format: text

text:
# The exact renormalisation group equation and the perturbed unitary minimal models

## 1 Introduction

To get a better understanding of the space of quantum field theories, it is important to study the renormalisation group flow that determines its structure. Two dimensional quantum field theories serve as a good starting point for two reasons. Firstly, the fixed points of the renormalisation group are two dimensional conformal field theories which are well understood due to their large symmetry, and secondly, Zamolodchikov’s $`c`$-theorem states that for a unitary theory the renormalisation group flows are irreversible flows in the coupling constant space.

The exact renormalisation group equation is a functional differential equation which describes how the wilsonian effective action must vary when the cut-off changes so that the physics is invariant. It is derived by integrating out the ultra-violet degrees of freedom in the partition function. In this paper the exact renormalisation group equation is studied for an exponential interaction and a background charge at infinity.

The motivation for considering this case is that the renormalisation group is known to flow between certain unitary conformal field theories, namely the unitary minimal models. A two dimensional conformal field theory is specified by its field content, the operator product coefficients and the value of the Virasoro central charge $`c`$ that measures the number of massless degrees of freedom in the theory. The unitary minimal models $`_m`$ ($`m=3,4,\mathrm{}`$) are unitary conformal field theories with a finite number of primary fields (the highest weight vectors of the Virasoro algebra) and a central charge $`0<c=1\frac{6}{m(m+1)}<1`$.

The unitary minimal models $`_m`$ have the same ($`m1`$) critical behaviour as Landau-Ginzburg theory with a bosonic field and even polynomial interactions up to the power $`2(m1)`$ . The minimal model $`_m`$ perturbed by the relevant field $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{(1,3)}`$ was in  argued to have a renormalisation group flow from $`_m`$ in the ultra-violet to $`_{m1}`$ in the infra-red limit using the thermodynamic Bethe ansatz. Indeed, it was shown perturbatively in the double scaling limit of small coupling $`g`$ and large $`m`$ that the infra-red central charge $`c_{IR}`$ satisfies that $`c_{IR}=c_{_{m1}}+O(m^4)`$. This calculation was performed to first order in  and second order in . The ultra-violet fixed point is at $`g_{UV}=0`$ and in  it was shown that the infra-red fixed point is at $`g_{IR}\frac{4}{m+1}`$ so that perturbation theory is a good approximation for the infra-red theory in the limit $`m\mathrm{}`$ where $`g_{IR}0`$.

The exact renormalisation group equation is not solvable and has to be approximated, we will do this by including only an exponential interaction together with a background charge in the wilsonian effective action. Using the equivalence between the perturbed minimal models and the quantum group restricted sine-Gordon model, we will argue that this interaction describes the renormalisation group flow of the unitary minimal models perturbed by $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{(1,3)}`$.

In section 2 the unitary minimal model perturbed by $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{(1,3)}`$ is described together with its realisation as a quantum group restricted sine-Gordon model. In section 3 the exact renormalisation group equation is introduced, and it is approximated by only allowing relevant operators in the effective action, which for the minimal models are given by exponential operators. The wilsonian effective potential does not contain any field derivatives so the approximation is similar to the local potential approximation. The non linear term in the exact renormalisation group equation is approximated using the operator product expansion.

For the perturbed minimal models a renormalisation group equation is obtained where all higher order terms in the coupling are contained in the off-critical structure constant for the operator product expansion. This renormalisation group equation is valid for all $`m>3`$, and in the perturbative limit $`m\mathrm{}`$ it is equal to the perturbative renormalisation group equation.

## 2 Unitary minimal models perturbed by $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{(1,3)}`$

We denote by $`_m`$ the unitary minimal model that has the spin zero primary fields $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{(p,q)}`$, $`1pm1`$, $`1qm`$, and a central charge $`c=1\frac{6}{m(m+1)}`$. $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{(p,q)}`$ has the conformal scaling dimension $`h_{(p,q)}=\overline{h}_{(p,q)}=\frac{((m+1)pmq)^21}{4m(m+1)}`$ which shows that $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{(p,q)}=\mathrm{\Phi }_{(mp,m+1q)}`$ leaving only $`\frac{m(m1)}{2}`$ different primary fields. The unitary minimal model $`_m`$ perturbed by the relevant operator $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{(1,3)}`$ can formally be written as111The standard conventions are used (see ), with the normalisation $`d^2z2idzd\overline{z}=dxdt_E=d^2x`$, and positive structure constant $`C_{(1,3)(1,3)}^{(1,3)}=C_{\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }}^\mathrm{\Phi }>0`$.

$$S=_m+\lambda d^2z\mathrm{\Phi }_{(1,3)}(z,\overline{z}),$$
(1)
and the theory is defined by the correlators

$$𝒪_1(x_1)\mathrm{}𝒪_n(x_n)=\frac{𝒪_1(x_1)\mathrm{}𝒪_n(x_n)e^{\lambda {\scriptscriptstyle d^2z\mathrm{\Phi }_{(1,3)}}}__m}{e^{\lambda {\scriptscriptstyle d^2z\mathrm{\Phi }_{(1,3)}}}__m}$$
(2)
where $`\mathrm{}__m`$ is the correlator in the minimal model $`_m`$ and $`𝒪_i(x)`$ are the local scaling fields in the theory. The renormalisation group eigenvalue for $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{(1,3)}`$ follows from (1) using dimensional analysis: $`y=2\mathrm{\Delta }=\frac{4}{m+1}`$ where $`\mathrm{\Delta }=2h_{(1,3)}`$. $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{(1,3)}`$ is therefore a relevant operator ($`y>0`$), and from the form of $`h_{(p,q)}`$ above it directly follows that the other relevant primary fields are $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{(p,p+s)}`$ with $`1s2`$ and $`0<p+s<m+1`$ for $`1pm1`$. There are therefore $`2m3`$ different relevant primary fields including $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{(1,1)}=\mathrm{𝟏}`$. These are the only relevant scalar fields as all the spin zero descendants will have scaling dimension $`2h_{(p,q)}+2n`$ with $`n`$.

In the Coulomb gas  (or Feigin–Fuchs, Dotsenko–Fateev) representation the minimal model $`_m`$ is realised as a Lagrangian free field theory with a background charge $`2\alpha _0`$ at infinity and a central charge $`c=124\alpha _0^2`$. $`\alpha _0>0`$ so that $`\alpha _0=1/\sqrt{4m(m+1)}`$. The action is then

$$S=\frac{1}{8\pi }d^2x\sqrt{g(x)}(g^{\mu \nu }(x)_\mu \varphi (x)_\nu \varphi (x)+2\sqrt{2}i\alpha _0\varphi (x)R(x))$$
(3)
on the Riemann sphere $`\{\mathrm{}\}`$. The primary fields are the vertex operators $`V_{\alpha _{r,s}}(x)=e^{i\sqrt{2}\alpha _{r,s}\varphi (x)}`$ with $`\alpha _{r,s}=\frac{1r}{2}\alpha _++\frac{1s}{2}\alpha _{}`$ where $`\alpha _{}\alpha _+=1`$ and $`\alpha _{}+\alpha _+=2\alpha _0`$ so that $`\alpha _{}=\sqrt{\frac{m}{m+1}}`$. The vertex operator conformal dimension becomes

$$h_{r,s}=\overline{h}_{r,s}=\alpha _{r,s}(\alpha _{r,s}2\alpha _0)$$
(4)
and therefore the primary field $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{(1,3)}`$ is represented as $`e^{i\sqrt{2}\alpha _{}\varphi }`$. Note that $`h_{\alpha _\pm }=\alpha _\pm (\alpha _\pm 2\alpha _0)=1`$. To calculate correlators of vertex operators screening charges $`Q_\pm =d^2zV_{\alpha _\pm }`$ are added so that the overall charge of the correlator vanishes . The presence of a background charge changes the energy-momentum tensor

$$T=\frac{1}{2}\varphi \varphi \stackrel{2\alpha _0}{}T=\frac{1}{2}\varphi \varphi +i\sqrt{2}\alpha _0^2\varphi ,$$
(5)
and therefore also the scaling behaviour of the theory lowering the central charge from the value of the free theory $`c=1`$ to $`c=124\alpha _0^2`$.

In  it was observed that the perturbed unitary minimal model (1) is equivalent to a quantum group restriction of the sine-Gordon theory. The sine-Gordon theory is given by the euclidean action

$$S_{SG}=\frac{1}{4\pi }d^2x\left(\frac{1}{2}_\mu \varphi (x)^\mu \varphi (x)4\pi \stackrel{~}{\lambda }\mathrm{cos}(\beta \varphi (x)/\sqrt{4\pi })\right).$$
(6)
In two dimensions all polynomial interactions are super-renormalisable and all divergences appear in the tadpole diagrams which are the self contractions of a vertex. The renormalisation can be done by normal ordering which removes all self contractions, and this corresponds to a renormalisation of $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }`$, but $`\beta `$ and $`\varphi `$ are not renormalised .

In  the quantum group restriction of the sine-Gordon model is performed by adding a background charge $`2\alpha _0`$ at infinity. The background charge will again change the energy-momentum tensor as in (5) and the two vertex operators in the potential will now scale differently. Two different couplings are needed, we will write this as

$$\stackrel{~}{\lambda }\mathrm{cos}(\beta \varphi /\sqrt{4\pi })\stackrel{2\alpha _0}{}\frac{\stackrel{~}{\lambda }}{2}e^{i\beta \varphi /\sqrt{4\pi }}+\frac{\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_{}}{2}e^{i\beta \varphi /\sqrt{4\pi }}.$$
(7)
Analogous to the Coulomb gas representation for the minimal models the background charge $`\alpha _0`$ is determined from the central charge $`c=124\alpha _0^2=1\frac{6}{m(m+1)}`$. $`\beta `$ is chosen from the requirement that $`e^{i\beta \varphi /\sqrt{4\pi }}`$ becomes marginal (i.e. $`h=\overline{h}=1`$) so that it survives in the ultra-violet limit. $`\beta =\sqrt{8\pi }\alpha _{}=\sqrt{8\pi }\sqrt{m/(m+1)}`$. The conformal dimension of $`e^{i\beta \varphi /\sqrt{4\pi }}`$ is then $`h=\frac{m}{m+1}\frac{1}{m+1}=\frac{m1}{m+1}=h_{(1,3)}`$ and $`e^{i\beta \varphi /\sqrt{4\pi }}`$ represents the perturbing operator $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{(1,3)}`$ 222The ultra-violet limit of the restricted sine-Gordon model is a Liouville theory which is equivalent to the unitary minimal models $`_m`$, the perturbed minimal models can therefore also be seen as a perturbed Liouville theory .. Only relevant operators are included in the effective action, as explained below, so the marginal screening term $`e^{i\beta \varphi /\sqrt{4\pi }}`$ (which is needed when considering correlators) is excluded.

