format: text

text:
# Random Resistor-Diode Networks and the Crossover from Isotropic to Directed Percolation

## I Introduction

Random resistor-diode networks (RDN) were introduced by Redner . Nevertheless, they were already contained implicitly in the pioneering work of Broadbent and Hammersley  on percolation. RDN define a percolation model (for a recent introduction to percolation see Stauffer and Aharony ) on a $`d`$-dimensional hypercubic lattice in which nearest-neighbor sites are connected by a resistor, a positive diode (conducting only in a preferred direction), a negativ diode (conducting only opposite to the preferred direction), or an insulator with respective probabilities $`p`$, $`p_+`$, $`p_{}`$, and $`q=1pp_+p_{}`$. In the three dimensional phase diagram (pictured as a tetrahedron spanned by the four probabilities) one finds a nonpercolating and three percolating phases. The percolating phases are isotropic, positively directed, or negatively directed. Between the phases there are surfaces of continuous transitions. All four phases meet along a multicritical line, where $`0r:=p_+=p_{}1/2`$ and $`p=p_c(r)`$. On the entire multicritical line, i.e., independently of $`r`$, one finds the scaling properties of usual isotropic percolation ($`r=0`$).

About 20 years ago Redner  studied the phase diagram sketched in Fig. 1 as well as geometrical properties of RDN in two dimensions. He used real-space renormalization methods and planar lattice duality .

Recently Inui et al have measured the order parameter exponent $`\beta `$ for the special case of a two-dimensional random diode network (with $`p=q=0`$) by Monte Carlo methods combined with series expansions. At the symmetric critical point $`p_+=p_{}=1/2`$ (so called random Manhattan (RM)), they found $`\beta =0.1794\pm 0.008`$, which does not coincide with the known values wether for isotropic percolation (IP), $`\beta _{IP}=5/36`$, nor directed percolation (DP), $`\beta _{DP}=0.27643`$. Therefore, they concluded that the percolation properties of the random diode network constitute a new universality class different from isotropic and directed percolation.

In this paper we study RDN by the methods of renormalized field theory. Contrary to Inui et al. we find that random diode networks at the percolation point as well as RDN at the full multicritical line belong to the universality class of isotropic percolation. The variable $`r=p_+=p_{}`$, which maps out the multicritical line $`p=p_c(r)`$, is a redundant variable in the sense of the classification scheme of scaling variables by Wegner . Thus, all the points of this line are equivalent to the usual isotropic percolation point with $`r=0`$.

The case $`r>0`$, in which positive and negative diodes are distributed with equal probability, leads to a breaking of isotropy and to elongated percolating clusters. However, this symmetry breaking can be easily compensated in the mesoscopic field theoretic formulation by a simple rescaling of the length scale of the preferred direction. The specific length scale is therefore redundant. Wegner showed that the renormalization flow of a redundant variable depends on the particular form of renormalization group used and does not affect the physics. Thus, in the case of Redner’s real space renormalization group, a special fixed point, the so called mixed one, is distinguished.

The situation is different for a symmetry breaking which favors not only an axis but also a direction on that axis. This leads to a relevant variable $`(p_+p_{})`$ and therefore to a new correlation length exponent $`\nu =\varphi \nu _{IP}`$. The crossover exponent $`\varphi `$ describes the beginning of the crossover to directed percolation. It also relates the order parameter exponents, $`\beta =\varphi \beta _{IP}`$. In two dimensions, it has, according to the results of Inui et al, the value $`\varphi =1.29\mathrm{}`$ . Our perturbation calculation yields $`\varphi =1.29\pm 0.05`$ in agreement with the simulations. It should be noted that the interpretation of the multicritical line as a line of equivalent fixed points with the same scaling behavior, as well as the new correlation exponent $`\nu `$, can be already found implicitly and explicitly in the early papers of Redner  (his notation is $`\nu _+`$ for the new exponent $`\nu `$).

The organization of the remainder of this paper is as follows. In Sec. II, we first develop a mesoscopic field theoretic model that is capable to describe the crossover from isotropic to directed percolation, which is the basic feature of RDN. We describe the renormalization of the model and calculate the renormalization factors to two-loop order. In Sec. III, we introduce the renormalization group equation for the model and derive the general asymptotic scaling properties. In Sec. IV, we derive an interpolating formula for the crossover exponent from the two-loop $`\epsilon `$-expansion and show that it reproduces the result of Inui et al. In Sec. V we reconsider the theory by Frey, Täuber, and Schwabl  for the crossover from isotropic to directed percolation and clear up some minor shortcomings. In Sec. VI, we give some conclusions and summarize our work. In an appendix, we present the two-loop calculation of the renormalization factors.

## II The Field Theoretic Model and its Renormalization

Here we develop a mesoscopic model that is capable to describe the crossover from isotropic to directed percolation. In this paper we are only interested in connectivity properties of the percolating system. In contrast to earlier work on random resistor networks  we neglect transport properties as the conductance etc. In other words: all we ask is wether two points on the lattice are connected or not. Formally, we consider the limit of zero resistance of the conducting elements.

Percolating clusters in space and time can be generated by a stochastic spreading process known as the general epidemic process (GEP) . In order to apply field-theoretic methods , it is convenient to use the path-integral representation of the underlying stochastic process $`s(𝐱,t)`$ . With the imaginary-valued response field denoted by $`\stackrel{~}{s}(𝐱,t)`$, the generating functional of the Greens functions, the connected response, and correlation functions takes the form

$$𝒲[H,\stackrel{~}{H}]=\mathrm{ln}𝒟(\stackrel{~}{s},s)\mathrm{exp}\left[𝒥[\stackrel{~}{s},s]+d^dx𝑑t\left(Hs+\stackrel{~}{H}\stackrel{~}{s}\right)\right].$$
(1)
The dynamic functional $`𝒥[\stackrel{~}{s},s]`$ and the functional measure $`𝒟(\stackrel{~}{s},s)`$ ($`𝒟(\stackrel{~}{s},s)`$ is a symbolic notation for $`_{𝐱,t}\left(d\stackrel{~}{s}(𝐱,t)ds(𝐱,t)\right)`$ times a constant) are understood to be defined using a prepoint (Ito) discretization with respect to time . The prepoint discretization leads to the causality rule $`\theta (t0)=0`$ in response functions. This causality rule then forbids response propagator loops in the diagrammatical perturbation expansion.

Using the path-integral formulation a renormalized field-theory of dynamic isotropic percolation can be gained from the GEP . If we add to this model a relevant coupling which breaks isotropy and introduce a preferred direction $`𝐧`$ for the spreading of the disease in the $`d`$-dimensional space, we get the dynamic functional

$$𝒥=d^dx\left\{𝑑t\stackrel{~}{s}\left[_t+\lambda \left(\tau ^2+2v\left(𝐧\right)\right)\frac{\lambda g}{2}\stackrel{~}{s}\right]s+\frac{\lambda ^2g}{2}\stackrel{~}{s}_t\left[^t𝑑t^{}s(t^{})\right]^2\right\}.$$
(2)
This functional corresponds to the Langevin equations

$`_ts(𝐱,t)`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda \left(^22v\left(𝐧\right)\tau gn(𝐱,t)\right)s(𝐱,t)+\zeta (𝐱,t),`$ (3)
$`n(𝐱,t)`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda {\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^t}s(𝐱,t^{})𝑑t^{},`$ (4)
$`\zeta (𝐱,t)\zeta (𝐱^{},t^{})`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda gs(𝐱,t)\delta (𝐱𝐱^{})\delta (tt^{}),`$ (5)
for the GEP with the suitable scaled density $`s(𝐱,t)`$ of the infected individuals. Here $`n(𝐱,t)`$ constitutes the density of the immun (or dead) individuals and $`\zeta (𝐱,t)`$ is a Gaussian noise which is zero in spatial regions where the disease is extinguished. The deterministic drift of the disease in space is represented by the flow 2$`\lambda v𝐧s(𝐱,t)`$.

Of course, if the $`d`$-dimensional rotational symmetry is broken to $`(d1)`$ -dimensional isotropy, the diffusion constants for longitudinal (with respect to the direction $`𝐧`$) and transversal spreading are in general different. Thus we have to consider a more general diffusion operator $`\lambda ^2`$ $`\lambda (_{}^2+c^2_{}^2)`$. However, it is easy to see that the new parameter $`c`$ can be absorbed into the definition of the longitudinal length scale by $`cx_{}x_{}`$ followed by an appropriate change of the densities and the coupling constant $`g`$. After that, diffusional spreading looks isotropic again. The parameter $`c`$ depends on the microscopic model. It is a redundant variable in the sense of Wegner  and is responsible for the multicritical line in the RDN . From the microscopic RDN-standpoint, the three variables $`\tau `$, $`c`$, $`v`$ are analytical functions of the three probabilities $`p`$, $`p_+`$, $`p_{}`$ for the resistors and diodes near the critical manifolds of RDN and share their spatial symmetries. Thus one has $`\tau (p,p_+,p_{})=\tau (p,p_{},p_+)`$, $`c(p,p_+,p_{})=c(p,p_{},p_+)`$, and $`v(p,p_+,p_{})=v(p,p_{},p_+)`$. In particular we have $`c(p,0,0)=1`$, but in general $`c(p,r,r)1`$ if $`r>0`$. Moreover, $`v(p,r,r)=0`$ holds. Remember that $`p_+=p_{}=r`$ and $`p=p_c(r)`$ defines the multicritical line.

In this paper we are interested only in the static behavior of the process, i.e., in the statistics of the distributions of immunes in space $`n(𝐱,\mathrm{})`$ after a long time when the epidemic is extinguished. These distributions constitute isotropic percolating clusters at the critical point of the GEP, which is given by $`v=v(p_c(r),r,r)=0`$ and $`\tau =\tau (p_c(r),r,r)=\tau _c=0`$ if we neglect fluctuation corrections. The density $`n(𝐱,\mathrm{})`$ is proportional to the Fourier transform of $`s`$ for frequency zero. The statistical weight for these frequency-zero modes can be found by invoking the formal limit

$$\stackrel{~}{s}(𝐱,t)\stackrel{~}{\phi }(𝐱)=\text{const. },\lambda _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑ts(𝐱,t)=n(𝐱,\mathrm{})\phi (𝐱),$$
(6)
for the fields in the dynamic functional $`𝒥`$, Eq. (2). This manipulation can be controlled term by term in a diagrammatical perturbation expansion and leads to the wanted representation of the zero frequency Green’s functions as functional integrals with a weight $`\mathrm{exp}()`$ and a quasistatic Hamiltonian

$$=d^dx\left\{\stackrel{~}{\phi }\left[\tau ^2+2v\left(𝐧\right)+\frac{g}{2}\left(\phi \stackrel{~}{\phi }\right)\right]\phi \right\}.$$
(7)
Remember that closed loops of the response propagators are forbidden in the Feynman diagrams as a consequence of the causality rule. Therefore, the functional $``$ is, up to a rescaling, identical with the statistical functional considered by Frey, Täuber, and Schwabl  in their work on the crossover from isotropic to directed percolation.

To absorb ultraviolet divergencies in a perturbational calculation of the Green’s functions with the Hamiltonian $``$ we use, in the case $`v=0`$, the following renormalization scheme :

$`\stackrel{~}{\phi }`$ $``$ $`\stackrel{˚}{\stackrel{~}{\phi }}=Z^{1/2}\stackrel{~}{\phi },\phi \stackrel{˚}{\phi }=Z^{1/2}\phi ,`$ (8)
$`\tau `$ $``$ $`\stackrel{˚}{\tau }=Z^1Z_\tau \tau \mu ^2+\stackrel{˚}{\tau }_c,g^2\stackrel{˚}{g}^2=G_\epsilon ^1Z^3Z_uu\mu ^\epsilon .`$ (9)
Here $`\epsilon =6d`$, $`G_\epsilon =\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+\epsilon /2)/(4\pi )^{d/2}`$, and $`\mu `$ is the usual external momentum scale, which makes the renormalized coupling constant $`u`$ dimensionless. Note that the fields $`\stackrel{~}{\phi }`$ and $`\phi `$ are renormalized by the same $`Z`$-factor as a consequence of the reflection symmetry $`\phi (𝐱_{},x_{})\stackrel{~}{\phi }(𝐱_{},x_{})`$ of $``$, which leads eventually to the equality $`\beta ^{}=\beta `$ between the exponents characterizing the particle density and the percolation probability. The renormalizations are known from percolation field theory up to three-loop order . Using dimensional regularization and minimal subtraction (minimal renormalization) together with the $`\epsilon `$-expansion one finds $`\stackrel{˚}{\tau }_c=0`$ and to two-loop order

$`Z`$ $`=`$ $`1+{\displaystyle \frac{u}{6\epsilon }}+\left(11{\displaystyle \frac{37}{12}}\epsilon \right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{u}{6\epsilon }}\right)^2+O\left(u^3\right),`$ (10)
$`Z_\tau `$ $`=`$ $`1+{\displaystyle \frac{u}{\epsilon }}+\left(9{\displaystyle \frac{47}{12}}\epsilon \right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{u}{2\epsilon }}\right)^2+O\left(u^3\right),`$ (11)
$`Z_u`$ $`=`$ $`1+{\displaystyle \frac{4u}{\epsilon }}+\left(15{\displaystyle \frac{59}{12}}\epsilon \right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{u}{\epsilon }}\right)^2+O\left(u^3\right).`$ (12)
If $`v0`$, further renormalizations are needed. Because $`v\mu `$, this relevant parameter has positive naive dimension like $`\tau `$. Hence, we consider it as a soft variable (which means that the renormalization constants do not depend on $`\tau `$ and $`v`$) as long as $`v`$ is finite and complete the renormalization scheme by

$$\tau \stackrel{˚}{\tau }=Z^1\left(Z_\tau \tau +Y_{v\tau }v^2\right)\mu ^2,v\stackrel{˚}{v}=Z^1Z_vv\mu .$$
(13)
Here we anticipate that $`\tau `$ and $`v^2`$ get mixed under renormalization.

