text:
# Dark Energy, Expansion History of the Universe, and SNAP

## I Introduction

Little else evokes the recent great advances in our abilities in cosmological observations like the quest to explore the expansion history of the universe. This carries cosmology well beyond “determining two numbers” – the present dimensionless density of matter $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ and the present deceleration parameter $`q_0`$ of Sandage san61  – to seeking to reconstruct the entire function $`a(t)`$ representing the expansion history of the universe. In the previous case cosmologists sought only a local measure – the first two derivatives of the scale factor $`a`$, evaluated at a single time $`t_0`$ – while in the latter case we strive to map out the function determining the global dynamics of the universe.

While many qualitative elements of cosmology follow merely from the form of the metric, i.e. the kinematical cosmology (see Weinberg wein ), deeper understanding of our universe requires knowledge of the dynamics, the quantitative role of gravitational forces determining the scale factor evolution, $`a(t)`$. This echoes the flows of energy between components, e.g. the epoch of radiation domination transitioning to that of matter domination, and is a key element in the growth of density perturbations into structure. Yet until recently the literature tended to consider only

$$H_0=(\dot{a}/a)_0;q_0=(a\ddot{a}/\dot{a}^2)_0,$$
(1)
the Hubble constant and the deceleration parameter today.

Now a myriad of cosmological observational tests can probe the function $`a(t)`$ more fully, over much of the age of the universe (see Sandage san88 , Linder lin89 ; lin97 , Tegmark teg ). All that is required is a probe capable, not just in theory but in practice, of observations both precise and accurate enough. A number of promising methods are being developed, but this talk concentrates on the most advanced, the magnitude-redshift relation of Type Ia supernovae.

The goal of mapping out the recent expansion history of the universe has several motivations. The thermal history of the universe, extending back through structure formation, matter-radiation decoupling, radiation thermalization, primordial nucleosynthesis, etc. has taught us an enormous amount about both cosmology and particle physics. It has spin offs in high energy physics, neutrino physics, gravitational physics, nuclear physics, and so on (see, e.g., Kolb and Turner kt ). The recent expansion history of the universe promises similarly fertile ground with the discovery of the current acceleration of the expansion of the universe. This involves concepts of the late time role of high energy field theories in the form of possible quintessence, scalar-tensor gravitation, higher dimension theories, brane worlds, etc.

Looking literally to the future, this accelerated expansion moreover has profound implications for the fate of the universe, from the viability of string theory string  to eternal inflation and the heat death of the universe krauss  to ideas on the cyclic nature of time stein . The recent expansion history offers guidance on the fate of our universe plus physics at the extremes: the form of high energy physics, physics at the smallest scales and in extra dimensions, physics in the most distant past and asymptotic future.

Section II considers the use of supernova observations to obtain the magnitude-redshift law out to $`z2`$ and how to relate this to the scale factor-time behavior $`a(t)`$. Section III presents specifics on the proposed Supernova/Acceleration Probe mission snap  and its capabilities. Different parametrizations of the dynamics are investigated in Section IV, including extensions to nonstandard gravitation that alters the Friedmann equation governing the expansion evolution. Section V considers constraints from other probes, especially on the age of the universe and the Hubble constant.

The reconstruction of the recent expansion history, à la Figure 5, may hopefully soon be a standard feature of future textbooks.

## II Mapping the Expansion History

First we consider the global description: the geometry of the universe and the form of the spacetime metric that this imposes. Readers familiar with cosmology might wish to skip this didacticism and proceed to either Eq. 2 or 6.

Precision measurements of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation temperature across the entire sky, as well as subsidiary experiments such as radio source counts, galaxy counts, and background radiation surveys in other wavelength bands, indicate our universe is very well modeled by an isotropic spacetime. Redshift surveys such as the 2dF and Sloan Digital Sky Survey allow us to begin to construct a three dimensional picture of the universe to test homogeneity directly. CMB fluctuation measurements can constrain inhomogeneous models as well. Moreover, we can always fall back upon the Cosmological Principle, which provides a strong theoretical expectation that the isotropy observed about us can be interpreted as about a random location and therefore enforces global homogeneity. Ellis et al. ell  have quantified the extent to which this could break down and shown that formally isotropy about any three points leads to homogeneity.

A homogeneous and isotropic universe is described within general relativity by the Robertson-Walker metric. This contains only two parameters – a function $`a(t)`$ and a constant $`k`$ – describing respectively the scale evolution or dynamics, and the spatial curvature. CMB measurements have further put tight constraints on the spatial curvature, restricting its characteristic scale today to be of order ten times the horizon scale, i.e. its effective energy density is at most of order 1% of the total energy density.

Thus for the rest of this paper we adopt the Robertson-Walker metric with flat spatial sections, $`k=0`$:

$$ds^2=dt^2+a^2(t)[dr^2+r^2(d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\varphi ^2)].$$
(2)
We will also find it convenient sometimes to use conformal time $`d\eta =dt/a`$.

Type Ia supernovae, or any standardizable candles (sources with known luminosity), are excellently suited to map the expansion history $`a(t)`$ since there exists a direct relation between the observed distance-redshift relation $`d(z)`$ and the theoretical $`a(t)`$. The scale factor $`a`$ trivially translates into the observable redshift $`z`$ of the source by $`a=(1+z)^1`$. That is, the expansion of spacetime directly stretches the wavelengths of the emitted light. On the other hand, that light was emitted a finite time ago since it had to traverse a certain distance $`d`$ from the supernova to the observer. The received energy flux from the supernova obeys the (relativistic) inverse square law, so the distance can be derived from the observed flux by relating it to the known emitted flux. Via the speed of light the distance is translated into a “lookback time” $`t`$. Thus one can proceed very simply from observables $`d(z)`$ to the expansion $`a(t)`$.

Mathematically, things are almost as simple. The relation between the scale factor and redshift holds for any “quiet” universe where the light from a source moving at velocities slow compared to the Hubble velocity (which is near unity for the distant sources used) propagates without interaction in an adiabatically evolving background. The distance used is the luminosity distance $`d_L`$, which is related to the coordinate distance appearing in the metric (2) by $`d_L=(1+z)r`$. All that remains is to find $`r(z)`$.

The form of $`r(z)`$ comes from light following null geodesics, $`ds=0`$. Thus $`dr=dt/a=d\eta `$ and

$$r(z)=\eta (z)=_{a_e}^1𝑑a/(a^2H)=_0^z𝑑z^{}/H(z^{}),$$
(3)
where the Hubble parameter (a function now, not a single number) is $`H=\dot{a}/a`$ and $`a_e=1/(1+z)`$ is the scale factor at the time of emission, i.e. when the supernova exploded. This is the kinematical result, following purely from the geometry. To evaluate the function we need to introduce dynamics: equations of motion derived from the gravitation theory.

In general relativity these are known as the Friedmann equations and the relevant one relating the Hubble parameter to the matter and energy contents of the flat universe is

$$H^2=(8\pi /3)\rho .$$
(4)
The conservation condition of each (noninteracting) component is

$$\dot{\rho }/\rho =3H(1+p/\rho )3H[1+w(z)],$$
(5)
where the energy density is $`\rho `$, the pressure $`p`$, and the equation of state (EOS) of each component is defined by $`w=p/\rho `$. Ordinary nonrelativistic matter has $`w=0`$; a cosmological constant has $`w=1`$. We explicitly allow the possibility that $`w`$ evolves. The total density and pressure are just the sum of the individual components.

Once one has $`H(z)`$ one can map out the expansion history $`a(t)`$ by

$$t(a)=_a^1𝑑a^{}/(a^{}H)=_0^z𝑑z^{}/[(1+z^{})H(z^{})].$$
(6)
The gross behavior of the scale factor over the entire age of the universe is illustrated in Figure 1. Note that the lookback time is zero at $`z=0`$ ($`a=1`$). One can classify expanding cosmologies into open, closed, and critical cases, and those which possessed a Big Bang vs. bounce models. To set the stage by adding one level of detail at a time, we are next interested in discrimination between models which have less extreme asymptotic behaviors. A blowup of the past history of simple models appears in Figure 2. The main focus of this paper though is a much finer discrimination, between models distinguished by small differences in their components. This is probed through the recent expansion history.

## III SNAP Capabilities

The distance-redshift relation can map out the expansion history. From the ability of supernovae, or other probes, to observe $`r(z)`$ one can fit and constrain $`\rho `$ and $`w(z)`$ of each component. To investigate the dark energy and distinguish between classes of physics models we need to probe the expansion back into the deceleration epoch, indeed over a redshift baseline reaching $`z>1.5`$ (see Fig. 3; Li01 ; HL02 ). SNAP snap  is a simple, dedicated experiment specifically designed to map the distance-redshift relation out to $`z=1.7`$ with high precision and tight control of systematic errors.

These data can determine the cosmological parameters with high precision: depending on the exact model, the mass density $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ to $`\pm 0.01`$, vacuum energy density $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and curvature $`\mathrm{\Omega }_k`$ to $`\pm 0.03`$, and the dark energy equation of state $`w`$ to $`\pm 0.05`$ and its time variation $`w^{}=dw/dz`$ to $`\pm 0.3`$. This time variation is a crucial distinguishing feature, not only for ruling out a cosmological constant explanation, but for guidance on the proper class of high energy physics theory to pursue. In addition, wide area weak gravitational lensing studies with SNAP will map the distribution of dark matter in the universe and teach us about the evolution of the nonlinear mass power spectrum.

The SNAP mission concept is a 2.0 meter space telescope with a nearly one square degree field of view. A half billion pixel, wide field imaging system comprises 36 large format new technology CCD’s and 36 HgCdTe infrared detectors. Both the imager and a low resolution ($`R100`$) spectrograph cover the wavelength range 3500 - 17000 Å, allowing detailed characterization of Type Ia supernovae out to $`z=1.7`$.

As a space experiment SNAP will be able to study supernovae over a much larger range of redshifts than has been possible with the current ground-based measurements – over a wide wavelength range unhindered by the Earth’s atmosphere and with much higher precision and accuracy. Many of these systematics-bounding measurements are only achievable in a space environment with low sky noise and a very small and stable point spread function (critical for lensing as well). Unlike other cosmological probes, supernova studies have progressed to the point that a detailed catalog of known and possible systematic uncertainties has been compiled – and, more importantly, approaches have been developed to constrain each one.

An array of data (e.g. supernova risetime, early detection to eliminate Malmquist bias, lightcurve peak-to-tail ratio, identification of the Type Ia-defining Si II spectral feature, separation of supernova light from host galaxy light, and identification of host galaxy morphology, etc.) makes it possible to study each individual supernova and measure enough of its physical properties to recognize deviations from standard brightness subtypes. For example, an approach to the problem of possible supernova evolution uses the rich stream of information that an expanding supernova atmosphere sends us in the form of its spectrum. A series of measurements will be constructed for each supernova that define systematics-bounding subsets of the Type Ia category. Only the change in brightness as a function of the parameters classifying a subtype is needed, not any intrinsic brightness. By matching like to like among the supernova subtypes, we can construct independent Hubble diagrams for each, which when compared bound systematic uncertainties at the targeted level of 0.02 magnitudes.

With a prearranged photometric observing program one obtains a uniform, standardized, calibrated dataset for each supernova, allowing for the first time comprehensive comparisons across complete sets of supernovae. The observing requirements also yield data ideal as survey images, and one automatically obtains host galaxy luminosity, colors, morphology, and type – a rich resource 9000 times larger than the Hubble Deep Field and somewhat deeper. Thus SNAP will map the distance-redshift relation and much more.

## IV Modeling the Dynamics

A fly in the theoretical ointment is that the measured distance $`r(z)`$ is related to, but is not, the desired history relation $`a(t)`$. So we need to translate $`r(z)`$ into $`a(t)`$; this requires an intermediate step of obtaining $`H(z)`$. We can do this either directly or through the cosmology parameters $`\rho `$ and $`w(z)`$. The direct method involves a derivative of $`r(z)`$, so noisy data can introduce difficulties astier ; ht . We examine this approach further in §IV.3. First we discuss the reconstruction of $`H(z)`$ from the fit of the cosmological parameters to the observations.

Observational evidence for accelerated expansion informs us that (within the dark energy picture; cf. §IV.5) there must be further cosmological parameters, describing another component with a strongly negative EOS.

