text:
# On canonically derived families of surfaces of general type over curves

## 1. Preliminaries

### 1.1 Convention

Let $`X`$ be a normal projective variety of dimension $`d`$. We denote by $`\text{Div}(X)`$ the group of Weil divisors on $`X`$. An element $`D\text{Div}(X)`$ is called a $``$-divisor. A $``$-divisor $`D`$ is said to be $``$-Cartier if $`mD`$ is a Cartier divisor for some positive integer $`m`$. For a $``$-Cartier divisor $`D`$ and an irreducible curve $`CX`$, we can define the intersection number $`DC`$ in a natural way. A $``$-Cartier divisor $`D`$ is called nef (namely numerically effective) if $`DC0`$ for any effective curve $`CX`$. A nef divisor $`D`$ is called big if $`D^d>0`$. We say that $`X`$ is $``$-factorial if every Weil divisor on $`X`$ is $``$-Cartier. For a Weil divisor $`D`$ on $`X`$, write $`𝒪_X(D)`$ as the corresponding reflexive sheaf. Denote by $`K_X`$ a canonical divisor of $`X`$, which is a Weil divisor. $`X`$ is called minimal if $`K_X`$ is a nef $``$-Cartier divisor. $`X`$ is said to be of general type if $`\text{kod}(X)=\text{dim}(X)`$. For a positive integer $`m`$, we set $`\omega _X^{[m]}:=𝒪_X(mK_X).`$ We use \[R\] as a nice reference for the definition of canonical, terminal singularities. According to both \[KMM\] and \[K-M\], any given smooth projective 3-fold $`Y`$ of general type has a minimal model $`X`$ which has only $``$-factorial terminal singularities.

### 1.2 Vanishing theorems

Let $`D=a_iD_i`$ be a $``$-divisor on $`X`$ where the $`D_i^{}s`$ are distinct prime divisors and $`a_i`$. We define

the round-down $`\mathrm{}D\mathrm{}:=\mathrm{}a_i\mathrm{}D_i`$, where $`\mathrm{}a_i\mathrm{}`$ is the integral part of $`a_i`$.

the round-up $`\mathrm{}D\mathrm{}:=\mathrm{}D\mathrm{}`$.

the fractional part $`\{D\}:=\mathrm{}D\mathrm{}D\mathrm{}\mathrm{}`$.

Throughout this paper, we will use the Kawamata-Viehweg vanishing theorem (\[Ka1\], \[KMM\] and \[V\]) in the following forms.

###### Theorem 1.1

Let $`X`$ be a smooth complete variety, $`D\text{Div}(X)`$. Assume the following two conditions:

(i) $`D`$ is nef and big;

(ii) the fractional part of $`D`$ has supports with only normal crossings.

Then $`H^i(X,𝒪_X(K_X+\mathrm{}D\mathrm{}))=0`$ for all $`i>0`$.

###### Theorem 1.2

Let $`X`$ be a normal projective variety with only canonical singularities. Let $`D`$ be a $``$-Cartier Weil divisor such that $`D`$ is nef and big. Then $`H^i(X,𝒪_X(K_X+D))=0`$ for all $`i>0`$.

### 1.3 Semi-positivity

Let $`C`$ be a smooth projective curve and $``$ be a vector bundle on $`C`$. We call

$$\mu ():=\frac{\mathrm{deg}()}{\text{rk}()}$$

the slope of $``$. According to \[H-N\], there is the Harder-Narasimhan filtration

$$0=_0_1\mathrm{}_{n1}_n=,$$

where the quotient $`_i/_{i1}`$ is a semistable vector bundle and

$$\mu (_i/_{i1})>\mu (_{i+1}/_i)$$

for all $`i`$. We define

$$\mu _{min}():=\mu (/_{n1}),$$

which is called the minimal slope of $``$.

###### Definition Definition 1.3

The vector bundle $``$ is said to be semi-positive if $`\mu _{min}()0`$.

According to \[Ka2\], \[Ko2\], \[N\] and \[O\], we have the following

###### Fact 1.4

Let $`X`$ be a smooth projective 3-fold and $`f:XC`$ be a proper morphism with connected fibers onto a smooth projective curve $`C`$. Then both $`f_{}\omega _{X/C}^m`$ and $`R^if_{}\omega _{X/C}`$ are semi-positive vector bundles on $`C`$ for all $`m>0`$ and $`i>0`$. In particular,

$$\mathrm{deg}f_{}\omega _{X/C}^m0\text{and}\mathrm{deg}R^if_{}\omega _{X/C}0.$$

### 1.4 Basic formulae

Let $`X`$ be a smooth projective 3-fold and $`f:XC`$ be a fibration onto the smooth projective curve $`C`$. Denote $`b:=g(C)`$. From the spectral sequence

$$E_2^{p,q}:=H^p(C,R^qf_{}\omega _X)E^n:=H^n(X,\omega _X),$$

one obtains the following formulae

$$q(X):=h^1(X,𝒪_X)=b+h^1(C,R^1f_{}\omega _X)$$
$`1.1`$
$$h^2(𝒪_X)=h^1(C,f_{}\omega _X)+h^0(C,R^1f_{}\omega _X).$$
$`1.2`$
## 2. Lemmas

###### Lemma 2.1

Let $`X`$ be a smooth projective 3-fold of general type. $`m2`$ is an integer. Suppose that $`|mK_X|`$ is composed of a pencil of surfaces. Keep the same notations as in the first page of this paper. We have a derived fibration $`f_m:X^{}C`$. Then $`C`$ is either an elliptic curve or $`^1`$.

###### Demonstration Proof

Suppose $`b>0`$. Then $`\varphi _m`$ is a morphism. We have a derived fibration

$$f:=f_m:XC.$$

Let $`_0`$ be the saturated sub-bundle of $`f_{}\omega _X^m`$ which is generated by $`H^0(C,f_{}\omega _X^m)`$. Since $`|mK_X|`$ is composed of a pencil and $`\varphi _m`$ factors through $`f`$, $`_0`$ should be a line bundle on $`C`$. Denote $`:=f_{}\omega _X^m`$. Then we have the following extension

$$0_0_10$$

and the exact sequence

$$f_{}\omega _{X/C}^m_1\omega _C^m0.$$

Note that $`r:=\text{rk}()=h^0(F,mK_F)2`$ because the general fiber $`F`$ is a smooth projective surface of general type. According to Fact 1.4, $`f_{}\omega _{X/C}^m`$ is semi-positive. Therefore $`\mathrm{deg}(_1\omega _C^m)0`$, i.e.

$$\mathrm{deg}_12m(r1)(b1).$$

We have

$`h^1(_0)`$ $`h^0(_1)\mathrm{deg}_1+(r1)(1b)`$ $`2.1`$
$`(2m1)(r1)(b1).`$
Suppose $`h^1(_0)>0`$. Since $`\mathrm{deg}_0>0`$, according to the Clifford’s theorem, we have

$$\mathrm{deg}_02h^0(_0)2h^0(_0)=P_m(X)2.$$

On the other hand, we have

$$h^1(_0)=h^0(_0)\mathrm{deg}(_0)+b1b1.$$
$`2.2`$
Thus, by (2.1) and (2.2), we get

$$b1(2m1)(r1)(b1).$$

The only possibility is $`b=1`$. When $`h^1(_0)=0`$, we also automatically have $`b=1`$ from (2.1). The proof is complete. ∎

###### Lemma 2.2

Let $``$ be a vector bundle of rank $`r`$ on a smooth projective curve $`C`$. Suppose $`\omega _C^1`$ is semi-positive. Then we have $`h^1(C,)r.`$

###### Demonstration Proof

Suppose there are $`r+1`$ independant sections

$$s_1,s_2,\mathrm{},s_{r+1}H^0(C,(\omega _C^1)^{})H^1(C,).$$

Denote $`^{}:=(\omega _C^1)^{}`$. For any point $`xC`$, the stalk $`_x^{}`$ is an $`𝒪_{C,x}`$-module of rank $`r`$. This means that $`s_{1,x}`$, $`s_{2,x}`$, $`\mathrm{}`$, $`s_{r+1,x}`$ are algebraically dependant in $`_x^{}`$. Thus there are $`r+1`$ nontrivial germs

$$f_1,f_2,\mathrm{},f_{r+1}𝒪_{C,x}$$

such that $`_{i=1}^{r+1}f_i(x)s_{i,x}(x)=0`$. Now set

$$s:=\underset{i=1}{\overset{r+1}{}}f_i(x)s_iH^0(C,(\omega _C^1)^{}).$$

$`s`$ is a non-zero section. Otherwise $`s_1`$, $`\mathrm{}`$, $`s_{r+1}`$ are dependant. Because $`s`$ vanishes at $`x`$, $`s`$ defines a line bundle $``$ which has positive degree. So $`\omega _C^1`$ has a quotient bundle with negative degree. This contradicts to the semi-positivity of $`\omega _C^1`$. The proof is completed. ∎

###### Corollary 2.3

Let $`f:XC`$ be a fibration from a smooth projective 3-fold $`X`$ onto a smooth projective curve $`C`$. Let $`F`$ be a general fibre of $`f`$ and set $`b:=g(C)`$. Then $`q(X)b+q(F)`$.

###### Demonstration Proof

This is a direct result from Fact 1.4, (1.1) and Lemma 2.2.

## 3. Proof of the main theorems

Since the behavior of pluricanonical maps is birationally invariant, we may suppose that $`X`$ is a normal projective minimal 3-fold of general type with only $``$-factorial terminal singularities. We make this assumption so as to utilize vanishing theorems. Now suppose that $`|mK_X|`$ is composed of a pencil of surfaces. We can use the same set up as in the first page of this paper. An extra point is that we can take the modification $`\pi _m:X^{}X`$ such that $`\pi _m^{}(mK_X)`$ has supports with only normal crossings. We keep the same notations. Then we get a derived fibration $`f_m:X^{}C`$. Denote by $`F`$ a general fiber of $`f_m`$ and by $`b`$ the genus of $`C`$. Sometimes we simply denote $`f_m`$ by $`f`$ and $`\pi _m`$ by $`\pi `$, respectively.

###### Proposition 3.1

Let $`X`$ be a normal projective minimal 3-fold of general type with only $``$-factorial terminal singularities. Suppose $`|mK_X|`$ is composed of a pencil of surfaces. If $`p_g(X)>0`$, then $`p_g(F)=1`$ under one of the following conditions.

(1) $`m=2`$, $`b=0`$ and $`P_m(X)4`$.

(2) $`m3`$, $`b=0`$ and $`P_m(X)3`$.

(3) $`m=2`$, $`b=1`$ and $`P_m(X)3`$.

(4) $`m3`$, $`b=1`$ and $`P_m(X)2`$.

###### Demonstration Proof

Because $`p_g(X^{})=p_g(X)>0`$, we can choose an effective divisor $`D_1|K_X^{}|`$. We write

$$K_X^{}=\pi ^{}(K_X)+a_iE_i,$$

where $`a_i^+`$, $`E_i`$ is an exceptional prime divisor for all $`i`$. We note that

$$\pi ^{}(K_X)=K_X^{}a_iE_i=D_1a_iE_i$$

is an effective $``$-divisor. So we have

$$\pi ^{}(K_X)=b_iG_i=G_v+G_h,$$

where $`b_i^+`$, $`G_i`$ is a prime divisor on $`X^{}`$ for all $`i`$, the support of $`G_v`$ is contained in fibers of $`f`$ and $`G_h`$ is the horizontal part of $`\pi ^{}(K_X)`$. Both $`G_v`$ and $`G_h`$ are effective $``$-divisors. So we have

$$(m1)\pi ^{}(K_X)=(m1)G_v+(m1)G_h$$

$$m\pi ^{}(K_X)=mG_v+mG_h.$$

Suppose $`M_m`$ is the movable part of $`|mK_X^{}|`$. Then $`M_m_{}mG_v`$ because the support of $`M_m`$ is vertical. Thus we can write

$$mG_v=M_m+G_v^{}=M_m+c_iG_i^{},$$

where $`c_i^+`$, $`G_i^{}`$ is a prime divisor on $`X^{}`$ for all $`i`$. Therefore

$$m\pi ^{}(K_X)=M_m+(G_v^{}+mG_h),$$

where $`G_v^{}+mG_h`$ is an effective $``$-divisor. We can suppose

$$M_m_{\text{lin}}\underset{i=1}{\overset{a}{}}F_i_{\text{num}}aF,$$

where

$$a=\{\begin{array}{cc}P_m(X)1,\hfill & \text{if}b=0,\hfill \\ P_m(X),\hfill & \text{if}b=1.\hfill \end{array}$$

