format: text

text:
# Alberta-Thy-02-00 The Dimensional-Reduction Anomaly in Spherically Symmetric Spacetimes

## 1 Introduction

Spacetimes with continuous symmetries play an important role in quantum field theory for the reason that symmetries often allow one to reduce greatly the computational difficulty of a given problem, making practical calculations feasible. Of particular interest is the separation of variables approach to solving partial differential equations in geometries with a high degree of symmetry. For example, expanding a field propagating in a spherically symmetric geometry in terms of spherical harmonics and substituting into the field equation reduces the system from that of a single field $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}(t,r,\theta ,\varphi )`$ in four dimensions to a collection of effective two-dimensional fields $`\widehat{\phi }_{\mathrm{}}(t,r)`$, one for each spherical harmonic $`Y_\mathrm{}m(\theta ,\varphi )`$. In principle, after solving the simpler two-dimensional problems, one can obtain quantities like the stress tensor or the effective action for the original four-dimensional field theory by summing the corresponding results for the two-dimensional field theories over all modes.

In a previous paper , it was noted that separation of variables can break down when applied to quantum field theory, so that summing over the dimensionally reduced results no longer yields the corresponding quantity in four dimensions. This occurs because in quantum field theory, quantities of physical interest, such as the effective action, stress energy tensor, and square of the field operator, are divergent and must be renormalized. While the bare field can be dimensionally reduced into the sum of lower-dimensional fields, the divergent parts which are to be subtracted in four dimensions generally do not equal the sum of the corresponding divergent terms from the two-dimensional theories. As a result, one obtains an incorrect answer if one calculates a renormalized quantity in four dimensions by summing over modes of the corresponding renormalized quantities in two dimensions. This failure of dimensional reduction when applied to quantum field theories is called the dimensional-reduction anomaly.

In this paper we calculate the dimensional-reduction anomaly which occurs when a scalar field propagating in a spherically symmetric four-dimensional spacetime is decomposed into spherical harmonics and treated as a collection of two-dimensional fields. This case may be of particular importance to recent attempts to calculate the stress tensor and Hawking radiation in black-hole spacetimes using two-dimensional dilaton gravity models . Since four-dimensional renormalized quantities will not in general equal the sum of the corresponding two-dimensional quantities, it may well be necessary to take into account the contribution of the dimensional-reduction anomaly in order to reproduce the correct results for four dimensions (see also ).

We begin in Section 2 with a brief discussion of dimensional reduction in spherically symmetric spacetimes. In Section 3 we examine the simple case of flat space, both to illustrate the basic idea behind the anomaly and to lay the necessary computational groundwork. In Sections 4 and 5 we extend our calculations to a general spherically symmetric four-dimensional space, and calculate the dimensional-reduction anomalies in $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}^2`$ and the effective action. We conclude with a brief discussion of the possible implications of the anomaly. We work in Euclidean signature, using dimensionless units where $`G=c=\mathrm{}=1`$ and the sign conventions of  for the definition of the curvature.

## 2 Spherical Decompositions

In this section we briefly consider the dimensional reduction of a quantum field in a four-dimensional spherically symmetric space, and show how it may be reduced to a collection of two-dimensional fields.

The line element for such a space may be written as

$$ds^2=g_{\mu \nu }(X^\tau )dX^\mu dX^\nu =h_{ab}(x^c)dx^adx^b+\rho ^2\mathrm{e}^{2\varphi (x^c)}\omega _{ij}(y^k)dy^idy^j,$$
(2.1)
where $`X^\alpha =(x^a,y^i)`$, $`h_{ab}`$ is an arbitrary two-dimensional metric, $`\omega _{ij}`$ is the metric of a two-sphere, $`\rho `$ is a constant with the dimensions of length, and $`\varphi `$ is known as the dilaton. The radius of a two-sphere of fixed $`x^a`$ is given by $`r=\rho \mathrm{e}^{\varphi (x^a)}`$.

Consider a massive scalar field propagating on the space (2.1) and obeying the field equation

$$F\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}(X)\left(\mathrm{}m^2V\right)\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}(X)=0,$$
(2.2)
where the potential $`V`$ is also spherically symmetric. The corresponding Green function is a solution of the equation

$$FG(X,X^{})=\delta (X,X^{}).$$
(2.3)
Knowledge of the Green function for a given quantum state allows one to calculate other expectation values of interest, such as the square of the field operator, $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}^2`$, and the stress tensor, $`\widehat{T}_{\mu \nu }`$.

Now consider what happens if we decompose $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$ in terms of spherical harmonics $`Y_\mathrm{}m(y^i)`$ as follows:

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}(X)=\underset{\mathrm{}=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\underset{m=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\widehat{\phi }_{\mathrm{}}(x^a)\frac{Y_\mathrm{}m(y^i)}{r}.$$
(2.4)
Substitution into (2.2) shows that $`\widehat{\phi }_{\mathrm{}}`$ behaves as a field propagating in the two-dimensional space with line element

$$ds^2=h_{ab}(x^c)dx^adx^b,$$
(2.5)
and satisfying the field equation

$$_{\mathrm{}}\widehat{\phi }_{\mathrm{}}(x)\left(\mathrm{\Delta }m^2V_{\mathrm{}}\right)\widehat{\phi }_{\mathrm{}}(x)=0.$$
(2.6)
Here $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the d’Alembertian operator for the two-dimensional metric $`h_{ab}`$, and the induced potential $`V_{\mathrm{}}`$ is given by

$$V_{\mathrm{}}=V+\frac{\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}+1)}{r^2}\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi +(\varphi )^2.$$
(2.7)
The corresponding two-dimensional Green functions $`𝒢_{\mathrm{}}`$ satisfy

$$_{\mathrm{}}𝒢_{\mathrm{}}(x,x^{})=\delta (x,x^{}),$$
(2.8)
and are related to $`G`$ via

$$G(X,X^{})=\underset{\mathrm{}=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(2\mathrm{}+1)}{4\pi rr^{}}P_{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{cos}\lambda )𝒢_{\mathrm{}}(x,x^{}),$$
(2.9)
where $`P_{\mathrm{}}`$ is a Legendre polynomial and $`\lambda `$ is the angular separation of $`X`$, $`X^{}`$.

Since the square of the field operator is given by the coincidence limit of the Green function, equation (2.9) implies that the four-dimensional $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}^2`$ can be obtained by solving the two-dimensional theory for $`\widehat{\phi }_{\mathrm{}}^2`$:

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}^2=\underset{\mathrm{}=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(2\mathrm{}+1)}{4\pi r^2}\widehat{\phi }_{\mathrm{}}^2.$$
(2.10)
The Green function, however, diverges in the coincidence limit, and must be renormalized to yield a finite $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}^2`$. Denoting the renormalized and divergent parts by the subscripts ‘ren’ and ‘div’ respectively, we have

$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}^2_{\text{ren}}`$ $`=`$ $`\underset{X^{}X}{lim}G_{\text{ren}}(X,X^{})=\underset{X^{}X}{lim}\left[G(X,X^{})G_{\text{div}}(X,X^{})\right],`$ (2.11)
$`\widehat{\phi }_{\mathrm{}}^2_{\text{ren}}`$ $`=`$ $`\underset{x^{}x}{lim}𝒢_{\mathrm{}|\text{ren}}(x,x^{})=\underset{x^{}x}{lim}\left[𝒢_{\mathrm{}}(x,x^{})𝒢_{\mathrm{}|\text{div}}(x,x^{})\right].`$ (2.12)
While the bare quantities $`G`$ and $`𝒢_{\mathrm{}}`$ are related by the mode-decomposition relation (2.9), we shall find that the divergent parts $`G_{\text{div}}`$ and $`𝒢_{\mathrm{}|\text{div}}`$ are not. As a result, the renormalized theories in two and four dimensions are related not by (2.9, 2.10) but rather by

$$G_{\text{ren}}(X,X^{})=\underset{\mathrm{}=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(2\mathrm{}+1)}{4\pi rr^{}}P_{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{cos}\lambda )\left[𝒢_{\mathrm{}|\text{ren}}(x,x^{})+\mathrm{\Delta }𝒢_{\mathrm{}}(x,x^{})\right],$$
(2.13)
$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}^2_{\text{ren}}(X)=\underset{\mathrm{}=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(2\mathrm{}+1)}{4\pi r^2}\left[\widehat{\phi }_{\mathrm{}}^2_{\text{ren}}(x)+\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{\phi }_{\mathrm{}}^2(x)\right],$$
(2.14)
where the anomalous terms are easily shown to be

$`\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{\phi }_{\mathrm{}}^2(x)`$ $`=`$ $`\underset{x^{}x}{lim}\mathrm{\Delta }𝒢_{\mathrm{}}(x,x^{})`$ (2.15)
$``$ $`\underset{x^{}x}{lim}\left[𝒢_{\mathrm{}|\text{div}}(x,x^{})2\pi rr^{}{\displaystyle _1^1}d(\mathrm{cos}\lambda )P_{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{cos}\lambda )G_{\text{div}}(X,X^{})\right].`$
One can show that similar formulae hold for other renormalized quantities, such as the effective action $`W`$ and the stress tensor:

$$W_{\text{ren}}=\underset{\mathrm{}=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(2\mathrm{}+1)\left[𝒲_{\mathrm{}|\text{ren}}+\mathrm{\Delta }𝒲_{\mathrm{}}\right];$$
(2.16)
$$\widehat{T}_{\mu \nu }_{\text{ren}}=\underset{\mathrm{}=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(2\mathrm{}+1)}{4\pi r^2}\left[\widehat{𝒯}_{\mu \nu }_{\mathrm{}|\text{ren}}+\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{𝒯}_{\mu \nu }_{\mathrm{}}\right].$$
(2.17)
In each case the anomaly is the difference between the divergent subtraction terms for the dimensionally reduced theory and the mode-decomposed subtraction terms for the original four-dimensional theory.