In  it was argued that the perturbed unitary minimal model (1) is a quantum group restriction of the sine-Gordon theory, i.e. a massive theory, with the coupling taken as $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }=\lambda `$ in (6). Here we are only interrested in the massless flow to $`_{m1}`$ ($`\lambda >0`$ in ) where the limit $`m\mathrm{}`$ is given by perturbation theory. We will therefore take the opposite sign, $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }=k\lambda `$ for some $`k_+`$, and in the exact renormalisation group equation we consider the action

$$S=\frac{1}{4\pi }d^2x\left(\frac{1}{2}_\mu \varphi (x)^\mu \varphi (x)4\pi \frac{\stackrel{~}{\lambda }}{2}e^{i\beta \varphi (x)/\sqrt{4\pi }}+\sqrt{2}i\alpha _0\varphi (x)R(x)\right)$$
(8)
as a model for the perturbed unitary minimal model (1). The operator $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{(1,3)}`$ in (1) is normalised as in  so that the ultra-violet limit of correlators in the perturbed theory (2) equals the corresponding correlators in $`_m`$ where we take $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{(1,3)}(1)\mathrm{\Phi }_{(1,3)}(0)__m=1`$. The scaling dimension of $`V_{(1,3)}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{(1,3)}`$ are equal333In  the exact relation between the sine-Gordon coupling $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }`$ (i.e. without a background charge, so that the scaling dimensions of $`\mathrm{cos}(\beta \varphi /\sqrt{4\pi })`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{(1,3)}`$ here differ) and $`\lambda `$ was established $`\lambda =\frac{\stackrel{~}{\lambda }^2\pi }{4(1\beta ^2/(4\pi ))(3\beta ^2/(8\pi ))}(\gamma (1\beta ^2/(8\pi ))^3\gamma (3\beta ^2/(8\pi )))^{1/2}`$ using the Coulomb gas representation of minimal models  ($`\gamma (x)=\mathrm{\Gamma }(x)/\mathrm{\Gamma }(1x)`$). We do not use this representation here because we want the ultra-violet limit to be $`_m`$, and not as in the sine-Gordon model where it is the free theory with $`c=1`$, also we want a linear relation between $`\lambda `$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }`$. so the normalisation constant relating them is independent of $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }`$, and is given by the formulas in 444$`N_{(1,3)}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}=2\pi ^2\frac{\gamma (1\alpha _{}^2)^3\gamma (3\alpha _{}^21)}{(12\alpha _{}^2)(2\alpha _{}^21)}`$ with $`N_{(1,3)}>0`$. $`V_{(1,3)}=N_{(1,3)}\mathrm{\Phi }_{(1,3)}`$, we therefore take $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }=N_{(1,3)}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\lambda `$.

For a non zero background charge the scaling of the theory is not determined by the usual $`𝜷`$-function related to the ultra-violet divergences, but by a generalised $`𝜷`$-function as discussed in . The generalised $`𝜷`$-function takes into account the change in the energy-momentum tensor when the background charge is added. To lowest order the background charge adds a term

$$𝜷(\stackrel{~}{\lambda })=\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{\stackrel{~}{\lambda }}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\stackrel{~}{𝜷}(\stackrel{~}{\lambda })=𝜷(\stackrel{~}{\lambda })22\alpha _{(1,3)}\alpha _0\stackrel{~}{\lambda }$$
(9)
to the normal perturbative $`𝜷`$-function for the interaction term $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }e^{i\sqrt{2}\alpha _{(1,3)}\varphi (x)}`$ in the action. This follows from the change in the scaling dimension of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{(1,3)}`$: $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }22\alpha _{(1,3)}\alpha _0`$ with a background charge (4)555The $`𝜷`$-function starts as $`y\stackrel{~}{\lambda }`$ where $`y`$ is the renormalisation group eigenvalue.. We discuss below how this term appears in the exact renormalisation group.

## 3 The exact renormalisation group

The wilsonian effective action at the scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is obtained by ‘integrating out’ momentum modes between $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$, where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$ is the fundamental wilsonian cut-off. The exact renormalisation group equation666Or the Wilson-Polchinski renormalisation group equation . then describes how the effective action must change so as to describe the same physics when $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ changes. Following , the partition function is written as

$$Z(\mathrm{\Lambda })=D\varphi e^{S[\varphi ]}=D\varphi e^{\frac{1}{2}{\scriptscriptstyle {\scriptscriptstyle \frac{d^2p}{(2\pi )^2}}\varphi (p)\varphi (p)p^2K^1(p^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)}V(\varphi ,\mathrm{\Lambda })}$$
(10)
in a continuum formulation with the cut-off propagator $`\frac{K(p^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)}{p^2}`$. $`K(p^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)`$ is constant for small $`s=p^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2`$ and vanishes faster than any power for large $`s`$. The physics must be independent in the choice of effective scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ so that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{d}{d\mathrm{\Lambda }}Z(\mathrm{\Lambda })=0`$, and from (10) it follows that

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{d}{d\mathrm{\Lambda }}Z(\mathrm{\Lambda })=(\frac{1}{2}\frac{d^2p}{(2\pi )^2}\varphi (p)\varphi (p)p^2\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{K^1(p^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{V(\varphi ,\mathrm{\Lambda })}{\mathrm{\Lambda }})=0.$$
(11)
This condition holds when the wilsonian effective potential satisfies the operator equation777A constructive proof is given in  by explicit functional integration.

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}V(\varphi ,\mathrm{\Lambda })=\frac{1}{2}d^dxd^dy\frac{d^dk}{(2\pi )^d}e^{ik(xy)}\frac{2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}K^{}(\frac{k^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2})(\frac{\delta ^2V}{\delta \varphi (x)\delta \varphi (y)}\frac{\delta V}{\delta \varphi (x)}\frac{\delta V}{\delta \varphi (y)}),$$
(12)
because the partition function then changes as a total derivative (up to a field independent term) $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{d}{d\mathrm{\Lambda }}Z=d^2pD\varphi \frac{\delta }{\delta \varphi }\mathrm{\Psi }=0`$ . $`K^{}(k^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)=\frac{dK(s)}{ds}|_{s=k^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}`$. (12) is the exact renormalisation group equation. It is a non linear functional equation in $`V(\varphi ,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ which is not directly solvable and approximations must be made, either by truncating the operator space or by performing a derivative expansion .

We will make a truncation in the operator space. Firstly, we will only consider relevant operators, this approximation becomes exact in the infra-red ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$) where the effective theory is determined by the relevant (and marginal) couplings. Secondly, it is known that the primary fields $`\{\mathrm{\Phi }_{(1,2p+1)}\}`$ with $`0p[\frac{m1}{2}]`$ form a sub-algebra888$`\mathrm{\Phi }_{(1,r)}\mathrm{\Phi }_{(1,s)}=_pC_{rs}^p\mathrm{\Phi }_{(1,p)}`$ where $`p\{|rs|+1,|rs|+3,\mathrm{},r+s1\}`$ in steps of two . in $`_m`$, and the renormalisation group flow from the minimal model $`_m`$ is therefore spanned by these operators999The operator structure at the non trivial ultra-violet fixed point thereby determines the renormalisation group flow. When considering perturbations from operators in a sub-algebra, all divergences that arise away from the fixed point will be contained in this sub-algebra showing that there is a renormalisation group flow in the sub-space of the corresponding couplings..

In the sub-algebra $`\{\mathrm{\Phi }_{(1,2p+1)}\}`$ only $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{(1,1)}=\mathrm{𝟏}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{(1,3)}`$ are relevant fields101010The operator $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{(1,3)}`$ does not mix with other relevant operators off criticality .. The exact renormalisation group is only determined up to a field independent term, so we will only consider perturbations with respect to $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{(1,3)}`$ 111111The integrable perturbation with $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{(1,3)}`$ was first considered in .. None of the relevant operators $`V_{(1,n)}`$ contain any derivatives in $`\varphi `$, so the situation is similar to the local potential approximation of the exact renormalisation group equation. The local potential approximation is the lowest order term in a derivative expansion of $`V=V(\mathrm{\Lambda },\varphi ,\varphi ,\mathrm{})`$ . The second order term containing derivatives $`f(\mathrm{\Lambda })(\varphi )^2`$ leads to a renormalisation of $`\varphi `$ and an anomalous dimension $`\eta >0`$. In our approximation there are no derivatives in $`\varphi `$ because we only keep relevant operators, and $`\varphi `$ is not renormalised in the sine-Gordon model. In this approximation the first term in (12) can be rewritten  as

$$\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}\frac{d^2k}{(2\pi )^2}K^{}(k^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)d^2x\frac{^2𝒱}{\varphi \varphi }(x)=\gamma _1d^2x\frac{^2𝒱}{\varphi \varphi }(x)$$
(13)
where $`𝒱(x)`$ is the potential density $`V=d^2x𝒱(x)`$, and $`\gamma _1=\frac{d^2k}{(2\pi )^2}K^{}(k^2)>0`$ as $`K(k^2)`$ is decreasing. In the local potential approximation  the second non local term in (12)

$$d^2xd^2y\frac{d^2k}{(2\pi )^2}K^{}(k^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)e^{ik(xy)}\frac{𝒱}{\varphi (x)}\frac{𝒱}{\varphi (y)}$$
(14)
is approximated by $`\gamma _2d^2x(\frac{𝒱}{\varphi (x)})^2`$ where $`\gamma _2_+`$ depends on the cut-off function $`K(s)`$. This is a good approximation in the ultra-violet limit $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}`$  where $`\frac{d^2k}{(2\pi )^2}K^{}(k^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)e^{ik(xy)}K^{}(0)\frac{d^2k}{(2\pi )^2}e^{ik(xy)}=K^{}(0)\delta ^2(xy)`$. We consider the operator version of (12) and a different approximation therefore has to be used for the term (14) otherwise divergences will appear in the operator product $`\frac{𝒱}{\varphi (x)}\frac{𝒱}{\varphi (x)}`$, whereas (12) is finite for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }<\mathrm{}`$. The correct form of the approximation in the operator case is obtained from the operator product expansion. For the spin zero operators is

$$𝒪_i(x)𝒪_j(y)\underset{k}{}|x|^{\mathrm{\Delta }_k\mathrm{\Delta }_i\mathrm{\Delta }_j}\stackrel{~}{C}_{ij}^k(\stackrel{~}{\lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda })𝒪_k(y),$$
(15)
where $`𝒪_k(y)`$ is a complete set of local scaling fields. The non local term (14) then takes the form

$$d^2x𝒪(x)d^2y\frac{d^2k}{(2\pi )^2}e^{ik(xy)}K^{}(k^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)h(|xy|^2)$$
(16)
for some $`h(|xy|^2)`$ and operator $`𝒪(x)`$. We use that $`\delta ^2(x)=\frac{1}{\pi }\delta (|x|^2)`$ to write the ultra-violet limit $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}`$ of the $`k`$ integral as $`\frac{d^2k}{(2\pi )^2}e^{ik(xy)}K^{}(k^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)\gamma _2\delta (|xy|^2)`$ where again $`\gamma _2_+`$ depends on the choice of $`K(s)`$. For finite $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ this expression is approximately $`\gamma _2\delta (|xy|^2a/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)`$ where $`a_+`$ depends on $`K(s)`$. The cut-off dependence in $`a`$ is removed by redefining $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^2a\mathrm{\Lambda }^2`$, and the approximation becomes

$$\frac{d^2k}{(2\pi )^2}e^{ik(xy)}K^{}(k^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)=\gamma _2\delta (|xy|^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)$$
(17)
in (14)121212Adding a function $`f(|xy|^2,1/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)`$ satisfying $`f0`$ for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}`$ corresponds to a higher order derivative expansion in $`\varphi `$  and it is therefore neglected in the approximation considered here where there are no derivatives in $`\varphi `$.. If the effective potential is written as $`V=\stackrel{~}{\lambda }^id^2x𝒪_i(x)`$, where $`[\stackrel{~}{\lambda }^i]=y^i>0`$, then (12) becomes using (13) and the operator product expansion

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \frac{\gamma _1}{\gamma _2}d^2x\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{d}{d\mathrm{\Lambda }}𝒱(\varphi ,\mathrm{\Lambda })=& \frac{\gamma _1}{\gamma _2}d^2x\frac{^2𝒱(\varphi ,\mathrm{\Lambda })}{\varphi \varphi }\hfill \\ & +\frac{\gamma _1}{\gamma _2}\frac{\pi }{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}d^2x\underset{i,j,k}{}\stackrel{~}{\lambda }^i\stackrel{~}{\lambda }^j\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\mathrm{\Delta }_{}^{}{}_{i}{}^{}+\mathrm{\Delta }_{}^{}{}_{j}{}^{}\mathrm{\Delta }_{}^{}{}_{k}{}^{}}\stackrel{~}{C}_{ij}^k(\stackrel{~}{\lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda })𝒪_{}^{}{}_{k}{}^{}(x).\hfill \end{array}$$
(18)
Here $`V`$ and $`\varphi `$ have been rescaled: $`V\frac{\gamma _1}{\gamma _2}V`$, $`\varphi \sqrt{\gamma _1}\varphi `$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{}^{}{}_{i}{}^{}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{C}_{ij}^k`$ are the scaling dimension and structure constant for the field $`𝒪_{}^{}{}_{i}{}^{}=\frac{𝒪_i}{\varphi }`$. If $`𝒪_i`$ is a vertex operator then $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}=\mathrm{\Delta }`$, $`\stackrel{~}{C}_{ij}^k\stackrel{~}{C}_{ij}^k`$ and $`𝒪_{}^{}{}_{i}{}^{}𝒪_i`$. It follows from (18) that the implicit dependence in the choice of cut-off function $`K(s)`$ contained in $`\gamma _1`$ and $`\gamma _2`$ drops out . The renormalisation group equation is usually written in terms of dimensionless couplings $`\stackrel{~}{g}^i=\mathrm{\Lambda }^{y_i}\stackrel{~}{\lambda }^i`$ so that $`V=\stackrel{~}{g}^i\mathrm{\Lambda }^2d^2x\stackrel{~}{𝒪}_i`$ where $`[\stackrel{~}{𝒪}_i]=0`$. (18) then becomes

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{\Lambda }^2d^2x\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{\stackrel{~}{g}^i(\mathrm{\Lambda })}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\stackrel{~}{𝒪}_i=& 2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2d^2x\stackrel{~}{g}^i\stackrel{~}{𝒪_i}\mathrm{\Lambda }^2d^2x\stackrel{~}{g}^i\frac{\stackrel{~}{𝒪_i}}{\varphi \varphi }\hfill \\ & +\pi \mathrm{\Lambda }^2d^2x\underset{i,j,k}{}\stackrel{~}{g}^i\stackrel{~}{g}^j\stackrel{~}{C}_{ij}^k\stackrel{~}{𝒪_{}^{}{}_{k}{}^{}}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(19)
For the perturbed minimal models we will use the action (8), and for the moment neglect the curvature term. (19) then becomes

$$d^2xe^{i\beta \varphi /\sqrt{4\pi }}\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{\stackrel{~}{g}}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}+2\stackrel{~}{g}(\mathrm{\Lambda })+\stackrel{~}{g}(\mathrm{\Lambda })(\frac{i\beta }{\sqrt{4\pi }})^2+\pi \frac{\stackrel{~}{g}(\mathrm{\Lambda })^2}{2}\stackrel{~}{C}_{\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }}^\mathrm{\Phi }(\stackrel{~}{g}(\mathrm{\Lambda }),\mathrm{\Lambda })(\frac{i\beta }{\sqrt{4\pi }})^2\right)=0,$$

up to field independent and irrelevant terms. Introducing the dimensionless variable $`t=\mathrm{ln}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ (and $`\stackrel{~}{x}=\mathrm{\Lambda }x`$) the renormalisation group equation for $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$ can then be written as

$$\frac{\stackrel{~}{g}(t)}{t}=\dot{\stackrel{~}{g}}=2\stackrel{~}{g}(t)\frac{2m}{m+1}\stackrel{~}{g}(t)\pi \frac{m}{m+1}\stackrel{~}{g}(t)^2\stackrel{~}{C}_{\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }}^\mathrm{\Phi }(\stackrel{~}{g}(t),t).$$
(20)
Adding the additional term (9) from the background charge $`22\alpha _{(1,3)}\alpha _0\stackrel{~}{g}(t)=\frac{2}{m+1}\stackrel{~}{g}(t)`$ gives

$$\dot{\stackrel{~}{g}}(t)=\frac{4}{m+1}\stackrel{~}{g}(t)\pi \frac{m}{m+1}\stackrel{~}{C}_{\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }}^\mathrm{\Phi }(\stackrel{~}{g}(t),t)\stackrel{~}{g}(t)^2=y\stackrel{~}{g}(t)\pi \stackrel{~}{C}_{\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }}^\mathrm{\Phi }(\stackrel{~}{g}(t),t)\stackrel{~}{g}(t)^2\frac{m}{m+1}.$$
(21)
The contribution from the background charge to the scaling behaviour can be incorporated directly into the exact renormalisation group equation if the curvature term in (8) is taken into account. The action (8) is defined on the Riemann sphere $`\{\mathrm{}\}`$ where all the curvature is situated at infinity so that the topological invariant $`d^2\stackrel{~}{x}\sqrt{g(\stackrel{~}{x})}R(\stackrel{~}{x})=8\pi `$ is satisfied. $`\{\mathrm{}\}`$ cannot be covered by a single coordinate chart, one chart is needed for the flat space and another in the neighbourhood of infinity. We take polar coordinates in flat space $`x=(r\mathrm{sin}\theta ,r\mathrm{cos}\theta )`$ and define the contribution from infinity as in  by a limit value. We consider the theory on a disk $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ with radius $`r\mathrm{}`$ so that all curvature is at the boundary $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. From the Gauss-Bonnet theorem $`lim_r\mathrm{}_\mathrm{\Gamma }𝑑\theta rR(r)=8\pi `$ so that $`R(r)=\frac{4}{r}`$ on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. We define as in  the contribution from infinity to be $`\varphi _{\mathrm{}}=lim_r\mathrm{}\frac{1}{2\pi r}_\mathrm{\Gamma }𝑑l\varphi =lim_r\mathrm{}\frac{1}{2\pi }_\mathrm{\Gamma }𝑑\theta \varphi `$ and similarly for the vertex operators. The effect of the background term is seen by evaluating the exact renormalisation group equation at infinity where the curvature is non-vanishing. Hence we replace $`d^2x`$ in (19) by $`lim_r\mathrm{}\frac{1}{2\pi }_\mathrm{\Gamma }𝑑\theta `$. Only the term $`\frac{V}{\varphi }\frac{V}{\varphi }`$ in the exact renormalisation group equation (12) will give an additional term proportional to $`e^{i\beta \varphi /\sqrt{4\pi }}`$ when the background charge is added. This term becomes

$$\begin{array}{cc}& \underset{r\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{1}{2\pi }_\mathrm{\Gamma }𝑑\theta d^2y\delta (|xy|^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)\frac{2^2(\sqrt{2})^2(i)^2\alpha _0\alpha _{(1,3)}}{8\pi }rR(r)e^{i\sqrt{2}\alpha _{(1,3)}\varphi (y)}\stackrel{~}{g}(t)\hfill \\ \hfill =& (2)^3\alpha _0\alpha _{(1,3)}\stackrel{~}{g}(t)\underset{r\mathrm{}}{lim}_\mathrm{\Gamma }\frac{d\theta }{2\pi }\frac{d\theta ^{}}{2\pi }\frac{d(r^{})^2}{2}\delta ((r^{})^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)e^{i\sqrt{2}\alpha _{(1,3)}\varphi (xy^{})}\hfill \\ \hfill & 2^2\alpha _0\alpha _{(1,3)}\stackrel{~}{g}(t)\underset{r\mathrm{}}{lim}_\mathrm{\Gamma }\frac{d\theta }{2\pi }e^{i\sqrt{2}\alpha _{(1,3)}\varphi (x)}=2^2\alpha _0\alpha _{(1,3)}\stackrel{~}{g}(t)V_{(1,3)}(\mathrm{}).\hfill \end{array}$$

The second to last equation holds in the limit $`r\mathrm{}`$ where $`r\mathrm{\Lambda }^1`$. When the coefficient of $`e^{i\beta \varphi /\sqrt{4\pi }}`$ from this term is added to (20) then (21) is again obtained, but it now holds to all orders in the coupling $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$.

This shows how the change in scaling behaviour due to the background charge is seen in the exact renormalisation group equation when it is evaluated at a point with non zero curvature. Equation (21) is then valid to all orders in perturbation theory for the chosen truncation of the operator space. Hence, in

$$\dot{\stackrel{~}{g}}(t)=y\stackrel{~}{g}(t)\pi \stackrel{~}{C}_{\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }}^\mathrm{\Phi }(\stackrel{~}{g}(t),t)\stackrel{~}{g}(t)^2\frac{m}{m+1}$$
(22)
higher order terms appear via the off-critical structure constant $`\stackrel{~}{C}_{\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }}^\mathrm{\Phi }(\stackrel{~}{g}(t),t)`$. The structure constant $`\stackrel{~}{C}_{\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }}^\mathrm{\Phi }(\stackrel{~}{g}(t),t)`$ is regular in the coupling $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$ . The wilsonian effective action (8) is for zero coupling equal to the Coulomb gas representation (3) of the minimal model $`_m`$. The structure constant therefore has the following expansion $`\stackrel{~}{C}_{\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }}^\mathrm{\Phi }(\stackrel{~}{g}(t),t)=\stackrel{~}{C}_{\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }}^\mathrm{\Phi }+O(\stackrel{~}{g}(t))`$, where $`\stackrel{~}{C}_{\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }}^\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is the structure constant for the vertex operators $`V_{(1,3)}`$ in the minimal model $`_m`$. $`V_{(1,3)}(1)V_{(1,3)}(0)=\mathrm{𝟏}+\stackrel{~}{C}_{\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }}^\mathrm{\Phi }V_{(1,3)}(0)+\mathrm{}`$ and the structure constant for $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{(1,3)}`$ is thus $`C_{\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }}^\mathrm{\Phi }=N_{(1,3)}^1\stackrel{~}{C}_{\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }}^\mathrm{\Phi }`$  131313$`(C_{\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }}^\mathrm{\Phi })^2=\frac{16}{3}\frac{(1y)^4}{(1y/2)^2(13y/4)^2}(\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+y/2)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1y/2)})^4(\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1y/4)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+y/4)})^3(\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+y)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1y)})^2(\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+3y/4)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(13y/4)})`$, $`C_{\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }}^\mathrm{\Phi }>0`$. $`\stackrel{~}{C}_{\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }}^\mathrm{\Phi }(\stackrel{~}{g}(t),t)`$ can in principle be calculated in conformal perturbation theory  for strictly relevant perturbations ($`y>0`$), and for small $`t`$ is it given by
$$\stackrel{~}{C}_{\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }}^\mathrm{\Phi }(\stackrel{~}{g})=\stackrel{~}{C}_{\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }}^\mathrm{\Phi }\stackrel{~}{g}\pi ^{}d^2zV_{(1,3)}(\mathrm{})V_{(1,3)}(z)V_{(1,3)}(1)V_{(1,3)}(0)__m+𝒪(\stackrel{~}{g}^3).$$
(23)  The four-point function is the first non-trivial correlator and it can be evaluated by pairing the fields and inserting the short distance expansion. Unfortunately no closed form has been found for the conformal blocks with two screening charges ($`VVVV`$ requires the screening $`Q_{}^2`$). When only one screening $`Q_{}`$ is needed a closed expression of the conformal blocks can be found in terms of hyper-geometric functions using Euler’s integral representation. In the marginal case $`y=0`$ the four-point function can be written in a closed form as the conformal blocks become meromorphic functions of $`z`$ , but conformal perturbation theory is only defined for strictly relevant perturbations with $`y>0`$..

