On the Preservation of Quasilocality by the

Integration-Out Transformation
T. Tlas
arXiv:2012.14747v1 [math-ph] 29 Dec 2020

Abstract
We demonstrate that the integration-out step of the renormalization
group transformation preserves the quasilocality of the effective action.
This is shown in the case of a single, real, scalar field on a torus, but
the proof holds more generally. The main result can be thought of
as showing the flow invariance of the quasilocal subset under the flow
generated by the Polchinski equation.

One of the deepest ideas in physics is the renormalization group. This is

the concept that one can study a complicated system by analyzing it one
scale at a time. Intuitively, it is clear that for this procedure to be practical,
one should deal with systems which are at least approximately local. In
technical terms, the effective actions must admit some form of derivative
expansion. In other words, when one implements the renormalization group,
a standard requirement is that the effective actions considered are required
to be “quasilocal” using the terminology of [1]. Roughly speaking, (we will
give precise definitions later) these are functionals of the form

∞ Z
X
S[φ] = dp1 . . . dpn δ(p1 + · · · + pn ) G(p1 , . . . , pn ) φ(p1 ) . . . φ(pn ).
n=0

The goal of this paper is to prove rigorously that the integration-out step
of the renormalization group preserves quasilocality. We shall demonstrate
this fact in a specific realization, notably for a theory of a single real scalar
field. However, it will be clear that the proofs can be easily generalized to
other set-ups.

As will be apparent below, one way to view the main result of this work is
as a fact in the theory of viability [2, 3]. This is a vast subject in which
a great amount of work has been expended. However, the greatest major-
ity of the established results pertain to conditions one puts on the full flow
corresponding to the evolution equation (typically, a form of tangency of
the flow to the set is considered). There are only a few results [4, 5] which
supply sufficient conditions on the generator, and even then, they require
information on the behaviour of the generator away from the set which is
to be invariant. Below, a viability fact is proven under the assumption that
the linear part of the equation preserves the set, while the nonlinear part
of the generator maps the set to itself (see the discussion at the end of the
paper for more details).

As mentioned above, we will deal with the theory of a real scalar field φ.
To make things rigorous, we need both an infrared and an ultraviolet cut-
off. We shall implement the infrared cutoff by putting periodic boundary
conditions, i.e. we will consider our space of fields to be L2 functions on the
1 1
d-dimensional torus Td = S | × S {z × · · · × S }1 .1 Of course, we have the usual
d times
Fourier correspondence

Z
φ(x) ⇐⇒ an = φ(x)e−2πinx dx
TdL
X
{an }n∈Zd ⇐⇒ φ(x) = an e2πinx ,
n∈Zd

where nx = n1 x1 + · · · + nd xd , and the measure on Td is normalized so that

it has unit volume. Note that the fact that φ isP real implies that a−n = an
for every n ∈ Zd . Moreover, φ ∈ L2 (Td ) ⇐⇒ 2
n∈Zd |an | < ∞. We shall
2 d
denote the space of the Fourier coefficients by l (Z ).

Let Λ, Λ′ be positive numbers with Λ > Λ′ . Consider the following families

of bilinear forms on the space of fields

n 2
1 X e− Λ
KΛ ({an }, {bn }) = an bn
2 d
n2 + 1
n∈Z
n 2 2
n
1 X e− Λ − e− Λ′
KΛ,Λ′ ({an }, {bn }) = an bn .
2 d
n2 + 1
n∈Z

The exponentials in the formulas above implement the ultraviolet cutoffs.

2
The exact expressions chosen here are not important. Instead of e−x , we
could have chosen any other even, nonnegative function α(x) on R, such that
α(0) = 1, α is monotone decreasing for x ≥ 0 and decays sufficiently fast
at ∞, as well as α is differentiable at 0 (this last condition will be needed
later). Moreover, we’ve selected the propagator of the un-cutoff theory to
be that of the massive field n21+1 . We could have easily replaced it with any
1
They will be contained in a much smaller space after we impose the ultraviolet cutoffs.
nonnegative sequence which doesn’t grow too fast.

The two bilinear forms above are trivially seen to be positive definite. More-
over, these two forms correspond to two families of diagonal operators on
l2 (Zd ) which are trace-class. Therefore, by standard results [6], the bilinear
forms above define two families of Gaussian measures on l2 (Zd ) whose co-
variances are the given expressions. We shall denote these measures by µΛ
and µΛ,Λ′ . Now, while we have defined these to be measures on the space
of L2 (Td ) functions, they are in fact supported on a much smaller space.
Again, by standard results, we can easily see that all these measures are
supported2 on the subspace of elements {an }n∈Zd ∈ l2 (Zd ) for which
X √ 2 2
|||an ||| ≡ e n1 +···+nd |an |2 < ∞.
n∈Zd

In particular, note that this implies that the measures are supported on a
certain subspace of smooth functions on the torus. This subspace of l2 (Zd )
topologized by the norm ||| · ||| shall be denoted by V . It follows that all our
measures can be thought to have a common domain which is V .

