text:
# The evolution of the stellar hosts of radio galaxies

## 1 Introduction

At low redshifts, FRI and FRII radio sources with radio luminosities at 151 MHz of $`L_{R(151)}\stackrel{>}{_{}}10^{24}\mathrm{WHz}^1`$ are associated almost exclusively with giant elliptical host galaxies. If this continues to be the case out to high redshift, then radio galaxies can give us a unique insight into the formation and evolution of a single class of massive galaxy. This is particularly exciting in the light of submillimetre detections of $`z4`$ radio galaxies (e.g. Archibald et al. 2000) which may indicate that we can see these objects during their major bursts of star formation \[although see also Willott, Rawlings & Jarvis (2000)\]. Furthermore, the similarity of radio galaxy hosts, in contrast to the wide range in luminosity of radio-quiet quasar hosts (McLure et al. 1999; Ridgway et al. 2000), suggests that one of the conditions necessary for producing powerful radio jets is the presence of a massive spheroidal component, and therefore a supermassive ($`\stackrel{>}{_{}}10^9M_{})`$ black hole (Lacy, Ridgway & Trentham 2000).

Studies of high redshift radio galaxy hosts have traditionally concentrated on the $`Kz`$ Hubble Diagram. Work on the 3C and 1 Jy samples by Lilly (1989 and refs. therein) initially pointed to a passively-evolving stellar host formed at high redshift which evolved into the giant elliptical radio galaxy hosts seen today, but this was challenged when some high redshift radio galaxies were found to have significant emission line contributions to their $`K`$-band light (Eales & Rawlings 1993, 1996). Only by finding low AGN-luminosity radio galaxies at high redshift could the controversy be resolved. Eales et al. (1997) used the 6C sample, a factor of five fainter in radio flux than the 3C sample, to show that there did seem to be a radio luminosity dependence of host galaxy magnitude. Further work by Roche, Eales & Rawlings (1998) indicated that the hosts of 6C radio galaxies were not only significantly fainter than their 3C counterparts, but also had smaller scale sizes.

We have used the 7C-iii radio galaxy redshift survey of Lacy et al. (1999b) to select a complete sample of $`z>0.8`$ radio galaxies. The 7C redshift surveys are a factor of 4–5 lower still in luminosity at a given redshift than the 6C sample of Eales et al. (1997), and thus allow the study of high redshift radio galaxy hosts over a wide range in radio luminosity (Willott et al. 1999). The 7C-iii sources were imaged in the near-infrared on the 3-m NASA Infrared Telescope Facility (IRTF) and the 3-m Shane Telescope at Lick Observatory. These data have allowed us to further investigate the radio luminosity dependence of host properties at $`z1`$ and, because our 7C objects at $`z2`$ have similar radio luminosities to $`z1`$ 6C radio galaxies and $`z0.3`$ 3C radio galaxies, we can also investigate host galaxy evolution over a wide range in redshift.

We assume a cosmology with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{M}=1,\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$ and $`H_0=50\mathrm{kms}^1\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$ except where otherwise stated.

## 2 Observations

Most sources were observed on the IRTF with NSFCAM, a near infrared imaging camera employing a $`256\times 256`$ InSb array, on the nights of 1999 July 28 – 29 UT. The 0.3 arcsec/pixel scale was used for all observations. Details of the observations are given in Table 1. One of the $`J`$, $`H`$ or $`K^{^{}}`$ filters was chosen for each object so as to cover as far as possible the rest-frame $`R`$-band, thus minimizing the $`k`$-correction and the associated uncertainties. In practice this meant that objects with $`0.8<z<1.2`$ were observed in $`J`$-band, those with $`1.2<z<1.8`$ in $`H`$-band and those with $`z>1.8`$ in $`K`$-band (using a $`K^{^{}}`$ filter). Exceptions to this were two objects with uncertain redshifts, 7C 1756+6520 and 7C 1804+6313, which were both observed in $`K^{^{}}`$ for ease of estimating photometric redshifts. The sky was clear throughout the run, and most objects were observed in conditions of sub-arcsecond seeing. Two more objects with uncertain redshifts were observed using the Gemini instrument (McLean et al. 1993, 1994) on the Shane Telescope at Lick Observatory on the nights of 1999 June 1 and 4 UT. Gemini was used with a dichroic beamsplitter which enabled us to image in $`J`$ and $`K^{^{}}`$ simultaneously. The detector on the short wavelength arm was a $`256\times 256`$ HgCdTe array, and that on the long wavelength arm a $`256\times 256`$ InSb array. The image scale in both arms was 0.68 arcsec/pixel. 7C 1814+6704 was observed in both runs, but the better seeing of the IRTF data allowed more accurate photometry in the moderately crowded field so only the IRTF data is presented. In addition a $`K^{^{}}`$ image of 7C 1745+6624 was presented in Lacy et al. (1999b).

The data were reduced using the dimsum package in iraf, and flat-fielded using dome flats. The final images were magnified by a factor of two before combination to improve the sampling of the final image. The reduced images are shown in Fig. 1 and the photometric properties detailed in Table 2.

## 3 Analysis

### 3.1 Magnitudes and $`k`$-corrections

Aperture magnitudes were measured as listed in Table 2 and corrected to a standard 63.9 kpc metric aperture according to the prescription of Eales et al. (1997), which assumes a power-law curve of growth of the form $`I(<r)r^{0.35}`$ for $`z>0.6`$ objects. Our metric aperture corresponds to about 8 arcsec at $`z\stackrel{>}{_{}}1`$ in our assumed cosmology, and this angular size is not strongly dependent on the choice of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{M}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. For many of our objects we have been able to measure the magnitude in a large aperture, but for some we have had to restrict the aperture to $`3`$ arcsec to avoid contamination from neighbouring objects or excessive noise in the case of faint objects. The aperture correction applied in these cases is $`0.4`$ magnitudes. The disadvantage of this technique is that the aperture magnitude and in particular the correction are scale-size dependent. An alternative would have been to use total magnitudes (cf. Roche et al. 1998). However, we decided against this as for low signal-to-noise detections the curve of growth is ill-defined and can lead to large errors in the magnitudes (Stevens 1999). The mean half-light radius of our objects is 0.9 arcsec, so the typical amount of flux missed in an 8 arcsec aperture will be very small in any case. We thus believe that the use of these large aperture magnitudes will not seriously affect the results of this paper.

For objects with spectroscopic redshifts, $`k`$-corrections to rest-frame $`R`$-band were made using 1Gyr-burst models generated using the pegase code (Fioc & Rocca-Volmerange 1997), integrating over the appropriate filter profiles. A model galaxy with a total age of 2 Gyr was used for objects with $`2<z3`$, and 3 Gyr for objects with $`0.8<z2`$. The $`z>3`$ objects used a 1.4 Gyr-old model galaxy. For most objects the $`k`$-corrections are small ($`<0.2`$ magnitudes), the exceptions to this being the $`z>3`$ objects for which $`K^{^{}}`$ corresponds to rest-frame wavelengths significantly shorter than $`R`$-band (but still above 4000Å) and 7C 1756+6520 which was observed in $`K^{^{}}`$ to check its redshift photometrically. The biggest correction was $``$0.61 mag. for 7C 1814+6704 at a probable redshift of 4.05.

### 3.2 Photometric redshifts for objects in the 7C-iii sample

Several of the objects observed had uncertain redshifts \[grade $`\gamma `$ in Lacy et al. (1999b)\] or no redshift information at all. Of the objects without spectroscopic redshifts, 7C 1748+6703 has a $`K^{^{}}`$ magnitude and colours consistent with $`2.4<z<4`$ whereas 7C 1753+6311 and 7C 1804+6313 both have magnitudes and colours consistent with them having redshifts in the range $`1.2<z<1.8`$ (Willott et al. 2000). In addition Lacy et al. (1999b) estimated a photometric redshift of 1.7 for 7C 1743+6341. The identification of 7C 1753+6311 in Lacy et al. (1999b), which had a provisional redshift of 1.96, actually corresponds to a blue galaxy along the radio axis. Our Lick image showed that the true identification is a very red ($`RK^{^{}}\stackrel{>}{_{}}5`$) galaxy 4.7 arcsec away which is significantly closer to the likely radio central component. Nevertheless, the original identification may well be associated with the radio galaxy, and the magnitude and colours are consistent with $`z\stackrel{<}{_{}}2`$, so we have not revised our redshift estimate. As we aligned the slit with the radio axis, though, we might have expected to see Ly$`\alpha `$ in the spectrum if the redshift were indeed $`1.96`$. Thus we note that the redshift may well be lower. 7C 1756+6520 had a provisional redshift of 1.48, and its $`K^{^{}}`$ magnitude is just consistent with this, although somewhat fainter than the mean $`Kz`$ relation at this redshift. 7C 1814+6702 with a provisional redshift of 4.05 has a $`K^{^{}}`$ magnitude in both the IRTF and Lick data consistent with both $`z4`$ and $`1.2<z<1.8`$, although its diffuse and possibly aligned structure is typical of $`z>3`$ objects (van Breugel et al. 1998) so has been kept at 4.05 pending a deeper spectrum. 7C 1816+6710 was observed in $`H`$-band by Lacy et al. (1999a), its magnitude is consistent with its provisional redshift of 0.92. Only one object, 7C 1820+6657, was undetected in our study; its faint magnitude is consistent with its provisional redshift of 2.98.

In summary, we now have photometry on all nine of the high redshift radio galaxies with either no redshift information or uncertain redshifts in the 7C-iii sample of 54 objects. All six objects with uncertain redshifts have near-infrared magnitudes consistent with their tentative spectroscopic redshifts. Of the three objects with no redshift information, two have photometry consistent with them having redshifts $`1.5`$, and the one remaining object (7C 1748+6703) is probably at $`z3`$.

### 3.3 Emission line contamination of broad-band magnitudes

Line contamination of continuum magnitudes is expected to be small in nearly all the 7C objects, as the correlation of emission line and radio luminosities means that, on average, emission line fluxes will be much less than those from objects in radio-brighter samples. Whereas the $`z\stackrel{>}{_{}}2`$ objects studied by Eales & Rawlings (1996) typically have line contaminations of a few tens of percent, the 7C objects, which are selected at radio fluxes about four to five times lower, should have line contaminations $`\stackrel{<}{_{}}10`$ %. We have listed in Table 2 the estimated percentage contribution to the observed flux for all objects with bright emission lines in the observed band. These are based on the spectroscopy of Lacy et al. (1999b), using the median Ly$`\alpha /`$H$`\alpha `$+\[Nii\] ratio of 0.7 in Eales & Rawlings (1996), the line ratios in the composite radio galaxy spectrum of McCarthy (1993) and the H$`\alpha `$/H$`\beta `$ ratios of Koski (1978) to estimate the strengths of lines falling in the observed near-infrared. As expected, most objects have emission line contributions of $`<10`$ % . For only one object, 7C 1802+6456, is the emission line contamination expected to be $`>`$20 % .

### 3.4 Estimation of half-light radii

The seeing during most of our IRTF observations was very good, and it was clear from looking at the images that there was a wide range in the scale sizes of the hosts. We therefore selected a subsample consisting of the 15 sources with grade $`\alpha `$ or $`\beta `$ redshifts in the range $`0.8<z<2.7`$ in Lacy et al. (1999b) for which we had IRTF images. Although not complete, this sample should be representative of the 7C objects in this redshift range. To estimate the scale sizes we convolved model elliptical (de Vaucouleurs) galaxies having a range in half-light radius $`r_{\mathrm{hl}}`$ from 0.1 to 6.7 arcsec and zero ellipticity with a PSF from a nearby star in each IRTF image. The model was subtracted from the data and the minimum in the sum of the squares of the residuals found, along with the approximate $`\pm 1\sigma `$ range. An example of this process is shown in Fig. 2. The results were also checked by eye to see that the fits were reasonable. Nearby companion objects and discrete sub-components were subtracted prior to the fits. Although this is far from a full host galaxy model (in particular we made no attempt to discriminate between disc and de Vaucoulours fits), we feel that it should give a fair estimate of the scale size, and was all that the signal:noise in the images typically justified.

To obtain a major axis scale size to compare to other work, we need to assume a mean ellipticity, $`e`$, and correct our scale sizes with this. Roche et al. and Govoni et al. (2000) derive very similar mean values of $`e0.2`$ for the 6C radio galaxies at $`z1`$ and nearby radio galaxy hosts respectively, so this value has been assumed to correct the mean scale sizes quoted in Section 4 by multiplying the scale size by the square root of the axial ratio corresponding to $`e=0.2`$, namely $`1.06`$.