It follows from (22) by inserting $`\stackrel{~}{C}_{\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }}^\mathrm{\Phi }(\stackrel{~}{g}(t),t)=\stackrel{~}{C}_{\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }}^\mathrm{\Phi }+O(\stackrel{~}{g}(t))`$ that the infra-red fixed point coupling vanishes in the limit $`m\mathrm{}`$, and this limit can therefore be compared with the perturbative renormalisation group equation. For large $`m`$ (22) becomes $`\dot{g}=yg\pi C_{\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }}^\mathrm{\Phi }g^2+O(g^3)`$ where $`g=N_{(1,3)}\stackrel{~}{g}`$, and this has the infra-red fixed point $`g_{IR}=\frac{y}{\pi C_{\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }}^\mathrm{\Phi }}`$ as obtained in .

## 4 Conclusion

We studied the exact renormalisation group equation for a two dimensional quantum field theory. It was approximated by only including relevant operators of exponential form together with a background charge at infinity in the wilsonian effective action. The effective action does not contain any derivatives in the field and the approximation is therefore similar to the local potential approximation, the non linear term in the exact renormalisation group equation is approximated by the operator product expansion. We showed that the effect of the background charge can be incorporated into the exact renormalisation group equation by evaluating it at a point of non zero curvature.

Using the equivalence between the unitary minimal models perturbed by $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{(1,3)}`$ and the quantum group restricted sine-Gordon model, the obtained renormalisation group equation was argued to describe the renormalisation group flow for the perturbed unitary minimal models from $`_m`$ to $`_{m1}`$. The resulting renormalisation group equation is valid to all orders in the coupling for our truncation of the operator space (and for all $`m>3`$). The higher order terms in the coupling appear in the off-critical structure constant. In the limit of large $`m`$, where the ultra-violet and infra-red fixed points approach each other, the renormalisation group equation agrees with the well known perturbative result.

###### Acknowledgments.

I thank the Danish Research Academy for a research grant. I would like to thank Paul Mansfield for reading the manuscript, and Vladimir Dotsenko for sending me notes on the Coulomb gas representation.


text:
# Theory of the Nucleon Spin–Polarizabilities I

## 1 Introduction

Low–energy Compton scattering off the nucleon is an important probe to unravel the nonperturbative structure of QCD since the electromagnetic interactions in the initial and final state are well understood. In the long wavelength limit, only the charge of the target can be detected, which is nothing but the celebrated Thomson low energy theorem. At higher photon energies, $`50<\omega <100`$ MeV, the internal structure of the system slowly becomes visible. These nucleon structure–dependent effects in unpolarized Compton scattering are taken into account by introducing two free parameters into the cross-section formula, commonly denoted the electric $`(\overline{\alpha })`$ and magnetic $`(\overline{\beta })`$ polarizabilities of the nucleon in analogy to the structure dependent response functions for light-matter interactions in classical electrodynamics. Over the past few decades several experiments on low energy Compton scattering off the proton have taken place, resulting in several extractions of the electromagnetic polarizabilities of the proton. At present, the commonly accepted numbers are $`\overline{\alpha }^{(p)}=(12.1\pm 0.8\pm 0.5)\times 10^4\mathrm{fm}^3`$, $`\overline{\beta }^{(p)}=(2.10.80.5)\times 10^4\mathrm{fm}^3`$, indicating that the proton compared to its volume of $`0.5`$fm3 is a rather stiff object. At present, several quite different theoretical approaches find qualitative and quantitative explanations for these two polarizabilities, but they also constitute one of the striking successes of chiral perturbation theory. The lowest order predictions stem from finite loop graphs and can be expressed in terms of well–known parameters

$$\overline{\alpha }_p=\overline{\alpha }_n=10\overline{\beta }_p=10\overline{\beta }_n=\frac{5e^2g_A^2}{384\pi ^2F_\pi ^2M_\pi }=12.410^4\mathrm{fm}^3,$$
(1)
with $`g_A=1.26`$ the axial–vector coupling measured in neutron $`\beta `$–deacy, $`F_\pi =92.4`$MeV the pion decay constant, $`M_\pi =139.57`$MeV the pion mass and $`e^2/4\pi =1/137.036`$ the fine structure constant. These numbers are in striking agreement with the experimental values, demonstrating the importance of the pion cloud to the structure of the nucleon. In ref. it was further demonstrated that the fourth order corrections to these results are modest and in particular, a novel large and negative pion loop contribution to the magnetic polarizability was found, leading to a substantial reduction of the sizeable positive $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ contribution.

Quite recently, with the advent of polarized targets and new sources with a high flux of polarized photons, the case of polarized Compton scattering off the proton $`\stackrel{}{\gamma }\stackrel{}{p}\gamma p`$ has come close to experimental feasibility. On the theoretical side it has been shown  that one can define four spin–dependent electromagnetic response functions $`\gamma _i,i=1\mathrm{}4`$, which in analogy to $`\overline{\alpha },\overline{\beta }`$ are commonly called the “spin-polarizabilites” of the proton. I remark that one can also use a more physical basis in terms of electric and magnetic dipole, quadrupole, $`\mathrm{}`$ excitations, as discussed by Hemmert in these proceedings. First studies have been published, claiming that the such parameterized information on the low–energy spin structure of the proton can really be extracted from the upcoming double-polarization Compton experiments. A success of this program would clearly shed new light on our understanding of the internal dynamics of the proton and at the same time serve as a check on the theoretical explanations of the polarizabilities. The new challenge to theorists will then be to explain all six of the leading electromagnetic response functions simultaneously. At present there exist two experimental analysis that have shed some light on the magnitude of the (essentially) unknown spin-polarizabilities $`\gamma _i^{(p)}`$ of the proton. First, the LEGS group has reported  a result for a linear combination involving three of the $`\gamma _i`$ (for the proton), namely

$$\gamma _\pi ^{(p)}=\gamma _1^{(p)}+\gamma _2^{(p)}+2\gamma _4^{(p)},$$
(2)
whose magnitude could not be explained by theoretical approaches. We note that this pioneering result was obtained from an analysis of an unpolarized Compton experiment in the backward direction, where the spin-polarizabilities come in as one contribution in a whole class of subleading order nucleon structure effects in the differential cross-section. However, the Göttingen group has performed a similar measurement at MAMI  and their value for $`\gamma _\pi ^{(p)}`$ comes out consistent with theoretical expectations.111I remark that as explained below, one should subtract the pion pole (anomaly) contribution from the true nucleon–structure effects. This is often not done. While such indirect determinations of some linear combinations of the spin–polarizabilities are very valuable, we can only reemphasize the need for the upcoming polarized Compton scattering experiments to disentangle the contributions from the four spin–polarizabilities. It is therefore a challenge on the theory side to work out the complete one–loop (that is fourth order) representation of the spin–polarizabilities within the context of Heavy Baryon Chiral Perturbation Theory (HBCHPT), extending previous efforts  in a significant way. These results have been reported in, and a similar study can be found in. The active degrees of freedom in HBCHPT are the asymptotically observable pion and nucleon fields. The various contributions from tree and loop diagrams are organized according to power counting rules, i.e. one expands in small momenta and pion masses ($`M_\pi `$), collectively denoted by $`p`$. Previously an order $`𝒪(p^3)`$ SU(2) HBCHPT calculation  was performed, which showed that the leading (i.e. long–range) structure effects in the spin-polarizabilities are given by 8 different $`\pi N`$ loop diagrams giving rise to a $`1/M_\pi ^2`$ behavior in the $`\gamma _i`$ (which is known since long, see ). Subsequently, it was shown in a third order SU(2) calculation, in which the first nucleon resonance, the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$(1232), was included as an explicit degree of freedom, that two ($`\gamma _2,\gamma _4`$) of the four spin–polarizabilities receive large corrections due to $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$(1232) related effects, resulting in a big correction to the leading $`1/M_\pi ^2`$ behavior. In that phenomenological extension of HBCHPT, one also counts the nucleon-delta mass splitting as an additional small parameter and collectively denotes all small parameters as $`ϵ`$. The corresponding expansion, which also has a consistent power counting, is called the “small scale expansion” (SSE) (because it differs from a chiral expansion due to the non–vanishing of the $`N\mathrm{\Delta }`$ mass splitting in the chiral limit).222It is important to note that the terms of order order $`ϵ^3`$ in the SSE that are proportional to the delta–nucleon mass splitting $`m_\mathrm{\Delta }m_N`$ appear at order $`p^4`$ in the chiral expansion. Another important conclusion of  was that any HBCHPT calculation that wants to calculate $`\gamma _2`$ and $`\gamma _4`$ would have to be extended to $`𝒪(p^5)`$ before it can incorporate the large $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$(1232) related corrections found already at $`𝒪(ϵ^3)`$ in. Recently, two $`𝒪(p^4)`$ SU(2) HBCHPT calculations  of polarized Compton scattering in the forward direction appeared, from which one can extract one particular linear combination333$`\gamma _0`$ can also be calculated from the absorption cross sections of polarized photons on polarized nucleons via the GGT sum rule, as pointed out in. In the absence of such data several groups have tried to extract the required cross sections via a partial wave analysis of unpolarized absorption cross sections. Recent results of these efforts are given in table 2. of three of the four $`\gamma _i`$, usually called $`\gamma _0`$:

$`\gamma _0=\gamma _1\left(\gamma _2+2\gamma _4\right)\mathrm{cos}\theta |_{\theta 0}.`$ (3)
The authors of  claimed to have found a huge correction to $`\gamma _0`$ at $`𝒪(p^4)`$ relative to the $`𝒪(p^3)`$ result already found in, casting doubt on the usefulness/convergence of HBCHPT for spin-polarizabilities. Given that $`\gamma _0`$ involves the very two polarizabilities $`\gamma _2,\gamma _4`$, the (known) poor convergence for $`\gamma _0`$ found in  should not have come as a surprise. We will come back to this point later.

