text:
# CONSTRUCTING THE FERMION-BOSON VERTEX IN QED3

## I Introduction

Quantum Electrodynamics in 3-dimensions (QED3) is an attractive model to study the intricacies of Schwinger-Dyson Equations (SDEs). Due to its simplicity as compared to Quantum Electrodynamics in 4-dimensions (QED4) and Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD), the corresponding study of dynamical symmetry breaking is relatively neater in QED3. There exist numerous works both in the quenched and the unquenched approximation in this connection, e.g., -. An excellent review can be found in . As is well known, the knowledge of the 3-point vertex is crucial in such studies. In this respect, perturbation theory is a powerful point of reference as it is natural to believe that physically meaningful solutions of the Schwinger-Dyson equations must agree with perturbative results in the weak coupling regime. This realization has been exploited in  to derive constraints on the fermion propagator and the three-point vertex in massless QED3. In this paper, we extend this work to the more general massive case, based on .

The Ward-Takahashi Identity (WTI) relates the 3-point vertex to the fermion propagator. Using this relation, a part of the vertex, called longitudinal, can be expressed in terms of the fermion propagator . We evaluate this propagator to one-loop and hence determine the longitudinal vertex to the same order. We also calculate the complete vertex to one-loop and a mere subtraction of the longitudinal part yields the transverse part, the one which is not fixed by the WTI. According to the choice of Ball and Chiu, which was later modified by Kızılersü et. al. , the transverse vertex can be expressed in terms of 8 independent spin structures. The vertex should be free of any kinematic singularities. Ball and Chiu chose the basis in such a way that the coefficient of each of the basis is independently free of kinematic singularities in the Feynman gauge. It was later shown by Kızılersü et. al.  that a calculation similar to that of Ball and Chiu in an arbitrary covariant gauge does not have the same nice feature. Therefore, they proposed a modified basis whose coefficients are free of kinematic singularities in an arbitrary covariant gauge. The calculation in the present paper confirms that all the vectors of the modified basis also retain this feature for massive QED3. The final result for the transverse vertex is written in terms of basic functions of the momenta in a form suitable for its extension to the non-perturbative domain, following the ideas of Curtis and Pennington .

Using perturbative constraints as a guide, we carry out a construction of the non-perturbative vertex, which has no explicit dependence on the coupling $`\alpha `$. This vertex has an explicit dependence on the gauge parameter $`\xi `$. We demonstrate in the massless case that a vertex cannot be constructed without an explicit dependence on $`\xi `$. For practical purposes of the numerical study of dynamical chiral symmetry breaking, we also construct an effective vertex which shifts the angular dependence from the unknown fermion propagator functions to the known basic functions, without changing its perturbative properties at the one-loop level. We believe that this vertex should lead to a more realistic study of the dynamically generated masses through the corresponding SDEs.

## II Longitudinal and Transverse Vertex to One-Loop

### A The Fermion Propagator

One-loop fermion propagator can be obtained by evaluating the graph in Fig. 1. This graph corresponds to the following equation :

$`iS_F^1(p)`$ $`=`$ $`iS_{F}^{0}{}_{}{}^{1}(p)+e^2{\displaystyle \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi )^3}\gamma ^\mu S_F^0(k)\gamma ^\nu \mathrm{\Delta }_{\mu \nu }^0(q)},`$ (1)
where $`q=kp`$ and $`e`$ is the QED coupling constant. The bare fermion and photon propagators are, respectively :

$`S_F^0(p)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\overline{)}pm}},`$ (2)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mu \nu }^0(q)`$ $`=`$ $`\left[q^2g_{\mu \nu }+(\xi 1)q_\mu q_\nu \right]/q^4,`$ (3)
where $`m`$ is the bare mass of the fermion and $`\xi `$ is the covariant gauge parameter. We define the full fermion propagator $`S_F(p)`$ in the most general form as :

$`S_F(p)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{F(p^2)}{\overline{)}p(p^2)}}.`$ (4)
Taking the trace of Eq. (1), having multiplied it with $`\overline{)}p`$ and with $`1`$ respectively, one can obtain two independent equations. On simplifying, these equations can be written as :

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{F(p^2)}}`$ $`=`$ $`1+i4\pi \alpha \xi {\displaystyle \frac{1}{p^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi )^3}\frac{1}{q^4(k^2m^2)}\left[(k^2+p^2)kp2k^2p^2\right]},`$ (5)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{(p^2)}{F(p^2)}}`$ $`=`$ $`mi4\pi \alpha (\xi +2){\displaystyle \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi )^3}\frac{m}{q^2(k^2m^2)}},`$ (7)
where $`\alpha =e^2/4\pi `$. On Wick rotating to the Euclidean space and carrying out angular and radial integrations, we arrive at :

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{F(p^2)}}`$ $`=`$ $`1{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha \xi }{2p^2}}\left[m(m^2+p^2)I(p^2)\right],`$ (8)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{(p^2)}{F(p^2)}}`$ $`=`$ $`m\left[1+\alpha (\xi +2)I(p^2)\right],`$ (10)
where we have used the simplifying notation $`I(p^2)=(1/\sqrt{p^2})\mathrm{arctan}\sqrt{p^2/m^2}`$. Equations (4) and (10) form the complete fermion propagator at one loop.

### B Longitudinal Vertex to One Loop

The full vertex satisfies WTI

$`q_\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu (k,p)=S_F^1(k)S_F^1(p).`$ (11)
This relation allows us to decompose the full vertex into longitudinal $`(\mathrm{\Gamma }_L^\mu (k,p))`$ and transverse $`(\mathrm{\Gamma }_T^\mu (k,p))`$ parts :

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu (k,p)=\mathrm{\Gamma }_L^\mu (k,p)+\mathrm{\Gamma }_T^\mu (k,p),`$ (12)
where the transverse part satisfies

$`q_\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }_T^\mu (k,p)=0\text{and}\mathrm{\Gamma }_T^\mu (p,p)=0`$ (13)
and hence remains undetermined by WTI. Following the work of Ball and Chiu, we can define the longitudinal component of the vertex in terms of the fermion propagator as

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_L^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma ^\mu }{2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{F(k^2)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{F(p^2)}}\right]+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{(\overline{)}k+\overline{)}p)(k+p)^\mu }{(k^2p^2)}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{F(k^2)}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{F(p^2)}}\right]+{\displaystyle \frac{(k+p)^\mu }{(k^2p^2)}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{(k^2)}{F(k^2)}}{\displaystyle \frac{(p^2)}{F(p^2)}}\right].`$ (14)
On substituting Eq. (10) into the above expression, we obtain

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_L^\mu =\left[1+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha \xi }{4}}\sigma _1\right]\gamma ^\mu +{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha \xi }{4}}\sigma _2\left[k^\mu \overline{)}k+p^\mu \overline{)}p+k^\mu \overline{)}p+p^\mu \overline{)}k\right]+\alpha (\xi +2)\sigma _3\left[k^\mu +p^\mu \right],`$ (15)
where

$`\sigma _1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m^2+k^2}{k^2}}I(k^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{m^2+p^2}{p^2}}I(p^2)m{\displaystyle \frac{k^2+p^2}{k^2p^2}},`$ (16)
$`\sigma _2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{k^2p^2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{m^2+k^2}{k^2}}I(k^2){\displaystyle \frac{m^2+p^2}{p^2}}I(p^2)+m{\displaystyle \frac{k^2p^2}{k^2p^2}}\right],`$ (18)
$`\sigma _3`$ $`=`$ $`m\left[I(k^2)I(p^2)\right].`$ (20)
Eqs. (15) and (20) give the longitudinal part of the fermion-photon vertex to one loop for the massive QED3.

### C Transverse Vertex to One-Loop

The vertex of Fig. 2 can be expressed as

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu (k,p)=\gamma ^\mu +\mathrm{\Lambda }^\mu .`$ (21)
Using the Feynman rules, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^\mu `$ to $`O(\alpha )`$ is simply given by :

$`ie\mathrm{\Lambda }^\mu ={\displaystyle _M}{\displaystyle \frac{d^3w}{(2\pi )^3}}(ie\gamma ^\alpha )\mathrm{𝑖𝑆}_F^0(pw)(ie\gamma ^\mu )\mathrm{𝑖𝑆}_F^0(kw)(ie\gamma ^\beta )i\mathrm{\Delta }_{\alpha \beta }^0(w),`$ (22)
where the loop integral is to be performed in Minkowski space. $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^\mu `$ can be expressed as :

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i\alpha }{2\pi ^2}}\{[\gamma ^\alpha \overline{)}p\gamma ^\mu \overline{)}k\gamma _\alpha +m(4k^\mu +4p^\mu \overline{)}p\gamma ^\mu \gamma ^\mu \overline{)}k)m^2\gamma ^\mu ]J^{(0)}`$ (26)
$`\left[\gamma ^\alpha \overline{)}p\gamma ^\mu \gamma ^\nu \gamma _\alpha +\gamma ^\alpha \gamma ^\nu \gamma ^\mu \overline{)}k\gamma _\alpha +6mg^{\mu \nu }\right]J_\nu ^{(1)}+\gamma ^\alpha \gamma ^\nu \gamma ^\mu \gamma ^\lambda \gamma _\alpha J_{\nu \lambda }^{(2)}`$
$`+(\xi 1)[\gamma ^\mu K^{(0)}[\gamma ^\nu \overline{)}p\gamma ^\mu +\gamma ^\mu \overline{)}k\gamma ^\nu +2mg^{\mu \nu }]J_\nu ^{(1)}`$
$`+[\gamma ^\nu \overline{)}p\gamma ^\mu \overline{)}k\gamma ^\lambda +m(\gamma ^\nu \overline{)}p\gamma ^\mu \gamma ^\lambda +\gamma ^\nu \gamma ^\mu \overline{)}k\gamma ^\lambda )+m^2\gamma ^\nu \gamma ^\mu \gamma ^\lambda ]I_{\nu \lambda }^{(2)}]\},`$
where the integrals $`K^{(0)}`$, $`J^{(0)}`$, $`J_\mu ^{(1)}`$, $`J_{\mu \nu }^{(2)}`$, $`I^{(0)}`$, $`I_\mu ^{(1)}`$ and $`I_{\mu \nu }^{(2)}`$ are :