We can now describe our space of effective actions. Consider first the space
L2 (µΛ ). As is well-known, any element S of this space can be written as
X
S= G(n1 , . . . , nk ) : an1 . . . ank :Λ (1)
n1 ,...,nk ∈Zd ,k=0,1,...

where : an1 . . . ank :Λ is the Wick product of an1 , . . . , ank (with respect to
the measure µΛ ) and the sum converges in L2 (µΛ ).3 Incidentally, note that
while the Wick products are an orthogonal basis4 of L2 (µΛ ) they are not
normalized and thus the L2 norm of the element above is given by
n2
1 n2
k
X e− Λ e− Λ
k! 2 ... 2 |G(n1 , . . . , nk )|2 . (2)
n1 + 1 nk + 1
n1 ,...,nk ,k=0,1,...

Note that any functional of the form

Z M 
Y Y 

α
∂xmi ,...,xim φ i1 ,...,im (x)dx, (3)
1
Td m=0 i1 ,...,im =1,...,d

2
In fact, the supports are significantly smaller still, see e.g. example 2.3.6 in [6].
Moreover, the supports actually depend on the parameters Λ. However, the space that
we chose is sufficient for our purposes.
3
For the reader’s convenience, the definition of the Wick product, as well as a few
useful formulae, are given in Appendix A.
4
One needs to be careful here, as the an ’s are not all independent, since an = a−n .
However, the formula for the L2 norm remains valid.
where all αi1 ,...,in ∈ N is in fact a well-defined element of L2 (µΛ ). This is a
consequence of the inequality
X
|∂xmi ,...,xim φ(x)| . (n21 + . . . n2d )m |an | . |||an |||, (4)
1
n∈Zd

where . means less than a constant multiple of. It thus follows that the
square of the expression above is bounded from above by a constant multiple
of |||an |||A for some integer A.5 As follows by Fernique’s theorem, each such
expression is integrable, and we have our claim.

We can now make an important

Definition. A finite linear combination of functionals of the form (3) is
called a local functional. An element in the closure in L2 (µΛ ) of the set of
local functionals is said to be quasilocal. The set of all quasilocal functionals
will be denoted by Q(Λ).
The next proposition shows that we could have defined the notion of quasilo-
cality differently.
Proposition. An element of L2 (µΛ ) is quasilocal if and only if in (1) we
have that

n1 + · · · + nk 6= 0 =⇒ G(n1 , . . . , nk ) = 0, ∀ n1 , . . . nk ∈ Zd , k ∈ N (5)

Proof. The only if direction is a consequence of the fact that every local
functional satisfies (5). This is done by a direct computation using the facts
that all the fields and their derivatives are multiplied at the same point in a
local functional, and that the propagator between an and am (which enters
in the Wick product) vanishes unless n = −m. The fact that a limit of func-
tionals satisfying (5), itself satisfies (5), follows at once from the expression
for the L2 norm given in (2).

To see the other direction, first note that for a fixed k, if G(n1 , . . . , nk ) is a
polynomial (in n1 , . . . , nk ) then, a direct computation shows that
X
G(n1 , . . . , nk ) : an1 . . . ank :Λ
n1 ,...,nk ∈Zd

is a local functional. Thus, we will be done if we show that polynomials

d
in n1 , . . . , nk are dense in the weighted l2 (Z · · × Zd}), with the weight
| × ·{z
k times
given by the expression before |G|2 in (2). However, this is a well-known fact
about the density in L2 of polynomials for measures with sub-exponential
tails (see e.g. [7]). Hence, the proof is complete.
5
Twice the sum of all the αi1 ,...,im works.
Now, we want to introduce the integration-out operator of the renormaliza-
tion group. This is meant to to act on an element of L2 (µΛ ), produce an
element of L2 (µΛ′ ), and be given by the following formula
Z 
−S[φ+ψ]
IΛ,Λ (S)[ψ] = − ln
′ e dµΛ,Λ [φ] .
′ (6)

Clearly the expression above cannot be defined on all of Q(Λ) and one needs
to restrict the space somewhat. Let b ∈ R and denote by L2b (µΛ ) the subset
of all elements in L2 (µΛ ) which are bounded from below by b. A natural
restriction to make (6) well-defined would be to consider only elements in
Q ∩ L2b (µΛ ). However, for technical reasons, it turns out to be convenient to
restrict the space a little further as is given in the following

Definition. Let Qb (Λ) be the closure in L2 (µΛ ) of the bounded elements in

Q ∩ L2b (µΛ ).

We show in Appendix B that Qb is rich enough to include every local func-

tional whose integrand (defined there) is bounded from below by b.

We can now state our main result which is the following

Theorem. IΛ,Λ′ is a continuous map from Qb (Λ) to Qb (Λ′ ).

