format: text

text:
# Comparing Implicit, Differential, Dimensional and BPHZ Renormalisation

## 1 Introduction

It is well known that the higher the symmetry degree of a quantum field theoretic model the more stringent are the constraints on a consistent regularisation scheme to handle the divergences which appear in diagrammatic expansions. For example, whereas a sharp cutoff may be successfully employed in most scalar field theories to reflect the correct physics in perturbation theory, it does not work so well already for abelian gauge field theories. For gauge field theories, DR is one of the most suitable frameworks because the amplitudes can be renormalised using for instance a minimal subtraction scheme (MS) and readily satisfy the Slavnov-Taylor identities.

However some symmetries which are present in the integer dimension may not have a direct analogue in $`n`$ dimensions. This is the case of supersymmetric (SUSY), chiral and topological field theories (the so called dimension specific theories). Some modifications of DR can be effected in order to mend certain shortcomings. For instance one may construct an extension of the algebra of the $`\gamma ^5`$ matrix to dimension $`n`$ and control eventual spurious anomalies by imposing the Slavnov-Taylor identities as constraint equations. This is the usual procedure in the Electroweak Sector of the Standard Model. In Chern-Simons theories it may be necessary to employ an hybrid regularisation procedure by adding Higher Covariant Derivative terms in the Lagrangian which improves the ultraviolet behaviour. The remaining divergences are dealt with DR and adopting an extension of the Levi-Civitta tensor algebra to be compatible with analytical continuation on the space-time dimension. The main drawback in the example above is that the calculation may become extremely complicated beyond the one loop order. A variant of DR called Dimensional Reduction (DRed) was proposed by Siegel . The latter differs from DR in the sense that the continuation from $`4`$ to $`n`$ dimensions is made by compactification. Thus whereas the momentum (or space-time) integrals are $`n`$-dimensional, the number of field components remains unchanged. Such procedure, however, may introduce ambiguities in the finite parts of the amplitudes as well as in the divergent parts in high order corrections. DRed has been largely employed especially in supersymmetric models as the invariance of the action with respect to SUSY transformations holds in general only for specific values of $`n`$. Unfortunately DRed appears to work well only at one loop level. In fact, DRed can be shown to be inconsistent in general with analytical continuation ,  when $`\gamma _5`$ matrices and $`ϵ_{\mu _1\mu _2\mathrm{}}`$ tensors are considered. In general a pragmatic attitude is adopted in handling the shortcomings brought by flawed regularisation frameworks especially when the model in consideration is known to be free of anomalies. In other words the task of treating the infinities in diagrammatic calculations, especially for theories which are sensitive to dimensional continuation, without introducing ambiguities steming from the regulator employed (that is to say, a regulator independent method) is still a subject of major interest. Ultimately it is desirable to construct a framework in which one has simultaneously : 1) no need to add structure to the Lagrangian and hence complicate the Feynman rules; 2) (nonabelian) gauge invariance is systematically guaranteed without having to be imposed as constraint equations order by order; 3) control upon infrared divergences without introducing additional machinery and 4) a method that is friendly from the calculational viewpoint.

The task of treating the ultraviolet infinities in a regulator free fashion has been firstly conceived within the BPHZ formalism . This framework relies ultimately in Weinberg’s theorem which states that a Feynman graph converges if the degree of divergence of the graph and all its subgraphs is negative. A systematic implementation of this idea is the Dyson’s scheme which is based on the idea that differentiation with respect to the external momentum turns the graph less divergent. Hence in Dyson’s method the divergent parts of a graph $`G`$ are subtracted by applying Taylor operators $`t^{d(\gamma )}`$ where $`d(\gamma )`$ is the degree of superficial divergence starting from the smallest subgraphs. When overlapping divergences occur care must be exercised in such subtraction procedure. The BPHZ framework is the generalisation of the Dyson procedure to include overlapping diagrams by means of a well prescribed formula called the forest formula. Although BPHZ is a very powerful framework which enables to construct proofs of renormalizability to all orders, gauge invariance and hence the Slavnov Taylor identities should be imposed as constraint equations. The reason why gauge invariance is broken when the BPHZ method is applied to nonabelian gauge theories lies in the subtraction process which is based on expanding around an external momentum and thus modifying the structure of the corresponding amplitude. Some modifications in the BPHZ framework (Soft BPHZ Scheme) must be made to handle infrared divergencies because in the original formulation the subtraction is constructed at zero external momentum .

DfR - and IR (please see - for applications) seem to be very promising in this sense since they do not modify the space time dimension or introduce an explicit regulator at any step of the calculation. The former is position space method (contact with momentum space is made by means of Fourier transforms) whereas the latter is essentially constructed in momentum space. We shall discuss these methods in greater detail throughout this paper. We believe that the comparison which we shall outline here will show that IR is a promising candidate for handling divergences in field theoretical calculations (UV and infrared) in general in a symmetry preserving fashion yet being simple from the computational point of view.

This paper is organized as follows: in section 1) we give a brief description of DfR and IR and compare with DR. We work out a few examples in $`\varphi ^4`$ theory and $`QED`$ where we discuss the role played by momentum routing invariance in connection with gauge invariance to effect a constrained version of IR. We also claim that to one loop order dimensional Reduction, DfR and IR are equivalent and define what is meant by minimal subtraction in IR. In section 2) we compute explicitly the setting sun diagram in both BPHZ, IR and compare with DfR. This is a nontrivial example because it possesses an interesting divergent structure from which we will clearly see the advantages of applying IR and DfR especially in obtaining the finite part. In section 3) we calculate the gluon self energy in $`QCD`$ within IR to show that it can consistently handle the infrared divergences as well as readily display the finite part expressed by a class of well defined functions. We conclude by outlining a few applications in which IR could be useful and perhaps more advantageous.

## 2 Relationship between Differential, Implicit and Dimensional Renormalisation

DfR was introduced by Freedman, Johnson and Latorre  as a method of regularization and renormalization in coordinate (Euclidian) space. The idea is that the product of propagators is not a distribution and so it has no Fourier transform. In DfR, renormalization is the procedure which extend products of distributions into distributions by substituting bad-behaved expressions by derivatives of well-behaved ones  which are understood as distributions, that is to say, the derivatives are meant to act on test functions. It automatically delivers finite Green’s functions (which are identical to the bare ones for separate points but behave well enough at coincident points) without introducing an intermediate regulator or counterterm. For instance, suppose that we have¡B¿¡/B¿ an amplitude proportional to the product of massless propagators

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_0(x)=\frac{1}{4\pi ^2x^2},x^2=x_\mu x_\mu .$$
(1)
Although $`(\text{1})`$ is a well defined distribution its square is not. According to DfR we search for $`G`$ such that

$$\frac{1}{x^4}=\mathrm{}G(x^2)$$
(2)
which also guarantees manifest Euclidian invariance. In solving such differential equation we gain arbitrary scales among which $`M`$, which is introduced for dimensional reasons in

$$G(x^2)=\frac{1}{4}\frac{\mathrm{ln}x^2M^2}{x^2},$$
(3)
can be shown to play the role of scale variable in the (Callan-Symanzik) renormalisation group equation satisfied by the renormalised amplitude. The latter is constructed by substituting the l.h.s. of $`(\text{2})`$ with its r.h.s. where $`G`$ given by $`(\text{3})`$ , that is

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_0^2(x)\left[\left(\frac{1}{4\pi ^2x^2}\right)^2\right]_R=\frac{1}{(4\pi ^2)^2}\frac{1}{4}\mathrm{}\frac{\mathrm{ln}x^2M^2}{x^2}.$$
(4)
Now $`G(x^2)`$ does have a Fourier transform, namely $`\pi ^2\mathrm{ln}\left(p^2/\overline{M}^2\right)/p^2`$ which enables us to write the Fourier transform of $`(\text{4})`$ as (in the Minkowski space)

$$\left[_k\frac{1}{k^2(kp)^2}\right]_R=b\mathrm{ln}\frac{\overline{M}^2}{p^2}$$
(5)
where

$$b=\frac{i}{(4\pi )^2},$$
(6)
$`_kd^4k/(2\pi )^4`$ and $`\overline{M}2M/\gamma _E`$, $`\gamma _E`$ being the Euler’s constant. A comparison between DfR and DR’s can be easily made. For the sake of clarity, we briefly outline it here for the case of massless theories following , .

Power law singularities of the type $`|x|^n`$ cannot have their degree of divergence decreased by using the identity

$$|x|^p=\frac{\mathrm{}|x|^{p+2}}{(p+2)(np)}$$
(7)
and setting $`p=n`$ because of the pole $`1/(np)`$. Alternatively we may try and regulate by dimensional continuation moving away from $`n`$ by $`rϵ`$ and thus using $`(\text{7})`$ to get

$`\mu ^{rϵ}|x|^{n+rϵ}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ}}\mu ^{rϵ}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r(2n+rϵ)}}\mathrm{}|x|^{n+rϵ+2}`$ (8)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ}}{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi ^{n/2}}{r\left(2n+rϵ\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{n}{2}1\right)}}\delta ^{(n)}(x)`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2(2n)}}\mathrm{}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}\mu ^2|x|^2}{|x|^{n2}}}\right)+𝒪(ϵ).`$
Thus in the dimensional approach the singularity $`x=0`$ is regulated by an infinite counterterm proportional to $`\delta ^{(n)}(x)/ϵ`$. There is also a $`𝒪(ϵ^0)`$ piece in the term proportional to $`\delta ^{(n)}(x)`$ (finite counterterm). If we subtract such counterterms we will be left with a term which is just the result obtained within DfR after identifying $`M`$ with $`\mu `$. Alternatively we can use (8) to compute the regularised value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0^2(x)`$. Given that the massless propagator in $`n`$ dimensions is $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0(x)=\mathrm{\Gamma }(n/21)|x|^{2n}/(4\pi ^{n/2})`$ and $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Delta }_0(x)=\delta ^{(n)}(x)`$ we have

$`\mu ^{2ϵ}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2(n/21)}{4^2\pi ^n}}x^{42n}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{(4\pi ^2)^2}}[\pi ^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ}}\delta ^{(n)}(x)`$ (9)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}(x^2\mu ^2\pi \gamma _Ee^2)}{x^2}}]+𝒪(ϵ).`$
Some comments are in order: The set of rules of DfR  which fix local counterterms to establish equation $`(\text{4})`$ is called constrained differential renormalization (CDfR). In particular, in CDfR one does not introduce arbitrary constants for singular behaviour worse than $`x^4`$. CDfR can be shown to implement gauge invariance automatically at least to one loop order. From $`(\text{9})`$ it is clear that CDfR and DR’s with a fixed initial condition given by $`(\text{9})`$ are equivalent under a MS scheme upon the identification $`M^2=\mu ^2\pi \gamma _Ee^2`$. As a matter of fact CDfR is identical to dimensional reduction to one loop order. In dimensional reduction the coefficients of the basic functions (finite, non-counterterm parts) are never projected into $`n`$ dimensions because all the algebra is performed in physical dimension of the theory just as in CDfR. This is not the case of DR in which $`n`$ can appear multiplying the basic functions which in turn produce different results from dimensional reduction.

