1: \documentstyle[epsf,12pt]{article}

2: 

3: \unitlength=1cm

4: 

5: \textwidth 6.1in

6: 

7: \textheight 9.2in

8: \oddsidemargin .03 in

9: \evensidemargin .03in

10: 

11: \marginparwidth .03in

12: \topmargin=-22pt

13: 

14: \sloppy

15: \begin{document}

16: 

17: \title

18: {Three-loop $\beta$-function for $N=1$ supersymmetric

19: electrodynamics, regularized by higher derivatives.}

20: 

21: \author{A.A.Soloshenko \thanks{E-mail:$solosh@theor.phys.msu.su$},

22: K.V.Stepanyantz \thanks{E-mail:$stepan@theor.phys.msu.su$}}

23: 

24: \maketitle

25: 

26: \begin{center}

27: 

28: {\em Moscow State University, Physical Faculty,\\

29: Department of Theoretical Physics.\\$117234$, Moscow, Russia}

30: 

31: \end{center}

32: 

33: \begin{abstract}

34: Three-loop quantum corrections to the effective action are calculated

35: for $N~=~1$ supersymmetric electrodynamics, regularized by higher

36: derivatives. Using the obtained results we investigate the anomaly

37: puzzle in the considered model.

38: \end{abstract}

39: 

40: 

41: \sloppy

42: 

43: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

44: 

45: \section{Introduction.}

46: \hspace{\parindent}

47: 

48: It is well known \cite{Ferrara,Clark,Piquet1,Piquet2}, that in

49: supersymmetric theories the axial and the trace of the energy-momentum

50: tensor anomalies are components of a chiral scalar supermultiplet.

51: Adler-Bardeen theorem \cite{Bardeen,Slavnov_Book} asserts that there

52: are no radiative corrections to the axial anomaly beyond the one-loop

53: approximation, while the trace anomaly is proportional to the

54: $\beta$-function \cite{Adler_Collins} to all orders. Therefore it

55: seems to imply, that the $\beta$-function in supersymmetric theories

56: should be exhausted by the first loop \cite{NSVZ_PL}. It does take

57: place in models with $N=2$ supersymmetry \cite{N2}. However explicit

58: perturbative calculations find higher order corrections to the

59: $\beta$-functions of $N=1$ supersymmetric theories, regularized by

60: dimensional reduction \cite{Tarasov,Grisaru,Caswell}. This contradiction

61: is usually called "the anomaly puzzle".

62: 

63: Many papers were written in the attempt of solving the anomaly puzzle in

64: supersymmetric theories. For example, in \cite{SV} the anomaly puzzle

65: is argued to be a consequence of the difference between the usual and

66: Wilsonian effective actions. In particular, the authors noted, that there

67: was a nontrivial contribution to the $\beta$-function related with the

68: Konishi anomaly \cite{Konishi,ClarkKonishi}. The investigation of this

69: contribution in \cite{SV} and the investigation of instanton contributions

70: in \cite{NSVZ_Instanton} have led to the construction of the so-called

71: exact Novikov, Shifman, Vainshtein and Zakharov (NSVZ) $\beta$-function.

72: For $N=1$ supersymmetric electrodynamics (SUSY QED) considered in this

73: paper the NSVZ $\beta$-function has the following form:

74: 

75: \begin{equation}\label{NSVZ_Beta}

76: \beta(\alpha) = \frac{\alpha^2}{\pi}\Big(1-\gamma(\alpha)\Big),

77: \end{equation}

78: 

79: \noindent

80: where $\gamma(\alpha)$ is the anomalous dimension of the matter superfield.

81: Explicit perturbative calculations with the dimensional reduction (DRED)

82: verify the NVSZ $\beta$-function up to the two-loop order. Nevertheless,

83: the three-loop results obtained in \cite{ThreeLoop1,ThreeLoop2,ThreeLoop3}

84: do not agree with the NSVZ $\beta$-function. However \cite{ThreeLoop2}

85: this disagreement can be eliminated by a special choice of renormalization

86: scheme, the possibility of such a choice being highly nontrivial

87: \cite{JackJones}. Actually it is possible to relate

88: $\overline{\mbox{DRED}}$ scheme and NSVZ scheme order by order

89: \cite{North} in the perturbation theory. It is worth mentioning, that at

90: two-loops the NSVZ $\beta$-function was also obtained with differential

91: renormalization \cite{DiffR}. For example, for $N=1$ SUSY Yang-Mills

92: the calculation was made in \cite{Mas}.

93: 

94: However the relation between $\Gamma$ and the Wilsonian action remained

95: unclear. This problem was avoided in another solution of the anomaly puzzle,

96: proposed in \cite{Arkani}. The main idea of \cite{Arkani} is that the higher

97: order corrections in NSVZ $\beta$-function are due to anomalous Jacobian

98: under the rescaling of the fields done in passing from holomorphic to

99: canonical normalization. In the case of supersymmetric electrodynamics

100: holomorphic normalization means, that the renormalized action is written as

101: 

102: \begin{eqnarray}\label{Holomorphic_Normalization}

103: && S_{ren} =

104: \frac{1}{4 e^2} Z_3(\Lambda/\mu) \mbox{Re}

105: \int d^4x\,d^2\theta\,W_a C^{ab} W_b

106: +\nonumber\\

107: && \qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad

108: + Z(\Lambda/\mu)\frac{1}{4}\int d^4x\, d^4\theta\,

109: \Big(\phi^* e^{2V}\phi +\tilde\phi^* e^{-2V}\tilde\phi\Big),\qquad

110: \end{eqnarray}

111: 

112: \noindent

113: while in the canonical normalization

114: 

115: \begin{eqnarray}\label{Canonical_Normalization}

116: && S_{ren} =

117: \frac{1}{4 e^2} Z_3(\Lambda/\mu) \mbox{Re}

118: \int d^4x\,d^2\theta\,W_a C^{ab} W_b

119: +\nonumber\\

120: && \qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\quad

121: + \frac{1}{4}\int d^4x\, d^4\theta\,

122: \Big(\phi^* e^{2V}\phi +\tilde\phi^* e^{-2V}\tilde\phi\Big).\qquad

123: \end{eqnarray}

124: 

125: \noindent

126: In the former case the $\beta$-function is supposed to be exhausted at

127: the one loop, while in the latter one it coincides with the NVSZ result.

128: In principle this solution is different from the one, given by Shifman

129: and Vainshtein. Moreover, it contradicts the results of explicit

130: two-loop calculations, made with DRED.

131: 

132: It would be natural to suppose, that in the holomorphic normalization the

133: $\beta$-function is exhausted at the one-loop if higher covariant

134: derivative regularization \cite{Slavnov,Bakeyev}, supplemented by the

135: Pauli-Villars, is used. This regularization is known to yield the same

136: result for one-loop logarithmic divergences as the dimensional

137: regularization (or dimensional reduction) \cite{PhysLett}. The explicit

138: two-loop calculations for theories, regularized by higher derivatives

139: (HD), were made first in \cite{hep,tmf2} for $N=1$ SUSY QED and gave a

140: zero two-loop contribution to the $\beta$-function defined by

141: \footnote{Note, that it is the $\beta$-function, that is proportional

142: to the trace anomaly.}

143: 

144: \begin{equation}\label{Beta_Definition}

145: \beta(\alpha) = \frac{d}{d\ln\mu}\Bigg(\frac{e^2}{4\pi}\Bigg).

146: \end{equation}

147: 

148: This result implies the absence of the anomaly puzzle in view of the

149: solution proposed in \cite{Arkani}. However it was not quite clear why

150: different regularizations give different results for the scheme independent

151: two-loop $\beta$-function. Actually in \cite{hep} we noted, that the using

152: of the HD regularization leads to a nontrivial contribution of diagrams

153: with insertions of one-loop counterterms, which does not exist for the

154: dimensional reduction. The calculations of this contribution with different

155: regularizations were analysed in \cite{HD_And_DRED}, where the

156: difference of the results for the scheme independent two-loop

157: $\beta$-function was attributed to the mathematical inconsistency of DRED

158: \cite{Siegel}, which had been pointed in \cite{Siegel2}. In particular,

159: the inconsistency of DRED leads to incorrect zero results for anomalies,

160: because DRED does not break the chiral symmetry. It is necessary to

161: stress an essential difference between dimensional regularization (DREG)

162: \cite{tHV} and DRED: DREG allows to derive the axial anomaly unambiguously

163: \cite{tHV}. However DREG explicitly breaks supersymmetry and is not

164: convenient for the calculations in supersymmetric theories. Let us note,

165: that anomalies can in principle be calculated with DRED. However for this

166: purpose it is necessary to impose mathematically inconsistent conditions

167: like $\mbox{tr}(AB)\ne \mbox{tr}(BA)$ \cite{Nikolai} or use some

168: identities between $\gamma$-matrices, which are valid only for $n>4$

169: \cite{Leveille}. (DRED requires that the space-time dimension $n$ should

170: be less than 4 \cite{Siegel}.) However such conditions can not be imposed

171: if the calculations are made by the supergraph technique. Hence the axial

172: anomaly and the Konishi anomaly, calculated with DRED, are equal to 0. As

173: a consequence the additional anomalous contribution, pointed in \cite{SV},

174: is omitted if the theory is regularized by DRED. HD regularization is

175: mathematically consistent and allows to calculate anomalies correctly.

176: In particular, the anomalous contribution to the $\beta$-function,

177: obtained with HD, is not equal to 0. Actually this contribution is a sum

178: of Feynman diagrams with insersions of counterterms on matter lines. The

179: sum of such diagrams is equal to 0 with DRED and agrees with the results

180: of \cite{SV} and \cite{Arkani} with HD regularization. After rescaling,

181: which converts (\ref{Holomorphic_Normalization}) into

182: (\ref{Canonical_Normalization}), the diagrams with insersions of

183: counterterms vanish, and the $\beta$-function becomes equal to the

184: NSVZ expression.

185: 

186: It is necessary to note, that although the $\beta$-function

187: (\ref{Beta_Definition}) is exausted by the first loop in the holomorphic

188: normalization, the Gell-Mann-Low function has contributions from all

189: orders. This contradiction is discussed in the present paper. We argue,

190: that if the Adler-Bardeen theorem is valid and the bare coupling constant

191: does not depend on $\mu$, then the generating functional depends on $\mu$

192: due to the rescaling anomaly and $\beta$-function (\ref{Beta_Definition})

193: is not related with the Gell-Mann-Low function. Therefore there is no

194: contradiction between the form of the Gell-Mann-Low function and the

195: multiplet structure of anomalies.

196: 

197: One more purpose of this paper is the calculation of the $\beta$-function

198: in the three-loop approximation. It is desirable in order to avoid some

199: possible errors or incorrect interpretation of the results, especially if

200: we take into account, that the three-loop $\beta$-function, considered as

201: a function of $\alpha$, is scheme-dependent. The three-loop contribution

202: to $\beta$-function (\ref{Beta_Definition}) is found to be 0,

203: and agrees with the predictions of \cite{Arkani} and \cite{HD_And_DRED}.

204: It is worth mentioning, that in the three-loop approximation the sum of

205: the diagrams without insersions of counterterms (on matter lines) for a

206: large number of subtraction schemes is equal to the exact $\beta$-function

207: (calculation with DRED gives the NSVZ $\beta$-function only after a

208: redefinition of the coupling constant). The sum of the diagrams with

209: insersions of counterterms in two- and three-loop approximations agrees

210: with the exact expression found in \cite{HD_And_DRED}, and cancels the

211: other two- and three-loop contributions.

212: 

213: The paper is organized as follows:

214: 

215: In section \ref{Section_SUSY_QED} we consider $N=1$ SUSY QED and

216: regularize it by higher derivatives. The three-loop $\beta$-function and

217: its relation with two-loop anomalous dimension are analysed in section

218: \ref{Section_Three_Loop}. In particular, the three-loop contribution to

219: the $\beta$-function is found to be 0. In section \ref{Section_HD_And_DRED}

220: we explain why the results are different from those obtained with DRED.

221: The anomaly puzzle is considered in section \ref{Section_Anomaly_Puzzle}.

222: Section \ref{Section_Conclusion} contains some concluding remarks.

223: The details of the calculations are presented in appendixes. Appendix

224: \ref{Appendix_Diagrams} contains expressions for various groups of

225: Feynman diagrams. The calculations of the corresponding contributions are

226: made in appendix \ref{Appendix_Relation} and the most useful three-loop

227: integrals are analysed in appendix \ref{Appendix_Integrals}.

228: 

229: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

230: 

231: \section{$N=1$ supersymmetric electrodynamics and higher derivative

232: regularization.}

233: \label{Section_SUSY_QED}

234: \hspace{\parindent}

235: 

236: $N=1$ supersymmetric electrodynamics is described by the following action:

237: 

238: \begin{equation}\label{SQED_Action}

239: S_0 = \frac{1}{4 e^2} \mbox{Re}\int d^4x\,d^2\theta\,W_a C^{ab} W_b

240: + \frac{1}{4}\int d^4x\, d^4\theta\,

241: \Big(\phi^* e^{2V}\phi +\tilde\phi^*

242: e^{-2V}\tilde\phi\Big).

243: \end{equation}

244: 

245: \noindent

246: Here $\phi$ and $\tilde\phi$ are chiral superfields

247: 

248: \begin{eqnarray}\label{Phi_Superfield}

249: && \phi(y,\theta) = \varphi(y) + \bar\theta (1+\gamma_5) \psi(y)

250: + \frac{1}{2}\bar\theta (1+\gamma_5)\theta f(y);\nonumber\\

251: &&\tilde \phi(y,\theta) = \tilde \varphi(y)

252: + \bar\theta (1+\gamma_5) \tilde \psi(y)

253: + \frac{1}{2}\bar\theta (1+\gamma_5)\theta \tilde f(y),

254: \end{eqnarray}

255: 

256: \noindent

257: where $y^\mu = x^\mu + i\bar\theta\gamma^\mu\gamma_5\theta/2$.

258: Two Majorana spinors $\psi$ and $\tilde\psi$ form one Dirac spinor

259: 

260: \begin{equation}\label{Psi_Definition}

261: \Psi = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\Big((1+\gamma_5)\psi+(1-\gamma_5)\tilde\psi\Big).

262: \end{equation}

263: 

264: \noindent

265: $V$ in (\ref{SQED_Action}) is a real superfield

266: 

267: \begin{eqnarray}\label{V_Superfield}

268: && V(x,\theta) = C(x)+i\sqrt{2}\bar\theta\gamma_5\xi(x)

269: +\frac{1}{2}(\bar\theta\theta)K(x)

270: +\frac{i}{2}(\bar\theta\gamma_5\theta)H(x)

271: +\frac{1}{2}(\bar\theta \gamma^\mu \gamma_5\theta) A_\mu(x)

272: +\nonumber\\

273: && + \sqrt{2} (\bar\theta\theta) \bar\theta

274: \Big(i\gamma_5\chi(x)

275: +\frac{1}{2}\gamma^\mu\gamma_5\partial_\mu\xi(x)\Big)

276: + \frac{1}{4} (\bar\theta\theta)^2 \Big(D(x)

277: -\frac{1}{2}\partial^2 C(x)\Big),

278: \end{eqnarray}

279: 

280: \noindent

281: where, in particular, $A_\mu$ is an Abelian gauge field. The superfield

282: $W_a$ in the Abelian case is defined by

283: 

284: \begin{equation}

285: W_a = \frac{1}{16} \bar D (1-\gamma_5) D\Big[(1+\gamma_5)D_a V\Big],

286: \end{equation}

287: 

288: \noindent

289: where

290: 

291: \begin{equation}

292: D = \frac{\partial}{\partial\bar\theta} - i\gamma^\mu\theta\,\partial_\mu

293: \end{equation}

294: 

295: \noindent

296: is a supersymmetric covariant derivative.

297: 

298: In order to regularize model (\ref{SQED_Action}) by HD its action should

299: be modified as follows:

300: 

301: \begin{eqnarray}\label{Regularized_SQED_Action}

302: && S_0 \to S = S_0 + S_{\Lambda}

303: =\vphantom{\frac{1}{2}}\nonumber\\

304: &&\qquad

305: = \frac{1}{4 e^2} \mbox{Re}\int d^4x\,d^2\theta\,W_a C^{ab}

306: \Big(1+ \frac{\partial^{2n}}{\Lambda^{2n}}\Big) W_b

307: +\nonumber\\

308: &&\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad

309: + \frac{1}{4}\int d^4x\, d^4\theta\,

310: \Big(\phi^* e^{2V}\phi +\tilde\phi^* e^{-2V}\tilde\phi\Big).\qquad

311: \end{eqnarray}

312: 

313: \noindent

314: Note, that in the Abelian case the superfield $W^a$ is gauge invariant,

315: so the higher derivative term contains usual derivatives.

316: 

317: The quantization of (\ref{Regularized_SQED_Action}) can be made by using

318: standard technique described in \cite{West} and is not considered here.

319: It only needs mentioning that the gauge invariance was fixed by adding

320: 

321: \begin{equation}

322: S_{gf} = - \frac{1}{64 e^2}\int d^4x\,d^4\theta\,

323: \Bigg(V D^2 \bar D^2

324: \Big(1 + \frac{\partial^{2n}}{\Lambda^{2n}}\Big) V

325: + V \bar D^2 D^2

326: \Big(1+ \frac{\partial^{2n}}{\Lambda^{2n}}\Big) V\Bigg),

327: \end{equation}

328: 

329: \noindent

330: where

331: 

332: \begin{equation}

333: D^2 \equiv \frac{1}{2} \bar D (1+\gamma_5)D;\qquad

334: \bar D^2 \equiv \frac{1}{2}\bar D (1-\gamma_5) D.

335: \end{equation}

336: 

337: \noindent

338: After adding such terms the free part of the action for the

339: superfield $V$ is written in the simplest form

340: 

341: \begin{equation}

342: S_{gauge} + S_{gf} = \frac{1}{4 e^2}\int d^4x\,d^4\theta\,

343: V\partial^2 \Big(1+ \frac{\partial^{2n}}{\Lambda^{2n}}\Big) V.

344: \end{equation}

345: 

346: \noindent

347: In the Abelian case diagrams containing ghost loops are missing.