For two objects we have been able to compare the scale sizes with those measured on images taken with the Hubble Space Telescope (HST). 7C 1758+6719 ($`z=2.70`$) was observed with WFPC2 through the F702W filter; details of the observations will be given in a future paper (Lacy et al. in preparation). For this rest-frame UV image an exponential disk with $`r_{\mathrm{hl}}=0.21`$ arcsec was found to be a good fit to the radial profile. This can be compared with the estimate of $`r_{\mathrm{hl}}`$ from the IRTF image of 0.35 arcsec with a $`1\sigma `$ range of 0.12 – 1.0 arcsec, which we consider fair agreement. 7C 1754+6420 $`(z=1.09)`$ was observed through the F675W filter (Ridgway & Lacy in preparation). Again, the rest-frame UV emission was better fit by a disk than a de Vaucouleurs profile. In this case the scale size came out significantly smaller than the estimate from the IRTF image, 0.7 arcsec in the HST image compared to a best fit of 4.5 arcsec and a range of 1.6 – 13 arcsec for the IRTF image. This was despite the subtraction of a nearby companion to the south which was successfully removed from both the HST and IRTF images. The cause of this discrepancy is not clear. This image had the worst seeing of any of our IRTF images (1.1 arcsec), but the scale size measured in the IRTF image is much larger than the seeing HWHM. The radial profile of the IRTF image is, however, not at all well fit by the disk model from the HST image. Therefore perhaps the most likely cause of this discrepancy is that the galaxy has a UV-bright disk component embedded in a much larger scale-size elliptical.

### 3.5 Other data from the literature

To increase the number of high redshift objects in our study we have added the results of photometry of $`z25`$ radio galaxies by van Breugel et al. (1998). We also estimated scale sizes from their figure 2 for objects which appeared to be dynamically-relaxed ellipticals (seven out of the eight of their radio galaxies with $`z<3`$). We applied $`k`$\- and aperture corrections in a consistent manner to that for the 7C-iii radio sources. We have also added those $`1.6<z<2.4`$ objects without a strong point source contribution from the NICMOS study of radio galaxies by Pentericci (1999; and Pentericci et al. 2000), including the estimates of scale sizes for the five out of the nine objects in this redshift range for which Pentericci considers it possible to fit meaningful scale sizes. We also include the low luminosity $`z=4.42`$ radio galaxy VLA 123642+621331 discovered in the flanks of the Hubble Deep Field (Waddington et al. 1999) and 53W002 at $`z=2.239`$ (Windhorst, Mathis & Keel 1992).

The resulting high redshift (HZ) sample is detailed in Table 3. It mostly contains objects of radio luminosity comparable to the 3C radio galaxies at $`z1`$. As these objects (particularly those at $`z>3`$) were generally observed outside of rest-frame $`R`$-band, and are mostly not from complete samples, the results including the HZ sample will not be as reliable, though as we shall see the same trends seem to exist with or without this sample.

## 4 Discussion

### 4.1 Radio-luminosity and redshift dependence of absolute magnitudes

In Fig. 3 we plot the rest-frame $`R`$-band magnitudes against redshift for several samples of radio galaxies. We plot the $`z>0.8`$ 7C-iii objects with spectroscopic redshifts and infrared imaging, $`z>0.8`$ 6C radio galaxies with photometry from Eales et al. (1997), $`z>0.8`$ 3C radio galaxies in the Laing, Riley & Longair (1983; LRL) complete sample with photometry from Best, Longair & Röttgering (1998) \[apart from 3C22 which is a lightly-reddened quasar (Rawlings et al. 1995) and therefore excluded from the sample, 3C 175.1 ($`z=0.92`$) which has photometry from Ridgway & Stockton (1997) and 3C 263.1 ($`z=0.824`$) which has photometry from Eales (personal communication)\]. We have also added local radio galaxies in LRL from Owen & Laing (1989) and the HZ sample of galaxies of Table 3. All these objects, with the exception of three FRIs out of the 24 objects in the Owen & Laing LRL sample are either FRII or compact steep-spectrum sources. All the $`z>0.8`$ 7C-iii sources at $`z>0.8`$ are well above the FRI/FRII boundary in radio luminosity, with $`L_{R(151)}\stackrel{>}{_{}}10^{26}\mathrm{WHz}^1\mathrm{sr}^1`$ compared to the FRI/FRII boundary at $`L_{R(151)}10^{25}\mathrm{WHz}^1\mathrm{sr}^1`$.

There is a clear trend for redshift and absolute magnitude to correlate, even if the incomplete HZ sample is excluded. The 3C, 6C and 7C samples are all complete samples, selected on the basis of low frequency radio flux only, and are nearly completely identified. Thus the only selection effect which needs to be considered for these samples is the tendency for redshift and luminosity to correlate within each flux limited sample. With the wide range in radio luminosities in the complete samples at $`z1`$, however, we can separate out the luminosity dependence. This is illustrated in Fig. 4, where we have plotted absolute magnitude against radio luminosity for 3C, 6C and 7C galaxies in the redshift range $`0.8<z<1.4`$. In this redshift range the mean magnitude in 3C is $`M_R=24.17\pm 0.13`$, whereas in 6C it is $`23.79\pm 0.14`$ and in 7C-iii $`23.78\pm 0.15`$. This suggests that only the most radio-luminous objects have slightly brighter (by $`0.4`$ mag) hosts \[see also Rawlings et al. (1998) where preliminary $`K`$-band photometry on the 7C-i and 7C-ii samples is presented\].

We can think of two possible explanations for this radio luminosity dependence of host magnitude at $`z1`$. The first is a contribution from AGN-related light, e.g. emission lines and reddened and/or scattered quasar light (Eales & Rawlings 1996). Rigler et al. (1992), however, show that the fraction of emission from $`z1`$ 3C radio galaxies which is aligned with the radio jet axis, and therefore probably closely related to the AGN activity, contributes only $`10`$% of the light in the observed $`K`$-band. Also, Simpson, Rawlings & Lacy (1999) argue that reddened quasar light is responsible for $`\stackrel{<}{_{}}10`$% of the observed near-infrared emission from 3C radio galaxies on the basis of 3$`\mu `$m imaging. Thus we believe that only $`1020`$ per cent of the host luminosity can be accounted for by the AGN, not the $`40`$ per cent required to explain the higher host luminosities of the 3C galaxies. The second possibility is that the radio luminosity may be correlated with the mass of the host. This could arise, for example, if correlation of black hole mass and the mass of the spheroidal component of galaxies which is claimed to be present at low redshift (e.g. Magorrian et al. 1998) is appearing at the highest radio luminosities (Roche et al. 1998). We have argued (Lacy, Ridgway & Trentham 2000; see also Willott et al. 1999) that most radio galaxies are sub-Eddington accretors, but at the highest luminosities corresponding to the highest black hole masses, even the radio galaxies may be accreting at near Eddington rates. Thus at these highest luminosities we might expect a host galaxy mass – AGN luminosity (and therefore host luminosity) correlation to appear. Also, the mass of the host may correlate with the density of the intergalactic medium confining the radio source, which would enhance the radio luminosity.

We have made a crude model of the luminosity dependence by assuming a contribution from AGN-related light to a base host optical luminosity $`L_0`$. We model this contribution as a combination of a component due to emission lines and another component due to other AGN-related light. (We separate the emission line contribution, as the equivalent width of the emission lines is a strong function of redshift, unlike the other AGN-related emission which we expect to be much less redshift dependent.) Both these components should be proportional to the AGN luminosity, which we assume to be proportional to $`L_R(151)`$ to the power 0.8 (Serjeant et al. 1998; Willott et al. 1999), i.e.

$$L_{\mathrm{host}}(z)=L_0(z)+(\alpha +\beta (z))L_{R(151)}^{0.8},$$
(1)
where $`\alpha L_{R(151)}^{0.8}`$ is the contribution of AGN-related light other than emission lines and $`\beta (z)L_{R(151)}^{0.8}`$ is the contribution due to emission lines. The base host luminosity at $`z1`$ was set to $`L_0(1)=10^{23}\mathrm{WHz}^1`$, or $`M_R23.7`$, close to the mean of the 7C and 6C data, and $`(\alpha +\beta (1))`$ fit by eye to be $`3.5\mathrm{W}^{0.2}\mathrm{Hz}^{0.2}`$ (Fig. 4). The emission line contribution to the total near-infrared luminosities of the 3C radio galaxies at these redshifts is $`10`$% (Rawlings et al. 1997; Rawlings Eales & Lacy 1990), or about 20% of the overall luminosity-dependent correction. We have therefore set $`\alpha =2.8\mathrm{W}^{0.2}\mathrm{Hz}^{0.2}`$ and $`\beta (1)=0.7\mathrm{W}^{0.2}\mathrm{Hz}^{0.2}`$.

Using this formula we can then correct the host magnitudes for AGN-related light and produce plot of $`L_0`$ versus redshift. \[Rather than attempt to model the redshift dependence of $`\beta `$ we have used emission line contamination estimates from Eales & Rawlings (1997) and van Breugel et al. (1998) to explicitly correct the magnitudes in the 6C and high redshift samples (where these were unknown the object was omitted from the plot and correlation analysis), and our own estimates to correct the 7C-iii magnitudes.\] The results are shown in Fig. 5, which shows that there is indeed a correlation of $`L_0`$ with redshift. This was confirmed using the Kendall Tau statistic generalized to include limits, as implemented in the iraf.stsdas program bhkmethod (Isobe & Feigelson 1990), which returned a $`\tau =0.52`$ for the 106 objects from the 3C, 6C, 7C and HZ samples after correction. This corresponds to a probability that there is no correlation between $`L_0`$ and redshift of $`<0.0001`$. However, this probability increases to 0.13 if the HZ sample is removed. We have also conducted the same statistical test before correction for radio luminosity-dependent effects in equation (1). This gave a $`\tau =0.95`$ and a probability of no correlation of $`<0.0001`$, removing the HZ sample reduced this to $`\tau =0.66`$, again with the probability of no correlation of $`<0.0001`$.

### 4.2 The dispersion in the host luminosities

The low scatter in the magnitudes of radio galaxies in the $`Kz`$ Hubble Diagram out to $`z\stackrel{>}{_{}}3`$ has long been used as an argument for a high redshift of radio galaxy formation (e.g. Lilly 1989). This low scatter is thought to come about because radio galaxies form at $`z>3`$ then evolve along similar passive evolution tracks to end at radio galaxy hosts today. With a few modifications this simple picture still seems to be basically valid. Fig. 3 and Table 4 show that the dispersion in absolute magnitudes to $`z4`$ is indeed very low. After correction for AGN-contamination, however, the dispersion in $`L_0`$ for the $`z>1.8`$ objects seems to be higher than for the uncorrected objects (Table 4). As discussed above, the correlation of absolute magnitude with redshift is also less tight after correction.

At first sight it seems paradoxical that correction for luminosity-dependent effects should increase the scatter in the absolute magnitudes. However, this can be be understood if the luminosity-dependent contributions $`(\alpha +\beta )L_{R(151)}^{0.8}`$ are approximately equal to the highest values of $`L_0`$. (The $`z>1.8`$ objects have a very narrow range in $`L_R`$ as the range in flux of these objects is low, all except VLA 123642+621331 having 151 MHz fluxes between 0.5 and 10 Jy.) The addition of the luminosity-dependent contributions can then boost the objects with low $`L_0`$ by a significant factor, whereas the addition to the objects with high $`L_0`$ results in only a relatively small fractional increase in the luminosity (see also de Vries 1999). The result of this is a reduction of the scatter in the total luminosities.

We have used the F-test for variances to examine the statistical significance of the increase in scatter of the $`L_0`$ values. Comparing the objects with $`0.8<z<1.8`$ to those with $`1.8<z<2.8`$, we find that the increase in the sample standard deviation from $`\sigma _{n1}=0.53`$ to $`\sigma _{n1}=0.93`$ is significant at the 0.1 % level. At $`z>2.8`$, our sample contains two upper limits on the magnitudes, so we give a lower limit to the scatter of $`\sigma _{n1}>0.97`$. This is again significantly higher than that in the range $`0.8<z<1.8`$ (at the 0.2 % level). Thus there is good evidence that the scatter in $`L_0`$ is increasing with redshift, suggesting that we are close to the formation epoch of at least a significant fraction of the radio galaxy population.

### 4.3 The scale sizes of the hosts

Roche et al. (1998) have shown that the scale sizes of the $`1<z<1.4`$ 6C galaxies are significantly smaller than their more radio luminous 3C counterparts as measured by Best et al. (1997), suggesting a strong dependence of scale size on AGN luminosity. In this section we re-examine this using our data on the 7C objects, and further data on 3C scale sizes published recently.