Thus we have

$$\pi ^{}(K_X)_{\text{num}}\frac{a}{m}F+\frac{1}{m}G_v^{}+G_h$$

$$(m1)\pi ^{}(K_X)_{\text{num}}\frac{a(m1)}{m}F+\frac{m1}{m}G_v^{}+(m1)G_h.$$

Denote $`a^{}:=\frac{a(m1)}{m}`$. We can see that $`a^{}>1`$ under one of the assumptions within (1) through (4) of the proposition. So

$$(m1)\pi ^{}(K_X)F\frac{m1}{ma^{}}G_v^{}\frac{m1}{a^{}}G_h_{\text{num}}(m1)(1\frac{1}{a^{}})\pi ^{}(K_X)$$

is nef and big and its fractional part has supports with only normal crossings. According to the Kawamata-Viehweg vanishing theorem, we get

$$H^1(X^{},K_X^{}+\mathrm{}(m1)\pi ^{}(K_X)\frac{m1}{ma^{}}G_v^{}\frac{m1}{a^{}}G_h\mathrm{}F)=0.$$

Set $`G^{\prime \prime }:=\mathrm{}(m1)\pi ^{}(K_X)\frac{m1}{ma^{}}G_v^{}\frac{m1}{a^{}}G_h\mathrm{}`$. Then $`G^{\prime \prime }\mathrm{}(m1)\pi ^{}(K_X)\mathrm{}`$ and so

$$K_X^{}+G^{\prime \prime }K_X^{}+\mathrm{}(m1)\pi ^{}(K_X)\mathrm{}.$$

Therefore we have

$$\text{dim}\mathrm{\Phi }_{|K_X^{}+G^{\prime \prime }|}(F)=0$$

for a general fiber $`F`$. From the exact sequence

$$0𝒪_X^{}(K_X^{}+G^{\prime \prime }F)𝒪_X^{}(K_X^{}+G^{\prime \prime })𝒪_F(K_F+G^{\prime \prime }|_F)0,$$

we get the surjective map

$$H^0(X^{},K_X^{}+G^{\prime \prime })H^0(F,K_F+G^{\prime \prime }|_F).$$

This means

$$|K_X^{}+G^{\prime \prime }||_F=|K_F+G^{\prime \prime }|_F|.$$

Noting that

$$G^{\prime \prime }|_F=\mathrm{}(m1)\pi ^{}(K_X)\frac{m1}{ma^{}}G_v^{}\frac{m1}{a^{}}G_h\mathrm{}|_F=\mathrm{}(m1)(1\frac{1}{a^{}})G_h\mathrm{}|_F$$

is an effective divisor, we have $`h^0(F,K_F+G^{\prime \prime }|_F)2`$ whenever $`p_g(F)2`$. This would lead to $`\text{dim}\varphi _m(F)1`$, which is impossible. So we should have $`p_g(F)=1`$ because $`p_g(F)>0`$ under the assumption $`p_g(X)>0`$. ∎

###### Remark Remark 3.2

The assumption $`p_g(X)>0`$ in Proposition 3.1 is important. If $`p_g(X)=0`$, the above method is invalid because we don’t know whether $`G^{\prime \prime }|_F`$ is effective.

###### Theorem 3.3

Let $`f:XC`$ be a derived family of surfaces from the m-canonical pencil $`|mK_X|`$ of a smooth projective 3-fold $`X`$ of general type. Let $`F`$ be a general fiber of $`f`$ and denote $`b:=g(C)`$. Suppose $`m3`$. Then one of the following occurs:

(A1) $`m=5,6`$, $`p_g(X)=2`$, $`q(X)=0`$, $`b=0`$ and $`p_g(F)=q(F)=1`$.

(A2) $`m=4`$, $`2p_g(X)3`$, $`q(X)=0`$, $`b=0`$ and $`p_g(F)=1`$.

(A3) $`m=3`$, $`2p_g(X)5`$, $`q(X)1`$, $`b=0`$ and $`p_g(F)=1`$.

(B0) $`p_g(X)=1`$, $`q(X)b+1`$ and $`p_g(F)=1`$.

(B1) $`p_g(X)=P_2(X)=\mathrm{}=P_{m1}(X)=1`$, $`P_m(X)=2`$, $`\text{dim}\varphi _{m+1}(X)2`$, $`b=0`$ and $`p_g(F)2`$.

(B2) $`p_g(X)=P_2(X)=\mathrm{}=P_{m1}(X)=1`$, $`P_m(X)=P_{m+1}(X)=2`$, $`\text{dim}\varphi _{m+2}(X)2`$, $`b=0`$ and $`p_g(F)2`$.

(B3) $`p_g(X)=P_2(X)=\mathrm{}=P_{m2}(X)=1`$, $`P_{m1}(X)=P_m(X)=2`$, $`\text{dim}\varphi _{m+1}(X)2`$, $`b=0`$ and $`p_g(F)2`$.

(C0) $`p_g(X)=0`$, $`q(X)2`$ and $`q(F)2`$.

(C1) $`p_g(X)=0`$, $`\text{dim}\varphi _{m+1}(X)2`$ and $`q(F)2`$.

(C2) $`p_g(X)=0`$, $`P_m(X)=2`$, $`\text{dim}\varphi _{m+2}(X)2`$, $`b=1`$ and $`q(F)=2`$.

(C3) $`p_g(X)=0`$, $`P_m(X)=2`$, $`\text{dim}\varphi _{2m}(X)2`$, $`b=0`$ and $`q(F)3`$.

(C4) $`p_g(X)=0`$, $`P_m(X)=2`$, $`P_{2m}(X)=3`$, $`\text{dim}\varphi _{2m+1}(X)=3`$, $`b=0`$ and $`q(F)3`$.

###### Demonstration Proof

We formulate the proof through three steps. Though the proof is slightly longer, it’s a case by case discussion.

Step 1. $`p_g(X)2`$

Suppose $`b=1`$. In this situation, we see that the movable part of $`|3K_X|`$ defines a morphism. Because $`p_g(X)2`$, $`\text{dim}\varphi _1(X)=1`$ and both $`\varphi _1`$ and $`\varphi _3`$ derive the same fibration $`f:XC`$. So the movable part of $`|K_X|`$ is also base point free. Let $`M_1`$ be the movable part of $`|K_X|`$. Then $`M_1_{\text{lin}}F_i`$. Let $`F`$ be a general fiber of $`f`$. Because the singularities on $`X`$ are all isolated, $`F`$ is a smooth projective surface of general type. By Theorem 2.2, we see that $`H^1(X,2K_X)=0`$. Therefore we have

$$|2K_X+F_i||_F=|2K_F|.$$

Because $`p_g(F)>0`$, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{|2K_F|}`$ is generically finite by Theorem 1 of \[X1\]. This means that $`\varphi _3`$ is generically finite and so is $`\varphi _m`$ for $`m4`$. So we only have to consider the case when $`b=0`$.

Now we have a fibration $`f:X^{}^1`$. Because $`p_g(X)2`$, we have $`P_3(X)4`$. Thus, by Proposition 3.1, we see that $`p_g(F)=1`$. In this situation, Kollár’s technique (the proof of Corollary 4.8 in \[Ko1\]) is still effective. Let $`p_g(X)=k+1`$, $`k1`$. Since $`|K_X^{}|`$ is composed of a pencil, we have $`𝒪(k)f_{}\omega _X^{}`$ on $`^1`$. If $`k5`$, then

$$𝒪(5)𝒪(k)f_{}\omega _X^{}.$$

Thus we have

$$:=𝒪(1)f_{}\omega _{X^{}/^1}^2=𝒪(5)f_{}\omega _X^{}^2f_{}\omega _X^{}^3.$$

The local sections of $`f_{}\omega _X^{}^2`$ give the bicanonical map of the fiber $`F`$ and they extend to global sections of $``$, because $``$ is generated by global sections. On the other hand, $`H^0(^1,)`$ can distinguish different fibers of $`f`$ because $`f_{}\omega _{X^{}/𝒫^1}^2`$ is a sum of line bundles with nonnegative degree on $`^1`$. So $`H^0(^1,)`$ gives a generically finite map on $`X^{}`$ and so does $`H^0(X^{},3K_X^{})`$. This contradicts to our assumption of $`\text{dim}\varphi _3(X)=1`$. Thus we have $`k4`$, i.e. $`p_g(X)5`$. By virtue of this technique, we have

$`k=3,4,`$ $`f_{}\omega _X^{}^4m=3(A3)`$
$`k=2,`$ $`f_{}\omega _X^{}^5m4(A2),(A3)`$
$`k=1,`$ $`f_{}\omega _X^{}^7m6(A1),(A2),(A3).`$
In order to complete the proof for this case, we have to prove $`q(X)=0`$ for (A1), (A2) and that the only possibility of $`F`$ in (A1) is $`p_g(F)=q(F)=1`$. Suppose $`q(X)=1`$ in cases (A1) and (A2). Then $`q(F)=1`$ and $`R^1f_{}\omega _X^{}\omega _^1`$. Because $`f_{}\omega _X^{}`$ is of positive degree, we have $`h^1(^1,f_{}\omega _X^{})=0`$. So by (1.2), $`h^2(𝒪_X^{})=0`$. Then we have $`\chi (𝒪_X^{})2`$. According to Reid’s plurigus formula (\[R\]), we have $`P_2(X)7`$. This means $`𝒪(6)f_{}\omega _X^{}^2`$ and $`f_{}\omega _X^{}^4`$. So $`\varphi _4`$ is generically finite, a contradiction. Finally, with regard to (A1), if $`q(F)=0`$, then $`h^2(𝒪_X^{})=0`$. So $`\chi (𝒪_X^{})1`$. Thus $`P_3(X)6`$ according to Reid. We have $`𝒪(5)f_{}\omega _X^{}^3`$ and $`f_{}\omega _X^{}^5`$. So $`\varphi _5`$ is generically finite, a contradiction.

Step 2. $`p_g(X)=1`$

When $`b=1`$ or $`b=0`$ and $`P_m(X)3`$, we have $`p_g(F)=1`$ according to Proposition 3.1. This leads to (B0). From now on, we can suppose $`b=0`$, $`P_m(X)=2`$ and $`p_g(F)2`$.

We claim that $`P_{m2}(X)=1`$. In fact, if $`P_{m2}(X)>1`$, we must have $`P_{m2}(X)=2`$. So the movable part of $`|(m2)K_X^{}|`$ is a fiber $`F`$ of $`f`$. By Theorem 1.1, we have

$$|K_X^{}+\mathrm{}\pi ^{}(K_X)\mathrm{}+F||_F=|K_F+D|,$$

where $`D:=\mathrm{}\pi ^{}(K_X)\mathrm{}|_F`$ is an effective divisor on $`F`$. So we see that $`\text{dim}\varphi _m(X)2`$, a contradiction.

If $`P_{m1}(X)=2`$, then we can see from the above argument that $`\text{dim}\varphi _{m+1}(X)2`$. This leads to (B3).

If $`P_{m1}(X)=1`$ and we are not in (B1), then $`P_{m+1}(X)=2`$ by virtue of Proposition 3.1. We can easily see that $`\text{dim}\varphi _{m+2}(X)2`$. This leads to (B2).

Step 3. $`p_g(X)=0`$

We can suppose $`b=1`$ and $`q(F)2`$ or $`b=0`$ and $`q(F)3`$. Otherwise we are in case (C0).