Equations (2.132.15) demonstrate that the renormalized value of a field quantity is generally not equal to the sum of the same renormalized quantities for the dimensionally-reduced theory. Rather, a quantity like $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}^2`$ can be obtained from dimensional reduction only if the contribution $`\widehat{\phi }_{\mathrm{}}^2`$ for each mode $`\mathrm{}`$ is modified by an extra anomalous term. This failure of dimensional reduction under renormalization is the dimensional-reduction anomaly. The remainder of this paper is devoted to explicit calculations of the anomalies in $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}^2`$ and $`W`$ for the important case of spherically symmetric geometries, described by (2.1). For further general discussion of the dimensional-reduction anomaly and the related multiplicative anomaly, the reader is referred to  and .

At this point some conventions on notation are in order. We shall need to be able to distinguish quantities like Green functions defined in different dimensions. ‘Ordinary’ letters such as $`G`$, $`W`$ are used for the original four-dimensional theory, while calligraphic letters such as $`𝒢`$, $`𝒲`$ refer to dimensionally reduced quantities. The anomalous difference between $`A`$, $`𝒜`$ is denoted $`\mathrm{\Delta }𝒜`$. All curvatures will be with respect to $`h`$ unless explicitly labelled otherwise; for example, $`R=R[h]`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{4}R=R[g]`$. As for differential operators, we shall understand $`\mathrm{}`$ to represent the d’Alembertian with respect to $`g`$, while $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the d’Alembertian calculated using the metric $`h`$. Single covariant derivatives will be denoted by $``$; there will be no need to distinguish the metric used. For the dilaton $`\varphi `$ we shall understand $`\varphi _a`$, $`\varphi _{ab}`$, etc. to denote multiple two-dimensional covariant derivatives of $`\varphi `$ calculated using the metric $`h`$.

## 3 The Dimensional-Reduction Anomaly in Flat Space

The simplest example of the dimensional reduction anomaly occurs in the spherical decomposition of a scalar field in flat space, and was originally considered in . We reproduce here the main formulae, as we shall require them for the generalization to curved space, and because some of the notation we use is different from that of .

Let us assume that the potential $`V`$ vanishes inside the region of interest, and is spherically symmetric outside. In this case, the Green function for a given state is renormalized by subtracting the Green function for the Euclidean vacuum. In four dimensions the latter is

$$G_{\text{div}}(X,X^{})=\frac{m}{4\pi ^2\sqrt{2\sigma }}K_1(m\sqrt{2\sigma }),$$
(3.1)
where $`\sigma `$ is one-half the square of the geodesic distance between $`X`$ and $`X^{}`$, and $`K_1`$ is a modified Bessel function. In spherical coordinates $`X^\mu =(t,r,\theta ,\eta )`$111We denote the azimuthal coordinate by $`\eta `$ rather than $`\varphi `$ for obvious reasons. the line element is

$$ds^2=dt^2+dr^2+r^2\left(d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\eta ^2\right),$$
(3.2)
and

$$2\sigma =(tt^{})^2+(rr^{})^2+2rr^{}\left(1\mathrm{cos}\lambda \right),$$
(3.3)
where $`\lambda `$ is the angle between $`X`$ and $`X^{}`$, given by

$$\mathrm{cos}\lambda =\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{cos}\theta ^{}+\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{sin}\theta ^{}\mathrm{cos}(\eta \eta ^{}).$$
(3.4)
If before renormalizing we first decompose the field $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$ into spherical harmonics as in (2.4), we will be left with an effective field $`\widehat{\phi }_{\mathrm{}}`$ propagating on the two-dimensional space with line element $`ds^2=dt^2+dr^2`$, where $`t(\mathrm{},\mathrm{})`$ and $`r[0,\mathrm{})`$. In this case $`\sigma `$ is given by $`\frac{1}{2}[(tt^{})^2+(rr^{})^2]`$, and the theory is renormalized by subtracting the two-dimensional vacuum Green function

$$𝒢_{\mathrm{}|\text{div}}(x,x^{})=\frac{1}{2\pi }K_0(m\sqrt{(tt^{})^2+(rr^{})^2}).$$
(3.5)
To compare the renormalization of the two- and four-dimensional theories and establish the existence of the dimensional-reduction anomaly, we decompose $`G_{\text{div}}`$ into spherical harmonics. Defining the mode decomposition by

$$G_{\text{div}}(X,X^{})=\underset{\mathrm{}=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(2\mathrm{}+1)}{4\pi rr^{}}P_{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{cos}\lambda )G_{\text{div}|\mathrm{}}(x,x^{})$$
(3.6)
in accordance with (2.9), we have

$$G_{\text{div}|\mathrm{}}(x,x^{})=2\pi rr^{}_1^1d(\mathrm{cos}\lambda )P_{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{cos}\lambda )G_{\text{div}}(X,X^{}).$$
(3.7)
Inserting (3.1) into (3.7) and using the well-known integral representation for $`K_\nu `$,

$$_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑xx^{1\nu }\mathrm{exp}\left\{x\frac{\alpha ^2}{4x}\right\}=2\left(\frac{2}{\alpha }\right)^\nu K_\nu (\alpha ),$$
(3.8)
the integral

$$_1^1𝑑zP_{\mathrm{}}(z)\mathrm{e}^{p(1z)}=(1)^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{e}^p\sqrt{\frac{2\pi }{p}}I_{\mathrm{}+1/2}(p),$$
(3.9)
where $`I_{\mathrm{}+1/2}`$ is a modified Bessel function (see e.g. , vol.2, eq.2.17.5.2), and the representation

$$I_{\mathrm{}+1/2}(p)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi p}}\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(\mathrm{}+k)!}{k!(\mathrm{}k)!}\frac{1}{(2p)^k}\left[(1)^k\mathrm{e}^p(1)^{\mathrm{}}e^p\right],$$
(3.10)
(see, for example, 8.467 of ), we obtain

$`G_{\text{div}|\mathrm{}}(x,x^{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(\mathrm{}+k)!}{k!(\mathrm{}k)!}}[(1)^k{\displaystyle \frac{[(tt^{})^2+(rr^{})^2]^{k/2}}{(2mrr^{})^k}}K_k(m\sqrt{(tt^{})^2+(rr^{})^2})`$ (3.11)
$`(1)^{\mathrm{}}{\displaystyle \frac{[(tt^{})^2+(r+r^{})^2]^{k/2}}{(2mrr^{})^k}}K_k(m\sqrt{(tt^{})^2+(r+r^{})^2})].`$
Let us compare this result for the mode-decomposed subtraction terms from four dimensions with the subtraction term for the two-dimensional theory, (3.5). While $`𝒢_{\mathrm{}|\text{div}}`$ is the free-field Green function in two dimensions, it is not difficult to verify that $`G_{\text{div}|\mathrm{}}`$ is the Green function for a field propagating in the centrifugal barrier potential222See (2.7). It is easy to verify that $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi (\varphi )^2=0`$ for the line element (3.2).

$$V_{\mathrm{}}=\frac{\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}+1)}{r^2}$$
(3.12)
which obeys Dirichlet boundary conditions at $`r=0`$.