To calculate $`Z_v`$ und $`Y_{v\tau }`$, we need the (unrenormalized) propagator $`G(𝐪)=\phi _𝐪\stackrel{~}{\phi }_𝐪_0^{(trunc)}`$. We define the spatial Fourier transform by $`\phi (𝐱)=_𝐪\phi _𝐪\mathrm{exp}(i𝐪𝐱)`$ (with the abbreviation $`_𝐪=(2\pi )^dd^dq`$) and get

$$G(𝐪)=\frac{1}{\tau +q^2+2i𝐯𝐪}=\frac{1}{\left(\tau +v^2\right)+\left(𝐪+i𝐯\right)^2},$$
(14)
where we used the notation $`𝐯=v𝐧`$. The one-loop contribution to the vertex function $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{1,1}`$ (the amputated one-particle irreducible Green’s function with one $`s`$\- and one $`\stackrel{~}{s}`$-leg) is given by

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{(1)}(𝐪)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{2}}{\displaystyle _𝐤}G(𝐤+𝐪/2)G(𝐤+𝐪/2)`$ (15)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{2}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}ds_1ds_2{\displaystyle _𝐤}\mathrm{exp}[(s_1+s_2)(\tau +v^2)`$ (17)
$`s_1(𝐤+(𝐪/2+i𝐯))^2s_2(𝐤(𝐪/2+i𝐯))^2]`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2G_\epsilon g^2}{(2\epsilon )\epsilon }}\left(\tau +Q\right)^{1\epsilon /2}K_{\epsilon 4}^{(0)}\left(\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{v^2Q}{\tau +Q}}}\right)`$ (18)
$`=`$ $`G_\epsilon g^2\tau ^{\epsilon /2}({\displaystyle \frac{2\tau }{(2\epsilon )\epsilon }}K_{\epsilon 4}^{(0)}(v/\sqrt{\tau })+{\displaystyle \frac{Q}{\epsilon }}K_{\epsilon 2}^{(1)}\left(v\sqrt{\tau }\right)`$ (20)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{4}}K_\epsilon ^{(2)}(v/\sqrt{\tau })+O(Q^3)),`$
where we have defined the functions

$$K_\alpha ^{(n)}(p)=_0^1𝑑x\frac{\left(1x^2\right)^n}{\left(1+p^2x^2\right)^{1+\alpha /2}}$$
(21)
and the abbreviation

$$Q=q^2/4+i𝐯𝐪.$$
(22)
The expansion of the yet unrenormalized one-loop selfenergy $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{(1)}(𝐪)`$ in $`v^2`$ and $`\epsilon `$ yields

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }^{(1)}(𝐪)=\frac{G_\epsilon g^2\tau ^{\epsilon /2}}{\epsilon }\left(\left(1+\frac{\epsilon }{2}\right)\tau +\frac{v^2}{3}+\frac{2i}{3}𝐯𝐪+\frac{1}{6}𝐪^2+O(\epsilon ^2)\right).$$
(23)
Using the renormalization scheme Eqs. (8,9,13 ), the renormalized vertex function $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{1,1}`$ is found to first order in the renormalized coupling constant $`u`$ as

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{1,1}=\left(Z_\tau \tau +Y_{v\tau }v^2\frac{u}{\epsilon }\left(\tau +\frac{v^2}{3}\right)\right)\mu ^2+2i\left(Z_v\frac{u}{3\epsilon }\right)\mu 𝐯𝐪+\left(Z\frac{u}{6\epsilon }\right)𝐪^2+O(\epsilon ^0),$$
(24)
from which the new renormalizations can be gathered to $`O(u)`$ as

$`Z_v`$ $`=`$ $`1+{\displaystyle \frac{u}{3\epsilon }}+\left(23{\displaystyle \frac{73}{12}}\epsilon \right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{u}{6\epsilon }}\right)^2+O\left(u^3\right),`$ (25)
$`Y_{v\tau }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{u}{3\epsilon }}+\left(30{\displaystyle \frac{35}{2}}\epsilon \right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{u}{6\epsilon }}\right)^2+O\left(u^3\right).`$ (26)
Here we have included also the two-loop result calculated in the appendix.

## III Renormalization Group Equation and Scaling Behavior

Next we explore the scaling properties of percolation in the RDN system. Scaling properties describe how physical quantities will transform under a change of length scales. By the renormalization, we have introduced the arbitrary mesoscopic length scale $`\mu ^1`$. The freedom to choose $`\mu `$, keeping the unrenormalized fields and bare parameters $`\{\stackrel{˚}{\tau },\stackrel{˚}{v},\stackrel{˚}{g}\}`$, and, in cutoff regularization, the momentum cutoff $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ fixed, can be used to derive in a routine fashion the renormalization group (RG) equation for the connected Green’s functions

$$G_{N,\stackrel{~}{N}}(\{𝐱\})=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\phi (𝐱_i)\underset{j=N+1}{\overset{N+\stackrel{~}{N}}{}}\stackrel{~}{\phi }(𝐱_j)^{(conn)}.$$
(27)
We denote $`\mu `$-derivatives at fixed bare parameters by $`_\mu |_0`$. From $`\mu _\mu |_0\stackrel{˚}{G}_{N,\stackrel{~}{N}}=0`$ and the renormalization scheme, Eqs. (8,9,13), which lead to $`\stackrel{˚}{G}_{N,\stackrel{~}{N}}=Z^{(N+\stackrel{~}{N})/2}G_{N,\stackrel{~}{N}}`$, we then find the renormalization group (RG) equations

$$\left[𝒟_\mu +\frac{N+\stackrel{~}{N}}{2}\gamma \right]G_{N,\stackrel{~}{N}}=0.$$
(28)
$`𝒟_\mu `$ stands for the renormalization group differential operator

$$𝒟_\mu =\mu _\mu +\beta _u_u+\left(\tau (\kappa _\tau 2)+v^2\kappa _{v\tau }\right)_\tau +v(\kappa _v1)_v.$$
(29)
Here we have introduced the Gell-Mann-Low functions

$`\beta _u`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{u}{\mathrm{ln}\mu }}|_0=\left(\epsilon +3\gamma \gamma _u\right)u,`$ (30)
$`\tau \kappa _\tau +v^2\kappa _{v\tau }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\tau }{\mathrm{ln}\mu }}|_0=\tau \left(\gamma \gamma _\tau \right)v^2\gamma _{v\tau },`$ (31)
$`v\kappa _v`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{v}{\mathrm{ln}\mu }}|_0=v\left(\gamma \gamma _v\right),`$ (32)
and the Wilson-functions $`\gamma _{\mathrm{}}=\mathrm{ln}Z_{\mathrm{}}/\mathrm{ln}\mu |_0`$.

The RG equations can be solved in terms of a single flow parameter $`l`$ using the characteristics

$`l{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dl}}\overline{u}(l)`$ $`=`$ $`\beta _u(\overline{u}(l)),\overline{u}(1)=u,`$ (33)
$`l{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dl}}\overline{v}(l)`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{v}(l)\left(\kappa _v(\overline{u}(l))1\right),\overline{v}(1)=v,`$ (34)
$`l{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dl}}\overline{\tau }(l)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\overline{\tau }\left(\kappa _\tau (\overline{u}(l))2\right)+\overline{v}^2\kappa _{v\tau }(\overline{u}(l))\right),\overline{\tau }(1)=\tau .`$ (35)
With help of these flow equations we recast Eq. (28) as

$$[l\frac{d}{dl}+\frac{N+\stackrel{~}{N}}{2}\gamma (\overline{u}(l))]G_{N,\stackrel{~}{N}}(\{𝐱\},\overline{\tau }(l),\overline{v}(l),\overline{u}(l)\},l\mu )=0.$$
(36)
Equations (33-35) describe how the parameters transform if we change the momentum scale $`\mu `$ according to $`\mu \overline{\mu }(l)=l\mu `$. Being interested in the infrared (IR) behavior of the theory, we must study the limit $`l0`$. According to Eq. (33) we expect that in this IR limit the coupling constant $`\overline{u}(l)`$ flows to a stable fixed point $`u_{}`$ with $`\beta _u=0`$. At the fixed point it is legitimate to diagonalize the part of the RG differential operator containing the relevant parameters $`\tau `$ and $`v`$. Introducing a new parameter $`\sigma `$ instead of $`\tau `$, we find

$$\left(\tau \kappa _\tau +v^2\kappa _{v\tau }\right)_\tau +v\kappa _v_v=\sigma \kappa _\tau _\sigma +v\kappa _v_v,$$
(37)
where

$$\sigma =\tau +a_{}v^2,a_{}=\frac{\kappa _{v\tau }}{\kappa _\tau 2\kappa _v}.$$
(38)
The $`\kappa _i`$ stand for the Gell-Mann-Low functions taken at the fixed point $`u_{}`$.

Using dimensional analysis in conjunction with the flow equations, we readily find the asymptotic behavior of the connected Green’s functions for $`l0`$. Neglecting nonuniversal scale factors we get

$`G_{N,\stackrel{~}{N}}(\{𝐱\},\sigma ,v,u_{},\mu )`$ $`=`$ $`l^{(N+\stackrel{~}{N})\eta /2}G_{N,\stackrel{~}{N}}(\{𝐱\},\sigma /l^{2\kappa _\tau },v/l^{1\kappa _v},u_{},\mu l)`$ (39)
$`=`$ $`(\mu l)^{(N+\stackrel{~}{N})(d2)/2}l^{(N+\stackrel{~}{N})\eta /2}G_{N,\stackrel{~}{N}}(\{l\mu 𝐱\},\sigma /l^{2\kappa _\tau },v/l^{1\kappa _v},u_{},1),`$ (40)
where the Fisher exponent $`\eta `$ is defined by $`\eta =\gamma (u_{})`$. We define the remaining exponents by

$`\nu `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1\kappa _v}},\beta =\nu {\displaystyle \frac{d2+\eta }{2}},`$ (41)
$`\nu _{IP}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\kappa _\tau }},\beta _{IP}=\nu _{IP}{\displaystyle \frac{d2+\eta }{2}},`$ (42)
and the crossover exponent $`\varphi `$ by

$$\varphi =\frac{2\kappa _\tau }{1\kappa _v}=\nu /\nu _{IP}=\beta /\beta _{IP}.$$
(43)
The appropriate choice of the flow parameter $`l`$ in the case $`\left|\sigma \right|\left|v\right|^\varphi `$ is $`l\left|v\right|^\nu `$. In this case the Green’s functions scale as

$$G_{N,\stackrel{~}{N}}(\{𝐱\})=\left|v\right|^{(N+\stackrel{~}{N})\beta }F_{N,\stackrel{~}{N}}(\{𝐱/\xi \},\sigma /\left|v\right|^\varphi )$$
(44)
with a correlation length $`\xi \mu ^1\left|v\right|^\nu `$. Otherwise, in the case $`\left|v\right|\left|\sigma \right|^{1/\varphi }`$, we choose $`l\left|\sigma \right|^\nu `$ and arrive at isotropic percolation scaling

$$G_{N,\stackrel{~}{N}}(\{𝐱\})=\left|\sigma \right|^{(N+\stackrel{~}{N})\beta _{IP}}F_{N,\stackrel{~}{N}}^{(IP)}(\{𝐱/\xi _{IP}\},v/\left|\sigma \right|^{1/\varphi }),$$
(45)
with a correlation length $`\xi _{IP}\mu ^1\left|\sigma \right|^{\nu _{IP}}`$.