Suppose $`b=1`$. If $`q(F)3`$, we can see that $`\text{dim}\varphi _{m+1}(X)2`$. In fact, we can write

$$m\pi ^{}(K_X)_{}aF+E_{}^{(m)},$$

where $`a=P_m(X)2`$ and $`E_{}^{(m)}`$ is an effective $``$-divisor. It is obvious that

$$K_X^{}+\mathrm{}m\pi ^{}(K_X)F\frac{1}{a}E_{}^{(m)}\mathrm{}(m+1)K_X^{}.$$

Since

$$m\pi ^{}(K_X)F\frac{1}{a}E_{}^{(m)}_{\text{num}}m(1\frac{1}{a})\pi ^{}(K_X)$$

is nef and big, we get by the vanishing theorem that

$$H^1(X^{},K_X^{}+\mathrm{}m\pi ^{}(K_X)F\frac{1}{a}E_{}^{(m)}\mathrm{})=0.$$

This means that

$$|K_X^{}+\mathrm{}m\pi ^{}(K_X)\frac{1}{a}E_{}^{(m)}\mathrm{}||_F=|K_F+\mathrm{}m\pi ^{}(K_X)\frac{1}{a}E_{}^{(m)}\mathrm{}|_F|,$$

where

$$\mathrm{}m\pi ^{}(K_X)\frac{1}{a}E_{}^{(m)}\mathrm{}|_F=\mathrm{}(1\frac{1}{a})E_{}^{(m)}\mathrm{}|_F$$

is an effective divisor. According to \[X2\], $`|K_F|`$ gives a generically finite map. So we see that $`\text{dim}\varphi _{m+1}(F)=2`$ and thus $`\text{dim}\varphi _{m+1}(X)2`$. This leads to (C1). If $`q(F)=2`$ and $`P_m(X)3`$, we can still see that $`\text{dim}\varphi _{m+1}(X)2`$. In this situation, $`a3`$. Let $`F_1`$ and $`F_2`$ be two distinct general fibers of $`f`$. Then we see that

$$m\pi ^{}(K_X)F_1F_2\frac{2}{a}E_{}^{(m)}_{\text{num}}m(1\frac{2}{a})\pi ^{}(K_X)$$

is nef and big. So we have the following surjective map

$`H^0(X^{},K_X^{}+\mathrm{}m\pi ^{}(K_X){\displaystyle \frac{2}{a}}E_{}^{(m)}\mathrm{})`$
$`H^0(F_1,K_{F_1}+D_1)H^0(F_2,K_{F_2}+D_2)0,`$
where

$$D_i=\mathrm{}m\pi ^{}(K_X)\frac{2}{a}E_{}^{(m)}\mathrm{}|_{F_i}=\mathrm{}m(1\frac{2}{a})E_{}^{(m)}\mathrm{}|_{F_i}$$

is effective for all $`i`$. This means that

$$|K_X^{}+\mathrm{}m\pi ^{}(K_X)\frac{2}{a}E_{}^{(m)}\mathrm{}|$$

can distinguish two different fibers of $`f`$ and $`\text{dim}\varphi _{m+1}(F_i)1`$. We again see that $`\text{dim}\varphi _{m+1}(X)2`$. This leads to (C1). If $`q(F)=2`$ and $`P_m(X)=2`$, we can use a parallel argument to that in the proof of the case $`b=1`$ of Step 1 to see that $`\text{dim}\varphi _{m+2}(X)2`$. This corresponds to (C2).

Suppose $`b=0`$ and $`q(F)3`$. If $`P_m(X)3`$, we can use the same argument as in the case $`b=1`$ of Step 3 to see that $`\text{dim}\varphi _{m+1}(X)2`$. This leads to (C1). What remains to be studied is the case $`P_m(X)=2`$. This is the most frustrating case. Anyway, it is easy to see that $`\text{dim}\varphi _{2m+1}(X)2`$ in this case. Actually, one only has to consider the system

$$|K_X^{}+\mathrm{}m\pi ^{}(K_X)\mathrm{}+F|.$$

We can see that

$$|K_X^{}+\mathrm{}m\pi ^{}(K_X)\mathrm{}+F||_F=|K_F+\mathrm{}m\pi ^{}(K_X)\mathrm{}|_F|,$$

where $`\mathrm{}m\pi ^{}(K_X)\mathrm{}|_F`$ is effective. This means

$$\text{dim}\varphi _{2m+1}(X)\text{dim}\varphi _{2m+1}(F)=2.$$

Now if $`\text{dim}\varphi _{2m}(X)2`$, we are in (C3). If $`\text{dim}\varphi _{2m}(X)=1`$, we have the following claim which shows that we are in either (C1) or (C4). We note that $`P_{2m}(X)3`$.

Claim. If $`b=0`$, $`q(F)3`$, $`P_m(X)=2`$, $`P_{2m}(X)4`$ and $`\text{dim}\varphi _{2m}(X)=1`$. Then $`\text{dim}\varphi _{m+1}(X)2`$. This leads to (C1).

Since $`\text{dim}\varphi _{2m}(X)=1`$, we can see that both $`\varphi _{2m}`$ and $`\varphi _m`$ derive the same fibration $`f:X^{}^1`$. We can write

$$m\pi ^{}(K_X)_{}F+(D_v+D_h),$$

where $`D_v`$ is a vertical $``$-divisor with respect to the fibration $`f`$ and $`D_h`$ is the horizontal part. The supports of $`D_v`$ and $`D_h`$ are contained in the fixed part of $`|mK_X^{}|`$. $`D_v`$ and $`D_h`$ are both effective $``$-divisors. Similarly, we can write

$$2m\pi ^{}(K_X)_{}\underset{i=1}{\overset{a_2}{}}F_i+(D_v^{}+D_h^{}),$$

where $`a_2P_{2m}(X)13`$, $`D_v^{}`$ is a vertical effective $``$-divisor and $`D_h^{}`$ is a horizontal effective $``$-divisor. Since the support of $`D_h^{}`$ is contained in the fixed part of $`|2mK_X^{}|`$, we can see that $`D_h^{}=2D_h`$. Now we have

$$2m\pi ^{}(K_X)_{\text{num}}a_2F+D_v^{}+2D_h,$$

$$m\pi ^{}(K_X)_{\text{num}}\frac{a_2}{2}F+\frac{1}{2}D_v^{}+D_h.$$

So

$$m\pi ^{}(K_X)F\frac{1}{a_2}D_v^{}\frac{2}{a_2}D_h_{\text{num}}m(1\frac{2}{a_2})\pi ^{}(K_X)$$

is nef and big. This means, according to the vanishing theorem, that

$$H^1(X^{},K_X^{}+\mathrm{}m\pi ^{}(K_X)F\frac{1}{a_2}D_v^{}\frac{2}{a_2}D_h\mathrm{})=0.$$

Denote $`M:=\mathrm{}m\pi ^{}(K_X)\frac{1}{a_2}D_v^{}\frac{2}{a_2}D_h\mathrm{}.`$ Then $`K_X^{}+M(m+1)K_X^{}`$. Then

$$|K_X^{}+M||_F=|K_F+M|_F|,$$

where $`M|_F=\mathrm{}(1\frac{2}{a_2})D_h\mathrm{}|_F`$ is an effective divisor on $`F`$. So

$$\text{dim}\varphi _{m+1}(X)\text{dim}\mathrm{\Phi }_{|K_X^{}+M|}(F)=2.$$

The proof is complete. ∎

###### Theorem 3.4

Let $`f:XC`$ be a derived family of surfaces from the bicanonical pencil $`|2K_X|`$ of a smooth projective 3-fold $`X`$ of general type. Let $`F`$ be a general fiber of $`f`$ and denote $`b:=g(C)`$. Then one of the following occurs.

(A0)’ $`p_g(X)>0`$, $`q(X)b+1`$ and $`p_g(F)=1`$.

(A1)’ $`1p_g(X)2`$, $`2P_2(X)3`$, $`\text{dim}\varphi _3(X)2`$ and $`p_g(F)2`$.

(A2)’ $`p_g(X)=1`$, $`P_2(X)=P_3(X)=2`$, $`\text{dim}\varphi _4(X)2`$, $`b=0`$ and $`p_g(F)2`$.

(B0)’ $`p_g(X)=0`$, $`q(X)2`$ and $`q(F)2`$.

(B1)’ $`p_g(X)=0`$, $`\text{dim}\varphi _3(X)2`$ and $`q(F)2`$.

(B2)’ $`p_g(X)=0`$, $`P_2(X)=2`$, $`\text{dim}\varphi _4(X)2`$, $`b=1`$ and $`q(F)=2`$.

(B3)’ $`p_g(X)=0`$, $`P_2(X)=2`$, $`\text{dim}\varphi _4(X)2`$, $`b=0`$ and $`q(F)3`$.

(B4)’ $`p_g(X)=0`$, $`P_2(X)=2`$, $`P_4(X)=3`$, $`\text{dim}\varphi _5(X)2`$, $`b=0`$ and $`q(F)3`$.

###### Demonstration Proof

The proof is parallel to that of Theorem 3.3 except that we have more cases here. In order to avoid unnecessary redundancy, we only give the proof where it is different from the respective part in the proof of Theorem 3.3.

Step 1. $`p_g(X)2`$.

In this case, we always have $`P_2(X)3`$. When $`b=0`$ and $`P_2(X)4`$ or $`b=1`$, we see from Propositioin 3.1 that $`p_g(F)=1`$. This leads to (A0)’.

So we only have to consider the case with $`b=0`$, $`P_2(X)=3`$ and $`p_g(F)2`$. In this situation, we see that the movable part of $`|2K_X^{}|`$ contains exactly 2 fibers of $`f`$. Since $`P_3(X)4`$, Proposition 3.1 gives $`\text{dim}\varphi _3(X)2`$. This corresponds to (A1)’.

Step 2. $`p_g(X)=1`$.

Excluding the situation (A0)’ while observing Proposition 3.1, we only have to consider the case with $`p_g(F)2`$ and with the following extra properties:

$$b=0,P_2(X)3\text{or}b=1,P_2(X)=2.$$

When $`b=0`$ and $`P_2(X)=3`$ or $`b=1`$ and $`P_2(X)=2`$, we know from Proposition 3.1 that $`\text{dim}\varphi _3(X)2`$. This leads to (A1)’.

When $`b=0`$, $`P_2(X)=2`$, $`p_g(F)2`$ and $`P_3(X)3`$, we see from Proposition 3.1 that $`\text{dim}\varphi _3(X)2`$. This also corresponds to (A1)’. Otherwise we always have $`\text{dim}\varphi _4(X)2`$ because $`P_4(X)3`$. This is just (A2)’.

Step 3. $`p_g(X)=0`$.

The argument in the proof of Theorem 3.3 is still effective in this case. We can see that (C0) through (C4) correspond to (B0)’ through (B4)’, respectively. We omit the proof. ∎

Now we can see that Theorem 1 (i), (iv) and (v), Theorem 2 are direct results from Theorem 3.3 and Theorem 3.4. In order to complete the proof of Theorem 1, we only have to show $`q(X)2`$ whenever $`m11`$ or $`m7`$ and $`p_g(X)>0`$.

###### Proposition 3.5

Let $`X`$ be a minimal projective 3-fold of general type with only $``$-factorial terminal singularities. Suppose $`q(X)3`$, $`P_{k_0}(X)>0`$ and $`P_{k_2}(X)2`$. Then $`\text{dim}\varphi _{k_0+k_2+1}(X)2`$.

###### Demonstration Proof

Choose a 1-dimensional subsystem $`\mathrm{\Lambda }|k_2K_X|`$ while taking a birational modification $`\pi :X^{}X`$ such that the pencil $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ defines a morphism $`g:X^{}^1`$. We can even take further modification to $`\pi `$ so that $`\pi ^{}(k_2K_X)`$ has supports with only normal crossings. Taking the Stein factorization of $`g`$, then we get a derived fibration $`p:X^{}C_1`$. We note that this fibration is different from the one which was defined at the first page of this paper. Denote $`b_1:=g(C_1)`$. Let $`M`$ be the movable part of the pencil. We obviously have $`Mk_2K_X^{}`$. We can write $`M_{\text{lin}}_{i=1}^{a_1}F_i`$, where $`a_11`$ and $`F_i`$ is a fiber of $`p`$ for all $`i`$. We also note that $`a_1=1`$ if and only if $`b_1=0`$. A general fiber $`F`$ is a smooth projective surface of general type.

Suppose $`b_1>0`$. Then $`|M|`$ is base point free on $`X`$. Because $`X`$ has only isolated singularities, $`F`$ is smooth. We study the system $`|tK_X+M|`$ where $`t2`$. We know that $`M`$ contains at least two components $`F_1`$ and $`F_2`$. By Theorem 1.2, we see that

$$H^0(X,tK_X+M)H^0(F_1,tK_{F_1})H^0(F_2,tK_{F_2})$$

is surjective. This means that $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{|tK_X+M|}`$ can distinguish $`F_1`$ and $`F_2`$ and the restriction to $`F_i`$ is at least a bicanonical map. We know that $`\text{dim}\mathrm{\Phi }_{|tK_{F_i}|}(F_i)1`$ for all $`t2`$. Noting that the image of $`X`$ through $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{|tK_X+M|}`$ is irreducible, we see that $`\text{dim}\mathrm{\Phi }_{|tK_X+M|}(X)2`$. So $`\text{dim}\varphi _{t+k_2}(X)2`$. Thus $`\text{dim}\varphi _{k_0+k_2+1}(X)2`$.

