Skip to content

Nonrenormalization and a first quantum correction

If the superpotential receives no perturbative correction, where does an ordinary loop diagram go? We will calculate one rather than infer that all quantum effects cancel. Its answer is a nonzero kinetic coefficient. The same coefficient changes the cubic coupling after the fields are normalized.

Start from holomorphy and the effective action. We work in flat four-dimensional global N=1\mathcal N=1 supersymmetry: four real supercharges, all manifest in superspace. There is one gauge-neutral chiral multiplet, no gauge sector, and no supersymmetry breaking. The Lorentzian signature is +−−−+---; Euclidean momentum integrals below are analytic continuations with an explicitly stated auxiliary contour.

At an ultraviolet scale Λ\Lambda, take

K=ΦˉΦ,W=m2Φ2+y3!Φ3.K=\bar\Phi\Phi,\qquad W=\frac{m}{2}\Phi^2+\frac{y}{3!}\Phi^3.

Here [Φ]=[m]=1[\Phi]=[m]=1 and [y]=0[y]=0. The bar denotes the antichiral partner, whose Lorentzian components obey the usual conjugation condition. The factor 3!3! defines yy. In the notation W=hΦ3/3W=h\Phi^3/3 used in some references, y=2hy=2h.

The component convention from the prerequisite is

LW=W′F−12W′′ψψ+h.c.\mathcal L_W=W'F-\frac12W''\psi\psi+\text{h.c.}

For the loop, set m=0m=0 and expand about ϕ=0\phi=0. The relevant Lorentzian terms are

FˉF+y2Fϕ2+yˉ2Fˉϕˉ2−y2ϕψψ−yˉ2ϕˉψˉψˉ.\bar F F+\frac y2F\phi^2+\frac{\bar y}2\bar F\bar\phi^2 -\frac y2\phi\psi\psi-\frac{\bar y}2\bar\phi\bar\psi\bar\psi.

An external auxiliary field FF is a convenient probe of the kinetic multiplet. It need not satisfy its equation of motion during this calculation. At quadratic order, a local D-term δZ∫d4θ ΦˉΦ\delta Z\int d^4\theta\,\bar\Phi\Phi contains δZ FˉF\delta Z\,\bar F F in Lorentzian signature. Finding that coefficient therefore finds the common superfield normalization. It is not a new propagating auxiliary degree of freedom.

Keep fluctuations below a positive scale μ\mu and integrate the higher ones. We require external momenta E≪μ≪ΛE\ll\mu\ll\Lambda and weak yy. Define the smooth scalar covariance

Cs(p)=e−p2/s2p2,G>(p)=CΛ(p)−Cμ(p)=e−p2/Λ2−e−p2/μ2p2,C_s(p)=\frac{e^{-p^2/s^2}}{p^2},\qquad G_>(p)=C_\Lambda(p)-C_\mu(p) =\frac{e^{-p^2/\Lambda^2}-e^{-p^2/\mu^2}}{p^2},

where pp is Euclidean. Use this split in the superfield Gaussian measure: multiply the free superfield covariance by the same momentum profile for all components, retaining their usual momentum numerators. Since functions of spacetime momentum commute with the supersymmetry generators and preserve chirality, the split preserves the linear off-shell supersymmetry. This neutral model needs no gauge regulator.

Equivalently,

G>(p)=∫Λ−2μ−2ds e−sp2.G_>(p)=\int_{\Lambda^{-2}}^{\mu^{-2}}ds\,e^{-s p^2}.

The variable ss is a proper-time parameter, with dimension minus two. This representation shows that the propagator is finite at p=0p=0 and suppressed at large pp. The low covariance is CμC_\mu; their sum is exactly CΛC_\Lambda. A smooth split weights a range of momenta instead of excising a sharp shell.