To compare with the 6C results, we have defined complete samples of 7C-iii and 3C radio galaxies from LRL in the redshift range $`0.8<z<1.4`$ (we took the lower limit of 0.8 so as to include more 3C and 7C objects; only two 6C objects lie in the redshift range $`0.8<z<1`$, and we do not feel their exclusion will significantly affect the results). For the 3C objects we have used size estimates from the 2D modelling of McLure & Dunlop (2000) or the Keck $`K`$-band images of Ridgway & Stockton (1997) where available, and otherwise from Best et al. (1997). No estimates were available for three of the sixteen objects in the 3C sample, and we have omitted 3C356 due to confusion over the true identification. One of the objects missing from the 3C sample were omitted from the sample of Best et al. (1997) (3C 263.1), and the other two, 3C 13 and 3C 368 have $`K`$-band structures which are clearly affected by AGN-related emission as they are closely aligned with the radio axes. Of the 7C-iii objects, only one, 7C 1816+6710, has no scale size estimate as its image was taken in poor seeing, although the scale size of 7C 1742+6346 is an upper limit only. All the 7C scale sizes were increased by a factor of 1.06 to correct for an expected mean ellipticity of 0.2.

In Fig. 6 we plot the scale sizes of the 3C, 6C and 7C radio galaxies in the samples defined above against host absolute magnitude. Although the scatter is large it does seem that the 7C-iii radio galaxies have scale sizes consistent with their magnitudes when compared to the 3C radio galaxies, although the 6C objects are plotting below the general trend. The mean scale size for the 3C sample is $`11.1\pm 1.4`$ kpc and that for the 6C sample $`4.7\pm 0.9`$kpc. For the 7C-iii sample, we find a median scale size of $`0.9\pm 0.4`$ arcsec, which, when corrected for a mean ellipticity of 0.2, corresponds to about $`8\pm 3`$ kpc. (Using the whole subset of 7C-iii sources in the range $`0.8<z<2.7`$ with measured scale sizes we obtained the same result.) The mean for the 7C-iii is thus between that of the 6C and 3C samples, and statistically consistent with both.

A further check is provided by the effective-radius – galaxy magnitude relationship discussed by Roche et al. (1998),

$$\mathrm{lg}(r_{hl}/\mathrm{kpc})=0.3(M_R+\mathrm{\Delta }R+20.01),$$
(2)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }R`$ is the amount by which the hosts have brightened by passive evolution from $`z=0`$. To set $`\mathrm{\Delta }R`$, we used the mean scale size of the 3C galaxies in our $`0.8<z<1.4`$ sample of 11.1 kpc, and the mean magnitudes of the same objects using the photometry of Best et al. (1998). This gave $`\mathrm{\Delta }R=0.68`$. We have plotted the relationship of equation (2) on Fig. 6, for both $`\mathrm{\Delta }R=0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }R=0.68`$. The 7C radio galaxies are consistent with this relation for $`\mathrm{\Delta }R=0.68`$ (within the scatter), but most of the 6C radio galaxies plot significantly below the line.

We therefore believe that a combination of poor seeing in both the Roche et al. (1998) and Best et al. (1998) studies, which lead to poor scale size estimates, combined with small number statistics in the Roche et al. study, can probably explain the result of Roche et al. without the requirement for scale-size to depend very strongly on radio luminosity, though clearly better images of both the 6C and 7C objects will be needed to be certain of this.

We have also investigated possible redshift dependences of scale size with the addition of data on objects in the HZ sample listed in Table 3. Fig. 7 shows the results of plotting the scale size in arcsec against redshift. The mean half-light radius for local hosts of classical double FRIIs from Owen & Laing (1989) and Govoni et al. (2000), $`13\pm 2.5`$ kpc, is also plotted as a line in this figure for three different cosmologies. There is some evidence for a weak trend for scale size to decrease with increasing redshift, but with a lot of scatter. In an attempt to reduce the scatter we have tried using a correction based on equation (1), by introducing a correction in the log of the scale size:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{lg}r_{\mathrm{hl}}=0.3(MM_0(z)),$$

where $`M`$ is the absolute $`R`$-band magnitude after correction for line contamination, and $`M_0(z)`$ is $`L_0(z)`$ converted to absolute magnitude. With this correction, using the 7C, 6C, 3C ($`0.8<z<1.4`$) and HZ samples there is a weak anticorrelation of scale size with redshift, significant at about the 5% level using the bhkmethod.

Inspection of Fig. 7, and the comparison to low redshift FRII hosts, shows that the scatter in scale sizes is large at all redshifts, and suggests that any evolution in scale size is weak. FRI hosts at low redshift, however, have significantly brighter hosts and larger scale sizes at a given radio luminosity (e.g. Owen & Ledlow 1994), suggesting that merging in the richer cluster environments associated with these objects may be significant if they are the descendents of more luminous sources at high redshift. An argument against this is provided by a recent study of brightest cluster galaxies (BCGs) by Burke, Collins & Mann (2000), who show that, when selection effects are properly taken into account, the BCGs of the most X-ray luminous clusters brighten with redshift (to a similar extent as the FRII hosts, in fact), and thus there is little evidence of significant merger activity for redshifts $`0<z<1`$. However, because the FRII hosts are significantly less luminous than BCGs, mergers that would enhance the luminosity of a BCG by only a few percent would enhance that of an FRII host by a much larger factor. Nevertheless, the lack of evidence for merger activity in even rich clusters suggests that FRII hosts, which are generally found in poor cluster environments (e.g. Wold et al. 2000), are probably not significantly affected by merging, at least at $`z<1`$.

### 4.4 Surface brightness evolution

To demonstrate that the redshift dependence of host magnitude is independent of the assumed cosmology we have plotted in Fig. 8 the effective surface brightness (defined here as the flux within $`r_{\mathrm{hl}}`$ divided by $`\pi r_{\mathrm{hl}}^2`$ converted into magnitudes) in the rest-frame $`R`$-band versus redshift for the sub-sample of 7C-iii galaxies with estimated scale sizes. We have compared this to the cosmological surface brightness dimming expected in a standard expanding Universe with a Friedmann-Robertson-Walker metric. The surface brightness decreases with redshift much less rapdly than the prediction for a non-evolving stellar population (solid line in Fig. 8). This demonstrates that the brightening of the hosts with redshift is a real evolutionary effect, and not one produced by an incorrect choice of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$.

## 5 The evolution of radio galaxy hosts

The evolution of host magnitude and rest-frame surface brightness with redshift, the lack of strong evolution in scale sizes in the subset of objects with “undisturbed” morphologies, and the low scatter ($`<1`$ magnitude) in the absolute magnitudes up to at least $`z3`$ are all consistent with an early formation epoch ($`z\stackrel{>}{_{}}3`$) for most, and perhaps all, radio galaxy hosts. At first sight these results are in conflict with standard CDM-based models for galaxy formation, in which hierarchical structure formation occurs in a “bottom up” fashion with the most massive galaxies forming late. Radio galaxies at $`z2`$ are much brighter than the average quasar host predicted by the models of Kauffmann & Haehnelt (2000), for example. To compare our radio galaxy sample to these predictions we have assumed an equivalent quasar luminosity equal to the mean of the $`1<z<3`$ 7C quasars, $`M_B25`$ (Willott et al. 1998). For quasars of this luminosity, the Kauffmann & Haehnelt models predict a mean host magnitude of $`M_V21.5`$ compared to our radio galaxies with a luminosity-corrected median $`M_R23.5`$ (corresponding to $`M_V23`$). In contrast, the hosts of radio-quiet quasars at $`z2`$ seem to fit this model quite well (Ridgway et al. 2000).

Between $`z1.3`$ and $`z2.3`$, there is evidence for an increasing scatter in base host luminosity. This suggests we are close to the formation epoch at $`z2.3`$. There are two other pieces of evidence which point to strong evolution in the host galaxies and which appear at $`z\stackrel{>}{_{}}2.5`$. First, the observations of Pentericci (1999; and Pentericci et al. 2000) and van Breugel et al. (1998) show that the morphologies of radio galaxy hosts at $`z<2.5`$ are mostly relaxed ellipticals, whereas at higher redshifts ($`z>2.5`$ in the HST NICMOS $`H`$-band images of Pentericci et al. and $`z>3`$ in the ground-based $`K`$-band images of van Breugel et al.) hosts with clumpy structures aligned with the radio source axis become much more common<sup>1</sup><sup>1</sup>1van Breugel et al. argue that this is not simply due to the $`z>3`$ objects being observed at shorter rest-frame wavelengths, as lower redshift objects observed at the same rest-frame wavelengths as the $`z>3`$ objects still look like relaxed ellipticals.. Second, the detection rate of continuum submillimeter emission from hot dust seems to rise rapidly at $`z>2.5`$ (Archibald et al. 2000). The 6C and 7C samples are completely identified with luminous host galaxies out to at least $`z3`$, however, which would suggest the bulk of the stars had formed and/or merged onto the host by $`z3`$. One way around a high formation redshift for all objects would be to assume a systematic delay between a host forming the bulk of its stars and the switching on of powerful radio jets (for example, if the black hole needs time to accrete enough mass). Radio galaxies would then always be seen with luminous hosts. However, the strong evolution in the hosts seen by van Breugel et al. around $`z3`$ suggests that their nature is still changing up to at least that epoch.

Taken together, the evidence suggests that the epoch of radio galaxy host formation was essentially over by $`z3`$, in the sense that most objects had formed the bulk of their stars, although further star-formation and merger activity continued in many objects up to $`z2`$. As radio galaxies can be found out to $`z>5`$, however (van Breugel et al. 1999), and there is no sign of a substantial drop in the space density of radio galaxies out to $`z>4`$ relative to their peak space density at $`z2.5`$ (Jarvis et al. 1999), this formation epoch must last at least a Gyr. In contrast, field ellipticals with evolved stellar populations and luminosities $`L_{}`$ seem to become rarer at $`z>1`$ (Zepf 1998; Barger et al. 1999; Dickinson 1999), suggesting a later formation epoch, perhaps $`z12`$.

A recent variation on the hierarchical models, the so-called Anti-Hierarchical Baryonic Collapse Model (Granato et al. 2000) may be able to explain these observations. This predicts that the massive hosts of powerful AGN may have formed at $`z3`$. This model uses the same CDM assumptions as the standard scenarios, but assumes that the dense gas in the most massive haloes can collapse and form stars in a massive spheroidal component more rapidly than that in the smaller haloes associated with normal galaxies. Star formation is switched off in these objects by winds from the AGN and the starburst at high redshift. If radio galaxy hosts are indeed typical of the most massive elliptical galaxies and their progenitors this model should be applicable to them, and would explain their anomalous evolution relative to generally less luminous field ellipticals.

We thank Wim de Vries, Michael Gregg and Wil van Breugel helpful discussions, the referee for a useful report, and the staff at the IRTF and Lick Observatory for their assistance. We are also very grateful to Chris Willott for providing the photometric redshift estimates for those 7C-iii radio galaxies without spectroscopic redshifts prior to publication. The IRTF is operated by the University of Hawaii on behalf of NASA. AJB acknowledges support from the Cambridge Institute of Astronomy PPARC observational rolling grant, ref. no. PPA/G/O/1997/00793, and a NICMOS postdoctoral fellowship while at Berkeley (grant NAG 5-3043). This work was performed under the auspices of the U.S. Department of Energy by University of California Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory under contract No. W-7405-Eng-48, and was partly based on observations with the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope, obtained at the Space Telescope Science Institute, which is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc. under NASA contract No. NAS5-26555.


format: text

text:
# LMU-TPW 00-8UAHEP 00-3hep-th/0003038 On the correspondence between gravity fields and CFT operators

## 1 Introduction

According to the AdS/CFT correspondence  fields of type IIB supergravity on the $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ background are dual to gauge invariant operators in $`D=4`$, $`𝒩=4`$ supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory (SYM4) which belong to short representations of the conformal superalgebra $`SU(2,2|4)`$ and have protected scale dimensions. The short representations are generated by chiral primary operators (CPOs) transforming in the $`k`$-traceless symmetric representations of $`SO(6)`$. It is well-known that single-trace operators $`O_k^I=\mathrm{tr}(\varphi ^{(i_1}\mathrm{}\varphi ^{i_k)})`$ are chiral, and it was shown in  that multi-trace operators of the form $`O_{k_1\mathrm{}k_n}^I=\mathrm{tr}(\varphi ^{(i_1}\mathrm{}\varphi ^{i_{k_1}})\mathrm{}\mathrm{tr}(\varphi ^{j_1}\mathrm{}\varphi ^{j_{k_n})})`$ are chiral too. There are also CPOs which are normal-ordered products of single- and multi-trace CPOs and their descendents. Thus, in general, CPOs are admixtures of single- and multi-trace operators with the same (protected) conformal dimension.

On the other hand the particle spectrum of type IIB supergravity on $`AdS_5\times S^5`$  contains only one set of fields which can couple to CPOs. These fields $`s^I`$ are mixtures of the five form field strength and the trace of the graviton on the sphere. Thus, one should understand which linear combinations of CPOs are dual to the gravity fields $`s^I`$. Although, it is customarily believed that they are dual to single-trace operators $`O_k^I`$, no complete reliable proof of this fact is known.