Suppose $`b=0`$. By Corollary 2.3, we have $`q(F)3`$. In this case, $`M_{\text{lin}}F`$. We have

$$|K_X^{}+\mathrm{}k_0\pi ^{}(K_X)\mathrm{}+F||_F=|K_F+\mathrm{}k_0\pi ^{}(K_X)\mathrm{}|_F|,$$

where $`\mathrm{}k_0\pi ^{}(K_X)\mathrm{}|_F`$ is effective. Thus $`\text{dim}\varphi _{k_0+k_2+1}(X)\text{dim}\varphi _{k_0+k_2+1}(F)=2`$. ∎

###### Lemma 3.6

Let $`X`$ be a smooth projective 3-fold of general type. If $`q(X)3`$, then either

$$P_2(X)>0\text{and}P_4(X)2$$

or

$$P_k(X)2\text{for all}k5.$$

###### Demonstration Proof

This is a byproduct from the proof of both Theorem 6.1, \[Ko1\] and Proposition 4.3, \[Ko1\]. ∎

###### Proposition 3.7

Let $`X`$ be a minimal projective 3-fold of general type with only $``$-factorial terminal singularities. Suppose $`q(X)3`$, $`P_2(X)>0`$ and $`P_4(X)2`$. Then

(1) $`\text{dim}\varphi _7(X)2`$. $`\text{dim}\varphi _m(X)2`$ for all $`m9`$.

(2) If $`\text{dim}\varphi _8(X)=1`$, then $`p_g(X)=0`$, $`P_2(X)=1`$, $`P_4(X)=2`$ and $`P_8(X)=3`$.

###### Demonstration Proof

(1) Let $`k_0=2`$ and $`k_2=4`$. Proposition 3.5 gives $`\text{dim}\varphi _7(X)2.`$ So $`\text{dim}\varphi _{2l+7}(X)2`$ for all $`l^+`$. Let $`k_0=2`$ and $`k_2=7`$. Applying Proposition 3.5 again, we get $`\text{dim}\varphi _{10}(X)2`$. Thus $`\text{dim}_{2l+10}(X)2`$ for all $`l^+`$.

(2) We study $`\varphi _8`$. We have $`P_8(X)3`$. If $`P_8(X)4`$ and $`\text{dim}\varphi _8(X)=1`$, we want to deduce a contradiction. We know that both $`\varphi _4`$ and $`\varphi _8`$ derive the same fibration $`f:X^{}C`$ which was described in the first page of this paper. If $`b>0`$, it is easy to see that $`\text{dim}\varphi _8(X)2`$ by a standard argument which has been used many times in this paper. So we can suppose $`b=0`$. Since $`q(X)3`$, we have $`q(F)3`$. Suppose $`M_4`$, $`M_8`$ are the movable parts of $`|4K_X^{}|`$, $`|8K_X^{}|`$ respectively. Then we have

$$4\pi ^{}(K_X)_{}M_4+E_4,$$

$$8\pi ^{}(K_X)_{}M_8+E_8,$$

where $`E_4`$ and $`E_8`$ are effective $``$-divisors. Let $`E_v`$, $`E_v^{}`$ be the vertical parts of $`E_4`$, $`E_8`$ and $`E_h`$, $`E_h^{}`$ be the horizontal parts of $`E_4`$, $`E_8`$ respectively. Because the support of $`E_h`$ is contained in the fixed part of $`|4K_X^{}|`$ and the support of $`E_h^{}`$ is contained in the fixed part of $`|8K_X^{}|`$, we see that $`E_h^{}=2E_h`$. Now we have

$$8\pi ^{}(K_X)_{\text{num}}a_8F+E_v^{}+2E_h,$$

where $`a_83`$. It follows that

$$4\pi ^{}(K_X)_{\text{num}}\frac{a_8}{2}F+\frac{1}{2}E_v^{}+E_h.$$

Thus

$$4\pi ^{}(K_X)F\frac{1}{a_8}E_v^{}\frac{2}{a_8}E_h_{\text{num}}4(1\frac{2}{a_8})\pi ^{}(K_X)$$

is a nef and big $``$-divisor. Denote

$$G:=\mathrm{}4\pi ^{}(K_X)\frac{1}{a_8}E_v^{}\frac{2}{a_8}E_h\mathrm{}.$$

Then we have $`H^1(X^{},K_X^{}+GF)=0`$. So we see that

$$|K_X^{}+G||_F=|K_F+G|_F|,$$

where

$$G|_F=\mathrm{}4\pi ^{}(K_X)\frac{1}{a_8}E_v^{}\frac{2}{a_8}E_h\mathrm{}|_F=\mathrm{}(1\frac{2}{a_8})E_h\mathrm{}|_F$$

is effective. So $`\text{dim}\varphi _5(X)\text{dim}\mathrm{\Phi }_{|K_F+G|_F|}(F)=2`$. In particular, $`P_5(X)2`$. Now let $`k_0=2`$ and $`k_2=5`$. Applying Proposition 3.5, we see that $`\text{dim}\varphi _8(X)2`$. This contradicts to our assumption. Thus we have seen that $`P_8(X)=3`$ if $`\text{dim}\varphi _8(X)=1`$. It follows immediately that $`P_4(X)=2`$ and $`P_2(X)=1`$. If $`P_g(X)>0`$, it is very easy to see from Proposition 3.5 that $`\text{dim}\varphi _8(X)2`$. So we have completed the proof. ∎

###### Proposition 3.8

Let $`X`$ be a minimal projective 3-fold of general type with only $``$-factorial terminal singularities. Suppose $`q(X)3`$ and $`P_k(X)2`$ for all $`k5`$. Then

(1) $`\text{dim}\varphi _m(X)2`$ for all $`m11`$.

(2) If $`\text{dim}\varphi _{10}(X)=1`$, then $`p_g(X)=P_2(X)=P_3(X)=P_4(X)=0`$.

(3) If $`\text{dim}\varphi _9(X)=1`$, then $`p_g(X)=P_2(X)=P_3(X)=0`$.

(4) If $`\text{dim}\varphi _8(X)=1`$, then $`p_g(X)=P_2(X)=0`$.

(5) If $`\text{dim}\varphi _7(X)=1`$, then $`p_g(X)=0`$.

###### Demonstration Proof

Let $`k_0=5`$ and $`k_2=t5`$. Proposition 3.5 gives $`\text{dim}\varphi _{t+6}(X)2`$ for all $`t5`$. This leads to (1).

If $`p_g(X)>0`$, let $`k_0=1`$ and $`k_2=t5`$. Proposition 3.5 gives $`\text{dim}\varphi _{t+2}(X)2`$ for all $`t5`$.

If $`P_2(X)>0`$, let $`k_0=2`$ and $`k_2=t5`$. Proposition 3.5 gives $`\text{dim}\varphi _{t+3}(X)2`$ for all $`t5`$.

If $`P_3(X)>0`$, let $`k_0=3`$ and $`k_2=t5`$. Proposition 3.5 gives $`\text{dim}\varphi _{t+4}(X)2`$ for all $`t5`$.

If $`P_4(X)>0`$, let $`k_0=4`$ and $`k_2=t5`$. Proposition 3.5 gives $`\text{dim}\varphi _{t+5}(X)2`$ for all $`t5`$.

(2), (3), (4) and (5) follow immediately. ∎

###### Corollary 3.9

Let $`f:XC`$ be a derived family of surfaces from the m-canonical pencil $`|mK_X|`$ of a smooth projective 3-fold $`X`$ of general type. Then

(1) $`q(X)2`$ when $`m11`$.

(2) $`q(X)2`$ when $`m7`$ and $`p_g(X)>0`$.

###### Demonstration Proof

This is obvious from Lemma 3.6, Proposition 3.7 and Proposition 3.8. ∎

## 4. Appendix to Kollár’s method

Given a smooth projective 3-fold $`X`$ of general type, it is uncertain whether $`\text{dim}\varphi _{m+1}(X)\text{dim}\varphi _m(X)`$ for all $`m>0`$. Even if $`P_m(X)>0`$, it is false that $`P_{m+1}(X)>0`$. This makes it difficult to study some stable property of $`\varphi _m`$. That is why Kollár’s bound was bigger. Hereby we would like to study in an alternative way. The bounds are better, however still unsatisfactory.

###### Proposition 4.1

Let $`X`$ be a minimal projective 3-fold of general type with only $``$-factorial terminal singularities. Suppose $`q(X)2`$ and $`P_{k_2}(X)2`$. Then $`\text{dim}\varphi _m(X)2`$ for all $`m4k_2+2`$.

###### Demonstration Proof

Choose a 1-dimensional subsystem $`\mathrm{\Lambda }|k_2K_X|`$ while taking a birational modification $`\pi :X^{}X`$ such that the pencil $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ defines a morphism $`g:X^{}^1`$. We can even take further modification to $`\pi `$ so that $`\pi ^{}(k_2K_X)`$ has supports with only normal crossings. Taking the Stein factorization of $`g`$, then we get a derived fibration $`p:X^{}C_2`$. Denote $`b_2:=g(C_2)`$. Let $`M`$ be the movable part of the pencil. We obviously have $`Mk_2K_X^{}`$. We can write $`M_{\text{lin}}_{i=1}^{a_2}F_i`$, where $`a_21`$ and $`F_i`$ is a fiber of $`q`$. A general fiber $`F`$ is a smooth projective surface of general type.

If $`b_2>0`$, then we can see that $`\text{dim}\varphi _{k_2+t}(X)2`$ for all $`t2`$ according to the parallel argument in the proof of Proposition 3.5.

If $`b_2=0`$. we study in an alternative way. We have $`M_{\text{lin}}F`$. Because $`q(X)2`$, we have $`p_g(F)q(F)2`$. According to Theorem 1.1, we have

$$|K_X^{}+\mathrm{}k_2\pi ^{}(K_X)\mathrm{}+F||_F=|K_F+\mathrm{}k_2\pi ^{}(K_X)\mathrm{}|_F|.$$

This means $`\text{dim}\varphi _{2k_2+1}(F)1`$ because $`\mathrm{}k_2\pi ^{}(K_X)\mathrm{}|_F`$ is effective. Suppose $`M_{2k_2+1}`$ is the movable part of $`|(2k_2+1)K_X^{}|`$ and $`M_{2k_2+1}^{}`$ is the movable part of

$$|K_X^{}+\mathrm{}k_2\pi ^{}(K_X)\mathrm{}+F|.$$

Then $`M_{2k_2+1}^{}M_{2k_2+1}`$. Let $`M_0`$ be the movable part of $`|K_F|`$. Then $`h^0(F,M_0)2`$. Considering the following two maps

$$H^0(X^{},K_X^{}+\mathrm{}k_2\pi ^{}(K_X)\mathrm{}+F)\stackrel{𝛼}{}H^0(F,K_F+\mathrm{}k_2\pi ^{}(K_X)\mathrm{}|_F)0$$

$$H^0(X^{},M_{2k_2+1}^{})\stackrel{𝛽}{}H^0(F,M_{2k_2+1}^{}|_F),$$

we know that $`\alpha `$ is surjective and the images of $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ have the same dimension. So

$`h^0(F,M_{2k_2+1}^{}|_F)\text{dim}_{}\text{im}(\beta )=\text{dim}_{}\text{im}(\alpha )`$
$`=h^0(F,K_F+\mathrm{}k_2\pi ^{}(K_X)\mathrm{}|_F).`$
Because

$$M_{2k_2+1}^{}|_FK_F+\mathrm{}k_2\pi ^{}(K_X)\mathrm{}|_F,$$

we see that

$$M_0M_{2k_2+1}^{}|_FM_{2k_2+1}|_F.$$

For all $`t0`$ and two different fibers $`F_1`$, $`F_2`$, we consider the system

$$|K_X^{}+\mathrm{}(t+2k_2+1)\pi ^{}(K_X)\mathrm{}+F_1+F_2|.$$

It is obvious that

$$|K_X^{}+\mathrm{}(t+2k_2+1)\pi ^{}(K_X)\mathrm{}+F_1+F_2||(t+4k_2+2)K_X^{}|.$$

From Theorem 1.1, we have the exact sequence

$`H^0(X^{},K_X^{}+\mathrm{}(t+2k_2+1)\pi ^{}(K_X)\mathrm{}+F_1+F_2)`$
$`H^0(F_1,K_{F_1}+G_1)H^0(F_2,K_{F_2}+G_2)0,`$
where $`G_i=(\mathrm{}(t+2k_2+1)\pi ^{}(K_X)\mathrm{}+F_1+F_2)|_{F_i}`$ for all $`i`$. We can see that

$`K_{F_i}+G_i`$ $`K_{F_i}+\mathrm{}t\pi ^{}(K_X)|_{F_i}\mathrm{}+M_{2k_2+1}|_{F_i}`$
$`K_{F_i}+\mathrm{}t\pi ^{}(K_X)|_{F_i}\mathrm{}+M_0`$
for all $`i`$. Furthermore, one can see that

$$\text{dim}\mathrm{\Phi }_{|K_{F_i}+\mathrm{}t\pi ^{}(K_X)|_{F_i}\mathrm{}+M_0|}(F_i)1.$$

When $`t=0`$, it is obvious. When $`t>0`$, one need to use the vanishing theorem to prove it. Noting that the image of $`X^{}`$ through $`\varphi _{t+4k_2+2}`$ is irreducible and that

$$\text{dim}\varphi _{t+4k_2+2}(F_i)1$$

for all $`i`$, we can see $`\text{dim}\varphi _{t+4k_2+2}(X)2`$. ∎

###### Proposition 4.2

Let $`X`$ be a minimal projective 3-fold of general type with only $``$-factorial terminal singularities. Suppose $`q(X)>0`$ and $`P_{k_2}(X)2`$. Then $`\text{dim}\varphi _m(X)2`$ for all $`m7k_2+3`$.

