> <\body> <\hide-preamble> \; >>|Gubinelli>|<\author-affiliation> Mathematical Institute University of Oxford United Kingdom >>|||<\author-affiliation> Mathematical Institute University of Oxford United Kingdom >>> We develop a stochastic analysis of the sine-Gordon Euclidean quantum field \|)>|)>> on the full space up to the second threshold, i.e. for \6*\>. The basis of our method is a forward-backward stochastic differential equation (FBSDE) for a decomposition |)>0>> of the interacting Euclidean field >> along a scale parameter 0>. This FBSDE describes the optimiser of the stochastic control representation of the Euclidean QFT introduced by Barashkov and one of the authors. We show that the FBSDE provides a description of the interacting field without cut-offs and that it can be used effectively to study the sine-Gordon measure to obtain results about large deviations, integrability, decay of correlations for local observables, singularity with respect to the free field, Osterwalder\USchrader axioms and other properties. ||> \; <\small> <\with|par-columns|2> <\table-of-contents|toc> Introduction> |.>>>>|> Related work |.>>>>|> > Notation and assumptions |.>>>>|> > Stochastic control set-up for Gibbs measures> |.>>>>|> Scale decomposition |.>>>>|> > The control problem |.>>>>|> > The effective FBSDE |.>>>>|> > Analysis of the flow equation> |.>>>>|> Truncating the flow |.>>>>|> > The Fourier representation |.>>>>|> > Estimates on the Fourier coefficients |.>>>>|> > The renormalised problem |.>>>>|> > Estimates on the force |.>>>>|> > Estimates on the potential |.>>>>|> > Analysis of the FBSDE> |.>>>>|> Well-posedness for the FBSDE |.>>>>|> > Stability properties |.>>>>|> > Recovering the EQFT |.>>>>|> > Uniqueness for the finite volume measure |.>>>>|> > Decay of correlations> |.>>>>|> Singularity for \4\>> |.>>>>|> Variational description and large deviations> |.>>>>|> Finite volume |.>>>>|> > Infinite volume |.>>>>|> > Large deviations |.>>>>|> > Osterwalder\USchrader axioms> |.>>>>|> Euclidean invariance |.>>>>|> > Reflection positivity |.>>>>|> > Non-Gaussianity |.>>>>|> > Heat kernel estimates> |.>>>>|> General estimates |.>>>>|> > Proof of Lemma |-0.3em|>|0em||0em|>> |.>>>>|> > Proof of Lemma |-0.3em|>|0em||0em|>> |.>>>>|> > Proof of Lemma |-0.3em|>|0em||0em|>> |.>>>>|> > Auxiliary estimates on the Fourier coefficients> |.>>>>|> Dependence on the terminal condition |.>>>>|> > Dependence on the mollification |.>>>>|> > Wick-ordered cosine> |.>>>>|> |.>>>>|> The aim of this paper is to provide a rigorous of the two dimensional sine-Gordon Euclidean quantum field theory (EQFT) on the full space in the regime \6*\>. The sine-Gordon EQFT is formally given by the Gibbs measure\ <\equation> \\|)>=\*exp|)>|)> \\|)>\Q>,\\|)>, where > is a massive Gaussian free field on the space of Schwartz distributions |)>>, the constant > is a normalisation to make > a probability measure, and > corresponds to the cosine interaction, formally defined as <\equation*> V|)>\\*>cos \|)>\x. The sine-Gordon model is a prototypical example of a non-Gaussian EQFT and of particular interest as both a theory with infinitely many phase transitions as > varies between and > and more generally as a test-bed for non-polynomial interactions. The approach we take here is based on a scale dependent interpolation |)>|]>>> of the covariance >=-m|)>> of the Gaussian free field. This allows us to interpret the Gaussian free field as the terminal value >> of a Brownian martingale |)>|)>>> defined by <\equation> W\>\B,t\0, where |)>0>> is a cylindrical Brownian motion on |)>>. From this point of view, we can produce a scale dependent stochastic dynamics |)>|]>>> for the target measure . These dynamics for provide a path-wise scale-by-scale coupling ,W|)>|]>>> and modulo a suitable UV-renormalisation, they are given by the forward-backward SDE \ (FBSDE; for short) <\equation> \X=-> \V>|)>|]>\t+>\B,t\0. Here, |)>0>> denotes the conditional expectation with respect to the filtration associated to |)>|)>>>, V|)>=-\*\sin \|)>> is formally the functional derivative of the interaction potential > and we write >\\G>. In this paper, we show that, once properly renormalised, the FBSDE provides an effective stochastic quantisation equation for . This allows to construct the measure without cutoffs from a straightforward analysis of the equation and only basic estimates of the convolution >> (see Theorem). Moreover we can efficiently transport properties from the Gaussian free field to the sine-Gordon EQFT via , in particular <\enumerate-alpha> an explicit description of the infinite volume measure via a variational principle (Theorem); a proof of the mutual singularity of the Gaussian free field and the finite volume sine-Gordon measure for \4\;> a simple proof for the exponential decay of correlations of general local observables (Theorem); an analysis of the semi-classical limit \0>(Theorem); a full verification of the Osterwalder\USchrader axioms and a proof of non-Gaussianity (Section); With the global objectives laid out, we now give a general outline of the strategy perused to achieve these goal, which will also allow us to make the statements above more precise. In order to give a rigorous meaning to we start, as usual, from a well-defined approximation of the sine-Gordon measure given by <\equation> \,T>\|)>=\,T>*exp,T>|)>|)> \\|)>, where > is a infrared cut-off and > denotes the law of an approximation > to the massive Gaussian free field>> as in. In Section we will show that in this regularised setting, the FBSDE produces the correct measure, that is the solution |)>> to the FBSDE <\equation> \X=-> \V,T>|)>|]>\t+\W,t\ has terminal law |)>=\,T>>. As a byproduct, we show that it is associated with the solution to the stochastic optimal control problem <\equation> -log \,T>|)>>|]>=inf\> \,T>+W|)>+>|u|\<\|\|\>>>\t|]>, where \>*u*\s> and > is an appropriate space of predictable processes. As expected, the representations and are not stable in the small-scale limit \> and they require a renormalisation of the potential ,T>> involving diverging constants. To overcome this problem, suppose that is a sufficiently nice scale dependent function |)>>> such that =\V,T>>. By Ito's formula, solving the FBSDE is equivalent to solving the FBSDE <\equation> |=->+W|)>+R|)>\s,>>|=\H+W|)>\s+\\F*>*R\s,>>>>>|\>*t\, where the functional |)>>> is given by <\equation*> H\\F+*Tr>\F|)>+\F*>*F,t\. The solution to can then be obtained from with the identification =Z+W>. In this representation, the limit \> is associated to the convergence of the integral over scales in the equation for the . Constructing the measure reduces to two tasks: <\enumerate> Find an approximation for the effective force V>|)>|]>> that makes the source term +Z|)>> of the backward equation in integrable as \>, while preserving good continuity and growth properties. Control the associated FBSDE uniformly in the regularisations and > and establish global existence for the solutions to . The first task involves a good understanding of approximate solutions to the well-known infinite dimensional and non-linear (backward) Polchinski (see e.g. or the recent review) renormalisation flow equation\ <\equation> |v+*Tr>\v|)>+\v >\v=0>>|>|)>=V|)>.>>>>>|\> Indeed, given a solution to and taking =\v> we would have =0> and therefore =0>. The remainder allows for additional freedom in the choice for the scale interpolation of the force > and avoids a precise technical analysis of .\ The second task requires good a priori estimates for the non-standard FBSDE , which are uniform in the regularisation . Since the equation is in general nonlinear, solutions need not be global so that this step is non-trivial and indeed the reason why the present work is limited to the regime \6*\>. It would be very interesting to better understand the solution theory for FBSDEs of the form also in a more general setting for different models, that is different choices of >. Our main result is the following. <\theorem> Let \6*\>. For \ C>|)>> or \1> and |]>>, there is scale dependent function ,T>=,T>|)>>> such that ,T>> corresponds to the Wick-renormalised sine <\equation*> F,T>|)>=-\*\\|sinW|)>|\>=\V,T>|)>, and the associated FBSDE has a solution,T>,R,T>|)>\\>>|)>\\>>|)>>.\ If the volume is finite, that is \ C>|)>>, \ or if the coupling constant |\|>> is sufficiently small, this solution is unique. For =1,T=\> and any \0>, there is a version of the drift >> with terminal value >\L>P;B/4*\-\,-n>|)>>, and the sine-Gordon measure is given as a random shift of the Gaussian free field >>, <\equation*> \=Law>+Z>|)>. It should be emphasised that while our analysis provides uniqueness only if the coupling constant > is small or the volume is finite, its existence is guaranteed for any \\> also in the full space: we obtain uniform bounds on the FBSDE for any \\> which imply tightness for the family ,T>=Law+Z,T>|)>>. To demonstrate the advantages of the representation, we transport some properties of the free field >> to the sine-Gordon shift >+Z>>. A neat application is the exponential decay of correlation via a simple coupling argument as in. In this setting, we can show that for the unique solution > to at >, =1>, the process |)>|]>>=+W|)>|]>>> inherits the following decay of correlations from . Note that the theorem below includes > and thus =Law>|)>>. <\theorem> Let > be a smooth function supported on > and ,x\\>. Then there is a constant \> depending only on the mass such that for any two bounded and Lipschitz observables ,:H,-n>\\>, it holds that\ <\equation*> |\\X+x|)>|)>*\X+x|)>|)>|]>-\\X+x|)>|)>|]>\ \X+x|)>|)>|]>|>\\-x|\|>>. Here, the implicit constant depends only on the bounds and Lipschitz constants of the observables > and >. In the first region \4\>, it is not difficult to see that the finite volume sine-Gordon measure is absolutely continuous with respect to the Gaussian free field(see Remark below). Using the FBSDE, we can show that this is no longer the case beyond this threshold. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first proof of this fact. <\theorem> \ For \4\>, the finite volume sine-Gordon measure and the Gaussian free field are mutually singular. As a result of this singularity, the control problem cannot be transferred to the UV-limit verbatim, in contrast to the simpler setting \4\> (see ). Building on the same ideas used for the change of variables in the FBSDE from to , we reformulate the variational problem in terms of an (absolutely continuous) remainder. This reformulation, combined with a localisation property of the limiting measure, allows us to recover a variational problem for the Laplace transform of > in the infinite volume. <\theorem> Let be the backward component of the solution to the FBSDE for =1> and > and define >\Q*R>. Then, the Laplace transform of the infinite volume sine-Gordon measure satisfies the variational problem <\equation*> \-log |)>>exp|)>|)>*\\|)>=inf\> |^>, where =\|)>=\:\>|v|\<\|\|\>>>\s\\|}>> and the cost functional is defined as <\equation*> |^>\\>>+v>|)>+>>+v>|)>-\|)>|)>\s+>|v|\<\|\|\>>>*\s+>|>,v|\>>*\s|]>. Here, > is the unique solution to the SDE <\equation*> =->*F>>|)>\s+Q*v\s+W, for \> and > formally corresponds to the remainder of the RG-flow equation for the potential, i.e. for any \1>, and \|)>>, <\equation*> \>|)>=V>+Tr >\V>-\V>*>\V>|)>|)>. As a consequence of this variational formulation, we can show that the limiting measure > defines a non-Gaussian EQFT and derive a Laplace principle for the semi-classical limit \0>. To make this slightly more precise, let >|)>\>> be the family of rescaled Gaussian free fields with covariance -\|)>>. We formally define the measures <\equation*> \>\|)>\\>*exp V|)>|)>*\>\|)> and establish the following theorem. <\theorem> As \0>, the family >> satisfies a Laplace principle with rate > and rate function\ <\equation> I|)>\|| \|)>-1|)>+\-\|)>*\,>|\H|)>,>>|,>|.>>>>>|\> More precisely, for any continuous and bounded *|)>\\>, <\equation> lim\0>-\*log |)>>expf|)>|)>*\>\|)>=inf\H>|)>+I|)>|}>. Finally, we can use the variational representation to show that the limiting measure obtained from is not Gaussian and verify all Osterwalder Schrader axioms.\ <\remark> Our approach relies only on some general estimates for the heat kernel of the Laplacian (see Appendix) and can be easily extended with respect to the dimension of the underlying Euclidean space. In the general -dimensional setting, the theory is subcritical for /2*\\> and the argument presented here allows to construct the sine-Gordon measure in /2*\\>. This means that we are for example able to recover the results of in the full subcritical regime in the case . We can moreover generalise our results to the (compact) Riemmanian manifold context, in analogy to the recent work on > on a compact Riemmanian manifold. For the sake of clarity, we refrain from including these modifications. The required changes are minimal and we do not believe that the associated results would justify extending this contribution. The sine\UGordon model has been subject to many studies in the constructive literature, covering finite or infinite volume interactions and allowing various ranges for \|)>> and the coupling constant \\>. However, the full mathematical understanding of this model is still lacking and none of these works cover the theory on the full space > for all \|)>> and all \\>. We single out the pioneering work of Benfatto et al. and Nicoló et al. who establish existence of the model for a finite volume interaction and small coupling constants in the full subcritical range \8*\> via a probabilistic method initiated by the Roman school of Gallavotti and co-authors. A more modern account is the martingale method of which covers the full subcritical regime in the case , in a bounded domain but without restrictions on the coupling constant \\>. A comprehensive review of the vast literature on the model can be found in the paper where in the reader will also find a description of the correspondence with certain fermionic Euclidean models. Due to the analytic treatability of the sine-Gordon interaction, there have been several accounts based on renormalisation group ideas and a direct analysis of the Polchinski flow equation . In this regard, we want to mention the analysis of Brydges and Kennedy, where they lay the foundations for this approach relying on a majorant method to establish convergence of the Mayer expansion up to \*8*\>. More recently, Bauerschmidt and Bodineau showed convergence for the Mayer expansion up to > which allows them to establish a uniform log-Sobolev inequality for a lattice approximations of the model. In a related work, Bauerschmidt and Hofstetter use the solution obtained from the Mayer expansion to construct a multi-scale coupling between the Gaussian free field and the sine-Gordon model \ and analyse the maximum of the sine-Gordon measure. Similar ideas were applied by Barashkov, Guntharaman and Hofstetter to analyse the maximum of the |)>> models in a bounded domain. These last two papers are similar in spirit and complementary to ours, but rely on a direct analysis of the Polchinski equation and focus on the extremal analysis in a finite volume instead of a general analysis and properties of the resulting EQFT. Focusing now on the connection between the FBSDE and stochastic optimal control, a direct precursor of the results presented here is the work of Barashkov (and the related PhD thesis|>, where the model is studied in the first region \4*\> on the full space > using a variational approach. This approach is \ based on the stochastic control problem and was first applied to the > model in bounded volume in. The more recent extension in to the infinite volume limit for the polynomial and exponential interaction in the dimensional setting relies on a weak formulation of the FBSDE we use here. In the case of a Grassmannian field, the FBSDE approach has been successfully applied in to cover the full subcritical regime. This also includes the complete inductive analysis of the corresponding approximate flow equation. Finally, we want to point out a general (tentative) axiomatic framework proposed by Bailleul, Chevyrev and the first author. \ This framework provides a generalisation of the coupling with the free field given by to the construction of random fields endowed with a Wilsonian scale-by-scale and a stochastic dynamics associated to a Gaussian field. These so called Wilson\UIto fields generate interesting questions about ranging from the characterisation of measures of the form via FBSDEs, to locality properties, the structure of the pre-factorisation algebras generated by the observables, or generalisations of the domain Markov properties some of which we hope to address in a future study. This research has been supported by the EPSRC Centre for Doctoral Training in Mathematics of Random Systems: Analysis, Modelling and Simulation (EP/S023925/1). This paper has been written with (). Let us fix some general notation we will use throughout. <\itemize> Let |x|\>\|)>>, \>. We will often rely on the following inequality to commute polynomial weights, <\equation> |x|\>|y|\>\|x-y|\>,k\\. For \>, we define the exponential weights <\equation*> w>\\*m>. For a weight \\>, we define the standard weighted Lebesgue, Sobolev and Besov spaces >, ,H=W> and >, |]>,s\\> based on the measures \x> on >, e.g. > is equipped with the norm <\equation*> |f|\<\|\|\>>>=|w\f|\<\|\|\>>>=>=>*f|\|>\x. In the case of =|x|\>> for some \>, we also write \L|x|\>|)>> and analogously for the Besov and Sobolev spaces. We denote by =\|)>> the Littlewood-Paley blocks on > and by =|)>> their associated >-kernels. We recall that then, for any -1> and |)>>, <\equation> |K|\<\|\|\>>>\1,|K|\<\|\|\>>>\2>. For any \\>, |]>> and we define the usual Besov norms <\equation*> |u|\<\|\|\>>>|x|\>|)>>\-1>2*i*q>|\*u|\<\|\|\>>>, with the corresponding Besov spaces >|x|\>|)>\|)>:|u|\<\|\|\>>>|x|\>|)>>\\|}>>. For a more detailed exposition, we refer to . For a collection of points =|)>I>> we denote its , that is the shortest tree connecting all points in >, by |)>>. More precisely, we define <\equation> St|)>\min\x> min|)>> L|)>, where the second minimum runs over all trees |)>> connecting the points > and |)>> measures the length of the tree > on >. We refer to for further details. We denote by |)>0>> a cylindrical Brownian motion on |)>> and by =|)>0>> the augmentation of the filtration generated by . All considerations are with respect to this filtration and we will not explicitly mention it elsewhere (i.e. adapted always means adapted to the filtration >). The conditional expectation with respect to > is denoted by >. Given a generic probability measure >, we write \f\\> for the expectation under this measure and if > is a probability measure, we write <\equation*> Cov>\\-\*\. For a Banach space >, let |)>> be the space of predictable processes taking values in > (no integrability restrictions assumed). We also define the spaces, for any |]>> <\equation*> ||)>\\|)> \|u|\<\|\|\>>>\s\\|}>,>>|>>|)>|)>\\>|)>|)>\T|}>>*u\L>t\\P\\x|)>>|}>.>>>>> If >, we may omit the subscript in the spaces above. We write \1> if > is a smooth and compactly supported function \> and analogously, we write \1> if \1> or \1>. For a family of spatial cut-offs |)>> will write \1> if |)>\\>. We reserve \1-\/8*\\0> to denote the distance to criticality of the sine-Gordon model in our normalisation. The relevant thresholds for us, \4*\>, \ \6*\> and \8*\>, \ correspond to \>, \> and \0> respectively. To study the Laplace transform of >, we will have to consider localised perturbations of the potential for functionals |)>\\>. This localisation will be quantified in terms of the semi-norms <\equation*> ||g|>\sup\L>|2>|\g|)>||2>>>,>>||g|>\sup,\\L> |2>|\g|)>-\g|)>||2>>>||1>|\-\||1>>>>,>>>>> where we drop the parameter if . Throughout this paper, we will fix a polynomial weight with sufficiently large so that |x|\>\L|)>>. We always assume g> is uniformly bounded, that is\ <\equation*> sup\|)>>|2>|\g|)>||2>>>>\L\\, and that C|)>\C,-n>|)>>, the space of functions \\> with two continuous and bounded derivatives with a continuous extension in ,-n>|)>>. These assumptions will allow optimal regularity estimates for both the drift in > and the shifted white noise in ,-n>>. Any function satisfying the assumptions above grows at most linearly in the sense that <\equation> |g|)>|\<\|\|\>>,-n>>\1+|\|\<\|\|\>>,-n>>. The class of functions satisfying the assumptions above is large enough to be rate function determining . Note that this includes the functionals of the form \|\,\|\>>, where |\,\|\>> denotes the dual pairing of |)>\|)>> and \C>.