$`K^{(0)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _M}d^3w{\displaystyle \frac{1}{[(pw)^2m^2][(kw)^2m^2]}}`$ (27)
$`J^{(0)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _M}d^3w{\displaystyle \frac{1}{w^2[(pw)^2m^2][(kw)^2m^2]}}`$ (28)
$`J_\mu ^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _M}d^3w{\displaystyle \frac{w_\mu }{w^2[(pw)^2m^2][(kw)^2m^2]}}`$ (29)
$`J_{\mu \nu }^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _M}d^3w{\displaystyle \frac{w_\mu w_\nu }{w^2[(pw)^2m^2][(kw)^2m^2]}}`$ (30)
$`I^{(0)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _M}d^3w{\displaystyle \frac{1}{w^4[(pw)^2m^2][(kw)^2m^2]}}`$ (31)
$`I_\mu ^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _M}d^3w{\displaystyle \frac{w_\mu }{w^4[(pw)^2m^2][(kw)^2m^2]}}`$ (32)
$`I_{\mu \nu }^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _M}d^3w{\displaystyle \frac{w_\mu w_\nu }{w^4[(pw)^2m^2][(kw)^2m^2]}}.`$ (33)
We evaluate these integrals following the techniques developed in . The results are tabulated in the appendix, employing the notation $`\mathrm{\Delta }^2=(kp)^2k^2p^2`$ and $`X_0=(2/i\pi ^2)X^{(0)}`$ for $`X=I,J,K`$. Having calculated the vertex to $`O(\alpha )`$, Eq. (26), we can subtract from it the longitudinal vertex, Eqs. (15) and (20), and obtain the transverse vertex to $`O(\alpha )`$. Following the scheme provided by Ball and Chiu , and modified later by Kızılersü et. al. , the transverse vertex $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_T^\mu (k,p)`$ can be written in terms of 8 basis vectors as follows :

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_T^\mu (k,p)={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{8}{}}}\tau _i(k^2,p^2,q^2)T_i^\mu (k,p),`$ (34)
where

$`T_1^\mu `$ $`=\left[p^\mu (kq)k^\mu (pq)\right]`$ (35)
$`T_2^\mu `$ $`=\left[p^\mu (kq)k^\mu (pq)\right](\overline{)}k+\overline{)}p)`$ (36)
$`T_3^\mu `$ $`=q^2\gamma ^\mu q^\mu \overline{)}q`$ (37)
$`T_4^\mu `$ $`=q^2\left[\gamma ^\mu (\overline{)}k+\overline{)}p)k^\mu p^\mu \right]2(kp)^\mu k^\lambda p^\nu \sigma _{\lambda \nu }`$ (38)
$`T_5^\mu `$ $`=q_\nu \sigma ^{\nu \mu }`$ (39)
$`T_6^\mu `$ $`=\gamma ^\mu (k^2p^2)+(k+p)^\mu \overline{)}q`$ (40)
$`T_7^\mu `$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(k^2p^2)\left[\gamma ^\mu (\overline{)}k+\overline{)}p)k^\mu p^\mu \right]+(k+p)^\mu k^\lambda p^\nu \sigma _{\lambda \nu }`$ (41)
$`T_8^\mu `$ $`=\gamma ^\mu k^\nu p^\lambda \sigma _{\nu \lambda }+k^\mu \overline{)}pp^\mu \overline{)}k,`$ (42)
with $`\sigma _{\mu \nu }`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[\gamma _\mu ,\gamma _\nu ].`$ (43)
After a lengthy but straightforward algebra, the coefficients $`\tau _i`$ can be identified. We prefer to write these out in the following form :

$`\tau _i(k,p)`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha g_i\left[{\displaystyle \underset{j}{\overset{5}{}}}a_{ij}(k,p)I(l_j^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{a_{i6}(k,p)}{k^2p^2}}\right]i=1,2,\mathrm{}8,`$ (44)
where $`l_1^2=\eta _1^2\chi /4`$, $`l_2^2=\eta _2^2\chi /4`$, $`l_3^2=k^2`$, $`l_4^2=p^2`$ and $`l_5^2=q^2/4`$. Functions $`\eta _1`$, $`\eta _2`$ and $`\chi `$ have been defined in the appendix, Eqs. (69). Similarly, the factors $`g_i`$ are $`g_1=m\mathrm{\Delta }^2g_2=2m\mathrm{\Delta }^2g_3=2\mathrm{\Delta }^2g_4=g_5=2m\mathrm{\Delta }^2g_6=\mathrm{\Delta }^2g_7=mg_8=m/4\mathrm{\Delta }^2`$. The coefficients $`a_{ij}(k,p)`$ have also been tabulated in the appendix, Eqs. (160). An important point to note is that these coefficients do not contain any trigonometric function, as it has been extracted out for raising the $`\tau _i`$ to a non-perturbative status. The $`\tau _i`$ have the required symmetry under the exchange of vectors $`k`$ and $`p`$. All the $`\tau _i`$ are symmetric except $`\tau _4`$ and $`\tau _6`$ which are antisymmetric. Note that the form in which we write the transverse vertex makes it clear that each term in all the $`\tau _i`$ is either proportional to $`\alpha I(l^2)`$ or $`\alpha /(k^2p^2)`$. We shall see that this form provides us with a natural scheme to arrive at its simple non-perturbative extension.

A few comments in comparison with the work by Davydychev et. al. , are as follows: (i) None of the $`\tau _i`$ we have calculated has kinematic singularity when $`k^2p^2`$. This clearly suggests that the choice of the $`\tau _i`$ suggested by Kızılersü et. al. is preferred over the one of Ball and Chiu (in QED3 as well) used by Davydychev et. al. . In particular our $`\tau _4`$ and $`\tau _7`$ are independent of kinematic singularities. (ii) In three dimensions, their factorization of the common constant factor in Eq. (E.1) is singular. However, as the divergences completely cancel out, we find our expressions more suitable for writing the transverse vertex in three dimensions. (iii) With the way we express $`J_0`$, all the $`\tau _i`$ are written in terms of basic functions of $`k`$ and $`p`$ and a single trigonometric function of the form $`I(l^2)`$. This form plays a key role to enable us to make an easy transition to the possible non-perturbative structure of the vertex, as explained in the next section. Moreover, with the given form of $`J_0`$, a direct comparison can be made with the massless case.

## III Non-perturbative form of the vertex

### A On the Gauge Parameter Dependence of the Vertex

Let us first look at the $`\tau _i`$ in the simplified massless case, with the notation $`k=\sqrt{k^2}`$, $`p=\sqrt{p^2}`$ and $`q=\sqrt{q^2}`$ ,

$`\tau _2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha \pi }{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{kp(k+p)(k+p+q)^2}}\left[1+(\xi 1){\displaystyle \frac{2k+2p+q}{q}}\right],`$ (45)
$`\tau _3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha \pi }{8}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{kpq(k+p+q)^2}}\left[4kp+3kq+3pq+2q^2+(\xi 1)(2k^2+2p^2+kq+pq)\right],`$ (47)
$`\tau _6`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha \pi (2\xi )}{8}}{\displaystyle \frac{kp}{kp(k+p+q)^2}},`$ (49)
$`\tau _8`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha \pi (2+\xi )}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{kp(k+p+q)}}.`$ (51)
It is interesting to note that the existence of the factor

$`{\displaystyle \frac{kp}{kp}}=\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{k}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{p}}\right)`$
in Eq. (49) puts $`\tau _6`$ on a different footing as compared to the rest of the $`\tau _i`$. The reason is that in the massless limit, the fermion propagator is simply

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{F(p^2)}}`$ $`=`$ $`1+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi \alpha \xi }{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{p}},`$
implying

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{F(k^2)}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{F(p^2)}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{k}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{p}}\right].`$
Therefore, the relation of $`\tau _6`$ with the fermion propagator of the type $`[1/F(k^2)1/F(p^2)]`$ seems to arise rather naturally :

$`\tau _6`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\xi }}{\displaystyle \frac{2\xi }{(k+p+q)^2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{F(k^2)}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{F(p^2)}}\right],`$ (52)
as noticed first by Curtis and Pennington . In the rest of the $`\tau _i`$, the factor $`1/k1/p`$ does not arise. However, one could introduce it by hand to arrive at the following expressions :

$`\tau _2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\xi }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(k^2p^2)(k+p+q)^2}}\left(1+(\xi 1){\displaystyle \frac{2k+2p+q}{q}}\right)\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{F(k^2)}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{F(p^2)}}\right]`$ (53)
$`\tau _3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\xi }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{q(kp)(k+p+q)^2}}\left[4kp+3kq+3pq+2q^2+(\xi 1)(2k^2+2p^2+kq+pq)\right]\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{F(k^2)}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{F(p^2)}}\right]`$ (55)
$`\tau _8`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2(2+\xi )}{\xi }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(kp)(k+p+q)}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{F(k^2)}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{F(p^2)}}\right].`$ (56)
Eqs. (52-56) represent a non-perturbative vertex which is in agreement with its complete one-loop expansion. This vertex has been constructed in accordance with the form advocated, e.g., in . There are a couple of important points which need to be discussed here:

* There is an explicit dependence on the gauge parameter, $`\xi `$. A widespread belief has been that the gauge dependence of the vertex should solely arise through functions $`F(k^2)`$ and $`F(p^2)`$, and there should be no explicit appearance of the gauge parameter $`\xi `$. Such a belief has been expressed (or is reflected) in various works to date, e.g., . Here we show that at least in massless QED3, such a construction is not possible.
* One of the main reasons that the transverse vertex was believed to be proportional to the factor

$`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{F(k^2)}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{F(p^2)}}\right]`$
was the assumption that the transverse vertex vanishes in the Landau gauge. This assumption was based upon the one-loop calculation of the vertex in QED4 in the limit when the momentum in one of the fermion legs is much greater as compared to the momentum in the other fermion leg . A complete one-loop calculation reveals that the transverse vertex does not vanish in the Landau gauge. Moreover, an explicit presence of the gauge parameter in the non-perturbative form of the vertex tells us that the presence of the factor $`[1/F(k^2)1/F(p^2)]`$ is no longer a guarantee that the transverse vertex vanishes in the Landau gauge.