The resulting Wilsonian vertices have a derivative expansion around zero external momentum. We calculate its leading quadratic coefficient. Dependence on the smoothing profile, including finite constants near the endpoints, is part of the scheme; the logarithmic coefficient in the broad interval μ≪p≪Λ\mu\ll p\ll\Lambda will have a universal one-loop interpretation.

After continuation, the auxiliary and its interactions enter the Euclidean density as

LE,F=−FˉF−y2Fϕ2−yˉ2Fˉϕˉ2.\mathcal L_{E,F}=-\bar F F-\frac y2F\phi^2 -\frac{\bar y}2\bar F\bar\phi^2.

The negative free term is not a prescription to integrate over Fˉ=F∗\bar F=F^*. Treat F,FˉF,\bar F as independent complex variables and choose the convergent free contour Fˉ=−F∗\bar F=-F^*, so −FˉF=∣F∣2-\bar F F=|F|^2. The interactions are then imaginary for ϕˉ=ϕ∗\bar\phi=\phi^*. Their Gaussian continuation reproduces the positive scalar potential after eliminating the auxiliary. In computing an off-shell vertex we first retain independent external F,FˉF,\bar F and then apply this contour if they are integrated.

Only the two scalar vertices attach to an external F,FˉF,\bar F pair at order ∣y∣2|y|^2. Write their integrated interaction as SintS_{\rm int}. The connected Gaussian expansion is

ΔSE=−log⁡⟨e−Sint⟩>=⟨Sint⟩>−12⟨Sint2⟩>,c+⋯ .\Delta S_E=-\log\langle e^{-S_{\rm int}}\rangle_> =\langle S_{\rm int}\rangle_> -\frac12\langle S_{\rm int}^2\rangle_{>,c}+\cdots.

The first term vanishes. There are two choices of which vertex is first in the square, and two Wick pairings of the identical scalars:

⟨ϕ2(x)ϕˉ2(z)⟩>=2G>(x−z)2.\langle\phi^2(x)\bar\phi^2(z)\rangle_>=2G_>(x-z)^2.

Thus the coefficient is

−12×2×∣y∣24×2=−∣y∣22,-\frac12\times2\times\frac{|y|^2}{4}\times2 =-\frac{|y|^2}{2},

and

ΔSE(2)=−∣y∣22∫d4x d4z F(x)Fˉ(z)G>(x−z)2.\Delta S_E^{(2)} =-\frac{|y|^2}{2} \int d^4x\,d^4z\,F(x)\bar F(z)G_>(x-z)^2.

For slowly varying external fields, the leading local term is −δZFˉF-\delta Z\bar F F, where

δZ=∣y∣22IΛ,μ,IΛ,μ=∫d4p(2π)4G>(p)2.\delta Z=\frac{|y|^2}{2}I_{\Lambda,\mu},\qquad I_{\Lambda,\mu}=\int\frac{d^4p}{(2\pi)^4}G_>(p)^2.

The two minus signs now have a transparent meaning: the connected expansion produces a negative coefficient of FˉF\bar F F, while a positive Euclidean kinetic normalization multiplies −FˉF-\bar F F. Hence δZ\delta Z is positive. There is no closed fermion loop in this auxiliary diagram and no missing fermion-loop sign.

To evaluate the integral, use the area 2π22\pi^2 of the unit three-sphere and set t=p2t=p^2, a=Λ−2a=\Lambda^{-2}, b=μ−2b=\mu^{-2}:

IΛ,μ=116π2∫0∞dtt[e−2at+e−2bt−2e−(a+b)t].I_{\Lambda,\mu} =\frac1{16\pi^2}\int_0^\infty\frac{dt}{t} \left[e^{-2at}+e^{-2bt}-2e^{-(a+b)t}\right].