348: 

349: The superficial degree of divergence for the model

350: (\ref{Regularized_SQED_Action}) is (see e.f. \cite{hep})

351: 

352: \begin{equation}\label{Degree_Of_Divergence}

353: \omega_\Lambda = 2 - 2n (L-1) - E_\phi (n+1),

354: \end{equation}

355: 

356: \noindent

357: where $L$ is a number of loops and $E_\phi$ is a number of external

358: $\phi$-lines. According to (\ref{Degree_Of_Divergence}) divergences

359: remain in one-loop diagrams even for $n\ge 2$. In order to regularize

360: these divergences it is necessary to insert Pauli-Villars determinants

361: \cite{Slavnov_Book} into the generating functional. Due to the

362: supersymmetric gauge invariance

363: 

364: \begin{equation}

365: V \to V - \frac{1}{2}(A+A^+);

366: \qquad \phi\to e^{A}\phi;\qquad \tilde\phi\to e^{-A} \tilde\phi,

367: \end{equation}

368: 

369: \noindent

370: where $A$ is an arbitrary chiral scalar superfield, the renormalized

371: action can be written as

372: 

373: \begin{eqnarray}\label{Renormalized_Action}

374: && S_{ren} =

375: \frac{1}{4 e^2} Z_3(\Lambda/\mu) \mbox{Re}\int d^4x\,d^2\theta\,W_a C^{ab}

376: \Big(1+ \frac{\partial^{2n}}{\Lambda^{2n}}\Big) W_b

377: +\nonumber\\

378: && \qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad

379: + Z(\Lambda/\mu)\frac{1}{4}\int d^4x\, d^4\theta\,

380: \Big(\phi^* e^{2V}\phi +\tilde\phi^* e^{-2V}\tilde\phi\Big).\qquad

381: \end{eqnarray}

382: 

383: \noindent

384: Hence the generating functional is

385: 

386: \begin{eqnarray}\label{Modified_Z}

387: && Z = \int DV\,D\phi\,D\tilde \phi\,

388: \prod\limits_i \Big(\det PV(V,M_i)\Big)^{c_i}

389: \exp\Bigg\{i\Bigg[\frac{1}{4 e^2} \int d^4x\,d^4\theta\, V\partial^2

390: \Big(1+ \frac{\partial^{2n}}{\Lambda^{2n}}\Big) V

391: -\nonumber\\

392: && - \frac{1}{4 e^2} \Big(Z_3(\Lambda/\mu)-1\Big) \int d^4x\,d^4\theta\,

393: V \Pi_{1/2}\partial^2

394: \Big(1+ \frac{\partial^{2n}}{\Lambda^{2n}}\Big) V

395: +\nonumber\\

396: && \qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad

397: + \frac{1}{4} Z(\Lambda/\mu) \int d^4x\,d^4\theta\,

398: \Big(\phi^* e^{2V}\phi

399: + \tilde\phi^* e^{-2V}\tilde\phi \Big)

400: +\nonumber\\

401: &&

402: + \int d^4x\,d^4\theta\,J V

403: + \int d^4x\,d^2\theta\, \Big(j\,\phi + \tilde j\,\tilde\phi \Big)

404: + \int d^4x\,d^2\bar\theta\,

405: \Big(j^*\phi^* + \tilde j^* \tilde\phi^* \Big)\Bigg]\Bigg\},

406: \end{eqnarray}

407: 

408: \noindent

409: where

410: 

411: \begin{eqnarray}\label{PV_Determinants}

412: && \Big(\det PV(V,M)\Big)^{-1} = \int D\Phi\,D\tilde \Phi\,

413: \exp\Bigg\{i\Bigg[ Z(\Lambda/\mu) \frac{1}{4} \int d^4x\,d^4\theta\,

414: \Big(\Phi^* e^{2V}\Phi

415: +\qquad\nonumber\\

416: && + \tilde\Phi^* e^{-2V}\tilde\Phi \Big)

417: + \frac{1}{2}\int d^4x\,d^2\theta\, M \tilde\Phi \Phi

418: + \frac{1}{2}\int d^4x\,d^2\bar\theta\, M \tilde\Phi^* \Phi^*

419: \Bigg]\Bigg\},

420: \end{eqnarray}

421: 

422: \noindent

423: and the coefficients $c_i$ satisfy equations

424: 

425: \begin{equation}

426: \sum\limits_i c_i = 1;\qquad \sum\limits_i c_i M_i^2 = 0.

427: \end{equation}

428: 

429: \noindent

430: Below we assume, that $M_i = a_i\Lambda$, where $a_i$ are some

431: constants. The insertion of Pauli-Villars determinants allows us to

432: cancel remaining divergences in all one-loop diagrams, including diagrams

433: with insertions of counterterms. Later we will show, that the divergencies

434: in the sum of two- and three-loop diagrams with Pauli-Villars loops

435: cancel each other. Therefore, for diagrams with loops of Pauli-Villars

436: fields it is unnecessary to introduce any other regularization.

437: 

438: In our notations the generating functional for connected Green functions

439: is defined by

440: 

441: \begin{equation}\label{W}

442: W = - i\ln Z,

443: \end{equation}

444: 

445: \noindent

446: and an effective action is obtained by making a Legendre transformation:

447: 

448: \begin{equation}\label{Gamma}

449: \Gamma = W - \int d^4x\,d^4\theta\,J V

450: - \int d^4x\,d^2\theta\, \Big(j\,\phi + \tilde j\,\tilde\phi \Big)

451: - \int d^4x\,d^2\bar\theta\,

452: \Big(j^*\phi^* + \tilde j^* \tilde\phi^* \Big),

453: \end{equation}

454: 

455: \noindent

456: where $J$, $j$ and $\tilde j$ is to be eliminated in terms of

457: $V$, $\phi$ and $\tilde\phi$, through solving equations

458: 

459: \begin{equation}

460: V = \frac{\delta W}{\delta J};\qquad

461: \phi = \frac{\delta W}{\delta j};\qquad

462: \tilde\phi = \frac{\delta W}{\delta\tilde j}.

463: \end{equation}

464: 

465: After obtaining $S_{ren}$, it is possible to find the $\beta$-function

466: and the anomalous dimension, which in our notations are defined by

467: 

468: \begin{equation}\label{Beta_Gamma_Definition}

469: \beta = \frac{d}{d\ln\mu}\Bigg(\frac{e^2}{4\pi}\Bigg);

470: \qquad\quad

471: \gamma = \frac{d\ln Z}{d\ln\mu}.

472: \end{equation}

473: 

474: \noindent

475: (We assume, that the bare coupling constant $e_0$, defined by

476: 

477: \begin{equation}\label{Bare_Coupling_Constant}

478: \frac{1}{e_0^2} = \frac{1}{e^2} Z_3(\Lambda/\mu),

479: \end{equation}

480: 

481: \noindent

482: does not depend on $\mu$. Hence the renormalized coupling constant $e$

483: depends on $\mu$.) It is easy to see \cite{Adler_Collins}, that the trace

484: anomaly is proportional to $\beta$-function (\ref{Beta_Gamma_Definition}).

485: 

486: The $\beta$-function and anomalous dimension, given by

487: (\ref{Beta_Gamma_Definition}), which are considered as functions of

488: $e$, are changed at the simultanious redefinition of the renormalized

489: coupling $e$ and the renormalization constant $Z_3$, provided

490: $e_0=\mbox{const}$. In other words they depend on the renormalization

491: scheme. If $\beta$ and $\gamma$ are expanded in powers of $e^2$, then

492: the coefficients of the $\beta$-function and anomalous dimension become

493: scheme-dependent starting from the three- and two-loop approximation

494: respectively.

495: 

496: Note, that it is possible to use another definition of the

497: $\beta$-function. Let us consider transversal part of the two-point Green

498: function for the gauge field:

499: 

500: \begin{eqnarray}\label{Two_Point_Function}

501: && \Pi_{1/2}\,

502: \int d^4x\,d^4y\,\frac{\delta^2 \Gamma}{\delta V_x\,\delta V_y}

503: \Bigg|_{J=0} \exp\Big(i p_\mu x^\mu + i q_\mu y^\mu \Big)

504: =\nonumber\\

505: &&\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad

506: = \frac{1}{8\pi} (2\pi)^4 \delta^4\Big(p + q\Big)\,

507: p^2 \Pi_{1/2} \delta^4(\theta_x-\theta_y)\,d^{-1}(\alpha,\mu/p),\qquad

508: \end{eqnarray}

509: 

510: \noindent

511: where

512: 

513: \begin{equation}

514: \Pi_{1/2} \equiv - \frac{1}{16 \partial^2} D^a \bar D^2 C_{ab} D^b.

515: \end{equation}

516: 

517: \noindent

518: Then it is possible to define Gell-Mann-Low function

519: 

520: \begin{equation}\label{GL_Function}

521: \tilde\beta\Big(d(\alpha,x)\Big) \equiv

522: - x\frac{\partial}{\partial x} d(\alpha,x).

523: \end{equation}

524: 

525: \noindent

526: Taking into account, that the effective action should not depend

527: on the normalization point $\mu$ and differentiating equation

528: (\ref{Two_Point_Function}) over $\ln\mu$ we obtain

529: 

530: \begin{equation}

531: 0 = \tilde\beta\Big(d(\alpha,x)\Big)

532: - \beta(\alpha) \frac{\partial}{\partial\alpha} d(\alpha,x).

533: \end{equation}

534: 

535: \noindent

536: In particular at $x=1$ we have

537: 

538: \begin{equation}\label{GL_And_Beta}

539: \tilde\beta(\tilde\alpha) = \beta(\alpha)\frac{d\tilde\alpha}{d\alpha},

540: \end{equation}

541: 

542: \noindent

543: where $\tilde\alpha\equiv d(\alpha,1)$. Therefore, if the generating

544: functional does not depend on $\mu$, then both definitions of the

545: $\beta$-function are equivalent.

546: 

547: In order to find the $\beta$-function and the anomalous dimension it is

548: necessary to calculate all 1PI graphs in the considered approximation.

549: The expressions for them are constructed in accordance with Feynman rules,

550: which can be formulated as follows:

551: 

552: 1. External lines give the integration

553: 

554: \begin{equation}

555: \prod\limits_{E}

556: \int \frac{d^4p_{{}_{E_V}}}{(2\pi)^4} V(p_{{}_{E_V}})

557: \int \frac{d^4p_{{}_{E_\phi}}}{(2\pi)^4} \phi(p_{{}_{E_\phi}})

558: \cdot \ldots\cdot

559: (2\pi)^4 \delta\Big(\sum\limits_{E} p_{{}_E}\Big),

560: \end{equation}

561: 

562: \noindent

563: where $E$ runs over external momenta.

564: 

565: 2. Propagator of the superfield $V$ is

566: 

567: \begin{equation}

568: \frac{8e^2}{(k^2+i0) \Big(1+(-1)^n k^{2n}/\Lambda^{2n}\Big)} \,

569: \delta^4(\theta_1-\theta_2).

570: \end{equation}

571: 

572: 3. Massless $\phi-\phi^*$ and $\tilde\phi-\tilde\phi^*$ propagators

573: are

574: 

575: \begin{equation}

576: -\frac{1}{16 (k^2+i0)}\bar D^2 D^2 \delta^4(\theta_1-\theta_2).

577: \end{equation}

578: 

579: \noindent

580: (Note that the considered action is quadratic in matter superfields

581: and Feynman rules can be simplified in comparison with, say,

582: Wess-Zumino model.)

583: 

584: 4. Pauli-Villars fields are present only in the closed loops. Each

585: internal line $\Phi-\Phi^*$ or $\tilde\Phi-\tilde\Phi^*$ corresponds to

586: 

587: \begin{equation}

588: - \frac{1}{16(k^2-M_i^2+i0)}\, \bar D^2 D^2 \delta^4(\theta_1-\theta_2),

589: \end{equation}

590: 

591: \noindent

592: and each internal line $\Phi-\tilde\Phi$ or $\Phi^*-\tilde\Phi^*$ -- to

593: 

594: \begin{equation}

595: \frac{M_i}{4(k^2-M_i^2+i0)}\,\bar D^2 \delta^4(\theta_1-\theta_2)

596: \quad\mbox{and}\quad

597: \frac{M_i}{4(k^2-M_i^2+i0)}\, D^2 \delta^4(\theta_1-\theta_2)

598: \end{equation}

599: 

600: \noindent

601: respectively. For each loop of Pauli-Villars fields it is necessary to

602: introduce ${\displaystyle - \sum\limits_i c_i}$.

603: 

604: 5. Each loop yields an integration over a loop momentum

605: ${\displaystyle \int \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi)^4}}$.

606: 

607: 6. Each vertex gives ${\displaystyle \int d^4\theta}$.

608: 

609: 7. There are usual combinatoric factors, which can be found from

610: the generating functional (\ref{Modified_Z}).

611: 

612: 

613: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

614: 

615: \section{Three-loop $\beta$-function.}

616: \hspace{\parindent}

617: \label{Section_Three_Loop}

618: 

619: The diagrams contributing to the three-loop $\beta$-function are presented

620: in Fig. \ref{Figure_Beta_Diagrams_1Loop}~--~\ref{Figure_Beta_Diagrams_XX}.

621: Note, that each internal matter loop in these diagrams can correspond to

622: $\phi$ and $\tilde\phi$ fields or to Pauli-Villars fields. We devided

623: Feynman diagrams into some groups and presented the expressions for all

624: these groups in appendix \ref{Appendix_Diagrams}. Then the three-loop

625: correction to the effective action can be written as

626: 

627: \begin{eqnarray}\label{Three_Loop_Effective_Action_V}

628: && \Delta\Gamma^{(3)}_{V} = \mbox{Re} \int d^2\theta\,

629: \frac{d^4p}{(2\pi)^4} W_a(p) C^{ab} W_b(-p)

630: \times\nonumber\\

631: &&\qquad\qquad

632: \times

633: \Big(f_{1-loop} + f_{O} + f_{O_{PV}} + f_{Oo} + f_{Oo_{PV}} + f_{OO}

634: + f_{XX} + f_{X} + f_{X2} \Big),\qquad

635: \end{eqnarray}

636: 

637: \noindent

638: where

639: 

640: $f_{1-loop}$ is a contribution of one-loop diagrams, presented in

641: Fig. \ref{Figure_Beta_Diagrams_1Loop};

642: 

643: $f_{O}$ is a contribution of diagrams, presented in Fig.

644: \ref{Figure_Beta_Diagrams_O}, containing a single loop of the

645: superfields $\phi$ and $\tilde\phi$;

646: 

647: $f_{O_{PV}}$ is a contribution of the same diagrams, having a loop of

648: Pauli-Villars fields;

649: 

650: $f_{Oo}$ is a contribution of the two-loop diagrams, presented in Fig.

651: \ref{Figure_Beta_Diagrams_2Loop} (without Pauli-Villars fields) and

652: the three-loop diagrams, presented in Fig. \ref{Figure_Beta_Diagrams_Oo},

653: which contain an internal loop of matter superfields or an insersion

654: of one-loop counterterms on the photon line and external loop of

655: $\phi$ and $\tilde\phi$ superfields;

656: 

657: $f_{Oo_{PV}}$ is a contribution of the same diagrams with the external

658: loop of Pauli-Villars fields.

659: 

660: $f_{OO}$ is a contribution of the other diagrams with two loops of

661: the matter superfields, presented in Fig. \ref{Figure_Beta_Diagrams_OO};

662: 

663: $f_{X}$ is a contribution of diagrams with an insersion of two-loop

664: counterterms, presented in Fig. \ref{Figure_Beta_Diagrams_X};

665: 

666: $f_{XX}$ is a contribution of diagrams with two insersions of one-loop

667: counterterms, presented in Fig. \ref{Figure_Beta_Diagrams_XX};

668: 

669: $f_{X2}$ is a contribution of diagrams with an insersion of one-loop

670: counterterms, presented in Fig. \ref{Figure_Beta_Diagrams_X2}.

671: 

672: The explicit expressions for all these contributions were found

673: by means of calculating of the corresponding Feynman diagrams. To check

674: correctness of these calculations we verified the cancellation of

675: noninvariant terms, proportional to

676: 

677: \begin{equation}

678: \int \frac{d^4p}{(2\pi)^4}\,d^4\theta\,V(p,\theta)\,V(-p,\theta).

679: \end{equation}

680: 

681: \noindent

682: The results, presented in appendix \ref{Appendix_Diagrams}, are analysed

683: in appendix \ref{Appendix_Relation}. Let us briefly discuss them:

684: 

685: 1. $f_{OO} = 0$, because the substitution $\phi\leftrightarrow\tilde\phi$

686: in a loop changes the sign of a diagram. Indeed, in this case the diagrams,

687: having the same superfields in both loops ($\phi$ and $\phi$ or

688: $\tilde\phi$ and $\tilde\phi$), are cancelled by diagrams with loops of

689: different superfields ($\phi$ and $\tilde\phi$). For the diagrams with

690: Pauli-Villars fields the result is the same, but its derivation is more

691: complicated.

692: 

693: 2. The sum of $f_{XX}$, $f_X$ and $f_{X2}$ agrees with the exact

694: expression for the sum of diagrams with insersions of counterterms

695: 

696: \begin{equation}\label{Delta_GammaV}

697: - \ln Z\,\frac{1}{16\pi^2}\,

698: \mbox{Re}\int d^4x\,d^2\theta\,W_a C^{ab} W_b +\mbox{finite terms},

699: \end{equation}

700: 

701: \noindent

702: found in \cite{HD_And_DRED}. The corresponding contribution to

703: $\beta$-function in the considered approximation is

704: 

705: \begin{equation}\label{Delta_Beta}

706: \Delta\beta = \frac{\alpha^2}{\pi}\gamma(\alpha).