## IV Results for the Crossover Exponent from the $`\epsilon `$-Expansion

In this section we derive the scaling indices. Because the $`\epsilon `$-expansions of the usual percolation exponents are well known, we concentrate on the new crossover exponent $`\varphi `$. For this purpose we need the Gell-Mann-Low functions $`\beta _u`$, $`\gamma `$, and $`\kappa _i`$ explicitly. From Eq. (30) we know that $`\beta _u`$ begins with the zero-loop term $`\epsilon u`$, the higher order terms are determined by the Wilson functions. These functions, the logarithmic derivatives of the $`Z`$-factors, are given by $`\gamma _{\mathrm{}}=\mu _\mu |_0\mathrm{ln}Z_{\mathrm{}}=\beta _u_u\mathrm{ln}Z_{\mathrm{}}`$. In minimal renormalization the $`Z`$-factors have a pure Laurent expansion with respect to $`\epsilon `$: $`Z=1+Y^{(1)}/\epsilon +Y^{(2)}/\epsilon ^2+\mathrm{}`$. It follows then recursively in the loop expansion that the Wilson functions have also a pure Laurent expansion and, because they are finite for $`\epsilon 0`$, this expansion reduces to the constant term, i.e., all $`\epsilon `$-poles have to be compensated by the logarithmic derivative. Thus, we get the Wilson functions simply from the formula $`\gamma _{\mathrm{}}=u_uY_{\mathrm{}}^{(1)}`$. Now it is easy to find these functions from the $`Z`$-factors Eqs. (10-12,25, 26). The results are

$`\gamma _u`$ $`=`$ $`4u+{\displaystyle \frac{59}{6}}u^2+O\left(u^3\right),\gamma _\tau =u+{\displaystyle \frac{47}{24}}u^2+O\left(u^3\right),`$ (46)
$`\gamma _v`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{u}{3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{73}{216}}u^2+O\left(u^3\right),\gamma _{v\tau }={\displaystyle \frac{u}{3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{35}{36}}u^2+O\left(u^3\right),`$ (47)
$`\gamma `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{u}{6}}+{\displaystyle \frac{37}{216}}u^2+O\left(u^3\right),`$ (48)
from which the Gell-Mann-Low functions follow as

$`\beta _u`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\epsilon +{\displaystyle \frac{7u}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{671}{72}}u^2+O\left(u^3\right)\right)u,\kappa _\tau ={\displaystyle \frac{5u}{6}}{\displaystyle \frac{193}{108}}u^2+O\left(u^3\right),`$ (49)
$`\kappa _v`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{u}{6}}{\displaystyle \frac{u^2}{6}}+O\left(u^3\right),\kappa _{v\tau }={\displaystyle \frac{u}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{35}{36}}u^2+O\left(u^3\right).`$ (50)
From $`\beta _u=0`$ the stable fixed point value $`u_{}=\frac{2}{7}\epsilon +\frac{671}{3087}\epsilon ^2+O(\epsilon ^3)`$ is readily obtained. We finally derive the following $`\epsilon `$-expansion of the crossover exponent:

$$\varphi =2\frac{\epsilon }{7}+\frac{59\epsilon ^2}{221^3}+O\left(\epsilon ^3\right).$$
(51)
Crudely evaluating this expansion for small spatial dimensions, i.e., for $`\epsilon =3`$ or $`4`$, leads inevitably to poor quantitative predictions. Therefore, we improve the $`\epsilon `$-expansion via a rational approximation, which takes into account that for $`d=1`$ the correlation length exponents are, trivially, always equal to one. In addition, we make the hypothesis that the $`\epsilon `$-expansion can be extended up to $`\epsilon =5`$. These considerations lead then to the interpolation formula

$$\varphi =1+\left(1\frac{\epsilon }{5}\right)\left(1+\frac{2\epsilon }{35}+\frac{6767\epsilon ^2}{5021^3}\right).$$
(52)
From Eq. (52) we get values for the crossover and the order parameter exponent for $`d=2`$ to $`d=6`$. These values are summarized in the following table:

| $`d=`$ | $`2`$ | $`3`$ | $`4`$ | $`5`$ | $`6`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`\varphi =`$ | $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1.29}`$ | $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1.52}`$ | $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1.70}`$ | $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1.86}`$ | $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2.00}`$ |
| $`\beta =`$ | $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0.18}`$ | $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0.62}`$ | $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1.09}`$ | $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1.56}`$ | $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2.00}`$ |

Of course, the calculated values of $`\varphi `$ depend slightly on the interpolation procedure, i.e., different rational approximands may be used to incorporate $`\varphi (d=1)=1`$. We learn from this numerical sorceries that the displayed numbers may have a failure of roughly $`\pm 0.05`$.

Now we come back to the question which of the order parameter exponents are seen in simulations by Inui et al. From the scaling properties of the Green’s functions $`G_{N,\stackrel{~}{N}}(\left\{𝐱\right\})`$ we have learned that this depends on the relative behavior of the relevant parameters $`\left|\sigma \right|`$ and $`\left|v\right|^\varphi `$ as functions of the microscopic probabilities for the conducting elements. Writing the deviations from the multicritical line as $`\delta p=pp_c(r)`$, $`\delta p_\pm =p_\pm r`$, we have the expansions

$`\sigma `$ $`=`$ $`a_1\left(\delta p_++\delta p_{}\right)+a_2\delta p+a_3\left(\delta p_++\delta p_{}\right)^2+a_4\delta p_+\delta p_{}+a_5\delta p^2+\mathrm{},`$ (53)
$`v`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\delta p_+\delta p_{}\right)\left(b_1+b_2\delta p+b_3\left(\delta p_++\delta p_{}\right)\right)\mathrm{},`$ (54)
where the coefficients $`a_i,b_i`$ depend on the microscopic model. In the simulations of the pure two-dimensional random diode system Inui et al set $`\delta p_+=\delta p_{}=\delta r`$ and $`\delta p=0`$. It follows that $`\sigma \delta r^2`$ and $`v\delta r`$, and consequently $`\left|\sigma \right|/\left|v\right|^\varphi \left|\delta r\right|^{2\varphi }1`$ because $`\varphi <2`$. Thus the exponent $`\beta `$ is found as the simulations clearly state. In their extended model Inui et al. set the variations of the probabilities to $`\delta p_+=\delta p_{}=\delta r`$ and $`\delta p=0`$. In this case we have $`\sigma \delta r`$ and $`v\delta r`$, and consequently $`\left|v\right|/\left|\sigma \right|^{1/\varphi }\left|\delta r\right|^{11/\varphi }1`$ because $`1/\varphi <1`$. Now the isotropic percolation exponent $`\beta _{IP}=5/36`$ is measured.

## V The Crossover from Isotropic to Directed Percolation

### A Preliminaries

The crossover theory of Frey, Täuber, and Schwabl , henceforth called FTS, starts with the quasistatic Hamiltonian $``$ stated in Eq. (7). FTS use the modification of the longitudinal length scale by the parameter $`c`$ which we have discussed in Sec. II. We have seen that $`c`$ is a redundant variable near the isotropic fixed point and hence dropped it from the onset. FTS renormalize $`c`$ also. They find that the anomalous dimension of $`c`$ is zero at the isotropic point. Moreover, they calculate a nonvanishing anomalous dimension of $`c`$ at the directed fixed point. The variable $`c`$ (or better $`1/c^2`$, which couples to the composed field $`\stackrel{~}{\phi }_{}^2\phi `$), being redundant at the isotropic fixed point, changes over to an irrelevant variable at the directed fixed point. Thus, in order to renormalize it, one has to include all the irrelevant operators of equal naive dimension and symmetry which mix under renormalization. This was overlooked in the work of FTS, thus the calculated anomalous dimension of $`1/c^2`$ is meaningless.

The technical problem of the crossover from IP to DP is, as FTS stated, that the two fixed points, which are to connect by the renormalization flow, have different upper critical dimensions, $`6`$ and $`5`$, respectively. Thus, one has from the outset the problem to renormalize the theory for general dimensions below $`6`$ and cannot use the $`\epsilon `$-expansion, which by-passes the problem that the perturbation expansion is ill-defined if one uses critical massless propagators, leading to infrared (IR) divergencies below the upper critical dimension. However, the renormalization can be accomplished in a massive theory, which avoids the IR divergencies, by using normalization conditions for the vertex functions. Asymptotic scaling properties follow from the inhomogeneous Callan-Symanzik equation.

Below the upper critical dimension, the theory is super-renormalizable. Only the vertex function $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{1,1}`$ is UV divergent and can be renormalized by a mass shift $`\tau \tau +\delta \tau `$, where $`\delta \tau `$ absorbs the UV divergencies. If the theory is regularized dimensionally, these UV divergencies manifest themselves as poles at $`\epsilon =\epsilon _l=2/l`$, $`l=1,2,\mathrm{}`$ , where, at the corresponding spatial dimensions $`d_l=6\epsilon _l`$, only perturbational contributions to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{1,1}`$ of loop-order smaller then $`l`$ are superficially UV divergent. These poles can be eliminated, as long as $`v`$ is finite, by a shift $`\delta \tau =g^{4/\epsilon }(\epsilon )`$, where $``$ is meromorphic in $`\epsilon `$. After the mass shift, the theory is UV-finite. Then, however, in those dimensions corresponding to the before mentioned poles, non-analytic logarithmic behavior with respect to the coupling constant arises.

An alternative dimensional regularization formalism was presented some time ago by Schloms and Dohm , henceforth called SD. This formalism circumvents renormalization conditions and resorts to the more convenient minimal renormalization but without using the $`\epsilon `$-expansion. The key feature of that formalism is to use the inverse correlation length itself as the mass-parameter  and to define the minimal renormalization at a suitable renormalization point, which introduces the usual external mass scale $`\mu `$. The consequences are relatively simple renormalization factors and a homogeneous RG equation. Hence, the SD formalism fosters higher order calculations and resummation procedures. We will use the SD formalism in the following. FTS use a massive renormalization scheme that is a mixture of renormalization conditions and a mass renormalization at an external mass scale $`\mu `$. It is unclear wether this scheme can be used consistently at higher loop-order.

### B Crossover Renormalization

We revisit the quasistatic Hamiltonian $``$, Eqn. (7), and introduce, in the case $`v0`$, new variables by

$$𝐱_{}=𝐲,x_{}=𝐧𝐱=2v\lambda t,\phi =\left|2v\right|^{1/2}s,\stackrel{~}{\phi }=\left|2v\right|^{1/2}\stackrel{~}{s},g=\left|2v\right|^{1/2}\overline{g}.$$
(55)
Then $``$ appears as

$$\overline{}=𝑑td^{d1}y\left\{\stackrel{~}{s}\left[_t\frac{1}{4\lambda v^2}_t^2+\lambda \left(\tau ^2\right)+\frac{\lambda \overline{g}}{2}\left(s\stackrel{~}{s}\right)\right]s\right\}.$$
(56)
In the limit $`v\mathrm{}`$ we arrive at the dynamic functional which describes directed percolation (DP) . We conclude that the so far unrenormalized Green’s function have the asymptotic property

$$(2v)^{(N+\stackrel{~}{N})/2}G_{N,\stackrel{~}{N}}(\{𝐱\},\tau ,v,g)\overline{G}_{N,\stackrel{~}{N}}(\{𝐱_{},\lambda t\},\tau ,\overline{g}),$$
(57)
where the $`\overline{G}_{N,\stackrel{~}{N}}`$ are the DP Green’s functions. The minimal renormalizations of the DP theory in dimensional regularization are

$`\stackrel{~}{s}`$ $``$ $`\stackrel{˚}{\stackrel{~}{s}}=\overline{Z}_v^{1/2}\stackrel{~}{s},s\stackrel{˚}{s}=\overline{Z}_v^{1/2}s,\lambda \stackrel{˚}{\lambda }=\overline{Z}_v^1\overline{Z}\lambda ,`$ (58)
$`\tau `$ $``$ $`\stackrel{˚}{\tau }=\overline{Z}^1\overline{Z}_\tau \tau \mu ^2+\stackrel{˚}{\overline{\tau }}_c,\overline{g}^2\stackrel{˚}{\overline{g}}^2=\overline{G}_{\overline{\epsilon }}^1\overline{Z}_v^1\overline{Z}^2\overline{Z}_{\overline{u}}\overline{u}\mu ^{\overline{\epsilon }},`$ (59)
where $`\overline{\epsilon }=\epsilon 1=5d=4\overline{d}`$, $`\overline{G}_{\overline{\epsilon }}=\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+\overline{\epsilon }/2)/(4\pi )^{\overline{d}/2}`$, and known  as

$`\overline{Z}`$ $`=`$ $`1+{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{u}}{8\overline{\epsilon }}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{u}^2}{128\epsilon }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{13}{\epsilon }}{\displaystyle \frac{31}{4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{35}{2}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}\right)+O(\overline{u}^3),`$ (60)
$`\overline{Z}_v`$ $`=`$ $`1+{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{u}}{4\overline{\epsilon }}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{u}^2}{32\epsilon }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{7}{\epsilon }}3+{\displaystyle \frac{9}{2}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}\right)+O(\overline{u}^3),`$ (61)
$`\overline{Z}_\tau `$ $`=`$ $`1+{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{u}}{2\overline{\epsilon }}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{u}^2}{2\epsilon }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\epsilon }}{\displaystyle \frac{5}{16}}\right)+O(\overline{u}^3),`$ (62)
$`\overline{Z}_u`$ $`=`$ $`1+{\displaystyle \frac{2\overline{u}}{\overline{\epsilon }}}+{\displaystyle \frac{7\overline{u}^2}{2\epsilon }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\epsilon }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\right)+O(\overline{u}^3).`$ (63)
Note that the DP-Hamiltonian $`\overline{}`$, Eq. (56), is non-renormalizable for $`d>5`$. Thus, to study this limit we are restricted to spatial dimensions $`d5`$.

We expect that the theory can be rendered finite for all values of $`v`$, including infinity, by interpolating the renormalizations of $``$. Then it follows from the definitions (55) that the following asymptotic properties hold for $`v\mathrm{}`$:

$$Z_{\mathrm{}}(u,v,\epsilon )\overline{Z}_{\mathrm{}}(\overline{u},\overline{\epsilon }),$$
(64)
with $`\overline{u}=u/2v`$. Of course, as long as $`v`$ is finite the soft renormalizations of $``$ can be used, but for $`v\mathrm{}`$, logarithmic divergencies $`\mathrm{ln}v`$ arise for $`\overline{\epsilon }=\epsilon 1=0`$. These must be included in the renormalization factors to make the theory finite for all $`v`$, especially in the DP limit. Note that in this limit $`v`$ plays the role of a cutoff. In the following we demonstrate that the renormalization procedure suggested by SD, i.e., an extended minimal renormalization scheme without using the $`\epsilon `$-expansion, is feasible and that it allows to extract the crossover behavior of the Green’s functions.