IR is a momentum space framework which somewhat resembles BPHZ in the sense that one algebraically manipulates the integrand of the amplitude in order to isolate the infinities. The idea is to isolate the divergences as basic divergent integrals(independent of the external momenta), e.g. ,

$$I_{log}(m^2)=_k\frac{1}{(k^2m^2)^2}$$
(10)
by using judiciously the identity

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{[(k+k_i)^2m^2]}}={\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\left(1\right)^j\left(k_i^2+2k_ik\right)^j}{\left(k^2m^2\right)^{j+1}}}+`$ (11)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\left(1\right)^{N+1}\left(k_i^2+2k_ik\right)^{N+1}}{\left(k^2m^2\right)^{N+1}[\left(k+k_i\right)^2m^2]}},`$
where $`k_i`$ are the external momenta and $`N`$ is chosen so that the last term is finite under integration over $`k`$. Such basic divergent integrals which characterise the divergent structure of the underlying model need not be evaluated: they can be fully absorbed in the definition of the renormalization constants. We shall come back to this issue in connexion with what is meant by MS within IR and its relation to DR and DfR. An important ingredient of IR is that local arbitrary counterterms parametrized by (finite) differences of divergent integrals of the same superficial degree of divergence may be cast into a set of consistency relations ,. They were shown to be connected to momentum routing invariance in the loop of a Feynman diagram. Should they vanish (as indeed they do in DR) then one would automatically have momentum routing invariance and (abelian) gauge invariance. In other words by setting the consistency relations to zero (say, constrained IR (CIR)) one has the analogue to CDfR at one loop order. For $`n=4`$ they read:

$$\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_{\mu \nu }^2_k\frac{g_{\mu \nu }}{k^2m^2}2_k\frac{k_\mu k_\nu }{(k^2m^2)^2},$$
(12)
$$\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_{\mu \nu }^0_k\frac{g_{\mu \nu }}{(k^2m^2)^2}4_k\frac{k_\mu k_\nu }{(k^2m^2)^3},$$
(13)
$$\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }^2g_{\{\mu \nu }g_{\alpha \beta \}}_k\frac{1}{k^2m^2}8_k\frac{k_\mu k_\nu k_\alpha k_\beta }{(k^2m^2)^3},$$
(14)
$$\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }^0g_{\{\mu \nu }g_{\alpha \beta \}}_k\frac{1}{(k^2m^2)^2}24_k\frac{k_\mu k_\nu k_\alpha k_\beta }{(k^2m^2)^4},$$
(15)
etc., where $`g_{\{\mu \nu }g_{\alpha \beta \}}`$ stands for $`g_{\mu \nu }g_{\alpha \beta }+g_{\mu \alpha }g_{\nu \beta }+g_{\mu \beta }g_{\nu \alpha }`$. Generically we may write $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_{\mu \nu }^0=\alpha _ig_{\mu \nu }`$, etc. with $`\alpha _i`$ arbitrary and finite.

It is well known, however, that a shift in $`k`$ is immaterial only if $`\mathrm{\Delta }_s0`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_s`$ being the superficial degree of divergence, otherwise a surface term should be added. This is an indication that one should be careful in what concerns the momentum routing when divergences higher than logarithmic arise in Feynman diagram calculations. Perturbation theory makes a peculiar use of this feature for in some cases gauge invariance relies on adopting a special momentum routing . A related issue is that whilst a shift in the integration variable is allowed within dimensional regularization, the algebraic properties of $`\gamma _5`$ clash with analytical continuation on the space-time dimension. In such cases, in IR we work with arbitrary values for the consistency relations until the end of the calculation so that physical conditions determine (or not) their value. For instance, a democratic display of the Adler-Bardeen-Bell-Jackiw triangle anomaly can only be achieved for arbitrary values of $`(\text{13})`$.

### 2.1 Examples

Here we illustrate the correspondence between the different regularisation frameworks in the context of a MS renormalisation scheme in massless $`\varphi ^4`$-theory and $`QED`$. In particular we study the Ward identity involving the QED vertex function whose finite parte is easily obtained within IR and analyse the role played by the consistency relations and arbitrary momentum routing. The $`4`$-point function of the $`g/4!\varphi _4^4`$-theory to one loop order $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{}}^4(p)`$is proportional to ($`\mu `$ is an infrared cutoff)

$$𝒜_k\frac{1}{(k^2\mu )^2[(kp)^2\mu ^2]}.$$
(16)
In IR we apply $`(\text{11})`$ once to get,

$$𝒜=3I_{log}(\mu ^2)b_0^1𝑑z\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{p^2z(z1)}{\mu ^2}+1\right),$$
(17)
with $`p^2=s,t,u`$. In $`(\text{17})`$ we must separate the ultraviolet and infrared divergences (for the case $`\mu 0`$) before proceeding to renormalisation. This can be easily accomplished by using the identity

$$I_{log}(\mu ^2)=I_{log}(\lambda ^2)+b\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\lambda ^2}{\mu ^2}\right),$$
(18)
which holds for arbitrary $`\lambda `$. This enables us to write

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{}}^4(p)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{2}}(I_{log}(\lambda ^2)+b\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\lambda ^2}{\mu ^2}}\right)`$ (19)
$``$ $`b{\displaystyle _0^1}dz\mathrm{ln}({\displaystyle \frac{p^2z(z1)}{\mu ^2}}+1)|_{p^2=s})`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{2}}(I_{log}(\lambda ^2)+b\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\lambda ^2}{\mu ^2}}\right)`$
$``$ $`b(2+\alpha _s\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s+1}{\alpha _s1}}\right)),`$
with $`\alpha _s=\sqrt{4\mu ^2/s+1}`$. Hence we define the MS within the IR method by subtracting $`I_{log}(\lambda ^2)`$ to yield

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{}}^{4R}|_{MS}(p)=\frac{bg^2}{2}\left(\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\overline{\lambda }^2}{\mu ^2}\right)\alpha _s\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\alpha _s+1}{\alpha _s1}\right)\right).$$
(20)
which is just the result obtained in DfR  with $`\overline{\lambda }^2\lambda ^2\text{e}^2=\overline{M}^2`$. Notice that in the limit where $`\mu 0`$, $`\mu `$ cancels out in the equation above, as it should . That is because the infrared divergent piece of the logarithm $`b\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\lambda ^2}{\mu ^2}\right)`$ cancels out with another piece coming from the finite part of the amplitude. this enables us to write

$$𝒜_{MS}^R=b\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\overline{\lambda }^2}{p^2}\right).$$
(21)
Therefore we have in the MS scheme as defined above for IR the same prescription as defined by equation $`(\text{5})`$ in DfR. Moreover one can verify that $`\overline{\lambda }`$ plays the role of renormalization group scale in the Callan-Symanzik equation. This is expected since it parametrises the arbitrariness in separating the divergent from the finite part. In the massless limit the Callan-Symanzik equation for the $`4`$-point function reads

$$\left(\overline{\lambda }\frac{}{\overline{\lambda }}+\beta \frac{}{g}+4\gamma _\varphi \right)\mathrm{\Gamma }_R^{(4)}(p^2)=0,$$
(22)
from which we compute the standard value $`\beta =3g^2/(16\pi ^2)`$.

We also expect IR to be identical to dimensional reduction (as DfR is) to one loop level for the Lorentz algebra which determines the coefficients of the finite parts in IR is effected in the integer dimension, say $`n=4`$. In order to illustrate this point, as well as to pinpoint the role played by the consistency relations in IR in connection with momentum routing and gauge invariance let us study the QED Ward identity involving the vertex function in IR. The electron self-energy in the Feynman gauge is written as ($`e^2`$ = 1)

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _k}\gamma _\mu {\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathit{}+\mathit{}_1m}}\gamma _\nu {\displaystyle \frac{g_{\mu \nu }}{(k+k_2)^2\mu _\gamma ^2}}`$ (23)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }}{2}}=(\mathit{}_12m)I+\gamma _\mu I^\mu `$
where $`\mu _\gamma `$ is an infrared regulator, $`k_1`$,$`k_2`$ are arbitrary momenta running in the loop such that $`k_1k_2=p`$, $`p`$ being the external momentum, which we shall parametrise by $`\alpha `$ by setting $`k_1=(1+\alpha )p`$ and $`k_2=\alpha p`$), and

$$I,I^\mu =_k\frac{1,k^\mu }{[(k+k_1)^2m^2][(k+k_2)^2\mu _\gamma ^2]}.$$

Now within the spirit of IR we use $`(\text{11})`$ to write

$`I`$ $`=`$ $`I_{log}(m^2){\displaystyle _k}{\displaystyle \frac{k_2^2+2kk_2+m^2\mu _\gamma ^2}{(k^2m^2)^2[(k+k_2)^2\mu _\gamma ^2]}}`$ (24)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle _k}{\displaystyle \frac{k_1^2+2kk_1}{(k^2+m^2)[(k+k_2)^2\mu _\gamma ^2][(k+k_1)^2m^2]}}`$
$`=`$ $`I_{log}(m^2)bZ_0(\mu _\gamma ^2,m^2,p^2;m^2),`$
in which $`Z_0`$ is part of a class of functions which characterise Feynman diagram calculations to one loop order,