707: \end{equation}

708: 

709: According to the results of the one-loop calculations and the predictions

710: of the renormgroup (see e.f. \cite{hep}) the constant $Z$ is given by

711: 

712: \begin{eqnarray}\label{Constant_Z}

713: && Z(\Lambda/\mu) = 1 + \frac{\alpha}{\pi}\,

714: \Big(\ln \frac{\Lambda}{\mu}+g_1\Big)

715: +\nonumber\\

716: && \qquad\qquad

717: + \frac{\alpha^2}{\pi^2}\,\Big(\ln^2 \frac{\Lambda}{\mu}

718: + g_1 \ln\frac{\Lambda}{\mu}\Big)

719: - \gamma_2\, \alpha^2\, \Big(\ln \frac{\Lambda}{\mu}

720: + g_2\Big)+ O(\alpha^3).\qquad

721: \end{eqnarray}

722: 

723: \noindent

724: Here $\gamma_2\alpha^2$ is a two-loop contribution to the anomalous

725: dimension and we assume, that at the one-loop the counterterms are

726: 

727: \begin{eqnarray}

728: && \Delta S = - \frac{1}{16\pi^2} \Big(\ln\frac{\Lambda}{\mu}+b_1\Big)

729: \mbox{Re}\int d^4x\,d^2\theta\,W_a C^{ab}

730: \Big(1+ \frac{\partial^{2n}}{\Lambda^{2n}}\Big) W_b

731: +\nonumber\\

732: &&\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad

733: + \frac{e^2}{16\pi^2}\Big(\ln\frac{\Lambda}{\mu}+g_1\Big)

734: \int d^4x\,d^4\theta\,

735: \Big(\phi^* e^{2V}\phi +\tilde\phi^* e^{-2V}\tilde\phi\Big),\qquad

736: \end{eqnarray}

737: 

738: \noindent

739: where $b_1$, $g_1$ and $g_2$ are arbitrary finite constants,

740: which define a subtraction scheme. \footnote{It is convenient to include

741: the higher derivative term in counterterms, because its presence simplifies

742: an expression for the two-loop anomalous dimension \cite{tmf2}.

743: In principle, this term is not essential and can be omitted.}

744: 

745: 3. $f_{Oo_{PV}}$ and $f_{O_{PV}}$ are finite and do not contribute to

746: the divergent part of the effective action. This means, that

747: the sum of all diagrams with Pauli-Villars loops is finite, although

748: there are divergences in some of such graphs. However, Pauli-Villars

749: regularization always assumes the existance of divergent diagrams and

750: the cancellation of the divergences between different graphs. Therefore,

751: in the considered case it is not necessary to introduce any more

752: regularization.

753: 

754: 4. The analysis of $f_{Oo}$ and $f_{O}$ is rather involved, because the

755: corresponding integrals are very complicated. Each of these integrals

756: depends on $\Lambda/p$ and is the sum of a third degree polynomial in

757: $\ln\Lambda/p$ and a function, finite at $\Lambda\to\infty$ (or

758: equivalently at $p\to 0$)

759: 

760: \begin{equation}\label{f_Expansion}

761: f(\Lambda/p) = f_3 \ln^3 \frac{\Lambda}{p} + f_2 \ln^2\frac{\Lambda}{p}

762: + f_1 \ln\frac{\Lambda}{p} + f_0 + o(1).

763: \end{equation}

764: 

765: \noindent

766: Let us assume, that the limit

767: 

768: \begin{equation}\label{Limit}

769: \Lambda \frac{d}{d\Lambda} f(\Lambda/p)\Bigg|_{p=0}

770: \end{equation}

771: 

772: \noindent

773: exists. Then $f_3=0$ and $f_2=0$, while the considered limit is $f_1$.

774: 

775: In appendix \ref{Appendix_Relation} we prove, that for $f_{Oo}$ and $f_O$

776: the limit (\ref{Limit}) exists and

777: 

778: \begin{eqnarray}\label{Remaining_Integral}

779: \Lambda \frac{d}{d\Lambda} \Big(f_{Oo}+f_O\Big)\Bigg|_{p=0}

780: = \frac{1}{16\pi^2} \Lambda \frac{d}{d\Lambda}

781: \Big(z_1+z_2+\frac{1}{2}z_1^2\Big)\Bigg|_{p=0},

782: \end{eqnarray}

783: 

784: \noindent

785: where

786: 

787: \begin{eqnarray}\label{Z1_Definition}

788: && z_1 \equiv \int \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi)^4}\,

789: \frac{2e^2}{k^2 (k+p)^2 \Big(1+k^{2n}/\Lambda^{2n}\Big)};\\

790: \label{Z2_Definition}

791: && z_2 \equiv

792: - \int \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi)^4}\,\frac{d^4l}{(2\pi)^4}\,

793: \frac{4 e^4}{k^2 l^2 (k+p)^2 (l+p)^2

794: \Big(1+ k^{2n}/\Lambda^{2n}\Big)

795: \Big(1+ l^{2n}/\Lambda^{2n}\Big)}

796: -\nonumber\\

797: && - \int \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi)^4}\,\frac{d^4l}{(2\pi)^4}\,

798: \frac{4 e^4}{\displaystyle k^2 l^2 (l+p)^2 (k+l+p)^2

799: \Big(1+ k^{2n}/\Lambda^{2n}\Big)

800: \Big(1+ l^{2n}/\Lambda^{2n}\Big)}

801: +\nonumber\\

802: && + \int \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi)^4}\,\frac{d^4l}{(2\pi)^4}\,

803: \frac{4 e^4 (k+l+2p)^2}{k^2 (k+p)^2 l^2 (l+p)^2 (k+l+p)^2

804: \Big(1+ k^{2n}/\Lambda^{2n}\Big)

805: \Big(1+ l^{2n}/\Lambda^{2n}\Big)}

806: -\quad\nonumber\\

807: && - \int \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi)^4}

808: \,\frac{4 e^4}{k^2 (k+p)^2 \Big(1+k^{2n}/\Lambda^{2n}\Big)^2}

809: \Bigg(\int \frac{d^4l}{(2\pi)^4}\, \frac{1}{l^2 (k+l)^2}

810: -\\

811: && - \sum\limits_i c_i

812: \int \frac{d^4l}{(2\pi)^4}\,\frac{1}{(l^2+M_i^2)\Big((k+l)^2+M_i^2\Big)}

813: - \frac{1}{8\pi^2}\Big(\ln\frac{\Lambda}{\mu}+b_1\Big)

814: \Big(1+k^{2n}/\Lambda^{2n}\Big)

815: \Bigg).\qquad\nonumber

816: \end{eqnarray}

817: 

818: \noindent

819: From (\ref{Remaining_Integral}), (\ref{Z1_Definition}) and

820: (\ref{Z2_Definition}) we see, that the integral over three loop momenta

821: is reduced to the integral over two loop momenta. It is very nontrivial,

822: that can be seen from the calculations, done in appendixes

823: \ref{Appendix_Relation} and \ref{Appendix_Integrals}. In our opinion

824: these facts confirm the correctness of the obtained results.

825: 

826: Note, that $z_1$ and $z_2$ are present in the two-loop two-point

827: Green function for the matter superfield \cite{tmf2}:

828: 

829: \begin{eqnarray}\label{Renormalized_Gamma_2}

830: && \Gamma^{(2)}_\phi =

831: \frac{1}{4}\int d^4\theta\,\frac{d^4p}{(2\pi)^4}\,

832: \Big(\phi^*(p,\theta)\,\phi(-p,\theta)

833: + \tilde\phi^*(p,\theta)\,\tilde\phi(-p,\theta)\Big)

834: \Bigg\{ 1-z_1-z_2

835: -\qquad\nonumber\\

836: && - \frac{e^2}{4\pi^2} z_1 \Big(\ln\frac{\Lambda}{\mu}+g_1\Big)

837: + \frac{e^2}{4\pi^2} \Big(\ln\frac{\Lambda}{\mu}+g_1\Big)

838: +\mbox{two-loop counterterms}

839: \Bigg\}.

840: \end{eqnarray}

841: 

842: \noindent

843: This expression can be formally written as

844: 

845: \begin{eqnarray}\label{Abstract_Gamma}

846: && \Gamma^{(2)}_\phi =

847: \frac{1}{4}\int d^4\theta\,\frac{d^4p}{(2\pi)^4}\,

848: \Big(\phi^*(p,\theta)\,\phi(-p,\theta)

849: + \tilde\phi^*(p,\theta)\,\tilde\phi(-p,\theta)\Big)

850: \times\nonumber\\

851: && \qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\quad

852: \times

853: \Bigg\{ 1-z_1-z_2 - \hat\Delta z_1\,z_1

854: + \hat\Delta z_1 + \hat\Delta z_2

855: + \hat\Delta \Big(\hat\Delta z_1\,z_1\Big)

856: \Bigg\},\qquad

857: \end{eqnarray}

858: 

859: \noindent

860: where the operator $\hat\Delta$ is constructed as follows:

861: If $f$ is a function of $\Lambda/p$ and $\Lambda/\mu$, then

862: by definition $\hat \Delta f$ is a counterterm, which cancels a

863: divergence of the function $f$. For example,

864: 

865: \begin{equation}

866: \hat\Delta z_1 = \frac{\alpha}{\pi}\Big(\ln\frac{\Lambda}{\mu} + g_1\Big).

867: \end{equation}

868: 

869: \noindent

870: Below we will assume, that the operator $\hat\Delta$ is linear.

871: (In a general case this operator can be nonlinear).

872: 

873: From (\ref{Abstract_Gamma}) we see, that the two-loop renormalization

874: constant for the matter superfield is given by

875: 

876: \begin{equation}

877: Z = 1+\hat\Delta z_1+\hat\Delta z_2+\hat\Delta(\hat\Delta z_1\, z_1)

878: +O(\alpha^3),

879: \end{equation}

880: 

881: \noindent

882: so that

883: 

884: \begin{eqnarray}

885: && \ln Z = \hat\Delta z_1 + \hat\Delta z_2 + \hat\Delta(\hat\Delta z_1\,z_1)

886: - \frac{1}{2}\Big(\hat\Delta z_1\Big)^2 + O(\alpha^3)

887: = \hat\Delta z_1 + \hat\Delta z_2

888: -\nonumber\\

889: && - \frac{1}{2}\hat\Delta\Big(z_1 - \hat\Delta z_1\Big)^2

890: + \frac{1}{2}\hat\Delta\Big(z_1^2\Big)

891: + \frac{1}{2}\hat\Delta\Big((\hat\Delta z_1)^2\Big)

892: - \frac{1}{2}(\hat\Delta z_1)^2 + O(\alpha^3).\qquad

893: \end{eqnarray}

894: 

895: \noindent

896: Taking into account, that due to the definition of $\hat\Delta$

897: the expressions $(z_1 - \hat\Delta z_1)^2$ and

898: $\hat\Delta\Big((\hat\Delta z_1)^2\Big) - (\hat\Delta z_1)^2$

899: are finite, $\ln Z$ can be presented as

900: 

901: \begin{equation}\label{Ln_Z_Final}

902: \ln Z = \hat\Delta \Big(z_1 + z_2 + \frac{1}{2} z_1^2\Big)

903: +\mbox{finite terms}.

904: \end{equation}

905: 

906: \noindent

907: Then the sum of diagrams, defining two- and three-loop contributions

908: to the $\beta$-function for $N=1$ SUSY QED, for subtraction schemes,

909: corresponding to any linear operator $\hat\Delta$ can be written in the

910: following form:

911: 

912: \begin{eqnarray}

913: && \Delta\Gamma^{(3)}_{V} = \frac{1}{16\pi^2}\mbox{Re} \int d^2\theta\,

914: \frac{d^4p}{(2\pi)^4} W_a(p) C^{ab} W_b(-p)

915: \times\nonumber\\

916: &&\qquad\qquad\qquad

917: \times

918: \Bigg(

919: %\frac{4\pi^2}{e^2} + \ln\frac{\mu}{p} +

920: z_1 + z_2 + \frac{1}{2} z_1^2

921: - \hat\Delta\Big(z_1+z_2+\frac{1}{2}z_1^2\Big)

922: +\mbox{finite terms}

923: \Bigg).\qquad

924: \end{eqnarray}

925: 

926: \noindent

927: This expression is finite due to the definition of $\hat\Delta$, so

928: it is not necessary to add any counterterms in two- and three-loop

929: approximations. Thus for all renomalization schemes with linear

930: $\hat\Delta$ we have:

931: 

932: \begin{eqnarray}\label{Three_Loop_E2}

933: \frac{4\pi^2}{e_0^2} = \frac{\pi}{\alpha\Big(\Lambda/\mu\Big)}

934: - \ln\frac{\Lambda}{\mu}-b_1+O(\alpha^3).

935: \end{eqnarray}

936: 

937: \noindent

938: This means, that the two- and three-loop contributions to the

939: $\beta$-function are equal to zero and

940: 

941: \begin{equation}

942: \beta = \frac{\alpha^2}{\pi} + O(\alpha^5).

943: \end{equation}

944: 

945: \noindent

946: Hence the $\beta$-function is exhausted at the one-loop and agrees with

947: the multiplet structure of anomalies.

948: 

949: Note, that the sum of diagrams which do not contain insersions of

950: counterterms on matter lines in the considered approximation gives

951: the following contribution to the $\beta$-function:

952: 

953: \begin{equation}

954: \Delta\beta = \frac{\alpha^2}{\pi}\Big(1-\gamma(\alpha)\Big).

955: \end{equation}

956: 

957: \noindent

958: This contribution is equal to the NSVZ $\beta$-function, but the

959: anomalous dimension is cancelled after adding (\ref{Delta_Beta}),

960: and the final result is comletely defined by the one-loop.

961: 

962: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

963: 

964: \section{Comparison between HD regularization and DRED.}

965: \hspace{\parindent}

966: \label{Section_HD_And_DRED}

967: 

968: The $\beta$-function obtained in the previous section is different from

969: the corresponding result, found with DRED. In the two-loop approximation

970: the calculations of the effective action with DRED and HD were compared in

971: \cite{HD_And_DRED}. The difference of the results for the $\beta$-function

972: is shown to have originated from the different results for the sum of

973: diagrams with insersions of counterterms. With DRED this contribution is

974: 0, while with HD it is given by (\ref{Delta_GammaV}). The calculations

975: made in this paper show, that in the three-loop approximation we have a

976: similar situation.

977: 

978: The difference of the results for the sum of diagrams with insersions

979: of counterterms \cite{HD_And_DRED} is caused by the mathematical

980: inconsistancy of DRED, pointed in \cite{Siegel2}, because this

981: inconsistency  leads to zero results for all anomalies. (We assume, that

982: there are no assumptions like $\mbox{tr}(AB)\ne\mbox{tr}(BA)$ and all

983: identities are valid for $n<4$.) In particular the sum of diagrams with

984: insersions of counterterms on the matter lines calculated with DRED is 0.

985: 

986: Let us discuss this in detail:

987: 

988: In supersymmetric theories the axial anomaly is related with the Konishi

989: anomaly \cite{Konishi,ClarkKonishi}. Indeed, let us consider

990: 

991: \begin{equation}\label{Im_Of_Konishi}

992: \mbox{Im}\Bigg[\bar D^2 \Big(\phi^* e^{2V}\phi

993: + \tilde\phi^* e^{-2V}\tilde\phi\Big)\Bigg].

994: \end{equation}

995: 

996: \noindent

997: Using equations (\ref{Phi_Superfield}) and (\ref{V_Superfield}), it is

998: easy to see, that in components this expression will contain (among other

999: terms)

1000: 

1001: \begin{equation}\label{Axial_Current}

1002: - \bar\theta\theta\,

1003: \partial_\mu \Big(\bar\Psi \gamma^\mu\gamma_5\Psi\Big),

1004: \end{equation}

1005: 

1006: \noindent

1007: where the Dirac spinor $\Psi$ is defined by (\ref{Psi_Definition}).

1008: It is well known \cite{Bertlmann}, that the conservation of the axial

1009: current is broken by quantum corrections and in particular

1010: 

1011: \begin{equation}\label{Axial_Anomaly}

1012: \bar\theta\theta\,

1013: \langle \partial_\mu \Big(\bar\Psi \gamma^\mu\gamma_5\Psi\Big)\rangle

1014: = - \bar\theta\theta\,\frac{1}{8\pi^2} F_{\mu\nu}\tilde F^{\mu\nu}.

1015: \end{equation}

1016: 

1017: \noindent

1018: Hence due to the supersymmetry

1019: \footnote{Note, that our arguments can not be considered as a derivation

1020: of the Konishi anomaly, because (\ref{Axial_Current}) does not contain

1021: all terms of (\ref{Im_Of_Konishi}), proportional to $\bar\theta\theta$.

1022: A strict derivation of the Konishi anomaly can be found in

1023: \cite{Konishi,ClarkKonishi}. Our goal is only to remind of the relation

1024: between the axial anomaly and the Konishi anomaly.}

1025: 

1026: \begin{equation}\label{Im_Of_Anomaly}

1027: \mbox{Im}\,\Big\langle \bar D^2 \Big(\phi^* e^{2V}\phi

1028: + \tilde\phi^* e^{-2V}\tilde\phi\Big)\Big\rangle

1029: = \frac{1}{2\pi^2} \mbox{Im}\Big(W_a C^{ab} W_b\Big).

1030: \end{equation}

1031: 

1032: \noindent

1033: By performing supersymmetry transformations it is easy to see, that if

1034: an imaginary part of a chiral superfield is equal to 0, then this

1035: superfield is a real constant. Therefore, from (\ref{Im_Of_Anomaly}) we

1036: obtain, that

1037: 

1038: \begin{equation}\label{Full_Anomaly}

1039: \Big\langle \bar D^2 \Big(\phi^* e^{2V}\phi

1040: + \tilde\phi^* e^{-2V}\tilde\phi\Big)\Big\rangle

1041: = \frac{1}{2\pi^2} W_a C^{ab} W_b + \mbox{const}.

1042: \end{equation}

1043: 

1044: \noindent

1045: Applying

1046: 

1047: \begin{equation}

1048: -\frac{1}{2}\int d^4x\, D^2 = \int d^4x\,d^2\theta

1049: \end{equation}

1050: 

1051: \noindent

1052: to (\ref{Full_Anomaly}) and taking a real part of the result, we obtain,

1053: that

1054: 

1055: \begin{equation}\label{Konishi_Anomaly}

1056: \Big\langle \frac{1}{4}\int d^4x\,d^4\theta\,\Big(\phi^* e^{2V}\phi

1057: + \tilde\phi^* e^{-2V}\tilde\phi\Big)\Big\rangle

1058: = - \frac{1}{16\pi^2} \mbox{Re}\int d^4x\,d^2\theta\,W_a C^{ab} W_b.