> In this section, we set up the general variational framework required to study Gibbsian perturbations of the form of a Gaussian measure > from a stochastic control perspective. More precisely, for a functional |)>\\> satisfying the assumptions laid out in Section and suitable functions C>|)>> and a spatial cut-off \1>, we consider a generic perturbed potential <\equation> V|)>\|)>\\*g|)>+\*>\*U|)> \x, and study the generic Gibbs measures, <\equation> \\|)>=\\|)>=\*exp|)>|)>*\\|)>. We agree to drop the superscript whenever . Note that the measures ,T>> as defined in are precisely of this form. Before we can begin the analysis of the control problem, we have to construct a suitable probability space. This requires a Brownian martingale with the Gaussian free field as its terminal value.\ Mainly for technical convenience and concreteness, we use a heat kernel decomposition to interpolate the covariance of the free field as <\equation*> -\|)>=>Q\t*withQ\>*\-\|)>/t>|)>. For a cylindrical Brownian motion on |)>>, we then define the Brownian martingale |)>0>> as the corresponding scale interpolation of the Gaussian free field, that is <\equation*> W\Q\B. By construction, the measure \Law|)>> has covariance, <\equation> G\G\Q\s, where we abuse the notation to use the same symbol for the operator and its associated kernel on |)>>. A standard computation shows that the kernels are explicitly given by, <\equation> >=Q=>*\/2*s>*\>,>=*s>*\/s>*\>,x\\. Apart from the smoothing property of the heat kernel, it will be technically important for us that the covariance >> has a positive convolutional square root , that is >=Q\Q> and we use that it decays exponentially in space to show the decay of correlations in Section . Apart from this, the precise choice of the scale interpolation is not important for us and we will only require elementary bounds on the kernels, all of which we are collected in Appendix. A simple computation shows that the martingale serves as a smooth approximation to the free field. Before we proceed, let us note this fact for future reference. We postpone the proof to Appendix .\ <\lemma> For any \0,p\|)>> and 2>, the sequence |)>0>> converges in P;B,-n>|)>> and almost surely to a random variable >\\>, where > is the Gaussian free field, that is the centred Gaussian measure on |)>> with covariance -\|)>>. Moreover, for any \>, the stopped process T>|)>0>> is a Gaussian process taking values in the function space ,-n>>. With the scale interpolation |)>> of the free field, and thus the probability space, constructed, we can return to the measures. The goal of this section is to establish the connection between Gibbsian perturbations of a Gaussian and the stochastic control problem which is the basis for the FBSDE formulation. <\theorem> <\enumerate-alpha> For any |)>> and \|)>>, the FBSDE <\equation> Z|)>=\->*\V|)>+W|)>|]> \s, has a unique solution in >>|)>>. The process =Z+W>, where > is the solution to, satisfies |)>=\> and the pair\ <\equation> >,X|)>|)>\*\V|)>|)>|]>,X|)>|)>, is the unique optimiser for the stochastic control problem, <\equation> X|)>=Z|)>+W,Z|)>\\+Q*u\s subject to the cost functional <\equation> |)>\inf\> J>|)>\inf\> \|)>+W|)>+|u|\<\|\|\>>>*\s|]>. In particular, the Laplace transform of > satisfies the variational problem, <\equation> |)>\-log \>|)>=inf\> J|)>-inf\> J|)>. Let us agree to drop the dependence on the initial value > as long as no ambiguities arise. This dependence on the initial value > will only become relevant in Section can safely be ignored for the rest of the paper. \ We will arrive at Theorem in several steps. We start with the variational description for exponential functionals of Brownian motion by Boué and Dupuis (Lemma). We then show that any optimally controlled process has the correct law (Lemma and Remark). \ Finally, we obtain necessary conditions on the optimal control (Lemma) and use a verification theorem to show existence and uniqueness of an optimal control (Lemma) which will imply that the optimal dynamics is indeed given by. We say a real valued random variable is (with respect to the probability measure >) if there are Hölder conjugates 1> (that is ) such that <\equation*> \|]>+\\\. The linear growth assumption on and the boundedness of defined in imply that this condition is always satisfied for |)>> and |)>>. Recall the the variational formula from in the more general version of .\ <\theorem> Let be a cylindrical Brownian motion on a Hilbert space and let >Q\B> be a Brownian motion on > with covariance =Q\s:H\> and define for \>,\ <\equation> X=Z+W.*Z=\s Q*u. For any Borel-measurable functional \\> such that > is tame, it holds that <\equation> -log \>|]>=inf\> \|)>+>|u|\<\|\|\>>>\s|]>\inf\> J. Our interest in this formula is justified by the following observation. If |)>\\> satisfies the assumptions laid out in Section , then > is tame and the formula provides a variational representation for the Laplace transform of via <\equation> =-log \|)>=-log |)>>|]>|\|)>>|]>>|)>=inf\> J-inf\> J. If the infimum is a minimum, it turns out that the control problem actually provides a more direct description of the measure > via the dynamics > given by. We recall Lemma11 from, which is the key to establish this relationship. <\lemma> Let |)>\\> be bounded and continuous. If for some \\> the variational problem \> J*g>> has a minimiser >*g>>, then \*g|)>> satisfies <\equation*> |\\>**g|)>=\>*g>|)>|)>|]>. <\remark> From it is clear that *g|)>> is differentiable in > for all bounded, continuous functionals |)>\\>. We can then explicitly compute <\equation*> g|)>*\\|)>=||\\>|\|>=0>*log |)>>\*g+V|)>|)>>*\\|)>=\>|)>|)>|]>, so that >|)>|)>=\>. Next, we show a necessary condition for the optimal control, which will also provide a candidate for the minimiser of as feedback control. <\lemma> If >\\> is optimal for the control problem , then t\\P>-almost surely, <\equation> >=-Q*\V>|)>|)>|]>. <\proof> Standard stability results for SDEs imply that the solution > to is differentiable in . Similarly, the regularity assumed on and imply that also > is differentiable along all directions *u\\|)>>. We compute\ <\equation*> |>X*u>>|>|||\\>|\|>=0>*X*\*u|)>=Q*\*u\s,>>|>J*u>>|>|||\\>|\|>=0>*J*\*u|)>=\V|)> \>X*u>+u*\*u\s|]>.>>>>> Since all controls have to be adapted, we may insert a conditional expectation to find <\equation> \>J*u>|| *\V|)>|]>+u|)>*\*u\s.>>>>> For an optimal control >>, it must hold for any direction *u\\|)>> and \0>, <\equation*> J>+\*\*u|)>-J>|)>\0. Moreover, since Y\\V|)>|]>> does not depend on the direction *u>, we arrive at the claimed first order condition for optimality <\equation*> >+Q\Y>|)>=0\>=-Q\Y>|)>. Up until this point, we cannot guarantee existence of a minimiser. For the potentials as defined in, we can close this gap with a verification theorem for feedback controls. Given a feedback control =|)>>, we say that the pair |)>> is if > is a strong solution to the SDE controlled by , that is > is a strong solution to the SDE <\equation*> X=Q*|)>\s+W,t\. <\lemma> The feedback control is optimal for the control problem. Moreover, the Hamilton\UJacobi\UBellman equation <\equation> |v+*Tr>\v|)>=\v|\>\v,>|>>|=V+g,>|>>>>|\> has a unique bounded solution > and >> defined in satisfies <\equation> >=-Q\v>|)>|)>. <\proof> Let us fix the function and write >, >. The Hamilton\UJacobi\UBellman equation (HJB-equation; for short) associated to the control problem is given by <\equation> |v+infL>*Tr>\v|)>+|\v,Q*a|\>>+|a|\<\|\|\>>>|}>=0,>>|=V.>>>>>|\> see e.g.2.5.1>. Solving the quadratic optimisation problem in we find that the optimum is attained at \v> so that the PDE reduces to. Define the function <\equation> v|)>\-log \+W-W|)>|)>|]>. Since is bounded and smooth by assumption, the representation in implies that also is smooth and bounded, say C,C|)>|)>>. We readily verify by a direct computation that is a solution to.\ Having found a solution to the HJB equation , we have access to the verification theorem (see e.g.2.36>): if the feedback control >> as defined in is admissible and satisfies for almost every >, <\equation> >\argminL>*Tr>*\v>|)>|)>|)>+|\v>|)>|)>,Q*a|\>+|a|\<\|\|\>>>|}>,P it follows that >> is optimal for the control problem. By the same reasoning as before for the HJB-equation, the unique >-optimiser of is given by >=-Q\v>|)>|)>>. Since is bounded, we see from that the solution > is bounded away from and the gradient is given by <\equation> \v|)>=V+W-W|)> exp+W-W|)>|)>|]>|v|)>>. Hence, the gradient v> inherits the Lipschitz continuity from and V>. As a result, the standard fixed point argument for SDEs with bounded Lipschitz coefficients shows that the pair >,X >|)>|)>> is admissible for the control problem. Finally, expanding the function \\v> along the flow of the optimally controlled process >|)>> using Ito's formula and the fact that > solves, yields <\equation> f|)>=\V|)>-f+*Tr >\f-\*>*f|)>|)>|)> \s|]>=\V|)>|]>. which is the missing equality <\equation> >=-Q\v>|)>|)>=-Q*\V>|)>|)>|]>. \; <\render-proof|Proof of Theorem > To see that has a unique solution, note that by , the SDE is equivalent to with the feedback control >=-Q\v>|)>|)>>. By Lemma this control is admissible, i.e. there is a unique strong solution. By, the variational problem for the Laplace transform is a direct consequence of Lemma. Lemma and imply combined that the pair defined in is optimal for the control problem. Moreover, the condition is necessary and since the solution to the SDE is unique, the pair>,X>|)>|)>> defined by is the unique optimiser for. Finally, Lemma and Remark show that the solution to for has the desired law, <\equation*> Law|)>=\. <\remark> <\enumerate-alpha> Compared to the more general setting considered in, the fact that the potential is Lipschitz and bounded allows us to directly use the solution to the HJB-equation and enables the verification theorem. This means that we do not need to relax the variational problem to ensure existence of a minimiser. The difference is only a technical one and not crucial to our analysis: the subsequent analysis could be carried out verbatim for a relaxed version of the control problem, by possibly enlarging the underlying filtration. We should emphasise the difference between the two formulas\ <\equation> >=-Q\v>|)>|)>, via the solution > to and <\equation> >=-Q*\V>|)>|)>|]>, via the stochastic maximum principle. The PDE is not only non-linear but also infinite dimensional. The only reason we were able to easily show well-posedness here are the explicit formulas and for and its gradient. Both rely on the boundedness and Lipschitz continuity of > and its gradient. In our main application of interest, where ,T>>, both of these properties disappear as the regularisations > and are removed. As a result, this strategy does not readily transfer to the unregularised setting. In contrast, the formula yields the entirely self-contained forward-backward dynamics. This FBSDE is an appealing candidate for a stochastic quantisation equation for the measures ,T>> that we can also transfer to the limit \1,T\\>. Controlling uniformly in both regularisations is the objective of the next section. Motivated by the issues highlighted in Remark -, we move to a reformulation of theFBSDE, which is stable in the \1>, \> limit and which can be studied without relying on a direct analysis of the PDE. This means we do not have access to the exact solution of . In place of the exact solution, we look for a scale dependent function |)>> such that the error, or remainder, defined by <\equation> R\\V|)>|]>-F|)>, is small in a suitable sense. For ,T>>, we would also like the bounds to also be uniform in \1,T\\> and \>. While we should keep this goal in mind, the idea is more general and we therefore first develop them for a function V>. Similarly to the computation in, we develop the function along the flow of the SDE and obtain a BSDE for the remainder ,\ <\equation*> R=\|)>-F|)>|]>=\ H|)>\s+\ \F|)>*>*R\s+\\F|)>\W, where <\equation> H|)>=F+*Tr>\F|)>- \*>*F|)>|)>|)>. Since the stochastic integral is a martingale, it vanishes under the conditional expectation. Allowing again a small perturbation in the potential, the optimal dynamics in can equivalently be described by the FBSDE <\equation> |=\+W->|)>+R|)>\s,>>|=\g|)>+H|)>\s+\F|)>*>*R\s|]>.>>>>>|\> Of course, for the exact solution to and v>, we recover . Introducing the remainder however buys us the freedom to choose the function , and let the remainder compute the error resulting from this approximation. We, therefore, set out to find a systematic way to construct functions for which the error term is small in the next section. <\remark> Observe that we really treat the function in as a perturbation: we only develop the unperturbed gradient V> along the flow. The error due to is collected entirely in the terminal condition for the remainder . This means that we only have to analyse the flow equation for V>. As an important consequence, the periodic structure of the cosine interaction stays intact which we rely on for the subsequent analysis. In this section, we inductively derive the bounds on the coefficients of the FBSDE \ using a truncated version of the renormalisation flow equation <\equation> \F+*Tr>\F|)>- \*>*F|)>=0,>F=\V. Heuristically, we expect that successive Picard iterations of the flow equation improve the the approximation. Accordingly, we define an iterative scheme starting from >\0> and define |]>>> for \0> as the solution to the equation <\equation> \F|]>>+*Tr> \F|]>>|)>=+\=\>\|]>>*>*F|]>>|)>, subject to the terminal conditions <\equation> F|]>>|)>=|V|)>,>|\=1,>>||>>>>>|\> for a suitable potential > to be determined later. The initial condition >\0> ensures that is triangular in > and we can solve as a linear PDE with a source term. Proceeding in this way, we define the >>-th order approximation \>|]>>\\\>>F|]>>>. With this choice for in the FBSDE, the generator of the backward equation as defined in reduces to <\equation> H\>|]>>\\F\>|]>>+*Tr> \F\>|]>>|)>-\\>|]>>*>*F\>|]>>|)>=-*+\\\>>>|,\\\>>>>>>>\|]>>*>*F|]>>|)>. The estimates on the flow equation will rely on the following simple Lemma. <\lemma> Let =\*\|2>*G>>and =1-|8*\>\0>. Then, for any \> and \1-n*\>, <\equation> >\|s|\>|s|\>>\s\\|t|\>-\>. In particular, for \1> we can choose =0> and <\equation> >\|s|\>\s\\|t|\>>. <\proof> With the heat kernel estimate from Lemma, we see that =C*\*1|)>>> for some 0>. Now the claim follows from \0\\\8*\>. Let us take a moment to heuristically explain how successive iterations of should improve in>. Starting from the first order approximation =1>, the bilinear term does not give any contributions, and the linear equation computes the usual Wick-ordering. In the specific case of the cosine interaction, this means more concretely that <\equation> F>|)>=-\*\*sin \|)>,>\\\*\|2>*G>\\*C|t|\>/8*\>=\*C|t|\>>. Here, we absorbed the coupling constant =\> into the renormalisation constant >. The estimates on > are a direct consequence of basic heat kernel estimates (Lemma). We directly read off the bounds, <\equation> |\F>|)>|\<\|\|\>>>>+|F>|)>|\<\|\|\>>>>\\\\|t|\>>. Due to the form of the non-linearity of the flow equation and Lemma, we can expect the bound\ <\equation> |\F|]>>|)>|\<\|\|\>>>>+|F|]>>|)>|\<\|\|\>>>>\\>|t|\>-1|)>>\\>|t|\>*\>, to propagate inductively. Indeed, assuming that the bound holds for all ,\\\>, we obtain from Young's inequality and the estimate |>|\<\|\|\>>>\|s|\>> that, <\equation> |\|]>>*>*F|]>>|)>|\<\|\|\>>>>\|\F|]>>|\<\|\|\>>>>||\>|\<\|\|\>>>|F|]>>|\<\|\|\>>>>\\+\>|t|\>+\|)>>. Since >> is positive, formally integrating out the linear part in and passing to the mild formulation (see the next section for details), this suggests <\equation*> |F|]>>|)>|\<\|\|\>>>>\\>|s|\>-2|)>>|s|\>\s\\>|s|\>>\s>. Hence, Lemma propagates the bound only if *\\1>. Otherwise, we will have to improve our analysis and introduce additional regularisations to propagate the bounds from one level to the next. We therefore refer to the terms with \1/\> as and \1/\> as . To obtain uniform bounds on the remainder in, the source term in should contain only irrelevant terms. The estimates suggest that\ <\equation> |H\>|]>>|)>|\<\|\|\>>>>\+\\\>>>|,\\\>>>>>>>\+\>|t|\>+\|)>>\\>>|t|\>>>, which is integrable in from > for >\1/\> by Lemma. The number of relevant terms depends on the parameter >. If\ <\equation> \\\>>\>|\>+1>|)>*8*\, then only terms at the levels \\>> are relevant. At =8*\>, the number of relevant terms is infinite and the model reaches criticality. In the subcritical regime, \8*\>, we see that the number of relevant terms is finite, but grows arbitrary large as we approach the critical value =8*\>. Indeed, for the first region, \\=4*\>, only the first level =1> is relevant and we can gather all higher order terms in the remainder. Outside the first region, we have to deal with two related issues: <\enumerate-alpha> due to , the terms \\>> cannot be included in the equation for , so that we have to iterate at least up to >>; the heuristic considerations suggest that the bound cannot naively propagate through the flow equation on its own and these terms require renormalisation. The goal of our subsequent analysis is to deal with both difficulties and recover estimates to replace and beyond this first threshold \4*\>. Since our analysis of the FBSDE is limited to the regime \\=6*\>, we develop the ideas for the flow equation only up to this threshold, where >=3> is sufficient. We still emphasise that the inductive reasoning produces (possibly field dependent) bounds on the truncated flow in the entire subcritical regime \8*\>. To proceed with the iteration defined in and finally obtain estimates on |]>>>, we restrict our attention to a suitable parametrised space of functions |)>\|)>>. Here, we use the periodicity of the potential to our advantage and pass to a Fourier representation following. For a |\>>-periodic functional \\\\> we introduce the formal power series <\equation> V|)>==0>>V|]>>|)>, where with =,x|)>\\\> and >=,\,\>|)>>, we define <\equation> V|]>>|)>\\>>|)>>>\x>*f|]>>>|)>*\\*\|)>>*\*\\>*\>|)>>. Since the level > is determined uniquely by the number of arguments >>, we may drop the superscript > in |]>>> without introducing ambiguities. For brevity of the subsequent notation, we introduce the following shorthand for the integrals and the exponential fields, <\equation*> \\*f|)>\=\1>>\x*f,x|)>,>|\>\\\*\>,>|>|)>\>\>>.>>>>> Finally, define the covariance matrix <\equation> W>|)>\-|2>*\*\-G|)>-x|)>,t\s. With this notation and basic set-up, we can rewrite the flow equation in terms of the coefficients . Since any additive shift of the potential > by a constant does not affect the force, the terminal condition translates to <\equation> f|]>,T>>|)>=|*|2*i>,>|=1,>>||\1.