Naive renormalization in two dimensions requires subtracting $`𝒢_{\mathrm{}|\text{div}}`$. We see, however, that $`G_{\text{div}|\mathrm{}}`$ is the quantity that should be subtracted to yield the correct results for the renormalized four-dimensional theory333Examples of the correct procedure of renormalizing using the mode-decomposed subtraction terms from four dimensions in spherically symmetric spaces can be found in .. If one was to ignore the anomaly and calculate $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}^2_{\text{ren}}`$ using the two-dimensional $`\widehat{\phi }_{\mathrm{}}^2_{\text{ren}}`$ as in (2.10), one would obtain incorrect results, such as nonvanishing expectation values for the vacuum state. Instead, using (2.14, 2.15, 3.5, 3.11) one finds that the renormalized theories in two and four dimensions are related by

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}^2_{\text{ren}}(X)=\underset{\mathrm{}=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(2\mathrm{}+1)}{4\pi r^2}\left[\widehat{\phi }_{\mathrm{}}^2_{\text{ren}}(x)+\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{\phi }_{\mathrm{}}^2(x)\right],$$

where the anomaly is

$`\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{\phi }_{\mathrm{}}^2`$ $`=`$ $`\underset{x^{}x}{lim}\left[𝒢_{\mathrm{}|\text{div}}G_{\text{div}|\mathrm{}}\right]`$ (3.13)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(\mathrm{}+k)!}{(\mathrm{}k)!}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{k}}{\displaystyle \frac{(1)^{k+1}}{(mr)^{2k}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{(1)^{\mathrm{}}}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(\mathrm{}+k)!}{k!(\mathrm{}k)!}}{\displaystyle \frac{K_k(2mr)}{(mr)^k}}.`$
For example, for the first two modes the anomalies are

$`\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{\phi }_{\mathrm{}=0}^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}K_0(2mr),`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{\phi }_{\mathrm{}=1}^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(mr)^2}}K_0(2mr){\displaystyle \frac{2}{(mr)}}K_1(2mr)\right].`$
Note that the anomaly diverges logarithmically as $`r0`$, and vanishes as $`r\mathrm{}`$.

## 4 The Dimensional-Reduction Anomaly in $`\widehat{𝚽}^\mathrm{𝟐}`$

In the previous section we considered the dimensional-reduction anomaly in $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}^2`$ arising from the spherical decomposition of a scalar field in flat space. In this section we shall extend those calculations to general four-dimensional spherically symmetric spaces.

Our system consists of a massive scalar field with arbitrary coupling to the four-dimensional scalar curvature, described by (2.2) with

$$V=\xi ^4R.$$
(4.1)
We assume that the spacetime of interest is given by the line element (2.1), which in standard spherical coordinates $`y^i=(\theta ,\eta )`$ becomes

$$ds^2=h_{ab}(x^c)dx^adx^b+r^2(d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\eta ^2),$$
(4.2)
with $`r=\rho \mathrm{e}^{\varphi (x^c)}`$.

As we saw in Section 2, under the dimensional reduction (2.4), the quantum field $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$ reduces to a collection of effective fields $`\widehat{\phi }_{\mathrm{}}`$ on the two-dimensional space (2.5) with metric $`h_{ab}`$, satisfying the field equation (2.6) with induced potential

$$V_{\mathrm{}}=\xi ^4R+\frac{\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}+1)}{r^2}\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi +(\varphi )^2.$$
(4.3)
We wish to compute the anomaly associated with renormalizing this dimensionally reduced theory versus (2.2).

A standard approach to renormalization in curved space is via the heat kernel. For the system (2.2), the heat kernel $`K(X,X^{}|s)`$ is a solution of the equation

$$FK(X,X^{}|s)=\frac{d}{ds}K(X,X^{}|s)$$
(4.4)
with boundary condition $`K(X,X^{}|s=0)=\delta (X,X^{})`$. Once the heat kernel is known for a given state, both the Green function and the effective action may be obtained using

$$G(X,X^{})=_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑sK(X,X^{}|s),$$
(4.5)
$$W=\frac{1}{2}_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{ds}{s}d^4X\sqrt{g}K(X,X|s).$$
(4.6)
Analogous formulae hold for the dimensionally reduced theory with operator $`_{\mathrm{}}`$, heat kernel $`𝒦_{\mathrm{}}(x,x^{}|s)`$, Green function $`𝒢_{\mathrm{}}(x,x^{})`$ and effective action $`𝒲_{\mathrm{}}`$.

The advantage of the heat kernel formulation is that the divergences in both the Green function and the effective action come from the $`s0`$ limit of the $`s`$ integral, and the small-$`s`$ behavior of the heat kernel is known for arbitrary curved spaces of any dimension. In particular, in four dimensions,

$$K(X,X^{}|s)=\frac{D^{\frac{1}{2}}}{(4\pi s)^2}\mathrm{exp}\left\{m^2s\frac{\sigma }{2s}\right\}\underset{i=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}a_i(X,X^{})s^i.$$
(4.7)
Here again $`\sigma =\sigma (X,X^{})`$ is one-half of the square of the geodesic distance between the points $`X`$ and $`X^{}`$, while $`D=D(X,X^{})`$ is the Van Vleck determinant,

$$D(X,X^{})=\frac{1}{\sqrt{g(X)}\sqrt{g(X^{})}}det\left[\frac{}{X^\mu }\frac{}{X_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\nu }}\sigma (X,X^{})\right].$$
(4.8)
The $`a_n`$ are the Schwinger-DeWitt coefficients for the operator $`F`$ of (2.2). In the coincidence limit $`X^{}X`$ the first few of these are

$`a_0^{\mathrm{}\xi ^4R}`$ $`=`$ $`1,`$ (4.9)
$`a_1^{\mathrm{}\xi ^4R}`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}\xi \right)^4R,`$ (4.10)
$`a_2^{\mathrm{}\xi ^4R}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{180}}\left[{}_{}{}^{4}R_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }^{4}R^{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }^4R_{\alpha \beta }^4R^{\alpha \beta }+\mathrm{}^4R\right]`$ (4.11)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}\xi )\mathrm{}^4R+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}\xi )^2(^4R)^2.`$
For the two-dimensional operator $`_{\mathrm{}}`$ of (2.6) we only need the Schwinger-DeWitt expansion of the heat kernel in the coincidence limit. This is

$$𝒦_{\mathrm{}}(x,x|s)=\frac{1}{4\pi s}\mathrm{exp}\left\{m^2s\right\}\left[1+s\left(\frac{1}{6}RV_{\mathrm{}}\right)+\mathrm{}\right].$$
(4.12)
Considering (4.5, 4.6), it is clear that in four dimensions the divergences in $`G`$ ($`W`$) arise from the first two444 Comparing to (3.8), one sees that the integral representation used for $`G`$ in the previous section was just the heat kernel representation (4.5) with (4.7-4.10). (three) terms in the Schwinger-DeWitt expansion for $`K`$, while in two dimensions we need consider only the first term (first two terms) in $`𝒦_{\mathrm{}}`$. The anomaly in $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}^2`$ or $`W`$ can then be calculated by mode-decomposing the appropriate terms from $`K`$, comparing to the heat kernel $`𝒦_{\mathrm{}}`$ for the dimensionally-reduced theory, and finally integrating the difference over $`s`$ according to (4.5) or (4.6).

Let us begin with the anomaly in $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}^2`$. The divergent part of the Green function in four dimensions is given by

$$G_{\text{div}}(X,X^{})=_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑sK_{\text{div}}(X,X^{}|s),$$
(4.13)
where $`K_{\text{div}}`$ consists of the first two terms of (4.7):

$$K_{\text{div}}(X,X^{}|s)=\frac{1}{(4\pi s)^2}\mathrm{exp}\left\{m^2s\frac{\sigma }{2s}\right\}\left[\mathrm{}_0^{\mathrm{}\xi ^4R}(X,X^{})+s\mathrm{}_1^{\mathrm{}\xi ^4R}(X,X^{})\right].$$
(4.14)
Here we use the convenient notation

$$\mathrm{}_n^{\mathrm{}\xi ^4R}(X,X^{})D^{\frac{1}{2}}(X,X^{})a_n^{\mathrm{}\xi ^4R}(X,X^{}).$$
(4.15)
In principle, the anomaly in $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}^2`$ is straightforward to calculate. We mode-decompose $`K_{\text{div}}`$ in terms of Legendre polynomials in the usual manner:

$`K_{\text{div}}(X,X^{}|s)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(2\mathrm{}+1)}{4\pi rr^{}}}P_{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{cos}\lambda )K_{\text{div}|\mathrm{}}(x,x^{}|s);`$ (4.16)
$`K_{\text{div}|\mathrm{}}(x,x^{}|s)`$ $`=`$ $`2\pi rr^{}{\displaystyle _1^1}d(\mathrm{cos}\lambda )P_{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{cos}\lambda )K_{\text{div}}(X,X^{}|s).`$ (4.17)
The anomaly in $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}^2`$ is then just the coincidence limit of the difference between the subtraction terms in two dimensions and those mode-decomposed from four dimensions, integrated over $`s`$:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{\phi }_{\mathrm{}}^2(x)=_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑s\left[𝒦_{\mathrm{}|\text{div}}(x,x|s)K_{\text{div}|\mathrm{}}(x,x|s)\right].$$
(4.18)
We encounter a difficulty, however, when we try to perform the mode decomposition. For a general space, $`\sigma `$ and the $`a_n^{\mathrm{}\xi ^4R}`$ are known only for infinitesimal separations555 In terms of momentum integrals, finite separations correspond to the low-frequency regime, where the renormalization terms are not fixed by the divergences in the theory. of $`X`$ and $`X^{}`$, while evaluation of the mode-decomposition integral (4.17) requires knowing $`\sigma `$ and the $`a_n^{\mathrm{}\xi ^4R}`$ for finite separations of $`X`$, $`X^{}`$ on the two-sphere. We proceed by determining an approximate $`K_{\text{div}}`$ for finite separation based on the following criteria:

1. Our approximate $`K_{\text{div}}`$ must reduce to the known value in the flat-space limit.
2. Our approximate $`K_{\text{div}}`$ must respect the periodicity of the two-spheres (i.e., it must be periodic in the angular separation $`\lambda `$ with period $`2\pi `$).