We now show that the explicit dependence of the vertex on the gauge parameter $`\xi `$ is unavoidable in massless QED3. We notice that at the one loop level, each of the $`\tau _i`$ can be written in the following form :

$`\tau _i(k,p,q)`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha \xi a_i(k,p,q)+\alpha b_i(k,p,q).`$
On the other hand, Eq. (10) yields the following form for $`F`$ :

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{F(p^2)}}`$ $`=`$ $`1+\alpha \xi c_i(p).`$
If we want to write the non-perturbative form of the $`\tau _i`$ in terms of $`1/F(p^2)`$ and $`1/F(k^2)`$ alone and we do not expect explicit presence of $`\alpha `$, the only way to get rid of $`\xi `$ dependence is to have

$`b_2T_2^\mu +b_3T_3^\mu +b_6T_6^\mu +b_8T_8^\mu =0.`$
It is not possible as $`T_i^\mu `$ form a linearly independent set of basis vectors. Therefore, any construction of the 3-point vertex will surely have an explicit dependence on the gauge parameter. Owing to these reasons, we realize that to demand the transverse vertex to be proportional to $`[1/F(k^2)1/F(p^2)]`$ is artificial (apart from $`\tau _6`$) and is not required. Therefore, we do not pursue this line of action anymore. In the next section, we move on to construct the vertex for the massive case inspired from our perturbative results.

### B Non-perturbative Vertex

As pointed out in the previous section, each term in all the $`\tau _i`$ is either proportional to the trigonometric function $`\alpha I(l^2)`$ or $`\alpha /(k^2p^2)`$. On the other hand, the perturbative expressions for $`(p^2)`$ and $`F(p^2)`$, Eqs. (10), permit us to write :

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{F(k^2)}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{F(p^2)}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{k^2p^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\xi }{2}}\left[k^2\left\{m(m^2+p^2)I(p^2)\right\}p^2\left\{m(m^2+k^2)I(k^2)\right\}\right]`$ (57)
and

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\xi }{2(2+\xi )l^2I(l^2)}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{(l^2)}{F(l^2)}}m\right]\left[1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{F(l^2)}}\right]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\xi (m^2+l^2)}{2l^2}}\alpha I(l^2).`$ (58)
In the massless limit, Eq. (57) simply reduces to

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{F(k^2)}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{F(p^2)}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha \pi \xi }{4}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{k}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{p}}\right]`$
in the Euclidean space, as expected. It was in fact an analogous massless expression in the limit when $`k>>p`$ that inspired Curtis and Pennington, , to propose their famous vertex in QED4. Here, we are extending the reasoning to all the momentum regimes in the massive QED3. Fortunate simultaneouss occurrence of the factor $`\alpha /(k^2p^2)`$ in all the 8 Eqs. (44) and Eq. (57), and the presence of the same trigonometric factor $`I(l^2)`$ in the expressions for the vertex as well as the propagator, one naturally arrives at the following non-perturbative form of $`\tau _i`$ :

$`\tau _i`$ $`=`$ $`g_i\{{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{5}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2a_{ij}(k,p)l_j^2}{\xi (m^2+l_j^2)}}[{\displaystyle \frac{\xi }{2(\xi +2)l_j^2I(l_j^2)}}({\displaystyle \frac{(l_j^2)}{F(l_j^2)}}m)(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{F(l_j^2)}})]\right)`$ (59)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2a_{i6}(k,p)}{\xi \left[k^2\left\{m(m^2+p^2)I(p^2)\right\}p^2\left\{m(m^2+k^2)I(k^2)\right\}\right]}}[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{F(k^2)}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{F(p^2)}}]\}.`$ (60)
By construction, in the weak coupling regime, this non-perturbative form of the transverse vertex reduces to its corresponding Feynman expansion at the one loop level in an arbitrary covariant gauge and in all momentum regimes. We would like to emphasize that this is not a unique non-perturbative construction. However, it is probably the most natural and the simplest. A two loop calculation similar to the one presented in our paper, and the Landau-Khalatnikov transformation law for the vertex should serve as tests of Eq. (60) or guides for improvement towards the hunt for the exact non-perturbative vertex. On practical side, the use of our perturbation theory motivated vertex in studies addressing important issues such as dynamical mass generation for fundamental fermions should lead to more reliable results, attempting to preserve key features of gauge field theories, e.g., gauge independence of physical observables. A computational difficulty to use the above vertex in such calculations could arise as the unknown functions $`F`$ and $``$ depend on the angle between $`k`$ and $`p`$. This would make it impossible to carry out angular integration analytically in the SDE for the fermion propagator. This problem can be circumvented by defining an effective vertex which shifts the angular dependence from the unknown functions $`F`$ and $``$ to the known basic functions of $`k`$ and $`p`$. This can be done by re-writing the perturbative results, Eq. (44), as follows :

$`\tau _i(k,p)`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha g_i\left[b_{i1}(k,p)I(k^2)+b_{i2}(k,p)I(p^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{a_{i6}(k,p)}{k^2p^2}}\right],`$ (61)
where

$`b_{i1}(k,p)`$ $`=`$ $`a_{i1}(k,p){\displaystyle \frac{I(l_1^2)}{I(l_3^2)}}+a_{i3}(k,p)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}a_{i5}(k,p){\displaystyle \frac{I(l_5^2)}{I(l_3^2)}},`$ (62)
$`b_{i2}(k,p)`$ $`=`$ $`a_{i2}(k,p){\displaystyle \frac{I(l_2^2)}{I(l_4^2)}}+a_{i4}(k,p)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}a_{i5}(k,p){\displaystyle \frac{I(l_5^2)}{I(l_4^2)}}.`$ (63)
This form can now be raised to a non-perturbative level exactly as before, with the only difference that the functions $`F`$ and $``$ are independent of the angle between the momenta $`k`$ and $`p`$ :

$`\tau _i`$ $`=`$ $`g_i\{{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{2}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2b_{ij}(k,p)\kappa _j^2}{\xi (m^2+\kappa _j^2)}}[{\displaystyle \frac{\xi }{2(\xi +2)\kappa _j^2I(\kappa _j^2)}}({\displaystyle \frac{(\kappa _j^2)}{F(\kappa _j^2)}}m)(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{F(\kappa _j^2)}})]\right)`$ (64)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2a_{i6}(k,p)}{\xi \left[k^2\left\{m(m^2+p^2)I(p^2)\right\}p^2\left\{m(m^2+k^2)I(k^2)\right\}\right]}}[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{F(k^2)}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{F(p^2)}}]\},`$ (65)
where $`\kappa _1^2=k^2`$ and $`\kappa _2^2=p^2`$.

## IV Conclusions

In this paper, we calculate one loop fermion-boson vertex in QED3 in an arbitrary covariant gauge and write out the result in a form which naturally allows us to construct its non-perturbative counterpart. This is the first construction of the non-perturbative vertex which agrees with its Feynman expansion in the weak coupling regime at the one loop level in all momentum regimes and in arbitrary covariant gauge. For practical numerical purposes, we also suggest a simple effective vertex which shifts its angular dependence (angle between the incoming and outgoing fermion momenta) from the fermion functions to the known basic functions of the momenta involved, without affecting its perturbative properties at the one-loop level. Currently, the work is underway to use this vertex in numerical calculations of dynamical mass generation for the fundamental fermions. We also plan to compare its gauge dependence against the one demanded by its Landau-Khalatnikov transformation  in a non-perturbative fashion.

## Acknowledgements

A.B. wishes to thank A. Kızılersü with whom initial ideas of the work were discussed. We are grateful to A.I. Davydychev for answering a query. We acknowledge the CIC and the Conacyt grants under the projects 4.12 and 32395-E, respectively.

## Appendix

Following are the results of the integrals listed in Eqs. (33) :

$`𝐉^{(\mathrm{𝟎})}`$:

$$J_0=\left[\eta _1(k,p)I\left(\frac{\eta _{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\chi }{4}\right)+\eta _2(k,p)I\left(\frac{\eta _{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\chi }{4}\right)\right],$$
(66)
with

$`\eta _1(k,p)`$ $`=`$ $`\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{m^2(k^2p^2)(2m^2k^2p^2)+\chi }{\chi (m^2k^2)}}\right\},`$ (67)
$`\eta _2(k,p)`$ $`=`$ $`\eta _1(k,p),`$ (68)
$`\chi `$ $`=`$ $`m^2(k^2p^2)^2+q^2(k^2m^2)(p^2m^2).`$ (69)
$`𝐊^{(\mathrm{𝟎})}`$:

$`K^{(0)}`$ $`=`$ $`i\pi ^2I(q^2/4).`$ (70)
$`𝐉_\mu ^{(\mathrm{𝟏})}`$:

$`J_\mu ^{(1)}={\displaystyle \frac{i\pi ^2}{2}}\left\{k_\mu J_A(k,p)+p_\mu J_B(k,p)\right\},`$ (71)
where

$`J_A(k,p)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\mathrm{\Delta }^2}}\left\{\left[p^2(k^2kp)m^2(p^2kp)\right]{\displaystyle \frac{J_0}{4}}+kpI(k^2)p^2I(p^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(p^2kp)I(q^2/4)\right\},`$ (72)
$`J_B(k,p)`$ $`=`$ $`J_A(p,k).`$ (73)
$`𝐉_{\mu \nu }^{(\mathrm{𝟐})}`$:

$`J_{\mu \nu }^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i\pi ^2}{2}}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{g_{\mu \nu }}{3}}K_0+\left(k_\mu k_\nu g_{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{k^2}{3}}\right)J_C+\left(p_\mu k_\nu +k_\mu p_\nu g_{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{2kp}{3}}\right)J_D+\left(p_\mu p_\nu g_{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{p^2}{3}}\right)J_E\right\},`$ (74)
where

$`J_C(k,p)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }^2}}\{[p^2(kp2k^2)m^2(kp2p^2)]{\displaystyle \frac{J_A}{2}}p^2(p^2m^2){\displaystyle \frac{J_B}{2}}`$ (76)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{kp}{k^2}}(m^2k^2)I(k^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(kp+p^2)I(q^2/4)m{\displaystyle \frac{kp}{k^2}}\},`$
$`J_D(k,p)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\mathrm{\Delta }^2}}\{[k^2(3kpp^2)m^2(3kpk^2)]{\displaystyle \frac{J_A}{2}}+[p^2(3kpk^2)m^2(3kpp^2)]{\displaystyle \frac{J_B}{2}}`$ (78)
$`(m^2k^2)I(k^2)(m^2p^2)I(p^2){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(k+p)^2I(q^2/4)+2m\},`$
$`J_E(k,p)`$ $`=`$ $`J_C(p,k).`$ (79)
$`𝐈^{(\mathrm{𝟎})}`$:

$`I^{(0)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\chi }}\left\{q^2(m^2+kp)J^{(0)}+i\pi ^2mL\right\},`$ (80)
where

$`L`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{q^2(k^2m^2)(k^2p^2)(k^2+m^2)}{(k^2m^2)^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{q^2(p^2m^2)+(k^2p^2)(p^2+m^2)}{(p^2m^2)^2}}.`$ (81)
$`𝐈_\mu ^{(\mathrm{𝟏})}`$:

$`I_\mu ^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i\pi ^2}{2}}\left[k_\mu I_A(k,p)+p_\mu I_B(k,p)\right],`$ (82)
where

$`I_A(k,p)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\mathrm{\Delta }^2}}\left\{\left[kp(p^2m^2)p^2(k^2m^2)\right]{\displaystyle \frac{I_0}{4}}+pq{\displaystyle \frac{J_0}{4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{mp^2}{(m^2p^2)^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{mkp}{(m^2k^2)^2}}\right\},`$ (83)
$`I_B(k,p)`$ $`=`$ $`I_A(p,k).`$ (85)
$`𝐈_{\mu \nu }^{(\mathrm{𝟐})}`$:

$`I_{\mu \nu }^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i\pi ^2}{2}}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{g_{\mu \nu }}{3}}J_0+\left(k_\mu k_\nu g_{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{k^2}{3}}\right)I_C+\left(p_\mu k_\nu +k_\mu p_\nu g_{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{2kp}{3}}\right)I_D+\left(p_\mu p_\nu g_{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{p^2}{3}}\right)I_E\right\},`$ (86)
where

$`I_C(k,p)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }^2}}\{p^2J_0+[p^2(kp2k^2)m^2(kp2p^2)]{\displaystyle \frac{I_A}{2}}p^2(p^2m^2){\displaystyle \frac{I_B}{2}}`$ (88)
$`+(kp2p^2){\displaystyle \frac{J_A}{2}}p^2{\displaystyle \frac{J_B}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{kp}{k^2}}I(k^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{mkp}{k^2(m^2k^2)}}\},`$
$`I_D(k,p)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\mathrm{\Delta }^2}}\{2kpJ_0+[k^2(3kpp^2)m^2(3kpk^2)]{\displaystyle \frac{I_A}{2}}+[p^2(3kpk^2)m^2(3kpp^2)]{\displaystyle \frac{I_B}{2}}`$ (90)
$`+(3kpk^2){\displaystyle \frac{J_A}{2}}+(3kpp^2){\displaystyle \frac{J_B}{2}}+I(k^2)+I(p^2){\displaystyle \frac{m}{m^2k^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{m}{m^2p^2}}\},`$
$`I_E(k,p)`$ $`=`$ $`I_C(p,k).`$ (91)
The coefficients $`a_{ij}`$ in the one loop perturbative expansion of the $`\tau _i`$, Eq. (44), are tabulated below :

$`a_{11}(k,p)`$ $`=`$ $`(\xi +2)\eta _1(m^2+kp)`$ (92)
$`a_{12}(k,p)`$ $`=`$ $`a_{11}(p,k)`$ (93)
$`a_{13}(k,p)`$ $`=`$ $`4(\xi +2){\displaystyle \frac{(k^2+kp)}{(k^2p^2)}}`$ (94)
$`a_{14}(k,p)`$ $`=`$ $`a_{13}(p,k)`$ (95)
$`a_{15}(k,p)`$ $`=`$ $`2(\xi +2)`$ (96)
$`a_{16}(k,p)`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (97)
$`a_{21}(k,p)`$ $`=`$ $`\eta _1\{[{\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{2}}m^4+\{(kp)^2(k^2+p^2)(kp)+k^2p^2\}m^2{\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{4}}\{(kp)^2+k^2p^2\}]`$ (98)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(\xi 1)}{2\chi }}[q^4m^8q^2\{(kp)^2+2(k^2+p^2)kp5k^2p^2\}m^6+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}q^2(k^2+p^2)\mathrm{\Delta }^2m^4`$ (99)
$`+`$ $`\left\{2(k^4+p^4+k^2p^2)(kp)^37k^2p^2(k^2+p^2)(kp)^2+10k^4p^4kpk^4p^4(k^2+p^2)\right\}m^2`$ (100)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}k^2p^2q^2\{(k^2+p^2)(kp)^24k^2p^2kp+k^2p^2(k^2+p^2)\}]\}`$ (101)
$`a_{22}(k,p)`$ $`=`$ $`a_{21}(p,k)`$ (102)
$`a_{23}(k,p)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(k^2p^2)}}[\xi \{(kp)^3+k^2(kp)^23k^2p^2kp+2k^4kp+k^4p^22k^6\}m^2/k^2`$ (103)
$`+`$ $`(kp)^3+(2k^2p^2)(kp)^2+k^2p^2kp2k^4kpk^2p^4`$ (104)
$`+`$ $`(\xi 1)\{(kp)^3+p^2(kp)^23k^2p^2kp+2k^4kp+k^2p^42k^4p^2\}]`$ (105)
$`a_{24}(k,p)`$ $`=`$ $`a_{23}(p,k)`$ (106)
$`a_{25}(k,p)`$ $`=`$ $`q^2(m^2+kp)+(\xi 1)(q^2m^2+(kp)^2(k^2+p^2)kp)+k^2p^2)`$ (107)
$`a_{26}(k,p)`$ $`=`$ $`m\mathrm{\Delta }^2\left\{kp+{\displaystyle \frac{(\xi 1)}{\chi }}\left[q^2kpm^4+2(k^2+p^2)\mathrm{\Delta }^2m^2k^2p^2\left\{2(kp)^2+(k^2+p^2)kp4k^2p^2\right\}\right]\right\}`$ (108)
$`a_{31}(k,p)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\eta _1}{2}}\{[\{2(kp)^2+k^4+p^4\}m^4+2\{(k^2+p^2)(kp)^2+(k^2p^2)^2kpk^2p^2(k^2+p^2)\}m^2`$ (109)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\{4(kp)^4+(k^2+p^2)^2(kp)^2+k^2p^2(k^2p^2)^2\}]`$ (110)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(\xi 1)}{\chi }}[q^2\{2(kp)^2+k^4+p^4\}m^8`$ (111)
$`+`$ $`2\left\{(k^2+p^2)[2(kp)^3+(k^2+p^2)(kp)^2+(k^4+p^4)kp]k^2p^2(3k^4+3p^42k^2p^2)\right\}m^6`$ (112)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}q^2\mathrm{\Delta }^2(k^2p^2)^2m^42\{(k^2+p^2)(k^4+p^44k^2p^2)(kp)^3k^2p^2(k^4+p^46k^2p^2)(kp)^2`$ (113)
$`+`$ $`2k^4p^4(k^2+p^2)kpk^4p^4(k^2+p^2)^2\}m^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}k^2p^2q^2\{(k^4+p^46k^2p^2)(kp)^2+k^2p^2(k^2+p^2)^2\}]\}`$ (114)
$`a_{32}(k,p)`$ $`=`$ $`a_{31}(p,k)`$ (115)
$`a_{33}(k,p)`$ $`=`$ $`\xi \left\{(kp)^3k^2(kp)^23k^2p^2kp+2k^4kpk^4p^2+2k^6\right\}m^2/k^2`$ (116)
$`+`$ $`(\xi 2)\left\{(kp)^3(2k^2p^2)(kp)^2+k^2p^2kp2k^4kp+k^2p^4\right\}`$ (117)
$`a_{34}(k,p)`$ $`=`$ $`a_{33}(k,p)`$ (118)
$`a_{35}(k,p)`$ $`=`$ $`(k^4+p^42(kp)^2)\left[\xi m^2+(\xi 2)kp\right]`$ (119)
$`a_{36}(k,p)`$ $`=`$ $`m\mathrm{\Delta }^2\{kp(k^2+p^2)+2k^2p^2+{\displaystyle \frac{(\xi 1)}{\chi }}[q^2\{(k^2+p^2)kp+2k^2p^2\}m^4+2(k^2+p^2)^2\mathrm{\Delta }^2m^2`$ (120)
$``$ $`k^2p^2(k+p)^2\{(k^2+p^2)kp2k^2p^2\}]\}`$ (121)
$`a_{41}(k,p)`$ $`=`$ $`\eta _1(\xi 1){\displaystyle \frac{(k^2p^2)}{2\chi }}[q^4m^6+3q^2\{(k^2+p^2)kp+2k^2p^2\}m^4`$ (122)
$`+`$ $`\{(kp)^2[4(kp)^23k^43p^426k^2p^2]+k^2p^2[24(k^2+p^2)kp3k^43p^414k^2p^2)]\}{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{2}}`$ (123)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{2}}\{(k^2+p^2)(kp)^3+2k^2p^2(kp)^23k^2p^2(k^2+p^2)kp+2k^4p^4\}]`$ (124)
$`a_{42}(k,p)`$ $`=`$ $`a_{41}(p,k)`$ (125)
$`a_{43}(k,p)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(\xi 1)}{k^2}}\left[(k^2+kp)(kp)^2+k^2(2k^23p^2)kp+k^4(p^22k^2)\right]`$ (126)
$`a_{44}(k,p)`$ $`=`$ $`a_{43}(p,k)`$ (127)
$`a_{45}(k,p)`$ $`=`$ $`(\xi 1)(k^2p^2)q^2`$ (128)
$`a_{46}(k,p)`$ $`=`$ $`m(\xi 1)(k^2p^2){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }^2}{\chi }}\left[q^2kpm^2+2(k^2+p^2)(kp)^22k^2p^2kpk^2p^2(k^2+p^2)\right]`$ (129)
$`a_{51}(k,p)`$ $`=`$ $`\eta _1\{\mathrm{\Delta }^2+{\displaystyle \frac{(\xi 1)}{4\chi }}[2q^4m^6+6q^2\{2k^2p^2(k^2+p^2)kp\}m^46k^2p^2q^4m^2`$ (130)
$``$ $`q^2\{(k^2p^2)^2(kp)^2+2k^2p^2(k^2+p^2)kpk^2p^2(k^2+p^2)^2\}]\}`$ (131)
$`a_{52}(k,p)`$ $`=`$ $`a_{51}(p,k)`$ (132)
$`a_{53}(k,p)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(\xi 1)}{k^2}}\left[(kp)^2+2k^2kpk^2(2k^2+p^2)\right]`$ (133)
$`a_{54}(k,p)`$ $`=`$ $`a_{53}(p,k)`$ (134)
$`a_{55}(k,p)`$ $`=`$ $`(\xi 1)q^2`$ (135)
$`a_{56}(k,p)`$ $`=`$ $`m(\xi 1){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }^2}{\chi }}\left[q^2(k^2+p^2)m^2+2(k^4+p^4)kp2k^2p^2(k^2+p^2)\right]`$ (136)
$`a_{61}(k,p)`$ $`=`$ $`\eta _1{\displaystyle \frac{(k^2p^2)}{2}}[q^2m^42\{(kp)^2(k^2+p^2)kp+k^2p^2\}m^2+{\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{2}}\{(kp)^2+k^2p^2\}`$ (137)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{q^2(\xi 1)}{\chi }}[q^2m^8+2\{(kp)^2+(k^2+p^2)kp3k^2p^2\}m^6{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}q^2\mathrm{\Delta }^2m^4`$ (138)
$``$ $`2\{(k^2+p^2)(kp)^3k^2p^2(kp)^2k^4p^4\}m^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}k^2p^2q^2\{(kp)^2+k^2p^2\}]]`$ (139)
$`a_{62}(k,p)`$ $`=`$ $`a_{61}(p,k)`$ (140)
$`a_{63}(k,p)`$ $`=`$ $`[\xi \{(k^2+kp)(kp)^2+k^2(2k^23p^2)kpk^4(2k^2p^2)\}m^2/k^2`$ (141)
$`+`$ $`(\xi 2)\{(2k^2p^2+kp)(kp)^2k^2(2k^2p^2)kpk^2p^4\}]`$ (142)
$`a_{64}(k,p)`$ $`=`$ $`a_{63}(p,k)`$ (143)
$`a_{65}(k,p)`$ $`=`$ $`q^2(k^2p^2)\left[\xi m^2(\xi 2)kp\right]`$ (144)
$`a_{66}(k,p)`$ $`=`$ $`m(k^2p^2)\mathrm{\Delta }^2\left[kp+{\displaystyle \frac{(\xi 1)}{\chi }}\left(q^2kpm^4+2(k^2+p^2)\mathrm{\Delta }^2m^2k^2p^2q^2kp\right)\right]`$ (145)
$`a_{71}(k,p)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\eta _1(\xi 1)}{4\chi }}[2q^6m^66q^4\{(k^2+p^2)(kp)k^2p^2\}m^4`$ (146)
$``$ $`3q^2\left\{((kp)^2+k^2p^2)(k^4+p^4+6k^2p^2)8k^2p^2(k^2+p^2)kp\right\}m^2`$ (147)
$`+`$ $`q^2\{(k^2p^2)^2(kp)^3+4k^2p^2(k^2+p^2)(kp)^2k^2p^2(3k^4+3p^4+10k^2p^2)kp+4k^4p^4(k^2+p^2)\}]`$ (148)
$`a_{72}(k,p)`$ $`=`$ $`a_{71}(p,k)`$ (149)
$`a_{73}(k,p)`$ $`=`$ $`(\xi 1){\displaystyle \frac{(k^2kp)}{k^2}}\left((kp)^2+4k^2kp2k^43k^2p^2\right)`$ (150)
$`a_{74}(k,p)`$ $`=`$ $`a_{73}(p,k)`$ (151)
$`a_{75}(k,p)`$ $`=`$ $`(\xi 1)q^4`$ (152)
$`a_{76}(k,p)`$ $`=`$ $`m(\xi 1){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }^2}{\chi }}[q^2\{(k^2+p^2)kp2k^2p^2\}m^2`$ (153)
$`+`$ $`2(k^4+p^4)(kp)^24k^2p^2(k^2+p^2)kpk^2p^2(k^4+p^46k^2p^2)]`$ (154)
$`a_{81}(k,p)`$ $`=`$ $`\eta _1{\displaystyle \frac{(\xi +2)}{2}}q^2(m^2+kp)`$ (155)
$`a_{82}(k,p)`$ $`=`$ $`a_{81}(p,k)`$ (156)
$`a_{83}(k,p)`$ $`=`$ $`2(\xi +2)kq`$ (157)
$`a_{84}(k,p)`$ $`=`$ $`a_{83}(p,k)`$ (158)
$`a_{85}(k,p)`$ $`=`$ $`(\xi +2)q^2`$ (159)
$`a_{86}(k,p)`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (160)
Figures