$`Z_k(\lambda _1^2,\lambda _2^2,p^2;\lambda ^2)=`$
$`{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑zz^k\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{p^2z(1z)+(\lambda _1^2\lambda _2^2)z\lambda _1^2}{\lambda ^2}}.`$ (25)
We can similarly calculate $`I_\mu `$ to get

$`I^\mu ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(k_1+k_2)^\mu I_{log}(m^2)+(k_1+k_2)\lambda _1p^\mu `$ (26)
$`+`$ $`bk_2^\mu Z_0(\mu _\gamma ^2,m^2,p^2;m^2)bp^\mu Z_1(\mu _\gamma ^2,m^2,p^2;m^2).`$
where $`\lambda _1`$ is defined from $`(\text{13})`$ as

$$\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_{\mu \nu }^0\lambda _1g_{\mu \nu }$$

and is in principle undetermined. The limit $`\mu _\gamma 0`$ is well defined for the $`Z_k`$ functions and $`Z_1(0,m^2,p^2;m^2)=1/2Z_0(0,m^2,p^2;m^2)`$. This enables us to write

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }(p)`$ $`=`$ $`(\mathit{}4m)\left(I_{log}(m^2)bZ_0(0,m^2,p^2;m^2)\right)`$ (27)
$`+`$ $`(2\alpha +1)\lambda _1\mathit{}.`$
In order to establish the value of $`\lambda _1`$ it is natural to check whether the Ward identity which relates $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ to the vertex function can place any constraint on $`\lambda _1`$. Consider the QED vertex function with incoming momenta $`p`$ and $`q`$ and outgoing momentum $`p+q`$ <sup>1</sup><sup>1</sup>1Because the QED vertex function is superficially logarithmically divergent, it must be momentum routing independent.:

$$i\mathrm{\Lambda }^\mu (p,q)=i_k\gamma _\alpha \frac{g^{\alpha \beta }}{k^2\mu _\gamma ^2}\gamma _\beta \frac{1}{\mathit{}+\mathit{}m}\gamma ^\mu \frac{1}{\mathit{}\mathit{}m}$$
(28)
Within the framework of IR we can write, after some tedious yet straightforward algebra,

$`i\mathrm{\Lambda }^\mu (p,q)=\gamma _\nu \mathrm{{\rm Y}}_0^{\mu \nu }+\gamma ^\mu I_{log}(m^2)+2b\gamma ^\mu (\stackrel{~}{Z}Z_0)+`$ (29)
$`+`$ $`b\xi ^{00}\left(4m(p+q)^\mu 2m^2\gamma ^\mu 2\mathit{}\gamma ^\mu \mathit{}\right)+`$
$`+`$ $`2b(\mathit{}+\mathit{})\gamma ^\mu \mathit{}\xi ^{01}+2b\mathit{}\gamma ^\mu (\mathit{}+\mathit{})\xi ^{10}`$
$``$ $`8mb(p^\mu \xi ^{01}+q^\mu \xi ^{10})4b(p^\mu \mathit{}\xi ^{02}+q^\mu \mathit{}\xi ^{20})+`$
$`+`$ $`b(p^\mu \mathit{}+q^\mu \mathit{})\xi ^{11},`$
where

$`Z_0=Z_0(m^2,m^2,(pq)^2;m^2),`$
$`\stackrel{~}{Z}=\stackrel{~}{Z}(\mu _\gamma ^2,m^2,p,q)`$
$`{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑z{\displaystyle _0^{1z}}𝑑y\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{Q(p,q,y,z,\mu _\gamma ^2,m^2)}{m^2}}\right),`$
$`\xi ^{mn}=\xi ^{mn}(\mu _\gamma ^2,m^2,p,q)`$
$`{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑z{\displaystyle _0^{1z}}𝑑y{\displaystyle \frac{y^nz^m}{Q(p,q,y,z,\mu _\gamma ^2,m^2)}},`$
$`Q(p,q,y,z,\mu _\gamma ^2,m^2)=p^2y(1y)+q^2z(1z)`$
$`2pqyz+(z+y)(\mu _\gamma ^2m^2)\mu _\gamma ^2.`$ (30)
Now we write $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_0^{\mu \nu }=\lambda _2g^{\mu \nu }`$ in $`(\text{29})`$, $`\lambda _2`$ being an arbitrary parameter, and redefine

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }(\mathit{})`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}(\mathit{})+(2\alpha +1)\lambda _1\mathit{},`$
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }^\mu (p,q)`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^\mu (p,q)+\gamma ^\mu \lambda _2`$ (31)
which with the help of the relations displayed in the appendix, enable us to verify promptly that

$$(pq)_\mu \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^\mu (p,q)=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}(\mathit{})\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}(\mathit{}).$$
(32)
Hence the Ward identity is fulfilled if

$$\lambda _2=(2\alpha +1)\lambda _1.$$

The natural choice is to set $`\lambda _1=\lambda _2=0`$, which automatically implements both gauge and momentum routing invariance (CIR). Notice that by setting $`\lambda _1=0`$ in $`(\text{27})`$ leads to the same result as obtained in CDfR and dimensional reduction  (which is however different from DR within the same subtraction scheme) as we too have worked in four dimensions.

This illustrates the equivalence between CIR, CDfR and dimensional reduction to one loop level. For instance, the superfield calculation of the one loop correction to the vector propagator is gauge invariant in dimensional reduction scheme only if

$$^\mu =_k\frac{p^\mu +2k^\mu }{k^2(k+p)^2}=0.$$
(33)
We can easily evaluate the integral above within IR to show that it reduces to

$$_{IR}^\mu =p^\nu \mathrm{{\rm Y}}_{\mu \nu }^0$$
(34)
showing that CIR ($`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_{\mu \nu }^0=0`$) may be safe framework to handle the problem. In principle IR is generalisable to higher loop calculations avoiding breakdown of symmetries such as gauge invariance and supersymmetry .

## 3 IR, BPHZ and DfR: A Two Loop Example

In order to illustrate the correspondence between the BPHZ formalism and IR, we shall compute the $`2`$-loop correction to the $`2`$-point function in $`\varphi _4^4`$ theory in both methods and compare with DfR. The amplitude is depicted in figure $`(\text{1})`$ (setting-sun diagram). The computation of the finite part of this diagram is notoriously difficult in DR, for instance. However for both IR and DfR  it can be readily displayed.

The BPHZ scheme relies on the forest formula to perform the subtraction of the divergences from an amplitude . Let $`I_G^{\mathrm{}}`$ be the integrand of such amplitude associated with a graph $`G`$. Then the subtracted integrand is given by

$$R_G=\underset{U\varphi }{}\underset{\gamma U}{}t_\gamma ^{d(\gamma )}I_G^{\mathrm{}}$$
(35)
where $`\varphi `$ is the set of all the forests $`U`$ of $`G`$, including the empty set <sup>2</sup><sup>2</sup>2A forest $`U`$ of a diagrama $`G`$ is the set of all subgraphs of G, including $`G`$ itself, which are neither overlapping nor trivial., $`d(\gamma )`$ is the superficial degree of divergence of the subgraph $`\gamma `$ and $`t^{d(\gamma )}`$ is the Taylor operator which corresponds to an expansion around $`0`$ to order $`d(\gamma )`$ in the external momentum to the subgraph. For the sunset diagram the subgraphs are shown in figure $`(\text{2})`$.

Therefore we can write $`\varphi =\{\mathrm{},G,\gamma _1,\gamma _2,\gamma _3,G\gamma _1,G\gamma _2,G\gamma _3\}`$. Thus

$`R_G`$ $`=`$ $`(1t_{\gamma _1}^0t_{\gamma _2}^0t_{\gamma _3}^0t_G^2+`$ (36)
$`+`$ $`t_G^2t_{\gamma _1}^0+t_G^2t_{\gamma _2}^0+t^Gt_{\gamma _3}^0)I_G^{\mathrm{}}`$
which are ordered so that if $`\gamma _1\gamma _2`$ then $`t_{\gamma _1}`$ lies on the right of $`t_{\gamma _2}`$. The amplitude for the sunset diagram is superficially quadratically divergent. It reads

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{}^2^{(2)}(p)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{6}}{\displaystyle _{k_1,k_2}}I_G^{\mathrm{}},`$
$`I_G^{\mathrm{}}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }(k_1+p)\mathrm{\Delta }(k_2)\mathrm{\Delta }(k_1+k_2)\text{with}`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }(k)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{k^2\mu ^2}}.`$ (37)
Therefore we get, using $`(\text{36})`$,

$$R_G=I_G^{\mathrm{}}t_G^2I_G^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{\Delta }(k_2)^2(1t_G^2)\mathrm{\Delta }(k_1+p).$$
(38)
If one uses a regulator, it can be shown that the term $`\mathrm{\Delta }(k_2)^2(1t_G^2)\mathrm{\Delta }(k_1+p)`$ above actually vanishes. This comes from the fact that

$$F(p)=_k(1t_G^2)\mathrm{\Delta }(k+p)$$

is independent of $`p`$ and therefore $`F(p)=F(0)=0`$. Thus according to the BPHZ forest formula, the finite amplitude is obtained through the subtractions:

$`{\displaystyle _{k_1,k_2}}R_G={\displaystyle _{k_1,k_2}}I_G^{\mathrm{}}{\displaystyle _{k_1,k_2}}t_G^2I_G^{\mathrm{}},`$
$`{\displaystyle _{k_1,k_2}}t_G^2I_G^{\mathrm{}}=I_{111}(\mu ^2)p^2I_{112}(\mu ^2)+`$
$`+4{\displaystyle _{k_1,k_2}}(pk_1)^2\mathrm{\Delta }(k_1)^3\mathrm{\Delta }(k_2)\mathrm{\Delta }(k_1+k_2),`$ (39)
where $`I_{mnp}(\mu ^2)`$ stands for

$$_{k_1,k_2}\frac{1}{(k_1^2\mu ^2)^m(k_2^2\mu ^2)^n((k_1+k_2)^2\mu ^2)^p}.$$
(40)
The integrals $`I_{mnp}`$ are convergent only if $`m+p>2`$, $`n+p>2`$, $`m+n>2`$, $`m+n+p>4`$ are satisfied <sup>3</sup><sup>3</sup>3It will also be useful to know that $`I_{mnp}^{ijk}=_{k_1,k_2}\frac{(k_1^2)^i(k_2^2)^j(k_1k_2)^k}{(k_1^2\mu ^2)^m(k_2^2\mu ^2)^n((k_1+k_2)^2\mu ^2)^p}`$ converges if $`2m+2p>4+2i+k`$, $`2n+2p>4+2j+k`$, $`m+n+p>i+j+k+4`$ and $`m+n>i+j+k+2`$ are satisfied. . In order to display the finite part of the setting sun amplitude there is still some work to do in $`(\text{39})`$. In particular one would have to adopt a regulator to proceed in this task, the result being regulator independent as guaranteed by the BPHZ scheme. That is to say, the BPHZ scheme guarantees to us is which subtractions one ought to perform in order to render the amplitude finite and that the result is regularization independent.