Assuming that just these two components, matter and another with EOS $`w(z)`$, control the dynamics during the epoch of interest, we obtain a solution for $`H(z)`$ and hence $`r(z)`$ by combining equations (3)-(5):

$`H_0r(z)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^z}dz^{}[\mathrm{\Omega }_m(1+z^{})^3+(1\mathrm{\Omega }_m)`$ (7)
$`\times `$ $`e^{3_0^{\mathrm{ln}(1+z^{})}d\mathrm{ln}(1+z^{\prime \prime })[1+w(z^{\prime \prime })]}]^{1/2},`$
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ is the dimensionless matter density $`8\pi \rho _m/(3H_0^2)`$ and $`H_0`$ is the Hubble constant – the present value of the Hubble parameter. Equation (6) can then be used to obtain $`a(t)`$.

The EOS $`w(z)`$ is derived from the Lagrangian for that component, i.e. the particle physics enters here. One could solve the scalar field equation for a particular model to find $`w(z)`$ but then one does not obtain a model independent parameter space in which to compare models. For generality of treatment, various parametrizations of $`w(z)`$ are used (though hutstar  introduces a principal component approach). We discuss a standard form next and a new parametrization in §IV.2.

### IV.1 Linear $`w(z)`$

The conventional first order expansion to the EOS, enlarging the phase space to incorporate the critical property of time variation in the EOS, is $`w(z)=w_0+w_1z`$. In this case the exponential in (7) resolves to $`(1+z)^{3(1+w_0w_1)}e^{3w_1z}`$. Figure 4 illustrates the effect of changing the cosmological parameters, one at a time, on the expansion history.

An important point is the presence of correlation between the parameters $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$, $`w_0`$, $`w_1`$ (see, e.g., welal ) which must be treated properly if more than one is allowed to vary (which is of course the general case). Figure 5 shows the reconstructed expansion history for a simulation of the future SNAP experiment. Despite it being able to determine each parameter individually to high precision, e.g. $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ to 0.03, $`w_0`$ to 0.05, $`w_1`$ to 0.3 (each marginalized over others), the correlations among them (i.e. degeneracies among their combinations) relax the tightness of the constraint SNAP would place on the expansion history. This is unavoidable (but see §IV.4).

### IV.2 A new parametrization of the dark energy

Mapping the expansion history out to redshifts $`z>1`$, beyond the deceleration-acceleration transition represents a major advance in our cosmological knowledge. But high redshift does introduce complications in the parametrization of dark energy. In order to draw model independent constraints, we had parametrized the dark energy EOS linearly in redshift: $`w(z)=w_0+w_1z`$. This clearly grows increasingly problematic at redshifts $`z>1`$. However exact solutions for the EOS from the scalar field equations of motion do not allow us to make model independent statements.

Corasaniti and Copeland cc  originally suggested an alternate parametrization in terms of a 7-dimensional phase space: the value of the EOS today, $`w_0`$, the values deep in the matter (radiation) dominated tracker regime, $`w_m`$ ($`w_r`$), the scale factors $`a_{cm}`$ ($`a_{cr}`$) at the time the field leaves the tracking behaviors, and the widths $`\mathrm{\Delta }_m`$ ($`\mathrm{\Delta }_r`$) of those transitions in Hubble units. They find success in a particular functional approximation with scale factor, obtaining the EOS $`w(z)`$ to better than 5% back to the last scattering surface for a range of models that display tracker behavior (where the field is in a slow roll regime that keeps the EOS nearly constant, determined by the EOS of the background component). Indeed they extend this function back into the radiation dominated epoch as well. While this only applies to dark energy field theories that have a slow roll regime, within that fairly varied class (e.g. potentials with inverse power laws, double exponentials, supergravity inspired models, etc.) it provides a model independent method of characterizing the behavior.

Such generality, while impressive, is somewhat unwieldy. For our present purposes we can make two simplifications. First, since we aim only to trace the expansion history back to the matter dominated epoch (for now at least), I simplify the phase space to four dimensions and obtain a fitting function for $`w(a)`$ as

$`w(a)`$ $`=`$ $`F+G\left[1+e^{(aa_c)/\mathrm{\Delta }}\right]^1`$ (8)
$`F`$ $`=`$ $`w_0(w_mw_0)(1+e^{a_c/\mathrm{\Delta }})(e^{1/\mathrm{\Delta }}1)^1`$ (9)
$`G`$ $`=`$ $`(w_mw_0)(1+e^{a_c/\mathrm{\Delta }})(e^{1/\mathrm{\Delta }}1)^1`$ (10)
$`\times `$ $`(1+e^{(1a_c)/\mathrm{\Delta }}).`$
Out to the last scattering surface at $`z=1100`$ this is as accurate as the original Corasaniti & Copeland expression. The time variation of the EOS, evaluated at $`z=0`$, is

$`w^{}`$ $``$ $`(dw/dz)_0=(w_mw_0)\mathrm{\Delta }^1(e^{1/\mathrm{\Delta }}1)^1`$ (11)
$`\times `$ $`(1+e^{a_c/\mathrm{\Delta }})(1+e^{(1a_c)/\mathrm{\Delta }})^1.`$
But analyzing the constraints of SNAP or other cosmological probes on a 4-dimensional dark energy parameter space, in addition to other parameters such as $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ and the supernova intrinsic magnitude, is too broad for useful conclusions. Instead I make a second simplification by using a fitting function

$`w(a)`$ $`=`$ $`w_0+w_a(1a)`$ (12)
$`=`$ $`w_0+w_az/(1+z).`$ (13)
This is astonishingly successful (see Fig. 1 in lin0210 ).

This new parametrization<sup>1</sup><sup>1</sup>1A few months after this talk, D. Polarski kindly directed me to polwa , though there they do not consider $`z1`$. of dark energy models has several advantages: 1) a manageable 2-dimensional phase space, the same size as the old $`w_0w_1`$ parametrization, 2) reduction to the old linear redshift behavior at low redshift, 3) well behaved, bounded behavior for high redshift, 4) high accuracy in reconstructing many scalar field equations of state and the resulting distance-redshift relations, 5) good sensitivity to observational data, 6) simple physical interpretation. Particularly important is its virtue of keeping $`w(a)`$ of order unity even for large redshifts; this is essential when analyzing cosmic microwave background (CMB) constraints (to $`z=1100`$) on dark energy. This contrasts with the linear redshift expansion from the previous section.

Beyond the bounded behavior, though, the new parametrization is also more accurate than the old one. For example, in comparison to the exact solution for the supergravity inspired SUGRA model braxm  it is accurate in matching $`w(z)`$ to -2%, 3% at $`z=0.5`$, 1.7 vs. 6%, -27% for the linear $`z`$ approximation (the constants $`w_1`$, $`w_a`$ are here chosen to fit at $`z=1`$). Most remarkably, it reconstructs the distance-redshift behavior of the SUGRA model to 0.2% over the entire range out to the last scattering surface ($`z1100`$). The physical interpretation of the parametrization is straightforward: $`w_0`$ is the present value of the EOS and $`w_a`$ is a measure of the time variation, which can be chosen to give the correct value of $`w(z=1)`$. For the cosmological constant, of course $`w_a=0`$.

Figure 4 shows lines of constant $`w_a=\pm 1`$ ($`dw/dz0.5`$) in the expansion evolution $`a(t)`$. Note that for $`w(a)=w_0+w_a(1a)`$ the dark energy density exponential in (7) resolves to $`a^{3(1+w_0+w_a)}e^{3w_a(1a)}`$.

Also note that $`dw/d\mathrm{ln}(1+z)|_{z=1}=w_a/2`$; one might consider this quantity a natural measure of time variation (it is directly related to the scalar field potential slow roll factor $`V^{}/V`$) and $`z=1`$ a region where the scalar field is most likely to be evolving as the epoch of matter domination begins to change over to dark energy domination.

SNAP will be able to determine $`w_a`$ to better than $`\pm 0.55`$ (one expects roughly $`w_a2w_1`$), with use of a prior on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ of 0.03, or to better than 0.3 on incorporating data from the Planck CMB experiment planck . For the advantages of combining supernova and CMB data see fhlt . The CMB information can be folded in naturally in this parametrization, without imposing artificial cutoffs or locally approximating the likelihood surface (Fisher matrix approach) as required for SNe plus a CMB prior in the $`w_1`$ parametrization. In fact, the new parametrization is even more promising since the sensitivity of the SNAP determinations increases for $`w_0`$ more positive than $`1`$ or for positive $`w_a`$ (see, e.g., astier ): the values quoted above were for a fiducial cosmological constant model. For example, SUGRA predicts $`w_a=0.58`$ and SNAP would put error bars of $`\sigma (w_a)0.25`$ on that; this would demonstrate time variation of the EOS at the 95% confidence level. Incorporation of a Planck prior can improve this to $`\sigma (dw/d\mathrm{ln}(1+z)|_{z=1})0.1`$, i.e. the $``$99% confidence level.

### IV.3 Using $`H(z)`$ directly

The direct reconstruction method of going from observations $`r(z)`$ to $`H(z)`$, and then to $`a(t)`$, without a parametrization in terms of $`w(z)`$ can be attempted. This has the virtue of model semi-independence, allowing incorporation of additional errors, e.g. systematics, outside the distance relation. But since it can only be carried out in a local perturbative manner (à la the Fisher matrix) it does depend on a known fiducial model. But this is a model merely for $`H(z)`$, not for the details $`w(z)`$, i.e. it is a nonparametric reconstruction, and it can give a feel for the effect of measurement errors.

Here we relate the derived uncertainties about a fiducial behavior $`H(z)`$ to the observational errors. First we must realize that the supernovae observations are phrased in terms of magnitudes, or logarithmic fluxes: $`m(z)5\mathrm{log}[(1+z)r(z)]`$, so one really is interested in $`\sigma _{H(z)}`$ as a function of the measurement errors $`\sigma _{m(z)}`$. However, a one to one mapping between these quantities at a single redshift does not exist, since $`m(z)`$ involves an integral over the Hubble parameter (see Eq. 3). Instead, a variational calculation yields

$$\sigma _{H(z)}=H(z)\frac{\mathrm{ln}10}{5}\left[\sigma _{m(z)}+\frac{d\sigma _m}{dz}H\eta \right],$$
(14)
i.e. the parameter error involves both the magnitude error at that redshift and its derivative. Recall $`\eta (z)=_0^z𝑑z^{}/H`$ is the comoving distance or conformal time.

For a fiducial model $`H(z)`$ one can translate errors in the magnitude data into uncertainties on the Hubble parameter, and then further to the $`a(t)`$ relation. This is convenient for taking into account the realistic situation of not only uncertainty in the cosmology parameters but in the observational data. For example, one can analyze the effect of statistical and systematic magnitude errors on the mapping of the expansion history. To carry the error progragation one step further, to $`a(t)`$, we must integrate the Hubble parameter we found from differentiating the data in order to obtain the lookback time. The resulting error in the time $`t(a)`$ is now nonlocal in redshift:

$`\sigma _{t(z)}`$ $`=`$ $`\sigma _{m(z)}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}10}{5}}(1+z)^1\eta `$ (15)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}10}{5}}{\displaystyle _0^z}𝑑z^{}(1+z^{})^2\eta (z^{})\sigma _{m(z^{})}.`$
In the next section we will see a better solution.

### IV.4 Conformal Time History

One method of incorporating the advantages of both approaches – the generality of parametrization and the directness of reconstruction – is to alter slightly our view of the expansion evolution. Instead of $`a(t)`$, consider the conformal time $`a(\eta )`$. From $`d=(1+z)\eta `$ one sees that one requires no foreknowledge or local approximation to obtain the scale factor-conformal time relation.

We have

$`m(z)`$ $``$ $`5\mathrm{log}[(1+z)\eta (z)],`$ (16)
$`\eta (a)`$ $``$ $`a10^{m(z)/5}=\eta _0(a)10^{dm(z)/5}`$ (17)
where in the last equality we explicitly show how the conformal time-scale factor relation changes in the presence of a shift or errors in the observed magnitude. This error propagation then reduces simply to $`\sigma _{\eta (z)}=\sigma _{m(z)}(\mathrm{ln}10/5)\eta `$. Thus the fractional uncertainty is

$$\frac{\sigma _\eta }{\eta }=\sigma _m\frac{\mathrm{ln}10}{5}(1/2)\sigma _m.$$
(18)
All quantities are at a single redshift. Only in the case where $`\sigma _m`$ is constant in redshift does one obtain similar precision on the other mapping parameters: then $`\sigma _t/t=\sigma _H/H=\sigma _\eta /\eta `$.