For positive A,BA,B, differentiating with respect to BB and fixing the value at A=BA=B gives ∫0∞dt (e−At−e−Bt)/t=log⁡(B/A)\int_0^\infty dt\,(e^{-At}-e^{-Bt})/t=\log(B/A). Apply this to two convergent differences:

IΛ,μ=116π2log⁡(a+b)24ab=116π2log⁡(Λ2+μ2)24Λ2μ2.I_{\Lambda,\mu} =\frac1{16\pi^2} \log\frac{(a+b)^2}{4ab} =\frac1{16\pi^2} \log\frac{(\Lambda^2+\mu^2)^2}{4\Lambda^2\mu^2}.

The completed one-loop result in this scheme is

Z(μ)=1+∣y∣232π2log⁡(Λ2+μ2)24Λ2μ2+O(∣y∣4).\boxed{ Z(\mu)=1+\frac{|y|^2}{32\pi^2} \log\frac{(\Lambda^2+\mu^2)^2}{4\Lambda^2\mu^2} +O(|y|^4). }

It vanishes as a correction when μ=Λ\mu=\Lambda, is positive for 0<μ<Λ0<\mu<\Lambda, and is dimensionless. The positive integral and (a+b)2≥4ab(a+b)^2\geq4ab independently verify its sign. The local action contains ZΦˉΦZ\bar\Phi\Phi; supersymmetry supplies the same ZZ for the scalar, fermion and auxiliary terms. Tong, §3.3.2, (3.34) describes this common normalization; the calculation above fixes its coefficient for our vertex and regulator.

In the wide scale interval,

δZ=∣y∣216π2log⁡Λμ−∣y∣232π2log⁡4+O ⁣(∣y∣2μ2Λ2, ∣y∣4).\delta Z=\frac{|y|^2}{16\pi^2}\log\frac{\Lambda}{\mu} -\frac{|y|^2}{32\pi^2}\log4 +O\!\left(|y|^2\frac{\mu^2}{\Lambda^2},\,|y|^4\right).

The finite −log⁡4-\log4 is specific to the smooth covariance split. Keeping only the logarithm would not correctly describe the endpoint μ=Λ\mu=\Lambda.

Why the superpotential does not acquire this correction

Section titled “Why the superpotential does not acquire this correction”

Now restore a small mm while keeping Φ\Phi as a light field, with ∣m∣≪μ|m|\ll\mu. Promote m,ym,y to constant supersymmetric chiral spurions. In a regulator respecting these selection rules, the local derivative-free Wilsonian superpotential is holomorphic in them. Its perturbative expansion at fixed μ>0\mu>0 is regular near m=y=0m=y=0: we have not integrated away the light field or its infrared modes.

Assign formal flavor and R-charges:

ObjectFlavorR
Φ\Phi1111
mm−2-200
yy−3-3−1-1
WW0022

These transformations include the parameters; they need not be symmetries of the fixed massive theory. The cutoffs have neither charge. A holomorphic monomial maybΦnm^a y^b\Phi^n therefore obeys

n−2a−3b=0,n−b=2,⟹n=b+2,a=1−b.n-2a-3b=0,\qquad n-b=2, \qquad\Longrightarrow\qquad n=b+2,\quad a=1-b.

Analytic perturbation theory has nonnegative integers a,ba,b. Only mΦ2m\Phi^2 and yΦ3y\Phi^3 survive. Neutral functions of Λ/μ\Lambda/\mu are not excluded by this charge argument alone; we must still fix their coefficients.

At y=0y=0 the theory is Gaussian, so no interaction loop changes the quadratic coefficient. At order yy a cubic vertex with three external legs has no internal line and hence no loop. Higher powers of yy cannot correct these two monomials without violating the holomorphic charge conditions. Their coefficients consequently retain the matched tree values:

Wμ=m2Φ2+y3!Φ3in the fixed holomorphic field coordinate.W_\mu=\frac m2\Phi^2+\frac y{3!}\Phi^3 \qquad\text{in the fixed holomorphic field coordinate.}

This is the perturbative nonrenormalization reasoning of Seiberg, §§3–4.1, (4.1)–(4.3), applied with an explicit infrared scale and our factorial convention. Holomorphy does real work: ∣y∣2ΦˉΦ|y|^2\bar\Phi\Phi is allowed in KK but cannot be put into a holomorphic superpotential coefficient.