In a previous case  in which the mode decompositions were performed over noncompact spaces, the following procedure was found to work quite well. We take $`X=(x,y)`$ and $`X^{}=(x,y^{})`$; i.e., we split the points in the $`y`$-direction only. Using the well-known short-distance expansions obtained in , $`\sigma `$ and the $`\mathrm{}_n^{\mathrm{}\xi ^4R}`$ are expanded in powers of $`(yy^{})`$, which is equivalent to expanding in powers of the curvature. These expansions are then substituted into $`K_{\text{div}}`$ and, assuming small curvatures, truncated at first order in the curvature for $`\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{\phi }_{\mathrm{}}^2`$ and at second order for $`\mathrm{\Delta }𝒲_{\mathrm{}}`$. The mode-decomposition integrals in  can then be evaluated with relative ease.

In the present case, the equivalent procedure is to expand $`\sigma `$ and the $`\mathrm{}_n^{\mathrm{}\xi ^4R}`$ in powers of $`\lambda ^2`$, which is easily done; see Appendix B. We also take into account the periodicity of the two-spheres by converting our expansions in $`\lambda ^2`$ into expansions in $`(1\mathrm{cos}\lambda )`$. Defining $`z=\mathrm{cos}\lambda `$, we have

$$\lambda ^2=2(1z)+\frac{1}{3}(1z)^2+\frac{4}{45}(1z)^3+\mathrm{}.$$
(4.19)
We then substitute (4.19) for each $`\lambda ^2`$, truncating at the lowest order in $`(1z)`$ which will yield the correct flat-space limit. This replacement of $`\lambda ^2`$ by a finite series in $`(1z)`$ means that our expansions are only modified for large angular separations, where the renormalization terms are inherently ambiguous. Our choice simply corresponds to a natural extension of the flat-space heat kernel which respects the periodicity of the two-spheres for large angular separations. For more details, see Appendix B.

Using this procedure, one finds that to first order in the curvature

$`2\sigma `$ $`=`$ $`2r^2(1z)+{\displaystyle \frac{r^2}{3}}[1r^2(\varphi )^2](1z)^2,`$ (4.20)
$`\mathrm{}_0^{\mathrm{}\xi ^4R}`$ $`=`$ $`1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}^4R_{\theta \theta }(1z),`$ (4.21)
$`\mathrm{}_1^{\mathrm{}\xi ^4R}`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}\xi \right)^4R.`$ (4.22)
Inserting these expansions into (4.7) yields our approximation for the ‘divergent’ part of the four-dimensional heat kernel,

$`K_{\text{div}}(X,X^{}|s)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(4\pi s)^2}}\mathrm{exp}\{m^2s{\displaystyle \frac{r^2}{2s}}(1z)\}[1+s({\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}\xi )^4R+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}^4R_{\theta \theta }(1z)`$ (4.23)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{r^2}{12s}}[1r^2(\varphi )^2](1z)^2].`$
The mode decomposition (4.17) of this $`K_{\text{div}}`$ then boils down to evaluating the integrals

$$J_\mathrm{}np_1^1𝑑zP_{\mathrm{}}(z)\mathrm{e}^{p(1z)}(1z)^n,$$
(4.24)
where $`pr^2/2s`$ is a dimensionless parameter and $`n`$ is an integer. The integrals for $`n0`$ can be obtained from the $`n=0`$ result (3.9, 3.10) used in the flat-space case by differentiating with respect to $`p`$, yielding

$$J_\mathrm{}n=\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(\mathrm{}+k)!}{k!(\mathrm{}k)!}\frac{1}{(2p)^k}\left[\frac{(1)^k2^n}{(2p)^n}\frac{(k+n)!}{k!}(1)^{\mathrm{}}e^{2p}\underset{\alpha =0}{\overset{n}{}}\frac{2^n}{(2p)^\alpha }\frac{(k+\alpha )!}{k!}\frac{n!}{\alpha !(n\alpha )!}\right].$$
(4.25)
The mode-decomposed heat kernel subtraction terms for a general four-dimensional spherically symmetric spacetime are then

$$K_{\text{div}|\mathrm{}}(x,x|s)=\frac{\mathrm{e}^{m^2s}}{4\pi s}\left[J_\mathrm{}0+s\left(\frac{1}{6}\xi \right)^4RJ_\mathrm{}0+\frac{1}{6}^4R_{\theta \theta }J_\mathrm{}1\frac{r^2}{12s}[1r^2(\varphi )^2]J_\mathrm{}2\right].$$
(4.26)
The first term in (4.26) is the mode decomposition for flat space, while the other terms carry the contributions due to the curvature. Meanwhile, the various parts of the $`J_\mathrm{}n`$ fulfill several roles. First, the $`k0`$ terms in (4.25) are associated with the centrifugal potential $`\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}+1)/r^2`$ induced by the the mode decomposition. This potential is ignored in the renormalization in two dimensions, since only the first (potential-independent) term in the Schwinger-DeWitt expansion of the heat kernel contributes divergences to the two-dimensional Green function. Second, then terms in (4.25) proportional to $`\mathrm{e}^{2p}=\mathrm{e}^{r^2/s}`$ enforce a Dirichlet boundary condition at $`r=0`$, which is required if the four-dimensional subtraction term is to be finite there \[see (4.16)\].

These results are to be compared with the subtraction term in two dimensions, which consists of the first term of (4.12):

$$𝒦_{\mathrm{}|\text{div}}(x,x|s)=\frac{\mathrm{e}^{m^2s}}{4\pi s}.$$
(4.27)
In contrast to $`K_{\text{div}|\mathrm{}}`$, $`𝒦_{\mathrm{}|\text{div}}`$ is independent of both the position, the two-metric $`h_{ab}`$, and the mode number $`\mathrm{}`$. It matches just the first term in the $`k=0`$ contribution to the flat space part of $`K_{\text{div}|\mathrm{}}`$.

As an example, let us consider a quantum field in Schwarzschild space, for which $`{}_{}{}^{4}R=0`$, $`{}_{}{}^{4}R_{\mu \nu }^{}=0`$, and

$$[1r^2(\varphi )^2]=\frac{2M}{r},$$
(4.28)
where $`M`$ is the black-hole mass. Figure 1 shows plots of $`K_{\text{div}|\mathrm{}=0}(x,x|s)`$ for fixed $`s`$ and various values of $`M/\sqrt{s}`$. Note that large values of $`M`$ cause the mode-decomposed subtraction terms to become negative.

The anomaly in $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}^2`$ can now be found by integrating the difference of $`𝒦_{\mathrm{}|\text{div}}`$ and $`K_{\text{div}|\mathrm{}}`$ as in (4.18). We find

$`\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{\phi }_{\mathrm{}}^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}[I[m^2sJ_\mathrm{}0]{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m^2}}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}\xi )^4RI[(m^2s)^2J_\mathrm{}0]{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}^4R_{\theta \theta }I[m^2sJ_\mathrm{}1]`$ (4.29)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{(mr)^2}{12}}[1r^2(\varphi )^2]I[J_\mathrm{}2]],`$
where

$`I[(m^2s)^tJ_\mathrm{}n]`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k=2tn}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(\mathrm{}+k)!}{k!(\mathrm{}k)!}}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}^n\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{(1)^k}{(mr)^{2n+2k}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(k+n)!}{k!}}(k+t+n2)!\right]`$ (4.30)
$`(1)^{\mathrm{}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(\mathrm{}+k)!}{k!(\mathrm{}k)!}}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}^n\left[{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha =0}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(k+\alpha )!}{k!}}{\displaystyle \frac{n!}{\alpha !(n\alpha )!}}{\displaystyle \frac{K_{k+t+\alpha 1}(2mr)}{(mr)^{kt+\alpha +1}}}\right].`$
(The $`I[(m^2s)^tJ_\mathrm{}n]`$ result from integrating terms of the form $`(m^2s)^{t2}J_\mathrm{}n`$ over $`s`$.) For example, in Schwarzschild space the anomaly for the $`\mathrm{}=0`$ mode is

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{\phi }_{\mathrm{}=0}^2=\frac{1}{2\pi }K_0(2mr)+\frac{M}{3\pi r}\left[\frac{1}{(mr)^2}\frac{2}{mr}K_1(2mr)2K_0(2mr)mrK_1(2mr)\right].$$
(4.31)
Plots of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{\phi }_{\mathrm{}=0}^2`$ for various values of $`mM`$ are shown in Figure 2.

Note that the anomaly in $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}^2`$ generally diverges at any point $`x^a`$ such that $`r(x^a)=0`$, while for asymptotically flat spaces it vanishes as $`r\mathrm{}`$.

