text:
# Longitudinal and transverse fermion-boson vertex in QED at finite temperature in the HTL approximation

## I Introduction

Schwinger-Dyson equations provide a natural starting point to study the non-perturbative aspects of gauge field theories, in particular in connection with dynamical symmetry breaking. As is well known, knowledge of the three-point vertex is crucial in such studies. Numerous works exist at zero temperature with a gradual improvement on the choice of the full vertex and other underlying assumptions, rendering the technique increasingly powerful. At finite temperature, the complexity of the equations and the number of the unknown functions to be evaluated grow enormously. For example, in QED at zero temperature, the three-point vertex can be written in terms of 12 spin amplitudes, whereas, at finite temperature, this number becomes 32, almost a three-fold increase in the number of unknowns involved. As a result, most of the research is restricted to the use of the bare vertex .

However, the Ward-Takahashi Identity (WTI) inspired vertex has more recently been employed to study the dynamical breakdown of chiral symmetry . The WTI relates the three-point vertex to the fermion propagator. This identity permits us to decompose the full vertex into two parts, the longitudinal part, which is fixed by the WTI , and the transverse part, which vanishes on contraction with the boson momentum and hence remains undetermined by the WTI. For instance in reference , Strickland uses the longitudinal part of the vertex to study, among other things, the dynamically generated mass as a function of temperature. He finds out that the gauge dependence of the critical temperature for which chiral symmetry is restored reduces considerably as compared to the results obtained earlier using the bare vertex.

The lessons learned from similar studies at zero temperature suggest that the complete gauge independence of the critical temperature relies crucially on the choice of the transverse vertex. In this context, perturbation theory is an important 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 Refs.  to derive constraints on the fermion propagator and the three-point vertex.

In this paper, we extend the works in Refs.  from zero to finite temperature, evaluating the one-loop transverse vertex in the Hard Thermal Loop (HTL) approximation and writing it in covariant form. The procedure we use is as follows: By evaluating the fermion propagator to a given order, it is possible to determine the longitudinal vertex to the same order. A subtraction of the longitudinal part then 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 expanded out, at zero temperature, in terms of 8 independent spin structures. We find out that at finite temperature the transverse vertex requires 24 spin structures to be expressed. Following a systematic transition from zero to finite temperature, we construct a basis of 24 transverse vectors. We use this basis to write out the fermion-photon vertex in the HTL approximation , which is known to be a gauge independent scheme valid for temperatures much larger than the fermion mass. The results allow us to make useful comments on the possible non-perturbative structures of the vertex at finite temperature. The work is organized as follows: In Sect. II, we briefly recall the expressions for the fermion self-energy and fermion-photon vertex at finite temperature in the HTL approximation. In Sect. III we construct the longitudinal and transverse vertices defining a set of 24 spin structures to serve as the transverse basis. In Sect. IV we find the explicit expressions for the coefficients of the transverse vertex. We finally summarize and conclude in Sect. V. A short appendix collects some of the integrals that are involved in the computations in Sect. IV.

## II Fermion propagator and Fermion-Photon vertex in the HTL approximation

We start by expanding out the fermion propagator $`S(P)`$ in its most general form at finite temperature. This can be obtained by noticing that the only available Lorentz structures are $`1,P\overline{)},U\overline{)},P\overline{)}U\overline{)}`$. Therefore, we can write (hereafter, we use capital letters to refer to four-vectors, whereas lower case letters are used to refer to their components)

$`S(P)^1`$ $`=`$ $`(1a)P\overline{)}bU\overline{)}+cP\overline{)}U\overline{)}+d`$ (1)
$`=`$ $`P\overline{)}\mathrm{\Sigma }(P)+cP\overline{)}U\overline{)}+d,`$ (2)
where

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }(P)=aP\overline{)}+bU\overline{)}.`$ (3)
The Lorentz invariant functions $`a`$,$`b`$,$`c`$ and $`d`$ will in general depend on two Lorentz scalars $`P^2`$ and $`UP`$, where $`U^\mu `$ is the four-velocity of the heat bath as seen from a general frame. We can choose these scalars to be

$`p_0`$ $``$ $`P^\mu U_\mu `$ (4)
$`p`$ $``$ $`[(P^\mu U_\mu )^2P^2]^{1/2}.`$ (5)
When the temperature $`T`$ is high enough, all the $`T=0`$ masses can safely be neglected in comparison with the scale $`gT`$ –where $`g`$ is the fermion-gauge boson coupling constant. In this regime, the dominant contributions to n-point functions at one loop come from the situation in which the loop momentum is hard, i.e. of the order of $`T`$ . This is the so called HTL approximation which is known to render the results gauge independent when applied, for example, to the computation of damping rates and energy losses of particles propagating through hot plasmas . For QED, in this approximation, the temperature dependent $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(P)`$ is given in Minkowski space explicitly by

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }(P)=m_f^2{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Omega }}{4\pi }\frac{\widehat{K}\overline{)}}{P\widehat{K}}},`$ (6)
where $`m_f^2=g^2T^2/8`$ is the square of the fermion thermal mass and $`\widehat{K}^\mu =(1,\widehat{}k)`$. Evaluation of Eq. (6) yields the functions $`a`$ and $`b`$ defined in Eq. (3

$`a(p_0,p)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_f^2}{p^2}}\left[1p_0L(P)\right]m_f^2\stackrel{~}{a}(p_0,p)`$ (7)
$`b(p_0,p)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_f^2}{p^2}}\left[p_0+\left(p^2p_0^2\right)L(P)\right]m_f^2\stackrel{~}{b}(p_0,p),`$ (8)
where

$`L(P){\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Omega }}{4\pi }\frac{1}{P\widehat{K}}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2p}}\mathrm{ln}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{p_0+p}{p_0p}}\right].`$ (9)
Equations (2), (3), (8) and (9) together with $`c=d=0`$ constitute the QED fermion propagator at one loop level in the HTL approximation. $`d=0`$ corresponds to the case of exact chiral symmetry whereas $`c=0`$ is required for a parity conserving theory .

As for the temperature dependent fermion-photon vertex $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu (P_1,P_2)`$, its corresponding HTL expression in Minkowski space is given by

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu (P_1,P_2)=m_f^2G_{\mu \nu }(P_1,P_2)\gamma ^\nu ,`$ (10)
where

$`G_{\mu \nu }(P_1,P_2){\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Omega }}{4\pi }\frac{\widehat{K}_\mu \widehat{K}_\nu }{(P_1\widehat{K})(P_2\widehat{K})}}.`$ (11)
## III Longitudinal and transverse vertex

### A Longitudinal vertex

The WTI relates the fermion propagator and the fermion-photon vertex by

$`Q^\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu (P_1,P_2)`$ $`=`$ $`S^1(P_1)S^1(P_2)`$ (12)
$`=`$ $`\left[1a(P_1)\right]P\overline{)}_1\left[1a(P_2)\right]P\overline{)}_2b(P_1)U\overline{)}+b(P_2)U\overline{)}`$ (13)
$`+`$ $`c(P_1)P\overline{)}_1U\overline{)}c(P_2)P\overline{)}_2U\overline{)}+d(P_1)d(P_2),`$ (14)
with $`Q=P_1P_2`$. This relation allows us to decompose the vertex into longitudinal $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ^L(P_1,P_2)`$ and transverse $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ^T(P_1,P_2)`$ parts

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu (P_1,P_2)=\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ^L(P_1,P_2)+\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ^T(P_1,P_2),`$ (15)
where the transverse part satisfies

$`Q^\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ^T(P_1,P_2)=0\text{and}\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ^T(P,P)=0,`$ (16)
and hence remains undetermined by WTI. In order to construct the longitudinal vertex along the lines of the calculation of Ball and Chiu , we start from the Ward-Identity

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ^L(P,P)={\displaystyle \frac{}{P^\mu }}S^1(P),`$ (17)
which is the limiting form of WTI when $`P_1=P_2=P`$. Making use of Eq. (2), the above relation yields

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ^L(P,P)`$ $`=`$ $`\left[1a(P)\right]\gamma _\mu \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}P_\mu P\overline{)}{\displaystyle \frac{}{P^2}}a(P)\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}P_\mu U\overline{)}{\displaystyle \frac{}{P^2}}b(P)`$ (18)
$`+`$ $`\gamma _\mu U\overline{)}c(P)+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}P_\mu P\overline{)}U\overline{)}{\displaystyle \frac{}{P^2}}c(P)+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}P_\mu {\displaystyle \frac{}{P^2}}d(P).`$ (19)
We now symmetrize this expression under the exchange of $`P_1P_2`$ in the following manner

$`P_\mu `$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(P_{1\mu }+P_{2\mu }\right)`$ (20)
$`P\overline{)}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(P\overline{)}_1+P\overline{)}_2\right)`$ (21)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{P^2}}f(P)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{f(P_1)f(P_2)}{P_1^2P_2^2}},`$ (22)
where $`f(P)`$ is a generic function standing for $`a(P)`$, $`b(P)`$, $`c(P)`$ and $`d(P)`$. We thus arrive at the non-perturbative expression for the longitudinal vertex

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ^L(P_1,P_2)`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma _\mu {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[a(P_1)+a(P_2)\right]\gamma _\mu {\displaystyle \frac{a(P_1)a(P_2)}{2(P_1^2P_2^2)}}\left(P_{1\mu }+P_{2\mu }\right)\left(P_1\overline{)}+P_2\overline{)}\right){\displaystyle \frac{b(P_1)b(P_2)}{(P_1^2P_2^2)}}\left(P_{1\mu }+P_{2\mu }\right)U\overline{)}`$ (23)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[c(P_1)+c(P_2)\right]\gamma _\mu U\overline{)}+{\displaystyle \frac{c(P_1)c(P_2)}{2(P_1^2P_2^2)}}\left(P_{1\mu }+P_{2\mu }\right)\left(P_1\overline{)}+P_2\overline{)}\right)U\overline{)}+{\displaystyle \frac{d(P_1)d(P_2)}{(P_1^2P_2^2)}}\left(P_{1\mu }+P_{2\mu }\right).`$ (24)
Note that the coefficients of two spin structures corresponding to $`P_{1\mu }P_{2\nu }\sigma ^{\mu \nu }`$ and $`U\overline{)}P_{1\mu }P_{2\nu }\sigma ^{\mu \nu }`$ will be zero because these do not appear on the right hand side of Eq. (14). By construction, the longitudinal part of the vertex is free of kinematical singularities. An interesting and useful comparison with the work of Ball an Chiu  reveals that for every structure $`V_\mu `$ at zero temperature, there exists an additional structure $`V_\mu U\overline{)}`$ at finite temperature. Therefore,