The regularity assumption also matters. A term y2Φ4/my^2\Phi^4/m has the formal charges, but is singular at m=0m=0 and would arise from exchanging the very field we are retaining, not a local interaction generated by its high fluctuations. By contrast, integrating out a distinct heavy field can generate inverse heavy masses, as the prerequisite demonstrated. Intriligator–Seiberg, §2.2 distinguishes those tree matching contributions. This argument neither excludes nonperturbative superpotentials in other theories nor assumes a nonperturbative ultraviolet completion of the four-dimensional Wess–Zumino model.

Return to m=0m=0. At scale μ\mu, define Φc=ZΦ\Phi_c=\sqrt{Z}\Phi and

yc=yZ−3/2,η=μdlog⁡Zdμ,γ=−η2.y_c=yZ^{-3/2},\qquad \eta=\mu\frac{d\log Z}{d\mu},\qquad \gamma=-\frac{\eta}{2}.

The last equation defines our anomalous-dimension convention. The prerequisite defined η\eta without naming it γ\gamma. Holding the holomorphic yy and ultraviolet input fixed, our finite-regulator answer gives

η=−∣y∣216π2Λ2−μ2Λ2+μ2+O(∣y∣4).\eta=-\frac{|y|^2}{16\pi^2} \frac{\Lambda^2-\mu^2}{\Lambda^2+\mu^2} +O(|y|^4).

In the scaling window μ/Λ→0\mu/\Lambda\to0, replace yy by ycy_c in the one-loop coefficient; their difference affects higher orders. Then

γ=∣yc∣232π2+O(∣yc∣4),βyc≡μdycdμ=−32ηyc=3yc∣yc∣232π2+O(yc∣yc∣4).\gamma=\frac{|y_c|^2}{32\pi^2}+O(|y_c|^4),\qquad \beta_{y_c}\equiv\mu\frac{dy_c}{d\mu} =-\frac32\eta y_c =\frac{3y_c|y_c|^2}{32\pi^2}+O(y_c|y_c|^4).

These are running local-action parameters in canonical coordinates, not a claim that a scattering amplitude equals a superpotential coefficient. The remaining low fluctuations must still be included in an observable.

As a coefficient check, specialize Martin–Vaughn, (1.1), (2.7), (2.10) to one neutral chiral field and no soft breaking. Their cubic tensor is Y111=ycY^{111}=y_c, and their one-loop anomalous dimension is (∣yc∣2/2)/(16π2)(|y_c|^2/2)/(16\pi^2), agreeing with ours. This comparison concerns the universal leading coefficient, not the finite smoothing constant.

For a concrete check, let ∣y∣=1/2|y|=1/2 and Λ/μ=10\Lambda/\mu=10, with E/μE/\mu negligible. The finite expression gives

δZ=1128π2log⁡10201400≈0.002564,ycy=1−32δZ+O(∣y∣4)≈0.99615.\delta Z=\frac1{128\pi^2}\log\frac{10201}{400} \approx0.002564,\qquad \frac{y_c}{y}=1-\frac32\delta Z+O(|y|^4) \approx0.99615.

The phase does not change at this order; the magnitude decreases toward lower scales. The expansion requires δZ≪1\delta Z\ll1. Replacing the truncated expression for ZZ in an exact fractional power does not turn it into an all-orders answer.

The infrared endpoint changes the question

Section titled “The infrared endpoint changes the question”

The full one-particle-irreducible auxiliary kernel instead includes all momenta. At nonzero Euclidean external momentum kk, its scalar loop contains

I1PI(k)=∫d4p(2π)41p2(p+k)2.I_{\rm 1PI}(k)= \int\frac{d^4p}{(2\pi)^4}\frac1{p^2(p+k)^2}.