## 5 The Dimensional-Reduction Anomaly in the Effective Action

In the previous section we calculated the dimensional-reduction anomaly in $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}^2`$ for a general four-dimensional spherically symmetric space. We now use the same procedure to determine the anomaly in the effective action, denoted by $`\mathrm{\Delta }𝒲_{\mathrm{}}`$ in (2.16). Functional differentiation of $`\mathrm{\Delta }𝒲_{\mathrm{}}`$ with respect to the metric $`h_{ab}`$ would then give the corresponding anomaly $`\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{𝒯}_{\mu \nu }_{\mathrm{}}`$ in the stress tensor in (2.17).

For the four-dimensional effective action (4.6) the divergent part of the heat kernel consists of the first three terms of (4.7):

$$K_{\text{div}}(X,X^{}|s)=\frac{1}{(4\pi s)^2}\mathrm{exp}\left\{m^2s\frac{\sigma }{2s}\right\}\left[\mathrm{}_0^{\mathrm{}\xi ^4R}+s\mathrm{}_1^{\mathrm{}\xi ^4R}+s^2\mathrm{}_2^{\mathrm{}\xi ^4R}\right].$$
(5.1)
As in the previous section, we split the points $`X`$, $`X^{}`$ in the angular direction only. Then one can write

$`2\sigma `$ $`=`$ $`2r^2\left[(1z)+u(1z)^2+v(1z)^3+\mathrm{}\right],`$ (5.2)
$`\mathrm{}_n^{\mathrm{}\xi ^4R}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{}_{n(0)}^{\mathrm{}\xi ^4R}+\mathrm{}_{n(1)}^{\mathrm{}\xi ^4R}(1z)+\mathrm{}_{n(2)}^{\mathrm{}\xi ^4R}(1z)^2+\mathrm{},`$ (5.3)
where $`z=\mathrm{cos}\lambda `$. From the calculations for the anomaly in $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}^2`$ we have seen that $`u=\frac{1}{6}[1r^2(\varphi )^2]`$, $`\mathrm{}_{0(0)}^{\mathrm{}\xi ^4R}=1`$, $`\mathrm{}_{0(1)}^{\mathrm{}\xi ^4R}=\frac{1}{6}^4R_{\theta \theta }`$, and $`\mathrm{}_{1(0)}^{\mathrm{}\xi ^4R}=\left(\frac{1}{6}\xi \right)^4R`$. The other $`\mathrm{}_{n(k)}^{\mathrm{}\xi ^4R}`$ and $`v`$ are found in Appendix B. Inserting these expansions into (5.1) and truncating at second order in the curvature, we find

$`K_{\text{div}}(X,X^{}|s)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(4\pi s)^2}}\mathrm{exp}\{m^2s{\displaystyle \frac{r^2}{2s}}(1z)\}[\{1+s\mathrm{}_{1(0)}^{\mathrm{}\xi ^4R}+s^2\mathrm{}_{2(0)}^{\mathrm{}\xi ^4R}\}`$ (5.4)
$`+\left\{\mathrm{}_{0(1)}^{\mathrm{}\xi ^4R}+s\mathrm{}_{1(1)}^{\mathrm{}\xi ^4R}\right\}(1z)+\left\{\mathrm{}_{0(2)}^{\mathrm{}\xi ^4R}{\displaystyle \frac{r^2u}{2s}}{\displaystyle \frac{r^2u}{2}}\mathrm{}_{1(0)}^{\mathrm{}\xi ^4R}\right\}(1z)^2`$
$`+\{{\displaystyle \frac{r^2u}{2s}}\mathrm{}_{0(1)}^{\mathrm{}\xi ^4R}{\displaystyle \frac{r^2v}{2s}}\}(1z)^3+{\displaystyle \frac{r^4u^2}{8s^2}}(1z)^4].`$
The decomposition of the heat kernel subtraction terms (5.4) is done in the same manner as in the previous section. Employing the definition (4.17) of the spherical decomposition and using the functions $`J_\mathrm{}n`$ of (4.24, 4.25), we obtain

$`K_{\text{div}|\mathrm{}}(x,x|s)`$ $`=`$ $`\underset{x^{}x}{lim}2\pi r^2{\displaystyle _1^1}d(\mathrm{cos}\lambda )P_{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{cos}\lambda )K_{\text{div}}(X,X^{}|s)`$ (5.5)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{e}^{m^2s}}{4\pi s}}[\{1+s\mathrm{}_{1(0)}^{\mathrm{}\xi ^4R}+s^2\mathrm{}_{2(0)}^{\mathrm{}\xi ^4R}\}J_\mathrm{}0+\{\mathrm{}_{0(1)}^{\mathrm{}\xi ^4R}+s\mathrm{}_{1(1)}^{\mathrm{}\xi ^4R}\}J_\mathrm{}1`$
$`+\left\{\mathrm{}_{0(2)}^{\mathrm{}\xi ^4R}{\displaystyle \frac{r^2u}{2s}}{\displaystyle \frac{r^2u}{2}}\mathrm{}_{1(0)}^{\mathrm{}\xi ^4R}\right\}J_\mathrm{}2`$
$`+\{{\displaystyle \frac{r^2v}{2s}}{\displaystyle \frac{r^2u}{2s}}\mathrm{}_{0(1)}^{\mathrm{}\xi ^4R}\}J_\mathrm{}3+{\displaystyle \frac{r^4u^2}{8s^2}}J_\mathrm{}4].`$
Meanwhile, the divergences in the effective action for the two-dimensional theory (2.6) arise from the first two terms of (4.12):

$$𝒦_{\mathrm{}|\text{div}}(x,x|s)=\frac{\mathrm{e}^{m^2s}}{4\pi s}\left[1+s\left(\frac{1}{6}RV_{\mathrm{}}\right)\right].$$
(5.6)
The anomaly in the effective action is then found by integrating the difference of (5.5, 5.6) as in (4.6):

$`\mathrm{\Delta }𝒲_{\mathrm{}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle d^2x\sqrt{h}_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{ds}{s}\left[𝒦_{\mathrm{}|\text{div}}(x,x|s)K_{\text{div}|\mathrm{}}(x,x|s)\right]}`$ (5.7)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle }d^2x\sqrt{h}[I[J_\mathrm{}0]+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m^2}}\mathrm{}_{1(0)}^{\mathrm{}\xi ^4R}I[m^2sJ_\mathrm{}0]+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m^4}}\mathrm{}_{2(0)}^{\mathrm{}\xi ^4R}I[m^4s^2J_\mathrm{}0]+\mathrm{}_{0(1)}^{\mathrm{}\xi ^4R}I[J_\mathrm{}1]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m^2}}\mathrm{}_{1(1)}^{\mathrm{}\xi ^4R}I[m^2sJ_\mathrm{}1]+(\mathrm{}_{0(2)}^{\mathrm{}\xi ^4R}{\displaystyle \frac{r^2u}{2}}\mathrm{}_{1(0)}^{\mathrm{}\xi ^4R})I[J_\mathrm{}2]{\displaystyle \frac{(mr)^2u}{2}}I[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m^2s}}J_\mathrm{}2]`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{(mr)^2}{2}}(u\mathrm{}_{0(1)}^{\mathrm{}\xi ^4R}+v)I[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m^2s}}J_\mathrm{}3]+{\displaystyle \frac{(mr)^4u^2}{8}}I[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m^4s^2}}J_\mathrm{}4]].`$
The $`I[(m^2s)^tJ_\mathrm{}n]`$ are given by (4.30). Using (5.7) and the values of $`u`$, $`v`$, and the $`\mathrm{}_{n(k)}^{\mathrm{}\xi ^4R}`$ given in Appendix B, one can compute the anomalous contribution to the stress tensor.

## 6 Conclusions

In a $`D`$-dimensional spacetime which can be foliated by $`n`$-dimensional homogeneous subspaces, a field can be decomposed in terms of modes on the subspaces. This effectively converts the system from a single quantum field in $`D`$ dimensions to a collection of fields in $`(Dn)`$ dimensions. Quantities of interest for the original theory, such as the expectation value of the square of the field operator and the effective action, can then be written as sums of the corresponding objects from the dimensionally reduced theories. This relationship breaks down under renormalization, however, so that renormalized expectation values can be obtained by summing their lower-dimensional counterparts only if the contribution for each mode is modified by adding an anomalous contribution. This effect is the dimensional reduction anomaly.

We have explicitly calculated the anomalous contributions to the expectation value of the square of the field operator and the effective action for the case of a massive scalar field propagating in a general four-dimensional spherically symmetric space. We have seen that the anomaly arises from several sources. One is the Dirichlet boundary condition imposed at $`r=0`$ due to the change in topology inherent in the spherical reduction of the spacetime. Other contributions are more local in nature, arising from the dimension-dependent contributions of the curvature and field potential to divergences. The resulting anomaly terms are constructed from the curvature, the dilaton field, and their covariant derivatives, and cannot be eliminated by further finite renormalization.