$`\mathrm{zero}\mathrm{temperature}`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{finite}\mathrm{temperature}`$ (25)
$`\gamma _\mu `$ $``$ $`\gamma _\mu U\overline{)}`$ (26)
$`\left(P_{1\mu }+P_{2\mu }\right)\left(P_1\overline{)}+P_2\overline{)}\right)`$ $``$ $`\left(P_{1\mu }+P_{2\mu }\right)\left(P_1\overline{)}+P_2\overline{)}\right)U\overline{)}`$ (27)
$`\left(P_{1\mu }+P_{2\mu }\right)`$ $``$ $`\left(P_{1\mu }+P_{2\mu }\right)U\overline{)}.`$ (28)
This observation would be of help to construct the transverse vertex later in this section. In the HTL approximation, the one loop longitudinal vertex reduces to

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ^L(P_1,P_2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[a(P_1)+a(P_2)\right]\gamma _\mu \left[{\displaystyle \frac{a(P_1)a(P_2)}{2(P_1^2P_2^2)}}\right]\left(P_{1\mu }+P_{2\mu }\right)\left(P_1\overline{)}+P_2\overline{)}\right)`$ (29)
$``$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{b(P_1)b(P_2)}{(P_1^2P_2^2)}}\right]\left(P_{1\mu }+P_{2\mu }\right)U\overline{)}.`$ (30)
### B Transverse Vertex

At finite temperature, the available vectors to expand the full vertex $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu (P_1,P_2)`$ are $`\gamma _\mu ,P_{1\mu },P_{2\mu }`$ and $`U_\mu `$. Correspondingly there are 8 Lorentz scalars $`1,\overline{)}P_1,\overline{)}P_2,\overline{)}U,\overline{)}P_1\overline{)}P_2,\overline{)}P_1\overline{)}U,\overline{)}P_2\overline{)}U,\overline{)}P_1\overline{)}P_2\overline{)}U`$. Therefore, there are 32 spin amplitudes in total:

$`V_{1\mu }`$ $`=`$ $`P_{1\mu }\overline{)}P_1,V_{2\mu }=P_{2\mu }\overline{)}P_2,V_{3\mu }=P_{1\mu }\overline{)}P_2,V_{4\mu }=P_{2\mu }\overline{)}P_1`$ (31)
$`V_{5\mu }`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma _\mu \overline{)}P_1\overline{)}P_2,V_{6\mu }=\gamma _\mu ,V_{7\mu }=P_{1\mu },V_{8\mu }=P_{2\mu }`$ (32)
$`V_{9\mu }`$ $`=`$ $`P_{1\mu }\overline{)}P_1\overline{)}P_2,V_{10\mu }=P_{2\mu }\overline{)}P_1\overline{)}P_2,V_{11\mu }=\gamma _\mu \overline{)}P_1,V_{12\mu }=\gamma _\mu \overline{)}P_2`$ (33)
$`V_{13\mu }`$ $`=`$ $`V_{1\mu }\overline{)}U,V_{14\mu }=V_{2\mu }\overline{)}U,V_{15\mu }=V_{3\mu }\overline{)}U,V_{16\mu }=V_{4\mu }\overline{)}U`$ (34)
$`V_{17\mu }`$ $`=`$ $`V_{5\mu }\overline{)}U,V_{18\mu }=V_{6\mu }\overline{)}U,V_{19\mu }=V_{7\mu }\overline{)}U,V_{20\mu }=V_{8\mu }\overline{)}U`$ (35)
$`V_{21\mu }`$ $`=`$ $`V_{9\mu }\overline{)}U,V_{22\mu }=V_{10\mu }\overline{)}U,V_{23\mu }=V_{11\mu }\overline{)}U,V_{24\mu }=V_{12\mu }\overline{)}U`$ (36)
$`V_{25\mu }`$ $`=`$ $`U_\mu ,V_{26\mu }=U_\mu \overline{)}U,V_{27\mu }=U_\mu \overline{)}P_1,V_{28\mu }=U_\mu \overline{)}P_2`$ (37)
$`V_{29\mu }`$ $`=`$ $`U_\mu \overline{)}P_1\overline{)}U,V_{30\mu }=U_\mu \overline{)}P_2\overline{)}U,V_{31\mu }=U_\mu \overline{)}P_1\overline{)}P_2,V_{32\mu }=U_\mu \overline{)}P_1\overline{)}P_2\overline{)}U.`$ (38)
In a construction parallel to that of Ball and Chiu, Eq. (24) consumes 8 of these 32 structures. The transverse vertex $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ^T(P_1,P_2)`$ can then be written in terms of the remaining 24 basis vectors as

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ^T(P_1,P_2)=m_f^2{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{24}{}}}\tau ^i(P_1^2,P_2^2,Q^2)T_\mu ^i(P_1,P_2),`$ (39)
where the coefficients $`\tau ^i`$ are to be found from the explicit expression for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu `$ and the choice of the transverse basis of tensors $`\left\{T_\mu ^i\right\}`$, which will be a linear combination of the vectors in Eq.(38). The procedure for their selection is as follows:

* Motivated from the success of the basis proposed by Kızılersü et. al., which is a simple modification of the one proposed by Ball and Chiu, we choose 8 of the basis vectors the same.
* Let us now recall the observation made in connection with the construction of the longitudinal vertex. We noticed that for every structure $`V_\mu `$ at zero temperature, there exists an additional structure $`V_\mu \overline{)}U`$ at finite temperature. Making use of this observation, we select 8 of the basis vectors, which are a simple multiplication of the previous 8 vectors by $`\overline{)}U`$. Note that a mere multiplication with $`\overline{)}U`$ does not change the much desired transversality properties of the vectors and the fact that they vanish for $`P_1=P_2`$.
* The remaining 8 transverse vectors must contain the vector $`U_\mu `$ not used so far. Now the transversality of the new vectors can be guaranteed if they have the form

$`(QU)R_iV_{i\mu }+SU_\mu `$ (40)
with $`R_i`$ and $`S`$ scalar functions and $`V_{i\mu }=\gamma _\mu ,P_{1\mu },P_{2\mu }`$ such that

$`(QU)R_iQV_i+SQU`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (41)
Making use of this condition we construct the remaining vectors as a simple extension of the ones proposed by Kızılersü et. al.. We list all the vectors below:

$`T_\mu ^1`$ $`=\left[P_{2\mu }(P_1Q)P_{1\mu }(P_2Q)\right]`$ (42)
$`T_\mu ^2`$ $`=T_\mu ^1(\overline{)}P_1+\overline{)}P_2)`$ (43)
$`T_\mu ^3`$ $`=Q^2\gamma _\mu Q_\mu \overline{)}Q`$ (44)
$`T_\mu ^4`$ $`=Q^2\left[\gamma _\mu (\overline{)}P_1+\overline{)}P_2)P_{1\mu }P_{2\mu }\right]2(P_1P_2)_\mu P_1^\lambda P_2^\nu \sigma _{\lambda \nu }`$ (45)
$`T_\mu ^5`$ $`=Q^\nu \sigma _{\nu \mu }`$ (46)
$`T_\mu ^6`$ $`=\gamma _\mu (P_1^2P_2^2)+(P_1+P_2)_\mu \overline{)}Q`$ (47)
$`T_\mu ^7`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(P_1^2P_2^2)\left[\gamma _\mu (\overline{)}P_1+\overline{)}P_2)P_{1\mu }P_{2\mu }\right]+(P_1+P_2)_\mu P_1^\lambda P_2^\nu \sigma _{\lambda \nu }`$ (48)
$`T_\mu ^8`$ $`=\gamma _\mu P_1^\nu P_2^\lambda \sigma _{\nu \lambda }+P_{1\mu }\overline{)}P_2P_{2\mu }\overline{)}P_1`$ (49)
$`T_\mu ^i`$ $`=T_\mu ^{i8}\overline{)}Ui=9,16`$ (50)
$`T_\mu ^{17}`$ $`=(QU)\left[P_{2\mu }(P_1Q)+P_{1\mu }(P_2Q)\right]2(P_1Q)(P_2Q)U_\mu `$ (51)
$`T_\mu ^{18}`$ $`=T_\mu ^{17}(\overline{)}P_1+\overline{)}P_2)\overline{)}U`$ (52)
$`T_\mu ^{19}`$ $`=\left[(QU)(Q^2\gamma _\mu +Q_\mu \overline{)}Q)2Q^2\overline{)}QU_\mu \right]\overline{)}U`$ (53)
$`T_\mu ^{20}`$ $`=(QU)\left[Q^2\left\{\gamma _\mu (\overline{)}P_1+\overline{)}P_2)+P_{1\mu }+P_{2\mu }\right\}+2Q_\mu P_1^\lambda P_2^\nu \sigma _{\lambda \nu }\right]\overline{)}U`$ (55)
$`U_\mu \left[Q^2\left\{\overline{)}Q(\overline{)}P_1+\overline{)}P_2)+P_1^2P_2^2\right\}+2Q^2P_1^\lambda P_2^\nu \sigma _{\lambda \nu }\right]\overline{)}U`$
$`T_\mu ^{21}`$ $`=\left[(QU)Q_\mu Q^2U_\mu \right]\overline{)}U`$ (56)
$`T_\mu ^{22}`$ $`=(QU)\left[\gamma _\mu (P_1^2P_2^2)+(P_1+P_2)_\mu \overline{)}Q\right]2(P_1^2P_2^2)\overline{)}QU_\mu `$ (57)
$`T_\mu ^{23}`$ $`=(QU)\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(P_1^2P_2^2)\left\{\gamma _\mu (\overline{)}P_1+\overline{)}P_2)+P_{1\mu }+P_{2\mu }\right\}+(P_1+P_2)_\mu P_1^\lambda P_2^\nu \sigma _{\lambda \nu }\right]`$ (59)
$`U_\mu \left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(P_1^2P_2^2)\left\{\overline{)}Q(\overline{)}P_1+\overline{)}P_2)+P_1^2P_2^2\right\}+(P_1^2P_2^2)P_1^\lambda P_2^\nu \sigma _{\lambda \nu }\right]`$
$`T_\mu ^{24}`$ $`=(QU)\left[P_{2\mu }\overline{)}P_1P_{1\mu }\overline{)}P_2\gamma _\mu P_1^\lambda P_2^\nu \sigma _{\lambda \nu }\right]`$ (61)
$`U_\mu \left[(QP_2)\overline{)}P_1(QP_1)\overline{)}P_2\overline{)}QP_1^\lambda P_2^\nu \sigma _{\lambda \nu }\right],`$
where we define $`\sigma _{\mu \nu }`$ as

$`\sigma _{\mu \nu }={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[\gamma _\mu ,\gamma _\nu ].`$ (62)
## IV Covariant HTL vertex and coefficients of the transverse basis

With the choice of the transverse basis given in Eq. (61), the computation of the coefficients $`\tau ^i`$ is a straightforward though lengthy exercise. The first step consists of finding the explicit covariant expression for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu `$. Then a subtraction of the longitudinal vertex $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ^L`$, given by Eq. (24) yields the transverse vertex.