###### Demonstration Proof

We keep the same set up as in the proof of Proposition 4.1. We only have to study the case when $`b_2=0`$. We have the fibration $`p:X^{}^1`$. We still denote by $`F`$ a general fiber of $`p`$. Since $`q(X)>0`$, we get $`p_g(F)q(F)1`$. If $`p_g(F)2`$, we have seen from the proof of the last proposition that we can get better bounds. The most frustrating case is when $`p_g(F)=q(F)=1`$. Let $`\sigma :FF_0`$ be the contraction onto the minimal model. According to Theorem 3.1 in \[Ci\], we know that $`|2K_{F_0}|`$ is base point free when $`p_g(F)>0`$. So the movable part of $`|2K_F|`$ is just $`\sigma ^{}(2K_{F_0})`$. According to Kollár’s method, we see that

$$|(5k_2+2)K_X^{}||_F|2K_F|.$$

So, if we denote by $`M_{5k_2+2}`$ the movable part of $`|(5k_2+2)K_X^{}|`$, we should have

$$M_{5k_2+2}|_F\sigma ^{}(2K_{F_0}).$$

For all $`t0`$ and two different fibers $`F_1`$, $`F_2`$, we consider the system

$$|K_X^{}+\mathrm{}(t+5k_2+2)\pi ^{}(K_X)\mathrm{}+F_1+F_2|.$$

It is obvious that

$$|K_X^{}+\mathrm{}(t+5k_2+2)\pi ^{}(K_X)\mathrm{}+F_1+F_2||(t+7k_2+3)K_X^{}|.$$

From Theorem 1.1, we have the exact sequence

$`H^0(X^{},K_X^{}+\mathrm{}(t+5k_2+2)\pi ^{}(K_X)\mathrm{}+F_1+F_2)`$
$`H^0(F_1,K_{F_1}+G_1^{})H^0(F_2,K_{F_2}+G_2^{})0,`$
where $`G_i^{}=(\mathrm{}(t+5k_2+2)\pi ^{}(K_X)\mathrm{}+F_1+F_2)|_{F_i}`$ for all $`i`$. We can see that

$`K_{F_i}+G_i^{}`$ $`K_{F_i}+\mathrm{}t\pi ^{}(K_X)|_{F_i}\mathrm{}+M_{5k_2+2}|_{F_i}`$
$`K_{F_i}+\mathrm{}t\pi ^{}(K_X)|_{F_i}\mathrm{}+\sigma ^{}(2K_{F_0})`$
for all $`i`$. Furthermore, one can see that

$$\text{dim}\mathrm{\Phi }_{|K_{F_i}+\mathrm{}t\pi ^{}(K_X)|_{F_i}\mathrm{}+\sigma ^{}(2K_{F_0})|}(F_i)1.$$

When $`t=0`$, it is obvious. When $`t>0`$, one need to use the vanishing theorem to prove it. Noting that the image of $`X^{}`$ through $`\varphi _{t+7k_2+3}`$ is irreducible and that

$$\text{dim}\varphi _{t+7k_2+3}(F_i)1$$

for all $`i`$, we can see $`\text{dim}\varphi _{t+7k_2+3}(X)2`$. The proof is complete. ∎

###### Corollary 4.3

Let $`f:XC`$ be a derived family of surfaces from the m-canonical pencil $`|mK_X|`$ of a smooth projective 3-fold $`X`$ of general type. Then

(1) $`q(X)1`$ whenever $`m82`$.

(2) $`q(X)=0`$ whenever $`m143`$.

###### Demonstration Proof

According to \[F\] and Remark 6.6 in \[Ko1\], we always have $`P_{20}(X)2`$ if $`q(X)>0`$. Let $`k_2=20`$ while applying Proposition 4.1 and Proposition 4.2, we get what we want. ∎

## Acknowledgment

This note was written while I was visiting as a post-doc fellow at the Mathematisches Institut der Universit$`\ddot{\text{a}}`$t G$`\ddot{\text{o}}`$ttingen, Germany. I would like to thank Prof. F. Catanese for useful discussions and helps during my stay at G$`\ddot{\text{o}}`$ttingen.

## References


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Field theories at finite temperature and density have been proposed as the fundamental underlying theory for the description of the physics of the early universe. A proposed scenario for baryogenesis is by the electroweak phase transition . QCD is expected to become deconfined at high temperature. The formation of a quark gluon plasma and the phase transitions of QCD are supposed to be visible in relativistic heavy ion collision and astrophysics . A modern presentation of finite temperature field theory can be found in .

Beyond their phenomenological implications, quantum field theories at finite temperature are very challenging also from the more theoretical point of view. There is a real-time as well as an imaginary-time formalism, the first describing dynamical and the second equilibrium properties . Many fundamental issues and problems are unsolved so far or require a deeper understanding. Quantum field theories are subject to enhanced complexities compared to zero temperature and zero density. This is largely related to the presence of additional length scales, due to the interaction with a heat bath. On the various scales the properties of the theory are considerably different.

The separation of scales is widely believed to be an intrinsic property of the field theory. In QCD the scales are associated to the generation of electric and magnetic screening and plasmon masses. In the framework of perturbation theory, this manifests itself in terms of IR divergences that are “severe”. They are not removable as it is the case at temperature $`T=0`$ by adjusting the renormalization prescription . Various elaborate resummation techniques have been proposed to (at least partially) remove the IR singularities and in addition compute screening masses in perturbation theory. In any case, all the approaches (need to) aim at a clean separation of IR and UV behaviour.

A precondition of all these considerations is renormalizability. Renormalizability is an essential requirement of any local quantum field theory, both at zero and non-zero temperature . It implies that the correlation functions stay finite as the UV-cutoff $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$, say, is removed, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0\mathrm{}`$, and that the limit is parametrized by a set of renormalized (relevant) coupling constants. Moreover, it is crucial that renormalization can be achieved in a temperature independent way, which means that the field theory renormalized at zero temperature stays UV finite at every $`T>0`$ as well. This is often taken for granted even for complicated theories, such as gauge theories. Temperature independent renormalizability is indispensable for relating bare and renormalized coupling constants in a $`T`$-independent way. It is thus required when formulating Callan-Symanzik type of equations that govern the $`T`$-dependence of observables, including correlation functions and effective masses. More generally it implies that the static and dynamic properties mediated by the interactions with a heat bath are intrinsic features of the field theory itself.

Various attempts and steps towards proving renormalizability exist . In order to separate off the IR problem from the UV scale, a massive field theory is considered. Both in the real- and in the imaginary-time formalism, the investigations are commonly based on a Feynman diagrammatic approach in momentum space. In the real-time description, it is argued that the part of the propagator which depends on the temperature $`T`$ or the chemical potential $`\mu `$ decays exponentially fast for large momenta, so it should be “innocent” of any UV problem. In the imaginary-time formalism the approach is generically more “cumbersome”, but it is again argued that in the sum over the Matsubara frequencies all $`T`$\- or $`\mu `$-dependent UV divergences cancel out.

Experience obtained by explicit computations to leading orders of perturbation theory confirms that, once IR and UV singularities are properly disentangled, all UV divergences found are $`T`$-independent and are removed by the zero temperature counterterms. However, this is not so for non-zero chemical potential $`\mu `$ (associated to a finite density). A field theory that has been renormalized at $`\mu =0`$ is able to generate $`\mu `$-dependent UV divergences that are not removed by the $`\mu =0`$ counterterms. A simple example is given by a 4-dimensional Yukawa model, with a chemical potential associated to the fermion number. In the framework of the renormalization group, the chemical potential introduces an additional relevant operator, so at least one additional renormalization condition is expected. This also indicates a possible problem for the analytic continuation from the euclidean to the real-time formulation, in agreement with a discussion  in the framework of axiomatic quantum field theories at finite temperature, where the problem of proving the existence of correlation functions (even at $`\mu =0`$) in the real-time formalism has been stressed.

The renormalization of field theories at $`T=0`$ is well understood. Strong statements and proofs on the renormalizability of various field theories relevant in physics exist, including several different regularization and renormalization schemes, see e.g. . Unfortunately, this sophistication does not extend to finite $`T`$ so far. Rigorous proofs do not exist, to the best of our knowledge. We would like to point out, however, that recently rigorous bounds, uniform in the temperature, have been established for the perturbative correlation functions of many-fermion models. Here renormalization is necessary to obtain well-behaved bounds on the IR side, when approaching the Fermi surface, whereas the UV regularization is kept fixed. Feldman et al.  renormalize the many-fermion models with $`T`$-independent counterterms, as we do.

In this paper we give a mathematical proof that massive $`\phi ^4`$ theory at finite $`T`$, in the imaginary-time formalism, is renormalizable. More precisely, we show, to all orders of the loop expansion, that all correlation functions become UV finite at every finite $`T`$ once the theory has been renormalized at $`T=0`$ by (one of the) usual renormalization prescriptions.

The proof is given in the framework of Wilson’s flow equation. It avoids the analysis of individual Feynman integrals (or Feynman sums), which requires the involved combinatorics encoded in the forest formula for overlapping divergences. Moreover it avoids the formulation and proof of a power counting theorem. Using flow equations, the proof of renormalizability merely amounts to establish appropriate bounds in momentum space on the correlation functions, which are viewed as coefficient functions of the associated generating functional. The proof is by induction on the number of loops.

This paper is organized as follows. In Sect. 2 we introduce our basic notations. This includes the definition of the generating functional $`L^{\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}(\phi )`$ of the connected, free propagator amputated Green functions on “momentum scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$”, with $`0\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$, where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$ denotes the UV cutoff. The dependence of $`L^{\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}`$ on the scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is described by the so-called Wilson flow equation. We recap the basic steps of proving renormalizability of 4-dimensional $`\phi ^4`$ field theories at zero temperature by means of the flow equation. Renormalizability is stated in terms of uniform bounds on the (coefficient functions of the) solution $`L^{\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}(\phi )`$ of the flow equation and its derivative with respect to the UV-cutoff $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$, with boundary conditions imposed at $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$ for the relevant couplings and at $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$ for the irrelevant interactions.

In Sect. 3 we show that the difference $`D^{\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}(\underset{¯}{\phi };T)`$ of the generating functionals at temperature $`T>0`$ and $`T=0`$:

$$D^{\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}(\underset{¯}{\phi };T)L^{\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}(\underset{¯}{\phi };T)L^{\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}(\underset{¯}{\phi })$$
(1)
has the properties of an irrelevant operator in the sense of the renormalization group 444For the definition of the momentum space field variables $`\underset{¯}{\phi }`$ and their position space Fourier transform $`\underset{¯}{\overset{^}{\phi }}`$ we refer to the beginning of sect.3 : Equ. (1) should be understood in the weak sense, i.e. in a formal power series expansion w.r.t. $`\mathrm{}`$ and as an identity for all coefficient functions generated by the generating functionals. For the equation to make sense as it stands the variables $`\underset{¯}{\overset{^}{\phi }}`$ have to be appropriately restricted, for instance to be smooth functions, supported in the interval $`[0,\beta ]`$ in the $`x_0`$-component in position space.. More precisely, $`T`$-independence of the counterterms means that the boundary condition

$$D^{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0,\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}(\underset{¯}{\phi };T)0$$
(2)
holds. From this we derive strong bounds on all scales $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ for $`D^{\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}(\underset{¯}{\phi };T)`$. Together with the bounds on $`L^{\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}(\phi )`$ this proves UV finiteness of massive $`\phi _4^4`$ for every finite $`T`$, that is,

$$\underset{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Lambda }0}{lim}L^{\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}(\underset{¯}{\phi };T)$$
(3)
exists, to all orders of the loop expansion. As an immediate consequence, the theory is also made UV finite by imposing normalization conditions on the mass, the wave function constant and on the quartic coupling constant at any fixed temperature $`T_0`$. In Sect. 4 we summarize our central statements and give a short outlook.