Subtract the same expression at k02>0k_0^2>0. Feynman parameterization shifts the denominator to [ℓ2+x(1−x)k2]2[\ell^2+x(1-x)k^2]^2 for 0<x<10<x<1. The convergent subtracted radial integral from the prerequisite gives

I1PI(k)−I1PI(k0)=116π2∫01dx log⁡x(1−x)k02x(1−x)k2=−116π2log⁡k2k02.I_{\rm 1PI}(k)-I_{\rm 1PI}(k_0) =\frac1{16\pi^2}\int_0^1dx\, \log\frac{x(1-x)k_0^2}{x(1-x)k^2} =-\frac1{16\pi^2}\log\frac{k^2}{k_0^2}.

Use a common translation-invariant ultraviolet regularization before making the subtraction and momentum shifts. The integrable parameter endpoints are understood by their limits. The resulting two-point coefficient has a logarithm of external momentum, and no Taylor expansion at k=0k=0. It is not the local Wilsonian Z(μ)Z(\mu) with E≪μE\ll\mu.

This is why taking μ→0\mu\to0 at fixed external momentum is not a permitted limit of the local calculation. Massless 1PI functions can have infrared singular and nonlocal structures; the Wilsonian superpotential statement is not a statement about every way of representing them. Seiberg, §3 explicitly identifies this distinction. Our one-loop example exhibits a kinetic logarithm; it does not claim a newly generated local F-term.

A calculation uses W=hΦ3/3W=h\Phi^3/3 instead of yΦ3/3!y\Phi^3/3!. Find the coefficient of the auxiliary vertex, its one-loop δZ\delta Z in terms of IΛ,μI_{\Lambda,\mu}, and the scaling-window γ\gamma and βhc\beta_{h_c}. Explain the error in transferring the numerical coefficient of βy\beta_y without translating the coupling.

Hint 1

Differentiate the superpotential before drawing the diagram. Each external auxiliary vertex couples to two identical scalars.

Hint 2

Use y=2hy=2h and hc=hZ−3/2h_c=hZ^{-3/2}. The definition γ=−η/2\gamma=-\eta/2 remains unchanged.

Solution

The vertex is hFϕ2+h.c.hF\phi^2+\text{h.c.} in the Lorentzian action. The same two pairings now give

δZ=2∣h∣2IΛ,μ.\delta Z=2|h|^2I_{\Lambda,\mu}.

This equals ∣y∣2IΛ,μ/2|y|^2I_{\Lambda,\mu}/2 when y=2hy=2h. In the wide scale interval,

γ=∣hc∣28π2+O(∣hc∣4),βhc=3hcγ=3hc∣hc∣28π2+O(hc∣hc∣4).\gamma=\frac{|h_c|^2}{8\pi^2}+O(|h_c|^4),\qquad \beta_{h_c}=3h_c\gamma =\frac{3h_c|h_c|^2}{8\pi^2}+O(h_c|h_c|^4).

The factor four reflects the square of the rescaling of the cubic coefficient. It is not a change of theory or a disagreement about diagrams. Both conventions give the same normalized Yukawa term, since −yϕψψ/2=−hϕψψ-y\phi\psi\psi/2=-h\phi\psi\psi.

At fixed μ>0\mu>0, with the light field retained and ∣m∣≪μ|m|\ll\mu, consider

δW1=c1∣y∣2yΦ3,δW2=c2y2mΦ4,δK3=c3∣y∣2ΦˉΦ.\delta W_1=c_1|y|^2y\Phi^3,\qquad \delta W_2=c_2\frac{y^2}{m}\Phi^4,\qquad \delta K_3=c_3|y|^2\bar\Phi\Phi.

The cic_i are neutral constants. Which obstruction applies to each proposed term? Would replacing mm by μ\mu in the second expression repair it? State how the answer changes if a distinct heavy chiral field has actually been integrated out.