## 2 Invariant amplitudes and polarizabilities

We first want to comment on the extraction of polarizabilities from nucleon Compton scattering amplitudes. In previous analyses  it has always been stated that in order to obtain the spin-polarizabilities from the calculated Compton amplitudes, one only has to subtract off the nucleon tree-level (Born) graphs from the fully calculated amplitudes. The remainder in each (spin-amplitude) then started with a factor of $`\omega ^3`$ and the associated Taylor-coefficient was related to the spin-polarizabilities. Due to the (relatively) simple structure of the spin-amplitudes at this order, this prescription gives the correct result in the $`𝒪(p^3)`$ HBCHPT  and the $`𝒪(ϵ^3)`$ SSE  calculations. However, at $`𝒪(p^4)`$ (and also at $`𝒪(ϵ^4)`$ ) one has to resort to a definition of the (spin-) polarizabilities that is soundly based on field theory, in order to make sure that one only picks up those contributions at $`\omega ^3`$ that are really connected with (spin-) polarizabilities. In fact, at $`𝒪(p^4)`$ ($`𝒪(ϵ^4)`$) the prescription given in  leads to an admixture of effects resulting from two successive, uncorrelated $`\gamma NN`$ interactions with a one nucleon intermediate state. In order to avoid these problems we advocate the following definition for the spin-dependent polarizabilities in (chiral) effective field theories: Given a complete set of spin-structure amplitudes for Compton scattering to a certain order in perturbation theory, one first removes all one-particle (i.e. one-nucleon or one-pion) reducible (1PR) contributions from the full spin-structure amplitudes. To be more precise, at order $`𝒪(p^4)`$ one removes $`F(\omega )/\omega `$ terms from the amplitude, where $`F(\omega )`$ denotes the energy dependence of the $`\gamma NN`$ vertex function. This prescription has been challenged, see the contribution of McGovern to these proceedings. I will come back to this later. Specifically, starting from the general form of the T-matrix for real Compton scattering assuming invariance under parity, charge conjugation and time reversal symmetry, we utilize the following six structure amplitudes $`A_i(\omega ,\theta )`$  in the Coulomb gauge, $`ϵ_0=ϵ_0^{}=0`$,

$`T`$ $`=`$ $`A_1(\omega ,\theta )\stackrel{}{ϵ}^{}\stackrel{}{ϵ}+A_2(\omega ,\theta )\stackrel{}{ϵ}^{}\widehat{k}\stackrel{}{ϵ}\widehat{k}^{}`$ (4)
$`+`$ $`iA_3(\omega ,\theta )\stackrel{}{\sigma }(\stackrel{}{ϵ}^{}\times \stackrel{}{ϵ})`$
$`+`$ $`iA_4(\omega ,\theta )\stackrel{}{\sigma }(\widehat{k}^{}\times \widehat{k})\stackrel{}{ϵ}^{}\stackrel{}{ϵ}`$
$`+`$ $`iA_5(\omega ,\theta )\stackrel{}{\sigma }[(\stackrel{}{ϵ}^{}\times \widehat{k})\stackrel{}{ϵ}\widehat{k}^{}(\stackrel{}{ϵ}\times \widehat{k}^{})\stackrel{}{ϵ}^{}\widehat{k}]`$
$`+`$ $`iA_6(\omega ,\theta )\stackrel{}{\sigma }[(\stackrel{}{ϵ}^{}\times \widehat{k}^{})\widehat{ϵ}\widehat{k}^{}(\stackrel{}{ϵ}\times \widehat{k})\stackrel{}{ϵ}^{}\widehat{k}],`$
where $`\theta `$ corresponds to the c.m. scattering angle, $`\stackrel{}{ϵ},\widehat{k}(\stackrel{}{ϵ}^{},\widehat{k}^{})`$ denote the polarization vector, direction of the incident (final) photon while $`\stackrel{}{\sigma }`$ represents the (spin) polarization vector of the nucleon. Each (spin-)structure amplitude is now separated into 1PR contributions and a remainder, that contains the response of the nucleon’s excitation structure to two photons:

$`A_i(\omega ,\theta )=A_i(\omega ,\theta )^{1\mathrm{P}\mathrm{R}}+A_i(\omega ,\theta )^{\mathrm{exc}.},i=3,\mathrm{},6.`$ (5)
Taylor-expanding the spin-dependent $`A_i(\omega ,\theta )^{1\mathrm{P}\mathrm{R}}`$ for the case of a proton target in the c.m. frame into a power series in $`\omega `$, the leading terms are linear in $`\omega `$ and are given by the venerable low–energy theorems (LETs) of Low, Gell-Mann and Goldberger:

$`A_3(\omega ,\theta )^{1\mathrm{P}\mathrm{R}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\left[1+2\kappa ^{(p)}(1+\kappa ^{(p)})^2\mathrm{cos}\theta \right]e^2}{2M_N^2}}\omega +𝒪(\omega ^2),`$
$`A_4(\omega ,\theta )^{1\mathrm{P}\mathrm{R}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(1+\kappa ^{(p)})^2e^2}{2M_N^2}}\omega +𝒪(\omega ^2),`$
$`A_5(\omega ,\theta )^{1\mathrm{P}\mathrm{R}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(1+\kappa ^{(p)})^2e^2}{2M_N^2}}\omega +𝒪(\omega ^2),`$
$`A_6(\omega ,\theta )^{1\mathrm{P}\mathrm{R}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(1+\kappa ^{(p)})e^2}{2M_N^2}}\omega +𝒪(\omega ^2).`$ (6)
While it is not advisable to really perform this Taylor-expansion for the spin-dependent $`A_i(\omega ,\theta )^{1\mathrm{P}\mathrm{R}}`$ due to the complex pole structure, one can do so without problems for the $`A_i(\omega ,\theta )^{\mathrm{exc}.}`$ as long as $`\omega M_\pi `$. For the case of a proton one then finds

$`A_3(\omega ,\theta )^{\mathrm{exc}.}`$ $`=`$ $`4\pi \left[\gamma _1^{(p)}(\gamma _2^{(p)}+2\gamma _4^{(p)})\mathrm{cos}\theta \right]\omega ^3+𝒪(\omega ^4),`$
$`A_4(\omega ,\theta )^{\mathrm{exc}.}`$ $`=`$ $`4\pi \gamma _2^{(p)}\omega ^3+𝒪(\omega ^4),`$
$`A_5(\omega ,\theta )^{\mathrm{exc}.}`$ $`=`$ $`4\pi \gamma _4^{(p)}\omega ^3+𝒪(\omega ^4),`$
$`A_6(\omega ,\theta )^{\mathrm{exc}.}`$ $`=`$ $`4\pi \gamma _3^{(p)}\omega ^3+𝒪(\omega ^4).`$ (7)
We therefore take Eq.(7) as starting point for the calculation of the spin-polarizabilities, which are related to the $`\omega ^3`$ Taylor-coefficients of $`A_i(\omega ,\theta )^{\mathrm{exc}.}`$. As noted above, both the $`𝒪(p^3)`$ HBCHPT  and the $`𝒪(ϵ^3)`$ SSE  results are consistent with this definition.

## 3 Isoscalar polarizabilities

Utilizing Eqs.(5,7) we have calculated the first subleading correction, $`𝒪(p^4)`$, to the four isoscalar spin-polarizabilities $`\gamma _i^{(s)}`$ already determined to $`𝒪(p^3)`$ in  in SU(2) HBCHPT. We employ here the convention

$`\gamma _i^{(p)}=\gamma _i^{(s)}+\gamma _i^{(v)};\gamma _i^{(n)}=\gamma _i^{(s)}\gamma _i^{(v)}.`$ (8)
Contrary to popular opinion we show, that even at subleading order all four spin-polarizabilities can be given in closed form expressions which are free of any unknown chiral counterterms! The only parameters appearing in the results are the axial-vector nucleon coupling constant, the pion decay constant $`F_\pi `$, the pion mass $`M_\pi `$, the mass of the nucleon $`m_N`$ as well as its isoscalar, $`\kappa ^{(s)}=0.12`$, and isovector, $`\kappa ^{(v)}=3.7`$, anomalous magnetic moments. All $`𝒪(p^4)`$ corrections arise from 25 one-loop $`\pi N`$ continuum diagrams, with the relevant vertices obtained from the well-known SU(2) HBCHPT $`𝒪(p)`$ and $`𝒪(p^2)`$ Lagrangians given in detail in ref. To $`𝒪(p^4)`$ we find

$`\gamma _1^{(s)}`$ $`=`$ $`+{\displaystyle \frac{e^2g_A^2}{96\pi ^3F_\pi ^2M_\pi ^2}}\left[1\mu \pi \right],`$ (9)
$`\gamma _2^{(s)}`$ $`=`$ $`+{\displaystyle \frac{e^2g_A^2}{192\pi ^3F_\pi ^2M_\pi ^2}}\left[1+\mu {\displaystyle \frac{(6+\kappa ^{(v)})\pi }{4}}\right],`$ (10)
$`\gamma _3^{(s)}`$ $`=`$ $`+{\displaystyle \frac{e^2g_A^2}{384\pi ^3F_\pi ^2M_\pi ^2}}\left[1\mu \pi \right],`$ (11)
$`\gamma _4^{(s)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^2g_A^2}{384\pi ^3F_\pi ^2M_\pi ^2}}\left[1\mu {\displaystyle \frac{11}{4}}\pi \right],`$ (12)
with $`\mu =M_\pi /m_N1/7`$ and the the numerical values given in table 1.

The leading $`1/M_\pi ^2`$ behavior of the isoscalar spin-polarizabilities is not touched by the $`𝒪(p^4)`$ correction, as expected. With the notable exception of $`\gamma _4^{(s)}`$, which even changes its sign due to a large $`𝒪(p^4)`$ correction, we show that this first subleading order of $`\gamma _1^{(s)},\gamma _2^{(s)},\gamma _3^{(s)}`$ amounts to a 25-45% correction to the leading order result. This does not quite correspond to the expected $`M_\pi /m_N`$ correction of (naive) dimensional analysis, but can be considered acceptable. The large correction in $`\gamma _4^{(s)}`$ should be considered accidental. It is not related to the the large $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ effects found in the SSE calculation of, because these will only show up at $`𝒪(p^5)`$ in the HBCHPT framework. This can easily be understood: When the delta is not an active dof in the effective field theory, it can not modify the leading singularity of order $`1/M_\pi ^2`$ due to decoupling. In principle, the spin–dependent local operator of dimension two $`c_4`$ inserted in one loop graphs could modify the $`1/M_\pi `$ terms. However, such contributions cancel in the sum of all loop graphs. This is different from the from the spin–independent case, where a particular combination of certain $`c_i`$ generates an important pion loop correction at fourth order.

## 4 Isovector polarizabilities

We further report the first results for the four isovector spin-polarizabilities $`\gamma _i^{(v)}`$ obtained in the framework of chiral effective field theories. Previous calculations at $`𝒪(p^3)`$  and $`𝒪(ϵ^3)`$  were only sensitive to the isoscalar spin-polarizabilities $`\gamma _i^{(s)}`$, therefore this calculation gives the first indication from a chiral effective field theory about the magnitude of the difference in the low-energy spin structure between proton and neutron. As in the case of the isoscalar spin-polarizabilities there are again no unknown counterterm contributions to this order in the $`\gamma _i^{(v)}`$. All $`𝒪(p^4)`$ contributions arise from 16 one-loop $`\pi N`$ continuum diagrams with the relevant $`𝒪(p),𝒪(p^2)`$ vertices again obtained from the Lagrangians given in ref. To $`𝒪(p^4)`$ one finds

$`\gamma _1^{(v)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^2g_A^2}{96\pi ^3F_\pi ^2M_\pi ^2}}\left[0\mu {\displaystyle \frac{5\pi }{8}}\right],`$ (13)
$`\gamma _2^{(v)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^2g_A^2}{192\pi ^3F_\pi ^2M_\pi ^2}}\left[0\mu {\displaystyle \frac{(1+\kappa ^{(s)})\pi }{4}}\right],`$ (14)
$`\gamma _3^{(v)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^2g_A^2}{384\pi ^3F_\pi ^2M_\pi ^2}}\left[0+\mu {\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{4}}\right],`$ (15)
$`\gamma _4^{(v)}`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (16)
with the numerical values again given in table 1. The result of our investigation is that the size of the $`\gamma _i^{(v)}`$ really tends to be an order of magnitude smaller than the one of the $`\gamma _i^{(s)}`$ (with the possible exception of $`\gamma _1^{(v)}`$), supporting the scaling expectation, $`\gamma _i^{(v)}(M_\pi /m_N)\gamma _i^{(s)}`$ from (naive) dimensional analysis. This is reminiscent of the situation in the spin-independent electromagnetic polarizabilities $`\overline{\alpha }^{(v)},\overline{\beta }^{(v)}`$, which are also suppressed by one chiral power relative to their isoscalar partners $`\overline{\alpha }^{(s)},\overline{\beta }^{(s)}`$.

