z Z py X X dp 1 d2x x ln (p + A )2 + (p + m + A )2 +σ ¯ σ , (3.4) − 2π 2πR x x0 y A y0 0 0 A Z Z py X X where the KK momentum py is discrete: n p = , n Z. (3.5) y R ∈ Then, we use the identity ∞ 1 ∞ eipy 2πRn = δ(p n/R) (3.6) R y − n= n= X−∞ X−∞ or 1 ∞ ∞ dpy F (n/R)= eipy 2πRnF (p ) (3.7) 2πR 2π y n= n= X−∞ X−∞ Z in Eq. (3.4) to make the sum into integrals dp . This enables us to shift the integration py y variables as p p A and p p m A to yield x → x − x0 P x → x − A −R x0 N S = d2x ( f +σ ¯ σ ) eff λ − 0 0 0 Z ∞ 2 2 d p i(py Ay0 mA)2πRn 2 2 + d x e − − ln(p + f ) ln(p +σ ¯ σ ) . (3.8) (2π)2 0 − 0 0 A Z n= Z X X−∞ We then carry out the sum over A by noting, from Eqs. (2.7) and (2.18), N 1 − j N for n = 0 mod N, imA2πRn 2πni/N e− = e− = (3.9) (0 for n = 0 mod N. XA Xj=0 6 We thus obtain N S = d2x ( f +σ ¯ σ ) eff λ − 0 0 0 Z ∞ 2 2 d p i(py Ay0)2πRNm 2 2 + d x N e − ln(p + f ) ln(p +σ ¯ σ ) . (3.10) (2π)2 0 − 0 0 Z m= Z X−∞ In this form, the m = 0 term is ultraviolet (UV) divergent whereas m = 0 terms are the 6 Fourier transforms and UV finite. To the m = 0 term, we apply dimensional regularization

3 2 For the uncompactiﬁed space R , we should set Aµ0 = 0 for the Lorentz invariance and we do not have the integration over Ay0 in Eq. (3.24). 9 where the dimension of spacetime is set to be 2 D 2 2ε. The result of the momentum → ≡ − integrations is then

N 4π 1 eγE S = d2x + ln ( f +σ ¯ σ ) eﬀ 4π λ − ε 4π − 0 0 0 Z N + d2x f (ln f 1) +σ ¯ σ [ln(¯σ σ ) 1] 4π {− 0 0 − 0 0 0 0 − } Z

2 N iAy02πRNm + d x ( 4) e− 4π − Z m=0 X6 √f √σ¯ σ 0 K ( f 2πRN m ) 0 0 K (√σ¯ σ 2πRN m ) . (3.11) × 2πRN m 1 0 | | − 2πRN m 1 0 0 | | | | p | | Here and in what follows, Kν (z) denotes the modiﬁed Bessel function of the second kind. To remove the UV divergence in Eq. (3.11), we introduce the renormalized ’t Hooft coupling λR(µ) in the “MS scheme” by

γE 2 ε 1 e µ λ (µ) 1 − λ = λ (µ) 1+ R , (3.12) 4π R 4π ε where µ is a renormalization scale. From this result, we obtain the beta function ∂ 1 µ λ (µ) = 2ελ (µ) λ (µ)2, (3.13) ∂µ R − R − 2π R λ

and the renormalization-group invariant dynamical scale (the Λ parameter)

2π/λR(µ) Λ µe− . (3.14) ≡ In terms of Λ, the effective action (3.11) reads N S = d2x [V (f ) V (¯σ σ )] , (3.15) eff 4π 0 − 0 0 Z where the function V (z) is defined by

V (z) V (z)+ Vˆ (z), (3.16) ≡ ∞ with V (z) z ln(z/Λ2) 1 , (3.17) ∞ ≡− − and

iAy02πRNm √z Vˆ (z) 4 e− K (√z2πRN m ). (3.18) ≡− 2πRN m 1 | | m=0 X6 | | z The infinite sum in Vˆ (z) is convergent because K (z) →∞ π/(2z)e z. Moreover, as shown ν ∼ − in Appendix B, Vˆ (z) 0 in the large-N limit (1.1). Therefore, as N , f andσ ¯ σ are → p →∞ 0 0 0 given by the solution of 2 V ′ (z)= ln(z/Λ ) = 0, (3.19) ∞ − i.e., 2 f0 =σ ¯0σ0 = Λ . (3.20) These are identical to the values in the system in R2 [28]. 10 At the above saddle point, from Eq. (3.15), S 0 and S becomes independent of A . eff ≡ eff y0 Therefore, Ay0 is not determined from the saddle point condition in the present supersymmetric system on R S1. We should perform the integration over this “vacuum moduli” A × y0 in the functional integral. We note that the action (2.24) and the boundary conditions (2.17) are invariant under the “center transformation” defined by

zA gzA, χA gχA, (3.21) → ± → ± with Eq. (2.29), where g U(1) obeys the non-trivial boundary condition, ∈ g(x,y + 2πR)= e2πi/N g(x,y), (3.22) if we relabel N ﬁelds as zA zA˜ and χA χA˜, where A˜ = A + 1 for 1 A N 1 and → ± → ± ≤ ≤ − A˜ = 1 for A = N. An element g = eiy/(RN) of this center transformation induces a constant shift on Ay0 through Eq. (2.29): 1 A A . (3.23) y0 → y0 − RN Hence, for gauge invariant quantities that are invariant under the relabeling, zA zA˜ → and χA χA˜, such as the partition function and the gluon condensate considered below, ± → ± the integration over Ay0 should be restricted in the “fundamental domain” as

1 d(Ay0RN). (3.24) Z0 3.2. Effective action for fluctuations We next compute the effective action for fluctuations of the auxiliary fields around the above large-N saddle point. That is, setting

A A + δA , f f + δf, σ σ + δσ, (3.25) µ ≡ µ0 µ ≡ 0 ≡ 0 we compute Seﬀ to the quadratic order in the ﬂuctuations. For illustration, let us consider