1059: \end{equation}

1060: 

1061: Because DRED requires, that the space-time dimension $n$ should be less

1062: than 4 \cite{Siegel}, it is possible to choose $\gamma_5$ anticommuting

1063: with all $\gamma$-matrices. Then the chiral symmetry is not broken in the

1064: regularized theory due to the mathematical inconsistency of DRED. As a

1065: consequence axial anomaly appears to be 0, while the supersymmetry is not

1066: broken. Therefore instead of (\ref{Konishi_Anomaly}) we obtain

1067: 

1068: \begin{equation}\label{Incorrect_Konishi}

1069: \Big\langle \int d^4x\,d^4\theta\,\Big(\phi^* e^{2V}\phi

1070: + \tilde\phi^* e^{-2V}\tilde\phi\Big)\Big\rangle = 0.

1071: \end{equation}

1072: 

1073: \noindent

1074: In DREG such problem can be solved by using $\gamma_5$ with the

1075: following properties:

1076: 

1077: \begin{equation}

1078: \{\gamma_5,\gamma_\mu\}=0,\quad \mu=0,\ldots,3;\qquad

1079: [\gamma_5,\gamma_\mu]=0,\quad \mu>3.

1080: \end{equation}

1081: 

1082: \noindent

1083: Then the chiral symmetry is broken in the regularized theory, and

1084: axial anomaly is calculated correctly \cite{tHV}. Nevertheless,

1085: DREG breaks the supersymmetry and is not well-suited for supersymmetric

1086: theories.

1087: 

1088: As a consequence of (\ref{Konishi_Anomaly}) we obtain \cite{HD_And_DRED}

1089: the identity

1090: 

1091: \begin{eqnarray}\label{Generalization_Of_Konishi_Anomaly}

1092: && \Big\langle \exp\Bigg(i (Z-1)\,

1093: \frac{1}{4} \int d^4x\,d^4\theta\,\Big(\phi^* e^{2V}\phi

1094: + \tilde\phi^* e^{-2V}\tilde\phi\Big)\Bigg)\Big\rangle

1095: =\nonumber\\

1096: && = \exp\Bigg(-i\ln Z

1097: \frac{1}{16\pi^2} \mbox{Re}\int d^4x\,d^2\theta\,W_a C^{ab} W_b

1098: +\mbox{finite terms}

1099: \Bigg),

1100: \qquad

1101: \end{eqnarray}

1102: 

1103: \noindent

1104: whose l.h.s. is a sum of all diagrams with insersions of counterterms

1105: on lines of the matter superfield. The corresponding result obtained

1106: with DRED, which follows from (\ref{Incorrect_Konishi}), is written as

1107: 

1108: \begin{equation}

1109: \Big\langle \exp\Bigg(i (Z-1)\,

1110: \frac{1}{4} \int d^4x\,d^4\theta\,\Big(\phi^* e^{2V}\phi

1111: + \tilde\phi^* e^{-2V}\tilde\phi\Big)\Bigg)\Big\rangle = 1.

1112: \end{equation}

1113: 

1114: \noindent

1115: Then the sum of all diagrams with insersions of counterterms is 0, that

1116: contradicts the result for Konishi anomaly. Thus the mathematical

1117: inconsistency of DRED gives the result for the $\beta$-function which

1118: differs from the corresponding result obtained with HD and leads to the

1119: anomaly puzzle.

1120: 

1121: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1122: 

1123: \section{Solution of the anomaly puzzle}

1124: \hspace{\parindent}

1125: \label{Section_Anomaly_Puzzle}

1126: 

1127: In order to investigate the anomaly puzzle it is convenient to use

1128: the higher derivative regularization, because it is applicable for

1129: the calculation of anomalies.

1130: 

1131: From the calculation described in section \ref{Section_Three_Loop}

1132: we see, that the $\beta$-function, defined by (\ref{Beta_Gamma_Definition})

1133: is exausted at the one-loop, while the $\beta$-function defined by

1134: (\ref{GL_Function}) has corrections from all orders. This seems to

1135: contradict equation (\ref{GL_And_Beta}). However, actually there is

1136: no contradiction, because the generating functional (\ref{Modified_Z})

1137: depends on $\mu$. Really, due to the rescaling anomaly

1138: (\ref{Generalization_Of_Konishi_Anomaly}) it is impossible to remove

1139: $\mu$-dependence by the transformation $\phi\to Z^{-1/2}\phi$, because

1140: the anomalous contribution contains $\mu$-dependent $\ln Z$. Therefore,

1141: the $\beta$-functions (\ref{Beta_Gamma_Definition}) and (\ref{GL_Function})

1142: are different. (See the derivation of equation (\ref{GL_And_Beta}).) The

1143: first function is proportional to the trace anomaly and due to the

1144: multiplet structure of anomalies is exausted by the first loop, while

1145: the second one has corrections from all orders.

1146: 

1147: Nevertheless, it is desirable to avoid $\mu$-dependence of the generating

1148: functional. It can be made by two different ways. We can assume, that the

1149: bare coupling constant $e_0$ depends on $\mu$. In this case $\beta$-function

1150: (\ref{Beta_Gamma_Definition}) will have corrections from all orders, but

1151: it will not be proportional to the trace anomaly. Another possibility is

1152: to use canonical normalization for the matter superfields and to define

1153: the generating functional by

1154: 

1155: \begin{eqnarray}\label{Canonical_Z}

1156: && Z = \int DV\,D\phi\,D\tilde \phi\,

1157: \prod\limits_i \Big(\det{}' PV(V,M_i)\Big)^{c_i}

1158: \exp\Bigg\{i\Bigg[\frac{1}{4 e^2} \int d^4x\,d^4\theta\, V\partial^2

1159: \Big(1+ \frac{\partial^{2n}}{\Lambda^{2n}}\Big) V

1160: -\nonumber\\

1161: && - \frac{1}{4 e^2} \Big(Z_3(\Lambda/\mu)-1\Big) \int d^4x\,d^4\theta\,

1162: V \Pi_{1/2}\partial^2

1163: \Big(1+ \frac{\partial^{2n}}{\Lambda^{2n}}\Big) V

1164: +\nonumber\\

1165: && \qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad

1166: + \frac{1}{4} \int d^4x\,d^4\theta\,

1167: \Big(\phi^* e^{2V}\phi

1168: + \tilde\phi^* e^{-2V}\tilde\phi \Big)

1169: +\nonumber\\

1170: &&

1171: + \int d^4x\,d^4\theta\,J V

1172: + \int d^4x\,d^2\theta\, \Big(j\,\phi + \tilde j\,\tilde\phi \Big)

1173: + \int d^4x\,d^2\bar\theta\,

1174: \Big(j^*\phi^* + \tilde j^* \tilde\phi^* \Big)\Bigg]\Bigg\},

1175: \end{eqnarray}

1176: 

1177: \noindent

1178: where

1179: 

1180: \begin{eqnarray}\label{Canonical_PV_Determinants}

1181: && \Big(\det{}' PV(V,M)\Big)^{-1} \equiv \int D\Phi\,D\tilde \Phi\,

1182: \exp\Bigg\{i\Bigg[ \frac{1}{4} \int d^4x\,d^4\theta\,

1183: \Big(\Phi^* e^{2V}\Phi

1184: +\qquad\nonumber\\

1185: && \qquad\qquad\qquad

1186: + \tilde\Phi^* e^{-2V}\tilde\Phi \Big)

1187: + \frac{1}{2}\int d^4x\,d^2\theta\, M \tilde\Phi \Phi

1188: + \frac{1}{2}\int d^4x\,d^2\bar\theta\, M \tilde\Phi^* \Phi^*

1189: \Bigg]\Bigg\}.\qquad

1190: \end{eqnarray}

1191: 

1192: \noindent

1193: Then the $\beta$-function (\ref{Beta_Gamma_Definition}) will be

1194: proportional to the trace anomaly, but Adler-Bardeen theorem is not

1195: valid in this case.

1196: 

1197: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1198: 

1199: \section{Conclusion}

1200: \hspace{\parindent}

1201: \label{Section_Conclusion}

1202: 

1203: In this paper we calculated the three-loop $\beta$-function for $N=1$ SUSY

1204: QED regularized by higher derivatives. Using the standard definition of

1205: the generating functional we found, that two- and three-loop contributions

1206: to the $\beta$-function (\ref{Beta_Gamma_Definition}) were 0 for a large

1207: number of subtraction schemes. In this case the sum of diagrams without

1208: insersions of counterterms on matter lines is exactly equal to the terms

1209: of the corresponding order in the expansion of the NSVZ $\beta$-function.

1210: However two- and three-loop contributions are exactly cancelled by diagrams

1211: containing insersions of counterterms.

1212: 

1213: The result for $\beta$-function (\ref{Beta_Gamma_Definition}) obtained

1214: with HD regularization differs from the corresponding result obtained with

1215: DRED, because DRED is not mathematically consistent and does not permit to

1216: calculate anomalies \cite{HD_And_DRED} (if there are no additional

1217: assumtions like $\mbox{tr}(AB)\ne \mbox{tr}(BA)$ e.t.c.). In particular,

1218: the Konishi anomaly, which contributes to $\beta$-function

1219: (\ref{Beta_Gamma_Definition}), calculated with DRED is 0. This in turn

1220: leads to the anomaly puzzle. HD regularization enables us to find an

1221: anomalous contribution of diagrams with insersions of the counterterms,

1222: which was calculated in \cite{HD_And_DRED} exactly to all orders and is

1223: equal to

1224: 

1225: \begin{equation}

1226: \frac{\alpha^2}{\pi} \gamma(\alpha).

1227: \end{equation}

1228: 

1229: \noindent

1230: The calculations done in this paper confirm this result in the

1231: three-loop approximation.

1232: 

1233: The result for $\beta$-function (\ref{Beta_Gamma_Definition}), obtained

1234: with the generating functional (\ref{Modified_Z}), is consistent with a

1235: multiplet structure of the anomalies: Since in supersymmetric theories

1236: the axial and the trace of the energy-momentum tensor anomalies are

1237: members of a supersymmetric multiplet, the $\beta$-function

1238: (\ref{Beta_Gamma_Definition}) should be exhausted by the first loop. In

1239: particular, if the theory is regularized by HD the Adler-Bardeen theorem

1240: does not conflict with supersymmetry, while for theories, regularized by

1241: DRED, such a contradiction seems to take place \cite{Kazakov}.

1242: 

1243: However, the generating functional (\ref{Modified_Z}) depends on $\mu$

1244: due to the rescaling anomaly. As a consequence, the $\beta$-function

1245: (\ref{GL_Function}) is different from the one defined by equation

1246: (\ref{Beta_Gamma_Definition}). If we would like to define a

1247: $\mu$-independent generating functional, then either Adler-Bardeen

1248: theorem is not valid or the trace anomaly is not proportional to the

1249: $\beta$-function. Therefore, if the generating functional does not

1250: depend on the normalization point, then the arguments based on the

1251: multiplet structure of anomalies can not be used. In our opinion this

1252: solves the anomaly puzzle in the considered model.

1253: 

1254: One of the possible ways to define a $\mu$-independent generating

1255: functional is the using of the canonical normalization

1256: (\ref{Canonical_Normalization}). Then there are no diagrams with

1257: insersions of counterterms and the $\beta$-function is equal to

1258: the NSVZ expression. It is important to note, that unlike DRED the HD

1259: regularization does not require to tune the subtraction scheme. The

1260: NSVZ expression (at least in the three-loop approximation) for

1261: $\beta$-function (\ref{Beta_Gamma_Definition}) is authomatically

1262: obtained with HD regularization if an operator, constructing a counterterm

1263: for a given function, is linear.

1264: 

1265: It is necessary to note, that so far we considered only the Abelian case.

1266: For the supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory the using of higher covariant

1267: derivative regularization \cite{West_Paper} leads to very involved

1268: calculations, because in this case Feynman rules become much more

1269: complicated. In this case the using of usual derivatives can simplify

1270: the calculations considerably. However, such regularization breaks the

1271: gauge invariance. Nevertheless, even in the case of noninvariant

1272: regularization it is possible to obtain the gauge invariant renormalized

1273: effective action by a special choice of subtraction scheme

1274: \cite{Slavnov1,Slavnov2}. For Abelian supersymmetric theories such scheme

1275: was proposed in \cite{SlavnovStepan1}. Construction of the invariant

1276: renormalization procedure for supersymmetric non-Abelian models is in

1277: progress.

1278: 

1279: 

1280: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1281: 

1282: \vspace{1cm}

1283: 

1284: \noindent

1285: {\Large{\bf Acknowledgments}}

1286: 

1287: \bigskip

1288: 

1289: We would like to express our gratitude to D.I.Kazakov, V.A.Novikov,

1290: M.Perez-Victoria, P.I.Pronin, A.A.Slavnov and to our colleagues from

1291: Institute of Theoretical and Experimental Physics, Joint Institute of

1292: Nuclear Research and Steklov Mathematical Institute for valuable

1293: discussions.

1294: 

1295: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1296: 

1297: \vspace{1cm}

1298: 

1299: \noindent

1300: {\Large\bf Appendix.}

1301: 

1302: %\pagebreak

1303: 

1304: \appendix

1305: 

1306: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1307: 

1308: \section{Results for Feynman diagrams.}

1309: \hspace{\parindent}

1310: \label{Appendix_Diagrams}

1311: 

1312: Having calculated Feynman diagrams, presented in Fig.

1313: \ref{Figure_Beta_Diagrams_1Loop} -- \ref{Figure_Beta_Diagrams_XX},

1314: we obtained the following expressions in the Minkowski space:

1315: \footnote{For simplicity we omit $+i0$ in propagators.}

1316: 

1317: 1. One-loop diagrams, presented in Fig.\ref{Figure_Beta_Diagrams_1Loop}:

1318: 

1319: \begin{equation}

1320: f_{1-loop} = -\frac{i}{2}

1321: \int \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi)^4} \Bigg(\frac{1}{k^2 (k+p)^2}

1322: - \sum\limits_i c_i\frac{1}{(k^2-M_i^2)\Big((k+p)^2-M_i^2\Big)}\Bigg).

1323: \end{equation}

1324: 

1325: 2. Two-loop diagrams, presented in Fig.\ref{Figure_Beta_Diagrams_2Loop},

1326: and three-loop diagrams, presented in Fig. \ref{Figure_Beta_Diagrams_Oo},

1327: with the external loop of $\phi$ and $\tilde\phi$:

1328: 

1329: \begin{eqnarray}

1330: && f_{Oo}

1331: = - e^2 \int \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi)^4}\frac{d^4q}{(2\pi)^4}

1332: \frac{(k+p+q)^2+q^2-k^2-p^2}{k^2\Big(1 + (-1)^n k^{2n}/\Lambda^{2n}\Big)^2

1333: (k+q)^2 (k+p+q)^2 q^2 (q+p)^2}

1334: \times\ \nonumber\\

1335: &&\times

1336: \Bigg[

1337: \Big(1+(-1)^n k^{2n}/\Lambda^{2n}\Big)

1338: \Bigg(1+\frac{e^2}{4\pi^2}\Big(\ln\frac{\Lambda}{\mu}+b_1\Big)\Bigg)

1339: + 2i e^2

1340: \Bigg(\int \frac{d^4t}{(2\pi)^4}\,\frac{1}{t^2 (k+t)^2}

1341: -\nonumber\\

1342: && - \sum\limits_i c_i \int \frac{d^4t}{(2\pi)^4}\,

1343: \frac{1}{\Big(t^2-M_i^2\Big) \Big((k+t)^2-M_i^2\Big)}\Bigg)\Bigg].\qquad

1344: \end{eqnarray}

1345: 

1346: 3. The same diagrams, with the extenal loop of Pauli-Villars fields:

1347: 

1348: \begin{eqnarray}

1349: && f_{Oo_{PV}}= e^2 \sum\limits_j c_j\,

1350: \int \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi)^4}\frac{d^4q}{(2\pi)^4}\,

1351: \frac{1}{k^2 \Big(1 + (-1)^n k^{2n}/\Lambda^{2n}\Big)^2}

1352: \times\nonumber\\

1353: && \times

1354: \Bigg[\frac{(k+p+q)^2+q^2-k^2-p^2}{

1355: \Big((k+q)^2-M_j^2\Big) \Big((k+p+q)^2-M_j^2\Big) \Big(q^2-M_j^2\Big)

1356: \Big((q+p)^2-M_j^2\Big)}

1357: +\nonumber\\

1358: && \qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad

1359: + \frac{4 M_j^2}{\Big((k+q)^2-M_j^2\Big) \Big(q^2-M_j^2\Big)^2

1360: \Big((q+p)^2-M_j^2\Big)} \Bigg]

1361: \times\nonumber\\

1362: &&\times

1363: \Bigg[

1364: \Big(1+(-1)^n k^{2n}/\Lambda^{2n}\Big)

1365: \Bigg(1+\frac{e^2}{4\pi^2}\Big(\ln\frac{\Lambda}{\mu}+b_1\Big)\Bigg)

1366: + 2i e^2

1367: \Bigg(\int \frac{d^4t}{(2\pi)^4}\,\frac{1}{t^2 (k+t)^2}

1368: -\nonumber\\

1369: && - \sum\limits_i c_i \int \frac{d^4t}{(2\pi)^4}\,

1370: \frac{1}{\Big(t^2-M_i^2\Big) \Big((k+t)^2-M_i^2\Big)}\Bigg)\Bigg].\qquad

1371: \end{eqnarray}

1372: 

1373: 4. Diagrams with two loops of matter superfields, presented in Fig.

1374: \ref{Figure_Beta_Diagrams_OO}:

1375: 

1376: \begin{equation}

1377: f_{OO}=0.