Proof. The fact that (6) is well defined on Qb (Λ) (in fact on L2b (µΛ )) and
′
that the lower bound is preserved by IΛ,Λ′ is immediate. Let IΛ,Λ ′ (S)[ψ] be

given by 6

Z
S[φ + ψ]dµΛ,Λ′ [φ].

By Jensen’s inequality, we have that

′
IΛ,Λ′ (S)[ψ] ≤ IΛ,Λ ′ (S)[ψ].

Let f + stand for the positive part of a function. We then have that

s s 
Z  2 Z   + 2
IΛ,Λ′ (S)[ψ] dµΛ′ [ψ] ≤ |b| + IΛ,Λ′ (S)[ψ] dµΛ′ [ψ] ≤
s  s 
Z   + 2 Z 2
|b| + ′
IΛ,Λ′ (S)[ψ] dµΛ′ [ψ] ≤ |b| + ′
IΛ,Λ′ (S)[ψ] dµΛ′ [ψ].

Since KΛ′ ({an }, {bn }) + KΛ,Λ′ ({an }, {bn }) = KΛ ({an }, {bn }), we have at
once that for any L1 (µΛ ) function F the following equality
6 ′
The notation is due to the fact that IΛ,Λ′ is a formal linearization of the IΛ,Λ′ .
 Z Z
F [χ]dµΛ [χ] = F [φ + ψ]dµΛ,Λ′ [φ]dµΛ′ [ψ]

holds.7

Therefore, again by Jensen, we have the well-known inequality

Z  2 Z Z  2
′
IΛ,Λ ′ (S)[ψ] dµΛ′ [ψ] ≤ S[φ + ψ] dµΛ,Λ′ [φ]dµΛ′ [ψ]
Z
= S 2 [χ]dµΛ [χ]. (7)

Putting everything together, we get that

s  2 sZ
Z
IΛ,Λ′ (S)[ψ] dµΛ′ [ψ] ≤ |b| + S 2 [χ]dµΛ [χ].

It follows that IΛ,Λ′ maps L2b (µΛ ) into L2b (µΛ′ ). To show that it does so
continuously, let {Sn }∞ 2
n=1 be a sequence in Lb (µΛ ) converging to S0 . First,
note that for any constant c, we have

IΛ,Λ′ (S + c)[ψ] = IΛ,Λ′ (S)[ψ] + c.

Using this, and the equivalences

IΛ,Λ′ (Sn ) → IΛ,Λ′ (S0 ) ⇐⇒ IΛ,Λ′ (Sn ) − b → IΛ,Λ′ (S0 ) − b

⇐⇒ IΛ,Λ′ (Sn − b) → IΛ,Λ′ (S0 − b),

we can assume that b = 0 in what follows, i.e. that all our functions are non-
negative. Now, using (7) we have immediately that IΛ,Λ′ ′
′ (Sn ) → IΛ,Λ′ (S0 ) in
2 −x −y
Lb (µΛ′ ). Also, using (7), the fact that |e − e | ≤ |x − y| for nonnegative
x and y, and Jensen yet again we have that

Z  2
−IΛ,Λ′ (Sn )[ψ] −IΛ,Λ′ (S0 )[ψ]
e −e dµΛ′ [ψ] ≤
Z Z  2
−Sn [φ+ψ] −S0 [φ+ψ]
e −e dµΛ,Λ′ [φ]dµΛ′ [ψ] ≤
Z  2
Sn [χ] − S0 [χ] dµΛ [χ],

from which we conclude that e−IΛ,Λ′ (Sn ) → e−IΛ,Λ′ (S0 ) in L2 (µΛ′ ). Passing
to subsequences, we get a subsequence {Snl }∞ l=1 such that IΛ,Λ′ (Snl ) and
7
This is of course the fundamental equation behind the renormalization group.
 ′
IΛ,Λ ′
′ (Snl ) converge almost everywhere to IΛ,Λ′ (S0 ) and IΛ,Λ′ (S0 ) respec-
′
tively. Combining this with the fact that IΛ,Λ′ (Snl ) ≤ IΛ,Λ′ (Snl ) and that
′
IΛ,Λ ′ 2
′ (Snl ) → IΛ,Λ′ (S0 ) in L0 (µΛ′ ), we get that IΛ,Λ′ (Snl ) → IΛ,Λ′ (S0 ) in

L20 (µΛ′ ). Thus, we get a subsequence of {IΛ,Λ′ (Sn )}∞ n=1 which converges to
IΛ,Λ′ (S0 ). Since we can repeat this argument for any subsequence of the
original sequence, it follows that IΛ,Λ′ (Sn ) → IΛ,Λ′ (S0 ), and we have conti-
nuity.