1 Tr Ln DµDµ + f 4¯η(D / +σP ¯ + + σP )− η 2 . (3.26) − − − O(δf ) A X

Going to the momentum space and using the relations (3.7) and (3.9), we have

1 Tr Ln DµDµ + f 4¯η(D / +σP ¯ + + σP )− η 2 − − − O(δf ) A X ∞ dpx 1 1 iAy0 2πRNm = N δf(p)δf( p) e− 2π 2πR −2 − py m= Z X X−∞ 1 d2k f f 1 dx eiky 2πRNm , (3.27) × (2π)2 (k2 2xkp + f + xp2)2 Z0 Z − 0 where we have set dp 1 δf(x) x eipxδf(p). (3.28) ≡ 2π 2πR py Z X 11 f The momentum integration then yields

1 Tr Ln DµDµ + f 4¯η(D / +σP ¯ + + σP )− η 2 − − − O(δf ) A X N dp 1 1 = x δf(p)δf( p) (p). (3.29) 4π 2π 2πR −2 − L py Z X f f Here, we have introduced the function

(p) (p)+ ˆ(p), (3.30) L ≡L∞ L

2 where (using f0 = Λ (3.20))

2 p2 + 4Λ2 + p2 (p) ln (3.31) L∞ ≡ p2(p2 + 4Λ2) p2 + 4Λ2 p2 ! p − p p p p is the expression common to the uncompactifed space R2, and

1 iAy0 2πRNm ixpy 2πRNm ˆ(p) dx e− e L ≡ Z0 m=0 X6 2πRN m 2 2 | | K1( Λ + x(1 x)p 2πRN m ) (3.32) × Λ2 + x(1 x)p2 − | | − p p is a part peculiar to the compactiﬁed space R S1. Note that (p) and ˆ(p) are real and × L∞ L

( p)= (p), ˆ( p)= ˆ(p). (3.33) L∞ − L∞ L − L

To show the latter property, we note that the change eixpy2πRNm e ixpy2πRNm = → − ei(1 x)py 2πRNm caused by p p can be absorbed by the change of the integration variable − →− x 1 x (recall that p = n/R with n Z). → − y ∈ Repeating similar calculations by setting

dp 1 dp 1 δA (x) x eipxδA (p), δσ(x) x eipxδσ(p), µ ≡ 2π 2πR µ ≡ 2π 2πR py py Z X Z X dp 1 f dp 1 f η(x) x eipxη(p), η¯(x) x eipxη¯(p), (3.34) ≡ 2π 2πR ≡ 2π 2πR py py Z X Z X e e and

1 1 δR(p) σ¯ δσ(p)+ σ δσ¯(p) , δI(p) σ¯ δσ(p) σ δσ¯(p) , (3.35) ≡ 2 0 0 ≡ 2i 0 − 0 h i h i f f f 12e f f we obtain4

S eﬀ|quadratic N dp 1 = x 4π 2π 2πR py Z X 1 (p2δ p p ) (p)δA (p)δA ( p) × 2 µν − µ ν L µ ν − 1 1 + (p2 + 4Λ2) (pf)δR(p)fδR( p)+ p2 (p)δI(p)δI( p) 2Λ2 L − 2Λ2 L − 1 (p)δf(p)δf( p) f f e e − 2L − 2η¯˜(p)(if/p + 2fσ0P+ + 2¯σ0P ) (p)˜η( p) − − L − + ǫ p (p)δA (p)δI( p) ǫ p (p)δI(p)δA ( p) µν µL ν − − µν µL ν − p p + δ µfy (ep) e f µy − p2 K δA (p) 2δR( p) δf( p) + 2δR(p) δf(p) δA ( p) × µ − − − − µ − 1 n h i h i o ǫ pg (p) δRf(p)δI( pf) δI(p)δR( fp) f g − Λ2 µy µK − − − p ph i + 4i δ µ y f (p)eη¯˜(p)γ η˜( ep) f µy − p2 K µ − + Slocal, (3.36)

2 where we have used the fact thatσ ¯0σ0 = Λ (recall Eq. (3.20)) and introduced another function: 1 iAy02πRNm ixpy2πRNm 2 2 (p) i dx e− e 2πRNmK ( Λ + x(1 x)p 2πRN m ). K ≡ 0 − | | Z0 m=0 X6 p (3.37) Note that (p) is real and K ( p)= (p). (3.38) K − K The last term of Eq. (3.36) is given by

N dp 1 1 S x δσ(p)δσ( p)+ δσ¯(p)δσ¯( p) local ≡ 4π 2π 2πR 2 − − py ( Z X h i f f f f iAy0 2πRNm δσ¯(p)δσ( p) 1 + 2 e− K (Λ2πRN m ) . (3.39) − − 0 | | " m=0 #) X6 f f This term breaks the U(1) chiral symmetry, the invariance of the classical action under σ e2iασ,σ ¯ e 2iασ¯, η e iαγ5 η, andη ¯ ηe¯ iαγ5 , and may be regarded as a “quantum → → − → − → −

4 To obtain this simplified form, we have to do integration by parts with respect to the Feynman ′ ′ parameter x by using relations such as K0(z)= K1(z) and zK1(z)+ K1(z)= zK0(z). Also, we have defined the γ5 in dimensional regularization− such that γ5 iγxγy for any− D [31]; thus it commutes with γµ when µ = x or µ = y. ≡− 6 6 13 anomaly”. However, since this term is local in position space, we may simply remove this by a local counterterm as an artifact arising from our particular definition of the γ5 matrix in dimensional regularization. In what follows, we assume this and neglect Slocal. Equation (3.36) provides the effective action for the fluctuations around the large-N saddle point; this generalizes Eq. (58) of Ref. [28] to the case of the twisted boundary conditions 1 on the compactified space Ê S . × 3.3. Propagators To obtain the propagators of the auxiliary fields from Eq. (3.36), we add a gauge-fixing term N dp 1 1 S = x p p (p)δA (p)δA ( p) (3.40) gf 4π 2π 2πR 2 µ νL µ ν − py Z X g g to Eq. (3.36). After some calculation, we obtain the Aµ propagator as