>>>>>|\> Moreover, for \1>, we see that the functional |]>>> satisfies the truncated flow equation below at level > if and only if, modulo positive combinatorial coefficients which we gather in |\|>,|\|>|)>>, <\equation> f|]>,T>>|)>=-\+I=|]>>C|\|>,|\|>|)>*\s*\>|)>>*f>|)>I>I> \*\*>-x|)>|]>*f >|)>. Instead of controlling the functions and directly, we now want to inductively derive estimates on these kernels |]>>>. Of course, eventually we will be able to transfer these estimates back to and in a straightforward manner (see Section). Before we proceed and derive bounds on the kernels , some remarks about the setup seem appropriate. <\remark> <\enumerate-alpha> We are primarily interested in the flow equation for the force. However, for the variational description in Section , we will have to work at the level of the potential as well. Since the equations for the force are readily obtained by differentiating the equations for , we prefer to use it as a starting point. Up to an additive constant, both descriptions are equivalent on the finite volume and |]>>=\V|]>>> satisfies if and only if |]>>> satisfies the Picard scheme for, that is\ <\equation> \V|]>>+*Tr> \V|]>>|)>=+\=\>V|]>>*>\V|]>>|)>. We nonetheless emphasise that we never rely on the fact that is the gradient of a potential in our analysis. The coefficients |]>>> are symmetric in their arguments >>, i.e. for any permutation > of |]>>,\ <\equation> f|]>>,\,\>|)>=f|]>>>,\,\|)>>|)>. If >> is translation (respectively rotation) invariant, we inductively see from and the Euclidean invariance of the heat kernel >> that also the kernels |]>>> at the higher levels \1> are translation (respectively rotation) invariant. Correspondingly, if >> is invariant under complex conjugation (that is with |\>=,x|)>> we have >|)>=f>|\>|)>>) then also |]>>>|)>=f|]>>|\>>|)>> is true for any \1>. We always consider truncations\ <\equation*> V\>|]>>==0>>>V|]>>,>F\>|]>>==0>>>F|]>>, of for some >\\>. Therefore, we are not concerned with questions of convergence as >\\>. We will follow the usual custom and refer to the truncated series \>|]>>> as the >>-th order approximation>, even though we do not provide quantitative estimates on the convergence of the series >F|]>>|)>>. This can at least be motivated by the observation that is a formal power series in the coupling constant >. The fact that the representation is not unique \ (both with respect to the summands in and the coefficients in) does not cause any inconvenience for us. The representation is also known as Mayer expansion in the literature and its convergence was already studied in and more recently in a series of papers for the sine-Gordon model. In contrast to our analysis, these results construct the exact solution to the flow equation in the regime \|)>> by showing that the formal series converges for small >. In the regime \,8*\|)>>, the convergence of is still open, but conjectured to hold, see e.g.. In this section, we derive our main estimates on the kernels defined in to control the flow under the conditional expectation in. For \> and some kernel to be chosen later (see below), we will be using the norms <\equation> |f|\>\sup> \\>>|)>*k>|)>*\>>|)>|\|>*\>>|)>\\*m>|)>|)>>, for the Fourier kernels (see for the definition of the Steiner diameter |)>>). If \1> does not depend on , we may drop the subscript . Since the coefficients are symmetric in their arguments, the point > is not special in any way and the supremum could have been taken over any other > instead. The exponential tree weights >> allow us to quantify the decay of the coefficients at large separation between the points ,\,x>>, which we require to show decay of correlations in Section . As <\equation*> \>\I>|)>\\>>|)>*\>>|)>*\*d>,x>|)>>,>d>,x>|)>\min\x>>-x|\|>, these norms work nicely with the flow equation for the coefficients provided we choose \>. Indeed, since the convolution >> in always contracts along -x|)>> for I> and I>, Young's convolution inequality implies that for \1>, <\equation> sup> \\>\>\I>|)>|]>>>|)>I>I>\*\*>-x|)>|]>*f|]>>>|)>|\|>\|f|]>>|\>*|f|]>>|\>*|>|\<\|\|\>>>|)>>. \; To motivate our set-up going forward, consider again. Because >> is a positive definite kernel, it follows immediately from the definition of , <\equation> W>|)>\0,t\s. and consequently >|)>>\1>. Applying this estimate in for =2> yields, with the convolution inequality, the estimates on the first order term in and the heat kernel estimates from Lemma using the assumption \1>, <\equation*> |f>|\>\\s |f>|\>*|f>|\>*|>|\<\|\|\>>>|)>>\\s \|s|\>, which is not integrable from > unless \1> (\\4*\>). Therefore, we need additional help to propagate uniform bounds along the flow. This help will partially come from the structure of the covariance matrix >, and partially from the choice of > in the definition of the norm . To this end, define\ <\equation*> q>|)>\>\, the >>>. We will call a contribution >> if >|)>=0> and otherwise. The relevance of the charge is best illustrated by the improved estimates on the covariance matrix > . If >> is charged, the exponential factor in can help bring down the scale. As a pleasant side effect, these estimates will also imply that including an additional odd level, that is going from =2*k> to +1>, introduces no new difficulties to the analysis. So as to not interrupt the flow of ideas, we postpone the mostly technical proof to Appendix. <\lemma> Suppose that >> is charged. Then there is a constant 0> such that for all t>, <\equation> W>|)>\|8*\>-G|)>+C, and in particular\ <\equation*> \>|)>>\\*\. <\remark> For neutral contributions, >|)>=0>, the point-wise bound >|)>>\1> is sharp: If =0> for all ,\>, then we have >|)>=0>. As a result, point-wise estimates on the linear propagator >|)>>> cannot help to transport estimates for the kernels along the flow of . Conversely, if >|)>|\|>\1>, then it follows from the proof of Lemma (see ) that we could iterate the same procedure until only the neutral part remains and extract more terms from the diagonal. In other words, the tighter bound <\equation*> W>|)>\|8*\>>|)>|\|>1|)>-log1|)>|)>+C, is also true. For our purposes, the bound will always be sufficient. With Lemma, the integrability estimates from Lemma for =1> show that the charged contributions no longer pose a problem for us, allowing to set \1> in this case. However, for the neutral contributions, this norm is too strong and we will have to rely on the kernel >. Recall that >> is exponentially concentrated on \t>, so that (see Lemma), <\equation> >\x>|\>*w>\|t|\>>. Combined with Lemma, we expect that introducing an additional zero of order > in -x> whenever =-\> should help to propagate a bound on a regularised version of the kernel |]>>>. Of course, this regularisation comes at a price we have to pay later. For now, let us ignore this issue and discuss how we can define a regularised version of the kernels which allow to propagate the bounds for the neutral contributions. With *x=x-x>, |)>> and \> to be chosen later, we introduce the (rotation and translation invariant) kernels <\equation> k>|)>\|||>*x|\|>>*\*x|\|>>,>|=2 q,\|)>=0,>>||>>>>>|\> The increment *x|\|>>> ensures the integrability from > thanks to , the additional exponential weight in the kernel is included for technical reasons that will become clear later and the factor >> is included for cosmetics. Given a charge \>, we will also use the notation\ <\equation> f|]>>>|)>\\>|)>=q|}>>*f|]>>>|)>, with analogous notations for the potential <\equation> V|]>>|)>\\>>|)>>>\x>*f|]>>>|)>*\\*\|)>>*\*\\>*\>|)>> and the force |]>,>=\V|]>,>> to consider the bounds for charged and neutral contributions separately.\ We can now proceed with the estimates on the regularised kernels for the point contributions, whose analysis already contains all additional difficulties resulting from neutral contributions. <\lemma> For any \0> and \|)>\0>, <\equation> |f>|\>\\|t|\>. Moreover, the kernels >> inherit the concentration to -x|\|>\|t|\>> from >>. More precisely, letting <\equation*> ,\|)>=f,\|)>*x|\|>> for some \0>, it holds that <\equation> ||\>\|t|\>>|f|\>. <\proof> By definition, <\equation*> f>,\|)>=C*\s*\,\|)>>*f>|)>*\*\*>-x|)>*f>|)>, where for =1>, <\equation> >|)>|\|>\\*\*\G>=\=\>|s|\>-1|)>>. We only show the bound , as follows directly by letting =0>. We deal with the two cases, charged and neutral, separately. If ,\|)>> is charged, we use Young's inequality, Lemma and the basic estimate for =0>, to conclude for any \0>, <\equation*> |2|)>>|\>\sup> \*\s*\|f>|\>*|2>|>*>||2>>>|)>>\\*\s \|s|\>>\\>|t|\>-1|)>-\>. If ,\|)>> is neutral, we have to be more careful. By the definition of >, we can absorb the renormalisation constants =\*\|2>*G>> coming from >> through, <\equation*> W,\|)>+\G=\G-\G-x|)>+\G-x|)>. Instead of the worst-case scaling G>, for which only point-wise estimates are possible, this means we only have to deal with G-x|)>>. Here, combining the averaging in space with the regularisation form the kernels > defined in allows us to estimate the integral uniformly. Indeed using the above, we obtain <\equation*> ||>|\>>||> \\k,\|)>-x|\|>>*\>,x|)>*\s \,\|)>>*f>|)>*f>|)>*>-x|)>|\|>>>||>|>\s>\x\>,x|)>*>-x|)>-x|\|>+\>*t>*\-x|\|>>*\,\|)>+\G>|\|>>>||>|G>*t>*>\x +\>*\+\*m>\s **>*\G -\G>>>||>|G>*t>*>\x +\>*\+\*m>>-G|)>>-1|)>,>>>>> where we used that |\>> has a positive kernel to in the last inequality to replace > by >>. Choosing \|)>\0> we have access to to compute the integral over above and obtain <\equation*> |>|\>\\*t>*\s|s|\>-\>\\|t|\>>=\>|t|\>-1|)>-\>. With the even contributions sorted out, we obtain the bounds on the subsequent odd contribution essentially for free since we can always apply Lemma . This means that we could propagate the bounds on a regularised version of >> without any additional work. However, in the regime \1/4>, with some effort, the regularisations coming from can be removed already at this level.\ <\lemma> For \1/2> and \1/4>, it holds that <\equation*> |f>|\>\\|t|\>. <\proof> By the definition of the coefficients the kernel >> is given by a linear combination of functions of the form <\equation*> >,\,\|)>=C*\s \|)>>*f>|)>*f>,\|)>*\|\>-x|)>+\|\>-x|)>|]> obtained by considering all the permutations of the arguments |)>>. If the -point contribution ,\|)>> is charged, applying immediately implies the bound on >>, <\equation*> |>|\>\\*\s \|s|\>|f>|\>*|f|)>>|\>\\|t|\>=\>|t|\>-1|)>>. Otherwise, if ,\|)>> is neutral, we only have uniform bounds on *f>> but not on >>. Therefore, we insert *k> and absorb > with the convolution >> to obtain the bounds on >>. Here, we compute with Lemma, using the assumption =>, and <\equation*> \>|)>\\>,x|)>*\>,x|)>. Thus, writing *x\x-x>,\ <\equation> ||> \\\>|)>|\>-x|)>-|\>-x|)>|\|>|s>*x|\|>>>*\*x|\|>>*f>|)>*f>|)>\|)>>>|>|> \\*x|\|>+*x|\|>|)>*s \*x|\|>+\*m*x|\|>-m/s>*f>|)>*>*k*f|)>>\|)>>>|>||f>|\>*\\ \*x|\|>+\*m*x|\|>-m/s>*x|\|>+*x|\|>|]>*s*f>|)>,\|)>*\>|)>.>>>>> By Young's convolution inequality, the last integral can be estimated as\ <\equation*> ||>\,\|)>*\>|)>*f>|)>,\|)>*\*x|\|>+\*m*x|\|>-m/s> *x|\|>+*x|\|>|]>|\|>>>|>|\\> \x\*x|\|>+\*m*x|\|>-m/s>*x|\|>*|f>|\>+sup\\> \x\*x|\|>+\*m*x|\|>-m/s>|f>*x|\|>|\>.>>>>> Using the scaling properties of *f>> from Lemma and evaluating the Gaussian integral with Lemma using \1> and choosing |)>> in sufficiently close to , we arrive at the required claim <\equation*> |>|\>\\*\s \|s|\>\\|t|\>. <\remark> The proof above more generally shows that with \1/2>, \1/4> and |\|>+|\|>=\\2>, the following bounds hold, <\equation> sup> \\> \>>|)>>|)>|\|>I>I> \*\*>-x|)>|\|> >|)>|\|>\|t|\>|)>>. Given a spatial cut-off \1> and a UV cut-off \>, let\ <\equation> V\>|]>,\,T>|)>=\\>>|]>,\,T>|)>-c|]>,\,T>|]>, for some suitable renormalisation constants |]>,\,T>> to be chosen later. Here, we denote by |]>,\,T>> the >-th order contribution as defined via its Fourier expansion as in subject to the condition <\equation*> V,\,T>|)>\>\x\*\*cos \|)>. We use the analogous definition and notation for the force \>|]>,\,T>=V\>|]>,\,T>> and the remainder \>|]>,\,T>> defined in . For \6*\> and >=3>, we transfer the bounds we obtained for the Fourier coefficients |]>>> in the previous section to the truncated potential \>|]>>> and the truncated force \>|]>>>. In this step, we have to pay the price for the regularisation with the kernels defined in . For \6*\>, these kernels only appear at level =2>, and by definition, <\equation*> ||]>,\,T>|)>>||\>|)>>\xf,\,T>,\|)>\|)>*\|)>.>>>>> If ,\|)>> is charged, then ,\|)>=1> and it follows from |)>|\|>=1> combined with from Lemma , <\equation*> |]>,\,T>|)>|\|>\|f>|\>\\|t|\>. If ,\|)>> is neutral, we have by a Taylor expansion <\equation> \|)>*\|)>=1+\|)>-x|)>*\\\\+\-x|)>|)>. Therefore, choosing <\equation*> c,\,T>\2*|)>>\x\s >,\,T>,\|)>, it follows that <\equation*> |,\,T>|)>>|||)>>\xf,\,T>|)>,\|)>*k,\|)>-x|)>*\|)>*\\\\+\-x|)>|)>.>>|||,\,T>>>>>> and thus, <\equation*> |,\,T>|)>-c,\.*T>|\|>>|>|,\>|k,\|)>-x|)>|>*|f,\,T>|\>*|\\|\<\|\|\>>>>>>||>>||T|\>*|T|\>>|\\|\<\|\|\>>>>|)>.>>>>> In summary, inserting these bounds in we arrive at the following Lemma. <\lemma> For >=3>, there is a choice for |]>,\,T>> such that for any \1>, and \>, <\equation> |,T>|)>|\|>>|>||\|\<\|\|\>>>*\\>>>|\/2>>>>>>\>|T|\>-1|)>>*|T|\>>|\\|\<\|\|\>>>>|)>,>>||F,T>|)>|\<\|\|\>>>>>|>|\\>>>|\/2>>>>>>\>|t|\>-1|)>>*|t|\>>|\\|\<\|\|\>>>>|)>.>>>>> <\remark> 6>If the order of the approximation >> and the smoothing \> is chosen appropriately (according to and Lemma ), then by modifying , one can show that these estimates generalise in the full subcritical regime \8*\> to bounds of the form <\equation> |,T>|)>|\|>>|>>|\\>>>|\/2>>>>>>\>|T|\>-1|)>>*|T|\>>>|\|\<\|\|\>>,\>>>|)>,>|\1> and >0\t\T\\,>>||F,T>|)>|\<\|\|\>>>>>|>|\\>>>|\/2>>>>>>\>|t|\>-1|)>>*|t|\>>>|\|\<\|\|\>>,\>>>|)>,>|\1> and >0\t\T\\.>>>>> However, the field dependency in the estimates and means that we are currently not able to control the FBSDE uniformly in the UV-cut-off which restricts our analysis to the regime \6*\>. What saves our analysis in this case is the observation that for the FBSDEs and the force > only appears in combination with the heat kernel. Indeed, it turns out that since is continuous on >>, the smoothing properties of the heat kernel are enough to recover uniform bounds for *F> and F*Q>. <\remark> The truncated solutions still satisfy for any function > and any \>, <\equation> V,T>|)>=>*cos \|)>-c,T>|)>*\\x,F,T>|)>=-\\*\*sin \|)>. Here, the renormalisation constant =C*\*\|2>*G>> is the usual Wick-ordering and ,T>\>c|]>,\,T>> is the additive renormalisation resulting from higher order corrections. From now on we will always assume that \6*\> and that in the definition of the kernel > we fix > sufficiently close to and =1/2>. Since we only deal with the case >=3>, let us also agree to suppress the dependence on >> for and writing e.g. \ F\>|]>>=F3|]>>>. Our goal in this section is to recover field independent bounds on all coefficients of , that is on *F>, F*Q> and >. <\lemma> For any \|)>>, <\equation*> |Q*F>|)>|\<\|\|\>>>>\|t|\>|)>. <\proof> We follow exactly the same strategy as in the proof of Lemma, where we now require bounds on <\equation> sup\> \\\\*f>,\|)>|\|>*-x|)>-Q-x|)>|\|>|-x|\|>>*\-x|\|>>. Thanks to the translation invariance, we can apply Lemma for > and absorb the increment -x|\|>>, <\equation> -x|)>-Q-x|)>|\|>|-x|\|>>*\-x|\|>>\t|\|>+-x|\|>|)>*\*t|\|>>*\/2*s>. Using this in we get from Young's convolution inequality and the scaling properties of the kernels >> (see Lemma),\ <\equation*> ||Q*F>|)>|\<\|\|\>>>>>|>|\\\\|\|>+-x|\|>|)>*t*\*t|\|>-m/2*t>*f>,\|)>|\|>>>||>|\x\*t|\|>-m/2*t>*sup> \\-x|\|>*f>,\|)>|\|>>>|||\x|\|>*\*t|\|>-m/2*t>*sup> \\|k*f>,\|)>|>>>||>||t|\>.>>>>> \; For the remaining levels, the estimates on the coefficients transfer directly to the force. To remove the cut-offs later, we will also have to control the dependence of the approximate solution on these parameters. Therefore, let us again keep track of this dependence by writing > for the solution to the flow equation on > with terminal conditions at and in the same way >> for \1>. In the estimates it is assumed that the suppressed parameters coincide. <\proposition> \ For any \|)>>, L>|)> >, ,\,\\1> and ,T\\>, it holds uniformly <\enumerate-alpha> \ <\equation> ||||||Q*F|]>>|)>|\<\|\|\>>>>>|>||t|\>,>>||\F|]>>|)>*QR|\<\|\|\>>>>>|>||t|\>|R|\<\|\|\>>>>,>>||H|)>|\<\|\|\>>>>>|>||t|\>|)>.>>>>> Let >> or > for any \>, then <\equation> |||||||Q*F|]>> |)>-Q*F|]>>|~>|)>|\<\|\|\>>>|>||t|\>|\-|~>|\<\|\|\>>,>>||F|]>>|)>*Q-\F|]>>|~>|)>*Q|)>R|\<\|\|\>>>|>||t|\>|\-|~>|\<\|\|\>>*|R|\<\|\|\>>>>,>>||H|)>-H|~>|)>|\<\|\|\>>>|>||t|\>|)>|\-|~>|\<\|\|\>>.>>>>> )> There is an \0> depending only on > such that, <\equation> ||Q>-F>|)>|)>|\<\|\|\>>>>>|>|>|T\T|\>>,>>||F>-\F>|)>|)>*QR|\<\|\|\>>>>>|>||T\T|\>>*|R|\<\|\|\>>>>,>>||H>-H>|)>|\<\|\|\>>>>>|>||T\T|\>>.>>>>> >)> For any 2>, it holds that <\equation> |||Q>-F>|)>|)>|\<\|\|\>>>>|>||t|\>|\-\|\<\|\|\>>>,>>||F>-\F>|)>|)>*QR|\<\|\|\>>>>|>||t|\>|\-\|\<\|\|\>>>*|R|\<\|\|\>>>>,>>||>-H>|)>|)>|\<\|\|\>>>>|>||t|\>|)>|\-\|\<\|\|\>>>.>>>>> <\proof> \; <\enumerate-alpha> For all contributions other than for >> this follows directly from the bounds on the kernels and >|)>|\|>\1>. In fact, in these cases, we obtain the better bound, <\equation*> |F|]>>|)>|\<\|\|\>>>>\\>|t|\>-1|)>>, so that\ <\equation*> |Q*F|]>>|)>R|\<\|\|\>>>>\|Q|\<\|\|\>>>|F|]>>|)>|\<\|\|\>>>>|R|\<\|\|\>>>>\\>|t|\>-1|)>>|R|\<\|\|\>>>>\\. \ For >>, this bound was shown in Lemma. For the derivative, note that for any test function L>|)>> <\equation*> |\F|]>>|)>QR|\<\|\|\>>>>>|>|>\\>\y*f|]>>>|)>\>*i\\ Q-y|)>R\>|)>|\|>,>>||>||R|\<\|\|\>>>>*sup>\\>\y*|]>>>|)>\>*i\\ Q-y|)>|\|>>>>>> and now the same reasoning as for > applies for the integral on the right hand side. Finally, the estimates on follow from the estimates above and <\equation*> ||H|)>|\<\|\|\>>>>>|>|*+\\3>|\|]>>*>*F|]>>|)>|)>|\<\|\|\>>>>>>||>|+\\3>|\F|]>>*Q*F|]>>|)>|\<\|\|\>>>>*\+\\3>|t|\>|)>+\>.>>>>> The Lipschitz bounds follow as above in part , combined with the observation that thanks to the boundedness of the complex exponential fields it holds that, writing |~>|)>=|~>,x|)>=\\|~>>,> <\equation*> >|)>-|~>>|)>|\|>\|)>-|~>|)>|\|>\|)>-|~>|)>|\|> This follows from Lemma in the same way as Proposition - followed from Lemma and. We only show the estimates on as the others are a direct consequence as illustrated in the proof of part . Again, except for >>, these estimates follow immediately from the convolution inequalities (see Lemma ), <\equation*> ||Q|]>,\>-F|]>,\>|)>|)>|\<\|\|\>>>>|>||Q|\<\|\|\>>>||]>,\>-F|]>,\>|)>|)>|\<\|\|\>>>>>||>||t|\>||]>,\>-F|]>,\>|)>|)>|\<\|\|\>>>,>>>>> and\ <\equation*> |||]>,\>-F|]>,\>|)>|)>|\<\|\|\>>>>|||\\>-\|)>>|)>*f|]>>>|)>|\<\|\|\>>>|x|\>|)>>>>||>|\x-\|)>|)>|\|>|x|\>*>\\>|]>>>|)>|\|>|)>>>||>||\-\|\<\|\|\>>>|f|]>>|\>.>>>>> The missing estimate on ,>> follows in the same way as before, using > to absorb the increment via Lemma as in and and then following the same steps as above. \; <\remark> <\enumerate-alpha> Combining the estimates from Proposition - and , for \0> sufficiently small depending only on >, and any L>|)>>, <\equation> ||Q>-F>|)>|)>|\<\|\|\>>>>>|>||t|\>|)>>|T\T|\>>,>>||F>-\F>|)>|)>*QR|\<\|\|\>>>>>|>||t|\>|)>>|T\T|\>>*|R|\<\|\|\>>>>,>>||>-H>|)>|)>|\<\|\|\>>>>>|>||t|\>|)>>|T\T|\>>.>>>>> In particular, for any \|)>> we can choose \0> sufficiently small so that |s|\>|)>>> remains integrable as by Lemma .\ Proposition - implies that we can define *F>|)>>, F>|)>*Q> and >|)>> as the >>-limit of *F|)>>, F|)>*Q> and |)>>, respectively as \>. The same arguments we used previously for the gradient show the following estimates on the remainder <\equation> \,T>|)>\V,T>+*Tr >\V,T>-\V,T>|\>\V,T>|)>, at the level of the potential. We should emphasise that in contrast to the estimates on , they of course only apply on the finite volume, that is for \1>. The results of this section will be used only later on to recover the variational description for the unregularised measures in Section and we invite the reader skip them at first reading. <\proposition> Given a set \>, denote its Lebesgue measure by >. For any spatial cut-off \1>, UV cut-off ,T\\>, and ,|~>\|)>>, it holds that <\enumerate-alpha> (Lipschitz estimates)> <\equation*> >|)>-\>|~>|)>|\|>\|)>|\|> |t|\>|)>*|\-|~>|\<\|\|\>>>>,t\. There is an \0> such that <\equation*> ,T>-\,T>|)>|)>|\|>\|)>|\|>|T\T|\>>,t\, and <\equation> ,T>|)>-\,T>|~>|)>|)>|\|>\|\|\<\|\|\>>>|\-|~>|\<\|\|\>>>.*t\. <\proof> By the definition of ,T>>above, we see that ,T>> has the Fourier series representation <\equation> \,T>|)>\=4>\\> \>|)>*h>|)>*\>|)>, where we used the notation >|)>=\>\|)>> and for \>, we defined <\equation> h>|)>\*\I=|]>>>>>>>C|\|>,|\|>|)>*f>|)>I>I>\*\*>-x|)>|]>*f>|)>, for a positive combinatorial constant |\|>,|\|>|)>>. Moreover, by Remark , we have the estimate <\equation> |h|]>,T>|\>\|t|\>|)>>. <\enumerate-alpha> This follows directly from the definition of >>, the bounds on the kernels and simple rearrangements, using again the boundedness of |)>|\|>=1>, <\equation*> ||=4>\\> \>|)>*h>|)>>|)>-|~>>|)>|)>|\|>>>|>|=4>\x \|)>*\\>h>|)>>|)>-|~>>|)>|\|>>>|>||)>|\|>*=4>sup> \\>>|)>|\|>*|\-|~>|\<\|\|\>>>>,>>|>||)>|\|>*|\-|~>|\<\|\|\>>>>*=4>\>|t|\>>.