1378: \end{equation}

1379: 

1380: 5. Diagrams with a single loop of $\phi$ and $\tilde\phi$, presented

1381: in Fig. \ref{Figure_Beta_Diagrams_O}

1382: 

1383: \begin{eqnarray}\label{O_Diagrams}

1384: && f_{O} = -i\int \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi)^4}\,\frac{d^4l}{(2\pi)^4}\,

1385: \frac{d^4q}{(2\pi)^4}\times\nonumber\\

1386: && \times

1387: \frac{e^4}{k^2 \Big(1+(-1)^n k^{2n}/\Lambda^{2n}\Big)

1388: \,l^2\Big(1+(-1)^n l^{2n}/\Lambda^{2n}\Big)\,q^2 (q+p)^2 (q+k+l)^2}

1389: \times\nonumber\\

1390: && \times

1391: \Bigg\{

1392: \frac{2 k^2 \Big((2q+k+l)^2+(2q+k+l+p)^2-p^2\Big)}{(q+k)^2

1393: (q+l)^2 (q+k+p)^2}

1394: - \frac{4 p^2}{(q+k)^2 (q+k+p)^2}

1395: -\nonumber\\

1396: && - \frac{4(q+p)^2}{(q+k)^2 (q+k+p)^2}

1397: + \frac{4(q+p)^2}{(q+k+p)^2 (q+k+l+p)^2}

1398: + \frac{4}{(k+q)^2}

1399: -\nonumber\\

1400: && - \frac{2p^4}{(q+k)^2 (q+k+p)^2 (q+k+l+p)^2}

1401: - \frac{4 k^2}{(q+k)^2 (q+k+p)^2}

1402: -\\

1403: && - \frac{2 k^2 p^2}{(q+k)^2 (q+k+p)^2 (q+k+l+p)^2}

1404: - \frac{2 (k+l)^2}{(q+k+l+p)^2 (q+k)^2}

1405: +\nonumber\\

1406: && + \frac{(k+l)^2 p^2}{(q+k)^2 (q+k+p)^2 (q+k+l+p)^2}

1407: - \frac{4(2q+k+l+p)^2}{(q+k+p)^2 (q+l)^2}

1408: +\nonumber\\

1409: && + \frac{2 (k+l)^2 (2q+k+l+p)^2}{(q+k+l+p)^2 (q+l)^2 (q+k+p)^2}

1410: + \frac{2p^2 (2q+k+l+p)^2}{(q+k+l+p)^2 (q+l)^2 (q+k+p)^2}

1411: \Bigg\}.\nonumber

1412: \end{eqnarray}

1413: 

1414: 6. The same diagrams with the Pauli-Villars loop

1415: 

1416: \begin{eqnarray}

1417: && f_{O_{PV}} = i\sum\limits_i c_i

1418: \int \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi)^4}\,\frac{d^4l}{(2\pi)^4}\,

1419: \frac{d^4q}{(2\pi)^4}\,

1420: \frac{e^4}{k^2 \Big(1+(-1)^n k^{2n}/\Lambda^{2n}\Big)

1421: \,l^2\Big(1+(-1)^n l^{2n}/\Lambda^{2n}\Big)}

1422: \times\nonumber\\

1423: && \times

1424: \frac{1}{\Big(q^2-M_i^2\Big)

1425: \Big((q+p)^2-M_i^2\Big) \Big((q+k)^2-M_i^2\Big) \Big((q+k+l)^2-M_i^2\Big)}

1426: \times\nonumber\\

1427: && \times

1428: \Bigg\{

1429: \frac{2}{\Big((q+l)^2-M_i^2\Big)\Big((q+k+p)^2-M_i^2\Big)}

1430: \Bigg[-2(q+k+l)^2 \Big((q+k+p)^2

1431: +\nonumber\\

1432: && +(q+k)^2 - p^2\Big)

1433: + k^2 \Big((2q+k+l)^2 + (2q+k+l+p)^2 - p^2\Big) - 8 M_i^4

1434: -\vphantom{\Bigg(}\nonumber\\

1435: && - 2 M_i^2 (2q+k+l)^2

1436: - 2 M_i^2 (2q+k+l+p)^2

1437: + 2 M_i^2\Big(4(q+k+p)^2

1438: +\vphantom{\Bigg(}\nonumber\\

1439: &&

1440: + 4(q+k)^2-k^2-p^2\Big)

1441: + 2 M_i^2 (q+l)_\mu (2q+2k+2l-2p)_\mu \Bigg]

1442: +\nonumber\\

1443: && +\frac{1}{\Big((q+k+p)^2-M_i^2\Big)\Big((q+k+l+p)^2-M_i^2\Big)}

1444: \Bigg[-2q^2 (q+k+l+p)^2

1445: -\nonumber\\

1446: &&

1447: - 4 (q+p)^2 (q+k+l+p)^2 - 8 (q+k+p)^2 (q+p)^2

1448: -4 q^2 (q+k+p)^2

1449: +\vphantom{\Bigg(}\nonumber\\

1450: && + 2p^2 \Big(6M_i^2-p^2\Big) +2l^2 \Big(2(q+p)^2-p^2\Big)

1451: + (k+l)^2 \Big(2(q+k+p)^2-p^2

1452: +\vphantom{\Bigg(}\nonumber\\

1453: && +2M_i^2\Big)

1454: - 6 M_i^4 + 4M_i^2\Big(2(q+k+p)^2+2(q+p)^2-k^2-p^2\Big)

1455: \Bigg]

1456: +\nonumber\\

1457: && +\frac{2}{\Big((q+l+p)^2-M_i^2\Big)\Big((q+k+l+p)^2-M_i^2\Big)}

1458: \Bigg[-6M_i^4+(2q+k+l+p)^2

1459: \times\nonumber\\

1460: && \times

1461: \Big(-2(q+k+l+p)^2+(k+l)^2+p^2\Big)

1462: +4M_i^2\Big(3(q+k+l+p)^2-p^2\Big)

1463: -\vphantom{\Bigg(}\nonumber\\

1464: &&

1465: -3M_i^2(k+l)^2-2M_i^2(k+q)^2+2M_i^2(l+p)^2\Bigg]

1466: -\frac{16M_i^2}{\Big((q+l+p)^2-M_i^2\Big)}

1467: +\nonumber\\

1468: && +\frac{16}{\Big((q+k)^2-M_i^2\Big)\Big((q+k+p)^2-M_i^2\Big)}\Bigg[

1469: \Big((q+k)^2-3M_i^2\Big)\Big((q+k+p)^2

1470: +\nonumber\\

1471: && +(q+k)^2+q^2+(q+p)^2-k^2\Big)

1472: +2M_i^2p^2+5M_i^4-M_i^2(q+k)^2 \Bigg]

1473: +\\

1474: && +\frac{2\Big(2(q+k+l)^2-(k+l)^2\Big)\Big((q+k)^2-M_i^2\Big)

1475: }{\Big((q+k+p)^2-M_i^2\Big)\Big((q+k+l+p)^2-M_i^2\Big)}

1476: -\frac{4M_i^2}{\Big((q+l)^2-M_i^2\Big)}

1477: +\vphantom{\Bigg(}\nonumber\\

1478: && +\frac{2\Big(-q^2(q+p)^2+6M_i^2q^2-9M_i^4\Big)\Big((q+k+l)^2-M_i^2\Big)

1479: }{(q^2-M_i^2)\Big((q+p)^2-M_i^2\Big)\Big((q+l+p)^2-M_i^2\Big)}

1480: + \frac{16M_i^2}{q^2-M_i^2}

1481: +\vphantom{\Bigg(}\nonumber\\

1482: && +\frac{4\Big(-q^4+3M_i^2 q^2-6M_i^4\Big)\Big((q+k+l)^2-M_i^2\Big)

1483: }{(q^2-M_i^2)^2\Big((q+l)^2-M_i^2\Big)}

1484: -\frac{8M_i^2 (2q+k+l)^2-16M_i^4}{(q^2-M_i^2)\Big((q+l)^2-M_i^2\Big)}

1485: +\vphantom{\Bigg(}\nonumber\\

1486: && +\frac{4}{(q^2-M_i^2)\Big((q+k)^2-M_i^2\Big)}\Bigg[-(q+k)^2 q^2

1487: + 3M_i^2 q^2 - M_i^2 (q+k)^2 - 5M_i^4\Bigg]\Bigg\}.\nonumber

1488: \end{eqnarray}

1489: 

1490: 7. Diagrams containing one insersion of counterterms, presented in Fig.

1491: \ref{Figure_Beta_Diagrams_X}:

1492: 

1493: \begin{eqnarray}\label{X_Diagrams}

1494: && f_{X} =

1495: - 2i \Bigg(

1496: \frac{\alpha}{\pi}\Big(\ln\frac{\Lambda}{\mu}+g_1\Big)

1497: + \frac{\alpha^2}{\pi^2}\Big(\ln^2\frac{\Lambda}{\mu}

1498: + g_1 \ln\frac{\Lambda}{\mu}\Big)

1499: - \gamma_2\,\alpha^2 \Big(\ln\frac{\Lambda}{\mu}+g_2\Big)\Bigg)

1500: \times\quad\nonumber\\

1501: && \times

1502: \sum\limits_i c_i

1503: \int \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi)^4}\,\frac{M_i^2}{(k^2-M_i^2)^2

1504: \Big((k+p)^2-M_i^2\Big)}.\qquad

1505: \end{eqnarray}

1506: 

1507: 8. Diagrams containing two insersions of counterterms, presented in Fig.

1508: \ref{Figure_Beta_Diagrams_XX}:

1509: 

1510: \begin{eqnarray}\label{XX_Diagrams}

1511: && f_{XX} = \frac{i\alpha^2}{\pi^2}\Big(\ln\frac{\Lambda}{\mu}+g_1\Big)^2

1512: \times\nonumber\\

1513: && \qquad

1514: \times

1515: \sum\limits_i c_i M_i^2

1516: \int \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi)^4} \frac{3 k^2 (k+p)^2 - 6 M_i^4 + 3 k^4

1517: - 5 k^2 M_i^2 + 5 (k+p)^2 M_i^2}{

1518: 2 \Big(k^2-M_i^2\Big)^3 \Big((k+p)^2-M_i^2\Big)^2}.\qquad

1519: \end{eqnarray}

1520: 

1521: 9. Two-loop diagrams containing insersion of counterterms, presented

1522: in Fig. \ref{Figure_Beta_Diagrams_X2}:

1523: 

1524: \begin{eqnarray}

1525: && f_{X2} = e^2 \sum\limits_i c_i

1526: \frac{\alpha}{\pi}\Big(\ln\frac{\Lambda}{\mu}+g_1\Big)

1527: \int \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi)^4}\frac{d^4q}{(2\pi)^4}\,

1528: \frac{4 M_i^2}{k^2 \Big(1+(-1)^n k^{2n}/\Lambda^{2n}\Big)}

1529: \times\nonumber\\

1530: && \times

1531: \Bigg\{

1532: \frac{(k+q+p)^2+(k+q)^2+(q+p)^2+q^2-2k^2-2p^2}{

1533: \Big((k+q)^2-M_i^2\Big) \Big((k+q+p)^2-M_i^2\Big)

1534: \Big((q+p)^2-M_i^2\Big)\Big(q^2-M_i^2\Big)^2}

1535: +\nonumber\\

1536: && + \frac{2(k+q)^2}{\Big((k+q)^2-M_i^2\Big)^2

1537: \Big((q+p)^2-M_i^2\Big) \Big(q^2-M_i^2\Big)^2}

1538: +\nonumber\\

1539: && \qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad

1540: + \frac{4(q+p)^2 M_i^2+2q^2 M_i^2-6M_i^4}{\Big((k+q)^2-M_i^2\Big)

1541: \Big((q+p)^2-M_i^2\Big)^2 \Big(q^2-M_i^2\Big)^3}

1542: \Bigg\}.\qquad

1543: \end{eqnarray}

1544: 

1545: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1546: 

1547: \section{Three-loop contributions to the $\beta$-function.}

1548: \hspace{\parindent}

1549: \label{Appendix_Relation}

1550: 

1551: In order to find the three-loop $\beta$-function, it is necessary to

1552: calculate the integrals, presented in Appendix \ref{Appendix_Diagrams}.

1553: 

1554: 1. Performing the Wick rotation and using the standard technique, it is

1555: easy to see, that

1556: 

1557: \begin{eqnarray}

1558: && f_{1-loop} = \frac{1}{2}

1559: \int \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi)^4} \Bigg(\frac{1}{k^2 (k+p)^2}

1560: - \sum\limits_i c_i\frac{1}{(k^2+M_i^2)\Big((k+p)^2+M_i^2\Big)}\Bigg)

1561: =\nonumber\\

1562: && = \frac{1}{16\pi^2} \sum\limits_i c_i

1563: \Bigg(\ln\frac{M_i}{p} + \sqrt{1+\frac{4M_i^2}{p^2}}

1564: \mbox{arctanh}\sqrt{\frac{p^2}{4M_i^2 + p^2}}\Bigg)

1565: = \frac{1}{16\pi^2} \ln \frac{\Lambda}{p} + O(1).\qquad

1566: \end{eqnarray}

1567: 

1568: \noindent

1569: (We assume, that $M_i=a_i\Lambda$, where $a_i$ are some constants.)

1570: 

1571: 2. Next we analyze graphs containing insersions of counterterms on

1572: matter lines: Integrals in $f_X$, $f_{XX}$ and $f_{X2}$ are functions

1573: of $p/\Lambda$ finite at $\Lambda\to\infty$. Therefore, the divergent

1574: part of the effective action is defined by their values at $p=0$.

1575: In this limit expressions (\ref{X_Diagrams}) and (\ref{XX_Diagrams})

1576: in Euclidean space can be written as

1577: 

1578: \begin{eqnarray}\label{FX}

1579: && f_{X} = -2

1580: \Bigg(\frac{\alpha}{\pi}\Big(\ln\frac{\Lambda}{\mu}+g_1\Big)

1581: + \frac{\alpha^2}{\pi^2}\Big(\ln^2\frac{\Lambda}{\mu}

1582: + g_1 \ln\frac{\Lambda}{\mu}\Big)

1583: - \gamma_2\,\alpha^2 \Big(\ln\frac{\Lambda}{\mu}+g_2\Big) \Bigg)

1584: \times\nonumber\\

1585: && \qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\quad

1586: \times

1587: \sum\limits_i c_i \int \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi)^4}\,\frac{M_i^2}{(k^2+M_i^2)^3}

1588: =\qquad\nonumber\\

1589: && = -\frac{1}{16\pi^2}

1590: \Bigg(

1591: \frac{\alpha}{\pi}\Big(\ln\frac{\Lambda}{\mu}+g_1\Big)

1592: + \frac{\alpha^2}{\pi^2}\Big(\ln^2\frac{\Lambda}{\mu}

1593: + g_1 \ln\frac{\Lambda}{\mu}\Big)

1594: - \gamma_2\,\alpha^2 \Big(\ln\frac{\Lambda}{\mu}+g_2\Big)

1595: \Bigg);\qquad\\

1596: &&\vphantom{\Big(}\nonumber\\

1597: \label{FXX}

1598: && f_{XX} = \frac{e^4}{16\pi^4}\Big(\ln\frac{\Lambda}{\mu}+g_1\Big)^2

1599: \sum\limits_i c_i

1600: \int \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi)^4}

1601: \frac{3 (k^2 - M_i^2) M_i^2}{\Big(k^2+M_i^2\Big)^4}

1602: = \frac{1}{16\pi^2}\,\frac{\alpha^2}{2\pi^2}

1603: \Big(\ln\frac{\Lambda}{\mu}+g_1\Big)^2,\nonumber\\

1604: \end{eqnarray}

1605: 

1606: \noindent

1607: where we take into account, that $\sum c_i = 1$. In order to calculate

1608: $f_{X2}$ we note, that at $p\to 0$

1609: 

1610: \begin{eqnarray}\label{FX2_At_P=0}

1611: && f_{X2} = -\Bigg(\frac{\alpha}{\pi}\ln\frac{\Lambda}{\mu}+g_1\Bigg)\,

1612: \sum\limits_i c_i\, M_i \frac{d}{dM_i} \int\frac{d^4k}{(2\pi)^4}

1613: \frac{d^4q}{(2\pi)^4}\,\frac{e^2}{k^2\Big(1+k^{2n}/\Lambda^{2n}\Big)}

1614: \times\nonumber\\

1615: && \qquad\qquad

1616: \times

1617: \Bigg\{\frac{(k+q)^2+q^2-k^2}{\Big((k+q)^2+M_i^2\Big)^2

1618: \Big(q^2+M_i^2\Big)^2} - \frac{4 M_i^2}{\Big((k+q)^2+M_i^2\Big)

1619: \Big(q^2+M_i^2\Big)^3} \Bigg\}.\qquad

1620: \end{eqnarray}

1621: 

1622: \noindent

1623: In appendix \ref{Appendix_Integrals} we prove, that this integral is

1624: equal to 0, and therefore

1625: 

1626: \begin{equation}\label{FX2}

1627: f_{X2} = 0.

1628: \end{equation}

1629: 

1630: \noindent

1631: Expressions (\ref{FX}), (\ref{FXX}) and (\ref{FX2}) agree with the exact

1632: result for the sum of diagrams with insersions of counterterms, obtained

1633: in \cite{HD_And_DRED}:

1634: 

1635: \begin{equation}\label{Exact_Result}

1636: - \ln Z\,\frac{1}{16\pi^2}\,

1637: \mbox{Re}\int d^4x\,d^2\theta\,W_a C^{ab} W_b +\mbox{finite terms}.

1638: \end{equation}

1639: 

1640: \noindent

1641: And indeed, for the considered theory $Z$ is given by (\ref{Constant_Z})

1642: and the terms of the considered order in $\alpha$ in (\ref{Exact_Result})

1643: are

1644: 

1645: \begin{eqnarray}

1646: && - \frac{1}{16\pi^2}\,\Bigg(

1647: \frac{\alpha}{\pi}\Big(\ln\frac{\Lambda}{\mu}+g_1\Big)

1648: + \frac{\alpha^2}{\pi^2}\Big(\ln^2\frac{\Lambda}{\mu}

1649: + g_1 \ln\frac{\Lambda}{\mu}\Big)

1650: - \gamma_2\,\alpha^2 \Big(\ln\frac{\Lambda}{\mu}+g_2\Big)

1651: -\nonumber\\

1652: && \qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad

1653: - \frac{\alpha^2}{2\pi^2}\,\Big(\ln \frac{\Lambda}{\mu}+g_1\Big)^2

1654: + O(\alpha^3)\Bigg)\,

1655: \mbox{Re}\int d^4x\,d^2\theta\,W_a C^{ab} W_b

1656: =\quad\nonumber\\

1657: && = \Big(f_X+f_{XX}+f_{X2}+O(\alpha^3)\Big)\,\mbox{Re}

1658: \int d^4x\,d^2\theta\,W_a C^{ab} W_b.

