Comment on "A structural test for the conformal invariance of the critical 3d Ising model" by S. Meneses, S. Rychkov, J. M. Viana Parente Lopes and P. Yvernay. arXiv:1802.02319
aa r X i v : . [ h e p - t h ] F e b Comment on "A structural test for theconformal invariance of the critical 3d Isingmodel" by S. Meneses, S. Rychkov, J.M. VianaParente Lopes and P. YvernayArXiv 1802.02319
B. Delamotte ∗ , M. Tissier † , and N. Wschebor ‡ Sorbonne Université, CNRS, laboratoire de physique théorique dela matière condensée, LPTMC, F-75005 Paris, France Instituto de Física, Facultad de Ingeniería, Universidad de laRepública, J.H.y Reissig 565, 11000 Montevideo, UruguayFebruary 22, 2018
Abstract
In a recent preprint [1], Meneses et al. challenge our proof that scaleinvariance implies conformal invariance for the three-dimensional Isingmodel [2]. We refute their arguments. We also point out a mistake intheir one-loop calculation of the dimension of the vector operator V µ oflowest dimension which is not a total derivative. In a recent preprint, Meneses et al. [1] use Monte-Carlo simulations to giveevidences that conformal invariance is an emergent symmetry in the criticaldomain of the three-dimensional Ising model. The preprint also criticizes ourproof [2] that scale invariance implies conformal invariance in this model. Inthe first part of this comment, we show that this criticism is actually not valid.We then point out a mistake in their 1-loop calculation. The correct result wasalready published in [2]. We rederive it in a standard 1-loop calculation as wellas in the framework of Operator Product Expansion (OPE) that was used in[1]. ∗ [email protected] † [email protected] ‡ nicws@fing.edu.uy This interesting idea was already proposed in [2] but this is not acknowledged in [1]. Lattice correlation functions
Our proof that scale invariance implies conformal invariance for the d = 3 Isingmodel is made in two steps [2]. First, we show in the formalism of the Nonper-turbative Renormalization Group that scale invariance implies conformal invari-ance if there is no Z -invariant local vector operator V µ ( x ) of scaling dimension2 (or, more generally, d − in d space dimensions) which is not a total deriva-tive. Equivalently, the implication holds if there does not exist an integratedvector operator R d d xV µ ( x ) of scaling dimension − . Then, using the Lebowitzinequalities, we prove that this necessary condition is fulfilled in all dimensionsfor the Ising universality class by deriving a bound on the dimensions of theoperators of interest.Our proof involves operators defined on the lattice such as O ( x, { e i } ) = φ ( x + e ) φ ( x + e ) φ ( x + e ) ∇ µ φ ( x ) (1)where e i are lattice vectors of lengths of order of the lattice spacing and ∇ is a discretized version of the gradient. In the "naive continuum limit" whereall vectors e i are dropped, all these operators are equal to φ ( x ) ∇ µ φ ( x ) . Theauthors of [1] pretend that we "claim that it is the naive continuum limit whichdetermines the long-distance asymptotics" of these operators which means thatwe would forget the mixing of operators. This is by no means correct. First, wefully take into account the mixing of operators in deriving our bounds, see ourEquation (A1) for instance. The mixing of composite operators O ( n ) of degree n in the field means that the long distance behavior of correlation functionsinvolving O ( n ) can be dominated by operators O ( m ) with m < n . This is whythe bound in our Equation (A1), obtained for | x − y | ≫ a with a the latticespacing: h φ α ( x ) φ β ( y ) i c ≤ C ( α, β ) G ( x − y ) for odd α, β (2)[ G is the propagator and C ( α, β ) a constant] is the same for all α and β : Theoperators φ α ( x ) with α odd mix with φ ( x ) and this is the reason why only G tothe power one appears in the right hand side of the inequality (2). Second, whatwe precisely assume (see our Eq.(24) that we reproduce below for clarity) is thatthe correlation functions involving two operators O ( x, { e i } ) and O ( x, { e ′ i } ) having the same naive continuum limit have the same – non naive, because ofmixing – long distance behavior up to a renormalization factor: hO ( x, { e i } ) O ( y ) · · · O n ( y n ) i ∼ Z O ( a ) hO ( x, { e ′ i } ) O ( y ) · · · O n ( y n ) i . (3)We claim in [2] that this assumption (i) is true to all orders of perturbationtheory and, (ii) is currently made in Monte Carlo simulations.Point (i) is trivial: The model is renormalizable for d ≤ . As a conse-quence of general renormalization theory, the two correlation functions presentin Eq.(3) above have each a renormalized counterpart that exists, can be com-puted at any order of the epsilon-expansion and is finite when the UV regulator A similar sufficient condition has been proposed by Polchinski [3]. Both conditions canbe used equivalently in the present discussion although they do not always coincide.