Computation of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu `$ requires finding the different components of the function $`G_{\mu \nu }`$, defined in Eq. (11). These have already been found in terms of a projection onto a particular choice of vector and tensor structures in Ref. . However, in order to explicitly preserve the symmetric properties of the different elements that make up the vertex $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu `$ during the computation, we find it convenient to modify the choice of vector and tensor structures with respect to that of Ref. . In this section, we list the results for the components of the function $`G_{\mu \nu }`$, leaving a brief sketch of their computation for the appendix. Let us start with $`G_{00}`$ which is explicitly given by

$`G_{00}(P_1,P_2)M(P_1,P_2)=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{1}{2\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }}}\mathrm{ln}\left[\frac{P_1P_2+\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }}}{P_1P_2\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }}}\right]& \mathrm{\Delta }<0\\ \frac{1}{P_1P_2}& \mathrm{\Delta }=0\\ \frac{1}{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }}}\mathrm{tan}^1\left[\frac{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }}}{P_1P_2}\right]& \mathrm{\Delta }>0\end{array},`$ (66)
where we have defined the quantity $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ as

$`\mathrm{\Delta }P_1^2P_2^2(P_1P_2)^2.`$ (67)
For the computation of $`G_{0i}`$, we introduce the set of orthonormal vectors $`\widehat{}n`$, $`\widehat{}l_+`$ and $`\widehat{}l_{}`$ given in terms of $`𝐩_1`$ and $`𝐩_2`$ by

$`\widehat{}n`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{\delta }}}\left[\widehat{}p_1\times \widehat{}p_2\right]`$ (68)
$`\widehat{}l^\pm `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\delta _\pm }}}\left[\widehat{}p_1\pm \widehat{}p_2\right],`$ (69)
where

$`\delta _\pm `$ $``$ $`1\pm (\widehat{}p_1\widehat{}p_2)`$ (70)
$`\delta `$ $``$ $`1(\widehat{}p_1\widehat{}p_2)^2=\delta _+\delta _{}`$ (71)
$`\delta _{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{}n_i\widehat{}n_j+\widehat{}l_i^+\widehat{}l_j^++\widehat{}l_i^{}\widehat{}l_j^{}.`$ (72)
In terms of these vectors, we can express $`G_{0i}`$ as

$`G_{0i}(P_1,P_2)=A\widehat{}n_i+B^+\widehat{}l_i^++B^{}\widehat{}l_i^{}.`$ (73)
The coefficient $`A`$ is found by contracting Eq. (73) with $`\widehat{}n^i`$ whereas $`B^\pm `$ are found upon contraction with $`\widehat{}l_\pm ^i`$, respectively. They are explicitly given by

$`A`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (74)
$`B^\pm `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\delta _\pm }}}\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{p_{10}}{p_1}}\pm {\displaystyle \frac{p_{20}}{p_2}}\right)M(P_1,P_2)\left({\displaystyle \frac{L(P_2)}{p_1}}\pm {\displaystyle \frac{L(P_1)}{p_2}}\right)\right].`$ (75)
Finally, $`G_{ij}`$ can be written as

$`G_{ij}(P_1,P_2)=X\widehat{}n_i\widehat{}n_j+\stackrel{~}{Y}^+\widehat{}l_i^+\widehat{}l_j^++\stackrel{~}{Y}^{}\widehat{}l_i^{}\widehat{}l_j^{}+Z(\widehat{}l_i^+\widehat{}l_j^{}+\widehat{}l_i^{}\widehat{}l_j^+),`$ (76)
where the coefficients $`\stackrel{~}{Y}^\pm `$ and $`Z`$ are found by contracting Eq. (76) with $`\widehat{}l_i^\pm \widehat{}l_j^\pm `$ and $`\widehat{}l_i^+\widehat{}l_j^{}`$, respectively, whereas $`X`$ can be found by taking the trace of Eq. (76). They are explicitly given by

$`X`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{p_1^2p_2^2\delta }}\left[\mathrm{\Delta }M(P_1,P_2)+𝐩_1(p_{20}𝐩_1p_{10}𝐩_2)L(P_1)+𝐩_2(p_{10}𝐩_2p_{20}𝐩_1)L(P_2)\right]`$ (77)
$`\stackrel{~}{Y}^\pm `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\delta _\pm }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{p_{10}}{p_1}}\pm {\displaystyle \frac{p_{20}}{p_2}}\right)\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{p_{10}}{p_1}}\pm {\displaystyle \frac{p_{20}}{p_2}}\right)M(P_1,P_2)\left({\displaystyle \frac{L(P_2)}{p_1}}\pm {\displaystyle \frac{L(P_1)}{p_2}}\right)\right]`$ (79)
$`\pm {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2p_1p_2}}\left[2p_{10}L(P_1)p_{20}L(P_2)\right]`$
$`Z`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\sqrt{\delta }}}[({\displaystyle \frac{p_{10}^2}{p_1^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{p_{20}^2}{p_2^2}})M(P_1,P_2)(p_{10}+{\displaystyle \frac{p_{20}}{p_2^2}}𝐩_1𝐩_2){\displaystyle \frac{L(P_2)}{p_1^2}}`$ (81)
$`+(p_{20}+{\displaystyle \frac{p_{10}}{p_1^2}}𝐩_1𝐩_2){\displaystyle \frac{L(P_1)}{p_2^2}}].`$
<sup>*</sup><sup>*</sup>footnotetext: We find a sign difference for the term $`\mathrm{\Delta }M(P_1,P_2)`$ in the expression for the coefficient $`X`$, as compared to the corresponding expression in Ref. .

In order to obtain the explicit vectors in terms of which the vertex $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu `$ is expressed, we first look at the space-like part, namely $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_i=m_f^2G_{i\nu }\gamma ^\nu `$ and add the necessary time-like pieces to form the corresponding four-vectors. We then subtract the above added pieces which, together with the time-like part of the vertex, namely $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0=m_f^2G_{0\nu }\gamma ^\nu `$, become the terms proportional to the vector $`U_\mu `$. We finally obtain

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu (P_1,P_2)=m_f^2\left\{X\gamma _\mu +𝒞_1P_{1\mu }+𝒞_2P_{2\mu }+𝒟U_\mu \right\},`$ (82)
where the functions $`𝒞_1`$, $`𝒞_2`$ and $`𝒟`$ are given by

$`𝒞_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _0}{p_1}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{B^+}{\sqrt{2\delta _+}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{B^{}}{\sqrt{2\delta _{}}}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{𝐩_1𝜸}{p_1^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{Y^+}{2\delta _+}}+{\displaystyle \frac{Y^{}}{2\delta _{}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{Z}{\sqrt{\delta }}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{𝐩_2𝜸}{p_1p_2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{Y^+}{2\delta _+}}{\displaystyle \frac{Y^{}}{2\delta _{}}}\right)`$ (83)
$`𝒞_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _0}{p_2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{B^+}{\sqrt{2\delta _+}}}{\displaystyle \frac{B^{}}{\sqrt{2\delta _{}}}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{𝐩_2𝜸}{p_2^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{Y^+}{2\delta _+}}+{\displaystyle \frac{Y^{}}{2\delta _{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{Z}{\sqrt{\delta }}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{𝐩_1𝜸}{p_1p_2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{Y^+}{2\delta _+}}{\displaystyle \frac{Y^{}}{2\delta _{}}}\right)`$ (84)
$`𝒟`$ $`=`$ $`(M+X)\gamma _0+{\displaystyle \frac{𝐩_1𝜸}{p_1}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{B^+}{\sqrt{2\delta _+}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{B^{}}{\sqrt{2\delta _{}}}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{𝐩_2𝜸}{p_2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{B^+}{\sqrt{2\delta _+}}}{\displaystyle \frac{B^{}}{\sqrt{2\delta _{}}}}\right)𝒞_1p_{10}𝒞_2p_{20},`$ (85)
and we have defined $`Y^\pm =\stackrel{~}{Y}^\pm X`$. In order to obtain the spin structures out of Eqs. (82) and (85), we notice that, working in a general frame, we can write

$`\gamma _0`$ $`=`$ $`U\overline{)}`$ (86)
$`𝐩𝜸`$ $`=`$ $`p_0U\overline{)}P\overline{)}.`$ (87)
Making use of these identities and of Eq. (85), we can write out Eq. (82) in terms of the basis vectors given in Eq. (38):

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu (P_1,P_2)`$ $`=`$ $`m_f^2\left[\stackrel{~}{h}_1V_{1\mu }+\stackrel{~}{h}_2V_{2\mu }+\stackrel{~}{h}_3V_{3\mu }+\stackrel{~}{h}_4V_{4\mu }+\stackrel{~}{h}_6V_{6\mu }+\stackrel{~}{h}_{19}V_{19\mu }+\stackrel{~}{h}_{20}V_{20\mu }+\stackrel{~}{h}_{26}V_{26\mu }+\stackrel{~}{h}_{27}V_{27\mu }+\stackrel{~}{h}_{28}V_{28\mu }\right],`$ (88)
where