It remains to show that a quasilocal S is mapped to a quasilocal one. In view

of the definition of Qb (Λ) and the above continuity result, we can assume
that S is bounded. Now let F stand for a finite subset of Zd such that
(n1 , . . . , nd ) ∈ F ⇐⇒ −(n1 , . . . , nd ) ∈ F . Denote by PF the projection
of V onto those components corresponding to F (i.e. the map which sets
all the an ’s to zero unless n ∈ F ). For an L1 (µΛ ) function g, denote by
gF the cylindrical approximation obtained from g by integrating out the
components “not in F ”. More precisely,
Z
gF [φ] = g[PF φ + (I − PF )ψ]dµΛ [ψ],

where I stands for the identity map. As is well-known, gF → g in L2 (µΛ )

as F ↑ Zd . Denote by µΛ,F the pushforward of µΛ by PF . It follows that
(n)
if g(n) → g in L2 (µΛ ), then gF → gF in L2 (µΛ,F ). Needless to say, gF can
be considered to be a function of only finitely many variables (those in the
image of PF ).

Applying this to S, we have that SF is bounded (with the lower bound being
b), that SF → S in L2 (µΛ ), and, recalling that S is quasilocal, that if
X
S= G(n1 , . . . , nk ) : an1 . . . ank :Λ ,
n1 +···+nk =0,k=0,1,...

then
X  
SF = G(n1 , . . . , nk ) : an1 . . . ank :Λ ,
F
n1 +···+nk =0,k=0,1,...

with the latter sum converging in L2 (µΛ,F ). Note that if we consdier SF

to be a function of finitely many variables then, by virtue of it being in
L2 (µΛ,F ), it should also have an expansion of the form
X
SF = G̃(n1 , . . . , nk ) : an1 . . . ank :Λ,F ,
n1 ,...,nk ∈F,k=0,1,...

where : · :Λ,F stands for the Wick ordering with respect to the measure
µΛ,F . We claim that in this latter expansion, G̃(n1 , . . . , nk ) = 0 if n1 + · · · +
nk 6= 0. For obvious reasons, we shall call L2 (µΛ,F ) functions which satisfy
this property quasilocal as well. Since the space of quasilocal functions 
is clearly closed, we will be done if we show that : an1 . . . ank :Λ is
F
quasilocal. Consider one term in the definition of : an1 . . . ank :Λ . It is
a product of a subcollection of an1 , . . . , ank ’s multiplied by a collection of
(KΛ )n,m ’s pairing the remaining indices (see formula (9) in Appendix A).
Since (KΛ )n,m is proportional to δn,−m , it follows that indices which appear
in the subcollection of an ’s are obtained from n1 , . . . , nk by omitting pairs
of opposite ones. Since n1 + · · · + nk = 0, this equation is still true for the
subcollection. In view of the above, we will be done if we show (am1 . . . aml )F
is quasilocal if m1 + · · · + ml = 0. We now use the fact that
Z
aA B
a ab dµΛ = 0 unless A=B and a = −b.

It thus follows that (am1 . . . aml )F = 0 unless the an ’s that get integrated
are present in pairs with equal and opposite indices. It follows that the sum
of the indices of the an ’s that are left over after integration
 is done, still
 is
equal to zero. Putting it all together, we have that : an1 . . . ank :Λ is
F
equal to a sum of terms proportional to am1 . . . aml with m1 + · · · + ml = 0.
It is trivial to see that each such term is quasilocal and we have what we
want. Note that this implies that SF is also quasilocal in the original sense,
i.e. considered as a function on the full space. In view of the discussion
above, we see that it is enough to show that IΛ,Λ′ (SF ) is quasilocal with
respect to µΛ,F .

We have thus reduced the original problem to one defined on functions of

finitely many variables. Let us show now that we can further assume that
SF is smooth. To this end, let8
Z p
O(τ )SF [φ] = SF [e−τ φ + 1 − e−2τ ψ]dµΛ,F [ψ].

It is well-known that O(τ )SF is smooth and that O(τ )SF → SF in L2 (µΛ,F )
as τ → 0+ . Moreover, since O(τ ) is diagonal in the basis of Wick products,
we have that O(τ )SF preserves quasilocality. We have thus reduced the
problem to showing that a C ∞ , cylindrical quasilocal function maps to a
quasilocal one under IΛ,Λ′ .

We now need to streamline our notation. First, since F will be held fixed in
the rest of this paper, it shall be omitted (e.g. we’ll just write S instead of
SF , dµΛ instead of dµΛ,F and so on). Second, let Λ′ (t) = e−t Λ.9 We shall
8
This is of course the Ornstein-Uhlenbeck semigroup action, hence the notation.
9
The exact form here is unimportant. We can take Λ′ to be any smooth function of t
which is equal to Λ for t = 0 and which has a strictly negative derivative everywhere.
denote by Kn,m (t) the propagator of the measure µΛ,Λ′ (t) , i.e.

n2 n2
−
e− Λ − e Λ′ (t)
Kn,m (t) = δn,−m .
2(n2 + 1)
Also, S(t) will stand for IΛ,Λ′ (t) (S). Additionally, we will denote the oper-
ator IΛ′ ′ (t1 ),Λ′ (t2 ) (note that this is the linearized map) by U (t2 , t1 ). Finally,
the closed subspace of C 1 functions (topologized with the usual ||·||C 1 norm)
whose derivative is uniformly continuous will be denoted by BU C 1 .