A way to solve the problem is to compute correlation functions in free field theory and in the supergravity approximation, and to compare them. Of course, one can compare only correlation functions subject to non-renormalization theorems. According to , to compute n-point functions in SYM4 one has to know the type IIB supergravity action on $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ up to the $`n`$-th order. The quadratic action for physical fields was found in  by using the “covariant” action of . The first step in finding interaction vertices was made in  where quadratic and cubic actions for the scalars $`s^I`$ were found by expanding the covariant equations of motion  for type IIB supergravity up to the second order. By using the actions, all 3-point functions of normalized CPOs dual to $`s^I`$ were computed, and, for generic values of conformal dimensions of the CPOs, appeared to coincide with 3-point functions of the single-trace CPOs $`O_k^I`$ calculated in the free field theory. It was conjectured in  that the 3-point functions are not renormalized, and this was later proven in . One might conclude on the basis of this coincidence that the fields $`s^I`$ are dual to the single-trace CPOs. However, as was noted in , a 3-point function of CPOs computed in the supergravity approximation vanishes in the extremal case, for which the sum of conformal dimensions of two operators equals the conformal dimension of the third operator, e.g. $`k_1=k_2+k_3`$, because of the vanishing of the cubic couplings of the dual scalar fields.

There were proposed three different ways to resolve the puzzle. According to , to compute extremal 3-point functions, one should first analytically continue in the conformal dimensions $`k_1,k_2,k_3`$. Then, since the gravity coupling is proportional to $`k_2+k_3k_1`$, and the AdS integral  behaves itself as $`1/(k_2+k_3k_1)`$, one obtains a finite extremal 3-point function. However, from the computational point of view the procedure of analytical continuation looks superfluous, because no actual singularity is involved. An extremal 3-point function vanishes due to the absence of the corresponding cubic coupling, and one does not have to evaluate any AdS integral.

In  we explained the vanishing of the extremal cubic couplings by noting that the scalars $`s^I`$, and, in general, supergravity fields, may be dual to extended CPOs which are admixtures of single- and multi-trace CPOs. Nevertheless, the fact that the analytical continuation procedure seems to work in all known examples,111In particular, this procedure works in the case of 3-point functions of operators dual to two scalars $`s^I`$ and a supergravity field, computed in , where the cubic couplings  also vanish in extremal cases. allows one to assume that, in the large $`N`$ limit and for generic values of conformal dimensions, correlation functions of extended CPOs coincide with the ones of the single-trace CPOs. However, it is also clear that the analytical continuation procedure may work only in the large $`N`$ limit, because for finite $`N`$ only the single-trace CPOs $`O_k^I`$ with $`2kN`$ are independent, and a single-trace CPO with $`k>N`$ is equal to a linear combination of multi-trace CPOs. This also shows that the appearence of multi-trace CPOs is unavoidable for finite $`N`$.

Other arguments in favour of the proposal come from the study of quartic couplings of the scalars $`s^I`$ performed in . It is shown there that the quartic couplings vanish in the extremal case for which $`k_1=k_2+k_3+k_4`$. As was pointed out in  the vanishing of extremal couplings is dictated by the AdS/CFT correspondence because in this case contact Feynman diagrams are ill-defined, and therefore, non-vanishing extremal quartic couplings would contradict to the AdS/CFT correspondence. By the same reason 2- and 4-derivative quartic couplings have to vanish in the subextremal case for which $`k_1=k_2+k_3+k_42`$, and 4-derivative quartic couplings should vanish in the sub-subextremal case when $`k_1=k_2+k_3+k_44`$. The vanishing of extremal couplings means that 4-point extremal correlators of CPOs dual to the scalars $`s^I`$ vanish, and, therefore, the scalars correspond not to single-trace CPOs but to extended CPOs.

Then, it is shown in  that the quartic action is consistent with the Kaluza-Klein (KK) reduction down to five dimensions, and admits a truncation to the massless multiplet, which can be identified with the field content of the gauged $`𝒩=8`$, $`d=5`$ supergravity . Consistency means that there is no term linear in massive KK modes in the untruncated supergravity action, so that all massive KK fields can be put to zero without any contradiction with equations of motion. From the AdS/CFT correspondence point of view the consistent truncation implies that $`any`$ $`n`$-point correlation function of $`n1`$ operators dual to the fields from the massless multiplet and one operator dual to a massive KK field vanishes because, as one can easily see there is no exchange Feynman diagram in this case. This in particular implies that the scalars $`s^I`$ are dual to extended CPOs. Indeed, if we assume that the scalars $`s^I`$ correspond to the single-trace CPOs $`O_k^I`$, we derive from the consistency of the KK reduction that correlators of the form $`O_2^{I_1}O_2^{I_2}\mathrm{}O_2^{I_{n1}}O_k^{I_n}`$ vanish for $`k4`$, that is not the case for such correlators of single-trace CPOs.

Finally, the third way of solving the puzzle was proposed in , where it was noted that since the scalars $`s^I`$ used in  differ from the original scalars appearing in the covariant equations of motion for type IIB supergravity, one could obtain a nonvanishing extremal 3-point function by using an action for the original scalars. This was demonstrated for fields from the descendent sector where the relevant part of the type IIB supergravity action is known. The action used in  contains higher-derivative terms, and although the bulk extremal couplings vanish on shell, there appear boundary terms which provide nonvanishing contribution to extremal 3-point functions. However, as was also noted in , one can make a nonlinear off-shell transformation of the gravity fields and remove all higher-derivative terms and all nonvanishing (off-shell) extremal couplings. No boundary terms appear as a result of the field transformation, and the transformed action leads to vanishing extremal correlators.

Thus, these results seem to indicate that although the original gravity fields may be dual to single-trace operators, the transformed fields are already dual to mixtures of single- and multi-trace operators. From this point of view a redefinition of the gravity fields corresponds to a change of an operator basis in CFT.

To justify this point of view we study how 4-point correlation functions are changed under derivative-dependent gravity fields redefinitions of the form used in  to reduce the non-Lagrangian equations of motion to a Lagrangian form. The field transformations discussed in  are their particular case. We begin with the quartic action for scalars $`s^I`$ found in  and show that these transformations indeed can change some correlators, in particular, the extremal 3- and 4-point functions and the subextremal 4-point functions for which $`k_1=k_2+k_3+k_42`$.

The subextremal correlators are of special interest because, as has been shown in , and checked in  to first order in perturbation theory, they are not renormalized. Thanks to the non-renormalization theorem one can also employ subextremal 4-point correlators to test the AdS/CFT correspondence. In particular the non-renormalization implies that the subextremal quartic couplings vanish, and we show that this is indeed the case. This fact together with the absence of the exchange Feynman diagrams leads to the vanishing of the subextremal 4-point functions of extended CPOs dual to the scalars $`s^I`$.

We show that any field redefinition induces a change of correlation functions which is always given by a product of 2- and 3-point functions. By this reason, and due to the non-renormalization theorems for extremal and subextremal correlators, it seems possible to find such a field transformation that the extremal and subextremal 3- and 4-point functions coincide with the ones of single-trace CPOs.

As a by-product of our study, we also find that if conformal dimensions of at least two CPOs do not coincide then some structures in a 4-point function of these CPOs can be also changed by a field redefinition. Thus, although such a 4-point function in general is not protected by a non-renormalization theorem, this seems to be an indication that the coefficients of the changing structures of the 4-point function are not renormalized.

The plan of the paper is as follows. In section 2 we recall the definition of normalized single-trace CPOs and extended CPOs, and discuss the general properties of the supergravity action used to compute 3- and 4-point functions of the extended CPOs. In section 3 we study how the 3- and 4-point correlation functions change under a derivative-dependent field redefinition. In appendix we show that the quartic couplings of  vanish in the subextremal case, and that 4-derivative couplings vanish in the sub-subextremal case.

## 2 Extended CPOs and quartic supergravity action

We follow  defining the normalized single-trace CPOs as

$`O^I(\stackrel{}{x})={\displaystyle \frac{(2\pi )^k}{\sqrt{k\lambda ^k}}}C_{i_1\mathrm{}i_k}^I\mathrm{tr}(\varphi ^{i_1}(\stackrel{}{x})\mathrm{}\varphi ^{i_k}(\stackrel{}{x})),`$ (2.1)
where $`C_{i_1\mathrm{}i_k}^I`$ are totally symmetric traceless rank $`k`$ orthonormal tensors of $`SO(6)`$: $`C^IC^J=C_{i_1\mathrm{}i_k}^IC_{i_1\mathrm{}i_k}^J=\delta ^{IJ}`$, and $`\varphi ^i`$ are scalars of SYM4.

The two- and three-point functions of CPOs can be easily computed in free field theory and in the large $`N`$ limit, and are given by

$`O^I(\stackrel{}{x})O^J(\stackrel{}{y})={\displaystyle \frac{\delta ^{IJ}}{|\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{y}|^{2k}}},`$ (2.2)
$`O^{I_1}(\stackrel{}{x})O^{I_2}(\stackrel{}{y})O^{I_3}(\stackrel{}{z})={\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}{\displaystyle \frac{C^{I_1I_2I_3}}{|\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{y}|^{2\alpha _3}|\stackrel{}{y}\stackrel{}{z}|^{2\alpha _1}|\stackrel{}{z}\stackrel{}{x}|^{2\alpha _2}}},`$ (2.3)
where $`\alpha _i=\frac{1}{2}(k_j+k_lk_i)`$, $`jli`$, $`C^{I_1I_2I_3}=\sqrt{k_1k_2k_3}C^{I_1}C^{I_2}C^{I_3}`$, and $`C^{I_1}C^{I_2}C^{I_3}`$ is the unique $`SO(6)`$ invariant obtained by contracting $`\alpha _1`$ indices between $`C^{I_2}`$ and $`C^{I_3}`$, $`\alpha _2`$ indices between $`C^{I_3}`$ and $`C^{I_1}`$, and $`\alpha _3`$ indices between $`C^{I_2}`$ and $`C^{I_1}`$. As was discussed in the Introduction, single-trace CPO cannot be dual to the scalar fields $`s^I`$ used in  to compute their 3-point functions. However, as was shown in , one can define an extended CPO which corresponds to a scalar $`s^I`$ by adding to a single-trace CPO a proper combination of multi-trace CPOs:

$`\stackrel{~}{O}^{I_1}=O^{I_1}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2N}}{\displaystyle \underset{I_2+I_3=I_1}{}}C^{I_1I_2I_3}O^{I_2}O^{I_3}.`$ (2.4)
One can easily check that in the large $`N`$ limit these operators have the normalized two-point functions (2.2), the three-point functions (2.3) in the non-extremal case, and vanishing three-point functions in the extremal case. Note that these operators require further modification to be consistent with all $`n`$-point functions computed in the framework of the AdS/CFT correspondence. In general, an extended CPO is a linear combination of a CPO and chiral primary composite operators which are normal-ordered products of CPOs and their descendants.

The quartic action for the scalars $`s^I`$ dual to the extended CPOs was found in , and the part of the action depending only on the scalars can be written in the form

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{AdS_5}}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(_as_I^as_I+m_I^2s_I^2)+\lambda _{IJK}s_Is_Js_K+\lambda _{IJKL}^{(0)}s_Is_Js_Ks_L`$ (2.5)
$`+`$ $`\lambda _{IJKL}^{(2)}_as_I^as_Js_Ks_L+\lambda _{IJKL}^{(4)}_as_I^as_J_bs_K^bs_L)`$ (2.6)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{AdS_5}}(s^I).`$ (2.7)
Since the action does not contain higher-derivative terms, the Hamiltonian reformulation of the quartic action is straightforward, and, therefore, as was shown in , there is no need to add boundary terms.

There are also cubic terms describing the interaction of the scalars $`s^I`$ with other scalars, with vector fields, and with massive symmetric tensor fields of the second rank, but we omit them for the sake of simplicity.

Considering the contribution of contact Feynman diagrams to 3- and 4-point functions, one can easily observe that the integrals over the $`AdS_5`$ space diverge in several cases: $`(i)`$ if cubic couplings do not vanish in the extremal case for which, e.g. $`k_1=k_2+k_3`$, $`(ii)`$ if quartic couplings do not vanish in the extremal case when $`k_1=k_2+k_3+k_4`$, $`(iii)`$ if 4-derivative and 2-derivative quartic couplings do not vanish in the subextremal case when $`k_1=k_2+k_3+k_42`$, and $`(iv)`$ if 4-derivative quartic couplings do not vanish in the sub-subextremal case for which $`k_1=k_2+k_3+k_44`$. Thus the AdS/CFT correspondence requires vanishing all these couplings. Moreover, although the AdS integral involved in the subextremal non-derivative quartic graph does not diverge, the non-derivative quartic couplings also have to vanish in the subextremal case, because as was proven in  the subextremal 4-point functions are non-renormalized, and, therefore, have a free field form (a product of 2- and 3-point functions of a free CFT). On the other hand a nonvanishing quartic subextremal coupling would lead to a 4-point function which does not have a free field form, and, this would contradict to the AdS/CFT correspondence.