>>>>> This proof is in complete analogy to Proposition and using the same ideas as in Proposition - above. \ With good approximate solutions to the flow under the conditional expectation and the renormalisation sorted out, we can return to the FBSDE <\equation> |,T,g>=\+W->,T>,T,g>|)>+R,T,g>|)>\s,>>|,T,g>=\g|)>+ H,T>,T,g>|)>\s+\F,T>,T,g>|)>*>*R,T>\s|]>,>>>>>|\> with and as defined in Section. We will often work with ,T,g>\X,T,g>-+\|)>> directly to obtain deterministic bounds on the drift . To lighten the notation, we leave the dependence of the solution on and > implicit in this whenever possible and fix the perturbation . Unless explicitly stated otherwise, all estimates are uniform in the parameters > and .\ We will furthermore always implicitly assume that the solution to is extended to the positive half line |)>> in the standard way, that is <\equation*> ,R|)>\t>,Rt>|)>,t\|)>. As a first step, we show well-posedness for the FBSDE with the regularisations in place. We follow a standard Picard-iteration for the solution map =Z> defined by <\equation> |=\s >+W|)>+R|)>,>>|=\g+W|)>+\s H+W|)>+\s \F+W|)>*>*R|]>.>>>>>|\> Standard well-posedness for decoupled Lipschitz FBSDEs ensures the existence of a unique solution ,R|)>\\>>|)>\\>>|)>> to for any \>>|)>>. The only term in that cannot be estimated in a linear fashion immediately from Proposition is the term F+W|)>*>*R> in the backward equation. The next Lemma ensures that also this term stays bounded and does not cause any issues. <\lemma> For all in \>>|)>> and any \0> (not necessarily small), <\equation*> sup|R|\<\|\|\>>>>\\*>+\|t|\>\\,sup |Z|\<\|\|\>>>>\C*\. <\proof> From the definition of >, the regularity of \L> for any \> and the bounds on the flow from Proposition -, <\equation*> ||R|\<\|\|\>>>>>|>|>+\s |H+W|)>|\<\|\|\>>>>+\*\s |\F|)>*>*R|\<\|\|\>>>>,>>||>|>+\s \|s|\>+\s \|s|\>|R|\<\|\|\>>>>.>>>>> By a backward version of Gronwalls inequality, this implies with \1> (see Lemma), <\equation> |R|\<\|\|\>>>>\>+\s \|s|\>|)>*\*\s |s|\>>>\\>+\|t|\>. Thus, using the bound just derived for > in the equation for >,\ <\equation*> |Z|\<\|\|\>>\\s |>+W|)>+R|)>|\<\|\|\>>>>\>\s |s|\>+|R|\<\|\|\>>>>|)>\\*C. With this issue resolved, we are in a position to show that defines a contraction on >>|)>>. <\proposition> For > sufficiently small, the map :\>>|)>\\>>|)>;z\Z> is a contraction. Since uniquely determines the solution > to via\ <\equation*> Z\+Z+W,R|)>0>, this immediately implies the existence of a unique solution to when combined with the regularity of the stopped Brownian motion |)>>\\|)>>. <\corollary> For any \1,T\\>, and |)>> the FBSDE has a unique solution <\equation*> ,R|)>0>=+Z+W,R|)>0>\\|)>\\>>|)>. <\render-proof|Proof of Proposition> Let ,z\\>>|)>> and consider the FBSDE for the difference *Z,\*R|)>=>,R>|)>->,R>|)>> given by\ <\equation> |*Z=-\s >>|)>-F>|)>+\*R|)>>>|*R=\\g+\s \*H-\s F>|)>|\>R>-\F>|)>|\>R>|)>|]>,>>>>>|\> where we use the shorthand =\+z+W> so that *X=\*z> and <\equation*> \\g\\g>|)>-\g>|)>,\*H\H>|)>-H>|)>. To deal with the bilinear term in the backward equation, we combine the estimates from Proposition - with the boundedness of > provided by Lemma to conclude <\equation*> |F>|)>-\F>|)>|)>|\>R>|\<\|\|\>>>>\|R>|\<\|\|\>>>>|F>|)>-\F>|)>|]>*>|\<\|\|\>>>>\\|s|\>|\*z|\<\|\|\>>>>. The remaining terms in the backward equation can all be estimated directly using Proposition - and the Lipschitz continuity of g>,\ <\equation*> ||\*R|\<\|\|\>>>>>||>*|\*z|\<\|\|\>>>>+\s|H>|)>-H>|)>|\<\|\|\>>>>>>|||\s ||>F>|)>-\F>|)>|)>*\*R|\<\|\|\>>>>|>|+|R>|\<\|\|\>>>>|\F>|)>-\F>|)>*>|\<\|\|\>>>>|>>>||>|\s \|s|\>|\*z|\<\|\|\>>>>+\s\|s|\>|\*R|\<\|\|\>>>>+\s\|s|\>|\*z|\<\|\|\>>>>,>>>>> which implies by Gronwall's inequality, <\equation*> sup|\*R|\<\|\|\>>>>\C*\ sup|\*z|\<\|\|\>>>>. Using this estimate on in the equation for the forward component with the Lipschitz estimates from Proposition -, we obtain <\equation*> ||\*Z|\<\|\|\>>>>>|>|\s |>>|)>-F>|)>+\*R|)>|\<\|\|\>>>>>>||>|*\s |s|\>*\|\*z|\<\|\|\>>>>+\s|s|\>|\*R|\<\|\|\>>>>>>||>|*sup|\*z|\<\|\|\>>>>+C*sup|\*R|\<\|\|\>>>>>>||>|*sup|\*z|\<\|\|\>>>>,>>>>> which yields the required contraction for > small enough. <\remark> We crucially rely on the uniform, field independent estimates on the approximate force obtained in Proposition which hold only up to >. Indeed, assuming only the weaker estimate, it is less clear how to obtain suitable replacements for the a priori estimates of Lemma and rule out explosion in finite time. Even linear growth in F|)>> would require an additional argument as any trivial estimate for the backward equation results in an exponential dependence on |Z|\<\|\|\>>>>> in the equation for the remainder through . In this section, we show that the associated solution to the FBSDE is stable in both regularisations > and , provided that the coupling constant > is chosen sufficiently small. We summarise these properties below. <\proposition> For \0> sufficiently small and 2> |x|\>\L|)>>|)>, the following stability estimates hold. <\enumerate-alpha> Let ,\\1> and denote the associated solutions to by >,R>|)>> and >,R>|)>>respectively. Then, the difference between the solution >*Z,\>*R|)>\>,R>|)>->,R>|)>> satisfies <\equation*> sup|\>*Z|\<\|\|\>>>+sup|\>*R|\<\|\|\>>>\\|\-\|\<\|\|\>>>. \; Let ,T\\> and denote the associated solutions to by >,R>|)>> and >,R>|)>> respectively. Then, the difference between the solution *Z,\*R|)>\>,R>|)>->,R>|)>> satisfies for some \0>, <\equation*> sup|\*Z|\<\|\|\>>>>+sup|\*R|\<\|\|\>>>>\|T|\>>. Let ,T>,R,T>|)>> be the unique solution to. It holds that <\equation*> sup|Z,T,g>-Z,T,0>|\<\|\|\>>>+sup|R,T,g>-R,T,0>|\<\|\|\>>>\C*\. <\proof> \; <\enumerate-alpha> We follow essentially the same argument as before for the proof of Proposition , writing the FBSDE for the difference as <\equation> |>*Z=-\s >>>|)>-F>>|)>+\>*R|)>>>|>*R=\>\g+\s \>*H+\s F>>|)>*>*R>-\F>>|)>*>*R>|)>|]>,>>>>>|\> where >\g=\g>|)>-\g>|)>> and >*H=H>>|)>-H>>|)>>. Using the estimates from Proposition - in the FBSDE for the difference, we obtain <\equation*> ||\>*Z|\<\|\|\>>>>|>|\s \|s|\>|\>*Z|\<\|\|\>>>+|\-\|\<\|\|\>>>+|\>*R|\<\|\|\>>>|)>>>||>||\>*Z|\<\|\|\>>>+|\-\|\<\|\|\>>>|)>+sup|\>*R|\<\|\|\>>>,>>>>> and\ <\equation*> |||\>*R|\<\|\|\>>>>|>|\s\|s|\>|\>*Z|\<\|\|\>>>+|\-\|\<\|\|\>>>|)>>>|||\s \|s|\>|\-\|\<\|\|\>>>+|\>*Z|\<\|\|\>>>+|\>*R|\<\|\|\>>>|]>>>||>||\>*Z|\<\|\|\>>>+sup|\>*R|\<\|\|\>>>+|\-\|\<\|\|\>>>|)>.>>>>> which yields the claim after choosing > sufficiently small and rearranging. For concreteness, let \T>. The difference between the two solutions solves the FBSDE, <\equation*> |*Z=-\s >>>|)>-F>>|)>+\*R|)>>>|*R=\\g+\s \*H+\s F>>|)>*>*R>-\F>>|)>*>*R>|)>|]>,>>>>>|\> where *g=\g>>|)>-\ g >>|)>> and *H=H>>|)>-H>>|)>>. The only difference to the estimates before is the additional tail in the backward equation. Other than that we proceed as before. For the forward equation, splitting up the differences as in the proof of part , we have from Proposition - and (see also Remark -), for ,\\0> sufficiently small, <\equation*> ||\*Z|\<\|\|\>>>>>|>|*sup|\*Z|\<\|\|\>>>>+|\*R|\<\|\|\>>>>+|T|\>>.>>>>> For the backward equation, we split the the terms as <\equation*> |*R>||g>>|)>-\ g >>|)>>>||| >\s>>|)>-H>>|)>|)>-\ >\s F>>|)>*>*R>-\F>>|)>*>*R>|)>>>||| >>\s>>|)>|)>-\ >>\s F>>|)>*>*R>|)>,>>>>> we proceed similarly on |]>> to obtain from Proposition - and, <\equation*> |>\s|H>>|)>-H>>|)>|\<\|\|\>>>>>|>|*sup|\*Z|\<\|\|\>>>>+\|T|\>>>>>>> and <\equation*> >\s |\F>>|)>*>*R>-\F>>|)>*>*R>|\<\|\|\>>>>\\|\*Z|\<\|\|\>>>>+sup|\*R|\<\|\|\>>>>+|T|\>>|)>. The integrals on ,T|]>> can be estimated using just the boundedness of the coefficients provided by Proposition -, <\equation*> >>\s |H>>|)>|\<\|\|\>>>>+>>\s |\F>>|)>*>*R>|\<\|\|\>>>>\\*>>\s |s|\>>+|s|\>>\\*|T|\>>. Finally, by the regularity assumed on , <\equation*> |\g>>|)>-\g >>|)>|\<\|\|\>>>>\\*>*|X>>-X>>|\<\|\|\>>>>\\*sup|\*X|\<\|\|\>>>>. Combining all of the above yields the claim for > small enough after rearranging. This proof is straightforward and does not require any new arguments compared to e.g. the proof of part . Indeed, now the FBSDE for the difference is <\equation*> |*Z=-\s >|)>-F|)>+\*R|)>>>|*R=\g|)>+\ \s\*H+\ \s F|)>*>*R-\F |)>*>*R|)>,>>>>>|\> where again *H=H|)>-H|)>>. The same steps as in part and imply the claim with the Lipschitz estimates from Proposition -. Throughout this section, we assume that > is chosen small enough for Corollary and Proposition to apply. Then, for any \1> and \>, we denote by ,T>,R,T>|)>> the unique solution to. We show the following refined version of Theorem. <\theorem> \ As the cut-offs are removed, the family ,T>,R,T>|)>|}>\1,T\\>> converges in |)>\\|)>> to a unique limit \\>>|)>\\>>|)>> that is, <\equation*> lim\1>>|\>>>>>> sup|Z,T>-Z|\<\|\|\>>>+|R,T>-R|\<\|\|\>>>|}>=0. Moreover, for any \0>, |)>> and \B,-n>>, there is a version of the drift process with terminal value >\L>P;B/4*\-\,-n>|)>>, so that <\equation> X>=Z>++W>|)>\L>P;B/4*\-\,-n>|)>+LP;B,-n>|)>. In particular, for any \0>, the family ,T>|)>,T>> has a unique weak limit in ,-n>> as \1> and \> which we denote by >. It is given as a random shift of the Gaussian free field,\ <\equation*> Law,T>+W|)>=\,T>\\=Law>+W>|)>. For \4*\>, we obtain >\H> and in the finite volume, that is for \1>, the same argument in the unweighted spaces implies >>\H>. Since the Wick ordered cosine |cosW|)>|\>> converges in >> for any \-\/4*\>, we can define all product on the right hand side of <\equation> |cos>+W>|)>|)>|\>\cosZ>|)>|cosW>|)>|\>+sinZ>|)>|sinW>|)>|\>, so that the partition function >=\*V,\>>+W>|)>|)>|]>> stays bounded. Consequently, we recover that the law of the shift >=Law>>+W>|)>> is absolutely continuous with respect to the Gaussian free field =Law>|)>>. For \4*\>, this is no longer the case (see Theorem and Theorem ) and indeed Theorem only ensures the regularity >>\H/4*\->|)>=H|)>>, which we conjecture to be optimal. This regularity no longer allows to define the products on the right hand side of, preventing us from using the argument above. <\render-proof|Proof of Theorem > The fact that the limit exists follows from Proposition - and; \ note that all constants are uniform in \1> and \>, so the order in which we take the limits is irrelevant. Denote the limiting processes of ,T>,R,T>|)>,T>> by > and let \+Z+W>. Then, the aforementioned convergence results transfer the bound from Lemma to the limit so that, <\equation*> |Z>|\<\|\|\>>>>+|R>|\<\|\|\>>>>\sup|Z|\<\|\|\>>>>+|R|\<\|\|\>>>>|)>\1. The convergence of > to the Gaussian free field in > is the content of Lemma and <\equation*> Law,T>+W|)>=\,T>, was already shown in Theorem -. By Gaussian hypercontractivity, for any |]>> there is a version of the free field such that>\B> holds and it remains to show only that the drift > has a terminal value >> with the required regularity. Thanks to Lemma , for any \>and \0>,\ <\equation> |Z>|\<\|\|\>>>>=|>\s >|)>+R|)>|\<\|\|\>>,-n>>\sup|s|\>/2+\>|Q+R|)>|\<\|\|\>>>>. Using Proposition and Lemma we know\ <\equation*> |Q+R|)>|\<\|\|\>>>>\|s|\>*\+|s|\>\s>=s/8*\-1>. Therefore, we can choose \0> small enough for to be finite provided <\equation*> \\2-\/4*\=2\. As a direct consequence of Theorem, we also get exponential moments for the limiting measure. <\corollary> For any \0>, there is a constant \0> such that <\equation*> |)>>\|\|\<\|\|\>>,-n>>>*\\|)>\\. <\proof> By Fernique's theorem (see e.g.) the Gaussian free field >> has squared exponential moments in ,-n>> for some \0>. Combined with the bounds on >> from Theorem , <\equation*> |)>>\|\|\<\|\|\>>,-n>>>*\\|)>\\|W>|\<\|\|\>>,-n>>+\|Z>|\<\|\|\>>>|)>|]>\\. For future reference, let us also note the following regularity property of the solution.\ <\lemma> For any \ >, \0> and |]>,> the solution to the FBSDE satisfies <\equation*> \ |t|\>/2>|W|\<\|\|\>>-\,-n>>|]>\1,sup |t|\>/2+\>|Z|\<\|\|\>>-\,-n>>\1. In particular, |t|\>/2>|X|\<\|\|\>>-\,-n>>\\> almost surely. <\proof> For the estimate on the field |)>0>,> we refer to Appendix. The estimate on > follows in the same way as . Combining the estimates for and yields the estimate for |)>0>>. <\remark> By the standard stability properties for FSBDEs, the limiting processes > satisfies with > and =1>. This means that we can now use as an explicit description to infer properties of > directly without having to go through the approximation procedure. We extensively rely on this unique characterisation to derive additional properties of the limiting measure > and develop the theory for >. The convergence to a measure in Theorem requires > to small to close the argument for the coupled forward backward system. In this section, we show that in the case of a finite volume interaction, this restriction can be removed by decoupling the forward and backward equation by changing the reference measure. <\theorem> Let \ C>|)>.> Then, there is a unique solution in law to for any \ \>. In particular, the finite volume sine-Gordon measure >=Law>>+W>|)>> is unique.\ <\proof> Let us fix \ C>|)>> and suppress the dependency in this proof. We will show that for any 0,> there is a probability measure > and a Brownian motion >|)>0>> with covariance |)>0>> under > such that for the unique strong solution |)>0>> to the SDE <\equation> X=W>->F|)>\s,t\0 and any continuous and bounded observable >, it holds\ <\equation*> |)>\\|)>=|)>\|)>>|]>|\|)>>|]>>=>|)>\\|)>\s>|]>|\>\|)>\s>|]>>. Then, showing that the right-hand side converges to a unique limit as \> proves the claim. First, thanks to Proposition, the SDE is a standard SDE with bounded Lipschitz coefficients. Therefore, the usual contraction argument shows that there is a unique solution to which we denote by |)>0>>. Moreover, repeating arguments we already used, the sequence >F|)>\s|)>0>> is Cauchy in >> so that > converges to a unique limit >\ B,-n>> for any |]>> and \0>. From this solution |)>0>>, we define for any 0> the measure \=*\\> where <\equation*> |>|>|F|)>\W>- F|)>>F|)>\s|)>>>|||F|)>\X+ F|)>>F|)>\s|)>.>>>>> It follows from the estimates on > that for any \>, > is an equivalent martingale measure, and by Girsanov's theorem, |)> >> is a >-Brownian motion with |)>=G>. Thus,\ <\equation*> \>|)>|]>=\>|)>|]>. Note however that for \4\>, the quadratic variation F|)>>F|)>\s> diverges as \>, so that the equivalence of > and > is lost in the \> limit. To overcome this issue, we want to use the fact that > is a good approximation to the Polchinski flow. Indeed, using that V> we have with Ito's formula applied to |)>,> <\equation*> =expF|)>\X- F|)>>F|)>\s|}>=exp-V|)>+\|)>\s|}>. where <\equation*> \|)>=\V|)>+Tr>\V|)>|)>-V>\V|)>|)>. Combined with the fact that >|)>=Law>|)>>, this implies\ <\equation*> >|)>\\|)>>|]>|\>\|)>>|]>>=>|)>\|)>>|]>|\>|)>>|]>>=|)>\|)>>|]>|\|)>>|]>>=|)>\\|)>. To pass to the limit, we observe that thanks to the estimates on the potential (see Proposition), it holds that <\equation*> >\|)>\s|\|>\>>|s|\>>\s\1. Combined with the continuity and boundedness of > and >, this implies by dominated convergence, <\equation*> lim\>|)>\\|)>=lim\>>|)>\\|)>\s>|]>|\>\|)>\s>|]>>=>>|)>\>\|)>\s>|]>|\>>\|)>\s>|]>>. <\remark> In the case \4\>, the estimates in Proposition show that the quadratic variation is uniformly bounded, that is >F|)>>F|)>\s\1.> Consequently, we see from the above that >\\> if \4\>. Using the scale-by-scale coupling via, a coupling method allows us to transfer the decay of correlations from the massive free field to the sine-Gordon measure and establish Theorem. We follow mostly but similar arguments can be found include and originate in. For simplicity and to not distract from the main ideas, let ,:H,-n>\\> be two Lipschitz and bounded observables. Given a smooth bump function > supported on > we want to show that\ <\equation*> Cov\\+x|)>|)>,+x|)>|)>|)>\\-x|\|>>. Let us agree on some notation to use throughout this proof. We denote by \-x|\|>> the distance between the two points of interest. For , let > be the open ball of radius 0> centred at >, where we drop the argument in case /2>. Given a smooth bump function > supported on /4|)>> such that \1> on /8|)>>, we define the exponential weights <\equation*> q>=\*m|\|>>*>>=\*q>, In order for the heat kernels and to work nicely with the weights >>, we always assume that \>. To set-up the coupling argument, let >\W> and \\> and define the identically distributed Brownian motions >,W>> with covariance <\equation*> \>*W>|]>=\s\z Q*\\D>*Q, so that >> and >> are independent and >\W>> near >. Denoting by >> the solution to the FBSDE with ,\=1> and driven by >>. Then, the solutions >> and >> inherit the independence from their driving noise. Inserting the >> for , we find that\ <\equation*> |\X+x|)>|)>,\X+x|)>|)>|)>>>||\X+x|)>|)>*\X+x|)>|)>|]>-\\X+x|)>|)>|]>\\X+x|)>|)>|]>>>||\X+x|)>|)>-\X+x|)>|)>,\X+x|)>|)>|]>>>||\X+x|)>|)>*\X+x|)>|)>-\X+x|)>|)>|]>,>>>> where we denote >=X>>>. Thus, for any \0> and |]>>, using that >|)>=Law>|)>>, <\equation*> \X+x|)>|)>,\X+x|)>|)>|)>|\|>\,>\|\\+x|)>-X+x|)>|)>|\<\|\|\>>,-n>>|]>. It remains to estimate |\+x|)>-X>+x|)>|)>|\<\|\|\>>,-n>>>. If ,x> are close, say \8>, then we use the boundedness of the observables to conclude <\equation*> \X+x|)>|)>,\X+x|)>|)>|)>|\|>\1. If on the other hand \8>, then \D/8|)>> and thus \1> on -x|)>|)>\D> so that >\\*m>> on >. Consequently,\ <\equation*> |\\X+x|)>-\\X>+x|)>|\<\|\|\>>>>>\\> |>>|)>|\<\|\|\>>|)>>\\/8|)>>, where the last inequality follows from Lemma below. The remainder of this section will be devoted to its proof. <\lemma> \ Let \8>. The solutions >>to the FBSDE driven by >> satisfy for some \1>, <\equation*> \ |>>-X>|)>|\<\|\|\>>>>|]>\\*m*\/8>. <\proof> Here, the FBSDE for the difference is given by\ <\equation*> |-X>=>>\s >>|)>-F>|)>|)>+\s >-R>|)>+W-W>,>>|-R>=>\s |)>-H>|)>|]>+>\s \F>|)>*>*R-\F>|)>|\>R>.>>>>>|\> For the drift, -Z>\X-X>-W-W>>, we apply Lemma and below to obtain for \0> sufficiently small (depending only on >), <\equation> |||>>-Z>|)>|\<\|\|\>>>>>|>|>\s*\|s|\>*m*\/8>|X-X>|\<\|\|\>>,-n>/8|)>|)>>+|>>-X>|)>|\<\|\|\>>>>|)>>>|||>\s |s|\>*m*\/8>|R-R>|\<\|\|\>>,-n>/8|)>|)>>+|>>-R>|)>|\<\|\|\>>>>|)>.>>>>> Similarly for the remainder, <\equation> ||||>>-R>|)>|\<\|\|\>>>>>>|>|>\s |s|\>*\+|s|\>*\|)>*m*\/8>|X-X>|\<\|\|\>>,-n>/8|)>|)>>+|>>-X>|)>|\<\|\|\>>>>|)>>>||>\s\|s|\>*m*\/8>|R-R>|\<\|\|\>>,-n>/8|)>|)>>+|>>-R>|)>|\<\|\|\>>>>|)>.>>>>> In the region /8|)>>, we cannot expect the difference >> to behave any better than the Brownian motion > itself. We therefore control the solution in this region using the uniform bounds on the drift from Lemma combined with the bounds on the Brownian motion |)>> from Lemma . This implies for any \0>, <\equation*> |||R-R>|\<\|\|\>>,-n>/8|)>|)>>>|>||R|\<\|\|\>>>>\1,>>| |s|\>>|X-X>|\<\|\|\>>,-n>|)>|)>>|]>>|>||Z|\<\|\|\>>>>+2*\ |s|\>>|W|\<\|\|\>>,-n>>|]>\1,>>>>> where the estimate on |)>> follows from Lemma and\ <\equation*> \1>|t/2>*W|\<\|\|\>>>>>|]>\\1>|t/2>*W|\<\|\|\>>>,\>,-n>>|]>,\\ |)>. After taking expectation and the supremum over in and , these bounds imply for > sufficiently small after rearranging <\equation*> sup|>>-Z>|)>|\<\|\|\>>>>\\*m*\/8>. Finally, Lemma below provides the missing estimate on the Brownian motion and concludes the argument. <\lemma> For any function , it holds that\ <\equation> |q>*>*v|\<\|\|\>>>>\|s|\>*m*\/8>|v|\<\|\|\>>,-n>/8|)>|)>>+|>>*v|\<\|\|\>>>>|)>. <\proof> \ First observe that since > is compactly supported, the weight |x|\>> is uniformly bounded away from zero and thus \\|x|\>>. Combined with the triangle inequality and the estimate on the polynomial weights, we have <\equation> >>=\*\*m|\|>>\\|x-y|\>*\*m>*\*m|\|>>|y|\>. Thus, for any function , <\equation*> ||q>*>*v|\<\|\|\>>>>>||\y >>*>*v|\|>>>||>| \y|x-y|\>*\*m>*>*m|\|>>|y|\>*v|\|>>>||>|*m|\|>>|x|\>*v|\|>*sup \y |y-x|\>*\*m>*>.>>>>> If D/8|)>>, then |\|>\\/8> so that <\equation*> \/8|)>>*m|\|>>|x|\>*v|\|>\\*m*\/8>|v|\<\|\|\>>,-n>/8|)>|)>>. On the other hand, since >/8|)>>\\>, for D/8|)>> we can insert > to find <\equation*> \/8|)>>*m|\|>>|x|\>*v|\|>\*m|\|>>*\*v|\|>=|>>*v|\<\|\|\>>>>. Thus, the estimates on >> from Lemma conclude with the assumption that \1>. <\lemma> In the same notation as before, the following Lipschitz estimates apply <\eqnarray*> |>>*>|)>-F>|)>|)>|\<\|\|\>>>>>|>||s|\>*m*\/8>*|\-\>|\<\|\|\>>,-n>/8|)>|)>>+|>-\>|)>|\<\|\|\>>>>|)>>>||>>|)>-H>|)>|)>|\<\|\|\>>>>>|>||s|\>*m*\/8>*|\-\>|\<\|\|\>>,-n>/8|)>|)>>+|>-\>|)>|\<\|\|\>>>>|)>>>||>>\F|)>*>*R|\<\|\|\>>L>>>|>||s|\>*m*\/8>|R|\<\|\|\>>,-n>/8|)>|)>>+|>>*R|\<\|\|\>>>>|)>.