δAµ(p)δAν(q) D 4π (p) E (p)2 p p =g L f δ + 4 Λ2 + (1 p2/p2)K µ ν 2πδ(p + q )2πRδ . (3.41) N (p) µν − y (p)2 (p2)2 x x py +qy,0 D L For completeness, we list all the propagators:

δAµ(p)δR(q) = δR(p)δAµ(q) = 0, D E D E 4π (p) 2Λ2p¯ δAg (p)δIf(q) = fδI(p)gδA (q) = L µ 2πδ(p + q )2πRδ , µ − µ N (p) p2 x x py +qy,0 D E D E D 4π (p) 2¯p p¯ δAg (p)δfe (q) = δf(ep)δAg(q) = K − µ y 2πδ(p + q )2πRδ , µ µ N (p) p2 x x py +qy,0 D E D E D 4π (p) δRg(p)δRf(q) = fL gΛ2 2πδ(p + q )2πRδ , N (p) x x py +qy ,0 D D E 2 f f 4π (p) 2Λ p¯y δR(p)δI(q) = δI(p)δR(q) = K − 2πδ(p + q )2πRδ , − N (p) p2 x x py +qy ,0 D E D E D δRf(p)δfe (q) = δf(ep)δRf(q) = 0, D E 4Dπ (p) E δIf(p)δIf(q) = fL fΛ2 2πδ(p + q )2πRδ , N (p) x x py +qy ,0 D D E 2 e e 4π (p) 4Λ p¯y δI(p)δf(q) = δf(p)δI(q) = K 2πδ(p + q )2πRδ , − N (p) p2 x x py +qy,0 D E D E D 4π (p) δfe (p)fδf(q) = Lf (e 1)(p2 + 4Λ2) 2πδ(p + q )2πRδ , (3.42) N (p) − x x py +qy,0 D E D and f f η˜(p)η¯˜(q) h i 2 4π (i/p + 2¯σ0P+ + 2σ0P ) (p) + 2i(γy /ppy/p ) (p) 1 = − L − K 2πδ(p + q )2πRδ . N (p) −2 x x py +qy,0 D (3.43) In the above expressions, we have deﬁned (p) (p2 + 4Λ2) (p)2 + 4(1 p2/p2) (p)2, p¯ ǫ p , (3.44) D ≡ L − y K µ ≡ νµ ν 14 Fig. 1 The Feynman diagram corresponding to the gluon condensate (4.2). The blob is the combination in Eq. (4.1). The Aµ propagator (3.41) is given by the chain of the one-loop vacuum polarization diagrams owing to the N ﬁelds. and, in deriving those expressions, we have noted the relation holding in the two dimensions,

p¯ p¯ = p2δ p p . (3.45) µ ν µν − µ ν 4. IR renormalon in the gluon condensate In this section, we compute the gluon condensate in the leading order of the large-N approximation and extract the perturbative part from it. We then obtain the corresponding Borel transform B(u) and study its singularities. The gluon condensate is given by

F (x)F (x) = [∂ δA (x) ∂ δA (x)]2 . (4.1) h µν µν i µ ν − ν µ D E The contraction of this by the propagator (3.41) (see Fig. 1) gives the leading large-N result as5 4π dp 1 2p2 (p) F (x)F (x) = x L . h µν µν i N 2π 2πR (p2 + 4Λ2) (p)2 + 4(1 p2/p2) (p)2 py y Z X L − K 4π ∞ d2p 2p2 (p) = eipy 2πRn L , (4.2) N (2π)2 (p2 + 4Λ2) (p)2 + 4(1 p2/p2) (p)2 n= y X−∞ Z L − K where in the second equality we have used Eq. (3.7). First, in the large-N limit (1.1), as shown in Appendix B, we can set

ˆ(p) 0, (p) 0. (4.3) L → K → Equation (4.2) thus reduces to (recall Eq. (3.30))

4π ∞ d2p 2p2 F (x)F (x) = eipy 2πRn . (4.4) h µν µν i N (2π)2 (p2 + 4Λ2) (p) n= X−∞ Z L∞ Next, we extract the perturbative part from this expression. If we expand (p) (3.31) L∞ and Eq. (4.4) with respect to Λ2/p2, the terms in positive powers of Λ2 [ (Λ2/p2)k] are ∼

5 The integration over Ay0 in Eq. (3.24) is implicitly assumed in this expression. However, since this expression reduces to Eq. (4.4) in the large-N limit (1.1) that is independent of Ay0, the integration over Ay0 in Eq. (3.24) is trivial. 15 regarded as the non-perturbative part, because Λ2 e 4π/λR . This reasoning tells us that ∼ − the gluon condensate in perturbation theory (PT) is given by6

4π ∞ d2p p2 F (x)F (x) = eipy 2πRn , (4.10) h µν µν iPT N (2π)2 ln(p2/Λ2) n= Z expansion in λR X−∞ where we explicitly indicate that the integrand should be expanded in λR in the perturbative evaluation. In this expression, we analyze the n = 0 term and the n = 0 terms separately.7 6 4.1. The n =0 term The n = 0 term exhibits the quartic UV divergence and we thus introduce the UV cutoﬀ q: 4π d2p p2 F (x)F (x) = . (4.11) h µν µν iPT, n = 0 N (2π)2 ln(p2/Λ2) Z p q expansion in λR | |≤

Then, noting 4π ln(p2/Λ2) = ln(p2/q2)+ , (4.12) λR(q) where λR(q) is the renormalized coupling at the cutoﬀ scale q (see Eq. (3.14)), we have the perturbative expansion with respect to λR(q):

2 k+1 4π 4 ∞ d p 2 2 k λR(q) Fµν (x)Fµν (x) PT, n = 0 = q 2 p ( ln p ) . (4.13) h i N p 1 (2π) − 4π Xk=0 Z| |≤