## 2 Renormalization of zero temperature $`\phi _4^4`$ theory
\- a short reminder

Perturbative renormalizability of euclidean zero temperature $`\phi _4^4`$ theory will be established by analysing the generating functional $`L^{\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}`$ of connected (free propagator) amputated Green functions (CAG). The upper indices $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$ enter through the regularized propagator

$$C^{\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}(p)=\frac{1}{p^2+m^2}\{e^{\frac{p^2+m^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0^2}}e^{\frac{p^2+m^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}}\}$$
(4)
or its Fourier transform

$$\widehat{C}^{\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}(x)=_pC^{\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}(p)e^{ipx},$$
(5)
where we use the shorthand

$$_p:=_{\mathrm{I}\mathrm{R}^4}\frac{d^4p}{(2\pi )^4}.$$
(6)
We assume

$$0\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }_0\mathrm{}$$
(7)
so that the Wilson flow parameter $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ takes the role of an infrared (IR) cutoff555Such a cutoff is of course not necessary in a massive theory. The IR behaviour is only modified for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ above $`m`$., whereas $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$ is the ultraviolet (UV) regularization. The full propagator is recovered for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0\mathrm{}`$. We also introduce the convention

$$\widehat{\phi }(x)=_p\phi (p)e^{ipx},\frac{\delta }{\delta \widehat{\phi }(x)}=(2\pi )^4_p\frac{\delta }{\delta \phi (p)}e^{ipx}.$$
(8)
For our purposes the ”fields” $`\widehat{\phi }(x)`$ may be assumed to live in the Schwartz space $`𝒮(\mathrm{I}\mathrm{R}^4)`$. For finite $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$ and in finite volume the theory can be given rigorous meaning starting from the functional integral

$$e^{\frac{1}{\mathrm{}}(L^{\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}(\widehat{\phi })+I^{\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }_0})}=𝑑\mu _{\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}(\widehat{\varphi })e^{\frac{1}{\mathrm{}}L^{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0,\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}(\widehat{\varphi }+\widehat{\phi })},$$
(9)
where the factors of $`\mathrm{}`$ have been introduced to allow for a consistent loop expansion in the sequel. In (9) $`d\mu _{\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}(\widehat{\varphi })`$ denotes the (translation invariant) Gaussian measure with covariance $`\mathrm{}\widehat{C}^{\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}(x)`$. The normalization factor $`e^{\frac{1}{\mathrm{}}I^{\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}}`$ is due to vacuum contributions. It diverges in infinite volume so that we can take the infinite volume limit only when it has been eliminated . We do not make the finite volume explicit here since it plays no role in the sequel.666A rigorous treatment of the thermodynamic limit requires to replace the propagator (5) by a finite volume version, e.g. $`\widehat{C}_V^{\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}(x,y)=\chi _V(x)\widehat{C}^{\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}(xy)\chi _V(y),`$ where $`\chi _V`$ is the characteristic function of the volume $`V`$, and to regard the Gaussian measure with covariance $`\widehat{C}_V^{\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}(x,y)`$. In this case the quantity $`I_V^{\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}`$ is obviously well defined, at any order $`l`$ in $`\mathrm{}`$. Then (12) is well-defined. After decomposing $`L_V^{\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}`$ w.r.t. powers of $`\mathrm{}`$ and of the field $`\widehat{\phi }`$, we realize that the coefficient functions $`_{l,n}^{\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}`$ are well-defined in the thermodynamic limit, since they are given as finite sums over UV-regularized connected diagrams. The existence of the thermodynamic limit is of course confirmed by the bounds on the solutions of the FE. It should also be feasible to study the thermodynamic limit itself with the aid of the FE in finite volume, by proving inductively uniform bounds on the (appropriately defined) ”translational invariant part” of the finite volume Green functions and a convergence statement analogous to (18).

The functional $`L^{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0,\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}(\widehat{\phi })`$ is the bare action including counterterms, viewed as a formal power series in $`\mathrm{}`$. Its general form for symmetric777The necessary generalizations in the nonsymmetric case will be surveyed in the end of the next section. $`\phi _4^4`$ theory is

$$L^{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0,\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}(\widehat{\phi })=\frac{g}{4!}d^4x\widehat{\phi }^4(x)+$$

$$+d^4x\{\frac{1}{2}a(\mathrm{\Lambda }_0)\widehat{\phi }^2(x)+\frac{1}{2}b(\mathrm{\Lambda }_0)\underset{\mu =0}{\overset{3}{}}(_\mu \widehat{\phi })^2(x)+\frac{1}{4!}c(\mathrm{\Lambda }_0)\widehat{\phi }^4(x)\},$$
(10)
where $`g>0`$ is the renormalized coupling, and the parameters $`a(\mathrm{\Lambda }_0),b(\mathrm{\Lambda }_0),c(\mathrm{\Lambda }_0)`$ fulfill

$$a(\mathrm{\Lambda }_0),b(\mathrm{\Lambda }_0),c(\mathrm{\Lambda }_0)=O(\mathrm{}).$$
(11)
They are directly related to the standard mass, wave function and coupling constant counterterms. Since in the flow equation framework it is not necessary to introduce bare fields in distinction to renormalized ones (our field is the renormalized one in this language), there is a slight difference, which is to be kept in mind only when comparing to other schemes. The Wilson flow equation (FE) is obtained from (9) on differentiating w.r.t. $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. It is a differential equation for the functional $`L^{\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}`$ :

$$_\mathrm{\Lambda }(L^{\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}+I^{\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }_0})=\frac{\mathrm{}}{2}\frac{\delta }{\delta \widehat{\phi }},(_\mathrm{\Lambda }\widehat{C}^{\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }_0})\frac{\delta }{\delta \widehat{\phi }}L^{\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}\frac{1}{2}\frac{\delta }{\delta \widehat{\phi }}L^{\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }_0},(_\mathrm{\Lambda }\widehat{C}^{\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }_0})\frac{\delta }{\delta \widehat{\phi }}L^{\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}.$$
(12)
By $`,`$ we denote the standard scalar product in $`L_2(\mathrm{I}\mathrm{R}^4,d^4x)`$. Changing to momentum space and expanding in a formal powers series w.r.t. $`\mathrm{}`$ we write with slight abuse of notation

$$L^{\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}(\phi )=\underset{l=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\mathrm{}^lL_l^{\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}(\phi ).$$
(13)
From $`L_l^{\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}(\phi )`$ we then obtain the CAG of loop order $`l`$ in momentum space as 888The normalization of the $`_{l,n}^{\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}`$ is defined differently from earlier references.

$$(2\pi )^{4(n1)}\delta _{\phi (p_1)}\mathrm{}\delta _{\phi (p_n)}L_l^{\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}|_{\phi 0}=\delta ^{(4)}(p_1+\mathrm{}+p_n)_{l,n}^{\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}(p_1,\mathrm{},p_{n1}),$$
(14)
where we have written $`\delta _{\phi (p)}=\delta /\delta \phi (p)`$. Note that our definition of the $`_{l,n}^{\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}`$ is such that $`_{0,2}^{\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}`$ vanishes. The absence of 0-loop two (and one-) point functions is important for the set-up of the inductive scheme, from which we will prove renormalizability below. The FE (12) rewritten in terms of the CAG (14) takes the following form

$$_\mathrm{\Lambda }^w_{l,n}^{\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}(p_1,\mathrm{}p_{n1})=\frac{1}{2}_k(_\mathrm{\Lambda }C^{\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}(k))^w_{l1,n+2}^{\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}(k,k,p_1,\mathrm{}p_{n1})$$
(15)
$$\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{l_1+l_2=l,w_1+w_2+w_3=w}{n_1+n_2=n}}{}\frac{1}{2}\left[^{w_1}_{l_1,n_1+1}^{\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}(p_1,\mathrm{},p_{n_1})(^{w_3}_\mathrm{\Lambda }C^{\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}(p^{}))^{w_2}_{l_2,n_2+1}^{\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}(p_{n_1+1},\mathrm{},p_n)\right]_{ssym},$$

$$\text{where }p^{}=p_1\mathrm{}p_{n_1}=p_{n_1+1}+\mathrm{}+p_n.$$

Here we have written (15) directly in a form where also momentum derivatives of the CAG (14) are performed, and we used the shorthand notation

$$^w:=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n1}{}}\underset{\mu =0}{\overset{3}{}}(\frac{}{p_{i,\mu }})^{w_{i,\mu }}\text{ with }w=(w_{1,0},\mathrm{},w_{n1,3}),|w|=w_{i,\mu },w_{i,\mu }\mathrm{I}\mathrm{N}_0.$$
(16)
The symbol $`ssym`$ 999It is defined differently from the symbol $`sym`$ in , the present conventions being slightly more elegant. means summation over those permutations of the momenta $`p_1,\mathrm{},p_n`$, which do not leave invariant the subsets $`\{p_1,\mathrm{},p_{n_1}\}`$ and $`\{p_{n_1+1},\mathrm{},p_n\}`$. Note that the CAG are symmetric in their momentum arguments by definition. A simple inductive proof of the renormalizability of $`\phi _4^4`$ theory has been exposed several times in the literature , and we will not repeat it in detail. The line of reasoning can be resumed as follows.
The induction hypotheses to be proven are :
A) Boundedness

$$|^w_{l,n}^{\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}(\stackrel{}{p})|(\mathrm{\Lambda }+m)^{4n|w|}𝒫_1(log\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }+m}{m})𝒫_2(\frac{|\stackrel{}{p}|}{\mathrm{\Lambda }+m}).$$
(17)
B) Convergence

$$|_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}^w_{l,n}^{\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}(\stackrel{}{p})|\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0^2}(\mathrm{\Lambda }+m)^{5n|w|}𝒫_3(log\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}{m})𝒫_4(\frac{|\stackrel{}{p}|}{\mathrm{\Lambda }+m}).$$
(18)
Here and in the following the $`𝒫`$ denote (each time they appear possibly new) polynomials with nonnegative coefficients. The coefficients depend on $`l,n,|w|,m`$, but not on $`\stackrel{}{p},\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$. We used the shorthand $`\stackrel{}{p}=(p_1,\mathrm{},p_{n1})`$ and $`|\stackrel{}{p}|=sup\{|p_1|,\mathrm{},|p_n|\}`$. The statement (18) implies renormalizability, since it proves that the limits $`lim_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Lambda }0}_{l,n}^{\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}(\stackrel{}{p})`$ exist to all loop orders $`l`$. But the statement (17) has to be obtained first to prove (18). The inductive scheme to prove the statements proceeds upwards in $`l`$, for given $`l`$ upwards in $`n`$, and for given $`(l,n)`$ downwards in $`|w|`$, starting from some arbitrary $`|w_{max}|3`$. The important point to note is that the terms on the r.h.s. of the FE always are prior to the one on the l.h.s. in the inductive order. So the bound (17) may be used as an induction hypothesis on the r.h.s. Then we may integrate the FE, where terms with $`n+|w|5`$ are integrated down from $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$ to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, since for those terms we have the boundary conditions following from (10)

$$^w_{l,n}^{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0,\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}(p_1,\mathrm{}p_{n1})=0,\text{ for}n+|w|>4,$$
(19)
whereas the terms with $`n+|w|4`$ at the renormalization point - which we choose at zero momentum for simplicity - are integrated upwards from $`0`$ to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, since they are fixed by ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$-independent) renormalization conditions, fixing the relevant parameters of the theory111111The simplest choice would be to set $`a_l^R=0,b_l^R=0,c_l^R=0`$, in which case the renormalized coupling is identical to the connected four point function at zero momentum. A shift away from zero momentum would result in nonvanishing terms $`c_l^R`$, just to mention one example of more general choices. :

$$_{l,2}^{0,\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}(p)=a_l^R+b_l^Rp^2+O((p^2)^2),_{0,4}^{0,\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}(0)=g,_{l,4}^{0,\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}(0)=c_l^R,l1.$$
(20)
Symmetry considerations tell us that there are no other nonvanishing renormalization constants apart from $`a_l^R,b_l^R,c_l^R`$, and the Schlömilch or integrated Taylor formula permits us to move away from the renormalization point, treating first $`_{l,4}^{0,\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}`$ and then the momentum derivatives of $`_{l,2}^{0,\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}`$, in descending order. With these remarks on the boundary conditions, and using the bounds on the propagator and its derivatives

$$|^w_\mathrm{\Lambda }C^{\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}(p)|\mathrm{\Lambda }^{3|w|}𝒫(|p|/\mathrm{\Lambda })e^{\frac{p^2+m^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}},$$
(21)
statement A) above is straightforwardly verified by inductive integration of the FE. Once this has been achieved statement B) follows on applying the same inductive scheme to bound the solutions of the FE, integrated over $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and then derived w.r.t. $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$.