>>>> <\proof> Regarding and, we only show how to commute the weight through a generic term of the Ansatz for the force. The optimal, field independent bounds on > are then obtained in the same way as in the proof of Proposition. In this case, we need to estimate expressions of the form\ <\equation*> sup>\x>*f>|)> \>|)>>-\\>>|)>>|]>*>>|)>|\|>, where is one of the (potentially regularised) force coefficients and >\|)>>> for some >. To this end, thanks to the boundedness of the complex exponential function, it is sufficient to estimate the terms\ <\equation*> sup> \x>*f>|)>|)>-\>|)>|\|>*>>|\|>,k=1,\,\. Using we obtain, <\equation> ||>|)> \>|)>>-\\>>|)>>|]>*>>|)>>>|>|>|)>*\|x-x|\>*\*m|\|>>-\|)>|)>*m*\/8>|x|\>*\/8|)>>|)>+>|)>*\/8|)>>|)>|]>.>>|>|*m*\/8>*|\-\|\<\|\|\>>,-n>/8|)>|)>>+|-\|)>*>|\<\|\|\>>>>|]>*f>|)>*\*m|\|>>|x-x|\>.>>>>> From here, thanks to the exponential decay of the force in the separation of the points, the estimates on |]>>> obtained in Section conclude since by definition of the Steiner weights >> we have for \,1|)>>, <\equation*> sup>\x> f>|)>*\*m|\|>>|x-x|\>|\|>\|f|\>. Applying exactly the same reasoning as in the proof of Lemma to, we obtain\ <\equation*> >F*>|)>|\|>\\y \F|x-z|\>*\*m>*\z |\>*q>|z|\>*R, which implies the claim after splitting up the integral in between /8|)>> and /8|)>>. <\lemma> For i=1,2 and \8>, it holds that <\equation*> \|>>-W>|)>|\<\|\|\>>>>|]>\\*m*\/8>. <\proof> First note that since > is compact, the restricted weight >> is of order in >, that is q\|>\1>. Therefore, by Besov embeddings, <\equation*> |>-W>|)>|\<\|\|\>>>>\|\-W>|)>|\<\|\|\>>>>\|\-W>|)>|\<\|\|\>>-\>,\>>\|\-W>|)>|\<\|\|\>>+\>>, provided \\\> and d/\>. Following the same logic as in the proof of Lemma , we have for any \\>, |)>> thanks to Gaussian hypercontractivity, <\equation*> \ |\-W>|)>|\<\|\|\>>>>|]>\\|\-W>|)>|\<\|\|\>>>>|]>\\|\-W>|)>|\<\|\|\>>>>|]>. Interpolating between > and >, it is therefore sufficient to show that <\equation*> \ |\-W>|)>|\<\|\|\>>>|]>\\*\/8>. Here, we compute similarly to the argument in Lemma using now the separation ,D/4|)>|)>\\/4>, <\equation*> |||\-W>|)>|\<\|\|\>>>>|]>>>|>|\s/4|)>>\x>\zQ|\|>+|\|>|)>>>|>||D/4|)>>>|D>>>>>> \*\>*\s/4|)>>\x>\z \*\>Q|\|>+|\|>|)>>>|>|*\/8>*\s/4|)>>\x>\z +1|)>*\+*\-m/s>>>|>|*\/8>*/4|)>>\x>\z\s +1|)>*\>*\/s>+\s|)>*\>|)>>>|>|*\/8>.>>>>> Finally, the maximal martingale inequalities allow to take the supremum inside the expectation and we arrive at the claim. \4\>> We use the FBSDE to show Theorem , that is that the finite volume sine-Gordon measure and the Gaussian free field are mutually singular for \4\>. Our proof relies on the asymptotics for a the regularised cosine potential. It is similar in spirit to the method used in, but does not rely on a change of measure. We also refer to, where the authors show singularity of the > measure using a variational problem. <\theorem> Let <\equation*> r|)>=|\1|)>>,>|=1/2> >>>|>,>|\1/2>>>>>>>|\>\\ |>|=1/2>>|\1-3\,1-2\|)>,>|\1/2>>>>>|\>, and let >=\\/\|)>> be a standard mollifier with radially symmetric and compactly supported Fourier transform |^>>=\\|)>>. Define the observable <\equation> U>|)>=r|)>|2>G>>cos>\\|)>|)>-1|)>\\x, where >=Cov>\W>|)>> is the covariance of the mollified Gaussian free field. Then, there is a subsequence \0> such that\ <\equation> >>+W>|)>|\|>|n\\>\U>>|)>|n\\>0, where >=Z>>> is the unique solution to. Before we prove this statement, let us note the following consequence. <\corollary> For \1/2>, that is \4\>, the finite volume sine-Gordon measure and the Gaussian free field are mutually singular. <\proof> For some \0> arbitrarily small, define the event <\equation*> S=\ H>|)>:lim\>U>|)>=0|}>, where |)> \>> is a suitable subsequence and \ >> is defined as in . It follows from Theorem that there is a subsequence |)>> such that >=0> while =1>, which implies the claim. <\render-proof|Proof of Theorem> Let >|)>0>> be the scale interpolation of >> so that >|)>|)>> is a martingale, that is\ <\equation> U>|)>=r|)>|2>G>>cos>\\|)>|)>-1|)>\\x, where >=Cov>\W|)>>. For convenience, we always assume \1> and we also write >\\|2>G>>>, >=\>\\>, and >=\>\W>. It follows from Ito's formula that <\equation*> |>>+W>|)>>||>\sU>+Tr>>\U>|)>|)>+W|)>>|>|)>>>|||>\s*\U>+W|)>>>|\>|)>>>|||>\s* \U>+W|)>\W.>|\\>|)>>>>> Thanks to the choice of the interpolation, the term >|)>> vanishes for all >. \\>|)>>> \ Let\ <\equation*> M>>=>\s* \U>|)>\W=-\ r|)>>\>\x *\sin\>|)>\W>, so that <\equation*> \>>|\|>=\r|)> \> >|)>* \x\|)> \x\|)> sin\>|)>|)>sin\>|)>|)>\|W>|)>W>|)>|\>, where we compute <\equation*> \|W>|)>W>|)>|\>=\y\y \>-y|)>>-y|)>\>-y|)>\s. Using >=\\/\|)>> and |\>|\<\|\|\>>>\\>> we obtain with Young's convolution inequalities, <\equation*> |>>|\|>>|>|r|)>> \s>|)>* \x\|)> \x\|)>\y\y \>-y|)>>-y|)>\>-y|)>>>||>|r|)> > \s>|)>* |\>|\<\|\|\>>>|\>|\<\|\|\>>>|>|\<\|\|\>>>>>||>||)> > \s>|)>*s\/s>>>>>> Using Lemma below,\ <\equation*> |>>|\|>>|>||)> > \s*s\/s>s|)>>+r|)>\|)>>>>s\s>>||>||)>|\1|)>+1,>|=1/2,>>|>+1>|\1/2.>>>>>|\>>>>>> Combined, choosing \1/2> implies for =1/2>, <\equation*> \>>|\|>\r|)>|)>+1|)>=log|)>>|)>+1|)>|\\0>0. Otherwise, if \1/2>,\ <\equation*> \>>|\|>\\-2+4\>|\\0>0, provided \2|)>.> Passing to a subsequence, this implies >>\0> almost surely and consequently also >|\|>\\> almost surely. Since >>|)>=M>>>, this gives the second claim in . \>|)>>> To get started, we split this term into the two parts,\ <\equation*> |\>|)>>||*r|)>>\s \x \sin\>|)>\>\>F>|)>>>|||*r|)>>\s \>\x \ sin\>|)>\>\>-F>|)>|)>+R|]>>>||>|\>|)>+\2>>|)>.>>>>> \>2>|)>>> We claim that under the assumptions of Theorem, this term is uniformly bounded in \0> and >. Indeed, using again the estimate on >> from Lemma, we compute with Proposition and the a priori estimates on the remainder (Proposition), <\equation*> |\2>>|)>>|>||)>>\s\>\x \ sin\>|)>>\>|)>-F>|)>|)>+R|]>|\|>>>||>||)>|\>|\<\|\|\>>>>\s \>|>-F>|)>|)>+R|]>|\<\|\|\>>>>>>||>||)>\1>\s |s|\>|)>>|s|\>|s|\>>|]>+r|)>\|)>>>>\s |s|\>|s|\>>.>>||>||)>|s|\>>|)>\|\>+1|)>+r|)>\>>>||>||)>>+1|)>+r|)>\>>>>>> For =1/2>, we see that =1\0> so that \0>\>2>|)>\\>. For \1/2>, the assumption \2|)>> implies the analogous bound. \>|)>>> We show that for > small enough according to the assumptions, this term can be split into a divergent term, and uniformly bounded almost surely finite term. To get started note that\ <\equation*> U>|)>=>|2>\=\1>\\>>-1|)>|)>\x, so that in the same way as in Section, we find <\equation*> \U|)>>F>|)>=-,\\1|}>>\x\|)>\x \> \\\>|)>+\\|)>|)>>\\\>\>|)>-x|)>. Motivated by the renormalisation constant produced by the neutral contribution (c.f. Section), we treat the summands for the charged case, <\equation*> \>=-=\\1|}>>\x\|)>\x \> \\\>|)>+\\|)>|)>>\\\>\>|)>-x|)>, and the neutral case\ <\equation*> \>=-=-\\1|}>>\x\|)>\x \> \\\>|)>+\\|)>|)>>\\\>\>|)>-x|)>, separately.\ >>).> We start by rewriting this sum again as a trigonometric function,\ <\equation*> \>=r|)>\z \>\>|)> \\>\x \ cos+\>|)>|)>, where we can add and subtract > to obtain using the trigonometric identities, <\equation*> +\>|)>|)>>||+\|)>|)>*cos>-\|)>|)>>>|||+\|)>|)>*sin>-\|)>|)>.>>>>> Since both of these terms are estimated in the exact same way, let us only consider the contribution coming from the cosine. Here, we apply the trigonometric identities again, now for =Z+W>, to rewrite\ <\equation*> >-\|)>|)>>||>-Z|)>|)>*cos>-W|)>|)>>>|||>-Z|)>|)>*sin>-W|)>|)>.>>>>> Use the trivial estimate >-W|)>|)>|\|>\1> for the contribution from the GFF while we use the additional regularity |Z|\<\|\|\>>,\>->>\\> (see Theorem ) in the drift > to get the improved bound\ <\equation*> sup >-Z|)>|)>|\|>\\>|Z|\<\|\|\>>>,\>>,\\2\. It remains to deal with \x \cos+\|)>|)>,> for which we follow the same procedure,\ <\equation*> +\|)>|)>>||+Z|)>|)>*cos+W|)>|)>>>|||+Z|)>|)>*sin+W|)>|)>,>>>>> so that for any 0> <\equation*> ||\x \|cos+\|)>|)>|\>>>|>||3>|cos|)>+Z|)>|)>|)>||3>>>*|4>||cos|)>+W|)>|)>|)>|\>\|)>||4>>>.>>>>> Here, we defined the Wick ordered cosine with respect to the Gaussian \W> in the usual way, <\equation> |cos\\|)>|)>|\>\\|2>\\W|\|>|]>>cos\\|)>|)>. It follows from Lemma below that for any \0>, \2-3\> and 2\> sufficiently close to >, <\equation*> sup>*\G>t> /2>||cos|)>+W|)>|)>|)>|\>\|)>|\<\|\|\>>>\\a.s. Moreover, from Theorem, |cos|)>+Z|)>|)>|)>|\<\|\|\>>>\1> for any 2\> so that by a Kolmogorov argument,\ <\equation*> \\sup>>\G>t> \x \ |cos+\|)>|)>|\>\\a.s. Combined, this implies <\equation*> |>|\|>>|>||)>\z \>\>|)> \\>\x \cos+\>|)>|)>|\|>>>||>||)>\>|>/>|\<\|\|\>>z|)>>|\>|\<\|\|\>>>\\>*\*t>\>>||>||)>\>|t|\>/2+\>\>*\*\.>>>>> Integrating over the scales and using the usual estimate for >> for > we find <\equation*> |>>|\|>\t>|>>||)>\>>\t |t|\>/2+\+\>\>>>>>>. For =1/2>, we find for \2-3\> and \0> sufficiently small for some |\>\ >,\ <\equation*> >\t |t|\>/2+\+\>|t|\>>\>\t |t|\>|\>>\\, so that for any \0>, <\equation*> sup\ >>>|\|>\t\C|)> sup\ > log|)>>\>\\,a.s. For \1/2>, choosing \0>, \2-3\> sufficiently small, we find for some |\>> <\equation*> |||>>|\|>\t>>||>||)>\>>\t |t|\>/2+\+\>\>>>||||)>\>>|t|\>/2+\>+r|)>\>\|)>>>>|t|\>/2+\+\>>>||>||)>\>-|\>>|)>,>>>>> so that the rhs is uniformly bounded provided \2|)>>. >>).> In the same way as for >>, we rewrite >> in terms of the trigonometric functions\ <\equation*> \>=r|)>\z \>\>|)> \\>\x \cos-\>|)>|)>, In contrast to the charged contribution, the Wick ordering now introduces a divergent contribution instead. Therefore, we split >> once more as\ <\equation*> |>>|||)>\z \>\>|)> \\> \x \>>||||)>\z \>\>|)> \\>\x \-\>|)>|)>-1|)>>>||>|>+r|)>\z \>\>|)> \\>\x \-\>|)>|)>-1|)>.>>>>> We claim that under the assumptions on |)>>, the constant >> diverges, while \ >>-c>|\|>> is almost surely finite. Indeed, from the asymptotics of >> in Lemma below, it follows that for any 0>, and a constant allowed to change from line to line, <\equation*> |>>|||)>\z \>\>|)> \\>=C*r|)>|\>|\<\|\|\>>>|>|\<\|\|\>>> \>+O|)>>>||||)>|t|\> \>+O|)>>>>>> where we used that |\>|\<\|\|\>>>=|\|\<\|\|\>>>>. We again split the integral over the scales at > to extract the divergent contribution, using the bounds >> from Lemma, <\equation*> |>c> \t >||r|)> >\t |t|\>>|t|\>>+O,>>|||r|)> >\t |t|\>>+O>>|||||)>>|)>+O|)>,>|=1/2,>>||)>>|)>,>|\1/2,>>>>>|\>>>>>> while <\equation*> >>c> \t=C*r|)>\|)>>>>|t|\>>\t=C*r|)>\>=||)>,>|=1/2,>>|-2+2\>,>|\1/2.>>>>>|\> Combined this implies with the assumptions \1>, in case =1/2> and \2|)>>, that <\equation*> >c>\t=||)>>|)>+O|)>,>|=1/2>>||)>>|)>,>|\1/2>>>>>|}>|\\0>\. It remains to show that \ >>>-c>|\|>\t\\> almost surely. To this end, we Taylor expand the cosine as <\equation*> -\>|)>|)>-1|)>=-\>|\|>\\ cos\-\>|)>|)>|)>. Recall that for any \ >, ||t|\>/2>\|\<\|\|\>>->,\>>\\> almost surely by Lemma , so that for any > <\equation*> -\>|\|>\|\|\<\|\|\>>,\>>+\>|\|\<\|\|\>>>,\>>|)>\\|t|\>+\>|t|\>/2+>|)>, where \sup||t|\>/2->\|\<\|\|\>>>,\>>\sup||t|\>\|\<\|\|\>>,\>>> is almost surely finite.\ Regarding the cosine term, we proceed similarly to the charged case, repeatedly applying the trigonometric identities\ <\equation*> \-\>|)>|)>|)>>||\-\|)>|)>|)>*cos\-\>|)>|)>|)>>>|||\-\|)>|)>|)>*sin\-\>|)>|)>|)>.>>>>> As before, we restrict our attention to the cosine term, withe analysis for the sines being analogous. The difference due to the mollification can be repeated verbatim to obtain <\equation*> cos\-\>|)>|)>|)>\\>|Z|\<\|\|\>>>,\>>, knowing that |Z|\<\|\|\>>>,\>>\\> almost surely provided \2\.> For the remaining term, we again insert the Wick ordering and apply the trigonometric identities for =Z+W> to obtain <\equation*> \x\|cos\-\|)>|)>|)>|\> <\equation*> \||cos\|)>-W|)>|)>|)>|\>\|\<\|\|\>>>*|cos\|)>-Z|)>|)>|)>|\<\|\|\>>>>. It follows from Lemma and Lemma below that <\equation*> |cos\|)>-Z|)>|)>|)>|\<\|\|\>>>>\|Z|)>-Z|)>|\<\|\|\>>>>\t>. Combined with Lemma , for =1-\|)>/8\>, \-1+4|)>> and \1/2>\ <\equation*> \x\|cos\-\|)>|)>|)>|\>\t+1/2-\>+1>\\G>\, where\ <\equation*> \\sup t>>\\G>|\|)>|cos\|)>-W|)>|)>|)>|\>|\<\|\|\>>>\\,a.s. Combined, for some implicit random but almost surely finite constant depending on ,\> and |Z|\<\|\|\>>>,\>>>, <\equation> ||>-c>|\|>>>|>||)>\>\z >\>|)> \\>|t|\>+\>|t|\>/2+>|)>t+1/2-\>+1>\\|)>G>.>>>>> Since |)>\-d>, we can choose |~>=-\+1\2-4|)>> sufficiently large so that |~>\-d> and <\equation*> \>\>|)>|~>>\\|~>>|t|\>, and in the same way <\equation*> >\>|)>|~>+2>\|t|\>|~>/2-1>. Inserting these bounds in , we obtain\ <\equation*> |>-c>|\|>>|>||)>\>\\\z >\>|)>|~>+2> \\> t+1/2-\+1>\\|)>G>>>||||)>\>\>\\\z >\>|)>|~>> \\>|t|\>/2>t+1/2-\>\\|)>G>>>||>||)>+|)>.>>>>> Integrating over the scales with the estimate on >> from Lemma , we obtain for the first term after using the conditions on >, ,4>, we have for some |\>\0> arbitrarily small, <\equation*> |>|)>\t>|>|>\t r|)>\>\\\z >\>|)>|~>+2> t|)>> t+1/2-\+1>\\|)>G>>>||>||)>\>>t> t|\>/2>* \t>>||>||)>\>-|\>>+1|)>.>>>>> and\ <\equation*> |>>>|)>\t>|>||)>\>\|)>>>>\t \\\z >\>|)>|~>+2> t> t+1/2-\+1>\\|)>G>>>||>||)>\>\-|\>>.>>>>> Choosing >, ,4> such that |\>\\\2\>, we see that this term is uniformly bounded in > in the case =1/2>. Similarly, choosing |\>> sufficiently small and > sufficiently large, the condition \2|)>\2|)>> implies the boundedness for \1/2>. For the second term, we argue similarly, again using the conditions on > we have for some arbitrarily small |\>\0>\ <\equation*> sup\ >>|)>\t\sup\ > r|)>>\-|\>>+1|)>\\, due to the assumptions on >. \ <\lemma> Using the notation introduced in , it holds that\ <\equation> >=>log\t|)>\1|)>+O>>>>>. <\proof> By definition of >>, it holds that\ <\equation*> G>=\>|\|>|]>=\|W,\>|\>|\|>=|\>,G\>|\>. For \>, passing to Fourier space this implies with =s|s>\-\|)>/s>=\-\|)>/t>-\|)>>, <\equation*> |\>,G\>|\>=\\|^>>|)>|\|>|m+|\|>>-\\|^>>|)>|\|>|m+|\|>>+|\|>|)>/t>|)>. The second term is uniformly bounded using \>, and moreover as +|\|>|)>>|)>\0> as \0>, vanishes in the limit by dominated convergence. For the first term, using |^>\B>, we find\ <\equation*> \\|^>>|)>|\|>|m+|\|>>=>>+r>\r=O+>>r|r>=>*log\1|)>+O. In the case \>, we use\ <\equation*> \x >-\|)>G\\>|G|\<\|\|\>>>,\>>\t/2>t/2>=O, to obtain,\ <\equation*> |>>||\x\>\y \>G>>|||+\x >-\|)>G+\x\>\y >-\|)>G>>|||>log1|)>+O.>>>> \; <\lemma> For any \>, |)>>,\ <\equation*> |Z|)>-Z|)>|\<\|\|\>>>>\t>. <\proof> This follows directly from in Lemma, and the FBSDE for . <\lemma> For any \1/2>, \-1+4|)>> it holds that\ <\equation*> sup \ t>>\G>||cos|)>-W|)>|)>|)>|\>\|)>|\<\|\|\>>>\\,a.s. For any \0>, \2-3\> and 2\> sufficiently large, it holds that\ <\equation*> sup|\G>/2>t>|cos-z|)>+W|)>|)>|)>|\>\|)>|\<\|\|\>>x|)>>\\,a.s. The proof of this lemma is given on page at the end of Appendix. If \4*\>, the variational description in the finite volume is essentially a direct consequence of the convergence of the Wick-ordered cosine and the refinement of the Boué\UDupuis formula (Lemma) from. Beyond the first threshold, the apparent singularity of the sine-Gordon measure means that both the renormalised potential, and the quadratic part in the cost functional ,g>\J>+g>> as defined in cannot be expected to stay bounded as \>. To overcome this difficulty, we follow the same strategy as for the FBSDE and introduce a change of variables that isolates the singular part of the control from a more regular remainder. In these new variables, we can again recover uniform estimates and pass to the limit for any coupling constant >. Throughout this section, we assume that \1> is fixed and suppress the dependency on > and whenever no ambiguities arise.\ Translating the same ideas as before now to the level of the variational problem, we begin by developing the potential along the flow. This yields by Ito's formula <\equation> V|)>=V|)>+V+*Tr >\V|)>|)>+\V|)>*Q*u|]>\s+martingale, where we use the shorthand <\equation*> X\X=\+I+W=\+Q*u\s+W. Again, we want to use the fact that approximately solves the flow equation. Adding the missing terms we can insert the remainder > as defined in and rewrite as <\equation> V|)>=V|)>+\s |)>+\V|)>*Q*u+V*>\V|)>|)>|}>+. Since > \ is integrable in the scale parameter from >, it remains to deal with the quadratic terms. Using the notation\ <\equation*> z\-Q*F|)>, for the singular part of the control, the variational problem becomes upon inserting for > and completing the square, <\equation> |> J>||\> \|)>+V|)>+\s |)>-|z,u|\>+|z|\<\|\|\>>>+|u|\<\|\|\>>>|}>|]>,>>|||\> \|)>+V|)>+\s |)>+|u-z|\<\|\|\>>>|}>|]>.>>>>> Importantly, this reformulation no longer imposes square integrability on the control but only on >, which heuristically corresponds to the (more regular) remainder. We take this as an invitation to introduce the change of variables <\equation> r\u-z. The following Lemma ensures that this change of variables does not affect the variational problem. <\lemma> For any \|)>>, \> and \1>, there is a unique solution \\>>|)>> to the SDE\ <\equation> =Q+Q*F,T>+W|)>|)>\s. In particular, with =+W>, defining \-Q*F,T>|)>-r>, the control > is admissible for the finite-horizon control problem and we have \X>> and =u-z>>almost surely. <\proof> The estimates on the approximate solution to the flow equation imply that *F,T>> is globally Lipschitz and bounded, uniformly in . The result now follows from standard well-posedness for SDEs with Lipschitz coefficients. This allows yet another reformulation of in terms of the remainder. To avoid confusion with the infinite volume control problem later, let us make the dependence on > explicit again and define the cost functional <\equation> ,g>\\|)>+V>|)>+\s ,T>|)>+|r|\<\|\|\>>>|}>|]>, with > defined as the unique solution to . Observe that in contrast to ,g>>, the functional ,g>> satisfies for some \0>, <\equation> ,g>\-C+*\s |r|\<\|\|\>>>, which we immediately verify from and the estimates on > (see Proposition -). In particular, the cost functional ,g>> makes sense also at >. From we see that ,g>=\>, whenever \|)>>, and we can enlarge the set over which we take the infimum again and use Lemma to see that for any \>, <\equation*> inf\> ,g>=inf\|)>> ,g>=inf\> J,g>. Thus, the relation between the FBSDE and the variational problem obtained in Theorem - is also valid for the UV-limit, provided we renormalise the form of the cost functional. <\theorem> Denote by ,g>,R,g>|)>> the unique solution to with \1> and >. Then,\ <\equation> r,g>\-Q*R,g>, \ is admissible and optimal for the control problem at >. <\proof> Let us fix a cut-off \1> and leave the dependence implicit for this proof. Thanks to Lemma, the candidate for the optimal control for the control problem defined in satisfies\ <\equation*> \ >|r|\<\|\|\>>>\s\\, and thus \\|)>|)>> so that <\equation*> inf\|)>> >\>|)>. It remains to show the reverse inequality. To this end, let >=-Q|)>+R|)>> be the optimal control for the control problem . Then, for any finite , >\z>>> and =X>=Z+W>|)>, it holds that <\equation*> >\>->=-Q|)>+R|)>+Q*F|)>=-Q*R, is optimal for the control problem as shown in Theorem -. On the finite volume Proposition -, implies for \|)>> and ,|~>\0> sufficiently small,\ <\equation*> |>>-\T|}>>*\|)>|)>|\|>\t>|>|>>|)>|\|>\t+>-\|)>|)>|\|>\t>>||>>||T|\>>+|T|\>>|t|\>+|~>>\t|\>+\>.