$`\stackrel{~}{h}_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{p_1^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{Y^+}{2\delta _+}}+{\displaystyle \frac{Y^{}}{2\delta _{}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{Z}{\sqrt{\delta }}}\right)`$ (90)
$`\stackrel{~}{h}_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{p_2^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{Y^+}{2\delta _+}}+{\displaystyle \frac{Y^{}}{2\delta _{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{Z}{\sqrt{\delta }}}\right)`$ (91)
$`\stackrel{~}{h}_3`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{h}_4={\displaystyle \frac{1}{p_1p_2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{Y^+}{2\delta _+}}{\displaystyle \frac{Y^{}}{2\delta _{}}}\right)`$ (92)
$`\stackrel{~}{h}_6`$ $`=`$ $`X`$ (93)
$`\stackrel{~}{h}_{19}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{p_1}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{B^+}{\sqrt{2\delta _+}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{B^{}}{\sqrt{2\delta _{}}}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{p_{10}}{p_1^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{Y^+}{2\delta _+}}+{\displaystyle \frac{Y^{}}{2\delta _{}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{Z}{\sqrt{\delta }}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{p_{20}}{p_1p_2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{Y^+}{2\delta _+}}{\displaystyle \frac{Y^{}}{2\delta _{}}}\right)`$ (94)
$`\stackrel{~}{h}_{20}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{p_2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{B^+}{\sqrt{2\delta _+}}}{\displaystyle \frac{B^{}}{\sqrt{2\delta _{}}}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{p_{20}}{p_2^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{Y^+}{2\delta _+}}+{\displaystyle \frac{Y^{}}{2\delta _{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{Z}{\sqrt{\delta }}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{p_{10}}{p_1p_2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{Y^+}{2\delta _+}}{\displaystyle \frac{Y^{}}{2\delta _{}}}\right)`$ (95)
$`\stackrel{~}{h}_{26}`$ $`=`$ $`M3X{\displaystyle \frac{p_{10}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{p_1^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{Y^+}{2\delta _+}}+{\displaystyle \frac{Y^{}}{2\delta _{}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{Z}{\sqrt{\delta }}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{p_{20}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{p_2^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{Y^+}{2\delta _+}}+{\displaystyle \frac{Y^{}}{2\delta _{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{Z}{\sqrt{\delta }}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{2p_{10}p_{20}}{p_1p_2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{Y^+}{2\delta _+}}{\displaystyle \frac{Y^{}}{2\delta _{}}}\right)`$ (96)
$`\stackrel{~}{h}_{27}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{p_1}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{B^+}{\sqrt{2\delta _+}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{B^{}}{\sqrt{2\delta _{}}}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{p_{10}}{p_1^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{Y^+}{2\delta _+}}+{\displaystyle \frac{Y^{}}{2\delta _{}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{Z}{\sqrt{\delta }}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{p_{20}}{p_1p_2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{Y^+}{2\delta _+}}{\displaystyle \frac{Y^{}}{2\delta _{}}}\right)`$ (97)
$`\stackrel{~}{h}_{28}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{p_2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{B^+}{\sqrt{2\delta _+}}}{\displaystyle \frac{B^{}}{\sqrt{2\delta _{}}}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{p_{20}}{p_2^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{Y^+}{2\delta _+}}+{\displaystyle \frac{Y^{}}{2\delta _{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{Z}{\sqrt{\delta }}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{p_{10}}{p_1p_2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{Y^+}{2\delta _+}}{\displaystyle \frac{Y^{}}{2\delta _{}}}\right).`$ (98)
Eqs. (88) and (98) complete the covariantization of the full QED vertex at one loop in HTL approximation. The coefficients $`\stackrel{~}{h}_5,\stackrel{~}{h}_{7\mathrm{}18},\stackrel{~}{h}_{21\mathrm{}25}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{h}_{29\mathrm{}32}`$ of the vectors $`V_{5\mu },V_{7\mu \mathrm{}18\mu },V_{21\mu \mathrm{}25\mu }`$ and $`V_{29\mu \mathrm{}32\mu }`$ respectively are zero at this order. Subtracting the longitudinal vertex, Eq. (30), the transverse vertex $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ^T`$ comes out to be

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ^T`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ^L`$ (99)
$`=`$ $`m_f^2\left\{h_1V_{1\mu }+h_2V_{2\mu }+h_3V_{3\mu }+h_4V_{4\mu }+h_6V_{6\mu }+h_{19}V_{19\mu }+h_{20}V_{20\mu }+h_{26}V_{26\mu }+h_{27}V_{27\mu }+h_{28}V_{28\mu }\right\},`$ (100)
where the coefficients $`h_i`$ are given by

$`h_1`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{h}_1{\displaystyle \frac{\left[\stackrel{~}{a}(P_1)\stackrel{~}{a}(P_2)\right]}{2(P_1^2P_2^2)}}`$ (102)
$`h_2`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{h}_2{\displaystyle \frac{\left[\stackrel{~}{a}(P_1)\stackrel{~}{a}(P_2)\right]}{2(P_1^2P_2^2)}}`$ (103)
$`h_3`$ $`=`$ $`h_4=\stackrel{~}{h}_3{\displaystyle \frac{\left[\stackrel{~}{a}(P_1)\stackrel{~}{a}(P_2)\right]}{2(P_1^2P_2^2)}}`$ (104)
$`h_6`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{h}_6{\displaystyle \frac{\left[\stackrel{~}{a}(P_1)+\stackrel{~}{a}(P_2)\right]}{2}}`$ (105)
$`h_{19}`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{h}_{19}{\displaystyle \frac{\left[\stackrel{~}{b}(P_1)\stackrel{~}{b}(P_2)\right]}{P_1^2P_2^2}}`$ (106)
$`h_{20}`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{h}_{20}{\displaystyle \frac{\left[\stackrel{~}{b}(P_1)\stackrel{~}{b}(P_2)\right]}{(P_1^2P_2^2)}}`$ (107)
$`h_{26}`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{h}_{26}`$ (108)
$`h_{27}`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{h}_{27}`$ (109)
$`h_{28}`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{h}_{28}.`$ (110)
By expressing Eq. (LABEL:hs) in terms of the set of 32 elemental spin structures and, on the other hand, comparing this with the expansion of the transverse vertex given by Eq. (39), we find that the coefficients $`\tau _i`$, $`i=1\mathrm{}24`$, satisfy the following systems of linear equations

$`(P_2Q)\tau _2+\tau _3\tau _6(QU)\tau _{22}`$ $`=`$ $`h_1`$ (111)
$`(P_1Q)\tau _2+\tau _3+\tau _6+(QU)\tau _{22}`$ $`=`$ $`h_2`$ (112)
$`(P_2Q)\tau _2\tau _3+\tau _6\tau _8+(QU)\tau _{22}+(QU)\tau _{24}`$ $`=`$ $`h_3`$ (113)
$`(P_1Q)\tau _2\tau _3\tau _6+\tau _8(QU)\tau _{22}(QU)\tau _{24}`$ $`=`$ $`h_3`$ (114)
$`\tau _8+(QU)\tau _{24}`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (115)
$`Q^2\tau _3+(P_1^2P_2^2)\tau _6(P_1P_2)\tau _8(QU)(P_1^2P_2^2)\tau _{22}(QU)(P_1P_2)\tau _{24}`$ $`=`$ $`h_6`$ (116)
$`2(P_1^2P_2^2)\tau _{22}+2(QP_2)\tau _{24}`$ $`=`$ $`h_{27}`$ (117)
$`2(P_1^2P_2^2)\tau _{22}2(QP_1)\tau _{24}`$ $`=`$ $`h_{28},`$ (118)
$`(P_2Q)\tau _1(Q^22P_1P_2)\tau _4+\tau _5+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(P_1^2P_2^22P_1P_2)\tau _7`$ $`+`$ (119)
$`(QU)(P_2Q)\tau _{17}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(QU)(P_1^2P_2^22P_1P_2)\tau _{23}`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (120)
$`(P_1Q)\tau _1(Q^2+2P_1P_2)\tau _4\tau _5+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(P_1^2P_2^22P_1P_2)\tau _7`$ $`+`$ (121)
$`(QU)(P_1Q)\tau _{17}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(QU)(P_1^2P_2^22P_1P_2)\tau _{23}`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (122)
$`2\tau _4+\tau _7+(QU)\tau _{23}`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (123)
$`2\tau _4+\tau _7+(QU)\tau _{23}`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (124)
$`Q^2\tau _4\tau _5{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(P_1^2P_2^2)\tau _7+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(QU)(P_1^2P_2^2)\tau _{23}`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (125)
$`Q^2\tau _4+\tau _5{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(P_1^2P_2^2)\tau _7+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(QU)(P_1^2P_2^2)\tau _{23}`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (126)
$`2(P_1Q)(P_2Q)\tau _{17}(P_1^2P_2^2)(P_1^2P_2^22P_1P_2)\tau _{23}`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (127)
$`2(P_1^2P_2^2)\tau _{23}`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (128)
$`(P_2Q)\tau _{10}\tau _{11}+\tau _{14}+(QU)(P_2Q)\tau _{18}+(QU)\tau _{19}`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (129)
$`(P_1Q)\tau _{10}\tau _{11}\tau _{14}+(QU)(P_1Q)\tau _{18}+(QU)\tau _{19}`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (130)
$`(P_2Q)\tau _{10}+\tau _{11}\tau _{14}+\tau _{16}+(QU)(P_2Q)\tau _{18}(QU)\tau _{19}`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (131)
$`(P_1Q)\tau _{10}+\tau _{11}+\tau _{14}\tau _{16}+(QU)(P_1Q)\tau _{18}(QU)\tau _{19}`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (132)
$`\tau _{16}`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (133)
$`Q^2\tau _{11}(P_1^2P_2^2)\tau _{14}+(P_1P_2)\tau _{16}+(QU)Q^2\tau _{19}`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (134)
$`2(P_1Q)(P_2Q)\tau _{18}2Q^2\tau _{19}`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (135)
$`2(P_1Q)(P_2Q)\tau _{18}+2Q^2\tau _{19}`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (136)
$`(P_2Q)\tau _9+(Q^22P_1P_2)\tau _{12}\tau _{13}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(P_1^2P_2^22P_1P_2)\tau _{15}`$ $``$ (137)
$`(QU)(Q^22P_1P_2)\tau _{20}(QU)\tau _{21}`$ $`=`$ $`h_{19}`$ (138)
$`(P_1Q)\tau _9+(Q^2+2P_1P_2)\tau _{12}+\tau _{13}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(P_1^2P_2^22P_1P_2)\tau _{15}`$ $``$ (139)
$`(QU)(Q^2+2P_1P_2)\tau _{20}+(QU)\tau _{21}`$ $`=`$ $`h_{20}`$ (140)
$`2\tau _{12}+\tau _{15}+2(QU)\tau _{20}`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (141)
$`2\tau _{12}+\tau _{15}2(QU)\tau _{20}`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (142)
$`Q^2\tau _{12}\tau _{13}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(P_1^2P_2^2)\tau _{15}+(QU)Q^2\tau _{20}`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (143)
$`Q^2\tau _{12}+\tau _{13}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(P_1^2P_2^2)\tau _{15}+(QU)Q^2\tau _{20}`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (144)
$`2Q^2(P_1^2P_2^22P_1P_2)\tau _{20}+Q^2\tau _{21}`$ $`=`$ $`h_{26}`$ (145)
$`4Q^2\tau _{20}`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (146)
Equations (118)-(146) constitute 4 sets, each consisting of 8 linear algebraic equations for the 24 unknowns $`\tau _i`$. This means that not all of the equations are independent and therefore, there must be some relations among the several inhomogeneous terms. It is also a straightforward exercise to verify that indeed this is the case and that such relations are

$`(P_1Q)h_{19}+(P_2Q)h_{20}+(QU)h_{26}`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (147)
$`(P_1Q)h_1(P_2Q)h_2Q^2h_3+2h_6+(QU)(h_{27}h_{28})`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (148)
$`(P_1Q)h_1+(P_2Q)h_2+(P_1^2P_2^2)h_3+(QU)(h_{27}+h_{28})`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (149)
The non-vanishing coefficients which solve the sets of Eqs. (118)-(146) are given by

$`\tau _2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2Q^2}}(h_1+h_2+2h_3)`$ (150)
$`\tau _3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(h_1+h_22h_3)`$ (151)
$`\tau _6`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(h_1h_2)+{\displaystyle \frac{(QU)}{2Q^2(P_1^2P_2^2)}}\left[(P_2Q)h_{27}+(P_1Q)h_{28}\right]`$ (152)
$`\tau _8`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(QU)}{Q^2}}\left(h_{27}+h_{28}\right)`$ (153)
$`\tau _9`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{Q^2}}(h_{19}+h_{29})`$ (154)
$`\tau _{21}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{Q^2}}h_{26}`$ (155)
$`\tau _{22}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2Q^2(P_1^2P_2^2)}}\left[(P_1Q)h_{27}+(P_2Q)h_{28}\right]`$ (156)
$`\tau _{24}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2Q^2}}(h_{27}+h_{28}).`$ (157)
We would like to emphasize the following points:

* The $`\tau _i`$ in Eqs. (157) are independent of the gauge parameter $`\xi `$, since they are obtained from the HTL vertex, which is known to be gauge fixing independent.
* Given that, at finite temperature in the HTL approximation, the explicit expression for the vertex $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu (P_1,P_2)`$, Eqs. (10) and (11), is symmetric under the exchange of $`P_1`$ and $`P_2`$, the coefficients of (anti)symmetric vectors $`T_\mu ^i`$ are also (anti)symmetric.

Note that $`\tau _6`$ and $`\tau _{22}`$ have a kinematic singularity when $`P_1^2P_2^2`$. In this limit, these vectors point along the same direction

$`T_\mu ^6`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma _\mu (P_1^2P_2^2)+(P_1+P_2)_\mu \overline{)}Q`$ (158)
$`\stackrel{P_1^2P_2^2}{}`$ $`\overline{)}Q(P_1+P_2)_\mu `$ (159)
$`T_\mu ^{22}`$ $`=`$ $`(QU)\left[\gamma _\mu (P_1^2P_2^2)+(P_1+P_2)_\mu \overline{)}Q\right]2(P_1^2P_2^2)\overline{)}QU_\mu `$ (160)
$`\stackrel{P_1^2P_2^2}{}`$ $`\overline{)}Q(QU)(P_1+P_2)_\mu .`$ (161)
Therefore, they can be added up and the kinematic singularities are canceled out in the sum, as expected. This observation helps us redefine one of these vectors in such a way that the coefficients of both of them are independently free of the singularities.

$`T_\mu ^{22}T_\mu ^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}22}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2(P_1^2P_2^2)}}\left[T_\mu ^{22}(QU)T_\mu ^6\right]`$ (162)
$`=`$ $`(QU)\gamma _\mu Q\overline{)}U_\mu .`$ (163)
With this redefinition, the new coefficients $`\tau _6^{}`$ and $`\tau _{22}^{}`$ are

$`\tau _6^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\tau _6+(QU)\tau _{22}`$ (164)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(h_1h_2)+{\displaystyle \frac{(QU)}{2Q^2}}\left[h_{27}+h_{28}\right]`$ (165)
$`\tau _{22}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`2(P_1^2P_2^2)\tau _{22}`$ (166)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{Q^2}}\left[(P_1Q)h_{27}+(P_2Q)h_{28}\right],`$ (167)
which are explicitly free of kinematic singularities.

## V Conclusions

In this paper, we present the one loop calculation of the fermion-boson vertex in QED at finite temperature in the HTL approximation. In the most general form, the vertex can be written in terms of 32 independent Lorentz vectors. Following the procedure outlined by Ball and Chiu, 8 of the 32 vectors define the longitudinal vertex which satisfies the WTI relating it to the fermion propagator. The transverse vertex is written in terms of the remaining 24 vectors. The choice of these basis vectors is not unique but is a natural and straightforward extension of the $`T=0`$ basis given in Ref. . We have evaluated the coefficients of the basis vectors. Given that in this scheme, a kinematic singularity appears in two of the coefficients, we have modified the choice of one of the transverse vectors to simultaneously remove both singularities. Any non-perturbative vertex ansatz should reproduce Eqs. (157) and (167) in the weak coupling and high temperature regime. Therefore, Eqs. (157) and (167) should serve as a guide to construct a non-perturbative vertex in QED at finite, albeit large, temperature. Finally, it is important to also note that the present analysis is valid for any SU(N) gauge theory, (for instance QCD) provided that the thermal fermion mass includes the corresponding group factor .

A reliable non-perturbative vertex is essential for the study of dynamical symmetry breaking through the corresponding Schwinger-Dyson Equations. One may also be able to make useful predictions for the gauge theory contributions to the top-quark condensate scheme of electroweak symmetry breaking at finite temperature , leading to a better insight into the electroweak phase transition. All this is for the future.

## Acknowledgements

The authors are in debt to A. Weber for useful discussions and comments. Support for this work has been received in part by the CIC and CONACyT under grants numbers 4.12, 32395-E and 32279-E, respectively.

## Appendix

Here, we explicitly compute the integrals involved in the calculations of Sect. IV. Capital letters are used throughout to denote four-momentum vectors. $`\widehat{K}^\mu =(1,\widehat{}k)`$. We start with the function $`G_{00}`$

$`G_{00}(P_1,P_2)={\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Omega }}{4\pi }\frac{1}{(P_1\widehat{K})(P_2\widehat{K})}}.`$ (168)
Introducing the Feynman parameter $`x`$, we can write

$`G_{00}(P_1,P_2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑x{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Omega }}{4\pi }\frac{1}{\left[(xP_1+(1x)P_2)\widehat{K}\right]^2}}`$ (169)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑x{\displaystyle _1^1}d(\mathrm{cos}\theta ){\displaystyle \frac{1}{[u+v\mathrm{cos}\theta ]^2}},`$ (170)
where we have defined the functions $`u`$ and $`v`$ by

$`u`$ $``$ $`xp_{10}+(1x)p_{20}`$ (171)
$`v`$ $``$ $`|x𝐩_1+(1x)𝐩_2|.`$ (172)
After integration over the polar angle $`\theta `$, we obtain

$`G_{00}(P_1,P_2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^1}{\displaystyle \frac{dx}{u^2v^2}}`$ (173)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^1}{\displaystyle \frac{dx}{[xP_1+(1x)P_2]^2}},`$ (174)
from where the result in Eq. (66) follows. Next, for the computation of the function $`G_{0i}`$, we require to compute integrals of the type

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Omega }}{4\pi }\frac{𝐩_1\widehat{}k}{(P_1\widehat{K})(P_2\widehat{K})}}.`$ (175)
Adding and subtracting $`p_{10}`$ in the numerator of the integral in Eq. (175), we get

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Omega }}{4\pi }\frac{𝐩_1\widehat{}k}{(P_1\widehat{K})(P_2\widehat{K})}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Omega }}{4\pi }\left\{\frac{p_{10}𝐩_1\widehat{}kp_{10}}{(P_1\widehat{K})(P_2\widehat{K})}\right\}}`$ (176)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Omega }}{4\pi }\frac{1}{(P_2\widehat{K})}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Omega }}{4\pi }\frac{p_{10}}{(P_1\widehat{K})(P_2\widehat{K})}}.`$ (177)
The first of the expressions in the second line of Eq. (177) is explicitly given by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Omega }}{4\pi }\frac{1}{(P_2\widehat{K})}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _1^1}d(\mathrm{cos}\theta ){\displaystyle \frac{1}{p_{20}+p_2\mathrm{cos}\theta }}`$ (178)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2p_2}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{p_{20}+p_2}{p_{20}p_2}}\right)`$ (179)
$``$ $`L(P_2),`$ (180)
whereas the second of the terms in the second line of Eq. (177) is simply $`p_{10}`$ times $`G_{00}`$. Therefore,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Omega }}{4\pi }\frac{𝐩_1\widehat{}k}{(P_1\widehat{K})(P_2\widehat{K})}}=p_{10}M(P_1,P_2)+L(P_2).`$ (181)
Analogously,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Omega }}{4\pi }\frac{𝐩_2\widehat{}k}{(P_1\widehat{K})(P_2\widehat{K})}}=p_{20}M(P_1,P_2)+L(P_1),`$ (182)
from where the result in Eqs. (75) follows. Finally, for the computation of the function $`G_{ij}`$, we first compute an integral of the type

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Omega }}{4\pi }\frac{(𝐩_1\widehat{}k)^2}{(P_1\widehat{K})(P_2\widehat{K})}}.`$ (183)
Adding and subtracting $`p_{10}`$ in one of the factors in the numerator of Eq. (183), we obtain

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Omega }}{4\pi }\frac{(𝐩_1\widehat{}k)^2}{(P_1\widehat{K})(P_2\widehat{K})}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Omega }}{4\pi }\left\{\frac{(p_{10}+𝐩_1\widehat{}kp_{10})(𝐩_1\widehat{}k)}{(P_1\widehat{K})(P_2\widehat{K})}\right\}}`$ (184)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Omega }}{4\pi }\frac{𝐩_1\widehat{}k}{(P_2\widehat{K})}}+p_{10}{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Omega }}{4\pi }\frac{1}{(P_2\widehat{K})}}`$ (185)
$`+`$ $`p_{10}^2{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Omega }}{4\pi }\frac{1}{(P_1\widehat{K})(P_2\widehat{K})}}.`$ (186)
The first of the integrals in the second line of Eq. (186) is given explicitly by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Omega }}{4\pi }\frac{𝐩_1\widehat{}k}{(P_2\widehat{K})}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{𝐩_1𝐩_2}{2p_2}}{\displaystyle _1^1}d(\mathrm{cos}\theta ){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}\theta }{p_{20}+p_2\mathrm{cos}\theta }}`$ (187)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{𝐩_1𝐩_2}{p_2^2}}+\left({\displaystyle \frac{p_{20}}{p_2^2}}𝐩_1𝐩_2\right)L(P_2).`$ (188)
On the other hand, the second of the terms in the second line of Eq. (186) is simply $`p_{10}`$ times $`L(P_2)`$, whereas the third term is just $`p_{10}^2`$ times $`G_{00}`$. Therefore, the integral under scrutiny is given by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Omega }}{4\pi }\frac{(𝐩_1\widehat{}k)^2}{(P_1\widehat{K})(P_2\widehat{K})}}={\displaystyle \frac{𝐩_1𝐩_2}{p_2^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{p_{20}}{p_2^2}}𝐩_1𝐩_2\right)L(P_2)p_{10}L(P_2)+p_{10}^2M(P_1,P_2).`$ (189)
Analogously,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Omega }}{4\pi }\frac{(𝐩_2\widehat{}k)^2}{(P_1\widehat{K})(P_2\widehat{K})}}={\displaystyle \frac{𝐩_1𝐩_2}{p_1^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{p_{10}}{p_1^2}}𝐩_1𝐩_2\right)L(P_1)p_{20}L(P_1)+p_{20}^2M(P_1,P_2).`$ (190)
The last integral required is given by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Omega }}{4\pi }\frac{(𝐩_1\widehat{}k)(𝐩_2\widehat{}k)}{(P_1\widehat{K})(P_2\widehat{K})}},`$ (191)
Adding and subtracting $`p_{10}`$ in the first and $`p_{20}`$ in the second of the factors in the numerator of the above integral, we get

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Omega }}{4\pi }\frac{(𝐩_1\widehat{}k)(𝐩_2\widehat{}k)}{(P_1\widehat{K})(P_2\widehat{K})}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Omega }}{4\pi }\frac{(p_{10}+𝐩_1\widehat{}kp_{10})(p_{20}+𝐩_2\widehat{}kp_{20})}{(P_1\widehat{K})(P_2\widehat{K})}}`$ (192)
$`=`$ $`1+p_{10}{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Omega }}{4\pi }\frac{1}{(P_1\widehat{K})}}+p_{20}{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Omega }}{4\pi }\frac{1}{(P_2\widehat{K})}}`$ (193)
$`+`$ $`p_{10}p_{20}{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Omega }}{4\pi }\frac{1}{(P_1\widehat{K})(P_2\widehat{K})}},`$ (194)
which, by using Eqs. (168) and (180), can be written as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Omega }}{4\pi }\frac{(𝐩_1\widehat{}k)(𝐩_2\widehat{}k)}{(P_1\widehat{K})(P_2\widehat{K})}}=1p_{10}L(P_1)p_{20}L(P_2)+p_{10}p_{20}M(P_1,P_2),`$ (195)
from where Eqs. (81) follow.


format: text

text:
# Phys. Rev. D 64, 024007 (2001) Gravitational waveforms with controlled accuracy

## I Introduction

One of the most impressive achievements of the characteristic approach is its demonstrated ability to carry out long-term stable evolutions  of generic single black hole spacetimes. Work is under way to extend these numerical simulations to the post-merger regime of binary black hole coalescence, by first computing the gravitational radiation emitted during a white hole fission , and then extending these results to compute the gravitational waveforms emitted during the post-merger phase of a binary black hole collision .

The present work is an outgrowth of one of these projects, having been motivated by numerical difficulties that we have encountered with the present implementation of the characteristic code . In the course of our simulations of a white-hole fission , we have noticed an angular oscillation mode in some of the metric variables of the characteristic formulation, similar in appearance to a red-black  decoupling. Numerical experiments reveal that although the area that it affects can be somewhat reduced, its amplitude does not converge to zero with increasing grid resolution for practical grid sizes in the rapidly changing environment near the time of merger of a binary black hole. We had expected to see convergence in this regime, given the measured second order convergence of the code on less rapidly changing solutions, even at fairly low resolutions .

This effect is clearly of numerical nature, and would not have been observed in earlier work, as it is only triggered when, in addition to extreme nonlinearities in the metric functions (such as those found in the post-merger phase of the head-on collision of two black holes, or in the time-reversed picture, during the fission of a single black-hole), a fairly large degree of asymmetry and of time dependence in the metric functions is present. Moreover, it appears that even when some of these conditions are satisfied, the dissipation built into the algorithm used for the evolution the conformal metric of the spheres  can, in certain circumstances, be sufficient to suppress the spurious oscillations, provided the boundary data is specified analytically .

In the systems that we have previously considered, such as Robinson-Trautman spacetimes, a perturbed Kerr black hole  and the collapse of matter into a black hole , our choice of the gauge conditions at the boundary effectively precluded fulfilling the second condition above. In all cases, the boundary data was given analytically, so no extraneous effects could be observed.

This oscillatory mode is not an unstable mode of the finite difference approximation in the usual sense of exponential growth of the error. This is confirmed by tests where random initial and/or boundary data  is prescribed, and the code run for many crossing times. But it is worth pointing out that while those tests are useful to spot exponentially growing modes, they would not detect a non-exponentially growing oscillatory mode such as the one we address here.

We observe, in fact, an inaccuracy in the computation of the metric variable $`W`$, which does not converge to zero, and gets triggered in situations where there are large angular variations and rapid time changes in the metric variables, specially in $`\beta `$, Eq. (2). Because $`\beta `$ is related to the time slicing of the boundary (and in the black hole case, this boundary is the event horizon $`^+`$), $`\beta `$ will indeed change substantially near the time of coalescence of a binary black hole horizon (or, in the time-reversed description actually used by our numerical code, near the time of fission of a white hole).

The PITT null code runs stably in the usual sense (without exponentially growing modes) in the configurations that we have explored. The effect of the angular noise is nevertheless important for our present purposes, since the angular error it introduces in the metric functions is most pronounced near null infinity, and this in turn spoils the accuracy of the waveforms computed.

We have found that the difficulty lies with the characteristic evolution equations themselves, and it is not a boundary-induced effect. Although the boundary (horizon) data is smooth and, by construction, satisfies the consistency conditions , the evolution and hypersurface equations themselves introduce the above mentioned oscillation mode, which is shown clearly in Fig. 1. We have found clear evidence that the origin of the difficulty lies with those terms in the equations that contain second angular derivatives. These type of terms are present both in the evolution equation for the conformal metric of the surfaces at constant luminosity distance $`r`$, and in the hypersurface equation for the metric function $`W`$ itself. Most notably, when this terms are suppressed, so is the angular oscillation mode in $`W`$. The most troublesome terms are those containing second angular derivatives of the metric variable $`\beta `$, of the form $`ð\overline{ð}\beta `$ and $`ð^2\beta `$.

Second angular derivatives of the conformal metric $`h_{AB}`$, Eq. (2), also appear in the hypersurface equation for $`W`$, in the form of $`\overline{ð}^2`$ and $`ð\overline{ð}`$ operators acting on quantities defined in terms of the conformal metric. However, these terms do not seem to lead to numerical difficulties as pronounced as those caused by the terms involving second angular derivatives of $`\beta `$, although the reason behind this is not entirely clear at the moment. It is possible that in the present regime the contribution from these terms is not as important.

Our rationale for implementing the characteristic code in mixed first and second order form has been that doing so is entirely straightforward, and leads to an accurate and stable discretization with the least number of variables. The argument of using the least variables is compelling; however one must consider whether relaxing this requirement might not lead to better overall numerical behavior. We will show that this is indeed the case.

Rigorous stability arguments can be given for the linearized system  in the axisymmetric case, with the analysis extending unmodified to the full three-dimensional problem as shown in . Later work  has shown that special care must be taken in the nonlinear case, as some unstable modes are present that are not revealed by the Von-Neuman analysis of the linear problem. One must keep in mind however that a stable discretization of a model problem as in  may not address other issues such as those raised here. The numerical analysis for mixed order systems is not yet at the level of sophistication achieved for first differential order systems. Long-term stable evolutions  have been achieved, and this is a consequence of the remarkably good choice of variables and coordinates inherent to Bondi’s system of equations, as well as of the care taken in implementing them numerically.

We have attempted to solve the problem at hand by the expeditious method of introducing further dissipation in the equations, in the spirit of . Regrettably, these numerical remedies do not seem to have the desired effect, apparently because they do not go to the root of the problem.

We consider here a different solution, which is analytic in nature, but motivated by a numerical application, specifically the need to attain controlled accuracy in the computation of gravitational waveforms out of highly distorted single black hole systems. Our approach is to remove the offending second angular derivatives from our system of equations altogether, by introducing additional variables, in terms of which the enlarged system can be written in first differential order form in the angular coordinates. We thus implement a partial reduction to a first differential order system, leaving the radial part of the evolution equations in second order form, and allowing for mixed radial and angular derivatives, both in the original equations and in the auxiliary equations introduced. One goal is to preserve, where appropriate, the radial and time integration schemes developed for the PITT null code, whose long-term stability (in the usual sense of not having exponentially growing modes) has been amply demonstrated . At the same time, we perform the necessary modification to the system of equations to make the PITT null code useful for the problem at hand.

The plan of the present paper is as follows: in Sec. II we briefly review the characteristic formulation in its standard second-order form. This material has appeared in Refs. , and we include it here in a condensed form, as needed for the derivation of the partially reduced system. Our new results are contained in Sec. III and onward, where we present a partial reduction of the characteristic formulation, with all second order angular derivatives eliminated with the aid of a (minimal) set of additional variables. In Sec. IV, we review the discretization strategy for the system of equations introduced in Sec. III. Finally, we present an application of the partially reduced system in Sec. V to the computation of the spacetime exterior to a white hole horizon, comparing our results with those obtained with the standard null cone formulation.

## II Null cone formulation in second order form

The material in this section has appeared in Refs.  which should be consulted for a detailed derivation. Here we present the main equations (including all the nonlinear terms), in a slightly more compact form than that of Ref. , for ease of reference and to provide a starting point for the approach developed in Sec. III.

We use coordinates based upon a family of outgoing null hypersurfaces, letting $`u`$ label these hypersurfaces, $`x^A`$ $`(A=2,3)`$, label the null rays, and $`r`$ be a surface area coordinate, such that in the $`x^\alpha =(u,r,x^A)`$ coordinates, the metric takes the Bondi-Sachs form

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`\left[e^{2\beta }\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{W}{r}}\right)r^2h_{AB}U^AU^B\right]du^22e^{2\beta }dudr`$ (1)
$``$ $`2r^2h_{AB}U^Bdudx^A+r^2h_{AB}dx^Adx^B,`$ (2)
where $`W`$ is related to the Bondi-Sachs variable $`V`$ by $`V=r+W`$; and where $`h^{AB}h_{BC}=\delta _C^A`$ and $`det(h_{AB})=det(q_{AB})`$, with $`q_{AB}`$ a unit sphere metric, given in terms of a complex dyad $`q_A`$ satisfying $`q^Aq_A=0`$, $`q^A\overline{q}_A=2`$, $`q^A=q^{AB}q_B`$, with $`q^{AB}q_{BC}=\delta _C^A`$ and $`q_{AB}=\frac{1}{2}\left(q_A\overline{q}_B+\overline{q}_Aq_B\right)`$.

We represent tensors on the sphere by spin-weighted variables . The conformal metric $`h_{AB}`$, which satisfies the condition $`det(h_{AB})=det(q_{AB})`$, is represented by the complex function $`J=\frac{1}{2}h_{AB}q^Aq^B`$, and by the real function $`K=\frac{1}{2}h_{AB}q^A\overline{q}^B`$, where $`K^2=1+J\overline{J}`$. The metric functions $`U^A`$ are similarly encoded in the complex function $`U=q_AU^A`$ . Angular derivatives are expressed in terms of $`ð`$ and $`\overline{ð}`$ operators, for details, see Ref. .