## 3  Temperature independent renormalization of
finite temperature $`\phi _4^4`$ theory

We fix the notations recalling at the same time some basic facts about euclidean finite temperature field theory. The scalar field $`\widehat{\phi }(x)`$ becomes periodic in $`x_0`$ at finite temperature with period $`\beta =1/T`$. Correspondingly position space integrals over the zero component of the coordinates are now restricted to the compact interval $`[0,\beta ]`$. Symbols denoting finite temperature quantities will generally be underlined, thus we write

$$\underset{¯}{p}:=(\underset{¯}{p}_0,\stackrel{}{p}):=(2\pi nT,\stackrel{}{p}),n\mathrm{𝖹𝖹},_{\underset{¯}{p}}:=T\underset{n\mathrm{𝖹𝖹}}{}_{\mathrm{I}\mathrm{R}^3}\frac{d^3p}{(2\pi )^3}.$$
(22)
We also introduce the convention

$$\underset{¯}{\overset{^}{\phi }}(x):=_{\underset{¯}{p}}\underset{¯}{\phi }(\underset{¯}{p})e^{i\underset{¯}{p}x},\underset{¯}{\phi }(\underset{¯}{p})=_0^\beta 𝑑x_0_{\mathrm{I}\mathrm{R}^3}d^3x\underset{¯}{\overset{^}{\phi }}(x)e^{i\underset{¯}{p}x},$$
(23)
$$\frac{\delta }{\delta \underset{¯}{\overset{^}{\phi }}(x)}=\frac{(2\pi )^3}{T}_{\underset{¯}{p}}\frac{\delta }{\delta \underset{¯}{\phi }(\underset{¯}{p})}e^{i\underset{¯}{p}x},\frac{\delta }{\delta \underset{¯}{\phi }(\underset{¯}{p})}=\frac{T}{(2\pi )^3}_0^\beta 𝑑x_0_{\mathrm{I}\mathrm{R}^3}d^3x\frac{\delta }{\delta \underset{¯}{\overset{^}{\phi }}(x)}e^{i\underset{¯}{p}x}.$$
(24)
The regularized propagator now takes the form

$$C^{\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}(\underset{¯}{p})=\frac{1}{\underset{¯}{p}^2+m^2}\{e^{\frac{\underset{¯}{p}^2+m^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0^2}}e^{\frac{\underset{¯}{p}^2+m^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}}\}.$$
(25)
The generating functional of the finite temperature CAG will be called $`L^{\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}(\underset{¯}{\phi };T)`$. In analogy with (14) we define the CAG through

$$\delta _{\underset{¯}{\phi }(\underset{¯}{p}_1)}\mathrm{}\delta _{\underset{¯}{\phi }(\underset{¯}{p}_n)}L_l^{\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}(\underset{¯}{\phi };T)|_{\underset{¯}{\phi }0}=$$
(26)
$$(\frac{T}{(2\pi )^3})^{n1}\delta _{0,\left(\underset{¯}{p}_{1,0}+\mathrm{}+\underset{¯}{p}_{n,0}\right)}\delta ^{\left(3\right)}\left(\stackrel{}{p}_1+\mathrm{}+\stackrel{}{p}_n\right)_{l,n}^{\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}(\underset{¯}{p}_1,\mathrm{},\underset{¯}{p}_{n1};T).$$

At this stage we could prove renormalizability of the finite temperature theory in the same way as for the zero temperature theory. A slight difference is that the relations (20) are to be replaced by

$$_{l,2}^{0,\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}(\underset{¯}{p};T)=a_l^R(T)+b_l^{R,0}(T)\underset{¯}{p}_0^2+b_l^{R,1}(T)\stackrel{}{p}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}+O(\underset{¯}{p}^4),$$

$$_{0,4}^{0,\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}(\underset{¯}{p}=0;T)=g,_{l,4}^{0,\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}(\underset{¯}{p}=0;T)=c_l^R(T),l1,$$
(27)
since the space-time $`O(4)`$-symmetry is broken down to a $`\mathrm{𝖹𝖹}_2\times O(3)`$-symmetry which demands a new renormalization condition. However we want to go beyond and prove temperature independent renormalizability, in the sense that the counterterms can be chosen temperature independent. To do so, it is advantageous to pass directly to the difference between the finite and zero temperature theories, which we will do now. Note in this respect that if we wanted to prove the renormalizability of the finite temperature theory, keeping the counterterms fixed at their zero temperature values, would not work within our scheme and procedure : The CAG would become arbitrarily divergent in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$ with increasing loop order, since integrating relevant terms from $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$ to 0 (instead of integrating them from a renormalization condition fixed at $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$ up to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$) gives divergent integrals. Thus we rather study the difference functions

$$𝒟_{l,n}^{\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}(\{\underset{¯}{p}\}):=_{l,n}^{\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}(\{\underset{¯}{p}\};T)_{l,n}^{\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}(\{\underset{¯}{p}\}).$$
(28)
We only define and need the difference CAG $`𝒟_{l,n}^{\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}`$ at the external momenta $`(\{\underset{¯}{p}\}):=(\underset{¯}{p}_1,\mathrm{},\underset{¯}{p}_{n1})`$. From the FE (15) and the analogous equation for the $`_{l,n}^{\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}(\{\underset{¯}{p}\};T)`$ we can derive a FE for the $`𝒟_{l,n}^{\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}(\{\underset{¯}{p}\})`$ in the following form :

$$_\mathrm{\Lambda }𝒟_{l,n}^{\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}(\{\underset{¯}{p}\})=\frac{1}{2}_{\underset{¯}{k}}(_\mathrm{\Lambda }C^{\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}(\underset{¯}{k}))𝒟_{l1,n+2}^{\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}(\underset{¯}{k},\underset{¯}{k},\{\underset{¯}{p}\})$$
(29)
$$+\frac{1}{2}\left\{_{\underset{¯}{k}}(_\mathrm{\Lambda }C^{\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}(\underset{¯}{k}))_{l1,n+2}^{\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}(\underset{¯}{k},\underset{¯}{k},\{\underset{¯}{p}\})_k(_\mathrm{\Lambda }C^{\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}(k))_{l1,n+2}^{\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}(k,k,\{\underset{¯}{p}\})\right\}$$

$$\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{l_1+l_2=l,}{n_1+n_2=n}}{}\frac{1}{2}\{\left[_{l_1,n_1+1}^{\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}(\underset{¯}{p}_1,\mathrm{},\underset{¯}{p}_{n_1};T)(_\mathrm{\Lambda }C^{\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}(\underset{¯}{p}^{}))𝒟_{l_2,n_2+1}^{\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}(\underset{¯}{p}_{n_1+1},\mathrm{},\underset{¯}{p}_n)\right]_{ssym}$$

$$+\left[𝒟_{l_1,n_1+1}^{\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}(\underset{¯}{p}_1,\mathrm{},\underset{¯}{p}_{n_1})(_\mathrm{\Lambda }C^{\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}(\underset{¯}{p}^{}))_{l_2,n_2+1}^{\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}(\underset{¯}{p}_{n_1+1},\mathrm{},\underset{¯}{p}_n)\right]_{ssym}\},$$

where again

$$\underset{¯}{p}^{}=\underset{¯}{p}_1\mathrm{}\underset{¯}{p}_{n_1}=\underset{¯}{p}_{n_1+1}+\mathrm{}+\underset{¯}{p}_n.$$

The boundary conditions we want to impose on the system $`𝒟_{l,n}^{\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}`$ are (from the previous remarks) obviously the following ones :

$$𝒟_{l,n}^{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0,\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}(\underset{¯}{p}_1,\mathrm{},\underset{¯}{p}_{n1})=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},l,n\mathrm{I}\mathrm{N}.$$
(30)
To start the induction we also note

$$𝒟_{0,n}^{\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}(\underset{¯}{p}_1,\mathrm{},\underset{¯}{p}_{n1})=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},n\mathrm{I}\mathrm{N},$$
(31)
at the tree level all difference terms $`𝒟_{0,n}^{\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}`$ vanish. This follows from the fact that restricted to the momenta $`(\underset{¯}{p}_1,\mathrm{}\underset{¯}{p}_{n1})`$ the tree level functions $`_{0,n}^{\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}(\underset{¯}{p}_1,\mathrm{}\underset{¯}{p}_{n1};T)`$ and $`_{0,n}^{\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}(\underset{¯}{p}_1,\mathrm{}\underset{¯}{p}_{n1})`$ agree. Now we would like to use the same inductive scheme proceeding upwards in $`l`$, and for given $`l`$ upwards in $`n`$, to prove the finiteness of $`lim_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Lambda }0}𝒟_{0,n}^{\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}`$. Due to the form of (30) we always integrate the FE for $`𝒟_{l,n}^{\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}`$ from $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$ down to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, since the boundary terms at $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$ always vanish. We want to prove the following
Theorem :

$$|𝒟_{l,n}^{\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}(\underset{¯}{p}_1,\mathrm{},\underset{¯}{p}_{n1})|(\mathrm{\Lambda }+m)^{sn}𝒫_1(\mathrm{log}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }+m}{m})𝒫_2(\frac{|\{\underset{¯}{p}\}|}{\mathrm{\Lambda }+m}),$$
(32)
$$|_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}𝒟_{l,n}^{\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}(\underset{¯}{p}_1,\mathrm{},\underset{¯}{p}_{n1})|\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0^2}(\mathrm{\Lambda }+m)^{sn}𝒫_3(log\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}{m})𝒫_4(\frac{|\{\underset{¯}{p}\}|}{\mathrm{\Lambda }+m}).$$
(33)
The nonnegative coefficients in the polynomials $`𝒫`$ depend on $`l,n,s,m`$ and (smoothly) on $`T`$, but not on $`\{\underset{¯}{p}\},\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$. The positive integer $`s\mathrm{I}\mathrm{N}`$ may be chosen arbitrarily.
The finite temperature CAG $`_{0,n}^{\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}(\underset{¯}{p}_1,\mathrm{},\underset{¯}{p}_{n1};T)`$, when renormalized with the same counterterms as the zero temperature ones, satisfy the same bounds as in (17,18) restricted to $`w=0`$. The coefficients in the polynomials $`𝒫`$ may now depend on $`l,n,m`$ and (smoothly) on $`T`$.
Remark : It is possible to prove the bounds (17,18) also for derivatives of the finite temperature CAG $`_{0,n}^{\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}(\underset{¯}{p}_1,\mathrm{},\underset{¯}{p}_{n1};T)`$. In the $`p_{i,0}`$-components differentiations then have to replaced by finite differences. However these bounds are not needed in the inductive proof, so we skip them here.
Proof : We first prove (32) and and the statement corresponding to (17) for $`w=0`$, using the inductive scheme indicated previously. Regarding the FE (29) we state that it is compatible with the inductive scheme and that the only term in which (32) cannot be used as an induction hypothesis is the following one :

$$_{\underset{¯}{k}}(_\mathrm{\Lambda }C^{\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}(\underset{¯}{k}))_{l1,n+2}^{\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}(\underset{¯}{k},\underset{¯}{k},\{\underset{¯}{p}\})_k(_\mathrm{\Lambda }C^{\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}(k))_{l1,n+2}^{\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}(k,k,\{\underset{¯}{p}\}).$$
(34)
So our sharp $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-bound on $`𝒟_{l,n}^{\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}`$ can only be verified if it holds for this difference term. Here we use (17,18) and the Euler-MacLaurin-formula, see e.g. . We can rewrite (34) as

$$\frac{2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^3}\frac{d^3\stackrel{}{k}}{(2\pi )^4}e^{\frac{\stackrel{}{k}^2+m^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}}\left[2\pi T\underset{n\mathrm{𝖹𝖹}}{}g(2\pi nT)_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑k_0g(k_0)\right],$$
(35)
where we introduced the function

$$g(k_0)=e^{\frac{k_0^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}}_{l1,n+2}^{\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}(k,k,\{\underset{¯}{p}\})\text{ for }\stackrel{}{k},\{\underset{¯}{p}\}\text{ fixed}.$$
(36)
The Euler-MacLaurin formula for our case can be stated in the form

$$2\pi T\underset{n\mathrm{𝖹𝖹}}{}g(2\pi nT)_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑k_0g(k_0)=\pi T[g(\mathrm{})g(\mathrm{})]$$
(37)
$$+\underset{k=1}{\overset{r+1}{}}\frac{b_{2k}(2\pi T)^{2k}}{(2k)!}[g^{(2k1)}(\mathrm{})g^{(2k1)}(\mathrm{})]+R_{r+1}.$$