1659: \end{eqnarray}

1660: 

1661: \noindent

1662: It means, that the result for the sum of Feynman diagrams agrees

1663: with the exact result (\ref{Generalization_Of_Konishi_Anomaly}).

1664: 

1665: \bigskip

1666: 

1667: 3. In Euclidean space $f_{Oo}$ is given by

1668: 

1669: \begin{eqnarray}

1670: && f_{Oo}

1671: = e^2 \int \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi)^4}\frac{d^4q}{(2\pi)^4}

1672: \frac{(k+p+q)^2+q^2-k^2-p^2}{k^2\Big(1 + k^{2n}/\Lambda^{2n}\Big)^2

1673: (k+q)^2 (k+p+q)^2 q^2 (q+p)^2}

1674: \times\qquad\nonumber\\

1675: &&\times

1676: \Bigg[\Big(1+k^{2n}/\Lambda^{2n}\Big)

1677: \Bigg(1+\frac{e^2}{4\pi^2}\Big(\ln\frac{\Lambda}{\mu}+b_1\Big)\Bigg)

1678: - 2 e^2 \Bigg(\int \frac{d^4t}{(2\pi)^4}\,\frac{1}{t^2 (k+t)^2}

1679: -\nonumber\\

1680: && - \sum\limits_i c_i \int \frac{d^4t}{(2\pi)^4}\,

1681: \frac{1}{\Big(t^2+M_i^2\Big) \Big((k+t)^2+M_i^2\Big)}

1682: \Bigg)\Bigg].

1683: \end{eqnarray}

1684: 

1685: \noindent

1686: In order to prove that this expression contains only the first degree of

1687: $\ln\Lambda$, it is necessary to verify the existance of the limit

1688: 

1689: \begin{eqnarray}\label{Oo_Limit}

1690: && \Lambda\frac{d f_{Oo}}{d\Lambda}\Bigg|_{p=0}

1691: = 2e^2 \,\Lambda\frac{d}{d\Lambda}

1692: \int \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi)^4}\frac{d^4q}{(2\pi)^4}

1693: \frac{q_\mu(q_\mu+k_\mu)}{k^2\Big(1 + k^{2n}/\Lambda^{2n}\Big)^2

1694: (k+q)^4 q^4}

1695: \times\nonumber\\

1696: &&\times

1697: \Bigg[\Big(1+k^{2n}/\Lambda^{2n}\Big)

1698: \Bigg(1+\frac{e^2}{4\pi^2}\Big(\ln\frac{\Lambda}{\mu}+b_1\Big)\Bigg)

1699: - 2 e^2 \Bigg(\int \frac{d^4t}{(2\pi)^4}\,\frac{1}{t^2 (k+t)^2}

1700: -\nonumber\\

1701: && - \sum\limits_i c_i \int \frac{d^4t}{(2\pi)^4}\,

1702: \frac{1}{\Big(t^2+M_i^2\Big) \Big((k+t)^2+M_i^2\Big)}

1703: \Bigg)\Bigg].

1704: \end{eqnarray}

1705: 

1706: \noindent

1707: Taking into account, that

1708: 

1709: \begin{equation}

1710: \int d^4q\,\frac{q_\mu (k_\mu+q_\mu)}{(k+q)^4 q^4} = \frac{\pi^2}{k^2}

1711: \end{equation}

1712: 

1713: \noindent

1714: (this identity is derived in Appendix \ref{Appendix_Integrals}),

1715: (\ref{Oo_Limit}) can be written as

1716: 

1717: \begin{eqnarray}\label{Beta_Oo}

1718: && \Lambda\frac{d f_{Oo}}{d\Lambda}\Bigg|_{p=0}

1719: =\nonumber\\

1720: && = \frac{e^2}{8\pi^2}\,\Lambda\frac{d}{d\Lambda}

1721: \int \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi)^4}

1722: \frac{1}{k^4\Big(1 + k^{2n}/\Lambda^{2n}\Big)^2}

1723: \Bigg[\Big(1+k^{2n}/\Lambda^{2n}\Big)

1724: \Bigg(1+\frac{e^2}{4\pi^2}\Big(\ln\frac{\Lambda}{\mu}+b_1\Big)\Bigg)

1725: -\nonumber\\

1726: && - 2 e^2 \Bigg(\int \frac{d^4t}{(2\pi)^4}\,\frac{1}{t^2 (k+t)^2}

1727: - \sum\limits_i c_i \int \frac{d^4t}{(2\pi)^4}\,

1728: \frac{1}{\Big(t^2+M_i^2\Big) \Big((k+t)^2+M_i^2\Big)}

1729: \Bigg)\Bigg].

1730: \end{eqnarray}

1731: 

1732: It is important to note, that there are some graphs, containing an internal

1733: loop or insersions of counterterms on the photon line (first 5 diagrams

1734: in Fig. \ref{Figure_Gamma_Diagrams}), contributing to the two-loop

1735: two-point Green function of the matter superfield. According to \cite{tmf2}

1736: their contribution in Euclidean space is

1737: 

1738: \begin{eqnarray}\label{Gamma_Oo}

1739: && \int d^4\theta\,\frac{d^4p}{(2\pi)^4}\,

1740: \Big(\phi^*\phi+\tilde\phi^*\tilde\phi\Big)

1741: \int\frac{d^4k}{(2\pi)^4}

1742: \frac{e^2}{2 k^2 (k+p)^2 \Big(1 + k^{2n}/\Lambda^{2n}\Big)^2}

1743: \times\nonumber\\

1744: && \times

1745: \Bigg[\Big(1+k^{2n}/\Lambda^{2n}\Big)

1746: \Bigg(1+\frac{e^2}{4\pi^2}\Big(\ln\frac{\Lambda}{\mu}+b_1\Big)\Bigg)

1747: -\nonumber\\

1748: && - 2 e^2 \Bigg(\int \frac{d^4t}{(2\pi)^4}\,\frac{1}{t^2 (k+t)^2}

1749: - \sum\limits_i c_i \int \frac{d^4t}{(2\pi)^4}\,

1750: \frac{1}{\Big(t^2+M_i^2\Big) \Big((k+t)^2+M_i^2\Big)}

1751: \Bigg)\Bigg].\qquad

1752: \end{eqnarray}

1753: 

1754: \noindent

1755: and contains only the first degree of $\ln\Lambda$. By comparing

1756: (\ref{Beta_Oo}) and (\ref{Gamma_Oo}) we find that, the limit

1757: (\ref{Beta_Oo}) exists and is equal to $-1/16\pi^2$ multiplied by

1758: the corresponding two-loop contribution to the anomalous dimension. This,

1759: in turn, yields the following contribution to the $\beta$-function:

1760: 

1761: \begin{equation}

1762: \Delta\beta = -\frac{\alpha^2}{\pi}\Delta\gamma,

1763: \end{equation}

1764: 

1765: \noindent

1766: where $\Delta\gamma$ is a contribution to the anomalous dimension from

1767: a one-loop diagram and two-loop diagrams, containing corrections to the

1768: photon propagator.

1769: 

1770: \bigskip

1771: 

1772: 4. In order to calculate the divergent part of $f_O$ we prove,

1773: that the limit

1774: 

1775: \begin{equation}\label{O_Limit}

1776: \Lambda\frac{d}{d\Lambda} f_O\Big|_{p=0},

1777: \end{equation}

1778: 

1779: \noindent

1780: where $f_O(\Lambda/p)$ is given by (\ref{O_Diagrams}), exists.

1781: Using the identities

1782: 

1783: \begin{eqnarray}

1784: && (k+l)^2 = (q+k+l)^2 + q^2 - (q+k)^2 - (q+l)^2 + k^2 + l^2;\nonumber\\

1785: && (2q+k+l)^2 = (q+k+l)^2 + (q+k)^2 + (q+l)^2 - k^2 - l^2 + q^2

1786: \end{eqnarray}

1787: 

1788: \noindent

1789: in Euclidean space it is possible to present (\ref{O_Limit})

1790: as follows:

1791: 

1792: \begin{eqnarray}\label{O_Limit2}

1793: && \Lambda\frac{d}{d\Lambda} f_O\Big|_{p=0}

1794: = \Lambda\frac{d}{d\Lambda}\int \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi)^4}

1795: \frac{d^4l}{(2\pi)^4}\frac{d^4q}{(2\pi)^4}\,

1796: \frac{2 e^4}{k^2 \Big(1+k^{2n}/\Lambda^{2n}\Big)\,

1797: l^2\Big(1+l^{2n}/\Lambda^{2n}\Big)}

1798: \times\quad\nonumber\\

1799: && \times

1800: \frac{1}{q^4 (q+l)^2}

1801: \Bigg\{\frac{2}{(q+k)^2}

1802: -\frac{2 k^2}{(q+k)^4}

1803: - \frac{12 k^2}{(q+k)^2 (q+k+l)^2}

1804: + \frac{4 (q+l)^2}{(q+k)^2 (q+k+l)^2}

1805: +\nonumber\\

1806: &&

1807: + \frac{2 (k^4+k^2 l^2)}{(q+k)^4 (q+k+l)^2}

1808: + \frac{2 k^2 (k+l)^2}{(q+k)^2 (q+k+l)^4}

1809: - \frac{(k+l)^2}{(q+k+l)^4} \Bigg\}.

1810: \end{eqnarray}

1811: 

1812: \noindent

1813: This expression can be simplified by identities

1814: (\ref{Wonderful_Identity1}) -- (\ref{Wonderful_Identity3}),

1815: presented in appendix \ref{Appendix_Integrals}:

1816: 

1817: \begin{eqnarray}\label{O_Last_Integral}

1818: && \Lambda\frac{d}{d\Lambda} f_O\Big|_{p=0}

1819: =\\

1820: && = \frac{1}{4\pi^2}\Lambda\frac{d}{d\Lambda}

1821: \int \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi)^4} \frac{d^4l}{(2\pi)^4}\,

1822: \frac{e^4}{\Big(1+k^{2n}/\Lambda^{2n}\Big)\,

1823: \Big(1+l^{2n}/\Lambda^{2n}\Big)} \Bigg\{

1824: \frac{1}{2 k^4 l^4} - \frac{1}{k^4 l^2 (k+l)^2}

1825: \Bigg\}.\quad\nonumber

1826: \end{eqnarray}

1827: 

1828: \noindent

1829: This integral is a finite constant (see appendix \ref{Appendix_Integrals}).

1830: However in order to relate the three-loop $\beta$-function with the two-loop

1831: anomalous dimension, it is convenient to rewrite (\ref{O_Last_Integral})

1832: in the following form:

1833: 

1834: \begin{eqnarray}\label{FO_Identity}

1835: &&\hspace*{-5mm}

1836: \frac{1}{16\pi^2}\Lambda\frac{d}{d\Lambda}\Bigg(

1837: - \int \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi)^4}\,\frac{d^4l}{(2\pi)^4}\,

1838: \frac{2 e^4}{k^2 l^2 (k+p)^2 (l+p)^2

1839: \Big(1+ k^{2n}/\Lambda^{2n}\Big)

1840: \Big(1+ l^{2n}/\Lambda^{2n}\Big)}

1841: -\nonumber\\

1842: &&\hspace*{-5mm}

1843: - \int \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi)^4}\,\frac{d^4l}{(2\pi)^4}\,

1844: \frac{4 e^4}{\displaystyle k^2 l^2 (l+p)^2 (k+l+p)^2

1845: \Big(1+ k^{2n}/\Lambda^{2n}\Big)

1846: \Big(1+ l^{2n}/\Lambda^{2n}\Big)}

1847: +\nonumber\\

1848: &&\hspace*{-5mm}

1849: + \int \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi)^4}\,\frac{d^4l}{(2\pi)^4}\,

1850: \frac{4 e^4 (k+l+2p)^2}{k^2 (k+p)^2 l^2 (l+p)^2 (k+l+p)^2

1851: \Big(1+ k^{2n}/\Lambda^{2n}\Big)

1852: \Big(1+ l^{2n}/\Lambda^{2n}\Big)}\Bigg)\Bigg|_{p=0},\nonumber\\

1853: \end{eqnarray}

1854: 

1855: \noindent

1856: because in this case (\ref{Beta_Oo}) and (\ref{FO_Identity}) give

1857: 

1858: \begin{eqnarray}

1859: \Lambda \frac{d}{d\Lambda} \Big(f_O+f_{Oo}\Big)\Bigg|_{p=0}

1860: = \frac{1}{16\pi^2} \Lambda \frac{d}{d\Lambda}

1861: \Big(z_1+z_2+\frac{1}{2}z_1^2\Big)\Bigg|_{p=0},

1862: \end{eqnarray}

1863: 

1864: \noindent

1865: where $z_1$ and $z_2$ are defined by (\ref{Z1_Definition}) and

1866: (\ref{Z2_Definition}) respectively.

1867: 

1868: \bigskip

1869: 

1870: 5. $f_{Oo_{PV}}$ is finite. Indeed, in Euclidean space

1871: 

1872: \begin{eqnarray}\label{FOo}

1873: && f_{Oo_{PV}}= - \sum\limits_j c_j\,

1874: \int \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi)^4}\frac{d^4q}{(2\pi)^4}\,

1875: \frac{e^2}{k^2 \Big(1 + k^{2n}/\Lambda^{2n}\Big)^2}

1876: \times\nonumber\\

1877: && \times

1878: \Bigg(\frac{(k+p+q)^2+q^2-k^2-p^2}{

1879: \Big((k+q)^2+M_j^2\Big) \Big((k+p+q)^2+M_j^2\Big) \Big(q^2+M_j^2\Big)

1880: \Big((q+p)^2+M_j^2\Big)}

1881: -\nonumber\\

1882: && \qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad

1883: - \frac{4 M_j^2}{\Big((k+q)^2+M_j^2\Big) \Big(q^2+M_j^2\Big)^2

1884: \Big((q+p)^2+M_j^2\Big)} \Bigg)

1885: \times\nonumber\\

1886: &&\times

1887: \Bigg[\Big(1+k^{2n}/\Lambda^{2n}\Big)

1888: \Bigg(1+\frac{e^2}{4\pi^2}\Big(\ln\frac{\Lambda}{\mu}+b_1\Big)\Bigg)

1889: - 2 e^2 \Bigg(\int \frac{d^4t}{(2\pi)^4}\,\frac{1}{t^2 (k+t)^2}

1890: -\nonumber\\

1891: && - \sum\limits_i c_i \int \frac{d^4t}{(2\pi)^4}\,

1892: \frac{1}{\Big(t^2+M_i^2\Big) \Big((k+t)^2+M_i^2\Big)}

1893: \Bigg)\Bigg].

1894: \end{eqnarray}

1895: 

1896: \noindent

1897: This expression can be written as

1898: 

1899: \begin{equation}

1900: f_{Oo_{PV}} = f_1(p/\Lambda) + f_2(p/\Lambda)\,\ln\frac{\Lambda}{\mu},

1901: \end{equation}

1902: 

1903: \noindent

1904: where the functions $f_1$ and $f_2$ can be easily found from (\ref{FOo}).

1905: In appendix \ref{Appendix_Integrals} we prove, that

1906: 

1907: \begin{equation}

1908: \int \frac{d^4q}{(2\pi)^4}\,

1909: \Bigg(\frac{(k+q)^2+q^2-k^2}{

1910: \Big((k+q)^2+M^2\Big)^2 \Big(q^2+M^2\Big)^2}

1911: - \frac{4 M^2}{\Big((k+q)^2+M^2\Big) \Big(q^2+M^2\Big)^3}\Bigg) = 0.

1912: \end{equation}

1913: 

1914: \noindent

1915: and therefore $f_1(0)=f_2(0)=0$. Since the functions $f_1$ and $f_2$

1916: are evidently holomorphic at $p^2=0$, this means that

1917: 

1918: \begin{equation}

1919: \lim\limits_{\Lambda\to\infty} f_{Oo_{PV}} = 0.

1920: \end{equation}

1921: 

1922: \bigskip

1923: 

1924: 6. The finiteness of $f_{O_{PV}}$ can be proven similarly. Indeed, it is

1925: evident, that

1926: 

1927: \begin{equation}

1928: f_{O_{PV}} = f(p/\Lambda).

1929: \end{equation}

1930: 

1931: \noindent

1932: However, at $p=0$ identities (\ref{PV_Identity1}) -- (\ref{PV_Identity6}),

1933: presented in appendix \ref{Appendix_Integrals}, give $f(0)=0$. Therefore,

1934: $f_{O_{PV}}$ is finite and it vanishes in the limit of the regularization

1935: removed.

1936: 

1937: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1938: 

1939: \section{Calculation of three-loop integrals, regularized by higher

1940: derivatives.}

1941: \hspace{\parindent}

1942: \label{Appendix_Integrals}

1943: 

1944: The integral

1945: 

1946: \begin{equation}

1947: I_{Oo} \equiv \int d^4q\,\frac{q_\mu (k_\mu+q_\mu)}{(k+q)^4 q^4},

1948: \end{equation}

1949: 

1950: \noindent

1951: can be calculated in four-dimensional spherical coordinates

1952: $(q,\theta_1,\theta_2,\varphi)$. In these coordinates we have

1953: 

1954: \begin{eqnarray}

1955: && I_{Oo} = \int d\Omega\,\int\limits_0^\infty dq\,

1956: \frac{q+k\cos\alpha}{\Big(q^2+2qk\cos\alpha+k^2\Big)^2}

1957: =\nonumber\\

1958: && \qquad\qquad\qquad

1959: = -\frac{1}{2}\int d\Omega\,\int\limits_0^\infty dq\,

1960: \frac{d}{dq} \frac{1}{\Big(q^2+2qk\cos\alpha+k^2\Big)}

1961: = \frac{1}{2}\int d\Omega\,\frac{1}{k^2} = \frac{\pi^2}{k^2},\qquad\quad

1962: \end{eqnarray}

1963: 

1964: \noindent

1965: where $\alpha$ denotes an angle between four-vectors $k$ and $q$.

1966: This angle can be chosen equal to $\theta_1$, while

1967: 

1968: \begin{equation}

1969: d\Omega = d\theta_1\,d\theta_2\,d\varphi\,\sin^2\theta_1\sin\theta_2.