Mapping of the expansion history in conformal time is shown in Figure 6. Note that the reconstruction is much tighter due to the straightforward translation from observations. The 1% distance measurement error ($`\sigma _m=0.02`$) given by SNAP’s limiting systematics becomes a 1% error in $`a(\eta )`$. Moreover there is no need for the indirect mapping method of §IV.1, which led to a $``$2% error in $`a(t)`$ due to the parameter correlations mentioned in that section.

Figure 6 also shows the logarithmic derivative

$$\frac{d\eta }{d\mathrm{ln}a}=a\frac{dt}{ada}=(\dot{a})^1=(aH)^1,$$
(19)
interpreted respectively as the proper time evolution of the scale factor or the conformal horizon scale $`(aH)^1`$. Just as in inflation a positive slope denotes decelerating expansion, $`\ddot{a}<0`$ and comoving wavelengths (e.g. of density perturbations) enter the horizon; v.v. for a negative slope: an accelerating universe or inflation. The dashed lines show that SNAP can probe both epochs and map the transition between them.

### IV.5 Beyond Dark Energy

Mapping the physical time evolution of the scale factor relies on translating the observations into the behavior of the Hubble parameter $`H(z)`$. This translation might proceed via a parametrization of the physics of the acceleration, e.g. the dark energy properties as in §IV. We also might want to study the density evolution and its transition from the earlier matter dominated epoch to the present linexp . In §2 we adopted general relativity to obtain the Friedmann equation (4) to provide the foundation for these.

But ideally we would like to use the data to test the Friedmann equations of general relativity or alternate explanations for the acceleration besides dark energy. The supernova distance-redshift data allow such investigation of the fundamental framework by substituting the altered Hubble evolution $`H(z)`$ into Eq. (3). This enables constraints to be placed on, e.g., higher dimension theories, Chaplygin gas, etc. See Linder linexp  for examples.

## V Complementary Probes

In addition to the mapping of the expansion history through the distance-redshift relation by Type Ia supernovae or possibly other methods in the future, one can constrain the $`a(t)`$ curve in other ways. The total age of the universe places the “foot” of the $`a(t)`$ curve on the $`a=0`$ axis in the lower left of the plots. “Shooting upward” with a known slope ($`at^{1/2}`$ in the early radiation dominated epoch) provides a constraint on the $`a(t)`$ relation. Knox et al. knox  have shown that the location of the acoustic peaks in the cosmic microwave background radiation power spectrum is nearly degenerate with the age in a flat universe not too different from ours. These data place a constraint of $`t_0=14.0\pm 0.5`$ billion years. The bounds in terms of $`H_0t_0`$ are slightly weaker because of increased model dependence: $`0.93\pm 0.06`$, $`1.00\pm 0.07`$ from supernovae saul ; h0t0 .

The $`t`$, as opposed to the $`H_0t`$, axis would thus have a stronger footpoint for the $`a(t)`$ curve to aim toward. But conversely, the slope of $`a(t)`$ near $`a=1`$ changes from unity on a $`H_0t`$ plot to the Hubble constant $`H_0`$ on a $`t`$ plot, adding another uncertainty. A direct bound on $`H_0`$ constrains the slope of the $`a(t)`$ curve at $`a=1`$ in the upper right of such plots. The Hubble Space Telescope Key Project freed  quotes $`H_0=72\pm 8`$ km/s/Mpc. In either the $`at`$ or $`aH_0t`$ plane constraints on present slope and total age together act to force the expansion history into a narrow corridor, shooting back in time subject to the boundary conditions.

## VI Conclusion

The geometry, dynamics, and composition of the universe are intertwined through the theory of gravitation governing the expansion of the universe. By precision mapping of the recent expansion history we can hope to learn about all of these. The brightest hope for this in the near future is the next generation of distance-redshift measurements through Type Ia supernovae that will reach out to $`z1.7`$. This represents over 70% of the age of the universe and spans the current accleration epoch back to the matter dominated deceleration epoch when most large scale structure formed.

Just as the thermal history of the early universe taught us much about cosmology, astrophysics, and particle physics, so does the recent expansion history have the potential to greatly extend our physical understanding. With the new parametrization of dark energy suggested here, one can study the effects of a time varying equation of state component back to the decoupling epoch of the cosmic microwave background radiation. But even beyond dark energy, exploring the expansion history provides us cosmological information in a model independent way, allowing us to examine many new physical ideas. From two numbers we have progressed to mapping the entire dynamical function $`a(t)`$, on the brink of a deeper understanding of the dynamics of the universe.

## Acknowledgments

This work was supported at LBL by the Director, Office of Science, DOE under DE-AC03-76SF00098. I thank Alex Kim, Saul Perlmutter, and George Smoot for stimulating discussions, Ramon Miquel and Nick Mostek for stimulating computations, and of course José Nieves for organizing such a stimulating conference.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Holographic renormalization  is a powerful tool that produces finite correlation functions and allows explicit checks of (anomalous) Ward identities along RG flows dual to asymptotically AdS domain walls. One of the main achievement of the program is an efficient and consistent algorithm for computing finite one-point functions in the presence of external sources. By sources we mean the coefficient functions, two per each bulk field component, which are not fixed by the near-boundary analysis . One of those corresponds to an operator deformation of the fixed point theory, while the other corresponds to giving a VEV to an operator .

The non-local and non-linear relation between VEV and source which amounts to requiring regularity of the classical solution of the non-polynomial bulk field equations is hard to find in general. Luckily in order to compute two-point correlation functions it is enough to know this relation at the linear level, e.g. by solving the linearized fluctuation equations around a given domain wall solution. Disentangling the mixing between longitudinal/trace modes of the stress tensor and the active scalar(s) proved subtler , than initially expected . Similar difficulties appearing in the mixing of the broken symmetry currents with Goldstone bosons were disposed of in . Transverse modes are easier to analyze since their fluctuations can be expressed in terms of an auxiliary massless scalar . In particular, after getting rid of non-canonical kinetic terms, (transverse) vector fields display a universal effective mass $`M^2=2A^{\prime \prime }`$  that is manifestly positive thanks to the convessity of the scale factor $`A(r)`$ which is at the heart of the holographic c-theorem . Interesting mass spectra emerge from momentum analysis of holographic two-point functions but so far tradition has prevented the study of even the simplest interactions.

There is little hope of computing higher-point correlation functions except possibly for three-point functions333Following the procedure of holographic renormalization, three-point functions at the conformal point dual to pure AdS have been computed by D. Freedman, U. Gürsoy and K. Skenderis as reported in .. Higher point functions require the knowledge of the bulk-to-bulk propagator that appears in exchange diagrams. For three-point functions, the relevant Witten diagrams at tree-level only involve bulk-to-boundary propagators that are known in many cases, e.g. solving the linearized fluctuation equations with prescribed boundary conditions. Bulk-to-bulk propagators would only appear in loop diagrams that are suppressed by the 5-D Newton constant i.e. by inverse powers of $`N`$ in the spirit of the AdS/CFT correspondence 444For recent reviews see e.g.  and references therein.. Thus restricting to the planar limit captured, at strong ’t Hooft coupling, by the supergravity approximation one can go a step beyond the tradition and address the problem of computing three-point functions. By ‘computing’ we actually mean writing down closed-form expressions that allow one to extract interesting information about the interactions in particular regimes. The only ingredient that is missing from previous analyses is the exact form of some bulk cubic couplings along the flows and of some additional counterterms. In this note we fill this gap and compute simple three-point functions of both active and inert scalars in the two most studied holographic RG flows: the GPPZ flow  and the CB flow .

In order to fix the notation we briefly review the procedure of holographic renormalization in Sect. 2. We then describe the general strategy for computing three-point functions in Sect. 3 and collect some basic formulae for the two flows in Sect. 4. The only real novelty that deserves a special mention is the identification of additional logarithmically divergent counterterms in the GPPZ flow when the bulk field dual to the gluino bilinear comes into play.

In Sect. 5 we specialize our analysis to the CB flow. With little effort we write down a compact expression for the three-point function of inert scalars belonging to the $`(\mathrm{𝟑},\mathrm{𝟑})`$ representation of the $`SO(4)`$ subgroup of $`SO(6)`$ preserved along the flow. We check that our result is finite for generic momenta and try to convince the reader that it displays the correct UV behavior for large momenta. For comparison and in order to give a flavor of the complexity of the problem, we compute the Fourier transform of the conformal three-point functions of scalar primary operators which is not easy to find in the existing literature . We thus report the relevant formula for $`\mathrm{\Delta }=2`$ in an appendix.

In Sect. 6 we analyze the three-point function with one insertion of the active scalar that interpolates for the trace of the stress tensor and two insertions of the inert scalars, which is a “caricature” of the gluino bilinear in the GPPZ flow. As expected the resolution of the mixing with the stress tensor at the required order in the fluctuations turns out to be quite laborious but straightforward. The naive result is logarithmically divergent in the contact terms that are cancelled by the additional counterterms previously identified. By amputating the external legs we extract the finite and rather explicit trilinear coupling of the relevant superglueball states.

Ideally one would like to compute three-point correlation functions with insertions of the stress tensor and/or of (broken) R-symmetry currents. We plan to return to this problem soon. In the concluding Section we outline the procedure for computing such three-point functions and speculate how similar computations, following or extending when needed the approach of holographic renormalization along the lines of , should be feasible for theories which are dual to full-fledged string solutions possibly with logarithmic corrections even in the UV .

## 2 Holographic Renormalization strikes back

In this section we fix our notation. Since there only minor changes with respect to , readers familiar with holographic renormalization may skip directly to Section 3.

To be specific we focus on asymptotically AdS domain walls which are dual to RG flows in $`d=4`$. The set of fields driving the flow together with some ‘spectator’ fields represents a consistent truncation of some gauged supergravity in $`D=5`$, which in turn is the low-energy effective theory of some superstring compactifications on an Einstein manifold with stabilizing fluxes. As usual, we consider Poincaré invariant solutions of the form

$$ds^2=e^{2A(r)}dxdx+dr^2\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\Phi }(r)$$
(2.1)
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ denote one or more canonical scalar fields that drive the flow. The AdS boundary (field theory UV) is at $`r+\mathrm{}`$. The (IR) interior presents a naked singularity unless the flow terminates at another (super)conformal fixed point. Preserving some supersymmetry reduces the problem to solving first order ‘gradient flow’ equations

$$A^{}(r)=\frac{g}{3}W(\mathrm{\Phi })\mathrm{\Phi }^{}(r)=\frac{g}{2}_\mathrm{\Phi }W$$
(2.2)
where $`g=2/L`$ is the bulk gauge coupling and $`L`$ is the characteristic AdS scale. The scalar potential reads

$$V=\frac{g^2}{4}\left[\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{W}{\mathrm{\Phi }}\right)^2\frac{2}{3}W^2\right]$$
(2.3)
To extract some physics from the domain wall solution one may not forgo a near-boundary analysis of the non-linear field equations . To this end it is customary to introduce a different radial variable $`z`$ such that $`dr=Ldz/z`$, i.e. $`z=\mathrm{exp}(r/L)`$. The scale factor behaves as $`A(r)r/L\mathrm{log}z`$ near the UV boundary at $`z=0`$. When $`\mathrm{exp}(2A)\mathrm{exp}(+2r/\stackrel{~}{L})`$ as $`r\mathrm{}`$ one has an AdS ‘horizon’ with $`\stackrel{~}{L}<L`$ that describes a different fixed point at the endpoint of the flow . Barring string corrections or uplift to $`D=10`$ , many interesting solutions display a naked singularity at some finite value of the radial variable. Depending on the behavior of the active scalar field(s) near the boundary one has flows along which (super)conformal invariance is either spontaneously broken, by the presence of operator VEV’s, or explicitly broken, by a relevant deformation of the fixed point action.