We now have the following important

Lemma. S(t) satisfies the following equation
Z t  X 
∂S(τ ) ∂S(τ )
S(t) = U (t, 0)S + U (t, τ ) 2 K̇n,m (τ ) dτ,
0 n,m
∂am ∂an

where this equation holds as an equation in the Banach space of continuous

functions t → f (t) where t ∈ [0, ∞) and f (t) ∈ BU C 1 .
The formula above is of course the celebrated Polchinski equation [8] written
in the “variation of constants” form.

Proof of Lemma. First, note that since S is C ∞ , then S(t) is C ∞ for every t
and thus certainly S(t) ∈ BU C 1 . Now, suppose f is a smooth function. We
claim that the map t → U (t, 0)f is continuous on [0, ∞) and continuously
differentiable on (0, ∞)10 , where U (t, 0)f = ft is considered as an element
of BU C 1 .

To see this, note first that if ∆t > 0, we have that

||ft+∆t − ft ||C 1 = ||U (t + ∆t, t)ft − ft ||C 1

Z
≤ ||ft (x + y) − ft (x)||C 1 dµΛ′ (t1 ),Λ′ (t2 ) (y).

Now, since the upper bound and the modulus of continuity of ft are nonin-
creasing as functions of t, the latter expression goes to 0 uniformly in t as
∆t → 0+ , as can be shown by the usual elementary argument of breaking the
integral into two parts, one with small y where uniform continuity of ft and
its derivative is used, and the rest, which goes to zero since dµΛ′ (t+∆t),Λ′ (t)
converges to a delta function. Continuity of t → ft follows at once.

To see that t → ft is continuously differentiable on (0, ∞), first note that

as long as t0 > 0, one can interchange the integral and the derivative with
10
In fact, it is C 1 on [0, ∞) but we are not going to need that.
respect to t in df
dt t=t0 . This is a basic fact which follows from dominated
convergence. Now, note that

ft0 +∆t − ft0 df

− ≤
∆t dt t=t0 C 1
Z
dµΛ,Λ′ (t0 +∆t) − dµΛ,Λ′ (t0 ) d

||f ||C 1 − dµΛ,Λ′ (t) =
∆t dt t=t0
Z
d
d

||f ||C1 dµΛ,Λ′ (t) − dµΛ,Λ′ (t) ,
dt t=c dt t=t0

where c in the last equation is between t0 and t0 + ∆t. It is trivial to see now
that the last integral goes to zero as ∆t → 0. We thus have differentiability
of the map t → ft . The fact that t → dfdt is continuous follows essentially in
the same way as the continuity of t → ft .

Now, observe that g → − ln(g) and h → e−h are local diffeomorphisms which
are inverses of each other from BU C 1 into itself, as long as g is bounded
away from 0. Putting everything together, we have that t → S(t) maps into
BU C 1 , is continuous on [0, ∞), and is continuously differentiable on (0, ∞).

The rest of the proof is a standard argument in the theory of evolution equa-
tions in Banach spaces [9, 10]. Consider the function S̃(τ ) = U (t, τ )S(τ ).
By similar arguments to the one above, (when we showed that t → S(t) is
continuous and continuously differentiable) we have that S̃(τ ) is a contin-
uous function into BU C 1 on [0, ∞), and is continuously differentiable on
(0, ∞). Moreover, by a direct calculation, we have that
 X 
dS̃ ∂S(τ ) ∂S(τ )
= U (t, τ ) 2 K̇n,m (τ ) .
dτ n,m
∂am ∂an

Integrating the above equation between t1 and t2 , and then taking the limits
t1 → 0+ , t2 → t− , we get what we want.

The lemma above shows in effect that the function t → S(t) is a fixed point
of the following variation of constants map
Z t  X 
∂f (τ ) ∂f (τ )
Φ(f )(t) = U (t, 0)S + U (t, τ ) 2 K̇n,m (τ ) .
0 n,m
∂am ∂an

Let us make this more precise. Again, we follow the general ideas of the
theory of the evolution equations in Banach spaces.11 Consider the metric
space X of all continuous functions on [0, δ] valued in the closed ball of
11
The reader is encouraged here to go over the introductory discussion in [10] for the
abstract setting behind the argument below.
center 0 and radius R in BU C 1 . We shall take R = 2||S||C 1 and will specify
δ below. The metric on X is given by

ρ(f1 , f2 ) = sup ||f1 (t) − f2 (t)||C 1 .

t∈[0,δ]

Note that Φ(v)(t) is indeed in BU C 1 . This is due to the regularizing effect

of U (t, τ ) inside the integral. In fact, it is straightforward to show12 that
||g||C 0
the following inequality ||U (t, τ )g||C 1 . √t−τ , holds.