## 5 Forward and backward polarizabilities

Finally, we want to comment on the comparison between our results and existing calculations using dispersion analyses. Given our comments on the convergence of the chiral expansion for the (isoscalar) spin-polarizabilities, we reiterate that we do not believe our $`𝒪(p^4)`$ HBCHPT result for $`\gamma _2^{(s)},\gamma _4^{(s)}`$ to be meaningful. Their large inherent $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$(1232) related contribution just cannot be included (via a counterterm) before $`𝒪(p^5)`$ in HBCHPT that only deals with pion and nucleon degrees of freedom. In table 1 it is therefore interesting to note that by adding (“by hand”) the delta-pole contribution of $`2.510^4`$fm4 found in  to $`\gamma _2^{(s)}`$ one could get quite close to the range for this spin-polarizability as suggested by the dispersion analyses. Similarly, adding $`+2.510^4`$fm4 to $`\gamma _4^{(s)}`$ as suggested by  also leads quite close to the range advocated by the dispersion results. However, such a procedure is of course not legitimate in an effective field theory, but it raises the hope that an extension of the $`𝒪(ϵ^3)`$ SSE calculation of  that includes explicit delta degrees of freedom could lead to a much better behaved perturbative expansion for the isoscalar spin-polarizabilities. Whether this expectation holds true will be known quite soon. For the isovector spin-polarizabilities we have given the first predictions available from effective field theory. In general the agreement with the range advocated by the dispersion analyses is quite good.

Furthermore, in table 2 we give a comparison of our results for those linear combinations of the $`\gamma _i`$ that typically are the main focus of attention in the literature. However, we re-emphasize that we do not consider our $`𝒪(p^4)`$ HBCHPT predictions for $`\gamma _0^{(s)},\gamma _\pi ^{(s)}`$ to be meaningful, because they involve $`\gamma _2^{(s)},\gamma _4^{(s)}`$. The corresponding isovector combinations, however, again seem to agree quite well with the dispersive results and so far we have no reason to suspect that they might be affected by the poor convergence behavior of some of their isoscalar counterparts. We further note that our $`𝒪(p^4)`$ HBCHPT predictions for $`\gamma _0^{(s,v)}`$ differ from the ones given in two recent calculations. As noted above this difference solely arises from a different definition of nucleon spin-polarizabilities. If we (“by hand”) Taylor-expand our $`\gamma NN`$ vertex functions $`F(\omega )`$ in powers of $`\omega `$ and include the resulting terms into the the $`\gamma _0`$ structure, we obtain the $`𝒪(p^4)`$ corrections $`\gamma _0^{(s)}=6.9,\gamma _0^{(v)}=1.6`$ in units of $`10^4`$fm4, in numerical (and analytical) agreement with. This brings us to an important point: Once the first polarized Compton asymmetries have been measured, it has to be checked very carefully whether the same input data fitted to the terms we define as 1PR plus the additional free $`\gamma _i`$ parameters leads to the same numerical fit-results for the spin-polarizabilities as in the dispersion theoretical codes usually employed to extract polarizabilities from Compton data. Small differences for example in the treatment of the pion/nucleon pole could lead to quite large systematic errors in the determination of the $`\gamma _i`$. Such studies are under way. Also, the controversy about how to subtract the 1PR pieces in a non–relativistic approach like HBCHPT can be setteld employing a Lorentz–invariant formulation of baryon CHPT  since in that context the subtraction is unambigouos and the heavy fermion limit can be obtained easily.

## Acknowledgments

These results have been obtained in collaboration with George Gellas and Thomas Hemmert, to whom I express my sincere gratitude. I also would like to thank the organizers for putting together such an interesting program.


text:
# Gribov’s Confinement Scenario 1,2

## 1 Introduction

The confinement of quarks and the breaking of chiral symmetry are among the most striking consequences of Quantum Chromodynamics. In this talk I give a brief account of two interesting suggestions towards their understanding that have been made by V. N. Gribov . The first is the idea that confinement is based on the supercritical binding of light quarks. The second is a new approach to the difficult problem of solving the exact Dyson–Schwinger equation for the quark’s Green function. This new method has been used to study in detail the breaking of chiral symmetry and the analytic structure of the light quark’s Green function .

## 2 Confinement as a supercritical phenomenon

Supercritical charges are well known in QED. An isolated pointlike nucleus with a charge $`Z>137`$ is unstable and captures an electron from the vacuum to form a supercritical bound state while a positron is emitted. This process continues until the charge reaches a subcritical value. The phenomenon of supercritical charges is possible only due to the existence of light fermions making pair creation in the strong field energetically possible. Gribov’s idea is that a similar phenomenon causes the confinement of quarks in QCD. In this scenario each color charge is supercritical due to the existence of very light (almost massless) quarks in our world. Contrary to QED this applies even to the color charge of a single quark. The vacuum structure of light quarks is drastically modified due to this process, and the quark becomes a resonance that cannot be observed as an asymptotic state. (For a more detailed discussion the reader is referred to .) It is expected that the interesting physical picture of supercritical charges manifests itself in the Green function of the light quark to which we now turn.

## 3 Gribov’s equation for the Green function of light quarks

In  a new equation for the Green function $`G(q)`$ of a light quark has been suggested. In order to derive it one starts from the corresponding Dyson–Schwinger integral equation (see for example ). It involves the Green function of the gluon which in Feynman gauge is $`D_{\mu \nu }(k)=g_{\mu \nu }\alpha _s(k)/k^2`$. We assume that the effective strong coupling constant $`\alpha _s(k)`$ is a slowly varying function and stays finite at low momenta. This assumption is in agreement with results obtained recently in the dispersive approach to power corrections, see for example . The Feynman gauge is unique in this context because it allows one to obtain an especially simple equation for $`G(q)`$. Its characteristic factor $`1/q^2`$ yields a four–dimensional delta–function $`\delta ^{(4)}(q)`$ under the action of the d’Alembert operator $`^2=^\mu _\mu `$, where $`_\mu =/q^\mu `$. After applying $`^2`$ to the Dyson–Schwinger equation one can identify the most singular contributions – namely the delta–functions – to the integrals from the infrared region where the confining dynamics resides. Collecting only these most singular terms333This method can in principle be extended to include also subleading terms. one can perform the integral, and the resulting terms can be shown to involve two factors representing full vertex functions. Using Ward identities the latter can in turn be expressed in terms of derivatives of $`G(q)`$ itself. We are then left with a differential equation for the Green function of light quarks in Feynman gauge,

$$^2G^1=C_F\frac{\alpha _s(q)}{\pi }(^\mu G^1)G(_\mu G^1),$$
(1)
where $`C_F=4/3`$. The running coupling $`\alpha _s(q)`$ ensures that the equation reproduces at large spacelike momenta the correct mass and wave function renormalization known from perturbation theory.

## 4 Chiral symmetry breaking and critical coupling

Eq. (1) can be used to study the behaviour of the Green function in different limits analytically. A full numerical study was performed in . We will now restrict ourselves to discussing the dynamical mass function $`M(q^2)`$ of the light quark in the region of space–like momenta, $`q^2<0`$. It turns out that the Green function shows a characteristically different behaviour if the effective strong coupling constant $`\alpha _s(q)`$ exceeds a critical value in some interval of the momentum $`q`$ in the infrared region. The critical coupling is found to be

$$\alpha _c=\frac{\pi }{C_F}\left(1\sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}\right)0.43.$$
(2)
This different behaviour can be shown to correspond to the breaking of chiral symmetry. In order to see this we define a ‘perturbative’ mass $`m_P=M(\lambda ^2)`$ at some large scale $`\lambda `$ where perturbation theory holds. The perturbative mass is, roughly speaking, similar to the current mass of the quark. Let us further define the ‘renormalized’ mass $`m_R=M(0)`$ as the low–momentum limit of the dynamical mass function. If the coupling $`\alpha _s`$ remains subcritical the relation between $`m_P`$ and $`m_R`$ is monotonic, and $`m_R`$ vanishes for vanishing $`m_P`$. If the coupling becomes larger than $`\alpha _c`$ this picture is drastically changed, and the resulting relation between $`m_P`$ and $`m_R`$ is shown in fig. 1.

We see that the renormalized mass remains finite even for vanishing perturbative mass, and chiral symmetry is thus broken.

The breaking of chiral symmetry has been discussed in the context of supercritical charges also in , and similar values for the critical coupling have been obtained from different approximations to the Dyson–Schwinger equations, see . A unique feature of the approach outlined above is that eq. (1) is a differential equation which makes it technically very simple to study its solutions in the whole complex momentum plane.

## 5 Outlook

It turns out that the analytic structure of the Green function obtained from eq. (1) exhibits poles and cuts at positive $`q^2`$ and does therefore not correspond to confined quarks . This was expected  since this equation does not take into account the effects of pions which arise as Goldstone bosons. The special rôle of pions in the scenario of supercritical charges suggests that they be included as elementary degrees of freedom and that eq. (1) be modified accordingly . There are indications that the modified equation does in fact lead to a confining Green function, but a full analysis still remains to be done.


text:
# A Global Photometric Analysis of 2MASS Calibration Data

## 1 Introduction

The Two Micron All Sky Survey (2MASS) maps the entire sky in three near-infrared (NIR) bands, $`J`$ ($`1.25\mu `$m), $`H`$ ($`1.65\mu `$m), and $`K_s`$111The $`K_s`$ band (pronounced ‘K-short’) is described in e.g., Persson et al. (1998). ($`2.16\mu `$m). The survey operates in both hemispheres, with the Northern facility at Mt. Hopkins, AZ and the Southern site at Cerro Tololo, Chile. Both sites acquire data with nearly identical $`1.3`$ m cassegrain equatorial telescopes optimized for efficient sky coverage. Each telescope is equipped with three NICMOS3 arrays capable of simultaneous observations in three NIR bands. The Northern 2MASS facility began routine survey observations in June 1997, while the Southern facility started in March 1998.

Nightly photometric calibration for 2MASS is derived using repeated observations of $`1^{}\times 8.5^{}`$ calibration “fields” (see Table 1). Each hour, one of 40 calibration fields is scanned six times in the normal survey mode, providing six independent measurements of the standard stars in each field. The 2MASS calibration fields were selected initially to contain at least one “primary” calibration star drawn from the list of faint infrared standards published by Persson et al. (1998) and Casali & Hawarden (1992). One of the fields, 92049, does not contain an a priori standard star, but was selected to fill a gap in the right ascension coverage of the fields. Photometry for the calibration stars in this field was developed using the techniques described in §3.1 of this work. Table 1 contains a listing of the 2MASS calibration fields and the a priori catalog magnitudes for the primary calibration stars in each. The fields centers listed are the coordinates of the primary calibration stars. The analysis described in this paper uses 2MASS pipeline source extractions and photometry from repeated observations of 35 of the calibration fields.

The paper has three major parts: §2, which introduces the global photometric calibration method and compares it to nightly calibration; §3, which presents the results of major applications of the procedure to 2MASS data; and §4, which restates and summarizes the main results of the analysis. The major applications of GPC are: (i) establishment of secondary standards (§3.1), (ii) study of atmospheric extinction in near-infrared (§3.2), and (iii) analysis of global consistency (§3.3). Technical aspects of the method are given in Appendix A.