The anomalies calculated in this paper may be of importance to recent attempts to calculate the stress tensor and Hawking radiation in black-hole spacetimes using quantum fields in two dimensions . These attempts are based on the dimensional reduction of a massless minimally-coupled quantum field in a Schwarzschild spacetime, followed by renormalization in two dimensions. We have seen, however, that the contributions of the dimensionally reduced fields should be modified by adding the corresponding anomaly term. We intend to return to a discussion of this interesting topic in a future publication.

Acknowledgments: The author would like to thank Valeri Frolov and Andrei Zelnikov for useful discussions. This work was supported by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada.

## Appendix A Spherical Decomposition of Curvatures

Consider a line element of the form

$$ds^2=g_{\mu \nu }dX^\mu dX^\nu =h_{ab}dx^adx^b+\rho ^2\mathrm{e}^{2\varphi }\omega _{ij}dy^idy^j,$$
(A.1)
where $`h_{ab}=h_{ab}(x^c)`$ is an arbitrary two-dimensional metric and $`\omega _{ij}=\omega _{ij}(y^k)`$ is the metric of a two-sphere. The dilaton $`\varphi `$ is a function of the $`x^a`$ only, and $`\rho `$ is a constant with the dimensions of length. The radius of a two-sphere of fixed $`x^a`$ is $`r=\rho \mathrm{e}^\varphi `$.

We wish to decompose our field theory in terms of modes on the two-sphere. This requires rewriting four-dimensional geometric quantities like the curvatures in terms of the corresponding curvatures for the metric $`h`$.

Our notational conventions are as follows: four-dimensional covariant derivatives are denoted by $`()_{;a}`$, while $`\mathrm{}`$ is understood to represent the d’Alembertian with respect to $`g`$. Meanwhile, $``$, $`()_{|a}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ are the two-dimensional covariant derivatives and d’Alembertian calculated using the metric $`h_{ab}`$. For the dilaton $`\varphi `$ we shall understand $`\varphi _a`$, $`\varphi _{ab}`$, etc. to denote multiple two-dimensional covariant derivatives of $`\varphi `$. For example, the four-dimensional d’Alembertian of an angle-independent scalar $`S`$ decomposes to

$$\mathrm{}S=\mathrm{\Delta }S2\varphi S.$$
(A.2)
In particular,

$$\mathrm{}\varphi =\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi 2(\varphi )^2.$$
(A.3)
For the given line element, the nonvanishing Christoffel symbols are

$`{}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{bc}^{a}[g]`$ $`=`$ $`{}_{}{}^{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{bc}^{a}[h],`$ (A.4)
$`{}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^{a}[g]`$ $`=`$ $`\varphi ^ag_{ij},`$ (A.5)
$`{}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ja}^{i}[g]`$ $`=`$ $`\varphi _a\delta _j^i,`$ (A.6)
$`{}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^{k}[g]`$ $`=`$ $`{}_{}{}^{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^{k}[\omega ].`$ (A.7)
Selecting coordinates $`(\theta ,\eta )`$ on the two-spheres, where

$$d\omega _{ij}y^iy^j=d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\eta ^2,$$
(A.8)
one finds

$${}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\eta \eta }^{\theta }[g]=\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\theta ,^4\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\eta \theta }^\eta [g]=\frac{\mathrm{cos}\theta }{\mathrm{sin}\theta }.$$
(A.9)
For convenience, we define the following commonly-occurring functions of the dilaton field:

$`A`$ $`=`$ $`1r^2(\varphi )^2,`$ (A.10)
$`B`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi 2(\varphi )^2,`$ (A.11)
$`T_{ab}`$ $`=`$ $`\varphi _{ab}\varphi _a\varphi _b,`$ (A.12)
$`T`$ $`=`$ $`h^{ab}T_{ab}=\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi (\varphi )^2.`$ (A.13)
Since the two-sphere metric has constant curvature $`{}_{}{}^{2}R[\omega ]=2`$, explicit reference to it may be dropped. Henceforth we shall assume all curvatures to be with respect to the two-dimensional metric $`h_{ab}`$ unless explicitly labelled otherwise. Using this notation, one can show that the only nonvanishing components of the four-dimensional curvatures are

$`{}_{}{}^{4}R_{abcd}^{}[g]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}R(h_{ac}h_{bd}h_{ad}h_{bc}),`$ (A.14)
$`{}_{}{}^{4}R_{aibj}^{}[g]`$ $`=`$ $`g_{ij}T_{ab},`$ (A.15)
$`{}_{}{}^{4}R_{ijkm}^{}[g]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{A}{r^2}}(g_{ik}g_{jm}g_{im}g_{jk}),`$ (A.16)
$`{}_{}{}^{4}R_{ab}^{}[g]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}Rh_{ab}+2T_{ab},`$ (A.17)
$`{}_{}{}^{4}R_{ij}^{}[g]`$ $`=`$ $`g_{ij}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^2}}+B\right],`$ (A.18)
$`{}_{}{}^{4}R[g]`$ $`=`$ $`R+4\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi 6(\varphi )^2+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{r^2}},`$ (A.19)
while the only nonvanishing $`{}_{}{}^{4}R_{\alpha \beta ;\gamma }^{}`$ are

$`{}_{}{}^{4}R_{ab;c}^{}[g]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}h_{ab}R_{|c}+2T_{ab|c},`$ (A.20)
$`{}_{}{}^{4}R_{am;n}^{}[g]`$ $`=`$ $`g_{mn}\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}R+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^2}}+B\right)\varphi _a2T_{ab}\varphi ^b\right],`$ (A.21)
$`{}_{}{}^{4}R_{mn;a}^{}[g]`$ $`=`$ $`g_{mn}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^2}}+B\right)_{|a}.`$ (A.22)
Also,

$`{}_{}{}^{4}R_{mn;ab}^{}[g]`$ $`=`$ $`g_{mn}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^2}}+B\right)_{|ab},`$ (A.23)
$`{}_{}{}^{4}R_{mn;jk}^{}[g]`$ $`=`$ $`\left(g_{km}g_{nj}+g_{kn}g_{mj}\right)\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}R+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^2}}+B\right)(\varphi )^22T_{ab}\varphi ^a\varphi ^b\right]`$ (A.24)
$`g_{jk}g_{mn}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^2}}+B\right)_{|a}\varphi ^a,`$
$`\mathrm{}^4R_{mn}[g]`$ $`=`$ $`g_{mn}\{[\mathrm{\Delta }2\varphi ]({\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^2}}+B)+R(\varphi )^22({\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^2}}+B)(\varphi )^2`$ (A.25)
$`+4T_{ab}\varphi ^a\varphi ^b\},`$
$`{}_{}{}^{4}R_{;a}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(R+4\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi 6(\varphi )^2+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{r^2}}\right)_{|a},`$ (A.26)
$`{}_{}{}^{4}R_{;ab}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(R+4\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi 6(\varphi )^2+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{r^2}}\right)_{|ab},`$ (A.27)
$`{}_{}{}^{4}R_{;mn}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`g_{mn}\left(R+4\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi 6(\varphi )^2+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{r^2}}\right)_{|a}\varphi ^a,`$ (A.28)
$`\mathrm{}^4R`$ $`=`$ $`[\mathrm{\Delta }2\varphi ]\left(R+4\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi 6(\varphi )^2+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{r^2}}\right).`$ (A.29)
## Appendix B Point Splitting

It will be necessary to write short-distance expansions for $`\sigma `$ and the $`D^{\frac{1}{2}}a_n`$ for $`X`$ and $`X^{}`$ separated along the two-spheres. We follow a method similar to that developed in . Without loss of generality we take the points to be split in the $`\theta `$ direction only, with angular separation $`\lambda =\theta \theta ^{}`$. Our procedure will be to calculate the desired quantities first as expansions in powers of $`\lambda ^2`$, and then to convert them to expansions in powers of $`(1\mathrm{cos}\lambda )`$ for use in the mode-decomposition calculations.

