Gentle introduction to rigorous Renormalization Group: a worked fermionic example Alessandro Giuliania;b, Vieri Mastropietroc, Slava Rychkovd;e aDipartimento di Matematica e Fisica, Universit`adegli Studi Roma Tre, L.go S. L. Murialdo 1, 00146 Roma - Italy bCentro Linceo Interdisciplinare Beniamino Segre, Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Via della Lungara 10, 00165 Roma - Italy cDipartimento di Matematica, Universit`adegli Studi di Milano, Via Cesare Saldini 50, 20133 Milano - Italy dInstitut des Hautes Etudes´ Scientifiques, Bures-sur-Yvette, France eLaboratoire de Physique de l'Ecole normale sup´erieure, ENS, Universit´ePSL, CNRS, Sorbonne Universit´e,Universit´ede Paris, F-75005 Paris, France Abstract Much of our understanding of critical phenomena is based on the notion of Renormalization Group (RG), but the actual determination of its fixed points is usually based on approximations and truncations, and predictions of physical quantities are often of limited accuracy. The RG fixed points can be however given a fully rigorous and non-perturbative characterization, and this is what is presented here in a model of symplectic fermions with a nonlocal (\long-range") kinetic term depending on a parameter " and a quartic interaction. We identify the Banach space of interactions, which the fixed point belongs to, and we determine it via a convergent approximation scheme. The Banach space is not limited to relevant interactions, but it contains arXiv:2008.04361v4 [hep-th] 30 Jan 2021 all possible irrelevant terms with short-ranged kernels, decaying like a stretched exponential at large distances. As the model shares a number of features in common with φ4 or Ising models, the result can be used as a benchmark to test the validity of truncations and approximations in RG studies. The analysis is based on results coming from Constructive RG to which we provide a tutorial and self-contained introduction. In addition, we prove that the fixed point is analytic in ", a somewhat surprising fact relying on the fermionic nature of the problem. August 2020 Contents 1 Introduction 3 1.1 The model . .6 1.2 Strategy and open questions . .7 1.3 Convergence, analyticity and non-perturbative nature of the fixed point . .8 1.4 Summary . 10 2 Definition of the model and formulation of the problem 11 2.1 Renormalization map . 13 3 The fixed point equation at lowest order 15 4 The Banach space of interactions 17 4.1 Representation of interactions by kernels . 17 4.1.1 Trimmed representation . 18 4.2 Norms . 20 4.2.1 The norm of H` ................................... 20 4.2.2 The norm of a trimmed sequence . 21 5 The renormalization map 22 5.1 Integrating-out map . 22 5.2 Trimming . 24 5.2.1 Equivalent coupling sequences . 25 5.2.2 Trimming map . 25 5.3 Dilatation . 27 5.4 Renormalization map in the trimmed representation . 27 5.5 Fixed point equation . 28 5.6 Norm bounds . 30 `1;:::;`n 5.6.1 Bounds for Sl ................................. 31 `1;:::;`n 5.6.2 Bounds for R` ................................. 32 6 Construction of the fixed point 33 6.1 Key lemma . 33 6.2 Abstract analysis . 35 6.2.1 Complex version of the Abstract Lemma . 38 6.3 Fixed point theorem . 39 6.4 Semigroup property and γ-independence . 41 6.5 Analyticity . 42 7 Proof of Key lemma 43 7.1 Case ` > 8.......................................... 44 7.2 Case ` =6R......................................... 47 7.3 Case ` =4R......................................... 48 7.4 Case ` =2R......................................... 48 (0) 7.5 eν .............................................. 49 (0) 7.6 eλ .............................................. 49 7.7 Possibility of all choices . 50 8 Discussion and open problems 51 8.1 Open questions . 52 8.1.1 Extensions to other nonlocal models . 52 2 8.1.2 Further properties of the RG fixed points . 53 8.1.3 Conformal invariance . 54 8.1.4 Relations with analytic regularization . 55 8.1.5 Increasing the range of " .............................. 55 8.1.6 Extension to non-integer N? To non-integer d?................. 57 8.1.7 Connections to Functional Renormalization Group . 57 8.1.8 Bosonic fixed points . 58 A Gevrey classes and fluctuation propagator bounds 59 A.1 Cutoff function of Gevrey class . 59 A.2 Fluctuation propagator bounds . 61 A.2.1 k-space . 61 A.2.2 x-space . 62 B Details about Heff 63 C Trimming details 64 D Determinant bounds for fermionic expectations 67 D.1 Simple expectations . 67 D.2 Connected expectations . 69 D.3 Brydges-Battle-Federbush (BBF) formula . 71 D.4 Gawedzki-Kupiainen-Lesniewski (GKL) bound . 75 D.5 Bound on the number of anchored trees . 78 `1;:::;`n E Proof of Sl norm bound 78 (1) (2) F Estimates of ∆k ; ∆k 80 G One-loop coefficients I1 and I2 82 H Finite volume and non-perturbative validity of Heff 84 I Fixed point in a formal power series expansion 90 J Fixed point via the tree expansion 93 J.1 On the flow of the effective couplings . 