We consider the dimensional regularized bare vertex functions $`\stackrel{˚}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{\stackrel{~}{N},N}(\{𝐪\};\stackrel{˚}{\tau },\stackrel{˚}{v},\stackrel{˚}{g};d)`$ as functions of the bare parameters $`\stackrel{˚}{\tau },\stackrel{˚}{v},\stackrel{˚}{g}`$ , and the momenta $`\{𝐪\}`$ at spatial dimension $`d=6\epsilon `$, $`\epsilon >0`$. The critical point $`\stackrel{˚}{\tau }_c`$ is determined by

$$\stackrel{˚}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{1,1}(\{\mathrm{𝟎}\};\stackrel{˚}{\tau }_c,\stackrel{˚}{v},\stackrel{˚}{g};d)=0,$$
(65)
which provides an implicit definition of

$$\stackrel{˚}{\tau }_c=\stackrel{˚}{\tau }_c(\stackrel{˚}{v},\stackrel{˚}{g};d)=\stackrel{˚}{g}^{4/\epsilon }S(\epsilon ,\stackrel{˚}{v}/\stackrel{˚}{g}^{2/\epsilon }).$$
(66)
The generalized Symanzik function  has pole singularities at $`\epsilon =2/l`$, $`l=1,2,\mathrm{}`$, as long as $`x=\stackrel{˚}{v}/\stackrel{˚}{g}^{2/\epsilon }`$ is finite. An expansion yields $`S(\epsilon ,x)=S_0(\epsilon )+Y(\epsilon )x^2+O(x^4)`$ with a finite $`Y(\epsilon )`$ as long as $`\epsilon >0`$. Taking the limit behavior of the vertex functions for $`x1`$ into account, we find for $`\epsilon >1`$, the asymptotic behavior $`S(\epsilon ,x)x^{2\epsilon }\overline{P}(x^\epsilon ;\epsilon )+x^{2/(1\epsilon )}\overline{S}(\epsilon )`$, where $`\overline{P}`$ denotes an analytic function of $`x^\epsilon =\stackrel{˚}{g}^2/\stackrel{˚}{v}^\epsilon `$. For $`\epsilon >1`$ , the pole-singularities of $`\overline{P}(y;\epsilon )`$ and $`\overline{S}(\epsilon )`$ are found at $`\epsilon 1=\overline{\epsilon }=2/l`$. These pole-singularities combine to yield logarithmic divergencies in $`x`$ instead the poles in $`\overline{\epsilon }`$.

Since the theory is super-renormalizable for $`\epsilon >0`$, we know that all the functions

$$\stackrel{˚}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{\stackrel{~}{N},N}^{}(\{𝐪\};\stackrel{˚}{\tau }^{},\stackrel{˚}{v},\stackrel{˚}{g};d)=\stackrel{˚}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{\stackrel{~}{N},N}(\{𝐪\};\stackrel{˚}{\tau }^{}+\stackrel{˚}{\tau }_c(\stackrel{˚}{v},\stackrel{˚}{g};d),\stackrel{˚}{v},\stackrel{˚}{g};d)$$
(67)
are finite below six dimensions. However, because of the non-analyticity of $`\stackrel{˚}{\tau }_c`$ with respect to $`\stackrel{˚}{g}`$, they are no more expandable in the coupling constant $`\stackrel{˚}{g}`$. This can be fixed by introducing the inverse transversal correlation length as the new mass. It is defined according to

$$\xi _{}^2=m^2=\frac{\stackrel{˚}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{1,1}^{}(\{\mathrm{𝟎}\};\stackrel{˚}{\tau }^{},\stackrel{˚}{v},\stackrel{˚}{g};d)}{_{q_{}^2}\stackrel{˚}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{1,1}^{}(\{𝐪\};\stackrel{˚}{\tau }^{},\stackrel{˚}{v},\stackrel{˚}{g};d)|_{𝐪=0}}.$$
(68)
The function $`m(\stackrel{˚}{\tau }^{},\stackrel{˚}{v},\stackrel{˚}{g};d)`$ has poles only at $`d=6`$. It can be inverted to define $`\stackrel{˚}{\tau }^{}`$ as a function of $`m`$,

$$\stackrel{˚}{\tau }^{}=\stackrel{˚}{r}(m,\stackrel{˚}{v},\stackrel{˚}{g};d),$$
(69)
with $`\stackrel{˚}{r}(0,\stackrel{˚}{v},\stackrel{˚}{g};d)=0`$. The function $`\stackrel{˚}{r}`$ can be substituted into $`\stackrel{˚}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{\stackrel{~}{N},N}^{}`$ yielding the bare vertex functions $`\stackrel{˚}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{\stackrel{~}{N},N}^{\prime \prime }`$ in terms of the mass $`m`$:

$$\stackrel{˚}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{\stackrel{~}{N},N}^{}(\{𝐪\};\stackrel{˚}{r}(m,\stackrel{˚}{v},\stackrel{˚}{g};d),\stackrel{˚}{v},\stackrel{˚}{g};d)=\stackrel{˚}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{\stackrel{~}{N},N}^{\prime \prime }(\{𝐪\};m,\stackrel{˚}{v},\stackrel{˚}{g};d).$$
(70)
In the following we abbreviate $`\stackrel{˚}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{\stackrel{~}{N},N}^{\prime \prime }`$ by $`\stackrel{˚}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{\stackrel{~}{N},N}`$ for notational simplicity. The $`\stackrel{˚}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{\stackrel{~}{N},N}`$ are now free of dimensional singularities below $`d=6`$, and have an expansion in integer powers of $`\stackrel{˚}{g}`$. In the limit $`v\mathrm{}`$, for $`d<5`$, we deduce from Eq. (57) the asymptotic property

$$\stackrel{˚}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{\stackrel{~}{N},N}(\{𝐪\},m,\stackrel{˚}{v},\stackrel{˚}{g};d)(2\stackrel{˚}{v})^{(N+\stackrel{~}{N}2)/2}\stackrel{˚}{\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}}_{\stackrel{~}{N},N}(\{𝐪_{},\stackrel{˚}{\lambda }^1\omega \},m,\stackrel{˚}{\overline{g}};d),$$
(71)
with $`\omega =2\stackrel{˚}{\lambda }\stackrel{˚}{v}q_{}`$ and the unrenormalized DP vertex functions $`\stackrel{˚}{\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}}_{\stackrel{~}{N},N}`$.

Henceforth we use for simplicity the notation $`q`$ symbolically for all the momenta $`\{𝐪\}`$. It is convenient to write

$$\stackrel{˚}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{\stackrel{~}{N},N}(q,m,\stackrel{˚}{v},\stackrel{˚}{g};d)=m^{\delta _{_{\stackrel{~}{N},N}}}\stackrel{˚}{F}_{\stackrel{~}{N},N}(q/m,\stackrel{˚}{v}/m,\stackrel{˚}{g}/m^{\epsilon /2};d)$$
(72)
with dimensionless functions $`\stackrel{˚}{F}_{\stackrel{~}{N},N}`$ and $`\delta _{_{\stackrel{~}{N},N}}=d(d2)\left(\stackrel{~}{N}+N\right)/2`$. Expanding $`\stackrel{˚}{F}_{\stackrel{~}{N},N}`$ in a power series gives

$$\stackrel{˚}{F}_{\stackrel{~}{N},N}(x,y,z;d)=z^\sigma \underset{l,n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}f_{\stackrel{~}{N},N}^{(l,n)}(y;d)\left(x\right)^n\left(z^2/\epsilon \right)^l,$$
(73)
where $`\sigma =0`$ if $`\left(\stackrel{~}{N}+N\right)/2`$ is an integer and $`\sigma =1`$ if not. The exponent $`l`$ denotes the loop order. The functions $`f_{\stackrel{~}{N},N}^{(l,n)}(y;d)`$ are finite for $`d6`$ and finite $`y`$. Moreover, they are analytic in $`y`$ and can be expanded to

$$f_{\stackrel{~}{N},N}^{(l,n)}(y;d)=\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}f_{\stackrel{~}{N},N}^{(k,l,n)}\left(d\right)y^k$$
(74)
The contributions of order $`z^l`$ to the scaled vertex functions $`\stackrel{˚}{F}_{\stackrel{~}{N},N}`$ (73) exhibit infrared (IR) divergencies for $`m0`$. SD showed at the instance of the $`\mathrm{\Phi }^4`$-theory, that this problem can be treated by minimal renormalizations

$`\stackrel{˚}{\stackrel{~}{\phi }}`$ $`=`$ $`Z^{1/2}\stackrel{~}{\phi },\stackrel{˚}{\phi }=Z^{1/2}\phi ,`$ (75)
$`\stackrel{˚}{g}^2`$ $`=`$ $`A\left(d\right)G_\epsilon ^1Z^3Z_uu\mu ^\epsilon ,v\stackrel{˚}{v}=Z^1Z_vv\mu ,`$ (76)
where the soft renormalization factors $`Z_{\mathrm{}}(u;d)`$ absorb just the poles at $`d=6`$, followed by the application of the renormalization group. The UV $`\epsilon `$-poles and the IR divergencies are then summed up yielding the correct critical scaling behavior reminiscent of the intimate relation between both. Since the poles of the coefficients $`f_{\stackrel{~}{N},N}^{(k,l,n)}\left(6\epsilon \right)/\epsilon ^l`$ do not depend on any of the parameters, they are identical to the usual soft minimal renormalizations and can be calculated by setting $`m=\mu `$ or in the massless theory with $`\epsilon 0`$. Following SD, we have introduced in Eq. (76) a further amplitude $`A(d)`$ with $`A(0)=1`$. This dimension dependent function can be conveniently defined and is extremely useful for the practical calculation of scaling functions. For simplicity we set $`A(d)=1`$ in the remaining part of this article. Note that from its definition (68), the mass $`m`$ does not need a multiplicative renormalization and that $`m=\stackrel{˚}{m}`$.

Now we consider the DP vertex functions

$$\stackrel{˚}{\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}}_{\stackrel{~}{N},N}(q_{},\stackrel{˚}{\lambda }^1\omega ,m,\stackrel{˚}{\overline{g}};d)=m^{\overline{\delta }_{_{\stackrel{~}{N},N}}}\stackrel{˚}{\overline{F}}_{\stackrel{~}{N},N}(q_{}/m,\omega /\stackrel{˚}{\lambda }m^2,\stackrel{˚}{\overline{g}}/m^{\overline{\epsilon }/2};d),$$
(77)
with $`\delta _{_{\stackrel{~}{N},N}}=(d+1)(d1)\left(\stackrel{~}{N}+N\right)/2`$ . The power series expansion of the $`\stackrel{˚}{\overline{F}}_{\stackrel{~}{N},N}`$ reads for $`d<5`$

$$\stackrel{˚}{\overline{F}}_{\stackrel{~}{N},N}(x_{},\overline{x}_{},\overline{z};d)=\overline{z}^\sigma \underset{l,n_{},n_{}=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\overline{f}_{\stackrel{~}{N},N}^{(l,n_{},n_{})}\left(\overline{d}\right)\left(x_{}\right)^n_{}\left(x_{}\right)^n_{}\left(\overline{z}^2/\overline{\epsilon }\right)^l,$$
(78)
with $`\overline{\epsilon }=5d=4\overline{d}`$. By the same argumentation as above, one can show that the $`\overline{\epsilon }`$-poles are cancelled and the IR divergencies are summed up by the renormalization group equation based on the minimal renormalizations $`\overline{Z}`$, $`\overline{Z}_v`$, and $`\overline{Z}_u`$, Eqs. (60,61,63), where the renormalization factors $`\overline{Z}_{\mathrm{}}(\overline{u},d)`$ now absorb just the $`\overline{\epsilon }`$ -poles at $`d=5`$. As above, they are identical to the usual soft minimal renormalizations. They can be calculated at the renormalization point $`m=\mu `$ , $`\{𝐪=0\}`$ or in the massless theory with $`\overline{\epsilon }0`$, because the functions $`\overline{f}_{\stackrel{~}{N},N}^{(l,n_{},n_{})}\left(\overline{d}\right)`$ do not depend on any of the parameters.

Combining the asymptotic properties of the vertex functions for $`y\mathrm{}`$, Eq. (71), with the various expansions, we find for $`d<5`$

$$f_{\stackrel{~}{N},N}^{(l,n)}(y;d)(2y)^{(N+\stackrel{~}{N}2\sigma )/2+n_{}l}\left(\epsilon /\overline{\epsilon }\right)^l\overline{f}_{\stackrel{~}{N},N}^{(l,n_{},n_{})}\left(\overline{d}\right).$$
(79)
In case of taking the limit $`d5`$ before $`y\mathrm{}`$, the $`\overline{\epsilon }^l`$-poles are replaced by a polynomial $`P^{(l,n_{},n_{})}(\mathrm{ln}y)`$ of order $`l`$. Therefore, it should be possible to find further finite renormalizations $`\zeta _{\mathrm{}}(u,v;d)`$ which interpolate between the two minimal renormalizations at the renormalization point $`m=\mu `$,

$$Z_{\mathrm{}}(u;d)\zeta _{\mathrm{}}(u,v;d)Z_{\mathrm{}}(u;d)=Z_{\mathrm{}}(u,v;d),$$
(80)
where the $`Z_{\mathrm{}}(u,v;d)`$ tend to the corresponding $`\overline{Z}_{\mathrm{}}(\overline{u};\overline{d})`$ with $`\overline{u}=u/2v`$ in the limit $`v\mathrm{}`$.