For scalar fields dual to operators with UV dimension $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, i.e. with AdS mass $`(ML)^2=\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{\Delta }4)`$, the near boundary expansion, that reads

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(z,x)=z^{4\mathrm{\Delta }}(\varphi _{(0)}(x)+z\varphi _{(1)}(x)+\mathrm{})+z^\mathrm{\Delta }(\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_{(0)}(x)+z\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_{(1)}(x)+\mathrm{})$$
(2.4)
displays two a priori independent asymptotic behaviors. The iterative solution of the field equations allows one to express the higher order coefficient functions $`\varphi _{(n)}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_{(n)}`$ in terms of $`\varphi _{(0)}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_{(0)}`$. For $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ an integer, only coefficient functions with ‘even’ indices appear and it is convenient to change radial variable to $`\rho =z^2`$. Moreover the two dominant behaviors differ by an integer and additional logarithmic terms are needed in order to satisfy the field equations555In the very special case $`\mathrm{\Delta }=2`$, even the dominant term contains a logarithm $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\rho ,x)=\rho \mathrm{log}\rho \varphi _{(0)}(x)+\rho \stackrel{~}{\varphi }_{(0)}(x)+\mathrm{}`$.. Logarithmic behaviors can be associated to conformal anomalies that, being local, can be written in terms of $`\varphi _{(0)}`$, playing the role of an operator source, and a finite number of derivatives thereof. It is not difficult to see that $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_{(0)}`$ is related to the VEV of the corresponding operator .

Naive extension of the AdS/CFT correspondence to holographic RG flows suggests one to compute the on-shell action as a functional of the boundary data and then take functional derivatives in order to compute correlation functions. However the unregulated on-shell action is infinite due to the infinite volume of the bulk. A convenient regularization consists in a radial cutoff $`\rho >ϵ`$ that allows one to easily isolate a finite number of terms diverging as $`ϵ0`$. For the case of scalars coupled to gravity the on-shell action takes the schematic form

$$S_{\mathrm{reg}}[\varphi _{(0)},g_{(0)};ϵ]=_{\rho =ϵ}\text{d}^4x\sqrt{g_{(0)}}\left[\frac{a_{(0)}}{ϵ^\nu }+\frac{a_{(2)}}{ϵ^{\nu 1}}+\mathrm{}\mathrm{log}ϵa_{(2\nu )}+𝒪(ϵ^0)\right]$$

where $`\nu =2`$ and $`a_{(2k)}`$ are local functions of the sources, $`\varphi _{(0)}`$ and $`g_{(0)}`$, that appear in the expansions of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and of the metric

$$g_{(0)ij}=g_{(0)ij}+\rho g_{(2)ij}+\rho ^2g_{(4)ij}+\rho ^2\mathrm{log}\rho h_{(4)ij}+\mathrm{}$$
(2.5)
The counterterm action $`S_{\mathrm{ct}}[\mathrm{\Phi },\gamma ;ϵ]`$, chosen in such a way as to cancel the divergent terms in $`S_{\mathrm{reg}}[\varphi _{(0)},g_{(0)};ϵ]`$, is to be expressed in terms of the fields $`\mathrm{\Phi }(x,ϵ)`$ ‘living’ at the regulating surface $`\rho =ϵ`$ and of the induced metric, $`\gamma _{ij}=g_{ij}(x,ϵ)/ϵ`$. This is required for covariance and follows from a straightforward but often laborious “inversion” of the expansions (2.5),(2.1). The counterterms are universal in that they make the on-shell action finite for any solution of the bulk field equations with given boundary data. The counterterms are however different for different (consistent) truncations, e.g. for different potentials $`V(\mathrm{\Phi })`$. So far we have described a “minimal” scheme in which only the divergences of $`S_{\mathrm{reg}}`$ are subtracted. As in standard quantum field theory, one has the freedom to add finite invariant counterterms. These correspond to a change of scheme aimed for instance to restoring some (super)symmetry.

For later purposes, it proves convenient to define a subtracted action at the cutoff

$$S_{\mathrm{sub}}[\mathrm{\Phi },\gamma ;ϵ]=S_{\mathrm{reg}}[\varphi _{(0)},g_{(0)};ϵ]+S_{\mathrm{ct}}[\mathrm{\Phi },\gamma ;ϵ].$$
(2.6)
The subtracted action has a finite limit as $`ϵ0`$, and the renormalized action is a functional of the sources defined by this limit, i.e.

$$S_{\mathrm{ren}}[\varphi _{(0)},g_{(0)}]=\underset{ϵ0}{lim}S_{\mathrm{sub}}[\mathrm{\Phi },\gamma ;ϵ]$$
(2.7)
The distinction between $`S_{\mathrm{sub}}`$ and $`S_{\mathrm{ren}}`$ is needed because the variations required to obtain correlation functions are performed before the limit $`ϵ0`$ is taken. In particular, the expectation value of a scalar operator in the presence of sources, defined by

$$𝒪_\varphi =\frac{1}{\sqrt{g_{(0)}}}\frac{\delta S_{\mathrm{ren}}}{\delta \varphi _{(0)}}$$
(2.8)
where $`g_{(0)}=det(g_{(0)ij})`$ can be computed by rewriting it in terms of the fields living at the regulating surface666For scalars of UV dimension $`\mathrm{\Delta }=2`$, an additional $`\mathrm{log}ϵ`$ is needed in this formula.

$$𝒪_\varphi =\underset{ϵ0}{lim}\left(\frac{1}{ϵ^{\mathrm{\Delta }/2}}\frac{1}{\sqrt{\gamma }}\frac{\delta S_{\mathrm{sub}}}{\delta \mathrm{\Phi }(x,ϵ)}\right)$$
(2.9)
where $`\gamma =det(\gamma _{ij})`$. In general one can prove that

$$𝒪_\varphi =(2\mathrm{\Delta }4)\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_{(0)}+\mathrm{local}$$
(2.10)
where the local terms are completely fixed by the choice of $`\varphi _{(0)}`$.

The hard problem is to determine the non-local relation between the operator VEV $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_{(0)}`$ and the operator source $`\varphi _{(0)}`$ that guarantees regularity of the solution in the deep interior (IR regime) where the supergravity solution may develop a singularity. Traditionally only two-point function have been explicitly computed along holographic RG flows . These only require the non-local relation at linear order

$$\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_{(0)}(x)=\frac{1}{2\mathrm{\Delta }4}d^4x^{}C_2(xx^{})\varphi _{(0)}(x^{})$$
(2.11)
or better, in momentum space,

$$\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_{(0)}(p)=\frac{1}{2\mathrm{\Delta }4}C_2(p)\varphi _{(0)}(p)$$
(2.12)
that is established by solving the linearized fluctuation equations with prescribed boundary conditions, i.e. regularity in the interior. Upon differentiation one gets the two-point correlation function

$$𝒪_\varphi (x)𝒪_\varphi (x^{})=C_2(xx^{})+\mathrm{contact}\mathrm{terms}$$
(2.13)
## 3 Three-point functions: general strategy

Our aim in this section is to sketch the further necessary steps that one should take in order to compute three-point functions. For simplicity we detail the procedure for inert scalar fields with cubic couplings, a case that finds application in Section 5. Mixing with metric fluctuations or with vector fields is not discussed in this section. We will address this issue in Section 6.

For three-point functions one needs to take into account quadratic terms in the field equations. To this end consider the Euclidean action for a real inert scalar around a domain wall777The overall constant is determined by careful reduction from $`D=10`$ .

$$S=\frac{N^2}{2\pi ^2}d^4x𝑑\rho \sqrt{G}[\frac{1}{2}Z(\rho )(\mathrm{\Phi })^2+\frac{1}{2}M^2(\rho )\mathrm{\Phi }^2+\frac{1}{3}T(\rho )\mathrm{\Phi }^3+\mathrm{}]$$
(3.14)
The effective mass $`M(\rho )`$ and the cubic coupling $`T(\rho )`$ may depend on the radial variable $`\rho `$ via their functional dependence on the active scalar(s). The kinetic term $`Z(\rho )`$ may also depend on $`\rho `$. In the cases we explicitly discuss here scalar fields are canonical. In order to keep our formulae as compact as possible we thus assume $`Z=1`$ henceforth.

The non-linear field equation is of the form

$$(_G^2M^2)\mathrm{\Phi }=T\mathrm{\Phi }^2+\mathrm{}$$
(3.15)
At the classical level the solution can be found by summing trees. Loops are suppressed by powers of $`1/N^2`$ and we neglect them since they can only be consistently taken into account after embedding the model in string theory. For a given boundary source $`j(x)`$ we find

$`\mathrm{\Phi }(x,\rho )={\displaystyle d^4x^{}K(x,\rho ;x^{})j(x^{})}+`$ (3.16)
$`{\displaystyle 𝑑\rho ^{}d^4x^{}\sqrt{G}D(x,\rho ;x^{},\rho ^{})T(\rho ^{})\left[d^4x^{\prime \prime }K(x^{},\rho ^{};x^{\prime \prime })j(x^{\prime \prime })\right]^2}+\mathrm{}`$
where $`D(x,\rho ;x^{},\rho ^{})`$ is the bulk-to-bulk propagator, $`K(x,\rho ;x^{})`$ is the bulk-to-boundary propagator and $`\mathrm{}`$ denote higher-order terms in $`j(x)`$.

The linearized approximation, which is enough to compute two-point functions, yields

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{(1)}(\rho ,p)=K(\rho ,p)j(p)$$
(3.17)
in momentum space. The near boundary anlysis then gives888The second index denotes the order in $`j`$.

$$\varphi _{(0|1)}(p)=j(p)$$
(3.18)
and

$$\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_{(0|1)}(p)=\frac{1}{2\mathrm{\Delta }4}C_2(p)j(p)$$
(3.19)
To quadratic order in $`j`$

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{(2)}(\rho ,p)=𝑑\rho ^{}\sqrt{G}D(p,\rho ;\rho ^{})T(\rho ^{})d^4qK(q,\rho ^{})j(q)K(pq,\rho ^{})j(pq)$$
(3.20)
Expanding both sides in powers of $`\rho `$ yields

$$\varphi _{(0|2)}(p)=0$$
(3.21)
and

$$\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_{(0|2)}(p)=\frac{1}{2\mathrm{\Delta }4}𝑑\rho \sqrt{G}K(p,\rho )T(\rho )d^4qK(q,\rho )j(q)K(qp,\rho )j(pq)$$
(3.22)
since near the AdS boundary, where $`\rho 0`$,

$$D(x,\rho ;x^{},\rho ^{})\frac{\rho ^{\mathrm{\Delta }/2}}{2\mathrm{\Delta }4}K(x;x^{},\rho ^{})$$
(3.23)
Plugging this back into the on-shell action or better into the one-point function given above, differentiating w.r.t. $`j`$ and then setting $`j`$ to zero, one finally gets

$$𝒪_\varphi (p_1)𝒪_\varphi (p_2)𝒪_\varphi (p_3)=(2\pi )^4\delta (\underset{i}{}p_i)_{\rho >ϵ}𝑑\rho \sqrt{G(\rho )}T(\rho )\underset{i}{}K(p_i,\rho )$$
(3.24)
modulo contact terms that are polynomial in the momenta and cancel potential divergences arising when the regulator of the radial integration is removed.

In all cases we consider, the linearized fluctuation equations reduce to hypergeometric equations in a suitable radial variable $`w=w(\rho )`$. The solution which is regular in the deep IR interior (which is a naked singularity of the ‘good’ kind ) is of the form

$$\varphi _p(w,x)=w^\alpha (1w)^\beta F(a,b;c;w)\mathrm{exp}(ipx)$$
(3.25)
Analytically continuing the hypergeometric function from $`w=0`$, that represents the deep IR interior (singularity), to $`w=1`$, that represents the UV boundary, determines the bulk to boundary propagators. The reader may find some useful formulae in appendix B.

## 4 Our favorite holographic RG flows

For completeness we gather in this section some relevant formulae about two particularly simple yet interesting asymptotically AdS domain wall solutions: the CB flow  and the GPPZ flow . The former is dual to an RG flow from $`𝒩=4`$ SYM at its maximally superconformal point to a locus in the Coulomb branch where superconformal symmetry is broken spontaneously. The latter is dual to an RG flow to a ’confining’ $`𝒩=1`$ SYM theory where superconformal invariance is broken explicitly by turning on relevant (mass) operators for the three chiral multiplets.