Since one can easily show that all exchange Feynman diagrams vanish in the extremal and subextremal cases, the vanishing of the quartic couplings means that extremal and subextremal 4-point functions of operators dual to the scalars $`s^I`$ in (2.7) also vanish. This is certanly not the case for the correlators of the single-trace CPOs $`O_k^I`$, and, therefore, we interpret the scalars $`s^I`$ as to be dual to the extended CPOs of the form (2.4). However, to obtain action (2.7) a number of nonlinear derivative-dependent field redefinitions was performed. Thus, a natural question arises whether it is possible to make such a field redefinition of the scalars $`s^I`$ that the redefined scalars $`𝐬^I`$ would correspond to the single-trace CPOs. In the next section we study the response of 3- and 4-point correlation functions to such changes and show that the desirable field redefinitions may exist.

## 3 Field redefinitions and 4-point functions

According to the proposal by , the generating functional of connected Green functions in SYM4 at large $`N`$ and at strong ’t Hooft coupling coincides with the on-shell value of the type IIB supergravity action on $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ subject to the Dirichlet boundary conditions imposed on supergravity fields at the boundary of $`AdS_5\times S^5`$. To have a well-defined functional of the boundary fields we cut the AdS space222 We use the AdS metric of the form: $`ds^2=\frac{1}{z^2}(dz^2+dx_i^2)`$. off at $`z=\epsilon `$ and consider the part of AdS with $`z\epsilon `$. We impose the Dirichlet boundary conditions on the scalars $`s^I`$: $`s^I(\epsilon ,\stackrel{}{x})s^I(\stackrel{}{x})`$, and denote the on-shell value of the action (2.7) as $`S(s)`$. To compute 3- and 4-point functions we only need equations of motion for the scalars $`s_I`$ decomposed up to the second order in fields:

$$(_a^2m_I^2)s_I+3\lambda _{IJK}s_Js_K=0.$$
(3.1)
The solution of the equation that satisfies the Dirichlet boundary conditions can be written in the form

$$s_I=s_I^{(0)}+s_I^{(1)}.$$
(3.2)
Here $`s_I^{(0)}`$ solves the linear part of (3.1) with the Dirichlet boundary conditions at $`z=\epsilon `$, and $`s_I^{(1)}`$ has the vanishing boundary conditions at $`z=\epsilon `$, and solves the equation

$$(_a^2m_I^2)s_I^{(1)}+3\lambda _{IJK}s_J^{(0)}s_K^{(0)}=0.$$
(3.3)
The on-shell value of action (2.7) is obtained by substituting (3.2) into it:

$$S(s)=_\epsilon ^{\mathrm{}}𝑑z𝑑\stackrel{}{x}z^5(s_I^{(0)}+s_I^{(1)}).$$
(3.4)
Let us now consider the following off-shell transformation of the fields $`s_I`$

$`s_I`$ $`=`$ $`𝐬_I+C_{IJK}^{(0)}𝐬_J𝐬_K+C_{IJK}^{(2)}_a𝐬_J^a𝐬_K`$ (3.5)
$`+`$ $`C_{IJKL}^{(0)}𝐬_J𝐬_K𝐬_L+C_{IJKL}^{(2)}_a𝐬_J^a𝐬_K𝐬_L+C_{IJKL}^{(4)}_a𝐬_J_b𝐬_K^a^b𝐬_L`$ (3.6)
$`=`$ $`𝐬_I+(\delta s)_I.`$ (3.7)
This transformation is of the same form as the most general $`s`$-dependent field redefinition that was used in  to reduce the original non-Lagrangian equations of motion to a Lagrangian form. We also assume that the constants $`C_{IJK}^{(0)}`$ and $`C_{IJK}^{(2)}`$ do not vanish only if any of the conformal dimensions does not exceed its extremal value: $`\mathrm{\Delta }_I\mathrm{\Delta }_J+\mathrm{\Delta }_K`$.

The equations of motion for the redefined fields look as follows

$$(_a^2m_I^2)𝐬_I+3\lambda _{IJK}𝐬_J𝐬_K+(_a^2m_I^2)(\delta _2s)_I=0,$$
(3.8)
where

$$(\delta _2s)_I=C_{IJK}^{(0)}𝐬_J𝐬_K+C_{IJK}^{(2)}_a𝐬_J^a𝐬_K.$$
(3.9)
The simplest way to study the influence of the field redefinition (3.7) on the 3- and 4-point functions is to impose on the redefined fields $`𝐬_I`$ the same boundary conditions as on $`s_I`$, and to compare the on-shell values of the original and transformed actions. Thus we write the solution to (3.8) in the form

$$𝐬_I=s_I^{(0)}+𝐬_I^{(1)}=s_I^{(0)}+s_I^{(1)}(\delta _2s)_I^{(0)}+\sigma _I^{(0)}.$$
(3.10)
Here

$$(\delta _2s)_I^{(0)}=C_{IJK}^{(0)}s_J^{(0)}s_K^{(0)}+C_{IJK}^{(2)}_as_J^{(0)}^as_K^{(0)},$$
(3.11)
and $`\sigma _I^{(0)}`$ solves the linear part of the equation (3.1), and satisfies the following boundary condition

$$\sigma _I^{(0)}|_{z=\epsilon }=(\delta _2s)_I^{(0)}|_{z=\epsilon }.$$
(3.12)
Substituting (3.10) into (3.7), we find

$`𝐬_I+(\delta s)_I=s_I^{(0)}+s_I^{(1)}+\sigma _I^{(0)}+(\delta _3s)_I^{(0)}+2C_{IJK}^{(0)}s_J^{(0)}𝐬_K^{(1)}+2C_{IJK}^{(2)}_as_J^{(0)}^a𝐬_K^{(1)},`$
where

$`(\delta _3s)_I^{(0)}=C_{IJKL}^{(0)}s_J^{(0)}s_K^{(0)}s_L^{(0)}+C_{IJKL}^{(2)}_as_J^{(0)}^as_K^{(0)}s_L^{(0)}+C_{IJKL}^{(4)}_as_J^{(0)}_bs_K^{(0)}^a^bs_L^{(0)}.`$
Thus the on-shell value of the transformed Lagrangian is given by

$`\stackrel{~}{}(𝐬_I)`$ $`=`$ $`(𝐬_I+(\delta s)_I)=(s_I^{(0)}+s_I^{(1)})`$ (3.13)
$``$ $`_a\left(s_I^{(0)}+s_I^{(1)}\right)^a\left(\sigma _I^{(0)}+(\delta _3s)_I^{(0)}+2C_{IJK}^{(0)}s_J^{(0)}𝐬_K^{(1)}+2C_{IJK}^{(2)}_bs_J^{(0)}^b𝐬_K^{(1)}\right)`$ (3.14)
$``$ $`m_I^2\left(s_I^{(0)}+s_I^{(1)}\right)\left(\sigma _I^{(0)}+(\delta _3s)_I^{(0)}+2C_{IJK}^{(0)}s_J^{(0)}𝐬_K^{(1)}+2C_{IJK}^{(2)}_as_J^{(0)}^a𝐬_K^{(1)}\right)`$ (3.15)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}_a\sigma _I^{(0)}^a\sigma _I^{(0)}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m_I^2\sigma _I^{(0)}\sigma _I^{(0)}+3\lambda _{IJK}s_I^{(0)}s_J^{(0)}\sigma _K^{(0)}.`$ (3.16)
The first term on the r.h.s. of this equation is equal to the on-shell value of the original Lagrangian (2.7), and other terms represent relevant corrections to it. By using equations of motion we can rewrite (3.16) as follows

$`\stackrel{~}{}(𝐬_I)`$ $`=`$ $`(s_I^{(0)}+s_I^{(1)})`$ (3.17)
$``$ $`_a\left(^a\left(s_I^{(0)}+s_I^{(1)}\right)\left(\sigma _I^{(0)}+(\delta _3s)_I^{(0)}+2C_{IJK}^{(0)}s_J^{(0)}𝐬_K^{(1)}+2C_{IJK}^{(2)}_bs_J^{(0)}^b𝐬_K^{(1)}\right)\right)`$ (3.18)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}_a\left(^a\sigma _I^{(0)}\sigma _I^{(0)}\right).`$ (3.19)
Thus the on-shell values of the original action and the redefined one only differ by a boundary term. Omitting nonessential terms, which cannot change the 3- and 4-point functions, this boundary term can be written in the form

$`I={\displaystyle 𝑑\stackrel{}{x}\epsilon ^{d+1}}`$ $`(`$ $`\epsilon ^2C_{IJK}^{(2)}_0s_I^{(0)}_0s_J^{(0)}_0s_K^{(0)}+\epsilon ^2C_{IJK}^{(2)}_0s_I^{(1)}_0s_J^{(0)}_0s_K^{(0)}`$ (3.20)
$`+`$ $`_0s_I^{(0)}\left(C_{IJKL}^{(2)}_as_J^{(0)}^as_K^{(0)}s_L^{(0)}+C_{IJKL}^{(4)}_as_J^{(0)}^bs_K^{(0)}^a_bs_L^{(0)}\right)`$ (3.21)
$`+`$ $`2\epsilon ^2C_{IJK}^{(2)}_0s_I^{(0)}_0s_J^{(0)}_0(s_K^{(1)}(\delta _2s)_K^{(0)}+\sigma _K^{(0)})+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}_0\sigma _I^{(0)}\sigma _I^{(0)}).`$ (3.22)
The first term on the r.h.s. of (3.22) represents the change in a 3-point function induced by the field redefinition (3.7). It was shown in  that this term gives a nonvanishing contribution only to the extremal 3-point functions, and always leads to a contribution of the free-field form. In particular, one can choose a field redefinition of such a form that all 3-point functions will coincide with the 3-point functions of the single-trace CPOs.

We are going to study the influence of the field redefinition on the 4-point functions and begin with considering the simplest term333For the sake of generality we consider the boundary term (3.22) in $`d`$ dimensions, and for arbitrary scalars $`s_I`$ dual to operators of conformal dimensions $`\mathrm{\Delta }_I`$ with the only restriction $`\mathrm{\Delta }_Id/2`$.

$$I_1=𝑑\stackrel{}{x}\epsilon ^{d+1}C_{IJKL}^{(2)}_0s_I^{(0)}_as_J^{(0)}^as_K^{(0)}s_L^{(0)}.$$
(3.23)
It is obvious that only derivatives in the radial direction can give a nonvanishing contribution to a 4-point function, thus we can replace $`I_1`$ by

$$I_1=𝑑\stackrel{}{x}\epsilon ^{d+3}C_{IJKL}^{(2)}_0s_I^{(0)}_0s_J^{(0)}_0s_K^{(0)}s_L^{(0)}.$$
(3.24)
It is well-known that the Fourier transform of the solution of the Dirichlet problem is given by (see, e.g. )

$`s_I^{(0)}(z,\stackrel{}{k})=K_I(z,\stackrel{}{k})s_I(\stackrel{}{k}),`$
where

$$K_I(z,\stackrel{}{k})=\left(\frac{z}{\epsilon }\right)^{d/2}\frac{𝒦_\nu (kz)}{𝒦_\nu (k\epsilon )},\nu =\mathrm{\Delta }_I\frac{d}{2}$$
(3.25)
and $`𝒦_\nu (kz)`$ is a Macdonald function. By using this formula, we find

$$z_0K_I(z,\stackrel{}{k})|_{z=\epsilon }=d\mathrm{\Delta }_I+a_I(k\epsilon )^{2(\mathrm{\Delta }_I\frac{d}{2})}\mathrm{log}(k\epsilon )+\mathrm{},$$
(3.26)
where $`\mathrm{}`$ refer to terms which do not contribute to 4-point functions in the limit $`\epsilon 0`$. Thus a relevant contribution of $`I_1`$ to the Fourier transform of a 4-point function is proportional to

$`\delta (\stackrel{}{k}_1+\stackrel{}{k}_2+\stackrel{}{k}_3+\stackrel{}{k}_4)\epsilon ^{2\mathrm{\Delta }_I+2\mathrm{\Delta }_J+2\mathrm{\Delta }_K4d}k_1^{\mathrm{\Delta }_I\frac{d}{2}}k_2^{\mathrm{\Delta }_J\frac{d}{2}}k_3^{\mathrm{\Delta }_K\frac{d}{2}}\mathrm{log}(k_1\epsilon )\mathrm{log}(k_2\epsilon )\mathrm{log}(k_3\epsilon ).`$
This expression is always the Fourier transform of a product of three 2-point functions. It gives a contribution to a 4-point function only if 444Note that the correct scaling behaviour of a $`4`$-point function is $`𝒪\left(\epsilon ^{\mathrm{\Delta }_I+\mathrm{\Delta }_J+\mathrm{\Delta }_K+\mathrm{\Delta }_L4d}\right)`$.

$$2\mathrm{\Delta }_I+2\mathrm{\Delta }_J+2\mathrm{\Delta }_K4d=\mathrm{\Delta }_I+\mathrm{\Delta }_J+\mathrm{\Delta }_K+\mathrm{\Delta }_L4d,$$

i.e., in the extremal case $`\mathrm{\Delta }_I+\mathrm{\Delta }_J+\mathrm{\Delta }_K=\mathrm{\Delta }_L`$. Note that in the non-extremal cases $`\mathrm{\Delta }_L<\mathrm{\Delta }_I+\mathrm{\Delta }_J+\mathrm{\Delta }_K`$, in particular in the subextremal one, the boundary term scales too fast to give a contribution.