Following SD, the remaining problem is to determine the renormalization of the relation between the mass $`m`$ and the “temperature” $`\stackrel{˚}{\tau }=\stackrel{˚}{\tau }(m,\stackrel{˚}{v},\stackrel{˚}{g};d)=m^2\stackrel{˚}{T}(\stackrel{˚}{v}/m,\stackrel{˚}{g}/m^\epsilon ;d)`$. The dimensionless function $`\stackrel{˚}{T}`$ has an expansion

$$\stackrel{˚}{T}(y,z;d)=1+\underset{l=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}t_l(y;d)\left(z^2/\epsilon \right)^l,$$
(81)
but the $`t_l(y;d)`$ show UV singularities below $`d=6`$. Otherwise, the use of the variable $`\stackrel{˚}{\tau }^{}=\stackrel{˚}{\tau }\stackrel{˚}{\tau }_c=\stackrel{˚}{r}(m,\stackrel{˚}{v},\stackrel{˚}{g};d)=`$ $`m^2\stackrel{˚}{T}(\stackrel{˚}{v}/m,\stackrel{˚}{g}/m^\epsilon ;d)\stackrel{˚}{g}^{4/\epsilon }S(\epsilon ,v/\stackrel{˚}{g}^{2/\epsilon })`$ instead of $`\stackrel{˚}{\tau }`$ eliminates all UV singularities below the upper critical dimension. Then, however, the function $`\stackrel{˚}{r}`$ is not more expandable in $`\stackrel{˚}{g}`$. Following SD, we shall therefore consider the derivative $`\stackrel{˚}{r}/m^2|_{\stackrel{˚}{v},\stackrel{˚}{g}}`$, which is not only expandable but also free of singularities. We define the function

$$\stackrel{˚}{P}(\stackrel{˚}{v}/m,\stackrel{˚}{g}/m^\epsilon ;d)=\frac{\stackrel{˚}{r}}{m^2}|_{\stackrel{˚}{v},\stackrel{˚}{g}}=\frac{\left(m^2\stackrel{˚}{T}\right)}{m^2}|_{\stackrel{˚}{v},\stackrel{˚}{g}}=\frac{\stackrel{˚}{\tau }}{m^2}|_{\stackrel{˚}{v},\stackrel{˚}{g}}$$
(82)
which has the expansion

$$\stackrel{˚}{P}(y,z;d)=1+\underset{l=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}p_l(y;d)\left(z^2/\epsilon \right)^l.$$
(83)
The functions $`p_l(y;d)`$ are finite for $`d6`$, and $`\stackrel{˚}{P}`$ is minimally renormalized by

$$\stackrel{˚}{P}=Z^1Z_\tau P.$$
(84)
The same argumentation as above shows that it is possible to find a $`Z_\tau (u,v;d),`$ which interpolates between the respective minimal renormalizations of isotropic and directed percolation. Note that $`/m^2|_{\stackrel{˚}{v},\stackrel{˚}{g}}=/m^2|_{v,g,\mu }`$. Thus, the derivative with respect to the mass $`m`$ commutes with the multiplication with $`Z`$-factors.

### C One-Loop Crossover Calculation

In this subsection we derive a minimal crossover renormalization, the corresponding renormalization group equation, and the flow equations, which show the crossover from isotropic to directed percolation. From the self-energy to order $`g^2`$, we get the unrenormalized (for notational simplicity we drop the overcirc) vertex function $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{1,1}`$ expanded to second order in the momenta:

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{1,1}`$ $`=`$ $`\tau \left(1{\displaystyle \frac{2G_\epsilon g^2\tau ^{\epsilon /2}}{(2\epsilon )\epsilon }}K_{\epsilon 4}^{(0)}\left(v/\sqrt{\tau }\right)\right)+2i𝐯𝐪\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{G_\epsilon g^2\tau ^{\epsilon /2}}{2\epsilon }}K_{\epsilon 2}^{(1)}\left(v/\sqrt{\tau }\right)\right)`$ (86)
$`+q^2\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{G_\epsilon g^2\tau ^{\epsilon /2}}{4\epsilon }}K_{\epsilon 2}^{(1)}\left(v/\sqrt{\tau }\right)\right)\left(𝐯𝐪\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{G_\epsilon g^2\tau ^{\epsilon /2}}{4\tau }}K_\epsilon ^{(2)}\left(v/\sqrt{\tau }\right).`$
The inverse transversal correlation length is given by

$$m^2=\frac{\tau \left(1\frac{2G_\epsilon g^2\tau ^{\epsilon /2}}{(2\epsilon )\epsilon }K_{\epsilon 4}^{(0)}\left(v/\sqrt{\tau }\right)\right)}{\left(1\frac{G_\epsilon g^2\tau ^{\epsilon /2}}{4\epsilon }K_{\epsilon 2}^{(1)}\left(v/\sqrt{\tau }\right)\right)}.$$
(87)
From Eq. (87) we find easily the unrenormalized perturbational temperature as

$$\tau =m^2\left(1+\frac{G_\epsilon g^2m^\epsilon }{4\epsilon }\left(\frac{8}{(2\epsilon )}K_{\epsilon 4}^{(0)}(v/m)K_{\epsilon 2}^{(1)}(v/m)\right)\right).$$
(88)
Taking the derivative with respect to $`m^2`$ while holding $`g`$ and $`v`$ constant and renormalization by multiplication with the factor $`ZZ_\tau ^1`$ yields via the renormalization scheme the function $`P`$ as

$$P=ZZ_\tau ^1+u(\mu /m)^\epsilon \left(\frac{1}{4\epsilon }\left(4K_{\epsilon 2}^{(0)}(v\mu /m)K_{\epsilon 2}^{(1)}(v\mu /m)\right)\frac{1}{8}K_\epsilon ^{(1)}(v\mu /m)\right).$$
(89)
With the formulas

$`p^2K_\alpha ^{(1)}(p)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(1+p^2\right)K_\alpha (p)K_{\alpha 2}(p),`$ (90)
$`(1+\alpha )K_\alpha (p)`$ $`=`$ $`(2+\alpha )K_{\alpha +2}(p)\left(1+p^2\right)^{1\alpha /2},`$ (91)
where we have defined $`K_\alpha :=K_\alpha ^{(0)}`$, we get

$`P`$ $`=`$ $`ZZ_\tau ^1+{\displaystyle \frac{u}{8}}({\displaystyle \frac{20}{3\epsilon }}(1+v^2)^{\epsilon /2}+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\epsilon 1}}(3v^2)[K_\epsilon (v)(1+v^2)^{\epsilon /2}]`$ (93)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\epsilon 3}}(v^2[K_\epsilon (v)(1+v^2)^{\epsilon /2}]{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}(1+v^2)^{\epsilon /2})+K_\epsilon (v))`$
at the renormalization point $`m=\mu `$. Note that the poles for $`\epsilon =1`$ and $`\epsilon =3`$ are only fictitious because $`K_1(p)=(1+p^2)^{1/2}`$ and $`K_3(p)=(1+p^2)^{3/2}(1+2p^2/3)`$. Useful properties of the function $`K_\epsilon (p)`$ are

$`K_\epsilon (p)`$ $`=`$ $`1{\displaystyle \frac{2+\epsilon }{6}}p^2+O\left(p^4\right)`$ (94)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\pi }\mathrm{\Gamma }((1+\epsilon )/2)}{2\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+\epsilon /2)}}p^1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+\epsilon }}p^{2\epsilon }+O\left(p^{4\epsilon }\right),`$ (95)
from which we find that the fictitious pole at $`\epsilon =1`$ in Eq. (93) is replaced by a divergence $`\mathrm{ln}v`$, and that $`w=uK_\epsilon (v)\overline{u}/2`$ for $`v\mathrm{}`$. Thus, a minimal crossover renormalization is given by

$$ZZ_\tau ^1=1\frac{5u}{6\epsilon }\left(1+v^2\right)^{\epsilon /2}\frac{3u}{4(\epsilon 1)}\left[K_\epsilon (v)\left(1+v^2\right)^{\epsilon /2}\right]+O\left(u^2\right).$$
(96)
Defining the crossover function

$$C_\epsilon (v)=1\left(\left(1+v^2\right)^{\epsilon /2}K_\epsilon (v)\right)^1,$$
(97)
we render the renormalized temperature derivative

$$P=1+\frac{w}{8}\left(1+\frac{1}{3\epsilon }\left(2\frac{1C_\epsilon (v)}{3}+\frac{5\epsilon }{1\epsilon }v^2C_\epsilon (v)\right)\right)$$
(98)
finite for all $`d5`$ and all $`v`$.

Now we consider the vertex function $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{1,1}`$, Eq. (86), for $`𝐪0`$. Inserting $`\tau `$, Eq. (88), we get after renormalization

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{1,1}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(m^2+q^2\right)\left(Z{\displaystyle \frac{u(\mu /m)^\epsilon }{4\epsilon }}K_{\epsilon 2}^{(1)}\left(v\mu /m\right)\right)`$ (100)
$`+2i\mu 𝐯𝐪\left(Z_v{\displaystyle \frac{u(\mu /m)^\epsilon }{2\epsilon }}K_{\epsilon 2}^{(1)}\left(v\mu /m\right)\right)\left(𝐯𝐪\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{u(\mu /m)^{2+\epsilon }}{4}}K_\epsilon ^{(2)}\left(v\mu /m\right).`$
The last term is finite for all $`d5`$ and all $`v`$, even in the limit $`v\mathrm{}`$, if one holds $`2𝐯𝐪=\omega /\lambda `$ and $`w=uK_\epsilon (v)`$ constant. The reduction of $`K_{\epsilon 2}^{(1)}(v)`$ with Eqs. (90,91) leads to

$`K_{\epsilon 2}^{(1)}(v)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3\epsilon }}\left(1+v^2\right)^{\epsilon /2}+{\displaystyle \frac{2+v^2}{2(\epsilon 1)}}\left[K_\epsilon (v)\left(1+v^2\right)^{\epsilon /2}\right]`$ (102)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\epsilon 3}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}v^2\left[K_\epsilon (v)\left(1+v^2\right)^{\epsilon /2}\right]{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\left(1+v^2\right)^{\epsilon /2}\right).`$
We see that the divergencies which have to be absorbed by renormalization arise from the first two terms of the right hand side of Eq. (102). Thus, we define

$`Z`$ $`=`$ $`1+{\displaystyle \frac{u}{6\epsilon }}\left(1+v^2\right)^{\epsilon /2}+{\displaystyle \frac{u}{4(\epsilon 1)}}\left[K_\epsilon (v)\left(1+v^2\right)^{\epsilon /2}\right]+O\left(u^2\right),`$ (103)
$`Z_v`$ $`=`$ $`1+{\displaystyle \frac{u}{3\epsilon }}\left(1+v^2\right)^{\epsilon /2}+{\displaystyle \frac{u}{2(\epsilon 1)}}\left[K_\epsilon (v)\left(1+v^2\right)^{\epsilon /2}\right]+O\left(u^2\right).`$ (104)
Now we turn to the calculation of the one-loop contribution to the vertex function $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{1,2}`$. To renormalize $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{1,2}`$ we need it for zero external momenta. We find the contribution

$$V^{(1)}=2g^3_𝐤G(𝐤)^2G(𝐤)=2g\frac{}{\tau }\mathrm{\Sigma }^{(1)}(\mathrm{𝟎})=\frac{2G_\epsilon g^3}{\epsilon }\tau ^{\epsilon /2}K_{\epsilon 2}\left(v/\sqrt{\tau }\right),$$
(105)
which leads after renormalization to

$$\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{1,2}\right)^2=G_\epsilon ^1u\mu ^\epsilon \left(Z_u\frac{4u(\mu /m)^\epsilon }{\epsilon }K_{\epsilon 2}\left(v\mu /m\right)\right).$$
(106)
Using once more the reduction formula (91), we finally find

$$Z_u=1+\frac{4u}{\epsilon }\left(1+v^2\right)^{\epsilon /2}+\frac{4u}{(\epsilon 1)}\left[K_\epsilon (v)\left(1+v^2\right)^{\epsilon /2}\right]+O\left(u^2\right).$$
(107)
Now, all the $`Z`$-factors (96,103,104,107 ) are of the form

$$Z_i=1+u\left(\frac{a_i}{\epsilon }\left(1+v^2\right)^{\epsilon /2}+\frac{b_i}{(\epsilon 1)}\left[K_\epsilon (v)\left(1+v^2\right)^{\epsilon /2}\right]\right)+O\left(u^2\right),$$
(108)
where the coefficients are given by

$`a`$ $`=`$ $`1/6,b=1/4,a_\tau =1,b_\tau =1,`$ (109)
$`a_v`$ $`=`$ $`1/3,b_v=1/2,a_u=4,b_u=4.`$ (110)
With help of the derivative of the $`K`$-function,

$$v\frac{K_\epsilon (v)}{v}=\left(1+v^2\right)^{1\epsilon /2}K_\epsilon (v)=K_\epsilon (v)C_\epsilon (v),$$
(111)
and the Gell-Mann-Low functions

$`\beta _u`$ $`=`$ $`u/\mathrm{ln}\mu |_0=(\epsilon +3\gamma \gamma _u)u=\epsilon u+O(u^2),`$ (112)
$`\beta _v`$ $`=`$ $`u/\mathrm{ln}\mu |_0=(1+\gamma \gamma _v)v=(1+O(u))v`$ (113)
we obtain the Wilson-functions $`\gamma _i=\mathrm{ln}Z_i/\mathrm{ln}\mu |_0=(\beta _u_u+\beta _v_v)\mathrm{ln}Z_i|_0`$ easily as