### 4.1 Coulomb branch flow

The first case we consider is the CB flow with $`n=2`$, in the notation of . The supersymmetric domain wall solution describes a continuous distribution of D3-branes on a disk. The relevant superpotential is given by

$$W(\mathrm{\Phi })=e^{2\mathrm{\Phi }/\sqrt{6}}\frac{1}{2}e^{4\mathrm{\Phi }/\sqrt{6}}.$$
(4.26)
Using (2.3), one can easily compute the potential. Near $`\mathrm{\Phi }=0`$ it can be expanded as

$$V(\mathrm{\Phi })=\frac{3}{L^2}\frac{2}{L^2}\mathrm{\Phi }^2+\frac{4}{3\sqrt{6}L^2}\mathrm{\Phi }^3+𝒪(\mathrm{\Phi }^4)$$
(4.27)
which exhibits a tachyonic mass $`M^2L^2=4`$, as appropriate for a field dual to a chiral primary operator (CPO) of UV dimension $`\mathrm{\Delta }=2`$.

It is very convenient to express the domain-wall solution in terms of a new radial variable $`v`$. The solution and the relation between $`v`$ and $`r`$ are

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=\frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}\mathrm{log}v,e^{2A}=\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{L^2}\frac{v^{2/3}}{1v},\frac{dv}{dr}=\frac{2}{L}v^{2/3}(1v)$$

The boundary is at $`v=1`$ and the solution has a curvature singularity at $`v=0`$. The parameter $`\mathrm{}`$ is the radius of the disk of branes  in the 10-dimensional “lift” of this solution and sets the scale of a mass gap in the spectrum of excitations to $`m_o=\mathrm{}/L^2`$.

The scalar field vanishes at the boundary at the rate

$$\mathrm{\Phi }\frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}(1v)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}\mathrm{exp}(2r/L)$$
(4.28)
that corresponds to the dual operator of UV dimension $`\mathrm{\Delta }=2`$ taking a VEV. The endpoint of the flow describes $`𝒩=4`$ SYM theory at a locus in the Coulomb branch where the $`SO(6)`$ R-symmetry is broken to $`SO(2)\times SO(4)`$. For any finite $`N`$, the $`SO(2)`$ symmetry is actually broken . The scalar that gets a VEV is the neutral singlet component of the CPO $`Q_{\mathrm{𝟐𝟎}^{}}^{ij}=Tr(X^iX^j)|_{\mathrm{𝟐𝟎}^{}}`$ that decomposes according to $`\mathrm{𝟐𝟎}^{}(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟏})_0(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟏})_{+2}(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟏})_2(\mathrm{𝟐},\mathrm{𝟐})_{+1}(\mathrm{𝟐},\mathrm{𝟐})_1(\mathrm{𝟑},\mathrm{𝟑})_0`$ under $`SO(4)\times SO(2)`$.

### 4.2 GPPZ flow

The GPPZ flow  corresponds to adding an operator of dimension $`\mathrm{\Delta }=3`$ to the Lagrangian, namely the top component of the superpotential $`\mathrm{\Delta }𝒲=_IZ_I^2`$, that gives a common mass to the three $`𝒩=1`$ chiral multiplets $`Z_I`$ appearing in the decomposition of the $`𝒩=4`$ vector multiplet. The solution was proposed as the holographic dual of pure $`𝒩=1`$ SYM theory . Although it does not capture all of the expected properties of the field theory, it is particularly simple and still displays some interesting features including a discrete spectrum of superglueballs.

The active scalar is a singlet under an $`SO(3)`$ subgroup of $`SO(6)`$. A consistent truncation to the $`SO(3)`$ singlets yields $`𝒩=2`$ gauged supergravity coupled to two hypermultiplets describing a $`G_{2(2)}/SO(4)`$ coset . After lengthy calculation one gets the $`5d`$ superpotential that reads

$$W(\mathrm{\Phi },\mathrm{\Sigma })=\frac{3}{4}\left[\mathrm{cosh}\left(\frac{2\mathrm{\Phi }}{\sqrt{3}}\right)+\mathrm{cosh}\left(2\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)\right]=\frac{3}{2}\frac{1}{2}(\mathrm{\Phi }^2+\mathrm{\Sigma }^2)+\mathrm{}$$
(4.29)
Near $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\Sigma }=0`$, the potential admits the expansion

$$V(\mathrm{\Phi },\mathrm{\Sigma })=\frac{3}{L^2}\frac{3}{2L^2}(\mathrm{\Phi }^2+\mathrm{\Sigma }^2)\frac{1}{3L^2}(\mathrm{\Phi }^43\mathrm{\Sigma }^4+6\mathrm{\Phi }^2\mathrm{\Sigma }^2)+\mathrm{}$$
(4.30)
The mass of both $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is $`M^2L^2=3`$, indicating that the dual scalar operators have UV dimension $`\mathrm{\Delta }=3`$. For simplicity we only consider the domain-wall solution with $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=0`$ 999More general solutions with a non-trivial profile for the bulk field $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ dual to the gaugino bilinear have been considered by GPPZ., and

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}\mathrm{log}\frac{1+\sqrt{1u}}{1\sqrt{1u}}e^{2A}=\frac{u}{1u},$$
(4.31)
where $`u=1\mathrm{exp}(2r/L)`$. The boundary is at $`u=1`$ and the solution has a naked singularity of ‘good’ type at $`u=0`$. Since $`\mathrm{\Phi }\sqrt{3}\mathrm{exp}(r/L)`$ near the boundary, we are dealing with an operator deformation rather than a VEV. Along the flow

$`W(u)={\displaystyle \frac{3}{2u}}W_\varphi (u)=\sqrt{3}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{1u}}{u}}`$ (4.32)
$`W_{\varphi \varphi }(u)={\displaystyle \frac{2u}{u}}W_{\varphi \varphi \varphi }(u)={\displaystyle \frac{4}{\sqrt{3}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{1u}}{u}}`$ (4.33)
For our later purposes, we need the effective mass of the field $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ along the GPPZ flow

$$M_\sigma ^2(u)=V_{\sigma \sigma }=\frac{3}{L^2}\left[2\mathrm{cosh}\left(\frac{2\mathrm{\Phi }}{\sqrt{3}}\right)1\right]=\frac{3}{L^2}\frac{43u}{u}$$
(4.34)
and its cubic coupling to the active scalar $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$

$$_\varphi M_\sigma ^2(u)=V_{\varphi \sigma \sigma }=\frac{4\sqrt{3}}{L^2}\mathrm{sinh}\left(\frac{2\mathrm{\Phi }}{\sqrt{3}}\right)=\frac{8\sqrt{3}}{L^2}\frac{\sqrt{1u}}{u}$$
(4.35)
also along the flow.

## 5 Three-point functions in CB flow

In order to simplify our lives we only consider inert scalars of UV dimension $`\mathrm{\Delta }=2`$, i.e. those among the 20 tachyonic scalars which are not singlet under the $`SO(4)\times SO(2)`$ preserved in the CB flow. In particular we concentrate our attention on the $`(\mathrm{𝟑},\mathrm{𝟑})_0`$ components $`Q^{i_Li_R}`$ and aim to compute

$$𝒢_{CB}^{i_Li_R,j_Lj_R,k_Lk_R}(x_1,x_2,x_3)=Q^{i_Li_R}(x_1)Q^{j_Lj_R}(x_2)Q^{k_Lk_R}(x_3)$$
(5.36)
The rationale behind this choice is that there is a unique $`SO(4)\times SO(2)`$ invariant trilinear coupling among the $`Q`$’s. It is proportional to $`\epsilon _{i_Lj_Lk_L}\epsilon _{i_Rj_Rk_R}`$. In order to avoid additional derivative couplings, it is necessary to identify three components of $`Q^{i_Li_R}`$ with canonical kinetic term around the CB domain wall solution. It is well known that the icosaplet parametrizes a coset $`SL(6)/SO(6)`$. Taking as coset representative a symmetric matrix $`𝒮`$ with $`det(𝒮)=1`$, the scalar potential reads

$$V=\frac{g^2}{32}[(tr(𝒮))^22tr(𝒮^2)]$$
(5.37)
$`𝒮`$ can be diagonalized by an orthogonal $`SO(6)`$ transformation

$$𝒮=R(\theta )\stackrel{~}{𝒮}(\beta )R^T(\theta )$$
(5.38)
where $`\stackrel{~}{S}(\beta )=diag(\mathrm{exp}(2\beta _1),\mathrm{},\mathrm{exp}(2\beta _6))`$ with $`_i\beta _i=0`$. The six $`\beta `$’s should then be expressed in terms of five independent fields. A convenient choice that leads to canonically normalized scalars is

$`\beta _1={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}}{\sqrt{3}}}[\mathrm{\Phi }+\sqrt{3}(\lambda +\sigma +\omega )]`$
$`\beta _2={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}}{\sqrt{3}}}[\mathrm{\Phi }+\sqrt{3}(\lambda \sigma \omega )]`$
$`\beta _3={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}}{\sqrt{3}}}[\mathrm{\Phi }+\sqrt{3}(\lambda +\sigma \omega )]`$
$`\beta _4={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}}{\sqrt{3}}}[\mathrm{\Phi }+\sqrt{3}(\lambda \sigma +\omega )]`$
$`\beta _5={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}}{\sqrt{3}}}[2\mathrm{\Phi }+\sqrt{6}\nu ]`$
$`\beta _6={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}}{\sqrt{3}}}[2\mathrm{\Phi }\sqrt{6}\nu ]`$ (5.39)
Taking $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ as active scalar, one can convince oneself that $`\nu `$ transforms under the lower $`SO(2)`$ subgroup while $`\lambda ,\sigma ,\omega `$ only transform under the upper $`SO(4)`$. The former is part of the charged singlet $`(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟏})_\pm `$. The latter three are part of the neutral ennaplet $`Q^{i_Li_R}(\mathrm{𝟑},\mathrm{𝟑})_0`$.

We can proceed by switching off all the other inert scalars, setting $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ to its background value and keeping only terms up to cubic order in $`\lambda ,\sigma ,\omega `$. We find

$$V(\mathrm{\Phi },\lambda ,\sigma ,\omega ,\mathrm{})=V(\mathrm{\Phi })+\frac{1}{2}M^2(\mathrm{\Phi })[\lambda ^2+\sigma ^2+\omega ^2]+T(\mathrm{\Phi })\lambda \sigma \omega +\mathrm{}$$
(5.40)
As expected $`\lambda ,\sigma ,\omega `$ have the same effective mass

$$M^2(\mathrm{\Phi })=\frac{4}{L^2}e^{+2\mathrm{\Phi }/\sqrt{6}}$$
(5.41)
and a unique trilinear coupling

$$T(\mathrm{\Phi })=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}L^2}[2e^{4\mathrm{\Phi }/\sqrt{6}}e^{2\mathrm{\Phi }/\sqrt{6}}]$$
(5.42)
Along the CB flow

$$M^2(v)=\frac{4}{L^2}v^{1/3}T(v)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}L^2}v^{2/3}(2v)$$
(5.43)
The relevant wave equation for the inert scalars $`Q(x,v)=e^{ipx}Q(v)`$ reads

$$Q^{\prime \prime }+\left(\frac{2}{v}+\frac{1}{1v}\right)Q^{}+\left[\frac{p^2}{4\mathrm{}^2}\frac{1}{v^2(1v)}+\frac{1}{v(1v)^2}\right]Q=0$$
(5.44)
with $`Q=\lambda ,\sigma ,\omega `$. The solution that vanishes at the singularity $`v=0`$ is

$$Q(v)=v^a(1v)F(a,a;2a;v)$$
(5.45)
where101010Using $`P_\nu ^{(0)}(z)=F(\nu ,\nu +1;1;(1z)/2)`$, $`F(a,a;2a;v)`$ can be expressed in terms of associated Legendre functions, but little is gained in this rewriting.