We take as our ansatz for the geodetic interval $`\sigma `$

$$2\sigma (x,y;x^{},y^{})=(\stackrel{~}{r}\lambda )^2+U(\stackrel{~}{x})(\stackrel{~}{r}\lambda )^4+V(\stackrel{~}{x})(\stackrel{~}{r}\lambda )^6+\mathrm{},$$
(B.1)
where $`\stackrel{~}{x}\frac{1}{2}(x+x^{})`$. Taking the derivative of $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }`$ with respect to each of the coordinates and requiring $`\sigma =\frac{1}{2}g^{\alpha \beta }\sigma _\alpha \sigma _\beta `$ in the coincidence limit, one can show that

$`U(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}(\varphi )^2,`$ (B.2)
$`V(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{90}}(\varphi )^4{\displaystyle \frac{1}{120}}\varphi ^a\varphi ^b\varphi _{ab},`$ (B.3)
and

$`(\sigma ^\theta )^2`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda ^2\left[1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}r^2(\varphi )^2\lambda ^2+r^4\left({\displaystyle \frac{17}{180}}(\varphi )^4{\displaystyle \frac{1}{20}}\varphi ^a\varphi ^b\varphi _{ab}\right)\lambda ^4+\mathrm{}\right],`$ (B.4)
$`\sigma ^\eta `$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (B.5)
$`\sigma ^a`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\varphi ^a(r\lambda )^2+\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{24}}\varphi ^{ab}\varphi _b+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}(\varphi )^2\varphi ^a\right](r\lambda )^4+\mathrm{}.`$ (B.6)
The expansion (B.1) for $`\sigma `$ can be converted into one in terms of $`(1\mathrm{cos}\lambda )`$ using

$$\lambda ^2=2(1z)+\frac{1}{3}(1z)^2+\frac{4}{45}(1z)^3+\mathrm{},$$
(B.7)
where $`z\mathrm{cos}\lambda `$. Defining the functions $`u(x)`$, $`v(x)`$ by

$$2\sigma (x,y;x,y^{})=2r^2\left[(1z)+u(x)(1z)^2+v(x)(1z)^3+\mathrm{}\right],$$
(B.8)
we obtain

$`u(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}[1r^2(\varphi )^2],`$ (B.9)
$`v(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{45}}\left[1{\displaystyle \frac{5}{4}}r^2(\varphi )^2+r^4(\varphi )^4{\displaystyle \frac{3}{8}}r^4\varphi [(\varphi )^2]\right].`$ (B.10)
Combining (B.4B.7) with the results of Appendix A and the short-distance expansions of , one can derive expansions for the $`D^{\frac{1}{2}}a_n`$ in powers of $`(1z)`$. Writing

$$D^{\frac{1}{2}}a_n^{\mathrm{}\xi ^4R}=\mathrm{}_n^{\mathrm{}\xi ^4R}=\mathrm{}_{n(0)}^{\mathrm{}\xi ^4R}+\mathrm{}_{n(1)}^{\mathrm{}\xi ^4R}(1z)+\mathrm{}_{n(2)}^{\mathrm{}\xi ^4R}(1z)^2+\mathrm{},$$
(B.11)
one can show that

$`\mathrm{}_{0(0)}^{\mathrm{}\xi ^4R}`$ $`=`$ $`1,`$ (B.12)
$`\mathrm{}_{0(1)}^{\mathrm{}\xi ^4R}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}(1+r^2B),`$ (B.13)
$`\mathrm{}_{0(2)}^{\mathrm{}\xi ^4R}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{90}}A^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{72}}(1+r^2B)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{36}}(1+r^2B)(14r^2(\varphi )^2)`$ (B.14)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{r^4}{180}}[{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}R(\varphi )^2+6T_{ab}\varphi ^a\varphi ^b+2T_{ab}T^{ab}+12({\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^2}}+B)(\varphi )^2`$
$`+6({\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^2}}+B)_{|a}\varphi ^a],`$
$`\mathrm{}_{1(0)}^{\mathrm{}\xi ^4R}`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}\xi \right)\left(R+4\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi 6(\varphi )^2+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{r^2}}\right),`$ (B.15)
$`\mathrm{}_{1(1)}^{\mathrm{}\xi ^4R}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}\xi \right)\left[(1+r^2B)+r^2\varphi \right]\left(R+4\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi 6(\varphi )^2+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{r^2}}\right)`$ (B.16)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{r^2}{180}}[RT+3R(\varphi )^2+8T_{ab}T^{ab}+12T_{ab}\varphi ^a\varphi ^b+(R+4\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi 6(\varphi )^2+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{r^2}})_{|a}\varphi ^a`$
$`+3[\mathrm{\Delta }2\varphi ]({\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^2}}+B)6({\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^2}}+B)(\varphi )^2]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{90r^2}}\left(2A^2+A(1+r^2B)2(1+r^2B)^2\right),`$
$`\mathrm{}_{2(0)}^{\mathrm{}\xi ^4R}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}\xi \right)^2\left(R+4\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi 6(\varphi )^2+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{r^2}}\right)^2`$ (B.17)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}\xi \right)\left[\mathrm{\Delta }2\varphi \right]\left(R+4\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi 6(\varphi )^2+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{r^2}}\right)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{180}}[[\mathrm{\Delta }2\varphi ](R+4\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi 6(\varphi )^2+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{r^2}})`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}R^22RT+4T_{ab}T^{ab}+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{r^4}}A^2{\displaystyle \frac{2}{r^4}}(1+r^2B)^2].`$
It is easily verified that for flat spacetime each of the $`\mathrm{}_{n(k)}^{\mathrm{}\xi ^4R}`$ vanishes, except for $`\mathrm{}_{0(0)}^{\mathrm{}\xi ^4R}`$.


text:
# Dynamic Approach to Weak First Order Phase Transitions

## Abstract

A short-time dynamic approach to weak first order phase transitions is proposed. Taking the 2-dimensional Potts models as examples, from short-time behaviour of non-equilibrium relaxational processes starting from high temperature and zero temperature states,x pseudo critical points $`K^{}`$ and $`K^{}`$ are determined. A clear difference of the values for $`K^{}`$ and $`K^{}`$ distinguishes a weak first order transition from a second order one. At the pseudo critical points, pseudo critical exponents can be estimated.

In recent years, much progress has been achieved in non-equilibrium critical dynamics. For example, in a dynamic process in which a system initially at a high temperature or a zero temperature state, is suddenly quenched to the critical temperature or nearby and then evolves dynamically, short-time universal scaling behaviour has been found jan89 ; hus89 . This phenomenon is rather fundamental. It exists not only in stochastic dynamics described by Langevin equations jan89 ; oer93  or Monte Carlo algorithms hus89 ; hum91 ; sta92 ; li94 ; gra95 ; sch95 , but also in deterministic dynamics described by fundamental microscopic equations of motion zhe99 . More interestingly, based on the short-time scaling form, it is possible to determine not only dynamic exponents but also static exponents as well as the critical temperature li95 ; luo98 . Since the measurements are carried out in the short-time regime, one does not suffer from critical slowing down. Compared with non-local cluster algorithms, the short-time dynamic approach does study properties of the original local dynamics and also applies to systems with quenched randomness. For a review, see Ref. zhe98 .

Naturally, it is interesting and attractive to explore possible applications of short-time dynamics to first order phase transitions. Especially, due to large correlation lengths and small discontinuities, a weak first order transition presents quite similar behaviour as a second order one. It has long been challenging how to distinguish one from the other. Furthermore, slowing down in Monte Carlo simulations at first order transitions is even more severe than at second order ones. Non-local cluster algorithms also do not show much more efficiency.

In numerical simulations at first order transitions in equilibrium, to locate the transition point one usually searches for the maximums of the specific heat, susceptibility, or a Binder cumulant constructed from energy bin92 . For a system with lattice size $`L`$, these maximums deviate from the real transition point by a power law $`1/L^d`$. To remove this power law deviation, special techniques have been introduced bor92 . With these techniques, first order transition points can be determined rather accurately from moderate lattice sizes, even for weak first order transitions.

To distinguish a first order transition from a second order one, naively one may explore a signal for discontinuity of the order parameter by increasing the lattice sizes. Refined methods are typically based on the finite size scaling of the specific heat, susceptibility, order parameter, Binder cumulant of energy, or the transition point, e.g. see Refs. bin92 ; pri90 ; bin97 ; fer88 ; fer89 ; oli95 ; jan95 ; fer98 . However, when a first order transition is very weak, it becomes subtle. The lattice sizes one reaches in simulations hardly feel the difference between very large correlation lengths in weak first order transitions and divergent ones in second order transitions. The double peak structure of the energy distribution together with the finite size scaling shows its merit in this respect lee90 ; lee91 ; jan00 , but further efficient methods are still desired.

In this letter, we propose a short-time dynamic approach to weak first order transitions. The idea is inspired by the existence of two pseudo critical points $`K^{}`$ and $`K^{}`$ near the weak first order transition point $`K_c`$ with $`K^{}<K_c<K^{}`$ gen75 ; fer92 . In equilibrium, numerical measurements of $`K^{}`$ and $`K^{}`$ are not easy since they are induced by metastable states. However, in short-time dynamics $`K^{}`$ and $`K^{}`$ can be determined rather accurately from two dynamic processes starting from high temperature and zero temperature states. In second order transitions, $`K^{}`$ and $`K^{}`$ overlap with the transition point $`K_c`$. Therefore, difference of $`K^{}`$ and $`K^{}`$ gives a criterion for a weak first order transition.

As examples, we investigate the two-dimensional $`q`$-state Potts models. The transition point is exactly known at $`K_c=\mathrm{ln}(1+\sqrt{q})`$. The phase transition is second order for $`q4`$ and becomes first order for $`q5`$. For small $`q`$, the first order transitions are weak. Especially, for $`q=5`$ the transition is so weak that with standard methods one hardly sees a difference from a second order one.

In second order transitions, it has been shown that at the critical point, short-time behaviour of physical observables is a power law in dynamic processes starting from both a random and an ordered state. Away from the critical point, the power law behaviour is modified by a scaling function zhe98 . We will demonstrate that it is different for first order transitions. An approximate power law behaviour will be observed only at the pseudo critical points $`K^{}`$ and $`K^{}`$ in proper dynamic processes.