98 K Rigorously constructed bosonic fixed points 99 1 Introduction Renormalization group (RG) is a pillar of theoretical physics, explaining how long-distance collective behavior emerges from microscopic models. Critical phenomena are thus understood in terms of RG fixed points (Wilson [1{3]) and universality is explained in terms of basins of attractions. While this beautiful picture qualitatively works very well, quantitative applications often lead to practical diffi- culties. To compute critical exponents, one typically does perturbation theory in a small parameter, like = 4 d in the -expansion [4]. The accuracy of this procedure is limited by the proliferation of Feynman− diagrams, and by the slow convergence of Borel-resummed series (while without resum- mation it normally diverges). As a consequence, predictions of critical exponents using perturbative RG [5,6] are often less accurate than lattice Monte Carlo simulations or the conformal bootstrap [7]. It should be stressed that Wilson did not consider RG limited to situations with a small coupling. Two strongly coupled RG examples can be found in [2]. One is his famous solution of the Kondo problem. The other is less known but no less impressive: an RG calculation for the 2D Ising model in a space of 217 couplings, concluding that \one can do precise calculations using pure renormalization 3 group methods with the only approximations being based on locality." Other developments in theoretical physics suggest, indirectly, that Wilson ideas are non-perturbatively correct. We can mention here exact results in two-dimensional field theory (see e.g. [8]), obtained by conformal field theory, integrable models, exact S-matrix bootstrap etc., which have provided many examples of exact non-perturbative RG flows, never finding any inconsistency with Wilsonian expectations. In higher dimensions, exact results in supersymmetric theories (see e.g. [9]) as well as the gauge-gravity duality considerations (see e.g. [10,11]) have always confirmed Wilson ideas. It is therefore somewhat surprising that the most straightforward interpretation of Wilson's vision, as a non-perturbative machine which would allow non-perturbatively and with an essentially unlimited precision to compute the properties of any RG fixed point of interest, has not so far been achieved. It is fair to say that this was not for the lack of trying, see e.g. [12] for the early attempts. Two notable, although not fully successful, attempts have been the Functional Renormalization Group (FRG) [13, 14] and Tensor Network Renormalization (TNR) [15{17]. The FRG calculations include couplings with arbitrary powers of fluctuating field, but only up to some finite derivative order. Unfortunately, with more derivatives, FRG results tend to become more and more sensitive to the parameters specifying the regulating function [18, 19]. This has been traced to increasing violations of conformal invariance, except at some special parameter values satisfying a \principle of minimal sensitivity" [20]. It remains to be understood why the convergence to the fixed point does not hold more robustly in FRG. As for the TNR, it works well for simple 2D lattice models such as the 2D Ising model but hasn't been yet as effective in higher dimensions. So, in spite of these attempts, although it is generally believed that the non-perturbative Wilsonian RG fixed points do exist, at present they often remain Platonic objects, confined to the world of ideas and accessible to us only via approximations of rather limited accuracy. Take e.g. the RG fixed point for the 3D Ising model. If it exists, which Banach space does it belong to? Can we access it via a provably convergent approximation scheme? At the moment these questions are wide open. Note that Wilson believed in the Ising RG fixed point very concretely: as a fixed-point Hamiltonian invariant under a Kadanoff block-spin transformation. As mentioned above, for 2D Ising, he found an approximate fixed-point Hamiltonian numerically, truncating to a space of 217 lattice spin inter- actions [2]. But the convergence of his scheme has never been proven, nor has it been implemented in 3D. Incidentally, Wilson did worry about rigorous convergence properties of RG maps; e.g. in [21] a model RG transformation was shown to be convergent for a rescaling parameter larger than 4 106. × Of course, as already mentioned, there are nowadays other methods to get precise values of critical exponents, most notably the conformal bootstrap [7]. However, this does not mean that the RG should be abandoned. First, RG is more general than the conformal bootstrap, since many RG fixed points important for physics do not have conformal invariance, such as any fixed point involving time evolution or relaxation, and having a dynamical critical exponent z = 1. Second, it is quite possible that there exist much better RG implementations, and we just haven't6 found them yet.