$$a(p)=\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{1+\frac{p^2}{m_o^2}}$$
(5.46)
The inclusion of the fields $`\lambda ,\sigma `$ and $`\omega `$ does not modify in any significant way the near boundary analysis performed in . In particular the renormalized one-point function of the operator dual to any one of them (say $`\lambda `$) is simply given by

$$𝒪_\lambda (x)=2\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_{(0)}(x)$$
(5.47)
Analytic continuation of $`F(a,a;2a;v)`$ reveals the non-local relation between $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_{(0)}`$ and $`\lambda _{(0)}`$ at the linearized level and yields the two-point function

$$𝒪_\lambda (p)𝒪_\lambda (q)=4\frac{N^2}{2\pi ^2}(2\pi )^4\delta (p+q)[\psi (1)\psi (a)]$$
(5.48)
where the correct normalization of the action has been taken into account. The spectrum is continuous above a mass gap $`m_o=\mathrm{}/L^2`$. Similar analysis leads to the bulk-to-boundary propagator (in momentum space)

$$K_p(v)=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(a)^2}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(2a)}v^a(1v)F(a,a;2a;v)$$
(5.49)
Taking the mixed derivative of (5.47) w.r.t. the sources of the remaining two fields ($`\sigma _{(0)}`$ and $`\omega _{(0)}`$) gives the desired three-point function

$$𝒪_\lambda (p_1)𝒪_\sigma (p_2)𝒪_\omega (p_3)=(2\pi )^4\delta (\underset{i}{}p_i)_0^1𝑑v\sqrt{G(v)}T(v)\underset{i}{}K_{p_i}(v)$$
(5.50)
Plugging in the relevant expressions yields

$$𝒢_{_{CB}}(p_1,p_2,p_3)=\kappa _{_{CB}}\delta (\underset{i}{}p_i)\underset{i}{}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(a_i)^2}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(2a_i)}_0^1𝑑v(2v)\underset{i}{}v^{a_i}F(a_i,a_i;2a_i;v)$$
(5.51)
where $`\kappa _{_{CB}}=(2N^2/\sqrt{3})(2\pi )^2(\mathrm{}^4/L^2)`$. Since the $`SO(4)=SU(2)_L\times SU(2)_R`$ tensor structure is unique, Wigner-Eckart theorem gives

$$Q^{i_Li_R}(p_1)Q^{j_Lj_R}(p_2)Q^{k_Lk_R}(p_3)=\epsilon ^{i_Lj_Lk_L}\epsilon ^{i_Rj_Rk_R}𝒢_{_{CB}}(p_1,p_2,p_3)$$
(5.52)
Although the integral cannot be performed elementarily, it is easy to see that $`𝒢_{_{CB}}(p_1,p_2,p_3)`$ is finite for generic momenta, as expected for operators of UV dimension $`\mathrm{\Delta }=2`$, and vanishes at the threshold $`p_i^2=m_o^2`$ where $`a_i=1/2`$. Series integration yields a compact expression

$$𝒢_{_{CB}}(p_1,p_2,p_3)=\kappa _{_{CB}}\underset{n_i}{}\underset{i}{}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(a_i+n_i)^2}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(2a_i+n_i)n_i!}\left[\frac{2}{1+_i(a_i+n_i)}\frac{1}{2+_i(a_i+n_i)}\right]$$
(5.53)
where a $`\delta (_ip_i)`$ is understood.

Direct comparison with the conformal three-point function of scalar primary operators of dimension $`\mathrm{\Delta }=2`$ computed in appendix A seems hopeless. However using the AdS/CFT correspondence for pure AdS we know that

$$𝒢_{_{CFT}}(x_1,x_2,x_3)=\kappa _{_{CFT}}T(0)\frac{dzd^4x}{z^5}\underset{i}{}\frac{z^2}{[z^2+(xx_i)^2]^2}$$
(5.54)
can be written in momentum space, up to constants, as

$$𝒢_{_{CFT}}(p_1,p_2,p_3)=\stackrel{~}{\kappa }_{_{CFT}}\delta (\underset{i}{}p_i)\frac{dz}{z^5}T(0)\underset{i}{}z^2𝒦_0(zp_i)$$
(5.55)
where

$$𝒦_0(u)=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{u^{2n}}{2^{2n}(n!)^2}[\mathrm{log}(u/2)\psi (n+1)]$$
(5.56)
is a modified Bessel function. Changing radial variable according to111111The exact coordinate transformation with $`\rho =z^2/L^2`$ can be found in .

$$1v=\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{L^4}z^2\frac{2}{3}\frac{\mathrm{}^4}{L^8}z^4+𝒪(z^6)$$
(5.57)
it is easy to convince oneself that the UV limit $`\mathrm{}0`$ ‘explodes’ the boundary region $`v1`$ where indeed the asymptotics of $`K(p,v)`$ coincides with the expansion of $`z^2𝒦_0(zp_i)`$ and the trilinear coupling goes to its fixed point value $`T(0)`$. This fixes the UV behavior including the overall normalization.

## 6 Three-point function in the GPPZ flow

Although the exact form of the fully non-polynomial potential of the $`𝒩=2`$ gauged supergravity that governs the GPPZ flow is known121212We thank G. Dall’Agata for disclosing its secret form to us., it is not easy to isolate trilinear couplings that only involve inert scalars. Partly for this reason and partly to push our analysis another step forward, we are lead to consider the still relatively simple 3-point function

$$𝒢_{_{GPPZ}}(x_1,x_2,x_3)=𝒪_\sigma (x_1)𝒪_\sigma (x_2)𝒪_\varphi (x_3)$$
(6.58)
where $`𝒪_\varphi `$ is the operator dual to the active scalar $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`𝒪_\sigma `$ is the operator dual to the inert scalar $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. $`𝒢_{_{GPPZ}}`$ vanishes at the superconformal fixed point in the UV by $`SO(6)`$ R-symmetry arguments.

The situation is subtler than in the previous Section. On the one hand $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ mixes with the longitudinal and trace components of the metric. On the other hand a naive analysis inspired by the “dynamical scalar gauge” shows that the above 3-point function is logarithmically divergent as $`ϵ0`$ if no new counterterm is generated when $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is included. However, slightly at variance to what happens when only $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is present, we find two new logarithmically divergent counterterms. One is quartic in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ the other is biquadratic in $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$.

In order to derive the precise form of these counterterms one has to perform a detailed near boundary analysis of the bulk field equations. The results we need are

$`g_{ij}^{(2)}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(R_{ij}^{(0)}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}R^{(0)}g_{ij}^{(0)}){\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}(\varphi _{(0)}^2+\sigma _{(0)}^2)g_{ij}^{(0)}`$ (6.59)
$`h_{(4)}=2(\varphi _{(0)}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_{(2)}+\sigma _{(0)}\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{(2)})`$ (6.60)
$`g_{(4)}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(g_{(2)}g_{(2)})2(\varphi _{(0)}\varphi _{(2)}+\sigma _{(0)}\sigma _{(2)})+4(\varphi _{(0)}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_{(2)}+\sigma _{(0)}\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{(2)})`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{9}}(\varphi _{(0)}^43\sigma _{(0)}^4+6\varphi _{(0)}^2\sigma _{(0)}^2)`$ (6.61)
$`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_{(2)}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(_{(0)}^2\varphi _{(0)}(g_{(2)})\varphi _{(0)}){\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\varphi _{(0)}^3\varphi _{(0)}\sigma _{(0)}^2`$ (6.62)
$`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{(2)}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(_{(0)}^2\sigma _{(0)}(g_{(2)})\sigma _{(0)})+\sigma _{(0)}^3\varphi _{(0)}^2\sigma _{(0)}`$ (6.63)
where $`R_{(0)}=g_{(0)}^{ij}R_{(0)ij}`$, $`g_{(2)}=g_{(0)}^{ij}g_{(2)ij}`$, $`g_{(4)}=g_{(0)}^{ij}g_{(4)ij}`$, $`h_{(4)}=g_{(0)}^{ij}h_{(4)ij}`$ and $`(g_{(2)}g_{(2)})=g_{(0)}^{ij}g_{(2)jl}g_{(0)}^{lk}g_{(2)ki}`$.

Using Einstein equations in the convenient form

$$R_{\mu \nu }=2(_\mu \mathrm{\Phi }_\nu \mathrm{\Phi }+_\mu \mathrm{\Sigma }_\nu \mathrm{\Sigma }+\frac{2}{3}VG_{\mu \nu })$$
(6.65)
and including the Gibbons-Hawking boundary term, it is easy to see that the (regulated) on-shell action is simply given by

$$S_{\mathrm{reg}}=\frac{2}{3}_{\rho >ϵ}𝑑\rho d^4x\sqrt{G}V+ϵ_ϵ\frac{d^4x}{ϵ^2}\sqrt{g(x,ϵ)}$$
(6.66)
Inserting the data arising from the near boundary analysis gives

$`S_{\mathrm{reg}}[g_{(0)},\varphi _{(0)},\sigma _{(0)};ϵ]={\displaystyle }d^4x\sqrt{g_{(0)}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2ϵ^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2ϵ}}(\varphi _{(0)}^2+\sigma _{(0)}^2)`$ (6.67)
$`+\mathrm{log}ϵ[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{32}}(R_{(0)ij}R_{(0)}^{ij}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}R_{(0)}^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\varphi _{(0)}_{(0)}^2\varphi _{(0)}+\sigma _{(0)}_{(0)}^2\sigma _{(0)})`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}R_{(0)}(\varphi _{(0)}^2+\sigma _{(0)}^2)2\sigma _{(0)}^4+2\varphi _{(0)}^2\sigma _{(0)}^2]+𝒪(ϵ^0)\}`$
Once expressed in terms of the regulated fields, the counterterms read

$`S_{\mathrm{ct}}[\gamma ,\mathrm{\Phi },\mathrm{\Sigma };ϵ]={\displaystyle _{\rho =ϵ}}d^4x\sqrt{\gamma }\{{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}R[\gamma ]+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\mathrm{\Phi }^2+\mathrm{\Sigma }^2)`$ (6.68)
$`\mathrm{log}ϵ[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(\mathrm{\Phi }_{[\gamma ]}\mathrm{\Phi }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}R[\gamma ]\mathrm{\Phi }^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{[\gamma ]}\mathrm{\Sigma }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}R[\gamma ]\mathrm{\Sigma }^2)`$ (6.69)
$`+2\mathrm{\Sigma }^42\mathrm{\Sigma }^2\mathrm{\Phi }^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{32}}(R_{ij}[\gamma ]R^{ij}[\gamma ]{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}R[\gamma ]^2)]\}`$ (6.70)
As anticipated the symmetry between $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is spoiled by the logarithmically divergent quartic terms at the beginning of the last line.

The one-point function of $`𝒪_\varphi `$ in the presence of sources is

$$𝒪_\varphi =\underset{ϵ0}{lim}\{2(\varphi _{(2)}+\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_{(2)})\frac{2}{9}\varphi _{(0)}^34\mathrm{log}ϵ\varphi _{(0)}\sigma _{(0)}^2\}$$
(6.71)
Despite appearance $`𝒪_\varphi `$ is finite as we will see.