The equations for the null cone formulation, in second order form, are obtained directly from the appropriate components of the Ricci tensor . These equations form a hierarchy, splitting into hypersurface equations, which involve only derivatives on the null cone, i.e. $`R_{rr}=0`$ provides an equation for $`\beta _{,r}`$ in terms of $`J`$, while $`R_{rA}q^A=0`$ gives $`U_{rr}`$ in terms of $`J`$ and $`\beta `$, and the trace $`R_{AB}h^{AB}=0`$ yields $`W_{,r}`$ in terms of $`J`$, $`\beta `$ and $`U`$, respectively.

The main equations  consist of the hypersurface equations

$`\beta _{,r}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{r}{8}}\left(J_{,r}\overline{J}_{,r}K_{,r}^2\right),`$ (3)
$`(r^2Q)_{,r}`$ $`=`$ $`r^2(\overline{ð}J+ðK)_{,r}+2r^4ð\left(r^2\beta \right)_{,r}`$ (4)
$`+`$ $`r^2((1K)(ðK_{,r}+\overline{ð}J_{,r})+ð(\overline{J}J_{,r})+\overline{ð}(JK_{,r})J_{,r}\overline{ð}K`$ (5)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2K^2}}(ð\overline{J}(J_{,r}J^2\overline{J}_{,r})+ðJ(\overline{J}_{,r}\overline{J}^2J_{,r}))).`$ (6)
$`U_{,r}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^{2\beta }}{r^2}}\left(KQJ\overline{Q}\right),`$ (7)
$`W_{,r}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}e^{2\beta }1e^\beta ð\overline{ð}e^\beta +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}r^2\left(r^4\left(ð\overline{U}+\overline{ð}U\right)\right)_{,r}`$ (8)
$`+`$ $`e^{2\beta }[(1K)(ð\overline{ð}\beta +ð\beta \overline{ð}\beta )+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(J(\overline{ð}\beta )^2+\overline{J}(ð\beta )^2)`$ (9)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(ð\beta (\overline{ð}Kð\overline{J})+\overline{ð}\beta (ðK\overline{ð}J))+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(J\overline{ð}^2\beta +\overline{J}ð^2\beta )]`$ (11)
$`e^{2\beta }{\displaystyle \frac{r^4}{8}}(2KU_{,r}\overline{U}_{,r}+J\overline{U}_{,r}^2+\overline{J}U_{,r}^2).`$
and the evolution equation for $`J`$, obtained from $`R_{AB}q^Aq^B`$,

$`2\left(rJ\right)_{,ur}\left(r^1V\left(rJ\right)_{,r}\right)_{,r}=`$ (12)
$`r^1\left(r^2ðU\right)_{,r}+2r^1e^{2\beta }\left(ð^2\beta +(ð\beta )^2\right)\left(r^1W\right)_{,r}J+N_J.`$ (13)
where

$$=2Kð\overline{ð}K+\frac{1}{2}(\overline{ð}^2J+ð^2\overline{J})+\frac{1}{4K}(\overline{ð}\overline{J}ðJ\overline{ð}Jð\overline{J}).$$
(14)
and we have used the intermediate variable $`Q=r^2e^{2\beta }\left(J\overline{U}_{,r}+KU_{,r}\right)`$. $`N_J`$ denotes the non-linear terms

$$N_J=N_{J1}+N_{J2}+N_{J3}+N_{J4}+N_{J5}+N_{J6}+N_{J7}+\frac{J}{r}(P_1+P_2+P_3+P_4)$$
(15)
where

$`N_{J1}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^{2\beta }}{r}}\left(K(ðJ\overline{ð}\beta +2ðKð\beta \overline{ð}Jð\beta )+J(\overline{ð}J\overline{ð}\beta 2ðK\overline{ð}\beta )\overline{J}ðJð\beta \right),`$ (16)
$`N_{J2}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(ðJ(r\overline{U}_{,r}+2\overline{U})+\overline{ð}J(rU_{,r}+2U)\right),`$ (17)
$`N_{J3}`$ $`=`$ $`(1K)(rðU_{,r}+2ðU)J(rð\overline{U}_{,r}+2ð\overline{U}),`$ (18)
$`N_{J4}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{r^3}{2}}e^{2\beta }\left(K^2U_{,r}^2+2JKU_{,r}\overline{U}_{,r}+J^2\overline{U}_{,r}^2\right),`$ (19)
$`N_{J5}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{r}{2}}J_{,r}(ð\overline{U}+\overline{ð}U),`$ (20)
$`N_{J6}`$ $`=`$ $`r({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\overline{U}ðJ+U\overline{ð}J)(J\overline{J}_{,r}\overline{J}J_{,r})`$ (23)
$`+(JK_{,r}KJ_{,r})\overline{U}\overline{ð}J\overline{U}(ðJ_{,r}2KðKJ_{,r}+2JðKK_{,r})`$
$`U(\overline{ð}J_{,r}Kð\overline{J}J_{,r}+Jð\overline{J}K_{,r})),`$
$`N_{J7}`$ $`=`$ $`r(J_{,r}KJK_{,r})(\overline{U}(\overline{ð}JðK)+U(\overline{ð}Kð\overline{J})`$ (25)
$`+K(\overline{ð}Uð\overline{U})+(J\overline{ð}\overline{U}\overline{J}ðU)),`$
$`P_1`$ $`=`$ $`r^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{J_{,u}}{K}}(\overline{J}_{,r}K\overline{J}K_{,r})+{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{J}_{,u}}{K}}(J_{,r}KJK_{,r})\right)8V\beta _{,r},`$ (26)
$`P_2`$ $`=`$ $`e^{2\beta }(2K(ð\overline{ð}\beta +\overline{ð}\beta ð\beta )(\overline{ð}\beta ðK+ð\beta \overline{ð}K)`$ (27)
$`+`$ $`(J(\overline{ð}^2\beta +(\overline{ð}\beta )^2)+\overline{J}(ð^2\beta +(ð\beta )^2))+(\overline{ð}J\overline{ð}\beta +ð\overline{J}ð\beta )),`$ (28)
$`P_3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{r}{2}}\left((r\overline{ð}U_{,r}+2\overline{ð}U)+(rð\overline{U}_{,r}+2ð\overline{U})\right),`$ (29)
$`P_4`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{r^4}{4}}e^{2\beta }(2KU_{,r}\overline{U}_{,r}+J\overline{U}_{,r}^2+\overline{J}U_{,r}^2).`$ (30)
In Refs.  we have made a partial reduction to a first order system by introducing the auxiliary variable $`Q`$, which plays the role of $`U_{,r}`$. We sometimes refer to this system as first order (in time) because only the first (retarded) time derivative of $`J`$ appears. See Refs.  for details of the discretization of the above system of equations.

## III Null cone formulation in partially reduced form

A reduction to first order form of the system of equations in Ref. , in the quasi-spherical approximation, was considered by Frittelli and Lehner . In their work, the main variables are $`J_{AB}=h_{AB}q_{AB}`$, $`U_A`$, $`\beta `$ and $`\widehat{W}=Vr+2m`$, which measure deviation from Schwarzschild. The auxiliary variables they introduce to reduce the system to first order form are the following radial and angular derivatives of the metric functions, $`B_A=\beta _{,A}`$, $`M_{ABC}=J_{AB,C}`$, $`Q^A=U_{,r}^A`$ and $`P_{AB}=J_{AB,r}`$.

Here we do not work with tensor components directly, but instead, following Refs. , we represent tensors in terms of spin-weighted variables. For example, instead of writing the equations in terms of $`B_A`$, we work with $`B=q^A\beta _{,A}=ð\beta `$, and express its angular derivatives in terms of $`ð`$ and $`\overline{ð}`$ operators. Second angular derivatives of $`\beta `$ can in turn be expressed in terms of $`ðB`$ and $`\overline{ð}B`$.

Eliminating all second angular derivatives in the hypersurface and evolution equations necessitates the introduction of exactly three complex variables. Since by symmetry there are only three independent components of the conformal metric $`h_{AB}`$, there are then only six possible angular derivatives $`h_{AB,C}`$, which are encoded in the three complex quantities

$`\mu `$ $`=ðJ`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}h_{AB,C}q^Aq^Bq^C,`$ (31)
$`\nu `$ $`=\overline{ð}J`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}h_{AB,C}q^Aq^B\overline{q}^C,`$ (32)
$`k`$ $`=ðK`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}h_{AB,C}q^A\overline{q}^Bq^C,`$ (33)
with spin weight $`(3)`$, $`(1)`$ and $`(1)`$, respectively. The first order system for the quasi-spherical case considered in  introduces six new variables just for the angular derivatives of the conformal metric because no use is made there of the determinant condition. The conformal metric $`h_{AB}`$ satisfies the condition $`det(h_{AB})=det(q_{AB})`$, i.e. it contains only two independent pieces of information, which are given in our notation by the complex function $`J=\frac{1}{2}h_{AB}q^Aq^B`$. The remaining dyad component, given by the real function $`K=\frac{1}{2}h_{AB}q^A\overline{q}^B`$, is completely determined by the relation $`K^2=1+J\overline{J}`$, which is a consequence of the determinant condition.

Therefore only two of the three complex quantities in Eqs. (32),(33) can be given independently, with the remaining one fixed by the determinant condition. Our choice is to introduce the additional variables $`\nu =\overline{ð}J`$ and $`k=ðK`$. By inspection of Eqs. (3)–(15), we note that to put the system in first order form in the angular derivatives, we need only introduce one more auxiliary variable, $`B=ð\beta `$.

The new variables are initialized at the boundary with $`B=ð\beta `$, $`\nu =\overline{ð}J`$ and $`k=ðK`$ respectively, and the consistency conditions

$`B_{,r}`$ $`=`$ $`ð\beta _{,r},`$ (34)
$`\nu _{,r}`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{ð}J_{,r},`$ (35)
$`k_{,r}`$ $`=`$ $`ðK_{,r}`$ (36)
propagate them to the interior, being the additional hypersurface equations for the new variables.