1970: \end{equation}

1971: 

1972: \bigskip

1973: 

1974: An integral in (\ref{FX2_At_P=0}) and (\ref{FOo}) at $p=0$

1975: 

1976: \begin{equation}

1977: I_{X2} \equiv

1978: \int\frac{d^4q}{(2\pi)^4}\,

1979: \Bigg\{\frac{2 q_\mu (q_\mu+k_\mu)}{\Big((k+q)^2+M^2\Big)^2

1980: \Big(q^2+M^2\Big)^2} - \frac{4 M^2}{\Big((k+q)^2+M^2\Big)

1981: \Big(q^2+M^2\Big)^3} \Bigg\}.\qquad

1982: \end{equation}

1983: 

1984: \noindent

1985: can be computed similarly: In the four-dimensional spherical coordinates

1986: 

1987: \begin{eqnarray}

1988: && I_{X2} =

1989: \frac{1}{(2\pi)^4}\int\limits_0^\infty dq\,q^3 \int d\Omega\,

1990: \Bigg\{- q\frac{d}{dq} \frac{1}{\Big((k+q)^2+M^2\Big)}

1991: \frac{1}{\Big(q^2+M^2\Big)^2}

1992: -\nonumber\\

1993: && \qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad

1994: - \frac{4 M^2}{\Big((k+q)^2+M^2\Big)

1995: \Big(q^2+M^2\Big)^3} \Bigg\}

1996: =\qquad\nonumber\\

1997: && = \frac{1}{(2\pi)^4}\int\limits_0^\infty dq \int d\Omega\,

1998: \frac{1}{\Big((k+q)^2+M^2\Big)}

1999: \Bigg\{

2000: \frac{d}{dq} \frac{q^4}{\Big(q^2+M^2\Big)^2}

2001: - \frac{4 M^2 q^3}{\Big(q^2+M^2\Big)^3} \Bigg\} = 0.\qquad\

2002: \end{eqnarray}

2003: 

2004: \bigskip

2005: 

2006: In order to compute integral (\ref{O_Last_Integral}) we take into

2007: account its symmetry with respect to the substitution $k\leftrightarrow l$

2008: and present (\ref{O_Last_Integral}) in the following form:

2009: 

2010: \begin{eqnarray}

2011: && \Lambda\frac{d}{d\Lambda} f_{O}\Big|_{p=0}

2012: =\nonumber\\

2013: && = -\frac{1}{4\pi^2}\Lambda\frac{d}{d\Lambda}

2014: \int \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi)^4} \frac{d^4l}{(2\pi)^4}\,

2015: \frac{e^4}{\Big(1+k^{2n}/\Lambda^{2n}\Big)\,

2016: \Big(1+l^{2n}/\Lambda^{2n}\Big)} \frac{k^2+l^2-(k+l)^2}{2 k^4 l^4 (k+l)^2}

2017: =\qquad\nonumber\\

2018: && = \frac{n}{\pi^2} \int \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi)^4} \frac{d^4l}{(2\pi)^4}\,

2019: \frac{e^4\,l^{2n}/\Lambda^{2n}}{\Big(1+k^{2n}/\Lambda^{2n}\Big)\,

2020: \Big(1+l^{2n}/\Lambda^{2n}\Big)^2}\,\frac{k_\mu l_\mu}{k^4 l^4 (k+l)^2}

2021: \end{eqnarray}

2022: 

2023: 

2024: \noindent

2025: The integral over $d^4k$ can be calculated in the four-dimensional

2026: spherical coordinates if the fourth axis is directed along $l_\mu$:

2027: 

2028: \begin{eqnarray}

2029: && \Lambda\frac{d}{d\Lambda} f_{O}\Big|_{p=0}

2030: = \frac{n}{\pi^2} \int \frac{d^4l}{(2\pi)^4}\,\frac{1}{(2\pi)^4}

2031: \int\limits_0^\infty dk\,\int\limits_0^\pi d\theta_1\,\sin^2\theta_1

2032: \int\limits_0^\pi d\theta_2\,\sin\theta_2\int\limits_0^{2\pi}d\varphi\,

2033: \times\qquad\nonumber\\

2034: &&\times

2035: \frac{e^4\,l^{2n}/\Lambda^{2n}}{\Big(1+k^{2n}/\Lambda^{2n}\Big)\,

2036: \Big(1+l^{2n}/\Lambda^{2n}\Big)^2}\,

2037: \frac{\cos\theta_1}{l^3 \Big(k^2+2kl\cos\theta_1+l^2\Big)}.

2038: \end{eqnarray}

2039: 

2040: \noindent

2041: After the substitution $x=\cos\theta_1$ the integral over angles

2042: is reduced to the integral over contour $C$, presented in Fig.

2043: \ref{Figure_Contour}:

2044: 

2045: \begin{eqnarray}

2046: && 4\pi\int\limits_{-1}^{1} dx\,\frac{x \sqrt{1-x^2}}{k^2+2klx+l^2}

2047: = 2\pi \oint\limits_C dx\,\frac{x\sqrt{1-x^2}}{k^2+2klx+l^2}

2048: =\nonumber\\

2049: && = 4\pi^2 i\, \mbox{Res}\Bigg(\frac{x\sqrt{1-x^2}}{k^2+2klx+l^2},

2050: \,x=\infty\Bigg)

2051: -\nonumber\\

2052: && \qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad

2053: - 4\pi^2 i\,\mbox{Res}\Bigg(\frac{x\sqrt{1-x^2}}{k^2+2klx+l^2},

2054: \,x=-\frac{k^2+l^2}{2kl}\Bigg)

2055: =\qquad\nonumber\\

2056: && = 4\pi^2 i\Bigg(- \frac{i}{4 kl} + \frac{i (k^2+l^2)^2}{8 k^3 l^3}

2057: - \frac{i|k^2-l^2| (k^2 + l^2)}{8 k^3 l^3}\Bigg).

2058: \end{eqnarray}

2059: 

2060: \noindent

2061: Therefore

2062: 

2063: \begin{eqnarray}

2064: 2\pi \oint\limits_C dx\,\frac{x\sqrt{1-x^2}}{k^2+2klx+l^2} =

2065: \left\{

2066: \begin{array}{l}

2067: {\displaystyle - \frac{\pi^2 l}{k^3},\quad k\ge l;}\\

2068: \\

2069: {\displaystyle - \frac{\pi^2 k}{l^3},\quad l\ge k}

2070: \end{array}

2071: \right.

2072: \end{eqnarray}

2073: 

2074: \noindent

2075: and

2076: 

2077: \begin{eqnarray}

2078: && \Lambda\frac{d}{d\Lambda} f_{O}\Big|_{p=0}

2079: = -\frac{n e^4}{8\pi^2 (2\pi)^4} \int\limits_0^\infty dl\,

2080: \frac{l^{2n}/\Lambda^{2n}}{\Big(1+l^{2n}/\Lambda^{2n}\Big)^2}

2081: \times\nonumber\\

2082: &&\qquad\qquad\qquad\quad\ \ \times

2083: \Bigg(\int\limits_l^\infty dk\,

2084: \frac{l}{k^3 \Big(1+ k^{2n}/\Lambda^{2n}\Big)}

2085: + \int\limits_0^l dk\,

2086: \frac{k}{l^3 \Big(1+ k^{2n}/\Lambda^{2n}\Big)}

2087: \Bigg).\qquad

2088: \end{eqnarray}

2089: 

2090: \noindent

2091: Making the substitutions $x = l^2/\Lambda^2$; $y = \Lambda^2/k^2$

2092: in the first integral and $x = \Lambda^2/l^2$; $y = k^2/\Lambda^2$

2093: in the second one, we finally obtain

2094: 

2095: \begin{eqnarray}

2096: && \Lambda\frac{d}{d\Lambda} f_{O}\Big|_{p=0}

2097: = - \frac{n e^4}{32\pi^2 (2\pi)^4} \int\limits_0^\infty dx\,

2098: \frac{x^{n}}{(1+x^{n})^2}

2099: \int\limits_0^{1/x}

2100: \frac{dy}{1+ y^{-n}}

2101: -\nonumber\\

2102: && \qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad

2103: -\frac{n e^4}{32\pi^2 (2\pi)^4} \int\limits_0^\infty dx\,

2104: \frac{x^{n}}{(1+x^{n})^2}

2105: \int\limits_0^{1/x}

2106: \frac{dy}{1+ y^{n}}

2107: =\qquad\nonumber\\

2108: &&

2109: = -\frac{n e^4}{32\pi^2 (2\pi)^4} \int\limits_0^\infty dx\,

2110: \frac{x^{n-1}}{(1+x^{n})^2}

2111: = -\frac{e^4}{32\pi^2 (2\pi)^4} = -\frac{\alpha^2}{32\pi^4}.

2112: \end{eqnarray}

2113: 

2114: Below we also present the identities, which were used for taking integrals,

2115: which contain higher derivatives.

2116: 

2117: 1. Identities required for calculation of diagrams with

2118: $\phi$- and $\tilde\phi$-lines:

2119: 

2120: \begin{eqnarray}\label{Wonderful_Identity1}

2121: && I_1\equiv \int \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi)^4}

2122: \frac{d^4l}{(2\pi)^4}\frac{d^4q}{(2\pi)^4}\,

2123: \frac{(k+q)^2+q^2-k^2}{k^2 \Big(1+k^{2n}/\Lambda^{2n}\Big)\,

2124: l^2\Big(1+l^{2n}/\Lambda^{2n}\Big)\,q^4 (q+k)^4 (q+l)^2}

2125: =\nonumber\\

2126: && = \frac{1}{16\pi^2}

2127: \int \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi)^4}

2128: \frac{d^4l}{(2\pi)^4}\,

2129: \frac{1}{\Big(1+k^{2n}/\Lambda^{2n}\Big)\,

2130: \Big(1+l^{2n}/\Lambda^{2n}\Big)\,k^4 l^4};\\

2131: && \vphantom{\Big(}\nonumber\\

2132: \label{Wonderful_Identity2}

2133: && I_2\equiv \int \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi)^4}

2134: \frac{d^4l}{(2\pi)^4}\,\frac{d^4q}{(2\pi)^4}\,

2135: \frac{1}{k^2 \Big(1+k^{2n}/\Lambda^{2n}\Big)\,

2136: l^2\Big(1+l^{2n}/\Lambda^{2n}\Big) q^4 (q+l)^2}

2137: \times\nonumber\\

2138: && \times

2139: \Bigg\{\frac{12 k^2}{(q+k)^2 (q+k+l)^2}

2140: - \frac{2 (k^4+k^2 l^2)}{(q+k)^4 (q+k+l)^2}

2141: - \frac{2 k^2 (k+l)^2}{(q+k)^2 (q+k+l)^4} \Bigg\}

2142: =\nonumber\\

2143: && = \frac{1}{4\pi^2}

2144: \int \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi)^4}

2145: \frac{d^4l}{(2\pi)^4}\,

2146: \frac{1}{\Big(1+k^{2n}/\Lambda^{2n}\Big)\,

2147: \Big(1+l^{2n}/\Lambda^{2n}\Big)\,k^4 l^2 (k+l)^2};\\

2148: &&\vphantom{\Big(} \nonumber\\

2149: \label{Wonderful_Identity3}

2150: && I_3\equiv \int \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi)^4}

2151: \frac{d^4l}{(2\pi)^4}\frac{d^4q}{(2\pi)^4}

2152: \frac{(k+q+l)^2+q^2-(k+l)^2}{k^2 \Big(1+k^{2n}/\Lambda^{2n}\Big)\,

2153: l^2\Big(1+l^{2n}/\Lambda^{2n}\Big)\,q^4 (q+k+l)^4 (q+k)^2}

2154: =\nonumber\\

2155: && = \frac{1}{16\pi^2}

2156: \int \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi)^4}

2157: \frac{d^4l}{(2\pi)^4}\,

2158: \frac{1}{\Big(1+k^{2n}/\Lambda^{2n}\Big)\,

2159: \Big(1+l^{2n}/\Lambda^{2n}\Big)}

2160: \Bigg\{\frac{2}{k^4 l^2 (k+l)^2} - \frac{1}{k^4 l^4}  \Bigg\}

2161: \quad\nonumber\\

2162: \end{eqnarray}

2163: 

2164: 2. Identities, required for calculation of diagrams with internal

2165: Pauli-Villars lines:

2166: 

2167: \begin{eqnarray}\label{PV_Identity1}

2168: && J_1\equiv \int \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi)^4} \frac{d^4l}{(2\pi)^4}

2169: \frac{d^4q}{(2\pi)^4}

2170: \frac{1}{k^2 \Big(1+k^{2n}/\Lambda^{2n}\Big)

2171: \,l^2 \Big(1+l^{2n}/\Lambda^{2n}\Big) \Big((q+l)^2+M^2\Big)}

2172: \times\nonumber\\

2173: && \times

2174: \Bigg\{

2175: \frac{1}{(q^2+M^2)^2 \Big((q+k)^2+M^2\Big)}

2176: + \frac{1}{(q^2+M^2) \Big((q+k)^2+M^2\Big)^2}

2177: -\nonumber\\

2178: && - \frac{k^2+2M^2}{(q^2+M^2)^2 \Big((q+k)^2+M^2\Big)^2}

2179: - \frac{2M^2}{(q^2+M^2)^3 \Big((q+k)^2+M^2\Big)}

2180: \Bigg\} = 0;\\

2181: && \vphantom{\Big(}\nonumber\\

2182: \label{PV_Identity2}

2183: && J_2\equiv \int \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi)^4} \frac{d^4l}{(2\pi)^4}

2184: \frac{d^4q}{(2\pi)^4}

2185: \frac{1}{k^2 \Big(1+k^{2n}/\Lambda^{2n}\Big)

2186: \,l^2 \Big(1+l^{2n}/\Lambda^{2n}\Big) (q^2+M^2)^2}

2187: \times\nonumber\\

2188: && \times

2189: \frac{1}{\Big((q+k)^2+M^2\Big) \Big((q+l)^2+M^2\Big)}

2190: \Bigg\{

2191: -\frac{k^2 (k^2+l^2)}{\Big((q+k)^2+M^2\Big)

2192: \Big((q+k+l)^2+M^2\Big)}

2193: -\nonumber\\

2194: &&

2195: -\frac{2 M^2 (k^2+l^2)}{\Big((q+k)^2+M^2\Big)

2196: \Big((q+k+l)^2+M^2\Big)}

2197: -\frac{4 M^2 k^2}{(q^2+M^2) \Big((q+k+l)^2+M^2\Big)}

2198: +\nonumber\\

2199: &&

2200: +\frac{6k^2}{\Big((q+k+l)^2+M^2\Big)}

2201: -\frac{k^2 (k+l)^2 +2 M^2 k^2}{\Big((q+k+l)^2+M^2\Big)^2}

2202: \Bigg\}=0;\\

2203: && \vphantom{\Big(}\nonumber\\

2204: \label{PV_Identity3}

2205: && J_3\equiv \int \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi)^4} \frac{d^4l}{(2\pi)^4}

2206: \frac{d^4q}{(2\pi)^4}

2207: \frac{1}{k^2 \Big(1+k^{2n}/\Lambda^{2n}\Big)

2208: \,l^2 \Big(1+l^{2n}/\Lambda^{2n}\Big) (q^2+M^2)^2}

2209: \times\nonumber\\

2210: && \times

2211: \frac{1}{\Big((q+k)^2+M^2\Big) \Big((q+k+l)^2+M^2\Big)}

2212: \Bigg\{

2213: 3 - \frac{(k+l)^2+2M^2}{\Big((q+k+l)^2+M^2\Big)}

2214: - \frac{4M^2}{(q^2+M^2)}

2215: +\nonumber\\

2216: && +\frac{(q+k+l)^2+M^2}{\Big((q+l)^2+M^2\Big)}

2217: -\frac{k^2+2M^2}{\Big((q+k)^2+M^2\Big)}

2218: \Bigg\} = 0;\\

2219: && \vphantom{\Big(}\nonumber\\

2220: \label{PV_Identity4}

2221: && J_4\equiv \int \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi)^4} \frac{d^4l}{(2\pi)^4}

2222: \frac{d^4q}{(2\pi)^4}

2223: \frac{1}{k^2 \Big(1+k^{2n}/\Lambda^{2n}\Big)

2224: \,l^2 \Big(1+l^{2n}/\Lambda^{2n}\Big) (q^2+M^2)^2}

2225: \times\nonumber\\

2226: && \times

2227: \frac{1}{\Big((q+k)^2+M^2\Big)^2 \Big((q+k+l)^2+M^2\Big)}

2228: \Bigg\{

2229: 4M^2 - \frac{M^2 (k+l)^2+2M^4}{\Big((q+k+l)^2+M^2\Big)}

2230: +\nonumber\\

2231: && + \frac{2M^2 (q^2+M^2)}{\Big((q+k)^2+M^2\Big)}

2232: - \frac{2 M^2 k^2+4M^4}{\Big((q+k)^2+M^2\Big)}

2233: - \frac{4M^4}{(q^2+M^2)}

2234: \Bigg\} = 0;\\

2235: && \vphantom{\Big(}\nonumber\\

2236: \label{PV_Identity5}

2237: && J_5\equiv \int \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi)^4} \frac{d^4l}{(2\pi)^4}

2238: \frac{d^4q}{(2\pi)^4}

2239: \frac{1}{k^2 \Big(1+k^{2n}/\Lambda^{2n}\Big)

2240: \,l^2 \Big(1+l^{2n}/\Lambda^{2n}\Big) \Big((q+l)^2+M^2\Big)}

2241: \times\nonumber\\

2242: && \times

2243: \Bigg\{

2244: \frac{2M^2}{\Big(q^2+M^2\Big)^3 \Big((q+k)^2+M^2\Big)}

2245: +\frac{M^2}{\Big(q^2+M^2\Big)^2 \Big((q+k)^2+M^2\Big)^2}

2246: -\nonumber\\

2247: && -\frac{2M^4+M^2k^2}{\Big(q^2+M^2\Big)^3 \Big((q+k)^2+M^2\Big)^2}

2248: -\frac{3M^4}{\Big(q^2+M^2\Big)^4 \Big((q+k)^2+M^2\Big)}

2249: \Bigg\} = 0;\\

2250: && \vphantom{\Big(}\nonumber\\

2251: \label{PV_Identity6}

2252: && J_6\equiv \int \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi)^4} \frac{d^4l}{(2\pi)^4}

2253: \frac{d^4q}{(2\pi)^4}

2254: \frac{1}{k^2 \Big(1+k^{2n}/\Lambda^{2n}\Big)

2255: \,l^2 \Big(1+l^{2n}/\Lambda^{2n}\Big) (q^2+M^2)^2}

2256: \times\nonumber\\

2257: && \times

2258: \frac{1}{\Big((q+k)^2+M^2\Big) \Big((q+l)^2+M^2\Big)}

2259: \Bigg\{

2260: -\frac{2M^4}{(q^2+M^2)\Big((q+k+l)^2+M^2\Big)}

2261: +\nonumber\\

2262: &&

2263: +\frac{M^2 \Big((q+l)^2+M^2\Big) - M^4}{\Big((q+k+l)^2+M^2\Big)^2}

2264: -\frac{M^2 k^2}{\Big((q+k+l)^2+M^2\Big)^2}

2265: +\frac{2M^2}{\Big((q+k+l)^2+M^2\Big)}

2266: -\nonumber\\

2267: &&

2268: -\frac{M^2 k^2+2M^4}{\Big((q+k)^2+M^2\Big)\Big((q+k+l)^2+M^2\Big)}

2269: \Bigg\} = 0.