The second integral to be considered is

$$I_2=𝑑\stackrel{}{x}\epsilon ^{d+3}C_{IJL}^{(2)}_0s_I^{(0)}_0s_J^{(0)}_0\sigma _L^{(0)}.$$
(3.27)
To analyse the integral we use

$`\sigma _L^{(0)}(z,\stackrel{}{k})`$ $`=`$ $`K_L(z,\stackrel{}{k}){\displaystyle }d\stackrel{}{k}_3d\stackrel{}{k}_4\delta (\stackrel{}{k}_3+\stackrel{}{k}_4\stackrel{}{k})(C_{LMN}^{(2)}\epsilon ^2_0s_M^{(0)}(\epsilon ,\stackrel{}{k}_3)_0s_N^{(0)}(\epsilon ,\stackrel{}{k}_4)`$ (3.28)
$`+`$ $`C_{LMN}^{(2)}\epsilon ^2_is_M(\stackrel{}{k}_3)_is_N(\stackrel{}{k}_4)+C_{LMN}^{(0)}s_M(\stackrel{}{k}_3)s_N(\stackrel{}{k}_4)).`$ (3.29)
One can easily see that only the first term can give a nonvanishing contribution to a 4-point function. Combining (3.27) with (3.29) we get that this contribution to a 4-point function is proportional to

$`C_{IJL}^{(2)}C_{LMN}^{(2)}\delta (\stackrel{}{k}_1+\stackrel{}{k}_2+\stackrel{}{k}_3+\stackrel{}{k}_4)\epsilon ^{d+5}_0K_I(\epsilon ,\stackrel{}{k}_1)_0K_J(\epsilon ,\stackrel{}{k}_2)_0K_L(\epsilon ,\stackrel{}{k}_3+\stackrel{}{k}_4)`$ (3.30)
$`\times _0K_M(\epsilon ,\stackrel{}{k}_3)_0K_N(\epsilon ,\stackrel{}{k}_4).`$ (3.31)
By using (3.26), we see that there are several cases when we can get a nonlocal contribution: $`(i)`$ the five-logs case, $`(ii)`$ the four-logs case, and $`(iii)`$ the three-logs case. It is not difficult to show that there is no contribution in the five- and four-logs cases. Three-logs case has three subcases. The first one is

$$\mathrm{log}(k_3+k_4)\mathrm{log}k_3\mathrm{log}k_4\delta (\stackrel{}{k}_1+\stackrel{}{k}_2+\stackrel{}{k}_3+\stackrel{}{k}_4)$$

In this case we get $`\delta (x_2x_1)`$ after integrating over momenta.

The second case is

$$\mathrm{log}k_2\mathrm{log}k_3\mathrm{log}k_4\delta (\stackrel{}{k}_1+\stackrel{}{k}_2+\stackrel{}{k}_3+\stackrel{}{k}_4)$$

It is obvious that in this case we get a product of three 2-point functions, and a nonvanishing contribution will be only in the extremal case $`\mathrm{\Delta }_J+\mathrm{\Delta }_M+\mathrm{\Delta }_N=\mathrm{\Delta }_I`$.

The third case is

$$\mathrm{log}(k_3+k_4)\mathrm{log}k_2\mathrm{log}k_4\delta (\stackrel{}{k}_1+\stackrel{}{k}_2+\stackrel{}{k}_3+\stackrel{}{k}_4)$$

One can easily see that in this case we also obtain a product of three 2-point functions, and a nonvanishing contribution will be only if

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_I+\mathrm{\Delta }_J+2\mathrm{\Delta }_L\mathrm{\Delta }_M+\mathrm{\Delta }_N=0.$$

Taking into account that

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_I+\mathrm{\Delta }_J+\mathrm{\Delta }_L0,\mathrm{\Delta }_M+\mathrm{\Delta }_N+\mathrm{\Delta }_L0$$

we get that there is a solution to this equation if

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_L=\mathrm{\Delta }_I\mathrm{\Delta }_J=\mathrm{\Delta }_M\mathrm{\Delta }_N.$$

This is a new case, and it is tempting to assume that the coefficient of the corresponding structure in the 4-point function is not renormalized. To understand why this may be so it is instructive to write down the changing term in the 4-point function:

$`O^I(\stackrel{}{x}_1)O^J(\stackrel{}{x}_2)O^M(\stackrel{}{x}_3)O^N(\stackrel{}{x}_4){\displaystyle \frac{1}{x_{12}^{2\mathrm{\Delta }_J}x_{13}^{2\mathrm{\Delta }_L}x_{34}^{2\mathrm{\Delta }_N}}}+\mathrm{}.`$
We see that this term is obtained by plunging the operators $`O^J`$ and $`O^N`$ into the operators $`O^I`$ and $`O^M`$ respectively. The perturbative non-renormalization of the Feynman diagrams of such a type was checked in  to first order in perturbation theory where it was noted that this effectively is equivalent to the proof of the non-renormalization of 2-point functions of CPOs given in .

The next integral to be considered is

$$I_3=𝑑\stackrel{}{x}\epsilon ^{d+3}C_{IJL}^{(2)}_0s_I^{(0)}_0s_J^{(0)}_0s_L^{(1)}.$$
(3.32)
Taking into account that $`s_L^{(1)}`$ solves the equation (3.3), we obtain the formula

$$s_L^{(1)}(x_0,\stackrel{}{x})=3\lambda _{LMN}d^{d+1}y\sqrt{g}G_L^\epsilon (x,y)s_M^{(0)}(y)s_N^{(0)}(y),$$

where the Green function can be found in , and satisfies

$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{x_0}}G_L^\epsilon (x,y)|_{x_0=\epsilon }=\epsilon ^{d1}{\displaystyle \frac{d\stackrel{}{k}}{(2\pi )^d}e^{i\stackrel{}{k}(\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{y})}K_L(y_0,\stackrel{}{k})}=\epsilon ^{\mathrm{\Delta }_L1}K_{\mathrm{\Delta }_L}(y_0,\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{y}),`$
where $`K_{\mathrm{\Delta }_L}(x_0,\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{y})`$ is the bulk-to-boundary propagator defined in .

It is convenient to analyse (3.32) in the x-space, where the solution $`s_I^{(0)}`$ can be written as

$`s_I^{(0)}(x_0,\stackrel{}{x})={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\epsilon ^{d\mathrm{\Delta }_I}}}\left({\displaystyle 𝑑\stackrel{}{y}K_{\mathrm{\Delta }_I}(x_0,\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{y})s(\stackrel{}{y})}+o(\epsilon )\right).`$ (3.33)
Thus, for $`s_L^{(1)}`$ we have

$`_0s_L^{(1)}(\epsilon ,\stackrel{}{x})=3\lambda _{LMN}\epsilon ^{\mathrm{\Delta }_L+\mathrm{\Delta }_M+\mathrm{\Delta }_N2d1}\times `$ (3.34)
$`{\displaystyle 𝑑\stackrel{}{y}_3𝑑\stackrel{}{y}_4s_M(\stackrel{}{y}_3)s_N(\stackrel{}{y}_4)\left(d^{d+1}y\sqrt{g}K_{\mathrm{\Delta }_L}(y_0,\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{y})K_{\mathrm{\Delta }_M}(y_0,\stackrel{}{y}\stackrel{}{y}_3)K_{\mathrm{\Delta }_N}(y_0,\stackrel{}{y}\stackrel{}{y}_4)+o(\epsilon )\right)}.`$
Since the cubic couplings $`\lambda _{LMN}`$ vanish in the extremal case, the integral

$$_\epsilon ^{\mathrm{}}𝑑y_0𝑑\stackrel{}{y}\sqrt{g}K_{\mathrm{\Delta }_L}(y_0,\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{y})K_{\mathrm{\Delta }_M}(y_0,\stackrel{}{y}\stackrel{}{y}_3)K_{\mathrm{\Delta }_N}(y_0,\stackrel{}{y}\stackrel{}{y}_4),$$

which appears in evaluation of a 3-point function, is finite in the limit $`\epsilon 0`$ (it diverges only in the extremal case) and, therefore, can be approximated as

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_{LMN}(\stackrel{}{x};\stackrel{}{y}_3,\stackrel{}{y}_4)+o(\epsilon ),$$

where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{LMN}(\stackrel{}{x},\stackrel{}{y}_3,\stackrel{}{y}_4)`$ is defined as

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_{LMN}(\stackrel{}{x};\stackrel{}{y}_3,\stackrel{}{y}_4)=_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑y_0𝑑\stackrel{}{y}\sqrt{g}K_{\mathrm{\Delta }_L}(y_0,\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{y})K_{\mathrm{\Delta }_M}(y_0,\stackrel{}{y}\stackrel{}{y}_3)K_{\mathrm{\Delta }_N}(y_0,\stackrel{}{y}\stackrel{}{y}_4).$$

Thus, $`_0s_L^{(1)}`$ behaves itself as

$`_0s_L^{(1)}(\epsilon ,\stackrel{}{x})=3\lambda _{LMN}\epsilon ^{\mathrm{\Delta }_L+\mathrm{\Delta }_M+\mathrm{\Delta }_N2d1}\left(A_{LMN}(\stackrel{}{x})+o(\epsilon )\right)`$ (3.35)
with $`A_{LMN}(\stackrel{}{x})=𝑑\stackrel{}{y}_3𝑑\stackrel{}{y}_4s(\stackrel{}{y}_3)s(\stackrel{}{y}_4)\mathrm{\Lambda }_{LMN}(\stackrel{}{x};\stackrel{}{y}_3,\stackrel{}{y}_4)`$ and we, therefore, find

$$I_3=3C_{IJL}^{(2)}\lambda _{LMN}\epsilon ^{\mathrm{\Delta }_L+\mathrm{\Delta }_M+\mathrm{\Delta }_N3d}𝑑\stackrel{}{x}\epsilon _0s_I^{(0)}\epsilon _0s_J^{(0)}(A_{LMN}(\stackrel{}{x})+o(\epsilon )).$$

The last formula allows one to determine the behavior of the corresponding correlation function in the momentum space. Namely, the leading in $`\epsilon `$ contribution to the 4-point correlation function is proportional to

$`C_{IJL}^{(2)}\lambda _{LMN}\epsilon ^{\mathrm{\Delta }_L+\mathrm{\Delta }_M+\mathrm{\Delta }_N3d}\epsilon _0K_I(\epsilon ,\stackrel{}{k}_1)\epsilon _0K_J(\epsilon ,\stackrel{}{k}_2)\mathrm{\Lambda }_{LMN}(\stackrel{}{k}_1+\stackrel{}{k}_2;\stackrel{}{k}_3,\stackrel{}{k}_4),`$ (3.36)
where function $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{LMN}(\stackrel{}{k};\stackrel{}{k}_3,\stackrel{}{k}_4)`$ stands now for the Fourier transform of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{LMN}(\stackrel{}{x};\stackrel{}{y}_3,\stackrel{}{y}_4)`$ in all its arguments.

To find the relevant contribution to the 4-point function we use (3.26) so that the leading contribution (3.36) is given by the sum of two different terms: the first one contains only one log, while the second one contains the product of two logs. We first consider the one-log case and show that it provides in particular a contribution to a subextremal 4-point correlation function. For definiteness we pick up here the following term

$`C_{IJL}^{(2)}\lambda _{LMN}\epsilon ^{\mathrm{\Delta }_L+\mathrm{\Delta }_M+\mathrm{\Delta }_N+2\mathrm{\Delta }_J4d}k_2^{2\mathrm{\Delta }_Jd}\mathrm{log}k_2\mathrm{\Lambda }_{LMN}(\stackrel{}{k}_1+\stackrel{}{k}_2;\stackrel{}{k}_3,\stackrel{}{k}_4),`$ (3.37)
which gives a nonvanishing contribution if

$$2\mathrm{\Delta }_J+\mathrm{\Delta }_L+\mathrm{\Delta }_M+\mathrm{\Delta }_N4d=\mathrm{\Delta }_I+\mathrm{\Delta }_J+\mathrm{\Delta }_M+\mathrm{\Delta }_N4d$$

i.e. $`\mathrm{\Delta }_I=\mathrm{\Delta }_J+\mathrm{\Delta }_L`$. Clearly, this equality is not too restrictive and it allows in particular the solution for the subextremal case555The extremal case is of no interest here since the coupling $`\lambda _{LMN}`$ vanishes., i.e., when $`\mathrm{\Delta }_I=\mathrm{\Delta }_J+\mathrm{\Delta }_M+\mathrm{\Delta }_N2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_L=\mathrm{\Delta }_M+\mathrm{\Delta }_N2`$. Let us now show that for these values of conformal dimensions (3.37) indeed represents the relevant momentum space structure of a subextremal 4-point correlation function.