6 The precise form of this expression, which will be studied below, is ∞ 4π Fµν (x)Fµν (x) = IM,n (4.5) h iPT N n=−∞ X with M , where → ∞ M−1 2 k+1 d p 2 2 2 k λR(q) IM,0 p ln(p /q ) , ≡ (2π)2 − 4π k=0 Z|p|≤q X M−1 2 k+1 k d p ipy 2πRn 2 2 2 λR(1/R) IM,n=0 e p ln(p R ) , (4.6) 6 ≡ (2π)2 − 4π k=0 Z|p|≤q X 2 2 are given by the Mth-order expansion of the function 1/ ln(p /Λ ) with respect to λR(q) or λR(1/R) (see Eqs. (4.12) and (4.17)). For the original expression for N , Eq. (4.4), → ∞ 4π ∞ Fµν (x)Fµν (x) = In, (4.7) h iPT N n=−∞ X where 2 2 d p ipy 2πRn 2p In e , (4.8) ≡ (2π)2 (p2 + 4Λ2) (p) Z|p|≤q L∞ one can rigorously prove that M+1 In IM,n = O(λ ). (4.9) | − | R This shows that Eq. (4.5) with M actually gives the asymptotic expansion of Eq. (4.4). 7 The large-N expression (4.4) is→ convergent ∞ in the IR region and is real once the UV divergence is regularized by a momentum cutoﬀ; in this sense, the gluon condensate in the large-N expansion is an unambiguous object. Thus, the ambiguity found in the following argument stems from the artifact of the perturbative evaluation. This means that the resurgence structure is already assured in this quantity. 16 From this perturbative series, we deﬁne the corresponding Borel transform as Eq. (1.4),

2 2 k 4π 4 d p 2 ∞ ( ln p ) k Bn=0(u) q 2 p − u ≡ N p 1 (2π) k! Z| |≤ Xk=0 1 1 = q4 − . (4.14) N u 2 − Thus, the Borel transform of the n = 0 term of Eq. (4.10) develops a pole singularity at u = 2. We had to know this, because the n = 0 term in Eq. (4.10) is basically identical to the loop integral appearing in the scalar condensate in the 2D O(N) non-linear sigma model in the uncompactiﬁed space R2, which suﬀers from the u = 2 renormalon ambiguity [32]. See also Ref. [6]. Through the Borel integral (1.5), the Borel singularity at u = 2 gives rise to the renormalon ambiguity on the gluon condensate (focusing only on the n = 0 term):

∞ 4πu/λR(q) F (x)F (x) du B (u) e− h µν µν in = 0, IR renormalon at u = 2 ∼ n=0 Z0

1 4 8π/λR(q) q e− ( πi) ∼ N ± 1 = Λ4( πi), (4.15) N ± where the sign depends on how one avoids the pole singularity at u = 2 (+ for a contour in the upper plane, for a contour in the lower plane). We note that the ambiguity caused by − the IR renormalon itself is independent of the UV cutoﬀ q that we introduced; the last line of Eq. (4.15) does not refer to the scale q.

4.2. The n =0 terms 6 The n = 0 terms in Eq. (4.10), 6 2 2 4π d p ipy 2πRn p Fµν (x)Fµν (x) PT, n = 0 = 2 e 2 2 , (4.16) h i 6 N (2π) ln(p /Λ ) n=0 Z expansion in λR X6 are the Fourier transforms and thus UV convergent. This time, instead of Eq. (4.12), we use 4π ln(p2/Λ2) = ln(p2R2)+ , (4.17) λR(1/R) where λR(1/R) is the renormalized coupling at the scale 1/R. Then the perturbative expansion with respect to λR(1/R) is given by k+1 ∞ 2 4π 1 d p ipy 2πn 2 2 k λR(1/R) Fµν (x)Fµν (x) PT, n = 0 = 4 2 e p ( ln p ) . h i 6 N R (2π) − 4π n=0 k=0 Z X6 X (4.18) The corresponding Borel transform is thus

2 ∞ 2 k 4π 1 d p ipy 2πn 2 ( ln p ) k Bn=0(u) e p − u 6 ≡ N R4 (2π)2 k! n=0 k=0 X6 Z X 1 1 2u 4 Γ (2 u) = 2π − ζ(4 2u) − . (4.19) N R4 − Γ (u 1) − 17 This Borel transform has a pole at u = 2,

u 2 1 1 1 Bn=0(u) ∼ , (4.20) 6 ∼ N R4 u 2 − and thus the corresponding renormalon ambiguity is given by

∞ 4πu/λR(q) Fµν (x)Fµν (x) du Bn=0(u) e− h in = 0, IR renormalon at u = 2 ∼ 6 6 Z0

1 1 8π/λR(1/R) e− ( πi) ∼ N R4 ∓ 1 = Λ4( πi). (4.21) N ∓ This is precisely opposite to the ambiguity in Eq. (4.15) arising from the n = 0 term. Thus, for the u = 2 singularity, the contribution from the compactification (i.e., terms present for a finite R) cancels the singularity that exists in the uncompactified space. One can be skeptical about the above cancellation of the Borel singularities, because our argument used different renormalization scales for the coupling constant: q for the n = 0 term and 1/R for the n = 0 terms. However, this is just for simplicity of expressions. If we 6 want, we may use a general common mass scale µ and make use of 1 λ (q) λ (µ) λ (µ) − R = R 1 ln(µ2/q2) R , 4π 4π − 4π 1 λ (1/R) λ (µ) λ (µ) − R = R 1 ln(µ2R2) R , (4.22) 4π 4π − 4π to obtain the perturbative series in λR(µ). One can show the cancellation of the renormalon ambiguities at u = 2 with this renormalization scale.8

4.3. New Borel singularity at u =3/2 We showed that the Borel singularity at u = 2, which exists in the uncompactiﬁed space, disappears. However, this is not the end of the story. We note that the ζ function in Eq. (4.19), ζ(z), possesses a simple pole at z = 1. This produces the Borel singularity at u = 3/2:

u 3/2 1 1 1 1 Bn=0(u) ∼ . (4.23) 6 ∼ N R4 −π u 3/2 − Since Bn=0(u) (4.14) has no corresponding singularity, we conclude that the perturbative part (4.10) possesses the renormalon ambiguity at u = 3/2 as 1 Λ3 1 F (x)F (x) = ( πi). (4.24) h µν µν iIR renormalon at u = 3/2 N R π ± This is the net ambiguity of perturbative evaluation of the gluon condensate in our system. Since this is proportional to 1/R, it is clear that this renormalon ambiguity is peculiar to the compactiﬁed space R S1. Also, the location of the singularity u = 3/2 is not dividable × by the minimal bion action (corresponding to u = 2); we do not know of any semi-classical interpretation of this renormalon ambiguity.