2270: \end{eqnarray}

2271: 

2272: As an example we prove identity (\ref{Wonderful_Identity1}).

2273: For this purpose we consider

2274: 

2275: \begin{equation}

2276: I_1 =  \int \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi)^4}\,

2277: \frac{d^4l}{(2\pi)^4}\,\frac{d^4q}{(2\pi)^4}\,

2278: \frac{2 (q^2 +q_\mu k_\mu)}{k^2 \Big(1+k^{2n}/\Lambda^{2n}\Big)\,

2279: l^2\Big(1+l^{2n}/\Lambda^{2n}\Big)\,q^4 (q+k)^4 (q+l)^2}

2280: \end{equation}

2281: 

2282: \noindent

2283: and write the integral over $d^4q$ in four-dimensional spherical

2284: coordinates:

2285: 

2286: \begin{eqnarray}

2287: && I_1 =  \int \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi)^4}\,\frac{d^4l}{(2\pi)^4}\,

2288: \frac{1}{k^2 \Big(1+k^{2n}/\Lambda^{2n}\Big)\,

2289: l^2\Big(1+l^{2n}/\Lambda^{2n}\Big)}

2290: \times\nonumber\\

2291: && \qquad\qquad\qquad

2292: \times

2293: \frac{1}{(2\pi)^4}\int d\Omega\,\int\limits_0^\infty dq\,

2294: \frac{2 (q +q k \cos\alpha)}{\Big(q^2+2qk\cos\alpha+k^2\Big)^2

2295: \Big(q^2+2ql\cos\beta+l^2\Big)}

2296: =\nonumber\\

2297: && = - \int \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi)^4}\,\frac{d^4l}{(2\pi)^4}\,

2298: \frac{1}{k^2 \Big(1+k^{2n}/\Lambda^{2n}\Big)\,

2299: l^2\Big(1+l^{2n}/\Lambda^{2n}\Big)}

2300: \times\nonumber\\

2301: && \qquad\qquad\quad\

2302: \times

2303: \frac{1}{(2\pi)^4}\int d\Omega\,\int\limits_0^\infty dq\,

2304: \frac{1}{\Big(q^2+2ql\cos\beta+l^2\Big)}

2305: \frac{\partial}{\partial q}\frac{1}{\Big(q^2+2qk\cos\alpha+k^2\Big)}.

2306: \qquad\

2307: \end{eqnarray}

2308: 

2309: \noindent

2310: Performing integrating by parts in the last integral, we obtain

2311: 

2312: \begin{eqnarray}

2313: && I_1 = - \int \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi)^4}\,\frac{d^4l}{(2\pi)^4}\,

2314: \frac{1}{k^2 \Big(1+k^{2n}/\Lambda^{2n}\Big)\,

2315: l^2\Big(1+l^{2n}/\Lambda^{2n}\Big)}

2316: \times\nonumber\\

2317: &&\qquad

2318: \times

2319: \frac{1}{(2\pi)^4}\int d\Omega\,\Bigg\{

2320: \frac{1}{\Big(q^2+2qk\cos\alpha+k^2\Big)

2321: \Big(q^2+2ql\cos\beta+l^2\Big)}\Bigg|_0^\infty

2322: -\nonumber\\

2323: && \qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad

2324: - \int\limits_0^\infty dq\,

2325: \frac{1}{\Big(q^2+2qk\cos\alpha+k^2\Big)}

2326: \frac{\partial}{\partial q}

2327: \frac{1}{\Big(q^2+2ql\cos\beta+l^2\Big)}\Bigg\}

2328: =\nonumber\\

2329: && = \int \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi)^4}\,\frac{d^4l}{(2\pi)^4}\,

2330: \frac{1}{k^2 \Big(1+k^{2n}/\Lambda^{2n}\Big)\,

2331: l^2\Big(1+l^{2n}/\Lambda^{2n}\Big)}

2332: \times\nonumber\\

2333: && \ \times

2334: \frac{1}{(2\pi)^4}\int d\Omega\,\Bigg\{

2335: \frac{1}{k^2\,l^2}

2336: - \int\limits_0^\infty dq\,

2337: \frac{2(q+k\cos\beta)}{\Big(q^2+2qk\cos\alpha+k^2\Big)

2338: \Big(q^2+2ql\cos\beta+l^2\Big)^2}\Bigg\}

2339: =\nonumber\\

2340: && = \int \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi)^4}\,\frac{d^4l}{(2\pi)^4}\,

2341: \frac{1}{k^2 \Big(1+k^{2n}/\Lambda^{2n}\Big)\,

2342: l^2\Big(1+l^{2n}/\Lambda^{2n}\Big)}

2343: \times\nonumber\\

2344: && \qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\quad

2345: \times

2346: \Bigg\{\frac{1}{8\pi^2}\,\frac{1}{k^2\,l^2}

2347: - \int\frac{d^4q}{(2\pi)^4}

2348: \frac{2(q^2 + q_\mu l_\mu)}{q^4 (q+k)^2 (q+l)^4}\Bigg\}\qquad

2349: \end{eqnarray}

2350: 

2351: \noindent

2352: The last integral in this expression is evidently equal to $I_1$.

2353: Therefore,

2354: 

2355: \begin{equation}

2356: I_1 = \frac{1}{16\pi^2}

2357: \int \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi)^4}\,

2358: \frac{d^4l}{(2\pi)^4}\,

2359: \frac{1}{\Big(1+k^{2n}/\Lambda^{2n}\Big)\,

2360: \Big(1+l^{2n}/\Lambda^{2n}\Big)\,k^4 l^4}.

2361: \end{equation}

2362: 

2363: The other identities can be derived in the similar way.

2364: 

2365: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2366: 

2367: \begin{thebibliography}{100}

2368: 

2369: \bibitem{Ferrara}

2370: {\it S.Ferrara, B.Zumino}, Nucl.Phys. {\bf B 87}, (1975), 207.

2371: 

2372: \bibitem{Clark}

2373: {\it T.E.Clark, O.Piquet, K.Sibold}, Nucl.Phys. {\bf B 143}, 445, (1978).

2374: 

2375: \bibitem{Piquet1}

2376: {\it O.Piquet, K.Sibold}, Nucl.Phys. {\bf B 196}, 428, (1982).

2377: 

2378: \bibitem{Piquet2}

2379: {\it O.Piquet, K.Sibold}, {\it Nucl.Phys.} {\bf B 196}, 447, (1982).

2380: 

2381: \bibitem{Bardeen}

2382: {\it S.L.Adler, W.A.Bardeen}, Phys.Rev. {\bf 182}, 1517, (1969).

2383: 

2384: \bibitem{Slavnov_Book}

2385: {\it L.D.Faddeev, A.A.Slavnov}, Gauge fields, introduction to quantum

2386: theory, second edition, Benjamin, Reading, 1990.

2387: 

2388: \bibitem{Adler_Collins}

2389: {\it S.L.Adler, J.C.Collins, A.Duncan}, Phys.Rev. {\bf D 15}, 1712, (1977).

2390: 

2391: \bibitem{NSVZ_PL}

2392: {\it V.A.Novikov, M.A.Shifman, A.I.Vainstein, V.I.Zakharov}, Phys.Lett.

2393: {\bf 157B}, (1985), 169.

2394: 

2395: \bibitem{N2}

2396: {\it P.S.Howe, K.S.Stelle, P.S.West}, Phys.Lett. {\bf 124B}, (1983), 55.

2397: 

2398: \bibitem{Tarasov}

2399: {\it O.V.Tarasov, V.A.Vladimirov}, Phys.Lett. {\bf 96 B}, 94, (1980).

2400: 

2401: \bibitem{Grisaru}

2402: {\it M.T.Grisaru, M.Rocek, W.Siegel}, Phys.Rev.Lett. {\bf 45}, 1063,

2403: (1980).

2404: 

2405: \bibitem{Caswell}

2406: {\it W.Caswell, D.Zanon}, Phys.Lett. {\bf 100 B}, 152, (1980).

2407: 

2408: \bibitem{SV}

2409: {\it M.Shifman, A.Vainstein}, Nucl.Phys. {\bf B277}, (1986), 456.

2410: 

2411: \bibitem{Konishi}

2412: {\it K.Konishi}, Phys.Lett. {\bf 135B}, (1984), 439.

2413: 

2414: \bibitem{ClarkKonishi}

2415: {\it T.E.Clark, O.Piquet, K.Sibold}, Nucl.Phys. {\bf B159}, (1979), 1.

2416: 

2417: \bibitem{NSVZ_Instanton}

2418: {\it V.Novikov, M.Shifman, A.Vainstein, V.Zakharov}, Phys.Lett.

2419: {\bf 166B}, (1985), 329.

2420: 

2421: \bibitem{ThreeLoop1}

2422: {\it L.Avdeev, O.Tarasov}, Phys.Lett. {\bf 112 B}, (1982), 356.

2423: 

2424: \bibitem{ThreeLoop2}

2425: {\it I.Jack, D.Jones, C.North}, Nucl.Phys. {\bf B 473}, (1996), 308

2426: 

2427: \bibitem{ThreeLoop3}

2428: {\it I.Jack, D.Jones, C.North}, Phys.Lett. {\bf 386 B}, (1996), 138

2429: 

2430: \bibitem{JackJones}

2431: {\it I.Jack, D.Jones}, Regularisation of supersymmetric theories,

2432: hep-ph/9707278.

2433: 

2434: \bibitem{North}

2435: {\it I.Jack, D.R.T.Jones, C.G.North}, Nucl.Phys. {\bf B 486}, 479, (1997).

2436: 

2437: \bibitem{DiffR}

2438: {\it D.Z.Freedman, K.Johnson, J.I.Latorre}, Nucl.Phys. {\bf B371},

2439: (1992), 353.

2440: 

2441: \bibitem{Mas}

2442: {\it J.Mas, M.Perez-Victoria, C.Seijas}, JHEP, {\bf 0203}, (2002), 049,

2443: (hep-th/0202082).

2444: 

2445: \bibitem{Arkani}

2446: {\it N.Arkani-Hamed, H.Mirayama}, JHEP {\bf 0006}, (2000), 030,

2447: (hep-th/9707133).

2448: 

2449: \bibitem{Slavnov}

2450: {\it A.A.Slavnov}, Theor.Math.Phys. {\bf 23}, (1975), 3.

2451: 

2452: \bibitem{Bakeyev}

2453: {\it T.Bakeyev, A.Slavnov}, Mod.Phys.Lett. {\bf A11}, (1996), 1539.

2454: 

2455: \bibitem{PhysLett}

2456: {\it P.Pronin, K.Stepanyantz}, Phys.Lett. {\bf B414}, (1997), 117.

2457: 

2458: \bibitem{hep}

2459: {\it A.Soloshenko, K.Stepanyantz},

2460: Two-loop renormalization of $N=1$ supersymmet-ric electrodynamics,

2461: regularized by higher derivatives, hep-th/0203118.

2462: 

2463: \bibitem{tmf2}

2464: {\it A.Soloshenko, K.Stepanyantz}, Teor.Mat.Fiz., {\bf 134}, (2003), 429.

2465: 

2466: \bibitem{HD_And_DRED}

2467: {\it K.Stepanyantz}, Anomaly puzzle in $N=1$ supersymmetric

2468: electrodynamics as artifact of dimensional reduction, hep-th/0301167.

2469: 

2470: \bibitem{Siegel}

2471: {\it W.Siegel}, Phys.Lett. {\bf 84 B}, (1979), 193.

2472: 

2473: \bibitem{Siegel2}

2474: {\it W.Siegel}, Phys.Lett. {\bf 94B}, (1980), 37.

2475: 

2476: \bibitem{tHV}

2477: {\it G.t'Hooft, M.Veltman}, Nucl.Phys. {\bf B44}, (1972), 189.

2478: 

2479: \bibitem{Nikolai}

2480: {\it H.Nicolai, P.K.Townsend}, Phys.Lett. {\bf 93B}, (1980), 111.

2481: 

2482: \bibitem{Leveille}

2483: {\it D.R.T.Jones, J.P.Leveille}, Nucl.Phys. {\bf B206}, (1982), 473.

2484: 

2485: \bibitem{West}

2486: {\it P.West}, Introduction to supersymmetry and supergravity, World

2487: Scientific, 1986.

2488: 

2489: \bibitem{Bertlmann}

2490: {\it R.Bertlmann}, Anomalies in quantum field theory, Clarendon press,

2491: Oxford, 1996.

2492: 

2493: \bibitem{Kazakov}

2494: {\it D.I.Kazakov}, JETP Lett. {\bf 41}, (1985), 335.

2495: 

2496: \bibitem{West_Paper}

2497: {\it P.West}, Nucl.Phys. {\bf B 268}, (1986), 113.

2498: 

2499: \bibitem{Slavnov1}

2500: {\it A.A.Slavnov}, Phys.Lett. {\bf B 518}, (2001), 195.

2501: 

2502: \bibitem{Slavnov2}

2503: {\it A.A.Slavnov}, Theor.Math.Phys. {\bf 130}, (2002), 1.

2504: 

2505: \bibitem{SlavnovStepan1}

2506: {\it A.A.Slavnov, K.Stepanyantz},

2507: Universal invariant renormalization for super-symmetric theories,

2508: hep-th/0208006.

2509: 

2510: \end{thebibliography}

2511: 

2512: \pagebreak

2513: 

2514: 

2515: %\pagebreak

2516: 

2517: 

2518: \begin{figure}[h]

2519: \hspace*{3cm}

2520: \epsfxsize7.5truecm\epsfbox{d3lp1l.eps}

2521: \caption{One-loop graphs for calculating $\Delta\Gamma_V$.}

2522: \label{Figure_Beta_Diagrams_1Loop}

2523: \end{figure}

2524: 

2525: \begin{figure}[h]

2526: \hspace*{1.9cm}

2527: \epsfxsize11.0truecm\epsfbox{d3lp2l.eps}

2528: \caption{Two-loop graphs for calculating $\Delta\Gamma_V$.}

2529: \label{Figure_Beta_Diagrams_2Loop}

2530: \end{figure}

2531: 

2532: \begin{figure}[h]

2533: \hspace*{-7mm}

2534: \epsfxsize16.5truecm\epsfbox{d3loo.eps}

2535: \caption{Three-loop graphs with two loops of the matter fields.

2536: In these diagrams external lines are attached to both loops.}

2537: \label{Figure_Beta_Diagrams_OO}

2538: \end{figure}

2539: 

2540: \begin{figure}[h]

2541: %\epsfxsize15.0truecm\epsfbox{d3lpoo.eps}

2542: \epsfxsize15.0truecm\epsfbox{fig4.eps}

2543: \caption{Contribution to $\Delta\Gamma_V$, corresponding to corrections

2544: to the photon propagator.}

2545: \label{Figure_Beta_Diagrams_Oo}

2546: \end{figure}

2547: 

2548: 

2549: \begin{figure}[p]

2550: \epsfxsize15.0truecm\epsfbox{fig5.eps}

2551: \caption{Three-loop graphs with a single loop of matter superfield.}

2552: \label{Figure_Beta_Diagrams_O}

2553: \end{figure}

2554: 

2555: %\vspace*{3cm}

2556: %\pagebreak

2557: 

2558: \begin{figure}[h]

2559: \epsfxsize15.0truecm\epsfbox{d3lpx.eps}

2560: \caption{Diagrams, containing an insersion of two-loop counterterms

2561: on the matter lines.}

2562: \label{Figure_Beta_Diagrams_X}

2563: \end{figure}

2564: 

2565: \begin{figure}[h]

2566: %\epsfxsize15.0truecm\epsfbox{d3lpx2.eps}

2567: \epsfxsize15.0truecm\epsfbox{fig7.eps}

2568: \caption{Diagrams containing an insersion of one-loop counterterms.}

2569: \label{Figure_Beta_Diagrams_X2}

2570: \end{figure}

2571: 

2572: \begin{figure}[h]

2573: \hspace*{1.9cm}

2574: \epsfxsize11.0truecm\epsfbox{d3lpxx.eps}

2575: \caption{Feynman diagrams with two insersions of counterterms.}

2576: \label{Figure_Beta_Diagrams_XX}

2577: \end{figure}

2578: 

2579: 

2580: \begin{figure}[h]

2581: \epsfxsize15.0truecm\epsfbox{d2anom.eps}

2582: \caption{Two-loop self-energy graphs for matter superfield.}

2583: \label{Figure_Gamma_Diagrams}

2584: \end{figure}

2585: 

2586: \begin{figure}[h]

2587: 

2588: \hspace*{3cm}

2589: \begin{picture}(0,0)(0,0)

2590: \put(7.5,-3.9){$\mbox{Re}(x)$}

2591: \put(4.8,-0.9){$\mbox{Im}(x)$}

2592: \put(3.2,-4.1){$-1$}

2593: \put(5.6,-4.1){$1$}

2594: \put(2,-3.9){$x_0$}

2595: \end{picture}

2596: 

2597: \hspace*{3cm}

2598: \epsfxsize9.0truecm\epsfbox{res.eps}

2599: 

2600: \caption{Contour $C$ for calculation of the integral over $x$.}

2601: \label{Figure_Contour}

2602: \end{figure}

2603: 

2604: \end{document}

2605: