> <\body> <\hide-preamble> Disable the toc-ing of the paragraphs > of the fractional > model in the full subcritical regime>|>>|Duch>|<\author-affiliation> Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science Adam Mickiewicz University Poland |>>|Gubinelli>|<\author-affiliation> Mathematical Institute University of Oxford United Kingdom |>>|Rinaldi>|<\author-affiliation> Institute for Applied Mathematics & Hausdorff Center for Mathematics University of Bonn, Germany |<\author-email> rinaldi@iam.uni-bonn.de >>> We present a construction of the fractional > Euclidean quantum field theory on > in the full subcritical regime via parabolic stochastic quantisation. Our approach is based on the use of a truncated flow equation for the effective description of the model at sufficiently small scales and on coercive estimates for the non-linear stochastic partial differential equation describing the interacting field. ||> <\with|par-columns|2> <\small> <\table-of-contents|toc> Introduction> |.>>>>|> Notations, phase-space decomposition and weights |.>>>>|> > Stochastic quantisation> |.>>>>|> Scale decomposition |.>>>>|> > A-priori estimates in weighted spaces |.>>>>|> > Tightness |.>>>>|> > Integrability |.>>>>|> > The vector model |.>>>>|> > A-priori estimates> |.>>>>|> Analysis of the flow equation> |.>>>>|> Random flow equation |.>>>>|> > Norms for kernels |.>>>>|> > Cumulants |.>>>>|> > Bounds on parameters |.>>>>|> > Classification of cumulants |.>>>>|> > Cumulant analysis |.>>>>|> > Inductive procedure |.>>>>|> > Local estimates for the flow of kernels |.>>>>|> > From cumulants to random kernels |.>>>>|> > Post-processing |.>>>>|> > Auxiliary estimates> |.>>>>|> Kernel estimates |.>>>>|> > Properties of the weights |.>>>>|> > Norm estimates |.>>>>|> > Schauder estimates |.>>>>|> > Flow equation estimates> |.>>>>|> Estimates for > and > |.>>>>|> > Localisation |.>>>>|> > |.>>>>|> Take \0> and \>, ,M>\/M\|)>|)>> and define a probability measure ,M>> on ,N>\:\,M>\\|}>> by <\equation> \,M>\|)>\,M>|)>|)>|Z,M>>\,M>>\\ <\equation> S,M>|)>\2\*\,M>>\*>|)>\+|2>*\+|4>*\->|2>*\|]> with ,M>\,M>>e,M>|)>>\,M>>\\> and where 0,\\0,r>> are constant respectively called , and and >|)>> is the discrete fractional Laplacian of order > defined via functional calculus as the -th power of the (negative) discrete Laplacian >>. In order to pass to the limit we define a probability measure |^>,M>> on |)>> by embedding the sample path of ,M>> in |)>> via a suitable Fourier multiplier, see eq. below. \; For the sake of clarity we will restrict our considerations to , in which case corresponds to the usual > measure and we will work within the full range of fractional exponents s\s\3/4> for which the model is subcritical, i.e. when the non-linear part can be considered as a perturbation of the Gaussian measure in the small scale regime. Reflection positivity holds for 1>, so we will restrict to values of ,1|]>>, for more details see the discussion of the measure in. We will discuss in detail the case > but the same proof strategy works with substantial simplifications for the case corresponding to the classical Laplacian. The main result of this paper is a proof of the following: <\theorem> \ Let and fix >, 0>, \0>. The family |^>,M>|)>,M>> defines a tight family of probability measure on |)>> as \> and then \0> and the sequence of mass renormalisations >|)>\0>> is chosen suitably with >=r>|)>\+\> as \0>. Any accumulation point > is non-Gaussian, invariant under translation, reflection positive and satisfies <\equation> e*||)>* |)>|)>\|\<\|\|\>>>>\\|)>\\, for sufficiently large 0> and small \0>. Our proof strategy introduces a novel combination of renormalisation group ideas and PDE techniques which we believe can be useful more widely in the context of the theory of subcritical singular SPDEs. The proof also applies to the vector version of the model where the field takes values in > for 1> and the functional ,M>|)>> depends on > in an > symmetric way. Theorem gives a construction of a model of Euclidean quantum field theory (EQFT) which is referred in the literature as the >> model, in reference to the form of the exponential weight and the dimension of the space >. In the case this is the well known > model which is considered a crucial test in constructive quantum field theory since the original results of Glimm and Jaffe, Feldman and Osterwalder and others EQFT constructivists whose goal were to prove the existence of models satisfying the Wightman axioms for local relativistic QFT using probabilistic tools via the concept of Euclidean QFTs. In the fractional regime, i.e. ,1|)>> the model has been introduced in the work of Brydges, Mitter and Scoppola as a rigorous basis for a proof of the existence of an nontrivial IR fixed point via an >-expansion where =s-s\0> is sufficiently small. \; In recent years there has been a renewed interest in EQFTs due to the development of an alternative approach to the proof of theorems like Theorem. This new approach is grounded in the basic ideas of stochastic calculus and it is usually called . This term was introduced by Parisi and Wu to describe the quantisation of gauge theories via the construction of a stochastic process evolving in fictious time and whose stationary distribution is the target Euclidean QFT. This stochastic evolution is a non-linear stochastic partial differential equation of a singular kind, for which a particular procedure of renormalisation is needed to give it a precise meaning. The analysis of such equations require a mix of probabilistic and analytic arguments that escape the usual approach of It>'s stochastic differential equations. For this reason it took some time before the SPDE community learned how to handle such singular equation and discovered theories like regularity structures and paracontrolled calculus or renormalisation group which finally allowed to tackle the problem of the stochastic quantisation of the > model. Gubinelli and Hofmanová obtained the equivalent of Theorem with and a small range of values below that using a mix of paracontrolled calculus for the small scale singularities of the equation and coercive estimates to tame the large scale fluctuations. We refer the reader to the introduction to for a deeper review of the literature and the history of constructive QFT and also to contextualise the meaning and consequences of Theorem. \; The probability measure ,M>> in is the equilibrium distribution for the Langevin dynamics given by the stationary solutions to the finite system of SDEs <\equation> \>\,M|)>>+\*,M|)>>|)>-r>*\,M|)>>=*\,M|)>>, on ,M>> with ,M>\\\\,M>>, where >\\+m+>|)>> and where ,M|)>>> is a (space-time) white noise such that <\equation*> \,M|)>>*\,M|)>>|]>=\*\,,\\,M>, and \0> and >> are constants. By standard stochastic analysis arguments, there exists a unique solution of this equation such that ,M|)>>|)>=\,M>> for all \> The stochastic representation is already quite useful at this point since by PDE estimates in weighted Sobolev spaces and the positivity of the fractional Laplacian one can prove tightness of the family ,M|)>>|)>> and therefore the existence of sub-sequential limits as \>. This can be done with the arguments in Gubinelli\UHofmanová. Any accumulation point |)>>> will be a solution in >\\\\|)>> of the infinite system of SDEs <\equation> \>\|)>>+\*|)>>|)>-r>*\|)>>=\|)>>, on >> and where |)>>> is a (space-time) white noise on >> such that <\equation> \|)>>*\|)>>|]>=\*\,,\\>. The non-trivial step is now to control the solutions to this equation uniformly as \0>. It is expected that in small scales the non-linear term in the dynamics can be considered perturbation of the linear part of the equation with the white-noise source, and therefore also that in the small scale limit, the solutions |)>>> converge locally to distributions in negative Besov spaces of regularity slightly worser than , which is the kind of regularity allowed by the Gaussian free field. This negative regularity causes problems in the control the non-linear term.\ Inspired by the work of Wilson and Polchinski on the continuous renormalisation group and by the more recent approach introduced by one of the authors in, we use a flow equation to effectively describe the solution |)>>> of the SPDE at some spatial scale much larger than > (see Kupiainen for a discrete counterpart). Let >|)>>> denote a description of the solution at a scale of order |\|\>\|)>\\\0> for some \>, the flow equation approach consists in deriving for |)>>>> a parabolic equation of the form <\equation> \>\|)>>>=F>|)>>|)>>>|)>, where \F>|)>>|)>> is an analytic functional of |)>>>, the , such that for =1> one recovers the equation with |)>>=\|)>>> and <\equation> F|)>>|)>=-\*\+r>*\+\|)>>, The functional >|)>>> can be obtained by solving a <\equation> \>F>|)>>=\>>|)>>,F>|)>>|)>, for \,1|]>> with the final condition and where >> is an appropriate bilinear operator. The parameter \> does not have any specific physical meaning and the spatial scale of the decomposition is fixed conventionally to be of order |\|\>>, that is >|)>>> is expected to fluctuate at spatial scales of order |\|\>> or larger, and in particular to be a locally bounded function on \\\\> when extended in some reasonable way from the lattice >> to the continuum. A key ingredient is the control of the stochastic process |)>>>|)>>> given by solutions of the flow equation. Following a simple but crucial observation of, this control can be obtained by studying the evolution in the scale parameter of the cumulants >|)>>|)>>> of the random functionals |)>>>|)>>> which themselves satisfy a kind of higher-order deterministic flow equation <\equation> \>\>|)>>=\>>|)>>|)>+\>>|)>>,\>|)>>|)>, with prescribed initial condition |)>>>. Upon choosing appropriately this initial condition by tuning the parameter >> in one can prove uniform in > estimates for the cumulants >|)>>|)>>> and therefore, by a Kolmogorov-type argument, suitable bounds on the effective force |)>>>|)>>> uniform \0>, and, with some more work, convergence in law as \0>. The flow equation is bilinear and therefore solvable in general only in a perturbative regime, e.g. in a small interval |\>,1|]>> around the initial condition at =1> or for small data (or small time). The size of this perturbative region depends crucially on the size of the noise |)>>> and while this dependence can be made uniform in > there could be large fluctuations in the noise which make the region arbitrarily small and reduce the available proof of existence of solutions to results. A similar limitation is present in the work of Kupiainen who, instead, uses a discrete renormalisation group (RG) iteration, and more generally in all the other approaches which use an expansion of solutions in order to resolve the singular terms and control the limit as \0>, e.g. in regularity structures and also in paracontrolled calculus. This difficulty is the signal of the \Plarge field problem\Q, well known in constructive EQFT. From the point of view of the stochastic quantisation equation, this problem can be solved using the coercivity of the nonlinear term whose sign tends to produce large forces which bring down the solution from infinity. While this observation is standard in PDE theory, it still requires some nontrivial adaptation to be effective for singular SPDEs. The first to solve the problem have been Mourrat and Weber in their proof of global existence for the > dynamics on the full space with the usual Laplacian diffusion term and subsequently Gubinelli and Hofmanová in the context of paracontrolled analysis of > models including the parabolic three dimensional setting. Moinat and Weber proved the coercivity of the dynamic > model (the so called \Pcoming down from infinity\Q property) in the language of regularity structures and subsequently Chandra, Moinat and Weber extended this result to the full subcritical regime. In this last paper, the authors consider an SPDE where they modify the covariance of the noise instead of the diffusion term in order to be able to explore the range of regularity arbitrarily near the critical case. The problem with this approach is that the corresponding SPDE in not known to have a reflection positive invariant measure and therefore it cannot be used in the context of stochastic quantisation of Euclidean QFTs. In the context of global solution of singular SPDEs let us mention also the recent preprint of Chandra, Feltes and Weber which obtain results for the stochastic quantisation of the two-dimensional sine-Gordon in a periodic domain for a range of parameter slightly above the first threshold. The main contribution of our work is the individuation of a framework where the flow equation method is coupled to PDE estimates for the dynamics. This combination results in a powerful variation of the RG approach where we are not anymore bound to solve exactly the flow equation but we can settle for a suitable approximate solution for which the quantity <\equation> H>\\>F>|)>>-\>>|)>>,F>|)>>|)>, is small enough in an appropriate sense. The price to pay for this approximation is a term >|)>>> in the SPDE which now reads as a of two equations for the pair of scale-dependent functions |)>>>,R|)>>>|)>>> <\equation> >\|)>>>=J>>|)>>|)>>>|)>+R>|)>>|]>>>|>R>|)>>=H>|)>>|)>>>|)>+\F>|)>>|)>>>|)>>G>|)>R>|)>>,R|)>>=0.>>>>> where >|)>>> is a family of smoothing operators which realises the scale decomposition, >=J>\>> is the localised propagator of the dynamic Gaussian free field (GFF) and F>|)>>|)>|~>> denotes the functional derivative of >|)>>> at > and in the direction of |~>> (see below for precise definitions of these objects). Moreover one can prove that the term >|)>>|)>>>|)>> retains the coercive structure of its initial condition, that is, <\equation*> F>|)>>|)>>>|)>=-\|)>>>|)>+Q|)>>>|)>>>|)>, where |)>>>|)>>>|)>> is smaller than the cubic contribution provided |\|\>\1>. This together with the linearity in |)>>> of the second equation of make this system amenable to standard PDE techniques: by choosing |\|\>\1> one can control the non-coercive part |)>>>|)>>>|)>> of the effective force with the coercive part |)>>>|)>> solving the large field problem. At the same time, since |\|\>\0>, we have good estimates for |)>>>,\F|)>>>,H|)>>>> which are uniform in \0> provided the renormalisation constant >> is appropriately chosen. This allows the full control of eq. and the proof of tightness of the laws of the processes |)>>|)>>> and therefore of the family >|)>>>. \; The implementation of this plan has to deal with two main difficulties: <\enumerate-alpha> The natural setting of the analysis gives only negative regularity in space-time of the solution to the SPDE. This regularity is not enough for stochastic quantisation since we need to be able to compute the marginal of the solution at a given time. In order to do so we need to handle distributional norms defined with smoothing operators >|)>>> with limited time-regularisation, for which suitable Schauder estimates can be proven, see Lemma. These smoothing operators affect the definition of the norms for the kernels of the effective force (cfr. the Definition) and require a careful handling of the Kolmogorov-type argument of Lemma. The scale-by-scale decomposition >G>>|)>>> of the covariance of the space-time kernel for the fractional heat equation >> (cfr.) produces kernels of limited space-time decay, see Lemma. This is linked to the limited smoothness of >> away from the origin. The algebraic decay >G>>> turns into algebraic decay of the kernel of the effective force which in turns forces a careful definition of the weighted spaces for the solutions and for the kernels. Space-time localisations of various operators and kernels are needed in several places to get around this limited decay, in particular in the localisation procedure for the relevant cumulants which determine the flow of renormalisation constants of the model, see Appendix. \; The possibility of working with an approximate flow equation makes it easier to compare the RG approach advocated in this paper with regularity structures and paracontrolled distributions. There is a clear parallel among the various approaches: the flow equation constructs a random object |)>>>>, the , that encodes the effect of the noise and which is a finite polynomial build from the noise term and of the linear part of the equation. It corresponds to the, so-called in the theory of regularity structures or to the used in paracontrolled calculus, or even to the in rough path analysis. If, on the one hand, |)>>> is constructed probabilistically, on the other hand, the remainder term >> is constructed analytically out of the effective force |)>>>. This deterministic construction is analogous to the analytic machinery in regularity structures and to the paracontrolled operators in the associated calculus, or again to the sewing lemma in controlled rough path theory. When the parameter is near its critical value of =3/4> the number of terms which have to be accounted for in the approximation |)>>> of the solution of the flow equation grows in an unbounded manner. An advantage of the flow equation approach, over other methods, is that the analysis is quite insensitive to this growth in complexity of the associated probabilistic object. Indeed the analysis of the flow equation is quite compact and does not really depend strongly on the distance to the critical values of the parameters in play. This \Pefficiency\Q of the flow equation to analyse the behaviour of non-linear propagation of randomness was discovered by Polchinski in its proof of perturbative renormalisability of the Euclidean > QFT. For a modern account of this approach to perturbation theory of QFTs the reader can consult the book of Salmhofer or Kopper. As we already noted, the application of RG ideas to SPDEs is made efficient by the observation of one of the authors that the flow equations can be also used to estimate the cumulants and avoid explicit and painful inductive arguments on trees, very much like Polchinski's approach avoids the inductive arguments of BPHZ renormalisation. There is some similarities with recent ideas of Otto, Weber and collaborators of using PDE arguments to obtain systematically the probabilistic estimates for the modes in the theory of regularity structures. The flow equation approach has however the added advantage that the renormalisation conditions can be analysed in terms of setting the right boundary conditions when solving the flow equation.\ The combination of the flow equation approach with stochastic quantisation in the context of the construction of EQFT has been recently exploited by Meyer and one of the authors in to study the sine\UGordon model in the full space up to the second threshold and, by DeVecchi, Fresta and one of the authors, in, to develop a new approach to Euclidean Fermionic theories. In both papers the stochastic quantisation is obtained using a forward-backwards stochastic differential equation together with an approximate analysis of Polchinski's flow equation.\ <\render-remark|Conclusions> Despite the technical difficulties due to the analysis of the fractional heat equation, we would like to stress that the present paper is self-contained and presents all the arguments with detailed proofs. Overall, comparing it also to other (very few) results for singular SPDEs in the full subcritical regime, in a relatively compact space we have been able to deal in completeness with a problem which mixes various aspects and we believe this is the first time in the literature that this has been achieved: <\enumerate-alpha> we present complete proofs including the analytic and the probabilistic parts of the argument; the model is defined on a (semi-)discrete space; we deal with global space-time solutions in the full subcritical regime and in a extremely non-local SPDE; we derive optimal tail estimates for the solutions. We hope that this paper showcases the tradeoffs of the stochastic quantisation approach in dealing in a fully-non-perturbative way with the problems of constructing Euclidean quantum fields below the critical dimension. <\render-remark|Plan of the paper> In Section we introduce the main objects of our analysis: the scale decomposition, the space-time weighted norms which will be used to control the large fields and all the intermediate results which are needed in the proof of Theorem. The coercive estimates will be proven in Section while the approximate flow equation for the effective force will be analysed in Section via the flow equation for the cumulants. Appendix contains some technical lemmas and Schauder estimates tailored to our setting while Appendix contains the detailed definition of the various contributions to the flow equations for the cumulants and their analytic estimates. <\acknowledgments*> We would like to thank F.deVecchi and L.Fresta for discussion pertaining the analysis of flow equations. This work has been partially funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG) under Germany's Excellence Strategy - GZ 2047/1, project-id 390685813. PD acknowledges the support by the grant \<#2018\>Sonata Bis\<#2019\> 2019/34/E/ST1/00053 of the National Science Centre, Poland. This paper has been written with GNU (). In this section we shall introduce the main notations we are going to use throughout the paper. \; We let >=\\> for \0>, =\> and >\\\\>>. Denoting with >|)>> the space of rapidly decreasing functions over >>, the Fourier transform is defined, for \>|)>> as <\equation*> ,k|)>\>>e*t+ k\x|)>>*f*\t*\x,,k|)>\\>>\\\/\,\/\|)>, and extended by duality to >|)>> as usual. The inverse Fourier transform is then given by <\equation*> f=>>> ,k|)>*et+ k\x|)>>\*\k||)>>,\\>. For \0>, the (discrete, when \0>) Laplacian >> has symbol given by \>|)>>\-q>|)>> where <\equation> q>|)>\>*sin* \|)>|)>|]>, is the Fourier multiplier corresponding to the operator >|)>>. When =0> we have |)>=|\|>>.\ For > the (negative) fractional Laplacian >|)>> is defined as the Fourier multiplier with symbol \>|)>>\q>|)>> (cfr. Eq.). In particular it is self-adjoint and positive in >|)>> and for > it has the (discrete, when \0>) heat\Ukernel representation <\equation> >|)>f=C*>\>>f|)>*\\\, with the constant =|\|>>. In the continuum, the fractional Laplacian has, for >, the integral representation: <\equation> |)> f=C*P.V.>-f|>\y,x\\, where > is an universal constant. In the discrete setting a similar formula holds: <\equation> >|)> f= \*\>:y\x>K*-f|)>,x\\>, where the kernel :\>\\> is positive and such that <\equation*> |\|>\C*,x\\>, uniformly in > for some constant \0>. \; For \0>, we can encode the representation of the fractional Laplacian in Eq., via a positive measure > on >\\>> (depending on > and symmetric for the exchange z>) for which <\equation*> |f,|)>g|\>=\z*\z|)>*f*-g|)>|)>. We also define the kernel z|)>> arising from the disintegration of > as <\equation> \z|)>\z=\z*\z|)>. Note that it is a symmetric kernel, i.e. z|)>\z=\,\z|)>\z>. With these notations we have also the following Leibniz rule with a remainder <\equation> I\|)>-f*|)> g-g*|)>f=z\>-f|)>|)>*-g|)>|)>*\z|)>. Let us also define <\equation> D\I=|)>-f|]>\z|)>|]> which behaves like a derivative of order . In particular using that, for all \0> <\equation*> |)>>|)>-f|]>\z|)>\|\f|\<\|\|\>>>\,|)>>|)>-f|]>\z|)>\|f|\<\|\|\>>>\, where for \0> we define |\f|\<\|\|\>>>> to be the Lipschitz constant of . Choosing =|f|\<\|\|\>>>/|\f|\<\|\|\>>>> we have <\equation> D\|\f|\<\|\|\>>>\+|f|\<\|\|\>>>\\|\f|\<\|\|\>>>*|f|\<\|\|\>>>. <\remark> While the kernel representation of the fractional Laplacian does not hold in the continuum case =0>, the above considerations, and the results below will extend with some minor modifications in the proofs or by just taking the \0> limit in the relevant inequalities. We would like to stress that the results of the paper do not rely on these extensions to the continuum. The limit \0> in Theorem is obtained via tightness from the a-priori estimates established uniformly for \0>.\ <\remark> A basic observation is that the fractional Laplacian (whether in the continuum or on the lattice) satisfies an inequality w.r.t. application of convex functions. Let :\\\> be a convex function and > one of its sub-differentials, then, for any \0> and C>|)>> we have <\equation*> >|)>\\\*>|)>u. Indeed, note that \>>> has a positive definite kernel. Let :\\\> be a convex function, then <\equation*> \-\\\*,a,b\\, so if \\> is a continuous function we have <\equation*> \-e\>>\\\-\\>>u|)>\\*\>>u|)>. The claimed inequality follows now from Equation. It is clear that the same proof works for =0>. However, it is essential that >. We will incorporate this idea in the proof of the key Lemma, below. The operator >=\>> is defined as <\equation*> >f|)>\>e+>|)>|)>*>*f\u,t\\, and will be applied to continuous function of time with at most a limited polynomial growth in space-time. Indeed, on account of Lemma5.4 of together with the argument of Section1 of, the kernel >> of >> satisfies <\equation> G>\\ et>*min>,>|}>\ t*et>|+|)>> uniformly in \0>. If , then the above estimate is not optimal and the following bound <\equation> G>\\ t et-c /t> holds true uniformly in \0>. Let us introduce a scale decomposition of space\Utime functions parametrised by \> and where we let |\|\>\|)>> for convenience. The value =1> corresponds to allowing fluctuations at all scales while \1> only at spatial scales |\|\>> or equivalently at Fourier scales |\|\>>. <\definition> Consider a smooth and compactly supported function \\> such that <\equation*> j|)>=if|\|>\1,>>|if|\|>\2.>>>>>|\> For =0,1,2,\> denote <\equation*> j,\>|)>\j>*\*|\|\>*\|)>,\\\, and let >\j,0>> and >\j,1>>. Note that ,\>|)>j,\>|)>=j,\>|)>> for \\\>. <\definition> The family >|)>>|)>\>> of Fourier multipliers acting on distributions \>|)>> is defined as <\equation> J>|)>>f\>>> j>|\|>|)>j>>|)>*,k|)>*et+ k\x|)>>*\*\k||)>>,\\>. In addition, we introduce ,\>|)>>|)>\,\=1,2,\>> defined by Eq. with the function >> replaced by ,\>>. Moreover we let >|)>>\,1>|)>>>. In order to lighten the notation, we may leave understood the dependence on > of >|)>>> by denoting it with >>. Note that >|)>>f\f> as \1> in >|)>>. We let \> so that >\q> point-wise for \>. We observe that, on account of the above definitions, for any \\>and \>, it holds that <\equation> ,\>J>=J>,,\+1>,\>=,\>. <\remark> The operators ,\>> and >> are contractions in the class of > spaces thanks to the Young convolution inequality. This property holds true also in the setting of weighted > spaces, see for further details. In particular this is true for polynomial weights on account of Lemma. In order to prove the Schauder estimate we need to use smoothing operators with only limited regularising properties in time. It is convenient to choose these operators so that they are inverses of differential operators.\ <\definition> For ,\\ >let <\equation*> L>\|\|\>\|)>>|\|\>\|)>,K>\L>=|\|\>\|)>>|\|\>\|)>,K,\>\L>K> By the abuse of notation, we identify operators with their integral kernels. In the tightness argument we will also need a Littlewood\UPaley decomposition which acts only on the space variables: <\definition> (Spatial LP blocks) Let |^>:\\\|)>-1>> be a dyadic partition of unity for >, where |^>> is supported in a ball centred in of radius >, |^>> is supported in an annulus and |^>|)>\|^>\|)>> such that if \1>, |^>|)>\supp|^>|)>=\>. Out of this partition of unity we define Littlewood-Paley |)>-1>> blocks for >> \ as the Fourier multipliers associated with |^>>|)>>. <\definition> We define the parabolic distance to be <\equation*> \|\|>+>|\|>|)>,z\\, with |\|>> denoting the usual Euclidean distance. Similarly, we denote with |z|\>\|)>> and |>|\>\>|\|>|)>> the standard Japanese bracket w.r.t. the parabolic and the Euclidean distances, respectively. We denote by ,\,z|)>> the Steiner diameter of the set ,\,z|}>> with respect to the parabolic distance (i.e. the length of the smallest tree connecting all these points).\ <\enumerate-alpha> Let :\\\|)>-1>> be a dyadic partition of unity for > with > supported on an annulus of radius 2> for 0> and \ 1>, \ > supported in a ball of radius 1> and -1>\=1>. Fix increasing numbers |}>-1>\> such that \1> and |\|\>=2>, -1>. Let :\\\> be a radial cutoff functions of the form <\equation*> \\|z|\>,z\\. We also introduce the associated rescaled weight <\equation*> \>\||\|\>.z|\>=|\|\>|)>|)>,z\\, where .z\z,\>|)>> denotes a fractional parabolic rescaling so that |\|\>.z|\|>=|\|\>>. Define >> as (cfr. point (a) for the parameter 1>) <\equation*> \>\\>>=||\|\>.z|\>> where \> is a (small) constant which will be fixed below. <\remark> The choice of the fractional parabolic distance is dictated by the need for the weight > (and its powers) to be > in the time variable and > in the space variables to allow it to be used in testing for the a-priori estimates below, see Section. Note indeed that <\equation*> \\=-/s>\|2s|)>>, which is continuous for 1>. A similar argument holds for all the spatial derivatives.\ <\remark> These weights satisfy the following properties.\ <\enumerate-alpha> Uniformly in \>, \\>, we have\ <\equation*> >\>|)>>|>||\|\>|)>+|\|\>-z|\|>|)>|1+|\|\>|)>>|)>>>||>||\|\>-z|\|>|)>|)>=\>|)>\\|)>,>>>>> and similarly for >>: <\equation> \>\>|)>\\>|)>\\|)>. We further observe that if in particular > and =|)>>, then the above argument gives <\equation*> \>*\>|)>\||\|\>|)>|\>=|\>>|)>, where |x-x|\>> denotes the Japanese bracket w.r.t. the standard Euclidean distance and where by |\>> we denote a generic weight > with vanishing time argument, namely <\equation*> |\>\\,x\\>. A further useful property is the following: for \\> we have <\equation*> \\>\|\|\>|\|\>|)>|)>\1. Concerning the parameters > and introduced in Definition, we shall require that <\equation*> a\=\, where parameter \0> shall be fixed in Section. In particular, in our analysis we shall always be interested in very small value of and 1>. <\remark> We shall use the fact that if \\>, where > is as in Definition below, then >J>=J>>. This is a consequence of the very definition of >>, > and of the fact that, as \\>,\ <\equation*> 2*\*|\|\>\2*\*|\|\>=2-1|)> \-1|)>=\*|\|\>, yielding >|)>*j>|)>=j>|)>> for any \\>. <\lemma> For any \|)>> and \>, \\\\1,> <\equation*> |\>>K>*f|\<\|\|\>>\|\>>K>*f|\<\|\|\>>,|\>>>f|\<\|\|\>>\|\>>K>f|\<\|\|\>>, both with uniform constants and the norm is the >> one. <\proof> Note that we have >=K> L>K>=L>K> K>=K,\>K>>. Consequently, by Lemma and the weighted Young inequality we obtain <\equation*> |\>>K>f|\<\|\|\>>\|\>>K,\>|\<\|\|\>>>|)>> |\>>K>f|\<\|\|\>>\|\>>K>f|\<\|\|\>>, with uniform constants. For the second inequality note that <\equation*> |\>>>f|\<\|\|\>>=|\>>L>>K>f|\<\|\|\>>\|\>>K>f|\<\|\|\>>, and that >>> is a bounded operator in >> weighted by >> uniformly in \> In this section we lay out the main steps in the proof of Theorem, starting from the effective equation at (fractional, parabolic) space\Utime scale |\|\>\1-\>, \> obtained via a scale decomposition and the introduction of the notion of approximate effective force.\ For technical reasons due to the estimates for >>> below (see Lemma) we will restrict the range of all the scale parameters like > to >.\ Let |)>>> be a stationary solution to the infinite system of SDEs and define the scale-dependent field >>\J>\|)>>> localised at (fractional, parabolic) space-time scales |\|\>>. \ It is a solution to <\equation*> \>\>>=J>>|)>>|)>|)>,\\, where <\equation*> F>|)>\-\*|)>-r>*\+\|)>>. Let \C>|)>> be the space of continuous functions on >> with at most polynomial growth at infinity w.r.t. the space-time fractional norm. Consider a family >>:\\\>|)>|)>\>> of functionals, differentiable in \> and such that >=F>>. Using that |)>>=\>> we have <\equation*> F>|)>>|)>=F>>|)>=F>>>>|)>+R>>, for all \>, where <\equation*> R>>\>>F>>>>|)>+\F>>>>|)>>\>>|)>|]>\\, and where F>|)>\> denotes the Fréchet derivative of >> in the direction of \\> at the point \\>. Since we also have <\equation*> \>\>>=>>>|)>>|)>|)>=>>>>>>|)>+R>>|)>, with >>\\>>>> and >>\\>J>>, we deduce that the pair >>,R>>|)>\>> satisfies the system of equations <\equation> >\>>=J>>>>>|)>+R>>|)>>>|>>=>H>>>>|)>\\+>F>>>>|)>*>>*R>>|]>\\,>>>>> where <\equation*> H>>|)>\\>F>>|)>+\F>>|)>*>>*F>>|)>, for any choice of >>|)>\>>. Our main goal will be that of showing that this system allows for good a-priori estimates for a well chosen trajectory >>|)>\>>.\ <\remark> Apart from Section, in the rest of the paper we keep \0> fixed. The analysis which follows is, however, insensitive to the fact that the spatial domain is discrete or continuous. The main differences lie in the explicit form of the Fourier multiplier operators >|)>>> and >>|)>>> together with the different action of the discrete fractional Laplacian >|)>> with respect to its continuous counterpart |)>>. The qualitative behaviour of these objects will be the same and all the estimates we obtain will involve constants which are uniform in the lattice spacing > unless stated otherwise. In order to lighten the exposition we will suppress the explicit dependence of the domain >> on the lattice spacing > and writing > for either \\> or >> with \0>. Similarly we write |)>> for either the discrete or the continuous fractional Laplacian. Introduce weighted norms for \\|)>> and C,L>|)>|)>> as <\equation> |\|\>=|\|\>|\>>\sup\|\>>|\|\>>|\>*J>\|\<\|\|\>>>>, <\equation> |f|\>=|f|\>|\>>\sup\|\>> |\|\>>*|\>*f>|\<\|\|\>>>>. Here |\>\> is a (possibly random) parameter which will be tuned later on depending on the size of the noise. The parameter > is fixed and it will be chosen later on (cfr.Eq.). These \Ptriple norms\Q have a particular behaviour wrt. the weight, in particular the following lemma shows that a change of weight gives equivalent norms. <\lemma> For \,1|]>> the following bounds <\equation> ,\:\\\\|\>>|\|\>>|\>/3>\>|\<\|\|\>>|]>\|\|\>|\>>\,\:\\\\|\>>|\|\>>|\>/3>\>|\<\|\|\>>|]>, \; <\equation> ,\:\\\\|\>>|\|\>>|\>>\\>|\<\|\|\>>|]>\|\\\\>|\>,|\>>\,\:\\\\|\>>|\|\>>|\>>\\>|\<\|\|\>>|]>, hold uniformly in |\>\> and \\|)>>, where >\>>\> for \>. <\proof> The second inequality in is a direct consequence of the fact that >\\>/3>>. Let us prove the first inequality. We start by observing that, on account of the support properties of |}>>, we can decompose the supremum as <\equation*> |\>/3>\>|\<\|\|\>>\sup|\>/3>+\+\|)>\>|\<\|\|\>>\sup|\>/3>\\>|\<\|\|\>>. Let us consider separately the cases \\> and \\>. In the first case, thanks to |\>/3>\ \>|\<\|\|\>>\1>, we have <\equation*> sup\\\>|\|\>>*|\>/3>\\>|\<\|\|\>>\sup\\\>|\|\>>|\>/3>\ \>|\<\|\|\>>*|\>\>|\<\|\|\>>\|\|\>>sup\\\> |\>\>|\<\|\|\>>\|\|\>> |\>\>|\<\|\|\>>\|\|\>. While for \\>, using that <\equation*> |\>/3>\ \>|\<\|\|\>>\|\|\>|\|\>|)>/3>\|\|\>/3>*|\|\>a/3>, and, on account of Remark, that\ <\equation*> |\>\>|\<\|\|\>>=|\>J>\>|\<\|\|\>>\|\>J>|\<\|\|\>>>|)>> |\>\>|\<\|\|\>>\|\>\>|\<\|\|\>>, we can deduce the analogous bound <\eqnarray*> \\>|\|\>>*|\>/3>\\>|\<\|\|\>>>|>|\\\>|\|\>>*|\>/3>\ \>|\<\|\|\>>*|\>\>|\<\|\|\>>>>||>||\|\>>|\|\>/3>\\\>|\|\>a/3>|\|\>>|]>*\\\>|\|\>>|\> \>|\<\|\|\>>|]>>>||>||\|\>a/3>|\|\>/3> \|\>>|\|\>>|\>\>|\<\|\|\>>|]>>>||>||\|\>,>>>> where we used a/3\\a=\> and \\.> This proves the first inequality in. The inequalities are proved similarly. The two norms |\|\>,|f|\>> fix the analytical setting for the global analysis of the SPDE. In Section we will prove the following coercive estimates for fractional parabolic equation with cubic non-linearity which allows us to control the large values of the fields. <\theorem> (Coercive estimate) For \\|)>> and \> define <\equation*> f>\\\>+|)>\>+m\>+\*\>. Then the following bound <\equation*> |\|\>|\>>\ \*||\>|\>>+\*|f|\>|\>>, holds uniformly in \>|)>>, |\>\ > and \|)>>. <\proof> We want to apply the a-priori estimates in Theorem below, to >>, =|~>=\>>. The constants in the theorem can be bounded as <\equation*> A=||)> \|\<\|\|\>>+*|\\|)>|\<\|\|\>>\|\|\>, and <\equation*> B=|\u|\<\|\|\>>*|\\|)>|\<\|\|\>>+|\*u|)>\|\<\|\|\>>+||~>*u|\<\|\|\>>**|\D|~>|)>D|)>|\<\|\|\>>+|\|~>D|)>D|~>u|)>|\<\|\|\>> <\equation*> \Q>|\>*\>|\<\|\|\>>+Q>|D>*\>|)>|\<\|\|\>>, where <\equation*> Q>\|\\>|\<\|\|\>>+||)>\>|\<\|\|\>>+|D>|)>|\<\|\|\>>+|\>D>|)>|\<\|\|\>>\|\|\>, where for |D>|)>|\<\|\|\>>> we used Equation while for |\>D>|)>|\<\|\|\>>> we used Lemma. Using the bound we obtain <\equation> |D>*\>|)>|\<\|\|\>>\|\>*\>|)>|\<\|\|\>> |\>*\>|\<\|\|\>>. Next, we note that <\equation*> |\>*\>|)>|\<\|\|\>>\|\>*|)>\>|\<\|\|\>>+|\>*\>|)>|\<\|\|\>>. Using the fact that \>|\|>\\>> and >=,1>\>> as well as |\*\,1>|\<\|\|\>>>\|\|\>> we arrive at <\equation*> |\\>*\>|\<\|\|\>>\|\>*\>|\<\|\|\>>+|\>*,1>|)>\>|\<\|\|\>>\|\>*\>|\<\|\|\>>+|\|\>|\>*\>|\<\|\|\>>\|\|\>|\>*\>|\<\|\|\>>. Together with, this proves\ <\equation*> |D>*\>|)>|\<\|\|\>>\|\|\>*|\>*\>|\<\|\|\>>, for all \|\>>. Therefore <\equation*> B\|\|\>+|\|\>|\|\>|)>|\>\>|\<\|\|\>>\|\|\> |\>\>|\<\|\|\>>. By Theorem and Young's inequality, <\equation*> |\>\>|\<\|\|\>>>|>|C |\|\>+\|\> f>|\<\|\|\>>+C|\|\>|\>\>|\<\|\|\>>|]>>>||>|C |\|\>+\|\> f>|\<\|\|\>>+C \|\|\>/3>|\>\>|\<\|\|\>>>>||>|C |\|\>+\|\> f>|\<\|\|\>>+C\|\|\>/2>+|\>\>|\<\|\|\>>,>>>>> giving the bound <\equation*> |\>\>|\<\|\|\>>\\|\|\>/2> +\|\>f>|\<\|\|\>>. We deduce that <\equation*> |\|\>|\>>=sup\|\>> |\|\>>|\>\>|\<\|\|\>>\sup\|\>> |\|\>+/2>\ +\ sup\|\>> |\|\>> |\> f>|\<\|\|\>>. so provided +/2\\\0>, which follows from 1>, we conclude our claim. The previous coercive estimate allows to prove a-priori bounds for any solution to the system, in the form stated in the next theorem. <\theorem> Let ,R|)>> be a solution of the equation <\equation> \>=J>>>|)>+R>|)>>>|>=>H>>|)>\\+>F>>|)>>>R>|]>\\,>>>>> where <\equation*> H>|)>\\>F>|)>+\F>|)>*>>*F>|)>. Suppose that there exist constants \1>, \0>, |\>\,1|)>> such that\ <\equation*> \\\\|)>,|)> |\>/|\>|)>\\/4, and >|)>>> satisfies the following estimates <\equation> |||\>>F>>|)>-*\>|)>|]>|\<\|\|\>>>>>|>||\|\>+\>*|C*|\|\>|\>>|)>+|\|\>|\>>|)>*|\\>|\>|\>>|>,>>||\>*K>H>>|)>|\<\|\|\>>>>>|>|*|\|\>-1>*|\|\>|\>>|)>,>>||\|\>>>K>F>>|)>|\<\|\|\>>>>>|>|*|\|\>>|\|\>|\>>|)>,>>||\>*K>DF>>|)>>>*|^>|\<\|\|\>>>>>|>|*|\|\>-1>*|\|\>|\>>|)>*|\|\>>>>|^>|\<\|\|\>>>>,>>>>> for all |\>\,\\|\>,1|)>,\\,1|)>> and ,|^>\\|)>>, where we denote >\J>\> and \>|)>>\\\>>.\ Then there exists a universal constant \0> such that for all |\>\> satisfying <\equation> ||\>|\>>\*++1|)>C|)>, we have <\equation*> |\|\>|\>>\1,|\\>|\>|\>>\\||\>|\>/2>,|K>R>|\>|\>>\\||\>|\>/2>. <\proof> Define <\equation> \=\|\>>\1+|\|\>|\>>+\>*|\\>|\>|\>>+\*|K>R>|\>|\>>, for constants >,\\0> which will be fixed later on. We aim to estimate all the quantities in the r.h.s. with an increasing function of > itself and then run a continuity argument to conclude the uniform bounds in the claim. For the moment omit the index |\>\> since our estimates holds uniformly. <\with|color|black> Let >=C|\|\>|)>>. We first prove a bound for |K>R>|\>>. To this end, we use Lemma below, which shows that we can control |\>K>R>|\<\|\|\>>> in terms of |\>|\>>>R>|\<\|\|\>>>. Note that <\equation*> >R>=>\-F>>|)>|)>. Since |\>\,1|)>> and \|)>> by Lemma we have <\equation*> |\>|\>>>\\|\<\|\|\>>=|\>|\>>>|)>>\|\<\|\|\>>\|\\>|\<\|\|\>>>|\>|\>>>\|\<\|\|\>>\|\|\> |\|\>>|\|\>\C>||\>|\>>|\|\>|)>>. Since \|)>> by Lemma and the estimates we have <\equation*> |\>|\>>>F>>|)>|\<\|\|\>>\|\>|\>>K>F>>|)>|\<\|\|\>>\C>|\|\>>\C>||\>|\>>|\|\>|)>>. Overall <\equation> sup,\\|\\\\|\>>|\|\>|)>>|\>|\>>>R>|\<\|\|\>>\C>||\>|\>>. Using and Lemma we have also <\equation*> sup,\\|\\\\|\>>|\>K>>H>>|)>\\|\<\|\|\>>\ |\>>|\> K>H>>|)>|\<\|\|\>> \\\C>||\>|\>>. Lemma then gives <\equation*> sup,\\|\\\\|\>>|\> K>R>|\<\|\|\>>\exp>||\>|\>/2>|)>, modulo eventually changing the constant . \ That is <\equation> |K>R>|\>\||\>|\>>exp||\>|\>/2>|\|\>|)>|)>\||\>|\>>exp||\>|\>/2>\|)>. The control of |\\>|\>> is obtained from <\equation*> |\\>+\\>|\>>|>||>F>>|)>+\\>|)>|\>+|J>R>|\>>>||>|||\>|\>>C|\|\>|)>*+||\>|\>>|\|\>|)>*|\\>|\>+|K>R>|\>.>>>>> using in particular Lemma to bound the contribution from . From this it follows <\equation> |\\>+\\>|\>\||\>|\>>C+\>||\>|\>>+\|)>\, and <\equation> |\\>|\>\|\\>|\>+|\\>+\\>|\>\+||\>|\>>C*+\>||\>|\>>+\|)>\, by triangular inequality and\ <\equation*> |\\>|\>=\*sup\|\>>|\|\>>*|\>*\>|\<\|\|\>>\\*\|\>>|\|\>>*|\>*\>|\<\|\|\>>|]>=\*|\|\>|\>>. Next, the a-priori estimates of Theorem and Eq. give <\equation> |\|\>>|>|*||\>|\>/2>+\*||\\>+\\>|\>|>>>||>|*||\>|\>/2>+\||\>|\>>C*+\>||\>|\>>+\|)>\*.>>>>> GatheringEq., and to estimate > we have <\equation> \|\>>\1+C |\|\>|)>+\|\>|)>\|\>>+\|\>|)> \|\>>+\|\>|)>exp|\>|)>\|\>>|)>|>, where <\equation*> |\>|)>>|>|*||\>|\>/2>+\||\>|\>>C*+\>||\>|\>>+\|)>>>|||>+||\>|\>>C*+\>||\>|\>>+\|)>+\||\>|\>>+C||\>|\>/2>.>>>>> Now choose <\equation> \=||\>|\>/2>\,\>=||\>|\>/2>\, then <\equation*> \|\>|)>\||\>|\>/2>*||\>|\>-\|)>/2>++1|)>C*+5*+\||\>|\>-\/2>|)>\C||\>|\>/2>++1|)>C|)>. Fix >\0> small enough such that <\equation> C>+\>4+\> 4+\>*exp> 4|)>|]>\1, and define |\>>\> as the (unique) solution to\ <\equation*> C|\>|\>/2>++1|)>C|)>=\>. Then whenever |\>\|\>>,1|)>> we have |\>|)>\\>> and as a consequence of and, <\equation*> \|\>>\4\\|\>>\2. Define the set <\equation*> A\|\>\|\>>,1|)>:\|\>>\4|}>\|\>>,1|)>. Note that \> since for |\>\1> we have |\>>\1>. We want to prove that |\>>,1|)>>. It will be enough to show that is both closed and open in |\>>,1|)>>. Let us prove that it is open. If |\>\A> and |\>\|\>>> then |\>>\2> and by continuity there exists \0> such that |\>-\>\4> and |\>-\\|\>>> so |\>-\\A>. Moreover it is also closed, since if |\>\|\>\|\>>> with |\>\A> for all 1>, then again by continuity |\>>\2> and therefore |\>>=lim\>\|\>>\2>, so |\>\A>. We conclude that |\>>,1|)>> and therefore that |\>>>\2>. This implies that for |\>=|\>>> we have, using Eq., <\equation*> |\|\>|\>>\1,|\\>|\>|\>>\\||\>|\>/2>,*|K>R>|\>|\>>\\||\>|\>/2>, with <\equation> ||\>|\>=|\>C++1|)>C|)>|>>\|1+\++1|)>C|>>, uniformly in > and \0>. In order to apply the previous theorem to the analysis of Equation we need suitable approximate solutions of the flow equation for the effective force >>|)>>> <\equation> \>F>>+\F>>*>>F>>=0, for \> with final condition\ <\equation> F>|)>=-\*|)>-r>*\+\|)>>. Section- will be devoted to construct an appropriate effective force >|)>>> as expressed in the following Theorem. <\theorem> There exists a choice of >|)>>> for which the random scale-dependent functional >>|)>\>> with boundary condition satisfies the estimates where =|F,\>|\<\|\|\>>> is a finite random constant such that <\equation*> sup\0> \||2>|F,\>||2>>|>\1, for any (not uniformly). We complete this section with the proof of the following auxiliary lemma, used in Theorem. <\lemma> Consider the linear equation <\equation> R>=\>+>F>>|)>>>R>|]>\\,\\|\>. Suppose that there exist constants ,\\0>, |\>\,1|)>> such that\ <\equation*> |)> |\>/|\>|)>\\/4 and >|)>>> satisfies the following estimates <\equation> ||\>*K>DF>>|)>>>*|^>|\<\|\|\>>>>>|>|*|\|\>-1>*|\|\>|\>>|)>*|\|\>>>>|^>|\<\|\|\>>>>,>>>>> for all |\>\,\\|\>,1|)>,\\,1|)>> and ,|^>\\|)>>, where we denote >\J>\>. Then we have <\equation*> |\> K>R>|\<\|\|\>>\ exp>||\>|\>/2>|)>\\> |\> K>\>|\<\|\|\>>+sup\\>|\|\>|)>>|\>|\>>>R>|\<\|\|\>>|]>,\\\\|\>, for some universal constant , where >=C**|\|\>|)>>. <\proof> Start by observing that, by interpolation, for any \> and \\>, and by Young's inequality <\equation*> |\|\>|)>>|\>+|\>|)>>>R>|\<\|\|\>>\|\|\>|)>>|\>>R>|\<\|\|\>>>*|\>|\>>>R>|\<\|\|\>>>\|\>>R>|\<\|\|\>>+|\|\>>|\>|\>>>R>|\<\|\|\>>. Now take =|\>|)>/|\>|)>> so that +|\>|)>=1-|\>> and =|\>/|\>|)>>, to conclude <\equation> |\|\>|\>/|\>|)>>|\>|\>>>R>|\<\|\|\>>\|\>>R>|\<\|\|\>>+|\|\>>|\>|\>>>R>|\<\|\|\>>. Then, from Eq., we have <\equation*> |\>K>\F>>|)>>>R>|\<\|\|\>>\|\|\>-1>C>|\|\>>>>R>|\<\|\|\>>, and by with =2|)>>, and Lemma, we have <\equation> |\>K>\F>>|)>>>R>|\<\|\|\>>\C>|\|\>-1>|\|\>|)>|\>/|\>|)>>|\>K>R>|\<\|\|\>>+|\|\>|)>>|\>|\>>>R>|\<\|\|\>>|)>. At this point, to deduce the claim, we can apply Gronwall to <\equation*> |\>K>R>|\<\|\|\>>\|\>K>\>|\<\|\|\>>+C C>>|\|\>-1-2|)>|\>/|\>|)>> |\>K>R>|\<\|\|\>>+|\|\>|)>>|\>|\>>>R>|\<\|\|\>>|)>\\, which follows from and. In order to pass to the limit as \0> we want to embed all the random fields |)>>> in the same space by extending them from >> to >. Let <\equation> \|]>>\>>> \*|)>*|^>|)>>,k|)>*et+ k\x|)>>\*\k||)>>,\\, where :\\\> is a smooth bump function such that =1> and |)>=0> for |\|>\1>. The random fields |]>>> all live now in the continuum domain > for any \0>. In order to obtain information about the EQFT we need to evaluate the marginal at a fixed time of the solution of the SPDE, this is a-priori not possible with only control of space-time distributional norms like |\|\>>. The required regularity can be recovered observing that, by Lemma, using \\|\>>>, we have the following Schauder estimate tailored to our norms: <\equation*> sup*2>|\\\|\<\|\|\>>>>\sup*2>|\|\>>\\|\<\|\|\>>>>\||\>|\>>||\|\>|\>>+|K>\\|\>|\>>|>. Moreover, recalling that \=F>>|)>+R>>, we have, fromTheorem <\equation> |K>\\|\>|\>>\|K>F>>|)>|\>|\>>+|K>R>|\>|\>>\C |\|\>|\>>|)>+\||\>|\>/2>\C for ||\>|\>>> of order >. Then, we get <\equation> sup*2>|\\\|\<\|\|\>>>>\||\>|\>>|)>\|)>/\+1>. So we obtained that >> can be controlled in a space of continuous functions of time with values in a weighted spatial Besov space of (negative) regularity >. Together with Theorem this allows us to estimate the moments (now tracking explicitly the dependence on >): <\equation> sup\0> \ 2i>*|\*\\|)>>|\<\|\|\>>|)>|]>\,N>sup\0> \||1+|F,\>|\<\|\|\>>|>N/\+N>|>\\, for all \>. The Besov norms behave well through the embedding |)>>\\|]>>>, indeed <\eqnarray*> |\\\|]>>|\<\|\|\>>>|)>>>||\>|\|)>>\>\\|)>>|)>|)>|\<\|\|\>>>|)>>>>||>|\>||\>\>|)>|)>|\<\|\|\>>>|)>> |\\\|)>>|\<\|\|\>>>>|)>>>>||>||\\\|)>>|\<\|\|\>>>>|)>>,>>>> where we used the fact that <\equation*> \|]>>=>\>\|)>>|)>|)>,\>\>\*|)>ex>k||)>>. Therefore the bound translates into the tightness of the family |]>>|)>\0>> in |)>> for any fixed \>. The proof of reflection positivity and translation invariance of every accumulation point follows as in . We have then proved part of Theorem. In order to complete the proof of Theorem it remains to establish the integrability property of the measures >> uniformly in > and obtain the bound for any limit points. We look to estimate quantities of the form <\equation*> Z,\>\exp|\*|h*Q>\|\<\|\|\>>>|>\>\|)>, where \0>, >\>|)>|)>> is a regularising kernel and =|)>> is a polynomially decaying weight in the space variable alone. The specific value of and will be chosen in Lemma below: in particular we shall require them to be large enough.\ The main tool for this task is the Hairer\USteele argument which gives optimal estimates (as far as growth of the function is concerned). Formally, the argument runs as follows: define a new probability measure <\equation> \,\>\|)>\|\*|h*Q>\|\<\|\|\>>>|>\>\|)>|Z,\>>. Observe that Jensen's inequality gives <\equation*> 1=\>\|)>=Z,\>exp|-\*|h*Q>\|\<\|\|\>>>|>\,\>\|)>\Z,\>*exp|h*Q>\|\<\|\|\>>>\,\>\|)>|]>, and conclude that <\equation> logexp|\*|h*Q>\|\<\|\|\>>>|>\>\|)>=log Z,\>\\|h*Q>\|\<\|\|\>>>\,\>\|)>. The task of controlling the size of ,\>> is reduced via to that of estimating some polynomial moments of > under the tilted measure ,\>>. By stochastic quantisation this tilted measure can be identified with the marginal of a stationary solution to the SPDE <\equation> +m+>|)>|]>\|)>>+\|)>>|)>-r> \|)>>=O|)>>|)>+\|)>>, where the additional perturbation |)>> is given by <\equation*> O|)>=-\|\\>|2>|h*Q>\||2>>>=-2\|2>|h*Q>\||2>>>>h*Q>\|)>. Estimates for this new equation uniform in \0> come from the flow equation argument that we developed so far, as we will show below. For the moment, let's pause to consider how to make rigorous this line of reasoning. The main difficulty is that it makes reference to the implicit measure >> obtained as an accumulation point of finite volume (and discrete) approximations ,M>> on ,M>> as \>. If one starts from ,M>> then there is no problem to construct an exponential tilting ,M,\>> analogous to. That this measure makes sense for small > can be established easily using the coercivity of the quartic polynomial. Moreover the measure can be periodically extended on all >>. For any > small enough, the stochastic quantisation equation on the whole >> will have then ,M,\>> as invariant measure by standard finite-dimensional SDE arguments and a-priori estimates in weighted spaces can be established e.g. via energy inequalities in weighted > spaces. These estimates will not be uniform in > but will be uniform in and > (small) and allow to establish tightness of the for the family ,M,\>|)>> for any > small. A finite volume version of the above Hairer\USteele argument gives that the bound holds for the finite volume measures uniformly in . By a diagonal argument one can extract a subsequence |)>> such that ,M,0>\\>> and ,M,\>\\,\>> such that Eq. is satisfied (thanks to weak convergence and the uniform bounds) and such that the measures >,\,\>> are invariant measures for some solutions of the corresponding infinite volume SPDEs. In particular ,\>> will be the fixed time marginal of a solution to. At this point, repeating the arguments at the beginning of this section, we have the new system <\equation*> \>\>|)>>=J>>>|)>>|)>+R|)>,O>>|)>, <\equation> R>|)>,O>=>\F>|)>>>|)>>|)>>>*>|)>,O>|)>\\+>H>|)>>>|)>>|)>\\+O|)>>|)>. From now on, let us drop the index |)>> from these quantities, unless said otherwise all our estimates are uniform in \0>. In order to estimate this equation we need a control of |\>O|)>|\<\|\|\>>>. Unfortunately, due to the growth in time of the fields we can only hope to have a bound of the form |\>O|)>|\<\|\|\>>\|\|\>>> and we need to pay some attention in the use of the spatial weights in order to integrate the quantity >>|)>>>O|)>> in Eq. as \1>. This is the reason why in Lemma we have used a spatial weight at a different scale. Applying it to > with =\> we obtain <\equation*> |\|\>>|\>*K>R>|\<\|\|\>>\ exp>||\>|\>/2>|)>\\> |\|\>>|\> K>\>|\<\|\|\>>+||\>|\>> sup\\>|\|\>|)>>|\>|\>>>R>|\<\|\|\>>|]>, with <\equation*> \>=O|)>+>H>>|)>\\. The term with >> can be estimated as previously from Eq., while for |)>>, the boundedness of >> and Lemma give, for \|\>>, <\equation*> sup\\> |\> K>\>|\<\|\|\>>\C\||\>|\>>+\*|\|\>>||\|\>+|K>\\|\>>|>. We also observe that we still have, cf. , <\equation*> sup\\>|\|\>|)>>|\>|\>>>R>|\<\|\|\>>\||\>|\>>C\. Therefore <\equation*> |K>R>|\>>\exp>||\>|\>/2>|)>|C\||\>|\>+\>+\*||\|\>+|K>\\|\>>|>|>. We need a good bound for |K>\\|\>>> in terms of > (replacing with >), observe that using and the definition of >, <\equation*> |K>\\|\>>\|K>F>|)>|\>>+|K>R>|\>>\\\+||\>|\>>C\+|K>R>|\>>\\\+||\>|\>>C\+\*\. Therefore, for \>, (with possibly different ) <\equation> |K>R>|\>>>|>|\||\>|\>/2>|)>|C\||\>|\>+\>+\|)>\+||\>|\>>C\|)>+\ \*\|>>>||>|\||\>|\>/2>|)>|||\>|\>/2>+\|)>+\ \*|>\.>>>>> Now gathering Eq., and we have <\equation> \|\>>\1+C |\|\>|)>+\|\>|)>\|\>>+\|\>|)> \|\>>+\|\>|)>\|\>>*exp|\>|)>\|\>>|)>|>, where <\equation*> |\>|)>>|>|*||\>|\>/2>+\||\>|\>>C*+\>||\>|\>>+\|)>+\>+||\>|\>>C*+\>||\>|\>>+\|)>>>||||||\>|\>/2>+\|)>+\*\|>+C||\>|\>/2>.>>>>> Fix >\0> so that <\equation*> C |\>+\>4+\> 4+\>4*exp>4|)>|>\3. And observe that choosing <\equation> \=\\,\>=||\>|\>/2>\, we have, for \>, <\equation*> \|\>|)>\||\>|\>/2>|)>+|)>C*+\\|]>+\|)>+\|]>. So we can choose \\>=\>|)>> such that <\equation*> \>|)>+\|]>=\>/2, and then |\>>=|\>>,\>,C|)>> such that <\equation*> ||\>>|\>/2>|)>+|)>C*+\\|]>=\>/2. Then for \\>> and |\>\|\>>> we have |\>>|)>\\>> and the continuity argument can be run as in Theorem together with the estimates that follows. We conclude that |\>>>\2>. This implies that for |\>=|\>>> and \\>> we have, using Eq., <\equation*> |\|\>|\>>\1,|\\>|\>|\>>\\||\>|\>/2>,|K>R>|\>|\>>\\\, with <\equation*> ||\>|\>=|2 \>||)>+|)>C*+\\|>|>>\||)>C+\\|>>, uniformly in =|F,\>|\<\|\|\>>> and \0>. In this case we also have, from Lemma, <\equation*> \> |\|h*Q>\|)>>|\<\|\|\>>>|>\||\>|\>>||\|\>+|K>\\|\>>|>>|>|||\>|\>>|\+\\+||\>|\>>C\+\*\|>>>||>|||\>|\>>|1+\|>\>|F,\>|\<\|\|\>>/\>.>>>>> As a consequence of Theorem we have also <\equation*> sup\0> \||h*Q>\|)>>|\<\|\|\>>>|)>>|>\sup\0> \||F,\>|\<\|\|\>>n/\>|>\\, for any large and fixed \>. From this we derive easily that any accumulation point > of the sequence >> satisfies Eq. provided \0> is small enough. This proves both the exponential integrability required for the Osterwalder\USchrader reconstruction theorem and also proves that the measure is non-Gaussian, since Gaussian measures cannot integrate functions growing so fast, completing the proof of Theorem. <\remark> The choice of the norm to verify the exponential integrability is quite arbitrary. Since we need to determine an SPDE for it we want a differentiable norm. In general we could replace the > norm by any > norm, as long as is finite and similarly use different space weight and smoothing operator >>, as long as they remain compatible with our Schauder estimates. <\lemma> Provided \> and |h*\>|)>|\<\|\|\>>>|)>>\1> (e.g. take >), it holds <\equation*> |\>O|)>|\<\|\|\>>\*\*|\|\>>||\|\>+|K>\\|\>>|>, and <\equation*> sup\> |\ |h*Q>\|\<\|\|\>>>|>\||\>|\>>||\|\>+|K>\\|\>>|>. <\proof> Start by observing that <\equation*> |\>O|)>|\<\|\|\>>\2*|\|>*|3>|t\\>|)>|h*Q>\|)>|\<\|\|\>>|)>>>h*Q>\|)>|)>||3>> <\equation*> =2*|\|>*|3>|t\\>|)>\>|)>|h*\>|)>*\>|)>Q>\|)>|\<\|\|\>>|)>>>*Q>h*Q>\|)>|)>||3>> <\equation*> \2*|\|>*|3>|t\\>|)>\>|)>|h*\>|)>|\<\|\|\>>>|)>>||3>>*|\>*Q>\|\<\|\|\>>*|\>*Q>h*Q>\|\<\|\|\>>. From the spatial decay of and exploiting the inequality <\equation*> \>\\>\>, (which is a consequence of the property >|)>\\>|)>\>|)>> of the weight >>), we have <\equation> |h*\>|)>|\<\|\|\>>|)>>\\>|h*\>|)>|\<\|\|\>>>|)>>\\>, so, recalling that >\\>> for any \> as well as the localising properties of >> as per Remark, <\equation*> |t\\>|)>*\>|)>*\>|\<\|\|\>>\1, and since both >,h> are nice weights and since \0> we have, by Lemma, <\equation*> |\>*Q>h*Q>\|\<\|\|\>>\|\>*Q>\|\<\|\|\>>\2|\>*\*\|\<\|\|\>>\|\|\>>*||\|\>+||\>|\>>|K>\\|\>>|>, for \|\>>. Therefore <\equation*> |\>O|)>|\<\|\|\>>\*|\|>*|\|\>>*||\|\>+|K>\\|\>>|>. Similarly, using <\equation*> sup\> |\|h*\|)>|\<\|\|\>>>|>\|h*\|)>|\<\|\|\>>>\1, and <\equation*> |\*Q>\|\<\|\|\>>\|\|\>>*Q>\|\<\|\|\>>\2|\*\*\|\<\|\|\>>\||\>|\>>*||\|\>+||\>|\>>|K>\\|\>>|>, we have \; <\equation*> \> |\ |h*Q>\|\<\|\|\>>>|>>|>|\> |\|h*\|)>|\<\|\|\>>>|>*|\*Q>\|\<\|\|\>>>>||>|||\>|\>>*||\|\>+|K>\\|\>>|>,>>>>> as claimed. In this last subsection we discuss the modifications to implement in order to extend our results to the vector model where the field |)>>> takes values in the Euclidean space > with some 1>. We denote with |)>,a>|)>,n>> the components of the field in the canonical basis. The dynamics reads <\equation> \>\|)>,a>+\*|)>>|\|>*\|)>,a>-r>*\|)>,a>=\|)>,a>,a=1,\,n, on >> and where |)>>> is a vector-valued, space-time white noise on >> such that <\equation> \|)>\a>*\|)>,b>|]>=\*\*\,,\\>,a,b=1,\,n. The main difference is that we need the vector-valued version of the a-priori estimates in Theorem below. The rest of the analysis does not depend much on the scalar nature of the equation, until the classification of the relevant cumulants in Section. There one need to use the > symmetry of the noise to conclude that also the flow cumulants are symmetric and therefore the only contribution to the first order kernel is diagonal in vector indexes and can be reabsorbed in a redefinition of the renormalisation constant > >. This section is devoted to prove weighted bounds for classical solutions to a fractional parabolic equation with a cubic coercive term. To our knowledge this result is new, even if the proof follows closely the proof in the case of the Laplacian, see e.g.. Moreover we give directly a version of the estimates which applies to a vector-valued equation, since there is no additional complication in doing so.\ <\theorem> Let be a classical solution of the vectorial fractional parabolic equation <\equation> \u+|)>u+m*u+\**u=f,a=1,\,n. where \0> and =|)>>. Then, for any weights ,|~>>, which are C> and such that <\equation*> A\||)>\|\<\|\|\>>+**|\\|)>|\<\|\|\>>|]>, and <\equation*> B\*|\u|\<\|\|\>>*|\\|)>|\<\|\|\>>+|\*u|)>\|\<\|\|\>>+||~>*u|\<\|\|\>>**|\D|~>|)>D|)>|\<\|\|\>>+|\|~>D|)>D|~>u|)>|\<\|\|\>>|]>, are finite constant, it holds that <\equation> |\u|\<\|\|\>>\\A+\|\f|\<\|\|\>>+B|]>, <\proof> We can assume that |\f|\<\|\|\>>+A+B\\>, otherwise there is nothing to prove. Let \u>, |)>=\|)>\-L|)>> and |)>=\|)>\\\L>>. Note that *\|)>=\|)>> and -\\\>. Consider Equation and test it against |)>\|)>v\> and sum over the repeated index ,n>, to get <\equation*> *\|)>|)>**f\v|)>=*\|)>|)>**v\\u+\*v*|)>u+m*\*+\*|)>|]>. Using Lemma below we have <\equation*> |*\|)>|)>*v,\|)>u|\>\-|D|)>|\<\|\|\>>\|)>+ <\equation*> -|\*u|)>\|\<\|\|\>>+||~>*u|\<\|\|\>>**|\D|~>|)>D|)>|\<\|\|\>>+|\|~>D|)>D|~>u|)>|\<\|\|\>>|]>\|)>. Actually, Lemma is stated for compactly supported functions but an approximation argument allows to apply it to the solution of . For the time derivative we observe that <\equation*> **\|)>|)>*\*v\\u=**\|)>|)>*\-*\\|)>*|]>. Then, leaving implicit the space variable, by the convexity of > we have <\equation> >\|)>|\|>|)>\\|\|>\t\x>||0> >\*\|)>|\|>|)>|\|>-|\|>|]>|h>\t\x>>||>| lim0> \ >\*|\|>|)>-\|\|>|)>|]>|h>\t\x>>||| lim0> \ >-\|h>*\|\|>|)>\t\x>>|||>\\|)>*\|)>>>||>||\\|)>|\<\|\|\>>>\|)>,>>>>> therefore the lower bound <\equation*> |\|)>|)>,\*v\\u|\>\-*|\\|)>|\<\|\|\>>*>\|)>-|v|\<\|\|\>>*|\\|)>|\<\|\|\>>*>\|)>, holds. For the mass contribution, we have <\equation*> |\|)>|)>*,m*\*|\>\m*|\|)>|)>,\*-L|)>|\>=m*>\|)>*\\0. Now we have <\equation*> |*\|)>|)>,\*+m*\*|\>>|>|*|-L|)>,-L|)>+L|)>*L|\>>>||>|*L>\|)>+\*L>\|)>.>>>>> but then, also <\equation*> |*\|)>|)>,\*+m*\*|\>>|||*\|)>|)>,\v|)>|\>>>||||*\|)>|)>,\v\u+|)>u|)>|\>>>||>||\f|\<\|\|\>>*|v|\<\|\|\>>>\|)>+A>\|)>+B|v|\<\|\|\>>*>\|)>.>>>>> Together these two inequalities imply that <\equation*> *L-A|]>>\|)>+|\*L-|\f|\<\|\|\>>+B|)>|v|\<\|\|\>>|>>\|)>\0. Taking <\equation*> L\L>=maxA,\|\f|\<\|\|\>>+B|]>|v|\<\|\|\>>|)>, we deduce that <\equation*> >\|)>=>\|)>=0, which in turn implies that \L> a.e. on >. We conclude that <\equation*> |v|\<\|\|\>>\infL>> L=L>\\A+\|\f|\<\|\|\>>+B|]>|v|\<\|\|\>>. This implies that <\equation*> |v|\<\|\|\>>\\A+\*|v|\<\|\|\>>*|\f|\<\|\|\>>+B|]>. By Young's inequality we have <\equation*> \*|v|\<\|\|\>>*|\f|\<\|\|\>>+B|]>\|v|\<\|\|\>>|4>+C*\*|\f|\<\|\|\>>+B|]>, and thus <\equation*> |v|\<\|\|\>>\\A+\*|\f|\<\|\|\>>+B|]>. as claimed. The proof is completed by the following lemma. <\lemma> Let ,|~>\CC|)>> be generic positive bounded weights with bounded spatial derivatives such that <\equation*> |\D|~>|)>D|)>|\<\|\|\>>\|\|~>|\<\|\|\>>\\. \ For CC|)>> of compact support we have\ <\equation*> |*\|)>|)>*v,\*|)>u|\>\-||)> \|\<\|\|\>>\|)>+ <\equation*> -|v|\<\|\|\>>*|v|\<\|\|\>>*|\|)>\|\<\|\|\>>+||~>*u|\<\|\|\>>**|\D|~>|)>D|)>|\<\|\|\>>+|\|~>D|)>D|~> u|)>|\<\|\|\>>|]>*\|)>|)>, where \ u.> <\proof> Observe that, letting <\equation*> V>\\*v|)>+|)>*v, we have <\equation*> \>\>|\|>|)>=4\|)>>|\|>|)>>|)>|)>-v|)>, and <\equation*> >\>|\|>|)>>||\+\\|)>>|\|>|)>V>|)>-v|)>|]>>>|||\|)>>|\|>|)>*|)>-v|)>>>||>|>>>> Regularising and then taking limits we have that \\\>|\|>|)>> is a convex function and therefore that |\|>|)>-\|\|>|)>\|\>\>|\|>|)>|\|>=0>>, that is <\equation> 4*\|)>|\|>|)>*v*-v|)>|)>\\|\|>|)>-\|)>|\|>|)>. Then we can write, by algebraic manipulations and leaving the sum over implicit, <\equation*> |)>>|>||*\|)>|)>*v,\|)>u|\>>|>|||\z*\z|)>**\|)>|\|>|)>*v*\*-u|)>|)>>|>|||\z*\z|)>**\|)>|\|>|)>*v*\*-v|)>|)>>||)>|)>>>|||\z*\z|)>**\|)>|\|>|)>*v*\*|)>-\|)>*u|)>>|\|)>|)>>>>>> and using the inequality we have <\equation*> >|>|\z*\z|)>*\*|\|>|)>-\|)>|\|>|)>|]>>>|||\z*\z|)>\|\|>|)>**-\|)>|]>>>||>|||)> \|\<\|\|\>>\|)>,>>>>> where the equality in the second line follows by an integration by parts of the fractional Laplacian which is a symmetric operator in >. Let us now consider \|)>> and split it as follows <\equation*> \|)>>||\z*\z|)>*\|)>|\|>|)>*v\*|)>-\|)>*|~>|)>*|~>*u|)>|)>>>|||\z*\z|)>*\|)>|\|>|)>**v\*|)>-\|)>*|~>|)>-|~>|)>*|~>*u|)>|)>>>|||\z*\z|)>*\|)>|\|>|)>*v*\*|)>-\|)>*|~>*|~>*u|)>|)>>>|||\z*\z|)>*\|)>|\|>|)>*|\|>*\*|)>-\|)>>>|||\z*\z|)>*\|)>|\|>|)>*v*\*|)>-\|)>*|~>|)>-|~>|)>*|~>*u|)>|)>>>|||\z*\z|)>*\|)>|\|>|)>*v*\*|~>*|)>-\|)>*|~>*u|)>|)>-|~>*u|)>|]>>>|||\|)>+\|)>+\|)>>>>>> \; For \|)>> we have <\equation*> \|)>>|>||v|\<\|\|\>>*|\*|)>\|\<\|\|\>>*\z *\|)>|\|>|)>.>>>>> Next, <\equation*> \|)>>|>|||~>*u|\<\|\|\>>*\z*\|)>|\|>|)>*\|)>-\|\|>*|~>|)>-|~>|\|>\z|)>>>||>||v|\<\|\|\>>*||~>*u|\<\|\|\>>**|\D|~>|)>D|)>|\<\|\|\>>*\|)>|)>.>>>>> Finally, using Cauchy\USchwarz inequality, we have <\equation*> \|)>>|>||v|\<\|\|\>>*|\|~>D|)>D|~>u|)>|\<\|\|\>>* *\|)>|)>.>>>>> Since |)>\|)>+\|)>+\|)>+\|)>> our claim is proved. In this section we prove Theorem stating the existence of an approximate solution to the flow equation for the effective force >>|)>>> with nice bounds, encoded by. These bounds are possible only because we can \Ptune\Q the boundary condition of the flow equation by adding an appropriate >-dependent renormalisation term. Conceptually we are dealing with a random bilinear equation whose solution is analysed by deriving a corresponding evolution equation for its cumulants. The equation for the cumulants has a similar structure and propagate similar bounds from the final condition at =1> apart from a low dimensional (so called, relevant) subspace for which we need to propagate the bounds from small to large >. This procedure entails the \Ptuning\Q of an appropriate final condition to lie on a particular trajectory which has good bounds. For this tuning to be as simple as possible one need suitably decompose the flow equation in order to reduce the relevant subspace to one dimension. Once the bounds for the cumulants are established, a Kolmogorov-type argument allows to deduce also path-wise bounds on the effective force. The section ends with a technical \Ppost-processing\Q to extract the coercive term crucial for the global a-priori estimates and verify the conditions. To study approximate solutions >|)>\>> of the flow equation we need to set up the appropriate spaces. We discuss the case \0>, the continuum case =0> (which however is not used directly in the proof of the main result) being easier and requiring only minimum changes. Let \C|)>> and \C>|)>> with polynomial growth at infinity. This equation can be approximatively solved in the space |)>> of finite polynomials on > with values in >, this is an algebra with a grading induced by the degree of monomials, let |)>> be the component of degree . For \|)>> we denote by >\\|)>> the homogeneous component of degree and by abuse of language also the associated distributional kernel, so that <\equation*> F>|)>=>F>,\,z|)>\|)>\\|)>\z\\z, for \> where >,\,z|)>> is a suitable linear map which contracts the various components of |)>>. We only care about approximate solution of, thus we introduce a formal parameter > and look for solutions >F>|)>\>>, <\equation*> >F>=\0>F>|]>>\>, in the space |)>|\|\>> of formal power series in > with coefficients in |)>> of the <\equation> \>>F>+\\>F>\>>>F>|)>=0,>F=F\. This setup has the advantage that now the equation has a unique global solution which can be determined by induction on the degree >. An approximate solution to is obtained by fixing an integer |\>\0> and letting <\equation*> F>\=0>|\>>F>|]>>. The precise value for |\>> will be discussed in Lemma. We observe that, thanks to, this truncation implies the existence of a maximal polynomial order >=>|\>|)>> in the fields for the kernels. We decompose the force as\ <\equation*> F >|)>=|\>>=0>F >|]>>|)>= |\>>=0>>>F >|]>>|)>, where > measures the perturbative order in > while the polynomial degree in >. Let us now introduce a condensed notation to manipulate these kernels. Let <\equation*> \\,k|)>:0\\\|\>,0\k\>|}>. For \\> with =,k|)>> we let |)>\k> , |)>\\>, <\equation*> F>\F|]>,>,|]>\-\+\\|)>+\k|)>, for suitable positive parameters ,\> and > whose value we shall fix in the following. We say that a kernel >> is if |]>\0>, if |]>=0> and if |]>\0>. In order to introduce appropriate norms for the kernels >|)>\\>> we need some notations and preliminary definitions for weights and smoothing operators. <\definition> We denote by ,\,z|)>> the Steiner diameter of the set ,\,z|}>> with respect to the parabolic distance, the length of the smallest tree connecting all these points.\ <\enumerate-alpha> For \>, the weight > >\ C>|)>> is defined by <\equation*> W> >,\,y|)>\|\|\>St,\,y|)>|)>,z,y,\,y\\, and let >,\>\>>|)>>> for \\>. Note that \> is fixed sufficiently close to , see Remark. We introduce polynomial space-time weight <\equation*> \\|z|\>>>,z\\, where >\0> is small, to be fixed later. For \ \> define <\equation*> w>>|)>:=|\|\>|\|>|)>>. Define <\equation*> h>|)>\|\|\>|\|>|)>. We introduce a weight > >\ C>>|)>> defined by\ <\equation*> v> >,\,y|)>\v>|\|\>.z,|\|\>.y,\,|\|\>.y|)>, for some >\ C>>|)>> such that >,\,y|)>\>, <\equation*> v>,\,y|)>=||,\,y|)>\1,>>|||,\,y|)>\2.>>>>>|\> For any \\> we define the weights <\equation*> w>>\w|)>|)>>>=w|)>|)>,\>>,v>>\v|)>|)>>>, and <\equation*> >>\w|)>|)>,\-\|)>\>>>, which will be used to measure the decay of the kernels of the effective force. The tree weights >,>|)>>> control the approximate localisation of the kernels close to the diagonal and are designed so that they are compatible with the estimates for the bilinear term in the flow equation. This follows from the next Lemma, while other properties of these weights are summarised in Appendix. <\lemma> The bound <\equation*> W> >\,y|)>\W>>\,y,y|)>W>>W>>\,y|)>, holds uniformly in \> and \,y,y,z\\>. <\proof> This follows from the properties of the Steiner diameter, <\equation*> W>>\,y|)>\W>>\,y,y|)>=|\|\>St,\,y,y|)>|)> <\equation*> \|\|\>St,\,y,y|)>+|\|\>St,\,y|)>|)>\ <\equation*> \|\|\>St,\,y,y|)>|)>|\|\>St,\,y|)>|)>= <\equation*> =W>>\,y,y|)>W>>\,y|)>, where in the third inequality we used that for 0>, <\equation*> =1+a*b+a+b\1+a*+b. The thesis follows by adding the point to the tree and applying the previous inequality twice, <\equation*> >>\,y|)>>|>|>>\,y,z|)>>>||>|>>\,y,y|)>W>>W>>\,y|)>.>>>>> \; <\definition> For \> and ,\\> we set <\equation*> K>\1n>\>|)>m>,L>\1n>\>|)>m>,K,\>\L>*K>, <\equation*> >\Kn>>\>|)>m>,>\L>n>\>|)>m>,,\>\>*>. The kernels of some of the operators we will need to estimate are not absolutely integrable functions but only signed measures. We will use the total variation norm to estimate such kernels. <\definition> We denote by |K|\<\|\|\>>> the total variation norm of a measure . <\definition> For the kernel >> we define a (scale dependent) family |F>|\<\|\|\>>>|)>\>> of norm \ by <\equation*> |F>|\<\|\|\>>>\|\|)>+1>>>F>|)>>>|\<\|\|\>>,\\, where <\equation*> |F>|\<\|\|\>>\sup\>>|]>,>,\,z|)>|\|> \z\\z, and where <\equation*> >>F>>\|)>>>F>>=K>|)>|)>>|)>>>F>>|]>, and the space-time weight > has been introduced in Definition. By >>F>|)>>>> above we mean the point-wise product of the weight >>> with the kernel >>F>|)>>. We introduce also a norm for the family >\>>|)>\\,\\>> as <\equation> |F>|\<\|\|\>>\sup\\> \> |\|\>|]>>*|F>>|\<\|\|\>>>|]>\\> |\|\>>*|F,>>|\<\|\|\>>>|]>, where ,\,\> are fixed positive constants which will be chosen in Section. <\remark> Note that for ,z,z\\>, ,k|)>> we have <\equation*> |)>+1>|\|)>+1>|)>>\|)>+1>|)>|)>\w|)>|)>\>>>|)>, provided |\>\>\\>. In addition\ <\equation*> >>,\,z|)>>|)>|>>,z,\,z|)>>|)>>\w-\|)>\>>>|)>|)>>w-\|)>\>>>,z|)>\w-\|)>\>>>|)>|)>>w>>,z|)>, so by the weighted Young inequality and Lemma <\eqnarray*> |F>|\<\|\|\>>>=|\|)>+1>|)>>>F>|)>>>|\<\|\|\>>>|||\|)>+1>|)>>,\>|)>>>F>|)>>>|\<\|\|\>>>>||>||K,\>*w>>|\<\|\|\>>*|K,\>*w>>|\<\|\|\>>|)>>*|\|)>+1>|)>>>F>|)>>>|\<\|\|\>>>>||>||\|)>+1>|)>>>F>|)>>>|\<\|\|\>>>>||||F>|\<\|\|\>>>,>>>> uniformly in \> and \,1|)>>. Here and below we will write ,\>*w>>> or similar expressions to denote the point-wise product of the kernel of the operator ,\>> with the weight >>>. \ We shall also write the flow equation as <\equation> \>F>>=,\>B>,\>>>,F>>,F>>|)>,F>=F>, for suitable operators >,\>> given by <\equation> ,\>B>,\>>>,F>>,F>>|)>\=0>|)>-1>|)>>=0>+1|)>F|)>-1-\|]>,+1|)>>>>>F>|]>,|)>-k|)>>, where sum over ,\> is understood to be given by the constraints on ,k|)>> on the right hand side of the above equation and where we define >,\>>>,F>>,F>>|)>=0> if these constraints are not met. <\lemma> For all \\> the following bound holds uniformly in \>\ <\equation*> |\|\>|]>>|B>,\>>>,F>>,F>>|)>|\<\|\|\>>>\|\|\>|]>-|]>-1>|F>>|\<\|\|\>>>*|F>>|\<\|\|\>>>, where the ,\> are understood to be the ones constrained to > via Equation. <\proof> The starting point is <\equation*> B>,\>>>,F>>,F>>|)>=+1|)>F|)>-1-\|]>,+1|)>>>>>F>|]>,|)>-k|)>>. Exploiting again the identity >K>=>, we get <\equation*> >>B>,\>>>,F>>,F>>|)>=b>,\> k|)>>>F>>|]>>>>|)>>>F>>|]>, where >,\>>\ 0 unless > and > are such that |)>+1=k|)>+k|)>> and |)>-1=\|)>+\|)>>. This gives <\equation*> |B>,\>>>,F>>,F>>|)>|\<\|\|\>>>>|||\|)>>>>B>,\>>>,F>>,F>>|)>>>|\<\|\|\>>>>||>||\|)>>>>F>>|]>>>>|)>>>F>>|]>|}>>>|\<\|\|\>>.>>>>> We have that (we omit the various variables involved in the functions below, the reader should be able to add them back without much trouble) <\equation*> |)>>>>=\|)>>w>,\-\>\|)>>>|>||)>>\|)>>>|)>|)>,\-\>\|)>>w>-\>\|)>>w>|)>|)>,\-\>\|)>>|]>>>||>||)>>w>|)>|)>,\-\>|)>-1-\|)>|)>>w>-\>|)>-1-\|)>|)>>\>>|||\|)>>w>|)>|)>,\-\>\|)>>|]>>>||>||)>>w>|)>|)>,\-\>\|)>>w>-\>\|)>>|)>>w>|)>|)>,\-\>\|)>>|]>>>||>||)>>w>|)>|)>,\-\>\|)>>|]>w>>|)>>w>|)>|)>,\-\>\|)>>|]>>>||||)>>>>|]>w>>|)>>>>|]>,>>>>> where in the first inequality we used Lemma together with |)>=\|)>+\|)>+1>, in the second we used part of the tree weights >>> and >>> to move the weight |)>>> from the output variable of >> to the output variable of >>, namely we used <\equation*> |)>>|]>w>|)>|)>,-1-\>\|)>>,\,z|)>>|)>w>>\|)>>|)>>,y|)>\1. Finally, in the third inequality we used once more the relation |)>=\|)>+\|)>+1> while in the last one the inequalities |)>\0> and |)>\\|)>>. Then <\equation*> |\|\>|]>>|B>,\>>>,F>>,F>>|)>|\<\|\|\>>>>|>||\|\>|]>>*|>>>|)>w>|\<\|\|\>>>|)>>*|F>>|\<\|\|\>>>*|F>>|\<\|\|\>>>>>||>||\|\>|]>+2s-1>|F>>|\<\|\|\>>>*|F>>|\<\|\|\>>>>>||||\|\>|]>-|]>-1>|F>>|\<\|\|\>>>*|F>>|\<\|\|\>>>,>>>>> where we used that, by Theorem we have <\equation*> |>>>|)>w>>|\<\|\|\>>>|)>>\|\|\>, and where in the last step we used that (cfr.->) <\equation*> -|]>+2s-1=-|]>-|]>-\+\-\+2s-1=-|]>-|]>-1. In order to prove probabilistic bounds for the moments of the norm |F>|\<\|\|\>>> we first prove bounds for the cumulants of the family >|)>>>, for the family of deterministic kernels >|)>>> for <\equation*> \\\\,\,\|)>:\\\,L|)>\2|\>|}>, defined by <\equation*> \>\\>,\,F>|)>, where we introduced the notations |)>\n>, |)>\\|)>+\+\|)>>, |)>\k|)>+\+k|)>>. We define the global homogeneity of these kernels as\ <\equation*> |]>\-\+n|)>+\|)>+|]>+\+|]>, for suitable parameters > and > whose value we shall discuss in the following, see Section. In particular, we have <\equation*> |]>=-\+\*n|)>+\*L|)>+\*K|)>. We say that a cumulant >> is if |]>\0>, if |]>=0> and if |]>\0>. \; <\definition> The space of cumulants is endowed with the norm |\>|\<\|\|\>>> obtained by taking >> norm on the first output variable and the total variation norm on all the other ones, i.e. \; <\equation*> |\>|\<\|\|\>>\sup\>>>z,\,\z|)>|\|> ,k\n|)>+K|)>-1. On top of this basic norm we define the family of scale dependent weighted norms <\equation> |\>|\<\|\|\>>>\|>>\>|)>w>>|\<\|\|\>>,\\, where <\equation*> w>>\|)>>w>>,K>>\|)>>K|)>>>. For the sake of clarity, >>> acts on the associated cumulant >> with a Dirac delta on the output variables and with >> on each input variable. We also introduce the operators <\equation*> L>>\|)>>L|)>>>,K>,\>\L>>K>>. so that >>=K>,\> K>>>. <\remark> Note that by the weighted Young inequality and Lemma we have <\eqnarray*> |\>|\<\|\|\>>>=|>>\>|)>w>>|\<\|\|\>>>|||>\\>K>>\>|)>w>>|\<\|\|\>>>>||>||>>\>|)>w>>|\<\|\|\>>\|>>\>|)>w>>|\<\|\|\>>=|\>|\<\|\|\>>>,>>>> uniformly in \> and \,1|)>>. In Section we will go from estimates on the norm |\>|\<\|\|\>>> for the family >\>>|)>\\,\\>> defined as <\equation> |\>|\<\|\|\>>\sup\\> \>|\|\>|]>>*|\>>|\<\|\|\>>>|]>|)>>, to those on |F>|\<\|\|\>>> via a Kolmogorov-type argument. Following, we introduce a flow equation for cumulants to control the norm |\>|\<\|\|\>>>. <\lemma> The cumulants satisfy the following flow equation: <\equation> \>\>>=>\> >>>,\>>|)>+,\>\>,\>>>,\>>,\>>|)>, where the linear operators >>> and >,\>> are defined in Appendix and are non-zero when <\equation> \>>\0\||)>=n|)>-1,L|)>=L|)>+1,K|)>=K|)>-1,>>||]>=|]>-\+\-\,>>>>> <\equation> \>,\>\0\||)>=n|)>+n|)>-1,L|)>=L|)>+L|)>+1,K|)>=K|)>+K|)>-1,>>||]>=|]>+|]>+\-\+\-\.>>>>> Moreover, they have bounds <\equation*> |\|\>|]>>*|\>>>>,\>>|)>|\<\|\|\>>>>|>||\|\>|]>-1>*|\>>|\<\|\|\>>>,>>||\|\>|]>>*|\>,>>>,\>>,\>>|)>|\<\|\|\>>>>|>||\|\>|]>-|]>-1>*|\>>|\<\|\|\>>>*|\>>|\<\|\|\>>>,>>>>> provided the following compatibility conditions hold true <\equation> \+\-\-d\0,-\+\+\-\+2s\0. <\proof> The derivation of the flow equation is a direct consequence of the definition of cumulants, see. The detailed form of the operators is not very important in the following discussion and is given in Appendix, where the claims of the Lemma are also proven (see Lemma and Lemma). This general structure of the flow equation allows us to propagate estimates for the kernels of the form <\equation*> sup>|\|\>|]>>*|\>>|\<\|\|\>>>\\. However, depending on the sign of |]>>, we shall handle differently the cumulants: in particular, for |]>\0>, namely for irrelevant cumulants, the flow equation can be solved starting from the final condition at =1>. On the other hand, this approach does not work for cumulants for which |]>\0> as in this case the flow equation cannot be integrated close to =1>. As we shall see in Section, we will solve the flow equation for this class of cumulants, called , by integrating it . <\remark> Before going on with the analysis of the flow equations for cumulants, some comments about symmetries are in order. First of all we observe that the SPDE we are considering, namely the > model, is invariant under the transformation \-\> and \-\> which also preserves the law of the noise >. At the level of cumulants, this entails that if <\equation*> n|)>+K|)>\2\+1, then >=0>. This feature is preserved by the flow equation for cumulants, Equations, due to the conditions of Equations and. Indeed if we consider a cumulant such that |)>+K|)>\2\+1>, then also on the right hand side of the flow equation there are only terms satisfying the same property: we see from Equation that the only non-vanishing terms >>>>,\>>|)>> satisfy <\equation*> n|)>+K|)>=n|)>+K|)>+2\2\+1. Similarly, for the terms >,\>>>,\>>,\>>|)>> the only non-vanishing contributions satisfy <\equation*> n|)>+K|)>+n|)>+K|)>=n|)>+K|)>+2\2\+1, due to Equation. As a consequence, we conclude that if |)>+K|)>\2\+1,then >>>=0> for any \.> A further symmetry is represented by spatial reflection, the transformation\ <\equation*> \\,> \\\, which preserves the law of > too. Using an argument as the one above, we conclude that for any >, >>> is symmetric with respect to such transformation. We shall now fix the parameters ,\,\,\,\> introduced in the analysis of the kernels. We have to choose these parameters so that Equation is satisfied. Another constraint comes from the requirement that |\>>|\<\|\|\>>>\|\|\>|]>>> for \\> such that |)>=0>. Note that for \\> such that |)>=0> we have >\>>=0> and >>=\>>. Using the equality >>|)>=F>|)>=-\|)>+>*\+\|)>>> and the fact that the noise is Gaussian one shows that for \\> such that |)>=0> the cumulant >>> is non-zero only if: <\enumerate-alpha> it is the covariance of the noise, that is |)>=2>, |)>=0> and <\equation*> \>>|)>=\,>,F,>|)>|)>=\|)>>*\|)>>|)>|]>=\|)>, or it is the expected value of the (deterministic) kernel ,>>, that is |)>=1>, |)>=3> and <\equation*> \>>,z,z|)>=-\\|)>\|)>\|)>, or it is the expected value of the (deterministic) kernel ,>>, that is |)>=1>, |)>=1> and <\equation*> \>>|)>=> \|)>. In the case a) using the fact that >,\>=1> on the diagonal, we conclude that the norm |\>|\<\|\|\>>>> coincides with the total variation of >, yielding <\equation> |\>|\<\|\|\>>>=1. As a consequence, we have to require that <\equation> |]>=-\+2\\0. In the case b) we observe that \; <\equation*> >>\>>|)>,z,z|)>=-\K>|)>, and thus |\>>|\<\|\|\>>>\1> uniformly in ,\\0>. Consequently, we have to require that <\equation> |]>=-\+\+3\\0. In the case c) we have \; <\equation*> >>\>>|)>|)>=>K>|)>, and thus |\>>|\<\|\|\>>>\1> uniformly in ,\\0>. Consequently, we have to require that <\equation*> |]>=-\+\+\\0. Note that since \0> the last condition is implied by the bound. Let us collect in a table the various conditions which influence the choice of parameters. Some of them we already encountered, while other will appear later on (e.g. the constraints ,>|]>,> below). We prefer to collect here all our constraints and fix the values of the parameters to proceed later in a more straightforward way to the discussion of various conditions. <\equation> ||||||||||]>>|>> >|+\-\-d\0>>||]>>|>>>|+\+\-\+2s\0>>||]>>|,>>>>|+2\\0>>||]>>|,>>>>|+\+3\\0>>|>|>>\>|-|2>+\--\\0>>|>|]>>|>>>>>|-\+\-\\0>>|>|>>\>|+\-\\0>>>>> \; The parameter \0> quantifies the loss of regularity in the Kolmogorov-type argument to estimate the path-wise behaviour of the random kernels and will be chosen as small as needed. From the constraints |]>> and |]>> we have <\equation*> \\s-\/2, while from |]>>, |]>> and this last inequality we deduce that <\equation*> \\\-\+2s\3s-3\/2. Using now |]>> again we have <\equation*> \\\+\-\+2s\6s-3\. And |]>> now gives <\equation> 0\\+\-\-d\4s-d-3\=3>-\|)>, where the strict positivity of <\equation*> \>\\0, defines the subcritical regime of the equation. We now fix \\\>> and fix the other parameters to saturate most of the inequalities we just found giving: <\equation> ||||||||=s-\/2-\/2,\=3\,\=2\,\=3\+\.>>>>> By substituting these values into the inequalities above we can check that <\equation> |||||||||||]>>|\+\-\-d>|-\-d>|>-\|)>-2\>>||]>>|-\+\+\-\+2s>|-\+2s>|>>||]>>|-\+2\>||>||]>>|-\+\+3\>||>|>|\-|2>+\--\>|->|>-\|)>-\>>|>|]>>|\-\+\-\>||>|>|2s-\+\-\>|-\-\>|>>>> where we used that\ <\equation> =>|2>=3\->-\|)>+3\. All the inequalities are satisfied provided \0> is chosen small enough depending on >-\\0>. The additional loss of regularity measured by > will be needed in particular in Lemma below (this is not optimal but we prefer to keep the argument simple). The last important parameters of our analysis, \|)>> and \0> will be fixed in the post-processing phase below, see Eq.. <\remark> We choose the parameters ,\*,\*,\> in such a way that there are no marginal cumulants for |)>\0>. <\remark> We can now fix more precisely the value of \2s> we introduced in Definition. In particular, in the following we shall need > to be large enough so that \ -\+\+\\0>. On account of the above discussion of the parameters, this conditions boils down to <\equation> 2s-2\\\\2s. Given these bounds on the parameters, we can investigate the class of cumulants being relevant or marginal that is when it holds |]>\0>. Observing that with the above choices <\equation*> \=2\,\=\-3\, the condition |]>\0> can be written as <\equation*> |]>=\*|)>-2|)>+\*K|)>+\*L|)>=\*|)>-6+K|)>|)>+\*L|)>\0. Then <\enumerate-alpha> if |)>\2>, there are no relevant/marginal cumulants; if |)>=2>, the only relevant/marginal cumulant is the one with |)>=K|)>=0>, that is the two point function of the noise: >=\>>,F>>|)>>. if |)>=1>, the only relevant/marginal cumulants are (at most) those with |)>\3>. Summarising, the only relevant/marginal cumulants are <\equation*> \>>,F>>|)>,\>|]>>|)>,k=0,1,2,3. We can further restrict the set of cumulants to be analysed. Indeed, the flow equation for the cumulants with |)>=0> is trivial and there is no evolution, so they coincide with their initial values. This applies to >>,F>>|)>> and >>|)>>. Moreover >|]>>|)>> for \1> is irrelevant. As for the others, we know that the cumulants >|]>>|)>> and >|]>>|)>> are vanishing due to symmetry arguments. Thus the only remaining cumulant that we have to consider more in detail is >|]>>|)>> for \,|^>|}>>, where by definition |^>\\>is the smallest natural number such that *|^>+1|)>-2\\0>. > To handle the flow equation for cumulants, we shall first introduce a decomposition of the force. We decompose it as a fluctuation and the average, <\equation*> F=>+,>\\ F,\|)> F. Cumulants have a similar decomposition <\equation*> \=|\>+|~>, where |\>> has elements only in the first cumulant and |\>>=\=>>. We will stipulate from here on that >> will be estimated as a cumulant ( when we write |>>|\<\|\|\>>>> we always mean the cumulant norm and not the kernel norm, this will be the only situation when an ambiguity could arise and we prefer not to burden the notation to make this distinction). The flow equation for these new cumulants reads (there > is a projection on the order of cumulants) <\equation*> \>>>=\>F>|)>=\>>>F>|)>=\>|)>>>\>|)>+\>,>>F>|)>=D>>>>>>+\>,>>>|)>, giving <\equation*> \>>>=\>>,>>,>>|)>+\\|~>|)>, while since we have |~>=\2>\> <\equation> \>|~>>=\2>\|)>+\2>\,\|)>=\|~>|)>+\|~>,|~>|)>+\|~>,|\>|)>+\|\>,|~>|)>, Note that |~>> contains only irrelevant and marginal cumulants, so it can be integrated from =1> with zero initial conditions apart from the two-point function of the noise. However the flow equation contains source terms depending on >>. Now the flow equation for >> cannot be integrated right away from =1> since it contains relevant terms therefore we have to modify it via a suitable decomposition together with a localisation procedure we discuss in the next section as well as in Appendix. The aim of this section is to prove that we can solve the flow equation for cumulants, Equation, through an induction procedure over the order >. This is due to the fact that, by Lemma, it is a triangular system with respect to the parameter|)>>. <\lemma> For any >\\> there exist (non-unique) constants ,\>|)>=1,\,|^>>> such that the solution of the approximate flow equation with initial condition <\equation*> F|)>=-\|)>+r>*\+\|)>>, where <\equation*> r>\>+=1>|^>>r,\>, satisfies <\equation*> |\>|\<\|\|\>>=sup\\>|sup\>|\|\>|]>>*|\>>|\<\|\|\>>>|>|)>>\\. <\proof> For all \,2|\>|}>> define <\equation*> M>\1+sup:L|)>\\>>>>>>\>|\|\>|]>>*|\>>|\<\|\|\>>>|]>|)>>. We will prove by induction on \,2|\>|}>> that >\\> and <\equation*> \>>=0,> such that |)>\\> and |)>\2+1>>.> Let us remark that the second part of the above statement implies that there are only finitely many non-zero cumulants >>> such that |)>\\>. We first note that the case =0> was already discussed in Section , where it was proved that \\>.\ Let us now consider the induction step. Assume that -1>\\> for some \\>. We shall prove that >\\>. The proof is based on Equation. We first note that by Lemma we have <\equation> |\>>>>,\>>|)>|\<\|\|\>>>>|>||\|\>|]>-1>*M-1>>,>>||\>,\>>>,\>>,\>>|)>|\<\|\|\>>>>|>||\|\>|]>-1>*M-1>|)>>*M-1>|)>>,>>>>> for all \\> such that |)>=\>. Recall that |)>=n|)>-1 > and |)>=L|)>-1=\-1> in the first line and |)>=n|)>+n|)>-1> and |)>+L|)>=L|)>-1=\-1> in the second line above. Hence, using the induction hypothesis we conclude that\ <\equation*> \>>>>,\>>|)>=0,\>,\>>>,\>>,\>>|)>=0, if \2+1>> and <\equation> |\>>>>,\>>|)>|\<\|\|\>>>\|\|\>|]>-1>,|\>,\>>>,\>>,\>>|)>|\<\|\|\>>>\|\|\>|]>-1>. In the rest of the proof of the induction step we treat separately two cases: >>> is irrelevant, |]>\0>, or >>> is relevant, , |]>\0>. Note that by Remark there are no marginal cumulants at level \0>. If >> is irrelevant, |]>\0>, then we can bound it by integrating the flow equation from the final condition at =1>. Noting for |]>\0> it holds that >=0> and using Equation, Remark and Equation we show that <\equation*> |\>>|\<\|\|\>>>\>|\|\>|]>-1> \\\*|\|\>|]>>. On the other hand, if >> is relevant, |]>\0>, then on account of the discussion of Section >> is of the form >>|]>,>=\>|]>>|)>> with \,|^>|}>>. The handling of the relevant cumulant proceed by a localisation procedure which allow to show that only the local part of the cumulant requires a renormalisation. However in our fractional context, where the kernels have only limited polynomial decay, we need to proceed with care and introduce a preliminary truncation before performing a Taylor expansion to localise the fields. Therefore, in order to bound >>|]>,>> we shall use the following decomposition (recall that >>=K>=\\K>>, cfr. Definition). <\equation> >>|]>,>>||>|]>,>->>|)>>|\>>|]>,>|]>\\->|)>>>>|\>>|]>,>|]>\\>>|||>|)>>>>|\>>|]>,>|]>\\->>>|\>>|]>,>|]>\\-h>>>>|\>>|]>,>|]>\\,>>>>> where >|\>>|]>,>:=\>>|]>,>>, the operators > and > are suitable localisation and remainder operators defined in Appendix and the polynomial weight >> was introduced in Definition. We impose the following renormalisation condition <\equation*> >|]>,>=->>|\>>|]>,>|]>\\. Since >|]>,>|)>=\|)> r,\>> the above condition fixes uniquely the counter-term ,\>.> Note that the above integral is finite for all \> since on account of Equation, the estimates and Remark we have <\equation*> |K>>|\>>|]>,>|\<\|\|\>>\|\|\>|]>-1>\\>|\|\>|]>+\-1>. Actually, using the above bound one shows that <\equation*> ,\>|\|>\|>|]>,>|\<\|\|\>>\>\>|\|\>|]>+\-1>\|\|\>+>|\|\>|]>-1>\|\|\>\|\|\>|]>>, where we used the fact that |]>+\\\-2\+\=\-2s+2\+\\0> by Remark. Taking into account the renormalisation condition, we obtain <\equation*> |>>|]>,>|\<\|\|\>>>>|>|>|>|)>>|\>>|]>,>|\<\|\|\>>>\\+>|>|)>K>>|\>>|]>,>|\<\|\|\>>>\\>>|||>|>|)>K>>|\>>|]>,>|\<\|\|\>>>\\+>|K>>|\>>|]>,>|\<\|\|\>>>\\+>|h>K>>|\>>|]>,>|\<\|\|\>>>\\.>>>>> Next, on account of Lemmata,,,,\ <\equation*> |>>|]>,>|\<\|\|\>>>>|>||\|\>>|\|\>|]>+2s-1>\\+|\|\>>>|\|\>|]>+\-1>\\>>||||\|\>>>|\|\>|]>+\-1>\\+>|\|\>|]>-1>\\+|\|\>>|\|\>|]>+2>\\>>||>||\|\>|]>>,>>>>> where we used again the fact that |]>+\\\-2\+\=\-2s+2\+\\0> by Remark. This concludes the proof of the induction step. We prove now a preliminary bound on solutions of the flow equations for the kernels in terms of a localisation of the relevant components. <\lemma> For all ,N\\>it holds, for any \0>, <\equation> sup:\|)>=\> sup\> |3>||\|\>|]>-\>|F>>|\<\|\|\>>>||3>>>>\> 1+sup:\|)>\\,|]>\0> sup\>|3>||\|\>|]>-\> |v>>*F> >|\<\|\|\>>>||3>>>>N>>>>, and <\equation> sup:\|)>=\> sup\> |3>||\|\>|]>-\+1>|\>F>>|\<\|\|\>>>||3>>>>\> 1+sup:\|)>\\,|]>\0> sup\> \ |3>||\|\>|]>-\>|v>>*F> >|\<\|\|\>>>||3>>>>N>>>> . <\proof> We shall prove the lemma by induction on \\>. First, we discuss the case =0> for which we have >F>>=0> and thus >>=F>> for all \>. Observe that the kernels >> are local, that is supported on the diagonal. Hence, >>>>>=v>>F>=F>=F>>> for all \> since >>=1> on the diagonal. Moreover, for the irrelevant kernels, that is the kernels >>> such that |]>\0>, we have >>=0> for all \> since >=0>. This proves the bounds and for =0>. Let \\>and suppose that the bounds and are true for all \\>. We shall prove the bounds for =\+1>. It follows from Eq. and Lemma that <\equation*> |\|\>|]>-\+1>|\>F>>|\<\|\|\>>>\,\>|\|\>|]>-2\+1>|B>,\>>>,F>>,F>>|)>|\<\|\|\>>>\,\>|\|\>|]>-2\>|F>>|\<\|\|\>>>|F>>|\<\|\|\>>>. Using the equality (cfr.) <\equation*> 2s-|]>+|]>+|]>=2s-\+\-\=2s-2\-\=\\0, we conclude that <\equation*> |\|\>|]>-\+1>|\>F>>|\<\|\|\>>>\,\>|\|\>|]>-\>|F>>|\<\|\|\>>> |\|\>|]>-\>|F\>>|\<\|\|\>>>. Consequently, by the Hölder inequality <\equation*> |3>||\|\>|]>-\+1>|\>F>>|\<\|\|\>>>||3>>>>\,\>||\|\>|]>-\>|F>>|\<\|\|\>>>|\<\|\|\>>>> ||\|\>|]>-\>|F\>>|\<\|\|\>>>|\<\|\|\>>>>. Since |)>\\|)>\\|)>-1\\> and =\+1> the above bound together with the induction hypothesis imply the bound . The dependence on > in the bound comes from the estimate on the (finite) number of terms in the sum over ,\>. Let >>> be an irrelevant kernel, for which |]>\0>. Then >=0>, >>=->\>F> > \\> and <\equation*> |F>>|\<\|\|\>>>\>|\>F> >|\<\|\|\>>> \\\>|\>F> >|\<\|\|\>>> \\. Hence, by the Minkowski inequality <\equation*> |2>||F>>|\<\|\|\>>>||2>>>>\>|2>||\>F> >|\<\|\|\>>>||2>>>> \\. Consequently, for the irrelevant kernels the bound follows from the bound. Let us now consider relevant kernels >>, for which |]>\0>. If |)>=0>, then >>*F> >=F> >> and the bound is trivial. For |)>\0> we shall use the following decomposition <\equation> >>|)>F> >>||>>|)>F>->>|)>>\>F>> \\>>|||>>|)>>>>|)>\>F>>\\->>|)>>>>\>F>>\\,>>>>> Then <\equation*> |F>>-v>>F> >|\<\|\|\>>>\>|>>|)>>>|)>\>F>>|\<\|\|\>>> \\+>|>>|)>>>\>F>>|\<\|\|\>>> \\, where we used the fact that >>|)>F>=0>, which follows from the fact that the kernels >> are local, that is supported on the diagonal, and >>=1> on the diagonal. We observe now that on account of Lemma and Lemma, it holds <\equation*> |F>>-v>>F> >|\<\|\|\>>>\>|\|\>||\|\>>*+|\|\>>||\|\>>>*|)>|\>F>>|\<\|\|\>>> \\\>|\|\>>||\|\>>>*|\>F>>|\<\|\|\>>> \\. Consequently, by Minkowski's inequality <\equation*> |2>||F>>-v>>F> >|\<\|\|\>>>||2>>>>\>|\|\>>||\|\>>>*|2>||\>F>>|\<\|\|\>>>||2>>>> \\. Since |]>+\\0> for |)>\0> by Remark the above estimate and the bound imply the bound for relevant kernels. This finishes the proof. The proof of Theorem is obtained by combining Lemma and Lemma via the following lemma which shows how to go from estimates on > to those on . <\lemma> For every \>it holds <\equation> |3>||F>|\<\|\|\>>||3>>>>\\, where |F>|\<\|\|\>>> was defined in Equation. <\proof> If the kernel >>> is irrelevant, that is |]>\0>, then >=0>, >>=->\>F> > \\> and <\equation*> |\|\>|]>> |F>>|\<\|\|\>>>\|\|\>|]>>>|\>F> >|\<\|\|\>>> \\\>|\|\>|]>> |\>F> >|\<\|\|\>>> \\\|\|\>|]>> |\>F> >|\<\|\|\>>> \\. On the other hand, if the kernel >>> is relevant, that is |]>\0>, then >>=F>> and |\|\>|]>>=0> at =1>. Consequently, we have |\|\>|]>>F>>=0> at =1>. From\ <\equation> \>|\|\>|]>>F>>|)>=|\|\>|]>>\>F>>+|]> |\|\>|]>-1>F>>, we deduce that <\equation*> |\|\>|]>> |F>>|\<\|\|\>>>\>|\|\>|]>> |\>F>>|\<\|\|\>>>+|\|\>|]>-1> |F> >|\<\|\|\>>>|)> \\\|\|\>|]>> |\>F> >|\<\|\|\>>>+|\|\>|]>-1> |F> >|\<\|\|\>>>|)> \\. Next, Minkowski inequality gives <\equation*> |sup\>|\|\>|]>>|F> >|\<\|\|\>>>|\<\|\|\>>>>\||\|\>|]>>|\>F>>|\<\|\|\>>>|\<\|\|\>>>>+||\|\>|]>-1>|F>>|\<\|\|\>>>|\<\|\|\>>>>|)> \\, for both relevant and irrelevant kernels. Since |\|\>-1> \\\\> we arrive at <\eqnarray*> |sup\>|\|\>|]>>|F> >|\<\|\|\>>>|\<\|\|\>>>>>|>|\> ||\|\>|]>+1-\>|\>F>>|\<\|\|\>>>|\<\|\|\>>>>+sup\>||\|\>|]>-\>|F> >|\<\|\|\>>>|\<\|\|\>>>>.>>>> Using Lemma and the decomposition >>=>>>+>>> we obtain <\eqnarray*> |sup\>|\|\>|]>>|F> >|\<\|\|\>>>|\<\|\|\>>>>>|>|:\|)>\\,|]>\0> sup\>|3>||\|\>|]>-\>|v>>*F>\ >|\<\|\|\>>>||3>>>> N>>>>>>||>|:\|)>\\,|]>\0> sup\>|3>||\|\>|]>-\>|v>>*>>|\<\|\|\>>>||3>>>>>>N>>+|\|\>|]>-\>|v>>*>> >|\<\|\|\>>>|)>>>|)>.>>>> We conclude that <\equation*> |sup\> |\|\>|]>>*|F>>|\<\|\|\>>>|\<\|\|\>>>>\\, by applying Lemmata and and recalling that, on account of Lemma, we have |\>|\<\|\|\>>\\>. Finally, in order to prove the improved bound <\equation*> |sup\> |\|\>+2\>*|F,>>|\<\|\|\>>>|\<\|\|\>>>>\\, we use the same argument with |]>> replaced by +2\> and Eq.. <\lemma> With the assumptions of Lemma for all \> it holds and for \0> small enough <\equation*> sup\>|4>||\|\>|]>-\>|v>>> >|\<\|\|\>>>||4>>>>\|\>|\<\|\|\>>, and <\equation> sup\>|4>||\|\>+\>|\K>F,>|\<\|\|\>>>>||4>>>> \1. \ <\proof> By Lemma we have <\equation*> |v>>>\ >|\<\|\|\>>>\|)>>|\|)>>>>>>>>|)>>>|\<\|\|\>>. where >>> is a nice weight with a similar compact support as >>>. With the notation >=,\,z|)>>|)>\\|)>>>, it holds that <\equation*> sup \>|)>>> >>>|)>>>>|)> \Z>\|\|\>|)>>, and thus we have <\equation*> |\|)>>*>>>>>>|)>>>|\<\|\|\>>>|>||\|\>|)>>|\|)>>*>>>>|)>|\<\|\|\>>>,>>>>> where, here and below, the norm |\|\<\|\|\>>>> is understood to be the >> norm in all the variables. Thus <\equation> |3>||v>>>\ >|\<\|\|\>>>||3>>>>\|\|\>|)>> |3>||\|)>>*>>>>|)>|\<\|\|\>>>||3>>>>. As a consequence, we reduced ourselves to the analysis of |3>||\|)>>*>>>>|)>|\<\|\|\>>>||3>>>>>. To this end, we decompose >=>>*>> where |^>\0> is a small constant and <\equation> >\|\|\>\|)>|^>-1>>|\|\>\|)>|^>-2>,>>\|\|\>\|)>|^>>>|\|\>\|)>|^>>. By Lemma we have\ <\equation*> |>>|\<\|\|\>>>>\||)>>|)>>>|\<\|\|\>>>>\|\|\>/2N>, provided |^>\3>. In what follows, we choose |^>\>|)>|)>> and assume that 2+2>.> By the weighted Young inequality and Fubini's theorem, it holds that <\equation*> ||\|)>>>>>>|)>|\<\|\|\>>>|>\>>|\|\|\>|)>|)>>\|||)>>|)>|)>>>K>|)>>>>|)>>|)>|>|>\z \Z>>>|\|\|\>|)>|)>>\|||)>>|)>|)>>>K>|)>>>>w>>|)>>|)>|>|>>>>|)>|)>\z \Z>>>|\|\|\>>|2>|\||)>|)>>>K>|)>>>>|)>w>>|>||2>>>,>>>>> where we used that <\equation*> |)>>|]>>>>|)>|)>\z \Z>\|\|\>k|)>>, for large enough. Thus <\equation> |3>||\|)>>*>>>>|)>|\<\|\|\>>>||3>>>>\|\|\>|2N>>|2>|\|||)>|)>>>K>|)>>>>|)>w>>|>|>||2>>>. We need to control the |)>> norm of the random variable |)>|)>>>>|)>>>>|)>w>>|]>>|)>>. To this end, we observe that, by induction it is easy to show that >>> is a polynomial of the Gaussian random field > and therefore via Nelson hypercontractivity we can control the -th moment with the second, namely, in terms of the second order cumulant >>,F>>|)>=\\|)>>>, <\equation*> ||3>|\|||)>|)>>>K>|)>>>>|)>w>>|>|>||3>>>>|>||2>|\||)>|)>>>K>|)>>>>|)>w>>|)>|>||2>>>>>||>||2>|\|)>|)>>>K>|)>>F>>|)>w>>,|)>|)>>>K>|)>>F>>|)>w>>|)>||2>>>>>||||2>||)>|)>>>K\|)>>>\\|)>>>|]>w>\|)>>||2>>>.>>>>> Using now the translation invariance of \|)>>>\\|)>>>>, we can rewrite it as a measure >> in the following way <\equation*> \>|)>>F>>,\,z|)>>|)>,K>|)>>F>>;z|)>+1>,\,z|)>>|)>|)>=V>-z;z-z,\,z|)>>-z|)>, and this gives\ <\equation*> |)>|)>>>\|)>>>\\|)>>>|)>,\,z|)>>;z,z|)>+1>,\,z|)>>|)>=>V>|)>-z;z-z,\,z|)>>-z|)>, where we introduced the operator >> whose action is given by convolution with the function <\equation*> \>,z*\,z|)>>|)>\>>>*>+w|)>*>+w|)>\ >|)>>+w|)>\w, which is Hölder continuous provided |^>\|)>|)>|)>>, Equation. In addition, by Lemma it holds that <\equation*> |>>|)>|)>|)>>\>|\<\|\|\>>>\|\|\>|)>|)>>. As a consequence, using the weighted Young convolution inequality, we get <\equation> |3>|\|)>|)>>>K>|)>>>>|)>w>>|]>||3>>>>|>||>>|)>|)>|)>>\>|\<\|\|\>>>|1>|\|)>>>\\|)>>>|)>w>\|)>>||1>>>>||>||\|\>|2>|)>|)>>|2>|\\|)>>>||2>>>,>>>>> where, recall that |\|\<\|\|\>>> in the r.h.s of the first line, is, as per our convention, the norm taking the total variation norm over the input variables and the >> norm over the output ones.\ Overall, using,, together with the definition of |\>|\<\|\|\>>> and the fact that <\equation*> \|)>|]>=-\+2+\|)>+2|]>, we have\ <\equation> sup>|4>||\|\>|]>-\>|v>>> >|\<\|\|\>>>||4>>>>\|\>|\<\|\|\>>*sup>|\|\>|2>++\|)>-|2>-|2N>-\>. In order to conclude we need the right hand side above to be finite, namely we require <\equation> \-|2>+\-|2>-|2N>-\\0. Given our choices of parameters this bounds has the form <\equation> >-\|)>--\\0. Since we fixed \\>>, it suffices to take large and > small enough to satisfy this inequality and conclude our bound. The bound for smaller values of follows by Jensen's inequality. The bound for the noise ,>=\>>, i.e. for >> with =>, is proved by the same argument as for using the precise estimate |\,\|)>>>|\<\|\|\>>>=1> from for the covariance of the noise ,\|)>>>=\,>,F,>|)>> instead of the worser estimate |\,\|)>>>|\<\|\|\>>>\|\>|\<\|\|\>>*|\|\>\|)>|]>>>. Namely instead of we have <\equation*> sup>|4>||\|\>+\>|\K>F,>|\<\|\|\>>>>||4>>>>\sup>|\|\>|2N>+\>\1, for large enough, depending on >. <\lemma> Provided that <\equation> \-\+\-\\0, it holds <\equation*> sup>|\|\>|]>-\>|v>>*>> >|\<\|\|\>>>\|\>|\<\|\|\>>, where on the left we mean the kernel norm. <\proof> By Lemma we have |v>>>>>|\<\|\|\>>>\|>>>|\<\|\|\>>>>, moreover since <\equation*> >>=w|)>|)>,\-\|)>\>>>\w|)>|)>,\>>=w>>, we have <\equation*> >|\|\>|]>-\>|v>>>>>|\<\|\|\>>>>|>|>|\|\>|]>-\>|\|)>>>>>>>|]>>>|\<\|\|\>>>\|)>|)>>>>>|||>|\|\>|]>-\>|\|)>>>|)>|)>>K|)>>>>>>|]>>>|\<\|\|\>>>\|)>|)>>>>>||>|>|\|\>|]>-\>*|K>w>>|\<\|\|\>>>|)>>|)>>*||)>>>>>>|]>w>>|\<\|\|\>>>\|)>>>>>||>|>|\>|\<\|\|\>>*|\|\>|]>-|]>-\>\|\>|\<\|\|\>>*sup>|\|\>-\+\-\>\|\>|\<\|\|\>>,>>>>> so provided Eq. is satisfied we get our bound. Remark that the inequality is ensured by our choice of parameters: -\+\-\=3\-\+\=0>. To prove Theorem we need to exhibit the estimates in Eq. starting from the analysis of the flow equation we performed so far in this Section.\ \; Before continuing with the specific computations leading to establish the family of bounds in Eq. \ it will be useful to discuss how to fix the values of ,\,|\>>. The validity of the Lemmata,, and below, which together establish Eq., depends on a series of conditions on ,\,|\>,\,\>>, namely Eq., Eq., Eq. and Eq. and also the constraints in Theorem, which we summarise in this table for the convenience of the reader: <\equation*> ||||]>>|\3-\|)>+\-a\>|\>|)>-\>>||]>>|\min,3\--2\-a\>|]>>>||]>>|\\ |\>-\-a\>|\>|)>>>||]>>||\>\>\+|\>|)>\>>>||]>>|\\\|)>>>||]>>|\|)> |\>|1-|\>>>>>>> Together with the basic bounds \0>, \0>. In order to satisfy all these inequalities we proceed as follows. Let us start by fixing <\equation> =\-\>,=\>/2>,=\>>. > >>>>> Next, fix |\>\0> small enough so that \; <\equation*> |)> |\>|1-|\>>\\>, which allow to satisfy |]>>. Then fix large enough so that <\equation*> a\2>\/|\>\2>\/|\>, which together with\ <\equation> |\>|)>\>\|\>/2, allow to satisfy |]>>. Next |]>> will be satisfies provided <\equation> a\>|\>|)>+\\\>, holds, while observing that, from we have \; <\equation*> 3\--2\-a\>=3-\|)>+3\--2\-a\>=3-\|)>+>-\|)>-\-a\>, shows that |]>> is satisfied provided <\equation*> 4\\>-\|)>-\-a\>=\>-\-a\>, and <\equation*> 3\\2\=2s-\-\=2s->|2>-\, holds, that is if <\equation> \+a\>\>|2>,\\2s-\>. note that <\equation*> 2s-\>\2s-\>\2s-==\0, so the second condition in can be indeed satisfied. Next, in order to satisfy |]>> we require <\equation> 2a\>\>|4>, and choose |\>> large enough so that <\equation*> \+\>\>|4>|\>->|8>\>|2>-2a\>|)> |\>-a\>. Finally |]>> gives the two constraints <\equation> \>=\\|2>=-|4>-|4>,s-|2>-|2>=\\2s. To conclude we can fix >> and > small enough to satisfy the remaining constraints, namely,,,,. \; Let us now give the details of the analysis. To begin with, we extract the coercive term from the effective force by letting <\equation> >|)>>||>F>>|)>-*\>|)>>>|||>F>>|)>-J>*\>|)>->|)>*\>|)>>>||>|>F>0|]>>>|)>+J>F,>\>+J>F,>->|)>*\>|)>,>>>>> where > is a generic field, >\J>\>, ,1>|)>=>*\>, ,0>=\|)>>> and where in the last equality we introduced the notation <\equation*> F>0|]>>>|)>\\\|)>\0>F>>>|)>. <\lemma> Assume that <\equation> >\5,|\>\>\+|\>|)>\>. Then the bounds <\equation> ||\>|\>>*Q>>|)>|\<\|\|\>>>>>|>||\|\>+\>*||F>|\<\|\|\>>*|\|\>|)>>>+|\|\>|)>*|\\|\>|>>>>>> and <\equation> ||\>|\>>*K>F>>|)>|\<\|\|\>>>>>|>||\|\>>*|F>|\<\|\|\>>*|\|\>|)>>>,>>>>> hold uniformly in |\>,\\,> \\|\>,1|)> >and \\|)>>. <\proof> Eq. is a direct consequence of the triangular inequality applied to the decomposition together with the results of Lemmata, below and of Lemma and also from the fact that |\>\5\> (by), since then, using >=L>J>K>> and that >J>> is a bounded operator in weighted spaces, <\equation*> |\>|\>>*Q>>|)>|\<\|\|\>>>|>||\>|\>>*J>F>0|]>>>|)>|\<\|\|\>>+|\>|\>>*J>,>\>+F,>|)>|\<\|\|\>>+|\>|\>>*>|)>*\>|)>|\<\|\|\>>>>||>||\>|\>>*K>F>0|]>>>|)>|\<\|\|\>>+|\>|\>>*K>,>\>+F,>|)>|\<\|\|\>>+|\>>*>|)>*\>|)>|\<\|\|\>>.>>>>> Eq. follows similarly using additionally that |\>\3\> (again by) and the boundedness of >>, <\equation*> |\>|\>>*K>*\>|)>|\<\|\|\>>\\*|\>>*K>*\>|\<\|\|\>>\\*|\>>*\>|\<\|\|\>>\\*|\|\>>*|\|\>. Equation follows suit by triangular inequality and the definition of . <\lemma> Assume, then for every \\> such that |)>\0>, we have <\equation> |\>|\>>K>F>>>|)>|\<\|\|\>>>>\|\|\>+-\|)>k|)>+\\|)>-a\>|\>|)>>*|F>|\<\|\|\>>*|\|\>|)>>. Moreover, provided <\equation> \\3-\|)>+\-a\>|\>|)>-\, the following bound <\equation*> |\>|\>>*K>F0|]>>>>|)>|\<\|\|\>>>>\|\|\>+\>*|F>|\<\|\|\>>*|\|\>|)>>>. holds uniformly in |\>,\\,> \\|\>,1|)> > and \\|)>>. <\proof> \ Consider terms >F>>>|)>> for > such that |)>\0>. It holds that, <\eqnarray*> |\>|\>>*K>F>>>|)>|\<\|\|\>>>>>|||\>|\>> K>F>>>k|)>>>|)>k|)>>>\>|)>k|)>>|\<\|\|\>>>>>>||||\>|\>>*K>F>>>L>>|]>k|)>>>|)>k|)>>>\>|)>k|)>>|\<\|\|\>>>>>>||>||\|)>>>>F>>|)>>>|\<\|\|\>>*|\>|\>>|)>>|)>>>|)>>|)>k|)>>|\<\|\|\>>>>|\>\>|\<\|\|\>>|)>>>>,>>>> where in the first equality we used >J>=J>> while in the second one we exploited the weighted Young inequality. For the sake of clarity, we observe that the dependence on the spacetime points in above notation is <\equation*> >|\>>|)>>|)>>>|)>>|)>k|)>>|]>,\,z|)>>|)>\>>|\\>|\>>|)>>|)>>>|)>,\,z|)>>|)>\>|)>\\>|)>>|)>.>>>>> We now observe that, via Lemma, <\equation*> |\>\>|\<\|\|\>>>>\|\|\>>*|\|\>, as well as <\equation> |\>|\>>|)>>|)>>>|)>>|)>k|)>>|\<\|\|\>>>>\|\|\>>|)>|)>>\|\|\>>|\>|)>>. We used the tree weight >>|)>> to propagate the weight >|)>k|)>>> to the output variable. The above estimate follows then from the bound. As a consequence, it holds that, <\equation*> |\>|\>>K>F>>>|)>|\<\|\|\>>>>\|\|\>+-\|)>k|)>+\\|)>-a\>|)>|)>>*|F>|\<\|\|\>>*|\|\>|)>>, which proves Eq.. Next, <\eqnarray*> ||\>|\>>K>F0|]>>>|)>|\<\|\|\>>>>>|>|\\|)>\0,k|)>\>>|\>|\>>*>F>>>|)>|\<\|\|\>>>>>>||>|\\|)>\0,k|)>\>>|\|\>+-\|)>k|)>+\\|)>-a\>|)>|)>>*|F>|\<\|\|\>>*|\|\>|)>>>>||>||\|\>+\-a\>|)>|)>>*|F>|\<\|\|\>>*|\|\>|)>>>,>>>> where we used that \\>, \|)>\|\>> and |)>\>>. The proof is complete, since by we have <\equation*> 3\-\+\-a\>|\>|)>=3-\|)>+\-a\>|\>|)>-\\\. \; <\lemma> Assume and <\equation> \\min,3\--2\-a\>|]>, then the bound <\equation*> |\>|\>>K>,>>\>+F,>>|)>|\<\|\|\>>>>\|\|\>+\>*|F>|\<\|\|\>>*|\|\>|)>, holds uniformly in |\>,\\,>\\|\>,1|)> > and \\|)>>. <\proof> We consider separately the two contributions. Using that ,>>> is independent of > we have <\equation*> |\>|\>>*K>F,>>\>|\<\|\|\>>>>\|\|\>>*|\|\>\|\|\>+\>*|\|\>. Moreover, thanks to the definition of |F>|\<\|\|\>>> (cfr. Eq.), it follows that <\equation*> |\>|\>>K>F,>>|\<\|\|\>>>>\|\>|\>>\|\<\|\|\>>>>*|\K>F,>|\<\|\|\>>\|\|\>>>|\|\>/2-2\>*|F>|\<\|\|\>> <\equation*> \|\|\>-a\>>*|F>|\<\|\|\>>\|\|\>+\>*|F>|\<\|\|\>>, where |\>|\>>\|\<\|\|\>>>>\1> since |\>\\>> by. <\lemma> Assume, then for all \-a\>|\>|)>|]>> the bound <\equation*> |\>K>F>>|)>>>|^>|]>|\<\|\|\>>\|\|\>-1>*|F>|\<\|\|\>>*|\|\>|)>>>*|\>|\>>|~>>|^>|\<\|\|\>>, holds uniformly in |\>\,> \>, \\|\>,1|)>> and ,|^>\\|)>>. <\proof> Observe that >>|^>=>>|~>>|^>\>>|~>>. We have <\equation*> |\>K>D F>>|)>>>|^>|\<\|\|\>>>>>|>|\k|)>=1>>>|\>K>F >>>|)>-1|)>>\>>|~>|)>|\<\|\|\>>>>>>|||\k|)>=0>>-1>|\>>>F >>|)>>>\>|)>|)>-1|)>>\>>|)>>>|~>|]>|\<\|\|\>>>>>>||>|\k|)>=0>>-1>|\|)>>>>F >>|)>>>|\<\|\|\>>*|\>L>>\>|\<\|\|\>>>>|)>-1>*|w>>>|\<\|\|\>>>|)>>\>>|||\|\|\>>>|~>|\<\|\|\>>>>|\>|)>>|)>>>w>|)>>|)>|)>-1|)>>\\|\>>>|)>|\<\|\|\>>>>.>>>>> For the sake of clarity, we observe that by construction <\equation*> >|)>>|)>>>w>|)>>|)>|)>-1|)>>\\|\>>>|)>|]>,\,z|)>-1>,y|)>=>>| =>|)>>|)>\>|)>\\>|)>-1>|)>\|\>>>|w>|)>,\-\>|)>|)>|)>>,\,z|)>-1>|)>w>|)>-1>,y|)>>.>>>>> Recall that <\equation*> |\>L>>\>|\<\|\|\>>\|\>L>>\>|\<\|\|\>>\|\|\>>*|\|\>,|w>>>|\<\|\|\>>>|)>>\|\|\>, <\equation*> |\|)>>>>F >>|)>>>|\<\|\|\>>=|F >>|\<\|\|\>>>\|F>|\<\|\|\>>*|\|\>+\k|)>>, and that <\equation> |\>|)>>|)>>>w>|)>>|)>k|)>>\\|\>>>|)>|\<\|\|\>>>>>|>||\>|)>>|)>\>|)>-1|)>>\|\>>>|\<\|\|\>>>>>>||>||\|\>>>|)>>|)>\>|)>-1|)>>|\<\|\|\>>>>>>||>||\|\>>|\>|)>-\|)>-1|)>>,>>>>> where, similarly to Equation we used that the weights >|)>>|)>> decay faster than both >> and >> together with and the fact that the Steiner diameter of a family of points is always larger than the distance between any two of these points. We conclude <\equation*> |\>K>D F>>|)>>>|~>|\<\|\|\>>>>>|>||\|\>+\\+-\|)>|)>-1|)>-a\>|\>|)>-1>|F>|\<\|\|\>>|\|\>|)>>>|\|\>>>|~>|\<\|\|\>>>>>>||>||\|\>-a\>|\>|)>-1>|F>|\<\|\|\>>|\|\>|)>>>|\|\>>>|~>|\<\|\|\>>>>,>>>>> where in the last step we used +\=\> and that \\>. <\lemma> Assume that <\equation> \ |\>-\-a\>|\>|)>\\. Then\ <\equation*> H>|)>\\>F>|)>+\F>|)>*>>F>|)>,\\\|)>, satisfies the bound\ <\equation*> |\>K>H>>|)>|\<\|\|\>>>>\|\|\>-1>*|F>|\<\|\|\>>*|\|\>|)>>>. uniformly in |\>,\\,> \\|\>,1|)>>. <\proof> We observe that on account of the perturbative flow equation, it holds <\equation*> H>>|)>=>\|\>|)>>,\\\|\>|)>>B>,\>>>,F>>,F>>|)>>|)>, where |\>|)>=\\:\|)>\|\>|}>>. Then, using Lemma we get <\eqnarray*> |\>K>H>>|)>|\<\|\|\>>>>>|>|>\|\>|)>>,\\\|\>|)>>|\>*K>B>,\>>>,F>>,F>>|)>>|)>|\<\|\|\>>>>>>||>|>\|\>|)>>,\\\|\>|)>>|\|\>>|)>|)>>*|\|\>k|)>>*|B>,\>>>,F>>,F>>|)>|\<\|\|\>>>*|\|\>|)>>>>||>|>\|\>|)>>,\\\|\>|)>>|\|\>>|)>|)>>*|\|\>k|)>-1>*|F>>|\<\|\|\>>>*|F>>|\<\|\|\>>>*|\|\>|)>>>>||>|>\|\>|)>>,\\\|\>|)>>|\|\>|]>-\k|)>-a\>|)>|)>-1>|F>|\<\|\|\>>*|\|\>|)>>>,>>>> where we used that |)>=k|)>+k|)>-1\2>>. Now since \\> and |)>\|\>,2|\>|]>> we have <\equation*> |]>-\k|)>-a\>|)>|)>=-\+-\|)>k|)>+\ \|)>-a\>|)>|)>\-\+\ |\>-a\>|\>|)>\0, where we exploited Equation. This gives the claim up to a multiplicative constant which depends only on |\>,>>. <\lemma> For all \|]>> the following bound <\equation*> |\>>*>|)>>|)>|\<\|\|\>>\|\|\>+\>*|\|\>*|\\>|\>. holds uniformly in |\>,\\,> \\|\>,1|)> > and \\|)>>. <\proof> Write <\equation*> >|)>>|)>=>|)>|>\>|)>+\>\>|)>+3>\>|)>*\>\>|)>+3>\>|)>*\>\>|)>|> and observe that, provided we choose =|6-5\>>, which implies |)>=\|)>>, the first contribution >|)>>\>|)>> is vanishing by the Fourier space support properties of the product. As for the other contributions we have for example <\equation*> |\>>*>|)>\>\>|)>|\<\|\|\>>=|\>*>|)>\>\>|)>|\<\|\|\>>\|\>*\>\>|)>|\<\|\|\>>\|\>*\>|\<\|\|\>>*|\>*\>\>|)>|\<\|\|\>>. Now, for \\>, by Lemma and \ Lemma, we have that (since |\|\>\|\|\>>) <\equation*> |\>>*>|)>\>\>|)>|\<\|\|\>>\|\|\>*|\|\>>*|\|\>*|\\>|\>\|\|\>>*|\|\>*|\\>|\>. Similar estimates hold for the other terms. We conclude that <\equation*> |\>>*>|)>>|)>|\<\|\|\>>\|\|\>>*|\|\>*|\\>|\>. \; We collect in this appendix various technical estimates of general character. <\definition> \,\,d\|}>>and ,|)>\\\\ we define> <\equation*> >|\|>\|\|>+|\|>|)>,\2s*|\|>+>|\|>,\\\>|)>>|)>> and <\equation*> d>>|)>\\ i\ e>-1|)>/\\d>,|)>\|)>>>|)>|)>>>|)>|)>>. <\lemma> Let >,\>> be the kernel of ,\>>. For all \>and \,\,d\|}>>> it holds <\eqnarray*> |>,\>|\|>\|\|\>>*/|\|\>|)>,>|>||\>>,\>|\|>\|\|\>-1>*/|\|\>|)>,>|>>> uniformly in \\> and \>. <\proof> Recall that <\equation*> \>,\>=>>>j,\>|\|>|)>*j,\>>|)>|)>d>,|)>*e*t+*x|)>>k*\||)>>. We start with the proof of the bound for >>,\>>. Let \\> be defined by |)>\-\\>j|)>> for \\>. It holds <\equation*> \>,\>|\|>|)>* j,\>>|)>|)>|]>=|\|\>\|)>|\|>|)>*j q>|)>|)>+j|\|>|)>*hq>|)>|)>|]>=2>\|\|\>>|\>. By the change of variables =\*k> and =\ > with \2>\|\|\>> we get <\equation*> \>>,\>|)>=>>|-1>|2>\>>/\>>|\|>|)>*j/\>|)>|)>+j|\|>|)>* h/\>|)>|)>|)>d/\>,|)>e*t/\+ *x/\|)>>k\||)>>.>>>>> Recall that >|)>\* \|)>/\|)>|]>>. Using the bound\ <\equation*> >>\>>|\|>|)>*j/\>|)>|)>+j|\|>|)>*h/\>|)>|)>|]>d/\>,|)>|}>|\|>\ 1>|\|>|)> 1>q/\>|)>|)>, for all ,|)>\\> uniform in ,|)>\\>/\>> we show that, for all \>\ <\equation*> |)>|)>>>,\>|\>>|>|-1>|2>\>>/\>>1>|\|>|)>1>/\>|)>|)>k\||)>>>>||>| -1>.>>>>> This proves the second of the stated bounds. The one of the first bound follows the same lines. <\lemma> Let \> and \,\,d\|}>>> be such that \> and >|\|>\2>. The following bounds <\equation*> |w>>\K>|\<\|\|\>>\|\|\>>,|w>>K,\>|\<\|\|\>>\1, <\equation*> |w>>>-1|)>K>|\<\|\|\>>\|>>|)>>>-1|)>>|\<\|\|\>>\|\|\>|\|\>, hold uniformly in \> and \,1|)>>. <\proof> The lemma is a consequence of Lemma. <\lemma> For \> and \,1|]>> define >\\|)>>>, >>\\|)>>, >\>>>, >>\>>>>, ,\>\>>>>, >,\>\>>>>>> and >\1+/\>, >>\1+/\>. Recall that we identify operators with their integral kernels. The following statements are true. <\enumerate-alpha> The bounds <\equation*> |>>|\<\|\|\>>>\\ |>\>|\<\|\|\>>\1,|>>>>|\<\|\|\>>>\\ |>>\>>>|\<\|\|\>>>\\ |>>\>>|\<\|\|\>>\1, hold uniformly in \>. The bounds <\equation*> |>>|)>>|\<\|\|\>>\\ \,|>>>>|)>>>|\<\|\|\>>\\ \\\ \, hold uniformly in ,\\>. The bounds <\equation*> |>,\>|\<\|\|\>>\1,|>>>,\>|\<\|\|\>>\1, hold uniformly in \> and \,1|]>>. <\proof> The first of the bounds stated in Item a) is an immediate consequence of the fact that <\equation*> >=\ \ exp|)>. Let us proceed to the proof of the second of the bounds stated in Item a). First, recall the following standard estimate for the heat kernel >|)>=e-\>|)>t>>, <\equation*> G>|)>\\ t> et-c /t>,A\\,\,d\|}>>, and note that\ <\equation*> >>=>e\|)>\>\\. Consequently, we have <\eqnarray*> >>|)>|\|>>|>|> \> e-c /\|)>/\>\\>>||>|e /|\|\>|)>>> \> e/2-c /\|)>/\/2>\\>>|||/\|)>>e /\|)>>> \ e//\|)>-c /\>\\>>||>|/\|)>>e /\|)>>> \ e>\\>>||>|/\|)>>/\|)>,>>>> uniformly in >>\> and \.> We also have >>|\|>\\>>. As a result, since for all \,\,d\|}>>> such that \1> we obtain <\equation*> \>>\/\|)> >>|\|>\\>+\>\/\>\>/\|)> +|)>\\>, which implies |>>>>|\<\|\|\>>>\\ |>>\>>>|\<\|\|\>>>\1>. The bound |>>\>>|\<\|\|\>>\1> follows now from the identity \>>=>>-\>>>. This finishes the proof of Item a). To prove Item b) observe that <\equation*> >|)>>=>-,\>=\ \>>-\>|)>, and <\equation*> >>|)>>>=>>->,\>=\ \>>-\>>|)>. Consequently, by Item a) we have <\equation*> |>>|)>>|\<\|\|\>>\\ \|\>|\<\|\|\>>+ |>>>|\<\|\|\>>|)>\\ \, and <\equation*> |>>>>|)>>>|\<\|\|\>>\\ \|\>>|\<\|\|\>>+ |>>>>|\<\|\|\>>|)>\\ \ . This proves Item b). Item c) follows from Items a) and b).\ <\lemma> Let >>\|\|\>\|)>|^>>>|\|\>\|)>|^>> >. For \>and |^>\|)>> the following bound <\equation*> |>>|\<\|\|\>>>>\||\>>|)>>>|\<\|\|\>>>>\|\|\>/2N>, holds uniformly in \>. <\proof> We have >>=>>>\>>>, where >>>, >>> are the kernels of the operators |\|\>\|)>|^>>>> and |\|\>\|)>|^>>>. Note that >=0>|\|>\|^>-1>|)>> uniformly in \> for all \>. Hence, <\equation*> ||\|>|)>>>|\<\|\|\>>>>\|\|\>||\|>|)>>|\<\|\|\>>>>\|\|\>, uniformly in \> for all \>provided |^>\1>. Observe that <\equation*> |\|\>\|)>|^>>=C|^>>>e|\|\>\|)>\> \|^>-1>\\, where |^>>\0> is some constant. Consequently, by the standard estimate for the heat kernel the kernel >>> satisfies the bound <\eqnarray*> >>|\|>>|>||\|\>> \ e-c /|\|\>|)>/\>\|^>-1>\\>>||>||\|\>e /|\|\>|)>>> \ e/2-c /|\|\>|)>/\/2>\|^>-1>\\>>||||\|\>/|\|\>|)>|^>-d>e /|\|\>|)>>> \ e//|\|\>|)>-c /\>\|^>-1>\\>>||>||\|\>/|\|\>|)>|^>-d>e /|\|\>|)>>> \ e>\|^>-1>\\>>||>||\|\>/|\|\>|)>|^>-d>/|\|\>|)>,>>>> where we used\ <\equation*> e-c /|\|\>|)>/\>\e/2-c /|\|\>|)>/\/2> e /|\|\>|)>>. We also have >>|\|>\\|^>-d>>. Hence, \ <\equation*> ||\|>|)>>>|\<\|\|\>>>>\|\|\>, uniformly in \> for all \>provided |^>\d=3>. Using the bounds for >>>, >>> one easily deduces the bound stated in the lemma. <\lemma> Let >\|\|\>\|)>|^>-1>>|\|\>\|)>|^>-2>> and <\equation*> \>\,z|)>\>>>*>+w|)>\ >+w|)>\w. For |^>\|)>> the kernel >> is Hölder continuous and satisfies the bound <\equation*> |>>|)>m>\>|\<\|\|\>>>\|\|\>m>, uniformly in \>. <\proof> <\with|color|black> We have >=>>>\>>>, where >>>, >>> are the kernels of the operators |\|\>\|)>|^>>>> and |\|\>\|)>|^>>> and >=|\>>\|\>>>, where <\eqnarray*> ||\>>,\,t|)>\>>>>>-t|)>\>>-t|)> \ t,>|>|||\>>,\,x|)>\>>>>>>-x|)>\>>-x|)> \ x.>|>>> Since |^>\1/2> and the symbol of the operator |\|\>\|)>|^>>> and its derivates are absolutely integrable. As a result, one easily shows that <\equation*> >>|\|>\/|\|\>|)>, uniformly in \> for all \>. This implies that\ <\equation*> ||\|>/|\|\>|)>|)>m>|\>>|\<\|\|\>>>\|\|\>, uniformly in \>. Note that <\equation*> >=p t|)>| p|)>|^>>>>, and <\equation*> |\>,\,t|)>=> pt+\+\p t|)>|+\+p|)>|)>|^>>p|)>|^>>\p|)>|^>>>p\\p||)>>. Observe that for all ,\\> such that \+\> there exists |)>> such that\ <\equation*> >p||)>/2>|)>/2>>\|)>/2\\/2>>, for all \>. Applying the above observation recursively one shows that\ <\equation*> ||\|>/|\|\>|)>|)>m>|\>>|\<\|\|\>>>=|\|\> ||\|>|)>|)>m>|\>|\<\|\|\>>>\|\|\>. Using the bounds for |\>>>, |\>>> one easily deduces the bound stated in the lemma. <\lemma> For every \> and \,\,d\|}>>> it holds <\equation*> G|\|>\|)>>, and <\equation> >>|\|>\ |\|\>> \|)>/|\|\>|)> /|\|\>|)>>, uniformly in \\> and \.> <\remark> The above lemma implies that for any \>, \> and \,\,d\|}>>>, <\equation*> >>|\|>\\> |\|\>-d-1-> /|\|\>|)>+\>, uniformly in \> and \.> <\proof> We only prove Eq. since the proof for G> follows the same lines. Observe that <\equation*> \>>=>>>>>|\|>|)>j>>|)>|)>|)> d>,|)>|i k+q>|)>>**e*t+*x|)>>k*\||)>>. To prove a bound for the >> norm of \t>x> \>>> it suffices to control the > norm of <\equation> ,k|)>\\>>\>>>>|\|>|)>j>>|)>|)>|)> d>,|)>|i k+q>|)>>|)>. Since for non-integer parameters the bound >>>>|)>>|\|>\|\|>|\|>>>, uniform in \>, is optimal, the > norm of the function is bounded uniformly in \> only if |\|>\d+2s>. As a result, the above simple strategy can only be used to prove the lemma for \|2s|\>|]>>. To establish the claim for every \> a more refined argument is needed. To this end, let \\> be |)>\-\\>j|)>> for \\>. Moreover, let the families of kernels >|)>\|)>>>, >>|)>\|)>>>, ,\>|)>,\\|)>>> be defined by <\equation*> >\\>>> |\|>|)>hq>|)>|)>+h|\|>|)>jq>|)>|)>|i k+m+q>|)>>*e*t+*x|)>>k\||)>>,>>|,\>\\\>>> >|)> h|\|>|)>jq>|)>|)> h\q>|)>|)>|-i m|)>+q>|)>>*e*t+*x|)>>k\|~>||)>>,>>|>>\\>>>|\|>|)>hq>|)>|)>|i k+m+q>|)>>-+m|)> h|\|>|)>jq>|)>|)> |-i m|)>+q>|)>>|)>et+x|)>>k\|~>||)>>.>>>>> We claim that <\equation> >>=\|\|\>*/\>,>=>>+>,\>*\\. The first is a consequence of >j>|)>=|\|\>\h|\|\>\\|)>>. For the second one we exploit <\equation*> |\|>|)>jq>|)>|)>|i k+m+q>|)>>>||>|)> h|\|>|)>jq>|)>|)> |-i m|)>+q>|)>>-+m|)> h|\|>|)>jq>|)>|)> |-i m|)>+q>|)>>,>>|>\h\q>|)>|)> \\>||>\> j\q>|)>|)> \\=jq>|)>/2|)>,>>>>> as well as q>|)>|)>jq>|)>/2|)>=jq>|)>|)>>. Let us motivate the usefulness of the representation of >>> given by. First note that, if |\|>\d+4s>, the > norm of the function <\equation*> ,|)>\\>>\>>|\|>|)>hq>|)>|)>|i k+m+q>|)>>-+m|)>h|\|>|)>jq>|)>|)> |-i m|)>+q>|)>>|)>d>,|)>|)>, is bounded uniformly in \>. This in contrast to the function, whose > norm is bounded uniformly in \> only if |\|>\d+2s>. As a result, it is possible to control the >> norm of the function \t>x>\>>> for |\|>\d+4s>. Since |4s|\>\3\2s\\> this suggest that >>> has the desired decay at infinity. On the other hand, the > norm of the function <\equation*> ,|)>\\>>\>>>|)>h|\|>|)>jq>|)>|)>h\ q>|)>|)>|-i m|)>+q>|)>>d>,|)>|)>, is bounded uniformly in \> for all ,> and consequently >,\>> has good decay properties. However, the bound for the >> norm of the function \t>x> \,\>> depends on >. To conclude we need to control the aforementioned norms uniformly in \>, \> and \|)>>. We claim that the following bounds imply Equation, <\equation> >|\|>>|>|>\/\|)>,>>|>>|\|>>|>|>/\|)>/\|)>,>>|,\>|\|>>|>|\> /\|)> /\|)>,>>|,\>|\|>>|>|\> /\|)> /\|)>.>>>>> To prove this claim first use the last two bounds to conclude that for all \> it holds <\equation*> ,\>|\|>\\-1-2s>\> \ /\|)>> /\|)>. Consequently, the second identity in and the above bounds yield, for \> <\equation*> >|\|>\>\> \ \|)>/\|)> /\|)>>. Equation follows now from the first identity in. It remains to prove Eq.. Starting from the bound for ,\>>, we have <\equation*> ,\>|)>=>>|=\>>> >|)>h|\|>|)>jq>|)>|)>h\q>|)>|)>|-i m|)>+q>|)>>d>,|)>**e*t+*x|)>>k*\||)>>>>|=\>\>/\>>/\>|)>h|\|>|)>j/\>|)>|)>hq/\>|)>|)>d/\>,|)>|-i \m|)>+q/\>|)>>et/\+x/\|)>>k\||)>>,>>>>> where we set =\k> and =\>. It follows that <\equation> |)>>|)>>,\>|)>|\|>\>>|\\>\>/\>>>>\>>/\>|)>h|\|>|)>j/\>|)>|)>hq/\>|)>|)>d/\>,|)>|-i \m|)>+q/\>|)>>|]>|\|>k*\||)>>.>>>>> Observe that <\itemize> in Eq, the factor |\|>|)>> restricts the integration domain to |\|>\>. In this region, the denominator is never vanishing. More precisely -i\m|)>+q/\>|)>|\|>\1>; similarly, the factor q/\>|)>|)>> restricts the integration domain to those > such that /\>|)>\,2\|]>>. Thus, on the integration domain >>q/\>|)>|\|>\>|\|>>/\>|)>\\|\|>-2s>>. On account of these comments, for the integrand function we have the following bound <\equation*> >>\>>/\>|)>h|\|>|)>j/\>|)>|)>hq/\>|)>|)>d/\>,|)>|-i\m|)>+q/\>|)>>|)>|\|>\\|\|>-2s>1>|\|>|)>1>q/\>|)>|)>, for all ,|)>\\>. This implies that <\eqnarray*> |)>|)>,\>|)>|\|>>|>|-1>\>/\>>1>|\|>|)>1>q/\>|)>|)> k*\||)>>>>||>|-1>\>/\|)>>>1>|\|>|)> 1>/\|)>>|)>|)> k*\||)>>>>||>|-1>\,>>>> for any \.> The proof for >>> is similar. Working as in the previous case, we have <\equation*> |)>|)>>>|\|>\\> \>>|>/\>>>>\>>|\|>|)>h/\>|)>|)>|i k+\m+q/\>|)>>++\m|)>h|\|>|)>j/\>|)>|)> |-i \m|)>+q/\>|)>>|)>d/\>,|)>|]>|\|>k*\||)>>.>>>>> As above, also here the denominators are non-vanishing on the integration domain, more precisely +\m+q/\>|)>|\|>\1> and -i \m|)>+q/\>|)>|\|>\1>. In the first term, this is due to the factor /\>|)>|)>> restricting the integration domain to /\>|)>\> while in the second one this is due to factor |\|>|)>> restricting it to |\|>\>. Since >>q/\>|)>|\|>\>|\|>>/\>|)>>, we get <\equation*> >>\>>|\|>|)> h/\>|)>|)>|i k+\m+q/\>|)>>++\m|)> h|\|>|)> j/\>|)>|)> |-i \m|)>+q/\>|)>>|)>*d/\>,|)>|]>|\|>\>>| \ 1>|\|>|)> 1>q/\>|)>|)> q|\|>>/\>|)>|)>.>>>>> This implies that, for d+4s>\ <\equation*> |)>|)>>>|\|>>|>|-1>>/\>>1>|\|>|)>1>/\>|)>|)>q/\>|)>|)>\k\>>||>|-1>.>>>>> Since d+3> the bound for >>> follows. Finally, we discuss the first bound in . By changing the variables as above <\equation*> |)>>|\|>\>>|\\>>/\>>>|\|>|)>h/\>|)>|)>+h|\|>|)>j/\>|)>|)>|i k+\m+q/\>|)>>d/\>,|)>|]>|\|>\k\.>>>>> We use the same argument as for >>>: indeed both terms in the integrand have non-vanishing denominators due to the factors /\>|)>|)>> and |\|>|)>>, respectively. Analogously, we obtain <\equation*> > |\|>|)>h/\>|)>|)>+h|\|>|)>j/\>|)>|)>|i k+\m+q/\>|)>>d/\>,|)>|]>|\|>\1>|\|>|)>, and thus <\equation*> |)>>|\|>\\>>/\>>1>|\|>|)>k*\||)>>\\>\|)>=\>\. This concludes the proof. We summarise here the properties of the various weights we introduced throughout the paper. <\lemma> For any \>, it holds that <\equation*> |\>D>|)>|\<\|\|\>>\|\|\>. <\proof> By Equation, we have, introducing the ball |)>> centred at and of radius >, <\equation*> >D>|)>|]>>||>>|)>-\>|]>\z|)>>>|||>|)>>>|)>-\>|]>\z|)>+>>|||>|)>>>|)>-\>|]>\z|)>>>|||+\\.>>>>> On |)>> we have <\equation*> =|)>>>\>|)>-1|]>\z|)>>|>||)>>\>\>|)>\z|)>+|)>>\z|)>>>||>||)>>\>\>|)>\z|)>+\.>>>>> Since >=|\|\>|)>|)>> and 2/3>, <\equation*> |)>>\>\>|)>\z|)>\|)>>|\|\>>->|\|>|)>\z|)>=\+|\|\>\. Choosing now =|\|\>>, we get <\equation*> \\|\|\>+|\|\>|\|\>|\|\>\|\|\>. Moving now on the ball |)>>, thanks to the smoothness of >> in space, by Taylor's theorem <\equation*> \\\\>|\|\>|)>>\>|)>|]>>-z|\|>\z|)>. Since \>|)>|\|>\|\|\>> for any >, we conclude <\equation*> \\\|\|\>|\|\>|)>>>->|\|>\z|)>\\|\|\>=|\|\>. <\equation*> \; <\lemma> The following bound holds uniformly in ,\\> <\equation*> >|)>w,\>>|w,\>>>\|\|\>>|\|\>>. <\proof> We have <\equation*> >|)>|)>w,\>>|)>|w,\>>|)>>>||,\>>|)>|w,\>>|)>>|\|\>|\|>|1+|\|\>|\|>>>>|||,\>>|)>|w,\>>|)>>|\|\>|\|>|)>>|\|\>|\|>|)>>|1+|\|\>|\|>>>>||||\|\>>|\|\>>|\|\>|\|>|)>>||\|\>|\|>|)>>>|\|\>|\|>|)>>|\|\>|\|>|)>>|1+|\|\>|\|>>>>||>||\|\>>|\|\>>|\|\>|\|>|)>>|\|\>|\|>|)>>|1+|\|\>|\|>>>>||>||\|\>>|\|\>>|\|\>|\|>|)>|1+|\|\>|\|>>\|\|\>>|\|\>>.>>>>> \; <\lemma> The following bound holds uniformly in ,\\> <\equation*> >>|)>w,\>>|w,\>>>\|\|\>>|\|\>>. <\proof> By definition of >>>, >>=0> if |\|\>St,\,y|)>\1>. As a consequence,\ <\equation*> >>|)>w,\>>|w,\>>>>|||\|\>St,\,y|)>|)>>||\|\>St,\,y|)>|)>>>>>|)>>>||||\|\>>|\|\>>|\|\>+St,\,y|)>|)>>||\|\>+St,\,y|)>|)>>>>>|)>,>>>>> is non-vanishing only if ,\,y|)>\|\|\>>. Hence <\equation*> >>|)>w,\>>|w,\>>>\|\|\>>|\|\>>,\,y|)>|)>>|,\,y|)>|)>>>>>|)>\|\|\>>|\|\>>. <\lemma> The following bound <\equation*> |>|)>K>>|\>>|]>,>|\<\|\|\>>>\|\|\>>|\|\>> |>|\>>|]>,>|\<\|\|\>>>, holds uniformly in ,\\>, where the norms are the ones for cumulants introduced in Def.. <\proof> By the weighted Young inequality and Lemma we obtain <\equation*> |>|)>K>>|\>>|]>,>|\<\|\|\>>>=|w>,\>K>>|)>K>>|\>>|]>,>|]>|\<\|\|\>>>|>||>>|)>2>K>|\<\|\|\>>*|w>,\>>|)>K>>|\>>|]>,>|\<\|\|\>>>>||>||w>,\>>|)>/w>,\>|\<\|\|\>>>>|>|\>>|]>,>|\<\|\|\>>>>>||>||\|\>>|\|\>>|>|\>>|]>,>|\<\|\|\>>>.>>>>> This proves the statement. <\lemma> The kernel norms satisfy the following bound uniformly in ,\\> <\equation*> |>>|)>>>>>>|\<\|\|\>>>>|>||\|\>>|\|\>>*|>>>|\<\|\|\>>>.>>>>> <\proof> By the weighted Young inequality and Lemma we obtain <\equation*> |>>|)>>>>>>|\<\|\|\>>>>|||\|)>>>>>>|)>>>>>>|]>w>>|\<\|\|\>>>>||>|||)>>|)>>>|)>|)>|)>>>>|\<\|\|\>>*|\|)>>>>|)>>>>>>|]>w>>|\<\|\|\>>>>||>||>>|)>w>>/w>>|\<\|\|\>>>>|>>>|\<\|\|\>>>>>||>||\|\>>|\|\>>|>>>|\<\|\|\>>>.>>>>> This proves the statement. <\lemma> The kernel norms satisfy the bound <\equation*> |v>>F> >|\<\|\|\>>>\|\|)>>>>>>F> >|)>>>|\<\|\|\>>\|F> >|\<\|\|\>>>, uniformly in \> for generic kernels >> like >\ >> or >>|)>>>>>, where >>> is a nice weight with the similar compact support as >>>. <\proof> We have, recalling that > >=>>>>*F> >|)>>, <\equation*> >>>>F>|)>>||>>>>>>>>F>|)>|]>=>>>>>\>|)>k|)>>|)>>>F>|)>|]>,>>>>> where >=|\|\>\|)>>|\|\>\|)>>. Integrating by parts each of the above differential operator (in the tensor product) we get <\equation> >>>>F>|)>=>>>|)>>v>>|)>>>F>|)>, for suitable differential operators >> and >>. Each of them has the following tensor form (with |)>>) <\equation*> D>=>>D>>|)>\>>D>>|)>\\\>>D>>|)>, with >>> one of the following operators |\|\>\|)>> and >>> one of the operators <\equation*> 1,|\|\>\,|\|\>\\,|\|\>\\\,\,|\|\>\|)>, the highest order operator is either of the form |\|\>\|)>> or \ |\|\>\|)>> and then we consider all the possible lower order operators. Since we are on the lattice, in order for the Leibniz rule to apply we should also consider the spatial operators to shift the space variable in some directions by one lattice spacing. We avoid to note explicitly this additional multiplicity. With this particular decomposition it is easy to see that <\equation*> D>>>=>>|\|\>\|)>D>>|\|\>\|)>|)>, and by the above properties we have <\equation*> |\|)>>>>|\|\>\|)>|]>|)>>|)>|\<\|\|\>>>|)>>,|\|)>>>>|\|\>\|)>|]>|)>>|)>|\<\|\|\>>>|)>>\1. Therefore we can conclude that <\equation> |v>>F>|\<\|\|\>>>>|>||\|)>>>>>|)>>v>>|)>>>F>|)>|]>>>|\<\|\|\>>>>||>||\|)>>>v>>|)>>>F>|)>|]>>>|\<\|\|\>>>>|||)>>>||\|)>>>>>>F>|)>|]>>>|\<\|\|\>>,>>>>> where in the second inequality we used the weighted Young convolution inequality, while in the last one we introduced >>\sup>v>>|\|>>. <\lemma> The kernel norms satisfy the following bound uniformly in \>, \,1|)>>\ <\equation*> |>>|)>>>|)>>>>|\<\|\|\>>>>|>||\|\>|\|\>*|>>>|\<\|\|\>>>.>>>>> <\proof> By Lemma we have <\equation*> |>>|)>>>|)>>>>|\<\|\|\>>>\|>>|)>>>>|\<\|\|\>>>=|\|)>>>>-1|)>>>>>>>>|]>>>|\<\|\|\>>>. By the weighted Young inequality, Lemma and >>\>>> we obtain <\equation*> |\|)>>>>-1|)>>>>>>>>|]>>>|\<\|\|\>>>|>|||)>>|)>>-\>\>|)>|)>|)>>>>-1|)>>>|\<\|\|\>> |\|)>>>>>>>>>|\<\|\|\>>>>||>||\|\>|\|\> |>>>|\<\|\|\>>>.>>>>> \; <\lemma> The following bound <\equation*> |>|)>>|\>>|]>,>|\<\|\|\>>>>|>||\|\>|\|\>*|>|\>>|]>,>|\<\|\|\>>>,>>>>> holds uniformly in \,\\,1|)>> where the norm |\|\<\|\|\>>>> is meant to be the cumulant norm.\ <\proof> By the weighted Young inequality, Lemma and >>\w>>> we obtain <\equation*> |>|)>>|\>>|]>,>|\<\|\|\>>>>||||\>-1|)>K>|)>|]>K>>|\>>|]>,>|>w>,\>|\<\|\|\>>>>||>||w>>>-1|)>K>|\<\|\|\>> |K>>|\>>|]>,>w>,\>|\<\|\|\>>>>||>||\|\>|\|\> |>|\>>|]>,>|\<\|\|\>>>.>>>>> \; This section gathers some estimates on the regularity of space-time functions > in terms of the size of \>. <\lemma> For all \> and \,\,d\|}>>> the following bounds <\equation*> |\>\G|\<\|\|\>>>\|\|\>>,|\>\>>|\<\|\|\>>>\|\|\>>,|\>>|)>|\<\|\|\>>>\|\|\>, hold uniformly in -1> and \>. <\proof> Recall that > is the spatial Littlewood-Paley block, \|)>> and note that <\equation*> G=>>> \\+>>> \\+G. Recalling that >|\>\\>> is the spatial part of the weight >> and taking into account Remark(a) we obtain <\equation*> |\>\G|\<\|\|\>>>>|>|||\>>\|\<\|\|\>>>>|\>>>|\<\|\|\>>> \\>>|||||\>>>|)>\|\<\|\|\>>>>|\>>|)>>>|\<\|\|\>>> \\>>|||||\>>>|)>\|\<\|\|\>>> |\>>|)>G|\<\|\|\>>> \\.>>>>> Consequently, using Theorem we arrive at <\equation*> |\>\G|\<\|\|\>>>>|>|>|\|\> \\+|\|\>>|\|\> \\+|\|\>\1>>||>||\|\>>+|\|\>> |\|\>+|\|\>\|\|\>>.>>>>> This proves the first bound. The second bound follows directly from Theorem. To show the third bound notice that <\equation*> |\>>|)>|\<\|\|\>>>\>|\>>>|\<\|\|\>>>\\\>|\|\>\\\|\|\>. This completes the proof. <\lemma> It holds <\equation> |\>\\|\<\|\|\>>\|\|\>>||\>|\>>|\\|\>|\>>||\|\>+||\>|\>>|K>\\|\>>|>, uniformly in \\|)>>, -1> and \|\>,1|)>>. In particular, for \> it holds <\equation*> 2 |\>\\|\<\|\|\>>\|\|\>>||\|\>+||\>|\>>|K>\\|\>>|>, uniformly in |\>\*>, \|\>,1|)>> and \\|)>>. <\proof> First observe that <\equation> |\>*\\|\<\|\|\>>\sup|\>*\*\\|\<\|\|\>>\sup|\>*\*\\|\>>|\<\|\|\>>*|\\|\>>*\\|\<\|\|\>>\|\|\>>sup|\\|\>|\>>|\\|\>>*\\|\<\|\|\>>, uniformly in -1> and \|\>>. To obtain the last estimate we used the fact that <\equation> sup|\>*\*\\|\>>|\<\|\|\>>\sup|\>*\*\>|\<\|\|\>>\|\|\>>|\\|\>|\>>. Indeed note that if |\>\\\\>, we have |\>*\*\>|\<\|\|\>>\|\|\>|\|\>|)>>\|\|\>>|\|\>>=|\|\>>|\\|\>|\>>>. On the other hand, if \\\|\>>, then |\>*\*\>|\<\|\|\>>\1> and |\|\>>|\\|\>|\>>>. Hence, the bound follows. By the estimate it suffices to establish the bound with the weight >> replaced by >>. To prove the latter bound note that <\eqnarray*> \|\>> |\|\>> |\>\\|\<\|\|\>>>>>|||\>\\\\> |\|\>> |\>\\|\<\|\|\>>>>\sup\\\|\>> |\|\>> |\>\\|\<\|\|\>>>>>>||>|||\>|\>>|\\|\>>\\|\<\|\|\>>>>\||\>|\>>|\\|\>|\>>sup\\\|\>> |\|\>> |\>\\|\<\|\|\>>>>>>||>|||\>|\>>|\\|\>|\>> sup\\\|\>> |\|\>> |\>\\|\<\|\|\>>>>.>>>> In order to bound the supremum in the last line above we shall use the following decomposition <\equation*> \=\>+>|)>\\,\\\\|\>. Note that <\equation*> sup\\\|\>> |\|\>> |\>\\|\<\|\|\>>>>\sup\\\|\>> |\|\>> |\>\\>|\<\|\|\>>>>+sup\\\|\>> |\|\>>>> |\>\>|)>\\|\<\|\|\>>>>, and <\equation*> sup\\\|\>> |\|\>> |\>\\>|\<\|\|\>>>>\sup\\\|\>> |\|\>> |\>\>|\<\|\|\>>>>\sup\\\|\>> |\|\>> |\>\>|\<\|\|\>>>>\|\|\>. To complete the proof it is now enough to show that <\equation> |\>\>|)>\\|\<\|\|\>>>>\|\|\>>*|K>\\|\>>, uniformly in \\\|\>>. To this end, recall that >=|\|\>\|)>>>>>, where >>\>|\|\>\|)>>. Now <\eqnarray*> >|)>\>||>|)>L>K>\\>>|||>>\>|)>|\|\>\|)>>\\|)>>>|||>>\>|)>K>\\+|\|\>>>\\G >|)>K>\\>>|||+\\.>>>> We have the following bound for |\>\|\<\|\|\>>>>> <\eqnarray*> |\> \|\<\|\|\>>>>=|\>>>\>|)>K>\\|\<\|\|\>>>>>|>|||\>>>\|\<\|\|\>>> |\>|)>|\<\|\|\>>>|\>K>\\|\<\|\|\>>>>>>||>||\|\>|\>K>\\|\<\|\|\>>>>.>>>> We recall that >|\>\\>> is the spatial part of the weight >>. The above estimates follow from Remark(a) and the bound <\equation*> ||\>>>\|\<\|\|\>>>\1. In order to bound |\> \\|\<\|\|\>>>>> we first note that G=\>-+>|)>|)>G> and write <\eqnarray*> \>|||\|\>>>\\G >|)>K>\\>>||||\|\>>>\>|)>K>\\-|\|\>+>|)>|)>>>\G >|)>K>\\>>|||\+\\.>>>> We have the following bound for |\> \\|\<\|\|\>>>>>: <\eqnarray*> |\> \\|\<\|\|\>>>>=|\|\> |\>>>\>|)>K>\\|\<\|\|\>>>>>|>||\|\> ||\>>>\|\<\|\|\>>> |\>|)>|\<\|\|\>>*|\K>\\|\<\|\|\>>>>>>||>||\|\>|\>K>\\|\<\|\|\>>>>.>>>> For |\>\\|\<\|\|\>>>>> we have, exploiting Lemma,\ <\eqnarray*> |\> \\|\<\|\|\>>>>>|>||\|\> |\>+>|)>|)>>>+\+\|)>\G >|)>K>\\|\<\|\|\>>>>>>||>||\|\> ||\>+>|)>|)>>>+\+\|)>|\<\|\|\>>>|\\G|\<\|\|\>>>|\>|)>|\<\|\|\>> |\>K>\\|\<\|\|\>>>>>>||>||\|\>|\|\>|\|\> |\>K>\\|\<\|\|\>>>>>>||||\|\> |\>K>\\|\<\|\|\>>>>,>>>> where we used that <\equation*> ||\>+>|)>|)>>>+\+\|)>|\<\|\|\>>>\ |\|\>. Summing up, we have\ <\equation*> |\>>|)>\\|\<\|\|\>>>>\|\|\> |\> K>\\|\<\|\|\>>>>\|\|\>> |\|\>> |\> K>\\|\<\|\|\>>>>\|\|\>>*|K>\\|\>>. This proves the bound and completes the proof of the lemma. <\lemma> It holds <\equation*> |\>*J\>\>|\<\|\|\>>\*|\|\>*|\|\>>*|\\>|\>, uniformly \\|)>> and |\>,\,\,\\*> such that \\\|\>>. <\proof> Using Remark(a) and Lemma we obtain <\equation*> |\>*>|)>\\>|\<\|\|\>>\|\*>|)>|\<\|\|\>>>*|\>*\\>|\<\|\|\>>\|\|\> |\>*\\>|\<\|\|\>>. Next, we note that <\equation*> |\>*J\>\>|\<\|\|\>>=|\>*>|)>\\>|\<\|\|\>>\|\|\>*|\>*\\>|\<\|\|\>>\|\|\>|\>*\\>|\<\|\|\>>\ |\|\>*|\|\>>*|\\>|\>, on account of Lemma and the identity >=\>>>. This finishes the proof. > and >> Goal of this section is to prove suitable bounds for the operators >> and >, of the form <\equation*> >\>>>>,\>>|)>=|)>>>\,>>>>,\>>|)>,,\>\>,\>>>,\>>,\>>|)>=>|)>>,\>\,>,\>>>,\>>,\>>|)>. By definition, \; <\equation> >\,>>>>,\>>|)>>>|\=0>|)>-1>|)>>=0>+1|)> >>>|)> \|)>+1>>>,\,F>|)>-1-\|]>,+1|)>>,F>|]>,|)>-k|)>>,\,F>|)>>>|)>,>>>>> where the range of the sum over > is understood to be given by the constraints on ,k|)>> on the right hand side of the above equation and >>>|)>> applies >>> to the output variable of the kernel of the >-th argument and it plugs the result to the last input variable of the kernel of the -th argument. Concerning the other term, \; <\equation> ,\>\,>,\>>>,\>>,\>>|)>\,I>=0>|)>-1>|)>>=0>+1|)>\>>|\\>|\|>+1>>>|)> |\|>+1>>>|)>I>,F|)>-1-\,k+1|)>>>|)>\|\|>+1>>,k|)>-k|)>>,>>|)>I>|)>|)>,>>>>> where now, for a fixed ,n|)>|}>>, the sum ,I>> runs over all the partitions of the set \I=,i-1,i+1,\,n|)>|}>> and where now the range of the sum over > and > is given by the constraints over ,I,\,k|)>> on the right hand side. <\lemma> For all \>> and n|)>> the following bound holds uniformly in \> <\equation*> |\|\>|]>>|\,>>>>,\>>|)>|\<\|\|\>>>\|\|\>|]>-1>|\>>|\<\|\|\>>>. <\proof> First of all, recalling Equation, namely <\equation*> \,>>>>,\>>|)>\+1|)> >>>|)> \|)>+1>>>,\,F>|)>-1-\|]>,+1|)>>,F>|]>,|)>-k|)>>,\,F>|)>>>|)>, we act >K>=> on the output variable of >>> and > on its input variable. This means that we can write <\equation*> >|)>,K|)>>\,>>>>,\>>|)>=>>|=+1|)> >>>>|)> K>|)>,K|)>>\|)>+1>>>,\,F>|)>-1-\|]>,+1|)>>,F>|]>,|)>-k|)>>,\,F>|)>>>|)>,>>>>> where |)>=n|)>+1> and |)>=K|)>+1>. As a consequence <\equation*> |K>|)>,K|)>>\,>>>>,\>>|)>w>>|\<\|\|\>>\>>|\|>>>>|)>K>|)>,K|)>>\|)>+1>>>,\,F>|)>-1-\|]>,+1|)>>,F>|]>,|)>-k|)>>,\,F>|)>>>|)>w>>|\<\|\|\>>.>>>>> We can now apply Lemma to the weight >>> to get <\equation*> >>,\,z|)>>|)>>|>||)>|)>,\>>,\,z|)>>|)>>>||>||)>|)>,\>>,\,z>,x|)>w>>w|)>|)>,\>>+1>,\,z|)>>|)>,>>>>> where we recall that |)>+k|)>=1+k|)>> and where the variables \> are assumed to be the ones on which >>>> is depending. Overall, this gives <\equation*> |\,>>>>,\>>|)>|\<\|\|\>>>>|||K>>\,>>>>,\>>|)>w>>|\<\|\|\>>>>||>||>>>|)>w>>|\<\|\|\>>,L>|)>>|>>\>>|)>*w>>|\<\|\|\>>>>||||>>>|)>w>>|\<\|\|\>>,L>|)>>|\>>|\<\|\|\>>>,>>>>> Since on account of Theorem, <\equation*> |>>>|)>*w>>|\<\|\|\>>,L>|)>>\|\|\>, it follows that <\equation*> |\|\>|]>>|\,>>>>,\>>|)>|\<\|\|\>>>\|\|\>|]>-1-d>*|\>>|\<\|\|\>>>\|\|\>|]>-1>|\>>|\<\|\|\>>>, where in the last step we used that, on account of the compatibility condition, that <\equation*> -|]>-1-d=-|]>-1++\-\-d|\>0>\-|]>-1. \; <\lemma> For all \>> and n|)>> the following bound holds uniformly in \.> <\equation*> |\|\>|]>>|\,>,>>>,\>>,\>>|)>|\<\|\|\>>>\|\|\>|]>-|]>-1>|\>>|\<\|\|\>>>|\>>|\<\|\|\>>>. <\proof> The proof is very similar to the previous one. Again, the starting point is <\eqnarray*> ||,>,\>>>,\>>,\>>|)>=+1|)>\>>|||>|\|>+1>>>|)>|\|>+1>>>,\,F>>,F|)>-1-\,k+1|)>>>|)>\|\|>+1>>,k|)>-k|)>>,F>>,\,F>|)>>>|)>|]>.>>>> Introducing >K>=> on the output variable of >>> and > on its input one, we get <\equation*> >>\,>,\>>>,\>>,\>>|)>=+1|)>>|\|>+1>>>|)>>>\|\|>+1>>>,\,F>>,F|)>-1-\,k+1|)>>>|)>|]>\>>|\>>\|\|>+1>>,k|)>-k|)>>,F>>,\,F>|)>>>|)>|]>,>>>>> where |)>=|\|>+1>, |)>=|\|>+1>, |)>=k|)>+k+1> and |)>=|)>>k|)>+k|)>-k>. This gives <\equation*> |\,>,\>>>,\>>,\>>|)>|\<\|\|\>>>>|||K>>\,>,\>>>,\>>,\>>|)>w>>|\<\|\|\>>>>||\>||2>|>|\|>+1>>>|)>|K>> \|\|>+1>>>,\,F>>,F|)>-1-\,k+1|)>>>|)>\|>|>>>|||||\K>>\|\|>+1>>,k|)>-k|)>>,F>>,\,F>|)>>>|)>|>w>>||3>>.>>>>> As in the previous proof, we have that >>\w>>w>>w>>>, and thus <\equation*> |\,>,\>>>,\>>,\>>|)>|\<\|\|\>>>\|>>>|)>w>>|\<\|\|\>>>|)>>*|\>>|\<\|\|\>>>*|\>>|\<\|\|\>>>, Recalling now that, on account of Theorem <\equation*> |>>>|)>w>>|\<\|\|\>>>|)>>\|\|\>, we get <\equation*> |\|\>|]>>|\,>,\>>>,\>>,\>>|)>|\<\|\|\>>>>|>||\|\>|]>>|\|\>|\>>|\<\|\|\>>>*|\>>|\<\|\|\>>>,>>||||\|\>|]>-|]>-1>|\>>|\<\|\|\>>>*|\>>|\<\|\|\>>>,>>>>> where in the last step we used that, the compatibility condition, ensures <\equation*> -|]>+2s-1=-|]>-|]>+\+\-\+2s|\>0>-1\-|]>-|]>-1. \; <\remark> Note that Lemma implies that <\equation*> |>>>|)>|\<\|\|\>>,L>|)>>\\>|\|\>-1-d>,|>>>|)>|\<\|\|\>>>|)>>\\>|\|\>-2s-1>. Using the above bounds one shows along the lines of the proofs of Lemmata and that\ <\eqnarray*> |\,>>>>,\>>|)>|\<\|\|\>>>>|>|>|\|\>-2s-1> |\>>|\<\|\|\>>>,>>||\,>,>>>,\>>,\>>|)>|\<\|\|\>>>>|>|>|\|\>-2s-1> |\>>|\<\|\|\>>>*|\>>|\<\|\|\>>>.>>>> In this section we introduce the Taylor expansion on the (semi)-discrete lattice =\>>. At first order, we have <\equation*> |)>>||+\-z>|]>\|)>-z>|)>,>>>>> where ,2\,\,d\|}>> with > the time derivative and where <\equation*> \>\\\\e|)>-\|]>, denote resp. the discrete forward () and backward () derivatives in the -th spatial direction, for any \> the function :\\> is a bounded variation path such that =0> and =h>. We denote \-z>|]>\\\-z>> and \-z>|]>>\\-z>|)>>>, where >\t \t|)>> and > is the Heaviside theta. Note that the path > is piecewise constant in space so that the signed measure \> is well defined and given by a sum of delta functions times increments. We choose it so that its total mass is bounded by > and \\=h>. <\remark> Note that in the continuum we could choose <\equation*> \-z>= -z|)> t. Then noting that both the right and left derivatives >> coincide with > in the continuum we get <\equation*> \|)>=\+\|)>-z>|)> -z|)> \t. \; In view of the fact that we would like to use the second order Taylor expansion it is convenient to choose the path such that -z>=0> for > and -z>=1 -z|)> > for >. This allows to avoid second order terms with one derivative in time and one in space. Note also that\ <\equation*> \-z>|\|>\\-z>|]>|\|>\>->|\|>,\-z>|\|>\ \-z>|]>|\|>\|)>-z|\|>. We have <\eqnarray*> |)>>||+\-z>|]>\\-z>|)>>>|||+0>\-z>|]>\\-z>|)>+ \\-z>\\-z>|)>.>>>> Expanding once more the spatial derivatives, we have <\eqnarray*> |)>>||+0>\\ -z|]>+0,>\-z>|]>\-z>|]>\\\-z>|)>+>>|||\\-z>\\-z>|)>.>>>> As a consequence, for a generic kernel |)>>, and symmetrising the factor \=\\> using the relation \-\\=\\\|)>> we obtain <\equation> |)>>||>\zV|)>\|)>>>|||>\zV|)>+0>\+\\|2>>\z-z|)>V|)>>>|||+>\z\\-z>V|)>\\-z>|)>>>|||\\|)>|2>>-z|)>V|)>\z>>|||0>>\z \-z>|]>\-z>|]>V|)>\\\-z>|)>.>>>>> By duality, we can write this Taylor expansion as an operation over the kernel via the operators > and <\equation> \>+0>>+>>, of the form <\equation> V|)>|)>>|>|>\*V|)>\-z|)>+0>>\**-z|)>V*|)>+\|)>\-z|)>,>>|>V|)>|)>>|>|>\\\-z>V|)>\\-z-\-z>|)>>>|>V|)>|)>>|>|>\ \-z>|]>\-z>|]>V|)>\\\-z-\-z>|)>.>>|>>V|)>|)>>|>||2>>*\-z|)>V|)>\|)>\-z|)>.>>>>> When tested against a field this gives the identity\ <\equation*> V|)>=V|)>|)>+V|)>|)>, as seen in Equation. We shall use this expansion for the analysis of relevant cumulants, namely >>=>>|]>,>>. Recall that we have the following decomposition <\eqnarray*> >>|]>,>>||>|]>,>->>|)>>|\>>|]>,>|]>\\->|)>>>>|\>>|]>,>|]>\\>>|||>|)>>>>|\>>|]>,>|]>\\->>>|\>>|]>,>|]>\\-h>>>>|\>>|]>,>|]>\\,>>>> where >|\>>|]>,>:=\>>|]>,>>. <\lemma> The following bounds hold uniformly in ,\\>. <\equation*> |>>|\>>|]>,>|]>|\<\|\|\>>>>|>||>|\>>|]>,>|\<\|\|\>>>,>>||>|)>K>>|\>>|]>,>|]>|\<\|\|\>>>>|>||\|\>>|\|\>>*|>|\>>|]>,>|\<\|\|\>>>.>>>>> <\proof> On account of the invariance of the cumulants under spatial reflections we conclude that \; <\equation*> +\|)>\-z|)>>\**-z|)>K>>|\>>|]>,>|)>. As a result, the following identity <\equation*> >>|\>>|]>,>|]>|)>=\-z|)>>\*K>>|\>>|]>,>|)> holds true. Similarly, <\equation*> >|)>K>>|\>>|]>,>|]>|)>=\-z|)>>\*>|)>K>>|\>>|]>,>|)>. In order to prove the first of the bounds stated in the lemma we first observe that <\equation*> >>|\>>|]>,>|]>|)>=\-z|)>>\*K>>|\>>|]>,>|)>. Hence, we obtain <\equation*> w>>|)>K>>>>|\>>|]>,>|]>|)>=w>>|)>K>-z|)>>\*K>>|\>>|]>,>|)>. and <\equation*> |>>|\>>|]>,>|]>|\<\|\|\>>>\sup>\z>-z|)>|\|>w>>|)>>\*>>|\>>|]>,>|)>|\|>\>\*>>|\>>|]>,>|)>|\|> Since <\equation*> >\*>>|\>>|]>,>|)>|\|>\>\*>>|\>>|]>,>|)>|\|>w>>|)>=|>|\>>|]>,>|\<\|\|\>>>, this proves the first of the bounds stated in the lemma. By a similar argument we get \; <\equation*> |>|)>K>>|\>>|]>,>|]>|\<\|\|\>>>\>\*>|)>K>>|\>>|]>,>|)>|\|>. Consequently, by Lemma we obtain <\equation*> |>|)>K>>|\>>|]>,>|]>|\<\|\|\>>>>||w>>>|)>/w>>|\<\|\|\>>>> |>|\>>|]>,>|\<\|\|\>>>>>>>>\|\|\>>|\|\>>|>|\>>|]>,>|\<\|\|\>>>. This proves the second of the bounds stated in the lemma. <\lemma> The following bound holds uniformly in \,\\,1|)>> <\equation> |h>K>>|\>>|]>,>|\<\|\|\>>>>|>||\|\>>|\|\>>*|>|\>>|]>,>|\<\|\|\>>>.>>>>> <\proof> By applying the triangular inequality to Equation we arrive at <\equation*> |h>K>>|\>>|]>,>|\<\|\|\>>>\|>h>K>>|\>>|]>,>|\<\|\|\>>>+0>|>h>K>>|\>>|]>,>|\<\|\|\>>>+|>>h>K>>|\>>|]>,>|\<\|\|\>>>. We have <\equation*> >h>K>>|\>>|]>,>|)>=>>|=>\>\-z>|]>\-z>|]>h>|)>>>|\>>|]>,>|)>|)>\\\-z-\-z>|)>.>>>>> Thus, <\equation*> >>|)>K>>h>K>>|\>>|]>,>|)>|\|>>>>|>\> \-z>|\|> \-z>|\|> w>>|)>h>|)> >>|\>>|]>,>|)>|\|>*\K>-z-\-z>|)>|\|>.>>>>> Introduce the point :=z+\-z>> and note that <\equation*> w>>|)>\w>>|)>w>>,z|)>\w>>|)>w>>,z|)>. The second inequality above follows from >>|)>\w>>|)>>, which is a consequence of the fact that > lies on the path connecting and > by construction. Overall, this gives <\eqnarray*> >>|)>K>>h>K>>|\>>|]>,>|)>|\|>>|>|>\> \-z>|\|>\-z>|\|>w>>|)>h>|)>/w>|)>>>|||w>>|)> >>|\>>|]>,>|)>|)>|\|>*>>|||w>>,z|)> \K>-|)>|\|>.>>>> As a consequence, we obtain <\eqnarray*> |>h>K>>|\>>|]>,>|\<\|\|\>>>>|>|\\>> \-z>|\|> \-z>|\|> w>>|)>h>|)>/w>>|)>>>||||>|\>>|]>,>|\<\|\|\>>>sup\\>>\z w>>,z|)> \K>-|)>|\|>.>>>> Using <\equation> > \-z>|\|> \-z>|\|>\|\>->|\|>, and <\equation> >\zw>>|)>\K>|)>|\|>\|\|\>, as well as \; <\equation> |\>->|\|> w>>|)>h>|)>|w>>|)>>>|||\|\>>|\|\>>|\|\>|\|>|)>>||\|\>|\|>|)>>>|\|\>|)>>|\|\>>|\|>|1+|\|\>|\|>|)>>>>||>||\|\>>|\|\>>|\|\>|\|>|)>>|\|\>|\|>|)>>|1+|\|\>|\|>|)>>>>||>||\|\>>|\|\>>,>>>>> we conclude that <\equation*> |>h>K>>|\>>|]>,>|\<\|\|\>>>\|\|\>>|\|\>> |>|\>>|]>,>|\<\|\|\>>>. Next, note that <\equation*> >h>K>>|\>>|]>,>|)>=>\\\-z>>K>>|\>>|]>,>|)>|)>\\-z-\-z>|)>. Proceeding as above we get \; <\eqnarray*> |>h>K>>|\>>|]>,>|\<\|\|\>>>>|>|\\>\-z>|\|> \ w>>|)>h>|)>/w>>|)>\>>||||>|\>>|]>,>|\<\|\|\>>> sup\\>>\zw>>,z|)> K>-|)>|\|>.>>>> Using <\equation*> \\-z>\-z|\|>, and <\equation*> >\zw>>-z|)> K>|)>|\|>\|\|\>, as well as <\equation*> -z|\|>>>|)>|w>>|)>>h>|)>>|>||\|\>>|\|\>>|\|\>|\|>|)>>||\|\>|\|>|)>>>|\|\>|)>>|\|\>>|\|>|1+|\|\>|\|>|)>>>>||>||\|\>>|\|\>>|\|\>|\|>|)>>|\|\>|\|>|)>>|1+|\|\>|\|>|)>>>>||>||\|\>>|\|\>>|\|\>|\|>|)>>>>||>||\|\>>|\|\>>,>>>>> we arrive at <\equation*> |>h>K>>|\>>|]>,>|\<\|\|\>>>\|\|\>>|\|\>> \ |>|\>>|]>,>|\<\|\|\>>> . Finally, we discuss the term <\equation*> >>h>K>>|\>>|]>,>|)>|)>=|2>>*\-z|\|>>K>>|\>>|]>,>|)>|)>\|)>\-z|)>. Also in this case the proof follows the same lines. We obtain <\equation*> |>>h>K>>|\>>|]>,>|\<\|\|\>>>>|>| *sup\\>|\>->|\|>w>|)> h>|)>/w>>|)>>>||||>|\>>|]>,>|\<\|\|\>>>>\zw>>|)> \K>-z|)>|\|>.>>>>> Note that <\equation*> |\>->|\|>w>>|)> h>|)>|w>>|)>>>|||\|\>|\|\>|\|>|)>>||\|\>|\|>|)>>>|\|\>-z|\|>||\|\>|\|>|)>|)>>>>||>||\|\>|\|\>-z|\|>|)>-1>>|\|\>|\|>|)>>>,>>>>> Since |\>->|\|>>\0 implies -z|\|>\\> we have <\eqnarray*> |\>->|\|>w>>|)> h>|)>|w>>|)>>>|>||\|\>|\|\>/\|)>-1>>|\|\>/\|)>>>>>||>||\|\> |\|\>-1>\>|\|\>>\-2>>>||||\|\>>|\|\>>\.>>>> Hence, using again Equation with and we get <\equation*> |>>h>K>>|\>>|]>,>|\<\|\|\>>>\\|\|\>|\|\>>|\|\>>\*|>|\>>|]>,>|\<\|\|\>>>=|\|\>>|\|\>>*|>|\>>|]>,>|\<\|\|\>>>. This finishes the proof. <\bibliography|bib|tm-alpha|> <\bib-list|30> D.C.Brydges, P.K.MitterB.Scoppola. Critical |)>>>. , 240(1):281\U327, sep 2003. Rémi CatellierKhalil Chouk. Paracontrolled distributions and the 3-dimensional stochastic quantization equation. , 46(5):2621\U2679, sep 2018. Ajay Chandra, GuilhermedeLima FeltesHendrik Weber. A priori bounds for 2-d generalised Parabolic Anderson Model. , feb 2024. Ajay Chandra, Augustin MoinatHendrik Weber. A Priori Bounds for the > equation in the Full Sub-critical Regime. , 247(3):48, may 2023. Ó Ciaurri, L.Roncal, P.R.Stinga, J.L.TorreaJ.L.Varona. Fractional discrete Laplacian versus discretized fractional Laplacian. jul 2015. FrancescoC.De Vecchi, Luca FrestaMassimiliano Gubinelli. A stochastic analysis of subcritical Euclidean fermionic field theories. , oct 2022. Paweª Duch. Flow equation approach to singular stochastic PDEs. , sep 2021. Paweª Duch. Renormalization of singular elliptic stochastic PDEs using flow equation. , jan 2022. Joel Feldman. The > field theory in a finite volume. , 37:93\U120, 1974. JoelS.FeldmanKonrad Osterwalder. The Wightman axioms and the mass gap for weakly coupled > quantum field theories. , 97(1):80\U135, 1976. Massimiliano GubinelliMartina Hofmanová. Global Solutions to Elliptic and Parabolic > Models in Euclidean Space. , 368(3):1201\U1266, jun 2019. Massimiliano GubinelliMartina Hofmanová. A PDE construction of the Euclidean > quantum field theory. , 384(1):1\U75, 2021. Massimiliano Gubinelli, Peter ImkellerNicolas Perkowski. Paracontrolled distributions and singular PDEs. , 3(e6), 2015. James GlimmArthur Jaffe. Positivity of the > Hamiltonian. , 21:327\U376, 1973. James GlimmArthur Jaffe. . Springer-Verlag, New York, Second, 1987. A functional integral point of view. Massimiliano GubinelliSarah-Jean Meyer. The FBSDE approach to sine-Gordon up to >. , jan 2024. Alexander Grigor'yan. Heat kernels and function theory on metric measure spaces. , Heat kernels and analysis on manifolds(338):143\U172, 2003. Alexander Grigor'yanAndras Telcs. Sub-Gaussian estimates of heat kernels on infinite graphs. , 109(3):451\U510, 2001. Martin Hairer. A theory of regularity structures. , 198(2):269\U504, 2014. Martin HairerRhys Steele. The > measure has sub-gaussian tails. , 186(3):38, feb 2022. Christoph Kopper. Renormalization theory based on flow equations. , 251, 161\U174. Birkhäuser, Basel, 2007. Antti Kupiainen. Renormalization group and stochastic PDEs. , 17(3):497\U535, 2016. Mateusz Kwa±nicki. Ten Equivalent Definitions of the Fractional Laplace Operator. , 20(1):7\U51, feb 2017. Pablo Linares, Felix Otto, Markus TempelmayrPavlos Tsatsoulis. A diagram-free approach to the stochastic estimates in regularity structures. , dec 2021. Jean-Christophe MourratHendrik Weber. Global well-posedness of the dynamic > model in the plane. Probab.>, 45(4):2398\U2476, 2017. Augustin MoinatHendrik Weber. Space-time localisation for the dynamic > model. , 73(12):2519\U2555, 2020. Felix Otto, Jonas Sauer, Scott SmithHendrik Weber. A priori bounds for quasi-linear SPDEs in the full sub-critical regime. , mar 2021. Joseph Polchinski. Renormalization and effective lagrangians. , 231(2):269\U295, jan 1984. G.ParisiY.S.Wu. Perturbation theory without gauge fixing. , 24(4):483\U496, 1981. MR626795. Manfred Salmhofer. . Springer, Berlin ; New York, 1st Corrected ed. 1999, Corr. 2nd printing 2007 edition, sep 2007. <\initial> <\collection> <\attachments> <\collection> <\associate|bib-bibliography> <\db-entry|+1xPRwpgb1F4ocl6V|article|gubinelliGlobalSolutionsElliptic2019> <|db-entry> Martina > > Models in Euclidean Space> <\db-entry|+1O6tosOKXnrVxI1|article|glimmPositivityPhiHamiltonian1973> <|db-entry> Arthur > > Hamiltonian> <\db-entry|+1q8YS9Xf2UG1tt4Y|article|feldmanLambdaVarphiField1974> <|db-entry> > > field theory in a finite volume> <\db-entry|+1q8YS9Xf2UG1tt4c|article|feldmanWightmanAxiomsMass1976> <|db-entry> Konrad > > quantum field theories> <\db-entry|+2bk55IAIztL|book|glimm1987quantum> <|db-entry> Arthur > > <\db-entry|+1q8YS9Xf2UG1tt4W|article|brydgesCriticalF42003> <|db-entry> P.K. B. > |)>>>> >4)3,> model in R3corresponds to a perturbation by a >4 interaction of a Gaussian measure on scalar fields with a covariance depending on a real parameter > in the range 0\\>1. For >=1 one recovers the covariance of a massless scalar field in R3. For >=0, >4 is a marginal interaction. For 0\\>1 the covariance continues to be Osterwalder-Schrader and pointwise positive. We consider the infinite volume critical theory with a fixed ultraviolet cutoff at the unit length scale and we prove that for \>0, sufficiently small, there exists a non-gaussian fixed point (with one unstable direction) of the Renormalization Group iterations. We construct the stable critical manifold near this fixed point and prove that under Renormalization Group iterations the critical theories converge to the fixed point.> 4)3,\.pdf> <\db-entry|+2czoekmq1KA21mWA|article|parisi_perturbation_1981> <|db-entry> Y. S. > MR626795> > > <\db-entry|+2bk55IAIztO|article|hairer2014theory> <|db-entry> > > <\db-entry|+2bk55IAIztM|article|gubinelli2015paracontrolled> <|db-entry> Peter Nicolas > <\db-entry|+1xPRwpgb1F4ocl3u|article|catellierParacontrolledDistributions3dimensional2018> <|db-entry> Khalil > >43>34\\ Phi|^>>4}_{3} model of stochastic quantisation using the method of paracontrolled distributions introduced recently by M. Gubinelli, P. Imkeller and N. Perkowski in [Forum Math., Pi 3 (2015) e6].> <\db-entry|+2bk55IAIztX|article|kupiainen2016renormalization> <|db-entry> > > <\db-entry|+2ZScWHDSxgvc0EZ|article|GH21> <|db-entry> Martina > > quantum field theory> > > > <\db-entry|+1xPRwpgb1F4ocl5w|article|polchinskiRenormalizationEffectiveLagrangians1984> <|db-entry> > <\db-entry|+2Q1WpM1mVMY5|article|duchFlowEquationApproach2021a> <|db-entry> > |^>>\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\sigma/2}$, additive noise and polynomial non-linearity, where $\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\mathbb{T}$ is the $d$-dimensional torus. We consider the weakly non-linear regime and not necessarily Gaussian noises which are stationary, centered, sufficiently regular and satisfy some integrability and mixing conditions. We prove that the macroscopic scaling limit exists and has a universal law characterized by parameters of the relevant perturbations of the linear equation. We develop a new solution theory for singular SPDEs of the above-mentioned form using the Wilsonian renormalization group theory and the Polchinski flow equation. In the case of $d=4$ and the cubic non-linearity our analysis covers the whole sub-critical regime $\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\sigma>2$. Our technique avoids completely all the algebraic and combinatorial problems arising in different approaches.> <\db-entry|+1q8YS9Xf2UG1tt4e|article|duchRenormalizationSingularElliptic2022> <|db-entry> > <\db-entry|+2bk55IAIztZ|article|mourrat2017global> <|db-entry> Hendrik > > model in the plane> Probab.> > <\db-entry|+DtipTWd1ynzgENh|article|MoinatWeber2020> <|db-entry> Hendrik > > model> > 2020 The Authors. Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics published by Wiley Periodicals LLC> <\db-entry|+DtipTWd1ynzgENm|article|chandraPrioriBoundsPhi2023> <|db-entry> Augustin Hendrik > > equation in the Full Sub-critical Regime> >4$$by adjusting the regularity of the noise term $$\\\\xi $$, choosing $$\\\\xi \\\\in C^{-3+\\\\delta }$$. Our main result states that if $$\\\\phi $$satisfies this equation on a space\Utime cylinder $$D= (0,1) \\\\times \\\\{ \|x\| \\\\leqslant 1 \\\\}$$, then away from the boundary $$\\\\partial D$$the solution $$\\\\phi $$can be bounded in terms of a finite number of explicit polynomial expressions in $$\\\\xi $$. The bound holds uniformly over all possible choices of boundary data for $$\\\\phi $$and thus relies crucially on the super-linear damping effect of the non-linear term $$-\\\\phi ^3$$. A key part of our analysis consists of an appropriate re-formulation of the theory of regularity structures in the specific context of (*), which allows us to couple the small scale control one obtains from this theory with a suitable large scale argument. Along the way we make several new observations and simplifications: we reduce the number of objects required with respect to Hairer's work. Instead of a model $$(\\\\Pi _x)_x$$and the family of translation operators $$(\\\\Gamma _{x,y})_{x,y}$$we work with just a single object $$(\\\\mathbb {X}_{x, y})$$which acts on itself for translations, very much in the spirit of Gubinelli's theory of branched rough paths. Furthermore, we show that in the specific context of (*) the hierarchy of continuity conditions which constitute Hairer's definition of a modelled distribution can be reduced to the single continuity condition on the \Pcoefficient on the constant level\Q.> >Equation in the.pdf> <\db-entry|+1q8YS9Xf2UG1tt4k|article|chandraPrioriBounds2d2024> <|db-entry> Guilherme de Lima Hendrik > <\db-entry|+1xPRwpgb1F4ocl5y|book|salmhoferRenormalizationIntroduction2007> <|db-entry> > <\db-entry|+1xPRwpgb1F4ocl5h|incollection|kopperRenormalizationTheoryBased2007> <|db-entry> > 2> <\db-entry|+1xPRwpgb1F4ocl5s|article|ottoPrioriBoundsQuasilinear2021> <|db-entry> Jonas Scott Hendrik > |^>>\\alpha-2}$, in the full sub-critical regime $\\alpha \\in (0,1)$. We are inspired by Hairer's regularity structures, however we work with a more parsimonious model indexed by multi-indices rather than trees. This allows us to capture additional symmetries which play a crucial role in our analysis. Assuming bounds on this model, which is modified in agreement with the concept of algebraic renormalization, we prove local a priori estimates on solutions to the quasi-linear equations modified by the corresponding counter terms.> <\db-entry|+1xPRwpgb1F4ocl5l|article|linaresDiagramfreeApproachStochastic2021> <|db-entry> Felix Markus Pavlos > <\db-entry|+1q8YS9Xf2UG1tt4i|article|gubinelliFBSDEApproachSineGordon2024> <|db-entry> Sarah-Jean > >> <\db-entry|+1q8YS9Xf2UG1tt4g|article|devecchiStochasticAnalysisSubcritical2022> <|db-entry> Luca Massimiliano > <\db-entry|+1xPRwpgb1F4ocl5j|article|kwasnickiTenEquivalentDefinitions2017> <|db-entry> > (>>)>/2 in Rd, also known as the Riesz fractional derivative operator; here > > (0,2) and d > 1. This is a core example of a nonlocal pseudo-differential operator, appearing in various areas of theoretical and applied mathematics. As an operator on Lebesgue spaces >p (with p > [1,>)), on the space >0 of continuous functions vanishing at infinity and on the space >bu of bounded uniformly continuous functions, L can be defined, among others, as a singular integral operator, as the generator of an appropriate semigroup of operators, by Bochner's subordination, or using harmonic extensions. It is relatively easy to see that all these definitions agree on the space of appropriately smooth functions. We collect and extend known results in order to prove that in fact all these definitions are completely equivalent: on each of the above function spaces, the corresponding operators have a common domain and they coincide on that common domain.> <\db-entry|+1xPRwpgb1F4ocl44|misc|ciaurriFractionalDiscreteLaplacian2015> <|db-entry> L. P. R. J. L. J. L. > |^>>,\\quad\\hbox{on}\\mathbb{Z}_h = h\\mathbb{Z},$$ for $h>0$ and $0> <\db-entry|+11mUZVrD2NoP33Rj|article|Grigoryan-heat-kernel-metric-meas-sp> <|db-entry> > > <\db-entry|+11mUZVrD2NoP33Ra|article|Grigoryan-Telcs-Sub-Gaussian-estimates> <|db-entry> Andras > > <\db-entry|+1O6tosOKXnrVxI2|article|hairerPhiMeasureHas2022> <|db-entry> Rhys > > measure has sub-gaussian tails> |^>>_3$$measure does have quartic exponential tails, as expected from its formal expression. This shows that the corresponding moment problem is well-posed and provides a simple path to observing non-Gaussianity of the measure.> >Measure Has Sub-Gaussian Tails.pdf> <\references> <\collection> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <\auxiliary> <\collection> <\associate|bib> gubinelliGlobalSolutionsElliptic2019 glimmPositivityPhiHamiltonian1973 feldmanLambdaVarphiField1974 feldmanWightmanAxiomsMass1976 glimm1987quantum brydgesCriticalF42003 parisi_perturbation_1981 hairer2014theory gubinelli2015paracontrolled catellierParacontrolledDistributions3dimensional2018 kupiainen2016renormalization gubinelliGlobalSolutionsElliptic2019 gubinelliGlobalSolutionsElliptic2019 GH21 polchinskiRenormalizationEffectiveLagrangians1984 duchFlowEquationApproach2021a duchRenormalizationSingularElliptic2022 kupiainen2016renormalization duchFlowEquationApproach2021a duchRenormalizationSingularElliptic2022 kupiainen2016renormalization mourrat2017global gubinelliGlobalSolutionsElliptic2019 GH21 MoinatWeber2020 chandraPrioriBoundsPhi2023 chandraPrioriBounds2d2024 hairer2014theory gubinelli2015paracontrolled polchinskiRenormalizationEffectiveLagrangians1984 salmhoferRenormalizationIntroduction2007 kopperRenormalizationTheoryBased2007 duchFlowEquationApproach2021a duchRenormalizationSingularElliptic2022 ottoPrioriBoundsQuasilinear2021 linaresDiagramfreeApproachStochastic2021 gubinelliFBSDEApproachSineGordon2024 devecchiStochasticAnalysisSubcritical2022 kwasnickiTenEquivalentDefinitions2017 kwasnickiTenEquivalentDefinitions2017 ciaurriFractionalDiscreteLaplacian2015 Grigoryan-heat-kernel-metric-meas-sp Grigoryan-Telcs-Sub-Gaussian-estimates mourrat2017global gubinelliGlobalSolutionsElliptic2019 gubinelliGlobalSolutionsElliptic2019 hairerPhiMeasureHas2022 gubinelliGlobalSolutionsElliptic2019 duchFlowEquationApproach2021a duchRenormalizationSingularElliptic2022 duchFlowEquationApproach2021a duchRenormalizationSingularElliptic2022 <\associate|toc> |math-font-series||1Introduction> |.>>>>|> |1.1Notations, phase-space decomposition and weights |.>>>>|> > |math-font-series||2Stochastic quantisation> |.>>>>|> |2.1Scale decomposition |.>>>>|> > |2.2A-priori estimates in weighted spaces |.>>>>|> > |2.3Tightness |.>>>>|> > |2.4Integrability |.>>>>|> > |2.5The vector model |.>>>>|> > |math-font-series||3A-priori estimates> |.>>>>|> |math-font-series||4Analysis of the flow equation> |.>>>>|> |4.1Random flow equation |.>>>>|> > |4.2Norms for kernels |.>>>>|> > |4.3Cumulants |.>>>>|> > |4.4Bounds on parameters |.>>>>|> > |4.5Classification of cumulants |.>>>>|> > |4.6Cumulant analysis |.>>>>|> > |4.7Inductive procedure |.>>>>|> > |4.8Local estimates for the flow of kernels |.>>>>|> > |4.9From cumulants to random kernels |.>>>>|> > |4.10Post-processing |.>>>>|> > |math-font-series||Appendix AAuxiliary estimates> |.>>>>|> |A.1Kernel estimates |.>>>>|> > |A.2Properties of the weights |.>>>>|> > |A.3Norm estimates |.>>>>|> > |A.4Schauder estimates |.>>>>|> > |math-font-series||Appendix BFlow equation estimates> |.>>>>|> |B.1Estimates for |\> and |\> |.>>>>|> > |B.2Localisation |.>>>>|> > |math-font-series||Bibliography> |.>>>>|>