## 2 Global Photometric Calibration (GPC)

The purpose of nightly photometric calibration is to transfer instrumental magnitudes, $`m_{inst}`$, onto a uniform photometric system $`m_{cal}`$:

$$m_{cal}=m_{inst}+C_1C_2(X1),$$
(1)
where $`C_1`$ is the photometric zero point, $`C_2`$ is the atmospheric extinction correction, and $`X`$ is the airmass. Figure 1 plots a typical night of calibration data, showing both the data points (photometry of primary standards) and the nightly calibration solution $`C_1`$ (straight line). Each cluster of points in the nightly calibration plot is derived from one set of calibration observations. Each cluster consists of six data points which plot the zeropoint offset (i.e., $`m_{cal}m_{inst}+C_2(X1)`$) derived for each of the six apparitions of the primary calibration star. Because the Survey’s 2.0′′ camera pixels are larger than the typical $``$1′′ seeing disk, pixelization flux errors dominate the scatter of the bright primary standard observations and limit the rms uncertainty for multiple apparitions of bright stars in 2MASS observations to $`0.020.03`$ magnitude – underscoring the advantage of using several flux calibrators in each field to minimize the zeropoint uncertainty of a single calibration observation.

Experience has shown that the nightly photometric zero point $`C_1`$ is usually either a constant, or a linear function of time, $`C_1(t)=A+Bt`$. Equation (1) is written for a set of primary calibrators with known $`m_{cal}`$ (Table 1), independently for each NIR band. Solving the calibration equation (1) by a standard least squares algorithm produces a nightly photometric calibration solution, i.e. $`C_1`$ and $`C_2`$.

The main difference between nightly and global calibration procedures is in the scope of the data upon which the solution is based: the former derives the calibration parameters $`C_1`$ and $`C_2`$ from a single night of data, while the latter uses all survey nights. The calibration equation (1) is the same in both cases, but for GPC it can be rewritten to underscore its global nature:

$$m_{ijkn}^{inst}=m_{ik}^{cal}+a_n+b_n\mathrm{\Delta }t_{jn}+A(X_{jn}1),$$
(2)
where $`m_{ijkn}^{inst}`$ is the instrumental magnitude of the $`i^{th}`$ star in the $`k^{th}`$ calibration field, observed at time moment $`t_j`$ during the $`n^{th}`$ survey night, $`m_{ik}^{cal}`$ is the true photometric magnitude of the star, $`a_n`$ and $`b_n`$ are nightly photometric constants (one pair for each night), and $`\mathrm{\Delta }t_{jn}`$ is the time offset between time $`t_j`$ and midnight. The atmospheric extinction coefficient is now denoted by $`A`$. Equation (2) implicitly assumes that atmospheric extinction is constant. Seasonal variations in extinction coefficients (see §3.2) are thereby smoothed and represented by their average values. The equation is applied to each photometric band separately and produces one solution for each band. Note that the global procedure does not rely on a priori knowledge of $`m_{cal}`$: the procedure can solve for these magnitudes as well. However, in that case the calibrated magnitudes will be determined to within an arbitrary constant offset.

The global calibration procedure (2) provides a better photometric solution than nightly calibration, since it minimizes residuals globally. The benefit of global calibration is conveyed by Figure 2: each night’s photometry is calibrated through nightly parameters $`a`$ and $`b`$, tying fields observed that night to each other, and different nights are tied together by global parameters $`m^{cal}`$ and $`A`$. For comparison, Figure 3 shows the actual survey sky coverage of calibration fields as a function of time.

In practice, the set of equations (2) is written for a group of primary standards and so-called ‘tracer’ stars, selected among relatively bright field stars. The same number of tracers $`\mu `$ is used in each calibration field. In principle, any number of tracers can be used to derive the global calibration solution. However, the large data sets associated with the problem prohibit using more than a few tracers per calibration field. The set of equations is solved by a standard linear least squares algorithm (see Appendix A), producing a set of photometric nightly constants $`a_n`$, $`b_n`$ for all survey nights, values of atmospheric extinction $`A`$, and calibrated magnitudes $`m^{cal}`$ for primary standards and tracer stars. Once photometry is established for the primary and tracer stars in the field, it can be directly applied to any of the other stars in the field.

## 3 Applications of GPC

This section lists several applications of the global photometric calibration: establishment of secondary standards, study of atmospheric extinction and demonstration of temporal and spatial consistency. The discussion in this section is based on a global calibration solutions for Northern data taken from May 1997 to May 1999, and Southern data from March 1998 to February 1999. Calibration solutions for North and South are calculated separately and compared through common calibration fields. The global solution was obtained in two steps. First, we obtained a preliminary calibration solution based on the entire set of nights. This preliminary solution was used to create nightly calibration plots similar to the one shown in Figure 1. The nightly plots were examined and the few with maximal deviations $`>0.05`$ mag from the linear behavior were removed from the data set. We then reran the procedure on the new ‘clean’ data to obtain the final calibration solution. Northern data consisted of a total of 14,833 calibration scans of 26 fields taken on 298 nights. Solving equation (2) by a linear least squares algorithm amounts to inverting a sparse $`37758\times 675`$ matrix. The dimensions of the matrix, $`N\times M`$, are the total number of observations $`N`$ and the number of free parameters, $`M=k(\mu +1)+2n+1`$, where $`k`$ is the number of calibration fields, $`\mu `$ is the number of tracer stars in each field, and $`n`$ is the number of survey nights. In the Southern data, there are 227 observing nights for 26 fields (11945 total calibration scans) and the solution is found by inverting a smaller, $`33407\times 533`$ matrix. Both hemispheric solutions are obtained based on the photometry of fiducial tracers and two tracer stars in each calibration field (i.e., $`\mu =2`$). In solving equation (2), we look for an unconstrained solution (i.e. calibrated magnitudes of primary standards are free parameters; see §A), to ensure no bias enters from the known magnitudes of primary standards. Because the solution is unconstrained, the GPC calibrated magnitude system will have an arbitrary constant offset in each band. The offset for each band is found from averaging the difference between GPC solution and a priori catalog magnitudes of the fiducial standards in Table 1. The GPC system magnitudes for the primary standards in each field are given in Table 3.

### 3.1 Secondary Standards

To establish candidate secondary standards in the calibration fields, we apply the GPC solution to additional field stars. In order to exclude variable stars, secondary standard candidates must have a low rms uncertainty,

$$\sigma =\sqrt{\frac{1}{N}\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}(m_i\overline{m})^2},$$
(3)
where $`N`$ is the number of individual observations (scans) of a source. To ensure the statistical significance, we keep only the candidates with $`N>100`$. Figure 4 shows the pooled rms plots for all solutions. Each point in the plot represents a single star. Dashed lines, which indicate the adopted thresholds for rms error $`\sigma `$, were obtained by fitting a fourth-order polynomial222A third-order polynomial was used in $`K_s`$ band $`f(m)`$ to the data and adjusting its intercept point so that the number of points below the curve is $`66\%`$ ($`1\sigma `$) of the total. Toward fainter magnitudes $`f(m)`$ rises sharply, so we modify our $`\sigma `$-threshold to pick sources with

$$\sigma <\mathrm{min}\{f(m),0.05\}.$$

The above selection criteria produce a sample of low-variance stars, which are good candidates for secondary standards. The high-variance sources that fail our $`\sigma `$-criterion are often variable stars, which can be reliably identified by examining their light curves.

After applying the GPC solution to each hemisphere, we obtain two lists of candidate secondaries, one for each hemisphere. The magnitudes of stars in equatorial fields observed from both hemispheres are merged using variance weighted average:

$$m=\frac{\left(\frac{m_N}{\sigma _N^2}+\frac{m_S}{\sigma _S^2}\right)}{\left(\frac{1}{\sigma _N^2}+\frac{1}{\sigma _S^2}\right)},$$
(4)
where $`m_N`$ and $`m_S`$ are average magnitudes for the star in the Northern and Southern solutions, and $`\sigma _N`$, $`\sigma _S`$ are respective root variances. The list of 2177 candidate secondary standards for all calibration fields is given in Table 3 in Appendix B. This list is used by the 2MASS Project to select a subset of unconfused point sources for actual calibration of 2MASS data.

### 3.2 Atmospheric Extinction Coefficients

The GPC solution provides an estimate of the atmospheric extinction in all three bands. The atmospheric extinction in the near-infrared is caused primarily by molecular bands of H2O (Hall & Genet 1982, Mountain et al. 1985) and, to a lesser extent, by CO2 (Manduca & Bell 1979). In equation (2) extinction enters through the coefficient $`A`$, which represents the average value of the atmospheric extinction over the period sampled (one number for each band). To decouple the

atmospheric extinction parameters from photometric zero points (sensitivities), the observations during each night span a range of air masses ($`X`$). A more detailed model for atmospheric extinction, for example involving a periodic function to mimic seasonal variations, could also be considered in equation (2). However, any extinction model can be devised and applied a posteriori, once we compute the residuals between the regressed data and the observations, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m=m_{cal}m_{inst}`$. One such model is presented in §3.3.

The atmospheric extinction coefficients for North and South produced by GPC are given in Table 2, which also lists CTIO values from Frogel (1995). The uncertainties in extinction coefficients are random errors, obtained by inversion of the Hessian matrix.

The values listed in the table are consistent at the $`2\sigma `$ level. Figure 5 shows the residuals $`m_{inst}m_{cal}ab\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ as a function of airmass. The slopes of the linear regression lines are the mean extinction coefficients.

Given the time baseline of 2MASS and the homogeneity and accuracy of 2MASS photometric data, we have a great opportunity for studying atmospheric extinction in the near-infrared over the period of more than a year. Figure 6 shows the seasonal variations in atmospheric extinction. The monthly averages were derived by, first, calculating the residuals without the extinction term for each month separately, and then, by fitting a straight line to the distribution of residuals as a function of the airmass.

While some scatter is present in Figure 6, the overall behavior of monthly extinction averages is in agreement with expectations. The water vapor content in the atmosphere peaks during Northern spring and summer, which leads to higher atmospheric extinction in the North during that season. The amplitude of the seasonal changes is about $`0.02`$ magnitudes/airmass.

### 3.3 Global Consistency

The global consistency of the solution can be assessed from the analysis of residuals as a function of spatial coordinate (spatial uniformity) or time (temporal uniformity). In this section, we present the results of two such analyses. First, we examine the uniformity of the standards between the hemispheres, from looking at residuals $`\mathrm{\Delta }m=m_{North}m_{South}`$ for common calibration fields. Then, we test spatial and temporal uniformity by comparing the calibrated magnitudes of primary standards (derived from GPC) with literature photometry.

#### 3.3.1 North vs. South Uniformity

The linearity of the GPC solution is demonstrated in Figure 7, which shows the difference between catalog and GPC magnitudes for primary standards as a function of the catalog magnitude.

The figure shows that the absolute value of the difference for most primaries is less than 0.02 magnitude, i.e. consistent with zero. The absence of any trends in these data demonstrates the linearity of the GPC solution. Note that the results of such comparison are limited by the accuracy of input catalog since the errors in the fiducial magnitudes of primary standards are propagated unchanged. In fact, the good agreement demonstrates the high accuracy of the input catalog.