8 From Eq. (1.5), we see that the change of the coupling constant from λR(q) or λR(1/R) to λR(µ) amounts to the change in the Borel transform B(u) B(u)eLu, where L = ln(µ2/q2) or ln(µ2R2). This change does not aﬀect the location of Borel singularities.→ 18 4.4. Renormalon in a physical observable Since the gluon condensate exhibits the quartic UV divergence, the gluon condensate itself may not be regarded as a physical observable. However, our result implies that there is a physical observable whose perturbative evaluation suﬀers from the renormalon ambiguity in the same way as the gluon condensate. An explicit example is provided by the gradient

flow [33] and its small flow time expansion [34]. For the “U(1) gauge field” Aµ(x), we introduce the gradient flow for t 0 by ≥

∂tBµ(t,x)= ∂νGνµ(t,x)+ α0∂µ∂ν Bν(t,x), Bµ(t = 0,x)= Aµ(x), (4.25) where G (t,x)= ∂ B (t,x) ∂ B (t,x) is the field strength of the flowed gauge field µν µ ν − ν µ and α0 is the “gauge parameter” [33]. Since this equation can be solved as

Bµ(t,x)

′ 2 2 2 dpx 1 ip(x x ) pµpν tp pµpν α0tp = A + d x′ e − δ e− + e− δA (x′), µ0 2π 2πR µν − p2 p2 ν py Z Z X (4.26) the “gluon condensate” of the ﬂowed gauge ﬁeld is simply given by putting the Gaussian 2tp2 factor e− to Eq. (4.2):

2 2 2tp2 4π ∞ d p 2p (p)e− G (t,x)G (t,x) = eipy 2πRn L h µν µν i N (2π)2 (p2 + 4Λ2) (p)2 + 4(1 p2/p2) (p)2 n= y X−∞ Z L − K 2 2 2tp2 N ,PT 4π ∞ d p p e− →∞ eipy2πRn . (4.27) → N (2π)2 ln(p2/Λ2) n= Z expansion in λR X−∞

We then repeat the argument developed so far in this section. This time, the n = 0 term is UV convergent thanks to the Gaussian factor and we can take 1/√t as the renormalization scale. Then the Borel sum gives

1 1 ∞ u 2 4πu/λR(1/√t) G (t,x)G (t,x) = du 2 − Γ (2 u)e− h µν µν iPT,n=0 N t2 − Z0 1 Λ4( πi)+ O(t), (4.28) ∼ N ± where in the second line, we indicate only the ambiguous part. In the n = 0 terms, on the 2tp2 6 other hand, we may expand the Gaussian factor as e− =1+ O(t). The ﬁrst term in this expansion is nothing but Eq. (4.18). Therefore, using Eq. (4.19),

1 1 ∞ 2u 4 Γ (2 u) 4πu/λR(1/R) G (t,x)G (t,x) = du 2π − ζ(4 2u) − e− + O(t) h µν µν iPT,n=0 N R4 − Γ (u 1) 6 Z0 − 1 Λ3 1 1 ( πi)+ Λ4( πi)+ O(Λ6R2)+ O(t). (4.29) ∼ N R π ± N ∓ In the sum of Eqs. (4.28) and (4.29), the renormalon ambiguity at u = 2 cancels out and the leading ambiguity (for ΛR 1) stems from the u = 3/2 singularity.9 This example ≪

9 In terms of the small ﬂow time expansion [34], the O(t0) terms in Eqs. (4.28) and (4.29) correspond to the gluon condensate Fµν (x)Fµν (x) . h i 19 clearly illustrates that the u = 3/2 renormalon on R S1 indeed appears in the perturbative × calculation of a physical observable.10

5. Conclusion and discussion In this paper, in the leading order of the large-N approximation, we studied the renormalon ambiguity in the gluon condensate in the 2D supersymmetric CP N 1 model on R S1 − × with the ZN twisted boundary conditions. We found that the Borel singularity at u = 2, which exists in the uncompactified space R2, disappears in the compactified space R S1. × Instead, we found an unfamiliar singularity at u = 3/2, which is peculiar to the compactified space and has no obvious semi-classical interpretation. We also showed that this renormalon indeed appears in the perturbative calculation of a physical observable. We emphasize that this result, which may be unexpected, was obtained by a very straightforward and systematic calculation. The u = 3/2 singularity peculiar to the compactified space may be understood as follows. For example, let us take Eq. (4.27) in the original form with the discrete KK momentum:

2 4π dp 1 p2e 2tp G (t,x)G (t,x) = x − . (5.1) h µν µν iPT N 2π 2πR ln(p2/Λ2) py Z expansion in λR X 2 We note that in this form the integrand/summand possesses a singularity at an IR point p = Λ2, which can be regarded as an indication of the IR renormalon. For p = 0, however, y 6 we do not encounter this singularity because for p = n/R with n = 0, p2 1/R2 Λ2 y 6 ≥ ≫ for ΛR 1. That is, the S1 radius R acts as an IR cutoﬀ for p = 0. On the other hand, ≪ y 6 this singularity matters for py = 0. The perturbative part in this py = 0 sector reads