2s removed. As already mentioned above, the renormalized operators involvedin the renormalized correlation functions decompose into several operators ofdifferent scaling dimensions. As a consequence, the renormalized counterpart ofthe correlation function in the left-hand-side of (3) is dominated at long-distanceby the correlation of the leading term appearing in the decomposition of O , thatis, the operator of smallest scaling dimension with which it mixes. The sameholds true for the right-hand-side of (3) with O . Now, consider the lattice as aparticular regularization. The two operators O ( x, { e i } ) and O ( x, { e ′ i } ) beingtwo different discretizations of the same renormalized operator O R ( x ) in the con-tinuum can be considered as two different lattice regularizations of O R ( x ) . Forsymmetry reasons, they mix with the same set of operators and they thereforeshare the same leading operator. The long-distance behavior of the correlationfunctions of either O , O or O R with O ( y ) · · · O n ( y n ) are thus proportionalwith multiplicative coefficients that, in general, depend on the lattice spacing a .This proves Eq.(3) within perturbation theory. To the best of our knowledge,Eq. (3) has not been proven nonperturbatively [4].An exception to the proof above occurs when the mixing with the leadingoperator of either O or O turns out to vanish for accidental reasons. In thiscase, the long-distance behaviour of the correlation function comes from thesubleading operator which makes all the bounds we derived in [2] to be againsatisfied.As for Monte Carlo simulations, it is clear that if Eq. (3) were not correct,two different lattice discretizations of, say, ∇ ν φ ( x ) would generically lead totwo different long distance behaviors of the correlation functions involving thisoperator. This would trivially violate universality. For instance, in their MonteCarlo simulations, Meneses et al. discretize the gradient in their equation below(2.1) in the following way: ∇ ν s ( x ) = 12 s ( x + e ν ) − s ( x − e ν ) (4)but they could have chosen as well another discretization of the gradient suchas for instance ∇ ν s ( x ) = − s ( x + 2 e ν ) + 23 s ( x + e ν ) − s ( x − e ν ) + 112 s ( x − e ν ) . (5)Having the same naive continuum limit, these two discretizations lead at longdistance to the same behavior for the correlation functions involving this oper-ator. This is nothing but a particular case of our Eq. (3). Thus, the authors of[1] use – implicitly – the same assumption as us, which is fine.Let us now examine what Menenes et al. consider as a counter-example toour bound, see their Eq.(B.2) and below. They consider a complex field φ ( x ) and the O (2) model defined on the lattice and involving this field. They thenintroduce the operators φ ( x + e ) φ ( x + e ) φ ∗ ( x + e ) ∇ µ φ ∗ ( x )+ φ ∗ ( x + e ) φ ∗ ( x + e ) φ ( x + e ) ∇ µ φ ( x ) (6) or, equivalently U (1) supplemented by the mirror symmetry: φ ↔ φ ⋆ ∇ µ [ φ ( x ) φ ∗ ( x )] in the naive continuum limit, whatever the choiceof lattice vectors e i . They then write that "if [our] argument [...] were universallyvalid, it would allow to conclude that any nonderivative vector operator inthe O(2) model in 3d has dimension larger than 2". They finally exhibit theconserved current J µ = φ∂ µ φ ∗ − φ ∗ ∂ µ φ which has exactly dimension 2, andconclude that our proof is wrong.The problem with the argument above is the following: Our proof does notrely at all on a "universally valid" bound but, of course, on a bound for theclass of integrated vector operators with specific symmetries: Z for Ising and O (2) for the model considered in [1]. This is explicit in our Eq.(14) in [2]. Inthe O(2) case, the operator J µ considered by the authors of [1] is not invariantunder φ ↔ φ ∗ and is therefore not a candidate for the class of operators that wewould consider for the O (2) model (it is U(1) invariant but not invariant under φ ↔ φ ∗ ). Of course, any lattice discretization of a O(2)-invariant operator mustpreserve the O(2) symmetry, a well-known fact by anyone who performs Monte-Carlo simulations. Thus, it is true that for generic vectors e i , the operatorsin Eq.(6) mix with J µ , but this remark is pointless for our proof because wemust choose the lattice vectors e i in such a way that the mirror symmetry ispreserved. In this case, the discretized operator (6) does not couple to J µ andthe argument in [1] is thus invalid. Let us notice that in the Ising case, thesituation is simpler: The symmetry is Z and the only concern is to consideroperators with an even number of fields which is, of course, what we do. We finally want to make a comment on ref.