$`\gamma _i`$ $`=`$ $`u\left(a_i\left(1+v^2\right)^{1\epsilon /2}+b_i\left[K_\epsilon (v)\left(1+v^2\right)^{1\epsilon /2}\right]\right)+O\left(u^2\right)`$ (114)
$`=`$ $`w\left(a_i\left(1C_\epsilon (v)\right)+b_iC_\epsilon (v)\right)+O\left(u^2\right).`$ (115)
Here we have used the new coupling constant $`w=uK_\epsilon (v)`$ and the definition (97) of the crossover function $`C_\epsilon (v)`$ . We mention that $`w=u`$ for $`v=0`$ and $`w=\overline{u}/2`$ for $`v=\mathrm{}`$, as well as $`C_\epsilon (0)=0`$ and $`C_\epsilon (\mathrm{})=1`$. $`C_\epsilon (v)`$ crosses over monotonically between this two values. Especially in three dimensions it is a simple rational function of $`v^2`$:

$$C_3(v)=\frac{v^2\left(5+2v^2\right)}{\left(1+v^2\right)\left(3+2v^2\right)}.$$
(116)
The renormalization group equation (28),

$$\left[𝒟_\mu +\frac{N+\stackrel{~}{N}}{2}\gamma \right]G_{N,\stackrel{~}{N}}=0,$$
(117)
follows as usually from the independence of the unrenormalized Green’s functions from the external mass scale $`\mu `$. Here we have to note that the mass $`m`$ is by definition (68) a function of the bare parameters only. Therefore, its Gell-Mann-Low function vanishes. Thus, we have the renormalization group differential operator

$$𝒟_\mu =\mu _\mu +\beta _w_w+\beta _v_v.$$
(118)
To one-loop order we obtain

$`\beta _w`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\epsilon C_\epsilon (v)+{\displaystyle \frac{425C_\epsilon (v)C_\epsilon (v)^2}{12}}w\right)w`$ (119)
$`\beta _v`$ $`=`$ $`\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{2+C_\epsilon (v)}{12}}w\right)v,`$ (120)
and

$$\gamma =\frac{2+C_\epsilon (v)}{12}w.$$
(121)
The flow equations

$`l{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dl}}\overline{w}(l)`$ $`=`$ $`\beta _w(\overline{w}(l),\overline{v}(l)),\overline{w}(1)=w,`$ (122)
$`l{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dl}}\overline{v}(l)`$ $`=`$ $`\beta _v(\overline{w}(l),\overline{v}(l)),\overline{v}(1)=v,`$ (123)
and their solutions show of course the (unstable) isotropic and the (stable) directed percolation fixed points for $`v_{}=0`$ and $`v_{}=\mathrm{}`$, respectively, and the continuous crossover between both.

Upon defining the flowing amplitude function $`X(l)`$ by

$$l\frac{d}{dl}\mathrm{ln}X(l)=\gamma (\overline{w}(l),\overline{v}(l)),X(1)=1,$$
(124)
the scaling form of the Green’s functions follows from the renormalization group equation (117) as

$`G_{N,\stackrel{~}{N}}(\{𝐱\},m;w,v;\mu )`$ $`=`$ $`\left(m^{d2}X(m/\mu )\right)^{(N+\stackrel{~}{N})/2}G_{N,\stackrel{~}{N}}(\{m𝐱\};\overline{w}(m/\mu ),\overline{v}(m/\mu ))`$ (125)
$``$ $`\left(m^{d2}{\displaystyle \frac{X(m/\mu )}{2\overline{v}(m/\mu )}}\right)^{(N+\stackrel{~}{N})/2}\overline{G}_{N,\stackrel{~}{N}}(\{m𝐱_{},m^2\overline{\lambda }(m/\mu )t\};\overline{w}(m/\mu )),`$ (126)
where the last form holds asymptotically for $`\overline{v}(m/\mu )1`$, and $`\lambda /\overline{\lambda }(l)=l\overline{v}(l)/v`$.

We conclude this section with the determination of the parameter $`m`$ as a function of the temperature $`\tau `$. For the renormalized temperature derivative we have the renormalization group equation

$$\left[𝒟_\mu \kappa \right]P=0$$
(127)
with $`\kappa =\gamma \gamma _\tau `$. Its solution is given by

$$P(m/\mu ;w,v)=Y(m/\mu )P(1;\overline{w}(m/\mu ),\overline{v}(m/\mu )),$$
(128)
where the amplitude function $`Y`$ is determined by the differential equation

$$l\frac{d}{dl}\mathrm{ln}Y(l)=\kappa (\overline{w}(l),\overline{v}(l)),Y(1)=1.$$
(129)
$`P`$ comprises the main (exponential) contribution of the crossover-scaling of $`\tau /m^2|_{w,v,\mu }`$. The amplitude $`P(1;w,v)`$ is given to one-loop order by Eq. (98). The temperature $`\tau `$ results then from the solution of the differential equation $`\tau /m^2|_{w,v,\mu }=P(m/\mu ;w,v)`$. The integration of all the flow-equations has to be done numerically and leads, qualitatively, back to the numerical results of FTS .

## VI Epilogue

Using field theoretic methods, we have analyzed the connectivity behavior of random resistor-diode networks near the percolation critical point. We found that the introduction of positive and negative diodes oriented to a privileged direction in space with unequal probabilities leads to a crossover to the directed percolation problem, whereas a distribution of diodes with equal probabilities results only in elongated isotropic percolation clusters. In the latter case, a simple rescaling of the privileged direction maps the problem to isotropic percolation. A slightly different distribution of the diodes introduces a further relevant variable with a new scaling dimension. We have calculated this scaling dimension to $`O(\epsilon ^2)`$ in an $`\epsilon `$-expansion around six dimensions. An interpolation resulting from this $`\epsilon `$-expansion and an exact value at one dimension leads to a formula that compares very well with a recent simulational result in two dimensions. It would be very interesting to perform simulations also in higher dimensions in order to compare these with our result.

In Sec. V we have reconsidered the theory by Frey, Täuber, and Schwabl for the crossover from isotropic to directed percolation. Some shortcomings are corrected and it is demonstrated, how one can perform crossover calculations consistently by using a type of extended minimal renormalization.

###### Acknowledgements.

This work has been supported in part by the SFB 237 ,,Unordnung und große Fluktuationen“ of the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft.

## Two-Loop Calculation

In this appendix we present briefly the main part of the two-loop calculation of the new renormalization constants $`Z_v`$ and $`Y_{v\tau }`$. The dimensionaly regularized parameter integral

$`I(a,b,c)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{𝐩,𝐪}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(a+𝐩^2)(b+𝐪^2)(c+(𝐩+𝐪)^2)}}`$ (130)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{G_\epsilon ^2}{6\epsilon }}(({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\epsilon }}+{\displaystyle \frac{25}{12}})(a^{3\epsilon }+b^{3\epsilon }+c^{3\epsilon })3abc`$ (132)
$`({\displaystyle \frac{3}{\epsilon }}+{\displaystyle \frac{21}{4}})(a^{2\epsilon }(b+c)+b^{2\epsilon }(a+c)+c^{2\epsilon }(b+c))),`$
introduced in Ref. , plays a fundamental role in the calculation. Its derivatives

$$I_{lmn}=\frac{(1)^{l+m+n3}}{(l1)!(m1)!(n1)!}\frac{^{l+m+n3}I(a,b,c)}{a^{l1}b^{m1}c^{n1}}|_{a=b=c=1}$$
(133)
are extensively used in the following. Particularly simple are the integrals

$$I_n=_𝐩\frac{1}{(1+𝐩^2)^n}=\frac{8(1)^{n1}G_\epsilon }{(n1)!(4\epsilon )(2\epsilon )\epsilon }\frac{^{n1}a^{2\epsilon /2}}{a^{n1}}|_{a=0}.$$
(134)
We start with the self-energy diagram displayed in Fig. 2(a). Its value is given by

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{(2a)}(𝐪)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g^4}{2}}{\displaystyle _{𝐤,𝐩}}G(𝐪𝐤)G(𝐤)^2G(𝐩)G(𝐤𝐩)`$ (135)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g^4}{2}}{\displaystyle _{𝐤,𝐩}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{[\overline{\tau }+(\overline{𝐪}𝐤)^2][\overline{\tau }+𝐤^2]^2[\overline{\tau }+(𝐩+i𝐯)^2][\overline{\tau }+(𝐤𝐩)^2]}},`$ (136)
where we have shifted $`𝐤𝐤i𝐯`$, and defined $`\overline{\tau }=\tau +𝐯^2`$ and $`\overline{𝐪}=𝐪+2i𝐯`$. We expand the last integral in $`𝐪`$ and $`𝐯`$ to second order and find

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{(2a)}(𝐪)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g^4}{2}}(I_{113}+({\displaystyle \frac{d4}{d}}I_{123}+{\displaystyle \frac{4\overline{\tau }}{d}}I_{133})𝐯^2`$ (138)
$`+2(I_2I_4+\overline{\tau }I_{124}I_{114}I_{123}){\displaystyle \frac{i𝐯\overline{𝐪}}{d}}({\displaystyle \frac{d4}{d}}I_{114}+{\displaystyle \frac{4\overline{\tau }}{d}}I_{115})\overline{𝐪}^2).`$
In the same fashion we get for the diagram shown in Fig. 2(b)

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{(2b)}(𝐪)`$ $`=`$ $`g^4{\displaystyle _{𝐤,𝐩}}G(𝐪𝐤)G(𝐪𝐩)G(𝐤)G(𝐩)G(𝐤𝐩)`$ (139)
$`=`$ $`g^4\tau ^\epsilon (I_{122}+({\displaystyle \frac{d4}{d}}I_{222}+{\displaystyle \frac{4\overline{\tau }}{d}}I_{223})𝐯^2`$ (141)
$`2({\displaystyle \frac{d6}{d}}I_{123}+{\displaystyle \frac{4\overline{\tau }}{d}}I_{124}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{d}}I_3^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\tau }}{d}}I_{133})\overline{𝐪}^2).`$
Using Eqs. (133,134) we obtain from Eqs. (138,141) the singular contributions to the two-loop vertex function after renormalization according to the scheme (8,9,13) as

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{1,1}^{(2loop)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{u^2}{\epsilon ^2}}\tau ^\epsilon [({\displaystyle \frac{9}{4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{45\epsilon }{16}})\mu ^2\tau +({\displaystyle \frac{5}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{25\epsilon }{24}}){\displaystyle \frac{(\mu 𝐯)^2}{3}}`$ (143)
$`+({\displaystyle \frac{11}{6}}+{\displaystyle \frac{7\epsilon }{72}}){\displaystyle \frac{𝐪^2}{6}}+({\displaystyle \frac{23}{12}}+{\displaystyle \frac{13\epsilon }{144}}){\displaystyle \frac{2i\mu 𝐯𝐪}{3}}].`$
Using the renormalization constants to $`O(u)`$, Eqs. (10-12,25,26), we get from Eq. (23), after the renormalization $`\stackrel{˚}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{1,1}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{1,1}=Z\stackrel{˚}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{1,1}`$, the one-loop self-energy to $`O(u^2)`$ as

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{1,1}^{(1loop)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{u}{\epsilon }}\tau ^{\epsilon /2}[(1+({\displaystyle \frac{9}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{11\epsilon }{6}}){\displaystyle \frac{u}{\epsilon }})\mu ^2\tau +(1+(5{\displaystyle \frac{5\epsilon }{12}}){\displaystyle \frac{u}{\epsilon }}){\displaystyle \frac{(\mu 𝐯)^2}{3}}`$ (145)
$`+(1+({\displaystyle \frac{11}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{5\epsilon }{12}}){\displaystyle \frac{u}{\epsilon }}){\displaystyle \frac{𝐪^2}{6}}+(1+({\displaystyle \frac{23}{6}}{\displaystyle \frac{5\epsilon }{12}}){\displaystyle \frac{u}{\epsilon }}){\displaystyle \frac{2i\mu 𝐯𝐪}{3}}].`$
By adding $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{1,1}^{(1loop)}`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{1,1}^{(2loop)}`$ and the renormalized zero-loop part, we get

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{1,1}=\mu ^2\left(Z_\tau \tau +Y_{v\tau }v^2\right)+2iZ_v\mu 𝐯𝐪+Zq^2+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{1,1}^{(1loop)}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{1,1}^{(2loop)}+O(\epsilon ^0,u^3).$$
(146)
We see that the nonprimitive divergencies $`\mathrm{ln}\tau `$ of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{1,1}^{(1loop)}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{1,1}^{(2loop)}`$ cancel (as a check of a correct calculation) and find finally the renormalization constants cited in Eqs. (10,11,25,26).


text:
# Possible evidence of quark matter in neutron star X-ray binaries

## 1 Role of quark phase transition

The density and pressure in the interior of neutron stars is high in comparison with nuclear density by a factor of some 5 to 10 depending on the particular models used to estimate it. At such densities it is quite plausible that the quark constituents of hadrons loose their association with particular hadrons—the deconfined quark matter phase replaces the normal phase. In a nonrotating star, the radial boundaries between quark core, mixed phase, and normal hadronic phase would remain fixed. However in a rotating star, because of the centrifugal distortion of the density in the interior, these boundaries will change as the rotational frequency of the star changes with time.