2 4π dp 1 p2 e 2tpx G (t,x)G (t,x) = x x − µν µν PT, py = 0 2 2 h i N 2π 2πR ln(px/Λ ) Z expansion in λR

k+1 4π 1 1 ∞ dpx 2 2p2 2 k λR(1/√t) = p e− x ( ln p ) , N 2πR t3/2 2π x − x 4π Xk=0 Z (5.2) and the corresponding Borel transform is

2 k 4π 1 1 dp 2 ∞ ( ln p ) x 2 2px x k Bpy=0(u)= p e− − u N 2πR t3/2 2π x k! Z Xk=0 1 1 1 u 3/2 = 2 − Γ (3/2 u). (5.3) N Rt3/2 π − This precisely reproduces the singularity at u = 3/2 and the renormalon ambiguity in Eq. (4.29), (1/N)(Λ3/R)(1/π)( πi). The number u = 3/2 is thus naturally understood as ± the consequence of the reduction of the momentum integration to one dimension. If the integration measure in Eq. (5.3) were d2p, the leading singularity would be u = 2; the reduction of the spacetime dimension makes the IR divergence stronger.

10 It might be possible to detect this leading renormalon on R S1 by using the stochastic perturbation theory [35–39]. × 20 One might consider that the Borel singularity at u = 3/2 appears in a quantum mechanical system that is obtained by the dimensional reduction of the present system because this singularity stems from the lowest KK mode, i.e., the py = 0 sector. However, this singularity essentially originates from the logarithmic factor in the integrand of, for instance, Eq. (4.27), which comes from the running of the coupling constant. Such a running of the coupling constant does not occur in quantum mechanics (at least naively) and this phenomenon should be regarded as being peculiar to quantum field theory. Thus, we do not expect this singularity in quantum mechanics. We finally mention the relation between the present work and preceding analysis based on the bion configuration. In Ref. [20], the vacuum energy E is computed as a function of the supersymmetry breaking parameter δǫ in

N 1 a 2 N 2 δǫ − ϕ 1 2 δǫ A A 1 δS d x ma | N | 1 = d x mA z¯ z , ≡ πR 1+ − ϕb 2 − N ! πR − N Z a=1 b=1 | | Z A=1 X X (5.4) P as E(δǫ)= E(0) + E(1)δǫ + E(2)δǫ2 + . (5.5) · · · The leading ambiguity from the bion calculus was found in the E(2) term. Since these expansion coeﬃcients can be obtained as the correlation functions 1 E(1) = 2 m z¯AzA , A − N XA 1 E(2) = d2x m m z¯AzA(x)¯zB zB(0) (5.6) −πR A B c Z A B X X in the supersymmetric theory (where E(0) = 0), it is interesting to compute these numbers with the large-N technique developed in this paper. We hope to come back to this problem in the near future.

Acknowledgements Discussions with Toshiaki Fujimori, Nobuyuki Ishibashi, Tatsuhiro Misumi, Norisuke Sakai, and especially Kazuya Yonekura at the YITP workshop “Strings and Fields 2018” motivated the present work. This work was supported by JSPS Grant-in-Aid for Scientiﬁc Research Grant Numbers JP18J20935 (O.M.), JP16H03982 (H.S.), and JP19K14711 (H.T.).

A. Basic formulas with the homogeneous coordinate variables In this appendix, we summarize some useful formulas to obtain Eq. (2.19). For the bosonic part of the action, see Ref. [26]. In terms of the homogeneous coordinate, the Fubini–Study metric (2.2) is written as N 2 ab a b G ¯ = z (δ z¯ z ). (A1) ab | | − Then, the fermionic ﬁelds satisfy the relation ¯¯b a A A Ga¯bψsψs′ =χ ¯s χs′ , (A2) where s, s =+ or . From the connection on CP N 1, ′ − − ab c¯ ac ¯b ab c ac b a δ ϕ¯ + δ ϕ¯ a¯ δ ϕ + δ ϕ Γ = , Γ ¯ = , (A3) bc − 1+ ϕd 2 bc¯ − 1+ ϕd 2 d | | d | | P 21 P we have the kinetic term of the homogeneous coordinate variables χ andχ ¯ as

¯¯b a a c d A A Ga¯bψ (∂µψ + Γ cd∂µϕ ψ ) =χ ¯ (∂µ ijµ)χ . (A4) ± ± ± ± − ± a ¯¯b c ¯d¯ To translate the four-fermion interaction, Ra¯bcd¯ψ+ψ+ψ ψ , into that of the homogeneous −N −1 coordinate, we note that the Riemann curvature on CP − satisﬁes

R ¯ ¯ = G ¯G ¯ G ¯G ¯. (A5) abcd − ab cd − ad cb

This relation and Eq. (A2) immediately indicate

a ¯¯b c ¯d¯ A A B B A A B B Ra¯bcd¯ψ+ψ+ψ ψ = χ+χ¯ χ χ¯+ χ+χ¯+χ χ¯ . (A6) − − − − − − −

B. Bounds for the functions Vˆ (z), Lˆ(p), and K(p)

The modiﬁed Bessel function of the second kind Kν(z) with ν = 0 or 1 has the upper bound

2 z/2 K (z) < e− , for z > 0. (B1) ν z

This follows from the integral representation,

1 ∞ z 1 ν 1 2 (x+ ) K (z)= dx x− − e− x , (B2) ν 2 Z0 as

1 1 ∞ z 1 ν 1 2 (x+ ) K (z)= + dx x− − e− x ν 2 Z0 Z1 1 1 1 z 1 1 z 1 ν 1 2 (x+ ) ν 1 2 (x+ ) = dx x− − e− x + dx x − e− x 2 2 Z0 Z0 1 2 z 1 2 z/2 < dx x− e− 2 x = e− , (B3) z Z0 where, in the second equality, we have changed the integration variable x 1/x in the → second integral. The last inequality follows from x ν 1 x 2 for 0 x 1 and ν = 0, 1. ± − ≤ − ≤ ≤ First, for Eq. (3.18), by using Eq. (B1),