Now let us evaluate $`(\text{37})`$ in the light of IR. Because $`d(G)=2`$ all we need is to apply $`(\text{11})`$ up to $`N=2`$ in $`\mathrm{\Delta }(k_1+p)`$ so to display the infinities in terms of basic divergent integrals which are cleared out of external momenta to get

$`\mathrm{\Delta }(k_1+p)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }(k_1)(p^2+2k_1p)\mathrm{\Delta }^2(k_1)`$ (41)
$`+`$ $`(p^2+2pk_1)^2\mathrm{\Delta }^3(k_1)`$
$``$ $`(p^2+2pk_1)^3\mathrm{\Delta }^3(k_1)\mathrm{\Delta }(k_1+p),`$
which enables us to write

$`{\displaystyle \frac{6}{g^2}}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(2)}(p)=I_{111}(\mu ^2)p^2I_{112}(\mu ^2)`$ (42)
$`+`$ $`4{\displaystyle _{k_1,k_2}}(pk_1)^2\mathrm{\Delta }(k_1)^3\mathrm{\Delta }(k_2)\mathrm{\Delta }(k_1+k_2)+p^4I_{311}`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle _{k_1,k_2}}(p^2+2pk_1)^3\mathrm{\Delta }(k_1)^3\mathrm{\Delta }(k_2)\times `$
$`\times `$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }(k_1+k_2)\mathrm{\Delta }(k_1+p).`$
Notice that the first three terms in the rhs of the equation above are just the terms which were prescribed to be subtracted using the BPHZ scheme; the fourth term and fifth term (let us call them $`F_4`$ and $`F_5`$ for definiteness ) are clearly divergent but their difference is finite. To see that let us isolate the divergence in both terms as a function of one loop momentum variable only using $`(\text{11})`$. Thus

$`F_4=p^4I_{log}(\mu ^2){\displaystyle _{k_1}}\mathrm{\Delta }(k_1)^3p^4\times `$
$`\times {\displaystyle _{k_1,k_2}}(k_1^2+2k_1k_2)\mathrm{\Delta }(k_1)^3\mathrm{\Delta }(k_2)^2\mathrm{\Delta }(k_1+k_2),`$ (43)
whereas

$`F_5=I_{log}(\mu ^2){\displaystyle _{k_1}}(p^2+2pk_1)^3\mathrm{\Delta }(k_1)^3\mathrm{\Delta }(k_1+p)`$
$`{\displaystyle _{k_1,k_2}}(p^2+2k_1p)^3(k_1^2+2k_1k_2)\mathrm{\Delta }(k_1)^3\times `$
$`\times \mathrm{\Delta }(k_2)^2\mathrm{\Delta }(k_1+k_2)\mathrm{\Delta }(k_1+p).`$ (44)
By using Feynman parameters to evaluate the first terms in $`F_4`$ and $`F_5`$ one can show that they cancel out. Therefore we can write the finite part $`=F_4F_5`$ of the setting-sun amplitude as

$`={\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{6}}{\displaystyle _{k_1,k_2}}((p^2+2k_1p)^3(k_1^2+2k_1k_2)\times `$
$`\times \mathrm{\Delta }(k_1)^3\mathrm{\Delta }(k_2)^2\mathrm{\Delta }(k_1+k_2)\mathrm{\Delta }(k_1+p)`$
$`p^4(k_1^2+2k_1k_2)\mathrm{\Delta }(k_1)^3\mathrm{\Delta }(k_2)^2\mathrm{\Delta }(k_1+k_2)).`$ (45)
In order to make contact with other regularisation/renormalisation frameworks let us take a closer look at the divergent structure of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(2)}(p)`$, namely

$`{\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{6}}(I_{111}(\mu ^2)p^2I_{112}(\mu ^2)+`$ (46)
$`+`$ $`4{\displaystyle _{k_1,k_2}}(pk_1)^2\mathrm{\Delta }(k_1)^3\mathrm{\Delta }(k_2)\mathrm{\Delta }(k_1+k_2)).`$
It is easy to show that the third term above may be written as

$`p^2(I_{112}(\mu ^2)+\mu ^2I_{113}(\mu ^2))\text{and that}`$
$`I_{113}={\displaystyle \frac{b}{2\mu ^2}}I_{log}(\mu ^2)+N,N\text{finite}`$
$`N={\displaystyle _{k_1,k_2}}(k_1^2+2k_1k_2)`$
$`\times \mathrm{\Delta }(k_1)^3\mathrm{\Delta }(k_2)^2\mathrm{\Delta }(k_1+k_2).`$ (47)
Also let us split the logarithmic divergence using $`(\text{18})`$. Collecting all the results together we have <sup>4</sup><sup>4</sup>4In CDfR the dimensionful constants are taken from the logarithmic divergent pieces only

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{}^2^{(2)R}(p)={\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{6}}({\displaystyle \frac{b^2p^2}{2}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\lambda ^2}{\mu ^2}}\right)`$
$`{\displaystyle _{k_1,k_2}}(p^4+\mu ^2p^2)(k_1^2+2k_1k_2)\mathrm{\Delta }(k_1)^3\mathrm{\Delta }(k_2)^2\times `$
$`\times \mathrm{\Delta }(k_1+k_2)+{\displaystyle _{k_1,k_2}}(p^2+2k_1p)^3(k_1^2+2k_1k_2)\times `$
$`\times \mathrm{\Delta }(k_1)^3\mathrm{\Delta }(k_2)^2\mathrm{\Delta }(k_1+k_2)\mathrm{\Delta }(k_1+p)),`$ (48)
where

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{}^2^{(2)}(p)\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{}^2^{(2)R}(p)=\frac{g^2}{6}(I_{111}(\mu ^2)\frac{bp^2}{2}I_{log}(\lambda ^2)).$$
(49)
The equation $`(\text{48})`$ obtained within IR is the momentum space analogue of the result presented in  in DfR,

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{}^2^{(2)}|_R(x,M)={\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{96(4\pi ^2)^3}}[(\mathrm{}9\mu ^2)(\mathrm{}\mu ^2)`$
$`\left(\mu ^2K_0(\mu x)K_1^2(\mu x)+\mu ^2K_0^3(\mu x)\right)`$
$`+2\pi ^2\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{M}^2}{\mu ^2}}(\mathrm{}\mu ^2)\delta ^{(4)}(x)].`$ (50)
Here too, as it was claimed in  for DfR, one has been able to display the finite part of the setting sun diagram in a closed and compact form in an easy fashion with the advantage of working directly in the momentum space. Notice that the scale $`\lambda `$ in (48) is just the analogue of $`\overline{M}`$ in the equation above and plays the role of scale in the Callan-Symanzik equation satisfied by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_R^{(2)}(p)`$. For instance, for $`\mu 0`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_R^{(2)}(p^2)`$ is well defined and obbeys

$$\left(\lambda \frac{}{\lambda }+\beta \frac{}{g}+2\gamma _\varphi \right)\mathrm{\Gamma }_R^{(2)}(p^2)=0,$$
(51)
from which we may calculate the lowest order value of $`\gamma _\varphi `$, namely

$$\gamma _\varphi =\frac{1}{12}\frac{g^2}{(16\pi ^2)^2}.$$
(52)
In fact it can be shown that $`\gamma _\varphi `$ to lowest order is simply the coefficient of the logarithmic divergence $`\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Lambda }^2/\mu ^2`$ . By using a general parametrisation for $`I_{log}(\lambda ^2)`$ , viz. <sup>5</sup><sup>5</sup>5Such parametrisation is constructed based on $`I_{log}(\lambda ^2)/\lambda ^2=b/\lambda ^2`$.

$$I_{log}(\lambda ^2)=b\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{\lambda ^2}\right)+\eta $$
(53)
($`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is an UV cutoff and $`\eta `$ an arbitrary constant) in $`(\text{49})`$ we see that the coefficient of the logarithmic divergence evaluates to $`\gamma _\varphi `$ given in $`(\text{52})`$. Alternatively one can apply DR to evaluate $`I_{log}(\lambda ^2)`$ which gives $`b\mathrm{\Gamma }(ϵ)=b(1/ϵ\gamma _E+O(ϵ))`$.

We can also study the setting sun diagram with arbitrary routing . Let us split the external momentum $`p`$ between the upper and lower lines in figure $`(\text{1})`$ so that the amplitude reads

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{}^2^{(2)}(p,\alpha ,\beta )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{6}}{\displaystyle _{k_1,k_2}}\mathrm{\Delta }(k_1+\alpha p)\mathrm{\Delta }(k_1+k_2)\mathrm{\Delta }(k_2+\beta p)`$ (54)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{6}}{\displaystyle _{k_1,k_2}}I_G^{\mathrm{}}(\alpha ,\beta ).`$
with $`\alpha +\beta =1`$. Using the forest formula one can show within the BPHZ framework that

$`{\displaystyle _{k_1,k_2}}R_G={\displaystyle _{k_1,k_2}}I_G^{\mathrm{}}(\alpha ,\beta )I_{111}(\mu ^2)+(\alpha +\beta )^2I_{112}(\mu ^2)`$
$`4(\alpha +\beta )^2{\displaystyle _{k_1,k_2}}(pk_1)^2\mathrm{\Delta }(k_1)^3\mathrm{\Delta }(k_2)\mathrm{\Delta }(k_1+k_2).`$ (55)
To work out $`(\text{54})`$ within IR, it suffices to expand $`\mathrm{\Delta }(k_1+\alpha p)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }(k_2+\beta p)`$ using $`(\text{11})`$ up to $`N=2`$ to get

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{}^2^{(2)}(p,\alpha ,\beta )=I_{111}(\mu ^2)(\alpha +\beta )^2p^2I_{112}(\mu ^2)`$
$`+4(\alpha +\beta )^2{\displaystyle _{k_1,k_2}}(pk_1)^2\mathrm{\Delta }(k_1)^3\mathrm{\Delta }(k_2)\mathrm{\Delta }(k_1+k_2)`$
$`+finite(\alpha ,\beta =1\alpha ).`$ (56)
which turns out to be identical to $`(\text{42})`$, as it should, because the finite part above can be shown to be independent of $`\alpha `$. No consistency relations have appeared in this example as the momentum routing independence in the setting sun diagram is trivial. In  we calculate the $`\beta `$ function of $`\varphi _4^4`$ theory to two loop order within IR.

## 4 Gluon Self-Energy of QCD

In both abelian and nonabelian gauge field theory the gauge boson self energy is bound by gauge invariance to have the structure $`i(p^2g_{\mu \nu }p_\mu p_\nu )\mathrm{\Pi }(p^2)`$. For $`QCD`$, the cancellations that lead to this structure are more complex than for $`QED`$ and relies on a gauge invariant regularisation framework to handle both the ultraviolet and infrared divergences. It is well known that adding a small mass for the gluon breaks gauge invariance although it may be safely done for the photon.

It will be interesting to see how gauge invariance is implemented in IR for the gluon self energy in connection with the consistency conditions $`(\text{12})`$ -$`(\text{15})`$. Let $`p`$ be the external momentum. The diagrams that contribute to the gluon self energy to one loop order are well known: 1) the gluon tadpole $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }^{ab}(1)`$, 2)the gluon loop $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }^{ab}(2)`$, 3) the ghost loop $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }^{ab}(3)`$ and 4) the fermion loop $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }^{ab}(4)`$. Hence the gluon self energy is given by

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }^{ab}=\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }^{ab}(1)+\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }^{ab}(2)+\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }^{ab}(3)+\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }^{ab}(4)$$
(57)
The Feynman rules in momentum space for QCD can be found in any textbook . It is straightforward to show that

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }^{ab}(1)`$ $`=`$ $`g^2C_2(G)\delta ^{ab}3{\displaystyle _k}{\displaystyle \frac{g_{\mu \nu }}{k^2\mu ^2}}`$ (58)
$`=`$ $`3g^2g_{\mu \nu }C_2(G)\delta ^{ab}I_{quad}(\mu ^2)`$
The gluon loop is equally simple to be displayed within IR. It reads

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }^{ab}(2)=\frac{1}{2}_kg^2f^{acd}f^{bcd}N_{\mu \nu }\frac{i}{k^2\mu ^2}\frac{i}{(k+p)^2\mu ^2},$$
(59)
where

$`N^{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`[g^{\mu \rho }(pk)^\sigma +g^{\rho \sigma }(2k+p)^\mu +g^{\sigma \mu }(k2p)^\rho ]`$ (60)
$`\times `$ $`[\delta _\rho ^\nu (kp)_\sigma +g_{\rho \sigma }(2kp)^\nu +\delta _\sigma ^\nu (k+2p)_\rho ]`$
$`=`$ $`2p_\mu p_\nu 5(p_\mu k_\nu +p_\nu k_\mu )10k_\mu k_\nu `$
$``$ $`g_{\mu \nu }[(pk)^2+(k+2p)^2],`$
Using that

$$(pk)^2+(k+2p)^2=(k+p)^2+k^2+4p^2,$$
(61)
we may write

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }^{ab}(2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g^2C_2(G)\delta ^{ab}[(2p_\mu p_\nu 4p^2g_{\mu \nu })J(p^2,\mu ^2)`$ (62)
$``$ $`g_{\mu \nu }(2I_{quad}(\mu ^2)+p^\alpha p^\beta \mathrm{{\rm Y}}_{\alpha \beta }^0)`$
$``$ $`10(p_\nu J_\mu (p^2,\mu ^2)+J_{\mu \nu }(p^2,\mu ^2))],`$
whereas the ghost loop is given by

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }^{ab}(3)={\displaystyle _k}{\displaystyle \frac{i}{k^2\mu ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{i}{[(k+p)^2\mu ^2]}}g^2f^{dac}f^{cbd}\times `$
$`\times (p+k)_\mu k_\nu =g^2\delta ^{ab}C_2(G)(p_\nu J_\mu (p^2,\mu ^2)`$
$`+J_{\mu \nu }(p^2,\mu ^2)),`$ (63)
in which we have used the notation

$`J_{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mu \nu }^{(2)}p^2\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mu \nu }^{(0)}+4p^\alpha p^\beta \mathrm{\Theta }_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }^{(0)}`$ (64)
$`+`$ $`b[{\displaystyle \frac{p_\mu p_\nu }{3}}[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{p^2}}(p^2\mu ^2)Z_0]`$ (65)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{p^2g_{\mu \nu }}{6}}[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2p^2}}(p^2+4m^2)Z_0]]`$ (66)
$`J_\mu `$ $`=`$ $`2p^\alpha \mathrm{\Theta }_{\alpha \mu }^{(0)}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}p_\mu bZ_0`$ (67)
$`J`$ $`=`$ $`I_{log}(\mu ^2)Z_0`$ (68)
with the $`Z_0`$ functions defined as in $`(\text{25})`$

$$Z_0=Z_0(\mu ^2,\mu ^2,p^2;\mu ^2)$$
(70)
and

$`\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mu \nu }^{(0)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _k}{\displaystyle \frac{k_\mu k_\nu }{(k^2\mu ^2)^3}}`$
$`\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mu \nu }^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _k}{\displaystyle \frac{k_\mu k_\nu }{(k^2\mu ^2)^2}}`$
$`\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }^{(0)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _k}{\displaystyle \frac{k_\mu k_\nu k_\alpha k_\beta }{(k^2\mu ^2)^4}}.`$ (71)
Hence we can write $`(\text{13})`$ as $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_{\mu \nu }^0=g_{\mu \nu }I_{log}(\mu ^2)4\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mu \nu }^{(0)}`$, etc. Then it follows that

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }^{ab}(1)+\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }^{ab}(2)+\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }^{ab}(3)=`$
$`=g^2C_2(G)\delta ^{ab}(p^2g_{\mu \nu }p_\mu p_\nu )`$
$`\times \left[b{\displaystyle \frac{2}{9}}+{\displaystyle \frac{5}{3}}\left(I_{log}(\mu ^2)bZ_0\right)\right].`$ (72)
The fermion loop contribution to the gluon self energy is identical to the vacuum polarization tensor of $`QED`$ except for the colour and number of fermions ($`N_f`$) factors. It has been computed within IR elsewhere . Here we only write the result in which we have already subtracted $`I_{log}(\lambda ^2)`$ (that is to say we have employed the minimal subtraction in IR) and set the consistent relations to zero (CIR):

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }^{ab}(4)={\displaystyle \frac{i}{144\pi ^2}}g^2{\displaystyle \frac{N_f}{2}}\delta ^{ab}(p_\mu p_\nu p^2g_{\mu \nu })\times `$
$`\times \left(12Z_0(m_f^2,m_f^2,p^2;\lambda ^2)+4\right).`$ (73)
Now the limit where $`\mu 0`$ can be safely taken because using $`(\text{18})`$ and that

$$Z_0(\mu ^2,\mu ^2,p^2;\mu ^2)=\mathrm{ln}\frac{\lambda ^2}{\mu ^2}+Z_0(\mu ^2,\mu ^2,p^2;\lambda ^2),$$
(74)
one can show that

$`I_{log}(\mu ^2)bZ_0(\mu ^2,\mu ^2,p^2;\mu ^2)=I_{log}(\lambda ^2)`$
$`bZ_0(\mu ^2,\mu ^2,p^2;\lambda ^2),`$ (75)
and

$$Z_0(0,0,p^2;\lambda ^2)=\mathrm{ln}\frac{p^2}{\lambda ^2}2.$$
(76)
Let us also take the limit of massless fermions. Thus we have,

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }^{ab}(4)=\frac{i}{144\pi ^2}g^2\frac{N_f}{2}\delta ^{ab}(p_\mu p_\nu p^2g_{\mu \nu })[12\text{ln}(\overline{\lambda }^2/p^2)4].$$
(77)
Bringing all the results together enables us to write the complete gluon self energy to one loop order, after minimally subtracting in the sense of IR the divergence expressed by $`I_{log}(\lambda ^2)`$ and setting $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_{\mu \nu }^0`$ to zero as

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }^{ab}={\displaystyle \frac{i}{144\pi ^2}}g^2\delta ^{ab}(p_\mu p_\nu p^2g_{\mu \nu })\times `$
$`\left((15C_2(R)6N_f)\text{ln}(\overline{\lambda }^2/p^2)2C_2(R)+2N_f\right)`$ (78)
which is just the result obtained in DfR  after identifying $`\lambda `$ with the differential renormalization arbitrary scale $`\overline{M}`$ . Notice that both the massive and massless cases can be straightforwardly handled in IR.

## 5 Conclusions

In this paper we compared three frameworks namely differential (DfR), implicit (IR) and BPHZ regularisation/renormalisation which being strictly defined in the physical dimension of the underlying theory may overcome the problems which arise when applying dimensional regularisation and variants to dimension specific theories such as supersymmetric, topological or chiral quantum field theories.

The purpose was to motivate the answer to a few questions related to the consistency and applicability of IR in handling infinities in Feynman diagram calculations, namely: 1) study how infrared divergences are treated within this scheme; 2) understand how (nonabelian) gauge invariance can be automatically implemented within a constrained version of IR; 3) define what a minimal subtraction renormalisation is in IR in analogy with dimensional and differential renormalization; 4) argue on the equivalence between IR, DfR and DRed to one loop order and 4) motivate IR as a practical and consistent tool for loop calculations in dimension specific theories.