Hint 1

“Chiral for a constant number” is weaker than holomorphic dependence on a background chiral superfield. Check charges and analyticity separately.

Hint 2

The Wilsonian scale has dimension one but no flavor charge. A light-mass pole and a heavy-threshold pole need not have the same interpretation.

Solution

The first term has appropriate dimensions and constant-parameter charges, but depends on yˉ\bar y. It fails the holomorphic spurion condition for a local superpotential. The second is holomorphic away from m=0m=0 and has flavor charge −6+2+4=0-6+2+4=0 and R-charge −2+4=2-2+4=2. Its pole violates the perturbative regularity required with this field still light at a nonzero Wilsonian scale.

Replacing mm with μ\mu removes that pole but loses its flavor charge: y2Φ4/μy^2\Phi^4/\mu has flavor charge −2-2, so it is not allowed by the spurion selection rule. Dimensional analysis alone missed this.

The third term is real for real c3c_3, neutral, and of dimension two, as a Kähler term must be. It is allowed. The loop actually generates it with positive scale-dependent coefficient IΛ,μ/2I_{\Lambda,\mu}/2 at this order; symmetry alone would not fix that number or require it to be nonzero.

For a distinct heavy field of nonzero mass MM, an inverse MM can be allowed in the theory with that field removed. Its validity is restricted to energies below ∣M∣|M|; the field must return when MM becomes light. This is the tree matching situation of the prerequisite, not an exception to the present loop argument.

In the scaling window, set u=∣yc∣2u=|y_c|^2 and use the leading beta function with initial value u(μ0)=u0>0u(\mu_0)=u_0>0. Solve for u(μ)u(\mu). Determine the direction of running, the formal pole, and why this pole is not a controlled prediction of new physics. For log⁡(μ/μ0)=−1\log(\mu/\mu_0)=-1 and u0=1/4u_0=1/4, estimate the change.

Hint 1

Differentiate ycyˉcy_c\bar y_c. The phase is constant at this order. The equation for 1/u1/u is simpler than the equation for uu.

Hint 2

The initial condition is specified at a scale already far below Λ\Lambda. Continue only while the running coupling stays weak and both scales remain in that interval.

Solution

Both conjugate terms contribute:

dudlog⁡μ=3u216π2,d(1/u)dlog⁡μ=−316π2.\frac{du}{d\log\mu}=\frac{3u^2}{16\pi^2}, \qquad \frac{d(1/u)}{d\log\mu}=-\frac3{16\pi^2}.

Therefore the one-loop running solution is

u(μ)=u01−3u016π2log⁡(μ/μ0).u(\mu)= \frac{u_0}{1-\dfrac{3u_0}{16\pi^2}\log(\mu/\mu_0)}.

Lower scales increase the denominator and decrease uu. For the specified change,

u(μ)=1/41+3/(64π2)≈0.24882.u(\mu)=\frac{1/4}{1+3/(64\pi^2)} \approx0.24882.

This running solution sums the logarithms implied by the leading differential equation; it does not include higher-loop beta coefficients. Its formal ultraviolet pole is μpole=μ0exp⁡[16π2/(3u0)]\mu_{\rm pole}=\mu_0\exp[16\pi^2/(3u_0)]. The weak-coupling approximation fails before that pole, and the finite ultraviolet cutoff may be reached much earlier. The formula diagnoses growth toward the ultraviolet, not a reliable particle threshold or a demonstrated ultraviolet completion.

The loop and the selection rule answer different questions. The fixed-coordinate Wilsonian superpotential retains its perturbative coefficients, while the Kähler term changes and canonical couplings run. Before applying nonrenormalization, specify the action, field coordinate, infrared scale, and which fields remain in the theory.

For an application to a broken vacuum, An O’Raifeartaigh model and its Goldstino calculates a loop-generated scalar mass while the superpotential stays fixed. The scalar and its massless fermionic partner need not remain degenerate.