1 2πRN m 2 2 ˆ(p) dx | | K1( Λ + x(1 x)p 2πRN m ) |L |≤ Λ2 + x(1 x)p2 − | | Z0 m=0 X6 − p 1 p 1 √Λ2+x(1 x)p2πRN m < 2 dx e− − | | Λ2 + x(1 x)p2 0 m=0 Z − X6 2 2 1 1 e √Λ +x(1 x)p πRN = 4 dx − − Λ2 + x(1 x)p2 √Λ2+x(1 x)p2πRN 0 1 e− − Z − − 4 e ΛπRN < − . (B5) Λ2 1 e ΛπRN − − For Eq. (3.37), starting from

1 (p) dx 2πRN m K ( Λ2 + x(1 x)p22πRN m ), (B6) |K |≤ | | 0 − | | Z0 m=0 X6 p a calculation parallel to the above leads to 4 e ΛπRN (p) < − . (B7) |K | Λ 1 e ΛπRN − − The functions ˆ(p) and (p) thus vanish in the large-N limit (1.1). (This is because the L K functions N k ˆ(p) and N k (p) are zero as N for an arbitrary positive integer k.) |L | |K | →∞

C. Emergence of Slocal (3.39) with our convention of γ5 in dimensional regularization In this appendix, we explain the essence for the emergence of the chiral symmetry breaking term (3.39) with our convention of γ5 defined in footnote 4. The expansion of the effective action (3.1) with respect to the fluctuation δσ in Eq. (3.34) to the quadratic order yields, just as Eq. (3.27),

S 2 eff|O(δσ ) ∞ dpx 1 1 iAy02πRNm = N e− − 2π 2πR −2 py m= Z X X−∞ 2 d k iky 2πRNm 1 2 e tr δσ¯(p)P+ + δσ(p)P × (2π) ik/ +σ ¯0P+ + σ0P − Z n − h i 1 f f δσ¯( p)P+ + δσ( p)P . × i(/k /p) +σ ¯0P+ + σ0P − − − − − h io f f (C1) For the m = 0 term, which is potentially UV divergent, we apply dimensional regularization setting 2 D = 2 2ε. We adopt the convention for γ defined in footnote 4. Then we note → − 5 1 1 = ( ik/ +σ ¯0P + σ0P+) 2 , (C2) ik/ +σ ¯0P+ + σ0P − − k + ik/ˆ(σ0 σ¯0)γ5 +σ ¯0σ0 − − wherekˆ / γ kˆ and kˆ takes non-zero values only when µ = x and µ = y (i.e.,k /ˆ commutes ≡ µ µ µ 6 6 with γ ). This factorkˆ /(σ σ¯ ) can contribute in the limit ε 0 only when it is multiplied 5 0 − 0 → 23 by the UV divergence represented by 1/ε. However, the expansion of Eq. (C2) with respect tokˆ /(σ σ¯ ) decreases the degree of divergence and makes the integral in Eq. (C1) finite. 0 − 0 Thus, the m = 0 term in Eq. (C1) can be written as

S 2 eﬀ|O(δσ ),m=0 dp 1 1 = N x − 2π 2πR −2 py Z X 1 dDk 1 dx × (2π)D (k2 2xkp + Λ2 + xp2)2 Z0 Z − tr ( ik/ +σ ¯0P + σ0P+) δσ¯(p)P+ + δσ(p)P × − − − n h i [ i(/k /p) +σ ¯0P f+ σ0P+] δfσ¯( p)P+ + δσ( p)P × − − − − − − dp 1 1 h io = N x f f − 2π 2πR −2 py Z X 1 dDk 1 dx × (2π)D (k2 2xkp + Λ2 + xp2)2 Z0 Z − tr ( ik/ +σ ¯0P + σ0P+)( ik/ˆ) δσ¯(p)δσ¯( p)P+ + δσ(p)δσ( p)P × − − − − − − n h io + (normal terms). f f f f (C3) In the last expression, we have kept only the terms that resulted from the property thatkˆ / commutes with γ . These terms survive in the ε 0 limit and break the chiral symmetry. 5 → In fact, since the trace over Dirac indices requires an even number of gamma matrices, we have

dpx 1 1 S 2 = N δσ(p)δσ( p)+ δσ¯(p)δσ¯( p) eff|O(δσ ),m=0 − 2π 2πR 2 − − py Z X h i 1 dDk f f kˆ2 f f dx + (normal terms), (C4) × (2π)D (k2 2xkp + Λ2 + xp2)2 Z0 Z − and since dDk k k 1 1 1 µ ν = δ + O(ε0) (C5) (2π)D (k2 2xkp + Λ2 + xp2)2 4π 2 µν ε Z − and δˆ δ = D 2= 2ε (here, δˆ takes non-zero values only when µ = ν = x and µ = µν µν − − µν 6 ν = y; note that kˆ2 = δˆ k k ), Eq. (C4) gives rise to the first line of Eq. (3.39) as ε 0. The 6 µν µ ν → second line of Eq. (3.39) that is chirally symmetric arises from the above normal terms and the m = 0 terms of Eq. (C1); it is included in S because we summarized S (3.36) 6 local eff|quadratic in terms of δR(p) and δI(p) in Eq. (3.35). This explains the emergence of the chiral symmetry breaking term Slocal (3.39). In any case, since we can remove Slocal by a local counterterm as we did in thef main text,e this artifact of the UV regularization has no physical significance.