Since in implicit regularization the divergences are displayed in the form of basic divergent integrals it is natural to ask what is meant by minimal subtraction in such scheme. We have shown that the logarithmic divergences expressed by $`I_{log}(\mu ^2)`$ can be split as in equation $`(\text{18})`$ to give rise to am arbitrary scale which plays the role of renormalisation scale in the Callan-Symanzik equation. By subtracting $`I_{log}(\lambda ^2)`$ when a logarithmic divergence occurs we have a finite part which is identical to the result in differential renormalization (with $`\lambda `$ playing the role of the arbitrary scale $`M`$ in DfR) and dimensional regularisation (except for a local counterterm). We define such renormalisation scheme in IR as minimal. In constrained the arbitrary scale is also taken from the logarithmic divergences only (functions with singular behaviour worse than logarithmic ($`x^4`$) are reduced to derivatives of less singular functions without introducing extra dimensionful constants. This is the main ingredient that fixes the renormalization scheme in (constrained) DfR and automatically preserves gauge invariance at least to one loop order. We showed in the calculation of the gluon selfenergy that a constrained version of IR preserves gauge invariance just as it does for abelian gauge theories . Constraining IR amounts to set some well defined finite differences between divergent integrals of the same degree of divergence to zero , . Such differences are called consistency relations and were shown to be connected to momentum routing invariance in the loops.

In order to illustrate the relationship between the BPHZ and the IR schemes we have computed the setting sun diagram. The BPHZ scheme is a very powerful tool for all order proofs, for instance, and it delivers unambiguously the terms which ought to be subtracted in order to render the amplitude finite by means of the forest formula. It is a subtraction method which is regularisation independent in what concerns the finite part. In order to proceed the calculation so to extract the finite part, one has to apply ultimately a regularization scheme. However symmetries may be broken in the course of such operations such as gauge invariance. As we have seen within IR certain surface terms are important in order to preserve gauge invariance. Moreover, an expansion around zero in the external momentum potentially breaks the gauge invariant structure of the underlying amplitude. By controlling surface terms and using an identity at the level of the integrand (11) we have verified that IR has control upon gauge invariance at least to one loop order. In other words in IR, the finite part is delivered automatically and no damage is made to the integrand whereas arbitrary local terms are duly parametrised in IR by the consistency relations. A proof of renormalisability to all orders in an alternative fashion to BPHZ has been constructed for $`\phi _6^3`$ theory within IR.

Although we have restricted ourselves to the gluon selfenergy, surely one should verify if the other Slavnov-Taylor identites are satisfied as well, by calculating the vertex functions of $`QCD`$ .

Finally we conclude that both DfR and IR are potentially good frameworks to apply in dimension specific problems in order o avoid ambiguities and spurious anomalies. IR is particularly friendly from the calculational viewpoint with the advantage of working directly in the momentum space. We believe that computations beyond one loop order in Chern-Simons matter theories as well as in supersymmetric models may profit from IR since such method does not modify the underlying theory and operates in the physical dimension of the the theory.

## Appendix

The following relations between the functions $`Z_k`$ and $`\xi ^{mn}`$ can be easily checked and simplify the explicit verification of the Ward identity involving the electron self energy and the vertex function.

$$q^2\xi _{01}p.q\xi _{10}=\frac{1}{2}\{Z_0(q^2;m^2)Z_0(p.q;m^2)+p^2\xi _{00}\}$$
(79)
$`q^2\xi _{11}p.q\xi _{20}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{Z_0(p+q)^2;m^2)}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{Z_0(p^2;m^2)}{2}}`$ (80)
$`+`$ $`q^2\xi _{10}\}`$
$$q^2\xi _{02}p.q\xi _{11}=\frac{1}{2}\left\{\left[\frac{1}{2}+m^2\xi _{00}\right]+\frac{p^2}{2}\xi _{10}+\frac{3q^2}{2}\xi _{01}\right\}$$
(81)
$$p^2\xi _{20}p.q\xi _{11}=\frac{1}{2}\left\{\left[\frac{1}{2}+m^2\xi _{00}\right]+\frac{q^2}{2}\xi _{01}+\frac{3p^2}{2}\xi _{10}\right\}$$
(82)
$`p^2\xi _{11}p.q\xi _{02}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}Z_0((p+q)^2;m^2)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}Z_0(q^2;m^2)+p^2\xi _{01}).`$ (83)
$`\stackrel{~}{Z}(\mu _\gamma ^2,m^2,p,q)=1/2Z_0((pq)^2,m^2)(1/2+\mu _\gamma ^2\xi ^{00})`$
$`+1/2(q^2+\mu _\gamma ^2m^2)\xi ^{10}+1/2(p^2+\mu _\gamma ^2m^2)\xi ^{01}.`$ (84)
where $`\xi ^{mn}=\xi ^{mn}(m^2,m^2,p,q)`$ and we have abbreviated

$$Z_k(m^2,m^2,p^2;m^2)Z_k(p^2;m^2).$$
(85)
## Acknowledgements

The authors thank Marcelo Gomes and Élcio Abdalla for enlightening discussions. MS is grateful to the Mathematical Physics Department of São Paulo University for their hospitality. This work is supported by FCT/MCT/Portugal under the grant numbers PRAXIS XXI-BPD/22016/99, PRAXIS/C/FIS/12247/98, POCTI/1999/FIS/35309, CNPq and Fapemig/Brazil.


text:
# Constraining four neutrino mass patterns from neutrinoless double beta decay

## Acknowledgement

We thank Vernon Barger for a careful reading of the paper, and Serguey Petcov for clarifying discussions. This work is supported in part by the U.S.D.O.E. under grant #DE-FG 03-94ER40833. One of us(S.P.) thanks the (Department of Energy’s) Institute of Nuclear Theory at the University of Washington for their hospitality and the Department of Energy for partial support during the completion of this work.


text:
# Untitled Document

ON THE RIEMANN FUNCTION AND IRREGULAR SINGULAR

POINTS FOR AXISYMMETRIC BLACK HOLE COLLISIONS

AT THE SPEED OF LIGHT

Giampiero Esposito and Cosimo Stornaiolo

INFN, Sezione di Napoli, Complesso Universitario di Monte S. Angelo, Via Cintia, Edificio N’, 80126 Napoli, Italy Dipartimento di Scienze Fisiche, Università di Napoli Federico II, Via Cintia, Edificio N’, 80126 Napoli, Italy

Abstract. The news function providing some relevant information about angular distribution of gravitational radiation in axisymmetric black hole collisions at the speed of light had been evaluated in the literature by perturbation methods, after inverting second-order hyperbolic operators with variable coefficients in two independent variables. More recent work has related the appropriate Green function to the Riemann function for such a class of hyperbolic operators in two variables. The present paper obtains an improvement in the evaluation of the coefficients occurring in the second-order equation obeyed by the Riemann function, which might prove useful for numerical purposes. Eventually, we find under which conditions the original Green-function calculation reduces to finding solutions of an inhomogeneous second-order ordinary differential equation with a non-regular singular point.

The non-linear Einstein equations  ruling the gravitational field are so complicated that no exact solution has been obtained so far without making a number of simplifying assumptions. On the other hand, in the physically more relevant case of isolated gravitating systems, which are time-dependent, no simplifying assumption can be made apart from axisymmetry. Within this framework, many efforts have been devoted to analytic and numerical investigations of gravitational radiation produced in axisymmetric black hole collisions at the speed of light \[2-5\], since such events (although unlikely) are expected to lead to the largest amount of gravitational radiation ever studied at theoretical level.

The angular distribution of gravitational radiation is described in part by the news function , and the work by D’Eath and Payne \[2-5\] has shown that, in the above events, such a function can be obtained at second order in perturbation theory provided that one is able to solve a set of inhomogeneous hyperbolic equations taking eventually the form ($`m`$ and $`n`$ being integers)

$$_{m,n}\chi (q,r)=H(q,r).$$
$`(1)`$
With the notation in Refs. \[2–5\], $`q`$ and $`r`$ are the independent variables, the function $`H`$ is related to the source term in the original set of equations, and the operator $`_{m,n}`$ reads

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill _{m,n}& =(2\sqrt{2}+32q)\frac{^2}{qr}+4q^2\frac{^2}{q^2}+64\frac{^2}{r^2}+4(n+1)q\frac{}{q}\hfill & \\ & 16n\frac{}{r}+n^2m^2.\hfill & (2)\hfill \end{array}$$

The inverse of the operator $`_{m,n}`$ is an integral operator whose kernel is equal to the Green function $`G_{m,n}(q,r;q_0,r_0)`$ of Eq. (1).

The work in Ref.  has however pointed out that, after reduction of Eq. (1) to canonical form through the introduction of suitable new variables:

$$t\sqrt{1+16q\sqrt{2}},$$
$`(3)`$
$$xr+\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{t1}{2}\right)\frac{8}{(t1)}4,$$
$`(4)`$
$$yr+\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{t+1}{2}\right)+\frac{8}{(t+1)}4,$$
$`(5)`$
Eq. (1) can be solved for $`\chi `$ with the help of a standard integral formula  which involves the Riemann function. This is a valuable tool in the theory of hyperbolic equations in two variables with variable coefficients, but unfortunately it has not been much exploited (to our knowledge) in the literature on gravitational physics. Following Ref. , we consider the operator

$$L\frac{^2}{xy}+a(x,y)\frac{}{x}+b(x,y)\frac{}{y}+c(x,y),$$
$`(6)`$
having defined $`w`$ as the function of $`xy`$ such that

$$we^{\frac{w^21}{2w}}=e^{\frac{xy}{8}},$$
$`(7)`$
from which

$$t=\frac{1+w}{1w},$$
$`(8)`$
$$a(t)=a[t(w(xy))]=\frac{1}{16}\frac{(1t)(t+1)^2(2n+1+t)}{(t^4+4t^21)},$$
$`(9)`$
$$b(t)=b[t(w(xy))]=\frac{1}{16}\frac{(t+1)(t1)^2(2n+1t)}{(t^4+4t^21)},$$
$`(10)`$
$$c(t)=c[t(w(xy))]=\frac{(m^2n^2)}{256}\frac{(t1)^2(t+1)^2}{(t^4+4t^21)}.$$
$`(11)`$
The coefficient of the highest-order derivative in Eq. (6) is constant because

$$_{m,n}\chi =fL\chi =H,$$

where $`f`$ is a function evaluated in Ref. , and hence we study the equation

$$L\chi =\frac{H}{f}$$

eventually, whenever $`f`$ does not vanish. The (formal) adjoint of the operator $`L`$ is then equal to