Due to the non-renormalization theorem a subextremal 4-point correlation function of single-trace CPOs is given by the sum of products of two-point functions that is further restricted by the conformal invariance to the form

$`O^I(\stackrel{}{x}_1)O^J(\stackrel{}{x}_2)O^M(\stackrel{}{x}_3)O^N(\stackrel{}{x}_4)={\displaystyle \frac{A_{IJMN}}{x_{12}^{2(\mathrm{\Delta }_J+\alpha 1)}x_{13}^{2(\mathrm{\Delta }_M+\beta 1)}x_{14}^{2(\mathrm{\Delta }_N+\gamma 1)}x_{23}^{2\gamma }x_{24}^{2\beta }x_{34}^{2\alpha }}},`$ (3.38)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_I=\mathrm{\Delta }_J+\mathrm{\Delta }_M+\mathrm{\Delta }_N2`$ and $`\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma `$ are integers obeying the condition $`\alpha +\beta +\gamma =1`$, so that only one of them is non-zero and equals to 1. Thus we have three different subextremal structures which have in general three different coefficients $`A`$.

Consider the structure with $`\beta =\gamma =0`$ and perform the Fourier transform. The corresponding structure in the momentum space looks as

$`O^I(\stackrel{}{k}_1)O^J(\stackrel{}{k}_2)O^M(\stackrel{}{k}_3)O^N(\stackrel{}{k}_4){\displaystyle 𝑑\stackrel{}{x}_1𝑑\stackrel{}{x}_2𝑑\stackrel{}{x}_3𝑑\stackrel{}{x}_4\frac{e^{i\stackrel{}{k}_1\stackrel{}{x}_1+i\stackrel{}{k}_2\stackrel{}{x}_2+i\stackrel{}{k}_3\stackrel{}{x}_3+i\stackrel{}{k}_4\stackrel{}{x}_4}}{x_{12}^{2\mathrm{\Delta }_J}x_{13}^{2(\mathrm{\Delta }_M1)}x_{14}^{2(\mathrm{\Delta }_N1)}x_{34}^2}}`$
$`\delta (\stackrel{}{k}_1+\stackrel{}{k}_2+\stackrel{}{k}_3+\stackrel{}{k}_4)k_2^{2\mathrm{\Delta }_Jd}\mathrm{log}k_2{\displaystyle 𝑑v𝑑w\frac{e^{i\stackrel{}{k}_3vi\stackrel{}{k}_4w}}{v^{2(\mathrm{\Delta }_M1)}w^{2(\mathrm{\Delta }_N1)}(vw)^2}},`$
where new integration variables $`v=x_{13}`$ and $`w=x_{14}`$ were introduced. Coming back to (3.37) it remains to note that in the x-space $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{LMN}(\stackrel{}{x};\stackrel{}{y}_3,\stackrel{}{y}_4)`$ is fixed by conformal invariance to be

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{LMN}(\stackrel{}{x};\stackrel{}{y}_3,\stackrel{}{y}_4)={\displaystyle \frac{C}{(\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{y}_3)^{2(\mathrm{\Delta }_M1)}(\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{y}_4)^{2(\mathrm{\Delta }_N1)}(\stackrel{}{y}_3\stackrel{}{y}_4)^2}},`$
where we have used subextremality condition $`\mathrm{\Delta }_L=\mathrm{\Delta }_M+\mathrm{\Delta }_N2`$ and $`C`$ is the numerical (non-zero) constant. Transforming this expression to the momentum space we therefore find

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{LMN}(\stackrel{}{k}_1+\stackrel{}{k}_2;\stackrel{}{k}_3,\stackrel{}{k}_4)=\delta (\stackrel{}{k}_1+\stackrel{}{k}_2+\stackrel{}{k}_3+\stackrel{}{k}_4){\displaystyle 𝑑v𝑑w\frac{e^{i\stackrel{}{k}_3vi\stackrel{}{k}_4w}}{v^{2(\mathrm{\Delta }_M1)}w^{2(\mathrm{\Delta }_N1)}(vw)^2}}.`$
Thus, we have shown that the field redefinition induces a non-trivial contribution to the subextremal 4-point functions.

The general case $`\mathrm{\Delta }_I=\mathrm{\Delta }_J+\mathrm{\Delta }_L`$ is considered in the same way, and we get that the changing term in a 4-point function has the form

$`O^I(\stackrel{}{x}_1)O^J(\stackrel{}{x}_2)O^M(\stackrel{}{x}_3)O^N(\stackrel{}{x}_4){\displaystyle \frac{1}{x_{12}^{2\mathrm{\Delta }_J}x_{13}^{\mathrm{\Delta }_L+\mathrm{\Delta }_M\mathrm{\Delta }_N}x_{14}^{\mathrm{\Delta }_L+\mathrm{\Delta }_N\mathrm{\Delta }_M}x_{34}^{\mathrm{\Delta }_M+\mathrm{\Delta }_N\mathrm{\Delta }_L}}}+\mathrm{}.`$
We see that this term is obtained by plunging the operator $`O^J`$ into the operator $`O^I`$. The perturbative non-renormalization of the Feynman diagrams of such a type seems to be equivalent to the proof of the non-renormalization of 2- and 3-point functions of CPOs given in .

Consideration of the term involving two logs shows that it scales too fast and by this reason does not lead to any contribution to 4-point functions.

The last integral to be considered is

$$I_4=𝑑\stackrel{}{x}\epsilon ^{d+1}C_{IJKL}^{(4)}_0s_I^{(0)}_as_J^{(0)}^bs_K^{(0)}^a_bs_L^{(0)}$$
(3.39)
The only case when the integral gives a contribution to a 4-point function is $`a=b=0`$. However, in this case we can use the equations of motion for scalars $`s^I`$ to express $`^0_0s_L^{(0)}`$ as $`(m_L^2^i_i)s_L^{(0)}`$. Thus, this integral is equivalent to the integral $`I_1`$ (3.23), and can give a nonvanishing contribution to an extremal 4-point function.

This completes our consideration of the boundary terms (3.22).

## 4 Conclusion

In this paper we studied nonlinear derivative-dependent transformations of gravity fields, and showed that they change 3- and 4-point functions in a boundary CFT. We interpreted such a change of correlation functions as a manifestation of an operator basis transformation in CFT. Thus, a derivative-dependent field redefinition invokes a transformation of operators in CFT, and, as the consequence, a transformation of correlation functions. However, this transformation has a very restrictive form as by a derivative-dependent field redefinition it is possible to change only the coefficients of non-renormalized structures of correlation functions. In particular, one probably can find such a field redefinition of the gravity fields that the redefined scalars $`s^I`$ would be dual to the single-trace CPOs. Still the analysis performed in the paper does not allow one to conclude this definitely. The point is that we do not have enough parameters in the field transformations because we only considered field redefinitions of the scalars $`s^I`$. In general, one should take into account the scalar dependent redefinitions of vector and tensor fields as well. This would give us enough parameters to transform the correlation functions of the extended CPOs into the ones of the single-trace CPOs.

## 5 Appendix

In  the quartic action for scalars $`s^I`$ was found in the form

$`S(s)={\displaystyle _{AdS_5}}\left(_4^{(4)}+_4^{(2)}+_4^{(0)}\right),`$
where the quartic terms contain the 4-derivative couplings

$`_4^{(4)}=\left(S_{I_1I_2I_3I_4}^{(4)}+A_{I_1I_2I_3I_4}^{(4)}\right)s^{I_1}_as^{I_2}_b^2(s^{I_3}^as^{I_4}),`$
the 2-derivative couplings

$`_4^{(2)}=\left(S_{I_1I_2I_3I_4}^{(2)}+A_{I_1I_2I_3I_4}^{(2)}\right)s^{I_1}_as^{I_2}s^{I_3}^as^{I_4}`$
and the couplings without derivatives

$`_4^{(0)}=S_{I_1I_2I_3I_4}^{(0)}s^{I_1}s^{I_2}s^{I_3}s^{I_4}.`$
The corresponding vertices have the following symmetry properties

$`S_{I_1I_2I_3I_4}^{(4)}=S_{I_2I_1I_3I_4}^{(4)}=S_{I_3I_4I_1I_2}^{(4)},A_{I_1I_2I_3I_4}^{(4)}=A_{I_2I_1I_3I_4}^{(4)}=A_{I_3I_4I_1I_2}^{(4)},`$
$`S_{I_1I_2I_3I_4}^{(2)}=S_{I_2I_1I_3I_4}^{(2)}=S_{I_3I_4I_1I_2}^{(2)},A_{I_1I_2I_3I_4}^{(2)}=A_{I_2I_1I_3I_4}^{(2)}=A_{I_3I_4I_1I_2}^{(2)}`$
and their explicit values are given in . What is important for our discussion here is that all the couplings are represented as sums of the $`SO(6)`$ tensors of three different types:

$`F(I_5)a_{I_1I_2I_5}a_{I_3I_4I_5},F(I_5)t_{I_1I_2I_5}t_{I_3I_4I_5},F(I_5)p_{I_1I_2I_5}p_{I_3I_4I_5},`$
where $`F(I_5)`$ is a function of $`I_5`$ and the sum over $`I_5`$ is assumed. There also appear tensors obtained from these ones by different permutation of indices. Recall that $`a_{I_1I_2I_3}`$, $`t_{I_1I_2I_3}`$ and $`p_{I_1I_2I_3}`$ represent the following integrals involving the scalar $`Y^I`$, the vector $`Y_\alpha ^I`$ and the tensor $`Y_{(\alpha \beta )}^I`$ spherical harmonics respectively

$`a_{I_1I_2I_3}={\displaystyle _{S^5}}Y^{I_1}Y^{I_2}Y^{I_3},t_{I_1I_2I_3}={\displaystyle _{S^5}}^\alpha Y^{I_1}Y^{I_2}Y_\alpha ^{I_3},p_{I_1I_2I_3}={\displaystyle _{S^5}}^\alpha Y^{I_1}^\beta Y^{I_2}Y_{(\alpha \beta )}^{I_3}.`$
To prove the vanishing of the couplings in the subextremal case as well as the vanishing of the 4-derivative couplings in the sub-subextremal case we find convenient to pass to the 4-derivative vertices of the form (2.7). This is achieved by using the following relations valid on-shell:

$`A_{1234}^{(4)}{\displaystyle s_1_as_2_b^2(s_3^as_4)}`$ $`=`$ $`2A_{1234}^{(4)}{\displaystyle _as_1_bs_2^as_3^bs_4}`$
$``$ $`4A_{1234}^{(4)}{\displaystyle s_1_as_2s_3^as_4}`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}A_{1234}^{(4)}(m_1^2m_2^2)(m_3^2m_4^2){\displaystyle s_1s_2s_3s_4}.`$
$`S_{1234}^{(4)}{\displaystyle s_1_as_2_b^2(s_3^as_4)}`$ $`=`$ $`S_{1234}^{(4)}{\displaystyle _as_1^as_2_bs_3^bs_4}`$ (5.1)
$`+`$ $`S_{1234}^{(4)}\left(m_1^2+m_2^2+m_3^2+m_4^24\right){\displaystyle s_1_as_2s_3^as_4}`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}S_{1234}^{(4)}(m_1^2+m_2^2)(m_3^2+m_4^2){\displaystyle s_1s_2s_3s_4},`$
where here and below we write concisely the summation index $`I_1`$ simply as 1 and similar for the others, $`m`$ denotes the $`AdS`$ mass of a scalar field.