[1]. In their Appendix B, the authorscompute at one loop the smallest scaling dimension of a Z -invariant vectoroperator V µ which is not a total derivative. However, their result is wrong ascan be readily checked when comparing their Eq.(1.4) with our result quoted onthe fourth line of the right column of the page 012144-4 in the published versionof our paper. We first briefly sketch the calculation that led to our result [2] that the lowestscaling dimension of an integrated vector operator is O ( ǫ ) in d = 4 − ǫ . Theidea is to add to the standard φ action a perturbation of the form: K µ Z x φ ∂ µ ∆ φ. (7)This leads to a 4-point vertex of the form S (4) ( p i ) = 6 i K µ X i =1 ( p i ) p µi . (8) A generalization of our proof to vector O ( N ) models with N =2, 3 and 4 will appearsoon [5]. One can for instance choose e = e , e = e , e = e . Meneses et al. do not quote our result in their paper. Γ (4) which has a contribution proportional to the momentum-dependence exhibited in Eq (8). At one loop, this divergence occurs in a Feyn-man diagram with one power of the perturbation (7) and one power of φ . Thisdivergence is then absorbed in a counterterm for K µ , from which we extract the β function: ∂ ℓ K µ = ( − ǫ ) K µ − gK µ . (9)Replacing g by its fixed point value, we find that the 1-loop correction exactlycompensates the dimensional contribution ǫ . From this we deduce the resultstated above for the dimension of the integrated vector operator: it remainsequal to 3 at one loop.The authors of [1] compute the same scaling dimension by using anotherapproach. The main difference is that they consider local operators instead of integrated ones. In fact, as we now discuss, their result is wrong. The origin oftheir mistake is that they retain only two operators: O = φ∂ µ φ ( ∂ ν φ ) O = φ ( ∂ ν φ )( ∂ µ ∂ ν φ ) . (10)However, the operator product expansion of O and O with φ is not closed.Instead of the result of Appendix A of [1], we find O .φ = 60 O + 8 O + 16 O (11) O .φ = 12 O + 64 O + 2 O + 6 O (12)where: O = φ ∂ µ φ ( ∂ ν φ ) O = φ ( ∂ µ ∂ ν φ ) . (13)These OPE are complemented by: O .φ = 36 O , O .φ = 36 O . (14)Since the operators O and O do not couple to O and O under multi-plication by φ , one could expect that they do not influence the determinationof the scaling dimension of V µ . In fact, the eigenvalues 72 and 52 found in [1]remain eigenvalues of the problem even in presence of O and O . The two extraeigenvalues are degenerate, with value 36.Although the presence of O and O does not modify the eigenvalues, itchanges their interpretation. Looking at the eigenoperators E λ = P i =1 α i O i We work here in the same conventions as Cardy [6] to ease the comparison with lattercalculations. In this normalization, the beta function for the φ coupling constant is β g = ǫg − g . In principle, other operators such as ∂ µ ( φ ) should be considered but they play no roleat one loop in dimensional regularization. E λ .φ = λE λ , we find that E is a total derivative: E = − O + 8 O − O + 3 O (15) = ∂ ν S µν (16)where S µν is a traceless symmetric tensor: S µν = φ (4 ∂ µ ∂ ν − δ µν ∆) φ − φ (4 ∂ µ φ∂ ν φ − δ µν ∂ ρ φ∂ ρ φ ) . (17)Contrarily to what was stated in [1], 52 is therefore not the eigenvalue we want toretain. The eigenoperator associated with the eigenvalue 72 is also a derivative: E = O + O + 12 O + 16 O (18) = 124 ∂ µ ∂ ν ( φ ) (19)and does not either correspond to the operator V µ . The eigenoperator associatedwith V µ is actually a linear combination of O and O , associated with theeigenvalue 36. (Note that the combination E = 3 O + O is the total derivativeof the scalar S = φ ∆ φ ).Following [6], we readily derive that the scaling dimension of the integratedoperator V µ is O ( ǫ ) while the scaling dimension of the local operator is − ǫ + O ( ǫ ) , in agreement with the calculation sketched at the beginning ofthis section.As a consistency check, we observe that E , E and E being total deriva-tives, their scaling dimension should be related with the scaling dimension oftheir associated primary operators, which are respectively φ , S µν and S . Wehave checked that, indeed, S µν .φ = 52 S µν and S.φ = 36 S and of course φ .φ = 72 φ , which shows that this relation indeed holds. References [1] S. Meneses, S. Rychkov, J. M. Viana Parente Lopes, P. Yvernay,arXiv:1802.02319.[2] B. Delamotte, M. Tissier and N. Wschebor, Phys. Rev. E93