>>>>> Combined with the convergence of \X>> from Theorem and the continuity of , this implies for any fixed \|)>>, <\equation*> >=lim\> . By the optimality of > for \> this implies for any \|)>>, <\equation> liminf\> |)>=liminf\> inf\|)>> \lim\> =>. From the continuity of g> and the convergence of the solution ,R|)>\,R|)>> derived in Theorem , we immediately get <\equation*> \ >|r-r|\<\|\|\>>>*\t=\ >|Q-R|)>|\<\|\|\>>>\t\\ >\t|t|\>|T|\>>\0,\|)>. Therefore, by Fatou's Lemma and the continuity of and >, <\equation> >|)>=\>|)>+V|)>+>\>|)>\s+>|r|\<\|\|\>>>\t|]>\liminf\> |)>. Combining and we obtain the missing inequality, <\equation*> >|)>\liminf\> |)>\inf\|)>> >. <\remark> The boundedness of the cosine interaction is the reason we have good bounds over the optimisers to the control problem uniformly in . This allows us to bypass the technically more involved >-convergence for the cost-functionals \> to remove the small-scale regularisation as was instead necessary in in the case of the > model on a bounded domain. The variational description for the Laplace transform is now an immediate consequence of the description in Theorem. <\corollary> The variational problem for the Laplace transform also holds for >, that is, <\equation*> -log \>|)>=>\inf\|)>> >,g>-inf\|)>> >,0>. <\proof> From the weak convergence of ,T>\\>> in >>,\ <\equation*> -log \>|)>=lim\>-log \,T>|)>=lim\> >=lim\> >+g>-lim\> >>=>. where we used \ and Theorem to justify the last two equalities. <\remark> It should be emphasised that the change of variables makes the extension to > possible: passing to the remainder term =u-z> allows us to incorporate the singular part > of the control into the flow equation remainder ,T>> while optimising only over absolutely continuous shifts >. Indeed, while we have \\|)>> for any \|)>>, our estimates on > only allow <\equation*> |z|\<\|\|\>>>\|t|\>>, which is not sufficient to conclude \\|)>> unless \1/2> (\\4*\>). In contrast, the estimates on the optimal FBSDE (see e.g.Lemma) suggests that the remainder -r> remains square-integrable for the whole subcritical regime \0> (provided of course that an appropriate approximate solution to the flow equation is used). <\remark> Differentiating with respect to the initial value =\>, we obtain a formula for the gradient of the value function in terms of the solution to the optimal FBSDE <\equation> \|)>=\J>;\|)>=g+F|)>|)>+R|)>. We finally want to remove the restriction to the finite volume. Of course, the potential will not be meaningful without a spatial cut-off. What saves the variational problem for the Laplace transform in the infinite volume are the localisation properties we derived earlier: since the effect of a local perturbation only has a localised effect on the optimal control by Proposition - we are able to show that the functional <\equation*> |^>>\>>>|)>->>>|)>, stays meaningful in the infinite volume limit, at least if the functional is sufficiently localised and the coupling constant > is small enough. This change of variables follows the same idea we used for the finite volume variational problem: it again allows us to absorb the singular part in a normalisation while we only optimise along the Cameron-Martin directions, which in this case corresponds to controls in =\|)>>. The aim is to show the following, more precise, reformulation of Theorem. <\theorem> Let > be the backward component of the solution to the FBSDE for , =1,T=\> and define >\Q*R>. Then, with <\equation*> |^>=\>>+v>|)>+>*\>,v|)>\s+>|v|\<\|\|\>>>\s+>|>,v|\>>\s|]>, the Laplace transform of the infinite volume sine-Gordon measure > satisfies the variational problem <\equation*> \-log \|)>=inf\> |^>. Here, the functional >>,v|)>> is defined for any \1> in terms of, in complete analogy to, <\equation*> \>,v|)>\=4>\\> h>|)>>+v>-\>>|]>>|)>, with >+v>>|)>\exp>\*>+v>|)>|)>>. <\proof> >:> Motivated by Proposition , we expect that the regular part of the control is captured nicely by the domain, <\equation> \=\\\:\>|v|\<\|\|\>>>\s\C|}>, provided 0> is chosen sufficiently large. We first show convergence of the restricted variational problem <\equation*> |^>>\inf\> |^>>|\\1>\-log \|)>=inf\> |^>. We claim that this restriction does not change the finite volume variational problem, that is for any \1>, <\equation> inf\> |^>>=|^>>=>=inf\|)>> |^>>. We know from Theorem that >>=Q*R>> is optimal for the variational problem, and from Proposition - that |R>-R>|\<\|\|\>>>\>. Thus, for some constant \0>, <\equation*> \ >||\>>->>|\<\|\|\>>>\s\\ >|s|\>|R>-R>|\<\|\|\>>>\C. But then >>=>>->>\\> for sufficiently large this implies for any C>.\ We show that uniformly on >,\ <\equation*> ||^>>>||>>>+v>|)>+> \>>>,v|)>\s+>|>>+v|\<\|\|\>>>\s->|>>|\<\|\|\>>>|]>>>|||\\1>>|>>+v>|)>+>\>,v|)>\s+>|v|\<\|\|\>>>\s+>|>,v|\>>\s|]>.>>>>> We proceed term by term. Going left to right, we start by estimating <\equation*> |)>-g|)>|\|>=g+\-\|)>|)>|)>-\|)>\\\|\-\|\<\|\|\>>>. The convergence >,>>+v>|)>\g>,>>+v>|)>> then follows from Lemma below. For the remainder term, we write, <\equation*> >,v|)>-\>>>,v|)>|\|>\>,v|)>-\>>,v|)>|\|>+>>,v|)>-\>>>,v|)>|\|>. For the first term, the definition of > and the estimates on the coefficients in imply, <\equation*> |>,v|)>-\>>,v|)>|\|>>|>|=4>\\> h>|)>>+v>-\>>->>+v>-\>>>|)>|]>>|)>>>||>||h|\>|\*>+v>-\*,>>+v>|\<\|\|\>>>|)>>>||>||t|\>|\*>+v>-\*,>>+v>|\<\|\|\>>>.>>>>> Since |s|\>\L|)>>, the desired convergence will follow from Lemma below. For the second term, <\equation*> |>>,v|)>-\>>>,v|)>|\|>>|>|=4>\\>>|)>|\|> >|)>>>+v>-\>>>|]>>|)>|\|>>>||>||1-\|\<\|\|\>>>|h|\> |>>+v>->>>|\<\|\|\>>>>>||>||1-\|\<\|\|\>>>*\|t|\> |v|\<\|\|\>>>.>>>>> Hence,\ <\equation*> lim\1> sup\> \ >>,v|)>-\>>,v|)>|\|>\s=0. Finally, for the quadratic terms, we expand the square to find, <\equation*> |>>+v|\<\|\|\>>>-|>>|\<\|\|\>>>=|v|\<\|\|\>>>+|>>,v|\>>. Consequently, for any \>,\ <\equation*> \ >\s |>>->,v|\>>\>|>>->|\<\|\|\>>>\s|)>>|v|\<\|\|\>>>\s|)>, which with >->>=Q-R>|)>> and the estimates on in Lemma and Proposition - converges to uniformly on >. : Finally, we show that for any C>, <\equation*> inf\> |^>=inf\> |^>. Since \\>, clearly \> |^>\inf\> |^>>. For the reverse inequality, let >\\> and let >\|>|\<\|\|\>>>\|>|\<\|\|\>>|)>>> so that >\|^>>|)>> and thus by the argument used to show convergence on >, <\equation*> \>|)>\inf\>|)>> \=\>|)>=inf\> \. Taking the infinitum over >\\> in the inequality above then yields the claim. We still have to supplement the following two convergence results to finish up the proof of Theorem. <\lemma> Using the notation defined in, it holds uniformly in \>, <\equation*> lim\1> sup0>|>+v>->>+v>|\<\|\|\>>>=0. <\proof> This follows immediately from Proposition - and . <\lemma> Using the notation defined in , it holds uniformly in \>, <\equation*> lim\1> sup0>|\*>+v>-\*>>+v>|\<\|\|\>>>=0. <\proof> Consider the SDE for the difference <\equation*> \>*\*>+v>\>+v>-->>+v>->>>|)>=-\s Q>>>+v>|)>-F>>>>|)>->+v>|)>-F>>|)>|)>|)>|)>. Lemma and the assumption that \> imply\ <\equation*> sup \|\*>>+v>|\<\|\|\>>>\\ >|v|\<\|\|\>>>\t\C. So splitting up the terms in the difference in in the same way as in Proposition - and, using now the norms > instead, we obtain, <\equation*> |\>*\*>+v>|\<\|\|\>>>\\s |s|\>*\|\>*\*>+v>|\<\|\|\>>>+C|1-\|\<\|\|\>>>|)>, \ and the claim follows for > small after rearranging. We apply the variational problem for the Laplace transform just derived in Theorem to show the Laplace principle from Theorem for the limiting measure >. More precisely, we want to study the family of rescaled measures are formally given by <\equation> \>\|)>=\>*exp V|)>|)>*\>\|)> in the limit \0>. Here |)>=\*\x cos \|)>> denotes as before the cosine interaction and >> is the Gaussian measure with covariance -\|)>>. Taking the Wick-ordering with respect to >> and the obvious modification to the interpolation >\\G>, the same derivation as before yields a description for >> via the rescaled FBSDE, <\equation> |>=-\s >>>>+\W|)>|)>-\s >*R>,>>|>=\>\s \H>>+\W|)>-\>\s \\F>>+\W|)>*>>*R>,>>>>>|\> where >=F,\>> and ,T>> is the approximate solution to the flow equation with covariance >> and the rescaled initial data, <\equation*> F,T,\>|)>\-\\\*\\|2>*G>*sin \|)>=-\\>*\ sin \|)>. At least when \>, we have >\\> and the well-posedness of follows in the exact same way as the well-posedness of in Proposition. Moreover, rescaling the analysis of Theorem, we see that also the drift >> has a terminal value with regularity <\equation> Z>>\L>P;H\/4*\,-n>|)>\L>P;H/4*\,-n>|)>. Thus, the same reasoning as in Theorem applies and can use the solution to the FBSDE to make the formal definition precise. Define the measures >> as a random shift of the rescaled Gaussian free field, <\equation*> \>\Law>>\\+\W>|)>. Since we are only interested in the limit \0>, we can limit our considerations to a small neighbourhood of . This has the advantage that the measure >> will essentially behave like the sine-Gordon measure with parameter \> (see also): if > is sufficiently small (say \\> where \\4*\>), then, by, the measure >> is a Girsanov shift of the free field. More concretely this means we can carry out the analysis of by relying on the convergence of the Wick-ordered cosine illustrated in , as in the absolutely continuous first region \4*\> already covered in. It only remains to check that this approach is compatible with our definition of the measures via. This is in part resolved by the following Lemma. <\lemma> Let \\>. The solution >> to satisfies <\equation> Z>=\\*\s >*\|sinZ>>+\W>|)>|\>|)>=\\*I>>|)>, where |sin+\W>|)>|\>> is defined for any \H> via below. <\proof> Let us first introduce again the approximate FBSDEs with the cut-off \>. Then, we know from the definition of >> and >> that <\equation> F>>|)>+R>=\V>>+\W|)>|)>|]>. For \\>, it follows from Lemma and the convergence of \Z>> in >>|)>>, <\equation*> \>|Z>-Z>>|\<\|\|\>>>=0.>>>>> Moreover, we can use the trigonometric identities to rewrite\ <\equation> |sin>+\W|)>|)>|\>\cosZ>|)>|sin\W|)>|\>+sinZ>|)>|cos\W|)>|\>, and similarly for the cosine. By Lemma , the Wick-ordered sine (and cosine) |sin\W|)>|\>> converge in ,-n>>. Thus, the products on the right-hand side of stay well defined in the limit as \> and consequently \ |sin>+\W|)>|)>|\>> and |cos>+\W|)>|)>|\>> converge in P;H,-n>|)>> and almost surely to a well-defined limit which we denote by\ <\equation> |sin>>+\W>|)>|)>|\>\cosZ>>|)>|sin\W>|)>|\>+sinZ>>|)>|cos\W>|)>|\>, and respectively <\equation*> |cos>>+\W>|)>|)>|\>\cosZ>>|)>|cos\W>|)>|\>+sinZ>>|)>|sin\W>|)>|\>. By uniqueness of the limit, we can pass to the limit \> in to conclude <\equation*> F>>+\W|)>+R>=-\*\*\|sin>>+\W>|)>|)>|\>, which immediately implies.\ Applying the same argument as in Lemma to the cost functional |^>>> we can undo the change of variables to the remainder in and provided \\>. In this case, we obtain the cost functionals <\equation> \>\\>>>+w|)>+W>|)>+\V>>>,w|)>\s|\>+|>|)>|]>, where >=\ W> is the rescaled Brownian motion, >>\Q*\F>>+\W|)>+Q*R>> is the candidate for optimal control,\ <\equation*> V>>\\*>\x|cos>+W>>|)>|)>|\>-|cos>+W>>|)>|)>|\>|)>, and\ <\equation*> \*>|w|\<\|\|\>>>\s+>|w,u|\>>\s. Since the functional >> depends on > also through the optimal control >>=Q*\F>>+\W|)>+Q*R>>, we have to first identify the limit of >>> before we can find the limiting candidate for >. <\lemma> With >>=Q*\F>>+\W|)>+Q*R>>, it holds that, <\equation> lim\0> \ >|>>|\<\|\|\>>>\t=0. <\proof> We use the linear flow approximation \F>> for the SDE to obtain again a FBSDE. With >=Z>+\W>, this results in the FBSDE, <\equation*> |>=\s >>*\sin>|)>|)>+>|)>,>>|>=\ >\s >|)>*\ cos>|)>|)>*>*sin>|)>|)>-\ >\>*cos>|)>|)>|\>>\s.>>>>>|\> Thus, the same arguments as before show using \\4*\>, <\equation*> |R>|\<\|\|\>>>\>|)>|t|\>sup|Z>|\<\|\|\>>>\\*sup|Z>|\<\|\|\>>>. Using this estimate in the equation for >>,\ <\equation*> |Z>|\<\|\|\>>>\\s \>|s|\>|Z>|\<\|\|\>>>+\\s |s|\> |W|\<\|\|\>>>+\*\s|s|\>sup|Z>|\<\|\|\>>>. Keeping in mind that <\equation*> \ |W|\<\|\|\>>>=G\log1|)>+1, we rearrange and take expectation to find for > sufficiently small,\ <\equation*> \|Z>|\<\|\|\>>>\\\s |s|\>*\|W|\<\|\|\>>>|]>\\|s|\>*1|)>+1|)>\\. Putting everything together, <\equation*> | >|>>|\<\|\|\>>>\t>|| >\*\|Q*sinZ>+\W|)>|\<\|\|\>>>\t>>||>|*>|t|\>|Z>|\<\|\|\>>>+\ \|W|\<\|\|\>>>|)>\t>>||>|*\+\>\t|t|\>*log1|)>>>||>|*\.>>>>> \; With the limiting optimal control sorted out, we can now show convergence as \0> in the exact same way as for the case \4*\> and we refer the reader to for details. The Osterwalder\USchrader axioms (OS axioms; for short), as introduced in, provide sufficient conditions under which the (Euclidean) Schwinger functions define a relativistic QFT satisfying the Wightman axioms. We only briefly introduce the aspects that are immediately relevant to our discussion, for a more detailed exposition we refer to Chapter6 in or Section5 in. For a Radon measure > on \ |)>> for \> and ,\,f\|)>>, we define the associated Schwinger functions >\|)>|)>n>> , by <\equation> S>\\\f|)>\|)>>|\,f|\>*\|\,f|\>*\\|)>. We say that > satisfies the OS axioms, if its associated Schwinger functions satisfy the OS-Axioms. We already reformulate the axioms as conditions on the measures > instead of the Schwinger functions above. \ It is easy to verify that the conditions on > below imply the OS axioms for the Schwinger functions. <\enumerate> () There is a Schwartz-norm |\|\<\|\|\>>> and a \0> such that\ <\equation*> |)>>\|\|\<\|\|\>>>*\\|)>\\. () The measure > is invariant under the action of the Euclidean group. More precisely, for any =,a|)>\O\\>, it holds that =*\>, where *\|)>\\|)>|)>> denotes the push forward measure of > under >.\ () Let :\\\,,x|)>\,x|)>> be the reflection along the first coordinate axis. Then, for any exponential observable |)>=c exp|\,f|\>|}>> for \|)>> with support on ,x|)>\\;x\0|}>> it holds that <\equation*> |)>>|)>|)>|\>*|)>*\\|)>\0. Here, for \>, we denote the complex conjugate by >> and extended the reflection map > to functions |)>> and the observables > via <\equation*> \*f,x|)>\f,x|)>,\*|)>\exp|\,\*f|\>|}>. If the measures > satisfies the conditions above, then the reconstruction theorem (see also) ensures the existence of a Wightman theory corresponding to the measure >. The regularity property for > was already shown in Corollary. In the next three sections, we verify Euclidean invariance in the case \1>, the reflection positivity for the sine-Gordon measure and check that the measure > is non-Gaussian. The Euclidean invariance in this setting is a straightforward consequence of the uniqueness obtained in Theorem. <\proposition> The joint law of >,W>|)>> is invariant under the action of the Euclidean group defined by <\equation*> *f =f*a|)>|)>*=,a|)>\O\\. <\proof> Since the kernels |]>>> are translation and rotation invariant (see Remark -), <\equation*> *F|)>=F*X|)>. Moreover, immediately from the definition of >>, \ we have |\>f|)>=|\>*f|)>>. Therefore, for any \1> and \>, the transformed solution *X,T>> satisfies the equation, <\equation*> *X,T>=-\s *>,T>,T>|)>+R,T>|)>+*W=-\s |\>*\,T>*X,T>|)>+*R,T>|)>+*W. With the same reasoning, <\equation*> *R,T>=\ \s H*\,T>*X,T>|)>-\ \s \F*\,T>*X,T>|)>*>**R,T>. In other words, ,T>,,T>|)>\,T>,R,T>|)>> is a solution to\ <\equation*> |,T>=->*\,T>,T>|)>+>|)>\s,>>|,T>=\ H*\,T>,T>|)>\s-\ \F*\,T>,T>|)>*>*,T>\s.>>>>>|\> where \*W=>Q\*B|)>> is again a Brownian motion with the same covariance as . By the uniqueness of the solution to (see Corollary ) we then have\ <\equation*> Law*\,T>,|)>=Law,T>,W|)>. In other words, the joint law is invariant under the action of the Euclidean group > provided that =*\>, which holds only when the weight > is flat, that is \1>. In this case, we have for any \>, <\equation*> Law,|)>=Law,W|)>|)>=Law,W|)>. To show that > is reflection positive, we show that it is the weak limit of reflection positive measures. We cannot use the approximating sequence ,T>>because the small scale regularisation for \> mollifies the measure in all directions and consequently breaks reflection positivity. Instead, we will construct a new sequence of reflection positive measures ,\>> such that ,\>\\>> for any spatial cut-off \1>. Since weak limits of reflection positive measures are reflection positive and since > is the weak limit of the finite volume measures >>, this will prove the claim. Throughout this section, we fix a symmetric cut-off > and suppress the dependency whenever it does not lead to ambiguities. Since we cannot mollify in the direction of physical time, we instead mollify only along the first coordinate axis. For \C>|)>> supported on \1>, define the family of mollifiers with |~>>=\*\\|)>> on > and introduce the corresponding mollifiers >=\\>|~>> on >. Then, using a variant of Theorem -, we can define the measures, <\equation*> \,\,T>=Law,\,T>>|)>, where <\equation> X,T>=-\s >>,T>,T>|)>+R,T>|)>+W>=-\s >>*\V>,T>|)>|]>+W>. Here, we defined >\Q>\Q>> with >=\>\Q>, and obtain >> and >> \ as before by replacing by its mollification >>. Then, denoting ,T>\Law>|)>>, the same argument as in Theorem - shows that <\equation*> Law,T>|)>\exp>>cos \|)>|)>*\,T>\|)>, where >=\*\|2>*G>>>. The point is now that the additional convolution with >> ensures that the measures >=\,\>> are supported on a function space. Indeed, we compute for any \0>,\ <\equation*> G>=\>\|\>\s\>\>\>\s=G>>=>*log\\>|)>+r>, where >> is bounded uniformly in \> and \0>. In particular, the Wick-ordering with respect to the Gaussian measure ,T>> is given by <\equation*> |sinW|)>|\>=\>*sinW|)>,\>=\*\|2>*G>>\\*\, which is not only bounded uniformly in but also converges to a limit at > with >\\>>=\|2>*G>>>. Therefore, the same argument as used in Theorem- implies that for any \0>, the SDE is meaningful also for >, with <\equation> X>=-\s >>*\V>>>>|)>|]>+W>>, has a unique solution for > sufficiently small. Theorem - also implies that the law of >>> is absolutely continuous with respect to >> and we define <\equation> \,\>\Law>>|)>\exp>>\x*\*cos \|)>|)>*\>\|)>. For these measures, reflection positivity will follow directly from the reflection positivity of >>. <\lemma> For any \0> and \1>, the measures ,\>> defined in are reflection positive. <\proof> Denote the projection on the positive half-plane \\> by > and let again <\equation*> \*f,x|)>\f,x|)>, be the reflection around the first coordinate axis. We first show that the Gaussian measure >=Law>>|)>> is reflection positive. Since a Gaussian measure is reflection positive if and only if its covariance is reflection positive (see e.g.), it is sufficient to check that for any function L|)>>, <\equation> G>*f,\*\*f|)>=|\>\\*f,-\|)>*\*\>\\*f|\>>\0, where >=G>>> is the covariance >>. Because >> leaves the first coordinate invariant, the convolution with >> commutes with the projection >. The reflection positivity of -\|)>> now implies .\ To see that the measures ,\>|)>\0>> defined by are also reflection positive, we split the potential between the two half-planes \0|}>> and \0|}>>, as <\equation*> V>,\>|)>\\>*>\\>\*cos \|)>\x, so that <\equation*> \,\>\|)>=exp>,+>|)>+V>,->|)>|)>|)>*\>\|)>. For the symmetric cut-off >, the reflection > acts on this decomposition as *V>,\>=V>,\>>. Consequently, we have for any exponential observable > supported on the positive half plane as defined in , <\equation*> ||)>>|)>*\|)>|\>*\,\>\|)>>|||)>>|)>*\*|)>*\>,+>|)>> \>,->|)>>*\>\|)>>>||||)>>|)>*\>,+>|)>> \|)>*\>,+>|)>>|)>*\>\|)>.>>>>> Since ,+>> is supported on the positive half plane \\>, the last integral is non-negative as a result of the reflection positivity of >>. In other words, for any symmetric cut-off \1>, also ,\>> is reflection positive. Having established reflection positivity for ,\>> for any \0>, we want to extract a subsequence which converges to the desired limiting measure >> to conclude this proof. That is, it remains to show that for any \0>, there is a sequence \0> such that <\equation> sup \ |3>|X>-X||3>>,-n>>\0. Adapting the definitions to the current situation, we see that with the usual remainder >>, the FBSDE for the difference is given by <\equation> |>-X=-\s >|\>>>|)>+R>|)>->|)>+R|)>|]>+W>-W,>>|>-R=\>\s >>|)>-H|)>|)>+\>\sF,\>>|)>*>>*R>-\F|)>*>*R|)>.>>>>>|\> By definition of >>, it holds for any \0>, <\equation*> lim\0> sup \|W>-W|\<\|\|\>>,-n>>=0. For some subsequence \0> and any \|)>>, Lemma combined with Proposition- implies, <\equation*> |Q>-F|)>|)>|\<\|\|\>>>>+|QF>-\F|)>|)>|\<\|\|\>>>>\N*\|s|\>, and\ <\equation*> |>-H|)>|)>|\<\|\|\>>>>\N|s|\>|)>. Following the (by now standard) procedure for the FBSDE yields and thus concludes the proof. <\remark> A slight modification of the argument allows to show reflection positivity for any accumulation point of ,T>|)>0>>. Therefore, reflection positivity holds also without the smallness assumption on the coupling constant >. We want to show now that for > small the measure > is non-Gaussian. Assume for the sake of contradiction that > is Gaussian and denote the Cameron-Martin space of > by |)>>. We know from Theorem that |)>\H,-n>\H> so that |)>\H>. Then, if H> is the mean of the Gaussian measure > on >, we have for any \H>, <\equation*> -log exp|\,\|\>|)>*\\|)>=|\|\<\|\|\>>|)>>+|b,\|\>>. In particular, all expectations under > of this form are quadratic functions of > on |)>>. We will show that the left-hand side cannot be quadratic using the variational description. Since > is the weak ,-n>> limit of ,T>>, we can write the left-hand side as the limit <\equation> ||exp|\,\|\>|)>*\\|)>>>||\>>|\1>>>>>>-log > exp|\,G*\|\>>-V>*\|)>|)>*\\|)>|}>.