A structural change occurs in such a star with changes in frequency (Glendenning, Pei & Weber (1997)). If there were no change in the nature of matter, the stellar fluid would respond simply under the action of the centrifugal force. However, the compressibility of the normal nuclear matter phase and the deconfined and relatively free Fermi gas of the quark matter phase, are different. The former must be less compressible than the latter. When a ms pulsar spins down, its central density may rise above the critical phase transition density and the central core will then change phase to softer quark matter; it is compressed both by its own gravitational attraction, and by the weight of the overlying nuclear phase. The reverse will be true in spinup due to accretion. In either case, the distribution of mass, radius and moment of inertia are changed by a phase transition beyond those changes that would take place in an immutable fluid under the action of a changing centrifugal force.

These ideas were applied to the spin-down of a ms pulsar (Glendenning, Pei & Weber (1997); Glendenning (1998); Weber (1999)). It was found that as the quark matter core grew in radial extent, the moment of inertia decreased anomalously, and could even introduce an era of spin-up lasting for $`10^7`$ years (Glendenning (1998)). The response of the moment of inertia to changes in spin is very like the so-called “backbending” in nuclei predicted by Mottelson and Valatin (Mottelson & Valatin (1960)) and discovered many years ago (Johnson, Ryde & Hjorth (1972); Stephens & Simon (1972)).

Accreting X-ray neutron stars provide a very interesting contrast to the spin-down of isolated ms pulsars. The X-ray stars are being spun up by the accretion of matter from a low-mass, less-dense white dwarf companion. They are presumably the link between the canonical pulsars with mean period of $`0.7`$ sec and the ms pulsars (Wijnands & van der Klis (1998); Chakrabarty & Morgan (1998)).

If the critical deconfinement density falls within the range spanned by canonical pulsars, quark matter will already exist in them but may be “spun” out of X-ray stars as their frequency increases during accretion. We can anticipate that in a certain frequency range, the changing radial extent of the quark matter phase will actually inhibit changes in frequency because of the increase in moment of inertia occasioned by the gradual disappearance of the quark matter phase. Accreters will tend to spend a greater length of time in the critical frequencies than otherwise. There will be an anomalous number of accreters that appear at or near the same frequency. This is what was found recently with the Rossi X-ray Timing Explorer (RXTE) (van der Klis (2000)).

Presumably, accreters commence their evolution near the death line of active canonical pulsars with frequencies of $`\nu 1`$ Hz and end as ms pulsars with $`\nu 200\mathrm{to}600`$ Hz. The spinup evolution of an accreting star is a more complicated problem than that of the spindown of an isolated ms pulsar of constant baryon number. It is complicated by the accretion of matter ($`\dot{M}>10^{10}M_{}\mathrm{yr}^1`$), a changing magnetic field strength (from $`B10^{12}\mathrm{to}10^8`$ G), and the interaction of the field with the accretion disk.

## 2 Spin-evolution of accreting X-ray neutron stars

The change in moment of inertia as a function of rotational frequency caused by accretion of matter is similar to that described by Glendenning, Pei & Weber (1997) for spindown of a ms pulsar because of magnetic dipole radiation. However, there are additional phenomena as just mentioned. Generally, a canonical pulsar will have evolved from birth with moderate rotational frequency to the deathline. At that time, the usual drag of the dipole radiation will be eclipsed by the accretion phenomena. The spin-up torque of the accreting matter causes a change in the star’s angular momentum according to the relation (Elsner & Lamb (1977); Ghosh, Lamb & Pethick (1977); Lipunov (1992))

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dJ}{dt}}=\dot{M}\stackrel{~}{l}(r_\mathrm{m})N(r_\mathrm{c}).`$ (1)
This can be rewritten as a time evolution equation for the angular velocity $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ of the accreting star $`(J/I)`$,

$$I(t)\frac{d\mathrm{\Omega }(t)}{dt}=\dot{M}\stackrel{~}{l}(t)\mathrm{\Omega }(t)\frac{dI(t)}{dt}\kappa \mu (t)^2r_\mathrm{c}(t)^3,$$
(2)
with the following definitions: The accretion rate is denoted by $`\dot{M}`$ ($`G=c=1`$) and

$`\stackrel{~}{l}(r_\mathrm{m})=\sqrt{Mr_\mathrm{m}}`$ (3)
is the angular momentum added to the star per unit mass of accreted matter. The quantity $`N`$ stands for the magnetic plus viscous torque term ($`\kappa 0.1`$),

$$N(r_\mathrm{c})=\kappa \mu ^2r_\mathrm{c}^3,$$
(4)
with $`\mu R^3B`$ the star’s magnetic moment. The quantities $`r_\mathrm{m}`$ and $`r_\mathrm{c}`$ denote the radius of the inner edge of the accretion disk and the co-rotating radius, respectively, and are given by $`(\xi 1)`$

$$r_\mathrm{m}=\xi r_\mathrm{A},$$
(5)
and

$`r_\mathrm{c}=\left(M\mathrm{\Omega }^2\right)^{1/3}.`$ (6)
Accretion will be inhibited by a centrifugal barrier if the neutron star’s magnetosphere rotates faster than the Kepler frequency at the magnetosphere. Hence $`r_\mathrm{m}<r_\mathrm{c}`$, otherwise accretion onto the star will cease. The Alfén radius $`r_\mathrm{A}`$, where the magnetic energy density equals the total kinetic energy of the accreting matter, in Eq. (5) is defined by

$$r_\mathrm{A}=\left(\frac{\mu ^4}{2M\dot{M}^2}\right)^{1/7}.$$
(7)
We assume that the magnetic field evolves according to

$$B(t)=B(\mathrm{})+(B(0)B(\mathrm{}))e^{t/t_\mathrm{d}}$$
(8)
with $`t=0`$ at the start of accretion, and where $`B(0)=10^{12}`$ G and $`t_\mathrm{d}=10^6`$ yr. Such a decay to an asymptotic value seems to be a feature of some treatments of the magnetic field evolution (Konar & Bhattacharya (1999)).

It has previously been assumed that the moment of inertia in Eq. 2 does not respond to changes in the centrifugal force, and in that case, the above formula yields a well-known estimate of the period to which a star can be spun up (Bhattacharya & van den Heuvel (1991)). The approximation is true for slow rotation. However, the response of the star to rotation becomes important as the star is spun up by accretion. Not only do changes in the distribution of matter occur but internal changes in composition occur also because of changes induced in the central density by centrifugal dilution (Glendenning, Pei & Weber (1997)); both changes effect the moment of inertia and hence the response of the star to accretion. In this Letter we wish to follow the spin-evolution of the star, and so, must take such refinements into account.

The moment of inertia of ms pulsars or of neutron star accreters has to be computed in GR without making the usual assumption of slow rotation (Hartle (1967); Hartle & Thorne (1968)). Fortunately, we have previously obtained an expression for the moment of inertia of a rotating star (Glendenning & Weber (1992)). The expression is too cumbersome to reproduce here. Stars that are spun up to high frequencies close to the breakup limit (Kepler frequency) undergo dramatic interior changes; the central density may change by a factor of four or so over that of a slowly rotating star if a phase change occurs during spin-up (Glendenning (1998); Weber (1999)).

Figure 1 shows how the moment of inertia changes for neutron stars in binary systems that are spun up by mass accretion according to Eq. (2) until $`0.4M_{}`$ has been accreted. The neutron star models are fully described in (Glendenning, Pei & Weber (1997)) and references therein, and the initial mass of the star in our examples is $`1.42M_{}`$. Confined nuclear matter is described by a covariant Lagrangian describing the interaction of the members of the baryon octet with scalar, vector and vector-isovector mesons and solved in the meanfield approximation. Quark matter is described by the MIT bag model. In one case, it is assumed that a phase transition to quark matter occurs, and in the other that it does not. This accounts for the different initial moments of inertia, and also, as we see, the response to spinup. Three accretion rates are assumed, which range from $`\dot{M}_{10}=1`$ to 100. These rates are in accord with observations made on low-mass X-ray binaries (LMXBs) observed with the Rossi X-ray Timing Explorer (van der Klis (2000)). The observed objects, which are divided into Z sources and A(toll) sources, appear to accrete at rates of $`\dot{M}_{10}200`$ and $`\dot{M}_{10}2`$, respectively.

Figure 2 shows the spin evolution of accreting neutron stars as determined by the changing moment of inertia and the spin evolution equation (2). Neutron stars without quark matter in their centers are spun up along the dashed lines to equilibrium frequencies between about 600 Hz and 850 Hz, depending on accretion rate and magnetic field. The $`dI/dt`$ term for these sequences manifests itself only insofar as it limits the equilibrium periods to values smaller than the Kepler frequency, $`\nu _\mathrm{K}`$. In both Figs. 1 and 2 we assume that $`0.4M_{}`$ is accreted. Otherwise the maximum frequency attained is less.

The spin-up scenario is dramatically different for neutron stars in which quark deconfinement occurs. In this case, as known from Fig. 1, the temporal conversion of quark matter into its mixed phase of quarks and confined hadrons is accompanied by a pronounced increase of the stellar moment of inertia. This increase contributes so significantly to the torque term $`N(r_\mathrm{c})`$ in Eq. (2) that the spin-up rate $`d\mathrm{\Omega }/dt`$ is driven to saturation around those frequencies at which the pure quark matter core in the center of the neutron star gives way to the mixed phase of confined hadronic matter and quark matter. The star resumes ordinary spin-up if this transition is completed. The epoch during which the spin rates are saturated are determined by attributes like the accretion rate, magnetic field, and its assumed decay time. The epoch lasts between $`10^7\mathrm{and}10^9`$ yr depending on the accretion rate at the values taken for the other factors.

We can translate the information in Fig. 2 into a frequency distribution of X-ray stars by assuming that neutron stars begin their accretion evolution at the average rate of one per million years. A different rate will only shift some neutron stars from one bin to an adjacent one, but will not change the basic form of the distribution. The result is shown in Fig. 3. The result is striking. Spinout of the quark matter core as the neutron star spins up is signalled by a spike in the frequency distribution. The concentration in frequency is centered around 200 Hz, about 100 Hz lower than the observed spinup anomaly. This discrepancy is not surprising given the crude representation of confinement by the MIT bag model while the physics underlying the effect of a phase transition on spin rate is robust.

We address now the bump in the histogram at high frequencies. Certainly there are high frequency pulsars. However, if a histogram of ms pulsar frequencies is made from Ref. (Princeton data base ), a spike is found near 300 Hz, and a strong attenuation in number of high frequency pulsars above the spike. So both the (sparse) data on X-ray objects and on ms pulsars agree on a spike and on attenuation at high frequency. Why the high frequency bump (containing about 9 X-ray objects) in our Fig. 3? The actual white dwarf masses in these low-mass binaries is believed to be $`0.1`$ to $`0.4M_{}`$. We computed the frequency distribution for donor masses in this range in steps of $`0.1M_{}`$ and until all mass has been transferred at the chosen rate. (The result has little sensitivity to the accretion rate.) Since we do not know the mass distribution of donors, we averaged the results. The highest frequencies are attributable to the $`0.4M_{}`$ mass donors. These presumably account for the high frequency tail of the ms pulsar distribution. Of course it is only an assumption that the mass distribution of donors is flat and that the donor is entirely consumed. Each binary represents a unique combination of neutron star and companion masses, magnetic fields, and accretion rates, but with unknown weight for these differences. We simply do not know how the high frequency end is attenuated, but it surely is, as observation tells us, though not so severely as the few data on LMXBs would suggest, inasmuch as they are believed to be the pathway to ms pulsars, several of which have frequencies as high as $`650`$ Hz.

## 3 Summary

We have traced the time evolution of the moment of inertia and rotational frequency for a neutron star accreting matter from a low-mass companion, under various assumptions about the accretion rate and for two stellar models, one an ordinary neutron star populated by nucleons, hyperons and leptons, and one in which phase equilibrium between ordinary and quark deconfined matter occurs within the density range found in canonical pulsars. In the second case the computed frequency distribution of X-ray neutron stars shows a spike, much as is observed in a recent compilation of data (van der Klis (2000)). There are various suggestions as to the cause of the spike, several of which we cite (c.f. Bildsten (1998); Andersson et al (2000); Levin (1999)). A possible contributing mechanism which causes some accreters of suitable mass to resist spinup for a lengthy era is that discussed in this paper— the ongoing reduction of quark matter cores in the centers of neutron stars as they are spun up. This occurs because, with increasing spin, the density of the inner region is centrifugally diluted until it falls below the threshold density at which quark matter can exist, first in the center, and then in an expanding region. As explained in the introduction, the conversion of quark mattter to confined hadronic matter manifests itself in an expansion of the star and a significant increase in its moment of inertia. As a consequence, the angular momentum added to a neutron star during this phase of evolution is then consumed by the star’s expansion, inhibiting a further spin-up until the quark matter has been converted into a mixed phase of matter made up of hadrons and quarks.

###### Acknowledgements.

This work was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG), and by the Director, Office of Science, Office of High Energy and Nuclear Physics, Division of Nuclear Physics, of the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract DE-AC03-76SF00098.


text:
# On the Relationship of Gravitational Constants in KK Reduction

## Abstract

In this short note, we try to clarify a seemly trivial but often confusing question in relating a higher-dimensional physical gravitational constant to its lower-dimensional correspondence in Kaluza-Klein reduction. In particular, we re-derive the low-energy M-theory gravitational constant in terms of type IIA string coupling $`g_s`$ and constant $`\alpha ^{}`$ through the metric relation between the two theories.

preprint:   UMTH-00-06 hep-th/0003132

The proper determination of eleven dimensional M-theory gravitational constant (therefore, the eleven-dimensional Planck constant), in terms of type IIA string coupling $`g_s`$ and constant $`\alpha ^{}`$, is important, for example, for the BFSS matrix proposal of M-theory. It is also important for whether brane modes can possibly decouple from bulk gravity modes  in the so-called decoupling limit. Given the string constant $`\alpha ^{}`$ ( therefore the units in type IIA string theory) and the relationship between 11-D M-theory and type IIA string theory, the 11-D M-theory physical  gravitational constant as well as the units for M-theory are also given. We therefore expect a precise expression for the M-theory gravitational constant in terms of type IIA string coupling $`g_s`$ and constant $`\alpha ^{}`$. However, there exist no unique answers in the literature for this constant. We try to clarify, in this short note, possible confusion about the derivations of this constant.