Fig. 1. One loop correction to the fermion propagator.

Fig. 2. One loop correction to the vertex.


format: text

text:
# On the additivity of the Thurston–Bennequin invariant of Legendrian knots

## 1. Introduction

The standard contact structure $`\xi _0`$ on 3-space $`^3=\{(x,y,z)\}`$ is the plane field on $`^3`$ given by the kernel of the 1-form $`dzydx`$. A Legendrian knot $`K`$ in the contact manifold $`(^3,\xi _0)`$ is a knot which is everywhere tangent to the contact structure $`\xi _0`$. The Thurston–Bennequin invariant $`tb(K)`$ of a Legendrian knot $`K`$ in $`(^3,\xi _0)`$ is the linking number of $`K`$ and a knot $`K^{}`$ which is obtained by moving $`K`$ slightly along the vector field $`\frac{}{z}`$. For a topological knot type $`k`$ in $`^3`$, the maximal Thurston–Bennequin invariant $`mtb(k)`$ is defined to be the maximal value of $`tb(K)`$, where $`K`$ is a Legendrian knot which topologically represents $`k`$. For any $`k`$, by the Bennequin’s inequality in , we know that $`mtb(k)`$ is an integer (i.e. not $`\mathrm{}`$). There are several computations of $`mtb(k)`$ (for example, see , , , , ).

In this paper, we prove the following theorem.

###### Theorem 1.1.

Let $`k_1\mathrm{}k_2`$ be the connected sum of topological knots $`k_1`$ and $`k_2`$ in $`^3`$. Then $`mtb(k_1\mathrm{}k_2)=mtb(k_1)+mtb(k_2)+1`$.

###### Remark 1.2.

After writing this paper, the author was informed that J. Etnyre and K. Honda  have also obtained a result on connected sum of Legendrian knots which extensively includes Theorem 1.1.

## 2. Fronts

Let $`K`$ be a Legendrian knot in $`(^3,\xi _0=ker(dzydx))`$. Then a diagram (i.e. projection) of $`K`$ in $`xz`$-plane is called front as in Figure 1.

A front does not have vertical tangents; generically, its only singularities are transverse double points and semicubical cusps. Note that the number of the cusps is even. Since $`y=\frac{z}{x}`$ along $`K`$, the missing $`y`$ coordinate is the slope of the front. Therefore the front of $`K`$ is free from selftangencies, and, at a double point, the branch with a greater slope is higher along the $`y`$ axis. Conversely such a diagram uniquely determines $`K`$ as its front. So, as usual in knot theory, we identify a Legendrian knot $`K`$ with its front, also denoted by $`K`$.

The Thurston–Bennequin invariant $`tb(K)`$ is computed in terms of the double points and cusps of its front. See Figure 2, where $`K`$ is oriented and the choice of the orientaion is irrelevant for the value of $`tb(K)`$.

For example, $`tb(K)=5`$ for the front in Figure 1.

###### Proposition 2.1.

For two topological knots $`k_1`$ and $`k_2`$,
we have $`mtb(k_1\mathrm{}k_2)mtb(k_1)+mtb(k_2)+1`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`K_1`$ and $`K_2`$ be Legendrian knots whose topological types are $`k_1`$ and $`k_2`$, respectively and $`mtb(k_1)=tb(K_1)`$ and $`mtb(k_2)=tb(K_2)`$. We also regard $`K_1`$ and $`K_2`$ as fronts. Further we can assume that $`K_1K_2=\mathrm{}`$ and $`K_1`$ (resp. $`K_2`$) lies in the left (resp. right) region of $`xz`$-plane, i.e. $`\{(x,z)|x<0\}`$ (resp. $`\{(x,z)|x>0\}`$) as in Figure 3.

Then we connect $`K_1`$ and $`K_2`$ by joining a right cusp of $`K_1`$ and a left cusp of $`K_2`$ as in Figure 4.

This procedure produces a Legendrian knot whose topological type is $`k_1\mathrm{}k_2`$ and Thurston–Bennequin invariant is $`mtb(k_1)+mtb(k_2)+1`$.

This completes the proof.

## 3. Preliminaries from contact topology

In this section, we recall some basic notions and theorems from recent 3-dimensional contact topology. Further, we may assume the reader is familiar with convex surface theory started by E. Giroux in . For details and proofs, see , , , , . Let $`\xi _n=ker(sin(2\pi nz)dx+cos(2\pi nz)dy)`$ be the contact structure on a solid torus $`V=\{(x,y,z)_z^3|x^2+y^2ϵ\}`$, where $`n\{0\}`$ and $`_z^3`$ is $`^3`$ modulo $`zz+1`$. The characteristic foliation on an embedded surface in a contact 3-manifold is the singular foliation defined by the intersection of the contact structure and the surface. The set of tangents of $`\xi _n`$ to $`V`$ forms a disjoint union of two simple closed curves on $`V`$, which are called Legendrian divides. Legendrian divides are leaves of the characteristic foliation on $`V`$.

The next lemma is proved by a standard Darboux-type argument.

###### Lemma 3.1.

For any Legendrian knot $`K`$ in $`(^3,\xi _0)`$, there exists a sufficiently small neighborhood $`N(K)`$ such that $`(N(K),K,\xi _0)`$ is isomorphic to $`(V,\{(0,0,z)\},\xi _n)`$ for some $`n`$.

Note that in Lemma 3.1, if $`K`$ is topologically trivial, then $`n=tb(K)`$.