References [1] P. Argyres and M. Unsal,¨ Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 121601 (2012) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.109.121601 [arXiv:1204.1661 [hep-th]]. [2] P. C. Argyres and M. Unsal,¨ JHEP 1208, 063 (2012) doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2012)063 [arXiv:1206.1890 [hep-th]]. 24 [3] G. V. Dunne and M. Unsal,¨ JHEP 1211, 170 (2012) doi:10.1007/JHEP11(2012)170 [arXiv:1210.2423 [hep-th]]. [4] G. V. Dunne and M. Unsal,¨ Phys. Rev. D 87, 025015 (2013) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.87.025015 [arXiv:1210.3646 [hep-th]]. [5] G. ’t Hooft, “Can We Make Sense Out of Quantum Chromodynamics?,” Subnucl. Ser. 15, 943 (1979). [6] M. Beneke, Phys. Rept. 317, 1 (1999) doi:10.1016/S0370-1573(98)00130-6 [hep-ph/9807443]. [7] M. Eto, Y. Isozumi, M. Nitta, K. Ohashi and N. Sakai, Phys. Rev. D 72, 025011 (2005) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.72.025011 [hep-th/0412048]. [8] M. Eto, T. Fujimori, Y. Isozumi, M. Nitta, K. Ohashi, K. Ohta and N. Sakai, Phys. Rev. D 73, 085008 (2006) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.73.085008 [hep-th/0601181]. [9] M. Eto, Y. Isozumi, M. Nitta, K. Ohashi and N. Sakai, J. Phys. A 39, R315 (2006) doi:10.1088/0305- 4470/39/26/R01 [hep-th/0602170]. [10] F. Bruckmann, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 051602 (2008) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.100.051602 [arXiv:0707.0775 [hep-th]]. [11] W. Brendel, F. Bruckmann, L. Janssen, A. Wipf and C. Wozar, Phys. Lett. B 676, 116 (2009) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2009.04.055 [arXiv:0902.2328 [hep-th]]. [12] F. Bruckmann and S. Lochner, Phys. Rev. D 98, no. 6, 065005 (2018) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.98.065005 [arXiv:1805.11313 [hep-th]]. [13] E. Brézin, J.-C. Le Guillou and J. Zinn-Justin, Phys. Rev. D 15, 1558 (1977). doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.15.1558 [14] L. N. Lipatov, Sov. Phys. JETP 45, 216 (1977) [Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 72, 411 (1977)]. [15] J. C. Le Guillou and J. Zinn-Justin, “Large order behavior of perturbation theory,” Amsterdam, Netherlands: North-Holland (1990) 580 p. (Current physics - sources and comments [16] E. B. Bogomolny, Phys. Lett. 91B, 431 (1980). doi:10.1016/0370-2693(80)91014-X [17] J. Zinn-Justin, Nucl. Phys. B 192, 125 (1981). doi:10.1016/0550-3213(81)90197-8 [18] G. V. Dunne and M. Unsal,¨ PoS LATTICE 2015, 010 (2016) doi:10.22323/1.251.0010 [arXiv:1511.05977 [hep-lat]]. [19] M. Hongo, T. Misumi and Y. Tanizaki, JHEP 1902, 070 (2019) doi:10.1007/JHEP02(2019)070 [arXiv:1812.02259 [hep-th]]. [20] T. Fujimori, S. Kamata, T. Misumi, M. Nitta and N. Sakai, JHEP 1902, 190 (2019) doi:10.1007/JHEP02(2019)190 [arXiv:1810.03768 [hep-th]]. [21] E. Witten, AMS/IP Stud. Adv. Math. 50, 347 (2011) [arXiv:1001.2933 [hep-th]]. [22] M. Cristoforetti et al. [AuroraScience Collaboration], Phys. Rev. D 86, 074506 (2012) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.86.074506 [arXiv:1205.3996 [hep-lat]]. [23] M. M. Anber and T. Sulejmanpasic, JHEP 1501, 139 (2015) doi:10.1007/JHEP01(2015)139 [arXiv:1410.0121 [hep-th]]. [24] T. Fujimori, S. Kamata, T. Misumi, M. Nitta and N. Sakai, Phys. Rev. D 94, no. 10, 105002 (2016) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.94.105002 [arXiv:1607.04205 [hep-th]]. [25] T. Fujimori, S. Kamata, T. Misumi, M. Nitta and N. Sakai, Phys. Rev. D 95, no. 10, 105001 (2017) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.95.105001 [arXiv:1702.00589 [hep-th]]. [26] S. Coleman, “Aspects of Symmetry : Selected Erice Lectures,” doi:10.1017/CBO9780511565045 [27] E. Brezin, C. Itzykson, G. Parisi and J. B. Zuber, Commun. Math. Phys. 59, 35 (1978). doi:10.1007/BF01614153 [28] A. D’Adda, P. Di Vecchia and M. Lüscher, Nucl. Phys. B 152, 125 (1979). doi:10.1016/0550- 3213(79)90083-X [29] J. Wess and J. Bagger, “Supersymmetry and supergravity,” [30] E. Cremmer and J. Scherk, Phys. Lett. 74B, 341 (1978). doi:10.1016/0370-2693(78)90672-X [31] G. ’t Hooft and M. J. G. Veltman, Nucl. Phys. B 44, 189 (1972). doi:10.1016/0550-3213(72)90279-9 [32] F. David, Nucl. Phys. B 209, 433 (1982). doi:10.1016/0550-3213(82)90266-8 [33] M. Lüscher, JHEP 1008, 071 (2010) Erratum: [JHEP 1403, 092 (2014)] doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2010)071, 10.1007/JHEP03(2014)092 [arXiv:1006.4518 [hep-lat]]. [34] M. Lüscher and P. Weisz, JHEP 1102, 051 (2011) doi:10.1007/JHEP02(2011)051 [arXiv:1101.0963 [hep-th]]. [35] C. Bauer, G. S. Bali and A. Pineda, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 242002 (2012) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.242002 [arXiv:1111.3946 [hep-ph]]. [36] G. S. Bali, C. Bauer and A. Pineda, Phys. Rev. D 89, 054505 (2014) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.89.054505 [arXiv:1401.7999 [hep-ph]]. [37] M. Dalla Brida and M. Lüscher, PoS LATTICE 2016, 332 (2016) doi:10.22323/1.256.0332 [arXiv:1612.04955 [hep-lat]]. [38] L. Del Debbio, F. Di Renzo and G. Filaci, Eur. Phys. J. C 78, no. 11, 974 (2018)

25 doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-018-6458-9 [arXiv:1807.09518 [hep-lat]]. [39] F. Bruckmann and M. Puhr, arXiv:1906.09471 [hep-lat].