The comparison of the photometry between the hemispheres is carried out in equatorial fields (see Table 1). Data from each hemisphere were calibrated separately by unconstrained GPC. The solutions (nightly photometric constants $`a`$ and $`b`$, and extinction parameter $`A`$) were applied to the 100 brightest stars in each calibration field. Figure 8 shows the difference between calibrated magnitudes of common stars as the function of coordinate. Except for a few outliers, the largest excursions for individual secondary standards (crosses) are bounded by $`\mathrm{\Delta }m<0.04`$, while the largest excursions for the primary standards (squares) are less than $`0.02`$ mag. The mean differences for the photometry of common standards (squares in Figure 8) are $`0.002\pm 0.007`$ ($`J`$), $`0.002\pm 0.007`$ ($`H`$), and $`0.001\pm 0.008`$ ($`K_s`$). The plot of North-South photometric offset vs. declination displays a slight trend of unknown origin. The slopes of the corresponding regression lines in $`J`$, $`H`$, and $`K_s`$ are $`(4.9\pm 0.9)\times 10^4`$ mag/deg, $`(7.5\pm 0.9)\times 10^4`$ mag/deg, and $`(3.9\pm 0.6)\times 10^4`$ mag/deg, respectively. The same regression analysis using primary standards only gives slopes consistent with zero at the $`2\sigma `$ level: the corresponding slopes are $`(4.9\pm 2.8)\times 10^4`$ in $`J`$, $`(5.2\pm 2.8)\times 10^4`$ in $`H`$, and $`(0.4\pm 3.5)\times 10^4`$ in $`K_s`$.

Figure 9 shows the same residuals as in Figure 8, except as a function of magnitude in the North. The slopes of the regression lines in all three bands are consistent with zero.

#### 3.3.2 Temporal Stability

To analyze the temporal stability, we consider the difference between calibrated and fiducial magnitudes of primary standards as a function of time. Specifically, we calculate the difference ‘calibrated-fiducial’ for all primary standards observed on a given night and plot the average difference. Figure 10 shows the corresponding differences in all three bands for Northern and Southern hemispheres.

The figure, which essentially indicates the long-term stability of the global calibration, shows a very small temporal variation in the photometry of the primary standards. The amplitude of the variations is less than $`1\%`$.

## 4 Summary

* We have presented a global photometric calibration procedure and applied it to more than a year of 2MASS calibration data. Exploiting the fact that the observed nightly zeropoint drift is linear, one can simultaneously calibrate the photometry of fiducial standards and any number of tracer stars. The solution is found by using a standard least squares algorithm and is globally optimized, in the sense that it is best solution for all survey fields and nights. The solution does not presume a priori knowledge of the magnitudes for any of the stars, but instead produces the optimal set of relative magnitudes. A constant offset is determined by averaging the differences between the calibrated and catalog magnitudes for the primary standards.
* The photometry of the primary and two tracer stars per field is transferred to the 100 brightest non-variable stars in each field. With a $`\sigma `$-threshold, we select a low-dispersion sample of 2177 candidate secondary standards to accompany the set of primary 2MASS standards. The selected secondaries fall in the magnitude range $`9.0<J<14.5`$, $`9.0<H<13.9`$, $`9.0<K_s<13.7`$.
* Using the global solution, we derive the atmospheric extinction. The global averages are $`A_J/A_H/A_{K_s}=0.096/0.026/0.066`$ (North), and $`A_J/A_H/A_{K_s}=0.092/0.031/0.065`$ (South). The averages are consistent with previous work at the $`2\sigma `$ level.
* Seasonal variations in the atmospheric extinction are analyzed. The amplitude of the variations is approximately $`0.02`$ mag/airmass and is consistent with the behavior expected from variations of the water vapor content in the atmosphere.

## Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the IPAC staff for preparing the tapes with calibration data and for their assistance with the study. SN and MDW acknowledge funding through a NASA/JPL grant to 2MASS Core Project science. RMC, SLW and JEG acknowledge support from the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, which is operated under contract from NASA by the California Institute of Technology. This publication makes use of data products from the Two Micron All Sky Survey, which is a joint project of the University of Massachusetts and the Infrared Processing and Analysis Center, funded by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the National Science Foundation.

## Appendix A Least Squares

The set of equations (2) represents a linear least squares (LLS) problem. The general LLS problem is well-documented in the literature (e.g., Lawson & Hanson 1973, Greenbaum 1986) and has many professional codes available for its solution. Written in the matrix form, the mathematical model for the GPC is

$$\mathrm{\Phi }𝐱=𝐛,$$
(A1)
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is the design matrix, $`𝐱`$ is the parameter vector and $`𝐛`$ is the vector of observed (instrumental) magnitudes. The parameter vector $`𝐱`$ consists of the magnitudes of the fiducial standards in each field, followed by the magnitudes of the tracer stars for each field, followed by the photometric nightly constants $`a`$, $`b`$ for each night and the atmospheric extinction coefficient $`A`$:

$$𝐱^T=(m_1^{std},\mathrm{},m_k^{std},m_{11}^0,\mathrm{},m_{\mu 1}^0,\mathrm{},m_{1k}^0,\mathrm{},m_{\mu k}^0,a_1,\mathrm{},a_n,b_1,\mathrm{},b_n,A),$$
(A2)
where $`k`$ denotes the total number of calibration fields and $`n`$ denotes the total number of observation nights. The number of tracers in the field is $`\mu `$ (the same number of tracers in each field is used). The design matrix $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ has the following structure:

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=\left(\begin{array}{ccccc}\stackrel{k\mathrm{standards}}{\stackrel{}{1,0,\mathrm{},0}}& \stackrel{\mu \times k\mathrm{tracers}}{\stackrel{}{0,0,\mathrm{},0}}& \stackrel{n\mathrm{nights}}{\stackrel{}{1,0,\mathrm{},0}}& \stackrel{n\mathrm{nights}}{\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Delta }t_{jn},0,\mathrm{},0}}& X_{jn}1\\ 0,1,\mathrm{},0& 0,0,\mathrm{},0& 1,0,\mathrm{},0& \mathrm{\Delta }t_{jn},0,\mathrm{},0& X_{jn}1\\ 0,1,\mathrm{},0& 0,0,\mathrm{},0& 0,1,\mathrm{},0& 0,\mathrm{\Delta }t_{jn},\mathrm{},0& X_{jn}1\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ 0,0,\mathrm{},0& 1,0,\mathrm{},0& 1,0,\mathrm{},0& \mathrm{\Delta }t_{jn},0,\mathrm{},0& X_{jn}1\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}.\end{array}\right)$$

The tracer stars are grouped by the fields, i.e. after the fiducial standards, there are $`n`$ tracers from the first field, then there are $`n`$ tracers from the second field, and so on. There is a single unity in the first $`k(\mu +1)`$ columns of each row of the design matrix, representing the observation of either the fiducial standard or a tracer star. The subscript $`j`$ denotes the time offset from the midnight on the night $`n`$. The dimensions of the matrix are $`N\times M`$, where $`N`$ is the total number of observations of all fiducial standards and tracers, and $`M=k(\mu +1)+2n+1`$ is the number of free parameters.

### A.1 Constrained Scheme

The least squares solution of the equations (2) is globally optimal (i.e., it minimizes rms), but, generally speaking, has an arbitrary offset from the true magnitude:

$$\left(m_{ik}^{\lambda ,0}\right)_{true}=\left(m_{ik}^{\lambda ,0}\right)_{sol}+K_{ik}.$$
(A3)
To produce the optimal solution without the arbitrary additive constant $`K_{ik}`$ one has to set the magnitudes of the fiducial standards as fixed points of the GPC. This results into GPC with constraints, where the constraint equations are:

$$m_{ijkn}^{std}=m_{ik}^{std,0}$$
(A4)
(the superscript $`std`$ denotes the fiducial standards in the fields). In the matrix form, the calibration problem with constraints is written as

$`\mathrm{\Phi }𝐱=𝐛,`$
$`C𝐱=𝐝.`$
For this particular problem, the constraint equations (A4) result in the identity constraint matrix $`C`$, and the LLS problem with constraints is straightforward to solve using, e.g., orthogonal basis for the null space of the constraint matrix (Lawson & Hanson 1973, Ch. 20). The GPC with fixed points derives the globally optimal solution which is the closest to the listed magnitudes of the fiducial standards.

## Appendix B Secondary Standards

Below, we present a sample table of 2MASS secondary standards, which includes the primary and some of the secondaries for the field 90021. The primary standard is the first star listed in each field in Table 3. Columns in the table are $`\alpha _{J2000}`$, $`\delta _{J2000}`$ coordinates of the stars, the globally calibrated $`JHK_s`$ magnitudes with the corresponding uncertainties, and the number of observations (i.e. individual scans) in each band. The positions of the secondaries are accurate with respect to the ICRS to $`<0.5^{\prime \prime }`$ rms. Finding charts for the secondaries can be obtained by using 2MASS Visualizer tool at http://irsatest.ipac.caltech.edu:8001/applications/2MASS/ReleaseVis/333Finding charts are available only for calibration fields which are covered by the Second Incremental Data Release. The full table of candidate secondary standards in all calibration fields is available from FTP archives at ftp://nova.astro.umass.edu/pub/nikolaev/, or at ftp://anon-ftp.ipac.caltech.edu/pub/2mass/globalcal/.


text:
# Stellar Populations, Bars and Secular Evolution in Late–Type Galaxies

## 1. Color Gradients in Late–Type Barred Galaxies

We estimated $`(BV)`$ and $`(UB)`$ color gradients, as well as total and bulge mean colors, for each galaxy of a sample of 257 barred and unbarred Sbc systems, using the catalog of Longo & A. de Vaucouleurs (1983,1985), which presents photoelectric aperture photometry data. The gradients were calculated through robust statistical methods, which consist essentially in applying the Least Median of Squares regression (Rousseeuw 1984). Moreover, we have done a comparative photometric study through CCD images to atest the validity of the results obtained.

Our results, considering only face–on galaxies, indicate that $``$ 59% of late–type galaxies have negative color gradients, $``$ 27% have no gradients, and $``$ 14% have positive gradients. Furthermore, there is an excess of barred galaxies among systems with zero or positive color gradients (Table 1). Thus, it seems that bars act as a mechanism of homogenization of the stellar population along late–type galaxies, a result which puts in trouble the monolithic scenario of Eggen, Lynden–Bell, & Sandage (1962).

## 2. Blue Bulges

We found a correlation between total and bulge colors, which is a consequence of an underlying correlation between the colors of bulges and disks found by other authors (Peletier & Balcells 1996). Moreover, one can see in Table 1 that the mean total color is approximately the same irrespective of the gradient regime, while bulges are systematically bluer in galaxies with null or positive gradients. These results seem to indicate that bars act changing the color of bulges due to secular dynamical processes (see, e.g., Friedli & Martinet 1993), turning these bulges bluer, while disks are getting redder as a consequence of passive evolution. These effects are expected in the secular evolutionary scenario, but they are not consistent with the monolithic and hierarchical scenarios (e.g., Kauffmann, Guiderdoni, & White 1994) for spiral galaxy formation.

## 3. Further Results

We also found no correlation between color and chemical abundance gradients, suggesting that the color gradients are more sensitive to the age rather than to the metallicity of the stellar population. Further results and details will appear in a forthcoming paper (Gadotti & dos Anjos, in preparation).

### Acknowledgments.

We acknowledge the Conselho Nacional de Pesquisa e Desenvolvimento (CNPq), the NExGal – ProNEx, the Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP; grant 99/07492-7), and NSF grant AST-9900789 for the financial support.

## References

Eggen, O.J., Lynden–Bell, D., & Sandage, A.R. 1962, ApJ, 136, 748

Friedli, D., & Martinet, L. 1993, A&A, 277, 27

Kauffmann, G., Guiderdoni, B., & White, S.D.M. 1994, MNRAS, 267, 981

Longo, G., & de Vaucouleurs, A. 1983, Univ. Texas Mon. in Astronomy, No.3

Longo, G., & de Vaucouleurs, A. 1985, Univ. Texas Mon. in Astronomy, No.3A

Peletier, R.F., & Balcells, M. 1996, AJ, 111, 2238

Rousseeuw, P.J. 1984, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 79, 871