In order to compute the desired three-point function we need to determine the (non-local) dependence of $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_{(2)}`$ on $`\sigma _{(0)}`$. Because of the mixing of the fluctuation $`\phi `$ of the active scalar $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ with the longitudinal ($`H`$), radial ($`h_{rr}`$) and trace ($`h=g_{(0)}^{ij}h_{ij}`$) components of the metric one has to study the coupled field equations to linear order in $`\phi `$, $`h_{rr}`$, $`h_{ij}`$ and $`H`$ and to quadratic order in $`\sigma `$. Following the steps detailed by , but keeping $`h_{rr}`$, one gets

$`h^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{16}{3}}\mathrm{\Phi }^{}\phi 4A^{}h_{rr}=J_C`$ (6.72)
$`H^{\prime \prime }+4A^{}H^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}e^{2A}(h+2h_{rr})=J_H`$ (6.73)
$`3A^{}(h^{}^2H)+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}e^{2A}^2h+4Vh_{rr}4\mathrm{\Phi }^{}\phi ^{}4V_\varphi \phi =J_G`$ (6.74)
where $`^2=\delta ^{ij}_i_j`$ and

$`J_C={\displaystyle \frac{16}{3^2}}^i(\sigma ^{}_i\sigma )={\displaystyle \frac{16}{3^2}}^iT_{io}^{(2\sigma )}`$ (6.75)
$`J_H={\displaystyle \frac{4e^{2A}}{3^2}}\left(4{\displaystyle \frac{^i^j}{^2}}\delta ^{ij}\right)_i\sigma _j\sigma ={\displaystyle \frac{4e^{2A}}{3^2}}\left(4{\displaystyle \frac{^i^j}{^2}}\delta ^{ij}\right)T_{ij}^{(2\sigma )}`$ (6.76)
$`J_G=2(\sigma ^{})^22e^{2A}^i\sigma _i\sigma 2M_\sigma ^2\sigma ^2=4T_{oo}^{(2\sigma )}`$ (6.77)
Introducing the ‘gauge invariant’ combinations

$$P=h+\frac{16W}{3W_\varphi }\phi R=h_{rr}+2_r\left(\frac{\phi }{W_\varphi }\right)Q=H^{}2e^{2A}\frac{\phi }{W_\varphi }$$
(6.78)
one gets

$`P^{}4A^{}R=J_C`$ (6.79)
$`Q^{}+4A^{}Q{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}e^{2A}Pe^{2A}R=J_H`$ (6.80)
$`3A^{}P^{}3A^{}^2Q+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}e^{2A}^2P+4VR=J_G`$ (6.81)
Manipulating these equations as in  eventually boils down to

$$R^{\prime \prime }+(2W_{\varphi \varphi }4W)R^{}+(2W_{\varphi \varphi \varphi }W_\varphi 4W_\varphi ^2+\frac{32}{9}W^2\frac{8}{3}WW_{\varphi \varphi }e^{2A}p^2)R=J_R$$
(6.82)
where the $`\sigma `$-dependent source

$$J_R=4\sigma ^{}\sigma ^{}\frac{4}{3}M^2\sigma ^2_r\left(\frac{\sigma ^2}{W_\varphi }\frac{M^2}{_\varphi }\right)2A^{}\left(\frac{\sigma ^2}{W_\varphi }\frac{M^2}{_\varphi }\right)$$
(6.83)
turns out to be relatively simple thanks to the identity

$$J_G^{}+4A^{}J_G+\frac{3}{4}^2e^{2A}J_C3A^{}J_H+3A^{}J_C^{}+12(A^{})^2J_C=2_r(M_\sigma ^2)\sigma ^2$$
(6.84)
that follows from

$$_B^\mu T_{\mu \nu }^{(2\sigma )}=\frac{1}{2}_\nu (M_\sigma ^2)\sigma ^2$$
(6.85)
where $`_B^\mu `$ is the background covariant derivative.

Switching to the standard variable $`u`$ and to momentum space yields

$$R^{\prime \prime }+\frac{1}{u(1u)}R^{}+\frac{1}{u(1u)}\left(\frac{2u1}{u(1u)}\frac{p^2L^2}{4}\right)R=J_R(u)$$
(6.86)
The solution of the homogeneous equation is

$`R_p^{(0)}=u(1u)F(a_+^{(\varphi )},a_{}^{(\varphi )};3;u)={\displaystyle \frac{u(1u)\mathrm{\Gamma }(3)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(a_+^{(\varphi )})\mathrm{\Gamma }(a_{}^{(\varphi )})}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(a_+^{(\varphi )})_n(a_{}^{(\varphi )})_n}{(n!)^2}}\times `$
$`\times (1u)^n[2\psi (n+1)\psi (n+a_+^{(\varphi )})\psi (n+a_{}^{(\varphi )})\mathrm{log}(1u)]`$ (6.87)
where

$$a_\pm ^{(\varphi )}=\frac{3}{2}\pm \frac{1}{2}\sqrt{1p^2L^2}$$
(6.88)
For $`u1`$, $`R(u)`$ admits an expansion of the form

$$R=R_{(0)}(1u)\mathrm{log}(1u)+\stackrel{~}{R}_{(0)}(1u)+..$$
(6.89)
In the axial gauge $`h_{rr}=0`$ one finds

$$\stackrel{~}{R}_{(0)}=\frac{4}{\sqrt{3}}(\varphi _{(2)}+\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_{(2)}\varphi _{(0)})R_{(0)}=\frac{4}{\sqrt{3}}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_{(2)}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}_{(0)}^2\varphi _{(0)}+\mathrm{}$$
(6.90)
To linear order around the GPPZ flow, where $`\varphi _{(0)}=\sqrt{3}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_{(0)}=1/\sqrt{3}`$, while $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_{(2)}=\sigma _{(0)}=0`$,

$$𝒪_\varphi =\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}\stackrel{~}{R}_{(0)}$$
(6.91)
Differentiating $`\stackrel{~}{R}_{(0)}`$ w.r.t. $`\varphi _{(0)}`$, brings in an overall factor of $`p^2`$ that shows up in the two-point function

$$𝒪_\varphi (p)𝒪_\varphi (p)=\frac{N^2}{4\pi ^2}p^2\left[\psi (a_+^{(\varphi )}(p))+\psi (a_{}^{(\varphi )}(p))2\psi (1)\right]$$
(6.92)
A similar though simpler analysis  leads to the other two-point function

$$𝒪_\sigma (p)𝒪_\sigma (p)=\frac{N^2}{4\pi ^2}\left(p^2\frac{8}{L^2}\right)\left[\psi (a_+^{(\sigma )}(p))+\psi (a_{}^{(\sigma )}(p))\right]$$
(6.93)
where

$$a_\pm ^{(\sigma )}(p)=\frac{3}{2}\pm \frac{1}{2}\sqrt{9p^2L^2}$$
(6.94)
Using

$$\psi (z)=\gamma +\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{z1}{(n+1)(z+n)}$$
(6.95)
it is easy to identify the mass poles  and compute their positive (!) residues.

For $`𝒪_\varphi `$, that belongs to the $`𝒩=1`$ ‘anomaly’ multiplet $`𝒜=_I\mathrm{Tr}(Z_I^2)`$ dual to the active hypermultiplet, one has

$$(m_\varphi L)^2=4(k+1)(k+2)k=0,1,2,\mathrm{}.$$
(6.96)
For $`𝒪_\sigma `$, that belongs to the $`𝒩=1`$ ‘Lagrangian’ multiplet $`𝒮=\mathrm{Tr}(W^2+\mathrm{})`$ dual to the dilaton hypermultiplet,

$$(m_\sigma L)^2=4k(k+3)k=0,1,2,\mathrm{},$$
(6.97)
including a zero-mass pole.

It is amusing to observe that the superglueball decay constants arising from the residues at the $`k^{th}`$ mass pole are the same for $`\varphi `$ and $`\sigma `$

$$|f_\varphi (k)|^2=\frac{N^2m_\varphi ^2(k)(2k+3)}{\pi ^2L^2}=|f_\sigma (k)|^2!$$
(6.98)
We are ready to compute the three-point function. To quadratic order in $`\sigma `$’s

$$𝒪_\varphi (p)_ϵ=\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}\stackrel{~}{R}_{(0)}(p)=\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}_0^{1ϵ}𝑑u\sqrt{G(u)}K_R(u,p)J_R(u,p)$$
(6.99)
where, setting the active scalar to its background,

$$J_R(u)=16(\sigma ^{})^232(1u)\sigma ^{}\sigma 12\sigma ^2$$
(6.100)
Differentiating (6.99) twice w.r.t. $`\sigma _{(0)}`$ one gets the logarithmically divergent integral

$`𝒢_{_{GPPZ}}(p_1,p_2,p_3)=\kappa _{_{GPPZ}}\delta ({\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}p_i){\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\mathrm{\Gamma }(a_+(p_i))\mathrm{\Gamma }(a_{}(p_i)){\displaystyle _0^{1ϵ}}duu^3(1u)^2\times `$
$`F_R(p_3)\left[(F_\sigma ^{}(p_1)F_\sigma (p_2)+F_\sigma (p_1)F_\sigma ^{}(p_2))2(1u)F_\sigma ^{}(p_1)F_\sigma ^{}(p_2)\right]`$ (6.101)
where $`\kappa _{_{GPPZ}}=(N^2\sqrt{3}/2\pi ^2L)(2\pi )^4`$ and

$$F_R(p)=F(a_+^{(\varphi )}(p),a_{}^{(\varphi )}(p);3;u)$$
(6.102)
and

$$F_\sigma (p)=F(a_+^{(\sigma )}(p),a_{}^{(\sigma )}(p);3;u)$$
(6.103)
The logarithmic divergence of $`\stackrel{~}{R}_{(0)}`$ is a contact term independent of the momenta. Its coefficient $`\eta =4\sqrt{3}`$ is exactly cancelled by the last contact term in $`𝒪_\varphi `$ when $`\varphi _{(0)}`$ is put to its background value of $`\sqrt{3}`$. So that $`𝒪_\varphi `$ as well as $`𝒢_{_{GPPZ}}`$ are finite as they should. It is relatively easy to check that $`𝒢_{_{GPPZ}}`$ vanish in the UV, i.e. at large momenta as expected on $`SO(6)`$ R-symmetry grounds.

Altough the above integral cannot be expressed in terms of elementary functions, it is not difficult to integrate the products of hypergeometric functions by series. Moreover the expressions drastically simplify when one goes on-shell i.e. $`p_i^2=m_i^2`$ and amputates the external legs thus effectively computing the irreducible vertex that enters the 3-body scattering amplitude or, equivalently, the superglueball decay amplitude.

To this end observe that near the mass-shell where

$$p_i^2L^2=m(k_i)^2L^2+ϵ_i$$
(6.104)
$$a_{}(p_i)k_i\frac{ϵ_i}{4(2k_i+3)}\mathrm{and}a_+(p_i)3+k_i+\frac{ϵ_i}{4(2k_i+3)}$$
(6.105)
This is true both for $`\sigma `$ and $`\varphi `$. Moreover, at the mass-shell the hypergeometric functions truncate and become degree $`k`$ (Gegenbauer or Jacobi) polynomials.

The mass poles of the connected 3-point function $`𝒢_{_{GPPZ}}(p_1,p_2,p_3)`$ are exposed by the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$’s in front of the integral. Indeed

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(a_{}(p_i))\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(k_i\frac{ϵ_i}{4(2k_i+3)}\right)\frac{()^{k_i+1}4(2k_i+3)}{k_i!ϵ_i}$$
(6.106)
while

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(a_+(p_i))\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(3+k_i+\frac{ϵ_i}{4(2k_i+3)}\right)(k_i+2)!$$
(6.107)
The relevant integrals are of the form

$`{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑u(1u)^2u^{\mathrm{\Sigma }n+1}[2n_1n_2(1u)(n_1+n_2)u]=`$ (6.108)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{3!2n_1n_2}{(n+2)(n+3)(n+4)(n+5)}}{\displaystyle \frac{2!(n_1+n_2)}{(n+3)(n+4)(n+5)}}`$
replacing the Pochhammer symbols in the hypergeometric functions with their explicit expressions

$$(k_i)_{n_i}=\frac{()^{n_i}k_i!}{(k_in_i)!}(3+k_i)_{n_i}=\frac{(k_i+n_i+2)!}{(k_i+2)!}$$
(6.109)
and putting everything together yields

$`A_{_{GPPZ}}(k_1,k_2,k_3)={\displaystyle \frac{(2\pi )^5\sqrt{3}}{NL}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}}\sqrt{(k_i+1)(k_i+2)(2k_i+3)}\times `$ (6.110)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{n_i=0}{\overset{k_i}{}}}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{6n_1n_2(n_1+n_2)(n+2)}{(n_3+2)_{s=2}^5(n+s)}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{()^{k_i+n_i}}{n_i!(n_i+1)!}}{\displaystyle \frac{(k_i+n_i+2)!}{(k_in_i)!}}\right]\right\}`$
which has the expected mass dimension, $`[\mathrm{m}]^1`$ and is correctly suppressed by the $`1/N`$ factor at large $`N`$. Comparison with field theory results seems prohibitive for the time being since it would require a non-perturbative understanding of the dynamics of $`𝒩=1`$ SYM which is well beyond reach. One may take the holographic result as a very precise prediction for the amplitude at strong ’t Hooft coupling.