As $`V`$ is a convex surface (i.e. has a contact vector field transverse to $`V`$), the following lemma can be proved by convex surface theory.

###### Lemma 3.2.

Let $`T`$ be any embedded torus in $`(^3,\xi _0)`$ and $`W`$ a solid torus bounded by $`T`$. Suppose the characteristic foliation on $`T`$ is diffeomorphic to that on $`V`$ and identifying these, the Legendrian divides on $`T`$ are isotopic to the core curve of $`W`$ through an isotopy in $`W`$. Then $`(W,\xi _0)`$ is isomorphic to $`(V,\xi _n)`$ for some $`n`$.

The following theorem on the classification of topologically trivial Legendrian knots due to Y. Eliashberg–M. Fraser  is also needed for the proof of Theorem 1.1.

###### Theorem 3.3.

Any topologically trivial Legendrian knot is Legendrian isotopic to one of standard forms expressed as fronts in Figure 5.

## 4. Proof of Theorem 1.1

By Propositon 2.1, it is sufficient to show the converse inequality.

Suppose $`\widehat{K}`$ is a Legendrian knot in $`(^3,\xi _0)`$ whose topological type is the connected sum of $`k_1`$ and $`k_2`$ and its Thurston–Bennequin invariant is maximal. By Lemma 3.1, there exists a neighbourhood $`N(\widehat{K})`$ of $`\widehat{K}`$ such that $`(N(\widehat{K}),\xi _0)`$ is isomorphc to $`(V,\xi _n)`$ for some $`n`$. Let $`B_1`$ and $`B_2`$ be 3-balls in $`^3`$ such that $`B_1`$ (resp. $`B_2`$) splits $`\widehat{K}`$ into the component corresponding to $`k_1`$ (resp. $`k_2`$) and $`B_1B_2=\mathrm{}`$ (Figure 6).

Further, by convex surface theory, we can assume that (i) $`B_1`$ and $`B_2`$ are convex and (ii) $`B_1N(\widehat{K})`$ and $`B_2N(\widehat{K})`$ are Legendrian knots on $`B_1`$ and $`B_2`$, respectively and (iii) each dividing set on $`B_i`$ (i.e. the subset of $`B_i`$ consisting of tangents of $`\xi _0`$ and a contact vector field defining the convex surface) intersects $`B_iN(\widehat{K})`$ as a diameter of the disk.

Then by Edge-Rounding Lemma due to K. Honda in , we have a solid torus $`W`$ such that (i) $`W`$ equals $`B_1B_2N(\widehat{K})`$ except small neighbourhoods of $`B_1N(\widehat{K})`$ and $`B_2N(\widehat{K})`$ and (ii) $`W`$ is a convex surface whose characteristic foliation is diffeomorphic to that of $`V`$. By Lemma 3.2, it follows that $`(W,\xi _0)`$ is isomophic to $`(V,\xi _n)`$ for some $`n`$. And notice that $`W`$ is unknotted in $`^3`$ and hence the core curve $`K`$ of $`W`$ which is Legendrian is also unknotted. Further, by a standard argument, we can assume that $`K`$ agrees with $`\widehat{K}`$ in the region of $`N(\widehat{K})(B_1B_2)`$. So by Theorem 3.3, $`K`$ is Legendrian isotopic to one of standard forms in Figure 5. Therefore $`W`$ is also identified with a small neighbourhood of that of the standard form. Further, by a homogeneous property of $`V`$ and a parallel translation of $`W`$, we can assume that a region of $`W`$ corresponding to $`B_1`$ (resp. $`B_2`$) lies in $`\{(x,y,z)|x<0\}`$ (resp. $`\{(x,y,z)|x>0\}`$). Then, identifying $`\widehat{K}`$ with its front, we can divide $`\widehat{K}`$ along a vertical line into Legendrian knots $`K_1`$ and $`K_2`$ corresponding to $`k_1`$ and $`k_2`$, respectively as the converse procedure in the proof of Proposition 2.1.

Counting the Thurston-Bennequin invariant of $`K_1`$ and $`K_2`$, we have $`tb(\widehat{K})=mtb(k_1\mathrm{}k_2)=tb(K_1)+tb(K_2)+1`$. Therefore $`mtb(k_1\mathrm{}k_2)mtb(k_1)+mtb(k_2)+1`$.

This completes the proof of the main theorem.


text:
# Determination of Λ_(MS)̄ from quenched and N_f=2 dynamical QCD

## 1 Introduction

The $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ parameter sets the scale in QCD. In the chiral limit it is the only parameter of the theory, and hence it is a quantity of fundamental interest. It is defined by the running of the strong coupling constant $`\alpha _s`$  at high energies where non-perturbative effects are supposed to become small. Lattice gauge theory provides a means of determining $`\alpha _s`$ directly from low-energy quantities. In this letter we shall compute $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ on the lattice in the quenched approximation as well as for $`N_f=2`$ species of degenerate dynamical quarks.

Previous lattice calculations have employed a variety of methods to compute the strong coupling constant, in quenched and unquenched simulations. For reviews see . The scale parameter $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ has been extracted from the heavy-quark potential , the quark-gluon vertex , the three-gluon vertex , from the spectrum of heavy quarkonia , and by means of finite-size-scaling methods .

We determine $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ from the average plaquette and the force parameter $`r_0`$ . Both quantities are widely computed in lattice simulations. In the quenched case we have many data points over a wide range of couplings at our disposal already, and in the dynamical case we expect to accumulate more points in the near future. At present $`r_0`$ is the best known lattice quantity, at least in full QCD. It can easily be replaced with more physical scale parameters like hadron masses or $`f_\pi `$ when the respective data become more accurate.

## 2 Method

The calculations are done with the standard gauge field action

$$S_G=\beta \underset{x}{}\text{Re}\frac{1}{3}\text{Tr}U_{\mathrm{}}(x),$$
(1)
and, in the dynamical case, with non-perturbatively $`O(a)`$ improved Wilson fermions

$$S_F=S_F^{(0)}\frac{\mathrm{i}}{2}\kappa _{\mathrm{sea}}gc_{SW}aa^4\underset{x}{}\overline{\psi }(x)\sigma _{\mu \nu }F_{\mu \nu }\psi (x),$$
(2)
where $`S_F^{(0)}`$ is the original Wilson action and $`\beta =6/g^2`$. If the improvement coefficient $`c_{SW}`$ is appropriately chosen, this action removes all $`O(a)`$ errors from on-shell quantities. A non-perturbative evaluation of this function leads to the parameterization

$$c_{SW}=\frac{10.454g^20.175g^40.012g^6+0.045g^8}{10.720g^2}$$
(3)
for $`N_f=2`$ flavors, which is valid for $`\beta 5.2`$.

The running of the coupling is described by the $`\beta `$ function defined by

$$\mu \frac{g_𝒮(\mu )}{\mu }=\beta ^𝒮(g_𝒮(\mu )),$$
(4)
where $`𝒮`$ is any mass independent renormalization scheme. The perturbative expansion of the $`\beta `$ function reads

$$\beta ^𝒮(g_𝒮)=g_𝒮^3\left(b_0+b_1g_𝒮^2+b_2^𝒮g_𝒮^4+b_3^𝒮g_𝒮^6+\mathrm{}\right).$$
(5)
The first two coefficients are universal,

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill b_0& =\frac{1}{(4\pi )^2}\left(11\frac{2}{3}N_f\right),\hfill \\ \hfill b_1& =\frac{1}{(4\pi )^4}\left(102\frac{38}{3}N_f\right),\hfill \end{array}$$
(6)
while the others are scheme dependent. The renormalization group equation (4) can be exactly solved:

$$\frac{\mu }{\mathrm{\Lambda }_𝒮}=\left(b_0g_𝒮^2\right)^{\frac{b_1}{2b_0^2}}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{1}{2b_0g_𝒮^2}+_0^{g_𝒮}d\xi \left(\frac{1}{\beta ^𝒮(\xi )}+\frac{1}{b_0\xi ^3}\frac{b_1}{b_0^2\xi }\right)\right),$$
(7)
where the scale parameter $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ appears as the integration constant. In the $`\overline{MS}`$ scheme the $`\beta `$ function is known to four loops :

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill b_2^{\overline{MS}}& =\frac{1}{(4\pi )^6}\left(\frac{2857}{2}N_f\frac{5033}{18}+N_f^2\frac{325}{54}\right),\hfill \\ \hfill b_3^{\overline{MS}}& =\frac{1}{(4\pi )^8}(\frac{149753}{6}+3564\zeta _3N_f(\frac{1078361}{162}+\frac{6508}{27}\zeta _3)\hfill \\ & +N_f^2(\frac{50065}{162}+\frac{6472}{81}\zeta _3)+N_f^3\frac{1093}{729}),\hfill \end{array}$$
(8)
where $`\zeta _3=1.20206\mathrm{}`$ is Riemann’s zeta function.

In this paper we are concerned with three different schemes. In the continuum we use the $`\overline{MS}`$ scheme. On the lattice we consider the bare coupling $`g(a)`$ and the boosted coupling $`g_{\mathrm{}}(a)`$. The latter is given by

$$g_{\mathrm{}}^2(a)=\frac{g^2(a)}{P},$$
(9)
where $`P=(1/3)\text{Tr}U_{\mathrm{}}u_0^4`$ is the average plaquette value. The widespread opinion is that the perturbative expansion in $`g_{\mathrm{}}`$ converges more rapidly than the expansion in the bare coupling . Indeed, a comparison between the expansion coefficients in the two cases for the quenched plaquette shown in Fig. 1 supports this belief, as even for low orders the new series has oscillating coefficients. The conversion from the bare coupling to the $`\overline{MS}`$ scheme has the form

$$\frac{1}{g_{\overline{MS}}^2(\mu )}=\frac{1}{g^2(a)}+2b_0\mathrm{ln}a\mu t_1+(2b_1\mathrm{ln}a\mu t_2)g^2(a)+O(g^4\mathrm{ln}^2a\mu ).$$
(10)
Writing

$$\frac{1}{g_{\mathrm{}}^2}=\frac{1}{g^2}p_1p_2g^2p_3g^4\mathrm{},$$
(11)
we obtain the relation between the boosted coupling and the $`\overline{MS}`$ coupling

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \frac{1}{g_{\overline{MS}}^2(\mu )}& =\frac{1}{g_{\mathrm{}}^2(a)}+2b_0\mathrm{ln}a\mu t_1+p_1\hfill \\ & +(2b_1\mathrm{ln}a\mu t_2+p_2)g_{\mathrm{}}^2(a)+O(g^4\mathrm{ln}^2a\mu ).\hfill \end{array}$$
(12)
By differentiating eq. (12) we can find the $`\beta `$ function coefficient, $`b_2^{\mathrm{}}`$, for the boosted coupling

$$b_2^{\mathrm{}}=b_2^{\overline{MS}}+b_0(p_2t_2)b_1(p_1t_1).$$
(13)
The one-loop coefficients $`p_1`$ and $`t_1`$ are given by

$`p_1`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}},`$ (14)
$`t_1`$ $`=0.4682013N_f(0.00669600.0050467c_{SW}+0.0298435c_{SW}^2`$
$`+am(0.0272837+0.0223503c_{SW}0.0070667c_{SW}^2)),`$ (15)
where $`m`$ is the quark mass. The quenched coefficients are taken from , whereas the fermionic contribution, including the improvement term proportional to $`am`$, is computed in the Appendix. The pure Wilson ($`c_{SW}=0`$) result agrees with , and the $`m=0`$ result agrees with the number quoted in . The $`m=0`$ two-loop coefficients $`p_2`$ and $`t_2`$ are given by

$`p_2`$ $`=0.0339110N_f{\displaystyle \frac{8}{3}}(0.00069290.0000202c_{SW}+0.0005962c_{SW}^2),`$ (16)
$`t_2`$ $`=0.0556675N_f(0.002600+0.000155c_{SW}0.012834c_{SW}^2`$
$`0.000474c_{SW}^30.000104c_{SW}^4).`$ (17)
The two-loop $`am`$ term is not known. The quenched coefficients can be found in , whereas the fermionic contribution to $`p_2`$ is given in , and $`t_2`$ has been computed in .

Combining these terms gives

$$\frac{1}{g_{\overline{MS}}^2(\mu )}=\frac{1}{g_{\mathrm{}}^2(a)}+2b_0\mathrm{ln}a\mu t_1^{\mathrm{}}+(2b_1\mathrm{ln}a\mu t_2^{\mathrm{}})g_{\mathrm{}}^2(a)+\mathrm{}$$
(18)
with

$`t_1^{\mathrm{}}`$ $`=0.1348680N_f(0.00669600.0050467c_{SW}+0.0298435c_{SW}^2`$
$`+am(0.0272837+0.0223503c_{SW}0.0070667c_{SW}^2)),`$ (19)
$`t_2^{\mathrm{}}`$ $`=0.0217565N_f(0.000753+0.000209c_{SW}0.014424c_{SW}^2`$
$`0.000474c_{SW}^30.000104c_{SW}^4).`$ (20)
Note that $`t_1^{\mathrm{}}t_1`$, so that the series converting $`g_{\mathrm{}}`$ to $`g_{\overline{MS}}`$, eq. (18), is better behaved than the original series converting bare $`g`$ to $`g_{\overline{MS}}`$, eq. (10). We can improve the convergence of the series further by re-expressing it in terms of the tadpole improved coefficients

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \stackrel{~}{c}_{SW}& c_{SW}u_0^3,\hfill \\ \hfill a\stackrel{~}{m}& am/u_0.\hfill \end{array}$$
(21)
We then obtain

$$\frac{1}{g_{\overline{MS}}^2(\mu )}=\frac{1}{g_{\mathrm{}}^2(a)}+2b_0\mathrm{ln}a\mu \stackrel{~}{t}_1^{\mathrm{}}+(2b_1\mathrm{ln}a\mu \stackrel{~}{t}_2^{\mathrm{}})g_{\mathrm{}}^2(a)+\mathrm{}$$
(22)
with

$`\stackrel{~}{t}_1^{\mathrm{}}`$ $`=0.1348680N_f(0.00669600.0050467\stackrel{~}{c}_{SW}+0.0298435\stackrel{~}{c}_{SW}^2`$
$`+a\stackrel{~}{m}(0.0272837+0.0223503\stackrel{~}{c}_{SW}0.0070667\stackrel{~}{c}_{SW}^2)),`$ (23)
$`\stackrel{~}{t}_2^{\mathrm{}}`$ $`=0.0217565N_f(0.0007530.001053\stackrel{~}{c}_{SW}+0.000498\stackrel{~}{c}_{SW}^2`$
$`0.000474\stackrel{~}{c}_{SW}^30.000104\stackrel{~}{c}_{SW}^4).`$ (24)
Changing $`t_1^{\mathrm{}}`$ to $`\stackrel{~}{t}_1^{\mathrm{}}`$ is simply a matter of replacing every $`c_{SW}`$ by $`\stackrel{~}{c}_{SW}`$ and every $`m`$ by $`\stackrel{~}{m}`$, but the change in $`t_2^{\mathrm{}}`$ is not so simple, because the coefficients of the $`c_{SW}`$ and $`c_{SW}^2`$ terms change. We see that tadpole improvement is successful in reducing the two-loop fermionic contribution: the largest coefficient in the fermionic part of $`t_2^{\mathrm{}}`$ was $`0.01442\mathrm{}`$, in $`\stackrel{~}{t}_2^{\mathrm{}}`$ it is $`0.00105\mathrm{}`$ .

We are still free to choose the scale $`\mu `$ in eq. (22). A good value to help eq. (22) to converge rapidly is to choose $`\mu `$ so that the $`O(g^0)`$ term vanishes. Therefore we choose the scale so that

$$a\mu =\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\stackrel{~}{t}_1^{\mathrm{}}}{2b_0}\right).$$
(25)
In the quenched case this gives $`\mu =2.63/a`$, while for $`N_f=2`$ dynamical fermions $`\mu 1.4/a`$. Substituting this scale into eq. (22), we obtain the relationship

$$g_{\overline{MS}}^2(\mu )=g_{\mathrm{}}^2(a)+\left(\stackrel{~}{t}_2^{\mathrm{}}\frac{b_1}{b_0}\stackrel{~}{t}_1^{\mathrm{}}\right)g_{\mathrm{}}^6(a)+O(g^8),$$
(26)
which agrees with  in the quenched case.

The calculation of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\overline{MS}}`$ proceeds in four steps. First we compute the average plaquette. From eq. (9) we then obtain $`g_{\mathrm{}}`$. In the second step we use eq. (26) to calculate $`g_{\overline{MS}}`$ at the scale $`\mu `$. Putting this value of $`g_{\overline{MS}}`$ into eq. (7) gives us $`\mu /\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\overline{MS}}`$. Finally we use the conversion factor eq. (25) to turn this into a value for $`a\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\overline{MS}}`$. To convert our results to a physical scale, we use the force parameter $`r_0`$.

## 3 Results

$`\underset{¯}{N_f=0}`$

Let us begin with the quenched case. The plaquette values are taken from QCDSF’s quenched simulations , except at $`\beta =6.57`$ where the plaquette value is obtained by interpolation. The $`r_0`$ values are taken from . In Fig. 2 we plot $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\overline{MS}}r_0`$ against $`(a/r_0)^2`$. The corresponding numbers are given in Table 1. One expects discretization errors of $`O(a^2)`$. Indeed, the data points lie on a straight line, allowing a linear extrapolation to the continuum limit. This gives

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\overline{MS}}^{N_f=0}r_0=0.616(2)(25),$$
(27)
where the first error is purely statistical, while the second one is an estimate of the systematic error. The latter is derived by assuming that the higher-order contributions in eq. (26) are about 20% of the $`O(g^6)`$ term. Using $`r_0=0.5\text{fm}`$, we find

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\overline{MS}}^{N_f=0}=243(1)(10)\text{MeV}.$$
(28)
Our result agrees very well with the outcome of previous lattice calculations .

It should be noted that $`r_0`$ is a phenomenological quantity, though a very robust one, which introduces an additional systematic error. By comparing the results of various potential models we estimate the error to be less than 5%. Taking the $`\rho `$ mass to set the scale gives  $`r_0=0.52(2)\text{fm}`$, which is consistent with the value used in eq. (28).

$`\underset{¯}{N_f=2}`$

In the dynamical case we use combined results from the QCDSF and UKQCD collaborations . The gauge field configurations were obtained using the standard Hybrid Monte Carlo algorithm with the non-perturbatively $`O(a)`$ improved action (2). Details of the extraction of $`r_0/a`$ are given in . For the quark mass $`m`$ we take the Ward identity mass. We compute this mass in the same way  as in the quenched case , with the improvement coefficient $`c_A`$ taken from tadpole improved perturbation theory. The relevant parameters and results are given in Table 2. The number of gauge field configurations varies from $`O(500)`$ on the $`16^332`$ lattices to $`O(300)`$ on the $`24^348`$ lattice.

As we are working at finite quark mass, we have to perform an extrapolation to the chiral limit. In Fig. 3 we show the parameter values of our simulations together with lines of constant $`r_0/a`$ and $`m_\pi /m_\rho `$. This gives an impression of how far our simulations are from the chiral and continuum limits.

The value that interests us is $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\overline{MS}}`$ at $`m0`$ and $`a0`$. Given the fact that our action has discretization errors of $`O(a^2)`$ only, at least as $`m0`$, we expect the following small-$`a`$ behavior: $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\overline{MS}}(a)=\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\overline{MS}}(a=0)(1+b_\mathrm{\Lambda }am+O((a/r_0)^2)+O((am)^2))`$, where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\overline{MS}}(a=0)`$ is not supposed to depend on $`m`$ anymore. Similarly, we expect to find $`r_0(a)=r_0(a=0)(1+b_ram+O((a/r_0)^2)+O((am)^2))`$, with the difference that $`r_0(a=0)`$ may still depend on $`m`$: $`r_0(a=0)=r_0(a=0,m=0)(1+c_rmr_0+O((mr_0)^2))`$. Putting everything together, we then arrive at the following parameterization of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\overline{MS}}r_0`$ for small $`a,m`$:

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\overline{MS}}r_0=A(1+Bam)(1+Cmr_0)+D(a/r_0)^2,$$
(29)
where we have neglected terms of $`O((mr_0)^2)`$. Effectively $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\overline{MS}}r_0`$ can be written as a function of $`mr_0`$ and $`a/r_0`$.