Now, note that for any two BU C 1 functions f1 and f2 we trivially have the
inequality

 
X ∂f1 (τ ) ∂f1 (τ ) ∂f2 (τ ) ∂f2 (τ )
2 K̇n,m (τ ) − . ||f1 − f2 ||C 1 ,
n,m
∂am ∂an ∂am ∂an C0

where the implicit constant depends on R in general. Using the inequalities

above, it is easy to show that

Z δ
1 
ρ(Φ(f1 ), Φ(f2 )) . √ dτ ρ(f1 , f2 ).
0 t−τ
Since the square root is an integrable function, we can choose δ small enough
such that the overall constant in front of ρ(g1 , g2 ) is less than 21 . Using the
fact that ||U (t, 0)S||C 1 ≤ ||S||C 1 , we have that

sup ||Φ(g)(t)||C 1 ≤ sup ||Φ(g)(t) − Φ(0)||C 1 + sup ||Φ(0)||C 1

t∈[0,δ] t∈[0,δ] t∈[0,δ]
1
≤ ρ(g, 0) + sup ||U (t, 0)S||C 1 < R.
2 t∈[0,δ]

Putting everything together, we have that Φ is a contraction which takes

the space X to itself. We thus have that t → S(t) is indeed the unique fixed
point of Φ. Moreover, by starting with any point in the space and repeat-
edly applying Φ, we converge to this fixed point. We are going to take the
function t → U (t, 0)S as our starting point.

Now, let us say that t → f (t) in X is quasilocal if for every t, f (t) is quasilo-
cal with respect to the appropriate measure, i.e. with respect to the measure
µΛ′ (t) . Note that according to this definition, our starting point of the iter-
ation t → U (t, 0)S is quasilocal. We now claim that if t → f (t) is quasilocal
12
Recall that U is basically a convolution with a Gaussian. Incidentally, this is where
2
we would need the differentiability of α at 0 in case we decide to replace e−x with α(x)
in the ultraviolet cutoff.
then its image by Φ is quasilocal as well. In view of the above, this will
immediately imply that S(t) is quasilocal, for t ∈ [0, δ], and thus, we will
have that S(δ) is quasilocal. Repeating the argument13 , we can extend this
fact to all of [0, ∞) and obtain that S(t) is quasilocal for every t. This would
conclude the proof of the theorem.

It thus remains to demonstrate the claim. Since U (t2 , t1 ) acts diagonally in

the Wick expansion, and thus preserves quasilocality, we will be done if we
show that
X ∂f (τ ) ∂f (τ )
2 K̇n,m (τ ) ,
n,m
∂am ∂an

is quasilocal if f (τ ) is quasilocal. Therefore, consider the expression

Z  
X ∂f (τ ) ∂f (τ )
K̇n,m (τ ) : an1 . . . ank :Λ′ (τ ) dµΛ′ (τ ) , (8)
n,m
∂am ∂an

for some indices n1 , . . . , nk such that n1 + · · · + nk 6= 0. We need to show

that the expression above vanishes. Since τ will be fixed in what remains of
the proof, we shall drop it, together with the index Λ′ (τ ), and will simply
write f for f (τ ), dµ instead of dµΛ′ (τ ) , and so on.

Let us assume now that g is smooth (and not just in BU C 1 ). It is easy to

show then that its Wick expansion can be differentiated term by term with
the result converging to the appropriate derivative.

We now use the fact [6] that for a smooth function g, we have
Z Z
∂k g
: an1 . . . ank :gdµ ≃ dµ,
∂an1 . . . ∂ank
where ≃ means equality up to an irrelevant constant. Therefore, we have
that (8) is equal to a finite sum of terms which are schematically of the form
Z  (A)  (B)
f f dµ,

where the bracketed exponents stand for derivatives. It thus follows that if
fk denotes the the k-th partial sum of the Wick expansion of f then, since
fk → f (and thus (fk )(A) → (f )(A) , (fk )(B) → (f )(B) in L2 (µ)), we have
that
13
Note that ||e−S(t) ||C 1 doesn’t increase as a function of t, and thus ||S(t)||C 1 is bounded
from above by some multiple (which is a function of t) of ||S||C 1 . This implies that the
estimates that went into showing that Φ is a contraction which preserves the space X, can
be carried through on any compact subinterval of [0, ∞).
 Z  (A)  (B) Z  (A)  (B)
fk fk dµ → f f dµ.