Let us begin with a general discussion in relating a higher-dimensional physical gravitational constant to its lower-dimensional correspondence in dimension redection. We start with the following gravity action in dimension D

$$I_D=\frac{1}{2\overline{\kappa }_D^2}d^Dx\sqrt{det\widehat{G}}\left[\widehat{R}+\mathrm{}\right],$$
(1)
where $`\widehat{G}_{MN}`$ is the metric, $`\widehat{R}`$ is the Ricci scalar, the constant $`\overline{\kappa }_D^2`$ is usually called gravitational constant (the Newton constant $`8\pi G_N^D\kappa _D^2`$)***The $`\kappa `$ without a bar corresponds to the physical gravitional constant while the one with a bar is not necesarily a physical one, see the explanation given in the text., and $`\mathrm{}`$ in the above action represents other possible fieldsFor the purpose of this paper, we need to consider only the first term in the action..

Now we wish to compactify the above action to dimension d ($`<D`$). For our purpose, we need to consider only the massless graviton whose effective action is

$$I_d=\frac{1}{2\overline{\kappa }_d^2}d^dx\sqrt{detg}\left[R+\mathrm{}\right].$$
(2)
In obtaining the above action from Eq. (1), we made the split for the higher-dimensional coordinate $`x^M=(x^\mu ,y^i)`$ with $`M=0,1\mathrm{},D1;\mu =0,1,\mathrm{}d1`$ and $`i=1,\mathrm{}Dd`$. Here $`x^\mu `$ are the coordinates of the lower-dimensional spacetime and $`y^i`$ are the compactified coordinates. We therefore have the same units for both the D-dimensional theory and the compactified d-dimensional theory. The massless sector of the lower-dimensional theory can be obtained by assuming the higher-dimensional fields to be independent of $`y^i`$. We then simply integrate out the $`y^i`$ from the action (1). By comparing the resulted action with Eq. (2), we have the relation for the gravitational constants and the compactified volume $`V_{Dd}`$ asI will make this precise when we discuss on how to reduce the low energy M-theory to the low energy type IIA string theory.

$$\kappa _D^2=\kappa _d^2V_{Dd}.$$
(3)
We often say that the above equation, relating the higher-dimensional physical gravitational constant to its lower-dimensional correspondence through the physical volume measured with respect to the lower-dimensional metric, is independent of the actual metric relation between the higher-dimensional and the lower-dimensional theories. This is true indeed.

However, what is often ignored in practice is the implicit assumption used in deriving Eq. (3) that we choose the asymptotic metric (i.e., the underlying vacuum) for the higher-dimensional theory to be same as that for the compactified lower-dimensional theory§§§Usually we choose the asymptotic metric for the lower-dimensional theory to be Minkowskian, i.e., flat Minkowski metric $`\eta _{\mu \nu }=(,+,\mathrm{},+)`$, see the definition given in . This is the metric used in defining the physical gravitational constant. This is also the metric used in perturbative string theory in defining the string tension $`T_f=1/(2\pi \alpha ^{})`$ or the string constant $`\alpha ^{}`$.. Only in this case, we can take the constant $`\overline{\kappa }^2`$ in front of the respective action as the physical gravitational constantIn this case, for example, the metric $`g_{\mu \nu }=\eta _{\mu \nu }+\kappa h_{\mu \nu }`$ for small graviton fluctuation around flat Minkowski spacetime and the Einstein-Hilbert action reduces to the cannonical form $`(h)^2+\kappa (h)^2h`$.. In general, however, the asymptotic metrics for both the higher-dimensional theory and the compactified lower-dimensional theory are not necessarily the same because the scalars due to the compactification develop VEV Of course, one can always define both of the higher-dimensional metric and the lower-dimensional one to be same asymptotically by absorbing the possible constant factor due to the VEV of scalars into the $`\overline{\kappa }^2`$ in front of the action. For the higher-dimensional theory, the compactified coordinates $`y^i`$ have to be rescaled properly with respect to the lower-dimensional metric, see the example given later in relating M-theory to type IIA string. Then the resulting $`\kappa ^2`$ is the physical one. This is what Maldacena did in  for obtaining masses properly for BPS states in string theory using U-duality.. If this happens, we cannot take both $`\overline{\kappa }_D^2`$ and $`\overline{\kappa }_d^2`$ in front of the respective action in the above as physical\**\**\**Polchinski in  chose both the units and metric for M-theory the same as those for string theory. By definition, his $`\kappa _{11}^2`$ and the compactified radius are both physical, not the usual $`\overline{\kappa }_{11}^2`$ and the coordiante radius $`r`$.. The ignorance of this fact is often the source of confusion in the literature. For example, the low-energy M-theory physical gravitational constant has been given correctly in  as $`2\kappa _{11}^2=(2\pi )^8g_s^3\alpha ^{9/2}`$ in terms of type IIA string coupling $`g_s`$ and constant $`\alpha ^{}`$. But this constant has also been given incorrectly in the literature precisely because $`\overline{\kappa }`$ is mistaken as $`\kappa `$.

In the remainder of this note, I will focus, as an example, on the reduction of 11-dimensional low-energy M-theory on a circle $`S^1`$ to give the low energy theory of type IIA string. The 11-D M-theory metric is related to the type IIA string metric as

$$ds_{11}^2=e^{2\varphi /3}ds_{10}^2+e^{4\varphi /3}(dx^{11})^2,$$
(4)
where $`\varphi `$ is the dilaton in type IIA string theory, 11-th coordinate $`x^{11}`$ has a period $`2\pi r`$ with the coordinate radius $`r`$. In the above we have dropped the KK vector field $`A_\mu `$. For our purpose, $`A_\mu `$ is irrelevant. We take type IIA string metric $`ds_{10}^2`$ as asympotically Minkowski since that is where we quantize the perturbative type IIA string. That is the metric used in defining the fundamental string tension $`T_f=1/(2\pi \alpha ^{})`$. So are the tensions for D-branes and NSNS branes. With Eq. (4) and taking $`D=11`$ in Eq. (1), we have the low energy action of type IIA string as

$$I_{10}=\frac{2\pi r}{\overline{\kappa }_{11}^2}d^{10}x\sqrt{detg}e^{2\varphi }\left[R+\mathrm{}\right],$$
(5)
where $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ is the string metric. By definition, we have the following relation

$$\overline{\kappa }_{11}^2=2\pi re^{2\varphi _0}\kappa _{10}^2,$$
(6)
where $`\kappa _{10}^2\overline{\kappa }_{10}^2e^{2\varphi _0}`$ is the physical gravitational constant in D = 10. $`\varphi _0`$ is the VEV of dilaton or the asymptotic value of the dilaton and is related to the string coupling as $`g_s=e^{\varphi _0}`$.

As we stress above that Eq. (3) holds true always. In the present context, it is

$$\kappa _{11}^2=2\pi \rho \kappa _{10}^2,$$
(7)
with $`\rho `$ the physical radius. Let me explain why $`2\kappa _{11}^2=(2\pi )^8g_s^3\alpha ^{9/2}`$ given in  must be correct. As I mentioned above, Eq. (7) should hold always true. The physical gravitational constant $`2\kappa _{10}^2=(2\pi )^7g_s^2\alpha ^4`$ was given in . As we now know that the strong coupling of type IIA string is just M-theory compactified on a big circle. In order for this to be true, one needs to identify the spectrum of D0 branes with that of momentum (Kaluza-Klein) states. This implies that the physical radius of the circle measured in string metric is given as the inverse of mass of a single D0 brane, i.e., $`\rho =g_s\alpha ^{1/2}`$. Then we have the 11-D physical gravitational constant from Eq. (7) as given above.

From Eqs. (6) and (7), we have

$$\frac{\overline{\kappa }_{11}^2}{re^{2\varphi _0}}=\frac{\kappa _{11}^2}{\rho }.$$
(8)
We intend to determine the relation between $`\kappa _{11}`$ and $`\overline{\kappa }_{11}`$ and the relation between $`r`$ and $`\rho `$ unambiguously. To my knowledge, no explicit derivations for these two relations have been given in the literature. We dare to present them here.

For our purpose, we need to consider only the asymptotic metric relation in Eq. (4), i.e.,

$`(ds_0)_{11}^2`$ $`=`$ $`e^{2\varphi _0/3}(ds_0)_{10}^2+e^{4\varphi _0/3}(dx^{11})^2,`$ (9)
$`=`$ $`e^{2\varphi _0/3}\left[(ds_0)_{10}^2+(d\stackrel{~}{x}^{11})^2\right],`$ (10)
where the asymptotic string metric $`(ds_0)_{10}^2`$ is actually Minkowskian and the rescaled 11-th coordinate $`\stackrel{~}{x}^{11}=e^{\varphi _0}x^{11}`$ with its radius $`\stackrel{~}{r}=e^{\varphi _0}r`$. The first line in the above equation indicates clearly that the 11-D metric cannot be asymptotically Minkowskian if we insist $`ds_{10}^2`$ be so††††††We can no longer rescale $`(ds_0)_{10}^2`$ since that is the metric used in defining the string constant $`\alpha ^{}`$.. The second line says that the 11-D metric can be made asymptotically Minkowskian up to a constant scaling factor $`e^{2\varphi _0/3}`$ if we rescale $`x^{11}`$ to $`\stackrel{~}{x}^{11}`$ as given above. In other words, the scaled radius $`\stackrel{~}{r}`$ is measured with respect to the string metric. Because the string constant $`\alpha ^{}`$ is defined with respect to the string metric, the second line in Eq. (10) should be used in the following equation.

By definition, from the above asymptotic metric relation, we have

$$\kappa _{11}^2=\frac{\overline{\kappa }_{11}^2}{\sqrt{det\widehat{G}_0}\widehat{G}_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}}=e^{3\varphi _0}\overline{\kappa }_{11}^2,$$
(11)
where $`\widehat{G}_0`$ denotes the 11-D asymptotic metric given in the second line of Eq. (10). Using the above and Eq. (8), we derive $`r=\alpha ^{1/2}`$. Then $`\stackrel{~}{r}=e^{\varphi _0}\alpha ^{1/2}=\rho `$ is the physical radius measured in the string metric.

Let us provide an independent check of Eq. (11). For simplicity, we consider the reduction of a scalar field $`\mathrm{\Phi }(x^M)`$ from 11-D to 10-D on a circle $`S^1`$. The usual KK reduction says

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(x^\mu ,x^{11})=\underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\mathrm{\Phi }_n(x^\mu )e^{inx^{11}/r},$$
(12)
or

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(x^\mu ,\stackrel{~}{x}^{11})=\underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\mathrm{\Phi }_n(x^\mu )e^{in\stackrel{~}{x}^{11}/\stackrel{~}{r}},$$
(13)
where $`x^{11}`$ or $`\stackrel{~}{x}^{11}`$ is the compactified coordinate defined earlier. The 11-D wave equation $`_M^M\mathrm{\Phi }=0`$ in the asymptotic region (or around the Minkowski vacuum) becomes

$$\eta ^{\mu \nu }_\mu _\nu \mathrm{\Phi }_n(x^\mu )=\frac{n^2}{r^2e^{2\varphi _0}}\mathrm{\Phi }_n(x^\mu ),$$
(14)
where we have used the first line in Eq. (10), or we have

$$\eta ^{\mu \nu }_\mu _\nu \mathrm{\Phi }_n(x^\mu )=\frac{n^2}{\stackrel{~}{r}^2}\mathrm{\Phi }_n(x^\mu ),$$
(15)
where we have used the second line in Eq. (10). The mass spectrum with respect to the 10-D Minkowski vacuum in string frame can be obtained from either of the above equations as

$$M_n^2=p_\mu p^\mu =\frac{n^2}{r^2e^{2\varphi _0}}=\frac{n^2}{\stackrel{~}{r}^2}.$$
(16)
From the above, we should identify $`\stackrel{~}{r}=re^{\varphi _0}`$ as the physical radius with respect to the string metric. The mass $`M_n`$ should be identified with that of n D0 brane for the reason mentioned earlier. We therefore have $`\stackrel{~}{r}=g_s\alpha ^{1/2}`$. So we have $`r=\alpha ^{1/2}`$. Using Eq. (8) and $`\rho =\stackrel{~}{r}`$, we obtain also Eq. (11). Our discussion gives $`2\overline{\kappa }_{11}^2=(2\pi )^8\alpha ^{9/2}`$.

In summary, we explain how to obtain the physical gravitational constant for the original higher dimensional theory if we know the physical gravitational constant in the compactified lower-dimensional theory. In particular, we derive the relation $`\kappa _{11}^2=g_s^3\overline{\kappa }_{11}^2`$ and determine the radius $`r=\alpha ^{1/2}`$ (or $`\stackrel{~}{r}=g_s\alpha ^{1/2}`$) unambiguously.

###### Acknowledgements.

The author would like to thank Dan Chung for discussion and to acknowledge the support of U. S. Department of Energy.