First we consider the subextremal case and assume for definiteness that $`k_1=k_2+k_3+k_42`$. It is easy to show, by using the description of spherical harmonics as restrictions of functions, vectors and tensors on the $`𝐑^6`$ in which the sphere $`S^5`$ is embedded , that the tensor666We do not assume here summation over $`I_5`$. $`t_{125}t_{345}`$ does not vanish in the subextremal case only for $`k_5=k_3+k_41`$ while for $`p_{125}p_{345}`$ it is the case only if $`k_5=k_3+k_42`$. As for the tensor $`a_{125}a_{345}`$, it differs from zero in two cases: when $`k_5=k_3+k_4`$ or when $`k_5=k_3+k_42`$. Analogously, the only non-trivial values of $`k_5`$ for $`a_{135}a_{245}`$ are $`k_5=k_2+k_4`$ and $`k_5=k_2+k_42`$, and for $`a_{145}a_{235}`$ they are $`k_5=k_2+k_3`$ and $`k_5=k_2+k_32`$. Thus in all vertices we can replace $`k_5`$ by a corresponding function of $`k_2,k_3,k_4`$, and, then the only dependence on $`k_5`$ is in tensors $`t_{125}t_{345}`$, $`p_{125}p_{345}`$, $`a_{125}a_{345}`$, $`a_{135}a_{245}`$ and $`a_{145}a_{235}`$. However, not all of these tensors are independent. Indeed, $`a_{125}a_{345}`$, $`a_{135}a_{245}`$ and $`a_{145}a_{235}`$ are subjected to the following three identities :

$`a_{125}a_{345}=a_{135}a_{245}=a_{145}a_{235},`$ (5.2)
$`f_5(a_{125}a_{345}+a_{135}a_{245}+a_{235}a_{145})=(f_1+f_2+f_3+f_4)a_{125}a_{345},`$
where $`f_i=f(k_i)=k_i(k_i+4)`$. For the sake of simplicity it is useful to introduce the notation

$`\begin{array}{cc}l_1=a_{125}a_{345}|_{k_5=k_3+k_4},\hfill & l_2=a_{125}a_{345}|_{k_5=k_3+k_42},\hfill \\ m_1=a_{145}a_{235}|_{k_5=k_2+k_3},\hfill & m_2=a_{145}a_{235}|_{k_5=k_2+k_32},\hfill \\ n_1=a_{135}a_{245}|_{k_5=k_2+k_4},\hfill & n_2=a_{135}a_{245}|_{k_5=k_2+k_42},\hfill \end{array}`$ (5.6)
where, e.g., $`l_1`$ denotes tensor $`a_{125}a_{345}`$ for the value of $`k_5`$ equal to $`k_3+k_4`$. Hence we have six tensors corresponding to different values of $`k_5`$ and to different order of indices, which are confined by three relations (5.2). Therefore, restricting eqs.(5.2) to the subextremal case, i.e., putting $`k_1=k_2+k_3+k_42`$ one can solve them for any three tensors. If we choose here $`l_1`$, $`m_1`$ and $`n_1`$ as independent variables, then $`l_2`$, $`m_2`$ and $`n_2`$ are expressed as

$`l_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(m_1+n_1l_1)(k_2+1)+m_1k_3+n_1k_4}{k_1+k_2+k_3+2}},`$
$`m_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(n_1+l_1m_1)(k_4+1)+l_1k_3+n_1k_2}{k_1+k_2+k_3+2}},`$ (5.7)
$`n_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(m_1n_1+l_1)(k_3+1)+l_1k_4+m_1k_2}{k_1+k_2+k_3+2}}.`$
For $`t_{125}t_{345}`$ and $`p_{125}p_{345}`$ we will need the following three identities found in :

$`t_{125}t_{345}={\displaystyle \frac{(f_1f_2)(f_3f_4)}{4f_5}}a_{125}a_{345}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}f_5(a_{145}a_{235}a_{245}a_{135}),`$ (5.8)
$`(1f_5)t_{125}t_{345}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(f_5^2f_5(f_1+f_2+f_3+f_44))(a_{145}a_{235}a_{135}a_{245})`$ (5.9)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{4f_5}{4f_5}}(f_1f_2)(f_3f_4)a_{125}a_{345},`$
$`p_{125}p_{345}={\displaystyle \frac{(f_1f_2)(f_3f_4)}{2(f_55)}}t_{125}t_{345}{\displaystyle \frac{5}{4f_5(f_55)}}d_{125}d_{345}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{20}}(f_1+f_2f_5)(f_3+f_4f_5)a_{125}a_{345}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}(f_1+f_3f_5)(f_2+f_4f_5)a_{135}a_{245}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}(f_1+f_4f_5)(f_2+f_3f_5)a_{145}a_{235},`$ (5.10)
where

$$d_{123}=_{S^5}^{(\alpha }^{\beta )}Y^{I_3}_\alpha Y^{I_1}_\beta Y^{I_2}=(\frac{1}{10}f_2f_3+\frac{1}{10}f_1f_3+\frac{1}{2}f_1f_2\frac{1}{4}f_1^2\frac{1}{4}f_2^2+\frac{3}{20}f_3^2)a_{125}.$$

Since in the subextremal case $`t_{125}t_{345}`$ is non-zero only for one value of $`k_5`$ we may use formula (5.8) and eqs.(5.7) to express $`t_{125}t_{345}`$ in terms of $`l_1`$, $`m_1`$ and $`n_1`$. Similarly, combining eq.(5.10) with (5.8) and with eqs.(5.7) one obtains an analogous representation for $`p_{125}p_{345}`$. In this way we have expressed all the quartic vertices via independent tensors $`l_1`$, $`m_1`$ and $`n_1`$.

Now we single out the field $`s^{I_1}`$ and write the relevant part of the quartic 4-derivative vertices as functions of $`l_1`$, $`m_1`$ and $`n_1`$ in the form

$`Ł^{(4)}=4{\displaystyle \underset{I_2,I_3,I_4}{}}\left(S_{I_1I_2I_3I_4}^{(4)}A_{I_1I_3I_2I_4}^{(4)}+A_{I_1I_4I_3I_2}^{(4)}\right)_as^{I_1}^as^{I_2}_bs^{I_3}^bs^{I_4},`$ (5.11)
where we sum over the representations satisfying the subextremality condition. Now, we substitute the values of $`k_5`$ discussed above, and $`k_1=k_2+k_3+k_42`$ in the quartic couplings, and obtain zero.

To analyse 2-derivative terms we represent the 2-derivative Lagrangian as follows

$`Ł^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`4{\displaystyle \underset{I_2,I_3,I_4}{}}(({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\stackrel{~}{S}_{I_1I_3I_2I_4}^{(2)}+\stackrel{~}{A}_{I_1I_2I_3I_4}^{(2)})s^{I_1}^as^{I_2}s^{I_3}_as^{I_4}`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(\stackrel{~}{A}_{I_1I_2I_3I_4}^{(2)}(m_4^2m_3^2)\stackrel{~}{S}_{I_1I_2I_3I_4}^{(2)}(m_4^2+m_3^2))s^{I_1}s^{I_2}s^{I_3}s^{I_4}),`$
where using (5.1) we define

$`\stackrel{~}{S}_{I_1I_2I_3I_4}^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`S_{I_1I_2I_3I_4}^{(2)}+S_{I_1I_2I_3I_4}^{(4)}\left(m_1^2+m_2^2+m_3^2+m_4^24\right),`$
$`\stackrel{~}{A}_{I_1I_2I_3I_4}^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`A_{I_1I_2I_3I_4}^{(2)}4A_{I_1I_2I_3I_4}^{(4)}.`$
This time substituting $`k_5`$ and $`k_1`$ and symmetrizing the expression obtained in $`I_2`$ and $`I_4`$, we get a non-zero function which is, however, completely symmetric in $`I_2`$, $`I_3`$ and $`I_4`$. Thus we can remove the 2-derivative term by using the shift

$$s^{I_1}s^{I_1}\frac{2}{3\kappa _1}\left(\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{~}{S}_{I_1I_3I_2I_4}^{(2)}+\stackrel{~}{A}_{I_1I_2I_3I_4}^{(2)}\right)s^{I_2}s^{I_3}s^{I_4},$$

where $`\kappa _1=\frac{32k_1(k_11)(k_1+2)}{k_1+1}`$. This shift also produces an additional contribution to the non-derivative terms which is equal to

$$\frac{2}{3}\left(\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{~}{S}_{I_1I_3I_2I_4}^{(2)}+\stackrel{~}{A}_{I_1I_2I_3I_4}^{(2)}\right)(m_2^2+m_3^2+m_4^2m_1^2)s^{I_1}s^{I_2}s^{I_3}s^{I_4}.$$

After accounting this contribution the non-derivative terms acquire the form

$`Ł^{(0)}`$ $`=`$ $`4{\displaystyle \underset{I_2,I_3,I_4}{}}(S_{I_1I_2I_3I_4}^{(0)}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\stackrel{~}{S}_{I_1I_3I_2I_4}^{(2)}+\stackrel{~}{A}_{I_1I_2I_3I_4}^{(2)})(m_2^2+m_3^2+m_4^2m_1^2)`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left(\stackrel{~}{A}_{I_1I_2I_3I_4}^{(2)}(m_4^2m_3^2)\stackrel{~}{S}_{I_1I_2I_3I_4}^{(2)}(m_4^2+m_3^2)\right)`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}S_{1234}^{(4)}(m_1^2+m_2^2)(m_3^2+m_4^2){\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}A_{1234}^{(4)}(m_1^2m_2^2)(m_3^2m_4^2))s^{I_1}s^{I_2}s^{I_3}s^{I_4}.`$
Substituting $`k_5`$ and $`k_1`$ and symmetrizing the coefficient obtained in $`I_2`$, $`I_3`$ and $`I_4`$ we end up with zero. Thus, we have shown that after the additional field redefinition all subextremal quartic couplings vanish.

The treatment of the 4-derivative quartic couplings in the sub-subextremal case is quite analogous to the previous one. For definiteness we assume that $`k_1=k_2+k_3+k_44`$. Then $`a_{125}a_{345}`$ is non-zero in three cases: $`k_5=k_3+k_4`$, $`k_5=k_3+k_42`$ and $`k_5=k_3+k_44`$. Similarly $`a_{135}a_{245}`$ is non-zero only for $`k_5`$ equal to $`k_2+k_4`$, $`k_2+k_42`$ or $`k_2+k_44`$, while $`a_{145}a_{235}`$ admits for $`k_5`$ one of the following values $`k_2+k_3`$, $`k_2+k_32`$ or $`k_2+k_34`$. Denote

$`\begin{array}{ccc}l_1=a_{125}a_{345}|_{k_5=k_3+k_4},\hfill & l_2=a_{125}a_{345}|_{k_5=k_3+k_42},\hfill & l_3=a_{125}a_{345}|_{k_5=k_3+k_44},\hfill \\ m_1=a_{145}a_{235}|_{k_5=k_2+k_3},\hfill & m_2=a_{145}a_{235}|_{k_5=k_2+k_32},\hfill & m_3=a_{145}a_{235}|_{k_5=k_2+k_34},\hfill \\ n_1=a_{135}a_{245}|_{k_5=k_2+k_4},\hfill & n_2=a_{135}a_{245}|_{k_5=k_2+k_42},\hfill & n_3=a_{135}a_{245}|_{k_5=k_2+k_44}.\hfill \end{array}`$ (5.16)
Then identities (5.2) allow one to express $`l_3,m_3,n_3`$ via six independent tensors $`l_1,m_1,n_1`$ and $`l_2,m_2,n_2`$, e.g.,

$`l_3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{k_2+k_3+k_4+2}}(m_2+n_2+l_2+(2m_1m_2+l_2)k_3`$
$`+`$ $`(2m_1m_22n_1n_2+2l_1+2l_2)k_2+(2n_1n_2+l_2)k_4).`$
The formulas for $`m_3`$ and $`n_3`$ are obtained from this one by permutations of indices.

Except the tensor structures we have just considered the quartic couplings of 4-derivative vertices contain a tensor $`(f_51)^2t_{125}t_{345}`$ (see Appendix A of ). In the sub-subextremal case $`t_{125}t_{345}`$ differs from zero only for $`k_5=k_3+k_41`$ or $`k_5=k_3+k_43`$. It is then suitable to represent

$`(f_51)^2t_{125}t_{345}=\left((f_5\alpha )(f_5\beta )+a(f_51)+b\right)t_{125}t_{345},`$ (5.18)
where

$`a`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha +\beta 2,`$
$`b`$ $`=`$ $`(\alpha 1)(\beta 1)`$
and pick up for $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ the following values $`\alpha =f(k_3+k_41)`$ and $`\beta =f(k_3+k_43)`$. Clearly, in the sub-subextremal case the first term in the r.h.s. of (5.18) is absent and we may use identities (5.8) and (5.9) to rewrite $`(f_51)^2t_{125}t_{345}`$ via $`l_1,\mathrm{},n_2`$. Hence, as in the subextremal case, we reduced all quartic couplings of 4-derivative vertices to the independent tensor structures.

Now upon substituting in eq.(5.11) the 4-derivative quartic couplings evaluated for the proper values of $`k_5`$ and putting $`k_1=k_2+k_3+k_44`$ we obtain zero.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

We would like to thank A. Tseytlin for prompt reading of the manuscript and useful remarks, and D. Freedman for useful correspondence, G.A. is grateful to S. Theisen and S. Kuzenko, and S.F. is grateful to A. Tseytlin and S. Mathur for valuable discussions. The work of G.A. was supported by the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation and in part by the RFBI grant N99-01-00166, and the work of S.F. was supported by the U.S. Department of Energy under grant No. DE-FG02-96ER40967 and in part by RFBI grant N99-01-00190.