Here $`b_{2k}`$ are the Bernoulli numbers. We observe that passing to the limit of an infinite integration interval is justified, since the function $`g(k_0)`$ and its derivatives vanish rapidly at infinity. The remainder $`R_{r+1}`$ obeys the following bound

$$|R_{r+1}|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}e^{2\pi }T^{2r+3}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑k_0|g^{(2r+3)}(k_0)|,$$
(38)
therefore we obtain, using again (17,18)

$$|R_{r+1}|T^{2r+3}\frac{(\mathrm{\Lambda }+m)^{2n}}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^{2r+2}}𝒫_1(log\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }+m}{m})𝒫_2(\frac{|\{k,\underset{¯}{p}\}|}{\mathrm{\Lambda }+m}).$$
(39)
Note that $`r\mathrm{I}\mathrm{N}`$ can be chosen arbitrarily here, and the bound for (34) is thus

$$T^{2r+3}e^{\frac{m^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}}\frac{(\mathrm{\Lambda }+m)^{2n}}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^{2r+2}}𝒫_1(log\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }+m}{m})𝒫_2(\frac{|\{k,\underset{¯}{p}\}|}{\mathrm{\Lambda }+m})$$
(40)
$$T^{2r+3}(\mathrm{\Lambda }+m)^{2n2r2}𝒫_3(log\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }+m}{m})𝒫_4(\frac{|\{k,\underset{¯}{p}\}|}{\mathrm{\Lambda }+m}).$$

After this preparation we consider the induction process : At each loop order we first prove (32), and then (17) for finite $`T`$ and corresponding momenta. This second step is trivial from (17,18) at $`T=0`$, from the definition (28) and from (32) 121212We may choose the bounds for $`s=0`$ from (32,33) when bounding the finite temperature CAG, so that polynomials appearing in the bounds may be chosen s-independent.. We know already the theorem to be true at 0 loop order. This and the form of the FE (29) implies that we do not need a bound on any of the $`_{l,n}^{\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}(\{\underset{¯}{p}\};T)`$ in the inductive bound on $`𝒟_{l,n}^{\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}`$ at the given loop order $`l`$.

It is instructive to regard how the induction starts at loop order $`l=1`$. Treating first the case $`n=2`$ we find that the only nonvanishing contribution on the r.h.s. of the FE stems from (34), and it is momentum independent, so that integrating over $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ we get

$$|𝒟_{1,2}^{\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}(\underset{¯}{p})|c(\mathrm{\Lambda }+m)^{2r1}$$

with a suitable constant $`c`$, depending on $`r`$. For $`n=4`$ also the last two terms on the r.h.s. of the FE contribute. Using the result for $`𝒟_{1,2}^{\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}(\underset{¯}{p})`$, integration over $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ gives

$$|𝒟_{1,4}^{\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}(\{\underset{¯}{p}\})|(\mathrm{\Lambda }+m)^{22r1}𝒫(\frac{|\{\underset{¯}{p}\}|}{\mathrm{\Lambda }+m}).$$

From this one inductively obtains the bound for $`n6`$

$$|𝒟_{1,n}^{\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}(\{\underset{¯}{p}\})|(\mathrm{\Lambda }+m)^{(n2)2r1}𝒫(\frac{|\{\underset{¯}{p}\}|}{\mathrm{\Lambda }+m}).$$

Having bounded the difference functions $`𝒟_{1,n}^{\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}`$ we can bound the CAG $`_{1,n}^{\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}(T)=_{1,n}^{\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}(T=0)+𝒟_{1,n}^{\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}`$, see (28). Then we may proceed inductively to higher loop orders and verify the inductive bound

$$|𝒟_{l,n}^{\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}(\{\underset{¯}{p}\})|(\mathrm{\Lambda }+m)^{(n2)2r1}𝒫_1(\mathrm{log}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }+m}{m})𝒫_2(\frac{|\{\underset{¯}{p}\}|}{\mathrm{\Lambda }+m}).$$

This proves the first part of the theorem on writing $`s=2r1`$ for $`s`$ odd, and majorizing to obtain even $`s`$. It follows that the $`_{l,n}^{\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}(T)`$ may be bounded in agreement with (17,18).

Now we turn to the proof of the statement (33) which implies convergence of the $`𝒟_{l,n}^{\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}`$ for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0\mathrm{}`$. The proof is based on the same inductive scheme and starts from the FE (29) integrated over $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ from $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$ to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, and then derived w.r.t. $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$. The result is of the form

$$_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}𝒟_{l,n}^{\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}(\{\underset{¯}{p}\})=\text{[RHS of (}\text{29}\text{)]}|_{\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}+_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}𝑑\lambda _{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}\text{[RHS of (}\text{29}\text{)]}(\lambda ),$$
(41)
and we denote the RHS of this equation shortly as

$$I_{l,n}^{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}(\{\underset{¯}{p}\})+I_{l,n}^{\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}(\{\underset{¯}{p}\}).$$

Since we have imposed $`_{l,n}^{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0,\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}(T)_{l,n}^{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0,\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}`$, and since moreover these terms vanish for $`n6`$, we find

$$I_{l,n}^{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}(\{\underset{¯}{p}\})=\delta _{n,2}\left[_{\underset{¯}{k}}\frac{e^{\frac{\underset{¯}{k}^2+m^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0^2}}}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0^3}_k\frac{e^{\frac{k^2+m^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0^2}}}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0^3}\right]_{l1,4}^{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0,\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}.$$
(42)
Since $`_{l1,4}^{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0,\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}c_{l1}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_0),l>1`$ and $`_{0,4}^{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0,\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}g`$, see (10), we realize that (42) is momentum independent. The difference can be calculated explicitly or bounded again using the Euler-MacLaurin formula, and we obtain

$$|I_{l,n}^{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}|\delta _{n,2}\mathrm{\Lambda }_0^{22r}𝒫(\mathrm{log}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}{m})$$
(43)
for $`r\mathrm{I}\mathrm{N}`$ and a suitable $`𝒫`$ depending on $`r`$. To get a bound on $`I_{l,n}^{\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}(\{\underset{¯}{p}\})`$ we apply the derivative in (41) to all entries using the product rule (noting that when applied to $`_\mathrm{\Lambda }C^{\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}`$ it gives zero). In any case the derivative brings down the required factor of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0^2`$, either by (18), or by (33) together with the induction hypothesis. Apart from this the bound (33) is obtained similarly as (32), using in particular the Euler-MacLaurin formula for the difference term (34) derived w.r.t. $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$. This proves also (33).

We end this section with two remarks on possible generalizations. First the preceding analysis can be extended to nonsymmetric $`\phi _4^4`$-theory. The action (10) then has to be replaced by

$$\stackrel{~}{L}^{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0,\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}(\widehat{\phi })=L^{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0,\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}(\widehat{\phi })+\frac{h}{3!}d^4x\widehat{\phi }^3(x)+d^4x\{\frac{1}{3!}d(\mathrm{\Lambda }_0)\widehat{\phi }^3(x)+v(\mathrm{\Lambda }_0)\widehat{\phi }(x)\}$$
(44)
with the tree level three-point coupling $`h`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$-dependent parameters

$$d(\mathrm{\Lambda }_0),v(\mathrm{\Lambda }_0)=O(\mathrm{})$$
(45)
implementing the counterterms necessary to renormalize the one- and three-point functions. Correspondingly we pose additional renormalization conditions

$$_{l,1}^{0,\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}=v_l^R,_{l,3}^{0,\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}(0)=d_l^R\text{ for }l\mathrm{I}\mathrm{N},$$
(46)
to be joined to (20). Then the bounds (17,18) hold again, but are no more trivially fulfilled for $`n`$ odd.131313These bounds can be improved by replacing $`n`$ by $`\widehat{n}`$, defined to be the smallest even integer greater or equal to $`n`$. Once the theory at $`T=0`$ is bounded, the differences (28) again yield the theory at $`T>0`$. Bounds corresponding to (32,33) are proven proceeding as before, in the symmetric case.

As a second remark, we point out that for the existence of the large cutoff limit $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0\mathrm{}`$, it is not necessary that the relevant coupling constants are subject to normalization conditions at zero temperature. Equally well we can impose normalization conditions at some temperature $`T_0>0`$. We pointed out that at finite temperature the space-time $`O(4)`$-symmetry is broken down to $`\mathrm{𝖹𝖹}_2\times O(3)`$. Then the 3 independent renormalization constants $`a^R`$, $`b^R`$ and $`c^R`$ at $`T=0`$, (20), become replaced by four parameters $`a^R(T_0)`$, $`b^{R,0}(T_0)`$, $`b^{R,1}(T_0)`$ and $`c^R(T_0)`$ at $`T_0`$, cf. (27), corresponding to four relevant couplings. However, starting from an $`O(4)`$-symmetric zero temperature theory we have proved that

$$L^{\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}(\underset{¯}{\phi };T_0)L^{\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}(\underset{¯}{\phi })$$
(47)
has the properties of an irrelevant operator. This implies that for given $`b^{R,0}(T_0)`$ there is a unique choice for $`b^{R,1}(T_0)`$, or vice versa, such that the finite temperature theory stems from an $`O(4)`$-symmetric zero temperature theory. Any different choice would be associated to a zero temperature theory, where $`O(4)`$-symmetry is broken by hand through the renormalization conditions. Note that the $`O(4)`$-symmetric choice is generally not the one where $`b^{R,0}(T_0)=b^{R,1}(T_0)`$: Integration over $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, starting from the same counterterms (the $`O(4)`$-symmetric ones) will lead to a finite difference at $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$, since $`O(4)`$-invariance is broken in the propagator. Otherwise stated, the fact that the finite temperature theory stems from an $`O(4)`$-symmetric zero temperature theory, can be simply recognized on inspection of the counterterms, but not on the renormalization conditions.

## 4  Summary

We have presented a proof for the perturbative renormalizability of massive finite temperature $`\phi _4^4`$-theory. The starting point are the bounds (17,18) which prove the renormalizability of the zero temperature theory. In the flow equation framework they serve at the same time as induction hypotheses for the inductive proof. Bounds of this type have by now been rigorously established for nearly all theories of physical interest, including gauge theories, where the restoration of the Ward identities in the final theory pose an additional problem, to be solved by a suitable restriction on the renormalization conditions. Taking due care of the exceptional momentum problem, corresponding bounds can also be established for theories with massless particles.

To extend the bounds to the corresponding finite temperature theories presents no really new problems for the practitioner. The main problem to be solved rather is that the existence of the correlation functions in the large cutoff limit should be proven without changing the counterterms. In our setup this corresponds to posing the boundary conditions (30) for the difference Green functions $`𝒟`$ between the $`T>0`$ and the $`T=0`$ theories. The anounced result is contained in the bounds (32,33). The main new technical tool used to get there is the Euler-MacLaurin formula, generalized to an infinite integration interval for a rapidly decaying integrand. It is applied to the difference terms appearing in the flow equations for the functions $`𝒟`$ that are not bounded by the induction hypothesis alone, (see (34)- (40)). Here it comes to our help that the bounds (17,18) are sufficiently powerful so as to transform momentum derivatives into negative powers of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Via the Euler-MacLaurin formula it is then possible to gain an arbitrary power in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ paying the corresponding power in $`T`$ (see 39). This achieves (far more than) showing that all difference functions $`𝒟`$ are irrelevant. For the latter a gain of a power of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{2+\epsilon }`$ would have sufficed. We emphasize again that our result agrees with the experience and intuition gained from explicit perturbative calculations.

Renormalization is a central issue that is strongly related to the fundamental principles of local quantum field theory. Renormalizability of a field theory gives it a meaning beyond some low energy effective model. The techniques we have presented here for proving renormalizability of a field theory at finite temperature mainly rely on two properties. The first property is renormalizability at zero temperature. The second one is that the difference between the theory at finite and zero temperature act like an irrelevant operator that does not spoil renormalizability. Renormalization group flow equations provide an appropriate tool to put this statement on a strong basis and prove renormalizability for finite temperature. We expect that these methods generalize appropriately to apply to more realistic and complex field theories such as QCD, where both the UV and the IR scale problem are to be attacked.