Putting it all together, we have that

Z  
X ∂fk ∂fk
K̇n,m : an1 . . . ank : dµ →
n,m
∂am ∂an
Z  
X ∂f ∂f
K̇n,m : an1 . . . ank : dµ.
n,m
∂am ∂a n

Rearranging now in the standard way [11, 12], and using the fact that Kn,m
is proportional to δn,−m we have that the expression above is proportional
to δn1 +···+nk ,0 = 0, since we’ve assumed that n1 + · · · + nk 6= 0. The proof is
thus complete for the case of a smooth f .

Now, using the fact that O(σ)f → f in L4 (µ) as σ → 0+ , we have that

Z  
X ∂(O(σ)f ) ∂(O(σ)f )
K̇n,m : an 1 . . . an k : dµ →
n,m
∂am ∂an
Z  
X ∂f ∂f
K̇n,m : an1 . . . ank : dµ.
n,m
∂am ∂an

Since the Ornstein-Uhlenbeck semigroup preserves quasilocality, and since

the limit of a zero sequence is zero, the proof is complete.

We finish by noting that the latter part of the proof above can be considered
to be a theorem in viability theory. In effect, we show that a mild solution
[9, 10] of the Polchinski’s equation

∂S X ∂2S ∂S(τ ) ∂S(τ )

=2 K̇n,m (τ ) − ,
∂t n,m
∂an ∂am ∂am ∂an

which starts in Qb , remains there. It is easy to see that the evolution gen-
erated by the linear term in the PDE above preserves quasilocality (this is
simply the map U (t1 , t2 ) above). We do have the knowledge that the nonlin-
ear term when acting on a quasilocal S would give a quasilocal expression.
However, it doesn’t seem easy to control this term away from the quasilocal
subset which is what is usually required in the viability literature [4, 5]. The
proof above circumvents this by using a variation of constants formula and
the smoothing effect of the U . It is clear that the argument above does not
depend on the precise form of the Polchinski’s equation, but rather on the
smoothing effect of the U , and thus generalizes to any setting where the
same fact holds.
Appendix A
We gather here a few elementary facts about Wick products. This is stan-
dard material [12, 13]. The reason we’re giving it here (apart from the
reader’s convenience) is that one needs to be a little careful in using the
usual formulas in our setting. This is because, due to the way we have de-
fined our measures, the an ’s are not independent random variables (recall
that an = a−n ).

So, let µ be a Gaussian measure. Define the Wick-ordered exponential via

Z −1
i(t1 an1 +···+tk ank ) i(t1 an1 +···+tk ank ) i(t1 an1 +···+tk ank )
:e :≡e e
1 Pk
= ei(t1 an1 +···+tk ank ) e 2 α,β=1 tα tβ Knα ,nβ ,
R
where Knα ,nβ = anα anβ dµ. Now, the Wick monomial is defined by
 
1 ∂k i(t1 an1 +···+tk ank )
: an1 . . . ank := k :e : .
i ∂t1 . . . ∂tk t1 ,...,tk =0
Using these definitions one immediately gets that
Z
: an1 . . . ank :: am1 . . . aml : dµΛ,L =
(
0 if k 6= l
P
σ Kn1 nσ(1) Kn2 nσ(2) . . . Knk nσ(k) if k = l
and that
X Y  Y
: an1 . . . ank := − Kni ,nj anl , (9)
P {i,j}∈P l∈P
/

where P is a collection of pairs of indices from {1, . . . , k}.

Appendix B
Recall that a local functional is a linear combination of expressions of the
form (3). Clearly, any such expression is of the form
Z  
L φ(x), ∂x1 φ(x), . . . , ∂xMd ,xd ,...,xd φ(x) dx,
Td
where L(z1 , . . . , zN ) is some polynomial in N variables.14 Let us call this
polynomial the integrand of the local functional. In this appendix, we prove
the following
14 PM m+d−1


N= m=0 m
.
Proposition. If S is a local functional whose integrand is bounded from
below by b, then S ∈ Qb (Λ).
R
Note that this would imply that e.g. Td (∂φ)2 + P (φ) is in Qb (Λ) as long as
P (z) is a polynomial in z bounded from below by b.

Proof. Clearly, it is enough to prove this for the case b = 0, which is what
we are going to assume below. Let ǫ > 0. Let β be a constant (which we’ll
assume is greater than 1) such that

|∂xmi ,...,xim φ(x)| ≤ β|||an |||

1

for all i1 , . . . , im ∈ {1, . . . , d} and m ≤ M . Using this estimate, we have that

 
L φ(x), ∂x1 φ(x), . . . , ∂xMd ,xd ,...,xd φ(x) ≤ C1 + C2 |||an |||A

for some constants A, C1 and C2 . Choose R such that

sZ
 2 ǫ
C1 + C2 |||an |||A dµΛ < ,
B c (0,R) 4

and

ǫ
(C1 + C2 (β(R + 1))A )µΛ (B c (0, R)) < ,
4
where B c (0, R) is the complement of the ball of radius R (with respect to
the norm ||| · |||). The existence of such an R follows immediately from
Fernique’s theorem. Now, let T (z1 , . . . , zN ) be a trigonometric polynomial
such that

• T is nonnegative.