>>>>> Choosing the test function > to be sufficiently well-behaved, e.g. \C>|)>>, the functional |\,\|\>> satisfies the assumption of Theorem and we may use the variational characterisation in. Combined with the Cameron\UMartin shift \\--\|)>*\> (see e.g.), <\equation> \\|)>=exp|G*\,\|\>>-|\,-\|)>*\|\>|)>*\--\|)>*\|)>|)>. we rewrite as <\equation*> |exp|\,\|\>>|)>*\\|)>>>|\>>|\1>>>>>>-log|\,-\|)>*\|\>>*\>exp>+-\|)>*\|)>|)>|)>*\\|)>|)>|\>>>|\>>|\1>>>>>> |\,-\|)>*\|\>>+>-\|)> \|)>->>>||\|\<\|\|\>>>+lim\1>>-\|)> \|)>->|]>.>>>>> Observe that now the dependence on > is only through the initial condition > in \ of the variational problem . Consequently, it is sufficient to show that the value function > is not quadratic (or alternatively, that the gradient is not linear) on |)>>. Starting from, we know that <\equation> \>|)>=F>|)>+R>|)>. And by Lemma,\ <\equation*> |F>|)>|\<\|\|\>>>>\\|\|\<\|\|\>>>>. Combined with the estimate on |R|\<\|\|\>>>>\\> from Lemma , we can gather all contributions beyond the first level \1> in a uniformly bounded function >> with \1> sup|\|\<\|\|\>>>>\C>|c>|)>|\<\|\|\>>>>\1>, to find that for any fixed constant 0>, <\equation*> \>|)>=-\*\\*sin \|)>+\*c>|)>,|\|\<\|\|\>>>>\C. From here, it is not hard to show that additivity is violated for >. For example, let ,|~>> be two compactly supported smooth functions such that \1|}>>*\=|2*\>> and \1|}>>*|~>=|4*\>>. For a cut-off with \1> on >, we check that on > for some 0>, <\equation*> |>+|~>|)>+\>-|~>|)>-2\>|)>>|| \|4>|)>+sin|4>|)>-2*sin|2>|)>|]>+O|)>>>||>|-2|)>-K*\.>>>>> For > sufficiently small, uniformly in \1> it holds that -2|)>-K*\\\0> and we conclude that \ >> is non-linear for any \1>.\ It now only remains to show that the functions ,|~>\C>|)>> chosen as above are in fact contained in |)>>, or equivalently that |\|\<\|\|\>>>,||~>|\<\|\|\>>>\\>. This is a straightforward consequence of the computations above: for any \C>|)>> we also obtain <\equation*> ||\|\<\|\|\>>|)>>>|>|\>>|\1>>>>>> exp|\,\|\>|)>*\,T>\|)>-|b,\|\>>>>|||\>>|\1>>>>>> |\,-\|)>*\|\>>+>-\|)> \|)>->-|b,\|\>>>>||>||\|\<\|\|\>>>+|b|\<\|\|\>>>|\|\<\|\|\>>>>>|||\> sup\1,T\\>|\,T>-\|)>*\|)>|\<\|\|\>>>>|-\|)>*\|\<\|\|\>>>>>||>|.>>>>> \; This Appendix contains some basic estimates on the heat kernel which we use throughout as well as some technical proofs which have been postponed. <\lemma> With as defined in, there is are uniformly bounded functions ,g> and constants 0> such that for any \> and \>, <\eqnarray*> >||>*log1|)>+g,>>|>-G|)>>||>logt\1|)>+g>>|> >||*\/t->,>>>> and consequently <\equation> |\>->|\|>\ |t|\>. <\proof> The estimate follows immediately from the >-kernel representation , noting that\ <\equation*> G=s|s> \/s>=t>s|4\s>\/s>+1>1>s|4\s>\/s>=g+>log1|)>. \ Regarding, we obtain after a substitution with >, <\equation*> |>-G|)>>||> s|4\s>*\/s>*\>>>|||> s|4\s>*\s>*\>>>|||t>s|4\s>*\s>*\>+t>\1>s|4\s>*\s>*\>>>|||+>log\1|)>.>>>>> Finally, is a direct computation and follows from <\equation*> |\>->|\|>|>\sup >|\|>. Maximising the right-hand side, we see that the maximum is attained at > for some constant which gives the claim. <\lemma> For \4*c>, it holds that\ <\equation*> >\x*\+m*\-m/s>\|t|\>. <\proof> We treat the small and large scales separately. For 1>,\ <\equation*> \+\*m>\\>, so that the estimate follows as in the unweighed case. To deal with the large scales, note that for any 0> the polynomial <\equation*> p\c*t-m-\|)>+|t>, attains it's minimum at >=\-\|)>|2*c*t>> and \p>|)>\-\/t> provided -\|)>\4*c>. Therefore, choosing \0> sufficiently small depending on \4*c>, we have +\>*\/t>\\>*\/t>> and thus <\equation*> > >\y *s>*\+\>*\/t>\sup> >\y >*t*\>*\/t>\\.>>>>> <\lemma> For any \,x\\> and 0>, we have <\equation*> >->|\|>*\>\+|)>*\>*\/t>. The same estimate holds for >> replaced by *\/2*t>*Q>. <\proof> We start by rewriting the difference as <\equation*> >-|\>=*\\ \>|)>. For any > and \>, we have \+\\+>. Combined with this means <\equation*> >|\|>\C \>*\/t>\C*\>*\>*\/t>, and consequently, <\equation*> >|\|>*\>\C*\>*\/t>\C+|)>*\>*\/t>. The estimate on follows in the exact same way, only replacing the estimate on the gradient by <\equation*> Q|\|>\t*\-m/2*t>. <\lemma> For \>, \0>, and \>, let =|x|\>> or =exp*m|)>>. Then, for any \> and L>, <\equation> ||/p>*Q|\<\|\|\>>>=|t|\>/p>,>|||Q*u|\<\|\|\>>>\|t|\>|u|\<\|\|\>>>>>||/p>*>|\<\|\|\>>>=|t|\>/p>,>|||>*u|\<\|\|\>>>\|t|\>|u|\<\|\|\>>>>>>>>. Moreover, with \>-G|)>> it holds for any t> and 0> sufficiently small, and \|)>\0=|4*\>-1|)>\0>, <\equation> >>*\C>>*\>\x\|s|\>>. <\proof> For the first estimate we simply compute from and Lemma , <\equation*> |Q|\<\|\|\>>>\>\/2*s>*\>>*w\x\|t|\>>. In the polynomial case, the second bound is now a simple consequence of Young's convolution inequality and . For the case of the exponential weights, observe that by the triangle inequality, <\equation*> |Q*u|\<\|\|\>>>|)>>\>\x>\y \*m>*Q*\*m>*u|)>\|Q|\<\|\|\>>>|u|\<\|\|\>>>, which again implies the claim with Lemma . The estimates on >> follow from the estimates on > the convolution inequalities, since\ <\equation*> |>|\<\|\|\>>>=|Q\Q|\<\|\|\>>>\|Q|\<\|\|\>>>|Q|\<\|\|\>>>\|t|\>. For the estimate, we start from Lemma and the definition of >>, to estimate <\equation*> >*\C>\s\/s>*\>/2*\>|s|\>/4*\>. Moreover, \ for t> and \0> sufficiently small (more precisely, |)>> and \-c|)>>), we have >*\>\\ s>>. Combining both observations we see that <\equation*> |>>*\C>>*\>\x>|>|-\/4*\|)>>*\*s>*\/s>*s/4*\>\x>>||>|/4*\>*\/s>*>r-\/4*\|)>+1>*\*s r>\r>>||>||s|\>>,>>>>> provided that \ r-\/4*\|)>+1>*\*s r>> is integrable over >, which is exactly the condition \|4*\>-1>. <\lemma> For any \>, \> and |]>>, we have <\equation> |Q*u\s|\<\|\|\>>,k>>\sup>||s|\>/2+\>*u|\<\|\|\>>>. Moreover, in > the improved bound <\equation> |Q*u\s>|\<\|\|\>>>\|u|\<\|\|\>>>\s. holds. <\proof> For any |\>\0> and >\p>, it holds <\equation*> |Q*u\s|\<\|\|\>>,k>>\|Q*u\s|\<\|\|\>>>,>>,k>>\\s |Q|\<\|\|\>>,n>>|u|\<\|\|\>>>\sup||s|\>/2+\>*u|\<\|\|\>>>*>\s |s|\>/2-\>|Q|\<\|\|\>>,n>>. Moreover, by the interpolation of Besov spaces, for any p|)>=|)>> and |~>\0> sufficiently small, <\equation*> |Q|\<\|\|\>>,n>>\|Q|\<\|\|\>>|)>>,n>>\|Q|\<\|\|\>>>>|Q|\<\|\|\>>>>|~>,n>>\|s|\>>|Q|\<\|\|\>>|~>,n>>>>, so that the claim will follow once we compute <\equation*> |Q|\<\|\|\>>|~>,n>>>\sup\1> \x -Q|\|>|>|x|\>\|s|\>. But this follows from a simple Taylor expansion, <\equation*> |\x-Q|\|>>||*s \/2*s>*\\ \x |x|\> y|\|>*\ y|\|>>>>|||*s\/2*s>*\x *\>>>||>|*s*\/2*s>.>>>>> To remove the > in the > estimates, we pass to the Fourier transform and use the fact that > is diagonal in Fourier space. Since \|x|\>> grows at most polynomially, we have |)>>. For this computation only, we denote the Fourier transform of a distribution |)>> by =>. Repeatedly applying Hölder's inequality and Parseval's identity yields after some manipulation, <\equation*> |||\s Q*u|\<\|\|\>>>>>>|||\s |)>/2>*Q*u|)>|\<\|\|\>>>>>|||\s\k -k|)>|)>/2>*s \+|2*s>>*|\<\|\|\>>\|)>>>>|>||>\k|)>/2>*-k|)>\s >>*\+|2*s>>|)>\s \/2*s>*s>|)>|\<\|\|\>>\|)>>>>|>||>\k |)>/2>|+m|)>/2>>*\+|2*t>>*-k|)>\s|s|\>>*|)>|\<\|\|\>>\|)>>>>|>| |)>>|+m|)>>>|>\k -k|)> \s |s|\>>*|)>|\<\|\|\>>\|)>>>>||\s|s|\>>|\|\<\|\|\>>>>>|>|\s|s|\>>|u|\<\|\|\>>>.>>>>> \; <\remark> Lemma takes advantage of the concrete choice for the scale interpolation to get the optimal regularity estimates in >. For a general scale interpolation, not necessarily diagonal in Fourier space, we have to use and give up an arbitrarily small \0> in regularity. This is not crucial to the analysis, but would in general lead to slightly worse results, e.g. replacing =L> by =H,n>> in the infinite volume variational problem in Theorem . > We first restrict ourselves to the case |)>>. To this end, we use the translation invariance of the Law of >, and hypercontractivity to estimate <\equation> \|W|\<\|\|\>>,-n>>=-1>2p>\W|\|>|]>|x|\>\x\-1>2p>\W|\|>|]>. Since W=|W,K|\>> and |)>=G=-\|)>\-\|)>/t>>, we can compute the expectation on the right hand side as\ <\equation*> |W|\|>|]>>|||W,K|\>|W,K|\>|]>>>|||\\ |)>|\|>|m+|\|>>\-\|)>/t>>>||>|2>2>+r|)>>\r>>||>||)>.>>>>> Here we used the fact that > is supported on an annulus with radii 2>, 2> in the second to last estimate. Inserting this bound in yields the claim for |)>.> For >, we use the Besov embedding |\|\<\|\|\>>,-n>,\>>\|\|\<\|\|\>>+\>>> for 2/\>. Finally, applying exactly the same reasoning to the increment >-W> instead shows the convergence in P,B,-n>|)>> for any |)>>.\ > Suppose for concreteness that >|)>\0> and recall that we want to show\ <\equation*> W,\,\>|)>\|8*\>-G|)>+C. We assume that (possibly after relabelling), <\equation*> \=|q,>>|>|q,>>>>>|\> and split the matrix into the 3 components\ <\equation> W,\,\|)>=W|)>+W,\,\|)>+\*1>\-G|)>-x|)>. By the definition of and the basic heat kernel estimates , the first summand is\ <\equation*> -G|)>\|8*\>1|)>-log1|)>|)>+C. The second summand is bounded from above by . So will follow once we establish an upper bound for the last term in. Towards this goal, we start by extracting the charged and neutral part, <\equation*> 1>\*\-G|)>-x|)>=\*\-G|)>-x|)>+>\*\-G|)>-x|)>. The first (charged) part satisfies *\=1> and we can use the same reasoning as in to conclude boundedness from the positivity of . The second (neutral) part also contains contributions with the \Pbad\Q signs *\=-1> and requires special attention. Since this part is neutral, we know that the sum contains an even number of points and we can proceed by considering the neutral pairs ,x|)>>, > one at a time. In other words, the claim will follow if there is a constant 0> such that for any \\\\>, <\equation> -G|)>-y|)>--G|)>-z|)>\C. By construction, one of the terms in these pairings comes with the \Pgood\Q sign, which we are going to use to bound the neutral contribution. We start by rewriting the covariance using the kernel representation, <\equation*> |-G|)>-y|)>--G|)>-z|)>>||\\*>>-y|)>->>-z|)>|]>>>|||\\ \\/\>|4>-y|\|>>-\-z|\|>>|)>.>>>>> If the charged edge is the shortest edge in the triangle connecting ,y,z>, that is -y|\|>\-z|\|>>, then\ <\equation*> \|4>-y|\|>>-\|4>-z|\|>>\0, and we can bound with . Otherwise, one of the neutral edges -z|\|>> or > is the shortest edge. For concreteness, suppose \-z|\|>>, the other case being a mere change of notation. If =0>, then-G|)>-y|)>--G|)>-z|)>=0> and is trivially true. Thus, we may assume that all edges have positive lengths. On \>, we directly compute <\equation*> >\\\\/r>|4>-y|\|>>-\|4>-z|\|>>|\|>\2*>\\ \\/\>*\|4>>\1. On \>, we use combined with the translation invariance of >> to conclude <\equation*> >\\*>>-y|)>->>-z|)>|]>\>\\ >|\>->|\>|]>\>\\ |\|\>\1, which completes the proof of Lemma. > We first show the claim for \>. To this end, we start by rewriting /2>*W> for 1> using Ito's formula <\equation*> t/2>*W=W+s/2>W\s+s/2>\W, so that <\equation> sup |t/2>*W|\<\|\|\>>-\,-n>>\|W|\<\|\|\>>-\,-n>>+>s/2>|W|\<\|\|\>>-\,-n>> \s+sup|s/2>\W|\<\|\|\>>-\,-n>>. For the bounded variation part, a similar computation to the proof of Lemma shows that for any |~>\0> we have <\equation*> \|W|\<\|\|\>>-\>>\|s|\>/2--|~>|)>/2>. Therefore, choosing |~>\ |)>,> <\equation*> \>s/2>|W|\<\|\|\>>,-n>> \s\>s|~>/2>\|s|\>/2--|~>|)>/2>|W|\<\|\|\>>-\>>|]> \s\>s|~>/2>\\. Regarding the martingale =s/2>\W>, we compute by translation invariance, the maximal inequalities and Gaussian hypercontractivity, <\equation*> ||M|\<\|\|\>>,-n>>|]>>|| -1>2-\|)>p> M|\|>|x|\>\x|]>>>||>|-1>2-\|)>*p> \ M|\|>|]>>>||>|-1>2-\|)>*p> \M>|\|>|]>>>||>|-1>2*-\|)>p> \M>|\|>|]>.>>>>> The covariance of >> can be computed directly, as for some constant ,\ <\equation*> ||M>,f|\>|M>,g|\>|]>>||>\s\x f\y s>>g>>|||\x\y f-\|)>>g|)>>>||||f,-\|)>>g|\>.>>>>> Since M>=|M>,K|\>,>we have <\equation*> \M>|\|>|]>=\|M>,K|\>|\|>|]>=C|K,-\|)>>K|\>=\\|)>|\|>|+|\|>|)>>>, where we used =|)>>. Since > is radially symmetric and supported on an annulus with radii >>, >, we see passing to spherical coordinates using =\\|)>> <\equation*> \\|)>|\|>|+|\|>|)>>>\2>2>|+r|)>>>\r|d=2>2|)>>\2i>. Therefore, for \\\>,\ <\equation*> \|M|\<\|\|\>>-\|)>,-n>>|]>\-1>2-\|)>p>\M>|\|>|]>\-1>2>\\, and inserting the bounds in the \ <\equation*> \ |t/2>*W|\<\|\|\>>-\,-n>>|]>\1+\>s/2>|W|\<\|\|\>>-\,-n>> \s+\|M|\<\|\|\>>-\,-n>>|]>\\. Finally, for the case >, we use the Besov embedding |\|\<\|\|\>>-\,-n>,\>>\|\|\<\|\|\>>,-n>>> for -\\0> and 2/\>.Then choosing \ |)>> and sufficiently large it holds that <\equation*> \1>|t/2>*W|\<\|\|\>>>,\>-\,-n>>|]>\\1> |t/2>*W|\<\|\|\>>--\|)>,-n>>|]>\1. We collect some additional estimates on the kernels defined in. No new ideas are needed for these estimates and we only want to briefly illustrate how the proofs in the previous section can be modified to obtain the additional results. The following Lemma quantifies the dependence on the terminal condition and is used to show convergence as the small-scale cut-off is removed in Proposition . <\lemma> For any \T|]>>, <\equation> ||]>,T>-|]>,T>|\>\\|T\T|\>>. <\proof> Since ,T>=-*\|2*i>> does not depend on , the claim is trivially true for =1>. For =2>, we start from and the definition of |]>>> to compute the difference, <\equation*> ||,T>-f,T>|)>,\|)>>>||>\s \>|)>>,T>|)>*f,T>|)>-f,T>|)>*f,T>|)>|]>*>-x|)> k,\|)>>>||>>\s \>|)>>*f,T>|)>*f,T>|)>*>-x|)>*k,\|)>.>>>>> Rewriting the difference in the first integral as <\equation*> f,T>|)>,T>|)>-f,T>|)>|)>+,T>|)>-f,T>|)>|)>*f,T>|)>, and using the bound for =1>,\ <\equation*> ||> \\>\s \>|)>>,T>|)>*f,T>|)>-f,T>|)>*f,T>|)>|]>*>-x|)> k,\|)>|\|>>>|>||T|\>>|f>|\>sup> \x>-x|)>*k,\|)>\|T|\>>.>>>>> For the second integral, again the same computation as in the proof of Lemma shows integrability for the second integral with\ <\equation*> |>>\s \\*\>|)>>*f,T>|)>*f,T>|)>*>-x|)>\\*>>\s \|s|\>\|T|\>>,>>>>> for the charged case and\ <\equation*> |>>\s\\ \>|)>>*f,T>|)>*f,T>|)>*>-x|)>-x|\|>*\-x|\|>>>>|>>\s \|s|\>*\\|T|\>>,>>>>> for the neutral case. The estimate on >> now follows immediately from the estimates above in complete analogy to Lemma. Suppose that >|)>\0>> is an approximation to the identity on > such that for \\\\>, <\equation*> lim\0> G>\lim\0> \y \>*>=G. Define the truncated solution to the flow equation >>, its Fourier coefficients >> and the renormalisation constants >> in the same way as before, with replaced by >>. To prove reflection positivity in Section, we have to understand the dependency of the flow equation on this mollification. <\lemma> If >\C*\> for some constant 0>, then there is a subsequence \0> such that\ <\equation*> |f|]>>-f|]>,\>|\>\N|f|]>>|\>. <\proof> Let us first derive the dependency of the renormalisation constant >> on >. Since >\\> uniformly in \0>, <\equation*> >-\|\|>=|2>*G>>-\|2>*G>|\|>\\|2>*G>>-G|\|>. Choosing |)>\>> such that >-G|\|>\N>, this implies with the definition of >, <\equation*> >-\|\|>\N*\, As a by-product, since >=-\|2*i>>, this shows the claim for =1>. For =2,3> we proceed as in the bounds derived in Lemma and . For example, for the charged case <\equation*> ||f2|)>>-f,2|)>,\>|\>>||> \s \x>|)>>|\>-x|)>*\>,\|)>>-|)>*>-x|)>*\,\|)>>|]>|\|>>>|||\s \x>*\>>|\>|)>-\*\*>|)>|]>|\|>>>|||\s >*\>\x>|\>|)>-|\>|)>|)>-*\-\>*\>|)>\x>|)>|]>|\|>.>>>>> But thanks to the translation invariance, <\equation*> \x>|\>|)>-|\>|)>|)>=\x\>|)>*\x>-x|)>->|)>|)>=0. Thus, with the estimates on >-\|\|>\N*\> and *\-\>*\>|\|>\\*\*N> <\equation*> |f2|)>>-f2|)>,\>|\>\\s *\-\>*\>|\|>*\x>|)>\\|t|\>*N. The remaining bounds on the neutral part >> and >> follow in the same way. For the large deviations principle in Section, we rely on the convergence of the Wick-ordered sine and cosine in the first region \4*\>. <\lemma> Let \|)>>. For any |)>> and \\/4*\>, it holds that <\equation*> sup \ ||cosW|)>|\>-1|\<\|\|\>>>|x|\>|)>>\\. Moreover, as \>, the martingale |cosW|)>|\>|)>> converges in P;B>|x|\>|)>|\>> and almost surely. We denote the unique limit by |cosW>|)>|\>>. An analogous statement holds for the Wick-ordered sine. The main ingredient in for the proof of Lemma is the following point-wise estimate on the quadratic variation. <\lemma> Let =|cosW|)>|\>> and \|)>>. Then, its quadratic variation satisfies for any \0>, <\equation*> |\*N|\>|\|>\\*2/4*\+\|)>>. The analogous statement holds for the cosine replaced by the sine. <\proof> Expanding the Wick-ordered cosine with Ito's formula we find, <\equation*> |cosW|)>|\>=1-\|sinW|)>|\>\W=1-\\|2>*G>*sinW|)>\W. Therefore, using |)>=G> and applying Young's inequality repeatedly, <\equation> ||||\*N|\>|\|>>>|>| \s*\G>*\y K|)>*\y K|)>*\>>||\sinW|)>|)>*sinW|)>|)>\|W|)>,W|)>|\>>>|>|\s*\G>*sup \y K|)>*\y K|)>*>-y|)>>>|>||K|\<\|\|\>>>|K|\<\|\|\>>>*sup> \s\G>|>-y|)>|\<\|\|\>>y|)>>>>|>||K|\<\|\|\>>>|K|\<\|\|\>>>*\s \G>|>|\<\|\|\>>>,>>>>> where +=1> are to be determined later. So using the estimates on the heat kernel <\equation*> ||\>|\<\|\|\>>>\|s|\>|Q|\<\|\|\>>>\|s|\>, combined with the estimates on the Littlewood\UPaley kernels , the previous computation and G>\|s|\>/4*\>> from Lemma gives <\equation*> |\*N|\>|\|>\\ 2>*\s|s|\>/4*\> |s|\>. For the integral to be bounded uniformly in , we need \\/4*\> and since are Hölder conjugates this means <\equation*> =\\/4*\. Consequently we can choose |)>> if and only if \4*\> which gives the claim. <\render-proof|Proof of Lemma > Recall the definition of the Besov norms,\ <\equation> \|N|\<\|\|\>>>|x|\>|)>>|]>=-1>2>*\|\*N|\<\|\|\>>>. We compute by Lemma and the Burkholder\UDavis\UGundy's inequalities, for any \0>, <\equation*> \|\*N|\<\|\|\>>|x|\>|)>>\\x |x|\>*\|||\*|cosW|)>|\>|\>|>|>\\2/4*\+\|)>>. Therefore, is finite provided /4*\\\> and the convergence now follows from the martingale convergence theorem. We also owe the proof of Lemma . <\render-proof|Proof of Lemma > Let\ <\equation*> M=|cos-W|)>|)>|\>\|cosW|)>|)>|\>, which by Ito's formula can be written as\ <\equation*> |>||-\|sin\W|)>|\>\W|)>>>|||-\|sin\W|)>|\>\y-Q|)>\B,>>>>> where we recall that |)>> is a cylindrical Brownian motion on |)>>. Now <\equation*> Q-Q=\\ \Qz|)>, so that by translation invariance and since > has compact support, |M|\<\|\|\>>>\\|\|>|]>>. The latter can be estimates as follows\ <\equation*> |||\|>>>|||M,M|\>>>|||sin\W|)>|\>|sin\W|)>|\>\>>||\\y\\ \\ \Qz|)>\Qz|)>\s>>|>|\s \G-2\G>\\ \\ \y\Q-\|)>z|)>\Q.>>>> Using the estimates from Lemma, |\>Q|\<\|\|\>>>\|s|\>/2>> so that\ <\equation*> |G>M|\|>>|>|\s \G>\-G|)>>\>>|||\\\ \\ \y\Q-\|)>z|)>\Q>>||>||)>>\s \\ \\ \y\Q-\|)>z|)>\Q>>||>||)>> \s |\Q|\<\|\|\>>>|\Q|\<\|\|\>>>>>>||>||)>> \s |s|\>|s|\>>>||>||)>>t.>>>> Using the same argument as in the proof of Lemma in the scales as well as the usual Kolmogorov argument for the >>-norm in we obtain for any \1/2>, \-1+4|)>> <\equation*> \ t>>\G>|M|\<\|\|\>>>|]>\1, and thus\ <\equation*> sup \ t>>\G>|M|\<\|\|\>>>\\,a.s. We start by estimating\ <\equation*> |||||cos-z|)>|)>+W|)>|)>|\>\|)>|\<\|\|\>>x|)>>>>|||-1>2\*|\|cos-z|)>+W|)>|)>|)>|\>|\<\|\|\>>x|)>>>>||>>|-1>2\*|cos-z|)>+W|)>|)>|)>|\>|\|>|]>,>>>>> where we again used that > is smooth and compactly supported and that the law of is translation invariant. Here, the Littlewood-Paley blocks act only in that is\ <\equation*> \|cos-z|)>+W|)>|)>|)>|\>=\y K|cos+W|)>|)>|\>. Developing the martingale |cos+W|)>|)>|\>> along the scales with Ito's formula, we obtain,\ <\equation*> ||*|cos+W|)>|)>|\>|\|>|]>>>|>|\y\yK|)>K|)> \|2>\-z|)>+W|)>|\|>|]>>\|2>\-z|)>+W|)>|\|>|]>>>>||\|W-z|)>+W|)>,W-z|)>+W|)>|\>>>||\y\y K|)>K|)>\G>\G>>-y|)>+>-y-z|)>|]>\s.>>>>> Thanks to the positivity of , we have the estimate -G|)>>\1> for s> so that for any , <\equation*> ||\y\y K|)>K|)>\-G|)>>\G>>-y|)>+>-y-z|)>|]>\s>>|>|\y\y K|)>K|)>\G>>-y|)>+>-y-z|)>|]>\s>>|>||K|\<\|\|\>>>*|K|\<\|\|\>>>|s|\>|)>>||\>|\<\|\|\>>>>>|>|*\s|s|\>|)>>>>|>||)>>\1|)>2.