The complete system of equations consists of Eqs. (7)–(12) of Ref. , together with Eq. (36), i.e., the evolution equation for $`J`$

$`2\left(rJ\right)_{,ur}\left(r^1V\left(rJ\right)_{,r}\right)_{,r}`$ $`=`$ $`K\left(rðU_{,r}+2ðU\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{r}}e^{2\beta }\left(ðB+B^2\right)`$ (37)
$``$ $`\left(r\stackrel{~}{W}_{,r}+\stackrel{~}{W}\right)J+J_H+JP_u,`$ (38)
and the hierarchy of hypersurface equations

$`\nu _{,r}`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{ð}J_{,r}`$ (39)
$`k_{,r}`$ $`=`$ $`ðK_{,r}`$ (40)
$`\beta _{,r}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{r}{8}}\left(J_{,r}\overline{J}_{,r}K_{,r}^2\right)`$ (41)
$`B_{,r}`$ $`=`$ $`ð\beta _{,r}`$ (42)
$`(r^2Q)_{,r}`$ $`=`$ $`r^2\left[K(k_{,r}+\nu _{,r})+\overline{\nu }J_{,r}+\overline{J}ðJ_{,r}+\nu K_{,r}+J\overline{k}_{,r}J_{,r}\overline{k}\right]`$ (43)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{r^2}{2K^2}}\left[\overline{\nu }\left(J_{,r}J^2\overline{J}_{,r}\right)+ðJ\overline{\left(J_{,r}J^2\overline{J}_{,r}\right)}\right]+2r^2B_{,r}4rB`$ (44)
$`r^2U_{,r}`$ $`=`$ $`e^{2\beta }\left(KQJ\overline{Q}\right)`$ (45)
$`(r^2\stackrel{~}{W})_{,r}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{}\{e^{2\beta }({\displaystyle \frac{}{2}}K(\overline{ð}B+B\overline{B})+\overline{J}(ðB+B^2)+(\nu k)\overline{B})`$ (46)
$``$ $`1+2r\overline{ð}U+{\displaystyle \frac{r^2}{2}}\overline{ð}U_{,r}e^{2\beta }{\displaystyle \frac{r^4}{4}}\overline{U}_{,r}(KU_{,r}+J\overline{U}_{,r})\}`$ (47)
where

$$=\mathrm{}\left(2K+\overline{ð}\left(\nu k\right)+\frac{1}{4K}\left(|ðJ|^2|\nu |^2\right)\right).$$
(48)
In Eqs. (38)–(48) we have expressed the second angular derivatives in terms of $`ð`$ operators acting on $`B`$, $`\nu `$ and $`k`$, replacing also $`ð`$ and $`\overline{ð}`$ operators acting upon $`J`$, $`K`$ and $`\beta `$ with the corresponding auxiliary variables whenever possible.

As in , we have regularized the $`W_{,r}`$ equation by setting $`W=r^2\stackrel{~}{W}`$, and as in Appendix A of , we split the terms which vanish in the quasi-spherical approximation  into two parts, one which contains only hypersurface derivatives,

$`J_H`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^{2\beta }}{r}}(KðJ\overline{B}+(K\nu +(K^21)ðJ2Kk)B`$ (49)
$`+`$ $`J[(2k\nu )\overline{B}2K(\overline{ð}B+B\overline{B})+2\mathrm{}[(\nu k)\overline{B}+\overline{J}(ðB+B^2)]])`$ (50)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{r^3}{2}}e^{2\beta }\left(\left(KU_{,r}+J\overline{U}_{,r}\right)^2J\mathrm{}\left[\overline{U}_{,r}\left(KU_{,r}+J\overline{U}_{,r}\right)\right]\right)`$ (51)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[\nu \left(rU_{,r}+2U\right)+ðJ\overline{\left(rU_{,r}+2U\right)}\right]+Ji\mathrm{}[\overline{ð}\left(rU_{,r}+2U\right)]rJ_{,r}\mathrm{}[\overline{ð}U]`$ (52)
$`+`$ $`r\left(\overline{U}ðJ+U\nu \right)i\mathrm{}\left[J\overline{J}_{,r}\right]r\left(\overline{U}ðJ_{,r}+U\nu _{,r}\right)`$ (53)
$``$ $`2r\left(JK_{,r}KJ_{,r}\right)\left(\mathrm{}[\overline{U}k]+i\mathrm{}[K\overline{ð}U\overline{J}ðU]\right)`$ (54)
$``$ $`8J\left(1+r\stackrel{~}{W}\right)\beta _{,r},`$ (55)
and another, where we have explicitly isolated the only non-linear term where (retarded) time derivatives of $`J`$ appear,

$$P_u=\frac{2r}{K}\mathrm{}\left[J_{,u}\left(\overline{J}_{,r}K\overline{J}K_{,r}\right)\right].$$
(56)
The procedure just described eliminates all second angular derivatives from the hypersurface and evolution equations. In computing the Bondi News, we must also evaluate the conformal factor $`\omega `$, which relates the metric on the $`x^\alpha =(u,r,x^A)`$ coordinates to the metric on a Bondi frame at $`^+`$ . (The relevant expressions are given in Appendix B of Ref.  and we will not repeat them here.) Inspection of Eqns. (B1)-(B6) of  reveals that the second angular derivatives of the conformal factor $`\omega `$ enter in the calculation as well. To remove these derivatives, we introduce the auxiliary variable $`𝒲=ð\omega `$. Since $`\omega `$ is defined solely on $`^+`$, we use the consistency relation $`𝒲_{,u}=ð\omega _{,u}`$ to propagate $`𝒲`$ along the generators of $`^+`$, initializing it with $`𝒲_0=ð\omega _0`$, where $`\omega _0=\omega (x^A,u=u_0)`$.

## IV Numerical integration

We use the compactified coordinate $`x=r/(R+r)`$, such that $`x=1`$ at future null infinity, $`^+`$. Thus, the relevant radial derivatives can be written as $`_r=(1x)^2/R_x`$, $`r_r=x(1x)_x`$ and $`r^2_r=Rx^2_x`$, all of which are regular at $`x=1`$. As in , we carry out the radial integration with the right-hand side of Eqs. (44) evaluated at midpoints of the radial grid,

$$Q_i\left(x_i(1x_i)+\mathrm{\Delta }x\right)Q_{i1}\left(x_{i1}(1x_{i1})\mathrm{\Delta }x\right)=\frac{\left(r^2Q\right)_{,r}}{r}|_{i\frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Delta }x,$$
(57)
and the same treatment is applied to Eq. (47). Note that the hypersurface and evolution equations are manifestly regular at $`^+`$ when expressed in the variable $`x`$, except for the terms $`4rB`$ in Eq. (44) and $`2r\overline{ð}U`$ in Eq. (47) respectively, which have an extra factor of $`r`$. This factor, which would make them singular at $`^+`$, is effectively canceled by the corresponding factor of $`1/r`$ which appears in the right-hand-side of Eq. (57), hence the equations are regular for $`r>0`$. Note also the limiting form of Eq. (44) at $`^+`$, $`Q=2B`$, which is useful in the discretization of $`U_{,r}`$. For details on the numerical implementation of the eth operators, see Ref. . The radial integration algorithm is explained in detail in Refs.  and we will not cover it here. A departure from  is that we use a 3-step iterative Crank-Nicholson scheme  to ensure stability of the time evolution . For the time integration of the conformal factor we use a combination of second-order Runge-Kutta and mid-point rule  integration schemes.

## V Waveforms from a fissioning white hole

We have implemented the system of equations presented in Sec. III, and used it in the calculation of the waveforms emitted by a fissioning white hole. The details of that calculation are beyond the scope of this work and will appear elsewhere . The spacetime exterior to a white hole horizon is computed, by solving a double-null initial-boundary value problem. Boundary data is given on a white hole horizon, and initial data is specified on an outgoing null surface emanating from the horizon.

A procedure for the construction of the complete boundary data, i.e. the intrinsic and extrinsic geometry of the white hole horizon, and a description of how to obtain the boundary data necessary to compute the exterior space-time via characteristic evolution can be found in Ref. . Some regularization of the equations is needed to ensure we deal only with fields which are regular in the entire exterior spacetime .

By reducing the system of equations presented in Refs.  into the form presented in Sec. III, with the addition of the auxiliary variables $`B=ð\beta `$, $`\nu =\overline{ð}J`$ and $`k=ðK`$, we are able to remove the angular oscillation clearly present in the metric function $`W`$ when this is computed with the standard approach.

We take as our benchmark case the most nonlinear (highest eccentricity) case considered in Ref. , with an eccentricity parameter of $`ϵ=10^2`$. This corresponds to a case where the white hole horizon pinches off before the expansion of the outward null rays goes to zero, a necessary condition for a Bondi evolution forward in time throughout the pre-fission period.

Figures 1 and 2 show the metric function $`W`$ at $`^+`$on the north stereographic patch for both approaches. There is a clearly visible high frequency angular mode present in the edge of the patch in the calculation performed with the standard approach, as seen in Fig. 1. This oscillatory mode is clearly absent from Fig. 2.

Using both approaches (standard and reduced), we have computed the waveforms, which correspond to the radiation emitted by a highly distorted white hole. In the time-reversed scenario, this would correspond to the radiation incident from $`^{}`$, and the white-hole horizon, to the post-merger phase of a black hole horizon formed during a binary black hole collision. How to use this information to control the amount of incoming radiation and to gain insight into the radiation emitted during the post-merger phase of a black hole collision will be discussed elsewhere .

Our motivation in introducing the partially reduced system was to control the numerical difficulties encountered in the computation of the radiation, as encoded in the Bondi news. The quality of the numerical waveforms is greatly improved in the partially reduced system. This is readily apparent comparing Figs. 3 and 4, which display the real part of the Bondi News, at a fixed time, for the standard and the reduced form of the equations. (In the plots, the region of the patch below the equator has been masked out.) While the evolution of the exterior spacetime is stable with the standard approach, the numerical noise swamps the signal. The noise is more pronounced near the edges of the stereographic patch, and it propagates to the interior. Figure 4 shows that, with the partially reduced system, the Bondi News at $`^+`$ is perfectly smooth.

## Conclusions

We have introduced a system of equations which takes the traditional null cone formulation and casts it as a system of equations which is of first differential order in the angular variables.

The effectiveness of this approach is clearly demonstrated by comparing the metric functions at null infinity, and specially the waveforms at $`^+`$ when computed via this approach versus those obtained with the traditional characteristic approach, in which second-order angular derivatives are present.

We have thus shown that the partially reduced system of equations is highly effective in suppressing numerical errors, which otherwise would adversely affect the calculations of waveforms in highly nonlinear scenarios.

We are currently using this approach to compute gravitational waveforms emitted during a white hole fission  and during the post-merger phase of a binary black hole collision , and we are studying their application to the characteristic problem with matter sources.

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank J. Winicour for a careful reading of the manuscript. We have benefited from conversations with S. Frittelli, and with N.T. Bishop and L. Lehner. This work has been supported by NSF PHY 9800731 to the University of Pittsburgh. Computer time for this project was provided by the Department of Physics and Astronomy, by the Pittsburgh Supercomputing Center and by NPACI.