## 7 Concluding remarks and speculations

We have studied three-point functions of scalar operators along two holographic RG flows. For the CB flow we have considered inert scalars and derived a compact expression that is finite and behaves correctly in the UV. In the GPPZ flow, though the initial situation was subtler because of the mixing of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ with the metric, we have been able to extract the irreducible vertices of three superglueballs. Thanks to the operator identity

$$T_i{}_{}{}^{i}=\beta 𝒪_\varphi $$
(7.111)
with $`\beta =\sqrt{3}`$, the very same modes couple to the trace of the stress tensor . This should elucidate the evolution with scale according to the holographic renormalization group . Extending the analysis to the transverse modes of the stress tensor or of the (broken) currents is straightforward in principle since the relevant trilinear bulk couplings are completely fixed by gauge invariance. The expected form of these correlators should be

$`T_{ij}(p_1)𝒪_\sigma (p_2)𝒪_\sigma (p_3)_t=\kappa __T\delta ({\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}p_i){\displaystyle }dw\sqrt{G(w)}K_{ij,kl}^t(p_1,w)\times `$ (7.112)
$`\times [e^{2A(w)}(p_2^kp_3^l+p_2^lp_3^k)+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}\delta ^{kl}M_\sigma ^2(w)]K_\sigma (p_2,w)K_\sigma (p_3,w)+\mathrm{contact}`$
and

$`J_i(p_1)𝒪_\sigma (p_2)𝒪_{\stackrel{~}{\sigma }}(p_3)_t=\kappa __J\delta ({\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}p_i){\displaystyle }dw\sqrt{G(w)}K_{i,k}^t(p_1,w)\times `$
$`(p_2^kp_3^k)K_\sigma (p_2,w)K_{\stackrel{~}{\sigma }}(p_3,w)+\mathrm{contact}`$ (7.113)
As expected, the integrals diverge but the contact terms suggested by holographic renormalization cancel these divergences. Similar considerations apply to three-point functions with more insertions of the stress tensor or of broken currents. As usual, bulk gauge invariance translates into Ward identities of the boundary quantum field theory. The holographically computed one-point functions in the presence of sources do satisfy these Ward identities including anomalies and this carries over to higher point functions.

It would be nice to address similar issues in fullfledged string solutions that display confinement and logarithmic corrections to the pure AdS behavior in the UV . The results obtained by Krasnitz for the case of two-point functions in the KT flow are very encouraging in this respect .

As far as higher than three point correlation functions are concerned, if the miracle that in AdS transforms exchange diagrams into contact ones does not take place in non-trivial holographic RG flows then three-point functions will set the standard of a new holographic tradition, at least for a while.

## Acknowledgements

We would like to thank S. Kovacs, W. Mück, A. Sagnotti, and Ya. Stanev for useful discussions and especially M. Berg and D. Freedman for valuable comments on the manuscript. While this work was being completed M.B. was visiting MIT as part of the INFN-MIT “Bruno Rossi” exchange program. This work was supported in part by I.N.F.N., by the EC programs HPRN-CT-2000-00122 and HPRN-CT-2000-00148, by the INTAS contract 99-1-590, by the MURST-COFIN contract 2001-025492 and by the NATO contract PST.CLG.978785.

## Appendix: Conformal 3-point function in momentum space

In order to have a glimpse of the result of the integral for the holographic 3-point correlation function in the CB flow and to eventually compare with not-so-standard field theory results it is convenient to compute the Fourier transform of the 3-point function of scalar primary operators of dimension $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i`$ $`i=1,2,3`$.

$$𝒢_{_{CFT}}(x_1,x_2,x_3)=𝒪(x_1)𝒪(x_2)𝒪(x_3)=\kappa _{_{CFT}}(x_{12}^2)^{\mathrm{\Delta }_{12}}(x_{23}^2)^{\mathrm{\Delta }_{23}}(x_{31}^2)^{\mathrm{\Delta }_{31}}$$
(7.114)
where $`x_{ij}^2=(x_ix_j)^2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}=\mathrm{\Delta }_i+\mathrm{\Delta }_j\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ with $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=(\mathrm{\Delta }_1+\mathrm{\Delta }_2+\mathrm{\Delta }_3)/2`$. For simplicity we set the constant $`\kappa _{_{CFT}}=1`$ henceforth. By definition

$$𝒢_{_{CFT}}(p_1,p_2,p_3)=d^4x_1d^4x_2d^4x_3e^{i(p_1x_1+p_2x_2+p_3x_3)}𝒢_{_{CFT}}(x_1,x_2,x_3)$$
(7.115)
In $`d`$ dimensions, Feynman parametrization leads to the integral

$`𝒢_{_{CFT}}(p_1,p_2,p_3)=\delta ({\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}p_i){\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^{(\mathrm{\Sigma }+d)/2}\mathrm{\Gamma }(d/2\mathrm{\Delta }_{23})\mathrm{\Gamma }(d\mathrm{\Sigma })}{2^\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{\Gamma }(d/2)\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{\Delta }_{12})\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{\Delta }_{13})}}\times `$
$`\times {\displaystyle _0^1}d\sigma F(\mathrm{\Sigma }{\displaystyle \frac{d}{2}},\mathrm{\Delta }_{23};{\displaystyle \frac{d}{2}};1\xi (\sigma )){\displaystyle \frac{(1\sigma )^{d/2\mathrm{\Delta }_{13}1}\sigma ^{d/2\mathrm{\Delta }_{12}1}}{[(1\sigma )(p_3+p_2)^2+\sigma p_2^2]^{d\mathrm{\Sigma }}}}`$
where

$$\xi (\sigma )=\frac{(1\sigma )\sigma p_3^2}{(1\sigma )(p_3+p_2)^2+\sigma p_2^2}$$
(7.116)
We have checked that this expression correctly factorizes in the extremal case $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1=\mathrm{\Delta }_2+\mathrm{\Delta }_3`$.

Let us specialize to the case $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i=2`$ in $`d=4`$, so that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=3`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}=1`$. Putting

$$\mu _2p_2^2/p_1^2\mu _3p_3^2/p_1^2$$
(7.117)
one gets

$$𝒢_{_{CFT}}(p_1,p_2,p_3)=\frac{\pi ^{7/2}}{8p_1^2}\delta (\underset{i}{}p_i)A(\mu _2,\mu _3)$$
(7.118)
where

$$A(\mu _2,\mu _3)_0^1𝑑\sigma \frac{\mathrm{log}[(1\sigma )\sigma ]\mathrm{log}[\sigma \mu _2+(1\sigma )\mu _3]}{(1\sigma )\sigma +\sigma \mu _2+(1\sigma )\mu _3}$$
(7.119)
is strikingly reminiscent of the box integral $`B(r,s)`$ computed e.g. in . Indeed $`A(\mu _2,\mu _3)`$ is tightly related to $`B(r,s)`$.

It is easy to check the symmetry $`A(\mu _2,\mu _3)=A(\mu _3,\mu _2)`$. It is slightly more laborious to express it in terms of logs and dilogs. To this end it is convenient to factorize the denominator as

$$\sigma (1\sigma )+\mu _2\sigma +(1\sigma )\mu _3=(\sigma \sigma _+)(\sigma \sigma _{})$$
(7.120)
where

$$\sigma _\pm =\frac{1}{2}[1+\mu _2\mu _3\pm \sqrt{(1+\mu _2\mu _3)^2+4\mu _3}]$$
(7.121)
Repeatedly and carefully (since they are valid for $`0x1`$) using

$$Li_2(x)+Li_2(1x)=\mathrm{log}(x)\mathrm{log}(1x)+\frac{\pi ^2}{6}$$
(7.122)
and

$$Li_2(x)+Li_2\left(\frac{x1}{x}\right)=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{log}^2(x)$$
(7.123)
where131313In the notation of Abramowitz-Stegun  (pag.1004) $`Li_2(z)=f(1z)`$.

$$Li_2(z)=_0^1\frac{d\sigma }{\sigma }\mathrm{log}(1z\sigma )=\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{z^n}{n^2}$$
(7.124)
one finally gets the desired result

$`A(\mu _2,\mu _3)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{\nu }}}(2Li_2\left({\displaystyle \frac{1+\mu _2\mu _3\sqrt{\nu }}{2\mu _2}}\right)+2Li_2\left({\displaystyle \frac{1+\mu _2\mu _3\sqrt{\nu }}{2\mu _2}}\right)`$
$`\mathrm{log}(\mu _2)\mathrm{log}(\mu _3)\left[\mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu _2+\mu _31\sqrt{\nu }}{2}}\right)\right]^2)`$ (7.125)
where

$$\nu =1+\mu _2^2+\mu _3^22\mu _12\mu _22\mu _2\mu _3$$
(7.126)
$`A(\mu _2,\mu _3)`$ is manifestly symmetric and real for $`\nu 0`$. Up to an overall constant, $`A(\mu _2,\mu _3)`$ coincides with $`B(r,s)`$ or better $`g(x_1,x_2,x_3)`$ in  after replacing $`\mu _2`$ and $`\mu _3`$ with $`r`$ and $`s`$, i.e. $`p_1x_{23}`$,$`p_2x_{31}`$, $`p_3x_{12}`$,

## Appendix B: Other useful formulae

For the RG flows under consideration, homogeneous solution of the fluctuation equations may be expressed in terms of hypergeometric functions

$$\varphi _p(w,x)=w^\alpha (1w)^\beta F(a,b;c;w)\mathrm{exp}(ipx)$$
(7.127)
. We assume that $`z=0`$ represents the deep IR interior (singularity) and $`w=1ϵ`$ the (regulated) UV boundary. In order to fix the overall normalization of the (regulated) bulk-to-boundary propagators $`K_ϵ(p,z)`$ we need the analytic continuation of $`F(a,b,c;w)`$ to $`w1`$.

For $`c=a+b`$

$`F(a,b;a+b;w)={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(a+b)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(a)\mathrm{\Gamma }(b)}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(a)_n(b)_n}{(n!)^2}}(1w)^n\times `$ (7.128)
$`\times [\mathrm{log}(1w)2\psi (n+1)+\psi (a+n)+\psi (b+n)]`$
For $`c=a+bm`$

$`F(a,b;a+bm;w)={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(m)\mathrm{\Gamma }(a+bm)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(a)\mathrm{\Gamma }(b)}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{m1}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(am)_n(bm)_n}{n!(1m)_n}}\times `$
$`\times (1w)^{nm}{\displaystyle \frac{()^m\mathrm{\Gamma }(a+bm)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(am)\mathrm{\Gamma }(bm)}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(a)_n(b)_n}{n!(n+m)!}}(1w)^n\times `$ (7.129)
$`\times [\mathrm{log}(1w)\psi (n+1)\psi (n+m+1)+\psi (a+n)+\psi (b+n)]`$
For $`c=a+b+m`$

$`F(a,b;a+b+m;w)={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(m)\mathrm{\Gamma }(a+b+m)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(a+m)\mathrm{\Gamma }(b+m)}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{m1}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(a)_n(b)_n}{n!(1m)_n}}(1w)^n`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{()^m\mathrm{\Gamma }(a+b+m)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(a)\mathrm{\Gamma }(b)}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(a+m)_n(b+m)_n}{n!(n+m)!}}(1w)^{n+m}\times `$ (7.130)
$`\times [\mathrm{log}(1w)\psi (n+1)\psi (n+m+1)+\psi (a+n+m)+\psi (b+n+m)]`$
Correspondingly, the (regulated) bulk to boundary propagators read

$`K_ϵ(p,w)={\displaystyle \frac{w^\alpha (1w)^\beta \mathrm{\Gamma }(a)\mathrm{\Gamma }(b)}{ϵ^\beta \mathrm{log}ϵ\mathrm{\Gamma }(a+b)}}F(a,b;a+b;w)`$ (7.131)
$`K_ϵ(p,w)={\displaystyle \frac{w^\alpha (1w)^\beta \mathrm{\Gamma }(a)\mathrm{\Gamma }(b)}{ϵ^\beta \mathrm{\Gamma }(m)\mathrm{\Gamma }(a+bm)}}F(a,b;a+bm;w)`$ (7.132)
$`K_ϵ(p,w)={\displaystyle \frac{w^\alpha (1w)^\beta \mathrm{\Gamma }(a+m)\mathrm{\Gamma }(b+m)}{ϵ^\beta \mathrm{\Gamma }(m)\mathrm{\Gamma }(a+b+m)}}F(a,b;a+b+m;w)`$ (7.133)