We begin our investigation by determining $`K^{}`$ for the 7-state Potts model. For this purpose, we consider a dynamic process in which the system initially in a random state, is suddenly quenched to $`K_c`$ or above, then evolves dynamically. We have performed simulations with the heat-bath algorithm. Lattice sizes are $`L=140`$ and $`280`$ and maximum updating times are $`t_{max}=2000`$ and $`6000`$ respectively. Total samples for averaging are $`4600`$ and errors are simply estimated by dividing the data into four subsamples.

In Fig. 1(a), the second moment $`M^{(2)}(t)`$ with $`L=280`$ is displayed for $`K=1.293562`$ ($`K_c`$), $`1.294210`$ and $`1.294857`$ on a log-log scale. Apparently, at $`K_c`$ the curve bends downwards and does not show a power law behaviour due to the random initial state and the finite spatial correlation length in equilibrium. Actually, this already indicates that the transition is first order if we assume $`K_c`$ is known. What is interesting here is that at a slightly bigger $`K`$, which we denote by $`K^{}`$, one observes an approximate power law behaviour. The weaker the transition is, the cleaner the power law behaviour will be. When $`K`$ becomes bigger than $`K^{}`$, the curve bends upwards. Therefore, $`K^{}`$ looks like a critical point zhe98 . We can not prove that our $`K^{}`$ is the same as the pseudo critical point $`K^{}`$ defined in equilibrium, but we strongly believe so. In equilibrium, $`K^{}`$ is defined as a point at which the system presents approximate scaling behaviour similar to that at a critical point gen75 ; fer92 .

In our short-time dynamic approach, practically we locate the pseudo critical point $`K^{}`$ by interpolating $`M^{(2)}(t)`$ among the three simulated $`K`$’s and searching for the best power law behaviour luo98 ; zhe98 . In short-time critical dynamics, it has been intensively discussed that universal behaviour emerges only after a time scale $`t_{mic}`$ which is large enough in microscopic sense. If a Monte Carlo time step (a sweep over all spins on the lattice) is considered to be a microscopic time unit, $`t_{mic}`$ is typically $`10`$ to some hundred time steps zhe98 . Similarly, in first order transitions, physical behaviour at macroscopic level is presented also only after $`t_{mic}`$. In the upper part of Fig. 2, $`K^{}`$ obtained with data in a time interval $`[t,t_{max}]`$ is shown. The results are stable and $`K^{}`$ is clearly above $`K_c`$. The final value for $`K^{}`$ is estimated to be $`K_{7s}^{}=1.293854(29)`$. This is consistent with the value $`K^{}=1.2945(9)`$ given in Ref. fer92 . However, the latter can hardly distinguish $`K^{}`$ from $`K_c`$ within the error.

To determine $`K^{}`$, we study a dynamic process in which the system initially in an ordered state, is quenched to $`K_c`$ or below, and evolves dynamically. Here we have performed extra simulations for $`L=560`$, up to $`t_{max}=6000`$. Total samples for $`L=140`$, $`280`$ and $`560`$ are $`7000`$, $`1500`$ and $`135`$ respectively. In Fig. 1(b) the magnetisation with $`L=280`$ is plotted for $`K=1.2929`$, $`1.2930`$ and $`1.2931`$. The curve for $`K_c=1.293562`$ (not in the figure) is much above that for $`1.2931`$ and very far from power law behaviour. This is again a signal for a first order transition. The reason is clear. For first order transitions, with an ordered initial state the system will evolve to the ordered phase at $`K_c`$. However, at the pseudo critical point $`K^{}`$ we will observe approximate power law behaviour. Searching for a curve with the best power law behaviour from the three curves in Fig. 1(b), we determine the pseudo critical point $`K^{}`$. The results are presented in the lower part of Fig. 2. The values are clearly below $`K_c`$.

Another interesting observable is the Binder cumulant $`U(t)M^{(2)}(t)/(M(t))^21`$. If a transition is second order, $`U(t)`$ obeys a power law at the transition point. Therefore it can also be used for the determination of $`K^{}`$. Results are included in Fig. 2. Summarising all these measurements leads to $`K_{7s}^{}=1.293008(7)`$.

For the 5-state Potts model, the transition is extremely weak. One should carry out the simulations very carefully. To locate $`K^{}`$, we have first performed simulations with $`L=560`$ for $`K=1.174359`$ ($`K_c`$), $`1.174946`$, and $`1.175533`$, up to $`t_{max}=\mathrm{10\hspace{0.33em}000}`$ with $`1800`$ samples. The resulting $`K_{5s}^{}=1.17445(6)`$ is not accurate enough. Therefore another simulation has been carried out at $`K=1.174570`$, which is much closer to $`K^{}`$. In Fig. 3(a), the second moments for $`K=1.174359`$ ($`K_c`$) and $`1.174570`$ are displayed. With these data more accurate values for $`K^{}`$ are obtained and collected in the upper part of Fig. 4. We estimate the averaged $`K_{5s}^{}=1.174404(7)`$.

Similar is the case for the determination of $`K^{}`$. We have first performed simulations with an ordered initial state with lattice sizes $`L=280`$ and $`560`$ for $`K=1.173890`$, $`1.174125`$, and $`1.174359`$ ($`K_c`$), up to $`t_{max}=\mathrm{10\hspace{0.33em}000}`$ with total samples $`725`$. From the data for the magnetisation we estimate a relatively rough $`K_{5s}^{}=1.17428(9)`$. Then we performed simulations at $`K=1.174280`$ and $`1.174359`$ ($`K_c`$) up to $`t_{max}=\mathrm{40\hspace{0.33em}000}`$. The results are not sensitive to whether we take $`t_{max}=\mathrm{10\hspace{0.33em}000}`$ or $`\mathrm{40\hspace{0.33em}000}`$. In Fig. 3(b), the magnetisation at $`K=1.174280`$ and $`1.174359`$ ($`K_c`$) are plotted. From the lower part of Fig. 4, we obtain a final value $`K_{5s}^{}=1.174322(2)`$.

In Table 1, all results for $`K^{}`$ and $`K^{}`$ have been collected. For both the 7-state and the 5-state Potts model, $`K^{}`$ and $`K^{}`$ are clearly above and below the transition point $`K_c`$ respectively. Our short-time dynamic approach indeed provides a safe criterion for a weak first order transition.

Since our dynamic measurements are carried out in the short-time regime when the spatial correlation length is still short, we can easily control the finite size effect. We also do not have the problem of generating independent configurations and therefore do not suffer from slowing down. After excluding the finite size effect, the measurements are sensitive enough to distinguish a finite but very large spatial correlation length in equilibrium from an infinite one. This is why our method is successful.

With the pseudo critical points in hand, assuming similar scaling laws as in second order transitions zhe98 , one can estimate corresponding pseudo critical exponents. At $`K^{}`$, e.g,

$$M^{(2)}(t)t^{c_2},c_2=(d2\beta /\nu )/z.$$
(1)
At $`K^{}`$, for the magnetisation,

$$M(t)t^{c_1},c_1=\beta /\nu z,$$
(2)
while for the Binder cumulant

$$U(t)t^{c_U},c_U=d/z.$$
(3)
Here $`d`$ is the dimension of the lattice, $`\beta `$ and $`\nu `$ are the well known static exponents and $`z`$ is the dynamic exponent. However, the values of the exponents at $`K^{}`$ and $`K^{}`$ can be different. Plotting the observables vs. $`t`$ in log-log scale, one measures the corresponding exponents from the slopes. The results are given in Table 2. Here we should admit that accurate values for complete sets of exponents can not be obtained so easily. One still needs much more careful simulations. An important reason is that $`K^{}`$ and $`K^{}`$ are not real critical points. They are also rather close to each other.

In conclusions, we have proposed a short-time dynamic approach to weak first order transitions. From non-equilibrium short-time behaviour of two dynamic processes starting from random and ordered initial states, pseudo critical points $`K^{}`$ and $`K^{}`$ are determined. Difference of $`K^{}`$ and $`K^{}`$ distinguishes a weak first order transition from a second order one. Since the measurements are carried out in short-time regimes, the method does not suffer from slowing down. Different from many techniques developed in simulations in equilibrium, our method is not based on the finite size scaling.

A simple average of $`K^{}`$ and $`K^{}`$ gives a rather good estimate of the transition point $`K_c`$, especially for very weak transitions. For example, for the 5-state Potts model $`(K^{}+K^{})/2=1.174363`$ and the relative deviation from the exact $`K_c`$ is only the order of $`O(10^6)`$. It is interesting to investigate how to obtain an accurate $`K_c`$ for not too weak transitions. Furthermore, how other relevant observables like the specific heat and energy distribution evolve in non-equilibrium dynamics is also an important topic. It is challenging whether from short-time dynamics one can estimate the latent heat and the discontinuity of the order parameter in equilibrium.

Acknowledgements: The authors thank Z.B. Li and Q. Wang for valuable comments. This work is supported in part by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, Az. Schu 95/9-2 and TR 300/3-1.