$$L^{}\frac{^2}{xy}+A(x,y)\frac{}{x}+B(x,y)\frac{}{y}+C(x,y),$$
$`(12)`$
where

$$Aa,$$
$`(13)`$
$$Bb,$$
$`(14)`$
$$Cc\frac{a}{x}\frac{b}{y}.$$
$`(15)`$
Let now $`(\xi ,\eta )`$ be coordinates of a point $`P`$ such that characteristics through it intersect a curve $`\gamma `$ at points $`A`$ and $`B`$, $`AP`$ being a segment with constant $`y`$, and $`BP`$ being a segment with constant $`x`$. As a function of $`x`$ and $`y`$, the Riemann function $`R`$ satisfies the homogeneous equation

$$L^{}R=0,$$
$`(16)`$
the boundary conditions

$$\frac{R}{x}=bR\mathrm{on}AP,\frac{R}{y}=aR\mathrm{on}BP,$$
$`(17)`$
and is equal to $`1`$ at $`P`$. It is then possible to express the solution $`\chi `$ of Eq. (1) in the form

$$\begin{array}{ccc}& \chi (P)=\frac{1}{2}[\chi (A)R(A)+\chi (B)R(B)]+_{AB}\left(\right[\frac{R}{2}\frac{\chi }{x}+(bR\frac{1}{2}\frac{R}{x})\chi ]dx\hfill & \\ & [\frac{R}{2}\frac{\chi }{y}+(aR\frac{1}{2}\frac{R}{y})\chi ]dy)\hfill & \\ & +_\mathrm{\Omega }R(x,y;\xi ,\eta )\frac{H(x,y)}{256}\frac{(t1)^2(t+1)^2}{(t^4+4t^21)}(x,y)𝑑x𝑑y,\hfill & (18)\hfill \end{array}$$

$`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ being a suitable bounded domain.

The main technical difficulty in Eq. (16) results from the derivatives occurring in the coefficient $`C`$; since $`w(xy)`$ is found only implicitly from Eq. (7), and hence $`t,a,b,c`$ from Eqs. (8)–(11), it would be helpful not having to take numerical derivatives in (15) of a function which is only found numerically itself. The present note solves this specific problem by pointing out that, in Eq. (15), one has

$$\frac{a}{x}=\frac{a}{t}\frac{t}{w}\frac{w}{x},$$
$`(19)`$
where, from Eq. (9),

$$\begin{array}{ccc}& \frac{a}{t}=\frac{1}{16}[\frac{(4t^3+6(n+1)t^2+4nt2(n+1))}{(t^4+4t^21)}\hfill & \\ & +\frac{4t(1t)(t+1)^2(t^2+2)(2n+1+t)}{(t^4+4t^21)^2}],\hfill & (20)\hfill \end{array}$$

while Eq. (8) yields

$$\frac{t}{w}=\frac{2}{(1w)^2}.$$
$`(21)`$
Moreover, from the logarithm of both sides of Eq. (7) we find

$$\mathrm{log}(w)+\frac{w}{2}\frac{1}{2w}=\frac{(xy)}{8}.$$
$`(22)`$
The derivative with respect to $`x`$ of both sides of Eq. (22) yields eventually

$$\frac{w}{x}=\frac{1}{4}\left(1+\frac{1}{w}\right)^2.$$
$`(23)`$
Equations (19)–(23) yield a complete algorithm for the evaluation of the first derivative in $`C`$, i.e.

$$\frac{a}{x}=\frac{1}{2}\frac{a}{t}\frac{w^2}{(1w^2)^2},$$
$`(24)`$
where Eqs. (7), (8) and (20) should be inserted for the purpose of numerical analysis. An entirely analogous procedure holds for $`\frac{b}{y}`$ in Eq. (15), i.e.

$$\frac{b}{y}=\frac{b}{t}\frac{t}{w}\frac{w}{y},$$
$`(25)`$
bearing in mind Eq. (10), and that

$$\frac{w}{y}=\frac{w}{x},$$
$`(26)`$
which leads to

$$\frac{b}{y}=\frac{1}{2}\frac{b}{t}\frac{w^2}{(1w^2)^2},$$
$`(27)`$
with

$$\begin{array}{ccc}& \frac{b}{t}=\frac{1}{16}[\frac{(4t^36(n+1)t^2+4nt+2(n+1))}{(t^4+4t^21)}\hfill & \\ & +\frac{4t(t+1)(t1)^2(t^2+2)(2n+1t)}{(t^4+4t^21)^2}].\hfill & (28)\hfill \end{array}$$

Eventually, the coefficients $`A,B`$ and $`C`$ in the operator $`L^{}`$ are all expressed as functions of $`w=w(xy)`$ with the help of previous equations as follows:

$$A=\frac{w(1+nnw)}{4(1+2w2w^2+2w^3+w^4)},$$
$`(29)`$
$$B=\frac{w^2(n(1+w)+w)}{4(1+2w2w^2+2w^3+w^4)},$$
$`(30)`$
$$\begin{array}{ccc}& 64(1+3w+3w^4+w^5)^2C=w^2[(m^2n^2)(1+4w+3w^2+3w^4+4w^5+w^6)\hfill & \\ & +4(n+1)(1w^28w^3w^4+w^6)],\hfill & (31)\hfill \end{array}$$

where we have used Eqs. (8)–(11), (13)–(15), (20), (24), (27) and (28). We have solved numerically Eq. (7) after re-expressing it in the form

$$8\mathrm{log}(w)+4\left(w\frac{1}{w}\right)=xy,$$
$`(32)`$
for $`xy`$ in the closed interval $`[0.8,10]`$, at steps of $`0.1`$. The variable $`w`$ is then monotonically increasing and ranges from $`1.05`$ through $`1.83`$. The corresponding values of $`A,B`$ and $`C`$ have been obtained upon insertion of $`w`$ into Eqs. (29)–(31). For example, at the initial point $`xy=0.8`$, the coefficients $`A,B`$ and $`C`$ read

$$A=0.0590.0030n,$$
$`(33)`$
$$B=0.065+0.0031n,$$
$`(34)`$
$$C=0.0077+0.0038(m^2n^2)0.0077n,$$
$`(35)`$
respectively.

Work is now in progress in applying such formulae to the numerical evaluation of the Riemann function itself . Hopefully, this will lead to more powerful tools for the investigation of gravitational radiation in the few cases where it is expected to be very rich, i.e. axisymmetric black-hole collisions at the speed of light \[2–5\].

Meanwhile, we are also making progress on alternative approaches to finding solutions of the equation $`L\chi =\frac{H}{f}=\stackrel{~}{H}`$ that we started with. To exploit both Fourier transform theory and the fact that the coefficients in the operator $`L`$ depend on $`t`$ and hence, eventually, only on the difference $`xy`$, we give up the canonical form of the operator $`L`$ by introducing the independent variables

$$X\frac{x+y}{2},Y\frac{xy}{2}.$$
$`(36)`$
Our inhomogeneous hyperbolic equation is then turned into

$$\stackrel{~}{L}\chi (X,Y)=4\stackrel{~}{H}(X,Y)h(X,Y),$$
$`(37)`$
where

$$\stackrel{~}{L}\frac{^2}{X^2}\frac{^2}{Y^2}+2(A+B)\frac{}{X}+2(AB)\frac{}{Y}+4C,$$
$`(38)`$
with coefficients depending only on $`Y`$. It is therefore more convenient to consider the Fourier transform of $`\chi `$ with respect to $`X`$ (assuming that it exists), i.e.

$$\widehat{\chi }(k,Y)\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi }}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\chi (X,Y)e^{ikX}𝑑X,$$
$`(39)`$
with inversion formula

$$\chi (X,Y)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi }}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\widehat{\chi }(k,X)e^{ikX}𝑑k.$$
$`(40)`$
If also the right-hand side of Eq. (37) admits Fourier transform $`\widehat{h}(k,Y)`$ with respect to $`X`$, we therefore obtain the second-order equation

$$\left[\frac{^2}{Y^2}+2(BA)\frac{}{Y}+(k^24C2ik(A+B))\right]\widehat{\chi }(k,Y)=\widehat{h}(k,Y).$$
$`(41)`$
By virtue of Eqs. (9), (10), (13) and (14) we find

$$BA=\frac{1}{8}\frac{(n+2)t(1t^2)}{(t^4+4t^21)},$$
$`(42)`$
$$B+A=\frac{1}{8}\frac{(t^21)(t^2+2n+1)}{(t^4+4t^21)},$$
$`(43)`$
and we re-express Eq. (32) in the form

$$4\mathrm{log}(w)+2\left(w\frac{1}{w}\right)=Y.$$
$`(44)`$
Note now that, for each fixed value of $`k`$, Eq. (41) may be viewed as an inhomogeneous second-order ordinary differential equation for $`\widehat{\chi }`$. On denoting by $`M`$ the operator in square brackets on the left-hand side of Eq. (41), and by $`\chi _1`$ and $`\chi _2`$ two linearly independent integrals of the homogeneous equation $`M\widehat{\chi }=0`$, one can use the method of variation of parameters, according to which the general solution of Eq. (41) reads

$$\widehat{\chi }=\lambda _1\chi _1(Y)+\lambda _2\chi _2(Y)+v_1(Y)\chi _1(Y)+v_2(Y)\chi _2(Y),$$
$`(45)`$
with $`\lambda _1`$ and $`\lambda _2`$ constants, while $`v_1`$ and $`v_2`$ are chosen in such a way that

$$v_1^{}\chi _1+v_2^{}\chi _2=0,$$
$`(46)`$
$$v_1^{}\chi _1^{}+v_2^{}\chi _2^{}=\widehat{h}j(Y),$$
$`(47)`$
the prime denoting derivative with respect to $`Y`$. The system expressed by Eqs. (46) and (47) is solved by

$$v_1(Y)=\frac{\chi _2(Y)j(Y)}{W(Y)}𝑑Y,$$
$`(48)`$
$$v_2(Y)=\frac{\chi _1(Y)j(Y)}{W(Y)}𝑑Y,$$
$`(49)`$
where $`W`$ is the standard notation for the Wronskian of $`\chi _1`$ and $`\chi _2`$, i.e.