We do not know $`c_A`$ non-perturbatively. It turns out though that the final result is not affected by a small adjustment of $`c_A`$, for this changes all masses by a common factor, within the statistical errors, and hence amounts to a rescaling of the fit parameters $`B`$ and $`C`$ only.

Let us now turn to the fit and extrapolation of our data. In the fit we assume that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\overline{MS}}r_0`$, $`am`$ and $`r_0/a`$ are uncorrelated. We find that the ansatz (29) fits the data very well ($`\chi ^2=3.1`$). The parameters $`B`$ and $`C`$ are strongly correlated though, indicating that it does not matter whether we are using $`am`$ or $`mr_0`$ as the chiral extrapolation variable. Indeed, fixing $`B=0`$ gives the same result for $`A`$ and an almost identical value of $`\chi ^2`$. To justify our ansatz (29), we subtract the mass dependence from the measured values of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ to obtain $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\overline{MS}}r_0(m=0)\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\overline{MS}}r_0A(Bam+Cmr_0+BCammr_0)`$. A plot of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\overline{MS}}r_0(m=0)`$ against $`(a/r_0)^2`$ should then collapse all data points onto the single line $`A+D(a/r_0)^2`$. In the presence of significant higher-order terms not covered by our ansatz we would, on the other hand, expect to see the data deviate from that line. Similarly, a plot of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\overline{MS}}r_0(a=0)(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\overline{MS}}r_0D(a/r_0)^2)/(1+Bam)`$ against $`mr_0`$ should collapse the data onto the line $`A(1+Cmr_0)`$. This is what we have plotted in Figs. 4 and 5. We see that it does indeed bring all data points onto one line. We also see that the deviations from the line are probably not statistically significant, so adding any extra term to the fit, like $`(mr_0)^2`$, the deviation from the line is just going to give a fit to the noise. In fact, we have experimented with higher-order polynomials in $`a`$ and $`m`$. In all cases we found the same result in the chiral and continuum limit within the statistical error. Note that the slope of the line in Fig. 4 is very similar to the slope of the corresponding quenched line in Fig. 2.

In the chiral and continuum limit our fit gives

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\overline{MS}}^{N_f=2}r_0=0.549(39)(28).$$
(30)
The first error is purely statistical, while the second one is an estimate of the systematic error, where we again have assumed that the higher-order contributions in eq. (26) are about 20% of the $`O(g^6)`$ term. Using $`r_0=0.5\text{fm}`$, this gives

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\overline{MS}}^{N_f=2}=217(16)(11)\text{MeV}.$$
(31)
A preliminary computation of the mass spectrum yields $`r_0=0.50(7)`$ fm, if we take the $`\rho `$ mass to set the scale, in agreement with the phenomenological value used.

Comparison with Phenomenology

How can our results be compared with the phenomenological numbers? A fit to the world data of $`\alpha _s`$ gives the average value at the $`Z`$ mass  $`\alpha _{\overline{MS}}^{N_f=5}(m_Z)=0.118(2)`$, which corresponds to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\overline{MS}}^{N_f=5}=208(25)\text{MeV}`$. The latter value refers to an idealized world of five massless quarks and thus cannot be compared immediately to our numbers. We may extrapolate $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\overline{MS}}r_0`$ to three flavors (remember that $`r_0`$ is extracted from the phenomenological heavy quark potential) and then evolve the corresponding $`\alpha _{\overline{MS}}`$ to the $`Z`$ mass, using the three-loop matching formulae . We do this by extrapolating $`\mathrm{ln}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\overline{MS}}r_0)`$ linearly in $`N_f`$ to $`N_f=3`$, ignoring the fact that the strange quark mass is already relatively heavy and therefore less effective. For $`r_0=0.5\text{fm}`$ this gives $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\overline{MS}}^{N_f=3}=205(22)(20)\text{MeV}`$. (Allowing for a 5% uncertainty of the physical scale parameter $`r_0`$ would increase the systematic error only slightly to $`22\text{MeV}`$.) With the help of eq. (7) we now compute $`\alpha _{\overline{MS}}^{N_f=3}`$ at the scale $`\mu =1\text{GeV}`$ and obtain $`\alpha _{\overline{MS}}^{N_f=3}(1\text{GeV})=0.330(21)(19)`$. Taking the charm and bottom thresholds to be at 1.5 GeV and 4.5 GeV, respectively, we then find $`\alpha _{\overline{MS}}^{N_f=5}(m_Z)=0.1076(20)(18)`$, a number which is somewhat lower than the phenomenological value. If, on the other hand, we evolve the phenomenological value down to $`N_f=4`$ and $`N_f=3`$, we obtain $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\overline{MS}}^{N_f=4}=292(31)\text{MeV}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\overline{MS}}^{N_f=3}=342(32)\text{MeV}`$, respectively. A logarithmic extrapolation to $`N_f=2`$, similar to our extrapolation of the lattice data but in reverse order, would give $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\overline{MS}}^{N_f=2}=445(68)\text{MeV}`$.

In Fig. 6 we compare the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ values obtained by the various methods. At energy scales below the charm mass threshold the physics should be determined by $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\overline{MS}}^{N_f=3}`$. So one would expect that the lattice numbers extrapolate smoothly to the corresponding phenomenological value. We see, however, that this is not the case. The reason for this mismatch remains to be found.

## 4 Conclusions

Our quenched result agrees very well with results of other calculations using different methods. We find significant $`O(a^2)`$ corrections. For example at $`\beta =6.0`$, corresponding to a lattice spacing $`a0.1\text{fm}`$, they amount to $`10\%`$, which makes an extrapolation of the results to the continuum limit indispensible. In the dynamical case the data cover a much smaller range of $`a`$, which makes the extrapolation to the continuum limit less reliable. But it is reassuring to see that the continuum limit is approached at a similar rate as in the quenched case.

Our dynamical calculation is similar in spirit to previous unquenched computations of $`\alpha _s`$  (albeit not exactly the same). The main differences are that we are using a non-perturbatively $`O(a)`$ improved fermion action, which reduces cut-off effects, the conversion to $`g_{\overline{MS}}`$ is done consistently in two-loop perturbation theory, and an extrapolation of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ to the chiral and continuum limit is performed.

## Appendix

We follow the argument in  calculating the relation between the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ parameters from the potential. We require that the potential (or force) between two static charges should be the same, whether computed as a series in $`g^2`$ or $`g_{\overline{MS}}^2`$. All we have to do to calculate the fermionic piece of the relation is to compute the fermionic contribution to the gluon propagator.

In the scheme $`𝒮`$ we have

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill V(\stackrel{}{r})& =\frac{\text{d}^4q}{(2\pi )^4}2\pi \delta (q_4)\frac{g_𝒮^2}{q^2}(1g_𝒮^2G^𝒮(q^2)\hfill \\ & g_𝒮^2N_f\mathrm{\Pi }^𝒮(q^2,m)+O(g_𝒮^4))\text{e}^{\mathrm{i}\stackrel{}{q}\stackrel{}{r}},\hfill \end{array}$$
(32)
where $`G^𝒮(q^2)`$ is the one-loop gluon contribution to the potential, and $`\mathrm{\Pi }^𝒮`$ is the one-loop quark vacuum polarization. If two schemes, $`𝒮`$ and $`𝒮^{}`$, are to give the same answer for $`V(\stackrel{}{r})`$, their couplings have to be related by

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \frac{1}{g_𝒮^2}=\frac{1}{g_𝒮^{}^2}& +(G^𝒮^{}(q^2)G^𝒮(q^2))+N_f(\mathrm{\Pi }^𝒮^{}(q^2,m)\hfill \\ & \mathrm{\Pi }^𝒮(q^2,m))+O(g^2).\hfill \end{array}$$
(33)
To find the fermionic part of the conversion from $`g^2`$ to $`g_{\overline{MS}}^2`$, we have to calculate the vacuum polarization in both schemes and take the difference.

In the $`\overline{MS}`$ scheme we find

$$\mathrm{\Pi }^{\overline{MS}}(q^2,m)=\frac{1}{24\pi ^2}\left(\mathrm{ln}(q^2/\mu ^2)\frac{5}{3}+O(m^2/q^2)\right).$$
(34)
On the lattice we obtain

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{\Pi }(q^2,m)& =\frac{1}{24\pi ^2}(\mathrm{ln}(a^2q^2)3am(1c_{SW})\mathrm{ln}(a^2q^2)\hfill \\ & 3.25275141(5)+1.19541770(1)c_{SW}7.06903716(4)c_{SW}^2\hfill \\ & +am(6.46270704(30)5.29413266(6)c_{SW}\hfill \\ & +1.67389761(2)c_{SW}^2)).\hfill \end{array}$$
(35)
We see that there is an unwanted $`am\mathrm{ln}(a^2q^2)`$ term in eq. (35) unless $`c_{SW}=1+O(g^2)`$. Combining our calculation of $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ with the calculation of the purely gluonic part in the literature , we get our final result for $`t_1`$ (for general $`N_c`$):

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill t_1& =0.16995600N_c\frac{1}{8N_c}\hfill \\ & N_f(0.006696000.00504671c_{SW}+0.02984347c_{SW}^2\hfill \\ & +am(0.02728371+0.02235032c_{SW}0.00706672c_{SW}^2)).\hfill \end{array}$$
(36)
The $`am`$ term in eq. (36) means that in dynamical QCD the contours of constant $`g_{\overline{MS}}^2(1/a)`$ will be slanted when plotted in a ($`am,\beta `$) plane. As one expects the contours of constant $`r_0/a`$ to roughly follow contours of constant $`g_{\overline{MS}}^2(1/a)`$, this term gives a possible explanation of the appearance of the sloped lines in Fig. 3.

## Acknowledgement

We thank H. Panagopoulos for communicating the three-loop $`\beta `$ function for improved Wilson fermions to us prior to publication. The numerical calculations have been performed on the Hitachi SR8000 at LRZ (Munich), on the Cray T3E at EPCC (Edinburgh), NIC (Jülich) and ZIB (Berlin) as well as on the APE/Quadrics at DESY (Zeuthen). We thank all institutions for their support. This work has been supported in part by the European Community’s Human Potential Program under contract HPRN-CT-2000-00145, Hadrons/Lattice QCD. MG and PELR acknowledge financial support from DFG.