>>>>> Therefore,\ <\equation*> \|\G>|cos-z|)>+W|)>|)>|)>|\>\|)>|\<\|\|\>>x|)>>\|)>>\1|)>-1>2|)>>. Using the same argument as in the proof of Lemma , we can choose sufficiently close to |)>> sufficiently large to conclude for any \0>, \2-3\>, <\equation*> sup|\G>/2>t>|cos-z|)>+W|)>|)>|)>|\>\|)>|\<\|\|\>>x|)>>\\,a.s. <\bibliography|bib|tm-alpha|> <\bib-list|34> Nikolay Barashkov. . , Universität Bonn, 2021. Nikolay Barashkov. A stochastic control approach to Sine Gordon EQFT. oct 2022. Roland BauerschmidtThierry Bodineau. Log-Sobolev Inequality for the Continuum Sine-Gordon Model. , 74(10):2064\U2113, 2021. Roland Bauerschmidt, Thierry BodineauBenoit Dagallier. Stochastic dynamics and the Polchinski equation: an introduction. Hajer Bahouri, Jean-Yves CheminRaphaël Danchin. , 343. Springer, 2011. Ismael Bailleul, Ilya ChevyrevMassimiliano Gubinelli. Wilson-Itô diffusions. jul 2023. Michelle BouéPaul Dupuis. A variational representation for certain functionals of Brownian motion. , 26(4):1641\U1659, 1998. I.Bailleul, N.V.Dang, L.FerdinandT.D.Tô. > measures on compact Riemannian -manifolds. jun 2023. G.Benfatto. An iterated Mayer expansion for the Yukawa gas. , 41(3-4):671\U684, nov 1985. N.BarashkovM.Gubinelli. A variational method for >. , 169(17), nov 2020. Nikolay BarashkovMassimiliano Gubinelli. The > measure via Girsanov's theorem. , may 2020. . Nikolay BarashkovMassimiliano Gubinelli. On the variational method for Euclidean quantum fields in infinite volume. nov 2022. Nikolay Barashkov, TrishenS.GunaratnamMichael Hofstetter. Multiscale coupling and the maximum of |)>> models on the torus. jul 2023. G Benfatto, G GallavottiFrancesco Nicolo. On the massive sine-Gordon equation in the first few regions of collapse. , 83(3):387\U410, 1982. Roland BauerschmidtMichael Hofstetter. Maximum and coupling of the sine-Gordon field. , 49, 2022. DavidC BrydgesT Kennedy. Mayer expansions and the Hamilton-Jacobi equation. , 48(1):19\U49, 1987. VladimirIgorevich Bogachev. . 62. American Mathematical Soc., 1998. Roland BauerschmidtChristian Webb. The Coleman correspondence at the free fermion point. jan 2022. Sidney Coleman. Quantum sine-Gordon equation as the massive Thirring model. , 11(8):2088\U2097, apr 1975. FrancescoC.De Vecchi, Luca FrestaMassimiliano Gubinelli. A stochastic analysis of subcritical Euclidean fermionic field theories. oct 2022. Giorgio Fabbri, Fausto GozziAndrzej ‘wikech. . Springer International Publishing, 2017. Tadahisa Funaki. The reversible measures of multi-dimensional Ginzburg-Landau type continuum model. , 28(3):463\U494, jan 1991. Massimiliano GubinelliMartina Hofmanová. A PDE Construction of the Euclidean > Quantum Field Theory. , 384(1):1\U75, 2021. Massimiliano Gubinelli, Martina HofmanováNimit Rana. Decay of correlations in stochastic quantization: the exponential Euclidean field in two dimensions. James GlimmArthur Jaffe. . Springer Science & Business Media, 2012. Alessandro Giuliani, Vieri MastropietroSlava Rychkov. Gentle introduction to rigorous Renormalization Group: a worked fermionic example. , 2021(1):26, jan 2021. Wilhelm KroschinskyDomingosH.U.Marchetti. On the Mayer Series of Two-Dimensional Yukawa Gas at Inverse Temperature in the Interval of Collapse. , 177(2):324\U364, oct 2019. Hubert Lacoin, Rémi RhodesVincent Vargas. A probabilistic approach of ultraviolet renormalization in the boundary Sine-Gordon model. , nov 2022. F Nicolo, J RennA Steinmann. On the massive sine-Gordon equation in all regions of collapse. , 105(2):291\U326, 1986. Tadahiro Oh, Mamoru OkamotoLeonardo Tolomeo. Stochastic quantization of the >-model. aug 2021. Konrad OsterwalderRobert Schrader. Axioms for Euclidean Green's functions. , 31(2), 1973. Konrad OsterwalderRobert Schrader. Axioms for Euclidean Green's functions II. , 42(3), 1975. Manfred Salmhofer. . Springer, Berlin ; New York, 1st Corrected ed. 1999, Corr. 2nd printing 2007 edition, sep 2007. AliSüleyman Üstünel. Variational calculation of Laplace transforms via entropy on Wiener space and applications. , 267(8):3058\U3083, 2014. <\initial> <\collection> > <\attachments> <\collection> <\associate|bib-bibliography> <\db-entry|+1xPRwpgb1F4ocl5y|book|salmhoferRenormalizationIntroduction2007> <|db-entry> > <\db-entry|+1lRk8ZLh2HncX0aO|article|bauerschmidtStochasticDynamicsPolchinski> <|db-entry> Thierry Benoit > <\db-entry|+1xPRwpgb1F4ocl4C|misc|devecchiStochasticAnalysisSubcritical2022> <|db-entry> Luca Massimiliano > <\db-entry|+1lRk8ZLh2HncX0b5|article|gubinelliDecayCorrelationsStochastic> <|db-entry> Martina Nimit > >>)2) EQFT in two dimensions. The first method is based on a path-wise coupling argument and PDE apriori estimates while the second on estimates of the Malliavin derivative of the solution to the SQ equation.> <\db-entry|+dX3YyJ72FXs3EwE|misc|barashkovStochasticControlApproach2022> <|db-entry> > |^>>2}> 4 \\\\pi$ in infinite volume. We give a variatonal characterization of it's laplace transform, and deduce from this large deviations. Along the way we obtain estimates which are strong enough to obtain a proof of the Osterwalder-Schrader axioms including exponential decay of correlations as a byproduct. Our method is based on the Boue-Dupuis formula with an emphasis on the stochastic control structure of the problem.> <\db-entry|+2Bam7n4A10XxEUl4|article|lacoinProbabilisticApproachUltraviolet2022> <|db-entry> Rémi Vincent > |^>>$$by the exponential of its cosine, namely $$\\exp (\\alpha \\smallint \\cos (\\beta X))$$. It has gathered significant attention due to its importance in quantum field theory and to its connection with the study of log-gases in statistical mechanics. In spite of its relatively simple definition, the model has a very rich phenomenology. While the integral $$\\smallint \\cos (\\beta X)$$can be defined properly when $$\\beta |^>>> <\db-entry|+28ryBo0Q16Wif1db|misc|bailleulPhiMeasuresCompact2023> <|db-entry> N. V. L. T. D. > > measures on compact Riemannian -manifolds> |^>>_3$ measure on an arbitrary 3-dimensional compact Riemannian manifold without boundary as an invariant probability measure of a singular stochastic partial differential equation. Proving the nontriviality and the covariance under Riemannian isometries of that measure gives for the first time a non-perturbative, non-topological interacting Euclidean quantum field theory on curved spaces in dimension 3. This answers a longstanding open problem of constructive quantum field theory on curved 3 dimensional backgrounds. To control analytically several Feynman diagrams appearing in the construction of a number of random fields, we introduce a novel approach of renormalization using microlocal and harmonic analysis. This allows to obtain a renormalized equation which involves some universal constants independent of the manifold. We also define a new vectorial Cole-Hopf transform which allows to deal with the vectorial $\\Phi|^>>_3$ model where $\\Phi$ is now a bundle valued random field. In a companion paper, we develop in a self-contained way all the tools from paradifferential and microlocal analysis that we use to build in our manifold setting a number of analytic and probabilistic objects.> <\db-entry|+1G1UMlYi1WXtywok|article|benfattoMassiveSineGordonEquation1982> <|db-entry> G Francesco > <\db-entry|+1G1UMlYi1WXtywpv|article|nicoloMassiveSineGordonEquation1986> <|db-entry> J A > <\db-entry|+1DAmuVyz74pr7aA|misc|bauerschmidtColemanCorrespondenceFree2022> <|db-entry> Christian > |^>>$ with $\\beta=4\\pi$ exist for all coupling constants and are equal to those of the chiral densities and vector current of free massive Dirac fermions. This is an instance of Coleman's prediction that the massless sine-Gordon model and the massive Thirring model are equivalent (in the above sense of correlation functions). Our main novelty is that we prove this correspondence starting from the Euclidean path integral in the non-perturative regime of the infinite volume models. We use this correspondence to show that the correlation functions of the massless sine-Gordon model with $\\beta=4\\pi$ decay exponentially and that the corresponding probabilistic field is localized.> <\db-entry|+1G1UMlYi1WXtywow|article|brydgesMayerExpansionsHamiltonJacobi1987> <|db-entry> T > <\db-entry|+1lRk8ZLh2HncX0aM|article|bauerschmidtLogSobolevInequalityContinuum2021> <|db-entry> Thierry > > > 6> satisfies asymptotically optimal log-Sobolev inequalities for Glauber and Kawasaki dynamics. These dynamics can be seen as singular SPDEs recently constructed via regularity structures, but our results are independent of this theory. \ 2021 The Authors. Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.> <\db-entry|+1xPRwpgb1F4ocl3Z|article|bauerschmidtMaximumCouplingSineGordon2022> <|db-entry> Michael > > > > 6>, we prove that the distribution of the centred maximum of the >-regularised continuum sine-Gordon field on the two-dimensional torus converges to a randomly shifted Gumbel distribution as > 0. Our proof relies on a strong coupling at all scales of the sineGordon field with the Gaussian free field, of independent interest, and extensions of existing methods for the maximum of the lattice Gaussian free field.> <\db-entry|+15Mzgf8d1UjTfqnW|misc|barashkovMultiscaleCouplingMaximum2023> <|db-entry> Trishen S. Michael > |)>> models on the torus> |^>>_2$ measure. The proof uses an exact correspondence between the Polchinski renormalisation group approach, which is used to define the coupling, and the Bou\\\\'e-Dupuis stochastic control representation for $\\\\mathcal{P}(\\\\phi)_2$. More precisely, we show that the difference field is obtained from a specific minimiser of the variational problem. This allows to transfer regularity estimates for the small-scales of minimisers, obtained using discrete harmonic analysis tools, to the difference field. As an application of the coupling, we prove that the maximum of the $\\\\mathcal{P}(\\\\phi)_2$ field on the discretised torus with mesh-size $\\\\epsilon > 0$ converges in distribution to a randomly shifted Gumbel distribution as $\\\\epsilon \\\\rightarrow 0$.> <\db-entry|+1G1UMlYi1WXtywoe|phdthesis|barashkovVariationalApproachGibbs2021> <|db-entry> > <\db-entry|+dX3YyJ72FXs3EwG|article|barashkovVariationalMethodPhi2020a> <|db-entry> M. > >> |^>>_3$ measure on a bounded domain. Our starting point is the interpretation of its Laplace transform as the value function of a stochastic optimal control problem along the flow of a scale regularization parameter. Once small scale singularities have been renormalized by the standard counterterms, $\\\\Gamma$-convergence allows to extend the variational characterization to the unregularized model.> -convergence> >.pdf;/home/sarah/Zotero/storage/V6TLKEZ6/1805.html> <\db-entry|+dX3YyJ72FXs3EwF|misc|barashkovVariationalMethodEuclidean2022> <|db-entry> Massimiliano > |^>>_2$ without cutoffs and a corresponding large deviation principle for any infinite volume limit. Any infinite volume measure is described via a forward\Ubackwards stochastic differential equation in weak form (wFBSDE). Similar considerations apply to more general $P (\\\\varphi)_2$ theories. We consider also the $\\\\exp (\\\\beta \\\\varphi)_2$ model for $\\\\beta|^>> > 8 \\\\pi$ (the so called full $L|^>>$ regime) and prove uniqueness of the infinite volume limit and a variational characterization of the unique infinite volume measure. The corresponding characterization for $P (\\\\varphi)_2$ theories is lacking due to the difficulty of studying the stability of the wFBSDE against local perturbations.> <\db-entry|+1K2WDMb22RJN9THQ|misc|bailleulWilsonItDiffusions2023> <|db-entry> Ilya Massimiliano > |^>>$ that change continuously along a scale parameter via a Markovian dynamics with local coefficients. Described via forward-backward stochastic differential equations, their observables naturally form a pre-factorization algebra \\`a la Costello-Gwilliam. We argue that this is a new non-perturbative quantization method applicable also to gauge theories and independent of a path-integral formulation. Whenever a path-integral is available, this approach reproduces the setting of Wilson-Polchinski flow equations.> diffusions.pdf;/home/sarah/Zotero/storage/HLDE74CC/2307.html> <\db-entry|+1G1UMlYi1WXtywob|book|bahouriFourierAnalysisNonlinear2011> <|db-entry> Jean-Yves Raphaël > <\db-entry|+1K80ogMI1qTccGmW|article|giulianiGentleIntroductionRigorous2021> <|db-entry> Vieri Slava > > and a quartic interaction. We identify the Banach space of interactions, which the fixed point belongs to, and we determine it via a convergent approximation scheme. The Banach space is not limited to relevant interactions, but it contains all possible irrelevant terms with short-ranged kernels, decaying like a stretched exponential at large distances. As the model shares a number of features in common with >4 or Ising models, the result can be used as a benchmark to test the validity of truncations and approximations in RG studies. The analysis is based on results coming from Constructive RG to which we provide a tutorial and self-contained introduction. In addition, we prove that the fixed point is analytic in >, a somewhat surprising fact relying on the fermionic nature of the problem.> <\db-entry|+1G1UMlYi1WXtywos|article|boueVariationalRepresentationCertain1998> <|db-entry> Paul > <\db-entry|+1G1UMlYi1WXtywqG|article|ustunelVariationalCalculationLaplace2014> <|db-entry> > <\db-entry|+1KhKt3qNchUcJpR|book|fabbriStochasticOptimalControl2017> <|db-entry> Fausto Andrzej > > <\db-entry|+1L5VRGXn22Fz0bY9|article|kroschinskyMayerSeriesTwoDimensional2019> <|db-entry> Domingos H. U. > >1$$do not collapse inside a cluster of size larger than k for $$\\beta $$in the threshold interval $$[8\\pi (k-2)/(k-1),8\\pi k/(k+1))$$and (ii) they satisfy a technical condition, then the Mayer series, discarding the first even coefficients of order smaller than k, converges.> <\db-entry|+1DAmuVyz74pr7aD|article|benfattoIteratedMayerExpansion1985> <|db-entry> > <\db-entry|+1G1UMlYi1WXtywor|book|bogachevGaussianMeasures1998> <|db-entry> > <\db-entry|+4Vs2MKd15FaHjtO|article|funakiReversibleMeasuresMultidimensional1991> <|db-entry> > <\db-entry|+28ryBo0Q16Wif1da|article|barashkovPhiMeasureGirsanov2020> <|db-entry> Massimiliano > > measure via Girsanov's theorem> > |^>>_3$ measure on a periodic three dimensional box as an absolutely continuous perturbation of a random shift of the Gaussian free field. The shifted measure is constructed via Girsanov's theorem and the relevant filtration is the one generated by a scale parameter. As a byproduct we give a self-contained proof that the $\\Phi|^>>_3$ measure is singular wrt. the Gaussian free field.> <\db-entry|+28ryBo0Q16Wif1dc|misc|ohStochasticQuantizationPhi2021> <|db-entry> Mamoru Leonardo > >-model> |^>>_3$-measure and complete the program on the (non-)construction of the focusing Gibbs measures, initiated by Lebowitz, Rose, and Speer (1988). This problem turns out to be critical, exhibiting the following phase transition. In the weakly nonlinear regime, we prove normalizability of the $\\Phi|^>>_3$-measure and show that it is singular with respect to the massive Gaussian free field. Moreover, we show that there exists a shifted measure with respect to which the $\\Phi|^>>_3$-measure is absolutely continuous. In the strongly nonlinear regime, by further developing the machinery introduced by the authors (2020), we establish non-normalizability of the $\\Phi|^>>_3$-measure. Due to the singularity of the $\\Phi|^>>_3$-measure with respect to the massive Gaussian free field, this non-normalizability part poses a particular challenge as compared to our previous works. In order to overcome this issue, we first construct a $\\sigma$-finite version of the $\\Phi|^>>_3$-measure and show that this measure is not normalizable. Furthermore, we prove that the truncated $\\Phi|^>>_3$-measures have no weak limit in a natural space, even up to a subsequence. We also study the dynamical problem. By adapting the paracontrolled approach, in particular from the works by Gubinelli, Koch, and the first author (2018) and by the authors (2020), we prove almost sure global well-posedness of the hyperbolic $\\Phi|^>>_3$-model and invariance of the Gibbs measure in the weakly nonlinear regime. In the globalization part, we introduce a new, conceptually simple and straightforward approach, where we directly work with the (truncated) Gibbs measure, using the variational formula and ideas from theory of optimal transport.> >-model.pdf;/home/sarah/Zotero/storage/3N4QALZ6/2108.html> <\db-entry|+1L5VRGXn22Fz0bY8|article|colemanQuantumSineGordonEquation1975> <|db-entry> > <\db-entry|+1G1UMlYi1WXtywpy|article|osterwalderAxiomsEuclideanGreen1973> <|db-entry> Robert > <\db-entry|+1G1UMlYi1WXtywpz|article|osterwalderAxiomsEuclideanGreen1975> <|db-entry> Robert > <\db-entry|+1G1UMlYi1WXtywpS|book|glimmQuantumPhysicsFunctional2012> <|db-entry> Arthur > <\db-entry|+dX3YyJ72FXs3EwU|article|gubinelliPDEConstructionEuclidean2021> <|db-entry> Martina > > Quantum Field Theory> >Q.pdf> <\references> <\collection> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 6|> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <\auxiliary> <\collection> <\associate|bib> salmhoferRenormalizationIntroduction2007 bauerschmidtStochasticDynamicsPolchinski devecchiStochasticAnalysisSubcritical2022 gubinelliDecayCorrelationsStochastic barashkovStochasticControlApproach2022 lacoinProbabilisticApproachUltraviolet2022 bailleulPhiMeasuresCompact2023 benfattoMassiveSineGordonEquation1982 nicoloMassiveSineGordonEquation1986 lacoinProbabilisticApproachUltraviolet2022 bauerschmidtColemanCorrespondenceFree2022 brydgesMayerExpansionsHamiltonJacobi1987 bauerschmidtLogSobolevInequalityContinuum2021 bauerschmidtMaximumCouplingSineGordon2022 barashkovMultiscaleCouplingMaximum2023 barashkovStochasticControlApproach2022 barashkovVariationalApproachGibbs2021 barashkovVariationalMethodPhi2020a barashkovVariationalMethodEuclidean2022 devecchiStochasticAnalysisSubcritical2022 bailleulWilsonItDiffusions2023 bahouriFourierAnalysisNonlinear2011 giulianiGentleIntroductionRigorous2021 barashkovStochasticControlApproach2022 boueVariationalRepresentationCertain1998 ustunelVariationalCalculationLaplace2014 barashkovVariationalMethodEuclidean2022 fabbriStochasticOptimalControl2017 fabbriStochasticOptimalControl2017 barashkovVariationalMethodEuclidean2022 brydgesMayerExpansionsHamiltonJacobi1987 brydgesMayerExpansionsHamiltonJacobi1987 bauerschmidtLogSobolevInequalityContinuum2021 bauerschmidtMaximumCouplingSineGordon2022 bauerschmidtColemanCorrespondenceFree2022 kroschinskyMayerSeriesTwoDimensional2019 benfattoIteratedMayerExpansion1985 bogachevGaussianMeasures1998 gubinelliDecayCorrelationsStochastic devecchiStochasticAnalysisSubcritical2022 funakiReversibleMeasuresMultidimensional1991 barashkovPhiMeasureGirsanov2020 ohStochasticQuantizationPhi2021 ustunelVariationalCalculationLaplace2014 barashkovVariationalMethodPhi2020a colemanQuantumSineGordonEquation1975 barashkovStochasticControlApproach2022 barashkovStochasticControlApproach2022 osterwalderAxiomsEuclideanGreen1973 osterwalderAxiomsEuclideanGreen1975 glimmQuantumPhysicsFunctional2012 gubinelliPDEConstructionEuclidean2021 osterwalderAxiomsEuclideanGreen1975 glimmQuantumPhysicsFunctional2012 glimmQuantumPhysicsFunctional2012 bogachevGaussianMeasures1998 <\associate|toc> |math-font-series||1Introduction> |.>>>>|> |1.1Related work |.>>>>|> > |1.2Notation and assumptions |.>>>>|> > |math-font-series||2 Stochastic control set-up for Gibbs measures> |.>>>>|> |2.1Scale decomposition |.>>>>|> > |2.2The control problem |.>>>>|> > |2.3The effective FBSDE |.>>>>|> > |math-font-series||3Analysis of the flow equation> |.>>>>|> |3.1Truncating the flow |.>>>>|> > |3.2The Fourier representation |.>>>>|> > |3.3Estimates on the Fourier coefficients |.>>>>|> > |3.4The renormalised problem |.>>>>|> > |3.5Estimates on the force |.>>>>|> > |3.6Estimates on the potential |.>>>>|> > |math-font-series||4 Analysis of the FBSDE> |.>>>>|> |4.1Well-posedness for the FBSDE |.>>>>|> > |4.2Stability properties |.>>>>|> > |4.3Recovering the EQFT |.>>>>|> > |4.4Uniqueness for the finite volume measure |.>>>>|> > |math-font-series||5Decay of correlations> |.>>>>|> |math-font-series||6Singularity for |\\4\>> |.>>>>|> |math-font-series||7Variational description and large deviations> |.>>>>|> |7.1Finite volume |.>>>>|> > |7.2Infinite volume |.>>>>|> > |7.3Large deviations |.>>>>|> > |math-font-series||8Osterwalder\USchrader axioms> |.>>>>|> |8.1Euclidean invariance |.>>>>|> > |8.2Reflection positivity |.>>>>|> > |8.3Non-Gaussianity |.>>>>|> > |math-font-series||Appendix AHeat kernel estimates> |.>>>>|> |A.1General estimates |.>>>>|> > |A.2Proof of Lemma |->|-0.3em|>|0em||0em|>> |.>>>>|> > |A.3Proof of Lemma |->|-0.3em|>|0em||0em|>> |.>>>>|> > |A.4Proof of Lemma |->|-0.3em|>|0em||0em|>> |.>>>>|> > |math-font-series||Appendix BAuxiliary estimates on the Fourier coefficients> |.>>>>|> |B.1Dependence on the terminal condition |.>>>>|> > |B.2Dependence on the mollification |.>>>>|> > |math-font-series||Appendix CWick-ordered cosine> |.>>>>|> |math-font-series||Bibliography> |.>>>>|>