$$W(Y)\chi _1(Y)\chi _2^{}(Y)\chi _2(Y)\chi _1^{}(Y).$$
$`(50)`$
In the course of investigating the singular points of Eq. (41), the technical difficulty results from the fact that its coefficients are ratios of polynomials in the $`t`$ or $`w`$ variable, but not in the $`Y`$ variable itself by virtue of Eq. (44). A way out is obtained by turning Eq. (41) into an ordinary differential equation with $`w`$ taken as the independent variable. For this purpose, we exploit Eq. (44) to find

$$\frac{dw}{dY}=\frac{1}{2}\left(1+\frac{1}{w}\right)^2,$$
$`(51)`$
and hence

$$\left[\frac{d^2}{dw^2}+g_1(w)\frac{d}{dw}+g_2(w)\right]\widehat{\chi }(k,w)=\sigma (w),$$
$`(52)`$
where

$$\begin{array}{ccc}& g_1(w)\frac{2}{w^2}\left(1+\frac{1}{w}\right)^1+4(BA)\left(1+\frac{1}{w}\right)^2\hfill & \\ & =\frac{2}{w(1+w)}\frac{(n+2)}{2}\frac{(1+w)^2(1w^2)}{w(1+(1+\sqrt{5})w+w^2)(1+(1\sqrt{5})w+w^2)},\hfill & (53)\hfill \end{array}$$

$$\begin{array}{ccc}& g_2(w)4\left(1+\frac{1}{w}\right)^4(k^24C2ik(A+B))\hfill & \\ & =4[\frac{(1+w)^4}{w^4}k^2\frac{1}{16w^2}((m^2n^2)\frac{(1+w)^4}{(1+(1+\sqrt{5})w+w^2)(1+(1\sqrt{5})w+w^2)}\hfill & \\ & +4(n+1)\frac{(1w^28w^3w^4+w^6)(1+w)^2}{(1+(1+\sqrt{5})w+w^2)^2(1+(1\sqrt{5})w+w^2)^2})\hfill & \\ & \frac{ik}{2}\frac{((n+1)(1+w^2)2nw)(1+w)^4}{w^3(1+(1+\sqrt{5})w+w^2)(1+(1\sqrt{5})w+w^2)}],\hfill & (54)\hfill \end{array}$$

$$\sigma (w)4\left(1+\frac{1}{w}\right)^4j(Y(w)).$$
$`(55)`$
Equation (52) has therefore a non-regular singular point at $`w=0`$, in that the coefficient $`g_2(w)`$ has a fourth-order pole therein. This corresponds to the point $`x=\mathrm{}`$ in the original variable defined in Eq. (4). Moreover, the polynomial $`p(w)1+(1+\sqrt{5})w+w^2`$ has real roots equal to

$$w_{1,2}\frac{1}{2}(1+\sqrt{5})\pm \sqrt{\frac{1}{2}(1+\sqrt{5})}.$$
$`(56)`$
At these points, $`g_1(w)`$ has a first-order pole, and $`g_2(w)`$ has a second-order pole. The last pole occurs for $`g_1(w)`$ at $`w=1`$, and it is of first order. No further poles occur at finite real values of $`w`$, since the polynomial $`q(w)1+(1\sqrt{5})w+w^2`$ has the complex conjugate roots

$$\frac{1}{2}(\sqrt{5}1)\pm i\sqrt{\frac{1}{2}(\sqrt{5}1)}.$$

By virtue of (54), Eq. (52) does not possess normal integrals. These are meant to be integrals admitting the factorization $`e^\mathrm{\Omega }u`$ , where $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is a polynomial in $`\frac{1}{w}`$ and $`u`$ solves an equation with a Fuchsian singularity at the origin. The point $`w=0`$ would be therefore an essential singularity through the occurrence of the factor $`e^\mathrm{\Omega }`$. In our case, on re-expressing $`g_1`$ and $`g_2`$ in the form

$$g_1(w)=\frac{2}{w(1+w)}+\frac{F_1}{w},$$

$$g_2(w)=4\frac{(1+w)^4}{w^4}k^2+\frac{F_2}{w^2}+\frac{F_3}{w^3},$$

with obvious meaning of the functions $`F_1,F_2,F_3`$ by comparison with (53) and (54), the ansatz for normal integrals yields the following second-order equation for $`u`$:

$$\left[\frac{d^2}{dw^2}+(2\mathrm{\Omega }^{}+g_1)\frac{d}{dw}+(\mathrm{\Omega }^{\prime \prime }+\mathrm{\Omega }_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+g_1\mathrm{\Omega }^{}+g_2)\right]u=e^\mathrm{\Omega }\sigma .$$
$`(57)`$
Since $`u`$ should obey an equation with regular singular point at the origin, we try to choose $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ in such a way that the coefficients of $`w^4`$ and $`w^3`$ vanish in Eq. (56). The former task is accomplished by choosing

$$\mathrm{\Omega }^{}=2ik\left(1+\frac{1}{w}\right)^2,$$

which yields

$$\mathrm{\Omega }^{\prime \prime }+\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^{}}{w}\left(F_1+\frac{2}{(1+w)}\right)+\frac{F_3}{w^3}=\frac{1}{w^3}\left(F_3+2ik(1+w)^2F_1+4ikw\right)+\mathrm{O}(w^2),$$
$`(58)`$
where the term in round brackets multiplying $`w^3`$ does not vanish. This is why normal integrals cannot be found in our problem.

We have therefore to look for $`\widehat{\chi }`$ in the most general form

$$\widehat{\chi }(k,w)=w^\gamma \underset{l=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}a_lw^l,w]0,w_1[,$$
$`(59)`$
where $`\gamma `$ accounts for the multi-valuedness of the solution (any integer part being absorbed in the Laurent expansion valid in the open interval $`w]0,w_1[`$). This expansion is now inserted into the homogeneous equation associated to Eq. (52), i.e.

$$\left[\frac{d^2}{dw^2}+g_1(w)\frac{d}{dw}+g_2(w)\right]\widehat{\chi }(k,w)=0,$$
$`(60)`$
since the knowledge of two linearly independent integrals of Eq. (60) is sufficient to solve Eq. (52) by exploiting the method of variation of parameters previously described. For our purposes we consider Laurent expansions of $`g_1`$ and $`g_2`$ in the form

$$g_1(w)=\underset{s=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}a_s^0w^s=\frac{h_1(w)}{w},w]0,w_1[,$$
$`(61)`$
$$g_2(w)=\underset{s=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}b_s^0w^s=\frac{h_2(w)}{w^4},w]0,w_1[.$$
$`(62)`$
We therefore get from Eq. (60) the condition

$$\underset{p=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left[\underset{l=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}J(\gamma ;l,p,k)a_l\right]w^p=0,$$
$`(63)`$
having defined

$$J(\gamma ;l,p,k)(\gamma +l)(\gamma +l1)\delta _{l,p+2}+(\gamma +l)a_{pl+1}^0(k)+b_{pl}^0(k).$$
$`(64)`$
Equation (63) leads to the infinite system of equations

$$\underset{l=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}J(\gamma ;l,p,k)a_l=0,$$
$`(65)`$
for all $`p=\mathrm{},\mathrm{},+\mathrm{}`$, where the coefficients $`a_l^0`$ and $`b_l^0`$ occurring in $`J`$ are all known. Indeed one finds (cf. (53) and (54))

$$g_1(w)=\frac{1\frac{n}{2}2wnw^2+\mathrm{O}(w^3)}{w},$$
$`(66)`$
$$g_2(w)=\frac{(1+4k^2n)+2(1+8k^2+nik(1+n))w+\mathrm{O}(w^2)}{w^4},$$
$`(67)`$
if $`w]0,w_1[`$. By virtue of (64), Eq. (65) may be cast in the form

$$a_p=\underset{l=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}G_\gamma (p,l)a_l,$$
$`(68)`$
having defined

$$G_\gamma (p,l)\frac{1}{(\gamma +p)(\gamma +p1)}[(\gamma +l)a_{pl1}^0+b_{pl2}^0],$$
$`(69)`$
where the general form of the coefficients $`a_l^0`$ and $`b_l^0`$ is found to be, in agreement with (53) and (54),

$$a_l^0n\alpha _{1,l}+\alpha _{2,l},$$
$`(70)`$
$$b_l^0m^2\alpha _{3,l}+n^2\alpha _{4,l}+n\alpha _{5,l}+\alpha _{6,l}.$$
$`(71)`$
The numerical coefficients $`\alpha _{k,l}`$, for all $`k=1,\mathrm{},6`$, can be inferred from (66) and (67). For example, one finds

$$\alpha _{1,1}=\frac{1}{2},\alpha _{2,1}=1,\alpha _{1,2}=2,\alpha _{2,2}=2,\alpha _{1,3}=7,\alpha _{2,3}=12.$$

The polydromy parameter $`\gamma `$ is found, at least in principle, by requiring that the homogeneous linear system expressed by Eq. (68) should have non-trivial solutions. Such a problem is currently under investigation. Hopefully, an intriguing link between black hole physics and the theory of infinite determinants  will be found to emerge.

Acknowledgments

Our work has been partially supported by the Progetto di Ricerca di Interesse Nazionale SINTESI 2000. G. Esposito is grateful to Peter D’Eath for encouragement.

References

 A. Einstein, Ann. der Phys. 49, 769 (1916).

 P. D. D’Eath and P. N. Payne, Phys. Rev. D 46, 658 (1992).

 P. D. D’Eath and P. N. Payne, Phys. Rev. D 46, 675 (1992).

 P. D. D’Eath and P. N. Payne, Phys. Rev. D 46, 694 (1992).

 P. D. D’Eath, Black Holes: Gravitational Interactions (Oxford, Clarendon, 1996).

 H. Bondi, M. G. J. van der Berg and A. W. K. Metzner, Proc. R. Soc. London A 269, 21 (1962).

 G. Esposito, Class. Quantum Grav. 18, 1997 (2001).

 R. Courant and D. Hilbert, Methods of Mathematical Physics. II. Partial Differential Equations (New York, Interscience, 1961).

 S. Alexeyev, G. Esposito and C. Stornaiolo (in preparation).

 A. R. Forsyth, Theory of Differential Equations. Part III, Vol. IV (New York, Dover, 1959).