• |T | ≤ C1 + C2 (β(R + 1))A .

• sup(z1 ,...,zN )∈[−βR,βR]N |T (z1 , . . . , zN ) − L(z1 , . . . , zn )| < 2ǫ .

 
To see that such a T exists, first restrict L φ(x), ∂x1 φ(x), . . . , ∂xMd ,xd ,...,xd φ(x)
to [−β(R + 1), β(R + 1)]N , and then extend it periodically. If we now take
the Cesàro sum of a sufficiently far truncation of the Fourier series of this
periodization, we get what we want directly from the properties of the Fejér
kernel. Putting everything together, we have that
 s
Z    2
L φ(x), . . . , ∂xMd ,xd ,...,xd φ(x) − T φ(x), . . . , ∂xMd ,xd ,...,xd φ(x) dµΛ ≤
sZ sZ sZ
... + ... < ... +
B(0,R) B c (0,R) B(0,R)
sZ
 2
C1 + C2 |||an |||A dµΛ + (C1 + C2 (β(R + 1))A )µΛ (B c (0, R)) <
B c (0,R)
ǫp ǫ
µΛ (B(0, r)) + < ǫ.
2 2

We thus 2
R  have that S can be approximated  in L (µΛ ) by elements of the form
M
Td T φ(x), ∂x1 φ(x), . . . , ∂xd ,xd ,...,xd φ(x) dx. Since clearly each such element
is bounded and nonnegative, we will have what we want provided we show
that each such element is in Q. This, in turn, would follow if we show that
each element of the form
Z
M
eiα0 φ(x) eiα1 ∂x1 φ(x) . . . eiαd,...,d ∂xd ,...,xd φ(x) dx (10)
Td

is in Q, where α0 , α1 , . . . , αd,d,...,d are constants.15 To this end, note that

 l !
Z N
Y Y L
X iαi1 ,...,in ∂xl i ,...,xin φ(x) 
1
dx
Td n=0
l!
i1 ,...,in =1,...,d l=0

is in Q for every L, converges pointwise to (10), and is bounded (uniformly

in L) from above by


|α0 |+|α1 |+···+|αd,...,d | |||an |||
e .

By another application of Fernique’s theorem, we have that they converge

to (10) in L2 (µΛ ), and the proof is complete.

Acknowledgments: The author would like to thank J. Merhej for reading

a preliminary version of this paper and for the numerous comments which
greatly improved its readability.
15
We are slightly abusing the terminology here, as quasilocality was defined only for
real-valued functions. However, either we trivially extend the definition to complex-valued
ones, or we replace the product of exponentials by a product of sines and cosines. The
estimates below would still go through.
References
[1] O. Rosten, “Fundamentals of the exact renormalization group”, Phys.
Rep. 511, (2012), no. 4, 177–272.

[2] D. Motreanu, N. Pavel, “Tangency, flow invariance for differential equa-

tions and optimization problems”, Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York,
(1999).

[3] O. Cârjă, M. Necula, I. Vrabie, “Viability, invariance and applications”,

Elsevier Science B. V., Amsterdam, (2007).

[4] V. Barbu, N. Pavel, “Flow-invariant closed sets with respect to nonlin-

ear semigroup flows”, Nonlinear Differential Equations Appl. 10, (2003),
no.1, 57–72.

[5] P. Cannarsa, G. Da Prato, H. Frankowska, “Invariance for quasi-

dissipative systems in Banach spaces”, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 457,
(2018), no. 2, 1173–1187.

[6] V. Bogachev, “Gaussian measures”, AMS, Providence, RI, (1998).

[7] R. Dobrušin, R. Minlos, “Polynomials of linear random functions”, Us-

pehi Mat. Nauk, 32, (1977), no.2 (194), 67–122, 263.

[8] J. Polchinski, “Renormalization and Effective Lagrangians”, Nucl.

Phys. B 231, (1984), 269–295.

[9] A. Pazy, “Semigroups of linear operators and applications to partial

differential equations”, Applied Mathematical Sciences, 44, Springer
Verlag, New York, (1983).

[10] H. Amann, “Linear and quasilinear parabolic problems. Vol. I”, Mono-
graphs in Mathematics, 89, Birkhäuser, (1995).

[11] C. Wieczerkowski, “Symanzik’s improved actions from the viewpoints

of the renormalization group”, Comm. Math. Phys. 120, (1988), no. 1,
149–176.

[12] M. Salmhofer, “Renormalization. An introduction’, Texts and Mono-

graphs in Physics, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, (1999).

[13] J. Dimock, “Quantum mechanics and quantum field theory. A mathe-

matical primer”, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, (2011).

Department of Mathematics, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon.

Email address : tamer.tlas@aub.edu.lb